The URL can be used to link to this page

2021-04-13 Regular City Council Regular Meeting City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Tuesday, April 13, 2021 at 6:00 PM Minutes VIRTUAL MEETING INSTRUCTIONS Limited seating is available at City Hall. Consider joining the meeting virtually: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/86850279487 Or join by phone: 1-669-900-6833 Webinar ID: 868 5027 9487 ROLL CALL ATTENDANCE ____ Jessica Perreault ____ Joe Borton ____ Brad Hoaglun ____ Treg Bernt ____ Liz Strader ____ Luke Cavener ____ Mayor Robert E. Simison PRESENT Councilwoman Liz Strader Councilman Brad Hoaglun Councilman Treg Bernt Councilwoman Jessica Perreault Councilman Luke Cavener Mayor Robert E. Simison ABSENT Councilman Joe Borton PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE COMMUNITY INVOCATION ADOPTION OF AGENDA - Adopted 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 active land use/development applications are not permitted during this time. By law, no decisions can be made on topics presented at 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. PROCLAMATIONS 1. Meridian High School Wrestling State Champions Day ACTION ITEMS Public Hearing process: Land use development applications begin with presentation of the project and analysis of the application by Planning Staff. The applicant is then allowed up to 15 minutes to present their project. Members of the public are then allowed up to 3 minutes each to address City Council regarding the application. Citizens acting as a representative of a Homeowner’s Association may be allowed up to 10 minutes to speak on behalf of represented homeowners who have consented to yielding their time. After all public testimony, the applicant is allowed up to 10 minutes to respond to questions and comments. City Council members may ask questions throughout the public hearing process. The public hearing is then closed, and no further public comment is heard. City Council may move to continue the application to a future meeting or approve or deny the application. The Mayor is not a member of the City Council and pursuant to Idaho Code does not vote on public hearing items unless to break a tie vote. 2. Public Hearing Continued from February 23, 2021 for Prescott Ridge (H-2020- 0047) by Providence Properties, LLC, Located on the South Side of W. Chinden Blvd. and on the East Side of N. McDermott Rd. Continued to May 18, 2021 A. Annexation of 128.21 acres of land with R-8 (99.53 acres), R-15 (8.82 acres) and C-G (19.85 acres) zoning districts. B. Preliminary Plat consisting of 371 buildable lots \[single-family residential (215 detached/102 attached), townhome (38), multi-family residential (14), commercial (1) and school (1)\], 42 common lots and 6 other (shared driveway) lots\] on 124.81 acres of land in the R-8, R-15 and C-G zoning districts. Motion to continue made by Councilman Hoaglun, Seconded by Councilwoman Perreault. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Hoaglun, Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Cavener. 3. Public Hearing Continued from March 9, 2021 for Shafer View Terrace (H-2020- 0117) by Breckon Land Design, Located on the East Side of S. Meridian Rd./SH 69, Midway Between E. Amity Rd. and E. Lake Hazel Rd. Continued to May 18, 2021 A. Request: Annexation of a total of 40.48 acres of land with R-2 (10.66 acres) and R-4 (29.82 acres) zoning districts. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 50 buildable lots and 10 common lots on 39.01 acres of land in the R-2 and R-4 zoning districts. Motion to continue to made by Councilman Hoaglun, Seconded by Councilwoman Strader. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Hoaglun, Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Cavener. 4. Public Hearing for TM Center/Ten Mile Crossing (H-2020-0074) by SCS Brighton, et al., Located East of S. Ten Mile Rd. and south of W. Franklin Rd. Approved A. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 83 buildable lots and 2 common lots on 132.42 acres of land in the R-40 and C-G zoning districts. B. Request: A Development Agreement Modification to terminate all existing agreements in the Ten Mile Crossing development area in favor of one master agreement to govern future development of the overall area. The proposal includes a request for adoption of project-specific design guidelines to supersede those in the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan (TMISAP), which include deviations from certain goals and guidelines including decreased floor area ratios, different street and streetscape designs, landscape and architectural design elements and site development standards, including an increase in height of up to 100-feet to allow for 6-story buildings \[i.e. TM Crossing – AZ-12-005 (Inst. #114002254, 1st Addendum #2016-062220, 2nd Addendum #2017-051907, TMC Expansion #2019-011700); TM Creek/TM Creek East – AZ-13-015/H-2015-0018 (Inst. #114045759, 1st Addendum #2016-073497, 2nd Addendum #2017-113747); Ten Mile Center – AZ-14-001 (Inst. #2014-065514); Calnon Properties – H-2015-0017 (Inst. 2016-030845); and Bainbridge Franklin – H-2018-0057 (Inst. #2019-077071)\]. C. Request: A Rezone of 40.98 acres from the R-40 and C-C zoning districts to the C-G zoning district, 3.9-acres from the TN-C and C-G zoning districts to the R-40 zoning district, 0.65 acres from the R-8 and TN-C zoning districts to the C-G zoning district, and 0.53 acres from the TN-C zoning district to the C-G zoning district. FUTURE MEETING TOPICS EXECUTIVE SESSION 5. Per Idaho Code 74-206(1)(f) To communicate with legal counsel for the public agency to discuss the legal ramifications of and legal options for pending litigation, or controversies not yet being litigated but imminently likely to be litigated. Vacated from Agenda ADJOURNMENT - 8:31 p.m. Item#2. Meridian City Council April 13, 2021. A Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:02 p.m., Tuesday, April 13, 2021, by Mayor Robert Simison. Members Present: Robert Simison, Luke Cavener, Treg Bernt, Jessica Perreault, Brad Hoaglun and Liz Strader. Members Absent: Joe Borton. Also present: Adrienne Weatherly, Bill Nary, Bill Parsons, Sonya Allen, Berle Stokes, Joe Bongiorno and Dean Willis. ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE Liz Strader Joe Borton _X_ Brad Hoaglun _X_Treg Bernt X Jessica Perreault _X Luke Cavener _X_ Mayor Robert E. Simison Simison: So, with that, Council, I will call this meeting to order. For the record it is April 13th, 2021. It's 6:02 p.m. We will begin this evening's City Council meeting with roll call attendance. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Simison: Okay. Moving on. Our next item on the agenda is the Pledge of Allegiance. If you would all rise and please join us in the pledge. (Pledge of Allegiance recited.) COMMUNITY INVOCATION Simison: Our next item on the agenda is the community invocation, which tonight will be delivered by Pastor Hanke with Valley Life Christian Church. If you would all, please, join us in the community invocation or take this as a moment of silence and reflection. Hanke: Mr. Mayor, City Council Members, it's a joy and blessing to continue to be present with you this evening. Would you join me in praying. Father God, we thank you for the opportunity to continue the work of the city and this evening I pray that you might grant wisdom, discernment and peace to each of the members of our City Council. God, we pray especially for those who work to serve our city as first responders, God, both on -- in the medical field, God, in law enforcement -- in all areas. God, would you keep them safe and give them the same wisdom and discernment to lead in a servant like manner. And, God, would pray for the citizens of the city, would they continue to exist in harmony with one another seeking to care for and love their neighbors as themselves. We lift up Page 27 Meridian City Council Item#2. April 13,2021 Page 2-— the work of the city to you, God, and ask that it might be done in a manner that would glorify your name. It's through the Savior Jesus Christ we pray, amen. God bless you all. Thank you. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Simison: Thank you, Pastor. Next item is our adoption of the agenda. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: There are no changes to the agenda, so I make a motion to adopt the agenda as published. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, I second the motion. Simison: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda. Is there any discussion on the motion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it and the agenda is adopted. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. PUBLIC FORUM — Future Meeting Topics Simison: Madam Clerk, do we have anyone signed up under public forum? Weatherly: Mr. Mayor, we have one person signed in, a Garrett Blackner, wishing to speak about roads. Simison: Thank you, Mr. Blackner. If you would come forward, state your name and address for the record, and you will be recognized for three minutes. Blackner: Hello. My name is Garrett Blackner. I live at 1912 Northwest 12th Street in Meridian. Just a -- you know, a lot of people are moving to Idaho because we wanted to get away from big traffic, high density housing and, you know, all the stuff that comes along with a huge impacted city. Each week I'm looking at the agendas and I just see more and more plats and they are all medium to high density, which brings a lot of people in one area, but also what I don't see in that is a lot of talk about roads and improving -- making roads wider. A couple weekends ago we had a nice good weekend, the whole it was congested everywhere, you know, driving around. So, I mean as Corona goes away and we get back to normal, this is going to continue to get worse and worse and -- I mean I know you have been following the -- you know, the state, you know, and they just did pass a -- House Bill 326 was the transportation fund and they added an extra 30 million, but when I dig down into this and you look at where all this money is going, you know, it's not just going to roads, it's going to computers, it's going to two percent raise to Page 28 Meridian City Council Item#2. April 13,2021 Page 3-— employees -- you know, this money is not going to just widening all the roads and I -- my -- my major question is -- is, you know, other than -- I don't think we could rely on that to make sure that our city doesn't get to be LA, you know, just getting packed and sitting in traffic now. Do we have any plans to get these roads wider at a city level and if that -- if we do have a plan does that plan involve raising our taxes and that was kind of what I wanted to have a question about. Thank you. Simison: Thank you. Garrett, we will -- my office will follow up with you to have a direct conversation, just so you are educated and know about what we are and are not doing and if there is a further conversation with Council we will let you know. Thank you. PROCLAMATIONS 1. Meridian High School Wrestling State Champions Day Simison: Okay. With that we will move on to our next item, which is a proclamation for Meridian High School Wrestling State Champions Day. So, I will go down to the podium and, hopefully, we can get the team into the room. If they want to. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, as you are turning the podium, I will just take the mic and just say a few quick words. You know, this is back to back that my alma mater is here to be honored for a state championship. So, you know, I can be proud of that. And Meridian High School has had a great tradition of a strong wrestling programs over the years. So, I just like the fact that we just have a -- a great competitive team. You know, you can't always win the championship, but you want to be in the running and, fortunately, this year these young men got the job done. So, it's exciting and I like seeing that blue and gold, so -- Cavener: It's cool to see them all coming in. This is awesome. Bernt: Agreed, Councilman Hoaglun. Simison: All right. I'm not going to lie, I like this -- the size of this group a lot better than the basketball team. I feel more at home, just so we are clear. Yeah. Absolutely. You got a few tall ones, but this is -- this is more my crowd from that standpoint. While -- as you were walking in Councilman Hoaglun, who was a Meridian High School graduate, was just making a few comments and it's great to see the Warriors coming in for these proclamations. This is our second one in the last -- in the last few weeks. I have no doubt there will be many more for -- for the Warriors over the coming decade. It's a great time to be an athlete in the Meridian high school system -- or the West Ada school system, but in the City of Meridian especially. So, what we are going to do is I have got a proclamation here that we are going to read, then, what we would love to do is have each of you come forward and state your name, your weight class, and your year, just so we can put it on the record that you were here. The proclamation -- there is a second proclamation, which will be entered into the record, which has everyone's names in it as well. So, if you ever want to come back, you know, if the school won't let you in so you can't go in to see the trophy, you can always come here or look it up online and show your kids someday from Page 29 Meridian City Council Item#2. April 13,2021 Page,-- that perspective and, then, coach we would love to have you say a few words about the team for everybody as well. Probably before they come up and each state their name into the -- into the record. So, with that I'm going to go ahead and read a proclamation. Whereas being a Meridian High School wrestler is more than scoring points, escapes, takedowns, pins and achieving state titles. It is training to build leadership, character, confidence, teamwork and resilience, all traits needed to succeed on the mat, in the classroom, and in the real world and whereas the Meridian Warrior wrestling team qualified 29 wrestlers for state and 16 of them finished on the medal stand and whereas their hard work racked up 324 points, finishing 70 points ahead of Kuna with 250 points in second place to bring home the 2021 state wrestling championship trophy and whereas the Meridian Warriors steamrolled the competition in pursuit of the first state wrestling championship title since 1987 and whereas the leadership, training, and discipline of their coaches helped all team members to focus their talents, passion, and determination to become a winning team, with each player making valuable contributions to their victory. Therefore, I, Mayor Robert E. Simison, hereby proclaim April 13th, 2021, as Meridian High School Wrestling State Champions Day in the City of Meridian and call upon the community to join me in congratulating the Meridian High Warriors on the remarkable athletic achievement and for representing Meridian so proudly in the state tournament. Dated the 13th day of April 2021. With that a round of applause for these fine young men. Coach, would you like to come forward. Muri: All right. Well, I will keep this short and sweet. I'm beyond proud of what these kids accomplished this year and it's a -- it's been a long time coming. They said last time we won it was 1987 and I was -- I was four months old. So, yeah, what these guys accomplished -- it's pretty awesome, because it took a whole army and these kids and put in a lot of unglorified hours behind the scenes lifting weights, running, drilling, going to camps and for them to see the fruits of their labors -- pretty amazing. So, very proud of them. Ewing: Like the year I graduate? All right. All right. I'm Forest Ewing. I'm a junior and I graduate 2022. And I wrestled 126. Gooley: I'm Carson Gooley. Freshmen. And I wrestled at 220. Frix: My name is Caden Frix. I'm 160 and I'm a junior. White: My name is Cade White. I'm 138 pounds and I'm a sophomore. Mara: I'm Jason Mara. I wrestled 126 and I'm a freshman. Ewing: I'm Lucas Ewing. I wrestled 98 pounds and I'm a freshman. Dixon: My name is Roc Dixon. I'm a senior and I wrestled at 195 pounds. Twait: Isaiah Twait, 170, sophomore. Page 30 Meridian City Council Item#2. April 13,2021 Page 5-" Smith: My name is Kaleb Smith. I wrestled at 182 pounds and I'm a senior. Kimes: My name is Zach Kimes. I'm a junior and I wrestled 113 pounds. Hunsaker: My name is Jayden Hunsaker. I wrestled 132 and I'm a senior. Papa: My name is Matthew Papa. I wrestled 113 and I'm a freshmen. Gomez: My name is Jacob Gomez. I'm a senior and I wrestled 120. T.Papa: My name is Tanner Papa. I wrestled 145. I'm a senior. Morrill: My name is Breyden Morrill. I'm a sophomore and I wrestled 195. Sears: I'm Lucas Sears. I'm a junior and I wrestled 152. Sallee: I'm Jay Sallee. I wrestled 182 and I'm a junior. Merritt: I'm Dallas Merritt. I wrestled 285 and I'm a junior. Arruda: May name is Kaiden Arruda. I wrestled 170 and I'm a senior. Kolka: I'm Kellen Kolka. I wrestled 98 and I'm a sophomore. Mack: My name is Parker Mack. I wrestled 152 and I'm a junior. Smilie: My name is Tristan Smilie and I wrestled 138 and I was a sophomore. Sunada: My name is Brodyn Sunada. I'm a junior and I wrestled 145. Dickerson: My name is Teigan Dickerson. I'm a junior and I wrestled 106. Simison: One more time for your 2021 state championship wrestlers. If you will get in front of the podium and do a group picture and we do have some City of Meridian pins. ACTION ITEMS 2. Public Hearing Continued from February 23, 2021 for Prescott Ridge (H-2020-0047) by Providence Properties, LLC, Located on the South Side of W. Chinden Blvd. and on the East Side of N. McDermott Rd. A. Annexation of 128.21 acres of land with R-8 (99.53 acres), R-15 (8.82 acres) and C-G (19.85 acres) zoning districts. B. Preliminary Plat consisting of 371 buildable lots [single-family residential (215 detached/102 attached), townhome (38), multi- Page 31 Meridian City Council Item#2. April 13,2021 Page 6 of 44 family residential (14), commercial (1) and school (1)], 42 common lots and 6 other (shared driveway) lots] on 124.81 acres of land in the R-8, R-15 and C-G zoning districts. Simison: All right. Council, with that we will move on to our public hearings for the evening. First item up is a public hearing that was continued from February 23rd, 2021, for Prescott Ridge, H-2020-0047 and I will ask staff, Sonya, if there is any comments at this point in time. Additional comments. Allen: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, no comments from staff at this time. Simison: Okay. Is the applicant here to make any comments? Madam Clerk, would you turn the podium -- or maybe -- I'm sure Stephanie remembers how to do it. There is a little -- thank you, Stephanie. Hopkins: Thank you. Simison: And state your name and address for the record. Hopkins: Good evening, Mr. Mayor, Members of Council. Stephanie Hopkins with KM Engineering. 5725 North Discovery Way in Meridian, Idaho. I don't have anything new to add since the last time around. I think we had determined that we were going to cover just new information. So, I can do my presentation and some other things if you would like to go through that. I know that we are kind of still talking about legislation. There is some stuff that's involved with that, too. So, I don't know if there is -- been kind of watching other Council meetings and familiar that you have continued a couple projects on the basis of that. But if there is anything further you would like to discuss or questions or -- if you do want to hear this project tonight I'm happy to answer questions. Simison: Council, any questions, additional information, or direction? Councilman Bernt. Bernt: Mr. Mayor. Stephanie, I -- totally up to you. We will never -- we are never going to tell you that you -- it's not appropriate for you to say what you need to say and present what you think you need to present. That's -- I will punt to you and if that's -- whatever you would like to do this evening. But you were right on with our past comments about continuations, so I think it's probably going to continue. Hopkins: Yeah. Mr. Mayor, Councilman Bernt -- I think the only new thing that's really happened -- I -- we got an e-mail that came through from one of the adjacent neighbors that it talked about access points and so we are currently working with our development team to try to figure out how we could maybe have alternatives that we will present to you. One of those -- a couple of those would be through the subdivision that we are proposing. So, to the southwest corner, a cul-de-sac, and, then, aligning the backage road in a way that maybe would appeal to the neighbors and in a way that wouldn't be through Serenity Lane. So, I think Serenity Lane and the medical campus were the main things that we kind of left on the table from the last discussion and I mean I think -- my Page 32 Meridian City Council Item#2. April 13,2021 Page , of— understanding in talking with staff and kind of just through watching the previous meetings is that a continuation tonight might have been the way that Council is going, but if we would like to have this open and -- and to have the discussion and if you feel like you might make a determination tonight I'm happy to talk through those things about Serenity Lane and the medical campus. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: We could possibly, you know, continue it keeping that portion open, so that we can have those further discussions, if that's what you desire. Hopkins: Sure. That sounds great. Thank you. So, I don't know if-- I have a flash drive and I can kind of load it onto the computer if you would like. Once Adrienne gets that loaded up I will kind of talk through what we were talking about with the access via Serenity Lane, but I won't bore you with more the -- or some of the details that we have already discussed a couple times as far as what the project is composed of. Weatherly: Mr. Mayor, it's just going to take me a few minutes to get the presentation queued for you. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: If-- if this is an issue getting pulled up and we are having some problems with it, I mean, Stephanie, are you opposed to just talking more about this when you guys come back at a later date? Hopkins: Sure. Yeah. I'm -- Mr. Mayor, Councilman Bernt, I think that that's probably reasonable. The PowerPoint I was going to pull up is actually from the last time around. I was going to show you roughly where those access points are -- we were talking about possibly proposing if Serenity Lane isn't going to be a viable option, so -- but that, yeah, could be a discussion that could be had at a later date. Weatherly: Mr. Mayor, Stephanie, the challenge is that the presentation is contained in the meeting minutes and not as an individual presentation. It doesn't look like we still have it saved as an individual presentation. Hopkins: Okay. Thank you. And, Adrienne, I think for some reason it didn't save on that flash drive, so -- thank you. Simison: Well, what I'm sensing is we are going to be continuing this item for a couple of reasons. It is a public hearing and we do have at least one person online. I want to make sure we give those that have come in this evening an opportunity to make comment if Page 33 Meridian City Council Item#2. April 13,2021 Page 8-44 they would like, in case they are not able to make it to whatever day we choose to continue it to. So, Madam Clerk, did we have anybody sign up to testify specifically? Yearsley: Mr. Mayor, we did not. Simison: Okay. Well, if you would like to provide any comments, knowing that this hearing is going to be continued, if you can use the raise your hand feature or raise your hand here in the audience and we can ask you to come forward, but we will continue this to another date. Not seeing anybody, excuse me, raise their hand or come forward. With that, Council, would you like to make a motion? Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: I move that we would continue Prescott Ridge, H-2020-0047, until May 18th. Perreault: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second to continue this item until May 18th. Is there any discussion on the motion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it and we are continued until May 18. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Hopkins: Thank you. Bernt: Thank you, Stephanie. Simison: Thank you. Cavener: Thanks, Stephanie. Nice to see you. 3. Public Hearing Continued from March 9, 2021 for Shafer View Terrace (H-2020-0117) by Breckon Land Design, Located on the East Side of S. Meridian Rd./SH 69, Midway Between E. Amity Rd. and E. Lake Hazel Rd. A. Request: Annexation of a total of 40.48 acres of land with R-2 (10.66 acres) and R-4 (29.82 acres) zoning districts. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 50 buildable lots and 10 common lots on 39.01 acres of land in the R-2 and R-4 zoning districts. Simison: Next item on the agenda is another continued public hearing from March 9th, Page 34 Meridian City Council Item#2. April 13,2021 Page 9-— 2021, for Shafer View Terrace, H-2020-0117. Before we see if there is any staff comments I'm going to turn this over to Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just -- Council, before we get started as just a quick reminder, I was absent on the March 9th meeting. Although I was able to watch the proceedings from home via YouTube, I wasn't active and participating in the meeting, though I have watched that meeting, I have reviewed the minutes, it's likely that we may be continuing this one as well, but just wanted to note it for the record that I have reviewed everything and am prepared to be involved in the conversation should one exist. Simison: Thank you, Councilman. With that I will turn this over to Sonya for any staff comments. Allen: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, staff has no comments. Simison: Is the applicant here this evening? Wall: Yes. This is Mary Wall with Breckon Land Design. Simison: Thank you. If you would state your name and address for the record. Wall: Mary Wall. 5636 North Portsmouth Avenue in Boise. Simison: Do you have any additional comments you would like to add at this time? Wall- I do not. We would like to continue the hearing until the May 11th City Council meeting. Simison: Council President, how does that look? Bernt: Mr. Mayor, thank you. On May 11th we have three public hearings it looks like. Am I looking at that correctly, Madam Clerk? Weatherly: Mr. Mayor, Council Member, that is correct. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: We -- this evening we have -- we moved to continue a previous item to May 18th, so we now have two scheduled for that date. We do have one -- only one scheduled for the 25th. My -- my recommendation would most likely be the 18th or the 25th if those work for the applicant. Wall: We would prefer as soon as possible, so -- so, the 18th, please. Page 35 Meridian City Council Item#2. April 13,2021 Page 10-- Simison: The 18th is what is being proposed by the applicant and is one of the options. Bernt: Mr. Mayor, I -- you know, I think it's important to a certain degree that we are somewhat cognitive of these -- these folks and it's really not their fault that they are -- we are having this discussion right now and -- and I would be -- I think the 18th is fine. I do feel like if -- if going forward if this is continuing to go out I wouldn't be opposed to having a special meeting to address some of these issues, so that we are not back logging multiple continued hearings, along with current applications that are just going through the process and so I don't know if that's a discussion that we need to have right now at this very exact time. We do have some -- I wouldn't be opposed to putting it on the 18th, but we -- maybe the Mayor and I are -- maybe we should have this discussion about what that looks like going forward. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: I would move that we continue the public hearing for Shafer View Terrace, H- 2020-0117, until May 18th. Strader: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second to continue this item. Is there any discussion on the motion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it and the item is continued. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. 4. Public Hearing for TM Center/Ten Mile Crossing (H-2020-0074) by SCS Brighton, et al., Located East of S. Ten Mile Rd. and south of W. Franklin Rd. A. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 83 buildable lots and 2 common lots on 132.42 acres of land in the R-40 and C-G zoning districts. B. Request: A Development Agreement Modification to terminate all existing agreements in the Ten Mile Crossing development area in favor of one master agreement to govern future development of the overall area. The proposal includes a request for adoption of project- specific design guidelines to supersede those in the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan (TMISAP), which include deviations from certain goals and guidelines including decreased floor area ratios, different street and streetscape designs, landscape and architectural design elements and site development standards, including an increase in height of up to 100-feet to allow for 6-story Page 36 Meridian City Council Item#2. April 13,2021 Page 11 of— buildings [i.e. TM Crossing — AZ-12-005 (Inst. #114002254, 1st Addendum #2016-062220, 2nd Addendum #2017-051907, TMC Expansion #2019-011700); TM Creek/TM Creek East — AZ-13- 015/1-1-2015-0018 (Inst. #114045759, 1 st Addendum #2016-073497, 2nd Addendum #2017-113747); Ten Mile Center— AZ-14-001 (Inst. #2014-065514); Calnon Properties — H-2015-0017 (Inst. 2016- 030845); and Bainbridge Franklin — H-2018-0057 (Inst. #2019- 077071)]. C. Request: A Rezone of 40.98 acres from the R-40 and C-C zoning districts to the C-G zoning district, 3.9-acres from the TN-C and C-G zoning districts to the R-40 zoning district, 0.65 acres from the R-8 and TN-C zoning districts to the C-G zoning district, and 0.53 acres from the TN-C zoning district to the C-G zoning district. Simison: Thank you, Mary. Appreciate it. And we will see you back here next month. Next item on the agenda is a public hearing for TM Center/Ten Mile Crossing, H-2020- 0074. We will open this public hearing with staff comments and turn it over to Sonya. Allen: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'm not seeing my presentation. Give me just a moment, please. All right. Here we go. The next applications before you are a request for a development agreement modification, a rezone, and a preliminary plat. This site proposed for the subdivision consists of 132.42 acres of land. It's zoned R-40 and C-G, located east of South Ten Mile Road and south of West Franklin Road. The proposed plat encompasses land that was annexed with the Ten Mile Center, Ten Mile Creek East, Calnon and Bainbridge Franklin projects. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designations are mixed use commercial, mixed use residential, high density residential and medium high density residential. A development agreement modification is requested to terminate all existing agreements in the Ten Mile Crossing development area in favor of one master agreement to govern future development of the overall area. The proposal includes a request for adoption of project specific design guidelines to supersede those in the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan, which includes deviations from certain goals and guidelines, including decreased floor area ratios, different street and streetscape designs, landscape and architectural design elements and site development standards, including an increase in height in the C-G zoning district of up to one hundred feet to allow for six story buildings and I'm going to just let the applicant go into more detail on this, rather than being repetitive tonight, and move on to the other requests, because I know they have quite a presentation on this. The applicant is requesting a rezone of 40.98 acres of land from the R-40, C-C, and C-G zoning district, 3.9 acres from TN-C and C-G to R-40, .65 of an acre from R-8 and TN-C to C-G and .53 of an acre from TN-C to C-G. The smaller areas proposed to be zoned C-G will clean up the zoning in this area where it's irregular and doesn't follow parcel lines and/or proposed streets. The area proposed to be rezoned to R-40 south of the Ten Mile Creek will be an extension of the R-40 zoning that exists to the west and will allow for the development of additional multi-family residential uses with conditional use approval. The proposed zoning and use is consistent with the underlying mixed use residential future land use designation. The Page 37 Meridian City Council Item#2. April 13,2021 Page 12 of 4 target density for this designation is eight to 12 units per acre. The future land use designation of the abutting property to the west is high density residential, which allows for multi-family residential uses at a target density of 16 to 25 dwelling units per acre. Future land use designations are not parcel specific and an adjacent abutting designation when appropriate and approved as part of a public hearing with a land development application may be used. Because the high density residential designation allows for a higher density, staff recommends this designation apply to future development of this property since the density will be higher than 12 units per acre if apartments are developed on the site similar to those to the west in TM Creek Apartments. Future development of this property is currently governed by the existing development agreements for Ten Mile Center and Calnon. Conceptual development plans were not approved for these projects, other than a conceptual street layout for the Ten Mile Center property. The larger -- larger area to be rezoned to C-G between Franklin Road and the Ten Mile Creek is designated on the future land use map as mostly mixed use commercial, with approximately a quarter of the area on the west end as high density residential. As noted, because the future land use map is not parcel specific and allows for abutting designations to govern, staff recommends the abutting mixed use commercial designation to the east apply and govern future development of the western portion of this site. The proposed C-G zoning district is an appropriate zoning choice for the mixed use commercial designation, which allows for a variety of uses, including commercial, vertically integrated residential, live-work, employment, entertainment, office and multi- family. Future development of this property is currently governed by the existing development agreements for TM Creek East and Calnon. Conceptual development plans were not approved for these projects. The applicant submitted a conceptual land use plan as shown to ensure a mix of uses from each major land use category, commercial, residential and employment are provided as set forth in the Ten Mile plan in accord with the provisions of the annexation. A preliminary plat is proposed consisting of 83 -- which consists of 74 commercial and nine high density residential buildable lots and two common lots on 132.42 acres of land in the R-40 and C-G zoning districts. The plat is proposed to develop in six phases as shown. Phase one consisting of multi-family residential apartments in TM Creek East on Lot 16, Block 3, is currently under construction and almost completed. No development has occurred on the remainder of the site. Phase two commenced last year with the completion of Wayfinder from Vanguard to Cobalt between the existing roundabouts. The development of phases three through six may vary in area and sequence based on the product need and market demand. The proposed common lots will contain the Ten Mile Creek corridor, which includes a ten foot wide segment of the city's multi-use pathway and the relocated Vaughn Lateral, which will be deeded to NMID. There are no existing structures on this site. Wayfinder Avenue in the western portion of Cobalt in front of the TM Creek East Apartments, has already been constructed outside of the subdivision process and are not consistent with the street sections designated in the street section map in the Ten Mile plan. However, they do comply with ACHD standards and have been approved by ACHD. These street sections were constructed as standard street sections with two travel lanes, a center turn lane, bike lanes and no on-street parking. South Vanguard Way from Ten Mile Road to the roundabout at the southwest corner of the site was approved and constructed with the TM Crossing development to the south. The eastern portion of Page 38 Meridian City Council Item#2. April 13,2021 Page 13 of 4 Cobalt to New Market and Benchmark and the extension of New Market-Benchmark from Franklin Road to the southern -- southern boundary of the site is proposed with the subject plat and has not yet been constructed. Staff recommends New Market and Benchmark is constructed as a residential collector street in accord with street section D in the plan with on-street parking along both sides of the street. Staff did discuss this with ACHD and they are supportive of this design. Because Cobalt is already partially constructed, staff did not recommend any changes to that street. There are two driveway accesses proposed via Franklin Road with the plat, one to the east and one to the west of New Market and Benchmark. These accesses require a waiver to UDC 11-3A-3, which limits access points to arterial streets unless otherwise approved by Council. A cross-access ingress-egress easement is required between all lots. All -- excuse me -- nonresidential lots within the subdivision and those proposed accesses, if you can see on the landscape plan, are right here by Franklin. The Commission heard these items on March 18th at the public hearing. The Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject request. Summary of the Commission hearing. Jon Wardle and David Turnbull for Brighton Corporation testified in favor. There was no one that offered testimony and opposition or commented on the application. Written testimony was received from Ben Thompson. Key issues of public testimony. No public testimony other than the applicant's presentation was presented. Key issues of discussion by the Commission were as follows: They would like to see a central common open space and site amenity area. They have a desire for pedestrian scale lights to be provided along walkways. Desire for the developer to follow the use plan submitted to ensure a mix of uses is developed as desired. They were concerned that it may not be appropriate to extend building height limit up to one hundred feet in the overall C-G zoning district and that certain areas may not be appropriate for buildings that tall. For example, adjacent to Franklin and Ten Mile Roads. The applicant's request for additional driveway accesses via Franklin Road and, finally, the Commission was generally in favor of the proposed design guidelines for the development that are part of the development agreement modification request. The Commission made the following changes to the staff recommendation. The applicant should work with staff prior to the Council meeting to identify specific areas where buildings could extend up to one hundred feet in height and provide a conceptual diagram for Council to consider. Consider the area south of Cobalt and west to Benchmark Avenue for those taller buildings. These areas should provide significant buffering between future residential uses and neighboring roadways. The applicant and staff did meet to discuss this and agreed that leaving flexibility in this area may be the best option. If Council disagrees, Condition A-1A-3 should be amended accordingly. The Council should follow the bubble plan concept presented at the hearing as they move forward with their concept plans and, finally, the Commission wanted to see some sort of significant central amenity added to the concept plan for the project, whether it be an amphitheater, a plaza, or a park and that they might seek assistance from the urban renewal agency or work with Council on what that amenity might look like. Outstanding issues for City Council tonight are as follows: The Council should determine if a waiver to the standards in UDC 11-3A- 3 is appropriate for the proposed driveway accesses via Franklin Road in the absence of a conceptual development plan for this area. After the Commission hearing staff did meet with the applicant to discuss the Commission recommendation and go over the applicant's requested changes to the new development agreement provisions in the staff report. In Page 39 Meridian City Council Item#2. April 13,2021 Page 14 of 44 response to the applicant's letter to Council, dated April 5th, requesting modifications to the development agreement provisions based on the discussion with staff, staff is in general agreement with the changes if City Council supports the proposed amendment as follows: Replacement of references to the guidelines in the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan with the Ten Mile Crossing design guidelines. If Council approves the proposed design guidelines, replacement of these references is appropriate. Removal of the requirement for pedestrian scale lighting to be provided along the adjacent arterial frontages and internal collector streets and change the pathway location from the north to the south side of the creek. Pedestrian scale lighting exists along Wayfinder Avenue north of the creek. Because the applicant proposes extra streetlights along internal collector streets, which nearly double that required, staff feels this should provide adequate lighting for pedestrians if Council agrees. Modifications to the timing of the provisions requiring the final platting of the property prior to issuance of building permits or CZC to issuance of certificates of occupancies instead. Staff is amenable to this change for consistency with past approvals for previous phases. Removal of the requirements for buildings along Ten Mile Road to address the street with windows overlooking the pathway and a minimum building setback of 50 feet to allow 35 feet instead consistent with UDC standards for entryway corridors. Because of the six to eight foot drop in grade from the road it is not feasible for the first floor of structures to overlook the pathway. The 35 foot wide setback is consistent with that on the northern portion of the site in TM Creek. The current DA provision as written allows building heights up to one hundred feet in all areas without restrictions or further application. The Commission directed the applicant to work with staff as mentioned to identify specific areas where this would be allowed and provide a conceptual diagram for Council to consider. They felt taller buildings should only be allowed in certain areas. Staff and the applicant, as mentioned, discussed this and felt it may be better to leave flexibility in this area and the caveat that significant buffering between future residential uses and neighborhood roadways should be provided. Removal of the requirement for a pedestrian connection to be provided across the creek in TM Creek, west of Wayfinder and north of Cobalt, if approval can be obtained from Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District. Because there is an NMID access road along the north side of the creek, NMID will not allow pedestrian access in that area. The existing drive aisle and two streets over the creek with pedestrian walkways alongside should provide adequate pedestrian connectivity over the creek. Inclusion of the proposed future land use map percentage designations and conceptual land use plan as exhibits in the development agreement and requirement for development compliance is agreeable to staff to ensure compliance with land use goals in this area in lieu of a requirement to modify the development agreement to include a more detailed conceptual development plan in the future. Staff is generally supportive of the land use as proposed to the extent that they are allowed in the district per the UDC. In regard to the preliminary plat condition, A-4, pertaining to design features proposed for complete streets, the applicant proposes to provide sidewalks, bike lanes, wide shoulders, bus stops, refuge medians on all legs of the roundabouts, crosswalks where the multi-use pathway along the creek crosses roadways, on-street parking along Wayfinder north of the creek and along South Sentinel Lane and West Excursion Lane, internal private streets. Sidewalk bulb outs in residential areas for traffic calming and street furnishings consisting of benches, flowerpots, trees and wells, hardscape areas for widened sidewalk Page 40 Meridian City Council Item#2. April 13,2021 Page 15 of 44 corridor within the development per the proposed design guidelines and request removal of this condition. If Council determines additional features should be required, such as additional crosswalks, refuge medians, bus, pullout special bus lanes, raised crosswalks, audible pedestrian signals, additional sidewalks bulb outs, additional on-street parking, et cetera, a condition requiring such should be included. Staff recommends on-street parking is provided along Benchmark Avenue. The applicant is not in agreement with this recommendation and requests a modification to condition 2-D as follows: South New Market Avenue, Benchmark Avenue shall be constructed with two travel lanes, bike lanes, parallel parking south of Ten Mile Creek on the east side of the street adjacent to future medium density residential development if allowed byACHD at preliminary platting of that area. Eight foot wide parkways and detached sidewalks and pathways consistent with the Ten Mile Crossing design guidelines, the development agreement, pathways master plan and pathways plan for this site. The first 200 feet of -- south of Franklin Road on New Market is not allowed to have on-street parking per the ACHD report to allow for right and left turn lanes. Written testimony since the Commission hearing was received from Mike Wardle, Brighton Development. There is a letter dated April 5th. Staff did issue a memo to the Mayor and Council in response to that letter. You should have that in your packets. Written testimony was also received, again, from Doug Thompson. Basically the same letter he submitted for the -- for the Commission hearing. He is not in favor of the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan being further altered. Not in favor of the proposed rezone and not in favor of the proposed building height above four to five stories. That's all that staff has. Stand for any questions. I believe the applicant will have a pretty lengthy presentation, though, which may -- may answer some questions. So, may want to wait on that. Simison: Thank you, Sonya. Council, any questions for staff at this time? Thank you very much. I thought I saw -- yes, there we go. Jon, you are recognized for 15 minutes. Wardle: Mayor and Council, give me just one second to pull the presentation, so -- but did -- for the record my name is Jon Wardle. My address is 2929 West Navigator, Suite 400, in Meridian, Idaho. 83642. 1 just want to confirm you can see my screen. Perfect. Thank you. Mr. Mayor -- and before I start, I'm wondering how often you have used the word steamrolled in official proclamations, because that was -- that was epic seeing all of those young men and those that support that wrestling team. So, glad to see their recognition. Thank you, Sonya, for the overview tonight. Mayor and Council, we appreciate the opportunity to be in front of you tonight. On the surface the applications may simply be -- look like a rezone, preliminary plat, and approval of access points, but there is a lot more to this as I will get into here shortly. These applications also include a DA modification and design guidelines for the entire area. We have submitted, in addition to the applications, Ten Mile Crossing design guidelines. You see it -- there is a staff report and memo, applicant requests, and Planning and Zoning Commission unanimous approval to you as well. These applications now integrate a cohesive vision for 300 acres to the adoption of specific design guidelines, concurrent with a unified development agreement, instead of five separate DAs. The --the genesis of--of our application tonight really relates around the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan that some of you are familiar with, some of you maybe not. So, I wanted to get into a little bit of background Page 41 Meridian City Council Item#2. April 13,2021 Page 16 of 44 on this. The TMISAP was created through a public process that included property owners, citizens, developers, professionals, agencies and elected officials to provide input. However, in our opinion developer input was not given adequate consideration based on market acceptance. There were workshops, agency meetings and public hearings to create a vision for a major community asset that had at that time been generally undeveloped. The TMISAP was adopted in June 2007 with practical and aspirational goals as well as a directive to implement the plan and achieve results. Just a couple of excerpts -- excerpts here from the plan regarding implementation. The city encourages developers and key landowners to take the initiative and bring forward detailed design guidelines. The city could look beyond the existing development regulations to new development provisions. By the development of new provisions, such as new zoning districts, overlay districts, design guidelines and development standards and, finally, it will require leadership on behalf of the city and a willingness to innovate and collaborate with all the players involved. Just a couple more quotes here. Developers are strongly encouraged to undertake these tasks. Developers are also encouraged to work together to prepare a set of design guidelines and there is also an incentive potentially by the city to develop and expedite a review process for projects that embrace this standard. So, what -- what do all these have as it relates to the project? Ten Mile Crossing, since its adoption -- Ten Mile that -- that was adopted in 2007. As we all know that the commercial real estate market stalled and user demand shifted. This required a close evaluation of the plan and how best to move forward to secure end users, but create flexibility to adapt to more changes, including those to come, like COVID. It also presented opportunities to work with adjoining property owners. When Brighton and FCS began the process of development we had two properties with entitlements. We had TM Creek, 40 acres on the corner, and we had TM Crossing, which was about 80 acres along Interstate 80, both bounded by Ten Mile Road. Development finally commenced of those two projects in 2014, but an item that kept coming up was the ad hoc approach to planning a large area and interpretation of the TMISAP. There has been a lot of effort, discussion, and maybe occasional frustration by both city staff and us, seemingly because site specific actions were referencing back to general aspirational statements no longer applicable, achievable in the market, or not responsive to current conditions. Additionally, we have seen seismic changes and a need to be flexible given COVID. In collaboration we worked very closely with our adjoining property owners and neighbors to address land use with the Calnon property owners and with Treasure Valley Investments. We ultimately purchased those properties to -- and so we could incorporate a complete vision for 308 acres. So, this exhibit right here shows everything that we currently own out here. The Calnon property, the Bainbridge property, and Treasure Valley Investments. So, all that is 308 acres. By assembling all these parcels together we were able to achieve one of the goals of the plan, which was to work across property lines in a collaborative way. This has been a long time coming. We actually started this process back in May 20 -- May 29th, 2020, when we had a pre-application with staff and, then, we ultimately submitted a subdivision plan for TM Center, the area outlined here in yellow. However, there is -- there continued to be a discussion regarding what is the design standards, what's the vision for the area. So, we set out trying to create a set of design standards. We hired Cushing Terrell to research, review, and create a draft study. So, for the Ten Mile Crossing DA mod and design guidelines we engaged city staff also a year ago to discuss a sub Page 42 Meridian City Council Item#2. April 13,2021 Page 17—44 area plan and project specific guidelines. We had a pre-application in July. We had a secondary application in November. Ultimately we submitted applications in November, which included a comp plan text amendment, combining five development agreements, a planned unit development and zoning modifications. Ultimately, as the applications in front of you, those were reduced down to the DA modification to create a single DA for the entire project with design guidelines and zoning modifications. I want to spend just a few minutes talking through the design guidelines that we have created here. Again, we went-- going back 13 months, that's where this process began. It applies to all 300 acres. It provides a cohesive approach to all this from a design perspective and will be the governing document that we would use to review all applications prior to them coming to the City of Meridian. In total there is about 71 pages here. I don't expect you to review all of it, but we did spend quite a bit of time looking at the -- what should go into this. We have created design review process, they are specific design guidelines, as well as a photo library showing examples of what the look and feel should be and these are all based on projects that have been approved or will be approved in the future. Probably the thing that we are most proud about is coming up with a way to offload some of staff's time to review architecture for the project. So, we have created in this document a design review board where all applications for all exterior improvements will come to us, we will review those, we will make comments back and once we have approved those, then, at that point they can come to the city. There will still need to be a CZC application submitted, but the design review part of it will be taken off the plate of staff and let them focus on other activities. Included in the site -- in the design guidelines we have site and landscape elements. We have architectural elements that you will see here in just a second and we have also created a cohesive signage approach to all Ten Mile Crossing. We have also identified locations in the project where additional architectural control needs to occur. These are highlighted here in red and, as we mentioned earlier, the flexibility to have taller buildings throughout the project should that demand be there. We have created complete roadway standards throughout Ten Mile Crossing. Here is three slides showing the public and private elements throughout the project with specific details on how those function. Those have all been reviewed with ACHD and have been approved byACHD as they relate to public roadways. One of the things that I wanted to highlight here was the pathways and amenities for the project. This exhibit here lays out the -- the public pathway system, which would be eight foot to ten foot regional and internal pathways. It also shows where we have detached sidewalks and some other landscaping elements that we propose here. In total there will be 3.5 additional miles of public pathways created at the completion of Ten Mile Crossing and this represents what that would be. One of the things that I note here as well -- we have a star, which is a future gathering plaza. That was requested by the P&Z Commission. We really feel like that future gathering plaza should look and feel -- be integrated into the project, much like generations plaza is in downtown Meridian. We need flexibility to be able to design that in the future, but are making a commitment to do that at the request of Planning and Zoning Commission. Just a couple of more items here in the design guidelines. We have site and landscape elements, so that they are cohesive throughout the project. Plantings. Parking areas. Exterior lighting. Wall and service areas. We have also spent a lot of time looking at the form, scale, proportion, elements in details for commercial projects, mixed use flex projects, as well as residential multi-family projects. And like I mentioned, Page 43 Meridian City Council Item#2. April 13,2021 Page 18 of 44 we have created an overall signage plan for the project detailing size and type of signs, both for monuments and pylons, as well as signage for buildings throughout the project and the thing that we have spent a lot of time as well is on the photo library, which is included in our design guidelines. Of all of these -- all of these things, including the landscape elements and how this should look and feel -- and these are actual pictures of the projects as they have been built to date. In summary, there were a few items that we want to just to hit on a high level. The conceptual land use map, which I show here, the staff requested that we do -- create a bubble plan to show the type of uses that we can expect. We aren't getting into the granular details here, because we do need flexibility, but we are making a commitment as to the type of uses that would be in the project. The future land use map, which I show here, there was a discussion with staff just recognizing or confirming that we were aware of the percentages that were allowed -- the maximum percentages in the mixed use community and the mixed use residential and, yes, we do acknowledge that and we do agree that that will -- we can comply with that. Back to this -- the design guidelines. This applies to all 300 acres. That's why we want a single development agreement that will pull this in as part of-- of Ten Mile Crossing as a whole. The thing that is important on this is we will have an independent architecture -- architectural review board, including outside architects that will participate in this and be able to provide and maintain the high quality mixed use for this entire project and, like I said, this would be the overall vision for Ten Mile Crossing. This exhibit here, just quickly, shows the roads that have been complete all predominantly to the west and the future roadways that are going to be coming forth in the future. There was a discussion by Sonya about on-street parking on Benchmark. I can address that in more detail if you have questions. We are supportive of on-street parking relate -- related to the residential piece -- property that will come through to you in the future, but this portion of Benchmark very well could have on-street parking as it relates to that. But the other part of Benchmark would be left just as they are currently designed with the collector status. Sonya mentioned this, but I wanted to highlight the two access points that we are asking for, that City Council approve. This is a way to consolidate multiple access points into two. Yes, there are -- there is a cross -- there is a -- an access point to the east with 12 Oaks, but, candidly, it's poorly designed and substandard to provide adequate cross- access. So, we are asking for these two access points that we can internally circulate in and out, but we do have other collector roadways that will also provide internal cross- access as well. On the pathways and amenities, I just wanted to highlight once again the pathway plan. One thing I kind of glossed over really quickly, but I want to come back and highlight it, is there are some red circles here on the pathways plan. At those locations we intend to create plazas outside of the further gathering plaza internal to the project, but there will be plazas and seating areas here that as both residents and those that are employed out here have an opportunity to walk, to sit down, take a break and, then, move on to wherever they need to go. But there will be designated points along all these pathways where we will be putting these plazas and seating areas. And, finally, we are going to be enhancing -- let me go back to this one. At the entrance of Vanguard and Ten Mile, as well as Franklin and Ten Mile, we are going to be enhancing both of those entrances with significant landscaping, a plaza area on both of those, as well as greatly enhanced entry into Ten Mile, so that it is the premier office and planned community in this part of the city. We have provided you with all these items as noted in our requested Page 44 Meridian City Council Item#2. April 13,2021 Page 19 of 44 changes to staff's recommended -- recommendation for approval. We are anxious to move forward the pre-plat process, which has been on the agenda since August, with a unified master DA, simplifying that from five down to one, accompanied by specific design guidelines, so the Ten Mile Crossing can be planned and developed as a complete project and sets the standard for the Ten Mile interchange area. With the encouragement of staff and of the TMI -- with the encouragement of the TMISAP and a three year long collaboration with staff we have now taken five separate projects and combined them into a single 308 acre mixed use development to be governed by a single DA with project specific guidelines. Staff has expressed support as documented on the April 8th memo to Council. Planning and Zoning Commission expressed its general support for a unanimous approval -- recommendation for approval. We concur with staff and P&Z recommendations for approval and request your approval tonight of the Ten Mile Crossing DA modification with proposed design guidelines. The proposed rezones, approval of the TM Center Subdivision preliminary plat, including the requested modifications to the conditions of approval per the applicant's April 5th request and as supported by staff on April 8th. We request your approval tonight and stand for any questions you might have regarding Ten Mile Crossing, the design guidelines, the pre-plat and the rezone that are before you tonight. Thank you. Simison: Thank you, Jon. Council, any questions for the applicant? Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, Jon, thank you for that presentation and the tremendous amount of work you and your team have put into this application. Numerous things -- I'm thoroughly impressed with the design guidelines that were created in your work with Cushing Terrell and doing that and my question there is for that district board that Ten Mile Crossing design district, there is --there is that-- have a board review applicate --that development applications are going to be submitted to. Is that a board that is appointed by the city or I -- it seemed to me it was more part of the Ten Mile Crossing district that would appoint the architects to -- to oversee and to review the -- the submissions. Can you fill me in on that? Wardle: Yes. Mr. Mayor, Council Member Hoaglun, thank you for the question. Our intent is to appoint the review board internally within Ten Mile Crossing. That board will include architects that are not associated with the projects. We have several different architects that are out here. It, obviously, wouldn't be appropriate for them to be reviewing their own projects. I will tell you that we have a very keen eye to the design and so we are very much involved in that as well, but we will have outside architects involved in that process, make recommendations to the applicant on those buildings and, then, have them make those changes prior to a CZC package coming to -- to the city. What we are trying to do is make sure that the design is cohesive with the guidelines, but also maybe lessen staff's load a little bit as it relates to design review and it would also help with -- or provide an expedited process of that review, so that when they finally get to staff there they aren't Page 45 Meridian City Council Item#2. April 13,2021 Page 20—44 wasting their time going back and forth. We will have addressed those issues already. Hoaglun: Thank you, Jon. Appreciate that. Mr. Mayor, follow up on another question have. Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: One other question I have -- it sounds like you and staff have come to agreement over a number of the different changes to the new DA and appreciate you and staff working on that and I know it took a lot of time on everybody's part to make that happen and it comes down to my question about the South New Market Avenue, Benchmark Avenue parking. Staff is recommending on-street parking is provided along Benchmark Avenue. We know that the first 200 feet from Franklin are not allowed to have, you know, parking perACHD regulations, but you are proposing that there is parallel parking south of Ten Mile Creek on the east side of the street and I want to know does that go to the -- in your bubble plan, the conceptual land use plan, to the border of the medium to medium high density residential area there in green on -- on that particular map or does it go down to -- near the curve and why not both sides of the street, as opposed to one side of the street, so -- Wardle: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Hoaglun, I just want to make sure that you were -- were you referring to this exhibit or the one before this? This one or the other one? It probably doesn't matter -- Hoaglun: Yes. That one right there. Wardle: So -- so, our intent is with the residential that we will have here we do see that there is a great opportunity to have on-street parking there. We do feel like this -- on this side will be very much more commercial oriented, office, maybe even a little bit of retail, but -- but we feel like the on-street parking really relates more to the residential, as we would have residential in this area and that would be the appropriate place for the on- street parking. Hoaglun: Okay. And, Mr. Mayor, to -- Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: --just for clarification, Jon. And, then, would it go down just to the boundary of that -- what you are showing as the medium to medium high density residential bubble, approximately right there where you have the cursor? Wardle: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Hoaglun, yes, that is correct. This was originally called New Market, but now it's Benchmark, but it's basically built to this point anyways. We have a little bit more to make that connection, but we would just -- we would do on-street parking on the entire eastern frontage between the -- I can't remember the name of the subdivision there, but from that point all the way up to Ten Mile -- TM -- Ten Mile Creek Page 46 Meridian City Council Item#2. April 13,2021 Page 21 —44 to that point. The Primrose Subdivision. Hoaglun: Thank you, Jon. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Simison: Council, further questions? Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Thank you. Jon, if you could talk a little bit about the need for flexibility on up to one hundred foot buildings. You know, I don't know if that works out to be ten stories quite. I'm sure you have to add some mechanicals and stuff, but do you -- do you really think there is a need there and -- and how would you foresee -- like where do you think in this development that would fit? Wardle: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Strader, that's a great question. Just for context, a hundred foot would satisfy the need for a six story building. We currently have out here on this exhibit right here -- the Paylocity building is five stories and so that's our tallest building we have right now. But what we have had to do is to go through and we have had to actually ask for alternative compliance to even get to that level. We, honestly, don't know how many of those there will be, but what we are finding is if we can increase the size of some of those buildings as we move in -- into the north area up here in particular, we -- you know, we are able to work on the design a little bit more. Really, it's -- we would top out at six stories. But the -- the flexibility to a hundred feet allows us to -- to do that without having to ask for alternative compliance on each and every one of those buildings like we have already with Paylocity in particular, which is five stories currently. Do -- where do we think that that probably would occur? Again, we think that the -- the hundred foot level would be most likely in this area. I don't know that we would go all the way up to Ten Mile. But what we have found, Councilman -- Council Member Strader, is the need to be flexible, so that if we do have a tenant that wants to use all of the building or most of the building, that hundred foot request may be necessary and we want to be able to move quickly and so that's why we are asking for the flexibility on this. Strader: Mr. Mayor, a follow up? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Is the alternative compliance process cumbersome? I'm not very familiar with it. Is that a real obstacle that you have had or -- I'm trying to understand how much the flexibility is really necessary. Wardle: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Strader, it's not cumbersome, but there -- it is -- it can be -- it can be subjective. So, what we -- what we have ended up doing out here is we have created, you know, the pathway system as -- as a way to mitigate some of that. We have added plazas in front of buildings as well. What we are asking for is -- and we Page 47 Meridian City Council Item#2. April 13,2021 Page 22—44 are going to continue to offer all those things. We are just asking for a little bit more flexibility, so that we know for certainty that we can get there. As it stands right now the maximum height we can do without -- without alternative compliance is four stories and so anytime we even ask for five stories it's in for alternative compliance, as well as six. As a comparison -- well, a six story -- an example of the six story building that exists in the city right now would be the ESI Select Health building, which is on Franklin and Eagle Road. That's six stories. So, again, will we have many of those? I'm not sure that we will, but we are just asking for a little bit more flexibility. There was discussion about what is the extent of that. I -- honestly, I don't believe we would have anything that would be up on Franklin, but in this core area where we already have a very defined office core, I could see where this would be -- be needed. One other thing that's --that's of importance is Ten Mile sits very high, as well as Franklin Road, so even if we had a six story building here, it's not going to look like six stories from either Ten Mile or Franklin. We have as much as 20 feet of grade difference between Franklin Road down here to Cobalt and as much as eight feet at this point coming a little bit lower. Strader: Thank you. That's helpful. Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Good to see you, Mr. Wardle. Appreciate you joining us this evening. I have a -- I have a question in regard to the connectivity to 12 Oaks. You mentioned that it was a -- sort of a poor design and you would rather have that access coming off of Franklin in a couple of points historically. We have always -- we -- as a Council we have always consistently been in favor of and supported cross-access with neighboring properties. Would there be a way to continue that or is that -- is that not doable? Further clarification would be nice. I would appreciate that. Wardle: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Bernt, thank you for the question. Regarding the 12 Oaks access or the cross-access, we -- we intend to maintain it, but the issue that we -- that we have with the access is that it cuts through a parking lot right next to multi-family and a future little pad, which is on Franklin Road. I don't--this doesn't--this aerial doesn't show it, but it comes in and it's not even a direct shot into us. You come in, you have to take a right coming into the site and also you have to climb up over the Vaughn Lateral piping that's there and so you are coming up and you are coming back down. With that said, we do intend to keep it, so that that cross-access does occur, but it's a very poor access point for dominant commercial here back through a multi-family project. So, we -- we want to be able to encourage access to occur on Benchmark, as well as access that would occur directly across from Republic Services, their access point, which we have done. We consolidated all of our access points and we are showing it right there across from theirs and over here we take the midpoint as well between those two. We will continue to have cross-access internally. We will have access back to the collector road system as well. But having a way to get in and not push it through 12 Oaks residential or the primary way to get in, that's our request tonight. We have discussed -- we have discussed this with ACHD. They are ultimately the ones that will need to approve that. There is a way that can be done. But we do know that we need City Council support of Page 48 Meridian City Council Item#2. April 13,2021 Page 23—44 that request to pursue that further. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: I would like to change the topic of discussion back to design guidelines and get some more understanding from the applicant, as well as the staff, on the concern about whether the design guidelines coordinate well, I suppose, for lack of a better word, with -- with the plan that we currently have, the Ten Mile plan, and just want to understand a little bit more about some statements that are in the staff report in regard to the applicant's not being in favor of some of the recommendations that the staff made about how to go about this. So, specifically, the -- the staff report says that the applicant wasn't in favor of the idea of applying for amendment to the Ten Mile plan or excluding the area from the plan, to -- you know, so that the design guidelines they just would apply to the location that -- that Brighton owns and is attempting to modify and/or that -- see if I understand this correctly -- basically, that the design guidelines -- the changes that are being proposed to the design guidelines would, then, just be part of the DA. So, it sounded to me from the staff report that the applicant wasn't in favor of either of those and so I just wanted to have some more understanding about why and exactly what you -- you know, how you want this to -- what your expectation is as far as incorporating the design guidelines into a method that the city can use to incorporate legally into the process. Wardle: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Perreault, thank you for the question. There -- there is a bit of history to -- to this. We actually -- when we submitted our application in November we did request an amendment to the comp plan for this item. When you -- when you note the amount of staff time on this -- I don't want to overlook that. Your staff, legal, have all been involved in the best way and best way to approach this process. So, we did look at that. Ultimately it was determined that that needed to come off the table, so we removed that as an application and updated our -- our applications in February. But we feel like the best approach here, because the city does -- the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan very much does encourage project specific guidelines. There is a little bit of what I would say maybe interpretation or lack of clarity on how best that those be done and, ultimately, where we landed on this was to bring all five development agreements together. So, instead of going to try to piecemeal each and every one of them, we will have one development agreement for everything and one set of guidelines, which will be part of that development agreement and specific to Ten Mile Crossing. That seemed to be the best approach. So, I just want to be clear that we weren't -- we weren't opposed to it. In fact, we had presented that application and there had been lots of back and forth between staff on the best approach to it. But, ultimately, that came off the table and we -- we, in connection with the city staff, have moved forward with five -- reducing five development agreements down to one with one set of design guidelines for all 308 acres. Was there another part to that question, Council Member Perreault? Simison: Council Member Perreault, any follow up? Page 49 Meridian City Council Item#2. April 13,2021 Page--- Perreault: Yes. No, there was not another part to that question, Mr. Wardle. I -- I just wanted to get your perspective on it, because all I had to read specific to that was what was in the staff report and -- and as far as, you know, just -- just understanding kind of how -- that history. So, appreciate your synopsis and also would like -- and we can hear from staff after the -- after our discussion is done with you on how -- you know, I just want a verbal acknowledgement from our staff that they are in agreement with using that process as well to incorporate design guidelines -- attaching it to the DA. It says in -- it says in the information I have that staff did not review all of the design guidelines, with the exception of the items that were specifically addressing in here this evening and so that's something that I had -- you know, really would prefer, actually, that they do before we attach the entire -- the entire set of guidelines to the DA and approve it. Allen: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, if I may respond. Staff is not against having a separate set of guidelines for the Ten Mile Crossing development area. Initially, though, staff had asked the applicant to contrast the differences, so that everybody could understand staff, Mayor and Council, Commission, what the differences are between the existing plan and the proposed plan. So, that -- that was what staff's reference was about in the staff report. Additionally, as -- as it sits today, the Ten Mile plan -- this -- this land area is part of the Ten Mile plan and it's not accepted from the guidelines in that plan. So, that's -- that's why staff recommended that without an amendment to the plan to either exclude this area or preferably reference this other set of design guidelines, it -- it -- we can't just accept it and that's per discussions with our city attorney. Simison: Mr. Nary, would you like to weigh in? Nary: Sure. Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, as Mr. Wardle stated, this is a pretty lengthy discussion we have had over which process would make the most sense in this and there was some concern expressed by Planning to amend the comp plan, because of issues surrounding that type of process. This to -- to be honest, this -- in my opinion for the city's sake, from an enforcement standpoint, from a usability standpoint, having one development agreement when you have essentially one developer for that large of an acreage, you have more consistency in how it's applied, you have more consistency in how it can be enforced and so it -- through those discussions with both my staff -- predominantly me and the planning staff and Brighton, it was determined that this was the path that would provide them a great level of flexibility without either excluding them from the Ten Mile plan, which didn't seem like a logical thing to do, but recognizing that because they have such a large stake in this property that it would make more sense to use this as a tool to get these projects done and built in a consistent manner with a means to enforce them. Some of the other tools we have in our code are a little more difficult to track and keep track of versus a development agreement that gets recorded and so no matter who develops in the future, if they sell portions of this or whatever, it's all going to be just one master plan for all of it and one master DA. So, that was our intent. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Page 50 Meridian City Council Item#2. April 13,2021 Page 25—— Perreault: So, if there are design guidelines that currently exist that -- that are in opposition to the design guidelines that the applicant is proposing, then, how does that work? Does the DA essentially free them from other guidelines that are currently in the Ten Mile plan? Nary: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, yes, that was our intention is that the DAwould be the controlling document, because you have the ability to make exceptions and the DA is the contractual way to do that. So, again, you have an enforcement tool in the DA. You have a set that's recorded so it's clear what they are. It is governing this very large patch of land, so we just felt, again, from a -- from a -- from a practical standpoint for both Legal and Planning, we felt this was the best avenue to do. Strader: Mr. Mayor, for Mr. Nary, quick question. Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: So, Bill, I mean I -- I'm kind of -- tell me if this interpretation is right, but the developer is creating their own design review outside of the city process. Does that -- staff could leverage that, but does that legally take anything away from the city in terms of our oversight or review -- ability to review, in your opinion? Nary: Mr. Mayor, Members of Council, Council Woman Strader, I don't think so. I mean I think, again, the intention is to create this collaborative effort between the city and the developer and, you know, again, if there is a discomfort level, obviously, many of these things are either going to be at staff level review or beyond if the staff determines that it is so incompatible with everything else. Again, because it's so large -- and, again, I know this isn't the only part of the Ten Mile plan. I recognize that it also incorporates the other side of Ten Mile. But we felt it was probably this -- the safest route to find as an enforcement mechanism, as well as some clarity for future development. So, having pieces and parts always ends up being problematic and things don't get developed very cohesively when you do that. Strader: Thanks. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Bill, I want to make sure I understand this and what Sonya had said was, okay, we have design guidelines for the city and, you know, if they are part of the city they are under those guidelines. But in this case if they want to have their own guidelines, we have to make it clear that that is the controlling document for this specific area. Did I -- am I understanding that correctly? Nary: Yes. You are correct. Page 51 Meridian City Council Item#2. April 13,2021 Page 26 of— Hoaglun: Okay. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: So, question for Sonya. Do you feel like you have had an adequate chance to review all the design guidelines and everything and -- and really feel comfortable with those, because I -- I think that would be necessary, from my standpoint, to at least -- that you have a comfort level with those. Allen: Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Strader, Council, staff has reviewed the design guidelines. Staff does believe that they would result in a cohesive consistent design for the development and is not necessarily objecting to those. Bill, do you have any further comments you would like to add on that? Parsons: I certainly can, Sonya. Nary: Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council -- oh, sorry. Simison: Mr. Parsons. Allen: Sorry, Mr. Nary. Parsons: Yeah. I told Sonya I would have her back tonight if she needed some assistance, because a lot of this has really come down with myself in conversations with the applicant and guiding them this route based on all of the information that you heard tonight. Certainly staff's original intention was to have the applicant go through the PUD process and what we realized is our PUD ordinance isn't aligned to allow the applicant to move forward with some of these changes. So, really, as Mr. Nary testified, the DA is the proper mechanism at this point. The applicant and I are certainly moving forward. We want to take a look at that section of code and come back with some changes to our PUD ordinances, but in my experience in other municipalities, this is really the mechanism for having cohesive design in a community. Many places don't use the DA to what we do, they actually use a planned unit development process and that's where the applicant really does a deep dive with staff, it goes through right -- essentially their own design guidelines and zoning ordinance to control and govern their property. We are just not there today. I think -- looking at the slide that the applicant has before you, it -- it really put the onus on the developer and the landowner to come back and do this more so than the city. Now, what we have done over the years is we have implemented any zoning and H-E zoning to coincide with some of these land uses in Ten Mile. But we really haven't gone one hundred -- gone through our code and made significant changes to address the design guidelines that are -- that are in the Ten Mile plan and from our -- from our perspective they are pretty subjective and that's why from --from my professional opinion I applaud the applicant for coming forward and doing this work for staff and trying to take some of that burden off of us, because it-- there is -- there is a lot of effort to doing design Page 52 Meridian City Council Item#2. April 13,2021 Page— —— review at the staff level, more -- so, that's probably the largest part of our review process at the administrative level, making sure that the applicant complies with all of those design guidelines or whether or not they need to go through the design exception, go through alternative compliance, and that just adds a layer of review and complexity to a project. So, by the developer kind of coming in with a cohesive plan, cohesive guidelines, we can have our team -- at least current planning team can go to one document, make sure that they have concurrence from the applicant that they are meeting those guidelines. We can check them -- proof their work against their own guidelines and issue out an approval in a more expedited process in my opinion. So, in all intents and purposes you have got kind of two things you are -- you are looking at tonight. One is -- is the plat and the land use is consistent with the plan. I think we all agree that they are and that's some of the conversations we had with the applicant. Now, whether or not every project in Ten Mile is going to comply with every one of those design guidelines in the comp plan, I don't think so. You have to remember it's a guide. It's not the law. And so sometimes our code does kind of-- for lack of a better word -- it kind of conflicts with the guidelines and the policies in the Comprehensive Plan and so, again, that's why we worked with the applicant. We met with them after the Commission to make sure we were all -- all on the same page and I think for tonight's sake I can assure you that staff is on board with what the applicant is proposing. We feel like they are following the guidelines based on a meeting with them and also our consultations with the attorney's office. Simison: Mr. Nary. Nary: Mr. Mayor, one final point I could make onto that with what Bill said is the PUD process was a fairly common process we used to use back in the 2000s and the biggest problem with the PUD is they don't get recorded. So, it was the -- the -- I can't remember the name of the -- the apartment complex on -- on McMillan was a good example of that. So, when that -- when that process came in and that land was -- was annexed, it was under a PUD. So, nobody knew what was going to be built there by looking at a map or by looking at a DA. All of it was under the PUD process. So, when they built those apartments no one knew that was going to be there and they thought they were going to be houses and retail and that was a component of it that was in the PUD. So, ever since then we have shied -- shied away from a lot of PUDs on large scale projects, because, again, the tracking and maintenance of them and for other people to recognize what's going to be there is more problematic. With a recorded development agreement I would just point to the recording. It's recorded, you can go look it up, it's in our records, it's in the county's records, it's clear what's supposed to be there and so there is no question from anybody that something got built that wasn't supposed to be there or I didn't know that was going to be there whatever those reasons were and, therefore, we felt this again was a better direction for that consistency and ability for enforcement at a later time. Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: Mr. Mayor, thank you. Just to clarify. In the rare chance that in the design process there is something that conflicts with what we feel to be acceptable, again, I stress in the rare situation that that happens, does staff -- does the city -- can we step in and express Page 53 Meridian City Council Item#2. April 13,2021 Page——44 concerns and make changes or recommend certain things? I think that's what I have heard. I just wanted to confirm that. Parsons: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I'm happy to take that question. In my review of the design guidelines presented to staff, yes, there was an avenue for the director and the Commission and Council to have some authority over some of that discretion. Bernt: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Bill. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Along those lines, Mr. Parsons, if a plat -- if a plat is approved, then, what -- and at that point the -- the developer -- Brighton is not necessarily going to need to come before Council for approval of some of the projects that are going in; right? I mean it's just all going to be at the staff level? Parsons: Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Woman Perreault, that's not necessarily the case. They -- they are still subject to the uses allowed in -- in the UDC. So, depending on whatever use it may be, if it still required a conditional use, it would still go to Planning and Zoning Commission. But, yeah, the only time they would come before you would be a final plat or a DA mod at this point. That's really what we are trying to do is try to take some of that burden off of you guys and put it more on staff to kind of review development out here and that's why we are sharing all this -- that's kind of part of the hearing tonight is whether or not you guys feel comfortable doing it this way. I mean this is something new for us that we haven't done and that's the same question we posed to the Commission, do you guys feel this is the appropriate mechanism and the steps we should be taking to try to, you know, have consistent development in the Ten Mile area and you can hear from the applicant's response and some of the updates from the Commission that they unanimously -- unanimously approved the project and they endorsed the design guidelines that the applicant is showing you tonight. So, I think we are in pretty good shape here. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: To me I'm excited to see what this looks like, to be honest with you. These big development projects they create consistency throughout the project. I think ultimately what we want, you know, is control. You know, we don't want that to get out of -- out of hand at any time or any place. I doubt that this is going to happen that way. But I'm excited to see what this -- how this looks like going forward. I think ultimately we do have the authority for sure, if things go sideways or something happens I think that we do have authority to step in and -- and make change if needed. But, ultimately, this is different. Page 54 Meridian City Council Item#2. April 13,2021 Page——" I'm actually excited to see what this looks like. This could be a good thing going forward, not only for the city, but for staff and future larger projects. Simison: I would like to concur with that. I have heard, you know, for the last 15 months about the challenges out in this area with a lot of these issues and the amount of staff time that's been put in previously and to get us here. I would like to think this is the direction that the people that are doing the work are all saying is the appropriate way to move forward. Yes, there is still some questions that I think they are looking for some guidance or direction on through this, but from a process standpoint this is something new, something different, but I think a good outcome for the city, for the development community, and, honestly, time is money for our -- Bernt: Every people. Simison: -- time is money for everybody, including our staff and our staff is -- should -- should not be focused on things, honestly, that can be addressed in very quick and easy fashion, unless we want to continue to add more staff to our community development department to address a lot of these issues. So, we need to find ways to be efficient as a city for everyone's sake, quite frankly, and from what I'm seeing. Otherwise, you will be seeing more requests for staff to help address all these issues, because they are going to keep coming up. I have got no issue with the height issues, just for the record. I'm going to share that one item. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: I have a question for Sonya. I'm trying to tie up loose ends here. Sonya. I asked Mr. Wardle about the parking along New Market slash Benchmark and in -- in the staff report there was the request that parking be provided along Benchmark Avenue. What -- yeah. On that one. Were you looking at having both sides have parking or what was the difference between what they are willing to provide for parking and what your staff was talking about for providing -- having parking provided? Allen: All right. Yes, Mr. Mayor, Councilman Hoaglun, Councilmen. So, that -- there is specific street sections in the Ten Mile plan for each of these collector streets. This particular one is designated as a residential collector street. Street section B, I believe. Because residential uses were planned adjacent to this street, that's -- that's what the street classification is for and on-street parking and more of a traditional neighborhood design and feel. So, that's the reason for staff's recommendation. I will agree that it makes sense for on-street parking to be provided adjacent to residential. On the commercial side, you know, our -- our street sections in the Ten Mile plan still call for on- street parking along commercial areas as well, but I do think it's more important next to residential uses, plus provides additional parking. Page 55 Meridian City Council Item#2. April 13,2021 Page 30 of— Hoaglun: Thank you for that, Sonya. And, Mr. Mayor, if I might follow up with Sonya. Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: And -- and one of the other issues, just to make sure -- so, the Council would have to address that, make the decision on what they want to do with recommend -- staff recommendation or the request to have that changed. There is also a waiver of the UDC 11-3A-3 pertaining to the access points and that, though -- I mean that's going to involve our partner agency ACHD to make the final determination on that; is that correct? Allen: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Hoaglun, yes, ACHD does also have to approve these accesses and they have not approved them as of yet. Not sure if they will in the future or not, but as of now they have not approved them. Hoaglun: Okay. And, Mr. Mayor, one last -- Simison: And, Sonya, then, we also have to decide on the design guidelines, making sure that that is the controlling document, if that's the direction Council wants to go. Was -- was there anything else that was an issue that would have to be addressed in -- in -- in this approval, denial, continuance, whatever we decide here? Allen: The only thing I can think of is -- Mr. Nary, would the applicant need to apply for an amendment to the Ten Mile Plan to reference the -- these design -- the specific design guidelines? Nary: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I don't think so, because, again, this is the contract with them for their property. Yeah. I don't think so. I don't know if Mr. Wardle has an opinion about that, but I'm not sure that that's necessary. That seems repetitive to me. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: If Mr. Wardle might weigh in on how we might approach this. Wardle: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Hoaglun, thanks for the question. We don't believe so. We were headed that way at one point, but that was pulled back. We really feel like the DA process and locking this in as a recorded document, it still keeps intact the Ten Mile interchange specific area plan and also provides for that provision in that plan for design guidelines specific to a property. So, we think that the design --or the development agreement that's recorded captures that and keeps all those things intact as intended. Nary: Mr. Mayor, if I could add one more point. When we -- when we have a single piece of property that has a development agreement on it and, then, they split it at a future point in time and we create a new development agreement for that piece alone, we only Page 56 Meridian City Council Item#2. April 13,2021 Page 31 of— reference that piece and we always say it is no longer as part of the other development agreement, because it's recorded, because, again, if anybody is looking to see what can be done there, what's allowed there, they are going to go look at this property. They are not going to go look at the Ten Mile plan, they are not going to do that, they are going to go look at this property to see what's allowed. So, that's how we have handled all the other ones when they split off from one big development. Southridge is the best example. That came in as one large development plan with a -- sort of bubble plan for it and, then, it split off into numbers of pieces and every time we did that we simply said in the new one it's no longer part of that plan. Simison: Thank you, Mr. Nary. Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, I just wanted to say just reading through -- I really appreciate how Sonya had bullets -- the bullet points to all of the changes the applicant is proposing and the one I primarily have concern with -- overall I think -- I don't have an issue with the concept, what the applicant is attempting to do, but it states that -- that the current DA provision as written allows building heights up to a hundred feet in all areas without restrictions or further application. It sounds like the applicant is asking to go above a hundred feet, again, with without the same -- so, without the same limitation. So, what I want to understand is -- is is that going to be a decision that still needs to come before us or is that going to be a decision that's done through alternative compliance. That's my only really -- the thing that sticks out to me most as just not having a comfort level is that we won't be involved in the -- those --that specific decision, which is buildings higher than a hundred feet. I understand the applicant's point about how it will appear from the road and how it will -- it will fit into the development as a whole, but that just -- that causes me a little bit of concern and I also would -- would appreciate hearing from the applicant. I -- I just -- you know, reading through all of the -- the changes to the streets, what was -- what was intended, what ended up being, whether ACHD agreed to that street plan or not, the streets that were actually implemented -- that are currently in place that have been implemented, different -- the ones that differ from what is in the plan. I feel like this is moving to such -- such a heavy use away from some of the intention of the Ten Mile plan originally, which was for it to be a little more lifestyle friendly, pedestrian friendly. I just feel like we are moving away from that and just really just commercial feel that's just big office buildings, very city, very metropolitan and I don't necessarily disagree with this being a good location for that necessarily, but I just really want to give pause to exactly what we are doing here and make sure that we are at that comfort level, because to me this -- this is significant this entire thing is exceptionally significant for this area and we will be changing the entire feel for how this was intended to look. Now, I know that a lot has happened since the original plan was put together and I'm not proposing that there should not be significant changes, but I feel like this is just -- this is really -- this is a really significant change and then -- and, then, as soon as we start talking about now buildings being higher than a hundred feet, we are really talking about giving this an entirely different feel. So, I'm looking -- trying to look at this from a bigger picture standpoint and less in the weeds of, you know, something like a pedestrian bridge or -- and those are all important. They are very very important. But I just -- I would like to -- truly like to hear my fellow Council Members thoughts on the big picture and also anything in addition with Page 57 Meridian City Council Item#2. April 13,2021 Page 32—— the Mayor's permission that the applicant would like to share about that. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: One thing --just so I'm clear. I thought that this only allowed up to one hundred feet, not above a hundred feet. So, we are only talking up to one hundred. Am I mistaken? Wardle: Mr. Mayor, if I might. Simison: Yes. Wardle: You are correct. We are actually -- we are asking up to a hundred feet. If -- if by chance something came over a hundred feet, that would have to come back to you -- or come back through alternative compliance. But we are just asking for that flexibility to be able to go up to six stories in height without that restriction. Not over a hundred feet. In fact, it would be less than a hundred feet, even when you get to the top of the screen enclosures on top, but that's what we are asking for. It would be less -- a maximum of a hundred feet would be allowed. Not over a hundred feet. And the other -- sorry. Simison: I just -- I just want to let Council Woman Perreault follow up on that specific point. Perreault: Yeah. As I was reading through everything I was under the impression that that was already permitted. So what is different? What's the current maximum then? Wardle: Mr. Mayor, if I might? Simison: Jon, go ahead. Wardle: Council Member Perreault, the -- actually, in the C-G zone currently the maximum is 65 feet. We can do a four story building in 65 feet. Just barely. When you get to that fifth story that's when you -- we started tripping that. So, that's -- that was the request, to allow us to get to six stories with a maximum of a hundred feet. If I -- if I can just address very quickly -- or talk about the street system. The streets here are not -- we haven't looked at these in isolation. We have really looked at them as a whole project. The issue is when -- in order for us to be able to make decisions on end users, we need to have roadways in place and so we have -- we have tried to identify the best way to maintain a pedestrian feel, so we do have throughout this entire project eight foot planter with five foot sidewalks. But, again, we also have an extensive pathway system, which will add another three and a half miles of connectivity for pedestrians. Is -- is the -- is the use perhaps a little bit different than what was identified in 2007? Yes, but in 2007 we hadn't considered -- the valley had not considered that we were going to have The Village of Meridian either and there is really only one opportunity for a lifestyle center in Meridian and that's The Village. And so we have looked at it, as well as, you know, we want to promote those other uses, but we have found that the office uses that are ongoing currently, that those are highly desirable, really good jobs, employment, and it creates a Page 58 Meridian City Council Item#2. April 13,2021 Page 33—" daytime and an evening time population out here. We developed a main street feel specifically up on Wayfinder between Franklin Road and Ten Mile Creek. All those buildings there are coming to the street. We have very wide planters hardscape, elements, so that we can, you know, create that Main Street feel where the buildings will come forward, but the other parts of the project will have a different feel as it relates to the -- the office uses that are ongoing currently. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Good -- good dialogue from my colleagues tonight. Jon, I keep coming back to this project as innovative and so it's causing I think all of us to have our -- our brains grow a few more wrinkles. So, I appreciate you walking through this with us a little bit. I don't have any additional questions tonight, except for just maybe one particular piece. You have talked a little bit about -- in addressing Council Member Bernt's questions about the connectivity and the cross-access and I even think you have talked about the on-street parking piece with the roads. A piece that either -- either I missed or didn't follow you tonight or we haven't touched on is how public transit will navigate through this project and for me that's beneficial to know kind of where that bus stop is going to locate, if it's more designed to serve kind of the -- the commercial side or the residential side or if it's going to be positioned in a way to serve both. Wardle: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Cavener, just had to slide -- get through my slides here really quickly. So, we have had a lot of conversations with Valley Regional Transit on what transit out here looks like. In fact, they have a pilot program that is going to start this spring -- I guess maybe summer now -- that would provide access internally from Ten Mile all the way to The Village and back. So, there will be multiple trips a day happening. There -- they have on their exhibits, on their maps, other way -- other locations where stops will occur, but when this project came up we actually worked with them and created the first transit stop at the roundabout close to Ten Mile Crossing, so Vanguard and Wayfinder is the first transit stop that we show here. We actually built that pad. We provided electrical conduit to it. So, when ValleyRide comes out and they put their shelter there, because they have a very specific standard, they really can come out bolted down and there is a location there for the bus to stop and pick up passengers. When the bus comes through it actually will make a turn, it will go back on Ten Mile and work its way up to Pine. I think eventually when we build out the rest of this and they look at other ways to get out, they may come internal, but for right now the truck -- the bus will come down Franklin -- or come down Ten Mile, head east on Franklin, come down Wayfinder, can make stops along the way. There will be a transit stop here and, then, it will circle back around, go north on Ten Mile to Pine to The Village. And so we have worked really closely with them on that. There is -- this is actually no cost, with the exception of the shelter that they would need to do, but we have actually put all those improvements in ahead of their -- ahead of their need, so that they can come and do it at any point. Cavener: Great. Jon, did VRT give you any insight -- would this stop be designed to Page 59 Meridian City Council Item#2. April 13,2021 Page"—" serve, again, the employers -- employees from this area, the residents? I mean is it anticipated to be like a -- like a park and ride. The location looks nice, but I -- I'm a little concerned about who it's actually going to serve. Wardle: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Cavener, that's a great question. The purpose of this route is to service the Meridian community. There are --there are park and ride routes and there would be a -- they have talked about how that would transfer if they are coming from Nampa and they want to take this route to The Village they can do that. But this really is designed for the City of Meridian to be able to establish a route inside of the city. So, for example, if we had somebody living in an apartment here and they wanted to go to The Village and they didn't want to take a car, they could get on the bus and they could drop them off in downtown Meridian or could take them to -- I think the Blue Cross and, then, to The Village and vice-versa. That -- those opportunities within the city was the intent of this route. So, what -- what doesn't show here, Mr. -- Mr. Mayor and Council Member Cavener, is --we have this --these apartments are complete. These apartments will be nearly complete. There will be an opportunity to stop here. Somebody could get on as well and if you are working or living anywhere along Pine and you are working at Ten Mile, you have an opportunity to ride that bus to work as well. Cavener: Thank you, Mr. Wardle. Simison: Other further questions for the applicant? Thank you, Jon. Wardle: Thank you very much, Mayor and Council. Simison: This is a public hearing. Madam Clerk, do we have anyone signed up to provide testimony on this item? Weatherly: Mr. Mayor, we did not. Simison: Okay. We had no one signed up in advance, but if there is anybody in the audience that would like to come forward and provide testimony or if you are online and you would like to provide testimony, please, raise your hand. Go ahead and come on forward and state your name and address for the record. And it looks like at least one person online. Blackner: Excuse me. My name is Garrett Blackner. 1912 Northwest 12th Street, Meridian. I just -- a quick --just a comment on -- on parking. Kind of when I hear -- when I looked at that map and I see medium high density housing and street parking, just kind of -- there was a recent ordinance that was passed where, you know, you can't park near mailboxes. Are we kind of setting these residents up to just be ticketed and up for failure? A lot of cars going into the area and just wondered if that's been taken into account. That's all I -- Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Page 60 Meridian City Council Item#2. April 13,2021 Page 35 of— Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Yes. Hoaglun: Sonya or Bill or whoever would be appropriate to weigh in. I'm not sure, I think these apartments have a central location. Can you -- or Mr. Wardle. What is the status of the mailbox locations and are they centralized for each -- each unit? Parsons: Yeah. Mayor, Members of the Council, as part of the review of the multi-family development the applicant has to depict the central location for the mailbox. So, that's usually internal next to the clubhouses of each one of those developments. So, there is nothing placed along the street for those particular projects. Wardle: Mr. Mayor, if I might go ahead. Simison: Go ahead, Jon. Wardle: Councilman Hoaglun, that's a good question and if you keep in mind that the -- the street where they have asked for us -- staff has asked for some on-street parking is a residential collector, but the intent there is that the homes actually do not access directly in terms of driveways onto that roadway, it would be a parallel parking situation where we would have intersecting roads to get out to Benchmark, so -- so parking in front of mailboxes in that future residential is not an issue. But Mr. Parsons is correct that in all of our apartments we do have central mail delivery that they really are walking into those clubhouses to pick that up. Hoaglun: Thank you. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: If staff could, please, comment. I think maybe to the question overall of what parking is required and how do we look at that and did we determine that the parking is adequate? Allen: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Woman Strader, parking is adequate for the multi-family residential portion of the development. Is that the question? Strader: Mr. Mayor, I believe so. I think if you could just comment on our process overall with reviewing parking, how we determine that it's adequate. I think the question posed an underlying concern about adequacy of parking. Allen: Well, the -- the unified development code specifies minimum parking standards based on the number of bedrooms per unit in multi-family. One bedroom units require one and a half spaces. At least one of those in a covered carport or garage per unit. Two Page 61 Meridian City Council Item#2. April 13,2021 Page——" and three bedroom units require two spaces per unit. At least one of those in a covered carport or garage. Those are minimum standards. Typically a conditional use is required for multi-family development, so that does go through the Planning and Zoning Commission. If additional parking is deemed to be warranted, then, additional parking is required as a condition of approval of the conditional use permit. Strader: Thank you. Simison: Next we have testimony from Denise LaFever. Denise, if you could state your name and address for the record. LaFever: Denise LaFever. 6706 North Salvia Way. I have a few concerns, Mayor and City Council. Past mayor and current Mayor view Brighton as partners that help make Meridian great and as such Brighton wields tremendous influence and sits on a nontransparent UDC committee and expedited treatment. They have enjoyed use of TCD monies, urban renewal designations, and assistance with development incentives. Staff views developers and Brighton as their customers. I have a concern with the speed and the review of this application. Page nine of 90 P&Z, 3/18/20, Cassinelli: Sonya, you mentioned staff hadn't had a chance to review that preliminary design. Sonya: Obviously this still has to go to City Council and by that time staff will do a complete review. City gets -- City Council -- City Council has relegated authority to P&Z to approve CUPs, alternate compliance to the directors without representation of elected officials. These ease and continued intensity of use and impact of property -- are impact -- impact the property taxes. Since there are no fees for school impact fees and there is required services and equipment needs for this project. I am not opposed to the increases in the height or the apartments. It's actually the right spot for them in the area. What I'm opposed to is the impact to the existing taxpayers to urban renewal and no school impact fees. Since this is a big change -- and, yes, this is a big change, I would like to see the intensity of this use removed from the urban renewal or deed restricted so that the contributions for full property taxes are collected and provided to the county. Yes, the city did collect the full taxes, but reserved the right to collect them in the future. This developer has some of the highest lease rates in the valley. I would like to see this development cover their impact and not pass these taxes onto existing residents. I'm disappointed this wasn't included in the comp plan overall review, although it was brought up on several occasions to include the Ten Mile Specific Plan, as well as the downtown plan. Basically, in closing, what they want to do on it, even though it's a huge change, I'm not overly opposed to it, I just don't want to see a continued shifting of property taxes and school levies passed onto existing residents and, yes, there is a big pass -- pass through as we look at our property tax bills and see increasingly school levies after school levies and our taxes going up. That's basically it in closing. Thank you for your time and consideration. Simison: Thank you, Denise. Council, any questions? Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Page 62 Meridian City Council Item#2. April 13,2021 Page— —— Bernt: I guess I'm just a hair confused on -- on that statement in regard to how Denise feels like these property taxes are going -- are being shifted to the homeowners. I don't understand. Maybe -- I could be missing something for sure. It's not the first time ever, so -- LaFever: Development isn't covering their costs. I mean we can see that and you can see that with the levies for schools. If you go back in with -- and you are going back in and having to go back through and have more schools, the --the staff is not doing a really good job as far as taking all the entitlements and doing projections going forward to show how many people are going to be enrolled based on what's been approved and the costs keep going up and when I'm looking at my property tax bills and you are looking at the levies, the schools just don't have enough money to continue expanding and paying for new schools and new land without passing levies to do that. Bernt: Right. So, Mr. Mayor, I -- Denise, I don't mean to interrupt and maybe, you know, those are two separate conversations, in my opinion, and I -- I don't disagree with you in regard to the schools and -- and that -- that -- you know, I mean we have been having that -- this discussion about the schools and levies for eons and what that looks like for an entire state, just not West Ada School District. That's a completely separate conversation. What I was concerned about was your comment in regard to how this project -- project is -- is shifting the tax burden over to, you know, other property owners. In my opinion that's not how urban renewal works. LaFever: The fact that you are putting -- I'm sorry. The fact that you are putting more and more apartments in there -- which isn't a bad place for it. There is no impact fees for that increased density and this nowhere comes close to what the original design was for that. You, know, comme ci, comme qa. The design is not bad. I just -- as a taxpayer I don't want to subsidize the developer. Bernt: So, just to clarify, Denise. Mr. Mayor. I -- this -- this developer is still going to be paying taxes. All right? It's just the impact fees. It -- it's just that -- that -- that those taxes are going to be going to the urban renewal district and so it's -- the shift burden in my opinion as it relates to property taxes like you spoke, that shift won't take place. It will be -- it's just going to a different taxing district. Simison: Council, any further questions for Ms. LaFever? Thank you. Is there anybody else who raised their hand to provide testimony on this item, Madam Clerk? Weatherly: Mr. Mayor, I see no one else with their hand raised. Simison: Would the applicant like to make any final comments? Wardle: Mr. Mayor and Council, again, we -- we are appreciative of the effort. This has not been a -- a quick process by any means. We have spent a lot of time internally as well with your staff and getting to this point tonight. This is unique. We have an opportunity to -- to bring 300 acres into a single development agreement and -- and Page 63 Meridian City Council Item#2. April 13,2021 Page 38 of 44 provide design guidelines that are cohesive for all of this. We have very much a -- a vested interest in the long-term outcome for the project, from the way it looks, the way it integrates with the whole and so simply tonight we are asking for your approval of the preliminary -- the TM Center preliminary plat, the DA modifications, which will include the design guidelines, your approval of the Franklin Road access points and we request those, as well as the modifications that we have noted and staff has concurred with in our April 5th memo and their April 8th memo and I will note that we -- we are agreeable to provide the on-street parking on Benchmark in that medium to medium high density location. So, with that we -- again, we are grateful to be here tonight and -- and ask for your approval of these applications. Thank you. Simison: Thank you, Jon. Council, any final questions of the applicant? Council Woman Perreault, your -- I saw you move your lips, but we didn't hear any noise. Perreault: I just asked for permission to speak. Simison: Okay. Go ahead. Perreault: I have a question for staff. So, if -- if there is -- there is a proposal for a six story building on the east side and the central area that is currently -- if you could go back to that concept plan. There you go. In that central area that says retail, office, entertainment, medical, if there is an application for a six story building, what -- what distance does there need to be between that and the residential? Allen: Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Perreault, Council, there is no set distance right now. So, if that is something that you desire to have in the -- in the development agreement it should be stated. You would have a street and the street buffers separating that area from the residential, though, as well. Perreault: Mr. Mayor, if I may? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Yes. So, I -- I would like to -- I would like there to be some sort of standard. I just -- I would need some guidance from staff on to -- you know, as to what that would look like as far as what would be an appropriate distance, because I would like to see some sort of boundary there that -- that there was -- there couldn't be a building of that height right up --just across the street from the medium density residential. Allen: Mr. Parsons, do you have a suggestion? I mean the only thing I could offer is maybe not, you know, requiring another structure to be -- which it should be anyway -- street -- street oriented design along that collector street and, then, have the taller buildings behind it. Parsons: Yeah. Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, the -- the other thing to keep in -- keep in mind is there is going to be pathways, parkways, the street is going to be 67 feet Page 64 Meridian City Council Item#2. April 13,2021 Page 39 of— right of way. So, what you are not seeing here is you are not seeing that scale and that bulk of that building up against the street. You are not see -- it's hard to get that vision of that tall a structure adjacent to a street without having all that information. I know the applicant is going to have to come back before you to amend their -- potentially amend this development agreement to include their residential design guidelines. Perhaps they could come back with some of those details, whereas as Sonya suggested, certainly you could just probably have a -- and, again, I will ask the applicant if they have any ideas as well whether or not -- you know, maybe to Sonya's point is like keep it away from -- you know, have a row of buildings in front of it or it should be central to the development and not fronted on a street or have a row of parking between it and the street. There is -- there is many different design elements you can do. But, again, if you look at those street sections it's pretty clear it's going to be a pretty good --just with that there is going to be a pretty significant setback from -- from those residential uses. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Just a quick check back with staff one more time. I have heard -- you have had a chance to review. It sounds like you are comfortable. Would you say, you know, if there is big project, things could come up, if you felt like there is anything that you haven't had a chance to review, if you needed more time, please, don't feel that you are pressured, you know, to move anything forward. We should take our time appropriately. So, I just wanted to say that and ask if you have any concerns, if you need more time for any reason. There is some extensive design guidelines. Just wanted to kind of give you that opportunity one more time. Allen: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Strader, Council. You know, staff-- staff is -- our staff as a whole has reviewed their proposed design guidelines and are -- and are comfortable with them. Thank you. Strader: Thank you. Simison: Sonya, a question I had for you regarding the two accesses on Franklin -- or to Jon if -- in the conversations that have been occurring with Republic and the school district, I know Mr. Wardle mentioned that they wanted the proposed locations to align with Republic Services to the north. I don't know what access is for Republic Service to the north. There is kind of three along that area that could be and I don't know how that is an alignment with the conversations regarding the shared access that is being worked on and if this would be in alignment, in opposition, or in conflict-- I shouldn't say opposition -- with the proposed joint access. Can anyone shed some light on that one? Jon? Mr. Wardle? Wardle: Mr. Mayor, thank you. So -- so, to be clear, Benchmark, which is this roadway in the middle, this is the roadway that is aligning with the primary access across the street to -- we will just call it the -- the project known as Big A and the internal access occurring Page 65 Meridian City Council Item#2. April 13,2021 Page——" from the bus depot or the bus -- and we will go over -- you can't see it on this map. If you need more I can get to Google Earth and show that to you. But it's going to be set back a ways. So, it will -- it will come down, it will jog to the west and, then, it will connect with Benchmark and come right out. We are working currently with -- with Adler. We have actually designed the signal for this location, so there is a little drive aisle -- it's a one way drive aisle coming south. Two buses can come. It's my understanding that's going away and the buses will go over to Benchmark and come out this way. The access that we are talking about that aligns with the Republic is for their administrative office. They already have an existing curb cut there right now and so that's the access we are talking about aligning. There is one more access point over here that if you were going to go to the transfer station or if the buses were coming in that will be maintained for that access. But we are talking about this Franklin -- this Franklin access right here -- right here would align directly across from Republic's administrative office and this access that the buses use will go away and they will shift over to Benchmark. Simison: Thank you, Jon. If I didn't hear, is this right-in, right-out only or is this viewed as more than that? Wardle: This access here? We -- Simison: What are you requesting? Wardle: We are requesting full, but ACHD has made -- has let it be known that they do have the right to limit that to -- to restrict it. So, at this point in time, given the loads on the road, should they approve it it could be full, but they -- they have said that they could still come back and restrict that to a right-in, right-out. That restriction would also impact Republic Services to the north. We have other access points that have -- do have restrictions in place, but at this point in time we are asking for a full and ACHD will determine what the extent of that would be. Simison: And, Council, just my two cents. I'm not a traffic engineer, we don't pretend to be one, but it seems awful close to what will be a major access for several other uses, at least partially during the day, at two or three major times that we know of. Right-in, right- out may seem appropriate, I don't know that beyond that it makes a lot of sense, at least for that one is my two cents. Bongiorno: Mr. Mayor? Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: I currently reside in the 12 Oaks complex temporarily and so I -- I would like to speak to this. I agree with the applicant that going through 12 Oaks, instead of having this access, would -- would be -- would be a poor idea for the amount of traffic volume. That is not designed --there is two accesses I believe into 12 Oaks, one on the north side Page 66 Meridian City Council Item#2. April 13,2021 Page 41 of— that runs basically directly parallel to Franklin and the one on the south side of the project that goes through a parking lot that -- that would not be able to handle any kind of additional traffic, but that directly across from the 12 Oaks entrance is the entrance to -- one of the entrances to the transfer station and the buses go in that way on a regular basis and so if the buses are getting moved to --farther to the -- if their entrance is getting moved farther to the west, which would line up with Benchmark, I think it would alleviate a lot of -- what the current traffic pattern now and that most eastern entrance would probably be okay. I'm in agreement with --with what they are proposing, although I would anticipate that ACHD --ACHD may not be. But I think if they don't -- if they don't need to take the traffic even farther east from where it is, that -- that would be very complicated. Simison: Council, further questions? Comments? Bongiorno: Mr. Mayor. Simison: Yes, Deputy Chief. Bongiorno: Just a quick comment. The -- the two -- I am in support of the two accesses that Jon's requesting. We --we have talked on some of their projects and looked at some of the stuff that's coming on that property and the more accesses -- it makes sense, which Jon and we have all worked together -- will help a ton for access for the fire department. And, then, the other quick comment -- I think it was Council Woman Strader or somebody was concerned -- concerned about parking in streets and stuff. In all things, you know, they still have to meet code. So, you know, fire code still applies for, you know, roadway widths and parking and -- and, you know, fire lanes and all that other stuff. All of that will still have to be met. Same with the hundred foot tall building. If we are doing a hundred foot tall building we still have to have -- they still have to meet the fire code. There is no getting around that. So, that was just my comment. Thank you. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: I appreciate the good discussion we have had and the good questions. I think we are to the point we can -- we can move forward. So, I would move that we close the public hearing on H-2020-0074. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: I second that. Simison: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Is there any discussion on the motion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it. Page 67 Meridian City Council Item#2. April 13,2021 Page—of— MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Hoaglun: Well, Mr. Mayor, just to comment. Really appreciate the applicant and staff, the Planning and Zoning Commission, for their work on this. There -- there are a lot of details, a lot of things to look through and -- and they -- they -- they really covered a lot of ground and -- and resolved things that -- that we didn't have to deal with. I really appreciate Planning and Zoning Commission. That future gathering plaza, pushing for that and -- and for Mr. Wardle and his team to -- to find a place for that to make that work. I know it's going to be flexible what it ultimately looks like, but appreciate that -- that collaboration on that. You know, this this was a brand new thing in Meridian back in '07. It hadn't been done before and to plan an area like this of this magnitude was new. There was a lot of flexibility given into that plan. I came on Council on my first go around in '08 and I think in '10 or 2012 we made some changes to --to the area because of the changes in the marketplace, because of The Village. What was kind of originally envisioned, that -- that changed focus a little bit. It was still going to be a major employment center with a lot of mixed use and really overall it's -- it's kept the vision. Maybe some of the details have changed, but the vision of what this was going to be is -- is being followed. I know there are some folks who, you know, had opposition, like raising the height of the building. This truly was a place that we were going to have height in -- in this area, as opposed to other areas of our -- of our city. That was -- that was -- that was planned. And also previous changes have been made to it. So, this is not the first time we are tweaking this plan a bit and we have to go through these details. It -- it is something I think the community can be proud of. I know when I come up the freeway and get on the Ten Mile exit and look at that and go, wow, that's -- that's Meridian, you know, that's a -- that's a part of our community and we have some other areas that we can point to and say, hey, these are good things that are happening in our -- in our community and creating density that will allow us to do some things for mass transit and other areas and service. So, I think it's overall a good thing and I'm ready to make a motion, unless other folks have a comment or two. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I appreciate Councilman Hoaglun's comments and share a lot of the same comments. 1, you know, wanted to maybe address some of the public testimony and just how I'm looking at it. One of the biggest challenges is we are weighing -- adding more students into the school district is also our over reliance on residential as a component of our city and what I wouldn't give for like ten more Paylocities. They are property taxpayers, too, and at the end of urban renewal they will be taking some of that burden off of residential and, hopefully, people won't be commuting as far for their jobs. I mean I just -- you know, I -- I appreciate that their vision has changed a little bit from the original intention, but just the employment center aspect of this is really compelling to me. My only concern with the height of the buildings was -- was possibly next to the residential. I am now confident that will get ironed out in the residential portion and I'm not really concerned overall. I agree this is a place for density and large buildings. So, I'm excited. Page 68 Meridian City Council Item#2. April 13,2021 Page 43 of— I think it's a new way to do the design process. I hope -- it sounds like staff is comfortable now they have had a lot of time and, you know, I -- I'm -- I'm uncomfortable with this one. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: I don't think there is anything else from me to be said. I'm supportive of it as well. I do appreciate the -- anytime our citizens voice concerns about the cost of -- ongoing cost of schools on -- on Meridian taxpayers I'm sympathetic to that, although I think the applicant is sympathetic, too, and the conversation about how we are going to pay for schools as a separate taxing district from the city is not on the agenda for tonight, but one item that we are going to continue to discuss and continue to encourage our citizens to be involved in that conversation as well. It's going to take a lot of voices. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file number H-2020-0074 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 13th, 2021, with the addition of changes -- to include changes to condition number 2.D as presented in the staff report. To also include the waiver of UDC 11-3A-3, which pertains to the access and the previous one pertained to the parking. And to also include the design guidelines that were presented for the Ten Mile Crossing design district to become the controlling document for this area. Cavener: I will second the motion. Simison: I have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? If not, clerk will call the roll. Roll call: Bernt, yea; Borton, absent; Cavener, yea; Hoaglun, yea; Strader, yea; Perreault, yea. Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and it is agreed to. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Simison: Thank you all. It was a lot of work to get us through this to this point and through the evening and I know there is some more to do, but great job. FUTURE MEETING TOPICS Simison: Any item under future meeting topics? Page 69 Meridian City Council Item#2. April 13,2021 Page—of— EXECUTIVE SESSION 5. Per Idaho Code 74-206(1)(f) To communicate with legal counsel for the public agency to discuss the legal ramifications of and legal options for pending litigation, or controversies not yet being litigated but imminently likely to be litigated. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: The next topic I failed to mention that we took care of our business in Executive Session prior to this meeting. So, I move that we strike Item No. 5 from this agenda. Hoaglun: Second the motion. Simison: Motion and second to delete Item 5 from the agenda. Is there any discussion? If not all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: I move we adjourn the meeting. Hoaglun: Second the motion. Hoaglun: I have a motion and a second to adjourn. Is there any discussion? Cavener: Is it honorably? Mr. Bernt, I like those honorable motions. Simison: All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. We are adjourned. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:31 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) 4 / 27 / 2021 DATE APPROVED MAYOR ROBERT E. SIMISON ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK Page 70 Future Meeting Topics — Public Forum Signing up prior to the start of the meeting is required. This time is reserved for the public to address their elected officials regarding matters of general interest or concern of public matters and is not specific to an active Land Use/Development Application. By Law, no decisions can be made on topics presented under this public comment section, other than the City Council may request that a topic be added to a future meeting agenda for more detailed discussion or action. The Mayor may also direct staff to further assist you in resolving the matter following the meeting. CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC FORUM SIGN-IN SHEET Date: April 13, 2021 Prior to the commencement of the meeting a person wishing to address the Mayor and City Council MUST sign in and limit their comments to the matter described below. Complaints about individuals, city staff, business or private matters will not be allowed. Testimony or comment on an active application or proposal that is or will be pending before Planning and Zoning or City Council is strictly prohibited by Idaho law. Each speaker will have up to three (3) minutes to address the Mayor and Council, but the chair may stop the speaker if the matter does appear to violate guidelines, varies from the topic identified on this sign in sheet or other provisions of law or policy. Print Name Provide Description of Discussion Topic r^e G j S 7/tem 77 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Meridian High School Wrestling State Champions Day Page 4 Item#1. E IDIAN IDAHO ?he Office of the _Afayor PR0C1A .fA4 ..AT10x Whereas, being a Meridian High School wrestler is more than scoring points, escapes, takedowns, pins and achieving state titles. It is training to build leadership, character, confidence,teamwork and resilience—all traits needed to succeed on the mat, in the classroom and in the real world; and, Whereas, the Meridian Warrior Wrestling team qualified 29 wrestlers for state, and 16 of them finished on the medal stand; and, Whereas, their hard work racked up 324 points, finishing 74 points ahead of Kuna with 250 points in second place to bring home the 2021 State wrestling Championship trophy; and, Whereas, The Meridian Warriors steamrolled the competition in the pursuit of their first State Wrestling Championship title since 1987; and, Whereas, the leadership, training and discipline of their coaches Brad Muri, Jon Muri, Joshua Aldinger, Brad Perry, Dalton young, Cash Edwards, Harley DiLulo, David Jenkins, Mike Briggs, Brian Twait, and Tyson Hernandez helped team members Kellen Kolka, Teigan Dickerson,Jaden Caulkins, Zac Kimes, Issac Korgan, Jason Mara, Nathan Gregory, Cade White, Brodyn Sunada, Kaiden Frix, Marshall Buie, Isaiah Twait, Kaleb Smith,Jay Sallee, Roc Dixion, Blaze Tokioka, Lucas Ewing, Matthew Papa, Jacob Gomez, Forest Ewing, Jayden Hunsaker, Tristian Smillie, Tanner Papa, Parker Mack, Lucas Sears, Kaiden Arruda, Carson Gooley, Dallas Merritt, and Bridger Bivens to focus their talents, passion, and determination to become a winning team, with each player making valuable contributions to their victory. Therefore, I, Mayor Robert E. Simison, hereby proclaim April 131h, 2021 as ,vleridian High SchooCWrestCing If State Cha i m_pons Day in the City of Meridian and call upon the community to join me in congratulating the Meridian High Warriors on their remarkable athletic achieveme t and for representing Meridian so proudly in the state tournament. n Dated this 13th day of April, 2021. r Robert E. Simi n, ayor Treg Bernt, City Council President Brad Hoaglun, City Council Vice-President Joe Borton, City Council Luke Cavener, City Council Jessica Perrault, City Council Liz Strader, City Council Page 5 Planning Presentation and Outline for Land Use Public Hearings AERIALZONINGFLUM C40-RG-CG-CG- Changes to Agenda: • Item#2: Prescott Ridge(H-2020-0047)—Council to continue to May 11t"or 18cn • Item#3: Shafer View Terrace(H-2020-0117)—Council to continue to May 11t"or 181" Item#4: TM Center/Ten Mile Crossing (H-2020-0074) Application(s): ➢ Development Agreement modification ➢ Rezone ➢ Preliminary Plat Size of property,existing zoning, and location: The site for the proposed subdivision consists of 132.42-acres of land,zoned R-40 and C-G, located east of S. Ten Mile Rd. &south of W. Franklin Rd. History: The proposed plat encompasses land that was annexed with the Ten Mile Center,TM Creek East, Calnon &Bainbridge Franklin projects. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Commercial; MU-COM; MU-RES, HDR; MHDR Summary of Request: Development Agreement modification to terminate all existing agreements in the Ten Mile Crossing development area in favor of one master agreement to govern future development of the overall area.The proposal includes a request for adoption of project-specific design guidelines to supersede those in the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan (TMISAP),which include deviations from certain goals and guidelines including decreased floor area ratios, different street and streetscape designs, landscape and architectural design elements and site development standards, including an increase in height in the C-G zoning district of up to 100-feet to allow for 6-story buildings. The applicant requests a rezone of 40.98 acres of land from the R-40&C-C to the C-G zoning district; 3.9 acres from TN-C&C-G to R-40 district; 0.65-acre from R-8&TN-C to C-G; and 0.53-acre from TN-C to C-G.The smaller areas proposed to be zoned C-G will "clean-up"the zoning in this area where it's irregular&doesn't follow parcel lines and/or proposed streets. The area proposed to be rezoned to R-40 south of the Ten Mile Creek will be an extension of the R-40 zoning that exists to the west& will allow for the development of additional MFR uses with CUP approval.The proposed zoning and use is consistent with the underlying MU-RES FLUM designation;the target density for this designation is 8 to 12 dwelling units per acre.The FLUM designation of the abutting property to the west is HDR which also allows for MFR uses at a target density of 16-25 dwelling units/acre. FLUM designations are not parcel specific&an adjacent abutting designation,when appropriate and approved as part of a public hearing with a land development application, may be used. Because the HDR designation allows for a higher density, Staff recommends this designation apply to future development of this property since the density will be higher than 12 units/acre if apartments are developed on the site similar to those to the west(i.e.TM Creek East Apartments). Future development of this property is currently governed by the existing DA's for Ten Mile Center and Calnon; conceptual development plans were not approved for these projects other than a conceptual street layout for the Ten Mile Center property. The larger area to be rezoned to C-G between Franklin Rd.&the Ten Mile Creek is designated on the FLUM as mostly Mixed-Use Commercial (MU-COM)with approximately a quarter of the area on the west end as HDR.As noted above, because the FLUM is not parcel specific and allows for abutting designations to govern, Staff recommends the abutting MU-COM designation to the east apply and govern future development of the western portion of this site.The proposed C-G zoning district is an appropriate zoning choice for the MU-COM designation,which allows for a variety of uses including: commercial,vertically integrated residential, live-work, employment, entertainment, office&multi-family. Future development of this property is currently governed by the existing DA's for TM Creek East&Calnon; conceptual development plans were not approved for these projects. In the absence of a conceptual development plan,to ensure a mix of uses from each major use category(i.e.commercial, residential, employment)are provided as set forth in the TMISAP in accord with the provisions of the annexation, Staff recommends a conceptual use plan (i.e. bubble plan) is submitted and included in the new DA that demonstrates compliance with the existing DA provisions.The Applicant submitted a conceptual use plan this afternoon as shown; staff has not had adequate time to review this plan to determine consistency with the Plan. A preliminary plat is proposed consisting of 83 [74 commercial &9 high-density residential (Lots 16-24, Block 3)] buildable lots and 2 common lots on 132.42 acres of land in the R-40&C-G zoning districts;the plat is proposed to develop in 6 phases as shown. Phase 1 consisting of MFR apartments in TM Creek East on Lot 16, Block 3 is currently under construction and almost completed; no development has occurred on the remainder of the site. Phase 2 commenced last year with the completion of Wayfinder from Vanguard to Cobalt between the existing roundabouts.The development of Phases 3-6 may vary in area and sequence based on product need and market demand. The proposed common lots will contain the Ten Mile Creek corridor which includes a 10'wide segment of the City's multi-use pathway &the relocated Von Lateral,which will be deeded to NMID.There are no existing structures on this site.Wayfinder Ave. &the western portion of Cobalt in front of TM Creek East apartments has already been constructed outside of the subdivision process and are not consistent with the street sections designated on the Street Section Map in the Ten Mile Plan; however,they do comply with ACHD standards and have been approved by ACHD. These street sections were constructed as standard street sections with 2 travel lanes, a center turn lane, bike lanes&no on-street parking. S.Vanguard Way from Ten Mile Rd. to the roundabout at the SWC of the site was approved &constructed with the TM Crossing development to the south. The eastern portion of Cobalt to New Market/Benchmark&the extension of New Market/Benchmark from Franklin Rd.to the southern boundary of the site is proposed with the subject plat and has not yet been constructed. Staff recommends New Market/Benchmark is constructed a residential collector street in accord with Street Section D in the Plan,with on-street parking along both sides of the street; Staff did discuss this with ACHD and they are supportive of this design. Because Cobalt is already partially constructed, Staff did not recommend any changes to that street. There are (2)driveway accesses proposed via Franklin Rd.with the plat—one to the east and one to the west of New Market/Benchmark.These accesses require a waiver to UDC 11-3A-3 which limits access points to arterial streets unless otherwise approved by Council.A cross-access/ingress-egress easement is required between all non-residential lots within the subdivision. The Commission heard these items on March 18th.At the public hearing,the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject request. 1. Summary of Commission public hearing: a. In favor:Jon Wardle and David Turnbull, Brighton Corp. b. In opposition/commenting: None C. Written testimony: Mike Wardle, Brighton Corp. 2. Key issue(s)of public testimony: a. No public testimony other than the Applicant's presentation was presented. 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission: a. Would like a nice central common open space/site amenity area; b. Desire for pedestrian-scale lights to be provided along walkways; C. Desire for the developer to follow the use plan submitted to ensure a mix of uses is developed as desired; d. Concern that it may not be appropriate to extend the building height limit up to 100-feet in the overall C-G zoning district—certain areas may not be appropriate for buildings that tall (e.g. adiacent to Franklin and Ten Mile Roads); e. Applicant's request for additional driveway accesses via Franklin Rd.; f. The Commission was generally in favor of the proposed design guidelines for the development. 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. Applicant should work with Staff prior to the Council meeting to identify specific areas where buildings could extend up to 100' in height&provide a conceptual diagram for Council to consider—consider the area south of Cobalt&west to Benchmark Ave.for those taller buildings—these areas should provide significant buffering between future residential uses&neighborhood roadways; The Applicant &Staff discussed this and agreed that leaving flexibility in this area may be the best option—if Council disagrees, condition#A.la(3)should be amended accordingly. b. The Applicant should follow the bubble plan concept presented at the hearing as they move forward with their concept plans[see provision#A.1a(10)l; and c. The Commission wanted to see some sort of significant central amenity added to the concept plan for the project,whether it be an amphitheater, a plaza, or a park and that they might seek assistance from the urban renewal agency or work with Council on what that amenity might look like [see provision #A.1 a 11 . 5. Outstanding issue(s)for City Council: a. City Council should determine if a waiver to the standards in UDC 11-3A-3 is appropriate for the proposed driveway accesses via Franklin Rd. in the absence of a conceptual development plan for this area. After the Commission hearing, Staff met with the Applicant to discuss the Commission recommendation and go over the Applicant's requested changes to the new DA provisions in the staff report. In response to the Applicant's letter to City Council,dated April 5, 2021, requesting modifications to the DA provisions based on the discussion with Staff, Staff is in general agreement with the changes IF Council supports the proposed amendment, as follows: •Replacement of references to the guidelines in the TMISAP with the"Ten Mile Crossing Design Guidelines." If Council approves the proposed design guidelines, replacement of these references is appropriate. •Removal of the requirement for pedestrian-scale lighting to be provided along the adjacent arterial frontages and internal collector streets; and change the pathway location from the north to the south side of the creek. Pedestrian-scale lighting exists along Wayfinder Ave., north of the creek. Because the Applicant proposes extra street lights along internal collector streets,which nearly double that required, Staff feels this should provide adequate lighting for pedestrians if Council agrees. •Modification to the timing of the provisions requiring final platting of the property prior to issuance of building permits or CZC to issuance of C of 0's instead. Staff is amenable to this change for consistency with past approvals for previous phases. •Removal of the requirements for buildings along Ten Mile Rd.to address with the street with windows overlooking the pathway and a minimum building setback of 50-feet to allow 35-feet instead consistent with UDC standards for entryway corridors. Because of the 6- to 8-foot drop in grade from the road, it's not feasible for the first floor of structures to overlook the pathway. The 35-foot setback is consistent with that on the northern portion of the site in TM Creek. -The current DA provision as written allows building heights up to 100-feet in all areas without restrictions or further application. The Commission directed the Applicant to work with Staff to identify specific areas where this would be allowed (i.e. consider the area south of Cobalt&west to Benchmark) &provide a conceptual diagram for Council to consider—they felt taller buildings should only be allowed in certain areas. Staff and the Applicant discussed this and felt it may be better to leave flexibility in this area with the caveat that significant buffering between future residential uses and neighborhood roadways should be provided. •Removal of the requirement for a pedestrian connection to be provided across the creek in TM Creek(west of Wayfinder and north of Cobalt) if approval can be obtained from NMID. Because there is a NMID access road along the north side of the creek, NMID will not allow pedestrian access in that area.The existing drive aisle and two(2)streets over the creek with pedestrian walkways alongside should provide adequate pedestrian connectivity over the creek. •Inclusion of the proposed FLUM % Designations&Conceptual Land Use Plan as exhibits in the DA and requirement for development compliance is agreeable to Staff to ensure compliance with land use goals in this area in lieu of a requirement to modify the DA to include a more detailed conceptual development plan. Staff is generally supportive of the land uses proposed to the extent they're an allowed use in the district per the UDC. In regard to preliminary plat condition#AA pertaining to design features proposed for"complete streets",the Applicant proposes to provide sidewalks, bike lanes,wide shoulders, bus stops, refuge medians on all legs of the roundabouts, crosswalks where the multi- use pathway along the creek crosses roadways, on-street parking along Wayfinder north of the creek and along S. Sentinnel Ln. &W. Excursion Ln. (internal private streets), sidewalk bulb-outs in residential areas for traffic calming and street furnishings(i.e. benches, flower pots,trees in wells, hardscape area for widened sidewalk corridor)within the development per the proposed design guidelines and requests removal of this condition. If Council determines additional features should be required such as additional crosswalks, refuge medians, bus pullouts,special bus lanes, raised crosswalks, audible pedestrian signals, additional sidewalk bulb-outs, additional on-street parking, etc., a condition requiring such should be included. Note: Staff recommends on-street parking is provided along Benchmark Ave.—the Applicant is not in agreement with this recommendation and requests a modification to condition#2.d as follows: "South New Market Ave./Benchmark Ave. shall be constructed with two(2)travel lanes, bike lanes, parallel parking south of Tenmile creek on the east side of the street, adjacent to future medium-density residential development(if allowed by ACHD at preliminary platting of that area), 8-foot wide parkways and detached sidewalks/pathways consistent with Street SeGtIE)R D ;n the TMISAP the Ten Mile Crossing Design Guidelines, the development agreement, Pathways Master Plan and pathway plan for the site. The first 200'of south of Franklin Rd. on New Market is not allowed to have on-street parking per the ACHD report to allow for right and left turn lanes." Written Testimony Since Commission Hearing: • Mike Wardle, Brighton Development—Letter(April 51") • Doug Thompson—Not in favor of the TMISAP being further altered; not in favor of the proposed rezone; and not in favor of the proposed building height above 4-5 stories. Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2020-0074, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 13, 2021,with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2020-0074, as presented during the hearing on April 13, 2021,for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2020-0074 to the hearing date of(insert continued hearing date here)for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) 7/tem 77 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing Continued from February 23, 2021 for Prescott Ridge (H- 2020-0047) by Providence Properties, LLC, Located on the South Side of W. Chinden Blvd. and on the East Side of N. McDermott Rd. A. Annexation of 128.21 acres of land with R-8 (99.53 acres), R-15 (8.82 acres) and C-G (19.85 acres) zoning districts. B. Preliminary Plat consisting of 371 buildable lots [single-family residential (215 detached/102 attached), townhome (38), multi-family residential (14), commercial (1) and school (1)], 42 common lots and 6 other (shared driveway) lots] on 124.81 acres of land in the R-81 R-15 and C- G zoning districts. Page 6 Item#2. E IDIAN:-- IDAHO C� PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Sonya Allen Meeting Date: April 13, 2021 Topic: Public Hearing Continued from February 23, 2021 for Prescott Ridge (H-2020- 0047) by Providence Properties, LLC, Located on the South Side of W. Chinden Blvd. and on the East Side of N. McDermott Rd. A. Annexation of 128.21 acres of land with R-8 (99.53 acres), R-15 (8.82 acres) and C-G (19.85 acres) zoning districts. B. Preliminary Plat consisting of 371 buildable lots [single-family residential (215 detached/102 attached),townhome (38), multi-family residential (14), commercial (1) and school (1)], 42 common lots and 6 other (shared driveway) lots] on 124.81 acres of land in the R-8, R-15 and C-G zoning districts. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the City Council Public Hearing Page 7 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: April 13, 2021 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 2 PROJECT NAME: Prescott Ridge (H-2020-0047) PRINTED FULL NAME For Against Neutral Want to Testify YES OR NO 1 ,�z 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Item#2. STAFF REPORT E COMMUNITY N --- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT I D A H O HEARING April 13,2021 Legend DATE: , [Project Lcoaiian TO: Planning&Zoning Commission -- - ----- FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner - 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2020-0047 Prescott Ridge—AZ,PP,PST LOCATION: South of W. Chinden Blvd. and east of N. McDermott Rd., in the North %2 of Section 28,Township 4N.,Range 1 W. - (Parcels: SO428233640, R6991222210, _ S0428120950, SO428131315, -�--- - _ SO428131200, SO428211102) NOTE: At the December I"hearing, the Council moved to remand the project back to the Commission for the out parcel at the northeast corner of the site adjacent to the commercial development to be included in the annexation area and development plan for the site. Since that time, the Applicant has acquired the out parcel and submitted updated plans that include the parcel in the development area. The staff report has been updated accordingly. The Commission heard this project on January 21 at and recommended approval of the updated plans and annexation boundary. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Annexation of a total of"� 128.21 acres of land with R-8 (99.53 acres),R-15 (8.82 acres)and C-G (18.17 19.85 acres)zoning districts; and, Preliminary Plat consisting of 395 377 371 buildable lots [346 323 single-family residential(14 102 attached-&-222 215/detached),6-3 38 townhome, 14 multi-family residential, 1 commercial and 1 school],32: 9 42 common lots and 6 other(shared driveway) lots on 123.26 423-.53 124.81acres of land in the proposed R-8,R-15 and C-G zoning districts. Private streets are proposed within the townhome portion of the development for internal access and circulation.Altemative Gemplianee to UDG 11 3 F 4 A.4, when tevaihemes are proposed, is a4se .Alternative Compliance is no longer required based on the revised plan which includes a mew. Page 1 Page 8 Item#2. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 122.8 124.07 Existing/Proposed Zoning Rural Urban Transition(RUT)in Ada County(existing)/R-8,R-15 and C-G(proposed) Future Land Use Designation Medium Density Residential(MDR)(3-8 units/acre)(113.5+/-acres) with Mixed Use—Regional(MU-R)(-9 10.27+/-acres)along W. Chinden Blvd. Existing Land Use(s) Rural residential/agricultural with 1 existing single-family home Proposed Land Use(s) Residential(single-family attached/detached,townhomes&multi- family)&commercial(medical campus with a hospital and medical offices and retail/restaurant uses) Lots(#and type;bldg./common) 395 377 371 buildable lots(316 323 317single-family residential,63 38 townhome, 14 multi-family, 1 commercial and 1 school)/32 39 42common lots/6 other(common driveway)lots Phasing Plan(#of phases) 9 phases wF Number of Residential Units(type 316 323 317 single-family(94 102 attached/ 215 detached),(63 38) of units) townhome and(56)multi-family units Density(gross&net) Overall-3-6-3 2.96 units/acre(gross);7$6 7.68 units/acre(net) R-8 area:4-87-3.07 units/acre(gross);749 7.07 units/acre(net) R-15 area: 12.97 7.57 units/acre(gross);21.39 13.8 units/acre(net) Open Space(acres,total 44.566 112.411 12.43 acres(or 44-.9. 15.41%) [%]/buffer/qualified) (4 -M 8.04 acres required based on 105.08 80.42 acres of residential area) Amenities Swimming pool,clubhouse,large and small children's play structures, a dog park,multi-use pathways and additional qualified open space beyond the minimum standards Physical Features(waterways, Two(2)segments of the West Tap Sublateral cross this site hazards,flood plain,hillside) Neighborhood meeting date;#of 12/18/19- 11 attendees;and 4/l/20- 13 attendees; 12/16/20 7 attendees: attendees History(previous approvals) A portion of the site is Lot 18,Block 1,Peregrine Heights Subdivision (formerly deed restricted agricultural lot for open space—non-farm that has since expired). B. Community Metrics Description Details Pag e Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) N �Yes • Requires ACHD No Commission Action es/no Access A collector street access(W.Rustic Oak Way)is proposed via W. Chinden (Arterial/Collectors/State Blvd./SH 2O-26 at the half mile which runs through the site and connects to Hwy/Local)(Existing and a future collector street(N.Rustic Way)in the Oaks North development Proposed) from McMillan Rd.An access is proposed via N.McDermott Rd.,a collector street. Traffic Level of Service McDermott Rd.—Better than"D"(acceptable level of service) W.Rustic Oak Way/Levi Ln.—Better than"D"(acceptable level of service) Page 2 Page 9 Item#2. Description Details Pag e Stub Two local stub streets are planned to be constructed with the Oaks North Street/Interconnectivity/Gros development at the southern boundary of the site and extended with this s Access development. Two stub streets(N. Serenity Ave. &W.Fireline Ct.)are proposed to the north for future extension. A cross-access easement is required to be provided to the MU-R designated property to the west. Existing Road Network No public streets exist within the site;N. Levi Ln.,a private lane,exists on the northern portion of the site via W.Chinden Blvd./SH 2O-26. Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ There are no existing buffers or sidewalks along N.McDermott Rd. or W. Buffers Chinden Blvd./SH 2O-26 Proposed Road Improvements Capital Improvements Plan(CIP)I Integrated Five Year Work Plan(IFYWP): • Black Cat Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to 3-lanes from Chinden Boulevard to McMillan Road between 2026 and 2030. • The intersection of Black Cat Road and Chinden Boulevard is listed in the CIP to be widened to 5-lanes on the north leg,5-lanes on the south leg,6-lanes on the east leg and 6-lanes on the south leg between 2026 and 2030. • The intersection of McMillan Road and Black Cat Road is listed in the CIP to reconstructed as a multi-lane roundabout with 2 lanes on the northbound and souhbound legs and 1 lane on the westbound and eastbound legs. • The intersection of McMillan Road and McDermott Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to 3-lanes on the north leg,4-laes on the south leg,3-lanes on the east leg and 3-lanes on the west leg between 2031 and 2035. Fire Service • Distance to Fire Station 3 miles from Station#5 to Serenity Ln.on Chinden&4.4 miles to the McDermott side of the project(Station#7 once constructed,will serve this development) • Fire Response Time Some of this development falls within the 5 minute response time area as shown on the priority growth map;the McDermott side is 8 minutes away and does not meet response time goals • Resource Reliability 80%from Station#5—meets response time goal • Risk Identification 2—current resources would not be adequate to supply service(open waterway) • Accessibility Project meets all required access,road widths and turnarounds as long as phasing plan is followed. • Special/resource needs Project will require an aerial device for the multi-family development— cannot meet this need in the required timeframe.Eagle Station#1 is the closest truck company at approximately 8.4 miles away. • Water Supply Requires 1,000 gallons per minute for one hour for the single-family homes; the multi-family areas will require additional water(may be less if buildings are fully sprinklered) • Other Resources NA Police Service No comments submitted • Distance to Police 9 miles Station • Police Response Time No emergency response data can be provided because this development is near the edge of City limits • Calls for Service 156(within a mile of site between 4/l/19-3/31/20) • Accessibility I No concerns • Specialty/resource needs I None • Crimes 5 (within a mile of site between 4/l/19-3/31/20) • Crashes 4(within a mile of site between 4/l/19-3/31/20) • Other Although located near the edge of City limits,service can be provided if this development is approved. Page 3 Page 10 Item#2. West Ada School District Enrollment Capacity Miles • Distance(elem, 0ev.wschool mS hS) Pleasant View Elementary Opening 20121 650 2.4 f School Y ear Star Middle School 704 1000 6.9 Meridian High School 1965 2400 6.1 Due to the abundant amount of growth in the area,West Ada is actively building new schools,and boundaries are always changing,These future students could potentially attend Owyhee High School. • Capacity of Schools • #of Students Enrolled Wastewater • Distance to Sewer This proposed development is not currently serviceable by Meridian Services Sanitary Sewer service. The sewer trunk line designed to service this development is within The Oaks North Subdivision to the south. • Sewer Shed North McDermott Trunk Shed • Estimated Project Sewer See application ERU's • WRRF Declining 13.92 Balance • Project Consistent with Yes WW Master Plan/Facility Plan • Impacts/Concerns •Additional 4,662 gpd has been committed •Sewer mains are not allowed in common driveways.Please remove. •The planned sewer trunk line will enter this property at N. Rustic Oak Way •Sewer line in N.Rustic Oak Way shall be 10-inch all the way to Chinden Blvd •This development is subject to paying sanitary sewer reimbursement fees (see Public Works Site Specific Conditions of Approval for detail). Reimbursement fees for the entire subdivision shall be paid prior to city signatures on the first final plat. Water • Distance to Water This proposed development is not currently serviceable by the Meridian Services City water system. Water mainlines designed to service this development are within The Oaks North Subdivision to the south. • Pressure Zone 1 • Estimated Project Water See application ERU's • Water Quality None • Project Consistent with Yes Water Master Plan • Impacts/Concerns None Page 4 Page 11 Item#2. C. Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Legend tsi8enfial Legend f 0 Project Laca-fion I ProjEOf Lacaion t MU- ® Y a 4 3i k MU-R7 JEW � •., f. ,Y )en s fird Ai- EEE� . Zoning Map Planned Development Map f (Legend 0 (fLegend 01 Pra}ect Laca-fion 1 I Protect Lacation _-- t City Limit I I I I � f - + ® — Planned F o v__ r RUT r � S � R-8 T III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Providence Properties,LLC—701 South Allen Street, Ste. 104,Meridian, ID 83642 B. Owners: Joseph Hon— 16790 Rose Park Dr.,Nampa, ID 83687 Raymond Roark—5952 N. Serenity Ln., Meridian, ID 83646 Page 5 Page 12 Item#2. Lonnie Kuenzli—6210 N. Levi Ln.,Meridian, ID 83646 West Ada School District— 1303 E. Central Dr.,Meridian, ID 83642 C. Representative: Stephanie Leonard,KM Engineering—9233 W. State St.,Boise, ID 83714 IV. NOTICING Planning& Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Notification published in 6/26/2020, 8/28/2020, 11/13/2020, 2/5/2021 newspaper l/l/21 Notification mailed to property 6/23/2020, 8/26/2020, owners within 300 feet 12/29/20 11/10/2020,2/2/2021 Applicant posted public hearing notice on site 7/2/2020, 8/27/2020, 1/5/21 11/10/2020,2/4/2021 Nextdoor posting 6/23/2020, 8/27/2020, 11/10/2020,2/2/2021 12/29/20 V. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS(Comprehensive Plan) The Future Land Use Map(FLUM)contained in the Comprehensive Plan designates. 10.27+/-acres along W. Chinden Blvd./SH 2O-26 as Mixed Use—Regional(MU-R); and the 113.5+/-acres to the south as Medium Density Residential(MDR). 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 depicted in Figure 3D(pg. 3-17). The purpose of the MDR designation is to allow small lots for residential purposes within City limits. Uses may include single-family homes at gross densities of 3 to 8 dwelling units per acre. The MU-R designated area is located adjacent to a major intersection,W. Chinden Blvd./SH 2O-26 and N. McDermott Rd. (future SH-16). The MU-R area is proposed to develop with a medical campus, including a regional hospital, and multi-family apartments.A larger MU-R area than currently designated on the FLUM is proposed which incorporates an additional 9.5+/- acres to the south and east of the current designated area.Because FLUM designations are not parcel specific and the proposed development provides needed services,employment opportunities and housing consistent with that desired in MU-R designated areas, Staff is supportive of the expanded MU-R area provided that a retail component is also included and integrated as part of the development. The MDR designated area is proposed to develop with a mix of single-family attached, detached and townhome units at a gross density of 3-46 2.96 units/acre,which although at the low end of the desired density range, is consistent with that of the MDR designation. Page 6 Page 13 Item#2. The following Comprehensive Plan Policies are applicable to this development: • "Encourage a variety of housing types that meet the needs,preferences,and financial capabilities of Meridian's present and future residents."(2.01.02D) The proposed single-family attached, detached, townhomes and multi family apartments will provide a variety of housing types for future residents in the northwest portion of the City in close proximity to the proposed employment uses on this site and across Chinden Blvd to the north. • "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 not currently available to the subject development, however the main/trunk lines intended to provide service are currently being developed in The Oaks North Subdivision to the south. This development is dependent on the development timing of the phase(s) within The Oaks North for services to be readily available for extension. This developer is attempting to work with The Oaks developer to hasten the timing of utility expansion. • "Avoid the concentration of any one housing type or lot size in any geographical area;provide for diverse housing types throughout the City."(2.01.01 G) Four(4)different housing types are proposed in this development(i.e. single-family attached/detached, townhomes and multi family apartments) along with a wide range of lot sizes for diversity in housing types in this area. • "Encourage compatible uses and site design to minimize conflicts and maximize use of land." (3.07.00) The proposed single-family residential development should be compatible with existing single- family homes to the west in Peregrine Heights and in the development process to the south in The Oaks North and the future school to the east. Larger lot sizes are proposed as a transition to the I-acre lots in Peregrine Heights. Higher density residential uses are planned adjacent to the proposed medical campus at the north boundary and the future school site at the east boundary.A 30 foot wide landscaped buffer with a pedestrian pathway and 8'tall CMU wall is also proposed adjacent to residential uses along the southern and western boundaries of the proposed medical campus to reduce conflicts. • "With new subdivision plats,require the design and construction of pathway connections,easy pedestrian and bicycle access to parks, safe routes to schools, and the incorporation of usable open space with quality amenities."(2.02.01A) A 10'wide multi-use pathway is required within the street buffers along W. Chinden Blvd./SH 20-26 and the north/south collector street(Levi Ln./Rustic Oak), and to the east to the future school site for safe pedestrian access to the school. A large central common area is proposed along the collector street with quality amenities. • "Ensure development is connected to City of Meridian water and sanitary sewer systems and the extension to and through said developments are constructed in conformance with the City of Page 7 Page 14 Item#2. Meridian Water and Sewer System Master Plans in effect at the time of development." (3.03.03A) The proposed development will connect to City water and sewer systems when available; services are proposed to be provided to and though this development in accord with current City plans. • "Locate higher density housing near corridors with existing or planned transit,Downtown, and in proximity to employment centers."(2.01.01H) The proposed townhomes and multi family apartments in close proximity to the regional hospital and medical campus will provide higher density housing options in close proximity to the employment center and major transportation corridor(i.e. Chinden Blvd/SH2O-26&future SH 16). • "Encourage the development of high quality, dense residential and mixed use areas near in and around Downtown,near employment, large shopping centers,public open spaces and parks, and along major transportation corridors, as shown on the Future Land Use Map."(2.02.01E) Townhomes and a multi family development are proposed in close proximity to the mixed use area along Chinden Blvd./SH 2O-26, a major transportation corridor, where employment uses are proposed. • "Maximize public services by prioritizing infill development of vacant and underdeveloped parcels within the City over parcels on the fringe."(2.02.02) The proposed project is located on the fringe of the northwest corner of the City. However, because the land to the north and south has been annexed into the City as well as land located a half mile to the east, services will be extended in this area. Therefore,public services will be maximized by the development of this property. • "Require urban infrastructure be provided for all new developments, including curb and gutter, sidewalks,water and sewer utilities."(3.03.03G) Urban sewer and water infrastructure, when available, and curb, gutter and sidewalks is proposed to be provided as required. • "Annex lands into the corporate boundaries of the City only when the annexation proposal conforms to the City's vision and the necessary extension of public services and infrastructure is provided." (3.03.03) The proposed development plan is consistent with the City's vision in that a mix of uses are proposed including a regional hospital and medical offices in the MU-R designated area adjacent to a major transportation corridor. Residential uses are proposed at densities consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for this area. Public services can be provided and public infrastructure will be extended when available to this site. • "Require collectors consistent with the ACHD Master Street Map(MSM), generally at/near the mid-mile location within the Area of City Impact."(6.01.0313) The MSM depicts a collector street at the half mile between Black Cat and McDermott Roads in the current location of N. Levi Ln. at the northeast corner of the site from W. Chinden Blvd./SH 20-26 to the south to McMillan Rd. A collector street is proposed in accord with the MSM which will connect to N. Rustic Oak Way to the south in The Oaks North subdivision. Page 8 Page 15 Item#2. In reviewing development applications,the following items will be considered in all Mixed Use areas,per the Comprehensive Plan(pg.3-13): (Staffs analysis in italics) • "A mixed-use project should include at least three types of land uses. Exceptions may be granted for smaller sites on a case-by-case basis. This land use is not intended for high density residential development alone." The proposed development includes#we-at least three (JJ different land use types—residential off d,office and commercial(retail/restaurant) uses. , to serve the employment area and nearby residents.A public school(i.e. civic use) is planned on the eastern portion of the annexation area; however, it's outside the mixed use designated area and not a part of the proposed development. • "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." Multi family apartments and townhomes are proposed adjacent to the Mixed Use designated area to provide a higher density in close proximity to the employment center located adjacent to W. Chinden Blvd./SH 2O-26. • "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 Master Plan is proposed with the annexation request which will be incorporated into a Development Agreement to ensure future development is consistent with the Mixed Use designation. Me develepment guidelinesfer AK*ed Use designated areas.in the Gemprehensive Plan. • "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 or green space." The Master Plan depicts shaded s;ttift area three(3) outdoor courtyard areas ;. Q around the medical office building a large outdoor plaza/ rg een space area in front of the hospital with a shaded seatingarea,rea, and a pedestrian pathway within a 30'wide landscaped common area along the southern and western boundaries of the commercial portion of the development abutting residential uses with two (2) shaded areas of respite. develVment with bud&iTs anwnged oround the eommon area in oeeord with this pro��ion. • "The site plan should depict a transitional use and/or landscaped buffering between commercial and existing low-or medium-density residential development." There are existing low density homes on 1-acre lots along the west boundary of this site in Peregrine Heights Subdivision adjacent to the area proposed to be zoned C-G and developed with a medical campus.A 30'wide densely landscaped buffer is proposed along the west and south boundaries of the C-G zoned property adjacent to existing and proposed abutting residential uses along with an 8'tall CMU wall as a buffer to future commercial uses. Parking is proposed along these boundaries norM tofiwnf on the main en"drive aisle 6ff W. Rustie Oak "as a better tmnsXon to th residenees to Me south • "Community-serving facilities such as hospitals,clinics, churches, schools,parks, daycares,civic buildings, or public safety facilities are expected in larger mixed-use developments." Page 9 Page 16 Item#2. A future school site is planned on the eastern portion of the annexation area but it is outside the Mixed Use designated area and not a part of this development.A hospital is proposed in the medical campus on the northern portion of the site adjacent to W. Chinden Blvd./SH 2O-26 which will provide much needed services in the northern portion of the City. • "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." A school is planned to develop on the eastern portion of the annexation area but is outside the Mixed-Use designated area and not being developed with this project. Te ..n ui-.sueh spaees- andplaees ��a a Three (3) outdoor courtyard areas are is-proposed jt6±rt�around the medical office building and a large outdoor plaza/green space area with a shaded seating area is proposed in front of the hospital. Two shaded outdoor areas of respite are also proposed within the buffer along the southern boundary of the commercial portion of the development. • "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 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." Xe sueh&paees or design elenten"menities are proposed, To enstiireAtuie development in the MUR designated area is eonsiqten t with this guidehme, Staff reeoniniends the eoneept plan revised aeee4ingbypr4ep to the Gio, GeHneil hearing. " shaded ** - Three (3) outdoor courtyards are proposed around the medical office building and a large outdoor plaza/green space area with a shaded seating area is proposed in front of the hospital. Two shaded outdoor areas of respite are also proposed within the buffer along the southern boundary of the commercial portion of the development. • "All mixed-use projects should be directly accessible to neighborhoods within the section by both vehicles and pedestrians." The proposed mixed use development is directly accessible to neighborhoods within the section by a collector street(W. Rustic Oak Way) that runs along the project's east boundary at the half mile between McDermott and Black Cat Roads; a multi-use pathway is planned along the collector street for pedestrian connectivity in accord with the Pathways Master Plan. • "Alleys and roadways should be used to transition from dissimilar land uses, and between residential densities and housing types." There are no roadways separating the commercial/mixed use area from the single-family detached homes and townhomes proposed at the south boundary of the area proposed to be zoned C-G. However, there is a 30-foot wide densely landscaped buffer proposed between the commercial and residential uses. Staff reeemmends as a provision of Me A! that a stmet is • "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(pgs.3-16 thru 3-17): Page 10 Page 17 Item#2. • 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. these guideU*es-. • 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. Multi family uses are proposed at a density of 16.6 units/acre for approximately 27%of the mixed use development area. Non-retail medical office/hospital uses are proposed on the remainder of the mixed use development. • Retail commercial uses should comprise a maximum of 50%of the development area. #e�Retail/restaurant commercial uses (10,000+/-square feet) are proposed on the entire first floor of the medical office building. Because this site is proposed to develop with a medical campus including a regional hospital, retail uses will be minimal but should be provided as a third land use type as desired in mixed use designated areas as discussed above to serve patrons and residents. 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. Staff believes the proposed development plan is generally consistent with the vision of the Comprehensive Plan if a commercial(i.e. retail, restaurant, etc.) component is included in the mixed use designated portion of the development as discussed above. VI. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ANALYSIS(UDC) A. Annexation & Zoning: The proposed annexation area consists of si-x-ten(6 10)parcels of land totaling 122.8 128.21 acres designated on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map(FLUM) as Medium Density Residential(MDR) and Mixed Use—Regional(MU-R). Per the proposed conceptual Master Plans included in Section VIII.A, single-family residential attached and detached homes,townhomes, multi-family apartments and a medical campus featuring a regional hospital and medical office Page 11 Page 18 Item#2. building with retail and restaurant uses is proposed to develop on this site. As dise ss a .,L.oy Staff recommends commereial •Fetail, reStaHFant, ete.) uses fiFe also provided as p in the C G zoned area as desired in Alixed Use and speeffieally MU R designated areas to serve the employment area and adjaeent neighbffhOod. The medical campus is proposed to include"boutique"medical services geared toward women's health and pediatrics. Two buildings are proposed—a 4 3-story 220,000 181,000+/-square foot (s.f.)hospital with approximately 90 60 in-patient beds and a 44 4-story 90,000 80,000+/- s.f. medical office building which is proposed to include 10,000+/-square feet of retail uses and 10,000+/- square feet of restaurant uses on the entire first floor. Most services anticipated to be performed in the hospital will be out-patient procedures. Areas not used for inpatient beds will be used for surgery,radiology, an emergency department, labor rooms,physical plant and a cafeteria. The hospital is proposed to be similar in scope and size to the St. Luke's and St. Al's campuses in Nampa. West Ada School District plans to develop a public school on the eastern portion of the annexation area separate from this development. The parcel was included in the subject AZ and PP applications because it was created outside of the process required by Ada County to create a buildable parcel. Including it in the proposed plat will allow building permits to be obtained for future development. The single-family attached/detached portion of the development is proposed to be annexed with R-8 zoning(99.53 acres),the townhome and multi-family portions are proposed to be zoned R-15 (8.82 acres)and the medical campus is proposed to be zoned C-G(18.1:7 19.85 acres, including adjacent right-of-way to the section line of W. Chinden Blvd./SH 2O-26),which is generally consistent with the associated MDR and MU-R FLUM designations for the site as discussed above in Section V (see zoning exhibit in Section VIII.B). Proposed Use Analysis: Single-family attached and detached homes and townhouse dwellings are listed as a principal permitted use in the R-8 and R-15 zoning districts;multi-family developments are listed as a conditional use in the R-15 zoning district, subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-27; and public education institutions are listed as a conditional use in the R-8 zoning district per the Allowed Uses in the Residential Districts table in UDC Table 11-2A-2, subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-14. A hospital is listed as a conditional use in the C-G district, subject to the specific use standards in UDC 11-4-3-22;and healthcare and social services is listed as a principal permitted use in the C-G district;retail uses are listed as a principal permitted use in the C-G district; and restaurant uses are listed as a principal permitted use in the C-G district, subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-49 per the Allowed Uses in the Commercial Districts table in UDC 11-2B-2. Evaluation of the multi-family development for consistency with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-27 and the hospital's consistency with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3- 22 will occur with the conditional use permit applications for such uses. One of the standards for hospitals that provide emergency care requires that the location shall have direct access on an arterial street; the proposed hospital is planned to provide emergency care.Because UDC 11- 3H-4B.2 prohibits new approaches directly accessing a State Highway,access is proposed via N.Rustic Oak Way, a collector street,at the project's east boundary located at the half mile mark between section line roads. The City Council should determine if this meets the intent of the requirement,if so, it should be memorialized in the Development Agreement. If not, Alternatively, Council may deny the emergency care component of the hospital use. Note:ITD denied the Applicant's request for access via SH 2O-26/Chinden Blvd. for the medical campus. Page 12 Page 19 Item#2. The property is within the Area of City Impact Boundary(AOCI). A legal description for the annexation area is included in Section VIII.B. The City may require a development agreement(DA)in conjunction with an annexation pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-6511A. In order to ensure the site develops as proposed with this application and future development meets the Mixed Use and specifically the MU-R guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan, Staff recommends a DA as a requirement of annexation with the provisions included in Section VIII.A. The DA is required to be signed by the property owner(s)/developer and returned to the City within 6 months of the Council granting the annexation for approval by City Council and subsequent recordation. The Applicant requests three(3)separate DA's are required—one for the R-8 and R-15 residential portions of the development, one for the medical campus and another for the school district's parcel. Staff is amenable to this request as there are three(3)distinct components of the project. B. Preliminary Plat: The proposed preliminary plat consists of 433 422 lots—3953777 371 buildable lots [316 single-family residential(94-102 attached 215/detached),6-3,38 townhome, 14 multi-family residential, 1 commercial and 1 school],3-2 39 42 common lots and 6 other(shared driveway)lots on "�423-64 124.81 acres of land in the proposed R-8,R-15 and C-G zoning districts. A portion of the proposed plat is a re-subdivision of Lot 18,Block 1,Peregrine Heights Subdivision, a formerly deed restricted agricultural lot that was only to be used for open space(i.e. non-farm)— this restriction has since expired. The minimum lot size proposed in the single-family residential portion of the development is 4,000 square feet(s.f.)with an average lot size of 6-,060 5,982 s.£; the average townhome lot size is 2-,037 2,302 s.f. The overall gross density is 3-6-3 2.97 units/acre with a net density of 7.M 7.68 units/acre. The gross density of the R-8 zoned portion is 4.P 3.07 units/acre with a net density of 7417.07 units/acre and the gross density of the R-15 zoned portion is 12.97 7.57 units/acre with a net density of 21.33 13.8 units/acre consistent with the density desired in the associated MDR&MU-R FLUM designations in the Comprehensive Plan for this site. Phasing: The residential portion of the subdivision is proposed to develop in nine(9)phases as depicted on the phasing exhibit in Section VIII.0 over a time period of 4 to 5 years. The north/south collector street will be constructed from W. Chinden Blvd./SH 2O-26 in alignment with Pollard Ln. across Chinden Blvd. to the north and extend to the southern boundary with the first phase of development. The single family portion of the site will develop first,followed by the townhomes and then the multi-family apartments. The school property(Lot 84, Block 12)are is not included in the phasing plan as they are it is under separate ownership and will develop separately from the residential and commercial portions of the development. The Applicant estimates development of the hospital and medical campus will commence in 2021 at the earliest; and the school in 2023 at the earliest, assuming services are available. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There is an existing home on the Kuenzli property and some old accessory structures on the Roark property that are proposed to be removed with development. All existing structures should be removed prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer for the phase in which they are located. Page 13 Page 20 Item#2. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): Development of the subject property is required to comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Tables 11-2A-6 for the R-8 district, 11-2A-7 for the R-15 district and 11-213-3 for the C-G district as applicable. Lot Layout: The lot layout/development plan for the townhome portion of the development on Lots 16-7-9-, common driveway may only serve a maximum of(6) dwelling units peir UD 6-C units are proposed off each . Private streets are not intended for townhome developments other than those than create a common mew through the site design or that propose a limited gated development-neither a mews nor is proposed but no gates are proposed(alter-native compliance i thiss standard see analysis below in Section 3*71•r hearing.AlteFnaflve Complianee may be requested to these standaMs and apffOved upon recommendation of the City Engineer-,Fire Marshal and the Director when the Applicant can demonstrate than the proposed over-ail design meets or exceeds the intent of the required standards and shall not be detrimental to the publie health, safety and welf-aFe and where private streets are determined to enhance the safety of the development by establishing a clear emergency vehiele travel lane. However,the Fire Dept. and Staff would not be in suppo sueh a request as Staff is of the opinioll M. - . - Weh at the numbeir of units and density PFOPosed would result in a neighbor-hood that is seveFely undeF par-lied,whieh eould be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare if emerge ' ver-e not able aeeess homes within the development due to parking issues on the private street. Staff Feeommends this POFOOH of the development is Fedesigned with publie StFeets (alleys and/or common driveways may be incorporated), or if private streets are proposed, eaeh unit should&ont on and be aeeessed via the private street(s) and the design should include a mew or-gated entr-y in aeeoM with UDC- 11 3F I however-,publie streets are preferred. Alter-natively, a multi family development(i.e. one structure on one property with 3 or-more dwelling units)with townhome style units might be a development option for-this area.A r-evised par-king plan should be submitted for-this area as well that pr-ovides for adequate guest par-king above the minimum UDC standards (Table 11 3C- 6)to serve this portion of the development.A revised eoneept plan and par-king plan should be submitted prior-to or-a Commission hearing fot!r-eview and a revised plat should be submitted at least 10 days p to the City Couneil hearing that r-efleets this modifleation. The lot layout/development plan for-the multi family development on Lots 70 83,Bloek 12 depiets parking and aceess dr-iveways on buildable iots the number of par! Therefore, Staff r-eeommends the aeeess dAveways and par-king are plaeed in a common lo with an ingress egress/par-king easement for-eaeh buildable lot.A Fevised plat should be submitted at least 10 days prior-to the City Coune 1 A revised plat was submitted that depicts the private street in the townhome portion of the development within a common lot as requested, see Section VIIL C. Subdivision Design and Improvement Standards (UDC 11-6C-3) Development of the subdivision is required to comply with the subdivision design and improvement standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3, including but not limited to streets, common driveways and block face. Page 14 Page 21 Item#2. Block length is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3F. Block faces should not exceed 750' in length without an intersecting street or alley unless a pedestrian connection is provided,then the block face may be extended up to 1,000' in length. The face of Block 7 on the south side of W. Smokejumper St. exceeds 750' at approximately 900'+/-;because the preliminary plat for the abutting property to the south did not include a pathway to this site in this location, Staff does not recommend a pathway is required for connectivity as it would dead-end at the subdivision boundary. Other block faces comply with the standard. Common driveways are required to be constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11- 6C-3D.A perpetual ingress/egress easement shall be filed with the Ada County Recorder, which shall include a requirement for maintenance of a paved surface capable of supporting fire vehicles and equipment. An exhibit should be submitted with the final plat application that depicts the setbacks,fencing,building envelope, and orientation of the lots and structures accessed via the common driveway; if a property abuts a common driveway but has the required minimum street frontage and is taking access via the public street,the driveway should be depicted on the opposite side of the shared property line from the common driveway.Address signage should be provided at the public street for homes accessed via common driveways for emergency wayfinding purposes. Access(UDC 11-3A-3) Access is proposed via one(1) collector street(N. Rustic Oak Way)from W. Chinden Blvd./SH 20- 26,which extends through the site to the south boundary and will eventually extend to McMillan Rd.with development of The Oaks North subdivision to the south.A local street access (W. Sturgill Peak St.)is proposed via N.McDermott Rd., a collector street, at the project's west boundary. A stub street(N. Jumpspot Ave.) is proposed to the out-parcel at the southwest corner of the site— Staff recommends W. Smokejumber St. is also stubbed to this property from the east;two (2) stub streets(N. Trident Ave. and N. Rustic Oak Way) are proposed to the south for future extension with The Oaks North subdivision; and two(2) stub streets(N. Serenity Ave. &W. Fireline Ct.) are proposed to the north for future extension—the stub street to Serenity Ln.will serve as an emergency access only to Peregrine Heights Subdivision and will have bollards preventing public access.A collector street(W. Ramblin St.)is proposed for access to the school site. A stub street (Sunfield Way)was approved with The Oaks North preliminary plat to Lot 37,Block 12,proposed as a common lot;this street is not proposed to be extended. The ACHD report states Sunfield Way cannot be extended into the site at this time as the stub street is aligned with the parcel line between this site and the school parcel. ACHD has required a permanent right-of-way easement to be provided and a road trust for the future extension of Sunfield Way with development of the school parcel. Cross-access/ingress-egress easements should be provided to adjacent MU-R designated properties to the west(Parcels#R6991221700&R6991221600) and east(Parcel# R6991222101)in accord with UDC 11-3A-3A.2. As discussed above,a private street loop(N.Highfire Loop)is proposed for access to the townhome portion of the development in Block 8 adjacent to the southern boundary of the commercial development(see analysis below under Private Streets). Staff is not supportive of the proposed revised design and r-eeommends revisions to the plan as stated above and in 8 e re t-*aq INI EX.A. The Applicant's proposal to curve McDermott Rd. north of Sturgill Peak St.to the east at the project's west boundary does not meet ACHD policy and is not approved; the ACHD report states construction of this portion of McDermott will be completed in conjunction with ITD's SH-16 extension. Page 15 Page 22 Item#2. Developments along SH 2O-26 are required to construct a street generally paralleling the state highway that is no closer than 660 linear feet(measured from centerline to centerline)from the intersection(i.e.Rustic Oak)with the state highway.The purpose of which is to provide future connectivity and access to all properties fronting the state highway that lie between the subject property and the nearest section line road and/or half mile collector road.The street shall be designed in accord with the standards set forth in UDC 11-3H-4B.3 and shall collect and distribute traffic.Frontage streets or private streets may be considered by the council at the time of property annexation or through the conditional use process.Frontage streets and private streets shall be limited to areas where there is sufficient access to surrounding properties and a public street is not desirable in that location. A frontage road is proposed along the northern boundary of the site adjacent to Chinden Blvd. with an access on Rustic Oak approximately 660' south of Chinden as depicted on the conceptual development plan in Section VIII.A.Because residential homes exist to the west that are not likely to redevelop in the near future, a future interchange for SH-16 is planned east of the McDermott/Chinden intersection, and a north/south collector street(Rustic Oak) exists along the east boundary of this site, Staff believes there is sufficient access to surrounding properties as proposed without the provision of a public street. Emergency access:In response to the Fire Department's estimated response time to the development, which are below the target goal on the McDermott side of the subdivision, the Applicant plans to include an AED(Automated External Defibrillator) device in the clubhouse and provide education related to the use of the device to ensure residents are aware of the benefits and function if the device is needed. Additionally, a connection is proposed from Chinden through the project to the southern boundary of the subdivision with the first phase of development to aid in emergency response times to the site; this should also benefit response times to The Oaks North to the south. Parking(UDC 11-3C): Off-street parking is required to be provided for residential uses in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6; and for non-residential uses in accord with the standards listed in 11-3C- 6B.1. Future development should comply with these standards. A parking exhibit(and details in the narrative)was submitted with this application, included in Section VIILF that depicts 46 15 extra off-street parking spaces in the townhome portion of the development and a total of 505 497 on- street parking spaces available for guest parking. A total of 16 off-street parking spaces are proposed for the 3,750+/-square foot clubhouse and swimming pool facility. Staff is of the opinion the proposed parking in the single-family and townhomes portions of the development should meet the parking needs. Off-street parking in the multi-family portion of the development will be evaluated with the conditional use permit application. Off-street parkin is s required to be provided for the commercial portion of the development in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-6B for commercial uses with the exception of restaurant uses; off-street parking for restaurant uses is required per the standards listed in UDC II- 4-3-49. Off-street parkin is s depicted on the conceptual Master Plan in accord with these standards and will reviewed again with the final design of the site to ensure consistency with these standards. Pathways(UDC 11-3A-8): The Pathways Master Plan depicts segments of the City's multi-use pathway system across this site. In accord with the Plan,the Park's Dept. recommends detached 10' wide multi-use pathways are provided within the street buffers in the following locations: along N. McDermott Rd.,W. Chinden Blvd./SH 2O-26,the east side of N. Rustic Oak Way from Chinden to the southern boundary of the site, and along W. Ramblin St. from Rustic Oak to the school site. These pathways are required to be placed in a 14-foot wide public pedestrian easement. Page 16 Page 23 Item#2. Other pathways and micro-paths through common areas are also proposed for pedestrian interconnectivity and access within the development. Two(2)micro-path connections to the school site are proposed in addition to the multi-use pathway connection from Rustic Oak that extends along the northern boundary of the multi-family development. All pathways shall be constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-8 and landscaping shall be provided on either side of the pathways as set forth in UDC 11-3B-12C. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-1 : Detached sidewalks are required to be provided along all arterial and collector streets; attached(or detached) sidewalks may be provided along internal local streets. Sidewalks are proposed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17, ept for along the east side of Rustie Oak north o W. Lost Rapids St.,where an a4taehed 7' wide sidewalk is pfopesed. This sidewalk should be detac-hCd from the in aeeor-i-"with iTcir v C 11 3A4-7. Parkways (UDC 11-3A-1 : Eight-foot wide parkways are proposed adjacent to the north/south collector street(N. Rustic Oak Way) and are required to be constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17 and landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. AWe. The Master Plan inel •a a Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): Street buffers are required to be provided within the development as follows: a 35-foot wide street buffer is required along W. Chinden Blvd./SH 2O-26 and N. McDermott Rd., an entryway corridor; and a 20' wide buffer is required along N. Rustic Oak Way,'`T N 4eF ffw t D a. and W. Ramblin St., collector streets, landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. A 25' wide buffer is required on the C-G zoned property to residential uses as set forth in UDC Table 11-2B-3, landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-9C. The buffer area should be comprised of a mix of evergreen and deciduous trees, shrubs, lawn or other vegetative groundcover that results in a barrier that allowed trees to touch at the time of maturity. A 30-foot wide buffer is proposed with dense landscaping along the western and southern boundaries of the site adjacent to residential uses as required. Parkways where provided are required to be landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. The total linear feet of parkways with the required and proposed number of trees should be included in the Landscape Calculations table on the final plat landscape plan to demonstrate compliance with the required standards. Landscaping is required along all pathways in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C. The total lineal feet of pathways with the required and proposed number of trees should be included in the Landscape Calculations table on the final plat landscape plan to demonstrate compliance with UDC standards. Common open space is required to be landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3G- 3E. The total square footage of common open space with the required and proposed number of trees should be included in the Landscape Calculations table on the final plat landscape plan to demonstrate compliance with the UDC standards. Parking lot landscaping is required to be provided in the commercial portion of the development in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-313-8C. If any existing trees on the site are proposed to be removed,mitigation may be required per the standards listed in UDC 11-313-1OC.5. The Applicant should coordinate with Matt Perkins, Page 17 Page 24 Item#2. the City Arborist,to determine mitigation requirements if any existing trees are not proposed to be retained on site. Noise abatement is required to be provided in the form of a berm or a berm and wall combination parallel to W. Chinden Blvd./SH 2O-26 constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3H-4D. A detail/cross-section of the proposed noise abatement should be submitted with the final plat application for the commercial portion of the development that demonstrates compliance with the required standards. Qualified Open Space(UDC 11-3G1: A minimum of 10%qualified open space meeting the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3B is required for the residential portion of the development. Based on 105.08 80.42 acres (excluding the 28-acre school parcel), a minimum of 40.5f 8.04 acres of qualified open space should be provided. A qualified open space exhibit was submitted, included in Section VIII.E,that depicts 11.56 12.4 acres(or 44-.9 15.41%, excluding the 28-acre school parcel) of open space consisting of the entire buffer along collector streets(McDermott&Rustic Oak),open space areas of at least 50' x 100' in area and linear open space in accord with UDC standards. Note:Although a couple of the lots (i.e. Lot 30, Block 1 and Lot 29, Block 9) counted toward qualified open space don't meet the minimum dimensional standards of 50'x 100', the rest of the area does qualify which still exceeds the minimum standards. Because the multi-family portion of the development is proposed to be subdivided with each 4- plex on its own individual lot for the option of separate ownership of the 4-plex buildings, Staff recommends a provision is included in the DA that requires one management company handle the leasing and maintenance of the entire project to ensure better overall consistent management of the development. Qualified Site Amenities(UDC 11-3G1 A minimum of(1)site amenity is required for every 20 acres of development area. Based on the residential area of the proposed plat(105.09 80.42 acres), a minimum of€rve four(5 4)qualified site amenities are required to be provided per the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3C. A site amenity exhibit and renderings are included in Section VIII.E. A 3,750+/- square foot clubhouse with restrooms, an exercise area, office and meeting room with an outdoor patio and a 54' x 30'+/-swimming pool, one large tot lot on Lot 1,Block 9 and(2) smaller tot lots on Lot 1,Block 13 and Lot 12,Block 6 with children's play equipment, an enclosed 5,500+/- s.f. dog park(although this area may be just a pocket park with no dog facilities depending on what is desired by future residents), segments of the City's multi-use regional pathway system, and additional qualified open space exceeding 20,000 square feet are proposed as amenities in excess of UDC standards.Amenities are proposed from the following categories listed in UDC 1I- 3G-3C: quality of life,recreation and pedestrian or bicycle circulation system, in accord with UDC standards. Details of these amenities should be submitted with the final plat applications for the phases in which they are located. Storm Drainage(UDC 11-3A-IS): An adequate storm drainage system is required in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances as set forth in UDC 11-3A-18. Design and construction shall follow Best Management Practice as adopted by the City. Sub-surface drainage is proposed but swales could be incorporated if needed. Page 18 Page 25 Item#2. Pressurized Irrigation(UDC 11-3A-15): Underground pressurized irrigation water is required to be provided in each development as set forth in UDC 11-3A-15. This property is within the Settler's Irrigation District and the Nampa& Meridian Irrigation District's boundaries. Waterways(UDC 11-3A- : The West Tap Sublateral runs east/west across the southern portion of this site within a 20' wide drainage district easement;and a 15' wide irrigation easement runs east/west across the northern portion of the site as depicted on the Peregrine Heights subdivision plat. This waterway is planned to be relocated and piped. If the easement(s)for the waterway is greater than 10' in width,it should be placed in a common lot that is a minimum of 20' in width and outside of a fenced area,unless modified by City Council in accord with UDC 11-3A-6E. All waterways are required to be piped unless used as a water amenity of linear open space as defined in UDC 11-1A-1 in accord with UDC 11-3A-6B. Fencing(UDC 11-3A- : All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-6C and 11-3A-7.Fencing is depicted on the landscape plan. Fences abutting pathways and common open space lots not entirely visible from a public street is required to be an open vision or semi-private fence up to 6' in height as it provides visibility from adjacent homes or buildings per UDC 11-3A-7A.7. Staff is concerned there is not enough visibility from the street of the common area on Lot 1,Block 2 located behind building lots and around Lot 37,Block 12 and recommends the fencing type is revised on the perimeter of these lots to comply with this standard. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): The Applicant submitted sample photo elevations and renderings of the different home types planned to be constructed in this development which are included in Section VIII.G.Homes depicted are a mix of 1-and 2-story units of varying sizes for the variety of lot sizes proposed. Building materials consist of a mix of finish materials with stoneibrick veneer accents. Because the side and/or rear of 2-story homes that face collector streets (i.e.N.McDermott Rd.,N.Rustic Oak Way and W.Ramblin St.)will be highly visible,these elevations,should incorporate articulation through changes in two or more of the following: modulation(e.g. projections,recesses, step-backs,pop-outs),bays,banding,porches,balconies,material types, or other integrated architectural elements to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines that are visible from the subject public street.Single-story structures are exempt from this requirement. Conceptual renderings of the hospital and medical office buildings were submitted as shown in Section VIII.G. The hospital is proposed to be a 3-story building and the medical office building a 4-story building. The elevations for the medical office building incorrectly depict a 3-story building; these elevations should be revised prior to the City Council hearing to reflect the correct number of stories. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application is required to be submitted and approved prior to submittal of any building permit applications for the medical office building, hospital,clubhouse, swimming pool facility, single-family attached,townhome and multi-family structures. The design of such is required to comply with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual.Design review is not required for single-family detached homes. Page 19 Page 26 Item#2. C. Private Streets (UDC H- A private street loop(N. Highfire Loop)is proposed for access within the portion of the development where townhomes are proposed on Lots 17 78 17-44 and 54-67,Block 8 adjacent to the southern boundary of the commercial development. The Applicant believes a private street in this area will enhance safety and vehicular circulation by creating a clear path of travel for emergency vehicles and residential traffic. Mews nor^ gated developme t A mew is proposed but no gates are proposed as the Applicant believes a gate would detract from site circulation and would physically and figuratively disjoint the townhomes from the rest of the community. Private streets are not intended for townhome developments other than those that create a common mew through the site design or that propose a limited gated residential development per UDC 1I- 3F-1. The applicability may be extended where the Director or Fire Marshall determines that private streets will enhance the safety of the development. The Applicant t requests alternative^ rrianee to UPC 11 3F I to " t � • as proposed,without (s) or agated �Alternative -�a�=o��v-c�c�e ci�� cc�=w��vR��c� � Compliance is no longer necessary as a mew is proposed on the revised plan. As noted above in Seetion AILB,Lot Layout, Staff r-eeommends ehanges to the layout of the portion of the plat where the private street is proposed. Staff and the Fire Dept. does fief believe safety is enhaneed by the provision of a private street in this area with the density and likelihood of vehieles parking iH fiFe lanes due to inadequacy of par-ling for guests and overflow par-ling. TheFefore, Staff does not reeommend approval of the private StFeet as redesign. D. AlteMative Complianee (UDC - B-�} pr-wvided when townhemes ---p-oposed is also—quested. The Applieant's r-e"est is based on thei belief that the tovmhoine poftion eft Ohio�-P-.Velepmeat will better-ifftegr-ate with the fest of the Pr-esee#Ridge eemmunity and will be easily aeeessible a-Rd usable without a gated eff"a-ad will pr-evide a safer-path of travel for-emer-geney vehieles, Reeause Staff is not supportive of the proposed design of the townhome portion of the development with the private street,Staff is in turn not supportive of the request for- alter-native eomplianee.As noted abolve in Seetion ALLB,Lot Layout, Staff Feeommends ehanges to the layout of this portion of the plat.A subsequent request may be eonsider-ed if warranted by the .Because a mew is now proposed on the revised plans, alternative compliance is no longer necessary. VII. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the requested annexation and zoning with the requirement of a Development Agreement and approval of the requested preliminary plat with the conditions noted in Section IX.A and denial of the request for a private street and alternative compliance per the Findings in Section X. B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard these items on(continued from July 16t'and August 20t1i September 17,2020.At the public hearing,the Commission moved to continue the subject AZ and PP requests to a subsequent Commission hearing in order for the Applicant to revise the concept plan for the commercial/medical campus and plat for the townhome portion of the development. 1. Summary of Commission public hearing_ Page 20 Page 27 Item#2. a. In favor: Stephanie Leonard,KM Engineering&Patrick Connor(Applicant's Representative); Betsy Huntsin e�presenting the proposed hospital, Randall Peterman(adjacent property owner);Mitch Armuth,Providence Properties b. In opposition:None C. Commenting: Val Stack and Paul Hoyer; Sue Ropski; Cory Coltrin; Randall Peterman d. Written testimony: Josh Femreite, Chief of New Schools for Gem Innovation Schools e. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen f. Other Staff commenting on application: Joe Bon ig orno 2. Key issue(s) testimony a. Gem Innovation School is in strong support of the project as their future campus lies aqpproximately 300 yards to the south and will be able to provide K-12 public education options for future residents; b. Would like 30' buffer extended along entire east and south boundaries of Peregr, ine Heights Subdivision for a buffer to higher density residential uses; would like more of a transition to the lots at the southeast corner of Peregrine Heights Subdivision either with larger lots or common area instead of 5 building lots;not in favor of proposed access via Serenity Ln.; concern pertaining to future access for Serenity Ln. residents via Chinden; concern pertaining to obstruction of view sheds with proposed 4-story structures on commercial portion of development. C. Ms. Ropski's concern with location of trash dumpsters and parking ad to their ro e d. Preference for the hospital to be located closer to the Chinden/Rustic Oak intersection away from low density residential lots at west boundary e. Mr. Peterman is in favor of the proposed development as it will bring services to his property for development. 3. Ke, ids)of discussion by Commission: a. Preference for owner-occupied townhomes rather than rental or more multi-family in the portion currently proposed for townhomes; b. Preference for the Applicant to obtain the out-parcel at northeast corner of site in order to develop commercial(retail,restaurant, etc.)uses on the site; C. In favor of the variety in housing types and lot sizes proposed; d. Not in favor of the proposed design of the townhome portion of the development and the private streets—needs to be redesigned; e. The Fire Dept.'s preference for a direct unhindered access to the site via Serenity (i.e.not obstructed byagate,bollards or a chain) pposed to right-in/right-out at Serenity Ln./Chinden Blvd. as a fire engine will not be able to access the site from the east via Chinden. f. Conceptual development plan for the commercial/medical campus portion of the site needs to be revised as discussed. 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. None 5. Outstandingissue(s)ssue(s) for City Council: a. None C. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard these items again on October 22nd. At the public hearing on October 22nd,the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject AZ and PP requests. 1. Summary of Commission public hearing_: a. In favor: Patrick Connor,Providence Properties (Applicant's Representative);Betsy Huntsin eg r,representing the proposed hospital b. In opposition: None Page 21 Page 28 Item#2. C. Commenting: Cary Pitman; Sue Ropski;Val Stack; Doug Haneborg; Heidi Wilson; Charles Hay; Bonnie Layton,WH Pacific(representing property owner to the west of Pere rgrine Hei hts d. Written testimony:None e. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen f. Other Staff commenting on application: Bill Parsons 2. Key issue(s)of public testimony a. Preference for the parking on the east side of the 3-story medical office buildingto o be relocated to the west side of the building and the building shifted further to the east so that the building is further away from adjacent residential properties; b. Concern pertaining to traffic on Serenity Ln. if it were to be open to the south and the safety of children as there are no sidewalks along the private street; C. Concern pertaining to future restriction of right-in/right-out access to Serenity Ln. from Chinden Blvd. and resulting delays for emergency services to Peregrine Heights; C. Request for provision of a fence or a gate at the south end of the Serenity Ln. cul-de-sac to keep it private-, d. Request for the larger estate lots that abut the south end of Peregrine Heights to be carried over to the south side of W. Tanker Dr.; e. Property owner to the west of Peregrine Heights is in favor of the proposed frontage road along Chinden Blvd. for access to the collector street. 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission: a. The provision of an electronic gate at the south end of Serenity Ln. for emergency access to Peregrine Heights and to keep the lane private; b. Impacts to the design of the site if the outparcel at the northeast corner of the site isn't purchased by the Developer and developed as part of this site; C. Trash enclosures should be located away from adjacent residential properties, d. In support of the reduction in height from 4-to 3-stories for the hospital and medical office building; e. Preference for the medical office building to be shifted further to the east and/or rotated; f. The provision of only one(1)mew in the townhome portion of the development. f. In general support of the revisions made to the concept plan for the commercial portion of the development. h. Would like the Applicant to work with ITD on noise abatement along the west boundary adjacent to SH-16; i. In favor of the walkability of the development and especially the medical campus; hi support of the changes to the townhome portion of the development and the additional open space; k. Would like the Applicant to work with Staff to reduce the number of lots along the southern boundary of the subdivision to provide a better transition to planned R-4 zoned lots in The Oaks subdivision. 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. Requirement for noise abatement to be provided along the project's west boundary along N. McDermott Rd. adjacent to the future extension of SH-16 (see Section IX.A.1a.7 and A.3a); b. Relocate the parking on the east side of the medical office building to the west side of the building and shift the building further to the east away from the adjacent residential properties(see revised concept plans in Section VIII.A); C. The Applicant shall work with Staff to provide an electronic gate that is approved by the Fire Dept. for access to Serenity Ln. from the south(see DA provision#A.la.6 in Section IX); and, Page 22 Page 29 Item#2. d. Reduce the number of lots along the southern boundary to provide better transition to the R- 4 properties planned to the south in The Oaks subdivision(lots were reduced by 5 along the south and southeast boundaries, see revised plat in Section VIII.C). 5. Outstandingissue(s)ssue(s) for City Council: a. Council should determine if the proposed access to the hospital via N. Rustic Oak Way, a collector street, meets the intent of the UDC(11-4-3-22),which requires hospitals that provide emergency care to have direct access on an arterial street.ITD denied a request for direct access via Chinden Blvd. for the emergency care component of the hospital per the letter to the Applicant dated May 5. 2020 included in the public record. Alternatively, Council may deny the emergency care component of the hospital use. D. The Meridian City Council heard these items on December 1,2020.At the public hearing the Council moved to remand the project back to the Commission in order for the out-parcel at the northeast corner of the site to be included in the annexation area and development plan for the site. 1. Summary of the City Council public hearing: a. In favor: Patrick Connor,Providence Properties and Stephanie Leonard,KM Engineering(Applicant's Representatives) b. In opposition.None c. Commenting: Cary Pitman;Doug Haneborg; Cory Coltrin d. Written testimony: Randall Peterman(in favor) e. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen f. Other Staff commenting on application: Clint Dolsbv, Joe Bongiorno, Steve Sjddoway 2. Key issue(s)of public testimony: a. Concern pertaining to the width of the frontage road and access to site from Serenity b. Preference for the hospital to be shifted as far east as possible away from adjacent residents—concern that the 3-story building will overlook the rear yard of adjacent residential properties; c. Desire for a gated entrance to the medical campus portion of the site from Serenity Ln. to prohibit public access/traffic on Serenity Ln.; d. Concerns pertaining to light trespass on adjacent residential properties from the medical campus;noise; odors;need for more of a transition in lot sizes to lot at the southeast corner of Peregrine Heights where there are 4:1 lots proposed; concern pertaining to Fire Dept.response time; location of water& sewer stubs to Peregrine Heights; location of fire hydrants in relation to Peregrine Heights. 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by City Council: a. Fire response time to the site; b. Subdivision of the multi-family portion of the site allowingfor or separate ownership of individual apartment structures and concern pertaining to consistent exterior maintenance—should maintenance be governed by the HOA instead of a property management company to ensure consistent and timely pkeep of the development? C. Preference for the out-parcel at the northeast corner of the site to be included in the annexation area and development plan for the site. Council is not in favor of annexing the medical campus portion of the site without the out-parcel;remand back to the Commission for inclusion of the out-parcel in the annexation application. 4. City Council change(s)to Commission recommendation: a. None Page 23 Page 30 Item#2. E. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard these items on January 21, 2021. At the public hearing,the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject AZ and PP requests. 1. Summary of Commission public hearing_ a. In favor: Patrick Connor,Providence Properties; Stephanie Hopkins,KM Engineering (Applicant's Representative) b. In opposition: Cory Coltrin c. Commenting: James Jacobson,Attornerepresentin_ Peregrine Heights Homeowner's Association, Sue Ropski; Cary Pitman; Doug Haneborg d. Written testimony: Stephanie Hopkins,Applicant's Representative(response to the staff re ort e. Staff presenting gpplication: Sonya Allen f. Other Staff commenting on application: None 2. Key issue(s)of public testimony a. Opposed to development of a medical campus directly ad to Peregrine Heights residential subdivision and request for C-G zoning to be denied; b. Concerns pertaining to where medical waste containers will be located, location of loading docks next to residential,opposed to 4-story medical office building structure which will obstruct views,location of frontage road/emergency access along north boundary of Peregrine Heights Subdivision from Chinden Blvd.; c. Not enough buffer between existing residential properties and proposed commercial development; d. Objections to a frontage road/emergency access driveway at the north end of Pere rg ire Heights subdivision along Chinden Blvd.; e. Concern pertaining to lightpass from the commercial site on the adjacent residential properties; e. Clarification from the Applicant that this is not a trauma center—most business will be related to women's health procedures and not emergency services. 3. Ke. ids)of discussion by Commission: a. Supportive of the continued changes that have made to the development plan by the Developer at the request of Staff and the neighbors; b. In favor of the proposed medical campus in this location of the City and belief it's an appropriate use for the MU-R desi Hated property, c. Empathy for the impacts to the residential property owners adjacent to MU-R designated property and proposed commercial development; 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. Add requirement for the buffer along the west boundary of the site to incorporate a 2- foot tall berm with an 8-foot tall wall on top of the berm to assist in blocking the noise from the commercial development. This requirement is contingent upon approval from the Peregrine Heights HOA; otherwise,if not approved by the HOA, landscaping and the wall shall be installed as proposed on the concept plan(see DA provision#A.lb.9 in Section IX). 5. Outstandingissue(s)ssue(s) for City Council: a. Council should determine if the proposed access to the hospital via N. Rustic Oak Way, a collector street,meets the intent of the UDC(11-4-3-22),which requires hospitals that provide emergency care to have direct access on an arterial street.ITD denied a request for direct access via Chinden Blvd. for the emergency care component of the hospital per the letter to the Applicant dated May S, 2020 included in the public record. Alternatively, Council may deny the emergency care component of the hospital use. Page 24 Page 31 Item#2. C. The Meridian City Council heard these items on February 23,2021.At the public hearing the Council moved to approve the subject AZ and PP requests. 1. Summary of the City Council public hearin . a. In favor: Patrick Connor,Providence Properties: Stephanie Hopkins,KM Engineering b. In opposition:None c. Commenting: Sue Ropski d. Written testimony:None e. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen f. Other Staff commenting on application:None 2. Key issue(s)of public testimony: a. Concern pertaining to the frontage road and height of the proposed structures. 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by City Council: a. Concern pertaining to direction of potential legislation in regard to property taxes and hesitancy to move forward with this application until more information is known. Council moved to continue this application to April 13t'':public testimony will be limited to new information only. 4. City Council change(s)to Commission recommendation. a. None VIII. EXHIBITS A. Master Plan Conceptual Rendering&Medical Campus Conceptual Development Plan-REVISED U:9.HIGH WAY 351CHINDEN BLVD. —-- PROPOSED PRE SCOTT -- MEDICAL CAMAUS I RIDGE MERIDIAN,IDAHn -CEMUA45UUI-7OCW- --- FuTAE ICHOOL —-- � — SITE - IIIi� III �_ f L aLt H12V 0 0 FuTu RE OAKS NORTH SUBDIVISION Page 25 Page 32 Item#2. Xote.--Ahhoffgh tree lined trees.are depieted-,Va4Avqjw with detaehed sidewaflff are not l9r-oposed Page 26 Page 33 Item#2. Concept Plan#2 (including out par-eel)(dated: 1/19/21l: SITE INFORMATION W.CHINNEN VLVV, SITE u1FA: �9.1+ E6(Tt U.l445F7 wPPEHT MNINO: PUT PAAYFM 204K PAR(FAST.NEST,SOUTHI/4,R L-6(Pomu) �e�•s, .•V,.�._ r -UML- ,G•DGG 6F s STORY -IBI.R00 Y POMWI REWIRED: NIIDIHG--561.W 5F ui sRxss ~ — � vARgRG vR0'ulGm. 596 SPAGes �J Q m L C SI_ - VV SETBACxS fRR Cam: F1RCM C'RmLIRm 1 1' R C. mLIRm �.1 jIIIIII11L� III LLLLnI � s.11lllllllflllllllllll .— _ _ E crnyDi�aoR> :rR RmLlrm - Rnp ATE ENi;u�r£ 5T(I—n LORR7 h vmLl+SU "L y x/bcuT,x,T TJi RE51LEry X 2 5 REOI.IRED Q ~— Rax 9ylµa'xG uop1T: Gs 2 aRpW6E6 BYILYIxL HEIGHT: �M..v 4, x05RTAf =NDoea eL¢6�Y�rrnRc o� _ _ I RR OV LII — — I urooaR earn i"jkin LflTTTMfi t)111 l l l l I I I I RiI I. Pt}mti[o•.mnox vo R uwulzlz..iu_u I E N G 1 N E F AI I IN G - nw•E�®via Ex.z.o IR I I I I �WF66~N D s� w 7 1500 450 Plan I..smle=1"=15 I50' ��calkY mra6r66 Page 27 Page 34 Item#2. B. Annexation&Zoning Legal Descriptions and Exhibit Maps C—G HRJING LEGEND — — —— — n Er —k-15 I I RUT o 70 ti °ma m R-1� o� I rF _ I R-15 RUT }+ I I �• km ' R—8 � I R-S 1 OF 1d J R 4 R+ RUT _ — — `L7 6 300 607 R-8 R A plan scale::"=7nr Page 28 Page 35 Item#2. km E H G P N E E R I N G Decemf]er 17,2020 Project No.18.140 FAhibit A Legal Description for Annexation Presrotk Ridge SabdMOon A parmI of land situated In a portion of the West 112 of the Northeast 1/4 and a pprllorr of the West 1/2 of Section 29,Township 4 North,Range 1 West, Doise Meridlan,Ada County,ldaha and heing mare particularly described as follows: Connrnerncing at an aluminum cap marking the Northwest corner said Sectlim 28, which bears N89'27'17"W a distance of 2,609.40 fleet frorn art aFumirtum cap marking the North 1/4 cornerof said Section 28, thence following the northerly line of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 28, S89'27 L7"E A distance of 1,464-69 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, 7hence following said northerly liner 589'27'17"E a distance of 1,124.74 feet to said aluminurn Cap marking the North 114 corner; Thence leaving said northerly line of said Northwest 114 and fellowirr�the northerly Ilne of the Northeast 1/4 of said Section 2B,599'25'25"E a distance Of GO-00 feet to a point; Thence leaving said northerly Ilne,SM"43'55"W a distance of 558.89 feet to a point; Thence S89`24'23"E a distance of 1,24E.58 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar on the easterly Ilre of the West 112 of the Northeast 1/4 of said Section 28; 7herlte fol Iowia8 said easterl'y liner S00`36'13'W a distance of 1,615.76 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar; Thence Iming said easterly line, N77-58'17"W a distance of 1,MZ2 feet to a 518•inch rebaran the easterPy line of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 28; Thence following said easterly IIr~e, SW"43'55'W a distance of 625.95 feet to 2-inch plpe marking the Center 1/4 of said Section 28; Thence la2virxg said easterly line,S00'43r5:V W a distance of 24.35 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar; Thence S53'05'530W a distance of 16.53 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar, Thence N78'07'38"VV a distance of 19.68 feet to a 5/8--inch rebar; Thence 589%8'46"Wa distance of45.49 Beet to a 5/8-inch rebar; Thence N96"i4'4! Ord a distance of 63.62 feet to a 5/Sinch rebar; Thence N88'50'04"W a distance of 85.57 feet to a 5/8-inch rebiar; Thence N80'59'54'VV a distance of 36.99 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar; Thence N70`77'41"4N a distance of 25.64 Beet to a 5J8-�inch rebar; Thence S89'15r0TW a distance of 20,04 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar; 7henoe N86'53'33"W a distance of 189,53 feet to a 5/8-Inch rebar; Thence 564'04'03"W a distarkee Of 27.64 feet to a 5/8•inch rebar; Thence N89`14'25"UV a distance of 784.53 feet to a point; -thence M0X5Z'21"E a distance of 16-96 feet to a point being the Center West 1/16 corner of said Section 28- Thence fallowing the southerly Ilne of:he Northwest 1/4 of said Section 28, N89'21'12"w a dlsoxie of 686.03 feet to a point; Thence leaving said southerly line,N01'00'37"E a distance of 400.00 feet to a paint; 9233 West Sta#s Street a 1WJl e,pdohiu S3714 . 208.539.6939 + kmvngllp.corn Page 29 Page 36 Item#2. Thence N89'21'12"W a dlStanoe of 625_i30 feet to a paint on the westerly line of the Northwest 1/4 of Bald Section 28; Thenge following said westerly line,lK01'00'37"E a distance of 690-74 feet tP a po I nt; Thence leaving said westerly line,573'33'16%a Clistarice of 493_S0 feet to a paint; Thence 578'OS'16"E a distance of 589.77 feet to a paint; Thence S46'Sfi`01"E a distance of 299,29 feet to a point Thence N75'51'12"E a distance of 48.41 Feet to a poilit Thence No0'52'17"E a distarweof 21S-98fe2t to a 1f2•inch rebar; Thence N7V32'13"E adistweof272AGfeet to a 1/2-inch rebar; Thence 30-59 feet along the arc of a=ircular curve to the left,said curve having a radius of 45.00 feet,a delta angle of 38'56'33",a r=hord bea-ing of N75'32'13"E and a chord dlistam*of 30.00 fleet to a 1/2-inch rebar; The nee N7532'13"E a distance of 219.13 feet to a 1/2-inch rebar; The rice NQO'32'13"E a distance of 1,497.29 feet to a 1/2-inch rebar, Thence S6-9'18'13ffW a distance of 270.56 feet to 2 1/2-Inch rebar; Thence N31'55'35°W d distance of$=_73 feet to a paint; Thence 53.14 feet along the are of a circular curve to the right,said Curve hawing a radius of 115.00 feet, a delta angle of 26'28'39 ,a chard bearing of N 18'41`13"W and a chord dicta nco.of 52.57 feet t4 a 5/9- inch rebar; Thence No0'32'43"E a distance of 125.29 feet to the POINT 4F UEGINKING- Said parcel contains a total of 128.207 acres,more or less_ Attached hereto Is Exhibit B and bV this reference is hereby made a part of. 12459 s OF % Client Project Name PAGE Page 30 Page 37 Item#2. o ALI11iINllM CAP p r POINT Or REGINNING N 1/4 CORNER t- BASIS 6F 8€ARING SECTION 28 ❑ _ 20 21 W.Chinden BW{Hwy 20/26i CL M _ _S89'27'17'E 2609,48' L7 29 28 ��E14,66' — — 1124.74' — — - _ — _ 'o U c m POINT OF COMMENCEMENT = NwuMINUM CORNER P �iD 0, sa0-4.3'55"w O SMION 28 658.60 :/1 N rl m r` SW24'2S'E 1248.58' U) 2 Z < s E m CL` fV C 4 J O M� fl 250 5C0 1004 ° v r-tx u1 3: o LLJ a SCALL: 1"=544' Annexation Aran 198-207#AC. 8 S0428233640,R5991222210,S0428120950, S7v'33'Ie SO428131315,SO428131200,RE9 9 12 2 210 1&SO428211102 o Ala Current Zonfng:RUT dQj �0' S78'pg•Ts E t17 N t° v �8.77• 1.1fi Ci � Q d M1 d Q DATE OEEEPABERmo PRO KT: U-M Na Q 113, SHEETIDF 2 a CENTE�Y-WESr }{16 DORNER OF SECTION 28 2- PIPE CENTER OF SECTION 28 NS9.2l'l2"'h' ,/ km SECTION 28 r LID �gy~ J' ENGINEERS-SURYEYOAS.AINdNERS 5233 VK5T STRTESTREET L}] L2 EIOISEr 1D MO 83714 �L12 L7 LB PNON[I2061('-039 `` —— —L4 FA%i708163Sk930 Page 31 Page 38 Item#2. a � v � LINE TABLE LINE TABLE � o LINE I BEARING I DISTANCE LINE BEARING DISTANCE w Ll 889'25'25"E 60.00 L15 NO'52'17"E 215.95 ' Q L2 $743'51'W 24.35 L16 N7532'131 272.40 i.3 553'05'5314 16.53 L17 N7532'13"E 219-13 L4 N76'07'3B1Y 18.68 Lib 56g'18'13'41' 270.56 115 S8918'46'W 45.49 L19 N31'55'3516 91.73 RP1 Z z L6 N96'14'49"W 63-62 L20 NO'32'43"E 125.2906 t L7 NBS'50'0419 85.57 N L9 N80'59'54"W 36.69 sr 2 1-9 N7927'4114 25.64 41 O N di L10 589't 5'00'14 20.04 W Lo � - 9 Li H6B'S3'39'W 169.$3 I.- CLJ f L12 S94"04'03'1M 27.e4 O ,n L13 O52'21"E 696 a 1 Lt4 al O !Z +r Q q CURVE TABLE DATE- DECEMEIER 2020 CURVE RADIUS LENGTH DELTA CHORD BRG CHORD PROJECT-. - G1 45.00' 30.69' 30'56'33' N7932'13'E 30.00' SHEET: C2 115.U0' 53.14' 2E26'39' N18'4l'13"W 52.67' 2 OF 2 km monvigmizoul." ENGINEERS.SUNY&YM.PANNER5 9233 WEST STATE 5T K7 B0I54IDAHDB3714 PHONE12061639-5939 FAIT I0a1639 6M Page 32 Page 39 Item#2. km E Nr,; I N F E Ir I N G December 17.2020 Project N.D.18-140 Exhibit A Legal Description for Rezpae tt C-G Prostott Ridge Subdivision A parcel of land situated in a portion of Northwest 1/4 and a portion of the West 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 of Settiorl�8,Tow nshlp 4 North, Range i West,liaise Meridian,Ada County,Idaho and being more particularly descrl bed as follows: Commencing at an aluminum Cap marking the Northwest corner said Section 28, which bears N89*27'17"W a distance of 2,609.40-eet from an aluminum cap marking the North 114 WrMr of said SeCtlon 2e, thence follavring the northerly fine of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 28, M'27'17^E a distance of 1,484.66 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Thence following Bald northerly Hine,S39'27'17"E a dicta nce of 1,124.74 Feet to said aluminum cap making the North 1/4 corner; Thence leaving said northerly line and following the easterly line of said Northwest 3{4r S00'43'55"W a distance of 586.55 feet t0 a 112-Inch rebar, Thence leavIng said easterly Ifne,5S9'?5'31"E a distance of 27.44 feet to a point; Thence S00'34'290W a distance of 397,44 Feet to a point; Thence N&9`25'31"Wa distance of826.54 feet to a paint; Thence NW32'13"E a distance of 837.62 feet to a 1/2-Inch relmr, Thence 569'18'13"W a distance of 270-56 feet tc a 1/2-inch rebar; Thence N31`55'35"1N a distance of 81.73 feet to a point Thence 53.14 feet alogg the arc of a circular curve tin the right,said Curve haYing a radius of 115.00 feet a delta angle of 26'28'39",a chord bearing of N18'41'IrW arid a chard dlstanee of 52.67 feet to a 5/9- inch rebar; Thence M00'3243"E a dista rice of 125.29 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Sold parcel contains a total of 19.952 acres,more or less. Attached hereto is Exhibit Band by this reference is hereby made a part of, 9z"Welt Stow 5k w a Mise,Idaho 93714 . 208.639.6939 mr rip 11p-cvm Page 33 Page 40 Item#2. D d EV t � 3 ❑ POINT OF BD'IHHING W.Chin hd den B (Hwy 20126) ALUMINUM CAP WN 1/4 CORNER BASIS OF BEARING �S1;CT10N 28 20 21 _ _ S99'27'17"E 20o9.4o' Q 29 28 48@"27'WE 1464.66' 3424.74' � G4 NOG 32'43 LA"f 0 7 ❑ 125.2E1' a,, v N31'55'351V Q 06 01.73' u°Vi Z3 4 CC a Rezone Area: 19.$5±AC. -I-, n, 50428211202,R6991222101,R6991222210(Portron), 0 ,n 50428220950{Pdrtiany,S0428120640{portion} o a IT— &5042813120a(Porti x L z � Current Zoning:RUT W v N Proposed Zoning:C•G 4 d � o � a M S8725'31'E 41 17.44' I DATE: DECE>a(�ER T010 Z f+ CURVE TABLE PNOIFCT; 18300 CURVE 1 RAIDIUS LENGTH DELTA CH RID RRG CHORE) SHEET: 1 OF 1 Cl 115.00' 53A4' 21m-39- NIB-41.13-W 52.87' 'v i � H89'25'31"1V 828.54' F�-yy EEYY y� ENfiBYEEA3.SIlINEY0R5.PGNINEAS 0 100 200 4Q0 1 9233WE5T5TATE5T0EET 0mc OAH0 83714 PHONE 1M)E396939 SCALE: 1'=200° FAX W81B39593Q Page 34 Page 41 Item#2. km E N G I N E E R I N G April 7,2020 Project No.18-140 Exhibit A Legal Description for Rezone to R-8 Prescott Ridge Subdivision A parcel of land situated in a portion of the West 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 and a portion of the West 1/2 of Section 28,Township 4 North, Range 1 West,Boise Meridian,Ada County, Idaho and being more particularly described as follows. Commencing at an aluminum cap narking the Northwest corner said Section 28, which (sears N89'27'17"W a distance of 2,609.40 feet from an aluminum cap marking the North 1/4 corner of said Section 28, thence following the northerly line of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 28, S89'27'17"E a distance of 2,609.40 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Thence following the northerly line of the Northeast 1/4 of said Section 28,S89°2525"E a distance of 60.00 feet to a point; Thence leaving said northerly line,S00'43'55"W a distance of 658.89 feet to a point; Thence S89'24'23"E a distance of 1,248.58 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar on the easterly line of the West 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 of said Section 29; Thence fallowing said easterly line,S00'36'13"W a distance of 1,615.76 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar; Thence leaving said easterly line, N77`58'17"W a distance of 1,338.12 feet to a 5/8-inch rehar an the easterly line of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 28; Thence following said easterly line, SO743'55"W a distance of 625.95 feet to 2-inch pipe marking the Center 1/4 of said Section 28; Thence leaving said easterly line,S00'43'51"W a distance of 24.35 feet to a 5/8-inch rehar; Thence S53"05'53"W a distance of 16.53 feet to a 5/8-inch rehar; Thence N78"07'38"W a distance of 19.68 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar; Thence S89"18'46"W a distance of 45.49 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar; Thence N86'14'49"W a distance of 63.62 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar; Thence N88'50'04"W a distance of 85.57 feet to a 5/8-inch rehar; Thence N80'59'54"W a distance of 36.69 feet to a 5/8-inch rehar; Thence N70'27'41"W a distance of 25.64 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar; Thence S89'15'00"W a distance of 20.04 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar; Thence N86'53'39"W a distance of 189.53 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar; Thence S64'04'03"W a distance of 27.64 feet to a 5/8 inch rebar; Thence N89'14'25"W a distance of 799.53 feet to a point; Thence N00°52'21"E a distance of 16.96 feet to a point being the Center West 1/16 corner of said Section 28; Thence following the southerly line of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 28, N89'21'12"W a distance of 686.03 feet to a point; Thence leaving said southerly line,ND1'00'37"E a distance of 400.00 feet to a point; Thence N89'21'12"W a distance of 625.00 feet to a point on the westerly line of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 28; Thence following said westerly line,ND1"00'37"E a distance of 690.74 feet to a point; 9233 West State Street • Boise,Idaho 83714 • 20-8.639,6939 • kmenglip.com Page 35 Page 42 Item#2. Thence leaving said westerly line,S71"33'16"E a distance of 483.50 feet to a point; Thence S78'08'16"E a distance of 589.77 feet to a point; Thence 545"56'01"E a distance of 299.29 feet to a paint; Thence N75'51'12"E a distance of 4&41 feet to a paint; Thence NOO°52'17"E a distance of 21598 feet to a 1/2-inch rebar; Thence N75°32'13"E a distance of 272AO feet to a 1/2-inch rebar; Thence 30.59 feet along the arc of a circular curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 45.00 feet, a delta angle of 38"56'33",a chord bearing of N75'32'13"E and a chord distance of 30.00 feet to a 1/2-inch rebar; Thence N75'32'13"E a distance of 219.13 feet to a 1/2-inch rebar.- Thence N00'32'13"E a distance of 659.67 feet to a point; Thence 589`25'31"E a distance of 279.95 feet to a point; Thence SOW34'29"W a distance of 420.05 feet to a point; Thence 589'25'31"E a distance of 27160 feet to a point; Thence.82.73 feet along the arc of a circular curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 150.00 feet, a delta angle of 31°3b'09",a chord bearing of S73"37'27"E and a chard distance of 81.69 feet to a point; Thence S57'49'22"E a distance of 138.82 feet to a point; Thence 275.78 feet along the arc of a circular curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 500.00 feet, a delta angle of 31`36'09",a chord bearing of N16'22'33"E and a chord distance of 272.30 feet to a point; Thence NOD"34'29"E a distance of 233.13 feet to a point; Thence 589'25*31"E a distance of496.43 feet to a point; Thence ND4°36'19"E a distance of 294.85 feet to a point; Thence 1\189°24'23"W a distance of 496.59 feet to a point; Thence NOO°34'29"E a distance of 122.33 feet to a point; Thence N89°25'31"W a distance of 17.44 feet to a point on the easterly Me of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 28; Thence following said easterly line, NOO'43'55"E a distance of 586.55 Beet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said parcel contains a total of 99.532 acres, more or less. Attached hereto is Exhibit B and by this reference is hereby made a part of. - 1 ` I S T �- m 124 C OF % B Ilk Client Project Name PAGE 12 Page 36 Page 43 Item#2. POINT OF BEGINNING O ALUMINUM CAP 0 — N i/4 CORNER i SECTION 28 20 21 8A515 OF BEARING W,Chinden Blvd{Hwy 20/26) CL — —SB9'27'17"E 2609.40' L1 m p POINT OF COMMENCEMENT — — C' m Q ALUMINUM CAP 00 Q S00'43'55"W 1 SE14W CORNER 658.89' V1 N SECTION 28 u� ED �O °�' s L24 S89'24'23"E 124B.58' N V O Ln z z 1 L23 L22 S89'25'31"E ,h ro4 279.95' I 1 � p C S89'25'31"E a — .� 496.43' *—' a-' u 0 250 500 1000 0; m 2 -x VI O el w O m 61 N M SCALE: 1"=500' �, $ LIB w a O N 7y O N Z S77.33 B" Z C2 o a} 4a ' e Rezone Area:99.53±AC. "' t v so s7608'1s 01 50428233640,R6991222210(Portion),50428120950(Portion), Enc° V 589.77' Ctrs C1 SO428131315&SO428131200(Portion) a o A �2 Current Zoning:RUT `O S4611,56'01"E Proposed Zoning:R-8 DATE: APRIL 2020 299.29' �}k PROJECT. 18-140 N89'21'12"W N77-5817.W 133 SHEET: 625.00' w In tn 8.12' 1 OF Z b M O In In N a o p CENTER-WEST 1/16 CORNER o o OF SECTION 28 2" PIPE o g — CENTER OF SECTION 28 ` z N89'21'12"W 686.03' BRASS CAP L13 N89'14'25"W 789.53' _ — Ion W 1/4 CORNER ' SECTION 2S Jf�Tr L10 �q LS ENGINEERS.SURVEYORS.PLANNERS 9233 WEST STATE STREET 8015E,IDANC 83714 \_L12L71 L7 Lfi 1-2 PHCNE(209)639-6939 L3 FAx{206)639-6930 Page 37 Page 44 Item#2. o CL LINE TABLE LINE TABLE 0 f0 u LINE BEARING DISTANCE UNE BEARING DISTANCE C o L1 589'25'25"E 60.00 L15 NO'52'17"E 215.98 CO Q� � L2 S0'43'51"W 24.35 Lib N7532'13'E 272.40 m L3 S53'05'53W 16.53 L17 N75'32'13% 219.13 �0 f0 r L4 N7B'07'38"W 19.68 LIB 589'25'31"E 275.80 iz -Q cr L5 S89'18'4B W 45.49 L19 S57'49'22'E 138.82 O L/1 Z Z L6 N86'14'49"W 83.62 L20 NO'34'29"E 233.13 0J (D N UD o0 L7 NBW50'04'W 55.57 L21 NO'35'19'E 294.95 o ry LB N80'S9'54"W 38.69 L22 NB9'24'23'W 496.59 m O } +� u L9 N70'27'41"W 25.64 L23 NO'34'29'E 122.33 O N L10 S89.15'00'W 20.04 L24 N59'25'31'W 17.44 L Ln o X L11 N86'53'39'W 189.53 L25 NO'43'55"E 556.55 LLI a N L Y \ L12 56404'03"W 27.64 � N C L13 140'S2'21"E 16.96 O L14 NIU51-12-E 48.41 r m O C a + Q o CURVE TABLE DA1E: APRIL2M CURVE RADIUS LENGTH DELTA CHORDBRG CHORD ➢ROIECIC: �euD Cl 45.00' 30.59' 3856'33' N75'3243'E 30.00 SHEET: C2 150.00' 62.73' 31'36'09' S73'3727'E 81.59 Z OF 2 C3 500.00' 275.78' 31'36'09" Ni6'22'33'E 272.30' I= ENGINEERS.SURVEVORS.PIANNM 9233 WESTSTATESTREET MISE,IDAH083114 FAX(2DR rv2WN 6 9 P I 39-69309 Page 38 Page 45 Item#2. km E N G I N E E R I N G April 7,2020 Project No.18-140 Exhibit A Legal Description for Rezone to R-15 Prescott Ridge Subdivision A parcel of land situated in a portion cf Northwest 1/4 and a portion of the West 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 28,Township 4 North,Range 1 West,Boise Meridian,Ada County, Idaho and being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at an aluminum cap marking the Northwest corner said Section 28, which bears N89"27'17"W a distance of 2,609.40 feet from an aluminum cap marking the North 114 corner of said Section 28, thence following the northerly line of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 28, S89°27'17"E a distance of 2,078.14 feet to a point; Thence leaving said northerly line,500°43'55"W a distance of 983.71 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Thence S89"25'31"E a distance of 546.59 feet to a point; Thence N00'34'29"E a distance of 275.11 feet to a point; Thence S89'24'23"E a distance of 496.59 feet to a point; Thence 500436'19"W a distance of 294.85 feet to a point; Thence N89°25'31"W a distance of 496.43 feet to a point; Thence 500`34'29"W a distance of 233.13 feet to a point; Thence.275.78 feet along the arc of a circular curve to the right,said curve having a radius of 500.00 feet, a delta angle of 31'36'09",a chord bearing of 516°22'33"W and a chord distance of 272.30 feet to a point; Thence N57°49'22"W a distance of 138.82 feet to a point; Thence 82.73 feet along the arc of a circular curve to the left,said curve having a radius of 150_OD feet,a delta angle of 319V)9",a chord bearing of N73°37'27"W and a chord distance of 81.69 feet to a point; Thence N89'25'31"W a distance of 275.60 feet to a point; Thence N00'34'29"E a distance of 420.05 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, Said parcel contains a total of 8.822 acres,more or less. Attached hereto is Exhibit 3 and by this reference is hereby made a part of. 4 � 12459 g OF Z. 9233 West State street Boise,Idaho 83714 * 208.639.6939 kmengllp.com Page 39 Page 46 Item#2. m a ALUMINUM CAP T r N 1/4 CORNER m + BASIS OF BEARING W.Chinden Blvd(Hwy 20/26) 1 SECTION 28 =3 20 21 _ S69-27'17"E 2609.40' / O 0 29 26 2078.14' — — — — — C a -a ,j _d o ¢ � a � POINT OF COMMENCEMENT ALUMINUM CAP �O : c NW CORNER I — — SECTION 2B w 0) O m i S89'24'23'E 496.59' — — — r4 '^ d GC `pcc O M e rn m y Z V 4� o Ln n I M > o I,//r POINT OF BEGINNING N r' � z X N S89'25'31"E 546.59' v Y L Rezone Area: 8.82±AC. i N89'25'31 W 496.43' p O c Z o R6991222210(Portion)& �, M Y o 0 50428120950(Portion) M Current Zoning:RUT a ¢ w Proposed Zoning:R-15 � I I DATE: APRIL 2020 N PROJECTS 18-140 M d I SHEET: Z I 1OF1 U N69'25'31'1N 275.60' C2 CURVETABLF N57'49'22"W 0 100 200 400 lam CURVE RADIUS LENGTH DELTA CHORD BRG CHORD 138'82 C1 5ao.00' 275.78' 31'36'09" S1622'33W 272,30' I SCALE: 1"=200' ENGINEERS.SURVEYORS.PLANNERS sTATr STREET C2 150.00' 82.73' 31'36'09' N7337'27W 81.69' 9z33wes'DAHO83714 BOiSE,IOAH083714 PHONE(208)53M939 FAX(203)53M930 Page 40 Page 47 Item#2. C. Preliminary Plat(date: 912812020 10,121 20 i i 20,/ 12/22/20),Phasing Plan u.Lot r .,, ou4 Exhibit- REVISED _ Y1GRm FNP:iLL PRESCOTT PRELIMINARY PLAT SHOWING Z — —~—� I w.allorN o<va A PARCEL OF LAND 5I7UA7EP INAPpRT19N OF THE NpRTHEAST 114 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 O F S ECTI O N 28,TOWNSHIP 4 NORTH, RANGE 1 WESi,MSL MLRI DIAN,ADA COUNTY.IDAHO f 1 K """•„' � 'ram ._�__ I OPEN SPATE LOTAREM ttnr am T".w :aCi 63 wh 08 _ _- i:':g:a.. -....,...... a .❑ tie: m a � ..- .. ,. ,.m.,��, ;5;;®® B a 1 m @ m�o ® } ® ai ® 3I::EI3!r;,;E:F?' m � B v B a `` ... •., ::"AI 7.N SPA:: 6 2:: _"6: 1L ® @ ® •• I PRESCCFTE RIOGESUBDIVIMON MERIDIAN,IDARO all @ 9 $F7 9 ®S;•.. a B E:1 0 i ® @ @ ®@ O C7 Oi Tj '`S ,km _r�in.r�zw,n �• PPLO LL Page 41 Page 48 Item#2. r .r4 o. (r �J•irY�,y .'& ^O O� sly b �': ® � �'�� f �� ..,© .r 1 �2 LAVdUT PLAN l', .:.�L I�a' •��n .4--I.'�� AHE5CUUMDUE 5U9oN15 IbAHD I ` 1 bt•TMfuN MATCH LINE 2.1 SHEET PP2.2 ® 1 \ - Ymil.-:�. V yII k T 1 ® ® BESCD7 FIDGE SUBDIV151py p A ® d ® _ O ➢ Q E7 a O �' m _ D MERIDIAN,ICAHO LAYOUT PLAN r --1 ...PP2.3 .. Page 42 Page 49 Item#2. _---.... — 0 . . •, ,, ., p , . ... 5-�--MATC�LfN��S�E3NEET PP2.3. ® .. 1 .� ` �� -•. r S® ------------------ ® k, . . :•: : '� o e n.•.••.• MATCH LINE•SEE SHEETPP2.1— �,:��;�;;;_;;;�;_;_; , � �.+ T LAY�VT PLRN rti.•.•..-..-. � ' - - - - 1 APcH ♦ n -q ... m AA2~�.. N�9.i//L. ��le- A"'•�'�°i�..�.ti/ �r arm w.'r" '•� BESWT F RIDGE SIIDDIVISI^ �rnnu _ . .: 71,2.2 1 1 ml f� zl 1 x al f� �1 It �1 Ig NI IN L44 � i RI -------------- MATCH LINE-SEE SHEET PP2.4 _ ---, — ----1 RESCOTT MIDGE SUBDIVISION� f MEND IMI,ID4HO f ® jp ' 5 m - E. i t ii MATCH LINE•SEE SHEET PPL2 4c PP2.3 g Page 43 Page 50 Item#2. -----f--.--------.-f��- 1 , Ir r r r� r i ' I ' I a' F ' I I ' I r � r ' I [t 1 i - Page 44 Page 51 PHASE BUILDABLE E, LC TS 77-f 65 T2 44 3 41 4 43 z 5 41 Q 6 1 37 2:2 PHASE 1 7 39 a 46 z 9 14 f z :E TOTAL UUILL)AULE 370 x LOTS 'PHA. E. PHASE......... u i pIASF LLJ7 km IN 0 1 N I I I I G EL ITIASE 3 �77771777114LLLLQ� Plan Scale-1' 300' Page 45 Item#2. D. Landscape Plan(date: 4�7tivrrvrwzv i 0/9/2 20 11 n 940 12/22/20)-REVISED a_Wx P. 1• C � unm ..w 1 N r,c��r-•rt ww.ia�er. � E i� �—:---,----RISA ....�.��'� w--r MalA I� u - •*P: —n -_�L { xuA r.. 'W'OIL I PEN 5WE i EES —J R$Md � h � �. ISY�E7, t11E[[wILUL4fi[xi5 f1TREV311f�• �. �. -_ 4�� , f " t •.° PATH AY G4ICLIAilON.5 - ;� - •� CJ..A r r 1 Y d • � nri n in- •I+ r .S s,l' `'� mtuT�.a�euEa�GuuEo 1' - s - r 'MrrG/fi*I KAYIILEMWry To ALTa a i mrumnne o+uoeo PF&SM17 HIOGE SUSDFVISIFM y-•: -_ IK+A WRIOMN,IPAH4 c a 1 � - r � . r ,� r• s I .. u _ ° as u�o�uncrana llEe. ._ mrracR Mror.Ho� LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN —�� vvL1A Page 46 Page 53 Item#2. twl'+ri -- - ---•�.... i � �ii17Yriz4rs • i ' I �■ I 1 1 { I 7 � Ir L � • � 'Fr w,�-e � � ._=pia=_____ !-• I �. ��aRR-T� � TF•IwE ! i �—� { +_�~ •� f� -�Sti ` � - a ��a• sat •rf le � 1'*14MI4-* IIFS 1 Ak T • • F��Y wllt■ e•{l ti1Y1lia ��' �•• ", —_ Cl m � i y 5.7 1+ li' i • I; ,1 t 4_ i -- ■ I+ulr Page 47 Page 54 Item#2. _ n+ -----_-+. --- ------------------ _ ' i Ir �� ia4� 1 � • ��1 ,,r :I : i sa� 1 ylh � • 4J F` * it • `�} f + I � ` + �1 'ram �. + � • - - --• - I i ti�ti r� rr • • f --_.aui-i i-.Fa �• ' r' ' a 1 �' • .-a—a a�a-ai�-o • ` F + r � as a •1r��.. u: • terra arr�--_ I 1 LR�tiW L---------- -------------------------- J. �a 1 � 1' a� Page 48 Page 55 Item#2. Ftl...tl 1 W.sarr• ----��__ f — _ 1 1 1 • � 9 Page 49 Page 56 Item#2. E. Qualified Open Space Exhibit& Site Amenities(dated: Q"6"^ '0 9/2# ' 12/22/20)—REVISED PRESCOTT RIDGE SUBDIVISION F E MNANYP TOPENSPACEOATA °�"�'�`°" OPEN SPACE EXHIBIT a a a J • "°" a R ®B • Ilr o a a B i ® aBB® !� ®1 • B TO MA ENWACE ® uva� •• B®� � ® • • � •B® 4 ®® � i_fro-�..-wu w+�m vu awx a Ba®® ••a e n a Y I.�. ® a• ® e a s B e I a e I ® ®m m a � ®w••®e•w a n w B e B® ® mp a� a -- _ i °®o a. . ®.... ® e ® e• a ® B • RESCOTT RIDGE SII&DIVISION • •••B B •••B a ® ® m A'®®�d • MERIDIAN,IDAHD ut km OPEN SPACE EXHIBIT Page 50 Page 57 Item#2. AMEWHES v � ' A-POOL ANO CLU HOUSE TI- Yll=*+rU 136USf BU I LOING ..----- - ,� 54'83LPPOOL _ 17 PARKING SPACES r Ll B-L-ARGETOT lOT 4 - C-SMALL'TOT LOT D DOGPARYJPOCKET PART( PRESCOT'I- E-OPEN SPACE F•MEW RIDGE G-PROPERTY MANAGEMENT MERIDIAN,IDAHO -. E OFFICE.ENCLOSED BIKE STORAGE,CENTRAL ,�Iy F MAI=X CW5TER,AND „ti B I �I� -- ILL DIRECTORY MAP .....//1 A SCHEMATIC CLUBHOUSE — -j I' g LARGETOTLOT t T' SMALL TOT LOT pOG PARKIPOCKET PARK Page 51 Page 58 Item#2. F. Parking Plan(dated:4/8/20 10/21/2020)—REVISED -- • ��. _ a� ----��- litilli I S 1 I P4XIWG IN FROM}W I IVHL.:IS I I �- a 6 4 g� 4 �., L 111 •.•.•.•.•.:•:.... _ W J �- 7 1ttt 3 8 RR- 7 - -- ny I a OM HOMES PAFmING I ¢ 9 ,3 9 - � 3 � ��•�� lti�� - _ 6 E 5 km 3 5 6 5 3 3 3 e a -— F M13ut�tElN 3 16 I 10 � e PARKING t MIT szacieoFunvuWnc Page 52 Page 59 Item#2. G. Conceptual Building Elevations/Perspectives-REVISED SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ` I RIDGE MEY CIA•NRlk] TOWNHOMES FOUR-PLEX FLATS Nor- jp pppl NMI i S 1 Page 53 Page 60 Item#2. Three-story Hospital Watercolor Rendering _ Mimi IIIIIIIIIIIIN.— MERIDIAN HOSPITAL A_=X MERIDIAWDAHO HCA-4L W.M2' Healthcare" Page 54 Page 61 Item#2. H. Parcel Status Exhibit IandproDATA Parcel Status Exhibit R6991222101 -Wheaton Legal parcel as a platted lot SO428211102- Roark within Peregrine Heights Legal parcel per e-mail Subdivision and e-mail from from Brent Danielson Brent Danielson dated e dated 8.26.19. 8.26.19• wy 20 W Chinden Blvd r SO428120640- Providence Illegal parcel,but will become ACHD z right-of-way per Christy Little e-mail dated 11.6.19. R6991222210- Roark Legal parcel as a platted SO428131200-School lot within Peregrine Illegal parcel,but included Heights Subdivision. with this application to S0428233640- Hon rectify illegal status. Legal parcel per e-mail from Brent Danielson dated 9.5.19. ❑ 0 SO428120950&SO428131315- Kuenzli House parcel is legal. �i Remainder is illegal,but will be rectified SO428233620-Thomson qh by this application. Legal parcel per e-mail from Brent Danielson q3°39'13.74"dated 9.5.19. N 115°27'15.48"W — Map cats 02019 Aug 25,2019-IandproDATA.com The materials available at this website are for informational Scale:1 inch approx 600 feet purposes only and do not constitute a legal document. Page 55 Page 62 Item#2. IX. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION commercial,The conceptual development plan for the C G zoned portion of the site, shall be- Fevised and submitted to the City C!eF!i at least 4 0 days p4or to the City Couneil hearing FeReet eonfor-manee with the following guidelines in the COMPFehensive Plan for-Mixed Use • The buildings in the commercial C G zoned portion of the deVelopment shall be arranged to er-eate some form of >usable RFea, parks,the mixed use guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan (pg.3 43)-. not limited to plazas, > open space,libraries,—and— shall be provided in the Mixed Use designated portion of the site; outdoor seating areas-at annexation area does not satisfy this mquiventent as it is notpar4 o the AKmed U-se designate • Development of the Mixed Use designated area shall be eentered around spaees that are well designed publie and quasi pubfie eenteFs of aetivity. Spaees should be aetivated and ineor-porate permanent design elements and amenities that fosteF a Wide Variety o interests ranging&om leisure to play. These areas should be thoughtfully integrated in • The 4 story medieal office building proposed at the southeast eorner of the commere development shall be shifted to the HOFth to f-Font on the main eHtFy drive aisle off N. Rustie Oak Way as a be�fte-r t-f-a-u-sition to the residenees to the south. • A eOMMeFeial land use type shall be ineluded on the plan in the MU R designated a retail, restaurants, 1. A Development Agreement(DA)is required as a provision of annexation of this property. At the Applicant's request,three(3) separate DA's shall be required for each component of the project—one for the R-8 and R-15 zoned residential portions of the development, one for the medical campus and another for the school district's parcel. Prior to approval of the annexation ordinance, Development Agreements shall be entered into between the City of Meridian,the property owner(s)at the time of annexation ordinance adoption, and the developer(s). Currently, a fee of$303.00 shall be paid by the Applicants to the Planning Division for each DA prior to commencement of the DA's. The DA's shall be signed by the property owner(s) and returned to the Planning Division within six(6)months of the City Council granting the annexation. The DA's shall, at minimum, incorporate the following provisions: a. R-8 and R-15 zoned portions of the development: 1. Future development of the R-8 and R-15 zoned portions of the site shall be generally consistent with the master plan,preliminary plat,phasing plan, landscape plan, qualified open space & site amenity exhibit, and conceptual building elevations included in Section VI11 and the provisions contained herein. Page 56 Page 63 Item#2. 2. Administrative design review shall be required for all single-family attached, townhome and multi-family structures. Compliance with the design standards for such listed in the Architectural Standards Manual is required. 3. The rear and/or side of structures on Lots 2-6,Block 4; Lots 2-7,Block 1; Lots 8 and 9- 15,Block 9; Lot 16,Block 7; Lot 2,Block 12; Lots 2-14,Block 10;Lots 2-16 and 29, Block 14; Lot 68, 70, 81-83, and 77-78,Block 12; and Lots 43 44, 75 42,45 and-79 67, Block 8 that face collector streets(i.e.N. McDermott Rd.,N. Rustic Oak Way and W. Ramblin St.), shall incorporate articulation through changes in two or more of the following: modulation(e.g.projections,recesses, step-backs,pop-outs),bays,banding, porches,balconies,material types, or other integrated architectural elements to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines that are visible from the subject public street. Single-story structures are exempt from this requirement. 4. A conditional use permit shall be obtained for a multi-family development in the R-15 zoning district as set forth in UDC Table 11-2A-2. The use is subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-27: Multi-Family Development. 5. One management company shall handle the leasing and maintenance of the entire multi- family development to ensure better overall consistent management of the development. 6. An electronic gate that is approved by the Fire Department shall be provided for access to Serenity Ln. from the south. 7. Noise abatement for the future SH-16 extension shall be provided in the form of a berm or a berm and wall combination parallel to N. McDermott Rd. constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3H-4D. b. Medical campus/hospital: 1. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the master plan,preliminary plat,phasing plan, landscape plan and conceptual building elevation included in Section VIII and the provisions contained herein. 2. Future development shall comply with the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and in the Architectural Standards Manual. 3. Noise abatement shall be provided in the form of a berm or a berm and wall combination parallel to W. Chinden Blvd./SH 2O-26 constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3H-4D. 4. A minimum 30-foot wide buffer with an 8-foot tall CMU wall shall be provided along the western and southern boundaries of the site adjacent to residential uses as proposed on the landscape plan in Section VIII.D. Dense landscaping consisting of a mix of evergreen and deciduous trees, shrubs, lawn or other vegetative ground cover that results in a barrier that allows trees to touch at maturity is required per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-9C. The block wall shall be decorative and have texture and a color complimentary to adjacent residential structures—plain CMU block is not allowed. 5. A frontage road parallel to W. Chinden Blvd./SH 2O-26 shall be constructed as depicted on the conceptual development plan in Section VIII.A in accord with UDC 11-3H- 4B.3e. 6. The hospital building shall be restricted to 3-stories in height as proposed. Page 57 Page 64 Item#2. 7. The entire first floor of the medical office building shall consist of retail and restaurant uses as proposed to provide a mix of uses as desired in the Mixed-Use designated area in accord with the Comprehensive Plan. 8. The final design of the site shall be consistent with the general Mixed Use and Mixed Use—Regional guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan(see pgs. 3-13 thru 3-15 and 3-18 thru 3-19). 9. The buffer along the west boundary of the site shall incorporate a 2-foot tall berm with an 8-foot tall wall on top of the berm to assist in blocking the noise from the commercial development if approved by the Peregrine Heights Homeowner's Association(HOA). If not approved by the HOA,the landscaping and wall shall be installed as depicted on the conceptual development plan. The City Council should determine if the proposed access to the hospital which provides emergency care from Chinden Blvd./SH 2O-26 via W. Rustic Oak Way meets the intent of the requirement in UDC 11-4-3-22A, which requires hospitals that provides emergency care to have direct access on an arterial street. If so, it should be memorialized in the Development Agreement. If not City, Cou ned may eensider a . ifi- cation to the .taHa,.Ua *.tpiet ,ah,,,..Hee; Hetfeasible as. a,,ter H a b,.00, G,,,,H Alternatively, Council may deny the emergency care component of the hospital use. ITD denied a request for direct access via Chinden Blvd. for the emergency care component of the hospital per the letter to the Applicant dated May 5, 2020 included in the public record. c. School Site: 1. The subject property shall develop with an education institution; any other uses shall require modification of this agreement. 2. A conditional use permit shall be obtained for an education institution in the R-8 zoning district as set forth in UDC Table 11-2A-2. The use is subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-14: Education Institution. 3. Future development shall comply with the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and in the Architectural Standards Manual is required. 2. The final plat(s) submitted for this development shall incorporate the following changes: a. Include a note that prohibits direct lot access via W. Chinden Blvd./SH 2O-26 unless otherwise approved by the City and the Idaho Transportation Department. b. Remove Lot 1, Blook 15 as it's AGHP right of way and cannot be pla#ed as a eefmnen . c. Depict cross-access/ingress-egress easements to adjacent MU-R designated properties to the west(Parcels#R6991221700 &R6991221600)and east(Parcel#R6991222101)in accord with UDC 11-3A-3A.2. e. Depict the easement(s)for the West Tap sub-lateral; if the easement(s)is greater than 10- feet in width, it should be placed in a common lot that is a minimum of 20-feet in width and outside of a fenced area,unless modified by City Council as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6E. fl. Re design the tev,%heme peftion of the d&velepmeat(i.e. Lots 16 79,Bleek 8)with pub] streets(alleys an&er-eammen driveways may be ineeFper-ated); or-,if pr-iv4e stFeets are Page 58 Page 65 Item#2. multi family development(i.e. ene stfuetidfe en ene pfepeft-y with 3 or-mof:e dwelling tinits) with townhome style tmits ffii�be a development option for this area. A revised eoneept plan shall be presented prior-to or at the Commission hearing for review and a revised plat Fefleeting this ehange shall be submitted at least 10 days PAOF tO the City Coun pFivate streets should be provided in accord with UDC 11 3F 1.Also,provide updated density ealeulaflons-. g. Lots 70-83,Block 12 in the multi-family portion of the development shall be revised to depict parking and access driveways on a common lot with an ingress-egress/parking easement for each buildable lot. A revised plat shall be submitted at least 40 days p to the City Couneff heaFiflg depieting this .Done h. Extend W. Smokejumper St. as a stub street to the out-parcel(Parcel#S0428233620) at the southwest corner of the site. 3. The landscape plan submitted with the final plat application shall be revised as follows: a. Depict a detail/cross-section of the berm or berm and wall combination required as noise abatement within the street buffer along W. Chinden Blvd./SH 2O-26 and N. McDermott Rd.; also address how the wall will be constructed to avoid a monotonous wall,that demonstrates compliance with the standards listed in UDC 11-3H-4D. . c. Depict a detached sidewalk/pathway(as applicable) along all collector streets(i.e.N. McDermott Rd.,N. Rustic Oak Way and W. Ramblin St.) and W. Chinden Blvd./SH 2O-26 in accord with UDC 11-3A-17.A detached 10 foot wide multi-use pathway is required within the street buffers along N. McDermott Rd., W. Chinden Blvd./SH 2O-26, the east side off. Rustic Oak Way and W. Ramblin St. d. Landscaping shall be depicted on either side of all pathways as set forth in UDC 11-313- 12C. e. If existing trees are proposed to be removed from the site,the Applicant shall coordinate with Matt Perkins,the City Arborist,to determine mitigation requirements per the standards listed in UDC 11-313-1OC.5. Mitigation information shall be included on the plan. If existing trees are proposed to be retained on site,they shall be depicted on the plan. f. A calculations table shall be included on the plan that demonstrates compliance with the landscape standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3E (common open space), 11-313-12C (pathways), 11-3A-17 (parkways) and 11-3B-7C(street buffers); calculations should include the linear feet of pathways,parkways and street buffers and square footage of common open space as applicable, along with the required vs.provided number of trees. g. Revise the fencing type around the perimeter of Lot 1,Block 2 and Lot 37,Block 12 to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7A.7 to provide more visibility of the common areas in accord with CPTED design strategies. h. Include a detail of the amenities proposed with each phase of development. i. The CMU wall proposed along the south and west boundaries of the commercial portion of the development shall have texture and a color complimentary to adjacent residential structures—plain CMU block is not allowed; revise the detail(i.e.reference photo) accordingly. Page 59 Page 66 Item#2. development in Bleek 9 in aeeer-d with the sta-ad tested in T TG1-3G3h. k. If a dog park is proposed on Lot 1,Block 2, demonstrate compliance with the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3C.1h. 1. Depict a small tot lot on Lot 12, Block 6 rather than a large tot lot, consistent with that shown on the site amenities plan. m. Modify the landscape plan consistent with changes required to the plat above under condition IX.A.2 above. 4. Future development shall be consistent with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Tables 11-2A-6, 11-2A-7 and 11-213-3 for the R-8,R-15 and C-G zoning districts respectively. 5. Off-street parking is required to be provided for residential uses in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 and for commercial uses in accord with the standards listed in 1I- 3C-6B;bicycle parking is required in commercial districts as set forth in UDC 11-3C-6G per the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C. A revised paFking plan shall be submitted pFior-to oF at the Commission hearing foF the townhome portion of the development that Fefleets ehanges noted above in eondition#A.2f dfid thfit ffovides fOF adequate guest parking serve this POF60H of the developmenti. 6. An exhibit shall be submitted with the final plat application(s)that depicts the setbacks,fencing, building envelope, and orientation of the lots and structures accessed via common driveways; if a property abuts a common driveway but has the required minimum street frontage and is taking access via the public street,the driveway shall be depicted on the opposite side of the shared property line from the common driveway as set forth in UDC 11-6C-3D. 7. Address signage shall be provided at the public street for homes accessed via common driveways for emergency wayfinding purposes. 8. Common driveways shall be constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3D. A perpetual ingress/egress easement shall be filed with the Ada County Recorder for the common driveways,which shall include a requirement for maintenance of a paved surface capable of supporting fire vehicles and equipment. This information may be included in a note on the face of the plat rather than in a separate easement. plat in the townheme pei4ien of the developmefft in Bleek 8 are not approved. , 10. All existing structures shall be removed from the site prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer for the phase in which they are located. 11. Pathways shall be constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-8. 12. A 14-foot wide public pedestrian easement shall be submitted to the Planning Division for the 10-foot wide multi-use pathways proposed within the site as required by the Park's Department, prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer for the phase in which they are located. 13. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application is required to be submitted and approved prior to submittal of any building permit applications for the clubhouse and swimming pool facility, single-family attached,townhome, multi-family and commercial structures.All structures except for single-family detached structures are required to comply with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. Page 60 Page 67 Item#2. B. PUBLIC WORKS 1. Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1.1.1 This proposed development is not currently serviceable by the Meridian City water and sanitary sewer systems. Mainlines designed to service this development are within The Oaks North Subdivision to the south. Until utilities are available to the south boundary of the proposed development,the City of Meridian will not accept an application for final plat. 1.1.2 Sewer mainline/manholes are not allowed in common driveways or under sidewalks. Run service lines down common drive but make sure required separation can be met. 1.1.3 The planned sewer trunk line will enter this property at N. Rustic Oak Way. 1.1.4 The sewer line in N. Rustic Oak Way shall be 10-inch all the way to Chinden Blvd. 1.1.5 The applicant shall be required to pay the Oaks Lift Station and Pressure Sewer Reimbursement Fees in the amount of$265.25 per equivalent residential unit(ERU). The reimbursement fees for the entire residential portion of this subdivision shall be paid prior to city signatures on the first final plat. 1.1.6 The applicant shall be required to pay the Oaks Lift Station Pump Upgrades Reimbursement Fees in the amount of$185.43 per equivalent residential unit(ERU). The reimbursement fees for the entire residential portion of this subdivision shall be paid prior to city signatures on the first final plat. 1.1.7 As noted in the Geotechnical Evaluation Report prepared by GeoTek Inc., all artificial fill materials on site must be removed. 1.1.8 New 12-inch water main will need to be installed in parts of W Sturgill Peak St,N Jumpspot Ave,W Parachute Dr,N Streamer Way,W Smokejumper St and N Rustic Oak Way. 1.1.9 Construct water main in N Streamer Way between W. Parachute Drive and W. Fireline Drive. 1.1.10 Water connections to the north need to be facilitated either by extension of a mainline or and easement in common area Lot 19,Block 1, or off the end of the cul-de-sac to the property line. This is dependent on how road connections to the north are designed and developed in the future. 1.1.11 Remove the water main proposed in N Serenity Avenue.At the intersection of N Serenity Ave and W Tanker Dr,Install a tee at the branch off point with an isolation valve directly attached to it and then cap off the outlet side of the valve. This allows the tap to be installed and pressure tested so if the existing County Subdivision wants to connect in the future they can easily do so. 1.1.12 Water& sewer need to flip locations in N Backfire Way. Currently these lines are not in the proper corridor. Water should be located on the east side of the road&sewer on the west. 1.1.13 Eliminate stub/dead-end water main at each corner of the townhome section off of W Wildfire Dr of the development. Services are only allowed in these areas just like common drives. 1.1.14 A water connection to the east(near N Static Line Ave and/or townhome section off of N Rustic Oak Way)needs to be enabled by either an extension of water mains to the property line or an easement. This is dependent on road connections to the east. Page 61 Page 68 Item#2. 1.1.15 Water modeling was completed both as an entire development and at each phase per the phasing plan included in this record. This development was modeled with the 12" mains through the subdivision as required above, and the rest of the mains were modeled as 8". Per this plan there are no pressure issues,but each phase will need to be modeled at Final Plat to verify there aren't any pressure issues. 1.1.16 The geotechnical investigative report prepared by SITE Consulting,LLC indicates some very specific construction considerations. The applicant shall be responsible for the strict adherence of these recommendations to help ensure that groundwater does not become a problem within crawlspaces of homes. 2. General Conditions of Approval 2.1 Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2.2 Per Meridian City Code(MCC),the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5. 2.3 The applicant shall provide easement(s) for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way(include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat,but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian's standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement(on the form available from Public Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor,which must include the area of the easement(marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2"x I I"map with bearings and distances(marked EXHIBIT B)for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted,reviewed, and approved prior to development plan approval. 2.4 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year- round source of water(MCC 12-13-8.3). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available,a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized,the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 2.5 All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC. 2.6 All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals,or drains, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. 2.7 Any existing domestic well system within this project shall be removed from domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8 contact the City of Meridian Page 62 Page 69 Item#2. Engineering Department at(208)898-5500 for inspections of disconnection of services. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation if approved by Idaho Department of Water Resources Contact Robert B. Whitney at(208)334-2190. 2.8 Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections(208)375-5211. 2.9 Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and activated,road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded,prior to applying for building permits. 2.10 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110%will be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities, etc.,prior to signature on the final plat. 2.11 All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B. 2.12 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process,prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. 2.13 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 2.14 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.15 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 2.16 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H. 2.17 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill,where footing would sit atop fill material. 2.18 The design engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. 2.19 The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 2.20 At the completion of the project,the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. 2.21 A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting.A copy of the standards can be found at http://www.meridiancity.org/public—works.aspx?id=272. Page 63 Page 70 Item#2. 2.22 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a performance surety in the amount of 125%of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer,water and reuse infrastructure prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 2.23 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20%of the total construction cost for all completed sewer,water and reuse infrastructure for duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridianciU.orgj ebLink/DocView.aspx?id=188367&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianCiV D. POLICE DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridianciU.orgj ebLink/DocView.aspx?id=188188&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCioX E. PARK'S DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridiancioy.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=191860&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCioX F. COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST IDAHO(COMPASS) https://weblink.meridiancioy.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=189738&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCioX G. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https://weblink.meridiancity.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=192646&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity H. SETTLER'S IRRIGATION DISTRICT(SID) https://weblink.meridiancioy.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=188429&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity I. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridianciLy.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=188183&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCiiy J. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT(WASD) https://weblink.meridiancity.orglWebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=188717&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity K. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ) https://weblink.meridiancioy.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=188717&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianCiU Page 64 Page 71 Item#2. X. FINDINGS A. Annexation and/or Rezone(UDC 11-513-3E): Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; The Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment to R-8, R-15 and C-G zoning districts and proposed development is generally consistent with the MDR and MU-R FL UM designations in the Comprehensive Plan for this property if the Applicant complies with the provisions in Section IX. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; The Commission finds the mix of lot sizes and housing types proposed in the residential portion of the development will provide for a range of housing opportunities consistent with the purpose statement of the residential districts and with the Comprehensive Plan. The Commission finds the proposed medical offices and hospital along with recommended retail/restaurant uses will provide much needed services in the northern portion of the City in accord with the purpose statement of the commercial districts and with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; The Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment should not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to, school districts; and The Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment will not result in an adverse impact on the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the City. Comments submitted by WASD indicate that existing enrollment numbers are below capacity in area schools that will serve this development. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. The Commission finds the proposed annexation is in the best interest of the City if the property is developed in accord with the provisions in Section LY B. Preliminary Plat Findings(UDC 11-613-6): In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat,the decision-making body shall make the following findings: 1. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; The Commission finds that the proposed plat, with recommendations, is in substantial compliance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan in regard to land use, density, transportation, and pedestrian connectivity. (Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies in, Section V of this report for more information) Page 65 Page 72 Item#2. 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; The Commission finds that public services will be provided to the subject property with development. (See Exhibit B of the Staff Report for more details from public service providers) 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's capital improvement program; Because City water and sewer and any other utilities will be provided by the development at their own cost, the Commission finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; The Commission finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development based upon comments from the public service providers (i.e., Police, Fire, ACHD, etc). (See Section Mfor more information) 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and, The Commission is not aware of any health, safety, or environmental problems associated with the platting of this property. ACHD considers road safety issues in their analysis. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. The Commission is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that exist on this site that require preserving. C. Private Street Findings (UDC 11-3F-5): In order to approve the application,the director shall find the following: 1. The design of the private street meets the requirements of this article; The Director finds that the proposed design of the private street deer met meets the requirements in UDC 11-3F-4A.6 as whieh areptwhibite as. ether than these that er-e a common mew is proposed through the site design er . a limited gated-residential development-, of whieh neither are propose 2. Granting approval of the private street would not cause damage,hazard, or nuisance, or other detriment to persons,property, or uses in the vicinity; and The Director finds granting approval of the private street pang�Ls proposed fire lanes are bleeked due to pap*4ng in unauthe,44ed-areas should not cause damage, hazard, or nuisance, or other detriment to persons,property or uses in the vicinity. 3. The use and location of the private street shall not conflict with the comprehensive plan and/or the regional transportation plan. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) The Director finds the use and location of the private street streets does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan or the regional transportation plan. Page 66 Page 73 Item#2. 4. The proposed residential development(if applicable)is a mew or gated development. (Ord. 10- 1463, 11-3-2010, eff. 11-8-2010) The Director finds the proposed residential development does no incorporates_a mew or gate developme in the design. in ofder-to grant approval for-an altemative compliance application, the Director-shall deter-mine the following! z. StfiEt adherence aF applioation-of the r-€quir-ements are fiet feasible; of gates to be provided-where private stpeet-s are proposed-hi towHhome developments, isfeasi and 3. The altemative means will fiet be materially detFimeatal to the ptiblie welfare OF impaif: the intended uses and ehar-actef of suffounding pfopet4ies, Page 67 — Page 74 7/tem 77 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing Continued from March 9, 2021 for Shafer View Terrace (H- 2020-0117) by Breckon Land Design, Located on the East Side of S. Meridian Rd./SH 69, Midway Between E. Amity Rd. and E. Lake Hazel Rd. A. Request: Annexation of a total of 40.48 acres of land with R-2 (10.66 acres) and R-4 (29.82 acres) zoning districts. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 50 buildable lots and 10 common lots on 39.01 acres of land in the R-2 and R-4 zoning districts. Page 75 Item#3. E IDIAN:--- IDAHO C� PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Sonya Allen Meeting Date: April 13, 2021 Topic: Public Hearing Continued from March 9, 2021 for Shafer View Terrace (H-2020- 0117) by Breckon Land Design, Located on the East Side of S. Meridian Rd./SH 69, Midway Between E.Amity Rd. and E. Lake Hazel Rd. A. Request: Annexation of a total of 40.48 acres of land with R-2 (10.66 acres) and R-4 (29.82 acres) zoning districts. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 50 buildable lots and 10 common lots on 39.01 acres of land in the R-2 and R-4 zoning districts. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the City Council Public Hearing Page 76 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: April 13, 2021 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 3 PROJECT NAME: Shafer View Terrace (H-2020-0117) PRINTED FULL NAME For Against Neutral Want to Testify YES OR NO 2 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Item#3. STAFF REPORT C�I w IDIAN -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT .►A H O HEARING April 13,2021 Legend L_J__ DATE: Continued from:March 9, 2021 Project LacflDior F-1 #0 TO: Mayor&City Council u �l r FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner ------ ----- ` 208-884-5533 --, SUBJECT: H-2020-0117 Shafer View Terrace—AZ,PP LOCATION: East side of S.Meridian Rd./SH 69, midway between E. Amity Rd. and E. Lake Hazel Rd., in the SW 1/4 of Section f 31,T.3N.,RJE. (Parcels#R7824220044 1_ &#R7824220042) ----- -� {{ do I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Annexation of a total of 40.48 acres of land with R-2 (10.66 acres) and R-4(29.82 acres)zoning districts; and Preliminary Plat consisting of 50 buildable lots and 10 common lots on 39.01 acres of land in the R-2 and R-4 zoning districts. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 39.01 acres Existing/Proposed Zoning RUT in Ada County/R-2 and R-4 Future Land Use Designation Low Density Residential(LDR)(3 or fewer units/acre) Existing Land Use(s) Agricultural land Proposed Land Use(s) Single-family residential(SFR) Lots(#and type;bldg./common) 50 buildable lots/10 common lots Phasing Plan(#of phases) 2 phases Number of Residential Units(type 50 SFR detached dwellings of units) Density(gross&net) 1.76 units/acre(gross); 3.30 units/acre(net) Open Space(acres,total 5.26 acres(or 18.55%)overall common open space—4.05 [%]/buffer/qualified) acres(or 14.27%)of which is qualified open space Amenities Multi-sport court,tot lot,gazebo shade structure,multi-use pathway Physical Features(waterways, The McBirney Lateral runs along the southern boundary hazards,flood plain,hillside) and through the western portion of the site. Another Page 1 Page 77 Item#3. Description Details Page waterway exists on the eastern portion of the site between the proposed R-2 and R-4 zoned properties. Neighborhood meeting date;#of 10/13/20; 14 attendees — attendees: History(previous approvals) This property was previously platted as Lot 4,Block 1, Shafer View Estates,developed in Ada County and recorded in 2002(Bk. 84,Pg.9403). It was deed restricted and was only allowed to be used for open space as defined in the non-farm development section of the Ada County code and the planned development section of the Ada County code for a period of not less than 15 years from the recording date of the subdivision plat. This property was originally proposed to be annexed with the adjacent Apex development but was later withdrawn. B. Community Metrics Description Details P Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) Yes(draft) • Requires ACHD No Commission Action es/no Access Access is proposed via E. Shafer View Dr.,local street,and E. (Arterial/Collectors/State Quartz Creek St.,collector street Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) Traffic Level of Service ACHD does not set LOS thresholds for state highways. Stub No stub streets exist to this property and no stub streets are Street/Interconnectivity/Cros proposed to adjacent properties. s Access Existing Road Network S.Meridian Rd./SH-69 exists along the west boundary and E. Shafer View Dr. exists along the south boundary. Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ No sidewalks or buffers exist along S.Meridian Rd./SH-69,a Buffers state highway,or E. Shafer View Dr.,a local street Proposed Road Capital Improvements Plan(CIP}f Integrated Five Year Work Plan(IFYWP): • The intersection of Amity Road and Meridian RoadISH-69 is listed in the CIP to be widened Improvements to 6-lanes on the north leg,6-lanes on the south,7-lanes on the east,and 7-lanes on the west leg,and signalized between 2031-2035. • The intersection of Lake Hazel Road and Meridian Road/SH-69 is listed in the CIP to be widened to 6-lanes on the north leg,6-lanes on the south,7-lanes on the east,and 7-lanes on the west leg,and signalized between 2036-2040. • Amity Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to 5-lanes from Meridian RoadISH-6910 Locust Grove Road between 2036-2040. • Lake Hazel Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to 3-lanes from Linder Road to Meridian Road/SH-69 between 2036-2040. • Lake Hazel Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to 5-lanes from Meridian RoadlSH-6910 Locust Grove Road between 2036-2040. • Amity Road is scheduled in the IFYWP for pavement rehabilitation and pedestrian ramp construction from Meridian Road7SH-69 to Locust Grove Road in 2022. Fire Service • Distance to Fire Station 3.5 miles • Fire Response Time Falls within 5:00 minute response time area-nearest station is Fire Station#6—can meet response time goals • Resource Reliability 87%-does meet the target goal of 80%or greater Page 2 Page 78 Item#3. Description Details P • Risk Identification 2—current resources would not be adequate to supply service (open waterways) • Accessibility Project meets all required access,road widths and turnaround. • Special/resource needs Project will not require an aerial device;can meet this need in the required timeframe if a truck company is required. • Water Supply Requires 1,000 gallons per minute for one hour,may be less if buildings are fully sprinklered. • Other Resources Police Service • Distance to 4 miles . Police Station • Police Response The average emergency response time in the City is just under 4 minutes(meets Time target goal of 3-5 minutes) Meridian Police Department-Shafer View Narth Location of new development- Las.-of N Merldlan Rd Between E Amity Rd&E Lake Hazel FLd ime Frame- Dl/01/2019-12/31f2024 Level of Service ILosl-Delivered By Reporting District IRD-M777) Calls for Service[CFS]: Response Times; Dispatch to Arrival(all units) Average Response Times by Priority- 'City of Meridian' PriorkV 3 3A3 Prrority2 fMPosvwawffhbstolom"esl 7:11 Priority 1 l+str Goof is w![14l015#0 20 mJrwfesl 10:37 Average RespbnSB TirdeS by Priorlty:'Iv1777' Priority 3 5A2 Priority 2 11:43 Priority 1 8:36 Calls for Service(CFS):Calls occurring In RD'M777' CFS count Total 55 %of Calls for Serwice split by Priority in'M777' *of P3 CFS 1.8% *of P2 LXS 74.5% Ag of P4 LT5 21.64L %of PO 0:5 0.0% Crimes Crime Courrt Total 22 Cr'aaltei 'Crash Count.Total 46 Analyst Note(si: Response Time and Calla For Service(CF51 by morlty-Most frequent priority tall types; •Pribei ty 3 balks involved Subject at the Door. •Priority 2 calls most frequently inmkved TrafFC Stapsr Stalked Vehides,and Welfare Checks 1911 Hang Ups)_ •Priority 1 calls m45t frequently involved N4 Contact Order RePgFtr VIN Inspections,and Citizen A55ift5- Crime loccurred date!-Most frequent crimes involved: Driving Under the Influence,and Liquor Law Violations(Open Container IDrlverl,Aloohollc Beverage Possesslon Under Age 21,etc.),and •druglNarcotic Ulalatlons(Possesslon of MarlJuana), 'Crashes-Most frequent crashes were; •41.1,%injury type crashes, •26.1-%property damage reports,and •324-M non-reportable crashes. arioelty Response rsmes ye8ned: Priority 0 type ca Its are no priority type of ca IIa Prliarlty 1 type calls are For non-emergency type of calls where the officer will arrive at the ea rilest oonwenlerKe,and shall obey all tMfit laws_ Priority 2 type calls require an urgent response where the officer will arrive as soon as practical,and should obey all traffic laws. Prlorh,y 3 type calls are an emergency response In which the Irghts and siren and driving as authorlmd far an emergency vehicle by Idaho Cade to facilitate the quick and safe arrival of an officer to the scene. West Ada School District • Distance(elem, ins,hs) Page 3 Page 79 Item#3. • Capacity of Enrollment Ca aci Miles [nn..m kh-1) Schools Mary McPherson Elementary' 481' 675 1.3 • #of Students Victory Middle School 868 IODO 2.8 Enrolled Mountain View High School 2218 2175 3.9 *Enrollment number is estimated for the 2021-2022 school year based on current enrollment and future growth in the respective attendance area.It reflects changes made to the Mary McPherson Elementary attendance area. • #of Students Predicted from 35 school aged children predicted from this development by WASD. this development Wastewater • Distance to Directly adjacent Sewer Services • Sewer Shed South Black Cat Trunk Shed • Estimated Project See application Sewer ERU's • WRRF Declining 14.02 Balance • Project Yes Consistent with WW Master Plan/Facility Plan • Impacts/concerns • Flow is committed • See Public Works Site Specific Conditions Water ) IL • Distance to Water Directly adjacent Services • Pressure Zone 5 • Estimated Project See application Water ERU's _ • Water Quality None • Project Yes Consistent with Water Master Plan • Impacts/Concerns See Public Works Site Specific Conditions Page 4 Page 80 Item#3. C. Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map (fLegend . (fLegend ' Proyeci Lcca-tor I Prnjeot Lorca on Medium Density Residenfial idnfi ed-Hig :�• - ensify - Residenfi Zoning Map Planned Development Map Legend R1 Legend RUT— ff ; 0Prayeci Lorca-nor IetProject Lacafkm -- R1 ;_1 City Limits R-$ — Planned Parse R _ RUT R-4 w RUT RUIT A. Applicant: Mary Wall,Breckon Land Design—PO Box 44465,Boise, ID 83711 B. Owners: James Chambers, 39, LLC—5356 N. Troon Pl.,Boise,ID 83713 DWT Investments,LLC—2929 W.Navigator Dr., Ste. 400,Meridian,ID 83642 C. Representative: Same as Applicant Page 5 Page 81 Item#3. III. NOTICING Planning&Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Notification published in 1/15/2021 2/19/2021 newspaper Notification mailed to property owners within 300 feet 1/12/2021 2/16/2021 Applicant posted public hearing notice on site 1/21/2021 2/26/2021 Nextdoor posting 1/12/2021 2/16/2021 IV. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS(Comprehensive Plan) The Future Land Use Map(FLUM)contained in the Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Low Density Residential(LDR). The LDR designation allows for the development of single-family homes on large and estate lots at gross densities of three dwelling units or less per acre. These areas often transition between existing rural residential and urban properties. Developments need to respect agricultural heritage and resources,recognize view sheds and open spaces,and maintain or improve the overall atmosphere of the area. The use of open spaces,parks,trails and other appropriate means should enhance the character of the area. The proposed development consists of a total of 50 single-family detached dwellings on large lots [i.e. 12,000 square foot(s.£)minimum] on 39.01 acres of land at an overall gross density of 1.76 units/acre,which falls within the density range desired in LDR designated areas. This property abuts a County subdivision, Shafer View Estates,to the south and will provide a transition to future urban properties to the north, zoned R-4 and R-8. The following Comprehensive Plan Policies are applicable to this development: • "Encourage a variety of housing types that meet the needs, preferences, and financial capabilities of Meridian's present and future residents."(2.01.02D) Only one housing type, single-family detached, is proposed which Staff believes is appropriate due to the large lot sizes and density desired in LDR designated areas. The variety of lot sizes (i.e. 8,600-23,600 sf.) proposed will provide for diversity in styles of homes, which Staff believes will contribute to the variety of housing in the City to meet the preferences and financial capabilities of Meridian's present and future residents. • "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 service is available and can be extended by the developer with development in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. • "Encourage compatible uses and site design to minimize conflicts and maximize use of land." (3.07.00) The proposed density and lot sizes should be compatible with the rural residential homes/properties to the south on 1+ acre lots in the County and future urban residential development to the north and east in the City. Page 6 Page 82 Item#3. • "Ensure development is connected to City of Meridian water and sanitary sewer systems and the extension to and through said developments are constructed in conformance with the City of Meridian Water and Sewer System Master Plans in effect at the time of development." (3.03.03A) The proposed development will connect to City water and sewer systems;services are required to be provided to and though this development in accord with current City plans. • "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 to this site and can be extended by the developer with development in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. The emergency response times for Police Dept. and Fire Dept. meets the established goals. • "With new subdivision plats,require the design and construction of pathway connections, easy pedestrian and bicycle access to parks, safe routes to schools,and the incorporation of usable open space with quality amenities."(2.02.01A) A 10 foot wide multi-use pathway is proposed within the street buffer along S. Meridian Rd.ISH--69 as required by the Pathways Master Plan and UDC 11-3H-4C.4. A total of 4.05 acres of qualified open space is proposed along with quality amenities (i.e. sports court, gazebo, tot lot, multi-use pathway). • "Evaluate comprehensive impacts of growth and consider City Master Plans and Strategic Plans in all land use decisions(e.g.,traffic impacts, school enrollment, and parks)." (3.01.01A) The Traffic Impact Study(TIS)was not required by ACHD for this development. WASD submitted comments stating that approximately 35 school aged children are estimated to be generated by this development; enrollment at Mary McPherson Elementary School and Victory Middle School is currently under capacity and Mountain View High School is over capacity(see Section VIII.I).According to the Community Development's school impact analysis, enrollment at Victory Middle School will be slightly over capacity at build-out of building permits already issued in this area at 104%(Mary McPherson will be 95%and Mountain View will be 109%) (see Section VIII.J). The closest City Park to this site is Discovery Park, consisting of 77-acres, to the southeast on E. Lake Hazel Rd., Y4 mile east of S. Locust Grove Rd. A future City Park is designated on the FL UM within a half mile of this site to the west. • "Require all development to create a site design compatible with surrounding uses through buffering, screening,transitional densities, and other best site design practices."(3.07.01A) The proposed site design features a 1:1, 2:1 and 3:1 transition in proposed lots to existing lots in Shafer View Estates to the south. These lots are separated by an existing 41 foot wide easement for the McBirney Lateral which provides an added buffer between rural lots and proposed urban lots. • "Require urban infrastructure be provided for all new developments, including curb and gutter, sidewalks,water and sewer utilities."(3.03.03G) Urban sewer and water infrastructure and curb, gutter and sidewalks are proposed as required with this development. Page 7 Page 83 Item#3. In summary, Staff believes the proposed development plan is generally consistent with the vision of the Comprehensive Plan per the analysis above. V. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ANALYSIS( L0 A. Annexation: The proposed annexation is for 40.48 acres of land with R-2 (10.66 acres)and R-4(29.82 acres) zoning districts,which includes adjacent right-of-way to the section line of S. Meridian Rd./SH- 69 and to the centerline of E. Quartz Creek St. A total of 50 residential dwelling units are proposed to develop on the site at an overall gross density of 1.76 units per acre consistent with the associated LDR FLUM designation for the site. Although the proposed density is more consistent with an R-2 (Low Density Residential)zoning district,the Applicant requests R-4 in order to provide a transition in lot sizes between the existing rural residential subdivision to the south(Shafer View Estates)and the future urban residential subdivision approved to the north(Prevail Subdivision),zoned R-8. Larger lots are proposed adjacent to the southern boundary that gradually transition to smaller lots to the north. 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 along with individual legal descriptions and exhibit maps for the R-2 and R-4 zoning districts are included in Section VIII.A. The City may require a development agreement(DA) in conjunction with an annexation pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-6511A. To ensure future development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and with the development plan proposed with this application, Staff recommends a new DA is required with this application, containing the provisions noted in Section VIII.A, as discussed below. B. Preliminary Plat: The proposed plat is a re-subdivision of Lot 4,Block 1, Shafer View Estates, developed in Ada County and recorded in 2002 (Bk. 84,Pg. 9403). This lot was deed restricted and was only allowed to be used for open space as defined in the non-farm development section of the Ada County code and the planned development section of the Ada County code for a period of not less than 15 years from the recording date of the subdivision plat. The required time period has elapsed and the lot is now eligible for redevelopment. The proposed preliminary plat consists of 50 buildable lots and 10 common lots on 39.01 acres of land in the R-2 and R-4 zoning districts. The subdivision is proposed to develop in three(3) phases as shown on the phasing plan in Section VII.B. The first and second phases consist of 28.35 acres and is proposed to develop with 50 single-family detached homes at a gross density of 1.76 units per acre and a net density of 3.30 units per acre with an average lot size of 13,444 s.f. The third phase consists of 10.66 acres and is proposed to be platted as one large lot that will be developed at a later date under a separate application by the property owner. This portion of the site is under separate ownership from the rest of the site and was previously illegally split off, therefore,it's ineligible for development until included in a subdivision to create a legal lot for development purposes. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There are no existing structures or site improvements on this property other than a private drainage facility on Lot 6,Block 6. Page 8 Page 84 Item#3. Proposed Use Analysis: Single-family detached dwellings are listed as a principal permitted uses in both the R-2 and R-4 zoning districts per UDC Table 11-2A-2: Allowed Uses in the Residential Districts. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2A): Development of the proposed lots is required to comply with the dimensional standards of the R- 2 district in UDC Table I1-2A-4 and the R-4 district in(UDC Table 11-2A-5), as applicable. Subdivision Design and Improvement Standards (UDC 11-6C-3): Development of the subdivision is required to comply with the subdivision design and improvement standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3, including but not limited to streets and block face. Block faces are limited to 750' in length without an intersecting street or alley but may extend up to 1,000' where a pedestrian connection is provided as set forth in UDC 11-6C-3F.3. City Council may approve a block face up to 1,200' in length where block design is constrained by certain site conditions that include a large waterway or irrigation facility;block faces over 1,200 feet require a waiver from Council. A 90 degree turn in a roadway may constitute a break in the block face; however, overall pedestrian and vehicular connectivity will be considered when evaluating the appropriateness of block lengths greater than 750' in length—additional pedestrian and/or roadway connections may be required. The face of Block 3 exceeds 1,200' and does not provide a pedestrian connection other than the emergency access driveway which may serve as a pedestrian connection between the proposed subdivision and Shafer View Estates to the south. The Applicant requests City Council approval of the proposed block length due to existing site constraints that include the following: 1)the narrow configuration of the subject property; 2)the location of the McBirney Lateral, a large waterway/irrigation facility,that runs along the southern boundary and through the western portion of the proposed subdivision; and 3)the existing Shafer View subdivision that abuts the site to the south,south of the lateral,which does not include any pedestrian pathways or stub streets to this property.If not approved,the plat should be reconfigured to comply with this standard.An emergency access road for Fire Dept. is proposed between the end of the cul-de-sac and E. Shafer View Rd. but it's not a public access. The cul-de-sac length complies with UDC standards. Access(UDC 11-3A-3) Direct lot access is proposed via E. Shafer View Dr.,an existing local street along the southern boundary of the site, for the lots south of the McBirney Lateral;the lots north of the lateral will be accessed via two(2)accesses from E. Quartz Creek St., a planned collector street along the northern boundary of the site. The UDC(11-3A-3)restricts and limits access points to collector streets where access to a local street is available. Local street access is not available to the northern portion of the proposed development. Due to the configuration of the property,without the easterly second access,the cul-de-sac would exceed the maximum length standard of 500' allowed by the UDC(11-6C-3B.4). Therefore, Staff is supportive of the proposed accesses. An emergency access for the Fire Dept. is proposed between the cul-de-sac and E. Shafer View Drive. A public street connection is not proposed to E. Shafer View Dr. for several reasons, including the following: 1)residents in Shafer View Estates were strongly opposed to the connection; 2)modification to the McBirney Lateral would be necessary to design a public road in that location and the lateral is under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) and the process for modifications to their canal and an encroachment on their easement is very time consuming(i.e. 12+/-months)with no guarantees of approval; 3) approval from Nampa-Kuna Page 9 Page 85 Item#3. Irrigation District would also be needed has they have irrigation piping located in this area as well;4)a public road through that area would require a new pump system for the Shafer View Estates irrigation system as the road would go through the existing pump system—moving the pump system would also require moving/modifying a large BOR irrigation pipe that feeds the irrigation pump station; and 5)the cost of design and irrigation infrastructure work required to put in a public road is estimated to be $100,000.00 to$150,000.00(see Applicant's explanation for more detail). For these reasons, Staff does not recommend a connection is provided. Access to the R-2 zoned portion of the site is anticipated to be provided from the east as that portion of the site is planned to develop with the Apex development to the east. Direct lot access via S.Meridian Rd./SH-69 and E. Quartz Creek St. is prohibited. Parking(UDC 11-3C): Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11- 3C-6 for single-family detached dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. The proposed street sections accommodate on-street parking on both sides of the streets for guests in addition to driveway parking spaces on each lot. Staff is of the opinion sufficient parking can be provided for this development. Pathways(UDC 11-3A-8): A 10' wide detached multi-use pathway is proposed as required within the street buffer along S. Meridian Rd./SH-69 per UDC 11-3H-4C.4 and the Pathways Master Plan. The pathway is required to be placed in a 14-foot wide public use easement,which shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to submittal for City Engineer signature on the final plat(s)for Phase 1.If the pathway will be located entirely within the right-of-way, a public pedestrian easement is not needed. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-1 Sidewalks are required to be provided adjacent to all streets as set forth in UDC 11-3A-17. Where the multi-use pathway is required along S. Meridian Rd./SH-69,the pathway may take the place of the sidewalk. A combination of attached and detached sidewalks are proposed within the development as depicted on the landscape plan. Parkways (UDC 11-3A-1 : Eight-foot wide parkways are proposed along all internal public streets where detached sidewalks are proposed. All parkways should be constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11- 3A-17E. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): A 35-foot wide street buffer is required adjacent to S. Meridian Rd./SH-69, an entryway corridor; and a 20-foot wide street buffer is required adjacent to E. Quartz Creek St., a collector street, as proposed. Landscaping is required to be installed within the buffer per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C,which require buffers to be planted with a mix of trees and shrubs, lawn,or other vegetative groundcover. Street buffer landscaping is proposed in excess of UDC standards as shown on the landscape plan in Section VII.C. Common open space is required to be landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11- 3G-3E. At a minimum, one tree per 8,000 square feet of common area is required to be provided along with lawn or other vegetative groundcover. Landscaping is proposed in excess of UDC standards as shown on the landscape plan in Section VII.C. Landscaping is required adjacent to the pathway along S. Meridian Rd./SH-69 per the standards in UDC 11-3B-12C.A 5' wide landscape strip is required on both sides of the pathway planted with a mix of trees, shrubs, lawn and/or other vegetative ground cover. The Landscape Page 10 Page 86 Item#3. Requirements table should include the linear feet of pathway with the required vs.proposed number of trees to demonstrate compliance with UDC standards. Landscaping is required within parkways per the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17 and 11-3B- 7C. The Landscape Requirements table should include the linear feet of parkways within the development with the required vs.proposed number of trees to demonstrate compliance with UDC standards. There are existing trees on this site at the fronts of Lots 1-5,Block 6 along E. Shafer View Dr. If any of these trees are proposed to be removed,mitigation may be required per the standards listed in UDC 11-313-1OC.5. Contact the City Arborist,Matt Perkins,prior to removing any trees from the site to determine mitigation requirements. Noise Mitigation (UDC 11-3H-4D): Noise abatement is required for residential uses adjoining state highways as set forth in the standards listed in UDC 11-3H-4D. A 4-foot tall berm with a 6-foot tall solid wall by Simtek is proposed along S. Meridian Rd. as noise abatement as depicted on the detail on Sheet L 1.0 of the Landscape Plan. Architectural elements are proposed to break up monotonous wall planes as required. A detail of the proposed wall that demonstrates eomplionee with the standftFds listed in UDC 11 3H 4D should be submitted with the final plat for-the first phase of development.—Depicted on the revised landscape plan. Qualified Open Space(UDC 11-3 A minimum of 10%qualified open space meeting the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-313 is required for developments over 5 acres in size. Based on the area of the plat, 39.01 acres, a minimum of 3.90 acres of qualified open space is required. A total of 5.26 acres(or 18.55%) of common open space is provided within the overall development,4.05 acres(or 14.27%) of which is qualified per the standards in UDC 11-3G-3B, which exceeds UDC standards(see open space exhibit in Section VILD). Qualified open space consists of half the street buffer along S. Meridian Rd./SH-69, all of the street buffer along E. Quartz Creek St., 8-foot wide parkways, linear open space, and open grassy areas of at least 50' x 100' in area. Lot 9,Block 3 does contain a pond but it does not encompass more than 25%of the required open space area as required. The pond is required to have recirculated water and should be maintained such that it doesn't become a mosquito breeding ground as set forth in UDC 11-3G-3B.7. Qualified Site Amenities(UDC 11-3G1 A minimum of one(1) qualified site amenity is required for developments over 5 acres in size and up to 20 acres,with one(1)additional amenity required for each additional 20 acres of development area. Based on a total of 39.01 acres of development area, a minimum of one(1)qualified site amenity is required. A multi-sport court,tot lot, gazebo shade structure and segment of the City's multi- use pathway system is proposed in excess of UDC standards. Storm Drainage: An adequate storm drainage system is required in all developments in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. Design and construction is required to follow Best Management Practices as adopted by the City. The Applicant submitted a Limited Geotechnical Engineeringeport for the subdivision. The preliminary plat depicts an existing private drainage facility and existing&proposed ACHD drainage facilities and easements. Page 11 Page 87 Item#3. Pressure Irrigation(UDC 11-3A-1 : Underground pressurized irrigation water is required to be provided for each and every lot in the subdivision as required in UDC 11-3A-15. Utilities (UDC 11-3A-21): Utilities are required to be provided to the subdivision as required in UDC 11-3A-21. Waterways(UDC 11-3A-6): The McBirney Lateral is a large open waterway that lies within a 41-foot wide easement along the southern boundary of the site and through the western portion of the site. Another waterway 38' wide) exists on the eastern portion of the site between the proposed R-2 and R-4 zoned property within a 23 feet wide,.TNUP a-a a BKID e e w*t;the Applicant verified with the Boise Project Board of Control that the waterway is not within an easement. This project is not within the flood plain. The UDC allows waterways such as this to remain open when used as a water amenity or linear open space as defined in UC 11-1A-1; otherwise,they are required to be piped or otherwise covered per UDC 11-3A-613. The decision-making body may waive this requirement if it finds the public purpose requiring such will not be served and public safety can be preserved. The Applicant is not proposing to improve the McBirney Lateral as a water amenity or linear open space but is proposing to install a 6-foot tall wrought iron fence along the waterway to deter access to the waterway and ensure public safety. The Applicant requests approval of a waiver from Council to allow the waterway to remain open and not be piped. The Applicant states the Boise Project Board of Control opposes any improvements within their right-of-way.The other waterway should be piped or improved as a water amenity or linear open space as required. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6 and 11-3A-7)• All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-6C for fencing along waterways and the general fencing standards in 11-3A-7. A mix of 6-foot tall wrought iron and 6-foot tall solid vinyl fencing is proposed adjacent to common areas; 6-foot tall wrought iron fencing is proposed along the McBirney Lateral. There appears to be gaps in the fencing along the lateral on common lots that abut the waterway; fencing should be included in these areas to prevent access to the waterway and to ensure public safety. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): Conceptual building elevations have not yet been prepared for this development. However,the Applicant did submit several sample photos of 2-story homes that will be similar to those constructed in this development, included in Section VII.E. Single-family detached dwellings are exempt from the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual. Because homes on lots that abut S.Meridian Rd. and E. Quartz Creek St.will be highly visible,the rear and/or side of structures on lots that face those streets should incorporate articulation through changes in two or more of the following: modulation(e.g.projections, recesses, step-backs,pop-outs),bays,banding,porches,balconies,material types,or other integrated architectural elements to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines that are visible from the subject public street. Single-story structures are exempt from this requirement. Page 12 Page 88 Item#3. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the requested annexation and preliminary plat with the conditions noted in Section VIII per the Findings in Section IX. B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard these items on February 4, 2021. At the public hearing,the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject AZ and PP requests. 1. Summary of Commission public hearing: a. In favor: Jon Breckon,Breckon Land Design((Applicant's Representative) b. In opposition:None C. Commenting: Marvin Ward, Gayle Ward d. Written testimony: Mary Wall,Breckon Land Design e. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen f. Other Staff commenting on application: None 2. Key issue(s) testimony a. Concern pertaining to safety of access to Lots 2-5,Block 6 accessed via Shafer View Dr. with the configuration of E. Shafer View Dr. and change in grade in that area; b. Preference for 1-acre lots to be provided on the south side of the McBirney Lateral consistent with adjacent existing 1-acre lots in Shafer View Estates. c. Applicant testified they are willing to add more landscaping at the en ry to the development near the S.Meridian Rd./SH-69 and E. Shafer View Dr. intersection. 3. Ke, ids)of discussion by Commission: a. In favor of the provision of additional landscaping at the entrance of the subdivision at the intersection of S.Meridian Rd./SH-69 and E. Shafer View Dr. as offered by the Applicant; b. Possibility of reducing the number of homes in the area south of the McBirney Lateral (Lots 2-6,Block 6)to enhance safety in that area; C. Concern pertaining to lack of comments from ITD; d. Would prefer a better transition in lot sizes to the south, specifically Lots 15-17,Block 3 (maybe lose a loth e. Discussion regarding the proposed amenities; f. Opinion that the style and size of the proposed homes should be compatible with adjacent homes in Shafer View Estates. 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. At Staff s request, include a condition for the 38' wide slough/drain on the eastern portion of the site to be contained entirely within a common lot(s)with fencing required on both sides of the drain consistent with the standards in UDC 11-3A-7A.7b per UDC 11-3A-7A.7a; b. At Staff s request, include a condition requiring the common lot(s)containing the slough/drain to have vegetative groundcover to prevent fire hazard and unsightliness if the waterway is piped; and, C. At Staff s request,modify condition#9 to allow the option for the waterways on the site to be improved as a water amenity as an alternative to being piped as allowed by UDC 11-3A-6C.2 with submittal of construction drawings&relevant calculations prepared by a qualified licensed professional registered in the State of Idaho that demonstrates compliance with the requirements for water amenities as defined in UDC 11-IA-1. d. Include a condition for the entrance to the subdivision at the intersection of S. Meridian Rd./SH-69 and Shafer View Dr. to be improved with additional landscaping as offered by the Applicant; Page 13 Page 89 Item#3. e. Include a condition for one(1)buildable lot to removed in the area of Lots 2-5, Block 6 south of the McBirney Lateral. 5. Outstanding issues for City Council: a. The Commission requested an ITD review of the project and comments prior to the Council hearing; comments from ITD are included in Section VIIIA b. The Applicant's request for a waiver to UDC 11-3A-6 to allow the McBirney Lateral to remain open and not be piped; c. The Applicant's request for a waiver to UDC 11-6C-3F.3b to exceed the maximum block length allowed of 1,200' as allowed by UDC 11-6C-3F.4; and, d. The Applicant's request for a waiver to UDC 11-3A-3 to allow two (2) accesses via the collector street(E. Quartz Creek St.)along the northern boundary of the site. C. The Meridian City Council heard these items on March 91'-At the public hearing. Council moved to continue the subject AZ and PP requests to the April 13'hearing in order to have more information on SB 1808 before acting on this application. 1. Summary of the City Council public hearing: a. In favor: Jon Breckon,Breckon Land Design(Applicant's Representative) b. In opposition:None c. Commenting: Marvin Ward d. Written testimony: Charles Bovd and Deborah Bovd e. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen f. Other Staff commenting on application:None 2. Key issue(s)of public testimony: a. Opposition to the lot sizes of the(4)lots accessed via Shafer View Dr.:would like lot sizes of at least 1-acre in size comparable with the 1 to 1.24-acre lot sizes in Shafer View Estates: b. Safety concerns pertaining to driveways so close to Meridian Rd. and the topography in that area which creates poor visibility because of the immediate incline from Meridian Rd.—requests the number of lots are reduced to 2 in that area to ensure no driveway_ s are placed near the top of the hill. 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by City Council: a. Council asked the Applicant if they were willing to pay their proportionate share for a right-turn lane as recommended by ITD—the response was yes,they are. Council would like more information from ITD in regard to when the turn lane would be constructed if funds are allocated for the improvement: what are future plans for widening/turn lanes for this area,how much money needs to be collected for turn lane before it's constructed?Does ITD have any other means of collecting funds for these improvements except through development. b. The safety of the access onto Shafer View from S. Meridian Rd./SH-69 and additional homes with driveways near the intersection conflicting with the topography in that area (incline from Meridian Rd.); C. The Applicant's request for a waiver to exceed the Cit_v's maximum block face standards. 4. City Council change(s)to Commission recommendation: a. None Page 14 Page 90 Item#3. VII. EXHIBITS A. Annexation Legal Description& Exhibit Map ��1 tics .,ACCURATE F SURPE TIN 6 6 NAP�INS -#titP1� Annexation Land Destriptiorr A parcel of land being a(portion of the north Half of the Southwest Ouarter of Section 311 Taurnsh ip 3 North,Range 1 East of the Boise MQridian,Ada County,Idaho and all of Lot 4,Block 1 of Shafer View Estates Subdivision as recorded in$vok 54 of Plats at Pages 94C3 and 9404, Et-eonrds of Ada-curdy,said Iparcel is local-ed irr the North Ha if of the Southwest Qwi§rter of Section 31,Townslhip 3 North,Range 1 East of the Bocce Merldkan,Ada County,Idaho,being more particularity de bed as folbws, l3E:GINN ING at the found aluminum cap man ument at the QUartar-amer common to Section 31.TNN,RIE and Section 36.T3N,R1W as iperpetuated bV document 103052690.Records of Ada--aunty,from which the fnu nd brass cap at the township corner common to Township 3 North.Ranges 1 East and I West and Township 2 North,Ranges S East and 1 west as perpetuated by document 20194)15470,Records of Ada County hears 5 07 E15'17"E a distance of 2669.99 feet; Th ence H 83'57'19"E a long the m id-seEbon line for a distance of 2507-75 feet to the northeast{Omer of said Lot 4; Thence S OW 17'00"W along the Qa9terty line Qf SwiW Lot A for a distance OF 1342-40 feeC Thence along the wulhi!riy boundary of said Lot 4 th a following fi courses and d istances= 1_) N 99'52'35"W for a d4stanoe of 130A0 fee, 2-) N 23'55'33"W far a distance of 17453 feet; 3-) N 16'35'10'W fora distance of 254.88 feet; 4.) H 14'42'14"W for a distaNxe of 194.57 feet; 5-) N 31'79'55"Vd for a distance of 113.67(eet; 6-) N gy°3X 47'°W fora distance of 147.74 feet; Th ence S 34'28'44"W for a dicta rice of ln43 feet to the mnterline of E.Shafer mew Drive; Theme N S5'19 49"W along said cent-erline for a distance of IGD.09 feet; Thence leaving said canterllne N 34'41'11"E for a distance of 10753 fett; Thence along the&Gutherly boundaryofsaid Lot 4 the following 15 courses and distances; 1-) N 04'09'19"E for a distance of 90-91 feet; 2,1 N 26'42'26"W fora distanoe of 85.32 feet; 3_) N 515°39'37"W for a distance of 97.95 Beet; 4_) N 75'35'35''W for a distance of 90-f!B feet; t 1 B02 W.Hays St..:Suite 306-Eini9e,ID 83702•Phckw:2054504-227. www.accurattee urvey are.amn Page 15 Page 91 Item#3. �4, ACCURATE � r � e a � SURMEfl�l6 3 Ii�PPl�16 5_) N 86"33' 28" VV for a distance of 135.49 feet; 6_) 5 71'44'26"W for a distance of 111,98 feet; 7_) S 60°59' 28"W far a distance of 112.30 feet; &. N 76'52' 47" W for a distance of 210.54 feet; 9j 5 78'31'59"W for a distance of 45.73 feet; 10_) S 51`53' 13" VV for a distance of 147,64 feet; 11.) 5 65'24'ST W for a distance of 258.22 feet; 12.) 517'39'49"W for a distance of 98.75 feet; n_) S 03'59'SY E for a distance of 50,00 feet; $a-3$fetm 3 longzhc arc of a 275.00fout radIuscurve rlght h"nga central angle of 18'24' 12"and a long chord bearing N 84'38' 15'W a distance of M_00 feet; 1S.) 5 28'48'47"HIV for a distance of 206-91 feet to th-e centerline of E.Shafer View Drive; Thence along said centerline the following 4 tourers and distances., 1.1 103.63 feet along the are of a 500.00 foot radius curve right having a central angle of 91'52'2V and a long chord bearing N 47'59'54" VV For a distance of 103,44 f eet; 2.� N 42"01'36'' W for a distance of 107.12 feet; 1.) 83.86 feet along the arc of a 100,00 foot radius curve left having a central angle of 48"02'45"and a long chard beating N 86'02'56"W a distance of 91.42 feet; 44 5 89'55'39'W for a distance of 219_88 feet to the section line; Thence N 00'45' 17" W along the section line for a distance of 802_03 feet to the REAL P01NT Of BEGINNING, Parcel conta Ins 40.463 acres,more or ie5s- 1602 W. Hays St.,Suite 305 Boise_ ID 887W Phone;20"86422~7 www.arcuratesurweyars corn Page 16 Page 92 Item#3. AIVIVEXA TIOIV MAP PARCEL LYING 1N I•HE N 112 OF ME SIN 114, .SEC 7701V 31, T.3N., R.1 E., B.M. 36 3i 7 f4 COR. CP&- rNST No.103052680 N 89'57'1 8" E 2507,75' ^� M LOT 4 BLOCK 1 Cy N SHAFER VIEW ESTATES ZQ 40.4a3t ACRES co r rLl$ 05 L14 y 07 �1$ o ti� j2 SCALE: 1"=300' �s O A ~~ ° L6 L22 �+ g L25 C 1 o NOTE., SEE SHEET 2 FdR C " UNE AND CURVE TABLES L to a E. SHAFER VIEW DRIVE ° 1146 3 L 1 LEGEND ANNEX A�4Y ACCURATE � ---------- SE LINE C77QN LINE � � T3N R1 W 38 3T T31V R2W �i a r_T2NRIW__T ti 1 SURVEYING & MAPPING FOUND 3 1 f2" BRASS CAP IWQNi1MENT 1602 W.Hays street#306 R2W FOUND 2" ALUMINIUM CAPlt Boise,Idaho 837�2 CP&F INST, No. 11A (248)488-4227 201 9-0 154 70 ❑ CALCULATED POINT qtf w www,accuratesurveyura.mm RYI� SHEET I OF 2 JOB 20-227 Page 17 Page 93 Item#3. LINE TABLE UKE BEARif4G E115TANCE L1 N 89.52'35 W T30.4U' L2 N 23755'33" W 170-53' 0 N t 6'35'10" W 254_68' L4 N 14'41'14" W 194-52' L-5 I 'N 31'29'55" W 113.67' Lb N 89'34'347" W 147-74' L7 S 34` 8'44" W 190.4,3' L8 N SY18'49" W 100_09' 1-9 N 34741'}1" E 107.53' L10 N 04'00 19 E 90-81 i-11 N 26'42'26" W 85.32' L12 N 56730'37" W 87.95' L13 N 75.33'35" W 90.66' L1 d N 86'33'28" W 185.49' L15 S 71`44'26" W 113.68' L16 S 60'59'28" W 11 -aD' L 17 N 76752'47" W 210-54' L113 8 78-31'59- W 45-73' L 1 9 S 51'-53'13" W 147-64' L20 S 65'24'50" W 258-22' L21 S 17`40'26" W 98.75' L22 S 03'59'33" E 50-00' L23 S 28'48 47 W 206.91 L24 N 42701 36 W 107.12` L25 5 89'5.5 39" W 219.W CURVE TABLE CURVE ARC LENGTH RADIUS DELTA ANGLE CHORD BEARING CHORD LENGTH C 1 88.35' 275.00' 1 T24 50 S $4735'15" E MOO' G2 103.153' 500-00' 11'52,28" N 47 n,3'54 W 103.E C3 a3.86' 100.00' 40'02'45 IN 68'02'58 W $1.4.2 4. ACCURATE 11463 � un4Erl$6 NrYrau Ba19e.Idaho 33702 } 4208�"E-4227 w n w.acc u ra c e su r veyomco ro Piro I 1 SHEET 2 OF 2 JOB 20-227 Page 18 Page 94 Item#3. R-2 Legal Description: krn ® 9233 WEST STATE STREET I RUSE,0 83714 1 208.639.6339 j FAX 208.639.6930 January 6,2020 "ed NO.�8 037 Legal Description Portion of Lot 4,Block 1 of Rafer View Estates Exhlhit A A parcel of la nd being a portion of Lot 4, Block 1 of Shafer View(:states(Book 84 of plats,Pages 9403-9404, records of Ada Cou rty,I daho)which is sit uated in the N orth 112 of the Southwest 1/4 of SeCtipn 3 jg wnsh ig 3 Nurthr Range 1 East,Boise Mericlliarr,City of Meri{i8n,Ada cau nty,Idaho,and being more particu larly described as follows: BEGINNING at a V13.1rich rebar marking the Cerkter of said Section 31(also being the northeast corner of said Lot 4,Block 1),which bears N89°57'15"E a distan€e of 2,507.62 feet from an alurninom top marking the West 1/4 Comer of said Seffion 31,t henee following the easterly line of said North 112 of the Southwest 1/4, S00°16'52"W a distance of 1,342.44 feet(formerly 500°15'38"W a dlzstan€e of 1/342.81 feed to the southeast Corner of said North F/2 of the SoulhwW V4(a65o being the sout heart corner of said Lot 4,Block 11; Thence leaving said easterly flee and fallow Ing the southerly I ine of said Nort h 1/2 of the Sout hwest 114, N$9"52'31"W a d Istance of 130-43 feet to the lout beast corner of Lot 13,Block 1 of said Shafer View Estates; Thence leaving said southerly II ne and following the boundary of Lot 4,15 lock 1 the#allowing courses: 1. N 23°S5'33"w(formerly P4235632"WI a d istance of 170.57 feet; 2. N15'35'10"W(formerly NW36'09ffVY1 a dlstanee of25.4.38feet; N14"41'01"W(f arm erly N1ir42'W M a distance of 193.75feet; 4. N31a15'14"W(formerly N31"ifi'1 -W° a distance of 224.54 feet to a found 1/2-inch rebar, 5- N89'52'31"W(formerly W?53'3V W)a d ista nce of 23.81 feet to a polnt on t h e northe rly line of t he 41-foot wide McBlrney Lateral easement; Th ence Ieavin,g the houndary of sa Id Lot 4,Block 1 and following said northerly line the following courses: 1. N77'19'36"E a distance of 75.47 feet;; 2_ 1475'37'04"t:a distance of 77-3a Net to a point on the centerline of the 38-foot wide drain ditch easement shown on said Shafer Vlew Estates su6dlvkslpn plot; Thence leaving said northerly Ilse and following sald centerline the fvll4win8 courses; 1. N06°2W52"W a distance of'151.79 feet; 2_ N17°292rW a dEstance Of 170.33 feet; 3. N25°5V09"W a distance of 63.g6 feet; 4_ N36'4 r3o"w a dkstar+ce of 99.39 feet; 5. N 50°03'15"W a distance of 94.54 feet; 6_ N55"05'SrW a distance of 124.96 feet; 7. N 51°4e38"W a distance of 99.63 feet; 9. h61 W51-W a distance of 33.41 fleet; 9. N 67'05'46"W a dlstan€e of 68.04 feet to the northerly line of said North 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 (also being the north"line cf said Lot 4,Block 1): ENGINEERS I SURVEYORS I PLANNERS Page 19 Page 95 Item#3. Tlrarnce lea wing said oenterline and following so id.northerly line,N99'57'15"E a distance of 799.30 feet to the POINT OF BEG INNING. Sold parcel contains 10.66 acres,more or less, kL r,Lt {s 1245 A 0F � L_ ValA�' PAGE 2 Page 20 Page 96 Item#3. F T89.30 Y P P -1 i S a 'ik t � F Y � 3 a th a S M �3 JPSPJ]L I]F/p Title; mate; 01-06-2020 Scale: 1 inch=200 feet File: Trw 1: 10,661 Acres; 464381 Sq F ;Gomm n63.4107w 0.01 Feel: FYecision=U331449= P'eximew=39458 Feet 001-s00.1652w 1342.44 M-n77.1936e 75.47 015-n55.0559w 124.96 002-n69-M I w 130.43 009-05.3704le 27-30 0 M--51.4638w 94.63 003--n23.5533w 170.57 410--nO62852w 151.79 01 33.43 04 16.351 Ow 254_$,9 01 1= 17.2622w 120.33 01$--rbG7.054{,w 0.04 005�t14.4101 w 193,75 01'2=Fk25.50Ww 63-86 019=09.5715e 799.30 006=6 .1514w 1144.54 013=06.4130w 99.39 CV-nS9.523I w 23.81 014=n5O.O3 i 5w 84.54 Page 21 Page 97 Item#3. ACCURATE �r { SDR>IEYIND 9 MA, P190 `rfypyyt� R4 Rezone Land Descrigtian A parcel of land being a portion of Lot 4,Block 1 of Shafer View Estates Subdivision as recorded in gook 64 of Flats at Pages 9403 and 9404, Records of Ada County,said parcel is located in the North Half of the Southwest Quarter of Section 31,Township 3 North, Range 1 East of the Boise Meridian,Ada County, Idaho,being more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at the found aluminum cap rnonurnent at the [kuarter Corner common to Section 21,T3N, R1E and Section 36, T3N, R1W as{perpetuated by document 103052680, Records of Ada County,from which the found#grass cap at the township corner common to Township 3 North,Ranges 1.East and 1 West, and Township 2 North, Ranges 1 East and 1 West as perpetuated by document 2019-015470, Records of Ada County bears S 00'05'17' E a distance of 2669.99 feet; Thence N 8T 57' 18" E along the mid-section line for a distance of 1718.45 feet to a set 518°" inch iron pin with a cap stamped PLS 11463; Thence S 67'05' 19"E for a distance of 68_04 feet to a set 5/3kh inch iron pin with a cap stamped PLS 11463; Thence S 61'36'51"E for a distance of 33.43 feet to a set 5/8'h inch iron pin with a tap stamped PLS 11463; Thence S 51'46' 38'E for a distance of 99.63 feet to a set 5/Su'inch iron pin with a cap stamped PLS 11463; Thence S 55'05' 59"E fora distance of 124.96 feet to a set 5/81"inch iron pin with a cap stamperf PLS 11463; Thence S 50'03' 15"E for a distance of 84.54 feet to a set 5/81h inch iron pin with a cap stamped PLS 11463; Thence S 36'41'30"E for a distance of 99,39 feet to a set 51 V inch iron pin with a cap Stamped PLS 11463; Thence S 25'SU 09'E for a distance of 53.86 feet to a set 5/8th inch iron pin with a cap Stamped PLS 11463; Thence S 17' 26' 22'E fora distance of 120.33 feet to a sett 5/81"inrh iron pin with a cap stamped PLS 11463, CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) I 1602 W.Hays St..Suite 306•Boise.ID 83702 • Phone:208-488-4227 www.accur,4e tlrveyars.com Page 22 Page 98 Item#3. *A rtr ACCURATE SURVEYING II: MA9fING Thence 5OF 28' 52" E for a distance of 151.79 feet to a set 5/81° inch iron pin with a cap stamped PLS 11463; Thence S 75'37'W W for a distance of 2730 feet to a set 5J81h inch iron pin with a cap stamped PLS 114,53; Thence 5 77*19' 36"W for a distance of 75.47 feet to a set 5/811 inch iron pin with a cap stamped PLS 11463; Thence N 99'38'35"W for a distance of 224.09 feet to a found 7:inch iron pin, replaced with a Set 518tn inch iron pin with a cap stamped PLS 11463; Thence S 34'28'44"W for a distance of 190,43 feet to the centerline of E-Shafer View Drive; stamped PLS 11463; Thence N 55' 18'49"W along said centerline fora distance of 100.09 feet,- Thence N 34'41' 11" IF for a distance of 107.53 feet to a set 5/81" inch Iron pin with a cap stamped PLS 11463; Thence N 04'O9' 19" E for a di9anre of 90-81 feet to a found M inch iron pin, replaced with a set 5/Slh inch iron pin with a rap stamped PLS 11463; Thence N 26'42'26"W for a distance of 85.32 feet to a found'A inch Iran pin, replaced with a set 5/8th inch iron pin with a rap stamped PI-S 11463; Thence N 56'39'37�W for a distance of$7.95 feet to a found' inch iron pin,replaced with a set 5/8tn inch iron pin with a tap stamped PLS 1141523; Theme N 75'35'35"W far a distance of 90.88 feet to a found )S Inch iron pin, replaced with a set 5f g`h inch iron pin with a cap stamped PLS 11463; Thence N 86"33' 28"W for a distance of 185-49 feet to a founcl inch iron gin, repiacEd with a set SlVh inch iron pin with a cap stamped PLS 11463; Thence S 71'4-' 26"W for a distance of 113.88 feet to a fou nd'A inch iron pin, replaced with a set 5f81" inch iron pitt with a cap stamped RLS 11463; Thence 5 6D'59' 28' W for a distance of 112.30 feet to a set 5/8" inch iron pick with a cap stamped PLS 11463; (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) 1002 VV. Hays St.-Suite 305• Boise. ID 53702 • Phone: 206-488-4227 www.occk1 ratesu rveyors.cum Page 23 Page 99 Item#3. ACCURATE �. 4 SII11MEYIM9 t MAPPINe s '�f�PY1C� T# ence N 76'52'47" W for a distance of 210.54 feet to a fount} inch iron pin, replaced with a set 5/8u'inch iron pin with a cap stamped PLS 11463; Thence 5 78`31'59"W for a distance of 45-73 feet to a found Y2 inrh iron pin,replaced with a set 5/8"n inch iron pin with a cap stamped PLS 11463; Thence S 5V 53'13"W for a distance of 147.64 feet to a found Y4 inch iron pin, replaced with a set 501h inch iron pin with a cap stamped PLS 11463; Thence 5 65' 24'50"W for a distance of 259-22 feet to a found%inch iron pin, replaced with a set 518"'inch iron pin with a cap stamped PLS 11463: Thence 517'39'W W for a distance of 99.75 feet to a found Y2 Inch 1ron pin,replaced with a set 5/81h inch iron pin with a cap stamped PLS 11463; Thence S 03'59'33" E for a distance of 50-00 feet to a found inch iron pin, replaced with a set 51V inch iron pin with a cap stamped PI-5 11463; Thence 88.39 feet along the arc of a 275.DO foot radius curve right having a central angle of 18' 24' 12"and a long chord bearing N 94'38' 15" W a distance of 88.00 feet to a set 5/81h inch iron pin with a cap stamped PLS 11463; Thence S 78°48'47"W for a distance of 206991 feet tothe centerline of E.Shafer View Drive; Thence along said centerline 103.63 feet along the arc of a 500.00 foot radius curve right having a central angle of 11'52' 2V and a long chord bearing N 47'59' 54" W for a distance of 103.44 feet; Thence continuing N 42'01'36"W for a distance of 107-12 feet to a set 5/9"inch iron pin with a cap stamped PLS 11463; Thence continuIng93.86 feet along the arc of a 10D.00foot radius curve left having a central angle of 48'02'45'and a long chord bearing N 66'02'Se W a distance of 3 1.42 feet; Thence 5 89`55'39"W for j�distdnC2 of 2 19.99 feet to the centerline of S.Meridian Road (State Highway 69); Thence N 00'OS' 17'W along said centerline for a distance of 802.03 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING. Parcel con#ain5 29-822 acres, more or less- 11463 zooz 1-1-74o 3 4 OF 1t� 1602 W. Hays 5t.,SuiW 306 a Boise, id 83702 +Phone:209-489-4227 • ''fiQ f J. www.accuratesurveyors.com Page 24 Page 100 Item#3. R4 REZOIVE MAR PARCEL LYING IN THE N 112 OF THE SW 1A SECTION 31, T.3N., R.1E., B.M. cP�F rNsr. No. 114 COP. CP&F ]000100 36 31 wsr No.103052660 N 89'57'18" E 1778.45' S 89'57'18" IN PLS 4398 4,r -c,�-789-30'---- M nor 4 BLOCK i 2 CA SHAFER VIEW ESTATES Cy CQ oar 29.922E ACRES � 6' L24 421 L20 1g r '�+ h L23 ��Z 76 w d SCALE: 1"=300' �� r Q o �Z6 0 A co U to P, NOTE. SEE SHEET 2 FOR '�� r L12 L1� N N LINE ANO CURVE TAR4ES ~ ^] w L28 1 v Ao^ L31 C3 C 7� a f� g N wma '� A E. SHAFER VIEW DRIVE 1j4671q R� LEGEND BOUNDARY J. D��G ------ SECIIDN LINE ' FOUND 3 1/2" BRASS CAP MONUMENT q 1 r f�bI ACCURATE T3N R7W 36 31 T3N R2W JR FOUND 2" ALUMINUM CAP m _ SURVEYING $ MAPPING T2N Rl W 1 T2N R2W FOUND 1/2" IRON PIN, REMOVED d 6 AND REPLACED WITH 5/8" IRON AN, 1602ome Mays St8370reet 306 P"ALUMINUM CAP, PLS 11463 r Boise,Idaho 42202 CP&F INST Na �; {2087 488.42Z7 2019-015470 O SET 518"IRON P)N, 2" ALUM. CAP, PLS 1 f46J ,P E www.accuratesurveyors.com ❑ CALCULATED POINT ER Y 1 C SHEET 1 OF 2 JOB 20-227 Page 25 Page 101 Item#3. LINE TABLE LINE BEARING DISTANCE L i S 67`05'19" E 68.04' L-2 S 61'36'51" E 33.43' L3 S 51'46'38" E 99-63' L 4 S 55'05'59" E 124.96' L5 5 5G-03'15" E 84.54' L6 S 36'41'30" E 99-39' L7 S 25'50 09" E 63.86' L8 S 17'26'22" E 120.33' L9 5 06'28'52" E 151.79' L10 S 7535'46" L 1 i S 77 19'36" W 75.47 L 12 N 89'38'36" W 124.09' L 13 S 34'28'44" W 190.43' L_7 4 N, 55'18'49" W 100-09 L 15 N 34'41 11 E 107.53' L16 j N 04'09'19" E 9D.51' L17 N 26'42'26" W 85.32' L 1 S N 5639'37" W 87-95' L19 N 75'35'35" W 90.88' L20 N BV33'28" W 1 MAT L21 S 71'44 26 W 1 13-88' L22 S W59'28" W 112-30' L23 N 76 52'47" W 210.54' L24 S 78'31'59" W 45.73' L25 S 51'53'13" W 147-64' L26 S 65'24'5{D" 1W 258.22' L27 S 1739'49" W 98.75' L28 S 03'58'33" E 55.00 L29 5 DY48'47 W 206.91 L30 N 42'01'36" W 1 D7.12' L31 S 89'55'39" W 1 219-88' CURVE TA8LE G,URVE ARC LENGTH RADIUS DELTA ANGLE CHORD BEARING CHORD LENGTH C 1 S&M, 275.00' 1 T24'50" S 84'38'15" £ MOO' C2 103.63' S(D.00 11'52 2B N 47'59'54" W 103-44` C3 83.86' 100,00' 48'02`45" 8 56'02'58" E 81-4Z' L Ar, ACCURATE MAPP 1146353 2- 16W W.Nays Street 4306 , ,1*T-%P Boise.Idaho &1702 4 P t4$)488,422? le It xrnw a€rura"urweyors€om 5HEET 2 OF.2 109 2W mmmml Page 26 Page 102 B. Preliminary Plat&Phasing Plan (date: 11/18/2020 3/9/2021) PLAT LEGEND CONTACTS FOR 0—RUCTIO TYPICAL 417 R.O.W.ROAD SECTION ----------- PH�IP NOTES '.11ITI�.AP --------------------------------- "2.t"aj,4-*" 0 Z- co ;119 co X DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION cl 7, Lu E w > Fu < co + �F'UT.U�E�= PRELIMINARY PLAT Ppio V TITI I L�vm I I I PHVLSE I PIHI A S:E 2 PHASING MAP 500 Page 27 Item#3. C. Landscape Plan(date: 5��^7�0 2Y2 M 3/9/2021) 'Amp d - 1 a AP \ /T SHAFER VIEW TERRACE MERIDIAN,IDAHO - Page 28 Page 104 Item#3. � I "" r' � PROJECT INFORMATION •�,n iCITY OF MERIDIAN� -""�-�1~�( \ 1 _ LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS o .� �W-g I co< ay ERALL LAN 51 LANDSCAPE NOTES "��"<�""•' �•M "�'. ". .� � .. ' R 1' " W"'.,,..........,k.,,n".,....d......, t BERMADJACEN7T0 MERIDIAN R0AD 2 t Lld I lie Lu z $ N404 BLOCKS i i `�- I ROCK a, ¢d W 20 . 19 Z o 'in �D. APF PLAN w=4�Lu •! LANDSCAPE LEGEND CALLOUf LEGEND w.;,:m` 2 ® r Page 29 Page 105 Item#3. wrcixi�.�esc¢ i :mac -71' flf OCK L S��ifi it i� GL OCx 6 O 4 / I z I z fiR\L6HDWA2E ELM-6RE6 TWOa r Ti1RF AREA PREPARATICNaNOTES: =w j LANDSCAPE LEGEND CALLOUT LEGENDNt �� e r8o -„..._,p Yid� zSFCr�� ----_ anrre ru—re..l,w.r.wi.rn,x.r.i.. 'n��uii�`•iwnwwrizrs mxeem�inwn.ie.�e wn.warmam yy WF i S T f `: . I w N= i z�o�d >4 g F i ND PEP - REA THREE I a y p a - WEED ABATEMENT NOTES` _ ((GAL 'p LAND9CAPE LEGEND CALLOUT LEGEND ;m 'L�`•"�" ,, ""p'' "`p y W CJ .. _ �..� Il ill unnmf US Page 30 Page 106 Item#3. { � i , • ::...: :. : •: ::..:. n. LANDSCAPE LEGEND e T30 A. BLOCx2 , CALLOUT LEGEND 64OCX3 44: - iiEGG Q« i 14 I �.o.o.P,•..�...P....n..,... NLL is �=� LLZLL WJSW 93 13 TW4hqFA FOUR 1T PLANTER REG Cl1T EDGE Z eWROUGHT IRON FENCE L1Q -_ -_ -_ -_ -_ —__—__—__—__—__—__—__—__— IN _ LANDSCAPE LEGEND 0N e�lt��1'1 it ®. CALLCUT LEGEND,.ep =I7 ® •, Z3fO 1} n wa¢W TOPSOIL NOTES ��'��II� MID It RJA FIVE Page 31 Page 107 Item#3. LANDSCAPE LEGEND130 .::. gum Y 1 XX :< , : :fi CALLOLIT LEGEND --__ _ a, . x v aFD ® Qo�rr cc z six Z o : r W� '�y V axmaem�wiiercnwwen."�cA.aees 1 � /1 VINYLWFENGE PANEL �� 2 L1.6 T- - -—--—--—--—--— --__—__—__—__—__--- LANDSCAPE LEGEND GALLOLfT LEGEND F ..�. ems. ED W -- NW y 5;,r gNcl¢ •k mw�z F I L4N0SCA �FS�EA SEVEN a lr1 Y _ " Ll7 9 Page 32 Page 108 Item#3. STORMWATER POND REVEGETATION REQUIREMENTS R— m --- UZ »,_ ., •.=„••H w ��BOl1LOER IN57ALLA710N �3 DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING cc 0 a Z W=Lu MO d o W W 3 TREE MITIGATION:.n,�.,�„ Az-mm' e _ MWba- - �•.. Foil ri.'II� 2..aN DETAIL, MwCONIFEROUS TREE PLANTIpN,�G�� L1.8 Page 33 Page 109 Item#3. SIM TEK FENCE 1330 WEST 400 NORTH ORE M.UT B4057 *Ii T 'Y TOLL=REE:1-a66-6 94M PHONE:(E*l}655-6236 FENCE FAX:(a01)80,Q40 wi w,slmt@Mrx e,rom PAST rIENTERS i=V'-:TUNE s I I W 130LETR1CL1EY1' � -AWNDL:'.= ' I GROUNOLEYEL 74,2fi' €-I=FENER LENGiM POST 1Sx1.51E GAUGE GALVANIM STEEL STIFFENERASTMA513 u 10'•12' Gv5 NOLEDMETER CCNCR[-rOCT1Ne CIAVETER 11Y TO 12•L9N, +l4=7C'_21a-C CEP 1%.IV ACCCFMANCE sN - .0"W4DIT14Ns,CODR.Aft€TJOVARC vr%�- 5*riLINEAR LQJNEENFITYPi3LYETHYLENE KlILDW PRACTICES PU,TIv:L-.PE). ELEVATION VIE'A AvTU.L PANEL CNENSIONS:72•NjLN.MM PkfL WEIGHT 5&LOP TOLERANCES ARE f.V a 1.L2 0ATENTS 7,47E,7971 T.M114 FOREIGN 3ATENTS PENCINC, 1. INS ALLATIONTOEECOMPLETECIYACCCRC.1yCC411-„GXN.=.CTURER'SSPECIFICATlOf . 1.ALL DIMEWKS ARE CMICEREDTRUE Aq:k:FLEYT 10ANUFACTOKII's SPECIFIW WN 4. DO NOT SCALE DRAWM. S,OONTRACTOR9 NOTE,FORPF*DLbCTAND COMPANY W-ORMATION VISIT www,Cp.DwAIhoowKn REFERENCE NUMBERJM24X7, IMTEK FENCE MOD LHOW124r 10EMgM L5 HXE!W RECISION DATE Wedi2014 Page 34 Page 110 Item#3. D. Open Space Exhibit(dated: '7%0 3/9/21) CITY OF MERIDIAN OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS X COMMON OPEN SPACE � As DEFINED BY 7HE 1-�VIAX RrbuuID £�2E2 IAX.II�°J C,00E REiiiIIIYEMEHiS fgg(iIIALIPICD 2WJ 4(E83 AG) OPH'15PAC�J 79J3h QUALIFIED OPEN SPACE A5 DE*IIM BY YNE MMUTAH VLC.II�l6-S GOGE i�QUIREMEHTS I�'J,SA�{�.84 AC.1 IY476Y f4A5 AC.1 ID% 14.27% sEalgEv- LANDSCAPE LEGEND QoLlf-im OFM SPA= QUARTZ CREEK ST. AREA--46,180 SO.FT- - r � I Ll I I it I 1 Imo. . I� =_ a.59350.FT. AREA=23,490SQ.F- LL AREA=50,655 SYl FT- D cr w .� SHAFER VIEW NORTH PROJECT #20021 MERIDIAN, IDAHO OPEN SPACE EXHIBIT X1,0 Page 35 Page 111 E. Conceptual Building Elevations .. ..... .... Page 36 ate•." � - w f Item#3. VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION 1. A Development Agreement(DA) is required as a provision of annexation of this property. Prior to approval of the annexation ordinance,a DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian and the property owner(s)at the time of annexation ordinance adoption. Currently, a fee of$303.00 shall be paid by the Applicant to the Planning Division prior to commencement of the DA. The DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning Division within six(6)months of the City Council granting the annexation. The DA shall, at minimum, incorporate the following provisions: a. Development of the subject property shall be generally consistent with the preliminary plat,phasing plan, landscape plan and conceptual building elevations. b. A 10-foot wide multi-use pathway is required to be constructed along S.Meridian Rd./SH-69 in a public use easement in accord with UDC 11-3H-4C.4. c. Noise abatement is required to be provided within the street buffer along S. Meridian Rd./SH-69 in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3H-4D. d. A final plat shall be recorded that includes Lot 1,Block 7 prior to any development occurring on the property. 2. Development of the subject preliminary plat shall be consistent with the phasing plan included in Section VII.B. 3. The final plat shall include the following revisions: a. Include a note prohibiting direct lot access via S. Meridian Rd./SH-69 and E. Quartz Creek St. b. Block 3 exceeds the maximum block face standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3F; the plat shall be revised to comply with these standards unless otherwise approved by City Council.A waiver is requested from Council to exceed the maximum block face allowed of 1,200 feet to allow the block face as proposed. eommen let(s).Depicted on revised plat. d. Remove one(1)_ buildablezvcar the�zcnac-y-vr Lots z 5;vivcav south vr the �vxcvrrrrc-y T Depicted on revised plat. 4. The landscape plan included in Section VII.0 shall be revised as follows: a. with the standards for-pathway(P14B-12-0 and parkway(444B-7-C—) landseaping; inelude ro «Ρoa vs. pr-evided ..ber- ft fees.Done b. Done c. Inelude a detail of the befm and ,,vall r-e"ir-ed for-noise aba4efnent along S. Mer-idian Rd./S14 69#ivA demonstrates eempkanee with the standards listed in UPC 11 314 4D. Done d. 1-neltide mifigmien infefmation for-any existing tfees thm are removed ftofn the site in Page 37 Page 113 Item#3. Done �listed in UP�l1 3z- A.7b i3er UDC 11�T . Done f-. if the drain on the eastem portion of the site is piped, depiet vegetative mrotmdeover o-n- r i tW eo-ntaiaiaii�the a-ai t o e f4 fire i..,zaf a-E , h fli ess.Done g. Depict additional landscaping at the entrance to the subdivision at the intersection of S. Meridian Rd./SH-69 and Shafer View Dr. as offered b, t�pplicant. h. Remove one (1)Wildable lot in the vieiait�,,of Lots 2 5,Bloelc-6 south of the Later-a!, istepg with thg sheA:.a r+i.o oar-elif.,inap,plat.Done 5. A 14-foot wide public use easement shall be submitted to the Planning Division for the multi- use pathway along S. Meridian Rd./SH-69 prior to submittal of the Phase 1 final plat for City Engineer signature. If the pathway is located within the right-of-way, a public use easement is not required. 6. Future development shall be consistent with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Tables 11-2A-4 for the R-2 zoning district and 11-2A-5 for the R-4 zoning district.. 7. Off-street parking is required to be provided for all residential units in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 based on the number of bedrooms per unit. 8. The rear and/or sides of structures on lots that abut S. Meridian Rd. and E. Quartz Creek St. shall incorporate articulation through changes in two or more of the following: modulation (e.g.projections,recesses, step-backs,pop-outs),bays,banding,porches,balconies,material types, or other integrated architectural elements to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines that are visible from the subject public street. Single-story structures are exempt from this requirement. 9. All waterways on this site shall be piped unless otherwise waived by City Council as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6B. As an alternative,the waterway may be left open if improved as a water amenity as defined in UDC 11-IA-1 (see also UDC 11-3A-6C.2). The Applicant requests a waiver from City Council to allow the McBirney Lateral to remain open and not be piped. 10. The pond is required to have recirculated water and shall be maintained such that it doesn't become a mosquito breeding ground as set forth in UDC 11-3G-3B.7. IX. PUBLIC WORKS 1. Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1.1 The angle of sanitary sewer pipe going into and out of manholes needs to be minimum of 90-degrees. 1.2 All sanitary sewer manholes require a 14-foot wide access path that meets City requirements. 1.3 Sanitary sewer manholes should not be located in curb and gutter. 1.4 Add an 8-inch water mainline in Crystal Creek Way, and stub to the north for future connection. 1.5 The water mainline needs to be 12-inch diameter in Prevail Way,portion of Terrace Ridge Dr,portion of Terrace Ridge Circle and south out to E Shafer View Rd. Page 38 Page 114 Item#3. 1.6 A street light plan will need to be included in the final plat application. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6 of the City's Design Standards. A future installation agreement and funds are required for the required streetlights on S. Meridian Road pursuant to Section 6-4 B. of the Meridian Design Standards. 1.7 The geotechnical investigative report for this development,prepared by Materials Testing &Inspection,dated 02/10/2020, does not indicate a specific concern with regard to groundwater. Applicant shall be responsible for the adherence to the recommendation presented in this report. 2. General Conditions of Approval 2.1 Sanitary sewer service to this development is available via extension of existing mains adjacent to the development. The applicant shall install mains to and through this subdivision; applicant shall coordinate main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2.2 Water service to this site is available via extension of existing mains adjacent to the development. The applicant shall be responsible to install water mains to and through this development, coordinate main size and routing with Public Works. 2.3 All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B. 2.4 Upon installation of the landscaping and prior to inspection by Planning Department staff, the applicant shall provide a written certificate of completion as set forth in UDC 11-313- 14A. 2.5 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110%will be required for all incomplete fencing,landscaping, amenities,pressurized irrigation,prior to signature on the final plat. 2.6 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post with the City a performance surety in the amount of 125% of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer, water infrastructure prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The applicant shall be required to enter into a Development Surety Agreement with the City of Meridian.The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety, which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 2.7 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20% of the total construction cost for all completed sewer, and water infrastructure for a duration of two years.This surety amount will be verified by a line item final cost invoicing provided by the owner to the City.The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety, which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 2.8 In the event that an applicant and/or owner cannot complete non-life,non-safety and non- health improvements, prior to City Engineer signature on the final plat and/or prior to occupancy, a surety agreement may be approved as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3C. Page 39 Page 115 Item#3. 2.9 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process, prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. 2.10 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 2.11 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.12 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 2.13 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-1-4B. 2.14 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill,where footing would sit atop fill material. 2.15 The engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. 2.16 The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 2.17 At the completion of the project, the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. 2.18 Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-7 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting (http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272). All street lights shall be installed at developer's expense. Final design shall be submitted as part of the development plan set for approval, which must include the location of any existing street lights. The contractor's work and materials shall conform to the ISPWC and the City of Meridian Supplemental Specifications to the ISPWC. Contact the City of Meridian Transportation and Utility Coordinator at 898-5500 for information on the locations of existing street lighting. 2.19 The applicant shall provide easement(s)for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way (include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20- feet wide for a single utility,or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat, but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian's standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement(on the form available from Public Works),a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor, which must include the area of the easement (marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2" x 11" map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor.DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted,reviewed, and approved prior to signature of the final plat by the City Engineer. 2.20 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES permitting that may be required by the Environmental Protection Agency. Page 40 Page 116 Item#3. 2.21 Any existing domestic well system within this project shall be removed from domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8 contact the City of Meridian Water Department at (208)888-5242 for inspections of disconnection of services. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation if approved by Idaho Department of Water Resources. 2.22 Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact the Central District Health Department for abandonment procedures and inspections. 2.23 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year- round source of water (MCC 9-1-28.C.1). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to development plan approval. 2.24 All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals, or drains, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridianciU.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=219456&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC ky D. POLICE DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridianciU.orgJ ebLink/DocView.aspx?id=220250&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC E. PARK'S DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridiancity.orglWebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=222017&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC iv F. COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST IDAHO(COMPASS) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Doc View.asp x?id=220261&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lty G. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Doc View.asp x?id=220014&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lty H. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ) https://weblink.meridiancioy.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=220034&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC I. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT(WASD) https://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=220564&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC iv Page 41 Page 117 Item#3. J. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SCHOOL IMPACT ANALYSIS https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.gyp x?id=221041&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lty K. BOISE PROJECT BOARD OF CONTROL https:llweblink.meridiancity.orF WWebLink/DocView.aspx?id=219526&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty L. ADA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES https:llweblink.meridiancity.orzlWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=219424&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lty M. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https:llweblink.meridiancity.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=222031&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC ky N. IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT(ITD) https:llweblink.meridiancity.orglWebLink/DocView.aspx?id=222250&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lu X. FINDINGS A. Annexation and/or Rezone(UDC 11-5B-3E) Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full investigation and shall,at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: l. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; The Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment to R-2 and R-4 and subsequent development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; The Commission finds the proposed map amendment will allow for the development of single- family detached homes which will contribute to the range of housing opportunities available within the City consistent with the purpose statement of the residential districts. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; The Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment should not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to, school districts; and The Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment will not result in an adverse impact on the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the City. Page 42 Page 118 Item#3. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. The Commission finds the proposed annexation is in the best interest of the City. B. In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat,or short plat, the decision-making body shall make the following findings: 1. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; The Commission finds that the proposed plat is in substantial compliance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan in regard to land use, density and transportation. (Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies in, Section V of this report for more information) 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; The Commission finds that public services will be provided to the subject property with development. (See Exhibit B of the Staff Report for more details from public service providers) 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's capital improvement program; Because City water and sewer and any other utilities will be provided by the development at their own cost, the Commission finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; The Commission finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development based upon comments from the public service providers (i.e., Police, Fire, ACHD, etc). (See Section VIII for more information) 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and, The Commission is not aware of any health,safety, or environmental problems associated with the platting of this property. ACHD considers road safety issues in their analysis. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. The Commission is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that exist on this site that require preserving. Page 43 Page 119 7/tem 77 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for TM Center/Ten Mile Crossing (H-2020-0074) by SCS Brighton, et al., Located East of S. Ten Mile Rd. and south of W. Franklin Rd. A. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 83 buildable lots and 2 common lots on 132.42 acres of land in the R-40 and C-G zoning districts. B. Request: A Development Agreement Modification to terminate all existing agreements in the Ten Mile Crossing development area in favor of one master agreement to govern future development of the overall area. The proposal includes a request for adoption of project-specific design guidelines to supersede those in the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan (TMISAP), which include deviations from certain goals and guidelines including decreased floor area ratios, different street and streetscape designs, landscape and architectural design elements and site development standards, including an increase in height of up to 100-feet to allow for 6-story buildings [i.e. TM Crossing—AZ-12-005 (Inst. #114002254, 1st Addendum #2016-062220, 2nd Addendum #2017-051907, TMC Expansion #2019-011700); TM Creek/TM Creek East —AZ-13- 015/H-2015-0018 (Inst. #114045759, 1st Addendum #2016-073497, 2nd Addendum #2017- 113747); Ten Mile Center—AZ-14-001 (Inst. #2014-065514); Calnon Properties — H-2015-0017 (Inst. 2016-030845); and Bainbridge Franklin — H-2018-0057 (Inst. #2019-077071)]. C. Request: A Rezone of 40.98 acres from the R-40 and C-C zoning districts to the C-G zoning district, 3.9-acres from the TN-C and C-G zoning districts to the R-40 zoning district, 0.65 acres from the R-8 and TN-C zoning districts to the C-G zoning district, and 0.53 acres from the TN-C zoning district to the C-G zoning district. Page 137 Item#4. C� fIEN , IN4, IDAHG-. PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Sonya Allen Meeting Date: April 13, 2021 Topic: Public Hearing for TM Center/Ten Mile Crossing (H-2020-0074) by SCS Brighton, et al., Located east of S. Ten Mile Rd. and south of W. Franklin Rd. A. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 83 buildable lots and 2 common lots on 132.42 acres of land in the R-40 and C-G zoning districts. B. Request: A Development Agreement Modification to terminate all existing agreements in the Ten Mile Crossing development area in favor of one master agreement to govern future development of the overall area. The proposal includes a request for adoption of project-specific design guidelines to supersede those in the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan (TMISAP), which include deviations from certain goals and guidelines including decreased floor area ratios, different street and streetscape designs, landscape and architectural design elements and site development standards, including an increase in height of up to 100-feet to allow for 6-story buildings [i.e. TM Crossing-AZ-12-005 (Inst. #114002254, 1st Addendum #2016- 062220, 2nd Addendum #2017-051907, TMC Expansion #2019-011700); TM Creek/TM Creek East-AZ-13-015/H-2015-0018 (Inst. #114045759, 1st Addendum #2016-073497, 2nd Addendum #2017-113747); Ten Mile Center -AZ-14-001 (Inst. #2014-065514); Calnon Properties - H-2015-0017 (Inst. 2016-030845); and Bainbridge Franklin - H-2018-0057 (Inst. #2019- 077071)]. C. Request: A Rezone of 40.98 acres from the R-40 and C-C zoning districts to the C-G zoning district, 3.9-acres from the TN-C and C-G zoning districts to the R-40 zoning district, 0.65 acres from the R-8 and TN-C zoning districts to the C-G zoning district, and 0.53 acres from the TN-C zoning district to the C- G zoning district. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the City Council Public Hearing Page 138 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET i I DATE: April 13, 2021 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 4 i PROJECT NAME: TM Center/Ten Mile Crossing (H-2020-0074) { PRINTED FULL NAME For Against Neutral Want to Testify YES OR NO 1 i 2 3 ' 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Item#4. STAFF REPORT C�I w IDIAN -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT .►A H O HEARING DATE: April 13,2021 TO: Mayor&City Council FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2020-0074 TM Center-PP Ten Mile Crossing—MDA,RZ LOCATION: East of S. Ten Mile Rd. & south of W. Franklin Rd., in the north half of Section 14, Township 3N.,Range 1 W. _ r Legend ;. Legend_9 Rxc,az: _o-,a-c - r +� R _ - - - i i '77 I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Preliminary Plat consisting of 83 buildable lots and 2 common lots on 132.42 acres of land in the R-40 and C-G zoning districts; Rezone of 40.98-acres from the R-40 and C-C zoning districts to the C-G zoning district; 3.9-acres from the TN-C and C-G zoning districts to R-40 zoning district; 0.65-acre from the R-8 and TN-C zoning districts to the C-G zoning district; and 0.53-acre from the TN-C zoning district to the C-G zoning district; and, Pagel Page 139 Item#4. Development Agreement modification to terminate all existing agreements in the Ten Mile Crossing development area in favor of one master agreement to govern future development of the overall area. The proposal includes a request for adoption of project-specific design guidelines to supersede those in the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan(TMISAP),which include deviations from certain goals and guidelines including decreased floor area ratios, different street and streetscape designs, landscape and architectural design elements and site development standards, including an increase in height in the C-G zoning district of up to 100-feet to allow for 6-story buildings [i.e. TM Crossing—AZ-12-005 (Inst. 114002254, 1 st Addendum#2016-062220,2nd Addendum#2017-051907, TMC Expansion#2019-011700); TM Creek/TM Creek East—AZ-13-015/H-2015-0018 (Inst. #114045759, 1st Addendum#2016-073497,2nd Addendum #2017-113747); Ten Mile Center—AZ-14-001 (Inst. #2014-065514); Calnon Properties—H-2015-0017 (Inst. 2016-030845); and Bainbridge Franklin—H-2018-0057 (Inst. #2019-077071)]. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 307.72 DA boundary; 132.42 plat boundary;46.06 rezone area Future Land Use Mixed Use—Residential(MU-R),Medium Density Residential(MDR), Designations Medium High-Density Residential(MHDR),High Density Residential (HDR),Mixed Use—Commercial(MU-C)and Commercial in the TMISAP Existing Land Uses Agricultural,commercial,restaurant,carwash,personal and professional service,office,healthcare,multi-family residential Proposed Land Uses Commercial,office and high density residential Current Zoning Mostly C-G with some R-8,R-40,TN-C,TN-R and C-C Proposed Zoning R-40 and C-G Lots(#and type; 83 building(74 commercial,9 high-density residential)/2 common bldg./common) Phasing plan(#of 6(conceptually,based on market demand) phases) Number of Residential TBD Units(type of units) Density(gross&net) TBD Open Space(acres, TBD with future residential development total [%]/buffer/ qualified Amenities TBD with future residential development Physical Features The Ten Mile Creek,Purdam Gulch Drain,Von Lateral and Kennedy (waterways,hazards, Lateral cross this site flood plain,hillside) Page 2 Page 140 Item#4. Neighborhood meeting September 23,2020;4 attendees date;#of attendees: History(previous TM Crossing—AZ-12-005 (Inst. 114002254, 1 st Addendum#2016- approvals) 062220,2nd Addendum#2017-051907,TMC Expansion#2019- 011700);TM Creek/TM Creek East—AZ-13-015/H-2015-0018(Inst. #114045759, 1st Addendum#2016-073497,2nd Addendum#2017- 113747);Ten Mile Center—AZ-14-001 (Inst.#2014-065514);Calnon Properties—H-2015-0017(Inst.2016-030845);and Bainbridge Franklin —H-2018-0057(Inst.#2019-077071)] B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District • Staff report Yes (yes/no) • Requires ACHD No Commission Action es/no A full Traffic Impact Study(TIS)was not required. • Existing Abutting roadways(Ten Mile&Franklin Rds.)are fully improved;Wayfinder Conditions with detached sidewalks exists between Franklin and Vanguard;Cobalt with detached sidewalk on the north side of the road exists from Wayfinder to the east boundary of TM Creek East Apartments • CIP/IFYWP • Linder Road is scheduled in the IFYWP to be widened to 5-lanes from Franklin Road to Pine Avenue in 2020. The project includes Bridge#1120. • Linder Road is scheduled in the IFYWP to be widened to 5-lanes from Overland Road to Franklin Road and will include a new 4-lane 1-84 overpass. • The intersection of Linder Road and Franklin Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to 6- lanes on the north leg,6-lanes on the south,7-lanes east,and 7-lanes on the west leg,and signalized between 2021 and 2025. Access One collector street access(S.New Market Ave.)and two(2)driveway (Arterial/Collectors/State accesses are proposed via Franklin Rd. Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) Traffic Level of Service Better than"D"—Franklin&Ten Mile Roads(acceptable LOS is"E") Stub Cobalt Dr.is proposed to stub to the east for future extension. Street/Interconnectivity/ Cross Access Existing Road Network Ten Mile and Franklin Roads exist along the west and north boundaries of this site;Wayfinder exists from Franklin Rd.to Vanguard;Cobalt extends from Ten Mile Rd.to midway between Wayfinder and New Market/Benchmark. Existing Arterial A detached sidewalk exists along Franklin, some buffers; an existing asphalt Sidewalks/Buffers pathway exists along Ten Mile,some buffers Proposed Road No improvements are proposed to adjacent roadways(Ten Mile&Franklin) Improvements Fire Service • Distance to Fire 1.7 miles—Fire Station#2 Station • Fire Response Falls within 5-minute response time Time Page 3 Page 141 Item#4. • Resource 76%for Fire Station#2—does not meet the target goal of 80%or greater Reliability • Risk Identification Risk factor of 4—current resources would not be adequate to supply service to this project(see comments in Section VIII.C) • Accessibility Project meets all required access,road widths and turnarounds • Special/resource An aerial device is required;the closest truck company is 6 minutes travel needs time(under ideal conditions)—Fire Dept.can meet this need in the required timeframe if required. • Water Supply Requires 1,500 gallons per minute for 2 hours;may be less if building is _ fully sprinklered,which all are proposed to be • Other Resources NA Police Service • Distance to Police 4 miles Station • Police Response 3.5 minutes Time • Calls for Service 577 within a mile of site(3/1/2019—2/29/2020) • Accessibility No concerns with the proposed access • Specialty/resource No additional resources are required at this time;the PD already services the needs area • Crimes 67 within a mile of site(3/1/2019—2/29/2020) • Crashes 25 within a mile of site(3/1/2019—2/29/2020) West Ada School District Joint School District No.2(dba West Ada School District) has experienced significant and sustained growth in student enrollment during the last ten years.Many ofour schools throughout the district are operating at or above capacity. Based on U.S.census data,we can predict that these homes,when completed,will house 380(=#homes x 0.8 ner census data) school aged children.Approval of the TM Center will affect enrollments at the following schools in West Ada District: Enrollment Ca aci Miles (Bev.m School) Peregrine Elementary 526 650 1.9 Meridian Middle School 1285 1250 2.7 Meridian High School 2126 2400 1.5 Due to the abundant amount of growth in the area,West Ada is actively building new schools,and boundaries are always changing.These future students could potentially attend Owyhee High School. Page 4 Page 142 Item#4. Wastewater • Distance to Sewer Directly adjacent Services • Sewer Shed South Black Cat Trunk shed • Estimated Project See application Sewer ERU's • WRRF Declining 13.96 Balance • Project Consistent Yes with WW Master Plan/Facility Plan • Impacts/Concerns The current sewer configuration submitted with this application,depicts at intersection of Colbalt and New Market Avenue,flow being enabled to go in either the north or the west direction.This needs to be corrected so flow only goes in one direction.Based on conversations with applicant 8" sewer line on Cobalt will not connect to manhole at intersection. Water • Distance to Water Directly adjacent Services • Pressure Zone 2 • Estimated Project See application Water ERU's • Water Quality This development will result in a long dead-end water main which may result Concerns in poor water quality.Connecting to the south will eliminate this dead-end and correct this problem. • Project Consistent Yes with Water Master Plan • Impacts/Concerns •To alleviate the water quality issues,this development must extend the proposed 12"water main south to connect into the existing water main in S New Market Ave(TM Crossing No 4). •Make sure to tie into the existing 12"water stub in Vanguard(between lots 6&25,block 1 Page 5 Page 143 Item#4. C. Project Maps (Preliminary Plat Boundary) Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Legend i Legend L ff . ff Project Laca-fior I Prnjeoi Lac o _ U� 115 ugh F igh-D n IHf. , - Re�identidl Id I Ln MU-Rer, lira, ' ` ' R31�� 11tIG� - II..nerd - ' In tlustdo Zoning Map Planned Develo iment Map Legend 'R- — RUT R. Legend R I- 0 0 Project Lcoa-fior R.8 - - Prcjeoi Limafian y F - L- — +-i City Limit R-1 5 RUT I-L I-L — Planned Parcels L-O C-N R-40 RUT TN- �C` RUT - ----- 40 -C R1 ~RUT R-8 ---�~ '-- R1 U_-' R RUT I-L RUTS R1� I ri s III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Michael Wardle, Brighton Development—2929 W.Navigator Dr. #400, Meridian, ID 83642 B. Owners: SCS Brighton,LLC—2929 W.Navigator Dr. #400,Meridian,ID 83642 SCS Brighton II,LLC—2929 W.Navigator Dr.,#400,Meridian, ID 83642 Page 6 Page 144 Item#4. DWT Investments,LLC—2929 W.Navigator Dr.,#400,Meridian,ID 83642 SCS Investments, Inc.—2929 W.Navigator Dr.,#400,Meridian,ID 83642 SCS Investments,LLC—2929 W.Navigator Dr.,#400,Meridian, ID 83642 SCS TM Creek,LLC—2929 W.Navigator Dr.,#400,Meridian, ID 83642 Brighton Land Holdings,LLC—2929 W.Navigator Dr.,#400,Meridian, ID 83642 C. Representative: Same as Applicant IV. NOTICING Planning&Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper notification published in newspaper 2/26/2021 3/26/2021 Radius notification mailed to property owners within 300 feet 2/23/2021 3/24/2021 Public hearing notice sign posted 3/4/2021 4/1/2021 on site Nextdoor posting 2/25/2021 3/24/2021 V. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS No changes are proposed to the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) or text of the Comprehensive Plan or the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan (TMISAP). LAND USE: Approximately half of the property subject to the proposed new Development Agreement(DA) is designated on the Future Land Use Map in the Comprehensive Plan as Commercial with some Medium Density Residential(MDR),Medium High Density Residential(MHDR),High Density Residential (HDR),Mixed Use Residential(MU-RES) and Mixed Use Commercial(MU-COM) [see pg. 111 (D-1), Appendix D]. Development of this area is governed by the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan (TMISAP)and existing DA's. Seepages 3-5 thru 3-9 in the TMISAP for more information on these specific land use designations. Legend fd 'ea-Lacafian \ I P� hAixe KeRsiounirialCmp o ent IuUI-Re s �� id ntio i n Generolln ustri �In"'.ry e e High. ens' -sidei Page 7 Page 145 Item#4. Since the adoption of the TMISAP in 2007,there have been substantial changes to the FLUM in this area. In 2012,an amendment to the map was approved for TM Crossing (CPAM-12-001)that changed 30.5-acres of land from Lifestyle Center(LC), 8.5-acres from Medium High Density Residential (MHDR)and 40-acres from High Density Employment(HDE)to Commercial with C-G zoning to accommodate a range of uses including office/professional,hospitality and large& small retailers. A market analysis provided by the Applicant at the time deemed another lifestyle center in addition to The Village at Meridian wasn't feasible in such close proximity. Although future development wouldn't be held to the mixed-use guidelines of the Plan, future development was required to comply with the design goals of the Plan through the DA to ensure consistency with the Plan and the overall area. This area has developed with several multi-story professional office and medical office buildings and is still in the development process.Note: The Commercial land use designation is a FL UM designation in the Comprehensive Plan but not in the TMISAP; therefore, there are no specific design guidelines in the Plan for this designation. In 2015, an amendment to the FLUM was approved for Calnon(H-2015-0017)that changed the FLUM designation on 40.06-acres from Medium High Density Residential(MHDR) &High Density Residential(HDR)to Mixed Use Commercial(MU-COM) and 15.49-acres from Medium Density Residential(MDR), MHDR and High Density Residential(HDR)to Mixed Use Residential(MU-RES). In the absence of a development plan, a conceptual use plan was approved with the DA for retail, office and service commercial uses within the MU-COM area and office/medium high-density residential uses in the MU-RES area to ensure a mix of uses is provided in this area consistent with the underlying FLUM designations.No development has occurred yet in this area. Most recently in 2019 with the new Comprehensive Plan(Res. #19-2179),the FLUM designation on approximately 62 acres of land on the western half of the Ten Mile Center(aka Treasure Valley Investments)property was changed from Lifestyle Center(LC)to Commercial based on the finding in the previous market analysis that another lifestyle center couldn't be supported in such close proximity to The Village.No development has occurred yet in this area. Conceptual development/use/roadway alignment plans were previously approved with DA's for the land proposed to be governed by one overall new DA that currently govern future development of these areas. TRANSPORTATION: No road improvements are planned adjacent to this site as Ten Mile Rd. is fully improved with 5-travel lanes, curb,gutter and a 7' wide attached temporary asphalt pathway; and Franklin Rd. is fully improved with 5-travel lanes with curb, gutter and 5-foot wide attached sidewalk abutting the site. A traffic signal exists at the S. Vanguard Way/S. Ten Mile Rd. intersection and a signal has been installed through the poles at the W. Franklin Rd./S. Wayfinder Way intersection—ACHD will hang the mast arms when warranted. Conduit was also installed at the New Market Ave. (Benchmark)/Franklin Rd. intersection with the Franklin Road widening project to accommodate installation of a future signal which is required to be constructed through the signal poles and luminaires prior to signature on the final plat. When ACHD determines it's warranted in the future,the District will complete installation of the signal and put it into operation. Construction plans for the extension of S. Wayfinder Ave. between the two roundabouts within the proposed plat were approved by ACHD on May 26,2020 outside of the subdivision process and the street and detached sidewalks have been constructed. The plans were approved by the City Land Development Division for consistency with City standards pertaining to extension of water& sanitary sewer main lines and street lights but were not reviewed or approved by the Planning Page 8 Page 146 Item#4. Division and do not comply with the design guidelines for that street section (i.e. "E") as designated on the Street Section Map in the Plan and as required in the existing DA for Ten Mile Center(see Street Design below for more information). Construction plans for the extension of W. Cobalt Ave. from the Wayfinder roundabout to the east edge of the Ten Mile Creek East Apartment project(midway between Wayfinder and New Market/Benchmark)were approved by ACHD with that project also outside of the subdivision process and the street and detached sidewalk on the north side has been constructed. These plans were also not reviewed or approved by the Planning Division and don't comply with the street section [i.e. "E" (or"D")] desired in the TMISAP for the east/west collector street connection between Wayfinder and New Market/Benchmark,albeit further to the south (see Street Design below for more information). Approval of S.New Market Ave./Benchmark from Franklin to the south boundary of the site is requested with the proposed preliminary plat. The existing DA for Ten Mile Center requires streets to be constructed consistent with the applicable street section (i.e. "D") as shown on the Street Section Map in the TMISAP(see Street Design below for more information). Street Network(3-17): The Transportation System Map (TSM)included in the TMISAP (pg. 3-18, shown below)depicts collector streets through this site connecting to existing and future collector streets to the north and south. These street locations coincide with the town center collector streets depicted on the Master Street Map(MSM). Roundabouts are also depicted on the TSM at the Cobalt/Wayfinder and Vanguard/Wayfinder intersections,which have been constructed. 5 s i i i Two (2)north/south collector streets (S.Wayfinder Way and S.New Market Ave./Benchmark) are depicted on the plat in locations consistent with the TSM and the MSM; Wayfinder was recently constructed. An east/west collector street is not proposed along the southern boundary of the site because a local street(W.Navigator Dr.)was constructed further to the south with development of the adjacent TM Crossing subdivision,which was deemed to meet the intent of the Map and provide the desired east/west connection. An east/west collector street(W. Cobalt Dr.) is proposed and partially constructed through the middle of this site for a connection between Ten Mile and New Market/Benchmark that is not depicted on the TSM or the MSM,which provides more needed connectivity in this area. Access Control(3-17): In order to move traffic efficiently through the Ten Mile Area and optimize performance of streets,direct access via arterial streets is prohibited except for collector street connections.Access to arterial streets should occur via the collector road system. Wayfinder, Cobalt, Vanguard and New Market/Benchmark are all collector streets that provide access via the abutting arterial streets (Ten Mile&Franklin). Two(2)driveway accesses via Franklin Rd. are depicted on the plat—one to the east and one to the west of New Market/Benchmark on Lot 4,Block 3 and Lot 4,Block 4. The conceptual Page 9 Page 147 Item#4. development plan included in the DA for the Bainbridge Franklin property depicts the eastern driveway access via Franklin; however,the Applicant states this property is no longer planned to develop in that manner.ACHD has not approved either of these accesses and is requiring a traffic analysis be submitted to demonstrate additional driveways are necessary to serve the site. The UDC's 11( 3A-3)intention is to improve safety by combining and/or limiting access points to arterial streets to ensure motorists can safety enter all streets. City Council should determine if a waiver to the standards in UDC 11-3A-3 is appropriate for the proposed driveway accesses in the absence of a conceptual development plan for this area.These accesses are prohibited unless specifically approved by the City and ACHD. Complete Streets(3-19): Streets should be designed to serve all users—motorists,bus riders,bicyclists, and pedestrians, including people with disabilities. Bicycling and walking facilities should be incorporated into all streets unless exceptional circumstances exists such as roads where bicyclists or pedestrians are prohibited by law,where the costs are excessive, or where there is clearly no need. The following are features that should be considered as a starting point for each street: sidewalks,bike lanes,wide shoulders, crosswalks, refuge medians,bus pullouts,special bus lanes,raised crosswalks, audible pedestrian signals, sidewalk bulb-outs,street furnishings and on-street parking. The street sections depicted on the plat,some of which have already been constructed,incorporate detached sidewalks/pathways,planter strips and bike lanes along all streets; however,many of the other desired elements are not being provided which are integral to the Ten Mile area and the multi-modal options envisioned by the Plan.A VRT bus stop exists at the northwest corner of Vanguard/Wayfinder; other bus stops are anticipated within the development. The Applicant should address at the public hearing(or in writing prior to the hearing)what other design features are planned for internal public streets within this development. Street Design (3-20): The TMISAP includes several street section types for specific uses and conditions based on projected vehicular and pedestrian usage, desired parking conditions, specific physical conditions,public emergency access, and streetscape character. Streets within the Ten Mile area should be designed and sized to optimize pedestrian comfort and to facilitate slow-moving traffic. It's desirable that lanes on streets be 11 feet in width with the exception of those lanes closest to the intersections with Franklin and Ten Mile Roads which can increase to 12 feet from the point of the intersection with the arterial street to the point of the intersection with another street or access point. The Street Section Map (SSM)contained in the TMISAP(pg. 3-22, shown below)depicts specific street section classifications for each of the streets shown on the TSM based on the criteria noted above for the area. These classifications have both a functional and a design-related classification to balance the design considerations for pedestrians and motorists. a R 1 1 � • r4 i Page 10 Page 148 Item#4. The Master Street Map(MSM)guides the right-of-way(ROW) acquisition, collector street requirements and specific roadway features required through development. The MSM designates the collector streets within this site as town center collectors,which are recommended to have(2)travel lanes with a center turn lane,bicycle lanes and on-street parallel parking(if appropriate)within a 60-foot wide street section, a 6-foot wide buffer zone and an 8-foot wide sidewalk within 88 feet of right-of-way(see ACHD's Livable Street Design Guide pg. 21, shown below). The ACHD report states the previously approved street section for Wayfinder& the proposed street section for New Market/Benchmark meet District policy and are consistent with the TMISAP and Town Center Collector street typology as proposed without on-street parking and is approved. However, these street sections are not consistent with the applicable street sections in the TMISAP in that they don't have on-street parking and have reduced pedestrian walkways and/or buffers. 2.6 STREET DESIGN: TOWN CENTER COLLECTOR ❑ea gnxaena<rg screed xs mph Number gFTrasel lanes 1 Travel laneomensons �en,rTnm Lane lr [Rgh1Tr,m Lanes Allowed k,heavy turning moveme 1—heavy Meduns ogianal f Aqq Medan Gpenings rocs 4rrets only slockL ng!h Imersrcmgmee¢slwldbemm than // -� O Sg0'apart,(£dmaximum;m'rl-blonkauh ova { rt permwedonlyfw intersecsngalleys /// / Blcytle Lanes IS'whe(SWreal,necesaary when part ofa negonaEplan ky ab• n used) ❑n-Street Parking r5•Pamllel WJudes gut on uft),15'mbe uwdeddba k= ng1.dd Curb 6'w015'gurte'wn &R,Area Vrninlmum rccommerded(—ul., and huh mne dine t ns bd..) Sidewalk S'minimum—mmended f} waikmne and � frentagemne dimensions below) Mid-blockuosurgs permwedonly infiomdci>rtcfa:itnies !rrcersxtknn contra sgna!s,slops,or roundahrwts Prd—dEold:ng edgenfright-of- Plxemem 'Lighting Stamdada pedestnan and vehickAmdway r to Pedestrian Zone r m:ri:r mrv.dre m e 'er nov,n.Pedm,n.n ron. rn°mndrraPmPonde,u,an«dPederv. °ij".• ..ur„ c a da..,a..mi�dolunri.dedo.a nredro!r.eem drevro sr a°• g - ^ea arr>e„a��Naru„d.�aeyn.a �6yade.Ri x +. a1Qa1w.;,eR�..meero^r^ nynrx " ee:yhed;nti.iclwrM,lk.i�„.t i.tdne..andsx¢m l r"'"%.u`"' U.,Zane:1.5' requvcmmbmnzrs;w,cayRwmy/CevebpnwnArevMeaddeiond iwo r2freeoFrigAe-ef-.uy—re:nerro rreerlonasyral;<y. - B.H.Zane:4.5' u i Walk 7Ane.Tminimmnrecommended Roruage Zone:1'pravides buffer from [wilding, The western north/south collector street,proposed as S. Wayfinder Ave.,designated as"E"(minor collector street), extends from a future signalized intersection at W. Franklin Road to the south to Vanguard. The portion north of Cobalt was approved with TM Creek subdivision. Per the Map and as required by the existing DA for Ten Mile Center,this street should have been constructed per the guidelines for Street Section E shown below with two (2)travel lanes,bike lanes,diagonal parking and 12' sidewalks with trees in wells (see pgs.3-21 &3-23 in the TMISAP).However,the street section approved by ACHD and constructed is a standard street section with(2)travel lanes,a center turn lane,bike lanes,8-foot wide planter strips, a 5-foot wide detached sidewalk on the west side and an 8-foot wide pathway on the east side with no on-street parking, similar to that of major collector street(i.e. Street Section C, shown below)(see street section from the proposed plat and detail from the proposed design guidelines below).Because of the changes to the FLUM in this area from LC to Commercial and this street providing access to the employment uses to the south, which will likely result in a higher traffic volumes, Staff is in general support of the design as constructed.Minor collector streets in the Plan differ from the MSM's town center collector street in that they don't have a center turn lane and have diagonal instead ofparallel parking. Minor collector streets serve as the primary retail streets and are pedestrian-oriented and defined by street-level storefronts. Buildings are built to 12-foot wide sidewalks with street trees in wells and Page 11 Page 149 Item#4. pedestrian-scale lighting. 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; and streetlights should be placed in the dry utilities corridor on either side of the street. Major collector streets provide access from adjacent arterial streets into the employment areas. Buildings on these streets are set back from the street as some distance generally behind a detached sidewalk. The sidewalk may be widened in some cases to extend to the front of commercial retail or higher density residential buildings. hrkbkg Street S e e i l o n E culfatumalsnnoB f I B Mille Street Secilan 77'RIGHT-CAR-WAY ;.,.:•Tic-r. zas'c-Tac z' 2' 5'SIGEWALN �D'PLANTER 8'PLAMER—J 5'SIDEWALK 3'1 MAN. SLCPE TO E%IS11NG w GI 6'VERTICAL CURB ASPHALT PAVEMENT AND GUTTER.TYP. COMPACTED SUDGRAOE 3/9"-MINUS CRUSHED AGGREGATE BASE 6'MINUS PIT-RUN SUBBASE STREET SECTION: S. WAYFINDER AVE. SCALE: NTS Page 12 Page 150 Item#4. Typical Street Sections Typology Figure 7.3 Label Physical charalteriaks Typical Commercial i� Sidewalk:5'to 8' Street 5ection, Two-Lane+Turn Tree Lawn:8'to 10' Lane+Bike Lanes •Navigator,east of Tree Grate uanguard •Cobdh •New Market Bicycle Lane •Wayfrnder,south D E . of Tenrode Creek E Two-Way Left Turn Lane to Vanguard a xr ± Center Landscaped Median Parallel Parking ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The eastern north/south collector street proposed as S.New Market Ave./Benchmark Ave., designated as "D"(residential collector street),will extend from Franklin Rd. to the south boundary of the site and connect to Navigator Dr. in the TM Crossing project. This street should be constructed in accord with the guidelines for Street Section D shown below with two(2)travel lanes,bike lanes,parallel on- street parking(if allowed by ACHD),8' tree-lined parkways and detached sidewalks per the TMISAP and as required by the existing DA's for Ten Mile Center and Calnon(see pgs.3-21 &3- 23 in the TMISAP). The street section from the proposed plat and a detail from the proposed design guidelines shown below differ from a residential collector street in that there is a center turn lane,wider travel lanes and no on-street parking.ACHD has approved the proposed design; however, Staff does not support the proposed design as it's not consistent with the TMISAP and the existing DA's and therefore, recommends revisions consistent with Street Section D below with on-street parking. ACHD will have to review and approve revised street sections if changes are required to the proposed design—although on-street parking is desired and recommended,ACHD will need to review and determine if it's safe to provide.Staff discussed the discrepancies between the proposed plat and the town center collector in the MSM and Street Section D with ACHD and was told that although the Livable Street Design Guide allows for parking on a collector street it isn't always appropriate in all locations—because we don't know the end users for lots adjacent to these streets(a conceptual development plan or use plan wasn't submitted) it's difficult to determine if on-street parking will be appropriate. Residential collector streets in the Plan differ from the MSM's town center collector street in that they don't have a center turn lane and have a wider buffer zone. Residential collector streets serve the local access needs of residential, live/work, and commercial activities within a residential neighborhood or mixed-use residential area. Buildings on these streets should have limited setbacks behind the sidewalk and a tree lawn should be provided. On-street parking is allowed. A 5-foot dry utilities corridor should be provided along both sides of the street curb;both wet utilities may be located in the street; and streetlights should be placed in the dry utilities corridor on either side of the street. Page 13 Page 151 Item#4. r r bl li 4t ara e r mr ne ra+r ane mrallel Puking Lamf0 lane Fading S t r e e t S e c t i o n Q C irmo-a rb distance Tq'RIGNT-OF-war 23.5•TBC-CL 23.5'CL-TBC as' +5 3.1 AW( 5'SIGEAALK B PLANTER 8 PLANTER IG SIMEWPLK SLOPE TO IXISTING V LANDING, fi YERTIChL GVRB � ASPHPLT PAVEMENT ANO G4TTER,T1P. GGMPACTm SVGGRP➢E 3�4'-MINl15 CRVSHEG AGGREGATE BASE 6'NINVS PR-RVN Sl1BBASE STREET SECTION: S. NEW MARKET AVE. Typical Street Sections Typology Figure 7.3 Label Physical Characteristics Typical Commercial Sidewalk:5'to 8' Street Section, Two-Lane+Turn , Tree Lawn:8'to 10' Lane+Bike Lanes •Navigator,east of Tree Grate Uornguord yr ■Cobah JIM •New Market Bicycle Lane ■Wayfinder,south p B 0 - �•' -� E .,. , of Tenmile Creek E Two-Way Left Turn Lane to Vanguard Center Landscaped Median Parallel Parking ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Neither the SSM shown above,nor the MSM, depicts an east/west collector where W. Cobalt Dr. is proposed to extend between Wayfinder and New Market although it does depict such further to the south in alignment with the access via Ten Mile Rd. along the southern boundary of this site which was actually constructed further to the south(i.e.Navigator Dr.) as discussed above. This southern section is designated as a minor collector street("E")on the Street Section Map in the TMISAP and as a town center collector on the MSM. The portion of Cobalt west of Wayfinder is designated as a residential collector street(Street Section D)but was approved to be constructed as a major collector street closely aligning with Street Section C due to residential uses not being planned at that time in that area—since that time,the development plan changed and multi-family residential uses have been constructed along the north side of the street, east of S. Innovation Ln. The extension of Cobalt will provide a connection from Ten Mile between Wayfinder and New Market/Benchmark,which Staff believes provides much needed connectivity in this area. Residential Page 14 Page 152 Item#4. uses exist and are planned on the north side of this street between Wayfinder and New Market/Benchmark with future commercial uses likely on the south side. The section of this street east of TM Creek East Apartments has not yet been constructed but the design has been approved by ACHD with the subject plat. Staff is amenable to the proposed design consistent with that constructed to the west. Street Section C,the street section from the plat and a detail from the proposed design guidelines are shown below. The western portion of Cobalt in front of the TM Creek East apartments project was previously approved as part of ACHD's action on that project and has been constructed. r .. Lew Street Secilcn C taat~ta 74'RIGHT-OF-WAY 2, 215'T C-CL 25.5'CL-TRC 5 SIDEWALK �!J'PLANTER 5 PIPNT. 5'SIDEWALK S S:1 To LOPE EkISPINGNG 6'YERHGAL CURB ASPHPLT PAVEMENT AND GUTTER.TYP. CGMPACTED SUGGRPIIE 3/4'-MINUS CRUSHED AGGREGATE%SE 6'MINDS PIT-RUN SUBRkSF STREET SECTION: W. COBALT DR. Typical Street Sections Typology Figure 7.3 IS Label Physical Characteristics Typical Commercial Sidewalk:5'to 8' Street Section, Two-Lane+Turn Lane+Bike Lanes Tree Lawn:8'to 10' •Navigator,east of a _ Tree Grate uonguord •Cobdtt •New Market Bicycle Lane ■Wcyfindereder,south A B D - E of Tenmrle Creek Two-Way Left Turn Lane to Vanguard Center Landscaped Median G� Parallel Parking Page 15 Page 153 Item#4. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ South Ten Mile Rd., an existing arterial street along the west boundary of the site, is designated as a modified 4-lane parkway("A") on the Street Section Map. Buildings should address the street but be set back some distance from the roadway to provide security to the pedestrians and bikes and a wide tree lawn and detached trail should be provided as shown on Street Section A below. Streetlights should be located in the tree lawn area and should be of a pedestrian scale.Dry utilities should be located back of the curb in the dry utilities corridor. �• w w v wMn9W 1ol.b.N SxiMir.rs Nerve Nx►3.e1 WN-I�d N/ka•6�'� W trn¢ fml. hM T.m S t r e e t $a c t l o m A (Actual road section under design by ITS) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ West Franklin Rd., an existing arterial street along the north boundary of the site, is designated as a typical 4-lane parkway(`B") on the Street Section Map. Buildings should address the street but be set back some distance from the roadway edge to provide for a tree lawn and detached sidewalk to provide security to the pedestrian as shown on Street Section B below. Streetlights should be located in the tree lawn area and be of a pedestrian scale.Dry utilities should be located back of the curb in the dry utilities corridor. i' fr 4 Tr R Y.+� rv�yr w� YaNis Yrlw � Street Section 0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Streetscape(3-25): All streets should include street trees within the right-of-way. The proposed development incorporates tree-lined streets with detached sidewalks throughout consistent with the Plan. Public Art(3-47): Public art with a high quality of design should be incorporated into the design of streetscapes. No public art is proposed. Staff recommends public art is provided in the streetscape and within the development in accord with the guidelines in the TMISAP. Public transit(3-25)—Commercial and employment activity centers need access by multiple modes of transportation and should be pedestrian and transit friendly. Public transit is also important component of Page 16 Page 154 Item#4. residential developments as it effectively decreases parking needs by reducing the number of cars needed for residents. Transit stops should be designed with shelters for weather protection to patrons; the design of such should be coordinated between the City,VRT and ACHD ensuring architectural consistency with the general theme of the activity center. Transit locations should include pedestrian amenities such as landscaping,pedestrian and landscape lighting,benches and trash receptacles consistent with the design and location of the shelter. Valley Regional Transit(VRT)currently has an intermediate stop at Ten Mile Crossing in its Boise- Nampa service. As the project's employment and residential population grows and more of the internal street systems are completed,the opportunity for expanded transit service will also grow. A bus stop has been provided at the northwest corner of the Vanguard/Wayfinder roundabout in Ten Mile Crossing; more bus stops are anticipated as the businesses and residential population in this area increases. In April 2020,the VRT Board approved a new fixed-route connecting The Village at Meridian and Ten Mile Crossing,which is anticipated to begin service in early 2021. The Applicant's narrative states they will continue to work with VRT on additional bus stop locations in future phases of development as the public transportation system expands. These plans should be shared with the City with each subsequent final plat phase. DESIGN: Development of the area governed by the Plan is required to incorporate design guidelines consistent with those in the Plan as outlined in the Application of the Design Elements table(3-49). These guidelines apply to Architecture and Heritage(3-32), Street Oriented Design(3-33),Buildings to Scale (3-34), Gateways(3-35),Neighborhood Design(3-36),Building Form&Character(3-37),Building Details(3-41), Signs(3-46)and Public Art(3-47). The Applicant proposes alternate design guidelines with this application to supersede those in the Plan. These guidelines are proposed to govern site design and development; landscape and hardscape; architectural design for commercial,mixed-use and multi-family residential structures; signage; and streets and pathways. A text amendment is not proposed to the Plan to exclude this area from the design guidelines in the Plan as recommended by Staff. See Analysis below in Section VI for more information. 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): • "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 service is available and can be extended by the developer with development in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. • "With new subdivision plats,require the design and construction of pathway connections, easy pedestrian and bicycle access to parks, safe routes to schools, and the incorporation of usable open space with quality amenities."(2.02.01A) Pathways are proposed throughout the development along at least one side of internal public streets as shown on the pathways plan in Section VIII.F.A pathway is planned with future development to the school site to the east for connectivity and a safe route to the school. A multi-use pathway is Page 17 Page 155 Item#4. proposed within the Ten Mile Creek corridor as an amenity in accord with the Pathways Master Plan. • "Improve and protect creeks and other natural waterways throughout commercial, industrial and residential areas." (4.05.01D) The Ten Mile creek runs east/west through this site and is proposed to be improved as an amenity corridor with a multi-use pathway. • "Ensure development is connected to City of Meridian water and sanitary sewer systems and the extension to and through said developments are constructed in conformance with the City of Meridian Water and Sewer System Master Plans in effect at the time of development."(3.03.03A) The proposed development will connect to City water and sewer systems;services are proposed to be provided to and though this development in accord with current City plans. • "Require collectors consistent with the ACHD Master Street Map(MSM), generally at/near the mid- mile location within the Area of City Impact."(6.01.03B) Collector streets are proposed consistent with the MSM. • "Provide pathways, crosswalks,traffic signals and other improvements that encourage safe,physical activity for pedestrians and bicyclists."(5.01.01B) Pathways are proposed within the development per the pathways plan in Section VIII.F. Crosswalks, audible pedestrian signals and other improvements to encourage safety should be considered and provided as appropriate for pedestrians and bicyclists. • "Require urban infrastructure be provided for all new developments, including curb and gutter, sidewalks,water and sewer utilities."(3.03.03G) Urban sewer and water infrastructure and curb, gutter and sidewalks is required to be provided with development as proposed. VI. STAFF ANALYSIS A. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT MODIFICATION(MDA) A modification is proposed to terminate all existing Development Agreements (DA's) in the Ten Mile Crossing development area in favor of one new master agreement to govern future development of the overall area. The existing DA's proposed to be replaced by the new agreement are as follows (links to the agreements are included): ➢ TM Crossing—AZ-12-005 (Inst. #114002254), 1 st Addendum H-2016-0054 (Inst. #2016-062220), 2nd Addendum H-2017-0027 (Inst. #2017-051907); ➢ TM Crossing Expansion—H-2018-0122 (Inst. #2019-011700); ➢ TM Creek/TM Creek East—AZ-13-015 (Inst. #114045759), 1st Addendum TM Creek East H-2015- 0018 (Inst. #2016-037777), TM Creek Addendum H-2016-0067 (Inst. #2016-073497), TM Creek 2nd Addendum H-2017-0124#2017-113747); ➢ Ten Mile Center(aka Treasure Valley Investments)—AZ-14-001 (Inst. #2014-065514); ➢ Calnon Properties—H-2015-0017 (Inst. 2016-030845); and, ➢ Bainbridge Franklin—H-2018-0057 (Inst. #2019-077071) The map below depicts the locations and land area governed by these agreements. Page 18 Page 156 Item#4. r _ HiIU RJ - r ,;�a TM CREEK CtIINON • 6A1146RddGf .i 5f _ - TEN Mllf tENTfRILL I luz TM CROSSM f TM Crossing I `— Expansion PRWECT OUTIANE3 ARE GfNERnL ACTUAL AREAS 1A Y VARY These agreements include a variety of provisions for development, including standard UDC requirements and provisions specific to each development—some of which have already been complied with, and conceptual development plans demonstrating how the property was proposed to develop— future development is required to generally comply with those plans. All of these developments were required to comply with the various guidelines and design elements in the TMISAP. Staff has reviewed these agreements and included pertinent provisions from them in the new DA; many of the standard UDC requirements have been removed along with provisions that have already been complied with(see recommended DA provisions in Section IX.A.1). Provisions for development of the overall Ten Mile Crossing area governed by this DA are included as well as specific provisions for each annexation area; a map is included that depicts the boundaries of these areas. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The proposed DA modification also includes a request for adoption of project-specific desikguidelines through the DA to supersede those in the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan (TMISAP) for the overall Ten Mile Crossing development area referred to as the Ten Mile Crossing Design(TMCD) District. These guidelines would be the governing design and development guide for this area and would not apply to any land not included in the Ten Mile Crossing project area. As stated in the Introduction,the purpose of the design guidelines is as follows: to encourage flexibility, innovation and creativity in Ten Mile Crossing's overall design and development that respond to market demand and site specific conditions while enhancing the economic viability and quality of Ten Mile Crossing and the City of Meridian; allow for innovative design solutions that create visually pleasing and cohesive patterns of development;provide for the implantation and balance of a variety of uses within the development including viable mixed-use projects; identify and define standards for uses that may offuc in each of the land use categories; create functionally integrated development that allows for a more efficient and cost effective provision of public services;provide for the public health, safety, enjoyment, convenience and general welfare, and provide efficient and effective administrative processes. Page 19 Page 157 Item#4. The proposal establishes an administrative framework for the development process for this area and includes the creation of an in-house design review board("TMCDR Board") and internal design review process prior to application submittals to the City for Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC)and Design Review(DR)approval. This Board would forward its decisions to the City for their consideration of all project applications. Staff would review these applications and the decision of the Board; applications found in compliance with the proposed design guidelines would only be subject to CZC approval but not DR approval. Staff would issue Findings of Fact,Conclusions of Law(FFCL)and Conditions of Approval of their decision,which would be appealable pursuant to the provisions in UDC 11-5A.Note:FFCL are not issued for administrative actions, only Commission and Council actions. The Applicant's narrative states the two major distinctions between the proposed design guidelines and those in the Plan are the floor area ratios (FAR's) and street standards (see analysis below)—the remainder of the proposed guidelines detail, define and clarify the standards proposed to unify, guide and govern the development of this area. See below for more information on requested deviations from the Plan. As a provision of the new DA,the Applicant also requests approval of an increase in building height to 100-feet in the C-G zoning district to allow for 6-story buildings in this area(see analysis below). Requested Deviations from the TMISAP: • Floor Area Ratio(FAR): Floor area ratios(FAR's)are defined in the TMISAP as the gross floor area of all buildings on a lot divided by the lot area. FAR's are used as a means for measuring the intensity of a use and are a comparison between the land the building occupies and the floor area in square foot of the space. The minimum FAR's desired in the Plan are based on the FLUM designation and range from 0.75 in MU-RES to 1.00-1.25 in MU-COM designated areas—because the Commercial designation is not included in the TMISAP, there are no minimum FAR guidelines for that designation. In the proposed design guidelines,maximum FAR's are encouraged to the extent possible for the use and building height but a minimum FAR is not specified. This will result in decreased FAR's for this area from what was envisioned in the Plan. Because the FAR goals have been somewhat unrealistic to achieve thus far,Staff agrees a change is appropriate,however, City Council should determine if eliminating the minimum FAR goals entirely is appropriate for this area and is in the best interest of the City. • Street and Streetscape Design: As noted above in Section V,the street sections already approved by ACHD and constructed(i.e. Wayfinder)and proposed(i.e.New Market/Benchmark and Cobalt) are not consistent with the guidelines in the TMISAP for those street section. Traditional neighborhood design concepts with a strong pedestrian-oriented focus are desired in the Ten Mile Area to assist in creating a lively and active street presence with stores and residences fronting on adjacent streets. The portion of Wayfinder north of the Ten Mile Creek does have on- street parking in the planned town center area. Pedestrian pathways are proposed along collector streets, the Ten Mile Creek and the Kennedy Lateral as shown in Section VIII.F throughout the development consistent with the Pathways Master Plan for pedestrian walkability and connectivity. The proposed street design with reduced walkway widths, no on-street parking and wider travel lanes will notpromote as much of a pedestrian friendly environment as intended for this area as traffic will be flowing faster with the proposed design. On-street parking was desired for this area based on the original FL UM designations and uses and site design anticipated for this area based on projected vehicular and pedestrian usage, desired parking,physical conditions and Streetscape character. Several changes to the FL UM have been approved since the adoption of the TMISAP as noted above but no changes have been made to the Page 20 Page 158 Item#4. Street Section Map or the street sections in the Plan. Collectively, these changes—especially the change from lifestyle center to commercial and C-G zoning—will result in more intense commercial development than envisioned and will substantially change the intended character of this area. In the commercial areas along Wayfinder and Cobalt,Staff agrees it's more appropriate(and safer)not to have on-street parking.However, in the residential and mixed-use designated areas along New MarketlBenchmark,Staff is of the opinion on-street parking is still appropriate although it's difficult to determine in the absence of a development plan for that area since the type of street sections desired are largely based on the types of uses adjacent to the streets.Refer to Section V Street Design above for Staffs recommendation on streets and streetscape designs. Staff is not supportive of the Applicant's proposal for different design guidelines to apply to this development to supersede those in the Plan through the DA as the whole intent of the goals and guidelines in the Plan is to have a unified design for the overall area governed by the Plan. Because the Applicant requests street sections, streetscape designs and FAR's that differ from those outlined in the Plan and doesn't want to be held to the architectural design guidelines and other guidelines in the governing plan,Staff suggested applying for an amendment to the TMISAP to exclude this area from the Plan. Without an amendment to the Plan, this area is governed by the Plan and can't be superseded by another Plan. The Applicant was not in favor of this option. Another suggestion was to only include certain exceptions to the design guidelines in the Plan through the DA that differ from the Plan and for the Applicant to use the proposed design guidelines internally to ensure consistent design within their development. Since they state the only substantive changes to the Plan are to the street sections,streetscapes and FAR this was Staffs preferred option. The Applicant was not in favor of this option either. As stated above,Staff is of the opinion the design guidelines in the Plan cannot be replaced with another set of design guidelines without an amendment to the Plan allowing this and referencing the other guidelines;or an amendment excluding this area from the Plan. Otherwise, the guidelines in the Plan apply to this area as well as the other areas within the overall Ten Mile Area which ensure unity in the overall Ten Mile Area. Rather than recommending denial of the Applicant's request,Staff recommends approval of an alternative as previously suggested to only include the exceptions to the guidelines in the Plan in the DA. If the guidelines proposed by the Applicant are truly in line with the existing guidelines as stated, notwithstanding the exceptions, this seems to be the simpler option and one that doesn't conflict with the current Plan. Note:Staff has not compared the established design guidelines in the Plan to those proposed by the Applicant to verify they align, notwithstanding the exceptions requested. Staff requested the Applicant include the differences between the two sets of guidelines in their application for transparency in what was actually being requested(i.e. how they differed) but they did not do so. If Council is in favor of the proposed design guidelines,Staff recommends an application is submitted to amend the TMISAP to allow this area to be excepted from the existing Plan or for a reference to be included to these design guidelines for this area. Requested deviation from the dimensional standard for maximum building height listed in UDC Table 11-2B-3 for the C-G zoning district: • The maximum building height allowed in the C-G zoning district is 65-feet.Additional height not to exceed 20%of the maximum height allowed in the district may be approved by the Director through the alternative compliance procedures set forth in UDC 11-5B-5—additional height shall be allowed Page 21 Page 159 Item#4. when the development provides 10%of the building square feet in open space, courtyards,patios, or other usable outdoor space available for the employees and/or patrons of the structure, excluding required setbacks and landscape buffers per UDC 11-2B-3A.3d. Additional height exceeding 20%of the maximum height allowed in the district or when additional height is requested without providing the required open space in accord with UDC 11-2B-3A.3d requires approval through a conditional use permit,per UDC 11-2B-3A.3e. Because the TMISAP encourages taller buildings and greater FAR's and the UDC standards hinder this goal, Staff is supportive of allowing an increase in the maximum building height up to 100 feet in the C-G zoning district through the new DA without further application. B. REZONE(RZ) The Applicant requests a rezone of 40.98-acres from the R-40 and C-C zoning districts to the C-G zoning district; 3.9-acres from the TN-C and C-G zoning districts to the R-40 zoning district; 0.65-acre from the R-8 and TN-C zoning districts to the C-G zoning district; and 0.53-acre from the TN-C zoning district to the C-G zoning district. A conceptual development plan was not submitted with this application for the areas proposed to be rezoned as is typical for such requests. The smaller areas proposed to be rezoned to C-G will"clean-up"the zoning in this area where it's irregular and doesn't follow parcel lines and/or proposed streets. The area proposed to be rezoned to R-40 south of the Ten Mile Creek will be an extension of the R-40 zoning that exists to the west and will allow for the development of additional multi-family residential uses with conditional use permit approval. The proposed zoning and use is consistent with the underlying Mixed Use Residential(MU-RES)FLUM designation;the target density for this designation is 8 to 12 dwelling units per acre. The FLUM designation of the abutting property to the west is High- Density Residential(HDR)which also allows for multi-family residential uses at a target density of 16- 25 dwelling units per acre. FLUM designations are not parcel specific and an adjacent abutting designation,when appropriate and approved as part of a public hearing with a land development application,may be used.Because the HDR designation allows for a higher density, Staff recommends this designation apply to future development of this property since the density will likely be higher than 12 units per acre if apartments are developed on the site similar to those to the west(i.e. TM Creek East Apartments). Future development of this property is currently governed by the existing DA's for Ten Mile Center and Calnon referenced above; conceptual development plans were not approved for these projects other than a conceptual street layout for the Ten Mile Center property. In the absence of a conceptual development plan,to ensure a mix of uses from each major use category(i.e. commercial,residential,employment) are provided as set forth in the TMISAP in accord with the provisions of the annexation, Staff recommends a conceptual use plan(i.e.bubble plan)is submitted and included in the new DA that demonstrates compliance with the existing DA provisions.Note:An existing and future development map is included in the proposed design guidelines on pg. 6 that could be further defined to accomplish this. The larger area to be rezoned to C-G between W. Franklin Rd. and the Ten Mile Creek is designated on the FLUM as mostly Mixed-Use Commercial(MU-COM)with approximately a quarter of the area on the west end as High Density Residential(HDR). As noted above,because the FLUM is not parcel specific and allows for abutting designations to govern, Staff recommends the abutting MU-COM designation to the east apply and govern future development of the western portion of this site. The proposed C-G zoning district is listed as an appropriate zoning choice in the Zoning District Compatibility Matrix in the TMISAP for the MU-COM designation. The MU-COM designation allows for a variety of uses including: commercial,vertically integrated residential, live-work, employment, entertainment, office, and multi-family.Allowed uses in the C-G district are listed in UDC Table 11-2B- 2. Future development of this property is currently governed by the existing Development Agreements Page 22 Page 160 Item#4. for TM Creek East and Calnon referenced above; conceptual development plans were not approved for these projects. In the absence of a conceptual development plan,to ensure a mix of uses from each major use category(i.e.commercial,residential,employment) are provided as set forth in the TMISAP in accord with the provisions of the annexation, Staff recommends a conceptual use plan (i.e.bubble plan)is submitted and included in the new DA that demonstrates compliance with the existing DA provisions. C. PRELIMINARY PLAT(PP) The proposed preliminary plat consists of 83 [74 commercial and 9 high-density residential(Lots 16-24, Block 3)]buildable lots and 2 common lots on 132.42 acres of land in the R-40 and C-G zoning districts. The plat is conceptually proposed to develop in six phases. Phase 1 consisting of multi-family apartments in TM Creek East on Lot 16,Block 3 is currently under construction and almost completed; no development has occurred on the remainder of the site. Phase 2 commenced last year with the completion of Wayfinder from Vanguard to Cobalt between the existing roundabouts. The development of Phases 3-6 may vary in area and sequence based on product need and market demand. The proposed common lots will contain the Ten Mile Creek corridor which includes a 10-foot wide segment of the City's multi-use pathway system on one side and the Nampa and Meridian Irrigation District's(NMID)maintenance road on the other side(Lot 15,Block 3); and the relocated Von Lateral, which will be deeded to NMID (Lot 1,Block 4) Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There are no existing structures on this site. West Cobalt Dr. has been extended from the roundabout at Wayfinder to the east boundary of the TM Creek East apartments project and S. Wayfinder Ave. has been extended between the roundabouts at W. Cobalt Dr. and S. Vanguard Way but the design of these streets was not approved with a subdivision plat and are not consistent with the street sections designated on the Street Section Map in the TMISAP however,they do compy with ACHD standards. South Vanguard Way from Ten Mile Rd. and the roundabout at the southwest corner of the site was approved and constructed with the TM Crossing development to the south. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): The proposed subdivision and subsequent development is required to comply with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Tables 11-2A-8(R-40), 11-2B-3 (C-G) and 11-2D-5(TN-C), as applicable. Staff has reviewed the proposed plat and it complies with these standards. Access(UDC 11-3A-3): Previous projects(i.e. TM Crossing and TM Creek subdivisions)in this area established accesses via S. Ten Mile Rd. (i.e. Cobalt and Vanguard)and W. Franklin Rd. (Wayfinder) and collector streets consistent with the TSM in the TMISAP and the MSM. A new street access via W. Franklin Rd. and collector street(New Market/Benchmark) is proposed with this plat to the east of Wayfinder consistent with the TSM and the MSM,which will align with the segment of New Market/Benchmark to be constructed to the south in TM Crossing Subdivision. As mentioned above,S.Wayfinder Ave.between the two roundabouts at Cobalt and Vanguard was constructed last year outside of the subdivision process.Although the proposed access points and road alignments are consistent with the TSM and the MSM,the street sections constructed for Wayfinder between the roundabouts and the proposed New Market/Benchmark are not consistent with the Street Section Map in the TMISAP as discussed in Sections V and VI.A above. Staff recommends New Market/Benchmark is constructed with on-street parking(if deemed safe and acceptable to ACHD) consistent with Street Section D in the Plan. Two (2)driveway accesses are depicted on the plat via W. Franklin Rd. on Lot 4,Block 3 and Lot 4, Block 4. The access on Lot 4,Block 4 was previously conceptually approved with the Bainbridge Page 23 Page 161 Item#4. Franklin annexation by the City(DA provision#1.1.1 i) and ACHD (Site Specific condition#13.1) as a temporary full access which may be restricted to a right-in/right-out at any time as determined by ACHD —other than this access, all other access via Franklin on the Bainbridge Franklin site was prohibited. Per the guidelines in the TMISAP for Street Section B(pg.3-22) and access control(pg.3-17), access should be restricted to collector streets. The(UDC 11-3A-3) also limits access points to arterial streets. City Council approval of the proposed driveway access on Lot 4,Block 3 is required; ACHD has required a traffic analysis to be submitted for these accesses to demonstrate that additional driveways are necessary to service the site.Both the City and ACHD have to approve these accesses in order for access to be granted and driveways constructed. A cross-access/ingress-egress easement is required to be granted via a note on the plat between all non-residential lots and to the parcel to the east [#R8580480020 (now#R8580500100),Twelve Oaks)per requirement of the existing DA for Bainbridge Franklin in accord with UDC 11-3A- 3A.2.A note should also be placed on the plat that direct lot access via S.Ten Mile Rd. and W. Franklin Rd. and the internal collector streets is prohibited unless otherwise approved by the City and ACHD. Pathways(UDC 11-3A-8): The Pathways Master Plan(PMP)depicts segments of the City's multi-use pathway system on this site as follows: on-street within the street buffer along Ten Mile Rd., along the Ten Mile Creek corridor and along New Market Ave. Multi-use pathways are required to be 10-feet wide within a 14-foot wide public pedestrian easement with landscaping on either side per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C. A pathways plan was submitted by the Applicant, included in Section VIII.F that depicts 8-to 10-foot wide pathways throughout this site and the adjacent properties owned by the same developer consistent with the PMP totaling 3.5 miles of pathways. These pathways connect to the City's multi-use pathways and provide a pedestrian connection to the school site to the east. Pathways and associated landscaping should be depicted on a revised landscape plan submitted with the final plat(s)in accord with UDC standards and the Pathways Master Plan as recommended by the Park's Dept. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17): The UDC (11-3A-17)requires minimum 5-foot wide detached sidewalks along all collector and arterial streets. In the Ten Mile area,the design guidelines call for wider sidewalks ranging from 6 to 12 feet depending on the street section classification. Because 5-foot wide detached sidewalks have already been provided in many areas within the site, Staff is amenable to continuing this minimum width with 8-to 10-foot wide pathways provided in locations consistent with the pathway plan in Section VIII.F. Parkways(UDC 11-3A-17): Parkways should be provided as shown on the applicable street sections in the TMISAP for the street classification as noted above in Section V. Landscaping shall be provided in the parkways consistent with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): A 35-foot wide street buffer is required along S. Ten Mile Rd., an entryway corridor; a 25-foot wide street buffer is required along W. Franklin Rd., an arterial street; and 20-foot wide street buffers are required along collector streets, landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. The design guidelines in the TMISAP also require landscape buffers based on the street classification and the applicable street section. Staff recommends minimum street buffers are provided in accord with UDC standards,except for along S.Ten Mile Rd., classified as Street Section A in the TMISAP, which requires a 50-foot wide street buffer so that pedestrian walkways and buildings are setback a safe distance from the street. Page 24 Page 162 Item#4. Qualified Open Space& Site Amenities (UDC 11-3G): Common open space and site amenities are required to be provided in residential developments in residential districts of five acres or more in size per the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3. Although a portion of this site is planned to develop with residential uses in the future,no development is proposed with this application. Future development should comply with the standards in UDC 11-3G-3,as applicable. As mentioned above, 3.5 miles of pathways are proposed in the area shown on the pathways plan in Section VIII.0 as an amenity for this development. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): No fencing is depicted on the landscape plan. All fencing constructed on the site is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-6 and I I-3A-7. Waterways: The Kennedy Lateral and the Ten Mile Creek run east/west across this site and the Von Lateral runs across the northeast corner of the site. The Ten Mile Creek lies within a 100-foot wide easement in Lot 15,Block 3 and is a natural waterway; as such, it should remain as a natural amenity and not be piped or otherwise covered and be improved with the development and protected during construction in accord with UDC 11-3A-6. A maintenance road exists for NMID on the north side of the creek and a multi-use pathway is planned on the south side of the creek. The Kennedy Lateral lies within a 55-foot wide easement and is required to be piped unless left open and improved as a water amenity or linear open space. The Von Lateral lies within a 40-foot wide easement and is proposed to be relocated along Franklin Rd. in Lot 1,Block 4 and deeded to NMID. Floodplain: A portion of this site along the Ten Mile Creek is located within the Meridian Floodplain Overlay District. Prior to any development occurring with the Overlay District,the Applicant is required to submit, and the City shall review and approve, a floodplain development application which includes the necessary analysis and documents under MCC Title 10, Chapter 6, including hydraulic and hydrologic analysis. 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 and the TMISAP.See Section VIII.B below for Public Works comments/conditions. Pressurized Irrigation System (UDC 11-3A-1 S): An underground pressurized irrigation(PI) system is required to be provided for each lot within the development as set forth as set forth in UDC I 1-3A-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. Building Elevations(UDC I1-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual) (TMISAP The Applicant submitted pictures/renderings of 14 existing and approved buildings at TM Crossing: commercial, office,retail and residential structures including multi-story office buildings; single-story commercial structures(medical,hospice,gym,restaurant and food service,retail, auto service); and the first two multi-family projects(see Section VIII.G). The design of future buildings in this development shall incorporate design elements that are generally consistent with those in the "typical" elevations shown in Section VIII.G. Final design of — Page 25 — Page 163 Item#4. structures in this development is required to comply with the design guidelines in the TMISAP and the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual,notwithstanding the exceptions approved with this application and included in the DA. VII. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the requested modification to replace all existing Development Agreements with a new agreement for the overall Ten Mile Crossing development per the provisions in Section IX.A.1; approval of the proposed rezone in accord with the Findings in Section X; and approval of the proposed preliminary plat per the conditions included in Section IX in accord with the Findings in Section X. B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard these items on March 18, 2021. At the public hearing,the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject RZ and PP requests. 1. Summary of Commission public hearing a. In favor: Jon Wardle and David Turnbull,Brighton Corp_ b. In opposition:None C. Commenting d. Written testimony: Mike Wardle, Brighton Corgi e. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen f Other Staff commenting on application: Bill Parsons 2. Key issue(s) public testimon: a. Applicant presented a comprehensive view of the design guidelines proposed for the Ten Mile Area and the requested modifications to the staff recommendation. 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission: a. Would like a nice central common open space/site amenity area; b. Desire for pedestrian-scale lights to be provided along walkways; C. Desire for the developer to follow the use plan submitted to ensure a mix of uses is developed as desired; d. Concern that it may not be appropriate to extend the building height limit up to 100-feet in the overall C-G zoning district—certain areas may not be appropriate for buildings that tall(e.g. adjacent to Franklin and Ten Mile Roads e. Applicant's request for additional driveway accesses via Franklin Rd.; f. The Commission was generally in favor of the proposed design guidelines for the development. 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. Applicant should work with Staff prior to the Council meeting to identify specific areas where buildings could extend up to 100' in height&provide a conceptual diagram for Council to consider—consider the area south of Cobalt&west to Benchmark Ave. for those taller buildings—these areas should provide significant buffering between future residential uses&neighborhood roadway; The Applicant&Staff discussed this and agreed that leaving flexibility in this area may be the best option—if Council disagrees condition#A.Ia(3,)should be amended according)y. b. The Applicant should follow the bubble plan concept presented at the hearingas s they move forward with their concept plans [see provision#A.Ia(10)]; and C. The Commission wanted to see some sort of significant central amenity added to the concept plan for the project,whether it be an amphitheatre, a plaza, or a park and that they might seek assistance from the urban renewal agency or work with Council on what that amenity might look like [see provision#A.1a(l 1)]. Page 26 Page 164 Item#4. 5. Outstandingissue(s)ssue(s) for City Council: a. City Council should determine if a waiver to the standards in UDC 11-3A-3 is appropriate for the proposed driveway accesses via Franklin Rd. in the absence of a conceptual development plan for this area; and b. The Applicant should address at the public hearing(or in writing prior to the hearing) what other design features are planned for internal public streets within this development.Per the TMISAP, the following are features that should be considered as a starting point for each street:sidewalks, bike lanes, wide shoulders, crosswalks, refuge medians, bus pullouts, special bus lanes, raised crosswalks, audible pedestrian signals, sidewalk bulb-outs, street furnishings and on-street parking. Page 27 Page 165 Item#4. VIII. EXHIBITS A. Legal Description of Property Subject to New Development Agreement &a" ENGIN2ER1Nt= October 9,2020 Ten Mile Crossing Sub-Area Protect No-19.105 Legal Descriptlon Exhibit A A parcel of land situated in a portion of Section 14,Township 3 North,Range 1 west,B.M.,City of Meridian,Ada County,Idaho and being more particularlydestribed as follows: Cornmencing at the norUvArest Corner of sa Id Sealion 14,which bears N84'0477"W from the north 1/4 darner of said Sectlon 14,thence following the northerly line of said Willon 14,S89'(U27"E a distance of 74AG feet; Thence leaving said mrtlterly line,SDO`50'3rVV a distance of 72.W feet to the southerly rot•of-way line of W.Fran kiln Rd.and the subdivision baundaryof TM Creek Subdivision No-2 and being the POINT OF BEGINNING. Thence follow4ngsaid southerly right-of-way line and said subdivision boundary,the fokowing twelve courses; 1_ S89`09'27"E a distance of 176AS feet,; 2. S)O"50'33"W a distance of 10.713 feed; 3- S89"09'27E a distance of 70.04 feet; 4. NOR°5VWE a distance of 10.00 feet; 5_ SW09'27"E a distance of44.37 feet; fi_ N88°23'22"E a distance of 9.G4 feet; 7. SCU°5O'33"W a distance of 7.41 feet 8_ S89'09'27"E a distance of 61,72 feet; 9. SW34'43"E a distance of 11353 feet;; 10, 588*42'21"E ad istance of IU-76 feet; 11, N84°21'40"E a distance of 94.38 feet; 12, N87°36'WE a distance 4f 18a0B feet to the subdivision boundary of TM Cree<Subd Vision No_4; Thence leaving said subdivision boundary of TM Creek 5ubdivWan No.2 and fallowing said southerly right-cf- way line and said subdivision boundary of TM Cme k Su bdivision No-4 the following four Courses; 1. S&r19'54"E a distance of 1"-49 feet; 2_ SS9"0V53"E a distance of 158.24 feet, 3. NW35'03NE a distance of 12.05 feet; 4_ S59"09'27"E a distance of 75,09 feet, Thence leaving said southerly right-of-way line and fallowing said subdivision boundary the following two courses; 1_ S00'34'31"W a distance of 18.0 feet; 2. 56"9'27"E a distance of 249M feet; 9233 West State Street ■ Boise,Idaho 83714 - MS.639.6939 • kmensilp.w(n Page 28 Page t 66 Item#4. The nce leaving said subdivision boundary.589*09'27"E a distance of 1,079.97 feed; The nre SW13'12"E a distance of 467.21 feet Thence N0011'S3"E a-distance of 1.93 feet; Thence 19.44 Feet along the art of a dreu ar m rve to the left,said curve having a radius of 60,00 feet,a delta angle of 18'054",a chord hearing of N09 05'04"VN and a dhord distance of 19.36 feet to the said sout4edy right-af-ray;lire-, Thence follo% ingsaid southerly right-of--way line the Following three courses; 1. 589'13'12"E a distance of 322-98 feet; 2. N04'34'77"E a distance of 20.00 feet; 3. SW13'12"E a distance of 542-M feet to the easterly line of the Northwest IA of the Norlwast V4 of said Section 14, Thence following said easterly line,900'3T27A W a distance of 1,280.5a fleet tr}the southeast co rner of sold Northwest 114 ofTW Northmt 114(northeast corner of the Southwest 114 of the Northeast 1/4); Thence leaving said easterly line of the Northwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 and following the easterly Ilne of said Southwest 114 of the Northeast 1/4,50WW2("W a distance of 1,038.11 feed; Thence leaving said easterly line,N8T12'39'W a distance of 450.00 fleet; Thence SDX34'2C'''VV a distance of 290.40 feet to the southerly line of said 5outlramst V4ofthe Northeast V4; Thence following said southerly fine,N89'12'39"W a disto nce of 879.80 feet to the center of Said Section 14 (northwest corner of Prim rose Subdivisi❑n); Thence leaving said southerly line and folliowwing the easterly line of the Southwest V4 of said Settlon 14 {westerly line of said Primrose Subdivision),SOT3T29'W a-distance of 887.73 feet too-the northwest corner of the"PubHc use Area"lot on said Primrose Subdivision, Thence leaving said easterly lime(westerly line of said Primrose Subdivision M and fol lowing the northerly One of said"Public Use Area"lot,58F11'48"E a distance of 165.98 feet to the northeast corner of said lot' Thence leaving said northerly line and following the easterly line of said lot,SOW 2`58"W a d Istance of 440.52 feet to the southeast corner of said lot; Thence leaving said easterly line and following said southerly line,N89'i9'DO" a distancs of 166.30 feet to the southwest corner of said lot on the easterly line of said Southwest 1/4 of said Section 14; Thence leaving said southerly line a rid fol lowing said eawberfy line(also the 5ubd Msion boundary of TM Cross!rkg Subdivision No_4),500'35'29"W a d istance of 15.90 feet to#he northerly right-of-way line of Interstate 94; Thence Following the northerly right-&- ray llne and said stubdMslun boundary,N89'34'11"W a distarke of 396.68 feet to the subdivision bo undary c f TIMi Crossi ng 5ubd ivision No.2; Thence leaving said subdivision boundary of TM Crossing Subdivision No_4 and following laid northerly*ht- of-way line and said 5ubdIvlsWn boundsr}'of TM Crossing Subdivision No.2 the following eight courses: 1, NST34'11"W a distance of 104.E 1 feet; 2. N$1'01`41"W a ellstance of 83.12 feet; 3. N8Y34'09'W a distance of 670.&D feet; 4. N04`25`51"Eadlsta nce of25.00�eet; 5_ NS543.4'09'Wadista nce of110t-Dfeet; 6. 9I)4'25'51"W a distance of 15-00 feet; 7_ N81419'01"Wadlsta nce of421.C7feet 9. N8283O'3(rWa dlsta nce of185.92 feet tuthe subdivIsion boundaryofTM CrossirkZSubdivision No_3; PAGE 12 Page 29 Page 167 Item#4. Thence leaving said subdM5ion boundary Of TINI Crossing NO-2 and following said northerly rat-of-way line a nd so Id Su bdiwislon Boundary of TM Cramming Su bdiMis ion No.3 the fol lowing four courses- 1_ N82'3e3WW a distarrte of 394.97 feet; 2. N73°5S't?9"1N a distance of V14.W feet, 3. N46°58'42"1N a distance of 1fi6 7 5 feet 4. N12'05'53"W a distance of 92-20 feet to the ea5herly right-cf-way line of&Ten Mile Rd.; Thence Laving said northerly right-of-uaf I ine,and following said easterly rigfrt-of-way line and said subdivision boundary, NDV31!4rW a dicta nce of 71.L5 feet to the subdivisio n boundary Of TIN Crossing Su bdiVlsE01Ma Thence leaving said subdlvlsion boundary of TM Crossing Subdivisio n No.3 and following said easterly,rich#-of- way Ewa .aid subdivision boundary of T I Crossing,Subdivision the following three courses, 1. NOl°31'49"W a distance of 396-89 feet; 2_ N&T42'58'W a distance of 4.00 reet; 3. NDO"30'02"E a d ista nce of 456.76 feet Thoence leaving said subdivision hvundary and following said easterly right-of-way line the fol lowing six oaurses: 1, S89°111T E a distance of 35-18 iee 2. N00'3f34"E a distance of 236-38 feer, 3, N89'24V2- ' 4+a d ista nce of 46.03 feet; 4. N00 Y33"E a dista nce of 1,45827 feet 5- 589°2627"E a distance of 12.95(eel; 6, Ni03'39'37"E a di nce of 39.28 feet to the subdivision boundary of TM Creek Wbdirvision No.1; Thence following said easberly right-of-way llne and saW subdMsion boundary the follawirrg twelve coLves: 1. R031917 E a distance of 20-72 f , 2_ N86°20'23"W a dicta rrte of 16.21 feet; 3. NOY33'51"E a distance of 4-41 feet; 4_ N10°47'07"E a distarxe bf43.38 Feet S. N53°31'44E a distance of 54-14 feet; 6- NO3°31'44"E a distance O 6.88 7. N49°2627"1N a distance of Q-95 feet; 8- NO3°39'37E a distance of45,01 feet; 9. N01°43'37"W a(14tance of 132.83 feet; 10. 19,74 feet along the arc of a c1rcvlarcurve to the left,said curve having a radius Of 7,272.00 feet,a delta angle of OOW2C,a chord bearing on NO2"55 WE and a chord distance of 19.74 feet; 11. N89'41'52"E a distance of 4.35 feQt; 12, N00'033"E$distance of 529.0�feet to fife subdivI ion boundary of TM Creek Subdivision No.2; PAGE 13 Page 30 Page 168 Item#4. Thence leaving Bald subdivision boundary of TM Creek Subdivision No_land folbowi ng said eastr rly right-of- way Gne and said suhd ivision boundary of 7M Creek Subd Ivisibrl No.2 the following fou r courses, 1, NOD'33'VrE a distance of 123-31 feet, 2_ N07*37'31"E a distance of 80.50 feet; 3, NODIV2WE a distance of IWjDGfeet+ 4_ N45,oy55,rE a distance Of 23,06 feet to the KANT OF BEGINNIf+iG. Said description contains a total of 307,1.2 acres,more or less 12459 4 A OIF PAGE 4 Page 31 Page 169 Item#4. +� 3M9.97 487*Y 3ttn 142.90 it ,7 s f s�9'312'e la it la is aA9'09'Z4`e 594'13'11'e '•°P'mra 3 ns,739'w 450M x 21 V9_A0 41 F � m ry M b �� i S S Y n - � 42 r.D7 .8F3-0n4,, �8 31 31 vrrru-x �'AO ]5hp Leg-end Project Luc afian F OF r � a � � Page 32 Page 170 Item#4. B. Rezone Legal Descriptions &Exhibit Maps in 9233 WEST STATE STREET I EIOISE,ID W14 I 208.639.6939 I FAX 208.539.6930 Clctaber 2l,2020 Project No.19L105 Exhibit A Legal Description for Rezone to C-G(Northl TM Center 5uhdivisbn A parcel 4f land situated in a portion of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 and a portion of the Northwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 7FSection 14,Township 3 North,Range 1 West,8.mv ,City of MepcHon,Ada County,Ida ha and being more particularly described as followsr Commencing at a found brass tap rnarkifig the Northwest Corner of said Section 14,thence following the northerly line of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 14,S89'09'27E a distance of 1,577.99 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Thence 589'09'27"E a distanre of 1,G80.00 feet to a found aluminum cap marking the North 1/4 oorner of said Section 14; Thence leaving said northerly line and following the northerly line of the Northeast 1/4 of said Section 14,SE9'13'12"E a distance of 786.9C feet to a point; Thence leaving said northerly line,5C0"34'27W a distanre of 234.00 feet to a point, Thence S76'2VSVE a distance of 556.22 feet to a point on the easterly line of said Northwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 14; Thence following said easterly line,S00'39'20"W a distance vf459.40 feet to a paint on the centerline afTen Mile Ora In; Thence leaving said easterly line and foIlowing the centerlina of Ten Mile Drain,575'31'WW a distance of 1M.64 feet to a point; Thence 96.67 feet along the arc of a Circular eurve to the right,said curve having a radius of 286-50 feet, a delta angle of 19'20'CC",a chord bearing of M'11'94 W and a chord distance of 96.22 feet to a Point; Thence N85'09'25'W a distance of 1,677.56 feet to8 point; Thence S89'28'2Cr W a distance of 455.90 feet to a paint on the easterly boundary of TM Creek Subdivision No.4(hook 117 of Plats,Pages 17944-17947,records of Ada County,Idaho), Thence leaving said centerline and fallowing the easterly boundary of said 7M Creek Subdivision No.4, NOD'34'31"E a distance of 765.77 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said parcel contains 3 total of 40.9E acres,more or leas. Attached hereto is Exhlbit 6 arrd by this reference is hereby made a part of. a 124519 IRL ENG VEERS SURV5YM PLANNERS Page 33 Page 171 Item#4. 0 O O z U L L m D 500 1D00 1500 a✓ .� a O ° Plan Scale: 1"y 500' Z a POINT OF COMMENCEMENT FOUND ALUMINUM CAP FOUND BRASS CAP E 1/16 CORNER SECTION 14 (j ,7 ro NW CORNER SECTION 14 -� t � FOUND ALUMINUM CAP O u C� BASIS OF BEARING N 1/4 CORNER SECTION 14 SB9'09'27"E 2657,99' C 10 11 W. Franklin Rd, S89'13'12"E S89'13'12"E SB@'13'12 E 11 12 0 z 15 14 1577.ss'F��, 1O8a.0 z cINT OF 7EL6.9O' S42.00' 1328.90' 14 13 Q1 s F SOD'34'27'W N40'34'217"E d wGINNING Rezone Area:40.984+'AC I L3 0 234.GO' z—r 357.00' CO Parrels51214212454 5121421258051214121134,51214120710&51214124$05 5121-4212622,a portion of SI8 28'39"E� au —� S1214212742&51214121172 556.22' I i y w c' Current Zoning:R 4Q&C-C 500'34'20 w LU o ° SS9'28'26"W PropasiM Zoning:C-G 4S9.4C' ti a 465.90' � w N85'08'2$"yy 3 z I 7677.56' I° v CENTERLINE OF TEN }BILE FJRAIN S75'31'34W 180.64' DATE: October Z020 PROJECT: 19.105 SHEET: - - - IOF1 FOUND 5/8" REBAR NE 1116 CORNER SECTION 14 CURVE TABLE CURVE RA61V5 km LENGTH DELTA CHORDSRG CHORD C3 286.50' 1 96.67' 1920'00" SB611'34"W 96.22' ENGINEERS.SURVEYORS.PLANNERS 9233 WEST MTV STREET BOISE,IOAR 83714 PHONE 04)91 639.6939 FAX(ZO81639-6930 Page 34 Page 172 Item#4. km MMOMM 9233 W EST STATE:STREET j 8015E,Id 83714 I 2U8.639.6939 I FAX 208.639-6930 February 16,2021 Project No.1�)-105 Exhibit A Legal Descriptlon for Rezone to R-40 TM Ce rite r Subdivision A parcel of land situated in a portion of the East 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 and a portion of the Wrest 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 14,Township 3 North,Range 1 We413.M.,City of Meridian,Ada County, Idaho and being more particulariydescribed asfoIlows: Commencing at a found brass cap marking the Northwest corner of said S4,ctIon 14,thence following the northerly line of the Northwest 1J40fsald Section 14,589°09'27"E a distance of 2,G57.99 feet toa found aluminum cap marking the North 1/4 corner of said Section 14; Thence leaving said northerly line and following the easterly line of the Northwest 1/4 of said 5ecti?Dn 14,SOU W31"W a distance of 797.76feet to a point on the centerline of Ten Mile Drain; Thence leaving said easterly 11neand lo I lowing sa id Centerline,5.[35 OV26"E a distance of91,37 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Thence follrnering said centerline,595`08'26"E a distance of 246,53 Feet, Thence leaving said Centerline,!,W52'53" a distance of 63.54 feet; Thence 194.95 feet along the arC of a circular Curve to the right,Said curve having a radius of 461A0 feet,a delta angle of 74'13 44",a chard bearing of Sib'59'4VW and a chord distance of 193.5D feet; Thence 529°06'3I3"W a distance of 39152 feet; Thence 416-98 feet along the arc of a circular curve to the leitr said curve having a radius 43f 1,104.00 feet,a delta angle oF23'5V2V,a chord bearing of N77'14'Q3"W and a chard distance of41a-96 feet to the southerly Eineof said East 1/2of tie Northwest 1/4; Thence following said southerly Iine,589*10'360E a distance of 23 2.3 5 feet Thence leaving said southerly line,NO"49'30"E a d.1s#ance-of 99,70feet; Thence 469.81 feet along the arc of a circular curve to the rlght said curve hj ving a radios of 600JI)o feet,a delta angle of 44'5IW,a chord bearing of NZ2'3W3rE and a chord distance of 457.90 feet to the POINT QF REGINNING. The above-described rezone parcel description contains a total of 3.895 acres,more or less. Attached hereto is Exhibit B and by this reference is hereby made a part of, 12459 €NGINEER& I SURVEYORS I PkANNEAS Page 35 Page 173 Item#4. 0 N ❑ 300 600 900 r plan Scale:1"=300' 10 11 BASIS OF BEARING a W`Franklin Rd, g89'C9'27'E 2657.99' ° — — — — — _ S89'13'12"E 2657.79' 11 12 15 14 14 13 •� [A CL POINT OF COMMENCEMENT }' ° s I FOUND BRASS CAP w N 'a FOUND ALUMINUM CAP p m NW CORNER SECTION 14 N 1/4 CORNER SECTION 14 0 m 6 n � �z F, v Z N C m US N � a CENTERLINE OF h N TEN MILE DRAIN N o POINT OF LJxLU J m i BEGINNING Y n O q 58S'08'28"E V � Rezone Area:3.895±AC S85'08'26"E 24s•53' Portion of S1214121172 81.87' (TIE) S0452'53"W a r 51214121133&5 1 2 1423 3668— c v 63.54' " Current Zoning:C-G&TN-C DATE; xtb—ya n Proposed Zoning;R-40 PROfECr: 19-105 ND(Y49'30'E I SHEET; 99.7 D' S89.10'36"E hry 1 OF 1 232.36' 00' CURVE TABLE C2 CURVE RADIUS LENGTH DELTA CHORD 8RG CHORD LEGEND C1 461.00' 194.95' 2413'44" S16'59'46"W 193.50' FOUND BRASS CAPFOUND ALUMINUM CAP C2 1000.00' 416.98' 23'53'28" N77'14'C3"W 413.96' CALCULATED POINT EMGrREERS-SURVEYOR5.PIAMM* 9231 WEST 5TATE 57REEr C3 600.00' 469,81' 4-051'49" N2238'33"E 457.90' REZONE BOUNDARY BOISE,IPAHO 33714 PMOKE 4w)639 6939 — — — — —SECTION LINE FAX(20815394930 Page 36 Page 174 Item#4. !9m 9233 WEST STATE STREET I BOISE,ID 83714 I 208.539.6939 J FAX Z08.639-6930 February 16,2021 Pro No-19-W5 Exhibit A Legal Description for Rezone to C-G{SoLahI TM Center Subdiyision A parcel of land situated in a portion of the South V2 of the Northwest 1/4-and a portion of the Southwest 114 of the Northea5t 1f4 crf Section 14,Township 3 North, Range 1 West,B.M.,City of Merldian,Ada County, Idaho and being more particularly described as follows- Commencing at a found aluminum cap maAing the center of said Section 14,VAich hears S89*11'30"E a distance of 2,656.47 feet from a found aluminum cap marking the West 1/4 corner of sal€ Section 14; Thence fallowing the southerly IIne o=said South 1f2 of the Northwest 114, N89'1J'3Y'W a distance of 49.56 feet to POINT OF BEGINNING 1. Thence fallowing said southerly liner N99'1 1'30"W a distance of 50,18 feet; Thence leaving said southerly line, W48'30"E a distance of 17247 feet; Thence 131.03 feet a long the a rc of a cirtula r cu rve to the left,said curve having a rod I us of 200-00 feet, a delta-angle of'17'32'15",a chord bearing of N17'57'36"W and a chord distance of 128.70 feet; Thence N36'43'42'W a distance of 5327 feet; Thence 57.8.8 feet along the arc of a circular curve to the lefk,said curve hawing a red lus of 300,00 feet,a delta angie of 11"03'15u a chord bearing of N47�44'4VE and a chord distance of 57.79 feet; Thence 141.85 feet along the art of a Compound curve to the left,said curve having a radius of 500-00 feet,a delta angle of 145°15116",a chord bearing of N34*05'76"E and a chord distance of 141,37 feet to a paint hereinafter referred to as POINT"A"; The nee 500'18'58"W a distance of 494.23 feet to POINT OF BEGINNING 1. The abave-described rezone parcel description contains a total of 0,654 acres,more or less. TOGETHER VATH Commencing at a paint previously referred to as POINT"A",Thence N40'18'58"E a distance of 262-00 feet; Thence 271.76 feast along the art of a d mula r curve to the right sea id curve having rt rad itis of 926.00 feet,a delta angle of 16WF540,a chord hearing of N08*43'25"E and a chord distance of 270,79 feet to MNTOF BEGINNING 2. Thence 128.39 feet along the arc of a dreular Curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 500_DB feed, a delta angle of 14'4245",a chord bearing of N19*19'30"W and a Chard distance of 128.04 feet Thenre 144.04 feet along the arc of a reverse curve to the right,said curve having a radius of K OM feet,a delta angle of 27'30'34",a chard bearing of NIZ'55'37-W and a chord dJsta ice of 142,66 feet; Thence NC'49'30"E a distance of 17.95 feet; Whence 182-49 feet along the are of a circular curve to the right,said curve having c radius o(1,0W.04 feet,a delta angle of 10`2720", a chord bearing of570"30'590E and a chord distance of 192.23 feet; Thence S29"06'WVV a distance of 44.98 feet; ENGINURS I SURVEYORS I PLANNERS Page 37 Page 175 Item#4. Thence 193.61 feet along the arc of a circular curve to the left,said curve hiaving a radius of 926.100 feet, a delta angle of 11'58'45",a chard hearing of 523*fl7'15,rVV and a chord distance of 193.25 feet to POINT OF BEGINNING 2. The shave-described rezone parcel cescrlption oontains a total of 0.533 acres, more 0r Eess_ The total rezone description contains a total of 1.187 acres,more or less- Attached hereto is Er&Ut 9 and by this reference is hereby made a part of, 12459 PAGE 12 Page 38 Page 176 Item#4. 2 o a , FN TM Creek Sub.No.3 NW 1/16 CORNERSECTION 14 cobaltp � cCORNER Rezone Area:0.533±AC c� SECTIONS 14 & 15 Parcel S1214233668 I U� L5 -0 co Current Zoning:TN-C i�r Q} 3 Proposed Zoning:C-G I th a POINT OF N +—' z z BEGINNING 2 C4 (TIE) w °^ QS ParcelS1214233668 CurTentZoning: C-G N0018'56"E cc 262.00' (TIE) POINT 'A' m I !E Y S.va C2 4� x o a guard Way I Soo,18'56"W LL Rezone Area:0.554±AC 494.23' 1 Parcel51214233668 a z Current Zoning:R 8&TN-C N88'11'30'W a Proposed Zoning:C-G 48.58' (TIE) _ PAIE', February Mi M S$9'11'30"E 2656_47' L1 PRaEa: is-w T Crossing Sub,No,1 BASIS CE BEARING SHEET: POINT OF 1 r BEGINNING 1 1 OF 2 FOUND ALUMINUM CAP W 1/4 CORNER SECTION 14 POINT OF COMMENCEMENT FpuNO ALUMINUM CAP CENTER OF SECTION 14 LEGEND IS ALUMINUM CAP b CALCULATED POINT REZONE BOUNDARY EHOIREER5-SPRVMRS.PLANNERS 0 400 800 1200 -- — —SECTION LINE 9233 WESE STATE STREET 9am'IPAMP 837U I Scale:1"=400' PHONE Scale: 6939e 639E Ean O � Jr _ � V N 0 o � O m o a CURVE TABLE a w g CURVE RADIUS LENGTH DELTA CIi0R0 BRG CHORD a cd C1 200.00' 131-03' 3732'15" N1757'36"W 128,70' m C2 300.00' 57.88' 11'03'15" N4744'41"E 57.79' (A ` 3 C3 500.00' 141.85' 1615'16' N34'05'26"E 141.37' 0 01 C4 926.00' 271.76' 1W48'54" N8'43'25'E 270.79' CU s U C5 500.00' 128.39' 14'42'45' N19'19'30'W 128.04' U 06 300.00' 144.04' 27'30'34" N1255'37'W 142.66' A=! r o C7 1000.00' 182.49' 1927'20' S70'30'59"E 182.23' L ca 1 926.00' 193.61' 11-58'46- S23-07.15-W 193.25' w `o ,y `o z LINE TABLE q s LINE BEARING DISTANCE ., Fl6." mzi L1 N89'11'30'W 50.18 >sEos L2 NO'4g'30"E 172.47 SHEET: L3 N3943'42W 53.27 2OF2 L4 N949'30"E 17.95 L5 S29'06'38'W 44.98 FMGIMEEMS-SMEY0M5,PIANNERS W BpISF,roAN0831w� RFnE Ixbai a%ei3s AKix98F 63Rb930 Page 39 Page 177 Item#4. C. Preliminary Plat(date: 5/29/2020)and Conceptual Phasing Plan TM CENTER SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT ngXnM 1'" A PARCEL OF LAND BEING A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST 114 AND A PORTION OF THE WEST 112 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 14,TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH,RANGE I WEST, 601SE MERIDIAN,CITY OF MERIDIAN,ADA COUNTY,IDAHO,2020 P 3 O O 0 0 0 0 ® ® a 0 a o —wb- RAT .ry TMCENTER SUED-1 ION �lb...'�" 'H111% MERIDIAN,IDAHO yr o ,...y..-_..�. - __ .,�-.. tom_ .. -- .�� • .�:.,.o�''�_ � �`®R TNFaN R'U"v15MN '^ MERIDIAN,ID Page 40 Page 178 Item#4. 4P E — b- . 1M�ME0.5U 40AHD IDAHO0N MERIDIAN, ® km mm PPl.2 oa yo. R � �o .,,k ,o f o � . - . _ �. 2 ----------------------------- ---- ---- -- -__ _ v --__.n_—-�'�..a. — 1__ ---_ u MATCH LINE-SEE SHEET PP2.1 ~��A as • .... TM CENTER SUBDIVISION MERIDIAN,IDAHO EA�PP2.0.m Page 41 Page 179 Item#4. MATCH LINE-SEE SHHEE7 PP2._—_ _�_ ram" M ° nn ------ TM CENTER SUELDIVISION MERIDIAN;IDAHO rwr�[ ..�PP2.S „O cl © ® O 0 'i MATCH LINE SEE 5HEET PP3.1__ _-_- `rrr j/ __. .� HE— STREET SECTION:S.NEW MARKET AVE. PR ELINNNARY ENGINEERING NOTES - TM CENTER 5U B DIVISION .............,....., MERIDIAN.IDAHO y' 5� CoM MERI DIAN IDAHGPUN ��N --llll \ -�'♦II pll. I,..II. -TI N_II�II .w,r�....m�.. ,.. ...W a.�w. Page 42 Page 180 Item#4. a �`^ MATCH LINE-SEE SHEET PP3.0 I o - -- - " — — o ... gym STREET SECTION:S.WAYE IN D ER AVE. ...."� TM CENTER SUBDIVISION IDAHO m _ m _ Skm STREET SECTION:W.COBALT DR. an pn, � I l _ �........*... ......... .. _Z j TEN •M I L E Phasing Plan ---- �� _ Crnueptue subpect RO iNBpaP I TEN _ *-- -� Page 43 Page 181 Item#4. D. Landscape Plan(date: 5/28/2020) _�.. --- - -- �-- - ----------I ..-- O �,. ,... .--.— .... ' i ww I I " I I STNEFT TRFF C4LlXATI0N51lTAEE(351F} �M�vR�0�0.N�IDAHOa LANDSCAPE 317E PLAN � rmAF FNFFS —m_...gym �/ Mlrlwrrxr vrs .,�,- _1 SaGly�� S • ., -. �'• II PLANTING DETAIL kl !' - - �' � 55�1� I` . = .I 5 P G I � I II i:`.� mslar MERIDIAN IDAHO al PLANTING DETAIL 42 (jtPLANTINGEIETAIL#3 -- -- -- Page 44 Page 182 Item#4. E. Roadways—Completed and Future 100% COMPLETE • Vanguard (primory errtronce) Navigator (east/west collectorlIocaf) • Wayfinder (north/south collector) 7.5% COMPLETE Cobalt (eastfwest collector) 15% COMPLETE • Benchmark (northfsouth collector connection to Franklin) FRANK 19 jl� - f COBALT - 1 .tiWr Ito TEN MILE J x x i r � r CROSSING INTERSTATE 1-84 VICINITY MAW4 Page 45 Page 183 Item#4. F. Pathway Plan _ 4 I I� 4 Y PATHWAY MENITY CORRIDOR Multi-Purvem P�Ith�v S ' MILE TEN -- Roads&Pathways Ten Mile Crossing District I +ti i $'44 14•RdRhW2yfs 2 M � G. Conceptual Building Elevations/Perspectives 00 BRIGHTON BUILDING (complete) PAYLOCITY BUILDING (complete) TM CENTER SUBDIVISION TM CENTER SUBDIVISION BNIMINGELEVATIONWPEC aunnwc[IF—N-1— Page 46 Page 184 Item#4. L AMERIBEN PHASE II (under constr) SALTZER MEDICAL (under constr) 3 TM CENTER SUBDIVISION TM CENTER SUBDIVISION 6UIIDING EIEYATION TYPI[ALS BUILDING ELEVAION i PICALS p 4.C9 ,IT 6 LASALLE BUILDING (under constr) EXISTING SINGLE-STORY SHOPS TM CENTER SUBDIVISION TM CENTER SUBDIVISION BUIIDING EIfVAnON TVPI[ALS BUILDING ELEVATION TYPICAL$ EXISTING SINGLE-STORY MEDICAL EXISTING CARWASH s TM CENTER SUBDIVISION TM CENTER SUBDIVISION 9UfLWNG ELEVATION i ICALS BUILDING ELEVATION TVPICALS Page 47 Page 185 Item#4. EXISTING RESTAURANT/SHOPS (front) EXISTING RESTAURANT/SHOPS (rear) TM CENTER SUBDIVISION i BUILDING ELEVATION WPIMLS TM CENTER SUBDIVISION BUILDING ELEVATION MICALS d� EXISTING AUTO SERVICE THE LOFTS at TEN MILE (complete) TM CENTER SUBDIVISION TIV CENTER SUBDIVISION BUILDING ELEVATION 1YPILALS Hllll l3lN(�FI F Val f I[1N IYI'II AI% lot :.: THE LOFTS at TEN MILE (garages) THE FLATS at TEN MILE (under constr) L. TM CENTER SUBDIVISION EM CENTER SUBDIVISION BUIlD1NG EI cvAnON IYPICALS BUILDING ELEVATION TYPICAL$ Page 48 Page 186 Item#4. H. FLUM Designations/Use Plan&Conceptual Land Use Plan Presented at the Commission Hearing FRANKLIN RD ` HDR ■ M[T ALCI7 fa POTENTIAL MU-C■ -C A MULTI-FAMILY J pFFICEi FLEA• 6 PHASE 3 R RESICENVAL ! ■ �wrrN ..r A■ ■!!!!� a !A s !a DEVELOPED f _ . !L MULTI-FAMILY *! FUTURE 0 '0 PHASES i&2!■ �PA!.a,SL s �MU -w IN FUTURE 11E91�U"-4 TO MEDIUM-NIGH HDR ' RESIDENTIAL MDR coMMERcLAL MHD CONDITION 1.f.(1) • MU-C-Max. 30%ground-level residential . MU-R-Max. 40% land area non-residential T TEN MILE CROSSING CONCEPTUAL LAND USE PLAN 1 _ � RETAIL 1 I I _..J_�.•h* -. - 1 + 7---------/ :NED i THE LOFTS THE PLATS t- MI-' MF DENSITY I �►� -,i l 1RE91DENTIAL� )� 1` ----------- =--- ♦► ► MEDIUM TO + MEDIUM-NIGH + DENSITY I 1 I RESIDENTIAL � ; i trutwrepre-prat ; _ { I application) r f l. � � 1 .if ■ I RESS =•r _ GRAVE SALTZER ricr AMERIIEEN Y 1 color 0evA1epment5tatlis • MHEOTDwEE�CL�A•�L iD Kutur eCommercial nt 41 fMEDICAL Developma — iNJ.,y BukorApproved PAYLOCITY6REGtTON FutureResldentlal LASALLE^ Development C4y of WriAian[Ada C—my MARCH 18,2021 Page 49 Page 187 Item#4. IX. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION A conceptual use plan (i.e.bubble plan) shall be submitted at least 10 days prior to the City Council hearing,to be included in the development agreement,that demonstrates consistency with the mix of uses from each major use category(i.e.commercial,residential, employment) for the overall area governed by the DA as set forth in the TMISAP and the provisions of Development Agreements associated with previous annexations. 1. A new Development Agreement shall replace all existing agreements in the Ten Mile Area as referenced above in Section VI.A, and shall include the following provisions: TIk CREEK i�' CAl!!ON 0AINBRIDEE momwW, c UN MI LE[ENTER S, i TM CRQSSiNG� TM Csyssin _ g Expansion P 1- PRp1ECT OUTL IN ES ARE 6E NERAI ACTUAL AREAS f.1AYYARY a. Provisions applicable to entire development: (1) Future development shall be consistent with the guidelines for development in the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan(TMISAP)pertaining to land use,transportation and design; UDC standards; and design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual, except for the deviations specified in this agreement. (2) Public art shall be incorporated at the entries of the site to create a sense of arrival and as appropriate throughout the overall development. Public art should contribute to the character and identity of the City and should be incorporated in the design of streetscapes,plazas, public spaces associated with buildings, etc.Art should be easily visible to the public (e.g. on the exterior of buildings rather than in lobbies, or visible from the street or publicly assessible open spaces rather than interior courtyards), in accord with the TMISAP. (3) Building height in the C-G zoning district for structures in the area governed by this agreement is allowed to extend up to a maximum of 100-feet without further application. (4) Direct lot access via S. Ten Mile Rd. and W. Franklin Rd., arterial streets; and W. Cobalt Dr., S. Wayfinder Ave., S.Vanguard Way and S. Benchmark Ave., collector streets, is prohibited in accord with UDC 11-3A-3 and the TMISAP unless otherwise approved by the Page 50 Page 188 Item#4. City and ACHD in conjunction with a detailed development plan and/or subdivision. City Council approved waivers to UDC 11-3A-3 for direct access via S. Ten Mile Rd., W. Franklin Rd., S. Wayfinder Ave. and W. Cobalt Dr. as shown on the preliminary plat and concept plan for TM Creek subdivision (AZ-13-015;PP-13-030). (5) The design of future buildings in this development shall incorporate design elements that are generally consistent with those in the"typical"elevations shown in Section VIII.G. (6) The developer shall continue to work with Valley Regional Transit(VRT)to determine the nature and timing of public transit services needed in this area.With each final plat development phase, an update should be provided to the City. Shelters should be placed at transit stops for weather protection to patrons;the design of such should be coordinated between the City,VRT and ACHD ensuring architectural consistency with the general theme of the activity center. Transit locations should include pedestrian amenities such as landscaping,pedestrian and landscape lighting,benches and trash receptacles consistent with the design and location of the shelter. (7) Prior to the City Engineer's signature on the first final plat for TM Center,the developer shall submit a surety to the City of Meridian for the cost of a Welcome to Meridian sign to be placed off-site at the intersection of S. Ten Mile Rd. and S. Vanguard Way. The sign shall be constructed prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy in the first phase of TM Center subdivision. (8) A portion of this site along the Ten Mile Creek is located within the Meridian Floodplain Overlay District. Prior to any development occurring with the Overlay District,the Applicant is required to submit, and the City shall review and approve, a floodplain development application which includes the necessary analysis and documents under MCC Title 10, Chapter 6, including hydraulic and hydrologic analysis. (9) Street lights at a pedestrian scale shall be installed within the tree lawn area along W. Frankin Rd. as set forth in the TMISAP. (10) The Applicant should follow the bubble plan concept presented at the hearingas s they forward with their conceptual development plans. (11, A significant central amenity shall be added to the concept plan for the project,whether it be an amphitheatre,a plaza, or a park. The Developer should seek assistance from the urban renewal agency or work with Council on what that amen , might look like. b. TM Crossing Expansion site(H-2018-0122,Parcel#R7192800752): (1) If at some point in the future the adjacent homes to the north and east of the site redevelop commercially and the 25-foot wide right-of-way depicted on the Primrose subdivision plat on the adjacent property to the north(Lot 7,Block 3) is dedicated,a public street connection may be required at that time. (2) A pedestrian connection shall be provided from the residential neighborhood(i.e. Primrose Subdivision)to the commercial development to the west on the TM Crossing Expansion site (H-2018-0122)in accord with UDC 11-3B-9C.3. The location of the pedestrian connection may be within the right-of-way adjacent to the north property boundary. c. TM Creek site(AZ-13-015,H-2017-0124): (1) Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the conceptual site plan shown below and shall develop with a mix of office,commercial and residential uses as proposed. Page 51 Page 189 Item#4. L. W J � r3 � • 1'� d ——m � [\/ � ��ifrri nrWIM I�a;l l'i'� \ Q � ��f T I lr�e®` _uuuur [ILIy7 i 1 k:ll I (2) Street lights at a pedestrian scale shall be installed within the tree lawn area along S. Ten Mile Rd. and W. Cobalt Dr. as set forth in the TMISAP. (3) Pedestrian-scale lighting shall be installed along S. Wayfinder Ave. as set forth in the TMISAP. (4) All structures within the TN-C zone adjacent to S. Wayfinder Ave. north of the Ten Mile Creek shall be a minimum of two stories in height in accord with UDC 11-2D-5 and the design elements contained in the TMISAP. (5) Buildings along S. Wayfinder Ave. north of the creek should be built to the sidewalk with street trees in wells and street-level store fronts, in accord with the TMISAP. (6) A crosswalk shall be provided across S. Wayfinder Ave.where the multi-use pathway along the Ten Mile Creek crosses the street. (7) For streets &block fronts where commercial uses and pedestrian activity are most desired north of the Ten Mile Creek, it is recommended that sidewalks be lined with shops, restaurants, offices and galleries and that buildings be designed with multiple sidewalk entries where feasible, generously-scaled display and transom windows,pedestrian-scales signs and banners, and awnings or canopies for sun shading. (8) A pedestrian crossing over the Ten Mile Creek shall be provided as part of the creek amenity if approval can be obtained from Nampa&Meridian Irrigation District. (9) Sidewalks shall be provided internally along one side of all major drive aisles for pedestrian connectivity within the development in accord with the Internal Pedestrian Plan shown below. Page 52 Page 190 Item#4. r .n rr+v FRANKUN ROAD 71LU TM NO J - 1 . ++ Lr" 121 ��IIIIFFIIIIII Iry - �'I i iiiilIlIkkFF Ip LL i �:-.. .. . Ark ` — - _ ._ - 1 - lir ---------- i r Pedestrian Plan - Condition I.'I.I.s (10) South Wayfinder Ave. shall initially be constructed in accord with the street sections shown below. Future reconfiguration of S.Wayfinder Ave. may occur if warranted by ACHD, in accord with the street section shown below. Page 53 Page 191 Item#4. PL E6.00'ROW PL a.OP 7.00' 14.D0' 14.00' 7.00' WOO- PARKING BIKE LANE 4 LANE BIKE PARKING 1).00' 700' 5.00' 11.0P 13.OP ME [AM 13.OP 91AI} 5.00' 700' 21W SIDEWALK 2.00 BIKE LANE LANE TURN LANE LANE LANE BIKE 210' SIDEWALK 250' 0� -7URE Fl1TURE FUTURE FIINRE FUNRE FUTURE 0� 1 ui L REMAINING SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTED REMAINING SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTED WITH BUILDING FRANKLIN CROSSING AVE WITH BUILDING NORTH OF CREEK FL 100.OP ROW PL 4 7AP 6.5P 1200' 10.00' 13AP 10.00' 1200' 8.59 7AP FL00' SI DEWAIK BIKE LANE LANE TURN LANE LANE LANE BIKE SI DEWAI.K R00' I FRANKLIN CROSSING AVE BRIDGE SECTION PL Oa.DO ROW FL a.OP 7.00' 14.00' 14.00' 7.01, a.OP PARKING BIKE LANE L LANE BIKE PARKING D.OP 5.00' E.OP 5.00' 11.017 13.BP MEDIAW 13.aP 11.0P 5.00' aAP 5.00' 0.50' SIDEWALK PLANTER 2133 BIKE LANE LANE TURN LANE LANE LANE BIKE TIP PLANTER SIDEWALK 0.50' FUTURE FUTURE FUTURE FUTURE FUTURE FUTURE 111 IN! FRANKLIN CROSSING AVE SOUTH OF CREEK d. TM Creek East(H-2015-0018): (1) The site shall develop with multi-family residential uses and shall obtain conditional use permit approval prior to development. The overall average density target should be at least 16-25 dwelling units per gross acre. Design and orientation of buildings should be pedestrian oriented with special streetscape improvements to create rich and enjoyable public spaces. A strong physical relationship between the commercial and residential components to adjacent employment or transit centers is critical." (2) The subject property shall be subdivided prior to issuance of any building permits for the site. e. Ten Mile Center(aka Treasure Valley Investments) (AZ-14-001): (1) The property shall be subdivided prior to submittal of the first Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. (2) The property shall be developed in a manner that provides a transition in uses to adjacent residential properties. (3) Most buildings along S. Ten Mile Rd. should address the street by being built to the street buffer with windows overlooking the pathway to provide security to the pedestrians and bikes on the pathway as set forth in the TMISAP. Page 54 Page 192 Item#4. (4) A pedestrian connection shall be made to the adjacent school site to the east(i.e. Peregrine Elementary School). (5) The portions of the property zoned TN-C and TN-R shall be developed in a manner that incorporates traditional neighborhood design concepts as set forth in the TMISAP. (6) Only residential uses shall be developed within the R-8 zone. In addition to other allowed uses, a minimum of 75 residential units shall be developed within the TN-R zone, and a minimum of 300 residential units shall be developed within the C-G and/or TN-C zones combined. (7) The Kennedy Lateral and all other waterways on the site shall be piped or otherwise covered in accord with UDC 11-3A-6,unless waived by City Council. (8) Based on the 2020 Sewer Master Plan Update,the subject property lies within two sewer boundaries. The Kennedy Lateral is the sewer shed boundary. Sanitary sewer services to this development is are being proposed via main extensions from the Black Cat Trunk and Ten Mile Diversion Trunk of mains located near the Purdam Drain within the southwest portion of the subject property and main extensions from Franklin Road. Owner/Developer shall install mains to and through the development, coordinate main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet; if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet then alternative materials shall be used in conformance with City of Meridian Public Works Department standard specifications. (9) Water service to the subject property will be via extension of mains in Ten Mile Road along the alignment of the future east-west collector. Owner/Developer shall be responsible to install water mains to and through the property at the time of development and to coordinate main sizes and routing with City of Meridian Public Works Department. (10) Future construction of streets within this site shall be consistent with the applicable street section as shown on the Street Section Map contained in the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan(TMISAP)(pgs. 3-20 and 3-21)with the exception of the east/west collector street(W. Cobalt Dr.) from Ten Mile Road at the northwest corner of the site which shall be constructed as a major collector street in accord with Street Section C. f. Calnon(H-2015-001 : (1) Prior to any development occurring on the subject property,the applicant shall modify the development agreement to include a more detailed conceptual development plan for the site that is consistent with the MU-C and MU-R land use designations. A mix of uses from each major use category(i.e. commercial,residential, employment) shall be provided as set forth in the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan(TMISAP).No more than 30%of the ground level development within the MU-C designation shall be used for residences.No more than 40%of the land area within the MU-R area shall be utilized for non-residential uses. (2) The subject property shall be subdivided prior to issuance of any building permits for the site. (3) Provide a minimum of 218 residential dwelling units on the site of varying types(i.e. multi- family, single-family,townhouse, duplex, and/or vertically integrated).Note: The number of units provided may be greater than 218 units without a limit on the maximum number of units. (4) A 10-foot wide multi-use pathway shall be constructed on this site along the north side of the Ten Mile Creek and to the property to the south. The pathway shall be constructed in Page 55 Page 193 Item#4. accord with the Pathways Master Plan and UDC 11-3A-8. Landscaping on either side of the pathway is required in accord with the standards listed in 11-3B-12C. (5) The stub street that exists to this property at the east boundary of the site,W. Cobalt Street, from Whitestone Estate Subdivision shall be extended with development. (6) The Vaughn Lateral shall be piped on the site where it is currently open if approval can be obtained from Nampa&Meridian Irrigation District(NMID)as it is owned in-fee by NMID. (7) Sidewalks shall be provided internally along one side of all major drive aisles for pedestrian connectivity within the development. (8) This property borders a domestic water pressure zone boundary, and therefore with development, the applicant shall be required to install a pressure reducing station vault and conduits for power and telemetry cabling in the vicinity of their southeasterly connection in W. Cobalt Street. The installation of the pressure reducing appurtenances shall be the responsibility of the Meridian Public Works Department. Applicant shall coordinate the vault and conduit design criteria with the Meridian Public Works Department as part of the development plan review process. (9) The City of Meridian currently owns and operates a sanitary sewer lift station near the west end of W. Cobalt Street. With the development of the subject property,the applicant shall be required to extend a sanitary sewer main from W. Franklin Road through the property to the lift station location and facilitate the abandonment of the lift station. g. Bainbridge Franklin(H-2018-0057): (1) A cross-access/ingress-egress easement(s) shall be granted to the property to the east(parcel #R8580500100)in accord with UDC 11-3A-3. With the first certificate of zoning compliance application,the applicant shall provide a recorded cross access easement that grants access to the Twelve Oaks property. 2. The final plat(s) shall include the following revisions: a. Change the street name of S.New Market Ave. to S. Benchmark Ave. consistent with the Street Name Review approval. b. Include a note that prohibits direct lot access via W. Franklin Rd. and N. Ten Mile Rd., arterial streets; and S. Wayfinder Ave., S. Benchmark Ave.,W. Cobalt Dr. and S. Vanguard Way, collector streets,unless otherwise approved by the City and ACHD. c. A 5-foot dry-utilities corridor should be provided along both sides of the street curb along S. Wayfinder Ave.,W. Cobalt Dr. and S.New Market Ave./Benchmark Ave. Both wet utilities may be located in the street. Streetlights should be placed in the dry utilities corridor on either side of the street. Streetlights of a pedestrian-scale shall be provided along Wayfinder and Cobalt;pedestrian-scale lighting is not required along New Market/Benchmark if it will serve as a residential collector with on-street parking—otherwise,pedestrian lighting is required. d. South New Market Ave./Benchmark Ave. shall be constructed with two (2)travel lanes,bike lanes,parallel parking(if allowed by ACHD), 8-foot wide parkways and detached sidewalks/pathways consistent with Street Section D in the TMISAP,the development agreement,Pathways Master Plan and pathway plan for the site. The first 200'ofsouth of Franklin Rd. on New Market is not allowed to have on-street parking per the ACHD report to allow for right and left turn lanes. Page 56 Page 194 Item#4. e. Streetlights at a pedestrian scale shall be located in the tree lawn area(i.e. in right-of-way between curb and sidewalk)along S. Ten Mile Rd. in accord with the TMISAP for Street Section A(see pg. 3-22). Dry utilities should be located back of the curb in the dry utilities corridor. f. Streetlights at a pedestrian scale shall be located in the tree lawn area(i.e. in right-of-way between curb and sidewalk)along W. Franklin Rd. and Vanguard Way in accord with the TMISAP for Street Section B (see pg. 3-22). Dry utilities should be located back of the curb in the dry utilities corridor. g. Depict a minimum 50-foot wide street buffer along S. Ten Mile Rd., an entryway corridor, measured from the back of curb, in a common lot or on a permanent dedicated buffer, maintained by the property owner or business owners' association in accord with UDC 11-313- 7C.2 and Street Section A in the TMISAP. h. Depict a minimum 25-foot wide street buffer along W. Franklin Rd., an arterial street,measured from the back of curb, in a common lot in the R-40 zone and in a common lot or on a permanent dedicated buffer in the C-G zone,maintained by the property owner or business owners' association in accord with UDC 11-3B-7C.2. i. Depict a minimum 20-foot wide street buffer along W. Cobalt Dr., S. Wayfinder Ave., S.New Market Ave./Benchmark Ave., and S. Vanguard Way, collector streets,measured from the back of curb, in a common lot in the R-40 zone and in a common lot or on a permanent dedicated buffer in the C-G zone,maintained by the property owner or business owners' association in accord with UDC 11-3B-7C.2. j. A cross-access/ingress-egress easement shall be granted via a note on the plat or a separate recorded agreement between all non-residential lots in accord with UDC 11-3A-3A.2. k. A cross-access/ingress-egress easement shall be granted via a note on the plat or a separate recorded agreement to the parcel to the east(#R8580500100,Villas at Twelve Oaks) in accord with UDC 11-3A-3A.2. 1. Remove the two(2) driveway accesses depicted on the plat via Franklin Rd. on Lot 4,Block 3 and Lot 4,Block 4 to the east and west of New Market/Benchmark unless specifically approved by City Council through a waiver to UDC 11-3A-3,which limits access to arterial streets,and by ACHD. m. If New Market has not yet been constructed to stub to the site's south property boundary by the time the proposed section is constructed,depict a temporary turnaround easement and construct a temporary cul-de-sac that meets the dimensional standards of a standard cul-de-sac at the terminus of New Market on this site per ACHD and Fire Dept. standards. 3. The landscape plan submitted with the final plat shall include the following revisions: a. Detached pathways, 8-to 10-feet wide, shall be depicted in accord with the pathway plan in Section VIII.F and with the City's Pathways Master Plan as required by the Park's Department in Section IX.E.At a minimum, 10 foot wide pathways shall be provided along S. Ten Mile Rd., the east side of S. New Market Ave. and along the Ten Mile Creek in accord with the Pathways Master Plan; 8-foot wide pathways may be provided in other locations. b. Depict a minimum 5-foot wide detached sidewalk along the west side of S.New Market Ave./Benchmark Ave.where 8-to 10-wide pathways are not proposed on the pathway plan,with 8-foot wide parkways within a minimum 20-foot wide landscaped buffer in accord with the TMISAP for Street Section D(see pg. 3-21). Page 57 Page 195 Item#4. c. Depict a minimum 20-foot wide street buffer, landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-313- 7C, along each side of W. Cobalt Dr., a collector street; and a detached 8-to 10-foot wide pathway on the south side of the street consistent with the pathway plan. d. Depict minimum 20-foot wide street buffers,landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-313- 7C, along S. Wayfinder Ave. and S. Vanguard Way,both collector streets. e. Depict a 50-foot wide buffer area with detached 10-foot wide pathway along S. Ten Mile Rd., consistent with that shown for Street Section A in the TMISAP; depict landscaping in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-313-12C for pathways and 11-313-7C for street buffers. f. Depict a minimum 25-foot wide buffer with a minimum 5-foot wide detached sidewalk along W. Franklin Rd.,landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. g. Depict streetlights at a pedestrian scale in the tree lawn area along S. Ten Mile Rd. in accord with the TMISAP for Street Section A(see pg. 3-22). h. Depict streetlights at a pedestrian scale in the tree lawn areas along W. Franklin Rd. and S. Vanguard Way in accord with the TMISAP for Street Section B (see pg. 3-22). i. Depict streetlights at a pedestrian scale in the tree lawn areas along W. Cobalt Dr. and S. Wayfinder Ave; if New Market/Benchmark is not constructed as as a residential collector street with on-street parking, streetlights at a pedestrian scale shall also be provided along this street. j. Include mitigation information on the plan for all trees on the site that are proposed to be removed that require mitigation in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-1OC.5. Contact Matt Perkins, City Arborist,to schedule an appointment for an inspection to determine mitigation requirements. 4. In accord with the TMISAP for"complete streets,"the following are features that shall be considered as a starting point for each street: sidewalks,bike lanes,wide shoulders, crosswalks, refuge medians,bus pullouts, special bus lanes,raised crosswalks, audible pedestrian signals, sidewalk bulb-outs, street furnishings and on-street parking. The Applicant shall address at the public hearing(or in writing prior to the hearing)what additional design features are planned for internal public streets within this development aside from those proposed. 5. All future development shall comply with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Tables 11-2A-6(R-8), 11-2A-8(R-40), 11-2B-3 (C-G), 11-2D-5(TN-C)and 11-2D-6, as applicable. 6. A 14-foot wide public pedestrian easement shall be submitted to the Planning Division for all of the multi-use pathways within the site that area not located in the right-of-way prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. 7. Streetlights shall be placed in the dry utilities corridor on either side of W. Cobalt Dr., S. Wayfinder Ave. and S.New Market Ave./Benchmark Ave. 8. Development of the plat shall occur generally consistent with the phasing plan in Section VIII.C. B. PUBLIC WORKS 1. Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1.1 The current sewer configuration submitted with this application,depicts at intersection of Colbalt and New Market Avenue, flow being enabled to go in either the north or the west direction. This needs to be corrected so flow only goes in one direction. Based on conversations with applicant 8" sewer line on Cobalt will not connect to manhole at intersection. Page 58 Page 196 Item#4. 1.2 To alleviate the water quality issues,this development must extend the proposed 12" water main south to connect into the existing water main in S New Market Ave(TM Crossing No 4). 1.3 Tie into the existing 12"water stub in Vanguard(between lots 6&25,block 1) 2. General Conditions of Approval 2.1 Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet,if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2.2 Per Meridian City Code(MCC),the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5. 2.3 The applicant shall provide easement(s) for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way(include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat,but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian's standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement(on the form available from Public Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor,which must include the area of the easement(marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2"x I I"map with bearings and distances(marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted,reviewed, and approved prior to development plan approval. 2.4 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water(MCC 12-13-8.3). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available,a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 2.5 All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC. 2.6 All irrigation ditches,canals, laterals, or drains, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. 2.7 Any existing domestic well system within this project shall be removed from domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8 contact the City of Meridian Engineering Department at(208)898-5500 for inspections of disconnection of services. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation if approved by Idaho Department of Water Resources Contact Robert B. Whitney at(208)334-2190. 2.8 Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections(208)375-5211. Page 59 Page 197 Item#4. 2.9 Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and activated, road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded,prior to applying for building permits. 2.10 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110%will be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities, etc.,prior to signature on the final plat. 2.11 All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B. 2.12 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process,prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. 2.13 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 2.14 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.15 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 2.16 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H. 2.17 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill,where footing would sit atop fill material. 2.18 The design engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. 2.19 The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 2.20 At the completion of the project,the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. 2.21 A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting. A copy of the standards can be found at http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272. 2.22 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a performance surety in the amount of 125%of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer,water and reuse infrastructure prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 2.23 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20%of the total construction cost for all completed sewer,water and reuse infrastructure for Page 60 Page 198 Item#4. duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridianciiy.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=19139l&dbid=0&repo=MeridigECit D. POLICE DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=191282&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity E. PARK'S DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridiancitE.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=192685&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity F. NAMPA&MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID) hyps:11weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=223592&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCiU G. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT (CDHD) https:11weblink.meridiancioy.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=223468&dbid=0&repo=Meridian City H. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ) https://weblink.meridiancioy.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=191393&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCioy I. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT(WASD) https://weblink.meridiancioy.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=192801&dbid=0&repo=Meridian City J. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https://weblink.meridiancioy.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=223625&dbid=O&repo=MeridianCioy Questions from City Staff and ACHD response: hyps://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=222896&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity ACHD confirmation that a Traffic Impact Study(TIS)was not required for this project. https://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=222887&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity X. FINDINGS A. REZONE(UDC 11-513-3E) Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full investigation and shall at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; The Commission finds the rezone of the subject site to the C-G and R-40 zoning districts is consistent with the associated MU-COM and HDR FLUM designations in the Comprehensive Plan for the subject property proposed to be rezoned. Page 61 Page 199 Item#4. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; The Commission finds the proposed map amendment to C-G will assist in providing for the retail and service needs of the community while the map amendment to R-40 will assist in providing for a range of housing opportunities consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in accord with the purpose statements for the districts. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; The Commission finds that the proposed rezone should not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. Staff recommends the Council consider any oral or written testimony that may be provided when determining this finding. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to, school districts; and The Commission finds that the proposed rezone will not result in any adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing services to this site. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. Because this application is for a rezone and not an annexation, this finding is not applicable. B. PRELIMINARY PLAT(UDC 11-6B-6) In consideration of a preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat,the decision- making body shall make the following findings: (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) 1. The plat is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and is consistent with this unified development code; (Ord. 08-1372, 7-8-2008, eff. 7-8-2008) The Commission finds the proposed plat is generally in conformance with the UDC and the guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan and TMISAP if the Applicant complies with the Development Agreement provisions, conditions of approval in Section IX and ACHD conditions. 2. Public services are available or can be made available ad are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; The Commission finds public services can be made available to the subject property and will be adequate to accommodate the proposed development. 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the city's capital improvement program; The Commission finds the proposed plat is in substantial conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's CIP. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; The Commission finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development. 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and The Commission finds the proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare. Page 62 Page 200 Item#4. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. The Commission is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that need to be preserved with this development. Page 63 Page 201 Applicant Presentation TM Center PrePlat & Ten Mile Crossing DA Mod Design Guidelines City Council - Aril 13, 2 02 1 TMISAP BACKGROUND Ten Mile Interchange SpecificArea Plan T E N 4t**'M I L E EXCERPTS FROM THE TMISAP IMPLEMENTATION IMPLEMENTATION. Knowing the private sector may want to act more quickly to move the plan forward, the City DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. Plan encourages developers and I<ey land owners to take the implementation will be accomplished through the initiative and begin the implementation program, bringing City existing development codes, through forward detailed design guidelines and zoning, and amendments to those codes, or by the development infrastructure financing proposals. Section I, p 1-3 of new provisions, such as NEW zoning districts, overlay districts, design guidelines and ZONING. Alternatively, the City could lool< development standards. Section 2, p 2-2 beyond the existing development regulations to new development provisions. The Study Area for ACHIEVING RESULTS. The plan calls for bold this plan (or some sub-set area) could be defined as new actions as characterized through the plan its own Development District, with a series of new development . . . Mal<ing the necessary changes will zoning categories to address the use types and not be easy. It will require leadership on behalf of mixed use districts contemplated in the plan. These the City and a willingness to innovate and regulations could be linl<ed to the design guidelines collaborate with all the players involved. Section 2, p and should be written expressly to promote and 2-2 guide the types of mixed use development that the community wishes. Section 2, p 2-3 ®�. TEN fLE • EXCERPTS FROM THE TMISAP ACTION PLAN Developers are strongly encouraged to undertake these tasks and invite the City to the table as a means of advancing the plan more rapidly than may otherwise be possible based on staffing and fiscal resources. Develop an expedited review process for projects that embrace, incorporate and where, through cooperation, developers have developed partnerships and specific integrated plans that cross Fdesign p a set of design guidelines for the Ten Mile property lines and advance necessary infrastructure ange Area; OR encourage the development construction. nity to work together to prepare a set of guidelines. Th e City is ready to work as your partner T E I q t*x I I L E TODAY @TEN MILE CROSSING Bainbridge TM Creek Calnon Treasure Valley Investments TEN MILE ' TM Crossing CROSSING VICINITYMAP DATE F-" 6 �4_ ` ` Y• • �- - . TEN MILE CROSSING TM CENTER PRE- PLAT an FM top i � � R•.i+w. � r l • MIA 7 DESIGN GUIDELINES Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan TEN MILE CROSSING ••• TEN MI L E • TEN MILE CROSSING DESIGN GUIDELINES APPLIES to ALL 308 acres within - the Ten Mile Crossing to promote and facilitate the development of a distinctive, high-quality, mixed-use gateway for the City of Meridian. - Tr TEN *** MILE DESIGN GUIDELINES C R ❑ S S I N G SUPERSEDES the TMISAP, and they. Design Guidelines become the A governing guide for Ten Mile rY Crossing April 7,2021 TEN I L E®�. • WHAT DO THEY CONTAIN DESIGN GUIDELINES 04 a. Introduction Landxape guide lines ereinfended Intent to vide--I]l md.lca a deli n . llrrx Ursign tiuid iQLShQriC[Oad map F D ra PURPOSE the �;e; „tje APPENDIX SPECIFIC USE STANDARDS A and entitled throu approval ptoperS.T A.1 Specific Use Standards c. The applicant shall ovidea m.foot G' 2. Tocrcak quality buirdin sand deli ns g .g Introduction organized around s ° 1 1 g g introduction,proje Dr[ve-Through Estahhs g ,. •. The Ten Mlle Cirri site and landscape A- All esrablishmenis to a 3O9 acre area of t architectural dQSsg service shall;derail APPENDIX PHOTO LIBRARY A Specific Area Plan top APPLICABILITY guidelines far coin menu and speaker F' •' the development of Te commercial and re and window locatio distinctive high•quality and sign a"guideli ion;ngeompl;,tire. A.2 Photo Library of Existing and Proposed Building and Site Design g sg- the City OfMetidian. Applicability and buildings withi specific:I❑the built S. A site plan shall be Buildings and Architecture I Existing Cammercief Cif ors These Ten M;Ie Crossin A. Development end architecture will be demonstrates safe supersede the Ten Mil Mile Crossing Des i; g by ShQ TMCDR Bea orbicular access an Area Plan as the gover The design and d- DESIGN REVIEW developrnerq pats site and between a � • development guide f Crossing"These de - minimum by the venous own a mmtmum the plsr R apply to any land n the development a compliance with th "ems is r g _ The specific or.star r Ten Mile Crossing. �. Design Review. ]fris duc'urnenl creates � � 4•" adminisrranve proved In addition,the fv11 ]. Slacking Lane,s i +� design guidelines prov S- Flexibility.The tlP'• an overlay d;str;ci raged the Ten Mile p Crossin Des'n Disrrin j"TMCD Distr;Ct") included in the Ten capacity to pmv to achieve the goals fa and design gui&Iin B Guidelines: tlrivQways,driv _ - - and applies to all development in Ten mile document depict it right Of way by The purpose and inten trussing" Site and Landsc guidelines is to set fort naturQ and intgns�: 2. The siackin Inn developmem at Tei i. &RWgahihty.All visible exterior overall sited 6 standards and the l n d interface with lane from the allowing sufficient improvemenn to a site,building Or 1 e t implementing the land achieve the overall SSruCture{including new facilities, structures and for access and Crossing.Funhermare lames may prpvi � these design guideline viability of Ten Mil remodeling,rehabilitation projects and employee pm i ' g. g "pension projects)within the TMCD A. Encoprage ikzibilil District shall require su brain of of a 3. Any stacking lair •tom P C)� )"" , 1. creativity in Ten Mi Design Review application. hundred feet[1 r• • m m r [a 'I mine 11116211111• design and develcr + provide for an market demand an W. TMCD District Board Review" TEN �•M I L E while enhancing lft Development applications within the a. The site should — quality of Ten Mile TMCD District must be submitted to the restriction lip tv tts•e drive•through is Ten Mile Crossing Design Review Board of the appl it nblN limi street fOr Sunir•I Moridian; I'TMCDR Board"I prior to submission e.ceptions to any us to the City for a Certificate of Zoning case by case basis. _ Compliance.The TMCDR Board shall torward its dQcisions to the Ciry for its u" The Planning and Zo + T E N `•M I L E may grant exception TEN :M 111 F jai consideration of all project applications. frontage,parking 0r "P tii" Application Comem"All TMCD greater than twemy perrem j20:sj District applications to the City shall the applicable limit. be aCCOmpa nied by The information - - required by Cha pier i i-SR-$of the 'u. Any approval pur suanl to this section I Meridian 4ni fied Develupmenl Code Shall he supported 61'rach of The T F N �•M I L E IUDC)and by the conditions of approval following findings. Fe TEN '•M!L E A-5 issued by the TMCDR&rend" ❑- The exception is consistent with ie Level of Review.The Director or these Ten Mile Crossing Design Administrative Staff,as ap propriate, Guidelines. shall review TMCD District applications, re TEN MILE 3 ��. TEN 1LE • DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPLICABILITY APPROVAL & LEVEL OF REVIEW New Ten Mile • All visible exterior improvements to a Crossing Project • TMDRB application and decision site, building or structure within Ten Mile OMVsubmitted to Meridian Crossing shall require submittal of an VI Design application to the TMDRB Review • Staff will review conformance with the ** — Ten Mile Crossing Design Guidelines TEN MILE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD TMORaaar Approval Compliant applications subject only to • All applications submitted to the TMDRB Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) for approval. City Review for Compliance City issues CZC approval necessary for TMDRB is comprised 3 or 4 architects building permit process. independent from the application. If Compliant,CZC DESIGN EXCEPTIONS Application CONTENT • Prescribed and allowed by Planning • Must include information required by (:City Director UDC. Submit for Building Permit T E N4.*4klAL E DESIGN GUIDELINES SITE AND LANDSCAPE Establish a framework for the design and tannin at Ten Mile Crossing - y planning of parcels g Street Standards - - " Pathway and Open Waterway Design Landscape and Hardscape Design �: {, ` Parking Lot Design ARCHITECTURAL _ Aesthetic framework for the design and construction of buildings and structures by Overlay District '19 SIGNAGE Site Placement Ensure signage continuity for both Form - : ;�- freestanding and buildings Materials & Finishes T E N I L E • DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS Figure 5— Locations for Additionai Design Consideration . . : The key frontages and intersections highlighted in red on Figure 7 at left f are locations that encourage additional site and building design considerations Y including: e • Placement of buildings near the ; _• _ road. _ Four-sided.architecture. Additional screening. _ L • Scale of buildings. Guidance on additional design _ considerations will be provided by the Ten Mile Crossing Design Review Board. - - 1 ,- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - J!�... - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - �. Feet 1.000 am� •'!'c aimer'Preliminary concept plan, suhied to change upon final approvaL T E N AL E • ROADWAYS Typical Street Sections Figure7.1 Typical Street Sections Fou r-La ne+Turn Typology Lane+Bike Lanes Typology •Vanguard _ Lapel Physical characrerisiics � Lapel Physical Characteristics Figure7.5 y.4� OA Private Street 5'Sidewalk:5'to 8' O .Y A Sidewalk: to 8' Parallel Parking • r' © Tree Lawn:8'to 10' F4 © Tree Lawn:8'to 10' NIS Ameriben •Sentinel _ •Excursfon © Tree Grate o © Tree Grate A g s, E OBicycle Lane , , , a D Bicycle Lane OTwo-Way Left Turn Lane '•""" O Two-Way Left Turn Lane OCenter Landscaped Median O Center Landscaped Median ' Figure 7.2 © Parallel Parking Three-Lane+Parallel Parking+ O Parallel Parking KeyMa Bike Lane Key Map p •WayJinder, Figure 7.6 north of Tenmde Creek Typical Private Service DriveAM Sect on 7 Auk gure7.3AL x5 - pical Commercial A C G D E reet Section, o-Lane+Turn - - ^- - - - - ne+Bike Lanes y, Navigator,east of „o,t.�„ ..�µ ��u•,,. Vanguard a• ` Cobalt 'New Market _ Bicycle Lane •Way/inder,south O © of Tenmile Creek OTwo-Way Left Turn Lane to Vanguard — rs•a. „_ o s OCenter Landscaped Median OParallel Parking Key Map Figure 7.4 Typical Commercial Street Section, Two-Lane+Bike Lanes •Navigator west ofLt �`• -. Vanguard A B D ^ TEN4*4ILE PATHWAYS & AMENITIES Legend 1 T Label Symbol Pathway Type . ....................... .,...................... -- 10'Tenmile Creek and C • • • • Ten Mile Road—Regional G Pathway 10' Pathway A —------ - •� . 10' Purdam Drainage— t Regional Pathway Detached Sidewalks E ... .•. and Interior Pedestrian Circulation i B E 8' Pathway ---- ` Pedestrian Boulevard: Two 0'sidewalks separated by 8' landscape strip with F seating stations "Main Street" section „ ' depicted in Figure 9.2 ' Amenity Site Notes:See Street Sections for applicable C t pathway design guidelines. t•oX Additional amenity sites and plaza locations T_T-- will be determined upon individual site design. 'Disclaimer'Preliminary concept plan. See existing/proposed amenities and plazas in subject to change upon final approval. TE .*4ILE SITE & LANDSCAPE • Landscape AM .JJ . ,. • Commercial • Residential • Creeks & Drains ........ • Site Furnishings Walkways / Pathways Plantings t >� Parking Areas .. _!- • Exterior Lighting6 01 au •ClF rlaiupgEi 'es��«sFWrr ....................... �- l • Walls / Service Areas """" ..®............. .. =Bub cEnmw3moeca •.. i � t i fkIII� �-- I huiwus rf+�l.�K+ I VI �5 } A:�wif' .......................... Y _ .-.�. clfNsr seiWrx�gf, 'av[kui •••••••••••••• .1 •- /9i Ylln0l�vSffn' - _ me Wir uaua..m..=nA.wux 11. ••.� Figure I7—Perma bark is the only .r v allowed material for flower beds.Color sO EI'l+nkls]— —>`]d[�nY� '�Il4 Sii1151il6 ry51 .l'nn+lE�9{--/1v/R a'w3++f "'�• �°^"'�='q"' """"""""""""" may only be a mix of grey and brown. Ilk� ffo.3 f3ufwvsfc.ue i.u. '�ioa�er.. •............. �, ARCHITECTURAL COMMERCIAL Form a Scale & Proportion - 'Height - E r Elements : Details - • Entryways Figure 24.1-Form and massing diagram for Commercial Offrcef buildings Windows /• Doors Materials & StyleMechanical / Services Lighting G ` J - Label Arahiteatural Element D � � Entryway emphasis through Figure 24.2—Form and massing diagram for Commercial Retail buildings architecture form and material First floor pedestrian-scaled features Parapet articulation relates to .. architecture below Exterior shading contributes to - building articulation C i Fenestration pattern and projection t C 1 .. _. - Figure 30—Materiof palette far Commercial contributes to building articulation buildings Screening of mechanical equipment � Q by parapet or screen-wall Usable outdoor spaces Figure 25-Form andmassing diagram far large-format Retail buifdirtgs TEN I L E��. • ARCHITECTURAL MIXED USE & FLEX Label Architectural Element Entryway emphasis through F - _ architecture form and material t a 1 First floor pedestrian-scaled features Parapet articulation relates to Gl architecture below Exterior shading contributes to building articulation ll� �' ___ __, r �.w»� ► — Fay- — _ Fenestration pattern and projection — --+ -+- t - contributes to building articulation �' , ' Figure 33—Ground floor storefronts should Screening of mechanical equipment be architecturally distinct and create a by parapet or screen-wall —— — — — — pedestrian-scaled base from upper residential Usable outdoor spaces A D floors FormQ ale e• a • • • • r Label Architectural Element—Flex noo■ ■■■■ ■■■ ■■■ m Entryway emphasis through HeightEEB architecture form and material Elements • Details _ . l p} Firstfloor pedestrian-scaled features �l Figure 34.1—Form and massing diagram for Flex Commercial buildings Parapet articulation and scale relates Entrywaysto architecture below Windows . , I rs Exterior shading contributes to building articulation Materials I�� .: �� T® »,��I E Fenestration pattern and projection i^ _ contributes to building articulation Lighting T CE Figure 34.2— Form and massing diagram for Flex Light Industrial buildings TEN ♦ 1 L E ARCHITECTURAL RESIDENTIAL Form Scale & Proportion OD K ... �- I ( - I Height --- Elements : Details A E E Windows /• Doors ■ F ° Materials & Styles PR Mechanical / Services Lighting OA Label Architectural Element—Residential - o Entryway emphasis through architecture form and material s: . First flcor pedestrian-scaled features Parapet articulation and proportion OC relates to architecture below Exterior shading and balconies contributes to building articulation ` T E Fenestration massing and projection contributes to building articulation TENS • I L E • ARCHITECTURAL SIGNAGE DESIGN GUIDELINES SIGNAGE Q4 P PZ : 2 P2 P2 .P2 P - - Signage Guidelines C. All building wall signs shall be constructed i of a hi-density urethane material or - Introduction aluminum'A"thick(minimum).The face 1^I Project and building signage guidelines define of the wall signs shall have dimension by 1 1 routing or extrusion,with a minimum of%" �T the various ident ficat on needs throughout 1 variation.Individual letter signs shall meet 1 ; T,n Mile Crossing,and to insure that there is the following: ] 1 1 continuity of overall signage while allowing for 1 r 1 specific individualization.All signage will be i. If letters are interconnected,all backing 1v 1P2 reviewed and approved by the TMCDR Board. shall blend into the background material P2 All development signage will he maintained P2, by the various owner associations within n. Letters shall be stud mounted 1"off the _ �� h :; � 7 face ofthe building. —L the development areas.All individual tenant �2 P2� Figure 41—Signage location option on I _ signage maintenance will be the responsibility iik Letters shall be flat or matte black or Commercial Office buildings \P2 _ of the tenant and or the specific building owner. other approved earth tone colors.NoIn addition,the following components are glossy. j P included as part of the Ten We Crossing Design iv. Paints,vinyl or Plexiglas is permitted. y P21 Guidelines: D. All elements shall be painted. 1 x P2 s A. Each tenant shall be required to submit 5 E. For building signage along the Interstate signage plans to the building's managing 84 frontage,white or bronze colors or I LR3 P2 entity for written approval.A design review materials shall be required for office f h r T h sign application,accompanied by the 1 buildings. .1.1 Z.Type written approval of the managing entity, 1 2 ! shall be submitted to the Cityfor any F. There will be development specific 1 Pylon up to 20' proposed signs for City staff review and monument signs identifying each approval.All signs shall be in compliance development area in Ten Mile Crossing. 1 N� o Pylon up to 35' with the criteria stated herein. Those locations will be identified on the 1 B. Building wall signs shall 6e placed within final plat maps of each section. P5� �-� � Pylon up to 50' the approved sign areas as designated on P5` individual project elevations.Signage may 5 Figure 42—Vertical signage emphasizes not exceed the standards in the City of — Feel Meridian UDC signage standards. entryway on commercial buildings t'UDu �be a4aelualoplaan P..TEN•��MILE SO subject 0�hnge naA v , 1 TE N I L E • APPENDIX TEN *** MILE PHOTO LIBRARY APPENDIX PHOTO LIBRARY A APPENDIX PHOTO URRARY A APPENDIX PHOTOLIBRARY A A.2 Photo Library of Exls[ing and Proposed Building and 51re Design xuNdlnc••nd are6x.nu..I rrxnnr cnmm.rHa ortn. a-�Iamn.�w archn.eeure I dIm�MWHNmNY ReWmtl.l emmines ena iv.mxenure; aesn nN com mer:r.lknrn '¢ •_ NMI IJ, , km 0 gas. Aw kv l a.. TEN;MILE A-5 TE N'yMILE A-8 1E14 '•y41LE A-5 mom APPENDIX PHOTOLIBRARY A APPENDIX PHOTOLIBRARY A APPENDIX PHOTOLIBRARY A 5•ni, �, =_11.an 1 r.anrj F.N.y dsW. 1l Ltr.rid—du.p I J.6 tFW rVand Tms ,feo�d rr...... � �� MFG � Qm LA. US& ri TEN SMILE I A-11 TEN❖MILE A-13 TEN,,:�MILE A-14 T E N I L E CONCEPTUAL LAND USE PLAN - -----------� ..*--------- :ICCU 1 1 1 1 1 I �1 1 RETAIL --J �r---------------� 1j' ARWAS MED THE LOFTS THE FLATSI HIGH— -- MF MF 1 DENSITY RESIDENTIALI c�:�e r.r � �i---------- — -- 1 : �� MEDIUM TO I MEDIUM-HIGH j -- 1 I of DENSITY I 1 J 1 1 � RESIDENTIAL � j 1 (future pre-platEDICAL y application) J� 1 1 �` J J'/ -- — ---------------� I TNESS ' CRAVE y SALTZER 4SPICE AMERIBEN z Color Development Status MEDICAL ED Future Commercial DAYCARE MEDICAL Development s (No color) Built or Approved OFFICE BRIGHTON ppYLOCITY Future Residential LASALLE Development m Feet City of Meridian[Ada County MARCH 18,2021 Disclaimer' Per i ary concept plan, TEN I LE subject to Change-ipon final approval. FLUM 7T_ FRANKLIN RD HD MU- ■PROPOSED : ■ POTENT A• 2 `9 MU-C ■ MULTI-FAMILY f OFFICE+ FLEXI PHASE 3 RESIDENTIAL `# ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ _.NJ M ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ s;■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IR sir ■ ■ ! `t DEVELOPED t r1MMF s LH "MULTI-FAMILY FLATS R■ FUTURE ■ P SE$ 1 &2 ■■ Hi-DENS RE5 FUTURE MEDIUM TO MEDIUM HIGH HDR RESIDENTIAL MDR a ERCIAL m a MHDR oil � r � CONDITION 1 .f.(1 ) • MU-C - Max. 30% ground-level residential • MU-R - Max. 40% land area non-residential T E N *4kl I L E• TEN MILE CROSSING DESIGN GUIDELINES APPLIES to ALL 308 acres within - the Ten Mile Crossing to promote and facilitate the development of a distinctive, high-quality, mixed-use gateway for the City of Meridian. �- - T E N M I L E DESIGN GUIDELINES C R ❑ S S l N ❑ SUPERSEDES theTMISAP, and the Design Guidelines become the A governing guide for Ten Mile j Crossing April 7,2021 •. TEN I L E ROADWAYS e Typical Street Sections .rPra ax _ lv.r-Lane•Turn Ty004V Lane ga Lanel Vanguard. npuerd L,e.l Phnk.lrh...n.awr. ?F Y _ a Trey lawn:V to 10' f — F.• '—. ... - - i C] T.Gq[f • - 0 SiCyele Lme A B D E M F- 1' y T way Leff Turn Lane .vumwn." • �r r�o. nr • .i.•.vw.• Canter landscaped Median / „ � �• ® Parallel Parking Fig—P.3 •/ ` ¢ � Three-Lane•Parallel Parking Key map � — � 7enmife Crerk w Typical Street Sections Typical Street Sections i. -_ i-- iYpvlvgV Tvp03ogy - �. �➢YrC P-3 R"r• �_ Label Ph"kNChara Hi" Foaw,!7.5 1Wr1 %, lul CharenrHrtlu _ wwwrrr�� Tv4)k@i Canlrr&-,l 'k- fS Privy re Sxreer•TWO-lane Secr; (l A' Sidewalk:5't0 8' A Sidewalk:S'log' Parallel Parkin 1 TWO-lane�Turn � g B Tree Lawn:W to]d' Lane•9rke Lanes Tree lawn;8't0 10' •Srnflnrf�"ri°rr ea • ' l _ C Tm2 Grate : Yp .NH of i _ © Tree Ore* •£xrurslon .New MvrlfN Q: eicycie Lane .INoYfirr 1 SOulfl A B ._. .. 8icy<ra Lan* ofFertmrkcreet .LDf E © G Two•Wav Leh Turn Lane tv Vanguard Ya .. Turp.WjV ieB Turn Lana FCenser Landscaped Median Ceniel Landscaped Median Parallel Parking O Paramel Parking Key Map Key Map ffpwe 7.4 rp• Fldure T.S TY➢��al Lwnmcrc sal TyV:�ar Pr,l'.i r�• Sllee[SL1YlOR, S:rv,,.o•:-. Lwo-lane�Bike Lanes _ �� SC•�nui, Yon IE t. cc I z tr , i F t oil 104 or y" Any ,iii 016NEW- . PC z A ,. m - pe, 4 � 4 z _ TEN MILE CROSSING INTERSTATE 1-84 VICINITY MAP 27 `f PATHWAYS I AMENITIES Legend 1 LJ y ` 14"M Label symbol Pathway Type ..................... 10'Tenmiie Creek and • • e Ten Mile Road—Regionai `G Pathway .... � A-� 10' Pathway 4$ 10' Purdam Drainage— - &' 0 - j --J Regional Pathway Fj Detached Sidewalks f ". ' ••• •.. and Interior Pedestrians ' �! # ' Circulation °\ B 3.5 Miles E`i .. 8' Pathway E ~--� 8' and 10' Oathways Pedestrian Boulevard: Two 6 sidewalks separated by 8' strip landscape strip with seating stations ° "Main Street" section depicted in Figure 9.2 _ Amenity Site �l �4 Future Gathering Plaza 1.000© Feet `Disclaimer'Preliminary concept plan, subject fo change upon final approval. T E N ® � I LE • ARRIVAL VANGUARD WAY rm LA rm + z m 1 i •r i Y Y._ ___ _ LA Ln ni Q T � D u"k T E NS ILE • �17 CONCLUSION We concur with Staff and P&Z Commission recommendation for approval and request your approval : • Of the Ten Mile Crossing DA Modification with the proposed Design Guidelines; • Of the proposed rezones; and • Of t h e TM Center Subdivision p re l i m i n a ry p l at. • Including the requested modifications to the Conditions of Approval per Applicant's April 5th request as supported by Staff on April 8th . We respectfully request Council approval of TM Center Pre- Plat and Ten Mile Crossing Development Agreement and Design Guide ArAM30 ILE CONCLUSION "The City stands ready to support your efforts and will be moving forward rapidly to implement the recommendations in this plan." TMISAP Section 1 — p 1-3 TEN "** M I L E 31 Questions ?