Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-08-15 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Thursday, August 15, 2024 at 6:00 PM MINUTES ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE PRESENT Commissioner Brian Garrett Commissioner Enrique Rivera Commissioner Patrick Grace Commissioner Matthew Sandoval Chairperson Maria Lorcher ABSENT Commissioner Andrew Seal Commissioner Jared Smith ADOPTION OF AGENDA Adopted CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] Approved Motion to approve made by Commissioner Grace, Seconded by Commissioner Rivera. Voting Yea: Commissioner Garrett, Commissioner Rivera, Commissioner Grace, Commissioner Sandoval, Chairperson Lorcher 1. Approve Minutes of August 1, 2024 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting 2. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for TMW (H-2024-0018) by Adler Industrial, located at 1085 S. Ten Mile Road ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] ACTION ITEMS 3. Public Hearing continued from August 1, 2024 for The Angels Home Childcare (H- 2024-0017) by Desange Muhawenimana, located at 167 W. Indian Rocks St. Approved Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2024-0017 A. Request: Conditional Use Permit for an in-home daycare for 6-12 children in the R-4 zoning district Motion to approve made by Commissioner Garrett, Seconded by Commissioner Grace. Voting Yea: Commissioner Garrett, Commissioner Grace, Commissioner Sandoval 4. Public Hearing for District at Ten Mile (H-2023-0071) by Ball Ventures Ahlquist, generally located at the northwest corner of S. Ten Mile Rd. and I-84 Recommend Approval to City Council Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2023-0071 A. Request: Future Land Use Map Amendment to amend the Future Land Use Map in the Comprehensive Plan to change the designations on portions of the subject property and adjacent properties, resulting in a net change in the area as follows: Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) (+9.26 acres), High Density Residential (HDR) (+2.66 acres), Mixed-Use Residential (MU-R) (- 10.61 acres), Mixed-Use Commercial (MU-C) (+0.32 acre), Mixed Employment (ME) (-0.22 acre) and High Density Employment (HDE) (-1.40 acres) as requested by the Applicant and as recommended by Staff on adjacent properties if the Applicant's request is approved. B. Request: Modified Development Agreements to the existing Development Agreements (Vanguard Village (H-2021-0081) Inst .#2022-049799, Fedrizzi Ten Mile LLC (AZ-11-001) Inst. #112073618, SJJV LLC (AZ-11-001) Inst. #112073617, Janicek Properties LLC (AZ-11-001) Inst. #112073616, to consolidate them into one (1) new agreement, which will replace the previous agreements (or a portion thereof, as applicable) and include a conceptual development plan for the overall area. C. Request: Rezone of 7.48 acres of land from the C-C to the TN-C district, 12.96 acres from the H-E and R-40 to the C-C district, 9.13 acres from the C-C to the H-E district, 25.97 acres from the C-C and H-E to the C-G district, and 1.37 acres from the H-E to the M-E zoning district. D. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 38 building lots and one (1) common lot on 108.77 acres of land in the TN-C, C-C, C-G, H-E and M-E zoning districts. Motion to recommend approval to Council made by Commissioner Grace, Seconded by Commissioner Rivera. Voting Yea: Commissioner Garrett, Commissioner Rivera, Commissioner Grace, Commissioner Sandoval, Chairperson Lorcher 5. Public Hearing for Idaho State University (H-2024-0027) by Idaho State University, generally located on the west side of S. Locust Grove Rd., midway between E. Franklin Rd. and E. Overland Rd. Recommend Approval to City Council Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2024-0027 A. Request: Annexation of 23.254 acres of land from RUT and R-6 in Ada County to the C-G zoning district. Motion to recommend approve to Council made by Commissioner Grace, Seconded by Commissioner Rivera. Voting Yea: Commissioner Garrett, Commissioner Rivera, Commissioner Grace, Commissioner Sandoval, Chairperson Lorcher ADJOURNMENT 7:58 P.M. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To view upcoming Public Hearing Notices, visit https://apps.meridiancity.org/phnotices --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 15, 2024. Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of August 15, 2024, was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Maria Lorcher. Members Present: Commissioner Maria Lorcher, Commissioner Patrick Grace, Commissioner Enrique Rivera, Commissioner Brian Garrett and Commissioner Matthew Sandoval. Members Absent: Commissioner Andrew Sea and Commissioner Jared Smith. Others Present: Tina Lomeli, Kurt Starman, Bill Parsons, Nick Napoli and Dean Willis. ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE _X Brian Garrett Andrew Seal _X Matthew Sandoval X Patrick Grace _X Enrique Rivera Jared Smith X Maria Lorcher - Chairman Lorcher: Good evening. Welcome to the Planning and Zoning meeting for August 15, 2024. At this time I would like to call the meeting to order. The Commissioners who are present for this evening's meeting are at City Hall and on Zoom. We also have staff from the city attorneys and city clerk's office, as well as the planning department. If you are joining us on Zoom this evening we can see that you are here. You may observe the meeting. However, your ability to be seen on screen and talk will be muted. During the public testimony portion of the meeting you will be unmuted and, then, be able to comment. Please note we cannot take questions until the public testimony portion. If you have a process question during the meeting please e-mail cityclerk(a)-me rid iancity.o rg and they will reply as quickly as possible. If you simply want to watch the meeting we encourage you to watch the streaming at the city's YouTube channel. You can access at -- access it at meridiancity.org/live. With that let us begin with roll call. Madam Clerk. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Lorcher: The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda and currently there are no changes to tonight's agenda. Could I get a motion to adopt tonight's agenda? Garrett: So moved. Rivera: I will second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission August 15,2024 Page 2 of 34 MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] 1. Approve Minutes of August 1, 2024 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting 2. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for TMW (H-2024-0018) by Adler Industrial, located at 1085 S. Ten Mile Road Lorcher: The next item is the Consent Agenda. We have two items on the Consent Agenda. To approve the meeting of the August Planning and Zoning meeting and Facts and Findings of Conclusions of Law for Adler Industrial, located at 1085 South Ten Mile Road. Could I get a motion to accept the Consent Agenda as presented? Grace: So moved. Rivera: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to adopt the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] Lorcher: At this time I would like to briefly explain the public hearing process. We will open each item individually and begin with a staff report. Staff will report their findings on how the item adheres to our Comprehensive Plan and our Unified Development Code. After staff has made their presentation, the applicant will come forward to present their case and respond to staff's comments. They will have 15 minutes to do so. After the applicant is finished we will open the floor to public testimony. Each person will be called only once during public testimony. The clerk will call the names individually of those who have signed up on our website in advance to testify. You can come to the microphone in Chambers or you will be unmuted in Zoom. Please state your name and address for the record and you will have three minutes to address the Commission. If you have previously sent pictures or a presentation for the meeting, it will be displayed on our screen and the clerk will run the presentation. If you have established that you are speaking on the behalf of a larger group, like an HOA, where others from that group have allowed you to speak on their behalf, you will have up to ten minutes. After all of those who have signed up in advance have spoken we will invite anybody else in Chambers who wish to testify. If you wish to speak on the topic you may come forward in Chambers or if on Zoom press the raise hand button in the Zoom app and if you are listening on a telephone, please, press star nine and wait until your name is called. If you are listening on multiple devices, such as a computer or a telephone, please, be sure to mute those extra devices, so we do not experience Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission August 15,2024 Page 3 of 34 feedback and we can hear you clearly. When you are finished if the Commission does not have questions for you you will -- you will return to your seat in Chambers or be muted on Zoom and no longer have the ability to speak and, please, remember we will not call on you a second time. After all testimony has been heard, then, the applicant will be given another ten minutes to come back and respond. When the applicant has finished responding to questions and concerns we will close the public hearing and the Commissioners will have an opportunity to discuss and, hopefully, make final decisions or recommendations to City Council as needed. ACTION ITEMS 3. Public Hearing continued from August 1, 2024 for The Angels Home Childcare (H-2024-0017) by Desange Muhawenimana, located at 167 W. Indian Rocks St. A. Request: Conditional Use Permit for an in-home daycare for 6-12 children in the R-4 zoning district Lorcher: So, with that tonight I would like to open the public hearing for the Angels Home Childcare for a conditional use permit. We will begin with the staff report. Allen: Thank you, Madam Chair. Our first application for -- our first application before you tonight is for Angel -- the Angels Home Childcare. It's a conditional use permit. This site consists of .20 acres of land. It's zoned R-4 and is located at 167 West Indian Rock Street. The applicant is currently operating an in-home daycare facility for six or fewer children in her home. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation is medium density residential. A conditional use permit is proposed for an in-home group daycare for seven to 12 children in the R-4 zoning district. Compliance with the specific use standards in the UDC for such is required. Off-street vehicle parking is required to be provided on the site in accord with UDC standards for the residence and for the daycare. A minimum of four off-street parking spaces are required for the four bedroom home, with at least two of those spaces in the garage. The other space may be a parking pad outside the garage. There are three vehicle parking spaces in the garage and three on the parking pad in front of the garage. The applicant states she will pick up the children to avoid traffic in her neighborhood and if parents want to come visit they let her know ahead of time. All of their personal vehicles will be parked inside the garage and the parking pad outside will be available for parents to use that prefer to pick up and drop off their children to ensure safe discharge and pick up of clients in accord with UDC standards. The proposed hours of operation are from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. The hours of operation should not extend beyond this time period without modification of the conditional use permit. No written testimony has been received on this application and staff is recommending approval with conditions. The applicant is here to testify tonight. Thank you. Lorcher: Would the applicant like to come forward? If you can go to the microphone and just state your name and address for the record. F Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission August 15,2024 Page 4 of 34 Muhawenimana: My name is Desange Muhawenimana. I'm the one applying for the home childcare. I currently run a six of -- for kids in childcare in my home and I'm hoping to expand my childcare, so that I can be able to take care of more kids and my hope is to be able to qualify for that. Lorcher: For the record can you state your address, too, please? Muhawenimana: My address is 167 West Indian Rocks Street, Meridian, Idaho. 83646. Lorcher: Commissioners, do you have any questions for the applicant or staff? Grace: Madam Chair, maybe just one. Lorcher: Commissioner Grace. Grace: Have you had a chance to talk with your neighbors and have you gotten any feedback from them about expanding your operations? Muhawenimana: Yes, I -- I did send out a letter explaining to them. They already knew that I have six or -- six or fewer and I did send out a letter explaining to them that I'm hoping to expand and there was no comment. Grace: Okay. Thank you. Lorcher: Okay. Thank you. Muhawenimana: Thank you. Lorcher: At this time we will take any public testimony. Do we have any signed up? Lomeli: Thank you, Madam Chair. No one has signed up. Lorcher: I think she said everything she probably wanted to say. Is there anything else that you wanted to add or are you good? Okay. So, I will take a motion to close the public hearing. Garrett: I will move that it be closed. Grace: Second. Lorcher: It has been moved to close the public hearing for H-2024-0017. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Lorcher: Okay. Commissioners, do you have any thoughts about this or a motion? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission August 15,2024 Page 5 of 34 Grace: Madam Chair, I would just say that as we have seen in previous applications like this, daycare is desperately needed and the important thing for me was to make sure that this is harmonious with the -- with the neighbors in the neighborhood and I appreciate that you sent out a letter and didn't get any feedback. So, hopefully, it's a positive thing for people. Lorcher: And there is no written testimony, so we haven't gotten any comments back from her community, so -- a motion? Garrett: Madam Chair, after considering the staff, applicant and public testimony I move to approve the File No. H-2024-0017 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of August 15th, 2024. Grace: I will second. Lorcher: It has been moved and seconded to approve File No. H-2024-0017. Any -- all those in favor say aye. Opposed? All right. Motion carries as is. Thank you very much MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. 4. Public Hearing for District at Ten Mile (H-2023-0071) by Ball Ventures Ahlquist, generally located at the northwest corner of S. Ten Mile Rd. and 1-84 A. Request: Future Land Use Map Amendment to amend the Future Land Use Map in the Comprehensive Plan to change the designations on portions of the subject property and adjacent properties, resulting in a net change in the area as follows: Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) (+9.26 acres), High Density Residential (HDR) (+2.66 acres), Mixed-Use Residential (MU-R) (- 10.61 acres), Mixed-Use Commercial (MU-C) (+0.32 acre), Mixed Employment (ME) (-0.22 acre) and High Density Employment (HDE) (-1.40 acres) as requested by the Applicant and as recommended by Staff on adjacent properties if the Applicant's request is approved. B. Request: Modified Development Agreements to the existing Development Agreements (Vanguard Village (H-2021-0081) Inst .#2022-049799, Fedrizzi Ten Mile LLC (AZ-11-001) Inst. #112073618, SJJV LLC (AZ-11-001) Inst. #112073617, Janicek Properties LLC (AZ-11-001) Inst. #112073616, to consolidate them into one (1) new agreement, which will replace the previous agreements (or a portion thereof, as applicable) and include a conceptual development plan for the overall area. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission August 15,2024 Page 6 of 34 C. Request: Rezone of 7.48 acres of land from the C-C to the TN-C district, 12.96 acres from the H-E and R-40 to the C-C district, 9.13 acres from the C-C to the H-E district, 25.97 acres from the C-C and H-E to the C-G district, and 1.37 acres from the H-E to the M-E zoning district. D. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 38 building lots and one (1) common lot on 108.77 acres of land in the TN-C, C-C, C-G, H-E and M-E zoning districts. Lorcher: The second item on the agenda is file H-2023-0071 for a request for a future land use map amendment, modified development agreement, rezone and preliminary plat for the District at Ten Mile. We will begin with the staff report. Allen: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. The next application before you is a request for a Comprehensive Plan future land use amendment, development agreement modification, rezone and preliminary plat. This site consists of 108.77 acres of land. It's currently zoned C-C, ME, HE, R-40 and TN-C and it's located at the northwest corner of Interstate 84 and South Ten Mile Road. A preliminary plat was previously approved on the southwest portion of this property for Vanguard Village. A final plat is currently in process. The subject property was previously annexed in 2009 and 2011 with the Meridian Crossing, the 10 Mile annexation and the Ten at Meridian applications and are subject to development agreements. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designations on the property are currently mixed employment, high density employment, mixed-use, commercial, mixed-use residential. The applicant is requesting an amendment to the future land use map in the Comprehensive Plan as shown there on the bottom graphic. The top one is the current adopted future land use map designations. The applicant is requesting to change the designations on portions of the subject property and adjacent properties resulting in a net change in this area as follows: An increase of 9.26 acres of medium high density residential. An increase of 2.66 acres of high density residential. A loss of 10.61 acres of mixed-use residential and an increase of mixed-use commercial in the amount of .32 of an acre. A loss of .22 acre of mixed employment and an increase of 1.4 acres of high density employment. The map amendment includes some cleanup changes recommended by staff on the abutting property to the west, Endurance Holdings, zoned R-15 and mostly designated high -- medium high density residential and the right of way for West Cobalt Drive along the northern boundary of this site adjacent to Outer Banks Subdivision, zoned C-C and designated mixed use regional -- excuse me -- mixed-use residential. Based on the existing multi-family entitlements on these parcels and the applicant's proposed amendment and those are shown in the pink and white dashed line areas on the exhibit here. Without including the proposed cleanup changes on the adjacent properties, the changes to this property are as follows: A loss of 2.8 acres of medium high density residential. No change to the high density residential. An increase of 2.3 acres of mixed employment and an increase of 3.74 acres of mixed-use commercial and no change to high density employment. In summary, most of the applicant's proposed changes are just a reconfiguration of existing future land use map 10 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission August 15,2024 Page 7 of 34 designations and not significant changes. The applicant is proposing a rezone of 7.48 acres of land from the C-C to the C-N -- excuse me -- TN-C district, 12.96 acres from the HE and R-40 to the C-C district, 9.13 acres from the C-C to the HE district, 25.97 acres from the C-C and HE to the C-G district and 1.37 acres from the HE to the ME zoning district. A preliminary plat is proposed. Ah, I think that my -- let's see. My map is not -- give me just a moment, please. Okay. Sorry about that. I'm not sure what's going on. It's not syncing correctly, so bear with me. A preliminary plat is proposed with -- consisting of 38 building lots and one common lot on 108.77 acres of land in the TN- C, C-C, C-G, HE and ME zoning districts. A modification is proposed to the existing development agreements for Vanguard Village; Fedrizzi;, Ten Mile LLC; SJJV, LLC; Janicek Properties, LLC, and the Ten at Meridian to consolidate them into one new agreement, which will replace the previous agreements or portion thereof as applicable for Vanguard Village and the Ten at Meridian and include a conceptual development plan for the overall area. A use area plan is also proposed as shown. Area one accommodates a mix of multi-family residential, such as townhomes and multi-family. This area is mostly designated mixed-use commercial with mixed-use residential and a small amount of medium high density residential and zoned mostly TN-C with some C-C. The map amendment proposes a mixed-use residential land use designation with TN-C zoning for the entire area. A residential density of eight to 12 units per acre is proposed, which equates to approximately 268 to 402 residential units. A diversity of compatible land uses is encouraged in mixed-use residential areas, which may include a mix of residential, office, retail, recreational, employment and other miscellaneous uses. While the focus is on residential uses, the horizontal and vertical integration of retail, office and employment uses is essential. This designation requires developments to integrate the three major use categories, residential, commercial and employment. Only residential uses are proposed in the requested mixed-use regional future land use map designation and TN-C zoning district. The mixed-use component of the mixed-use residential designation and the TN-C zoning district is entirely missing. Only one of the three major use categories is proposed and that's residential. No retail, office or employment uses are proposed as required, which are essential in mixed-use residential designated areas. The proposed mixed-use residential designation and TN-C zoning is not consistent with the proposed development plan or the intended plan for this area, as the required mix of integrated uses is not provided. Area two accommodates predominantly commercial mixed uses that includes large format anchor and specialty retail, casual and fine dining, entertainment, recreation, hospitality, childcare and office uses. This area is currently designated mostly mixed-use residential and mixed-use commercial, with a small amount of high density employment. The zoning is mostly C-C and some HE and ME. The map amendment proposes mixed-use commercial and high density employment land use designations of C-C, HE, C-G and ME zoning with the majority being C-C. The mixed-use commercial designation encourages the development of a mix of office, retail, recreational, employment, i.e., family wage jobs and other miscellaneous uses with supporting multi- family or single family attached residential uses. While the focus of these areas is on commercial and employment uses, the horizontal and vertical integration of residential uses is essential to securing entitlements. As with all mixed-use areas, this designation requires development to integrate the three major use categories, residential, F-11 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission August 15,2024 Page 8 of 34 commercial and employment. In mixed-use commercial areas three or more significant uses also tend to be larger scale projects. Although the commercial uses is proposed, only one of the three major use categories is provided and that's commercial. No major employment uses. Again, family wage jobs is what we are talking about with that are proposed is required in either the mixed-use commercial or the high density employment areas and integrated residential uses are not proposed in the mixed-use commercial area, which are essential. The proposed mixed-use commercial and high density employment designations are not consistent with the proposed development plan or the intended plan for this area as the required mix of uses is not provided. The proposed floor area ratios are also significantly below the goals of one to 1.25 or more in the mixed-use commercial area and exceeding 1.0 in the high density employment area. Just a side note. On the staff report it did include a map that showed square footages of the gross floor area. That was incorrect. Those were actually just the -- the floor area of the -- of the main floor. It did not include any upper stories as may be proposed. So, the applicant will be either revising that exhibit or it will just be pulling it out. I'm not sure which at this point. So, the floor area ratios in the staff report are not correct. The area is still very low and very far below the -- the guidelines, but those numbers are not correct. Area three accommodates medium to higher density office, commercial, recreation and medical and hospitality uses. This area is currently designated mixed-use commercial and high density employment with C-C, ME and HE zoning. The applicant proposes a reconfiguration of the mixed-use commercial and high density employment areas and a rezone to reconfigure the boundaries of the C-C, HE and ME districts accordingly and to add C-G zoning. The applicant also proposes to change a sliver of the high density employment area along the west boundary in areas two and three of the use area plan to ME and rezone from HE to ME for the southern portion of that area to match that of the abutting property to the west and to align with the future lot line. The ME area will be developed by Adler Industries separate from this development. As previously noted, the floor area ratios in the mixed-use commercial and high density employment areas are significantly below the established goals in the plan. Although commercial and employment uses are proposed from three major use categories, integration of residential uses is not proposed as desired. Office and other employment uses need to be of a much higher density in this area in order to be complicit with the mixed-use commercial and especially the high density employment designation and designed as compact urban centers, rather than low density suburban style development. Recreation uses are not desired in the high density employment designated areas. A mobility plan was submitted showing vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle circulation within the site. Typically all building elevations should comply with the design standards in the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan and the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. However, the applicant is requesting that these guidelines and standards not apply to this development and instead proposes alternate design standards and a design review process of their own for their proposed development as part of the development agreement. Similarly, Brighton's development across the street to the east did the same for their development and they have their own design standards as well. While all of the proposed design standards may not expressly align with the guidelines in the Ten Mile Plan, they appear to generally follow the guidelines and should ensure higher quality of development if 12 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission August 15,2024 Page 9 of 34 Commission and Council deem the proposed plan appropriate for this area and these are just some examples of elevations that are included in that design manual. Written testimony has been received from Kristina Bolt and that is included in the public record and from Geoff Wardle, the applicant's representative, in response to the staff report. Staff is -- in summary is recommending -- the staff is not in support of the proposed map amendment and the associated rezone based on the conceptual development plan proposed, as it does not meet the minimum development guidelines in the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan, nor does it provide the mix of integrated uses desired in mixed-use designated areas or the intensity and/or types of uses desired in the mixed- use commercial and high density employment designated areas. If Commission and Council is of the opinion that proposed development plan is more appropriate for this area than that envisioned in the adopted Ten Mile Plan, staff suggests alternate future land use map designations and zoning are approved consistent with the proposed development plan as follows: Medium high density residential and R-15 zoning for the property in area one and commercial and C-G zoning in areas two and three, as shown on the map before you. Staff will stand for any questions. The applicant is here tonight to present. Lorcher: Would the applicant like to come forward? Hang on just a moment here, Geoff. There we go. Wardle: Commissioners, my name is Geoff Wardle. I am counsel for the applicant. My address is 251 East Front here in -- in -- 251 East Front in Boise. We are here tonight to talk about the District at Ten Mile and we appreciate the -- the staff report and you see our response. I mean it -- when we get to the end -- we will always start with the end in mind. We don't disagree with staff's recommendation on how to get there. We have proposed our own approach that we think is appropriate. We have worked on that with staff for months. But as we have reviewed the staff report that if -- if that's the way that they think that we should go to be able to get this approved, then, we are supportive of that and we are willing to go to Council with the changes that staff has recommended. So, to provide some background, this application involves a development agreement modification, Comprehensive Plan map amendment, a rezone and preliminary plat for the property that is west of Ten Mile Road and the applications that staff mentioned that were consolidated two, three years ago for Ten Mile Center, which consisted of the Ten Mile Crossing, the other Ten Mile facilities where Scheels is located as Brighton came through with that. On the west side of the property, as staff noted, there were a series of development applications with different property owners that resulted in development agreements that address different portions of the site that also did not necessarily conform to what -- the infrastructure plan that has been developed in the Ten Mile area over the course of the last 15, 20 years resulted in being. Staff walked you through those and essentially what we are doing tonight is presenting you an omnibus solution to bring all five of those prior development agreements together with a comprehensive development plan. Now, I'm going to walk you through the background and just kind of the technical elements and, then, Tom Peterson, the vice-president of development for BVA Development, will talk about the thought process that has gone into the various areas. As depicted here you can see the F13] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission August 15,2024 Page 10 of 34 five different development parcels that were subject to five separate development agreements. There is approximately one acre up at the north along Cobalt that was part of another development agreement that they never had a plan for, because they knew it would be a vestige and those boundaries were realigned with Cobalt. Then you have the large purple one there, which is approximately 71 acres, that was annexed into the city pursuant to the development agreement at the same time as the blue and green parcels. Now, those development agreements did not have a site plan attached to them and one of the requirements was to return to the city with that when we were in a position to do so. Now, BVA had previously acquired the property there in orange that we call the 118 property and that is subject to a final plat that is currently being circulated, but we desire to incorporate approximately 65 acres there with this larger commercial and residential mixed-use development. So, as we note in the Ten Mile Plan, there were certain lines that were drawn on maps and the -- the authors of the Ten Mile Plan cautioned everybody not to be too wedded to those lines, that there would need to be adjustment. So, as we looked at this from the beginning our position was that the underlying land use designations in the Ten Mile Plan are consistent with, A, the existing zoning and, B, the zoning that we need. As -- as staff pointed out, we have been trying to be surgical as we realign some of the zone boundaries to better reflect where roadways are, where the pipeline easement is, where the Purdam Drain easement are, those limitations on development. So, our initial position was you don't really need to touch the Comprehensive Plan, but if you want us to better align it we will do that with the existing zoning. So, this is what staff has proposed and identified to you and if -- if that brings peace in our times we are totally supportive of it, because it gets us to the same place. It gets us to the same place, but from the beginning I want everybody to understand that we have attempted to be very respectful and learn from the Ten Mile Plan, but implementing it 17 years later there are a lot of lessons that we have all learned. We have looked to the guidance given by this Commission and the City Council to Brighton across the street. We have conversed regularly with staff over the course of the last year as we have worked through this and so we are in agreement if this is the approach that -- that gains the support of staff and Commission that we support the staff's proposed modification. So, the other element that staff indicated -- and I'm going to turn it over to Tom to talk about this now -- is that one of the things the Ten Mile Specific Plan comprehended was the need for comprehensive design standards that were independent of the Ten Mile Plan as you looked at properties and by coming forward with these five development agreements we are able to take a significant area that are subject to disparate approval processes and bring them together so that you have a harmonious development that approximates about 200 acres with a variety of uses in furtherance of what we have. So, I'm going to turn it over to Tom Peterson now to talk about the various elements and we have talked about Ten Mile Center. So, Tom. Lorcher: Hi. Thank you. Please just state your name and address for the record. Peterson: Yes, Madam Chair, distinguished Commissioners. Tom Peterson. The chief development officer and general counsel for Ball Ventures Ahlquist, 1111 South Vanguard Way in Meridian, Idaho. Appreciative -- I will pick where -- I will pick up F14] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission August 15,2024 Page 11 of 34 where Mr. Wardle left off. Before even doing that, though, very appreciative of the fact that we are here today. It's only through a year-long process of collaborating with -- with city staff, many meetings and that collaborative process continues today as Mr. Wardle has indicated that the suggestions that they have made we completely support and -- and agree with -- and -- and are -- are just appreciative for the continued guidance and -- and collaborative approach with the city. As I -- as I go through these -- these next slides -- as we pick up here what I want to do -- I think it -- it only makes sense if I take a step back for 30 seconds of kind of high level context for what this site is proposed to be and, then, it kind of makes sense as to what we are asking for. The subject site that -- the preliminary plat is 101 acres, but the -- the subject property that would be subject to one consolidated development agreement is 163 acres and it's earmarked as the District at Ten Mile. This is significant. It's -- it's an interconnected site. That's a true mixed-use site and it is -- we -- we are really -- we have been working on this for a year with our partners who I will get to in a moment, but it's a -- it's a network of mixed-use districts -- three districts that are harmonious, that are interconnected, but have distinct purposes and functionality. Their outline is, as city staff was alluding to earlier, there are three areas and I want to actually skip to that. Maybe one more here. Let's see if I can get there. Starting in the -- the north kind of west corridor, the residential area is -- is a mixture of -- of townhouse and multi -- multi-family and, then, in kind of a backward shaped L we have a second district, if you will, that's primarily our -- our retail village. It's going to include restaurants, service, grocery, entertainment, recreation, office, retail, hotel and flex space and, then, along the -- what I will refer to as the -- as the 1-84 corridor closest to 1-84, that's our commercial, hospitality core that will have uses such as office, medical office and hotel. Now, the request that takes us back to -- to the development agreement modification, the request is to integrate the -- the multiple existing development agreements into that one single development agreement with design standards that will be incorporated and will govern the entire site, much like as Mr. Wardle referenced across the street we did that -- by we it was in partnership with Brighton and at their lead they did something similar. It promotes consistency, cohesion and eliminates confusion, while maintaining that the highest quality of -- of a development -- not -- not just for now, but for years and years to come, included -- and I think at this point it's -- it's probably important to note and it's noteworthy that on this project what you see with -- with this depiction, the site plan, we have partnered with EPC, the founding members of whom were the principal partners of CenterCal, who brought The Village to Meridian. Fred and his team have since carved out from CenterCal. They formed EPC, a sister corporation to BVA and their fingerprints are over this -- this development as they have been able to identify things that have worked in the past, both at The Village and at other mixed-use developments through the western United States, but we have also learned from things that they could have done better and have said we would have done that better. Why does that matter? It -- it takes us back to the discussion on the development agreement. As noted, the purpose of the application in part is to integrate the multiple existing development agreements, that if -- if left unmodified and unintegrated would create pockets of disjointed development here. One development agreement governs the entirety of the property as proposed. That's consistent with the provisions of the Meridian City Code 11-5B-3F. It's consistent with the direction from city staff and it's consistent with -- with precedent F15] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission August 15,2024 Page 12 of 34 for the last several years. It is also important to note -- and Mr. Wardle alluded to this as well -- that in each of the existing development agreements it didn't just contemplate, but required the very future amendment that we are now bringing before you. Each of these were intended to be amended. I want to get to the design standards here -- here, because I think that's the meat of what is important to discuss tonight, but the development agreement modification also allows us and it's a -- it's a vehicle to make the requested Comprehensive Plan map amendment, the zoning modification and the preliminary plat and to bring that all into one, so as we, then, turn to the design standards, as stated by consolidating these down and having one master development agreement with design standards that cover the entirety of the project, what that provides for is predictability, consistency, compliance with the Ten Mile Area Specific Plan and whereas noted an enhancement of those standards to reflect modern trends and -- and compatibility with -- with development in the surrounding area. The main objective of the design standards is to establish, number one, a set of criteria and a -- and a set process and procedure that can be followed. I want to just first talk about the procedure and, then, we can talk briefly -- very briefly about the actual criteria. Under the -- the process -- and it may be familiar to you with the Ten Mile Crossing process across the street, but Article 2 of the design standards establishes a design review process that's intended to not only make it more cohesive in the site, but keep the focus at design review and a place where it should be that these things are being vetted out ahead of time and not just an ad hoc process. So, the process very quickly is, again, very much like we did across the street. The first step -- the very first step is that any user would bring their application for their use to the master developer, BVA, and it's that initial intake process, it's the review process. It, then, after it meets that stage compliance, it goes to the architectural review committee consisting of four members appointed by the master developer. It's reviewed there and, then, if reviewed and approved and found to be consistent with the design standards that we will get to, then, and only then is it submitted finally to the city through the normal CZC and design review process. The point, of course, is to maintain those high standards intended for the district and -- and, frankly, it creates more efficiency for the design reapplications that are submitted. Now, that's the process. We simply don't have time to -- to walk through each and every component of the design guidelines. They have been reviewed with, vetted by staff -- it's been a very iterative process and -- but we have identified and I want to walk through very briefly to identify what we think are -- and I should note that as we have gone through this with staff we have noted in our application where and when and how we are complying with the Ten Mile Area Specific Plan and, then, when we have an enhancement of that we have also noted that as well. There are two sets of standards. One is -- is the actual -- the design standards for the -- the development itself, the site standards and, then, the architectural standards. Within the very comprehensive and robust design standards for the site development we have, as indicated here on the screen, streets and drive aisles. Their standards for vehicular and pedestrian circulation, off-street parking, utilities and equipment, services and landscaping, outdoor lighting, street furniture -- again, drawing upon the experience and the expertise of our partners who have -- who have done some fabulous sites in Meridian and around the country, drawn upon those best practices. Architectural standards. These design architectural standards have been patterned again after the F16] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission August 15,2024 Page 13 of 34 Ten Mile Plan and once the process is in place there are -- there are standards for the actual architecture itself and I will walk through those briefly and, then, we will look at some examples. Building height and massing. Building materiality. Orientation of buildings. Signage. And as we look at some of these examples here -- three seconds? Glass material examples. Sidewalk examples. Orientation of doors and windows. You will see some of the best practices from the city and other cities in the mountain west. Great attention to detail for street furniture and, then, of course, the facades of some of these buildings -- you will see elements from The Village, from Eagle View Landing, from Ten Mile Crossing. The best, highest quality Class A product that we -- that we can bring. I'm out of time. There is more to go over, but we can stand for questions. Lorcher: Thank you. Commissioners, do you have any questions for the applicant? Sandoval: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Sandoval. Sandoval: Yeah. Just a quick one. You said a year. How long exactly have you guys been working with staff on this? Peterson: Madam Chair, Commissioner, I -- I'm looking at staff, but it's been over -- it's actually been over a year, if my recollection serves me, and I will let them correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it's been 15 months. Sandoval: Thank you. Grace: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Grace. Grace: I will concede that this is a bit confusing to me. There is a lot going on here, but let me try to get my first question. I'm trying to reconcile how you all sort of saying that you support the city's recommendations and -- but I'm reading -- and I'm hearing that the city says they don't support certain things and so for reasons based on not meeting the minimum guidelines in the Ten Mile Plan or the mix of uses. So, I'm just trying to reconcile in my own mind when you say you are amenable to these things and, then, they say, well, we don't support everything about it, how -- what am I missing? Wardle: Madam, Chair Commissioner, I think -- we don't need to have a lengthy policy discussion that I have had with staff repeatedly behind the scenes, but with the Ten Mile plan I think there is this mistaken belief that some of the development standards or goals that are set forth in the Ten Mile Plan are actually codified and applicable to the underlying zones and, for instance, totally agree with staff's reading on this notion of horizontal and vertical mixed-use. It becomes an issue of interpretation application. And the reality is -- and -- and I recognize that some of you are new, some of you have been here for a while, who have known, as we have come through with applications that 17 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission August 15,2024 Page 14 of 34 are much more vertical in nature, there is a hostility of many in this community to those types of vertical uses and some of the visions of vertical mixed-use have -- that were articulated 17, 20 years ago as we went through planning things, have just not come to fruition in the City of Meridian. So, Commissioner Grace, you are -- you are to be commended for acknowledging that it's confusing, because it's part of the discussion that we have had for a very long time and our point has been, A, we are trying to be surgical with the zone changes that we are asking, that we are trying to work within these boxes, but what we point out -- and -- and this has been the reason why you are being asked to make a -- an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and our approach was you don't really need to amend the Comprehensive Plan, we are proposing zones that are totally consistent with the land use matrices of compatibility provided in the Ten Mile Plan, the issue is how do you, then, take a -- a C-C zone, which is currently there and which is permitted and staff goes, yeah, but the Ten Mile plan requires that to have these other elements and so when I said I think we get to the same place -- from the beginning of this process we didn't want to come in and say, you know what, the Ten Mile Plan doesn't work at all. Blow it up. Let's just turn it into commercial like anything else. What we did is, no, we looked at the Ten Mile Plan, a comprehensive plan is a guide. The -- the key to it is how you implement it through adopting zoning standards and if the city wanted TN-C to mandate a mixture of uses that we would have adopted a zoning code that says in the TN-Z zone you cannot set back, you have to build to this point and you have to include these uses. We have not done that in the 17 years. So, that's where -- as we look at what staff has come back to, we understand staff saying, look, you know, we can't say and we are not going to say that this in our view complies with the Ten Mile Plan. That's a policy discussion that we have had repeatedly. We -- we believe it does. But their solution is like we could support it if we made these changes, because it would be easier to administrate if we did what happened across the street where you took a land use that was designated for lifestyle center and -- and turned it to commercial with heightened design standards and so that's -- that's our position, Councilman -- Commissioner Grace, is that we can get to the same place and if staff says, well, we think it would be more functional if you change the land uses to medium high density residential and commercial on the land use map and implement it with these other things that we can support that. It's -- it's two separate paths to the same place. I -- I still believe that when we look at a comprehensive plan and we look at the underlying zoning that is permitted and the zoning that's already there, that you have to take into consideration that those zones permit the uses in the design type that we find in the UDC and if they have that in the UDC and it doesn't necessarily reflect what the aspirational goals of the Ten Mile Plan are, then, that's a failure on all of us for not coming forward with codes that fully implement that and so that's a long way of saying we have had our disagreements with staff, but when we got the staff report and they -- they recognize that if this is the path that the City Council thinks is appropriate that could be supported, we are not going to die on that hill, because I think we all agree that it gets the overall project plan -- you know, nobody's really disputing the overall project plan, everybody's disputing what is the appropriate land use designation on the Comprehensive Plan to get there and our view has always been that's kind of a backwards way to look at it when we look at what the zoning under these five development agreements already is. 18 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission August 15,2024 Page 15 of 34 Grace: So, you are willing to get there the way the city would like you to, but you sort of want to make your pitch for the way you would like to get there first; is that -- which is -- which is reasonable. Wardle: Well, I -- I would just say that again we -- as -- as Commissioner Sandoval asked, I mean it has been a very lengthy process on how to bring these five development agreements together and -- and just to be clear, the reason that it's been 15 months is that BVA acquired the 118 property earlier and, then, we have -- we have put the rest of this under contract and working through it. So, it's -- it's not a reflection on staff being problematic, it's the fact that we came in with the first 120 acres and go here are things that we need to do with that. Now, that 120 acres we want to take 70 and include it with this other and work through it. So, all I'm saying is I think we -- from the very beginning I encouraged my client not to come in and go we are taking the commercial zone -- the commercial land use designation and putting it over this entire area, let's look at the Ten Mile Plan, identify those elements that work, that -- those elements that are permitted under the existing zoning and let's be very surgical in the asks that we are making on where does the line really need to be for the C-C zone, because that's, you know, on the map if you see it, the C-C zone cuts through just south of where the big right of way is and it leaves kind of an orphan parcel that you can't really work with. So, our suggestion was, well, let's make the lines of the future land use map and let's make the lines of the zones conform to where everybody's pretty much in agreement that the infrastructure is going to be, so that you have those clear points of demarcation, that the -- the -- the break point between the residential and commercial is that collector that, then, leads to the north. Let's make it so that the C-C is actually reflective of how the -- the backage road comes over from Ten Mile Crossing under Ten Mile and -- and wraps around. So, it's -- we appreciate the staff has come forward at least with an alternative that they think gets us to the same place. Grace: Just one more thing -- sorry, I don't want to monopolize the whole conversation. What is your response to the -- kind of hesitation or concern from the city that the way in which you want to reconfigure might lead to reduced employment opportunities? Wardle: I think what we have seen -- and, again, as kind of the leading office park developer in this market for the last ten to 15 years, where and how people work has changed and the original Ten Mile Plan, you know, contemplated the type of office park that you are -- that you see at Ten Mile Crossing, that you see at Eagle View Landing. I think we need to have flexibility and I -- I -- I disagree with the characterization in the Ten Mile Plan that the only jobs that support families are jobs that are in cubicles in office buildings and so as we look at this -- I mean I think you have to look at what types of mixed warehousing and retail opportunities exist, because we have seen fundamental changes in how -- how retailers treat their employees. We have seen fundamental changes in bricks and mortar, where most bricks and mortar is now bricks and mortar logistics and warehousing of some type and so I think that -- I disagree with the characterization that we are eliminating, you know, high paying family-type jobs. I think we have got to be reflective of the fact that when the Ten Mile Specific Plan was adopted 17 years ago, you know, we have subsequently had COVID, we have F-19 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission August 15,2024 Page 16 of 34 subsequently had a fundamental change in logistics, so there are a variety of opportunities -- and even retailers have recognized that higher paid employees that have specific skills are valuable and that's why as we have talked to retailers -- I mean you are not seeing the notion that a retailer can just go out and pay a minimum wage. Those days are over. And they are looking for employees that they can give responsibility to on that -- that flow of products, because of that mixture of -- of bricks and mortar and -- and logistics behind the scenes. So, I disagree with staffs characterization. I don't think it's necessarily staff's characterization, I think it's the contemplation from the Ten Mile Specific Plan and we know things have changed. Lorcher: I would like to add to that. So, you are saying you disagree with the employment categorization based on like being in a cubicle, but the question is based on your multi-family options can I afford to live, work and play in this community? Wardle: I believe you will be able to. Lorcher: Because that's -- that's going to be the key. Wardle: That is the key. Lorcher: Right. So, that's why the staff is saying is that, no, you don't have to, you know, sit at a desk, because that doesn't look like that, but if I'm paying 2,500 dollars a month for a two-bedroom apartment and I work at Target and my spouse, you know, is in construction, I might not be able to do that. Therefore, I can't live here. And so the whole idea of live, work and play -- or live, work and entertain now goes out the window and you have a whole different -- now you always have people always coming in, as opposed to collectively creating into the space. So, is your goal to create multi-family housing project -- product that people will be able to afford to stay in this space? Wardle: Madam Chair, that certainly is the vision and the plan. I mean what we have seen and what you all know with all of the residential projects that have come through is that, yes, there is absolutely an affordability crisis in this community. So, how do we address the affordability crisis? Well, we appreciate the fact that, you know, when we look at this site and we look at -- at the recognition that there needs to be denser development, because that lowers your infrastructure costs and lowering your infrastructure costs makes it more affordable. I can't tell you what rents are going to be in 2028, you know, when -- when things would come online, but certainly it has been the intention as we have worked with our residential partners that -- that this is to develop a -- a more affordable product and, unfortunately, more affordable in this day and age doesn't necessarily mean the affordability that people had in there -- in mind in the past, but certainly that is the goal. And I don't see -- that's part of the reason why we had pushed for the, you know, TN-C. We can -- the R-15 I think gets us to the same place. It's like you have to have the density in proximity to those jobs, so that there is a better match and that's what we are trying to do here. 20 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission August 15,2024 Page 17 of 34 Lorcher: I do have another question and I was reading through the staff report -- I'm not sure where the comment came from, but the city's goal for whether it's a Ten Mile Plan or just this in general was to be a 48-52 for commercial versus residential and did I read it right that you are proposing more 27 percent commercial and 73 percent residential? Like your -- did I read that right? Wardle: No, I -- Lorcher: Okay. Just -- that's why I wanted to clarify. So, thank you very much. All right. I read that wrong. Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? Garrett: Yeah. I -- I do. And I certainly appreciate what you are saying about 17 years ago and being held to that. I mean look at the world 17 years ago. When you are talking about the changes that staff has proposed and you are talking about, are we talking ten percent, 15 percent, 25 percent? What -- what do you think is the change in a -- Wardle: Well, I -- in my mind, you know, the changes staff is suggesting to land use designations of medium high density and commercial and we were saying, you know, we think we can work with mixed-use commercial, mixed-use residential and H-E-D, high -- high employment density. So, it's -- it's -- you know, we have proposed three land use categories. They are proposing two. And, then, there are just some minor changes in what the zoning would be. I don't think anybody's -- you know, certainly the feedback that we have gotten from staff, it's how do we come up with a categorization for these zones that they feel is -- is workable. It's not necessarily the uses as proposed that are problematic. Sorry, Commissioner Garrett, I can't do that math. Garrett: Well, yeah, I mean when I think about what happened 17 years ago to today it's just unfathomable that -- that changes what -- what it's had to office buildings. I mean in the -- in the -- in the big cities a lot of those office buildings are 30 percent, 40 percent vacant right now. Wardle: And -- and I just want to be clear that we are not saying abandon the Ten Mile Plan, we are saying the Ten Mile Plan is a guide and we look to that guide. It encourages mixed-use. It encourages -- and we agree this is an appropriate location for some higher density residential and higher density office. But it also needs to have other commercial elements that you see have -- have been functioning and part of it and that -- that we can get there and we value -- I mean that's -- the thing that we have liked about the Ten Mile Plan and we have been respectful of is we like the fact that you can look at that section and go there is space here for warehousing. There is space here for retail. There is space here for office. There is space here for housing. Space here for recreation. And we are coming to you with, you know, five development agreements that on their own may not have been able to implement the overall vision, recognizing that there are -- there are modifications and some deviations from I think what staff would have necessarily preferred and certainly in their reading of it, but I think we can get to the same place. F21 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission August 15,2024 Page 18 of 34 Garrett: Thank you. Lorcher: Commissioner Garrett, did you have anything else to add? Garrett: No, I don't. Thank you. Lorcher: Madam Clerk, do we have anybody for public testimony? Lomeli: Thank you, Madam Chair. We have Jenny Defreitz. Defrayes. Thank you. Lorcher: Please state your name and address for the record. Defrates: Yes. Jenny Defrates. 4038 West Peak Cloud Drive, Meridian, Idaho. Lorcher: Okay. Defrates: And I am right next to the Ten Mile parcel and I understand I'm not here to try to hold back the tide of the ocean or anything like that. I am here for a very special cause and I want to preface it with a couple things. That, one, this 110 acres is going to turn the gridlock on Ten Mile and Franklin and the Interstate there -- turn the gridlock into quadruple, if not more octobal gridlock at 7:30 in the morning and between 3:30 and 5:30. So, that's a whole other subject. But I am here to testify of what I have seen going around and this is the first time I have come to one of these meetings and I have seen those white signs everywhere. I get it. Back -- I just looked it up -- April 21 st, 2023, on Franklin. I noticed the white sign right then. I never did anything about it then. They decimated a forest along Franklin. Decimated the forest. Nothing's even been built. No subdivision has even been started where they are at Black Cat and Franklin. I noticed Horse Meadows at Pine and Black Cat. That must have been a recent go for it, red -- you know, green flag. They decimated every tree on that parcel for that subdivision. I am here to speak for a tree and it's just not any tree, it's right there on Ten Mile. It's right next to your white sign that you put up and it is 45 to 50 feet high. I believe it's a cedar. This is what it looks like. It's the most beautiful tree. It's the most beautiful tree in this part of Meridian. Every time I drive by I'm looking for that orange slash for them to tear it down and I want for these people with their college degrees to figure out how to save this beautiful tree in their plains and I'm -- you know, yeah, I had 37 years in California in the mountains. I had 17 years in the Rocky Mountains in a little town called Crested Butte and I am a tree lover. I -- I would chain myself to this tree. That's how much I love it. So, I don't want to have to do that, but I would if I -- if it came to it. So, I'm just asking for some consideration for a tree that God made. It's not Boise, City of Trees. It's Meridian. But let's have some humanity for a tree. Thank you. Lorcher: Madam Clerk. Lomeli: Madam Chair, we have Colin Ronhaar. Lorcher: Please state your name and address for the record. 22 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission August 15,2024 Page 19 of 34 I'm Colin Ronhaar, 332 North Broadmore Way, Nampa. Good evening. I'm just -- I work for Ardurra. We have been working with BVA as the civil engineer on this project since their beginning. We have also been working since 2019 on the adjacent 120. So, a lot of planning jargon has been tossed back and forth tonight, but I'm here to answer any questions you may have on engineering, roads, utilities, anything you have, let me know. Lorcher: Okay. Commissioners, won't ask during public testimony, but did you have any other comments that you would like to make? Ronhaar: I did not. I think we have -- we have worked with staff closely on -- on utilities and the -- and the roads and you -- you saw that memo from ACHD and there is a mixture of public and private roads out there and I think we have done a good -- good job. I know transportation is a concern and always has been, but we are working closely with ACHD to -- to make sure that going forward have the best options out there. Lorcher: Okay. Thank you. Madam Clerk? Lomeli: Madam Chair, we have Elizabeth Allen, if she wants to speak. Lorcher: Please state your name and address for the record. E.Allen: Elizabeth Allen. 1144 South Silverstone Way, Meridian. 83642. Thank you. First I want to thank staff for all the hard work that we have been doing with them for the past 15 months. It's been really great to work with them. So, I'm a planner at Ball Ventures Ahlquist. I think to start out my testimony I would like to take my BVA hat off and speak as a resident of the Treasure Valley. So, I live in Canyon county. I work in Meridian. The services and goods that I like to purchase are not available to me in Nampa, which is north of where I live. So, I have to drive 30 to 45 minutes either to Eagle Road or to downtown Boise to go to Whole Foods or doctor's offices down there and what we are proposing at the District at Ten Mile provides those goods and services where I could only drive 15 minutes instead of 30 to 45 minutes. So, that will reduce traffic. Well, transportation for me, as well as other individuals that live in the valley. So, I just wanted to speak to that and just talk about the importance of this development for myself as a resident. So, talking about the design standards, we talked about it quite a bit earlier -- and my BVA hat is on -- is on now. That's a really important element that we added to our application to provide that cohesive design that was discussed earlier and Tom referred to the architectural committee, so we will go through that process with that -- we will streamline the design review for staff and just make it a smoother process for the developer, as well as staff and the items that we -- I think are important to talk about in the design standards are color -- so, we are -- we have outlined what colors should be allowed within the development to provide consistency and, then, we have massing -- not permitting monolithic design. So, creating different architectural standards that will make the buildings look really nice. For signage -- the good part about adding signage to these design standards it will -- is it will be allowed us as a master developer and the design review committee to review the signs before 23 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission August 15,2024 Page 20 of 34 they come to staff to make sure that there is no signs that just look outlandish, to make sure the design looks really nice. And connectivity. So, we talked a lot about pathways and connections for pedestrians, as well as traffic, but there is a big emphasis on pedestrians with open space pathways, it's a pathway that goes around the entire site and just making sure that all areas of the development have that connectivity to make a really nice user experience for the people that are coming there and also people that are living adjacent to the area that they have a walkable area, so they don't have to drive everywhere. And, then, just talk about those areas that were mentioned. The important part about those areas and the way we design those three areas, the way that they are, is to provide a transition from the residential to the north down to the -- to 1-84. So, you have the short -- the shorter buildings up to the north and, then, the taller buildings, more intense uses along the Interstate. So, it was very intentional and that's why we didn't align it with the future land uses, because we needed that transition and I will stand for questions. Lorcher: Okay. We won't -- we don't take questions during public testimony, but thank you. Madam Clerk. Lomeli: No one else has signed up. Lorcher: Okay. Anybody in Chambers that would like to make any comments or on Zoom? I think we just have staff and council on Zoom. Anyone else? Would the applicant like to come back and make any comments about public testimony, please? Peterson: Madam Chair, thank you very much. I will be brief. I don't see her, but I will follow up through the -- the very pleasant lady from Crested Butte. I'm also from Colorado and I will commit to meet with her after this meeting to discuss saving that and other trees. That sounds like a very good idea. I would be all for that. I want to briefly discuss -- and I will be very brief -- the concern over a reduction in employment. Two things. The -- the Ten Mile Plan, when it was drafted and adopted 17 years ago, I was still in law school. The first iPhone hadn't hit the stores yet. YouTube didn't exist. And the -- the idea of remote work from home probably would -- probably lead to someone getting fired. Brick and mortar ruled as king in that day. I do want to make note that in this proposed development that we have we will have 536,000 square feet of office space and 220,000 square feet of medical office space. The lines look different on the map than they did 17 years ago, but we have incorporated those along that the third area on the -- with -- with frontage access and visibility from the freeway. For context and for comparison of the Eagle View Landing development that's -- incorporates the Top Golf currently right now -- and I might be off by a little bit -- we have 450,000 square feet of office. We will be bringing jobs to this site. Those lines were drawn. They don't exactly match what was proposed 17 years ago, but -- but times have changed and we have -- we have accommodated, we have met with staff, we think their -- we think that their suggestions are appropriate and -- and I guess in closing the Ten Mile Plan is important. It is not an overlay zone. It is -- it is not codified in this area in Meridian. It's none of those things. But it is important. Its goals are laudable. And the intent of our F24] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission August 15,2024 Page 21 of 34 plan is to meet those goals and to also take into account the changes that have happened since it was adopted 17 years ago. Thank you so much. Lorcher: Thank you. All right. At this time I will take a motion to close the public testimony. Garrett: I will so move. Rivera: Second it. Lorcher: It has been moved and closed -- it has moved -- moved and seconded to close the public testimony. All those in favor? Any opposed? All right. The public hearing is closed. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Lorcher: I guess I will start on this. There is a lot of moving parts here and I appreciate you being amiable to adjust the language in your proposal to City Council to follow the guidelines of the city planners. One of the benefits that we have as a Commission and as city planners is that we look at each individual application on its own; right? It's not across the street, it's your own thing, but if we don't have any guidelines, then, it's just chaos and, of course, if another program or another product developed somewhere else in the city eventually we just need to have those kind of set, because it keeps things consistent, so that we don't have an applicant saying, well, you did it over there, so why can't we do it over here and -- you know. And, then, everybody's creating waivers, so why even have the guidelines in the first place; right? So, I appreciate you being able to work with your application to be able to adjust to what the city is asking you to do as far as the zoning is concerned. The proposal of asking for putting in 268 to 402 residential units at the interchange at Ten Mile is a little daunting, because even before your district is even created is a busy place. But if people can live, work and play there and they are not driving all the time, that could be something that I think could appeal to a lot of different people. You know, overall the project is a good one. I like the idea of having kind of a -- a west version of entertainment, shopping, medical, hotels and all that, so that those of us on the west side or like those in Nampa don't always have to go to Eagle and Fairview to be able to get those services, but also being very aware of the fact that even before this development begins Ten Mile interchange is already quite crazy and Highway 16, which will help alleviate some of that, is not even on the books until at least the end of 2025, possibly '26 or '27. So, we are many -- still many years away from that actually happening. I would like to hear from my fellow Commissioners as far as what their thoughts are and how we make a -- how we make any kind of recommendations to City Council. Sandoval: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Sandoval. F25] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission August 15,2024 Page 22 of 34 Sandoval: First I want to say to the applicant, you know, thank you guys for putting in the time and effort on this. It's clear that you -- you really strive for making the best product possible, but mixed-use -- as presented I don't think the project integrates the various uses as intended by the FLUM; right? We want the communities -- we want to be able to have multi-modal transportation to walk, bike, drive, whatever you are going to do and other folks in close proximity. You know, I -- I agree with staff that a map amendment and rezone is inappropriate and I believe that there is a path forward, though, that is in alignment with your recommendations. I also want to say policy can drive quality, believe it or not, and that translates long term success for the community overall. I would have said 15 months is a long time. So, I'm hopeful that we can come to an agreement tonight, you know. And in -- in the public testimony, you know, it was -- goods and services were spoke to, but I was presented as requesting fear of both and more residential. So, I think that's in a little bit of conflict, but, in summary, I do believe that the project can and should move forward with the proposed staff recommendations. And if you could integrate the trees that's clearly appreciated. Lorcher: Thank you, Commissioner Sandoval. Grace: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Grace. Grace: Before I finish I -- and I give a -- plant a seed maybe in staff's mind, so that they can give me some cites and help me out, but before I finish I wanted to ask what exactly are we approving? You know, I see this potential -- there is a motion here to approve and I want to make sure I understand what I would be approving and so I will just go through a couple of my other thoughts -- or unless you have an answer right now and, then, you can chime in, but -- so, you know, I'm not opposed to consolidation of -- of the -- of the development agreement. That sort of makes sense, to -- to find some uniformity and -- and cohesiveness with the design standards. That sounds reasonable to me. I am concerned about staff's sort of hesitation and -- and concern that it adds a lot of residential and potentially less -- less commercial, less jobs, but I thought the argument was -- was reasonable there, too. You know, there is different ways -- there is different ways to measure jobs and employment and I -- I think that's fair. I'm tracking with the arguments on the Ten Mile Plan. It has been a long time that's past to be pulled into that at this point. You know, I -- I -- I -- I have seen the importance of it. I see -- I see why we want to ensure that what's developed is in accordance with the -- with these plans, but things have changed and ultimately what I'm reading here is that there is a change in reconfiguration of the existing FLUM designation and it's not that significant. So, I'm mindful of that. But I -- again, I -- I -- I just want to make sure I understand when we say there is four issues before us and staffs not in favor, I think -- this is what I think. Tell me if I'm wrong. I think what staff's saying -- we are not in favor of some of these the way they have been laid out. Here is our recommendation. Therefore, the Commission's approval, as written, would be approving it with staff recommendations. Is that an accurate description? 26 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission August 15,2024 Page 23 of 34 Allen: Madam Chair, Commissioner Grace, staff has to make a recommendation based on the city's adopted Comprehensive Plan, including the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan for this -- this area and the Unified Development Code and its consistency with that. Based on those plans staff is recommending denial of the proposed applications, all except for the preliminary plat. Staff does not have the authority to recommend a project that is not consistent with those adopted plans. City Council does. Therefore, staff did leave a path forward if the Commission and Council believes it's appropriate that this area develop as proposed by the applicant. The commercial designation and zoning is not consistent either with the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan, but staff's suggestion on that -- it's not necessarily a recommendation, but if -- if Commission and Council feels that this is appropriate, then, we feel that the future land use map and the zoning should reflect the actual land uses on the site and the development. Kurt, do you have anything to add on that? Starman: So, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, I think that's a -- that's a good summary, but I won't repeat that. With respect to -- I guess to answer Commissioner Grace's question in particular, so you have several applications before you -- all before you concurrently. The one that doesn't require an explicit recommendation is the consolidation and modification of the development agreements. That's really within the Council's purview and the director, but, really, it's difficult, if not impossible, to separate those issues, that the development agreements from the rest of the applications before you. So, the reality is you probably need to consider them all in their totality. On all the applications before you you are in an advisory role, recommending role, so you are not making decisions tonight or if you do make your decision you are making a recommendation to the Council. If I had to summarize what Sonya just described is -- I want to make sure I stay within my lane, so I won't go too far outside of the legal purview, but, basically, to paraphrase what Sonya described is that if you look at the applications within the confines of the current Comprehensive Plan, including the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Plan and the zoning that exists today, staff -- this is from the planning perspective, not necessarily legal, but staff is not able to support that, because there is some disconnect therefore and that was -- you heard that during public testimony, the applicant's description and staff's presentation. So, really, in my mind what it comes down to is if what you heard tonight convinces you as a Commission that, yes, maybe staff is correct that we can't check all the boxes under the -- the applicant's proposed application and the COMPASS plan, the specific plan and the zoning that exists and is being requested, but you think it's a good project and you are inclined to recommend Council proceed, the best path to do that would be to recommend the alternative that staff put forward in your staff report, which was the alternative zoning and FLUM designations, knowing that that, too, is not completely consistent with the specific plan and the Council will still need to make findings that, you know, the -- the zoning being in that alternative proposal, the zoning being proposed and the FLUM designations are still generally in a corridor in accordance with the comp plan and the specific plan. That's for the Council to make a determination. But I guess in a nutshell what I think it comes down to for the Commission is, you know, if you concur with staff that it's difficult to support the application with the -- the -- the initial FLUM request and the initial zoning request and -- but you still think the project's a good F27] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission August 15,2024 Page 24 of 34 one, then, probably the most logical recourse or recommendation for the Commission would be to recommend the alternative FLUM designations and zoning designations as staff proposed and the applicant is in agreement with. Grace: And, Madam Chair, just one follow up to that. Going down the path of -- of the -- the alternative, you know, I guess course of action of -- of modifying the FLUM and the -- and the rezoning, is -- does that set a precedent that we don't want to do as a city? Allen: Right across the road to the east is an example of that, The Brighton development. I don't know that a precedent is set in this instance. I will defer to Kurt on that. Starman: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, I think Chair Person Lorcher made a good observation earlier that, you know, a decision with Project X doesn't set precedent per se for Project Y. So, I guess I would start there. But I think the question and the concern is a good one. And, you know, to the extent that weighs on the Commission or you have an opinion about that, I think that's -- that's perfectly fine to capture in your recommendation to the City Council as well, that -- yeah, I don't want to put words in anybody's mouth, but, you know, we should -- you know, maybe the recommendation is we do go down this path, but our recommendation also is that, you know, the Council is mindful of deviating from adopted plans and maybe the better course is we should refresh the Ten Mile Specific Plan soon or -- you know, or eliminate it or, you know, whatever that might look like. But I think it's a good -- good concern is that to the extent we deviate on a consistent basis that's -- that's likely problematic, I think you may want to make a comment about that to the -- to the Council and your thoughts about that. Grace: Okay. Garrett: Madam Chair, as I said earlier, I have a concern in the -- at the Ten Mile Plan trying to hold to that now and the world's gone upside down in terms of employment and residential. I would say that a refresh is definitely in order, but if these are experienced developers and I know we have seen a lot of their developments around town, I'm -- I'm comfortable knowing that they would be applying the best standards possible, but to be held to a plan that's 17 years old I think is -- as a sentence meant versus a guideline, I think is -- is the issue and I would rather think of it as a guideline and, then, how do we modify it to fit today's world. That's it. Lorcher: Thank you. Commissioners, do you have any other comments or questions that you would like answered? Rivera: This is definitely, you know, complex. It's a great piece of property there that we all want -- we are in favor of the best interest of what's being developed there and we have a sample across the street, but I -- I agree with my fellow Commissioners and I think this -- there is a path forward here for sure. It's just a matter of, you know, some -- F28] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission August 15,2024 Page 25 of 34 maybe some outdated information that needs to be refreshed internally or -- you know, or meet in the middle or -- you know. But I appreciate the presentation and -- and, you know, the efforts here to -- of what they are trying to do and kind of stay within, you know, the most -- best value for -- for -- for that property, for everybody involved. But, yeah, I think we just -- we just -- I think we are close, but -- and there is a pathway, but we just have a slight disconnect. Lorcher: Thank you. Well, the question is how to create a motion; right? One way or another. So, just to reiterate, we are creating a motion that addresses the Comprehensive Plan for the future land use map. The development agreement modification, which includes to merge all of the other projects into one. The rezone and the preliminary plat. Those four items. Which blend all together anyway. Grace: Right. So, Madam Chair, I'm -- what I'm confused about -- or what I -- what I think is the difficult piece, maybe, is -- at least personally I'm -- I'm not -- I don't want to deny the project. I just don't. I -- I want it to move forward, but I either want the City Council to give some consideration to looking at the FLUM or the -- the -- the zoning and leave that to their discretion if they think that's appropriate based on, you know, making it consistent with -- with what the applicant's proposing or finding a way that the applicant can -- can -- can continue to work with the city to, I guess, find a proposal that works in a manner in which you don't have to redo those fundamental plans the FLUM and the -- and the Ten Mile Plan. So, like you said, I'm just not sure how we say that. Lorcher: It sounds like the applicant is amiable to work within the definitions that the city has put forth. Grace: Yeah. Lorcher: So, that could be part of the motion with also your comments in regard to acknowledging that these items need to be looked at at City Council for consideration to move the project forward. Starman: Madam Chairman, as a way to assist or not -- you can do this -- I would offer this to you, but in your -- in your packet -- I think this is also in your outline for time as well, but in the packet it's page 63, but there is -- I think staff did a good job of describing and succinctly that -- it talks about what -- you know, the application that's before you, including what the -- the requested FLUM designations and zoning -- rezone request. The next paragraph says -- and that's the paragraph that says staff is not able to support that and here is why and, then, there is a second paragraph at the bottom of page 63 of this -- your packet that states if the Commission and Council is intending the projects that proceed, staff would recommend this different scenario, which has different FLUM designations and different rezoning recommendations. So, you could -- if that's something sort of synthesize where the Commission may be as a whole, if that's where you are gravitating toward that you like to advance the project with that alternative -- those alternative FLUM and zoning designations, you may want to incorporate that last paragraph at the bottom of page 63 of the packet into your motion, if that makes sense. 29 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission August 15,2024 Page 26 of 34 Grace: I must have reread this agenda item like three, four times today, which I don't normally do, because I feel like I usually get it after one, but -- Lorcher: There is a lot of moving parts. There is no question about that. Grace: Yeah. Madam Chair, I -- I -- I -- I'm not against giving City Council the -- the ability to -- not that they need it from us, they can do it for sure, but the ability to look at those -- you know the FLUM and the Ten Mile Plan, but if there is a way that we can achieve some agreement without doing that, I guess that would be my first choice and so, you know, if -- if -- if -- if I could, you know -- if the motion -- if I could make a --and I'm not making it -- I'm just describing if I could make a motion that said something like approval, but with the requirement that the applicant continue to work with the city and find, you know, some mutual agreement short of modifying the FLUM and -- and the Ten Mile Plan, that's what I would be in favor of. But just sort of dipping my toe in there. Is that something that -- that's possible? Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, let me give you my perspective of things and, then, see if I can help guide you to make a motion this evening. So, the applicant is one hundred percent correct. We started -- started with them 15, 16 months ago and this is a very complex project with so many different moving parts. No one disagrees with you on that. It is complex. And I can tell you over those 15 months I have seen various versions of this plan and the plans that you see this evening are a lot of suggestions that came from staff. We wanted them to hold the corners. We wanted them to build collector roads consistent with the plan. We wanted them to have street furnishing zones and come up with those details. They approached us on the idea of having their own design concepts and they were asked our opinion of how it worked across the street and we -- we met with them and discussed those requirements with them. So, again, although some of that integration that Sonya spoke to you about tonight hasn't occurred, the applicant's always felt that their plan was consistent with the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan. However, staff hasn't on certain things. So, I don't want the Commission to think that none of this plan comports with any of those things. It does. It does meet some of those things. And we have to remember that, yes, it's project by project. There is -- there is no precedent out there, but there is other -- other properties around this designated mixed employment that could have some of these other things as well. So, you have to look at the plan holistically, as well as looking at it at this myopic view. So, to -- to put it bluntly, the Commission -- or even the Commission -- or the Council can say it's consistent with the plan, we don't need a comp plan amendment. I'm -- I'm just one person. They may -- they may listen to the applicant and say, you know what, we don't think any of this needs to change. You are fine. But, ultimately, you need to make a recommendation on -- on how you feel it adheres to the plan and that's where staff has set the -- the -- I guess we set the table for you. We -- we put the silverware and the dining ware in front of you and said just make a -- you can overturn staff's recommendation of denial and say we recommend approval that you move forward and we think it should be commercial and medium high density residential and have -- and have Council take action on that. So, again, I hear what you said, Commissioner Grace, but I'm not sure what we can -- what we are going 30 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission August 15,2024 Page 27 of 34 to gain by saying continue to work with staff. I think we have done that. We have proven that this is the plan they want to present and we just -- I think we just need to get it moving forward and get in front of City Council. Just -- just my experience in dealing with this and working on it. Thank you. Grace: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Grace. Grace: With that -- and thank you for that. That's really helpful. I would make the motion that after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File No. H-2023-0071 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of August 15th, 2004 -- Lorcher: '24. Grace: 2024. With the additional recommendation that the City Council consider whether FLUM designations and zoning are consistent with the proposed development plan and whether those need to be modified. Lorcher: Kurt, do we need to address the preliminary plat or the DA in that motion as well or is that enough? Starman: So, Madam Chair, I will maybe rely upon some assistance from the motion maker as well, but I interpret the motion to mean approval of the staff recommendation, its totality, with the modification. So, that would include the other items, including the preliminary plat. Lorcher: Okay. Grace: Correct. Lorcher: Okay. It's been moved to recommend to City Council as presented in the staff report, with the following recommendation to City Council to consider the FLUM and the zone consistent -- is it consistent or need to be modified? Do I have a second? Rivera: I will second the motion. Lorcher: It has been moved and seconded to approve File No. H-2023-0071. All those in favor say aye. Any nay? Motion passes. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. 5. Public Hearing for Idaho State University (H-2024-0027) by Idaho State University, generally located on the west side of S. Locust Grove Rd., midway between E. Franklin Rd. and E. Overland Rd. F31 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission August 15,2024 Page 28 of 34 A. Request: Annexation of 23.254 acres of land from RUT and R-6 in Ada County to the C-G zoning district. Lorcher: Council, do we need to take a break or are we good to do one more? Anybody need a break? Okay. We will carry on. All right. All right. Next application is for File No. H-2024-0027 to annex 23 acres from RUT and R-6, C-G zoning district by the Idaho State University. We will -- Sandoval: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Yes. Sandoval: For the record I work with the Department of Administration and sometimes manage ISU projects as an owner's rep. I do not work for ISU. I'm not currently nor in the past involved with this project at all or in any way. I have no vested interest or opinion in the matter and I believe I can participate completely objectively. So I just wanted to state that before we get going here. Lorcher: Does that work? Starman: Yes. So, Madam Chair and Commissioner Sandoval, if I understood your -- your observation or your comment correctly, is that you disclosed you work for the State of Idaho and that your department or some employees may have a connection to ISU in general, but you don't have a direct connection and you have chosen to participate, but just disclose that for transparency. Is that accurate? Sandoval: Madam Chair, Kurt, yes, it is. I do manage other projects for ISU, but they are completely unrelated to this one. Starman: Okay. So, Commissioner Sandoval and I -- I had a conversation two or three days ago about this topic and I shared with him some thoughts and so ultimately he needs to make that determination based upon the facts that he is most familiar with. So, that's -- that's perfectly fine and so he has disclosed his -- his relationship or his employment with the state of Idaho and if he has decided that based upon, you know, his knowledge of the facts he is prepared to proceed, that's fine. Lorcher: Okay. Thank you. Thank you for letting us know, Commissioner Sandoval. We will begin with the staff report. Parsons: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. Before I get into my presentation I wanted to introduce you to Nick Napoli. He is our newest associate planner and he is the one that is assisting me on this project, so -- Nick's been with us about 18 months, so he is not new to the department and he has a lot of experience as an assistant planner, so I -- I thought it was a good opportunity for him to join me and just see all of us in action this evening. F32 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission August 15,2024 Page 29 of 34 Lorcher: Very good. Welcome. Parsons: And, then, after the hearing if I can just have a few minutes before we adjourn to -- to talk about other activities that are planned as well. Lorcher: Thanks. Parsons: Thank you. Appreciate that. So, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, let's get back to business at hand here. So, next item on the agenda this evening is the Idaho State University annexation. You can see on the exhibit in front of you here that the Comprehensive Plan designation for the site is commercial. As you mentioned the site does consist of 23.25 acres of land. Are we sharing? Not sharing. All right. Let's sign in. Thank you, Nick. Everyone see the screen? Lorcher: Now we can. Parsons: Let's reboot. So, you can see here on the -- the zoning map here that the actual property is zoned in Ada county currently RUT and R-6. It consists of 23.25 acres of land and the applicant is here tonight to discuss annexation of this property to a C-G zoning district, which is consistent with the commercial designation on the subject property. You can see here in the aerial, too, that there is three existing structures currently on the site that ISU uses for storage at the moment and as we transition from Planning and Zoning Commission to City Council they plan to seek a Council waiver to continue use of those buildings for storage in their interim until they actually propose development for the site. I'm only sharing this graphic with you this evening because it was the one that was in the ACHD staff report to speak about access. They did submit a traffic study with a preliminary site design and I don't want to get into the weeds too much, because, really, the purpose of tonight's discussion is really just get zoning in place, allow ISU to get moving forwards with some allocated funds to start some infrastructure improvements on the site and ultimately they will be coming back with a planned unit development to share more of those details with you and that's why you see some of this conceptual layout here as part of the traffic study. The other waiver that they are going to be seeking, too, is not to connect to city services at this time. So, in our code we do require that. Nick and I coordinated with city engineer and he is okay with them not connecting to any city -- city utilities. But they will have to abandon the existing well and septic on the site and just use that -- those buildings for storage as I mentioned to you. Again, Council will take action on those two waivers once we get in front of them. ACHD did provide a staff report on this particular application. I won't go into a lot of the technical details of that report, because, again, it's -- it's subject to change and we are not going to be approving any accesses tonight. Simply put in the development agreement we have just let the applicant know you are going to come back and work with the city and ACHD on the access points in the future. But for right now in the DA we are just recommending that they comply with city code. But at least for context I wanted to let you know that this property right now only has access to South Locust Grove Road and that -- and that's important and I know in my discussions with ISU it was important that they want to get it right, they know they are going to put a 33 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission August 15,2024 Page 30 of 34 lot of square footage on the site for that medical -- or for that college campus and so access will be critical for the site. What makes it difficult is that they are surrounded by ISU and the Meridian Police Department, which are secure facilities. If you had a chance to look at the -- the agency comments ISU does support this application. So, they -- they are working with ISU to try to come up with some better access to this site. Ultimately we would like an access point out to East Central Drive, which ties in through ICOM currently. They have a parking lot there. But we are hoping that we can actually have that -- this access to Central Drive will actually be able to move and align with one of the existing accesses on the southern -- on the south side of the road and, then, you can also see here that they have proposed a full access to Locust Grove and, then, a right-in only access as one of their three accesses. In the ACHD staff report they did mention that they will need to receive a variance from ACHD's policies for those access points due to separation between the accesses and, again, staff values and understands that given the limited access here we will have to ultimately give some access to St. Luke's -- to South Locust Grove Road, but what that configuration will look like in the future will be determined with that future planning development application. But at a minimum when ICOM went in and developed their parking lot we did require them to stub a driveway and grant cross-access to this property. So, the ultimate vision for ICOM's property is for it to be a parking structure. So, we hope at some point there could be a shared access or at least a pedestrian -- a multi-use pathway to provide some connectivity in the future. But, again, more to come later on. So, I have had a chance to look at the public record this evening and there are no public comments on this application. Again, staff is recommending approval with a development agreement and I don't have anything else to add on tonight -- on this topic and I will go ahead and stand for any questions you have. Lorcher: Commissioners, do we have questions for staff? Would the applicant like to come forward? Please state your name and address for the record. Sagendorf: Good evening. My name is Brian Sagendorf, vice-president and chief operating officer at Idaho State University. My address is 5133 Canterbury Street in Chubbuck, Idaho. We are thrilled to meet tonight with my colleagues, Dr. Gabe Bargen, who is serving as Dean of the College of Health, Idaho State University. Our senior project manager Marty Vizcarra, who has been working with staff very closely on this project. As was mentioned, this -- this request tonight is merely for the annexation -- annexation of the property, but we are thrilled to take that first step towards our most important project in the history of Idaho State University for the expansion of the Idaho State University Meridian Health Science Center and our future campus. We -- we are aware of the absolute need to come back with planned unit development applications that will be done in close partnership with Idaho State Police, City of Meridian, West Ada School District and the Idaho College of Osteopathic Medicine, because we -- we are aware of those -- those access points will be -- will be critical to the future project. As was mentioned, the Idaho State Police has submitted a letter of support for -- for this project and they have committed to work with us in finding out the right -- the right solutions for access points in the future. So, after tonight if -- if the request for -- for annexation is -- is approved we will be excited to come back in the future months with F34] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission August 15,2024 Page 31 of 34 the -- with the planned unit development application that will have a much more comprehensive plan development of the property and with that, if there is any questions you have. Lorcher: Commissioners, do we have any questions for the applicant? Sandoval: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Sandoval. Sandoval: Yeah. We are talking a lot about access and I understand this graphic is just for reference. It doesn't look like there is any parking structures or anything really involved with this anyway. It sounds like there is going to be a garage directly south. So, is access -- is it really critical for us to consider that? Are you guys really considering adding more access in there or parking? Sagendorf: Chairman Lorcher and Members of the Commission, we -- we do anticipate the -- as was mentioned a parking structure on the south end of the property that currently is a parking lot for -- for ICOM. We have collaborated with the -- with the college there to potentially have that be a future parking structure. However, although we don't have the master plan for the -- for the property completed yet, we do anticipate there will be additional parking in the future. We anticipate healthcare clinics to be on this property. Classroom facilities and also student housing. So, there -- there will in a very likely manner be additional parking lots and parking areas for some of the other facilities. We recognize that those will have to come back with -- with the planned unit development and will only be done in -- in close collaboration with Idaho State Police and -- and other organizations as -- as we plan all that out. So, we -- we do feel like the access points most likely will be of -- of keen interest for all of us, but we are excited tonight for the annexation request to have that really set the stage for those future development plans. Lorcher: Thank you, Commissioner Sandoval. Commissioner Grace. Grace: Madam Chair and Brian, I apologize because this question might have to go to staff and I didn't mean to come into your time, but if you happen to know all the better. Five thousand three hundred and thirty vehicle trips per day is what this development is projected to -- which is 552 vehicle trips per hour. Is that a lot or is it a lot? Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, yes, it's -- of course. It will be a lot and we already know that South Locust Grove is a very busy arterial roadway and our code does try to prohibit or restrict access to those roadways and that's something that we have spent a lot of time discussing as we continue to have monthly meetings on this particular project, because it will be critical moving forward. We have also met with our own Police Department on site and took a tour, seeing if there is a way we could get cross-access to their site. Given that it's a secured campus it may be difficult and so that's why it's so important for us to make sure that we are -- we are all working together 35 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission August 15,2024 Page 32 of 34 coordinating in the critical piece and I think everyone understands that's part of those discussions, understands that Central Drive will be critical to this. We are not opposed to giving up some access to Locust Grove. We realize they need that in reviewing the traffic study. ACHD said they need access there to, too, make it work and they did recognize that, you know, we -- whatever happens we are coming back and looking at this and they are willing to grant a variance to allow that access to happen on Locust Grove. So, I don't want to get in too much of the weeds, because we just don't know the actual square footages. Again, this is high level at this point, but what was presented in that traffic study to just get to this point in the -- in the preliminary stages, yeah, that's -- those are the numbers that the traffic engineer came up based on a trip generation manual. So, it's -- as you know it's scientific, there is a -- there is a manual they use that everyone uses from and they count the numbers and this is -- it may be higher. We don't know. It may be lower. Hopefully whatever comes out of it maybe we will lessen trips because we can actually have students living near the campus and they won't need to drive like they do now. So, let's -- let's hope for the best in the future. Sagendorf: Madam Chair, I agree with -- with that -- that we -- we know that eventually when we do come back with a comprehensive plan development we -- we highly anticipate that there is going to have to be access off of Central. Idaho State Police has discussed that with us and they -- we don't have an answer to it yet, but we -- we have both committed to finding the right solution for that. Also down the road we -- we hope that -- that traffic impact is lessened as it becomes a bit more of a residential campus as well with students living there on -- on site. But, we, again, are committed to finding the right access point solutions with -- with the neighboring agencies and city staff. Grace: And -- and that was not a reflection on -- on the application or anything, it's just -- you know, it's a higher -- institution of higher learning. It's a busy -- busy place and so that's understood. So, thank you. Lorcher: Okay. Thank you. Madam Clerk, do we have anybody signed up to testify? Lomeli: Thank you, Madam Chair. No one has signed up. Lorcher: And you are the only ones in chambers, so I will take a motion to close the public hearing. Rivera: So moved. Garrett: Second. Lorcher: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing. All those in favor say aye. Motion carries. There are no opposed. We are good. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. F36] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission August 15,2024 Page 33 of 34 Lorcher: Okay. Let's discuss. My only worry is that I think you are going to be super popular and 23 acres in and of itself sounds like really big, but once you start putting your buildings on and your residential I wonder how fast you are going to grow out of your space. But that's -- that's a future ISU problem. But very excited that you have considered Meridian and the Treasure Valley for your medical sciences program. So, as a household of graduates of all three universities, we do hang the ISU flag proud. Any other comments for -- or motion? Grace: Madam Chair, I'm happy to take a stab at a motion here. I actually was going to say that I work for the University of Idaho, so I didn't know if that conflicted me out from -- but my spouse is a former employer -- not currently. Former employer of ISU. So, Madam Chair, with that after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony I move to recommend approval to the City Council File No. H-2024-0027 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of August 15th, 2024, with no modifications. Lorcher: It has been moved -- oh. Do I have a second? Rivera: Second. Lorcher: It has been moved and seconded to approve File No. H-2024-0027. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? All right. Motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Lorcher: Before we go forward Bill would like to address the Commission. Parsons: Thank you, Madam Chair, Member of the Commission. I just wanted to let the -- had a chance to talk this over with the -- the chair this afternoon at our Commission prep meeting. So, I'm hoping that next meeting we have quite a few items on the agenda, but we do have some budget dollars to celebrate you all and thank you for your service as we end our end of the year budget cycle and so I would -- am looking to have someone have some dinner here in Council Chambers for all of us to sit down and just get to know each other. So, if you can attend come early on that -- that day and -- and join us at 5:00 o'clock and we will have it all waiting for you and, then, we can have a bite to eat before we get into regular city business. But it looks like we are going to probably get something from Louie's if everyone's good with Italian food. I think that seems to be a -- a popular spot. So, just wanted to get that on there and did check and -- and Andy may not be able to make it, so -- Lorcher: He will not. I did check with him and he won't be with us again until the end of October. So, we will just have to let him know how good it was. So, Madam Clerk, if you -- when you do the agenda for the next meeting if you can just highlight that, that we will have a 5:00 o'clock time if everybody can make it ahead of time as a reminder. All right. Thank you. I will take one more motion. Garrett: I move to close. F37] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission August 15,2024 Page 34 of 34 Lorcher: Do I have a second? Rivera: I will second. Lorcher: It has been moved and seconded to close the Planning and Zoning for August 15th, 2024. All those in favor say aye. And opposed? All right. Motion carries. We are adjourned. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:58 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS. ) APPROVED 9 15 I2024 MARIA LORCHER - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK F38 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Approve Minutes of August 1, 2024 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting 4 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission August 1,2024 Page 12 of 12 Smith: And I will second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? All right. We are good to go. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:39 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS. ) APPROVED 8 15 24 1 MARIA LORCHER - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK F16 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for TMW (H-2024-0018) by Adler Industrial, located at 1085 S. Ten Mile Road F17 CITY OF MERIDIAN V IDIAN;--- FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ! DAHO DECISION& ORDER In the Matter of the Request for a Conditional Use Permit for Warehouse,Including Distribution, Use on 15.97-Acres of Land in the M-E Zoning District at 1085 S.Ten Mile Rd.,by Adler Industrial. Case No(s).H-2024-0018 For the Planning& Zoning Commission Hearing Date of. August 1,2024 (Findings on August 15, 2024) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of August 1, 2024, incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of August 1,2024, incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of August 1, 2024, incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of August 1, 2024,incorporated by reference) B. Conclusions of Law 1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the"Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975,"codified at Chapter 65,Title 67, Idaho Code(I.C. §67-6503). 2. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has,by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian,which was adopted April 19,2011,Resolution No. It-784 and Maps. 3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 11-5A. 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s)received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed. 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this decision,which shall be signed by the Chairman of the Commission and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2024-0018 Page 1 F181 upon the applicant,the Planning Department,the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. 7. That this approval is subject to the conditions of approval in the attached staff report for the hearing date of August 1,2024, incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application. C. Decision and Order Pursuant to the Planning & Zoning Commission's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 11- 5A and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that: 1. The applicant's request for conditional use permit is hereby approved in accord with the conditions of approval in the staff report for the hearing date of August 1, 2024, attached as Exhibit A. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits Notice of Two(2)Year Conditional Use Permit Duration Please take notice that the conditional use permit,when granted, shall be valid for a maximum period of two(2)years unless otherwise approved by the City in accord with UDC 11-513-6F.1. During this time,the applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground. For conditional use permits that also require platting,the final plat must be signed by the City Engineer within this two(2)year period in accord with UDC 11-5B-6F.2. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11-5B-6.F.1,the Director may authorize a single extension of the time to commence the use not to exceed one(1)two (2)year period.Additional time extensions up to two (2)years as determined and approved by the Commission may be granted. With all extensions,the Director or Commission may require the conditional use comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code Title 11. E. Judicial Review Pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-652 1(1)(d), if this final decision concerns a matter enumerated in Idaho Code § 67-652 1(1)(a), an affected person aggrieved by this final decision may,within twenty-eight (28)days after all remedies have been exhausted, including requesting reconsideration of this final decision as provided by Meridian City Code § 1-7-10, seek judicial review of this final decision as provided by chapter 52,title 67, Idaho Code. This notice is provided as a courtesy; the City of Meridian does not admit by this notice that this decision is subject to judicial review under LLUPA. F. Notice of Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis Pursuant to Idaho Code §§ 67-6521(1)(d) and 67-8003, an owner of private property that is the subject of a final decision may submit a written request with the Meridian City Clerk for a regulatory takings analysis. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2024-0018 Page 2 Fig] G. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of August 1,2024 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2024-0018 Page 3 20 By action of the Planning&Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the 15th day of August ,2024. COMMISSIONER MARIA LORCHER, CHAIRMAN VOTED COMMISSIONER JARED SMITH,VICE CHAIRMAN VOTED COMMISSIONER BRIAN GARRETT VOTED COMMISSIONER ANDREW SEAL VOTED COMMISSIONER PATRICK GRACE VOTED COMMISSIONER MATTHEW SANDOVAL VOTED COMMISSIONER ENRIQUE RIVERA VOTED Maria Lorcher, Chairman 8-15-2024 Attest: Chris Johnson, City Clerk 8-15-2024 Copy served upon the Applicant, the Planning and Development Services divisions of the Community Development Department,the Public Works Department and the City Attorney. 8-15-2024 By: Dated: City Clerk's Office CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2024-0018 Page 4 21 EXHIBIT A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT C��fE DEPARTMENT REPORT HEARING 8/1/2024 h DATE: TO: Planning&Zoning Commission FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner -------- 208-884-5533 sallen@meridiancity.org j APPLICANT: Adler Industrial _ SUBJECT: H-2024-0018 @ ' TMW-CUP Legend Project Location LOCATION: 1085 S. Ten Mile Rd., in the SW 1/4 of -=Area of Impact '- -', Section 15,T.3N., R.1W. City Limits o I. PROJECT OVERVIEW A. Summary Conditional use permit for warehouse,including distribution,uses on 15.97-acres of land in the Mixed Employment(M-E)zoning district. B. Issues/Waivers None C. Recommendation Staff. Approval with the conditions included below in Section IV. D. Decision To be determined IL COMMUNITY METRICS Table 1: Land Use Description Details Map Ref. Existing Land Use(s)/Proposed Use Vacant/undeveloped/warehouse,including distribution - Proposed Land Use(s) Warehouse,including distribution - Existing Zoning Mixed Employment(M-E) VILA.2 Future Land Use Designation Mixed Employment(ME)in the Ten Mile Interchange VII.A.3 Specific Area Plan(TMISAP) Table 2:Process Facts Description Details Preapplication Meeting date 4/16/2024 Neighborhood Meeting 5/l/2024 Site posting date 7/19/2024 City of Meridian I Department Report I. Project Overview ■ Table 3: Community Metrics Agency/Element Description/Issue Reference Ada County Highway District • Comments Received Yes - • Commission Action Required No - • Access W.Villaggio Way/Grand Mogul,a collector street - • Traffic Level of Service Unknown J ITD Comments Received No(NA) Meridian Fire Distance to Station#6: 2.4 miles Response Time: 3 minutes Meridian Public Works Wastewater Distance to Mainline: Will be available at site when IV.A.15 Villaggio/Grand Mogul is extended along north boundary. Impacts or Concerns:No Meridian Public Works Water Distance to Mainline:Will be available at site when IV.A.15 Villaggio/Grand Mogul is extended along north boundary. Impacts or Concerns:No See City/Agency Comments and Conditions in Section IV and in the public record.for all comments received. III. STAFF ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code(UDC) A. General Overview The existing development agreement anticipates this property developing with a mix of light manufacturing(i.e. classified as light industry) and warehouse uses,including distribution. The proposed development plan is generally consistent with the conceptual development plan included in the DA, as required. The proposed use contributes to the mix of land use types desired in the Mixed Employment designation in the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan(TMISAP),which include light industrial uses. The proposed structures are a single-story in height with floor areas ranging from 28,500 to 128,730 square feet(s.f.),which is within the anticipated ranges for such in the TMISAP. The floor area ratio(FAR)of 0.41 (283,810 total gross floor area/696,960 s.f. lot area) is below that anticipated in the Plan; the Plan anticipates that FAR will exceed 0.75. Table 4:Proiect Overview Description Details History AZ-09-008 Meridian Crossing [Ord.#10-1467,Development Agreement (DA)Inst.#110115738];H-2021-0081 Vanguard Village(MDA,RZ,PP, CUP—DA Inst.#2022-0497799);H-2023-0072 Vanguard Village(MDA —DA is not yet recorded);FP-2024-0012 Vanguard Village No. 1 —FP (not yet approved or recorded) Acreage 15.97-acres B. History and Process There is a development agreement in effect for this property that governs future development (Vanguard Village Inst. #2022-0497799).An amendment to the agreement was recently approved but has not yet been recorded.A preliminary plat was previously approved that includes the subject property; a final plat application has been submitted but has not yet been approved. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ C. Site Development and Use Analysis 1. Existing Structures/Site Improvements (UDC 11-1): None 2. Proposed Use Analysis (UDC 11-2): The UDC(Table I I-2B-2)lists warehouse uses,which includes distribution,as an allowed use with a conditional use permit in the M-E zoning district; compliance with the specific use standards for such in UDC 11-4-3-42 is required. 3. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): Future development is required to comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2B-3 for the M-E zoning district. 4. Specific Use Standards (UDC 11-4-3): 11-4-3-42. -Warehouse. A. Accessory uses allowed. Office not to exceed twenty-five (25)percent and retail sales not to exceed ten(10)percent of the total enclosed area of the use. B. Outside activity areas shall be located a minimum of three hundred(300) feet from any property line adjoining a residence or a residential district. The proposed use must comply with these standards.A floor plan should be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application to ensure accessory office and retail uses don't exceed the standard. D. Design Standards Analysis 1. Structure and Site Design Standards (UDC 11-3A-19): Buildings are required to be designed in accord with the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual. See Section III.D.4 below for more information on design requirements. Because the site is not accessed via 1-84, it's determined not to have street frontage per UDC 11-IA-1,therefore the standards listed in UDC I 1-3A-19B.2 do not apply. The proposed development plan complies with the parking lot design standards. Per UDC 11-3A-19B.4, a minimum 5-foot wide pedestrian walkway is required to be provided from the perimeter sidewalk to the main building entrances per UDC 11-3A- 1913.4a. The walkway is required to be distinguished from the vehicular driving surfaces through the use of pavers,colored or scored concrete,or bricks. 2. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): i. Landscape buffers along streets The landscaping within the street buffers along 1-84, W. Villagio Way and La Vista should be installed with the subdivision improvements associated with Vanguard Village Subdivision No. 1. However, if they're not completed prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy within this development, this developer should be responsible for these improvements as required with the final plat(FP-2024-0012). Review of the street buffer landscaping for consistency with UDC standards will take place with FP- 2024-0012. Note:Although this site doesn't abut the future extension of Villagio, the larger(soon to be) lot does; therefore, street buffers are required on the larger(future) lot. ii. Parking lot landscaping City of Meridian I Department Report 111. Staff Analysis ■ Parking lot landscaping is required in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8C. Additional trees are required in the west perimeter buffer(a minimum of 1 tree is required per 35 linear feet); alternative compliance to this standard may be requested as allowed in UDC 11-5B-5. A minimum buffer width of 7-feet is required if wheel restraints aren't provided in abutting parking spaces to prevent vehicle overhang per UDC 11-3C-5B; if wheel restraints are provided,the minimum buffer width is 5-feet— the width of the perimeter buffer is different on the site plan vs.the landscape plan and the buffer along the west boundary isn't depicted in its entirety on the site plan. Shrubs along with lawn or vegetative groundcover are also required in the perimeter buffers. The site/landscape plans submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance should be revised to comply with these standards. iii. Landscape buffers to adjoining uses No residential uses exist or are planned adjoining this site to the west or east; therefore, no buffers are required. iv. Tree preservation There are some existing trees on the southwest portion of this site. The landscape plan includes a tree mitigation schedule that depicts(32)2-inch caliper trees but doesn't include how many caliper inches are being removed; the plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application should include detailed information that demonstrates compliance with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-IOC.S. v. Storm integration Stormwater integration on the site is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-11 C. vi. Pathway landscaping Landscaping is required along the multi-use pathway within the street buffer along I-84 along the southern boundary of the site in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B- 12C. A mix of trees,shrubs,lawn and/or vegetative groundcover should be provided; the landscape plan should be revised to include shrubs as required. 3. Parking(UDC 11-3Q: Off-street vehicle parking is required in accord with the standards for commercial districts in UDC 11-3C-6B.1. Bicycle parking is required in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11- 3C-6G and should comply with the design standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C. i. Nonresidential parking analysis A minimum of one(1) space is required for every 500 s.f. of gross floor area. Based on the total square footage of the structures (i.e.283,810 s.f.), a minimum of 568 spaces are required; only 473 spaces are proposed—a minimum of 95 additional spaces are required to be provided. The buildings may need to be decreased in size to comply with the parking standards. See UDC 11-3C-7—Parking Alternatives and UDC 11-5B-5— Alternative Compliance for other options. ii. Bicycle parking analysis A minimum of one(1)bicycle parking space is required to be provided for every 25 proposed vehicle parking spaces or portion thereof; bicycle parking should be depicted on the plans in accord with this standard along with a detail of the rack that demonstrates compliance with the design standards. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ 4. Building Elevations (Comp Plan,Architectural Standards Manual): Elevations and renderings have been submitted for the proposed structures, included in Section VII.E below. The architectural design of the proposed structures is required to comply with the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual,the structure and site design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and the design guidelines in the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan (TMISAP) for the Mixed Employment(ME) designation as noted in the Application of the Design Elements table on pg. 3-49,unless otherwise modified in the Development Agreement(DA).Note: The most recent amendment to the DA (H-2023-0074) allows a minimum of 8%windows on the frontage (i.e. visible from I-84)and a single plane wall maximum distance of 150 feet without building modulation and included a conceptual site plan and building elevations for the proposed structures. The design elements in the TMISAP applicable to ME designated areas include the following: architecture and heritage (3-32),building form and character(3-37) (i.e.building facades;building heights;base,body and top; and roofs), signs (3-46)and public art(3-47). Architecture and heritage:New buildings are encouraged to incorporate architectural features and details reminiscent of the earlier farming and dairy activities built around 1900 in the area(see pg. 3-32 in the Plan for more information). Due to the industrial nature of the proposed development, it may be difficult to incorporate the type of features desired. Building form and character: The primary facades of the structures include entries into the buildings. Trash dumpsters should be located away from the primary fagade of the building, ideally within a rear fagade, and should be contained within screened enclosures with minimum 6-foot tall walls. Low-rise buildings of 2-4 stories are desired over much of the area—although the proposed structures are only 1-story,they do have a taller form at 41-feet in height(note: The ME designation allows buildings 1-4 stories in height). The base,body and top is defined on the proposed elevations through variations in color, minor step-backs, fenestration patterns and varying parapet heights. Roof equipment, including mechanical equipment, should be screened from view by the parapets. Flat roofs with varying parapet heights are proposed. Signs should be designed to contribute to the overall character, identity and way finding system(see pg. 3-46 for more information). A separate sign permit is required. Public art, in a high quality of design, should be incorporated into the design of streetscapes,public buildings,parks,transit, infrastructure, and other public projects in the Ten Mile area. Because this is an industrial type of use that doesn't include public spaces, Staff isn't recommending public art is provided with this project. 5. Fencing (UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): Fencing is not depicted on the landscape plan. 6. Parkways (UDC 11-3A-17): Parkways are required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17E. City of Meridian I Department Report 111. Staff Analysis ■ E. Transportation Analysis 1. Access (UDC 11-3A-3): Access is proposed via La Vista Way, a private street(yet to be approved), from the future extension of W.Villaggio Way, a collector street, along the northern boundary of the site; direct access via I-84 is prohibited.A cross-access easement should be granted and a driveway constructed midway along the west boundary of the site for future interconnectivity and access to/from the parcel to the west in accord with UDC 11-3A- 3A.2.An access easement should also be granted to the future lot to the east for use of the private street and interconnectivity between lots. These easements may be accomplished through a note on the final plat or a separate recorded easement. 2. Multiuse Pathways (UDC 11-3A-5): A 10-foot wide multi-use pathway is required as proposed within the street buffer along 1-84 in accord with the Pathways Master Plan and should be constructed with the subdivision improvements associated with Vanguard Village. A 14-foot wide public use easement(10' pathway+2' each side) is required to be submitted for the proposed pathway. 3. Pathways (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-8): Pathways are required to be constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-8. A pathway connection should be provided to the adjacent property to the west along the driveway stub for interconnectivity. Sidewalks are proposed adjacent to the private street along the east boundary. 4. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17): Sidewalks are required along all streets as set forth in UDC 11-3A-17. Sidewalks are proposed in accord with UDC standards. 5. Private Streets (UDC 11-3F-4): A private street(La Vista Way) is proposed along the east boundary of the site.A private street application is anticipated to be submitted with the final plat application that's currently in process. F. Services Analysis 1. Waterways (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-6): All waterways, except natural waterways, are required to be piped unless used as a water amenity or linear open space, in which case they may be left open as set forth in UDC 11-3A- 6. The Marvin Lateral lies along the south and west boundaries of this site within a 50-foot wide Nampa&Meridian Irrigation District(NMID) easement(20-feet left and 30-feet right) and should be piped. See comments from NMID in Section IV below. 2. Pressurized Irrigation (UDC 11-3A-15): Underground pressurized irrigation water is required to be provided in each development as set forth in UDC 11-3A-15. 3. Storm Drainage (UDC 11-3A-18): An adequate storm drainage system is required in accord with the adopted standards, specifications and ordinances; design and construction shall follow Best Management Practice as adopted by the City per UDC 11-3A-18. 4. Utilities (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-21): All utilities for the proposed development are required to be installed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-21. City of Meridian I Department Report 111. Staff Analysis ■ G. Special Request The Applicant has requested a clarification to the determination of an abandoned use in regard to the proposed warehouse/distribution use to be included in the conditions of approval for this application. The UDC(11-1A-1) defines"abandoned"as follows, "To cease or discontinue a use or activity for 12 months." The Applicant proposes the term"abandoned"shall be applied to the subject area as a whole and not individual sites or buildings within the subject property(e.g. if one suite or building is being used for warehouse/distribution, such use shall not be deemed abandoned for any portion of the subject area). Note:Light Industry uses are also proposed in this area, which include manufacturing. This use isn't included in this clarification because light industry is a principal permitted use in the M-E zoning district and as such, cannot be deemed abandoned. IV. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. Meridian Planning Division 1. The Applicant shall comply with all previous conditions of approval associated with this development [H-2021-0081 Vanguard Village(MDA,RZ,PP, CUP—DA Inst. #2022- 0497799);H-2023-0072 Vanguard Village(MDA); FP-2024-0012 Vanguard Village No. I — (FP)]. 2. The proposed use shall comply with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-42: Warehouse. 3. Submit floor plans for the buildings with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application(s) that demonstrate compliance with the maximum square footage of accessory uses(i.e. office and retail sales) allowed in UDC 11-4-3-42A. 4. The site plan and/or landscape plan, as applicable, shall be revised as follows: a. Depict minimum 5-foot wide pedestrian walkways from the perimeter sidewalk to the main building entrances; the walkways 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-19B.4. b. Depict parking lot landscaping in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8C[a mix of Class II or III trees (1 per 35 linear feet) and shrubs, lawn or vegetative ground cover is required].Also, comply with the standards in UDC 11-3C-5B.3. 4. c. Include linear feet of perimeter buffers in the Parking Lot Perimeter Tree Schedule. Note: The width of the western perimeter buffer isn't the same between the site and landscape plans and the full perimeter buffer isn't depicted on the site plan—revise accordingly. d. Include tree mitigation information on the plan that demonstrates compliance with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-1OC.5. e. Include shrubs and lawn or vegetative groundcover along with the trees within the landscape strips along the multi-use pathway within the street buffer along the southern boundary of the site adjacent to I-84 in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B- 12C. f. Depict off-street parking in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-6B.1,which requires a minimum of one(1)off-street parking space to be provided for every 500 City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions ■ square feet of gross floor area.See UDC 11-3C-7—Parking Alternatives and UDC 11- 513-5—Alternative Compliance for other options. g. Depict bicycle parking in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-6G; include a detail of the bicycle rack that demonstrates compliance with the design standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C. h. Depict a driveway and pedestrian walkway midway along the west boundary of the site for future vehicular and pedestrian interconnectivity and access to/from the parcel to the west(#S1215325450)in accord with UDC 11-3A-3A.2. i. Depict the 50-foot wide easement for the Marvin Lateral along the southern and western boundaries of the site. 5. The design of the proposed structures shall comply with the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual and the design elements in the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan(TMISAP)as noted in the Application of the Design Elements table on pg. 3-49 for the Mixed Employment(ME) designation,unless otherwise modified in the Development Agreement(DA).Note: The most recent amendment to the DA (H-2023-0074) allows a minimum of 8%windows on the frontage and a single plane wall maximum distance of 150- feet without building modulation. 6. The landscaping within the street buffers along I-84,Villagio Way and LaVista should be installed with the subdivision improvements associated with Vanguard Village Subdivision No. 1. However, if it's not completed prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy within this development,this developer shall be responsible for those improvements as required with the final plat(FP-2024-0012). 7. The recent modification to the development agreement(H-2023-0074) shall be approved by City Council and recorded prior to submittal of the first Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application for this site. 8. A cross-access easement shall be granted and a driveway constructed midway along the west boundary of the site for future interconnectivity and access to/from the parcel to the west (#51215325450) in accord with UDC 11-3A-3A.2. This easement may be accomplished through a note on the final plat or a separate recorded easement. 9. A cross-access easement shall be granted to the fixture lot to the east(i.e. depicted as Lot 4, Block 1 on the proposed final plat) for use of the private street and for interconnectivity between lots. This easement may be accomplished through a note on the final plat or a separate recorded easement. 10. A 14-foot wide public use easement(10' pathway+2' each side) shall be submitted for the proposed multi-use pathway within the street buffer along I-84 prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. Alternatively,this easement may be provided earlier prior to recordation of final plat application for Vanguard Village Subdivision No. 1. 11. The Marvin Lateral,which lies along the south and west boundaries of this site within a 50- foot wide Nampa&Meridian Irrigation District(NMID) easement, and any other open ditches shall be piped as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6. 12. Signage for the proposed development should be designed to contribute to the overall character, identity and way finding system in accord with the TMISAP(see pg. 3-46 for more information). A separate sign permit is required. 13. For the purpose of determining an abandoned use in regard to the conditionally approved warehouse/distribution use on the subject property,the term"abandoned"shall be applied to City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions ■ the subject property as a whole and not subareas of the subject property or individual buildings. For example, if at least one(1) suite or building is being used for warehouse/distribution,that shall be deemed continued warehouse/distribution use for the subject property as a whole,and such use shall not be deemed abandoned for any portion of the subject property Note:Light industry uses, which include manufacturing, are principally permitted in the district and as such, cannot be determined an abandoned use. 14. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application(s) shall be submitted and approved prior to submittal of building permit applications for this site. Building permits may be issued prior to recordation of the final plat;however,no Certificates of Occupancy shall be issued prior to recordation of the final plat for the lot on which the building(s)is located,per requirement of the most recent amendment to the DA(H-2023-0074). 15. The Applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval,and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground within two (2)years from the date of approval of the subject conditional use permit; or apply for a time extension prior to that date as set forth in UDC 11-5B-6F in order for the conditional use permit to remain valid. Other Agency comments may be accessed in the project file,included in the public record. City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions ■ V. FINDINGS A. Conditional Use(UDC 11-5B-6E) The commission shall base its determination on the conditional use permit request upon the following: 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 the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all dimensional and development regulations of the recommended M-E zoning district. However, the size of the buildings may need to be decreased in size to comply with the minimum off- street parking standards. 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 the proposed warehouse use, which includes distribution, use will be harmonious with the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with applicable UDC standards with the conditions noted in Section IV of this report. 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 design, construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed use should be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood, with the existing and intended character of the vicinity and will not adversely change the essential 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 the proposed use will not adversely affect other properties in the vicinity if it complies with the conditions in Section IV of this report. 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 the proposed use will be served by essential public facilities and services as required. 6. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. The Commission finds the proposed use will not create additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. 7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes,materials,equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic,noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. The Commission finds the proposed use will not be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by the reasons noted above. 8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. The Commission finds the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any such features. City of Meridian I Department Report V. Findings ■ 9. Additional findings for the alteration or extension of a nonconforming use: This finding is not applicable. 10. That the proposed nonconforming use does not encourage or set a precedent for additional nonconforming uses within the area; and, This finding is not applicable. 11. That the proposed nonconforming use is developed to a similar or greater level of conformity with the development standards as set forth in this title as compared to the level of development of the surrounding properties. This finding is not applicable. VI. ACTION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed CUP application and finds it in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, specifically the TMISAP, and the UDC with the conditions included in Section IV. B. Commission: The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard this item on August 1,2024.At the public hearing,the Commission moved to approve the subject CUP request. 1. Summary of the Commission public hearing: a. In favor: Will Goede,Adler Industrial b. In opposition:None C. Commenting: None d. Written testimony: Will Goede,Adler Industrial(in agreement with staff report) e. Staff presenting application: Bill Parsons f. Other Staff commenting on application:None 2. Key issue(s)of public testimony: a. None 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission: a. None 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. None City of Meridian I Department Report VI.Action ■ ProjectVII. EXHIBITS A. to Project Overview) 1. Aerial Legend PIMP-igi Project Location a. - W � J v � W - m �. _ . — . . . % ~� I. Zoning RUTI, Ir. 1ii1 �.u�ie — �,,,,,, : IIIII,II,I,,FRANKLI�N III iiiiii • iiiiln II, I• V V a RJ Legend Project g Location Impact City of • .n I Department Report 3. Future Land Use Mixed Employ ent Civic —Low Density_ Em to inent MU-Com High =High Densit}y Residential Density MU-Res Residential Commercial h Density Employment Low Density Legend ntlal 0 Project Location Area of Impact m ty Residential MU-N 4. Planned Development Map 71 Legend ' Project Location City Limits Planned Parcels ® Area of Impact ° City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ B. Service Accessibility Report PARCEL S1215427850 SERVICE ACCESSIBILITY Overall Scare: 25 17th Percentile Location In City Limits GREEN Extension Sewer Trunkshed mains < 500 ft.from parcel GREEN Floodplain Either not within the 1DO yrfloodplain or > 2 acres GREEN Emergency Services Fire Response time > g min. RED Emergency Services Police Meets response time goals most of the time GREEN Pathways V ithin 1/4 mile of current pathways GREEN Transit Within 1/4 mile of future transit route ='E--a'.', Arterial Road Buildout Status Ultimate configuration(#of lanes in master streets GREEN plan) matches existing (#of lanes) School Walking Proximity From 1/2 to 1 mile walking ='E--OV School Drivability Nat within 2 miles driving of existing or future school RED Park Walkability No park within walking distance by park type RED dg Repart gererA?d on U-2&EM4 by M.iERID1A%T-&31& City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ C. Site Plan(date: 12/19/2023) r i _ I I�i� r I.IwrM � fll r- I I ii'13LC4YN�.-mac aS:c._aari I Will I I I X - r 1 — y Li City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ A Landscape Plan(date: 6/11/2024) IT11.11WI-TV $ a !31 } II ` LLILL i j ll I o:o I xl W a. a W +�, _ � . �Jao,aEe rxo wem alwr wismae., _ 1�I I JWxrmt-AWr o n r i r� � - —- -�.a.-==�_�- I •" ��C?_ I �i �X°xL,xo� rcoxnlc. neeuvxrxrr -. -, ' .a,�r�nonoeeowe�ocrewnrlalox __ I QMI,wxMTIOn LME IUN��rxq WAroo L-01 City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 0 i I - I I ' I I I - I I I I I J I I I � I I ' I I I I I I I I I I I I I � I I I A I E I _ ; I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ' I ' I � I ' I � I I I I I I - I _ J I 1 I I I I I 1 I' _ I I 1111 Hill - I TEN MILE WEST LANDSCAPE PLAN RENDERING City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ E. Building Elevations(date: 8/21/2023) &Renderings ROIFR M 110 ---------------- ------- PA FRONT ELEVATION A,WHITECTUE RSUPIUPA. -- ----------- -------------- - --------------- ----- m---------------------- -1 SIDE ELEVATION SIDE ELEVATION ................ ".W T .......... -------------- -------------- REAR ELEVATION OP- wM City of Meridian Department Report V11. Exhibits d�Oo i■ __A■ ■■■■ ■ I.R ON - — - ■■ . u- MIN � . ono c--..•. _ � i �r IN v ' s City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ E K IDIAN:--- iuAn Planning and Zoning Presentations and outline h2 Planning & Zoning August 15, 2024Commission Meeting Slide 1 h2 Agenda Item Numbers/Order: hoodc, 12/19/2006 ZoningAerialFLUM Examples from Design Standards Changes to Agenda: None Item #3: The Angels Home Childcare (H-2024-0017) Application(s):  Conditional Use Permit Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 0.20-acre of land, zoned R-4, located at 167 W. Indian Rocks St. History: The Applicant is currently operating an in-home daycare facility for 6 or fewer children in her home. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MDR Summary of Request: A CUP is proposed for an in-home group daycare for 7 to 12 children in the R-4 zoning district. Compliance with the specific use standards in the UDC for such is required. Off-street vehicle parking is required to be provided on the site in accord with UDC standards for the residence and for the daycare. A minimum of (4) off-street parking spaces are required for the 4-bedroom home with at least two (2) of those spaces in the garage; the other space may be a parking pad outside the garage. There are (3) vehicle parking spaces in the garage and three (3) on the parking pad in front of the garage. The Applicant states she’ll pick up the children to avoid traffic in her neighborhood; if parents want to come visit, they let her know ahead of time. All of their personal vehicles will be parked inside the garage and the parking pad outside will be available for parents to use that prefer to pick-up and drop-off their children to ensure safe discharge and pick up of clients in accord with UDC standards. The proposed hours of operation are from 7:00 am to 10:00 pm; the hours of operation should not extend beyond this time period without modification of the CUP. Written Testimony: None Staff Recommendation: Approval w/conditions Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2024-0017, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of August 15, 2024, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2024-0017, as presented during the hearing on August 15, 2024, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2024-0017 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item #4: District at Ten Mile (H-2023-0071) Application(s):  Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map Amendment  Development Agreement Modification  Rezone  Preliminary Plat Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 108.77-acres of land, zoned C-C, M-E, H-E, R-40 and TN-C, located at the NWC of I-84 and S. Ten Mile Rd. A preliminary plat was previously approved on the southwest portion of the property for Vanguard Village; a final plat is currently in process. History: The subject property was previously annexed in 2009 & 2011 with the Meridian Crossing, the Ten Mile Annexation and The 10 at Meridian applications and are subject to development agreements. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Mixed Employment (ME); High Density Employment (HDE), Mixed Use – Commercial (MU- Com), Mixed Use – Residential (MU-Res). Summary of Request: The Applicant requests an Amendment to the FLUM in the Comp Plan to change the designations on portions of the subject property and adjacent properties, resulting in a net change in this area as follows: Medium High-Density Residential (MHDR) (+9.26-acres), High Density Residential (HDR) (+2.66-acres); Mixed Use - Residential (MU-R) (-10.61-acres), Mixed Use - Commercial (MU-C) (+0.32-acre), Mixed Employment (ME) (-0.22-acre), and High Density Employment (HDE) (-1.40-acres). The map amendment includes some “clean-up” changes recommended by Staff on the abutting property to the west (Endurance Holdings, zoned R-15 and mostly designated MHDR); and the right-of-way for W. Cobalt Dr. along the northern boundary of the site adjacent to Outer Banks Subdivision (zoned C-C and designated MU-Res) based on the existing multi-family entitlements on those parcels and the Applicant’s proposed amendment (see pink/white dashed line area on the exhibit). Without including the proposed clean-up changes on adjacent properties, the changes to this property are as follows: -2.8-acres of MHDR, no change to HDR, +2.3- acres of ME, +3.74-acres of MU-Com, and no change to HDE. In summary, most of the Applicant’s proposed changes are just a reconfiguration of existing FLUM designations and not significant changes. Rezone of 7.48-acres of land from the C-C to the TN-C district; 12.96-acres from the H-E and R-40 to the C-C district; 9.13-acres from the C-C to the H-E district; 25.97-acres from the C-C and H-E to the C-G district; and 1.37-acres from the H-E to the M-E zoning district. Preliminary Plat consisting of 38 building lots and one (1) common lot on 108.77-acres of land in the TN-C, C-C, C-G, H-E and M-E zoning districts. A Modification is proposed to the existing DA’s for Vanguard Village, Fedrizzi Ten Mile LLC, SJJV LLC, Janicek Properties LLC and The 10 at Meridian to consolidate them into one (1) new agreement, which will replace the previous agreements (or a portion thereof, as applicable for Vanguard Village & The 10 at Meridian), and include a conceptual development plan for the overall area. A Use Area Plan is also proposed as follows:  Area 1) accommodates a mix of multi-family residential such as townhomes and multi-family. This area is mostly designated MU-Com with MU-Res and a small amount of MHDR and zoned mostly TN-C with some C-C. The map amendment proposes a MU-Res land use designation with TN-C zoning for the entire area. A residential density of 8 to 12 units/acre is proposed which equates to 268-402 residential units. A diversity of compatible land uses is encouraged in MU-Res areas, which may include a mix of residential, office, retail, recreational, employment and other miscellaneous uses. While the focus is on residential uses, the horizontal and vertical integration of retail, office and employment uses is essential. This designation requires developments to integrate the three (3) major use categories – residential, commercial and employment. Only residential uses are proposed in the requested MU-Res FLUM designation and TN-C zoning district – the “mixed-use” component of the MU-Res designation and TN-C district is entirely missing. Only one of the three major use categories are proposed (i.e. residential) – no retail, office or employment uses are proposed as required, which are essential in MU-Res designated areas. The proposed MU-Res designation and TN-C zoning is not consistent with the proposed development plan or the intended plan for this area as the required mix of integrated uses is not provided.  Area 2) accommodates predominantly commercial mixed uses, including large format/anchor and specialty retail, casual and fine dining, entertainment, recreation, hospitality, childcare and office uses. This area is currently designated mostly MU-Res and MU-Com with a small amount of HDE; the zoning is mostly C-C with some H-E and M-E. The map amendment proposes MU-Com and HDE land use designations with C-C, H-E, C-G and M-E zoning with the majority being C-C. The MU-Com designation encourages the development of a mix of office, retail, recreational, employment (i.e. family-wage jobs) and other miscellaneous uses with supporting multi-family or single-family attached residential uses. While the focus of these areas is on commercial and employment uses, the horizontal and vertical integration of residential uses is essential to securing entitlements. As with all mixed-use areas, this designation requires development to integrate the three (3) major use categories – residential, commercial and employment. In MU-Com areas, three (3) or more significant uses also tend to be larger scale projects. Although a mix of commercial uses are proposed, only one of the three major use categories is provided (i.e. commercial) – no major employment uses are proposed as required in either the MU-Com or the HDE areas and integrated residential uses are not proposed in the MU-Com area, which are essential. The proposed MU-Com and HDE designations are not consistent with the proposed development plan or the intended plan for this area as the required mix of uses is not provided. The proposed Floor Area Ratios are also significantly below the goals of 1.00-1.25 or more in the MU-Com area and exceeding 1.0 in the HDE area. • Area 3) accommodates medium to higher-density office, commercial, recreation, medical and hospitality uses. This area is currently designated MU-Com and HDE with C-C, M-E and H-E zoning. The Applicant proposes a reconfiguration of the MU-Com and HDE areas and a rezone to reconfigure the boundaries of the C-C, H-E and M-E districts accordingly and add C-G zoning. The Applicant also proposes to change a “sliver” of the HDE area along the west boundary in Areas 2 and 3 of the Use Area Plan to ME and rezone from H-E to M-E for the southern portion of that area to match that of the abutting property to the west and to align with the future lot line. The ME area will be developed by Adler Industrial separate from this development. As previously noted, the FAR’s in the MU-Com and HDE areas are significantly below the established goals in the Plan. Although commercial and employment uses are proposed from the three (3) major use categories, integration of residential uses is not proposed as desired. Office and other employment uses need to be of a much higher intensity in this area in order to be consistent with the MU-Com and especially the HDE designation and designed as compact urban centers rather than lower density suburban-style development Recreation uses are not desired in HDE designated areas. A mobility plan was submitted showing vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle circulation within the site. Typically, all building elevations should comply with the design guidelines in the TMISAP and the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. However, the Applicant requests that these guidelines and standards not apply to this development and instead proposes alternate design standards and a design review process of their own for the proposed development as part of the development agreement. While all of the proposed design standards may not expressly align with the guidelines in the TMISAP, they appear to generally follow the guidelines and should ensure a high quality of development IF Commission& Council deem the proposed plan appropriate for this area. Written Testimony: Kristina Bolt (see public record); Geoff Wardle (Applicant’s Representative) – Response to the staff report Staff Recommendation: In summary, Staff is not in support of the proposed map amendment and associated rezone based on the conceptual development plan proposed as it doesn’t meet the minimum development guidelines in the TMISAP nor does it provide the mix of integrated uses desired in Mixed Use designated areas or the intensity and/or types of uses desired in the MU-Com and HDE designated areas. If Commission & Council is of the opinion the proposed development plan is more appropriate for this area than that envisioned in the adopted TMISAP, Staff suggests alternate FLUM designations and zoning are approved consistent with the proposed development plan, as follows: MHDR and R-15 zoning for the property in Area 1; and Commercial and C-G zoning in Areas 2 and 3. Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H- 2023-0071, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of August 15, 2024, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number H-2023- 0071, as presented during the hearing on August 15, 2024, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2023-0071 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item #5: Idaho State University (H-2024-0027) Application(s): Annexation Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 23.25 acres of land, zoned RUT and R-6 in Ada County, located on the west side of S. Locust grove Rd; midway between Franklin and Overland Roads. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Commercial Summary of Request: The applicant is requesting to annex 23.254 acres of land from the RUT and R-6 zoning districts in Ada County to the C-G zoning district, with the intent to develop the site for a Public Education Institution. This annexation is necessary for ISU to access allocated funds for infrastructure improvements, though no actual development is proposed at this time. Typically, the City requires a concept plan that includes details such as site access, parking, building sizes, pedestrian circulation, and common open space. However, due to the long-term nature of this project, developing these details as part of a comprehensive master plan is crucial. Therefore, City staff has requested that ISU submit a future planned unit development to allow adequate time for master planning the property and coordinating with other partnering agencies. The applicant is requesting two (2) waivers as follows: The applicant is requesting that the three existing structures not connect to city utilities at this time. After consultation with the City Engineer, staff supports this request, provided that the applicant abandons the existing well and septic system. Continue using the three (3) existing structures for storage. They are currently being used to meet the university's operational needs. Staff is supportive of the buildings remaining on the site as long as the buildings and property are properly maintained. This development is estimated to generate 5,330 vehicle trips per day, 552 vehicle trips per hour in the AM peak hour and 481 vehicle trips per hour in the PM peak hour, based on the traffic impact study. The TIS also evaluated two (2) accesses to S. Locust Grove Rd. and one (1) access to E. Central Drive. • Access 1 is proposed as a full access driveway located as far as possible for the Locust Grove Road/Central Drive intersection. • Access 2 is proposed as a full-access driveway to S. Locust Grove Rd. • Access 3 is proposed as right-out only access to S. Locust Grove Rd. Cross-access should be provided to the ICOM property in accord with UDC 11-3A-3. Ultimately access will be reviewed and approved with the future PUD application. Written Testimony: None Staff Recommendation: Approval w/ DA provisions in the staff report Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H- 2024-0027, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of August 15, 2024, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number H-2024- 0027, as presented during the hearing on August 15, 2024, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2024-0027 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) W IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing continued from August 1, 2024 for The Angels Home Childcare (H-2024-0017) by Desange Muhawenimana, located at 167 W. Indian Rocks St. Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2024-0017 A. Request: Conditional Use Permit for an in-home daycare for 6-12 children in the R-4 zoning district 41 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: August 15, 2024 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 3 PROJECT NAME: The Angels Home Childcare (W 024-0017) Your Full Name (Please Print) Your Full Address Representing HOA? If yes, please provide HOA name I wish to testify (mark X if yes) w 'T' nd� is vl 0 ciCS 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT C��fEPIDIAN*,­, DEPARTMENT REPORT HEARING 8/15/2024m, ' Legend -r,- DATE: Continued from: 81112024 1c Project Location Area of Impact - - TO: Planning&Zoning Commission City Limits FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner Q Analysis - L 208-884-5533 sallen@meridiancity.org � APPLICANT: Desange Muhawenimanau - SUBJECT: H-2024-0017 r; The Angels Home Childcare-CUP i LOCATION: 167 W. Indian Rocks St.,in the NE 1/4 of Section 1,T.3N.,R.1 W. I. PROJECT OVERVIEW A. Summary Conditional use permit(CUP)for an in-home group daycare for 6 to 12 children in the R-4 zoning district. B. Issues/Waivers None C. Recommendation Staff. Approval with the conditions included below in Section IV. D. Decision To be determined II. COMMUNITY METRICS Table 1:Land Use Description Details Map Ref. Existing Land Use(s)/Proposed Use Single-family residential home - Proposed Land Use(s) In-home group daycare for 6 to 12 children - Existing Zoning R-4(medium low-density residential) VII.A.2 Future Land Use Designation MDR(Medium-Density Residential) VII.A.3 Table 2: Process Facts Description Details Preapplication Meeting date 3/19/2024 Neighborhood Meeting 5/9/2024 Site posting date ML 7/18/2024 City of Meridian I Department Report 1. Project Overview ■ Table 3: Community Metrics Agency/Element Description/Issue Reference Ada County Highway District • Comments Received Yes - • Commission Action Required No - • Access W.Indian Rocks St.,a local street - Meridian Public Works Wastewater Services are provided to the site. Meridian Public Works Water Services are provided to the site. See City/Agency Comments and Conditions in Section IV and in the public record for all comments received. III. STAFF ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code(UDC) A. General Overview A CUP is required for a group daycare in the R-4 zoning district per UDC Table 11-2A-2; compliance with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-9 is required. The Applicant proposes an in-home group daycare for seven(7)to 12 children in the R-4 district. The Applicant is currently operating an in-home family daycare for six(6)or fewer children in this location. The proposed daycare facility is consistent with Policy#5.01.01D in the Comprehensive Plan, which states,"Plan for and encourage neighborhoods that provide reasonable pedestrian and bicycle access to services like healthcare, daycare, grocery stores, and recreational areas." Table 4: Proiect Overview Description Details History A-2019-0222(AUP for family daycare) Acreage 0.20-acre B. History and Process The Applicant currently has an accessory use permit(A-2019-0222) for an in-home family daycare for six(6) or fewer children in the R-4 zoning district. C. Site Development and Use Analysis I. Existing Structures/Site Improvements (UDC 11-1): There is an existing home on the subject property and associated parking and landscaping. 2. Proposed Use Analysis (UDC 11-2): The UDC(Table I I-2A-2)lists group daycares as a conditional use in the R-4 zoning district, subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-9. 3. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): Future development is required to comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-5 for the R-4 zoning district. 4. Specific Use Standards (UDC 11-4-3): The proposed use is subject to the standards listed in 11-4-3-9.—Daycare Facility. The Applicant proposes to care for up to 12 children at any one time, including her own;the Applicant should not exceed this number. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ A 3-car parking pad exists on this site in front of the 3-car garage,which will provide off- street parking and a turnaround area to ensure safe discharge and pick up of clients. The Applicant is required to obtain a criminal background check and a fire inspection certificate as required by Title 39, Chapter 11, Idaho Code. The applicant or owner shall comply with all State of Idaho and Department of Health and Welfare requirements for daycare facilities. The proposed hours of operation are from 7:00 am to 10:00 pm;the hours of operation should not extend beyond this time period. Any extension of hours would require a modification to the CUP. D. Design Standards Analysis 1. Structure and Site Design Standards (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-19): No changes are proposed or required to the exterior of the existing home or property. 2. Parking (UDC 11-3C): Off-street vehicle parking is required in accord with the standards for single-family detached dwellings in UDC 11-3C-6. There are four(4)bedrooms in the home; therefore, a minimum of four(4) off-street parking spaces are required with at least two(2)of those in the garage; the other space may be a minimum 10' x 20' parking pad. There are three(3)vehicle parking spaces in the garage and three (3)on the parking pad in front of the garage. The Applicant states she'll pick up children to avoid traffic in her neighborhood; if parents want to come visit,they let her know ahead of time. All of their personal vehicles will be parked inside the garage and the parking pad outside will be available for parents to use that prefer to pick-up and drop-off their children to ensure safe discharge and pick up of clients in accord with UDC 11-4-3-9A.2. 3. Building Elevations (Comp Plan,Architectural Standards Manual): No changes are proposed to the exterior of the existing home. 4. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): Fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7 and 11-4-3-9B.1. A 6-foot tall solid wood fence exists along the side lot lines in the rear yard and an approximate 4-foot tall solid wood fence exists along the rear lot line(see photo below). The rear yard is adjacent to a common area that includes a pedestrian pathway. The UDC (11-3A- 7A.7)contains special regulations for fences that abut pathways and common open space lots. Fencing is restricted to an open vision or semi-private fence up to 6-feet in height as it provides visibility of the common area from adjacent homes or buildings. If closed vision fencing is used, it should not exceed 4-feet in height; an additional 2-feet in height of open vision fencing may be added to the top section of the fence. The specific use standards require all outdoor play areas to be completely enclosed by a minimum 6-foot tall non-scalable fence to secure against exit/entry by small children and to screen abutting properties. To meet this standard, Staff recommends an additional 2-feet of open vision fencing is added to the top of the 4-foot tall fence. Open vision fence is defined in UDC 11-1A-1 as, "A fence that does not restrict or impede vision or sight through the fence by more than 20%." City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ E. Transportation Analysis 1. Access (UDC 11-3A-3): Access is provided to this site via N. Indian Rocks St., a local street. 2. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17): A sidewalk exists along N. Indian Rocks St. in accord with UDC standards. IV. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. Meridian Planning Division 1. The Applicant shall comply with all previous conditions of approval associated with this development(A-2019-0222) as well as those listed below. 2. The Applicant shall have an ongoing obligation to comply with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-9. -Daycare Facility. 3. The maximum number of children allowed to be at the facility at one time, including the operator's children,is 12— the Applicant shall not exceed this number. 4. The hours of operation of the daycare facility shall not extend beyond the hours of 7:00 am to 10:00 pm as proposed with this application; extension of these hours shall require a modification to the conditional use permit. 5. The Applicant shall obtain proof of criminal background checks and fire inspection certificates as required by Title 39, Chapter 11,Idaho Code and comply with all State of Idaho and Department of Health and Welfare requirements for daycare facilities. 6. An additional 2-feet of open vision fencing that meets the requirement for such in UDC 11- lA-1, shall be added to the top of the existing 4-foot tall fence adjacent to the common area along the rear property boundary in accord with UDC 11-4-3-9B.1.Note: UDC 11-1A-1 defines open vision fence as, `A fence that does not restrict or impede vision or sight through the fence by more than 20%." 7. Outdoor play equipment over 6-feet high shall not be located in a front yard or within any required yard per UDC 11-4-3-913.2. 8. Outdoor play areas shall not be used after dusk per UDC 11-4-3-913.3. 9. Any signage for the proposed use shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3D-8B. 10. The Applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground within two (2)years from the date of approval of the subject conditional use permit; or apply for a City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ time extension prior to that date as set forth in UDC 11-5B-6F in order for the conditional use permit to remain valid. Other Agency comments may be accessed in the project file, included in the public record. V. Findings A. Conditional Use(UDC 11-513-6E) The commission shall base its determination on the conditional use permit request upon the following: l. 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. Stafffinds the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all dimensional and development regulations of the R-4 zoning district. 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian comprehensive plan and in accord with the requirements of this title. Stafffinds the proposed daycare use will be harmonious with the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with applicable UDC standards with the conditions noted in Section IV of this report. 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. Stafffinds the operation of the proposed use should be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood, with the existing and intended character of the vicinity and will not adversely change the essential 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. Stafffinds the proposed use will not adversely affect other properties in the vicinity if it complies with the conditions in Section IV of this report. 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. Stafffinds the proposed use will continue to be served by essential public facilities and services as required. 6. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. Stafffinds the proposed use will not create additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. 7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes,materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic,noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. Stafffinds the proposed use will not be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by the reasons noted above. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ 8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction,loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. Stafffinds the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any such features. 9. Additional findings for the alteration or extension of a nonconforming use: This finding is not applicable. 10. That the proposed nonconforming use does not encourage or set a precedent for additional nonconforming uses within the area; and, This finding is not applicable. 11. That the proposed nonconforming use is developed to a similar or greater level of conformity with the development standards as set forth in this title as compared to the level of development of the surrounding properties. This finding is not applicable. VI. ACTION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed CUP application and finds it in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and the UDC with the conditions included in Section IV. A. Commission: Pending VII. EXHIBITS A. Project Area Maps (link to Project Overview) City of Meridian I Department Report VI. Action ■ • z { =+ ui o -• •• III OC J � _ �-- w� USTICK 1.71 — J ly M ' \ LU LLI J [i- ,�• r :;.� � �' ��`�s-yam _ 1.._ r � g .. A- ..I.� � . Ell . CHERRYy — „r _ !°. FAIRVIEW ,m �IsIn ' r ! • a .Si �vunni innR qrq� v..-11iII"3_i .+-e mn nnl •' • ■nnr! . r •a■..:■ numun Ir r� A;: M ■a --e u■n.1 :::::'■��!� -rnwnm rr♦ u�l ■iYa•E. ;,rell[o a®.r q.rr a V 11 ���■ li =nlrn { a::::ire+ � =Innn � '�vr♦ �Ii■mar i1�` ---- ir■rn■■1 .In ��aG ri Q W wi■iii ���l11 �rAn ■■1 pill Hd ..n■. :a■uuan ■.. ■ ia■:III r �.- ■In - I♦1�/ a aunu■■•r e■■��: -i� ':■ni1111 p n. r■■ !III\\�. LII IIp1[I o umrir � ■■1 D uu'■-u11111n Olson 111 I::1 �� ,onw nuuorlep p n � r \r I:y ~f� 1 ■11111' Illinois mL�■■II ■■!. ,'� V ■1 r F J -\ ■ ♦ ■ '�rir■■■■rlrr■r1■■il 4 !LU! �a�na�\/�r � •� [I uwrrunni un � ■■ �� ►♦♦♦i�f ■:.�1111nnrrrrl.rq,} ui �i i 'pIr■ rim:� •i* a'aiaw�■■r. l■V-:■IIi�r11■IIIIl1�fi1 r i���: ?::in'►� :i■ 1 �� � ■ii rrrl �►-- _ ►anum mnlurrllhn -'/i s nu� mm rinn� V o■ munlln■\ ■�. 1:onrnw■/�� nni ■ nq I,nm 0 �1 a'ii it 1 C■rl:::.��r■■■■ae• ►_�S!► r11 w■■ir 1. 1■ ■■r p-w� 'N um°IL=_ .�I� rarer grrl o E u■I■ J r■■■■��■r �■:�■ri\� �_�■�! 1� Vf 111 !■IIIfi -.1 • ii�� mi.�ai n i u rrl•`� �■uur rri�%�h N''a � 1 �■_=�nj1�1■ii 1�■u�_�r�� um +� ■�*♦��■r�.■■v+���ar�1L ■muir ♦iris■�11k n:-Cla.i�=-���` � i1r /■u a■.. nu 1■ nur 111�m m-7�r ■ ■ 'Irretrnl■ � 4♦1♦r:�.0 urr■.. :�. ■o mun ml .■■■■■ ■■:.II 1 � :rr+�mrha�_r m■nuor■.:5. o ■■ ■n■■ —L+� mm�umi 6i i■1■ r ppom. n1r1■■rli- In r1�a■■■ -III:`a►i■■■• ■ .IIIIIIO- it ri��:�.u■■■p1■■r� m— ail inn I.-Ilia l FAfiRU'IEW r r g+,rli■`s . 1 "nox 11ar . ■r!a - r♦...... 1�wIInllun � r::■uua ur " `I 11111111111■Illllll■1■11\� N111 r1n� uulr. � 1 nnnnn■ -. •• r-- =•Ilsp ��1� `m. 1 �■,,1��"T■p II�t•��/1J1 • -..e -■N��I rrinl■ � - J , .1nn1p ■rr� i� INN, . Residential ��nlr la 11111111111■ E !(JSTICK I ul� nrinrs p..•, ■ - nuu• a=- = I w In■>,1 1 ,ll I p nlnenluuw nnu►1+ p��'�� ■L� 111■1 ■� I.1 rllarl ■■rlr a1r.■■ _____ ■��ur111'�• Y �aa1■Ir r� an ■nO�•r ��-�� ■ Ilia n n I allr Ver a anllw i� -- ■111Yr�i p� -�nl, �■- �• li' �i r11n v■ ■■�r ■ C - _ __ nrr a� i rr ■■■wr r1r rrrinm■ �- C D7 , ri � p•If moon 'u a4uu■n � `IR-� .--. r!I n11IY■■■ �rlirru ^■lvrna v _ a ■i14l111111 W u■ ■m■nn■n r Wpr■■arr �^�■ -.r • •■1 +� .ra=am +:�iiilllli■ �111111 1■ aunu■■■nrYQ rr■■�`'ta=�-rrnr ua. =:u•■.n�.+�u+r�o.■�+�.l l�■rr:■�i lZ,yr:�r■I■mr■rrlr w.ni.rr•fw-•:p:�q•■/�.i�li 4/r/I♦r j•,�.�rI ■_=ir�nIo inlnglsll l x�=a■-1�r r11N111I■N milli \ II1111 IF n■■n 1111111l11il1►11�11.1111 lu■r■ur■:m♦a■r■�■r! _D _ 11��11i1�, i1C„C.1 ��•, -iill1 anon■nl D -.uq Sp . - •`` �a�<J ,♦♦� �:i.::pj ' imn If 1♦/In■■rnnuu■u a■n1 All Up Ir O ♦. ■a�: ♦ 1•■�� 1: nrr■ 1j►f f.aw°Iw.�C'ai��� '71 ar � L il l o +a■:=Illu • 1■r♦ �1: ■n/■.a aualunnglpumnli�■ ■■■■ ■■� Op I■DLa1► �♦•r�♦♦fir• ♦i�=nrr ♦i •,. � m■:�Ilunrurann► .�ungN �.■w/rp=i0 �r`►711■•ry i!¢�'��is 1/1 n■ uf�Ii=_5 ►sqi�. n■/■. ���s.y1.rr_u1 ���Ir��Cp S■ ram:nrrlrl■..:r a1+♦��., _ ■■■ a '.■IrO11■IEaIa1An unE11w a�. ..■ .�r�nor► ■.■. a■♦r►� m ■nl/nuw� ._■.Ir1 urr jrnulm mnnnd11an1A■11 �:p a�rnn :ka� mu■�tnnaa Ia■nadir V ■u nr�R�■r■r■if■unn■■■nny Y..■..... �Ir Dun■nV� non In1um uy �I�fi Darr ! �1■nn �■ •IiRa�fr a ice^::11:rwiiii��loan_• Ir�iR. r/1�v■q vu 1_� �■mm ,nuns ■■■ C�n� 0 •ir r= ■.■<t unml_" '• ♦ ■o I ■■■fir . r J ann ♦r■.�s����■.rn�: !_° a�rr� '►��i♦♦�i�+tr� Z 1 = m ■nuev `►� a r =■:■.■.�0 rw urnq;_ ;a■■ ■Ir1 rV ♦h r == 1111 111 •imne�S•� fir arQ -e urlu■r • +■n Ihrril �+ ►y � _= r ry�■ �C�p;: �neum f♦' =logo ♦O.rv1 vaf����l� ■mrn�ra�rris■�11rr Q� ■■■■.+ ■i�►•�r 1111� ■ru wig � ♦ ♦1a imur...; ■nn• 1.rimum � .w.■- ♦ �.... yr i� ,::: 1jlr■rrunu■�r■■■■■I�♦j Iq•p•u ann w.■:�, xur 1�� I�nuna� ■■■■' rr..Il In�unmmmp Irr r■mn■ �1•r:�m■gnnrn■L'. ■a Iurrna■IN OR ~ 4°-� ..e • 1 nq■w rnmm�lr■■rT Llrw■ •f-nu■. Crrp �prY�rr■:1 f♦ W D - - • - • 1 mm•��.1. nNn:rnrlr. C 1■v +■■ITf■.f f•• '_ ••�■� m uunnu■■■� --rq ■■����♦■rl■1 yi � eE ac ar�mm m IIpu■r n111 71n.9��■pa. ::::♦ .• + mm m CINN ra■■7 ■:i■Era!ri O Gones y - e ■11 �� CHERRY ■ EW■ ." �, FA3RY•I '� p-- i�l�i a111� p�p m • • S4ii /n/ r♦ f n ErNIIIII. ■r ■■as ■11111\I `'�.-.-�- `aC•- .- • =„= nu■■/rf•1'r•♦a i�■ Z mnu ■r�i3r 4*--•W'i f•t•' ;1=ee .p .a - nun 1/■■■:■■■.■ Q mml nf�l�lrM\• q r i1111111 /f ���■■■■.. 11 ate.��sw G11111f 1� •-.-.pm Iuu nnl•Ilr nn1Al uu■ry�L■■.■■■.■ F�1 �I11111r:�y gP.7C7C •1pG7C1_r:r9'I4��i i9/nu uu�■' . - • • Pnn onllllll Ilnq 0 .IiPm��p�- uuuum ummun Humor. r�r%�• `■Inq�:1 IIIII1111111- i:a �.�p �� •!1!!!u.llurllll�� nuu Illllillllill=1 � • '� r! r • -ilk!' ■� G'■"'r a NIN■■ ■ Nnnn�Ir�'��� sv�m1 nNN� rim � c w�l�Nlnnv.``_ la n■It- q/11��1 • • • �ir��.�r. L��r1 ,Ifi1'1 `r.■Q.� �ni w�l�l1 I,Y 3 - �1J11 1 'lid � r J1� � ,._ �r•■I I� • �II� .+i a■ ,NI�111■.�nUSTICK,u Inlllrnlrrllr • _i{urn-� �, 1�•-, NIIr�N.. u.m■.:.-n: r• _-____ nun=III �l5 ■ .• �# --_-_-_- ■ n �I yan nmin■■■ ♦�■ arlllr ■iiri ♦ }=•" - W=IllrrrllH illl111 ■��i M��u11n'L.•I 1� �n ■■+� _=c= a1 rir� ��p�w�i�illllllllli illIIII �� M��1 r5'• ' nu �aq��i��I/r h l-■=` • i mllm IUl u uu■ yr � 4" real '+a al1Y ■l C■..- - - -. ■� nli .Ip li' f 1 u rn1■■■■ r/ ■r■u■n■■ alp=r:!�� -y'n■nnnly n_ ur•��n11Y■■n u cyan c nnu NEED I I'�►•n■IIIfIlIf111 W�r n■ ■omu// :,� "'nnm�.w��■■II.■111 sir nvnn Ira�`: I ■ 11 '_:_ `�I-uun■: a■ r■ AI►�v1s.'�' l I!f/��. 111111 I■ nrI > . mm�n nrlr anon■■ rw■��;�:+=-i�nr'r ac H_.nnN111■■Illll�d. •� •�• � III�IINIIII 0 nnrnp! eau•q �•�I � ^uulr.w+ D==nl..•r■■■■■■ @//II\\�i\fN n \\IIIIIlIl1111U111I. luli'a= . .nm■nr. mIn111111r11N � nr n EE ��:: rnlrr♦... r ♦�f ■'mm_■�I�I/Al +� � �m■a r n■r/■■/ 1 r alb ��: � �. aia�a � I♦•ri3::C1 I �nnq�� 111li1ig11111111 o`lf --■w ��� nD�ul����4�� ��•• . •i��a W 1♦♦• r.'1 i=��/� ` in■rr rt�■ra■E��llnnuiu��ni■■ �'r'�u11�i�= i� a��i ii=►�ii♦�� aO�i�ia��ir7a � 1 ■■■: ♦ b•� ►f�►•� ■■ar. IaR f-.unrrw�=i�iC i ♦ D� 1 r•r ■ !�.► � ui I Iran • � u■ +a■�_ .. ♦ 1: !f: ■■■r■! In1ar11111111 IIIn1■r111�■ I■■w■ a- a p ■• ►!\■ �rr i� Z 1 a1 p r p� m■::���� Ihn �.: . �,0 �+emu■Ia C` h r a� m f r Imm�unn► ♦1ou v w r-�♦ ►♦\ y C.r ♦ �. ■= 1::1 C � n Eu ■r �■■.. a 1r��7��! *�urnr+ a � `� +� ■ �u■ulnrnulal Iin1n1■ ��� ��r.nor+■i:.. as arl r � iii ■■■I nlll J ��w-•• rn�%nn1O11■■■r1AN1111 1111111NNN1 �r""�ti'�.��r��• ��nnna11rO1n17 V .ar�aU nnn■rna»+-■•� our■ra■ z_,'►iun L��rnua n■uen r r/ �IOOr Flllnnl Ilrnr■nor■ �Inar O 1■1Y/ ■■rlrl■1■■. �� • r■f � ■ ■ r rr■ar�� 7■ ran�-■uune• I•■i1 11r r Ir1i •prrn �`iiiiii l:i■■iL :/•1- J ■■pa hra �.:�.vs a�unmq_° �■:f�1 a`ri N■i�ra 1 nn :• _ ■■nnlq r ::•rs♦ii nru11,=� :■■■ ■ / • ♦iy r = r+=- �11111 111 •uu M;■Iil fu ii� na■ •I r■r111■■kl •11' ■rr/■■ I♦1j1 i r. ♦i1 ■ _ .�---'rnlr.nqi�1■u�r. r mn ■ ►Y�►i♦rrar r rn♦f'l�larn ■arn■�Ir �♦is■111/ ■ :'r�-■ r•■■� I r■r���- arrluar 4 ■a• 1a ►m a■..♦a►1: nn■ A •r ■all ♦ a/�►�■11� 1 �rl� h n■ y►� ■ : p r� mrnn ■ . 4m �a�.o.... I• .Y n nor r i�, na � Ir nrl�a io■o■■a IN rRBI � � 1rn■■n ■ 1 irr+■nu ■o ifil�r n1■nrnm■iZ. o /illmuNl,�r —I+runnnunnr�aac: Ina a r��■arr nnu:awl .Pam..A �� unn naumn .\+■IO Illllklllll�11="'��■�Irm if� ■nn ■1 �:11111n1'• rrin■nu .1■ti ��■Y�I■ �0`. n. .ram••■mm unn■nn r.nr �■.��r rr■la ■-o ■:e ii= m ■ penal - ■ a. of• � �1 ■�� m mar.� �■�1 nna� CHERRY � ' Y�11 r::flot ■■=' • F+�RVI W ��� ■■ B. Subject Site Photos r. , C. Service Accessibility Report PARCEL R1471900090 SERVICE ACCESSIBILITY Overall Scare: 35 65th Percentile Description Locatlon In City Limits Extension Sewer Trunkshed mains a 500 ft.from parcel Floodplain Either not within the 100 yr floodplain or>2 acres Emergency Services Fire Response time a 5 min. Emergency Services police Meets response time goals most of the tlme Pathways Within 114 mile of current pathways Transit Not within 114 of current orfuture transit route Arterial Road Buildout Status Ultimate configuration(#of lanes in master streets plan)matches exlsting(#of lanes) School Walking Proximity From 112 to 1 mile walking YELLOW Either a High School or College within 2 miles OR a School Drivability Middle or Elementary School within 1 mile driving (existing or future) Either a Regional Parkwithin 1 mile OR a Community Park Walkability Park within 112 mile OR a Neighborhood Park within 114 mile walking Report generated on 07-29-2024 by MERIDIA%sallen City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ D. Aerial View of Property F. y f 1 rx P4 F r r City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ Ada County Assessor r ! Patio ! 154 Sf 230 ISO �. 380 First Floor 160 920 sf Second Floor 11.9 jarage 7 7 5 sf to 1 10. Io Porch , 102 sf 14� City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits 52 W IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for District at Ten Mile (H-2023-0071) by Ball Ventures Ahlquist, generally located at the northwest corner of S. Ten Mile Rd. and 1-84 Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2023-0071 A. Request: Future Land Use Map Amendment to amend the Future Land Use Map in the Comprehensive Plan to change the designations on portions of the subject property and adjacent properties, resulting in a net change in the area as follows: Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) (+9.26 acres), High Density Residential (HDR) (+2.66 acres), Mixed-Use Residential (MU-R) (-10.61 acres), Mixed-Use Commercial (MU-C) (+0.32 acre), Mixed Employment (ME) (-0.22 acre) and High Density Employment (HDE) (-1.40 acres) as requested by the Applicant and as recommended by Staff on adjacent properties if the Applicant's request is approved. B. Request: Modified Development Agreements to the existing Development Agreements (Vanguard Village (H-2021-0081) Inst .#2022-049799, Fedrizzi Ten Mile LLC (AZ-11-001) Inst. #112073618, SJJV LLC (AZ-11-001) Inst. #112073617, Janicek Properties LLC (AZ-11-001) Inst. #112073616, to consolidate them into one (1) new agreement, which will replace the previous agreements (or a portion thereof, as applicable) and include a conceptual development plan for the overall area. C. Request: Rezone of 7.48 acres of land from the C-C to the TN-C district, 12.96 acres from the WE and R-40 to the C-C district, 9.13 acres from the C-C to the WE district, 25.97 acres from the C-C and H-E to the C-G district, and 1.37 acres from the H-E to the M-E zoning district. D. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 38 building lots and one (1) common lot on 108.77 acres of land in the TN-C, C-C, C-G, WE and M-E zoning districts. 53 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: August 15, 2024 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 4 PROJECT NAME: The District at Ten Mile (H-2023-0071) Your Full Name (Please Print) Your Full Address Representing HOA? If yes, please provide HOA name I wish to testify (mark X if yes) 2 (kwVON '�3 2- N"�V`� � 3 der �d�a� ��F nee 0 Vol 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT C��fEPIDIAN*,­, DEPARTMENT REPORT HEARING 8/15/2024 DATE: _ TO: Planning&Zoning Commission FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner -------__ t; 208-884-5533 sallen@meridiancity.org APPLICANT: Ball Ventures Ahlquist SUBJECT: H-2023-0071 District at Ten Mile—CPAM,MDA, legend RZ,PP Project Location 0 Area of Impact LOCATION: Northwest corner of S. Ten Mile Rd. & = City Limits I-84 in Section 15,T.3N.,R.IW. C Analysis e I. PROJECT OVERVIEW A. Summary The Applicant has submitted applications for the following: • Amendment to the Future Land Use Map in the Comprehensive Plan(CPAM)to change the designations on portions of the subject property and adjacent properties,resulting in a net change in this area as follows: Medium High-Density Residential(MHDR) (+9.26- acres),High Density Residential(HDR) (+2.66-acres); Mixed Use-Residential(MU-R) (-10.61-acres),Mixed Use-Commercial(MU-C) (+0.32-acre),Mixed Employment (ME)(-0.22-acre), and High Density Employment(HDE)(-1.40-acres); • Modification to the existing Development Agreements (MDA)(Vanguard Village H- 2021-0081,Inst. #2022-049799; Fedrizzi Ten Mile LLC AZ-11-001, Inst. #112073618; SJJV LLC AZ-11-001, Inst. #112073617;Janicek Properties LLC AZ-11-001, Inst. #112073616)to consolidate them into one(1)new agreement,which will replace the previous agreements (or a portion thereof, as applicable for Vanguard Village), and include a conceptual development plan for the overall area; • Rezone(RZ) of 7.48-acres of land from the C-C to the TN-C district; 12.96-acres from the H-E and R-40 to the C-C district; 9.13-acres from the C-C to the H-E district;25.97- acres from the C-C and H-E to the C-G district; and 1.37-acres from the H-E to the M-E zoning district; and • Preliminary Plat(PP) consisting of 38 building lots and one (1)common lot on 108.77- acres of land in the TN-C, C-C, C-G,H-E and M-E zoning districts. B. Issues The proposed conceptual development plan,use area plan and intensity of development is not consistent with the development guidelines in the TMISAP for the proposed FLUM designations. City of Meridian I Department Report 1. Project Overview ■ Further,the TN-C zoning is not an appropriate zone for the proposed multi-family residential development(see analysis in Section III below for more information). C. Recommendation Staff. Staff is in support of the proposed plat but is not in support of the proposed MDA, CPAM and RZ applications as the proposed development plan doesn't meet the minimum development guidelines in the TMISAP and doesn't provide the mix of integrated uses desired in Mixed Use designated areas. If Council is of the opinion the proposed development plan is more appropriate for this area than envisioned in the adopted TMISAP, Staff recommends alternate FLUM designations and zoning are approved consistent with the proposed development plan, as follows: MHDR and R-15 zoning for the property in Area 1; and Commercial and C-G zoning in Areas 2 and 3, as shown in the second map in Section VII.0 below. Otherwise, Staff recommends denial of the proposed MDA, CPAM and RZ applications. D. Decision Pending II. COMMUNITY METRICS Table 1:Land Use Description Details Map Ref. Existing Land Use(s) Agricultural - Proposed Land Use(s) A variety of uses are proposed consisting of multi-family - residential(apartments&townhome style); commercial (large format/anchor and specialty retail,restaurants, entertainment,recreation,hospitality,childcare,office); and employment(medium to higher density office, commercial,recreation,medical and hospitality uses). (See Use Area Plan in Section V.H) Existing/Proposed Zoning Existing:H-E(High-density Employment),C-C VII.A.2 (Community Business),TN-C(Traditional Neighborhood Center) Proposed:TN-C(33.42-acres),C-C(59.1I-acres),C-G (General Retail and Service Commercial)(25.97-acres), M-E(Mixed Employment)(10.19-acres)and H-E(34.82- acres) Id Existing/Proposed Future Land Use Existing:MHDR(Medium-high Density Residential),MU- VILA.3 Designation Res(Mixed Use—Residential),Mixed Use—Commercial (MU-Com),HDE(High-density Employment) Proposed:MHDR(on adjacent property only),MU-Res, MU-Com,HDE Table 2: Process Facts Description Details Preapplication Meeting date Tuesday,November 21,2023 — Neighborhood Meeting 12/4/2023 Site posting date 8/5/2024 i Table 3: Community Metrics Agency/Element Description/Issue Reference Ada County Highway District • Comments Received No City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics ■ • Commission Action Required No • Access S.Ten Mile Rd.,arterial street • Traffic Level of Service F Traffic Impact Study(Y/N) No(ACHD didn't require one;ITD is requesting one) ITD Comments Received Yes—ITD requests a Traffic Impact Study for this development as impacts to the State Highway System are anticipated due to the type and proximity of the development. Meridian Fire Distance to Station:2.1 miles to Station#2;Response Time: 3 minutes Meridian Police Distance to Station: 5.9 miles;Response Time:4:13 minutes Meridian Public Works Wastewater Distance to Mainline: Sewer is in S.Ten Mile Rd. and stubbed to this property—it's in the process of being extended to the west in S.Vanguard Way to serve this site; Impacts or Concerns: See Public Works comments Meridian Public Works Water Distance to Mainline: Water is in S. Ten Mile Rd. and stubbed to this property—it's in the process of being extended to the west in S.Vanguard Way to serve this site (pressure zone 2);Impacts or Concerns: See Public Works comments See City/Agency Comments and Conditions Section for all department/agency and the public record for comments received on this application. City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics ■ Figure 1: One-Mile Radius Existing Condition Metrics Reference Parcel:S1215131401 Date Retrieved:2024/8 16 Parcel Count Parcel Acreage Infill Indicator: 136 709 Surrounding Area 34% Not city ® City Limits 1,429 ■ Not City � aa� Household Change Household& Population Growth • Households 02020 Population Change:34.5% Population ■Growth (Household and Population Change since 2010 Decennial) 5,000 10,000 15,000 Use Types Residential Addresses All Addresses ■ Single-family 72% 69% 4g� Multi-family za r� ® Commercial Preliminary Plats(last 5-years) Conditional Use Permit(last 5-years) Proposed Proposed Pending Pending Approved Approved 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 Single-family ❑ Multi-family 2.00 - 1,000 Single-family H 2 1.50 N Residential b Parcel Diversity H 1.00 500 U 0Parcel Count in 0.50 m +' 0 a •Ave rage Acres 0.00 0:00 0'14 0.10 0 R-2 R-4 R-8 R-15 Average Single-family Density by Zoning Average 15.00 mResidential NetDensity10.00 10.04 0 5.00 07.30 8.20 0.00 ----q0.39-----qa:aa Dwelling Units / Acre R-2 R-4 R-8 R-15 City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics ■ Figure 2: Service Impact Summary Ready a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Caution O O oaaL0 fir° 5�ro Qa III. STAFF ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code (UDC) A. History This overall property consists of several parcels of previously annexed land governed by five(5) different Development Agreements (DA) (i.e. The 10 at Meridian;Vanguard Village; Fedrizzi Ten Mile,LLC;Janicek Properties Ten Mile; and SJJV,LLC). The southwest portion of this site (Parcel#1215427850)was included in the Vanguard Village preliminary plat;the final plat is currently in process.Links to these agreements are provided below in Table 4. The existing DA's for Fedrizzi, Janicek and SJJV do not include a conceptual development plan but do include provisions for future development of the property and restrictions on certain uses. Prior to development,an amendment to these agreements is required to include a conceptual development plan that demonstrates compliance with the TMISAP. The DA for Vanguard Village includes a conceptual development plan, shown in Section VI.F below, and provisions for future development of the property consistent with the TMISAP; an amendment to the DA was recently approved but has not yet been recorded.Note: The amended DA does not affect the subject property. The concept plan included in the DA for The 10 at Meridian,the adjacent property to the north, did not include a development plan for the property at the northeast corner of this site that was previously part of that development. Table 4: Project Overview Description Details History AZ-09-008 (Meridian Crossing—Ord.#10-1467;DA Inst.#110115738); AZ-11-001 [Ten Mile Annexation—Ord.#12-1520(Fedrizzi Ten Mile LLC—DA Inst.#112073618,Janicek Properties Ten Mile—DA Inst. #112073616,SJJV,LLC—DA Inst.#112073617)];H-2021-0025 (The 10 at Meridian—Ord.#21-1948,DA Inst.#2021-132704);H-2021-0081 [Vanguard Village—RZ,PP,CUP,MDA Inst.#2022-049799(replaced previous DA#110115738);H-2023-0072(Vanguard Village—MDA not yet recorded);FP-2024-0012(Vanguard Village FP,PS—currently in process) Phasing Plan 1 Physical Features The Purdam Gulch Drain crosses this site. The Williams Northwest gas pipeline crosses the southwest portion of this site that's part of the — Vanguard Village plat. Acreage 108.77-acres(preliminary plat); 163.67-acres(DA boundary) Lots 38 building lots; 1 common lot City of Meridian Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ B. General Overview Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment: This property is within the area governed by the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan (TMISAP),which is part of the City's Comprehensive Plan. An amendment to the Future Land Use Map(FLUM) in the Plan is proposed to change the land use designations on portions of the subject property and adjacent abutting property and right-of-way,resulting in a net change in this area as follows: (see FLUMMap-Adopted vs. Proposed in Section VT C below) Net Land Use Change Total Change Med-High Density Residential 9.25 High Density Residential 2.65 M if-Res 1.51 MU-Com (11.80) Mixed Employment (0.22) High Density Employment (1.40) Total (0.00L The map amendment includes some"clean-up"changes recommended by Staff on the abutting property to the west(Endurance Holdings—Parcel#S1215244200,zoned R-15 and mostly designated MHDR); and the right-of-way for W. Cobalt Dr. along the northern boundary of the site adjacent to Outer Banks Subdivision(zoned C-C and designated MU-Res)based on the existing multi-family entitlements on those parcels and the Applicant's proposed amendment(see pink/white dashed line area on the exhibit in Section V.0 below). Without including the proposed clean-up changes on adjacent properties,the changes to this property are as follows: -2.8-acres of MHDR,no change to HDR,+2.3-acres of ME,+3.74-acres of MU-Com, and no change to HDE. In summary,most of the Applicant's proposed changes are just a reconfiguration of existing FLUM designations and not significant changes. Development Agreement Modification: A new Development Agreement(DA)is proposed to consolidate and replace all of the existing DA's(i.e.Vanguard Village H-2021-0081, Inst. #2022-049799; Fedrizzi Ten Mile LLC AZ-11- 001,Inst. #112073618; SJJV LLC AZ-11-001, Inst. #112073617;Janicek Properties LLC AZ-11- 001,Inst. #112073616)on the subject property. A new conceptual development plan is proposed for the overall area as shown in Section V.G below; the existing conceptual development plan for Vanguard Village is included in Section V.F below—changes are proposed to that plan. The other DA's do not include conceptual development plans and require modifications to the agreements to include one prior to development. A phasing plan is not proposed for the overall development plan.As this is critical in understanding timing for infrastructure improvements, Staff recommends one is submitted prior to the City Council hearing. Rezone: A rezone of 7.48-acres of land is proposed from the C-C to the TN-C district, 12.96-acres from the H-E and R-40 to the C-C district,9.13-acres from the C-C to the H-E district,25.97-acres from the C-C and H-E to the C-G district, and 1.37-acres from the H-E to the M-E zoning district. With the proposed rezone,a significant amount(i.e. 21+/-acres) of the H-E zoned area will be lost and replaced with C-C and C-G zoning,which will likely further decrease the amount and intensity of employment uses in this area because a wider range of uses are allowed in the C-C and C-G districts than the H-E district(i.e. allowed uses in the H-E zone consist of corporate headquarters, office complexes,research and development facilities and complementary services such as conference centers and hospitality use with limited retail; allowed uses in the C-C district are larger scale and broader mix of retail, office and service uses; allowed uses in the C-G district are the largest scale and broadest mix of retail,office, service and light industrial uses). This will result in less employment uses (i.e. family wage jobs) in this area than anticipated,which is a key component of the TMISAP. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ Note: If Council approves an amendment to the FLUM for the proposed development plan and Staffs recommended associated"clean-up"items, a rezone from H-E to M-E (on the southern portion of the site) and C-C to R-40 (Cobalt right-of-way) should also be approved. Preliminary Plat: A preliminary plat is proposed consisting of 38 building lots and one(1)common lot on 108.77- acres of land in the TN-C, C-C, C-G,H-E and M-E zoning districts. The plat does not include the Vanguard Village property. The plat is proposed to be developed in one(1) final plat phase. Staff recommends the subject property is subdivided prior to issuance of any Certificates of Occupancies within the development.Permanent addresses cannot be assigned until Ada County has approved street names. C. Site Development and Use Analysis 1. Existing Structures/Site Improvements (UDC 11-1): There are no existing structures on this site; infrastructure improvements are currently being constructed. 2. Proposed Use Analysis (UDC 11-2): A Use Area Plan was submitted with this application and included below in Section VI.H. The Plan depicts three (3)different areas; however,the boundaries of these areas do not coincide with the proposed FLUM designation boundaries,which makes determining consistency with the FLUM designations difficult. These areas are as follows: • Area 1)accommodates a mix of multi-family residential such as townhomes and multi- family. This area is mostly designated MU-Com with MU-Res and a small amount of MHDR and zoned mostly TN-C with some C-C. The map amendment proposes a MU-Res land use designation with TN-C zoning for the entire area. The Applicant states a gross density of 8 to 12 units/acre based on 268 to 402 residential units on 33.42-acres of land is proposed,consistent with the density range desired in the MU-R designation. A diversity of compatible land uses is encouraged in MU-Res areas,which may include a mix of residential,office,retail,recreational, employment and other miscellaneous uses. While the focus is on residential uses,the horizontal and vertical integration of retail,office and employment uses is essential.This designation requires developments to integrate the three(3) major use categories—residential, commercial and employment. Live-work units are strongly encouraged as are a variety of other housing types. Office, employment and commercial uses are generally small in scale and focused on neighborhood services within the MU-Res area. Traditional neighborhood design concepts—higher density buildings close to the street, easy pedestrian access,narrower streets to slow traffic,parking lots behind or under buildings, and residences with porches or balconies facing the street—are essential. The mix of uses should allow for a diversity of housing with for-sale and rental properties and may be achieved horizontally throughout the site;however,vertical mixes within buildings are highly encouraged. The goal to achieve in these areas is a floor area ratio(FAR) of 0.75 or more.No more than 40%of land area within MU-Res areas should be utilized for non- residential uses.An overall target density of 8 to 12 dwelling units per acre is desired with higher densities allowed on individual projects. The purpose of the TN-C district is to serve as the focal point of a neighborhood center, containing retail,commercial, and community services to meet the daily City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ needs of community residents within a one-to two-mile radius.It's pedestrian oriented and is designed to encourage pedestrian connection with a traditional neighborhood residential district.Uses in the TN-C district includes small-scale retail, restaurants,recreational,personal services,public or quasi-public uses, churches, and attached and multi-family dwellings. The allowed uses for the TN-C zoning district are listed in UDC Table 11-2D-2; the proposed uses(i.e. multi-family and townhouses)are principally permitted in the TN-C district. The standards for the TN-C district are listed in UDC 11-2D-5,as follows: maximum building height is 45-feet(additional height may be allowed as noted in UDC 11-2D-3B);minimum number of stories for new construction adjacent to any street is two (2); maximum building footprint is 20,000 square feet,however, other than retail, all other uses may be allowed a footprint of greater than 20,000 square feet through the conditional use permit process; and minimum contiguous district size is 6-acres, or 2- acres when adjacent to property with a mixed-use future land use designation. Only residential uses are proposed in the requested MU-Res FLUM designation and TN-C zoning district—the"mixed-use"component of the designation and TN-C district is entirely missing.Only one of the three major use categories are proposed (i.e.residential)—no retail, office or employment uses are proposed as required, which are essential in MU-Res designated areas.The proposed MU-Res designation and TN-C zoning is not consistent with the proposed development plan or the intended plan for this area as the required mix of integrated uses is not provided. • Area 2)accommodates predominantly commercial mixed uses, including large format/anchor and specialty retail, casual and fine dining, entertainment,recreation, hospitality,childcare and office uses. This area is currently designated mostly MU-Res and MU-Com with a small amount of HDE;the zoning is mostly C-C with some H-E and M-E. The map amendment proposes MU-Com and HDE land use designations with C-C,H-E, C-G and M-E zoning with the majority being C-C. The MU-Com designation encourages the development of a mix of office,retail, recreational, employment(i.e. family-wage jobs) and other miscellaneous uses with supporting multi-family or single-family attached residential uses. While the focus of these areas is on commercial and employment uses,the horizontal and vertical integration of residential uses is essential to securing entitlements.As with all mixed-use areas,this designation requires development to irate,-rate the three(3) major use categories—residential, commercial and employment.In MU-Com areas, three (3)or more significant uses also tend to be larger scale projects. This designation is intended to provide flexibility and encourage developers to build innovative projects. Traditional neighborhood design concepts with a strong pedestrian-oriented focus are essential. The goal to achieve in these areas is a FAR of 1.00-1.25 or more. Development should exhibit quality building and site design and an attractive street character. The mix of residential uses may be achieved vertically within buildings; however, some horizontal mixes may be allowed. This designation calls for an overall target density of 8 to 12 units per acre with higher densities allowed on individual projects.No more than 30%of the ground level development within the MU-Com designation should be used for residences. HDE areas are recommended as predominantly office,research and specialized employment areas; and generally do not include retail and consumer service uses serving the wider community. Limited retail and service establishments primarily serving employees and users of the HDE area are encouraged. These areas should provide a variety of flexible sites for small,local or start-up businesses, as well as sites for large City of Meridian I Department Report 111. Staff Analysis ■ national or regional enterprises. They should be designed to encourage multi-modal travel and convenient circulation to supporting services located within the area. Whenever possible,HDE areas should provide restaurants, lodging and other services in support of the employment uses and be designed as compact urban centers rather than lower density suburban-style development. It's anticipated that buildings will range in height from 1 to 6 stories,have total floor areas of 10,000 to 1,000,000 square feet,and that the FAR will exceed 1.0. Designs that promote open space and parks are strongly encouraged. Structured parking is also allowed. Land use types desired in HDE areas are corporate, business and professional offices;research facilities and laboratories; and complementary uses primarily serving district employees and users, such as business services, conference centers, child care,restaurants, convenience retail, and hotels and motels. Per UDC Table 11-2B-1,allowed uses in the C-C district are larger scale and a broader mix of retail, office and service uses located with access to arterials or non-residential collectors; allowed uses in the C-G district are the largest scale and broadest mix of retail, office, service and light industrial uses in close proximity and/or access to interstate or arterial intersections; allowed uses in the M-E district are offices,medical centers, research and development facilities, and light industrial uses with ancillary support services with access to arterial or collector; and allowed uses in the H-E district are corporate headquarters, office complexes,research and development facilities and complementary services such as conference centers and hospitality use with limited retail in close proximity to Federal and State highway interchanges and major arterials. The allowed uses for the C-C, C-G,M-E and H-E zoning district are listed in UDC Table 11- 2E-2;the dimensional standards are listed in UDC Table 11-2B-3. The Applicant submitted a plan shown below that depicts building square footages for the 76.15-acre HDE area totaling 533,450 s.f. resulting in a floor area ratio(FAR)of 0.16 and for the 64.21-acre MU-Com area totaling 489,640 s.f. resulting in a FAR of 0.18, which is significantly below the goal of 1.00-1.25 or more in the MU-Com area and exceeding 1.0 in the HDE area. Development in these areas needs to be much more intense in the MU-Com and HDE designated areas and designed as compact urban centers rather than lower density suburban-style development in order to be consistent with the Plan. SF 75,700 SF n I \ \ \ 26,250 SF 8,000 SF \ ^21/,850 SF ^ I \ \ � `/ 15,860 SF \ \ MU-RES 2400�F 4,25osF V 13,5oosF 4.50osF' "'•5''05F LJ � ziroosr MU—COM I� \ 6,875 SF \ \ ^ 3, 0 SF Z \ \ 7,5°°SF 4.275 SF m W.VILLAGGIO WAY n600 SF 10,950 SF 3 118,1 OSISF 9,17 SF uwa�wuw 10,300 SF 9,450 SF A u 10,000 SF 45,450 SF z5,000 SF 30.750 SF D w 7,500 SF 7,000 Sr 20,250 SF 25,000 SF 26,800 SF 147,750 SF uu C 19,000 SF nDC 24,2005E —- W.NAVIGATOR WAY 148, SF 57,100 SF ` 14,000 SF 20,500 SF 19,000 SF 23,800 SF 1 1NTERSTgTE Bq City of Meridian Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ Although a mix of commercial uses are proposed,only one of the three major use categories is provided(i.e. commercial)—no major employment uses are proposed as required in either the MU-Com or the HDE areas and integrated residential uses are not proposed in the MU-Com area,which are essential.The proposed MU-Com and HDE designations are not consistent with the proposed development plan or the intended plan for this area as the required mix of uses is not provided—significant changes to the concept plan and use area plan would be needed in order to be consistent. • Area 3)accommodates medium to higher-density office, commercial,recreation,medical and hospitality uses. This area is currently designated MU-Corn and HDE with C-C,M-E and H-E zoning. The Applicant proposes a reconfiguration of the MU-Corn and HDE areas and a rezone to reconfigure the boundaries of the C-C,H-E and M-E districts accordingly and add C-G zoning. The Applicant also proposes to change a"sliver"of the HDE area along the west boundary in Areas 2 and 3 of the Use Area Plan to ME and rezone from H-E to M-E for the southern portion of that area to match that of the abutting property to the west and to align with the future lot line. The ME area will be developed by Adler Industrial separate from this development. See above for information on MU-Corn and HDE designated areas and associated analysis. As noted above,the FAR's in the MU-Com and HDE areas are significantly below the established goals in the Plan.Although commercial and employment uses are proposed from the three(3)major use categories,integration of residential uses is not proposed as desired. Office and other employment uses need to be of a much higher intensity in this area in order to be consistent with the MU-Com and especially the HDE designation and designed as compact urban centers rather than lower density suburban-style development Recreation uses are not desired in HDE designated areas. In 2022,Planning Staff prepared a Land Use Analysis for the Mayor& Council related to alignment of development approvals within the Ten Mile Area in relation to the TMISAP itself.The Plan was adopted in 2007 and encompasses 2,200 acres; this area was planned foremost to serve as an employment area with supporting residential uses to balance transportation impacts and to provide for unique lifestyle opportunities.The Plan is envisioned by land use area(acres)to be approximately 48% non-residential and 52% residential. The analysis at that time reflected 27% non-residential and 73% residential; additional approvals since that time are referenced in Section VII.A.S,there have been no updates to this analysis.Much more and a higher density of employment uses are needed in this area to provide jobs for area residents and balance transportation impacts. In summary, Staff is not in support of the proposed map amendment and associated rezone based on the conceptual development plan proposed as it doesn't meet the minimum development guidelines in the TMISAP nor does it provide the mix of integrated uses desired in Mixed Use designated areas or the intensity and/or types of uses desired in the MU-Com and HDE designated areas. If Council is of the opinion the proposed development plan is more appropriate for this area than that envisioned in the adopted TMISAP,Staff suggests alternate FLUM designations and zoning are approved consistent with the proposed development plan, as follows: MHDR and R-15 zoning for the property in Area 1; and Commercial and C- G zoning in Areas 2 and 3 (see second adopted vs.proposed FLUM exhibit in Section VII.C). City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ Note: The City Council previously approved an alternate FLUM designation of Commercial for the Ten Mile Crossing development across Ten Mile Rd. to the east that deviated from the TMISAP. 3. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): See UDC Table 11-2B-3 for the dimensional standards of the C-C, C-G,M-E and H-E zoning districts; and UDC 11-2D-5 for the TN-C district. 4. Specific Use Standards (UDC 11-4-3): The future multi-family development must comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-4-3- 27. Other uses as noted in the applicable Allowed Use table may require compliance with specific use standards. D. Design Standards Analysis 1. Existing structure and Site Design Standards (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-19): Future development should comply with the structure and site design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19;review for compliance with these standards will take place with future development applications. Comprehensive Plan Policy#3.07.01A-"Require all new development to create a site design compatible with surrounding uses through buffering, screening, transitional densities, and other best site design practices." 2. Qualified Open Space &Amenities (Comp Plan, UDC 11-4-3-27): The future multi-family development should comply with the open space and site amenity standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-27C, D. Review for compliance with these standards will take place with the Conditional Use Permit and/or Certificate of Zoning Compliance application for such,as applicable. An open space exhibit was submitted as shown in Section VII.L. Comprehensive Plan Policy#2.02.01E—"Encourage the development of high quality, dense residential and mixed-use areas near in and around Downtown, near employment, large shopping centers,public open spaces and parks, and along major transportation corridors, as shown on the Future Land Use Map." 3. Landscaping (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3B): Comprehensive Plan Policy#5.01.02D—"Require appropriate building design, and landscaping elements to buffer, screen, beautify, and integrate commercial, multifamily, and parking lots into existing neighborhoods." i. Landscape buffers along streets A 35-foot wide street buffer is required along S. Ten Mile Rd.,an entryway corridor and arterial street; 20-foot wide street buffers are required along all collector streets(i.e. W. Cobalt Dr.,W. Villagio Way/Grand Mogul, S.Umbria Hills Ave., S.Navigator Dr., and the off-site S. Sunset Point Way); and a 50-foot wide street buffer is required along 1-84. Landscaping is required within the street buffers in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C.Additional landscape design features are required along entryway corridors(i.e. S. Ten Mile Rd.). Street buffer landscaping is required to be provided with the subdivision improvements. ii. Parking lot landscaping Internal parking lot landscaping is required in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8C. City of Meridian I Department Report 11I. Staff Analysis ■ iii. Landscape buffers to adjoining uses The C-C, C-G and H-E zoning districts require a 25-foot wide buffer to be provided to residential uses; landscaping and sometimes fencing(if the use can't be adequately buffered by landscaping) is required within the buffers in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-9C. iv. Tree preservation Existing trees 4-inch caliper or greater that are removed from the site during development may require mitigation(see UDC 11-3B-10 for more information). v. Storm integration Stormwater integration is required in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-I I C. vi. Pathway landscaping Landscaping is required along all pathways in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C. 4. Parking (UDC 11-3C): Off-street parking is required to be provided with all development in accord with UDC standards. i. Residential parking analysis Off-street parking is required to be provided for the multi-family development in accord with the standards for such listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6.Note: Townhomes are considered multi family when not on individual lots. ii. Nonresidential parking analysis Off-street parking is required to be provided for non-residential uses in the commercial and traditional neighborhood districts in accord with the standards listed in UDC I1-3C- 6B. iii. Bicycle parking analysis A minimum of one(1)bicycle parking is required to be provided for every 25 proposed vehicle parking spaces or portion thereof, except for single-family residences, duplexes and townhouses per UDC 11-3C-6G. Bicycle parking facilities should comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C. 5. Building Elevations (Comp Plan, Architectural Standards Manual): Comprehensive Plan Policy#5.01.02—"Support beautiful and high-quality development that reinforces neighborhood character and sustainability." Typically,all building elevations should comply with the design guidelines in the TMISAP (see Application of Design Elements table on pg. 3-49) and the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. However,the Applicant requests that these guidelines and standards not apply to this development and instead proposes alternate design standards and a design review process of their own for the proposed development as part of the development agreement. The proposed project design standards incorporate site development and architectural design standards. The intent of which, as stated in the document, is to establish a set of criteria and procedures that will be used to implement The District at Ten Mile's land use policies to ensure economic viability and a high-quality standard of development that encourages flexibility, innovation, creativity and design elements within the overall development. These standards are proposed to supersede the design guidelines in the TMISAP. City of Meridian I Department Report 111. Staff Analysis ■ The document proposes to create an overlay district and applies to all development within The District. Prior to submission of a Certificate of Zoning Compliance(CZC) application to the City,a Design Review application will be submitted to the Master Developer for review to ensure compliance with the Site Development and Design Standards. Once approval is granted,the application will then be submitted to The District at Ten Mile Architectural Review Committee(TDARC) for review and approval. Following both approvals,the CZC application can then be submitted to the City without further design approvals from the City. While all of the proposed design standards may not expressly align with the guidelines in the TMISAP,they appear to generally follow the guidelines and should ensure a high quality of development. These standards may not allow deviations to UDC standards. Note: The City Council previously approved alternate design standards to those in the ASM and the guidelines in the TMISAP for the Ten Mile Crossing development across Ten Mile Rd. to the east. The proposed design standards and process is similar to those. 6. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): All/any fencing proposed on the site should comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-6 for fencing along waterways and 11-3A-7. 7. Parkways (UDC 11-3A-17): All parkways should comply with the standards for such listed in UDC 11-3A-17. E. Transportation Analysis A Traffic Impact Study(TIS)was not submitted for this development as ACHD did not require one. ITD is requesting a TIS for this development as impacts to the State Highway System are anticipated due to the type and proximity of the development. Collector streets are required to be constructed with development in accord with ACHD's Master Street Map(MSM). The preliminary plat depicts the extension of Villagio/Grand Mogul from S. Ten Mile Rd.to the west boundary of the subdivision,the extension of W. Cobalt Dr. to S. Umbria Hills Ave.,the extension of Umbria Hills south to Villagio/Grand Mogul,and the extension of W.Navigator Dr. to the west boundary of the site in accord with the MSM. The Street Section Map in the TMISAP requires Vanguard/Villagio from Ten Mile to the roundabout to be constructed in accord with Street Section B as a typical 4-lane parkway and west of the roundabout with Street Section C as a major collector street; Cobalt with Street Section D as a residential collector street; Umbria Hills with Street Section E as a minor collector street—because diagonal parking isn't appropriate for this section, Staff instead recommends this street is constructed as a residential collector in accord with Street Section D; and Navigator with Street Section C as a major collector street in accord with the following diagrams,unless otherwise required by ACHD: B �' rr it 1it yr TI o.nm.xumm City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ C ►a it �r b e PArmi L"? 04RI LWIe e — La� # {urbto-arrbdstan€e g. E• Parlog Lue 9 lane halting , 4b-m•mrd drsunte Ursa i Puking roe S. Lane Parking i r O&-NKurb dh[aFa r Note:Street Section "E"is included for reference but not recommended to be constructed. Collector streets should be designed in accord with the street sections shown above as depicted on the Street Section Map in the TMISAP unless otherwise approved by ACHD with the exceptions of 10-foot wide detached sidewalks/pathways in lieu of on-street bike lanes for public safety and the provision of on-street parking in areas not indicated for such where buildings are close to the street and parking is warranted. 1. Access (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-3, UDC 11-3H-4): Access is proposed via the extension of S.Umbria Hills Way from the north boundary; and the extension of W. Cobalt Dr., S.Vanguard Way/Villagio and W.Navigator Dr. from the east boundary of the site, all collector streets. Comprehensive Plan Policy#6.01.02B— "Reduce the number of existing access points onto arterial streets by using methods such as cross-access agreements, access management, and frontage/backage roads, and promoting local and collector street connectivity." City of Meridian I Department Report 11I. Staff Analysis ■ 2. Multiuse Pathways (UDC 11-3A-5): Multi-use pathways are required to be provided with development in accord with the Pathways Master Plan. Per the plan,a 10-foot wide multi-use pathway is required along the Purdam Drain(or drain alignment) and should connect to the existing pathway in Baraya Subdivision to the north;within the street buffer along the east/west collector street(i.e. Villagio/Grand Mogul); and within the street buffer along I-84. A 14-foot wide public use easement is required for the multi-use pathways required by the Pathways Master Plan where they lie outside of public right-of-way and should be submitted to the Planning Division and recorded prior to City Engineer signature on the final plat. The easement and recorded instrument number should be depicted on the plat. 3. Pathways (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-8): All pathways should be constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-8. A mobility plan was submitted as shown in Section VII.M below showing vehicular, pedestrian,bicycle and service drives that demonstrate good connectivity throughout the site. 4. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17): All sidewalks should be constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17. Staff recommends as a DA provision requiring 10-foot wide detached sidewalks/pathways to be provided along all internal collector streets and those abutting this site(i.e. along the west boundary)in lieu of on-street bike lanes for public safety. 5. Private Streets (UDC 11-3F--4): All private streets constructed within the subdivision should comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3F-4. A separate application is required to be submitted for approval of private streets and should be submitted concurrently with the final plat application. 6. Subdivision Regulations (UDC 11-6): Compliance with the subdivision design and improvements standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3 is required. F. Services Analysis See Service Accessibility Report in Section VILB below. 1. Waterways (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-6): All waterways, except natural waterways, are required to be piped unless used as a water amenity or linear open space, in which case they may be left open as set forth in UDC 11-3A- 6. The Purdam Gulch Drain bisects this site and lies within an 85-foot wide easement and is proposed to be piped with development. A private drain exists along the west side of the property as depicted on the plat and should be piped with development. 2. Pressurized Irrigation (UDC 11-3A-15): Underground pressurized irrigation water is required to be provided in each development as set forth in UDC 11-3A-15. 3. Storm Drainage (UDC 11-3A-18): An adequate storm drainage system is required in accord with the adopted standards, specifications and ordinances; design and construction shall follow Best Management Practice as adopted by the City per UDC 11-3A-18. 4. Utilities (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-21): All utilities for the proposed development are required to be installed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-21. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ Water service will be provided to this property via extension of main lines in Ten Mile Rd.; main lines are required to be extended to and through the subject property with development. The developer should coordinate main size and routing with the Public Works Dept. and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service. Sanitary sewer service will be provided via extension of main lines located near the Purdam Drain on the northeast side of the subject property; main lines are required to be extended to and through the subject property with development. The developer should coordinate main size and routing with the Public Works Dept. and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service. IV. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS Staff recommends approval of the PP application but is not in support of the proposed MDA, CPAM and RZ due to the proposed development plan not being consistent with the minimum development guidelines in the TMISAP for the proposed FLUM designations as discussed above in Section III. If City Council is in favor of the proposed development plan, Staff suggests changes to the FLUM and associated zoning to coincide with the proposed plan(i.e. Area 1 —MHDR FLUM designation with R-15 zoning; Areas 2&3 —Commercial FLUM designation with C-G zoning)and the following development agreement provisions and conditions of approval: If Council is not in favor of the proposed development plan, Staff recommends denial of the MDA, CPAM and RZ applications and striking the following DA provisions and conditions. A. Meridian Planning Division 1. A new Development Agreement(DA) shall be required as a provision of the MDA and RZ applications. The previous DA's [i.e. Fedrizzi Ten Mile LLC(Inst. #112073618),Janicek Properties Ten Mile (Inst. #112073616), SJJV,LLC(Inst. #112073617),The 10 at Meridian (DA Inst. #2021-132704);Vanguard Village (Inst. #2022-049799] shall no longer be in effect for the subject property. Prior to approval of the rezone ordinance, a DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian,the property owner at the time of rezone ordinance adoption, and the developer. A final plat application shall not be submitted until the rezone is finalized. The DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning Division within six(6)months of the date of City Council approval of the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decision &Order for the Rezone and DA amendment request. The new DA shall incorporate the following provisions: i. Future development of the subject property shall be generally consistent with the conceptual development plan,use area plan,mobility plan,preliminary plat and landscape plan included below in Section VI and the standards in the Unified Development Code(UDC). ii. Future development of Area 1, as depicted on the Use Area Plan in Section VI.H, shall be consistent with the development guidelines of the Medium High Density Residential Future Land Use Map designation in the TMISAP. iii. Future development of Areas 2 and 3, as depicted on the Use Area Plan in Section VI.H, shall be consistent with the Commercial Future Land Use Map designation in the Comprehensive Plan. iv. Future development shall be consistent with the Project Design Standards submitted by the Applicant and approved with this application, included herein. These standards shall supersede the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual and the design guidelines in the TMISAP. These standards shall not allow deviations to UDC standards. City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments & Conditions ■ v. A collector roadway system shall be constructed on the subject property in accord with Ada County Highway District's Master Street Map and in accord with Street Section Map in the TMISAP as recommended by Staff, as follows: Villagio/Grand Mogul shall be constructed from Ten Mile to the roundabout in accord with Street Section B as a typical 4-lane parkway and west of the roundabout with Street Section C as a major collector street; Cobalt and Umbria Hills shall be constructed in accord with Street Section D as a residential collector street; and Navigator shall be constructed in accord with Street Section C as a major collector street in accord with the associated diagrams in the TMISAP,with the exception that 10-foot wide detached sidewalks/pathways shall be required in lieu of on-street bike lanes and on-street parking may be provided in areas not indicated for such where buildings are close to the street and parking is warranted,unless otherwise approved by ACHD. vi. The subject property shall be subdivided prior to issuance of any Certificates of Occupancies within the development. vii. A 10-foot wide multi-use pathway shall be constructed along the Purdam Drain(or drain alignment) in accord with the Pathways Master Plan and shall connect to the existing pathway to the north in Baraya Subdivision. A 14-foot wide public pedestrian easement shall be submitted to the Planning Division for the pathway. viii.Ten(IO)foot wide detached sidewalk/pathway shall be constructed along both sides of all collector streets(i.e.W. Cobalt Dr., S. Umbria Hills Ave.,W. Villagio Way/Grand Mogul, S.Navigator Dr. and the off-site S. Sunset Point Way)within the site and adjacent to the west boundary of the site in lieu of on-street bike lanes; and within the street buffer along I-84.A public use easement shall be submitted to the City for any portion of the sidewalks/pathways that lie outside of the public right-of-way. 2. The final plat shall include the following revisions: i. Depict a 35-foot wide street buffer along S. Ten Mile Rd., an entryway corridor; 20-foot wide street buffers along all collector streets(i.e. W. Cobalt Dr.,W.Villagio Way/Grand Mogul, S. Umbria Hills Ave., S.Navigator Dr., and the off-site S. Sunset Point Way); and a 50-foot wide buffer along 1-84 in common lots or on a permanent dedicated buffer easement,maintained by the property owner,homeowner's association or business owner's association. ii. Depict street sections in accord with the Street Section Map in the TMISAP as required in the development agreement. iii. Depict 10-foot wide detached sidewalks/pathways along both sides of all collector streets (i.e. W. Cobalt Dr., S. Umbria Hills Ave.,W. Villagio Way/Grand Mogul, S.Navigator Dr., and S. Sunset Point Way)and within the street buffer along 1-84. iv. Depict public pedestrian easements for any portion of the detached sidewalks/multi-use pathways along the collector streets that are outside the public right-of-way and recorded instrument numbers of the easement where a separate easement is required by the Park's Dept. 3. The landscape plan shall include the following revisions: i. Depict a 35-foot wide street buffer along S. Ten Mile Rd., an entryway corridor; 20-foot wide street buffers along all collector streets(i.e. W. Cobalt Dr.,W.Villagio Way/Grand City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments & Conditions ■ Mogul, S. Umbria Hills Ave., S.Navigator Dr., and the off-site S. Sunset Point Way); and a 50-foot wide buffer along I-84. ii. Depict landscaping within all street buffers in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-313-7C. Additional landscape design features are required along entryway corridors (i.e. S. Ten Mile Rd.). iii. Depict 10-foot wide detached sidewalks/pathways along both sides of all collector streets (i.e. W. Cobalt Dr., S.Umbria Hills Ave.,W.Villagio Way/Grand Mogul, S.Navigator Dr. and S. Sunset Point Way) and within the street buffer along I-84. iv. Depict landscaping along all pathways in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B- 12C. 4. Prior to submittal of the final plat for City Engineer signature, a 14-foot wide public pedestrian easement shall be submitted to the Planning Division,approved by City Council and recorded for the multi-use pathway along the Purdam Drain(or drain alignment)and any other pathways required by the Park's Department in accord with the Pathways Master Plan that are outside of public right-of-way. 5. All private streets constructed within the subdivision shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3F-4. A separate application is required to be submitted for approval of private streets and should be submitted concurrently with the final plat application. 6. All waterways, except natural waterways, are required to be piped unless used as a water amenity or linear open space, in which case they may be left open as set forth in UDC 11-3A- 6. 7. Permanent addresses cannot be assigned until Ada County has approved the proposed street names. Other Agency comments may be accessed in the project ale included in the public record. V. FINDINGS A. Rezone(UDC 11-511-3E) Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Stafffands the alternate map amendment, as suggested by Staff if Council deems the proposed development plan appropriate, complies with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Stafffands the alternate map amendment, as suggested by Staff if Council deems the proposed development plan appropriate, complies with the regulations outlines for the proposed districts. City of Meridian I Department Report 0. Other Agency comments may be accessed in the project file,included in the public record. ■ 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; Stafffinds the alternate map amendment, as suggested by Staff if Council deems the proposed development plan appropriate, should not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. 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 Stafffinds the alternate map amendment, as suggested by Staff if Council deems the proposed development plan appropriate, should not result in an adverse impact on the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the City including, but not limited to, school districts. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. This finding is not applicable as the proposed request is for a rezone, not annexation. B. Comprehensive Plan(UDC 11-513-71)) 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 a amendment to the Comprehensive Plan,the Council shall make the following findings: l. The proposed amendment is consistent with the other elements of the comprehensive plan. Stafffinds the alternate amendment suggested by Staff that's consistent with the proposed development plan, if approved by Council, is consistent with the other elements of the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed amendment provides an improved guide to future growth and development of the city. Stafffinds the alternate amendment suggested by Staff that's consistent with the proposed development plan, if approved by Council,provides an improved guide to future growth and development in the City. 3. The proposed amendment is internally consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Stafffinds the alternate amendment suggested by Staff that's consistent with the proposed development plan, if approved by Council, is consistent with the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan. 4. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Unified Development Code. Stafffinds the alternate amendment suggested by Staff that's consistent with the proposed development plan, if approved by Council, is consistent with the Unified Development Code within the conditions listed herein. 5. The amendment will be compatible with existing and planned surrounding land uses. Stafffinds the alternate amendment suggested by Staff that's consistent with the proposed development plan, if approved by Council, will be compatible with existing and planned surrounding land uses if approved by City Council. 6. The proposed amendment will not burden existing and planned service capabilities. City of Meridian I Department Report V. Findings ■ Stafffinds the alternate amendment suggested by Staff that's consistent with the proposed development plan, if approved by Council, will not burden existing and planned service capabilities in this portion of the city. 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. Stafffinds the alternate amendment suggested by Staff that's consistent with the proposed development plan, if approved by Council,provides a logical juxtaposition of uses and sufficient area to mitigate any development impacts to adjacent properties. 8. The proposed amendment is in the best interest of the City of Meridian. Stafffinds the alternate amendment suggested by Staff that's consistent with the proposed development plan, if approved by Council, is in the best interest of the City. C. Preliminary Plat(UDC-6B-6) In consideration of a preliminary plat,the decision-making body shall make the following findings: 1. The plat is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and is consistent with this unified development code; Stafffinds if City Council approves the proposed development plan and alternate FL UM designations suggested by Staff with the conditions contained herein, the preliminary plat will be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and the UDC. 2. Public services are available or can be made available ad are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Stafffinds public services are available to the site 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; Stafffinds there are no scheduled public improvements adjacent to or on this site. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Stafffinds 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 Stafffinds 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. Staff is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that need to be preserved with this development. VI. ACTION A. Staff: Staff is not in support of the proposed map amendment and associated rezone based on the conceptual development plan proposed as it doesn't meet the minimum development guidelines in City of Meridian I Department Report VI. Action ■ the TMISAP nor does it provide the mix of integrated uses desired in Mixed Use designated areas or the intensity and/or types of uses desired in the MU-Corn and HDE designated areas. If Council is of the opinion the proposed development plan is more appropriate for this area than that envisioned in the adopted TMISAP, Staff suggests alternate FLUM designations and zoning are approved consistent with the proposed development plan, as follows: MHDR and R-15 zoning for the property in Area 1; and Commercial and C-G zoning in Areas 2 and 3 (see second adopted vs. proposed FLUM exhibit in Section VII.Q. B. Commission: Pending C. City Council: Pending City of Meridian I Department Report VI. Action ■ VII. EXHIBITS A. Project Area Maps Note:Because the subject property has not yet been subdivided, the following maps depict the parcel as it exists today; however, a portion of the parcel at the southwest corner of the site is not a part of this application. (link to Project Overview) 1. Aerial i Legend Project Location - i ;:I Area of Impact OAnalysis q ?r - City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ 2. Zoning Map R-15 R1 M-E TN-R 0 C-N� I-L Mi RUT C2 RUT R-8 T- _ TN-R TN-C R 15I TN-C L =� C-C C-G Legend R-8 Project Location Area of Impact H_E MR& OAnalysis I RR �R1 M-E RUT 3. Future Land Use � j���j Industrial - � High Civic Residentia[ Low Density Med-High Employment Density MU-Res Residential MU-Com Legend Project Location Commercial tensi Area of Impact High ty Employment I O Analysis �_ — Residential� �� —Mixed e e Medium _ MU-fV, Emplo_yment =� Density Residential City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ 4. Planned Development Map - --------- 0 11 LT r r i 0 WEE I----------- ' O , Legend r- �� - -----� i Project Location r� '":.' Area of Impact r T City Limits — �](_� __ o = Planned Parcels if ®Analysis r r r I , i B. Service Accessibility Report PARCEL S1215131401 SERVICE ACCESSIBILITY O'verall Score: 29 32nd Percentile Description Location In City Limits Extension Sewer Trunkshed mains<500 ft.from parcel Flocdplain Either not within the 100 yrfloodplaln or>2 acres Emergency Services Flre Response time>9 min. Emergency Services Police Meets response time goals most of the time Pathways Within 1/4 mile of current pathways Transit Within 1/4 mile of future transit route YELLOW Arterial Road Buildout Status ultimate configuration(#of lanes in masterstreets plan)matches existing(#of lanes) School Walking Proximity Within 1/2 mile walking Either a High School or College within 2 miles OR a School Drivabllity Middle or Elementary School within 1 mile driving (existing or future) (Park Walkahility No park within walking distance by park type City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ C. Future Land Use Map—Adopted vs.Proposed Applicant Proposed: 0 500 1,000 Date:7/22/2024 momor==Feet Adopted Future Land Uses —FRANKLIN II 1. -I 1 1 uii'j 1 �'I I �f. 180 ■ w 1 - 1 ---� --- I - 1 u l I u I Area of Change Applicant Proposed Proposed Future Land Uses Staff cleanupLA -� ---FRANKLIN II III I u ' I � Q I u Wi' a ' U4 �r J City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ Staff Recommended(if Council Approves Proposed Development Plan): (I 500 1,000 Data:8ll2/2024 �Feet Adapted Future Land Uses N Nxkl7q R_ f � I I 1. a�•. I I / l W#. `T� J Wes+ ,113 r 41 - --_ -- I I I � II I II I Area of Change Shoff Altemative to Application Proposed Future Land Uses ■..#StaFf Cleanup t ---FRANKLIN-— I-ONZ—ZZ1,110 R— i� al IIII � I Li ! I II f � 57, "�� llly � • F +tit 111 I I 1 I ' II I i I I I I V I /- v - t!IIf% F I I I City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 79 D. Rezone Legal Descriptions &Exhibit Maps F1 TN-C rn rr � o L E4 :- `}mil H-E �— �Jaillill�LW" C—G 184 City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ /�/ ARDURRA Project No:230739 Date:July 11,2024 Page 1 of 1 ZONE TN-C DESCRIPTION A parcel of land Iacated in the SW 114 of the NE114 of Section 15,Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, City of Meridian,Ada County,Idaho,more particularly described as follows: COMMENCING at the northeast one-sixteenth corner of Section 15; thence,along the north boundary of said SW114 of the NE1l4, A N.89015'15"W.,21.07 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING,thence leaving said north boundary, 1. S.00°44'48"W.,60.36 feet;thence, 2. 5.14°46'46"W.,96.99 feet;thence, 3. S.28°58'46" .,589.66 feet;thence, 4. S.04043'51"E.,297.25 feet;thence, 5. S.06631'04"W.,77.20 feet;thence, 6. S.04054'04"E.,279.57 feet to the beginning of a non-tangent curve;thence, 7. Westerly along said curve to the right having a radius of 2000.00 feet,an arc length of 130.48 feet,through a central angle of 3°44'17"„of which the long chord bears 5.88°53'09"W., 130.46 feet to the south boundary of said SW1l4 of the NE114;thence,along said boundary,tangent from said curve, 8. N.89°14'39"W., 15.40 feet,thence, leaving said boundary, 9. N.00°45'22"E.,67.95 feet to the beginning of a non-tangent curve;thence, 10.Northerly along said curve to the right having a radius of 914.00 feet,an arc length of 615.97 feet,through a central angle of 38°3648",of which the long chord bears N.04°48�03"W,604,38 feet to the beginning of a non-tangent curve;thence, 11.Northerly along said curve to the left having a radius of 1450.00 feet,an arc length of 580.02 feet,through a central angle of 22°55'09",of which the long chord bears N.01°39'21"E_,576.16 feet;thence, non-tangent from said curve, 12.N.06°12'10"W.,83.53 feet to said north boundary,thence,along said boundary, wL LAN E " 13.5.89015'15"E.,450.78 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING: 7.48Ac. 13765 s5 71} �its 332 N_Broadmore Way I Nampo,ID 83687 I 208.442.6360 www_ardWra.com City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ 6 EXHIBIT SKETCH - ZONE TN-C LOCATED IN THE 5W1f4 OF THE NE114 OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 WEST, BOISE MERIDIAN,CITY OF MERIDIAN,ADA COUNTY,IDAHO 2024 21,07' POINT OF CN1/16 N69-15'15"W 1320.76' BEGINNING NE1116 848.92'— a 0 a F oZ ZONE TNT I s cr 100, 200' 400' 7.48 AO � I I I o I I � � I ;fl (TN-C)Go to a w y M F rn LL o r#f 4 0 I 0 a 13765 0 Uff w I1� ss;1� CE1116 S8914'39'E 1321.43' Lj CD //�/A r x 230739� �70YI1G C�oorHCtrg J7'r- � ll II RDVRR 332 N.BROADMORE WAY NAMPA:IDAHO 83687 2fl8-442-5300 1 4VLV W.A RDU R RA.COM City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ ARDURR Project No:230739 Date: May 16,2024 Page 1 of 1 ZONE C-C DESCRIPTION A parcel of land being all of Lot 2 Block 2 of Outer Banks Subdivision,recorded in Book 126 of Plats at Pages 20200-20205, records of Ada County, Idaho,located in the NE1l4 of the NE114 of Section 15, Township 3 North,Range I West, Boise Meridian,City of Meridian,Ada County. Idaho,more particularly described as follows; COMMENCING at the north one-sixteenth corner cornrnon to Sections 14& 15;thence,along the south boundary of said NE1l4 of the NE114, A N 89°14'59"Vlf 81.87 feet to the POINTOF BEGINNING,thence,continuing. 1. N.89014'59"W.,358.84 feet;thence,leaving said north boundary, 2. N.59°25'50"E.,162.82 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve;thence, 3. Northeasterly along said curve to the right having a radius of 263.00 feet,an arc length of 117.45 feet,through a central angle of 25'35'17",of which the long chard bears N.72'13'28"E., 116.48 feet to a curve;thence,non-tangent from said curve, 4. 5.59°31'25"E.,110.35 feet;thence, 5. S.M039'59"W., 57.05 feet; thence, 6. S.86°20'01"E.,17,00 feet;thence, 7. S.M039'35"1N.,9.27 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING: 0.62 Ac. �re1k1 !IV Alp 4 13765 OF W, 332 N.Broad more Way I Hompo.ID 83687 I 2DB.442.6300 www,ordurra.corn City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ EXHIBIT SKETCH - ZONE C-C LOCATED IN THE NE114 OF THE NE114 OF SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 WEST,BOISE MERIDIAN,CITY OF MERIDIAN,ADA COUNTY,IDAHO 2024 I i i I i I ZONE CSC I 0_E2 AC NE111$ saa.sa' N1f16 15014 N$914'59"W 1321,21' POINT OF ( BEGINNING i C4 {7 r m LL M y O O PO+� m c"uy i I i CE1116 sas',a'o "E 132t,73' - - - - - � - - 15 14 i i RL LANo S G 13765 0 33Q -VJ&DYING 2 R401orXA9 SlMt 23rR i 332 N.BROADMORE WAY NAMPA,IDAHO 63667 209-42#300 I WWW.ARDURRA.COM City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ RDURR Project No:230739 Date:luly 11,2024 Page 1 of 1 ZONE C-C DESCRIPTION A parcel of land located in the NE1/4 of the SE114 of Section 15,Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, City of Meridian,Ada County,Idaho,more particularly described as follows: COMMENCING at the one-quarter corner common to Sections 14& 15,thence,along the east boundary of said NE114 of the SE1{4, A. 5.00°30'02"W.,278.31 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING,thence,continuing 1, S.00°30'02"W.,606.98 feet;thence, 2. N.89°16'04"W,,880.37 feet,thence, 3. N.00°43'56"E.,442.18 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve;thence, 4. Northerly along said curve to the right having a radius of 200.00 feet,an arc length of 103A7 feet, through a central angle of 29°45'21",of which the long chord bears N.15°36'37"E,, 102.70 feet to a paint of reverse curve;thence, 5. Northerly along said curve to the left having a radius of 200.00 feet,an arc length of 103,87 feet, through a central angle of 29°45'21",of which the long chard bears N.15°36'37'"E., 102.70 feet; thence,tangent from said curve, 6. N.00°43'567.,83.67 feet,thence, 7. S.87°57'24"E.,30.11 feet;thence, 8. S.00°00'00"E.,107.18 feet;thence, 9. S.88°34'44"E.,793.76 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING: 12.34 Ac. �1At- LA�y 5 �r �4 4 3765 '0 ,Q 0 F � y 0'mp,\-� 332 N_Rmadmore Way Nampo,0 8368J 208.442.6300 1 www_ardOra_com City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ EXHIBIT SKETCH - ZONE C-C LOCATED IN THE NE114 OF THE 5E114 OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 WEST, BOISE MERIDIAN,CITY OF MERIDIAN,ADA COUNTY_ IDAHO 2024 J CE1116 — S89'15'05"IZ 1321.73- 15 14 t , — A 17, (Y Ion, 200' 400' (C-q POINT OF BEGINNING r c +J u tt I u = I (H-E) .' ZONE , C-C 12.34AC nix w rw o 'Jm i rn l 0 L z Z CC ! u I (H-E) A� to W4 i r..j r.+ C ¢¢ [U f7 589"13'37'E 1322.88' 15 o14 S1i16 u c r r 23Qi39-Va,7!]YING 3 HEtuGCAn SYF: • a 1 r3765 ARDURR �a /ffff � r �( 332 N.BRQADMORE WAY d NAMPA,IDAHO 83687 208-42-6300 1 WWW.ARDURRA.COM City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ RDVRR Project No:230739 Date: May 16.2024 Page I of 2 ZONE WE DESCRIPTION A parcel of land located in the NE1J4 of the SE114, the NW1/4 of the 5E1/4,the SW1l4 of the NE1I4 and the SE1/4 of the NE114 of Section 15,Township 3 North, Range 1 West,Boise Meridian.City of Meridian,Ada County, Idaho,more particularly described as follows: COMMENCING at the center one-quarter corner of Section 15;thence,along the north boundary of said NW1{4 of the SEI/4, A S.89°14'39"E., 721.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING,thence,continuing, 1. S.89°14'39"E.,190.81 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve;thence, 2. Northeasterly along said curve to the left having a radius of 200 0.00 feet,an art length of 304.36 feet,through a central angle of 8°43'10",of which the long chord bears N.86°23'38"E., 304.07 feet to a curve;thence, 3. Northeasterly along said curve to the right having a radius of 1500.00 feet,an arc length of 145.02 feet,through a central angle of 5°32'22",of which the long chord bears N.84°48'23"E., 144.96 feet;thence,tangent from said curve, 4. N.87°34'33"E.,9.81 feet;thence, 5. 5,00°4512"W., 199.38 feet.thence 6. S.Br1913"E.,411.44 feet to the beginning of a non-tangent curve;thence, 7. Southwesterly along said curve to the left having a radius of 221.22 feet an arc length of 160.92 feet,through a central angle of 41°40'42",of which the long chord bears S.69°45'07"W.,157.40 feet;thence,tangent from said curve, S. S.49°45'00"W.,229.53 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve;thence, 9. Southwesterly along said curve to the right having a radius of 247.12 feet,an arc length of 148.00 feet,through a central angle of W18'48",of which the long chord bears S.71°09'48"1 ., 145.80 feet;thence,non-tangent from said curve, 10. 5,00°33'00"W., 124.95 feet;thence, 11. N.89°14'39"W., 579.54 feet to the beginning of a non-tangent curve;thence, 12. Northwesterly along said curve to the right having a radius of 200.00 feet,an art length of 93.52 feet,through a central angle of 26°4732",of which the long chord bears N.12°47'04°W,92.67 feet;thence,tangent from said curve, 332 N,Broodmore Way I Nampo,ID 83687 1 208.442.6300 1 xrww,ardurrq,earn City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ Project No.230739 Date: May 16, 2024 Paige 2 of 2 13. N.00° 6'43"E.,450.89 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING: 9.13 Ac. pl. LAND } 13765 `r 5 lf7 { � 2 332 N.Brood more Wpy rJrrr,L:::.I 82687 1 208.442,6300 www.orduma.com City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ EXHIBIT SKETCH - ZONE H-E — LOCATED IN THE NE114 OF THE 5E114,THE NW114 OF THE SE114,THE SW 114 OF THE NEV4,AND THE SE114 OF THE NE114 OF SECTION 15,TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 WEST,BOISE MERIDIAN, CITY OF MERIDIAN,ADA COUNTY, IDAHO 2024 a w a o. ion, �. 0 N U] W S Nk'E111C f� U � uj c3 O1 r O YL POINT OF (TN-C) Z BEGINNING '' (C-C) F C114 58974'39"E 1321,4,3 V5 S89'15'05"E 1321.73' 721,00' �CE1116 BASIS OF BEARINGS —15�14 O 4] � z O � ZONE H-E o l l a (C-C) s.13 AC o O i 0 0 s a w s (H-E) C6 aD n w a r G'1 � O bpi. L A kq S G z SE1116 3765 334:39}1-%&20111G_a_C�AµE,ceg S7eiz . s ARDURRA a 118 0•fiAL� "1 332 N.BROAD MORE WAY NAMPA,IDAHO 83687 208-442-6300 1 WWW.ARDURPA.COM City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ Project No.230739 Date: May 16,2024 Page 1 of 1 ZONE C-G DESCRIPTION A parcel of land located in the NW1l4 of the SE1f4 and the NE114 of the SW114 of Section 15, Township 3 North,Range 1 West, Boise Meridian,City of Meridian,Ada County, Idaho,more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at the center one-quarter corner of Section 15;thence,along the north boundary of said N W 114 of the S E1I4, 1. 5.89°14'39"E., 721.00 feet;thence,leaving said north boundary, 2. S.00°36'43" .,450.89 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve;thence, 3. Southeasterly along said curve to the left having a radius of 200.00 feet,an arc length of 93.52 fee#,through a central angle of 26°4732%of which the long chard bears 5.12°47'04'E.,92.67 feet,thence,non-tangent from said curve, 4. N.89°14'39"W.,3Q9.87 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve;thence, 5. Southwesterly along said curve to the left having a radius of 1000.00 feet,an arc length of 244.64 feet,through a central angle of 14°01'00",of which the long chord bears 5.83'44'51"W.. 244.03 feet,thence,non-tangent from said curve, 6. N.39°31'08"W., 748.08 feet to the north boundary of said NW114 of the SE114;thence,along said boundary, 7. 5.89°14'48"E.,291.84 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING: 9.82 Ac. dkLLgo - r. S - "I 4uft 13765 11 .M 332 N.Broadmore WQy I NimpO,ID 83687 1 208,442.000 1 www,ardurra,eaM City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ EXHIBIT SKETCH - ZONE C-G LOCATED IN THE NW114 OF THE SEV4 AND THE NE114 OF THE SW114 OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 WEST, BOISE MERIDIAN,CITY OF MERIDIAN,ADA COUNTY,IDAHO 2024 a N89'15'15"W 1320-76' NE1P16 N 7 � a 52 5-1 POINT OF BEGINNING vs C114 (TN-C) S69'14'39'E 1321.43' can 0 600.43' CE1116 � I 0 U � ZONE (C-C) 9.82 AC (M-E) o � N o w o Q OI tq M (C-G) g I W 4 � 6 Y � 0' 100' 200' 400' oar a BASS OF BEARINGS L l' = CS1116 N8913'31'W 1323-13' w I`L�A APO i; 29iII39X-&94I4G-5- GCbGG.dnp S'IfiQi 270P;u 13765 Of 07 RDURRI co��'�� 332 N.BROAdreORE WAY NAM PA.ICAHC 83687 248-442-8344 1 WWW.ARDURRA.COM City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ ARDURRA Project No:230739 Date: May 16,2024 Page 1 of 1 ZONE M-E DESCRIPTION A parcel of land located in the NE1l4 of the 5W114 and the NW114 of the 5E114 of Section 15, Township 3 North,Range 1 West, Boise Meridian,City of Meridian,Ada County, Idaho,more particularly described as follows: CONINIENCING at the center south one-sixteenth corner of Section 15;thence,along the west boundary of said NW114 of the SE114, A N.00°37'23"E.,570.01 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING,thence, 1. N.89°49'30"W.,65.26 feet,thence, 2. N.87°57'46"W., 19 5.19 feet to the beginning of a non-tangent curve;thence, 3. Northeasterly along said curve to the left having a radius of 750.00 feet,an arc length of 70.03 feet,through a central angle of 5°21'01",of which the long chord hears N.68°46'35"E.,70.01 Feet;thence,tangent from said curve, 4. N.66°06'05"E.,231.67 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve; thence, 5. Northeasterly along said curve to the right having a radius of 1000.00 feet,an arc length of 185.66 feet,through a central angle of 10°38'16%of which the long chord bears N.71°25'13"E., 185.40 feet;thence,non-tangent from said curve, 6. &39°31'08"E.,241.72 feet;thence, 7. N.89°49'30"W., 346.28 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING; 1.37 Ac. ` p,L LA,yD 4 t 13765 332 N.Broadmore WQy I Nampa,ID 03687 1 208.442.6300 1 www,ardurF9xQrn City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ EXHIBIT SKETCH - ZONE M-E LOCATED IN THE NEVA OF THE SW14 AND THE NW114 OF THE SE114 OF SECTION 15, o TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 WEST. BOISE MERIDIAN,CITY OF MERIDIAN,ADA COUNTY, IDAHO 2024 I� C114 _ CE1116 N89-14'39"W 1321.43 a n u ct ti ¢ V 00 N WIC � tV w M i Q o C N � N} M-E w T � ~ 1 /1.0 1'7 POINT OF (H-E) BEGINNING I o � � w � � I 0 o a iolr 2W 40r a w CS1116 BASIS OF BEARINGS SE11 l6 N85*13'31'W 1323.13' w ypL L A NU n k 1� ti 4 q 13765 §�#� / ARDURRA o E of k p'MN{- 332 N.BROADNIORE WAY NAMPA.IDAHO 836V 248-442-6344 1 WWW.ARDURRA.COM City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ , RDURR 1 Project No:230739 Date. May 16,2024 Page 1 of 1 ZONE C-G DESCRIPTION A parcel of land located in the NE1l4 of the SW114 of Section 15,Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian,City of Meridian,Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows: COMMENCING at the center south one-sixteenth corner of Section 15;theme,along the east boundary of said NE1/4 of the SW114, A N.00°37'23"E.,574.32 feet,thence,leaving said west boundary, B. N 89°22'37"W,260.40 feet to the beginning of a non-tangent curve and the POINT OF BEGINNING;thence, 1. Southwesterly along said curve to the right having a radius of 750.00 feet,an arc length of 252.69 feet,through a central angle of 19°18'16",of which the long chord bears S.81'06'13"W 251.50 feet;thence,tangent from said curve, 2. N.89°14'39"W., 51.86 feet,thence, 3. ND00°44'31"E.,41.94 feet:thence, 4. S.89"1719"E., 299.81 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING: 0.21 Ac. AL LAND 4- Ci r 4 13765 332 N.Broadmore Way I N-1mpo, D 83687 I 248.442.6300 I www.ordurraxorn City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ EXHIBIT SKETCH - ZONE G-G LOCATED IN THE NE114 OF THE SW114 OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 WEST,BOISE MERIDIAN,CITY OF MERIDIAN,ADA COUNTY,IDAHO a 2024 a 0 16 1 583'14'3$"E 1322.75' S89'14'4$"E 1322.78' C 1/4 - 6 11 — a 0 0' w 1 w 20a w = ro o N 80 - W I V � � � f fk .x O 1M-E7y ;'7 O O O a wo N89'2 2'37'w 264,40' LCCN �E1 _ —————— -- - /0.2 Ac POINT OF G y BEGINNING o (H-E) ry c BASIS OF BEARJNGS CS1116 N69'14'03"w 2647.96- — — w ❑µ pl LA gyp a F -^ 13765 A / RDURR �r O, T7fo 4F \O 332 N.BRflADMORE WAY V&01MA1� ' NAMPA.IDAHO 83687 288-"2-6300 1 WWW-ARr)URRA.COM City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ RDURR Project No.230739 Date-July 11,2024 Page 1 of 2 ZONE C-G DESCRIPTION A parcel of land located in the NE1l4 of the SW1l4 and the NW1l4 of the SE1l4 of Section 15, Township 3 North, Range 1 West,Boise Meridian,City of Meridian,Ada County, Idaho,more particularly described as follows: COMMENCING at the center south one-sixteenth corner of Section 15a thence,along the east boundary of said NE1l4 of the SW114, A. N.OQ°3723"E.,77.72 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING;thence,leaving said east boundary, 1. N.84°O5'20"W.,208.50 feet;thence, 2. N.84°22'21"W., 139.20 feet;thence, 3. N.81°25'39"W.,216.99 feet;thence, 4. N.0004517"E.,393.76 feet;thence, 5, 5.89"14'39"E.,5 1.8 6 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve;thence, 6. Northeasterly along said curve to the left having a radius of 750.00 feet,an arc length of 252.69 feet,through a central angle of 19°18'16",of which the long chord bears N.81°06'13"E.,251.50 feet,thence, non-tangent from said curve, T 5.89"13'33"E.,60d.67 feet;thence, S. N.39°31'08"W.,241.72 feet to the beginning of a non-tangent curve,thence, 9. Northeasterly along said curve to the right having a radius of 1000.00 feet,an arc length of 244.64 feet,through a central angle of 14°01'00",of which the long chord bears N.83°44'51"E., 244.03 feet,thence,tangent from said curve, 10.5.89"14'39"F.,309.87 feet to the beginning of a non-tangent curve;thence, 11.Southeasterly along said curve to the left having a radius of 200.00 feet,an arc length of 50.49 feet,through a central angle of 14°2T48",of which the long chord hears 5.33°24'43"E.,50.35 feet,thence, non-tangent from said curve, 12.5.50°34'19'W.,157.65 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve;thence, 13.Southwesterly along said curve to the right having a radius of 301.72 feet,an arc length of 222.21 feet,through a central angle of 42°1T50",of which the long chord bears 5.71°43'54"W., 217.22 feet,thence, non-tangent from said curve, 332 N_Brnadmora Way I Nampq,ID 83687 1 208.442.6300 1 www_nrdurra_com City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ Project No:230789 Date.July 11, 2024 Page 2of2 14.5.39°31'08"E.,721.50 feet;thence, 15.N.86°48'58"W , 57195 feet;thence, 16.N.84°05'20"W , 337.77 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING: 15.94 Ac. ,4NL LA � 13765 Z 332 N_Broodmore Way Nampq, Id 83887 I 208.442_63DD www.ordurra_com City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ ( m A, L 3o00,M A m § » LU LU § ) � § � (§ \ § [ 2J § b | § //— 2 J ; /) d § $ G � 7 ( 0 § \ R § d \ } 2 A2 \ k f �° �k LU ■ �� / I | _ o0 E 2 0 K { 0 w / � L 20 \ 222 N § 36 / Lu LLJ 1p ° «d 2 o k q e K L) Q � 'g %%;�.N U ( 0 � / 2 ± w § § Q § } E § § � £ M kLU 0170 2 ® ¥ / � � � w UJ| v 0 % § ¥ g 4 — � z § k m k © [ f / City of Meridian Department Rep o4 V t Exhibits � E. New Development Agreement Boundary—Legal Description & Exhibit Map RDURR Project No:230739 Date:July 11,2024 Page Iof2 DEVELOP ENT AGREEMENT BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION A parcel of land located in the 5112 of the NE1{4,the N112 of the SE1/4,and the NE1{4 of the SW 114 of Section 15,Township 3 North,Range 1 West,Boise Meridian,City of MeridianrAda County,Idaho, more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at the center north one-sixteenth corner of said Section 14,thence,along the north boundary of said 5112 of the NE114, 1_ 5.89°15'15'E_,1320.76 feet to the northeast one-sixteenth corner of said Section 15,thence, continuing, 2_ 5.89°14'59'E_,880.50 feet to the south right-of-way of Cobalt drive;thence,leaving along said right-of-way the following courses- 3- N.5902550"E.,162.82 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve;thence, 4. Easterly along said curve to the right having a radius of 263_00 feet,an arc length of 117.45 feet, through a central angle of 25°35'16',of which the long chord bears N.72013'28"E.,116AB feet thence,non-tangent from said curve, 5. 5.60°24'53'E_,88.51 feet;thence, 6_ 5.55°54'35'E_,21.84 feet;thence, 7. 5.03°39'59' .,57_05 feet;thence, 8_ S_86°20'01'E_,16.90 feet to the west right-of-way of S_Ten Mile Road;thence,along said right- of-way the following courses 9_ S_03°39'35'W_,670.74 feet;thence, 10.S.10°44'07' .,96.98 feet;thence, 11.5.03c06'22' .,84_65 feet;thence, 12.5.06°21'28'W.,207.42 feet;thence, 13.5.01°2518' .,559.90 fleet;thence, 14_S_01°25'16'W_,57.70 feet;thence, 15.5.0402957' .,550.74 feet;thence, 16-S_44°20'S7'W_,34.63 feet'thence, 332 N_eroadrnore Woy I Nampo Ip 83687 208.442.6300 1 www ardurro-com City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ Project No: 230739 Date:July 11,2024 Page 2 of 2 17_S_15°01'09'W_, 99.20 feet to the north right-of-way of the westbound Interstate 84 on ramp; thence,along said rig lit-of-way the following courses: 18_S_471133'WW_, 109.09 feet;thence, 19_S_661154'29'W_, 105.73 feet;thence, 20_S_80°09'20'W_, 150.16 feet;thence, 21_S_76°01'12'W_,330.69 feet;thence, 22_S.79°54'25'W_, 177.77 feet;thence, 23_S_84°46'37'W_, 162.75 feet;thence, 24_S_88°47'04'W_, 108.25 feet;thence, 25_S_88°46'59'W_, 312.10 feet to the north right-of-way of Interstate 84; thence,along said right- of-way the following courses: 26_ N.86°48'58"W_, 675.49 feet;thence, 27_ N_84005'20"W_, 546.27 feet;thence, 28_ N_84°22'21'W_, 139.20 feet;thence, 29_ N_81025'09'W_,216.99 feet;thence, leaving said right-of-way, 30_ N_00°45'12"E_, 1190.89 feet to the north boundary of said NEll4 of the SWlf4;thence,along said boundary, 31_S_89°14'48"E_, 558.49 feet to center one-quarter corner of said Section 15;thence along the west boundary of said STl2 of the NElf4; 32_ N_00°36'37"E_, 1328.96 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING_ CONTAINING: 163.67 Acrest 1376 j . of A o°M� . 332 N_Broadmore Woy hrmrir;ID 83687 208.442.6300 1 www ardWra_aam City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits 1 00 0, Y Za ti Q Nd t5 V_ CI?I 3TM Si1'.I. S r l 6Z�l 3_, ,�4.UbN !1 671 3uZ0,4 .001� { =. cu o Z o w 0LL I I I L z WLU0 W 0 r � , or w cn w W w �W r w _ a °a. Z7 IT b OLLJ Z W T f o Q +Z z 0 � w U) z o in V O LU ELL al CO q � q" Cri w [L r 9,cgf 1 3„95,6£. ON Lr' Z 34Z ,6 .00N p # Lr3 W o o Z) 19 4 o City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits Fl-ol F. Existing Conceptual Development Plan for Vanguard Village f 5. TEN MILE ROAD 00 gut 4 r it drop 40 i 40 dw In i i W l 1 t F� Note: The property within the red-outlined area above(i.e. Vanguard Village) is proposed to be included in the new Development Agreement. City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits 102 G. Proposed Overall Conceptual Development Plan O g � J ................. d ; S.TEN MILE ROADPAS ¢tea rt- '= Is 3 r _z —g Sa — s get, �� — sN� — '�' m? o i . Tom. 35q Tk•"E yl } �4 •4 ~l �� y L ji ,� t3L 4 '• CA bi' � a 'F INS UI IV Pw gal A b 'r w i' �r J_ r W .� H E I i I - I . I m>i I I . I City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 103 H. Use Area Plan The image above shows three (3)areas that make up The District at Ten Mile Development based on the underlying zoning and future land use designation boundaries. AREA 1 accommodates a mix of multi-family residential uses such as townhomes and multifamily. AREA2 accommodates predominantly commercial mixed uses,including large format/anchor and specialty retail,casual and fine dining,entertainment,recreation, hospitality,childcare,and office uses. AREA 3 accommodates medium to higher-density office,commercial,recreation,medical,and hospitality uses. � y w 1 w. 1 2 m ` • A W. IF . �J.. r d �q�1 'yr __ •ww '� ." r= �•�� rk._. f•��}.«�.. r.r Ott [i � «• ww : VIP � INTERSTATE Bi City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 104 I. Preliminary Plat(date: 6/4/2024) vnn(w NOISIAI(3enS 31IIN N31101USIfl 3H1 /V :HO:l 1 nd),UVNiwn3ad g d 19, ® B 1H d L B O _ I � ^'—� mM3lNN8le 39 ZOLO ca 0 W Fw'o W oao � a O a i x x 3,rs W � i 0 cV A W x /e A 8 F A W AF A I 8Av A A 8 / e A =_l i 111111119 lill111llll1lllll 1 1lllllll e l e e e e e l e ptlunhi A € 15 xxzz s..4 $ BBBBB9 gggg BB gg99 ii a 608Ih el6e ilh 12 g WINAA H ....... Mali LBW S9W16$$$@ $Q666666$$$ @ �'6666 GG iYW Bit6666 eeeF$ ;�� 00000 c� 000 ®0000 ® 00000000000 00 ® ® o c Ng 7 a]1181�IOtld Al1�Itl15 SI tltltl11NlddD N01891Wtldd N3LLeSM�IdYJ3d81110X11M 81N8JN0]Bll M Li9WNL8N181XL 30 NOLL6JIlIOOIYLO39113tl'NOLLJl100tld9x1•VN Vtltl110tltld0 AlH9dOtld 3X181 JN3NfItllBNI SIfLL 7NI'dWOtlS tltltlNOYg N0.*® City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 105 3 SNOISN9WI4101 r vnn( bV NOISIAI(io 1S 3lIW NEU iONISId 3H-L :HGJ-L ld),abNlwn3Nd `1�� 73) It 9 Ef S f1 p 9 k@ k k p a�`_ —— - aio.uui (�IfaM/arul�1M A31'S \�,� `� w � � � i6 3' 'gat log � 'I � � ��♦ ao IIIIIII���... �F � 4 p / I •' I I � y gg�I l ^z y $ y }I 1slll � / �/ ^y •� �'w' y ^� 13 �I °� }dell,it : II „III •C I I$° } 9 ^ / / I9 a 1 City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits Fl 06 s SNO1102S 1332i1S N N v21 na Y NOISIAI08f1S 3�IW N3110RI1SIa 3Hl 4 :dOdlVndAdVNiw113ad T rlJ j N GJ �fJ �lJ i 2 W a S� i p pp 'l e a a I p W W 9 p y a W Y Y } tlW1 O O O V31191HONd Al181ill8 SIttMWOW d0 N018SIWtl3d N31LIHM�Id YJ3dB1WON11M S1N3WD�811tlO1N3WfIW9N181WL d0 NOLLY81lIQOW tl03Bf13tl'NOLL�MOtld3tl ANtl Vl1LLWa!ldd0 AlH3dOtld 3N181 L13WWL18NI 81NL'�NI'dWOL�btItlllUHd KK® City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits Fl 07 SNOUO3S 133211S van(MV NOISIAlaonS 31IW N31 iMUSla 3Hl �6 :UO=l 1YId AUVNIW113Jd 17 z a e� �e e W� e a a L 0 V �NJ 2 O Q 9 a V8L91XOtld AIL'1I8L8 SI VXtllla W!D N01881Wtl8d N3111XM 811 YJ8d61NOXlIM 81N3W W 811 tl01N8WNL8NI 81XL 30 NOLLM.II�IQOIY M038f13X'N011�1100tld3d AIN VtltlNOW lO A1H8dOtld 3X181 Li3WfItl18Nl SIXl�NI'dXOtl9 tlHd110Xtl 4LeZ® City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits Fl 08 J. Site Plan(date: 6/5/2024) nomm�rroxn I m�nmox 0 mar van(AV NOISIAlcons 3-1IW N31IONISIO 3H1 �� aOd 1Vld A2iVNIWll3ad 11n go 3 . I � C !4 mg � C C - laisndl'anv i� � f� xoaxa�owae�s 3 ` Ld� I � 4 I g E yl City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 1 09 NV'1d 3115 U vanaNY NOISIAICIenS 31IW N3110Ib1S10 3H1 I :NQ- 1 ldAHVNIwn3ad � : ------------ - IIBf1d)atl0113'lIW N31'S - .. "0 u O IN a I ` / o + o- City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 1 10 Ndld 31lS " cv vnn(w NOlSIAl(3enS 31IW Nil i3NiSIa 3Hl �., :UOJ ldld AUVNIWll3ad a 9 0 ww II i 'I I 9 nn ,4 � �1lq 3LVNy/ 11 � r ff I1 m City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ K. Landscape Plan O a's v n ' t - c .5 a r rP $ E m ¢os m m a Z E H g g a IXE $ a o a a x a 4 m — 5 z '� Q a 0 C y _ z 5 a Lu E X =5 y a E C g 0 w Fy- t = w LLI C H g $ o § F 5 s o w d g W LU Z 01 .a E G a ` E _ O C Z s O M IH 6 0 0 g Z W H H -- �.TEN MILE ROAD J. inn i- — _ !I • ff ws a�i& ', j 1 < <...� d 1bMY � � • 1 fs 1 10. f y low r I, ABPCE�Iy s � Z =o i Y - W 4i ' i I - I A.- i I I _, City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 112 f IN .- ¢� ................. zw E� g - _ ' w o wg m r c o w g _� a w= =s i�w 5� �S �m�s __ _ „�m §§ TVs „ � o 39 a s s IJ s I " 1 ,1 1 a SS tuw� _ awe �S ?td as I— z �g a a _ aCL — Z U — E Q —o � a S.TEN MILE - ROAD —err - - - LU L 1 i f S, ir of da M M« bN44 40 a 71 s i 3. YM T ix is,I ''t41�I 0wa� I . L c Z 'o F F ................. I m>< I lil � i City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 113 L. Open Space Exhibit LL y � o ti a UI 4 awl W W s a G yam_ Z U' ¢ p IL n w J E Q 0 J ¢ O W 0 f ................. IL w O w U LL W W_ U y x Z J Od7vdi Q W —� Z_U _ O W W ks. a O w J S.TEN MILE ROA❑ Z W U t L A c t I P11111111117 yj i t• Q N W z LV LV J _ p c Z a W .� F F ................. 7i° I I i i City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ M. Mobility Plan M9`° J pia ................. Z � A 0 0 - 5 g ym_ U Z O 5 `a w U j� V 2 W y a m in w J 1 . z • ................. 5 1 5Z _ r 1 • 06 C, 1 • a 0 Zm - s �g w a w J S, •r+..•r•�.". S.TEN MILE ROAD «� W }•.•`•a .•• �. •...•.......-................... '•••r••..a•• • a �1t r N Ar J a{ P� ••I"•• e y '' a F • .•rrr•:a..•'•i ■ • •'a. w • •w • w ',• x X., . Al W J_ o Z W .�3 H E ................. III .fie III I m>a I Ili . Ili City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 115 N. Project Design Standards Please click on the following link to access the Applicant's proposed design standards for the development: https://weblink.meridianciV.ory/WeUink/DocView.aspx?id=355939&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC i &cr=1 City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits 116 E IDIAN;--- Applicant Presentation DA Mod, CPAM, Rezone, and Preliminary Plat Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing August 15, 2024Application by: Ball Ventures AhlquistClark Wardle LLP–Geoffrey Wardle Ball Ventures Ahlquist–Chief Development Officer –Petersen TonnPresented by: APPLICATIONSPreliminary Plat•Rezone•Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment•Development Agreement Modification• LOCATION Interstate 84 Ten Mile Crossing Ten Mile Road BACKGROUND 2022-10-5SubdivisionVanguard Village 0081-2021-HVanguard Village Subdivision SJJV, LLC (S1215417409)(S1215131401/S1215142300)Janicek2012-7-2Ten Mile Annexation001-11-AZFedrizzi Ten Mile, LLC (S1215417217)2021-7-90025-2021-HThe 10 at Meridian (R6733720500)ApprovalFile/Case NameDevelopment Agreement Name and ParcelExisting Development Agreements BACKGROUND Existing Development Agreements BACKGROUND15 -Ten Mile Plan, p. 3 the others”use of each area in concert with area, but to promote the best Map is not to separate uses by The idea behind this Land Use residential and commercial…use -industrial, mixedareas for employment, uses lines to identify specific While the Land Use Map still !... “No more linesTen Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan STAFF PROPOSED MODIFICATION STAFF PROPOSED MODIFICATION G zoning…”-Commercial FLUM designation with C–15 zoning; Areas 2 & 3 -MHDR FLUM designation with R–zoning to coincide with the proposed plan (i.e. Area 1 “…Staff suggests changes to the FLUM and associated BACKGROUND3 -Ten Mile Plan, p. 1”…zoningforward detailed design guidelines and implementation program, bringing the initiative and begin the developers and key land owners to take the City encourages forward, to move the plan to act more quicklythe private sector may want Knowing “Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan BACKGROUND0074-2020-HTen Mile Center”design guidelines and zoningprogram, bringing forward detailed and begin the implementation key land owners to take the initiative the City encourages developers and “Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Consolidation of Existing DAs DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 2022-10-5SubdivisionVanguard Village 0081-2021-H(S1215427850) Vanguard Village Subdivision SJJV, LLC (S1215417409)(S1215131401/S1215142300)Properties LLCJanicek2012-7-2Ten Mile Annexation001-11-AZFedrizzi Ten Mile, LLC (S1215417217)2021-7-90025-2021-HThe 10 at Meridian (R6733720500)ApprovalFile/Case NameDevelopment Agreement Name and ParcelConsolidation of Existing DAs DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Street Furniture•Outdoor Lighting•Landscaping•Service and Loading•Utilities and Equipment•Street Parking-Off•CirculationVehicular and Pedestrian •Streets and Drive Aisles•Master Development StandardsMaster Design EnforcementMaster Development Standards Inclusion of Project Specific Design Standards DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Recreation and Passive Activity•Residential •Commercial/Retail•Hospitality••Office•Realistic and Workable Mixed UseSignage•Outdoor Storage•Lighting•Color•Building Heights and Massing•Roofs•Materials•Orientation•Master Architectural Standards Inclusion of Project Specific Design Standards DESIGN STANDARDS Orientation of Doors and Windows-Project Design Standards, p. 21, Figure 8 Sidewalk Width Examples-Project Design Standards, p. 10, Figure 3 Glass Materials Examples-Project Design Standards, p. 21, Figure 9 DESIGN STANDARDS Project Design Standards, p. 16Furniture ExamplesStreet and Site -Project Design Standards, p. 17, Figure 6 DESIGN STANDARDS Project Design Standards, p. 19Building Design Examples-Project Design Standards, p. 19, Figure 7 Building Design Examples-Figure 7 Project Design Standards, p. 19, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Approval Standards.periodapprovalmonth)6(sixtheofendthetopriorfiledifcitythetoreturnedandsignedbetoagreementtheforallowedtimetheextendtorequestedbemayand/orpartiesallbyagreement theofsignaturetopriorinitiatedbemayagreementdevelopmentthetomodificationA3..modificationthegrantingcouncilcitytheofmonths)6(sixwithincitythetoreturnedandowner(s)propertythebysignedbeshallagreementdev elopmentsaidapproved,When.chapterthiswithaccordincouncilcitythebymadeismodificationagreementdevelopmenttheonDecision.agreementdevelopmenttheofpartyaffectedanorcitythebymodifiedbemayagreementdevelopme ntA2..requestsuchforfindingsofadoptionthetopriortimeanyatrezoneand/orannexationforrequestaofpartasapplicantorcitythebyinitiatedbemayagreementdevelopmentThe.A6511-67sectionCodeIdahowithconsistentagree mentdevelopmentatomodificationaoragreementdevelopmentarequestmayapplicantanand/orcityThe1.:followsasisF3-B5-11CodeCityMeridianinforthsetprocessThe CPAM Proposed Boundaries CPAM Staff Recommended Alternative CPAM.ofCitytheofbesttheinisamendmentThe8..areatheofdevelopmentthewithassociatedimpactanticipatedanytoareasufficientallowsthatusesofjuxtapositionlogicalaapplicable)(asamendmentmapThe7..capabilitiesser viceplannedandburdennotwillamendmentThe6..useslandsurroundingplannedandwithcompatiblebewillamendmentThe5..CodeDevelopmentUnifiedthiswithconsistentisamendmentThe4..plancomprehensivetheofandobjectives, goals,thewithconsistentinternallyisamendmentThe3..citytheofdevelopmentandgrowthfuturethetoguideanamendmentThe2..plancomprehensivetheofotherthewithconsistentisamendmentThe1.Approval Findings REZONE Existing Zoning REZONE Proposed Zoning REZONE Proposed Zoning REZONE Proposed Zoning REZONE Proposed Zoning REZONE The annexation (as applicable) is in the best interest of the City.5.districts; andpolitical subdivision providing public services within the City, including, but not limited to, school The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any 4.The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare;3.the purpose statement;The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically 2.The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan;1.In order to grant a rezone, the Council shall make the following findings:Rezone Approval Findings PRELIMINARY PLAT Vanguard Village PRELIMINARY PLAT District Ten Mile PRELIMINARY PLAT Approval Findings.featureshistoricorscenic,natural,significantpreservesdevelopmentTheF.and;welfaregeneralorsafety,health,publicthetodetrimentalbenotwilldevelopmentTheE.;developmentpr oposedtheforservicessupportingofcapabilityfinancialpublicisThereD.;programimprovementcapitalcity'sthewithaccordinimprovementspublicscheduledwithconformanceinisplatTheC.;developmentproposedtheaccommod atetoadequateareandavailablemadebecanoravailableareservicesPublicB.;CodeDevelopmentUnifiedthiswithconsistentisandplancomprehensivethewithconformanceinisplatTheA.:findingsfollowingthemakeshallbodymaki ng-decisiontheplat,shortorplat,finalandpreliminarycombinedplat,preliminaryaofconsiderationIn W IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Idaho State University (H-2024-0027) by Idaho State University, generally located on the west side of S. Locust Grove Rd., midway between E. Franklin Rd. and E. Overland Rd. Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2024-0027 A. Request: Annexation of 23.254 acres of land from RUT and R-6 in Ada County to the C-G zoning district. 117 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: August 15, 2024 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 5 PROJECT NAME: Idaho State University (H-2024-0027) Your Full Name (Please Print) Your Full Address Representing HOA? If yes, please provide HOA name I wish to testify (mark X if yes) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT REPORT REPORT ✓✓ rY L HEARING 8/15/2024 Legend DATE: OO Project Location TO: Planning&Zoning Commission Area of Impact = City Limits FROM: Bill Parsons, Current Planning O Analysis Supervisor 208-884-5533 -FFTT 71 ® {� bparsons@meridiancity.org r APPLICANT: Marty Vizcarra -- E SUBJECT: H-2024-0027 --- Idaho State University r e LOCATION: Property is generally located on the west e ® ® mom] side of S. Locust Grove Rd.;midway between E. Franklin Rd. and E. Overland --- Rd. in the NE 1/4 and SE 1/4 of Section 18,T.3N.,R.lE. I. PROJECT OVERVIEW A. Summary Annexation of 23.254 acres of land from RUT and R-6 in Ada County to the C-G zoning district, by Idaho State University. B. Issues/Waivers 1. The applicant is requesting that the three existing structures not connect to city utilities at this time. After consultation with the City Engineer, staff supports this request,provided that the applicant abandons the existing well and septic system. 2. Continue using the three(3) existing structures for storage. They are currently being used to meet the university's operational needs. Staff is supportive of the buildings remaining on the site as long as the buildings and property are properly maintained. C. Recommendation Staff. Approval D. Decision Select: Pending. City of Meridian I Department Report I. Project Overview 118 II. COMMUNITY METRICS Table 1•Land Use Description Details Map Ref. Existing Land Use(s) Vacant County residence and several - outbuildings/Agricultural operations Proposed Land Use(s) Public Education Institution(ISU Campus) - Existing/Proposed Zoning Rural Urban Transition Area(RUT)and R-6 in Ada V.A.2 County Future Land Use Designation Commercial V.A.3 Table 2:Process Facts Description Details Preapplication Meeting date Friday,June 7,2024 Neighborhood Meeting 5/28/2024 Site posting date 8/2/2024 Table 3: Community Metrics Agency/Element Description/Issue Reference Ada County Highway District A IILK • Comments Received Yes - • Commission Action Required No - • Access S.Locust Grove Road—cross access with the ICOM - property to access E. Central Drive • Traffic Level of Service Better than"E"and Better than"D". - ITD Comments Received No iiLL See City/Agency Comments and Conditions Section below and review the public record for all department/agency comments received. City of Meridian I Department Report Community Metrics 119 1 III. STAFF ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code(UDC) A. General Overview The subject property is currently designated Commercial on the future land use map(FLUM). This designation provides 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 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 applicant is requesting the annexation of 23.254 acres of land from the RUT and R-6 zoning districts in Ada County to the C-G zoning district,with the intent to develop the site for a Public Education Institution. This annexation is necessary for ISU to access allocated funds for infrastructure improvements,though no actual development is proposed at this time. Typically, the City requires a concept plan that includes details such as site access,parking,building sizes, pedestrian circulation, and common open space. However, due to the long-term nature of this project, developing these details as part of a comprehensive master plan is crucial. Therefore, City staff has requested that ISU submit a future planned unit development to allow adequate time for master planning the property and coordinating with other partnering agencies. B. Site Development and Use Analysis 1. Existing Structures/Site Improvements (UDC 11-1): The applicant is requesting to retain the three existing structures without connecting them to city utilities until redevelopment can take place. These structures are currently being used for storage to support the university's operational needs. In the meantime,the University commits to regularly maintaining the existing structures and property to ensure they remain clean and orderly. When redevelopment occurs, all existing structures will be removed. 2. Proposed Use Analysis (UDC 11-2): Goal 2.04.O1of the Plan emphasizes the importance of the City partnering with schools,non- profits, and other community-based organizations to provide a variety of educational opportunities throughout all stages of life. The 23.254-acre site is proposed for expansion as part of Idaho State University, a Public Education Institution. The proposed C-G zoning aligns with the comprehensive plan's commercial designation,where an educational institution is a principally permitted use in this zone. Idaho State University envisions the site accommodating academic buildings,university housing(dorms), clinical space (healthcare), multi-use facilities,and outdoor amenities. Given the complexity of the project,the development is expected to unfold over a 30-year timeline. The applicant will be required to submit and obtain approval of a Planned Unit Development(PUD)prior to developing the property. 3. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): With annexation of this property, any future development is required to comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2B-3 for the C-G zoning district. C. Design Standards Analysis 1. Site and Building Design Standards (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-19): Goal 5.01.02D of the Plan emphasizes the importance of building design, and landscaping elements to buffer, screen,beautify, and integrate commercial,multifamily, and parking lots into existing neighborhoods. Future development plans, including site layouts, landscape designs, and building elevations, should adhere to the structure and site design standards set City of Meridian I Department Report Staff Analysis 120 forth in UDC 11-3A-19 and the Architectural Standards Manual(ASM). Additionally, future design concepts will be reviewed and approved through the Planned Unit Development (PUD)process to ensure compatibility with neighboring properties as set forth in UDC 11-7. 2. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): Future development shall comply with the landscape standards listed in UDC 11-3B. 3. Parking(UDC 11-3C): Future development shall comply with the parking standards listed in UDC 11-3C. D. Transportation Analysis 1. Access (Comp Plan and UDC 11-3A-3): Please note that the concept plan used in the TIS is subject to change during the City's review of the PUD application.However,it does establish a baseline for evaluating access to this property and future mitigation measures as discussed in this section of the report. The City has received ACHD's staff report on the proposed annexation request. This development is estimated to generate 5,330 vehicle trips per day, 552 vehicle trips per hour in the AM peak hour and 481 vehicle trips per hour in the PM peak hour,based on the traffic impact study. The TIS also evaluated two(2) accesses to S. Locust Grove Rd. and one(1) access to E. Central Drive. • Access 1 is proposed as a full access driveway located as far as possible for the Locust Grove Road/Central Drive intersection. The proposed access would replace an existing full-access driveway and is critical to the traffic operation and circulation of the proposed development. • Access 2 is proposed as a full-access driveway to replace the existing access to the residential home and is critical to traffic operation and circulation of the proposed development. • Access 3 is proposed as right-out only access due to its proximity to Woodbridge Drive and the neighboring property to the north. Access 3 meets District access spacing standards and avoids turning movement conflicts. The applicant's proposal does not fully comply with ACHD's Access and Driveway Location Policies. Typically, access for this development would be limited to Central Drive, a collector roadway,because it is a lower-classified roadway than Locust Grove Road,which is a minor arterial. However,Access 1 is necessary for the existing parking lot, and Accesses 2 and 3 are required for internal site circulation. Driveways on Locust Grove Road are generally required to be 660 feet apart from other full-movement driveways or 330 feet apart for driveways limited to right-in/right-out access. Despite these requirements,ACHD supports the applicant's access evaluation from the traffic impact study, as all driveways are essential for proper site circulation, and Access 3 is restricted to right-out only. Additional improvements identified in the TIS include the construction of a southbound right- turn lane at the Locust Grove Road/Access 2 intersection and a second westbound through lane at the Central Drive/Locust Grove intersection that runs from the intersection west to terminate as a right-turn drop lane at the Central Drive/Access 1 intersection. In line with ACHD's policies,the Comprehensive Plan and the UDC require developments to access a lesser-classified street. Goal 6.01.02B of the Plan encourages minimizing the number of existing access points onto arterial streets by utilizing methods such as cross-access agreements, access management, and frontage or backage roads,while promoting connectivity between local and collector streets. The purpose of UDC 11-3A-3 is to enhance safety by consolidating and/or limiting access points to arterial streets, ensuring safe entry for City of Meridian I Department Report Staff Analysis 121 motorists. Currently,the primary access to this property is from S. Locust Grove Road. However,the City previously required cross-access to this property through the ICOM parking lot. Staff concurs with the ACHD report and agrees some access to Locust Grove Road is necessary for internal site circulation. With a fixture development application,both the City and ACHD will review access points on S. Locust Grove Road and E. Central Drive. At a minimum,the driveway and cross-access provided by the ICOM property should be utilized for the proposed development. Staff also encourages the applicant to explore additional access options through coordination with the Idaho State Police. Staff recommends a provision in the development agreement requiring the applicant to comply with the access standards set forth in UDC 11-3A-3. 2. Multiuse Pathways (Comp Plan & UDC 11-3A-5 and UDC 11-3A-8): Both the Plan and the Unified Development Code(UDC) set forth policies and regulations for extending multiuse pathways in conjunction with new development. Goal 4.04.01A of the Plan encourages new developments and subdivisions connect to the existing pathway system. Multiuse pathways should be constructed in accordance with the City's Comprehensive Plan, the Meridian Pathways Master Plan,the Ada County Highway District Master Street Map, and the Roadways to Bikeways Master Plan. The Pathways Master Plan indicates a multi-use pathway along the Hunter Lateral, connecting with S. Locust Grove Road on the northeast portion of the site. The pathway currently stubs at the property line from the ICOM parking lot on the southern border. With fixture development,the applicant will be required to extend this pathway through the site and landscape it in accordance with UDC 11-3A-5, 11-3A-8, and 11-313-12C. E. Services Analysis 1. Waterways ((JDC 11-3A-6): The Hunter Lateral bisects the property,with an easement that extends a minimum of 100 feet in total-50 feet on either side of the lateral's centerline. The applicant proposes to tile and pipe the irrigation canal in accordance with UDC 11-3A-6. Any improvements within the easement area will require approval from the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District(NMID). 2. Utilities (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-21): Both the Plan and the UDC establish policy and regulations for extending and connecting to City utilities. Goal 3.03.03G of the Plan mandates urban infrastructure be provided for all new developments,including curb and gutter, sidewalks,water and sewer utilities. Connection to City water and sewer services is typically required with annexation,unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer in accordance with UDC 11-3A-21. As mentioned, the applicant is requesting that the three existing structures not connect to city utilities at this time. After consultation with the City Engineer, staff supports this request,provided that the applicant abandons the existing well and septic system. IV. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS& CONDITIONS A. Meridian Planning Division A Development Agreement(DA)is required as a provision of annexation of this property. Prior to approval of the annexation ordinance, a DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian, the property owner(s) at the time of annexation ordinance adoption, and the developer. Currently, a fee of$303.00 shall be paid by the Applicant to the Planning Division prior to commencement of the DA. The DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning Division within six(6)months of the City Council granting the annexation. The DA shall, at minimum,incorporate the following provisions IF City Council determines annexation is in the best interest of the City: City of Meridian I Department Report City/Agency Comments &Conditions 122 1. Before commencing development on the property,the applicant must submit and obtain approval of a Planned Unit Development(PUD) application. 2. The three existing buildings on the site shall be used solely for storage until future development is proposed, and the existing well and septic system must be abandoned. 3. The property and existing structures must be maintained to prevent them from becoming a noxious use in accordance with UDC 11-3A-10. 4. Access to the property must comply with the standards set forth in UDC 11-3A-3. The City and ACHD will determine appropriate access to S. Locust Grove Road and E. Central Drive during the review and approval of the PUD application. City of Meridian I Department Report City/Agency Comments &Conditions 123 B. Ada County Development Services ADA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 200 W-FRONT STREET,BOISE,IDAHO 83702-7300 PHONE(20S)297-7900 httos;;adacounly'.id. ow�ticvelonmcndscrtiticr FAX(208)2"-7909 BUILDING COMMUNITY PLANNING ENGINEERING&.SURVEYING FERMITTLNG July 19,2024 Bill Parsons Ada County Development Services 200 W Front Street Boise,ID 83702 RE; H-2024-0027/785 S Locust Grove Road!Idaho State University Annexation Bill, The City of Meridian has requested feedback regarding the proposed annexation and rezone from Rural Urban Transition(RUT)to Creneral Retail and Service Commercial(C-G)of 23.25 acres located at 785 S Locust Grove Road.The proposed future uses arc to include facilities for academic,residential,clinical and community needs. Ada County is supportive of the proposed annexation as it is compatible with Goal 2-2 of the Ada County Camprchmsivc Plan, which encourages urban dcvclopmcrtt bG dir=tcd to ArCas of City Impact where investments in urban smices have already been made. Ada County is suppartiv'e of the proposed zone to C-G as it is compatible with the Futurc Land Use Map ofthe Meridian Comprehensive Plan,as adopled by Ada Counly,as iI designates the subject property as Conemercial, which is intended to provide retail, restaprants, personal and professional services,and office uses,as well as appropriate public and quasi-public uses,and may include multi-family. Please feel free to contact roe with any questions- Sinccrely, Sf lr- Ycl-rjl tn+� Stacey Yarrington Community&Regional Planner Ada County Development Services City of Meridian I Department Report City/Agency Comments &Conditions F124] C. Quality(DEQ) See public record. D. Idaho State Police See public record. City of Meridian I Department Report City/Agency Comments &Conditions F125] E. Ada County Highway District(ACHD) ACHD Ako iz Pickering.President Mlfanda Gold,Vic*-President 71m Hansen,Cornrnlssloner Kent Goldthorpe,Commissioner V& Dave WAnngr,Commiuionor Date; August 2,2024 To; MartyVizcarra,via email Staff Cantact_ Ka ra Leigh Troye r, Planner Project Ciewrilption: Idaho State University Trip Generation; This development is estimated to generate 5,330 vehicle trips per day, 552 vehicle trips per hour in the Am peak hour and 461 vehicle trips per hour in the PM peak hour,based on the traffic impact study. Development meetis Pequire5 Revisions w meet ACHD Policies Area Roaldway Level of • Planned Service Improvements Do area Do re r a i Livable Strel�—M Performance Yes Area ■ ■ LOS Planning T:hresholds in it Pla ed Lhefutur:ewith planned Comments; The tables above list the existing conditions of the surrounding roadways without the proposed development as this application is for annexation and rezone only-With a future development application,this summary will be updated to reflect the development and its impact. connecting you to more Ada Cot,rrty Highway Dist rlet,3r7S Adnms Street-Garden Clcy,Ira-{33'714-PH 200 397.F100-FX 345-MSU-vvmvaehd idaho,org City of Meridian I Department Report City/Agency Comments &Conditions 126 V. FINDINGS A. Annexation and/or Rezone(UDC 11-5B-3E) Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Staff finds the Applicant's request to annex the subject property with C-G for the future expansion of Idaho State University is consistent with the Commercial land use designation for this property. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Staff finds the proposed map amendment to C-G and development generally complies with the purpose statement of the commercial districts in that it will contribute to the range of educational and community opportunities available in the City consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; Staff finds the proposed map amendment should not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare as the proposed residential uses should be compatible with adjacent single- family residential homes/uses in the area. 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 Staff finds City services are available to be provided to this development. Comments were not received from WASD on this application so Staff is unable to determine impacts to the school district. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. Stafffinds the proposed annexation is in the best interest of the city if the applicant is required to come through a Planned Unit Development for future expansion of the site. VI. ACTION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the annexation based on the analysis in section III and Findings in section V. B. Commission: Pending C. City Council: Action Pending. City of Meridian I Department Report Findings [127] i■ ed IN \ ' FRANKLINcs Iwo -� .�. .f„�•l! .'fir+--. .-.: �14�1E'.. 7, t M . ���,.:F,,+UGC '"` L - � ~r ■�` �i ■■� �, ■ ■ \■i■ 84 rrn �i4I -- ND rimer _ ■ '®� �... •-i i ^ I/�tla •" ���I�I�IIIIP� 7_.._ o ._o. �� ■■■■■ ■■■■■MEN WSS loss F- 112iiii�[�/•�� p 84 NONNI ER .....■ =- on nn ni�, ■ ��r� �� �j1 ��CC CLrm:�::ii��:■q i �. • o o u1 -_ i �,11111111 Inn► ��. •nnPlII1111nJAMES �7GC■�i■ �� n ■e ■� - �� �- Illlli 1�VVV������III - • • - IIIIIIIL 'ILII�i� �I■■.r L ■AMEN 04 MEN �_■.■■�.q��► •��C�■III son i■■■■■ ��C mons, wool ones mm iiii■.. I -•- man■i 1 1�1111�� fcG�I■■■�■�� FRAN KL=IN—��� �� �,H�`LZr, •�-1�1�i�ll�_LJ=G��� 7�■■■■■1■■�r�i1111111��! 7[]e7► =7- C_C77L�L-"oIC'10_ SENSE 2-dll 1■ ���aA 1� }p't '1�. �■ mill -r—A- cc -- Dili u►: ■ •� �"=�u 7L•¢•1•a-la•1• �� !.feet- MENEM ;1■■� 84����� r _ rn MCI agms ■...w■r.' . ■I MEMO ME .■.■ � e��1�fie■�,�I�♦�����■..�Pi�i:�iiiii��.■� —`�1��!r,i, I r■ nu n■ i�umn■i �i�� i�� �1� �D��p�i.o■::iiii■�:P/ ■ . � B. Subject Site Photos t - - City of Meridian Department Report Exhibits Fl 30 C. Service Accessibility Report Description . Location Within 112 mile of City Limits YELLMV Extension Sewer Trunkshed mains < 500 ft. from parcel GREEN Floodplain Either not within the 100 yrfloodplain or > 2 acres GREEN Emergency Services Fire Response time < 5 min. GREEN Emergency Services Police Meets response time goals most of the time GREEN Pathways Within 1/4 mile of current pathways GREEN Transit Within 1/4 mile of current transit route GREEN Arterial Road Buildcut Status Ultimate configuration (#of lanes in master streets GREEN plan) matches existing of lanes) School Walking Proximity Within 112 mile walking GREEN Either a High School or College within 2 miles OR a School Drivability Middle or Elementary School within 1 mile driving GREEN (existing or future) Either a Regional Park within 1 mile OR a Community Park Walkability Park within 1/2 mile OR Neighborhood Park with;- GREEN 1/4 mile walking City of Meridian I Department Report Exhibits 131 D. Annexation Legal Description& Exhibit Map 4 E_Franklirl Rd_ I � 3 Murdoch NE CORNER SEC11nN 1$ o u 5u4dIVEgIOn M4.2 FOUND BIZkSS CAP 101 O O 0° E.Wbodhrldge +A 4 Dr. u a 7 m m W8935'38"E 1328_I9' O p -0 W ++ LU c m ra a dal m n a r $ 2 t< m Q a N � � in in 0 « s t ; Annexation Area;23.2541 AC. Z_ rya ° " a S1119142201&S11194172SS -d o 5 Currant Zoning:RUT&RG °C x w e ao 7 Q Ow Vl 47 5 rd N nr W POINT OF BEGINNING" F W E 1{4 CORNER SECTION 1B W FOUND ALUMINUM CAP Z narE� lone x8en 569'32'O&'1Y 665,95' %-EM E9•80 N SHEET, 1 OF 1 State of Idaho N Unplatted 599'32'09'tiN 540.66' oc A�O Unplatted H -km 7SE CORNER SECTION 18 rnE�E❑�s.wHVErons.rurr�Ens FOUND 9RASS CAP 92B W ST STATE 9HET aau.oAroa�rr. E.Overland Rd• mo a 12❑s16�a H FM 1w1 H996930 City of Meridian Department Report Exhibits 132 km E H G I H E E R I N G June 7,2024 Project No-19-069 Exhibit A Legal Descriptlon for Annexation A parcel of land being the South 1f2 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northeast 2/4 and a portlon of the Plo rtheast 1/4 of the Southeast 2/4 of Sectlo n 'gr Townshl p 3 Northr Re nge 1 Ea st,Boise Meridian,Ada County,Idaho and being more pafficula rly described as follows: BEGINNING at a n a I u minum cap roarkirlg the east 2/4 corner of so Id Sectlon A whit h bea rs 500'31'02"W a distance of 2,658.78 feet from a brass cap marki ng the northeast corner of Said Sectlon 29; Thence fallowing the easterly Ilne of sold southeast 1/4 of Sectlon 18,SW36'31"W a distance of 221,52 feet; Thence reaving said Baste rly li ne,S99'3ZWW a distance of 540.86 feet to the centerli ne of an irelgatlon lateral; Thence following said centerline,N23'4d'43"W a dlstancL of 241.12 feet to the southerly IIne of sald South 1/2 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4; Thence leaving said centerline and following said southerly liner W8 2'08"W a distance of 685.96feet to a 5/8-Inch rebar; Thence leaving said southerly line and following the westerly line of said South 1/2 of the Southeast 114 of the Northeast 114,NOT29'220E a distance of 666.04 feet to a 5/8-irrch re bar, Thi�rrre leaving said westerly IIne and following the northerly line of said South 1/2 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northeast 114,N89'3V3WE a distance of 1,325.19 feet; The nce leavi ng said northerly line and fallowing the Baste rly l7rre of se id So uth 1J2 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4,SOWaV02"W a distance of 664.69 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNIN6. Said parcel contains a total of 23.254 acres,more or less. Attached hereto is Exhibit B and by this reference is hereby made a part of. 69 9233 Wrst Statc Strout a Bolst,Wsho 83714 F 206.639.6939 - kmengllp.com City of Meridian I Department Report 133