Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-11-06 Regular City Council Regular Meeting City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Wednesday, November 06, 2024 at 6:00 PM Minutes ROLL CALL ATTENDANCE PRESENT Councilman Doug Taylor Councilman John Overton Councilwoman Anne Little Roberts Councilman Brian Whitlock Councilman Luke Cavener Councilwoman Liz Strader Mayor Robert E. Simison PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE COMMUNITY INVOCATION ADOPTION OF AGENDA Adopted PUBLIC FORUM – Future Meeting Topics ACTION ITEMS 1. Public Hearing for Proposed Winter 2025 Fee Schedule of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department 2. Resolution No. 24-2485: A Resolution Adopting the Winter 2025 Fee Schedule of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department; Authorizing the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department to Collect Such Fees; and Providing an Effective Date Approved Motion to approve made by Councilman Whitlock, Seconded by Councilman Overton. Voting Yea: Councilman Taylor, Councilman Overton, Councilwoman Little Roberts, Councilman Whitlock, Councilman Cavener, Councilwoman Strader 3. Public Hearing for Briar Ridge Subdivision (TECC-2024-0003) by Kent Brown, Kent Brown Planning Services, located at West side of Meridian Rd. between W. Lake Hazel Rd. and W. Amity Rd. directly south of the mid-mile point. Approved Application Materials: https://bit.ly/TECC-2024-0003 A. Request: For a second time extension in order to obtain the City Engineer's signature. Motion to approve made by Councilman Overton, Seconded by Councilman Taylor. Voting Yea: Councilman Taylor, Councilman Overton, Councilwoman Little Roberts, Councilman Whitlock, Councilman Cavener, Councilwoman Strader 4. Public Hearing for Raising Cane's Council Review (CR-2024-0002) by Lynzey Uechi, East River Valley St., LLC., located at 2700 N. Eagle Rd. Approved Application Materials: https://bit.ly/CR-2024-0002 A. Request: Council Review of the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision of the Conditional Use Permit of a drive-through establishment. Motion to approve made by Councilwoman Strader, Seconded by Councilman Taylor. Voting Yea: Councilman Taylor, Councilwoman Little Roberts, Councilman Whitlock, Councilwoman Strader Voting Nay: Councilman Overton, Councilman Cavener 5. Public Hearing for Rolling Hill (H-2023-0070) by JD Planning and Consulting, located at 1560 Rolling Hill Dr. Denied Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2023-0070 A. Request: Annexation of 6.90 acres of land from the R-1 zone in Ada County to the C-C (Community Business District) zone to develop two (2) vertically integrated residential structures featuring 90 dwelling units and 20,134 sq. ft. of commercial space. B. Request: Conditional Use Permit to develop one (1) multi-family building consisting of 64 dwelling units on 5.89 acres in the proposed C-C zone. Motion to deny made by Councilwoman Strader, Seconded by Councilman Overton. Voting Yea: Councilman Taylor, Councilman Overton, Councilwoman Little Roberts, Councilman Whitlock, Councilman Cavener, Councilwoman Strader 6. Public Hearing for The Gateway at 10 Mile (H-2024-0010) by KM Engineering, LLP., located at NE corner of W. Franklin and N. Ten Mile Rd. Continued to November 19, 2024 Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2024-0010 A. Request: Conditional Use Permit for 390 multi-family units in the R-40 zoning district. B, Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 31 buildable lots and 3 common lots on 38.99 acres of land zoned C-G and R-40. Motion to continue to November 19, 2024 made by Councilwoman Strader, Seconded by Councilman Taylor. Voting Yea: Councilman Taylor, Councilman Overton, Councilwoman Little Roberts, Councilman Whitlock, Councilman Cavener, Councilwoman Strader ORDINANCES \[Action Item\] 7. Ordinance No. 24-2065: An ordinance (Burnside Ridge Estates – H-2023-0055) annexing a parcel of land located in the west half of the northeast quarter and a portion of the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter and a portion of the northeast quarter of the northeast quarter and all of Lots 1, 2 and 3 of Basslin Ridge Estates as on file in Book 64 of Plats at Page 6469 in the Office of the Recorder of Ada County, Idaho, all located in Section 26, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described in Exhibit “A”; rezoning 123.28 acres of such real property from RUT (Rural Urban Transition) to R-2 (11.91 acres) (Low-Density Residential), R-4 (89.55 acres) (Medium Low-Density Residential), and R-8 (21.82 acres) (Medium-Density Residential) zoning districts; directing city staff to alter all applicable use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps and all official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance; providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Treasurer, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law; repealing conflicting ordinances; and providing an effective date. Approved Motion to approve made by Councilman Taylor, Seconded by Councilwoman Little Roberts. Voting Yea: Councilman Taylor, Councilman Overton, Councilwoman Little Roberts, Councilman Whitlock, Councilman Cavener, Councilwoman Strader 8. Ordinance No. 24-2064: An ordinance (Taylor Annexation – H-2023-0062) annexing Lot 3, Block 2 of Jewell Subdivision as shown in Book 34 of Plats at pages 2056 and 2057 records, Ada County, Idaho, and adjoining right of way, more particularly described in Exhibit “A”; rezoning 1.01 acres of such real property from the R1 (Estate Residential) to the R-2 (Low-Density Residential) zoning district; directing city staff to alter all applicable use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps and all official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance; providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Treasurer, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law; repealing conflicting ordinances; and providing an effective date. Approved Motion to approve made by Councilman Taylor, Seconded by Councilwoman Little Roberts. Voting Yea: Councilman Taylor, Councilman Overton, Councilwoman Little Roberts, Councilman Whitlock, Councilman Cavener, Councilwoman Strader 9. Ordinance No. 24-2066: An ordinance (Idaho State University – H-2024-0027) annexing a parcel of land being the south half of the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter and a portion of the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 18, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County Idaho, more particularly described in Exhibit “A”; rezoning 23.25 acres of such real property from RUT (Rural Urban Transition) and R6 (Medium-Density Residential) zoning districts to the C-G (General Retail and Service Commercial) zoning district; directing city staff to alter all applicable use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps and all official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance; providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Treasurer, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law; repealing conflicting ordinances; and providing an effective date. Approved Motion to approve made by Councilman Taylor, Seconded by Councilman Overton. Voting Yea: Councilman Taylor, Councilman Overton, Councilwoman Little Roberts, Councilman Whitlock, Councilman Cavener, Councilwoman Strader FUTURE MEETING TOPICS ADJOURNMENT 10:26 AM Meridian City Council November 6, 2024. A Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:09 p.m. Tuesday, November 6, 2024, by Mayor Robert Simison. Members Present: Robert Simison, Luke Cavener, Liz Strader, John Overton, Doug Taylor, Anne Little Roberts and Brian Whitlock. Other Present: Chris Johnson, Bill Nary, Bill Parsons, Linda Ritter, Clint Dolsby, Berle Stokes, Kris Blume and Dean Willis. ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE X Liz Strader X Brian Whitlock Anne Little Roberts _X_ John Overton _X_ Doug Taylor _X_Luke Cavener X Mayor Robert E. Simison Simison: Council, we will call this meeting to order. First just want to say thank you to those in attendance for giving us a few minutes in between to take care of some business and be ready for the evening. But with that we will call this meeting to order. It is November 6th, 2024, at 6:09 p.m. We will begin today's regular City Council meeting with roll call attendance. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Simison: Next item up is the Pledge of Allegiance. If you would all, please, rise and join us in the pledge. (Pledge of Allegiance recited.) COMMUNITY INVOCATION Simison: Mr. Clerk, I assume we had no one signed up for the community invocation? Johnson: You are correct. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Simison: And anyone -- well, that will come next. Next up is adoption of the agenda. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I move that we approve the agenda as published. Meridian City Council November 6,2024 Page 2 of 77 Overton: Second. Simison: Have a motion and a second to approve the agenda as published. Is there any discussion? If not all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and the agenda is adopted. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. PUBLIC FORUM — Future Meeting Topics Simison: Mr. Clerk, anyone under public forum? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, just one. Laren Bailey. Simison: Okay. Bailey: Good evening, Mayor, Members of the Council. My name is Laren Bailey. I represent Devco and Black Rock Homes located at 44824 West Fairview Avenue, Boise, Idaho. I'm here tonight -- I want to clarify some statements that were made at a City Council hearing earlier this year. Over the past few months our development team has submitted two preliminary plats within the mixed-use zones. During this process we were surprised to discover that the Comprehensive Plan had been updated in March of this year. Although we participated in three to four preliminary application meetings with city staff during the period of time when these comp plan changes were being introduced, the significant change was not mentioned or discussed until we received the staff report for a hearing approximately three weeks ago. As we investigated these changes and consulted with others in the industry, including our attorney Hethe Clark, and developers Dave Jorgeson and others in the BCA, it became clear to us that many stakeholder -- holders were similarly unaware of the scope and impact of these policy changes. While early drafts of the plan circulated, they lacked many of the substantial changes later included in the final version. In reviewing the public hearing we were struck by the limited public input for such a substantial policy shift. To our knowledge there were no stakeholder group meetings, Comprehensive Plan meet -- committee meetings or meaningful public outreach. Additionally, property owners within the mixed- use areas were not informed -- excuse me -- or notified of the changes. We believe this is why there was little to no turn out from the public at the hearings. Moreover my name was referenced in support of these amendments without my knowledge or consent. At the January 9th City Council meeting Councilman Strader asked about the process behind these changes. Staff responded by listing businesses and mentioning my name specifically as someone who had reviewed and updated and -- reviewed the updates and provided no additional comments. I was taken aback as I did not receive -- or I did not recall receiving or being asked to comment on these updates. Although I had heard of the potential changes and had seen some graphics intended to be replaced by the -- replace the existing visuals, I had not seen the document or reviewed it formally. After checking my e-mails I found a notification from Brian McClure on the 8th of March of this year, two days after the comp plan was updated, forwarding a previous e-mail from Meridian City Council November 6,2024 Page 3 of 77 November 7th, 2023, an e-mail that I was not included on. I'm here tonight to clarify publicly that I did not review or endorse these changes to the Comprehensive Plan as they were not provided to me. I wonder if it was truly the city's intent to implement such changes -- I'm almost done, Mayor. Sorry. On this manner. If the intent was clear and well considered I respect that. However, I question why the process did not include the transparent public engagement that typically accompanies substantial policy updates in the City of Meridian. We have not seen policy changes of this magnitude handled in this way before. A particular concern was the number of times the words -- the words like should were changed or replaced with shall or must. We counted over 27 times. This is a significant policy shift. This is one change of many that was not vetted by stakeholders. I lack the time tonight to address these issues individually, but I want to reiterate our severe disappointment in the process, lack of transparency and the fact that my name was used when I had not ever seen the documents. I'm hopeful that in the future there will be more inclusive process for change of this magnitude. Thank you for your time. Simison: Thank you, Laren. Can I have your statement -- your copy of your statement. And congratulations on the promotion. Thank you. Anybody else, Mr. Clerk, sign up? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, that was everyone. ACTION ITEMS 1. Public Hearing for Proposed Winter 2025 Fee Schedule of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department Simison: Okay. With that we will move on to tonight's Action Items. First item up is a public hearing for Proposed Winter 2025 fee schedule of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department. Mr. White. Open this public hearing with staff comments. White: Mr. Mayor, Members of Council, thanks for having me tonight. In front of you are the fees for our next activity guide for all of our classes and programs we plan to offer. All these fees are set to meet all of the cost recovery philosophies that we are -- have adopted, so that -- that works and, then, you will see also on there that there is some increases, some decreases, some stay the same and, really, like every time I come and talk to you guys that's based on number of classes offered in that session, based on the number of days in the month and so on. So, really, with that I will stand for questions. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions for staff on this item? Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Meridian City Council November 6,2024 Page 4 of 77 Cavener: Mr. White, thanks for being here. You look very very similar to a model that we saw on a presentation in our earlier meeting, so it's nice to have you here. My only question for you was SNAG, starting new at golf. That's exciting when we offer new programs. Is this for young people that are trying golf, old people like me that want to try golf, everybody in between? Do you have any insight to share about what with this new program is? White: Councilman Cavener, Mr. Mayor, great question. Thank you and thanks for noticing that picture in the previous slides that Steve showed. Me as a younger with my younger twin. So, that program is primarily for kids, but I'm sure Ryan and his staff Pete and those guys would implement something like that with adults and any -- really any age. The idea is to get people out there starting golf whether you are great at it or not or just want to learn it. So, that's kind of the intent behind it. So, to answer that question I would say it was for all ages. Cavener: Great. Thanks. Appreciate it. Appreciate these updates. Simison: Thank you very much, Garrett. This is a public hearing, Mr. Clerk. Do we have anyone signed up to provide testimony on this item? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we did not. Simison: Okay. Is there anybody -- you can sit down, Garrett. You are good. Is there anybody present who would like to provide any comments on this public hearing item, either in the room or online? If you are online you can use the raise your hand feature. Seeing no one raising their hand or no one coming forward, do I have a motion to close the public hearing? Whitlock: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Whitlock. Whitlock: Move we close the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Overton: Second. Simison: Have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and the public hearing is closed. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. 2. Resolution No. 24-2485: A Resolution Adopting the Winter 2025 Fee Schedule of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department; Authorizing the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department to Collect Such Fees; and Providing an Effective Date Meridian City Council November 6,2024 Page 5 of 77 Simison: Next up is Item 2, Resolution No. 24-2485, resolution adopting the Winter 2025 fee schedule of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department. Authorize the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department to collect such fees and provide an effective date. Whitlock: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Whitlock. Whitlock: I move we approve Agenda Item No. 2, Resolution No. 24-2485, resolution adopting the Winter 2025 fee schedule for the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department. Overton: Second. Simison: Have a motion and a second to approve Resolution No. 24-2485. Is there discussion on the motion? If not all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and the resolution is agreed to. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. 3. Public Hearing for Briar Ridge Subdivision (TECC-2024-0003) by Kent Brown, Kent Brown Planning Services, located at West side of Meridian Rd. between W. Lake Hazel Rd. and W. Amity Rd. directly south of the mid-mile point. A. Request: For a second time extension in order to obtain the City Engineer's signature. Simison: Next item up is Item 3, a public hearing for Briar Ridge Subdivision, TECC- 2024-0003. We will open this public hearing with staff comments. Ritter: Good evening, Mayor and Council Members. So, tonight we are here for a time extension for Briar Ridge Subdivision. This site consists of 14.14 acres of land. It's zoned TN-R. It's located on the west side of Meridian Road between West Lake Hazel Road and West Amity. So, the final plat, which was H-2022-0011 for this project, was approved by City Council on September 14th, 2021 . The plat consists of 59 single family residential building lots, 24 townhome lots and 35 detached single family lots and 15 common lots with approximately 24.82 percent qualified open space. So, the request here is for a one year time extension on the final plat in order to obtain the city engineer's signature. The developer has received final plat approval for the first phase of the project, which was FP-2022-01 -- 0011 and work has begun on this phase. So, staff is not requesting any new conditions to be placed on the application with the time extension. The reason the applicant is requesting the time extension is that the developer stated they have experienced major delays in getting permits from the transportation department to bring sewer down the roadway to the site. We had no Meridian City Council November 6,2024 Page 6 of 77 written testimony on this project and so at this time staff will stand for any questions that you have, but the applicant is also here to answer any questions. Simison: Thank you, Linda. Council, any questions for staff? Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Linda, this is the second request for a time extension. Was the first time request for the same reason? Ritter: Yes. They went through the director for an extension, yes, and it was due to ITD. Cavener: Okay. Thanks. Simison: Would you like to come forward? Brown: For the record Kent Brown. 3161 East Springwood is my business address. Linda, can you put up that little slide I put together? So, from the very beginning when we did this preliminary plat in 2021, the landowner to the north of us where the city stubbed the black track -- Black Cat trunk line to has not wanted to grant access to the property. In speaking with the city engineer today apparently others have made that similar request. He has received a preliminary plat approval on that property and as I understand he wants to sell his property and not let anything go on before then. There is people to the north of him that have also tried to get access to that sewer. I don't know if many of you are familiar -- when the city did annexations out in that area this was one of the major trunk lines that you put together. You brought up the road about two and a half, three miles, you went through what I have always called the chicken farm storage unit place that Simplot owns and, then, up the hill to this property. What's interesting is on the east side the developers over there, the landowners, have worked together and there is sewer past Discovery Park and it's worked really well. On this west side we have been frustrated as trying to make this happen. When we did our preliminary -- or our final plat we submitted the plans, we had already had previous discussions before we ever brought the preliminary plat and ITD had said that they would grant us approval to run sewer line down the shoulder of the road. When we were in our third review, final review of the plans, ITD came back and said, no, we don't want that in our right of way and we are not allowing those things to happen anymore. What's interesting for you to get the trunk line there you had to run it up the shoulder of the road also. It's been something that they have done for many years. There is a number of places in west Boise where Chinden has the same kind of thing. They -- they ran the sewer up the side of the state highway. We were told by the city engineer before we could move forward that we needed to exercise all of the effort that we could to make sure that it wasn't just someone saying no, even though we had had the same thing them saying yes and a person changes, then, they said no, so we went through an Meridian City Council November 6,2024 Page 7 of 77 appeal process. It took over six months and we -- we got finally just recently a denial to run the sewer. The major comment that came back in -- in that discussion was the depth of the sewer along the shoulder of the road. So, we have been in discussions with the city engineer about using a temporary lift station. Temporary lift stations have been used throughout the valley. There is a number of areas in southwest Boise where some landowners lived along the major trunk line and they decided that they wouldn't have to put up with any growth if they just didn't allow the sewer through. So, lift station there worked for about three or four miles of taking this -- this pressure line, which is a much smaller line, and, then, pushed past that point. So, we are in the process of starting that negotiation with ITD. Got a tentative approval and it's very tentative, because there is no reason for -- for the city to approve that until ITD says that we can't. As you look at the sketch that I put together, it's -- you can see a green line where it talks about the sewer stub. That's the piece of property that you -- you stubbed the sewer to and that's where the main trunk line is there and, then, our property is to the south. You see development that's on the -- the right side or the -- the east side of the highway there that has sewer and so, you know, I -- I would say the worst case scenario is that if they don't allow us to go north up that way, that we might be able to go straight across, but all of those things have challenges and each one takes a different aspect of that. As I have been trying to prepare for this meeting tonight I started looking at this and going, oh, the last time we did this it took six months for us to get an actual denial for trying to do the sewer. I'm looking at me asking for a year and I -- I would like to amend that to at least a couple years. On site if you look at the drawing you can -- or the aerial that you can see we have saw cut all of the sewer lines and water lines in the entire subdivision. There is a mountain of rock out there that we have got sitting on site. We have taken the McBurney Lateral that runs through the site, we have tiled it. If we could get access to sewer we would probably have two phases done during the time that we have been messing around here and we want to move forward, but it is -- in the 34 years that I have been doing this, both as an employee of city -- the city of Boise and on the private side, ditch companies, the state and the federal government are omnipotent, at least in their mind, and so what they say goes and so we are kind of at their mercy. We have a development agreement on this piece of property. This is the only thing I can build on this and we have spent pretty close to seven, eight hundred thousand dollars already in what we have done and so there isn't any advantage for us to have the subdivision die and to turn around and come back and submit basically the -- well, I have to, the same exact thing. So, I'm here asking for two years and, hopefully, you can understand the -- the difficulty that we have in trying to get to the sewer. Any questions? Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Overton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: So, Kent, if -- if I understand you correctly, the time extension is so you can review two possible solutions. One is still going down Highway 69, but much deeper, or Meridian City Council November 6,2024 Page 8 of 77 bringing that line across Highway 69 from the other development to the east. Am I understanding you are correct? Brown: So, we are -- we are looking at using a temporary lift station and only being four foot deep and putting in a small line, pressure line, doesn't have any openings and manholes in it, that kind of thing, and, then, dumping into the manhole that is where the sewer's been stubbed across. We could install that in two or three days where we would be maybe two -- two weeks at doing it the other way. I think that that's part of their problem and, then, when they -- they talked about depth. We -- we have -- obviously sewer flows so it -- it has to do that. When you do a pressure line you don't have to worry about flows, you just follow the contour of the ground and -- and the city standard requires four foot of cover, so that's why the depth is there or we could almost lay it on top of the ground, so -- Overton: Mr. Mayor, follow up. Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: Kent, have you had conversations about a lift station with city staff? Brown: Yes, we have. Overton: And were they in agreement with the solution? Brown: They are unwilling to grant an agreement until they are sure that we have a path. What's interesting is that this area is gravity flow, but to the south of us that all has to go into lift stations and further to the west a number of those areas, on the master plan again, they have to go into lift stations and when you think about it, the water tank is just to the north of the development that's on -- the city water tank is on the east side of the road, the future site for the water tank, it sits on the highest point out there and so having sewer go uphill usually means that you go deeper and so the -- everything is looking at, you know, for the future, other than this little area, which isn't a very little area, but it's littler than what's on the other side of the road, but the rest of it has to be done with lift stations. And Clint -- Clint's here to -- to smack me if I say something wrong. Overton: Mr. Mayor, follow up. Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: This is a question for Clint. Clint, if you could enlighten me on city staff side. Dolsby: Thank you, Council Member Overton, Mr. Mayor. So, we have had discussions with Kent and his group for the last couple years -- probably going back to when they first started this. Originally, of course, we wanted him to go to the property owner to the north and negotiate with them. We saw they had a preliminary plat. We thought, oh, Meridian City Council November 6,2024 Page 9 of 77 good news, but -- and they have tried and tried with that property owner and they have gotten nowhere. So, the next option is that we would have really liked to have seen a gravity sewer that would go along the road -- along Meridian Road, Highway 69, from their development up to the manhole. So, they very diligently worked on that for -- think it was over a year before ITD denied the gravity line, which was the deep line that Kent mentioned. So, now just about their -- the option they are looking at now, which seems like it's about the only option left, would be to put in a temporary lift station in their development, which would pump up to the manhole that ITD denied the gravity sewer going through, but we -- Kent seems to think there is a better chance that they will approve -- and I agree with him -- there is a better chance that they would approve a pressure sewer, because it's very similar to a water line as far as depth goes. It's not near -- it can get constructed a lot faster as Kent said and another option, which we haven't explored yet -- we haven't fully explored this one, but he had mentioned going across Meridian Road. We haven't really looked at that yet. It might work. It might not. I mean, honestly, we are not real excited about a temporary lift station, but we see the dilemma they are in and how long they have been working and how diligently they have been -- they have been working on this. Overton: Thank you. Taylor: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Taylor. Taylor: Maybe a question for Clinton and staff. I'm not sure who is to answer this question. But if I'm understanding and tracking this correctly, ITD could potentially grant you what you are seeking, assuming that the city was okay with that; is that -- I mean they want to see the city act first in order to get them to feel comfortable or -- I'm just trying to follow a line of sequence of what needs to happen at what point to get you what you are looking for. Brown: We have to take to them a proposal and they have to grant us approval. The city doesn't want to go through that process of saying that it's okay if it's not going to happen and so that's generally doable. I mean when we first approached ITD it was way -- way before we ever did the preliminary plat. I mean I have been asked -- because I have been doing this for so long I always get asked, you know, where -- can you tell me where development is going to go. Well, the development is going to follow the sewer and realistically when you guys did that trunk line and you brought that trunk line, if you imagine the obstacles of a developer doing what you did to negotiate with -- with Simplot, which isn't easy, to go through their property and bringing it through all of those properties to get to somebody, the parcels that were the closest were little tiny parcels. There is -- there is no way a small developer would -- would have the ability to pay for that. I -- I don't know how many millions of dollars that you guys spent to do that, but in the end what you are looking at is that you can make this -- this area viable, it's within your impact area, you are trying to serve it and Boise's been having to deal with that, too, and so they have had to do lift stations to go around obstacles. We will Meridian City Council November 6,2024 Page 10 of 77 just call them obstacles. And it's worked in the past and so we are hoping that ITD is going to be willing to -- to do that, so that we can get past this obstacle and, then, I believe when this landowner doesn't have the leverage that he currently has, he -- he might start allowing people to get access. But that's -- that's kind of difficult. I mean I look at -- you know, you guys not extending us, I still have a development agreement, which is in a contract between the two of us that I build this and that's the only thing I can do on that ground. Well, we are -- we are trying to do that and right now the obstacle we are trying to get around it one way or another. We are not trying to get out of the responsibility of doing it, it's just the other properties around it are also getting more activity and so maybe we have to go another direction. But for right now there really isn't any added value for me to come back with a -- not getting a time extension to go back and bring back and resurrect the same preliminary plat and ask you to approve it again. There just isn't any advantage to you, us or the city and if I go two years, what that helps me do is that your requirement for a time extension, coming before you in a hearing, I got to have a neighborhood meeting, I have got to post the site for a time extension and that just is kind of difficult when I don't know how long it's going to take with ITD. Simison: Clint, just if we are -- if we are okay with him doing this, if ITD says it's okay, why are we not willing to say it's okay before he goes to ITD? Dolsby: Mr. Mayor, that's a really good question. We -- I think we are pretty amenable to doing this if ITD is okay with it. Simison: So, why not say okay first and let him take that to ITD? What's -- what's the -- is it work? Is it money? I'm really -- how do we be -- how do we be helpful to help the project move along so we don't have to have these conversations more than we need to? What's the rationale? Dolsby: I think there was just some hesitation on the city engineer's part to give a formal approval before ITD approved it. But given the circumstances I think we are okay with it. Simison: Yeah. And if -- if he's okay with it after they approve it he should be okay with it before they approve it. Dolsby: Correct. Simison: So, it would be great to at least get that issue off the table, so it's not part of the process, but -- okay. Council Woman Strader. Strader: Thanks, Mr. Mayor. Yeah. I kind of had a question for staff. I -- I just kind of wanted to understand the request and like I'm not opining today on whether a temporary lift station, for example, is an acceptable alternative or not; right? Like I'm not the person who has expertise to do that. I don't know how long they last. I don't know what that investment looks like; right? I'm not sure what all the factors are that go into this Meridian City Council November 6,2024 Page 11 of 77 other agency's approval and what the factors are that they need to consider. So, all due respect I'm kind of trying to take some of that noise out. It feels to me like you are just asking for a time extension because you have a regulatory issue with a different agency. You need two years because this is taking forever. I'm sympathetic with that. But I don't really want to get into a position of having to opine on like this is the methodology we should use. I'm also a little bit nervous, because there is always two sides to every story; right? You are here. I don't know if the property owner to the north is. I guess we will find out. Considering that, you know, there -- it -- it is a public hearing, so they have a right to be here. I'm a little nervous, though, about sometimes sewer doesn't get extended because somebody's not ready yet. It's supposed to go to and through. I don't necessarily want City Council to have to be in a position of being in a dispute between, you know, two different property owners regarding the extension of the sewer. So, I kind of just wanted to frame how I'm looking at it. You are just asking for a time extension; right? That's how I'm looking at. Brown: We are asking for a time extension and -- and I'm trying to give you justification for asking for two years. I mean it -- the comments that were made by Commissioner Cavener -- Councilman Cavener before the hearing -- well, did -- did they use the same thing when they asked for a one year? Yes, we did. And the -- the biggest part of the -- the change is that they changed their mind. The ITD changed their mind. Now, they have a new engineer is what the city engineer told me earlier today for ITD and maybe it's going to be a little easier for them to change. The less impact on ITD, which doesn't -- I mean we are not asking to do anything on our neighbor's property. We -- we are really clear that he doesn't want any access. In my discussions with him before he ever got his subdivision approved by you was that he didn't want it to disturb his farming activities. He farms that ground. His house is there. He -- he does not want a line that's out in his farm field that he has to worry about and so I mean we did approach him about that, that we would put it on the edge of his property where it shouldn't have affected this farm field. But that -- that was his justification and he -- if he's -- he is going to have sewer running through his property he -- he -- he wants to not be there. So, he -- he wants to sell it. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Just a question for staff. Is there a precedent for giving a two year time extension, instead of a one year time extension? I typically see one year time extensions, but is there a precedent for doing that? Is there anything in our code that prohibits us from doing so? Ritter: Councilman Strader, Mayor, no, there is no -- you can give a two year if that is what you choose. Strader: Okay. Thank you. Meridian City Council November 6,2024 Page 12 of 77 Overton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: Just real quick. Cover the bases with legal. Bill, is there any issue that we are dealing with a request for a one year and now as we stand here it's a two years? Are there noticing issues or is that something that we can change right here? Nary: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, it's -- it's within your discretion. So, that's fine. Simison: Council, any additional questions for the applicant? Cavener: Yeah. Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Kent, first I think you know I'm not a big fan of time extensions. I don't like going more than one. I am really sympathetic to the kind of pickle that you have found yourself in. In terms of your engagement with the state on a temporary lift station, assuming the city's in support, what is a timeline before you would get any thumbs up from the state? Brown: I -- I really can't answer that effectively. I -- it -- it could be immediate and we could move forward and -- and, then, I really don't need the two years. I mean we are to the point where we have saw cut and done what we have done, that we -- we could really start laying pipe and -- and -- and moving forward. We would have to go through -- and a temporary lift station requires approval and it has to be done and even though it's temporary, it's -- temporary is kind of a tongue-in-cheek word, because it could be there eight years. I mean that landowner doesn't really have to -- and so it's built to be permanent and, realistically, it's basically a big manhole that they use as a storage facility and, then, when it gets to a certain point a pump kicks on and pumps the sewer out. That's what a lift station does. And it lifts it up to a different height and under pressure it then dumps into a gravity line and so there is some mechanics there that -- that take place, motors and so forth that make that happen, and -- Cavener: Mr. Mayor, real quick if I may. Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Sorry. And, hey, Kent, if you would do me a favor, I apologize, since I'm remote it is sometimes hard to hear you, so if you wouldn't mind just picking a mic and sticking with it, that way I can follow your very eloquent responses, so -- which appreciate you providing. Brown: Okay. Thank you. Meridian City Council November 6,2024 Page 13 of 77 Cavener: I wanted maybe just to give you some perspective on where I'm coming from and -- and you -- you touched on this; right? You do a time extension request. You have got to do, you know, neighborhood meetings. You have got to post. You know, for the -- for the vast majority of our residents they don't always understand what is being proposed and I'm always trying to find that right balance of keeping our citizens informed, but often they see a sign and -- and, again, that part of town is growing, people may see a sign and feel like that it's a -- it's an annexation request and so they come and participate, only to find that the things that they wanted to come and testify about aren't necessarily what's up for consideration of the Council. So, I'm -- I'm also trying to find that balance, which is why I'm -- I'm always reluctant to these time extension requests. Kent, do you think a -- a continuance to give you time to work with ITD based on the feedback tonight would get you closer in the next 90 days? Brown: No, I don't. Cavener: Okay. Thank you. I appreciate it. Brown: And if I could come back to his discussion about the time extension, I -- I struggle with time extensions. Your process is different than some of the other cities. Nampa, if you get the first phase in, then, the subdivision is called vested and, then, you don't have to ask for time extensions and anytime the codes change where the zoning is different or the construction standards change, then, those -- those take place and developers understand that generally with a -- even asking for a time extension, all those things kick in. So, what -- what I have here is that we -- we were required to enter into a development agreement that says this is what I'm building and the value added of as Elder Cavener talked -- or Councilman Cavener talked about -- Cavener- I will take it. Brown: You are definitely not elder yet, but -- is the -- the headache to the public about, well, that they could change something or the headache to -- to everything else. I mean it's not like they are going to reduce the number of lots or change something, because we have a contract that says this is what you are going to build and so, realistically, the only thing is that -- that's expired is the plat and so everything else is in play. I -- it's just kind of an exercise, because we are going to do the exercise. So, that's -- that's my feeling about it. If we didn't have a development agreement, then, it would be -- it would be a lot different. Maybe we would only have zoning. But we have a development agreement that's real specific, the number of lots, the amount of open space I have to have and those kind of things, so -- Simison: Council, any additional questions for the applicant? Okay. Thanks. Mr. Clerk, did we have anybody sign up on this item? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, no. Meridian City Council November 6,2024 Page 14 of 77 Simison: Is there anybody present that would like to provide testimony on this item or -- either in person or online? We do have someone raising their hand. Johnson: Mr. Mayor, Cody Black. Black: Hello. Can you hear me? Simison: We can. If you can state your name and address for the record, please. Black: Yes. My name is Cody Black. My business address is 16155 Northside Desert Street in Nampa. I -- I represent the property owner directly south to Briar Ridge and I reached out to Kent, because we were looking to see what he was doing with his sewer situation, because we have had similar issues with getting utilities and services to our site and I guess I'm just here today to chime in that normally with neighboring developments we -- we try to work together and see if there is some sort of mutual benefit that we can bring and, you know, whether it be a temporary lift station that helps service this site and ours or his or anything to kind of bring more services south to the properties that don't have it and won't probably for a while, because of the gatekeeping up north, that's, you know, something that we would like to do and like to see and, you know, cooperate with and hopefully the city can be in support of that. Simison: Okay. Thank you. Council -- go ahead. Sorry. I thought you were done. Black: No. That's fine. That's -- that's pretty much all. Simison: Okay. Council, any questions? Okay. Thank you very much, Cody. Appreciate it. Black: Thank you. Simison: Anybody else that would like to provide testimony on this item? Would the applicant like to make any final comments? Applicant waives. Council, what's your direction? Overton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: If there is no further public comment, I move we close the public hearing. Taylor: Second. Simison: Have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on TECC-2024-0003. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and the public hearing is closed. Meridian City Council November 6,2024 Page 15 of 77 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Overton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: I believe the situation is different for some of the time extensions we normally see. This is due to a changed rule or a changed decision by ITD that's limiting their abilities to develop. I think it was the intent of the City of Meridian when they put that sewer line in that this part of the city would be able to be developed and it's leaving this applicant in a position that he can't fulfill that development. He's not trying to change it. I don't think he is trying to delay us because of market conditions, I think he is trying to find a solution so he can begin to build the development that is outlined in his development agreement and with that said I would like to move for approval -- after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony I move to approve File No. TECC- 2024-0003 for a two year time extension on this application. Taylor: Second. Simison: Have a motion and a second. Do I have discussion on the motion? If not, Clerk call the roll. Roll Call: Cavener, yea; Strader, yea; Overton, yea; Little Roberts, yea; Taylor, yea; Whitlock, yea. Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and the item is agreed to. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. 4. Public Hearing for Raising Cane's Council Review (CR-2024-0002) by Lynzey Uechi, East River Valley St., LLC., located at 2700 N. Eagle Rd. A. Request: Council Review of the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision of the Conditional Use Permit of a drive-thru establishment. Simison: Next up is Item 4, a public hearing for Raising Cane's Council review. CR- 2024-0002. We will open this public hearing with staff comments. Parsons: Mayor, Members the Council -- Simison: I'm sorry. Go ahead. Parsons: Mayor, Members of the Council, before we -- staff gets into their presentation tonight I just wanted to let everyone know in the room and online and, of course, Meridian City Council November 6,2024 Page 16 of 77 Council, that we were in front of you about a month ago talking about potentially looking at our drive-thru standards and addressing some of the concerns that you have seen in the public testimony. I can let you know that that is on the docket. I will be scheduling a UDC focus group meeting here -- at least setting up a poll to send out and getting that date scheduled so that we can begin those talks, so that we can have something in front of you here in the near future. So, for tonight's application I know that code isn't in effect today, but we do anticipate having something to present to you in the near future on when we have these types of -- maybe even differentiating the different drive-thrus from one another. Don't know what that looks like yet, but at least just want to let you all know -- I think you all remember that conversation giving us -- gave me very clear direction. So, I just want you to know that is in progress. Thank you. Ritter: Good evening again. So, this application is for a Council review for an approved conditional use permit for a drive-thru. So, this is for -- this site consists of 1 .46 acres of land, zoned C-G, and is located at 2700 North Eagle Road. So, the findings were approved for a conditional use permit on September 19th, 2024, to construct a drive- thru restaurant with food and drink services, including an indoor-outdoor seating area. The drive-thru restaurant will be approximately 2,862 gross square feet overall. It's one story in height with landscaping along the perimeter lines. Again, a conditional use permit is required for drive-thrus within 300 feet of an existing drive-thru. The proposed hours of operation that were being requested through the conditional use permit were Sunday through Thursday with a closing time of 1:30 a.m. Friday and Saturday, with a closing time of 3:30 a.m. or as restricted through the CUP process. As proposed both the Commission and staff found that the applicant met the requirements for the drive- thru establishment based on the specific use standards set in UDC. So, conceptual elevations were submitted for the proposed restaurant. The proposed building design has been going through a review through the certificate of zoning compliance and the administrative design review. So, we are working on that and it has been put on hold until after this hearing. The Idaho Transportation Department requested trip generation information to determine what mitigation, if any, the applicant may be required to complete. But, then, the Transportation Department resubmitted an e-mail stating that no additional mitigation was required as a dedicated right turn lane was constructed with the plat of Sessions Parkway. The Sessions Parkway -- Sessions Parkway Subdivision was approved with the conceptual plan that was anticipated to use such as drive-thru. Therefore, the property is well into its entitlement process. So, these are pictures of the dedicated right-hand turn lane that were put in for this project. So, this diagram is what ITD had stated that they were close enough from of the existing access points along Eagle Road once this project, Sessions Parkway, went in, so they removed the access point that is here to this property and I think this is Copper Canary right here and, then, they took away the access points along these properties at Sessions Parkway. So, your entrance is here and entrance is here. So, these access lanes have already been provided with the subdivision, so they are currently in. So, the written testimony -- so, prior to the Planning Commission meeting there were no written testimony, but we did receive testimony at the hearing, but the -- they were -- the comments were that they -- they were in opposition and proposed drive-thru establishment stating it would create safety issues along Eagle Road. The applicant stated during high use hours they will Meridian City Council November 6,2024 Page 17 of 77 have the employees with the tablets walking, moving traffic along very quickly and efficiently. The proposal has multiple drive-thru lanes open to help speed up the ordering process. The applicant also stated if needed Raising Cane's does employ off- duty officers who are used for traffic control, although they do not anticipate that with this location, but they -- they do try to move everyone through efficiently and keep things from being clogged. So, this is the proposal -- this is a development that is being proposed in this location. So, these are the apartments that are there and this is the hotel and this is Raising Cane's and, then, there is a loop Take Five that has been submitted here and, then, another commercial development along here. So, there are a number of ways to get into this development. You have Records back here. You have this road that comes through the development that comes out along here. This is another angle. So, you have this access road and, then, there is another one here. So, there are several ways to get into this development. So, during the Planning Commission meeting they discussed the hours of operation. The applicant stated that they would see -- they wanted to test the hours to see if there were issues and if they there were -- became an issue they were willing to revise their hours of operation. So, at this time I will stand for any questions that you guys may have on this. Simison: Thank you, Linda. Council, any questions for staff? Overton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: If I can just state for the record that the person that filed the appeal, Perry Coles, him and I had several phone calls and even met on site prior to him filing the appeal. Since the appeal has been filed and it's a recorded public hearing we have had no contact and discussed this matter until tonight and I do have a follow-up question for staff. Simison: Okay. Overton: Linda, did you give a number or is there a number in this plan on how many vehicles are going to be able to stack in the drive-thru before it would back up onto the private drive? So, right now, so the applicant has a slide show that will show you how they are going to manage the cars. The drive-thru can hold 20 cars. It is double lane. And, then, they show that it has room to move eight more cars forward to wait for orders if needed and, then, they have another way -- it will show that there is another way to maneuver cars around through their parking lot to come into the drive-thru. So, I will let the applicant explain that to you. Simison: Thank you. Are there any other questions for staff? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward? O'Reilly: Mr. Mayor and Members of the Council, thank you for having us. My name is Michael O'Reilly. I'm with Kimley-Horn and my address is 1100 West Idaho Street, Ste. Meridian City Council November 6,2024 Page 18 of 77 210, Boise, Idaho. 83702. We are here before you tonight to present on the Raising Cane's conditional use permit for a drive-thru. From the outset I would like to mention that the -- we are part of a final platted subdivision or the northwest parcel of lots. All entitlements have been approved and the only outstanding item for our use is the drive- thru, which is why we are here. But we are in compliance with all zoning and other dimensional standards. Also in attendance with me today as part of the development team is Mr. RV Van. He is representing Raising Cane's and he will be available to answer any questions you might have as we move through. So, since we had the appeal of the Planning and Zoning decision we want to tailor this presentation very much toward that. So, we are going to focus mostly on traffic and queuing. If you have other questions, please, feel free to let me know about the -- about the project as a whole. So, there were several main grounds for Council review that we found when reviewing the applicant's -- or the appellant's application and the first one was the safety and mobility on Eagle Road and the adjacent service drives that will be negatively impacted by this project to the likelihood of backed up drive-thru patrons on the service drives and Eagle Road resulting in residents, visitors and business patrons unable to access adjacent uses. So -- so, that was the -- the claim in the appeal -- and we just wanted to take a moment to address some of that. So, I'm going to skip ahead to the site plan and just to talk you through that real quickly. So, this is our site plan. The same one that was submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission for review. In it you can see that we are proposing two drive-thru lanes already with a bypass lane on the north. That bypass lane is designated with the yellow arrow and the two drive-thru lanes are the blue arrows. You can see the order boards are set well back from the pickup window, which helps facilitate speedy service times and that will come into play later. You can also see that we are honoring a 35 foot landscape buffer on Eagle Road and a ten buffer on the northern access and that we have well over-parked the site per code. We only need seven spaces, but in an intent to make sure that there is enough space for everyone who wants to use the establishment we have provided 35. So, in response to the appeal we wanted to walk you through a few items as -- regarding queuing. The first is that the proposed site allows for 45 vehicles to queue on site. I have a diagram that I will show you on that in a moment. We also want to point out that Raising Cane's average service time for an order is two minutes and 28 seconds and given the site configuration with 15 vehicle spaces between the order board and the window, if you do the math on that that would allow for about 360 orders in an hour to be served from this site without excessive queuing. This is going to well exceed the total peak hour demand calculated at about 115 trips in the peak hour. So, we wouldn't expect excessive queuing. And I'm going to walk you through more of that in the following slides. In addition to that there is crew members deployed on site with tablets, like you have seen at other establishments, that efficiently move traffic through. Like I mentioned before, we have included a second drive-thru lane for the sake of efficiency. If the level of business warrants it Raising Cane's often deploys off-duty police officers to control traffic at points of ingress and egress and to manage on-site parking and if it's warranted Raising Cane's would install no parking or no loitering signs as needed. So, here is the queuing plan that was prepared for the site. There -- this plan has three phases. The first is the green phase, which is a business as usual kind of phase; right? So, you can see that from the -- the pickup window, which is roughly here, if you can Meridian City Council November 6,2024 Page 19 of 77 see my mouse, back to the order boards, which are right there. The northern drive-thru lane has eight spaces, eight cars queued and the southern one has seven. That's where you get the number of 15 from the order board to the pickup window. In total phase one has 21 cars that could queue. So, substantial amount. In phase two if -- if it became busier there is a space for cars to pull forward and there is eight pull-through spots where customers could be served after they pull through to wait for their food. I would like to point out in this phase we are not blocking the bypass lane on the pull through, so that would remain free all the time and, then, in what we are calling phase three, demonstrated in red, there are 16 additional spots for customers to queue through the site in a high demand time, such as at the opening or -- or a different demand time where that would be anticipated. As part of this we could cone off the entrance on the north of our site. You can see that it's -- it's fairly small here, but that's designated right there and have officers directing traffic through the site. I think you can appreciate that we didn't max the site out on queueing. Even in this exhibit we left all the drive aisles clear and tried to make it very functional while still showing 45. It could certainly queue more if -- if required. So, the city doesn't have a requirement for queuing right now. In conversations that we have had we have heard that that might change and we have heard maybe a number of ten thrown around, but we don't know. But even if they did 20, 30, you can see we have room for 45, which is a large amount combined with Raising Cane's speed of service that allows for a very efficient and high volume site if needed. The second grounds for review that the appellant had was that the traffic was already committed to other developments. So, we wanted just to address this, because this traffic has been planned for through an already approved TIS, but we can certainly see the concern if you are not aware of that and so we want to walk through that so they mentioned 120 room hotel that's directly to the east of us, part of the Sessions Parkway Subdivision. A 340 unit apartment complex, which is also to the east of us. Four hundred sixty unit apartment complex, which is southeast and, then, a pending lot to the south and they requested that a traffic study be required by a licensed engineer or an internal traffic study be conducted on Eagle. So Kittelson and Associates performed a traffic study. Kittelson is a well-known traffic engineering firm here and they do studies all over the place. So, they did one for the Sessions Parkway Subdivision and that was approved back in 2022 and amended with fresh traffic counts in 2023 to make sure that additional mitigation would not be required. I -- we submitted that as part of the public record and I think it should be in your files. Here I want to walk you through just an overall site view of the project and the surrounding area. So, you can see just to the east of us there is the hotel that's mentioned. We will dig into that in a little bit. But that traffic is -- is planned for in the approved traffic impact study. There is The Village Apartments further east and you can see on there they take their main access off of Records right there where those two arrows are and they have some secondary access off of the -- the two access roads north and south of our site. One is there and one is down there. Furthermore, there is the Regency at River Valley Apartments. That was the one -- the other apartment complex that the appellant mentioned that we only found that that had 300 units. I -- I don't know where the discrepancy is, but the main point on that is that it has an access onto Records and two accesses -- full accesses onto East River Valley. Both Records and East River Valley go to a signalized intersection at Records at Ustick and Fairview and East River Valley Meridian City Council November 6,2024 Page 20 of 77 at Eagle. So, far and away the -- the -- the easiest way to get out of this Regency at River Valley would go -- be to go to Records or East River Valley where you could get a full access or get to a signal to get access onto Eagle Road. The cross-connectivity to our site, which is right here, is mostly for emergency access so fire doesn't get stuck and -- and considerations of that. Certainly it's open to the public, but it would not be an efficient way to travel and our site here is in this corner and we are served by those two main access points and so we want to take a second just to walk through the traffic study history of the area. So, The Village Apartments had a TIS performed and accepted by ITD and ACHD back in 2017. It was revised in 2019 and accepted again and that was part of their improvements building out some of those access roads and drives onto Records Way. The Sessions Parkway TIS, which would be the development that we are a part of, was prepared and accepted in 2022 by ITD and ACHD and, as I mentioned before, it took into account the 336 unit multi-family development, 23,000 feet of retail, which we will dig into, but ultimately the hotel replaces the retail and, then, two 3,500 square foot fast food restaurants with drive-thru lanes. So, those were anticipated as well. As far as mitigation, they found that that northbound right turn lane should be provided on Eagle, which has been installed. And, then, furthermore, they updated that traffic study in 2023 with current traffic counts. Here is an excerpt of the trip generation from that traffic impact study and I will try not to bore you with -- with traffic numbers, but since that's why we are here we will -- we will just dig into them a bit. One thing I wanted to point out is that shopping center that was contemplated originally has largely been replaced by the hotel and off to the side we have provided the estimated traffic for the hotel. That's from the ITD trip generation manual. It's what all the trip generation software uses. And so you can see that the hotel has an estimated max trip generation per day of 921 , compared to the shopping center, which had about 2,213 and it's boxed there and it has a peak hour in the a.m. of 55 and in the p.m. of 64, which is less than the a.m. and the p.m. of the -- of the shopping center before. So, that was a reduction in traffic and from the plan. Then you can also see that there is two fast food restaurants here considered for 7,000 square feet total. The square footage is important, because that's how you calculate traffic generation is as an -- an approximation for how it will generate. So, that's for two 3,500 square foot fast food restaurants with drive-thrus. Ours is only 28,168 square feet, so less than -- than what one of those was considered to be and as such should generate less traffic. Here is just a diagram showing the northbound right-turn lane. So, just to show that it's been installed per the TIS that was accepted by ACHD and ITD. We also wanted to address what we thought was the third point for review, which was just to require changes that might lighten or mitigate concerns. For example, additional stacking lanes or overflow. Just to show the site plan again, we have -- we have already done a second drive-thru lane as I mentioned, which is one thing that the appellant mentioned he thought we should have to do, as well as the bypass lane. That combined with -- with over parking on site and the ability to queue we think we really have addressed that concern from the outset. Regarding the staff report we are in agreeance with the conditions there and are willing to comply with all of those. Our next step for this site, should we be approved tonight, would be to pursue certificate of zoning compliance, which we have worked with the city fairly extensively on already and are very close on. We also just wanted to point out that ITD and ACHD approved the traffic impact site for the overall site and had no Meridian City Council November 6,2024 Page 21 of 77 comments on this site once we had clarified that item with them. Our request for you tonight would be that the Planning and Zoning Commission -- Commission's unanimous approval from September 5th, 2024, of which the findings were adopted on September 19th, 2024, would be upheld. At this point that concludes my presentation and I would stand for any questions. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Overton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: Michael, thank you very much and I need to -- give me a moment to explain. You are here because your restaurant is highly successful. If this was a drive-thru that was not successful or not one that has as many raging fans as you do, which is a good thing, we probably wouldn't be sitting here tonight. We have a situation where we have a balance in our city where we try to make our system efficient to help developers and take some of the process away from being in front of City Council and in this case right here we approved a land use for a drive-thru and, then, we lose control of what goes in. Now, part of that was, again, to be efficient, not to constantly have steps in government that slow the process down. But what's happening is we are having some of these drive-thrus now coming in, very very popular restaurants. We already have a couple in our city. The difference between them and you is they are in a large development that's on private property. So, when they get stacking issues that are huge it affects that private property. It does not go out and affect public roadways where your location could and that's kind of why you are here today to answer those questions. I feel responsible for not just your application, but there is a future application or two that are coming that are going to have the same issues as that. I expect you are going to have lines of cars when you first open this establishment for a very good reason. Again, you have a history throughout this country where you open your restaurants and people really like what you sell. How will you deal with over 45 vehicles when you open? O'Reilly: Uh-huh. Yeah. Councilman Overton, thank you for that question. We certainly appreciate that. Cane's is a popular restaurant, maybe not your average drive- thru, and so we can appreciate your concern with that. A few items to note. It's just that Cane's also -- they only have one item on the menu, which is just chicken fingers. That's all you can get. So, it does allow for that much faster than average service time and so it can move -- they can move vehicles through very quickly. You know, regarding a grand opening or something of that nature, which I -- I think we are concerned about here. I would mentioned two things. One, they will make a -- a grand opening traffic control plan and -- and plan for that. I mean that's part of that phase three if you will and I'm sure they will have projections and if that's required to be more they will plan for that. Can certainly understand -- I -- I live in the area, you know, I live on Cloverdale and Ustick, so I -- I know what you are talking about with -- with some of the other establishments and can certainly appreciate that. One thing that I think was reasonable to consider is the -- how the business operates as usual and not the potential two days, Meridian City Council November 6,2024 Page 22 of 77 although we need to mitigate that and, you know, be concerned about it, I -- I hear you on that and I think Cane's is very concerned with their impact on the community and their image in the community. This would be the first Raising Cane's in Idaho and I can tell you it's getting a lot of scrutiny from -- from the company in a good way; right? But that's -- they -- they don't want bad press; right? And so they are as concern about that I think as -- as you are. As far as a specific plan I don't have their specific grand opening, you know, two or three day plan with me now. I do have Mr. RV Van here if you would like to -- to add to it. He is more familiar with the ins and outs of their operation, but we would like just to emphasize that this is a company that wants to be here for 20 or 30 years serving the community and doing a good job and I think the site plan more than accommodates that and -- and keeps traffic from queuing on a regular basis and it being a continual nuisance or anything of that nature. It is hard to plan a site for a burst of excitement, but we would work to mitigate any of those concerns for a day or two. Overton: Mr. Mayor, quick follow up. Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: As you go through this process of getting prepared I mean we haven't built a restaurant yet, but when we get to that point where you are going to be working with any of the local businesses on what they can expect and what your reaction's going to be if your traffic exceeds expectations. O'Reilly: Yeah. And this is where I call Mr. Van if you are okay with that, to just chat about how that the Cane's operations would -- would work with local businesses. While -- while he is coming up I would say that we are part of an overall development and partnered very closely with the overall developers and so, you know, there would be continued partnership there and -- and even with the appellant who is, you know, to the south, right, very impacted by anything that might happen, that there would be collaboration there I'm confident. Overton: It would be great if he could come up, because I would like to see you guys be successful, but I don't want it to be something that's not, making the others successful around you. So, that would be great. O'Reilly: Understood. Thank you. Van: Mr. Mayor, Council Members, my name is Robert Van, but I go by RV. I'm with Raising Cane's, 6800 Bishop Road, Plano, Texas. 75024. First and foremost we always want to be a good neighbor and we all understand the concerns here. I would like to assure you that we are used to dealing with this. We do it all over the country. We would be prepared to bring in staff from other locations that are familiar with this type of issue, as well as what Mike has already said, you know, we are willing -- fully willing to hire any off-duty police officers that -- that we would need. The traffic does move through the drive-thru lanes quickly. Like Mike said, we are about two and a half Meridian City Council November 6,2024 Page 23 of 77 minutes on our service time. We only sell five items and so we always -- we always know what people are going to order when they come in. We utilize a camera system on the restaurant. That as people start pulling in we start cooking chicken. They call it dropping bird. And so we are ready, we know that they are either going to buy two, three, four, five piece, you know, and maybe two or three of those. We have kind of got it down to a science and knowing what's going on. But we are ready for those people. There is nothing precooked sitting there waiting for them and as soon as they order -- I mean that order is getting ready and packed and it's usually handed to them at the window almost immediately. We have got alternate plans as you saw there. There is another scheme we feel like we could add to that to get more than 45 cars, but this one would probably be the most efficient and, again, if we needed to we would shut down whatever entrance into our parcel and to be able to control and direct that traffic. You know, like I said, we -- we -- we get it. We understand. There is -- there is going to be a honeymoon period. There is no way of telling you how long that period is going to be. Sometimes they are a week, sometimes they are two or three weeks. But I think that it will -- you know, at this location it -- it shouldn't be that bad. We haven't -- I haven't seen anything that's telling me that. But we are prepared to do whatever we need to do to make the traffic situation flow, get everything settled down and, then, if it's needed again to get somebody else out there, we are willing to do that. I mean that's -- and it will -- it will settle down. It will -- people will get used to the pattern, they will get used to the entrances that they want to come into and, then, things like that. We don't want any -- any safety issues for -- for neighbors or ourselves, so that's why we employ and put the people out there to manage the traffic until it gets settled down some. We are prepared to do that. Overton: Thank you. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Overton: Mr. Van, thanks for joining us tonight. I'm sorry I'm not there in person. Could we -- can we go back a slide to the -- the queuing map? That would -- that's going to be the basis of my question. And while we are doing that, Mr. Van, I -- I want to commend you, you have done something that has never happened in my entire 11 years on City Council, you have my 17 year old very excited about a City Council application. He is a self-professed Caniac and I had to explain to him about ex parte communication that I could not talk to him about this despite his insistence. So, thank you for that. My -- my question, Mr. Van, is when you look at your queuing map, I -- I see kind of what the plan is for queuing within your complex and while I -- I commend you, your speed of service is faster than the national average, I -- I share Council Member Overton's concern about the roadway safety element. So, help me understand from your perspective the 46th car that wants to come get some chicken strips, where are they and where's the 47th and the 48th and the 49th car, where -- where -- where are they going to be situated? Meridian City Council November 6,2024 Page 24 of 77 Van: Well, we -- we believe that we are going to keep people moving through. They are going to be pulling into the -- into our parcel and it's just not -- it's not ever going to be stacked up out there. It would certainly never be stacked up on Eagle -- Eagle Road. If -- if it -- I mean I'm guessing -- I don't know how people are going to come in, which direction, but, you know, if -- if need be it would be out there on the access road, but it's still not going to be a static situation. It will be constantly moving. Cavener: Okay. I -- I -- I hear that is certainly the intent. Help me understand what should the city be thinking about or what action should we take when to -- to Council Member Overton's point, you are very successful and I have got now a stack of cars that are on this access road backing up, do you shut down access, then, from -- from the access road to your facility? Do we cite your potential customers for impeding traffic? What -- what should the city be doing? Van: Well, if we get to the -- to the phase three, if you can see -- I don't know -- I don't know if you can see it on there. We are shutting down the northern access point into our property where they would have to come further south and, then, come in and, then, as I mentioned, there is another plan that could -- we could stack more cars in the site. I don't have a count and, please, don't quote me on this, but I think we would end up getting upwards of 60 -- 60 vehicles and -- on the site that will be moving around and, like I said, we would have police officers or staff guiding people through and I -- I just -- I don't anticipate that being the case. If -- if it -- if it really, really, really got crazy -- we have a great relationship with the overall developer here, we might be able to see about some other off-site stacking -- you know, across the drive and things like that, but I just -- that would be don't kill me for saying this, but that would be like California stuff, because they tend to have a lot of cars and I just don't see that happening here. Cavener: Well -- and, Mr. Van, I will -- I will just provide some perspective from what I see on the ground. We have got a -- a national hamburger franchise that's down the street from this location that's been open a year and our wait times for that location are longer than the one in Boise. I have some familiarity working with Dutch Brothers Coffee, which they shoot for a one minute per order and we have seen vehicles regularly stack up on our roads as a result. I'm less concerned with what I think is pretty impressive, which is your speed of service, and more trying to figure out how we manage the high demand for this product -- to your point that will be the only one that will be available within our state and, yes, likely less of a problem 15 years from now, but my concern is is what we are -- we should be -- expect to see from this facility in the next one to three years and that's where some of my hesitancy's coming from. Van: Sure. Under -- understood. That's a good concern. The -- but just remember we only sell five things. People are ordering a two or three or four piece chicken box and that's -- that's it. They are not sitting at an order board trying to decide, you know, what they want, if they want, you know a -- a pita bread or a flat bread or a pizza or chicken, you know, so -- Strader: Mr. Mayor? Meridian City Council November 6,2024 Page 25 of 77 Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Thank you. This is helpful. You know, so just from a -- just a philosophy standpoint like I -- I do think it's important to make land use decisions long term and not about your opening weekend, so that's where I'm coming from. But I do think having a really good plan is really really important. I'm intrigued by your off-site stacking possibilities within other areas of the development. Has that been flushed out at all? Where would that be? Do you have any ideas around that? Van: We haven't flushed it out with Trevor yet, but it's just something that we have done elsewhere. And, again, I just don't -- I don't see that happening here. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Please don't take this the wrong way. I know you don't see that happening here, but we have just seen it happen; right? Like that's where we are coming from. Like we just saw this happen with -- with a different establishment. So, we are a little bit -- I'm speaking for we -- I should just speak for myself. But I'm a little bit concerned about -- just a solid plan for your opening. That's where I'm coming from. I just really want to hear that you have flushed it out and -- or that, you know what, when it's full we are committed to using our traffic control to shut down access and there will be no queuing -- Van: A thousand percent. But keep in mind I think I know who you are talking about. Their drive-thru lanes go down to a single lane. We have got two lanes with a bailout that's always open. So, we are not -- we are not funneling cars down to a single -- to a single lane. Strader: So Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Just to like put a fine point on it, though, would you be willing to agree with the City of Meridian that if you go over the 45 cars, unless you have a different off-site area for queuing, that you will use your traffic control to shut down the queuing on this access road? Van: I would like to go from the 45 to the 65, because that's another plan that we are not showing here. Strader: Uh-huh. Meridian City Council November 6,2024 Page 26 of 77 Van: But, yes, if we had cars spilling out and interrupting traffic we would do whatever we needed to do to appease the city and make you guys happy until that problem went away. Strader: Okay. That's helpful. Thank you. Whitlock: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Whitlock. Whitlock: Michael, you mentioned the workers with the tablets coming out. Just from this image here I see the order boards. Where would -- where would the employees be? How far into the queuing do they go and does that help in some of the stacking? O'Reilly: Council Member Whitlock, thank you for the question. Yeah. The employees with the tablets, like you have probably seen at other established -- establishments can walk down the queuing line and take the orders well in advance, which helps with wait times, obviously., I mean if your average service time is about two and a half minutes, it's really the critical time is when that order is placed; right? And so what I think might be -- need to be emphasized in all the discussion about queuing is actually the rate of service, not -- not the two and a half minutes, but the --just the rate that vehicles can be processed through the site, even without the tablets. Like I said, it's about 360 meals an hour -- or orders an hour if you crunch those numbers and if you go back to the TIS, which, you know, I know the TIS is theoretical; right? But it had a peak demand of 115 for a store of our size. So, you are looking at almost three X what a standard drive-thru could do and that's just in the green; right? That's just the green queuing. So, although the stacking is not the same as we have seen at other locations might be required, I -- I think the speed of service is what keeps the queue from building up; right? And if -- if an establishment has to funnel down to one lane and the order times are longer you are going to see an exponential ripple; right? Just like if, you know, when you see traffic on the Interstate and there is a trash -- a crash, right, it backs up miles and miles. If those lanes are open it doesn't back up; right? And so that -- that question, although pertinent, I think we are missing the -- the speed of service and the two lane aspect of -- of keeping some of that queuing substantially down. Taylor: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Taylor. Taylor: RV, a quick question for you is -- is this sort of vehicle queuing -- is this unique to this store or is this part of your business plan that you have -- you have like flushed this out, you have developed it, you know how it's going to flow in terms of your other locations? Van: Thank you. Certainly every site is going to be a little bit different depending on the layout of the traffic pattern and how it works. So, to answer your question, yes, this is Meridian City Council November 6,2024 Page 27 of 77 unique to this store, but we almost always have -- well, we always have two lanes and where we can we put in the third bailout lane to keep it going through. One thing to point out a little bit, I guess, is on a normal -- I was going to say normal operating day we will only utilize one of these traffic lanes. As business increases and gets busier, then, we will go to the second traffic lane and, then, it -- then it's pretty logical as it goes on through these phases we will increase things. Mr. Whitlock, to answer your question, the -- most of the time the people with the tablets are going to be prior to the menu boards. So, they will be getting people's orders prior to them even getting theirs. So, they are -- they are not even stopping at the menu boards. They have already placed their order and they are going on through. Does that answer your question? Taylor: It does. Thank you. Van: And yours, Mr. Whitlock. Okay. Simison: Something that sort of came up. Did you look at any other configurations on this piece of property? Because you turn it 90 degrees, you put the building down in the lower left-hand corner, you can stack -- Van: We went through multiple iterations on this and part of what we do is operations. We look at not only just the traffic pattern, but what do we need to do to get a trash truck in there? What do we need to do to get our delivery trucks in there? So, that's all got to work for us and so this -- this plan is -- is where we have -- we have settled on. Simison: So, what were the challenges with -- if you were to -- if you looked at a 90 degree turning and putting down the lower left-hand corner where you could stack all the way around the outside edge of your property, what was the fatal flaw? O'Reilly: One concern on that -- and it's hard to speak to all of them, Mr. Mayor -- is that there will be a user to the south and so if you push all of your exit traffic out that way there is -- there is more of a concern with -- with the -- the development directly to the south with the conflicts there and so with -- especially during standard operating procedures with it located in the north it separates that traffic a bit with our on-site traffic and their on-site traffic and it would just allow those to operate a little bit more independently. Simison: So, you -- I guess I haven't looked at it. So, basically, you are saying another business will be butting up into this area and that's the part of the challenge. Van: We -- we don't know who is going to be there and -- and looking at our site plan, obviously, everybody wants to be on the hard corner; right? Tucked up in there. I -- if was a business, whoever is coming down to the south, I would appreciate having some distance between the two, just some -- for some own identity. Meridian City Council November 6,2024 Page 28 of 77 Simison: Do you think they would prefer to have you blocking their road to get to their business or keep everything on your site? I'm asking a serious question. Which one do you think that they would -- would prefer in this case? Van: Well, keep in mind there is another -- this isn't showing. This is only half of the -- or a little piece of that part. There is a whole other site and another road down there that I think most people are going to use the northern access road up here anyway to get to us, but -- I mean we don't -- we are not interested in blocking their site and they are not interested in -- Simison: That -- that was my point is -- what I have heard is trying to get as much of the traffic onto your property so it doesn't block other people. To be honest with you, I have never heard of Raising Cane's. It's like brand new to me. Didn't know you were that popular. But if you are that popular being on the hard corner doesn't matter. You know, when Five Guys came to the area I didn't care that they weren't on a hard corner, I went to them, but that was what it was about. So, I think it's just about -- are you maximizing the property that's the best to accommodate, you know, the challenges that are being asked by the community. You have mentioned you only need seven parking spaces. You have got a lot of other parking. I don't know if people come in or they drive-thru if it's a 50-50 mix, but I just want to make sure you have looked at all other options and -- and they won't work, because there is fatal flaws, not because it's your preferred way. Van: We have and this has gone through the Raising Cane's corporate real estate team that, you know, approves the site plans and we feel like this is the best one for us. Simison: Best for you? Best for -- Van: Well, for -- for the -- for the traffic. For everything, not just us. I mean -- yeah, that's what I mean. O'Reilly: Excuse me, Mr. Mayor, if I could add in just a little bit as well. The delivery trucks -- Raising Cane's does fresh deliveries every day and so the delivery truck navigating the site is, you know, critical to it being able to operate and the further north toward the northern access road we push our access, it -- it makes that turn unfeasible if we push it much further north, because, then, a delivery truck would have to be making somewhat of 180 degree turn in -- in short order and so we -- we did run a bunch of truck turning templates on this site with different size delivery trucks and -- and all of that -- and trash trucks and -- and everything and so that -- that was one of the reasons as well why having those entrances pushed more toward the center of that access road was useful. Council, any additional questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you very much. Van: Thank you all very much. Simison: Mr. Clerk, who do we have signed up on this item? Meridian City Council November 6,2024 Page 29 of 77 Johnson: Mr. Mayor, first is Perry Coles. Simison: Can you state your name and address for the record, please? Coles: Perry Coles. And I'm the property owner at 2590 North Eagle Road, the Copper Canary building. Good evening, Mayor and Council Members. I want to point out just a couple of items here and -- and the reasons why I brought this in in front of the Council and the Mayor. Simison: Perry, just one second. Is this a three minute or ten minute? Nary: So, Mr. Mayor, in our code -- Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, in our code. what this hearing is is a redo of the hearing that was done previously. So, the applicant gets the -- gets the bulk of the time and everyone after that gets three. If -- you certainly as the Mayor can -- Simison: I just wanted to -- I just want to make sure we all understood the time element from that standpoint, so -- Coles: Is there a chance I could extend that three minutes? Because I'm the one who made the application and I have quite a bit of information to bring forward. Nary: It's up to the chair, but I'm trying to be consistent with the code and the code basically treats this as the same level of hearing as it was previously. So, that's why everyone else is granted the three. If there are questions that will always extend your time. So, if there are questions about it you will have additional time, but it's up to the chair. Beyond just the questions. Simison: Start with three minutes and let's see how far we get. Coles: Okay. Thank you, Mayor. I just want to identify the Unified Development Code, which is your code, UDC 11-4-3 and it says a site plan shall be submitted that demonstrates safe pedestrian vehicle -- vehicular access and circulation on the site and between adjacent properties. At a minimum the plan shall demonstrate compliance with the following standards: Number one. Stacking lane shall have sufficient capacity to prevent obstruction of driveways, drive aisles and the public right of way by patrons. Could you put on -- oh, you -- okay. You have it on there. Very good. On our aerial. And you can see by the aerial photo taken over the site that, basically, once the cars go beyond the existing site that we are talking about there is nowhere for the cars to stack along, except for the right turn lanes, which are the north right turn lane and, then, the south right turn lane, which is -- which is right on -- just around our -- our particular property and, then, once the cars do back up on that street there is no way to pass them safely. So, they will back up and -- and the reason we know this is we have seen several people that have stopped their cars, we have seen a lot of construction vehicles park on that street. So, we have kind of watched to see how people maneuver around them and it's really difficult, because they can't see past it and it's dangerous if Meridian City Council November 6,2024 Page 30 of 77 somebody's coming the other direction. The road is only 25 feet wide and that's been my contention from the very beginning when I brought this up in front of Planning and Zoning. If the road was at least minimally wider -- ten feet or 15 feet, then, there could be a stacking lane and it wouldn't affect the traffic coming and going on that particular lane and, of course, on that -- on that one -- on that one same 25 foot wide road, which only extends north-south for those two lots, you have -- you have a hotel that's going in, too, so you have that also that's going to be on top -- you know, on top of that same road. We have also noticed, too, that with the Regency Apartments that we are now seeing -- with the access it was just granted onto that same road area we have got moving trucks, we got cars going as fast as 40 miles or more an hour and they are coming and going and so that's all coming on there and they are also moving from those apartments and also the new Village Apartments as they are filling up and they are coming across going into Trader Joe's. So, we have natural traffic coming from all these different individual apartments and people as, again, they are starting to fill up. The -- they -- they mentioned that they -- they -- they are willing to manage traffic, but it's all managing traffic on their site. What happens, as several of you Council Members have mentioned, what happens when it leaves their site and all you have is this backage road that's a very short road and our building -- our property is right on the edge of that. As you can see it's right on the edge of that backage road. So, you know, what's -- what's going to happen when the cars start backing up and people initially, seeing their sign, will take the right turn that is the north right turn and they will make their way around to the back. Well, once that starts to back up -- and it will -- and the only reason I feel this way is because I'm very familiar with Raising Cane's and -- we had one in our neighborhood and it was always backed up. The cars were all over the place. And, again, we are not against Raising Cane's coming in, we just need a situation where it's going to be safe and -- for everybody that's, you know, in the same area, who is living, working and has businesses in the area. Simison: If you can summarize and I'm sure we will get into questions. Coles: Okay. They also mentioned, you know, the queuing summary, too. In the queueing summary I noticed that they have a parking lot and they have the drive-thrus that come in, but there are going to be people that are going to be parking in their parking lot. They are going to be coming into the restaurant and I know, Mayor, you had asked them, you know, what the percentage was. I -- I didn't get an answer for that. Didn't hear an answer. Maybe there was -- as to how many people will actually park and go in versus people that will go through the drive-thru. But there will be people in that area. So, if they intend to use that parking area to queue more cars, how is that going to be possible when there is going to be parked cars there? Again, just common sense when that -- when that -- when that was brought up. Simison: I'm going to ask you to conclude, Perry. Coles: Okay. Meridian City Council November 6,2024 Page 31 of 77 Simison: Any final statement before we turn to questions for Council? From you. Do you have anything -- any final one -- 30 second summary before we go to Council? Coles: Oh. Okay. Yeah. I had a little bit more, but I guess I will -- I will -- I will move to Council. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Maybe just before Perry concludes, I -- I did have a question. If there was anything else he wanted to share with us. Simison: Thank you, Councilman Cavener. Coles: Yes. Thank you. Appreciate it. Again, I'm reaching out to express my support for the proposal to send the current plans back to Planning and Zoning regarding the roads leading in and out of the lots just north of my property at 2590 North Eagle Road. My hope is that upon further review the City of Meridian will determine an outcome that will prioritize the safety of Meridian residents who will be using the roads every day and will consider how these changes will positively impact the city as a whole. As we experience unprecedented growth. These are indeed elements of what makes a city livable, prioritizing safety and the voices of the community over developer dollars. Meridian zoning code does not currently address the unique impacts of high traffic drive-thus on our community. As Meridian grows so does the demands of our roads, neighborhoods and local businesses. High traffic drive-thrus, particularly popular restaurant chains, are being placed near smaller businesses and residential areas creating unintended congestion and a safety risk that affect all of us. By differentiating zoning requirements for high traffic drive-thrus from those of lower volume, such as banks, we can make Meridian safer, calmer and more accessible for all. In this particular instance we can look at how many are at risk if this issue is not addressed. The employees and the patrons of my own business. Over 700 residents in the surrounding apartments and potential new hotel going in, the travelers staying in the upcoming hotel on a lot that's 25 feet from the drive-thru and all the foot traffic that already exists between Trader Joe's lot and The Village and, of course, the patrons of Raising Cane's and a still empty lot next to it. This thoughtful forward thinking approach to zoning would help us protect the distinctive character of our neighborhoods and business centers, ensure safer roads and allow our community to grow in a way that aligns with the values we all share, safety for our family, success for our businesses and creating room for a livable city. As residents, parents and neighbors we all want Meridian to be a city where families feel safe crossing streets, where local business can thrive, where each new step of growth reflects the best interests of those who call this city home. I urge you to support sending this back to zoning and updating the city's code to create a healthier and more harmonious community for everyone. Thank you for your time and consideration and your dedication to the city. Thank you. Meridian City Council November 6,2024 Page 32 of 77 Simison: Council, any additional questions? Taylor: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Taylor. Taylor: Perry, I have a quick question for you. Is -- I'm -- I'm struggling to understand the concern about safety and I'm just wondering if -- is your concern safety or is your concern access into your -- to your business? Because I have been looking at the picture here, you obviously just have the one entrance there off the access road. Coles: Correct. It's actually both, because we can only access our -- our entrance to Eagle Road was closed off in favor of this right turn lane. So, we have only one access out. So, when you have traffic that is making the right turn at our building, which they will do, because they will do it to the north, they will do it to us, because they are trying to get into the back -- those -- the back lot where -- where the restaurant is and, then, now, of course, we have heard that you have got supply trucks coming in and, honestly, the turn seems to be better where our right turn is where our building is. It's wider there. So, the trucks probably are going to end up there going in and out. So, what happens when my customers try to leave my parking lot? Especially my older customers and I have plenty of those and here comes these big trucks, here comes all these cars, you know, they are going to be afraid to try and pull out of our lot and I'm really concerned about that and, of course, if there is accidents there becomes the additional safety issues. Overton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: Perry, thank you for coming tonight. I have stood out on this street with you and looked at it and what's not obvious to most people as we look at this picture is these are not fully wide ACHD streets. Coles: Yes. Overton: This is a -- is a frontage access and we are taking a picture of something tonight worried about traffic, knowing full well that the secondary business and the hotel aren't even up and running yet and we are worried about traffic because of just the first one going in and when you do make that turn it's a dedicated right turn lane both for the frontage that goes directly to your store and, then, the next one that goes to the other side of this frontage road that could take you over to Trader Joe's, but it's the only access point across for all of those people in those apartments. If they want to get over to any of those other stores -- and I don't think we have talked about that enough, that is the only access point since they put that front -- frontage road in. Meridian City Council November 6,2024 Page 33 of 77 Coles: There is no other access, except that 125 foot wide road between our -- the end of our parking lot and the -- the north side of Raising Cane's property. Yes. There is no -- there is no other access in there. That's it. Overton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: Would it be safe to say that since that road's open we have seen traffic increase as more people are discovering that that road even exists? Coles: Oh, yes. Yes. No question. Especially when the apartments are filling up behind where the hotel is going in and, then, they opened up access to the Regency Apartments to the right, there is a lot of people starting to use that road, because they can cut across -- instead of going to Records, they just come up that road, cut across and go right into the Trader Joe's parking -- parking lot there. Yes. So, they are using it because it's convenient and there is lots of apartments and a lot of people that we have seen just in the last couple months. Yes. Overton: Thank you, Perry. Whitlock: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Whitlock. Whitlock: Mr. Coles, can you help me with the current traffic patterns and what you see with your business as somebody's coming northbound on Eagle, turns right into your business -- Coles: Yes. Whitlock: -- spends lots of money at your store. Coles: Oh, I hope so. Whitlock: And, then, how are they leaving? Are they going? Are they turning right out of your parking lot and going through the apartments? Are they turning left, especially if they need to get back to the freeway and back to the Eagle? Coles: Uh-huh. Whitlock: They can't cross Eagle, so they have got to go up and either do a U-turn or they have got to get through and go to Records and come out on Ustick. Coles: I have actually seeing both. People, obviously, when they come out of our parking lot, have to go either left or they can go straight and I would say maybe 60-40 -- Meridian City Council November 6,2024 Page 34 of 77 60 percent are making the left to go back on Eagle, 40 percent are going across, because, again, the -- the Trader Joe's development there -- I mean it's very popular. There is a lot of other stores in there that are extremely popular and so people -- they are actually kind of thrilled that they can cut across now, you know, and go -- go that way. But I would say 60-40, 50-50. There is plenty of people trying to use it and -- and I do see people coming out of the apartments, too, that are coming and cutting across to go to Trader Joe's. Some are going to Eagle, but, actually, a lot of them are making the right turn. Whitlock: And did I hear you correctly, then, the frontage road coming off of that dedicated right-hand turn going north on Eagle is 25 feet wide? Coles: Yes. Whitlock: And your solution is that if it were ten feet wider it would provide additional opportunity for stacking? Coles: I would like to see some type of width, sure, so that if we end up with a huge stacking issue here, which is very very possible -- I mean they are a very successful restaurant chain -- that at least they have got somewhere to put the cars, you know. So, whether it's ten feet, 20 feet -- I mean whatever it is right there, what I would like to see at least as an option is that we have that two lane road clear all the time so people can pass north, pass south and so they can get through there. But the minute there is any type of backup that ends and you can't -- you can't get two cars passed each other and -- and you do -- in the -- both right turn lanes, too, are both 25 feet, too. So, you do have that issue and I know we calculated on the north right turn lane that the length would accommodate seven cars before you got to Eagle Road from the edge of their -- from the edge of their northeast part of their property, so -- so you have seven cars, you turn the corner and, I don't know, you will have three, four, five more cars before you enter their property and that's all you have and, again, people are going to be smart they are going to realize there is going to be a backup and they are going to figure out a smarter way. So, they will come -- they will make a right turn around our property and try to go in from the south, you know, to the north and the backage road. Taylor: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Taylor. Taylor: Perry, you are a small business owner, so I think you can probably appreciate maybe the question I have, but as City Council we tend to not make decisions based on specific entities, businesses, we deal with land uses and -- and sort of those guiding documents. Not to say that we can or we haven't, but that's not typically what we would do. So, do you -- do you think it's, though, appropriate that we make decisions based on assumptions of a specific business and things that we have seen in other locations about how it's -- you know, customers come and go from other locations and, again, Meridian City Council November 6,2024 Page 35 of 77 assumptions based on our previous experience, do you think that's appropriate for us to weigh in? Coles: Well, one of the reasons I brought this in front of Council is because I wanted you to have that decision -- to have the final decision here as to what you felt was appropriate. That's -- and I think it's important and the way this situation occurred it was final pretty much at Planning and Zoning and it was never to come to you. So, that's the reason I did this. I wanted to see the Council have the final decision. We think you are going to make wise decisions, whatever the decision is. Obviously, you are going to make decisions based on your experience and I think that's what you are saying and I -- I think that's -- I think that's very appropriate. Simison: Council, any additional questions? Thank you, Perry. Coles: Thank you. Simison: Is there anyone else signed up on this item? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, they didn't check they want to speak, but Allie de Seelhorst. Simison: Good evening. State your name and address for the record. de Seelhorst: Yep. I'm Allie de Seelhorst. I also represent Copper Canary as a co- owner with Perry Coles. I'm at 2590 North Eagle Road. So, I'm here as a concerned business owner. I am also not against Raising Cane's. It's a delicious restaurant. But am concerned with the overflow of traffic. As Perry had mentioned it will creep onto the streets that can't handle the amount of cars. I have witnessed cars speeding up and down that road similar to him that connects the apartments just off Records to Eagle Road and also connecting to Trader Joe's lot. The number of cars in the proposed drive-thru is very similar to the Chick-fil-A that's just south of us and if any of you are familiar with that, the Chick-fil-A drive-thru is also two lanes and it continues the two lanes. It backs up onto a very narrow road and, then, cars get stuck passing, because they have nowhere to go. So, I see a very similar situation just to the north of us with Raising Cane's that we already have to the south of us that's been ongoing for the years that it's been there. So, something that was mentioned was the drive time. My personal experience in the past with Raising Cane's has been far more than two and a half minutes. I actually was looking up this online, because I thought that was so fast, wasn't familiar timing to me. So, I saw that stat from a 2018 survey, but a more recent survey with drive times that was published online in just October of this year show that it's an average of around six minutes. So, I'm not quite sure about that discrepancy from 2018 to current, but that sounded more familiar with what my time has been in the past waiting in line. So, Mr. Overton, you mentioned that there are other businesses coming up -- popular drive-thrus that are coming in behind Raising Cane's. One in particular is In-N-Out that's coming to North Meridian off of Ten Mile and Chinden. I happen to be a resident of the community that sits just across the street and behind and in our community we have a very similar situation to being a business owner of Meridian City Council November 6,2024 Page 36 of 77 Copper Canary and that we are also concerned with the amount of traffic, safety, pedestrians, that is something that Perry had mentioned was also that the pedestrians that are going to be walking from the hotel, from all the apartments, because why would they drive, from right there to the new restaurant, they would just walk. So, kind of all the above similar reasons to that ended up coming in from a business perspective and a concerned resident perspective. So, I'm here because I want the city -- the City Council to have final say regarding the high traffic drive-thrus with the current code not differentiating, like Perry mentioned, the ATM drive-thrus versus traffic from a restaurant drive-thru. The goal is that moving forward hopefully it's safer. The amount of cars in one situation versus the amount of cars in another is so massive, so our -- our goal is that -- for everybody to be safer, that road somehow be widened to accommodate the amount of cars that will be driving and with the current infrastructure it doesn't make a lot of sense to us, so -- Simison: Thank you very much. Council, any questions? All right. Thank you. Johnson: Mr. Mayor, Alicia Eastman. Alicia, did you mean to sign on this or a future hearing? Got you. Thank you. Simison: Is that everybody who signed up? Is there anybody present who would like to provide testimony on this item? If you are online use the raise your hand feature. If you are here if you would come forward. Good evening. State your name and address for the record. Gasser: Trevor Gasser. 74 East 500 South, Suite 200, in Bountiful, Utah. I am part of the development group of the Sessions Parkway Subdivision and I -- I hear the concerns that the Copper Canary has. They have talked a lot about safety and how fast people are driving through there. We could go in and put speed bumps in there to calm driving down so people aren't speeding as fast. We would also be -- we would also work with Raising Cane's to figure out a way to queue the drive-thru if it ever does come out onto the access drive and we would work hard to -- to facilitate that. A question I would like to ask though -- Mr. Mayor, had you heard of In-N-Out before they came to Meridian? Simison: Yes. Gasser: Okay. In-N-Out has been in the western United States for a long time. Everybody -- it was the same thing in Utah, everybody was waiting and waiting for In-N- Out to come to Utah. Same thing happened, obviously, here in Idaho. Raising Cane's just entered into Utah and the traffic is completely different than an In-N-Out and I would say the same thing is going to happen in Idaho. Yes, they are going to be a successful business, but it is not going to be In-N-Out's traffic that everybody wanted an In-N-Out here forever. Some people have heard of Raising Cane's for sure, but it is nothing like In-N-Out and as soon as In-N-Out opened up their other location that traffic is calming over there at the mall location. I feel like these guys have come up with a great plan. Meridian City Council November 6,2024 Page 37 of 77 It's a great use and, you know, like I said, we will work with them to figure out the queueing if it goes out onto the access drive. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Follow up real quick, because he asked me a question about something. Have you heard of Chick-fil-A. Gasser: Yes. Simison: Have you been to the one right there on Eagle Road and seen all the problems that exist with that drive-thru? It's been here for ten years. It stacks, it backs into all the other businesses in the area. Now, there is no access road, but there is a drive aisle that is -- it's impacted consistently in that area due to the amount of ongoing demand for the product. So, I don't think it's about the initial opening or anything else, it's a few -- if you have got a successful place -- you know, like we have seen and Councilman Cavener mentioned it, you know, we haven't done a good job with -- what's that coffee place, Councilman Cavener? I don't drink coffee either, so I don't -- Cavener: Dutch Brother's Coffee. Simison: We haven't done a good job in the city in a lot of ways with some of these and we have seen them queue out onto roads, very common throughout -- throughout our community and you run a promotion there it goes, you know. Sometimes it is just normal. So, I think that's what this Council is, you know, really waiting on and that's why we have talked about these issues is we -- we -- we see it, we feel it, you know, the Internet did a great job of keeping people out of the roads. I'm not going to say the other businesses liked it or didn't like it, but that's what we are really trying to address is how do you really address this long going, ongoing need, the challenge that could occur. Gasser: Sure. Simison: Okay. Council Woman Strader. Strader: Thank you. You said we will work with them to figure out the queueing. Like what does that look like? Gasser: We would have to get our traffic engineer involved to give us a queuing diagram. We could have something come out. I would have to ask Andy to come up and -- and give us an idea of how we would do that, but -- Andy, can you come up and just -- Daleiden: Mr. -- Mr. Mayor, Council Members, Andy Daleiden, Kittelson and Associates, senior principal engineer. Address 101 South Capitol Boulevard, Ste. 600, Boise, Idaho. 83702. In terms of -- we -- we would work -- you know, if -- if asked to work with Raising Meridian City Council November 6,2024 Page 38 of 77 Cane's and their -- their traffic engineer and their operations group to figure out a plan that -- that can accommodate excess queuing off the site and -- and how that works in terms of the adjacent uses, both the, you know, future hotel, the property, gateway marketplace to the north and, then, Copper Canary as well to make sure that there is adequate queuing on site. There are additional internal roads once you get out of their site where you could do some creative options to be able to provide some stacking to accommodate that over, you know, when -- when there is excess queuing if needed. It would just be a matter of having that discussion further and anticipating that for those excess moments, you know, grand openings and, yeah, if it's sustained, being able to work, so that -- that queue is managed. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I -- I really think it -- to me it's like we just need a really good plan. I think if -- you know, for the -- for the opening and, then, I think beyond that if somehow that were to be sustained, yeah, just kind of a longer term plan, but at this point it's a 25 foot road, you got the hotel; right? I guess I -- where I'm going with it is at this point can that road be widened? You know -- and I -- maybe it's a question for legal. Could the City Council even at this point in this hearing compel a change to the overall development like that? Because this is super unusual. Nary: No. Strader: Right. I mean -- and that's kind of where I'm going with this is -- is like to me the best outcome that comes from this is creating a really great plan. Like I think that makes sense. I would love to hear a really great plan. I would love for the applicant to work with the police department and come up with a -- a good plan that we can all feel good about, but, again, I -- I -- I -- I really struggle with making a land use decision based on a high volume that's expected initially for business. I -- I just don't think that's appropriate and no one's convinced me that Raising Cane's will perpetually have like such traffic on site that it -- that it's going to continuously cause an issue. I don't know. I'm just not -- but anyway. So, okay, you -- so, you control the other parcels; correct? At this development? Sorry. I'm looking at this gentleman here. Gasser: We -- they are -- we are working with other tenants at this time, yes. The hotel group is -- they have come in through, they have gotten their CUP, they have gotten their building permit, they are ready to go. There is a parcel to the south that we have worked with and they have a use that's coming in and -- and they have other plans, but we are under contract with all three properties right now. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Meridian City Council November 6,2024 Page 39 of 77 Strader: And just like to be more specific, do you -- how does the timing work with this opening and those parcels? Do you have like one of these lots available for like an overflow queue or something? I just want to understand what your -- Gasser: The hotel will take a while to construct and so -- Strader: Okay. Gasser: -- there could be possibility queuing on that site. Plus the drive that's just north of the hotel, that's one of the secondary accesses to the apartment complex, could also be facilitated as well. Strader: Thank you. Simison: Is there anybody else that would like to provide testimony on this item? Then will the applicant, please, come forward to close? O'Reilly: Mr. Mayor and Members of the Council, thanks for letting me back up here again. Just wanted to reply to a couple of the questions and issues brought up by the appellant. First of all, I just kind of wanted to maybe reframe our conversation. So, this is a fully entitled piece of property. It has approved preliminary and final plat. Final plat has been recorded. A development agreement and -- and the zoning is all in place. So, I think some of the conversation is getting a little bit outside the -- the scope of -- of the current hearing, which is basically a CUP for the drive-thru, which, obviously, the traffic is a -- is a part of, but as far as conversations on road widening, adding accesses, things of that nature, like I said, it's -- it's an already entitled piece of property and -- and us as a -- as a single parcel don't have control over that, nor is it in the purview really of this hearing. So, I just wanted to state that on the outset just that we don't have control over -- over the rest of that and it's already been approved by the city and meets dimensional standards for the -- the drive widths and -- and things of that nature. I hear, Council Woman Strader, your concern and -- and appreciate it about -- the main concern seems to be high traffic events, such as the grand opening. We would be prepared to accept as a condition of approval that we would need to coordinate with city staff and the police department a grand opening traffic control plan and queuing plan. That was acceptable and that is something that we would do anyways. So, we would be very happy to accept that, you know, and I think that would mitigate a lot of the -- the real concern about, you know, a disastrous couple days. Outside of that I do think the site we have put forward is one that should function appropriately under given conditions. Mr. Mayor, you mentioned the Chick-fil-A down the way. One I'm very familiar with, as my children like to go there all the time. But one -- one item that differentiates our site from the Chick-fil-A is that our traffic is all separated out from the other uses. As you pull into the Chick-fil-A drive-thru you have several other uses off the side with traffic trying to make turns to those businesses and, then, as you come out you are doing a hairpin 180 degree turn with all the mall traffic. I think one thing that this site does a lot better is -- is controls all of our traffic and funnels everything in the drive-thru on our site and so you would just have the two access points, which are at 90 Meridian City Council November 6,2024 Page 40 of 77 degrees, which is very different from the Chick-fil-A, which would help the site to -- to function well. So, the other item that the appellant mentioned was just a concern over the delivery trucks and how those impact the site. The deliveries are very early in the morning and so I just wanted to maybe reassure everyone on that, that that would happen before the Cane's or the Copper Canary stores open and so that shouldn't be -- be an issue there. But, yes, I just want to offer that condition of approval and I would stand for any other questions on that. Taylor: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Taylor. Taylor: Just a quick question. You mentioned you would be okay with a condition of approval. Would you also be open to developing with your -- you know, call them development partners, but the gentleman that spoke before -- of -- of having a plan for managing off-site traffic queuing, assuming that -- let's say you got cars 46, 47 and beyond, would you be open to presenting a plan that would be acceptable to city staff as part of that condition of approval? O'Reilly: Yeah. We would be -- sorry. Councilman Taylor, we would be open to that. think that would be part of that -- that whole plan is showing, you know, up to whatever city staff and the police department agreed was a reasonable amount of queuing and working with the overall development team to show where that queueing might go and how traffic might progress for the grand opening event. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Curious, can you remind me what is the length of your drive-thru, the queuing area, from the -- from I guess maybe where the -- the order boards are, where the Cane's employees would be with their Pads to where they pick up the food what is the distance? O'Reilly: I'm trying to remember that offhand. I know that we had seven cars between the pickup window and the order board and I believe about three or four cars behind. So, that would be roughly 200 feet at a little bit over 20 feet a car. Cavener: Okay. So, Mr. Mayor, just real quick. I'm not trying to put you on the spot, but when I -- when I do a quick measurement of the -- the distance of the Chick-fil-A it's 250 feet. So, I -- I just want to be up front. I -- I appreciate your offer for conditions of a traffic management plan. I am -- I'm supportive of that, as long as you understand that plan would not involve any queuing whatsoever on the access road and that that plan would take into account not just your grand opening, but what are -- what are peak times and -- and I recall, again, this conversation as we were visiting at Cane's this summer on a road trip with my son is that, you know, quote, unquote, Caniacs plan to Meridian City Council November 6,2024 Page 41 of 77 visit the location outside of regular hours, because they don't want to wait in the drive- thru for so long. So, it's -- to me it's less about the -- the short-term problem is your grand opening, but it's -- I'm thinking about a Wednesday a year and a half from now at noon where it's likely we are going to see stacking out on this access road. I give you the opportunity to respond. O'Reilly: Councilman Cavener, thank you for that question. I think the condition could be such that the applicant would have to work with city staff and the police department to satisfy the condition and, you know, the city staff could enforce that it's not on the access road as you mentioned there. It's hard for me to speak to the -- the Chick-fil-A length to make sure everything's apples to apples and all that, you know, up here at this moment. But I -- I do think -- like I -- I pointed out earlier that the site can -- is more self- contained than the Chick-fil-A site and will function a lot better as such. Simison: So, I'm going to make another pitch to you. Tell me why it won't work. It's got two access points right there. Why can't you close the first, the one to the north, extend the queueing lanes all the way down, it will give you ten to 12 more stacks right there. You lose some parking, but you contain more on the property. If you ever -- you can still implement the same design you have, if you ever want to go bigger, why doesn't that work? O'Reilly: Mr. Mayor, I think that would work. One of the goals of this queuing plan was to show a queuing plan that would function with the site fully operational. You can see we left open all the drive aisles. In hindsight that may have been a mistake and we should have just maxed out for like a -- what a grand opening would be where perhaps the drive-thru would be more prioritized; right? If -- if I wanted to just fully maximize queuing on this site. We could queue a lot more cars here. What we were in endeavoring to show was a -- I think a very high use time with the site still functioning quite normally. But if that northern entrance was fully coned off and you queued, you could snake through the site and queue a good amount of cars and that's all something we could look at with city staff under that condition is -- is how we maximize on-site queueing and, then, potentially utilize some off-site queuing as well. Simison: Yeah, I -- I -- I would guess you would get about 30 to 35 if you extended two queue lanes down to that other location in that fashion for most of your time. But I don't know if that's enough. I have no idea, so -- I'm not a Caniac. O'Reilly: I appreciate that though. Thank you. Simison: Council, additional questions or comments for the applicant? Okay. Thank you very much. O'Reilly: Thank you. Simison: Okay. So, here's what I know, Councilman Cavener would like us to take a break. He has got some stuff he has got to take care of. No. Sorry. We could do that Meridian City Council November 6,2024 Page 42 of 77 now if you need a few minutes to process or we can -- or, you know, he is fine to keep going until we finish this one out, but I just didn't know where your heads were, if you were ready to close and move forward or not and I should say we all need to take a break, but I know he is got some -- some issues that he needs to take care of. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Totally respect the group's decision. I -- I think I'm ready to -- to move forward in -- at least having a discussion. Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I am happy to -- to sort of kick it off. I think I sort of explained where I was coming from. I -- I recognize there are some issues around the potential for a very successful drive-thru here and I -- and I really believe it's -- in the scheme of the timelines we look at for our city I sort of think of the city in like 50 year increments, like a lot like long -- long time periods I don't like to make development and land use decisions based on somebody's opening weekend or even what their first year would be like. I don't think that that's appropriate. I think we should create -- you know, I think a condition to have the applicant coordinate a traffic control plan with the city police department and planning staff makes a lot of sense and that, you know, managing off site queuing should be a part of that and that we should just be clear no queuing is allowed on the access road and we will be using traffic enforcement if needed. But I'm -- I'm really hoping that like a solid plan could be created. I just think there is a real danger in -- in making land use decisions based on shorter time periods. That's kind of the principle that I'm kind of coming back to. So, that's just where my head's at and that -- and that's what I think we should -- we should do. It's -- it's not legal or appropriate I think at this time for us to require changes -- you know, substantive changes to the overall development, like widening the road. We -- we don't actually have the legal ability to -- to do that. At this point a lot of decisions have been made and, unfortunately or fortunately, you know, as a city we don't make decisions based on individual businesses and I think it's important that we keep the totality the facts in mind and create a mitigation plan, but I don't think it should -- it should actually change our land use decision making generally speaking. There are certainly certain types of businesses that we have very strong feelings about, you know, different types of vices, things like that where -- where we -- where we may, you know, have a little more input, but I think our code generally accounts for that. So, that's where I'm coming from just to share kind of how I'm looking at it. Taylor: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Taylor. Meridian City Council November 6,2024 Page 43 of 77 Taylor: To kind of keep it going, I think the word that keeps coming to my mind tonight is assumptions. We are making some assumptions about the business activities of -- of an entity that has entitled the land and has the ability to move forward and I think sometimes we can make wrong assumptions and I -- you know, I would use Copper Canary. It used to be a Chinese restaurant. There is no way I -- when I saw that it was under construction and being renovated I never would have thought a beautiful facility like you have now would -- would be there. But my assumptions were wrong. You have a fantastic beautiful, high end, just a very lovely facility there. You know, speaking of assumptions, I left Disneyland with my kids late late at night and the only place open was Raising Cane's and I pulled in and I saw a big line and my wife said put it in reverse, let's get out of here, because we are going to be stuck in this line forever. So, I did and I got stuck somewhere else in the line and I saw everybody go through Raising Cane's fairly quickly. I regretted it. I have seen the facility down in South Jordan. The opening weekend traffic spilled out onto the road -- onto the access road. So, I think these are all very legitimate concerns. Last time I was down there my kids made me take them down there late at night. There was a big line, but it moved through quickly. So, I think it -- as to what Council Woman Strader said, I think we shouldn't make decisions based on some assumptions we have about how a business may or may not operate, how customers may or may not interact with that, how they might flow to and from the business. I think we should look at, you know, what is the land use, is it appropriate, is it not appropriate for what we have. As I look at it they followed what we have asked them to. We are being asked to use our -- sort of subjective opinions and bring our own thoughts and past experiences into to making a decision here, but I think that's -- I -- I -- I really worry about bringing my own opinions into some of these things, because I want to make sure that I can be consistent over time. I think as a Council we should look at is this appropriate for what we have identified is appropriate land use? Are they following UDC? I'm not convinced that this is a safety issue. I think -- I think the plan works. I think it makes sense. I'm open to any conditional -- you know, any kind of specific plans to be agreed upon I think that's fine, but I'm probably open to approving this. I think it -- I think it works. It may be inconvenient at times, but I think it's not within our purview to punish a business because we think it may operate a certain way. Simison: Can I -- can I ask the concept of closing down the one access and extending the -- I -- I look at it as a -- is it better to have 12 potential stacked or six parking spaces? Which -- you know, granted, people are going to want to come inside and there is no parking, then, they may try to park on the road to begin with, but I think the -- human nature is if there is -- if those lines are already filled -- I'm talking about normal. I'm not talking just normal -- they are going to try to access -- they are not going to follow this queue line if -- unless they have people to go out there and -- I don't know when that -- you know, what staff members job is to go out there and reroute traffic while they are trying to serve people. So, I guess that would be my question. From your perspective more on site in that version or the parking? Taylor: Yeah. I think if the applicant is okay with closing that northern one and having more queuing on site, I think that makes a lot of sense. If you look these facilities are Meridian City Council November 6,2024 Page 44 of 77 small and, again, I'm making an assumption about a business, but you have seen them, there is a small footprint, they are designed to get people through a drive-thru, not to come in and sit down for a long period of time. These are designed to move traffic through. So, my opinion, right, I think that's fine if we -- if the applicant's okay with that have no problem with that. Simison: Okay. I was just curious, so -- Whitlock: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Whitlock. Whitlock: I would just chime in. I mean I -- I heard from the applicant that they would be willing to entertain that and I think they are amenable to a mitigation plan for those high volume events, grand opening, specials and it may come to a point where that's a temporary closure during an opening. It may -- by coning it off it may be that they want to permanently do that and add those additional slots for stacking and queuing. But I -- I heard that they were amenable to a condition of working with our staff to find some mitigation plan that works moving forward. So, I was pleased to hear that. Cavener: Yeah. Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Yeah. I kind of heard the same thing that Council Member Whitlock did, which -- which I appreciate. I -- I think that that's the -- the right approach and, you know, Council Member Taylor makes a really important point and something this Council has done a really good job at of not being subjective and not punishing a business because they are successful. However, we do have some good lessons learned in this city about drive-thrus or approvals that may be upon build out. If we had a second shot at it we probably would have done things differently and so I'm certainly trying to take this from a place of learning from maybe past decisions that upon reflection we wish we would have done a little bit different. So, I'm -- I'm largely supportive of the applicant working with staff and police on a mitigation plan. My only real concern about that is the enforcement mechanism. So, again, I -- I think Raising Cane's has been proven to be a good neighbor. They want to be successful. They want to be perceived as a good neighbor in our community. So, it's not always necessarily about the applicant, it's more about that precedent and what happens if they choose not to follow their -- their own subjected to mitigation plan because they don't have staff or there is another, you know, outlying circumstance. How do we make sure that our community understands the consistency will remain? Simison: I don't know if this is -- and the public hearing is still open. I don't know if this is a question, but one of the things that was mentioned was speed bumps on the access road. I know our fire department may or may not like those, but this is not a public road. I assume it's a private -- a private -- and they can make that determination if they want Meridian City Council November 6,2024 Page 45 of 77 to; correct? That that's -- they want to put in speed bumps on this that there is nothing that they need from the city or ACHD sign off and I -- I say that in the context of like that may be the best long term that everyone wants for how -- because it is -- you know, it's supposed to be pretty much a drive aisle. You know, we -- Council chose not to have the drive aisle continue through Copper Canary and close off that access, because it wasn't going to extend down through. That was kind of the intention all the way through, but you get into the next development up and you do have some speed mitigation devices through the parking lot, which is the extension of this drive aisle. just want to throw that out there for people's concept to say it may be also part of the things that can help no matter what the queuing is in this area or whatever the plan is we probably want to have people driving relatively slow through this access point, either for people walking over or for people trying to access a successful business, but not saying it needs to be a part of it. Anything I'm missing, Chief? I know you don't like them, but -- Blume: Mr. Mayor -- sorry. There I am. No, it's -- when you talk about speed tables or speed bumps or anything like that, especially in these areas where traffic is slow or intended to be slow naturally we don't have an issue or have a concern. It's when it's on the main thoroughfares and large roads, like Records or something, where you would try and slow down, you know, not a connecting road or a side road, but, actually, those main thoroughfares, we would prefer not to have speed tables or speed bumps. Simison: Okay. Overton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: I hate to ruin the theme, but I'm not convinced. I think one of the reasons this is here is because we are facing a very successful restaurant that I really want to welcome to our city, but it's sitting on the busiest road in the entire state in a city that's in the middle of this valley that gets traffic from all the surrounding cities that come to our restaurant row on Eagle Road. Even looking at the map and them not knowing when business is going to be busy or business is going to be slow, not necessarily having the staffing to react to when all of a sudden everybody decides to go there, I think we are going to have blockage issues on that access road with vehicles coming from the north and vehicles coming from the south and the more I look at this map I think we are going to have significant blockage. I do believe that it's going to be as bad as even backing up to Eagle Road when they have a grand opening. But at a minimum they are going to be facing blocking that access road and that's going to impact the other businesses. That access road -- I remember when we approved this project, wasn't designed to be a stacking road, it was designed to be an access road from these businesses up to the businesses in the corner of Eagle and Ustick and I think this business is going to be terribly successful and I think this is predictable and it's preventable and I can't support it. Meridian City Council November 6,2024 Page 46 of 77 Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I'm going to try to make a motion, maybe see like where we are at as a group. Open to leaving the public hearing open or closing it, depending on if we think we need -- Simison: To do the motion you got to close it. Strader: Yeah. You are right. You are right. All right. So, let's close the public hearing, please, Mr. Mayor. Overton: Second. Simison: I have a motion and second to close the public hearing. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and the public hearing is closed. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I will try and make a motion and see where it goes. After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony I move to approve File No. CR-2024-0002 as presented in the staff report for today's hearing date with the following modifications: That we would -- that we would require the coordination between the Raising Cane's group and city staff and the developer that owns the surrounding property, along with our police department, to create a traffic control plan for times of high traffic, including the grand opening and any other times where there is anticipated to be a lot of demand for Raising Cane's and that that plan would include managing off-site queuing. No queuing will occur or be allowed on the access road and we would encourage the developer that owns the various parcels to put speed bumps in place on the access road if that is feasible. Taylor: Second. Simison: Have a motion and a second. So, nothing on the -- eliminating one of their -- Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Meridian City Council November 6,2024 Page 47 of 77 Strader: Yeah. I -- I view that as an action that could take place as part of the traffic control plan. Currently the applicant is demonstrating the ability to temporarily close that access and an intention to have a uniformed off-duty police officer to manage that. If they think there is a better way of doing this I'm open to it. I'm also mindful of emergency access and -- and some of those things. So, I think those details would need to be worked out with city staff. It's kind of how I'm viewing that. Simison: Okay. Is there a discussion on the motion? Cavener: Yeah. Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: I -- I appreciate the motion. I don't think I'm going to be in support of it. think a specific motion that calls for closing one of those accesses to extend the queuing -- and, then, the other piece that I -- I still remain concerned about is somewhat of the subjective nature of this motion. What we may view is a lot of cars may be different than what the applicant views as a lot of cars, what the neighbors may view as a lot of cars. I -- I worry, too, that this plan would be reactionary. So, when it hits a certain point, then, we have got to do something, as opposed to a -- a proactive plan that would forecast this is what we would do during -- they know when their peak times are and so I'm -- I'm reluctant to be supportive of the motion because of the -- I think some of the complexities that come from being a little bit more arbitrary that I would be comfortable with. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Yeah. I would like to understand that concern. I'm viewing this as the operational plan that would apply to the grand opening and any other foreseeable events that -- where the applicant thinks that the traffic would exceed their ability to manage it on site. I -- I don't know how else we would do it, though. Like I -- and I'm open to all ideas. I just -- I don't know how else we would craft a motion, because we have very narrow -- to me we have very narrow legal scope here to even review the -- the decision that was already made on it. And maybe that's just me, but -- Taylor: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Taylor. Taylor: Just in discussion I think -- I think what we are actually -- should be focused on is -- we wish it was a bigger, more holistic global decision we had about the property. I don't think that it's within our purview right now from where we are with the project. What we are doing -- I think we are -- I feel like we are limited in what we can and we cannot do and I think the motion that Council Woman Strader made does a pretty good Meridian City Council November 6,2024 Page 48 of 77 job at trying to say let's make the most of what we really are allowed to do under the current circumstances. So, I think, you know, it's a -- it's a good faith effort. I think the applicant is -- is -- is doing a good job to say, yes, they are open to still tweaking and accommodating to the best of their ability. Nobody wants to be adversarial here in terms of the -- the -- the -- the properties that are adjacent to each other. Everyone's trying to find the best way forward. I think given where we are in the process to me it seems like we are at a good point where the applicant is saying we are open to working with the city, the police and our neighboring folks to come up with a plan to mitigate the impacts of traffic. So, to me I think it's -- again, we are going to have a longer discussion later on as a city about how we want to handle that. We have clearly got some challenges, but that's in the future. This is in front of us today. So, I think we have to consider what's in front of us today when we are thinking about how we are going to vote on this. Simison: Question for Linda, Bill. Whatever develops to the south of this it's going to have cross-access. Okay. There is not going to be a wall right there between these two properties or would there be? So, the question about secondary access into this parcel I assume it would have to have a through access to the -- the adjacent property. Parsons: Yeah. Mayor, Members of the Council, Linda had an exhibit we put together for you so we can show you how it pieced together, but we do have a pending application on that southern lot that's happening. It's staff level approval. So, yes, there will be -- Simison: So, there will be additional access if one was closed; is that correct? Could be parcel -- Parsons: Yes. They will be sharing the driveway with the Raising Cane's I think if that's your question. Simison: That will -- that will be the only access into the entire space -- Parsons: To the south, yes. As it -- as it's currently presented. Correct. Simison: Okay. Parsons: And that's why I would think Raising Cane's would want to keep that northern access for your site circulation. I -- I like the approach of temporary closure, but in the long term it may make sense to keep that northern one open for truck circulation as they mentioned, but also for just, again, if things are just normal operating at their normal peak times and they only need to function with one drive-thru lane as they testified, then, that makes some sense to let people get in and out of there as well and that's -- staff did analyze all of these things -- all of these concerns you are bringing up tonight we -- Linda and I talked about it when we were formulating our recommendation on the drive-thru. I had the same concerns. Can we narrow the landscape buffers, have more queuing on that road and all of it just seems to be we are just creating more conflicts Meridian City Council November 6,2024 Page 49 of 77 where we may not want to do that. So, we -- like you said, it's -- it's -- it's a slippery slope. You don't want to make that assumption. We try not to make those assumptions either. We look at code and if the project meets the code we recommend that the -- that we approve it and Commission heard the testimony and they acted appropriately. Well, they didn't see anything that was testified at that hearing, they felt the applicant had mitigated those concerns and that's why they recommended approval of the drive-thru. Simison: Additional comments on the motion? Nary: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Mr. Nary. Nary: Mr. Mayor -- Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Strader, I just wanted to clarify -- and I think you have said it, I just want to make sure on the record. You include in your motion speed mitigation on the drive aisle and I think the applicant testified they don't have any control over the drive aisle. So, you are -- I think your motion was simply they need to work and coordinate with the property owner and so it's not a mandate that they have to have it, but they need to work with them to do some type of mitigation with them. Is that what you intended? Strader: Mr. Mayor. Yeah. That -- that's correct. Because I recognize that they didn't own the road, so I didn't see how I could legally compel them. You know, I love conditions. Don't get me wrong. I love them, but I just don't -- I don't see it -- Nary: I -- I read it -- I -- I heard it that way, I just wanted to make sure on the record that was clear. Simison: Council, any additional questions, comments on the motion? If not Clerk call the roll. Roll Call: Cavener, nay; Strader, yea; Overton, nay; Little Roberts, yea; Taylor, yea; Whitlock, yea. Simison: Four ayes, two nays, and the item is agreed to. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO NAYS. Simison: With that we are going to take a ten minute -- well, actually, we can do 15. We will reconvene at 9:00 o'clock. (Recess: 8:44 p.m. to 8:58 p.m.) Simison: Okay. We will go ahead and come back from recess and I'm going to turn this over to Council Woman Strader real quick. Meridian City Council November 6,2024 Page 50 of 77 Strader: Mr. Mayor, in light of the hour and the amount of public testimony that we expect on Item 6 it sounds like, which is the Rolling Hill Project, I think we would like to swap Item 5 and Item 6. So, Item 5 would become the public hearing for Rolling Hill 2023-0070 and, then, the Gateway at Ten Mile would become the new Item 6. 5. Public Hearing for Rolling Hill (H-2023-0070) by JD Planning and Consulting, located at 1560 Rolling Hill Dr. A. Request: Annexation of 6.90 acres of land from the R-1 zone in Ada County to the C-C (Community Business District) zone to develop two (2) vertically integrated residential structures featuring 90 dwelling units and 20,134 sq. ft. of commercial space. B. Request: Conditional Use Permit to develop one (1) multi-family building consisting of 64 dwelling units on 5.89 acres in the proposed C-C zone. Simison: Okay. So, with that we will go up and open public hearing H-2023-0070 for Rolling Hill by JD Planning and Consulting. We will open this public hearing with staff comments. Parsons: Thank you, Mayor, Members of the Council. Next item on the agenda is the Rolling Hill application. It's a request for annexation and a conditional use permit. The site consists of 5.89 acres of land, currently zoned R-1 in Ada county and it's located on the northeast corner of Rolling -- South Rolling Hill Drive and East Overland Road as you can see in the graphic in front of you. You can see that the -- the annexation property -- the property that's proposed to be annexed consists of six -- or five parcels and you can see here that one is a -- it wraps around an existing parcel that will remain in the county, which is -- will be some of the topic of discussion this evening. So, the future land use map for this particular property is designated mixed-use regional, which typically with that -- I think you heard some discussion earlier during the public forum about the rollout of our new mixed-use standards. This particular project was actually submitted prior to those changes going into effect. So, this project was analyzed under the -- the old mixed-use regional standards, not the new current ones that we have in place. With that being said, though, it's still important to know that whenever we have a mixed-use -- a property within a mixed-use designation the property owner should try to make the attempt to show how this project integrates with the overall surrounding area and that's what they have -- they have tried to do with the plan here. I would also let the Mayor and Council know that this project does come to you with a recommendation for denial from Planning and Zoning Commission. Unique challenges with this site. Again, the applicant -- what's unique about this particular project is there is actually two vertically integrated buildings and one multi-family building. So, because they are requesting a C-G zoning district the vertically integrated becomes a principally permitted use and the multi-family is why we are having a conditional use on the one building here. So, on the site plan that was submitted this is the one multi-family building that requires the conditional use permit. The two other buildings are those vertically Meridian City Council November 6,2024 Page 51 of 77 integrated structures that will consist of about 20,000 square feet of commercial on the ground floor. As I mentioned to you at least during the discussion during the Planning and Zoning Commission the reason why they felt this wasn't the right time for this particular project was the fact that we have an enclave that is surrounded by the particular development and, then, also to the east as a piece that's in Ada county as well owned by another developer and, then, we have our master street map that we get approved by ACHD to have a collector road that runs through the site to be extended. So, there is a lot of moving pieces here that although staff did recommend approval, the Council -- the Commission felt that it wasn't quite right unless the other property in the middle of this piece and the adjacent property to the east were to come in at the same time. Also the elevations themselves are four story in height and everything around this particular property on this side of the road or single family rural residential properties in the county currently. Although they do have the same Comprehensive Plan designation, at some point in the future they may convert to something else. We don't know. But right now they are single family homes surrounding this development and that's what a lot of the public testimony during the Planning and Zoning Commission was geared around and as part of those mixed-use regional standards the applicant is to show how this property is to integrate with the surrounding developments. So, you can see here they have done that for the enclave. So, this is -- this is their best guess at a -- if -- if we surround this with multi-family good chances are this could either be another vertically integrated building or another multi-family building on that street. We also mentioned to -- also put in the staff report that there is quite a few multi-family units already in this particular area, so we posed that question in our staff report to both you and the Commission is do we feel the area is oversaturated with the multi-family market currently. I believe the staff report called out there was a 790 apartments in this area, excluding these that the applicant are proposing and, then, you can see here to the east all you see is the extension of the future collector street, which leaves in question if that road is built in its current location you can see here that there will be almost 40 feet of strips of land in between this development and the future collector road that may not be developed, other than open space, which is not a bad thing necessarily, but, again, the plan doesn't take that into account and what does that place on the property owner to the east, because we don't know how they intend to develop. So, that was some of the impetus of why the Planning and Zoning Commission said maybe we should wait and see if other developers want to come on -- come in and develop this at the same time. Because this is a multi-family, again, I should mention there are existing structures on the site that will be removed with the development of the site. You can see here the main access to this property will come in for Rolling Hills Drive, which is actually a -- a local street. This does mean ACHD's requirements and, then, part of ACHD's staff report the applicant has to build out the street frontage, because they abut this right of way along their north boundary, they have to improve that street to their north as part of a collector street because of the master street standards and they are coming in with development. So, we are getting access there to that road and, then, also those street frontage improvements per the master street map. And, then, cross-access is also being provided to the -- the outparcel for additional connectivity in the future. This one, again, the reason why this is also unique is open space requirements. So, for vertically integrated projects there are no requirements for Meridian City Council November 6,2024 Page 52 of 77 open space or amenities. However, since this is one integrated development we are requiring that we did analyze this and included the -- the vertically integrated into the open space calculations with the multi-family project, because this is annexation and the applicant is proposing approximately 1.47 acres of open space, which is slightly under the multi-family requirements, however, because it's kind of a hybrid development staff was comfortable with what the applicant was proposing, not only with the amenities, but also with the open space. You can see here the applicant is required to put in street frontages along -- street frontage improvements along East Overland Road, which they are planning on doing, which is a ten foot multi-use pathway and you can see with the enclave I think it was their intent to try to work with that property owner to get those improvements put in, but if that does not happen, then, we do get a gap. I think there is an existing sidewalk there, so it's not actually a gap, it just -- you won't have the ten foot multi-use pathway along that frontage. Amenities include swimming pool, fitness center, again, the multi-use pathway. There is also another pathway planned along the creek. Although this plan shows a five foot pathway it's actually a ten foot multi-use pathway that will run along the creek, which is a protective waterway and it will remain open. I think the -- I guess it's a canal, so they are going to pipe this if I remember correctly. Application -- the applicant did provide some elevations on the site as well, so you can see here -- again this was some of the concern discussed by the Planning and Zoning Commission as to the height. They are four story structures, but the applicant's tried to have a brownstone theme, so a lot of brick and stucco on it, along with some metal accents. Testifying in favor at the -- during the Planning and Zoning Commission was Wade Thomas, who was the planner on the applicant for the application. Many of the surrounding neighbors were there testifying in opposition just due to the compatibility with the surrounding development. So, really key issues of discussion were roadway traffic, as you constantly hear, density, lack of transition between this project and the county residents and, then, Commission -- their key topics of discussion included -- Simison: Bill, can you get into the mic? Parsons: Oh, yes. So, with the Planning and Zoning Commission their topics were -- they felt it lacked integration with the -- the surrounding developments, as I mentioned that enclave and the property to the east. Again, with already 760 units in the area is there a need for more in the vicinity right now? Again, they didn't feel like the timing was right -- annexation of this property is right at this time and so, therefore, they recommend -- they reversed staff's recommendation for approval and they recommend a denial. So, essentially -- really no outstanding issues for City Council this evening and, then, again, since the Planning and Zoning Commission I know I have talked with several of the residents, they called and asked why are we doing this again, Planning and Zoning Commission had denied the project, but I explained to them that that is the process, annexations require that the Council be the decision making body on the application this evening and that is why we are redoing this again and having another public hearing. I would also mention to the Council that the applicant did post the site with the public hearing signs in accordance with the city requirements, but some of the residents had reached out to the city and informed us that some of the signs were knocked down a couple of times throughout the -- as they transition from the Meridian City Council November 6,2024 Page 53 of 77 Commission to Council. So, they felt that the hearing shouldn't be conducted that night, because they didn't feel they got adequate notice. But, again, staff got the appropriate posting information from the applicant that they actually, in fact, did meet the requirements for the posting. It's unfortunate that either the signs blew over or somebody actually knocked over the signs. I'm not going to speculate on that, but certainly it is a concern. But, again, they have met all the requirements for you to take action on this application tonight. Again Planning and Zoning Commission's recommending denial and I conclude my presentation and stand for any questions you may have. Simison: Thank you, Bill. And, Council, just for disclosure, I won't be participating in this one. I will facilitate the conversation, but due to my relationship with the property owner I won't be commenting or voting if there was a tie at the end of this. So, you will be on your own. So, with that any questions for staff? Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Our Comprehensive Plan has a ton of stuff about transition to surrounding neighborhoods. I'm surprised that staff recommended approval because of this county enclave right in the middle of the development and the height. Is there something particularly compelling about the application? Did staff feel like there were mitigations to those concerns? I just wanted to get a better flavor, just -- not that there is any one right answer, it's all a little bit subjective, but I was just sort of surprised. Parsons: Mayor, Members of the Council, certainly happy to provide some context. So, we did meet with the developer before they even submitted their application -- or at least it was in process and we were hesitant to move it forward, because we weren't sure where -- first of all, the -- the main concern for us was just the integration with -- with the location of the -- the collector roadway was one of the bigger topics of discussion we had with the -- with the applicant, because we weren't -- we didn't want to create that no man's land between the roadway and their property. We -- we -- again, the intent behind mixed-use is to integrate and we don't see that integrating, but we had a series of meetings and we were like if you -- integration under the Comprehensive Plan can happen in two ways. It can be through step down and heights of buildings or it can happen through roadways and/or open space. This particular plan has that Greenbelt with the pathway and, then, a road and, then, a single family residence. So, in our minds that was the transition. It did transition because of that separation and the buildings were farther away towards -- and geared towards Overland. So, that's where we reluctantly recommended approval. It's -- it really was lukewarm by staff. We felt like if they can meet these minimum things, address the road, show us a concept plan for the enclave, that we could potentially support this project and they got over the hump with staff and, yes, we said we can support you moving forward and that's why we laid it out in the staff report we did and said we want the Commission and Council to weigh in on this, too, and to see if you find that it's consistent, because, again, we were -- we Meridian City Council November 6,2024 Page 54 of 77 could have gone either way on this one for certain. We were very upfront with the applicant that we would more than likely lean towards a denial. But because they were willing to work with us and make some of these changes and add that vertically integrated component and not make it all multi-family that we were able to say, yes, we can go forward with a recommendation. A positive recommendation. Strader: Thank you very much. That' very helpful. Thanks. Simison: Council, additional questions for staff? Then would the applicant like to come forward? Thomas: You will have to stay on me with the mic. I will probably move too much. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: While you guys are getting that loaded up, I forgot the second-half of my public service announcement, which is historically the City Council doesn't often go past 10:00 p.m. We do sometimes if we feel like we are getting toward a decision. It would be kind of unlikely for us to hear a brand new application after 10:00 p.m. and the reason for that is we have just found through our experience that if we start making decisions at like 11:00 p.m. we start making crappy decisions. Sorry. Excuse my French. But -- so, I just kind of wanted to convey that. Hopefully we will get through everything tonight, but that -- that is something that could occur. We -- we may have to continue the last application. Hopefully we will get through this one. Hopefully we will get through all of them, but just mentioning that. Thomas: Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, my name is Wade Thomas on behalf of the applicant. My address is 12300 West Fireweed Street in Star, Idaho. I think Bill kind of covered the most salient points. I'm not going to go into all the technical specifics of the project. At the outset I did want to say, though, that the project does have staff approval. We spent months working on this project directly with staff to ensure it complies with the comp plan and code. Despite P&Z's recommending denial, which is going to be the bulk of my presentation, we were complimented for the thoughtful design of the project on numerous occasions during the hearing, which is sometimes rare. P&Z's recommendation for denial was tied to four key items noted in the staff report, which are the same item staff has noted should be considered by you when approving this project. They are, one, the county enclave parcel. Two. Is adding more multi-family units in this area excessive and necessary? Three. Does the proposed development lack smooth transition to the surrounding areas? And, four, is the timing of this project appropriate? So, let's get into it. The oddity of this project as Bill discussed is the middle parcel that is not part of this project and, to be candid, one that we spent a significant amount of time designing around and discussing with staff. While I'm confident this parcel will be included in the project at some point, it is currently not included. To understand the potential of this parcel we put together a possible layout. Meridian City Council November 6,2024 Page 55 of 77 We were able to provide an additional 32 units in one building, as well as to provide adequate parking for those units. Again, however, this parcel is not included in our application, but we do think it will be a nice phase two as we develop project out. Staff ultimately approved this project without inclusion of this property and I think that's important. However, the question remains should the project be delayed until that parcel can be included in the overall project? If the answer is yes, how are we to include a parcel with an owner that doesn't want to participate? I don't think the city would recommend condemnation or a taking. Our project should be assessed on its own merits as staff has done. If every project was delayed for the perfect project, then, I'm not sure if any projects would be approved at all. You should also consider the impact of denying this project. Because -- because the parcel is not included it raises significant property rights issues, as well as sets the precedence that landowners can hold the city hostage on future developments by simply not participating. My dad always says sometimes we have to make decisions on what we know right now and today what we know is that staff approved the project without that parcel and we agree with staff that the viability of this project should not hinge on the inclusion of this parcel. The second item. The staff report stated that P&Z should -- should assess, quote, with approximately 760 multi-family units already within the vicinity. Commission and Council should evaluate whether the city necessitates additional multi-family housing in this area. The comp plan provides guidance and the matrix to determine what's appropriate within a designated mixed-use area. In our case our project is located within a mixed-use regional area. In this slide the mixed-use regional area is the entire area in brown, with our project being the orange area on the eastern edge of the designated area. The mixed-use regional designation provides that as Council assesses any given application it should consider those projects in the context of the requirements for the entire designated area. The comp plan provides the appropriate mixes for the entire area, not just the properties immediately surrounding a proposed project site. In this case the comp plan states: In reviewing the development application the city will -- and I want to emphasize the word will -- consider the following items in the MUR areas. Residential uses are expected to comprise between ten percent to 30 percent of the development area with gross densities ranging from six to 40 units per acre. The comp plan with the involvement and approval of Council has already been subjected to rigorous planning process and establishes what's appropriate for this entire designated area. Additionally, while Council needs to assess the project on its own merits and ensure it follows code, it also has to balance the vision and the requirements established for mixed-use areas in the comp plan. This particular mixed- use regional designated area consists of approximately 687 acres. Within the overall area there are three currently zoned residential projects marked in orange on the map, which equals approximately 55 acres or about eight percent of the overall area. There are a couple of true zoned commercial properties, but they are all residential uses. Those areas add another 26.39 acres or another 3.8 percent. Combined those areas make up 81 .9 acres or 11.9 percent. If you add our project of 6.9 acres, which I took that from what's on the documents, it's actually 5.89, but for our purposes we will -- we will use that number here. The total increases to 88.8 acres or 12.9 percent. Our project represents an increase of only one percent of the allocated amounts of residential projects. However, our project is also mixed-use and includes a commercial Meridian City Council November 6,2024 Page 56 of 77 component as well, which is not considered in that calculation. The total is at the low end of the ten to 30 percent prescribed by the comp plan. Again, this is an -- this area underwent extensive planning and it was determined that it should be mixed-use regional area. Following the comp plan, then, residential uses are expected to comprise between ten to 30 percent of the overall development area. The proposed project is in line with the comp plan, even with the surrounding multi-family projects. In summary, the answer to the question as to whether adding multi-family units is appropriate is simply yes. P&Z didn't follow the comp plan or any other information for that matter to support its conclusion. Lastly, our project is also vertically integrated, meaning that it's not just residential. It also provides over 20,000 square feet of commercial space. While some of this project is residential, P&Z appears to have been dismissive of the fact that our project is one of the few projects in the area -- area that is vertically integrated, providing both residential and commercial amenities to the community and the neighborhood. P&Z's determination also focused on this notion of seamless integration with the middle parcel, the vacant property to the east and to the surrounding area. To address this issue we need to look at this project and the surrounding area on a micro level and on a macro level. At the micro level the project provides for smooth transition to the immediately surrounding properties. The comp plan's holistic design standards provides all mixed-use projects should be accessible to adjacent neighborhoods by both automotive and alternative vehicular transportation opportunities. Pedestrian circulation must be convenient and interconnect different land use types. We did that by designing numerous paths in and through our project providing connections to the surrounding property as you can see in the pedestrian circulation plan. We also provided circulation to the future second phase. This parcel is completely accessible to our project, as is the vacant parcel to the east. At a micro level our mixed-use project is accessible to adjacent properties and neighborhoods by conveniently interconnecting different land use types. At a macro level another P&Z concern is that the project somehow isolates itself. Starting in 2018 all of these projects were determined to be seamlessly integrated by the city, yet they effectively create a wall between them and the county parcels. There is only one access point from the surrounding projects to the neighborhood, which consists of a road with bollards cutting off Rolling Hill Drive, effectively providing foot traffic onto roads into the subdivision. We believe our project integrates much better than those projects. We provided three vehicular access points with several pedestrian accident points to the surrounding properties. Next, if P&Z's decision was really based on the physical size of our project and the proximity to the surrounding homes, we would like to bring your attention to these existing projects, which are -- which are also directly adjacent to the same single family homes. At the end of Rolling Hill Drive is this four story residential multi-family project directly adjacent to the homes. These projects, a five story hotel and a five story commercial building, are also located next to the homes in the subdivision. These projects meet the defined mixed-use regional standards in the comp plan, yet their proximity to the surrounding areas are no different than ours and they were considered integrated by the City Council. With regard to seamless integration, how is it that all of these projects were seamlessly integrated with some of the same parcels, but now ours isn't? Again, P&Z provided no guidance on this issue, but all you need to do is look at these surrounding projects. If those comply with the comp plan and are seamlessly Meridian City Council November 6,2024 Page 57 of 77 integrated to the surrounding parcels, then, you can only decide that ours is, too. Deciding otherwise amounts to making an arbitrary and capricious decision. My kids love this slide. As mentioned earlier, P&Z also raised a question as to whether this is the right timing for the project. I was surprised and kind of confused by P&Z's conclusion that now is not the time for this project, namely, because P&Z failed to use or provide any relevant information in support of making such a determination. It places both of us in a position of disproving a negative. To address this issue we need to consider the growth that has occurred in this particular area, as well as the specific history surrounding the plat for the Rolling Hill Subdivision. As the slide states, the answer lies in the past. Prior to 2016, except -- except for a few commercial buildings near Overland Road, this sub area consisted primarily of single family homes and farmland. In fact, I remember taking my kids to the Homestead and walking through the creepy blow up lizard when they first opened that. But that has changed. Starting in 2016 Council approved a commercial project directly adjacent to our project on Rolling Hill Drive. Then various multi-family commercial projects were approved directly adjacent to the existing family homes. Projects were approved in 2018, 2019, 2020, '22, '24. This area is no longer a rural farming community. However, all of those approvals do follow the prescribed vision of what a transition to mixed-use should look like. The transition has been happening for the last six to eight years and our project is another step in that process. But it's hard to fathom how all those surrounding developments were appropriate from a timing perspective, but somehow the timing of our project is being questioned, yet nothing has changed. Nothing in the comp plan, nothing in the future land use map. We are providing a project that staff has approved and complies with code and the comp plan. If the timing was appropriate for those projects, then, it also is appropriate for ours. Another critical piece of history that you should consider is tied to the Rolling Hill Subdivision plat. Our parcel -- parcels are part of that plat highlighted here in red. As part of the plat the subdivision was subject to certain restrictive covenants, one of which limited the subdivision to only single family dwelling houses, which applied to every lot in the plat. Then in 2005 something interesting happened. The restrictive covenants were amended. Specifically the amendment states that as a result of the substantial change in conditions in the area surrounding Rolling Hill Subdivision, certain lots were released from the restrictive covenants. All of the lots released -- all of the lots south of Five Mile Creek were released, which includes the parcels in this project. The substantial changes that were happening in that area in 2005 were likely frozen in time following the great recession that started in '08. But those same positive conditions have rematerialized again over the last six to eight years and I would argue that after last night's election they will continue. However, what's most important, though, is that there was a conscious and deliberate decision made by those homeowners that our lot should be able to develop into something other than single family homes. An opportunity for them to realize their property's highest and best use. In addition to removing our lots from the restrictive covenants in 2008 -- I would like to request more time. I'm almost done. Simison: If you could please conclude. Meridian City Council November 6,2024 Page 58 of 77 Thomas: Okay. I will -- I will -- I will go off the script here. So, I -- so, what's important about this is that the -- this plat was vacated. There were 12 lots, which is -- 30 percent of this plat was vacated for two commercial buildings that sit on the Rolling Hill -- Hill projects -- or on the old plat. I think it's imperative that if you are going to look at these things and -- and talk about whether or not the timing is -- is correct, just this slide right here -- the growth has come. You guys -- you -- you have approved ten plats since 2018 that were for growth. These are -- this is in the mixed-use area. The other thing that's important is there was this conscious decision that these lots should be developed into something different than single family homes. The neighbors agreed to that and I think that that's really important in conjunction with the vacating of that plat as to what the future of this project is. Thank you. Simison: Thank you. Council, questions for the applicant? Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Maybe just a clarification that I think will be helpful and it's okay if you don't have it handy, Bill, but would you mind running us through the Comprehensive Plan amendment that we did regarding transitions in 2024 from mixed-use projects? I will have to find that if you don't have it handy. But just -- the issue of transition has come up a lot for us and that's part of why I recommend that a change to our Comprehensive Plan that requires a high disparity of no more than one story to surrounding residential areas. So, I just wondered if you could kind of walk us through why you feel like you are meeting the transition requirements in the Comprehensive Plan. I know you do have a road that's your buffer to the surrounding properties, but this is a pretty significant height disparity. Thomas: Well, I -- I think that one of the things is we filed our application in 2023, which would have been before the amendment -- Strader: Okay. Thomas: -- grandfathered under the old -- old -- notwithstanding that, I mean I think there is a natural barrier there with that road. If you take into account that that's going to be a collector road, I agree with staff that creates a huge buffer and it's almost kind of like comparing what's on the north side of Overland to what's on the south side of Overland. That's now a five lane road. It's -- it's almost night and day really. Strader: Just to provide you with some feedback -- and, yeah, I'm just one person up here. You are going to hear feedback from everybody; right? But just some feedback from my end, even before we get into public testimony, just because, you know, I want to respect your time. This is an annexation and annexations the city has a lot more discretion in terms of it being in our best interest or not what we approve. I have a very high bar for annexation and to me having a county enclave in the middle of a project like Meridian City Council November 6,2024 Page 59 of 77 this is a nonstarter. I am also concerned about the transition with the surrounding residential single family homes that -- this to me should have never gotten to this point, if I'm being honest. I'm just trying to give you -- just be direct that that's how I'm looking at this. Thomas: If I could have an opportunity to respond to that. I think with regards to the county enclave, though, then, what are the standards? Because, essentially, you look at Owyhee High School, let's take that. That was all farmland. Strader: Have you seen the -- have you seen -- there is a cartoon for kids called Big City Greens. Thomas: Yes. Strader: One of my favorite -- my kids' favorite cartoons and the cartoon is based on a farm being surrounded by high rises in the middle of a city and I just think it's common sense that that is not in our best interest, particularly because it's surrounded on all three sides; right? I mean that to me makes it a more intensive example of where transition is critical and, yeah, I -- Thomas: But I think the -- I think the adverse is -- is the same. You look at actually this. That essentially created a county enclave. So, how do you reconcile that? I mean it -- that's -- essentially with the growth that wraps around where the current residential homes -- that is a county enclave by -- Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Yeah. I -- I -- I don't want to get into a debate, except for to say, just so you understand where I'm coming from, this county enclave has existed since before our Comprehensive Plan and at least on the time that I have been on Council we have tried incredibly, incredibly hard to be respectful of our neighbors, even when they are in the county and we, you know, went through a lot with creating our Comprehensive Plan. We don't -- we don't force people to annex into the city and at least in the time that I have been here, you know, this -- this all pre-exists even our Comprehensive Plan and so we talked about grandfathering things in, you talk about being respectful of existing conditions, like to me that's part of how this happens. So, hopefully, that provides you some insight. But I -- I think it would be unproductive to continue to debate, so -- Thomas: Agreed. Strader: -- we will move on. Taylor: Mr. Mayor? Meridian City Council November 6,2024 Page 60 of 77 Simison: Councilman Taylor. Taylor: Yeah. I'm kind of -- really appreciate you kind of walking us through the history and I appreciate you kind of doing a little bit of research into the -- the covenants and stuff. Can you just speak to like in terms of as you are approaching this -- it just seems odd to have this enclave just right in the middle of a project. What makes you -- and I understand at some point you just got to say are we going to do this or not. If the -- the -- the person is not willing to sell I get it. But my experience in my limited time has been when you have these little odd shaped things that sometimes makes for really awkward challenging, you know, come back. I understand that you could -- if at some future point the person who owns that piece of property could -- could sell to you and you could develop it as it is, but what if you don't? So, why do you think you want to move ahead with this big, you know, enclave right in the middle of your property. What makes you think it's a good time to move ahead with it? Thomas: Like I said, you have to make decisions on what you know today and what -- that's what I know today. I feel highly confident that it will be part of our project. I can't say that with a hundred percent certainty, but we are engaged with that owner. We have been from the beginning and have become re-engaged with them. So, I think there is -- it's going to make a great phase two. You know, notwithstanding that, you know, if you look at the design, that's kind of why there is the big parking lot between that parcel and the vacant parcel to the east. So, we really focused on -- and we spent a lot of time trying to design how can you have a functional apartment complex with that enclave and I think we came up with the best answer we could. I mean I think we are over parked by something like 40 or 50 parking spaces. Did that answer your question? Strader: Yeah. That's helpful. Thomas: Great. Thank you, Councilman Taylor. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Yeah. I want to maybe understand a similar thing as Council Member Taylor, because when I hear highly confident that this will be a part of this, then, again, I'm -- I'm not that bright, but my -- my default falls to the why not wait until that all pieces together, so you can bring a fully realized plan without the enclave to the planning department, to the Planning and Zoning Commission, to the Council? Help me understand what is -- what is preventing you from waiting to be able to have something that is not without this enclave piece? Thomas: Well, what's keeping us from waiting is is a number of things. I -- I -- I think we did provide a fully designed project with what we have. The reality of it is we have a unique opportunity that brought four different property owners together, which, to be honest, was very difficult and we were probably somewhat lucky. Would have been nice Meridian City Council November 6,2024 Page 61 of 77 to have five, but we only got four, and, to be candid, the clock's ticking on that. So, we don't have forever. We don't have the time. I think that if the -- again, you just have to work with what you have and that's kind of what we have. Ideally it would have been nice to have that project in, but we also have four homeowners that are looking to get the highest and best use of their property and so we designed the project accordingly. Cavener: Yeah. Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: And I'm sorry to press you. I -- I guess I didn't feel like that you answered the question. Is it that if -- if you don't get the fifth you are going to lose others along the way and so that -- you are -- you are basically bringing your best shot? I mean that's kind of what I heard. I just -- I don't want to put words in our mouth. Thomas: I think that's -- that's a fair characterization. Cavener: Okay. Great. Thank you. I appreciate that. Mr. Mayor, one additional question. Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Just a follow up. I think the -- the ACHD staff report has Overland listed as -- as better than E. There is a lot of room for improvement along on Overland to get us better than E, but the next place that I think we are headed to is F. So, help me understand how your project helps to contribute to relieving traffic congestions on an already overtaxed thoroughfare. Thomas: Oh, I'm not sure we do relieve it. Obviously, we will be adding traffic with adding 154 units, but I think what's important to note is that Overland is slated to be turned into seven lanes and so I think over time ITD will solve the issue of -- of elevating that to a -- a level D, hopefully a level C. Cavener: Yeah. Thomas: At the same time that's not -- right now I don't think that's in the five year plan. Cavener: Okay. Thank you. I appreciate it. Thomas: Thank you. Simison: Council, any additional questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you very much. Thomas: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Meridian City Council November 6,2024 Page 62 of 77 Simison: Mr. Clerk, who do we have signed up? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, first is Mike Blowers. Simison: Good evening. Blowers: Good evening. My name is Mike Blowers. I'm at -- sorry. I got cold sitting down. 1325 Rolling Hill Drive. I'm -- most of the points have been hit on very well, so there is a couple of clarifications I just want to make. There is actually three -- three properties required to do this collector street. There is one north of the property that sat available for purchase for about 150,000 dollars for 40 days. Homeowner just bought it. They plan on building on it. The reason why I think that's important -- I have family in Movado Subdivision and there has been numerous talks about a stoplight to gain access and I know you don't want to hear about traffic, but you just went through a presentation that showed all the growth and if it -- if there is one location you need to talk about a traffic light, it would be here and if you recall from the -- what are the apartments behind us? Topgolf Apartments. Part of that was no future developments on the road would be made until the homes were annexed and purchased by the city or a developer and they dead-ended that road. One of the things I wanted to focus on is the integration part. It talks a lot about this as if it's on an island, but it's effectively connecting itself to those apartments. There is 500 apartments right next to our houses. They are dead ended. They will undoubtedly be walking and driving and parking along this road and going to the amenities up at Topgolf. We have no streetlights. We have no sidewalks. I believe this talks about doing that for this specific section of property, but we got random people walking around on the street at night. We don't know if they are in the neighborhood or not. At what point does that become, you know, an important topic to -- to talk about? And, then, again, going back to this traffic portion, it is already rolling the dice if you wanted -- want to get east out of this property. So, for those future apartment people, the nearest grocery store is east of this property. The nearest gas station is east of this property. You are rolling the dice, coming out of here sharing an exit with 300 apartments directly across the street and, then, 450 homes, which are Movado, which are also south of there. So, I don't know at what point that actually does become an issue, but we feel like the integration portion hasn't been done with our houses. Thank you. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, next is Amy Waddles. Waddles: My name is Amy Waddles. My address is 1360 Rolling Hill Drive. My comments today really are more of a history lesson. As residents on Rolling Hill we are all in awe that we are even at this point, because the city has already ruled there would be no improvements on our road. That was with the Topgolf development that came out of that and so the fact that this application was even entertained with all of these improvements coming up Rolling Hill is a contradiction. It feels like it anyway. And it feels like the residents -- any -- any concerns that were shared and we were -- we were Meridian City Council November 6,2024 Page 63 of 77 validated for that, but, then, here we are again. Well, okay, but this time we are going to try it this way. Comments from City Council in the past were the -- that maybe you guys got it wrong. Development started back on the Interstate and the idea should have been to start on Overland and build back, but that's not what happened and my understanding at the last City Council hearing was the next development would come forward towards Overland to eliminate all of these issues, to eliminate the traffic issues, as far as -- you know, we are dealing with the consequences of the -- of the developments and our solution with Topgolf was to close our road off and that's worked well. I mean they can exist there, they can have their traffic and we can continue to live where we are. The problem with this development is it impacts every aspect of our lives. We have got horses. We have got neighbors with horse trailers. You know, have pigs and goats. We are adding this traffic on to a rural road trying to access Overland that now will only allow right-in or right-out, it just feels so ill-conceived and, truthfully, it's just frustrating that, you know, we have to keep coming back and repeating and having these history lessons of what previous decisions have been. You know, decisions have been made, I -- I -- I would hope that you guys would honor those decisions and -- and reject this proposal. Simison: Council, any questions? Taylor: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Taylor. Taylor: As one of the newest Council Members I appreciate some of the history there, but could you just take a minute and tell me -- I didn't quite track what you meant by when Topgolf came in there were certain agreements made or -- I don't know if promises is the right word, but can you just clarify a little bit more what you meant by that? Waddles: What I meant by that is the whole development went back there on the interstate and they proposed to use Rolling Hill Drive as one of the exits. ACHD I believe it was did not approve that access, so that shut that down. Taylor: There is no access on Rolling Hill Road right now. Waddles: From Topgolf. We can only access Rolling Hill. So, that's how that piece happened. When he was showing the pictures of the four story apartments and all of that, that's back on the interstate and I would like to add that none of the neighbors were aware that that hearing had happened and that four story kind of got -- truthfully it feels like it got snuck by us, because we weren't there to -- to object. There is no other four story apartments in that whole area and the examples of the hotel and the businesses, those are far over on the Eagle Road end. Taylor: Thank you. Meridian City Council November 6,2024 Page 64 of 77 Waddles: If I could add, too, we have irrigation and we have wells that run down Rolling Hill Drive. So, with that Topgolf development one of the impacts that happened is one resident completely lost her irrigation. Fortunately, BVA was willing to work with her. It was -- it took quite a long time for her to get water. I don't even know if her irrigation continues to work. We have got wells there. We have got all kinds of things that as we are talking about, you know, these improvements, you are impacting a lot of areas. Simison: Okay. Thank you. We are good. Waddles: Okay. Sorry. Simison: Thank you. Johnson: Mr. Mayor, Alicia Eastman. Eastman: I'm Alicia Eastman and I live at 1485 Rolling Hill Drive. I am Lot 3 over and my property is -- borders the -- the ditch. So, this is going to be directly across from me. I don't feel like it's integrated at all to have a four story building directly across the street. The street's not very wide. There is no curbs, gutters. It was in a Planning and Zoning and a City Council meeting in December of -- I think '22 that we were told that there was not going to be any improvements to the streets until all our houses were gone and so for me if you do any improvement to the street you are going to take out my well and -- and my neighbors, too, along the other side on the circle. So, if you are taking out our wells who is going to drill it, because even one neighbor over on Overland had to annex recently to the City of Meridian because his well went dry and he couldn't get anybody to drill it. They said that they were backed up for three years. So, that he ended up annexing. So, who is going to drill my well? Are you going to move it? And -- or why would I annex to the city if my house is going to be gone? And, then, my other -- my neighbors also brought up the same issues that I have. You know, there is no lights. There is -- it's a dark street. You are going to add housing that's really not necessary. It's -- yes, there is all this housing at the end by Topgolf at the end of the -- right by the freeway and they use the Silverstone to go up and down and -- but those -- all those units aren't even populated yet and, then, we have the Silver Ridge Apartments right across on Overland and I'm telling you there is time after time everybody's trying to get into that center turn lane, like maybe 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon or early in the morning where there is traffic, there is people coming for three directions almost wrecking a lot. So, there is -- there is housing -- plenty of housing there right now and so it's when he -- he talked about not being the -- the right time. Okay. Maybe all the houses are going to be gone and there is going to be different things, but to have a four story building right across from me, that -- that's not integrated and, yes, there -- we still are a rural area on our street there, that area, and the Jewel Subdivision behind us also, you know, people still have cows and chickens and pigs and horses and goats and 36 years ago I bought that property, because it was rural and I bought it from -- we bought it from my in-laws and so I have been in that house, you know, with family since 1973 and I'm not quite ready to leave yet. Eventually, yes, we are going to have to -- we have been told that that's all going to change. I'm for progress. I'm -- we are not ready to go Meridian City Council November 6,2024 Page 65 of 77 yet and this is not the time to do it. The project just doesn't seem -- seem right right now. Thank you. Simison: Okay. Council, any questions? Okay. Thank you. You are good. Johnson: That was everyone that signed up in advance. Simison: Okay. Is there anybody else who would like to provide testimony on this item? At this time if you would let just, please, come forward and if you -- there is others that want to speak come sit up in the front row and if there is anybody online, please, use the raise your hand feature. Chase: Michael Chase. I'm at 4077 East Silver King Lane, Meridian. I haven't heard the applicant talk about the impact on traffic and that's one of the things I'm concerned with. Last night just going off of -- there was a serious accident right out there between Silverstone and Movado Way. We are trying to get out of Movado and we can't. It is -- you can't take a left, you can't take a right, the traffic is just unacceptable. It's not -- it's not safe and I'm concerned that adding this project is only going to make it even more difficult and unsafe for us to get out of our neighborhoods. I have a little report here of the -- of the accidents that have occurred in our area and I think this was 2020 and since, then, you can imagine all the projects that have come on the Overland stretch and how dangerous and how much impact that it has had on Overland itself. I can give you this if you would like. Simison: If you would like to give it to the clerk. Chase: Thank you for your time. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Chase: Thank you. Simison: Thank you. Good evening. Maiocca: Good evening. Chris Maiocca. 4160 East View Circle, Meridian, Idaho. Mr. Mayor and Council, thank you. We live right across the street from the proposed apartments. I have been at all these meetings. We moved in seven years ago. I have been to probably five or six of these. Amy said last time -- BVA was going to build Topgolf, but they brought a humility and they brought a communication that -- that this builder isn't -- I think you heard it in his last statement. I have got four owners that want to get the most money possible for their -- for their properties and we are going to go, it's go time. We were at the last Planning and Zoning meeting and -- and Planning and Zoning was -- was like Council Strader, like why are you bringing this to us? This -- this -- this is -- this just doesn't seem right and even the -- even the plan had so many caveats. It doesn't seem to honor this in the code or this. So, we are just all really confused why this is before you right now, but we know it has to be and I do want to Meridian City Council November 6,2024 Page 66 of 77 reiterate that ACHD was clear that we have to -- and they always use the language we have to get these houses out of here, but these are our homes. Those are my kids. They grew up on that street. You know, my -- my son has 30 ducks and four African geese and chickens. So, it -- it -- I know it's transitioning, but I think what we are seeing tonight is just maybe the darker side of development. I -- I do think you are -- I do think you are seeing that and I -- and I appreciate it. I appreciate how the city Planning and Zoning over the last five years has really stood up for us. We have no power. We have no voice. We have no political influence. So, I thank you. I -- I hope you will do the right decision tonight. I think you will. Thank you very much. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? You are good. R.Maiocca: Good evening. My name is Robin Maiocca. 4160 East View Circle. Thank you, Mayor and Council. I come to you as a mom of four kids. That's my husband who just spoke and two of my children are of driving age, so I'm going to be very redundant with the traffic and safety right now. I think it was just two days ago my son, turning out into Overland with that middle lane, almost had a head-on collision because of that -- because of the -- the tight traffic. The heavy traffic. And, then, also we -- we witnessed crashes and I -- these aren't just fender benders, these are cars being totaled between coming out of Rolling Hill and Overland to Eagle right there along Zamzows, there is accidents -- I can almost say every single week. My kitchen window faces out, so I get to see a view of Overland Street itself. It is a parking lot from about 3:00 to 6:00 p.m. So, many times I say this is so sad. My son has to go to baseball practice at Mountain View. He has to leave 20 minutes before. It's one mile away. Enough on traffic. The integration of this project is -- as a homeowner seems very disrespectful to us homeowners. What is being proposed is a four story apartment complex at the end of my driveway and, again, I have four children. I'm going to have windows of multiple people able to stare down into my yard. It just doesn't make sense. And like my husband said, I hope you make the right decision here, because we continuously come here and we do -- I feel disrespected as a homeowner. I feel like we don't have a choice and that's scary, because we -- we work here, we raise our kids here, we moved here for this reason. We love Meridian. But I feel like it's losing its heart for people like us and we are being pushed out. So, thank you. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. I think we are going to have a question for you. Cavener: If Ms. Maiocca would answer maybe a quick question. I apologize you already got back to your seat and I have got a question for you. Simison: You are good. Cavener: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mrs. Maiocca, thanks for your testimony tonight. You touched on something that at least will maybe give me some -- some help and some clarification. Typically with annexation request we get a letter from West Ada that talks Meridian City Council November 6,2024 Page 67 of 77 about, you know, where a development will send its students. You touched on that it sounds like your son goes to Mountain View. You have got four kids. It's awesome that they are here and you are here. Would you mind letting Council know what schools are associated with where you live? It will help give me a good understanding about if this development was approved where it would send the students. R.Maiocca: Yeah. No problem. Actually, my -- my son who goes to Mountain View for baseball is actually home schooled at this time and my other two children go to Cole Valley Christian. So, we are not in the city -- Cavener: West Ada. R.Maiocca: -- school district. Cavener: Okay. Not a problem. Well, great schools nevertheless. I appreciate your testimony here this evening. Thank you. R.Maiocca: Thank you. Simison: To -- to answer the question, Mr. Cavener, I think it's Pepper Ridge, Mountain View and Lewis and Clark in this area. Cavener: Mr. Mayor, the West Ada site -- I couldn't tell if it was Centennial or Mountain View, so I appreciate your clarification. Simison: So, it's Centennial. Okay. Mr. Clerk, who is next? Or did I -- sorry. No one. We are not there. Is there anybody else who would like to come provide testimony on this item? Then would the applicant like to come forward to close. The applicant's going to wait. We got one more. Ellis: Good evening. David Ellis. 1395 and 1300 Rolling Hill Drive. I only got basically three points I want to bring up here. The collector road isn't going to happen. I don't know why it's still on there. If they wanted it to happen they would have bought the property, like one person already said. Where it goes -- basically headed south towards Overland that is owned by another developer, which he has zero plans on selling that. So, I don't see that ever happening. The other thing I haven't seen from this is a traffic study from ACHD. I know when all the apartments got built out back, if I remember correctly, it was like 5.96 trips per day per unit is what they anticipated for traffic. What is there, 140 something units here? So, times five. That's quite a bit of traffic just going out on Rolling Hill. Back to your previous one earlier, where is that traffic going to go? It's going to get backed up to somewhere, because it's not going to have anywhere to go. So, I think that's a problem. Second problem. You guys just brought it up with Centennial High School. Well, if that's a school that we go to and to get out on Overland is only right-in and right-out, how is that going to work going to school? So, you got to go clear to Eagle, clear down Eagle to get to school. It just seems a little out of the way. My other problem is is the infrastructure on Overland. It is set to start in Meridian City Council November 6,2024 Page 68 of 77 2026. I'm not sure how long that project is supposed to take to turn into a seven lane road. So, we are going to add all of this into it, all these extra cars at that point in time when this construction is going on. That's all I have to say. Simison: Council, any questions? The app is coming up, so -- unless if there is anyone else who wants to testify. Yeah. If you are online raise your hand. I think we are good. Okay. Thomas: Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, just --just a couple of brief comments to provide a little bit of clarity. With regards to that collector road, we didn't design that, we just aligned it to Movado Street on the south. So, I wanted to make that one clarification. With regards to the comments about the well, all of our improvements are going to be on the east side of the street, not on the west side of the street where that particular property is. So, I wanted to make that clarification. Kind of two things that have come out. The one is traffic. ITD and ACHD did not require that we do a traffic impact study and we met all the requirements for both of them and I think that's important to note. With regards to traffic, traffic's everywhere. I live in Star. It's the same thing. You know, took me almost 50 minutes to drive here and this used to be a 20 minute drive. So, think that's just kind of the state of where traffic is at right now. I think ACHD and ITD are doing their best. They have a plan in place to address those issues, but with our current projected growth I'm not sure that ever really goes away. One thing that kind of struck me is listening to the testimony -- and this really comes down to two things. You have some homeowners who don't want anything to change and who don't want to move and you have some homeowners that do. Does that make them the dark side of development? Does that make them bad? Does that make this wrong? Does that make this development wrong? No, it doesn't. It's just they want to move, too. And so we are at a little bit of an imbalance I think and -- but notwithstanding that, just because you have these two groups that are kind of fundamentally opposed, we still have a project that meets the comp -- the comp plan. It meets code. It's in line with all of the development that's been approved by Council since 2016. This isn't an anomaly in this area. Maybe if it was the first, but it isn't. Those are all the comments I have and I will -- I will stand for any more questions if -- Taylor: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Taylor. Taylor: I just want to know can you add any more clarity as to why that little enclave in the middle of your property -- what's the owner's objection to selling? I know you have probably approached them many many times. What -- why are they not -- Thomas: It's very, very, very expensive. Taylor: For who? Thomas: For a developer to purchase that land. Meridian City Council November 6,2024 Page 69 of 77 Taylor: So, what they are asking for is too -- a price that's too high to buy? Thomas: Yes. Taylor: So, they are willing to sell at the right price. Thomas: Yes. But -- but at some point if -- if there is not a blank check to do a development, so when you -- when you go into a development -- I mean it's -- we -- we call it simple math in the office. It's going to cash flow. It can only cost you X and that's a significant piece of it. You can kind of dissect all of that and ultimately come down to what is a developer -- what can you pay for the dirt? And it's -- it -- it's capped. It has to be. Otherwise, you wouldn't be able to do a pencil -- or do a project that pencils. Again, though, I would like to restate, I do think at some point this will be a great phase to -- to our project though. Simison: Council, additional questions for the applicant? Thomas: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Simison: Thank you. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Before we get into any deliberations maybe just a quick question for staff about our options for decisions on this application this evening. Mr. Mayor, maybe our planning staff can confirm. We can either agree with Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation of denial. We could continue it to a later point in time to allow staff to draft conditions of approval. Or I guess if we felt necessary we could remand this back to Planning and Zoning Commission. Is that -- is that my -- am I correct in understanding those are the three options that are presented to us this evening? Parsons: Mayor, Members of the Council, close. So, yes, you can -- I -- I'm not sure what a remand would do back to Planning and Zoning Commission, but that's certainly -- if that's your purview you can ask them to relook at this and see if it's -- if they can find some consistency with the comp plan. As far as overturning the -- you can stay with the Commission's recommendation and -- and deny the project certainly and you can also continue it. But staff already had the appropriate conditions of approval -- Cavener: Okay. Parsons: -- in the staff report. So, there is really no need to continue it to bring back conditions. Again, the only difference is when Planning and Zoning Commission recommends a project we just strike out the conditions, so -- Meridian City Council November 6,2024 Page 70 of 77 Cavener: Okay. Parsons: -- in the staff report. So, they are there. They are -- they are in line, so -- Cavener: Great. Thank you, Mr. Parsons. I appreciate that clarification. Parsons: You're welcome. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Always happy to get the party started, but I feel like I already said what I needed to say, so -- I haven't changed my opinion. I -- I just -- yeah, can't be in support of this project this evening. I love to support projects. That's just unfortunate. I will just add one another point, which is a concern that I have specifically is, you know, a lot of these -- it's -- it's kind of hard to explain, but it's like a lot of these county parcels kind of work together; right? They are more rural in nature. Some of the activities on them are more agricultural. I -- I do worry about -- I made a little bit of a joke about the Big City Greens cartoon. I worry about by surrounding a county enclave like this I feel like it -- it almost kind of forces that person to sell in a way. It just -- it creates a totally incompatible surrounding use to me. That -- that's part of my concern. So, yeah, I just -- I feel like there is not a -- there is not a good transition here and the county parcel in the middle of it I think is very disjointed and not in the best interest of the city. I also think, you know, our standards on our Comprehensive Plan guidance, which we do make exceptions to, but we have some guidance that is newer, but we don't like to see more than a one story height disparity with surrounding uses and here in this case it would be quite -- quite a high disparity. That gives me concern. Because this is an annexation I feel like the bar is higher and that's kind of just where I'm at. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Yeah. I -- I think I'm in -- generally the same place and, you know, I have got a lot of history with this area. Some of you know the -- the Farmstead -- before it was the Farmstead my -- my dad and I farmed that land and we farmed it because the Elks Hospital owned it and they were planning to build a hospital and a rec center. There was a whole bunch of plans. So, for 30 something years there has been a lot plans in that particular area. I will give Council a little bit of background flavor as well, which is, shoot, Mayor, can correct me, but at least ten years ago and multiple times since then our planning staff have approached the neighbors in that area to say would you like to do something more collectively? Would you like to come in and kind of do a plan together that could market? And the resounding answer time and time again was, no, we want to continue to maintain our rural life in this area and we hear this a lot at Council, people who didn't necessarily move to Meridian, but had Meridian move to Meridian City Council November 6,2024 Page 71 of 77 them and so I'm sympathetic both to the families who live there and the families that want to sell to move on. But this -- you know, we often try not to let perfect get no -- or be the enemy of the good and so often times we may approve an application that has a slight issue here or maybe a challenge there, but I think we have got a lot of issues with this particular project, without us even getting into the conversation about the transportation impact. So, I think that it's a -- it's a neat concept and likely would work really, really well in Meridian. It's -- I don't think it would work well in this particular area at this particular time. So, I'm -- I'm in favor of supporting the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation of denial. Overton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: I feel like I'm going to be echoing all the comments that have already been said. I don't know that I would ever want to go and approve a parcel leaving a county parcel in the middle, just because of the outstanding chance that it doesn't sell to this developer, it sells to somebody else. That would -- that would be a mess that would forever be something that we had approved. At the same time can't help but think about a four story building being next to rural county and as was said multiple times, on roads -- all the county roads with no streetlights and no sidewalks and a lot more traffic being put onto those roads. The transportation out onto Overland Road is already heavy. We can't widen our way out of it. I think when we see this type of density we are just compiling it onto what's already there. It's already pretty much unsafe most times of the day to come out of Rolling Hill and try to make a left-hand turn. I think it would just be extremely more difficult and challenging with a development like this on the corner. I would stand in -- in favor of supporting the P&Z decision. Little Roberts: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Little Roberts. Little Roberts: Well, to -- to borrow Councilman Overton's quote, I'm also in echo. Just really, really struggling with -- we work so hard to help get rid of enclaves, it just doesn't make sense to me to support creating one that -- like to think it was going to be part of, but we just can't predict the future and we have also worked hard on making really great transitions with not more than one story. So, I'm not in support of this project. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: It feels like we are -- we are getting to that point, unless someone else wants to make a comment, happy to -- or not happy to, but I will make a motion. Mr. Mayor, I move that we close the public hearing on this item. Meridian City Council November 6,2024 Page 72 of 77 Little Roberts: Second. Simison: Have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. As have it and the public hearing is closed. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File No. H-2023-0070 and uphold Planning and Zoning's decision of denial as presented in today's hearing date for the following reasons. We do not believe that this development is in the best interest of the City of Meridian at this time. In addition, the existence of the county enclave in the center of the development creates issues with cohesion in future development and also with transition. In addition to that, we have concerns about the roadway network and, finally, there is an inadequate transition with the surrounding single family residential properties. Overton: Second. Simison: Have a motion and a second. Is there -- is there a discussion? If not, Clerk will the roll. Roll Call: Cavener, yea; Strader, yea; Overton, yea; Little Roberts, yea; Taylor, yea; Whitlock, yea. Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and the Planning and Zoning Commission denial is agreed to. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. Simison: With that, Council, the last public hearing on the agenda -- we are going to take a two minute recess and talk to the applicant. (Recess: 10.15 p.m. to 10.21 p.m.) 6. Public Hearing for The Gateway at 10 Mile (H-2024-0010) by KM Engineering, LLP., located at NE corner of W. Franklin and N. Ten Mile Rd. A. Request: Conditional Use Permit for 390 multi-family units in the R- 40 zoning district. Meridian City Council November 6,2024 Page 73 of 77 B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 31 buildable lots and 3 common lots on 38.99 acres of land zoned C-G and R-40. Simison: All right. Council, we will go ahead and come on back from recess. Next item on the agenda -- do we -- Mr. Nary, do you want to open the public hearing then -- then continue it? Nary: Yes. Simison: Okay. So, we will open the public hearing for the Gateway at Ten Mile, H- 2024-0010, and I will turn this over to Council Woman Strader for a motion. Strader: Mr. Mayor, I move that we continue the public hearing on this item to November 19th. Taylor: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second to continue this public hearing to November 19th. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and the public hearing is continued. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. ORDINANCES [Action Item] 7. Ordinance No. 24-2065: An ordinance (Burnside Ridge Estates — H- 2023-0055) annexing a parcel of land located in the west half of the northeast quarter and a portion of the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter and a portion of the northeast quarter of the northeast quarter and all of Lots 1, 2 and 3 of Basslin Ridge Estates as on file in Book 64 of Plats at Page 6469 in the Office of the Recorder of Ada County, Idaho, all located in Section 26, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described in Exhibit "A"; rezoning 123.28 acres of such real property from RUT (Rural Urban Transition) to R-2 (11.91 acres) (Low-Density Residential), R-4 (89.55 acres) (Medium Low-Density Residential), and R-8 (21.82 acres) (Medium-Density Residential) zoning districts; directing city staff to alter all applicable use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps and all official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance; providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Treasurer, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law; repealing conflicting ordinances; and providing an effective date. Meridian City Council November 6,2024 Page 74 of 77 Simison: Next up is Item 7, Ordinance No. 24-2065. Ask the Clerk to read this ordinance by title. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. It's an ordinance annexing a parcel of land located in the west half of the northeast quarter and a portion of the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter and a portion of the northeast quarter of the northeast quarter and all of Lots 1 , 2 and 3 of Basslin Ridge Estates as on file in Book 64 of Plats at Page 6469 in the Office of the Recorder of Ada County, Idaho, all located in Section 26, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described in Exhibit "A"; rezoning 123.28 acres of such real property from RUT to R-2, R-4 and R-8 zoning districts; directing city staff to alter all applicable use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps and all official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance; providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Treasurer, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law; repealing conflicting ordinances; and providing an effective date. Simison: As you have heard this ordinance read by title, is there anybody that would like it read in its entirety? If not do I have a motion? Taylor: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Taylor. Taylor: I move that we approve Ordinance No. 24-2065. Overton: Second. Simison: Motion and a second to approve Ordinance No. 24-2065. Is there any discussion? If not Clerk call the roll. Roll Call: Cavener, yea; Strader, yea; Overton, yea; Little Roberts, yea; Taylor, yea; Whitlock, yea. Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and the item is agreed to. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. 8. Ordinance No. 24-2064: An ordinance (Taylor Annexation — H-2023- 0062) annexing Lot 3, Block 2 of Jewell Subdivision as shown in Book 34 of Plats at pages 2056 and 2057 records, Ada County, Idaho, and adjoining right of way, more particularly described in Exhibit "A"; rezoning 1.01 acres of such real property from the R1 (Estate Residential) to the R-2 (Low-Density Residential) zoning district; directing city staff to alter all applicable use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps and all official maps depicting the Meridian City Council November 6,2024 Page 75 of 77 boundaries and the zoning districts of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance; providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Treasurer, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law; repealing conflicting ordinances; and providing an effective date. Simison: Next up is Ordinance No. 24-2064. Ask the Clerk to read this ordinance by title. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. It's an ordinance annexing Lot 3, Block 2 of Jewell Subdivision as shown in Book 34 of Plats at pages 2056 and 2057 records, Ada County, Idaho, and adjoining right of way, more particularly described in Exhibit "A"; rezoning 1.01 acres of such real property from the R1 to R-2 zoning district; directing city staff to alter all applicable use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps and all official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance; providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Treasurer, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law; repealing conflicting ordinances; and providing an effective date. Simison: Thank you. Council, you have heard this ordinance read by title. Is there anybody that would like it read in its entirety? If not, do I have a motion? Taylor: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Taylor. Taylor: I move that we approve Ordinance No. 24-2064. Little Roberts: Second. Simison: Have a motion and a second to approve Ordinance No. 24-2064. Is there any discussion? If not, Clerk call the roll. Roll Call: Cavener, yea; Strader, yea; Overton, yea; Little Roberts, yea; Taylor, yea; Whitlock, yea. Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and the item is agreed to. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. 9. Ordinance No. 24-2066: An ordinance (Idaho State University — H- 2024-0027) annexing a parcel of land being the south half of the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter and a portion of the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 18, Township 3 Meridian City Council November 6,2024 Page 76 of 77 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County Idaho, more particularly described in Exhibit "A"; rezoning 23.25 acres of such real property from RUT (Rural Urban Transition) and R6 (Medium- Density Residential) zoning districts to the C-G (General Retail and Service Commercial) zoning district; directing city staff to alter all applicable use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps and all official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance; providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Treasurer, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law; repealing conflicting ordinances; and providing an effective date. Simison: Next up is Ordinance No. -- Item 9, which is Ordinance No. 24-2066. Ask the Clerk to read the ordinance by title. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. It's an ordinance annexing a parcel of land being the south half of the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter and a portion of the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 18, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County Idaho, more particularly described in Exhibit "A"; rezoning 23.25 acres of such real property from RUT and R-6 zoning districts to the C-G zoning district; directing city staff to alter all applicable use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps and all official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance; providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Treasurer, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law; repealing conflicting ordinances; and providing an effective date. Simison: Thank you. Council, you have heard this ordinance read by title. Is there anybody that would like it read in its entirety? If not, do I have a motion? Taylor: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Taylor. Taylor: Move we approve -- approve Ordinance No. 24-2066. Overton: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second to approve Ordinance No. 24-2066. Is there any discussion? If not, Clerk call the roll. Roll Call: Cavener, yea; Strader, yea; Overton, yea; Little Roberts, yea; Taylor, yea; Whitlock, yea. Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and the item is agreed to. Meridian City Council November 6,2024 Page 77 of 77 MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. FUTURE MEETING TOPICS Simison: Council, anything under future meeting topics or a motion to adjourn? Strader: Mr. Mayor, I move that we adjourn the meeting. Simison: Motion to adjourn. All in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it. We are adjourned. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:26 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) MAYOR ROBERT E. SIMISON 11-19-2024 ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK 11-19-2024 E IDIAN;--- /hl R AGENDA ITEM Public Forum - Future Meeting Topics The Public are invited to sign up in advance of the meeting at www.meridiancity.org/forum to address elected officials regarding topics of general interest or concern of public matters. Comments specific to an active land use/development applications are not permitted during this time. By law, no decisions can be made on topics presented at the Public Forum. However, City Council may request the topic be added to a future meeting agenda for further discussion or action. The Mayor may also direct staff to provide followup assistance regarding the matter. CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC FORUM SIGN - IN SHEET Date : November 6 , 2024 Please sign in below if you wish to address the Mayor and City Council and provide a brief description of your topic . Please observe the following rules of the Public Forum : • DO NOT : o Discuss active applications or proposals pending before Planning and Zoning or City Council o Complain about city staff, individuals, business or private matters • DO o When it is your turn to speak, state your name and address first o Observe a 3 - minute time limit ( you may be interrupted if your topic is deemed is for this forum ) Name ( please print ) Brief Description of Discussion Topic E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Proposed Winter 2025 Fee Schedule of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE : November 6, 2024 ITEM # ON AGENDA : 1 PROJECT NAME : Proposed Winter 2025 Fee Schedule for Meridian Parks and Recreation Department Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify ( Please Print ) HOA ? ( mark X if yes ) If yes, please provide HOA name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 � 8 9 10 r 11 12 13 14 CITY OF MERIDIAN RESOLUTION NO. BY THE CITY COUNCIL: CAVENER,LITTLE ROBERTS, OVERTON, STRADER,TAYLOR,WHITLOCK A RESOLUTION ADOPTING NEW FEES OF THE MERIDIAN PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT; AUTHORIZING THE MERIDIAN PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT TO COLLECT SUCH FEES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, following publication of notice in the Meridian Press on October 20, 2024 and October 27, 2024, according to the requirements of Idaho Code section 63-1311A, on November 6, 2024 the City Council of the City of Meridian held a hearing on the adoption of proposed new fees of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department, as set forth in Exhibit A hereto; and WHEREAS, following such hearing, the City Council,by formal motion, did approve said proposed new fees of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO: Section 1. That the 2025 Winter Fee Schedule of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department, as set forth in Exhibit A hereto, is hereby adopted. Section 2. That the fees adopted for the 2024 Fall Activity Guide shall remain in effect as to those classes until such classes are concluded, at which point the fees set forth in Exhibit A hereto shall supersede any and all fees for the enumerated services previously adopted. Section 3. That the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department is hereby authorized to implement and carry out the collection of said fees. Section 4. That this Resolution shall be in full force and effect immediately upon its adoption and approval. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this day of Nov. 2024. APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this day of Nov. 2024. APPROVED: Robert E. Simison, Mayor ATTEST: Chris Johnson, City Clerk ADOPTION OF FEE SCHEDULE OF MERIDIAN PARKS&RECREATION DEPARTMENT PAGE 1 OF 2 EXHIBIT A 2025 Winter Activity Guide Class Fees: (Note: Sales tax will be collected in addition to fee) Nordic Walking $25.00 - $175.00 American Boffer $85.00 SNAG $130.00 Youth/Adult Self Defense $45.00 Kindermusik $64.00 Art is Life Classes $25.00 - $200.00 Skyhawk Sports Classes/Camps $65.00 - $105.00 Motions Classes $15.00 - $25.00 Amazing Athletes $80.00 Little Pallet Art Classes $25.00 - $160.00 Martial Arts for All Ages, Beginning& Intermed. /Advanc. $45.00 Kendo: Japanese Fencing $75.00 Lego Class $120.00 Introduction to the Sport of Fencing $90.00 Belly Dance/Drumming $60.00 - $90.00 Bigfoot Cartooning &Anime Classes $18.00 Yoga $10.00 - $70.00 Jazzercise $25.00 - $170.00 Beginner/Intermediate Pickleball $80.00 Line Dancing Classes $21.00 - $35.00 Social Dancing Classes $20.00 - $60.00 Digital Photography $80.00 The Photographers Eye $80.00 Adult Day Trips $10.00 - $100.00 Youth STEM classes & Self Defense $55.00 Senior Officiated League Player Fee $89.62 Senior Officiated League Between Memorial Day and July 1 $80.19 Senior Officiated League After July 1 $56.60 Senior League Self Officiated Player Fee $70.75 Senior League Self Officiated Between Memorial Day and July 1 $61.32 Senior League Self Officiated After July 1 $47.17 Senior Officiated Designated Substitute Player $89.62 Senior Self Officiated Designated Substitute Player $70.75 ADOPTION OF FEE SCHEDULE OF MERIDIAN PARKS&RECREATION DEPARTMENT PAGE 2 OF 2 Class/Camp Fall 2024 Fee Winter 2025 Fee %Increase Kindermusik $64.00 $64 No Change Skyhawk Sports Classes/Camps Price based on how many classes in $75.00-$179.00 $65.00-$105.00 the month Motions Classes $15.00-$50.00 $12.00-$50.00 -20% SNAG(Starting New at Golf $60 NEW CLASS Amazing Athletes $78.00 $78.00 No Change Little Pallet Art Classes $25.00-$100.00 Price based on how many classes in $20.00-$100.00 the month Martial Arts for All Ages,Beginning $45.00 &Intermed./Advanc. $45.00 No Change Kendo: Japanese Fencing $75.00 $75.00 No Change Lego Camps $100.00 $120.00 20% Introduction to the Sport of Fencing $120.00 $90.00 -25% Bigfoot Cartooning&Anime Classes $18.00 $18.00 No Chan e STEM Classes $45.00 $45 No Change Yoga $10.00-$70.00 $10.00-$70.00 No Change Jazzercise $25.00-$189.00 $25.00-$189.00 No Change Beginning Pickleball $80.00 $80.00 No Change Line Dancing Classes $21.00-$35.00 $21.00-$35.00 Price based on how many Sundays in the month Social Dancing Classes $20.00-$60.00 $20.00-$60.00 Price based on how many Tuesdays in the month Digital Photography $75.00 $80.00 7% The Photographers Eye $75.00 $80.00 7% Adult Day Trips $10.00-$100.00 $10.00-$100.00 No Change Bogus Basin Classes $400.00 NEW CLASS Senior Officiated League Player Fee $80.19 $89.62 12% Senior Officiated League Between Memorial Day and July 1 $70.75 $80.19 13% Senior Officiated League After July 1 $47.17 $56.60 20% Senior League Self Officiated Player Fee $61.32 $70.75 15% Senior League Self Officiated Between Memorial Day and July 1 $51.89 $61.32 18% Senior League Self Officiated After $47.17 July 1 $37.74 25% Senior Officiated Designated $89.62 Substitute Player $80.19 12% Senior Self Officiated Designated $70.75 Substitute Player NEW FEE E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Resolution No. 24-2485: A Resolution Adopting the Winter 2025 Fee Schedule of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department; Authorizing the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department to Collect Such Fees; and Providing an Effective Date CITY OF MERIDIAN RESOLUTION NO. 24-2485 BY THE CITY COUNCIL: CAVENER,LITTLE ROBERTS, OVERTON, STRADER,TAYLOR,WHITLOCK A RESOLUTION ADOPTING NEW FEES OF THE MERIDIAN PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT; AUTHORIZING THE MERIDIAN PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT TO COLLECT SUCH FEES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, following publication of notice in the Meridian Press on October 20, 2024 and October 27, 2024, according to the requirements of Idaho Code section 63-1311A, on November 6, 2024 the City Council of the City of Meridian held a hearing on the adoption of proposed new fees of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department, as set forth in Exhibit A hereto; and WHEREAS, following such hearing, the City Council,by formal motion, did approve said proposed new fees of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO: Section 1. That the 2025 Winter Fee Schedule of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department, as set forth in Exhibit A hereto, is hereby adopted. Section 2. That the fees adopted for the 2024 Fall Activity Guide shall remain in effect as to those classes until such classes are concluded, at which point the fees set forth in Exhibit A hereto shall supersede any and all fees for the enumerated services previously adopted. Section 3. That the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department is hereby authorized to implement and carry out the collection of said fees. Section 4. That this Resolution shall be in full force and effect immediately upon its adoption and approval. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this day of Nov. 2024. APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this day of Nov. 2024. APPROVED: Robert E. Simison, Mayor ATTEST: Chris Johnson, City Clerk ADOPTION OF FEE SCHEDULE OF MERIDIAN PARKS&RECREATION DEPARTMENT PAGE 1 OF 2 EXHIBIT A 2025 Winter Activity Guide Class Fees: (Note: Sales tax will be collected in addition to fee) Nordic Walking $25.00 - $175.00 American Boffer $85.00 SNAG $130.00 Youth/Adult Self Defense $45.00 Kindermusik $64.00 Art is Life Classes $25.00 - $200.00 Skyhawk Sports Classes/Camps $65.00 - $105.00 Motions Classes $15.00 - $25.00 Amazing Athletes $80.00 Little Pallet Art Classes $25.00 - $160.00 Martial Arts for All Ages, Beginning& Intermed. /Advanc. $45.00 Kendo: Japanese Fencing $75.00 Lego Class $120.00 Introduction to the Sport of Fencing $90.00 Belly Dance/Drumming $60.00 - $90.00 Bigfoot Cartooning &Anime Classes $18.00 Yoga $10.00 - $70.00 Jazzercise $25.00 - $170.00 Beginner/Intermediate Pickleball $80.00 Line Dancing Classes $21.00 - $35.00 Social Dancing Classes $20.00 - $60.00 Digital Photography $80.00 The Photographers Eye $80.00 Adult Day Trips $10.00 - $100.00 Youth STEM classes & Self Defense $55.00 Senior Officiated League Player Fee $89.62 Senior Officiated League Between Memorial Day and July 1 $80.19 Senior Officiated League After July 1 $56.60 Senior League Self Officiated Player Fee $70.75 Senior League Self Officiated Between Memorial Day and July 1 $61.32 Senior League Self Officiated After July 1 $47.17 Senior Officiated Designated Substitute Player $89.62 Senior Self Officiated Designated Substitute Player $70.75 ADOPTION OF FEE SCHEDULE OF MERIDIAN PARKS&RECREATION DEPARTMENT PAGE 2 OF 2 ADVERTISING PROOF PRESS >�p 1-20R1DlAN PRHss c/o ISj Payment Processing Center Local News Worth Holding mom. �'; Emmett PO Box 1570, BOlSEWEEKLY® Messenger Pocatello,ID 83204 /ndex Ph. (208)465-8129 Fax: (907)452-5054 ACCOUNTBILLING DATE: NO: 10/15/24 21410 1 MERIDIAN, CITY OF 33 E. BROADWAYAVENUE MERIDIAN, ID 83642 AD# DESCRIPTION START STOP TIMES AMOUNT 570508 PH 11/6/2024-ACTIV 10/19/24 10/26/24 4 $215.32 Payments: Date Method Card Type Last 4 Digits Check Amount Discount: $0.00 Gross:$215.32 Surcharge: $0.00 Paid Amount:$0.00 Credits: $0.00 Amount Due:$215.32 We Appreciate Your Business! 570508 AD#570508AD# LEGAL NOTICE CITY OF MERIDIAN NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to the ordinances of the City of Meridian and the laws of the State of Idaho,that the City Council of the City of Meridian will hold a public hearing at 6:00 p.m.,on Wednesday,November 6,2024,at Meridian City Hall,33 East Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho, regard- ing proposed fee increases as set forth below.Further informa- tion is available at the Parks and Recreation Department, at Meridian City Hall, 33 East Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Ida- ho.Any and all interested persons shall be heard at the public hearing.Written testimony is welcome;written materials should be submitted to the City Clerk.All testimony and materials pre- sented shall become property of the City of Meridian.For audi- tory,visual, or language accommodations, please contact the City Clerk's Office at(208)888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public hearing.Proposed fee increases: EXHIBIT A 2025 Winter Activity Guide Class Fees: (Note:Sales tax will be collected in addition to fee) Nordic Walking $25.00-$175.00 Bogus Basin Classes $400.00 American Boffer $85.00 SNAG $130.00 Youth/Adult Self Defense $45.00 Kindermusik $70.00 Art is Life Classes $25.00-$200.00 Skyhawk Sports Classes/Camps $65.00-$105.00 Motions Classes $15.00-$40.00 Amazing Athletes $80.00 Little Pallet Art Classes $25.00-$160.00 Martial Arts for All Ages, Beginning&Intermed./Advanc. $45.00 Kendo:Japanese Fencing $80.00 Lego Class $120.00 Introduction to the Sport of Fencing $90.00 Belly Dance/Drumming $60.00-$90.00 Bigfoot Cartooning&Anime Classes $18.00 Yoga $10.00-$70.00 Jazzercise $25.00-$170.00 Beginner/Intermediate Pickleball $80.00 Line Dancing Classes $21.00-$35.00 Social Dancing Classes $20.00-$60.00 Digital Photography $80.00 The Photographers Eye $80.00 Adult Day Trips $10.00-$100.00 Youth STEM classes&Self Defense $55.00 Senior Officiated League Player Fee $89.62 Senior Officiated League Between Memorial Day and July 1 $80.19 Senior Officiated League After July 1 $56.60 Senior League Self Officiated Player Fee $70.75 Senior League Self Officiated Between Memorial Day and July 1 $61.32 Senior League Self Officiated After July 1 $47.17 Senior Officiated Designated Substitute Player $89.62 Senior Self Officiated Designated Substitute Player $70.75 October 20,27,2024 570508 C� E IDIAN Planning and Zoning Department Presentation and Outline Changes to Agenda: \[if applicable\] Item #3: Briar Ridge Subdivision Time Extension (TECC -2024-0003) Application(s):  TECC Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 14.14 acres of land, zoned TN-R, located on the west side of Meridian Road between W. Lake Hazel Road and W. Amity Road. History: The final plat (H-2022-0011) for this project was approved by City Council on September 14, 2021. The plat consists of 59 single-family residential building lots (24 townhome lots and 35 detached single-family lots) and 15 common lots, and approximately 24.82 % qualified open space. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Medium high Density Residential Summary of Request: Request for a one-year time extension on the final plat in order to obtain the City Engineer's signature. The developer has received final plat approval for the first phase of the project (FP-2022-0011) and work has begun on this very large phase of the project; therefore, no new conditions will be placed on the application with the time extension. The reason for this time extension is that the developer stated they have experienced major delays in getting permits from the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) to bring sewer down the roadway to the site. Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: • Idaho Transportation Department denied the applicant’s request to bring sewer to the site within their right-of-way (S. Meridian Road). • There’s no other way to get sewer to the site as the property to the north has not extended it to and through their property. Written Testimony: None Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number TECC-2024-0003, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 6, 2024: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number TECC-2024-0003, as presented during the hearing on November 6, 2024, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number TECC-2024-0003 to the hearing date of \[date\] for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) Item #4: Raising Cane CR (H-2024-0002) for H-2024-0021 Application(s):  Council Review for an Approved Conditional Use Permit for a Drive-Through Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 1.46 acres of land, zoned C-G, located at 2700 N. Eagle Road. History: AZ-03-021; AZ-15-012; MDA-15-011; DA Inst. #2022-065403; A-2020-0115 (PBA ROS #12423); H-2022-0046 (MDA, PP), Development Agreement Inst. #2023-033831, FP-2023-0002; and H-2023-0030 MDA DA Inst. # 2023-069381. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MU-R Summary of Request: The Findings were approved for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) was approved on September 19, 2024 to construct a drive-through restaurant with food and drink services including an indoor/outdoor seating area. The drive-through restaurant will be approximately 2,862 gross square feet overall and is one-story in height with landscaping along two perimeter property lines located on 1.46 acres of land in the C-G zoning district. A conditional use permit is required as the proposed drive-through is within 300 feet of an existing drive-through. The proposed hours of operation being requested through this conditional use permit are Sunday-Thursday with a closing time at 1:30 AM. Friday and Saturday with a closing time of 3:30 AM or as restricted through this CUP process. As proposed, both the Commission and Staff found the applicant met the requirements for a drive-through establishment based on the specific use standards set forth in UDC 11-4-3-11. Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed restaurant as shown in Section VIII.E. The proposed building design includes the following material: composite lumber, brick veneer, metal and aluminum panels. Final design is required to comply with the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual (ASM). The Applicant shall obtain a Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) and Administrative Design Review (DES) approvals before submitting for any building permit within this development. The Idaho Transportation Department requested trip generation information to determine what mitigation if any the applicant may be required to complete. The Idaho Transportation Department resubmitted an email stating no additional mitigation is required as a dedicated right turn lane was constructed with the Plat of Sessions Parkway. Sessions Park Subdivision was approved with a conceptual plan that anticipated uses such as a drive-through. Therefore, this property is well into the entitlement process. Written Testimony: None. There were no written comments; however, several people spoke at the Planning Commission meeting in opposition of the proposed drive-through establishment stating it would create safety issues along Eagle Road. The applicant stated during high use hours they will have the employees with the tablets walking, moving traffic along very quickly and efficiently. The proposal has multiple drive-through lanes open to help speed up the ordering process. The applicant also stated, if needed Raising Cain does employ off-duty officers who are used for traffic control, although they do not anticipate that with this location. But, yes, they do try and move everyone through efficiently and keep things from being clogged. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the proposed conditional use permit with the conditions in Section IV per the Findings in Section V of the staff report Key Issue(s) of Discussion by Commission: i. Hours of operation Commission Change(s) to Staff Recommendation: i. None Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: i. An appeal of the project stating safety and mobility concerns on Eagle Road Written Testimony since Commission Hearing: None Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number CR-2024-0002, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 6, 2024: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number CR-2024-0002, as presented during the hearing on November 6, 2024, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number CR-2024-0002 to the hearing date of November 6, 2024, for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Item #5: The Gateway at 10 Mile (H-2024-0010) Application(s):  Conditional Use Permit  Preliminary Plat Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 38.00 acres of land, zoned C-G and R-40, located at NEC of W. Franklin Road & N. Ten Mile Road. History: H-2020-0046 (DA Inst. #2021-082775 – Gateway at 10 Mile) Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Mixed Use – Commercial (MU-COM) Summary of Request: Preliminary plat (PP) consisting of 31 buildable lots 3 common lots on 38.99+/- acres of land zoned C-G and R- 40 for The Gateway at Ten Mile; and a Conditional use permit (CUP) for a multi-family development containing a total of 390 residential dwelling units in the R-40 zoning district. The site is proposed to develop 17 commercial lots with uses that may include retail, restaurants, personal and professional services, and office uses as shown on the site plan. Additionally, the Applicant has provided plaza and seating areas in the commercial areas that will be easily accessible and approachable to residents and patrons. The multi-family complex consists of six (6) four-story interior corridor-style buildings and five (5) three-story townhome-style buildings, all featuring flat roofs and contemporary finishes (200 1- bedroom, 174 2-bedroom units, and 16 three-bedroom units). The Applicant has not yet submitted a phasing plan. Staff recommends that the Applicant provide, or be prepared to discuss a phasing plan at the public hearing. Additionally, the development agreement requires the Applicant to connect to W. Fred Smith Street from the east. Staff recommends that the plat illustrates the connection from the east. Common Open Space: The multi-family portion of the site is 17.5 acres, requiring 1.75 acres (76, 052 square feet) of baseline open space according to the standard. The Applicant is proposing 10.52% of baseline open space, totaling 1.84 acres (80,157 square feet), exceeding the requirement. At a minimum, a total of 104,500 s.f. (or 2.40-acres) of outdoor common open space is required to be provided in the proposed development. A total of 113,424 square feet (or 2.60-acres) is proposed to be provided in excess of UDC standards. Overall, the proposed qualified open space complies with the standards in 11-4-3-27C. Amenities: To satisfy the specific use standards for the proposed 390 multi-family units the decision-making body may deem if the proposed amenities for the multi-family development is sufficient. According to the submitted plans and narrative, the applicant believes they have included four qualifying amenities, each from a different category. The proposed amenities consist of the following:  Clubhouse  Swimming pool  Fitness center  Pickleball court  Three 5,000 square foot open space areas  Dog park  Bike repair station  Enclosed storage All amenities are located within the central open space lot. The Applicant is proposing multiple amenities from the “Quality of Life” category, and missing an amenity from the “Open Space” category. The Applicant should add a picnic area that includes tables, benches, and a structure for shade in one of the open space grassy areas to meet the requirements of UDC Code 11-4-3-27.D for the site. Overall, the proposed amenities satisfy the required standards. Parking: A total of 744 spaces are proposed, including 363 carports provided, 231 standards provided, and 150 garages provided. The proposed parking exceeds the minimum standards of the code. Access: Access is proposed via three roads: W. Franklin Rd. and N. Ten Mile Rd.; and the future extension of N. Wayfinder Avenue, a towncenter collector street designated as N. Innovation Lane on the plat. Based on ACHD’s traffic counts, with development of this property Franklin Rd. will still operate at an acceptable level of service (i.e. “E”) but Ten Mile Rd. will not (“F”). An acceptable level of service is “E”. Two (2) access driveways are proposed via W. Franklin Rd. – one (1) right-in/right-out only and one (1) full-access, east of Ten Mile Rd. Upon dedication of the required right of way by third parties, the Applicant shall construct half plus twelve feet of the future collector street adjacent to the property’s southeast corner, as shown on the preliminary plat. The City supports the additional access to Franklin Road because the completion of the collector roadway is contingent upon the owners of the adjacent properties to the southeast. ACHD has approved the full access for the future collector to be built as a full access and the right-in/right-out only as proposed. Two (2) access driveways are proposed via S. Ten Mile Rd. – a right-in/right-out only access, 825-feet north of Franklin Rd. and one (1) 1,330-feet north of Franklin Rd. Staff recommends removing the right-in/right-out access on Ten Mile Road however, the applicant is seeking Council waiver for it to remain. This project was continued at the request of the applicant to work with ACHD on the access. ACHD has updated their staff report to allow the access if approved by City Council. Pathways & Sidewalks: There are existing sidewalks along Franklin and Ten Mile Roads that will remain as part of this project. The applicant has provided an internal circulation plan that demonstrates pedestrian circulation throughout the project. 10-foot sidewalks are required along Fred Street. West Ada School District (WASD) recommends the addition of a micro-path from the plaza area between Street A and Street B to the sidewalk along Ten Mile Road. This location would be a prime location for a bus stop. Landscaping: Required street buffer widths are as follows: 25-feet along W. Franklin Rd., an arterial street; 25-feet along N. Ten Mile Rd., an arterial street; 20-feet along N. Wayfinder Avenue, a collector street; and . The street buffers along W. Franklin Rd., N. Ten Mile Road, and the portion along N. Wayfinder Ave. east of the driveway access nearest the intersection appear to meet the minimum width standard. Multiple common lots for the street buffers are depicted on the plat and they should be maintained by the property owner or business owners’ association in accord with UDC 11-3B-7C.2b. Fencing: A 6’ privacy fence is proposed on the north and west side of the multi-family development. Staff recommends that the Applicant submit a detail of the fencing at the time of CZC submittal. Waterways: The Ten Mile Creek bisects the southwest corner of this site and is proposed to be left open as an amenity for the development in accord with UDC 11-3A-6, which requires laterals to be piped unless improved as a water amenity or linear open space. Building Elevations: Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the various types of multi-family units proposed in this development. All of the structures consist of a complementary mix of materials, including stucco, brick veneer, horizontal exterior cement siding, metal parapet caping, glazing, and colors. An administrative Design Review application is required to be submitted for approval of the design of the multi-family structures and clubhouse prior to submittal of building permit application for those structures. The design of the structures is required to be consistent with the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual and the design guidelines in the TMISAP. Written Testimony: There are multiple letters of written testimony under the Public Comments Folder on Laserfiche. There are concerns that the approval of the multi-family portion of the project will lead to increased traffic and strain on the school system with the approval of the multi-family project. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval with modifications to conditions 2h. to add unless otherwise waived by City Council and strike 3c. Commission Recommendation: Approval Summary of Commission Public Hearing: i. In favor: Jeff Bower & Andy Daleidan on behalf of Developer ii. In opposition: Justin Hamilton, Karla Ehlers, and Natalie Wixom Purcell iii. Commenting: Jeff Bower & Andy Daleiden on behalf of the Developer iv. Written testimony: Many letters in opposition have been submitted and can be viewed under the Public Comments folder as part of the public record. v. Key Issue(s): vi. Concerns with adding more high-density residential in this area and the negative impacts it could have on Meridian's small community feel. vii. Adding high-density multi-family housing at the corner of Ten Mile Road and Franklin Road would worsen safety and traffic concerns, as the roadways in this area are already unable to handle the current traffic volume. viii. More overcrowding in the school system. Key Issue(s) of Discussion by Commission: ii. In 2020, this project was annexed into the City with a concept plan that included a mix of commercial uses and multi-family housing. iii. The question before the Commission tonight is whether the Developer is meeting the UDC for the Conditional Use Permit and conditions listed in the Development Agreement. iv. Commission recommended the Council support the waiver to allow the right-in/right-out access on Ten Mile Road. Commission Change(s) to Staff Recommendation: ii. Commission modified condition 2.(h.) of the preliminary plat to read: “Remove Public Street B from the plat limiting the number of access points on a busy arterial street near the intersection per UDC 11-3A-3, unless otherwise waived by City Council.” iii. Commission removed condition 3.(c.) of the Landscape Plan: “Depict a minimum 5-foot wide detached sidewalk along S. Ten Mile Rd. in accord with UDC 11-3A-17A.” Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: i. The Applicant requests a council waiver to allow a right-in/right-out on Ten Mile Road. ACHD has approved the access contingent upon the Council’s decision. Written Testimony since Commission Hearing: David Wright, Bridget, Krystal Larson – Concerns with increased traffic and overcrowding of schools. Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2024-0010, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 6, 2024: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2024-0010, as presented during the hearing on November 6, 2024, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2024-0010 to the hearing date of November 6, 2024 for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) Item #6: Rolling Hill (H-2023-0070) Application(s):  Annexation  Conditional Use Permit Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 5.89 acres of land, zoned R-1 in Ada County, generally located at 1560, 1520, 1480, 4270, Rolling Hill Drive. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Mixed Use-Regional (MU-R) Summary of Request: Annexation of 6.90 acres of land from the R-1 zone in Ada County to the C-C (Community Business District district) zone to develop two (2) vertically integrated residential structures featuring 90 dwelling units and 20,134 square feet of commercial space; conditional use permit to develop one (1) multi-family building consisting of 64 dwelling units on 5.89 acres in the proposed C-C zone. NOTE: The CUP is only required the multi-family portion of this development. Vertically integrated residential projects are listed as principally permitted uses in the C-C zone. As A Mixed-Use Regional project should demonstrate a positive integration with the surrounding properties, offering a blend of residential, commercial, and recreational spaces that align with the overall regional development vision. A notable issue with the proposed development is the creation of a county enclave that lacks seamless integration with the project and the disconnect with the property to the east presents the proposed development isolates itself from the surrounding area and fails to provide integration or connectivity with its surroundings. Furthermore, with approximately 760 multi-family units already within the vicinity, Commission and Council should evaluate whether the City necessitates additional multi-family housing in this area. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There are four (4) existing structures on this site (5 parcels total); the four (4) homes and accessory structures should be removed prior to development occurring on the property. Access: One full-access driveway is proposed via S. Rolling Hill Drive (local street) off E. Overland Road (arterial roadway). According to ACHD’s Staff Report, the Applicant should construct Rolling Hill Drive as ½ of a 36-foot wide local roadway with curb, gutter, and 5- foot wide concrete sidewalk abutting the site. One full-access driveway is proposed on E. View Circle (collector roadway). According to ACHD’s Staff Report, the Applicant should construct View Circle as ½ of a 36-foot wide residential collector roadway with curb, gutter, and a 10-foot wide pathway as required by the Meridian Pathway Master Plan. One full-access driveway is proposed via the future collector Street (Movado Way). According to ACHD’s Staff Report, the Applicant should dedicate right-of way abutting the site’s northeast property line to accommodate the future construction of a planned collector roadway. Cross access has been provided to the outparcel however, ACHD and Staff both request that the Applicant coordinate with the owner of the out-parcel surrounded by this site to close the existing driveways on Overland. If the driveways cannot be wholly closed, the Applicant should close the portions of the shared-access driveways that abut the site on Overland Road with an 8-foot wide planters’ strip and a 10-foot wide multi- use pathway. Common Open Space: At a minimum, a total of 64,157 s. (or 1.47-acres) of outdoor common open space is required to be provided in the proposed development. A total of approximately 63,000 square feet (or 1.45-acres) is proposed to be provided less than UDC standards. Staff supports the slight decrease to the common open space provided since the vertically integrated residential project is not required to meet this requirement for 90 of the 154 residential units. Overall, Staff finds that the proposed qualified open space complies with the standards in 11-4-3-27C. Multi-use pathways: The Applicant proposes a pathway along Five Mile Creek on the northern portion of the site, with trees and shrubs lining both sides. As noted above, the pathway should be widened to 10-feet in width as required by the Meridian Master Pathways Plan. Additionally, a 10-foot wide pathway is proposed along E. Overland Road, providing access to key areas within the development. However, there will be a gap along Overland Road in front of the outparcel at the center of this development, which is not ideal. Although the pathways are designed for walking, jogging, cycling, or other forms of active transportation, the pathway along Five Mile Creek does not extend beyond this site. Despite these limitations, Staff finds that the Applicant meets the intent of this requirement. Amenities: The proposed amenities consist of the following:  Swimming pool  Fitness center  10-foot wide pathway that runs along the Ten Mile Creek  Bike repair station All amenities are located within the central open space lot adjacent to Buildings A and C. Staff recommends that the Applicant add a picnic area that includes tables, benches, and a structure for shade in the open space grassy area by the pool to enhance recreational options for the residents. Overall, the proposed amenities satisfy the required standards. Parking: A total of 281 spaces are proposed, including 125 covered spaces, exceeding the minimum requirement (222 required). However, the Applicant is proposing eleven (11) compact stalls on the west side of the out-parcel. Staff recommends that the Applicant shift Building C and the associated parking 2 -feet to the west, as there is sufficient space within the 20-foot buffer required adjacent to Rolling Hill Drive. Elevations: The renderings for the proposed 4-story structures include a mix of brick, metal siding, and stucco and fiber cement accents in a neutral color scheme. The final design of all buildings must comply with the standards outlined in the Architectural Standards Manual. Commission Recommendation: denial Summary of Commission Public Hearing: ix. In favor: Wade Thomas, JD Planning and Associates x. In opposition: Alicia Eastman, Mike Flowers, Chris Maiocca and Robin Maiocca, Amy Wattles, and Dave Ellis, xi. Commenting: Wade Thomas, JD Planning and Associates xii. Written testimony: None xiii. Key Issue(s): Roadway capacity, traffic, density, and lack of transition with four-story buildings directly facing single-family homes. Key Issue(s) of Discussion by Commission: v. The project does integrate some of the components for mixed-use in the Comprehensive plan. vi. Adding more multi-family with the current 760 units in the vicinity right now is excessive and not necessary. vii. The proposed development lacks smooth transitions to the surrounding areas and creates the enclave with the county parcel in the center of the development. viii. The timing of this project is not appropriate. Commission Change(s) to Staff Recommendation: iii. Commission recommended denial of the applications. Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: i. None Written Testimony since Commission Hearing: Anastasia Nizamova, Mohammad Zaatar, Jacki Collins, Ed Garcia, Brooke Davlin, Bryn Dejardin, Jerry Sanders – Concerns with the additional traffic congestion with the approval of this project. Two individuals are supportive of the project. Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2023-0070, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 6, 2024: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2023-0070, as presented during the hearing on November 6, 2024, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2023-0070 to the hearing date of November 6, 2024 for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) h2 City Council Meeting November 6, 2024 Aerial MapFuture Land Use MapZoning Map Zoning MapAerial MapFuture Land Use Map The diagram below depicts the internal residents in this area.connection for the businesses and pictures below) providing circulation and ZoningAerialFLUM Preliminary PlatLandscape Plan .17A-3A-with UDC 11foot wide detached sidewalk along S. Ten Mile Rd. in accord -Depict a minimum 5Strike Condition Landscape Plan 3.(c.)Council. City otherwise waived by unless 3, -3A-arterial street near the intersection per UDC 11Remove Public Street B from the plat limiting the number of access points on a busy Amend Condition Preliminary Plat 2.(h.) ZoningAerialFLUM V IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Briar Ridge Subdivision (TECC-2024-0003) by Kent Brown, Kent Brown Planning Services, located at West side of Meridian Rd. between W. Lake Hazel Rd. and W. Amity Rd. directly south of the mid-mile point. Application Materials: https://bit.ly/TECC-2024-0003 A. Request: For a second time extension in order to obtain the City Engineer's signature. PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE : November 6, 2024 ITEM # ON AGENDA : 3 PROJECT NAME : Briar Ridge Subdivision ( TECC - 2024 - 0003 ) Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify ( Please Print ) HOA ? ( mark X if yes ) If yes, please provide HOA name 1 2 3 4 5 6 i 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT C��fEPIDIAN*,­, DEPARTMENT REPORT HEARING 11/6/2024 Legend - DATE: _ Project Location TO: Mayor& City Council :::Area of Impact = City Limits FROM: Linda Ritter,Associate Planner O Analysis 208-884-5533 --f Iritter@meridaincity.org APPLICANT: Kent Brown, Kent Brown Planning Services ° K` SUBJECT: TECC-2024-0003 - Briar Ridge Subdivision E ' LOCATION: The site is located on the west side of Meridian Road between W. Lake Hazel Road and W. Amity Road, directly south of the mid-mile point,in the NE '/4 of the SE '/4 of Section 36, Township 3N., Range 1 W. (Parcel# S 1236417204) I. PROJECT OVERVIEW A. Summary Request for a one-year time extension on the final plat in order to obtain the City Engineer's signature. B. Issues/Waivers • Idaho Transportation Department denied the applicant's request to bring sewer to the site within their right-of-way(S. Meridian Road). • There's no other way to get sewer to the site as the property to the north has not extended it to and through their property. C. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the proposed time extension for a time period of one(1)year as requested for the application to expire on September 27, 2025. D. Decision Pending City of Meridian I Department Report 1. Project Overview I1. COMMUNITY METRICS Table 1: Land Use Description Details Map Ref. Existing Land Use(s) Vacant - Proposed Land Use(s) Detached and attached single-family residential - Existing Zoning Traditional Neighborhood Residential(TN-R) VI.A.2 Adopted FLUM Designation Medium Density Residential(3-8 du/ac)and Medium-High VI.A.3 Density Residential(8-12 du/ac) Table 2: Process Facts Description Details Preapplication Meeting date 9/10/2024 Neighborhood Meeting 9/19/2024 Site posting date 10/26/2024 I11. STAFF ANALYSIS A. General Overview Per UDC 11-613-7C, "Upon written request and filing by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with subsections A and B of this section,the director may authorize a single extension of time to obtain the city engineer's signature on the final plat not to exceed two(2) years. Additional time extensions up to two(2)years as determined and approved by the City Council may be granted.With all extensions,the director or city council may require the preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat or short plat to comply with the current provisions of this title." Table 3: Proiect Overview Description Details History H-2015-0019 South Meridian Annexation;H-2021-0056(AZ,RZ,&PP); H-2021-0091 (DA Modification);FP-2022-0011;A-2022-0068(DES) B. History The final plat(H-2022-0011) for this project consists of 59 single-family residential building lots (24 townhome lots and 35 detached single-family lots)and 15 common lots, and approximately 24.82 %qualified open space on 14.14 acres of land in the TN-R zoning district and was approved by City Council on September 14,2021. C. Site Development and Use Analysis The Applicant requests approval of a one(1)year time extension on the final plat in order to obtain the City Engineer's signature. The previous time extension approval was set to expire on September 27,2024; however,the subject time extension application was submitted prior to the expiration date as required. A one-year time extension(TED-2023-0007)was approved by the Director to extend the period of time to September 28,2023, in which the City Engineer is required to sign a final plat. The reason for the previous time extension request was due to the developer and his engineer experiencing major delays in getting plans approved for this development. The developer has received final plat approval for the first phase of the project(FP-2022-0011)and work has begun on this very large phase of the project; therefore,no new conditions will be placed on the application with the time extension. The reason for this time extension is that the developer has experienced major delays in getting permits from the Idaho Transportation Department(ITD)to bring sewer to the site. City of Meridian I Department Report 11. Community Metrics Approval of the subject time extension will allow the Applicant to obtain the City Engineer's signature on a final plat and proceed with development of the property. If City Council does not approve the requested time extension,the preliminary plat will expire, and a new preliminary plat application will be required. IV. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. Meridian Planning Division 1. Comply with all previous conditions of approval for this development: H-2015-0019 South Meridian Annexation; H-2021-0056(AZ,RZ, &PP);H-2021-0091 (DA Modification); FP- 2022-0011;A-2022-0068 (DES). B. Irrigation Districts 1. Nampa&Meridian Irrigation District See public record(copy the link into a separate browser) https:llweblink.meridiancioy.org/WebLink/browse.aspx?id=365997&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCit X C. Idaho Department of Environmental Quality(DEQ) See public record(copy the link into a separate browser) https:llweblink.meridiancioy.orkIWebLink/browse.aspx?id=365997&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCit X V. ACTION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed time extension for a time period of one(1)year as requested for the application to expire on September 27, 2025. B. City Council: Pending City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions AMITY Locationct of Impact - ; ''.4w �. Analysis lc H JV I I- Legend Pro - W � •1 MIT-Y - rr� Analysis ����■� •�r n�rn r ■ G�il� @P@ �■�■ G4� nnnffq Z =Illllfrfl./ Q �. Ifriiii;��i 4, w W ffllH 3. Future Land Use Legend CIVIC n Project Location 0 Area of Impact MU-C OAnalysis Low Density Medium Density - Residential `4 Residential _I High , Density11, MU-RG Residential �1 ® Med-High Density Residential 4. Planned Development Map Legend - Project Location 1 < ---- 1 1 1 Area of Impact City Limits rt 1 1 1 Planned Parcels OAnalysis - 1 rM I fiffi R I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ® ! 1 I ® 1 1 1 v 1 1 I 1 1 1 E 1 1 1 , 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 \ i City of Meridian Department Report VI. Exhibits B. Subject Site Photos (9 N i City of Meridian Department Report VI. Exhibits C. Preliminary Plat(date: 9/3/2021) hd Q. A to AMC SA a F - IV, [ I W� a y i _ PREL_I MIry6RY PLAT �AE° .Ya `d 8�lalz I.^IocE s4°9E?IVI51oN •�"" TRILOGY DEVELOPMENT. INC. -' City of Meridian I Department Report VI. Exhibits A Final Plat(date: 2/25/2022) p WLRTiED y�.WART ARM 57. 1/4 � jo 0000a a I: u a a sf Q r, VK.uRws sr. i r-------- -32�E -----�- —i o o ° i ° ° a - MC RY4lTU ST. a ao oe S. x FIEOPC, - -f= �I � s +E!. i k.R=GRYST4L Si- C •� �s / H116T5'�1�W iW-OS' 7� I I ps yIII V E I taq a 21 IM "K-1 ■ I A u0 glpg � o 3�� �.i �e� o� � �' S� o�g .$ iun pma� Q ¢ y s n ry s x d-.k HtiNl1iE ST � ` y�,, IIAAAAPEEflffff 3 i y� aY� nE ¢ S li�S& xg_ Q 3�Y.•� oS � g5} v1 NOGT725'W eb.m' yn IN4 IOWA { � � ym g Tg ,2g •3� �g ,+Sx�33g3$� i !:g rNa�z ' 1 C7 s Q a3 4 +5 � 8 5f a� q8 vim+tN IF z �{.� '{ �u 3 R a� ti�y^gg��s �gS $■^■33crc 3 'T�pp�gg � 5� Gpp �+ c•. 9 lam 3 $3 Rc,E$:g $$ri53�e XSY g" Zz2 • � 3 Yr 3 ° '2 S= sry� �P 33g City of Meridian Department Report VI. Exhibits + w�wtiera ra�c sr.�nx�•�es,nr vR `", r a 1 Q m seo•a•srt,mm• ma-.r�xx mar 1e. i I � seea.br�r ar i i � ,mar �0 raeo,.3a't � sesen•e@-n i. I xav�rax'c tj o o �ar l U � W. ses+sa-c>ro.m• ' seae.�Y-w ca. e'.nr S•.6i' 5 5 1�, C n�• Cn S..eC Ywao' pr ec �-ae' < � m >e rx yea F $I$3P§ }U o City of Meridian Department Report VI. Exhibits i .,, ., �zx• avar s. a,.m• Y �. r.vn � ————— N� 000C� o' 000aav .'� j � u�• .ar ar __� MvsSUY_w.av R ROCK LRYSTH Sf _ ' I I Q4. I &8&R R R R R aaaaae y _oLS S $ r I p YY �G [ytrr 'S ips '' {6y�L i y*Y� r 3■ SG ����I� iiL .. � y�' $ g S ��YYYBY 3�Lyg§$� • �' � I RJ czj t 3 S gg �t al�a S S S 8 8 8 $ 8 6 6 S B a S 8 8 8 8 8 8 ss5ai �` ¢ sg&ypI` saags � i �r7i a>:i!8 8 !�E��t�fr s�����s� . I(� b p p - - - - v 8� P P� • � i�v_� Aso �o g $ Sffix >l�S SILLySBuY e � �-.��. p �jp jG I r p � � i I I I I-r ::� 7 i�F y9�yq Fy I• 4+ a v � a g_a City of Meridian Department Report VI. Exhibits w.■ ME 11% BRIAR RIDGE IandproDATA VICINITY MAP !� IMElementa lem ent w CC Ty, or �_�� � � �� •.-,fir � : f � �_ r' . `• ,� .:. VL + ' rig I r y r i r.;v- b sr r.•L � zr hl i r, carp r :� * � ' ►,� { 04 - ► _ klr i s1� sue;!Art � A � - . 1� 43032'37.86" N 116°22'32.88" W ; • • ■ �• 1V M10 . 3 1 • Nov 05, 2024- IandproDATA.com The materials available at this website are for informational Scale: 1 inch approx 1000 feet purposes only and do not constitute a legal document. W IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Raising Cane's Council Review (CR-2024-0002) by Lynzey Uechi, East River Valley St., LLC., located at 2700 N. Eagle Rd. Application Materials: https://bit.ly/CR-2024-0002 A. Request: Council Review of the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision of the Conditional Use Permit of a drive-through establishment. PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE : November 6, 2024 ITEM # ON AGENDA : 4 PROJECT NAME : Raising Cane ' s Council Review ( M2024 - 0002 ) Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify ( Please Print ) HOA ? ( mark X if yes ) If yes, please provide HOA name 2 3 g' S go / ,'hc /+ )PT r( c ✓ X -Tee 3� 4 5 6 7 8 9 ' 10 � 11 12 13 14 Mayor Robert E. Simison City Council bleinbei�'- IIAN Luke avener,President Liz Strader,Vice President DAHO Brian Whitlock Doug Taylor John Overton Anne Little Roberts November 6,2024 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council CC: City Clerk, City Attorney FROM: Linda Ritter,Associate Planner RE: Raising Cane Restaurant Drive-Through Establishment(CR-2024-0002) History: The Planning&Zoning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit(CUP) (H-2024-0021) for a restaurant with accessory drive-through including indoor/outdoor seating area in the C-G zoning district on September 5,2024, as set forth in the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law approved September 19,2024. The Idaho Transportation Department(ITD) stated trip generation numbers were not provided for the drive-through establishment with the application and this information is required to determine what mitigation,if any,may be required. ITD later confirmed no additional mitigation will be required with this project as a dedicated right in/right out turn lane was previously approved and installed with the Sessions Parkway Subdivision. (See pictures below) ,xv i `M The diagram below depicts the internal access road that has been installed(see pictures below)providing circulation and connection for the businesses and residents in this area. MPOSED VEHICLE ACCESS ?a c4uhKA" I� DPoVE AISLE ...-rx•S P�RI'VATE ORCVE � s x Eosnrac -. APPROACHES n TO BF ABANDONED C dT 4 PROPD&EO Rl i7C.6 1 DOM30LIDATE0 ACCESS P13NT TO EAGLE ROAD r� t3J I I BA4xAGE �` I. ROADTO SO S4TlTH « �. d i FORMER EXISTINGGRERi WALL - / 4ENICLE RESTAURANT ACCESS TO EAGLE ROAD 9E CLOSED VEHICLE ACCESS EXHIBIT 90 I&D ;c eIBM Scale-V=S0 Access Road Entering the Development Complex North of Copper . r r Ifl i I -0. _ i Access Road Behind Raising Cane Q { Access Road Leading to Copper Canary Site 1 J r 1` f Unified Development Code: Per Specific Use Standards (UDC 11-4-3): A. A drive-through establishment shall be an accessory use where the drive-through facility (including stacking lanes, speaker and/or order area,pick up windows, and exit lanes)is: 1. Not within three hundred three hundred(300) feet of another drive-through facility, a residential district, or an existing residence: or 2. Separated by an arterial street from any other drive-through facility,residential district or existing residence; or 3. Not within the O-T zoning district. Otherwise a conditional use permit is required. B. All establishments providing drive-through service shall identify the stacking lane,menu and speaker location(if applicable), and window location on the certificate of zoning compliance or the conditional use permit. Speakers are prohibited in the O-T zoning district. C. A site plan shall be submitted that demonstrates safe pedestrian and vehicular access and circulation on the site and between adjacent properties.At a minimum the plan shall demonstrate compliance with the following standards: 1. Stacking lanes shall have sufficient capacity to prevent obstruction of driveways,drive aisles, and the public right-of-way by patrons. 2. The stacking lane shall be a separate lane from the circulation lanes needed for access and parking, except stacking lanes may provide access to designated employee parking. 3. The stacking lane shall not be located within ten(10) feet of any residential district or existing residence. 4. Any stacking lane greater than one hundred 100 feet in length shall provide for an escape lane. 5. The site should be designed so that the drive-through is visible from a public street for surveillance purposes. D. The applicant shall provide a six-foot sight obscuring fence where a stacking lane or window location adjoins a residential district or an existing residence. Both Commission and Staff found that the applicant met the requirements for a drive-through establishment specific use standards set forth in UDC 11-4-3-11. The Design Review and Certificate of Zoning Compliance(A-2024-has been reviewed awaiting approval based on Council's decision. Site Plan/Landscape Plan N EAGLE InM10 - - r t r� .,F PNTEPAAL ACCESS RQAO� j I k ■ y f ] p 1a p 6p6pE ��1 ilia s4A rRiY] � x Building Elevations i 6 �f s� f PIP- loll The property in which the proposed drive-through establishment is requesting a CUP for a drive-through that is within 300 feet of another drive-through has a development agreement that allows certain things to happen on this site as part of the Sessions Parkway Subdivision. Sessions Park Subdivision was approved with anticipated uses such as a drive-through. Therefore,this property is well into the entitlement process. There were no written comments received for this application; however, several people spoke in opposition of the proposed drive-through establishment stating it would create safety issues along Eagle Road. The applicant stated during high use hours they will have the employees with the tablets walking, moving traffic along very quickly and efficiently. The proposal has multiple drive-through lanes open to help speed up the ordering process. The applicant also stated, if needed Raising Cain does employ off- duty officers who are used for traffic control, although they do not anticipate that with this location. But, yes,they do try and move everyone through efficiently and keep things from being clogged. Request: The Applicant has submitted a request for City Council review of the Commission's decision in this matter and reconsider the approval. Attachments: Ik rAii MA �e 1- •� i gw Ar 10 JEN fs■ .1 c t: - ,'— - _ - l �- � •:.� � ! � - r ,6 �L_��1. . .fir C i E IDIAN.;--- Agenda Item Applicant Presentation Conditional Use Permit November 6, 2024 Council Review Applicant Team Englewood, COPM Design MUHAMAURISSA Boise, IdahoHorn-Kimley KELLI CHILES, PE Boise, IdahoHorn-Kimley, PEO’REILLYMICHAEL Raising Cane’s RV VANN Grounds of Council Review #1 unable to access adjacent uses.resulting in residents, visitors and business patrons service drives and Eagle Road thru patrons on the -backed up driveimpacted by this project through the likelihood of The safety and mobility on Eagle Road and adjacent service drives will be negatively •Response:signs per jurisdictional standards. In areas that warrant it, install “No Parking” and “No Loitering” •site parking, deliveries and traffic flow -Manage on•duty police officers to control traffic at points of ingress & egress. -If the level of business warrants it, Raising Cane’s deploys off•Thru lane is included -The second Drive•and increase speed of service.Crewmembers deployed with handheld tablets to take orders •daily peak hour demand of 115 tripswithout extensive queuing. This well exceeds the anticipated the pickup window, this site could serve 360 orders an hour that the site has space for 15 vehicles from the order board to seconds from the time the vehicle is at the order board. Given Raising Cane’s current average order time is 2 minutes and 28 •The proposed site allows for 45 vehicles to queue on site. Site Plan BoardsOrder WindowPick up Parking Provided35 spacesParking Required7 spaces internal access road10’ landscape buffer along •Eagle Road35’ landscape buffer along •pass lane-By•-2 drive•2 entrance drives•story building-2,862 sf one•10’35’EAGLE ROAD Site Plan Grounds of Council Review #2 traffic study be conducted on Eagle Rd.be required by a licensed engineer or an internal traffic study Requested a nother lot pending sale. A•unit apartment complex and, -460•apartment complex, -340 unit•room Wyndham Hotel,-120•to serve as ingress/egress for already committed The access road is Vicinity Map LotPending CanesRaising 300 unitsat River Valley The Regency rooms124 Hotel336 unitsMeridianApartments Village Out-RightIn/-RightOut-RightIn/-Right Traffic Study History no additional mitigation requiredDetermined . Counts & Analysis ProvidedSessions Parkway Updated Traffic -2023•has been constructedturn lane be provided on Eagle Road which -northbound right-fast food restaurants w/ drivefamily units, 23,000 sq ft retail, two 3,500 sq ft -336 multiIncluded . Sessions Parkway TIS Accepted by ITD & ACHD-2022 •emoved 4 accesses to Eagle Road.r, Revised Traffic Striping Drawings accepted by ITD & ACHD-2019•336 Dwelling Units & 42,000 sq ft mixed use commercial.. Included Village Apartments TIS Accepted by ITD & ACHD-2017• Extended Stay Hotel (124 rooms) Less than shopping center anticipatedpeak hourEstimated 921 daily trips, 55 AM, 64 PM Northbound SITEEAGLE ROAD Lane Turn -Right Grounds of Council Review #3.overflowadditional stacking lane for Require changes which might lighten or mitigate concerns, ex: Site Plan BoardsOrder WindowPick up Parking Provided35 spacesParking Required7 spaces internal access road10’ landscape buffer along •Eagle Road35’ landscape buffer along •pass lane-By•-2 drive•2 entrance drives•story building-2,862 sf one•10’35’EAGLE ROAD Staff Report TISITD and ACHD approved the CUP and associated •Next step is Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC)•Will comply with all site plan updates per conditions• Requested Action. upheldbe on September 5, 2024 (Findings on September 19, 2024) Planning and Zoning Commission’s unanimous approval • Vicinity Map SITEUSTICK ROADEAGLE ROAD APR 2024 Timeline–SEPT 2024SubmittedApplication –MAY 2024MeetingNeighborhood –MAY 2024 MeetingApp -Pre– 2700 N Eagle Road EAGLE ROADSITE Sessions Parkway Subdivision•1.46 acres• Future Land Use Map SITEUSTICK ROADEAGLE ROAD Mixed Use Regional– Zoning Map USTICK ROADEAGLE ROADSITE G)-& Service Commercial (CGeneral Retail – Conceptual Elevations Sessions DevelopmentFuture Pad roomsHotel CUP, 124 Extended Stay -2023 •retail center2023 Modified for •Village Apartments2015 Approved with •124 roomsExtended CanesRaising EAGLE ROAD Parkway v IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for The Gateway at 10 Mile (H-2024-0010) by KM Engineering, LLP., located at NE corner of W. Franklin and N. Ten Mile Rd. Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2024-0010 A. Request: Conditional Use Permit for 390 multi-family units in the R-40 zoning district. B, Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 31 buildable lots and 3 common lots on 38.99 acres of land zoned C-G and R-40. PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE : November 6, 2024 ITEM # ON AGENDA : 5 PROJECT NAME : The Gateway at 10 Mile ( W2024- 0010 ) Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify ( Please Print ) HOA ? ( mark X if yes ) If yes, please provide HOA name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 STAFF REPORT E COMMUNITY N -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING November 6,2024 Legend DATE: Project Location -` TO: Mayor&City Council FROM: Bill Parsons, Current Planning Supervisor 208-884-5533 ---^-- SUBJECT: The Gateway at Ten Mile PP, CUP H-2024-0010 LOCATION: NEC of W. Franklin Rd. &N. Ten Mile Rd., in the West %of the SW 1/4 of Section 11,Township 3N.,Range 1 W. ( � _ (Parcel: S1211336065) or I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Preliminary plat(PP)consisting of 31 buildable lots 3 common lots on 38.99+/-acres of land zoned C-G and R-40 for The Gateway at Ten Mile; and a Conditional use permit(CUP)for a multi-family development containing a total of 390 residential dwelling units in the R-40 zoning district. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 38.99-acres(plat boundary) Future Land Use Designation Mixed Use—Commercial(MU-COM)with a small area of Civic in the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan (TMISAP) Existing Land Use Vacant/undeveloped land Proposed Land Use(s) Commercial,multi-family development Current Zoning General Retail and Service Commerical District(C-G)& High-Density Residential(R-40) Proposed Zoning NA Lots(#and type;bldg/common) 31 buildable lots/3 common lots Phasing plan(#of phases) A Phasing Plan was not submitted Number of Residential Units(type 390 units(200 one-bedroom, 174 two-bedroom,and 16 three- of units) bedroom units) Page 1 Density(gross&net 10(gross)units/acre Open Space(acres,total[%]/ 4.44 acres buffer/qualified) Amenities A clubhouse with a swimming pool,fitness center,pickleball court,two 5,000 square foot open space areas,a dog park,and bike repair shop. Physical Features(waterways, The Ten Mile Creek bisects a small portion of the southwest hazards,flood plain,hillside) corner of the lot. Neighborhood meeting date;#of February 21,2024;no attendees other than the Applicant attendees: History(previous approvals) H-2020-0046(DA Inst.#2021-082775—Gateway at 10 Mile) B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway See Link to the Staff Report in Section IX below. District • Staff report(yes/no) Yes • Requires ACHD No Commission Action (yes/no) Traffic Impact Study Yes es/no Access Access is proposed via W.Franklin Rd.,N. Ten Mile Rd.as shown on (Arterial/Collectors/State the plat. Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) Traffic Level of Service W.Franklin Rd.—better than"E"/existing plus project`; S.Ten Mile Rd.—"F"(acceptable level of service is"E") Stub There is a stub street on the east boundary of this site(W.Fred Street) Street/Interconnectivity/ that is extended to the west then runs north through this site. Cross Access Existing Road Network There are no existing internal roadways within the site;W.Franklin Rd. and N.Ten Mile Rd. are existing arterial streets that border the site along the south and west boundaries. Existing Arterial Curb,gutter and a 7-foot wide attached asphalt path exists along N. Ten Sidewalks/Buffers Mile Rd. Curb,gutter and a 7-foot wide attached(near the intersection) and 5-foot wide detached(outside of the influence area of the intersection)concrete sidewalk exists along W.Franklin Rd.No buffers exist on this site along either roadway. Proposed Road There are no roadways,bridges or intersections in the general vicinity Improvements that are in the IFYWP or the CIP. Fire Service • Distance to Fire 2 miles from Station#2 Station • Fire Response Time Within 5-minute response time goal • Resource Reliability 74%(goal is 80%or greater) • Risk Identification 4—current resources would not be adequate to supply service to this proj ect. Page 2 Description Details Page • Accessibility Meets all required access,road widths and turnarounds • Special/resource Will require an aerial device—can meet this need in the required time needs frame if a truck company is required. • Water Supply Will vary depending on building size and occupancy types. • Other Police Service See Section IX.D West Ada School District • Distance(elem,ins,hs) West Ada School District has experienced significant and sustained growth in student enrollment dur years.Based on current enrollment data specific to the area surrounding this proposed development development consisting of 0 single-family units and 390 multi-family units could house approximately • Capacity of Schools children.Approval of this application will affect enrollments at the following schools in West Ada Sch • #of Students Enrolled Enrollment Ca ac' Chaparral Elementary School S43 700 Meridian Middle School 955 1250 Meridian High School 170 2075 • Predicted#of students 51 school-aged children generated from proposed development Wastewater • Distance to Sewer Services Directly adjacent • Sewer Shed • Estimated Project Sewer ERU's See Application • WRRF Declining Balance • Project Consistent with WW Master Plan/Facility Plan Yes • Impacts/Concerns •Flow is committed •See Public Works Site Specific conditions in Section IX.B Water • Distance to Water Services Water available at site • Pressure Zone 2 • Estimated Project Water ERU's See application • Water Quality None • Project Consistent with Water Master Plan Yes • Impacts/Concerns See Public Works Site Specific Conditions in Section IX.B Page 3 1 1 � _..PINE........_,,,;-,:: PINE 1 ..,.;: :411"III ::__ VJr ' ..,,,-•n.-: W� . '125 noun • � B'- �• �� _ • • • - ■• 'Rio- `; \ &= -.�; AI �II,, ■111. - f =JA r TIN • � - • IIIIIIIIIIIII '' y`' � a��o. � . a IIIIIIIIIIIII oi ., 1 _� . 1 •1 1 • 1 � . , TNF - - •ice 4�i•, ` •. :_4..�����:::.'a: 7 `/ - Ir ■1�.. :;III„ ,,1� I. ��f, _ -•"�"4�*�1� tie ■ a•� n■•r. ,W.M. ���� IIIIIIII — _ ju � C�--C`Jd� �IIIIII IIIIIIII - �': I���il���l`��IIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII • as C • C. Representative: Same as Applicant IV. NOTICING Planning&Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper Notification 9/17/2024 10/20/2024 Radius notification mailed to properties within 500 feet 9/13/2024 10/17/2024 Public hearing notice sign posted 9/16/2024 10/15/2024 on site Nextdoor posting 9/12/2024 10/16/2024 V. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN(HTTPS://WWW.MERIDIANCITY.ORGICOMPPLA : LAND USE: The property is designated Mixed-Commercial(MU-COM) and Civic on the Future Land Use Map(FLUM)in the Comprehensive Plan. This property is located within the area governed by the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan (TMISAP). The purpose of the MU-COM designation is to encourage the development of a mixture of office,retail, recreational, employment, and other miscellaneous uses,with supporting multi-family or single-family attached residential uses(see pg. 3-9 in the TMISAP for more information). Mixed-use designated areas in the TMISAP are recommended locations for development of activity centers that are specifically planned to include both residential and non-residential uses.Mixed-use areas are anticipated to have 3 or more significant income-producing uses(i.e. retail, office,residential and lodging facilities)with significant functional and physical integration in conformance with a coherent plan(pgs. 3-7 & 3-8). The site is proposed to develop 17 commercial lots with uses that may include retail,restaurants,personal and professional services, and office uses as shown on the site plan in Section VIII.H. Additionally,the Applicant has provided plaza and seating areas in the commercial areas that will be easily accessible and approachable to residents and patrons (refer to figures below). }fI &f11o5FUiN6 MAP rO51f I o 1 fr a1AIA,�l rrteww..anfan ercx fenwo e¢errca rxmP++��•.o*• r � f Page 5 The multi-family complex consists of six four-story interior corridor-style buildings and five three-story townhome-style buildings,all featuring flat roofs and contemporary finishes(200 1-bedroom, 174 2- bedroom units, and 16 three-bedroom units). Additionally, amenities include a clubhouse, swimming pool, fitness center,pickleball court,three 5,000 square foot open spaces, a dog park, and a bike repair station located within the central open space. The proposed development encompasses a total of 390 residential units and 17 commercial lots on the overall site. Bicycle and pedestrian connections with decorative street crossings are integrated throughout the site, allowing residents of the multi-family portion of the development and visitors to travel within both the commercial and residential areas, as shown in Section VIII, Exhibit D. Staff finds the mix of income-producing uses proposed as well as the vertical and horizontal integration of such uses and residential densities interconnected by pedestrian walkways and amenities is generally consistent with the goals of the TMISAP for this area. Transportation: W. Franklin Rd. and N. Ten Mile Rd. are existing 5-lane arterial streets that run along the south and west boundaries of the site and are fully built out. S. Wayfinder Avenue and W. Fred Smith Street are proposed to be extended as collector streets from W. Franklin Road at the southeast corner and off-site along the eastern boundary of the site consistent with the Master Street Map in the Comprehensive Plan and the Transportation System Map in the TMISAP. The Transportation System Map depicts the Ten Mile intersection with Wayfinder Avenue as a full access. The Street Section Map depicts this segment of Wayfinder as Street Section E,which is a towncenter collector street per the Transportation System Map. Buildings on such streets are built to the sidewalk and tree-wells are required. The pedestrian experience is enhanced with 12-foot sidewalks, street trees inwells, and pedestrian scale lighting. Ample on-street diagonal parking supports the businesses within the Lifestyle Center and in Mix Use Commercial area. This section may be modified to allow parallel parking as a local section in these areas. A 5-foot wide dry-utilities corridor should be provided along both sides of the street curb. Both wet utilities may be located in the street. Streetlights should be placed in the dry utilities corridor on either side of the street. NAM m mr I I.., no- 64 M Frtng SIree[ Sectian E I i Design: Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the multi-family residential structures and the associated clubhouse. The design of the proposed multi-family structures appears to be of a high quality and are generally consistent in style,materials and colors. Elevations weren't submitted for the commercial portion of the development as tenants are unknown at this time. Final design of the site and all structures is required to comply with the design elements of the TMISAP per the Application of Design Elements matrix on pg.3-49 of the TMISAP and the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual in accord with the Development Agreement(Inst.#2021-082775,provision#5.1j). The commercial portion of the development should incorporate similar design elements,colors and materials as the residential portion of the development. Page 6 Goals,Objectives, &Action Items: Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this application and apply to the proposed use of this property(staff analysis in italics): • "Encourage a variety of housing types that meet the needs, preferences, and financial capabilities of Meridian's present and future residents."(2.01.02D) A variety of multi family housing is proposed in this development consisting of interior corridor-style buildings and townhome-style buildings, allfeaturingflat roofs and contemporary finishes, which will contribute to the variety of housing types in the City, specifically in the Ten Mile area as desired, that should cater to different financial capabilities. • "Permit new development only where it can be adequately served by critical public facilities and urban services at the time of final approval, and in accord with any adopted levels of service for public facilities and services."(3.03.03F) City water and sewer services are available and can be extended by the developer with development in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. The West Ada School shows capacity at area schools below capacity currently serving this area. • "Locate higher density housing near corridors with existing or planned transit,Downtown, and in proximity to employment centers."(2.01.01H) The site is located at a major intersection along two major mobility arterials (Franklin and Ten Mile Roads) and in close proximity to employment centers. Transit services exist in the Ten Mile Crossing development to the south at the intersection of Vanguard/Wayfinder to serve this area—other transit stops may be added in the future. Transit services are available to serve this site via Route 40. Lots 4 and 5, Block I align with the future land use map designation of"Civic"and have been preserved to comply with DA Provision 5.1.d. Currently, Valley Regional Transit does not have any specific plans for a transit center in this location. • "Encourage and support mixed-use areas that provide the benefits of being able to live, shop, dine, play,and work in close proximity,thereby reducing vehicle trips, and enhancing overall livability and sustainability."(3.06.02B) The proposed project with multi family residential and commercial with nearby employment (retail/office uses) and restaurant uses, should provide a good mix of uses that residents won't have to travel far for, thus reducing vehicle trips and enhancing overall livability and sustainability. • "Slow the outward progression of the City's limits by discouraging fringe area development;encourage development of vacant or underutilized parcels currently within City limits."(4.05.03B) This property is an enclave currently annexed into the City and surrounded by other annexed land. The development of this property will maximize public services. • "Improve and protect creeks and other natural waterways throughout commercial,industrial and residential areas."(4.05.01D) The Ten Mile Creek runs through the site's southwest corner and is proposed to be preserved as a natural amenity on Lot 10, Block 3. The Applicant should protect and enhance Ten Mile Creek by adding planters with trees, shrubs, and boulders to match the landscaping Brighton installed around the creek across the street. • "Require collectors consistent with the ACHD Master Street Map(MSM),generally at/near the mid- mile location within the area od City impact."(6.01.0313). A Collector street(Wayfinder Avenue) is proposed along the eastern boundary of the site, intersecting with the proposed continuation of W. Fred Street(local street) running west, consistent with the Page 7 MSM. • Provide housing options close to employment and shopping centers". (3.07.02D) This project is proposed as a mixed-use development, offering both residential and employment opportunities within the same area. Additionally, the area immediately south of the subject site, in the Ten Mile Center Subdivision, is filled with commercial and employment development. Staff believes the proposed development plan is generally consistent with the vision of the Comprehensive Plan as discussed above and is consistent with the approved Development Agreement. VI. STAFF ANALYSIS A. PRELIMINARY PLAT A preliminary plat(PP)consisting of 31 buildable lots on 38.99+/-acres of land in the C-G and R-40 zoning districts is proposed for The Gateway at 10 Mile (see Section VIII.A). The Applicant has not yet submitted a phasing plan. Staff recommends that the Applicant provide,or be prepared to discuss a phasing plan at the public hearing. Additionally,the development agreement requires the Applicant to connect to W. Fred Smith Street from the east. Staff recommends that the plat illustrates the connection from the east. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There are no existing structures on this site. Curb, gutter, and a 7-foot wide attached sidewalk exist along N. Ten Mile Rd. Curb, gutter, and 7-foot wide attached and 5-foot detached sidewalk exist along W. Franklin Rd. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): The proposed plat and subsequent development is required to comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-8 for the R-40 zoning district and Table 11-2B-3 for the C-G zoning district. In the R-40 district,residential buildings shall provide a minimum setback of ten(10)feet unless a greater setback is otherwise required per Building Code. In the C-G district,there are no minimum setback requirements; however, future buildings may not encroach within required street buffers and residential structures must have a minimum 20-foot separation between structures per Building Code. Access(UDC 11-3A-31: Access is proposed via three roads: W. Franklin Rd., a commercial arterial;N. Ten Mile Rd.,a residential mobility arterial; and the future extension of N. Wayfinder Avenue,a towncenter collector street designated as N. Innovation Lane on the plat. However,the Applicant inaccurately labeled the collector street as S. Innovation Lane on the plat,whereas S. Innovation Lane is located farther west across Franklin Road and functions as a local street. South Wayfinder Avenue lines up directly to the development's south across Franklin Road. Staff recommends that the Applicant correct the name of the future collector street on the plat. Two (2)access driveways are proposed via W.Franklin Rd.—one(1)right-in/right-out only(Private Street A), 565-feet east of Ten Mile Rd. and one(1)full-access, east of Ten Mile Rd. (Wayfinder Avenue -future collector to be built). Upon dedication of the required right of way by third parties,the Applicant shall construct half plus twelve feet of the future collector street adjacent to the property's southeast corner, as shown on the preliminary plat The City supports the additional access to Franklin Road because the completion of the collector roadway is contingent upon the owners of the adjacent properties to the southeast(parcels S1211336300&S1211336401) ACHD has approved the full access for the future collector to be built as a full access and the right-in/right-out only as proposed Page 8 with Private Street A. Staff recommends depicting Private Street A as a drive aisle on the plat because it does not meet the private street standards outlined in UDC 11-3F-4. Two (2) access driveways are proposed via S. Ten Mile Rd.—two(2)full-accesses, 825-feet north of Franklin Rd. (Public Street B) and one (1) 1,330-feet north of Franklin Rd. (Public Street A). Where access to a local street is available, the Applicant shall reconfigure the site circulation plan to take access from the local street (Public Street Q in accordance with UDC 11-3A-3. Staff recommends removing the access for Public Street B on Ten Mile Road from the plat limiting the number of access points on a busy arterial street near an intersection per UDC 11-3A-3. The proposed commercial lots can take access from Public Street C. The following existing driveways are to be closed per ACHD's conditions of approval: Close the existing driveway onto Franklin Road located 712-feet east of Ten Mile Road with vertical curb, gutter, a 5-foot wide planter strip and 5-foot wide detached concrete sidewalk to tie into the existing improvements on either side, as proposed. Close the three existing driveways onto Ten Mile Road located 260, 610 and 970-feet north of Franklin Road with vertical curb, gutter and 7-foot wide attached concrete sidewalk to tie into the existing improvements on either side. Other than the accesses specifically approved with this application,direct lot access is prohibited to Franklin Road and Ten Mile Road and should be noted on the final plat(refer to figure below). Staff is supportive of the construction of a continuous local commercial street extending from Ten Mile R4ed thrOUgh the site tp the$pVthe0st prgperty ling (highlighted in red)and the proposed rlghl-irvrlght-out only drlveway-onto Franklin Road (highlighted in orange). The proposed Idcal street access to Ten Mile Road.Site Acoess B.located 505-feet south of the proposed local street, Street A. ,w,4 should not he �a approved as proposed, as it t : t does not meet Local Street Intersection ® y• r Spacing on M inor Arterials which requires a ' u minimum offset nneee t of 660•feet from any other 4 RIVATE I roadways, is not i r� M DRIVE needed to serve I P r AISLES the site and this & site will have _ r access to the s signalized intersection of 3ehek Amara nklin I Road via Fred — Smith street. y = See Findings W. on page 17 For ;. i 11 ArFI HOER AVEHLIE - the requirements ,.. w a_ -ems_ regarding Street 6, a proposed R IRO o NLY scree and fecal DRIVEWAY the proposed cut- = de-sac al the terminus of �Y -� r—fir - _ 7-1 Street A. A Fire Protection Access/Phasing plan was not submitted with this application,which is included in the Fire Dept. comments in Section IX.C. Page 9 Based on ACHD's traffic counts,with development of this property Franklin Rd.will still operate at an acceptable level of service (i.e. "E") but Ten Mile Rd.will not("F").An acceptable level of service is "E" (refer to below). Condition of Area Roadways Traffic Count is based on Vehicles per hour(VPH) Roadway Frontage Functional PM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Classification Traffic Count Level of Service Franklin Road between Ten Mile Road and 724-feet Principal Arterial 925 Better than "E" Wayfinder Avenue Ten Mile road between Site Access A and 1,486-feet Minor Arterial 1,555 Franklin Road *Acceptable level of service for a five-lane principal arterial is "E" (1,780 VPH). • Acceptable level of service for a seven-lane principal arterial is "E" (2,720 VPH). *Acceptable level of service for a five-lane minor arterial is "E" (1,540 VPH). Road Improvements: Ten Mile Rd. and Franklin Rd. are fully improved with 5-lanes; road widening is not required. The Applicant proposes extending W. Fred Smith Street from east to west,then turning into Public Street C heading north. The Applicant should connect into Fred Smith Street from the east and construct Street C and Fred Smith Street as a 36 foot wide local commercial street sections with 2- travel lanes,parking on both sides of the roadway, vertical curb,gutter, and bulb-outs at intersections and pedestrian crossings with an 8 foot planter strip and 10 foot wide multi-use pathways on both sides of the roadway. The Applicant proposes constructing Public Street A to run east-west along the northwest portion of this site, ending at the southwest corner of the proposed future Civic site, as required by the Development Agreement(#2021-082775). The Applicant should construct Street A between Ten Mile Road and Street C as a 36 foot wide street section with 2-travel lanes,, vertical curb,gutter, an 8-foot wide landscape strip, and 10 foot wide detached concrete sidewalk. The Applicant proposes to construct a portion of Wayfinder Avenue to the site's east property line. The Applicant should construct a temporary cul-de-sac turnaround at the terminus of Wayfinder Avenue with a minimum of a 50 foot paved turning radius in accordance with ACHD's conditions of approval. The Applicant should construct the following turn lanes in accordance with ACHD's conditions of approval: Construct a dedicated westbound right-turn lane on Franklin Road, as proposed, when Site Access C, a driveway, is constructed to intersect Franklin Road located 565-feet east of Ten Mile Road. Coordinate the design of the turn lane with ACHD's Development Review staff. Construct a dedicated northbound right-turn lane, on Ten Mile Road, when Site Access A, a local street is constructed to intersect Ten Mile Road located 1,330-feet north of Franklin Road. Coordinate the design of the turn lane with ACHD's Development Review staff. Page 10 As noted above, City Staff recommends that the center access be removed from the plan,unless otherwise approved by City Council. Pathways(UDC 11-3A-8) & Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-17): There are no multi-use pathways depicted on the Pathways Master Plan for this site. Walkways are proposed throughout the site for pedestrian access and interconnectivity. A 7-foot wide attached sidewalk exists along Franklin Rd. abutting the site within the influence area of the intersection transitioning to a 5-foot wide detached sidewalk for the remaining site frontage.A 7-foot wide attached sidewalk exists along N.Ten Mile Rd.,which should be a minimum 6-foot wide detached sidewalk, separated from the curb by a minimum 8-foot wide tree lawn/parkway, consistent with Street Section A in the TMISAP(see pg.3-20).A 10-foot wide pathway is preferred along Franklin Rd. and Ten Mile Rd.based on ACHD's adopted Livable Streets Performance Measures but not required. Staff is not requiring the Applicant to replace the existing 7-foot wide attached sidewalks and 5-foot wide detached sidewalk that run along both arterials. The Applicant is proposing what appears to be 6-foot wide sidewalks along both sides of W. Fred Smith Street and Public Street C. Staff recommends that the Applicant construct 10 foot wide detached pathways along both sides of these streets in accordance with ACHD's adopted Livable Street Performance Measures and UDC 11-3A-5. West Ada School District(WASD) recommends the addition of a micro-path from the plaza area between Street A and Street B to the sidewalk along Ten Mile Road. This location would be a prime location for a bus stop. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): Street buffer landscaping is required to be provided with the subdivision in accord with the widths specified in UDC Table 11-2A-8 for the R-40 zoning district and 11-2B-3 for the C-G zoning district based on the street classification and planted in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. A landscape plan was submitted for the proposed subdivision landscaping,included in Section VIII.B. Required street buffer widths are as follows: 25-feet along W. Franklin Rd., an arterial street; 25-feet along N. Ten Mile Rd., an arterial street; 20-feet along N. Wayfinder Avenue, a collector street; and . The street buffers along W. Franklin Rd.,N. Ten Mile Road, and the portion along N. Wayfinder Ave. east of the driveway access nearest the intersection appear to meet the minimum width standard. Multiple common lots for the street buffers are depicted on the plat and they should be maintained by the property owner or business owners' association in accord with UDC 11-3B-7C.2b. The number of trees proposed in buffers meets the minimum standard required by UDC 11-3B-7; however,the TMISAP requires an enhanced street buffer to align with the TM Center Subdivision directly to the south. (refer to figure below). Furthermore, Staff finds that the Applicant should enhance the landscaping around the Ten Mile Creek on Lot 10,Block 3 to create ab attractive linear open space for the development. Page 11 " 4 � F77 ,:' j,rp • �,` 3 ti� -,r 'GIs�', i� '�+- '' ,gym w..a•.,r;+.' . �yx� F'i :' .ate,y s• ..5 � � i.M1• I� - - .fit; ,� .� I I r.,. '`tea 'f ..� Landscaping is required in common open space areas in the R-40 portion of the development in accordance with the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3E. A calculations table is included on the landscape plan submitted with this application demonstrating compliance with the above standards; however, Staff recommends that the applicant enhance the street buffers in accordance with the TMISAP guidelines (pages 3-26,3-27, 3-28,3-29& 3-30. Waterways(UDC 11-3A-A): The Ten Mile Creek bisects the southwest corner of this site and is proposed to be left open as an amenity for the development in accord with UDC 11-3A-6,which requires laterals to be piped unless improved as a water amenity or linear open space. Utilities(UDC 11-3A-21): Connection to City water and sewer services is required in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. Street lighting is required to be installed in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. Pedestrian-scale street lights consistent with Street Sections A and B in the TMISAP are required along W.Franklin Rd. and N. Ten Mile Rd. (see pg.3-22). Streetlights shall be placed in the dry utilities' corridor on either side of N.Wayfinder Avenue in accord with Street Section Ein the TMISAP(pg.3-23). Page 12 Dry utilities should be located at the back of the curb in the dry utilities corridor along S. Ten Mile Rd. and W. Franklin Rd. in accord with Street Sections A and B in the TMISAP(pg. 3-22). A 5-foot wide dry-utilities corridor should be provided along both sides of S.Wayfinder Avenue; both wet utilities may be located in the street. Pressurized Irrigation System (UDC 11-3A-I5): Underground pressurized irrigation water is required to be provided to each lot within the subdivision as set forth in UDC 11-3A-15. Storm Drainage(UDC 11-3A-18 : An adequate storm drainage system is required in all developments in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. Design and construction shall follow best management practice as adopted by the City as set forth in UDC 11-3A-18.A Preliminau Geotechnical En ine eeringRReport dated 03/06/2020 was submitted with this application; an updated copy should be submitted prior to or with the first final plat application. B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT Conditional use permit(CUP) for a multi-family development containing a total of 390 residential dwelling units(200 1-bedroom units, 174 2-bedroom units, and 16 3-bedroom units)in the R-40 zoning district for The Gateway at 10 Mile. The proposed development plan is in substantial compliance with the conceptual development plan and building elevations included in the Development Agreement(Inst. #2021-082775)as required. Specific Use Standards(UDC 11-4-3): The proposed use is subject to the following standards: (Staffs analysis/comments in italic text) 11-4-3-27: MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT: A. Purpose. 1. To implement the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan: a. Plan for safe, attractive, and well-maintained neighborhoods that have ample open space, and generous amenities that provide varied lifestyle choices. b. Require the design and construction of pathways connections,easy pedestrian and bicycle access to parks, safe routes to schools, and the incorporation of usable open space with quality amenities as part of new multi-family residential and mixed-use developments. 2. To create multi-family housing that is safe and convenient and that enhances the quality of life of its residents. a. To create quality buildings and designs for multi-family development that enhance the visual character of the community. b. To create building and site design in multi-family development that is sensitive to and well-integrated with the surrounding neighborhood. c. To create open space areas that contribute to the aesthetics of the community,provide an attractive setting for buildings, and provide safe,interesting outdoor spaces for residents. B. Site design. 1. Residential buildings shall provide a minimum setback of ten(10)feet unless a greater setback is otherwise required by this title and/or title 10 of this Code. Building setbacks shall take into account windows, entrances,porches, and patios, and how they impact adjacent properties. Page 13 The residential buildings look to meet the minimum setback requirement of 10 feet as required. 2. All on-site service areas, outdoor storage areas,waste storage,disposal facilities, and transformer and utility vaults shall be located in an area not visible from a public street or shall be fully screened from view from a public street. The site plan depicts screened trash enclosures not visible from a public street;all proposed transformer/utility vaults and other service areas shall comply with this requirement. 3. A minimum of eighty(80) square feet of private,usable open space shall be provided for each unit. This requirement can be satisfied through porches,patios, decks, and/or enclosed yards. Landscaping, entryway, and other accessways shall not count toward this requirement. In circumstances where strict adherence to such standards would create an inconsistency with the purpose statements of this section,the Director may consider an alternative design proposal through the alternative compliance provisions as outlined in section 11-513-5 of this title. The floor plans submitted with this application depict patios and balconies that exceed this standard. 4. For this section, vehicular circulation areas, parking areas, and private usable open space shall not be considered common open space.None of these areas were used in the open space calculation. 5. No recreational vehicles, snowmobiles, boats, or other personal recreation vehicles shall be stored on the site unless provided for in a separate, designated and screened area. The Applicant shall adhere to this standard. 6. The parking shall meet the requirements outlined in chapter 3, "regulations applying to all districts",of this title. The proposed parking meets and exceeds UDC standards (see parking analysis below). Additionally, the Applicant has provided seven (7)storage buildings/garage structures intended for use as either storage or additional parking for tenants. 7. Developments with twenty(20)units or more shall provide the following: a. A property management office.Located in clubhouse. b. A maintenance storage area.Located in clubhouse. c. A central mailbox location, including provisions for parcel mail,that provides safe pedestrian and/or vehicular access.Located in clubhouse d. A directory and map of the development at an entrance or convenient location for those entering the development.Depict on site plan The site plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application should depict the location of these items in accord with this standard. C. Common open space design requirements. 1. The total baseline land area of all qualified common open spaces shall equal or exceed ten (10) percent of the gross land area for multi-family developments of five (5) acres or more. The multi- family portion of the site is 17.5 acres, requiring 1.75 acres(76, 052 square feet)of baseline open space according to the standard. The Applicant is proposing 10.52% of baseline open space, totaling 1.84 acres (80,157 square feet), exceeding the requirement. 2. All common open spaces shall meet the following standards: a. The development plan shall demonstrate that the open space has been integrated into the development as a priority and not for land use after all other development elements have been designed. Open space areas that have been given priority in the development design have: (1) Direct pedestrian access; Page 14 (2) High visibility; (3) Comply with Crime Prevention through Environmental Design(CTED) standards;and (4) Support a range of leisure and play activities and uses. b. Open space shall be accessible and well-connected throughout the development. This quality can be shown with open spaces that are centrally located within the development,accessible by pathway and visually accessible along collector streets or as a terminal view from a street. c. The open space promotes the health and well-being of its residents. Open space shall support active and passive uses for recreation,social gathering,and relaxation to serve the development. Staff finds the proposed open space areas within the multi family development comply with these standards by providing open space that is well connected,highly visible,and promotes health and well-being by supporting a range of leisure and play activities with the proposed amenities and general design of the open space.See the submitted landscape plan and rendering for a visual of compliance with this standard. 3. All multi-family projects over twenty(20) units shall provide at least one (1) common grassy area integrated into the site design allowing for general activities by all ages. This area may be included in the minimum required open space total.Projects that provide safe access to adjacent public parks or parks under a common HOA,without crossing an arterial roadway,are exempt from this standard. a. Minimum size of the common grassy area shall be at least five thousand(5,000) square feet in area. This area shall increase proportionately as the number of units increase and shall be commensurate to the size of the multi-family development as determined by the decision- making body. Where this area cannot be increased due to site constraints, it may be included elsewhere in the development. b. Alternative compliance is available for these standards if a project has a unique targeted demographic; utilizes other place-making design elements in Old-Town or mixed-use future land-use designations with collectively integrated and shared open space areas. The submitted plans feature three common grassy open space areas, each 5,000 square feet in size that exceed the requirement. These areas are situated internally to the site, adjacent to Building "F"; adjacent to the clubhouse, and between Buildings "E"and "D': 4. In addition to the baseline open space requirement, a minimum area of outdoor common open space shall be provided as follows: a. One hundred fifty(150)square feet for each unit containing five hundred(500)or fewer square feet of living area.None of the units are below 500 square feet(sf.) of living area. b. Two hundred fifty (250) square feet for each unit containing more than five hundred (500) square feet and up to one thousand two hundred(1,200) square feet of living area. There are 320 units proposed between 500 and 1,200 s.f.; therefore, a total of 1.84 acres(80,000 square feet) of common open space is required. C. Three hundred fifty (350) square feet for each unit containing more than one thousand two hundred(1,200)square feet of living area. There are 70 units proposed that are over 1,200 sf of living area; therefore, a total of 0.56 acres (24,500 square feet) of common open space is required. At a minimum, a total of 104,500 sf. (or 2.40-acres) of outdoor common open space is required to be provided in the proposed development. A total of 113,424 square feet(or 2.60-acres) is proposed to be provided in excess of UDC standards. Overall, the proposed qualified open space complies with the standards in 11-4-3-27C. Page 15 5. Common open space shall be not less than four hundred (400) square feet in area, and shall have a minimum length and width dimension of twenty(20) feet. The common open space areas depicted for the overall multi family development meet this requirement. 6. In phased developments, common open space shall be provided in each phase of the development consistent with the requirements for the size and number of dwelling units. Staff is not aware of any phasing for the proposed multi family project. 7. Unless otherwise approved through the conditional use process, common open space areas shall not be adjacent to a collector or arterial streets unless separated from the street by a berm or constructed barrier at least four(4)feet in height,with breaks in the berm or barrier to allow for pedestrian access. The Applicant is not including or requesting that the required 25 foot street buffer along N. Ten Mile Road(arterial roadway) and W. Franklin Road(arterial roadway)be included as part of the open space calculations. However, these frontage improvements are required with the development of the proposed commercial portion of the development. D. Site development amenities. 1. All multifamily developments shall provide for quality of life,open space,and recreation amenities to meet the particular needs of the residents as follows: a. Quality of life. (1) Clubhouse. (2) Fitness facilities. (3) Enclosed bike storage. (4) Public art such as a statue. (5) Dog park with a waste station. (6) Commercial outdoor kitchen. (7) Fitness course. (8) Enclosed storage b. Open space. (1) Community garden. (2) Ponds or water features. (3) Plaza. (4) Picnic area including tables,benches,landscaping,and a structure for shade. c. Recreation. (1) Pool. (2) Walking trails. (3) Children's play structures. (4) Sports courts. d. Multi-modal amenity standards. Page 16 (1) Bicycle repair station. (2) Park and ride lot. (3) Sheltered transit stop. (4) Charging stations for electric vehicles. 2. The number of amenities shall depend on the size of the multifamily development as follows: a. For multifamily developments with less than twenty (20) units, two (2) amenities shall be provided from two (2) separate categories. b. For multifamily development between twenty (20) and seventy-five (75) units, three (3) amenities shall be provided,with one(1) from each category. c. For multifamily development with seventy-five(75)units or more, four(4)amenities shall be provided,with at least one(1) from each category. d. For multifamily developments with more than one hundred (100) units, the decision-making body shall require additional amenities commensurate to the size of the proposed development. 3. The decision-making body shall be authorized to consider other improvements in addition to those provided under this subsection (D), provided that these improvements provide a similar level of amenity. To satisfy the specific use standards for the proposed 390 multi-family units the decision- making body may deem if the proposed amenities for the multi-family development is sufficient. According to the submitted plans and narrative, the applicant believes they have included four qualifying amenities, each from a different category. The proposed amenities consist of the following: ➢ Clubhouse ➢ Swimming pool ➢ Fitness center ➢ Pickleball court ➢ Three 5,000 square foot open space areas ➢ Dog park ➢ Bike repair station ➢ Enclosed storage All amenities are located within the central open space lot. The Applicant is proposing multiple amenities from the"Quality of Life"category,and missing an amenity from the"Open Space" category. The Applicant should add a picnic area that includes tables,benches,and a structure for shade in one of the open space grassy areas to meet the requirements of UDC Code 11-4-3- 27.1)for the site. Overall,the proposed amenities satisfy the required standards. E. Landscaping requirements. 1. Development shall meet the minimum landscaping requirements by chapter 3,"regulations applying to all districts", of this title. 2. All street-facing elevations shall have landscaping along their foundation. The foundation landscaping shall meet the following minimum standards: a. The landscaped area shall be at least three(3)feet wide. Page 17 b. For every three (3) linear feet of foundation, an evergreen shrub having a minimum mature height of twenty-four(24)inches shall be planted. c. Ground cover plants shall be planted in the remainder of the landscaped area. According to the submitted landscape plans, the Applicant is showing compliance with this standard. F. Maintenance and ownership responsibilities. All multifamily developments shall record legally binding documents that state the maintenance and ownership responsibilities for the management of the development, including, but not limited to, structures, parking, common areas, and other development features. The applicant shall comply with this requirement and provide said document at the time of CZC submittal. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): Street buffer landscaping is required to be provided with the subdivision improvements as noted above in Section VI.A. Parking: Off-street vehicle parking is required for the proposed multi-family dwellings as set forth in UDC Table 11-3C-6.Based on(200) 1-bedroom units, 174 2-bedroom units, and 16 3-bedroom units, a minimum of 735 off-street spaces are required with 390 of those being in a covered carport or garage, and 39 spaces designated for guest parking. A total of 744 spaces are proposed,including 363 carports provided,231 standards provided,and 150 garages provided. The proposed parking exceeds the minimum standards per the UDC code.Furthermore,the Applicant has provided seven storage buildings,totaling 82 storage garages, designated for either storage purposes or additional parking for tenants. Bicycle parking is required per the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-6G and should comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C. One bicycle parking space is required for every 25 proposed vehicle parking spaces or portion thereof. Based on 744 spaces,a minimum of 30 spaces are required. The site plan states a total of 30 spaces are proposed for the multi-family portion of the development. Bike racks should be provided in central locations for each building as proposed and comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C. According to the submitted plans, the Applicant is demonstrating compliance with this standard. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-7): A 6' privacy fence is proposed on the north and west side of the multi-family development. Staff recommends that the Applicant submit a detail of the fencing at the time of CZC submittal. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19;Architectural Standards Manual; TMISAP) Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the various types of multi-family units proposed in this development as shown in Section VIII.F. All of the structures consist of a complementary mix of materials,including stucco,brick veneer,horizontal exterior cement siding,metal parapet caping, glazing,and colors. The Applicant should work with the Police Dept.on a plan for emergency police access into each building entry point using a multi-technology keypad(see Section IX.D for more information). An administrative Design Review application is required to be submitted for approval of the design of the multi-family structures and clubhouse prior to submittal of building permit application for those structures.An application for Certificate of Zoning Compliance is also required to be submitted along with the Design Review application. The design of the structures is required to be consistent with the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual and the design guidelines in the TMISAP as noted in the Development Agreement(Inst.#2 021-082 7 75) (see the Application of the Design Elements table on pg.3-49 of the TMISAP). Page 18 VII. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use Permit per the provisions included in Section IX in accord with the Findings in Section X. B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard these items on October 3,2024.At the public hearing,the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject Preliminary and Conditional Use Permit requests. 1. Summary of Commission public hearing_ a. In favor: Jeff Bower&Andy Daleiden on behalf of the Developer b. In opposition: Justin Hamilton,Karla Ehlers, and Natalie Wixom Purcell C. Commenting: Jeff Bower&Andy Daleiden on behalf of the Developer d. Written testimony: Many letters in opposition have been submitted and can be viewed under the Public Comments folder as part of the public record. e. Staff presenting application: Bill Parsons,Current Planning Supervisor f. Other Staff commenting on application:None 2. Key issue(s) testimony a. Concerns with adding more high-density residential in this area and the negative impacts it could have on Meridian's small community feel. b. Adding high-density multi-family housing at the corner of Ten Mile Road and Franklin Road would worsen safety and traffic concerns, as the roadways in this area are already unable to handle the current traffic volume. C. More overcrowding in the school system. 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission: a. In 2020,this project was annexed into the City with a concept plan that included a mix of commercial uses and multi-family housing. b. The question before the Commission tonight is whether the Developer is meeting the UDC for the Conditional Use Permit and conditions listed in the Development Agreement. C. Commission recommended the Council support the waiver to allow the right-in/right- out access on Ten Mile Road. 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. Commission modified condition 2.(h.)of the preliminary_plat to read: "Remove Public Street B from the plat limiting the number of access points on a busy arterial street near the intersection per UDC 11-3A-3,unless otherwise waived by City Council." b. Commission removed condition 3.(c.)of the Landscape Plan: "Depict a minimum 5-foot wide detached sidewalk along S. Ten Mile Rd. in accord with UDC 11-3A-17A." 5. Outstandingissue(s)ssue(s) for City Council: a. The Applicant requests a council waiver to allow a right-in/right-out on Ten Mile Road. ACHD has approved the access contingent upon the Council's decision. Page 19 VIII. EXHIBITS A. Preliminary Plat(date: 03/11/2024) PRELIMINARY PLAT 5HQWI M5 _ GASSER LAND DEVELOPMENT SUBDIVISION A PARCEL OF LAND SrFUTED IN THE hWHT 1fl OF THE 9XUR WE 514 Of SB=PP 11.TOVk%rHIP i WWK ROAM I WUT.EICRW I KFIIDIM.&M OWWff.UVd0 QS+Lw7v.%.-_-n E&Z ir y fir• = I •>Lrrsa --�^•^� ��- x,� � + ox ar i IMF - W Run— Page 20 B. Landscape Plan(date: 03/11/2024) P9 'yy - -y r Lw nrra sr ao srT n ' L Ib law 1,4 s O - 4 kml 2+?-AT LANDSCAP Page 21 C. Overall Conceptual Site Plan ,1 IF] E Air TE- WAY AT 11 CCIiNCEPTUAL.SUBJECT TO CHANGE RMUGYIG RIGMT4r Mwr CC, :R 41' RRIL-OAD 16Gh?W NAY :I - Lh7C 4'al1 -4L6F16� i � � I I� a �.T' � .,I a.soxG■ RLAZAA r I I u r _emu - 1 } 1 pvNKsn[[•�. 1 Ll 1 i i. mm �c8 I 1 5 ti I x . + / W E SF DIT, M— fTK440AMM C I; 7-1 FUP44LIN Ir34G II*WIPAL ARTLEIRL1 - L fY SJViF Q!XiFiTOW 1RIlT4LT0�If MI.�Tl#KMRY J f.7M VFRf IAI COUKRCUI Page 22 T '111 .1 G� A--r l iE WAY 711" I 0 M i L IL CGICEPTUAL,SUEJECfTOCR&NGE a►amsouuno��ua _ I{ aft � •7.1 .r�ti f I I •- try i •1 5 ��1 '1�S F yy55 r��J 5 �L k I.N •1.11 � , _ fit •- k,.,crl�arrewu __ kl - 7 U lTM sMh[r MULTI- If CMtW1rYU4L CCW"L}R�CUL Page 23 CC}VCEPTUAL,SLIE JECTT4 CHANGE T 1w.nCw:-e svrwwlrr I• �� i•1 1 • a� �J.�o-��� �7 � aen • .. xrx eai�nce f L Q S •k .,aFr. r� Lea ;F, MILbC';M15 { , f rL4 IIl1Y XGh #�i 1L3�i �w.rFLD SWr—wxc' 3 x 3 F J+INC Wa a[R W U ;AeN LAUk 5i 1111•1 cLw1� Page 24 T FI ;E - F IE WAY AT 10 M 1 LE CONCEFrUAL,SLIEJEC-rm CHANGE SEtiZFGMw .49 1 S EC Alp I'A AI&UA s�c►►ow a - � � _ _ I a SfrTm a 1'ul6rl��i► ' — I '� � �r • a r+ rr r � r � • a � � r ,'� '' f , FiRFIA Y y DG LD G/JMGALYIac P'JI' rid ARrimm: Jl+1 pm NFKH PW44 Tppm M-01% "HEM LLTWO u itG LIAb IVKK 1 � ,4 r• I y { a - rr i l UZAa ' i R[FLIITLYI[•JYFI-SIGH Ala SGATIIIS Tw am*TK D'DDDPATM1l!FL{M!1 rml5 Et7m,"lm, 911DG f f 1 ' r � • •ti.r I '• DEWEW MENT PLAN Page 25 D. Pedestrian & Bicycle Circulation Plan THE GATEWAY AT 10 MILIF CONCEPTUAL,5UI�JECT TO CHANGE di i rE i � +n: � I • _ iN L�AXI4I IX II]Y�U ire Ml��i lA7fAIRLi rff CIRCULATION DIAGRAM MIMIiI 9{•YQE41FKULADON 06*4 FLxsrHtnrvL*;wLmr i Page 26 E. Site Plan For Multi-Family Portion Of Development(date: 03/11/2024) VIM rn LL Aw— I wa km Page 27 F. Landscape Plan for Multi-Family Portion of Development(date: 03/11/2024) • '�•'('�' ,�_ ' STREFTTREF CALCVEATIONS�_TREU35 VI v.,mui.ru x.w.x wr•r,r�w..xx...r •... - '� G1Q S16i�10m[ i� lL3EFItlY OFG Aw.a7wT .T,.SPdSiP .. .. TO ,poi � .� BUFFER TRE[CRLCLIIATIONS ITPEE�351E TOTAL B�FFERTREFSREM PdPI(ING CdLN1ATI0NS � 'Y-'•""'•• ••�•••• �v _ ;;i i�i TO AL P0.RpIG ISLAND TREES 'x ••r � • .. �y , ORIYFALIE TREF CALCIMTIONS�ITPEF�3S IFS ``• •••• r• •4�-. _ _ _ __ T�_L ORrvF arsLF rRFFs -. � _ '.iFAC[TIIEE CALCIJLATIOI6 �.' ILL CF[N SPACF 1REFS `� �EOIJIRFMEMS g[ -i � '�''O a ',_ALCIJLAN01611 RACF=35TALI5'r � � •• I I j �y w/SPACES TOTAL w w ++_ I I i km o LANDSCAPE PLAN - _ — _ _ • ^ - - 2! [uPu.OFw Page 28 G. Qualified Open Space Exhibit(dated: 03/11/2024) F77777777-Ln 00 "ENE T� -------- i IIIIIII IIIIIIIUIIIIIIII VRF L) - ----------- L--- -------I-. ox km OPEN SPACE IXHIIIIT CuPL2.0 Page 29 �ANN ■■■ii�� i■ii�i<�al:e����l II■I ■■ I■ ■I ■■ II■11■II ■■ I■OPINION■■ II■��■II ■■ II■I WHOM . II IL.II_�_IL.II �_IL.II_I�..1 1..1 1..� 1 L.II II IIi■ u■YID■u1::11'!Ib::111■ry::I11■Ylm■ull::i Ileum S IMP! 11■I ■■ I■ �I ■■ II■Y�■II ■■ I■ -- 11■1 ■■ II■Y�■II ■■ 11■1 HOUR! II .1_..I_I II_..1_ Il..t lI--1..11_II - = 1■ ■■ I■ ■I ■■ 11■ ■I ■■ I■ ■■ I�T■■T I■ ■I T-■ _ I■ ■■ I■ .. ■■ ■. ■■ ■■ ■■ 11 ■■ ! �yY� <i�Fd it®■1 1i��1.. Ilialii�' ��lial _ �°r■1�11 in j an n■Il�ul W lu®u®nl:_I■Ell11 . PI��I�u1_:11®II lolll III■n �■ II�11�11 e■ �■ 11®11�11 •� ®I -■ IUMMS11 0■ ®1 ■I �■ I�11 el = �■ II■11■II �■ ®■ 11■11■11 ®■ ®I ®■1 11■Y�■II �� ®I ■I -■ I■11■�11 I II�•�-•1 1■�1■-1_I_.■1_ II_.■1_I___I_ I__I_I_■■I_I ■■ I1■ ■1I ■■ ■■ IN 11111 ■■ I 1 ■1 •■ IN ■I -- M1 ■1 -■ 1■ A ;; II■1 ;; II■11■II ;; ;; Ilill■II ;; ;; II■11■II ;; II■1 ;; 1 1 1 1 11 11 1 II 1 •■ II1®1 �■ I1�11®II �• ME Ililllell •■ •■ II�11■II �• II1®1 1:1_■I ■■ 1_■�._I s_■Ir : 11.■i I 1■_� _ 1•■ II1®1 �■ IIm11®11 �• �■ 11l11E11 F-O N-0 II�11�11 •• II1®1 •� N•11 N■ 1ME00 1 IlN•�i,•ll •• II01 NO. 11■ ■1 :: OEM1■ s1 :: :: a s1 :: JI 11®I :: rt■� ■■il._ Imm mill- ■will it®IM II■ol, l - --------- IIs1� ■1_II IBONN R■W111 ■' 171 '■ I ■' �_; �" III �� ISIMEMOsl;�1= ��,■tea=�i�i� ■����� jell®III III��®III III■11■111 Ill���lfl_III■11■Ill� i11�11 1� �■ •■ II■YY■II N. MEIN •■ II�11■II �e■ IIl1 �• �I:1®IIIII::111® ®111::1'1■rY■111..:111mm1M11:_IIII■u■IIII::M !Ih■11;:1� - I0 1 :: 10 ■1 :: Is ■1'a 1■ 1 1 :: I! Ell is Ll I'■ is A TA01 1 �=1=1 -■� I■1I=1=Ii I LEFT ELEVATION 2—R'G—ff-mEvA-now ETRIZIGR FINISH LEGEND TEN MILE FRONT ELEVATION I �■e I■f e ■ =11�■�11==11�■�11==11�■�11= lei■iel--lei■iel--lei■�ei- TA01 1■=■1 �1■I■1�NMI1■=■11 1 1■=■1 �1■I■1� 1■=■1 FRONT ELEVATIONN EXTERIOR FINISH LEGEND 7EN MILE FRANKLIN ee■ee■ II■■■11==11■■■11==11■■■11 11■■■11==11■■■11==11■■■11= =1e�■ie 1==1e�■ie 1==1e�■�e l le�■ie 1==1e�■�e 1==1e�■�e 1= Page 31 � � QQ Q T Q T T TA 01- T 0 It .-04 4 1 —AJ�%Cuo��— i� �,.Eq CLURFICKISE-SIDE ELEVATION CLUBMI-t5E-FZ3NT ELEVATION 2 K-Y NOTES "R TEN MILE FRAMKLIN EXTERIOR FINISH LEGUID 3CLURRMISE REIN ELEVATION III= - ------------------ X - Ak"6, ID I CLURKME-SIDE ELEVATION DENFRAL NffrEs 5GLLIB SLOE ELEVATION PARTIAL SIDE ELEVATION AC5.0 60—'BFmusE TAM -------------- --—-------------- H TEN MILE FRANKLIN BERuIIIIIIIIIII ml.T lRompi-m-CLUMUSE as AC2.0 "In Page 32 TA0 ~'t� --E PrLNOIIM5ff11RA 77%CA......E SIDE EEEW[INII GARAGE FRONT ELEVATION-12 RAT bit, O O '3TPICAL UNAGE SIRE EIETARON GARAGE REAR ELEVATION-11 DAY TEN MILE& Fr;nxlcux fiARARE F ELEVATION-12 EAT A'ACCEMBLE EAT KEPIOTES f: .Y�.» IRE GAIIAGE RFAR EIEVARON-12 EAT NAOCESSI D E BAT saENUEIEEu - '!GARAGE FRIINT ELEVATION-d EAT N IEAm"NAIECE ... ,..�. _ AG5.0 GAME FRONT ELEVATION-R EAT N MAwEENAOCE Page 33 City/Agency Comments&Conditions IX. PLANNING DIVISION 1. Future development shall comply with the provisions in the existing Development Agreement(Inst. #2021-082775,H-2020-0046)and the conditions in this report. Preliminary Plat: 2. The final plat shall include the following revisions: a. All street buffers are required to be placed in a common lot or on a permanent dedicated buffer, maintained by the property owner or business owners' association, as set forth in UDC 11-3B- 7C.2b.Required street buffers are a minimum of 20 feet wide along N. Wayfinder Avenue, a future collector street. Street buffers are measured from the back of sidewalk where attached sidewalks are provided and from the back of curb where detached sidewalks are provided per UDC 11-3B-7C.1 a. The Applicant shall depict the 20 foot buffer along Wayfinder Avenue in a common lot or as a permanent easement on the plat. b. The extension of N. Wayfinder Avenue on the east property boundary shall be included in the construction drawings for the first phase of development; or,may be included in a separate submittal to ACHD. *Replace S. Innovation lane with N. Wayfinder Avenue on the plat. c. Wayfinder Avenue shall be constructed to stub to the site's east property line. Construct a temporary cul-de-sac turnaround at the terminus of Wayfinder Avenue. The temporary cul-de- sac turnaround shall be paved with a minimum 50-foot turning radius. If the temporary turnaround extends onto a buildable lot,the entire lot shall be encumbered by an easement and identified on the plat as a non-buildable lot until the street is extended. Install a sign at the terminus of the stub street, stating,"THIS IS A DESIGNATED COLLECTOR ROADWAY. THIS STREET WILL BE EXTENDED AND WIDENDED IN THE FUTURE") shall d. The Applicant shall construct a temporary cul-de-sac turnaround at the terminus of Wayfinder Avenue with a minimum of a 50-foot paved turning radius per ACHD guidelines. e. Depict a minimum 12-foot wide sidewalk, street trees in wells,and pedestrian scale lighting along N.Wayfinder Avenue with street lights in the dry utilities' corridor on either side of the street consistent with Street Section E in the TMISAP(see pg. 3-23). £ A 5-foot wide dry-utilities corridor shall be provided along both sides of N. Wayfinder Avenue; both wet utilities may be located in the street. Streetlights shall be placed in the dry utilities corridor on either side of the street in accord with Street Section E in the TMISAP(pg. 3-23). g. Dry utilities shall be located at the back of the curb in the dry utilities corridor along S. Ten Mile Rd. and W.Franklin Rd. in accord with Street Sections A and B in the TMISAP (pg. 3-22). h. Remove Public Street B from the plat limiting the number of access points on a busy arterial street near the intersection per UDC 11-3A-3,unless otherwise waived by City Council. i. Depict a cross-access easement on Lots 3—9,Block 3 for the right-in/right-out drive aisle on the plat. j. Lot 6,Block 3 shall take access from W.Fred Smith Street; direct lot access to S. Innovation (Wayfinder Avenue) shall be prohibited. k. Depict W. Fred Smith Street connecting from the east and construct Street C and Fred Smith Street as a 36-foot wide local commercial street sections with 2-travel lanes,parking on both Page 34 sides of the roadway,vertical curb, gutter, and bulb-outs at intersections and pedestrian crossings with an 8-foot planter strip and 10-foot wide multi-use pathways on both sides of the roadway on the plat. j. Depict the Irrigation District's easement for the Ten Mile Creek. k. Lot 4 and 5,Block 1 shall remain preserved for the future Civic portion of the site for future development of a multi-modal transit station, in accordance with DA provision 5.1d. 1. Lot 11,Block 3 shall remain preserved to relocate an ACHD pond and/or coordinate with the Meridian Parks Department to determine a future plan for the lot in accordance with DA provision 5.In. m. Lot 10, Block 3 shall remain preserved for the Ten Mile Creek and associated easement. n. Add a note to the plat requiring cross-access for all lots that do not have access to a public street. o. The Applicant shall construct the decorative crossings and the plaza areas as shown in Exhibit C, Section VIII with the commercial development. 3. The landscape plan included in Section VIII.0 shall be revised as follows: a. Street buffers at the required width are required to be placed in a common lot or on a permanent dedicated buffer,maintained by the property owner or business owners' association as set forth in UDC 11-3B-7C.2(see#2a above for required widths). b. Include a detail of the proposed fencing at the time of CZC submittal. e. Depiet a Minimum 5 feet wide detaehed sidewalk along S. Ten Mile Rd. in aeeer-d with 1 >> air d. Depict a micro-path from the plaza area between Street A and Street B to the sidewalk along Ten Mile Road for the future bus stop. e. Depict a minimum 12-foot wide sidewalk, street trees in wells, and pedestrian scale lighting along N. Wayfinder Avenue with street lights in the dry utilities corridor on either side of the street consistent with Street Section E in the TMISAP (see pg. 3-23). f. Depict 10-foot wide detached pathways along both sides of W. Fred Smith Street and Public Street C in accordance with ACHD's adopted Livable Street Performance Measures and UDC 11-3A-5. g. Enhance the street buffers along Ten Mile Road and Franklin Road to align with the TM Center Subdivision directly to the south and meet the guidelines outlined in the TMISAP. h. Enhance the landscaping around the Ten Mile Creek on Lot 10,Block 3 to create an attractive linear open space for the development. i. Construct the plaza areas with the commercial development consistent with the renderings in Exhibit C, Section VIII. 4. The subject property shall be subdivided prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for the development as set forth in the Development Agreement(Inst. #2021-132704,provision#5.1d). 5. Submit an updated Geotechnical Engineering Report prior to or with the first final plat application. 6. The Applicant shall comply with ACHD's conditions of approval. Page 35 7. Construct half plus twelve feet of the fixture collector street(N.Wayfinder Avenue) from the south to the north along the southeast corner property boundary shall be constructed prior to or with the first phase of development in accord with the specifications noted herein. 8. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application shall be submitted for each structure(or group of structures if desired)and approved prior to submittal of application(s)for building permits. The plans submitted shall comply with the design elements of the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan(TMISAP) and the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual(see the Application of Design Elements matrix on pg. 3-49 of the Plan)as required by the Development Agreement. The commercial portion of the development should incorporate similar design elements, colors and materials as the residential portion of the development. Conditional Use Permit: 9. The multi-family development shall have an ongoing obligation to comply with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-27. 10. Add a picnic area that includes tables,benches, and a structure for shade in one of the open space grassy areas to meet the requirements of UDC Code 11-4-3-27.1)for the site at the time of CZC submittal. 11. The multi-family development shall record a legally binding document that states the maintenance and ownership responsibilities for the management of the development, including,but not limited to, structures,parking, common areas, and other development features as set forth in UDC 11-4-3-27F. A recorded copy of said document shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for the development. 12. Comply with building code requirements for separation between structures within the development. 13. The site and/or landscape plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance shall be revised as follows: a. Depict the locations of the property management office,maintenance storage area, central mailbox location(including provisions for parcel mail,that provide safe pedestrian and/or vehicular access),and a directory and map of the development at an entrance or convenient location for those entering the development in accord with UDC 11-4-3-2713.7. c. All transformer and utility vaults and other service areas shall be located in an area not visible from a public street,or shall be fully screened from view from a public street in accord with UDC 11-4-3-27B.2. d. Add a picnic area that includes tables,benches, and a structure for shade in one of the open space grassy areas to meet the requirements of UDC Code 11-4-3-27.D for the site at the time of CZC submittal. g. In phased developments,common open space shall be provided in each phase of the development consistent with the requirements for the size and number of dwelling units as set forth in UDC 11-4-3-27C.3. 13. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application(s) shall be submitted for the multi-family development and approved prior to submittal of application(s) for building permits. The plans submitted shall substantially comply with those approved with this application and with any required modifications noted herein. The design of structures shall comply with the design elements of the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan(TMISAP) (see the Application of Design Elements matrix on pg. 3-49 of the Plan) and the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual. One application may be submitted for the entire multi family development. Page 36 I. PUBLIC WORKS https:llweblink.meridiancily.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=344373&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX J. FIRE DEPARTMENT https:llweblink.meridianciU.ofglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=344378&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX K. POLICE DEPARTMENT https:llweblink.meridiancily.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=344375&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX L. IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT(ITD) https:llweblink.meridiancily.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=344632&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity&cr =1 M. COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST IDAHO(COMPASS) https:llweblink.meridianciU.ofglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=346027&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX N. NAMPA&MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID) https:llweblink.meridianciU.ofglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=346190&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX O. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ) https:llweblink.meridiancily.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=345722&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX P. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT(WASD) https:llweblink.meridianciU.ofglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=347726&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX Q. KUNA SCHOOL DISTRICT https:llweblink.meridiancily.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=344407&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX R. VALLEY REGIONAL TRANSIT https:llweblink.meridiancily.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=345874&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity&cr =1 ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https:llweblink.meridianciU.ofglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=348785&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX Page 37 IX. FINDINGS A. Preliminary Plat(UDC 11-611-6) In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat,the decision- making body shall make the following findings: (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) 1. The plat is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and is consistent with this unified development code; (Ord. 08-1372, 7-8-2008, eff. 7-8-2008) Commission finds the proposed plat is generally in conformance with the UDC if the Applicant complies with the Development Agreement provisions and conditions of approval in Section IX. 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Commission finds public services can be made available to the subject property and will be adequate to accommodate the proposed development. 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the city's capital improvement program; Commission finds there are no roadways, bridges or intersections in the general vicinity that are in the IFYWP or the CIP. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Commission finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development. 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and Commission finds the proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) Commission is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that need to be preserved with this development. B. Conditional Use Permit(UDC 11-511-6E) The Commission shall base its determination on the Conditional Use Permit requests 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. Commission finds that the subject property is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and dimensional and development regulations of the R-40 and C-G zoning districts (see Analysis, Section Vfor more information). 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in accord with the requirements of this Title. Commission finds that the proposed use is consistent with the future land use map designations of MU-COM and Civic and is allowed as a conditional use in UDC Table 11-2B-2 in the R-40 and C-G zoning districts. Page 38 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. Commission finds the proposed design of the development, construction, operation and maintenance should be compatible with the mix of other uses planned for this area and with the intended character of the area and that such uses will not adversely change the character of the area. 4. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. Commission finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the proposed use will not adversely affect other properties in the area. The Commission and Council should weigh any public testimony provided to determine if the development will adversely affect other properties in the vicinity. 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways,streets,schools,parks,police and fire protection,drainage structures,refuse disposal,water, and sewer. Commission finds that essential public services are available to this property and that the use should be adequately served by these facilities. Page 39 C i E IDIAN.;--- Agenda Item Applicant Presentation The Gateway November 6, 2024City Council City of Meridian at 10 Mile Project Location & Background Project Location & Background Approved Site PlanExisting Zoning Development Agreement 585 DUs). -(312 DUsbased on total acreage 15 DUs -range of 8Must have density •preservedCivic Lot to be •per the concept planDevelop the property • Preliminary Plat 6 Common Lots•2 Civic Lots •13 Residential Lots•17 Commercial Lots• R future transit centerArea preserved for •390 Total Units•townhome buildingsstory -Five 3•buildings style apartment -story executive-Six 4•Approx. 16.3 acres•future transit centerArea preserved for •390 Total Units•townhome buildingsstory -Five 3•buildings style apartment -story executive-Six 4•Approx. 16.3 acres•40 Zoning District- R Bike repair station•Dog park•spacesTwo 5,000 SF open •Pickleball court•Fitness center•Swimming pool••Bike repair station•Dog park•spacesTwo 5,000 SF open •Pickleball court•Fitness center•Swimming pool••Amenities –40 Zoning District - R open space standards Exceeds all applicable •open space standards Exceeds all applicable •Open Space Plan –40 Zoning District - C usescommunity serving Neighborhood and •opportunitiesEmployment •focused -Pedestrian•15 buildings proposed•Approx. 22.67 acres•G Zoning District- Site Circulation pedestrian circulationpathways provide Network of sidewalks and pedestrian circulationpathways provide Network of sidewalks and bicycle transportationvehicular, pedestrian, and Roadways corridor provides bicycle transportationvehicular, pedestrian, and Roadways corridor provides Pedestrian Oriented Design Right RIRO–Access C (Future)Wayfinder Full–Access A RIRO-Access B Service) at Accesses A and CImproves operations (Level of •Reduces trips at Accesses A and C•Improves connectivity•Benefitsapproved all accesses. Ada County Highway District •signal.RIRO is located 825 feet north of •Ten Mile Roadpoints into two access points on Consolidating four existing access •FactsService) at Accesses A and CImproves operations (Level of •Reduces trips at Accesses A and C•Improves connectivity•Benefitsapproved all accesses. Ada County Highway District •signal.RIRO is located 825 feet north of •Ten Mile Roadpoints into two access points on Consolidating four existing access •Facts Out (RIRO) Access on Ten Mile Road-In / Right- Right RIRO-Access B Raised median•turn lane -rightSeparate northbound •performance:operations and safety Design features to enhance Raised median•turn lane -rightSeparate northbound •performance:operations and safety Design features to enhance Out Access on Ten Mile Road (Design)-In / Right- Access Locations for Nearby Properties 3 Accesses6 Accesses5 AccessesWayfinderConnection to Accesses + Future 3 Proposed Wayfinder Ave Full AccessIn Access -Out/Left-In/Right-RightOut-In/Right-Rig htOut Access-Right Ten Mile RoadFranklin Road505’825’BA565’680’C390’405’395’335’375’435’520’315’400’625’480’450’ Thank you this project.the City as we continue forward to working with request, and we look Staff supports the Plan. and the Comprehensive comply with the TMISAP been designed to City’s goals, and has is consistent with the The Gateway at 10 Mile W IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Rolling Hill (H-2023-0070) by JD Planning and Consulting, located at 1560 Rolling Hill Dr. Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2023-0070 A. Request: Annexation of 6.90 acres of land from the R-1 zone in Ada County to the C-C (Community Business District) zone to develop two (2) vertically integrated residential structures featuring 90 dwelling units and 20,134 sq. ft. of commercial space. B. Request: Conditional Use Permit to develop one (1) multi-family building consisting of 64 dwelling units on 5.89 acres in the proposed C-C zone. PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE : November 6v 2024 ITEM # ON AGENDA : 6 PROJECT NAME : Rolling Hill ( W202MO70 ) Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify ( Please Print ) HOA ? ( mark X if yes ) If yes , please provide HOA name I owe Amt Loa_ SVIGn TI 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (: /WE T!ANDEPARTMENT REPORT HEARING 11/06/2024 legend ` DATE: C Project Location TO: Mayor and City Council :::Area of Impact '+= City Limits FROM: Bill Parsons,Current Planning C)Analysis ' Supervisor 208-884-5533 bparsons&rneridianci . .or li APPLICANT: Jorre Delgado,JD Planning& e Consulting SUBJECT: H-2023-0070 Rolling Hill-AZ, CUP LOCATION: 1560 Rolling Hill Drive(Parcel# R7555000032) 1520 Rolling Hill Drive ® � �® (Parcel#R7555000041), 1480 Rolling1 Hill Drive(Parcel#R7555000050),4270 Rolling Hill Drive (Parcel #R7555000015)and Parcel #R7555000025 in the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 16,T.3N.,R.lE. I. PROJECT OVERVIEW A. Summary Annexation of 6.90 acres of land from the R-1 zone in Ada County to the C-C (Community Business District district)zone to develop two(2)vertically integrated residential structures featuring 90 dwelling units and 20,134 square feet of commercial space; conditional use permit to develop one (1)multi-family building consisting of 64 dwelling units on 5.89 acres in the proposed C-C zone. NOTE: The CUP is only required the multi-family portion of this development.Vertically integrated residential projects are listed as principally permitted uses in the C-C zone. B. Issues/Waivers Staff acknowledges that this is a challenging project, given the undeveloped surrounding properties, including the out-parcel at the center of this site and the extension of the future collector roadway to the east. Commission and Council should rely on all relevant information when determining if this is in the best interest of the City to annex this property. C. Recommendation Commission recommendation: Denial D. Decision Select: Pending. City of Meridian I Department Report I.Project Overview II. COMMUNITY METRICS Table 1:Land Use Description Details Map Ref. Existing Land Use(s) Single-family Residential and Vacant land - Proposed Land Use(s) Multi-family Development&Vertically Integrated - Residential Existing/Proposed Zoning Estate Residential(Rl)/Community Business District(C- V.A.2 C) Future Land Use Designation Mixed Use-Regional(MU-R) V.A.3 Table 2:Process Facts Description Details Preapplication Meeting date Tuesday,November 14,2023 Neighborhood Meeting 10/25/2023 Site posting date 10/24/2024 Table 3:Community Metrics Agency/Element Description/Issue Reference Ada County Highway District I IILK • Comments Received Yes,Staff Report - • Commission Action Required No ' - • Access One access is proposed via S.Rolling Hill Drive/Local - (existing)via Overland Road from the west;One access is proposed via E.View Circle/Collector(new proposed collector street)from the north;One access is proposed via the future collector to be built(extension of Movado Way) from the east. • Traffic Level of Service See Figure 2 Below ITD Comments Received No III.L Meridian Fire A full fire plan review shall be completed prior to III.0 construction. Meridian Police N/A III.D Meridian Public Works Wastewater See Section IV B;Impacts or Concerns:No III.B Meridian Public Works Water See Section IV B;Impacts or Concerns:No III.B School District(s) III.J • Distance - • Capacity of Schools r - • Number of Students Enrolled - See City/Agency Comments and Conditions Section and public record for all department/agency comments received. City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics Figure 1: One-Mile Radius Existing Condition Metrics Reference Parcel:R7555000050 Date Retrieved:2024 J 9 J 6 Parcel Count Parcel Acreage Infill Indicator: 135 Surrounding Area _ 184 O '� ,p 6 vot City ® City Limits 943 0 932.7 1,3 ■ Not City HouseholdHousehold& Population Growth Households 02020 Population Change:10.3°I° Population ■Growth (Household and Population Change since 2010 Decennial) 5,000 10,000 15,000 Use Types Residential Addresses All Addresses ■ Single-family 3996 30% 23% Multi-family 61 47% ® Commercial Preliminary Plats (last 5-years) Conditional Use Permit(last 5-years) Proposed Proposed Pending Pending Approved Approved j - I 0 500 1000 1500 2000 0 500 1000 1500 ■ Single-family Multi-family City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics 2.00 500 Single-family y Residential a 1.50 Parcel Diversity (A 1.00 U 0Parcel Count 0.50 L U.10 a *Average Acres 0.00 t 0 R-2 R-15 Average Single-family Density by Zoning Average 15.00 ResidentialDensity Q 10.00 E)9.70 Q 5.00 04.23 05.97 6.12 0.00a.00 Dwelling Units I Acre R-2 R-4 R-8 1111-15 Notes: See VI.Additional Notes&Details for Staff Report Maps,Tables,and Charts. Figure 2:ACHD Summary Metrics a Overland Existing Lanes © Planned Lanes 0 Existing Levelof Service Notable ACHD Comments Q (Primary roadway impact) Programmed I FYP Programmed CIP Notes: See VI.Additional Notes&Details for Staff Report Maps,Tables,and Charts. Figure 3:Service Impact Summary ImpactService . . Read Marginal Caution r�aA � y y�� o fey �� �5 Qa� Low o0 00 at Q- Notes: See VI.Additional Notes&Details for Staff Report Maps,Tables,and Charts. City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics III. STAFF ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code(UDC) A. General Overview Land Use: The Future Land Use Map(FLUM) contained in the Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Mixed Use—Regional(MU-R). The purpose of the MU-R designation is to provide a mix of employment,retail,and residential dwellings and public uses near major arterial intersections. The intent is to integrate a variety of uses together,including residential,and to avoid predominantly single-use developments such as a regional retail center with only restaurants and other commercial uses.Developments should be anchored by uses that have a regional draw with the appropriate supporting uses. The developments are encouraged to be designed consistent with the conceptual MU-R plan. The site is currently surrounded by R1 and RUT residential county properties to the north,east, and west,with a few single-family residents remaining along Rolling Hill Drive&E.View Circle. Additionally,commercial space is located at the end of Rolling Hill Drive, including a Top Golf facility,commercial office,restaurants,and Eagle View Apartments comprising 396 units. To the south directly across Overland Road are Silverstone Apartments consisting of 312 residential units and Movado Village Apartments consisting of 50 residential units. Furthermore,the property on the northwest corner of Rolling Hill Drive and Overland(abutting this project)is an active commercial roofing company located in the C-G zoning district. The Applicant proposes to develop the site with two vertically integrated residential buildings, which include 20,134 square feet of commercial space and 90 residential dwelling units,and one (1)multi-family building consisting of 64 dwelling units(154 total units). The site is located near S. Eagle Rd. and E. Overland Rd., a major arterial intersection, and the Eagle Rd./I-84 interchange. The proposed commercial space is designed to offer the owner flexibility to divide the spaces as needed for future tenants,who will provide employment opportunities and services for residents with this development and the surrounding area. According to the Applicant's narrative,future tenants proposed for the commercial spaces will include boutique retail shops, restaurants, coffee shops,and medical and business offices. Additionally,Pedestrian walkways are proposed for interconnectivity within the overall site area. A Mixed-Use Regional project should demonstrate a positive integration with the surrounding properties, offering a blend of residential, commercial, and recreational spaces that align with the overall regional development vision. The purpose of MU-R is to foster a sense of community and enhance the functionality of the area. However, a notable issue with the proposed development is the creation of a county enclave that lacks seamless integration with the project. Additionally, the disconnect with the property to the east presents several concerns. The development, as currently designed,seems to create a physical or functional boundary that isolates the eastern property,rather than encouraging a continuous flow between the properties including the surrounding area. This lack of integration may hinder interaction, disrupt cohesive infrastructure,and prevent coordinated land uses, causing a sense of isolation,particularly for the county enclave,from overall broader regional growth dynamics. Furthermore, with approximately 760 multi family units already within the vicinity, Commission and Council should evaluate whether the City necessitates additional multi family housing in this area. In reviewing development applications,the following items will be considered in all Mixed- Use areas,per the Comprehensive Plan(pg.3-13,prior to the March 5,2024 Revisions): (Staff's analysis in italics) • "A mixed-use project should include at least three types of land uses. Exceptions maybe granted for smaller sites on a case-by-case basis. This land use is not intended for high density residential development alone." City of Meridian I Department Report 0. IV. City/Agency Comments&Conditions The proposed development includes a vertically integrated residential project and a multi family residential development(i.e. apartment), which will add to the variety of uses in the larger MU-R designated area to the north and south consisting of office, retail, entertainment, restaurants, hotel uses, and multi family residential. • "Where appropriate,higher density and/or multi-family residential development is encouraged for projects with the potential to serve as employment destination centers and when the project is adjacent to US 20/26, SH-55, SH-16 or SH-69." The proposed multi family high-density development should provide housing options in close proximity to nearby employment uses in the immediate area. • "Mixed Use areas are typically developed under a master or conceptual plan; during an annexation or rezone request, a development agreement will typically be required for developments with a Mixed-Use designation." A site plan was submitted with the proposed annexation application for the subject property, which is located within the MU-R designation.It is recommended that a Development Agreement be included as a provision of annexation, tying future development to this plan and adhering to the general guidelines for mixed-use developments, specifically the MU-R designation. • "In developments where multiple commercial and/or office buildings are proposed,the buildings should be arranged to create some form of common,usable area,such as a plaza green space." The site plan depicts a common open space area and plaza area adjacent to Building C that appears to meet this guideline. The common open space and plaza area are counted towards the open space requirements for the proposed multi family development. • "The site plan should depict a transitional use and/or landscaped buffering between commercial and existing low-or medium-density residential development." Multi family residential and commercial uses are proposed on this site, which is adjacent to existing rural residential properties. The proposed development will serve as a transition and buffer to commercial uses on the west and the out parcel in the center of this development. Additionally, a 25 foot wide landscaped buffer is required along the northern and western boundaries of the site, where it borders existing residential areas, in accordance with the C-C zoning district regulations. • "Community-serving facilities such as hospitals,clinics, churches, schools,parks,daycares, civic buildings, or public safety facilities are expected in larger mixed-use developments." No such uses are specifically proposed in this development—the tenants of the commercial spaces are unknown at this time; however, St. Luke's hospital, daycare, and other medical offices are in the immediate area. • "Supportive and proportional public and/or quasi-public spaces and places including but not limited to parks,plazas, outdoor gathering areas, open space, libraries, and schools are expected; outdoor seating areas at restaurants do not count." An outdoor plaza/gathering area and common grass area are depicted on the conceptual development plan between Building C on the western portion of the site. Details should be submitted with development of these buildings that demonstrate compliance with this guideline. • "Mixed-use areas should be centered around spaces that are well-designed public and quasi- public centers of activity. Spaces should be activated and incorporate permanent design City of Meridian I Department Report 0. IV. City/Agency Comments&Conditions elements and amenities that foster a wide variety of interests ranging from leisure to play. These areas should be thoughtfully integrated into the development and further placemaking opportunities considered." The proposed conceptual development plan includes a plaza/gathering area and a common grassy area between Building C on the western portion of the site. These areas are intended to serve as the heart of the development,providing a focal point for community interaction. The site/landscape plan features artistic bench seating adjacent to the green space, offering an area for leisure and recreation. Further amenities for the multi family development include a pool and bike repair station. Additionally, a pedestrian circulation network is proposed around the perimeter of the overall development and throughout the site, enhancing pedestrian walkability within the development and to Overland Road only. Furthermore, a 10 foot pathway is required along Overland Road and the northern boundary adjacent to Five Mile Creek. However, there will be a gap along Overland Road in front of the out parcel in the center of this development, which is not preferred. • "All mixed-use projects should be directly accessible to neighborhoods within the section by both vehicles and pedestrians." The proposed development is directly accessible by vehicle to residents to the north via S. Rolling Hill Dr and E. View Circle, with a proposed connection across the canal. A future collector road, Movado Way, will bisect the northeast corner of this site. The Applicant has depicted cross-access to the County enclave in the center of the proposed project, and has illustrated how this parcel could be developed in the future. However, there are no pedestrian pathway stubs to this site from the adjacent County and commercial properties. Although the Applicant proposes a 10 foot pathway along Overland Road and a pathway along the northern boundary of this site adjacent to the Five Mile Creek, these pathways do not connect to any destinations and are stubbed to the surrounding properties. The proposed pathways do not link the mixed-use project with nearby parks, schools, shopping areas, or other neighborhood amenities, except for the potential future commercial tenants in the proposed vertically integrated buildings.A mixed-use project should integrate seamlessly with the surrounding area to enhance connectivity,foster community, and improve the local environment. However, the proposed development isolates itself from the surrounding area and fails to provide integration or connectivity with its surroundings. S. Rolling Hill Dr. is currently a substandard street and lacks pedestrian facilities;ACHD is requiring off-site improvements with this application consisting of a sidewalk along one side of Rolling Hill and pavement widening. Furthermore, a portion of the future collector to be built on the east is contingent on the development of the properties to the east and north. According to ACHD's Staff Report, the Applicant is required to construct View Circle as % of a 36 foot wide residential collector roadway with curb, gutter, and a 10 foot wide pathway as required by the Meridian Pathway Master Plan. Staff recommends that the proposed pathway provided along the northern boundary adjacent to the Five Mile Creek be widened to 10 feet in width as required by the Meridian Master Pathways Plan. • "Alleys and roadways should be used to transition from dissimilar land uses,and between residential densities and housing types." A 25 foot wide densely landscaped buffer and a driveway is proposed along the western and northern boundary of the site as a transition and buffer between existing rural residential properties and the proposed high-density multi family residential development. A 5-foot landscape buffer is proposed along the eastern boundary of the site adjacent to the parking stalls. The Applicant illustrates an approximately 40 foot wide landscape buffer on the property to the east along with the layout for the potential future collector roadway. This is concerning because City of Meridian I Department Report 0. IV. City/Agency Comments&Conditions this configuration could make it difficult to integrate with the surrounding properties as envisioned by the Plan. • "Because of the parcel configuration within Old Town,development is not subject to the Mixed-Use standards listed herein." The subject property is not located in Old Town; therefore, this item is not applicable. In reviewing development applications, the following items will be considered in MU-R areas, per the Comprehensive Plan fts. 3-16 thru 3-17): • Development should generally comply with the general guidelines for development in all Mixed-Use areas. Staffs analysis on the proposed project's compliance with these guidelines is included above. • Residential uses should comprise a minimum of 10%of the development area at gross densities ranging from 6 to 40 units/acre. There is neither a minimum nor maximum imposed on non-retail commercial uses such as office, clean industry,or entertainment uses. The total development area consists of 5.89 acres; the multi family residential and vertically integrated residential project consists of 5.89 acres in accord with this guideline.Multi family apartments are proposed at a gross density of 26.15 units/acre, which falls within the desired density range. • Retail commercial uses should comprise a maximum of 50%of the development area. A mix of non-residential commercial uses will be provided on 5%of the development area in accord with this guideline. Retail uses are expected to comprise only a small portion of the development. Where the development proposes public and quasi-public uses to support the development,the developer may be eligible for additional area for retail development(beyond the allowed 50%), based on the ratios below: • For land that is designated for a public use, such as a library or school,the developer is eligible for a 2:1 bonus. That is to say, if there is a one-acre library site planned and dedicated,the project would be eligible for two additional acres of retail development. • For active open space or passive recreation areas, such as a park,tot-lot, or playfield, the developer is eligible for a 2:1 bonus.That is to say, if the park is 10 acres in area,the site would be eligible for 20 additional acres of retail development. • For plazas that are integrated into a retail project,the developer would be eligible for a 6:1 bonus. Such plazas should provide a focal point(such as a fountain, statue, and water feature),seating areas,and some weather protection. That would mean that by providing a half-acre plaza,the developer would be eligible for three additional acres of retail development. This guideline is not applicable as no public/quasi-public uses are proposed in the MU-R designated area on this site. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ANALYSIS(UDC) Annexation: The proposed annexation is for 6.90-acres of land with a C-C (Community Business District)zoning district. The proposed use of the property includes multi-family residential apartments and a vertically integrated residential project.A multi-family development requires approval of a CUP in the C-C zoning district and is subject to the specific use standards outlined in UDC 11-4-3-27; a vertically integrated residential project is principally permitted in the C-C zoning district and is subject to the specific use standards outlined in UDC 11-4-3-41. The proposed C-C zoning district is consistent with the associated MU-R FLUM designation as are the proposed uses. City of Meridian I Department Report 0. IV. City/Agency Comments&Conditions The property is contiguous to City annexed land and is within the City's Area of City Impact boundary. A legal description and exhibit map of the overall annexation area is included in Section VII.K. The City may require a development agreement(DA)in conjunction with an annexation pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-6511A. Staff recommends a DA is required with this application, containing the provisions noted in Section IV.G., as discussed herein. Conditional Use Permit(CUP): A CUP is requested for a multi-family development comprising of one(1)multi-family building consisting of 64 dwelling units on 5.89 acres of land in the proposed C-C zoning district.Unit types consist of 94 1-bedroom and 60 2-bedroom units. The proposed gross density of the development is 26.15 units per acre,which is consistent with that desired in MU-R designated areas. Table 4:Proiect Overview Description Details History None Phasing Plan No Phasing Plans are proposed Residential Units 94 1-Bedroom units&60 2-Bedroom units; 154 Multi-Family units Open Space 5.89 Acres(256,568 SF)/10%=25,657 SF/50%of Buffers=8,488/250 SF Per Unit=38,500 SF Amenities 4 Amenities provided(Fitness Center,Plaza,Pool,Bike Repair Station) Physical Features Five Mile Creek runs along the northern boundary of the site Acreage 6.90 acres Annexation;5.89 Conditional Use Permit Lots 5 Lots Density Gross Density 22.31 Net Density 26.15 Figure 4: Proiect Metrix Reference Parcel:R7555000050 Date Retrieved:2024 9 6 Project Facts Acreage by Type Primary Zoning % 0 Non Comp Plan Designation Res., Mixed use Regional 0.5 Residential Unit Types 0 Single-family ■ Res., 41M C-C 154 Multi-family 5.9 10090 Allowed Density Ranges Dwelling Unit Allowance Trip Generation Averages _ 50.0 1,500 bm 8,000 r� C 40.0 r_ r_ 6,000 CO � 30.0 bn DDD o N o 12 4,000 N c 20.0 -p a 10.0 03 500 a 2,000 E _ 0 0.0 - - ~ - QProposed Project Notes: See VT. Additional Notes&Details for Staff Report Maps,Tables,and Charts. B. Site Development and Use Analysis City of Meridian I Department Report 0. IV. City/Agency Comments&Conditions 1. Existing Structures/Site Improvements(UDC 11-1): There are four(4) existing structures on this site(5 parcels total); the four(4)homes and accessory structures should be removed prior to development occurring on the property. Additionally, the buildings currently reside on property lines. Staff recommends that the Applicant modify the property boundaries by submitting a Property Boundary Adjustment (PBA) application to the Planning Division, to be processed concurrently with the future CZC application. 2. Proposed Use Analysis(UDC 11-2): The proposed multi-family development comprises one(1)building(64 units),including a vertically integrated residential project in Building type B &C,totaling 20,134 square feet of commercial space featuring 90 dwelling units . The multi-family development requires a CUP,while the vertically integrated residential project is a principally permitted use in the C- C (Community Business district)zoning district, in accordance with the Allowed Uses listed in the Commercial Districts Table 11-2A-2. A multi-family development is subject to the specific standards in UDC 11-4-3-27 and a vertically integrated residential project is subject to the specific use standards in UDC 11-4-3-41. 3. Specific Use Standards(UDC 11-4-3): 11-4-3-27.Multi-family development. Multi-family developments with multiple properties shall be considered as one(1)property for the purpose of implementing the standards set forth in this section. A. Purpose. 1. To implement the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan: a. Plan for safe,attractive,and well-maintained neighborhoods that have ample open space, and generous amenities that provide varied lifestyle choices. b. Require the design and construction of pathways connections, easy pedestrian and bicycle access to parks, safe routes to schools,and the incorporation of usable open c. space with quality amenities as part of new multi-family residential and mixed-use developments. 2. To create multi-family housing that is safe and convenient and that enhances the quality of life of its residents. a. To create quality buildings and designs for multi-family development that enhance the visual character of the community. b. To create building and site design in multi-family development that is sensitive to and well-integrated with the surrounding neighborhood. c. To create open space areas that contribute to the aesthetics of the community,provide an attractive setting for buildings,and provide safe, interesting outdoor spaces for residents. B. Site design. (See Staffs analysis in bold) 1. Residential buildings shall provide a minimum setback of ten(10)feet unless a greater setback is otherwise required by this title and/or Title 10 of this Code. Building setbacks shall take into account windows, entrances,porches and patios,and how they impact adjacent properties. The Applicant has notprovided setback measurements from the that the buildings may meet the setback in some areas. The Applicant should include the setback with the plans submitted with the CZC application. 2. All on-site service areas, outdoor storage areas,waste storage,disposal facilities, and transformer and utility vaults shall be located in an area not visible from a public street, or shall be fully screened from view from a public street. The site plan depicts screened City of Meridian I Department Report 0. IV. City/Agency Comments&Conditions trash enclosures not visible from a public street;all proposed transformer/utility vaults and other service areas shall comply with this requirement. 3. A minimum of eighty(80) square feet of private,usable open space shall be provided for each unit. This requirement can be satisfied through porches,patios, decks, and/or enclosed yards. Landscaping,entryway and other accessways shall not count toward this requirement. In circumstances where strict adherence to such standard would create inconsistency with the purpose statements of this section,the Director may consider an alternative design proposal through the alternative compliance provisions as set forth in Section 11-513-5 of this title. The floor plans submitted with this application depict patios and balconies,however, the plans do not include measurements for the square footage of the patio/balconies. The site plan indicates that a minimum of 50 sf ofpatio or/balcony space is provided for each dwelling unit. While the proposed 50 sf meets +the requirements for Buildings C&B(as part of the vertically integrated residential project), it does not meet the requirement for the multi family Building A, which requires 80 sf of private open space. The Applicant may also request Alternative Compliance to allow the 50-square-foot patios, ensuring a consistent design throughout the development, as outlined in Section 11-5B-5 of the UDC. Staff recommends that the Applicant include the patio and balcony square footage measurements on the floor plans with the future CZC submittal or apply for Alternative Compliance as outlined in UDC 11-5B-5. 4. For the purposes of this section,vehicular circulation areas,parking areas,and private usable open space shall not be considered common open space. The applicant has included landscaping adjacent to parking areas and landscape islands within the parking lot as part of the common open space calculations in the open space exhibit. 5. No recreational vehicles, snowmobiles,boats or other personal recreation vehicles shall be stored on the site unless provided for in a separate,designated and screened area. The Applicant shall adhere to this standard. 6. The parking shall meet the requirements set forth in Chapter 3, "Regulations Applying To All Districts",of this title. 7. Developments with twenty(20)units or more shall provide the following: a. A property management office. Located in clubhouse in Building C b. A maintenance storage area.Located in clubhouse in Building C c. A central mailbox location,including provisions for parcel mail,that provide safe pedestrian and/or vehicular access. Located in clubhouse in Building C d. A directory and map of the development at an entrance or convenient location for those entering the development. Depict on site plan submitted with the future CZC application. The site plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application should depict the location of these items in accord with this standard. C. Common open space design requirements. 1. The total baseline land area of all qualified common open space shall equal or exceed ten City of Meridian I Department Report 0. IV. City/Agency Comments&Conditions (10)percent of the gross land area for multi-family developments of five(5) acres or more. When multi-family is approved concurrently with single-family,the minimum open space requirements in Section 11-3G-3 shall apply to the gross land area of entire development. Open Space requirements differ for vertically integrated residential projects and multi family residential projects. Because the Applicant is requesting annexation for the subject site,Staff is evaluating the project as a whole and calculating the open space based on the multi family requirements in the UDC. The site consists of 5.89 acres, requiring 0.589 acres (25,657 square feet) of baseline open space according to the standard. The Applicant is proposing 10%of the baseline open space that meets this requirement. 2. All common open space shall meet the following standards: a. The development plan shall demonstrate that the open space has been integrated into the development as a priority and not for the use of land after all other elements of the development have been designed. Open space areas that has been given priority in the development design have: (1) Direct pedestrian access; (2) High visibility; (3) Comply with Crime Prevention through Environmental Design(CTED) standards; and (4) Support a range of leisure and play activities and uses.Irregular shaped, disconnected or isolated open spaces shall not meet this standard. b. Open space shall be accessible and well connected throughout the development. This quality can be shown with open spaces that are centrally located within the development, accessible by pathway and visually accessible along collector streets or as a terminal view from a street. c. The open space promotes the health and well-being of its residents. Open space shall support active and passive uses for recreation, social gathering and relaxation to serve the development. Staff finds the proposed open space areas within the multi family development comply with these standards by providing open space that is well connected, highly visible, and promotes health and well-being by supporting a range of leisure and play activities with the proposed amenities and general design of the open space. See the submitted landscape plan and rendering for a visual of compliance with this standard 3. Alternative compliance is available for the standards listed in subsections(C)1 and(C)2 above,if a project has a unique targeted demographic;utilizes other place-making design elements in Old-Town or mixed-use future land use designations with collectively integrated and shared open space areas. 4. All multi-family projects over twenty(20)units shall provide at least one(1) common grassy area integrated into the site design allowing for general activities by all ages. This area may be included in the minimum required open space total. Projects that provide safe access to adjacent public parks or parks under a common HOA,without crossing an arterial roadway, are exempt from this standard. City of Meridian I Department Report 0. IV. City/Agency Comments&Conditions a. Minimum size of common grassy area shall be at least five thousand(5,000)square feet in area. This area shall increase proportionately as the number of units increase and shall be commensurate to the size of the multi-family development as determined by the decision-making body.Where this area cannot be increased due to site constraints, it may be included elsewhere in the development. b. Alternative compliance is available for the standards listed in subsections(C)1 and (C)2 above,if a project has a unique targeted demographic;utilizes other place- making design elements in Old-Town or mixed-use future land use designations with collectively integrated and shared open space areas. The submitted plans feature only one common grassy open space area of 5,000 square feet in size. 5. In addition to the baseline open space requirement,a minimum area of outdoor common open space shall be provided as follows: a. One hundred fifty(150)square feet for each unit containing five hundred(500)or less square feet of living area. None of the units are below 500 square feet(sf.)of living area. b. Two hundred fifty(250)square feet for each unit containing more than five hundred (500) square feet and up to one thousand two hundred(1,200)square feet of living area. There are 154 units proposed between 500 and 1,200 sf,•therefore, a total of 0.88 acres (38,500 square feet) of common open space is required. c. Three hundred fifty(350) square feet for each unit containing more than one thousand two hundred(1,200) square feet of living area. None of the units are above 1,200 square feet of living area. At a minimum, a total of 64,157 s. (or 1.47-acres) of outdoor common open space is required to be provided in the proposed development. A total of approximately 63,000 square feet(or 1.45-acres)is proposed to be provided less than UDC standards. As mentioned above, the Applicant included open space adjacent to the parking and landscape islands within the parking lot, which are not usable for residents. Staff supports the slight decrease in the outdoor common open space provided since the vertically integrated residential project is not required to meet this requirement for 90 of the 154 residential units. Furthermore,the Applicant has submitted a plan that illustrates how the out parcel in the center of this development could potentially be developed in the future. The site plan includes an additional 161-bedroom units and 16 2-bedroom units, which would require approximately an additional 9,157 square feet of outdoor common open space. A large green space is proposed to the north that appears to meet the overall requirement for future development. Overall,Staff finds that the proposed qualified open space complies with the standards in 11-4-3-27C. 6. Common open space shall be not less than four hundred(400) square feet in area, and shall have a minimum length and width dimension of twenty(20)feet. The Applicant included areas that do not meet this requirement as part of the common open space calculations. Staff has excluded these areas from the common open space count. 7. In phased developments, common open space shall be provided in each phase of the development consistent with the requirements for the size and number of dwelling units. Staff is not aware of any phasing for the proposed multi family project. City of Meridian I Department Report 0. IV. City/Agency Comments&Conditions 8. Unless otherwise approved through the conditional use process,common open space areas shall not be adjacent to collector or arterial street buffers unless separated from the street by a berm or constructed barrier at least four(4)feet in height,with breaks in the berm or barrier to allow for pedestrian access. The Applicant is not proposing any common open space areas adjacent to E. Overland Road(arterial roadway). 9. Buffer(s): One hundred(100)percent of the landscape buffer along collector streets and fifty(50)percent of the landscape buffer along arterial streets that meet the enhanced buffer requirements below may count towards the required baseline open space. a. Enhanced landscaping as set forth in Article 11-3B,Landscaping Requirements; b. Multi-use pathways; c. Enhanced amenities with social interaction characteristics; d. Enhanced context with the surroundings. ➢ Enhanced landscaping: A 35 feet landscape buffer is required along E. Overland Road, as it is designated as an entry corridor. The Applicant counts 50%of the landscape buffer along E. Overland Road(arterial roadway) towards the baseline open space requirement. The proposed landscape buffer features a dry stream bed design with boulders and shrubs north of the 10 foot wide detached pathway, with trees located on the south side adjacent to E. Overland Road. Staff finds that the proposed denser plantings meet the enhanced landscaping as outlined in UDC H- 3B-7. Staff recommends that the Applicant speck the type of lawn and dry creek rock in the plant schedule on the landscape plan. ➢ Multi-use pathways(UDC 11-3A-5): Goals 4.04.OIA and Goal 4.04.02 of the Comprehensive Plan emphasize the importance of ensuring that new development and subdivisions connect to the surrounding pathway system and link pathways to important pedestrian generators, environment features, historic landmarks,public facilities, Town Centers, and business districts. The Applicant proposes a pathway along Five Mile Creek on the northern portion of the site, with trees and shrubs lining both sides. As noted above, the pathway should be widened to 10 feet in width as required by the Meridian Master Pathways Plan. Additionally, a 10 foot wide pathway is proposed along E. Overland Road,providing access to key areas within the development. However, there will be a gap along Overland Road in front of the outparcel at the center of this development, which is not ideal. Although the pathways are designed for walking,jogging, cycling, or other forms of active transportation, the pathway along Five Mile Creek does not extend beyond this site. Despite these limitations, Staff finds that the Applicant meets the intent of this requirement. ➢ Enhanced amenities with social interaction characteristics: The Applicant is proposing a plaza area and open grassy space adjacent to Building C, as well as a pool adjacent to Building A, to encourage social interaction among residents,future commercial tenants, and visitors. These amenities should be designed to be strategically placed to draw people in and create a sense of community. Staff believes that the Applicant meets the intent of this requirement. ➢ Enhanced context with the surroundings: The Applicant has designed the buffer zones to complement the existing neighborhood and adjacent properties as much as City of Meridian I Department Report 0. IV. City/Agency Comments&Conditions possible. The proposed landscaping and amenities aim to create a smooth transition between different land uses, considering factors like views, access points, and neighborhood connectivity. As mentioned above, Staff acknowledges that this is a challenging project, given the undeveloped surrounding properties, including the out parcel at the center of this site and the future collector roadway. Commission and Council should rely on all relevant information when determining if this is the right timing for this project. D. Site development amenities. 1. All multi-family developments shall provide for quality of life,open space and recreation amenities to meet the particular needs of the residents as follows: a. Quality of life. (1) Clubhouse. (2) Fitness facilities. (3) Enclosed bike storage. (4) Public art such as a statue. (5) Dog park with waste station. (6) Commercial outdoor kitchen. (7) Fitness course. (8) Enclosed storage b. Open space. (1) Community garden. (2) Ponds or water features. (3) Plaza. (4) Picnic area including tables,benches,landscaping and a structure for shade. C. Recreation. (1) Pool. (2) Walking trails. (3) Children's play structures. (4) Sports courts. d. Multi-modal amenity standards. (1) Bicycle repair station. (2) Park and ride lot. (3) Sheltered transit stop. (4) Charging stations for electric vehicles. 2. The number of amenities shall depend on the size of multi-family development as follows: a. For multi-family developments with less than twenty(20)units,two(2) amenities shall be provided from two(2) separate categories. b. For multi-family development between twenty(20)and seventy-five(75)units, three(3) amenities shall be provided,with one(1)from each category. City of Meridian I Department Report 0. IV. City/Agency Comments&Conditions C. For multi-family development with seventy-five(75)units or more,four(4) amenities shall be provided,with at least one (1)from each category. d. For multi-family developments with more than one hundred(100)units,the decision-making body shall require additional amenities commensurate to the size of the proposed development. 3. The decision-making body shall be authorized to consider other improvements in addition to those provided under this subsection D,provided that these improvements provide a similar level of amenity. As noted above,Staff is evaluating the project as a whole and calculating the site amenities based on the multi family requirements in the UDC. To satisfy the specific use standards for the proposed 154 multi family units the decision-making body may deem if the proposed amenities for the multi family development are sufficient. According to the submitted plans and narrative, the applicant believes they have included four qualifying amenities,each from a different category. The proposed amenities consist of the following: ➢ Swimmingpool ➢ Fitness center ➢ 10 foot wide pathway that runs along the Ten Mile Creek ➢ Bike repair station All amenities are located within the central open space lot adjacent to Buildings A and C. Staff recommends that the Applicant add a picnic area that includes tables,benches,and a structure for shade in the open space grassy area by the pool to enhance recreational options for the residents. Overall,the proposed amenities satisfy the required standards. E. Landscaping requirements. 1. Development shall meet the minimum landscaping requirements in accord with Chapter 3, "Regulations Applying To All Districts", of this Title. ➢ Landscape buffers along streets: Required street buffer widths are as follows: 35- foot along E. Overland Road(arterial roadway), 20 foot along S. Rolling Hill Drive (local street), 20 foot along E. View Circle(future collector—north), and 20 foot along N.Movado Way(future collector-east). The Applicant is depicting a 5-foot wide landscape buffer on the east side adjacent to the parking and illustrating an approximate 44 foot wide buffer with the new collector street on the property to the east. A calculations table is included on the landscape plan submitted with this application demonstrating compliance with the requirements outlined in UDC 11-3B- 7. ➢ Parking lot landscaping: The landscape plan appears to meet the requirements outlined in UDC 11-3B-8 for all perimeter and internal landscaping planters. ➢ Landscape buffers to adjoining uses: The landscape plan appears to comply with the requirements outlined in UDC 11-3B-9. ➢ Tree preservation UDC 11-3B-10: Mitigation shall be required for all existing trees four-inch caliper or greater that are removed from the site with equal replacement of the total calipers lost on site up to an amount of one hundred(100) percent replacement(Example: Two (2) ten-inch caliper trees removed may be mitigated with four 5-inch caliper trees,five(5)four-inch caliper trees, or seven (7) three-inch caliper trees). Deciduous specimen trees four-inch caliper or greater may City of Meridian I Department Report 0. IV. City/Agency Comments&Conditions count double towards total calipers lost, when planted at entryways, within common open space, and when used as focal elements in landscape design. No mitigation is required in the following: (I)Existing prohibited trees within the property boundary of the project, (2)Existing dead, dying, or hazardous trees certified prior to removal by the City of Meridian Parks Department Arborist, (3)Trees that are required to be removed by another governmental agency having jurisdiction over the project. Staff recommends that the Applicant include tree mitigation notes on the Landscape plan submitted with thefuture CZC Application. ➢ Pathway landscaping: The landscape plan appears to comply with the requirements outlined in UDC 11-3B-12. 2. All street facing elevations shall have landscaping along their foundation. The foundation landscaping shall meet the following minimum standards: a. The landscaped area shall be at least three(3)feet wide. b. For every three(3)linear feet of foundation,an evergreen shrub having a minimum mature height of twenty-four(24)inches shall be planted. C. Ground cover plants shall be planted in the remainder of the landscaped area. The submitted landscape plans indicate that the Applicant is in compliance with this standard. F. Maintenance and ownership responsibilities.All multi-family developments shall record legally binding documents that state the maintenance and ownership responsibilities for the management of the development,including,but not limited to, structures,parking, common areas, and other development features. The applicant shall comply with this requirement and provide said document at the time of CZC submittal. G. Police access under exigent circumstances.Multifamily developments with units that take access via secured common corridors shall install and maintain a keyless entry system, or suitable alternative,to provide police access to the common corridors under exigent circumstances. The keyless entry system or alternative shall be subject to review and approval by the Meridian Police Department. The Applicant should work with the Police Dept. on a plan for emergency police access into each building entry point using a multi-technology keypad. C. Design Standards Analysis 1. Existing structure and Site Design Standards (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-19): A. Purpose. 1. Encourage site design that provides an interconnected network of walkways,pathways, City of Meridian I Department Report 0. IV. City/Agency Comments&Conditions streets,and/or drive aisles that combined promote pedestrian and vehicular mobility within the development and connect to adjacent developments. 2. To facilitate the efficient movement of traffic into, out of, and through a site,protect pedestrian and bicycle users, establish an aesthetically consistent street presence and limit the visual impacts of large parking areas on a site. The proposed multi family and vertically integrated residential project incorporates a thoughtfully designed network of internal walkways,pathways, and drive aisles that enhance mobility and connectivity within the development. The site layoutprioritizes pedestrian access, with pathways that link key areas within the development, including residential units, commercial spaces, and community amenities. The proposed pathway along E. Overland extends outward to connect with existing sidewalks between neighborhoods and the commercial development to the east. However,Staff finds that if the surrounding properties were developed,it would create a more seamless transition with defined pedestrian routes, further ensuring safety, and accessibility, and promoting a walkable, interconnected community environment. The site layout includes well placed access points and drive aisles that facilitate smooth vehicular movement, reducing congestion and providing clear entry and exit routes. Parking areas are strategically placed to minimize visual impact,incorporating landscape buffers, trees, and planters that maintain an attractive street presence. Additionally, the Applicant has extended the drive aisles and pedestrian connections for cross-access to the out parcel within the center of this development. Staff would like to see the drive aisles stubbed to this parcel line-up directly across from each other for easier vehicle maneuvering. Furthermore,Staff recommends that the Applicant revise the landscape plan to include cross-access to the outparcel to match the site plan. Goal 2.01.01K of the Comprehensive Plan emphasizes strategically locating higher-density housing near key corridors with existing or planned transit routes. This site is located within a third of a mile from bus stops to the west at the northeast and southeast corners of Overland and Eagle Road(H-55), as well as at the southwest and northwest corners of Overland Road and Cloverdale. Additionally, a project to the east was recently approved by the City of Boise,which supports the addition of a new bus stop between the project site and Cloverdale. Furthermore,this development is near employment centers and commercial areas,reducing commute times and supporting a potential live-work environment in the future. Goal 2.01.02D of the Comprehensive Plan emphasizes incorporating design elements that ensure a safe, attractive, and well-maintained neighborhood. The development includes ample open spaces, such as landscaped green areas,a plaza, and pool,which provides residents with spaces for recreation and relaxation. Amenities, such as walking paths,a fitness center, a bike repair station, and social gathering areas, are integrated to support a variety of lifestyles. Overall,the development,along with the future commercial tenant spaces,will promote an inclusive community environment that caters to diverse needs and preferences. 2. Parking(UDC 11-3Q: Off-street vehicle parking is required for the proposed multi-family dwellings and vertically integrated residential project as set forth in UDC Table 11-3C-6. ➢ Residential parking analysis Based on(24)2-bedroom units and(40) 1-bedroom units for the multi-family portion of the development,a minimum of 114 parking spaces are required,including six(6)spaces City of Meridian I Department Report 0. IV. City/Agency Comments&Conditions for guest parking,with 64 of those in a covered carport or garage. Accessible parking is required in accord with ADA standards. Based on(36) 2-bedroom units and(54) 1-bedroom units for the vertically integrated residential project portion of the development,a minimum of 108 parking spaces are required. Accessible parking is required in accord with ADA standards. A total of 281 spaces are proposed,including 125 covered spaces, exceeding the minimum requirement(222 required). However,the Applicant is proposing eleven(11) compact stalls on the west side of the out-parcel. Staff recommends that the Applicant shift Building C and the associated parking 2 -feet to the west, as there is sufficient space within the 20-foot buffer required adjacent to Rolling Hill Drive. ➢ Bicycle parking analysis Based on 281 vehicle parking spaces, a minimum of eleven(11)bicycle parking spaces should be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C (30 bicycle space are provided). Five(5)bicycle racks capable of holding a minimum of six(6) bicycles, are provided throughout the development for residents and guests in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C. 3. Building Elevations(Comp Plan,Architectural Standards Manual): Goals 5.01.021) and 5.01.02A of the Comprehensive Plan emphasize the importance of building design and landscaping in buffering, screening,beautifying, and integrating commercial,multifamily, and parking areas with existing neighborhoods. The schematic renderings for the proposed 4-story structures,detailed in Section V.J,reveal a design utilizing a mix of brick,metal siding,and stucco and fiber cement accents in a neutral color scheme. The final design of all buildings must comply with the standards outlined in the Architectural Standards Manual. The applicant has revised the elevations to better align with the surrounding buildings and the city's architectural standards,reflecting a commitment to meeting the design and aesthetic requirements. 4. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. The Applicant is not proposing fencing for this project. However,Staff recommends that 6-foot non- scalable wrought iron fence be erected as a safety barrier in compliance with the International Swimming Pool and Spa Code,and provide a detail of the fencing on the plans submitted with the future CZC application. 5. Parkways(Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-17): All sidewalks around buildings and serving public streets shall be a minimum of five(5) feet in width, except if detached sidewalks are provided on local public streets in residential subdivisions,the minimum sidewalk width may be reduced to four(4) feet. The Applicant has provided an internal pedestrian circulation plan that shows how the sidewalks meet these standards to provide adequate pedestrian access and safety throughout the development in Section VILL below. However, the Applicant did not include the dimensions of the sidewalks on the site plan. Staff recommends that the Applicant include the measurement of the sidewalks on the plans submitted with the future CZC application. The minimum width of parkways planted with Class II trees shall be eight(8)feet. The width can be measured from the back of curb where there is no likely expansion of the street section within the right-of-way;the parkway width shall exclude the width of the sidewalk. Class II trees are the preferred parkway trees. The plans submitted appear to comply with this City of Meridian I Department Report 0. IV. City/Agency Comments&Conditions requirement Goal 6.01.01J of the Comprehensive Plan emphasizes the importance of ensuring and encouraging new development to include buffered sidewalks, a sidewalk separated from the motor vehicle lane by a planter strip, especially on collector and arterial roadways. The submitted plans incorporate detached sidewalks/pathways with landscape buffers proposed along the future collector, arterial roadway, and local street. The sidewalks are separated from motor vehicle lanes by landscape planter strips, enhancing pedestrian safety and comfort by providing a clear buffer between pedestrians and vehicles. The planter strips feature shrubs and trees that help to reduce noise and provide shade. Integrating sidewalks/pathways into the buffers promotes a walkable environment that aligns with the Comprehensive Plan's goal of creating safe,pedestrian friendly streetscapes. D. Transportation Analysis 1. Access(Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-3, UDC 11-3H-4): Goals 6.01.01H and 6.01.02B of the Comprehensive Plan emphasize reducing the number of access points onto arterial streets through methods such as cross-access agreements, access management, and frontage or backage roads. These goals also stress the importance of enhancing local and collector street connectivity and incorporating pedestrian access connectors to link subdivisions and promote neighborhood connectivity within the community pathway system. One full-access driveway is proposed via S. Rolling Hill Drive(local street)off E. Overland Road(arterial roadway). According to ACHD's Staff Report,the Applicant should construct Rolling Hill Drive as %2 of a 36-foot wide local roadway with curb, gutter,and 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk abutting the site. One full-access driveway is proposed on E.View Circle(collector roadway). According to ACHD's Staff Report,the Applicant should construct View Circle as of a 36-foot wide residential collector roadway with curb,gutter, and a 10-foot wide pathway as required by the Meridian Pathway Master Plan. One full-access driveway is proposed via the future collector Street(Movado Way). According to ACHD's Staff Report,the Applicant should dedicate right-of way abutting the site's northeast property line to accommodate the future construction of a planned collector roadway(see figure below). City of Meridian I Department Report 0. IV. City/Agency Comments&Conditions ---------------------------------------- PROPC40 FVTVRE COLLECTORSTREET — Needed Righ3-0f- ---- -_ WaY o adKahun ---__-- - --- p� - - 4 n �m.rta5 d1+awR�+.we.wF�Ma ty 4 4 i h Y 4 \ k Ly 1 } 1 1 I 1 1 1 u nIYR.l11i t�5 I I � I I I — — ---- 3 Given that both the subject property and the adjacent out-parcel at the center of this development are designated MU-R(Mixed Use-Regional)on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM),and there is no existing local street access,the Applicant,at the request of Staff,has proposed a cross-access/ingress-egress easement and driveways, including a pedestrian walkway,to facilitate future interconnectivity with this property in accordance with UDC 1I- 3A-3A.2. ACHD and Staff both request that the Applicant coordinate with the owner of the out-parcel surrounded by this site to close the existing driveways on Overland and provide access to the neighboring parcel internally through the site. If the driveways cannot be wholly closed,the Applicant should close the portions of the shared-access driveways that abut the site on Overland Road with an 8-foot wide planters' strip and a 10-foot wide multi- use pathway. Staff recommends that the Applicant comply with ACHD's Site-Specific Conditions of Approval in Section III.K. 2. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-1 7): All sidewalks around buildings and serving public streets shall be a minimum of five(5)feet in width, except if detached sidewalks are provided on local public streets in residential subdivisions,the minimum sidewalk width may be reduced to four(4)feet. All internal sidewalks within the development appear to meet this requirement,however, the Applicant has not included the dimensions of the sidewalks on the site plan submitted. Staff recommends that the Applicant include the dimensions of the sidewalks on the plans submitted with the future CZCApplication. There are existing 7-foot sidewalks abutting the site along Overland Road The Applicant is proposing to construct an 8-foot wide planter strip with a 10 foot wide multi-use pathway abutting the site on Overland Road consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Ada County Highway Districts Master Street Map and Roadways to Bikeways Master Plan. E. Services Analysis 1. Waterways(Comp Plan, UDC11-3A-6): Goal 4.05.01D and Goal 6.01.04B of the Comprehensive Plan emphasize the importance of improving and protecting creeks and other natural waterways throughout commercial, industrial and residential areas. Develop and implement agreements with irrigation districts and the Union Pacific Railroad to allow for bike/pedestrian pathways. The Five Mile Creek City of Meridian I Department Report 0. IV. City/Agency Comments&Conditions runs along the northwest boundary of the site and is proposed to be preserved as a natural amenity in accordance with UDC 11-3A-6. The Applicant prioritizes the preservation of the existing creek by incorporating the creek into the site design as a natural amenity. The Applicant is proposing to protect and enhance Five Mile Creek by adding planters with trees and shrubs, on both sides of the creep Additionally, the multi-use pathway is proposed to run parallel to the Creek along with a bridge for the drive aisle across that will connect to E. View Circle Drive, the Applicant should coordinate with Nampa Meridian Irrigation District(NMID) to ensure that the development adheres to best practices for waterway protection. 2. Pressurized Irrigation(UDC 11-3A-15): Underground pressurized irrigation water is required to be provided as set forth in UDC 1I- 3A-15 3. Storm Drainage(UDC 11-3A-18): The Ten Mile Creek bisects the southwest corner of this site and is proposed to be left open as an amenity for the development in accord with UDC 11-3A-6,which requires laterals to be piped unless improved as a water amenity or linear open space. 4. Utilities(Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-21): Goal 3.01.01F of the Comprehensive Plan emphasizes the importance of permitting new development only where urban services can be reasonably provided at the time of final approval and development is contiguous to the City. Connection to City water and sewer services is required in accord with UDC 11-3A-21 and the Comprehensive Plan. IV. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS&CONDITIONS F. Meridian Planning Division Annexation&Zoning D to ro�the t• di Tl A 1, 11 b to,- ,1 t„l eo w the Giyy � xiier ii�p cn�—uiaxcizucivirvraiircci�ccirvrr§nccriv�cixccrezriixcvvccvv ccii crri�cy-vr thepr-epeftywA%er-(s) 4 the in;e 4'.,,mex do or - ee a do a.1 the cv afme*afiei+- Fifidines. The PA shall,at minimum, rivvmvruto the folio 1—r! t„COMM deto... ifies . .,t; f, ; in the Lost ipAe-est of the!4t„• a. >;„4we development.,4'this site shall be istef4, .;tl,tl,o site la !a ads 1 atialif ed even-spa tnesrrEenter - 10 feet multiese i3�hway alone the Five Mile Creek,Wa-za afea, a-Rd bike r-ei3air-station)—, two (2)yei4;,,a4y iato,....,te side.Ai l st,- et,, f.,t,,-ifie on dwell;.,.., .,;tom vcxcxcaxx�xxxcct,x-cccccrxc�zacxxcxux�aaccaxc� xccrcaxxxx�ry crvvcxxxxx�dzxxco-caxcrzv,xT acv'cxopx.xcix�oucxaxccriix ov i-ar_ ccric9iacixcxux�ii9Jccc-in outlined Z~T Tyr-4-3- City of Meridian I Department Report 0. IV. City/Agency Comments&Conditions e. There are fetif(4) existine stmetwes on this site(5 par-eels total);the feiff(4)-beffies and Conditional Use-Permit(Mulfi Family Developme 7 The t,.asl, a eles,,,.es shall e ,�tai tl t emm,,,la e t z. e aees ea e 2 Gem l:anee with the s ei e, standards listed i UDC 11 ^ Z 77 f M- lt; 4. The site i3lan shall.be revised as follows- eefwenient leeat;e,•, f r these epAer-ifif-t the develepment in aeeer-d with UDC-11 4 3 mod: t, 1f el,,,le the bu ldif sethaevs en the plans s„1., i ffe,l with the a,t.,.e GZC a l;eat:el e. Align,•,the d6ve aisles stubbed to the au-tear-eel di-eetl aer-ess f.em n el, etb,e.-ft - et 'ele fn CZC a pl;eat;e. e. T,•,el,,,le 80 s e f eta eF at:e n,•.,l baleen si3aee f the ffm t: f mi e,tie. A1temative C-emplanee as eu4lified in UDC-11 5B-5, fi Shift Biiildiae C and the asseeiated p�iag 2 feet te the west,to eliminate the t talk ,l ,le O.. 1 n L;. tells ee===pa��Ia==��==tea=�="e o��astandard�� _��_�_==�==s the Plafmine Divisien,to be i3r-ee n SJGCrGenGTTGLtij—V42 the future EL-CT 5. The landseai)e plan shall be revised a&fellews-- Mile C-eey shall be, i e.,e,l to 10 feet: width ar-equir-ed by the Meridian Master-Pathways Dln,•, p1 b •,+e,l •ti, the l;,t.,.e CZG n 1 tier =an�«��� ���� nea�� e. Add a vienie area that; el,,,les tables be,•,el,es l a st,.,,et.,.e f-shade i the ,, L the 1 tee 1, a t;e.,al t;e,•,s f the ',l is Skase-Rfussv er�i��iri�evrcv cnrranvez ecie-acrorrccreperorro-zvrcne�c�i�cixsr. in ee"'=rpliaanew tivrcrrcic lfAema4ienal C`,,,;mmi Peel and Si3a Cede and.. id ,,di t to t�,e Five Mi G 1 ,l 1. tl, M •.l' M te,-'D thwa„ Dl tttt7uccii�co cn�Trrczrri�cTeeicirs i e�rzii eav`�cixe�vrci=criccixzvrascciTccarwzr9:nzcciretmd 6 A legally bifi 1:., ,lee,,.,,e,•,t shall be r-eee-.le.l that states the.. .,te.,a.,ee n,•..l a ship City of Meridian I Department Report 0. IV. City/Agency Comments&Conditions 2 2 7L A eepy of suet, shall be s„1.miAe,1 t the Dl enni Division -t issucmee f the first re fti eete ,.o nee„vane y within the,ieyel,.,.,.,e t�and.maintain keyless to tab ito...,etiye t, a e4 to ZiiS T.[ZICCZIiC[Iii Gi[ZiiTL�V�iVTiTeTit�nJ3'J[lTil�[TfVIG-C[iGGTlliflTf�cC)�eGZ[GeGj�s[P n A Floodplein Permit is.- red; consult with the T.loodplein A dmi„istre FEMA Maps. Str-uetur-es must be elevated to the flood or-oteetion level, and a Letter of Map Revision is r-eauked-. 10. A rei4ifi.ate f Zefiiaj4 Cew l;e.i e e 1;,,,,tio shall be submitted f thei3f:9posed use .•.,1 site iii '9vemelA'rthat�eemply with all UPC eenditions a-ad the i3iv visions revacccraccrneiezir. W. The desien ef all futwe stfuetth-es on this site, shall eemi)lv with the standafds listed in the Afehiteetw-al- 12. The Apiaec f4 shall eemply=with A r�-iciP's Site Sffeifie Conditions of A.3,..-...,.,1 appr-eved by the City. "�t4is time, crie Apprreccm-siccxx evimixenCe the use-u9-periir'rccccr be featiested as set fort' i T� 1 t-5B-6F, City of Meridian I Department Report 0. IV. City/Agency Comments&Conditions G. Meridian Public Works NON-P LAT CON DIT lON-S 41�a,ttar*rrLr+ Dis �garSewr Oinec#IYa4awr* Sme•Shed EStlma[ed Prorleart See applrc.avan Seem FRLJ's WRRF ESeclia.ng 1466 MGD Uarlm EirojectConsmbt ntwrth Yes tilW Malley MqFadlfty Phn • Impacr�taonrrrnF • Andirional a020dgprPcnrnmrk4Qdt4mWri #or public yrorka S h -rcific londitim-L 4liater - . E]Islantewwaler Mailable atSne 5@rVk3PS Pmmra Zone d E0-patedProtect SK appkatran Wat-er ERU'S Y4 btw Gb Ahr N&* Project Cnasi-trrrtsrilh Vrs water M arlrr Plan InVaMXmizern See"IcwAs-Site s Iflc Cats PtOLK WoRks DEP 0 T%lk%;F SOR Sp*clGr['urdilirpin of Appran#1 I E:uwrr nrn ycrrrunrrrl-druclurrF 1liry s,llryidr,.r,buil4mgx,carpnru,Crab Fmrplsiq w3t1li,f rK rzs, 1nriltruice Lmmhi-5-4&pAcK 4Lr.Marc builL%tthin dic Ml iL-Y eascraoL. 2. Fern nds x pew"L-a xr d Ibro,igh-'Ln R.-P3S!"In 19%It'75 4 Irwrl, R?53rff-MWM It-753+111MFr17(1, and R75 5i(I[r XNVI. . ALI r;a ovr pgrlrrgg nr*to be r<I Iy Cnhrd out oa ft 11Liity pLw. Caw gr parlwg SRnovl bC iuradg dr roWirad walcr or R%;rr cm5ow NI s]. d, DkVi cerin ray iflhL3r u a%:11 a Kv.1FA will iLkxxtid on here siLq it rrruYLLr abandwwod per ntEwlacon nxiuimnwou and proof of abamkMMML mut bt pre,►idtd w[hL Cit}. It many aka bt used fur pvasumcd irriumiurh as crihcf a purriarr uxmvc u 5rrarr.Lu3 xnu:cv. Cmwrm1('ord i0ws d Ap"- ,ml 1. ApAcaea all male wa ct and sewte maia sixt bird wddsg tlrt Publit Worbs DepertrN*. 2. Att kletidr krk C'iy Cm a OC'CK Lht SOp16=1 iUl Lr re4ur&Nt!1C iSukfl 3:w LY MrA wffigr Rini*, It-&-k1 h,-u64 thin&1'41ipinveA +4pp1 ik ant nnp bt t%iW The a tcrcoL&c ua'rClgn Chow-unbwLn3nKnr par MCC S-&S. M The ipplr.Aril �611 Tft+ qde*,'liar-mk-hvI-o ful till FuMe xdw drL-if Itl im MAIJ&or pyblrc riyhl RA wily q vnr ludo}II E►?�). SC9,ff wopr ok%rn4nr Vi)ng**PrnrdirkE On iCnkW City of Meridian I Department Report 0. IV. City/Agency Comments&Conditions dcp k .{1e' o 4�1I0 fL dUkLp Pgi.An:a�11 n ozser IrHi. NQ1 A 3 411 Ll earw1mvm. &rl 3L to fk a di R C3A.Lm edi- Emnife thapL.,'mwLb gaimautoi 4 u%aci, h Ld"buildmLo,&&w a,vmb rocepade xnll;. F4`Mgrr;irrftiri11k711 LrtiMN".NOL PA-4,6w.]arc bAi.hid1.1I 1hc wl;'61y c4+vrf1tim1 r-1ehlwll an L-xC4wlyd 4aWn"Lon rho fWm#raiAJ*fiM P*WK''4rkS?.a lepl&-WnphLm prvpared b%, an Idaho t.rcehkcd PmF'en m1kal Ldnd'Surhv nw,whkrb nn m iurlodc the a1va L11 Me riMME1k1 immAod FAHIHI'I' Jk?and An KI•2"s 11"mmpwO Wr+rp prLd dlsizmI;M lmaik4d EXHIRfI'K1 hL1 ts+Icw F)LMb ekhiN sftluSi be drtk+d-mWnA tlMddhledlFy i F'wRisivhbt l.rnd SulVcyvr. DG 'NOT RECMD. 4. The Cny a Mffkdkan requdldk Lbal.pMald led 1I15galydh 1, ' rtks bL:supplwd Lie d k�f faWd saurlicofimolcrIUM 1I-313-+Lk Thcapp�oni shoaled b1z F quircd lfkw Lvy exhtirlgwrfk of well,rater ibr&pnmern souse. 11 a StTf l.:C Of wd WULL: is dL]L awullatile,a sllt6k-powt cowixClion Io i}rtcuminan water y-Yocir1 sliall be required.lfn OVlr Wa n1 ConWCLiM is Milir•Li tht dr•L rk6per w dL be rr&pw!kLbk Car Lhe pa.}nkcnr of•try•CIMS Cyr me eoffimm ants petite ru prkwio rN60ngl dc%clnpnt4ni,plan spprvaal. S. A1k4:W adiwfei WML amc uJ6ym ed Io rmu m 1611 6e Subject 1D e%-Aaawm and PCB.. lC ruaA=i3ioLTL& of quv%`l 4d&vW4nA FD by gin.%nnlpLl:r v+L kh MCC. 6. ALI miyalon d6LL:h�1.kmna6. laier.Lla ux dralrkk cKc Imure OfTL&IlaaL weal Lrwly S,nUmmuft6ig. crosmq or lin}'<egr adrJaErm•J.IdaiAllirli un W Ihr urva 1:6rlp 1"isi"kbaw br addralmrdpCf C'DC 1 I-3A-6 In perKwmanu srch-murk,Oie applMranr xrnll.tffgFj •wcdh fdaho('01 e4.2-120 wd my oAgr hppI1L-4kble li—L+I rtytulariott 7 AnywC11a Ihal will q"S4Wn eon kw aW ma4 be prvpsn• I. ' I.v"lmjF14IdahoWA Cerfw cep n SurkdtLrds Ruks ski inivwrcd by Lk Idaho 13,LFan-,11%1c "al%:r PA-vLKdvvIk. Tlkt DI;-rrlopc*'s Enjm F sl1oll PKm Wc a spree vIrl addresa4l whab6m .1i xv wF 6v r ingWi lisin the t5'L 10pinrn, and If wL berg Lh;6-y wlfL Owdmuc 1m be LTwd,a pros LyJE Htourd of char abaftdanmcnc. N. AIk}t LSIN1%StpUe S%gl n wiLhi n LhLi pfr CL&ball be Tcrbuved ftm sm kt ptr City Or&nanre Sedioe 9-14 tad';4 k Comm Cmrol INLTkc Hralth far oba AmrJacrm pi-wedures and r rid petdoft l No 317!�-32 11. 4 .ill izipTmcmmi;rftcd w pukdic life,rafdy tact:hal h Oull kK c-crrt kn d prior 1¢occupant) of 16r 3IirdtwtL-s. III AInA =d0l N nrflLLircd art pw Public Warikl dcL ctL7rnwm 1+=m icht-and wwwrrw: im rnapm1wn fix;**4 T mod durinj kh.0*ri rrs•i;r—prpce!Fs.TwW to Lhe w"WW 4 a pL- alan"nl 4lIer 11. 11 shall be Lh4 re*y, omb4ty gf1he uppllcmi:LgcaWnrlh4v all dc%'elgrmer&I fmimvs ocwrvoywlIh Ilk Jh rtFr1 KJMl--A 11 rh mina ifs Acc&orJ 1hr Fn;r llLreaa rkyt+err. 12. Ap<diranl •hall b4 ne9pgmAk}14 for 4MIKauon and GLwwp1LiGC wFjh wr!r SWi m JIM "dlbnjL lhal ma} Lac rcWrod by the Amy L'wpy of Nipinrrm 13. Dv-crtopt*dhen cocRdnale mailbox k-cnd-s;u 1Sh Ihs'%1f*sdian fto Cffxrc. 14. Cwnpal:LW NN friths steal 17k-mbnllflyd 10 ilk Vrridw k Ildled Uk+panmem Far all building podgyr-mcitiing cnVinecrcd beicLfirl.a4grc W1iap ugylld Fr1 aLoP Fill rialcriil. 15. it9c&-ij i enprwr Shali tK rc-quifcd to tcnlfp 9haa ik- kv,x1 trdtL•rlLdk ck%aaL(w49 arc St1 a m ini41L1rn of 3-free alwvv dw h:klam ayLablislncd ped grt•rnd"wr rW%:nLirn This is LR itr6m IIuL L Lwuoln rLi,al Lon Of Lhc 4f2%1 Spatt9 Of herrur5 IS al k-" 1-kNx ob#5 C. 16 The appliCML}dws-iyn%ntzmeo i mll be r+VornilbbC far inw6m rl ofil I irNalion nod cw drauuSu facilitx•wLlklo 16bL prn}w1 LkiL do"tall Imder Lbe jumdicimd of at myIpLuxl ddLrici or ACKID The&c iyo anVkmLwx shall pWidc QMifrcali0h&ens Ok raciliciei teat t b%L"ii"Ited LA aa;xdMruae 5a•ILli16apprmed AMIFnplpnc 1lLhs L•Lf11 MLIY]IL W11J he rel,;M d 136Wra L-011f'1L•ak of 0otupamicy P naurd f6t My slrimb!n:e W41 hrh IhIC pnrj'Lxl 17. AL 11hc 4gmpI611wo of the JwJerl.1lre app]r--n1 dul I he FowncraW to:PubmL r vxIJI!41zawmp per Ihr{il}•of Wtidreh UWCAD unm&"x. Tlwm recnr•d kaa•irgs nrmt he narn-m-d and apvnn rd pnnr io Stec Iswunce ofa anifKation odo•xupancy fair ale} stru ores wFLlnn ck ptvXo. City of Meridian Department Report 0. IV. City/Agency Comments&Conditions IS. A street light plan will geed to be included in the civil eonsiruetimi plans.Stre:t light plan requircmentsare listed in section6-5ofMe Improvement Standards for Sire`t Lig dag.A Copy of tbo Standflrds can 14t found❑t httpJlwww_mGridiaocity.gusIpub lic w{uk9.Asp W='72_ 19, The City of Meridian rcquirca that the owner past to the City a performanec surety in the amount of 121%of tlse total constructiau cost for all incompl ete sewer_water and reuse infrastructure prior to final plat signature.This surety wil I be verified by a line item cost mti mate provided by the owner to the City_The surely can be posted in the farm of an irrevocable letter of credit,emsh depi k oY bond_Applioftnt mu$t file an application frW suWy,which can b-L fbU31d-an Lhe Community Developmot Dk�Mrtmcmt wri}sitc_ Please oonluct Lond Drvoloprnvw Service frrr mvrc information at PI-221 L 20. The{City of Meridian requires that the owner post io the City a warranty surety ill IbC auooulrt of 2D%of the total construction cost for all conlpletad sewer,neater and reuse infrastruccurc for dumlian of two years_This surety will be v erified by a Gee item cost estimate provided by the omrnrr to the City.The sunny can be pasted in the form of an irrevocable letter of cw6t,cash deposit or band.Applicant roust file an application for surety,which can be found-cvn the Community Ucvdc m t Ij�partmant wvb-sitc. Pleusc contact Land DvvVloprncnt Scr3+iec for snare information at 98 7-221 1. City of Meridian I Department Report 0. IV. City/Agency Comments&Conditions H. Meridian Fire Department A full fire plan review shall be completed prior to construction. L Meridian Police Department No comments received. I Meridian Park's Department �WENT�iA� P r Ls and ttc�■i•rriaui Reviewer Kim Wxmn I Parthmys PmpaMmqqer Plinrlef A3 W*k steer 11ermh Pn*a NMprp! Rd"IPWIs FW 14;H 20 7 3 4150-Q.PP. VOW 5.24 TKa L will be req;wr-dear drAWprttaf1 of the p+opoAdpra*aet; CONDMONS OF APPROVAL- PATHWAYS The prrpr4 aVr yloper shall ftuan and cac&bvO rmdbimr PArhrrio MMidslem with :r+e 1431-atlon and spedfraWns st?t fgrt)fI in the illeNbn Palhwm hOwster Pon Map and llAaFw Pavwaysfllan Oarwnent OtWer 1), AFq Pwowdadmtr.4mik -4 watfwayogr-wrrt Aimtw� wdln+rod llro4&the kpth-aye Pxair[l wlanWv. rnrerrxaur%tA"i Aft 2 Priqrtpfsyl pppFgw;f thg aaphsarrt"dedkjte a publrc wimp;ww mnl for a Ily WWdr mgti-wW paha'r ptnr�4a and t ai trl+e Flaemlla C1FIil{Gra■IM vn tier rLQMh 7+de d flee prop4rtyr 1MII4 paih+.�Y+�aka dowMe atmawftni+Lce accrxi W9WFKWNIlrtprrIA Nr Nafforand BMrSan Irryatim DkgAt• Emptrmrns shal The a mkt(rnum of tf'wide f Ur pathway+2'shaLMber Lwrth side). AR pachm"rs shal be k atediteuldeel L wMalowdluAct,ee mmUumLeupermkWonIss�spmiikANadealnedIWw the j&e&nlr� wr1 pficm d4u--C.6VWffM f c� y�'ItHr 4d��d tv M4&4.v 4 'f yz 011Ik *Mw publir ROW L�FF'#Pr[�4F��+r}'�+r{ptRf�f��4�rf�p[lR'SS r'a7FrAFnr j�rbrrrt��aler�rfs o��dn41t►���p4trri�F Amm P*rW L fi.Ar ArW 1njNL•law' ;Whkoys mr poird v ,I-on _dr —i-d rKd". — rNtsmr dMded by Woje€i chlI erbineiw in accord with UDC 11-Ik-6 and 11-3&12. Rf w to di"a"Yal iMe ipplieaflri evgMe'f 9M prftWe awfluen 66awft'flli'UM dw ffm pmhmWwSYn-ent was 4on51rULted p" the rrsminrrrLdLrd Lppcsrfications. d Tl7e owner cf Um p Wf" affftted by eKh p,IbGc Kieis eaae-ent shall ftane an 4MPM 01AP l M to Rlalf ENM the mllo-ule p IlWay. 5. C high open verve fen€I^Rshay kc weLialk+d hetwgr..n pathways and lkwl ura"r mgatrpn canals aced lalgrak w omalk,a irk qp*meri&w Pomwwo mauee Pw,cmpw 3.pace i•5. Aa othef Ofrxe delalli per UUC Ti 1- 3A-7. The Flwe HIE Pathway ispwbThw waitmsoft conditlon does rratapply. -1� Prope l dewclopec chill he responsdAr farabUdOng semi&aWmment and odwF pennisskzn(sl ai Tegwrsd iw wAryclwl wdt+r+Hng~dlaickl lr�4RMnts- 7 Should"dwropwcp ni%t trr[r ran thrw amcli lam orappruvat and 7hr requlronrn►ttiraf the Irrlpatlon ftoiM ¢wcpl%w OLall wwk vyh Pathwarp Pn*Kt Manager-oacfhkw p Pathwaydinign r!42t maw bath-C1t7 and trkplan dLtrl[i obitalwai [KV Mgwtremertti a,30gicd tMrar eat Inw am 11ry Intl mded q4] orrerrkie#o eofthebrrUWior%dMve ha,nr gltrts6wan o%*r rN NrWctarea. p�'a o7 li.iA 1 Rolling Hill/ MER24-0058 / H-2023-0070 K. Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho(COMPASS) See public reeord L. Irrigation Districts 1. Nampa&Meridian Irrigation District i tin FiRi:SIRES 30 M '--PA 11-Oa1 l-01} FAA 02x-*LNM —Am QFFCE: warrca ZZ4dS-?W1 July&24't Cry-Cwk'i(A CiiyofNkw6diw )3 F_EWOAdYL-aYAVLI-W.err-lr 102 UQrWi&D.In 936 2-:h L4 Wt IWOM-WW Wdnit kikl- I*M lR#IF 14MI%beLa hkit kWl A 470 F Ovrr6ud Pd Ta 1h1Wm Zt Miy CsdrobW Nampa*Kwkbe i WpiiLim 17*01cl{NMID)Ngmr%3 i flk4 I.arnd Un CUW ApTrlxark+l 41 Kviem P&M W to l okrft -III pii+#�lalerrrls aer¢wane;+;}'s�I.AYYF�e41c i The f1i��Fivr xiik��n aFm,eR�� -&e neeeh bwwhu-y of this Wpb-q. I he•Dimrku ft tmem for time Firs Mile[rain u rh is I.mm1 x k a minimrin of forty fod(W)teiLR.4wwity fed CM e+:F ridr Tbrim�nt uud he pmoanW. A jr as mmin lk wni wW bmi s 1kpW Lkeffi+r Aprffewore mar appelfmod pka IKi m omwWwW o 4 M bk All t wkipW 1x6px&06i�e mws1-bL i ra lid wt oila. V ury wmmKipev.urh"0aimqr Termed 1W emir.S%10 muoi tov w dmingr p1m.I]rt-tloprr amok*fo*trllkldohoCak]l-M.Plnru bd fm to wm=l me for further infcrmarion David T.Mneft Apt.W#kr$ippnjmk%rderrl Sample& Wmhm["atw DuMd Um'aaI �c. o film film S.rudcr * Wrilfr ApNl�m �. IF Mrlr1 ��4 AW MDR egoffil-7 llllwdl�-4)-]W 2 Rolling Hill/ MER24-0058 / H-2023-0070 M. Central District Health Department See public record N. Idaho Department of Environmental Quality(DEQ) See public record O. West Ada School District(WASD) or Other District/School 1. Kuna School District See public record 2. West Ada School District See public record 3 Rolling Hill/ MER24-0058 / H-2023-0070 P. Ada County Highway District(ACHD) +,rd Fa naaeNx Prtudena +1lmdt GaMa.vice presye•ra ACHD �i�.w�r�u�r�lww= Z�Mj&WMMIO 0m*WMrm" nwirnliiia.arw Ewe: JuIY3, 2024 Ta. ]me f elgado.via ernail Staff Contact Ka raRLeigh Troyer.Plan r4er PwojoctDescrlpxIm Tfie apoloant is t"ueuingp approval of are amexxiorr and daioniii ur&DWrnit apDphicibl"fix thic dMIo ment of-a154-uNt rnultifarr I y deve4ap-eient on 534-acres— Ttip Gerwailon, Tres deve opment rsesvrrrated x-ge me vohic a trips Wr CW and 'n vomicLe taps pw hieup in the PhA peak Maur, 4ased *n the Irtsmuse of Ttarl frtalmart EnvineusTriP"r+,uatiion Miprival.11'edilw�n. ■ ■>10-510.15 Area MMKft Willi nmilftAICHEYI • Yes is Trans�t AvaFlable, -Commenm conmcd-ing_Mu to moFe Ada Comm)H.*"rjp%T•37M Adi :&Sup"•Cyr C3,IDS•09U-Pk M WMiM-FX Wa5D•*wMf"kLjhpVV 4 Rolling Hill/ MER24-0058 / H-2023-0070 Development Services Department ACHD connecting you to more Project/File: Rolling Hill /MER24-0058 / H-2023-0070 This is an annexation and conditional use permit application for the development of an 154-unit multifamily development on 5.34-acres. Lead Agency: City of Meridian Site address: 1560 S Rolling Hill Drive Staff Approval: July 3, 2024 Applicant: Jorre Delgado JD Planning & Consulting 1109 W Main Street, Suite 700 Boise, ID 83702 Staff Contact: KaraLeigh Troyer, Planner Phone: 387-6391 E-mail: ktrover(o-)achdidaho.ora Report Summary: ACHD Planned Improvements.............................................2 Level of Service Planning Thresholds..................................2 A. Site Specific Conditions of Approval.............................3 B. Vicinity Map .................................................................5 C. Site Plan ......................................................................6 D. Findings for Consideration ...........................................7 E. Policy......................................................................... 11 F. Standard Conditions of Approval................................ 17 G. Conclusions of Law.................................................... 18 Request for Appeal of Staff Decision................................. 19 5 Rolling Hill/ MER24-0058 / H-2023-0070 ACHD Planned Improvements 1. Capital Improvements Plan (CIP)/ Integrated Five Year Work Plan (IFYWP): • Cloverdale Road is scheduled in the IFYWP to be widened to 5-lanes from Victory Road to Overland Road in 2026. • Rolling Hill Drive and Bridge #1218 is scheduled in the IFYWP to be replaced in 2027. • Overland Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to 7-lanes from Cloverdale Road to Five Mile Road between 2036 and 2040. • The intersection of Overland Road and Cloverdale Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to 7-lanes on the north leg, 7-lanes on the south, 8-lanes east, and 8-lanes on the west leg, and signalized between 2026 and 2030. • The intersection of Overland Road and Five Mile Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to 7- lanes on the north leg, 7-lanes on the south, 8-lanes east, and 8-lanes on the west leg, and signalized between 2026 and 2030. Level of Service Planning Thresholds 1. Condition of Area Roadways Traffic Count is based on Vehicles per hour (VPH) Roadway Frontage Functional PM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Classification Traffic Count Level of Service Overland Road 475-feet Principal Arterial 1,028 Better than "E" View Circle 323-feet Collector N/A N/A Rolling Hill Drive 464-feet Local N/A N/A * Acceptable level of service for a five-lane principal arterial is "E" (1,780 VPH). * Acceptable level of service for a two-lane collector is"D" (425 VPH). **ACHD does not set level of service thresholds for local roadways. 2. Average Daily Traffic Count (VDT) Average daily traffic counts are based on ACHD's most current traffic counts. • The average daily traffic count for Overland Road west of Cloverdale Road was 22,805 on October 21, 2020. • There are no current average daily traffic counts for View Circle and Rolling Hill Drive. 6 Rolling Hill/ MER24-0058 / H-2023-0070 A. Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1. Repair or replace any damaged or deficient transportation facilities abutting the site on Overland Road consistent with the current version of PROWAG. 2. Construct an 8-foot wide planter strip and a 10-foot wide multi-use pathway abutting the site on Overland Road to tie into existing improvements on either side. 3. Dedicate right-of-way to total 62-feet from centerline on Overland Road. 4. Dedicate right-of-way to extend 2-feet behind back of sidewalks abutting the site. 5. Construct View Circle as '/2 of a 36-foot wide residential collector roadway with curb, gutter, and a minimum of 7-foot attached sidewalk or 5-foot wide detached sidewalk with an 8-foot wide planter strip. 6. Dedicate right-of-way abutting the site's northeast property line to accommodate the future construction of a planned collector roadway, as shown in site plan on page 8. 7. Construct Rolling Hill Drive as'/2 of a 36-foot wide local roadway with curb, gutter, and 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk abutting the site. 8. Install a sign at the terminus of View Circle stating, "THIS IS A DESIGNATED COLLECTOR ROADWAY. THIS STREET WILL BE EXTENDED AND WIDENED IN THE FUTURE." 9. Close 22-foot wide existing driveway abutting the site on Overland Road with an 8-foot wide planter's strip and a 10-foot wide multi-use pathway. 10. Coordinate with the owner of the parcel surrounded by the site to close the existing driveways on Overland Road and provide access to the neighboring parcel internally through the site. If the driveways cannot be wholly closed, the applicant shall close the portions of the shared-access driveways that abut the site on Overland Road with an 8-foot wide planter's strip and a 10-foot wide multi-use pathway. 11. Construct a 27-foot wide curb-return type driveway on View Circle located 302-feet east of Rolling Hill Drive. 12. Close the four existing unimproved driveways abutting the site on Rolling Hill Drive with curb, gutter, and 5-foot wide attached sidewalk. 13. Construct a 27-foot wide curb-return type driveway abutting the site on Rolling Hill Drive located 191-feet north of Overland Road. 14. Provide ACHD approved plans for the crossings of Fivemile Creek prior to the pre-construction meeting and final plat approval. Note: Timing of project plan submittals should take into account review times, lead time for precast members and potential roadway closures. To ensure construction prior to irrigation season, approval of the project plans must be attained by January 15th. The District retains the right to modify road closure approvals on any project based on the needs of the District. Construction of projects approved after January 15th may be postponed until after irrigation season is over in October. It is recommended that bridge submittals be submitted before the end of the current irrigation season to ensure the best time frame for construction is attained. Submittals will need to include the street section extending over the bridge to ensure the requirements of the roadway are met. 15. Other than the access specifically approved with this application, direct lot access is prohibited to Overland Road and View Circle. 7 Rolling Hill/ MER24-0058 / H-2023-0070 16. Submit civil plans to ACHD Development Services for review and approval. The impact fee assessment will not be released until the civil plans are approved by ACHD. 17. There will be an impact fee that is assessed and due prior to issuance of any building permits. The assessed impact fee will be based on the impact fee ordinance that is in effect at that time. The impact fee assessment will not be released until the civil plans are approved by ACHD. 18. Comply with all Standard Conditions of Approval. B. Vicinity Map Vag E View C:ir. Ila- Awk- I w I t)verl.inrf�fitl +�'+ � , I EyEsiierat 8 Rolling Hill/ MER24-0058 / H-2023-0070 C. Site Plan PROPOSED FUTURE COLLECTOR STREET — 1_ _ ----- ----- f1.\ - - - - - - - - - -- -� _ unFAuoFlE N wtED9IYm VIEW CI � � - _ , a - c roccr — --I—' roon,Ecraismms`' z e n i I ewfen e I u\NIOI.E1 g 1 I I UUILONG T'PE[ ��ma�iv�wiic. i - $ 1 ® �'- Bunn nG TYPE w I I o� 0 y WELLIIGUm WDWELU UN- $ I I I I I " I o I ava Q 6 I M I 0 - �H I I tl - I HRUvezv Pnoecnl ' + I W I I I I , o PARCEL NOHN-SCOPE I a � � I I•I - --- --- g- --- ---- i-- 5 I „ RI I I ------y- - ------ v ----- ----- -- -------- na E OVERLAND ,®ao�T..�.q�A� 9 Rolling Hill/ MER24-0058 / H-2023-0070 D. Findings for Consideration 1. Overland Road a. Existing Conditions: Overland Road is improved with 5-travel lanes, vertical curb, gutter, and 7-foot wide sidewalk abutting the site. There is 110-feet of right-of-way for Overland Road (47- feet from centerline). b. Applicant Proposal: The applicant is proposing to construct an 8-foot wide planter strip with a 10-foot wide multi-use pathway abutting the site on Overland Road. c. Staff Comments/Recommendations: The applicant's proposal exceeds District policy and should be approved, as proposed. The applicant should be required to tie in the proposed sidewalk with the existing sidewalk on either side. The applicant should be required to dedicate right-of-way to total 62-feet from centerline on Overland Road. The applicant should be required to repair or replace any damaged or deficient transportation facilities abutting the site on Overland Road consistent with the current version of PROWAG. 2. View Circle a. Existing Conditions: View Circle is improved with 2-travel lanes and no curb, gutter or sidewalk abutting a portion of the site from Rolling Hill Drive running 350-feet east. View Circle is not constructed abutting the remainder of the site. View Circle terminates in a cul-de-sac turnaround. There is 50-feet of right-of-way for View Circle (24-feet from centerline). b. Applicant Proposal: The applicant is not proposing any improvements to View Circle abutting the site. c. Staff Comments/Recommendations: The applicant's proposal does not meet District policy and should not be approved, as proposed. The applicant should be required to construct View Circle as '/2 of a 36-foot wide collector roadway with curb, gutter, and a minimum of 7-foot attached sidewalk or 5-foot wide detached sidewalk with an 8-foot wide planter strip from Rolling Hill Drive to the existing terminus of View Circle 350-feet east of Rolling Hill Drive. The applicant should be required to dedicate right-of-way to extend 2-feet behind back of sidewalk. 10 Rolling Hill/ MER24-0058 / H-2023-0070 ACHD's MSM shows the extension of a collector roadway extending from Rolling Hills east to intersect Overland Road in alignment Movado Way. w;. I b, -• y E E verlar�d Ftd 1 - -- ' p 9 *New collector shown in blue dashed line The applicant has worked with the City of Meridian to determine an alignment of the new collector roadway, as shown below. To accommodate the future construction of the collector, the applicant should be required to dedicate right-of-way at the site's northeast property line, as shown on the site plan below. PROPOSED FUTURE COLLECTOR STREET a IN�FASEWAiEMSPHl3lahfy't.EY 9Y `' ��� �\ WLIE'I WASUNEYiNG.MEU 415 LI Needed Ri ht-of- --- 5 ---- -��--z _______ __- _--_- Way Dedicc ation __ � \\\ ra.wcotrro couecrna amects�\ [l 30'9KK P3MCEy CUUE� CC4EIiEO \ , I cool d-STOftlES 90N5TO E5 l W DWELLING UNITS - � 1 I I tt I :, ..:... . ------------ --i I io.v laaw 11 Rolling Hill/ MER24-0058 / H-2023-0070 3. Rolling Hill Drive a. Existing Conditions: Rolling Hill Drive is improved with 2-travel lanes and no curb, gutter or sidewalk abutting the site. There is 50-feet of right-of-way for Rolling Hill Drive (26-feet from centerline). b. Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing to construct curb, gutter, and 5-foot wide attached sidewalk abutting the site on Rolling Hill Drive. c. Staff Comments/Recommendations: The applicant's proposal meets District policy and should be approved, as proposed. The applicant should be required to construct Rolling Hill Drive as '/2 of a 36-foot wide local roadway with curb, gutter, and 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk abutting the site. The applicant should be required to dedicate right-of-way to extend 2-feet behind back of sidewalk. 4. Stub Streets a. Existing Conditions: There are no existing stub streets to or from the site. b. Applicant Proposal: The applicant is not proposing any stub streets. c. Staff Comments/Recommendations: Because View Circle will be extended as a collector roadway in the future, the applicant should be required to install a sign at the terminus of the roadway stating, "THIS IS A DESIGNATED COLLECTOR ROADWAY. THIS STREET WILL BE EXTENDED AND WIDENED IN THE FUTURE." 5. Driveways 5.1 Overland Road a. Existing Conditions: There are 3 existing curb-cut type driveways abutting the site on Overland Road located as follows (measured centerline to centerline): • A 37-foot wide driveway located 117-feet west of Movado Way. • A 43-foot wide shared-access driveway located 247-feet west of Movado Way. • A 22-foot wide shared-access driveway located 332-feet east of Rolling Hill Drive. b. Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing to close 22-foot wide existing driveway abutting the site on Overland Road with an 8-foot wide planter's strip and a 10-foot wide multi- use pathway. The applicant is proposing to close the portions of the shared-access driveways that abut the site on Overland Road with an 8-foot wide planter's strip and a 10-foot wide multi-use pathway. c. Staff Comments/Recommendations: The applicant's proposal to close the 22-foot wide existing driveway meets District policy and should be approved, as proposed. The applicant's proposal to partially close the existing shared-access driveways meets District policy. In accordance with District Cross Access Easements/Shared Access Policy 7202.4.1, staff recommends the applicant coordinate with the owner of the parcel surrounded by the site to close the existing driveways on Overland Road and provide access to the neighboring parcel internally through the site. The pathway should tie into the existing attached sidewalk on either side. 5.2 View Circle a. Existing Conditions: There are no existing driveway from the site onto View Circle. 12 Rolling Hill/ MER24-0058 / H-2023-0070 b. Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing to construct a 27-foot wide curb-return type driveway on View Circle located 302-feet east of Rolling Hill Drive (measured centerline to centerline). c. Staff Comments/Recommendations: The applicant's proposal meets District policy and should be approved, as proposed. 5.3 Rolling Hill Drive a. Existing Conditions: There are 4 existing unimproved driveways abutting the site on Rolling Hill Drive located as follows (measured centerline to centerline): • A 16-foot wide driveway 50-feet south of View Circle. • A 19-foot wide driveway 109-feet south of View Circle. • A 35-foot wide driveway 244-feet south of View Circle. • A 21-foot wide driveway 140-feet north of Overland Road. b. Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing to close the four existing unimproved driveways abutting the site on Rolling Hill Drive with curb, gutter, and 5-foot wide attached sidewalk. The applicant is proposing to construct a 27-foot wide curb-return type driveway abutting the site on Rolling Hill Drive located 191-feet north of Overland Road. c. Staff Comments/Recommendations: The applicant's proposal meets District policy and should be approved, as proposed. 6. Bridge for Fivemile Creek Crossing The District will require that the applicant submit the bridge plans for the crossing of the Fivemile Creek for review and approval prior to the pre-construction meeting and final plat approval. Note: Timing of project plan submittals should take into account review times, lead time for precast members and potential roadway closures. To ensure construction prior to irrigation season, approval of the project plans must be attained by January 15t".The District retains the right to modify road closure approvals on any project based on the needs of the District. Construction of projects approved after January 151" may be postponed until after irrigation season is over in October. It is recommended that bridge submittals be submitted before the end of the current irrigation season to ensure the best time frame for construction is attained. Submittals will need to include the street section extending over the bridge to ensure the requirements of the roadway are met. 7. Other Access Overland Road is classified as a principal arterial roadway; View Circle is classified as a collector roadway. Other than the access specifically approved with this application, direct lot access is prohibited to these roadways. 13 Rolling Hill/ MER24-0058 / H-2023-0070 E. Pow 1. Federal Accessibility Design Guidelines and Standards District policy 7203.1.1 states that developers shall follow the current version of the U.S. Access Board's Accessibility Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way (PROWAG), 36 CFR Part 1190, September 7, 2023; (Also see, https//www.access-board.gov/prowag and httpsHwww.access-board.gov/files/prowag/planning-and-design-for-alternatives.pdf for additional information). 2. Minor Improvements Minor Improvements Policy: District Policy 7203.3 states that minor improvements to existing Highways adjacent to a proposed development may be required. These needed transportation facilities are to correct deficiencies or replace deteriorated facilities. Included are sidewalk and/or bike lane construction or replacement (with physical buffers if missing and needed); construction of transitional sidewalk segments; crosswalk construction or replacement; curb and gutter construction or replacement; repair, replacement or expansion of curb extensions; replacement of unused driveways with curb,gutter,sidewalk, repair or addition of traffic calming or speed mitigation features; installation or reconstruction of pedestrian ramps; pavement repairs; signs,motor vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle traffic control devices; and other similar items. The current version of PROWAG will determine the applicable accessibility requirements for alterations and elements added to existing streets. ACHD staff is responsible for identifying the minor improvements that would be proportionate to the size and complexity of the development. 3. Livable Street Performance Measures District policy 7203.8 states that ACHD has adopted performance measures (level of stress) for evaluating the experience of bicyclists and pedestrians. ACHD seeks to create a transportation network that serves all ages and abilities. Bike and pedestrian facilities built through development should achieve a bike and pedestrian level of traffic stress 1 or 2, with no new bike lane below a minimum of 5-feet. 4. Overland Road Arterial Roadway Policy: District Policy 7205.2.1 states that the developer is responsible for improving all street frontages adjacent to the site regardless of whether or not access is taken to all of the adjacent streets. Improvements shall include transitional segments in accordance with the current version of PROWAG. Master Street Map and Typology Policy: District Policy 7205.5 states that the design of improvements for arterials shall be in accordance with District standards, including the Master Street Map, Livable Streets Design Guide, and the most current ACHD Livable Streets Performance Measures Plan as adopted by the ACHD Commission. The developer or engineer should contact the District before starting any design. Street Section and Right-of-Way Width Policy: District Policies 7205.2.1 & 7205.5.2 state that the standard 7-lane street section shall be 81-feet(back-of-curb to back-of-curb). This width typically accommodates three travel lanes in each direction, a continuous raised or landscaped median with intermittent turn lanes, and curbs and gutters. A 7-lane road shall also include a minimum 10-foot wide multi-use path outside the curb line on both sides with an 8-foot wide buffer from back-of-curb. Other Level 3 bike facility treatments as defined in the ACHD Bike Master Plan may be approved at the discretion of the ACHD Development Review Supervisor. The standard right-of-way width for a 7-lane arterial is 124-feet. Right-of-Way Dedication: District Policy 7205.2 states that The District will provide compensation for additional right-of-way dedicated beyond the existing right-of-way along arterials listed as impact fee eligible in the adopted Capital Improvements Plan using available impact fee revenue in the Impact Fee Service Area. 14 Rolling Hill/ MER24-0058 / H-2023-0070 No compensation will be provided for right-of-way on an arterial that is not listed as impact fee eligible in the Capital Improvements Plan. The District may acquire additional right-of-way beyond the site-related needs to preserve a corridor for future capacity improvements, as provided in Section 7300. Pedestrian Facilities: District Policy 7205.5.7 requires a concrete sidewalk at least 5-feet wide are required on both sides of all arterial streets. A parkway strip at least 8-feet wide between the back- of-curb and street edge of the sidewalk is required to provide increased safety and protection of pedestrians.Alternatively, on roadways identified for improvement in the Capital Improvement Plan, a minimum 10-foot wide multi-use path may be required. The path shall be placed in accordance with planned buildout in the Master Street Map with a minimum 8-foot wide planter strip as measured to the closest edge of the path. Street trees are encouraged between the pedestrian facility and the roadway when irrigation and maintenance will occur by the adjacent property owner or HOA through an approved license agreement. Consult the District's planter width policy if trees are to be placed within the parkway strip. In some instances, to match existing conditions, a minimum ?-foot wide sidewalk may be constructed next to the back-of-curb. ACHD Development Review staff will be responsible for determining the required facility. Vertical hardscape alternatives to street trees may be considered in the buffer space when street trees are not practicable. Detached sidewalks and multi-use paths are encouraged and should be parallel to the adjacent roadway. Pedestrian facilities will only be allowed to deviate from a straight line parallel to the roadway when authorized by Development Review staff to accommodate site specific conditions (i.e., street trees, utilities, etc.). Appropriate easements shall be provided if public pedestrian facilities are placed out of the right-of- way. The easement shall encompass the entire area between the right-of-way line and 2-feet behind the back edge of the pedestrian facility. Pedestrian facilities shall either be located wholly within the public right-of-way or wholly within an easement. Curb ramps or blended transitions shall be provided to connect the pedestrian access route at each pedestrian street crossing in accordance with the current version of PROWAG. Provide detectable warning surface in accordance with the current version of PROWAG. Frontage Improvements Policy: District Policy 7205.2.1 states that the developer shall widen the pavement to a minimum of 17-feet from centerline plus a 3-foot wide gravel shoulder adjacent to the entire site. Curb, gutter and additional pavement widening may be required (See Section 7205.5.5). ACHD Master Street Map: ACHD Policy Section 3111.1 requires the Master Street Map (MSM) guide the right-of-way acquisition, arterial street requirements, and specific roadway features required through development. This segment of Overland Road is designated in the MSM as a Mobility Arterial with ?-lanes and on-street bike lanes, a 99-foot street section within 124-feet of right-of-way. 5. View Circle Collector Street Policy: District policy 7206.2.1 states that the developer is responsible for improving all collector frontages adjacent to the site or internal to the development as required below, regardless of whether access is taken to all of the adjacent streets. Improvements shall include transitional segments in accordance with ADA and the current version of PROWAG. Master Street Map and Typologies Policy: District policy 7206.5 states that if the collector street is designated with a typology on the Master Street Map, that typology shall be considered for the required street improvements. If there is no typology listed in the Master Street Map, then standard street sections shall serve as the default. ACHD reserves the right to require bicycle and pedestrian facilities above those identified in the Livable Streets Design Guide and Master Street Map to ensure the safest facility possible based on current best practice. 15 Rolling Hill/ MER24-0058 / H-2023-0070 Street Section and Right-of-Way Policy: District policy 7206.5.2 states that the standard right- of-way width for collector streets shall typically be 50 to 70-feet, depending on the location and width of the sidewalk or multi-use path and the location and use of the roadway. The right-of-way width may be reduced, with District approval, if the sidewalk or multi-use path is located within an easement; in which case the District will require a minimum right-of-way width that extends 2-feet behind the back-of-curb on each side. The standard street section shall be 47-feet (back-of-curb to back-of-curb). This width typically accommodates a single travel lane in each direction, a continuous center left-turn lane, and bike lanes. If a multi-use path is determined to be the required treatment, the street section shall be reduced to 37-feet. If it is determined a continuous center left-turn lane is not appropriate and a path is installed, the street section may be reduced to 26-feet. Residential Collector Policy: District policy 7206.5.2 states that the standard street section for a collector in a residential area shall be 36-feet (back-of-curb to back-of-curb). The District will consider a 33-foot or 29-foot street section with written fire department approval and taking into consideration the needs of the adjacent land use, the projected volumes, the need for bicycle lanes, and on-street parking. At the discretion of Traffic Engineering staff, adjustments may be made to the street section, including removal of the continuous center turn lanes or modification to lane widths, where no driveways or intersections are present or to ensure adequate space for pathways and buffers. Half Street Policy: District Policy 7206.2.2 required improvements shall consist of pavement widening to one-half the required width, including curb, gutter and concrete sidewalk (minimum 5- feet), plus 12-feet of additional pavement widening beyond the centerline established for the street to provide an adequate roadway surface, with the pavement crowned at the ultimate centerline. A 3-foot wide gravel shoulder and a borrow ditch sized to accommodate the roadway storm runoff shall be constructed on the unimproved side. Alternatively, on roadways identified as low-stress bikeways in ACHD's Bike Master Plan, a minimum 10-foot wide multi-use path may be required in lieu of sidewalks. ACHD Development Review staff will be responsible for determining the required facility. The path shall be built 8-feet behind the top back of curb as measured to the closest edge of the path. Street trees are encouraged between the pedestrian facility and the roadway when irrigation and maintenance will occur by the adjacent property owner or HOA through an approved license agreement. Vertical hardscape alternatives to street trees may be considered in the buffer space when street trees are not practicable. Pedestrian Facilities: District policy 7206.5.6 requires a concrete sidewalk at least 5-feet wide to be constructed on both sides of all collector streets. A parkway strip at least 8-feet wide between the back-of-curb and street edge of the sidewalk is required to provide increased safety and protection of pedestrians. Consult the District's planter width policy if trees are to be placed within the parkway strip. Sidewalk constructed next to the back-of-curb shall be a minimum of?-feet wide. Alternatively, on roadways identified as low-stress bikeways in ACHD's Bike Master Plan, a minimum 10-foot wide multi-use path may be required in lieu of sidewalks. ACHD Development Review staff will be responsible for determining the required facility. The path shall be built 8-feet behind the back-of-curb as measured to the closest edge of the path. Street trees are encouraged between the pedestrian facility and the roadway when irrigation and maintenance will occur by the adjacent property owner or HOA through an approved license agreement. Vertical hardscape alternatives to street trees may be considered in the buffer space when street trees are not practicable. Pedestrian facilities should be parallel to the adjacent roadway. Pedestrian facilities will only be allowed to deviate from a straight line when authorized by Development Review staff to meet site specific conditions (i.e., street trees, utilities, etc.). 16 Rolling Hill/ MER24-0058 / H-2023-0070 Appropriate easements shall be provided if public sidewalks or multi-use paths are placed out of the right-of-way. The easement shall encompass the entire area between the right-of-way line and 2-feet behind the back edge of the sidewalk or multi-use path. Sidewalks shall either be located wholly within the public right-of-way or wholly within an easement. Curb ramps or blended transitions shall be provided to connect the pedestrian access route at each pedestrian street crossing in accordance with the current version of PROWAG. Provide detectable warning surface in accordance with the current version of PROWAG. ACHD Master Street Map: ACHD Policy Section 3111.1 requires the Master Street Map (MSM) guide the right-of-way acquisition, collector street requirements, and specific roadway features required through development. This segment of View Circle is designated in the MSM as a Residential Collector with 2-lanes and on-street bike lanes, a 36-foot street section within 50-70 feet of right-of-way. 6. Rolling Hill Drive Commercial Roadway Policy: District Policy 7208.2.1 states that the developer is responsible for improving all commercial street frontages adjacent to the site regardless of whether or not access is taken to all of the adjacent streets. Street Section and Right-of-Way Policy: District Policy 7208.5 states that right-of-way widths for new commercial streets shall typically be 50 and 70-feet wide and that the standard street section will vary depending on the need for a center turn lane, bike lanes, volumes, percentage of truck traffic, and/or on-street parking. • A 36-foot street section (back-of-curb to back-of-curb)will typically accommodate two travel lanes and on-street parking. • A 40-foot street section (back-of-curb to back-of-curb)will typically accommodate two travel lanes and a center turn lane. • A 46-foot street section (back-of-curb to back-of-curb)will typically accommodate two travel lanes and a center turn lane and bike lanes. Sidewalk Policy: District Policy 7208.5.6 requires a concrete sidewalk at least 5-feet wide to be constructed on both sides of all commercial streets. If a separated sidewalk is proposed, a parkway strip at least 6-feet wide between the back-of-curb and street edge of the sidewalk is required to provide increased safety and protection of pedestrians. Consult the District's planter width policy if trees are to be placed within the parkway strip. A permanent right-of-way easement shall be provided if public sidewalks are placed outside of the dedicated right-of-way. The easement shall encompass the entire area between the right-of-way line and 2-feet behind the back edge of the sidewalk. Sidewalks shall either be located wholly within the public right-of-way or wholly within an easement. Half Street Policy: District Policy 7208.2.2 required improvements shall consist of pavement widening to one-half the required width, including curb, gutter and concrete sidewalk (minimum 5- feet), plus 12-feet of additional pavement widening beyond the centerline established for the street to provide an adequate roadway surface, with the pavement crowned at the ultimate centerline. A 3-foot wide gravel shoulder and a borrow ditch sized to accommodate the roadway storm runoff shall be constructed on the unimproved side. 7. Stub Streets Stub Street Policy: District policy 7206.2.4.3 (collector) states that stub streets will be required to provide circulation or to provide access to adjoining properties. Stub streets will conform with the requirements described in Section 7206.2.4 (collector), except a temporary cul-de-sac will not be required if the stub street has a length no greater than 150-feet. A sign shall be installed at the 17 Rolling Hill/ MER24-0058 / H-2023-0070 terminus of the stub street stating that "THIS IS A DESIGNATED COLLECTOR ROADWAY. THIS STREET WILL BE EXTENDED AND WIDENDED IN THE FUTURE." In addition, stub streets must meet the following conditions: • A stub street shall be designed to slope towards the nearest street intersection within the proposed development and drain surface water towards that intersection; unless an alternative storm drain system is approved by the District. • The District may require appropriate covenants guaranteeing that the stub street will remain free of obstructions. Temporary Dead End Streets Policy: District policy 7206.2.4.4 (collector)requires that the design and construction for cul-de-sac streets shall apply to temporary dead end streets. The temporary cul-de-sac shall be paved and shall be the dimensional requirements of a standard cul-de-sac. The developer shall grant a temporary turnaround easement to the District for those portions of the cul- de-sac which extend beyond the dedicated street right-of-way. In the instance where a temporary easement extends onto a buildable lot, the entire lot shall be encumbered by the easement and identified on the plat as a non-buildable lot until the street is extended. 8. Driveways 8.1 Overland Road Access Points Policy: District Policy 7205.4.1 states that all access points associated with development applications shall be determined in accordance with the policies in this section and Section 7202. Access points shall be reviewed only for a development application that is being considered by the lead land use agency. Approved access points may be relocated and/or restricted in the future if the land use intensifies, changes, or the property redevelops. Access Policy: District policy 7205.4.7 states that direct access to principal arterials is typically prohibited. If a property has frontage on more than one street, access shall be taken from the street having the lesser functional classification. If it is necessary to take access to the higher classified street due to a lack of frontage, the minimum allowable spacing shall be based on Table 1 b under District policy 7205.4.7, unless a waiver for the access point has been approved by the District Commission. Driveways, when approved on a principal arterial shall operate as a right-in/right-out only, and the District will require the construction of a raised median to restrict the left turning movements. Driveway Location Policy: District policy 7205.4.7 requires driveways located on principal arterial roadways to be located a minimum of 355-feet from the nearest intersection for a right-in/right-out only driveway. Full-access driveways are not allowed on principal arterial roadways. Successive Driveways: District policy 7205.4.7 Table 1 b, requires driveways located on principal arterial roadways with a speed limit of 40 MPH to align or offset a minimum of 400-feet from any existing or proposed driveway. Driveway Width Policy: District policy 7205.4.8 restricts high-volume driveways (100 VTD or more)to a maximum width of 36-feet and low-volume driveways (less than 100 VTD)to a maximum width of 30-feet. Curb return type driveways with 30-foot radii will be required for high-volume driveways with 100 VTD or more. Curb return type driveways with 15-foot radii will be required for low-volume driveways with less than 100 VTD. Driveway Paving Policy: Graveled driveways abutting public streets create maintenance problems due to gravel being tracked onto the roadway. In accordance with District policy, 7205.4.8, the applicant should be required to pave the driveway its full width and at least 30-feet into the site beyond the edge of pavement of the roadway and install pavement tapers in accordance with Table 2 under District Policy 7205.4.8. 18 Rolling Hill/ MER24-0058 / H-2023-0070 Temporary Access Policy: District Policy 7202.4.2 identifies a temporary access as that which "is permitted for use until appropriate alternative access becomes available". Temporary access may be granted through a development agreement or similar method, and the developer shall be responsible for providing a financial guarantee for the future closure of the driveway. Cross Access Easements/Shared Access Policy: District Policy 7202.4.1 states that cross access utilizes a single vehicular connection that serves two or more adjoining lots or parcels so that the driver does not need to re-enter the public street system. 8.2 View Circle Access Policy: District Policy 7205.4.1 states that all access points associated with development applications shall be determined in accordance with the policies in this section and Section 7202. Access points shall be reviewed only for a development application that is being considered by the lead land use agency. Approved access points may be relocated and/or restricted in the future if the land use intensifies, changes, or the property redevelops. District Policy 7206.1 states that the primary function of a collector is to intercept traffic from the local street system and carry that traffic to the nearest arterial. A secondary function is to service adjacent property. Access will be limited or controlled. Collectors may also be designated at bicycle and bus routes. Driveway Location Policy (Stop Controlled Intersection): District policy 7206.4.4 requires driveways located on collector roadways near a STOP controlled intersection to be located outside of the area of influence; OR a minimum of 150-feet from the intersection, whichever is greater. Dimensions shall be measured from the centerline of the intersection to the centerline of the driveway. Successive Driveways: District policy 7206.4.5 Table 1 requires driveways located on collector roadways with a speed limit of 25 MPH and daily traffic volumes greater than 100 VTD to align or offset a minimum of 245-feet from any existing or proposed driveway. Driveway Width Policy: District policy 7206.4.6 restricts high-volume driveways (100 VTD or more)to a maximum width of 36-feet and low-volume driveways (less than 100 VTD) to a maximum width of 30-feet. Curb return type driveways with 30-foot radii will be required for high-volume driveways with 100 VTD or more. Curb return type driveways with 15-foot radii will be required for low-volume driveways with less than 100 VTD. Driveway Paving Policy: Graveled driveways abutting public streets create maintenance problems due to gravel being tracked onto the roadway. In accordance with District policy, 7206.4.6, the applicant should be required to pave the driveway its full width and at least 30-feet into the site beyond the edge of pavement of the roadway and install pavement tapers in accordance with Table 2 under District Policy 7206.4.6. 8.3 Rolling Hill Drive Driveway Location Policy: District policy 7208.4.1 requires driveways near intersections to be located a minimum of 75-feet (measured centerline-to-centerline) from the nearest local street intersection, and 150-feet from the nearest collector/arterial or arterial street intersection. Successive Driveways: District Policy 7208.4.1 states that successive driveways away from an intersection shall have no minimum spacing requirements for access points along a local street, but the District does encourage shared access points where appropriate. Driveway Width Policy: District policy 7208.4.3 restricts commercial driveways to a maximum width of 40-feet. Most commercial driveways will be constructed as curb-cut type facilities. Driveway Paving Policy: Graveled driveways abutting public streets create maintenance problems due to gravel being tracked onto the roadway. In accordance with District policy, 19 Rolling Hill/ MER24-0058 / H-2023-0070 7208.4.3, the applicant should be required to pave the driveway its full width and at least 30-feet into the site beyond the edge of pavement of the roadway. Driveway Design Requirements: District policy 7208.4.3 states if an access point is to be gated, the gate or keypad (whichever is closer) shall be located a minimum of 50-feet from the near edge of the intersection and a turnaround shall be provided. 9. Traffic Calming Speed Control and Traffic Calming Policy (Collectors): District policy 7206.3.8 states that collector streets should be designed to discourage speeds above 35 MPH and in a residential area, collector streets should be designed to discourage speeds above 30 MPH. The design of collector street systems should discourage excessive speeds by using passive design elements. If the design or layout of a development is anticipated to necessitate future traffic calming implementation by the District, then the District will require changes to the layout and/or the addition of passive design elements such as horizontal curves, bulb-outs, chokers, etc. The District will also consider texture changes to the roadway surface (i.e. stamped concrete) as a passive design element. These alternative methods may require a maintenance and/or license agreement. 10. Tree Planters Tree Planter Policy: Tree Planter Policy: The District's Tree Planter Policy prohibits all trees in planters less than 8-feet in width without the installation of root barriers. Class II trees may be allowed in planters with a minimum width of 8-feet, and Class I and Class III trees may be allowed in planters with a minimum width of 10-feet. 11. Landscaping Landscaping Policy: A license agreement is required for all landscaping proposed within ACHD right-of-way or easement areas. Trees shall be located no closer than 10-feet from all public storm drain facilities. Landscaping should be designed to eliminate site obstructions in the vision triangle at intersections. District Policy 5104.3.1 requires a 40-foot vision triangle and a 3-foot height restriction on all landscaping located at an uncontrolled intersection and a 50-foot offset from stop signs. Landscape plans are required with the submittal of civil plans and must meet all District requirements prior to signature of the final plat and/or approval of the civil plans. 12. Pathway Crossings: United States Access Board R304.5.1.2 Shared Use Paths. In shared use paths, the width of curb ramps runs and blended transitions shall be equal to the width of the shared use path. AASHTO's Guidelines for the Development of Bicycle Facilities 5.3.5 Other Intersection Treatments: The opening of a shared use path at the roadway should be at least the same width as the shared use path itself. If a curb ramp is provided, the ramp should be the full width of the path, not including any flared sides if utilized Detectable warnings should be placed across the full width of the ramp. FHWA's "Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access" (1999) reflected common ADA-related concepts: Chapter 6, Page 16-6: The width of the ramp should be at least as wide as the average width of the trail to improve safety for users who will be traveling at various speeds. In addition, the overall width of the trail should be increased, so the curb ramp can be slightly offset to the side. The increased width reduces conflict at the intersection by providing more space for users at the bottom of the ramp. F. Standard Conditions of A1212roval 1. All proposed irrigation facilities shall be located outside of the ACHD right-of-way (including all easements). Any existing irrigation facilities shall be relocated outside of the ACHD right-of-way (including all easements). 20 Rolling Hill/ MER24-0058 / H-2023-0070 2. Private Utilities including sewer or water systems are prohibited from being located within the ACHD right-of-way. 3. In accordance with District policy, 7203.3, the applicant may be required to update any existing non- compliant pedestrian improvements abutting the site to meet current Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Public Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG), ISPWC, or ACHD requirements . The applicant's enaineer should provide documentation of compliance to District Development Review staff for review. 4. Replace any existing damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk and any that may be damaged during the construction of the proposed development. Contact Construction Services at 387-6280 (with file number) for details. 5. A license agreement and compliance with the District's Tree Planter policy is required for all landscaping proposed within ACHD right-of-way or easement areas. 6. All utility relocation costs associated with improving street frontages abutting the site shall be borne by the developer. 7. It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify all existing utilities within the right-of-way. The applicant at no cost to ACHD shall repair existing utilities damaged by the applicant. The applicant shall be required to call DIGLINE (1-811-342-1585)at least two full business days prior to breaking ground within ACHD right-of-way. The applicant shall contact ACHD Traffic Operations 387-6190 in the event any ACHD conduits (spare or filled)are compromised during any phase of construction. 8. Utility street cuts in pavement less than five years old are not allowed unless approved in writing by the District. Contact the District's Utility Coordinator at 387-6258 (with file numbers)for details. 9. All design and construction shall be in accordance with the ACHD Policy Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Construction Services procedures and all applicable ACHD Standards unless specifically waived herein. An engineer registered in the State of Idaho shall prepare and certify all improvement plans. 10. Construction, use and property development shall be in conformance with all applicable requirements of ACHD prior to District approval for occupancy. 11. No change in the terms and conditions of this approval shall be valid unless they are in writing and signed by the applicant or the applicant's authorized representative and an authorized representative of ACHD. The burden shall be upon the applicant to obtain written confirmation of any change from ACHD. 12. If the site plan or use should change in the future, ACHD Planning Review will review the site plan and may require additional improvements to the transportation system at that time. Any change in the planned use of the property, which is the subject of this application, shall require the applicant to comply with ACHD Policy and Standard Conditions of Approval in place at that time unless a waiver/variance of the requirements or other legal relief is granted by the ACHD Commission. G. Conclusions of Law 1. The proposed site plan is approved, if all of the Site Specific and Standard Conditions of Approval are satisfied. 2. ACHD requirements are intended to assure that the proposed use/development will not place an undue burden on the existing vehicular transportation system within the vicinity impacted by the proposed development. 21 Rolling Hill/ MER24-0058 / H-2023-0070 Request for Appeal of Staff Decision To request an appeal of a staff level decision, see District policy 7101.6.7 at https://www.achdidaho.org/home/showpublisheddocument/452/638243231708370000 Request for Reconsideration of Commission Action To request reconsideration of a Commission Action, see District policy 1006.11 at https://www.achdidaho.org/home/showpublisheddocument/452/63824323170837000O 22 Rolling Hill/ MER24-0058 / H-2023-0070 Q. Idaho Transportation Department(ITD) See public record V. FINDINGS R. 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; Commission finds the Applicant's request to annex the subject property with C-C zoning and develop with a multi family development and a vertically integrated residential project on the site at the densities proposed is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan per the analysis in Section III. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Commission finds the proposed map amendment to the C-C zoning district does not comply with the purpose statement of the commercial districts in that the Applicant's request will not adequately provide for the retail and service needs of the multi family development and community in accord with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety,and welfare; Commission finds the proposed map amendment is detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare as the proposed uses are not compatible with adjacent 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 Commission finds City services are available to be provided to this development. Comments were received from WASD on this application that are included above in Section VIII.L. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. Commission finds the proposed annexation is not in the best interest of the city because it creates a County enclave and isolates the eastern property, rather than encouraging a continuous flow between the properties, including the surrounding area. S. Conditional Use(UDC 11-5B-6E) The commission shall base its determination on the conditional use permit request upon the following: City of Meridian I Department Report 0. V. Findings 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. Commission finds that the subject property is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and dimensional and development regulations of the C-C zoning districts (see Analysis, Section III.for more information). 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian comprehensive plan and in accord with the requirements of this title. Commission finds that the proposed use is not consistent with the future land use map designation ofMU-R. 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. Commission finds the proposed design of the development, construction, operation and maintenance is not compatible with the mix of other uses planned for this area and with the intended 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. Commission finds that even if the applicant complies with the proposed staff conditions outlined in this report, the proposed use will adversely affect other properties in the area because it is not compatible with existing uses in the immediate area. 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. Commission finds that essential public services are available to this property and that the use should be adequately served by these facilities. 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. All public facilities and services are readily available for the subject site so Commission finds that the proposed use will not create excessive costs or 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. Commission finds that, although traffic is sure to increase in the vicinity with the addition of more residential units, the development would not be detrimental to others due to excessive traffic, noise, smoke,fumes, glare or odors. City of Meridian I Department Report 0. V. Findings 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. Commission is unaware of any natural, scenic, or historic features within the development area, therefore, it finds the proposed use should not result in damage to any such features. VI. ACTION A. Staff: After reviewing the project for compliance with the city's comprehensive plan and unified development code,staff finds the project meets the intent and complies if the applicant adheres to the conditions outlined in Section IV per the Findings in Section V of the staff report B. Commission: The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard these items on October 3, 2024. At the public hearing, the Commission moved to recommend denial of the subject annexation,zoning and preliminary_plat requests. 1. Summary of Commission public hearing_: a. In favor: Wade Thomas,JD Planning and Associates b. In opposition: Alicia Eastman,Mike Flowers, Chris Maiocca and Robin Maiocca,Amy Wattles, and Dave Ellis, C. Commenting: Wade Thomas,JD Planning and Associates d. Written testimony:None e. Staff presenting application: Bill Parsons, Current Planning Supervisor f. Other Staff commenting on application:None 2. Key issue(s)of public testimony a. Roadway capacity,traffic,density,and lack of transition with four-story buildings directlX facing single-family homes. 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission: a. The project does integrate some of the components for mixed-use in the Comprehensive plan. b. Adding more multi-family with the current 760 units in the vicinity right now is excessive and not necessary. C. The proposed development lacks smooth transitions to the surrounding areas and creates the enclave with the county parcel in the center of the development. d. The timing of this project is not appropriate. 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. Commission recommended denial of the applications. 5. Outstandingissue(s)ssue(s) for City Council: a. None C. City Council: Action Pending. City of Meridian I Department Report 0. VI. Action • - w 4 84 jw 3 J -�- r- _ ( - � +,r,`.�-• fr - firm ., - -, OVERLANDLU ■0 1 _ V -��„ y.fie, a k-.�{ i.�t it Oct AL- dap 'r/ LU i T Pill M.. L Jl • �+ i ■ p�1..om4m■� .� • -`.I� ►1;iiiiiiin/i::::��::::-li►�11j%111 / �_ �►/IIIIIIIIIII\�•�•\onm■■■.IpII�•�I��I -t :��►��aa,� � �II'Illl�ll:.�♦ �,�'�.111111111111 84 h 1 "���'�'■::n.. ,IIIIIIIIIIIi�111■?■i■111111'1 ♦limo- ■ .��/n■�I�Iww■1\�. �� 'l11■nn1111J■1111111111\� �����/��a.■�������It JI 7n1"'ililli�w IIIIIIIIIII�����w��MEN EN MIN ,==� '11111`��11111�..-=�����1� OYERL--AND �� �������■ �1���ii pit , �`.�il� �:�/a�i■■■■■► Kim WE C7 .i �' � pie¢:, f'�J:nn/�ir0��1,`a•irii\:i i m� ► 1-�:Q fib. �1 ��allur.In■►f�ff W �A►�•►1��Q�1■• ■.::lion■.:n/���i\fii�� lino LU •-�: -iiiC iiiii':�iii■i�� �►._ 9nnw %inunnn►'.:/��I/..III■ r ■1■w■■11■IILT pTl����n. '�\IIII' :nn�e�un� �f•�.,/�� �1��m�u mm mq� •�n■i■ol►�r� 111� ��JJ•���►,,,. ■■. o.��:��� Ij,,�..�.j.Q���iiiiiiii.� �:: ■�:iii�■■:�• =111��U� ap�on���u���a�� :..•��� .�.��1.�..�.�-i...\ e._ .._s �-- .ri�1��i ii■�� �Qa! 1 ■ vnnnD ■ �/►♦Vnn n::C::r:O:►♦ • . � ,/ �-- �►/I1111111111►►■•■/iron.■■■.n�IIr��I��I . �� •..►. .►� � 1���w■�/111111111111111111 ■■ 84 :�===�=': �IIIIIIIIIIC1��IryI�■■...... �� p♦i::O tion lnm■� I■�111 tttt� i.�i.nfarlan.nr� I. '111tIn111PJi 1111111111�� :I1ii■ii■ SEEMS ■i 1111� 1�lli�Q�IIIIIIIIIII�■���Jw .Ipnl � 11 1-ten■►i G�_:'�1�41�j�1 r� ,,� �IIIIILI fy nun►�i�i�:-=���.1�1►1 jam log ON,ERL--AND �••,� r ��.nnnl 1:■/��i:::::� _ logo logo i.q l�q 1"iiliTiil ■■'� � Ai i■d►r�_DID��II�I \.Rr�i��i:.".�i1. wit. ♦ G��1��1 Diu /►Q�Q��.p►/,1,�� ..../��••►,f/►/�i � _ A, �r1 � rn.r♦ ��■::non.::I•pri SUr■ --`It�����WJ.■1111 �r.nmm�y►::I��I■■III■ � 1 :�..�=mnllnirilp.U�nn � �l\IIII �nunnm■ imlTnnuu�■►���I.lu �------.. r � /' �♦.un. ..u..Ar�� J �/IIIIIU4�. Q�nnnn.�R�l� \�_rilll�C��Inn.�nn■"'11111 moll►, QI■ ,./.u..p ►f ■o \\ ■o o .■ ♦♦,��Qr�:�:.n��n nN��� _= "r''�•■� .n...1\/�WIIIP 7,�+r�� r�.�.......■�%■�a =_InuTil� :: .■.Ir�r...>_.� �_�_�rU■■' 4r1����.�fit/t� ��,��♦�1�������f'i�i o::��W 4111111mIJ III►`QC �-1��i ii��► ����� �i��:f1f��//Oj��/���//u// i1;� ■ "1 t" 11 .1 _ 1�� � �� ♦♦�r�� ��-♦iiniin��nn� • � II►/IIIIIIIIIII\�■■■\ir■■■n■■■.nbl■�ri��I - - �� •►......� !�►�■■�/111111111111111111 ■ �84 ,� .�� �►..== , �IIIIIIIIII����1/�I�■�...... ..� .� , IIIIIIII'�■,,1���■�...... ��� I,���������� �►�♦i: iiiuii� ■' ��Illi:i i"1'll" idnn�Innmt.�. 'gI�n1111PJ�11111111111� OR �� �I ���■�//�1♦���■■■■■■I� ■I 7m-mlu'��1111111111/���p������ �� �'�� � ������'�'��■�■'.111111: II�i�111►�11111■�'r'�� j id■u 11 1�nq��'�'�1��I��� �1!�� �1 �1 ilk IIIIIII��_ �i I'��Ir' ��� ►Inlc�lf�■nnn•�i,' =.•;.1��.• OVERLAND- �`■IIIIII�".�1/�::::n► —1 ■� -Punnnnnnl ,■'■ ■■q IN oilTii ■�.■ � �J � `=nmmnum tllllllllllu � � P•I d1��_ ��ll 1 � ` , ■ -unnnnnnll nnuuulr i■L�. uii��� �/.1. �1�1 ■■■■�.,`('�■, t�fl..lmmmll.....p c.m, ■� ♦.�,�_��/I V III ..vnnn ■ -. _ 1/ Opp ♦ i..■.n► 1 I�, n...P/i i �Jr.■n.f.�i/1 ■nn►:��if ::■ : ��' �iri:1f�11.1�� _���pi�Q��upj♦1���\IQ��...■!:�..►/�!f�i num mom=�.� � _�A ►�rrl��G��•�i �o'■nnu.•:I�nlr��r♦n�� ■nnm noon_ . ■� --_ n■.1:::::��� ��r� ■':■ur/....:.. /■ 11gel go .■ ♦� W� I■ 1�� � ■III�.�a ■K.t �.nano ■ - --, n■P �!�\IIII' nmmw■ .� rr■u.n. .nn.nry p r emu/ u,n�� �1�r�iu.■■..�1'�1Enjoble IIIIr1����0�■Iln_�C■��r■�r.■`���1111 ♦i�'r1�O i ri..■nn.nu.►o�j� -_ ►►n_���♦� �■u�u.l�fr��d111G 111���JJ,�r ii •�:���� ♦1�•►rr►��■.■ r/ - - ■n■or w�� � n■t'L► � \\�xl�����iaq ��►♦1/���1��•Giu v•��i 7�'=linn���i�: .��■�i ii u�� ���i��_��11♦♦ a//ul/ ::\■■��� ♦ ��1� ♦����.....\ d/lfillllnllllnl II`►`..: �t'11��■ii n�� ��.■� ��.■�♦j 1//ujpy�b//!■/.�� 1 1 �'1. "11 1 Service Accessibility Report PARCEL R75S5000790 SERVICE ACCESSIBILITY Overall Score: 28 28th Percentile Location Within 112 mile of City Limits YELLOW Extension Sewer Trunkshed mains -� 500 ft.from parcel GREEN Floodplain V ithin 100 yr floodplain & < 2 acres RED Emergency Services Fire Response time < 5 min. GREEN Emergency Services Police Meets response time goals most of the time GREEN Pathwa;rs V ithin 114 mile of future pathways "E__04 Transit V ithin 114 mile of current transit route GREEN Arterial Road Buildout Status Ultimate configuration(#of lanes in master street= GREEN plan) matches existing (#of Varies) School Walking Proximity From 112 to 1 mile .walking "E__04 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) Park Walkability No park within walking distance by park type RED City of Meridian I Department Report 0.VII. Exhibits IY - ■ ■ -g REM AM . . lip, jJ111rijiffmi Nazi a � tlitli� � e j� �I//r/rF_J� ■o F. Landscape Plan(date: 5/23/2024) Wstudia A i LLI _ I l i i I z H _ ■ ■ -- ' LL X < = i;r----- ---- ---- ------ - - WNCGf�PE C4E.i'.E:. L100 City of Meridian Department Report 0.VII. Exhibits G. Qualified Open Space Exhibit(date: 5/23/2024) ------------ -- ----- ------------------ Studio _ F���w -- ----- - ---------- ------- — - - — ------------------- -. --: — 1 ------_________- --------'._.______---.�. rM SPlIE 1 v � 1 I ILLU — ..: J I I o. VJ LLI EL LU F— I j� W o J w ___ I II ww __________ rcesu� ---------------------------------- svnrt� A102 City of Meridian Department Report 0.VII. Exhibits H. Pedestrian Circulation Plan(date: 5/23/2024) studio - - -— — - - - -- - --- ---_ - ---- - --------------------- - __ _ -- ---- ---- -,--- t - - -- - - --- -` ji IIIIIJI I I I I I U11111 II III- � I LU �w IL a a af z z wn �a E��o vmes�x aacuunox d -® A 10 1 City of Meridian Department Report 0.VII. Exhibits SL\I4AF-1-"1in 4!1• r� o ae a mo o sa o.o mm �II1■I �I �■� IL■ I■1 ■■ in ■■ I■1 ■.I I■I 1.■ I■1 I■1 H. •• ILIA rl.11 .I. .I. IL II ILIA �L-i� �n�� 11■LIL��---���--- ��� i � ICI phi'. n ��:�� 1::1 ��:�� a: n :�: ��:�� n��'.�� t:a �1w,I 11 7. "�• moi iM�" 1:1 i� IIIf ii i� _ _ !=i_ i 1 -M MEMO - - --- - - - - --- - -- - -- --- - - �r11 I■11 M. I■11 .. Eno .. I■11 I■1r I.I 111 Its ono OWE. .em _ iie. a0- _ 1�.1 n l■1 n I■I s 1■1 .. i.-.` ■■ I■1 n 0-1 n�qno7 11■1�_ 11.1� �1.1� 11.1� .1. . 1'd �1.1 I■I I■I - I■I ■■ ■ II■ I■I�� 11.1:1 11 �LI:I �� 11.11 .I. �� JI Ij.11 11 11 �11 as oo o sa m mm ONION 1 ■ I I■1 1■1 F11 ram■ ■ ■■ �.� �.� IAll .I • •I• II■■ 11■11 ■■ 11■11 ■■ f1■11 -- NMI 1�_ _ NMI -- ;�._ : _: _Um w imp = �;�;1"■� 1I�1� 11 1;■;1" �■ 1;■I� �■ ■I■ = I ■1 I■I I■� I■I ■ ■■ SEEN Studio P-0 �o....a...... a:]-- F—1 0 0 o 0 0 o F ---;�6 Z wq� p w aw El a ® AM ® — J � $ ® F z z J w o JD w o n sui�uc e�vanou.wFsr Q' F acasorx ® ® r� ® �..� ewuaxcnvEti ® ® - Evn west Fas A202a studio w CL w a ¢8 0 e = W � - � = z � J w gQ O z r�eui�owc E--T H w3 Ell /� (} euaoixc E�Evarox-East A202 b City of Meridian Department Report 0.VII. Exhibits studio LU studio —IGAL BUILDING RENDERING _...e.",,._...,_....T..a,.a. a W Q L a a = W i 2 Z J l!J Ea t, O z � hz: S..w. L,.....s...n+.n PF]VDFfiINGD A901 City of Meridian Department Report 0.VII. Exhibits J. Annexation Legal Description&Exhibit Map EXHIBIT_ ANNEXATION DESCRIPTION FOR ROLLING HILLS NO.1 All of Lots 1, 3,4 & 5 and a portion of Lot 2 in Block 1 of Rolling hill Subdivision,according to the official plat thereof,filed in book 18 of Plats at pages 1202-2203,Ada County Records, lying within the SW 114 of the SE 1A of Section 16,Township 3 North,Range 1 East, Boise Meridian.located in the County of Ada, State of Idaho,being more particularly described as follows: COMMENCING al the South 114 corner of said Section 1$from which the Southeast corner of said Section 16 bears South 89'13'12`East,2676.93 feet:thence on the South line of said Section 16,South W13'12'East, 356.06 feet to the centerline of S.Bolling Hill Dr_and the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING; thence on said centerline, North 0`06'35'West,535.60 feet to the canterline of E.View Circle: thence on said centerline, North 8a'21'00"East,275.85 feet; thence continuing on said centerline 64.14 feet northeasterly on a curve to the left, having a radius of IW.00 feel, through a central angle of 36°45'00`and a long chard which bears North 70'51'l4`East, 63.05 feel: thence South 0'39'38"East, 45.00 feet lot comer common to said lots 2$5; thence on the North line of said Lots 1 $2, North 88'21'00'East, 333.54 feet to the Northeast corner of said Lot 1: thence on the East I ine of said Lot 1 and the Southerly extension thereof,South 0'02'44-West,527.28 feet to said South line of Section 16; thence on said South line. North W13'12'West, 165.82 feet. thence on the West line of Lot 1 and the Southerly extension thereof, North 0'01'59" East. 330.03 feet: thence North 89`13'12'West, 167.29 feet to the East line of said Lol4; thence on the East line of said Lots 3&4 and the Southerly extension[hereof, South 0"05'39'East, 330.94 feet to said South line; thence on said South line, North W13't 2'~Nest, 335.77 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING: Containing an approximate area of 6.90 Acres or 309,722 square feet, more or less. }NL LA NO l� 811 ��?z31L3 0 10 I OF N S. G L City of Meridian Department Report 0. VII. Exhibits ROLLN6 HILL SL4bl W15ION RLXK I t+ar2l'OVE FM 85' 4-95 COO' T E. EYE R, N54°21:0�'� 333 "�+_ � I I � ±6_$0 ACRES_ ±300.722 5Q. FT. koLLIN&K LL +�+ BLOCK ci LP aC7 is PARTLo I E. OVER ANO 00_ t N W!a Orl W �y 33646E N 99u23'120 2676.91' 5U ]6R I gASIS OF 9EARI1&S SOUTHEAST CC4� WAVE TA&W ,,{8111 COWE RADIUS LE r.TH N3LTA 04C&b CH00#DIST. IZA0 }` VALLEY AMWXATFQN VCWZMTZAAW7M FOR -MoJECTwo iF LAM-91. " kOLL N&HhIS NO.. 1 z3,LW mar&= i Y k g pu pr r.f qw: d{Jr Ibf M 4 A W Wkrt hPW I ..•..+.f•'.�+ftF•.. eo ATFD IN7kF fot& M QF ADA $FATE LYr Mamo 1 OF 2 City of Meridian I Department Report 0. VII. Exhibits C i E IDIAN.;--- Agenda Item Applicant Presentation APPLICANT: Wade Thomas, JD Planning & Consulting Parcel #R7555000025 in the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 16, T.3N., R.1E. 4270 Rolling Hill Drive (Parcel #R7555000015) and 1480 Rolling Hill Drive (Parcel #R7555000050), 1520 Rolling Hill Drive (Parcel #R7555000041), 1560 Rolling Hill Drive (Parcel # R7555000032), : LOCATIONAZ, CUP -0070 Rolling Hill -2023-SUBJECT: H Key issues:he timing of this project appropriate? tIs 4.?transitions to the surrounding areashe proposed development lack smooth tDoes 3.excessive and necessary?family units in this area -Is adding more multi2.The county enclave parcel.1. The Enclave Parcel Current Mixed Use Adding more multifamilyMarked in brownRegional Area Current Mixed 687.12 acresRegional Zone Use Zoned Residential (Orange)” areaof the development 10% to 30% Comp Plan: “Residential Uses are expected to comprise between 88.8 = 12.9%Include our project of 6.9 acres81.9 acres = 11.9%RG area-within the MUTotal Current approved residential 26.39 acres = 3.8%Zoned Commercial (w/ Residential)55 acres = 8% Seamless integration Where is the parcels?to the County seamless transition Where is the ?parcelssto the County seamless transition Where is the ?parcelssto the County seamless transition 20202019201820222024202020162020201820182018 Restrictive Covenants for Rolling Hill Sub1963 Amendment of Restrictive Covenants2005 2005 Restrictive Covenant Removed 2018 20202019201820222024202020162020201820182018 2005 Restrictive Covenant vacated for development2018 Plat for 12 lots Removed 20202019201820222024202020162020201820182018 C�,fER IDIAN:--- IDAHO Public Presentations Meridian Police Department - Movado Estates Development Location of new development - E Overland Rd & S Movado Way Time Frame - 02/01/ 2019 - 01/31/2021 Level of Service ( LoS ) - Delivered By Reporting District ( RD - M761 ) Calls for Service ( CFS) : Response Times : Dispatch to Arrival ( all units ) Average Response Times by Priority : ' City of Meridian ' Priority 3 (MPD Goal is within 3 to 5 minutes) 3 : 44 Priority 2 (MPD Goal is within 8 to 10 minutes) 7 : 12 Priority 1 (MPD Goal is within 15 to 20 minutes) 10 : 35 Average Response Times by Priority : ' M761 ' Priority 3 3 : 36 Priority 2 7 : 30 Priority 1 9 : 42 Calls for Service ( CFS) : Calls occurring in RD ' M761 ' CFS Count Total 11439 % of Calls for Service split by Priority in ' M761 ' % of P3 CFS 1 . 2% % of P2 CFS 63 . 5 % % of P1 CFS 33 . 9 % % of PO CFS 1 . 4% Crimes Crime Count Total 212 Crashes * Crash Count Total 159 Analyst Note (s ) : Response Time and Calls for Service ( CFS ) by Priority - Most frequent priority call types; • Priority 3 calls most frequently involved Injury Crashes, EMS Code 3 Assists, and Lockouts . • Priority 2 calls most frequently involved Traffic Stops, Welfare Checks ( 911 Hang Ups ), and Suspicious Vehicles . • Priority 1 calls most frequently involved Construction Site Checks, Illegal Parking, and Follow Ups . Crime (occurred date ) - Most frequent crimes involved ; • All Other Offenses ( Resisting/Obstructing Officers, Failure to Appear Warrants, Juvenile Beyond Control , etc . ) , and • Drug/ Narcotic Violations ( Possession of Marijuana , Methamphetamine , Heroin, etc . ), and • All Other Larceny ( Grand Theft, Theft Petit, Theft by Acquiring Lost Property, etc . ) . * Crashes - Most frequent crashes were ; * 40 . 9% injury type crashes, • 21 . 4% property damage reports, and • 37 . 7% non - reportable crashes . Priority Response Times Defined : Priority 0 type calls are no priority type of calls . Priority 1 type calls are for non -emergency type of calls where the officer will arrive at the earliest convenience, and shall obey all traffic laws . Priority 2 type calls require an urgent response where the officer will arrive as soon as practical, and should obey all traffic laws . Priority 3 type calls are an emergency response in which the lights and siren and driving as authorized for an emergency vehicle by Idaho Code to facilitate the quick and safe arrival of an officer to the scene . *Some data may be incomplete due to report processing times and/or system updates. Crashes include CC. RD is Caller Building. LC 3254 Sources: ITS/RMS, Tritech CAD, WebCars V IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Ordinance No. 24-2065: An ordinance (Burnside Ridge Estates — H-2023- 0055) annexing a parcel of land located in the west half of the northeast quarter and a portion of the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter and a portion of the northeast quarter of the northeast quarter and all of Lots 1, 2 and 3 of Basslin Ridge Estates as on file in Book 64 of Plats at Page 6469 in the Office of the Recorder of Ada County, Idaho, all located in Section 26, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described in Exhibit "A"; rezoning 123.28 acres of such real property from RUT (Rural Urban Transition) to R-2 (11.91 acres) (Low-Density Residential), R-4 (89.55 acres) (Medium Low- Density Residential), and R-8 (21.82 acres) (Medium-Density Residential) zoning districts; directing city staff to alter all applicable use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps and all official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance; providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Treasurer, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law, repealing conflicting ordinances; and providing an effective date. ADA COUNTY RECORDER Trent Tripple 2024-063332 BOISE IDAHO Pgs=29 BONNIE OBERBILLIG 11/07/2024 08:02 AM CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO NO FEE CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 24-2065 BY THE CITY COUNCIL: CAVENER, LITTLE ROBERTS, OVERTON STRADER, TAYLOR,WHITLOCK AN ORDINANCE (BURNSIDE RIDGE ESTATES — H-2023-0055) ANNEXING A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE WEST HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER AND A PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER AND A PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER AND ALL OF LOTS 11 2 AND 3 OF BASSLIN RIDGE ESTATES AS ON FILE IN BOOK 64 OF PLATS AT PAGE 6469 IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, ALL LOCATED IN SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 WEST, BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A"; REZONING 123.28 ACRES OF SUCH REAL PROPERTY FROM RUT (RURAL URBAN TRANSITION)TO R-2(11.91 ACRES)(LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL), R-4 (89.55 ACRES) (MEDIUM LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL), AND R-8 (21.82 ACRES) (MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ZONING DISTRICTS; DIRECTING CITY STAFF TO ALTER ALL APPLICABLE USE AND AREA MAPS AS WELL AS THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAPS AND ALL OFFICIAL MAPS DEPICTING THE BOUNDARIES AND THE ZONING DISTRICTS OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS ORDINANCE; PROVIDING THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE FILED WITH THE ADA COUNTY ASSESSOR, THE ADA COUNTY TREASURER, THE ADA COUNTY RECORDER, AND THE IDAHO STATE TAX COMMISSION, AS REQUIRED BY LAW; REPEALING CONFLICTING ORDINANCES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE WHEREAS, the City of Meridian received a written request from property owner Linder Holdings, LLC; Colleen K. Kelly; and C. Brent Jackson to annex and rezone the land described in the legal descriptions attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and the maps attached hereto as Exhibit "B" ("Subject Property"), which exhibits are incorporated herein by reference; WHEREAS, the Subject Property is contiguous to the corporate limits of the City of Meridian, Idaho; WHEREAS, the City of Meridian is authorized by Idaho Code section 50-222 to annex the Subject Property; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF IDAHO: SECTION 1. That the City Council of the City of Meridian hereby annexes the Subject Property. SECTION 2. That the City Council of the City of Meridian hereby rezones 123.28 acres of such real property from RUT (Rural Urban Transition) to R-2 (11.91 acres) (Low-Density ANNEXATION ORDINANCE—BURNSIDE RIDGE ESTATES H-2023-0055 Page I Residential),R-4(89.55 acres)(Medium Low-Density Residential), and R-8 (21.82 acres) (Medium- Density Residential) zoning districts. SECTION 3. That City Staff is hereby directed to alter all applicable use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps and all official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance. SECTION 4. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a certified copy of this ordinance and its exhibits with the Ada County Assessor,the Ada County Treasurer,the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, within ten (10) days following the effective date of this ordinance. SECTION 5. That all ordinances,resolutions,orders or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed. SECTION 6. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon publication, in accordance with law. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this 6th day of November, 2024. APPROVED BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this 6th day of November, 2024. MAYOR ROBERT E. SIMISON ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON, CITY CLERK STATE OF IDAHO, ss: County of Ada On this 6th day of November,2024,before me,the undersigned,a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared Robert E.Simison and Chris Johnson known to me to be the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively,of the City of Meridian,Idaho,and who executed the within instrument,and acknowledged to me that the City of Meridian executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. Notary Public Commission Expiration: ANNEXATION ORDINANCE—BURNSIDE RIDGE ESTATES H-2023-0055 Page 2 CERTIFICATION OF SUMMARY : William L . M. Nary, City Attorney of the City of Meridian, Idaho , hereby certifies that the summary below is true and complete and upon its publication will provide adequate notice to the public . � Lv / William L . M . Nary, Cky Attorney SUMMARY OF CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 24-2065 An ordinance (Burnside Ridge Estates — H-2023 -0055) annexing a parcel of land located in the west half of the northeast quarter and a portion of the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter and a portion of the northeast quarter of the northeast quarter and all of Lots 1 , 2 and 3 of Basslin Ridge Estates as on file in Book 64 of Plats at Page 6469 in the Office of the Recorder of Ada County, Idaho , all located in Section 26, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho , more particularly described in Exhibit "A"; rezoning 123 .28 acres of such real property from RUT (Rural Urban Transition) to R-2 ( 11 . 91 acres) (Low-Density Residential), R4 (89 . 55 acres) (Medium Low-Density Residential) , and R- 8 (21 . 82 acres) (Medium-Density Residential) zoning districts ; directing city staff to alter all applicable use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps and all official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance ; providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Treasurer, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law; repealing conflicting ordinances ; and providing an effective date . A full text of this ordinance is available for inspection at City Hall, City of Meridian, 33 East Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho . This ordinance shall be effective as of the date of publication of this summary. [Publication to include map as set forth in Exhibit B .] ANNEXATION ORDINANCE — BURNSIDE RIDGE ESTATES H-2023 =0055 Page 4 I EXHIBIT A CC _ 4.'PA S LAND SvRvEywo PLLC N 32 Client: Kimley Horn °• sp 1`ir °A. Date: February 15, 2024 ,Q� 0E of Job No.: 9519 CygRD A- PROPERTY PROPERTY DESCRIPTION A parcel of land being the W 1/2 NE 1/4 and a portion of the SE 1/4 NE 1/4 and a portion of the NE 1/4 NE 1/4 and all of Lots 1, 2 and 3 of Basslin Ridge Estates as on file in Book 64 of Plats at Page 6469 in the Office of the Recorder of Ada County, Idaho, all located in Section 26, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County Idaho, more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at a found Brass Cap marking the NW corner of said NE 1/4, (North 1/4 corner), from which a found Aluminum cap stamped "PLS 17665" marking the NE corner of said NE 1/4, (Section corner common to Sections 23, 24, 25 and 26) bears S. 890 06' 38" E., a distance of 2655.71 feet; Thence along the Northerly boundary of said W 1/2 NE 1/4, S. 890 06' 38" E., a distance of 1328.23 feet to the NE corner of said W 1/2 NE 1/4, (East 1/16 corner common to sections 23 and 26); Thence along the Easterly boundary of said W 1/2 NE 1/4, S. 000 33' 37"W., a distance of 1326.54 feet to a found 5/8-inch diameter iron pin with illegible cap marking the Northwest corner of said Basslin Ridge Estates; Thence along the Northerly boundary of said Basslin Ridge Estates, S. 890 08' 36" E., a distance of 798.19 feet; Thence leaving the Northerly boundary of said Basslin Ridge Estates, N. 000 37' 19" E., a distance of 165.10 feet; Thence S. 890 03' 39" E., a distance of 527.88 feet to the east boundary of said NE 1/4 NE 1/4; Thence along the east boundary of said NE 1/4 NE 1/4, S. 000 37' 17"W., a distance of 164.34 feet to the NE corner of said SE 1/4 NE 1/4, (North 1/16 corner common to sections 25 and 26); Thence along the Easterly boundary line of said SE 1/4 NE 1/4, S. 000 37' 17"W., a distance of 1325.84 feet to the SE corner of said SE 1/4 NE 1/4, (East 1/4 corner); Thence along the Southerly boundary of said SE 1/4 NE 1/4, N. 89011' 36"W., a distance of 1325.93 feet to the Southeast corner of said of said SE 1/4 NE 1/4, (Center east 1/16 corner); Thence along the Southerly boundary of the W 1/2 NE 1/4, N. 890 10' 56"W., a distance of 1326.91 feet to a found 5/8-inch diameter iron pin with cap stamped "PLS 6901" marking the Southwest corner of said W 1/2 NE 1/4, (Center 1/4 corner); Thence along the Westerly boundary of said W 1/2 NE 1/4, N. 000 33' 35" E., a distance of 2655.21 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. This parcel contains 123.28 acres more or less. 623 11th Ave. South,Nampa,ID 83651 T. (208)442-0115 C. (208) 608-2510 rgray.cls@gmail.com LAND SURVEYING PLLC Client: Kimley Horn Job No.: 9519 Rev. Date: February 16, 2024 Re: Jackson Ridge Estates REZONE R-4 HOLDING AREA PROPERTY DESCRIPTION A parcel of land being a portion of the S 1/2 NE 1/4, located in Section 26, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County Idaho, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at a found Brass Cap marking the NW corner of said NE 1/4, (North 1/4 corner), from which a found Aluminum cap stamped "PLS 17665" marking the NE corner of said NE 1/4, (Section corner common to Sections 23, 24, 25 and 26) bears S. 890 06' 38" E., a distance of 2655.71 feet; Thence along the Westerly boundary of said NE 1/4, S. 000 33' 35"W., a distance of 1794.43 feet; Thence leaving said Westerly boundary line, S. 890 26' 25" E., a distance of 155.00 feet; Thence S. 0' 33' 35" W., a distance of 76.67 feet; Thence S. 89' 26' 25" E., a distance of 30.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence continuing S. 890 26'25" E., a distance of 136.95 feet; Thence a distance of 3.01 feet along the arc of said curve right, having a radius of 4.50 feet, a central angle of 38' 21' 38", the long chord of which bears N. 71° 22'46" E., a distance of 2.96 feet; Thence a distance of 119.79 feet along the arc of said curve right, having a radius of 68.50 feet, a central angle of 1001 12' 00", the long chord of which bears S. 77' 42' 03" E., a distance of 105.10 feet; Thence N. 62' 23' 57" E., a distance of 10.00 feet; Thence S. 89' 26' 25" E., a distance of 112.67 feet; Thence S. 83' 35' 26" E., a distance of 100.00 feet; Thence a distance of 79.16 feet along the arc of said curve right, having a radius of 694.00 feet, a central angle of 061 32' 08", the long chord of which bears S. 03' 08' 30"W. , a distance of 79.12 feet; Thence S. 77' 50' 01" E., a distance of 350.90 feet; Thence a distance of 1.82 feet along the arc of said curve right, having a radius of 3.00 feet, a central angle of 340 48' 07", the long chord of which bears S. 60' 25' 58" E., a distance of 1.79 feet; Thence S. 43' 01' 54" E., a distance of 779.48 feet; 623 11th Ave. South,Nampa,ID 83651 T. (208)442-0115 C. (208)608-2510 rgray.c1s@gmai1.com COMPASS LAND SURVEwNG.PLLC Kimley-Horn-9519\Survey\Descriptions\Rev 12-12-23 Holding Area Rezone R-4 Boundary.doc Page 2 of 2 Thence S. 00' 48'24"W., a distance of 50.00 feet to a point on the Southerly boundary line of the SE1/4 NE1/4 of said Section 26; Thence along said Southerly boundary line, N. 89' 11' 36" W., a distance of 200.69 feet, to the Center East 1/16 Corner of said Section 26; Thence leaving said Center East 1/16 Corner and along the Southerly Boundary of the SW1/4 NE 1/4 of said Section 26, N. 89° 10' 56"W., a distance of 974.20 feet to the beginning of a curve right; Thence leaving the Southerly Boundary of the SW1/4 NE 1/4 of said Section 26, a distance of 139.36 feet along the arc of said curve right, having a radius of 250.00 feet, a central angle of 31° 56'21", the long chord of which bears N. 73° 12'45"W., a distance of 137.56 feet to the beginning of a reverse curve left; Thence a distance of 65.99 feet along the arc of said curve left, having a radius of 250.00 feet, a central angle of 150 07' 28", the long chord of which bears N. 640 48' 19"W., a distance of 65.80 feet; Thence non tangent to said curve, N. 11° 11' 16" E., a distance of 112.50 feet to the beginning of a curve left; Thence a distance of 37.10 feet along the arc of said curve left, having a radius of 200.00 feet, a central angle of 100 37'41", the long chord of which bears N. 05" 52' 26" E., a distance of 37.05 feet; Thence N. 0° 33' 35" E., a distance of 572.36 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. This parcel contains 17.41 acres more or less. t LA EN G 73 a � OF P - qRD A• 623 1 lth Ave. South,Nampa,ID 83651 T. (208)442-0l l5 � C. (208) 608-2510 rgray.cls@gmail.com J 1 LAND SURVEYING PLLC I Client: Kimley Horn Job No.: 9519 Date: February 16, 2024 Re: Jackson Ridge Estates REZONE R-4 PART 2 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION A parcel of land being a portion of the NE 1/4 and a portion of Lot 1, 2 and 3 of Basslin Ridge Estates as on file in Book 64 of Plats at Page 6469 in the Office of the Recorder of Ada County, Idaho, all located in Section 26, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County Idaho, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at a found Brass Cap marking the NW corner of said NE 1/4, (North 1/4 corner), from which a found Aluminum cap stamped "PLS 17665" marking the NE corner of said NE 1/4, (Section corner common to Sections 23, 24, 25 and 26) bears S. 890 06' 38" E., a distance of 2655.71 feet: Thence along the Northerly boundary of said NW 1/4 NE 1/4 , S. 890 06' 38" E., a distance of 1328.23 feet to the NE corner of said NW 1/4 NE 1/4, (East 1/16 corner common to Sections 23 and 26); Thence along the Easterly boundary of said NW 1/4 NE 1/4, S. 000 33' 37"W., a distance of 1326.54 feet to a found 5/8 inch diameter iron pin with illegible cap marking the Northwest corner of said Basslin Ridge Estates; Thence along the Northerly boundary of said Basslin Ridge Estates, S. 890 08' 36" E., a distance of 70.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence Continuing along the Northerly boundary of said Basslin Ridge Estates, S. 891, 08' 36" E., a distance of 728.19 feet; Thence leaving said Northerly boundary of said Basslin Ridge Estates, N. 00° 37' 19" E., a distance of 165.10 feet; Thence S. 89" 03' 39" E., a distance of 527.88 feet to a point on the Easterly line of the E1/2 NE1/4 of said Section 26 (Common line to sections 25 and 26); Thence along the Easterly boundary line of said E 1/2 NE 1/4, S. 000 37' 17"W., a distance of 1490.18 feet to the SE corner of said SE 1/4 NE 1/4, (East 1/4 corner); -Thence alonVhe-Southerly-boundafy-of-said-SE-414 NE-114,--N-89 ' .distance-of 1125.24 feet; Thence leaving said Southerly boundary line N. 00' 48' 24" E., a distance of 50.00 feet; Thence N. 43' 01' 54"W., a distance of 3.59 feet; Thence N. 46° 58' 06" E., a distance of 166.00 feet; 623 1 lth Ave. South,Nampa, ID 83651 T. (208)442-0115 C. (208) 608-2510 rgray.cls@gmail.com COMPASS LAND SURVEYING.PLLC Kimley-Horn-9519\Survey\Descriptions\Rev 2-8-22Rezone R-4 Boundary.doc Page 2 of 2 Thence S. 430 01'54" E., a distance of 29.90 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve right; Thence a distance of 57.78 feet along the arc of said curve right, having a radius of 150.00 feet, a central angle of 220 04' 14", the long chord of which bears S. 310 59'47" E., a distance of 57.42 feet; Thence N. 690 02' 20" E., a distance of 30.00 feet; Thence N. 650 34' 19" E., a distance of 156.36 feet; Thence N. 630 40' 01" E., a distance of 57.42 feet; Thence N. 46' 58' 06" E., a distance of 122.00 feet; Thence N. 41° 18'40" E., a distance of 60.29 feet; Thence S. 89' 07' 53" E., a distance of 230.00 feet; Thence N. 00' 52' 07" E., a distance of 155.00 feet; Thence N. 890 07' 53"W., a distance of 272.61 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve to the left; Thence a distance of 76.62 feet along the arc of said curve left, having a radius of 100.00 feet, a central angle of 430 54' 01", the long chord of which bears S. 680 55' 06"W., a distance of 74.76 feet; Thence, S. 460 58' 06"w., a distance of 37.44 feet; Thence N. 43° 01' 54"W., a distance of 698.49 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve to the right; Thence a distance of 142.21 feet along the arc of said curve right, having a radius of 750.00 feet, a central angle of 100 48' 53", the long chord of which bears N. 370 35' 59"W., a distance of 142.00 feet; Thence N. 32' 10' 04"W., a distance of 101.09 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve to the left; Thence a distance of 3.79 feet along the arc of said curve left, having a radius of 750.00 feet, a central angle of 001 17' 24", the long chord of which bears N. 320 18'46"W., a distance of 3.79 feet; Thence N. 570 49' 56" E., a distance of 54.42 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve to the right; Thence a distance of 74.45 feet along the arc of said curve right, having a radius of 130.00 feet, a central angle of 321 48' 53", the long chord of which bears N. 740 14'23" E., a distance of 73.44 feet; L Np Thence N. 000 51' 24" E., a distance of 140.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. y�� cE This parcel contains 32.03 acres more or less. 732 a qq A 70 o� � S0F� P cygRD P. G� 623 1 lth Ave. South,Nampa,ID 83651 T. (208)442-0115 C. (208) 608-2510 rgray.cls@gmail.com "A� J LAND SURVEYING PLLC Client: Kimley Horn Job No.: 9519 Date: February 16, 2024 Re: Jackson Ridge Estates REZONE R-4 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION A parcel of land being a portion of the W 1/2 NE 1/4, Section 26, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County Idaho, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at a found Brass Cap marking the NW corner of said NE 1/4, (North 1/4 corner), from which a found Aluminum cap stamped "PLS 17665" marking the NE corner of said NE 1/4, (Section corner common to Sections 23, 24, 25 and 26) bears S. 890 06' 38" E., a distance of 2655.71 feet; Thence along the Northerly boundary of said W 1/2 NE 1/4 , S. 890 06' 38" E., a distance of 116.02 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence continuing along the Northerly boundary of said W 1/2 NE 1/4 , S. 890 06' 38" E., a distance of 1212.21 feet to the NE corner of said W 1/2 NE 1/4, (East 1/16 corner common to Sections 23 and 26); Thence along the Easterly boundary of said W 1/2 NE 1/4, S. 000 33' 37"W., a distance of 1323.58 feet; Thence leaving said Easterly boundary N. 42' 06' 23" W., a distance of 209.48 feet; Thence N. 53' 16'20"W., a distance of 50.43 feet to the beginning of a non-tangent curve right; Thence a distance of 282.75 feet along the arc of said curve right, having a radius of 756.00 feet, a central angle of 210 25'45", the long chord of which bears S. 471,26' 33"W., a distance of 281.10 feet to a point on a compound curve left; Thence a distance of 671.95 feet along the arc of said curve left, having a radius of 744.00 feet, a central angle of 510 44' 51", the long chord of which bears S. 320 17' 00"W., a distance of 649.35 feet; Thence N. 830 35' 26"W., a distance of 50.00 feet; Thence N. 890 26' 25"W., a distance of 112.67 feet; Thence, S. 62° 23' 57"W., a distance of 10.00 feet to the beginning of a non-tangent curve left; Thence a distance of 119.79 feet along the arc of said curve left, having a radius of 68.50 feet, a central angle of 1000 12' 00", the long chord of which bears N. 770 42' 03"W., a distance of 105.10 feet to a point on a compound curve right; 623 llth Ave. South,Nampa,ID 83651 T. (208)442-0115 C. (208)608-2510 rgray.cls@gmail.com COMPASS LAND SURVEYING,PLLC Kimley-Horn-95191Survey\Descriptions\Rev 2-8-22Rezone R-4 Boundary.doc Page 2 of 2 Thence a distance of 3.01 feet along the arc of said curve right, having a radius of 4.50 feet, a central angle of 380 21' 38", the long chord of which bears S. 711 22'46"W., a distance of 2.96 feet; Thence N. 8911 26' 25"W., a distance of 166.95 feet; Thence N. 00' 33' 35" E., a distance of 161.98 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve right; Thence a distance of 187.58 feet along the arc of said curve right, having a radius of 130.00 feet, a central angle of 820 40' 31", the long chord of which bears N. 410 53' 51" E., a distance of 171.73 feet; Thence N. 060 45' 54"W., a distance of 254.12 feet; Thence N. 230 41' 08" E., a distance of 55.03 feet; Thence N. 220 05'29" E., a distance of 177.00 feet to the beginning of a non-tangent curve left; Thence from a tangent which bears N 67054'31" W, along curve to the left with a radius of 456.00 feet, and having a central angle of 01°13'12" an arc length of 9.71 feet with a chord bearing of N 68°31'07" W, and a chord distance of 9.71 feet to the beginning of a reverse curve right; Thence a distance of 246.91 feet along the arc of said reverse curve right, having a radius of 203.00 feet, a central angle of 690 41' 18", the long chord of which bears N. 340 17' 04"W., a distance of 231.97 feet; Thence N. 000 33' 35" E., a distance of 709.53 feet; Thence N. 230 43' 26" W., a distance of 158.91 feet; Thence N. 000 53'22" E., a distance of 64.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. This parcel contains 40.11 acres more or less. t' �D 0 W 7732 0 4PA i(let "E0F10'' 623 1 lth Ave. South,Nampa,ID 83651 T. (208)442-0115 C. (208) 608-2510 rgray.cls@gmail.com Go I i'/I r� LAND SuRvBYfNQ PLLC Client: lQmiey Horn Date: January 24, 2024 Job No.: 9519 Re:Jackson Ridge Estates REZONE R2 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION A parcel of land being a portion of the W 1/2 NE 1/4,Section 26,Township 3 North,Range 1 West, Boise Meridian,Ada County Idaho, more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at a found Brass Cap marking the NW corner of said NE 1/4,(North 1/4 corner),from which a found Aluminum cap stamped"PLS 17665"marking the NE corner of said NE 1/4,(Section corner common to Sections 23,24,25 and 26)bears S. 890 06'38"E.,a distance of 2655.71 feet; Thence along the Northerly boundary of said W 112 NE 1/4, S. 890 06'38"E.,a distance of 116.02 feet; Thence leaving said Northerly boundary, S.0011 53'22"W.,a distance of 64.00 feet; Thence S.230 43'26"E.,a distance of 158.91 feet; Thence S.000 33'35"W.,a distance of 709.53 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve left; Thence a distance of 246.91 feet along the arc of said curve left, having a radius of 203.00 feet,a central angle of 690 41'18",the long chord of which bears S.340 17'04"E.,a distance of 231.97 feet to a point on a reverse curve to the right; Thence along said reverse curve to the right,with a radius of 456.00 feet and a central angle of 01"1312", an arc length of 9.71 feet with a chord bearing of S 68031'07"E and a chord distance of 9.71 feet; Thence S.220 05'29"W.,a distance of 177.00 feet; Thence S.230 41'08"W.,a distance of 55.03 feet; Thence S.060 45'54" E.,a distance of 254.12 feet to the beginning of a non tangent curve left; Thence a distance of 187.58 feet along the arc of said curve left,having a radius of 130.00 feet,a central angle of 820 40'31",the long chord of which bears S.410 53'51"W.,a distance of 171.73 feet; Thence S.0011 33'35"W., a distance of 85.31 feet; Thence N.890 26'25"W.,a distance of 155.00 feet to the Westerly boundary of sold W 112 NE 1/4; Thence along the Westerly boundary of said W 1/2 NE 1/4, N.000 33'35"E.,a distance of 1794.43 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. This parcel contains 8.27 acres more or less. aN E a 0 77 o a W OF X'01' Q� qRD A• L�� 623 1 lth Ave. South,Nampa,iD 83651 T.(208)442-0115•C.(208)608-2510"rgray.cls@gmail.com i �ASS LAND SURVMf40 PLLG r Client. Kimley Horn Date: January 24, 2024 Job No.: 9519 Re: Jackson Ridge Estates REZONE R-2 HOLDING AREA PROPERTY DESCRIPTION A parcel of land being a portion of the SW 114 NE 114, located in Section 26, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County Idaho, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at a found Brass Cap marking the NW corner of said NE 114, (North 114 corner), from which a found Aluminum cap stamped "PLS 17665" marking the NE corner of said NE 114, (Section corner common to Sections 23, 24, 25 and 26) bears S. 890 06'38" E., a distance of 2655.71 feet; Thence along the Westerly boundary of said NE 114, S. 001,33'35"W., a distance of 1794.43 feet to the P01NT OF BEGINNING; Thence leaving said Westerly boundary line, S. 89' 26' 25" E., a distance of 155.00 feet; Thence S. 0' 33' 35"W., a distance of 76.67 feet; Thence S. 89'26'25" E., a distance of 30.00 feet; Thence S. 00 33' 35"W., a distance of 572.36 feet to the beginning of a curve right; Thence a distance of 37.10 feet along the arc of said curve right, having a radius of 200.00 feet, a central angle of 100 37'41", the long chord of which bears S. 05' 52' 26"W,, a distance of 37.05 feet; Thence S. 11° 11' 16"W., a distance of 112.50 feet to the beginning of a non tangent curve right; Thence a distance of 65.99 feet along the are of said curve right, having a radius of 250.00 feet, a central angle of 151' 07' 28", the long chord of which bears S. 64' 48' 19" E., a distance of 65.80 feet to the beginning of a reverse curve left; Thence a distance of 139.36 feet along the arc of said curve right, having a radius of 250.00 feet, a central angle of 310 56' 21", the long chord of which bears S. 73' 12'45" E., a distance of 137.56 feet to the Southerly boundary line of the SE114 NE114 of said Section 26; Thence along the Southerly Boundary of the SW114 NE 114 of said Section 26, N. 89' 10'56"W., a distance of 352.72 feet to a found 518 inch Iron Pin with a plastic cap stamped "PLS 6901" marking the Southwest corner of the SW114 NE114 of said Section 26 (Center 114 of said Section 26); Thence along the Westerly boundary line of the SW114 NE114 of said Section 26, N. 00 33'35" E., a distance of 860.78 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. pL L ND This parcel contains 3.64 acres more or less. ■� Fo 7732 r Ep o F 623 11th Ave. South,Nlampa,ID 83651 T. (208)442-0115 C.(208)608-2510 rgray.cls@ Fank.. G C ' AS,S LAND SURVEYING PLLC Client: Kimley Horn Date: January 24, 2024 Job No.. 9519 Re: Jackson Ridge Estates REZONE R-8 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION A parcel of land being a portion of the NE 114 and a portion of Lot 1, 2 and 3 of Basslin Ridge Estates as on file in Book 64 of Plats at Page 6469 in the Office of the Recorder of Ada County, Idaho,all located in Section 26, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County Idaho, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at a found Brass Cap marking the NW corner of said NE 114, (North 114 corner),from which a found Aluminum cap stamped"PES 17665" marking the NE corner of said NE 114, (Section corner common to Sections 23, 24, 25 and 26) bears S. 890 06' 38" E., a distance of 2655.71 feet; Thence along the Northerly boundary of said NW 114 NE 114 , S. 890 06' 38" E., a distance of 1328.23 feet to the NE corner of said NW 114 NE 114, (East 1116 corner common to Sections 23 and 26); Thence along the Easterly boundary of said NW 114 NE 114, S. 000 33' 37"W., a distance of 1323.58 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence continuing along said Easterly Boundary line S. OW 33'37"W., a distance of 2.96 feet to a found 5/8 inch diameter iron pin with illegible cap marking the Northwest corner of said Basslin Ridge Estates; Thence along the Northerly boundary of said Basslin Ridge Estates, S. 89108'36" E., a distance of 70.00 feet; Thence leaving the Northerly boundary of said Basslin Ridge Estates, S. 000 51'24"W., a distance of 140.00 feet to the beginning of a non-tangent cure left; Thence an are length of 74.45 feet along the arc of said curve left, having a radius of 130.00 feet, a central angle of 320 48'53", the long chord of which bears S. 74' 14' 23"W., a distance of 73.44 feet; Thence S. 570 49' 56"W., a distance of 54.42 feet to the beginning of a non-tangent cure right; Thence an arc length of 3.79 feet along the arc of said curve right, having a radius of 750.00 feet,a central angle of 000 17'24", the long chord of which bears S. 320 18' 46" E.,a distance of 3.79 feet; Thence S.32" 10' 04" E., a distance of 101.09 feet to the beginning of a tangent cure left; Thence an arc length of 142.21 feet along the arc of said curve right, having a radius of 750.00 feet, a central angle of 100 51' 50", the long chord of which bears S. 370 35' 59"E., a distance of 142.00 feet; Thence S.430 01' 54" E., a distance of 698.49 feet; Thence N. 460 58' 06" E., a distance of 37.44 feet to the beginning of a tangent cure right; Thence an arc length of 76.62 feet along the arc of said curve right, having a radius of 100.00 feet, a central angle of 43"54'01", the long chord of which bears N. 68'55' 06" E., a distance of 74.76 feet; Thence S. 890 07' 53" E., a distance of 272.61 feet; Thence S. 000 52' 07"W., a distance of 155.00 feet; 623 11th Ave. South,Nampa,TD 83651 1'.(208)442-0115 C. (208)608-2510 rgray.cls@gmail,com COMPASS LAND SuR vL.'Y1NG PLLC Kiinley-Ham-95191SurveylDescriptionslRev 2-8-22Rezone R-4 Boundary.doe Page 2 of 2 Thence N. 890 07'53"W.,a distance of 230.00 feet; Thence S.410 18'40"W., a distance of 60.29 feet; Thence S.460 58' 06"W., a distance of 122.00 feet; Thence S. 630 40' 0 1"W., a distance of 57.42 feet; Thence S. 65G 34' 19"W., a distance of 156.36 feet; Thence S. 690 02'20"W., a distance of 30.00 feet to the beginning of a non-tangent cure left; Thence an arc length of 57.78 feet along the arc of said curve left, having a radius of 150.00 feet,a central angle of 220 04' 14", the long chord of which bears N. 310 59'47"W„ a distance of 57.42 feet; Thence N. 43'01'54"W., a distance of 29.90 feet; Thence S. 460 58'06"W., a distance of 166.00 feet; Thence N. 4311 01'54"W., a distance of 775.89 feet to the beginning of a tangent cure left; Thence an arc length of 1.82 feet along the arc of said curve left, having a radius of 3.00 feet, a central angle of 340 48'07", the long chord of which bears N. 60125'58"W., a distance of 1.79 feet; Thence N. 770 50'0 1"W., a distance of 350.90 feet to the beginning of a non-tangent cure right; Thence an arc length of 79.16 feet along the arc of said curve right, having a radius of 694.00 feet,a central angle of 060 32'08", the long chord of which bears N. 03"08'30" E., a distance of 79.12 feet; Thence N. 830 35'26"W., a distance of 50.00 feet to the beginning of a non-tangent cure right; Thence an arc length of 671.95 feet along the arc of said curve right, having a radius of 744.00 feet, a central angle of 510 44'51", the long chord of which bears N. 320 17'00" E., a distance of 649.35 feet to a point on a compound curve to the left; Thence an arc length of 282.75 feet along the arc of said curve left, having a radius of 756.00 feet, a central angle of 210 25'45", the long chord of which bears N. 470 26' 33" E., a distance of 281.10 feet; Thence S. 530 16' 20" E.,a distance of 50.43 feet; Thence S. 420 06' 23" E., a distance of 209.48 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. This parcel contains 21.82 acres more or less. L �o 773 of %k. GQ'P 623 1 lth Ave. South, Nampa, ID 83651 T.(208)442-0115 C.(208)608-2510 rgray.cls@gmail.com EXHIBIT B EXHIBIT LOCATED IN THE NE1/4 OF SECTION 26, T. 3 N., R. 1 W., B.M., ADA COUNTY, IDAHO White Mountain 2024 Ranch Subdivision Majestic View Subdivision Bk. 58 Pg. Bk. 61 Pg. 6110-6111 5615-5616 BASIS OF BEARINGS / S89°06'38"E 2655.71' -23 — —S 89006'38"E 1328.23'— . L . ._ .I _ . . 2 7— _ . L . . #VICTORY ROAD 24 POINT OF 6 T-- — — — — N.1/4 Comer E 1116th Comer 1327.48' 26 25 BEGINNING 1' 1 LEGEND 1 a o Calculated point c� L Q Found brass cap monument 1-0 CoCo 1 jM ® Found aluminum cap monument I @o Found 518 inch dia.iron pin �I W 1 1M W 1 °o UNPLATTED 0 A cn N N 00037'19"E m 165.10' S 89°03'39"E wl 1 S 89°08'36"E 527,88 N F M 1 NE 1116th Comer 798.19' N 1116th Comer ° cM O o Z U) CAD Area:5,370,450 s.f.t o 0 0 1 123.28 acres t 1Nt Woo ter` Cn M ra mno CD �C 1 I C 1/4 Comer CE 1/16th Comer E 114 Comer "'0 N 891056 W 1326.91' o co � N 89011'36"W 1325.9�� 26 25 .� 1 UNPLATTED to rol 05 a� o Q4 to 773 2y a ,p 9rE of � qRD A. 2 0 500 1000 COMPASS LAND SURVEYING, PLLC JN 9519 Scale: 1"=500' 623 11th Avenue South Nampa, ID 83651 File: 9519-Annexation Exhibit 02-15-2024.dwg Office: (208)442-0115 Fax: (208) 327-2106 s89°06'38"e 1 8.23 yS��NpG N SFO SG9 04 a 732 grFof�oP�P �qRD A• G 3 v � co "M M O O N s89°03'39"e 527 88 m in r a M N M L6 s89°08'36"e o ry 798.18 C) 3 v i- w y M " o N 1326.91 1325.93 n89°10'S6'w n89°11'36"w 9519 REVISED ANNEXATION ADDS JACKSON 2/15/2024 Scale: 1 inch= 350 feet File: 9519 Annexation Revised 2-15-2024.ndp Tract 1: 123.2885 Acres,Closure:s36.3411w 0.01 ft.(1/999999),Perimeter=10944 ft. 01 s89.0638e 1328.23 08 n89.1136w 1325.93 02 s00.3337w 1326.54 09 n89.1056w 1326.91 03 s89.0836e 798.19 10 n00.3335e 2655.21 04 n00,3719e 165.1 05 s89.0339e 527.88 06 s00.3717w 164.34 07 s00.3717w 1325.84 ZD co o R ' L � Ocm O � .m- co Cl) co U 0o U04 w w �: w 3: R: w ♦ w z v o o `° zn - io F M Y. N v I ED En Ln v cV CV � < N VN' p N d' pO_ O I o T m 1� � m0 co � ccoo O C �■�_ w pp rn _ W O CDr M IO rr Z U) U U) Z Z Z � v w N C ,C ` U) lC� I Z to Z m ~ 0 N zn o E O c M CO m E U 00 0 c� o CV) w � o J N I— > z .. n U a / a_ �N D Q M O O O N N V w C V CO M �R QM CV O U J N M l�n O M Q (n E c ' `/ O QO Z = p co o � v U, o J / N Z_ E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 co -0 c0 U') � co Q Q a o a zt) ,LO o o0 0 0 0 0 Li Li U- ( '�1�/ LU � �z > LL W fD to N N N sV / �^ T u� Z O w ° O ® OO co�`'� V Co Lo J� LL > n� g Q �j0 0U Z 0 r U L a U) o (D N w Q � , co zQ00 Q > o N i c�� 1� // Q U) r _ N Q W 1 h w LL' Ito Q N CD O U 00 O N N � O co (`+1 I Z N in 0 C.0 w N Ce \ I N t` < w 0 O I CO T 1 3 L 7 U) r 6 Ch O o 04 p 04 N O z o 1 9 r.6 Z ti i w N ui _ p "NI& V ` w ~ LL eo cn M C.6 ED_ O O m N a0 M G L\ O r� W oc�o ;`�to � r r � ��I N w co N� 0 CD U Z U� D Q co � m 1 CD Z 0-- -o ,9£'ZL5 3 d9E�££o00 N N 0 o Cn E `nIo O Z IZ p U NIA ry h- z Z w ccool� O w 1 —�— — _ M N N 10999Z M.9clec.00 S r , E L15 O U M Lo I I g Z ai U '7 lL Eo �tib N�1 Q J W 0 C) j ~N�Q cc ass as o� N CO ov o N M C o r L M CO LO 3 m N N r' N Q co N M Cn C C O '2 II II N o '2 -a C) cLi r t m (V 6U U Im 0) O T M&6 ri C CO M N V IU 2 0 m m C Nzo st N In 0 LO O M oU) cco ^' O Oii O fo CD (a CO N 41 @ Cn!CM N on-1�'aN �jj� � L Q 3 300(o y 0) MM 1L0 CO CO 00M N r N C r Or CIVj I`r I�M '0 O C C X J r-J v+ r�2 r�2 U 00 M iN / 0 CNN''� coE > f N L 0 d O O r 0) 00 N O M \ ) T A N N pp N O Cp It 1-1W C: 0) � CN N y CN rNCLpO 11 co, LLO 'U CD op U U(p CNw CD C) N p - O� ' m n 8E ZLS rU m ` aSSRS.0ou 0? m cd m P. O � Cd C)U Ch W 'A7 NC;CD9Z f O • N M r C27 �� N �p II ^ CN Oco Q 0) I@ CO O IY V 0 ^O M-U0 Orpr C:)T V IfJOU� r,LO Cog U O MV V r,: N�co In NNp� ION CO V CO M Cp IC7 CO O Mrw T 0 N I` NNCl I` IA I`OV CA „NOM r, __M C, (� ` NJ�C fOq (n Nf U) C Y) v' F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O Or r -nC/) C- m Z I co CD CD j L _ N 00°33'35"E 2655.21' w ' � Z :;a 0 c� ON = 0 ® O ° I 0 z m cnj = m co I N 0 0 0 w I = = n _ _ _ N >rn W Q Q Q \ ) IV m c`n a & r m m D �N I o W Q m o o � W Z rn n �' A p (D cD, Z 0 co a c � m >y. �. P � v4 <; p m' Q o ^' Z W D O (7 p rn v E3 0 � cn o m m O oE3 CD N S 00'33'37"W B N �. � CD r N �"� L16 1326.54' o 0 0 N � CD N N N rn %0 m I C/)co al' cn Z rn in. CD Z b iv �� (5 z p co co N O ,Q��� C) (7 TI I m m CD � ro w N A N b n rn L ' m 4 N j N o I 90 o co (D ' V V CD 0 r alD) ~ a n ci a o m I n C2 r ui m c W N3 N N C.0 m co Er N m PO L11 f Cn co I� c0 0 w w I co Im N N � 0 °° O ry D � `n A S 00°37'17"W 1490.18' � � � � o < s�rJxnsR Roan m 00 CD UNPLATTED o 0 � � 9 D -1 - CD o w c D w -I 0 Z m Z p - m 3 `ma XmC ' NZ� = =_ � � G � 03 nmi G v o y db � �+ „ CD D • 0 - m N- V N r Cr o O r rnw 0 0 Z CA N Cn CA -=n (n L cn 3 Z Cfl (D CD CJI cfl N j r ' co r r r m 0 rn v+ a w N o co aro rn w nri m N z N m z z z 0 z z 0 z z z z z w z z z o o cn w A ao 0 0 s A rn rn rn A o r O y N da O O O O W Vt O W d1 W O .Z1 Z C— O OD 4 Cn O CT A W O O wV o rn m OD DODu 0 A � CA ' aC5CAa rn rn o rn mn m D om m m m m m m m m m m m z m O Y. v N m O O N v m 0) w a Z G) O N (D O O O N O O v D N O fV T N O ? C� cfl cn a w nn� m A� 0 0 o S o D v pRO s o 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 w CD N O O W N 0 ay m D O ff► w A o a C 00 W z n m TNZ D A V N -4 V z m '9y � — r m C z z z w w C Z p N Co -. m �1�'T177 W (.A 'A D W N3 Oo CT CT CD� z Z m m m Q � Z m =7,4 A N W V N V a y+ W t CD N v s j n n 0 -� OC cn Z 0 n —I 0v0 cu cn ivcOD /� � - -�\ /� � - - �\ Z (n D N j0 z \ \ 2 a)v / / 0 - 3 c CD CD `I 0ol/ \l C w 000 W n _ Q CA s89°03'39"e 527.88 m o tiN CO�p o s89°08'36"e c 728.19 'v N O N� O O 2y a r 2a 3 6, 0 M l �y 272.61 n89°07'53"w a� a Z 732 s89°07'53"e o qrF OF in P-a �y 230 �qRD A• G� ,a 13 roe s y 3� 9 10 r6 1y63y m 1125.24 n89 11'36w 9519 Revised R-4 Zoning Jackson Ridge Estates Part 2 2/16/2024 Scale: 1 inch= 220 feet File: 9519 Revised Zone R4 Part 2 02-16-2024.ndp Tract 1:32.0319 Acres,Closure:n89.1116e 0.01 ft.(1/571367),Perimeter=6756 ft. 01 s89.0836e 728.19 17 n00.5207e 155 02 n00.3719e 165.1 18 n89.0753w 272.61 03 s89.0339e 527.88 19 Lt,r=100.00,delta=043.5401,chord=s68.5506w 74.76 04 s00.3717w 1490.18 20 s46.5806w 37.44 05 n89.1136w 1125.24 21 n43.0154w 698.49 06 n00.4824e 50 22 Rt,r=750.00,delta=010.4853,chord=n37.3559w 142.00 07 n43.0154w 3.59 23 n32.1004w 101.09 08 n46.5806e 166 24 Lt,r-750.00,delta=000.1724,chord=n32.1846w 3.79 09 s43.0154e 29.9 25 n57.4956e 54.42 10 Rt,r=150.00,delta=022.0414,chord=s31.5947e 57.42 26 Rt,r=130.00,delta=032.4853,chord=n74.1423e 73.44 11 n69.0220e 30 27 n00.5124e 140 12 n65.3419e 156.36 13 n63.4001e 57.42 14 n46.5806e 122 15 n41.1840e 60.29 16 s89.0753e 230 EXH IBIT LEGEND LOCATED IN THE W1/2 NE1/4 OF SECTION 26, Calculated point T. 3 N., R. 1 W., B.M., ADA COUNTY, IDAHO Found brass cap monument 2024 ® Found aluminum cap monument N.1/4 POINT OF B/ISIS OF BEARINGS Found 5/8 inch dia.iron pin Comer-23 BEGINNING l S 89°06'38"E 2655.71' -S 89006'38"E 1212.21'- - - - - T - - --I _ _ 23;-.�24 26 L1 L13r WV1Cl1DRY ROAD 1327.48' 26 25 � ra I w h LINE TABLE h LINE# DIRECTION I LENGTH � L1 S 89°06'38"E 116.02' M a3i L2 N 42°06'23"W 209.48' I o °O L3 N 53°16'20"W 50.43' cli in M L4 N 83°35'26"W 50.00' M I Cl) ZONE R 4 L5 N 89°2625"W 112.67' oArea:1,747,375 s.f.t u) 40.11 acres t M L6 S 62°23'57"W 10.00' Cl) M o L7 N 89°26'25"W 166.95' 0 n L8 N 00033'35"E 161.98' LO co w L9 N 06°45'54"W 254.12' M L10 N 23°41'08"E 55.03' M J o L11 N 22°05'29"E 177.00' z C6 / L12 N 23°43'26"W 158.91' L13 N 00°53'22"E 64.00' ICURVE TABLE I CURVE RADIUS DELTA LENGTH BEARING CHORD Vh V`V C1 756.00' 021°25'45" 282.75' S 47°26'33"W 281.10' I C2 744.00' 051°44'51" 671.95' S 32°17'00"W 649.35' C3 68.59 100°12'00" 119.79 N 77°42'03"W 105.10' 00 C4 4.50' 038°21'38" 3.01' S 71°22'46"W 2.96' C3 L5 C5 130.00' 082°40'31" 187.58' N 41°53'51"E 171.73' �I L6 L4 C6 456.00' 001013'12" 9.71' N 68°31'07"W 9.71' 1 C7 203.00' 069°41'18" 1 246.91' N 34°17'04"W 231.9T 1 \ CA J 1 p - 0 150 300 600 C 1/4 Comer 3/ I Z 1 11 Scale: 1"=300' *ire OF � � COMPASS LAND SURVEYING, PLLC qRD A� JN 9519 623 11th Avenue South Nampa, ID 83651 File: 9519-REZONE R-4 JACKSON RIDGE PART 1 02-16-2024.dwg Office: (208)442-0115 Fax: (208)327-2106 SMFUb M-e 1212.21 7 cw c' tp c�' 4 m in M (M (7� M O O r- O 3 M M M M M O r O N 0 0 5r 1 �a N Oh& �N A AN L N � 0 V ^fib•h^ �� E p 7732,,E CO i tF of Vo P M RD p. GQ' 10 166.9s n89°26'25 w 9519 Revised R-4 Zoning Jackson Ridge Estate Part 1 2/16/2024 Scale: 1 inch= 246 feet File: 9519 Revised Zone R4 Part 1 02-16-2024.ndp Tract 1:40.1142 Acres,Closure:s02.3047w 0.01 ft.(11999999),Perimeter=6238 ft. 01 s89.0638e 1212.21 15 n06.4554w 254.12 02 s00.3337w 1323.58 16 n23.4108e 55.03 03 n42.0623w 209.48 17 n22.0529e 177 04 n53.1620w 50.43 18 Lt,r=456.00,delta=001.1312,arc=9.71,chord=n68.3107w 9.71 05 Rt,r=756.00,delta=021.2545,chord=s47.2633w 281.11 19 Rt,r=203.00,delta=069.4118,chord=n34.1704w 231.97 06 Lt,r=744.00,delta=051.4451,chord=s32.1700w 649.35 20 n00.3335e 709.53 07 n83.3526w 50 21 n23.4326w 158.91 O8 n89.2625w 112.67 22 n00.5322e 64 09 s62.2357w 10 10 Lt,r=68.50,delta=100.1200,chord=n77.4203w 105.10 11 Rt,r=4.50,delta=038.2138,chord=s71.2246w 2.96 12 n89.2625w 166.95 13 n00.3335e 161.98 14 Rt,r=130.00,delta=082.4031,chord=n41.5351e 171.73 EXHIBIT LOCATED IN THE W1/2 NE1/4 OF SECTION 26, T. 3 N., R. 1 W., B.M., ADA COUNTY, IDAHO 2024 POINT OF BASIS OF BEARINGS BEGINNING N.1/4 Comer S 89"06'38"E 2655.71' 26 L2 2539.69 — — — 26 25 W VICTORY ROM LINE TABLE LEGEND LINE# DIRECTION LENGTH 0 Calculated point L1 S 89°06'38"E 116.02' Q� Found brass cap monument L2 S 00°53'22"W 64.00' o ® Found aluminum cap monument L3 S 23°4326"E 158.91' Qo Found 5/8 inch dia.iron pin L4 S 22°05'29"W 177.00' cU-3i L5 S 23"41'08"W 55.03' M o L6 S 06°45'54"E 254.12' 0 v L7 S 00°33'35"W 85.31' rn L8 rN 89°26'25"W 155.00' N L6 W N M CURVE TABLE M M o CURVE RADIUS DELTA LENGTH BEARING CHORD C13 Z C2 C1 203.00' 069°41'18" 246.91' S 34°17'04"E 231.97' c� ZONE R- "' C2 456.00' 001°13'12" 9.71' S 68°31'07"E 9.71' Area:360,343 s.f.t 8.27 acres t v C3 130.00' 082°40'31" 187.58' S 41°53'51"W 171.73' h y rn 7 32 t.8 J qrE of'X jg zo RD 0.6� 0 150 300 600 Co Scale: 1"=300' 0 C1/4Comer COMPASS LAND SURVEYING, PLLC JN 9519 623 11th Avenue South Nampa, ID 83651 File: 9519-REZONE R-2 JACKSON RIDGE 02-15-2024.dwg Office: (208)442-0115 Fax: (208)327-2106 'la m N QQ� C r t. C� } r ^L 1+] Lao -- yea N m � y, a 7732 �qRD A• �` 165 n w 9519 R-2 Zoning Jackson Ridge Estates 1/24/2024 Scale: 1 Inch=225 feet FIle: 9519 Revised Zone R2 Jackson Ridge 01-24-2024.ndp Tract 1:8.2723 Acres(360343 Sq.Feet),Closure:n08.4852w 0.01 ft.(1/334170),Pedmeter-4014 ft. 01 s89.0638e 116.02 10 Lt,r=130.00,deka=082.4031,arc=187.68,chord=s41.5351w 171.73 02 s00.5322w 64 11 s00.3335w 85.31 03 s23.4326a 158.91 12 n89.2625w 165 04 s00.3335w 709.53 13 n00.333591794.43 05 Lt.r-203.00,deka=069.4118,arc=246,91,chord=44.1704e 231.97 08 RL 1-456.00,defte=001.1312,arc=9.71,chord=s68.3107e 9.71 07 s22.0529w 177 08 s23.4108w 55.03 FM1 IBIT LOCATED IN THE SW114 NE114 OF SECTION 26, T. 3 N., R. 1 W., B.M., ADA COUNTY, IDAHO 2024 BA818 OF 13 AAING S _ 23 6_89'0638'E 2655.71' 23 24 26 N.114Comer W=YfC'i6RY 86A—D 26 25 III`r`rII� IT I� POINT OF BEGINNING S 89°26'25"E ' 155.00, S 00933'35"W 76.67' 0 75 150 300 I S 89°26'25"E r 30.00' Scale: 10=150, I I CURVE TABLE yam CURVE RADIUS DELTA LENGTH GEARING CHORD °1.14 d S 9 2 I C1 200.00' 01063741" 37.10 S 05°5226'W 37.05' W Am y N C2 250.09 015'07'28" 65.99 8 64048119'E 65.80' CLONE R-2 I C3 260.09 031-5621' 139.36 S 73°1245"E 137.56' �j 0°p ig: Area:158,663 s.1.f 3.64 acres t/ LEGEND y w I 10 o Calculated paint CD Found brass cap monument 0 I (1) Found aluminum cap monument z Q Found 518 inch dia.iron pin r I 1S �. I r 7 20 U S 11111'16"W '!j 0 p .� +�112.50' C2 r C 114 Comer C3 � anav CE 1116th Comer " N 890 10'S6"W 352.72' S 89°10'56'E 1326.91, ':j UNPLATTED COMPASS LAND SURVEYING, PLLC JN 9519 623 11th Avenue South Nampa, ID 83651 File:9519-REZONE R-2 HOLDING AREA EXHIBIT 01-24-2024.dwg Office: (208)442-0115 Fax, (208)327-2106 s89°26'25"e 155 r- �r� rp M �Q 03 3 ry P Cn o N N �17� n p7 O CD P c LA 4 ��� • " 0 9 732 a � ry,^_ Of D�P y qRE) A. 352.72 ❑� 21" n w 9519 R-'2 Holding Area Jackson Ridge 1/24/2024 Scale: 1 inch= 120 feet File: 9519 Revised Zane R2 Holding Area 1-24-2024.ndp Tract 1:3.6424 Acres(158662 Sq.Feet),Ciasure:s05.3525e 0.01 ft.(11225731),Pori meter=2402 ft. 01 s89.2625e 155 08 Lt,r 250,00,delta=031.5621,chard=s73,1245e 137.50 02 s00.3335w 76.67 09 n89.1056w 352.72 03 s89.2625e 30 10 n00.3335e 860.78 04 s00.3335w 572.36 05 Ftt,r=200.00,delta=010.3741,chcrd=s05.5226w 37.05 06 s11.1116w 112.50 07 Rt,r-250.00,delta=015.0728,chard=s64.4819e 65.80 r LO Rto Z Q .� 00 o O � J ' na�� CA w � � o o L7 a� � m 0 M Q N 0 ii Z g ; �• > }} _� LL ' Lu r N U = o Z � 0NLLJ `u N 0 ju7 o ZHQ CD U) ❑ - rs w H N N N LV C I V o 0 0 o v im-' 2 o w a°1i U rD U3 J N N CO ¢ m C N N U7 Rl J U-j0y qO� 0 cl Z w-a, cu N j� [IS CJJ CIS [J] LO � N ❑ aaa �� LO'U I o I z 4, M.L£'££a0fl cli q'� J Jcow Q U C37 I cv Lu I Q �o! a E !_ Q, 40 CO U CD 3 J ' U E 9 0 4 E N Q .� w LLJ !I E ' +IIIchLIJ N ; O f c 0) CA w ! m LO c c 5 m o o a m C] It LL LL 'G rj ° tit (Dco � ! CV y U _ a rLjr) �-+ rn Lo Z = . U LL .C� i '�6 c00 w L� Q N d / / CL n Q � E 08 LO y 5 UZ } f 1 � t� w z paid 61 (D L. LD LL 4 ,� ° =1 w N Q \�_ p f _ Z Ua Q fl ate — • [I3 UH — � � Q > W Z �� Q U) � / c ai _ U r a 0 co Q 11� �� U D N La o r a to zv 2V Er) r U II (D 'W1 C M Lw LLi LLi w � � w W w 0 U) oo z LO a Q 1 m n] ['�] cp pj �p O P'] T o � = z z z z w r W r W ❑] � � 07 [V rip ti 2V � 61 1�, F— W c10 U Z j � 0 Q N O 4 W V r e7 V � 7 cNr1 V N I 1 1 v v CD0 o a o Cl 4D QQ J 6 G G p 4 G G O O l 1 a 1° 1 C,7 U U U U U U U U ' I N LLI a� N Q] Q7 Z _ .2 6 N O p [I1 O N O Q b O K] � Qr cD 4 O .� 0 CD O O [tk p M Q a] O O 4 � ul W C, C> Af) 0 C W N SV 04 y J � m mz w 3 w w w w w w Rr O j io � CG co ti M D o io iD co u� o ri o o N u� d N cv N N a w W �ry PO a] C7 cd I- N !lm 00 CO b � ry CoLO ca fV ro o 0 v - o e an v c� o o u7 rn o o v o0 is X Q � p r- N [D & 4 �* iD M to m M lD V+, cn CV M p J O CO O Ln cn It 10 p 00 V 'T W (D co '"t q. 03 V) df d w co to rn to z (n N z U) (o sn U) rn z CO z N rn N N Ag d) LU �y �.7 o r N c2 u2 �2 1� c0 6] p CV �] C,4 aY .-.1 N M J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J r J Lo ff7 � a7 Z - a3 3p y 2 3 v v '- "4 A N Y � t s a,_ at.W z s89107'53"e tid 272,G1 L No n ui 230 w ------------------------- n8r07 5 773 a Of Afka RD p,. 9519 Revised R-8 Zoning Jackson Ridge Estates 1/24/2024 Scale: 1 inch= 230 feet File: 9519 Revised Zone R8 09-01-24-2024.ndp Tract 1.21.8171 Acres,Closure:s5O.O218w 0.01€t.(1/393249),Perimeter=5211 ft. 01 s00.3337w 2.96 20 Lt,r=150.00,delta=022.0414,arc=57.78,chord=n31.5947w 57.42 02 s89.0836e 70 21 n43.0154w 29.9 03 s00.5124w 140 22 s46.5806w 166 04 Lt,r=130.00,delta=032.4853,arc=74.45,chard=s74.1423w 73.44 23 n43.0154w 775.89 05 s57,4956w 54.42 24 Lt,r=3.00,delta=034.4807,arc=1.82,chard=n60.2558w 1.79 06 Rt,r=750.00,delta=000.1724,are=3.79,chard s32.1846a 3,80 25 n77.5001w 350.9 07 s32.1004e 101.09 26 Rt,r=694.00,delta=006.3208,arc=79.16,chord=n03.0830e 79.12 08 Lt,r=750.00,delta=010.5150,arc=142.21,chord=s37.35599 142.00 27 n83.3526w 50 09 s43.0154e 698.49 28 Rt,r=744.00,delta=051.4451,arc=671.95,ch o rd=n32.1 700e 649.35 10 n46.5806e 37.44 29 Lt,r=756.00,delta-021,2545,arc=282.75,chard=n47.2633e 281.11 11 Rt,r=100.00,delta=043,5401,arc=76.62,chord=n68.5506e 74.76 30 s53.1620e 50.43 12 s89.0753e 272.61 31 s42.0623e 209.48 13 s00.5207w 155 14 n89.0753w 230 15 s41.1840w 60.29 16 s46.5806w 122 17 s63.4001 w 57.42 18 s65.3419w 156.36 19 s69.0220w 30 W IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Ordinance No. 24-2064: An ordinance (Taylor Annexation — H-2023-0062) annexing Lot 3, Block 2 of Jewell Subdivision as shown in Book 34 of Plats at pages 2056 and 2057 records, Ada County, Idaho, and adjoining right of way, more particularly described in Exhibit "A"; rezoning 1.01 acres of such real property from the R1 (Estate Residential) to the R-2 (Low-Density Residential) zoning district; directing city staff to alter all applicable use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps and all official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance; providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Treasurer, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law; repealing conflicting ordinances; and providing an effective date. ADA COUNTY RECORDER Trent Tripple 2024-063331 BOISE IDAHO Pgs=4 VICTORIA BAILEY 11/07/2024 08:02 AM CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO NO FEE CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 24-2064 BY THE CITY COUNCIL: CAVENER, LITTLE ROBERTS, OVERTON STRADER, TAYLOR, WHITLOCK AN ORDINANCE (TAYLOR ANNEXATION — H-2023-0062) ANNEXING LOT 3, BLOCK 2 OF JEWELL SUBDIVISION AS SHOWN IN BOOK 34 OF PLATS AT PAGES 2056 AND 2057 RECORDS, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO AND ADJOINING RIGHT OF WAY, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A"; REZONING 1.01 ACRES OF SUCH REAL PROPERTY FROM RI (ESTATE RESIDENTIAL) TO THE R-2 (LOW- DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ZONING DISTRICT; DIRECTING CITY STAFF TO ALTER ALL APPLICABLE USE AND AREA MAPS AS WELL AS THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAPS AND ALL OFFICIAL MAPS DEPICTING THE BOUNDARIES AND THE ZONING DISTRICTS OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS ORDINANCE; PROVIDING THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE FILED WITH THE ADA COUNTY ASSESSOR, THE ADA COUNTY TREASURER, THE ADA COUNTY RECORDER, AND THE IDAHO STATE TAX COMMISSION, AS REQUIRED BY LAW; REPEALING CONFLICTING ORDINANCES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE WHEREAS, the City of Meridian received a written request from property owner Robert Taylor to annex and rezone the land described in the legal descriptions attached hereto as Exhibit"A" and the maps attached hereto as Exhibit "B" ("Subject Property"), which exhibits are incorporated herein by reference; WHEREAS,the Subject Property is contiguous to the corporate limits of the City of Meridian, Idaho; WHEREAS, the City of Meridian is authorized by Idaho Code section 50-222 to annex the Subject Property; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF IDAHO: SECTION 1. That the City Council of the City of Meridian hereby annexes the Subject Property. SECTION 2. That the City Council of the City of Meridian hereby rezones 1.01 acres of such real property from R1 (Estate Residential) to the R-2 (Low-Density Residential) zoning district. SECTION 3. That City Staff is hereby directed to alter all applicable use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps and all official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance. ANNEXATION ORDINANCE—TAYLOR ANNEXATION H-2023-0062 Page I SECTION 4. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a certified copy of this ordinance and its exhibits with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Treasurer, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, within ten (10) days following the effective date of this ordinance. SECTION 5. That all ordinances, resolutions, orders or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed. SECTION 6. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon publication, in accordance with law. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this 6th day of November, 2024. APPROVED BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN,IDAHO, this 6'day of November, 2024. MAYOR ROBERT E. SIMISON ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON, CITY CLERK STATE OF IDAHO, ) ) ss: County of Ada ) On this 6th day of November,2024,before me,the undersigned,a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared Robert E.Simison and Chris Johnson known to me to be the Mayor and City Clerk,respectively, of the City of Meridian,Idaho,and who executed the within instrument,and acknowledged to me that the City of Meridian executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. Notary Public Commission Expiration:_3-28-2028_ ANNEXATION ORDINANCE—TAYLOR ANNEXATION H-2023-0062 Page 2 CERTIFICATION OF SUMMARY: William L .M. Nary, City Attorney of the City of Meridian, Idaho, hereby certifies that the summary below is true and complete and upon its publication will provide adequate notice to the public . � l. William L . M . Nary, City Attorney SUMMARY OF CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO . 24 -2064 An ordinance (Taylor Annexation — H-2023 -0062) annexing Lot 3 , Block 2 of Jewell Subdivision as shown in Book 34 of Plats at pages 2056 and 2057 records, Ada County, Idaho , and adjoining right of way, more particularly described in Exhibit "A" ; rezoning 1 . 01 acres of such real property from the RI (Estate Residential) to the R-2 (Low-Density Residential) zoning district; directing city staff to alter all applicable use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps and all official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance ; providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Treasurer, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law; repealing conflicting ordinances ; and providing an effective date . A full text of this ordinance is available for inspection at City Hall, City of Meridian, 33 East Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho . This ordinance shall be effective as of the date of publication of this summary. [Publication to include map as set forth in Exhibit B . ] I ANNEXATION ORDINANCE — TAYLOR ANNEXATION 1-1-2023 -0062 Page 3 EXHIBIT A GENTURIO 1' CENTURION ENGINEERS, INC. Consulting Engineers, Land Surveyors, Planners 2323 S. Vista Ave Ste 206 Boise, ID 83705 Telephone 208.343.3381 1 www.centengr.com 4VCINEE'�� Annexation & Zone Land Description For: Robert Taylor December 27, 2023 Lot 3, Block 2 of Jewell Subdivision as shown in Book 34 of Plats at Pages 2056 &2057 records, Ada County, Idaho and adjoining right-of-way. Situate in the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 16, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the south quarter corner of said Section 16; thence S89059'45"W, 483.11 feet along the southerly boundary of the southwest quarter of said Section 16 to the Point of Beginning; Thence N00°00'00"E, 439.85 feet along the easterly boundary of said Lot 3 (as extended to the southerly boundary of the southeast quarter of the southwest quarter) to the northeast corner of said Lot 3; Thence N90000'00"W, 100 feet along the northerly boundary of said Lot 3 to the northwest corner of said lot 3; Thence S00°00'00"E, 439.86 feet along the westerly boundary of said Lot 3 (as extended to the southerly boundary of the southeast quarter of the southwest quarter) to a point which bears N89059'45"E, 749.26 feet from the southwest corner of the southeast quarter of the southwest quarter of said Section 16 and which point also bears S89°59'15"E, 1,332.50 feet from the southwest section corner of said Section 16; Thence N89°59'45"E, 100.00 feet to the Point of Beginning. Containing 1.01 acres, more or less. This description was prepared from information of record in the office of the Ada County, recorder. Jewell Subdivision Book 34, Pages 2056 & 2057 and Record of Survey No. 8191. A new land survey was not performed. The basis of bearing for this description is said Jewell Subdivision. Ap IS E 4116 9jE d F►Opp ��pyD.CAt���� EXHIBIT B Annexation Description Sketch Notes N90'00'00"w 100.00' 1. This sketch was prepared from information of record in the office of the Ada County, recorder. Jewell Subdivision Book 34, Pages 2056 & 2057. Record of Survey No. 8191. A new land survey was notcu— — performed. 3 a) (n 3 (> 3 a) a� 2. The basis of bearing for "� ' ,�.� r` � rn r- SCALE: 1"=80' this sketch is said Jewell o Y 0 w Ul) o o Y 0 Subdivision. o c� o o 0 o c� Y m N m N o Y m E CCD 0 C CO CD -2 0 m •0Op pu7 m O � N m '� O v 5; 04 > CV > d � '> Q N 15 0 7 0 J In CL �D 0 M Vn Cl- cc J (N 0- OR 6 M d W W o LAN 0 b o 0 0 o z 4116 za l9TE 9 E Southwest Section South Quarter 17 16 Corner 1/16 th Corner N89'59'45"E 100.00' 1 20 21 21 S89-59'15'E —1,332.50' N89*59'45"E 749.26' West Overland Road S89'59'45W 483.11 Ex, "'/C) Lot 3, Block 2 of Jewell Subdivision as shown in Book 34 of Plats at Pages 2056 G 113 + & 2057 records, Ada County, Idaho. Situate in the Southeast Quarter of the CENTURION ENGINEERS. INC. Southwest Quarter of Section 16, Township 3N., Range 1 E., Boise Meridian, Ada Consulting Engineers,Land Surveyors,Planners County, Idaho 2323 S.Vista Ave.Ste.206 1 Boise,ID 83705 208.343.3381 I www.centengr.com Date: December 27, 2023 0. fNEE4.`' Drawn By: D.A. Crawford Job Number: TR07 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Ordinance No. 24-2066: An ordinance (Idaho State University— H-2024-0027) annexing a parcel of land being the south half of the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter and a portion of the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 18, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County Idaho, more particularly described in Exhibit "A"; rezoning 23.25 acres of such real property from RUT(Rural Urban Transition) and R6 (Medium- Density Residential) zoning districts to the C-G (General Retail and Service Commercial) zoning district; directing city staff to alter all applicable use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps and all official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance; providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Treasurer, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law; repealing conflicting ordinances; and providing an effective date. ADA COUNTY RECORDER Trent Tripple 2024-063333 BOISE IDAHO Pgs=5 VICTORIA BAILEY 11/07/2024 08:02 AM CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO NO FEE CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 24-2066 BY THE CITY COUNCIL: CAVENER, LITTLE ROBERTS, OVERTON STRADER, TAYLOR, WHITLOCK AN ORDINANCE (IDAHO STATE UNIVERSITY — H-2024-0027) ANNEXING A PARCEL OF LAND BEING THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER AND A PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 18,TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH,RANGE 1 EAST,BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY IDAHO, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A"; REZONING 23.25 ACRES OF SUCH REAL PROPERTY FROM RUT(RURAL URBAN TRANSITION) AND R6 (MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ZONING DISTRICTS TO THE C-G (GENERAL RETAIL AND SERVICE COMMERCIAL) ZONING DISTRICT; DIRECTING CITY STAFF TO ALTER ALL APPLICABLE USE AND AREA MAPS AS WELL AS THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAPS AND ALL OFFICIAL MAPS DEPICTING THE BOUNDARIES AND THE ZONING DISTRICTS OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS ORDINANCE; PROVIDING THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE FILED WITH THE ADA COUNTY ASSESSOR, THE ADA COUNTY TREASURER,THE ADA COUNTY RECORDER,AND THE IDAHO STATE TAX COMMISSION, AS REQUIRED BY LAW; REPEALING CONFLICTING ORDINANCES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE WHEREAS, the City of Meridian received a written request from property owner State of Idaho (Board of Education) to annex and rezone the land described in the legal descriptions attached hereto as Exhibit"A"and the maps attached hereto as Exhibit`B"("Subject Property"),which exhibits are incorporated herein by reference; WHEREAS,the Subject Property is contiguous to the corporate limits of the City of Meridian, Idaho; WHEREAS, the City of Meridian is authorized by Idaho Code section 50-222 to annex the Subject Property; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF IDAHO: SECTION 1. That the City Council of the City of Meridian hereby annexes the Subject Property. SECTION 2. That the City Council of the City of Meridian hereby rezones 23.25 acres of such real property from RUT(Rural Urban Transition) and R6 (Medium-Density Residential) zoning districts to the C-G (General Retail and Service Commercial) zoning district. ANNEXATION ORDINANCE—IDAHO STATE UNIVERSITY H-2024-0027 Page I SECTION 3. That City Staff is hereby directed to alter all applicable use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps and all official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance. SECTION 4. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a certified copy of this ordinance and its exhibits with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Treasurer, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, within ten (10) days following the effective date of this ordinance. SECTION 5. That all ordinances, resolutions, orders or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed. SECTION 6. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon publication, in accordance with law. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this 6th day of November, 2024. APPROVED BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN,IDAHO, this 0 day of November, 2024. MAYOR ROBERT E. SIMISON ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON, CITY CLERK STATE OF IDAHO, ) ) ss: County of Ada ) On this 6th day of November,2024,before me,the undersigned,a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared Robert E.Simison and Chris Johnson known to me to be the Mayor and City Clerk,respectively, of the City of Meridian,Idaho,and who executed the within instrument,and acknowledged to me that the City of Meridian executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. Notary Public Commission Expiration: 3-28-2028_ Pagc 2 ANNEXATION ORDINANCE-IDAHO STATE UNIVERSITY H-2024-0027 CERTIFICATION OF SUMMARY : William L.M. Nary, City Attorney of the City of Meridian, Idaho, hereby certifies that the summary below is true and complete and upon its publication will provide adequate notice to the public . �v 1 . OF03 a Jo� William L . M . Nary, lCity Attorney SUMMARY OF CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO . 24 -2066 An ordinance Idaho State University — H-2024-0027 annexing a parcel of land being the south half ( tY ) g P g of the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter and a portion of the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 18 , Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County Idaho, more particularly described in Exhibit "A"; rezoning 23 .25 acres of such real property from RUT (Rural Urban Transition) and R6 (Medium-Density Residential) zoning districts to the C -G (General Retail and Service Commercial) zoning district; directing city staff to alter all applicable use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps and all official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance ; providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Treasurer, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law; repealing conflicting ordinances ; and providing an effective date . A full text of this ordinance is available for inspection at City Hall, City of Meridian, 33 East Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho . This ordinance shall be effective as of the date of publication of this summary. [Publication to include map as set forth in Exhibit B . ] ANNEXATION ORDINANCE — IDAHO STATE UNIVERSITY 1-1-2024 -0027 Page 4 EXHIBIT A km E N G I N E E R I N G June 7,2024 Project No. 19-069 Exhibit A Legal Description for Annexation A parcel of land being the South 1/2 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 and a portion of the Northeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 18,Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian,Ada County, Idaho and being more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at an aluminum cap marking the east 1/4 corner of said Section 18,which bears S00°31'02"W a distance of 2,658.78 feet from a brass cap marking the northeast corner of said Section 18; Thence following the easterly line of said southeast 1/4 of Section 18, S00°30'31"W a distance of 221.52 feet; Thence leaving said easterly line, S89°32'08"W a distance of 540.86 feet to the centerline of an irrigation lateral; Thence following said centerline, N23°44'43"W a distance of 241.12 feet to the southerly line of said South 1/2 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4; Thence leaving said centerline and following said southerly line,S89°32'08"W a distance of 685.96 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar; Thence leaving said southerly line and following the westerly line of said South 1/2 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4, N00'29'22"E a distance of 666.04 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar; Thence leaving said westerly line and following the northerly line of said South 1/2 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4, N89°35'38"E a distance of 1,326.19 feet; Thence leaving said northerly line and following the easterly line of said South 1/2 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4,S00°31'02"W a distance of 664.69 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. 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. �1 a CA 12459 0 'y v1�► OF 1,9� L. BAb1,t► 6 . 7• 7-0 9233 West State Street • Boise,Idaho 83714 • 208.639.6939 9 kmengllp.com EXHIBIT B P:\19-069\CAD\SURVEY\19-069 ANNEXATION EXHI BIT.DWG,AARON BALLARD,6/7/2024,ESTUD10907.PC3,---- State of Idaho Unplatted O N00.29'22"E 666.04' - O 00 ET O rD Q O Q DJ O I Q1 D7 � I CD D rn � U N C N X Z N 00 W w F rah cD a" N o ICA N � Cn G. C N O CA CA LA O O S -CI � - m M Q° NJ F- Ln 3) � m u' D n n C00 m m N OZO� -Z m 0 Zm C O O Zm - m O p m O;CD< ZO m m Q C= coLn IOJ �- 41 �O Z I Dn I Q c/)O D z Z co O -U D) 0 z -0co D Eo- Q � �.Va RI12VJ RAV RAy RAY i 2437.89' 221.52' S. Locust Grove Rd. 1994.08' S00'30'31" 2659.41' 664.69' �� m I • • • • • • •S00'31'02"W 2658.78.• • • • • n BASIS OF BEARING 00 Snorting Bull Phase 1 Q o� m z N 0 O D Exhibit B - Annexation = a Z m � m D p O N xZ�� ' State of Idaho Board of Education O w� OX < Tl �w 0 i O Zo CO The S 1/2 of the SE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 and a portion of the o NE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 18, T3N R1E, BM, Ada County, ID 1326.19 n89°35'38"e 0 3 N p C} N O V N a V CO O O C s89°32'08"w 685.96 or, 3 L"O "' °o N o s89°32'08"w 540.86 Title: Date: 06-07-2024 Scale: 1 inch=200 feet File: Tract 1: 23.254 Acres: 1012945 Sq Feet:Closure=s58.4213w 0.01 Feet: Precision=1/476082: Perimeter=4346 Feet 001=s00.3031w 221.52 004=s89.3208w 685.96 007=s00.3102w 664.69 002=s89.3208w 540.86 005=n00.2922e 666.04 003=n23.4443w 241.12 006=n89.3538e 1326.19