Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-11-21 Regular City Council Regular Meeting City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Tuesday, November 21, 2023 at 6:00 PM Minutes ROLL CALL ATTENDANCE PRESENT Councilman Brad Hoaglun Councilman John Overton Councilwoman Jessica Perreault Councilman Luke Cavener Mayor Robert E. Simison ABSENT Councilman Joe Borton Councilwoman Liz Strader PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE COMMUNITY INVOCATION ADOPTION OF AGENDA Adopted PUBLIC FORUM – Future Meeting Topics ACTION ITEMS 1. Public Hearing for I-84 and Meridian Road (H-2021-0099) by Hawkins Companies, generally located at the northwest corner of S. Meridian Rd. and I-84 Approved Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2021-0099 A. Request: Annexation of 18.30 acres of land with a C-G zoning district. B. Request: Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map Amendment to change the future land use designation on 70.4+/- acres of land from Mixed Use- Community (MU-C) to Commercial (34.3) acres and Medium High Density Residential (36.1+/-). Motion to approve made by Councilman Hoaglun, Seconded by Councilman Overton. Voting Yea: Councilman Hoaglun, Councilman Overton Voting Nay: Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Cavener Mayor Simison votes Yea. 2. Public Hearing for Tanner Creek Subdivision (H-2022-0048) by Engineering Solutions, LLP., generally located 1/4 mile west of S. Meridian Rd. on the south side of W. Waltman Ln. Approved Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2022-0048 A. Request: Modification to the existing Development Agreement (Inst. #108131100) to change the development plan from commercial to a mix of residential uses. B. Request: Rezone of 41.89 acres of land from the C-G to the R-8 (12.16 acres), R-15 (12.27 acres) and R-40 (17.46 acres) zoning districts. C. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 130 building lots (83 single-family, 45 townhome & 2 multi-family) and 20 common lots on 38.05 acres of land in the R-8, R-15 and R-40 zoning districts. D. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development consisting of 280 dwelling units on 15.88 acres of land in the R-40 zoning district. Motion to approve made by Councilman Hoaglun, Seconded by Councilman Overton. Voting Yea: Councilman Hoaglun, Councilman Overton Voting Nay: Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Cavener Mayor Simison votes Yea. ORDINANCES \[Action Item\] 3. Ordinance No. 23-2039: An Ordinance (Petsche Rezone H-2023-0039) for rezone of a parcel of land within Block 5 of F.A. Nourse’s Third Addition to Meridian (a recorded plat in Book 6 at Page 289 of Ada County records) within a portion of the northeast quarter of Section 7, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described in Exhibit “A,” rezoning 0.60 acres of land from C-C (Community Business) zoning district to O-T (Old Town) zoning district in the Meridian City Code; directing city staff to alter all applicable use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps and all applicable official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance; providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Treasurer, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law; and providing an effective date. Approved Motion to approve made by Councilwoman Perreault, Seconded by Councilman Overton. Voting Yea: Councilman Hoaglun, Councilman Overton, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Cavener 4. Ordinance No. 23-2040: An ordinance (Ringneck Place Subdivision – H-2023- 0009) annexing a parcel of land located in Government Lot 3 of Section 5, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described in Exhibit “A;” rezoning 1.73 acres of such real property from R1 (Estate Residential) to R-8 (Medium-Density Residential) zoning district; directing city staff to alter all applicable use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps and all official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance; providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Treasurer, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law; repealing conflicting ordinances; and providing an effective date. Approved Motion to approve made by Councilwoman Perreault, Seconded by Councilman Overton. Voting Yea: Councilman Hoaglun, Councilman Overton, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Cavener FUTURE MEETING TOPICS ADJOURNMENT 10:17 PM Meridian City Council November 21, 2023. A Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6.00 p.m. Tuesday, November 21, 2023, by Mayor Robert Simison. Members Present: Robert Simison, Brad Hoaglun, Luke Cavener, Jessica Perreault, and John Overton. Members Absent: Joe Borton and Liz Strader. Also Present: Chris Johnson, Bill Nary, Sonya Allen, Shawn Harper, Joe Bongiorno and Dean Willis. ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE Liz Strader Joe Borton _X_ Brad Hoaglun _X_ John Overton _X_ Jessica Perreault _X—Luke Cavener X Mayor Robert E. Simison Simison: Council, we will call the meeting to order. For the record it is November 21 st, 2023. It's 6.00 p.m. We will begin tonight's regular City Council meeting with roll call attendance. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Simison: Next item up is the Pledge of Allegiance. If you would all, please, rise and join us in the pledge. (Pledge of Allegiance recited.) COMMUNITY INVOCATION Simison: Tonight's invocation will be delivered by Joe Hiller with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. If you would like to come forward. And for those in the audience if would like to join us in the community invocation or take this as a moment of silence and reflection. Hiller: Our Dear Father in Heaven, we express gratitude at this season of Thanksgiving for the privileges that it has to live in freedom and liberty and to enjoy the opportunity to choose so many things about the way that we live. We pray for thy blessings to be upon the proceedings of this meeting and others as we participate, that thy guiding influence might be for each. We are thankful for the opportunity to seek thy hand in our lives that there may be an increasing desire. We pray for those in our community who are in need that we have eyes to see and hands to help and we pray for these things in the name of Jesus Christ. Meridian City Council November 21,2023 Page 2 of 65 ADOPTION OF AGENDA Simison: Next item up is the adoption of the agenda. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: I move that we adopt the agenda as published. Overton: Second. Simison: Have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda as published. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and the agenda is agreed to. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. PUBLIC FORUM — Future Meeting Topics Simison: Mr. Clerk, anyone signed up under public forum? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, no. ACTION ITEMS 1. Public Hearing for 1-84 and Meridian Road (H-2021-0099) by Hawkins Companies, generally located at the northwest corner of S. Meridian Rd. and 1-84 A. Request: Annexation of 18.30 acres of land with a C-G zoning district. B. Request: Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map Amendment to change the future land use designation on 70.4+/- acres of land from Mixed Use Community (MU-C) to Commercial (34.3) acres and Medium High Density Residential (36.1+/-). 2. Public Hearing for Tanner Creek Subdivision (H-2022-0048) by Engineering Solutions, LLP., generally located 1/4 mile west of S. Meridian Rd. on the south side of W. Waltman Ln. A. Request: Modification to the existing Development Agreement (Inst. #108131100) to change the development plan from commercial to a mix of residential uses. Meridian City Council November 21,2023 Page 3 of 65 B. Request: Rezone of 41.89 acres of land from the C-G to the R-8 (12.16 acres), R-15 (12.27 acres) and R-40 (17.46 acres) zoning districts. C. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 130 building lots (83 single- family, 45 townhome & 2 multi-family) and 20 common lots on 38.05 acres of land in the R-8, R-15 and R-40 zoning districts. D. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development consisting of 280 dwelling units on 15.88 acres of land in the R-40 zoning district. Simison: Okay. Then with that we will move on to our Action Items this evening. So, it's our intention to open up both public hearings together. I'm going to ask both applicants to, please, come forward up to the podium just to concur in that direction. So, if the applicants for Items 1 and 2 would like to come forward and just affirm that it is your intention and understanding that you are okay with opening both items together. McKay: Becky McKay, representing Challenger Development, Inc. And, yes, Mr. Mayor I am in agreement to applications being heard together. Simison: Thank you, Becky. Mansfield: Mr. Mayor, I'm Ethan Mansfield representing Hawkins Companies and I, too, am in agreement with the plan tonight. Simison: All right. Thank you very much. Then with that we will go ahead and open public hearing for 1-84-Meridian Road, H-2021-0099, as well as public hearing for Tanner Creek Subdivision, H-2022-0048, and we will open these public hearings with staff comment. Allen: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. The first application before you tonight is a request for a Comprehensive Plan map amendment and an annexation. This project was heard by City Council in June of 2022. Council remanded it back to the Commission for the following reasons: The preference for this property and the abutting property to the west, known as Tanner Creek, to come in together or concurrently with a master plan for the overall area that demonstrates consistency with the existing or proposed future land use map designation of mixed use community and mixed use regional. Desire for the transportation issues to be addressed before a development plan is approved and desire for changes to be made to the concept plan to be more consistent with the general mixed use guidelines and specifically the requested mixed use regional designation. Some changes were made to the plan, but not substantive enough to be deemed consistent with the general mixed use development guidelines, the existing mixed use community, or the proposed mixed use regional guidelines and, therefore, staff recommended the applicant change their map amendment request from mixed use residential -- mixed use regional to commercial and Meridian City Council November 21,2023 Page 4 of 65 include the Tanner Creek project to the west in the amendment with the change from mixed use community to medium high density residential. Revisions to the conceptual development plan and associated exhibits have been amended to address previous comments in the staff report and discussion from the hearings. The property associated with the future land use map amendment consists of 70 acres of land, shown there on the map on the left, and the portion associated with the annexation on the middle zoning map, consists of 18 acres of land. The general location of the property is at the northwest corner of South Meridian Road and 1-84 on the south side of Waltman Lane. The current Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation is mixed use community. The applicant is requesting an amendment to the future land use map and the Comprehensive Plan to change the land use designation on 70.4 acres of land for mixed use community to commercial, which is 34.3 acres, and medium high density residential, which is proximately 36 acres. The adopted land use map shown on the top on the left and the proposed land use map is shown on the bottom on the left. Based on the analysis in the staff report staff finds the proposed development plan is generally consistent with the requested future land use map designation of commercial for the subject property and medium high density residential for the adjacent property to the west known as Tanner Creek. Further, the proposed future land use map designations provide for a better transition and uses from existing and future residential uses to the west and northwest and are compatible with adjacent future land use map designations and land uses in the area. The applicant also proposes to annex the southern 18.3 acres of land with a C-G, general retail and service commercial zoning district, consistent with the proposed future land use map amendment to commercial. The boundary of the annexation is shown there on the exhibit on the right. The subject property is part of an enclave area surrounded by city annexed property. The original plan that you reviewed last go around is shown on the left. The revised conceptual development plan shown on the right was submitted that depicts how the property is proposed to be annexed, as well as the area currently zoned C-G is planned to develop with two big box retail stores totaling 233,800 square feet, four pads and five shops. The areas shown on the concept plan on the bottom south portion of the development area below the red line is the portion of the site currently in Ada county proposed to be annexed. The area on the top, the north portion of the development plan, is the portion of the site currently in the city and it's entitled to develop in accord with UDC standards. regardless of whether or not the proposed annexation is approved, as there is not a development agreement in effect for that property. Sole access for the development is proposed via three accesses from Waltman Lane, a collector street, in accord with UDC 11-3A-3A2, which supports limiting access points to collector streets and requires a cross-access ingress-egress easement to be granted to adjoining properties where access to a local street is not available. Staff is recommending a driveway is provided alongside the proposed pathway across the Ten Mile Creek to the west, unless otherwise waived by City Council, which will provide interconnectivity between developments and that would be in this area right here. The applicant has submitted an emergency access easement agreement with the property owner to the west for secondary emergency access to Ruddy Drive and Waltman Lane. Ruddy Drive is the stub street here at the west boundary of the proposed Tanner Creek project. At no time should construction traffic associated with the development of the site be allowed to Meridian City Council November 21,2023 Page 5 of 65 access the site using Ruddy Drive through the landing and Tanner Creek Subdivisions. Improvements are required to Waltman Lane, including reconstruction of the bridge over the Ten Mile Creek west of this site within the -- or with the Tanner Creek project. Improvements to the section of Waltman that abuts this site will be determined by ACHD with a future development application, since this is only an annexation request. The extension of Corporate Drive to the northwest of this site designated as a collector street on the master street map, including construction of a bridge over the Ten Mile Creek from the north to Waltman Lane -- and that is the dashed blue line here -- is proposed to be completed with the first phase of development of the Tanner Creek project prior to issuance of building permits. If the Tanner Creek project does not go forward and complete the improvements to Waltman Lane and Corporate Drive as planned, staff recommends these improvements are completed by this developer through a cooperative development agreement with ACHD as noted in the staff report. Based on the findings of the traffic impact study for the proposed project, which included the Tanner Creek project, the Meridian Road and Waltman Lane intersection would exceed ACHD's acceptable level of service thresholds. In the previous development applications for the Tanner Creek property ACHD did not recommend any mitigation -- mitigation at the intersection due to right of way constraints, impacts to adjacent businesses, and substantial intersection redesign and construction, making the recommended mitigation infeasible. A letter prepared by Six Mile Engineering, dated 1/23 of '23 in response to comments and feedback during the City Council hearing for this project was submitted to ACHD proposing phased alternative improvements at the Meridian Road and Waltman Lane intersection to address traffic impacts from these developments. A three phase concept design was proposed in which the first two designs did not require any additional right of way dedication and the final phase did. ACHD reviewed their proposal and does not recommend any modifications to the intersection, as under all design concepts these modifications would negatively impact existing operations of both the interchange and ramps. ACHD's concerns also extended to the impacts the proposed modifications would have to the Central Drive and Corporate Drive intersections at Main Street and Progress Avenue. While the proposed improvements may benefit both of these project developments in the short term, they will likely negatively impact already congested area roadways and intersections. These improvements without significant widening increase corridor travel times and interchange queue lengths, further compounding existing congestion in this area. ACHD believes there are other alternatives that may be considered, such as converting Central Drive and Waltman Lane and Corporate Drive to a one way couplet, which is anticipated to reduce both queue lengths and the impacts to the Meridian Road and the 1-84 interchange system. Construction of the Linder Road overpass, three-quarters of a mile to the west, scheduled in ACHD's five year work plan for construction in 2026 and '27 should improve traffic conditions on Meridian Road by providing another north-south connection over 1-84. The Commission -- excuse me. So, the City Council should consider if higher levels of traffic and congestion in this area are acceptable when acting on this application. If not, consideration should be given to the inclusion of a provision in the development agreement which limits development to the large retail -- retail one store at this time and delays the retail two building and pads three and four until such time as the Linder Road overpass is completed or other area improvements occur that Meridian City Council November 21,2023 Page 6 of 65 allow for an acceptable level of service to be provided as determined by ACHD. I will go through the Commission hearing. The Commission did recommend approval of this application. Summary of the Commission public hearing is as follows: Ethan Mansfield, Hawkins Companies, testified in favor of the application, along with Leah Kelsey from Six Mile Engineering. The following folks testified in opposition. Kelsee Lorcher. Joe Lorcher and Joey Lorcher. Clair Manning commented on the application. Key issues of discussion were -- they were against the project due to the impact on traffic in this area from this development and the extension of Ruddy Drive and concern pertaining to the safety of area residents with the traffic that will be generated from this development and the residential development to the west when Ruddy is extended to Waltman Lane. Key issues of discussion by the Commission were as follows: The applicant's request to not be required to provide a vehicular connection to the west across the Ten Mile Creek to the adjacent residential development and the applicant's request to not construct a driveway access to the out-parcel at the northwest corner of this site at this time. The Commission made the following changes to the staff recommendation. At staff's request they modified DA provision A-1-1 to require the extension of Corporate Drive to be constructed as required by ACHD, instead of as recommend -- as recommended by staff. The Commission is not in support -- excuse me. The Commission is in support of Council granting a waiver to UDC 11-3A-3, which requires vehicular connectivity between the two projects via a cross-access easement -- to not require a connection and that is DA provision 9-A-1-C. Modify the requirement for a cross-access easement and driveway to be provided to the out-parcel, to only require an easement at this time. The easement should grant consent to the owner and developer of the out-parcel to construct the driveway on the subject property in the future at the time of development. The only outstanding issue for Council tonight is that the applicant requests a waiver to UDC 11-3A-3A2 to not be required to provide a vehicular connection and cross-access ingress-egress easement to the residential development to the west for interconnectivity. Written testimony has been received since the Commission hearing from Ethan Mansfield, Hawkins Company, the applicant's representative. He is requesting deletion of DA provision 1-C, which requires, as I mentioned, the vehicular connection and driveway to be stubbed to the residential property to the west and 23 letters of testimony have been received in opposition to this project. Concerns pertained to traffic and congestion on area roadways and at the Meridian-Waltman intersection worsening from this development. Impact on area schools and the community's quality of life and inconsistency of the proposed development plan with the mixed use community future land use map designation, commercial zoning and vision of destination downtown for this area. Staff will stand for any questions. The applicant is here tonight to present. ACHD is also available for questions from Council. Thank you. Simison: Thank you, Sonya. Council, any questions on this application for staff? Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Meridian City Council November 21,2023 Page 7 of 65 Hoaglun: Just want to confirm something. The -- where it talked about entitled to develop in according -- in accordance with the UDC standards for the northern portion of this commercial site. I think I read in it somewhere that they are entitled to approximately 400,000 square feet of commercial already currently. I just wanted to confirm that. I can't remember who presented that -- or talked about that in the minutes, but I -- there is an entitlement to that commercial portion on the north at city -- in the city limits already. Correct? Allen: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Hoaglun, Council, if you see on the right here on this map, everything north of the red line is currently entitled with C-G zoning. So, it's entitled to develop in accord with the zoning schedule of use for the C-G district. I'm not sure about that number you mentioned. It's not associated with this development. So, I'm not exactly sure where that came from. Simison: If I remember this could be going way, way, way back -- is that there was a limitation placed until the extension over Corporate was put in place. You know, that -- that -- that could be going back to old City Hall days. I don't know. Allen: Yeah. There is -- there is not an existing development agreement on that property. But I think you are right, Mr. Mayor, I think there was some ACHD requirements there associated with the size of the development. Possibly the existing DA for the Tanner Creek project. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, just to wrap that up then. So, we really aren't sure about a number, if there is a number, but there is an entitlement to commercial on that. Allen: There is. Yes. Thank you. Hoaglun: Thank you. Simison: Council, any additional questions for staff at this time on this project? Okay. So, I assume you want to do the next one as well before we go to the applicants. Allen: Thank you. The next application before you is a request for a development agreement modification, rezone, preliminary plat and conditional use permit and these are for the Tanner Creek development directly west of the aforementioned project. This site consists of 38 acres of land. It's zoned C-G and is located west of South Meridian Road on the south side of Waltman Lane and north side of 1-84. A little history. Two similar development applications were previously denied for this property in 2018 and 2020. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation is mixed use community with a request for an amendment to medium high density residential with the 1-84 and Meridian Road project. The -- I should mention that the reason for the previous denials on this project were inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan and mixed use designation at that time. We couldn't -- we couldn't guarantee and we didn't want to saddle the adjacent property to the east with all commercial uses and we couldn't determine consistency with just a residential one land use type for the mixed use Meridian City Council November 21,2023 Page 8 of 65 designation. So, anyway, just a little explanation on that. The applicant is requesting a modification to the existing development agreement, which allows commercial, office and hotel uses to develop on the site as shown on the concept plans here. Both of these concept plans were included in the development agreement. They want to replace it with a new development agreement, allowing a mix of residential uses, including single family residential detached and attached dwellings, townhouse dwellings and multi-family residential apartments as shown on the proposed conceptual development plan. A rezone at 41.89 acres of land is proposed from the C-G to the R-8 zoning district, which consists of 12.16 acres, the R-15 district, which consists of 12.27 acres and the R-40 district, which consists of 17.46 acres. A preliminary plat is proposed consisting of 130 buildable lots and that contains 83 single family, 45 townhome and two multi-family lots and 20 common lots on 38.05 acres of land in the R-8, R-15 and R-40 zoning districts. The plat is proposed to develop in four phases as shown on the phasing plan on the right. The applicant is requesting flexibility in the phasing to adjust the number of lots, combination of lots, the number of phases to reflect changing market conditions. Staff is amenable to this request, unless otherwise restricted in the cooperative development agreement with Ada County Highway District or as otherwise approved by City Council tonight. Because noise from 1-84 will greatly affect future residents in this area, staff is recommending noise abatement in the form of a berm and wall is constructed per UDC standards in its entirety with the first phase of development as a provision in the DA. The detail on the right is of the buffer area with the wall proposed along 1-84. Access is proposed via the extension of Ruddy Drive at the west boundary of the site and via two accesses to and from Waltman Lane at the northern boundary of the site. The applicant proposes to construct the extension of Corporate Drive, a collector street, off site from its current terminus north of the Ten Mile Creek to Waltman Lane as shown in the blue dashed line within existing right of way with the first phase of development. The construction of Corporate Drive will include the construction of a new bridge over the Ten Mile Creek. This will provide additional access to the site and provide for additional access while the Ten Mile Creek bridge on Waltman is being reconstructed. The roadway should be constructed as required by ACHD and completed prior to issuance of any building permits on this site. In accord with UDC 11-3A-3A2, which supports limiting access points to collector streets and requires a cross-access ingress-egress easement to be granted to adjoining properties for access if a local street is not available, staff is recommending a driveway is provided alongside the proposed pathway across the Ten Mile Creek to the east, unless otherwise waived by City Council, which will provide interconnectivity between developments and that is the pathway or connection that I mentioned earlier with the previous application in this location right here. The applicant is proposing improvements to Waltman Lane in accord with ACHD requirements with a ten foot wide detached sidewalk within the street buffer. The improvements to Waltman Lane will require reconstruction of the existing bridge over the Ten Mile Creek and should be completed as required by ACHD in a collaborative development agreement. The proposed qualified open space and site amenities meet and exceed UDC standards. Conceptual building elevations were submitted for their proposed single family residential homes and townhomes as shown. A conditional use permit is proposed for a multi-family residential development consisting of 280 residential apartment units on Meridian City Council November 21,2023 Page 9 of 65 15.88 acres of land in the R-40 zoning district. Private streets are required for addressing purposes within the development. Proposed qualified open space and site amenities meet and exceed UDC standards for multi-family developments. Conceptual building elevations were submitted as shown for the apartment and clubhouse buildings. As mentioned with the 1-84 and Meridian Road application, the construction of the Linder Road overpass half mile to the west, scheduled in ACHD's five year work plan for construction in 2026 and '27, should improve traffic conditions on Meridian Road by providing another north-south connection over 1-84. In an effort to mitigate traffic and congestion in this area, the Commission recommended inclusion of a DA provision requiring the Linder Road overpass to be completed prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy within the multi-family residential development. The single family residential and townhome portions of the development are allowed to develop at this time if approved. The Commission did recommend approval of these applications. The outstanding issue for City Council tonight is the applicant's request for a waiver to UDC 11-3A-3A2 to not be required to provide a vehicular connection and access easement to the residential -- excuse me -- to the commercial development to the east for greater connectivity. I got my pages swapped here. Hang on just a second. I will just go through the summary of the Commission hearing. Becky McKay testified in favor of the application, Engineering Solutions, the applicant's representative. No one testified in opposition or commented. Written testimony was received from Heath McMahon. Key issues were that they were not in support of this project due to the high density proposed and the negative impact on traffic in this area and safety of area residents with the traffic that will be generated from this development and the commercial development to the east. The key issues of discussion by the Commission -- the request for the applicant to not be required to provide a vehicular connection to the east across the Ten Mile Creek to the adjacent commercial development. The Commission was in favor of Council granting a waiver to not require connection. And concern regarding the phasing of the development in relation to construction of the Linder Road overpass. The Commission made the following changes to the staff recommendation. At staff's request they modified DA provision 1-B to require the extension of Corporate Drive to be constructed as required by ACHD. And they included a development agreement provision that requires the Linder Road overpass to be completed prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy within the multi-family development. As I mentioned a bit ago, the outstanding issue for Council tonight is the applicant's request for a waiver to access across the creek to the commercial development. Written testimony received since the Commission hearing was received from Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions, the applicant's representative, in response to the Commission's recommendation and she is requesting the following modifications: DA provision 1-D, to change the timing of construction of the noise abatement and wall and berm along 1-84 from the first phase of development to the first phase that's plotted adjacent to 1-84. Removal of DA provision 1-H, which requires the Linder Road overpass to be completed prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy within the multi-family residential development and deletion of preliminary plat condition 2-C, which requires a bridge to be constructed and a vehicular connection provided to the east across the Ten Mile Creek for interconnectivity with the commercial property to the east. Twenty-three letters of testimony have been received in opposition to this project. Meridian City Council November 21,2023 Page 10 of 65 They were the same as I noted previously. Concerns pertain to traffic and congestion on area roadways and to the Meridian-Waltman intersection worsening from this development. Impact on area schools and the community's quality of life and consistency of the proposed development plan with the mixed use community future land use designation, commercial zoning and vision of Destination Downtown for this area. Staff will stand for any questions. Simison: Thank you, Sonya. Council, any questions for staff on this application? Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Thanks. So, just one, maybe two questions. In your overview you talked about private streets. You said for addressing purposes. Can you help me understand what you meant by that? Allen: Yes. Mr. Mayor, Councilman Cavener, Council, that was pertaining to the multi- family development for addressing purposes and wayfinding for emergency services. Public streets would be provided in the rest of the development. Cavener: Okay. Mr. Mayor, just one follow up. Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Sonya, what is the update on the Corporate Drive extension? I don't recall seeing anything about that. I -- there is a lot of history on this project and so my brain is a little blurry, but can you give us any update about what the development plan is or what ACHD has planned or what anybody's planned, because I see it was depicted on one of the exhibits, but I just -- I'm not tracking with what the status is on that. Allen: Yes. Mr. Mayor, Councilman Cavener, the applicant is proposing to extend Corporate and -- the blue dash line there -- with the first phase of development prior to issuance of any building permits. Cavener: Okay. Thank you. Simison: Council, any additional questions for staff at this time? Okay. Then I will invite the applicants to -- to come forward, however you want to divide up your 30 minutes. I assume you guys have collaborated on that process. So, we will be, essentially, following the same process for Planning and Zoning. Thirty minutes. And we will provide each individual six minutes for their testimony as well through this process. Mansfield: Mr. Mayor, Council Members, I'm going to go ahead and kick it off. My name is Ethan Mansfield with Hawkins Companies. We are the developers on the Meridian City Council November 21,2023 Page 11 of 65 eastern portion of the site. And I will -- I will let Becky talk a little bit more about the history, since Tanner Creek was the initial applicant, you know, on this -- these two pieces of land. But I will go ahead and just kind of start by giving an overview of our proposal and how it works kind of together with Tanner Creek. So, what we are proposing is a comprehensive plan amendment to commercial on the Hawkins portion of the site. That's roughly 34 acres. And a Comprehensive Plan amendment to medium high density residential on the Tanner Creek portion, which is 36 acres. In addition, as Sonya pointed out, we are requesting annexation and a rezone to general and service commercial on the 18 acres on the southern portion of the site and I will kind of graphically depict that in just a second. So, a little bit of history about our application. This was first heard by City Council in June of 2022. Council remanded the application back to Planning and Zoning Commission and -- mainly because they wanted our application to be heard concurrently with Tanner Creek's application and after the traffic impact study was accepted by the Ada County Highway District. In June -- late June, early July, ACHD accepted the traffic impact study and drafted staff recommendations. We, then, spent the next year working with Tanner Creek and working with Sonya and the city staff to come up with a -- a site plan that we think and staff thinks works a lot better for our development and really I think complies with what we heard from Council last year. In July 2023 city staff expressed support for and accepts our updated site plans for both Tanner Creek and our proposed commercial development and, then, in October staff recommends that the commercial land use designation be applied to our section -- the medium density residential land use designation be applied to Tanner Creek and we think that works great. The site plan does not change from what we had proposed in June 2023, but the Comprehensive Plan land use designation is recommended to be commercial, medium density residential -- medium high density residential. And, then, in November 2023, as Sonya mentioned, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of this application. So, what that looks like on a map is the commercial designation on the corner reflecting the similar commercial designations of the other three corners of this interchange and, then, a transition away from commercial to medium high density residential to provide a buffer between the medium density residential further to the west. So, here is kind of an overview of the site. As Sonya mentioned, the northern portion of our piece of the site is already entitled C-G. You can see the subject of our annexation and rezone request applies to the 18 southern acres and, Council Member Hoaglun, I believe what you were referring to is that there is a current entitlement for 400,000 square feet of commercial on this western portion, but is now slated for residential development and we, frankly, think that makes a much better transition to the subdivision to the west and think it reflects a more appropriate kind of land use pattern of development than putting 400,000 square feet of commercial immediately adjacent to the single family homes. So, let's talk a little bit about how we changed the site plan. So, you can see on the left side here -- this is the old site plan. What we did is we took staff's recommendation directly from the staff report to place the big box stores on the southern end of the development, kind of tucked back in there. You know that there is a big grade change from that interchange down to the site, you know, we are going to take advantage of that grade change to kind of tuck the big box back into the site and -- and push the kind of community serving pedestrian-oriented uses up along Waltman, which was another recommendation of Meridian City Council November 21,2023 Page 12 of 65 staff. Another thing we did was activate the western boundary of our site to make it more pedestrian friendly, pedestrian bike friendly, and also to kind of activate it more by not just providing kind of, you know, the backs of the big box buildings. So, overall this is what the site plan looks like and I think, you know, this Ten Mile Creek serves as a really nice natural buffer between the residential and commercial uses, but also allows for the connectivity with the pedestrian pathway and just the proximity; right? You don't have to jump in a car to get between these developments and that we believe is the intent of creating both residential and commercial project -- product on -- you know, within the same vicinity. So, here is how the pedestrian and bike circulation works. You can see these open space amenities are kind of strategically placed around the site to kind of reflect where we think people will actually be and spend time. Importantly, this plaza area that connects Tanner Creek and the commercial piece is kind of a critical linkage for us. In your packet I believe there is Plaza A and Plaza B examples. So, I'm not going to spend time on those here. I have them if you would like to take a look at them. But I really want to talk mostly about the bike-ped plaza connection. So, here is some renderings about what we envision kind of connecting the two developments. There will be a ten foot bridge -- a ten foot wide pedestrian crossing. It will connect to a larger multi-use pathway on the eastern -- sorry -- western side in the Tanner Creek site. It will also connect to the shops, kind of a community serving shops building on the eastern side, and we think it really, you know, ties the development together nicely. Here is a few other views. I'm looking both into Tanner Creek and, then, into our commercial development. Notably -- and the reason that we are requesting a waiver from the requirement to provide a vehicular connection is that this is about the amount of space that a vehicular connection with associated pathways would require. As you can see it completely blows up the kind of nice pedestrian gathering space that we have created between the two developments and it does that so that we can get cars between the two developments and we think, frankly, that cars can get between the two developments using Waltman quite easily and we are also trying to encourage, as per the Comprehensive Plan principles -- multiple comprehensive plan principles, you know, pedestrian infrastructure, comfortable places for pedestrians to spend time and so we think that our plaza concept achieves that -- those principles better than a vehicular connection. Again, I just quickly want to touch on something that the Planning and Zoning Commission kind of already recommended -- is the requirement to construct a stub driveway to the edge of the property line for future development. That poses some challenges for us, mainly because of drainage. The way the grading works on this site -- you are essentially draining this hardscape kind of off into the other property and we don't particularly want to or really feel it's right to do that to the adjacent property owner, you know, at this time. We also don't -- and we are not exactly sure where that driveway is going to connect. We would like the flexibility to allow that connection where the future site plan deems it appropriate both in the site plan review phase and just for -- for economically speaking where it maybe works best per the site layout of that future development. So, we are absolutely committed to providing future cross- access. We can absolutely record an agreement -- or record kind of an acknowledgement that we will provide cross-access, but we think it's best to construct the actual, you know, piece of infrastructure at the time of development of the -- of the future -- the future development of that site and Planning and Zoning Commission did Meridian City Council November 21,2023 Page 13 of 65 agree with us on that. So, as you can see Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendations, which we are extremely willing to comply with, is to waive the requirement for the local roadway connection. That's where we had the pedestrian site. And, then, also to provide cross-access to the future development and allow construction of that future driveway on our site. So, I would just like to speak a little bit about the connectivity of the -- kind of the overall connectivity that will be provided when we develop this. So, you can see that we are planning to extend Corporate Drive across Ten Mile Creek to Waltman. We are planning to improve the Walton Road to a collector roadway, install a ten foot multi-use path -- multi-use pathways along the entire exterior of the site and, you know, we are planning to install transit infrastructure for a future transit stop on the corner of Waltman and Meridian Road and I should note there is a little discussion in the staff report about coordinating with ITD -- or, sorry, with Valley Regional Transit and, actually, early early on in this development when we were first site planning we -- I picked up the phone and called Stephen Hunt, who is their director of operations, and basically asked him where he wanted it and that's where he said he wanted it. So, that's why we kind of placed it up there in that northeastern corner. Again, we are happy to continue coordination with that. We think the transit -- future transit stop is going to be a great amenity for the site. So, you can see overall here kind of the sequencing of these improvements. We are proposing to complete these -- all of these improvements prior to occupancy. As we heard from Sonya, ACHD and ITD are planning to construct the Linder overpass. We checked in with them to see when that construction was going to take place. It's likely going to start in 2026 or 2027 and as you can see right now, assuming no additional -- or I should say assuming no hurdles in the development process, the estimated opening of retail one is summer 2026. So, that I think kind of helps share a little bit about our kind of anticipated timeline relative to these improvements. So, this is kind of an overall map just showing how the additional connectivity that this development provides is going to kind of change the game at this particular intersection. You can see north-south connectivity on Corporate, it really opens up that northwestern corner of the city. Not everyone has to come through Waltman to get to where they are going and I think that is a critical piece of this development. Right now it's hard to envision anyone getting here or leaving, except from Waltman and I think it's important to look beyond that and think about people coming and going from Corporate, potentially coming and going from Ruddy, you know, accessing from the -- from the quickly developing southwestern part of Meridian, you know, using that Linder overpass to get into development on Corporate. There is a lot of different ways that this development can be accessed. Once we -- once we complete these very simple strategic, you know, improvements to the transportation system. So, I will turn it over to Becky, unless there are any immediate burning questions that you have for me. Overton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: Just one question and it will probably go to both of you -- ask you individually. One of the things I heard -- I believe staff mentioned was a recommendation -- I believe Meridian City Council November 21,2023 Page 14 of 65 brought by ACHD as a possible solution to the traffic issues at Waltman and Meridian, with the potential to make it a one way loop coming down Waltman and, then, going back on Corporate. How does that happen if you take away the connectivity between these two projects? Mansfield: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Overton, I -- I am unsure what you mean by connectivity. We do have connectivity between the two projects on Waltman. Overton: If you leave that map open. I'm assuming -- and this is assuming. It's early in the evening and I'm going to be asking this again, but I'm assuming if it's one way -- if that's a possible solution to try to help with the intersection of Waltman and Meridian Road and it's made a one way street it's going to be -- Waltman Lane is going to be the one way coming in, looping around to Corporate to be the one way going out and, if so, is it the opposite way? Mansfield: It is the opposite way, Council Member Overton. Simison: Same principle applies. I see where you are going. Mansfield: Right. Not to detract from the original question. Overton: I'm just trying to figure out with the one way how everyone is getting to every other place and how -- if it's a one way how does Southeast 5th and Corporate ever become a way for traffic to get out? If we make it a one way to try to alleviate traffic, we are actually only giving them one way out now; is that correct? Mansfield: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Overton, I think you hit on a critical challenge with creating a one-way couplet, which is the goals of connectivity are actually kind of quashed by that and as such the commercial development that we are proposing is pretty infeasible, frankly. Like we may not be able to attract tenants to a site. Very likely we could not attract tenants to a site that has that sort of transportation network, simply because of the concerns that you are bringing up now. Overton: Mr. Mayor, follow up. Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: And, again, it's early in the evening and I know this is going to be mostly directed at ACHD for advice and questions in the future, but, obviously, my biggest concern is trying to figure out how we are going to deal with all this traffic coming up on an intersection that's already overwhelmed at different parts of the day. Have -- and this goes for -- for both you and Becky and when Becky gets up, but have either of you two come up with a solution for what your best idea is for moving traffic through this area? Mansfield: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Overton, we did come up with -- we worked with Six Mile Engineering to come up with a -- a solution that we think works really well to Meridian City Council November 21,2023 Page 15 of 65 help alleviate some of the -- well, the traffic concerns and we actually are pretty proud that we are able -- I'm kind of proud of Six Mile, frankly, for coming up with a solution that enabled us to do it without taking significant amounts of right of way and not widening the road, but adding lanes and so here is the schematic design. It allows for two northbound left turn lanes -- we have actually got Leah from Six Mile here to kind of explain -- to kind of walk through this. It might be a little more eloquent than me. Kelsey: Hi. Yes. I'm Leah Kelsey with Six Mile Engineering. We worked with Hawkins and Engineering Solutions on developing these phased improvements. Just a little bit of background. We -- my firm initially worked on the design -- the analysis and design of this intersection back -- starting back in 2006. So, we are very familiar with the -- the design and the right of way constraints. So, some of the key elements that we worked into these phase improvements -- so, phase one, first thing is developing a second northbound left into Waltman Lane and, then, adding a -- widening on Waltman Lane to provide dual right turns out, so eastbound to southbound. And, then, adding a second receiving lane on Waltman Lane for that dual northbound left turn lane. So, that's phase one and that requires no right of way and the second phase also doesn't require right of way and that is restriping the northbound lanes to provide a -- an additional through lane to -- up to Corporate where it traps as a left turn lane and that just provides more capacity for that movement. So, there is more green time to redistribute to the other movements of the intersection. So, both phases one and two don't require any right of way, just restriping movements and just with phase one alone was predicted to reduce the average vehicle delay at the intersection at full build out by about half. Overton: Thank you. Simison: And with that I'm just going to piggyback off Councilman Overton's question. By eliminating the cross-access via Commander does it limit the ability to make future transportation decisions 30 years from now, if a one way is ever warranted or can that be rectified in the future in theory? That's really -- that's what I thought I was hearing him saying is like if one way becomes what ACHD wants to do, that is basically forcing everyone who wants to enter the one park, if they are in the apartments or down, they have got to go all the way around, because we have gotten rid of cross-access. That's what I was trying to infer what I thought he was saying. You don't have to answer that now. Someone else can answer it later. But just from that perspective if that's what ACHD wants to do with the roadways. Bongiorno: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Yes. Bongiorno: Piggybacking off your piggyback, Mayor and Council, also I just want to put it on record, the -- the one way thing is the first time I have heard of this and without that cross-access they wouldn't have the proper fire access. So, it would be one way and one way out and they can't have that. They need two points of access for their development. So, if it's going to be a one way loop that won't work for the fire Meridian City Council November 21,2023 Page 16 of 65 department. They are going to have to have something down near the freeway that crosses -- or somewhere so we have two points of access to get to that property. Simison: Any other questions? Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Just a quick question on the two retail sites. Staff had presented that the two box stores will total approximately 234,000 square feet. I just wanted to double check that that is -- that is the two retail stores -- that does not include the pads or the shops, that is the -- the total square footage for those two approximately 153,000 for one and 80,000 for another; is that correct? Mansfield: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Perreault, that is correct. Perreault: Thank you. Simison: Any additional questions? Harper: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Lieutenant Harper. Harper: I just want to also add in regards to the one way, I -- that's the first I have heard of it as well and it does bring on some significant challenges for police response into that development or into that community of Tanner Creek. I mean all it takes is -- is a lot of congestion and it's going to significantly reduce our response -- or increase our response times and challenge us to be able to provide that service. Simison: Thank you. And just for the record, some -- is there anybody from ACHD who is here present this evening? Okay. That's -- it's hard to see with the hat on. I didn't want to make assumptions back there, so -- okay. Perfect. Thanks, Justin. All right. Thank you. And, Becky, if you want to come up and -- maybe they add back in a minute and a half to their time. McKay: I only have a minute and a half? Can't even say my name. Becky McKay. Engineering Solutions. 1029 North Rosario, Meridian. I'm here representing Challenger Development. Before you guys this evening is a rezone, preliminary plat, conditional use permit and development agreement modification for Tanner Creek Subdivision. It's approximately 38.05 acres. As you know it's located -- as you know it's located just west of Meridian Road and south of Waltman. I inherited this project. It was not initially mine. Mr. Schultz brought the project through 2018, 2020. The Council at that time said, you know, we believe these applications are premature. We want to know what's going to happen on the property to the east. We want to see a true mixed use type Meridian City Council November 21,2023 Page 17 of 65 development that has a residential component, a retail component, an office component and we want to see the big picture. We don't want to just see part of it and until we know what's going to happen on both parcels, we are reluctant to approve anything at this time and -- and so it -- it was denied twice. Prior to Mr. Schultz's passing he had submitted application for a third time to the City of Meridian. It was not deemed complete. We were asked to step in, review it. So, as Ethan indicated, we spent over a year working with your staff, working with the architects, working with each other to come up with what we believe is a very well integrated plan and that kind of hits on the critical key points of this area, creating a more pedestrian friendly development, creating a multi-use pathway and as Councilman Hoaglun mentioned in 2008 this property was annexed and zoned C-G. It's commercial right now with a development agreement for 400,000 square feet of retail. Is that what we want to build? No, it's not. Could this area support the Hawkins development and another retail development? No, I do not believe it can and that's why I think the Tanner Creek is a good fit on this parcel. It's only going to generate I believe 32 percent of what was initially proposed in that 2008 annexation and development agreement. This area has always been an area of contention. Since 1992 -- I read through minutes today that Shari Stiles, who was the planning director then, printed for me and it was discussed by Commissioner -- or Councilman Tolsma what are we going to do about Waltman Lane? When are we going to get some interconnectivity? Well, this is our opportunity from a planning perspective, from a transportation perspective, to get interconnectivity. Once we have that Linder overpass that's going to take place and begin construction in 2026, anticipated completion in 2027, that's, obviously, going to give us a critical north-south way over the interstate. One of the things that we have suffered in Meridian is the fact that we are bottlenecked at our north-south connections over Interstate 84. It is a natural barrier. Before we just had Eagle Road and, then, we begged for Ten Mile. We got Ten Mile. Now we are going to get a Locust Grove overpass and now we got State Highway 16 that's in the process. So, we are finally reaching the point where we are getting that north-south interconnectivity. The extension of Corporate Drive is critical. Absolutely critical. And it is a condition of ACHD that before anything can be occupied that Corporate Drive has to be extended. ACHD already owns the right of way. We will have to construct a bridge over Ten Mile Creek. Do a no rise. Do 404 permits. We will have to -- after we complete that, then, we go reconstruct Waltman Lane, build a whole new bridge there, go through the same hoops through the state and federal agencies and local agencies. So, this is, in my opinion, an opportunity where we can have two development companies working in tandem to improve the traffic in this area. The Landing Subdivision located to the west of us is off of a dead end Locust Grove Road. There is no vehicular crossing over Ten Mile Creek. If there is blockage at Linder, there, is no way the fire department is going to get in there. There is no way in. And with the extension of Ruddy Drive into our project as a collector road, that is going to not only help our projects, but help them from an interconnection and the ability for fire protection better service as far as response times for police. You can see that the two projects and -- and we worked with the common landscape architect, so you can see what we are doing here. As far as Waltman, we are going to construct a ten foot detached sidewalk. I'm only required to have a 20 foot wide landscape berm along Waltman. We have 37 feet. So, we have added additional. We have a 50 foot landscape buffer. We will have Meridian City Council November 21,2023 Page 18 of 65 a nine foot high berm, a ten foot wall along 1-84. We also have a ten foot multi-use pathway that's going to go east and west from the west side to the east side of our project and, then, we have to build a 14 foot multi-use pathway along Ten Mile Creek. Just kind of a blow up and as you can see we have created two plaza areas that are mirrored -- mirrored on the Hawkins side and mirrored on our side with that ten foot pathway going east and west and going north and south. So, we can accommodate bicycles and pedestrians. So, we are asking to rezone from C-G to R-40 for the multi- family component, which is transitioning from the commercial component. Then we have a townhouse -- townhome component in the middle of the project and then -- that's R-15 and, then, we have single family around the perimeter that is R-8. Oops. Sorry. As far as our single family development, our qualified open space is 17 percent. We have got a 1.7 acre park in the middle of our single family with a play structure, basketball court, pickleball court, benches and pathways. In the multi-family area we have got 21 percent qualified open space. We are going to have a full clubhouse with fitness facility, kitchen facilities, conference room, community gathering area, offices. We are going to have covered patio with barbecue and outside kitchen area. Plaza area next in our greenbelt. We will have a swimming pool. Hot tub. Cabana. Pool deck. We have a children's play structure and a picnic gazebo in the southern portion of the multi-family, along with a pickleball court. And we are going to have an indoor bicycle repair station and an indoor dog washing station, which I thought was cool. And, then, we will have EV charging stations, along with our linear parks micro paths. This kind of shows you the townhome elevations that were proposed. I will kind of go through really quick here. That shows you the alley load. We have alley load product. We have front load product. We have attached product. Detached product. So, as far as a variety, all the homes next to Interstate 84 will be single -- single story. No two story. We have a two story building that will adjoin Waltman to kind of keep that bulk and -- and wall effect down. The remainder of the multi-family buildings will be 24 unit. There will be three story. There are 11 of those and one two story. This shows you the clubhouse, the pool facility -- the pool facility and the cabanas and, then, that kind of shows your interconnectivity between Tanner Creek and the Hawkins facility. So, one of the things that's critical here is we want to embrace each other's projects and we felt that a vehicular connection would really ruin the multi-use pathway, because Ten Mile Creek multi-use pathway is -- we want it to be a pedestrian safe corridor. So, we want that east-west and that north-south connection. As far as the one way couplet, that was just thrown out there and in talking to our traffic engineers, all that would do was put pressure on other intersections and cause them to fail. I do not, in my professional opinion, nor did my discussions with the traffic engineers at Six Mile, did we believe that that is a viable option. We need to provide multiple points of access in this section. We got a section that basically has been bottled up for years and we are trying to solve that and this pedestrian interconnectivity -- these two plazas that mirror each other with planters where people can congregate, they can get in the shade, they can go get a burger, they can go get ice cream, sit down, walk, bike, whatever between the two projects -- I think is really a lot better plan than relying on vehicular connection. We have Waltman. It's a collector. That is our vehicular connection. We have Corporate Drive. That is our vehicular connection. You can see Ruddy Drive -- hold on. There we go. There is a stub street here in The Landing to nowhere. We are building a collector Meridian City Council November 21,2023 Page 19 of 65 with detached walks all the way up here. Then people would come on to Waltman, they could go north on Corporate or go -- ah, dammit. Sorry. I just came off of two weeks of COVID, so I'm just a little off. So, what -- what we believe here is we have addressed the primary concerns. We have got a darn good project. We have got 83 single family dwellings. Our lots range from 3,850 to 10,000 square feet. We have got 16 alley loaded, 67 front loaded. I got 40 foot lots, 50 foot lots, 60 foot lots. We got 45 townhomes. They are alley loaded. They range from 2,400 to 3,800 square feet. Our overall density in this project is 10.72 dwelling units per acre. Over in the R-8 portion we are just a smidge over four. So, we transition that density, we go from four to seven and, then, we go to the multi-family, which is 17. But our overall density is 10.72. Hang on. Let me get my -- as far as parking. We were questioned about our parking. This was designed, even though submitted prior to your updating your parking standards, this is designed with your current parking standards. The one bedrooms, which we have 94 one bedrooms, have 1.5 spaces. We have 152 two bedrooms. They have two spaces. We have 34 three bedrooms. They have three spaces. We have 28 guests parking. We are at 581 parking spaces. This is the -- the most parking I have ever provided in a multi-family project in Meridian or Boise or anywhere, where two -- I think we are 2.02 parking spaces per dwelling unit in the multi-family. You guys have sewer -- a 12 inch sewer line out here right in Waltman. You have got a 12 inch sewer line that runs along Ten Mile Creek. There is a 12 inch water line. There is an eight inch water line. These two projects and with the Corporate Drive extension will be extending water down to this area, so it's going to loop your water system. We will loop into Ruddy Drive, which is a dead-end line now. We will loop up the water to Corporate. We will make connections to Waltman. So, as far as creating or improving the infrastructure out here, the burden is upon us and we accept that burden gladly. I know there have been questions about what kind of traffic is going to go east and west and north and south. One of the questions I got from some of the neighbors -- we did have an -- I did have my own neighborhood meeting and I did go out a thousand feet and I had it here at City Hall. The -- the staff wanted me to introduce myself, because the previous neighborhood meeting had been done by Matt prior to the submittal and so I did meet with them and some of the people asked about, you know, what about people cutting through The Landing. More people are going to come from The Landing than are ever going to go from Tanner Creek into The Landing. But one thing you need to keep in mind is the trip capture that we are going to see. Right now if you live in The Landing and you want to go to Target, you got to go clear over to Chinden and Eagle Road. That's -- that's a big drive and that's a lot of -- a lot of miles on our street network. Now they can just pop down -- pop through Ruddy Drive out to Waltman, go over to the Target. It's going to be a full service Target and -- and they are excited to be there. They want to be part of -- of Meridian's downtown core and I guess one question that -- that I brought up with the Planning and Zoning Commission was if -- if -- if not this, then, what? And if not now when? You guys have been talking about this since 1993. Lastly, I wrote a letter to Council asking for deviations on three conditions of approval for the development agreement. One, I respectfully request that we build the berm whenever we build a phase adjacent to. The reason being is I got to generate a lot of material, because my fence and my berm combination has to be ten foot above the centerline elevation of I-84 and so we are working with Hawkins to try to get dirt from them. If they Meridian City Council November 21,2023 Page 20 of 65 have excess material when they X out their -- their big box, but I will also have to -- we are going to have to -- have to have time to get the berm built and I don't want to bring a whole bunch of gravel trucks through downtown Meridian or down Meridian Road. I don't think anybody wants that. Secondly, the Commission asks that we be limited to only building one phase and not being able to obtain any occupancies for a second phase and I guess my point to you is -- my first phase only generates 553 vehicle trips per day. My second phase is only a thousand. That's a total of 1,570 trips. That's well below existing local street threshold and I just don't think that it warrants it. At full build out we are only 22 percent of the overall traffic. And, lastly, I would ask the Council to support the -- the pedestrian connection versus the vehicular connection. Waltman should be the vehicular connection. If somebody wants to drive over to Target. We want to promote people walking, biking, skating and I think we need to not make it as convenient by making them go to Waltman. Maybe they will get on their bike and that's what I would prefer. Thank you. And I hope the Council can see to support this project. Simison: Thank you, Becky. Council, questions? Okay. No questions at this time. Council, we could go right into public testimony or do we need breaks before we do that? All right. Then, with that, Mr. Clerk, who signed up? Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. First one Joey Lorcher. Simison: And as noted, if you want to come forward and state your name and address for the record and you will have six minutes to speak on both projects. Johnson: And she's getting the presentation up. Lorcher: Thank you. Hello. My name is Joey Lorcher and I live at 5110 Dandridge Way and I want to talk to you about the overcrowding that Tanner Creek development will cause to the West Ada School District, but more specifically Meridian Middle School and high school. Development is not only the reason why schools are -- it's not the only reason schools become overcrowded, but it's the most preventable and on this slide is the West Ada School District's formula for predicting how many school-aged children will be housed within a residential development and that formula is the number of homes times 0.8 and divided by 13, which 13 is representative kindergarten through 12th grade and I have calculated -- not just Tanner Creek, but six other developments that have already been approved in order to see an accurate impact of the reality that Meridian Middle School and high school will face the next few years and as you can see -- if you added up the estimated new students from the already approved Newkirk, Gateway, Outer Banks, Vanguard Village, Foxcroft and Mile High Pines developments, there will be 1,735 new students added to the West Ada School District and if you take that number and add the estimated students from the Tanner Creek development, which is an additional 328 students, you will get a grand total of 2,063 students added to the West Ada School District. Now, taking the mean total and dividing it by 13 for each grade level, you get 158 students per grade. Meridian Middle School has grades six through eight. So, their student population will increase by 474 students and as you can see on this slide, that, number of increased students is a big problem and if you add the Meridian City Council November 21,2023 Page 21 of 65 current enrollment at Meridian Middle School and add the estimated 474 students, that pushes the student population over capacity by almost 300 students. This will be a dangerous situation for not only the students, but also the faculty. West Ada School District's formula is simple math and mathematics don't lie. The fact that Meridian Middle School will be overcapacity even before Tanner Creek would be completed should be a red flag that this development it is not right for Meridian. Our schools simply cannot keep up with the estimated 2,063, new students. Our community does not desire overcrowding, which will inevitably -- inevitably diminish and compromise their children's educations and this development does not reflect our community's vision for our future children. The development also doesn't preserve the character, quality of life, livability and sustainability that the residents of Meridian are trained to hold on to and this slide shows the West Ada School District's facility plan for high schools from 2016 to 2028. This shows the running projection of the percentage of students that are over capacity in Meridian and as you can see in five years every high school in the region is projected to be over capacity. The City of Meridian has only built one high school since 2016 to combat this problem and that's simply not enough. Tanner Creek will only worsen Meridian High School's seating capacity problem and on this slide we continue the West Ada School District's facility plan for middle schools from 2016 to 2028 and as you can see in five years every middle school in Meridian is projected to be over capacity. Meridian has not built any new middle schools to combat this problem since 2016 and, again, Tanner Creek only worsen Meridian Middle School's student capacity problem. This pattern continues with this one. This is the West Ada School District facility plan for the four zones of the elementary school districts and as you can see three of the four regions will be overcapacity in the next five years and this requires five new elementary schools in the West Ada School District and only one school has been built since 2016 to combat this problem and the Tanner Creek development will, again, only make this situation worse for everybody that has a child. And on this slide we have the bonds -- timelines for West Ada School District from 2018 to 2026. Only one of the bonds has passed in the last five years and this is a big problem for West Ada School District and the City of Meridian and since the City of Meridian has a difficulty passing these bonds we are falling behind on keeping up with these new developments in neighborhoods. There are no plans of fixing this situation of which the City of Meridian has created with these density populated apartment complexes in neighborhoods and Tanner Creek will only worsen the situation, because we just can't -- Meridian schools can't keep up with the influx of people and so, in conclusion, I want to reiterate that development is not the only reason why schools become overcrowded, but it is the most preventable. As you see I have used simple mathematics to prove to you that big developments like Tanner Creek are causing overpopulation issues at all levels of primary education in the West Ada School District. The Tanner Creek development will especially affect Meridian Middle School and high school, which is already struggling with being overcrowded. The City of Meridian so far have not been able to keep up with the school bonds and buildings. The population influx that you have created with these high density residents and developments is ruining the living quality for our community. The Tanner Creek development high density plan is not right for this area. A low density neighborhood, mixed with low dense density offices and some type of community center and a bigger park would suit this area better for our community and Meridian City Council November 21,2023 Page 22 of 65 the City of Meridian. The Tanner Creek development does not reflect our community's values, character, quality of life, livability and sustainability. That is why I'm asking this tonight is -- Simison: Thank you, Joey. Council, any questions? Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Yeah. Joey, you talked about that briefly. If you could elaborate -- you talked about better low density options. So, are you talking more just single family homes? Lorcher: Yes. Yes. Exactly. Get rid of the apartments and just all single family homes would make the intersection better, less populated and it just -- it would be a better fit for that area. Hoaglun: Okay. And follow up, Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: That -- that Tanner Creek location is, you know, entitled to commercial already from previous agreements. Lorcher: Right. Hoaglun: So, then, if we talk about the Hawkins property farther up, if that is moved over there is that -- well, what are your thoughts on the commercial side of things? Lorcher: I wouldn't mind more commercial. As long as it wasn't another big box. You know, just office spaces, you know, dentists' buildings and stuff like that, so -- Hoaglun: Okay. Okay. Thanks, Joey. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Thank you very much for sharing this. We really appreciate it when members of the community come and they have really done their homework. It's -- it's a lot of information to gather, isn't it? Lorcher: Yes, it is. Meridian City Council November 21,2023 Page 23 of 65 Perreault: I just wanted to clarify very quickly for you that the City of Meridian is -- is not the entity that attempts to pass bonds on behalf of the school district. So, just wanted to clarify that. The school district does their own work on that. Lorcher: Okay. Perreault: And we really don't have any involvement in it at all. Lorcher: Okay. Perreault: Other than maybe to offer support to them in ways that we can certainly help. Lorcher: Right. Perreault: So, I just wanted to give you that clarification real quick. Lorcher: Thank you. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Mr. Lorcher, nice to see you. Appreciate you being before us tonight. I know you have been active in your testimony about different projects and different iterations in and around your property and I appreciate your patience to come before us and share some thoughts. I appreciate that you said some -- some really good written correspondence I know the Council read. You said one that was kind of similar to this presentation you gave tonight, but your -- your other letter that came to us talked a little bit more about some of the transportation challenges. I think that's -- and certainly the school issue is something that I expect we are going to be talking a little bit about later on tonight, but wanted to just give you an opportunity to maybe share your particular perspective about transportation impacts from these particular projects. Lorcher: Well, as it is right now if you are sitting at the light at the intersection and you see a police officer or a firetruck trying to get through, they will have to sit through at least two lights just to get through the intersection and that's right now. Cavener: Yeah. Lorcher: And so with the increase of all these developments that will just make it worse. It doesn't matter how many other access roads you put through to Waltman Lane, they are going to try to get -- even just to get to the freeway -- like if there is a crash right off the off ramp, they are going to have to go through that intersection, it's going to take them a lot longer than it should. In fact, I actually called for -- there was a fire on the interstate -- on the interstate one time. We called it in as I was going to Waltman and we watched the fire truck go through two lights, took more than five minutes to get Meridian City Council November 21,2023 Page 24 of 65 through and that's not very safe in my opinion and the Tanner Creek development will just make this worse. Cavener: Thank you, sir. Simison: Thank you very much. Johnson: Mr. Mayor, next to Steve McCarthy. Simison: Good evening. McCarthy: Hello. Oh. Hello, Council and Mayor. My name is Steve McCarthy. I'm at 10685 West Paddy Street, Boise, Idaho. I will be addressing the traffic congestion and the Linder -- oh, actually we should probably wait for you guys to get their stuff going. Okay. Yeah. As I said before, my name is Steve McCarthy. I am addressing the traffic congestion and the Linder Road overpass. We have had a lot of topics about traffic tonight, so I want to definitely talk about it a little bit more. Is this just -- okay. The arrows -- okay. On this next slide -- on the first slide, actually, I wanted to show you the COMPASS Idaho report. This map shows the top ten congested network segments in Ada county during peak periods in 2022. As you can see 1-84-Meridian is number one. Franklin Road to 1-84 interchange and Meridian Road is number seven. So, Meridian Road has officially passed Eagle in regards to worst levels of congestion in Ada county and to me that's pretty bad. So, I wanted to get the next slide here. This slide shows the vehicle trips per traffic impact studies from Hawkins. Hawkins shows that 10,801 daily trips are going to be happening on those interchanges. Seven hundred and forty trips per a.m. peak hour and 949 -- 950 trips per p.m. peak hour. And, then, with Tanner that will also add another 3,014 daily trips within that graph. So, who in their right minds would want to add 13,000 vehicles per day to number one and number seven congested road segments in Ada county? Moving on to Linder overpass. Linder overpass providing relief is questionable at best. In the P&Z meeting Becky brought up that Mindy Wallace from ACHD stated that the Meridian and Waltman intersection will operate better than reported in the traffic impact studies once all our connecting streets are developed. Where is the study for this? Where is the data to backup Mindy's claim? How much relief and how long would this supposed relief last? In the City Council meeting with Hawkins in 2022 Mayor Simison mentioned the Linder overpass and stated: My hope is that the Linder overpass reduces some of the traffic in this that makes some of these turning movements okay. But for how long? In regards to Linder overpass, there is no access to 1-84 from Linder Road. Relief, if any, from the Linder overpass is likely temporary, lasting maybe a couple of years if at all. Ten Mile exit offered Meridian Road relief for a couple of years, but look at where we are now. Meeting Meridian Road and Meridian Road configurations probably for a couple of years, but, again, look at where we are now. What happens when the congestion returns or becomes worse after the Linder overpass has been built and these two developments have been built, what's our plan then? In regards to the neighborhood between Linder and Waltman Lane, commuters heading east would most likely cross Ruddy Drive and take Waltman to access 1-84 on ramps. Driving across to Overland Meridian City Council November 21,2023 Page 25 of 65 and doubling back on Meridian Road seems very impractical. Stores like Winco and Home Depot across Waltman Lane will likely lead people to prefer Ruddy Drive over Linder overpass, increasing traffic at the Meridian-Waltman intersection. Now, into the Hawkins trip generation and distribution with Linder overpass built. The trip generation from the Hawkins study shows that ten percent of trips going to the Hawkins site originates from west of Franklin. Some of that ten percent would come from Linder. This will show how Linder overpass is insufficient. Even with the Linder overpass built Hawkins will still contribute 9,802 daily trips to Meridian and Waltman, including Tanner Creek -- adding Tanner Creek brings the total to 12,816 daily trips. Infrastructure will be overwhelmed. The existing infrastructure in this area is inadequate to handle this influx of traffic, even with the Linder overpass. So -- so, in conclusion, I want to summarize. The excessive traffic impact, introducing over 13,000 trips a day with over 950 cars per hour during peak hours to Ada county's most congested area is not smart growth or sustainable growth. The traffic uncertainty, the exact number of vehicles passing through Ruddy Drive from the west neighborhood to 1-84 via Waltman Lane is unclear. The uncertain impacts, the potential traffic impacts of Linder overpass on Meridian in the future are unclear. The risk of uninformed decisions -- making a significant decision without adequate information is not sensible or wise approach, posing potential grave consequences to our community and our safety -- as our two guys over there definitely showed. An inappropriate location. The current area is unfit for high density residential and big box development, lacking the necessary infrastructure. Meridian deserves better. The entrance to Meridian and the well-being of our citizens deserve more thoughtful and elevated approach than what is currently proposed. Please deny both of these applications and for the sake of safety and common sense I hope all of you will listen to the data. Thank you. Simison: Council, questions? Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: As to your last point on the -- talk about a more elevated and thoughtful approach, can you tell me what that means to you? McCarthy: As an elevated thoughtful approach to which -- Hoaglun: To -- to the property. McCarthy: Oh, to the property. Hoaglun: It's bare ground. McCarthy: Oh, yeah. Yeah. Hoaglun: One portion is already entitled. What should it look like then? Meridian City Council November 21,2023 Page 26 of 65 McCarthy: I going to refer to kind of like what Joey said for the property, to have more office space, a little less residential, a lot more maybe the commercial idea or something, so that we don't have so much traffic going through that area constantly and creating, you know, safety hazards and so on and so forth. Hoaglun: Thank you. McCarthy: Yep. Simison: Just a question for you. You mentioned your address is Boise. Do you have a connection to this property or -- McCarthy: I do. Yeah. My wife is Kelsee Lorcher. Simison: Okay. Just wanted to make sure I understood. McCarthy: Yes. Definitely. Simison: Okay. All right. Thank you very much. McCarthy: All right. Great. Thank you. Johnson: Mr. Mayor, the computer down here is having a small meltdown, so I will be fixing that right now. We have another person with a presentation, so we are trying to get that ready. Simison: Okay. So, why don't we go ahead and take a break, so we can try to get the computer situation figured out. So, we will take a ten minute recess. (Recess: 7.31 p.m. to 7.43 p.m.) Simison: All right. We will go ahead and come back from recess or you can listen to my standup routine and I'm not very funny. Johnson: Mr. Mayor, next is Joe Lorcher. J.Lorcher: Hello. My name is Joe Lorcher. I live at 740 Waltman Lane. My property is the farm property just north of Tanner -- oh, there it is. This property right here. Been farming it since 1975. My land is devoted to agriculture, so as long as I keep more than five acres I can't be annexed by the city, even though it seems like I'm here a lot with you guys. I am not part of the city. I wanted to stress that this Greenhead Street stub probably will never be developed, either because of me or my children that you have already heard from and will hear from. We have no plans of dividing up this property. So, that leaves Ruddy Drive as the place where everybody is going be coming through. According to Tanner Creek's traffic impact study 636 vehicles per day will go through Ruddy Drive. This does not include Hawkins projected generated trips traveling on Meridian City Council November 21,2023 Page 27 of 65 Ruddy Drive. That is over 636 chances a day a child, pedestrian, or bicycles will get hit or swiped by a car. As you can see on this the Ruddy Drive turns and is a blind corner right through where they just wanted to put the park and anybody who has been around on Waltman Lane for a long time, we have lots of pedestrians, lots of children, lots of small families that walk up and down Waltman Lane and I'm concerned for their safety. That's the main reason I am here. How do I get this to turn? Johnson: The right arrow on your keypad. Keyboard. J.Lorcher: There we go. This is the statute I was talking about that, why I am going to keep my place a farm as long as I can and not -- not join the lovely City of Meridian. I want to talk about safety. On this slide here Ruddy Drive turns and where they -- once they have the park and, then, it gets up to Waltman Lane and comes across Waltman Lane and even now we have lots of pedestrians. Obviously, if they put this many people they are going to have more pedestrians, but there is no safety crosswalks designed to go across. Right here is a walkway -- the walkway that goes behind the Haddocks, that is a pedestrian walkway along Ten Mile Creek to the north. No comments have been made about safety crossing that street to get over there and also nothing has been said about this property here that's not part of the development. The ten foot sidewalk that's supposed to be built on the side -- south side of Waltman Lane, how is that going to be built with that property not being part of the construction? The ten foot sidewalk would probably be right over their well where it is now and they probably don't want to lose their well water. Again, 636 vehicles a day going through Ruddy, working their way towards the infamous intersection up at the top of Waltman Lane and right currently The Landing Subdivision has four access points out onto Linder Road to get around over to the freeway off of Franklin and as soon as Ruddy Lane is punched through everybody in this subdivision is going to be coming through Ruddy Lane going through the park area and down Waltman Lane towards the freeway to get to Boise or to -- to Winco or to Home Depot and this is -- my main concern is just the safety. The number of vehicles going through here, working their way through the intersection that's already the number one worst intersection in Ada county and this is just going to add more to it. We talked a lot about the access going through my property. The Corporate Drive right here. I'm sure cars will come down or go through here to get up on the Corporate Drive. But eventually they are still going to drive down Corporate Drive, turn on Meridian Road and just be part of that intersection just from a different direction. It's still going to add trips per day to the worst intersection in Ada county. Talked briefly about the bus stop that was just brought up. The bus stop right now is -- they are planning to put it right on Meridian Road right after the intersection. It's kind of causing cars coming up from behind them to even congest more cars to try to get around the bus stop. If they are really going to put a bus stop in here they need to put the bus stop into the development and off of Meridian Road. In conclusion, with only one access point, all traffic coming from the west neighborhood will be concentrated at Ruddy Drive and, then, add to the development's own traffic on Waltman Lane and Corporate Drive. Safety issues for children, pedestrians and bicycles are our main concern with increased traffic going through Ruddy and on to Waltman Lane, especially because of the lack of crosswalks and location of the Meridian City Council November 21,2023 Page 28 of 65 proposed park. I'm not opposed to developing these 36 acres. We have been here a few times. What I'm opposed to is the density of this development. There is -- if they just did plain houses we would not be here fighting for this because of safety issues. I have lived and worked on Waltman Lane since 1975 and would love to see this gateway to city be more high -- more than high density apartments. It should be a gathering spot for entertainment and small business. Even with Linder Road overpass Waltman and Meridian will still be an F grade intersection and police and the fire departments will get stuck on Meridian Road even more. Please deny both of these applications until they can come up with a better low dense plan that better serves our community and the gateway to Meridian. Meridian deserves better than this. Thank you. Simison: Thank you, Mr. Lorcher. Council, any questions? Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Mr. Lorcher, good to see you again. We have talked a little bit -- have asked the question I want to make sure I understand. Low density I understand. But you talked about low density and mixed use development for the site. What does that mean to you? J.Lorcher: To me it means single homes, even if they are the skinny homes that's in the R-15 section, that's fine. It's the apartments. It's the high density apartments that we just oppose. There is not enough space for that many people, that many cars to -- the acre and a half park for that many people? That's a joke. They are going to be everywhere else, except there. And so just the single family homes mainly and, then, not so much the big box store, but just smaller offices, smaller businesses, some kind of entertainment, some -- something -- a gathering spot for the city. A convention center maybe or something like that or just some kind of entertainment -- something for the city that everyone would enjoy. Hoaglun: Okay. Thank you. Simison: Thank you very much. J.Lorcher: Thank you. Johnson: Mr. Mayor, next is Kelsee Lorcher. K.Lorcher: Kelsee Lorcher. 2099 West Snyder Drive. Before I start my presentation I wanted to point out Waltman Lane will be three lanes and -- per their proposed collector. So, it will be three lanes and when it will be finished it's going to be a level of service F per their traffic impact study and also ACHD recommends that Waltman Lane be five lanes. Also all proposed mitigations to the Waltman-Meridian intersection by traffic -- by the traffic engineer Six Mile were rejected by ACHD, because it would be a temporary Meridian City Council November 21,2023 Page 29 of 65 solution, but harmful long term and traffic to and from 1-84 is priority, according to ACHD, and not this development. I would like to go ahead and start with a quote from the Comprehensive Plan. Without guided growth and development overcrowding congestion, safety community identity and overall deterioration of the current quality of life and living may result. I also just wanted to point out the FLUM designates this area as a mixed use community. Some agency comments. The Meridian Fire Department. They said we don't have a total response time that meet the NFPA standards. Our current City of Meridian adopted standards is a risk factor of four in which current resources would not be adequate to supply -- to supply service to this proposed project. This entails a greater risk for the occupants, as well as first responders. COMPASS comments that transportation infrastructure may not be able to support the new transportation demands. Meridian Development Corporation said very little, if any, of the vision that was laid out in the destination downtown is being accomplished. MDC does not anticipate the vision changing much for their southern gateway through their updates and, please, hold these developers to the vision. Also what was not said today during the staff report is that there is also 83 public comments that I did a survey and I put it out on social media and they had the option to say, please, deny or please approve this to you guys and I had 83 respondents say please deny and of those 83 respondents 46 expressed additional concerns in the comment box and this is in the public comments. It has been submitted. Issues and concerns from past meetings. Obviously, Borton and Strader aren't here, so I'm just going to skip over them. In regards to the three acre strip on the west side zoned as residential and floating it across the whole entire property, Council Member Cavener, you expressed your concerns and took issue to the practices of floating land use designation to setting a precedent for future developments, that this practice is okay. Council Member Hoaglun, when you were highly concerned about the -- about having only one left-hand turn lane into Waltman Lane from Meridian Road and the traffic congestion on Meridian Road and Waltman Lane. Per ACHD only one left-hand turn is going to stay and now Hawkins brings over 10,000 more vehicles per day. Again, Borton is not here, so maybe I will do your quote. Quote from the Hawkins 2022 City Council meeting. Mayor, you said we have invested a lot of money between the MDC, the city, ACHD and the road network configurations. We don't want this to turn into a traffic jam for everybody all the time, especially from 4.30 to 7.00 p.m. And, then, one thing I did want to say from Council Member Borton, he did say what I think would be helpful for me is the mixed use community designation. I see these -- they are adjacent uses. They are not mixed uses and that's a big distinction. Previous this month at the Planning and Zoning meeting Becky and Ethan -- Becky and Ethan both mentioned how both of their properties are already annexed and zoned for C-G. They said if these don't -- these plans don't get approved someone can swoop in and buy the properties and build commercial without the city's approval. While true, Corey Barton Homes and Hawkins Company know the value of this property. In addition both companies have put a lot of time, money and resources into the applications. So, let's get real, CBH Homes and Hawkins are not going anywhere. Furthermore, Becky and Ethan said that these plans are as good as it gets. I believe this is not true and, honestly, kind of a slap in the face of the comp plan and the FLUM. There is room for a permit and I believe rejecting this development -- these developments may prompt them to re -- re-evaluate their densities Meridian City Council November 21,2023 Page 30 of 65 and encouraging more thoughtful consideration of key issues in alignment with the FLUM and com plan. Quote from Mayor -- from Mr. Mayor, State of the City address in 2020, which I believe still holds true to this day. In 2019 the city completed a nearly two year process of updating our Comprehensive Plan. This is the growth and plan for our community that they stated they wanted for Meridian. As a city we need to let the plan be our guide and limit how often it should be amended. So, any changes can be looked at in the context of the full plan. We have spent over 200,000 dollars and countless hours of staff time engaging with community about this plan. It needs to mean something and it should not be changed much for the first five years. Please adhere to the comp plan that was carefully curated for the growth of our city. Please uphold the MUC designation from the FLUM. Please echo the same concerns and issues you have voiced in the past. Please save this area from the very inappropriate high dense development that will become detrimental for this area. These developments will cause overcrowding, will cause congestion, will compromise safety, will negatively impact the community's identity and will overall deteriorate our quality of life in Meridian. Please hold these developers to the high standards that this unique gateway to Meridian deserves. Please deny both applications. Thank you. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Thank you. Johnson: Mr. Mayor, next is Clair Manning. Manning: Hi. Clair Manning. 650 West Waltman Lane. So, I would ask for your careful attention and consideration of this application. This isn't another subdivision to just rubber stamp. This is kind of the flagship interest of the city and it will have massive repercussions on the entire community. So, we -- we do need real leadership here and it is tempting to buy into maybe this is a place for commercial or regional use, but the fact of the matter is that you just don't have the infrastructure to support it. You know, the developers have done a really nice job representing their clients and, you know -- but, unfortunately, what maximizes corporate profits isn't necessarily what's good for Meridian. So, you really need to represent the taxpayers that are -- elected you and make sure they are -- you know, not just say yes, because you need to put something there, make sure that the right thing goes there. Okay. So, kind of seeing a lot of this, so I won't spend too much time there. You know, you have a lot of traffic coming in from this adjacent subdivision that can only go down Waltman. You have 16 acres of R- 40 and tons of R-15 that is contributing to this traffic, as well as major commercial development and don't forget the high density apartments just to the north. So, there really is kind of a problematic entrance to -- to the Waltman Lane. You can kind of see that there really isn't a lot of room on Corporate Drive here before you turn around, but the real albatross of this development is this really small sliver of a turning lane onto -- into Waltman. So, you know, the developers know this is a problem. Your staff knows this is a problem, you know, but after all the engineering and all the consultation there is zero path to improving this. Every -- I mean they have -- they have tried, but it's been rejected, so -- but if they do try and improve this it's just going to interfere with the interchange. So, this is -- this is what you are going to have to work with and that's what makes it so infeasible to actually put commercial and -- and high density there. So -- Meridian City Council November 21,2023 Page 31 of 65 and, then, I would also say that, you know, there is a lot of talk about the Linder overpass and, you know, some -- some connectivity, but that's not going to fix this entrance. It's not going to make anything easier to get into, so don't hide behind the -- the Linder overpass, it's not going to fix the issue. So, I just want to show you like some pictures of the area, so you can see -- I'm kind of back as far as I can be, because there really isn't a lot of area -- a lot of runway here where you started -- before we start backing up cars and cutting off an entire lane into the city. You can see to the right there that doesn't take very many cars to fill it up. A better shot there. So, this is kind of looking back to the freeway. You can see it doesn't -- there is not much runway to the freeway and, you know, don't tell these guys over here, but I do massive illegal lane changes just to get to the freeway every day. And, then, you can see here that once you are on -- on here there isn't like a huge runway either. So, you are going to start backing up traffic onto this area here, so -- and, then, how about this Corporate Drive that we are going to put everything down? Here is -- here is a picture of Corporate Drive. You can clearly see this is not ready for collector traffic. It's wildly insufficient for that. So, if you are wondering what it's like today in case you don't live here, I'm pretty sure you do, this is the -- this is the commute that I see every morning. You can see even going back into this area today you are -- you are often blocked being able to even get there, because traffic's already backed up on a green light. So, you know, it really isn't a big surprise that you're at level of service level F after this. So, you know, bottom line it would be completely irresponsible to allow commercial and R-40 into the area. You know, more appropriate use will be single family homes in the Tanner area. Community level businesses. I mean ideally the next density, but in absence of that maybe some small businesses, things that aren't going to totally kill the traffic, but you probably do need some commercial there. So, I would support that. You know. And, of course, the developers are going to have a rebuttal with flowery statements about, you know, improvement area, you know, entitlements to Corporate -- to Corporate -- to -- the current entitlements, you know, connectivity. But what they are really doing is they are asking you to jump off a bridge and say I don't believe in gravity and I'm begging you don't jump. Simison: Council, any questions? Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Mr. Manning, thank you for that presentation and similar to others about where you see the property being developed. I guess my question to you, then, is there is an entitlement already on the property to the west abutting the homes that is commercial. There is -- there is a gamble here and that is that an entity comes in, no -- the name Target has been thrown out. That it goes, okay, that's where we have to go. We are going to go there. What's -- what's a better alternative? Is that the alternative that neighbors are ready to zone for? Meridian City Council November 21,2023 Page 32 of 65 Manning: You know, I'm in county, I'm entitled to shoot a .30-06 out my back door, but that doesn't make it any less than irresponsible. I don't think that a reasonable corporate person is going to come in and see if they can actually make that work. I think what you guys need to hold out for is single family residential in that area, lower density, so you don't like overpopulate what the -- what the commercial component of that is inevitably going to be and I recommend that you keep the commercial area, you know, a little less stringent, so, you know, essentially, getting in and out of that is going to be so problematic that you are really going to back up the traffic and you just -- infrastructure is not there. They know it. They have tried to fix it. They have been blocked. There is no path. Simison: Okay. Thank you. Manning: You're welcome. Johnson: Mr. Mayor, next is Kurt Lee. Lee: Kurt Lee. 365 West Waltman Lane. Fancy presentation. We have the last house left on the Hawkins property. It's my grandpa's old dairy. And there has been so many developers on all this land it's ridiculous. Each one tries to get something done and gets denied. That -- that land is nothing but coyote and weeds. All of it. And it's nice somebody's going to do something, but the traffic is going to be bad. The city years ago approved those two -- that huge subdivision off Franklin Road with only one outlet and they expect these developers to make the outlet and come down Waltman Lane. The Ruddy, that would stop a lot of the traffic if you don't improve the Ruddy Road coming through the Tanner project. Get another outlet onto Franklin Road from those subdivisions. It's going to help the Linder congestion and it's going to help them, because they have got to have another outlet. It's ridiculous. Thousands of homes, one outlet that the city approved years ago. I know that apartments were everybody's sore thumb. I would like to see a nursing home and a motel and single -- single homes rather than apartments also. But I know you got to have dual usage nowadays. In case one doesn't work the other one does. A nice high end restaurant in the corner where Hawkins is that would be nice. But there -- is that's got to -- I know it's going to be commercial, because it's location, location, location. Ten Mile is so far ahead of them. They tried to develop that Lane 30, 40 years ago and nothing ever gets done. Ten Mile got it done in ten years. So, they say it's the infrastructure. While you can build infrastructure, that's ACHD's job. That's all. Thanks. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? All right. Thank you. Johnson: Mr. Mayor, William Kissinger. Kissinger: Good evening. I'm William Kissinger. 420 Waltman Lane. First of all, let me say that I appreciate our Mayor and City Council taking the time to get this important decision right. Obviously, I'm not a public speaker, so I hope you focus on what I'm saying, rather than how I'm saying it and everything else. So, I know there is very little I Meridian City Council November 21,2023 Page 33 of 65 can say in the next three to six minutes that will persuade this Council. You may have already made up your mind on the subject to a large extent and I certainly realize growth and development is inevitable. However, I do find it somewhat sad that what we have previously planned as a mixed use community area under the Comprehensive Plan is now being proposed as a combination commercial, high density residential project that we all agree will lead to even more traffic congestion in the area. It is also not exactly what many of us envisioned for this high profile area as the gateway symbol welcoming those to Meridian. I'm here to tell you it's not too late. So, with that in mind I humbly ask that before you vote on such an important proposal that you take the time to ensure the overall project is done right, that we do not settle for ACHD ignoring this issue with the hopes that it goes away, but, instead, hold them accountable for the necessary improvements to nearby streets, intersections, that they admittedly already rate as an F. To reconsider limiting the developer's proposed density permanently or at least until other improvements to mitigate congestion, including the completion of Linder Road overpass, happens, something already recommended I believe by ACHD. That you consider the ultimate impact that the residential component brings on our over -- already overcrowded schools, in which case a new Fred Meyer might be preferred. Not a lot of kids associated with that additionally in the area. That you hold these developers accountable for improvements to all the surrounding streets, sidewalks, and pathways, including those that were outlined in conditions of approval as drafted and previously -- drafted and proposed by Kim Warren. From what I can tell they have not. And I asked that if you have not already previously -- already previously done this, each of you take the time to visit the project area to appreciate Waltman Lane. It's not a street. It's not a road. It's a lane. To truly understand that what you are being asked to approve before you concede your authority to these developers. Therefore, we as citizens would ask that you consider denial of this request or at the very least postpone this decision until you feel you have necessary assurances that the project being proposed has been planned in the best interest of our community. Thank you. Simison: Thank you. Council, questions? Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: I don't have a question. I just want to say that you had mentioned that -- that our minds might be made up and I have to say I -- I often come and -- I think I can speak for my colleagues -- with very much an open mind wanting to hear our community. This is a really important process and appreciate that you have noticed that we are slowing down and taking some time to do this. I would like to mention just really quickly -- and with all of the testimony that we have received a couple of things. As Council President Hoaglun has mentioned this evening, the Tanner property is already set to be commercial, which is a heavy use, and, then, the -- the Hawkins property is set for mixed use community. That's the current comp plan designation. That designation allows for apartment complexes. It allows for retail. It allows for offices. So, it's not that that isn't going to allow for commercial as well, it's just the current comp plan has it on Meridian City Council November 21,2023 Page 34 of 65 just a little bit smaller scale. But currently these two properties are entitled to already allow all of those uses. So, as we have heard from folks tonight about our preference being single family homes, that there is already approvals that are -- that allow these applicants with -- before this application to go ahead and make decisions that are much more intensive use than a single family home. So, I just want to clarify that for everyone, not just for you, because we do want you to understand how this decision is being made and sort of what we have to keep in mind as we go through this process. So, thank you very much. Kissinger: If I may comment on that. I recognize that. I am -- as I said I'm sad that we didn't stay mixed use regional or mixed use community, because those would have been way less density and that's what we are really opposed to here is the density of this, not necessarily the type or the project in general. It's the fact that they are trying to cram too much into a small area. Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: So, the mixed use -- and you meant mixed use neighborhood. Mixed use neighborhood is the less dense -- and that's okay. I still get them -- I'm still going to be confused and I have been doing this a long time. The -- the applicant Hawkins -- excuse me. Ms. McKay with -- with Tanner had stated that their intended density is a little over ten units and -- and a mixed use community allows for six to 15, depending on -- so, I'm not saying that to -- that I'm saying in any way that I'm supporting that, I'm just clarifying for your sake that the applicant believes that they have met that, because that's what -- and it doesn't look right to have, you know, three story apartment complexes and, then, have -- and it does -- it feels like there is more density than there actually might be and so hopefully they will -- they will have a chance to address your concerns when they come up here and talk about how that density will actually work out in terms of numbers of residents, because they could potentially do all townhomes and -- and -- and -- or -- or, you know, a different design of residential and still have the same amount of density. So, they can probably share more about that, because we are hearing your concerns. I'm hearing your concerns for sure. I just want to make sure that we are all kind of speaking the same language with it. Thank you very much. Simison: Council, additional questions? All right. Thank you. Johnson: Mr. Mayor, the next person signed up his Ken Freeze. Freeze: Good evening, Council Members, Mr. Mayor. My name is Ken Freeze. I live at 195 East Rosalyn Drive in Meridian. And what my concern is is that you go out Ten Mile, you go out Overland, Fairview, north of town, south of town there is building. There is building everywhere. And I'm really concerned about what all this building is going to have on the future impact of the infrastructure of all of Meridian. We have talked about this project here, some very good testimony has been given about traffic, overcrowding of schools. I would like to see this project stopped right now, but I would also like to see where all projects are stopped for a while -- for a breather to give Meridian City Council November 21,2023 Page 35 of 65 Meridian a chance to just sort of sit back, let all these projects that have already been approved get built, so that we can sit back and see what their impact is. I know the planning department goes through and they -- they estimate and they do a good job of estimating what the impact is going to be, but what they think it's going to be and what it turns out to be can often be two different things and I would just like to see just a little bit of -- a little bit more conservative on holding back and -- and just letting all these projects that have already been approved -- or in many cases they are -- they have been in the pipeline for years and they are approaching approval, just let's -- get those out of the way. Let's -- let's clear the board and just sit back and take a breather for a while. I think this -- this project in itself is probably not -- it looks very nice. It's probably in the wrong place in my opinion. We have got some really bad traffic problems. I will ask you Council Members, how many of you go through that intersection every day around 5.00 o'clock? You don't want to. I'm retired. I don't have to, but occasionally I get caught going through it and it's a mess. It's a real mess. And you -- we heard about how just restriping it could help that. I understand that restriping it would sacrifice the bike lane that's currently there. Frankly, I think you are crazy to try to ride a bike through there. Even in a bike lane. I see videos all the time of people getting hit in bike lanes. If I was riding a bike through there I would get up on the sidewalk and ride my bike or walk my bike. I think if -- if -- just restriping that now could alleviate a lot of the traffic problems. Maybe -- maybe these people that are testifying against it might have to look at it a little bit differently than they are today. But, again, I would just like to see the City of Meridian take a breather, let's -- let's stop approving so many of these projects. Let's let the projects that are already been approved get built and let's see what the impact is. Thank you. Simison: Thank you. Council, questions? Freeze: Can I answer one question that I know keeps getting asked, like what would I like to see there? Simison: Sure. Freeze: Yeah. Okay. Good. Actually, I would like to see a convention center of some sort. I was trying to put together a program for actually kind of a mining trade show and I had vendors who were willing to come. Two of them from Europe. I had -- I had people -- I had everything but a venue. I could not find any place in this valley that wasn't already spoken for and -- say a 20,000 foot convention center there would fit a lot of -- I think it would get a lot of use. Still have the traffic issue, though, because, you know, it's going to bring people in, but, frankly, that's what I would like to see. Thank you. Johnson: Mr. Mayor, that was everyone that signed up in advance. Simison: Is there anybody present -- present or online who would like to provide testimony on the item? If so, please come forward now or if you are online use the raise Meridian City Council November 21,2023 Page 36 of 65 your hand feature on Zoom and we can bring you in. Seeing no one coming forward, would the applicants like to come and close. McKay: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. Becky McKay. I understand Waltman Lane situation. I mean there is 210 trips a day on -- on Waltman Lane and those people who live on Waltman Lane -- it's like a dead end road, even though it's designated on the master street map as a collector. Change is hard and -- and I recognize that. Respect that. But one thing I would like to mention is some of the facts that were given to you in some of the PowerPoints are incorrect. It was stated that we will generate 327 students. This is from the West Ada School District on their current methodology for calculating student generation rate and it's .7 for a single family dwelling or townhome, .1 for multi-family. How many children will this generate? A hundred and seventeen I believe is what I have here. Hundred and eighteen. Sorry. A hundred and eighteen students. At build out 118 students or nine students per grade. So, the number of students that will be generated was overstated by 209 and this was from West Ada's own current formulas. It was talked about -- oh, well, you can do access improvements, but it's not going to -- it's really not going to make a lot of difference. It's going to make all the difference. Corporate Drive will be signed no parking. Right now they are allowing people to park on it, just like when we moved our office out off of Hickory and they were letting people -- trucks parked everywhere, because there was nothing out there. When it comes through ACHD will sign no parking, collector roadway, and Corporate does go out to Meridian Road, but you can also go north out to Franklin. So, there is a north outlet that goes to Franklin Road if you look at the vicinity maps. It was mentioned that, you know, 13,000 vehicle trips. Gosh, that's a lot. Well, these projects are phased and they are phased over long periods of time and it always depends on market. Right now we are experiencing higher interest rates, which people are saying, oh, just go build office. Well, I have heard office financing has just went poof. That there -- the banks have really tightened up. So, we need to build a project between the two of us that has mixed uses and one -- one person discounted what Mindy stated in her memo to the Council and to us and I don't think that they should have discounted it, because she, obviously, consulted with their internal traffic engineers, their design engineers, and she said the intersection or Meridian Road and Waltman is anticipated to slightly exceed ACHD's acceptable level of service thresholds. It is likely the intersection would operate better than reported in the traffic impact studies once the stub streets to adjacent neighborhoods are connected and Corporate Drive is extended to intersect with Waltman, making this a viable alternative. So, ACHD has not slammed the door, they have stated that they think these improvements and what's planned for the future with Linder overpass, with State Highway 16, is going to change our patterns in Meridian. I drive Eagle Road every day and nobody can tell me that that isn't operating at a level service F, but you know what, I got to get to -- I got to get to work and I got to get home and I live north of Beacon Light. So, I get it and I sit at those lights three times and I see your emergency services trying to get through, but it didn't stop approval of additional apartments over next to The Village with the hope of capturing traffic and getting people to live where they work and that's what we want to do here. As far as safety is concerned, Waltman Lane -- we are going to be making significant improvements and putting a ten foot Meridian City Council November 21,2023 Page 37 of 65 detached walk with eight foot landscaping separating that from those travel lanes. There is a four foot pathway that is north along Ten Mile Creek at Waltman. We could do some type of a pedestrian crosswalk there, so people could use our to -- our 14 foot multi-use pathway and connect to that -- and get across Waltman safely to the four foot. The density is 10.72. Council Woman Perreault made the comment with the current mixed use community you could go up to 15. So, the existing designation would allow for a higher density than what we are proposing, because we are capping it at 10.72. We could go to 12 based on the designations we are asking. We are technically downzoning this property. It was mentioned fire response time. If they went to the third page, Mr. Bongiorno indicated that there would be a four minute response time for an aerial truck and Council in 2016 adopted as their acceptable response time as five minutes. So, based on that I believe we are, obviously, going to improve the options for fire and for police to get into this area. Right -- this area for -- since the '90s has been a bottlenecked area and we have an opportunity to fix that. We are not floating our land use designations. That's why the staff asked us to do a comp plan amendment and these comp plan amendments -- if the current -- if the existing Comprehensive Plan designation and the existing C-G zones that are out there, if those were viable why was it zoned 15 years ago and approved for 400,000 square feet of commercial and nothing happened? And as the gentleman indicated, Mr. Lee, developers have come and gone and come and gone, but the one stumbling block was getting Corporate Drive built and getting connections in alternative routes and that is exactly what we are doing. I think we have a good project and as far as the number of trips, we are going to get about 1,320 possible trips coming out of The Landing coming down Waltman Lane. That's what's estimated. As far as the trips that we will be sending, it was testified that we would be sending 636 to the west. That is incorrect. Three hundred and one. Only about ten percent. As these projects take shape and evolve and phase ones are built, we get Linder Overpass, we get State Highway 16 -- like I said, it's going to change the entire trajectory of our transportation system in the City of Meridian for the better and I believe in that and I think ITD and ACHD believe that, too, and the city, because you guys have lobbied for these projects hard for so many years. Ten Mile is clear -- it was in your 1978 comp plan, the Ten Mile interchange, and how many years did it take us to get that? And I think this is an opportunity that we don't want to waste and my traffic, like I said, is significantly less than what it would be if I were any other use. They are bagging on the apartments. The apartments only generate 6.49 vehicle trips per day. Single family dwellings generate 10.57. So, when you look at the reduction in traffic, the downzoning, I think basically -- and what Hawkins is doing, I think we are going to have a good integrated project and I think that's the whole intent. Mansfield: Mr. Mayor, Council Members, if I may, I just -- I will be really quick, if that's acceptable. Simison: You have got 11 minutes. You take as much or as little time as you want. Mansfield: Thank you, sir. Simison: Only 11 minutes, though. Meridian City Council November 21,2023 Page 38 of 65 Mansfield: So, I would just like to address just a few really quick things. I am not sure if it's possible to bring my presentation back up, but I do have some traffic information that I think might be helpful to contextualize. While Sonya is doing that, I would like to just read a few items from the previous staff report that we really took to heart when designing this site plan and the uses on the site plan. First, the staff report notes that a large retail anchor could easily be integrated into this project, but for this site in this location it would likely need to be located along the interstate. We redesigned the site to achieve that configuration. Now, how did we do it? Well, we eliminated the office building, but we eliminated the office building at the request of the staff report. They said -- well, staff, Sonya and Brian McClure -- McClure, long range planner, said that while uses are also desired, there is a considerable amount of it being constructed elsewhere in the community and it could be rededicated and we think that's true and we acknowledge that it is extremely difficult in this economic environment to construct office. There simply is not a lot of demand for office and the demand that there is being fulfilled in other locations. So, we agree with staff here. So, we eliminated that office building and by doing that we created space for 32,000 square feet of community serving shop spaces. Those things could be space for entertainment venues. Recreation. They could be space for a dental office. Any sort of healthcare office. It could be a community serving kind of restaurant space. In addition to the shop spaces, we have a pad that we have kind of called out a space for a sit down restaurant. Of course, you know, we cannot guarantee that a sit-down restaurant will come along and say this is exactly where we want to be right here right now, but, you know, we think that that is the most likely scenario for that particular pad and that's right on the entrance corner and it's about 7,000 square feet. You know. And we have also dedicated a space, if we can find a user, for a hotel user. The gentleman speaking most recently or one of the last to testify mentioned that a motel or hotel would be a desired use. So, you know, we -- we agree and if there is a demand for a user we have space for it. So, thank you, Sonya, for pulling that up. And one more quick thing I would like to note is that staff also noted that Waltman is the ideal location for community serving users that do not need and cannot afford the visibility of the interstate and Meridian Road. The site needs to realize better clustering of nonresidential uses to frame and benefit relocated open space and, again, we took that to heart, you know, we have -- we have created a plaza area right on the entrance corner. We have created a plaza area that the shops near Tanner Creek -- closest to Tanner Creek can utilize. So, I think, you know, as far as the uses that are available here on this commercial site, we have -- you know, we have opened the door for community serving uses. Again, sometimes -- it's very difficult, but often these aren't even possible without an anchor tenant and vice- versa. So, there is kind of a symbiotic relationship between the anchor tenant and the community serving uses and that's what we are seeking to achieve with this site plan and this configuration. And, then, finally, if you will give me a few minutes to get through all my slides, I would like to just talk a little bit about trip generation. We are getting deep. I apologize. I would really like to find that and, I apologize, I may not have actually included it in this particular slideshow. However, what I can say is -- oh, it's actually here. So, this table shows trip generation based on a 382,000 square foot site plan. Our current site plan shows less. We always like to overestimate how much square footage we are going to provide, because we want to ensure that we are Meridian City Council November 21,2023 Page 39 of 65 providing the amount of mitigation that our maximum extent of the construction would -- would create to mitigate those impacts, just so we are not underestimating. So, the current site plan really -- based on this kind of mix -- and, again, it's not perfect, but based on this mix is roughly 9,270 trips. Now, if you took the same mix and you extended it to the entitled 400,000 square foot development, that would be 11,400 trips. So, really, the question I'm seeing is there is currently an entitlement for 11 ,400 trips roughly. Our current proposal generates 9,270 trips roughly. We are not -- I think -- I mean that statement I think speaks for itself. So, you have a current entitlement for something that has much higher trip generation than what we are proposing and so with that I would love to answer any questions. Simison: All right. Thank you. Council, any additional questions for the applicants or comments? Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, my -- at least my first question -- and there may be some more later -- dovetails on kind of that last comment about trip generation and so maybe an easy question for you. Does your proposed project, with your transportation network improvements, does your trip generation meet, fall below or exceed ACHD's acceptable level of service at Waltman and Meridian? Mansfield: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Cavener, it does fall below level of service with the mitigation. It may be worth noting that it currently is not operating well either. So, the improvements to the transportation network still have the potential to -- if not improve, at least kind of maintain the existing kind of state of things. Cavener: So, Mr. Mayor, I'm going to touch on this, because I guess this -- there has been a lot of conversations and a lot of comments made about trip generation and traffic impact and -- and there have been multiple letters by ACHD, but on their letter from July ACHD says -- the study shows -- that your folks conducted shows the intersection of Waltman Lane and Meridian Road exceeds ACHD's acceptable level of service. That's reinforced in the letter in October when they say -- after getting the information ACHD does not recommend any modifications to Meridian Road and Waltman Lane intersection. What it tells me is that it already exceeds, but I have not been able to draw a correlation how your project improves the transportation network that it would lower what ACHD already says exceeds their level of service and, again, you guys are the experts, so I may need a little one on one on this, but I just -- I can't connect the dots and I'm looking to you, the experts, to do that. Simison: And, Councilman, this is one thing I failed to do. We do have ACHD in the room. If there were questions specifically for ACHD we could call Justin up if that's something that any Council Member wants to do, just as a -- Meridian City Council November 21,2023 Page 40 of 65 Cavener: Mr. Mayor, I appreciate that. I think -- I tend to want to understand kind of the numbers and how the applicant has drawn that conclusion first. Mansfield: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Cavener, I -- so, the conclusion I came to is I think similar to ACHD's, which is, you know, with our mitigation we do exceed level of service thresholds. I think the important thing to understand here is that these roughly 10,000 trips are not being created out of thin air. They are not -- they are not just being created because 10,000 more people are saying I want to go out to eat somewhere. Cavener: Correct. Mansfield: They are being created because they are being captured from another location. As a -- as a family, right, I'm saying you guys want to go out to eat tonight and they say where do we want to go? You don't say I'm only going out to eat to this one place that's located on this one corner or I'm not going out to eat at all. So, a commercial development in that way in my mind, right, looks -- we look at a study area and we look at the increased number of trips in that study area and those trips -- again, I don't know if they simply just appear out of thin air, I mean you have to have an increase in population, which is, you know, an increase in households to actually truly increase the number of trips. That's my understanding, because -- anyway, I will leave it there. Cavener: And, Mr. Mayor, if I may. Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: I think what I hear you are saying, right, is -- so, I live in south Meridian; right? I need to go to the grocery store, I'm likely driving to the Walmart that's there on Meridian and Overland, which already exceeds I think ACHD's level of service. Instead of driving to Walmart I'm going to drive to the Target. So, instead of driving to one place I'm driving to another. I hear you on that. I think that we are going to have a lot of conversation about it, at least where I'm coming from, is that the roadway network already can't support the traffic that is generated in that area and so why would we want to encourage a magnet that would bring more traffic to an area that is already overtaxed? Mansfield: Mr. Mayor, Commissioner Cavener, I think you may want to approve a development that increases connectivity throughout the area. These improvements do not occur without a development coming in to make them. Cavener: Right. I agree with you on that. I hear you on that and I think that is a very important point of consideration for the Council to take in when rendering a decision tonight. Simison: And maybe that might be something I would be interested to hear if Justin could comment on as -- it has been either 11,000 more trips that are happening on Meridian City Council November 21,2023 Page 41 of 65 Meridian Road or they are -- of all the trips happening on Meridian Road are 11,000 people making turning movements onto this network now that weren't going that direction before. I -- I don't know if there is a way to -- it -- when they do TIS's if they really make a distinction to that level of how many of them are captured from people already going that direction versus they are brand new, because they would not -- but for that there they would never have gone to that place in the first place when it comes to the numbers. Mansfield: Mr. Mayor, I actually just checked with our traffic engineer Leah and she mentioned that the retail component there are pass-by trips that are already on the network that just make the left movement. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: On the traffic engineering portion and this might be a question for Leah, because I brought this up before. The left turn lane from -- you are on Meridian Road heading north and you want to turn left onto Waltman, is that still -- and it was brought up how short of a lane that is in photos. Is there going to be -- I was trying to remember from your report was there going to be double turn lanes going left onto Waltman as you are headed northbound on Meridian Road to turn left? Kelsey: That was part of our phase one, two and three improvements, yes. So, the existing single turn lane has about 500 feet of storage and we were proposing doing restriping to increase that to about 475 feet. Hoaglun: Okay. Thank you. Kelsey: Per lane. So, that would be a total of 950. Hoaglun: Okay. Mansfield: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Hoaglun, if I may, I will say that Hawkins is committed to constructing phase one and two improvements and phase three improvement cannot be constructed at this time, because it requires a right of way take and a condemnation of a building, frankly. You can see in blue here what it would require. However, we are also providing space on our site plan for a future right of way take to allow that southbound lane to continue along our property. So, that is another kind of -- to go back to Council Member Cavener's question about why, you know, we are willing to create conditions for future expansion when that time comes and ACHD finds it appropriate to -- or the site across Waltman from us redevelops. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Meridian City Council November 21,2023 Page 42 of 65 Hoaglun: Yeah. To follow up. I have another question that's perplexing and we have this situation in other parts of our community and that's Ruddy Lane where it connects into the subdivision to the west. Waltman is designated as a collector and it would go into a subdivision that is not a collector and, like I said, we have got experience elsewhere. Does that have to -- can that be emergency access only -- and this might get a question for Deputy Chief Bongiorno. Does that have to be through? Because one of the things I see is I will -- I -- and it's been pointed out -- I think more people from that west subdivision will use going to Meridian Road that way, then, let's not make a change here if we can make that emergency access only, they continue doing what their routine is already and that makes one component of less traffic put that in place. But I don't know if that has to be emergency or if it has to be open at that Ruddy Lane connection. Bongiorno: Yeah. I think in the other times that this has been brought through that was -- sorry, Mr. Mayor and Council, that -- that question was -- had been brought up. It needs to be open. It really does. Because anytime -- especially once we get Linder overpass through, that now gives Station 6 a route to get through there, because -- because currently right now that whole subdivision is one way in and one way out through Linder. So, for some reason if Linder gets blocked off our only other option is over off Ten Mile at Verbena to get into that subdivision to get all the way across. So, it really needs to be open. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Hoaglun. Overton: And, chief, as opposed to emergency access? I mean -- I'm just trying to figure out what -- what works for both purposes here. Not having through traffic, but having -- allowing fire trucks to get through when -- if there was an emergency. Bongiorno: Again, I -- sorry. Mr. Mayor and Council, Councilman, I would rather see it open open, like no -- no blockage. Because, again, gates, bollards, chains, all of that causes delays and everything that we do is time sensitive and if we can just get through, then, that makes it a ton better. Hoaglun: Okay. Bongiorno: So, that connection, the connection to Corporate, the connection of Waltman, it's all part of the grand scheme of things to get an effective firefighting force to that area in case something happens and when we have a structure fire in a multi- family dwelling, it's all hands on deck and we need everybody there as quickly as possible. Hoaglun: Understand. Meridian City Council November 21,2023 Page 43 of 65 McKay: Mr. Mayor, if I -- if I could also chime in on -- on Councilman Hogan's question. Ada County Highway District -- our -- our conditions of approval state that we shall connect to Ruddy Drive and we -- Ruddy is a collector through us. So, I have no front- on housing on Ruddy. It goes -- Ruddy goes in, turns into Kearney, it's all collector, detached walks, no front-on housing, so -- so, it would not put any burden. The other thing is -- Ethan mentioned -- if we are going to capture traffic in their commercial development and reduce the number of trips on the arterials, then, we want those people to come over to Target, instead of going to another store that may be further away, such as Fred Meyer or Albertson's, but they can come to Target, they stay on the collector network, go back in through -- so on our collector and back into their subdivision and we are reducing trips. So, I think the big issue is trip capture and I think Councilman Cavener -- you know, he is trying to wrap his mind around capacity issues and thresholds. I mean we have a lot of intersections in the City of Meridian right now that exceed ACHD's threshold during the p.m. peak or the a.m. peak. It's not unusual. Go over to the mall at Christmas. Now, that's -- that's the extreme. But -- but what I'm saying is if we can capture traffic I don't think you are going to see 10,000 additional people driving down Meridian Road to go to Target. But you are going to see people that are already on Meridian Road and going, hey, there is a restaurant, there is Target. Let's whip in. We will eat, then, we will go to Target, we will buy groceries, then, we will head south after this traffic kind of, you know, filters out. You know, we -- we are trying to balance everything and I think that's -- you know, we are -- we are -- we are mitigating and we are going to be spending -- those bridges are six or eight hundred thousand apiece and we have got to build two of them and we are building collector roadways and detached ten foot paths and 14 foot detached paths. We are doing everything we can to maximize the interconnectivity and the ability for people to come and go in this area and in this section and if we do nothing, then, I guess we have all failed I think, because this is an opportunity to do something to make this a better connected section. This section has always been problematic. Forever. As long as I can remember. So, I don't think you are -- in my personal opinion you are not just rubber stamping this saying, oh, well, I guess this is as good as it gets. We have worked our tail off to get where we are today and they are still going to be working with ACHD and on what -- you know, there are other options, other -- other things that we can do and we have hired the best person to do that. She's designed your whole Meridian downtown network, so -- so we feel confident that -- that we have got the best team put together and we will be working in tandem to mitigate. Thank you. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Don't go too far, Becky, please. Change the topic just quickly from traffic to housing. Can you share with the folks here about how you choosing -- how you chose the housing that you chose and the number of multi-family versus the townhomes and the single family and the way that you did it, so that there is understanding? And I'm asking that, because as Council President Hoaglun kindly asked all of our folks that gave testimony what they would prefer to have there, can you -- can you give a contrast Meridian City Council November 21,2023 Page 44 of 65 to -- to doing single family versus what you have chosen to do? And -- and the reasons? Why is it -- is it, you know, financial? It doesn't pencil? Is it -- is there something to do with, you know, vehicle trips or just -- kind of give a context for how you chose what you did, so -- so, there is some understanding for myself as well. McKay: Madam Mayor, Council Woman Perreault, that's -- that's a good question and I -- I believe it stems from the fact that it was -- in your Comprehensive Plan it promotes a diversity of housing and especially the fact that this had been designated as a mixed use community. So, the staff -- if you read some of those definitions in your Comprehensive Plan, it talks about alley load townhomes, attached, detached single family and multi-family and so, obviously, in today's marketplace doing just single product is not wise, because we are trying to provide housing for different size families, different lifestyles and definitely different incomes and, you know, if we can do like a cottage type home on a small lot and a newlywed couple can get into that, great. If somebody can't afford that and they have to rent, then, we can provide rental. If we do all single family the trip generation goes up, because single family is like 10.57 vehicle trips per day. Whereas the multi-family and the townhomes are less, because the families are obviously smaller. We need to have sustainable developments and diversity is the key, especially if we continue to have high interest rates or we slip into a recession next year. Obviously, we want to create projects that can -- are not just another subdivision with a single product and they are all 5,000 square foot lots or 4,000 square foot lots -- something that can provide housing opportunities through different economic climates. Simison: Council, additional questions? Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, I do have a question for ACHD when it comes to the -- the traffic plan as presented by the applicant's representative and problems with phase one, phase two, that they are proposing to build and get your insights into that, Justin. Thank you. Lucas: Good evening, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. I apologize for my attire tonight -- although I am wearing the brand. I'm a brand ambassador. But we were doing casual week at ACHD and so I didn't -- I didn't put on a tie for you. But I have been here so many times I thought you would forgive me. My name is Justin Lucas. I'm here representing the Ada County Highway District and glad to do my best to answer any questions you may have. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor and Justin, the applicant is proposing a phase one and phase two that they would be funding and to make happen and say that's going to -- at least allow this development to function and we know the problems with the interchange and -- and the lack of functionality at peak times. What -- I just want ACHD's perspective on that and -- and your -- your views. Lucas: Mr. Mayor, Council President Hoaglun, so ACHD -- and I do want to just reference the record. That's important, because I can't really go beyond the record Meridian City Council November 21,2023 Page 45 of 65 when it comes to ACHD's comments on this application. I will reference the letter from October 18th, 2023, where ACHD provided a response to the phase one, phase two, phase three proposal -- or concept proposal from -- from the applicant and in that response we -- we basically say, in summary, that we are not -- as part of this application recommending that the phase one, phase two, phase three improvements be part of this application. So, that's what our letter says and that's what I can represent tonight. So, although the applicant provided that information to the city, ACHD -- and I recommend you do -- if you have an opportunity to read that letter. We did not revise our staff report or our conditions of approval and we did not recommend that those improvements presented by the applicant be included as part of any conditions of approval. The basic reasons for that are outlined in the letter. The analysis provided was very targeted to the Waltman Lane intersection. As most of you are aware, this is a complicated area when it comes to transportation. We are directly adjacent to the ITD interchange. There are other intersections in very close proximity to this intersection that operate all in tandem and so we were, essentially -- based on the analysis and what was provided to us, ACHD was uncomfortable recommending that those improvements be included as a condition of approval or some type of approval -- for this approval. To be clear, I'm not saying that there may not be -- the improvements are not needed in the future at this intersection. I'm not saying that at all. What I am saying is ACHD is not recommending that the proposal as presented by the applicant be included as part of their approval. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Follow up, Justin, then. To make sure we understand the process completely, because you do have the jurisdiction of the roads and I have no idea what the Council is going to do here. I'm conflicted myself on this. But if this were to go forward and we say, yeah, we think phase one and two, that -- that really helps. What -- what -- does that put you in a bad spot? Does that -- do you say, no, you are not going to do that? Help me understand that scenario. Lucas: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Hoaglun, I think it is -- it wouldn't be ideal to place the applicant in that position where they have presented a proposal that has, essentially, been rejected by ACHD and for the city, then, to require that, I think it places the applicant -- the -- the applicant in a difficult situation. As I said, this is -- there is -- this is kind of a nuanced response. I'm not saying that this area is operating today or will operate in the future without congestion. That's not what I'm saying. I'm just saying that the potential solutions likely fall outside of this one intersection and will be part of a larger improvement that would be looked at -- as a -- as a larger project for overall improvement in this area and that can include a broader analysis of a much larger area, including the Meridian interchange, the intersection at Overland, the intersection at Corporate, both of those intersections, and maybe even beyond that looking at widening beyond just the intersection. The proposal, as I said, was very targeted and I think ACHD is just uncomfortable allowing minor modifications with striping and things like Meridian City Council November 21,2023 Page 46 of 65 that, which is presented at a very high level in this document that you -- that was provided. At this time we are just not there and maybe we get there over time, but we didn't feel it was appropriate to condition that on the applicant. Simison: Maybe Justin -- Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: -- would it be safe to say that once ACHD is aware of what's going to be built in this location at that point in time might be the most appropriate time to evaluate the full needs of this area for long term improvements? Lucas: Mr. Mayor, Members of Council, I think so. This application -- especially the application related to -- I think what is referenced as the 1-84 and Meridian Road project, is an annexation, rezone and a Comprehensive Plan amendment. At that level ACHD is basically just providing a high level feedback. You will notice that we don't provide -- when we get to a preliminary plat, something like that, ACHD kicks in a more -- a higher level of feedback when we have more information and more details. I think working with the applicant when it comes to right of way dedication, that would occur during the platting phase, not during this phase of the -- of the application and so -- and I'm specifically referencing the Meridian -- the -- I just want to make sure I say it correctly -- 1-84 and Meridian Road project. So, yeah, there are going to be future opportunities to look at this, whether the applicant is directly participating or they are participating through our impact fee program, which, you know, all of development pays impact fees and maybe there is a broader improvement needed in this area. We would want all of that to be very transparent. I think we would need a deeper level of analysis, conceptual designs. I think it's not -- it would only be fair to the city for the city to see these impacts and potential changes to the -- the network out there and with this application we just didn't feel it was appropriate to require that and that's what we explained in our letter and staff report. Simison: Sorry, Councilman Cavener, I don't know if I cut you off. If you had a follow- up question. Cavener: Mr. Mayor, you asked the same question I was going to ask much more eloquently. So, thank you. Simison: Okay. So, Council, any further questions for ACHD or the applicants at this time? Okay. Hate to do this everybody, but I have had a request for another recess. So, we are going to go ahead and take a ten minute recess. Does that work or -- Councilman Cavener? Cavener: That would -- Mr. Mayor, that would be helpful. I have got a seven year old that's up a little past his bedtime, so if I can get him put down to bed, then, I won't have any more interruptions this evening. Meridian City Council November 21,2023 Page 47 of 65 Simison: We will try to continue at 9.15. Should give you 13 minutes. Cavener: I should be -- I should be good for -- for that. Thank you very much. Simison: Thank you. We stand in recess. (Recess: 9.02 p.m. to 9.15 p.m.) Simison: All right. Council, we will go ahead and come back from recess. If you remember correctly, we left off where Council appeared to be finished with their questions, but I will let you pick it up for whatever dialogue you would like to have or direction you would like to go from discussion, closing the public hearing, continuing to ask questions, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Yeah. I think if the Council is supportive, at least leaving the meeting open for at least some initial deliberation in case a question pops up that we need maybe better clarification of the applicant or Justin or someone else in the audience. So, if there is no objections I think let's -- let's go ahead and maybe just move into deliberations. Simison: Okay. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: I'm happy to at least start and a couple of us I think have talked at length tonight about the amount of times we have seen different variations of, you know, an application request in this area and there have been some that I have been enthusiastically supportive of and some that I have been pretty lukewarm in supportive. I think it's a -- before maybe I even begin in my deliberations I just -- I want to thank Becky for picking up this project and trying to bring it to the finish line in light of Matt's departure. I know this was a project he was working really really hard on when we lost him and I know that this project probably carries a lot of emotional toll on Becky as well in -- in light of Matt's passing. During Becky's kind of introductory comments she asked I think a really fair question, which is, you know, if not now when and that has been the question for me that I have been struggling to answer all night long, because I have -- I have some big concerns about this project. I have traffic safety concerns. Certainly heard saying -- maybe added concerns from police and fire. I recognize I think that the impact to the schools is somewhat smaller compared to what we maybe initially thought -- what I initially thought it would be. It's still going to have an impact on our schools. But I just think that this project has a unique ability to negatively impact the quality of life Meridian City Council November 21,2023 Page 48 of 65 of so many of our residents and it's through no fault of the applicant. I know we say that sometimes like I love the project, I just don't love the location, but to me -- for me this is the biggest challenge with this project is not the multi-family or the single family or the commercial or the retail, all of that I think is really well thought out, which has been consistent with -- with Becky, with Hawkins' reputation -- it is just the amount of negative impact and this really cool project that will generate a lot of interest -- will have on an already exhausted corridor and so I could mirror your question of -- of the highway district to meet answers the question Becky asked, which is if not now when, and as much as it pains me, I think the when is we have a better understanding and, frankly, a funded plan from the highway district about the way we are going to circulate traffic in and around this particular project. So, it's unlikely I will be supportive of the request tonight. Not because I don't love the project, it's because I think it has the potential to be so successful that it's going to exacerbate an already glaring problem. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Just -- just some thoughts that I have kind of jotted down as this has been going on. You know, one of the things that I look at this project, you know, this is kind of part of our city core. It's -- it's right here within this main boundary and we are being asked to approve -- which anytime we have in-fill development we like to do that, because that's closest to the services, all the infrastructure is in place, that is what we want to do, we want to grow from the middle out and we take a project that is in that circle, if you will, and say, no, we are not going to do that, what we are doing, then, is taking development and pushing it out. So, that's a conundrum I have there is going, okay, we want things closer to the middle and not pushing things out, which will have an impact on that intersection. It's just we are -- we are putting it someplace else, mitigating it to some degree, because they can use Linder Road overpass one of these days and Locust Grove and different things, but if you put 20,000 people or 20,000 cars in south Meridian, there is going to be impact and some of the comments about, well, these are pass through, they are going to be going somewhere, they are doing something here, you know, there is -- that's -- so, there is that conundrum for me, pushing it to -- to the outer limits and also to that I think Councilman Cavener, you know, brings up some good points about what is the plan and we need to have that plan put in place and sometimes we have to push it to make that happen. Otherwise, it never gets done. You know, that kind of plays into it. Okay. What are we -- what do we do here? There were a couple of comments I think -- I don't know if Ken Freeze is still here. He talked about a convention center. Would love the idea. Absolutely love the idea. Where is the money coming from? We are looking at some plans for that, working with people to see what we can do for something in the future, but that's quite a ways down the road. Pausing development, take a breather he said, we looked at that as Council here a while back and talk to -- and asked counsel can you give us the tutorial on moratoriums. You know, we are governed by state code and, the Local Land Use Planning Act and that's one of the things -- we just can't arbitrarily say, oh, we are going to stop. We are going to stop, let things catch up. There is private property rights Meridian City Council November 21,2023 Page 49 of 65 involved. We have a Comprehensive Plan as required by the state of Idaho. We have those in place and that's why there is entitlement on that now. There is a commercial designation that someone can come in and use and, then, ACHD would get involved at a more granular level, those types of things. We don't want to have commercial right up against residential. That's why some of this plan is very attractive to have residential and have it move and get larger and, then, have the commercial end and that's kind of what the Council was looking at early on was we were trying to look at different things separately and mixed use in one -- one hand, you know, and -- but yet doing them in separate -- separate applications. So, that's why we kind of brought this together trying to figure this out and that's the thing about this Comprehensive Plan, there was a lot of mention -- single family homes. Single family homes. Doesn't meet the definition for what this FLU is for that area. That's not what it's going to be, so -- and we do want to provide a variety of housing in our community. So, those are just kind of my thoughts that I'm working through, trying to figure out what -- what does this mean for our community. Is it do nothing? Is it doing something where we add other connection and activity to? But is that the best we could do? Or is there something better? I don't know. It's -- it's one of those tough ones. Just some of my thoughts on this. Overton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: Along that same theme, initially, just because of my background, I got caught up in looking at the traffic -- and don't smile, Justin, you know that's what I do. I understand the intersection of Waltman and Meridian. It's made of concrete with rebar. If it was just asphalt it would be pretty easy to talk about how we could reconfigure things, but we built this to last for a very long time and really not be changed. So, now we want to bring in a big development, but we don't really have that means of just changing the intersection. We don't have any extra right of way to purchase. We have got a very expensive roadway that we built and it doesn't appear that it's going to live up to the demand. The one thing I do like -- and there is several things I like and don't like. There is one thing I do like is the amount of connectivity that this brings to that area. We keep talking about Meridian and Waltman, but in reality what you are doing by turning Waltman into a collector and, then, connecting it to Corporate is you are -- you are bringing two different roadways back out to Meridian Road. You are also allowing traffic to use Southeast 5th and go straight out to Franklin Road and, then, use Ruddy to go west out to Linder. If it didn't have all that connectivity this would be a really easy decision. I wouldn't be supporting it at all. But looking at the fact that you have got four different ways out at a minimum to get through and if you use Ruddy to the west you, then, literally have four different roads out onto Linder Road and, really, in thinking about it -- I don't think this is a situation where we are going to have a lot of people from this new development driving west through those residential areas. In fact, I think we are just going to be as people from those residential areas to the west driving back through the apartments, through the single family, through the R-15, because they are going to be trying to get to the Target store. They are going to be trying to get across to the interstate to get on the interstate. They are going to be trying to get to Winco and Meridian City Council November 21,2023 Page 50 of 65 Home Depot. Not too many people are going to be headed west to try to get to an overpass over Linder when it's completed. I do think the Linder overpass is going to have a big significant impact, just like Locust Grove did when it was built. But none of us know what that impact is going to be. It's going to take cars off the road for those people that know that they can cross the interstate. Those are not the folks that need to get on the interstate. I watched Locust Grove. I lived right off of it when it was built. When the estimates came up for what the traffic count was going to be and they opened the doors and that thing took off, it exceeded those literally from the first week. If you build it they will come and that's what's going to happen to Linder Road overpass. I come from a subdivision where I have stood in front of this Council, as you did, and complained and worried and warned about a project coming through that was going to bring traffic through the development I live in and I commend every one of you for doing what you did and for doing the homework that you did tonight. The bottom line comes down to at some point something's going to go in there and having a project that's designed to this level, it's not huge warehouses next to the residential, but actually designed in such a way that you have got a buffer of single family next to the residential and, then, it buffers to R-15 before R-40 and still, because of all the amenities they put in place, still only has a 10.72 units per acre total development. It is pretty impressive. And I got to admit when you are making a run at how to try to fit this in and buffer that residential, I don't know that you are going to get a better option at any point in time. To, then, put the commercial next to it, it completely makes sense. I still would like to see a connecting road between the two of them, even if it was tucked back closer to the interstate. But I think these two work well. My -- my overwhelming concern I'm still struggling with is how that's going to impact that traffic on Meridian or Waltman. I have to remember -- we keep focusing on two times. We keep focusing on this window of time in a.m. and this window in time in p.m. and the day is made of 24 hours and a retail store generally does not hit that a.m., p.m. They are open all day open to close. And I think sometimes we get a little tunnel vision when we only worry about those certain amounts of time in the day and we forget about the rest of the day when those traffic numbers are well within reason and they flow well. I don't know what the long range plans for this intersection can be and, obviously, ACHD right now does not either. We can't make any promises about changes to the intersection and I think it would be improper for any of us to try to make -- even best guesses on what it will be or what it would take, but I think the way you have laid out Corporate, the way you have laid out the connectivity around that, I just don't think for the neighbors and people involved, that you are going to find a better project than what's in front of you now. I think you can continue to hold out to try to find one, but I have done that and you -- sometimes you have to understand that what you are looking at is the best project you are going to have for that area and, like I said, I'm still trying to decide what my final decision is going to be on this, but I think the developers in this case -- both of you working together, coming together, presenting together, showing how you are working together and how all this is going to work and how these roadways are going to be built has gone a long way to showing your partnership together and how you want to make this work in the community and I appreciate it. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Meridian City Council November 21,2023 Page 51 of 65 Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: I really appreciate hearing from my fellow Council and their well-spoken thoughts. I echo the gratitude for having you here this evening. It -- I have never been at a public hearing -- and I have done this for seven years. Have had more well researched crowd than this one. I had the opportunity to chair the Planning and Zoning hearing for the Costco that went in on Ten Mile and even then we didn't have folks that came with -- with such great stats. So, thank you all for the time and effort. This is a dream for us to have residents come and share with us these things. We often sit in this room without much feedback making very large decisions for our -- our 135,000 residents and so thank you very much for being here and thank you to the applicants for all of the time invested to answer your questions. Sort of guessing what we were going to want to know, knowing how our Council makes decisions and trying to come as prepared as possible. I agree with Councilman Overton that it was exceptionally rare to have two -- I have never done a hearing in this many years where both of them are open at the same time, like we are doing tonight. It just doesn't happen and it doesn't happen that we have two developers with different ideas, different projects, totally different concepts to come together and work together like this. So, that is not the reason that I'm making my decision, but I just think that it's a -- it's a pretty cool thing that is --just doesn't happen. So, myself and my fellow Council, all have different things about this project that we really appreciate and really like and things that might be challenging for us in the decision. For myself, my -- my main concern I think is the -- is the Comprehensive Plan -- plan map -- Comprehensive Plan map amendment. It's a mouthful. Anytime that we make a change to the comp plan it's a huge -- hugely important decision, because of the nature of the comp plan. I had the privilege of being involved in that at the beginning and we do take changes to those very seriously. There was a quote that was presented of our Mayor about that and he has stuck to his -- I think it was -- it was intended to maybe be a negative quote, but -- but what he said was is we were going to make it harder for comp plan amendments to happen and -- and we have. He -- he made a proposal to only allow those amendments to be made twice a year and that didn't exist before he brought that to us. So, he did -- he did hold to his promise to our community to make comp plan map amendments a more rare thing than they used to be and I kind of doubted that that would actually be -- I was concerned that that would limit our development community, but it hasn't. It's actually -- it's real work -- worked out really well. So, when we have one of those amendments before us I take it very seriously, because that document is a very clear statement of what our public has communicated to us and so to that end, moving away from the mixed use community for me is the biggest concern. I really like the designs and the concepts of both of these projects. I like the pad sites and the shops and everything about the commercial area, except for the large retail, because I think that everything else about that represents a mixed use community, except for those large retail and it's not so much even the amount of square footage. We can have 234,000 square feet of retail, but in several fewer types of -- of buildings than a large -- than a big box store. So, that's the main concern for me in regard that. That to me ties into traffic. That's where the traffic concerns come from me. All of the same concerns as my fellow Council in terms of turn lanes and actual design and ACHD's presentation, but for me the -- the driving factor in Meridian City Council November 21,2023 Page 52 of 65 all of that is probably the big box store style and it's -- it's nothing to do with my purse. I shopped with them. It's nothing -- I'm not like an anti-big box store person that, you know, buys everything online and not -- not one of those at all. But I think that that is the challenge for me that I'm having with this application and -- and that being the location for those. We are going to have a ton of folks coming up from Kuna to use this and they are going to cross over that Meridian Road intersection, which will be something they might not have done before, maybe they would have gone to the Walmart and stayed on the south side, and so I think that's an element we have to consider. We really can't say exactly whether people are already driving over that intersection to go to work or to go home. We don't really have a way to know that. So, I think that that -- you know, those folks that are coming from the -- from Kuna area and the south side, I absolutely believe that with a big box store, which is a store that they can't get going elsewhere, they can't -- there is not another area for them to go to get to that store than this one. Whereas if you have smaller uses, like the mixed use community design, there might be other options for those folks and that they wouldn't come to this area, because there isn't a big box store there that they have access to with other street designs that might accommodate more of the traffic. So, like Councilman Overton, I'm still thinking this through, just sharing a couple of my thoughts and the things that have been the most challenging for me, which is just really taking into account that comp plan change and being really thoughtful about that. I don't have as much concern about the annexation request. I think that that is -- is not -- really not that concerning to me to consider annexing -- or that the applicant would need the annexation without approval of the other request. I think it's -- like I said, I think it's -- it's pretty great to have these two applicants and applications be heard together, but I also think that that's created limitations for them as well in that we are not now allowed to vote separately on them, where -- where we may have -- it's my understanding that we are not permitted to vote separately on them. Simison: I believe that we will have to take two separate votes on both of them. Perreault: Okay. I apologize then. We will have separate votes on each one. So, we could approve one and not the other. Simison: Correct. Perreault: Okay. Thank you. I apologize for that misunderstanding. And really that's -- that summarizes my thoughts at this time. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Yeah. And Council Woman Perreault brings up an interesting point about the big box stores and that's the thing that troubles me, too, is there is an entitlement already in place for that western property and it is something that a retailer could come in there and say we want to be there and even though it's not up against the freeway, if Meridian City Council November 21,2023 Page 53 of 65 we don't annex all that, they can -- they are entitled to that and that's something I don't want to see, because we have experience with big box against residential and it's -- it's not a good thing and what control do we have over the access points and the requirements and all those types of things -- where here we have a player who is coming in with their two plans that blend together that although ACHD would be a party to this, then, they figure out the road situation and -- and there is things at play where the developer is a participant with their wallet as well. So, that kind of comes into that as well. So, it's -- everyone could lose here. You walk out, if it gets denied you think you are a winner and you end up being the loser. So, it's just one of those things that having served on Council previously as well and seeing things as they develop and what think happens doesn't happen and vice-versa, you know, we -- I want to make sure we have a project that -- that is better than what it could be -- and -- and I lean that way with something like this. So, just -- just a thought regarding that entitlement that -- because that weighs heavy on me. Simison: So, just some thoughts because this is what's great about, quite frankly, it's a fascinating project in, you know community design, community development and what will happen versus what may or may not happen all the way around. You know, I think that we should all put our best thoughts -- maybe we did on the record in a time capsule and say 20 years who got it right in terms of what occurs. Question was asked by someone earlier who drives to the intersection at 5.00 o'clock. Well, I can tell you for the last year and change I had to. Locust Grove was closed. That's my normal route -- route home. I drove through here, along with everyone else, who normally took -- took Locust Grove. Traffic was completely different than what had previously -- previously been the two years before that and, you know, we are constantly -- constantly evolving, changing traffic patterns, because of all the road construction that's occurring throughout south Meridian, north Meridian, all over Meridian and so, yeah, I got to -- got the fun of going through that every, you know, two times a week at 5.00 o'clock when I got to go home with those hours, but at the same time, you know, it's, oh, Kuna has got to go there. Well, great. That means instead of getting off the interstate and going left and backing up the -- trying to get -- trying to get over Overland, they are going to go right and they are going to go in there to shop and I don't think that they are going to go down to Kuna, then, turn around and come back and make additional trips -- it's going to disrupt the traffic pattern. I don't know what it's going to do, that's -- but that's just -- you know, it's going to be different. That's -- it may make it so much easier for people heading south on Overland, because so many people are going right and turning in here. I don't know. But it won't be the same I can tell you that, one way or the other. If this were to occur and all these changes exist and State Highway 16 goes in and Linder Road -- for how long, that's what my statements were before, you know, it's -- you know. But that occurs on Eagle Road every day. That occurs on Locust Grove every day. I was so excited -- thank you, Justin, for two lane road down Locust Grove. Now, I -- I never used to have traffic jams on Locust Grove. Now I get them. More people are driving that road, because it's been nicely improved. So, that means that -- that means Eagle Road actually has fewer people on it right now, because people have transitioned. That's what's going to happen with all of our roads. So, if -- we are trying to outguess what's going to happen by our -- the decisions -- the road network, I don't Meridian City Council November 21,2023 Page 54 of 65 think we are going to be able to do it as a Council. I don't think ACHD can do it. We can predict a model. We can Al. We can darkhorse it. Whatever we want to try to figure it out. But I don't think we are going to know for a fact until each retailer goes in, until each decision point is made for this area. So, that's just one aspect of the conversation. I think my comments earlier to Justin was -- we all know -- Waltman -- I have been with the city since 2007. Waltman has always been a problem. Even when we got it reconfigured Waltman is still -- has always been a problem. That intersection. Until we know what's going to happen there I don't think that we are really going to figure out a long-term viable solution for the entire area. That's just my two cents. It may be full of concrete and rebar and they all need to be dug up and redone in five, ten years, maybe the other, because until that develops we don't know what the impacts are going to be for that area. The other element kind of going back to the Meridian Development Corporation Destination Downtown entryway to our community. I actually feel like our entryway to the community was -- has been set in stone or set in place for as long as the Corporate Park has been there on this -- on the right-hand side. I don't think you are going to create a monument destination entry point on the left-hand side -- and I'm blind on my right. So, I only have -- I only -- I only look at my left eye, you know, but I -- what I see when I drive in is what I see. I see the auto oriented district of Meridian's entrance in -- into our downtown and that's the way it was set up with the split corridor. That's the way it was -- you know, all -- all the businesses north of Franklin are designed to be driven to, not walk to. So, even as we talked about the mixed use desires for the Waltman area, it's contrary to the transportation network that was set up and designed to deliver people via cars to those areas. If it is a Target, with a Home Depot, with a Winco, with Taco Bell, all -- all the restaurants are right there and they are all there and they create the intersection that -- again, you talk about all the problems in this area, you know, try to get out Wendy's and Taco Bell out of that -- in and out of that parking lot with the -- you know, I don't know if Sonya was here, if she approved that, you know, with -- with those -- it's -- it's a mess, you know, especially during certain times of the day. Especially at lunch hour, you know. And this is just a long way of going through to say there are challenges in this area that are -- been in the making for 30 plus years. The -- the future of this area I think was set in place 30 plus years ago. We have tried to make the -- figure out the best we can. There is still changes that are going to have to evolve in this area over the next 30 years, probably, before -- hopefully it gets right and sometimes that's what it takes is you got to get everything put in place and, then, build around it how you can actually truly navigate and move through it. Kudos to the team of working together. That's -- you know, you delivered what -- what Council asked for, a picture vision and now it's just a matter of whether or not that picture vision meets their desires, their goals and the outcomes for the City of Meridian and we will see where that goes. So, thanks for letting me ramble. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Could we hear from staff or the applicant -- I assume from staff -- if one of these applications were to get approved and the other would not, all of the Meridian City Council November 21,2023 Page 55 of 65 improvements wanted to be done I assume by both applicant -- applicants collectively. I don't know how they had chosen to, quote, unquote, divide the responsibilities regarding infrastructure improvements. But it sounds like Corporate Lane would be required to go through whether either is approved; is that correct? And how does that look for everything else that will be required in terms of sidewalks and whatnot? Allen: Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Perreault, Council, Tanner Creek is -- is planning to complete the improvements for the extension of Corporate. If they failed to do so, the applicant of 1-84 -- the developer of 1-84 and Meridian Road is on the hook for it through their development agreement. Remember that you have a comp plan map amendment for both properties associated with the -- with the 1-84 and Meridian Road project. So, you can't just approve -- I don't know what you have in mind. You can't just approve the Tanner Creek without at least the map amendment for it -- for it to be in. So, they are -- they are intertwined to some degree and -- you know. And if you don't approve the map amendment, then, the proposed development isn't consistent with the-long range plan Did I miss anything, Bill? Nary: No, I would say the same thing as Sonya stated. I mean I guess to maybe move more specific for Council Member Perreault's question, the first -- the first question really is the Comprehend Plan request. If that's not something that Council is in favor of, that does drive the -- the item number two. The annexation is, obviously, independent of that. I mean, again, you can annex the property and not agree with the comp plan amendment, but what that means it, then, would come with whatever it was currently designated on the comp plan. So, that isn't what has been requested, so -- I mean it does make it a little sticky, but certainly you have the ability to do that separately. Allen: Just another note, if I may, Mr. Mayor. I really don't know which direction you are contemplating on this, but if you would approve a map amendment for both properties and change the land use designation, you have a development -- or if you would not approve the Tanner Creek property you have a development agreement that -- approved uses that would not be consistent with the future land use map designation as well. So, it's kind of a slippery slope if you don't move both of them forward. Simison: What I'm hearing is either yes or no to both is the preferred way for the city's approach. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun, Hoaglun: I was going to ask this earlier for Sonya -- for staff here. There was something in your application for the Hawkins proposal about the construction of the Linder Road overpass scheduled in their work plan -- in ITD's work plan and consideration should be given to inclusion of the provision in the DA which limits development to a large retail store at this time and delays retail two building and pads Meridian City Council November 21,2023 Page 56 of 65 three and four until such time as the Linder Road overpass is completed and that was something -- it was at a staff recommendation. I'm trying to remember. Did the Commission agree to that? Is that just something that we should think about? Allen: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Hoaglun, Council, the Commission did not agree to that. That was a suggestion by ACHD of how you might mitigate some of the traffic impacts for now. Hoaglun: And Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: I might have the Hawkins representative come. Ethan. Kind of address that situation. Maybe the timing of what you have in mind. Mansfield: Yeah. Absolutely. Mr. Mayor, Council Member Hoaglun. So, first of all, the Commission did not place -- not recommend placing any restrictions, just to clarify. Secondly, our retail one has an agreement with -- or a requirement, rather, for co- tenancy with retail two. So, we could not do this deal if there was a restriction placed on the -- frankly, the pads -- the one retail to the challenge is that, you know, we invest in the entire center and if we don't have certainty that we can bring shops, pads in with the retail one, that makes it financially unviable for us to really develop the center. Hoaglun: And Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Follow up. And also, really, the uncertainty exists to the economy. I mean we can -- if we were to approve this and let you go at it, that -- it's not to say that it's just going to be done boom, boom, boom, so -- Mansfield: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Hoaglun, that's absolutely correct. I mean as it is now we are looking at a 2026 -- spring of 2026 completion for retail one, but if there is uncertainty at all outside -- I mean there is, obviously, economic uncertainty as you say. Additional statutory uncertainty -- or I guess additional imposition of certainty really throws another wrench in whether this deal ever gets done. Simison: And if I could just add, you know, in perspective, I think the benefit of Linder Road overpass is that it alleviates congestion at the Meridian area overall generally. I don't know that it contributes mightily to allowing access to or from the site location long term and -- and we are going to get that 4.3 million from the state. So, one step closer to making Linder a reality. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Meridian City Council November 21,2023 Page 57 of 65 Perreault: Glad we kept the public hearing open. Something that's still floating around in my head is this presentation by our ACHD representative here and he said that ACHD didn't approve this phase one, phase two, phase three concept as it sits and so that being said, is there any chance -- and I don't know if -- if -- who you would like to invite up here -- maybe Lucas could come up here, if that's okay with the Mayor, and let us know if there is a chance that the applicant's proposal would be denied once they officially presented plans to ACHD. So, if the applicant -- in other words, if the applicant chooses to move forward with the design that ACHD isn't saying no to right now, but hasn't said yes to, I don't know where that leaves us is essentially what I'm trying to get it. I'm not able to say yes to the -- I don't -- I'm not a traffic specialist, so I can't say, yeah, phase one, two and three will solve the problem and that's what, essentially, I feel like we are being asked to decide in our decision making. Mansfield: Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Perreault, I think it's worth noting that -- a couple of things. Number one is that without some sort of more concrete understanding of what's going on that property, it's impossible for us to move forward towards a solution with ACHD. That's -- you know. And that's kind of what Justin and I talked about recently after he came and discussed. He came over and I said, hey, we are -- we are willing to work with you to understand what you guys need here and we understand that -- you know, that -- that you don't have enough detail here. We can provide more, but we -- we understand what we can actually construct here, what we can get close to building, because without a land use approval we can't make progress with ACHD and we are committed to -- absolutely committed to making progress with ACHD. Our -- our shopping center tenants desire these improvements and we want to deliver them. We are not simply trying to take the path of least resistance, we are trying to make this thing work and so that's my commitment to talk this commitment to making it work. We want to talk more with ACHD, but it's first without some sort of land -- you know, what we need to talk to ACHD about a specific proposal. Simison: And to add in -- I'm going to put words in Justin's mouth, but there is also the Federal Highway Administration -- there is many other people that are going to be involved long term to figure out what would need -- what could or would be done, not just on the local roads, but the impacts to the other roads around there. So, it's a larger conversation that if this is approved I think that they are going to have to work hard to come up with something before things move forward with a better plan. Lucas: Yeah. Mr. Mayor and Members of Council, I don't really have much more to offer, except for what's in our letter. Just to reiterate, we -- we reviewed all the information that was provided. We provided our analysis and findings to the city through our standard process and staff reports. One of the challenges with this development -- and I came to the -- the -- for Meridian development is -- is all that has been requested in front of the city today, essentially, is an annexation, rezone and Comprehensive Plan map amendment, which the detail available to ACHD is limited at that level and we don't have the ability to directly apply conditions until we get to some other type of application. So, I'm not trying to, you know, dodge the question, I'm just -- I'm just trying provide the context of how it's not always a perfect system, we -- we Meridian City Council November 21,2023 Page 58 of 65 provide all the information we can, but I do want to be clear both to modify Waltman Lane and Meridian Road -- as of right now are not accepted or approved by ACHD. Could the applicant provide further information and further analysis and seek some sort of subsequent approval or hardship at ACHD to do something to support their development, I think that's certainly possible and it appears that's what their intention is, but I'm not going beyond that. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: We are talking about a concept plan. Lucas: Right. Perreault: And I get that. If -- if the intersection were to be altered per the proposed -- proposal tonight, the different phases, or something similar, adding an additional lane north and south at some point, additional turn lanes, do you anticipate that that would not -- that would not, I guess, benefit the future long-term decisions that need to be made in this area? In other words, if you -- if you come to an agreement with the applicant, that sounds to me -- what I heard from you before was that may or may not actually work well in the long term. Even if you come to an agreement with them once you do have more detail, that is something that -- I'm not in your shoes and I can't make that decision for you, but as we have all mentioned here tonight, it's -- this is critically important for us and so we have -- we have sat here many nights and talked about decisions that we didn't make and now we are trying to fix a problem that we had made, that we -- you know. So -- so, we can't look in the future, we are not prophets, but we can ask the right questions at the time that we are making the decisions and so if you truly believe that there is not a single type of -- I'm not putting words in your mouth, but if there is not a solution that the applicant can present in any way, shape, or form, that will benefit the future of this area for -- from the transportation department's perspective, that is important and I know you -- you can't say that, you know what's even going to happen, because you all haven't designed that. But if you have hesitation and there is concern that we are going to be redoing this intersection again or that it's going to negatively affect what might be done in this odd interaction in our community, I think it's important for us to know. Lucas: Mr. Mayor and Council Woman Perreault, you know, once again, I -- I don't mean to do this -- to try and be evasive, but ACHD provided a letter with all of our analysis on this specific question and related to the phases and all that, so -- and I have to be careful, because when we make decisions and we are issuing these statements, this is ACHD's official position and I'm here tonight to attempt to try and clarify where I can and so I bring us back to that documentation, because in the end that is ACHD's official position and that being said, I can provide I think this context, which is sometimes -- it's easy and I think in a land use decision to connect a specific improvement at a specific intersection to a specific developer. That's -- that's easy to Meridian City Council November 21,2023 Page 59 of 65 do, because that's what we are here talking about tonight. But it is very fair to say that this development is one portion -- if approved is -- certainly would add more traffic to what is an area that already has a lot of traffic and so I think what the data actually does show that we have shared is that regardless of what happens with this development, ACHD, working with the City of Meridian based on your priorities and your priority lists, may need to seek improvements at this intersection regardless of what your decision is tonight. I mean I think that's a -- it's a fair -- I think it's a fair assumption based on the data that has been presented to you, because as the city continues to grow and develop there will be more growth and traffic across the city, including at this development, and I really appreciate what the Mayor said earlier as you contemplate these decisions and as you consider the traffic information, it's a growing and changing and dynamic system and the impacts of new overpasses and new highways and major projects on -- in other parts of the city, new growth to the south and to the north and to the northwest and how all of that works together, we are all, you know, in this together and it's -- it's a dynamic system and so I think that, you know, you -- you have -- your -- I don't envy your position to have to, you know, make these decisions, but we do our best to try and provide as much data as we can with the information that has been presented to us and I think there is a limiting factor in this specific case where we have provided our feedback based on the information that we have and it's -- if the city wants more than that I think we would need to -- you know, it's -- it may not be -- the applicant may not even be able to provide the answer, because the answer may fall to an analysis that goes above and beyond, you know, even the influence of this one single application as you consider all of the things that are happening in and around an interchange. It's a complex system. So, I hope I'm not -- I'm not trying to be evasive. I'm just trying to maybe put it in a little bit of context as you consider your decision. Once again, ACHD does not recommend approval or denial of applications based on traffic impacts. That's not our role. We try to explain the impacts. We have -- we call our level of service -- we call it a planning threshold, which is we want to be transparent about the increase in traffic that's occurring, but traffic in and of itself is a value judgment and a judgment call that everyone -- and there is lots of differences of opinion about what is the level of traffic that is acceptable and this is a struggle that we will continue to have as a community over these next many years as we urbanize. I grew up in southern California, I'm very familiar with traffic and I love it here and we do have certainly increased congestion during certain parts of the day in our county, there is no doubt about that. Comparative to other areas, it's a whole different ballgame and we are all just working together to try and figure this out and decide if -- if -- if it's always wider roads and increased width of the road and more lanes and there is positives and negatives to those approaches and I think that's all the kinds of things that we struggle with and with that I have probably said too much in the context of this application and I appreciate the answer to respond anything else. Overton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Overton. Meridian City Council November 21,2023 Page 60 of 65 Overton: I beat you to the punch. Thank you, Justin. I think the problem is we are trying to ask for information months ahead of the time you guys would be able to give it to us, just because we want to have as much as we can at this moment in time to try to make the best decision. So, I understand what you are saying and we live with it. Simison: Yeah. Thank you, Justin. And my comments earlier about Locust Grove are -- ring true and it's -- it's just a microcosm of life where I used to not go down Locust Grove at all, because it was nothing but Meridian High School students trying to get into Meridian High. You couldn't go that way. Now you can drive right past and not worry about it. Now you got to wait one traffic signal light to turn left onto Franklin in the morning. Problem is two miles down, but not really a problem, just a different -- a different experience, a different time and location. So, yeah, fix it off for us everywhere. That would be great. Council, close the public hearings? More dialogue? You need another break and order some late night snacks? Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: I move that we close the public hearing on H-2021-0099. Perreault: Second. Cavener: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second to close the public on H-2021-0099. Is there discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and the public hearing is closed. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Yeah. This is the one that this Comprehensive Plan map amendment and the annexation portion does have one outstanding issue, requesting a waiver regarding the vehicular connection -- not providing that and just doing the pedestrian between the two. So, Mr. Mayor, after considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File No. H-2021-0099 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 21 st, 2023, and that the request for a waiver to UDC 11-3A-3A.2 be granted and that only a pedestrian experience path would be needed for that area. Overton: Second. Meridian City Council November 21,2023 Page 61 of 65 Simison: I have a motion and a second. Do I have discussion? If not, Clerk will call the roll. Roll Call: Hoaglun, yea; Borton, absent; Cavener, nay; Perreault, nay; Strader, absent; Overton, yea. Simison: Mayor votes ayes. MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. TWO NAYS. TWO ABSENT. MAYOR AYE. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Moving on to the next one, H-2022-0048. Again these are decisions we do not make lightly. There was good testimony as brought out and trying to balance what is the best for this property and for me the entitlement that weighs on this and what that would -- how that would impact people. There are issues with the access in terms of the amount of the -- the amount that they are bringing to this project is -- is something that is good and I think the work with ACHD I think will drive a solution down the road that is much needed for what we have right now. So, with that explanation, Mr. Mayor, I would move approval of -- I will close the public hearing on H-2022-0048. That's my motion. Overton: Second. Simison: Have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on H-2022-0048 Is there discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and the public hearing is closed. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. Simison: Okay. Mr. Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Now that we have closed the public hearing -- get into my head to much. After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File No. H- 2022-0048 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 21 st, 2023, with modifications that the construction of the noise abatement wall and berm -- could -- will be moved from the first phase of development to the first phase of development that's platted adjacent to 1-84. The removal of DA condition number 1-H, which requires the Linder Road overpass to be completed first completion of occupancy -- certificate of occupancy. Sorry. Certificate of occupancy within the development and also deletion of condition of the preliminary plat number 2-C, which requires a bridge to be constructed for vehicles, but it would require the construction of a pedestrian pathway at that site. Overton: Second. Meridian City Council November 21,2023 Page 62 of 65 Simison: I have a motion and a second to approve Item H-2022-0048. Is there discussion? Clerk will call the roll. Roll Call: Hoaglun, yea; Borton, absent; Cavener, nay; Perreault, nay; Strader, absent; Overton, yea. Simison: Mayor votes aye and the item is agreed to. MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. TWO NAYS. TWO ABSENT. MAYOR AYE. Simison: Thank you very much. Appreciate everyone's time and interest and being here on these projects. ORDINANCES [Action Item] 3. Ordinance No. 23-2039: An Ordinance (Petsche Rezone H-2023-0039) for rezone of a parcel of land within Block 5 of F.A. Nourse's Third Addition to Meridian (a recorded plat in Book 6 at Page 289 of Ada County records) within a portion of the northeast quarter of Section 7, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described in Exhibit "A," rezoning 0.60 acres of land from C-C (Community Business) zoning district to O-T (Old Town) zoning district in the Meridian City Code; directing city staff to alter all applicable use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps and all applicable official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance; providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Treasurer, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law; and providing an effective date. Simison: With that we will move on to Item 3, Ordinances. First item up is ordinance No. 23-2039. Ask the Clerk to read this ordinance by title. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. It's an ordinance for the rezone of a parcel of land within Block 5 of F.A. Nourse's Third Addition to Meridian (a recorded plat in Book 6 at Page 289 of Ada County records) within a portion of the northeast quarter of Section 7, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Meridian, Ada county, Idaho, more particularly described in Exhibit "A," rezoning 0.60 acres of land from C-C (Community Business) zoning district to O-T (Old Town) zoning district in the Meridian City Code; directing city staff to alter all applicable use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps and all official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance; providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Treasurer, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law; and providing an effective date. Meridian City Council November 21,2023 Page 63 of 65 Simison: Thank you. Council, you have heard this Ordinance read by title. Is there anybody that would like it read in its entirety? If not, Clerk will call the roll. Perreault: Mr. Mayor, we need a motion. Simison: Oh, sorry. If not, do I have a motion? Perreault: I'm eager to get out of here, too. Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve Ordinance No. 23-2039. Overton: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second to approve Ordinance No. 23-2039. Is there any discussion? If not, Clerk will call the roll. Roll Call: Hoaglun, yea; Borton, absent; Cavener, yea; Perreault, yea; Strader, absent; Overton, yea. Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and the item is agreed to. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. 4. Ordinance No. 23-2040: An ordinance (Ringneck Place Subdivision — H-2023-0009) annexing a parcel of land located in Government Lot 3 of Section 5, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described in Exhibit "A;" rezoning 1.73 acres of such real property from R1 (Estate Residential) to R-8 (Medium-Density Residential) zoning district; directing city staff to alter all applicable use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps and all official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance; providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Treasurer, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law; repealing conflicting ordinances; and providing an effective date. Simison: Next item up is Ordinance No. 23-2040. Ask the Clerk to read this ordinance by title. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. It's an ordinance annexing a parcel of land located in Government Lot 3, Section 5, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise meridian, Ada county, Idaho, more particularly described in Exhibit "A;" rezoning 1 .73 acres of such real property from R1 (Estate Residential) to R-8 (Medium-Density Residential) zoning district; directing city staff to alter all applicable use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps and all official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance; providing that copies of this Meridian City Council November 21,2023 Page 64 of 65 ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Treasurer, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law; repealing conflicting ordinances; and providing an effective date. Simison: Thank you. Council, you have heard this ordinance read by title. Is there anybody who would like it read in its entirety? Then do I have a motion? Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: I move to approve Ordinance No. 23-2040. Overton: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second to approve Ordinance No. 23-2040. Is there discussion? If not, Clerk will call the roll. Roll Call: Hoaglun, yea; Borton, absent; Cavener, yea; Perreault, yea; Strader, absent; Overton, yea. Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and the item is agreed to. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. Simison: Council, anything under future meeting topics? Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Not a future meeting topic, just I wanted to pass along my appreciation to you, Mayor and Council, staff and those in attendance. Apologies for the added delays tonight with me and Lincoln. Wife had something unintended that was a conflict. We didn't have childcare. So, in addition to me being thankful for you guys all year long, I was especially appreciative of you all tonight and indulging me a little bit with a couple of extra breaks. So, thank you. Simison: Thank you, Councilman. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: I move we adjourn our session. Meridian City Council November 21,2023 Page 65 of 65 Simison: Motion to adjourn. All in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it. We are adjourned. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:17 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) 12 / 5 2023 MAYOR ROBERT E. SIMISON DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK E IDIAN;--- /hl R AGENDA ITEM Public Forum - Future Meeting Topics The Public are invited to sign up in advance of the meeting at www.meridiancity.org/forum to address elected officials regarding topics of general interest or concern of public matters. Comments specific to an active land use/development applications are not permitted during this time. By law, no decisions can be made on topics presented at the Public Forum. However, City Council may request the topic be added to a future meeting agenda for further discussion or action. The Mayor may also direct staff to provide followup assistance regarding the matter. CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC FORUM SIGN-IN SHEET Date: Please sign in below if you wish to address the Mayor and City Council and provide a brief description of your topic. Please observe the following rules of the Public Forum: • DO NOT: o Discuss active applications or proposals pending before Planning and Zoning or City Council o Complain about city staff, individuals, business or private matters • DO o When it is your turn to speak, state your name and address first o Observe a 3-minute time limit (you may be interrupted if your topic is deemed inappropriate for this forum) Name (please print) Brief Description of Discussion Topic P � ._ �. 0�s� C� E IDIAN Planning and Zoning Department Presentation and Outline City Council Meeting November 21, 2023 Item #1: I AERIAL MAPZONING MAPFUTURE LAND USE MAP Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map Amendment & Annexation 84 & Meridian Road - Comprehensive Plan Annexation ExhibitFuture Land Use Map Amendment Item #2: Tanner Creek AERIAL MAPZONING MAPFUTURE LAND USE MAP Development Agreement Modification, Rezone, Preliminary Plat & Conditional Use Permit Existing Conceptual Development Plans Included in Development Agreement Proposed Development Plan Rezone Exhibit Preliminary PlatPhasing Plan Landscape Plan & Berm Details Qualified Open Space Exhibit family & Townhomes -Single Site Amenity Details Conceptual Elevations family & Townhomes-Single– Conceptual Elevations family Apartments-Multi– MultiQualified Open Space Exhibit Site Plan-Conditional Use Permit family Development - Changes to Agenda: \[if applicable\] Item #1: I-84 & Meridian Road (H-2021-0099) Application(s):  Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment  Annexation History: This project was heard by the Commission on April 28, 2022 and a recommendation of denial was sent forth to City Council. Council heard the application and remanded it back to the Commission for the following reasons: 1) Preference for this property and the abutting property to the west (Tanner Creek) to come in together or concurrently with a master plan for the overall area that demonstrates consistency with the existing or proposed FLUM designation (i.e. MU-C & MU-R); 2) Desire for the transportation issues to be addressed before a development plan is approved; and 3) Desire for changes to be made to the concept plan to be more consistent with the general mixed use guidelines and specifically the requested MU-R designation. Some changes were made to the plan but not substantive enough to be deemed consistent with the general mixed-use development guidelines, the existing MU-C or the proposed MU-R guidelines. Therefore, Staff recommended the Applicant change their map amendment request from MU-R to Commercial and include the Tanner Creek project to the west in the amendment with a change from MU-C to MHDR. Revisions to the conceptual development plan and associated exhibits have also been amended to address previous comments in the staff report and discussion from the hearings. Size of property, existing zoning, and location: The property associated with the amendment to the FLUM consists of 70 acres of land and the portion associated with the annexation consists of 18+/- acres of land. The general location of the property is at the NWC of S. Meridian Rd. & I-84 on the south side of Waltman Ln. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Mixed-Use Community (MU-C) Summary of Request: The Applicant requests an amendment to the FLUM in the Comprehensive Plan to change the land use designation on 70.4-acres of land from MU-C to Commercial (34.3-acres) & Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) (36.1+/- acres). Based on the analysis in the staff report, Staff finds the proposed development plan is generally consistent with the requested FLUM designation of Commercial for the subject property & MHDR for the adjacent property to the west (Tanner Creek). Further, the proposed FLUM designations provide for a better transition in uses from existing and future residential uses to the west and northwest and are compatible with adjacent FLUM designations and land uses in this area. The Applicant also proposes to annex the southern 18.30-acres of land with a C-G (General Retail and Service Commercial) zoning district consistent with the proposed FLUM amendment to Commercial. The subject property is part of an enclave area surrounded by City annexed property. A revised conceptual development plan was submitted as shown in Section VIII.C that depicts how the property proposed to be annexed, as well as the area currently zoned C-G, is planned to develop with two (2) big box retail stores \[Retail 1 (153,300 s.f. & Retail 2 (80,500+/- s.f.), 4 pads and 5 shops. The area shown on the concept plan on the bottom (south) portion of the development area (delineated by a red line) is the portion of the site currently in Ada County proposed to be annexed; the area on the top (north) portion of the development area is the portion of the site currently in the City. The portion of the site currently in the City is entitled to develop in accord with UDC standards, regardless of whether or not the proposed annexation is approved, as there is not a Development Agreement in effect for that property. Sole access for the development is proposed via (3) accesses via Waltman Ln., a collector street. In accord with UDC 11-3A-3A.2, which supports limiting access points to collector streets and requires a cross-access/ingress-egress easement to be granted to adjoining properties where access to a local street is not available, Staff recommends a driveway is provided (alongside the proposed pathway) across the Ten Mile Creek to the west, unless otherwise waived by City Council, which will provide interconnectivity between developments. The Applicant has submitted an emergency access easement agreement with the property owner to the west for secondary emergency access to Ruddy Dr. and Waltman Ln. At no time should construction traffic associated with the development of this site be allowed to access this site using Ruddy Dr. through The Landing and Tanner Creek Subdivisions. Improvements are required to Waltman Ln., including reconstruction of the bridge over the Ten Mile Creek, west of this site with the Tanner Creek project. Improvements to the section of Waltman that abuts this site will be determined by ACHD with a future development application since this only an annexation request. The extension of Corporate Drive to the northwest of this site, designated as a collector street on the MSM, including construction of a bridge over the Ten Mile Creek from the north to Waltman Lane, is proposed to be completed with the first phase of development of the Tanner Creek project prior to issuance of building permits. If the Tanner Creek project doesn’t go forward and complete the improvement to Waltman Ln. and Corporate Dr. as planned, Staff recommends these improvements are completed by this developer through a Cooperative Development Agreement (CDA) with ACHD as noted in the staff report. Based on the findings of the TIS for the proposed project, which included the Tanner Creek project, the Meridian Rd./Waltman Ln. intersection would exceed ACHD’s Acceptable Level of Service thresholds. With previous development applications for the Tanner Creek property, ACHD did not recommend any mitigation at the intersection due to right-of-way (ROW) constraints, impacts to existing businesses, and substantial intersection redesign and construction, making the recommended mitigation infeasible. A letter prepared by Six Mile Engineering, dated 1/23/23, in response to comments and feedback during the City Council hearing for this project, was submitted to ACHD proposing phased alternative improvements at the Meridian Rd./Waltman Ln. intersection to address traffic impacts from these developments. A three-phase concept design was proposed in which the first two designs did not require any additional ROW dedication and the final phase did. ACHD reviewed their proposal and does not recommend any modifications to the intersection as under all concept designs, these modifications would negatively impact existing operations of both the interchange and ramps. ACHD’s concerns also extended to the impacts the proposed modifications would have to the Central Dr. and Corporate Dr. intersections at Main St. and Progress Ave. While the proposed improvements may benefit both of these proposed developments in the short-term, they’ll likely negatively impact the already congested area roadways and intersections. These improvements without significant widening increase corridor travel times and interchange queue lengths, further compounding existing congestion in this area. ACHD believes there are other alternatives that may be considered such as converting Central Dr./Waltman Ln. and Corporate Dr. to a one-way couplet, which is anticipated to reduce both queue lengths and the impacts to the Meridian Rd. and the I-84 interchange system. The construction of the Linder Road overpass (3/4 mile to the west), scheduled in ACHD’s IFYWP for construction in 2026- 2027, should improve traffic conditions on Meridian Rd. by providing another north/south connection over I-84. The Commission and City Council should consider if higher levels of traffic and congestion in this area are acceptable when acting on this application. If not, consideration should be given to the inclusion of a provision in the DA, which limits development to the large retail (Retail 1) store at this time and delays the Retail 2 building and Pads 3 and 4 until such time as the Linder Road overpass is completed or other area improvements occur that allow for an acceptable level of service to be provided, as determined by ACHD. Commission Recommendation: Approval Summary of Commission Public Hearing: i. In favor: Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions (Applicant’s Representative) ii. In opposition: None iii. Commenting: None iv. Written testimony: Heath McMahon v. Key Issue(s):  Not in support of this project due the (high) density proposed and negative impact on traffic in this area.  Safety of area residents with the traffic that will be generated from this development and the commercial development to the east. Key Issue(s) of Discussion by Commission:  The request by the Applicant to not be required to provide a vehicular connection to the east across the Ten Mile Creek to the adjacent commercial development. The Commission was in favor of Council granting a waiver to not require a connection.  Concern regarding the phasing of the development in relation to construction of the Linder Road overpass. Commission Change(s) to Staff Recommendation:  At Staff’s request, modify DA provision #1b to require the extension of Corporate Dr. to be constructed as required by ACHD.  Include a DA provision that requires the Linder Road overpass to be completed prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupany in the multi-family development (see Section IX. A.1h). Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: None Written Testimony since Commission Hearing: \[name(s)\] - \[issue(s)\] Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H=, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of \[date\]: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number \[#\], as presented during the hearing on \[date\], for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number \[#\] to the hearing date of \[date\] for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) Item #\[#\]: \[Project name\] (\[file #\]) Application(s):  Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of \[#\] acres of land, zoned \[district\], located at \[address/general location\]. History: \[details\] Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: \[details\] Summary of Request: \[details\] Commission Recommendation: \[approval/denial\] Summary of Commission Public Hearing: vi. In favor: Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions (Applicant’s Representative) vii. In opposition: None viii. Commenting: None ix. Written testimony: Heath McMahon x. Key Issue(s):  Not in support of this project due the (high) density proposed and negative impact on traffic in this area.  Safety of area residents with the traffic that will be generated from this development and the commercial development to the east. Key Issue(s) of Discussion by Commission:  The request by the Applicant to not be required to provide a vehicular connection to the east across the Ten Mile Creek to the adjacent commercial development. The Commission was in favor of Council granting a waiver to not require a connection.  Concern regarding the phasing of the development in relation to construction of the Linder Road overpass. Commission Change(s) to Staff Recommendation:  At Staff’s request, modify DA provision #1b to require the extension of Corporate Dr. to be constructed as required by ACHD.  Include a DA provision that requires the Linder Road overpass to be completed prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupany in the multi-family development (see Section IX. A.1h). Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: None Written Testimony since Commission Hearing: \[name(s)\] - \[issue(s)\] Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number \[#\], as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of \[date\]: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number \[#\], as presented during the hearing on \[date\], for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number \[#\] to the hearing date of \[date\] for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) W IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for 1-84 and Meridian Road (H-2021-0099) by Hawkins Companies, generally located at the northwest corner of S. Meridian Rd. and 1-84 Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2021-0099 A. Request: Annexation of 18.30 acres of land with a C-G zoning district. B. Request: Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map Amendment to change the future land use designation on 70.4+/- acres of land from Mixed Use-Community (MU-C) to Commercial (34.3) acres and Medium High Density Residential (36.1+/-). f PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET a DATE: November 21, 2023 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 1 j CwL PROJECT NAME. 1-84 and Meridian Rd (H-2021-0099) z2 bd Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify (Please Print) HOA? (mark X if yes) j If yes, please provide HOA name 2 i bl)i C.L tA� 1-7 '-vt 5 1 i �✓ k0 5' 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 STAFF REPORT E COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT f D A H 0 HEARING DATE: November 21, 2023 Legend 0 TO: Mayor&City Council P�K—_1 Lacs-5or 99 I Pmri FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2021-0099 I-84+Meridian Road—CPAM, AZ LOCATION: Generally located at the northwest corner of S. Meridian Rd. and I-84 on the south side of W. Waltman _ Ln.,in the southeast '/4 of Section ; 13, T.3N.,RAW. # s 7 Note:Since this project was remanded back to the Commission, the Applicant has changed their CPAM request from MU-R to Commercial and included the Tanner Creek project to the west in the amendment with a change from MU-C to MHDR at the recommendation of Staff.An amended conceptual developmentplan and associated exhibits have also been submitted. The staff report has been updated accordingly. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map(FLUM)to change the future land use designation on 33.1370.4-acres of land from Mixed Use—Community(MU-C)to Mixed Use Regional /TR)Commercial(34.3-acres) and Medium High Density Residential(MHDR)(36.1+/-acres); and annexation of 18.30-acres of land with a C-G(General Retail and Service Commercial) zoning district. 11. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Acreage 33.1370.4 acres(CPAM); 18.30 acres(AZ) Future Land Use Designation MU-C(Mixed Use—Community)(existing); (existing/proposed) Commercial(proposed on subject 34.3-acre property)&MHDR(Medium High Density Residential)(proposed on adjacent 36.1-acre Tanner Creek property) Existing Land Use ` Single-family residential and vacant/undeveloped land Proposed Land Use(s) Commercial Current Zoning RI and RUT in Ada County; and C-G(General Retail and Service Commercial) Proposed Zoning C-G(General Retail and Service Commercial) Physical Features(waterways, The Ten Mile Creek runs along the west boundary of the site. hazards,flood plain,hillside) Page 1 1 a1 1 vt r . • , IIII 1. � - -y.. r KLII 84 III •F.1 - �v��. �� II�III� �II '- -■ - i- �. lr ��A. 211�ii" m � 4 • Is _-i..i OVERLAND � TIPi. ! q.II•:r • I�ty.j ,!.III�.I S 14'�FaiSl^l�Z 1�IIII::11 :�,i ulu„ _ •aC�{ra_i A �NIIIIIIII'r, ::'=':''7' '� :11L4 LL11 � ■�■ 1. IIII rrlr. Is -___ ■�+r'"i��i � gi's• - - .I II ��IR �� �rlllr � 1•�e€�����:°L� a I� __ lk�la■. MEN iu nl III-�1�I -=i s�i �■� '�� ■� ■ =iiliiii -- -: ..........21 Ir. Mile ■I�■■+ �vl}I =��IIIN�IIIIIIIOY 18 Mi sruluu m► �� � - �nu..nm..Yd- �• ■■■■ G ■� • " S= -= Y � �� � Y.S.. u�■� III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Ethan Mansfield,Hawkins Companies—855 W. Broad Street,Boise,ID 83702 B. Owner: Hawkins Companies 855 W. Broad Street, Boise,ID 83702 C. Representative: Same as Applicant IV. NOTICING Planning&Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper notification published in newspaper 4/5/2022; 10/17/23 5/29/2022; 11/5/2023 Radius notification mailed to property owners within 300 feet 4/4/2022; 10/13/23 5/26/2022; 11/3/2023 Public hearing notice sign posted on site 4/7/2022; 10/23/23 6/3/2022; 11/9/2023 Nextdoor posting 4/5/2022; 10/17/23 5/25/2022; 11/3/2023 V. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS EXISTING FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION: This property and the adjacent property to the west totaling 70.4 acres of land is currently designated as Mixed Use—Community(MU-C) on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM)contained in the Comprehensive Plan (see map in Section VIII.A). The purpose of this designation is to allocate areas where community-serving uses and dwellings are seamlessly integrated into the urban fabric. The intent is to integrate a variety of uses, including residential,and to avoid mainly single-use and strip commercial type buildings.Non-residential buildings in these areas have a tendency to be larger than in Mixed Use Neighborhood(MU-N) areas. Goods and services in these areas tend to be of the variety that people will mainly travel by car to,but also walk or bike to(up to 3 or 4 miles). Employment opportunities for those living in and around the neighborhood are encouraged. Developments are encouraged to be designed according to the conceptual MU-C plan depicted in Figure 3C. (See pgs. 3-11 through 3-16 for more information.) PROPOSED FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION: The proposed FLUM designation for this property is Mimed Use Regional Commercial (34.3 acres)and Medium High Density Residential(MHDR) (36.1 acres) the adjacent property to the west(see map in Section VIILA). The V„ose ef Me r rr r A designation ;y pr-e+,ide a nik of enfple�,ment-, i;etaik, and-residential d-wellings andjgHblie uses near fliajer af:te The Commercial designation will provide a full range of commercial uses to serve area residents and visitors. Desired uses may include retail,restaurants,personal and professional services, and office uses,as well as appropriate public and quasi-public uses. Multi-family residential may be allowed in some cases,but Page 3 should be careful to promote a high quality of life through thoughtful site design, connectivity, and amenities. Sample zoning include: C-N, C-C, and C-G. The MHDR 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 landscapin and nd a project identity. The Applicant submitted a conceptual developmet plan for the area included in the FLUM amendment(see Section VIII.D). The subject property,proposed to be designated Commercial, is proposed to develop with a mix of regional commercial/retail and restaurant uses with some neighborhood serving uses. The adjacent property to the west,proposed to be designated MHDR, is proposed to develop with a mix of residential uses, including single-family,townhome and multi-family dwellingproposed uses are consistent with the FLUM designations proposed for the subject property and the property to the west. Note: The initial FL UM amendment request for this property was from MU-C to Mixed-Use Regional(MU- R). The Commission recommended denial to City Council based on their belief the proposed use isn't consistent with the general mixed-use development guidelines, the existing MU C or the proposed MU-R guidelines: they also felt a Traffic Impact Study(TIS) was needed. Council heard the application and remanded it back to the Commission in order to be reviewed concurrently with the Tanner Creek application in an effort to determine consistency with the Comprehensive Plan for the overall property. After review of these applications, it's Staffs opinion the proposed development plans for both projects are lard ly inconsistent with the purpose statements and development guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan for the general mixed use and specific land uses (i.e. MU-C and MU-R) for the following reasons: 1)functional and physical integration of land uses is desired—these are two separate residential and commercial developments with only a pedestrian pathwayproposed for interconnectivity—no integration of uses is proposed; 2) a mixed use project should include at least three (3) types of land uses—only two (2) are proposed Li.e. residential and commercial(includes retail, restaurants, etc.11; 3) community serving facilities such as hospitals, clinics, churches, schools,parks, daycares, civic buildings, or public safety facilities are desired—none are proposed; 4)supportive and proportional public and/or quasi public spaces and places, including but not limited to parks,plazas, outdoor gathering areas, open space, libraries, and schools are expected—none are proposed: 5) mixed-use areas should be centered around spaces that are well-designed and inte rrg ated public and quasi public centers of activity that are activated and incorporate permanent design elements and amenities that foster a wide variety of interests ranging from leisure to plax —no such public/quasi public areas are proposed: 6) a mixed use project should serve as a public transit location for future park-and-ride lots, bus stops, shuttle bus stops and/or other innovative or alternate modes of transportation—no such stops or lots are proposed; 7) community-serving uses and dwellings should be seamlessly integrated into the urban fabric for an integration of a variety of uses to avoid mainly single-use and strip commercial type buildin (MU-C —single-use developments are proposed that are not well- integrated,- 8 vertically integrated structures are encouraged—none are proposed(MU-C�9 rote rg ation of a variety of uses together, including residential as a supporting use, to avoid predominantly sin lg e use developments such as a regional retail center with only restaurants and other commercial uses (MU--R)—no residential uses are included in the proposed MU-R designated area, which creates a single use development with only commercial uses: and 10) retail commercial uses should comprise a maximum of 50%of the development area (MU-R)—most if not all of the proposed MU-R designated area consists of commercial/retail uses, no residential, office, civic or other uses are proposed. For this reason, Staff recommended the Applicant change their request for a map amendment from the MU- R to the Commercial designation and include a map amendment on the adjacent property to the west Page 4 (Tanner Creek) from MU-C to MHDR, as agreed to by both Applicants. This change better aligns with the proposed development plans for both properties and in Staffs opinion is more compatible with adjacent existing and future residential development in the area and provides a good transition between these uses to the proposed commercial uses and is more appropriate than the existing and previously roposed MU-R designation. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES(https://www.meridiancitv.orzlcompplan): Goals,Obiectives, &Action Items: Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this application and apply to the proposed use of this property(staff analysis in italics): • "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."(3.03.03A) The proposed development will be rewired to connect to City water and sewer systems. • "Maximize public services by prioritizing infill development of vacant and underdeveloped parcels within the Ci, over parcels on the fringe."(2.02.02) The surrounding properties have all been annexed into the City; the property to the north is developed, the property to the west is proposed to develop with residential uses (i.e. Tanner Creek). Development of this infill property will result in more efficient provision of public services. • "Require urban infrastructure be provided for all new developments, including curb and ug tter, sidewalks,water and sewer utilities."(3.03.03G) Urban sewer and water infrastructure and curb, gutter and sidewalks is required to be provided with development. • "Require collectors consistent with the ACHD Master Street Map(MSM), generally at/near the mid- mile location within the Area of City Impact." ,6.01.03B� The MSM depicts Waltman Ln. as a collector street where it abuts the site due to the increased traffic anticipated with this development and the ad'a7 cent property to the west(Tanner Creek • "Require pedestrian circulation plans to ensure safety and convenient access across large commercial and mixed-use developments."(3.07.02A) A pedestrian circulation plan was submitted for the site, included in Section VIII.F. • "Improve and protect creeks and other natural waterways throughout commercial,industrial, and residential areas."(4.05.01D) The Ten Mile Creek along the site's west boundya should be protected during construction. • "Support Valley Regional Transit's(VRT)efforts to construct multi-modal transit centers in areas of high commercial activity and employment as well as areas with transit-supportive residential densities."(6.01.01B) A bus stop is proposed within this development, which will serve residents of the residential development to the west and employees and customers of the proposed commercial development. • "Locate smaller-scale,neighborhood-serving commercial and office use clusters so they complement and provide convenient access from nearby residential areas, limiting access to arterial roadway multimodal corridors."(3.07.02B) Smaller-scale neighborhood commercial uses are proposed along with two Leger retail building A pedestrian pathway is proposed for access between the subject property and the adiacent proposed Page 5 residential property (Tanner Creek) to the west. For better connectivity, a more direct access, and to reduce traffic on the collector street(Waltman Ln.), Staff recommends a vehicular driveway/bridge is provided across the Ten Mile Creek between the two proiects for easy access from the residential development in accord with UDC 11-3A-3A.2. • "Slow the outward progression of the City's limits by discouraging fringe area development; encourage development of vacant or underutilized parcels currently within City limits." (4.05.03B) The proposed vacant parcels are within the City limits and the lamer area is surrounded by properties already annexed into the City. The development of this property will result in better provision of City services. The fol evAng analysis is specific to the request for a Mixed Use Regional(MU R) designation, and not the fner-its E)r-benefits of I' t j ' pr-E)pE)s d uses. Analysis for-either-eamplianee with the adepted fettwe 4ad t*se designation of MU C, E)r-another-one,may r-esult in very dif-fer-epA analysis.A pr-operty designated MU R ffffist eemply with both the general mixed used poliees and the NIU R pE)Iieies be! fi9i-a eembination ef eanTatible land uses.within a elese g�eogfwphie ai-ea that agoi�wfor eas-i4,aeeessible funetional andjqkwieal integration ocland uses-, te er-eate and enhanee neighbor-heed sense 6��ee, and to allow develeperis...b.e.,__e. ...gib.ee� ...,...b.......... .....efle.........y. The proposed pr-ojeet is eofnpr-ised entifely of eemmer-eial uses,primarily high tfaffie generating • two big box retail and junior anehor-retail spaees along with drive thfoul--r-estaufants), along with a single gh dediea4ed offiee site. Thet:e are fie residential E)r-publie uses proposed. The a!is fer-a leeations far-day ll > i4ex spaee, > dentists, . —uses. There is also no it4egr-ated r-esiden�ial with E)r-eensider-ation for-the planned pr-ojeet to the west. 4"h a subsequent appheationfor are4denfial development is planned to be submioedfor that pFopepi�L, it has no�yet been submitted as an up�ted Traffie Impaet k S44:y is under review bYA GAP. A the pre applieation meeting, Stwff reeemmended te theApplieant that thej,,wait and submit their applieation Staff finds the ipAegr-ation of land uses in the pr-oposed eoneept is not eansistent with many of the MU R an 1 eff-oft ha-ve been made to addf:ess mixed use r-equir-ements. The following i4ems are addition—al Faents of the general mixed tise designation,the major-ity of w-hieh are not met with the proposed site in reviewing development > ill > per-the Comprehensive Plan (pg. 3 13)! (S4af cc A mixed use pr-ojeet should inelude 4 least difeet)Tes of land uses. Exeeptions may be granted for- smaller-sites on a ease by ease basis. This!and use is not in4eaded for-high density residential develen4 ales Page 6 This.is a 3344 aere site with anky eammer-eitil and-Offiee uses.19twpese6t. This is net a 4mall"site and ti"6effal land I— I W be inekideJ Open&paee areas.shown on the prqjee�i9ite ape • cc Where appr-opr-ime,higher density an&or-ffmiti fafaily residential development is eneoiffaged fe PFE)jeetS With the Potential to Sen'e aS efllplo�qment destination eenter-s and when the pr-ojeet is adjacent to US 70/76 Cu cG Cu 16 or Cu tia » The subjeetprejeetl9r-epeses ne residetitial uses.. The r-eques-tedfuture land use designation does no integration. • cc Mixed Use areas are typioally developed under a master or eonceptual plan; during an annexation o Use designation-.-' Xe master plaH ims submitted and the property to Me west�s met eensidered er integrated into Me meehanieal areas ef Me large and mid bege sites, afld is eetmeeted an4,by q&4ve aisle M • "In de"lopments where fnoltiple eo er-cial and/or-offiee buildings are proposed,the buildings should be affanged to er-ea e some f6fm of eammon,usable afea, stieh as a plaza or-green spaee." There is no shared Vaeefior Pestaur-ants, business gathepiffgs, eo-destination oriented retail(ereati ;, • "The site plan should depiet a tFansitionaluse and'of landseaped buffering between eommer-eial and existing low or-medium density residential development." and the larg�tjqropased usems andpad sites with the greatest impa4q q,-e Ageated-adjoeent to multi fiami4,residential planned tg the west, The s-itelglan does not integrate ether eemmunity,se * - tteAture to >plazas, > open spaee, > ; The l9repesed site plan inehidas several areas 0��eH spaee. H-Oitvmver-, these areas.ai-e in renmaH leeations.or in the middle of a l9a4ing area with no integration and d*ffieulb4msqft jqedestF aeees-s. Aze atherpublie ar quasi publie spaees ar-elgi-ovided in alignment with the purpose and-intent of the niked use d,-sig:Ha6ei*. Page 7 amenities that foster-a wide variety of intefests ranging from leisure to play. These areas should be e ieles and pedestrians." edestria nn )) wouk4 be stibnfitfiHg plans that wei-e eoordinated in aeeoi-danee with Oty,poliey. They,have talked 64-11d etiVe . • "Alleys and foadways should be used to tfansition 4em dissimilaf land'ases, and between fesidential densities and housing types." The pfisipased site plan does ifielude a df:ive aisle leeated behind the large f:etail afiehaf:, that in eembination with a landseape bugaf pfevides "a"tfansition to Attwe residential to the west. This however-is not the point of the mixed use transition standafds. As shown in the mixed use genefal and mixed use fegional comprehensive plan figuf es (3A and 3D,below), foads are generally t1se tfansition with 4eating uses. These foads afe intended to both iategfa4e and to tfansition, and not to mixed e d nt Connectivity Single Family Residiid ential Townhouses or(andos Open —� Space q Multi-family a ti--® z. 0 Transit Stop Live-work,or Townhouses ��- Commercial! Retail Care Office or I Service Use Plaza lOpen Space ArterialRaad _ 4 Feature area(shared space,connectivity;etc.) A Figure 3A from City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan.Note the focus on robdway frontage that transitions and integrates uses,and the open space amenities both integrated and shared. Page 8 Single Family Residential Office or I Hospitality 3 Retail yr - -- Service Use Local � Residential Office Park/ or Office Headquarters _ Q -0 61 Integrated 0 0, 0 Plaza Area o � ® Retail ISI dT A Arterial Road O Feature area(shared space,connectivity,etc.) ----� Figure 3D from City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan.(Vote the special focus on uses with roadway frontage,the unimpeded and direct pedestrian access without traversing frequent parking aisles,the opportunities for a variety of community serving uses(not just high visibility pad sites)and the shared amenity spaces and open space for both the large anchor and smaller pad sites and uses. in reviewing development >the following items w a 11 be considered in AIU R areas, areas.• Development should generally eemply with the general guidelines for-development in all Mixed Use amenity that ties theprejeet teg:ethei,. [Aile it may be eestprohibitive to have sever-al eres-sin Q( qHalio,ef hf-e. X9M.--Staff reeegnLaes-that the Ten Mile Greek s-eparates these Ave prejeets. of the develepfnei:A area at gFoss densities fanging ftem 6 to 4 0 tmits/aer-e. There is neither-a minimum nor- esed on non 1 ffi ldtfy t4 .mot uses.0 , e 0� eo aus There is neither-a minifflUm nor-max* 4 on non retail een*ner-eial uses stieh as offiee-, � o„ et 0 elean ..,1,,.,t.... ..tt.,;,�.�e t uses.� � o ef The site is jqredominate4,retail with a siffg4e effiee pad, Aze auenTts at�e made te inehide er integ-rate Page 9 other 0� Of the dffek)-pfflefft area. CoHneil that eommuni,,�,Pffle s-eiq,iees.s-heHk4 oeeu,-en Waltman to the east; neither applkatien is Aqiere the development proposes publie and quasi publie uses to st+ppoA the developffiel#,the develope may be eligible for-additional afea for-retail developmef+t(beyond the allowed The proposed eoneept is ahigiost entirely retail with ne eMer eommunio,sen,ing uses.Atprevie ),based on the r-aties • Far-land that is designa4ed for-a publie > > the developer-is eligible for- 2:1 bonus. That is to > > areas,be eligible for-two additional acres of retail development. sueh as a park,tot lot, > the develope > area, • For-plazas that are if4egr-a4ed into a f:etail pr-ejeet,the developer-wetild be eligible for-a 6.1 the site wotild be eligible for- Sueh plazas should provide a fecal pE)ipA(sueh as a fou-pAaitt, statue, and water > seating afeas, and some weeAher-pr-oteetion. That wetild mean that by providing a half aer-e plazza, the developef wetild be eligible for-thfee additional aefes of retail development. This guideline is not applieable as no sueh publi8lquasi publie uses are propos Additional Analysisi attemp. I . I — . any of the an site uses or-with any proposed adjaeepA later-nal Cir-eulation and Pedestrian Aeeess! Some effoft has been made to elevate the site plan to suppoft pedestfian safety. iner-eased sidewalks dffoughotA the puldag areas have been provided,unlike eommer-eial strip malls a-ad power-eepAer-s of deeades past. These iWFovemeats however-really only suppeft and benefit, users that. e t the site via „t,..Y,ob to The maze of par-king spaees and drive aisle er-A—i afe fef users not affiving on the site via ean Pa sites have all been loeated on the Outer-edges of-fl ill . -destfia-n er-es i . g fr-equently thf oughou4 the in4eFioF par-king af eas. The uses likely me st attif aetive to adjae pon�--rvos iddeenitts for-Fepea4 tFip s, are the pad sites a4eng Mer-idian Read. These have no dir-eet pedestrian aeeess and r-eVife meandering through the lafger-paf-k4agar= —1 . . y east west drive aisle has a niee pedestfian spine,until it abfuptly ends at no paftieular-destination(the small Fetail Pad 2 site). These ou4er-pad sites with drive thfoughs are not eenneeted to eaeh other-, and t-hef:e is no peFimeter-oifetilmion system around the ou4side of the site ins Adding more sidewalks to a large pafl6ag area and er-eating token open spaee that is suffounded by par-king with no dir-eet aeeess or-unattfaetive afeas(near-dtHmpster-s and leading areas) does not fiwther-mixe pr-ineiples. Lner-eased pedestfian aeeess for-au�o . . —to the site is positive,but t44 would be-a Besides eifettla4ion and aeeess,the proposed uses are the pr-imafy eeneefn. This espeeially when eonsider-ing ifftegr-ation with this site.A single dr-ive aisle eonneetion between the two is not integfation, and is a baseline . . Faent for-all pr-ojeets in the City for-aeeess, eir-ettla4ion, a-ad safiat-y. Mixed ttse areas are intended - serve neigMer-ing eomffmnities. There are no smaller-eamm-unity sef-ving uses-proposed in either-pr--pjeet. The pr-ojeet is laid out to attmet regional au4omotive users and generate Viek t-Fips,with 9 Page 10 — leeations and uses for-fesidents to benefit. These eommtinity sefvi ees afe intended and essential to fe loM trips-. dentist,Uses from the subjeet site r-equife new residents to get into their ears for—viFtually all trips, and most of that would be fitnneled down Waltman and thfotigh an akea4-pr-oblematie and eongested ipAer-seetion. Theft are no seeendafy areas for-fle*uses, afts, da-year-e, live/wofk, small offiee sites�qr-therapists, doeter-s, these uses at an a&r-dable pr-iee point given the ale, loea ion, and ipAer-state visibilit-y. The smallef Retail 2 -pad site (in the middie)may suppoi4 some multi tenant uses,bilt 4-4-o-me off-t-h-Le listed examples are typieally attraeted to these 4�Tes of loeation -i , eirettlation,physieal building design, and general attorneys, or other o vices. The 4 story class A offlee space,is not likely to suppoi4 most of Site Design; To be oonsidered a mixed use pfojeet, an entire site redesign is very likely required.No small atimber-of ehanges will fesolve the tinder-lying design issties. A lafge retail anehor-eould easily be integfate into a mixed ttse projeet,but for-this site in this loeation, it would likely need to be loeated along th-e inter-state or Meridian Road. This is noftnal and typieal both for sites sueh as this, and for major retailers, in othef subufban afeas of the Cou*tfy. The loe4ion as designed prohibits any integration with the adjaeent uses to the west, and disallows the potential�qr-any lesser-eommunit-y sef�vi -1 tlSeS ffE)-M-- eee"��ng spaee along Waltman Lane. Waltman is the ideal Iation-fq--r-P--A- . .uses that do npod ;L p-p—m-n-A-taffor-d thevisibility of the inter-state and Mer-idian Road. The site needs to realize better- eittster-ing of non residential uses to ffame a-ad befiefit r-eloeated open s-paee, c-md there needs to be existing r-esid nti-All mle�as. Destination use nd eommunity setwices for-Weal residents should be e ffieie t and safe. needs the square footage r-ededieated for better-integration of eenununity sei=ving uses.While offiee also desir-ed,there is a eonsider-able amotmt of it being eonstfueted elsewhere in the eommtfoity and eetild also be r-ededieated. The large Retail 1 anehof eottld be easily provided with a eentfal spine aeeess ffofn Wa4man if it was feleeated with the baek faeing the ipAer-state. it would ha-ve gFeater-visibility,be no less aeeessible, and allow mueh better-integfation for-a variety of other-uses. The planned residential to the wes would also then not be liter-ally walled off by the unat4metive side of a large big box, and eould make better- use of views aef:oss the Ten Mile er-eek. None of the pad sites on Mer-idia-a Road need to be lost,though Open spaee provided in the subjeet layout is wasteful and wit-betA signifieant benefit to fu4ur-e,poten4i users. Provision of A' - . "ot a eheekbox r-e"ir-emeat that ean be provided and just make a pfojec4 speeifie pokey. The spaee behind the leading deeks is tinat4metive and likely to be a nuisanee and GPTED issue. The area stfffounded by pafking near-offiee pads is a heat island,unsafe, and diffieult to meess,both for-near-by employees and fof:fesidents. A4iile the een#al open spaee eould serve as something of an ot4doo-r- market, it does not meet the ifftent of the mixed use pfineiples and is poor4y loeated(see above). Finally, and as pr-eviously stated,the site laeks ifAegr-ated design featwes for-user-s to leisufe and The seeendafy mid box(larger-retail -2 along the inter-state) ma-y be diffietilt to integr-ate, and likely instead There afe no elemefi4s of destination wgiona4,fie plaees designed�qr-business visits and ou4door-meetings to happen, or-f6r-user-s to visitef:s to simple 'stay' and ef�oy set=viees with synefgies. The site plan is standard h i gh-w . . .1, designed to usher-in as many whieles as possible, a-ad then to get them otA as quiekly TRANSPORTATION' Access is proposed via three (3)driveways to/from Waltman Lane, a local street,at the project's north boundary. ACHD's Master Street Map(MSM) designates Waltman Ln. abutting this site as a collector street. Improvements are required to Waltman Ln., including reconstruction of the bridge over the Ten Mile Creek, Page 11 west of this site with the Tanner Creek project. Improvements to the section of Waltman that abuts this site will be determined by ACHD with a future development application since this only an annexation request. The extension of Corporate Drive to the northwest of this site, designated as a collector street on the MSM, including construction of a bridge over the Ten Mile Creek from the north to Waltman Lane, is proposed to be completed with the first phase of development of the Tanner Creek project prior to issuance of building ep rmits. If the Tanner Creek project doesn't go forward and complete the improvement to Waltman Ln. and Corporate Dr. as planned, Staff recommends these improvements are completed by this developer through a Cooperative Development Agreement(CDA)with ACHD, as follows: • Extend Corporate Dr. off-site from its current terminus north of Ten Mile Creek to Waltman Ln. and construct a new bridge over the Ten Mile Creek,within existing ROW. The roadway north of the bridge should be constructed as a 40-foot wide commercial street section with vertical curb, gutter and 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk. The crossing of Ten Mile Creek will require a 58-foot wide bridge with 2-foot parapets. Staff recommends the roadway south of the bridge to Waltman Lane is constructed as a complete street section with detached 10-foot wide multi-use pathways along both sides of the street.These improvements should occur with the first phase of development and should be complete prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy for the site.. • Construct Waltman Lane as 1/2 of a 36-foot wide street section with curb,_gutter, an 8-foot wide planter stri /parkway and a 10-foot wide detached sidewalk within 29-feet of right-of-way(ROW) from centerline with 7-feet of the sidewalk located outside of the dedicated ROW abutting the site. All improvements are proposed to be constructed south of the existing edge of pavement for Waltman Ln., shifting the centerline 8-feet south to the south. ACHD is requiringthe he Applicant to construct the north side of Waltman with a minimum of 12-feet of pavement from centerline,a 3- foot wide gravel shoulder and a borrow ditch to accommodate the roadway storm run-off. Center turn lanes are required to be constructed on Waltman Ln. if determined necessary ACHD. The improvements to Waltman Ln. will require reconstruction of the existing bridge over the Ten Mile Creek as a full 36-foot street section with curb and 5-foot wide attached concrete sidewalks. This will require a 54-foot wide bridge with 2-foot parapets. These improvements should be completed as required by ACHD and shall occur with the first phase of development and be complete prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy for the site. The proposed commercial development is estimated to generate 10,891 vehicle trips per day(VTD) (950 vehicle trips per hour in the PM peak hour). Based on the findings of the Traffic Impact Study(TIS) for the proposed project,which included the Tanner Creek project,the Meridian Rd./Waltman Ln. intersection would exceed ACHD's Acceptable Level of Service thresholds. With previous development applications for the Tanner Creek property,ACHD did not recommend any mitigation at the intersection due to right-of-way (ROW)constraints,impacts to existing businesses, and substantial intersection redesign and construction, making the recommended mitigation infeasible. A letter prepared by Six Mile Engineering,dated 1/23/23, in response to comments and feedback during the City Council hearing for this project,was submitted to ACHD proposing phased alternative improvements at the Meridian Rd./Waltman Ln. intersection to address traffic impacts from these developments. A three- phase concept design i was proposed in which the first two designs did not require any additional ROW dedication and the final phase did. ACHD reviewed their proposal and does not recommend any modifications to the intersection as under all concept designs,these modifications would negatively impact existing operations of both the interchange and ramps. ACHD's concerns also extended to the impacts the proposed modifications would have to the Central Dr. and Corporate Dr. intersections at Main St. and Progress Ave. While the proposed improvements may benefit both of these proposed developments in the short-term,they'll likely negatively iyely impact the already congested area roadways and intersections. These Page 12 improvements without significant widening increase corridor travel times and interchange queue lengths, further compoundingexisting x�g congestion in this area.ACHD believes there are other alternatives that may be considered such as converting Central Dr./Waltman Ln. and Corporate Dr.to a one-way couplet,which is anticipated to reduce both queue lengths and the impacts to the Meridian Rd. and the I-84 interchange system (see ACHD's letter for more information). The construction of the Linder Road overpass (3/4 mile to the west),scheduled in ACHD's IFYWP for construction in 2026-2027,should greatly improve traffic conditions on Meridian Rd.by providing another north/south connection over I-84. The Commission and City Council should consider if higher levels of traffic and congestion in this area are acceptable when acting on this application.If not, consideration should be given to the inclusion of a provision in the Development Agreement,which limits development to the large retail(Retail 1) store at this time and delays the Retail 2 building and Pads 3 and 4 until such time as the Linder Road overpass is completed or other area improvements occur that allow for an acceptable level of service to be provided, as determined by ACHD. TRANSPORTATION FOCUS-EXISTING TRANSPORTATION NETWORK CONCERNS Staff and ACHD have concerns with the ability of the existing transportation network to support the proposed development. 14 sheeld be nated 4ia4 a A Traffic Impact StudX(TIS)was net Pfepafed of submitted for the subject project; a memo with additional information was also submitted. There are already signal timing issues at the Waltman and Meridian intersection and this development will add to the wait times and congestion. • Northbound Left Turn from Meridian Road: There is inadequate storage for northbound left turns into the project site,onto Waltman. A dual left-turn is likely needed in this location, even with community uses occurring here,let alone regional serving uses. Further, a single left-turn lane requires longer green light time to provide the needed access for major big box retailer,mid box, and several drive throughs, ironically each rivaling the stacking capacity of this turn lane. • Southbound Right Turn from Waltman Lane onto Meridian Road: There is inadequate southbound right turn lane capacity for all return trips originating from either the interstate or south side of the interstate. While not a direct correlation to signal timing and capacity, each retail pad site can accommodate more cars than this lane without blocking the proposed full turn access on Waltman,nearest to Meridian Road. There are multiple proposed high traffic generating pad sites,never mind the large retail anchor and variety of other pad sites. site.eeneept plan,whieh is not shown(bt4 may suppeA some tFanspoi4a4ion e"ansion),bu4 would also need to tufn lane net4h of MeDenalds for-example, air-eady has an exeeptionally wide,partially abseur-ed,and very aw4p�va-Fd tufning are. Additional aoFthbetmd left Wm!a-aes on4o Waltman ffom this li&will eompo:HHA existing defieieneies. islands a-ad signals may also need to be Feset,bt4 this pr-ojeet should not seek to benefit and eommanity identity. This all remains upAmown, and is withou4 eowAiiitmeats. The very lafge if4er-seetion is sof4ened s4stantially by the existing 4ndseaping, and th4 should eopAifwe with development of this Anything ea-a be engineered,but tmder-standing the impaets of the entire afea developed and operating at the worst paft of the day,where tr-affie flow is alfeady eompfomised thfough sever-a!inter-seefien ligMs, is. essential. The Mefidia-a8A'Ama-a inter-seetion was not designed to aeeofPmoda4e the proposed impaets, in the e�dsfing eenditions and with the single poifA ufban inter-eha-age (SPUI). Timing will be ftifthef eomphea4e air-eady staek thr-ough these adjaeef4 signals and No&other-dir-eetions of travel,and whieh is fuFthef Page 13 Other T-ranspOARtiOn Coneernse No frontage r-oads are provided to integfate the par-eels in this area. All tfaffie, leeal a-ad regional, is feetised ento Waltman. A r-ebttst loeal ae�wedE shotild inte 4e with a planned fiet4h setith Cer-per-ate Dfive extension a-ad not Fequife east west travel on Waltman exeittsively. The east west drive aisle pfopesed with this pr-ejeet, efessing thfough the middle of a planned private ffmiti ftmii4y development, is not designed to safely aeeE) I , , . I olume through tr-affie. Ftti4her-, if this- eei+neefien exists,the p1mmed multi family pr-E)jt0-#-A-4-1-t-4ke iviest should not have baek out paf king, shoi have wide detached sidewalk to acconunodate bicyclists wid pedestrians, and the buildings should inelude Speenlative Entiflementl Stag believes that amending the Fu4we Land Use Map as proposed, give existing status of speeulative development is unwise. 14 is not clear if one or-both of the projeets tentativAy proposed for the"Waltman area"can reasonably aff-ord or en-' . . ements that adequately eempensate for-their-impaets. Pr-ojeets �qr-the entire adepted Nli*ed Use GewAntmity area need to have eempleted tr-affie impaet studies,have been fitily Feviewed, and have eensider-ed impr-ovements tha4 adequately address the aggr-egmed impacts of pr-ojeets for-the lar-gef afea. This is not possible when neithef pr-ejeet has a solid and eehesive master-plan,when beth may still ehange dr-amatieally, and when they are Valley,not just for-eppeftttait-y,but also operations through this afea. It is essential that analysis by both the Idaho Transportation Department and the Ada County Highway District be fully and thoroughly reviewed, and that Commission and City Council be able to consider the full array of both land use and transportation impacts before making a decision. , either-iteratively thFOUgh subsequent requests by diffffeflt Pr-OjeetS, OF by multiple - . . different stages of r- i I I ble haFM to the City's flagship and namesake inteFehange and eStFyWay iHtO the City.There should be lingeFiHg OF unanswered questions, nothing left to ehanee OF ehange later-given the importanee of this area-. Master Street Map (MSM):The MSM depicts W. Waltman Ln. and W. Corporate Dr.to the north,which is planned to be extended across the Ten Mile Creek to Waltman, as commercial collector streets but does not depict any collector streets across this property. Note:ACHD has submitted comments based on their preliminary review of the TIS, which may be considered with the future development application (see Section IX.I for more information). VI. STAFF ANALYSIS A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT(CPAM) Based on the analysis above in Section V, Staff finds the proposed development plan is generally consistent with the requested FLUM designation of Commercial for this site and the requested designation of MHDR for the adjacent property to the west(Tanner Creek) and is compatible with adjacent existing and future land uses. Further,the proposed FLUM designations provide for a better transition in uses from existing and future residential uses to the west and northwest and are compatible with adjacent FLUM designations in this area.Note:If the proposed amendment to the FLUM is not approved,Staff finds the proposed development is not consistent with the existing MU-C FLUM designation for the reasons noted above. See above analysis in Section V for more information. B. ANNEXATION(AZ) The Applicant proposes to annex 18.30-acres of land with a C-G(General Retail and Service Commercial) zoning district consistent with the proposed FLUM amendment to MU Commercial. The Page 14 subject property is part of an enclave area surrounded by City annexed property. A legal description and exhibit map for the annexation area is included in Section VIII.B. The proposed G Gi%aiag dist-Fiet is eensistent with both the existing Fb:�A4 desigaa4ien of NIU G an A revised conceptual development plan was submitted as shown in Section VIII.0 that depicts how the property proposed to be annexed,as well as the area currently zoned C-G, is planned to develop with two (2)big box retail stores a-adajuaier- eher-retail spaee [Retail 1 (130,000 150, 153,300 square feet(s.£)) &Retail 2(80,000-80,500+/-s.£),Retail Leti+-z2 (20,000 30,000 s.f-.)j 3 eut-4 pads, n^'„.ing 2 with drive thro g 's, and a 4 steff 90,0005 shoes. The area shown on the concept plan on the bottom(south)portion of the development area(delineated by a red line)is the portion of the site currently in Ada County proposed to be annexed;the area on the top (north)portion of the development area is the portion of the site currently in the City. The portion of the site currently in the City is entitled to develop subject to UDC Table 11-2B-2 Allowed Uses in the Commercial Districts,regardless of whether or not the proposed annexation is approved, as there is not a Development Agreement in effect for that property. As proposed by the Developer in the updated application narrative, a minimum of 10% of the total building square footage for the site will be reserved for non-retail commercial uses that may include such uses as office, clean industry, entertainment,hospitality/hotel, fitness and/or recreation,personal services,non drive-through restaurants,health care,daycare, finance and/or banking, and educational and/or training uses. The conceptual development plan depicts a future VRT bus stop at the northeast corner of the site along Meridian Rd., an arterial street. For safety reasons and for better accessibility from the proposed residential development to the west, Staff recommends it's relocated off the arterial street to the plaza area at Shop 1 or another location acceptable to VRT. A vehicular connection/stub is not depicted on the revised concept plan to the property to the west for future extension across the Ten Mile creek and interconnectivity, only a pedestrian pathway is proposed. Staff recommends a driveway is provided(alongside the proposed pathway)in accord with UDC 11-3A-3A.2,which supports limiting access points to collector streets and requires a cross- access/ingress-egress easement to be granted to adjoining properties where access to a local street is not available,unless otherwise waived by City Council.The Applicant has submitted an emergency access easement agreement with the property owner to the west for secondary emergency access to Ruddy Dr. and Waltman Ln. At no time should construction traffic associated with the development of this site be allowed to access this site using Ruddy Dr. through The Landing and Tanner Creek Subdivisions. A 10-foot wide pedestrian pathway exists along Meridian Rd. adjacent to the site. In accord with the Pathways Master Plan,a detached 10-foot wide multi-use pathway should be provided within the street buffer along Waltman Ln.; and a 10-foot wide multi-use pathway shall be provided east/west through the site with connections to the pathways along Waltman Ln. and Meridian Rd. and internal pedestrian walkways. The Applicant should coordinate the location of the pathway through the site with the Park's Department.A 14-foot wide public pedestrian easement is required for the multi-use pathways; a recorded copy of such should be submitted to the Planning Division prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for the development.Internal pedestrian walkways should be a minimum of 5-feet wide and should be distinguished from the vehicular driving surfaces through the use of pavers,colored or scored concrete,or bricks as set forth in UDC 11-3A-19. The City may require a development agreement(DA) in conjunction with an annexation pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-6511A. To ensure the site develops as proposed with this application,staff Page 15 recommends the provisions discussed above are included in a DA for the subject property. The entire property depicted on the conceptual development plan in Section VIII.0 shall be governed by the DA as agreed upon by the Applicant.A legal description for the boundary of the property subject to the DA is included in Section VIILG. Future development of the property should be generally consistent with the conceptual development plan in Section VIII.C. The Applicant requests flexibility in the ,general configuration and size of the building f�tprints and orientation,plaza areas and parking on the site with an allowance for up to 20% change in square footages of buildings. uses. The proposed eoneeptual development plan for-the annexation area(and larger-area) only ineludes two (2) land ttse types eommer-cial retail and offiee.Although residential land uses are planned to develop on the adjaeent pr-opeft-y to the west,the pr-opet4y is eoffently entitled to develep solely with eommer-cial uses;the previous residential development proposed for that property was As noted abo"lle in Seetion V,mixed use designated areas should inelude at least three(3)t"es of!and Therefore,Tanner Creek). Reasons for denial ineluded Couneil's determination that the sole residential use of the pt:opeft-y was not eonsistent with the MU G designation beeatise a mix of uses wasn't proposed a-ad the di&4 wan4 to btffden this pr-opet4y with pr-wvidiag only the non residential eomponeat of the mix of uses west to come in for review eeaetiffently in order-to ensure the over-all development is eeasistepA with the development guidelines in the Gempr-ehensive Plan for-the mixed use designati In aeeE)r-d with Staffs analysis above,the pfopesed development is not eonsistent with the general Stag is not ift s"poA of the r-e"ested annexation with the eoneepttial development plan proposed Elue to its ifteeasisteney with the Compr-ehensive Plan. As rwoFffinended in the pr-e appheation meetings for-this property and the adjaeent pr-epefty to the west, Stag r-eeewmmeads de3velopmeat appliea4ioas are s4mit4ed eonettffeatly for-these pr-opet4ies with a master-plan for-the over-all area tha4 demoast-Fa4es eonsisteney with the guidelines in the Compr-eheasive Plan for-mixed use developments and speeifleally the MU C desi- ,. alteffla4e deSigf1a4iE)fi i pr-eposed.Altema4iwly, if stibmitted separately,the develepfnen4 plan for-eaeh pr-epefty should demonstfate eonsisteney with the Plan on its own fner-its. The TIS should also be updated to take into wasidef:a4ion the developmefft impaets of both properties and the neeessar-y road and inter-see improvements needed in this af:ea in oFder-for-the stfeet fietwoFk to funetion suff4eiently with the intensity of developmeni pf:oposed. VII. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends derma gpproval of the proposed amendment to the Future Land Use Map FLUM and the proposed annexation per the updated analysis above in Sections V and VI and the Findings in Section X. If City Council does not approve the requested amendment to the FLUM, Staff recommends denial of the annexation request based on incompatibility of the proposed development with the existing MU-C FLUM designation. tion. B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard these items on April 28,2022. At the public hearing,the Commission moved to recommend denial of the subject CPAM and AZ requests. 1. Summary of Commission public hearing_ a. In favor: Ethan Mansfield,Hawkins Companies;Matt Schultz,Representative for Tanner Creek(to the west) b. In opposition: Kelsi Lorcher,Joe Lorcher C. Commenting: Clair Manning,Nona Haddock d. Written testimony: None c. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen Page 16 f. Other Staff commenting on application: Bill Parsons 2. Key issue(s) testimony a. Public testimony in agreement with Staff s recommendation of denial due to not having a Master Plan with the Tanner Creek development to the west; b. Concern pertainingtpacts on traffic in the area from the proposed development; c. Testimony from the Tanner Creek developer's representative that they're in favor of the proposed development and intend to re-submit a residential development plan for the property to the west once ACHD has accepted their Traffic Impact Study(TIS). 3. Ke, ids)of discussion by Commission: a. Concern pertaining to the impact on traffic in this area if the proposed development plan is approved; b. Desire to have the TIS reviewed&accepted by ACHD for the overall development area in order to know the impacts and transportation improvement requirements for the development; C. Consistency of the proposed development plan with the Comprehensive Plan. 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. None(Commission recommended denial based on their belief the requested use is not consistent with the general mixed use development guidelines,the existing MU-C guidelines or the proposed MU-R guidelines; also need a Traffic Impact Study.) 5. Outstanding issue(s) for City Council: a. None C. The Meridian City Council heard these items on June 14,2022.At the public hearing.the Council moved to remand the subject CPAM and AZ requests back to the Commission. 1. Summary of the City Council public hearing: a. In favor: Ethan Mansfield,Hawkins Companies;Matt Schultz.Representative for the Tanner Creek development to the west. b. In opposition: Joe Lorcher,Kelsi Lorcher, Clair Manning; William Kissingev Lorcher C. Commenting: Mike Swenson:Kristy Inselman.ACHD d. Written testimony: None e. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen f. Other Staff commenting on application:None 2. Key issue(s)of public testimony: a. Concern pertaining to traffic impact on the Meridian/Waltman intersection from the proposed development: b. Against the intensity of uses proposed with the NU-R FLUM designation and resulting traffic in this area and at the Meridian/Waltman intersection: c. Desire for a true mixed use project to be developed on this site as opposed to an entirely_ commercial development. 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by City Council: a. Preference for this property and the abutting property to the west to come in together or concurrently with a master plan for the overall area that demonstrates consistency with the existing or proposed FLUM designation; b. Desire for the transportation issues to be addressed before a development plan is approved- C. Desire for changes to be made to the concept plan to be more consistent with the general mixed use guidelines and specifically the requested MU-R designation. 4. City Council change(s)to Commission recommendation: Page 17 a. Council voted to remand this application back to the Commission for review of anticipated changes to the concept plan to be more consistent with the general mixed use guidelines and specifically the requested MU-R guidelines: and so that a master plan can be reviewed for this property and the Tanner Creek property concurrently. D. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard these items on(continued from October 19, 2023)November 2, 2023.At the public hearing,the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject CPAM and AZ requests. 1. Summary of Commission public hearing_ a. In favor: Ethan Mansfield,Hawkins Companies, Leah Kelsey, Six Mile Engineering b. In opposition: Kelsi Lorcher,Joe Lorcher,Joey Lorcher C. Commenting: Clair Manning d. Written testimony: None e. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen f Other Staff commenting on application: None 2. Key issue(s) public testimony A. Against project due to the impact on traffic in this area from this development and the extension of Ruddy Dr. b. Concerned pertaining to the safety of area residents with the traffic that will be generated from this development and the residential development to the west when Ruddy is extended to Waltman Ln. 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission: A. The Applicant's request to not be required to provide a vehicular connection to the west across the Ten Mile Creek to the adjacent residential development. b. The Applicant's request to not construct a driveway access to the out-parcel at the northwest corner of this site at this time. 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. At Staff s request,modify DA provision#A.1(i)to require the extension of Corporate Dr. to be constructed as required by ACHD. b. The Commision is in support of Council ranting a waiver to UDC 11-3A-3,which requires vehicular connectivity between the two projects via a cross-access easement,to not require a connection(DA provision#IX.A1c). c. Modify the requirement for a cross-access easement and driveway, t�provided to the outparcel(Parcel#S 1213417320)to only require an easement at this time. The easement should,grant consent to the owner/developer of the out-parcel to construct the driveway on the subject property in the future at the time of development. (DA provision#A.1 d). 5. Outstanding issue(s)for City Council: a. None Page 18 VIII. EXHIBITS A. Future Land Use Map—Adopted&Proposed Land Uses (Amended) Date: 10/12/2023 Adopted Land Uses I Feet ��� � 10.010 Orr" Legend ■ �1 +���// i'♦� ® Area of City Impact Qj 00f ffV// 1 Future Land Uses 0 Citywide ■ � ��� Low Density Residential ■ tj II I E Medium Density Residential ■ /`��{I Med-High Density Residential iru r ■ _ High Density Residential - Commercial - 'E Office r - Industrial CIVIC Old Town Proposed Land Uses - Mined Use Neighborhood 0,51 ® Mixed Use Community 1��A%%, %ii;'40 - Mixed Use Regional +!<<rrr==========rrrsr��� riiiif • �r���„ , '' , Mixed Use Non-Residential '/��% Mixed Use-Interchange �/ Ten Mile Specific - Law Density Employment } _ t_. �■-� � I/J�J�J 0F.14 ® Lifestyle Center l ■ �,141;Byrd JiR j - High Density Employment / �'�� //% j�zl ® Mixed Employment I� � ,— ,f`q1 Mixed Use Residential ; ' I �%0111 ® Mixed Use Commercial : . r I j FA ■ � I ■ Iro ■ _ / 0,0 I Page 19 B. Annexation Legal Description and Exhibit Map km E r4GrNEERtryG Februaiy4,2022 Project No„20-176 I-W!Aeridian Road 6thlbtt A Legal Dearriptlan for Anmxatkm Knd Rezone toC-G A parse I of I and being a port Ion of the Northeast 114 of the Southeast 1{4 of Section 13,Townshl p 3 North,Range!west,8_M.,Ada[aunty,Idaho being mare particularly descrlbed as follows= Commencing at a bra ss Ca p marking the East 114 oo rrLer of said section 13,wh Irb bears 589'2t}'1Q"E a dicta nce of 2,642.64 feet fro m a 5{g-inch re bar rna r1 irig the-Center 1/4 Corner of so id ype Lion 13,thence followi rtg the a ante riy I ine of the 5outh4m st V4 of said Secti on 13,501'02'43"W a di5ta nce of 420.62 feet to the POINT OF BEGIN MING. Thence following said easterly Ilne.SU1'01'4YW a distance-of 614.71 feet to the boundary of the City of Meridian par ofdrnance number 343r also known as South Gate Annexatlon,dated May T,1979; 1_ Th&ncie leasing sald easterly I i ne and forlawing said bound aryr the to Iiowing flue J 5�cou rses.. NEW58'17''W a d istarice of 96.37 feet; 2- 571*02'14"W a distanre of 373-86 feet; 3. 574'40'17"W a distance of 471.15 feet; 4. 583'2913"4V a distance of 332.94 feet; 5. N89°34'12'W a distance of 85.20 feet to the westerly Ii ne of sa id Northeast 1{4 of the Southeast 1/4r rf a ntA Ieawing sa id boundary a nd fol.lowing se id westerly Ilne,N00'43'22"E a dicta nce of 664.99 feet to a 5{ -inrii reber; Thence leaving said westerly line,589832'05'E a digtanCe of 968.55 feet to a 5{9-inch mbar; Thence H01r41136"E a distance of 244,37 feet Thence S99'08'09"E a distance of 349.98 feet to the PCHNT OF GE61KNING. Sa id pa reel conta i ns a total of 18.304 acres,more or less. Attached herea Is Exhlbit B and by this refer-ence Is made a part hereof. pL L:11Iq o � m c 1 66 L, Y I(E' �`- 4 5725 North Discovery Way+Balser idahD 63713• 208.639.6919-kmengllp.com Page 20 CENTER 1/4, CORNER POINT ❑F DI?MLgF-NCWEHT 51:GTICN 13 W. Waltman Ln, Elf 114 CORNER SECTION 13 FbUNb 519-INCH -2EB R (3ASJS OF BEARING FOUND BRASS cop S&5_215'10"E 2642.64' LI FEE:TARL.E � LINE 13FARIN6 DISTANCE I v � Li N66513'17W 96.37 of _ ew L2 S71'02'14-W 373.85 POINT bF BEGINNiWG i# L3 332.94 L4 N159'34'12-W 55.20 S99'08'O$"E ;U . 49.9W Unplatted Current Jw .t Zoning:R a , r� S59'32'O5"E 9681.55' � Annexation.Area- 18.304±AwL a C Prop-osed Zoning:C-G a Uri tatted m 51213417707,SIZ13417690&51213417699 � V3 '8 C>urr�rgt a V3 Zouing:RUT i L1 - Eerw I aJw Al I Y1 WSW.-8� I l'I !.� LA p LEGEND ERA$5 CAP -- Cr 0 ALUMINUM CAP 6662 - 5/8-INCH REAR 44 CALCULATED POINT OF — — — ANpW_KAn0W & REZONE BOUNDARY —SECTION LINE " Exp3nNn RIGHT--or-wAY LJH� 0 250 500 750 Plan Sca IG;1'-250' IEHGINEEAING 57'tS ndTn-I di�JGwCrA'W4t EIf715F,�4H[Y 83713 P+a«�owl aowms Exhibit B Annexation and Rezone owe r.b��mx SHEET; 1-841 Meridian Road 1 OF 1 NE114 Ski/4 Sec, 13,TAN, RIW, BM. Ada County, Idah-D Page 21 C. Conceptual Development Plan(REVISED) &Renderings I 0, DT-0 0 0 u�ttrrnmtru �th 0 � _ n III Iri IY� CIP km ate- — IA4 MERIOWi ROAM-L9NL4PlIlAL SfiE PIAN 0PN0N 6-0 "_� ��`_�'�•tiw�'��-n - - c i - i UIIIIIUIIIIIIU F II qa� e I nIIII f lJllli iiiiI l U i ---------------- (T I-84/MERIDIAN RDAD-CONCEMALSITE PLAN Page 22 1- 4 MERIDIAN IDiEILPNIENT CONCEPTUAL,SUBJECT TO CHANGE IA - F pi • .1 r— I F # •��fA cw rlp rte Page 23 - - -- T' y Y �IW6a 5 Sti �. YF11yA'kC-11 V I-�4 Z- is - - PIA/A TvYI Pi - _ -_ - �': ,i•, .I �:•i ri YTRSYFC I I}'h 1 �. - t \ �I I P_u�rn�e Page 24 - � �� __ _ -1-L1]LS I'RIAN CO IV7;('1'[C1N .. 'IP"'� )L •! �.! I �: ^ i e i , ■ i Yi.t 1Tti!1. ww*mc wor NLRl VEC fIV E 2 �p A F ■ D. Tanner Creek and I-84 &Meridian Road Conceptual Development Plan TANNER CREEK & 1-84 MERIDIAN DEVEL®PMENT CONCEPTUAL,SUBJECTTO CHANGE "S `' t air' IS ( 1 p r , - ,,1 I r J_ r / r Ill +, low 04 TANNER CRElEK & 1-84 MERIDIAN DEVEILOPM'iFN'lf-' A PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION C 1-84&MERIDIAN PLAZA TYPE C 6 C III; Y i B TANNER CREEK PLAZA /2 4 -� _ fi Page 27 E. Vehicular Connectivity TANNER CREED & - _ .:r�, �.+.••j FRANKLIIRD. 1-84 MERIDIAN CONNECTIVITY • I'1./�IV s CONNECTIVITY LEGEND B • ? <•••• VEHICLE CONNECTIVITY <••.n. CORPORATE PR.EXTENTION -.c O WALTMAN LN.1 MERIDIAN RD. ••+} w-ncrvawooD sr ' INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS eat* LINDER OVERPASS • {BY ACHDIFFDS � �� ki v • e'� Mav • •' "1 �` dzLe .. . say*.•,'•. - Z. +' - - - -1dtErsr�r�aa •i Page 28 F. Pedestrian Circulation Plan TANNER CREEK & T E4 MERIDIAN I I DI VELOPMENT PATHWAY PLAN _ PATHWAYLEGEND `.... SITE CONNECTIVITY m� } ` _ _ <Ruff.f TEN MILE CONNECTIVITY 9V Y two \ Ak `' J I`X OTHERS l-..►s•.•..�i....._ 1 y__�. - f i r .7 _ .i �'1 ' nn <+• Ia'PA-rHWAY UPROVEMENTS —_ � fF`iiia•a•a�..a � ...' a. i :mac IZ' li 'r a a {I�� ._ �� .,� • F iii��:. a {f J OPEN SPACEAMENIrIES __.. � a ���'' ,h e.u•as•i••.�faL""%sasaaap i Oil -�: _ r�M1 :� i � ZarVi:.-•■tii .Ira a IY ._.•,90 a..........• ICJ_ • L�JI • '�� ! I� ! i Y ter,.:, �n„ I � I�, Page 29 Page 30 IX. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS A. PLANNING DIVISION The Plaflaing Divisiefl has fie eefiditions on this application because the reeommendation is for denial. 1-f be eof4ifmed ' . Fit hearing in order-for-Stag to pr-epafe eonditions and Findings for-approval. 1. A Development Agreement(DA) shall be required as a provision of annexation of the subject property. The DA shall be signed by the property owner(s) and returned to the City within six(6) months of City Council approval of the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decision&Order for the Annexation request. The new DA shall include the followings provisions: a. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the conceptual development plan,renderings,pedestrian circulation plan and vehicular connectivity plan, included in Section VIII and the provisions contained herein. Flexibility in the general configuration and size of the building footprints and orientation,plaza areas and parking on the site shall be allowed with an allowance for up to 20%changequare footages of buildings. b. As proposed by the Developer, a minimum of 10% of the total building square footage for the site shall be reserved for non-retail commercial uses that may include such uses as office,clean industry, entertainment,hospitality/hotel, fitness and/or recreation,personal services,non drive- through restaurants,health care,daycare, finance and/or banking, and educational and/or training uses. c. A vehicular connection/driveway shall be provided to the west boundaa(alongside the pedestrian pathway,)of the site for interconnectivity in accord with UDC 11-3A-3A.2,unless otherwise waived by City Council. A cross-access/in rg ess-egress easement shall be granted to the adjacent property to the west and a recorded copy of the easement submitted to the Planning Division with the first Certificate of Zoning Compliance application for the site. d. A vehicular cross-access/ingress-egress easement shall be provided to the out- parcel(Parcel#S 1213417320)at the northwest corner of the site and a recorded copy of the easement submitted to the Planning Division with the first Certificate of Zoning Compliance application for the site. The easement shall grant consent to the owner/developer of the out- parcel to construct the driveway on the subject property at the time of development. e. A detached 10-foot wide multi-use pathway shall be provided within the street buffer along Waltman Ln.; and a 10-foot wide multi-use pathway shall be provided east/west through the site in accord with the Pathways Master Plan with connections to the pathwa sg Waltman Ln. and Meridian Rd. and internal pedestrian walkways. Coordinate the location of the pathway through the site with the Park's Department. A 14-foot wide public pedestrian easement shall be required for the multi-use pathways if located outside the public right-of-way; a recorded copy of such shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for the development. f. Internal pedestrian walkways shall be a minimum of 5-feet wide and shall be distinguished from the vehicular driving surfaces through the use of pavers, colored or scored concrete, or bricks as set forth in UDC 11-3A-19. g_ A bus stop should be provided in the plaza area near Shop 1 or an alternate location acceptable to Valley Regional Transit(VRT). h. At no time shall construction traffic associated with the development of this site be allowed to access this site using Ruddy Dr. through The Landing and Tanner Creek Subdivisions. Page 31 i. If the improvements to Waltman Ln. and Corporate Dr. aren't completed by the developer of the project Tanner Creek)to the west as planned,these improvements shall be completed by this developer through a Cooperative Development Agreement(CDA)with ACHD, as follows: • Extend Corporate Dr. off-site from its current terminus north of Ten Mile Creek to Waltman Ln. and construct a new bridge over the Ten Mile Creek,within existing ROWke Mile C-eek will e a 58 feet wide b r-ike with 2 feet perii3cis. The ivcc va-y Svirtr-vf as required by ACHD. These improvements shall occur with the first phase of development and shall be complete prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy for the site. • Construct Waltman Lane as '/2 of a 36-foot wide street section with curb, gutter, an 8-foot wide planter strip/parkway and a 10-foot wide detached sidewalk within 29-feet of ri hg t-of- wa(ROW) from centerline with 7-feet of the sidewalk located outside of the dedicated ROW abutting the site. All improvements shall be constructed south of the existing edge of pavement for Waltman Ln., shifting the centerline 8-feet south to the south. The north side of Waltman shall be constructed with a minimum of 12-feet of pavement from centerline, a 3-foot wide gravel shoulder and a borrow ditch to accommodate the roadway storm run-off. Center turn lanes shall be constructed on Waltman Ln. if determined necessary by ACHD. The improvements to Waltman Ln. shall include reconstruction of the existing bridge over the Ten Mile Creek as a full 36-foot street section with curb and 5-foot wide attached concrete sidewalks. This will require a 54-foot wide bridge with 2-foot parapets. These improvements shall be completed as required by ACHD and shall occur with the first phase of development and be complete prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy for the site. B. PUBLIC WORKS Site Specific Comments 1. No Public Works infrastructure was provided as part of this submittal, any changes must be approved by Public Works. 2. Water main must connect to the existing main in Waltman Lane at two locations. 3. Provide a water main connection to the west. 4. Ensure no permanent structures are built within a utility easement including but not limited to tree, shrubs,buildings, carports,trash enclosures,infiltration trenches,light poles, etc.). 5. Ensure no sewer services pass through infiltration trenches. General Comments 6. Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet,if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 7. Per Meridian City Code(MCC),the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5. Page 32 8. The applicant shall provide easement(s) for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way(include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility,or 30-feet wide for two. Submit an executed easement(on the form available from Public Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor, which must include the area of the easement(marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2"x 11"map with bearings and distances(marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. 9. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water(MCC 9-1-28.C). 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. 10. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC. 11. All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals,or drains, exclusive of natural waterways,intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. 12. Any wells that will not continue to be used must be properly abandoned according to Idaho Well Construction Standards Rules administered by the Idaho Department of Water Resources. The Developer's Engineer shall provide a statement addressing whether there are any existing wells in the development, and if so,how they will continue to be used, or provide record of their abandonment. 13. Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections(208)375-5211. 14. All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. 15. Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process,prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. 16. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 17. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 18. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 19. Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill,where footing would sit atop fill material. 20. The design engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. 21. The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD. Page 33 The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 22. At the completion of the project,the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. 23. A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting. A copy of the standards can be found at hyp://www.meridianciU.o�ublic_works.aspx?id=272. 24. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20% of the total construction cost for all completed sewer,water and reuse infrastructure for duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT https:llweblink.meridianciU.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=257681&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCiU D. NAMPA&MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID) https:llweblink.meridiancio2.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=258727&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity E. PARK'S DEPARTMENT hygs://weblink.meridianciU.orgJ ebLink/DocView.aspx?id=310268&dbid=0&repo=Meridian City F. COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST IDAHO(COMPASS) https:llweblink.meridiancit E.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=258617&dbid=0&repo=MeridianQty G. IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT(ITD) https:llweblink.meridiancit E.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=257906&dbid=0&repo=MeridianQE H. ADA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES https:llweblink.meridianciLy.orglWebLink/DocView.aspx?id=259278&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCiiy I. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https:llweblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=267371&dbid=0&repo=Meridian City https:llweblink.meridiancity.orglWebLink/DocView.aspx?id=259453&dbid=0&repo=Meridian City https:llweblink.meridiancity.oLvlWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=309476&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity X. FINDINGS A. Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment 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 amendment to the Comprehensive Plan,the Council shall make the following findings: Page 34 1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the other elements of the Comprehensive Plan. The Commission finds the proposed amendment from MU-C to A&ced r e n,,.iona!(AI r n 4 Commercial and MHDR and conceptual development plan is ate# enerally consistent with of the AIU n a,sig w,tie n other elements in the Comprehensive Plan in that Ws jqtwdeminant4, including provision of a transition in uses and compatible uses, as noted in Section V. 2. The proposed amendment provides an improved guide to future growth and development of the city. The Commission finds that the proposal to change the FL UM designation from Mixed Use— Community(MU-C) to Commercial and MHDR dees�e4-provides an improved guide to future growth and development of the City as the proposed development plan does is consistent with the proposed development plan and existing and future uses in the area, as discussed in Section V above. 3. The proposed amendment is internally consistent with the Goals,Objectives and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The Commission finds that the proposed amendment is n-64 consistent with the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan for the proposed AILIR Commercial and MHDR designations as noted above in Section V. 4. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Unified Development Code. The Commission finds that the proposed amendment is consistent with the Unified Development Code. 5. The amendment will be compatible with existing and planned surrounding land uses. The Commission finds the proposed amendment and conceptual development plan will H&t be compatible with existing and planned surrounding land uses felts as noted in Section V above. 6. The proposed amendment will not burden existing and planned service capabilities. The Commission finds that the proposed amendment and development will likely burden transportation capabilities in this portion of the city even without signoeasnt improvements to Waltman,and the extension of Corporate, . Sewer and water services are available to be extended to this site. 7. The proposed map amendment(as applicable)provides a logical juxtaposition of uses that allows sufficient area to mitigate any anticipated impact associated with the development of the area. The Commission finds the proposed map amendment provides a logical juxtaposition of uses bf4 d.esn,,meet many of the mixed, guidelines fop e+ lame, as discussed in Section V above; there should be sufficient area to mitigate any development impacts to adjacent properties. 8. The proposed amendment is in the best interest of the City of Meridian. For the reasons stated in Section V and the subject findings above, the Commission finds that the proposed amendment is net in the best interest of the City. Page 35 B. Annexation and/or Rezone(UDC 11-513-3E) Required Findings: 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: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; The Commission finds the proposed map amendment to the C-G zoning district and plan to develop &&k+ commercial retail and efftee neighborhood serving uses on the property per the proposed conceptual development plan deesmet demonstrates consistency with the g,,mer ' mixed use ep M Commercial FLUM as noted above in Section V. (See section V above for more information.) 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; The Commission finds the proposed map amendment to C-G and conceptual development plan generally complies with the purpose statement of the C-G district in that it will provide for the retail and service needs of the community. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health,safety, and welfare; The Commission finds the proposed map amendment should not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare as the proposed commercial uses should be conducted entirely within a structure. 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 The Commission finds City services are available to be provided to this development. No residential development is proposed,• therefore, enrollment at area schools shouldn't be affected. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. The Commission finds the proposed annexation with the conceptual development plan proposed is rest in the best interest of the City per the analysis in Sections V and VI above. Page 36 1-84 and Tanner Creek Minutes from PZ Public Hearing continued from October 19, 2023 for 1-84 and Meridian Road (H-2021-0099) by Hawkins Companies, generally located at the northwest corner of S. Meridian Rd. and 1-84 A. Request: Annexation of 18.30 acres of land with a C-G zoning district. B. Request: Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map Amendment to change the future land use designation on 70.4+/- acres of land from Mixed Use Community (MU-C) to Commercial (34.3) acres and Medium High Density Residential (36.1+/-). 4. Public Hearing continued from October 19, 2023 for Tanner Creek Subdivision (H-2022-0048) by Engineering Solutions, LLP., generally located 1/4 mile west of S. Meridian Rd. on the south side of W. Waltman Ln. A. Request: Modification to the existing Development Agreement (Inst. #108131100) to change the development plan from commercial to a mix of residential uses. B. Request: Rezone of 41.89 acres of land from the C-G to the R-8 (12.16 acres), R-15 (12.27 acres) and R-40 (17.46 acres) zoning districts. C. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 130 building lots (83 single- family, 45 townhome & 2 multi-family) and 20 common lots on 38.05 acres of land in the R-8, R-15 and R-40 zoning districts. D. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development consisting of 280 dwelling units on 15.88 acres of land in the R-40 zoning district. Lorcher: I have some disclosure for the next two applications from --for the Tanner Creek Subdivision and Hawkins. I have family members who live in the impact area of both of these projects. After consulting with the city attorney I will recuse myself from the conversation for this evening's application. That's -- that area impacts my overall family. So, with that I am going to turn it over to Jared and he will lead these two applications for these discussions. Smith: Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Lorcher. Kurt, would you like to say any words about kind of how this -- C i E IDIAN.;--- Agenda Item Applicant Presentation Meridian Interchange Center Development-PreProject Manager,Ethan Mansfield November 21, 2023City Council0099-2021-H Request G) on ~18 acres-Annexation and Rezone to General and Service Commercial (C-~36 acres (Tanner Creek Project to West)High Density Residential on -Comp Plan Amendment to Medium-Comp Plan Amendment to Commercial on ~34 acres- History 0099-2021-approval of HPlanning and Zoning Commission Recommends –November 2023 •applicants agreeDensity Residential for Tanner Creek, -for Hawkins Development, MedStaff recommends Commercial Land Use Designation –October 2023 •plans for Tanner Creek and Hawkins DevelopmentCity staff expresses support for and accepts updated site –July 2023 •in staff report and resubmits to Cityand coordinates with Planning Staff to comply with original suggestions Hawkins reworks site plan with Tanner Creek –June 2023 -June 2022•ACHD accepts TIS and drafts staff recommendations–June/July 2022 •TIS is accepted by ACHDZoning Commission to be heard concurrently with Tanner Creek after City Council remands application back to Planning and –June 2022 • Commercial and Med ResidentialDensity High -Med Commercial High Density Residential Land Use- VICINITY + SITE PLAN of CommercialG: 400,000 SF -C--Current Entitlement residential unitsProposed ~400 –Tanner Creek requires only CZC/DES Commercial Use –G -Entitled CRequestSubject of Annexation/Rezone 84 and Meridian Rd.-NWC of ILocation: SITE PLAN EVOLUTION NEWOLD VICINITY + SITE PLAN 84 and Meridian Rd.-NWC of ILocation: PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION AMENITIES + OPEN SPACE ConnectionPlaza Bike/Ped CONNECTING PLAZA CONNECTING PLAZA Residential Side– CONNECTING PLAZA Commercial Side– NO CONNECTING PLAZA IF STREET + PATHWAYS PUNCHED THROUGH Requesting Modification of Condition 1c. requiring Stub to be Constructed driveway to edge of developmentconstruct stub & development Provide Cross access to future driveway to edge of developmentconstruct stub development & Provide Cross access to future Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation roadway connection Waive requirement for local driveway to edge of developmentconstruct stub & development Provide Cross access to future Enhanced Connectivity Across Entire Area and Meridian Rd.corner of Waltman future transit stop) on infrastructure (for Install transit •pathwayuse -Install 10’ multi•Collector RoadwayImprove Waltman to •Creek to WaltmanDrive across Ten Mile Extend Corporate •OccupancyPrior to Completed 2027-2026Construction Enhanced Connectivity Across Entire Area Opening Summer 2026Estimated Retail 1 OccupancyPrior to Completed 2027-2026Construction Multiple Connectivity Options Thank You!Questions? ATYPE PLAZA/PATIO SPACE- BTYPE PLAZA/PATIO SPACE- BTYPE PLAZA/PATIO SPACE- ADJACENT PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT Currently Governs Development of Property•Existing Development agreement from 2008• ADJACENT PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT ADJACENT PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT TRIP GENERATION (Max Commercial)similar commercial mixtrips with 9,270 generate ~Current site plan could would be generatedtrips 11,400 with similar commercial mix, Based on Entitled 400,000 SF development Site PlanSF 382,000 based on ~Trip Generation below Phase I + II : Hawkins Constructs Meridian Rd to accommodate Phase III Space allocated along W side of •use pathway-to Detached MultiBike Facilities moved from Meridian Rd •Meridian 2 EB Right Turn Lanes from Waltman to •to Waltman2 NB Left Turn Lanes from Meridian Rd • Phase III : Constructed by ACHD or Others at Future Date previously dedicated)south of Waltman Ln (in space Add SB Meridian Rd through lane •Waltman Ln.to 4 through lanes north of Rd from 3 Merdianwidening SB All Phase I+II Improvements, plus • ACHD CIP 20202040- Temporary Traffic Configuration Six Mile Engineering Concept– CONCEPT RENDERINGS Looking SWLooking SE RETAIL 1– CONCEPT RENDERINGS Looking East Looking South RETAIL 1– Waltman Ln + Meridian Rd TIS Table Meridian IC Commercial TIS Table Meridian IC Commercial TIS Table Are these assumptions correct? Future Build w/ Tanner Creek Future Build with Tanner Creek (Mitigated) TRIP GENERATION (Tanner Creek) C only CZC/DES Commercial Use requires –G -Entitled CAnnexation/Rezone RequestSubject of R FLUM-G ZONE + MU-C uses… Close proximity and/or access to interstate or arterial intersections.Largest scale and broadest mix of retail, office, service, and light industrial G Zoning Description:- INTEGRATION WITH SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT No understanding of congruency across canal to the east-Less congruent with existing neighborhood to west -Approved Plan on Tanner Creek site (2008) 2008 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT C�,fER IDIAN:--- IDAHO Public Presentations Greenhead St(Stub Street)Ruddy Dr.(Stub Street) •access point ONLYRuddy Dr. will be the •Therefore, Greenhead St will not be a second access point to distribute traffic from the west neighborhood•I will not give written permission to annex my land•I do not use City water or City sewer•04My land is devoted to agriculture as defined in Idaho Code section 63•I am the owner, and my land is more than 5 acres •getting hit or swiped by a car.a child, pedestrian, or bicyclist That is over 636 chances a day of •information on that.RUDDY DR. I could not find GENERATED TRIPS TRAVELING ON HAWKINS PROJECTED THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE •through Ruddy Dr.will go 636 vehicles per day Traffic Impact Study, According to Tanner Creek’s 1 curvature of the road, which limits visibility around the corner.who frequent the park. This is particularly worrisome due to the major safety concern for the children and cyclists in this community neighborhood AND Hawkins site driving through Ruddy Dr, poses a for traffic generated by the 700 homes in the western -unaccounted636 vehicles per day from Tanner Creek, coupled with the 1 Access Point4 Access Points VS x 1432 •= proposed sidewalk Crosswalk! No Not Safe!•Sidewalks only on South Side•No Bike Lanes•No Crosswalk to North Side VRT Bus Stop on Meridian Rd intersection.an already highly congested congestion and timing issues to This would cause even more •overadding a bus lane to safely pull bus stop. There is no room for This is not a smart location for a •Rd.development. Not on Meridian moved to the inside the accessibility, this should be For safety reasons and better • In Conclusion a gathering spot for Entertainment and small businesses.this gateway to the city be more than high density apartments. It should be I have lived and worked on Waltman Lane since 1975 and would love to see •development that will follow Meridian’s Future Land Use Map.use community -density mixed-residential development. We need a lowdensity -fire hazard that this land is currently at. I am opposed to the highI am not opposed to developing these 36 acres. I am tired of the weeds and •proposed park.Especially because of the lack of cross walks and the location of the with the increased traffic going through Ruddy and onto Waltman Ln. Safety issues for children, pedestrians, and bicyclists are a main concern •traffic on Waltman Ln. and Corporate drive.will be concentrated at Ruddy Dr. and then add to this development’s own traffic coming from the west neighborhood ALLWith only one access point, • Please developers can do better than this.Meridian deserves better than this. These the gateway to Meridian. plan that better serves our community and dense -they can come up with a better, lowboth of these applications until deny Sources&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCityhttps://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=308572•&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCityhttps://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=311244•222/-CT50https ://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/Title50/T50CH2/SE•&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCityhttps://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=183999• C�,fER IDIAN:--- IDAHO Public Presentations Per West Ada School District, the following formula predicts how many most preventable. overcrowded, but it is the Development is not the only reason why schools become # of homes x 0.8 (per census data)/13 (K through 12)school aged children will be housed within a residential development: Vanguard students108 new 135 units Mile High Pines 232 new students 291 units Foxcroft Schoolstudents for Meridian Middle * 3 school years = 474 new 158 Equals 158 students per school year.2,063/13 2,063= 328+ 1,735.future developments already approvedEstimated new students from 1,735 108 Mile High Pines232 FoxcroftVanguard Village441Outer Banks412320 GatewayNewkirk222ESTIMATED NEW STUDENTS students222 new 278 units Newkirk students412 new 516 UnitsOuter Banks students320 new 400 unitsTen MileGateway at students328 new 410 unitsTanner Creek 552 units 441 new students Village School Name students.of those students will be middle school 4743 years. students in the area in 2additional 2,063bring an estimated total of approved residential developments will Tanner Creek along with 6 already 287 students. over capacity by Meridian Middle School will be •12501,5374741,063Meridian Middle DistrictSchool West Ada of studentsEstimated Creekincluding Tanner students with new Estimated # of new EducationDepartment of per Idaho State Current Enrollment •livability, and sustainability.his development DOES NOT preserve our communities’ character, quality of life, T•This development DOES NOT reflect our communities’ vision for our future children•Our Community DOES NOT value their children’s education being compromised. •Our community DOES NOT desire overcrowding their children’s schools•up.2,063 New Students in this area is OVERWHELMING and our schools CANNOT keep •being built. School is already going to be over capacity before Tanner Creek is even finished Using West Ada County School District’s formula we find that Meridian Middle Meridian has only School Owyhee High School since 2016. built one High Meridian has NOT built 38% over capacity a few years before 2028. students past capacity, it will already be at With Meridian Middle estimated to be at 474 since 2016. a new middle school Meridian has only built 1 (Pleasant View Elementary)elementary school out of 5 needed. Current Reality as of 2023Failed-May 2023 West Ada School District’s $500 million levy •Failed-May 2020 West Ada School District $14 million levy •Pleasant View Elementary Built•Owyhee High Built•Passed–March 2018 West Ada School District $95 million Bond •: In Conclusion Please use your common sense and deny this development •Tanner Creek development. We can do better!There are plenty of better, low density, community friendly, family friendly, and healthier options for the location of the •The Tanner Creek development is not suited for its location, our community, and the City of Meridian•density developments like Tanner CreekCity of Meridian is unable to pass bonds for new schools in order to keep up with the population boom caused by high •All levels of Primary School are being overcrowded because of high density developments like Tanner Creek•local elementary schools, Meridian Middle School, and Meridian High SchoolWest Ada School District’s formula for predicting the increase in student population proves Tanner Creek is not good for •Development is not the only reason why schools become overcrowded, but it is the most preventable• https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=18Current Enrollment–Idaho State Department of Education list-https://idahoschools.org/districts/002/school2018-West Ada School District School Facility Plan 20164478&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity&cr=1 C�,fER IDIAN:--- IDAHO Public Presentations Comprehensive Plan ”.resultmaylivingandlifeofqualitycurrenttheofdeteriorationoverallandidentity,communitysafety,congestion,overcrowding,development,andgrowthguided“Without Value of Planning– FLUM designates this area as MixedUse Community.- AGENCY COMMENTS Meridian Fire Department Comments 10/20/23 Compass 9/15/2023 Comments Meridian Development Corporation Comments 10/12/23 Survey Submitted in Public Comments comment box.expressed additional concerns in the individualsAmong the 83 responses, 46 •these applications.DENYCouncil to 100% of responses asked the City •days responses in 4 83The Survey received •media sitesThis survey was posted on local social • ISSUES AND CONCERNS FROM PAST MEETINGS Past Comments/Concerns from City Council Members hand turn lane is here to stay and now Hawkins brings 10,000 more Vehicles per dayOne left Waltman Lane from Meridian Road and the traffic congestion on Meridian Road and Waltman Lane. , you were highly concerned about having only one left hand turn lane into HoaglunCouncil Member •C elements-This still does not reflect MUCommunity in this area. Use -, you focused on the FLUM and Comp Plan and voiced your desire for MixedBortonCouncil Member •Now its even worseadding strain to our schools. Council Member Strader, you were super concerned about the school overcrowding from Tanner Creek and •ok.use designation and setting a precedence to future developments that this practice is -practice of floating landand Strader, you both expressed your concerns and took issue to the Cavenermembers property. Council acre strip on the west side zoned as residential and floating it across the whole entire -In regards to the 3•Tanner Creek City Council Meeting 2020 Quotes from the Hawkins 2022 City Council Meeting“We’re trying to get this right, this is a critical area, you know, in the heart of the city. “•Community.” use components. In my perspective, there would be value to have mixed use components. I think -mixedapplication is, which I appreciate, but I’m not so certain our comp plan in this area is wrong with those is wrong. And as a City, we should do something just totally different. That’s in essence what your plant’s saying the mixed components of the comp I“In essence your application is saying our comp plan is wrong. •they’re not mixed uses. That’s a big distinction.”“What I think would helpful for me is the mix use community designation, I see these… there adjacent uses, •:BortonCouncil Member don’t want this to turn into a traffic jam for everybody, all the time, especially from 4:30 to 7pm.”“We’ve invested a lot of money between the MDC, the City, ACHD, and the road network configurations, we •Mayor Simison: Becky issues and alignment with the FLUM and Comp Plan.reevaluation of densities, encouraging a more thoughtful consideration of key There is room for improvement. Rejecting this development may prompt a •NOT true and honestly kind of a slap in the face to the Comp Plan and FLUM. Furthermore, Becky and Ethan said that these plans are as good as it gets. This is •Hawkins are not going anywhere. money and resources into these applications. So, let’s get real, CBH Homes and value of this property. In addition, both companies have poured a lot of time, city’s approval. While true, Corey Barton Homes and Hawkins Company know the someone can swoop in and buy the properties and build commercial without the G. They said if these plans don’t get approved, -annexed and zoned for CBecky and Ethan both mentioned how both of their properties are already •and Ethan 11/02 2023 Planning and Zoning Meeting Quote from Mayor’s State of the City address 6/22/2020 Meridian Mayor Robert Simison-not be changed much for the first 5 years.”It should It needs to mean something.community about this plan. engaging the over $200,000 and countless hours of staff time We have spent changes can be looked at in the context of the full plan. plan be our guide and limit how often it should be amended so any they stated they wanted for Meridian. As a City, we need to let the Comprehensive Plan. This is the growth plan for our community that “In 2019 the city completed a nearly 2 year process of updating our (Still holds true to this day) “Without guided growth and development, overcrowding, congestion, Please hold these developers to the high standards that this unique gateway to Meridian deserves.•community identity, and will overall deteriorate our quality of life in Meridian.These developments will cause overcrowding, congestion, compromise safety, negatively impact •detrimental for this area.Please save this area from these VERY inappropriate high dense developments that will become •Please echo the same concerns and issues you have voiced in the past•C designation from the FLUM-Please uphold the MU•Please adhere to the Comp Plan that was carefully curated for the growth of our city•quality of life and living may result.”safety, community identity, and overall deterioration of the current PLEASE DENY BOTH APPLICATIONS https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=30https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJTIVXPaa5U&t=6939shttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vn2UVcW97cY&t=9sVahWFbBWQwlLmJo1v0Xe6_cVaZon&index=3https ://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJTIVXPaa5U&list=PL2i_h8355&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCityhttps://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=306794&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity&cr=1https://weblink.meridiancit y.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=308453&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCityhttps://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=306794&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity&cr=1 C�,fER IDIAN:--- IDAHO Public Presentations Traffic Congestion and the Linder Overpass COMPASS IDAHO ADA COUNTY!!!worst levels of Congestion in passed Eagle in regards to Meridian Rd has officially •Meridian Rd is #7 Interchange on 84 -Franklin Road to I•84/Meridian is #1-I•Periods, 2022in Ada County during Peak Congested Network Segments Top 10 This map shows the •System Report, 2022Congestion Management Treasure Valley Annual Daily Trips per Traffic Impact Studies 3,014 Daily Trips•Tanner:950 per PM Peak Hour•740 per AM Peak Hour•10,891 Daily Trips•Hawkins: Who in their right minds ADA COUNTY?!segments in and #7 worst congested road would want to add 13,000+ Moving on to the Linder Overpass…. •but for how long?”some of these turning movements ok, “My hope is that Linder Road will reduce some of the traffic in this that makes •mentioned the Linder Overpass and stated: In the last City Council Meeting with Hawkins in 2022, Mayor Simison •last?claim? How much relief? And how long will this supposed “relief” Where is the study for this? Where is the data to back up Mindy’s •streets are developed.than reported in the traffic impact studies once all other connecting stated that the Meridian and Waltman intersection will operate better In the P&Z meeting, Becky brought up that Mindy Wallace from ACHD Lintersection.Overpass, increasing traffic at the Meridian/Waltman will likely lead people to prefer Ruddy Dr over the Linder Stores like WinCo and Home Depot across Waltman Lane •seems impractical.across to Overland and doubling back on Meridian Rd ramps. Driving -84 on-and take Waltman to access the ICommuters heading east would most likely cross Ruddy Dr •Lane:In regards to the neighborhood between Linder and Waltman What’s the plan then?built and these 2 developments have been built? becomes worse after the Linder Overpass has been What happens when the congestion returns or •are now. brought relief for a couple years. But look where we The big Meridian Rd and Main Rd configurations •years. But look where we are now.Ten Mile exit offered Meridian Rd relief for a couple •temporary, lasting maybe a couple of years, if at all.Relief, if any, from the Linder Overpass is likely •84 from Linder Road-No Access to I•Ruddy REDNI Hawkins Trip Generation and Distribution with Linder Overpass built •Linder Overpass.area is inadequate to handle this influx of traffic, even with the The existing infrastructure in this Infrastructure Overwhelmed:•12,816 daily trips.Adding Tanner Creek brings the total to Including Tanner Creek:•Meridian/Waltman.built, Hawkins will still contribute 9,802 daily trips through Even with the Linder Overpass Linder Overpass Insufficient:•9,802 + 3,014 (Daily Traffic Generation from Tanner Creek) = 12,816•1,089 = 9,80210,891•10% of 10,891=1,089•that 10% would come from Linder.10% of Trips going to Hawkins site originates from West of Franklin, some of •approach than what is currently proposed.being of our citizens deserve a more thoughtful and elevated -wellThe entrance to Meridian and the Gateway to Meridian Deserves Better:•box development, lacking the necessary infrastructure.-residential and bigdensity -The current area is unfit for highInappropriate Location:•grave consequences to our community.adequate information is not a sensible or wise approach, posing potential Making a significant decision without Risk of Uninformed Decision:•Meridian's future are unclear.The potential traffic impacts of the Linder Overpass on Uncertain Impact:•84 via Waltman Lane is unclear.-Dr from the West Neighborhood to IThe exact number of vehicles passing through Ruddy Traffic Uncertainty:•is not of smart growth or sustainable growth.950 cars per hour during peak hours, to Ada County's most congested area Introducing over 13,000 trips per day, with over Excessive Traffic Impact: PLEASE DENY BOTH APPLICATIONS!OF THESE https://compassidaho.org/wp7371&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity&cr=1https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=26agementSystemReport.pdfcontent/uploads/2022CongestionMan- C�,fER IDIAN:--- IDAHO Public Presentations I Clair and Carrie Manning 84 and Meridian Rd- Area View DevelopmentHawkinsExtensionCorporateApartmentsHigh Density (30 Houses)R4 (280 Units + Clubhouse)R40(45 townhomes)R15 Ruddy Drive EntranceredniL Problematic Entrance to Waltman 315 ft Left Turn To Waltman Left Turn to Waltman Waltman to I84 Bottlenecks on Waltman 485 ft turning lane accessCar LimitsBackward View:herecar in turning lane Only room for one No turning lane Corporate Drive Typical 7:30 AM Commute Typical Rush Hour Green Light Traffic Study Under Evaluation Conclusion and deny these applications. Please keep Meridian a premier community •development. level businesses in the Hawkings in the tanner development and community appropriate use would be single family homes R40 an inappropriate use of this area. A more infrastructure makes commercial zoning and The inability to adequately improve • Thank You Backup Trip Generation V IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Tanner Creek Subdivision (H-2022-0048) by Engineering Solutions, LLP., generally located 1/4 mile west of S. Meridian Rd. on the south side of W. Waltman Ln. Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2022-0048 A. Request: Modification to the existing Development Agreement (Inst. #108131100) to change the development plan from commercial to a mix of residential uses. B. Request: Rezone of 41.89 acres of land from the C-G to the R-8 (12.16 acres), R-15 (12.27 acres) and R-40 (17.46 acres) zoning districts. C. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 130 building lots (83 single-family, 45 townhome & 2 multi-family) and 20 common lots on 38.05 acres of land in the R-8, R-15 and R-40 zoning districts. D. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development consisting of 280 dwelling units on 15.88 acres of land in the R-40 zoning district. f PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET a DATE: November 21, 2023 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 1 j CwL PROJECT NAME. 1-84 and Meridian Rd (H-2021-0099) z2 bd Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify (Please Print) HOA? (mark X if yes) j If yes, please provide HOA name 2 i bl)i C.L tA� 1-7 '-vt 5 1 i �✓ k0 5' 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 STAFF REPORT E IDIAN -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A N O HEARING November 21,2023 Legend DATE: ��Pro}ect Laca�ian TO: Mayor&City Council FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 10 SUBJECT: H-2022-0048 F__ Tanner Creek LOCATION: 675 W. Waltman Ln., in the SE 1/4 of Section 13,Township 3N.,Range 1 W. (Parcels: S 1213428050; S1213428301; S1213428010; x S1213427890; S1213427880; ' S 1213427872; S 1213427860; Imo S1213428020; S1213427840) I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Applicant has submitted applications for the following: • Modification to the existing Development Agreement(DA) (Inst. #108131100),which allows commercial/office/hotel uses to develop on the site,to replace it with a new DA allowing a mix of residential uses to develop on the site, including single-family detached and attached dwellings,townhouse dwellings, and multi-family residential apartments; • Rezone of a total of 41.89 acres of land from the C-G to the R-8 (12.16 acres),R-15 (12.27 acres)and R-40 (17.46 acres)zoning districts; • Preliminary plat consisting of 130 buildable lots [83 single-family,45 townhome and two(2)multi-family] and 20 common lots on 38.05 acres of land in the R-8,R-15 and R-40 zoning districts; and, • Conditional use permit for a multi-family development consisting of 280 residential apartment units on 15.88 acres of land in the R-40 zoning district. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Acreage 38.05 Future Land Use Designation Medium-Density Residential(MDR)(3+/-acre strip along west boundary)&Mixed- Use Community(MU-C)on the remaining 35+/-acres of the property[Note:An application is in process(H-2021-00991-84&Meridian Road)to amend the FL UM for this property from MU-C to MHDR.] Page 1 Existing Land Use I Vacant/undeveloped land(pasture) Proposed Land Uses Residential(single-family detached/attached,townhome and multi-family apartments) Current Zoning C-G Proposed Zoning R-8 (12.16 acres),R-15 (12.27 acres)and R-40(17.46 acres) Lots(#and type;bldg/common) 130 buildable/20 common Phasing plan(#of phases) 4 Number of Residential Units 408 units [83 single-family(attached/detached),45 townhome&280 multi- (type of units) family/apartment] Density(gross&net) 10.72 gross(overall); 16.44 net(overall) Open Space(acres,total[%]/ SFR-3.66 acres(16.6%)—street buffers,parkways,internal common open space areas buffer/qualified) MFR—4.06 acres—street buffer,linear open space,open space areas greater than 5,000 s.f. in area,areas greater than the dimensions of 20'x 20' Amenities Children's playground, 'h basketball court,pickleball court,pathways(SFR);clubhouse, swimming pool,playground with covered sitting area,internal pathways and a 10'wide multi-use pathway,plaza, shade structure&benches,pickleball court(MFR) Physical Features(waterways, The Ten Mile Creek runs along east boundary,a small portion of the site is within the hazards,flood plain,hillside) floodplain Neighborhood meeting date 6/30/22&9/27/23 History(previous approvals) AZ-06-063 (DA#108131100);PP-08-001;TE-10-028;TEC-12-008;TEC-14-005;H- 2016-0008 (PP exp.4/7/18);H-2018-0023 (CPAM,CUP,MDA,PP,RZ—denied);H- 2020-0024(CPAM,CUP,MDA,PP,RZ—denied) B. Community Metrics Description Details Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) Yes • Requires ACHD No Commission Action es/no • TIS(yes/no) Yes • Level of Service(LOS) The TIS in 2018 noted that all studied roadways and intersections were anticipated to operate at an acceptable level of service at build-out of the development. • Existing Conditions Waltman Ln. is improved with 2-travel lanes,25' of pavement&no curb,gutter or sidewalk abutting the site. • CIP/IFYWP Capital Improvements Plan(CIP)!Integrated Five Year Work Plan(IFYWP): • Linder Road is scheduled in the IFYWP to be widened to 5-lanes from Overland Road to Franklin Road with an undetermined date.This does not include funding for ITD's portion of the I-84 overpass. • The intersection of Franklin Road and Linder Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to 6- lanes on the north leg,6-lanes on the south,7-lanes east, and 7-lanes on the west leg,and signalized between 2021 and 2025. Access One(1)access is proposed via Ruddy Dr.,a local street stubbed at the site's west (Arterial/Collectors/State boundary;two(2)accesses(1 public street, 1 driveway)are proposed via Waltman Ln,a Hwy/Local)(Existing and local street along the site's north boundary. Proposed) Proposed Road Improvements Corporate Dr. is proposed to be extended from its current terminus north of Ten Mile Creek south to Waltman Ln.within existing right-of-way;this will include construction of a new bridge over the creek. Waltman Ln. is proposed to be widened and reconstruction Page 2 of the bridge over the Ten Mile Creek is required.See the ACHD report in Section IX.J or more info. Fire Service • Distance to Fire Station 1.3 miles from Fire Station#1 • Fire Response Time • Resource Reliability 82%(meets target goal of 80%or greater) • Risk Identification 4(current resources would not be adequate to supply service) • Accessibility Meets all required access,road widths and turnarounds as proposed • Special/resource needs Aerial device(can meet this need if required);hazmat event will require mutual aid; structure fire will require an additional truck company;water rescue teams would require mutual aid • Water Supply 1,000 gallons/minute for 1-hour(maybe less for sprinklered buildings) • Other Resources Police Service • Distance to Police Station 1.6 miles • Police Response Time 2:46 minutes(expected);3:58 minutes(average) • Calls for Service 5,176 within 1-mile(6/l/21-5/31/23) • %of calls for service split See comments by priority • Accessibility See comments • Specialty/resource needs None • Crimes 665 (6/l/21-5/31/23) • Crashes 88(6/l/21-5/31/23) • Other Reports West Ada School District No comments received Wastewater • Distance to Sewer Services Directly adjacent • Sewer Shed Ten Mile • Estimated Project Sewer ERU's See application • WRRF Declining Balance 13.91 • Project Consistent with WW Yes Master Plan/Facility Plan • Impacts/Concerns Flow is committed—see Public Works Site Specific Conditions Water • Distance to Services Directly adjacent • Pressure Zone 3 • Estimated Project Water ERU's See application • Water Quality Concerns None • Project Consistent with Water Yes Master Plan • Impacts/concerns See Public Works Site Specific Conditions Page 3 1 1 1 11111 � NNIY :zMINE �• - — �� IN Ip NEI lilt: III.1111 _ - IIIIN +IIII • III■III �•�.: Cc _- S 1 - ■11■ I 9i IIIIII Ilr �•� ' OVERLAN 1�---- . -9-jLA YIII . _ 'R x p p it •n- ■ 1111}n= - uuv � f -u111n1 EL ' -��■ � -�11115111a • uuu11� p+uw �N IIIIII • +■` :=IIIN: - :ii 1..wF.T. •� ■ ■ ■uumul � �Baal• �:I � � � : ED NI III �I ■ .I . . l II.- 1. ■I Z �■IIIII � �-1 --I�11111■IN . 111= NII IR: �IlYiiii �Z II'-_�` �■ III :■IIIIII .IIIY 1■1 " N ^INS: IIIIII 'I INIIIIIIIIII� �Mll+� � 1 2 I. j }_ �' 111x III��11111111 III Is111�� •t ■ li - III .��i ■ - J• IIII I II ■ uuur� - � rw ■ ■■ 1 1 , ■ ' 11 i • - / i. • 1 1 1 1 . / i 1� C. Representative: Same as Applicant IV. NOTICING Planning& Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper Notification 10/3/2023 11/5/2023 Radius notification mailed to properties within 300 feet 9/29/2023 11/3/2023 Public hearing notice sign posted 10/7/2023 11/5/2023 on site Nextdoor posting 9/28/2023 11/3/2023 V. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS(https://www.meridiancity.org/compplan) LAND USE: Existing Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designations: This property is primarily designated MU-C(Mixed Use—Community) on the FLUM with a narrow sliver of Medium Density Residential(MDR)along the western portion of the site consisting of approximately three(3) acres. The purpose of the MU-C designation is to allocate areas where community-servicing uses and dwellings are seamlessly integrated into the urban fabric. The intent is to integrate a variety of uses, including residential, and to avoid mainly single-use and strip commercial type buildings.Non-residential buildings in these areas have a tendency to be larger than in MU-N(Mixed-Use Neighborhood) designated areas but not as large as in MU-R (Mixed Use—Regional)designated areas. Goods and services in these areas tend to be of the variety that people will mainly travel by car to but also walk or bike to(up to 3 or 4 miles). Employment opportunities for those living in and around the neighborhood are encouraged. The MDR designation allows for dwelling units at gross densities of 3 to 8 dwelling units per acre. Density bonuses may be considered with the provision of additional public amenities such as a park, school, or land dedicated for public services. Proposed FLUM designations: The I-84 and Meridian Road application(H-2021-0099), currently in process for the adjacent property to the east,requests an amendment to the FLUM from MU-C to Commercial for that property and from MU-C to Medium High-Density Residential(MHDR)for the subject property(see exhibit in Section VIII.J). The narrow sliver of MDR is proposed to remain along the west boundary to ensure transition of uses as previously desired by the Comprehensive Plan Committee which is accounted for on the proposed plat. The MHDR 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. Note: The initial FL UM amendment request for the property to the east was from MU-C to Mixed-Use Regional (MU-R). The Commission recommended denial to City Council based on their belief the proposed use isn't consistent with the general mixed-use development guidelines, the existing MU-C or the proposed MU-R Page 5 guidelines; they also felt a Traffic Impact Study (TIS)was needed. Council heard the application and remanded it back to the Commission in order to be reviewed concurrently with the subject application in an effort to determine consistency with the Comprehensive Plan for the overall property. After review of these applications, it's Staffs opinion theproposed development plans for both projects are largely inconsistent with the purpose statements and development guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan for the general mixed use and specific land uses (i.e. MU-C and MU-R)for the following reasons: ])functional and physical integration of land uses is desired—these are two separate residential and commercial developments with only a pedestrian pathway proposed for interconnectivity—no integration of uses is proposed; 2) a mixed use project should include at least three (3) types of land uses—only two (2) are proposed[i.e. residential and commercial(includes retail, restaurants, etc.)]; 3) community serving facilities such as hospitals, clinics, churches, schools,parks, daycares, civic buildings, or public safety facilities are desired—none are proposed; 4)supportive and proportional public and/or quasi public spaces and places, including but not limited to parks, plazas, outdoor gathering areas, open space, libraries, and schools are expected—none are proposed; 5) mixed-use areas should be centered around spaces that are well-designed and integrated public and quasi- public centers of activity that are activated and incorporate permanent design elements and amenities that foster a wide variety of interests ranging from leisure to play—no such public/quasi-public areas are proposed; 6) a mixed use project should serve as a public transit location for future park-and-ride lots, bus stops, shuttle bus stops and/or other innovative or alternate modes of transportation—no such stops or lots are proposed; 7) community-serving uses and dwellings should be seamlessly integrated into the urban fabric for an integration of a variety of uses to avoid mainly single-use and strip commercial type buildings (MU-C)—single-use developments are proposed that are not well-integrated; 8) vertically integrated structures are encouraged— none are proposed(MU-C); 9) integration of a variety of uses together, including residential as a supporting use, to avoid predominantly single use developments such as a regional retail center with only restaurants and other commercial uses (MU-R)—no residential uses are included in the proposed MU-R designated area, which creates a single use development with only commercial uses; and 10) retail commercial uses should comprise a maximum of 50%of the development area (MU-R)—most if not all of the proposed MU-R designated area consists of commercial/retail uses, no residential, office, civic or other uses are proposed. For this reason, Staff recommended the Applicant of the adjacent project(i.e. I-84 &Meridian Rd.) change their request for a map amendment from the MU-R to the Commercial designation and include a map amendment on the subject property from MU-C to MHDR, as agreed to by both Applicants. This change better aligns with the proposed development plans for both properties and in Staffs opinion is more compatible with adjacent existing and future residential development in the area and provides a good transition between these uses to the proposed commercial uses to the east and is more appropriate than the existing and previously proposed designation. Proposed Use:A mix of residential uses(i.e. single-family detached and attached and townhouse dwellings and multi-family apartments)is proposed at an overall gross density of 10.72 units/acre,which is consistent with the proposed MHDR FLUM designation. Pathways and sidewalks are proposed throughout the development for internal pedestrian connectivity as well as to the multi-use pathway planned along the Ten Mile Creek and to the proposed commercial development to the east. The proposed site design provides a good transition of uses with larger lots on the periphery of the development and smaller lots internal to the development, and higher density residential uses (i.e. apartments) on the eastern portion of the site adjacent to proposed commercial uses. DESTINATION:DOWNTOWN The subject property is located within the downtown urban renewal district. Future development of this area is guided by the Destination:Downtown vision plan,which was adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan.Note: This plan is currently mid-way through an 18-month update process; however,Meridian Development Corporation (MDC) does not anticipate the vision changing much for this area. Page 6 The subject property is part of the Southern Gateway Entertainment&Hospitality District,which consists of 260 acres generally located between Franklin Rd. and I-84. Major characteristics of this district are as follows: 1)bike paths and trails; 2)hotel and upscale restaurant uses; 3)expand and upgrade park& speedway;4) extensive landscaping; 5)locate a multi-purpose sports facility; and 6) gateway features. Land uses desired in this area include retail/dining(25%), office(25%), light industry(25%)and roads/utlitites/institutional(25%). The proposed use of the property is not consistent with the vision of the Plan for this district. Bike/pedestrian paths and trails are proposed along the frontage of the property along Waltman Ln. and along the Ten Mile Creek as desired. While the existing conceptual development plan that was approved with annexation of the property in 2006 is largely consistent with the vision of the Plan, it doesn't seem feasible as the property has sat vacant for the past 17+years, largely due to access and transportation issues associated with such a high intense commercial development. Other considerations exist that have a part in contemplation of a different,less intense,land use in this area,as follows: • The amendment to the FLUM to MU-C in 2019 supersedes the commercial elements envisioned under the Plan. • Regional entertainment uses have instead developed south of I-84 with several major expansions(i.e. Wahooz,Pinz,Roaring Springs and the Galaxy Event Center). • Growth in the downtown district has evolved differently that initially expected. MDC hasn't reserved funding originally planned to support large-scale public-private partnerships,and no public improvements were made in advance to incentivize development in alignment with the Plan. Additional land consolidation has also not occurred to accomplish the vision of the Plan. • Recently, City Council showed some willingness to consider the type of development proposed when they remanded the 1-84 and Meridian Rd.project back to the Commission to be heard concurrently with the subject application. The desire was for both properties to come in with a master plan for the entire area to be more consistent with the mixed use development guidelines and specifically the MU-R designation they were requesting and for the transportation issues to be addressed. • A lesser intense land use such as residential will result in less traffic congestion in this area and will be more compatible with existing and future adjacent residential land uses. TRANSPORTATION: Access is proposed via Waltman Lane, a local street, at the project's north boundary and via the extension of W. Ruddy Dr., a local street, at the project's west boundary. ACHD's Master Street Map(MSM) designates Waltman Ln. as a collector street from Meridian Rd.west to the future extension of Corporate Dr. Due to the increased traffic anticipated with this development,ACHD recommends the collector street designation is extended to the west to Kearney Ave. Improvements are required to Waltman Ln., including reconstruction of the bridge over the Ten Mile Creek,with the second phase of development as outlined in the ACHD staff report. The extension of Corporate Drive, designated as a collector street on the MSM,including construction of a bridge over the Ten Mile Creek, from the north to Waltman Lane is proposed to be completed with the first phase of development prior to issuance of a building permit. This will provide additional access to the site while the bridge across the Ten Mile Creek on Waltman Lane is being reconstructed with the improvements to Waltman Ln.See ACHD report for more information. The proposed change to the FLUM from MU-C to MHDR and development agreement modification to allow for residential uses to develop on the site instead of commercial uses as currently entitled,will greatly reduce the overall traffic impacts in this area on Waltman Ln., at the Waltman Ln./Meridian Rd. intersection and the Meridian Rd./1-84 interchange. For comparison,the ACHD report states this development is estimated to Page 7 generate 2,884 vehicle trips per day(VTD)(260 vehicle trips per hour in the PM peak hour). In the ACHD report from 2008 for the Browning Plaza preliminary plat(PP-08-001) application,the entitled commercial development was estimated to generate approximately 10,300 VTD (975 vehicle trips per hour in the PM peak hour)at buildout according to the TIS submitted at that time. Although traffic impacts will be reduced if the proposed change to the FLUM is approved,there is still existing congestion in this area that will worsen significantly if this property and the adjacent property to the east develop at this time as proposed. Based on the findings of The Traffic Impact Study(TIS) for the proposed I-84&Meridian Road project to the east,which included the subject proposed development,the Meridian Rd./Waltman Ln. intersection would exceed ACHD's Acceptable Level of Service thresholds. With previous development applications for these properties,ACHD did not recommend any mitigation at the intersection due to right-of-way(ROW)constraints, impacts to existing businesses, and substantial intersection redesign and construction,making the recommended mitigation infeasible. A letter prepared by Six Mile Engineering, dated 1/23/23, in response to comments and feedback during the City Council hearing for the Meridian Rd. &I-84 project was submitted to ACHD proposing phased alternative improvements at the Meridian Rd./Waltman Ln. intersection to address traffic impacts from these developments. A three-phase concept design was proposed in which the first two designs did not require any additional ROW dedication and the final phase did. ACHD reviewed their proposal and does not recommend any modifications to the intersection as under all concept designs,these modifications would negatively impact existing operations of both the interchange and ramps. ACHD's concerns also extended to the impacts the proposed modifications would have to the Central Dr. and Corporate Dr. intersections at Main St. and Progress Ave. While the proposed improvements may benefit both of these proposed developments in the short-term, they'll likely negatively impact the already congested area roadways and intersections. These improvements without significant widening increase corridor travel times and interchange queue lengths,further compounding existing congestion in this area. ACHD believes there are other alternatives that may be considered such as converting Central Dr./Waltman Ln. and Corporate Dr.to a one-way couplet,which is anticipated to reduce both queue lengths and the impacts to the Meridian Rd. and the 1-84 interchange system(see ACHD's letter for more information). The construction of the Linder Road overpass (1/2 mile to the west),scheduled in ACHD's IFYWP for construction in 2026-2027,should greatly improve traffic conditions on Meridian Rd.by providing another north/south connection over I-84.The Commission and City Council should consider if higher levels of traffic and congestion in this area are acceptable when acting on this application.If not, consideration should be given to the inclusion of a provision in the Development Agreement,which limits development to the single-family and townhome portions of the development at this time and delays the multi-family portion of the development until such time as the Linder Road overpass is completed or other area improvements occur that allow for an acceptable level of service to be provided, as determined by ACHD. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES(https://www.meridiancibV.or /g comp�lan): Goals,Objectives,&Action Items: Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this application and apply to the proposed use of this property(staff analysis in italics): • "Encourage a variety of housing types that meet the needs, preferences, and financial capabilities of Meridian's present and future residents."(2.01.02D) The proposed single-family detached/attached and townhome dwellings and multi family apartments will contribute to the variety of housing types in the City as desired. A mix of alley- and front-loaded units are proposed for added variety in the style of the units. • "Improve and protect creeks and other natural waterways throughout commercial,industrial, and residential areas."(4.05.01 D) Page 8 The Ten Mile Creek, which runs along the project's east boundary, is proposed to be re-vegetated and improved with development on the west side that lies within the subject property. The creek should also be protected during construction. • "Permit new development only where it can be adequately served by critical public facilities and urban services at the time of final approval, and in accord with any adopted levels of service for public facilities and services."(3.03.03F) City water and sewer services are available and can be extended by the developer with development in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. • "Avoid the concentration of any one housing type or lot size in any geographical area;provide for diverse housing types throughout the City."(2.01.01 G) Four(4)different residential housing types are proposed in this development(i.e. single-family detached, single-family attached, townhome and multi family apartments).A range of lot sizes are proposed for these units, which will accommodate a variety of housing styles consisting of I-and 2-story units. • "Limit canal tiling and piping of creeks, sloughs, laterals, and drains to man-made facilities where public safety issues cannot be mitigated or are not of concern." (4.05.01C) The Ten Mile Creek, which runs along the project's east boundary, is required to remain open as a natural amenity and not be piped. • "Encourage compatible uses and site design to minimize conflicts and maximize use of land."(3.07.00) The proposed single-family, townhome and multi family residential uses should be compatible with existing and future medium-density residential uses to the west and north. The proposed design, with larger lots for single-family detached homes on the periphery and smaller lots for single-family attached and townhomes on the interior, transitions well to existing and future adjacent residential uses and the multi family apartments on the east side of the site adjacent, which in turn transitions well to planned commercial uses to the east. The proposed design should minimize conflicts and maximize use of land. • "With new subdivision plats,require the design and construction of pathway connections, easy pedestrian and bicycle access to parks, safe routes to schools, and the incorporation of usable open space with quality amenities."(2.02.01A) Pedestrian pathways are proposed to the amenities in the central common area in the single-family portion of the development, which connect to pathways in the central common area in the multi family portion of the development and extend to the multi-use pathway along the Ten Mile Creek. The large central common area in the single-family portion and the linear open space in the multi family portion of the development provide much usable open space with quality amenities as desired. • "Encourage the incorporation of creek corridors as amenities in development design."(4.05.02C) The Ten Mile Creek corridor is proposed to be improved as an amenity with a segment of the City s regional pathway system along the west side of the creek. • "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."(3.03.03A) The proposed development will connect to City water and sewer systems;services are proposed to be provided to and though this development in accord with current City plans. • "Maximize public services by prioritizing infill development of vacant and underdeveloped parcels within the City over parcels on the fringe."(2.02.02) Page 9 Although there are some County zoned properties at the northwest corner and to the north of this site, the larger area is surrounded by properties that have been annexed and developed in the City. Development of this infill property will result in more efficient provision of public services. (Note: The County zoned property to the east is part of the I-84 and Meridian Road annexation application that's currently in process) • "Require urban infrastructure be provided for all new developments, including curb and gutter, sidewalks, water and sewer utilities." (3.03.03G) Urban sewer and water infrastructure and curb, gutter and sidewalks is required to be provided with development as proposed. • "Require collectors consistent with the ACHD Master Street Map(MSM), generally at/near the mid-mile location within the Area of City Impact."(6.01.03B) The MSM depicts the extension of Corporate Dr. and the portion of Waltman Ln. east of Corporate Dr. to Meridian Rd. as a collector street. Due to the increased traffic anticipated with this development,ACHD recommends the collector street designation is extended to the west to Kearney Ave. • "Slow the outward progression of the City's limits by discouraging fringe area development; encourage development of vacant or underutilized parcels currently within City limits."(4.05.03B) The proposed vacant parcels are within the City limits and the larger area is surrounded by properties already developed in the City. The development of this property will result in better provision of City services. Based on the analysis above, Staff finds the proposed development plan is generally consistent with the requested FLUM designation of MHDR for this site and is compatible with adjacent existing and future residential land uses.Note:If the proposed amendment to the FLUM is not approved with H-2021-00099, Staff finds the proposed development is not consistent with the existing MU-C FL UM designation for the reasons noted above. VI. STAFF ANALYSIS A. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT MODIFICATION(MDA) The existing Development Agreement(DA) (Boise Waltman—Inst. #108131100), approved in 2008, allows for the development of commercial/office/hotel uses on this site. Because that development plan has not been viable and the property has sat vacant since that time,the Applicant proposes a change to the development plan for the site. A modification to the DA is proposed for the purpose of replacing the agreement with a new agreement allowing for the development of a mix of single-family detached and attached dwellings,townhome dwellings and multi-family residential apartments on the site consistent with the plan included in Section VIII.I. The existing DA includes two (2) different conceptual development plans for the site as shown in Section VIII.A. These plans depict approximately 400,000 square feet of professional office,hotel,big box retail and smaller retail spaces. The proposed development plan with single-family detached homes adjacent to existing single-family detached homes to the west in The Landing subdivision and future medium-density residential uses to the north across Waltman Ln., single-family attached and townhome dwellings internal to the development, and multi-family apartments on the eastern portion of the development provides a good transition to proposed commercial/retail uses to the east across the Ten Mile Creek with the concurrent I-84 and Meridian Road application(H-2021- 0099) (see Section VIII.C). History: Two(2)previous development applications for this site were denied by City Council, one in 2018 (H— 2018-0023) and another in 2020 (H-2020-0024). The first,which included a request for an amendment to the Page 10 FLUM from Commercial to MHDR,was denied due to the finding that the proposed amendment wasn't in the best interest of the City for the following reasons: 1)Concern that the property will not be maintained consistently due to different ownership of the structures and associated areas; 2)Desire for the applicant to participate in the Comprehensive Plan update that's currently in process,rather than requesting an amendment to the FLUM outside of that process; 3)Preference for commercial employment type uses to develop on this property rather than residential as the original plan proposed; 4)Concern related to impact on area schools, proposed density and traffic (i.e. resulting safety hazards); and 5)Conclusion that the timing wasn't right for an amendment to the FLUM(a City initiated update to the plan was in process at that time) and the development of the property as proposed.Note:Between the application in 2018 and the one in 2020 the FLUM designation for this property was changed from Commercial to Mixed-Use Community(MU-C)with the City's update to the Comprehensive Plan, which allowed the subsequent application to be submitted without an amendment to the FLUM. With the second application, Council found the proposed rezone was not in the best interest of the City because the sole residential use of the property was not consistent with the MU-C designation. Further, Council didn't want to set a precedent by"floating"a FLUM designation(i.e. MDR)and burdening the adjacent property to the east with providing only the non-residential component of the mix of uses desired for this area per the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed residential development plan is largely the same as those previously submitted for this site. However,the key difference is that a development application is concurrently in process for the 70+/-acres of land directly to the east across the Ten Mile Creek as mentioned above(i.e. I-84 &Meridian Rd.H-2021-0099) and an amendment to the FLUM is proposed to MHDR,which supports the proposed uses and is compatible with adjacent existing and future development. Because the proposed development plan for this site has completely changed from the conceptual commercial development previously approved and the terms of the agreement are no longer applicable, Staff is supportive of the request for a new DA to replace the existing agreement based on the proposed development plan. Staff s recommended provisions for the new DA are included in Section VIII.A.1 and the development plans for the overall site are included in Section VIII.Note:If the amendment to the FLUMproposed with H-2021-0099 is not approved, Staff is not supportive of the proposed MDA (and consequently the RZ, PP and CUP applications)per the analysis above in Section V due to inconsistency of the proposed development plan with the MU-C designation. B. REZONE(RZ) A rezone of a total of 41.89 acres of land, including adjacent right-of-way, from the C-G to the R-8 (12.16 acres),R-15 (12.27 acres)and R-40 (17.46 acres)zoning districts is proposed for the development of a mix of single-family detached and attached dwellings,townhouse dwellings and multi-family apartments. The proposed uses and zoning districts are consistent with the amendment to the FLUM proposed with H-2021-0099 to the MHDR designation.Legal descriptions and exhibit maps for the areas proposed to be rezoned are included below in Section VIII.B. The Allowed Uses table in UDC Table 11-2A-2 for residential districts lists single-family detached and attached dwellings and townhouse dwellings as principal permitted uses in the proposed R-8 and R-15 zoning districts; and multi-family developments as a conditional use in the R-40 zoning district, subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-27. The City may require a development agreement(DA)in conjunction with a rezone pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-6511A. Because a DA already exists on this property,the Applicant requests a modification to the DA(MDA)to replace the existing agreement with a new agreement consistent with the proposed development plan as discussed in Section VI.A above. To ensure the site develops as proposed with this application, staff recommends the provisions included in Section VIII are included in a new DA for the subject property. Page 11 C. PRELIMINARY PLAT(PP) A preliminary plat is proposed consisting of 130 buildable lots [83 single-family(16 alley-loaded, 67 front- loaded),45 alley-loaded townhome and 2 multi-family] for a variety of housing types and 20 common lots on 38.05 acres of land in the proposed R-8,R-15 and R-40 zoning districts. The single-family lots range in size from 3,850 to 10,536 square feet(s.f.)with an average lot size of 5,132 s.f. A total of 16 alley-loaded homes and 67 front-loaded homes are proposed with lot widths of 40, 50 and 60 feet.A total of 45 alley-loaded townhomes are proposed with lot sizes ranging from 2,400 to 3,884 s.f. with an average lot size of 2,739 s.f. The proposed plat results in an overall gross density of 10.72 units/acre and a net density of 16.44 units/acre, which is consistent with the FLUM amendment proposed with H-2021-0099. Phasing: The plat is proposed to develop in four(4)phases as shown in Section VIII.C. The Applicant requests flexibility in the phasing to adjust the number of lots, combination of lots and number of phases to reflect changing market conditions. Staff is amenable to this request unless otherwise restricted in the Cooperative Development Agreement with Ada County Highway District(ACHD) or as otherwise approved by City Council. Because noise from I-84 will greatly affect future residents in this area,Staff recommends noise abatement in the form of a berm and wall is constructed per the standards listed in UDC 11-3H-4D in its entirety with the first phase of development as a provision of the Development Agreement. The Applicant requests these improvements be constructed with Phases 3 and 4,prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancies within each phase. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There are several existing structures on this site that are required to be removed prior to signature on the final plat for the phase in which they are located. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): The proposed plat and subsequent development is required to comply with the UDC dimensional standards for the associated zoning districts is required,as follows: Table 11-2A-6 for the R-8 zoning district; Table 11-2A-7 for the R-15 zoning district; and Table 11-2A-8 for the R-40 zoning district. The standards for all development in residential districts are listed in 11-2A-3. Depict zero(0)lot lines where single-family attached and townhome units are proposed to span over property lines. Access(UDC 11-3A-3): One(1)public street access is proposed via the extension of W. Ruddy Dr., a local street, at the west boundary of the site and two (2) accesses(one public street and one driveway)are proposed via W. Waltman Ln., an existing local street to be designated a collector street from Meridian Rd.to S. Kearney Ave. with this development. A stub street(S.W. 7'Ave.) is proposed to the out-parcel(Cooper property#S 1213428090) at the northwest corner of the site for future extension and/or access. UDC 11-3A-3A.3 requires all subdivisions to provide local street access to any use that currently takes direct access from a collector street unless otherwise waived by City Council. Because the adjacent property to the east only has access via Waltman Ln.,a collector street, a local street with a vehicular bridge over the Ten Mile Creek that includes a minimum 5-foot wide pedestrian walkway on at least one side,should be provided in lieu of the proposed pedestrian connection. Three(3)common driveways are proposed off internal public streets that are required to be constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3D. Exhibits for these driveways are included in Section VIII.D that demonstrate compliance with the required standards. The landscape plan submitted with the final plat application should be revised to depict 5-foot wide landscape buffers planted with shrubs,lawn or other vegetative groundcover where solid fencing is proposed adjacent to the common driveway as set forth in UDC 11-6C-3D.5.A perpetual ingress/egress easement is required to be noted on the final plat,which Page 12 shall include a requirement for maintenance of a paved surface capable of supporting fire vehicles and equipment.Address signage should be provided at the public street for homes accessed via common driveways for emergency wayfinding purposes. Three(3) alleys are proposed off internal public streets that are required to comply with and be constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3B.5.Include a cross-section of the typical alley on the plat. For addressing purposes and for wayfinding in the event of an emergency,the Fire Dept. is requesting private streets are provided within the multi-family portion of the development. A private street application shall be submitted that demonstrates compliance with the standards listed in UDC 11-3F-4. Road Improvements: The Applicant proposes to construct the extension of Corporate Dr., a collector street, off-site from its current terminus north of Ten Mile Creek to Waltman Ln. within existing ROW with the first phase of development(54 building lots). The construction of Corporate Dr.will include the construction of a new bridge over the Ten Mile Creek. This will provide additional access to the site and provide for additional access while the Ten Mile Creek bridge on Waltman is being reconstructed. The roadway north of the bridge should be constructed as a 40-foot wide commercial street section with vertical curb,gutter and 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk. The crossing of Ten Mile Creek will require a 58-foot wide bridge with 2-foot parapets. Staff recommends the roadway south of the bridge to Waltman Lane is constructed as a complete street section with detached 10-foot wide multi-use pathways along both sides of the street.These improvements will occur with the first phase of development(54 lots)and shall be complete prior to issuance of any building permits. The Applicant proposes to construct Waltman Lane as %2 of a 36-foot wide street section with curb, gutter, an 8- foot wide planter strip/parkway and a 10-foot wide detached sidewalk within 29-feet of right-of-way(ROW) from centerline with 7-feet of the sidewalk located outside of the dedicated ROW abutting the site. All improvements are proposed to be constructed south of the existing edge of pavement for Waltman Ln., shifting the centerline 8-feet south to the south. ACHD is requiring the Applicant to construct the north side of Waltman with a minimum of 12-feet of pavement from centerline, a 3-foot wide gravel shoulder and a borrow ditch to accommodate the roadway storm run-off. Center turn lanes are required to be constructed on Waltman Ln. at the apartment driveway. The improvements to Waltman Ln.will require reconstruction of the existing bridge over the Ten Mile Creek as a full 36-foot street section with curb and 5-foot wide attached concrete sidewalks. This will require a 54-foot wide bridge with 2-foot parapets. These improvements should be completed as required by ACHD in the Cooperative Development Agreement. Pathways(UDC 11-3A-8): A 14-foot wide segment of the City's regional pathway is depicted on the Pathways Master Plan along the west side of the Ten Mile Creek.A 10-foot wide multi-use pathway is proposed consistent with the Plan with a pedestrian bridge over the creek for connectivity with the proposed commercial development to the east. A pedestrian easement is required to be submitted to the Planning Division for this pathway in accord with Park's Dept. requirements. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-17): Sidewalks are required to be constructed adjacent to all public streets as set forth in UDC 11-3A-17 as proposed. The UDC requires 5-foot wide detached sidewalks to be constructed along all collector streets(i.e. W.Waltman Ln. and Corporate Dr.). Parkways (UDC 11-3A-17): Parkways are required to be constructed and landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17E. Landscaped parkways are proposed along W. Ruddy Dr./S.Kearney Ave. and W. Waltman Ln. in accord with UDC standards. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): Street buffer landscaping is required to be provided as set forth in UDC Tables 11-2A-6 for the R-8 district, H- 2A-7 for the R-15 district and 11-2A-8 for the R-40 district and planted in accord with the updated standards Page 13 listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. Street buffers are required to be placed in a common lot or on a permanent dedicated buffer easement, maintained by the property owner or homeowner's association. A 20-foot wide street buffer is required along W.Waltman Ln.,to be designated as a collector street with this development; a 37-foot wide buffer is proposed with a 3-foot tall landscaped berm and a 10-foot wide detached sidewalk. Common open space areas are required to be landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-5B. Landscaping is proposed in these areas in excess of the minimum standards. The open space landscape requirements on the Landscape Requirements table on the landscape plan should be revised to reflect the updated standard of one(1) deciduous tree for every 5,000 square feet of common open space. Landscaping is required to be provided along pathways per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C. Minimum 5-foot wide landscape strips are required along each side of all pathways planted with a mix of trees, shrubs,lawn and/or other vegetative ground cover with a minimum of one(1)tree per 100 linear feet of pathway; shrubs should be added on the west side of the pathway along the creek in accord with this standard. Include mitigation information on the landscape plan submitted with the final plat application as applicable for tree preservation in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-I0C. Qualified Open Space& Site Amenities(UDC 11-3G): The single-family and townhome portion of the development is subject to the qualified open space and site amenity standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3.A minimum of 15%qualified open space is required to be provided for the R-8 and R-15 zone in accord with the quality standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3A.2 and shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3B. Based on the acreage of the R-8 and R-15 zoned portion of the development(i.e. 22.03-acres), a minimum of 3.30-acres of qualified open space is required. The open space exhibit included in Section VIII.G depicts 3.66- acres of qualified open space, exceeding the minimum standard by 0.36-acre. Proposed qualified areas consist of 100%of the collector street buffer along Waltman Ln. (on the single-family&townhome portion of the development),which is required to have enhanced landscaping as set forth in UDC 11-3B-7C.3 for entryway corridors and comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3B.2. The multi family portion of the development is also required to provide common open space per the standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-27C in addition to this requirement(see analysis below). Based on the acreage of the R-8 and R-15 zoned portion of the development(i.e. 22.03-acres), a minimum of four(4)points of site amenities are required per UDC 11-3G-4A; a list of qualified site amenities and associated point values are included in UDC Table 11-3G-4. The following amenities and associated point values are proposed: a tot lot with benches(1 point), a half basketball court and a pickleball court with benches(i.e.paved sports court at 4 points each= 8 points),multi-use pathway along Waltman Ln. and along the Ten Mile Creek (1/4+mile—2 points), exceeding the minimum standard by 7 points. The multi family portion of the development is also required to provide site amenities per the standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-27 in addition to this requirement(see analysis below under Conditional Use Permit). 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. A combination of 6-foot tall solid vinyl fencing and 6-foot tall wrought iron fencing is proposed as shown on the landscape plan. A 9-foot tall berm with a 6-foot tall rhino rock stamped concrete wall is proposed within the street buffer along the southern boundary of the site as noise abatement to buffer the residential uses from the traffic on 1-84 in accord with UDC 11-3H-4D;the wall is proposed to be staggered every linear 300' in accord with UDC standards to avoid a monotonous wall(see detail in Section VIII.F). The detail of the wall should be revised on the landscape plan submitted with the final plat application to include the centerline of the west- Page 14 bound travel to demonstrate compliance with the requirement for the berm/wall to be a minimum of 10 feet higher than the elevation at the centerline of the state highway. Existing Easements: There is an existing 100-foot wide irrigation easement(50' each side of centerline) for the Ten Mile Creek held by NMID along the east boundary of the site as depicted on the plat, some of which lies on the adjacent property to the east. A 20-foot wide City sewer easement also exists along the east boundary of the site as depicted on the plat. Waterways: The Ten Mile Creek runs along the east boundary of the site and is required to be left open as a natural amenity and not be piped as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6B.1 as proposed. Flood Zone: A portion of the site along the east boundary lies within Flood Zone"A"per FEMA Map #16001CO232H. This site is not within the floodplain. Utilities: Connection to City water and sewer services is required in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. Street lighting is required to be installed in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. An existing 15-inch sewer main lies along the east half of the Waltman Ln. frontage and along the west top of bank of the Ten Mile Creek through the site. The 8-inch sewer main connection will be in Waltman Ln. and will serve the entire site via gravity sewer. An existing 12-inch water main is located in Waltman Ln. along the full frontage of the site. This subdivision will connect in Waltman at two locations and also to the existing 8"stub located at the Landing Subdivision stub street(Ruddy)at the west boundary. See Section VIII.B below for Public Works comments/conditions. Pressurized Irrigation System: A regional pressure irrigation pump station is proposed to be constructed with this development to NMID standards with a Ten Mile Creek takeout in the northeast corner of the site near Waltman Ln. Pressure irrigation distribution lines and individual lot services will be provided to all lots in the subdivision. Pressurized irrigation systems should comply with the standards set forth in UDC 11-3A-I5. Storm Drainage: An adequate storm drainage system is required in all developments in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. Design and construction shall follow best management practice as adopted by the City as set forth in UDC 11-3A-18.A Geotech report was submitted for this development. Storm drainage is proposed to be mitigated by underground seepage beds and/or retention ponds in accord with ACHD design criteria. Stormwater swales incorporated into required landscape areas are required to be vegetated with grass or other appropriate plant materials and designed to accommodate the required number of trees as per UDC 11-3B-7 if located in a street buffer or other required landscape area. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed residential structures on the site as shown in Section V111.1. One and two-story single-family detached and townhome dwellings are proposed with a mix of front-loaded and alley-loaded styles in a mix of materials and colors. Single-story homes are proposed along the southern boundary adjacent to I-84 to minimize the sound impact to residents. In the multi-family portion of the development, one(1)2-story and 11 3-story apartment buildings are proposed containing 16-units and 24-units,respectively along with a single-story clubhouse.A mix of materials are proposed consisting of stucco and horizontal and vertical siding with stone veneer accents. The 2-story multi- family building is proposed along the northern boundary adjacent to Waltman Ln. to minimize bulk and wall effect. Staff recommends The rear and/or sides of new homes facing Interstate 84 and W.Waltman Ln. incorporate articulation through changes in two or more of the following: modulation(e.g.projections, Page 15 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 the subject public streets.Single-story structures are exempt from this requirement. All single-family attached,townhome and multi-family structures are required to comply with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual; single-family detached structures are exempt from this requirement. An administrative Design Review application is required to be submitted for approval of the design of all single-family attached and townhome structures in the development prior to submittal of building permit application for those structures.An application for Certificate of Zoning Compliance is also required to be submitted along with Design Review for the multi-family portion of the development. D. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT(CUP) Conditional use permit for a multi-family development consisting of 280 residential units on 15.88 acres of land in the R-40 zoning district.A total of(94) 1-bedroom units, (152)2-bedroom units and(34) 3-bedroom units are proposed in 12 structures on the eastern portion of the site. Specific Use Standards (UDC 11-4-3): The proposed use is subject to the following standards: (Staff's analysis/comments in italic text) 11-4-3-27: MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT: Site Design: Buildings shall provide a minimum setback of ten feet(10')unless a greater setback is otherwise required by this title and/or title 10 of this Code. Building setbacks shall take into account windows, entrances,porches and patios, and how they impact adjacent properties. The proposed site plan complies with this standard. All on-site service areas, outdoor storage areas,waste storage,disposal facilities,and transformer and utility vaults shall be located in an area not visible from a public street, or shall be fully screened from view from a public street. The site plan depicts screened trash enclosures not visible from a public street; all proposed transformer/utility vaults and other service areas shall comply with this requirement. A minimum of eighty(80)square feet of private,usable open space shall be provided for each unit. This requirement can be satisfied through porches,patios, decks, and/or enclosed yards. Landscaping, entryway and other access ways shall not count toward this requirement. In circumstances where strict adherence to such standard would create inconsistency with the purpose statements of this section,the Director may consider an alternative design proposal through the alternative compliance provisions as set forth in section 11-513-5 of this title.Floor plans were submitted that depict porches or balconies for each unit in accord with this standard. For the purposes of this section,vehicular circulation areas,parking areas, and private usable open space shall not be considered common open space. These areas were not included in the common open space calculations for the site. No recreational vehicles, snowmobiles,boats or other personal recreation vehicles shall be stored on the site unless provided for in a separate, designated and screened area. The Applicant shall comply with this requirement. The parking shall meet the requirements set forth in chapter 3, "Regulations Applying to All Districts", of this title.Ninety-four(94) 1-bedroom units, (152)2-bedroom units and(34) 3-bedroom units are proposed(parking is not required for the clubhouse). Based on the number of units proposed, a total of 575 spaces are required with 280 of those in a covered carport or garage.A total of 581 spaces are proposed with 280 of those in a covered carport or garage, which exceeds the minimum standard by six Page 16 (6)spaces. Based on the number of vehicle parking spaces proposed, a minimum of 23 bicycle parking spaces should be provided dispersed throughout the development. Developments with twenty(20)units or more shall provide the following: • A property management office. • A maintenance storage area. • A central mailbox location,including provisions for parcel mail,that provide safe pedestrian and/or vehicular access. • A directory and map of the development at an entrance or convenient location for those entering the development. (Ord. 18-1773,4-24-2018) The property management office and maintenance storage area are depicted on the floor plan for the clubhouse. Central mailbox locations are proposed at the trash enclosures and a directory&map of the development is provided at the clubhouse. The site plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance should clearly depict the location of these items. Common Open Space Design Requirements: The total baseline land area of all qualified common open space shall equal or exceed ten(10)percent of the gross land area for multi-family developments of five(5) acres or more.When multi-family is approved concurrently with single-family,the minimum open space requirements in UDC 11-3G-3 shall apply to the gross land area of entire development (i.e. 15%).Based on 15.88 acres, a minimum of 103,760 sf. (or 2.38 acres) is required that meets the standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-2 7C.2, 3, 4 and 5. The proposed common open space areas all have direct pedestrian access,high visibility, comply with CPTED standards and support a range of leisure and play activities and uses as desired. Open space is accessible and well-connected throughout the development by pathways and visually accessible along the collector street in accord with UDC 11-4-3-27C.2. All multi-family projects over 20 units are required to provide at least one(1) common grassy area integrated into the site design allowing for general activities by all ages,which may be included in the minimum required open space total. The minimum size of common grassy areas shall be at least 5,000 s.f. in area and is required to increase proportionately as the number of units increase and be commensurate to the size of the multi-family development as determined by the decision-making body. Where this area cannot be increased due to site constraints, it may be included elsewhere in the development. Several open grassy areas are provided that exceed 5,000 s.f. in area,which Staff feels is commensurate with the size of the development. In addition to the baseline open space requirement, a minimum outdoor common open space is required, as follows: 250 s.f. for each unit containing more than 500 and up to 1,200 s.f. of living area(246 units x 250 s.f. =61,500 s.f. or 1.41 acres)and 350 s.f. for each unit containing more than 1,200 s.f. (34 units x 350 s.f. = 11,900 s.f. or 0.27 acre),which equals 73,400 s.f. or 1.68 acres. With the baseline requirement(i.e. 103,760 s.f. or 2.38 acres), a minimum of 177,160 s.f. or 4.06 acres of qualified common open space is required overall.A total of 4.37 acres is proposed to be provided as shown in Section VIII.G; however, there are a couple of areas that don't meet the standards for qualified open space as follows: the 10'wide strip along the west boundary of the site consisting of 10,196 sf. (or 0.23 acre) is below the minimum width dimension of 20';and the area at the northeast corner of the site on the other side of the creek consisting of 3,802 sf. (or 0.09 acre) is not well-connected or accessible from this development except by the pathway along Waltman Ln. Without these areas, 4.05 acres is still provided, which rounded down to the whole number, meets the minimum standard. Page 17 Common open space shall be not less than four hundred(400) square feet in area, and shall have a minimum length and width dimension of twenty feet(20')per UDC 11-4-3-27C.5. The common open space areas depicted on the open space exhibit in Section VIII.G meet this requirement except for the linear area along the west boundary adjacent to parking as mentioned above. In phased developments, common open space shall be provided in each phase of the development consistent with the requirements for the size and number of dwelling units per UDC 11-4-3-27C.6. The multi family component of this project is proposed to be developed in two (2)phases as shown on the phasing plan in Section VIII.C and appears to comply with this standard. Unless otherwise approved through the conditional use process,common open space areas shall not be adjacent to collector or arterial streets unless separated from the street by a berm or constructed barrier at least four feet(4')in height,with breaks in the berm or barrier to allow for pedestrian access per UDC 11-4- 3-27C.7.A 3-foot tall berm is proposed within the street buffer along Waltman Ln., a collector street, which should be increased to 4-feet in height. Site Development Amenities: For multi-family developments with 75 units or more, four(4)amenities are required to be provided with at least one(1)from each category listed in UDC 11-4-3-27D (i.e. quality of life, open space,recreation,multi-modal). For developments with more than 100 units,the decision-making body should require additional amenities commensuarate to he size of the proposed development. The applicant proposes amenities from each of the required categories as follows: a 5,750 s.f. clubhouse with a fitness facility, dog washing facilities, a cycle shop and tenant storage closets; a covered patio with BBQ at the clubhouse, a gazebo at the pool deck, a picnic gazebo at play area, greenbelt plaza, swimming pool&spa with changing facilities &restrooms, children's play structure/tot lot, a pickleball sports court,a bicycle repair station and charging stations for electric vehicles. Staff is of the opinon the proposed amenities are commensurate with the 280-unit apartment project proposed and meet and exceed the requirement. Landscaping Requirements: Landscaping is required in accord with the standards in UDC 11-3B. All street facing elevations are required to have landscaping along their foundation as follows: the landscaped area shall be at least three feet(3')wide; for every three(3)linear feet of foundation, an evergreen shrub having a minimum mature height of twenty-four inches(24") shall be planted; and ground cover plants are required to be planted in the remainder of the landscaped area.Landscaping is depicted along the foundation of elevations that face Waltman Ln. that appears to comply with this standard. Maintenance and Ownership Responsibilities: All multi-family developments shall record legally binding documents that state the maintenance and ownership responsibilities for the management of the development, including,but not limited to, structures,parking, common areas, and other development features. The Applicant shall comply with this requirement and submit a recorded copy of this document to the Planning Division prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for the first structure within the development. Police access under exigent circumstances: Multifamily developments with units that take access via secured common corridors are required to install and maintain a keyless entry system, or suitable alternative, to provide police access to the common corridors under exigent circumstances. The keyless entry system or alternative shall be subject to review and approval by the Meridian Police Department. Private Streets: As noted above, for addressing purposes and for wayfinding in the event of an emergency, the Fire Dept. is requesting private streets are provided within the multi-family portion of the development. A private street application shall be submitted that demonstrates compliance with the standards listed in UDC 11-3F-4. Page 18 VII. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed MDA,RZ,PP and CUP applications per the provisions included in Section VIII in accord with the Findings in Section IX if the proposed amendment to the FLUM is approved with H-2021-0099. If the proposed amendment is not approved, Staff recommends denial of the proposed MDA, and consequently the RZ,PP and CUP applications per the analysis in Section V due to inconsistency of the proposed development plan with the MU-C designation as noted above. B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard these items on November 2,2023 (continued from October 19,2023). At the public hearing,the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject MDA, RZ, PP and CUP requests. 1. Summary of Commission public hearing_ a. In favor: Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions(Applicant's Representative) b. In opposition: None C. Commenting d. Written testimony: Heath McMahon e. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen f. Other Staff commenting on application:None 2. Key issue(s) public testimony a. Not in support of this project due the(high) density proposed and negative impact on traffic in this area. b. Safety of area residents with the traffic that will be generated from this development and the commercial development to the east. 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission: a. The request by the Applicant to not be required to provide a vehicular connection to the east across the Ten Mile Creek to the adjacent commercial development. The Commission was in favor of Council gra�g a waiver to not require a connection. b. Concern regarding the phasing of the development in relation to construction of the Linder Road overpass. 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. At Staff s request,modify DA provision#lb to require the extension of Corporate Dr. to be constructed as required by ACHD. b. Include a DA provision that requires the Linder Road overpass to be completed prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupany in the multi-family development(see Section IX.A.1h). 5. Outstanding issue(s)for City Council: a. None Page 19 VIII. EXHIBITS A. Conceptual Development Plans Included in Existing Development Agreement DIHIIIIHH 3 C5 ...... ..... .. ........ -------------- ............ HH*ffHM UMMUH .......... 0 1 UMMMMMMMM Waltman AnnexII Markibn,Idaho Page 20 B. Rezone Legal Descriptions and Exhibit Map Legal Description Tanner Creek Subdivision —Zone R-8 A parcel being located in the SE '/a of Section 13, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian,Ada County, Idaho, and more particularly described as follows: Commencing at a 518 inch diameter iron pin marking the northwest corner of said SE la (C ,/ Corner),from which a brass Cap monument marking the northeast Corner of said SE'/d(%Corner) bears S 89952'43"E a distance of 2642.71 feet; Thence S 89°52'53" E along the northerly boundary of said SE Y4 a distance of 250.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence continuing along said northerly boundary S 89°52'53" E a distance of 543.81 feet to a point; Thence leaving said northerly boundary S 0°01'45" VV a distance of 196.36 feet to a point; Thence N 89°56'05"W a distance of 129,13 feet to a point, Thence N 88`43'36"W a distance of 59.52 feet to a point; Thence N 89`52'43"W a distance of 305.30 feet to a point; Thence S 0°04'14"W a distance of 331.54 feet to a point of curvature; Thence a distance of 199.11 feet along the arc of a 125.00 foot radius curve right, said curve having a central angle of 91°15'53"and a long chord bearing S 44°25'59"W a distance of 178.72 feet to a point of tangency; Thence N 89°56'05"W a distance of 46.97 feet to a point; Thence S 0'01'30"W a distance of 422.85 feet to a point of curvature; Thence a distance of 84.04 feet along the arc of a 53.50 foot radius curve left, said curve having a central angle of 90'00'13" and a long chord bearing S 44°58'37" E a distance of 75.66 feet to a point of tangency; Thence S W58'43" E a distance of 427.00 feet to a point; Thence N 88°33'04" E a distance of 56.77 feet to a point; Thence S 89°56'05" E a distance of 129.17 feet to a point; Thence S 0°00'04"IN a distance of 301.28 feet to a point on the centerline of Interstate 84; Thence along said centerline S 89'59'24"W a distance of 795.12 feet to a point on the westerly boundary of said SE 1A; Thence along said westerly boundary N 0003'55"E a distance of 1189.59 feet to a point; Tanner Creek—R-S Zone LrfSt�Jut><o1'JS Lr.a s­yi�y,.a Page 1 Of 2 Job No.2$-64 Page 21 Thence leaving said westerly boundary S 69°44'33" E a distance of 249.82 feet to a point; Thence N Y0636" E a distance of 242.69 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. This parcel contains 12.158 acres and is subject to any easements existing or in use. Clinton UV. Hansen, PLS p,�-EAND Land Solutions, PC 110 G s October 19, 2023 T 11118 L�irar�5lfr �ls Tanner Creek—R-$T_ona �_. ann su••er•�7 a.a[gnso ins Page 2 Of 2 .lob No.23-54 Page 22 Le al Description Tanner Creek Subdivision — Zone R-1 a A parcel being located in the NW"/of the SE'/d of Section 13. Township 3 North: Range 1 West, Boise Veridian, Ada County, Idaho, and more particu€arly described as follows: Commencing at a 518 inch diameter iron pin marking the northwest corner of said NW 1/4 of the SE 'I (C % Corner), from which a brass cap monument marking the northeast corner of the SE "la (K Corner)of said Section 13 bears 5 89°52'43" E a distance of 2542.71 feet; Thence S 89°52'53" E along the northerly boundary of said NVV '14 of the SE la a distance of 793.81 feet to a point; Thence leaving said northerly boundary S 0'0V45'W a distance of 196.36 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence continuing 5 090145" W a distance of 427.80 feet to a point; Thence N 6965V 7" VV a distance of 112.70 feet to a point; Thence S 0006'20° E a distance of 104.81 feet to a point; Thence S 89059'36" E a distance of 11 2.51 feet to a point; Thence S 0900'04"VV a distance of 399.55 feet to a point; Thence N W56'06° VV a distance of 129.17 feet to a point; Thence S 88'33'04" VV a distance of 56.77 feet to a point; Thence N 89°68'43° VV a distance of 427.00 feet to a point of curvature; Thence a distance of 84.04 feet along the arc of a 53.50 foot radius curve right, said curve having a central angle of 90'00'13" and a long chard bearing N 44058'37"W a distance of 75.66 feet to a point of tangency; Thence N 0'01'30" E a distance of 422.85 feet to a point; Thence S 89055'05" E a distance of 46.97 feet to a point of curvature; Thence a distance of 199.11 feet along the arc of a 125.00 foot radius curve left, said curve having a central angle of 91'15'53" and a long chord bearing N 44025'59" E a distance of 178.72 feet to a paint of tangency; Thence N 0"04'14"E a distance of 331.54 feet to a point; Thence S 89°52AY E a distance of 305.30 feet to a point; Thence S 86043'36" E a distance of 59.52 feet to a point; Lzi � �� �ons Tanner Creek—R-15 Zone land survayln9 Ana canwrnq Page i of 2 Jab No.2M4 Page 23 Thence S 89'56'05" E a distance of 129.13 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. This parcel contains 12.272 acres and is subject to any easements existing or in use. Clinton VV_ Hansen, PLp L LAly� Land Solutions, PC tio s r � October 18, 2423 �4 �N VV LAnd olution Tamer Creek—R 15 Zone Page 2 of 2 -�-- �w sup or.y+�c cv�uidn9 Job No.23-64 Page 24 Le al Descrirytion Tanner Creek Subdivision —Zone R-40 A parcel being located in the SE /A of Section 13, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, and more particularly described as follows. Commencing at a 5f8 inch diameter iron pin marking the northwest corner of said NW% of the SE "/ (C l Corner), from which a brass cap monument marking the northeast corner of the SE 'fa(%Corner) of said Section 13 bears S 89°52'43" E a distance of 2642.71 feet; Thence S 89°52'53" E along the northerly boundary of said NVV % of the SE '/d a distance of 793,81 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence continuing along said northerly boundary 5 89°52'43" E a distance of 527.62 feet to a point marking the northeast corner of said NW%of the SE'l4; Thence along the easterly boundary of said NW'/of the SE'/S W19'27"VV a distance of 1428.67 feet to a point on the centerline of Interstate 84, Thence leaving said easterly boundary and along said centerline S 89°59'24" W a distance of 519.85 feet to a point; Thence leaving said centerline N 0000'04" E a distance of 700.93 feet to a point, Thence N 89059'35"W a distance of 112.51 feet to a point; Thence N 0°06'20"W a distance of 104,81 feet to a point; Thence S 89'58'17" E a distance of 112.70 feet to a point; Thence N 0`01'45" E a distance of 624.16 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Thisparcel contains 17.455 acres and is subject to any easements existing or in use. Clinton W. Hansen, PLS ��,L LAND Land Solutions, PC ���� is r s October 19,2023 4 fi _ 11118 c, a 10 0 F \O �n�ollutions Tanner Creek-R Zane U e Su yinq.na co�u innq Job NO.o.23-$4 Page 25 TANNER CREEK SUBDIVISION - ZONING EXHIBIT CITY OF MERIDIAN REZONE - R-8, R-15, R-40 LOCATED IN THE SE 1/4 ❑F SECTION 13, T3N, R1W, BM.ADA COUNTY, IDAHO HAM CF BEARING 1/4 C 1/4 W, WALTMAN IN. 589.52,43,E 2642.71' 138 256.D0' 543,81' 52T62' 1321.�aQ1�i x l POINT OF POINT OF ;o CFJ BEGINNING POINT OF BEGINNING Q R-8 BEGINNING a R-40 I `4 305.30' R-15 589'44'33"E NB9'52'43"W L5 L4 N + 249.82' � I ¢ � w u� ZONE R-8 AREA=12.158 z ACRES ZONE R-40 L AREA=17.458 ACRES Zn LQ L6 ZONE R-15 AREA=12.272 ACRES LIME TABLE r L1 LINE LENGTH BEARING L1 112.51' N89'59'36'W Lo onp L2 104,51' NO'05'20'W �n My cv - p Cj a rn L3 112.70' S8958'171 o L4 129.13' N89'56'05'W L5 59.52' NOM'35"W °n L6 46.97' N89'56'OTW P o 589'58'43'E L7 L8 L7 56.77' N88'33'04"E 42TDO' 27 LS 129.17' S89'56'05`E co N O r'7 S89'59'24"W 795.12' S89'59'24"W 619.85' CURVE TABLE INTERSTATE 1-84 CURVE LENGTH RADIUS DELTA BEARING CHORD iopLLAIyj>� r G1 199.11' 125.00' 9115'53" 544'25 59"W 178.72 � p -C 1 c2 84.0¢' 53.50• 90•00•13• s44.58'37°r: 75 sa' W. OVERLAND RD.24- �, .+�°l t 11 � 734$ 1/4 0' lab' 2U0' 404' Lan o� ns ' �� OF ~� Larsd 5urvayinp and CanaUWO .p ¢. 231 E.STN 37..37�A NE RF�IAM 16 93842 {Z�}288-2646 [2GB129B,2557 fax _.:i:::• n L Page 26 C. Preliminary Plat(date: 7/6/2023) &Phasing Plan � 4 --�-••--•--�-'--- u � ,..,L.�-._-,- €fig " g C cl MH re I g.® G) it � �og�ge9 :; i jl jl _ m.M grsg 7^ n `� _•_—as:"�_ _'_'_:_—— a lil II .®...:w��.,..`.w.,w.�::,��.��<., �Z eat 7 M- - % Hdd e III '� — .�.a�� �•a f..Ga 'g !{ m J zm.a!re al. «ra:wo ----- _I 00 I ., $ ] 1 •L III r- �--' &I"nIXG EEr9ICM qlr�:per' :� {y �' a � � •�'� L 1 I �: ��� .� q .�..a.w f y O S 3�5 - T �i• L�— I�� � _�LEGENU �V=i�e��'s I _•;. PRE-1 Page 27 ! er- (� e - ;si o --- ----. II — — __ i i •N,ar�w....NE.A�NEo s�NEwAN, M Wy�F j! l % = e e �xv E -�—��� ea'Beni-w-wAY fwnLeuAN Lu,E1 � � N�o��,e�w�N PRE-2 ..,w.w. w. r �. X �e a 74 e , v , r r I e n _, � ti ��� � --------�ems...• 1 - f ° e - � PRE-3 Page 28 D. Common Driveway Exhibits a 0 ACCESS FROM SW 7TH AVE.PER CITY OF MERIDIAN UDC 11-6C-3D.5 z o 0 o c � 0 3 52 �' 11 =; NOTE:IF A 6'SOLID FENCE IS INSTALLED + N. ADJACENT TO THE COMMON DRIVE A 5' LANDSCAPE BUFFER SHALL BE REQUIRED +' `----------------------z.- 5'SIDE ' N 51 W.JACKSNIPE DR. ---20'FRONT -- 20' N FENCE(WILL NOT EXTEND PAST a FRONT PLANE OF DWELLING),(TYP.) x20's -- -- ,. RONT �,; ai�fWar a Y ------20' FR----- HOME ORIENTATION HOME ORIENTATION ACCESS FROM W, N $ JACKSNIPE DR.PER ACCESS FROM W. 5 .., CITY OF MERIDIAN UDC JACKSNIPE DR.PER a 11-fiC-30.5 CITY OF MERIDIAN UDC - 11-6C-3D.5 LL 49 48 47 0 46 BLOCK 3 R-8 ZONE PRELIMINARY PLAT .w. L________________J ----------____-; ------------_- -________----_; TANNER CREEK 12'REAR 12'REAR 12'REAR 12'REAR SUSDIKSION COMMON ORIl7£EXHIBIT 1) 50 fENCE(SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN) 50 1" = 30' 10 31 BLOCK 3 Q. a 5�SIDE z 0 3 o a o ------------- ----- Y � I F v 32 � N. ACCESS FROM S.MALAYAN AVE.PER NOTE:IF A 6'SOLID FENCE IS INSTALLED CRY OF MERIDIAN UDC 11-6C-30-5 ADJACENT TO THE COMMON DRIVE A 5' LANDSCAPE BUFFER SHALL BE REQUIRED i 55'SIDE 33 W. JACKSNIPE DR, 34 0 20' 20 FRONT N FENCE(WILL NOT EXTEND PAST 25' DRIVEWAY FRONT PLANE OF DWELLING),(TYP.) - - 20'FRONT VFW ____20•fRONT ACCESS FROM W. } f } ,MCKSNIPE DR.PER CDY OF MERIDIAN ODIC HOME ORIENTATION HOME ORIENTATION HOME ORIENTATION 11-8C-3D.5 39 as: 38 0 0 37 0 0 36 0 R 35 BLOCK 3 o = R-8 ZONE PRELIMINARY PLAT L------------ ------------ --------------- -------------- TANNER CREEK 12'REAR 12'REAR 12'REAR 12'REAR SUBDIVISION (COMMON ORIVE EXHIBIT 2) 50 FENCE(SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN) 50 1" = 30' Page 29 1 FENCE (SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN) 12'REAR 12'REAR 12'REAR 12'REAR 4 N BLOCK 3 6 -- 7 -- 8 11 w ACCESS FROM W. BROWN TROUT DR. PER TI T HOME ORIENTATION HOME ORIENTATION CITY OF MERIDIAN UDC HOME ORIENTATION 11-EC-3D.5 - o 1 L --20 FRONT J L_____________J L T DF RIVEWAY� 20'FRONT 20'FRONT 20' - FENCE (WILL NOT EXTEND PAST 5' FRONT PLANE OF DWELLING), (TYP.) SW n. o L 20'FRONT �a 10 a W. BROWN TROUT DR. W 3 NOTE! IF A 6'SOLID FENCE IS INSTALLED ADJACENT TO THE COMMON DRIVE A 5' LANDSCAPE BUFFER SHALL BE REQUIRED 5'SIDE 12 R-8 ZONE lw LLI ACCESS FROM S.MALAAYAN AVE.PER PRELIMINARY PLAT B 9 ¢ CITY OF MERIDIAN UDC 11-6C-30.5 - TANNER CREEK g 5'SIDE J SUBDMS/ON 13 BLOCK 3 (COMMON DRIVE EXHIBIT 3) Page 30 E. Preliminary Plat Legal Description&Exhibit Map/Area Subject to Development Agreement Legal Description Tanner Creek Preliminary Plat A parcel being located in the NW'/4 of the 5E Y4 of Section 13,Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, and more particularly described as follows Commencing at a 518 inch diameter iron pin marking the northwest corner of said NW 'l of the SE % (C % Corner), from which a brass cap monument marking the northeast corner of the SE %('/Corner)of said Section 13 bears S 89°5743" F a distance of 2642.71 feet; Thence 5 89'52'53" E along the northerly boundary of said NW '/n of the SE Ya a distance of 250.00 feet to a{point, Thence leaving said northerly boundary S 0°06'36° VV a distance of 17.74 feet to a point on the southerly right-of-way of W. Waltman Lane and the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence along said southerly right-of-way 5 89'42'17" E a distance of 1071.35 feet to a point on the easterly boundary of said NW'/a of the SE%: Thence along said easterly boundary S 0'19`27°VV a distance of 1260.57 feet to a point on the northerly right-of-way of Interstate 84, Thence leaving said easterly boundary and along said northerly right-of-way the following described courses and distances: Thence S 84'03'21"VV a distance of 43.25 feet to a point; Thence S 82`20'06"VV a distance of 275.70 feet to a point; Thence N 89`57'23" VV a distance of 999.43 feet to a point on the westerly boundary of said NW'J of the SE%-1 Thence leaving said northerly right-of-way and along said westerly boundary N 0°03'55" E a distance of 1082.73 feet to a point, Thence leaving said westerly boundary S 89°44'3X E a distance of 249.82 feet to a point; Thence N 0"06'36" E a distance of 224.95 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING_ This parcel contains 3a.05 acres and is subject to any easements existing or in use_ � L LA�yp Clinton W. Hansen, PLS Land Solutions, PC ' October 15, 2023 d 0. 11118 VV Lan_�iolutlo IS Tanner Creek Preliminary Plat �� ra.wsu Qrnua»dconwip Job No.23-64 Page 31 TANNER CREEK SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT EXHIBIT LOCATED IN THE NVV 114 OF THE SE 11.4 OF SECTION 13, T3N, R111V, BM„ADA COUNTY, ID AH0 BASIS OF BEARING 1/4 C 1�d W. WALTMAN LN. 589'52'43"E 264171' 13�18 ——— — — — — 1321,28' W r� S89'4217"E 1071.35' cc POINT OF a o cn In N ¢ BEGINNING p 42Q EE p N I � � S89'44'33"E "' 249.82' -JT PROPOSED TANNER GREET{ SUBDIVISION AREA=38.05 ACRES Li Ln ta Ln N M d 43.25' S84'03'21" f ' 275.70 N89'57'23"W 999,43' Sg2'20'06"W Lq M INTERSTATE 1-84 I I �t�p,L LA h1p ST 3 4 4 iM W. OVERLAND RD.21 a 11118 a fl' 100' 200' 00' " ;� q4Larldl iolutions �Gr raj. J£ OF 7� Land Surveying and Consulting �+Y *' T' 2MCRIDIAN,D 83642 (20B)2862040 {20B)25&2557 Im XB+i0-2.Y- Page 32 F. Landscape Plan(dated: 8/10/23) CITY OF MERIDIAN R40 LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS JTS REQUIRED mrnd­o�...Pbw�� WE TRIJ�OYONIVE/W K—NEYPVENNE eSo�as�n ue o� —LSIZi REQUIREMENTS ry PMKING LOT&kFER REWIREMENTS t III �} I > �vW.ws�arrcx II 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN R 8&R 15 _ n AMENITY REE. UIREMENTS gill ® a 11 J Q ® ... rnmw,. nor. amawrc 'i'1 H Sri I P e y m v�oovox. a. Kmsnmw,r rcxw. .n�.r aNwrm wa �� � — z Q �oR al% ❑Q w N c In w z Wz UJ—9Q o Y _O =o - w �z ❑ PROJECT INFORMATIONP�� _�— Q � s a C mw„,roa�k� U III I w w LEI. w Q�,x ..n„ rt�omrot.s Z U rn-j s z e � ll il w 3 a ER LL LA D ADC DI AKI cE $ LANDSCAPE NOTES: 9 Page 33 C . 1 ° �'0�~--O �"P�¢I. 41➢t%Lit}�}Ss-i.�: .a!s a O 0 E• O r,• e Y aW BROWN TROUTo L1 m Im o v o'�'I '� - s •F .3 ..I... •u ®91 • ° '� [cxr���s_-uaaa�a•:i?,�:� - °o U + t-.a.-,' a dm o IItRIHIF \ 0i° w �~U 11 O v pp ■ I ■•y O sly IN a^r J • •��# ,CRv M� N .. I..:...3 � m � ' [�SIiG!Mii'�13 1'tfi:L II .alraia•1111 la■ ■ a.i nni» Inoue 6. 'n �� s''• q "r 3YY�e�i;;w 'ti.' Wn�YP � :' �� o WA E LU O Uy 11 i I, O O �� • '�� O 'S)p:i ROG � O �_ A �_ � Z:� • Y u = � ny:•di^.nrvvi�a:.��w•::rv:le,•.iwEmaanr x�:si IA�Ji�:i•:rY�+_ 4 --- • O �/flf`fFf!}F/f}f/-/Fllfl/fI//f//f//N/////NFU// f//fHINN//bU.Y.S'///filffllffN Ff/}F/f�A'H/�/Nq4/e 7�tl1Yif� r G _ !d G'_, III•. :� �, R W 0 F o 0 o y, w r • n O �: bet44x Lv11:_ �._ I f::�i l"I:!1JS: I '..:1!❑!Ii ICG]'.::5: G�e DRYLAND SEEDING REQUIREMENTS LANDSCAPE AREA TOPSOIL NOTES TURF AREA PREPARATION NOTES: ,,.,, PREPARATION NOTES: s hF; TREErePROTECTION NOTES m. 4 WEED ABATEMENT NOTES s�w.,»r `"""`�°°'°"""°""�°"`"'"' •.»" ...� ,... vow.rwx.x ruxu�w �,....m,w„... � �i 3RGATON NOTES: ,�•.°..�.a Z� rere...o•. .....m,m..a y Y 0 0 0 Z�� o,�..,.1 cc 1 BUFFERAREAWITH I5'WIDE BERM ` w�aQ ,«...,.... SECTION 1 a ,K.. ..� w /1BOULDER INSTALLATION IN SHRUB/PERENNIAL BED c i TREE MITIGATION NOTES -�F •GI BERM ADJACENT TO I-84 SECTION ' ,.,..•�,» .,. WITH 8'-0'STAMPED CONCRETEWALL PLANTER BED CUT EDGE p�m •••1e'?� 6 '4NTE BI-D L�1 Sae Pi I » ,.r— n SHRUB PIANTING�tl�e•�♦� ��,u � � °" ,,,,,, � IL »� 4�DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING 0� a f _ _ (1PERENNIAL&GROUNDCOVERw Od PLANTING'^.. "'^'^ 4 "y,,��tt,_ ....*.m UQ¢jp_ L,2 W� 0 TEX= 0 WROUGHT IRON FENCE H z TREE PLANTING ON a ` °�„""°" 'T •L....'.....�^ .,.» °'.""® 3 BERM OR SLOPE �r551 CONIFEROUS TREE PLANTING Li.6 Page 36 —_—Mu RIr71 Rhinanonk am CONCRETE FENCING RHINOROCK FENCE SPECIFICATIONS IOU" 75" 7 I Fr,utiny drNth:7yq.36- Tap View 1Z" TECHNICAL.INFCIRMATIM FthinoRock Fence Panel D1men5 on of panel I8Z otl s 259 crn 7;"002` Welght of Panel 105 Kg 2301bs Welght per area 21.5kg/m 4.91bs1ft Thickness of Panel 115mm 4.5" EPS Foam Core thickness 63.95mm 2.5.3-75" Glass 11ber reinforced concrete s 2 thickness 9mm 5/16" %glass Flber by volume 4-4.50% Compressive Strength of proprietary concrete mix design 4x10'NJm^2 5800 psr Ultimate tensile strength of glass fl ber reinforced concrete 9.6x106-Mx10t Nfm2 1400-2100 psl wind load capacity of panel 225 kmJh 140mph with 1.6 safety factor axlal load capaclty of pannl 1644 kg/lineal meter 11001bs{lineal foot moisture ak},orptlon of EPS foam fore by total immerylon e4% Com u5ti i ity of glass fiber reinforced concrete shell Nan tnmbtjstiblc Freeze/thaw performance 200 freese thaw cycles with no damage Derby.fungus,or mushroom attack none Termite food source none Page 37 G. Qualified Open Space Exhibit(dated: 8/7/23)& Site Amenities CITY OF MERIDIAN SINGLE FAMILY (R-8 AND R-15) OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS QUALIFIED OPEN SPACE I�6 OPEN 5PA0! IRE17 YOfAL APEA• REQUIRED: PRwIDEl7: (d1ALI I IID OPBd WA I WA,302 5F I0.0 5 0-W AW �134AE2 MM AQ -NI 7FIE 5UiI g1ALIPIED OPEN 5PAGE AfKPMT OF 2002 5.P.IN 7NE RAO ZME(SEE D04181T XI,O),EXr,FFrM THE OAALIF1Ep OPEN SPACE pEFIOIT OF IIPeI8 5F.IN 74MM R9 ANO 1213,7FIE VP.PU*IN RAO IS TO M AmLIPP TO aCp AN;'III LANDSCAPE LEGEND M WALTMAN LAND d1ALIFl3<D d'1<N 9PA6f s I'- AREA=18,901 30.FT. W.BROWN TROUT DR AREA=1,932 SQ.FT. AREA=5,594 80.FT. W 7 d AREA=28,3715O.FT. } W AREA=1,9013 SO.FT. 0`- W Y W.EID w 4 J. vv.. ;�Y C:•R. li AREA=74.342 SO.FT. O I I Q D z d r Vr'BACKWOODS DR. S a L d ui = a � Y W J � � J C a 0 52 ff J O [ri I13 d A R E C.1.790 SQ.FT. W.JACKSNIPE DR. � 1"=200'-0" arT12023 TANNER CREEK PR❑JECT#:23051 WALTMAN LANE, MERIDIAN OPEN SPACE EXHIBIT X1.1 Page 38 2�,_ - � ► R�!�atrs��1, r� ` _ _ .__ .,. ._ _ - __ �.�• IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIi! .I ■ a■ it �_ apt .•� 11>> 1) a�• � e�c�i 1 _ _ I/� i i l �/1 � ✓; , ��I) III f --'■Iwo::::�::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::� lllllll+�::T :::: II��. � l ' ;,�� I-'■■■�'11 1��IIIIIIIII 1111111111��, � I � I �, MEN - 001 _ _ MW r ■ ■1 M ■ �./ / r� y i; ■' � � ;�1111111111111%i ll11U1U�� 1 7111111R 11Its, TANNER CREEK 'C23051 4 ► ► LANE, , ► OPEN SPACE r '• •'• - EXHIBIT 6RECK01M r I a_ kit R� co le ■ ,RECREATIONI CBH j TO l Pag . ,0 z Id j k H. Site Plan for Multi-Family Portion of Development(date: 7/12/2023) TANNER CREEK APARTMENTS _ _ _ _ ---- - DEVELOPMENT DATA WALTMgN LAME,MERIDIAN,IDAXO osrslP%sx IT THEARLHRECISOFIK I cILLIIII�E.scnPx% .%.gnu onRo c>6,: xx6NxTx xc sownoxa LiP I ., I ^wm.n o.p o. . x rrs.u5v su, mm SITE DATA ..-- APARTMENT BUILDING DATA uuvnwr mv - ,wzercm a. ,swm s am. ta.s- s�wwn pxs Ruxrs x-w mx. a�vs�a s ITT ITT wrAnon eu�ezu xmn.s rt �RR,A m TANNER CREEK APARTMENTS 0-42-1- uwc wALTLww LME _ _ - ! r*nl.x a McRmIRw,I¢nna a� m ' inn unr .... xP J jM VICINITY HAP PROJECT AMENITIES ---_-� PARKIN9G0 A ANALYS a runs izxl L I .�-,., - � �.�- -• -oxsc.xcmoEs nE vn,mxQ �� NALYSIS j I o.�•�xT�xa ,� ---- AEREILL MAP _ T�' ..wwmnx¢ mi .T, a m'. .=�.eax+:w � � _ yl OPEN SPACE ANALYSIS�R re,x d mra awxm wxwx -..� r� sm AS1.0 SITE PLAM '" d =nU. TAB �` — � � REHMIfi1TGRIDG EEC T } t CONCRETE PETAILag ACCESSIBLE PARKINS SEA OMO A 4 TANNER CREEK k APARTMENTS 16 T� 5ACCESSIBLE PARKING.,oaa. 6 BNCNARON"TALL 7681"WNOETAIL AS2.0 Page 42 —— NEYNHIE6 m TAB y THEARO REMOFFIV T 3TRASx ENCLOSURE PLAN 4 TRASH EYCLOSURE PLAN------------------ Yy 1TRASHENCLOSUREPLAN a 2TRISNENClOBUREPIANN �n � mn '•'V ti'�� LW y' n ,�� `"M "�, TANNER 1 CREEK APARTMENTS wauMax�� GENERAL NOTE6���v 5TIGsx ERRLOSRRE PLAN 6 THASN ENCLOSURE PU 7 N TRASH ENCLASURE PLAN 1 MAILBOX GENERAL NOTES nT �' EF mm.t k - ® � 4 F _ A53.0 L` ---- ---- A` ----- ---- nrmuTRusx $TIGSNERCLO8UREELEYA71Ow$ 9ExC1ASURE WALL SECTION 10MAllBOx EIEYATION � l W:.raW� ma snECLlu AL CARPORT CODE ANALYSIS ;gyp � :_ .. nEnmstsom�K ------------ CARPORTPLAN TUT CARPORT PUN r. °ry .ate. CARPORT QUIRK NOTES TANNER CREEK APARTMENTS _ � wuLMax uM: - .xm..u.•v mor..n.nw�.®.w uw MEXIdul,IxnXO CARPORT FRONT ELEYATIOR CAMORi SIDE ELEYATMN ~ CARPORTSCHEOULE �i 3FIRE SEPARATION INSTANCE um A54.0 AP.CHITECUAL o*Km Page 43 I. Building Elevation Photos &Renderings Alley-loaded single-family detached units: ■ ■�. �� Alley-loaded single-family attached units: _ f Imam - x — n Alley-loaded townhome units: r iff - na Page 44 Front-loaded single-family detached units: Af i ~� II p rt'. Ir �� I, t t NN SRN NN - i HE ate 9 Page 45 r j _ _ _ _ - .:.. .:.:.:::..:..:... 11ll �II �II� �11111�1�I II I II �� 1■11 ����I��yl I�_�IIIII� 11 11 III o IIIIII �� � I11!IIIIIIIIIIII(IIIIII_ IIII II IIIIIIII IIIIII I I!I!!I,iiiii:uulllu IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII11 IIIIIIIIIIVIII IVIIII _ IIIIIIII(IIII _(IIIIII(IIIIII IIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII ° I�I— :IIII III IIIIII IIIII��--=I�h �I�II _IIII II IIIIII I IIII_;__=I� o —11 ! nT _ 111 mill. 1'IY IIII �n��_ 11 ❑= rr - 1u1lluuullu1u Illi ll IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII t IIIIIIIIIIIIII �i ° ��� I__I�iuii__IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII__I�ui�__!!����P_��'���� �_��❑IIIIIiiuilllllllllllllllll__Ilu_ii��!__!!i❑I_��i,�_I o im o um o uu uu o �����I� II�I�IIII�I�II 111I�� �, ���� ■ ❑II I�� � m .................... .......-...-..-.....-......-.-.........-.-......-.....-..................-...-....-......-.... --- ____________________ _ _____________ _ _ = _ -_-=_-=-_________ _ _ _____- ------------- - .... :,:._.::.:::....:..:...:...:.. ` ------------------ ` II11 11® '�Illlil!1■!lalllll® I III11 11 I �11111�1�ill I�Illlr ' �111®11 �-f-111 III o IIIIII VV IIIIIIII II�IIIIIIIII IIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII_z IIIIIIIIIIIIIII-IIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII !NINI 11IIIIIIIIIIII IIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIII!I!!I, ® � ®� �IIIIIII o s I! MINE -ten- ■�-�n�- --7n�_-�■� _=11 : ❑1� ®11 :11-11 z �111®11� ® (IIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIII I I IIIIIIIIIIIIIII(IIIIII —m=� P��I(IIIIII(IIIIII I � I���III IIIIII II!ii�i= �® ��I a O 0 0 0 0 0 0 ---- -:: --- ---------------_::-::.:----------------:,::-:::-.-__::::_::::_::._::,:_._:::_:::_ 1 O ® ®x xilll s =- .--- v 111111111�II�fll�llhl111!=�Ir■� IIIIII�III����II�IIIIIIII®IIIIII���11lI ill I�IIII Illli�l II111!I o Il slim®1 � _ i�II=_II__��d�_ �11 -11 Hill No �'ii�oNiglio II 0 0 0 o a o 0 0 0 o O m m o p 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,...-nx.,: ..-..�..x.:a:: .,------_: _ :-:_____.�.�h.-r�-�- •.hn-n.�,.-�.�naanx.�.,.-�.�h:.�a::::ri,,�. =� o n �o Alill 11 Illlli 1■1 BIKE 11 11—=11 IIII!' I■� I16111�'�11!170111f111!II�� II� I�I � o�IIIIII�lIIIIII _ MIMIl, =ire® =:�� - hi■� =rare I+l�r,� -_rm■ ®�m4�'I,rr o Nor m o 0 0 o e o 0 0 I 1 " ■ :��1. imp gr rr ������_op rrl i rr r� �'I�IIIl�' 111 �rr�• fir■ ■r■ �MA�R ��jr�r jdr ��■�■ �■■� r■ 111 ��rrUf r�l A i THEAL{NR[Ci50FflLf Mdlc- m_. 6'I Tr'T,r.. I1 -11n BUILDING ELEVATION x .ram TANNER CRSEK +5i APARTMENTS waTuw u� Mgu�mWG WILMNB SHATgN rur .B� ol .r— BUILDING ELEVATION JM AC5.Q BUILDING ELEVATION EuT cwExou.� `":•-•• xIIR0.1G OP:RITWIS Page 48 TAOt .� ,L�! W , THEAtCHFFE[TSOFFIfH I � I Ll I I I � I � � I TANNER CREEK APARTMENTS m WALTMAN LANE r—— MERIDIAN,IDAHO 13 6D U 13 a 114 goo EFAL O �� 3 �,r�erm.�yaa�iY d.krlm --yy�_y� � �I �Pf110]IIIKI'J GfiR1LLC } ❑ ❑ t93Bl Aft¢ WRPHEES IfYI$Ipl$ yli ,Y aYI E6d ,Y�' SYEEI CLUBHOUSE FLOOR PLAN AC 2■Q cwaHousE FLOOR PLAN Page 49 J. Architectural Plans/Renderings of Subject Property and I-84&Meridian Rd. Property TANNER CREEK C& 1-84 MERIDIAN DEV ELOPM ENT CONCEPTUAL,SUBJECTTO CHANGE r _ �3f_ Omni scone � ` r f Ids I1J � I Page 50 a TANNER CREEK PEDES-RIANBRIDGE - ' BUILDING r PEDES r ONNEC'TION, PLAZA Ia mu REEK 'ERSPECTIV E: 1, SHOP &MERIDIAN - `— PLAZA C 7 I-84&MERIDIAN SHOP I PLAZATYPE C, w PEDESTRIAN CONIVECTION PERSPECTIVE 2, PAD4 PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE �ec ria.� �e r�,+•�'f,�_ -'iSa ILNNllth LHLEK 4✓ v TANNERCREEK f. PLAZA t .- z'�� :11r _ PEDESTRLAN CONNECnON -- PLAN VIEW - ? SHOP 1 J Y O w u TANNER CREEK PL AZA PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE 4 - _ FANNER CREEK PLAZA PERS BULDING L-. BULDING E .BOLDING D 1:lr f TANNER CREEK PL � M.- jig !F PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE Iff TANNER CRIEEK PLAZA �► PERSPECTIVE 2 MERIDIAN RD. BUILDINGK - r a RETAIL I PAD 4 TEN MI LE CRE EK 10'MULTI-USE PATHWAY INTERSTATE84 _ SHOP PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE TANNER CREEK PLAZA i 6- - • -.- TANNER CREEK PLAZA PLAN VIEW M.I � �:` �.� \RN TANNER CREEKP., O PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE y � W u W J Z K. Proposed Change to the FLUM with the I-84 &Meridian Road Project(H-2021-0099) Date: 10/12/2023 Adopted Land Uses ' %_ — ia Sao 1,000 ���% Feet �P/.0� Al..0, � 400f// Legend ® Area of City Impact aj ��f I Future Land Uses w` ��j Citywide 0 ■ �i�/%iy' ■ Low Density Residential ■- �II L Medium Density Residential i // 11 Med-High Density Residential r - High Density Residential r ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ MENEM - Commercial OAF - Office i / Industrial Civic Old Town Proposed Land Uses ® Mixed Use Neighborhood _ Mixed Use Community III / �10of , " �z�P r y ► Ili,'/ / I�r M �M Mixed Use Regional ���+ ��� � - Mixed Use Non-Residential Will A I I �!'i I��/ V Mixed Use-Interchange Ten Mile Specific �f�/ - Law Density Employment ■ ■ ■ ■� ■�■ ' ____�►/y}J. "50 , Lifestyle Center ■ 1 y I - High Density Employment ■ /iqo, ��'/ / ��I �0, _/_._./'/_ _�Q ® Mixed Employment I F� —� �� OF © Mixed Use Residential 0 �` ; / /rEd %%IPH ,�,' ® Mixed Use Commercial ■ FAA 1. ■ -- �; f + ++WAIA0,04 Ira **■ Opp For, ///,% , ----------- I / I 0 I Page 54 IX. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION Development Agreement Modification: 1. The subject property shall no longer be subject to the terms of the existing Development Agreement(DA) (Inst. #108131100)upon the property owner(s) entering into a new agreement. The new DA shall be signed by the property owner(s)and returned to the City within six(6)months of City Council approval of the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decision&Order for the Development Agreement Modification and Rezone request. The new DA shall include the following provisions: a. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the conceptual site plan, conceptual building elevations,preliminary plat,phasing plan,landscape plan, and qualified open space exhibits included in Section VII and the provisions contained herein. Flexibility in the phasing to adjust the number of lots,combination of lots and number of phases to reflect changing market conditions is permitted unless otherwise restricted herein or in the Cooperative Development Agreement with Ada County Highway District(ACHD). b. The Developer shall construct a bridge across the Ten Mile Creek and extend Corporate Drive from the north to Waltman Lane ., a eemplete st feet seer e with detaehed 10 feet wide multi use pathways aleng both sides of the stfe as required by ACHD,prior to issuance of any building permits within the first phase of development. c. The Developer shall widen W. Waltman Lane and reconstruct and widen the bridge across the Ten Mile Creek after the Phase 1 improvements have been made,which include the Corporate Drive extension, as required in the Cooperative Development Agreement with ACHD. d. Noise abatement shall be provided for residential uses adjacent to Interstate 84 in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3H-4D. The berm and wall in its entirety shall be constructed with the first phase of development prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy within the development. e. The rear and/or sides of new homes facing Interstate 84 and W. Waltman Ln. shall 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 the subject public streets. Single-story structures are exempt from this requirement. f. No building permits shall be issued for this development until the property has been subdivided. g. At no time shall construction traffic associated with the development of this site be allowed to access this site using Ruddy Dr.through The Landing Subdivision. h. The Linder Road overpass shall be completed prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy within the multi-family development. Preliminary Plat: 2. The final plat shall include the following revisions: a. Depict zero(0)lot lines where single-family attached and townhome units are proposed to span over property lines. b. Include a cross-section of the typical alley that complies with the standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3B.5. c. Depict a local street/driveway connection from S. Malayan Ave.to the property to the east with a vehicular bridge over the Ten Mile Creek,that includes at a minimum a 5-foot wide walkway on at least one side, as set forth in UDC 11-3A-3A.3,unless otherwise waived by City Council, in lieu of the Page 55 pedestrian bridge proposed. If City Council garnts the waiver,the applicant shall construct the pedestrian bridge and connection as proposed. 3. The landscape plan included in Section VII.D shall be revised as follows: a. Depict shrubs within the 5-foot wide strip of landscaping on the west side of the multi-use pathway along the creek in accord with the standards set forth in UDC 11-3B-12C. b. Depict a driveway across Lot 1,Block 2 to the outparcel at the northwest corner of the site(i.e. Martinez property#S1213428080)in alignment with W. Brown Trout Dr. for future access. c. Revise the detail of the wall along I-84 to demonstrate full compliance with the noise abatement standards listed in UDC 11-3H-4D,including the depiction of the centerline of the adjacent highway (i.e. I-84). d. Depict 5-foot wide landscape buffers planted with shrubs, lawn or other vegetative groundcover where solid fencing is proposed adjacent to the common driveway as set forth in UDC 11-6C-3D.5. e. The open space landscape requirements on the Landscape Requirements table shall be revised to reflect the updated standard of one(1)deciduous tree for every 5,000 square feet of common open space as set forth in UDC 11-3G-5B.3. £ Include mitigation information as applicable for tree preservation in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-IOC. g. Stormwater swales incorporated into required landscape areas are required to be vegetated with grass or other appropriate plant materials and designed to accommodate the required number of trees as per UDC 11-3B-7 if located in a street buffer or other required landscape area. h. In the street buffer along Waltman Ln., depict enhanced landscaping as set forth in UDC 11-3B7C.3f for entryway corridors and comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3B.3. i. Depict a perpetual ingress/egress easement for the common driveways on the plat and include a note with a requirement for maintenance of a paved surface capable of supporting fire vehicles and equipment as set forth in UDC 11-6C-3D.8. 4. Address signage needs to be provided at the public street for homes accessed via common driveways for emergency wayfinding purposes. 5. All alleys shall be constructed per the standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3B.5. 6. All common driveways shall be constructed per the standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3D as depicted in the exhibits in Section VIII.D. 7. Address signage shall be provided at the public street for homes accessed via common driveways for emergency wayfinding purposes. 8. All existing structures on this site are required to be removed prior to signature on the final plat for the phase in which they are located. 9. A 14-foot wide public pedestrian easement for the multi-use pathway shall be submitted to the Planning Division for approval by City Council and subsequent recordation. 10. A private street application shall be submitted for the streets within the multi-family portion of the development. All private streets shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3F-4. 11. The proposed plat and subsequent development is required to comply with the UDC dimensional standards for the associated zoning districts is required, as follows: Table 11-2A-6 for the R-8 zoning district; Table 11-2A-7 for the R-15 zoning district; and Table I1-2A-8 for the R-40 zoning district. The standards for all development in residential districts are listed in 11-2A-3. Page 56 Conditional Use Permit: 12. The multi-family development shall have an ongoing obligation to comply with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-27. 13. For each of the multi-family units,a minimum of eighty(80) square feet of private,usable open space shall be provided for each unit as set forth in UDC 11-4-3-27B.3. This requirement can be satisfied through porches,patios, decks, and/or enclosed yards. Floor plans with square footage noted for patios and balconies shall be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application that demonstrate compliance with this standard. 14. The multi-family development shall record a legally binding document that states the maintenance and ownership responsibilities for the management of the development, including,but not limited to, structures, parking, common areas, and other development features as set forth in UDC 11-4-3-27F. A recorded copy of said document shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for the development. 15. The site and/or landscape plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance shall be revised as follows: a. Depict bicycle racks capable of holding a minimum of 23 bicycles dispersed throughout the development; include a detail for the bicycle rack that complies with the standards listed in UDC 11- 3C-5C. b. All transformer and utility vaults and other service areas shall be located in an area not visible from a public street,or shall be fully screened from view from a public street in accord with UDC 11-4-3- 27B.2. c. Depict a directory and map of the development at the entrance or convenient location for those entering the development; and a central mailbox location,including provisions for parcel mail,that provide safe pedestrian and/or vehicular access in accord with UDC 11-4-3-27B.7. d. Depict landscaping along the foundations of all street facing elevations adjacent to Waltman Ln as set forth in UDC 11-4-3-27E.2. e. The berm along Waltman Ln. shall be at least four feet(4')in height as set forth in UDC 11-4-3-27C.7, unless otherwise approved through the conditional use process. 16. Developments with units that take access via secured common corridors shall install and maintain a keyless entry system, or suitable alternative,to provide police access to the common corridors under exigent circumstances. The keyless entry system or alternative shall be subject to review and approval by the Meridian Police Department. B. PUBLIC WORKS https://weblink.meridianciby.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=307656&dbid=0&repo=MeridianQtX C. FIRE DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridiancit .00rg/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=3 092 9 7&db id=0&rep o=Meridia n City D. POLICE DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridiancioy.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=305428&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianQE Page 57 E. PARK'S DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=305439&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianCity&cr=1 F. COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST IDAHO(COMPASS) https://weblink.meridianciV.ofglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=306794&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCiU G. NAMPA&MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=306844&dbid=0&repo=Meridian City H. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ) https://weblink.meridianciV.oLvlWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=305961&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity I. IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT(ITD) https://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=305608&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity J. MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION(MDC) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=308453&dbid=0&r0o=Meridian City K. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https://weblink.meridianciiy.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=308348&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity Traffic Impact Study (updated): https://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=308355&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianCity Response to Review Comments on TIS Update: https://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=308356&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianCity Traffic Trip Generation Study(2018) & Updated Calculations: https://weblink.meridiancitE.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=187103&dbid=0&repo=Meridianciu https://weblink.meridiancitE.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=308358&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitE X. FINDINGS A. Annexation and/or Rezone(UDC 11-5B-3E) Required Findings: 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: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; The Commission finds the Applicant's proposal to rezone and develop the subjectproperty with a variety of residential uses is consistent with the associated FLUM amendment to MHDR with H-2021-0099 for the property and the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan as noted above in Section V above. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; The Commission finds the proposed map amendment/rezone and development complies with the purpose statement of the residential districts in that it willprovide for a range of housing opportunities for the community consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Page 58 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety,and welfare; The Commission finds the proposed map amendment/rezone should not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare as the proposed residential uses should be compatible with adjacent existing residential properties to the west, north and east and provide a good transition to proposed commercial uses to the east. 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 The Commission finds City services are available to be provided to this development. Comments were not received from West Ada School District. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. The Commission finds the proposed rezone is in the best interest of the City. B. Preliminary Plat(UDC 11-613-6) In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat,the decision-making body shall make the following findings: (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) 1. The plat is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and is consistent with this unified development code; (Ord. 08-1372, 7-8-2008, eff. 7-8-2008) The Commission finds the proposed plat is generally in conformance with the UDC if the Applicant complies with the Development Agreement provisions and conditions of approval in Section VIII. 2. Public services are available or can be made available ad are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; The 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; The Commission finds the proposed plat is in substantial conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City s CIP. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; The Commission finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development. 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and The Commission finds the proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9- 15-2005) The Commission is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that need to be preserved with this development. C. Conditional Use Permit(UDC 11-513-6E) The Commission shall base its determination on the Conditional Use Permit requests upon the following: Page 59 1. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. The Commission finds that the subject property is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and dimensional and development regulations of the R-40 district(see Analysis, Section V for more information). 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in accord with the requirements of this Title. The Commission finds that the proposed use is consistent with the proposed future land use map designation of MHDR and is allowed as a conditional use per UDC Table 11-2A-2 in the R-40 zoning district. 3. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. The Commission finds the proposed design of the development, construction, operation and maintenance should be compatible with the mix of other uses planned for this area and with the intended character of the area and that such uses will not adversely change the character of the area. 4. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. The Commission finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the proposed use will not adversely affect other property in the area. The Commission should weigh any public testimony provided to determine if the development will adversely affect other properties in the vicinity. 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways,streets,schools,parks,police and fire protection,drainage structures,refuse disposal,water, and sewer. The Commission finds that essential public services are available to this property and that the use will be adequately served by these facilities. Page 60 C i E IDIAN.;--- Agenda Item Applicant Presentation TANNER CREEK SUBDIVISION November 2, 2023Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Public Hearing 0048-2022-MDA RZ PP CUP H TANNER CREEK Aerial Map– TANNER CREEK Vicinity Map– TANNER CREEK – TANNER CREEK – TANNER CREEK – TANNER CREEK – TANNER CREEK – TANNER CREEK – TANNER CREEK Pathwayuse -Area Connecting to the Ten Mile Creek Multifamily -friendly Crossing into the Multi-PedestrianRuddy Drive through the central common area wide pathway from S. Kearney Avenue/W. -foot-10Benches and Pathways Half Basketball CourtLarge Play StructureCentral Common Area consisting of 1.70 acres percent.Qualified Open Space is 6.49 acres, or 17.06 family Amenities-Single– TANNER CREEK use Pathway along Ten Mile Creek-MultiPicnic Shelterpaths and pathways-Linear parks, microCharging Stations for Electric VehiclesIndoor Bicycle Repair Station and Dog Wash AreaPickleball Sport CourtChildren’s Play Structure and Picnic GazeboSwimming Pool, Hot Tub with Cabana at Pool DeckPlaza AreaGreenbelt at ClubhouseCovered Patio with BBQ Area Community Gathering AreaClubhouse with Fitness Facility, Kitchen, Conference Room and 3.39 acres qualified (21.35%)–3.76 acres of open space (30%) family Amenities-Multi– TANNER CREEK Townhome Elevations– TANNER CREEK load SFR Elevations-Alley– TANNER CREEK family Elevation-Single– TANNER CREEK family Elevation-Single– TANNER CREEK family Elevation-Single– TANNER CREEK family Elevation-Single– TANNER CREEK Elevations– TANNER CREEK Elevations– TANNER CREEK Elevations– TANNER CREEK Elevations– TANNER CREEK Elevations– TANNER CREEK Elevations– TANNER CREEK Elevations– TANNER CREEK Elevations– TANNER CREEK Elevations– TANNER CREEK Pedestrian Connection– TANNER CREEK Pedestrian Connection– TANNER CREEK Plaza Perspective– TANNER CREEK PLAZA TANNER CREEK – C�,fER IDIAN:--- IDAHO Public Presentations Greenhead St(Stub Street)Ruddy Dr.(Stub Street) •access point ONLYRuddy Dr. will be the •Therefore, Greenhead St will not be a second access point to distribute traffic from the west neighborhood•I will not give written permission to annex my land•I do not use City water or City sewer•04My land is devoted to agriculture as defined in Idaho Code section 63•I am the owner, and my land is more than 5 acres •getting hit or swiped by a car.a child, pedestrian, or bicyclist That is over 636 chances a day of •information on that.RUDDY DR. I could not find GENERATED TRIPS TRAVELING ON HAWKINS PROJECTED THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE •through Ruddy Dr.will go 636 vehicles per day Traffic Impact Study, According to Tanner Creek’s 1 curvature of the road, which limits visibility around the corner.who frequent the park. This is particularly worrisome due to the major safety concern for the children and cyclists in this community neighborhood AND Hawkins site driving through Ruddy Dr, poses a for traffic generated by the 700 homes in the western -unaccounted636 vehicles per day from Tanner Creek, coupled with the 1 Access Point4 Access Points VS x 1432 •= proposed sidewalk Crosswalk! No Not Safe!•Sidewalks only on South Side•No Bike Lanes•No Crosswalk to North Side VRT Bus Stop on Meridian Rd intersection.an already highly congested congestion and timing issues to This would cause even more •overadding a bus lane to safely pull bus stop. There is no room for This is not a smart location for a •Rd.development. Not on Meridian moved to the inside the accessibility, this should be For safety reasons and better • In Conclusion a gathering spot for Entertainment and small businesses.this gateway to the city be more than high density apartments. It should be I have lived and worked on Waltman Lane since 1975 and would love to see •development that will follow Meridian’s Future Land Use Map.use community -density mixed-residential development. We need a lowdensity -fire hazard that this land is currently at. I am opposed to the highI am not opposed to developing these 36 acres. I am tired of the weeds and •proposed park.Especially because of the lack of cross walks and the location of the with the increased traffic going through Ruddy and onto Waltman Ln. Safety issues for children, pedestrians, and bicyclists are a main concern •traffic on Waltman Ln. and Corporate drive.will be concentrated at Ruddy Dr. and then add to this development’s own traffic coming from the west neighborhood ALLWith only one access point, • Please developers can do better than this.Meridian deserves better than this. These the gateway to Meridian. plan that better serves our community and dense -they can come up with a better, lowboth of these applications until deny Sources&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCityhttps://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=308572•&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCityhttps://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=311244•222/-CT50https ://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/Title50/T50CH2/SE•&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCityhttps://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=183999• C�,fER IDIAN:--- IDAHO Public Presentations Per West Ada School District, the following formula predicts how many most preventable. overcrowded, but it is the Development is not the only reason why schools become # of homes x 0.8 (per census data)/13 (K through 12)school aged children will be housed within a residential development: Vanguard students108 new 135 units Mile High Pines 232 new students 291 units Foxcroft Schoolstudents for Meridian Middle * 3 school years = 474 new 158 Equals 158 students per school year.2,063/13 2,063= 328+ 1,735.future developments already approvedEstimated new students from 1,735 108 Mile High Pines232 FoxcroftVanguard Village441Outer Banks412320 GatewayNewkirk222ESTIMATED NEW STUDENTS students222 new 278 units Newkirk students412 new 516 UnitsOuter Banks students320 new 400 unitsTen MileGateway at students328 new 410 unitsTanner Creek 552 units 441 new students Village School Name students.of those students will be middle school 4743 years. students in the area in 2additional 2,063bring an estimated total of approved residential developments will Tanner Creek along with 6 already 287 students. over capacity by Meridian Middle School will be •12501,5374741,063Meridian Middle DistrictSchool West Ada of studentsEstimated Creekincluding Tanner students with new Estimated # of new EducationDepartment of per Idaho State Current Enrollment •livability, and sustainability.his development DOES NOT preserve our communities’ character, quality of life, T•This development DOES NOT reflect our communities’ vision for our future children•Our Community DOES NOT value their children’s education being compromised. •Our community DOES NOT desire overcrowding their children’s schools•up.2,063 New Students in this area is OVERWHELMING and our schools CANNOT keep •being built. School is already going to be over capacity before Tanner Creek is even finished Using West Ada County School District’s formula we find that Meridian Middle Meridian has only School Owyhee High School since 2016. built one High Meridian has NOT built 38% over capacity a few years before 2028. students past capacity, it will already be at With Meridian Middle estimated to be at 474 since 2016. a new middle school Meridian has only built 1 (Pleasant View Elementary)elementary school out of 5 needed. Current Reality as of 2023Failed-May 2023 West Ada School District’s $500 million levy •Failed-May 2020 West Ada School District $14 million levy •Pleasant View Elementary Built•Owyhee High Built•Passed–March 2018 West Ada School District $95 million Bond •: In Conclusion Please use your common sense and deny this development •Tanner Creek development. We can do better!There are plenty of better, low density, community friendly, family friendly, and healthier options for the location of the •The Tanner Creek development is not suited for its location, our community, and the City of Meridian•density developments like Tanner CreekCity of Meridian is unable to pass bonds for new schools in order to keep up with the population boom caused by high •All levels of Primary School are being overcrowded because of high density developments like Tanner Creek•local elementary schools, Meridian Middle School, and Meridian High SchoolWest Ada School District’s formula for predicting the increase in student population proves Tanner Creek is not good for •Development is not the only reason why schools become overcrowded, but it is the most preventable• https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=18Current Enrollment–Idaho State Department of Education list-https://idahoschools.org/districts/002/school2018-West Ada School District School Facility Plan 20164478&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity&cr=1 C�,fER IDIAN:--- IDAHO Public Presentations Comprehensive Plan ”.resultmaylivingandlifeofqualitycurrenttheofdeteriorationoverallandidentity,communitysafety,congestion,overcrowding,development,andgrowthguided“Without Value of Planning– FLUM designates this area as MixedUse Community.- AGENCY COMMENTS Meridian Fire Department Comments 10/20/23 Compass 9/15/2023 Comments Meridian Development Corporation Comments 10/12/23 Survey Submitted in Public Comments comment box.expressed additional concerns in the individualsAmong the 83 responses, 46 •these applications.DENYCouncil to 100% of responses asked the City •days responses in 4 83The Survey received •media sitesThis survey was posted on local social • ISSUES AND CONCERNS FROM PAST MEETINGS Past Comments/Concerns from City Council Members hand turn lane is here to stay and now Hawkins brings 10,000 more Vehicles per dayOne left Waltman Lane from Meridian Road and the traffic congestion on Meridian Road and Waltman Lane. , you were highly concerned about having only one left hand turn lane into HoaglunCouncil Member •C elements-This still does not reflect MUCommunity in this area. Use -, you focused on the FLUM and Comp Plan and voiced your desire for MixedBortonCouncil Member •Now its even worseadding strain to our schools. Council Member Strader, you were super concerned about the school overcrowding from Tanner Creek and •ok.use designation and setting a precedence to future developments that this practice is -practice of floating landand Strader, you both expressed your concerns and took issue to the Cavenermembers property. Council acre strip on the west side zoned as residential and floating it across the whole entire -In regards to the 3•Tanner Creek City Council Meeting 2020 Quotes from the Hawkins 2022 City Council Meeting“We’re trying to get this right, this is a critical area, you know, in the heart of the city. “•Community.” use components. In my perspective, there would be value to have mixed use components. I think -mixedapplication is, which I appreciate, but I’m not so certain our comp plan in this area is wrong with those is wrong. And as a City, we should do something just totally different. That’s in essence what your plant’s saying the mixed components of the comp I“In essence your application is saying our comp plan is wrong. •they’re not mixed uses. That’s a big distinction.”“What I think would helpful for me is the mix use community designation, I see these… there adjacent uses, •:BortonCouncil Member don’t want this to turn into a traffic jam for everybody, all the time, especially from 4:30 to 7pm.”“We’ve invested a lot of money between the MDC, the City, ACHD, and the road network configurations, we •Mayor Simison: Becky issues and alignment with the FLUM and Comp Plan.reevaluation of densities, encouraging a more thoughtful consideration of key There is room for improvement. Rejecting this development may prompt a •NOT true and honestly kind of a slap in the face to the Comp Plan and FLUM. Furthermore, Becky and Ethan said that these plans are as good as it gets. This is •Hawkins are not going anywhere. money and resources into these applications. So, let’s get real, CBH Homes and value of this property. In addition, both companies have poured a lot of time, city’s approval. While true, Corey Barton Homes and Hawkins Company know the someone can swoop in and buy the properties and build commercial without the G. They said if these plans don’t get approved, -annexed and zoned for CBecky and Ethan both mentioned how both of their properties are already •and Ethan 11/02 2023 Planning and Zoning Meeting Quote from Mayor’s State of the City address 6/22/2020 Meridian Mayor Robert Simison-not be changed much for the first 5 years.”It should It needs to mean something.community about this plan. engaging the over $200,000 and countless hours of staff time We have spent changes can be looked at in the context of the full plan. plan be our guide and limit how often it should be amended so any they stated they wanted for Meridian. As a City, we need to let the Comprehensive Plan. This is the growth plan for our community that “In 2019 the city completed a nearly 2 year process of updating our (Still holds true to this day) “Without guided growth and development, overcrowding, congestion, Please hold these developers to the high standards that this unique gateway to Meridian deserves.•community identity, and will overall deteriorate our quality of life in Meridian.These developments will cause overcrowding, congestion, compromise safety, negatively impact •detrimental for this area.Please save this area from these VERY inappropriate high dense developments that will become •Please echo the same concerns and issues you have voiced in the past•C designation from the FLUM-Please uphold the MU•Please adhere to the Comp Plan that was carefully curated for the growth of our city•quality of life and living may result.”safety, community identity, and overall deterioration of the current PLEASE DENY BOTH APPLICATIONS https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=30https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJTIVXPaa5U&t=6939shttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vn2UVcW97cY&t=9sVahWFbBWQwlLmJo1v0Xe6_cVaZon&index=3https ://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJTIVXPaa5U&list=PL2i_h8355&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCityhttps://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=306794&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity&cr=1https://weblink.meridiancit y.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=308453&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCityhttps://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=306794&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity&cr=1 C�,fER IDIAN:--- IDAHO Public Presentations Traffic Congestion and the Linder Overpass COMPASS IDAHO ADA COUNTY!!!worst levels of Congestion in passed Eagle in regards to Meridian Rd has officially •Meridian Rd is #7 Interchange on 84 -Franklin Road to I•84/Meridian is #1-I•Periods, 2022in Ada County during Peak Congested Network Segments Top 10 This map shows the •System Report, 2022Congestion Management Treasure Valley Annual Daily Trips per Traffic Impact Studies 3,014 Daily Trips•Tanner:950 per PM Peak Hour•740 per AM Peak Hour•10,891 Daily Trips•Hawkins: Who in their right minds ADA COUNTY?!segments in and #7 worst congested road would want to add 13,000+ Moving on to the Linder Overpass…. •but for how long?”some of these turning movements ok, “My hope is that Linder Road will reduce some of the traffic in this that makes •mentioned the Linder Overpass and stated: In the last City Council Meeting with Hawkins in 2022, Mayor Simison •last?claim? How much relief? And how long will this supposed “relief” Where is the study for this? Where is the data to back up Mindy’s •streets are developed.than reported in the traffic impact studies once all other connecting stated that the Meridian and Waltman intersection will operate better In the P&Z meeting, Becky brought up that Mindy Wallace from ACHD Lintersection.Overpass, increasing traffic at the Meridian/Waltman will likely lead people to prefer Ruddy Dr over the Linder Stores like WinCo and Home Depot across Waltman Lane •seems impractical.across to Overland and doubling back on Meridian Rd ramps. Driving -84 on-and take Waltman to access the ICommuters heading east would most likely cross Ruddy Dr •Lane:In regards to the neighborhood between Linder and Waltman What’s the plan then?built and these 2 developments have been built? becomes worse after the Linder Overpass has been What happens when the congestion returns or •are now. brought relief for a couple years. But look where we The big Meridian Rd and Main Rd configurations •years. But look where we are now.Ten Mile exit offered Meridian Rd relief for a couple •temporary, lasting maybe a couple of years, if at all.Relief, if any, from the Linder Overpass is likely •84 from Linder Road-No Access to I•Ruddy REDNI Hawkins Trip Generation and Distribution with Linder Overpass built •Linder Overpass.area is inadequate to handle this influx of traffic, even with the The existing infrastructure in this Infrastructure Overwhelmed:•12,816 daily trips.Adding Tanner Creek brings the total to Including Tanner Creek:•Meridian/Waltman.built, Hawkins will still contribute 9,802 daily trips through Even with the Linder Overpass Linder Overpass Insufficient:•9,802 + 3,014 (Daily Traffic Generation from Tanner Creek) = 12,816•1,089 = 9,80210,891•10% of 10,891=1,089•that 10% would come from Linder.10% of Trips going to Hawkins site originates from West of Franklin, some of •approach than what is currently proposed.being of our citizens deserve a more thoughtful and elevated -wellThe entrance to Meridian and the Gateway to Meridian Deserves Better:•box development, lacking the necessary infrastructure.-residential and bigdensity -The current area is unfit for highInappropriate Location:•grave consequences to our community.adequate information is not a sensible or wise approach, posing potential Making a significant decision without Risk of Uninformed Decision:•Meridian's future are unclear.The potential traffic impacts of the Linder Overpass on Uncertain Impact:•84 via Waltman Lane is unclear.-Dr from the West Neighborhood to IThe exact number of vehicles passing through Ruddy Traffic Uncertainty:•is not of smart growth or sustainable growth.950 cars per hour during peak hours, to Ada County's most congested area Introducing over 13,000 trips per day, with over Excessive Traffic Impact: PLEASE DENY BOTH APPLICATIONS!OF THESE https://compassidaho.org/wp7371&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity&cr=1https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=26agementSystemReport.pdfcontent/uploads/2022CongestionMan- C�,fER IDIAN:--- IDAHO Public Presentations I Clair and Carrie Manning 84 and Meridian Rd- Area View DevelopmentHawkinsExtensionCorporateApartmentsHigh Density (30 Houses)R4 (280 Units + Clubhouse)R40(45 townhomes)R15 Ruddy Drive EntranceredniL Problematic Entrance to Waltman 315 ft Left Turn To Waltman Left Turn to Waltman Waltman to I84 Bottlenecks on Waltman 485 ft turning lane accessCar LimitsBackward View:herecar in turning lane Only room for one No turning lane Corporate Drive Typical 7:30 AM Commute Typical Rush Hour Green Light Traffic Study Under Evaluation Conclusion and deny these applications. Please keep Meridian a premier community •development. level businesses in the Hawkings in the tanner development and community appropriate use would be single family homes R40 an inappropriate use of this area. A more infrastructure makes commercial zoning and The inability to adequately improve • Thank You Backup Trip Generation W IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Ordinance No. 23-2039: An Ordinance (Petsche Rezone H-2023-0039) for rezone of a parcel of land within Block 5 of F.A. Nourse's Third Addition to Meridian (a recorded plat in Book 6 at Page 289 of Ada County records) within a portion of the northeast quarter of Section 7, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described in Exhibit "A," rezoning 0.60 acres of land from C-C (Community Business) zoning district to 0-T (Old Town) zoning district in the Meridian City Code; directing city staff to alter all applicable use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps and all applicable official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance; providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Treasurer, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law; and providing an effective date. ADA COUNTY RECORDER Trent Tripple 2023-065766 BOISE IDAHO Pgs=4 BONNIE OBERBILLIG 11/22/2023 08:03 AM CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO NO FEE CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 23-2039 BORTON, CAVENER, HOAGLUN BY THE CITY COUNCIL: OVERTON, PERREAULT, STRADER AN ORDINANCE (PETSCHE REZONE H-2023-0039) FOR REZONE OF A PARCEL OF LAND WITHIN BLOCK 5 OF F.A. NOURSE'S THIRD ADDITION TO MERIDIAN (A RECORDED PLAT IN BOOK 6 AT PAGE 289 OF ADA COUNTY RECORDS) WITHIN A PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, BOISE MERIDIAN, MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A," REZONING 0.60 ACRES OF LAND FROM C-C (COMMUNITY BUSINESS) ZONING DISTRICT TO O-T (OLD TOWN) ZONING DISTRICT IN THE MERIDIAN CITY CODE; DIRECTING CITY STAFF TO ALTER ALL APPLICABLE USE AND AREA MAPS AS WELL AS THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAPS AND ALL APPLICABLE OFFICIAL MAPS DEPICTING THE BOUNDARIES AND THE ZONING DISTRICTS OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS ORDINANCE; PROVIDING THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE FILED WITH THE ADA COUNTY ASSESSOR, THE ADA COUNTY TREASURER, THE ADA COUNTY RECORDER, AND THE IDAHO STATE TAX COMMISSION,AS REQUIRED BY LAW;AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF IDAHO: SECTION 1. That the property described in the Legal Description attached hereto as Exhibit "A," which is incorporated herein by reference, is within the corporate limits of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and that the City of Meridian has received a written request for rezoning by Tammy Petsche, the owner of said property. SECTION 2. That the above-described real property is hereby rezoned from C-C (Community Business) Zoning District to O-T (Old Town) Zoning District. SECTION 3. That City Staff is hereby directed to alter all applicable use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps and all applicable official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance. SECTION 4. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a certified copy of this ordinance and its exhibits with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Treasurer, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission within ten(10) days following the effective date of this ordinance. SECTION 5. That all ordinances, resolutions, orders or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed. REZONE ORDINANCE-PETSCHE REZONE H-2023-0039 PAGE I SECTION 6.That this Ordinance, once passed, shall be in full force and effect upon publication, in accordance with law. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN,IDAHO,this 21st day of November, 2023. APPROVED BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this 21st day of November, 2023. MAYOR ROBERT E. SIMISON ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON, CITY CLERK STATE OF IDAHO, ) ) ss: County of Ada ) On this 21 ST day of November , 2023, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared ROBERT E. SIMISON and CHRIS JOHNSON known to me to be the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively,of the City of Meridian,Idaho,and who executed the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that the City of Meridian executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. Notary Public for Idaho My Commission Expires: 3-28-2028 REZONE ORDINANCE—PETSCHE REZONE H-2023-0039 PAGE 2 EXHIBIT A ELSENGEBRITSONLAND SURVEYS, PLLC. 2251 S. Sumac Street, Boise, Idaho 83706 Telephone (208) 859-6032 mike@elsurveys.com 26 June 2023 Revised: 26 July 2023 ELS Project No. 230616— Tammy Petsche Land Description for Rezone Reference Warranty Deed Instrument No. 2019-115758 Contains 26,284 square feet more or less EXHIBIT A A portion of land within Block 5 of F.A. Nourse's Third Addition to Meridian (a recorded plat in Book 6 at Page 289 of Ada County records) within a portion of the NE '/4 of Section 7, T. 3 N., R. 1 E., B.M., City of Meridian,Ada County, Idaho more particularly described as follows: Commencing at a found Brass Cap monument marking the Northwest corner of said Section 7 from which a found Brass Cap monument marking the West '/4 corner of said Section bears S 00°00'00" E a distance of 2651.94 feet,thence southerly along the west boundary line of said Section S 00°00'00" E a distance of 621.20 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Thence easterly perpendicular to said Section line N 90°00'00" E a distance of 263.60 feet to a found iron pin; Thence southerly parallel to said Section line S 00°00'00" E a distance of 106.20 feet to a found iron pin on the South line of said Block 5; Thence westerly along said South line N 90°00'00" W a distance of 73.60 feet to a found square fence post set in concrete; Thence northerly perpendicular to said South line and parallel to said Section line N 00°00'00"W a distance of 9.00 feet to a point; Thence parallel to and 9.00 feet northerly of said South line N 90°00'00" W a distance of 190.00 feet to a point on said Section line; Thence northerly along said Section line N 00°00'00" W a distance of 97.20 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. The above-described tract of land contains 26,284 square feet more or less subject to all existing easements and rights-of- way. 3793 K:IELS1Projects1202312306161Admin\Legals\EXH A Rezone description 062623.doc z N. MERIDIAN ROAD o o I BASIS OF BEARING Z N 00'00'00" W 2651.94' Z o , _ 9 7.20' ^' 1933.54' 621.20' + -tom o �o ACHD R/W o m m z ' N - — 97_20 co'cn = F rr, CD o� II N I � xo 10� rri C) cn r? co �m Ito4` C !fib 0) "I Cn l Ko CIO 4.5 G °` . . � ► � c� m 1 ,9 1 nl � DO zZ pr op�06' p � rri rri o ry r Z D� : � r z �w yZ � b y o� -< ►O m - - I -- 97.20' -- Or�n �' y ' � z I I m Z �Z 106.20' mm0 n wo�ti O � 000zoCn m oN�o� z � a, ooZ o � 0�00� �I r\,ZnOoR1 r � owz � � d Oar or oN �, -n wrnocnwnp � 0 CU m Z � Z cn co m r- Z z c� Z r-n r` c, cn � C o z ' - '& �7 S DO 00 00 E 106.20 o �z rn O ap�p O �p O zE X o � f � so I � z -� m �,_ o-O m Z � l I j ~ m i 1 CERTIFICATION OF SUMMARY: William L.M. Nary, City Attorney of the City of Meridian, Idaho, hereby certifies that the summary below is true and complete and upon its publication will provide adequate notice to the public. 3 i William L. M. Nary, 6ty Attorney i r SUMMARY OF CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 23-2039 a An Ordinance (Petsche Rezone H-2023-0039) for rezone of a parcel of land within Block 5 of F.A. Nourse's Third Addition to Meridian (a recorded plat in Book 6 at Page 289 of Ada County records) within a portion of the northeast quarter of Section 7, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described in Exhibit "A," rezoning 0.60 acres of land from C-C (Community Business) zoning district to O-T (Old Town) zoning district in the Meridian City Code; directing city staff to alter all applicable use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps and all applicable official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance;providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Treasurer, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law; and providing an effective date.A full text of this ordinance is available for inspection at City Hall, City of Meridian, 33 East Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho. This ordinance shall be effective as of the date of publication of this summary. [Publication to include map as set forth in Exhibit B.] REZONE ORDINANCE-PETSCHE REZONE H-2023-0039 PAGE 3 W IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Ordinance No. 23-2040: An ordinance (Ringneck Place Subdivision — H-2023- 0009) annexing a parcel of land located in Government Lot 3 of Section 5, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described in Exhibit "A;" rezoning 1.73 acres of such real property from R1 (Estate Residential) to R-8 (Medium-Density Residential) zoning district; directing city staff to alter all applicable use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps and all official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance; providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Treasurer, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law; repealing conflicting ordinances; and providing an effective date. ADA COUNTY RECORDER Trent Tripple 2023-065767 BOISE IDAHO Pgs=4 BONNIE OBERBILLIG 11/22/2023 08:03 AM CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO NO FEE CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 23-2040 BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BORTON, CAVENER, HOAGLUN, OVERTON, PERREAULT, STRADER AN ORDINANCE (RINGNECK PLACE SUBDIVISION — H-2023-0009) ANNEXING A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN GOVERNMENT LOT 3 OF SECTION 5, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A;" REZONING 1.73 ACRES OF SUCH REAL PROPERTY FROM RI (ESTATE RESIDENTIAL) TO R-8 (MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ZONING DISTRICT; DIRECTING CITY STAFF TO ALTER ALL APPLICABLE USE AND AREA MAPS AS WELL AS THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAPS AND ALL OFFICIAL MAPS DEPICTING THE BOUNDARIES AND THE ZONING DISTRICTS OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS ORDINANCE; PROVIDING THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE FILED WITH THE ADA COUNTY ASSESSOR, THE ADA COUNTY TREASURER, THE ADA COUNTY RECORDER, AND THE IDAHO STATE TAX COMMISSION, AS REQUIRED BY LAW; REPEALING CONFLICTING ORDINANCES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE WHEREAS, the City of Meridian received a written request from property owner WFG Investments, LLC to annex and rezone the land described in the legal description attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and the map attached hereto as Exhibit "B" ("Subject Property"), which exhibits are incorporated herein by reference; WHEREAS,the Subject Property is contiguous to the corporate limits of the City of Meridian, Idaho; WHEREAS,the City of Meridian is authorized by Idaho Code section 50-222(2)to annex the Subject Property; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF IDAHO: SECTION 1. That the City Council of the City of Meridian hereby annexes the Subject Property. SECTION 2. That the City Council of the City of Meridian hereby rezones 1.73 acres of the Subject Property from R1 (Estate Residential) to the R-8 (Medium-Density Residential) Zoning District. ANNEXATION ORDINANCE—RINGNECK PLACE SUBDIVISION H-2023-0009 Page I SECTION 3. That City Staff is hereby directed to alter all applicable use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps and all official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance. SECTION 4. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a certified copy of this ordinance and its exhibits with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Treasurer, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, within ten (10) days following the effective date of this ordinance. SECTION 5. That all ordinances, resolutions, orders or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed. SECTION 6. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon publication, in accordance with law. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN,IDAHO,this 21 st day of November , 2023. APPROVED BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this 21 st day of November , 2023. MAYOR ROBERT E. SIMISON ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON, CITY CLERK STATE OF IDAHO, ) ) ss: County of Ada ) On this 21st day of Nove,mber 2023,before me,the undersigned,a Notary Public in and for said State,personally appeared Robert E.Simison and Chris Johnson known to me to be the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively,of the City of Meridian,Idaho,and who executed the within instrument,and acknowledged to me that the City of Meridian executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. Notary Public 3-28-2028 Commission Expiration: ANNEXATION ORDINANCE—RINGNECK PLACE SUBDIVISION H-2023-0009 Page 2 EXHIBIT A Description for R-8 Zone Ringneck Place Subdivision February 21, 2023 A parcel of land located in Government Lot 3 of Section 5, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the 1/4 corner common to Section 5, T.3N., R.1 E., B.M. and Section 32, T.4N., R.1 E., B.M., from which the Section corner common to Sections 5 and 6, T.3N., R.1 E., B.M., and Sections 31 and 32, T.4N., R.1 E., B.M., bears North 89044'57" West, 2,655.43 feet, thence on the north boundary line of said Section 5, North 89044'57" West, 167.49 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence leaving said north boundary line, South 00028'02" West, 450.00 feet; thence North 89044'57" West, 167.50 feet to the east boundary line of Verado Subdivision No. 1 as filed in Book 112 of Plats at Pages 16219 through 16223, records of Ada County, Idaho; thence on said east boundary line and the northerly extension thereof, North 00028'02" East, 450.00 feet to the north boundary line of said Section 5; thence on said north boundary line, South 89044'57" East, 167.50 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 1.730 acres, more or less. End of Description. GE NSFO 1� 779 up Z1 Z3�0 cep 9TF o F YM M cc Nv` Page 1 of 1 EXHIBIT B _Basis of Bearings_ . •• • ——— N89°44'57"W 2655.43' •••Paint•..... — of�• ' S.31 S.32 Beginning TAN. T.4N. S89'44'57"E 167.50' g g '••1/4 5.32 T.3N. S.6 S.5 2320.44' 167.49' S.5 T.3N. E. Ustick Rd. T' Block 1 Vera.do Sub. No.1 i 0 0 O o E. Ringneck 11 0 St. w � N f1.730 0 Acres 00 N O 0 O 0 Z Ln Block 5 Ver¢do Sub. No.1 N89'44'57"W 167.50' ONNL LANC \ �\GE NSF 1 779 cP'9�F O2oZ�N ,rO Scale: 180 F 0 20 40 80 160 YM McCPM� Rin neck Sub —do E-0 22-216 dw Annea E..d 2 21 2023 8:55:21 AM Exhibit Drawing for Job No. IDAHO 21-486 9955 W.EMERALD ST. R-8 Zone le Sheet No. SURVEY BOISE,IDAHO 83704 (208)846-8570 Ringneck Place Subdivision 1 GROUP, LLC Located in Government Lot 3 of Section 5, Dwg. Date T.3N., UE., B.M., Ada County, Idaho. 2/21/2023 i i 1 i CERTIFICATION OF SUMMARY: i William L.M.Nary, City Attorney of the City of Meridian, Idaho,hereby certifies that the summary below is true and complete and upon its publication will provide adequate notice to the public. i �r. William L. M.Nary, City Attorney i SUMMARY OF CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 23-2040 An ordinance (Ringneck Place Subdivision — H-2023-0009) annexing a parcel of land located in Government Lot 3 of Section 5,Township 3 North,Range 1 East,Boise Meridian,Ada County,Idaho, more particularly described in Exhibit"A;"rezoning L73 acres of such real property from RI (Estate Residential) to R-8 (Medium-Density Residential) zoning district; directing city staff to alter all applicable use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps and all official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance; providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Treasurer, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law; repealing conflicting ordinances; and providing an effective date. A full text of this ordinance is available for inspection at City Hall, City of Meridian, 33 East Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho. This ordinance shall be effective as of the date of publication of this summary. [Publication to include map as set forth in Exhibit B.] ANNEXATION ORDINANCE—RINGNECK PLACE SUBDIVISION H-2023-0009 Page 4