HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC - Updated Staff Report for 9-24
City of Meridian | Department Report I. Project Overview
HEARING
DATE:
9/24/2024
Continued from: 9/10/2024 &
9/17/2024
TO: Mayor & City Council
FROM: Sonya Allen, Associate Planner
208-884-5533
sallen@meridiancity.org
APPLICANT: Ball Ventures Ahlquist
SUBJECT: H-2023-0071
District at Ten Mile – CPAM, MDA,
RZ, PP
LOCATION: Northwest corner of S. Ten Mile Rd. &
I-84 in Section 15, T.3N., R.1W.
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.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT REPORT
City of Meridian | Department Report II. Community Metrics
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
that 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.C below. Otherwise, Staff recommends denial of the proposed
MDA, CPAM and RZ applications.
Commission: Recommend approval to Council with the additional recommendation that Council
consider if the proposed FLUM designations & zoning are consistent with the proposed
development plan and whether those need to be modified.
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
(Community Business), TN-C (Traditional Neighborhood
Center)
Proposed: TN-C (33.42-acres), C-C (59.11-acres), C-G
(General Retail and Service Commercial) (25.97-acres),
M-E (Mixed Employment) (10.19-acres) and H-E (34.82-
acres)
VII.A.2
Existing/Proposed Future Land Use
Designation
Existing: MHDR (Medium-high Density Residential), MU-
Res (Mixed Use – Residential), Mixed Use – Commercial
(MU-Com), HDE (High-density Employment)
Proposed: MHDR (on adjacent property only), MU-Res,
MU-Com, HDE
VII.A.3
Table 2: Process Facts
Description Details
Preapplication Meeting date Tuesday, November 21, 2023
Neighborhood Meeting 12/4/2023
Site posting date 8/5/2024
City of Meridian | Department Report II. Community Metrics
Table 3: Community Metrics
Agency / Element Description / Issue Reference
Ada County Highway District
• Comments Received No
• 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 | Department Report II. Community Metrics
Figure 1: One-Mile Radius Existing Condition Metrics
City of Meridian | Department Report III. Staff Analysis
Figure 2: Service Impact Summary
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
Ready
Marginal
Caution
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 FLUM Map - Adopted vs. Proposed in Section VI.C below)
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.C 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. The
Applicant has declined to do so.
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 | Department Report III. Staff Analysis
Note: If Council approves an amendment to the FLUM for the proposed development plan
and Staff’s 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 | 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 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. 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 | Department Report III. 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-
2B-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.
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-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.
See above for information on MU-Com 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.5, 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 | 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 I-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 | Department Report III. 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-11C.
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 11-3C-
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 | Department Report III. 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
City of Meridian | Department Report III. Staff Analysis
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.”
C
D
E
City of Meridian | Department Report III. 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 VII.B 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 | Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments & Conditions
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 | 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 (10)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 I-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 I-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 | Department Report 0. Other Agency comments may be accessed in
the project file, included in the public record.
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
11-3B-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 file, included in the public record.
V. FINDINGS
A. 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;
The Commission finds 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;
The Commission finds 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 | Department Report V. Findings
3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and
welfare;
The Commission finds 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
The Commission finds 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 11-5B-7D)
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:
6. The proposed amendment is consistent with the other elements of the comprehensive plan.
The Commission finds 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.
7. The proposed amendment provides an improved guide to future growth and development of
the city.
The Commission finds 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.
8. The proposed amendment is internally consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of
the Comprehensive Plan.
The Commission finds 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.
9. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Unified Development Code.
The Commission finds 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.
10. The amendment will be compatible with existing and planned surrounding land uses.
The Commission finds 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.
11. The proposed amendment will not burden existing and planned service capabilities.
City of Meridian | Department Report V. Findings
The Commission finds 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
12. The proposed map amendment (as applicable) provides a logical juxtaposition of uses that
allows sufficient area to mitigate any anticipated impact associated with the development of
the area.
The Commission finds the 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.
13. The proposed amendment is in the best interest of the City of Meridian.
The Commission finds 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 11-6B-6)
In consideration of a preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat, the
decision-making body shall make the following findings:
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;
The Commission finds if City Council approves the proposed development plan and alternate
FLUM 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;
The Commission finds 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;
The Commission finds there are no scheduled public improvements adjacent to or on this site.
14. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development;
The Commission finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the
proposed development.
15. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and
The Commission finds the proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety or general welfare.
16. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features.
The Commission is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that need
to be preserved with this development.
City of Meridian | Department Report VI. Action
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
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).
B. Commission:
The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission heard these items on August 15, 2024. At the
public hearing, the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject CPAM, MDA, RZ
and PP requests.
1. Summary of Commission public hearing:
a. In favor: Tonn Peterson, Ball Ventures Ahlquist; Geoff Wardle, Clark Wardle; Colin
Ronhaar, Ardurra; Elizabeth Allen, Ball Ventures Ahlquist – Applicant and
Representatives
b. In opposition: None
c. Commenting: Jenny Defrates
d. Written testimony: Kristina Bolt; Geoff Wardle, Clark Wardle (Applicant’s
Representative)
e. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen
f. Other Staff commenting on application: Bill Parsons
2. Key issue(s) of public testimony:
a. Concern that the proposed development will increase the traffic gridlock on Ten Mile,
Franklin & I-84.
b. Desire for preservation of the existing (cedar?) tree along Ten Mile Rd. and any other
trees on the site.
c. In support of the services and shopping opportunities proposed within the development.
d. Against the proposed development.
3. Key issue(s) of discussion by Commission:
a. Agreement with Staff that the proposed development plan is not consistent with the
TMISAP.
b. Concurrence that the TMISAP being 17 years old may be outdated and there may be a
need to refresh it to reflect current conditions.
c. General agreement that the proposed development plan is appropriate for this area and
supports Staff’s suggested path forward with FLUM designations and zoning districts.
4. Commission change(s) to Staff recommendation:
a. Recommend approval to Council with the additional recommendation that Council
consider if the proposed FLUM designations & zoning are consistent with the proposed
development plan and whether those need to be modified.
5. Outstanding issue(s) for City Council:
a. Staff requested the Applicant submit a phasing plan for the overall development to
understand the timing of infrastructure improvements – the Applicant has declined to do
so.
City of Meridian | Department Report VII. Exhibits
C. City Council:
The Meridian City Council heard these items on (continued from: September 10, 2024) September 17,
2024. At the public hearing on September 17, 2024, the Council moved to continue the subject CPAM,
MDA, RZ and PP requests to the September 24, 2024 meeting.
1. Summary of the City Council public hearing:
a. In favor: Geoff Wardle, Clark Wardle
b. In opposition: None
c. Commenting: Gina Johnson, Kristina Bolt, Karla Ehlers, Ryan Manwaring, Katie
Manwaring
d. Written testimony: None
e. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen
f. Other Staff commenting on application: None
2. Key issue(s) of public testimony:
a. Request for the developer and the City to consider an alternate development plan for this
area that would benefit charities;
b. Concern what the proposed development will do to this area, no need for more multi-family
in this area – the City already has The Village, consider the neighborhoods in this area;
c. Against more high-density apartments in this area, concern pertaining to capacity of area
schools;
d, Concern about lagging infrastructure in this area, quality of education for our kids,
healthcare issues;
3. Key issue(s) of discussion by City Council:
a. None
4. City Council change(s) to Commission recommendation:
a. None
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)
City of Meridian | Department Report VII. Exhibits
1. Aerial
2. Zoning Map
City of Meridian | Department Report VII. Exhibits
3. Future Land Use
4. Planned Development Map
B. Service Accessibility Report
City of Meridian | Department Report VII. Exhibits
C. Future Land Use Map – Adopted vs. Proposed
Applicant Proposed:
City of Meridian | Department Report VII. Exhibits
Staff Recommended (if Council Approves Proposed Development Plan):
City of Meridian | Department Report VII. Exhibits
D. Rezone Legal Descriptions & Exhibit Maps
City of Meridian | Department Report VII. Exhibits
City of Meridian | Department Report VII. Exhibits
City of Meridian | Department Report VII. Exhibits
City of Meridian | Department Report VII. Exhibits
City of Meridian | Department Report VII. Exhibits
City of Meridian | Department Report VII. Exhibits
City of Meridian | Department Report VII. Exhibits
City of Meridian | Department Report VII. Exhibits
City of Meridian | Department Report VII. Exhibits
City of Meridian | Department Report VII. Exhibits
City of Meridian | Department Report VII. Exhibits
City of Meridian | Department Report VII. Exhibits
City of Meridian | Department Report VII. Exhibits
City of Meridian | Department Report VII. Exhibits
City of Meridian | Department Report VII. Exhibits
City of Meridian | Department Report VII. Exhibits
City of Meridian | Department Report VII. Exhibits
City of Meridian | Department Report VII. Exhibits
City of Meridian | Department Report VII. Exhibits
City of Meridian | Department Report VII. Exhibits
E. New Development Agreement Boundary – Legal Description & Exhibit Map
City of Meridian | Department Report VII. Exhibits
City of Meridian | Department Report VII. Exhibits
City of Meridian | Department Report VII. Exhibits
F. Existing Conceptual Development Plan for Vanguard Village
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 | Department Report VII. Exhibits
G. Proposed Overall Conceptual Development Plan
City of Meridian | Department Report VII. Exhibits
H. Use Area Plan
City of Meridian | Department Report VII. Exhibits
I. Preliminary Plat (date: 6/4/2024)
City of Meridian | Department Report VII. Exhibits
City of Meridian | Department Report VII. Exhibits
City of Meridian | Department Report VII. Exhibits
City of Meridian | Department Report VII. Exhibits
J. Site Plan (date: 6/5/2024)
City of Meridian | Department Report VII. Exhibits
City of Meridian | Department Report VII. Exhibits
City of Meridian | Department Report VII. Exhibits
K. Landscape Plan
City of Meridian | Department Report VII. Exhibits
City of Meridian | Department Report VII. Exhibits
L. Open Space Exhibit
City of Meridian | Department Report VII. Exhibits
M. Mobility Plan
City of Meridian | Department Report VII. Exhibits
N. Project Design Standards
Please click on the following link to access the Applicant’s proposed design standards for the
development:
https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=355939&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
ity&cr=1