The URL can be used to link to this page

2022-04-28 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 6:00 PM MINUTES ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE PRESENT ABSENT Commissioner Nick Grove Commissioner Patrick Grace Commissioner Maria Lorcher Commissioner Andrew Seal Commissioner Nathan Wheeler Commissioner Steven Yearsley Commissioner Mandi Stoddard ADOPTION OF AGENDA Adopted CONSENT AGENDA \[Action Item\] Approved 1. Approve Minutes of the April 21, 2022 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Motion to approve made by Commissioner Yearsley, Seconded by Commissioner Wheeler. Voting Yea: Commissioner Grove, Commissioner Lorcher, Commissioner Wheeler, Commissioner Yearsley, Commissioner Stoddard ACTION ITEMS 2. Public Hearing Continued from April 21, 2022 for Alamar Subdivision (H-2022- 0004) by Noble Rock Development, Inc., Located at 4380 W. Franklin Rd. (Parcel #S1210346603), Near the Northeast Corner of N. Black Cat Rd. and W. Franklin Rd. Recommended Approval to City Council. Tentatively scheduled for June 7, 2022 A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of approximately 7.23 acres of land with a request for the TN-R (Traditional Neighborhood Residential) zoning district. B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 42 building lots (22 single-family attached lots and 20 detached single-family lots) and 4 common lots on 4.63 acres in the requested TN-R zoning district. Motion to recommend approval to City Council made by Commissioner Yearsley, Seconded by Commissioner Lorcher. Voting Yea: Commissioner Grove, Commissioner Lorcher, Commissioner Wheeler, Commissioner Yearsley, Commissioner Stoddard 3. Public Hearing Continued from April 21, 2022 for Burnside Ridge Estates (H- 2021-0070) by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., Located Near the Southwest Corner of S. Linder Rd. and W. Victory Rd., Including 2365 W. Victory Rd., 3801 S. Linder Rd., and Parcels S1226142251, R0831430030, R0831430022, and R0831430010 Recommended Approval to City Council. Tentatively scheduled for June 7, 2022 A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 121.29 acres of land from RUT to the R- 2 (11.76 acres) and R-4 (109.53) zoning districts. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 299 total lots (275 single-family residential lots and 24 common lots) on 119.31 acres of land. Motion to recommend approval to City Council made by Commissioner Yearsley, Seconded by Commissioner Wheeler. Voting Yea: Commissioner Grove, Commissioner Lorcher, Commissioner Wheeler, Commissioner Yearsley, Commissioner Stoddard 4. Public Hearing Continued from April 21, 2022 for Grayson Subdivision (H-2022- 0014) by Schultz Development, LLC, Located at 1710 E. Amity Rd., Near the Northeast Corner of E. Amity Rd. and S. Locust Grove Rd. Recommended Approval to City Council. Tentatively scheduled for June 7, 2022 A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 3.39 acres from RUT to the R-8 zoning district. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 15 single-family residential building lots and 3 common lots on 3.1 acres of land in the requested R-8 zoning district. Motion to recommend approval to City Council made by Commissioner Wheeler, Seconded by Commissioner Yearsley. Voting Yea: Commissioner Grove, Commissioner Lorcher, Commissioner Wheeler, Commissioner Yearsley, Commissioner Stoddard 5. Public Hearing Continued from April 21, 2022 for I-84 and Meridian Rd. (H-2021- 0099) by Hawkins Companies, Generally Located at the Northwest Corner of S. Meridian Rd. and Interstate 84. Recommended Denial to City Council. Tentatively scheduled for May 24, 2022 A. Request: Annexation of 18.30 acres of land with a C-G zoning district. B. Request: A Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map Amendment to change the future land use designation on 33.13 acres of land from Mixed Use – Community (MU-C) to Mixed Use – Regional (MU-R). Motion to recommend denial to City Council made by Commissioner Yearsley, Seconded by Commissioner Stoddard. Voting Yea: Commissioner Grove, Commissioner Lorcher, Commissioner Wheeler, Commissioner Yearsley, Commissioner Stoddard 6. Public Hearing Continued from April 21, 2022 for Future Land Use Map Ada County Area of City Impact Cleanup (H-2021-0098) by City of Meridian Planning Division, Located Citywide Recommended Approval to City Council. Tentatively scheduled for May 24, 2022 A. Request: Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to clean up the map to better align with the adopted Ada County Area of City Impact (AOCI) boundary AND removing Civic designations and areas that will be serviced by other jurisdictions (Boise). Motion to recommend approval to City Council made by Commissioner Wheeler, Seconded by Commissioner Stoddard. Voting Yea: Commissioner Grove, Commissioner Lorcher, Commissioner Wheeler, Commissioner Yearsley, Commissioner Stoddard ADJOURNMENT 10:00 pm Item 1. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting April 28, 2022. Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of April 28, 2022, was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Vice-Chairman Nick Grove. Members Present: Vice-Chairman Nick Grove, Commissioner Steven Yearsley, Commissioner Nate Wheeler, Commissioner Maria Lorcher and Commissioner Mandi Stoddard. Members Absent: Commissioner Andrew Seal and Commissioner Patrick Grace. Others Present: Chris Johnson, Kurt Starman, Bill Parsons, Sonya Allen, Joe Dodson and Brian McClure. ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE X Nate Wheeler X Maria Lorcher X Mandi Stoddard? X Nick Grove _X Steven Yearsley Patrick Grace Andrew Seal - Chairman Johnson: -- transcribing based on the recording, so I will be the person reminding you to speak in the microphone. I apologize in advance. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Grove: Thank you. All right. So, we will move on and do the adoption of the agenda and on tonight's agenda we have the Consent Agenda and we have five items on the action items. Could I get a motion to adopt the agenda? Lorcher: So moved. Wheeler: Second. Grove: The motion has been moved and seconded. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed say nay. All right. Motion passed. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] 1. Approve Minutes of the April 21, 2022 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. April 28,2022 6 Page 2 of 66 Grove: The Consent Agenda. We have one item on the Consent Agenda and that is to approve the minutes of the April 21st, 2022, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Could I get a motion to approve the Consent Agenda? Yearsley: So moved. Wheeler: Second. Grove: Motion has been moved and seconded. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed say nay. All right. Motion passed. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. ACTION ITEMS 2. Public Hearing Continued from April 21, 2022 for Alamar Subdivision (H-2022-0004) by Noble Rock Development, Inc., Located at 4380 W. Franklin Rd. (Parcel #S1210346603), Near the Northeast Corner of N. Black Cat Rd. and W. Franklin Rd. A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of approximately 7.23 acres of land with a request for the TN-R (Traditional Neighborhood Residential) zoning district. B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 42 building lots (22 single- family attached lots and 20 detached single-family lots) and 4 common lots on 4.63 acres in the requested TN-R zoning district. Grove: All right. That takes us to the first item on our Action Items and we start with the public hearing for -- that was continued from April 21 st, 2022, for Alamar Subdivision No. H-2022-0004 by Noble Rock Development and we will pass that over to Joe. Dodson: Thank you, Mr. Grove. You got me for the first three projects, so let's hunker down and get through it. As noted, this first project before you tonight is Alamar Subdivision. The application before you is for annexation and zoning of approximately 8.23 acres of land of a request for the traditional neighborhood residential zoning district and a preliminary plat consisting of 51 building lots, six common lots and two other lots on 5.63 acres in the proposed zoning. The site currently consists of two parcels totaling -- totaling 5.6 acres. Currently zoned RUT in the county and located at 4380 West Franklin. So, the discrepancy between the annexation and the plat is that the applicant is annexing the Purdam Drain property west of the subject site, so that we don't have any county enclave. The site is designated as medium high density residential on the future land use map and it is within the Ten Mile Specific Area Plan. The MHDR designation allows for a mix of dwelling types, including townhouses, condos and apartments. Residential gross density should range from eight to 15 units per acre and is noted with a target density of 12 units per acre. The proposed plat again consists of 51 residential Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. April 28,2022 6 Page 3 of 66 units that have a mix of attached and detached homes, which has a gross density of 9.1 units per acre and is consistent with the comp plan. Of the 51 units, 30 of them are single family attached lots and 21 are detached single family lots. Access to the development is proposed via a new connection to West Franklin Road at the south property boundary, which is on the right-hand side here. Access to Franklin is intended to be temporary until such time a future connection is made to adjacent properties. Specifically future access should occur to the east via local street connection to West Atomic Street within the Ascent townhome project to the -- on the east side of Zimmerman Lane, which is not part of this project, and I can expand on that later and a future extension to West Aviator Street on the adjacent property to the north -- northeast. So, back to the bigger image here. It's kind of hard to see, but there is a road here that would align with the proposed stub street here and Aviator is proposed to continue on here and connect here. This application did receive approval from City Council a few weeks ago. I don't remember. It all blends together. Staff has conditions of approval associated with the future road connections. In response to the staff report, the applicant has requested a new or modified DA provision regarding the phasing of the project to include the homes along West Atomic Street within phase one instead of phase two. So, currently phase one stops here and here. Applicant is proposing that if they can get this connection across Zimmerman Lane with the property owner, which is viable at this time, that they would include this area in phase one as well and staff is amenable to that. The termination of the proposed north-south local street at the north boundary, which is again on the left side, deserves some flexibility due to ongoing conversations with the adjacent landowner -- landowner and developer. Staff has included a DA provision to allow this applicant flexibility to revise the road alignment and lot layout in this area only with the future phase two final plat, should they be able to work out a mutually beneficial agreement with the adjacent property owner. This recommended provision does not require that this applicant make any revisions to their plat, but its intent to provide flexibility to the applicant to make any necessary revisions to the plat without having to go through the hearing process for those minor changes that do not increase the number of building lots or drastically change the overall design, but should help with the overall road network within this area of the city. So, the issue is -- long story short, but the property owner to the north does not have an inclination to align the road here, they would like it bent here. Staff just wants the developers to work together, which is why I wanted to offer flexibility there, and because it's part of phase two, we have time to do that and it shouldn't affect much. The proposed plat has a minimum lot size of approximately 2,000 square feet, with an average lot size of approximately 2,762. Includes detached sidewalks and six foot parkways throughout the site. My staff report does note that there are eight foot parkways. That was my mistake. I forgot that they are doing a reduced parkway with route barriers in order to bring the porches of the homes closer to the street. So, I will correct that following the meeting. As noted, the plat is currently proposed to develop in two phases due to the available access. Phasing plan depicts currently 22 building lots that are in the southern half of the site with phase one and the remaining 30 -- no. Twenty-nine, I believe, lots in phase two. Yeah. Twenty-nine? With phase one the public roads terminate less than 150 feet from the internal infrastructure, which means that there is no temporary turnaround required. The Planning Department and the Fire do support the proposed phasing plan and include -- that includes the requested revision, because it would connect to another public road Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. April 28,2022 7 Page 4 of 66 to the east. A minimum of 15 percent qualified open space is required for projects over five acres within the traditional neighborhood residential districts per the UDC. Based on the plat of 5.6 acres, the minimum amount of open space required is approximately 36,786 square feet. According to staff's analysis of the submitted plans, the applicant is proposing approximately 32 and a half thousand of qualified open space. This area does not meet the minimum. There is potential for the entire common lot of Lot 12, Block 1 , to be -- or yeah. Sorry. There is potential for the entire lot counting towards the qualified open space of pedestrian if additional pedestrian facilities are added, the area is improved per the UDC and Nampa-Meridian does not restrict access to their access road. So, again, that's this -- basically is brown area here. If that area is deemed to be compliant with the UDC, then, they will have more than their 15 percent by quite a few thousands of square feet. The issue is that this is a Nampa-Meridian access road, which is usually a minimum of 16'ish feet and it's just gravel or some type of road base, which is fine, but that does not account -- or allow any landscaping. Applicant could do alternative compliance, et cetera, but staff does want some additional pedestrian connection here to help access it here. The other issue, even though it is this property owner's properties, Nampa-Meridian has been known to restrict access to these areas at times. So, that's why staff is concerned with that and is not a hundred percent sure that that area can count. But staff and the applicant will continue to work through that and I do have a condition already in my staff report regarding this potential. So, there is -- staff has handled it and we are working with the applicant on it. With these cumulative revisions the easement area can count towards a qualified open space. So, if these revisions cannot occur, the applicant will need to add approximately 4,300 square feet of qualified open space, which will likely require the loss of a building lot or too. Specific to the Ten Mile Plan, front loaded dwellings are not preferred and if they are proposed, the garages should be set back from the living area facade to help create a more porch dominated streetscape, rather than garage dominated. According to the submitted elevations and floor plans, the applicant has proposed units with garages considerably behind the living area facades. This design provides for a more porch dominated street facade compared to traditional single family residential, which is desired within the Ten Mile Plan. Staff is including a DA provision to ensure this type of design is maintained for the project. Overall with the site design and the home design that supports street-oriented design, staff does very much support the proposed design of the project and specifically with the garages behind the living area. So, I do not have a specific provision regarding the minimum depth, but the applicant has requested that that be added, which is perfectly fine. So, that is, again, a provision that I am more than welcome to add to make sure it's clear moving forward. There was no written testimony on the project as of about 3:30 p.m. Staff does recommend approval of the project per the conditions in the staff report and I will stand for any questions from the Commission. Grove: Okay. Thank you, Joe. Could we get the applicant to come forward, please? Wrede: Hello. Name is Jeffrey Wrede with Noble Rock Development. My address is 12805 West Engelmann in Boise and I'm here to present for Alamar Subdivision. I'm going to go through these slides. It will probably repeat a little bit of -- or, actually, most Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. April 28,2022 8 Page 5 of 66 of everything that Joseph just said, but I will go ahead and go through it quickly. Find the page of key -- Johnson: You can use -- the arrow keys work best. Wrede: The Alamar Subdivision will provide the diversity that is key to Meridian's comprehensive and future use plans, as well as the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan. These plans stress mixed income, mixed family size and mixed age communities. To balance the surrounding developments in the area, which include three story townhomes and large apartment complexes, Alamar Subdivision will provide a mix of single family detached and attached duplex homes to provide a diversity of housing types in the area. To provide for a successful urban environment a street oriented design has been incorporated. Alamar Subdivision will consist of porch oriented homes, with tree lined streets and detached sidewalks. In front of the homes will the placed -- the front of the house will be placed close to the sidewalk, while the garages will be set back to the rear of the homes. This will provide a home fronting edge to the public space, which will make the streets more friendly and walkable. This slide shows the vicinity map and somewhat indicates the project site and shows the development that's going on in the area. The hatched area is either already developed properties or approved properties or properties that are owned by developers that have either submitted or are planning to submit in the near future. Our preliminary plat showed that we are requesting rezoning to traditional neighborhood residential, with street oriented designing, tree lined streets with the detached sidewalks. Our density is 9.1 units per acre and we have a total of 51 building lots. Twenty-one are single family detached homes and they mainly reside in the southern half of the development and they will mainly be those that are done in phase one. The other 30 lots are single family attached homes in the form of duplexes. The open space in the area consists of a centralized open grassy area. The parkway buffers. A linear open space along the Purdam Drain. Landscape buffer along Franklin Road in shallow drain areas. We have one site amenity which is a bicycle repair station that will be located at the central grassy area, which is, you know, right in the middle of the subdivision there. The lower central image shows a little expanded view of the central grassy area where we will -- we have added a walking path through that which connects to the sidewalk connections across the street and winds through there and connects to the linear open space. You might notice on the left -- it might be a little hard to see, but there is kind of a pinkish purple -- it shows the loops that are going around along the linear open space and back to the sidewalk and through the central grassy area, both to the north and the south, and, then, there is the image in the bottom right corner, which that's the image of -- from Heron River. They have been very successful there in using these linear open spaces with chip rock and it's still viable to the irrigation district there and we have actually seen -- we just finished a development in their last year and we connect to the same open space and we actually see that there is much more activity on this linear area than there are in the actual common spaces. A lot of people walking dogs and, you know, taking daily walks through there, so -- this slide shows the road connections. We have one main north-south road coming through the subdivision, which enters off Franklin Road. As Joseph mentioned, this is a temporary entry that will be closed and/or used as an emergency access only once the other connections to the north and the east are Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. April 28,2022 191 Page 6 of 66 completed. The road that runs to the east will eventually connect to the Ascent Subdivision and we are -- we have been speaking with the developer of -- that owns that property regarding the possibility of written agreement to allow right of way, so we can complete that ahead of-- ahead of phase two, which was originally planned. Then to the north we show this collector road that's going to be put in to connect from Black Cat to Franklin Road. The little clip in the upper right corner shows this Aviator Street is coming through Aviator Subdivision, which has been approved, and, then, connect down to the existing road -- I believe it's San Marco Way and, then, back out to Franklin Road. The northern exit of this road we originally had straight, but, then, we made it curve to the right per a request somewhat of the Planning Department, assuming that the road connection might be perpendicular to this road. As Joseph mentioned and has added in there, that he is allowing some flexibility in case that road needs to veer to the left instead of the right or meander slightly to help work with the neighboring developer. We are placing a stop sign at the intersection just for traffic calming and because this length of road is more than the 750 feet. As far as the sewer and water, that main are present already off Franklin Road at the south. We are bringing the utilities through the development and providing access to the neighboring lots that are there. Any of the lines that are in a landscaped area will have a 14 foot access area where there will be no permanent structures or plantings to allow access to the manholes and their entry points will only come from within the subdivision and not enter onto Franklin. Streetlights are 250 feet apart per code and one of them is placed right at the open space area in the central part of this subdivision. Fire hydrants are every 400 feet per code. Gravity and pressurized irrigation. Pressurized irrigation, we have had discussions with Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District and they are tentatively preliminarily allowing us to connect to a pump station that exists in the northwest corner off of our property, but they are allowing us to connect to that and, therefore, the irrigation system will be designed per their requirements and also the UDC, of course. There will be no irrigation placed in the right of way. That's an ACHD requirement also. As far as gravity irrigation at the very north boundary of the property there is a small stub drain that currently has a 12 inch culvert in it. We are going to tile that entire north boundary line there, for the road and also to allow more access and reduce the maintenance requirement on that. The easement that Nampa-Meridian Irrigation has is along the eastern boundary. We are going to provide them with a 17 foot wide access. The building pads are located outside of the hundred foot centerline easement and they are going to allow us an encroachment of ten feet into their easement. That was -- will allow us to have the fences and the backyards of the homes slightly into that easement. We have a lot of discussions. We have agreed not to have sheds and things like that placed in that area and, then, the fencing in that area will be -- it's going to be wrought iron open fencing. It will be removable through just sleeving basically, so if they ever have to access their easement they can easily pull that out of there without destroying anything. And, then, again, the -- the actual easement along there is going to be made with road base and, then, covered with 3/8ths chip rock similar to the perma bark. This just makes it more appealing and easier to walk through there. Phasing plan as Joseph mentioned. The lower section, again, which is mainly single family homes, will be completed first, pending road connections to the east or the north and at that point we will complete phase two and Franklin Road will be turned into emergency access only. Fire sprinklers won't be required for phase one. These are basic elevations. Possibilities. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. April 28,2022 Flo] Page 7 of 66 You notice we have front porches on the homes. Garages as setback from the front facade. We are using a mixture of materials, colors, design elements, lap siding, stucco and brick and rock on the front. The single family homes will be three bedrooms and two and a half baths between 1 ,750 and 1 ,900 square feet and the attached duplex homes will be two bedrooms with two and a half baths at 1 ,250 to 1,300 square feet. These are the floor plans, just to show the single family will be -- the three bedroom and will provide the two car garage and two external parking spots. Whereas the attached homes will be two bedroom and so we, therefore, have the single garage space and single exterior parking space. Just in conclusion Alamar Subdivision provides an atmosphere needed for families to live and work in a steadily growing area the Ten Mile interchange, while providing an affordable mix of home types. Thank you. Grove: Are there any questions for the applicant or staff? Yearsley: Mr. Chair? Grove: Yes, Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: Can you -- the little side piece that you have got the -- the homes there? Can you go through how that's going to work? Because it looks like you have got homes along the front and, then, you have got setbacks in the back and I'm just not quite sure how well that's going to work with driveways and access and traffic and it seems to be a little congested back in there. Wrede: Which portion of the -- Yearsley: Oh, the -- the little cross-street -- yeah. Those back lots in the very back. It just seems you have got four homes in the one and, then, two on the other. They are duplexes or -- Wrede: Yes. So, those are duplexes that come off of a common driveway -- Yearsley: Uh-huh. Wrede: -- and so we had to meet the requirement of just a maximum of four units and two on each side of the drive. The reason there is only one duplex to the right is there is a possibility that the developer to the north that has the 20 acres is -- he wants to basically deed over -- or give us or not deal with the 50 foot easement that's Zimmerman Road right now. In that case in the future it's quite possible there will be another unit on that common driveway. Yearsley: So, how -- how wide are your streets? I was trying to see that in the staff report, but it's kind of fuzzy. So, how wide is your -- Wrede: The streets are a standard 33 foot section -- Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. April 28,2022 Fil Page 8 of 66 Yearsley: Okay. Wrede: -- with the detached sidewalks. So, it's a 47 foot overall -- no, I'm sorry. Yearsley: So, there will be 40 -- there will be parking on both sides allowed? Wrede: Yeah. Yes. Yearsley: Okay. That's all I have for right now. Grove: Okay. Any other questions? Wheeler: Mr. Chair? Grove: Commissioner Wheeler, go ahead. Wheeler: Thank you, Chair -- Mr. Chair. Joe, I have a question. He is -- on this slide here he says that there is 16.5 open space -- 16.5 percent open space here. I thought we were at the 15 percent or less? Can you -- can you maybe add some light to that or -- Dodson: Yeah. Commissioner Wheeler, that's -- he is counting the easement along the drain, which is the area that if that can be counted, then, it will bump them up over. I don't -- because I have a condition in there and the applicant and I are going to continue working through it, I don't want to get too in the weeds -- no pun intended -- but I'm not exactly sure how we are going to get there with it just being an access road that doesn't comply with code as being qualified, but there is potential -- if we want an emergency access -- if we want a temporary access to become an emergency only access on the south boundary, that cul-de-sac can go away and that whole area that's not the road can become open space and I'm sure that's over 5,000 square feet and that would -- there is the required open space. So, that's where the discrepancy is. Wheeler: Okay. Okay. I'm just double -- just double checking in my mind. And, then, Jeffrey, has -- are there other thoughts that you have had about how to possibly get there if that -- if that -- Wrede: Yes. Wheeler: -- area and drainage -- how would you -- how would you do that to get to this? Wrede: So, we originally interpreted the code that states that a linear open space along a waterway or ditch can be counted as qualified open space and so that's where our calculations had that in there and, actually, I think we are -- we are above 16.5, actually. If we can't get this to work, then, we are more than likely going to lose a lot somewhere. Wheeler: Thought that that's how that might go -- Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. April 28,2022 F12 Page 9 of 66 Wrede: Possibly the farthest south eastern home, because we may, then, be able to make that area larger than 5,000 feet through there, which will qualify as another open grassy space in other words. Wheeler: Okay. Wrede: Else we may take, you know, one of the duplex lots at the top, which will increase that area to the northwest. Wheeler: Okay. Thank you. Grove: Any other questions from the Commissioners? All right. Thank you. We will open it up for public comment now. You are welcome to sit down. Mr. Clerk, do we have anybody signed up? Johnson: Mr. Chair, nobody signed up in advance for this. Grove: All right. Is there anyone online or in the audience that would like to testify on this application? All right. Seeing none, would the applicant like to have any closing remarks? Wrede: No, I don't really have any closing remarks. I would just like to thank Joseph for his direction and support through this process. He's very learned of these codes and -- and has helped us a lot getting this put together. So, thank you, Commissioners. Yearsley: Could I have one last question? You mentioned about this pathway in the right of way for the easement -- or the irrigation district. Have they agreed to allow that pathway then? Wrede: Yeah. It's -- you know, pathway is kind of a word that we are -- we are not really using, because it's -- it's -- it kind of implies, you know, a small walking concrete with landscaping and things like that. But they have agreed and we have a separate, you know, communications and other drawings and documents that we have used within that specify all their requirements and they are open to this being used similar to -- like I said Heron River has this walking area. I mean it is owned by the subdivision, it will be maintained by the HOA and, you know, the -- the reality is the irrigation company has never accessed this ditch from that side. I doubt -- because it's pretty much inaccessible and so this is going to really help them out and, you know, the district -- drainage district number two up there in Star, which has this, they can now drive and they drive their trucks through there and spray -- easily spray the banks. We have had, you know, issues like with Hemlock growing, which some neighbors -- you know, some people are kind of worried about, so it's easy to have the county come through and spray it, they can just drive right along and take care of that. But it's really used quite a bit. It's amazing how many people walk their dogs down these paths and around, so -- Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. April 28,2022 F13 Page 10 of 66 Yearsley: And, then, one last question. So, you mentioned that the backyards -- I think it's on that side, they are going to have a ten foot easement for their part of their backyard in that easement. Wrede: Yes. Yearsley: I'm still not quite sure how that's going to work, because I mean are they removable fence -- you know, how is that going to work? And can you explain that a little bit more? I guess -- Wrede: Yeah. Yearsley: And I guess if we don't have it how much -- do they actually have a backyard at all or what's the -- what's -- how much do they have and how much will they gain? Wrede: So, the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District is allowing us to, of course, landscape it and put shrubs -- they don't want trees in there, but they are allowing shrubs and patio slabs. We have already discussed this through a-mails and they have said that's not a problem and so we are -- in our floor plans we are designing covered patios built into the actual home, so they are slightly recessed into the home space, so there will be a rear patio -- covered patio. Plus, then, there can be additional slab space uncovered that goes into that easement and, then, grass and plantings along the fence. Yearsley: Okay. It just seems kind of weird, because if you ever have to get in there and you are going to get a lot of complaints from homeowners that they are tearing up the backyard for something. Wrede: Well, if they ever need to go in there it will be to fix the irrigation line, which they would have to do anywhere in the subdivision. That's, you know, the nature of that. The easements are all the way around the whole subdivision. Yearsley: Oh, so it's actually more for the pipe underground no -- Wrede: I believe so. That -- it's mainly really just because it's their easement -- Yearsley: Right. Wrede: -- I think and -- Dodson: Mr. Chair? Grove: Yes, Joe. Dodson: I just wanted to touch on that, too, because I agree with Jeff. For whatever reason, the drain easement is a hundred feet wide, as discussed with Aviation, so it just encroaches on everything in this area. Then only the nine feet of it is on the buildable Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. April 28,2022 F14] Page 11 of 66 lots, which code allows ten, so it will be grassy area within the backyards and the building envelope that he shows on here is wholly outside of that easement. So, they will have some yard, they just can't plant trees in there, and the fence -- yeah. That would -- I don't know what removable necessarily means, but open vision fencing is required along there anyways, so it's going to have to be some type of removal fence like that, so staff has no concerns with that. What -- I wanted to touch on the -- I guess just to make sure we are all clear on the -- what would qualify for that easement area, if it's -- there is a couple of code sections involved here. If it's linear open space it has to be minimum 20 feet wide and it has to have -- be landscaped per the UDC 11-3-B-7, I believe. Or eight or something. And that can't be. One, it's not 20 feet wide. Two, you can't have landscaping in the easement, because it's the irrigation easement. Secondly, the code does allow linear open space along natural -- is the keyword their -- natural waterways to count and be left unimproved. The drain is not listed as one of those natural waterways. So, that's where I can't give Jeff that affordance there, even though it is big and it is natural, but it's not -- they -- the code has specific lists of which waterways, like the Ten Mile, the Ridenbaugh, and the Five Mile Creek and those types of things. So, that's where we are at with that, unfortunately. I just wanted to touch on those points. Yearsley: I guess my -- my thing is is the pathway is going -- or the southside pathway is going to go in no matter what -- if it's considered an open space or not. Dodson: Correct. Yearsley: I figured you guys will take care of the open space. That's -- that's your guys' deal. Dodson: Yes, sir. I was just curious about the path -- the pathway. Wrede: If I could reply? Yearsley: Yeah. Wrede: To reply, there is a section of the code that -- when it speaks about the linear open space along waterways, it also says ditches in there. That's what we have been going on as far as that and it -- it only states that it needs to be ten feet wide of a buffer area in that section of code that we have read. So, we have got some work to do to find out. Either way we will be able to make this work. Yearsley: Nope. I'm good about that. Grove: Bill, did you have something? Parsons: Yeah. Commission, I just wanted to chime in on the topic a little bit. You know, like anything this is annexation; right? So, it's whether or not it's in the best interest of the city. In this particular case I love the idea of a pathway there. I think that's great. I like to see waterways being left open. But there are safety concerns that go along with that Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. April 28,2022 F15] Page 12 of 66 that have to be mitigated. There is also the -- the reason why staff likes to see the landscaping is because it differentiates it -- that from -- from the easement, the use area. So, how is that going to look when you have a gravel compacted road base and, then, there is another pathway next to it, just -- it doesn't delineate the difference between it and, then, you have somebody riding their bike next to an open vision fence and all of a sudden your handlebar hits the fence and you hit your neck on the fence and we have an accident along the pathway. There is a lot of things that I'm -- running through my head that says I think we need to just kind of work with the applicant and see if this thing works or not, but -- and also we have alternative compliance. So, there is -- there is ways to lessen the open space if this area doesn't count. So, I think we have enough tools in our tool belt to help and work with the applicant. But right now I think -- at least from my look at it I'm not comfortable having a pathway right up against fencing and that's -- to me that's not a wise idea. Just my two cents on it. Yearsley: I guess going back to that comment, I didn't know how -- how wide is that, quote, walking way? Is it pretty narrow or is -- because I was -- Wrede: Seventeen -- 17 feet wide. So, it's -- it's quite wide -- Yearsley: Okay. Wrede: --as far as walking goes or riding a bike. I'm still working with Greg over at NMID. It's possible -- and I will bring it up to him -- if the road base and gravel section is actually -- you know, like perma bark section could be reduced in width and possibly, you know, some strip of some kind put along it. They -- for most times they would need to access if they are going to drive in a truck. So, you know, ten feet wide is probably enough, so we probably have room to do something on the sides and, then, if they need to repair something and bring in an excavator, well, we have some damage, but that's going to happen no matter what. So, that there is a possibility to maybe we can make something work there. Dodson: To Bill's point, we -- we got some tools in the toolbox, so we can take care of this. Absolutely. Yearsley: Okay. Grove: All right. Any further questions? All right. Wrede: Thank you. Grove: All right. Thank you. All right. Could I get a motion to close the public hearing for Alamar Subdivision, file number H-2022-0004? Wheeler: So moved. Yearsley: Second. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. April 28,2022 F16 Page 13 of 66 Wheeler: So moved. Yearsley: Oh. Grove: All right. Motion to close the public hearing has been moved and seconded. All in favor say aye. All opposed say nay. All right. Motion passed. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Grove: All right. Anybody have thoughts and want to jump in? Yearsley: Mr. Chair? Grove: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: You know, I understand what they are trying to achieve and it's -- it's a difficult lot to deal with, but it feels like we are trying to shoehorn a lot of lots into a little space. I'm not quite a fan of the -- the duplexes by -- on a common drive back like they have it shown. I think it tends to lead to congestion problems, parking problems, and, you know, when you start getting garbage cans and stuff on the streets I think it's going to tend to be a little tight. I -- I -- there is a common drive near our house and every garbage day there is like 20, you know, right in the corner, so it's like -- it's kind of a pain, but -- I'm not a big fan, but not a -- it's not bad enough to not to -- not send it forward to City Council to address. Grove: Thank you. Anybody else? Lorcher: Mr. Chair? Grove: Commissioner Lorcher. Lorcher: Since this is in proximity to the Compass School campus around the corner and it seems like it's being surrounded by other subdivisions with similar style of housing, the common driveways are disappointing, but it still fits in within the overall scheme of the housing that seems to be going into that corner, so I don't have a problem with it. Yearsley: So, before I make a motion -- Joe, is there -- you mentioned that -- do we need to include the phasing option in our -- in our motion? Because wasn't there -- if they can get the stub street to -- to allow that -- that side street into phase one, is that something that we need to make or is that -- Dodson: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Yearsley, yeah, I would say make that part of the motion just to say if--whatever it is with the addition of modifying --or including a provision about the -- you know, that one's a modification -- modifying the provision regarding the phasing. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. April 28,2022 F17 Page 14 of 66 Yearsley: Okay. Wheeler: Mr. Chair? Mr. Yearsley, I think we also have to say something about the DA, like a modification, because he wanted to include phase one on that one section, too, is that correct? Yearsley: But we don't -- we don't comment on the DA. That's actually through City Council -- Wheeler: Oh. Okay. All right. Yearsley: -- for a motion. Wheeler: All right. Yearsley: The DA's. Wheeler: All right. Thank you. Yearsley: Mr. Chair? Grove: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number H-2022-0004 as presented in the staff report, date for the hearing date of April 28th, 2022, with the following modifications: That -- to modify the phasing plan if the applicant is able to connect the stub street to the east to allow that section in this -- into phase one if he can get that connection. Lorcher: Second. Grove: Real quick, Joe. Was there a DA -- or a modification that we needed to put in in terms of the garage setback that you had mentioned? It wasn't brought up by the applicant, but you had mentioned it in your -- Dodson: Correct. Mr. Chair, there -- that can be handled between now and City Council. That's fine. Grove: Okay. Dodson: Or City Council can -- Grove: Just wanted to double check if -- Dodson: We are okay. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. April 28,2022 F18 Page 15 of 66 Grove: All right. So, motion has been moved and seconded. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed say nay. All right. Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. 3. Public Hearing Continued from April 21, 2022 for Burnside Ridge Estates (H-2021-0070) by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., Located Near the Southwest Corner of S. Linder Rd. and W. Victory Rd., Including 2365 W. Victory Rd., 3801 S. Linder Rd., and Parcels S1226142251, R0831430030, R0831430022, and R0831430010 A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 121.29 acres of land from RUT to the R2 (11 .76 acres) and R-4 (109.53) zoning districts. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 299 total lots (275 single- family residential lots and 24 common lots) on 119.31 acres of land. Grove: All right. On to our next item. We have public hearing for Burnside Ridge Estates, file number H-2021-0070, which was continued from April 21 , 2022, and with that we will pass it over to Joe for the staff report. Dodson: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, this one is considerably larger, so bear with me, and the applicant does have quite an impressive presentation as well. So, some of the things I won't touch on, simply because I know that they will. Just want to let you know. The applications before you tonight are for annexation and zoning and a preliminary plat. Now, the site consists of six county parcels that total approximately 119 acres of land currently zoned RUT and located -- I say near the southwest corner of Linder and Victory, but it's more like completely surrounding the southwest corner of Victory and Linder. The future land use designations on the site are both low density residential and medium density residential. As noted it is a request for annexation and zoning that is for 121 .3 acres, requesting zoning to the R-2 district of 11.7 and the R-4 zoning district 109.53 acres, with a preliminary plat that consists of 299 total lots, which is 275 single family detached residential lots and 24 common lots on the 119 acres. The proposed plat shows compliance with the UDC dimensional standards for the proposed R-2 and R-4 lots, with an average lot size of around 10,000 square feet, with five foot detached sidewalk and eight foot parkways throughout the entire development. Three new accesses are proposed to the adjacent arterial streets of Linder and Victory Road. Two of the new collector streets per the master street map, which is shown as South Farmyard, which is the north-south collector and the other one is East Holstein -- Holstein, one of the two, along the south boundary connects up to Linder. The other connection to Linder is via a local street here, which is East Pivot Drive. All other accesses to will be via the -- all the other internal local streets shown. The applicant is proposing to stub the new collector street of Holstein to the west boundary for future connectivity per the master street map. East Holstein is also proposed along the entire southern boundary for future connectivity to the property to the south. The proposed north-south collector street, South Farmyard, provides a stub street to the east property adjacent to -- sorry -- 1995 West Victory. No Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. April 28,2022 Fig] Page 16 of 66 other stub streets are proposed to the adjacent county parcels. Staff is recommending a new stub street from Pivot Drive to the north boundary proximately in this location for better connectivity, as well as to help with the block length on Pivot Drive. In addition, staff is recommending a cross-street from Red Angus, which is here, to South International Way in order to help with the block lengths here as well. It would go across the Calkins Lateral in alignment with East Draw Bar Street. Otherwise, the applicant will need to obtain a Council waiver for the proposed block lengths of Red Angus, which is approximately 1,400 feet long. When a -- when a street -- wow. Drew a blank there. When a street is longer than 1,200 feet in length, a pedestrian connection cannot count as the block length interrupter. That's not accurate at all. But it can't break up the block lengths, I'm sorry, if it's 1,200 feet or more. You have to get a Council waiver or you need to provide another stub street or cross-street. The project is proposed to be constructed in five phases as seen here. Two approved fire access points are proposed within phase one. So, throughout the whole project they will have their two access points required for fire, so there is no need to sprinkler or limit to 30 homes. Hence why phase one has 56 homes, phase two is 92, phase three has 84, phase four has 31, and phase five has 12. Phase -- sorry. Staff has recommended including the clubhouse and pool and it's open space lot within phase one, which would be this lot here. That's in the staff report. Staff and the applicant have worked together. We met yesterday. I'm amenable to -- well, should say the applicant is requesting that we revise to phase two, instead of phase one, so that the burden of the clubhouse and pool and that open space is not wholly on the first 56 owners to pay in their HOA fees and, in general, 56 lots with that much open space, understandable, as well because they are providing an amenity here and approximately 40,000 square feet of open space with phase one. So, staff is amenable to amending that provision to say that the clubhouse and pool and open space lot are with phase two, instead of phase one. The Calkins Lateral currently bisects the south half of the project site and at the time of staff report writing I thought that the Calkins Lateral is going to remain open and I was wrong. Therefore, some of my conditions related to that are not accurate. Again, I will modify some of those because of that new information. The applicant and staff are awaiting confirmation from the irrigation district on the correct easement width with the lateral being piped, instead of being left open, because it does not -- what I have heard and what is written from Boise Project Board of Control is -- they do not match, so we are awaiting confirmation of that. The confirmation will help us determine if any of the building lots along this lateral are going to have an easement encroachment and if the required landscape along the multi-use pathway within this common space is going to be able to be constructed. So, along the lateral the applicant per the master pathways plan is required to propose a multi-use pathway all along the lateral and to the west boundary, as well as along the west side of this collector road. So, two very long segments of regional pathway are proposed and required with this. The application was submitted prior to the latest open space standard revisions. So, this application came in at about September, open space was revised in October, we waited to schedule it, again, those six, seven months ago because the TIS needed to be accepted and submitted to ACHD. But more than that we also had some other issues with legal parcels, et cetera. So, that's why it's been so long. But I did want to make that note to the Commission. This is -- was analyzed against the old open space standards. Because of that the proposed plat needs to meet a minimum of ten percent qualified open Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. April 28,2022 F20] Page 17 of 66 space and based on the plat size of 100 acres is move the decimal over a couple of times and you got your 11.9 is the minimum amount that should be provided. According to the open space exhibit, total 12.19 acres of qualified open space is proposed, which is approximately 10.2 percent. However, this open space exhibit does not account for the parkways throughout the development at all. One, the parkways don't show the required number of trees, so they technically wouldn't count. Staff is recommending -- and I have included a condition of approval to include the required number of trees, therefore, the area can count and that's a lot of linear feet of parkways, so my assumption is that they will gain quite a bit of area of qualified open space with the addition of the parkways. A minimum of six qualified site amenities are required to be provided per the old open space standards, which is one amenity per 20 acres. According to the submitted plans, the applicant is proposing at least eight amenities to satisfy the requirements. A clubhouse, swimming pool, children's play structures, pickleball court, multi-use pathways, shaded picnic area, public art and outdoor fitness equipment. The proposed amenities exceed code requirements and if they were to be analyzed against the current open space standards they would exceed the minimum amount of amenity points required as well. I haven't done the math with the open space, but I assume they will exceed or be really close to the minimum required if they were analyzed against the current open space standards as well with the addition of the parkways. The subject area does contain two future land use designations as noted, low density and medium density residential. The medium density residential takes up a larger area of the project, about the 80 acres on the south --wow-- south -- on the west half and, then, 39 acres. So, this quadrant is low. This is medium. Now, the future land use designations are not parcel specific, as I stated in every meeting, but the -- an adjacent abutting designation when appropriate and approved as part of a public hearing process may be used. So, that designation may not be used, however, across planned or existing collector or arterial roadways. It must not be used on a parcel not directly abutting the designation and may not apply to more than 50 percent of the land being developed. Based on this policy the low density designation can be floated, quote, unquote, beyond the area depicted on the future land use map up to the east side of the north-south collector street. So, that's how staff analyzed the project was to take the low density here and extend it to this side of the collector road. This side per that provision must meet the minimum density for medium density -- or must meet the minimum density for the medium density residential. Because the -- sorry. Subsequently that density on the west side of South Farmyard must be at least three units to the acre. However, the comp plan does allow rounding, so, really, the realistic number they need to hit is 2.5 units per acre west of the comp plan -- or sorry. Wow. West of the collector street. According to the submitted plans this area is approximately 54 acres, contains 126 units, which amounts to about 2.3 units per acre, so it does not meet that minimum density. Therefore, the applicant will need to add at least nine additional building lots in this area to meet the minimum requirements. However, to increase the number of lots in this area it would require the applicant to amend their plat and propose smaller lot sizes that would likely not meet the R-4 standard. Therefore, staff has recommended the applicant include an area of R-8 zoning in the north area of the plat. So, staff has recommended this block here and this block here, these two blocks, since they are somewhat grid patterned and can be buffered by R-2 here and the R-4 here. If the applicant does not wish to increase the number of lots period, no matter where, than Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. April 28,2022 F21 Page 18 of 66 a Comprehensive Plan map amendment will be required and the project should be continued in order to allow the applicant to submit that concurrent application, which could be processed no earlier than June 15th, per our recent code changes. Meeting with the applicant they have proposed -- and in their formal response today that instead of R-8 being here -- sorry -- instead of R-8 being here, potentially surrounding the open space areas, which staff is also amenable to, but as far as tonight no specific condition or anything needs to be modified. The applicant and I will continue to work through that. Staff did receive one piece of public testimony -- written testimony prior to the hearing. It was on behalf of the Stetson Estates residents, which are the county subdivision to the west. They noted that the project does not comply with the comp plan or the vision of Meridian of keeping the rural characteristic of the city. They expressed a desire to keep the existing areas -- these outer areas of Meridian as more rural and less developed consisting -- consistent with the existing lifestyles in this area of the city. Staff has recommended approval of the subject application and will stand for any questions. Grove: Thank you, Joe. Could we get the applicant to come forward, please? You will have 15 minutes and go ahead and state your name and address, please. Young: All right. Dave Young. Linder Holdings. 849 East State Street, Suite 104, Eagle, Idaho. 83616. First of all, the first slide that's up right -- right now I just want to clarify. This is coming forward as Burnside Estates on the -- on the legal plat, but this project will be marketed and known as Jackson Ridge Estates. So, when we go throughout this presentation that's what we are going to be referring to is as Jackson Ridge, but on the legal documents it will be known as Burnside. A little bit about -- about us. This is a family taking this project on. This isn't -- I think it's important that you know that -- that, you know, when -- when somebody like CBH comes before you or Hubble, Brighton, you know who those guys are. You don't know who we are. So, this family -- you know, we are local Meridian people. The family members involved in this project all went to Meridian High School. You know, we are invested in Meridian. We have invested in southwest Idaho with -- with several assisted living facilities scattered among the smaller towns with -- with four of those facilities located within the City of Meridian and one of our most recent projects was the -- of note was the Vertical View climbing wall that is on 1-84. This project is a little bit different than what we have done before with more commercial projects, but taking on a big residential project, and I want to give a little history of the reason to that, how we got involved. Being longtime Meridian residents you know everybody and -- and my wife, my brother-in-law, we are real good friends with the Jackson family. This is the Jackson family farm -- was one of the last operating dairies within the Meridian area and so our family spent a lot of time on that property. I have known Brent Jackson for over 30 years and Brent has seen the handwriting on the wall that at some point he is going to have to deal with all the encroachment that's coming around him and that he would have to decide that when is the time to depart and in 2019 he approached several different developers and did have that under contract and decided to change his operation from -- from dairy cattle to beef cattle and move his operation to central Oregon. For various reasons that deal fell apart at the last minute. Mr. Jackson's son knew our family and called and said, hey, here is an opportunity, would you like to step in and take a look at it and we did and we thought it would be a great opportunity, Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. April 28,2022 F22 Page 19 of 66 especially knowing the history of the -- history of the property and with that, that being said, you know, growing up in Meridian it was a very agricultural based community. I'm going to be 50 here in a week and a half and there is a lot that has changed in my 50 years of living in this area and -- and I hate to see, you know, our-- our goal isn't to come in and wipe the property clean of-- of this farm history. We want to preserve some of that history and reflect that in this project and I think that starts with the name Jackson Ridge. So, part of that preservation is using some of the existing -- existing elements that are on the property, like the Harvestore blue and white silo, the grain bins, the tractors and implements that are -- that around the property to reflect that and -- and preserve some of that history and you will see that as we get more into our design presentation. I want to talk just a little bit about the -- the road to getting to this point. This has been a -- that's been a tough project, starting with the acquisition in early 2019, pre-application hearings -- we have had three pre-application hearings, part of -- part of that reason why as we -- when Toll Brothers approached the city about the property to the south of us, they kind of beat us to the -- beat us to the punch, so we had to align with them on a lot of the roads, we had to deal with --work with them on the alignment of utilities and -- and some -- trying to share some of the costs of the utilities and when I got denied by the city we had to kind of restart and COVID hit and that -- that really affected the process. But it was a good experience to be able to see that -- see that process and see what was going on with the neighbors, because this is a big change for that -- for that area. It's primarily five and ten acre parcels out there, people that have moved out there to enjoy the countryside and -- and at the same time they know that development is coming, they know that there is going to be a project there, and so we have really been trying to be in tune to the neighbors and we have spent a lot of time -- not just in -- in the neighborhood meetings, but in kitchens and living rooms of the neighbors talking about -- talking to them about their concerns and that's how our design really has come forward, especially with the -- from one acre to half acre lots -- nothing's under half acre lot along that western perimeter up against Stetson. With that I'm going to turn the time over to our design and engineering team from Kimley-Horn. Dodson: Nicolette, just to let you know you have about eight and a half minutes. Womack: Thank you. Nicolette Womack, Kimley-Horn, 1100 West Idaho Street in Boise, Idaho. 83702. So, before you tonight, as was mentioned by Joe, is annexation and zoning to annex into Meridian and zone the property R-4 and R-2. Staff recommended we add R-8 and based on the memo you saw that seemed to be the best path forward for us, as the comp plan amendment can take quite some time and as you can see our development has been under review for a while. So, the preliminary plat will plot the parcels and the right of way and, then, staff is recommending a development agreement, which we agree to finalize together as well. So, the project area, as staff mentioned, Victory Road and Linder. Won't spend time there. This is the lot layout that was shown to you earlier and, then, here is the zoning map. So, when we approached this project we saw that in the area R-4 is consistent with the east side of Linder. We felt that R-2 would be consistent with the larger lots to the west, and you can see our minimum lot size at the time that this was submitted is 8,750, average lot size 10,125 and, like Joe said, we are at 2.35 dwelling units an acre and he's requesting for -- go closer 2.5. So, taking Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. April 28,2022 F23 Page 20 of 66 the feedback from Joe and talking with him about the kinds of things that they were looking for in the staff report, need to find a location for R-8 zoning and we felt like the most natural place to put that in in most developments is against the amenities and open space. So, we are proposing it in this area. It's important to note that we already planned on these typical -- larger than typical R-2 and R-4 sizes and so I'm sure there is quite a surprise that we are going -- we have to add R-8 now. We didn't feel like the typical R-8 is consistent with what we are doing everywhere else in this development and so we are going slightly larger than the typical R-8. Access and connectivity was already covered, so we can circle back on that if there is any questions. Phasing was covered. So, like you said, we propose to move the pool into phase two as a compromise. Green space was already covered and I will turn it over to Chris. Rose: Good evening. Chris Rose with Kimley-Horn and Associates. Address is 1100 West Idaho Street in Boise. 83702. Just wanted to take a minute to kind of highlight some of the design sensitivities that we are taking based on what Mr. Young was explaining, trying to stay true to the heritage of the site and bring that in and maintain some of that heritage with what we are doing in the development, starting with the pathways and access for residents to the open space and amenities, that the regional pathways, including the Calkins Lateral, up the primary street, up to Victory, through some of those and that easement with -- like Joe mentioned, will be resolved before we get to Council. Carrying through some of those design considerations, even get into the signage and the frontage landscaping, some of the patterns, the forms, the materials that are used at the entry and along the streetscape on the perimeter to suggest some of the agricultural heritage, some of the plantings and some of those forms and the way those are laid out. Even within the community all the different open spaces are kind of themed to try to tie into the heritage of the site. As -- as Dave mentioned, trying to really focus on the heritage with the Jackson family, some of their equipment, and we are even calling these areas -- not like we would normal amenities, but we are calling them the corral, instead of a playground, the field, the meadow, the garden and the barnyard where these amenities will be focused. Some of those areas -- just real quick the garden is that primary open space that will be included in phase one. This is like a heritage garden where we will actually tell the story of the Jackson family. Use that Harvestore silo as kind of an entry feature, paying homage to the history of the site. The field and the meadow is the large open space for play areas. Also shaded picnic features and the outdoor fitness trail. The corral is the play area. Instead of traditional play equipment, we want to use more nature play, having climbing features for kids and logs and boulders and waterplay and some of those features for the kids. The barnyard is the primary clubhouse and pool area, bringing in some of the architectural features that suggest farm heritage and having outdoor gathering areas and a community garden. So, generally, everything that works together we are trying to create an open space that feels like a remnant of the farm or pays homage to the Jackson family and the heritage of the site and so it feels like a part of old Meridian even as it moves forward. With that I think Dave is going to carry on a little bit more. Young: Dave Young again. I want to talk about the clubhouse concepts, just trying to work in that barn feel, that -- that look at what was existing on the -- on the property and, then, I want to talk a little bit about -- we have got picnic shelters as well, trying to Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. April 28,2022 F24] Page 21 of 66 repurpose some of the -- the grain bins on that site for -- for picnic areas and shaded areas. And, then, housing. This is something we are going to do a little bit different. We are not home builders. We are not -- we may build, we have built in the past, but what we are looking to do is provide an avenue for the custom home builder, come into a premier subdivision and to put together a build team of top end builders within the valley and provide them some place to -- to build custom homes. That's -- that's almost gone right now in this market. We have got all kinds of national builders coming in and taking up big swaths of land and -- and nothing against that, but -- but it's pick -- pick things from your -- from the website and plug it in and this is the house you are going to end up with. We are going to -- we are going to be working with several different builders and it's not been hard to get volunteers to -- to say that they want to be a part of that -- that project. So, just an example of these homes. They will be kind of more the traditional craftsman or farm -- modern farmhouse sort of style. So, have Nicolette talk about the staff comment. Womack: Nicolette Womack. So, these are just here for discussion if there is any questions. So, I think Joe covered a lot of them very well. So, I won't spend any additional time there and I would recommend if there is any questions on which we agree with and which we need -- or we are hoping for modifications on, that response letter covers our position and if it's not in that letter, then, we agree to it, so -- ACHD comments came in, super exciting, and we will work with them on some minor edits to some information they just needed to catch up on. So, again, we are requesting your recommendation for approval of annexation, zoning, development agreement, preliminary plat and that's with the modifications proposed in our response letter. Thanks so much. Grove: All right. Thank you. All right. At this time we will -- do we have questions from Commissioners for the applicant or staff? Lorcher: Commissioner Grove? Grove: Commissioner Lorcher. Lorcher: Mr. Young, you mentioned that the project trying to keep with history. Are you keeping any of the original farm buildings that were -- or that were on that property or are you just recycling some of the farm silos and such? Young: Our -- with -- with Brent on -- on -- does she need to repeat that or does that -- okay. Lorcher: Do I need to repeat that? Okay. Young: Okay. Metal barns and metal structures, some of the things we told Mr. Jackson he could take to his new ranch, they are kind of the '80s metal building style, so they are not really something that architecturally we would want in our project. The homes are -- are really rundown. They are beyond really saving. The original farm house was actually a home that was built underground with just like maybe two feet of the upper portion of Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. April 28,2022 F25] Page 22 of 66 the home and, then, a roofline and, then, it was later added on to above that. It's just not -- there is just no way to repurpose that home and the rest of the homes are just -- are in fairly poor condition. Mr. Jackson didn't -- he retained his home on a separate parcel adjacent to this one. So, those older homes were more for the farmworkers and that's kind of why the condition is what they are. Lorcher: Okay. Thank you. Grove: Any additional questions for staff or applicant at this time? All right. All right. At this time we will open the public testimony portion for the application Burnside Jackson Ridge Estates, file number H-2021-0070. Mr. Clerk, do we have anybody signed up? Johnson: Mr. Chair, no one signed up in advance, but we do have Clair Manning online. If it's okay with you I will allow -- I will unmute her. Grove: All right. And, Clair, you will have three minutes. Please give your name and your address. Manning: Hi. My name is Clair Manning and I live at 650 West Waltman Lane. I was actually here for a different application, but, you know, as I looked at this and I felt compelled to like chime in. You know, I just felt like Meridian is kind of being destroyed by, you know, high density, cookie cutter kind of developments and I was just, you know, amazed at like what this guy has done here. I kind of like the larger lots. You know, I really really like that he's leaving a legacy to the past and, you know, what I saw on the common areas. It was just amazing. It's -- you know, it's what I would like to see in our community. So, I just wanted to really compliment him and, you know, put my support into this. Thank you. Grove: Thank you. All right. Mr. Clerk, any additional -- Johnson: Mr. Clerk, that was everyone. Grove: All right. It looks like we have three hands in the audience. Johnson: Mr. Chair, I apologize, I have the wrong list. I do have people. My apologies to everyone here. The HVAC went off and my mind went off as well. So, I believe first we have Tina Dean. Grove: All right. And, please, state your -- your name and address and you will have three minutes. Dean: Tina Dean. 3262 South Rustler, Meridian, Idaho. 83642. 1 signed up thinking I wasn't going to speak, but, then, I just wanted to clarify. Mr. Dodson, all due respect, -- have an issue. You misrepresented the letter from the neighborhood and I want Mr. Young and the developers to know that Stetson Estates appreciates how well you have been working with us and they have been very agreeable, very amendable. They make Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. April 28,2022 F26 Page 23 of 66 time for us, take our concerns into account. They are working very hard to keep the neighborhood and its historic appeal part of the Meridian that we have all loved for many decades. The City of Meridian representatives have said numerous times that they wanted to develop within the city boundaries first before they developed outside, that they wanted growth to move out naturally. What our letter said is that we were surprised that the City of Meridian was not living up to what they had stated and you were allowing development to occur outside of city boundaries and be annexed. But we also said if you are going to allow this neighborhood to be developed we want Mr. Young and his associates to develop it and not only do we want them to develop that land, but we would love if they could have the land to the south as well, instead of Cory Barton or Hubble, who just tried to put as many properties on an acre as possible for out-of-state investors. So, that's all I want to say. Please take all their hard work into account. I am also upset about the change to the R-8 zoning. They have worked very hard to make sure that we would have a smooth transition, a longer acreage property on the back where many of us have cattle and raise grain, and if you could make an amendment for them to change that zoning somewhere else or put, you know, plaques outside for an outdoor museum to reflect the history of Jackson ranch, we would really appreciate that and approve their -- their plot as they have originally submitted it and the last thing I will say is we just found out about changes at 2:00 p.m. this afternoon. So, that also doesn't give the neighbors a lot of time to review what you were proposing and it doesn't give Mr. Young and his associates a lot of time to respond to as well and if-- if it's possible could we get the P&Z preliminary plat number two on the screen, because we could not see that. Do you have that? Is that the one we needed? We can ask for it later in hardcopy. Thank you guys very much. Grove: Thank you. Dodson: Mr. Chair? Grove: Yes. Dodson: I did just want to respond real quick. I apologize for misrepresenting the letter from Stetson. Admittedly I'm a little jaded from the 99 percent negative comments associated with applications, so I think I kind of read it through that lens. So, I do apologize. If you are on board that's even -- that's great. So, I did appreciate that. But do apologize for misrepresenting anything. Johnson: Mr. Chair, I'm not sure Darcie Dille, were you with the -- okay. Dille: I'm nervous. Darcie Dille at 205 North Sun Shimmer Way, Meridian. 83642. My name is Darcie Dille. I'm a real estate professional with Keller Williams Realty Boise and I was born and raised in the Treasure Valley. I have lived here in Idaho for nearly 50 years. I was brought in as a real estate professional to be a consultant and a representative of the project. I have also known Dave my whole life. We were raised back to our neighbors and I don't remember a time in my life that I didn't know him. Know what kind of man he is and that he is looking to bring something to the city that he can be Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. April 28,2022 F27 Page 24 of 66 proud of. I was asked -- along with being a consultant I was asked to meet with the surrounding neighbors of the project and from April to October of 2021 1 met with any and all neighbors that were willing and able to meet and I met them with a few representatives of Kimley-Horne when they were available and when they weren't my team owner Barbara Dopp. We met them in their homes. We sat at their kitchen tables. We walked the perimeters of their properties. We met their donkeys and chickens and we asked them what was most important to them regarding the development of the property. In meeting with them we met people who were curious, cautious, thoughtful, but most importantly open to having a discussion about the development. Not putting any words in anybody's mouth, but many told us that they knew the property would be developed, that it was not a matter of if but when. But what was most important to them was who and how. I feel like we have done a good job of implementing their thoughts and feedback and creating a community which takes into account their concerns as best we can. Really they just would like to see their lifestyle preserved. This has been a great process and I have been honored to have been a part of it. Being an Idaho native this is a community in which I feel proud to be a part and I believe it will be a beautiful addition to the south Meridian housing community. I know there are many who would love nothing more than to see the Treasure Valley remain as it is and I remember when I was growing up and all you could see were beautiful lush fields and I know that was when it was truly at its most beautiful, because that's my childhood. Unfortunately, when you have something wonderful it doesn't stay a secret for long and I can't blame others for wanting what we have here. We can't shut the gate. People will still want to bring their families here and experience our amazing valley. If development is in our future, then, let's build beautiful, upscale and well thought out communities and I believe that this is one such community. Thank you. Grove: Thank you. Johnson: Mr. Chair, next is Tina -- Tina Dean. No. Tina, I'm sorry. I'm having a day. Paula Connelly. Mr. Chair, Paula is representing Stetson Estates. Grove: Sorry. You are representing a group of homeowners; is that correct? Connelly: Yes. Stetson Estates. Grove: Okay. So, please, state your name and your address and you will be given ten minutes. Connelly: Paula Connelly. 3878 South Rustler Lane, Meridian, Idaho. 83642. We in Rustler -- in Stetson Estates community, we are on that western border that is up against the development that's being proposed. There are six homes that will -- and only six homes that will go in next to this community of 275. For us that seems like a lot, but we do respect what they have done and what they are proposing. We feel like they have done a fabulous job working with us and although we support the plan in an overall manner, one of our biggest -- well, we have -- we have two items that really we would like to see not have to be amended on the plan that they have proposed and that be the R-8 zoning. We have -- I'm going to back up a little bit here. To begin with, let's go back to Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. April 28,2022 F28 Page 25 of 66 the Comprehensive Plan. When that was put together in 2019 there was a huge debate. The Planning Department knew that the Rustler community existed and they knew the problem of putting large lots as transitional lots up against our five and ten acre parcels and that we were not going to go away. We are still a fairly young community of -- of 20 years. So, even though we have estate houses and we have acreage, there are several of us that we do have cows, we have chickens, we have farm animals, we do things like kill our cows in our pastures to have them dressed down and it is a concern to have small lots up against us. We feel like we have -- we have given in. We originally wanted one acre lots and we realized that one acre will not fit into something as dense as a medium density, so we -- we backed off and we said, okay, we would be okay with half acre lots. But we -- we are concerned. We farm our land. There is going to be dust from us. There is going to be other things. So, to have them crowd in even more R-8 just to meet a density-- back when the comp plan was put together the whole debate surrounded having one acre parcels codified and put up against large existing lots and City Council and the Planning Department ultimately decided they could not do that, because every piece of land that would be developed would be unique and they would not always have that opportunity to need to put in one acre lots. So, they said they wanted to do it on a case- by-case basis. Well, here is that case. We have six homes that directly butt up against these homes here and to crowd that R-8 is going to, in my opinion, not look right. It's not just a transition of size, but visually. When you visually look at something that has ten acres and has all of the space or five acres and has all of this space, what happens when all of a sudden you have got one row of a half acre and, then, pretty soon you have five homes per acre? Visually that -- there is something that breaks down there. The other issue that we have is the micro path from South Agronomy to the eastern border. This section there are literally two ten acre parcels that parallel South Agronomy. Where are you going to run that path to? You want to run it right up so that they can watch my cows being killed? Okay. I don't want anyone complaining to me. But it's just -- it makes no sense. It's illogical to force a micro path into one of two ten acre parcel lots when those homes are only 20 years. It's not like we are disposable, like a washing machine that's only going to last ten years. We are not going away. I promise you I'm probably going to be leaving my land to my children, who both love the land and that's what it's about for us and we truly appreciate Dave and the work that their team has put in to leave a legacy and to leave the silos and to leave all of the stuff that is going to remind people that this was at one point a farm. I will stand for any questions. Grove: All right. Thank you. Appreciate it. Johnson: Mr. Chair, next -- and I apologize if I mispronounce this -- Melinda Yamada Stave? Okay. Thank you. And then Patrick Connor. Conner: Good evening. Good evening. My name is Patrick Connor. Address is 701 South Elm Street, Meridian, Idaho . I will -- I will be brief. So, again, I want to applaud Dave and their team for everything that they have presented tonight and what they are presenting for the City of Meridian. I represent the developer south of this project and we have talked with Dave and his team as they plan this to ensure that we are coordinating appropriately on roadway network, utilities, making sure that we are working together as Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. April 28,2022 F29 Page 26 of 66 this area of Meridian comes before the public for -- for change and so they have done a good job of coordinating with us and we are trying to work as best we can with them and also it's helpful that we also share the same engineer -- engineering group. So, we are constantly talking about how we are going to finish out the collector street on the southern end of their property as we share that section line, as well as utility connections. So, again, I thought that was a great presentation. It's obvious they have spent a lot of time and effort trying to make a really special project for the city and we look forward to working with them in the future. Thank you. Grove: Thank you. Mr. Clerk, do we have anyone else signed up? Johnson: Mr. Chair, the Langlois -- it looks like they weren't wanting to speak but -- no? Okay. That was everyone. Grove: All right. Do we have anyone else online or in house that would like to speak on this application? All right. Seeing none, could I get the applicant to come back up? You will have ten minutes to respond. Young: We did send in a response to the city that Nicolette mentioned that you can refer to some of these points, but I do want to -- as Mr. Connelly brought up the micro path from Agronomy to -- to her property, we just don't -- we just don't see the point of that. I understand that maybe for -- for future development, but -- but our estate lots, they are going to be there for a long time and we have already --we do have Holstein on the south that connects to that property and the pathway at Calkins that connects to that western boundary as well already. So, we feel like that -- that need is met. We are going to work with the city to try and figure out how this R-8 request is going to be -- be met and, again, according to our proposed drawing is to try and put that up against the open space area, because that will be open fencing. It's not our preference to add this -- this R-8, it's not something we want to do, but we want to try and do it. It -- it changes -- it's going to be tough to market on that side of the collector to go from one acre, half acre lots, to quarter acre lots and, then, down to the 50 foot wide lot. So, it's -- it doesn't really fit the space and I understand that it's -- I guess I didn't understand until tonight that there was more about the collector than it was about the entire -- entire space, but we understand code. We want to move forward with this project if -- with all the speed that we can and by our calculations it would be nine lots that we would need to add that we would be willing to continue those talks with -- with staff trying to figure those situations out. That's all I need to add. Grove: All right. And let's -- do you have some questions? Yearsley: So, Mr. Chair? Grove: Yes. Yearsley: Trying to go through -- I was just reading your response letter. I haven't had a chance to look at it until just now as they were talking. Have you had a chance -- I mean Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. April 28,2022 F30 Page 27 of 66 I'm trying to figure out how do I mesh those two together and how do we come to a direct motion I guess what I'm looking for with -- with these comments and I wouldn't mind having an opportunity -- I don't know what the other staff is asking is how to -- is what do we accept, what do we not accept. Dodson: Mr. Chair? Sorry. There -- on that -- whoa, what happened? I'm trying to get to that as well. I have had a chance to look at it and read it. We did get it today, so I didn't -- I wasn't -- I didn't have a chance to write a -- not necessarily a memo, but even a slide that showed what I recommended, considered -- you know, in consideration of theirs, et cetera. So, there is two avenues we can go down. One -- most of them are going to have to be ended up being decided by Council anyways. You can put on the record potentially which ones you agree with, don't agree with, et cetera, or we can do -- which we have done in the past, but it will add time, which, you know, we all got time I guess -- to just go line by line through them if you would like. We have done in the past, but, again, there are a number of these. So, that's your choice. Some of them I do agree with and some of them I don't. However, the ones that have been requested be modified, the specific language is not in this, so what does that look like? I would have to do that, which would not -- I haven't done that, obviously. That's why I would prefer just to say -- to, you know, continue work with staff and the applicant work together and we will hammer those out between now and commission. If you want to put on the record specific ones that commission wants to change. I do recommend doing that on the record tonight. Yearsley: Okay. So, I -- I wouldn't -- before we close the public hearing I would like to be asking what the other applicant -- or staff is thinking regards to this comment. Is it something -- I know you probably don't want another continuance to -- to have a chance to digest your comments, but I'm wondering if that might be something that we would want to consider to better understand, because, like I said, I'm just trying to read it and, okay, where is this, where is that, so it's kind of hard for me to make that decision. I'm not quite sure what your preference would be or -- Young: Our preference would be not to continue, but I think in our response -- and we had a one hour phone call -- or a Zoom call with Joe yesterday and he's been very helpful, you know, and we understand where he's coming from, he understands where we are coming from. I think we can work most of this out in between this meeting and -- and Council. Yearsley: Okay. Young: And I -- really I think we knocked off a lot of that in our response and our reasoning why for certain things. I think we would be fine with Council making a decision on anything that's left over. Yearsley: I appreciate that. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. April 28,2022 F31 Page 28 of 66 Parsons: Mr. Chair, if you would like you can also pause the public hearing and take -- take the time to read the applicant's response and get familiar with what they are requesting and, then, come back and deliberate on those as well. Grove: Commissioners, would you like to do that or where are you at on that? I would -- I would say we will take a five minute recess. Is that sufficient for everybody to read through that? Is that -- is that okay? All right. So, we will take a five minute recess. We will leave the public testimony open and we will resume in five minutes. (Recess: 7:36 p.m. to 7:41 p.m.) Grove: All right. So, if we get back to our seats and we will resume the -- the public testimony portion before we close it for deliberation. So, Commissioners, are there any additional questions for staff or applicant upon reading the applicant's response letter? Commissioner Lorcher. Lorcher: If they remove the micro path as drawn to the one property per Lot 7, Block 12, and Lot 10, does that change -- do they still meet the minimum requirements for open space and amenities? Dodson: Mr. Chair? Sorry. Let me get back to what I'm doing here. You are talking the one on the west boundary? Lorcher: The one that Stetson Estates commented -- Dodson: It does not -- yeah. That would be a new one approximately in this location. So, the nexus behind that is just in the future if Stetson Subdivision ever requests annexation, because somebody's well fails or their septic fails or whatever, we are going to want some pedestrian connection between the subdivisions as part of our comp plan. That's just what we look for. I'm not going to fall on the sword for it, because I do agree you got a multi-use pathway and posting -- however, you got to provide -- this as a scale. This is 120 acres. This isn't normal size of a development. So, there is some separation between those access points for pedestrians typically we don't want them that far apart. But I do understand the neighbors' concerns. It's just that do it in a fence -- it would not be an open vision fence, it's only one lot deep, so it would just be an open --just a pathway to nothing for now, yes. However, it would not affect any of the open space at all, because that would be new. Grove: I will get into with deliberations, but there is some pieces there that I would like us to cover. Any additional questions, Commissioners, for applicant or staff? Dodson: Mr. Chair? Grove: Yes, Joe. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. April 28,2022 F32 Page 29 of 66 Dodson: I did just want to comment quickly to the -- the density with the request to say like look on it on a case-by-case basis and things like that I understand, but the densities in the comp plan we can't do anything about it, except for the applicant to do a comp plan map amendment. So, meet the density or change the map. That's the two options. There is no -- Council doesn't have a leeway to just waive that requirement. However, the proposal to do R-8 was just because it made sense within those blocks and you -- you can go below 8,000 square feet. However, I don't really care where it is. The applicant put that where ever they want west to the collector. Further -- they can probably do it even with all R-4, but they are going to have to modify probably every single R-4 lot on the west side and make them smaller in order to get those nine lots. So, it's kind of pick your poison there, unfortunately, when it comes to the neighbors. It's just R-8 makes it simpler, because they get more flexibility with the lot size, but they don't -- they are not going to construct them to the minimum, which we don't recommend either, we want the lots to be as wide as they can make them, they just got to get the nine lots. That's just the crux of it. And staff is fine with it being around the open space. That's perfectly fine. I think that's actually -- that's good planning as well, to increase the density around an open space area. Parsons: Mr. Chair -- Grove: Yes. Parsons: -- Members of the Commission, let me -- I'm going to just expand upon that a little bit. So, keep in mind the Comprehensive Plan is a guide and the zoning is the law: right? So, it's -- essentially, the Comprehensive Plan we look at density. So, if-- as staff we are charged to adhere to the Comprehensive Plan and the city code and that's what you -- that's what this body is charged with doing, ensuring that. So, keep in mind if you or the Council feels like public testimony sways you to say that this is consistent or it is providing that transition or that case-by-case basis, you could potentially make that finding that they are honoring what the surrounding properties are and what they want to do and so if that's your purview tonight you could ask -- strike that condition or at least have Council take that under consideration as they deliberate on the application. But as staff, Joe and I, we can't -- we can't do that, we have to say we need -- we need to hold you to the density of three to eight dwelling units to the acre. Grove: Thank you. Any additional questions for staff or applicants? Mr. Young, I have a question for you. In regards to the Modification D, which is the removal of the house, that is in phase five as marked by your modification and the connection piece and whatnot. I have concerns with that being in phase five and, namely, because I don't want an accidental enclave in the future, just in terms of how everything out here is situated. I would -- I would have some concerns with everything else getting done and, then, that being left and so that would be my -- my major concern. Do you have any safeguards against that, other than saying, yes, we will do it? Young: I would like to explain that -- that portion a little bit more. So, we don't own that portion. That -- that is owned by Colleen Kelly. He has given us the permission to put Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. April 28,2022 F33] Page 30 of 66 that into this -- this project. Colleen owned the entire ten acres that went back to the Calkins Lateral and we purchased another property to the south of that to try and bring some more connectivity, but we have this gap between two pieces of property, the property we own to the north and the property owner to the south. She was willing to sell us the six acres now, so we could have some connectivity on that side of the --the Calkins and connect those two sections of the neighborhood now, but, you know, Colleen is a -- she has been a longtime Meridian resident. She's from Montana. Her plans are to retire and move back to Montana, rather than -- and I have seen -- I know what you are talking about in and leaving these enclaves lots. It drives me crazy, too, seeing -- and seeing these and we have got neighborhood -- no -- no driveways for a quarter mile and, then, just a house all of a sudden that -- that appears and I think what we are trying to do is to get this platted, so that when she is ready to retire -- she is a few years from retirement. She's going to sell her home, she's going to sell her business here in Meridian and she's going to move back to Montana. So, this isn't somebody that -- that -- who bought the back half of the property from and is sticking their feet in the ground saying I'm not moving, I'm not going. She has a plan to leave and we are making her property -- we are taking on the expense and the time to divide her property and to make it ready and sellable for when -- when she's ready to go. I don't want to talk about her personally and that kind of stuff about that timeline, but that's why that is that phase, because it meets her expectation. Sorry, the question to guarantee, I -- Grove: Yeah. I know that you can't guarantee it in terms of--so, that's why I'm concerned about leaving it until phase five versus having it in phase three, because if it's on -- in the last phase it's very easy to just stop and not finish that out and so that's my concern with having it be completely at the end is -- is that it's easy to leave it off and so knowing a little bit of what you explained, you know, helps, it's still a concern, but just wanted to kind of get some clarification on that. Young: I think that having it platted for those 12 lots it's going to make it attractive. It's not going to be -- somebody's going to move into the existing home and live in that on four acres as is. It's going to be -- it's valuable to another developer -- to us we have first right of refusal to purchase that property. Just take it on sooner rather than later, so -- Lorcher: Mr. Chair? Do you have that guarantee in writing? The first right of refusal? Young: Yes, we do. We do. There is -- there is a timeline on it, but we do have that. Yearsley: So, as following on with that, you are talking about the roadway improvements along Linder. Is that the right house? Am I -- Young: Correct. Yearsley: I don't understand why we are interfering with the horse corrals. You are talking about the front pasture; is that not correct? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. April 28,2022 F34 Page 31 of 66 Young: Yeah. So, we have taken -- you know, Colleen's lived there for almost 20 years and she's had horses -- she has horses on the property. Yearsley: Uh-huh. Young: She had been growing hay on the front of the property and, then, had the horses in the -- on the back. Well, we have acquired the back. She's now going to shift the horses -- we left enough room behind the barn for the horses to go around the barn and out to the front of the property that front is -- that front's on -- on Linder. You know, she's got her daughter and her grandbaby living with her. She really wants to keep the horses and give her -- her children or grandchildren the same experience that she had raising children with -- with animals there while she's living there. Yearsley: But that doesn't -- we are not talking -- we are not taking a significant amount of right-of-way through there to do that, so she would still have enough pasture to -- to have her horses there, wouldn't she? Young: She -- she would have -- we are already -- for the amount of horses she has we are -- we are cutting it pretty tight. I mean I -- I -- I understand what you are saying, but we have -- it's a unique situation for us and that she wants to continue her lifestyle there with her horses. Yearsley: Right. I understand that. Okay. Grove: All right. Any other follow-up questions? All right. Thank you. All right. At this time I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing for Burnside Jackson Ridge Estates, file number H-2021-0070. Wheeler: So moved. Lorcher: Second. Grove: It's been and seconded to close the public hearing. All in favor say aye. All opposed say nay? All right. Motion passed. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Grove: And does anybody want to jump in with thoughts? I would like to just give a quick two cents on one piece just related to the pathway. I -- I know it's not ideal to have it do -- you know, dead end there, but less ideal is the situation that we see in other developments throughout the city, 20 years after something goes in, 30 years after something goes in and trying to have a connection that we -- we did -- we would force, you know, the next person to have that connection, but there is nothing to -- it to connect to, because we failed to include that connection point previously. So, that would be my -- my concern with not having that connection point is that we -- we can't go back when a new application comes in and force this current application to install something that we Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. April 28,2022 F35 Page 32 of 66 didn't have them do at the time. So, that would be my -- my -- my biggest concern with taking a connection point out. This is a very large property. You know, when we see pictures like this it's usually at a much smaller scale, even if it -- if the picture looks the same and so that -- that's a major concern for me. But I will let -- I will be quiet and let other people jump in. Yearsley: Mr. Chair? So, I have been on Planning and Zoning for quite a long time and when I started out this was the norm, R-4s, and over time we have gone down to the R- 8s and the R-15s, so my heart skipped a beat when I saw the R-4, so great job on that. So, it's unfortunate that the -- that they are talking about wanting to muddy this up with R- 8s. I -- I believe it fits the intent and the style and would recommend we not require the -- the R-8 -- or adding additional lots to this. It just detracts, my opinion, from the overall look and feel of the subdivision. So, I would recommend not having the additional nine lots if -- if possible. I know that will be more of a Council discussion, but I would highly recommend that that be considered. On most of the conditions I -- I understand the one about not connecting the water and sewer to that -- that one house, knowing it's going to get demolished in phase five, I don't know if I have an issue with that. I do struggle with not wanting to do those landscape improvements in the right of way in the first phase. I just -- I know that's going to, you know, impact her issues, but it's -- it's -- it's hard not to get that done in front, especially if you have one piece of blank spot and enough -- I have -- I have lived in enough blank spots to not want that connection. So, I will struggle with that one. Trying to go through some of the other items. The pathway. I -- I'm -- I can probably go either way. The -- the -- the only concern that I do have is we are talking five and ten acres and I understand you are not going away, but I tell you I have seen a lot of five acre parcels go and -- and -- and I -- I hate it every time when they come in, but development pressures, you know, come in and -- and so that one I -- I don't know. That one I struggle with. The connection with the other roads on those -- adding instead of having the bike path versus connections, again, that one -- I don't know if-- I understand what the staff's concern is and -- and we see it in a lot of our subdivision, we actually have areas that we have got long straight streets that we -- we are having problems with speeding and, hopefully, if you would put in intersections some of that might actually help slow the traffic down. I don't know. But it is an issue with speeding on those long block lengths. So, I could go either way on that if someone has issues. Trying to go back and through. There is just -- there is enough -- I think those were the big ones that I had. I think the rest of them -- honestly, the staff and the applicant can go work through the rest of them and I would be interested to hear other comments. Wheeler: Mr. Chair? Grove: Yes. Wheeler: I -- I only have really just two or three comments here. First of all, I'm excited about seeing this -- this subdivision all come together and keeping that rustic farm feel using some of the buildings. I was actually smiling and laughing at some of them and just seeing how it was all coming together and you might get me to move. So, it's a pretty nice spot there and so I like those kind of niche subdivisions like this. This would be -- Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. April 28,2022 F36 Page 33 of 66 this would be a nice little boutique feel. I like that. The -- I'm with Commissioner Yearsley on this, too. I would like to be able to strike that R-8 zoning requirement on here somehow, some way, or have a strong recommendation for that. I'm -- I'm -- I'm -- I'm okay with having less cars on those interior path -- on those interior drive aisles and it keeps also just that feel that they are -- they are trying to get, but I also understand that there is some guidance there with the -- the comp plan, but if there is a way that we can require -- or request that to be stricken that would be -- I would be in very -- very big support of that. The other thing is I -- with that pathway, the north-south pathway on the western side, I understand the concerns on the neighbors on that. Normally a pathway is going to be abutting up against our typical, you know, R-8 zoning where you are in the backyard of somebody for, you know, 20 paces, 70 paces, 60 paces and, then, you are done. Here you have got a five acre parcel where it's -- it's going to feel like you are on a treadmill before you get to the next backyard and, you know, it's a farm feel and so you get farm fresh smells sometimes and -- and also just the experience of all that and it's a little different having a pathway run on the back lot of that. I'm also looking to the south and even if the pathway was to continue all the way down along this property line, just -- just the -- the most -- the next southern property where the subdivision ends, the house is actually butted up right next to where that pathway would -- would go if-- unless it, you know, redirected, but if it was to go due south it would go right next to where the trees were at and right next to a gentleman's house, so --or the person's house I mean. Excuse me. So, I'm just -- I'm okay with -- with taking that pathway out as a requirement just because of just those -- those items there, so -- but I -- I'm excited to see this come together. Grove: Commissioner Lorcher? Commissioner Stoddard? Stoddard: Mr. Chair? Grove: Yes. Stoddard: Just make a couple comments. I agree with what everybody has said, but I also really like the feel of this subdivision a lot. It seems really nice. I am excited about it. I, too, was like -- oh, this would be a great place to go move; right? Although I love my place. But I just wanted to state, too, that I also am in support of striking the R-8 zoning if possible. Grove: I will say on -- on the R-8 I understand the concern. I think with the size of this entire development and the -- the desire of the applicant to -- to meet the spirit of their overall design, I'm not as concerned with the R-8 being put in strategically. It's going to be very close to that collector street, which feeds into an arterial street, so the traffic concern internally is not -- is not there. You are -- you are not looking at a substantial change in the overall aesthetic of the 119 acres that are going to be developed here, but it would help meet the code. I think that finding ways to do that within what they already have is the -- if I were to be doing it the better of the two choices and versus coming back and going through the Comprehensive Plan change and waiting until, you know, the end of the year to be able to redo some of the -- this application pieces. So, I think, you know, Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. April 28,2022 F37 Page 34 of 66 there is going to be a challenge there, but it's easily doable with what they have with some adjustments that they have shown and -- they have shown and it looks like they are capable of making those adjustments. Just because the minimums of -- on R-8 are set at a certain piece doesn't mean that they can't get much closer to that R-4, as long as they are meeting the overall density that is required and, you know, they are --for the first time in a very long time we are talking about trying to get somebody to inch up to the minimums versus trying to sneak in under the maximum, so this is the best problem that, you know, we face up here in terms of-- like, hey, just one more -- like --we don't get that a lot. So, I -- I applaud this overall project and I think there is some adjustments. You know, the pathway, the road pieces, but those are things that I feel competent the -- the applicant and staff can work out prior to the -- prior to this going to Council. There is a lot to like about this and the work that the applicant has shown to work with neighbors and the overall thought is quite -- quite good in this. Also, Commissioner Yearsley, no shared driveways. Always appreciated; right? So, Commissioner Lorcher, do you have any additional feedback? Lorcher: No. Commissioner Yearsley, were you drafting a motion to be able to address the R-8 or do we need to ask staff on how to do that? Yearsley: I was going to draft the motion that we recommend that the R-8 not be required and let Council make that decision. Grove: That -- that will have to -- and we can make a recommendation to it, but -- Yearsley: That would be more of my motion is not to -- to strike that, but just that we would like to not see the R-8 be included and let Council -- you know, make a recommendation to Council that be included or required. Grove: I will put at least on the record that that be part of the motion, that if the R-8 stays in that we recommend hitting the -- the bare minimum to meet the density requirements. Yearsley: Yeah. I -- Grove: I think that's obvious, but -- Yearsley: To be honest with you, I -- I personally I don't know if I want to go to that -- I will let them decide how they would do or -- you know, that latitude is up to them. You know, I'm sure they don't want the R-8 the way it sounds, so they are going to do the bare minimum anyway. So, I was just going to let that happen to them. So, I'm just trying to go through the response and write down which ones I -- I would like to comment on and the other ones I'm just going to let staff and the applicant decide how they want to proceed to City Council with, if that's okay with you, and -- so, I'm -- I'm still confused about this one pathway. If you guys could help me. Where is this pathway that -- that nobody wants? I -- I can't figure out where it's at on the -- Dodson: Mr. Chair? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. April 28,2022 F38] Page 35 of 66 Yearsley: Okay. Hold on. Let me get to there. Okay. Dodson: I believe if I -- again, I wrote three staff reports last week, so bear with me as my brain has melted. I believe I recommended it here, just because it aligns closely with that shared property line -- Yearsley: Okay. Dodson: -- which, again, if they were to annex in the future that would be a nice place, you wouldn't take up much land of the two parcels. If they stayed completely as they are and they just had to annex because of the water-sewer issues, that's why I recommended it there. Yearsley: Okay. Dodson: But, again, I'm not going to fall on the sword for a 15 foot wide micro path lot. Yearsley: Okay. Because I -- I'm sitting there trying to -- I -- is it like going up and down on the property? Dodson: Yeah. Yearsley: So -- okay. I'm -- yeah. Trying to -- to read the staff report and trying to look at the map and see what that's at, so -- okay. I'm going to recommend that one be removed. I'm going to let you figure out how -- I'm just going to say to remove that pathway, because I'm not sure which one it is, so -- Dodson: You got it. Yearsley: And, then, the other one I had was to not have the house on Linder be connected to water and sewer. If they are going to tear it down and at the end of the phase five it just -- for me it doesn't make sense. I'm going to let this -- the applicant and staff work out the street frontages, so I'm not going to comment on that one, because, again, that one -- it can go either way. Grove: Staff, are we able to recommend removing that 60 day piece or is that -- because isn't that something that -- Dodson: Mr. Chair? Grove: -- is a waiver? Dodson: Yes. So, the 60 day timeline thing has to be done by Council, but you can recommend that you agree with the applicant. Again I have to put it in because it's code, so I -- that's why I had to say it. Commission can recommend that it doesn't happen and, then, Commission will have -- or Council will have to make the final call with their waiver. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. April 28,2022 F39 Page 36 of 66 Grove: Commissioner Yearsley, the other one would be the pool. Yearsley: Oh, yes. The pool in between phase two. I -- I think that makes perfect sense and I think -- I like that. I agree that having it in phase three was not a good -- good option, but having it in phase two is a good option, so -- Grove: Also, Commissioner Yearsley, just having the wording in there I think we can probably fall under the working with staff, but the modifications related to the open lateral, if the agreement with the irrigation district is reached. Yearsley: Okay. Because -- do we need to make that change to -- they are -- they are going to recommend that be -- or they are going to tile that. Is that base -- do I need to change the motion to have that be tiled or -- or how does -- Dodson: Hold on. I'm reading. Sorry. Yearsley: Motion is requiring -- you talk about you were going to change the staff report to make it that it was going to be tiled. Dodson: Yeah. Mr. Chair, Condition 16 --what is it--A-16 1 guess is what this falls under. That can be stricken, because they are going to pipe it. The other one regarding -- sorry. 2 --A-2-13, you guys can leave that in. There is no motion, because they -- we will correct the plans or verify those between now and then. So, we will be okay. No motion required for that. Yearsley: Okay. Any -- any other things that you guys want to see changed I'm open to suggestions, comments. Okay. All right. Let's try this. So, I can see -- Mr. Chair, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony I move to recommend approval to City Council file number H-2021-0070 as presented in the hearing date for April 28, 2022, with the following modifications: That the pool and clubhouse amenity be moved to phase two. That the home at -- at 30 -- or recommend that the home at 308 -- 3801 , holy cow, South Linder not be connected to water-sewer. We recommend that that not be happen to City Council for that waiver and remove that -- we recommend that Condition 16 be stricken and that the pathway between the two lots on the southwest corner of the property being removed. Hope that's clear enough. Lorcher: Did you get -- Yearsley: Oh. And -- sorry. The most important one. Holy cow. That -- that we -- we recommend that the R-8 -- to City Council that the R-8 not be required and to leave the -- the -- the street number-- or the -- the density or the zoning as -- as -- as recommended -- or as shown. Wheeler: Second. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. April 28,2022 F40 Page 37 of 66 Grove: All right. Motion has been made and seconded. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed say nay. All right. Motion passed. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Grove: Good job. We will go ahead and take a five minute bio break and we will see you back here in just a minute. (Recess: 8:12 p.m. to 8:18 p.m.) 4. Public Hearing Continued from April 21, 2022 for Grayson Subdivision (H-2022-0014) by Schultz Development, LLC, Located at 1710 E. Amity Rd., Near the Northeast Corner of E. Amity Rd. and S. Locust Grove Rd. A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 3.39 acres from RUT to the R-8 zoning district. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 15 single-family residential building lots and 3 common lots on 3.1 acres of land in the requested R-8 zoning district. Grove: Okay. We will go ahead and jump back in with our next public hearing. So, we will be moving on to public hearing for Grayson Subdivision, file number H-2022-0014, continued from April 21 st, 2022, and with that we will pass it back over to Joe for his final one for tonight. Take it away, Joe. Dodson: Thank you, Commissioner Grove. The application before you for Grayson Subdivision is for annexation and zoning and a preliminary plat. The site consists of 3.1 acres currently zoned RUT in the county, located near the northeast corner of Amity and Locust Grove and actually near the corner, unlike the last one. The annexation and zoning request before you tonight is for 3.39 acres from RUT to the R-8 zoning district and a preliminary plat consisting of 15 single family residential building lots and three common lots on 3.1 acres. The proposed plat for the 15 units on 3.1 acres constitutes a gross density of 4.84 dwelling units per acre, which is consistent with the medium density residential designation located on the property. The minimum building lot size is about 5,500 square feet, with an average lot size near 6,200 square feet. The minimum lot size is nearly 1,500 square feet above the minimum lot size for the R-8 zoning district. The adjacent Estancia Subdivision of lower density and -- is of lower density and has larger building lots than what is proposed with this project. However, there are no more than two building lots for proposed adjacent to any single existing lot along the north boundary and the applicant has placed their drainage lot in the northeast corner of the project adjacent to two Estancia lots, which the point of me calling that out is if he put a building lot there and moved the drainage -- drainage lot somewhere else, then, that one owner would have two lots adjacent to them. So, the applicant was thoughtful on their placement of that. Furthermore, there are six building lots within the Estancia Subdivision along the Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. April 28,2022 F41 Page 38 of 66 north boundary and the applicant has proposed seven building lots and one common lot. So, the difference between the two, despite different zoning and smaller lots, is not substantial, at least in staff's opinion. Consistent with the existing subdivision around Estancia, the applicant is proposing to continue parkways and detached sidewalks into the development along Grayson Street to match that design characteristic. The applicant is also proposing a micro path connection in the southwest corner of the property to add a pedestrian connection to their required multi-use pathway along Amity. Per the pathways coordinator and the master pathways plan, a ten foot multi-use pathway is required along Amity. It is required to be located within the landscape buffer and completely outside of the ACHD right-of-way. The applicant is showing a five foot detached sidewalk instead, so staff has included a condition of approval to include that pathway with -- prior to final plat submittal. The plat does comply with all UDC dimensional standards, except for the block length of Grayson. The proposed block length is approximately 550 feet per the way that we measure it, so we measure it from here until where ever it ends. It's approximately 550 feet after it gets to here, because we measure at the center of the cul-de-sac, which is -- this is just a preliminary that the applicant did as a potential redevelopment of the corner property. It will be I think just over 600. So, still under the maximum 750 period, but it does require a Council waiver to exceed the 500 foot, which the applicant is seeking, because they can't connect to Amity and they are not going to connect the Locust Grove to the west, so it is basically required. Access is proposed via extension of the existing stub street East Grayson, stubbed to the east property. It's proposed to be extended into the site and terminate in a hammerhead type turnaround by encumbering building lot number seven, which is here. That's how it was originally proposed. ACHD did not approve this. They are requiring a temporary cul- de-sac and so we have the revised primary plat that now shows building Lots 7 and 8 encumbered by this. Staff already has an existing condition regarding this potential outcome, so there is no need to have any motion addressing that. I just wanted to note that for you. As of about 4:00 there was no written testimony for the application and staff does recommend approval. I will stand for any questions. Grove: All right. Thank you. Could we get the applicant to come up, please. Schultz: Hello. Matt Schultz. 4914 South Colusa in Meridian. It's good to be here. It's been a while. Good to see some faces I know and some good to meet. I have been out here in south Meridian forever, about 20 years, doing developments for different people over the years, like Tuscany and Bear Creek and Reflection Ridge, Kings Bridge, Wells and -- and Calistoga and it's -- it's -- it's home for me and I'm excited about Albertson's. I just live just off Amity just down the road a little bit and an associate came to me and asked me to help him with this little in-fill that he found and I went, cool, it's in the neighborhood and I like to fill in these little blanks and I think this little blank --there wasn't a whole lot of options that we could do with it, other than we could do R-4 lots or R-8 lots. So, that was pretty much it. So, what we are doing is kind of an R-8 light and that we are not going for 40 foot lots, we are not going to -- to the low-end of R-4, but we feel like that 50 foot minimum, single story on the north, to be more compatible, even though it could be argued that we are compatible anyways, we are adding that -- that single story in the north as a development agreement condition with them and if you look at the home sizes Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. April 28,2022 F42 Page 39 of 66 north of us we are proposing the same size. They are in that 1,500 square foot range north of us and that's what we are -- 15 to 17 hundred is what we are proposing. The issues that were kind of unknowns originally is how much the proposed roundabout might impact our site. We did a preliminary drop-in of a template to see how that would -- we were confident that we were just going to squeeze on by, hopefully, and nothing was going to hit us and that we got to dedicate two more feet of right of way, so instead of 48 we are giving 50 on our side, which is not a big change, and this revised preliminary plat does indicate that. We just did that yesterday and ACHD did want a no build on two of the lots, instead of one. Okay. Do that. And, then, the city would like us to expand the five foot pathway from a five to a ten, like you see on the newly rebuilt Eagle Road, Victory and Amity, those nice little yellow lines down the middle. You know, it's -- it's cool and so we will be the only one on Amity now that has that, but whenever ACHD does go through and widen out Amity they will continue the ten foot on the other side. So, we have -- we have got the room to do that. So, we do agree with all staff and ACHD's conditions of approval. We have added our own. We have offered some development agreement conditions in our -- in our narrative about the homes in the single story and we think we have a piece that fits and it's going to be good to kind of further -- not that what's there is too trashy, but it's going to clean up the neighborhood a little bit. It's -- it's going to be better. So, we appreciate the opportunity and I'm really excited about that roundabout. I had to come in on the way here tonight at 5:30, it's really backed up all the way to the entrance of Estancia, you know, going -- going west on -- on Amity, so that roundabout is going to be nice. So, thank you. Grove: All right. Thank you. Commissioners, any questions for applicant or staff? Yearsley: Mr. Chair? Grove: Yes. Yearsley: Isn't there a cell tower? Is that what your one lot is at your drainage lot? Isn't there a cell tower on there as well? Schultz: Commissioner Yearsley, Commissioner Grove, it's that -- it's that very corner lot that dash, dash, dash, on the corner of -- I think it's even in the right of way that's shown here. What we show as the future expanded right of way, I think that thing's closer to Locust Grove. It's off our property, but it is right there on that corner -- Yearsley: Okay. Schultz: -- and that roundabout is going to, obviously, have to take that into account. That's why I think that roundabout is going to shift a little bit to the west to clear that --that cell tower is my guess. That's why I was even more confident we weren't going to get clipped by whatever went east. Yearsley: Right. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. April 28,2022 F43 Page 40 of 66 Schultz: So -- but, yeah, it's -- it's nearby, but not on our property. Yearsley: Okay. I -- I knew it was there, but I -- I wasn't sure where it -- Schultz: It's Victory I think. Yearsley: Couldn't get that last corner piece, huh. Schultz: Well, now that this has utilities it's obviously -- I think it's going to become available and I wouldn't be surprised if ACHD might buy the whole thing. You don't know. They might need some drainage there. But they are I hear about the 50 percent stage on their drawings right now and I'm sure they are negotiating for right of way right now of with all those owners on the four corners. So, we will see what comes of it in terms of how much ACHD needs out of it. Yearsley: Okay. That makes sense, because -- yeah, if I was that owner I don't know if I would want what's left. Schultz: Yeah. There is -- there will be utilities right to it with us. Yearsley: Okay. Schultz: So -- and access. Wheeler: Mr. Chair? Grove: Commissioner Wheeler. Wheeler: I have got a question here, Matt. So, that -- that's a little park area there, right, that northeast spot; right? Okay. And is there -- is that going to be -- are you going to be kind of like, hey, this is only for us 16 people here or is it going to be like -- I'm sure there is going to be some people are going to trickle over from the other, but -- Schultz: Yeah. Commissioner Grove, Commissioner Wheeler, it was going to be an open space lot, depressed, grassed. It would never hold water, except for when it rained a really bunch and, then, staff recommended we put a bench in there, a little passive sitting area, which that's a good idea. That would be cool. But, you know, the enforcement of -- of -- of that I -- I doubt it. You guys couldn't be that overkill. You stay off this. This is for these 15 people only. Do you have a pass? You know, I -- I just don't see that happening. Wheeler: Good. Okay. Just -- I was just double checking on that then. Schultz: I -- I think it was a great idea to put something in there. You know, a little sitting area and people walking the dog and just hang out. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. April 28,2022 F44 Page 41 of 66 Wheeler: Yeah. And, then, this is -- this doesn't have a gate or anything, it's just straight open road; right? All the way -- Schultz: Open road. We are continuing the detached parkway, park strips. The geometry works to where our lots are appropriate. They get a little bit shallow abutting Victory, but they are deep enough to meet all setbacks and get what we need in there, so -- Yearsley: There is no modifications to the deal, so I'm looking for--at the --who is making a motion that there is no modifications to this, you are okay with all the -- Schultz: I'm okay with everything. Yearsley: Okay. Perfect. Schultz: Thanks. Grove: All right. Thank you. All right. At this time we will take public testimony. Mr. Clerk, do we have anyone signed in for this application? Johnson: Mr. Chair, we did not. Grove: All right. Is there anyone online or in the audience that would like to testify on this application? All right. Seeing none, would the applicant like to have any closing? All right. Making it easier. So, can I get a motion to close the hearing for file number -- I'm going to mess it up. H-2021-0099 -- nope. Wrong one. Let's try that again. Can I get a motion to close the public hearing for Grayson Subdivision, file number H-2022-0014? Wheeler: So moved. Yearsley: Second. Grove: All right. All those in favor aye. All those opposed? All right. Motion passed. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Grove: Any prevailing thoughts? Lorcher: Commissioner Grove. It's pretty straightforward, so -- they came up with a thoughtful plan to be able to use that space. They are following ACHD rules. Their connectivity. No modifications. So, I'm good with it. Yearsley: Mr. Chair? Wheeler: Commissioners, is there any significant discussion or do you guys just want to me to pitch this one through? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. April 28,2022 F45] Page 42 of 66 Yearsley: I'm good. Wheeler: Okay. All right. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony move we recommend approval to the City Council of file number H-2022-0014 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 28, 2022, without any modifications. Yearsley: Second. Grove: Motion has been moved and seconded. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed say nay. All right. Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. 5. Public Hearing Continued from April 21, 2022 for 1-84 and Meridian Rd. (H-2021-0099) by Hawkins Companies, Generally Located at the Northwest Corner of S. Meridian Rd. and Interstate 84. A. Request: Annexation of 18.30 acres of land with a C-G zoning district. B. Request: A Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map Amendment to change the future land use designation on 33.13 acres of land from Mixed Use — Community (MU-C) to Mixed Use — Regional (MU-R) Grove: All right. All right. So, we will now open the public hearing for file number H- 2021-0099 for -- for 1-84 and Meridian Road, continued from April 21st, 2022, and with that we will pass it over to Sonya for the staff report. Allen: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. The next application before you is a request for annexation and zoning and a Comprehensive Plan map amendment. The -- the Comprehensive Plan map amendment portion of this site consists of 33.13 acres of land and the annexation portion consists of 18.3 acres of land, zoned C-G and RUT in Ada county, generally located at the northwest corner of South Meridian Road and 1-84. The northern portion of this site was previously annexed in 1984 and 2002. No development agreements were required with those annexations. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation is mixed use community for the overall site. The applicant is requesting an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan future land use map to change the future land use designation on 33.13 acres of land from the mixed use community to the mixed use regional designation. Get my map to capture my -- presentation to catch up here. Excuse me just a moment. Oops. Don't know what happened there, but going again here. So, the -- the exhibit there on the left is the map amendment request and the annexation is requested of 18.3 acres of land with the C-G, general retail and service commercial zoning district, and the annexation area is shown on the exhibit on the right. A conceptual development plan was submitted as shown that depicts how this property is proposed to be -- excuse me -- that depicts how the property Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. April 28,2022 F46 Page 43 of 66 proposed to be annexed, as well as the area currently zoned C-G, is planned to develop with two big box retail stores and a junior anchor retail space, which is called out as retail one, consisting of 130 to 150 thousand square feet, retail two, which is approximately 80,000 square feet and retail three, lot two, which is 20 to 30 thousand square feet. Three out pads with two drive-throughs and a four-story 80,000 square foot office building. The northern portion of the site, already zoned C-G, is entitled to develop subject to UDC Table 11-2-B-2, allowed uses in the commercial districts, regardless of whether or not the annexation is approved, as there is no development agreement that is in place that governs future development of that property. A vehicular connection and stub is depicted on the concept plan to the property to the west for future extension across the Ten Mile Creek and for interconnectivity. The applicant has submitted an emergency access easement agreement with the property owner to the west for access to Ruddy Drive and Waltman Lane. Per the Comprehensive Plan mixed use designated areas should include at least three types of land uses. The proposed concept plan only includes two land use types, commercial retail and office. Although residential land uses are still planned to develop on the adjacent property to the west, the property is currently entitled to develop solely with commercial uses. The previous residential development proposed for that property, Tanner Creek, was denied. Reasons for denial included Council's determination that the sole residential use of the property was not consistent with the mixed-use community designation, because a mix of uses wasn't proposed and they didn't want to burden this property with providing only the non-residential component of the mix of uses desired for this area. For this reason staff recommended this property and adjacent property to the west come in for review concurrently in order to ensure the overall development is consistent with the development guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan for the mixed use designation. Because the traffic impact study for that development is in the queue for review at ACHD and isn't anticipated to be reviewed until at least June, the applicant declined to wait and chose to move forward on their own. In accord with staff's analysis in the report, the proposed development is not consistent with the general mixed-use development guidelines, the existing mixed-use community, or the proposed mixed-use regional guidelines. The project as proposed is a commercial development, not mixed use. There are no significant attempts to integrate any of the on-site uses or with any of the adjacent uses. There are no community serving uses for existing and future residents. Pedestrian connections are proposed through vehicular use areas, which could result in vehicle and pedestrian conflicts and safety issues. No public, quasi- public uses are proposed, except an open space area located in the middle of the parking area with unsafe access and at the periphery of the development. Staff is also concerned with the ability of the existing transportation network being able to support the proposed development as a traffic impact study hasn't been submitted for the proposed development. For these reasons staff does not support -- is not in support of the requested annexation with the conceptual development plan proposed due to its inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan. As recommended in the pre-application meetings for this property and the adjacent property to the west, staff recommends development applications are submitted concurrently for those properties with a master plan for the overall area that demonstrates consistency with the guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan for mixed-use developments and specifically the mixed-use community designation or an alternate designation if proposed. Alternatively, if submitted Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. April 28,2022 F47 Page 44 of 66 separately, the development plan for each property should demonstrate consistency with the plan on its own merits. The traffic impact study should also be updated to take into consideration the development impacts of both properties in the overall mixed use designated area and the necessary road and intersection improvements needed in this area in order for the street network to function sufficiently with the intensity of development proposed. There has been no written testimony submitted on this application. Staff is recommending denial per the analysis and findings in the staff report. Staff will stand for any questions. Grove: Thanks, Sonya. And could we get the applicant to come up, please? Mansfield: Good evening, Commissioners. Thanks for hanging out so late tonight. I really appreciate it. Grove: Need to get your name and address, please. Mansfield: Yeah. I'm Ethan Mansfield with Hawkins Companies. We are the developers on the project and we are located at 855 West Broad Street in Boise, Idaho. I'm just waiting for our presentation to be pulled up, if that's okay. Thanks, Sonya. Yeah. So, first I would like to thank you all for your time this evening, your service to the community is much appreciated and -- and thanks for -- thanks for hearing this. So, our request tonight -- let's see if I can get this thing to change. Do I need to press a special button? All right. Our request tonight is for a Comprehensive Plan amendment to regional mixed use for about 33 acres and an annexation and rezone to general retail and service commercial for about 18 acres on the northwestern corner of Meridian Road and 1-84. The 18 acres includes about an acre of ITD drainage facility, so I will be talking about 17 acres for actually -- that actually applies to the project. So, before I dig in I think it's extremely important to acknowledge that about 16 acres of this site is already entitled and zoned C-G, as Sonya mentioned. As you all understand, the zoning of a certain piece of land governs the specific uses allowed and the design criteria of those uses. The land use map or Comprehensive Plan, on the other hand, helps define and guide the general character of future development. So, it helps you make decisions about annexations, rezones, and conditional use permits. In this case the 17 acres on the south side of the site are what requires this sort of action, not the northern 16 acres. So, the northern land is entitled and only a site plan approval is required to develop that piece of land. The southern 17 acres are funky, there is no doubt about it. First they sit about 20 feet below the on ramp to the interstate. There is a steep grade going down to our site from that corner of the interstate and Meridian Road. Next. The only way to access the southern portion of this site is directly through the northern portion of the site, so as such, regardless of zoning or land use, the character of the development on the southern parts of land will largely reflect what is developed on the 16 acres of entitled property to the north, simply because that's where all the connectivity comes from, that -- it's kind of like a neighborhood on that whole piece, so, please, consider that through this discussion tonight. Now, let's chat about the overall plan for the site. Hawkins proposes to develop a mix of retail, food service, and office uses. Anchoring the development is a 145,000 square foot national retailer and here are the renderings of this user. In addition, we are Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. April 28,2022 F48 Page 45 of 66 proposing another large format retailer, as well as a junior anchor. I guess I can let you hang out and look at these renderings for a second. In addition, we are proposing another large format retailer, as well as a junior anchor shown here in the red box. Several -- several food users and shop space and a four story 80,000 square foot office building in the southeast corner of the site. Linking these uses is a network of pathways that extends throughout the site and provides connectivity to the west and north. We propose a ten foot multi-use pathway along Waltman Street to provide connectivity to the east and west and a pedestrian and bicycle access to Tanner Creek, the residential development to the west. A sidewalk currently exists along Meridian Road to provide connectivity to the south and I should notice that Sonya -- or note that Sonya was referring to this as a vehicular access point. This is proposed for emergency vehicle access, but it's not proposed for open vehicle access between the two sites, only emergency vehicles, and we do plan to put bollards there, just so you understand it -- it is designed as a pedestrian connectivity primarily with -- with fire and emergency access points. The development includes a one acre parklet positioned to provide a transition from the apartments proposed to the west in Tanner Creek to our commercial development. It also includes a one-third acre urban plaza located near the office development. While we understand that outdoor patio seating does not officially qualify as an amenity, it's tough to argue that outdoor patios suck and so we have included space for two next to our shops building and here is some renderings of those features. You can see the bollards here that would kind of protect that as a bike and ped connection to Tanner Creek. Here is the urban plaza and, then, the patio dining. So, Tanner Creek, a residential project from Schultz development, with 264 multi-family units and 128 single-family homes, is proposed immediately west of our project. Last June City Council denied this exact proposal. Why? Because it didn't have commercial uses associated with it. As Matt Schultz will share with you later this evening, here are our commercial uses. Council specifically directed him to wait until commercial uses develop to the east. Well, here we are. Our application fulfills City Council's request. It provides open space, retail, restaurants within walking distance and thoughtfully connected to Tanner Creek. Tanner Creek has been required by the -- by the Ada County Highway District to update their traffic impact study, as Sonya noted, which is why it has not yet been submitted to the city for review. So, here is a little play-by-play of why Tanner Creek is still on the bench. So, first, comp plan amendments, as you heard earlier, are only processed by the city twice a year, December 15th and June 15th. Tanner Creek had proposed to submit in early January, concurrent with our December 15th deadline. However, ACHD required an updated TIS. These take a while, as I think we all know or have seen, and Tanner Creek submitted their updated TIS in March. It will likely be July before it is approved. Could be late June optimistically. To require Tanner Creek to come in concurrently with us would, at a minimum, require an eight month hold until next December. As we need housing and services to serve the intense growth Meridian is experiencing, we believe this is a risky and potentially costly move. It's also one that could be avoided by simply acknowledging the reality of the situation. The Tanner Creek and our development will complement each other and create a desirable regional commercial and residential hub. Staff is also concerned about the current development rights on the Tanner Creek site. Let's talk a little bit about the existing development that could occur on the site without going through an entitlement process. There is an existing development agreement on the site that governs the development of the site. This Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. April 28,2022 F49 Page 46 of 66 development agreement limits the site to commercial uses, as Sonya noted. However, it also limits it to one of two site plans without the City Council approval to modify. So, here are the site plans. Here is site plan number one. We are not quite sure what all these boxes are and there is some flexibility there, but, you know, you can kind of see a big box on the bottom right-hand corner, some smaller commercial uses here. You know, significant commercial use abutting the single family neighborhood here or this one, which provides the big box immediately adjacent to the single family homes next door and a giant parking lot. So, anything other than these two site plans would require a trip back to City Council. I think it's important to understand that. So, the question is what's the likelihood that if our site is approved for retail, food, and office uses, that the contiguous landowner would scrap a residential project and sell the land and, then, that another owner would pick it up and develop a 37 acre development with the same uses that we will develop in our project. Right now I think that's a relatively non-existent likelihood and I think Matt, when he shares later this evening, can confirm this, as he is the developer of the adjacent site. So, next let's talk a little bit about the comp plan amendment and the subsequent rezone. Here is a description of the mixed use and regional mixed-use land uses from the comp plan. In general, the purpose of the mixed-use designation is to provide for a combination of compatible land uses within a close geographic area that allows for easily accessible and convenient services for residents and workers. The purpose of the mixed use regional designation is to provide a mix of employment, retail, and residential dwellings and public uses near major arterial intersections and developments should be anchored by uses that have a regional draw with the appropriate supporting uses. Here is a map showing the general location of our development over the comp plan map. The surrounding development is already a regional destination. Several big box stores and hotels are located on the east side of Meridian Road and two regional entertainment uses and an event center exist across the freeway to the south. The interchange is also the gateway to downtown Meridian. Meridian Road in front of the site is the third busiest roadway segment in the state of Idaho. That's after Eagle Road in case you were wondering. In other words, the already entitled portion of our site is begging to be developed into a regional hub. In that spirit, we are proposing a retail center with a regional draw. A regional employment hub, restaurants, and amenities that are complementary to Tanner Creek, which will provide 400 households within walking or biking distance to our site. Put simply, our development will serve the residents of the entire region, while maintaining walkability and bike ability to residents of the adjacent multi-family and single-family housing developments. The mixed-use regional designation is also the only mixed use land use designation that supports general retail and service commercial zone. This zone appears to be expressly designed for the subject parcel. Commercial uses, in quote, close proximity and/or access to interstate or arterial intersections, end quote. It is logical to continue that zone to the south closer to the interstate and the mixed use regional designation supports this, while the mixed use community designation does not. Based on the comments we heard from staff at the pre- application meeting last fall, the entire reason that this site was designated community, rather than regional mixed use, was that the transportation infrastructure serving the site was insufficient to support a regional draw. This is an extremely reasonable point. However, it seems that rather than limiting the use of the land on this very visible regional corner, it might work better for the city if we simply increase the capacity of the Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. April 28,2022 F50 Page 47 of 66 transportation network, which is what we propose to do with this development. Here is how we are going to do this. First we propose to work with ACHD to extend Corporate Drive across Ten Mile Creek to Waltman and I should say not just ACHD, but Tanner Creek as well. We have been discussing this intimately, let's just say. Next we will improve Waltman to a collector roadway with a center turn lane throughout the entire project. We will also install infrastructure for a future transit stop on the corner of Waltman and Meridian Road and, finally, we will install an additional northbound left-turn lane on Meridian Road to accommodate traffic turning into the site from the interstate. Here is a cross-section of the proposed roadway improvements. There will be two lanes heading west from the Waltman-Meridian Road intersection, then a center turn lane and a lane heading eastbound, which will split into various turning movements near the intersection. You can also see where we are proposing to install the infrastructure to accommodate the transit stop. That's that little star there that says future transit stop. In sum, we are beefing up the transportation infrastructure to keep pace with the mix of uses that want to be on this corner. Our proposed mix of uses is of a similar scale and fits appropriately within the surrounding development, with roadway improvements and enhanced connectivity delivered by this project and Tanner Creek to the west. In tandem we propose to capitalize on the location of the site to deliver homes,jobs, goods and services to the population epicenter of the Treasure Valley. We look forward to your recommendation of approval to City Council and thanks so much. I'm happy to stand for any questions. Grove: All right. Commissioners, any questions for the applicant or staff? Yearsley: Mr. Chair? Grove: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: So, I'm going to just be blunt. Sonya, is -- was the main reason for -- for recommending denial at this point is because you don't have the ACHD traffic impact study and having the two applications come together as one? I'm not quite sure why it did not -- I apologize, it may have been clear, but I -- I didn't catch it. Allen: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Yearsley, transportation issue is huge and, yes, we feel that the TIS needs to contemplate the overall development for the master plan for this area, but the proposed concept plan is -- is not consistent with the mixed use designation and specifically the mixed use community, which is the existing designation, or the proposed mixed use regional designation. Yearsley: Okay. Well, if they -- if they had both applications come into one that would meet that requirement; is that correct? Allen: Not necessarily saying that -- Yearsley: Or -- Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. April 28,2022 F51 Page 48 of 66 Allen: That the -- the concept plan for this site, even -- even if it's -- the development to the west comes in with the --with the multi-family, they--they aren't integrated well. They -- they aren't interconnected as they should be in a mixed-use designation. Yearsley: Okay. Allen: The uses -- there is no community serving uses. It's -- it just doesn't meet our mixed-use guidelines -- Yearsley: Okay. Allen: -- overall. Yearsley: Okay. Like I said, there is -- there is a lot of nuances within that, so I wasn't quite sure exactly, so -- and -- and I agree that this is a big enough development that the traffic impact study is a big concern, so -- Grove: I have a question directly piggy backing off that. So, you mentioned it, but I -- I'm very unclear as to why you did not wait until you had the traffic impact study and an ACHD --you know, this is--you know, sometimes we can be like, okay, like we can move forward without something like this, but this is probably the most messed up intersection next to a giant parcel of land that is going to be extremely intensified. It's already hard to get around that area. You are -- you are -- you have mentioned making improvements, but those are fairly minor in comparison to the level of intensification that you are proposing specifically with this, let alone anything to the west of you. I mean I'm just really wondering why now and not -- I know that there is -- with the comp plan piece there is an additional piece, but this is -- I mean just to be very blunt, it's going to be very hard to properly evaluate this without having a much clearer understanding of what that impact study is, what those recommendations are, how do we mitigate the extreme mess that this could have. I have a few other questions, but I will let you tackle that first. Mansfield: Thanks, Chairman Grove. That was a great question and it is a mess. Thanks for recognizing that and I think I just need to be a little more clear on where we both are in the process. So, we have completed a traffic impact study. TIS'es are not required to be approved prior to rezones and annexations. They are with preliminary plats, which is why we typically see a preliminary plat come in with an annexation and a rezone. In this case we are not pursuing a preliminary plat at this time, so we are just doing the annexation rezone. However, these transportation improvements that we are recommending are taken straight from the recommendations from our TIS and I have spoken with our traffic engineer a multitude of times to make sure I have got all those incorporated into this, because I understand that it is a big deal and so my job is to make sure that we are not missing something the TIS would recommend that's going to come in later, blindside us, blindside you guys, blindside Council, blindside ACHD and what I have done is thoroughly read through it, talked to our engineer about it and said am I missing anything and, actually, he is the one who came up with this improvements drawing for us. So, we have not been approved by ACHD yet. However, we have Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. April 28,2022 F52 Page 49 of 66 submitted and it's under review and, as you guys understand, you know, ACHD is four, five, six months out for their review times right now and I think Matt can speak to that, too. He is just behind us in the queue. We are right ahead of him. And so given the nature of these staggered comp plan amendment time frames, we thought that we could submit right now and, then, when future development happens on the site, you know, we -- you know, anything from a zoning certificate, a CZC site plan review, that that will absolutely -- or preliminary plat or whatever we end up with, that will absolutely require an approved ACHD site plan -- or traffic impact study and we are confident that what we produced and what we are recommending to be improved will end up being the final approval of the ACHD site plan. Grove: I -- I appreciate that. I -- I guess some feedback is this has been empty for a very long time, understanding that there is a traffic problem and that we are going to want to understand those parameters, along with this and have a lot better information, even if it's not required. It -- it's a -- it's something that is extremely important to this project and how we --we look at it as a holistic approach and so knowing that it's just really concerning that it's not coming in at the same time. I understand that there is timeline pieces, but this is not something that came out of the blue for this project as -- as a concern. So, I -- I have some misgivings on that. I -- I guess my other question is in terms of how you view this overall project and being, essentially, at the gateway into Meridian, for all intents and purposes, how does that stack up with being a -- the proper visual in terms of-- you know, we already have one box store on the other side, like how does that -- how are we -- I'm having a hard time getting my head around what that overall concept looks like or what we want our community to look like to people coming into our city. Mansfield: Yeah. Chairman Grove, that's another great question and I think there is a -- there is a couple different answers to that. You know, we are proposing a large format retailer. There is no doubt about it. It's a big box. It's a large box. However, you know, this is a major regional intersection and that's where large boxes want to be. That is why we have secured this particular tenant and we are providing right on the corner, you know, an 80,000 square foot office building, just like you see at every other intersection -- or, sorry, interchange in Meridian, to kind of, you know, provide -- and, you know what, it's -- it's -- if you look at our project it is only two mix of uses. You know, I'm not going to beat around the bush there. Tanner Creek provides the third and we have been working with them, but, you know, you do provide -- we do have 80,000 square feet of office. So, 50 percent of the stuff that's getting annexed into the city is office and 50 percent is going to be retail. The other stuff on the north that's already zoned, so that's already something where, you know, we are experiencing this intense demand for this aux user and we could put them there, you know. So -- so, we are trying to -- we are -- anyway, I will -- I will let -- I will leave it there. Grove: Yeah, I get what you are saying. It -- it feels to a certain extent with -- with how it's positioned that that southern portion is landlocked and being held hostage here in terms of how we have to think about this. So, having a hard time feeling good about that. So, just giving you some pieces there. I can jump off my soap boxes for a minute, but if anybody wants to jump in with questions. I have another. So, you -- you said you did Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. April 28,2022 F53 Page 50 of 66 have your traffic identity -- or traffic study and you have a general idea at least of -- what is your -- you know, trip count look like per day coming out of the overall development? Mansfield: Sure. That's actually displayed right here on the screen. Grove: Okay. Mansfield: So, we can definitely talk a little bit about that. The total daily trips with the you know, sophisticated modeling of the reduction in pass-by trips, you know, that's -- that's, you know, captured by people driving by -- is nearly 11,000 primary trips. That's 740 in the a.m. and 950 in the peak period. Again, the recommendations in the TIS are reflected in our transportation kind of analysis of the site and our proposed improvements. So, based on this, our engineer proposed the improvements that we are proposing to make and I should say that there is actually one additional re-striping of Franklin Road as it -- or on 5th Street as it goes north to Franklin Road to provide a left and a right turn, where currently there is just one lane. There is no widening. It's only a restriping. So, didn't want to confuse the conversation, you know, of these bigger changes by including that, but that is also included in our proposal. Grove: Well, if we don't have any other questions, we will go ahead and open it up to public testimony. Mr. Clerk. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Chair. First is Kelsee Lorcher. Kelsee, you should be able to unmute yourself. K.Lorcher: Hi. Kelsee Lorcher. 2099 -- oh, sorry. Can you hear me? Grove: Yes. K.Lorcher: Okay. Kelsee Lorcher. 2099 West Snyder, Meridian, Idaho. 83642. 1 do not agree with this --this proposal at all. I actually agree with the staff report. This application does not have a master plan with Tanner Creek development to the west. The City Council last year said that they needed to do it together to get both sides approved and Hawkins has not done that. He has moved forward without Tanner Creek, but yet his proposal relies heavily on Tanner Creek development to be mixed use zoning and also for his emergency access as well and also for Corporate Drive. Tanner Creek's the one who is going to be building Corporate Drive, not Hawkins. We do not have both Hawkins or Tanner's traffic impact study, so without having both of those developments traffic impact studies we do not know the true impact this will have to Waltman Lane and to the gateway of our city and to that intersection of Meridian Road and Waltman. This development is way too high traffic for Waltman Lane and to the gateway of our city and even according to the Fire Department staff report on this application, it stated that the current resources would not be adequate to supply service to this proposed project, which entails greater risk for the occupants, as well as the first responders. In addition, the intersection at Waltman Lane and Meridian is already, as you said, a mess and a -- it's a burden with high traffic and there is -- it's landlocked. There is no wiggle room for Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. April 28,2022 F54] Page 51 of 66 improvement or any major improvement. It's landlocked. It is what it is and we are already high traffic and we do not want to become an Eagle Road and this project is just too big for the area. You know, the -- the comp plan it -- it said that this needed to be mixed use community for a reason, not a mixed use regional. And, lastly, the parking lot is not designed well or safe for pedestrians or bicyclists and that's basically all I have to say tonight. Thank you. Grove: Thank you. Mr. Clerk? K.Lorcher: Also -- I'm so sorry. I have Joe Lorcher here with me. Johnson: Mr. Chair, I was going to say, Kelsee, if Joe is with you, but, Joe, you are up next. J.Lorcher: Can you hear me? Grove: Yes. J.Lorcher: Joe Lorcher. 740 West Walton Lane, Meridian, Idaho. 83642. My family and -- and I have worked in -- on Waltman Lane and lived on Waltman Lane since 1976. 1 understand that this is being considered the gateway into the City of Meridian, but I'm hoping that we don't turn it into, like my daughter said, an Eagle Road where it just becomes a standstill. Certain times of the day the intersection -- you literally watch the light change three times before you can get to the light to even turn left onto Waltman Lane and if this traffic study that was up there a second ago shows another 10,000 more cars, the intersection just can't handle it. The proposal of Tanner Creek to punch Corporate Road through to Waltman Lane will help, but first Tanner Creek has to pass and it's already been denied three times or two times -- K.Lorcher: Two times. J.Lorcher: Two times. And the whole idea last time was for them to produce Tanner Creek and Hawkins together and that's what the City Council wanted and it's not happening, so -- and go back to the traffic study, we --we need to wait until we learn more about the traffic that's going to happen for this intersection, so that it just does not become a complete parking lot all the time. Ethan was talking about using Tanner Creek to help with the mixed use qualification. He's assuming that Tanner Creek is going to get passed. That's why both of them need to come in together to see if they work together and will get passed and presented together. Overall the applicant should wait until the traffic study is complete and also should stay away from the MUR to keep it so it's not so dense and keep the traffic down. And, finally, do work with Tanner Creek and come together, so that both proposals are presented together and Council and Planning and Zoning can listen to both sides and decide what's best for the Waltman Lane area. So, hopefully, we can postpone this and let them wait until traffic's done -- traffic studies are done and they come together and work it together. That's all. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. April 28,2022 F55 Page 52 of 66 Grove: Thank you. Johnson: Mr. Chair, Clair Manning is next. Mr. Manning, you are going to see yourself rejoin the meeting. He has a presentation to share. Manning: Good morning, Council. Clair Manning at 650 West Walton Lane. I'm going to go ahead and share my screen. Oh, it's blocking me from sharing my screen. Johnson: You can do that now, Mr. Manning. Manning: Oh. Thank you. Okay. So, first off, I would like to thank the planning staff for their detailed analysis of -- of their -- of this application. I think their conclusions make it evident that you have no other choice but to deny this application. Are you seeing my PowerPoint right now? Grove: Yes, we are. Manning: Okay. So, this city has spent a lot of time and resources developing a Comprehensive Plan. There is a good reason. This was a designated mixed use community and not mixed use regional. The simple fact of the matter is there is not access -- there is not access to this area. It's not well suited to high traffic that these kind of commercial buildings will provide. So, I have a couple quick pictures just to illustrate that point. I think you guys are all familiar with the intersection, but as you can tell from this right picture here, there is a very short runway where you can stack up cars here and it's very very easy for them to back up and block the entire artery into the city here on one lane. Second off, it's extremely problematic once you also get onto Walmart, because it's very easy to back this up, because there is such a short runway before you need to start turning into this intersection. So, it would be very easy for cars to back up and just block that all together. So, let me direct you to that picture on the lower right. You can see I'm parked there right where you need to turn and I'm causing a really dangerous situation just for cars trying to get out. So, now imagine that you have semi trucks coming in and out to stock that big box store and imagine the kind of a mess that you are going to have with that. So, you know, overall this plan doesn't integrate very well with the overall area. The developer to the west is proposing high density apartments right across from Ten Mile Creek that look right into the back of the big box commercial area. So, you mix that kind of low cost housing with that environment and you have all the perfect makings for a slum and, you know, as staff points out, this area needs a Comprehensive Plan considered together, so -- and you must have that detailed traffic study combining both project to make a good decision. You cannot ignore that. This is a critical area. The 2018 traffic study on Tanner Creek already estimated 2,928 trips per day on Waltman, which clearly demonstrates -- you will see the 3,000 trip guideline for a collector. So, I can't really say any better than your staff did when they said this could cause irreparable harm to the flagship entrance to the city. So, I think you have a responsibility to deny this application. Thank you. Grove: Thank you. All right. Mr. Clerk, do we have anyone else signed up? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. April 28,2022 F56 Page 53 of 66 Johnson: Mr. Chair, that was everyone. Grove: All right. And it looks like we have someone in the audience who would like to come forward. So come join us again, please. Schultz: Good evening. Matt Schultz. 4914 South Colusa in Meridian and before I dive into this application let's say just as a resident I'm excited that something is planned for this corner. Something. Because it has been sitting there vacant and we have done the big interchange work. It's just sitting there and what really triggered this is -- I brought a little exhibit. Put on my reading glasses --that I did back in 2018. That corner was actually 14 parcels back in 2018. One of those being the ITD parcel that Hawkins bought first, which is the one that you called the hostage parcel -- that needed to be re-comp planned, but they have since -- and kudos to them for assembling all the other parcels, including the last two. They got all but one acre up there in Waltman to do a master plan, instead of having several little trials. So, it's a positive that they have taken that on. They have assembled it all to the Comprehensive Plan. I speak for -- I'm the owner's representative for the -- the nine parcels under one ownership to the west that we have called Tanner Creek in the past. P&Z approved it twice. ACHD approved it. Staff approved it twice. And we got to Council and the first time in 2018 City Council said, you know, Matt, they are all tired from their budget meeting that day, he says, you know what, you know, the comp plan is going through right now; right? The area comp plan; right? Yep. Well, okay, well, you are going to have to wait until that goes through. So, that's where that dead ended and, then, we waited -- I think I met Mr. Grove through that process of the comp plan meetings and steering committee and with Tanner Creek we were previously approved for commercial before our time. They had about 10,000 trips approved and that's what's approved on Tanner Creek right now is a commercial zone with about 10,000 trips and a big box, which, ironically, I think it might be the same big box user that now wants the better piece, which we have always said is the front 30, not the back 30, for commercial. So, with Tanner Creek we asked for a rezone to go to -- go to residential to be a better transition on the west side of Ten Mile Creek, which is a division between the two properties. The only reason we haven't submitted is traffic studies take forever to get run through ACHD right now and we -- ours was approved previously. The results of that one in 2018 were extend Corporate Drive, connect Ruddy and make Waltman a collector and nothing had to be done to that intersection out there, even though everybody couldn't believe nothing had to be done to that intersection, because we had two 2,500 trips or whatever it is. Well, obviously, when a big box commercial, like 10,000 trips, something has to be done to that intersection. We did --we redid our traffic study, because it was four years old. That's what ACHD has. They did their traffic study. We both used each other's numbers. We both coordinated with two different engineers. Came to the same conclusion. So, one last thing. They are already approved. They could do -- probably go do their big box right now under the entitlements. I know you feel like it's hostage, but I do feel like they are producing a Comprehensive Plan and we are excited, because Council told us come back when we know for sure that commercial is going out there before we change your commercial to residential, so we can have one big mixed use project. We would be here today if not for the traffic study, but we do think it's a great project and we think it's something that would be great for this -- this corner. Thank you. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. April 28,2022 F57 Page 54 of 66 Grove: A question for you, Mr. Schultz. Schultz: Yeah. Grove: Are you -- I'm -- I'm going to take a guess and say you are, but are you open to working with the applicant to make a more comprehensive integrated multi or -- I'm going to get -- been doing this too long tonight. To get a more integrated overall feel for that entire Waltman property? Schultz: Commissioner Grove, we feel that we -- we have the transitional portion on the west side of the Ten Mile Creek, which is a hundred foot natural barrier that's going to divide it. That's -- that's the tran -- that's the transitional buffer between commercial and residential, instead of putting the previously approved commercial right up against existing residential. We are connected. We have the use that complements their use and vice-versa. Are we all integrated, all mixed up together? No, because we have separate properties. But we are connected. We are working together on a flood study. We are working together on a traffic -- we coordinated our traffic studies and we are working together on it. As far as -- you are saying more integrated. I don't know if you are like mixing residential on theirs with commercial on ours. The commercial all needs to be up front and the residential needs to be on back and that's what we have always said and we are kind of sticking with that. Grove: Yeah. My -- my question there is not to move one or the other, it just feels like there is a very -- it's such a clear delineation between the two that it doesn't feel -- I -- I would like to see, as you know, staff had -- what Council had said before, what the public had said just a minute ago in terms of looking at those more holistically, because of how that's going to be coming in and the prominence of where it's at in our city, so -- Schultz: And I understand completely and that front 35 is very important to get right. I'm not saying the back 35 is not important to get right. It's all important to get it right and we have -- our application is not in front of you, so I don't want to go off in the weeds with ours, but I would just say that it has been approved twice by P&Z and, if not, for the fact that theirs was in for commercial already, we probably would have already had it half built out as a residential with a pathway along the Ten Mile Creek and a good project, so -- Grove: Thank you. Schultz: Thanks. Grove: Any other public testimony? All right. If we could get the applicant to come back up, please. Mansfield: Thank you, Mr. Grove, Commissioners. I would like to talk about four things that I just heard in testimony, so -- and it more -- more than anything else it's just clarifications to make sure we are all on the same page. So, the first thing I would like to Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. April 28,2022 F58 Page 55 of 66 chat about tonight is that I want to make it clear that Corporate Drive will be extended regardless of whether Tanner Creek comes in. It's not their responsibility. It's the first developer's responsibility to construct the Corporate Drive extension. So, whether -- mean we are assuming Tanner Creek is coming in, because of everything you have heard tonight, but if it doesn't, Corporate will still be extended. Second, I want to just also kind of talk about the coordination and collaboration that Matt and I have had in the past six, eight, ten months. It's been overwhelmingly extreme and that's a good thing, but it's like we are talking two or three times a week, half hour, hour long conversations. How are you guys? Where are you guys? Hey, what are you doing here with this zone? What are you doing with that zone? What -- what's the status of your TIS? Can you share your TIS data with us, so that we can actually provide a comprehensive package to our respective engineers and because --you know, because we have separate developments they are coming in at two different times, there is no doubt about it. We have two TIS'es, but they are using the same data and we have ensured that. So, I think it's important to understand that we are actually very heavily incorporating that TIS into our TIS and vice- versa. We submitted within a week of each other to ACHD. Finally -- well, number three, I would like to point out that, you know, there is a lot of traffic on Meridian Road. Like said, it's a regional draw already. So, it -- it makes sense to put regional uses with other regional uses, because, then, you don't have regional uses on, you know, Linder and Chinden, you have community uses on Linder and Chinden, you know, you don't have regional uses down on like Amity and, you know, way, way -- you know, like in no man's land. You have community uses there. You have regional uses right on the interstate. In addition, the traffic volumes, you know, they are going to come right off the interstate and they are not -- I guess what I'm trying to say is it's not like we are trying to send a regional use out to the hinterlands where we are like annexing and rezoning something way out there. This is an in-fill project and we are proposing to upgrade the utility -- the street -- the streets that are already there, so, you know, this concern about the transportation network, it can still remain a concern, certainly, but it's not going to look like it does right now. We are not just dumping a bunch of cars onto this existing network where Waltman's not even built out at all, it's like this little farm road; right? We are -- we are putting that on a four lane collect -- collector roadway, two --two lanes in one direction, center turn lane, one lane the other direction goes into a bunch of different turning movements. It's probably going to be better, if anything else. I counted the p.m. peaks in a per minute basis -- or I'm sorry -- yeah. Per minute basis and this is the worst it's expected to get, 13 cars per minute. You know, I mean like 13 cars per minute -- I guess doesn't seem like a lot to me. It's a lot, it's not a lot a lot. And, then, finally, I just want to talk about the integration of our two projects together. So, I think if we had come in in the same application, we would have split it up the same way. Ten Mile Creek is a perfect natural buffer to buffer residential and commercial uses. It just works and we are providing a bridge over the creek and we are redoing the bridge on Waltman over the creek, with a ten foot multi-use pathway and so it's tough to say how do we get more integration over that creek, because it's like, well, we -- it doesn't make sense to tile the creek, because it's a nice amenity and Tanner Creek is actually constructing a sidewalk, a pathway all along it, to connect to the ten foot -- the regional multi-use pathway and we are providing a park right on our side, which is, just to be clear, not actually -- our parcel does not touch the creek at all. It's all on the Tanner Creek parcel. But we are Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. April 28,2022 F59 Page 56 of 66 constructing a park -- a one-acre park right on the creek there and we did that instead of putting it in the middle of a parking lot, which we realized -- you know, I think even Sonya -- Sonya mentioned this, it doesn't make sense to put a one acre park in the middle of a parking lot. It makes sense to put it kind of adjacent to where the people who are walking and biking from are actually going to use it and it also allows, you know -- you know, visitors to our shopping center to use it as well and -- and workers who work there. So, I think I hit everything. Thanks, again, for letting me present and I appreciate your time. Grove: Thank you. Appreciate it. Johnson: Mr. Chair, I know the applicant's closed. I do want to point out as soon as you went to the applicant there was a hand raised in Zoom. So, it's -- it's up to you with the advice of Legal, if you want to hear that, then, have the applicant speak again. Completely your call. Starman: I think -- I think it's a Chairman's discretion. I would recommend that you allow the person to testify. Grove: All right. Johnson: Nona Haddock. You should be -- Haddock: Can you -- can you hear me now? Johnson: We can hear you. Haddock: Okay. Thank you. What I remember from the last time that we had this meeting -- the main thing that we were concerned about was the traffic and coming out of Ruddy, all of the traffic in that subdivision to the west, will be a tremendous amount, because people will not want to go down Linder Road and down Franklin Road to get to the freeway. Of course they, will pick the easiest route. The way it's designed now that would take all those people through the Tanner Creek Subdivision and I strongly request that a road be made where Ruddy connects that goes over against the freeway and follows the freeway up to the intersection, so all the development happens on the north side of that road. That road can be abutting along the side of the freeway and it will give more length for traffic than Walmart Lane ever will and it will give better access. That way you don't have people going through Tanner Creek coming and going from work. It will divert that traffic into a safer zone. Thank you. Grove: Thank you. All right. And we will have the applicant come back up if you would like. Mansfield: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I don't have much. I -- I do think that, you know, if there was a collector roadway that was placed along the freeway we would certainly use that. ACHD has not acquired right-of-way there. So, you know, we are using the existing right-of-way to construct a collector roadway, which is designed to carry Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. April 28,2022 F60 Page 57 of 66 the number of vehicles that ACHD predicts will be, you know, generated through this Tanner Creek and other developments who might use the collector roadway that exist now. Thank you. Appreciate it. Grove: All right. At this time we can take a motion to close the public hearing or if we are leaning towards doing a continuance maybe it's more prudent -- sorry. I keep turning. Maybe it's more prudent that we keep it open for that purpose. But wanted to have that conversation with you all now before we close it in case you want to close and, then, discuss and open back up or close and -- and continue on, but -- Yearsley: Mr. Chair? Grove: Yes, Mr. Yearsley. Yearsley: I'm just going to speak openly, like I always do. I -- I like the project. I -- I think it's an appropriate fit. I -- I think your -- your-- your -- your improvements are appropriate for the area. There is not much else you can do to make the traffic better and everything and I think -- I actually approved the Schultz development when it came to the first time as well. So, overall I think it's good. However, at this juncture I don't know if I can feel comfortable going against staff's recommended denial at this point, based on the concerns that they have and especially with the TIS and I understand that the issues that -- my guess is they are trying to get it going, so they can get locked in with their tenants and stuff like that, but I don't know if I'm comfortable making a motion to proceed forward with this and -- and my guess is he would prefer a denial versus a continuance, so he can go before Council, instead of just waiting. And so I would recommend we close public hearing and just proceed forward. Wheeler: Mr. Chair? Grove: Mr. Wheeler. Wheeler: I would like to go ahead and make a motion that we close public testimony on H-2021-0099. Yearsley: Second. Grove: Motion has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing. All those in favor say aye. All right. Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Lorcher: Mr. Chair? Grove: Commissioner Lorcher. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. April 28,2022 F61 Page 58 of 66 Lorcher: I need to give full disclosure. A couple of people who testified tonight are family members. Kelsee Lorcher and Joe Lorcher -- Joe is my brother-in-law and Kelsee is his daughter. I do not have any invested interest in the property. I don't live in that area. I consulted with Legal to see if I needed to recuse myself and because I have no financial interest he didn't say I had to, but I did want to let you know that I did have some family members testify tonight. Grove: Thank you. Yearsley: I wondered if that was the case. Wheeler: Mr. Chair? Grove: Mr. Wheeler. Wheeler: I -- I have -- I'm trying to just get things sorted out in my head, maybe it's just because it's a little bit late and part of it's because what I'm reading here and what I'm hearing being taught, discussed, or somehow-- I'm -- maybe I'm not picking it up together, so I was wondering if-- Sonya, if you can help me, just get some parameters on what we are actually approving today here. So, from what I understand all we are doing is that we are -- we are approving and if -- if we were what they are -- what they have been coming before us is they are requesting approval for an annexation to have that rezoned to C-G for that 18 acres, is that what I understand? Allen: Mr. Chair, Commissioner, yes, that's correct. Wheeler: Okay. And, then, the other part is they are asking for just a re-zone in the bottom 33 and some change acres from MU-C to MU-R. Is that what I understand? Allen: No. It's -- it's not a re-zone, it's an amendment to our future land use map in the Comprehensive Plan. Wheeler: Okay. Allen: The land use designation -- the future land use designation from mixed use community to mixed use regional. Wheeler: Okay. So, that being the case, their site plan that they put up there with all the stuff, we are not approving that at all. Allen: That concept plan is associated with the annexation request. Wheeler: Okay. But not what's going on -- Allen: So, it's two separate applications. The concept plan is for the overall site and it does include the portion that's already annexed in the city and is zoned C-G. So, that Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. April 28,2022 F62 Page 59 of 66 portion is actually entitled to develop per the uses allowed in the C-G zoning district. It is not -- future development will not be tied -- if you -- if you recommend approval of the annexation tonight and if Council actually approves the annexation, that northern portion, although it's part of the concept plan, will not be part of the development agreement. Wheeler: Okay. Allen: Only the southern portion that's subject to the annexation request will be subject to the concept plan if it's approved. Wheeler: Okay. Grove: Sonya, I have a question regarding how that would work out. So, if the C-G continued, they built that, but, then, sold the property below, how -- because there is no DA with the C-G, how would we guarantee access to that property that would be south of the C-G property, but east of the canal and north of the freeway and west of the on-ramp, essentially? Allen: Well, the parcel configuration isn't changing, Mr. Chair. It's -- it's the same. Grove: My -- I think my question is where would you -- like where would you get access -- like -- because there -- if there is not a cross-parking lot agreement and -- for the DA, is that a concern? Allen: No. It's all under the same developer. Grove: For now. I guess that the -- I mean I -- like I would just be -- I don't know. I'm nervous about that I guess and -- I don't know -- I don't know if I'm -- I know that I'm not clearly expressing that, so -- Bill, can bail me out? Parsons: Mr. Chair, I think I'm following your logic. So, essentially, if Hawkins developed the C-G portion of the property and sold off the property that's currently in the county, then, we would require a cross-access agreement with the development of the C-G portion and they would have to provide that executed agreement with us in the future and, then, when that property to the south were to annex or develop, they would reciprocate and make sure. We can't -- we can't approve a development and close off their access. I would let the Commission know that there was a street stubbed to that property and the applicant did go through the vacation process with ACHD to change that from being a public road access to a future cross-access as you see on the concept plan. Grove: Okay. Thanks. I will go ahead and jump in with a few pieces, if it's not already evident, that I have some major concerns with this moving forward, either through denial or approval, just without having additional information. I feel like this is one of those ones where it would be really easy for Council to send it back to us, because we are sending it up without good information, so I -- I would have a hard time doing anything other than a continuance, but I will -- I'm not making motions, so that's on you all. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. April 28,2022 F63] Page 60 of 66 Lorcher: Mr. Chair? Grove: Yes. Lorcher: So, the ACHD study comes out in June; correct? That's what he alluded to? Grove: That's the best -- Lorcher: So, if we were going to do a continuance, can we continue out that far? I mean we are only -- it's May 1st on Monday, so we are at least possibly eight to ten weeks away. Grove: We would --we would conceivably have to push it beyond that, because we would need to have time for staff to look at it and analyze it with -- through July 4th right there I would probably be more inclined to say at the beginning of August. Lorcher: So, are we allowed to push it out that far? Starman: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Lorcher, yeah, I think in this instance, because the traffic impact study is such a critical piece of your decision-making and your deliberations, there is no legal prohibition in terms of continuing the public hearing until you have adequate information to make your decision. That's my first part of the answer. But the short answer to that is, yes, you may continue this to July or August. The next part of my comment is really for the Commission to decide is because of that lengthy -- if you go that direction you may want to consider re-noticing the hearing in the interest of transparency to make sure the public's aware of what's happening. That's a pretty lengthy period of time. I don't -- I wouldn't go as far as to say a legal requirement, but it would be in the interest of transparency. Yearsley: Mr. Chair? I think -- as Sonya stated I think there is two aspects with this is one is the traffic impact study. The other one is -- is analyzing -- you know, as she says in her staff report, the -- the proposed development is not consistent with the general mixed use development guidelines as the existing MU-C or the proposed MU-R guidelines and that's why they are not in support of this annexation. That has nothing to do with the traffic impact study. So, I mean even if we continue it out there is still that other aspect that we -- we don't have enough information to -- to analyze and so with that being said the -- the applicant is -- is willing to take his chance in front of City Council, hoping that, you know, they can, you know, talk to, you know, for -- for me I -- I'm -- my rec -- my -- my thing on the Council is -- on Planning and Zoning is does it adhere to the code and stuff like that. Council gets a little bit better -- I think a little more leeway on some of these decisions, but based on this information I -- I can't -- I don't see a reason to continue it based on staff's comment. Wheeler: Mr. Chair? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. April 28,2022 F64] Page 61 of 66 Grove: Commissioner Wheeler. Wheeler: I had another thought on this here, too, is -- yeah, I see that the -- you know, the traffic study, but also like what Commissioner Yearsley was saying; right? It had to do more with like the uses on it, but I mean I'm looking around at just even like aerial photos, aerial views, you know, which is Google and there -- there is no other residential that's on any of these corners or even on the other side or across from it and so I can see why that would be just a very natural thing for the applicant to say, hey, the highest and best use and what seems to be concurrent with surrounding is -- is office, mixed use -- excuse me -- office, retail, because that's what's around in those side of things and so I'm -- I'm in support of the -- of the rezoning aspect to mixed use regional, but as staff also said, there is -- the components even in that side of it aren't -- well, on the site plan aren't even -- don't even work out with what's there. Grove: Yeah. You still need three products -- Wheeler: Right. Grove: -- three types. Pretty sure we build residential as one of those for mixed use regional; is that correct? Allen: Chairman, yes. Residential is one component you could have. There is -- there is several in the Comprehensive Plan. Wheeler: So -- so, it might be something where they even -- could even put in like a multi- family function on that -- or even just like a hotel, motel, kind of thing, might be able to function on this, too. Definitely they are going to want to have an anchor tenant and that one at that size would be enough to be able to draw the traffic into it, but I mean I -- I'm just -- I'm just thinking of the concurrency with everything else that's around there, except for to the west with the residential subdivision, to me it makes a lot of sense to not -- at least have that residential component on there. Lorcher: Mr. Chair? Grove: Legal -- Starman: Let me just put something on the table very quickly and I can pause for a moment, so with the chairman's indulgence. Yeah, because we are in a quasi-judicial type setting it's important that everybody has the same information before them, so when, you know, comments are made, like I'm looking at a Google screen or I'm looking at-- I'm looking at aerial photographs, that not everybody has -- is privy to, that creates a potential problem for the record. So, I wonder if I could ask Commissioner Wheeler would it be possible for you just to share your screen for a few seconds, so that everybody can see what you were talking about and that way the record is preserved and we have got a nice clean record of what transpired. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. April 28,2022 F65 Page 62 of 66 Lorcher: And Mr. Chair? Wheeler: You bet. Lorcher: In regard to the west side -- or the north side of Waltman Lane, Commissioner Wheeler, there are residences over there. They are farms and there is five to ten acre parcels and, then, the subdivision. So, there are people who live on the -- that side of the street. Starman: Perfect. Thank you, Commissioner. I appreciate that. And thank you for indulging me. Wheeler: Chairman -- Mr. Chairman? Commissioner Lorcher, what I'm saying is that on the other three sides is what I'm saying on my -- on my view; right? You have got -- it's just this area over here nothing residential; right? This whole area here nothing residential. This area over here nothing residential. It's only on this side where there is that factor that they have to be coming into and so what I'm just saying is I can see from the applicant's side that this part right here that's got a high traffic on-off ramp -- on-ramp here and the -- and the heavy use here, that there is not a residential component on the side that's -- that's where the -- the on-ramp doesn't even fully merge into 1-84 at that juncture and I see that it's all -- you know, it's still very high trafficked area that there is nothing that's there that has a residential component. That's all that I'm saying is I see why they would say why don't we push that a little bit further west or farther west. Excuse me. Grove: All right. So, Commissioner Yearsley, you were getting close to making a motion at one point of denial. Is that where you still want to take that? Yearsley: That's where I'm proposing. I guess I can make the motion and see where it falls. So, Mr. Chair, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to City Council of file number H-2021-0099 as presented in the hearing date of April 28th, 2022, for the following reasons: That the requested use is not consistent with the general mixed-use development guidelines and the existing -- the existing MU-C or the proposed MU-R guidelines and we -- and needing a traffic impact study. Stoddard: Second. Grove: All right. So, we have a motion and a second for denial. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed say nay. All right. Denial passes. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. 6. Public Hearing Continued from April 21, 2022 for Future Land Use Map Ada County Area of City Impact Cleanup (H-2021-0098) by City of Meridian Planning Division, Located Citywide Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. April 28,2022 F66 Page 63 of 66 A. Request: Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to clean up the map to better align with the adopted Ada County Area of City Impact (AOCI) boundary AND removing Civic designations and areas that will be serviced by other jurisdictions (Boise). Grove: All right. Last agenda item for the night and we have Brian joining us to discuss public hearing for Future Land Use Map Ada County Area City Impact Cleanup, which is file H-2021-0098, and we will pass it over to Brian. McClure: Sorry. I'm finding the PowerPoint. Oops. Good evening, Commission. I'm here tonight to discuss a Comprehensive Plan future land use map amendment. This application has no associated entitlements, no annexations, no anything else with it. Briefly some background. The genesis of this application goes back to December of 2019, like some other things tonight, and it's focused on the area of city impact boundary. After the new Comprehensive Plan was submitted Ada county staff led some coordination efforts to work with the other cities and Ada county and as part of that ultimately the Board of County Commissioners adopted our Comprehensive Plan with some minor tweaks to the area of city impact. This amendment aligns with those changes. There is also an additional AOCI, Area of City Impact, change to -- at the request of ACHD. They are developing a project on Franklin Road east of Eagle. That project falls in both Meridian and Boise boundaries and they are moving forward in Boise. Both Ada county and the city of Boise have coordinated with us on that application. As stated, a key element of this amendment is the continued coordination with other agencies. It's also intended to better reflect our service planning efforts, to improve transparency, to reduce efforts -- errors and to maintain a plan that is a living document. Broadly, the changes before you tonight can be categorized into two areas. One is map changes. Those include both area of city impact revisions and also future land use map designation revisions. The other one are graphic changes. These are generally other things on the map and include the legend. The graphic changes includes a new special area designation. Previously that was just for the Ten Mile Area Plan. That now includes The Fields Sub Area Plan, which was previously approved, but is not shown on the map. I will briefly walk through some of these changes. But on the right you can sort of see the areas where the land use designations and area of city impact boundary revisions are taking place. For area one here on the left, the only change is to remove a section of the -- of the area of city impact from our future land use map. That's on the northwest corner of US 20-26 and Highway 16. That area is no longer being planned for services in the City of Meridian. You have no access to it from the City of Meridian and Star has already taken that into their -- their area of city impact and the county has already approved that. The change on the right is an exceptionally minor change. It would be a scrivener's error, except I wanted to just sort of daylight why it's there. Generally when we make land use map changes we like them to be consistent with other -- with other boundaries, so follow a center line, follow a parcel line, whatever that one is. This one just sort of floated by itself and didn't follow what other map designations were doing and so in the future when you have a map amendment that's kind of what I would like to see happen. So, no significance there, other than just looking for some consistency. For area three on the left here, this is -- as previously -- previously mentioned is just removing the ACHD property from our Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. April 28,2022 F67 Page 64 of 66 area of city impact. They do own several parcels -- more area, actually, in the city of Boise. Area four on the right looks complicated. It's not. There are no impacts in Meridian. All the properties in Meridian have already had entitlements handled. They have already had zoning done. This is just sort of modifying the future land use designation to align with our city limits. The other properties being removed are either already annexed into the city of Boise or are planned to be serviced by the city of Boise. Area five here on the left is another removal from the area of city impact. You are probably familiar with this site. It's the old barn on Fairview east of Kleiner Park. That area has been annexed into the city of Boise and so we are just removing it from our boundary. Area six here includes some -- what I consider to be cleanup changes. Those are actual future land use designate -- future land use designation changes that aren't associated with some of the other things I have mentioned previously. Both of these have civic designations currently and neither one of these properties are owned by a public agency or quasi-public agency. The one on the right along Meridian Road is what's happening across the street. That used to be old city hall, is now in private hands, and the proposal here is to change the designation to Old Town to match the Old Town zoning and what's already around it. The one on the left further down Pine is actually a bit of a mystery. It has had a civic designation for decades. I'm not -- I haven't been able to figure out why, but it is an R-4 property with a residential use on it and so the proposal here is just to clean that up and make it R-4, the rest of it. Area seven. These changes are a little less clean up. The one on Franklin is currently medium high density residential. That actually covers nothing but commercial uses, though. That includes a commercial development within the City of Meridian. It's been building out for a while and, then, it also includes a commercial use in the county. It's right by the cemetery and it's surrounded by industrial uses. You probably notice the old ranch style home there being operated as a business, is basically what that area is. And, then, also the office park next door. And, then, the last one down at the bottom is -- used to be commercial, we are proposing it to go to civic, because West Ada and ISU own that property. It is an ISU parking lot and fields that are currently used by both the school and the city. Next up are some of the graphic changes. This is the new symbology for the future land use map. You have probably actually seen this in some of the staff reports if you didn't notice. We have been using these for a while on our internal and unofficial maps. This was an effort to really just sort of improve the visibility of some of these. A lot of the colors, particularly the yellows and the browns, bled together. We added some hatching to some of them to differentiate the -- the extremes. We could add hatching to all of them, but it makes your eyes bleed and we don't want it to be too busy. So, we -- we try to take a minor touch to that. We did -- I have talked with some staff that have some color deficiencies and they seem to like this a lot more. So, hopefully, you find some benefit, but we are always willing to take feedback. Here you can just see the new special sub area planning boundary and you can just see that it's both the Ten Mile and The Fields area now it's really just renaming the legend item. We will note that all the interactive maps when you click anywhere in here, it not only pulls up the -- the land use designation, but it will also give you a link to the relevant sub area plan. On March 4th staff did send out letters to all property owners falling within -- under these areas of changes. I did receive several phone calls from people who were interested, but no one seemed concerned and as of this afternoon I did Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. April 28,2022 F68 Page 65 of 66 not see any written public testimony. With that staff is recommending the changes as proposed and I'm happy to take questions. Grove: All right. Do we have questions? Yearsley: Mr. Chair? So, are we making a motion to approve or recommending approval to City Council? McClure: Recommend approval to the City Council. Yearsley: I don't see any problem with it. It just seems pretty -- pretty clear. Grove: All right. So, it is a public hearing. So, do we have anybody signed up to testify on this application? Johnson: Mr. Chair, we have nobody signed up and nobody online or in the room. Grove: All right. Well, that makes it easy. So, can we get a motion to close the public hearing for file number H-2021-0098 for the Future Land Use Map Ada County Area of City Impact Cleanup. Lorcher: So moved. Wheeler: Second. Grove: All right. We have a motion and a second to close public hearing. All in favor say aye. All right. All opposed nay? All right. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Wheeler: Any comment or -- or I will -- I will let you make the motion. Go for it. Want to do it? You haven't done one yet. Do you want to do it? No, not yet? Okay. All right. All right. This is a pretty easy one, so that's why I was like, hey, I will give you a little softball pitch if you want to make a run at it. No public and -- you want to make a run at it? She's thinking. Yearsley: The only problem is there is nothing to read, so that's -- Wheeler: Okay. Okay. All righty. So -- so, Mr. Chair, after considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move that we recommend approval to the City Council on file number H-2021-0098 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 28th, 2022, with no modifications. Stoddard: Second. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. April 28,2022 F69 Page 66 of 66 Grove: All right. It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed to say nay. The ayes have it. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Grove: Thank you, Brian, for presenting that and good job on all the clean up. The -- the Eagle Road one, that was a fun one to look through. It -- you say it's not confusing, but it was. It looks confusing with all the colors. There is a lot of colors going on. So, thank you for making it better. Yearsley: Mr. Chair, I recommend we adjourn. Lorcher: Second. Grove: Motion and second to adjourn. All those in agreement say aye. All those opposed? All right. Thanks, everybody. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:00 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED NICK GROVE - VICE-CHAIRMAN ATTEST: Approved 5-19-2022 CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK Item 1. 3 E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Approve Minutes of the April 21, 2022 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. April 21,20229 $ Page 5 of 5 MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. 7. Public Hearing for Future Land Use Map Ada County Area of City Impact Cleanup (H-2021-0098) by City of Meridian Planning Division, Located Citywide A. Request: Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to clean up the map to better align with the adopted Ada County Area of City Impact (AOCI) boundary AND removing Civic designations and areas that will be serviced by other jurisdictions (Boise). Seal: We will now open H-2021-0098 for the Future Land Use Map of Ada County Area of City of Impact Cleanup. Can I get a motion to continue H-2021-0098 to the date of April 28th, 2022. Grove: So moved. Stoddard: Second. Seal: It is moved and seconded to continue File No. H-2021-0098 to the date of April 28th, 2022. All in favor, please, say aye. Any opposed? Okay. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Seal: All right. We need one more motion, please. Grove: Move to adjourn. Grace: Second. Seal: It is moved and seconded that we adjourn. All those in favor say aye. No opposed? Motion carries. Thank you all very much. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:07 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED ANDREW SEAL - CHAIRMAN ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK E K IDIAN:--- iuAn Planning and Zoning Presentations and outline Changes to Agenda: None Item #2: Alamar Subdivision (H-2022-0004) Application(s):  Annexation and Zoning and Preliminary Plat Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of two parcels totaling 5.63 acres of land, currently zoned RUT in the county, located at 4380 W. Franklin. History: N/A Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Medium-High Density Residential (within the Ten Mile Plan) Summary of Request: Annexation and Zoning of approximately 8.23 acres of land with a request for the TN-R (Traditional Neighborhood Residential) zoning district and a Preliminary Plat consisting of 51 building lots (30 single family attached lots and 21 detached single-family lots), 6 common lots, and 2 other lots (common driveways) on 5.63 acres in the proposed TN-R zoning district. Designated as MHDR within the Ten Mile Specific Area Plan. The MHDR designation allows for a mix of dwelling types including townhouses, condominiums, and apartments. Residential gross densities should range from 8 to 15 dwelling units per acre and is noted with a “target” density of 12 du/ac. Proposed plat consisting of 51 residential units of a mix of attached and detached homes constitutes a gross density of 9.1 du/ac and is consistent with the Comp Plan. Access to the development is proposed via a new connection to W. Franklin Road at the south property boundary. Access to Franklin is intended to be temporary until such time a future connection is made to adjacent properties. Specifically, future access should occur to the east via a local street connection to W. Atomic Street in the Ascent Townhome project on the east side of Zimmerman Lane (not part of this project area) and to a future extension of W. Aviator Street on the adjacent property to the north/northeast. Staff has conditions of approval associated with the future road connections. In response to the Staff Report, the Applicant has requested a new/modified DA Provision regarding the phasing of the project to include the homes along W. Atomic Street within phase 1 instead of phase 2. Staff is amenable to this. The termination of the proposed north-south local street at the north boundary deserves some flexibility due to ongoing conversations with an adjacent landowner and future development. Staff has included a DA provision to allow this Applicant the flexibility to revise the road alignment and lot layout with the future Phase 2 final plat should they be able to work out a mutually beneficial agreement with the adjacent property owner. This recommended provision does not require this Applicant revise their plat at any point but its intent is to provide flexibility to the Applicant to make any necessary revisions to the plat without having to go through the hearing process for subsequent changes that do not increase the number of building lots or drastically change the project design but help the overall road network in this area of the City. Proposed plat has a minimum building lot size proposed is 2,038 square feet with an average lot size of 2,762 square feet and includes detached sidewalks and 6-foot parkways (report notes 8-foot – staff mistake). As noted, the plat is currently proposed to develop in two phases due to the available access to the site. The phasing plan depicts construction of 22 building lots in the southern half of the site with three open space lots (including the largest centralized open space lot) in Phase 1 with the public roads terminating less than 150 feet from the internal intersection. Phase 2 then depicts the remaining building lots to the north and east of the centralized intersection to be constructed along with some remaining open space drainage lots along the north boundary. Planning and Fire support the proposed phasing plan and the requested revision, should the access to Atomic Street be constructed. A minimum of 15% qualified open space is required for projects over 5 acres within the TN-R district, per the UDC. Based on the plat area of 5.63 acres, the minimum amount of qualified open space required to meet UDC 11-3G-3 standards is approximately 36,786 square feet. According to Staff’s analysis of the submitted plans, the Applicant is proposing approximately 32,500 square feet of qualified open space; this area does not meet the minimum 15% requirement. There is potential of the entire Lot 12, Block 1 counting towards the qualified open space if additional pedestrian facilities are added to this lot, the area is improved per the UDC, and NMID does not restrict access to their access road. These cumulative revisions are required in order for this easement area of Lot 12 to count towards the qualified open space. If these revisions cannot occur, the Applicant will need to add approximately 4,300 square feet of additional qualified open space in the project—because of the site design, this would likely require the loss of building lots. Specific to the Ten Mile Plan, front loaded dwellings are not preferred and if they are proposed, the garages should be set back from the living area façade to help create a more porch dominated streetscape rather than garage dominated. According to the submitted elevations and floor plans, the Applicant has proposed units with the garages considerably behind the living area facades. This design provides for a more porch dominated street façade compared to traditional single-family residential, as desired. Staff is including a DA provision to ensure this type of design is maintained for the project. Overall, Staff fully supports the proposed home design and street- oriented design of the project. Written Testimony: None Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval per the conditions noted in the staff report. Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H- 2022-0004, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 28, 2022, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number H-2022- 0004, as presented during the hearing on April 28, 2022, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2022-0004 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item #3: Burnside (Jackson) Ridge Estates Subdivision (H-2021-0070) Application(s):  Annexation and Zoning and Preliminary Plat Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 6 county parcels totaling 119.31 acres of land, zoned RUT in the county, located generally near the southwest corner of Linder and Victory. History: N/A Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Medium Density Residential and Low Density Residential Summary of Request: Request for Annexation & Zoning of 121.29 acres of land from RUT in Ada County to the R-2 (11.76 acres) and R-4 (109.53) zoning districts and a preliminary plat consisting of 299 total lots (275 single-family residential lots and 24 common lots) on 119.31 acres of land. Proposed plat shows compliance with UDC dimensional standards for the proposed R-2 and R-4 lots with an average lot size around 10k square feet and 5-foot detached sidewalks and 8-foot parkways throughout the entire development. Three (3) new accesses are proposed to the adjacent arterial streets, Linder and Victory Roads. Two of these are new collector streets per the Master Street Map (shown as S. Farmyard Avenue and E. Holstein Drive) with each one connecting to the arterials. All other access to proposed homes is via new local streets. Applicant is proposing to stub the new collector street (E. Holstein) to the west boundary for future connectivity. E. Holstein is also proposed along the entire southern boundary for future connectivity to the south. Proposed north-south collector street, S. Farmyard, provides a stub street to the east property line adjacent to 1995 W. Victory Road (Parcel #S1226110255). No other stub streets are proposed. Staff is recommending a new stub street from Pivot Drive to the north property boundary and a new cross street from S. Red Angus Way heading northeast to S. International Way across the Calkins Lateral in alignment with E. Drawbar Street to create compliant block lengths. Otherwise, the Applicant will need to obtain a Council waiver for the proposed block length of S. Red Angus Way, approximately 1,400 feet long. Project is proposed to be constructed in 5 phases per the phasing plan with at least two fire approved access points proposed within phase 1 (no limit on number of building lots). Staff has recommended including the clubhouse and pool and its open space lot within phase 1; after discussion with Applicant, Staff is amenable to revising this DA provision to state with phase 2 instead (148 building lots in first two phases). The Calkins Lateral currently bisects the south half of the project site and at the time of staff report writing, Staff thought the lateral was proposed to remain open—this is incorrect per discussions with the Applicant. Therefore, some of staff’s conditions are not entirely accurate. Applicant and Staff are awaiting confirmation from the irrigation district on the correct easement width with the lateral being piped instead of left open for the purpose of any building lot encroachment and required landscaping along the multi-use pathway segment within this common lot. Application was submitted prior to the latest open space standard revisions. Therefore, project was analyzed against previous code. Based on the proposed plat of 119.3 acres, a minimum of 11.9 acres of qualified common open space should be provided to satisfy the requirements. According to the Applicant’s open space exhibit, a total of 12.19 acres of qualified open space (approximately 10.22%) is proposed which meets the minimum code required. However, the open space exhibit does not include the parkways proposed throughout the entire development. Should the parkways be vegetated per code with the correct number of trees, this additional area would count towards the open space and add a considerable amount of qualified area. A minimum of six (6) qualified site amenities are required to be provided per the old open space standards (1 amenity for every 20 acres). According to the submitted plans, the Applicant is proposing at least eight (8) qualifying amenities to satisfy UDC requirements: Clubhouse, swimming pool, children’s play structures, pickleball court, multi-use pathways, shaded picnic area, public art, and outdoor fitness equipment. The proposed amenities exceed code requirements. Proposed amenities would exceed current amenity requirements in the updated open space code. The subject project area contains two future land use designations, Low Density Residential (LDR) and Medium Density Residential (MDR), with the MDR designation taking up a larger area of the project, approximately 80 acres compared to 39 acres respectively. Future Land Use 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. A designation may not be used however, across planned or existing collector or arterial roadways, must not be used on a parcel not directly abutting the designation, and may not apply to more than 50% of the land being developed. Based on this policy, the LDR designation can be “floated” beyond the area depicted on the future land use map up to the east side of the north-south collector street proposed with this development (S. Farmyard Avenue). Subsequently, the gross density west of S. Farmyard must meet the minimum gross density for the MDR designation (at least 3 du/ac.). Additionally, the plan allows gross densities to be rounded up or down, therefore the minimum gross density of this area must be at least 2.5 du/ac. According to the submitted plans, the area west of the proposed collector is approximately 54 acres and contains 126 units which is approximately 2.33 du/ac and does not meet the minimum gross density of the MDR designation. Therefore, the Applicant should add at least 9 additional building lots to meet the minimum density requirement. However, to increase the number of lots in this area it would require the applicant to amend their plat and propose smaller lot sizes that would likely not meet the R-4 dimensional standards. Therefore, Staff recommends the applicant include an area of R-8 zoning in the north area of the plat (Blocks 2 & 3) to allow for some lot sizes smaller than R-4 dimensional standards. If the Applicant does not wish to increase the number of lots, then a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment is required and this project should be delayed to allow the applicant to submit a concurrent CPAM application which could be processed no earlier than June 15th. Written Testimony: 1 piece from Stetson Estates residents – Noting project does not comply with Comp Plan and vision of Meridian. Desire to keep the existing outer areas of Meridian as more rural and less developed consistent with existing lifestyles in this area of the City. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval. Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H- 2021-0070, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 28, 2022, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number H-2021- 0070, as presented during the hearing on April 28, 2022, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2021-0070 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item #4: Grayson Subdivision (H-2022-0014) Application(s):  Annexation and Zoning and Preliminary Plat Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 3.1 acres of land, zoned RUT in the county, located near the northeast corner of Amity and Locust Grove. History: N/A Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Medium Density Residential (MDR) Summary of Request: Request for Annexation and Zoning of 3.39 acres from RUT to the R-8 zoning district and a Preliminary Plat consisting of 15 single-family residential building lots and 3 common lots on 3.1 acres of land in the requested R-8 zoning district. Proposed plat for 15 residential units on 3.1 acres constitutes a gross density of 4.84 du/ac, consistent with the MDR designation. The minimum building lot size proposed is 5,489 square feet (average lot size of 6,169 square feet) which is nearly 1,500 square feet above the minimum lot size for the requested R-8 zoning district. The adjacent Estancia Subdivision is of lower density and has larger building lots than what are proposed with this project. There are no more than 2 building lots proposed adjacent to any single existing lot along the north boundary and the Applicant has placed their drainage lot in the northeast corner of the project adjacent to two Estancia lots. Furthermore, there are 6 building lots within Estancia along the north boundary where the Applicant has proposed 7 building lots and 1 common lot with this project. Staff does not find the difference of one (1) building lot along this shared property line to be significant enough to recommend any lot count revision. Consistent with the existing Estancia development, the Applicant is proposing to continue the parkways and detached sidewalks into this development to match that design characteristic. The Applicant is also proposing a micro-path at the southwest corner of the property to add a pedestrian connection to the required multi-use pathway along Amity. Per the Pathways Coordinator and the Master Pathways Plan, a 10-foot wide multi-use pathway is required along the E. Amity Road frontage. This required pathway should be located within the required landscape buffer and outside of the ACHD right-of-way. Applicant is showing a 5-foot detached sidewalk instead so Staff has included a condition of approval to correct this prior to Final Plat submittal. Plat complies with all UDC dimensional standards except for block length of Grayson. Proposed block length is approximately 550 feet; UDC allows a maximum dead-end street length of 500 feet without a Council Waiver. Due to constraints of existing development, an arterial street as a border with no access allowed, and the projects proximity to the intersection of Amity and Locust Grove, Staff finds a Council waiver applicable in this case. Access is proposed via extension of the existing stub street, E. Grayson Street stubbed to the east property boundary; it is proposed to be extended into the site and terminate in a hammerhead-type turnaround by encumbering a building lot. ACHD has denied this type of temporary turnaround and is requiring a temporary cul-de-sac instead. Staff anticipated this and already has a condition with this potential outcome in mind (will encumber 2 building lots instead of 1). Written Testimony: None Staff Recommendation: Approval Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H- 2022-0014, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 28, 2022, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number H-2022- 0014, as presented during the hearing on April 28, 2022, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2022-0014 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item #5: I-84 and Meridian Rd. (H-2021-0099) Application(s):  Annexation  Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This CPAM portion of this site consists of 33.13 acres & the annexation portion consists of 18.3 acres of land, zoned C-G and RUT in Ada County, generally located at the NWC of S. Meridian Rd. & I-84. History: The northern portion of this site was previously annexed in 1984 & 2002; no DA’s were required w/annexation. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Mixed Use – Community (MU-C) Summary of Request: The Applicant requests an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan FLUM to change the future land use designation on 33.13-acres of land from MU-C to Mixed Use – Regional (MU-R); and annexation of 18.30-acres of land with a C-G (General Retail & Service Commercial) zoning district. A conceptual development plan was submitted as shown that depicts how the property proposed to be annexed, as well as the area currently zoned C-G, is planned to develop with two (2) big box retail stores and a junior anchor retail space (Retail 1) consisting of 130,000-150,000 square feet (s.f.), Retail 2 (80,000+/- s.f.), Retail 3/Lot 2 (20,000-30,000 s.f.)\], 3 out-pads w/2 drive-thru’s, and a 4- story 80,000 square foot office building. The northern portion of the site already zoned C-G is entitled to develop subject to UDC Table 11-2B-2 Allowed Uses in the Commercial Districts, regardless of whether or not the annexation is approved. A vehicular connection/stub is depicted on the concept plan to the property to the west for future extension across the Ten Mile creek and for interconnectivity. The Applicant has submitted an emergency access easement agreement with the property owner to the west for access to Ruddy Dr. and Waltman Ln. Per the Comp Plan, mixed use designated areas should include at least three (3) types of land uses. The proposed concept plan only includes two (2) land use types – commercial retail and office. Although residential land uses are still planned to develop on the adjacent property to the west, the property is currently entitled to develop solely with commercial uses; the previous residential development proposed for that property (Tanner Creek) was denied. Reasons for denial included Council’s determination that the sole residential use of the property was not consistent with the MU-C designation because a mix of uses wasn’t proposed and they didn’t want to burden this property with providing only the non-residential component of the mix of uses desired for this area. For this reason, Staff recommended this property and the adjacent property to the west come in for review concurrently in order to ensure the overall development is consistent with the development guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan for the mixed-use designation. Because the TIS for that development is in the queue for review at ACHD and isn’t anticipated to be reviewed until at least June, the Applicant declined to wait and chose to move forward on their own. In accord with Staff’s analysis in the report, the proposed development is not consistent with the general mixed-use development guidelines, the existing MU-C or the proposed MU-R guidelines. The project as proposed is a commercial development, not mixed use; there are no significant attempts to integrate any of the on-site uses or with any of the adjacent uses; there are no community serving uses for existing & future residents; pedestrian connections are proposed through vehicular use areas which could result in vehicle/pedestrian conflicts and safety issues; no public/quasi-public uses are proposed except an open space area located in the middle of the parking area with unsafe access and at the periphery of the development. Staff is also concerned with the ability of the existing transportation network being able to support the proposed development as a TIS hasn’t been submitted for the proposed development. For these reasons, Staff is not in support of the requested annexation with the conceptual development plan proposed due to its inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan. As recommended in the pre-application meetings for this property and the adjacent property to the west, Staff recommends development applications are submitted concurrently for these properties with a master plan for the overall area that demonstrates consistency with the guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan for mixed use developments and specifically the MU-C designation or an alternate designation if proposed. Alternatively, if submitted separately, the development plan for each property should demonstrate consistency with the Plan on its own merits. The TIS should also be updated to take into consideration the development impacts of both properties in the overall mixed-use designated area & the necessary road and intersection improvements needed in this area in order for the street network to function sufficiently with the intensity of development proposed. Written Testimony: None Staff Recommendation: Denial per the analysis & Findings in the staff report. Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H- 2021-0099, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 28, 2022, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number H-2021- 0099, as presented during the hearing on April 28, 2022, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2021-0099 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Planning and Zoning Commission April 28, 2022Meeting Item #2: Alamar Subdivision AZ, PP PLANNED DEVELOPMENTZONING MAP Preliminary Plat Landscape Plan PhasingPlan Conceptual Floor PlansElevations and Item #3: Burnside Ridge Estates AZ, PP PLANNED DEVELOPMENTZONING MAP Preliminary Plat LandscapePlan PhasingPlan Markup Item #5: Grayson Subdivision AZ, PP AERIALZONING MAP Revised Preliminary Plat Landscape Plan Conceptual Elevations Item #5: I FLUMAERIALZONING MAP CPAM, AZ –84 & Meridian Road - Proposed Map Amendment Proposed Annexation Conceptual Development Plan Item 2. 9 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing Continued from April 21, 2022 for Alamar Subdivision (H- 2022-0004) by Noble Rock Development, Inc., Located at 4380 W. Franklin Rd. (Parcel #S1210346603), Near the Northeast Corner of N. Black Cat Rd. and W. Franklin Rd. A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of approximately 7.23 acres of land with a request for the TN-R (Traditional Neighborhood Residential) zoning district. B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 42 building lots (22 single-family attached lots and 20 detached single-family lots) and 4 common lots on 4.63 acres in the requested TN-R zoning district. -1 Item 2. 0 (:�N-WE IDIAN IDAHO PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Joseph Dodson Meeting Date: March 17, 2022 Topic: Public Hearing Continued from March 17, 2022 for Alamar Subdivision (H-2022- 0004) by Noble Rock Development, Inc., Located at 4380 W. Franklin Rd. (Parcel #S1210346603), Near the Northeast Corner of N. Black Cat Rd. and W. Franklin Rd. A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of approximately 7.23 acres of land with a request for the TN-R (Traditional Neighborhood Residential) zoning district. B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 42 building lots (22 single-family attached lots and 20 detached single-family lots) and 4 common lots on 4.63 acres in the requested TN-R zoning district. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET a j DATE: April 28, 2022 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 2 PROJECT NAME: Alamar Subdivision (H-2022-0004) Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify (Please Print) HOA? (mark X if yes) If yes, please provide HOA name Dim �9 c &.9.7!3 2 cM P, -7 A C �ism 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Item 2. ■ STAFF REPORTC�,WEIIDIAN -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT .►A H O �u HEARING April 28,2022 Legend DATE: 0 Project Location TO: Planning&Zoning Commission FROM: Joseph Dodson,Associate Planner V MS 208-884-5533 - SUBJECT: H-2022-0004 ; Alamar Subdivision LOCATION: The site is located at 4380 W. Franklin Road(Parcel#S 1210346603),near the northeast corner of N. Black Cat Road and W. Franklin Road, on the north side of Franklin Road, in the SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 10,Township 3N, Range 1 W. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Annexation and Zoning of approximately 8.23 acres of land with a request for the TN-R(Traditional Neighborhood Residential)zoning district and a Preliminary Plat consisting of 51 building lots (30 single family attached lots and 21 detached single-family lots), 6 common lots,and 2 other lots(common driveways)on 5.63 acres in the proposed TN-R zoning district. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage AZ—8.23 acres;PP—5.63 acres Future Land Use Designation Medium-High Density Residential(8-15 du/ac)within the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan(TMISAP) Existing Land Use(sipm Vacant County residence Proposed Land Use(s) Attached Single-Family Residential(SFR)and Detached SFR. Lots(#and type;bldg./common) 51 building lots(30 single-family attached,21 detached single family); and 6 common lots. Physical Features(waterways, Purdam stub drain runs along the north boundary of the hazards,flood plain,hillside) site; Purdam Gulch Drain runs along the west boundary but is not located on the subject site. Density,Gross 9.06 du/ac Neighborhood meeting date December 2,2021 and March 17,2022 History(previous approvals) No application history with the City of Meridian Pagel Item 2. 12 B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) No,as of April 20,2022. • Requires ACHD Commission No Action es/no Access(Arterial/Collectors/State Access is proposed via a new connection to W.Franklin Hwy/Local)(Existing and Road at the south property boundary.Access to Franklin Proposed) is intended to be temporary until such time a future connection to the extension of W.Aviator Street is constructed,a planned collector street that should abut the north boundary of the subject property. Access to the lots within the subdivision are proposed via the new local street. Traffic Level of Service Franklin Road(0' of frontage)—Better than"E"(474/575 VPH) _ Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross Applicant is proposing to extend the new internal local Access streets within the site and stub them to the east and north boundaries with Phase 2 of the development. See the attached preliminary plat. Existing Road Network W.Franklin Road abuts the south property boundary and is an existing arterial constructed with 5-lanes and at its full width. Proposed Road Improvements ACHD—CIP Black Cat is listed in the CIP to be widen to 5-lanes from Franklin to Cherry between 2031-2035. Black Cat is listed in the CIP to be widen to 5-lanes from Overland to Franklin between 2036-2040. Franklin Road is listed in the CIP to be widen to 5-lanes from McDermott Road to Black Cat between 2026-2030. Distance to nearest City Park(+ Fuller Park(21.96 acres)—approximately 1.7 miles by size) vehicle. Fire Service • Distance to Fire Station 2.5 miles from Station#2 • Fire Response Time Falls just outside of the 5-minute response time goal • Resource Reliability 85%(above the goal of 80%) • Accessibility As submitted,plat does not meet all requirements—Site needs secondary emergency access to construct homes behind the first phase 24 lots). • Additional Because project is at a dead-end road with no secondary Comments/Concerns access,only Phase 1 will be allowed to be constructed until a Fire Department approved secondary access is constructed. Wastewater • Distance to Sewer Services Directly adjacent • Impacts/concerns • Flow is committed • See Public Works Site Specific Conditions Water Page 2 Item 2. F13 • Distance to Water Services Directly adjacent • Pressure Zone 2 • Water Quality Concerns Water main will be a 1000 foot dead end until future development extends the main.A hydrant will be required at the end of the main to improve flushability. • Project Consistent with Water Yes Master Plan • Impacts/Concerns See Public Works Site Specific Conditions Page 3 Item 2. F14] C. Project Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Legend �IIHIPH !;! 0 Legend ® � 0 Project Location ! Medium Project Location i � DensiFV ty� dental p' General Industrial M sigh Density i dential ^r Gommerciah ! _ Low Densnsity Employment i Mixed Employment MU-Corn Zoning Map Planned Development Map Legend R_4 Legend Project Location Location R-g 0 Project Location � -� ® o R-15 R-8 � City Limits RUT_ Planned Parcels -- R(1 M- MlC-N - LC2 Ml R-F15 R-15 M1 RUT R.-8C-C R-40 Ad 8pa�oa TN C.0 M-E 8 III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Jeff Wrede,Noble Rock Development,Inc. 13601 W. McMillan Road, Ste. 102-162,Boise, ID 83713 B. Owner: Jeff Wrede,Marala Investments,LLC— 13601 W. McMillan Road, Ste. 102-162,Boise,ID 83713 Page 4 Item 2. 15 IV. NOTICING Planning&Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper Notification 4/5/2022 Radius notification mailed to properties within 500 feet 4/4/2022 Public hearing notice sign posted 4/11/2021 on site Nextdoor posting 4/5/2022 V. STAFF ANALYSIS A. ANNEXATION/COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The MHDR designation allows for a mix of dwelling types including townhouses,condominiums, and apartments. Residential gross densities should range from 8 to 15 dwelling units per acre and is noted with a"target"density of 12 du/ac. These areas are relatively compact within the context of larger neighborhoods and are typically located around or near mixed use commercial or employment areas to provide convenient access to services and jobs for residents. Developments need to incorporate high quality architectural design and materials and thoughtful site design to ensure quality of place and should also incorporate connectivity with adjacent uses and area pathways, attractive landscaping and a project identity. Per the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan(TMISAP),MHDR designated areas should include a mix of housing types such as row houses, townhouses,condominiums, alley-loaded homes, and apartments with higher densities near MU-C and Employment designated areas transitioning to smaller-scale and lower density buildings as the distance increases from higher intensity uses. The Applicant is requesting Annexation and Zoning of three parcels totaling 8.23 acres of land with a request for the Traditional Neighborhood Residential(TN-R)district and a Preliminary Plat to construct a mix of single-family dwelling types, single-family detached&attached units. The Applicant is proposing to annex the federally owned land west of the subject site that contains a segment of the Purdam Gulch Drain that is not part of the project area. The Applicant is proposing 51 total residential units on two parcels totaling 5.63 acres in the requested TN-R zoning district which constitutes a gross density of 9.1 du/ac;this density complies with the minimum density required within the future land use designation and is at the lower end of the allowed range. Further,the two proposed uses and site design are not currently seen within this area of the City or Ten Mile Plan but are two aspects desired by the Ten Mile Plan. hi addition to the subject project, surrounding development should be taken into account, to the northwest of the site,Hensley Station is currently under construction as a medium-high density townhouse subdivision and Aviation Subdivision was recently approved by Council which will bring Aviator Street extension even closer to the subject site;to the east of the subject site additional high- density residential projects are currently underway,Ascent Townhomes and Entrata Farms. In addition, south of Franklin Road is a larger area of the Ten Mile Plan with a mix of residential, commercial, employment, and industrial zoning. This site is part of a large area of MHDR that is slowly redeveloping from both the west and east of this site. Despite the subject site not being directly adjacent to existing or approved development,the subject site design and proposed uses are ones that are desired within this area of the City. Specifically,the Applicant's proposal of two different housing types,detached sidewalks, and garages set back behind the living area are desired within this area of Meridian and propose a project design consistent with many comprehensive plan policies. Page 5 Item 2. F16 Staff finds the project to be generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Specific general comprehensive plan policies are analyzed below. Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this application and apply to the proposed use and development of this property(staff analysis in italics): • "Encourage a variety of housing types that meet the needs, preferences, and financial capabilities of Meridian's present and future residents."(2.01.02D) The proposed development contains two types of housing units (attached and detached single-family) that will contribute to the variety of residential categories in the Ten Mile area and within the requested TN-R zoning district as desired. • "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 in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. • "Avoid the concentration of any one housing type or lot size in any geographical area;provide for diverse housing types throughout the City."(2.01.01 G) Two (2) housing types are proposed in this development, as noted above, which contributes to the variety of housing types in this area. Furthermore, the Applicant is proposing the entire project with detached sidewalks and parkways and each unit is shown with the garages set behind the living area, as desired within the Ten Mile Plan. • "Encourage compatible uses and site design to minimize conflicts and maximize use of land." (3.07.00) The proposed site design provides a maximum use of the land with the proposed residential dwelling types and should be compatible with planned development on adjacent properties that are also designated for MHDR uses. The project does abut three (3) existing 1-acre County residential properties to the east and until such time as these properties redevelop, there could be conflict between the two land uses as multiple structures are shown adjacent to these existing homes. However, the Applicant has held two neighborhood meetings on the property and only one of the current owners have attended while voicing minimal concerns. • "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) The proposed plat depicts relatively smaller areas of open space spread throughout the site. Notably, the main open space area is in the center of the development and is approximately 6,000 square feet with a bicycle repair station noted as the amenity. There are other, smaller open space lots at the north end of the site that are shown to contain storm drainage facilities but still provide open grassy areas (these are not proposed as open swale drainage ponds). Further, the Applicant is proposing detached sidewalks throughout the entire site that connect to the existing sidewalk along Franklin Road, an arterial. This should provide safe and easy access to this arterial sidewalk network and to the nearby charter school to the west. An open space exhibit was not submitted with the applications but it appears the Applicant has proposed approximately 32,500 square feet of qualified open space; this area does not meet the minimum 1 S%requirement which amounts to at least 36,700 square feet. However, if the Applicant is able to obtain irrigation district approval and provide a pathway along the west boundary and Page 6 Item 2. 17 other internal pathway connections to it, this area of the plat would become qualified open space and the Applicant would exceed the minimum area required by approximately 10,000 square feet. Further analysis is below in subsequent sections. • "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 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. In addition to the general Comprehensive Plan,the following sections of the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan(TMISAP)should also be used to analyze the project(Staff analysis is in italics): Connectivity(3-17): Connectivity to adjacent parcels is proposed by extending a stub street to the north boundary which would connect to the planned W.Aviator Street extension and to the east boundary through the 1-acre parcel that is part of this project. This connection to the east boundary aligns with a stub street further to the east within the Ascent Townhome project—Staff anticipates the approximate 50 feet of the Zimmerman parcel that separates the two will be utilized as a public road once a future cross- access agreement is made with that property owner. NOTE:the Zimmerman parcel has been sold to a developer and this area of their plan has been discussed with that Applicant,they agree a portion of this area of their existing access should be utilized to allow the public road connection between the subject project and the Ascent Townhome project currently under construction for the purpose of additional connectivity in this area.Although staff cannot require the connectivity now, with the annexation of the Zimmerman property staff will require the ROW dedication to allow the two roadways connect.If the applicant can facilitate the connection sooner and reach a written agreement to allow the connection,staff would be supportive as this would eliminate the need for the temporary access to Franklin Road in favor of an emergency access as desired by the City.Furthermore, the proposed detached sidewalks throughout the site provide the needed connectivity between existing and planned sites and sets the stage for neighborhood designs desired within the Ten Mile area. Access Control(3-17): In order to move traffic efficiently through the Ten Mile area, direct access via arterial streets is prohibited except for collector street connections. The subject site proposes a temporary access to W. Franklin Road, an arterial, as no other public road access is available at this time. The proposed stub street to the north boundary will connect to the W.Aviator Street extension, a collector street, should the Zimmerman parcel redevelop as anticipated. Because the proposed access to Franklin is only temporary, the project complies with this policy.As noted above, if the applicant can facilitate the connection of the eastern stub street with the Ascent Subdivision, the temporary access to Franklin wouldn't be required. Complete Streets(3-19): The TMISAP incorporates the concept of"complete streets,"meaning all streets should be designed to serve all users,including bicycles and pedestrians unless prohibited by law or where the costs are excessive or where there's clearly no need. The proposed development includes detached sidewalks and parkways throughout the entire site for pedestrian use and on-street parking along the new local street. Further, the proposed home designs depict garages set behind the living area and shared driveways that minimize curb cuts within the site (35 driveways for 51 units). This design sets the stage for future development of the surrounding area as this is a desired site design in the Ten Mile Plan. Page 7 Item 2. ■ 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 the site. DESIGN: Street-Oriented Design—Residential Buildings(3-33): Usable porches should be a dominant element of these building types. Porches should be located along at least 30%of the front fagade of the buildings (the fagade facing the primary street) although a higher percentage is recommended as is porches on one or more facades as well. When possible, garages should be loaded from a rear alleyway. Where garages must be accessed from the front,the garages must be located no less than 20' behind the primary fagade of the residential structure. The proposed residential units are all front-loaded but show a garage that is set back from the living area fagade facing the internal local street. The submitted elevations and conceptual floor plans are not dimensioned but the garages appear to be considerably behind the living area facades. This design provides for a more porch dominated street facade compared to traditional single-family residential, as desired. Staff is including a DA provision to ensure this type of design is maintained for the project. Buildings to Scale(3-34): The key elements to consider are the continuity of building sizes,how the street-level and upper-level architectural detailing is treated, elements that anchor and emphasize pedestrian scale,roof forms,rhythm of windows and doors,and general relationship of buildings to public spaces such as streets,plazas, other open space and public parking. Human-scale design is critical to the success of built places for pedestrians. Staff believes the proposed 2-story homes and submitted conceptual building elevations demonstrate compliance with this policy. However, to further the neighborhood and street-oriented designs desired in the Ten Mile Area, Staff is recommending additional decks are added on the second stories of some of the homes. This addition furthers the concept of living area closer to the street which helps to activate the sidewalks and create more of a community identity for the project. Neighborhood Design(3-36): In the Ten Mile area,all residential neighborhoods should be developed in consideration of traditional neighborhood design principles and concepts,which include mixed housing stock, architecture and design, streetscapes and streets.A mix of housing stock is proposed consisting of single family attached and detached dwellings which contribute to the diversity of housing stock in this area. The public street proposed within this development provides a fair framework for future connectivity that can provide short block lengths and minimize curb cuts on the public streets. The proposed block lengths are relatively short and provide for safe pedestrian connectivity due to the detached sidewalks and parkways. The proposed parkways and conceptual floor plans also add to the project's consistency with the neighborhood design element of the Ten Mile Plan. As noted above, Staff finds the project to be generally consistent with both the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan and the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan,per Staffs recommended revisions. 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, Staff recommends a DA as a provision of annexation with the provisions included in Section VIITA1. 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. A final plat will not be accepted until the DA is executed and the AZ ordinance is approved by City Council. B. PRELIMINARY PLAT(PP) The proposed preliminary plat consists of 51 building lots(30 single-family attached lots and 21 detached single-family lots), 6 common lots,and 2 other lots(two common driveways) on 5.63 acres of land in the requested TN-R zoning district. The minimum building lot size proposed is 2,038 square feet Page 8 Item 2. 19 1 with an average lot size of 2,762 square feet. According to the submitted plans,the plat is currently proposed to develop in two phases due to the available access to the site being only from Franklin Road at this time. The phasing plan depicts construction of 22 building lots in the southern half of the site with three open space lots(including the largest centralized open space lot) in Phase 1 with the public roads terminating less than 150 feet from the internal intersection—thus,20 of the 21 detached single-family lots and two single-family attached lots are proposed in Phase 1. Phase 2 then depicts the remaining building lots to the north and east of the centralized intersection to be constructed along with some remaining open space lots along the north boundary. Further, Phase 2 depicts the north-south local road within the site terminating at the north boundary over the Purdam Gulch stub drain with a slight curve to the northeast to match the property line. Staff has had multiple discussions with this Applicant and the Developer of the Zimmerman property to the north in regards to the proposed termination of the north-south local street within this development. The issue that has been brought up is the preferred alignment of this street at the north property line and consequently where it would connect to the extension of W.Aviator Street,the collector road required to be developed with the project to the north. Staff notes it has been the City's practice to require an Applicant change their road alignment based upon conceptual drawings of a project that has not yet submitted to the City. However, Staff has included a DA provision to allow this Applicant the flexibility to revise the road alignment and lot layout with the future Phase 2 final plat should they be able to work out a mutually beneficial agreement with the adjacent property owner; this is predicated on IF the property to the north receives approvals from the City.This recommended provision does not require this Applicant revise their plat at any point but its intent is to provide flexibility to the Applicant to make any necessary revisions to the plat without having to go through the hearing process for subsequent changes that do not increase the number of building lots or drastically change the project design but help the overall road network in this area of the City. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: Map imagery depicts an old residence and accessory buildings on the southern half of the subject site; no other site improvements appear to be in place.All existing structures are proposed to be removed upon Phase 1 development. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): The proposed subdivision and subsequent development are required to comply with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2D-6 for the requested TN-R zoning district. Staff has reviewed the proposed plat and it complies with these standards, including dwelling types, inclusion of parkways, and initial review of building setbacks outlined on the submitted preliminary plat. Access(UDC 11-3A-3): ACHD has not yet submitted a staff report for the subject project. Access for the project has been briefly discussed in the comprehensive plan analysis section above those comments are in conjunction with those in this analysis section.Ultimate access to the project site is from a future local street connection at the north property boundary to a future extension of W. Aviator Street on the adjacent property to the north/northeast. Additionally, future access should occur to the east via a local street connection to W. Atomic Street in the Ascent Townhome project on the east side of Zimmerman Lane (not part of this project area). Until Aviator Street is extended and constructed north of the subject site OR W.Atomic Street is extended,temporary access to W. Franklin Road is required for public street access to the site. Because no other public roads are available to serve the subject site, development code permits this temporary access to Franklin. However,permanent access to Franklin Road is not desired by the City or ACHD in this location so as soon as an additional public road access is available,this access to Franklin shall be closed OR converted to an emergency-only access with Fire Page 9 Item 2. 20 Department approved bollards. Staff has included a DA provision to address the timing for the closure of this access. Vehicular access for the proposed dwelling units is via driveway connections to the new local streets within the project.The local street is proposed with 5-foot detached sidewalk and 8-foot parkways strips; the street is proposed as a 33-foot wide local street within 37 feet of right-of-way and is consistent with ACHD policy. The Applicant has proposed shared driveways for the single-family attached units to minimize the number of curb cuts on the local street and has included two common drives within the east parcel to better maximize the available land and provide access to six units(four access one common drive, and two access the other). There is no secondary access to the site because the proposed local streets within the site do not connect to additional public roads. This is an additional factor in the Applicant's decision to propose the project in two phases and keeps the Applicant from putting sprinklers in each unit because the Fire Department requires a secondary access for each access that has more than 30 units taking access from it. As discussed above, there is an anticipation of a project being constructed on the property to the north/northeast that would extend Aviator along the north property line and offer a secondary public street connection to satisfy the Fire Department requirement. However, regardless an additional public road access being to the north to Aviator Street or the east through Ascent Townhomes, Staff is recommending the temporary access to Franklin convert to an emergency-only access to add an additional Fire approved access for this project and area of the City. Pathways(UDC 11-3A-8): There are no regional pathways depicted on the Pathways Master Plan for this property. However, Staff believes the Applicant should work with the irrigation district to install a micro-path through the common lot along the project's west boundary containing the Purdam Drain easement OR work with the district to utilize their gravel access road as a walking path for the development and include some landscaping along the east side of this common lot. The addition of a meandering 5-foot wide pathway and landscaping in this open space lot could connect in multiple places throughout the site and allow for a looped walking trail. Further,this revision to the project would make this area of the site qualified open space and allow the Applicant to meet and exceed the minimum amount required for the project; without it,additional area will need to be added in other places which will likely require a loss of building lots. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-17): Detached sidewalks are proposed along the internal local streets that loop through the site(not shown with any names at this time)with 8-foot parkways throughout. In addition,the Applicant is showing the existing 5-foot wide sidewalk on the north side of Franklin Road with a segment near the west boundary as being attached and the remaining length being detached from the roadway. This does not meet ACHD nor UDC standards for sidewalks along collector streets. Overall, the proposed sidewalk network for this development meets UDC requirements. Parkways (UDC 11-3A-17): 8-foot wide parkways with street trees are shown along both sides of the proposed local streets in the project site. All parkways within the site adjacent to detached sidewalks shall be landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C.With the future final plat applications,the Applicant should add data to the plan to demonstrate compliance with these standards. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): A 25-foot wide street buffer is required along W. Franklin Road,landscaped per the standards in UDC Table 11-3B-7C.A 25-foot wide common lot is shown at the south boundary of the project site meeting UDC standards. However,the subject property boundary does not directly abut Franklin Road because ACHD owns land that goes beyond the pavement and includes the sidewalk along this frontage. Therefore,the actual buffer along Franklin is at least 38 feet deep instead of just 25 feet. According to Page 10 Item 2. 21 the submitted landscape plan,the required buffer area is landscaped in accordance with code. Therefore, the proposed project complies with these standards. The Applicant is also proposing 8-foot wide parkways throughout the site in accordance with the requirements of the Ten Mile Plan and the requested TN-R zoning district. According to the submitted plans,the Applicant is showing compliance with the required landscaping standards in UDC 11-3B-7. According to the submitted landscape plan, some trees are included in the common open space areas where there is no storm drain retention areas. These retention areas are shown to be vegetated with grasses which complies with UDC 11-3A-11 and is allowed to qualify towards the minimum qualified open space for the project. Staff is recommending the most central tree in the centralized open space lot (Lot 12, Block 1) on the west side of the project be removed so a larger area of usable grass can be proposed in this lot. Further analysis on landscaping and open space qualification is in the next section below. Qualified Open Space& Site Amenities(UDC 11-3G): The area of the preliminary plat is 5.63 acres within the requested TN-R zoning district. According to the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3, a minimum of 15%qualified open space should be provided for projects over 5 acres within the TN-R district.As noted above,the Applicant did not submit a separate open space exhibit so Staff had to dissect the submitted plans and the applicable areas that qualify. Based on the plat area of 5.63 acres, the minimum amount of qualified open space required to meet UDC 11-3G-3 standards is approximately 36,786 square feet.According to Staffs analysis of the submitted plans, the Applicant is proposing approximately 32,500 square feet of qualified open space, this area does not meet the minimum IS% requirement. This includes the proposed parkways, arterial street buffer to Franklin, the central open space lot(portion of Lot 12,Block 1), and other smaller areas of open space throughout the site.As discussed throughout this report, there is potential of the entire Lot 12,Block I counting towards the qualified open space if additional pedestrian facilities are added to this lot. Specifically,Staff recommends adding a 5-foot wide micro path from the detached sidewalk along the local street in two locations; within the central open space lot and in the open space area in the northwest corner of the site. Further, additional pedestrian facilities would need to be added to this lot within the drain easement area to create a looped system for the project. These cumulative revisions are required in order for this easement area of Lot 12 to count towards the qualified open space.If these revisions cannot occur,the Applicant will need to add approximately 4,300 square feet of additional qualified open space in the project—because of the site design, this would likely require the loss of building lots. Based on the size of the plat, one(1)point of site amenity is required to meet UDC 11-3G-4 standards. According to the submitted landscape plan,the Applicant is proposing a bicycle repair station within the central open space lot(Lot 12,Block 1). This amenity is noted as being worth one(1)amenity point per UDC Table 11-3G-4. The proposed amenity meets the minimum UDC requirements. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): All fencing constructed on the site is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-6 and 11-3A-7. According to the submitted landscape plan,the Applicant is showing 6-foot tall vinyl fencing along the project boundary on the east portions of the site and a 5-foot tall wrought iron fence on the rear property lines of the lots abutting the Purdam Drain easement along the west boundary. Both of these fence types and their locations comply with UDC standards.No fencing appears to be proposed along the Franklin Road street buffer; should fencing be proposed at a later date, it cannot exceed 6 feet in height per UDC 11-3A-7. Parking: On-site parking for each unit is required per the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 based on the number of bedrooms per single-family residence. For the detached single-family homes,two car garages with two(2)parking pads per unit are shown on the submitted conceptual elevations and floor Page 11 Item 2. 22 plans in accord with UDC standards for up to 4-bedroom homes. The single-family attached homes are depicted with a single-car garage parking pad for each unit.Therefore,it appears as a two-car garage and parking pad from the street view. Because of this proposed design,the future attached units cannot contain more than 2 bedrooms to comply with UDC minimum parking standards. Staff finds this as a positive for the project because there is a shortage of smaller homes for sale within the valley and Meridian. In addition to the off-street parking shown, a number of on-street parking spaces are also available due to the proposed site design. Waterways: The Purdam Gulch Drain,an NMID facility,runs along the west boundary of the subject property but is not on the subject site. However,this project does contain a large portion of the east half of the required irrigation easement(50 feet to each side of the drain centerline) for this drain. Therefore, all of the proposed lots along the west boundary of the project are encumbered by approximately 9 feet of this easement. Per UDC 11-3A-6,no more than 10 feet of the irrigation easement shall be located on a buildable lot so the plat complies with this standard as proposed. Any encroachment within this easement will require an exclusive License Agreement with NMID and the future HOA will be responsible for maintenance of this lot. The common lot appears to show the required NMID access road which will be fully gravel with no vegetation,as discussed above. In addition to the Purdam Gulch Drain easement,the Purdam Gulch stub drain runs along the north property line of the site and is located within the project boundary. The Applicant is proposing to pipe this stub drain in its current location for better maintenance and to stub the local street within the site to the north property line for future connectivity to W. Aviator Street. The proposal to pipe this segment of the stub drain and place it within common lots complies with the UDC. Utilities(UDC 11-3A-21): Connection to City water and sewer services is proposed 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. See Section VIII.B below for Public Works comments/conditions. Pressurized Irrigation System(UDC 11-3A-I5): An underground pressurized irrigation(PI) system is required to be provided for the development as set forth as set forth in UDC 11-3A-15. Per the submitted plans, a PI system is proposed and will be analyzed by the applicable departments with each Final Plat. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual) (TMISAP Conceptual building elevations and first-floor floor plans were submitted for the proposed detached and attached single-family units, as shown in Section VII.F. The conceptual elevations do not list specific materials but appear to show a combination of lap siding and stucco field materials with porches and brick or stone accent materials along the front of the homes. In addition to the elevations,the submitted conceptual first-floor floor plans depict living area and garage on the first floor with the garages set back from the living area fagade closest to the street. The submitted document is not dimensioned but Staff infers that the garage doors should be at least 30 feet from the edge of the street with parkways, detached sidewalks, and parking pad between. Final design is required to comply with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual and the design guidelines in the TMISAP as stated herein. Submittal and approval of an Administrative Design Review application is required prior to submittal of building permit application(s) for the single- family attached units. Should it be determined the detached units should also require design review, Staff recommends Council add a specific DA provision addressing the project as a whole. Page 12 Item 2. 23 VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the requested annexation and preliminary plat applications with the requirement of a Development Agreement per the recommended conditions of approval in Section VIII of this report and per the Findings in Section IX of this staff report. Page 13 Item 2. F24 VIL EXHIBITS A. Annexation and Zoning and Preliminary Plat Legal Descriptions and Exhibit Maps ELIJ ENGEBRITSONLAND SURVEYS,PLLC. 2259 S. Sumac Street,Boise,Idaho 83706 (208)859-6032-mike@elsurveys.com 10 March 2022 Amended Land Description Project No.201204 Marala Investments,LLC. Contains 358,362 square feet or 8,227 acres+1- EXHI!BIT A Property Annexation Parcel A tract of land located within the SE%of the SW%,Section 10,Township 3 North,Range 1 West,Boise Meridian, Ada County,Idaho described as follows: Commencing at a found aluminum cap monumenting the SW corner of said Section 10,from which a found aluminum cap monumenting the S%4 corner of said Section bears S 89°15'34"E a distance of 2640.54 feet;thence easterly along the southerly line of said SW%S 89'15'34"E a distance of 1320.31 feet to a found aluminum cap monumenting the W 1116t^comer,the POINT OF BEGINNING. Thence northerly along the west line of said SE%of the SW 1/4 N 00°36'35"E a distance of 1087.89 feet to a point; Thence leaving said line S 59`29'07"E a distance of 74.36 feet to a point; Thence N 59°04'26 E a distance of 103.00 feet to a point on the center line of the Purdam Drain; Thence along said center line S 60*56'14'E a distance of 160.88 feet to a point from which a witness corner bears S 00°34'27"W a distance of 20.00 feet; Thence leaving said Drain S 00°34'27"W a distance of 250.26 feet to a found steel pin; Thence S 89'15'34"E a distance of 232.80 feet to a found steel pin on the westerly rights-of-way line of a private road easement known as North Zimmerman Lane; Thence southerly along said rights-of-way S 00°34'27"W a distance of 187.11 feet to a point from which a found witness corner bears N 89'1534"VV a distance of 2.00 feet; Thence leaving said Gne N 89'1534"W a distance of 232.80 feet to a found steel pin; Thence S 00°34'27"W a distance of 557.46 feet to a found steel pin on the northerly rights-of-way line of West Franklin Road; Thence leaving said rights-of-way and continuing S 00°34'27"W a distance of 33.88 feet to a point on the southerly line of said SE%of the SW'/4 of Section 10; Thence westerly along said southerly line N 89'15'34"W a distance of 294.33 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. The above-described tract of land contains 8.227 acres more or less and is subject to all existing easements and rights-of-way. (See Exhibit B attached hereto and made part of) �/] Ot /V' a 87J3 F:IELSPROJECTS1202M2012041ADMINILEGAL51201204 Updated AnnexDOc 031022,doc � � AP M4AVOV $PZL Page 14 Item 2. F 5 Has NO. 12F50 OR C S 5929'07" E E N x cc uj In N p w p 1 S 89'15'34" E w l a 232.80' —T, Oc pp— ml �I P$ °�4Go 1 � �Z R3 I Y 0 N oa7 1 "z� �ro a o;" OZ yS NSF �O 00 Al a LL, 1 orn �Qa " 232.80' [�j ¢N viW I `�'a ii" �NON� N 89'15'34" `Q Z O3� T 'cv Z n ayc� o�yx•r 2 1� Qz co p � �`� �0+Q(n Ic0 OWm� la O --• �0. Wct O� OZWO �4 Oli N a W O W O Boa 'z 3y44�j w a 3 ��ti �� d O �W� +I aYmY WON I y H� i an d ~Z 1 400 I� ¢ Uz¢ mM k' z I 2 m m JJIIw� WQF- I?� ti ti �rZ c O O • 4 1 f� L'iU I O V. Lll w y w L, z I I p 111 u o ? , K h V 2 u U I -� dL 794.31' 9 13203� 17oa.00' 33.88' 33.88' 7025.9 '10 I -�T6 294.33 1 15 94.33' S 89'75'34"E 2640.54' iS BASIS OF BEARING I W. FRANKUN ROAD 14 I HO$ N0. 122 58 Page 15 Item 2. F26 ELSENGEBRITSONLAND SURVEYS, PLLC. 2251 S. Sumac Street, Boise, Idaho 83706 (208) 859-6032-mike@eisurveys.com 11 March 2022 Project No.201204 Marala Investments, LLC. Amended Boundary Alamar Subdivision Contains 245,100 square feet or 5.627 acres+1- PROPERTY LAND DESCRIPTION Alamar Subdivision A tract of land located within the SE'/4 of the SW'/4,Section 10,Township 3 North, Range 1 West,Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho described as follows: Commencing at a found aluminum cap monumenting the SW corner of said Section 10,from which a found aluminum cap monumenting the S%corner of said Section bears S 89'15'34"E a distance of 2640.54 feet;thence easterly along the southerly line of said SW'/4 S 89°15'34"E a distance of 1320.31 feet to a found aluminum cap monumenting the W 1116th corner;thence continuing along said Section line S 89°15'34"E a distance of 100.00 feet to a point;thence leaving said section line and running parallel to and 100.00 feet easterly of the westerly line of said SE'/4 of the SW%N 00°36'35"E a distance of 33.88 feet to a found aluminum cap on the northerly rights-of-way line of West Franklin Road the POINT OF BEGINNING. Thence leaving said rights-of-way and continuing along said parallel line N 00°36'35"E a distance of 1038.98 feet to a point from which a witness corner bears S 00°36'35"W a distance of 20.00 feet; Thence leaving said parallel line N 59°04'26"E a distance of 61.30 feet to a point on the center line of the Purdam Drain; Thence along said center line S 60°56'14"E a distance of 160.88 feet to a point from which a witness corner bears S 00°34'27"W a distance of 20.00 feet; Thence leaving said Drain S 00°34'27"W a distance of 250.26 feet to a found steel pin; Thence S 89°15'34"E a distance of 232,80 feet to a found steel pin on the westerly rights-of-way line of a private road known as North Zimmerman Lane; Thence southerly along said rights-of-way S 00'34'27"W a distance of 187.11 feet to a point from which a found steel pin witness corner bears N 89°15'34"W a distance of 2.00 feet; Thence leaving said rights-of-way N 89'15'34"W a distance of 232,80 feet to a found steel pin; Thence S 00°34'27"W a distance of distance of 557.46 feet to a found steel pin on the northerly rights-of-way line of West Franklin Road; Thence westerly along said rights-of-way line N 89'15'34"W a distance of 194.31 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. The above-described tract of land contains 5.627 acres more or less and is subject to all existing easements and rights-of-way. �7 8703 � F::ELSIPROJECTS1202012012041ADMINILEGALS1201204 Amended Alamar Sub 031122.doc �' ?�of iI MAacK za z L Page 16 Item 2. F 7 R 0S N 0. 1 2250 NS 59.29'07.,E E W ry z 'Z 74.36cc dd �1 \�9Sp9rl Z�o o c�N iai q t� a Nm Q Ot PQ I I C) 4O lO� I O I i� Q O I S 89"15'34" E LLJ Ct� LLI o 0 -- 232.80' I W 0 1 Q I LLB I O O f< O I \I vi Q N I qP",NO��Pp iCL I� O�� 00 I 00 Q I� F.5& 0� I I� > 11jca � �SO ~ Jy�5.�5� 10� Wa O m CO I _°� 232.80' _ in N m � mQw � � N z� w � �I q N 89"15'34" W �. p � _ z _ � � > � p N z w �Ln o Q 3 N co o Cp vi W I o a � ofo' Ch I �� a� O ¢ Q U aN O D LLl Z oaW4 OI OQ, NPN� I. c¢i a U, c>cn I- U Q ogoQ ZI Q o�mq raj w wzo �a o Q W I fah 1 I}-�W o ZOO 3q 2 [YZZ Vl LO cm`II 31`QCL z a zwm jai W E- � ?X o I � 0 Z)� I wqN I� & OLN O • 4 Ld m I N z w LU 1" Lu o x p¢ I 1 0 ? I! w Q w w � 1 > 13 Z ? O 3 W 016 z Z 3 1 O 6LO i p m d o w Q w w 9 1 f o31' �11100.00' 33.88' 194.33' 33.88' 7025.90'1d 16 15 S 89"15'34" E 2640.54' 15 BASIS OF BEARING i W. FRANKLIN ROAD R 0 S No, 1 22 5 8 Page 17 Item 2. F 28 B. Preliminary Plat(dated: March 18,2022) PRELIK NARY PLAT FOR ALAMAR SUBDIVISION SE V4 OF THE SW 1I4 OF SECTION 10,T.3N,RAW.R.M. j T MERIDIAN,ADA COUNTY,IDAHO 2022 N VICINFEY KV k pas jj' J—Z-- F- —1 F- F —F- L . L L F—T —1 F—,.:—] Vl� —J —J—� L —J L— L——JL— t 7 ,J -------- 'I r I rT AI, ------ ------ -4------11------±-- 4' F— F— F a� L 44 Z,14 1 4 Page 18 Item 2. F 9 � I a i . 1,7 E J � $I -rtl iF I I F —1 - '.I rE I h� el L,.. "E I,I . I7 e'.,2zazeo' t 7 i i /fr I I� �' III arc mod 11 e• �I Jp L 9 .y _ �I I I � I a a iL --lT =I —7 � I I rl 'LI el �I I' L— j —� = i i I I �� sl.. J r� s e' III '' '•:�'cs— d Jl — <I I L.. 4 1 f `-_---- - -�- m n o �. Page 19 Item 2. ■ C. Landscape Plan(dated: March 15,2022) Min �N H N H H �y go o Al a PIN PIN HIM -2 R. rip.FMM'3011-8 $ SA aA sL_ _ E GGG Tpe � � M �d o : s on�2CEL: oELS�r RDcK n-v2laruv- �zce sat.L civ�� saeo w vganaYu�v Ra�� 4 LA MR.� SU&L'I VIS1 C�fr :'022 �_cf __ _ �ER�i:T KEF.YE� �A3�E-t7 SlZ.d�F6501 -- iaea! w am,rrr-�,, via ranary cr 3'ge ae�'7�inN,;n�ac 4rV f]S;:4 NF i Ar „•.�a one 1177 Page 20 Item 2. F31 D. Phasing Plan(dated: March 15, 2022) ALL INFRASTRUCTURE TO BE COMPLETED WITH PHASE I, DEVELOPMENT OF PHASE II WILL COINCIDE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH, THIS WILL PROVIDE A SECONDARY FIRE ACCESS IN ADDITION TO THE TEMPORARY ENTRY ROAD AT FRANKLIN.. rJU92 .�a�0� THE TEMPORARY ENTRY FROM FRANKLIN ROAD WILL NOT BE Lltr� �� REMOVED UNTIL THE ROAD CONNECTION TO THE NORTH AND A ROAD CONNECTION TO THE ASCENT SUBDIVISION AT THE EAST IOT25 ARE COMPLETED. flit 3 LOT N PHASE II Lw2a uFrS PHASE I 22 BUILDING LOTS m IOT21 PHASE II 29 BUILDING LOTS LOT 29 Lift 5 STUB STREET LOT 19 9 f12LOrr 6 LOT 5 Lur to �isHASE II AD-OCENT PRnPERTY fSNOWN rM REFERENCE) LOT 17 7 LOT 11 LOT 18 LOT 12 LOT 15 A 10 fl0■O CQI169L1N lO A9CEHf 5UB9M5p11 �a LOT 13 LOi m STUB STREET LOT 14 LOT 9 LOT ISy PHASE I q �• S lllT 16 LOT 7 I z �■ V r r ()i __—_____ Q a/■�1 T w. Q� a. �E PHASE I LOT 17 LOT s I --- -- i �. Q i 4 w• v+ G II •� O 1 -• CD LOT Is LOTS r. II 1• �'• � rr p lAT 4 lAT 19 a LOT 20 LOT 3 w■ � r LOT 21 LOT 2 I I +• wr• I I LOT 22 M E Lrna I I 0a m r000Woo -- r v ao LOT1 � �_ �■ wr ■ TENF'MARY ACCESS 7`13�1 ASCENT suenToma.J FRANKLIN ROAD ACCESS TO FRANKLIN ROAD Page 21 Item 2. 32 E. Conceptual Building Elevations(dated: March 15,2022) SINGLE FAMILY H13ME3 DUPLEX TJ'v/NHS.4ES Uhl 1 ■ �J �.,1 IIYa I i I I ; � � • [IWWL 1 � .I 1 u 1 ■�Y■�11�111 ■��il�IILYIII N1!■1■1 11� IX ■i��If lln■111�t� 11 IX � IY Y� W■1Y1�■ !11 1 ■111 y I YI■IY„��111 11 1 A4{LJ�l�■1� ��a1J ■ n�u�L I ---moo T a 1 ' r.wx w I occc a.: w YF 7 iwAjWr �• _'1 jai ri ••_ Y .nr,� r• .._ �z- Page 22 Item 2. 33 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)/developer at the time of annexation ordinance adoption, and the developer. Currently, a fee of$303.00 shall be paid by the Applicant to the Planning Division prior to commencement of the DA. The DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning Division within six(6)months of the City Council granting the annexation. The DA shall, at minimum, incorporate the following provisions: a. Future development of this site shall be substantially consistent with the approved plat, landscape plan,phasing plan, and conceptual building elevations and floor plans included in Section VII and the provisions contained herein. b. Final alignment at the north property line of the north-south local street proposed with the subject applications shall be determined at the time of the second final plat submittal to allow the Applicant flexibility to work with the adjacent developer to the north/northeast—the Applicant shall not be permitted to increase the number of buildable lots with any road alignment revisions. c. Future development of the residential units shall be generally consistent with the required design elements outlined in the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan (TMISAP) and include second story decks on at least half of the future residential units to better comply with the design standards. d. The access to W. Franklin Road is approved as a temporary access until such time an additional public road access is available to the project site (connection to W. Aviator Street or W. Atomic Street); at that time,this access shall be closed OR converted to an emergency-only access with Fire Department approved bollards. e. No final plat shall be accepted by the City until the Annexation and Zoning ordinance and Development Agreement are executed. Preliminary Plat(PP) Conditions: 2. Applicant shall obtain approval from NMID to install a micro-path through the common lot along the project's west boundary(Lot 12,Block 1)containing the Purdam Gulch Drain easement and provide a copy of the executed license agreement to the Planning Division with the first final plat submittal in order to meet the minimum open space requirements OR the Applicant shall add a minimum of 4,300 square feet of additional qualified open space to the project in accord with UDC 11-3G-3. 3. Future development shall be consistent with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2D-6 for the TN-R zoning district. 4. The Applicant shall comply with all ACHD conditions of approval. 5. Future development shall comply with UDC 11-3A-7 and UDC 11-3A-6 for any future fencing constructed within the development. 6. The Applicant shall obtain Administrative Design Review approval for the single-family attached units prior to building permit submittal—this shall be submitted with the first final plat application due to the inclusion of two single-family attached lots in Phase 1. Page 23 Item 2. 34 7. The preliminary plat approval shall become null and void if the applicant fails to either: 1) obtain the City Engineer signature on a final plat within two years of the date of the approved findings; or 2) obtain approval of a time extension as set forth in UDC 11-6B-7. 8. The submitted preliminary plat, dated March 15,2022, shall be revised as follows with the first final plat submittal: a. Revise the plat to include the required revisions to meet the minimum open space requirements as outlined in Condition VIII.A.2 above. 9. The submitted landscape plan, dated March 15,2022, shall be revised prior to the first final plat submittal,unless otherwise noted: a. Depict the revisions outlined in Condition VIII.A.2. b. Add data to the landscape plans showing compliance with UDC 11-3B-7C for the proposed parkways. c. Remove the most central tree shown in the center of the centralized open space lot within Lot 12,Block 1 to add an area of openness in the center of this lot. 10. Upon completion of the landscape installation,a written Certificate of Completion shall be submitted to the Planning Division verifying all landscape improvements are in substantial compliance with the approved landscape plan as set forth in UDC 11-3B-14. 11. Prior to building permit submittal for any structure in each phase,the Applicant shall record the associated final plat for that phase. 12. Applicant shall remove any existing structures on the subject sites with the first phase of development. 13. Applicant shall provide a pressurized irrigation system consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-15,UDC 11-3B-6 and MCC 9-1-28. 14. In accordance with the approved plans and UDC I I-3A-6,the Applicant shall tile the Purdam Gulch Stub Drain along the north property boundary the time of final plat submittal for the relevant development phase. Page 24 Item 2. F 5 B. PUBLIC WORKS Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1. To meet the City to and through policy, developer shall be required to continue a sewer main extension from manhole SSMH C1 to the eastern property boundary and install a cleanout for future extension. 2. A fire hydrant is required at the dead end main at the north side of the subdivision due to water quality concerns. The hydrant tee should have a blind flange on the north leg,place the tee as far south of the gravity irrigation pipe as possible to allow for future crossing and vertical offset without having to remove the tee. 3. The water tee to the east near 11+00 requires two valves,with one of those valves being located on the north leg. 4. Provide a fire hydrant at the end of the 8 inch water main to the east on the south end,which shall have two valves. Configure this with a tee and blind flange for future connection. 5. It appears that water and sewer mains run through a landscaped area with a fence. This landscaping and fencing must be reconfigured so there are no permanent structures over City mains and/or easements. 6. As noted in the Geotechnical Engineering Report prepared by Atlas Materials Testing&Inspection, there are shallow cemented soils across the site. Particular attention needs to be focused on ensuring that all residences constructed with crawl spaces should be designed in a manner that will inhibit water in crawl spaces. This may include the installation of foundation drains, and the installation of rain gutters and roof drains that will carry storm water at least 10-feet away from all residences. Foundation drains are not allowed to drain into the sanitary sewer system,nor the trench backfill for the sewer and/or water service lines. Standard Conditions of Approval 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. 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. 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. 4. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water(MCC 9-1-28.C). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water Page 25 Item 2. 36 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. 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. 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. 7. Any wells that will not continue to be used must be properly abandoned according to Idaho Well Construction Standards Rules administered by the Idaho Department of Water Resources. The Developer's Engineer shall provide a statement addressing whether there are any existing wells in the development,and if so,how they will continue to be used, or provide record of their abandonment. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 14. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 15. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 16. 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. 17. 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. 18. 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 Page 26 Item 2. ■ the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 19. 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. 20. 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.meridianciU.o�ublic_works.aspx?id=272. 21. 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. 22. 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(MFD) https://weblink.meridiancity.orglWebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=251688&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity D. ADA COUNTY https://weblink.meridianciLy.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=251863&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity E. NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID) https://weblink.meridianciU.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=254211&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity F. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=252443&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity G. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https://weblink.meridiancioy.orglWebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=254121&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCiU H. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT(WASD) https://weblink.m eridia n c i ty.org/WeUink/Doc View.aspx?id=255719&dbid=0&rep o=Meridia n City I. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES SCHOOL IMPACT TABLE https://weblink.meridianciU.oLg WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=258750&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity IX. FINDINGS A. Annexation and/or Rezone (UDC 11-513-3E) Page 27 Item 2. 38 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; Stafffinds the proposed zoning map amendment to annex the property into the City of Meridian with the Traditional Neighborhood Residential(TN--R)zoning district and subsequent development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan (TMISAP), if all conditions of approval are met. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed districts, specifically the purpose statement; Stafffinds the proposed zoning map amendment and request for different types of residential dwelling types will contribute to the range of housing opportunities available within the City and specifically within this area. Stafffinds the proposed development is generally consistent with the purpose statement of the residential district included as part of the application. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health,safety, and welfare; Stafffinds 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 Stafffinds 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. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. Because of the proposed addition of differing dwelling types within a neighborhood zoning district and the general site design, Stafffinds the annexation is in the best interest of the City. B. Preliminary Plat: 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; Stafffinds that the proposed plat, with Staff's recommendations, is in substantial compliance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan and the specific area plan (Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area 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) 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Stafffinds that public services will be provided to the subject property with development. (See Section VIII 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, Stafffinds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. Page 28 Item 2. 39 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Staff 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 V and VIII for more information.) 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health,safety or general welfare; and, Staff 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 and has approved the proposed road layout and street connections. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. Staff is unaware of any significant natural,scenic, or historic features that exist on this site that require preserving. Page 29 E IDIAN;--- Applicant Presentation ALA 4AR SUBDIN ISION Annexation, Rezone and Preliminary Plat (H-2022-0004) Noble Rock Development Rock Solid Civil OVERVIEW The Alamar Subdivision will provide the diversity that is key to Meridian's Comprehensive and Future Use Plans as well as the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan. These plans stress mixed income, mixed family size and mixed age communities. To balance the surrounding developments in the area which include three-story townhomes and large apartment complexes, Alamar Subdivision will provide a mix of single-family detached and attached duplex homes to provide a diversity of housing types in the area. To provide for a successful urban environment, a `Street Oriented Design' has been incorporated . Alamar Subdivision will consist of porch oriented homes and tree lined streets with detached sidewalks. The front of the homes will be placed close to the sidewalk while the garages will be set-back to the rear of the homes. This will provide a ` Home Fronting' edge to the public space which will make the streets more friendly and walk-able. ❖ Annexation of Parcels 51 210346603 and 51210346730 .•. f Ti . Rezone from RUT to TN-R (R- 1 5) Ott -,� ❖ Preliminary Plat of 51 Building Lots and 6 Common Lots ' UNI IFI G HENitEY ST. YVN AWA77ON 3V1PPIMNIN 1 E41KXK M'B,?2V2SMH st ZII Z5f�1' Xf7Y d•27?d4' k APPRDVEM 4 Y NARY WrFH ftD 9l DEVELOPED FREFE14 T7E MAv • • • • • • I y}ELOPED++ AND F EPER TrES I ' ti'•�:K.��n 'r��8 � - I � �� A��t�T#f f• ' BY �y J � I SL�DiV7Sf�l ' JUE EL OPEP RDPLR TIC f ti Alr�k��kH Med-High Density Residential .I I I r �� f PRELIMINARY PLAT Traditional Neighborhood Residential f Street Oriented Design Single Family Attached Duplex Homes q LI __J FW___ • Tree-lined Streets with Detached Sidewalks `r I jMj Single 9. 1 Units per Acre Density Family 51 Building Lots Detached 21 Single Family Detached Homes Homes • 30 Single Family Attached Homes • Average Lot Size is 2730 SF (2000 SF min) OPIN SPACE AND SITE AMFNIT)" • Open Space Area (16. 5%) • Centralized Open Grassy Area • Parkway Buffers along Street Easement along Purdam Drain l • Landscape Buffer along Franklin Road • Shallow Storm Drain Areas - Site Amenity Bicycle Repair Station (1 pt) located at of - Open Grassy Area (V E N w, Gravel Access Road Centralized Open = Grassy Area , I i 77 i ' _ a... # ROAD CONNFCTIONS AVIATOR SUBCI'4'ISIN �� q .�A .� oru L2.61 4 aI��000i1 00 00 �, L°f� •.� r� o c tar e LPf R LW 3, , LW a j LM P L°T it Ia F IA 6 LIFT MT., LmV �, LV, Alamar Subdivision Stop Sign at `°"' w a provides Key Intersection for �Is '{f Traffic Calming CONNECTION TO ASCENT SUBDIMSIOU � 3 Infrastructure IAA 13 �� I ¢ S .,_ Connections to the W IR 14 LW Surrounding i � IA 15 �a � a Developments L4T IR �s i � A 'CE' UW 19 SUBDIVISISIO Franklin Access is 2 IA1R � '°f6 I i temporary and i wig � U„ x I will be closed M3 �M after Northern % Collector Road is completed (Emergency LpTi Access) FRANKL r RDAB INFRASTRUCTURE ---------- -- Existing services include 8-inch #, + sewer and water mains located at the entry on Franklin Road . Utility stubs will be provided to 1 WT3 Lwwur� —•. t the neighboring lots Lyr{ 1°r't1 UTILITY~�� r ° ❖ For Lines in landscaped areas, aq@ .� ! �� 14 foot wide access will be wrm� , ! , provided. No permanent L structures will be placed in the ��° i accesses and their entry points `�"' " will be from within the Lff1° subdivision. ; SSTREET LIGHT 5 LOCATIONS Wr is UTILITY Street Lights are located every ,+ EXTENSION 1 250 Feet FIRE HYDRANT--" j 4 4 LOCA TIONS Wr Fire Hydrants are located every LWV `�' _ _ ! Af, 400 Feet LFr --- — - UC�DI'vis ON LWT WT21 Lr2 C I . l wr2 TfL TY EXT . ION MM I I - -- -- 1 -- - -� - y _ 4 W F A I L IN ROAD GRAVITY AND PRESSURIZED IRRIGATION Pressurized Irrigation 0--- a . F- _ NMID Easement • Pressurized Irrigation will / 1 7' Wide NMID Access Road is be provided by the Nampa- provided Meridian Irrigation District (NMID) via an existing r a All Building Pads are located regional pump station that ; outside of the 100' NMID is located to the northwest centerline Easement • Pressurized Irrigation loops Fencing within the easement will be designed per UDC will be removable and NMID Requirements :' ----- Easement will be Road Base • Pressurized Irrigation will ;- with Chip Rock which has been not be placed in the ROW y successfully used by Drainage District #2 in Heron River (Star) Gravity Irrigation • The small Lateral at the northern road connection ' with be Tiled IN �. liAhM+'r1 LL, Fth—nkhn O PHASING, PLAN PHASE I • Will consist of 20 single family ` detached homes and 2 single � Y W26 family attached Homes .. • Street Stubs will be less than 150 ■ P --A SE II Feet ,max • Since there are less than 30 lots, STAB STREET SOL. fire sprinklers will not be required a �r �X— porn V �LGS7V LM is f 0�3 PHASE II • Will coincide with the completion ""' L"r TOB STREET of the northern collector road '* LmE, connecting Black Cat to Franklin MA main Road MOVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII VAEPHASE I • Entry at Franklin Road is temporary i and will be closed after connection to the northern collector road is �wr'°e ` completed (Emergency Access) wr2o La} Leff`J UM,. Iff!'22 Uffr. ELEVATIONS SINGLE FAMIL Y DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED (DUPLEX) Meets the Ten Mile Plan's Traditional Neighborhood Residential Requirements Front Porches close to Detached Sidewalk ^ FEB !� Garages setback from the front fa4ade with single Doors • Mixture of materials, �- colors and design elements including lap - El El 00 siding and stucco with ® ® brick and stone accents Single family detached �0 homes will be 3 �0 bedrooms with 2.5 baths (1750-1900 SF) • Attached duplex home o` units will be 2 bedrooms u� EEI with 2.5 baths (1 250- RaE 1300SF) R •� jpvFven:- vcvp� FLOOR PLANS SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED SINGLE FAIL ATTACHED (DUPLEX) RAWdL r "� , 4 SET Acror+riw a � aar 00 M s dCD 0 7 " I Far lER7m'I Y' R�HIIY �` w WM" WTRDM .SECOND FLDO � SE DND FLODR 12' 28` 28' f 0rz l? Muir oa @IR9T 31" RTl S'h d ir ' . Dwoo �r FAMY J Lzvnc ILI 12" 7M� a,uff -M.A Four F WLY u• ,e• ar-opa MU gq" coQeH s' s'HIV L O 26' 26' FIRST FLOOR FIRST T FL❑EIR CONCLUSION Alamar Subdivision provides the atmosphere needed for families to live and work in the steadily growing area of the Ten Mile Interchange while providing an affordable mix of home types. Thank You Item 3. 40 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing Continued from April 21, 2022 for Burnside Ridge Estates (H- 2021-0070) by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., Located Near the Southwest Corner of S. Linder Rd. and W. Victory Rd., Including 2365 W. Victory Rd., 3801 S. Linder Rd., and Parcels 51226142251, R0831430030, R0831430022, and R0831430010 A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 121.29 acres of land from RUT to the R-2 (11.76 acres) and R-4 (109.53) zoning districts. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 299 total lots (275 single-family residential lots and 24 common lots) on 119.31 acres of land. Item 3. F41 (:�N-WE IDIAN:-�- IDAHO PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Joseph Dodson Meeting Date: April 21, 2022 Topic: Public Hearing for Burnside Ridge Estates (H-2021-0070) by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., Located Near the Southwest Corner of S. Linder Rd. and W.Victory Rd., Including 2365 W. Victory Rd., 3801 S. Linder Rd., and Parcels S1226142251, R0831430030, R0831430022, and R0831430010 A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 121.29 acres of land from RUT to the R-2 (11.76 acres) and R-4 (109.53) zoning districts. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 299 total lots (275 single-family residential lots and 24 common lots) on 119.31 acres of land. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: April 28, 2022 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 3 PROJECT NAME: Burnside Ridge Estates (H-2021-0070) Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify (Please Print) HOA? (mark X if yes) If yes, please provide HOA name NO 2 �oo Nei X- 3-7 0') 3 n J1 C2, ( �4 11D K300 4e+sm- Wx(e� /X- 'V 5 5tl'e hk Vl&q� �5 6 CLi � �UuE (5 7 7ol 9. 4dC-�J5T, Ajo 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Item 3. ■ STAFF REPORTC�,WEIIDIAN -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT .►A H O HEARING 4/28/2022 Legend DATE: Project Location j TO: Planning&Zoning Commission FROM: Joe Dodson,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2021-0070 Burnside(Jackson)Ridge Estates Subdivision LOCATION: The site is located near the southwest corner of S. Linder Road and)AT. Victory Road,including 2365 W. Victory Road, --- 3801 S. Linder Road, and parcels 51226142251,R0831430030, R0831430022, and R0831430010, in the - NE 1/4 of Section 26,Township 3N., Range 1 W. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Request for Annexation&Zoning of 121.29 acres of land from RUT in Ada County to the R-2 (11.76 acres)and R-4 (109.53)zoning districts and a preliminary plat consisting of 299 total lots (275 single-family residential lots and 24 common lots)on 119.31 acres of land,by Kimley-Horn and Associates,Inc. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 121.29 AZ acres(R-2— 11.76 acres;R-4— 109.53 acres); Preliminary Plat on 119.3 acres. Future Land Use Designation Medium Density Residential&Low Density Residential Existing Land Use(s) County residential and farm land Proposed Land Use(s) Detached single-family residential Lots(#and type;bldg./common) 299 total lots—275 single-family residential lots and 24 common lots Phasing Plan(#of phases) Proposed as five(5)phases Number of Residential Units(type 275 detached single-family units of units) Density(gross) 2.31 du/ac Open Space(acres,total 12.19 acres of qualified open space(approximately [%]/buffer/qualified) 10.22%).Further analysis below in Section V.J. Page 1 Item 3. 43 Description Details Page Amenities At least eight(8)qualifying amenities are proposed with this project—Clubhouse, swimming pool,Children's play structures,pickleball court,multi-use pathways, shaded picnic area,public art,and outdoor fitness equipment. Physical Features(waterways, Calkins Lateral bisects the property—no floodplain on hazards,flood plain,hillside) property. Neighborhood meeting date June 18,2021 Distance to nearest City Park(+ Approximately 2 miles to Bear Creek Park(18.34 acres in size) size and to the northeast of the site) History(previous approvals) No application history with City of Meridian B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) No • Requires ACHD No Commission Action es/no • Traffic Impact Study Yes—ACHD has accepted the TIS and is reviewing it to be part of their final es/no staff report. Access Three(3)new accesses are proposed to the adjacent arterial streets,Linder and (Arterial/Collectors/State Victory Roads. Two of these are new collector streets per the Master Street Map Hwy/Local)(Existing and (shown as S.Farmyard Avenue and E.Holstein Drive)with each one connecting Proposed) to the arterials.All other access to proposed homes is via new local streets. Stub Applicant is proposing to stub the new collector street(E.Holstein)to the west Street/Interconnectivity/Cross boundary for future connectivity.E.Holstein is also proposed along the entire Access southern boundary for future connectivity to the south. Proposed north-south collector street, S.Farmyard,provides a stub street to the east property line adjacent to 1995 W.Victory Road(Parcel#S 1226110255).No other stub streets are proposed. Traffic Level of Service Unknown until ACHD report is received. Existing Road Network W.Victory Road and N.Linder Road are existing arterial streets.All other roads proposed would be new development. Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ No sidewalks or buffers along Victory or Linder Road frontages. Buffers Proposed Road Unknown until ACHD report is received. Improvements Fire Service • Distance to Fire Station Approx. 1.4 miles from Fire Station#6 • Fire Response Time This project does fall within the Meridian Fire response time goal of 5 minutes. • Resource Reliability Fire Station#6 reliability is 85%(above goal of 80%). • Risk Identification Risk Factor 2—residential with hazards(waterway) • Accessibility Proposed project meets all required access,road widths,and turnarounds. Proposed phasing plan shall be adhered to;any changes in the phasing shall be approved by the Fire Department. Applicant shall have strict adherence to proposed phasing plan. Police Service • Distance to Station Approximately 4.3 miles from MPD Headquarters • Response Time Approximately 3:14 response time to an emergency in this reporting district. Page 2 Item 3. F 4 Description Details Page • Call Data Between 2/l/2020— 1/31/2022,the Meridian Police Department responded to 1,380 calls for service within a mile of the proposed development.The crime count on the calls for service was 127. See attached documents for more details. Between 2/l/2020— 1/31/2022,the Meridian Police Department responded to 12 crashes within a mile of the proposed development. See attached documents for more details. • Additional Concerns None West Ada School District Estimated Additional School 157 estimated children at full build out(specific to the area) Aged Children • Capacity of Schools Mary McPherson Elementary—675 students Victory Middle School— 1,000 students Meridian High School—2,075 students • #of Students Enrolled Mary McPherson Elementary—442 students Victory Middle School—996 students Meridian High School— 1,698 students School of Choice Options . Christine Donnell Elementary(Arts)—480 enrolled w/capacity of 500) • Spalding Elementary STEM —651 enrolled w/ca acit of 750 See West Ada letter for additional context and analysis Section VIII.H Wastewater • Distance to Sewer Directly adjacent Services • Project Consistent with Yes WW Master Plan/Facility Plan • Impacts/Concerns •Flow is committed •See Public Works Site Specific Conditions Water • Distance to Services Directly adjacent • Pressure Zone 5 • Water Quality Concerns None • Project Consistent with Yes Water Master Plan • Impacts/Concerns Fittings should be used instead of pipe deflection. Page 3 Item 3. 45 C. Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Legend ®� Legend . Project Location I�/�11Project Location _ F MV i Yy- - m Medium uensi'r High Density Residential - Residential -; Low Density MU-N - Residential.---,,,- esidential.- ..._ - .. Zoning Map Planned Development Map Legend R-2 R- 0 Legend Project Location ! Project Location R1 y City Limits RUT�� R7 Planned Parcels R1 RUT R-4 R-4 R 8 R-4 RUT ' III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Jay Walker,Kimley Horn&Associates-950 W. Bannock Street, Suite 1100,Boise,ID 83702 B. Owner: Linder Holdings,LLC-849 E. State Street, Suite 101,Eagle, ID 83616 C. Representative: Nicolette Womack, Kimley Horn&Associates-950 W. Bannock Street, Suite 1100, Boise,ID 83702 Page 4 Item 3. 46 IV. NOTICING Planning&Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper Notification 4/5/2022 Radius notification mailed to properties within 500 feet 4/4/2022 Site Posting 4/6/2022 Nextdoor posting 4/18/2022 V. STAFF ANALYSIS A. Future Land Use Map Designation(ht(ps://www.meridiancity.org/compplan) The subject project area contains two future land use designations, Low Density Residential (LDR) and Medium Density Residential(MDR),with the MDR designation taking up a larger area of the project, approximately 80 acres compared to 39 acres respectively. Low Density Residential(LDR)—This 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. Density bonuses may be considered with the provision of additional public amenities such as a park, school,or land dedicated for public services. Medium Density Residential(MDR)—This designation allows for dwelling units at gross densities of three to eight dwelling units per acre. Density bonuses may be considered with the provision of additional public amenities such as a park, school, or land dedicated for public services. The subject property has two future land use designations on the property, as noted above. The majority of the site is designated Medium Density Residential(approximately 80 acres compared to 39 acres) which calls for a different type of lot size and density than the LDR designation. MDR allows a gross density range of 3-8 du/ac while the LDR designation allows gross densities of 3 du/ac and less. Future Land Use 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.A designation may not be used however, across planned or existing collector or arterial roadways, must not be used on a parcel not directly abutting the designation, and may not apply to more than 50%of the land being developed. Based on this policy, the LDR designation can be `floated"beyond the area depicted on the future land use map up to the east side of the north-south collector street proposed with this development(S. Farmyard Avenue).Subsequently, the gross density west of S. Farmyard must meet the minimum gross density for the MDR designation (at least 3 du/ac.).Additionally, the plan allows gross densities to be rounded up or down, therefore the minimum gross density of this area must be at least 2.5 du/ac.According to the submitted plans, the area west of the proposed collector is approximately 54 acres and contains 126 units which is approximately Z33 du/ac and does not meet the minimum gross density of the MDR designation. Therefore, the Applicant should add at least 9 additional building lots to meet the minimum density requirement. If the Applicant does not wish to increase the number of lots, then a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment is required and this project should be delayed to allow Page 5 Item 3. F47 the applicant to submit a concurrent CPAM application which could be processed no earlier than June 15'h. The Applicant is proposing larger lots throughout the development(minimum lot size of 9,900 square feet in this area of the plat)so Staff believes there may be ample area west of the proposed collector to add these additional building lots.However, to increase the number of lots in this area it would require the applicant to amend their annexation request to incorporate an R-8 zoning district due to differing dimensional standards from the R-4 district. Staff recommends the applicant include an area of R-8 zoning in the north area of the plat (Blocks 2& 3) to allow for some lot sizes smaller than R-4 dimensional standards. Fifteen (1 S) days prior to the City council hearing the applicant should submit an amended annexation legal description and exhibit map to incorporate R-8 zoning as recommended by staff. The subject project is comprised of six (6) county parcels located near the southwest corner of W. Victory Road and N. Linder, directly west of Brundage Estates on the east side Linder that has yet to record a phase I final plat despite obtaining initial City approval for a preliminary plat in 2016. This project's path to annexation is via the existing R-4 zoning of Brundage Estates to the east; no other City zoning is adjacent to the subject project area. Therefore, City Council should determine if the requested development is a logical expansion of City zoning. Overall, the Applicant is proposing 275 detached single-family residences with an average lot size of 10,125 square feet within the R-2 and R-4 zoning districts; the proposed lot sizes and requested zoning districts are not common in recent City development approvals. The Applicant is also proposing to develop the project in five (5)phases with adequate Fire access in each phase. The submitted plans depict a number of new local streets throughout the site anchored by a collector street along the south boundary and an additional collector that generally bisects the property and connects to Victory Road from the southern collector street at the '/mile mark west of Linder Road. Both collector streets are shown on the Master Street Map (MSM) but the north- south collector street is shown at the mid-mile mark on Victory and along the entire west boundary, it is not shown bisecting the property nor connecting to Victory at the '/mile mark as proposed. Staff has not received the ACHD staff report to know if the collector street alignment is acceptable to them. Staff is supportive of this alignment, if approved by ACHD. In terms of nearby and adjacent development,Staff recognizes this area is lacking neighborhood serving commercial uses. Specifically, the closest commercial developments are more than a mile from the project boundary which incentivizes the use of vehicles instead of pedestrian or bicycle facilities, which are also absent. The Comprehensive Plan does contemplate the development of a Mixed-Use Neighborhood node approximately a %mile to the west of this project but it may not develop in the immediate future. Therefore, staff believes, the Commission and Council should determine if the project is a logical expansion of city limits given the lack of public infrastructure and neighborhood serving uses in the area. 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, Staff recommends a DA as a provision of annexation with the provisions included in Section HITA1. 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.A final plat will not be accepted until the DA is executed and the AZ ordinance is approved by City Council. B. Comprehensive Plan Policies (https://www.meridiancitE.or /g compplan): Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies are applicable to this development; Staff analysis is in italics: Page 6 Item 3. 48 "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).Burnside Ridge Estates proposes different lot sizes than what is existing most adjacent to the subject properties.A majority of the county residential lots adjacent to this development range in size with the smallest being 2 acres in size. Furthermore, the proposed lot sizes in this development are most consistent with the approved R- 4 lots on the east side of Linder Road. Because of the disparity of lot sizes along the west boundary, the Applicant is proposing R-2 zoning and lots at least 21,000 square feet(almost half an acre) in size along the entire west boundary. In addition to what is proposed, Staff is recommending an area of R-8 is added to the north end of the project in order add additional lots to meet the minimum density requirements of the plan. The addition of a block of smaller lots would further the housing type and lot size available in this project. Therefore, Staff finds the proposed project complies with this policy, especially with the recommended zoning revision. "Require all new development to create a site design compatible with surrounding uses through buffering, screening,transitional densities, and other best site design practices"(3.07.01A).As noted above, the properties nearest the subject development vary in size but are no smaller than 2 acres in size. Because of this, the Applicant has proposed its largest lots along the west boundary adjacent to existing County lots of approximately 5 acres. Furthermore, the Applicant has proposed to place the required north-south collector street along the east boundary in the northwest quadrant for future connectivity opportunities to the east and subsequently acts as a buffer between that 10 acre parcel and the proposed development. The proposed layout in the southeast quadrant abuts multiple county parcels but is removed from existing structures accept for the 2 acre parcel directly adjacent to the very northeast corner of this area. In order to help mitigate this, the Applicant has proposed an extended buffer lot directly adjacent to the existing County residence which should offer adequate transition and screening. In general, the proposed development consisting of lots averaging at least 10,000 square feet are consistent with the City's anticipated land uses and lot sizes in this area of the City. "Establish and maintain levels of service for public facilities and services,including water, sewer, police,transportation, schools, fire, and parks"(3.02.01G).All public utilities are available for this project site due to the existing network abutting the site to the east and north,per Public Works comments. Subsequently, all public utilities will be extended at the Applicant's expense in order to connect to the existing services within the right-of-way. Further, the entire site is within the Fire Department response time goal of 5-minutes. West Ada School District has offered comments on this project and estimates 157 additional school aged children from this development. West Ada discusses within their letter there are thousands of homes not yet constructed in the same area of this project which will also add to school enrollment. However, there is currently capacity at each designated school. The adjacent roadways will be impacted by this development because neither Victory nor Linder Road have been widened.ACHD has not submitted their report but a TIS was completed. According to the submitted TIS, it contemplates 261 single-family residential units which is lower than what was submitted with the subject applications. Based on 261 units, the proposed development is estimated to generate approximately 2,513 vehicle trips per weekday. Further analysis of the TIS is below in the Access section of this report and will be even further analyzed by ACHD within their future staff report. Based upon the data presented in the TIS, the proposed development appears to be of minimal impact to the adjacent roadways and intersections but ACHD will determine what arterial road improvements are required. "Preserve,protect,and provide open space for recreation, conservation, and aesthetics" (4.05.01F). The proposed project offers open space that exceeds the minimum requirements in the unified development code (UDC) at the time of application submittal(prior to the open space Page 7 Item 3. ■ code changes in October 2021) by proposing slightly above 10%qualified open space.According to the submitted open space exhibit, approximately a quarter of the qualified open space is street buffers along the proposed collector streets and adjacent to Victory and Linder Roads and an additional quarter of the area consists of the Calkins Lateral easement and regional pathway. The remaining qualified open space consists of two large common lots in the center of the development consisting of approximately 5.5 acres of land with one of the lots containing the proposed clubhouse and swimming pool; the other large open space lot has a series of connected micro paths and open grassy areas. The entire development will share the open space and amenities which add to the walkability and usability of the open space within this development. The proposed centralized open space and pedestrian connectivity to it is an example of what the comprehensive plan and our development code currently aims to deliver to Meridian residents, despite leaving some areas without usable open space in their respective 40 acre quadrants. "Require pedestrian access connectors in all new development to link subdivisions together and to promote neighborhood connectivity as part of a community pathway system."(6.01.01 H). The Applicant is proposing multiple micro paths and regional pathway segments with the development consistent with the Master Pathways Plan. Further; the Applicant is proposing detached sidewalks and parkways throughout the subdivision and along the arterials as required by code. Because there is currently no other adjacent City development, there are no opportunities to connect to any existing facilities. However, the Applicant has the capacity to lay the foundation for a connected neighborhood with this development. The Applicant's proposed road layout offers some of this desired interconnectivity by placing S. Farmyard along the east boundary for easy connectivity to the detached sidewalks on its east side and by including the required regional pathway along the collectors and the Calkins Lateral. However, there is minimal connectivity to the west boundary or the north boundary of the southeast quadrant of the site. Staff is recommending specific revisions to address these two areas and increase the connectivity in this area for future development. "Work with transportation partners to identify locations for future park&ride lots, shuttle buses, and/or transit stations."(6.01.05).According to the Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho (COMPASS), a future express bus route is planned along Linder Road from Downtime Kuna to Chinden Boulevard. COMPASS and Staff recommend the Applicant work with Valley Regional Transit(VRT) to include a bus stop along this development's Linder Road frontage. Staff has included a DA provision consistent with this recommendation. With the recommended revisions,Staff finds this development to be generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. C. Access(UDC 11-3A-3): NOTE: Staff has not received ACHD's staff report for the subject development,which includes analysis on the accepted traffic study.Therefore,there is minimal information regarding ACHD analysis of the proposed and existing transportation network. Main access to the project is proposed via two new collector streets proposed with this development—one to W. Victory Road and one to S. Linder Road,both arterial streets. The north-south collector is shown as S. Farmyard Avenue and the east-west collector that runs along the southern boundary is shown as E. Holstein Drive. These two collector streets are required to be constructed per the Master Street Map. However,the north-south collector street is shown at the mid-mile mark on Victory and along the entire west boundary on the Master Street Map (MSM), it is not shown bisecting the property nor connecting to Victory at the mile mark. Page 8 Item 3. 50 ACHD will determine if this revised location of Farmyard requires a formal modification to the MSM. In general, Staff is supportive of the proposed collector street placement. In addition,the third access to the adjacent arterials is via a local street connection to Linder Road (shown as E. Pivot Drive)that aligns with a local street connection on the east side of Linder that was approved with the approved Brundage Estates development(currently undeveloped but approved).According to the submitted TIS, all proposed arterial connections comply with ACHD offset requirements but the ACHD staff report will verify this. All local streets are shown as 33- feet of pavement within 60 feet of right-of-way—the right-of-way includes the pavement and the parkways and detached 5-foot sidewalk on each side.ACHD will confirm if this right-of-way design complies with their policies. According to the submitted plat, the required collector street along the south boundary(E. Holstein Drive)is fully on the subject property at the east and west boundaries but curves down to be evenly split along the majority of the south property line. Specifically, this road is shown to be constructed with 18 feet of pavement from the property line to the back of curb on Burnside Ridge side of the property line. Typically, the first development in is required to construct their half of the street section (18 feet in this instance)plus 12 feet of pavement which would total 30 feet of pavement instead of the l8 feet proposed. This is important to note because this segment of road is adjacent to a County parcel that is not part of the subject annexation request and may require the road to shift 12 feet north to accommodate the additional ROW if ACHD does not accept this road segment as proposed. Lastly, the subject development abuts a number of county parcels to its northeast and the Applicant has proposed to stub a street to their shared property line near the northeast corner of the site(east side of Farmyard Avenue). Because of the number ofparcels adjacent to this project, Staff recommends an additional stub street be added to the north property boundary from E. Pivot Drive in the southeast third of the project to help create better opportunity for interconnectivity in the future. Specifically, Staff is recommending this stub street be located approximately in the area of Lot 11 or 12, Block 5. Traffic Impact Study Analysis: The proposed project proposes more than 100 units and therefore requires a Traffic Impact Study (TIS). The Applicant's traffic impact study has been analyzed by ACHD and specific conditions of approval will be outlined in their future staff report. D. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: The subject development consists of 6 county parcels and contains multiple agricultural based structures on the property; specifically, at the northwest corner of the site and near the southern boundary south of the Calkins Lateral.In addition,there is an existing residence in the southeast quadrant of the development that takes access from Linder Road and was illegally split from one of the lots with the County. This home and associated outbuilding are proposed to remain until the final phase of the development.All other structures on the properties are proposed to be removed at the time of site development. In addition, a portion of an unknown irrigation facility was piped along the west boundary of the site but appears to be outside of the property boundary. Boise Project Board of Control,the governing irrigation district in this area of the City, did not call this facility or easement out within their submitted letter so Staff assumes there are no issues with this facility and its proximity to the project. Staff has concerns surrounding the existing home shown to remain until the final phase of development. Unless specific provisions are outlined in the DA, the home may never connect to Page 9 Item 3. 51 City services or provide the required frontage improvements if allowed to wait until the noted phase only. Because of this and consistent with UDC 9-1-4& UDC 9-4-8, Staff is recommending a DA provision the existing home connect to City water&sewer within 60 calendar days after Council has granted approval of the annexation ordinance. E. Proposed Use Analysis: The Applicant is proposing detached single-family residential homes for the entire project area. This residential use is a permitted use in the requested R-2 and R-4 zoning districts,per UDC Table 11-2A-2; this use is also permitted within the recommended R-8 zoning district. The Applicant has provided a phasing plan notating the project is to be constructed in five (5) phases with each phase showing adequate Fire access,per Meridian Fire Department review. According to the phasing plan,the first phase includes a segment of the required north-south collector street(S. Farmyard) and the proposed local street connection to Linder Road at the northeast corner of the southeast quadrant of the project. Phase 1 depicts 56 building lots with minimal open space and no amenities beyond a segment of multi-use pathway along Farmyard. Staff is not supportive of this phasing of open space inclusion so Staff is recommending a revision to the phasing plan to include the central open space lot containing the clubhouse and pool,Lot 1,Block 12, and is approximately 102,000 square feet; including this with the first phase instead of phase 3 creates better opportunity for equitable use of these amenities by all residents. Phase 2 is depicted to include 92 lots and the remaining area of the northwest quadrant with the full area of the largest open space lot, Lot 6,Block 4. This second phase contains the first R-2 lots along the west boundary and includes the area of the plat Staff is recommending being revised to include an area of R-8 to meet the minimum density requirement. Phase 3 is shown to include the southeast corner of the property,the east third of the collector street required along the south boundary(E. Holstein Drive), a large segment of the Calkins Lateral regional pathway, and the proposed clubhouse and swimming pool. Based on the submitted phasing plan,the first 148 building lots are proposed prior to the inclusion of the clubhouse and pool; this accounts for slightly more than half of the proposed homes and is why Staff has recommending placing these amenities and lot within phase 1 instead. Phase 4 includes the remaining R-2 lots along the west boundary,the remaining Calkins regional pathway,and the remaining length of E.Holstein along the southern boundary. Phase 5 contains the noted outparcel along Linder Road, 3801 S. Linder, and the remaining 12 building lots and last piece of the Linder Road street buffer. Staff ,finds the proposed use meets all UDC requirements. Furthermore, with Staffs recommended revisions noted in this section and the next, the phasing of the project should provide livability and access to usable open space through each phase of development. F. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2): The proposed building lots meet all UDC dimensional standards for the requested zoning districts for lot size, lot frontage, and proposed use. All subdivision developments are also required to comply with Subdivision Design and Improvement Standards(UDC 11-6C-3). The Applicant has proposed a number of streets within the development with block lengths that exceed the allowed 750 linear feet. The three east-west local streets in the northwest quadrant are allowed to be up to 1,000 feet because each one has a micro path lot approximately mid-block Page 10 Item 3. 52 that provides a pedestrian access from the Victory Road sidewalk into the development and the large central open space lot. E. Pivot Drive along the north boundary in the southeast quadrant is approximately 1,200 linear feet with no breaks in the block length. To correct this, Staff recommends an additional stub street is stubbed to the north boundary near Lot 11 &Lot 12, Block 5 for future connectivity and to break up this block length consistent with UDC provisions. Further, Staff recommends an additional 15 foot wide micro path lot is added to the south side of E. Pivot in line with the recommended stub street location to head south between pivot and E. Drawbar to provide a more convenient pedestrian access through this area of the site. S.Agronomy Avenue near the west boundary is block that exceeds 750 feet on its west side (approximately 900 feet) but does have two streets on its east side. However, consistent with other areas of the site noted above, Staff recommends an additional micro path lot is added along the west boundary of this street for future pedestrian connectivity. Lastly, S. Red Angus Way is a local street that goes at a diagonal angle to the arterial streets in the south half of the development and is approximately 1,400 feet in length with a micro path connection near mid-block. However, UDC 11-6C-3F specifically limits the maximum block length allowed to 1,200 feet regardless of a pedestrian connection without site constraints; this code section also outright prohibits any block length greater than 1,200 feet without obtaining a City Council waiver. Because the proposed block length is greater 1,200 feet,Staff recommends the Applicant provide an additional cross street from Red Angus northeast to S.International Way across the Calkins Lateral in alignment with E.Drawbar Street to create a compliant block length. Furthermore, this new cross street would also provide better interconnectivity within the site and better access to the multi-use pathway along the Calkins Lateral.Staff finds this solution favorable to a Council waiver. In addition to block lengths, UDC 11-6C-3 discusses double fronted homes and prohibits this type of lot configuration unless unusual topography or other conditions make it impossible to meet this requirement; no such circumstances exist for this development so the Applicant must comply with this requirement. Lots 1-4, Block 8 are depicted as having frontage on both S. Agronomy and S. Cultivator which does not comply with this section of code. In order to comply with the UDC, the Applicant should attach the sidewalk and include a minimum 10 foot wide common lot measured from the back of sidewalk to the rear property line adjacent to one of these local streets; Staff does not have a preference as to which street has the common lot added. The Applicant should make the noted revisions in order to comply with the subdivision design and improvement standards in UDC 11-6C-3. G. 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 dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. Staff will analyze compliance with this standard at the time of each building permit submittal. H. Sidewalks&Parkways (UDC 11-3A-17): 5-foot wide detached sidewalks with parkways are proposed along all of the proposed local streets serving the detached single-family homes. The proposed sidewalks meet the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17. The sidewalks in this development create connections throughout the project including to and from the proposed open space lots, the multi-use pathway segment along the Calkins Lateral, and adjacent arterial roads.All open space areas also appear to be directly adjacent to sidewalks and Page 11 Item 3. 53 include micro paths which add to the pedestrian accessibility of the development. Staff believes the additional micro path connections recommended above further the pedestrian network within this development. With the proposed sidewalk network in conjunction with the recommended revisions, Staff supports the overall pedestrian facilities for this development. As noted, the Applicant is proposing detached sidewalks with parkways throughout the development. The pathways appear to measure at least 8 feet wide in all areas as required by code. However, these parkways do not contain the required number of trees per the UDC. Staff has analyzed this further in the subsequent landscape section below. I. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): A minimum 25-foot wide street buffer is required adjacent to W.Victory Road and S. Linder Road, arterial streets,required to be landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. According to the submitted plat, a minimum 25-foot common lot is depicted along both arterial streets. The submitted landscape plans appear to show landscaping in excess of code requirements. A 20-foot wide landscape buffer is required adjacent to Farmyard Avenue,the north-south collector street, and Holstein Drive,the east-west collector street along the south boundary—the submitted plat depicts a common lot at least 20 feet wide along all required areas but depicts the required detached sidewalks outside of the common lot and instead within the right-of-way. This is not typical but is allowed. Therefore,the submitted landscape plans depict an actual buffer width of greater than 30 feet adjacent to the collector roadways. Further,the submitted landscape plans appear to show the correct amount of landscaping per the UDC standards for these buffers. Landscaping is required along all pathways (including micro-pathways) in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C. The total lineal feet of all pathways with the required and proposed number of trees is included in the Landscape Calculations table on the submitted landscape plans. This table should be revised following the addition of the recommended micro- path lots throughout the site as discussed in sections above. Currently,the correct number of trees appear to be shown on the submitted plans. The Calkins Lateral currently bisects the south half of the project site and the Applicant is proposing to keep this lateral open as it is a relatively large facility. Further, as noted above, the Applicant is proposing a multi-use pathway segment along the north side of the Calkins consistent with the Master Pathways Plan.According to the letter submitted by the irrigation district, the easement for this lateral consists of 27 feet on its west side and 25 feet on its north side, measured from the centerline of the facility. The submitted plans depict a 40 foot wide irrigation easement which is inaccurate and does not clearly depict the centerline of the lateral. Therefore, it is unclear if any of the buildable lots on the west/southwest side of the lateral are encumbered by the easement. The Applicant should revise the plat to depict the correct width of the irrigation easement and depict whether any buildable lots are encumbered by its easement. Typically, no trees are allowed within irrigation easements which may present an issue since the submitted plans do not accurately depict the irrigation easement and the required regional pathway is shown within this common lot with the required trees.In order for this area to be qualified open space, the Applicant is required to landscape this area per code. If it turns out the irrigation easement prevents the inclusion of trees along the regional pathway,Staff recommends this common lot is widened to allow for at least 5 feet of landscaping on the north/northeast side of the lot and pathway to allow for the required number of trees for the purpose of creating areas of shade along the pathway. Should this revision be required because of the irrigation easement, the Applicant will be required to obtain for Alternative Compliance approval per UDC 11-3B-12C. The Applicant should submit for this approval with the second Final Plat application to propose how this revision meets or exceeds code requirements; Page 12 Item 3. 54 alternatively, the Applicant can propose a regional pathway and landscaping that meets these standards. 8-foot wide parkways with street trees are shown along all local streets within the development and are required to be landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. According to the submitted landscape plan,the correct number of trees are not shown and the table does not list the parkways at all.Prior to City Council, the Applicant should correct this by adding the correct number of trees (1 per 35 linear feet) and list the linear feet of parkway within the landscape table and show the correct number trees per the provisions outlined in UDC 11-3B-7C. Common open space is required to be landscaped in accord with the old standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3E. The total square footage of common open space and the required number of trees to demonstrate compliance with UDC standards is not included in the Landscape Calculations table but the submitted plans appear to show UDC compliance.Prior to City Council, the Landscape Calculations table should be corrected to include this requirement and reference the requirement of 1 tree18,000 square feet of common open space. J. Qualified Open Space (UDC 11-3G): Per the previous open space code,a minimum of 10%qualified open space meeting the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3B is required for the overall development. Based on the proposed plat of 119.3 acres, a minimum of 11.9 acres of qualified common open space should be provided to satisfy the requirements. According to the Applicant's open space exhibit, a total of 12.19 acres of qualified open space (approximately 10.22%) is proposed which meets the minimum code required. However, the open space exhibit does not include the parkways proposed throughout the entire development. As discussed above, these parkways do not include the required number of street trees but if those were added, the parkways could also be added to the amount of qualified open space. Therefore, with Staff's recommended revision to include the required number of trees, the actual amount of qualified open space is much greater than what is shown on the open space exhibit. The Applicant should revise the open space exhibit prior to City Council to reflect the qualified area of the parkways per code(linear feet of parkway minus 26 feet for each lot for the driveway, and then multiplied by 8; this will obtain the qualified open space area). Despite the proposed open space exceeding the minimum 10% requirement, a majority of this open space is centrally located within the 119 acres. Generally, the comprehensive plan and City code desire this but with a project of this size, it has left areas of the development without usable open space where residents will have to walk or drive almost a quarter mile to the central open space lots. For a child or a moderately healthy adult, this should not be an issue. But,for the elderly or those who cannot physically walk that far for other reasons,smaller areas of open space should be available in other parts of the development for more equitable access to green space. Therefore,Staff is including a condition of approval to replace a lot in each of the two southern quadrants(southwest third and southeast third) with an additional open space lot. Staff will leave the ultimate placement of these to the Applicant but does recommend Lot 21 or 22,Block 13 in the southeast third be utilized as an open space lot to be consistent with the recommendation to add a micro path through this area of the plat.In addition,Staff recommends Lot 7 or 8,Block 7 be utilized as an open space lot and be aligned with S.Brown Swiss Way on the east side of Farmyard Avenue for efficient pedestrian access to and from different areas of the development. With Staffs recommendation to revise Blocks 2 & 3 of the plat to be R-8 lots, the Applicant should be able to add at least 12 lots that area which would meet the 9 additional lots required to meet the minimum density and recoup the two lots lost with this recommendation. Page 13 Item 3. 55 NOTE:If the subject development was required to comply with the current open space standards for the requested R-2&R-4 zoning districts, the minimum amount of open space required would be approximately 14 acres instead of 11.9 acres. With the additional area of the parkways and two additional open space lots that will be qualified open space,Staff anticipates the additional 2 acres of open space would be present within the development. K. Qualified Site Amenities (UDC 11-3G): Based on the area of the proposed plat(119.3 acres), a minimum of six(6) qualified site amenities are required to be provided per the old open space standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3C (I amenity for every 20 acres). According to the submitted plans, the Applicant is proposing at least eight(8) qualifying amenities to satisfy UDC requirements: Clubhouse, swimming pool, children's play structures, pickleball court, multi-use pathways, shaded picnic area,public art, and outdoor fitness equipment. The proposed amenities exceed code requirements. Further, according to the submitted narrative from the Applicant, the proposed play structure is more consistent with a natural play area than traditional playground equipment which Staff fully supports. A majority of these amenities are proposed within the two central open space lots which leaves the other areas of the development without an amenity outside of sidewalk connections to the regional pathway along the Calkins Lateral. As discussed above, Staff is recommending a loss of a few lots in different areas of the project to increase the accessibility to open space for all areas of the development.In conjunction with this, the Applicant should include an amenity within each of these areas for recreation purposes. Staff is not recommending three additional amenities be added but is anticipating amenities can be moved from the central open space to these areas. If this is not possible, additional amenities should be required. NOTE:If the subject development was analyzed against the current open space and amenity code, the minimum amount of amenity points for the development would be 24 points and an amenity from each category would be required The proposed amenities would exceed the required amount of amenity points. L. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. Privacy fencing is proposed in essentially all areas of the development which does not comply with the UDC and no exhibit is shown depicting the actual type of fencing proposed. Specifically, all fencing along irrigation facilities cannot be 6-foot tall privacy fencing and instead must be 6- foot tall open vision fencing per UDC 11-3A-6C—this requirement applies to all lots abutting the Calkins Lateral as well as the rear of lots abutting the piped irrigation facility abutting the west property boundary, as discussed above. In addition, 6-foot tall privacy fencing is not allowed along micro paths unless they are no deeper than 2 lots, or 250 feet in length, and connect two public roads. Therefore, the fencing along the micro paths on Lot, 35, Block 1, Lot 7, Block 12, and the recommended micro path along the west boundary must be no more than 4 feet solid fencing or be constructed as semi private fencing with 4 feet of solid fencing and no more than 2 feet of open vision fencing(at least 80% open) to total 6 feet in height. Page 14 Item 3. 56 M. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): The applicant has submitted conceptual elevations of the proposed detached single-family homes. Unless specifically required by City Council, single-family residential homes do not require Administrative Design Review(DES)approval prior to building permit submittal. The conceptual elevations submitted depict estate homes with multiple finish and accent materials, home sizes, and color concepts. Based on the submitted images, the future single- family homes appear to be custom homes that will add to the quality of housing in the City of Meridian. N. Waterways(UDC 11-3A-6): A segment of the Calkins Lateral bisects the southern half of the development with no floodplain present. As noted above,the Applicant is proposing to keep this lateral open and include a regional pathway on its north/northeast side to count this area as qualified open space. According to the submitted plat, the lateral and regional pathway are shown in a common lot approximately SS feet wide and shows the irrigation easement as 40 feet of this width. As discussed above, the Boise Project Board of Control notes the easement width for the Calkins Lateral is 52 feet in total;27 feet on its south/southwest side and 25 feet on its north/northeast side, measured from the centerline of the facility. The Applicant should revise the plat to depict the correct easement width so Staff can adequately analyze this piece of the development. Regardless, the Applicant is required to comply with all standards in UDC 11-3A-6. Fencing and landscaping have been analyzed in other sections of the report and includes specific recommendations consistent with the analysis in this section. VI. 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 application per the conditions of approval in Section VIII and the Findings in Section IX of this staff report. B. Commission: Enter Summary of Commission Decision. C. City Council: To be heard at future date. Page 15 Item 3. F57 VII. EXHIBITS A. Annexation and Zoning Legal Descriptions and Exhibit Maps (NOT APPROVED) GWAS LAND SURVEYINO PLLC t Client:Kimley Horn Date: February 4,2022 Job No._9519 ANNEXATION PROPERTY DESCRIPTION A parcel of land being the W 1/2 NE 114 and a portion of the SE 114 NE 1/4 all of Lot 1 and Lot 3 and a portion of Lot 2 of Basslin Ridge Estates as on file in Book 64 of Plats at Page 6469 in the Office of the Recorder of Ada County, Idaho,all located in Section 26,Township 3 North,Range 1 West,Boise Meridian,Ada County Idaho,more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at a found Brass Cap marking the NW corner of said NE 1/4,(North 114 corner),from which a found Aluminum cap stamped"PLS 17665"marking the NE corner of said NE 114, (Section corner common to Sections 23,24,25 and 26)bears S.890 06'38"E.,a distance of 2655.71 feet; Thence along the Northerly boundary of said W 112 NE 114,S.89'06'38"E.,a distance of 1328.23 feet to the NE corner of said W 112 NE 1/4,(East 1/16 corner common to sections 23 and 26); Thence along the Easterly boundary of said W 112 NE 1/4,S.00'33'37"W.,a distance of 1326.54 feet to a found 5/8 inch diameter iron pin with illegible cap marking the Northwest corner of said Basslin Ridge Estates; Thence along the Northerly boundary of said Basslin Ridge Estates,S.89108'36"E.,a distance of 1326.07 feet to the NE corner of said SE 114 NE 1/4,(North 1116 corner common to sections 25 and 26); Thence along the Easterly boundary line of said SE 1/4 NE 114,S.00137' 17"W.,a distance of 1325.84 feet to the SE corner of said SE 114 NE 1/4,(East 1/4 corner); Thence along the Southerly boundary of said SE 114 NE 114,N.891 11'36"W.,a distance of 1325.93 feet to the Southeast corner of said of said W 1/2 NE 1/4,(Center east 1/16 corner); Thence along the Southerly boundary of said W 112 NE 114, N.891 10'56"W.,a distance of 1326.91 feet to a found 5/8 inch diameter iron pin with cap stamped"PLS 6901"marking the Southwest comer of said of said W 1/2 NE 114,(Center 1/4 corner); Thence along the Westerly boundary of said W 1/2 NE 114,N,00°33'35"E.,a distance of 2655.21 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. 1.L N This parcel contains 121.29 acres more or less. l \� D � cc Z 416 Z2—o WP �4D A• 623 11th Ave.South,Nampa,ID 83651 T.(208)442-0 t 15 C.(208)608-25 10 rgray.cls@gmail.com Page 16 Item 3. F58 s84°O6'38'e t 77 QF 19��Q� A�qp A. [� . a n N 1126.07 C ~ N n M 1326.91 1925 93 n89° 0'55 w n 'V'3Gly 9519 Revised Annexation 2/4/2022 Scale: 1 inch=350 feet File: Tract 1:121.2924 Acres,Closure:547.4756w 0.01 ft.(11999999),Perimeter=10615 ft_ 01 s89.0638e 1328.23 07 n00.3335e 2655.21 02 s00.3337w 1326.544 03 s89.0836e 1326.07 04 s00.3717w 1325.94 05 n89.1111 1325.93 O6 n89.1056w 1326.91 Page 17 Item 3. F591 '�J � �13 LAND SURVEYING PLLC Client:Kimley Horn Date:February 8,2022 Job No.:9519 Re:Jackson Ridge Estates REZONE R-4 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION A parcel of land being a portion of the W 1/2 NE 1/4 and a portion of the SE 114 NE 114 all of Lot 1 and Lot 3 and a portion of Lot 2 of Basslin Ridge Estates as on file in Book 64 of Plats at Page 6469 in the Office of the Recorder of Ada County, Idaho,all located in Section 26,Township 3 North,Range 1 West,Boise Meridian,Ada County Idaho, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at a found Brass Cap marking the NW corner of said NE 1/4,(North 114 corner),from which a found Aluminum cap stamped"PLS 17665"marking the NE corner of said NE 114, (Section corner common to Sections 23,24,25 and 26)bears S.89'06'38"E.,a distance of 2655.71 feet; Thence along the Northerly boundary of said W 1/2 NE 114,S.89106'38"E.,a distance of 118.31 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence continuing along the Northerly boundary of said W 112 NE 114,S.890 06'38"E.,a distance of 1209.92 feet to the NE corner of said W 112 NE 1/4, (East 1116 corner common to Sections 23 and 26); Thence along the Easterly boundary of said W 1/2 NE 1/4,S.000 33'37"W.,a distance of 1326,54 feet to a found 5/8 inch diameter iron pin with illegible cap marking the Northwest corner of said Basslin Ridge Estates; Thence along the Northerly boundary of said Basslin Ridge Estates,S.89,08'36"E.,a distance of 1326.07 feet to the NE corner of said SE 114 NE 114,(North 1/16 corner common to sections 25 and 26); Thence along the Easterly boundary line of said SE 1/4 NE 114,S.000 37' 17"W.,a distance of 1325.84 feet to the SE corner of said SE 1/4 NE 1/4,(East 1/4 corner); Thence along the Southerly boundary of said SE 1/4 NE 114,N.891 11'36"W.,a distance of 1325.93 feet to the Southeast corner of said of said W 112 NE 1/4.(Center east 1/16 comer); Thence along the Southerly boundary of said W 112 NE 1/4,N.89°10'56"W.,a distance of 1326.91 feet to a found 5/8 inch diameter iron pin with cap stamped"PLS 6901"marking the Southwest corner of said of said W 1/2 NE 114,(Center 1/4 corner); Thence along the Westerly boundary of said W 1/2 NE 1/4,N.001 33'35"E.,a distance of 75.78 feet; Thence leaving said Westerly boundary,S.891 07'51"E.,a distance of 88.77 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve right; Thence a distance of 73.14 feet along the arc of said curve right,having a radius of 250.00 feet,a central angle of 161 45'49",the long chord of which bears S.801 44'57"E.,a distance of 72.88 feet; 623 11th Ave.South,Nampa,ID 83651 T.(208)442-0115 C.(208)608-2510 rgray.cls@gmail.com Page 18 Item 3. F60 COMPASS LAND SURVEYING,PLLC Kimley-Hom-95191SurveylDescriptionslRev 2-8-22Rezone R-4 Boundary.doc Page 2 of 2 Thence non tangent to said curve right,N. 11°11'16"E.,a distance of 112.50 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve left; Thence a distance of 37.10 feet along the arc of said curve left,having a radius of 200.00 feet,a central angle of 10'37'41",the long chord of which bears N.050 52'26"E.,a distance of 37.05 feet; Thence N.001 33'35"E.,a distance of 734.35 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve right; Thence a distance of 144.30 feet along the arc of said curve right,having a radius of 100.00 feet,a central angle of 82140'31",the long chord of which bears N.410 53'51"E.,a distance of 132.10 feet; Thence non tangent to said curve right, N.06'45'54°W.,a distance of 284.12 feet; Thence N.221 27'48"E.,a distance of 232.34 feet to the beginning of a non tangent curve right; Thence a distance of 256.60 feet along the arc of said curve right, having a radius of 203.00 feet,a central angle of 721 25'30",the long chord of which bears N.35139'10"W.,a distance of 239.86 feet; Thence N.00'33'35"E.,a distance of 709.53 feet; Thence N.231 43'26"W.,a distance of 153.41 feet; Thence N.001 53'22"E.,a distance of 69.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. This parcel contains 109.53 acres more or less. L N o 7 2 'c x � Z 2 0 ple 623 I lth Ave.South,Nampa,ID 83651 T.(208)442-0115 C.(208)608-2510 rgray.cls@gmail.com Page 19 Item 3. F61 sS9°O6'38"e ,g m m n 73 �9E P�rp P ry C s88°p8'3fi"e M O a . . .' 1326:91 - - . 4325. 8 n 9 w 9519 Revised R-4 Zone Jackson Ridge Estates 218/2022 Scale: i inch=350 feet File: Tract 1:109.5353 Acres,Closure:s04.5931e 0.01 ft.(1IB12335),Perimeter=10812 fl. 01 s89.0638e 1209.92 14 n06.4554w 284,12 02 s00.3337w 1326.64 15 n22-2748e 232.34 03 s89.0836e 1326.07 16 Rt,r=203.00,delta=072.2530,chord=n35.3910w 239.86 04 s00.3717w 1325.84 17 n00.3335e 709.53 05 n89.1136w 1325.93 18 n23.4326w 153.41 06 n89.1056w 1326,91 19 n00.5322e 69 07 n00.3335e 75.78 08 s89.0751 a 88.77 09 Rt,r-250.00,delta=016.4549,chord=s80.4457e 72.88 10 n11.1116e 112.5 11 U,r-200M,delta=010.3741,chord=n05.5226e 37.05 12 n00.3335e 734.36 13 Rt,r-100.00,delra=082.4031,chord=n41.5351a 132,10 Page 20 Item 3. F62 �J S LAND SURVEYING PLLG Client: Kimley Horn Date:November 29,2021 Job No.:9519 Re:Jackson Ridge Estates REZONE R2 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION A parcel of land being a portion of the W 112 NE 1/4 and a portion of the SE 1/4 NE 114 all of Lot 1 and Lot 3 and a portion of Lot 2 of Basslin Ridge Estates as on file in Book 64 of Plats at Page 6469 in the Office of the Recorder of Ada County,Idaho,all located in Section 26,Township 3 North, Range 1 West,Boise Meridian,Ada County Idaho,more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at a found Brass Cap marking the NW corner of said NE 1l4,(North 114 corner),from which a found Aluminum cap stamped"PLS 17665"marking the NE corner of said NE 114, (Section corner common to Sections 23,24,25 and 26)bears S.891 06'38"E_,a distance of 2655.71 feet; Thence along the Northerly boundary of said W 112 NE 114,S.89'06'38"E.,a distance of 118.31 feet; Thence leaving said Northerly boundary,S.00'53'22"W.,a distance of 69.00 feet; Thence S.23143'26"E.,a distance of 153.41 feet; Thence S.00'33'35"W.,a distance of 709.53 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve left; Thence a distance of 256.60 feet along the arc of said curve left, having a radius of 203.00 feet,a central angle of 72D 25'30",the long chord of which bears S.35139'10"E.,a distance of 239.86 feet; Thence non tangent to said curve,S.220 27'48"W.,a distance of 232.34 feet; Thence S.060 45'54"E.,a distance of 284.12 feet to the beginning of a non tangent curve left; Thence a distance of 144.30 feet along the arc of said curve left, having a radius of 100.00 feet,a central angle of 82°40'31",the long chord of which bears S.410 53'51"W.,a distance of 132.10 feet; Thence S.000 33'35"W.,a distance of 734.35 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve right; Thence a distance of 37.10 feet along the arc of said curve right, having a radius of 200.00 feet,a central angle of 10°37'41",the long chord of which bears S.05,52'26"W.,a distance of 37.05 feet; Thence S. 11 1 11' 16"W.,a distance of 112.50 feet; 623 1 Ith Ave.South,Nampa,W 83651 T.(208)442-0115 C.(208)608-2510 rgray.cls@gmaii.com Page 21 Item 3. F63 COMPASS LAND SURVEYING,PLLC Kiinley-Horn-95191SurveylDescriptionslR-2 Rezone.doc Page 2 of 2 Thence a distance of 73.14 feet along the arc of said curve left,having a radius of 250.00 feet,a central angle of 160 45'49",the long chord of which bears N.801 44'57"W.,a distance of 72.88 feet to a point; Thence tangent to said curve,N.89107'51"W.,a distance of 88.77 feet to the Westerly boundary of said W 112 NE 114; Thence along the Westerly boundary of said W 112 NE 1/4,N.001 33'35"E.,a distance of 2579.44 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. This parcel contains 11.76 acres more or less. QQ 1� N3 pC ` 4 0 'SAD A• 623 llth Ave.South,Nampa,ID 83651 T.(208)442-0115 C.(208)608-2510 rgray.cls@gnail,com Page 22 Item 3. F64 N m �Ir M m 0 rn A N N A A �N O C F Q N �7732 c 'pl4 OF 1Dp�P� 9519 R-2 Zoning Jackson Ridge Estates 11130/2021 Scale: 1 inch=318 feet File: 9519 Zone R-2.ndp Tract 1:11.7573 Acres,Closure:s72.2943w 0.01 ft.(1F717202),Perimeter-5593 ft. 01 s89.0638e 118.31 11 s11.1116w 112.5 02 s00.5322w 69 12 Lt,r-250.00,delta=016.4549,chord=n80.4457w 72.88 03 s23.4326e 153.41 13 n89.0751w 88.77 04 s00.3335w 709.53 14 n00.3335e 2579.44 05 Lt,r=203.00,delta=072.2530,chord=s35.3910e 239.86 06 s22 2748w 232.34 07 306.4554e 284.12 08 Lt,r=100.00,delta=082.4031,chord=s41.5351w 132.10 09 s00.3335w 734.35 10 Rt,r-200.00,delta=OMV41,chord=05.5226w 37.05 Page 23 Item 3. 65 B. Preliminary Plat(dated: 2/3/2022) (NOT APPROVED) ' > oHvm •Nvla183w �1 ; :i uj � A ti R '_A�ij i„° 531tl1S3 39aIN 31)ISNa OHO(Aajw gz ❑ ... y I I � III O��tl e a ., 4 �. I VJQ Ti s LLJ ❑ Q z�z n/ F-OO a a LL o a oIf 3 s12, o g a g J o� w � r ❑ W Z 22x a � z/ ¢ s a at_za, L.L �e°ss� M � sac I 6 Tl� -- - vL �IIT � I —� al R T � I1�I II - � Iil��l I�IT _ I I � �„ � •••-vvv� 5,. �� 9s - �I�� 1T �iTTT_r� �7�e Page 24 Item 3. 66 zEces mue qoF .� uorvsm IlY . �,�F� z— ao n�e,� �. N. � 4= T � - � I sr a\\ 22 e0' o'aa sv h loo'os°o ,00'ti25 ��121 IF w IF -11, IF Ih zs sF tse9l 6 SF P9e 5f ^",asaz IF � ea m,s sr lol es sf IF 1—IF,c 1s eiLaxz 121 Fl,mx 2 II , g1,0125 SF ¢ srl,m7>SA�mca� l000]o NI I s o ssNl 1➢atss NI, u -- f 4 75 - o� b.� �� I-s�]5-_ I In I� �I l0000-s4 I 9 I� fi I b I' 4 9 sIm IA t oaoFE=T,il� sue_ l�I =F��,�„s sF�la��s ,zs ,25 �J o�s IF x 211495E s 1�1�62 zs 1 „ IF. �I o IF I,o - a58 5 .III ,mjs IF 1151255FIIOt 8S � yWq ooxf ; �iw hll to �naysesF�w u� I a z,,..IF 3 ^� _s a- nl v —JvL z5 �� — 'I ]fi' � w �]5� —7d_ 75 75 n 75' p , @ 9 8 s s 1 1f i I ,a,2 sf 2 i sF a J a E' f vf„ v3vv x z115v sF �T5'g Fs� s,S sF �71 LII 5 I 8 9 zle ti 1�� 12 „e F ,mzs sr w,2 sr az.g 1s., �1FIA u IF11 IF wlse IF Imc 1-7 71 ` ePlY i91fie IF RBa3nT0aV0 j ,aseJ s nl/ as 111 Ill- \ ,aoasz IF IF -11 IF IF 105 , . 101117 IF MATCHLINE-SEE SHEET 06 Page 25 Item 3. 67 N1 Tea a'e-0;T� I I �� u�T,,�� `�.e•�Y as' :I C3IT 9F 1 a 9 5F 1 i rw , ae,r l,coe°s I d Aefsneoew \RC/ s TCHIJNE-SEE SHEET 06 = s,`3. F`I `fi 5�1 5 •I �I SF 4 1O+G 1- 3 <,3 11*73 �i 11/ � =a o 211411- �O•+bus w - rcn. Y�10 ,tii Ci \� aaR/e.e sr sLF i. 23m1 IF `' ' ,jl�•� 1ii� ill`1 �! 17 1�31�12— E ,,:,s•/`�11�ssR rl Vie` ,ea s•,�,'%`�'\ ��\a>,,,X s � zF 1411 Fl 8 I-1aa�s§ i,sc sr yoo\' Sf'� ,sizes r \. o �3a sF _ �X�� ml \GJM, ,aa �I Ra �� 14 IF In _ uaao s :i 'm m m �35 se-% j m,z i,s/,✓P�,:..�.e� < ia2 o I� \�,�� % e w z12s2 sr 1 Ala ,ill B19CKa 1 III aeg � �.�, �;� \��:f\ s�_ �\ �•\/ \\ \f �� _Er` 3v _ ansax s om 20085:F -4e 1 Js I F I NB9105H y � f wn ' Page 26 Item 3. 68 �K Founo Mo6u�nEnrT nr APN APN.- SEC 23N 24,N25&M, 5}226}15}B3 5}2264}p5]5 T3N,RIW FROPFRtt LINE -- - —�— _ 569'86'36'E 1286.OT _ —J2' ]2 _� J2 BLOCK]2 T 7 2 YT 14018 13.�9 35.5 20 856 29 hIl 72 13 14 45 16 f 1pp80 SF 10690 IF 100B0 IF 11A08p SFtppBO SF 10080 IF 110p8p SF IF IF 1 / g a j ]2' 72' 77 17 ]2� 12 3 12 Y5 6'T 5p 2B �iO _ -38222 SFI� I 75 75 JS 75 ]5' J5 ]b 17939 SF 12 104t2 IF 1041t BF 110110 SF 1p40A SF 10408 IF 1040J IF 1040fi IF 3 '�\\ 151 b05F a --� RLOCK I3 I � ivl 1fi l6' 1 n IM In n - I- fff IN 28 21 I a 22 I- 29 � 24 F 10]8]SF 11]1]SF 10]0]SF 11]1]SF I 1p]p]SF�1V]1]IF 10855 SF - W 9 w 5 5 75 5 ]5 N fi a - W 0 fi]' 14111 SF C i° 75' �75' 75' 71' 11' 75 ]S lbµ 30 n 21 \ 107002 9F 10704 8F 1V 12 b IF lU7H 9F 1Wi1 IF TW113 sF 1�]o IF 31 I \ L 60' m 1112 SF 1 R/W IS' 18' S]' 4B' 2B' S6' 19' I. .]5' 65 I 32 m l IF~ g - 2 1 02 10825 IF 9 —A IF a1 1052b SF 10625 5F 10625 SF 10619 SF- 125 ly 85. 21 IF BLOCK 13 \ \ 12 21 _ \ \ 1p248 SF ,'2q -26 51' 65' 85' ]2' — lopzs sF 1 p q� � .Y� p E.IRRIGATOR ST ' , \ 1p246 IF 9fE/ / p5 63 ]0' 7p 11- 166'— 6 2511 IF, 2 2p'f 93 0 35 14 4] 1p5B1 SF 4, m 10625 IF 18240 SF r� N s 45 6751 SF d)50 SF B]50 IF / \\. t0125 IF \ \ 6 % l0 119 1p125 Sf / \ 'h\ \ i5'/ 6�"' 2p•]0' JO" ]B'23' 62A SF 11' 11 d6 y 1486 16 d1 12165 SF °' 40'EN. 10298 IF �S- 15993 5F / -� 10125 SF /9 C \v zoo sf �� ^ G �d 1p2aa s,= 4 95 °s. 'S \ 4 ry e' ^14992 9F 13733 IF 91 12 /KK a \ 26 \ \ Ot;K 37 1—SF 6 / \�6 �, 18 2p2Afi 8- �I .off, -1oz.e27 sF :— Islzsoa sF-�� - --- 1 1 20 \m' 151tr1 SF ` 2180]5F t5A45 SF Y 11998 45 249 51 4i 59 Ip3'� 49 - \\\\ _Bo92 1 sF�m 21. 2492 sr e9 1� 1285.93 E.HOLSTEfNOR-- _- - 1�FOV MON VAIENi APN: AT CORNER IF S1226417350 21 T3N,111. —10.38'E 4p.p APR: APN: S1226417250 S1226417300 t 3 Page 27 Item 3. ■ C. Open Space Exhibit(NOT APPROVED) I , W VICTORY ROAD—--- ❑H --- APN:R819111%09 _ . — _ I - ERM6dTk SY -k I i rtn cao WICE F x l 3 I 1 I EMk=FYs I _ ---- I ADJACENT PROPERTY w I 1 130T A PART I I I I I m I I I I I � I I f I kaH.sla2cnoass , I E1lIgHG si ! I 'YJLH s� aE PMR PMENT TE Inl�e L � j / � 17- �Fr,RN Ea sn.LPruRE Awu:rufav]aoo , All, n'NStt-RT F P RUry RI A.I cwMer.n.Io.. — —_H---s—22 6—n-o 193 _F A �V v I oc II APN.R8f9f]POWO 0 I / Q E=N,F J \.T S.RfU ANpuSWAY iV �� RIWBAx s — I F I I I C I 0 F IAIf P:.PATE F] I S F � , �.I. RRIGAIOR ST � kFH.Re191]�xd , m N I u�E PATE F i G ❑ I Its eEkurdMsr I �,cd s� .9� �, Clk. p __----- - --- _ ----- I Awr.slaaerrnsR PROPERTY LINE \ ———� APN�51226C11u0 \ APH:512E66f]900 I Page 28 Item 3. ■ D. Landscape Plans(dated: 1/31/2022)(NOT APPROVED) NOTE:THic i I I W VICTORY ROAD I \—yL I I ' 1 , �I I I I_J I I O L_LF ��,— / i i f I T— I II - I _ I I s Page 29 Item 3. F71 OHYOI 'Hv� Ia311 wa`rroa 133HSa 213AOO uaoEj<«Aajuai ,°,fix 3dtlOSONVIANVNIWll3Hd „„„x s3LV1S3 30018 3aisune r am.n o o IN, N � $ 2• U a'� D s � Fr g -.2 ❑ ��3 e � �; a � � z 3 � 5 � $ e e a � � � � a .. � � � m � d d z ��s� ��3a� �5�€1 � $��EE»Eu.4fSs OVOd IGON17 S r r i , I I I� I r I I I ----� n_ I r r I � I Ir - i I r I I ----------- ---------- -�-- r r Page 30 Item 3. 72 ARIVAGY 90'x 'SIGHT -�- — — _WVlCTORY ROAD FENCE,Tao � �ARocosEo -'' � MGNUMENT SIGN PENCE T R° I I I a M cao-PA H G PGSEG I MNDMILLPRl EATURE SIGEWPLK FEIN EGT9D Ll ou v —PRIVACY I \ FENCE TSD I I I PRIVA -- I FENC TBD 5'IATHUSE I I 5'MISRCO-PATH � � I I EwA I� II 11 PATHJYAY I :; la I I I I I FENGE.TSD -- --� —� —I— ---I --� I FE PRIVAG TB6' I NGE, l I I I I I I I I I I I I -- I I 5'MICRO-PATH I 1 I I I SIDEWALK I I I I I I I I 5'MICROA NRY S INEWAL I 1 K E PRIVACY FENCE,1. I 5 MICRO-PATH SI DENNLK PRIVACY FENCE.T6D PRIVACY � FENCE.T6C 1 / PRIVACY - I-- FENCE.iBD 1, PRIVACY PATHWAY FENCE,TB❑ I VISIBILITY TRIANGI£ Page 31 Item 3. F 3 i -- ------,----- T \ I i vT�' eO FE NGE � I I '' \•�� ' I I ! I I i I I /1C MULTILSL— — AY I � ' YUSI l I I I I 1 S�MICdi0.PgTH, I I FENCE,iao I �ruLE e� r � NEE I I I I \ ' I f, FENCP III - '- 7-5 I _ - i0'MULTI-A, — — — PnTnVYFlY _`_ __ -_ __— I � I ' � C I ' I � I � ----- ---- ---- ---- — ----- ———— ---------- Page 32 Item 3. F 4 I I T —— PRIVACY I FENCE,TE❑ VISIBILITYxTRIANGLE I I 1 I \ PROPOSED MONUMENT SIGN L � I I � I I I I 2sIL—APE L LI I ✓ I � II 3 � ,I � I � I � I 17- r imv, - Q I / I PRIVACY I PENCE,TBC 1 I I I 1 � I 1p MULTI-USE PATHWAY Tvp- PRIVACY PRIVACY FENCE,T60 _ I FENCE,TBU 2_LAIJR4CAF_ J I FE2 F 40 x 49 S7GHT J i� I ----_-------------- VISIEILITY TRIANGLE !� I c I I I € I I I Ir I �♦ � � — Iz Page 33 Item 3. 75 E. Proposed Phasing Plan RouNo MIXJUMENr Eouno NaNUNENT T AT N}CORNER Q' AT E CORNER C£ SEC.28,iiN,R1 W. � SEC-2®.TYl,Rtw Aaas�Tmov 'f�i.�m_•._ _ - r _ — Ir -� p la�I I I aROFERn LmE Fa„fnea�� I——-�I--�— I 1 I I d I I LI PROPERTY LINE �I I I I !� \ P—E IJNEJ T44� I PHASE LEEROP[PERTY LINE E12]v11v5]5 TH r—�-- �� PRASE LINE I FFA9El ^-�\ I r \ I I � 4SWaY 11-� I f.ocgW6ARsr _ 5f]]b]a1910 1 E-owN I I \\,q5 1 LNE E 1 PROPCRiY LILAC a PROPERT"LINE PHASE LINE RaiatTao3vo � �3 I I I �' '\� � � 1 I \/ pk4�vY at E.IRRfGq ioR se ( si Fra3�RaP o s ,ftNF ' 9lvesPecO I }` _NO MONUMENT I `1111 IONUMENT AT C 3 CORn'ER O' sfaa[yf TaSv I AT E#CORNER CF a SEC.26,T3N.R1 W. sfaseofTaSv sfsasffY3ov SEC.26,T]N,R1. fl I � � Page 34 � m f El IT }s. 5- AS f r zF. 4_ i 41.E IL IF G 4 � 1 Bench — Page Item 3. F78 G. Conceptual Building Elevations: MEN r 1 a� "ddwb Aw 1 I Page 37 Item 3. F79 j rlh ..� ti a 44 s +_ 4 t r ZE r{ t Page 38 Item 3. F80 VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION Applicant shall provide revised zoning district legal descriptions and Exhibit Maps to include the recommended area of R-8 and subsequent reduction in area of R-4 zoning at least 15 days prior to the City Council hearing. 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,the property owner(s) at the time of annexation ordinance adoption,and the developer. A final plat will not be accepted until the DA is executed and the Annexation and Zoning ordinance is approved by City Council. 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. Future development of this site shall be substantially consistent with the approved plat,phasing plan, landscape plan, open space exhibit, conceptual building elevations, and amenity examples included in Section VII and the provisions contained herein. b. Future development shall be substantially consistent with the proposed phasing plan with the modification to include the clubhouse and pool and the entirely of Lot 1, Block 12 with the first phase of development. c. Applicant shall work with Valley Regional Transit(VRT)to include a bus stop along the Linder Road frontage prior to the final phase of development. d. The required landscape street buffer, detached pedestrian facilities, and road improvements along W. Victory Road and S. Linder Road shall be constructed and vegetated with the first phase of development. e. The existing home at 3801 S. Linder Road shall connect to City services within 60 days of the City Council approving the Annexation ordinance per UDC 9-1- 4 &UDC 9-4-8,unless City Council grants a different timeline of service connection—the home's existing access to Linder may remain until phase 3 when the property will have access to Linder through internal local streets and the first leg of E. Holstein,as shown on the approved phasing plan. f. The rear and/or sides of homes abutting all arterial and collector roadways 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. Preliminary Plat Conditions: 2. The preliminary plat included in Section VII.B, dated February 3, 2022, shall be revised as follows at least fifteen(15)days prior to the City Council hearing: a. Revise Blocks 2 & 3 to include R-8 compliant lots and add additional building lots to comply with the minimum gross density requirements west of S. Farmyard Avenue (at least 2.5 du/ac). Page 39 Item 3. 81 b. Shift E. Holstein at least 12 feet to the north to allow for the standard requirement of constructing half of the street section plus 12 additional feet of pavement for safe vehicular access—the stub location of this collector street along the west project boundary should also be shifted this distance to mitigate future connectivity issues with the adjacent county residence to the west. c. Add an additional stub street to the north boundary near Lot 11 or Lot 12,Block 5 for future connectivity and to break up the block length of E. Pivot Drive. d. Add an additional cross street from S. Red Angus Way heading northeast to S. International Way across the Calkins Lateral in alignment with E. Drawbar Street to create a compliant block length,provide better interconnectivity, and provide an additional access to the multi-use pathway along the Calkins Lateral. e. Attach the sidewalk and include a minimum 10-foot wide common lot measured from the back of sidewalk to the rear property line adjacent to one of the local streets abutting Lots 1-4,Block 8 to remove the double frontage on these lots. f. Add the following additional micro-path lots at least 15 feet in width with a 5-foot wide pathway: 1) south side of E. Pivot in line with the recommended stub street location to head south between pivot and E. Drawbar and; 2) along the west boundary from S. Agronomy Avenue to the west property line near the shared property line of Lots 10& 11,Block 6. g. Depict the correct width of the Calkins Lateral easement and depict whether any buildable lots are encumbered by said easement. 3. The landscape plan included in Section VII.D, dated January 31,2022, shall be revised as follows at least fifteen(15)days prior to the City Council hearing: a. Revise the landscape plans to match the revised preliminary plat as detailed above; b. Per UDC 11-313-7C, depict the correct number of trees(1 per 35 linear feet)within the proposed parkways and list the linear feet of parkway within the landscape calculations table. c. Include the required number of trees for the common open space areas within the landscape calculations table at the ratio of 1 tree per 8,000 square feet. d. Replace a lot in each of the two southern quadrants (southwest third and southeast third)with an additional open space lot—Staff recommends Lot 21 or 22,Block 13 in the southeast third and Lot 7 or 8,Block 7 in the southwest third. e. Per UDC 11-3A-6C, depict 6-foot tall open vision fencing along both sides of the Calkins Lateral. f. Remove the micro-path common lots of Lot 7, Block 12 &Lot 10, Block 11 in lieu of the recommended new cross street noted in VIII.A.2d. g. Depict the proposed type of fencing on a sheet within the landscape plans to ensure compliance with development code. 4. The Applicant shall revise the open space exhibit to match the revised plat and landscape plans and include the eligible parkway area per the provisions in UDC 11-3G-3B.4. 5. If required landscaping along the regional pathway adjacent to the Calkins Lateral is not allowed in the irrigation easement,the Applicant shall submit Alternative Compliance per UDC 11-3B-12C to propose an alternative that meets or exceeds code requirements OR Page 40 Item 3. 82 propose a wider common lot that allows the regional pathway and landscaping to meet UDC standards. 6. Future development shall be consistent with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-4,UDC Table 11-2A-5, and UDC Table 11-2A-6 for the R-2, R-4, and R- 8 zoning districts,respectively. 7. Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 for single-family dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. 8. The Applicant shall comply with all ACHD conditions of approval. 9. Prior to City Engineers signature on a final plat,the applicant shall submit a public access easement for the multi-use pathway segment along the north-south collector street(shown as S. Farmyard Avenue),the east-west collector street(shown as E. Holstein Drive),and along the Calkins Lateral to the Planning Division for approval by City Council and subsequent recordation. The easement shall be a minimum of 14' in width(10' pathway and 2' shoulder on each side). 10. Comply with the outdoor service and equipment area standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A- 12. 11. Provide a pressurized irrigation system consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11- 3A-15,UDC 11-313-6 and MCC 9-1-28. 12. Upon completion of the landscape installation,a written Certificate of Completion shall be submitted to the Planning Division verifying all landscape improvements are in substantial compliance with the approved landscape plan as set forth in UDC 11-3B-14. 13. The preliminary plat approval shall become null and void if the applicant fails to either: 1) obtain the City Engineer signature on a final plat within two years of the date of the approved findings; or 2)obtain approval of a time extension as set forth in UDC 11-6B-7. 14. The proposed clubhouse and swimming pool on Lot 1,Block 12 shall obtain Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Administrative Design Review approval prior to building permit submittal. 15. Prior to building permit submittal for any structure in each phase,the Applicant shall record the associated final plat for that phase. 16. Applicant shall tile all irrigation facilities within the development area per UDC 11-3A6, unless waived by City Council. The applicant is seeking a waiver to leave the Calkins Lateral open as linear open space. B. PUBLIC WORKS Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1. There is an existing 8-inch sewer stub to the property. It must either be utilized, or abandoned per City of Meridian requirements. If it is utilized, end the line in a manhole. 2. Any sewer main outside of right-of-way must have a City of Meridian utility easement provided. 3. Ensure no sewer services pass through infiltration trenches. 4. Use pipe fittings to provide water main bends instead of deflecting the pipe. General Conditions of Approval Page 41 Item 3. ■ 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. 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. 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. 4. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water(MCC 9-1-28.C). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized,the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 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. 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. 7. Any wells that will not continue to be used must be properly abandoned according to Idaho Well Construction Standards Rules administered by the Idaho Department of Water Resources. The Developer's Engineer shall provide a statement addressing whether there are any existing wells in the development, and if so,how they will continue to be used, or provide record of their abandonment. 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. 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. Page 42 Item 3. ■ 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. 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. 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. 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. 14. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 15. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 16. 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. 17. 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. 18. 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. 19. 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. 20. 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.meridianci ty.orglpublic_works.aspx?id=272. 21. 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. 22. 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 Page 43 Item 3. 85 Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. Page 44 Item 3. ■ C. FIRE DEPARTMENT(MFD) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=254441&dbid=0&repo=Meridian C iv D. POLICE DEPARTMENT(MPD) https:llweblink.meridiancity.oLvlWebLink/DocView.aspx?id=254500&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty E. COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST IDAHO(COMPASS) https:llweblink.meridiancity.oLvlWebLink/DocView.aspx?id=256164&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC i &cr=1 F. BOISE PROJECT BOARD OF CONTROL(BPBC) https:llweblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=255027&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty G. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ) https:llweblink.meridiancioy.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=255751&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC ia H. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT(WASD) https:llweblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=259251&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty 1. MERIDIAN PARKS DEPARTMENT—PATHWAYS https:llweblink.meridiancity.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=254505&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty J. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) No staff report at this time. IX. FINDINGS A. Annexation and/or Rezone(UDC 11-5B-3E) Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full investigation and shall,at the public hearing,review the application.In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Staff finds the proposed zoning map amendment to annex the property into the City of Meridian with the requested R-2&R-4 zoning districts and recommended R-8 zoning district is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, if all conditions of approval are met. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed districts, specifically the purpose statement; Stafffinds the proposed zoning map amendment and site design will contribute to the range of housing opportunities available within the City and within this area. Staff finds the Page 45 Item 3. ■ proposed development is generally consistent with the purpose statement of the residential districts included as part of the application. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; Stafffinds 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 Stafffinds 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. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. Because of the proposed addition of estate lots, adequate open space, and the general site design, Stafffinds the annexation is in the best interest of the City, if all conditions of approval are met. B. Preliminary Plat Findings: 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; Stafffinds that the proposed plat, with Staff's 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) 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Stafffinds that public services will be provided to the subject property with development. (See Section VIII 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, Stafffinds 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; Staff 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 VII for more information.) 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health,safety or general welfare; and, Staff is not aware of any health, safety, or environmental problems associated with the platting of this property. So, Staff finds, if all recommended conditions of approval are met, the proposed development meets this finding. Page 46 Item 3. 88 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. The Applicant is proposing to keep the Calkins Lateral open and preserved for added open space and aesthetics therefore preserving a significant natural feature of the project area. Page 47 E IDIAN;--- Applicant Presentation u t r.•t .1 •••{,= �^� r��,a`�.• ;�,�•� c;!• r�J�. �J�yam`:��*�'-�f� •K �`: Ire. �. . ._.� �n!'t;�,.�• ��• �.,•f,w >^ 4 ' t � 1. s - t �"•'`;�= ,:� k,� a.,�; .:.°��`.'i '_r-"t�i� ,'`1�`tip! _ d' _ `tea`�� •.a "— .� i.� k r-,r.. ,,,W4-�-,ry �w ELAN t ` �� -.� � _.,' � �• ��1��fF�' ��q�� III Opp # � � Q AL kpwv�-q IMF, �4 a" T imeline NOVEMBER 2019 - Pre-Application Meeting MAY 2020- Pre-Application Meeting MARCH 2O21 - Pre-Application Meeting MARCH 2021- Neighborhood Meeting JACKSON RIDGE SEPTEMBER 2021 - Permit Submittal ESTATES OCTOBER 2021 - Neighborhood Meeting 2021 - 2022 - Individual Neighbor Meetings BEFOREYOU TONIGHT 1. ANNEXATION/ZONING • Annex into Meridian, Zone property R-4 & R-2 • Staff recommends adding R-8 zoning 2. PRELIMINARY PLAT • Plats the parcels and rights-of-way JACKSON RIDGE Staff Recommends adding: ESTATES 3. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT • Adding conditions, site plan, finalized before City Council wr w vict ry 0.44vpvictory Rd W 1lictorym Rd 1y y r 1p L CD iX ti L r e wl IN ti RArTllty-Rd i lty � ■ ,}} •� • � ♦ t - I _ A ,ram Will { _ 7 _ "� "1 - r.1d, • r.:.. '!. r - - a it 1... S 1r-T. I! r 4 Am JACKSON RIDGE ESTATES �;i S - - C—Y�I , TT>l�,l Zoning Map R-2 . - �. R, - _ IFA- i; Pro ert Size: 116.7 8 acres Number of 275 Single-Family ,, - ------------------ Buildable Lots: Homes Minimum Lot Size: 8,750 sf --------------- Average Lot Size: 10, 125 sf Residential Density: 2.35 du/acre H .J . � k roue NL]M{NLryI 1HNER 4F -- I Al E 76 CORNER CF raN, R1w. Il SEC 26. T3N, R1W 4 --- _ tx - ----- - 1 - � - � 21 19 18 17 id ld 11 15 9 8 BfAJY. -��— ELDr-Kr .T�T 520 S tik,Io� I � - - � � � 1f tt I I 13 id 15 16 17 16 19 2p x1��' a - - + I_ I I L- x I 1 I IJ1 Ti LI.e I I I I 1 II I I 1 I I z Z I --h 12 a�9 B 3,na2w I21 I _f.WLSS :'T . � 1JACKSON RIDGE 4t5 11 1 9 J4 I ' ESTATES APPE1 0 1 12 11 10 9 B d f 5 � 3 2 1 ; 19 � AP1Y I K i1oana 25 I �L — . — sr20"'a, _ I I Fr--- F rnr ,tit,Sf 7e f �� — I ff I PROPERTY LI\E 27 6 T d 9 10 11 12 13 1d 15 i+ - - I Proposed - - - ' I Ate- � 4 4 y4 f @L47 _ sr2aAsoZoning R-8 _ - I � — - APr_R_Z 31 PROPERTY LNE sr231110 675 Updates Zoning 3 BZonin 6 7 - - I II 9 16 11 72 13 18LOCIS 55 77 18 1g I � 5 �� • HLOI.Jf i2 2 i AP16L11 15 15 1d 13 12 11 IG 9 & 7 5 S 3 2 ' I r 1 • 2r..l P BLOCKT S �3 ! ' , 17 1B 1 2 2 3 k'.. 5 10. � x5 25 27 d�q f HLaex., R-4 29 a to Ra6wsT 9 Zoning , I + 6 I11 f 36 1 ` 9 13 ld 15 11 �' II ,J , I tc. , — _.-- I_ 2 23 1 TY LIME K $ I 7 I 3 4 SLOCK 19 \ 12 11 {yY4 S a 3 x 1 APKII U I 8 .� d r 31 , 1a • 13 lf'_. E'RaYdAy;k Sll. 79YJ�1a1 I�ai -0 ad g ��. � 1 2 I \ 15 fy,i It d7 d3 13 45 45 44 'III I H.aAAWO&ar` 1u h 1 9 to 17 15 � a � 17q,� 16 1d .i. 13 12 11 I 5 \ ` 11 15 '1Sr,� 19 17 % 4D 15 q} \ HZ6Uf i5 � 37 d 7 13 1� �� _- 19 ,y 3g - -- E✓AISPFJH d7 MCLSTRW OR - APK - - - - - - - � - - - - AP1l. 7t - S122W7359 FOUND MONUMENT Si28AP 7250 APil APM1- FOUND 6M AT C }CORNER OF f SEC- 26, T3N, RiW Sr2mi7258 5722P17730Q SEC. 25, R-2 R-4 R-8 JACKSON RIDGE ., ESTATES o M �:75-D-221 '=1�: i --� 40 g-2 Zoning Zoning , RA — " 1 � � ° 'n Typical Lot Dimensions Rk f 14 JACKSON RIDGE .: ESTATES -- Access & f r Connectivity R; - w F; I � I i VW RKfIr]yy iF I I I , "Y � I I 1 ' f 4-i3SFf SF , JACKSON RIDGE _ PHASING DATA ESTATES PHASE 2 i PHASE# BUILDABLE LOTS I - 1 5s r.�urloxss* � 1 2 -92 _ I i 3 B4 I " I -— 4 31 Phasing -` 5 12 --- I H-'E u',E 1 TOTAL 275 ' I 1 Diagram --- ' a�rrraaasu , � I I I G-11 LI E • I •' I PHASE 1 4 I- 4�F71 'T Zir 1 HW.Y- -V MAIil3 F1-�.0 LFC MWY° � + I �5 S PHASE 5 k x •H-ELPE Ix E-Ti- � I " PHASE 4 H-EUE �� k•J ' r/11YOY7IMi7 r.aw�oriF ' �; • � 'PHASE 3 I I13 LIMM ,4 RYA. wr rrr�nrm I I i VW RKfIr]yy iF I I I , "Y � I I 1 ' f 4-i3SFf SF , JACKSON RIDGE _ PHASING DATA ESTATES PHASE 2 i PHASE# BUILDABLE LOTS I - 1 5s r.�urloxss* � 1 2 -92 _ I i 3 B4 I " I -— 4 31 Phasing -` 5 12 --- I H-'E u�.E 1 TOTAL 275 ' I 1 Diagram --- ' a�rrraaasu , � I I I G-11 LI E f I • f I •o 'PHASE 1 1 I- 1 'T Zir 1 MAIil3 F1-�.0 LFC MWY° � + I �5 S PHASE 5 k � x � •H=ELI'E Ix� I E-Ti ~ � Ilk MWifJ � I � PHASE 4 H-E u E � k� y � , '� rrINOYTaFi7 L� 4 r.aw�oriF ' ` ; • � 'PHASE 3 I j I13 L7Rt1 ——— �� 4 RYA. arr tlrr�nrm W VICTORY ROAD]-. I I _ I , JACKSON RIDGE _ —� ESTATES G rEN DR CE Rh SLn - I f Required: 10% or 11 .9 acres - - -- -- - - - Proposed: 10.22% or 12. 19 acres ° 40.00' IRRIGATION • DISTRICT EASEMENT 'j0.jy I FENCE ENCE - 24.00' 10.00' ' ALL-WEATHER MULTI-USE CLEAR ACCESS(GRAVEL) PATHWAY ZONE - 55.00' I - - T- ENTRY MONUMENT CONCEPT VICTORY ROAD WHITE 3-RAIL FENCE SHRUB&GAD NDCOVER — — -- ROW PLANTING ORNAMENTAL TREE ORCHARD S'SIDEWALK WINDMILL/ .(.., PRIMARY ENTRY MONUMENT '/ ^ //''►► Y{IOD POST&BEAM ENTRY GATE II� '� WITH BACKLIT Comm UNNY LOGO J AC 1\S O 1 Y 1 \I D V E AND FREESTANDING LETTERS COLUMNAR MEDIAN TREES ENTRY aT BOARD-FORM CONCRETE d TURF LAWN . WHITE 3-RAIL FENCE FREE-STANDING STEEL LETTERING sass SF 4 (f^ I ESTATES 6'DIA STEEL COMMUNITY LOGO(BOTH SIDES) LR WITH BA[RLIT OPAQUE BACKGROUND PROPOSED IO'MULTI-USE TRAIL COLUMNAR STREET NATURAL STONE VENEER BASE TREES @ ENTRY O WHITE 3-RAIL FENCE PRIMARY MONUMENT- ENTRY MEDIAN SIDE ELEVATION SHRUB&GROUNDCOVER / ROW PLANTING LARGE STREET TREES ENGRAVED(OMMUNITY LOGO S) BOARD-FORM CONCRETE sass s SHRUB 6 GROUNDCOYER FREE-STANDING STEEL LETTERING ROW PLANTING NATURAL STONE VENEER BASE ' ENT',ADvi SECONDARY MONUMENT-ENTRY AT LINDER RD COLUMNAR STREET WINDMILL TREES @ ENTRY STEEL COMMUNITY LOGO WITH BACKLIT OPAQUE BACKGROUND ORNAMENTAL TREE ORCHARD WOOD POST R BEAM ENTRY GATE STEEL COMMUNITY LOGO WITH NATURAL STONE VENEER COLUMN - BACKLIT OPAQUE BACKGROUND rJACKSONBOARD-FORM CONCRETEL ' FREE-STANDING STEEL LETTERING NATURAL STONE VENEER BASE PRIMARY MONUMENT-ENTRYATVICTORY RD,LOOKING SOUTH PROPOSED 10'MULTI-USE TRAIL WHITE 3-RAIL FENCE JR � I e THE FIELD & THE MEADOW fll Great Lawn t Meadow with Animal Sculptures JAC KS O N RIDGE Wallang Paoth&Exercise Stations - e: —,•.- Grain Bin Ramada +e i ESTATES v I e� ' L19 Ir I ,J 1 f; I I r ,T _�" e F � I I I I I 1 :'•5 SF r �°ml sr 1 ,j' Win OF 13 L 7 I I t THE CORRAL =J Nature Play+ Boulders,Nets Tires Water'Dit W Play Feature f' b THE GARDEN Farm Equipment F� Lawn Berms&Mounds • t / k Ornamental Community Garden Seating&Shade -- Windmill&Grain Bin y f , Remnant Orchard 1 Walking Path&Exercise Stations OPEN S PAU'"E & 1 � f f11f Clubhouse+•�� / I, � sy �. y Pool&Spa Outdoor Kitchen f f' � •, ' ' ,`�F _- r ' Lawn Games AMEh'ITIES ~ �'` f 9'P'v ♦ r r�s :w - _ _ - - Pickle Ball Courts I >� � - -_-- � Community Garden - _ _. Fire Pot + + 4Y� ,r Remnant Orchard THE BARNYARD RIDGE a O � . / y , I � �}� . ■ � �z ESTATES GRDEN THE � 33 y se� , y LR) JACKSON RIDGE - - � : •:r �. I ESTATES THE FIELD MEADOW + 1 } �F 4 K� L 7: .t V F , iL JACKSON RIDGE w. ESTATES _ -' r r THE CORRAL r _ o- r _ �5 VICTORY ROAD �w 1:rees::8oco,ucoc Imoo I 110°sn ,]95 s I i0U4�Sf -I _ --- - �BO 4 Y � '9e ima ar JACKSON RIDGE r— ,s ESTATES I AIA F e plg} �3eC_51 7 1laoeo, 1s1 u t GG`t Ilium 5c 116 ixa,y r � x„eo x .}��✓ e�4 ra3a /m�� ,nee Idem mti! ,i iei g Q joaiwT— ' 160 sY r sy'x�° `,oe' I«•s I+ y cwr a � 12 ' � �, I PO V- a 91 r i1� I -- i„u 116Y /f �280 \ • , 6 A ,_W s, g 2§ID ,IEEx _'�' • �....' r'7s - �MSh a , w „90� • I o`l i, ,n52 ' � oyln yFj� 136 Er ,s165v gF lil - ,bi ees,SFg 'i,l//$$ :'22x iF y ! ,1 IOfN ,t+E�g is Is r I + ¢ s v IS}4 sr �33r3 9F, 1F 7%3]3` �.}.it'F ,Ai9 w y r ' 4 \ I b � � t � f IIJ E. .PT Pool, workout room, meeting area, kitchen, outdoor lounge. x �� MON -------- j r� �,.I it�illll i.— � i �;"" .r � I ^ ��Y � dif& Z A'll err• �. -�� .�.,_ _� _�-�� _ _ __� a�`_�=>>� .. • _ .ales' _ i �1 - ail a •:' � .. J � t 22 fr \ x om" IRM OWL , pL 91 LA. MP pp, I 23 s . � '9 Y-5= _ � i_ - •- � -iF- _ ..��. --. __-_ ," �' `�_ �fw +1 �� tii.'M7FliMARti. GINS M E Dp_y 1• t i.i 0 _;: or;.., , F ® rera■IN OW r - 25� MERIDIAN S COMMENTS Update Neighborhood Meetings Construct Amenities within Phase 2 Linder/Victory Improvements in Phase 1 , Existing Home Phase 5 Existing Home Services/Access JACKSON RIDGE Additional R-8 Lot Placement ESTATES Holstein Location & Construction Piping Calkins Lateral & Cross Street Connection Additional Micro-Paths & Open Space Lots Placement ACHD COMMENTS • Holstein Location & Construction • Existing Home Access JACKSON RIDGE � ESTATES REQUESTED _ - RECOMMENDATION Ilzl -.11 . 1 Approval of the 1 . Annexation/Zoning 2. Development Agreement JACKSON RIDGE 3. Preliminary Plat ESTATES With modifications proposed in response letter. . _ . 28 i i I I I r i , r f LR L TR JACKSON RIDGE ESTATES - - - i r9 Future Y Land Use _ { Map r= Qum i I I L }k - � I 1 1 Y Parks Park Halo Schools 1 r 1 1 i I'1!' YN 03 84 55 m — anb:R _ - . . 123 ' ' 7 - - .view Rgti �..IRipe kRark r 45% _ P140 L�' { 10 15 % 4 r SITE r -a 1s st TRAFFIC 0% lim 5% DISTRIBUTION 3 5 I 8. Capital Improvements Plan { IP}f Integrated Fine Year Work Plan (IFYWP): • VictoryRoad is scheduled in the IFYWP to be widened to -lanes from Linder F oad to LRAleridian Road with the design year in 2026 and the construction date has not been determined_ JACKSON RIDGE * Ten Mile Road is scheduled in the IF WR to be widened to 5-lanes from Victory Road to Overland Road and includes Bridge #'118'1 over the Calkins Lateral and is currently Linder ESTATES construction. • The intersection of Ten Mile Road and Victory Road is scheduled in the IFYWP to be reconstructed as a multi-lane roundabout and is currently under construction_ Road • The intersection of Overland Road and Linder Road is scheduled in the IFYWP to be widened Programing to 5-lanes on the north leg, 5-lanes on the south, -lanes on the east, and 6-lanes on the vest g g leg as part of the Linder Road widening project from Overland Road to Franklin Road.. The design year is scheduled for022 and the construction date has not been determined_ • Victory Road is listed in the oIP to be widened to -lanes from Ten Mile Road to Linder Road between 2036 and 2040_ • Linder Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to -lanes from Victory Road to Amity Road between 2036 and 2040_ • Linder Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to -lanes from Victory Road to Overland Road between 2036 and 2040_ • The intersection of Victory Road and Linder Road is listed in the C I to be reconstructed as a single lane roundabout between 2036 and 040_ • The intersection of Amity Road/ H- 0 is listed in the CIP to be widened to 0-lanes on the north leg, 0-lanes on the south, 7-lanes.on the east, and 7-lanes on the west leg and signalized between 20 '1 and 2035. I � I I y I r I i JACKSON RIDGE — — — — d ESTATES — _ ' 3801 S LINDER RD cc.: W' 1 1 1 1 1 I _ - '�,�•"""_ ""� _.. '�• •��^� '��r^�� 'T� =ram •__ •.,-. .__T' �' ter:-- �-• T•�ra� _ , _- ��•=-- -_ �C m#fr_. ��-�' f.h�z GAF r��T' -'' _ - - ---- - ��,�.-_+e�:r.:�� -•-• .- ��_-_::-= �5-ass.•• �:r��__-•�r�+v Sr��-•^r ��"� - - - 1 _. w.��y�`-_'�`'-��•�-_'�� _=terra - _'�..- ^•Fy-�.'�_:- -�I_��n'._ _ - _ -- ` y 1 �' '.:,- -+ wT.� --� ' _ .- :-+�v;-_-- - ••�'�'� _. ._:.. _. M1• � - �, it i ; � ri :I � i ■ - 4 +. �_-.■/yam y, � ILI Lv =I # W d N ` r oil — ; s 4 Kim rL 5 11 •y •Ir• 33 s L 1 +• l I■ 1 �P._1111 jj�� F '• lick4 jal .4 E r1 JACKSON RIDGE ESTATES VISION IMAGES ADA COUNTY,IDAHO JULY 2021 34 ANN- - A lk i i , -- �' - - - i . JACKSON RIDGE ESTATES VISION IMAGES ADA COUNTY,IDAHO JULY 2021 1 35 1�'1 � "may 4 _ _ � _ ,'-��^,•�■ - ra r.1 "• jai � 4�.;� ''�"`�;,t ' � �' � 1 �....r`1.I:_�� -��-q, 6. FRS y s i - L fl-P I :z e _ ^S 3 a. v. i MATERIALS JACKSON RIDGE ESTATES MATERIAL IMAGES 0 Kimley >>Horn JACKSON RIDGE ESTATES Item 4. 89 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing Continued from April 21, 2022 for Grayson Subdivision (H- 2022-0014) by Schultz Development, LLC, Located at 1710 E. Amity Rd., Near the Northeast Corner of E. Amity Rd. and S. Locust Grove Rd. A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 3.39 acres from RUT to the R-8 zoning district. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 15 single-family residential building lots and 3 common lots on 3.1 acres of land in the requested R-8 zoning district. Item 4. F90-1 (:�N-WE IDIAN IDAHO PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Joseph Dodson Meeting Date: April 21, 2022 Topic: Public Hearing for Grayson Subdivision (H-2022-0014) by Schultz Development, LLC, Located at 1710 E.Amity Rd., Near the Northeast Corner of E.Amity Rd. and S. Locust Grove Rd. A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 3.39 acres from RUT to the R-8 zoning district. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 15 single-family residential building lots and 3 common lots on 3.1 acres of land in the requested R-8 zoning district. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing i PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: April 28, 2022 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 4 PROJECT NAME: Grayson Subdivision (H-2022-0014) Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify (Please Print) HOA? (mark X if yes) If yes, please provide HOA name j o 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Item 4. ■ STAFF REPORTC�,WEIIDIAN -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT .►A H O HEARING 4/28/2022 Legend DATE: Project Location TO: Planning&Zoning Commission rIL FROM: Joe Dodson,Associate Planner _ r E 208-884-5533 ® SUBJECT: H-2022-0014 FR Grayson Subdivision LOCATION: Located at 1710 E.Amity Road,near the northeast corner of E. Amity Road and S. Locust Grove Road,in the SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 29, Township 3N, Range 1 E. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Request for Annexation and Zoning of 3.39 acres from RUT to the R-8 zoning district and a Preliminary Plat consisting of 15 single-family residential building lots and 3 common lots on 3.1 acres of land in the requested R-8 zoning district,by Schultz Development,LLC. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage AZ—3.39 acres; PP—3.1 acres Future Land Use Designation Medium Density Residential(MDR, 3-8 du/ac Existing Land Uses County Residential Proposed Land Uses Detached Single-familyResidential Lots(#and type; 18 total lots— 15 residential building lots and 3 bldg./common)) common lots Phasing Plan(#ofphases) 1 phase Number of Residential Units 15 single-family units Density Gross—4.84;Net—7.1 Open Space (acres,total None required—Approximately 12,000 square feet [%]/buffer/qualified) proposed(half of the arterial buffer,micro-path lot, and parkways) Neighborhood meeting date December 9,2021 History(previous approvals) No application history with the City Page 1 Item 4. 92 B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) Not at this time • Requires ACHD No Commission Action es/no Access Access is proposed via extension of the existing stub street,E. Grayson Street (ArteriaUCollectors/State stubbed to the east property boundary; it is proposed to be extended into the Hwy/Local)(Existing and site and terminate in a hammerhead-type turnaround by encumbering a Proposed) building lot. Stub Grayson Street is proposed to be stubbed to the west property line for future Street/Interconnectivity/Cross connectivity. Access Existing Road Network No Proposed Road The Applicant is required to extend Grayson Street into the site and dedicate Improvements additional right-of-way for a future Amity Road widening and for intersection improvements at the Locust Grove and Amity intersection to the west. Fire Service • Distance to Fire 2.4 miles from Fire Station#4;project area will eventually be serviced by Station Fire Station 7, currently under construction. • Fire Response Time The project lies inside of the Meridian Fire response time goal of 5 minutes. Once Station 7 is constructed,response times will be reduced in this area. • Resource Reliability Fire Station#4 reliability is 78%(below the goal of 80%) • Accessibility Proposed project meets all required road widths, and turnaround dimensions but proposed design of a hammerhead-type turnaround will likely be denied by ACHD. In anticipation of this,an alternative design with an offset cul-de- sac was submitted. Wastewater • Distance to Sewer Directly adjacent Services • Project Consistent Yes with WW Master Plan/Facility Plan • Impacts/Concerns • Flow is committed • See Public Works Site Specific Conditions Water • Distance to Services Directly adjacent • Pressure Zone 4 • Project Consistent Yes with Water Master Plan • Water Quality None Concerns • Impacts/Concerns See Public Works Site Specific Conditions Page 2 m ' i r 1 1 1 211 . . - . . . 1 �- . - . . . l . ` a moor wn in = an■ r ' T Id 1 1��1• �:..■non p_lim�� "� i � �_ Imo_ .nn p=rnn�� C , •. d -_. `II��11■�_�//�� .+AM ITY�L�— ". � ._ -�,�� AI► �: i( - • r �� 10 � G"IIri�� noon- — � I� •If >y- 1111 11 1 Ir �rre,Nl~iin a�' ir~iirr of •='� ' ' '%� ' ` � Ilh/�.gym -a 11 rr\ �� I ��t;►m -�11 rr\ � C �O ■•ni�n11 "f- prlr L i••i�•nllr� 111 �-.ur ■�Ilrl � 111 C .=�w,_•_IIIIr��i ``1111 � _ �um I IIIIIh�� 1�11■� .. ■Illli�� 1�� .Milli rrrrr ' ••rrrrrrrr_ rl �==�jl .0111 it il � �6-�••-•_�rrrr i rrrr 11 - !�I u•.; rrrr. 11 �IIII � � � �IIIIIIIII • � C j1111 r��11111n1 :'�hGl r■n1111n1 � � �"� .! 111111 ■� � !1111111 �I�q j�f• f �iiu �� q �� Ij iiii rl �rl rr Item 4. 94 IV. NOTICING Planning&Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper Notification 4/5/2022 Radius notification mailed to properties within 500 feet 4/4/2022 Site Posting 4/8/2022 Nextdoor posting 4/18/2022 V. STAFF ANALYSIS A. Future Land Use Map Designation(ht(ps://www.meridiancity.org/compplan) Medium Density Residential(MDR)—This designation allows for dwelling units at gross densities of three to eight dwelling units per acre. Density bonuses may be considered with the provision of additional public amenities such as a park, school, or land dedicated for public services. The subject 3.1 acres currently contains a number of buildings and non-functional vehicles through the property. The property is designated as Medium Density Residential on the future land use map consistent with existing development to the east and north, Estancia Subdivision. The subject site has an existing local street(E. Grayson Street)stubbed to its east property line through Estancia so the Applicant is proposing to take access from this location which is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Directly to the west of the subject site is a smaller county residential parcel that would be required to take access through this site should it ever request annexation into the City. Because of this, the Applicant has included an anticipated redevelopment plan for that property on the submitted preliminary plat at the request of Staff— the dashed lines on this plat are only representative of a potential option and that property (1670 E. Amity) is not part of this application. The Applicant is proposing 15 building lots on 3.1 acres of land which constitutes a gross density of 4.84 units per acre and is well within the allowable range of the MDR designation. The minimum building lot size proposed is 5,489 square feet which is nearly 1,500 square feet above the minimum lot size for the requested R-8 zoning district. The adjacent Estancia Subdivision is of lower density and has larger building lots than what are proposed with this project. There are no more than 2 building lots proposed adjacent to any single existing lot along the north boundary and the Applicant has placed their drainage lot in the northeast corner of the project adjacent to two Estancia lots. Furthermore, there are 6 building lots within Estancia along the north boundary where the Applicant has proposed 7 building lots and I common lot with this project. Staff does not find the difference of one (1) building lot along this shared property line to be significant enough to recommend any lot count revision. Consistent with the existing Estancia development, the Applicant is proposing to continue the parkways and detached sidewalks into this development to match that design characteristic. The Applicant is also proposing a micro path at the southwest corner of the property to add a pedestrian connection to the required arterial sidewalk. Outside of the 18 feet of additional right- of-way required to be dedicated to ACHD, the Applicant is proposing the required street buffer and depicts a 5-foot detached sidewalk along Amity. The sidewalk along Amity should be constructed as a 10 foot wide multi-use pathway per the Meridian Parks Pathway Coordinator so Staff has included this revision with the future final plat application. Page 4 Item 4. 95 In addition to these elements, the proposed termination of the Grayson Street extension should be discussed. Specifically, this Applicant has proposed to stub Grayson to the west boundary as required by ACHD and the UDC but is showing a temporary hammerhead-type turnaround that encumbers a building lot, Lot 7, Block 1. Typically,ACHD has not allowed this type of turnaround in recent years, even on a temporary basis. The Fire Department and Planning Staff support the proposed design as it meets Fire requirements and does not make two future lots non- buildable for the near future. However, Staff anticipates ACHD will not approve this temporary turnaround. So, the Applicant has provided an exhibit showing Lots 7&8, Block I encumbered by an offset cul-de-sac as an alternative temporary turnaround should ACHD not allow the hammerhead. See snip below and Exhibit VII.E for this proposal: G1 OPTION °A„ OPTION "B" 48' RADIUS TEMP PAVEMENT E GRAYSON ST. Because the proposed development extends parkways and detached sidewalks and a logical site design,Staff believes annexing this land into the City to remove this small county enclave is in the best interest of the City so long as the Applicant adheres to Staffs recommended DA provisions and conditions of approval. Staff finds the proposed project to be generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as discussed above. Specific Comprehensive Plan policies are discussed and analyzed below. The City may require a development agreement(DA)in conjunction with an annexation and rezone pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-6511A.In order to ensure the site develops as proposed with this application, Staff recommends a new DA that encompasses the land proposed to be annexed and zoned with the provisions included in Section VIII.A1. The DA is required to be signed by the property owner(s)/developer and returned to the City within 6 months of the Page 5 Item 4. 96 Council granting the rezone and annexation approval.A final plat will not be accepted until the DA is executed and the AZ ordinance is approved by City Council. B. Comprehensive Plan Policies (https://www.meridiancity.org/compplan): The applicable Comprehensive Plan policies are cited below with Staff analysis in italics. Staff is not analyzing the project against any mixed-use policies but is instead analyzing the project against general policies as the project is being reviewed with the MDR designation. "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). The proposed project offers a density similar to the Estancia Subdivision to the north and east but is generally denser due to smaller lot sizes. However, this policy calls for a variety of housing products in every part of the City and the proposed plat accomplishes this without cramming incompatible building lots on the subject 3.1 acres by proposing slightly smaller lots than what exists in Estancia. "Establish and maintain levels of service for public facilities and services,including water, sewer, police,transportation, schools, fire, and parks"(3.02.01G).All public utilities are available for this project site due to the existing stub street on its east boundary. Applicant is required to dedicate additional right-of-way for future Amity Road improvements. The future Fire Station 7 will place this project further within the Fire Department response time goal and Fire has approved the accesses for the proposed plat. West Ada School District has not sent a letter regarding this application but with a relative low number of homes a large number of school aged children is not anticipated to be generated by this development. Stafffinds that the existing and planned development of the immediate area create appropriate conditions for levels of service to and for this proposed project. "Require pedestrian access in all new development to link subdivisions together and promote neighborhood connectivity."(2.02.0ID).Proposed project is extending the detached sidewalks along Grayson Street and is proposing a micro path connection to the arterial street buffer and detached sidewalk along Amity. Stafffinds the proposed pedestrian facilities show compliance with this policy. "Ensure that new development within existing residential neighborhoods is cohesive and complementary in design and construction."(2.02.02F).As discussed, the Applicant is proposing lot sizes smaller than the adjacent Estancia Subdivision to the north and east but is not maximizing the allowable density. Specifically, the north property boundary is shared with 6 existing building lots and the Applicant is proposing 7 building lots and one common lot adjacent to these 6 homes. Stafffinds this difference in lot number and size to be marginal and therefore cohesive with the existing neighborhood. Furthermore, the Applicant is extending the detached sidewalks and parkways into the development and adding an additional micro path connection to Amity for better pedestrian circulation in the area. Because of the proximity of the Estancia open space and an assumption future residents would naturally utilize this existing open space area, Staff is hopeful the subject development can be made a part of the existing Estancia homeowners association to spread the maintenance cost of said open space for additional users. In addition, the Applicant is proposing a drainage lot in the northeast corner of this development which has the potential for some green space within this development. Staff recommends a small shade structure and seating area is added to this lot in order to provide some usable open space within the subject 3 acres. "Require new development to establish street connections to existing local roads and collectors as well as to underdeveloped adjacent properties."(6.01.02C). The Applicant is required to and is proposing to extend Grayson Street into the site and stubbing it to the west boundary for future Page 6 Item 4. 97 connectivity to the underdeveloped county parcel at the northeast corner of Amity and Locust Grove. Staff finds this development to be generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. C. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: According to GIS imagery,there appears to be a couple residential structures multiple out- buildings, and dozens of dilapidated vehicles on the subject site.Any and all structures and debris are proposed to be removed upon development of this project. Furthermore,the existing access for this site is via a driveway connection to E. Amity that will also be closed upon development. D. Proposed Use Analysis: The proposed use is detached single-family residential with an average lot size of 6,169 square feet and a minimum lot size of 5,489 square feet,based on the submitted plat(Exhibit VII.B). This use is a permitted use in the requested R-8 zoning district per UDC Table 11-2A-2 and all lots meet the minimum lot size requirement of 4,000 square feet and minimum street frontage requirement of 40 feet by proposing lots with a minimum of 50 feet of frontage. The Applicant has noted the development is expected to develop as one phase due to the size of the proposed project. However, any lot(s) encumbered by the temporary turnaround/cul-de-sac would be platted and labeled as non-buildable on the plat until such time as Grayson Street is extended to the west. E. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2): The residential lots appear to meet all UDC dimensional standards per the submitted plat. In addition,all subdivision developments are also required to comply with Subdivision Design and Improvement Standards(UDC 11-6C-3). The proposed preliminary plat and submitted plans appear to meet all UDC requirements except for Grayson Street being a dead-end street and greater than 500 feet in length. Per UDC 11-6C-3B.4, City Council may approve a dead-end street up to 750 in length where there is a physical barrier such as a steep slope, railroad tracks, an arterial roadway, or a large waterway that makes extension impractical. In the case of the subject site and underdeveloped county parcel to the west, the site is bordered by two arterials in Amity and Locust Grove. Furthermore, the intersection ofAmity and Locust Grove just to the southwest of this development is planned for a roundabout which has specific designs and will not allow for additional connections to these arterial streets for either of these parcels. Therefore, the subject site is encumbered by a `physical barrier"as outlined in code and the project requires a City Council waiver for Grayson Street to be a dead-end street longer than 500 feet. Staff notes that the length of Grayson Street from the existing intersection in Estancia to the west boundary of the subject site is approximately 550 feet. F. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): The Applicant submitted conceptual building elevations for the proposed detached single-family homes.Note that detached single-family homes do not require Design Review approval therefore Staff does not review these for compliance with any architectural standards. The submitted elevations depict a number of different architectural and design styles with field materials of lap siding and fiber cement board and differing accent materials, roof profiles, and overall varying home styles. Stafffinds the conceptual elevations should be adhered to closely in order to offer an array of potential home designs for this subdivision. Furthermore, half of the proposed development has the rear of homes adjacent to Amity Road, an arterial street. In these cases, Staff includes a DA provision that the rear and/or side elevations of any two-story home incorporates articulation through changes in two or more of the following: modulation (e.g. Page 7 Item 4. ■ 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 arterial street. Staff has included this provision as noted. G. Access(UDC 11-3A-3, 11-3H-4): Access is proposed via extension of E. Grayson Street(an existing residential local street)into the site and is proposed to terminate within the site at the west boundary for future connectivity. As discussed above,the Applicant is proposing to provide a temporary hammerhead-type turnaround instead of a temporary cul-de-sac. Staff supports this temporary turnaround design in order to save space and minimize the waste of asphalt within this development but anticipates ACHD will not approve this type of temporary turnaround. If ACHD does not approve the hammerhead design as recommended by Staff,the applicant shall restrict Lots 7 and 8 as non-buildable lots as proposed and place a note on the final plat stating these lots will be developable with the extension of the public street. Further,according to the proposed plat, Grayson is proposed as 33-foot wide local street with 5- foot detached sidewalks and 8-foot wide parkways;this street design complies with all UDC standards. H. Parking(UDC 11-3C): Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table H- 3C-6 for single-family dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. Staff will confirm compliance with these standards at the time of building permit submittal for each residence. In addition,there is opportunity for on-street parking where there are no driveways because Grayson is proposed as a 33-foot wide street section. The submitted landscape plan best shows the areas within the development where on-street parking could occur(see Exhibit VII.C). I. Sidewalks/Parkways(UDC 11-3A-17): 5-foot wide detached sidewalks and 8-foot wide parkways are proposed along the E. Grayson Street extension,consistent with UDC and ACHD requirements. The proposed sidewalks meet UDC 11-3A-17 and ACHD standards. The proposed parkways meet the minimum width requirement but do not show the correct number of trees per UDC 11-3B-7. Further analysis is in the Landscaping section below. J. Pathways (UDC 11-3A-8): Per the Pathways Coordinator and the Master Pathways Plan, a 10-foot wide multi-use pathway is required along the E. Amity Road frontage. This required pathway should be located within the required landscape buffer and outside of the ACHD right-of-way. In addition,the Applicant is proposing a 5-foot wide micro-path within a 15-foot wide common lot in the southwest corner of the project to provide a connection from the internal sidewalks to the pedestrian network along Amity. The Applicant has proposed a 5-foot wide detached sidewalk within the Amity Road street buffer which does not comply with this requirement. Therefore, Staff is including a condition of approval for the Applicant to revise the landscape plans to depict the required regional pathway within this buffer. Furthermore, this pathway should be at least four(4)feet north of the ultimate right-of-way line to allow for landscaping on both sides of the pathway and ensure the pathway is detached from the roadway and allow the 25 foot buffer to be measured from the ultimate right- of-way instead of the back of the pathway,per UDC 11-3B-7C.1 M. The proposed micro path and common lot comply with UDC standards. Further, the proposed landscaping within this lot also comply with the minimum UDC requirements. Page 8 Item 4. 99 1 K. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): A 25-foot wide street buffer is required along E.Amity Road, an arterial street, landscaped per the standards in UDC Table 11-3B-7C. In addition,the proposed parkways are required to be landscaped per UDC 11-3B-7 and the proposed micro-path is required to comply with the landscape requirements in UDC 11-3B-12. The Applicant is showing a 25 foot wide common lot with 16 trees, multiple landscape beds, and other vegetative ground cover along E.Amity; this proposed landscaping complies with UDC requirements. The micro path lot is 15 feet wide and is depicted with two (2) trees which exceeds the minimum ratio in code of 1 tree per 100 linear feet as the pathway lot is approximately 100 feet long. As noted above, the proposed 8-foot wide parkways do not appear to depict the correct number of street trees. Each parkway is approximately 420 feet long which requires a minimum of 12 trees on each side of Grayson Street. The submitted landscape plans depict 8 trees within each parkway so an additional four(4) trees are needed on each side of the street. Staff is including a condition of approval consistent with this requirement. NOTE: In lieu of analyzing the common open space in a specific section because the project is below the 5 acre minimum to require common open space, Staff has analyzed this within the Comprehensive Plan analysis in Section V.A and V.B above.Within this analysis, Staff recommended a seating area be added to the drainage common lot in the northeast corner of the site for the purpose of providing some passive open space component to the development. Staff has included a condition of approval consistent with this analysis. L. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. The Applicant is proposing 6-foot vinyl fencing along the rear lot lines adjacent the Amity Road landscape buffer and the subdivision boundary and is proposing 6-foot tall steel tub fencing on the west property line of Lot 8,Block 2 adjacent to the micro-path common lot. In addition,the Applicant is proposing to protect the existing 6-foot tall wood fence along the north property line. The proposed fencing meets or exceeds all UDC requirements. Staff notes, the proposed steel tube fencing along the micro path lot is not required by code because the micro path is one (1) lot deep and is fully visible from a public street. Per UDC 11- 3A-7, 6-foot tall privacy fencing is allowed on both sides of this micro path if the Applicant or future homeowner desires it. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the requested annexation and preliminary plat applications with the requirement of a Development Agreement per the conditions of approval in Section VIII of this report per the Findings in Section IX of this staff report. B. Commission: Enter Summary of Commission Decision. C. City Council: To be heard at future date. Page 9 Item 4. Fool VIL EXHIBITS A. Annexation and Zoning Legal Description and Exhibit Map IDAHO 9955 W Emerald St Boise, ID 83704 SURVEY Phone: (208)846-8570 GROUP Fax: (208)884-5399 Grayson Subdivision City of Meridian Annexation Description Project Number 21-547 February 10,2021 Situated in the southwest quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 29,Township 3 North, Range 1 East,Boise Meridian,Ada County, Idaho,and being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at a brass cap marking the southwest corner of Section 29,Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian,which bears S00°30'07"W,2651.95 feet from the west quarter-section corner of Section 29; Thence S89143'41"E,238.00 feet along the south line of Section 29 to the Point of Beginning: Thence N00°27'04"W,350.30 feet to the south boundary of Estancia Subdivision as filed in Book 97 of Plats at Pages 12,189 through 12,194,records of Ada County, Idaho; Thence S89°44'09"E,421.65 feet along the south boundary of Estancia Subdivision; Thence S00'30'07"E,350.36 feet along the west boundary of Estancia Subdivision to the south line of Section 29; Thence N89'43'41"W,421.96 feet along the south line of Section 29 to the POINT OF BEGINNING. The above-described parcel contains 3.39 acres,more or less. ANC SG 1,3 4 sf ia�Z hqE� S Page 10 Gm# Fl m� \ j BoQs ofBmr p / soosea 2 2651 af_ 2'@ S. Locust woe R§ g \ -n Cp �e ° � ,@ » I2 Jn Utea � - j CO Noo2fo`w 35 2« a w O @ d \ / � < 0 m O r z / n 2 (n w §' ;'■ \ ° CA \ 7 ` $k; e \ o \4 ) \\| - m§ / k\ m 7 CO \ 3 § }\ \ \ \- �U % 5 « '9- ƒ e } % ® %70 \7 — m 3 E»0 C)I — oe iA - 7}k \� S oa3o/E35.3' $® k \7 a � m !§ > E2 , ` / Q 3 C � < \\ / � / ( \ ' ) !§ 0 22 e m$ ; / S. »mo Ave. \ » � \) a §f ! �! ' Page II Item 4. 102 B. Preliminary Plat(dated: 2/17/2022) 1 E�� PRLLIMINA'2Y-LAT SHUMNG .4 GRAYSON SUBDIVISION S°? LOCATED AT 171C E AMI-Y ROAD ADA COUNTY.MERIDIAN, IDAHO w FEBRu ARY,2 2022 0 �� _ r.r wreru w n .w.y• a v.r• ®^ - - 1 CL7 0 i I Z sew .rnn �O 6 ��Z SIM 1 e �•�/�� '� m.e �� feif.�i'�Lu �o� w�i�w '# ��, 33'iYPICAL 6TREETxSECiIONrWI�TH�36'RdN ,wa�:m� ------------ i� o 4 - - �l .awr,usm®max�rx,w.ww aua mis-�xw.,w..mxu a- _— _ _ I r •Y�'T rs.�` - uma am mn nx.u,a.xr xaxx w..��n,wn <�Krm p0 `O P-- asml fJlEyR L.ImYL�lnw. K.i anou� °'xe: P1.0 Page 12 Item 4. Fl 03 MAW REEL,EI15E 0M S ALMA ME MARIE7EZ L P.AISE kevim.D 4w Q1131 4659 s QM sE MERIGM.IQ 8 2 CERMVEOT OIRA L OOtt Ag■ALL i I RECHER MW dIAE71Ei SHERRI A CMH IMR IB'A141 hREL IR,.1'E ML9f$r 1b01 E MWLYF Sr 1725 E 11AVIEi Sr 1743 E 6WLRY Si 1761 E RfyEgf 3T �'R-RAIN 115 E BEL DUIw Si YFidW, Ma YIIIM b 13310 YERfIWI,IQ S3QA2 METddhM,ID B3842 AERCIAA,0 876t2 17 t 0�4 EFRDhK n s 2 DOPER JOHN 11R91i'f19Y 421.d6 wERI 5 ALMS AVE -- MEAIRIAR,IQ d]642 71's' J A 0' --dSR �. 56.G / 50A' I � anell _ F-l_ E>;URC 6`pi AAYI x�- A'L1s hf AM BRNN R lii SF ,Q u4 4711 M 04 4YE 0.21 AC 6,4W 5F OAH SF - 4423 SF 6,475 SF - [477 5E " YEACYN,III 0J74I d+ r 0.14 At 0.14 AC 0.1i it 0.14 At 0.14 At r� L!NWM rkR ulflIXh10G R'P W H Li-F --- — -- --L— —1� --J-- --L— — 1 1670 E AWRY RQ 7p.5' SO 55_ 50. MERIoIa,10 klSW2 - E C11A'S0N - 5 --T- -t-- 1a775F `-� L2Sormx MW)Hr f AC I'm 7 o� 7 7140!Si w Sr k"l or &M!i � "9 cm sr Y015E9pW mEaw UNKMER ALEC 4 L12 AL - 2 AC 0.1E X I m 1112 AC AC m 0.12 AC 0.12 AC ce 0.13 X 1913 E CMYSM Sr 1847 E GRA15LY1 b c o $ &' 1g $ IE]IICIM4 D mo MERIRRRI.IR 655' - 9 -ft7Eo 7 Cl - a o o - o SLIM 2 - -- -----------L---- I,tPP 1.R' SOLI SQ.g 10 4GOE 2 • ¢~ •g APA AL g,E ---------- d3 ■ E AM17 RD. EX M 12 4AT9 MAN EP � EP Page 13 Item 4. F104] C. Landscape Plans(date: 3/9/2022) Wd AHVNmniHd NAnd 3fjdV3SGNV1 AHVNIVII-138d Co al Woman Cd AiIAV 3 ow NOISIMisnS NOSAIV&D of fill! 510 moll lum OWN 105 Him!HN i U944 1004M M91 2ri 0 11H AIRIER 11 Wym UVA MI41t4NN 1"21' 1 WWumjj 1 yl 1 0 01110=k MAI LL, 1 J�5 TF 100 F. 4 Zo i PLO R 1 2 a Is h H -- 9"AN 0 1 61 15 A 1 2 vp it off lull 1 I all;- 4 To LLJ oil gas im"Is K. Page 14 Item 4. Fl-o5 IRRIGATION NOTES: PROJECT CALLOUT LEGEND LANDSCAPE LEGEND INFORMATION s rin w eb», 111 16 h.F_hr ae°' �. ® oa ._.� —_ -------------------- M v srnr o s w5 o s.un,.rzonv s 0 -a raeE s — .wxs�o a T"L v w� en,ms aD��waro��as�aFw�'TM�l�o"ros,sloU=`w"iK56 rnwwmra�.r,aeFwrx�a,s�ciEs 0a vawn5�vera��oez rs�nsr � �;;,cevnFc,nc�� I/////AI �FEo q -- NM N IW cK�c�VL�VPLVC 1hT�_hcN 161 hNcwh-Ic VhLVE LUY5,hWiU2 w.c,v,Lcx.P,loM L - � .. ee N \1 i f I°. ! 1 1 \ 1 4l E GRAYSON STI '' 8 2, w E s ` ,.AO 0 `s" ws Po 6 k q 9 ° .� v , ero g ss $' x 3 6 • � .�� 4�: �Er � �� y- #W axe` ''�9/� `y �� ,tr s.s, �+ 1. v — — E AMITY RD T PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN n' M t 2 a • s s 7 s e is it tz Page 15 Item 4. 106 D. Conceptual Building Elevations 70 ISO 71 r-..F 3 J� '1 n � -- �■ 'WIN � - — _I RAN MCI - Page 16 Item 4. ■ 1 l... Moms smon Mow mom w Photo Similar � j gloomAN No -_. _ . a�� a■ Y, �too MIN ■YYYYe -.---■ �--~- aim 4640 , Page 17 Item 4. Flo] E. Temporary Turnaround Options—West terminus of E. Grayson Street extension 0 0 a OPTION "A" OPTION "B" 48' RADIUS TEMP PAVEMENT E GRAYSON ST. � o Page 18 Item 4. Flog] VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION I. 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)/developer at the time of annexation ordinance adoption, and the developer. Currently, a fee of$303.00 shall be paid by the Applicant to the Planning Division prior to commencement of the DA. The DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning Division within six(6)months of the City Council granting the annexation. The DA shall, at minimum, incorporate the following provisions: a. Future development of this site shall be substantially consistent with the approved plat, landscape plan, and conceptual building elevations included in Section VII and the provisions contained herein. b. The rear and/or sides of homes visible from E. Amity Road(Lots 1-8,Block 2) 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. c. A final plat will not be accepted until the DA is executed and the Annexation and Zoning ordinance is approved by City Council. Preliminary Plat Conditions: 2. The applicant is seeking a Council waiver for E. Grayson Street to be a dead-end street greater than 500 feet in length,per UDC 11-6C-3B.4. 3. Per Exhibit VILE attached hereto,E. Grayson Street shall terminate along the west property boundary as either a temporary cul-de-sac or hammerhead type turnaroundif a hammerhead type turnaround is approved by ACHD, Lot 7,Block 1 shall be a non-buildable lot until such time as Grayson is further extended; if a cul-de-sac turnaround is required,Lots 7 & 8,Block I shall be non-buildable lots until such time as Grayson is further extended. 4. The preliminary plat included in Section VII.B, dated February 1.7, 2022, is approved as submitted. 5. The landscape plan included in Section VII.C, dated March 9,2022, shall be revised as follows prior to submitting for Final Plat approval: a. Depict the correct number of street trees within the parkway per UDC 11-3B-7. b. Add seating and a shade structure within the drainage common lot(Lot 1,Block 1). c. Depict the required 10-foot wide regional pathway within the Amity Road landscape buffer and place it at least four(4)feet north of the ultimate right-of-way line to allow for landscaping on both sides of the pathway and ensure the pathway is detached from the roadway and allow the 25-foot buffer to be measured from the ultimate right-of-way instead of the back of the pathway,per UDC I I-3B-7C.I a. d. Common Lot 1,Block I shall meet minimum standards in UDC 11-3B-11. e. Common Lot 9,Block 2 shall be landscaped as proposed. Page 19 Item 4. 1 10 1 6. Future development shall be consistent with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-6 for the R-8 zoning district. 7. Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 for single-family dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. 8. The Applicant shall comply with all ACHD conditions of approval. 9. Provide a pressurized irrigation system consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11- 3A-15,UDC 11-3B-6 and MCC 9-1-28. 10. Upon completion of the landscape installation, a written Certificate of Completion shall be submitted to the Planning Division verifying all landscape improvements are in substantial compliance with the approved landscape plan as set forth in UDC 11-313-14. 11. The preliminary plat approval shall become null and void if the applicant fails to either: 1) obtain the City Engineer signature on a final plat within two years of the date of the approved findings; or 2)obtain approval of a time extension as set forth in UDC I 1-613-7. B. PUBLIC WORKS Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1. The walking path from the proposed development to Amity Road will require a 20-foot-wide water main easement,which shall be free from any permanent structures or encumbrances. 2. Relocate the fire hydrant at the west end of the site so it is located at the furthest east property boundary line. The line serving this hydrant shall be 8" diameter;this hydrant will be used as a blow-off until future extension of the main occurs. 3. Minimum slope for a dead-end sewer main is 0.6%. 4. Ensure no sewer services pass through infiltration trenches. 5. The geotechnical investigative report prepared by SITE Consulting,LLC indicates some very specific construction considerations. The applicant shall be responsible for the adherence of these recommendations. General Conditions of Approval 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. 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. 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 Page 20 Item 4. F-1111 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 development plan approval. 4. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water(MCC 9-1-28.C). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized,the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 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. 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. 7. Any wells that will not continue to be used must be properly abandoned according to Idaho Well Construction Standards Rules administered by the Idaho Department of Water Resources. The Developer's Engineer shall provide a statement addressing whether there are any existing wells in the development, and if so,how they will continue to be used,or provide record of their abandonment. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 14. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 15. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 16. 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. Page 21 Item 4. F112 17. 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. 18. 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. 19. 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. 20. A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-7 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting. A copy of the standards can be found at hlt2://www.meridianciiy.orgZpublic works.aspx?id=272. 21. 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. 22. 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.meridiancioy.org/WebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=255656&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty D. MERIDIAN PARKS DEPARTMENT-PATHWAYS https://web fin k.m eridi a n c i ty.ory/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=255690&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty E. MERIDIAN PARKS DEPARTMENT—TREE MITIGATION https://weblink.m eridia n c i ty.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=2 5 5 63 1&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC F. ADA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES https://weblink.meridiancily.orblWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=255804&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC i &cr=1 Page 22 Item 4. ■ G. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=256396&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lty H. NAMPA/MERMIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID) https:llweblink.meridiancity.ory WWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=258729&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC i &cr=1 I. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) No staff report at this time IX. FINDINGS A. Annexation and Zoning(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; Stafffinds the proposed zoning map amendment to annex the property into the City of Meridian with the R-8 zoning district with the proposed preliminary plat and site design is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, if all conditions of approval are met. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed districts, specifically the purpose statement; Stafffinds the proposed zoning map amendment and the request for the development complies with the regulations outlined in the requested R-8 zoning district and is consistent with the purpose statement of the requested zone. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; Stafffinds 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 Stafffinds 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. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. Stafffinds the annexation is in the best interest of the City. B. Preliminary Plat Findings: 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; Stafffinds that the proposed plat is in substantial compliance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan in regard to land use, density, transportation, and pedestrian connectivity. (Please see Page 23 Item 4. F114 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; Staff finds that public services will be provided to the subject property with development. (See Section VIII 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, Staff 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; Staff 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 VII for more information) 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health,safety or general welfare; and, Staff is not aware of any health, safety, or environmental problems associated with the platting of this property. 6. The development preserves significant natural,scenic or historic features. Staff is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that exist on this site that require preserving. Page 24 Item 5. 115 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing Continued from April 21, 2022 for 1-84 and Meridian Rd. (H- 2021-0099) by Hawkins Companies, Generally Located at the Northwest Corner of S. Meridian Rd. and Interstate 84. A. Request: Annexation of 18.30 acres of land with a C-G zoning district. B. Request: A Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map Amendment to change the future land use designation on 33.13 acres of land from Mixed Use —Community (MU-C) to Mixed Use— Regional (MU-R). Item 5. 116 (:�N-WE IDIAN:-- IDAHO PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Sonya Allen Meeting Date: April 21, 2022 Topic: Public Hearing for I-84 and Meridian Rd. (H-2021-0099) by Hawkins Companies, Generally Located at the Northwest Corner of S. Meridian Rd. and Interstate 84. A. Request: Annexation of 18.30 acres of land with a C-G zoning district. B. Request: A Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map Amendment to change the future land use designation on 33.13 acres of land from Mixed Use - Community (MU-C) to Mixed Use - Regional (MU-R). Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: April 28, 2022 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 5 I PROJECT NAME: 1-84 and Meridian Rd. (H-2021-0099) Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify (Please Print) HOA? (mark X if yes) If yes, please provide HOA name 2 �1 s t 35 � 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Item 5. ■ STAFF REPORTC�WEIIDIAN -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT .►A H O HEARING April 28,2022 Legend d DATE: Continued from:Aril21, 2022 f .f p �LIPrajec!Laca=or. TO: Planning&Zoning Commission FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2021-0099 I-84+Meridian Road—CPAM,AZ LOCATION: Generally located at the northwest corner of S. Meridian Rd. and I-84 in the southeast 1/4 of Section 13,T.3N.,R.1W. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map(FLUM)to change the future land use designation on 33.13-acres of land from Mixed Use—Community(MU-C)to Mixed Use—Regional (MU- R); and annexation of 18.30-acres of land with a C-G(General Retail and Service Commercial)zoning district. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 33.13 acres(CPAM); 18.30 acres(AZ) Future Land Use Designation MU-C(Mixed Use—Community) Existing Land Use Single-family residential and vacant/undeveloped land Proposed Land Use(s) Commercial retail and office uses Current Zoning R1 and RUT in Ada County;and C-G(General Retail and Service Commercial) Proposed Zoning C-G(General Retail and Service Commercial) Physical Features(waterways, The Ten Mile Creek runs along the west boundary of the site. hazards,flood plain,hillside) Neighborhood Meeting Date 12/9/2021 History(previous approvals) Annexation Ordinance#435 (High Country of Idaho)&02- 987(Urban Renewal MDC) Page 1 1 1 1 ZAFdL- . mow ��IT ILL- 'N�- , .•f.�11111l� �- �' - . y 1 �INIIY _ I 1' 'T+'•a ' Tj -1_ Ali = 1 : a uJ III rlu�_ � �'' •��-� I - r�R� is illill '• ��. x ■1 �.III },_ ',41 '-.� � - . III 2I�i11I�I1Ii 1.i — I I"4_;__•_ +.'�* Nil IIIIII NIIII _ �' — 41 � �Y OVERLAND IRL-A - r 1 �A■T �1 rmiff I I 11 lam 1 =Mn • w��a2 �- NI •11� �,� N' �• 11- �� Ii�� 1� rim ME ■11�1■ ilia mill 1■ .._. _ - ■��1� ��fi - � illil i Ja GNil —: IIIII i� I illill a�4 - : IIIIII � ■I� II IN �1 IN • � �I III �' ■I��IIII i u--ull I u-uuu++l — III 2I�iIII�I IIi 1. - III ZIP�11il I1Ii 1■ � � — NII uuu Nuu • nu 111111 NIIII - MEN .. Ems, • • /. •.• :• : 1 Item 5. 119 1 C. Representative: Same as Applicant IV. NOTICING Planning& Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper notification published in newspaper 4/5/2022 Radius notification mailed to property owners within 300 feet 4/4/2022 Public hearing notice sign posted 4/7/2022 on site Nextdoor posting 4/5/2022 V. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS EXISTING LAND USE DESIGNATION: This property is currently designated as Mixed Use—Community (MU-C)on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) contained in the Comprehensive Plan (see map in Section VIII.A). The purpose of this designation is to allocate areas where community-serving uses and dwellings are seamlessly integrated into the urban fabric. The intent is to integrate a variety of uses, including residential, and to avoid mainly single-use and strip commercial type buildings. Non-residential buildings in these areas have a tendency to be larger than in Mixed Use Neighborhood(MU-N) areas. Goods and services in these areas tend to be of the variety thatpeople will mainly travel by car to, but also walk or bike to (up to 3 or 4 miles). Employment opportunities for those living in and around the neighborhood are encouraged. Developments are encouraged to be designed according to the conceptual MU-Cplan depicted in Figure 3C. (See pgs. 3-I1 through 3-16 for more information) PROPOSED LAND USE DESIGNATION:The proposed FLUM designation for this property is Mixed Use— Regional(see map in Section VIII.A). 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. (See pgs. 3-16&3-1 7 for more information.) LAND USE FOCUS—ADHERENCE TO PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE POLICY: The following analysis is specific to the request for a Mixed Use Regional(MU-R)designation, and not the merits or benefits of the project or proposed uses. Analysis for either compliance with the adopted future land use designation of MU-C, or another one,may result in very different analysis. A property designated MU-R must comply with both the general mixed used polices and the MU-R policies below. The purpose and intent of Mixed Use(General)is:In general, the purpose of this designation is to provide for a combination of compatible land uses within a close geographic area that allows for easily accessible and convenient services for residents and workers. The intent is to promote developments that offer functional andphysical integration of land uses, to create and enhance neighborhood sense ofplace, and to allow developers a greater degree of design and use flexibility. The proposed project is comprised entirely of commercial uses,primarily high traffic generating retail (i.e. two big box retail and junior anchor retail spaces along with drive-through restaurants), along with a single Page 3 Item 5. F120] dedicated office site. There are no residential or public uses proposed. The subject proposal is for a commercial project without any mixed-use elements. There are no community supportive services such as locations for day cares, flex space, or small locations for doctors, dentists, or other typical community serving uses. There is also no integrated residential with or consideration for the planned project to the west. Note:A Development Agreement modification was previously proposed to change the development plan on the adjacent property to the west from commercial to residential but was denied(i.e. Tanner Creek). The current entitlements for that property are approximately 400,000 square feet of professional office, hotel, and retail uses (for more information, see existing Development Agreement AZ-06-063 Inst. #108131100). Although a subsequent application for a residential development is planned to be submitted for that property, it has not yet been submitted as an updated Traffic Impact is Study is under review by ACHD. In the pre-application meeting, Staff recommended to the Applicant that they wait and submit their application for this development at the same time as the adjacent development to the west so that the projects could be reviewed together for overall consistency with the requested map amendment but the Applicant decided to proceed forward on their own against Staff's recommendation. Staff finds the integration of land uses in the proposed concept is not consistent with many of the MU-R and existing MU-C policies. The proposed concept plan is more indicative of a commercial development and minimal effort have been made to address mixed use requirements. The following items are additional requirements of the general mixed-use designation,the majority of which are not met with the proposed site plan. In reviewing development applications,the following items will be considered in all Mixed-Use areas, per the Comprehensive Plan(pg.3-13): (Staff's 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." This is a 33+/-acre site with only commercial and office uses proposed. This is not a "small"site and additional land use types should be included. Open space areas shown on the project site are disconnected, difficult to access, unsafe (i.e. located in or adjacent to vehicular use areas), and do not support the purpose or intent of a mixed-use designation. • "Where appropriate,higher density and/or multi-family residential development is encouraged for projects with the potential to serve as employment destination centers and when the project is adjacent to US 20/26, SH-55, SH-16 or SH-69." The subject project proposes no residential uses. The requested future land use designation does not address the land to the west, which currently contains the same MU-C designation. If approved there would be adjacent properties with different FLUM designations, design standards, and lack of integration. • "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." No master plan was submitted and the property to the west is not considered or integrated into the subject application and concept plan. The property to the west, is walled off, adjacent to loading and mechanical areas of the large and mid-box sites, and is connected only by a drive aisle that inadequately addresses safety or connectivity for bikes and pedestrians between the two sites. • "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." Page 4 Item 5. 121 No such arrangement is made for any of the commercial or office sites on the submitted site plan. There is no shared space for restaurants, business gatherings, or destination-oriented retail(creating third place and encouraging visitors and customers to spend time), and there is no clustering of office or commercial pad sites to make use of quiet and easily accessible open space. Open space and common area in the proposed site plan are disjointed and pedestrian connectivity is circuitous and y indirect. • "The site plan should depict a transitional use and/or landscaped buffering between commercial and existing low-or medium-density residential development." No transition or transitional uses are provided. The smaller users are located along Meridian Road and the largest proposed users and pad sites with the greatest impacts are located adjacent to multi- family residential planned to the west. The site plan does not integrate other community serving uses close to existing or proposed residential, such as doctors'offices,flex spaces, a daycare, or smaller office pad sites that do not need as much visibility from the interstate, interchange or Meridian Road. • "Community-serving facilities such as hospitals,clinics, churches, schools,parks, daycares, civic buildings, or public safety facilities are expected in larger mixed-use developments." The site plan does not contemplate any community-serving uses, or designate space for them to occur in the future. • "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." The proposed site plan includes several areas of open space. However, these areas are in remnant locations or in the middle of a parking area with no integration and difficult/unsafe pedestrian access. No other public or quasi public spaces are provided in alignment with the purpose and intent of the mixed-use designation. • "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." See above. Uses are commercial islands separated by parking with no central feature or activity area. • "All mixed-use projects should be directly accessible to neighborhoods within the section by both vehicles and pedestrians." The site plan depicts a vehicular link to the project to the west, however the properties appear to no longer be working together to make this a safe and integrated connection. (Staff did a concurrent pre-application meeting with representatives from both projects and was under the impression they would be submitting plans that were coordinated in accordance with City policy. They have talked and coordinated, but the projects have not been master planned together despite both seeking entitlements for development). The connection to the west is a commercial drive aisle, with no pedestrian accommodation, through the middle of a multi family project that is not suitable for traffic, which will not benefit existing or proposed single-family to the west without creating an attractive nuisance. Page 5 Item 5. F122] • "Alleys and roadways should be used to transition from dissimilar land uses, and between residential densities and housing types." The proposed site plan does include a drive aisle located behind the large retail anchor,that in combination with a landscape buffer provides "a"transition to future residential to the west. This however is not the point of the mixed-use transition standards. As shown in the mixed use general and mixed use regional comprehensive plan figures(3A and 3D,below),roads are generally used to transition with fronting uses. These roads are intended to both integrate and to transition,and not to simply create a visual or physical barrier which is the antithesis of the purpose and intent of the mixed-use designation. Connectivity '— _ Single Family Residential Townhouses orCendos Open oca or Iles or oa Space �p Multi-family a a� o — Transit Office. _ o �� Stop Live-work,or �i Townhouses o! J�. Commercial/ —Aetail Core Office or Service Use Plaza/Open Space Arterial Road a Feature area(shaced space,connectivity;etc.) i f Figure 3A from City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan.Note the focus on robdway frontage that transitions and integrates uses,and the open space amenities both integrated and shared. Single Family Residential Office or r � I l � � I I l ' ; � Hospitality Retail or Ji Service Use ® Localoreollector oad a nQ a �D Residential Office Park/ or Office Headquarters �O Integrated Plaza Area .g Retail ,r;, oa o .4 a o0 000 o ao owo a.,o Arterial Road O Feature area(shared space,connectivity,etc.)-------�� -- Figure 3D from City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan.Mote the special focus on uses with roadway frontage,the unimpeded and direct pedestrian access without traversing frequent parking aisles,the opportunities for a variety of community serving uses(not just high visibility pad sites)and the shared amenity spaces and open space for both the large anchor and smaller pad sites and uses. Page 6 Item 5. F123] In reviewing development applications,the following items will be considered in MU-R areas,per the Comprehensive Plan (pgs.3-16 thru 3-17): • Development should generally comply with the general guidelines for development in all Mixed-Use areas. The project does not comply with the provisions of the general mixed-use areas, either the purpose and intent, or with the most of the specific standards. The subject application requests Mixed Use Regional for a project entirely commercial and without any of the integration required in mixed use areas. This site and the one to the west are not integrated simply because an access point is provided;secondary access to the west would be required by staff for any modern project in the City. These connections reduce congestion,provide alternatives and redundancy, and to improve quality of life. NOTE:Staff recognizes that the Ten Mile Creek separates these two projects. However, both projects are turning their back to the Creek and not proposing to embrace it as an amenity that ties the project together. While it may be cost prohibitive to have several crossings of the Creek, it is critical that both pedestrian and vehicular crossings exist. • 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. No residential is proposed on this site, nor is it entitled on the adjacent property to the west. Staff would not be supportive of residential given the commercial nature and focus (site design and connectivity) of the proposed site plan, now with the lack of integration, access, and safety. Residential planned to the west is not included in the request for a mixed-use regional future land use designation; that area would follow different guidelines (likely making it impossible to meet them), and neither of the proposed projects are integrated into a cohesive design. • There is neither a minimum nor maximum imposed on non-retail commercial uses such as office, clean industry, or entertainment uses. The site is predominately retail with a single office pad. No attempts are made to include or integrate other non-commercial uses. • Retail commercial uses should comprise a maximum of 50%of the development area. The proposed concept is almost entirely retail with no other community serving uses.At previous hearings for the application to the west(i.e. Tanner Creek), the applicant specifically told the City Council that community type services should occur on Waltman to the east; neither application is proposing community-serving uses. 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, Page 7 Item 5. F124] 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 such public/quasi-public uses are proposed. Additional Analysis: As outlined,the proposed project is a commercial development,not mixed use. There are no significant attempts to integrate any of the on-site uses or with any proposed adjacent uses. Internal Circulation and Pedestrian Access: Some effort has been made to elevate the site plan to support pedestrian safety. Increased sidewalks throughout the parking areas have been provided,unlike commercial strip malls and power centers of decades past. These improvements however really only support and benefit users that arrive to the site via automobile. The maze of parking spaces and drive aisle crossings is unsafe for users not arriving on the site via car. Pad sites have all been located on the outer edges of the site with pedestrian crossings occurring frequently throughout the interior parking areas. The uses likely most attractive to adjacent residents for repeat trips, are the pad sites along Meridian Road. These have no direct pedestrian access and require meandering through the larger parking area. The primary east-west drive aisle has a nice pedestrian spine,until it abruptly ends at no particular destination(the small retail Pad 2 site). These outer pad sites with drive throughs are not even connected to each other, and there is no perimeter circulation system around the outside of the site instead. Adding more sidewalks to a large parking area and creating token open space that is surrounded by parking with no direct access or unattractive areas(near dumpsters and loading areas) does not further mixed-use principles. Increased pedestrian access for auto users arriving to the site is positive,but that would be a standard requirement for any modern commercial project. Besides circulation and access,the proposed uses are the primary concern. This especially when considering the planned residential development to the west, also features no community serving uses and has no integration with this site.A single drive aisle connection between the two is not integration, and is a baseline requirement for all projects in the City for access,circulation,and safety. Mixed use areas are intended to serve neighboring communities. There are no smaller community serving uses proposed in either project. The project is laid out to attract regional automotive users and generate quick trips,without also providing locations and uses for residents to benefit. These community services are intended and essential to reduce local trips. Uses from the subject site require new residents to get into their cars for virtually all trips, and most of that would be funneled down Waltman and through an already problematic and congested intersection. There are no secondary areas for flex uses, arts, daycare,live/work, small office sites for therapists,doctors, dentist, attorneys, or other community services. The 4-story class A office space,is not likely to support most of these uses at an affordable price point given the scale, location, and interstate visibility. The smaller Retail 2 pad site(in the middle)may support some multi-tenant uses,but none of the listed examples are typically attracted to these types of locations given access, circulation,physical building design, and general location. Site Design: To be considered a mixed-use project,an entire site redesign is very likely required.No small number of changes will resolve the underlying design issues. A large retail anchor could easily be integrated into a mixed-use project,but for this site in this location, it would likely need to be located along the interstate or Meridian Road. This is normal and typical both for sites such as this, and for major retailers,in other suburban areas of the Country. The location as designed prohibits any integration with the adjacent uses to the west, and disallows the potential for any lesser community serving commercial uses from occupying space along Waltman Lane. Waltman is the ideal location for community serving uses that do not need and cannot afford the visibility of the interstate and Meridian Road. The site needs to realize better clustering of non-residential uses to frame and benefit relocated open space, and there needs to be significantly re-thought connectivity that prioritizes pedestrians and bicyclists from the adjacent future and Page 8 Item 5. E existing residential areas. Destination uses,both retail and community services for local residents should be efficient and safe. The secondary mid-box(larger retail 2 along the interstate)may be difficult to integrate, and likely instead needs the square footage rededicated for better integration of community serving uses. While office space is also desired,there is a considerable amount of it being constructed elsewhere in the community and could also be rededicated. The large Retail 1 anchor could be easily provided with a central spine access from Waltman if it was relocated with the back facing the interstate. It would have greater visibility,be no less accessible, and allow much better integration for a variety of other uses. The planned residential to the west would also then not be literally walled off by the unattractive side of a large big box, and could make better use of views across the Ten Mile creek.None of the pad sites on Meridian Road need to be lost,though direct access for local bicycle and pedestrian trips should be improved. Open space provided in the subject layout is wasteful and without significant benefit to future,potential users. Provision of open space is not a checkbox requirement that can be provided and just make a project comply with mixed use standards. The purpose and intent of mixed-use designations is the context for all specific policy. The space behind the loading docks is unattractive and likely to be a nuisance and CPTED issue. The area surrounded by parking near office pads is a heat island,unsafe, and difficult to access,both for nearby employees and for residents. While the central open space could serve as something of an outdoor market, it does not meet the intent of the mixed-use principles and is poorly located(see above). Finally, and as previously stated,the site lacks integrated design features for users to leisure and remain. There are no elements of destination regional,no places designed for business visits and outdoor meetings to happen,or for users to visitors to simple `stay' and enjoy services with synergies. The site plan is standard highway commercial, designed to usher in as many vehicles as possible, and then to get them out as quickly out after. TRANSPORTATION FOCUS—EXISTING TRANSPORTATION NETWORK CONCERNS Staff has some concerns with the ability of the existing transportation network to support the proposed development. It should be noted that a Traffic Impact Study(TIS)was not prepared or submitted for the subject project. There is already a struggle to balance the green light time at the Waltman and Meridian intersection. The dominant movements are north-south on Meridian Road. Any additional green time given to the Waltman movements for these high intensity and high traffic-generating uses will negatively impact these movements. Several turning movements at Meridian and Waltman are very likely to create additional complexity. • Northbound Left Turn from Meridian Road: There is inadequate storage for northbound left turns into the project site, onto Waltman. A dual left-turn is likely needed in this location, even with community uses occurring here,let alone regional serving uses. Further, a single left-turn lane requires longer green light time to provide the needed access for major big box retailer,mid box, and several drive throughs, ironically each rivaling the stacking capacity of this turn lane. • Southbound Right Turn from Waltman Lane onto Meridian Road: There is inadequate southbound right turn lane capacity for all return trips originating from either the interstate or south side of the interstate. While not a direct correlation to signal timing and capacity, each retail pad site can accommodate more cars than this lane without blocking the proposed full turn access on Waltman,nearest to Meridian Road. There are multiple proposed high traffic generating pad sites,never mind the large retail anchor and variety of other pad sites. The existing Meridian/Waltman intersection is made of concrete and rebar, and exceptionally complex in design. Reconfiguring the intersection to add additional travel lanes would not only eat into the proposed concept plan,which is not shown(but may support some transportation expansion),but would also need to contend with improvements that will affect intersection alignment, grading, and drainage. The southbound turn lane north of McDonalds for example, already has an exceptionally wide,partially obscured,and very Page 9 Item 5. F126] awkward turning arc. Additional northbound left turn lanes onto Waltman from this light will compound existing deficiencies. Islands and signals may also need to be reset,but this project should not seek to benefit at the expense of the community identity without making equivalent or better improvements to wayfinding and community identity. This all remains unknown, and is without commitments. The very large intersection is softened substantially by the existing landscaping, and that should continue with development of this site. Anything can be engineered,but understanding the impacts of the entire area developed and operating at the worst part of the day,where traffic flow is already compromised through several intersection lights, is essential. The Meridian/Waltman intersection was not designed to accommodate the proposed impacts, in the existing conditions and with the single point urban interchange(SPUI). Timing will be further complicated by the proximity of the existing lights at Meridian and the SPUI,of existing conditions where vehicles already stack through these adjacent signals and block other directions of travel, and which is further complicated by the proximity of the Overland intersection which imposes significant restrictions on traffic operations through this area. Other Transportation Concerns:No frontage roads are provided to integrate the parcels in this area. All traffic, local and regional, is focused onto Waltman. A robust local network should integrate with a planned north-south Corporate Drive extension and not require east-west travel on Waltman exclusively. The east- west drive-aisle proposed with this project,crossing through the middle of a planned private multi-family development, is not designed to safely accommodate higher-volume through traffic. Further,if this connection exists,the planned multi-family project on the west should not have back out parking, should have wide detached sidewalk to accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians,and the buildings should include greater buffers from the roadway. Speculative Entitlement: Staff believes that amending the Future Land Use Map as proposed,given the existing status of speculative development is unwise. It is not clear if one or both of the projects tentatively proposed for the"Waltman area"can reasonably afford or engineer improvements that adequately compensate for their impacts. Projects for the entire adopted Mixed-Use Community area need to have completed traffic impact studies,have been fully reviewed, and have considered improvements that adequately address the aggregated impacts of projects for the larger area. This is not possible when neither project has a solid and cohesive master plan,when both may still change dramatically, and when they are being reviewed and considered independently. The subject site is exceptionally unique in the Treasure Valley,not just for opportunity,but also impacts. It is essential that analysis by both the Idaho Transportation Department and the Ada County Highway District be fully and thoroughly reviewed, and that Commission and City Council be able to consider the full array of both land use and transportation impacts before making a decision. Considering approvals in silos, either iteratively through subsequent requests by different projects,or by multiple agencies in different stages of review,may cause irreparable harm to the City's flagship and namesake interchange and entryway into the City.There should be lingering or unanswered questions, and nothing left to chance or change later given the importance of this area. Master Street Map (MSM):The MSM depicts W. Waltman Ln. and W. Corporate Dr.to the north,which is planned to be extended across the Ten Mile Creek to Waltman, as commercial collector streets but does not depict any collector streets across this property. Note:ACHD has submitted comments based on their preliminary review of the TIS, which may be considered with the future development application (see Section IX.I for more information). Page 10 Item 5. ■ VI. STAFF ANALYSIS A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT(CPAM) See above analysis in Section V. B. ANNEXATION(AZ) The Applicant proposes to annex 18.30-acres of land with a C-G(General Retail and Service Commercial)zoning district consistent with the proposed FLUM amendment to MU-R. The subject property is part of an enclave area surrounded by City annexed property. A legal description and exhibit map for the annexation area is included in Section VIII.B. The proposed C-G zoning district is consistent with both the existing FLUM designation of MU-C and the proposed FLUM designation of MU-R. A conceptual development plan was submitted as shown in Section VIII.0 that depicts how the property proposed to be annexed, as well as the area currently zoned C-G, is planned to develop with two(2)big box retail stores and a junior anchor retail space [Retail 1 (130,000-150,000 square feet(s.f.)),Retail 2 (80,000+/-s.f.),Retail 3/Lot 2 (20,000-30,000 s.£)], 3 out-pads, and a 4-story 80,000 square foot office building. The area shown on the concept plan on the bottom(south)portion of the development area (delineated by a red line) is the portion of the site currently in Ada County proposed to be annexed; the area on the top(north)portion of the development area is the portion of the site currently in the City. The portion of the site currently in the City is entitled to develop subject to UDC Table 11-2B-2 Allowed Uses in the Commercial Districts,regardless of whether or not the proposed annexation is approved, as there is not a Development Agreement in effect for that property. A vehicular connection/stub is depicted on the concept plan to the property to the west for future extension across the Ten Mile creek and interconnectivity. The Applicant has submitted an emergency access easement agreement with the property owner to the west for access to Ruddy Dr. and Waltman Ln. As noted above in Section V,mixed use designated areas should include at least three(3)types of land uses. The proposed conceptual development plan for the annexation area(and larger area)only includes two (2) land use types—commercial retail and office.Although residential land uses are planned to develop on the adjacent property to the west,the property is currently entitled to develop solely with commercial uses;the previous residential development proposed for that property was denied(i.e. Tanner Creek). Reasons for denial included Council's determination that the sole residential use of the property was not consistent with the MU-C designation because a mix of uses wasn't proposed and they didn't want to burden this property with providing only the non-residential component of the mix of uses desired for this area. Hence, Staff s recommendation for this property and the adjacent property to the west to come in for review concurrently in order to ensure the overall development is consistent with the development guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan for the mixed-use designation. In accord with Staff s analysis above,the proposed development is not consistent with the general mixed-use development guidelines,the existing MU-C or the proposed MU-R guidelines. Therefore, Staff is not in support of the requested annexation with the conceptual development plan proposed due to its inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan. As recommended in the pre-application meetings for this property and the adjacent property to the west, Staff recommends development applications are submitted concurrently for these properties with a master plan for the overall area that demonstrates consistency with the guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan for mixed use developments and specifically the MU-C designation or an alternate designation if proposed.Alternatively, if submitted separately,the development plan for each property should demonstrate consistency with the Plan on its own merits. The TIS should also be updated to take into Page 11 Item 5. 128 consideration the development impacts of both properties and the necessary road and intersection improvements needed in this area in order for the street network to function sufficiently with the intensity of development proposed. VII. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends denial of the proposed amendment to the Future Land Use Map and the proposed annexation per the analysis above in Sections V and VI and the Findings in Section X. Page 12 Item 5. F129] VIII. EXHIBITS A. Future Land Use Map—Adopted&Proposed Land Uses Date:4J 18J2022 Adopted Land Uses 0 a goo �,oao %//;f� rf%fiI%/%/., /_�___------ _ Feet ON NO,1 Legend � ■ ti 0i:*/ +� o ® Meridian AOCI Future Land Uses ■■ ■��''~�+/I:� ,I Citywide � � `-' Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential Med-High Density Residentia l / High density Residential if �'i '00�00 0'0`Commercial /Ofice / I 1" / Industriol 00 OVERL• D ' r r I I civic I/ Mod ' /�1111 I'0 Old Town Proposed Land Uses ® Mixed Use Neighborhood Mixed Use Community r ►--—VZO ------------- Z�F� 1 Goll - Mixed Use Regional Resi _ ��,!'lI Mixed Use Non-Residential • �� ,�i �0 Mixed Use-Interchan ePAP Ten Mile Specific �r�*I0��y Low Density Employment ■� 41��jj%��;y�, ® Lifestyle Center - High Density Employment ■ ram-'��,� i�a• Mixed Employment ■ R 3F4/� � of /I,.` Mixed Use Residential ITD ■ 10019 © Mixed Use Commercial051 ; ApoIn �;r I II II 11/ �� /�l►' --%OVERL'•AND"" ' I III I ' I Page 13 Item 5. 130 B. Annexation Legal Description and Exhibit Map I= CNGrnl9EktNG February 4.202 2 Project No.;20-176 i-WMeridian Road Exhibit A Legal Descriptlon for Annexation and Ite3orre toC-G A parbe I of I and being a port Imrr of the Northeast 114 of the Southeast 1{4 of Section 13,Townshl p 3 North,Range I Nest,li_M.,Ada County,ldahb beingMOM partikularlydastribed m follows: Commencin8 at a brass Cap roar-king the East 114 arrt2r bf Said SeCtign 13,whirb bears E89'76'1Cr'E a distance of 2.642,64 feet from a 54-incb re bar rnarkirlg the Center 1/4 Cornar of Said 5e tion 13,thanaLL foil cwi ng the a ante riy I ine of the 5authea st V4 of said Secti on 13,501'01'43"W a disco nre of 420,62 feet to the POINT OF BEGIN NI NG. Thence fDl lowing said easterly Ilne,501'01'4YW a distance-of 614,71 feet to the boundary of the City of Merid Ian pa r ordrna n to number 341,a lso known as South Gate Annexatlon,dated May 7,1979; 1_ Thence lea,rine Bald rasterly line and following said boundary the following five�5�courses- NS$+58'17"W a distance cif 96.37 feet; 2- 571*02'14"W a Atanre❑t 373-86 feet; 3. 574'40'17"W a distance of 471,15 feet; 4. 583'1&13"4V a distance of 332.94 feet; 5. N89°34'12"W a distance of 85.20 feet to the westerly line of sa id Northeast 1{4 of the Southeast 1/4i rf Enta leaving said boundary and following said westerly IEne,N00'43'22"E a distance of664.99 feet to a-5 -inrh rebar; Thence leaving said western+lirle.589832'05"E a diStanCe of 968.55 feet to a Wg-inch rebar; Thence N01,41136"E a distance of 244,37 feed; Thence 589'08'1)9"E a distance of 349.99 feet to the POINT Of OEGIMING. Said parcel contains a total of 18,304 acres,more or less. Attached hereto Is Exhlbit B and by this reference Is made a part hereof. pl t+1i�p S{' k E R SEA 5 o � EL 1 662 cn� � OF ` Y KI-6'' 4 j- 5725 North Dls[owery Way+Boise,ldaho 63713- 20a.639.6919-krnengllp.com Page 14 Item 5. 131 CENTER 1/4, CORNER POINT OF WMMFNCWEMT 5ccTIQ" 1.3 W. Waltman Ln, EAST 1/4 CORNER SECTION 13 F4uNb 5 f A-INCH REEAR CASJS OF BEARING FOUND BRASS CIaP S8 -215'10"E 2642.64" \L LI NIL TABLE T LINE 6EARIN6 OISTPACE I�wf v � Li N6656'17 W 96.37 o I _ ew L2 571'02'14-W 373.85 POINT Of BEGINIA49 # L3 SU2V13 332.d4 L4 N69'34'l.2 W 85.20 599 08'O$"E ;UI . 49.9a' Unplatted n Current � 4r Zoning:RI , S89'3205'E 9681.55' c Annexation Area-18.304� AC Prop-osed Zoning;C-G a Unplatked S1213417707,SIZ13417590&51213427699 '8 Curr-ent a V" Zoning-RUT i L1 L Z rtrw Ealw All. testa i1A L4 �,� LAB LEGEND Cr 0 ALUMINUM 6662 - 5Js-INCH RE19 R CALCULATED POINT OF �`� — — — �L�NE R£�ONE BOuNGAR '�� EC I'ExrSnN9 RiCHT-oF-wAY uME 0 250 500 750 Plan Spa IQ2 1'-Z54' IE N 0 1 N E E A I M G zoa Xdrn-Idy�wtaryµr easE,�,HEta��ia a L, L, 66 �+oH[17oq di Y+I P14 LxWb It D Annexation and Rezone DAM �.Enuart3m� PluELA: lo-i76 SHEET; 1-84 f Meridian Rc-ad 1 OF 1 HE114 SElf4 Sec, 13,T3N, RIW, E3I'+11,Ada County, Idaho Page 15 Item 5. 132 C. Conceptual Development Plan I I �b € �...... .. .......... Q IF i I I �, � 1 :r o o o . ITIFIFIFIFII 0....... .u. ...... � ....i1O "gRuagg ¢ n PIIIIIIIUIIIII ® — f - �.sM. f -�. i 0 0 0 ... R f l l l l n ILIUfITTU ml `. F — �" i lj! MERICUWR011O-COMMPMLLWEPLRHOPIIOH B-4 ••� -mom.-.�.....w�....��_w«. Page 16 Item 5. F133] IX. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS A. PLANNING DIVISION The Planning Division has no conditions on this application because the recommendation is for denial. If the Commission and/or City Council deems the application appropriate for approval,the project should be continued to a subsequent hearing in order for Staff to prepare conditions and Findings for approval. B. PUBLIC WORKS Site Specific Comments 1. No Public Works infrastructure was provided as part of this submittal, any changes must be approved by Public Works. 2. Water main must connect to the existing main in Waltman Lane at two locations. 3. Provide a water main connection to the west. 4. Ensure no permanent structures are built within a utility easement including but not limited to tree, shrubs,buildings, carports,trash enclosures,infiltration trenches, light poles, etc.). 5. Ensure no sewer services pass through infiltration trenches. General Comments 6. Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet,if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 7. Per Meridian City Code(MCC),the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5. 8. The applicant shall provide easement(s) for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way(include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. Submit an executed easement(on the form available from Public Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor, which must include the area of the easement(marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2"x 11"map with bearings and distances(marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. 9. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water(MCC 9-1-28.C). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized,the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 10. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC. 11. All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals, or drains, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. Page 17 Item 5. F134] 12. Any wells that will not continue to be used must be properly abandoned according to Idaho Well Construction Standards Rules administered by the Idaho Department of Water Resources. The Developer's Engineer shall provide a statement addressing whether there are any existing wells in the development,and if so,how they will continue to be used, or provide record of their abandonment. 13. Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections(208)375-5211. 14. All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. 15. Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process,prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. 16. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 17. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 18. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 19. Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill,where footing would sit atop fill material. 20. The design engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. 21. The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 22. At the completion of the project,the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. 23. A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting.A copy of the standards can be found at http://www.meridiancioy.oMIgublic_works.aspx?id=272. 24. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20% of the total construction cost for all completed sewer,water and reuse infrastructure for duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridianciU.orP/WebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=257681&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCiU Page 18 Item 5. ■ D. NAMPA&MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID) https://weblink.meridianciN.ofglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=258727&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCiU E. PARK'S DEPARTMENT h yps://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=257725&dbid=0&rep o=Meridia n City F. COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST IDAHO(COMPASS) https://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=258617&dbid=0&repo=Meridian City G. IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT(ITD) https://weblink.meridiancity.orQ/WebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=257906&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCioy H. ADA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=259278&dbid=0&repo=Meridian City I. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https://weblink.meridianciU.orgJ ebLink/DocView.aspx?id=259453&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity X. FINDINGS A. Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Upon recommendation from the Commission,the Council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan,the Council shall make the following findings: 1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the other elements of the Comprehensive Plan. Stafffinds the proposed amendment to Mixed Use—Regional(MU-R) and conceptual development plan is not consistent with the intent of the MU-R designation in the Comprehensive Plan in that it's predominantly a single-use development(retail) and does not include any residential uses as desired, as noted in Section V. 2. The proposed amendment provides an improved guide to future growth and development of the city. Stafffinds that the proposal to change the FL UM designation from Mixed Use—Community(MU-C) to Mixed Use-Regional(MU-R) does not provide an improved guide to future growth and development of the City as the proposed development plan does not include the appropriate mix of uses as desired in the MU-R designation as discussed in Section V above. 3. The proposed amendment is internally consistent with the Goals,Objectives and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Stafffinds that the proposed amendment is not consistent with the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan for the proposed MU-R designation as noted above in Section V. 4. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Unified Development Code. Stafffinds that the proposed amendment is consistent with the Unified Development Code. 5. The amendment will be compatible with existing and planned surrounding land uses. Page 19 Item 5. F136] Stafffinds the proposed amendment and conceptual development plan will not be compatible with existing and planned surrounding land uses for the reasons noted in Section V above. 6. The proposed amendment will not burden existing and planned service capabilities. Stafffinds that the proposed amendment will likely burden transportation capabilities in this portion of the city without significant improvements to Waltman, the extension of Corporate, and the Meridian/Waltman intersection. Sewer and water services are available to be extended to this site. 7. The proposed map amendment(as applicable)provides a logical juxtaposition of uses that allows sufficient area to mitigate any anticipated impact associated with the development of the area. Stafffinds the proposed map amendment provides a logical juxtaposition of uses but doesn't meet many of the mixed-use guidelines for development as discussed in Section V above; there should be sufficient area to mitigate any development impacts to adjacent properties. 8. The proposed amendment is in the best interest of the City of Meridian. For the reasons stated in Section V and the subject findings above, Stafffinds that the proposed amendment is not in the best interest of the City. B. Annexation and/or Rezone(UDC 11-513-3E) Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full investigation and shall,at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Staff finds the proposed map amendment to the C-G zoning district and plan to develop solely commercial retail and office uses on the property per the proposed conceptual development plan does not demonstrate consistency with the general mixed use or the MU-R guidelines in the Plan as noted above in Section V. (See section V above for more information) 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Stafffinds the proposed map amendment to C-G and conceptual development plan generally complies with the purpose statement of the C-G district in that it will provide for the retail and service needs of the community. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health,safety, and welfare; Stafffinds the proposed map amendment should not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare as the proposed commercial uses should be conducted entirely within a structure. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to, school districts; and Stafffinds City services are available to be provided to this development. No residential development is proposed; therefore, enrollment at area schools shouldn't be affected. Page 20 Item 5. F137] 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. Stafffinds the proposed annexation with the conceptual development plan proposed is not in the best interest of the City per the analysis in Sections V and VI above. Page 21 E IDIAN;--- Applicant Presentation COMMON OPEN SPACE _ B OUTDOOR PATIO a a ENTRY SIGN FUTURE BUS STOP WALTMAN LANE p , i� 1818 I r, :7i s .0 A� LOT URBAN PLAZA I I I LOT Ior 1i III 1 • i Ir r I II i.r 1 � � I +r ^�i a •'�. '.�a L>., � 10T4 lu I Z� I !� // a• •• Y� �.'(� `w) \n` � � " .'+M`h Ali i fE "r a "r,^,t LOTLOT 6 Ilk I I I I I I I F. �+ EMERGENC ACCES YOTHERS o Vlj _ r a FUTURE o` ' �,., � � � � � � � � � �, � � � � ,.f I 1•+ DEVELOPMENT LOT8 ' _.I7' Ir BYOTHERS R e OFFICEAIR, a Lt V - — ---- ENTRY SIGN , - I ' J141 i'J1J1L "j. ENTRYSIGN "yV•�, INTERSTATE B4 WESTBOUND ON-RAMP •Ky `� = -;,. — — 1 , a • MAP KEY ` • • • • • SITE CONNECTIVITY TEN MILE CREEK CONNECTIVITY f �rTfTTi - I dlala // (also BY OTHERS \ r. . z LOT I I • I D'PATHWAY IMPROVEMENTS I C �. OPEN SPACE AMENITIES I ..`r •�� 'f I r .L i 1" t is•' .� � - 7 I Tr- LOT 4 } If I N, ri FUTURE DEVELOPMENT BY OTHERS - LOT 2 1 ,�.% '��• �! / � ! - - LOTS $. r g" i EMERGENCY ACCESS • ._I .r. ;_J_LLLLL111.:.��-I,r _f ,• I�� L vl ?:�� BY OTHERS l r _ .111 .. 1 LOT 8 Y �.. LOT OFFICE 4-STORY LL INTERSTATE 84 WESTBOUND ON-RAMP - .-- - e — � y 'S'�-- _ r+ �i — iL �T fly r i1' �-w'�N �• ' A `. L� SITE DATA PHASE I: a a RETAIL 1 SITE AREA: 8.43 Acres BLDG SITE AREA: 3.04 Acres 9? PAD 1 SITE AREA: 1 .73 Acres p p p PAD 2 SITE AREA: 0.96 Acres r. p PAD 3 SITE AREA: 0.85 Acres � 5. WAI TMAN LANE � � ,. .f,;..Y,•:4 �`` / .... — — — ... ..:...,.F.,..v..:,.,,,+.,y.. :.:,. - - ATI �:��: — —77 Acres b RETAIL 2 SITE AREA: 1 03 :. r; hi OPEN SPACE AREA: 1 . 15 Acres 1 8 dldld / / SHARED COST AREA: 3.00 Acres 0 TOTAL SITE AREA: 17. 19 Acres LOT 3 58 I ±1.73AC BUILDING: AREA: 10 PAD 1 RETAIL 1 147,000 S.F. BLD AREA 22,000 S.F. I PAD 1 5,660 S.F. 62 -- — '00— -- -- -- -- 1 PAD 2 4,058 S.F. -- -- -- -- -- -- I PAD 3 3,444 S.F. 1 LOT .......... ........ ..e ,... .......... ...... ....._... Hill I ±LOT I I I I RETAIL 2 9,000 S.F. 1 RETAIL 1 74 n I I i I I q 41 9 I I I TOTAL: 191 , 162 S.F. 147,000 SFU +D I I I I BUILDING CITY RATIO REQ. SHOWN 5 n I I iai I RETAIL 1 1 /500 294 434 76Hill I I n I I 1 111111 I I I I BLD AREA 1 /500 44 100 ®® ®® I I I I I PAD 2 1 /250 �6 28 LOT 4 e e e e e ±0.96 AC 0 I I I I I PAD 3 1 /250 14 16 72 _ PAD 2 — __ RETAIL 2 1 /500 18 58 ---------------------------------- _ ° ° ° ° ° ° CITY OF MERIDIAN TOTAL: 409 709 III II III I 1 II II II I = ADA COUNTY LOT 7 III II III 1 ±1.15 AC(GROSS) LJLJL]LJ (SCA±0.07 AC) ±1.08 AC(NET) ®®®®®® I P HAS E 11: OPEN SPACE / E-- - LOT RETAIL 3 SITE AREA: 6.56 Acres (SCA±1.07 AC) C- - - ±3.04AC(GROSS) 20 OFFICE SITE AREA: 6. 16 Acres I ° ° ° e PLAZA AREA/ ±1.97 AC(NET) TOTAL SITE AREA: 12.72 Acres OPEN SPACE WITH LOT 5 GAZEBO&BENCHES / 5 22,000 SF 1 e e 1111 e e 7 ±0.85 AC 26 _ _ _ _ -L I'-iz& (I PAD 3 i BUILDING: AREA: LOT 6 I ®� 6 9 RETAIL 3 80,500 S.F. ±103AC ° OFFICE 80,000 S.F. 1'CITY OF MERIDIAN 1 1 1 RETAIL 2 TOTAL: 160,500 S.F. 7 2 ADA COUNTY ® ®® _ ®® ®® BUILDING CITY RATIO REQ. SHOWN RETAIL 3 1 /500 S.F. 161 238 $ ' 9 TFMJ i I I I 1 loll OFFICE 1 /500 S.F. 160 414 3 TOTAL: 321 652 30 1111 liummin III if 111111 --36 44 TANNER CREEK g I 127 TOWNHOMES I LOT 7 & 272 APARTMENTS I ±6.56 AC(GROSS) e e e e 9 111 n I 9 8 e e e e e e e e g 12 (SCA±0.33 AC) 2 _ __ ___ 111 ±6.23 AC(NET) RETAIL 3 e ° PLAZA AREA/OPEN SPACE WITH 7 GAZEBO&BENCHES 8 I 10 LOT 9 ±6.16 AC(GROSS) 9 2 (SCA±0.33 AC) I I U F 9 I I I U I I I 9 I I I U ±5.83 AC(NET) 6 12 p OFFICE ° e e (4-STORY)il 5 Q e @21 LU Illi mummin 2 ° ° 10 9 1 38 3611 n il I I I I I I 1 1 1 10 31 I / 7 8 I — _ _ � L� 1-84 WESTBOUND ON-RAMP 1 inch = 80 ft. PROJECT NOTES: 1-84 This conceptual site plan is for preliminary planning purposes only: Site specific information such as legal boundary, existing conditions, zoning, parking, curb cuts, traffic signals and landscape requirements must be verified before relying on same. HAWKINS �, 184 & ll IDRIDI% lV RDSP =56b COMPANIES C OMMERCIAL DEVELOPERS MERIDIANS � TE PLAN , ID 855 BROAD STREET, SUITE 300 BOISE,ID. 83702 (T)208 376 8522 (F)208 376 8523 Drawn By: KN Revision: 04—19-22 ..... . •.wyYa.+:.�+ �a..w. . , . .,. _r..... we[r•�-."a'�M'rPy"nro ...++..r...-...r... .- . +*w...�+r�..•..r:��v_n �.w.s- :.1M+M 4�!wrMrm hww.va ` fd :.:..?. - .r-t stw :ie.., - . .,t-.... ..wfwY+rc "�.+ ... . . .�, .,. . . .ew.. . . "i n' •.lA: . °' &� r anrvL P v.- Vr3 skk _ too %l a ... -mac . ... J I ;' yF. rx k^ T. 3+ • 4 �� , + • 5 u yp y �Ilk ill u. u.m ail . �i^ .� «�.r„�- ';.a NEWT l epk � let, 4 �,( p� J R y ';. t pmn r,�• . y" Kw Y� i Y �.� r71, kar } f °,c erY t y ' ' ui' i 1} ; ' i r A" vr� r yrM1tL l' ' Y"f o �h Lj YLY i ill � " + h ^ � � il ! �� ed 1�ek "a +il u �� rl, f� {�✓ 1 '� J19 ire } r r r� Pi 14� J�IN Joe I } v l i �I n FaB� r F � l A f A I y of el i 1 \ f 5� ... w SrF r � h t'AY 11 =/ A p ry�y,y _ Now saw q 'j I I 1 111 ) 0 n a iIN �. f if ; - ez r k � a OhlIN IN If IN IN 4 �\ 1, . INIf If 1� If IN IN � v s aFir d it i 1 w VA. Pill - I ♦ A dI ♦ f F. ll �� µ a 1 1 � !RO Poll I� '° / l �, Wl '" z � v T,4i n � Iil. ry� � 1 {° 11 ! ,� tlr- � + , I71 p•' , 1 " Y �'' " ��wti ' II p , i F4 1 k4 �qL 'T' / ir, / �1 ..p;rl h I / 1ir l qi „ , 1 -,nll L - ' rl.` rl : },� 1 l . II �. 11 f 11 / iJ, 1k '.',{ / i! 4 I ,�p� ��{ .f I I 1/7 ,m .s,' / � �/i�ltiti �lllr`,. ' , ian, .�i , ll , pll,/! 11y Ih� 1P'. . � �� . , /IfIl�i4Yc11jl � h /� r �l,ly 1� � . . ,iI, A / . � : �. � A Ili � o,!I l hive ' i ,� .l u, , ti h , /X, " , � /It' P � Y Y .raR iY / iro,ld ui ,/ yy��. � Y" nfi 1 lti 1 � � W I if � I 111. ,p � � , I, , l� M/�,y p/ �Ir � / � 4 1, ,l # . p Iflrl/ ,;�A / llf Irl " 6,( I 'FI Ili �I�If /� Il �1f �) I / �i �. ;df^J, '� / >if .�hp �j � � �'JYN '� �u ✓pi rl. ' / f , ' �4liJlol lei �'V ;r ) , // l yl ;:,r��, it 41 �� ! / � � 7/`, 'X. o- �r }�i � , dllfllll i� ✓yl ^ .' � �i � '1l1I� I��I. . ,�� r / �..tl 4, y�� / � ! �)//� J)((,,,i r li lily� V, .{( � q ��, y��')�1�11�/ �Idl ��'i� �:�,� l i� l� Xii'/�. � Y�� I �lrl dfU)Vlellliv ��l �, 'G:iev�Jl li� �,�.1 ,�!�., 1 /� �Ii11Llriii� ,i�l( Si `,�A .y. JVa � ii r Y r � r 71 _ = IOWI N 1 IX Jul �r �~ a 7 A sti F � sus �� fi" ^:v°,.�"' •� � � s � . „ �* ; - � ,• s 1 s6 L_ Y g - +` .ate a`. 31 } f�r ,S+„� d �' ,.•. �'wh � I L ` . _ Ns •fig, MAP 10160 o •• a r _ a . . ; 01 ,A fir � J M J r i � y o, _.--_arni uir u - } 3r t �rY Y g7 F _ 0. � F P pw it Oil tr yi y Ikkk r OWN-NMI .33 " r ' 14 t `yea 77 WI _ ytn 1 t , i o O J �i O N E � . - � f L!!/ yr1 ram! .ar • t O a} N 1 • ji^(�• � �' TY SAC"_ . .. ^ F" <p VAW Bak- 1� Y 1 I. r • � -sl 1 I I ro '• war,- - {3j� c 40 , y OT WALTMAN LANE 5 L T T gg — —— �. 'At5 r,� `r ^},b 3i b _ r ti S —— —— —— ,. , —— � 4�• �� —— — � . . . _ J - 1 tr1 1 I '��1 I I I I ,, ,) t, ��w"'¢'�^ ,.,>,�ti j' •• v',`?ti ' v,, ,'v:.w`dti:ar},, "4„'1ti. t� 3;` .lts�'' t '`''-. `aa..� 1 � : . (' I BLOCK 3 I I I I BUILDING A 1 t ❑:I t,J I]] •-� 111 1 2 3 4 � 5 I 6 I 7 � 8 I 9 lip � � �i` �'. LOT 3poll _ .�, I 1 I I I BUILDING M o A�' PAD I '..1' N 1.1z OJT..' ♦ \ -. _ � t 1 � ------� --- , _ LOT I .. _... _._. li 1 . . .,. r �:,1 CLUBHOUSE \ , -ems _? ♦' � RETAIL I I BLOCK 4 1-STORY � 1 2 3 I 4 I U5 6 1 7 8 9 i 12 (I 1 I .. 1 113to , I 3 " I 1 I ' 14 5l BUILDING B a, ' I LOT 4 I 1 2 ( t � V . AD 2 11 $ LOCK 5 sPA BU LDING L 15 0 _ I r 1 2 `I 3 y 4 j 5 6 7 8 y 9 BLOCK 3 y i 4 BLOCK2 ; O _�__�_� --�_� I 16 0 1 i 4 � z i LOT 7 � a �- 17 BUILDING G -- -- J < 5 I� 1 I I -- — I _ 1 5 I 1 I I I I 18 OPEN SPAGE LOT 2 W r s �• I I J 1 1 1 I 1 � � i �l I 1 � - w- ' 6 ' T 2 I 3 4 5 I 6 17 I 8 , , II I i t I I I 19 `t? BUILDING 7 ti BLOCK 6 �' 20 L I r� PAD 3 r \ v 1 GAZEBO � d OT 6 5 1 1 PLAYc�Rouup, - I r s v : . , , v RETArr IL 2 � S S ' S ACCESS OPEN SPAGE rJ r BA5KETBALL r . r . r - r . r . 55 9 t; > t �- t - • , .' _ > �? - , :.-, .�- k_ 22 I ' 1 -- BUILDING E , ' - - - - .v . . . . _ • • 23 I � � ', d_ ♦ tit• -: 1 � LOT 8 • _ i t 53 24 � � , 2 _[2 10 2 I _ GAZEBO BU LD NG K I _ '> I _ I / I 1 3 3 3- - 1 25 BU LD NG F PLAYGROUND L "GAZEBO .t L 1 t RETAIL 3 — - J r n ':v 52 , 4 4 4 I I LOT C1 --- - - - ,gr,, i �.OPEN SPAGE � 12 -- 1 1 I -- 26 f 5 5 �LOGK Q � \ r— —y IF- 1 T t y 13 � y BLOCK 7- BLOCK 8 - -- - s I 1 6 6 I � 6 I BLOCK 3 � � ; ; • ► ` - ` , , r '� I I 51 I ' 14 27 5 BUILDING H t - _ 1 __ r - � � OFFICE L (4-STORY) 1 7 7 _ BLOCK 6 15 7 I— Tit > ` ;` �` �� ' '�� c v " • -- - - I - -- 1 1 8 8 28 -- - - - - r_ 9 9 1 17 9 ~ ( - „mom a_ — — —— i - 10 10 , -- 18 10 I 29 BUILDING • 49 INmor 48 i 11 11 19 11 30 5 s �. m - 32 tt� BUILDING 6 - z K' • I 1 ,� BLOCK 3 - • 47 46 I 45 `' 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 a VEGETATED LANDSCAPE BUPFEi2 v � S T j L - - "� figu$_.t,rem_>;�a3°' wm?°'_ ""v*" _�iaS +IM"igJV� w,a.t°r .�_ "u3'� "soa •l',.� `._ _4 t „ .a' „� �i t *` INTERSTATE 84 s 1- — N I N E _ . m 0 ti 3 E 0 1 r rt\ �► TANNER CREEK � ` � � � L � �-�� - ° ti '— •Civil Engineering o pe tecture ` _ r • w t M + _ •Erosion&Sediment Control ° ► ► - `' '�.,• +' 1r• f •Graphic Communication N N WALTMAN LANE gg -•;, �+.. '• � •Irrigation Design Y •Land Planning f 9 Y . ; J \ u_ • • Fax 20B-376-652esign.com MERIDIAN, IDAHO y '�t 1 Phone-208-3wood St 5S N o ^^-, �p J '� r I 6661 North Glenwood Street o Garden City,Idaho e3714 SGALE: I"=bO'-O" a N C E IDIAN�-- Public Presentation(s) I Clair and Carrie Manning 84 and Meridian Rd- Problematic Entrance to Waltman 515 ft320 ft Bottlenecks on Waltman 485 ft turning lane accessCar LimitsBackward View:herecar in turning lane Only room for one taneNo turning Thank You Item 6. Ll 38 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing Continued from April 21, 2022 for Future Land Use Map Ada County Area of City Impact Cleanup (H-2021-0098) by City of Meridian Planning Division, Located Citywide A. Request: Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to clean up the map to better align with the adopted Ada County Area of City Impact (AOCI) boundary AND removing Civic designations and areas that will be serviced by other jurisdictions (Boise). Item 6. 139 (:�N-WE IDIAN IDAHO PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Brian McClure Meeting Date: April 21, 2022 Topic: Public Hearing for Future Land Use Map Ada County Area of City Impact Cleanup (H-2021-0098) by City of Meridian Planning Division, Located Citywide A. Request: Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to clean up the map to better align with the adopted Ada County Area of City Impact (AOCI) boundary AND removing Civic designations and areas that will be serviced by other jurisdictions (Boise). Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET 3 DATE: April 28, 2022 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 6 PROJECT NAME: Future Land Use Map Ada County Area of City Impact Cleanup (H-2021-0098) Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify (Please Print) HOA? (mark X if yes) If yes, please provide HOA name 1 2 3 4 5 i 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Item 6. ■ STAFF REPORT E COMMUNITY N -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A H O HEARING 4/21/2022 �- DATE: ' 55 0 TO: Planning&Zoning Commission s 2s FROM: Brian McClure, Comprehensive Associate Planner 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2021-0098 2022 Future Land Use Map AOCI Legend �. Cleanup, CPAM AOCI LOCATION: Various; Citywide r County — 69 ■ 6Line Future Road I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The City of Meridian Planning division submitted an application for a Comprehensive Plan Map (CPAM) amendment. This amendment includes cleanup, or administrative-type changes to the Future Land Use Map(FLUM; Map), and modifies the boundaries of the Area of City Impact(AOCI) shown on the FLUM.Additionally,Planning staff have modified the future land use symbols to improve visual recognition, and better-defined sub-area type plans in the legend. This amendment does not modify any policies or text of the Comprehensive Plan. II. PROJECT OVERVIEW There are seven proposed areas of change for this Map amendment that either modify the boundaries of the Area of City Impact(AOCI), or the future land use designations shown on the FLUM. All of these changes are north of Interstate 84, and the majority of them have had some previous type of decision or action by either Meridian,the County, or an adjacent City. There are 34 unique parcels affected by the proposed changes,with 23 unique owners. Letters notifying each of these owners with the specific change were mailed on March 4,2022. The following are descriptions of the changes, organized by each of the seven areas. Maps of each of these areas are included in the Exhibits section,with all changes being categorized as either AOCI(an AOCI change),or Cleanup (a change to the future land use designation). A. Area 01 Description The only change to this area is to remove all affected parcels and right-of-way from Meridian's AOCI. This area has already been removed from Meridian's AOCI by Ada County, in coordination with Meridian and the City of Star,but is not yet reflected on the City's Future Land Pagel Item 6. ■ Use Map. This area is not planned for water or sewer service by Meridian, and is not accessible from within the City. B. Area 02 Description The only change in this area is a cleanup for a prior CPAM approval,resolution 21-2266,which was not drawn consistently and affects only right-of-way. Staff try to recommend Map changes that consistently follow parcel or centerlines,but this was not the case in this area. This is frankly a drawing error that staff would otherwise simply correct with map cleanup(once discovered), but this application presented an opportunity to daylight the desire for consistency in designation boundaries.All applications for changes to the FLUMshould consider the alignment of adjacent boundaries, either following the centerline of roadways (preferred), or parcel lines. C. Area 03 Description The only change to this area is the removal of all affected parcels and right-of-way from the AOCI.All four parcels impacted are owned by the Ada County Highway District(ACHD). The ACHD is developing a new Traffic Operations Center that falls in both the City of Boise and Meridian AOCI,and it is not realistic to develop the project in multiple jurisdictions. This project has already been initiated in the City of Boise, in coordination with Meridian,but the AOCI has not been modified by the City or Ada County to date. D. Area 04 Description The changes in this area overlap and are a little complex,but the basis for all of the changes are to recognize the County approved AOCI(and previous decisions by Meridian). There are five impacted parcels and four unique owners. Only one parcel is not already annexed into either Boise or Meridian. The County parcel which is an enclave,#R4582530100, is planned for services in Boise but is currently shown as split between Meridian and Boise in the adopted Future Land Use Map. All of the other changes are expansions or retractions of the adopted future land uses, and all of which align with existing or entitled developments. E. Area 05 Description The only change to this area is the removal of a single parcel and adjacent right-of-way from the AOCI. This modification was previously approved by Ada County, in coordination with Meridian and Boise. Further, it is an older existing County development and has been annexed into the City of Boise. F. Area 06 Description There are two changes affecting three parcels and adjacent right-of-way in this area. All three parcels have a Civic future land use designation but are not civic uses. Parcel#R5672000315 is the former, Old City Hall site, and is now being developed as a mixed-use project in private ownership. The proposed Map designation is Old Town,which surrounds the site and corresponds to the parcel's Old-Town zoning. The other affected properties have had a Civic designation going back to at least the 2002 Comprehensive Plan. It is not known if there was once a reason,or if it was simply an error not caught until now. The proposed designation is Medium Density Residential,which other adjacent properties are currently designated. The existing uses have R-4 zoning,but likely include non-conforming uses (which are unaffected by this change). The Civic designations under both the 2010 and 2019 Comprehensive Plans are intended for facilities owned by public agencies, or by quasi-public agencies such as Idaho Power, and which should have some public awareness on the FLUM. Page 2 Item 6. ■ G. Area 07 Description There are two different changes in this area with 14 impacted parcels. The first change is updating the future land use designations of the properties which the West Ada School District and Idaho State University have made improvements to. This area includes parking along Commercial Drive and 1-84, and also the new Idaho Fine Arts Academy. The current designation is Commercial, and proposed for Civic (matching the rest of the adjacent school/university owned properties.) The second change affects the other 12 parcels along Franklin Road. These parcels all contain commercial operations, in both the County and City, and which are surrounded by Industrial uses or the Meridian Cemetery. The adopted land use is High Density Residential, and the proposed change is Commercial to reflect the existing uses. The office park has a few undeveloped pad sites,but are all zoned C-G. The Ada County parcel along Franklin Road has an R6 zoning designation(residential),but operates several businesses. The Commercial future land use designation would not disallow uses already allowed within C-G. Annexation and zoning of the adopted High Density Residential future land use designation,would require a conditional use permit for multi-family in all consistent zoning,just like a commercial designation. H. Summary of Future Land Use Changes 1. Summary Future Land Use Areas The following table summarizes changes to the AOCI and future land use designations. Change Type Current Designation Proposed Designation Acres Cleanup Civill Old Town Cleanup Civic MDR 0.75 Cleanup MH Commercial Cleanup Commercial Civic 19.99 AOCI Remove MU-RG 2.94 AOCI Remove MDR 31.91 AOCI Remove MU-I 6.96 AOCI Remove MDR 1.14 AOCI Add moor MU-RG AOCI Add MU-RG 1.64 AOCI Remove MU-RG 0.41 AOCI Remove Commercial 1.91 AOCI Remove Industrial 6.77 Cleanup Mixed Employment 0.13 Total Area Impacted 82.31 Total Cleanup Area 27.20 Total Area Added to AOCI 3.07 Total Area Removed from AOCI 52.04 2. Summary by Parcel The following table describes the future land use designation changes for each affected parcel. Page 3 Item 6. F143] Parcel# Current Acres Description of Future Land Use Change Zoning R0797730010 C-G 0.81 High Density Residential to Commerical R0797730020 C-G 0.14 High Density Residential to Commerical R0797730030 C-G 0.15 High Density Residential to Commerical R0797730042 C-G 0.21 High Density Residential to Commerical R0797730052 C-G 0.14 High Density Residential to Commerical R0797730060 C-G 0.15 High Density Residential to Commerical R0797730070 C-G 0.36 High Density Residential to Commerical R0797730080 C-G 0.15 High Density Residential to Commerical R0797730090 C-G 0.15 High Density Residential to Commerical R0797730100 C-G 0.25 High Density Residential to Commerical R0888210100 C-G 13.22 Commercial to Civic R0888210200 C-G 5.69 Commercial to Civic R1798151400 R-40 3.49 Mixed Use Regional to Mixed Use Regional(entire property) R4582530100 RUT 5.00 Mixed Use Regional to None(remove from AOCI) R4582530281 C-G 0.63 Mixed Use Regional to Mixed Use Regional(entire property) R5672000315 O-T 0.91 Civic to Old Town R9322500043 R-4 0.02 Civic to Medium Density Residential R9322500045 R-4 0.30 Civic to Medium Density Residential R932250007 R-4 0.30 Civic to Medium Density Residential R9846840100 L-OD 0.78 Medium Density Residential to None(remove from AOCI) S0420449850 RUT 2.30 Mixed Use Interchange to None(remove from AOCI) S0421325480 RUT 0.46 Medium Density Residential to None(remove from AOCI) S0421325620 RUT 4.64 Medium Density Residential to None(remove from AOCI) S0421325800 RUT 5.26 Medium Density Residential to None(remove from AOCI) S0421326015 RUT 3.42 Medium Density Residential to None(remove from AOCI) S0421336200 RUT 6.28 Medium Density Residential to None(remove from AOCI) S0532417376 C-G 0.87 None to Mixed Use Regional(add entire property to AOCI) S1104438500 C-2D 1.59 Commercial to None(remove from AOCI) S1109438931 RUT 3.88 Industrial to None(remove from AOCI) S1109438940 RUT 1.04 Industrial to None(remove from AOCI) S 1109438950 MI 0.52 Industrial to None(remove from AOCI) S 1109448970 MI 1.07 Industrial to None(remove from AOCI) S 1118120731 R6 0.57 High Density Residential to Commerical S 1118120740 R6 0.69 High Density Residential to Commerical Note: Current Zoning shown in italics font style represents a non-Meridian zoning designation (i.e. County or adjacent city). Total acreages will not match Summary by Future Land Use Area, which includes right-of-way and other non parcel area. Page 4 Item 6. ■ I. Other Changes 1. Area of City Impact Boundary The AOCI boundary line on the current Map will be revised to reflect all future land use area additions and subtractions. See the Exhibit section,Future Land Use Map (with all changes). 2. Graphic Revisions The proposed Map includes several other graphic type changes. First,the legend is modified to show"Special Planning Areas". This was previously dedicated to the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan,but has now been expanded to cover other planning areas, like the Fields District. These areas will be labeled with their relevant plans, and the web maps will have links to their respective plans in popup dialogs. The other change is to the symbology of the various future land use designations. Many of the adopted designations are difficult to differentiate accurately. The base color for each designation is generally the same or very similar,but additional hatching and patterns have been selectively added to better differentiate designations that currently share similar hues and intensities. There was a concerted effort to balance differentiation of the symbols while minimizing complexity. III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: City of Meridian Planning Division, 33 E Broadway Ave, Suite 102, Meridian, Idaho 83642 B. Owner: Not applicable C. Representative: Not applicable IV. NOTICING Planning&Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Notification published in newspaper 4/5/2022 Notification mailed to property owners within 300' N/A Applicant posted public hearing notice sign on site N/A Nextdoor posting 4/5/2022 V. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS (Comprehensive Plan) A. Future Land Use Map Designation (hups.11meridiancity.or IFLUtYn This application does not include any annexation, rezones, or new entitlements. As such, no specific analysis is provided for the proposed changes. Never-the-less, the following future land use designations with descriptions (copy and paste from the Comprehensive Plan) are included in the application: Page 5 Item 6. 145 • Medium Density Residential(MDR): This designation allows for dwelling units at gross densities of three to eight dwelling units per acre. Density bonuses may be considered with the provision of additional public amenities such as a park, school,or land dedicated for public services. • Medium High Density Residential(MHDR): This designation allows for a mix of dwelling types including townhouses, condominiums, and apartments. Residential gross densities should range from eight to twelve dwelling units per acre. These areas are relatively compact within the context of larger neighborhoods and are typically located around or near mixed use commercial or employment areas to provide convenient access to services and jobs for residents. Developments need to incorporate high quality architectural design and materials and thoughtful site design to ensure quality of place and should also incorporate connectivity with adjacent uses and area pathways, attractive landscaping and a project identity. • Commercial: This designation will provide a full range of commercial uses to serve area residents and visitors. Desired uses may include retail,restaurants,personal and professional services, and office uses, as well as appropriate public and quasi-public uses. Multi-family residential may be allowed in some cases,but should be careful to promote a high quality of life through thoughtful site design, connectivity, and amenities. Sample zoning include: C-N, C-C, and C-G. • Industrial: This designation allows a range of uses that support industrial and commercial activities. Industrial uses may include warehouses, storage units, light manufacturing, flex, and incidental retail and offices uses. In some cases uses may include processing, manufacturing,warehouses, storage units, and industrial support activities. Sample zoning include: I-L and I-H. • Civic: The purpose of this designation is to preserve and protect existing and planned municipal, state, and federal lands for area residents and visitors. This category includes public lands,law enforcement facilities,post offices, fire stations,cemeteries,public utility sites,public parks,public schools, and other government owned sites within the Area of City Impact. • Old Town: This designation includes the historic downtown and the true community center. The boundary of the Old Town district predominantly follows Meridian's historic plat boundaries. In several areas,both sides of a street were incorporated into the boundary to encourage similar uses and complimentary design of the facing houses and buildings. Sample uses include offices,retail and lodging,theatres,restaurants, and service retail for surrounding residents and visitors.A variety of residential uses are also envisioned and could include reuse of existing buildings,new construction of multi- family residential over ground floor retail or office uses. The City has developed specific architectural standards for Old Town and other traditional neighborhood areas. Pedestrian amenities are emphasized in Old Town via streetscape standards.Additional public and quasi-public amenities and outdoor gathering area are encouraged. Future planning in Old Town will be reviewed in accordance with Destination Downtown, a visioning document for redevelopment in Downtown Meridian. Please see Chapter 2 Premier Community for more information on Destination Downtown. Sample zoning include O-T. • Mixed Use Regional(MU-RG): The purpose of this designation is to provide a mix of employment,retail, and residential dwellings and public uses near major arterial Page 6 Item 6. F146] 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. For example, an employment center should have supporting retail uses; a retail center should have supporting residential uses as well as supportive neighborhood and community services. The standards for the MU-R designation provide an incentive for larger public and quasi- public uses where they provide a meaningful and appropriate mix to the development. The developments are encouraged to be designed consistent with the conceptual MU-R plan depicted in Figure 3D. • Mixed Use Interchange(MU-I): The purpose of this designation is to call-out areas where construction of future SH-16 interchanges is likely to occur, and to acknowledge that this land will have a high degree of visibility. These areas will be served by highway interchange ramps and restricted local access. There are two interchange areas, one located at US 20-26 and one at Ustick Road,that differ from the other Mixed Use categories in that a much stronger emphasis will be placed upon gateway elements and traffic flow/trip generation factors when reviewing new land use applications. Uses in these areas will need to be compatible with the impacts of a freeway interchange. These areas are not intended for high volume uses such as retail. The intention is to protect the immediate vicinity of the interchange from traffic conflicts and shift the high traffic- generating uses away from the immediate vicinity of the interchange. In reviewing development applications,the following items will be considered in MU-I areas: o Land uses within the MU-I areas and adjacent to the SH-16 corridor should be carefully examined for their potential impacts on nearby existing and planned retail and restaurant in Commercial and Mixed Use areas. o A traffic impact study may be required for larger developments in these areas. o Vehicular access points are prohibited near interchange ramps. Future uses should be planned to integrate with a frontage/backage road type circulation system. o Any new development at or near MU-1 areas should promote a nodal development pattern where buildings are clustered, off-street parking is screened in the rear of the parcel and,where practical, development is inter-connected with adjoining parcels. o The SH-16/US 20-26 interchange will be one of only two regional gateways to the City of Meridian for travelers coming from north of the Boise River(the other being Linder Road).As such,buildings, landscaping, and other design features at this interchange should reflect Meridian's heritage, quality, and character. o Regional ridesharing,park-and-ride and transit transfer facilities are strongly encouraged. o The MU-I area at Ustick Road,west of SH-16, should minimize retail and auto- oriented services and transition rapidly from the interchange to residential uses near the county line. Page 7 Item 6. ■ o Examples of uses include schools,post office or library branches, office uses, light residential developments,athletic clubs, and technology/research parks. • Mixed Employment(designation is specific to the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan): encourage a diversity of compatible land uses that may include a mixture of office, research and specialized employment areas, light industrial including manufacturing and assembly, and other miscellaneous uses. These areas generally do not include retail and consumer service uses serving the wider community. However, a small amount of retail and service establishments,primarily serving employees and users of the Mixed Employment areas or nearby industrial areas, are allowed. Such retail would be the exception and not the rule. Mixed Employment areas should provide a variety of flexible sites for small,local or start-up businesses, as well as sites for large national or regional enterprises. Mixed Employment areas should be designed to encourage multimodal travel and convenient circulation to supporting uses located within the area. This would include multiple access points to help disperse traffic, and a complete system of streets, sidewalks and pedestrian and bicycle paths to provide circulation within the area and connections to the surrounding roadway,pedestrian and trail systems. Mixed Employment areas should be designed as lower density suburban-style developments. Design and development standards are recommended that would help to make developments more attractive, engaging and accessible places. While there are no fixed limits on size of establishment or development intensity in Mixed Employment areas, it is anticipated that buildings will range in height from 1-4 stories,have total floor areas of 10,000-1,000,000 square feet, and that FAR will exceed .75. Land Use Types in Mixed Employment Areas o Corporate and business offices. o Research facilities and laboratories. o Light Industrial uses including manufacturing and assembly. o Occasional, complementary uses which focus on serving area employees and users, such as business services, child care, and convenience retail. B. Comprehensive Plan Policies (https.IlmeridiancituorQ/compplan): The following policies are relevant to the project: • 3.04.0113,Maintain and update the Unified Development Code and Future Land Use Map to implement the provisions of this Comprehensive Plan. The primary purpose of this application is to maintain and update the Future Land Use Map. The proposed changes will more accurately depict future land uses that are in alignment with service planning and in coordination with partner agencies. • 3.06.01A,Maintain the Future Land Use Map to reflect existing facilities. The proposed changes will better reflect existing facilities and no longer suggest them in locations that are privately owned. Page 8 Item 6. 148 VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff finds that approval of the proposed CPAM application is in the best interest of the City and recommends the P&Z Commission recommend to Council adoption. B. Commission: Enter Summary of Commission Decision. C. City Council: Enter Summary of City Council Decision. Page 9 Item 6. F149] VII. EXHIBITS A. Area Exhibits i 1 r . . r r r �y AOCI Remove i -^C.I Remove v i Meridian AOCI ounty AO _ i a CHINDEN — — Future Roadway FLUM Changes j — •` AOCI Add i q ® AOCI Remove w �� 1Or Cleanup fV l� - PINE Cleanup boundary - - - - V adjustment - -- V J Meridian AOCI FR►ANKLIN Q County AOCI 1 i W .J — — Future Roadway FLUM Changes 1 z L3 AOCI Add ® AOCI Remove Cleanup Page 10 ��1■a■r! 1a � C■nr■■■unn�: ■�5=1111- flllr 1' -■■■■■■■■■■1■■■ 1■arrr, �� 1!�. �.■ urn■' 11111111►J'��In-wan■■=P/■ Medium�Densi �- n=-�■ in rrrlL �'' ea�03 umm. ►i��-:--:� 11.E '�" 1:d-enll�- .Tp►f - ' . Innn- ■u� I��I�II IReSldentlal��.■ ` _awl r .�'ii -r''�■rr lull lull 111 1111 r■:.'�1 1■111■Irylll l 11..1■■Ir�� rrr■rin Elul 11 :■_■!■■:1111: n1111 !■r 1 I'ln 11141111I Jill lllllilllllll. -a�■illlllll_■ Civic General Industrial + + • • e Meridian • 'I�1�L111�11111■Ilq in ME 0 County • •tatra< r1r11► FLUM Changes NON ME ► 1■■■■Future Roadway NNE, AIRE -■ACICI Add • ■ ■ /IACICI Remove r ! i iiiiii •�■i�ialrlq- ■■��!1 mom Cleanup .7111111� I%11111111111►►n1>riinua■■ r■r ��NO ,.: rl 11�i■r■ ON RISE- 1,■nn M go 1w11 ■nnnnl J f.Yr■♦�>t r� .�♦ ►i♦i ■r ■■■nnla■r1 rrn■nnm �fln��i� �a�fa�P■a .4. n.� 101rrnp mqr .ice.�f i I�n�^.nnl►w n 1 ■J ME yME . rn nnna�I ■Illy ■ 7� �f iY■mm■■■nY\ �� ■■■ l �I I� i■■i-�Q■m■n- r-1►i �rl1 � a. ♦ + �♦y m■ar� Ai" n p Gnm!�-►q II � � I�Ir+nnllnrrnn n�i�■h�� 1►�` ��:::��+nui� ��n.�ed, p.nn:G S�:n .. ♦■l..ti ��►►r►►♦i■r r Ir;Nor1�•�-� ► ♦ : � ��n■■m..�St iiii'.'.►' ■r i♦*► ♦ rr♦♦� • 9 � ♦♦ n■ awn n -,n nnu.. ►nnI�Innli ♦ r.��r! r�-� iiiii'-� iiiiiii?:iiiiiiiiiiir Illlllllr■ ♦♦ilu Gila► ..iP* ♦an"'. ti � r it 1�T . A L_— 11 u� G■nni■��►nnnnnn MU-1\ ��■ Ir111111n■■■■■■n��ql1 ■`�11i� 1 a .� 1 1■ ■fin■n::- _..mao �' ■■- Bro FLDensi � � ►n■■■n■► ■e.,Ili.. ■■■■ Residential • •- -��,�r �n::rr■��.■.:ii:�.:��n��'�uu■�r�� , ■ r■■n ■ a■n• r� rf■-I G _ _ \��■ IlllCf- J, %l...Y mom r►1rd.1�■1■■■nnn �~ * ,\ ■11 *fir■■■��-�� '�■■1' g 01 • • .. ial■%� �Z■■■- - ■I ■__ — — — �7►• ��lIr fir♦ � �■.M�- � nn 14 � I. -� I y��► a�rirl Iglilii�"MEN • a • •�i�r ►,nn nn H■►r Ir �Ilninlra_ r► ��dnnl-��■� r� r . �•m-nn_p1 pl Oil= +� ►.-: n Innn■_:■�� Ir�� - •••• � MiJ-C - n nnm--■q� ��-- wwL — �/ice■unnma�`l�n �1�I • •- _gym COnlmercial �1_ n nni 112[J �m NONNI • 11.. -RG .,11 annnu fMr5 nnn r I ■■■■■ r,ll 1111111111111 ■■■■a 1111 1111 IIIIIIIIIIr I. 1 mill 11 i i Office Iln ■■�� I IIIIII nn•I ■o■!r■■o■■■■■�■!■■■■■■■■!� f!■■i-!■■ii NINE ■1■■I■ lam■ ■ ■■rt■■■� ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ Area 053'111111 i ��■■■��■�1 ■��Ii i 1 Low Density �� ~■ ��■� c Residential ��1111,,1 ■ �� _ : ii■!■■■■r� ■■■■ i ♦ � '.'_ Ell :�►�:�* 11+`IJJ r■r Ir■ter I 111111 ■■■■■� 1 �■111 111111111111■i�. ill 111 �-milli Ell - '••• Hi h Densi = =J1�� :111111 Resid�al f ■=11low 1= I" Inm nunm.a= .111111 w� 11■1■■ .I � 1■p �: �IIIIII��IIIIIIIIIIL ■■ _____ i�_.\� f- ,Commercial ♦ Area 0� ♦ +, ■ iiiriii�� iiii+ ♦'Cic ' :�� High Density r...�■--IIIr ♦ + + m� = Residential 1■■11111��111� • 11111/1111-►III= - �■� �iri��:-I � f• �■■ Medium Density,:: ■■■■ ■i IM.nnonnr■. ■1■ . r■■■■■rRes�dential�� i■■■■■■■1■■LLJ ��■I�■�:iirj�� :.iiiiiiiii�� Old Town � 11■�:n � ■ ■•■r■■■■■■.Oflice� ■ Cleanup■III MU-C' Meridian OCI .iCivic County AOCI to MDR Cleanup Civic • Future Town Roadway FLUM Changes Ge ren al ndustrial AOCI Add a ■CI Remove Civic CleanupCommercial Item 6. 152 Cleanup Civic to Old Town I Z �i %/%%ilI�L1!� 1 p,4P 1 Q=,FRANKLIN� �2z: W i 1 Cleanup MHDR p Z�� to Commercial �. WX r 00 VU i�l♦ /./.II/. / Cleanup od AI �r� /fir ►i i i -�5 r i r /?�/././.19OF Commercial W to Civic p Meridian AOCI A. �I�� *'IF ramI -J 0 County AOCI Future Roadway FLUM Changes �� ® AOCI Add ' i , AOCI Remove '•// ® --- -0VER1 AND kA CleanuP ; ►�� /11?4 Page 13 Item 6. 153 B. Future Land Use Map (with all changes) —d•a _ —ate_ Rd A. 5 NCNlllan Rd City of Meridian Future Land Use Map Espana ®Aread Gity lmpecR �L� � :Spedal Plannig Area '. EE --•_Welaiw.ay � E — : Schad m Transit Station Fwum Fadllry f En4yway Cemda a�Er atiiq Cmaeiiq - _ .._ .. 3 Jredand Rd �Furvre limes np � � — O ---- Felure naaJ•av � e5 i. ................ Ciy[E IDIAN � I Amity Rd .�i'r Adopted Month,Oay,Year °aolm,b� Notes: ilE ��•��tir�.-. �� M Lim Hues Rd �vaW_ �. �saa.�r..A Columbia Rd ' Future Land Uses Citywide Ten Mi]e Specife i noM bmauy neslaenual �eMt �[sav oemm Empbvmmd Memum neneily rmsle•nnd �d1 Tam NlanOmslH PmPMYmen� Mad-d�unoeaearr+aed�auei Mra.dueeMelpeu«ieaa MM.•uErroiamam xnnu.�dyaasdam�ai ®M•.uusacammunin •.uu,M�dd�mi �mmma�m �Mumduaaaaubaai Muedusaco,ama�dal �olroa �Mrc,d uae uo��,ldaanal �Ird�oNal MrcM use-�mncne�po I A full size exhibit of this map will be available in the project folder on Laserfische,here: https://weblink.meridiancity.ory/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=251825&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX Page 14 Item 6. F154 VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS As of April 11, 2022, only Ada County Development Services has submitted comments associated with this application. They are supportive of the application, with no conditions. The Ada County Highway District has previously requested the change for their project on Franklin Road, but no comments have been received. Any comments can be found on Laserfische here: https:llweblink.meridiancit E.orelWebLinkIBrowse.aspx?id=254980&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity IX. FINDINGS A. Required Findings from the Unified Development Code 1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the other elements of the comprehensive plan. The proposed amendment is maintenance of the Comprehensive Plan and which contains all seventeen (17) elements required by Idaho State Statute. Staff finds the amendment maintains this consistency as no changes are substantive to policy. 2. The proposed amendment provides an improved guide to future growth and development of the city. By maintaining and keeping the Comprehensive Plan relevant, Staff finds that the proposed Plan provides an improved and more relevant guide to future growth and development with the City. 3. The proposed amendment is internally consistent with the goals,objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff finds the proposed amendment is consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Maintenance of the Plan is directed by policy. 4. The proposed amendment is consistent with this Unified Development Code. Staff finds the proposed amendment is consistent with the Unified Development Code, as no policies in the Comprehensive Plan modified, and no development proposed. 5. The amendment will be compatible with existing and planned surrounding land uses. Along with improving consistency between the area of city impact and other planning work, the primary purpose of this amendment is to better relate existing and planned land uses. Staff finds the proposed Plan will be compatible with existing and planned surrounding land uses. 6. The proposed amendment will not burden existing and planned service capabilities. Stafffinds that the proposed Plan will not burden existing and planned service capabilities. This amendment improves the relationship between service planning, and better reflects coordination with partner agencies in service planning. 7. The proposed map amendment(as applicable)provides a logical juxtaposition of uses that allows sufficient area to mitigate. , anticipated impact associated with the development of the area. The proposed amendment is minor and intended only to address existing uses and changes in service planning. Staff finds that the amendment does not require mitigation of impacts associated with development. Page 15 Item 6. F155] 8. The proposed amendment is in the best interest of the City of Meridian. Staff finds the proposed amendment is in the best interest of the City; it implements adopted (existing)policy, and maintaining the plan improves visibility and relevancy. Page 16 I■ w ♦c- -�--■-■-_ �� ,�. ■■..._ IIIIII��r .. A. .- �� -------1 _ , I ■ �� • ..— �.1--��•�♦1:I:p�•II■■ � r�■■��■il■■■■r-in■�ti.� I► � `�%irI ♦• �t � _I: `� II�� l '1•� � � �� ' `�� .. I�/ �It�ll�•1 � �:♦♦�j♦i♦�%ij♦I%i � �� ■1�mmnn■m1� - Y:■•.1�♦ - l ��111■••�;��1�� _= �"��'' ;� �1 ■ , � �� ♦ _ � � � � � � - , �I I■� �� Ilifig] I®� _ �r. ►� ��►►►i►►► �II��►►►►►►►i► -- �ti7�•-► 1. . �••. . .. ,, � 111111111■IIII. �. .. ■■.■. � � , ►� � .1V.i..■. , • L.•- .. � _=1==-•-- �I ■111 � ► ♦ Win•.• I �� _ � - I■►r :- I== � � �-- ` .. . � � -i--- r�' ► ` 1►� •i ' ��■ n■n■■■1► ♦ ♦ i ♦�w�♦►I _ --I :-: ■G IIII11111�1 ■■ I■�� I, « ■■■ - - _ - ♦ •/ -i I O III► ♦ - .- ■. ✓ _ I _ �� ■�� / ♦ • ♦ mnl,b .l- •�� ' � •■.■• � �11■ 1■I ■■II■■■■In■■1 ��■■■ ImII■■ I� � �♦♦ ��.- H ►.►sly✓ � --- �I I \, I - / �■■�.., /1 /� � ♦ � ♦� ! ��II � II riugli♦ /•■■■■�►�■•1•��11/■�- ■ �� 11■■■■■/ ♦ ♦♦■I■ ■►♦ �� /L . - i�hl 111.1• ♦� � �■■■ 'I L■■1�1� �r . -/-J// � ■ ■ ♦ ■■ r �� (iii ..► ■■I■I�■�� ■:�■.JJ��,,♦� I■■■ ��I I�a;••Ip1 �♦ ♦ _—� . � � / �■ . ►� �; •� ♦� ■ �l�11 �`1��i♦ibi�o ��.� No I . ��■► I �� IIIII l ■_ _-l1� - •.•/• �♦ ♦ ■1■■■ - �� / ■ �� •i1 r �� I . ♦♦,♦ /■ .�■ �� 11 } ♦♦ _■■�_■■■■r♦♦ ��•11 •`��/1 �19 1111�1 ��MEW"! �wM7- mol r. f� _ 1 1 .■ �i .■ � \J � `� ��■�11 C� 1l-i0�t !� �- ��--�� I �� ® T''►. !�1 ■■ ■,r l ■-�/� � ► ►i,♦II I.p � 4 +. �� I� ��■ ��=� \ ��I� 1�• �_ •'LJ� (III - � � rip w 1� ■ ` �■ ' . • �- • . e -� /T + �� 1! �q�1111.��`��. ICl/I ��`�� ` - I I•_1 ■Ills • I . I � � ` � � � t� - .. �-1 . _ � \ i � + � ,��.., .. , - � �I�1�1 �` �aI'��j�!.+♦�,irk� � � l �%��.�;� � �1► � �i;; I + T ■ . +� •:� �� II■■� � ♦� ��Iw �:� � ►��;� � �I I �� ■■■�■■IIII �► _� �.-. � +, ,` �:� �ti. y � � � r • ,t, � �� ■�•�'�' •®` •,®, ��i� •i`' � ,■�iy��1►� �1(.�i11I1111111�♦ -1 �� ♦ I � • ' ��• A ■ III♦ ��II ��,.�,� 1 ■II � i _ •■I� • nnn► - -- W-NJ in P. i I .� I �� ■■ VGA ■■1 I � / _ �� _ _-.� � ��®�� ,J■■■ ♦ � _ o..p'��■■■■■■■1111111111 ■.�M Mill 111111, ■ � �1 . � �� `� ------�__-- ■ , , ■■■ ® ��!I_.■■♦ 1♦ �♦ ♦io -- - -��i...:_�w1 ICI `�� ■■ -'--� ! � '1` ■� �_ � ® I•Ij♦ ♦� art�1♦�i�■�• I II �111 a __ ,-.' , r ■ �......_. ..■. ..... ■ ...1. .■. _ _ ,_ ; ., _.■ - III ! ' � _ -� - _ - �,,, �\ ■...■■...., �,.,��.;:. - ' � .--. •• ■ iii\I�-_\IIIIIII ♦=■i■-=� 1 � :�\ ,'111 •• �,\� 1� �♦♦ ♦♦♦ 1 . � � � '-- -■ ■ •■■■ '�� I■11�11,. ♦1♦��•�=�� J:�I�:I• � .■■„ ■� . ®�'_� i1,� tC ■ •� s"-1�-1♦� .� I ♦ 1 -■II■■s♦ IIII 11■► I ,�� ® ♦♦ ■n1► a In■nll-�� ♦ ♦ �1 , ■ ■� ■� ■■ ® . � _. � •_� � =nnnn■- - • �� _ � .♦ • - .'� - - ■ I ; • _,I �' �1!■IIII■ �■1■ '.,II Im - ,.■11■■ �. ■ � ,'� ■ i � . • • •�. ■' r ----� - - �-p_ � 1■1�■■■.®�Y■■i■..nWil - ■ � 1■11 • ■ � •® ' -1 _ _J�%�IA.�� _ • 1 , . _ I ^ ' _ __ ► _- _ 1 ICI �■_■■- ■,:�_ I■ � �■ � �� ■= veil ��- , .. � ��i I,;-■•'�■/♦1 _ ° ■ _ r � - -- �■ �I I nnn ,■■1■:-5'' - ■-- ■ ■■■■_�� ■■�,® •�� 1=�'. /I••1•j�♦■1� �� I � �_ � II' -��- — _�■m (nmm� ? - I �__■ ■ IIIIIII■ �� _ r ® •♦ � /) _ - ■ ./ Y •- r . - =nnm■� •■==• ,-- ■■■� � ��-�..i • • • • ■ I '�il'I�! E ■ • • ■ ,, ■ � ■ .• - � - - �■. ■ ,• �� l:•,eta ''�i�• `� ,.. II 1�: 11 'w.., - _■-� =IIIIIIIIIIII= -- " �r_ j■.►�■■�■ ■■ ■� 1 ■■■■■ �\ � 1 �I ♦I,''�r�y'9V , ■■. � 1 ■ 1 1 UI■ t • •- • , �I In■mn� li■ � � u I ►I:1=j :� - -�_ -= _ _ • . _ _ --------------------- ---�� _►��. _■II. 11■■ --- �� _��■■■■■■�■■,�II� R��I��IIIII■7� � � imnlnnnnnlllnln qll 11111111/,.- pllllllllllllllllllllll nnminnm�m�T�Ir' • '� I,IIIIJ■1i■ • �r:■ram , ■■��r■■q I ■ ■ ■ ' _■11111111 -I�.nnm nnm .nnn ■■■_ .=_ ` ♦ • • _ •• • ■_ ■r�� _1► ► ♦n■n i ,M■■ I��`: 111111�111111 IIIIIII 2 _ - - • - ; �C 111111111■--- I--- ►♦ \■■■ ♦" � � ■■■■■■� IIIIIII - 11111111 ■IIII■_?■IIII r- IIIII■ IIIII ■ -■-■ • • �• r'-• ' -C � i � ,� �� .�=1■II■I■■ I� -_- -nn nn �� -: + ' 'n■■11�■■11�■■11 IIIIII - _- _ -- .�—I 1� LJ • ■ / i IIIIIII i 1■IIIII III■ II I�■■■■■III I! __-+ I■■■■II■1 IIIIIII L■ ■ • - -i +� ■- ■IIIIII■ �1 i ■�I ♦I i■1■■■1■■♦♦�� ■` ■nn■nn,,,r= . • • - n - t I��-•�/i �� /• ., Ili►• ��\■■I■D♦ ■ / I/ �r � - mn1111111_ IIIIIII � ��11111 i o i■ii 1 ■■� + ■I■II■■■■ IIIIII► 1■ ■ ■■ � I ■ • • "," i 7 '■_■■■ ♦♦ I■ • �■ / � \IIIII_■IIIIIII■I■I eo o■■_ = •�� InII■■II ■■■III I _ . _ ■ ■ .►■ /■ / � 1 ■ • � ■■ />_! 1 � _■ IIIIIII■ ■■-■■■ • • _ � ■I • - - III ■ ■■` - 1_ + ' �- ■--■ r r11 � II ♦ ■ ■ -__■ � ■--■-- ♦ •••. i ti- ■■■■■■■■■ • � � ,■ii--■■■-■ � 11 • III■■■I / ♦ ■■r1,� � � /�//� ,� / � �� ■■■ C:■■■111111111 ■■■■■/ � .o,III ,►11 ■■ ■■■■■III ♦♦♦ �♦ IIII 1111■■r■■I_ m Y + I i■C■�■- /1� ■II•I .■IIII- _■IIIII►♦I/j♦1♦/��r■■� �r.�_ ///% _::_-_-- ■■■■•■■■I ►,. _ ' -"'---- I •` ==_ ■■■■1■■■■ rl ■ F I _�� • I I ♦■■I - Ii ♦i ♦ .o1r1 * \ IIII///.ri/iii�� ■- p ____ _- 1■_ _ __��:: 011 IIIII ■1♦ a� �11111■11■ p■■■r■I■■I■■ ■■■I■■1■■■ - -- I -■■■■■■■ ■ �I��r�� l•■�■■■■I�' ♦♦ 111 ■■ram I ♦ � 1' -■-- ■■■1 11■ !n_■� -_ �. � II►-_ ■■■■■■■ft_ ♦ _ ■ _ ■ - -■ �� ♦ I � r III■I ♦♦ ♦ �■ •� �/� 'I �� _ �Il 111� �■-. .-____ ■i�``� � ■►► I VS:iAri■ ♦ I■II■II■II _■■■■III■■I■■■■11 ■■r � ■ ■■■■■ ' ■■■■■ �1■■ ►/► / ,♦♦ 1 'H I■IIIIIIs 111 ■i-�11 ■�-i�i_■IIII III■■�tl � � �♦� II■IIIIIII � I 11111111111 ■m1■s1 ■11 � - 11■ I ■� ■II � � ■■■■■-■■■�♦I ♦II r�1� �.; � : :L�. � ■ II_■-- --■■ .. ■ 11-►•�•I■I■■s1■\♦/v -IIIIIIIII■ ■I � , ■■■ •I I��I .N ,•_'- -- --■■I■ _ I I _ YY I IIII-•/ ■ ■. �♦ ♦/AA �■i I -. 1- --� I■IIII II. _- f ------ 11111111 ti I ► � .■ IIIIIIIII .■ 1■ / .■ _ - IIIII■■m1I► Inmum 11 - _I ■..■_. ♦ A n ♦ ♦ • , \ C-___IIIII-_ ■i I■IIIII■ .._,-_ ■■■ IIIII III/ _ _ ♦ , ♦ ■I. ♦� ■■■■ mpg, �:•• ♦ ■ .� , ■■■_IIIIIIIII■i III'■■■-■ IIIIII IIIIII \ , ■IIIIIII■ C- ®�■ ♦�i1/1 h IIIII■ ■■■■■I■■■■ ,■■I■■■./II p■ .-,,:♦=;■■ ■��=�:1' ■I■= ■■■1 1■U — ■I■■■■■■• ♦ ♦ IIII■ 1 ■ -- -■�.,-.�_ 'IIII �- _ 111� � IJ - -_��♦ i■ - �■► � - . .• / IIII ■ �■■■■■■ �� ■ ■ 1■I■■ll ■■■■r p■IIIIII■. • __� ■■■ IIIII ■■■ ' ■IIII ®� / _• ♦ ■■II■►► ._:■ G♦►�.•�►�■■■■■ �-�i■■ ■� I�■■■■■■■■ � � ♦ IIIIIII II■ IIIIIII �_- ■■ I�■ ��/p/11�■I � ■ + + ■■■■I'■■■■■ Imnnl I■g1111 1111111111 IIIIIII ■ IIII■ ■■ ♦1 : ■ IIIII m / ----- , nnn111O■IIr.■..t■ • I rnnnm-■ + . 1 I I■■■. r■■■■■■ ■ ■■1 ■■ . ■■ III IIIII 1 I i L. IIIIIIIII IIIII IIIII II ■III \■■ ■■■■■ A ■11\ ■ IIIIIIIII �► .II_= II■■ ■I■■■■■11 nqI■■IIII■■■■■11111111 if mlrl 1■■■■■rl /■I■■■■■■■IIr■■■ ■■■ ■�--■o-o■�-= A; ►■q \IIIIIII -. I■III■■■■■ - ■ ■■■■■■■■■ \ I■ + + + ♦ �-- - ■nn■nnn IIIIII ■ IIII •■■■■■- I + �_ ..- �♦ ■- ♦ IIIIII ■�no ninon \ ■ I IID \■ i 11■■■■■■■ ■■■■ ■-_ + _► + ■■- _= I .■- ■■■■■ ■ ■■■ /� , -♦I■■ �1 IIII R ♦ �.--�.♦y►1 i ♦ �.I ■-� \ II■111►�� ■■■I IIIIII ■:♦ _�■ IIIII ■■■■■I■■ ■■■■■■ ■■■■ .-■� , -.• ■_■■■■fly i■■■■■■s1IIII ■_IIIIII�■ ■ ■. I •ti ■ 1■■Im■ ■■■■I■ ■I■■I■ + ♦ _ -■ . ♦ ■II■-_ ■` II■ •■■ II III ■► �.m - ■ ■11 - I ♦IIII-� � ■. ` ■ �■ Its � �- 1 + + + �■ Y _ �■ 1 �■� ■ a 1, ■■ ' ___- ■■■■ -■ ■ ■- ■■ -- :IIIIII ' ♦ -%rl■Irr •1■■■■■■■I a l ♦1 ♦♦••■■�. ♦♦♦Ir.II ■ ■ _ L■ .�■. �. ♦ 1 --_---■■I■I _ :- ■ III-_ � r � .■ . i■■iIl h I■■■� I\■■111�'''� , n---- ■I■■■ ++ -- _ - IIIII ♦ n n- � IIII■ � ■ ■• '■■ IIII■ ■ - ■o �� ■ ♦♦ ♦, -■o� i�� ■■■■11�, 1■■■■I - ■�■■- IIIIII -- :::■ ::::"■ �- - + ® ■I�= � I ♦♦�- ■Ilnr -molllr ■� I 1• ■, ♦ ■■■■ ♦111 -■ -- ♦ ♦♦- �� - ►► - ■ IIIII ■\" • C�11■ ■ ■■s1■■s■■ - ■■■■■ + + _ - 1 ♦ ♦ � -_ . -■ III ♦ ■■ IIIII �_■ � �" __- t __- -- - ♦♦� � - ■ �_ 1■I ■ ._ •■1■■ III IIIII■ \ . .-=_IIIIIII ■■III i + + , ` ■ ♦ - • a- , 1 ■I ■ A _ IIII IIII ►. �■ � �I_♦ 1•■ , ■.. \ II■:■11 ' ♦1�■I _A __• _ ♦ rl .�III_( .■ 1 / �- ■�■ ♦/ � ... J• - �♦ ■I■■■■�■I■I■1■nnnn nm■ IIIIII■ ■i•11I■ 'p1:::11 ■III ■■I■■■■ + i ■IIIIIII■ ♦ I■■___■ .. -- - 1►■ ■_ ® 1• IIIII■■ mm nnn nnnnm ■ ■■■■■■ mn■ 11 ♦um ■ -- ■■■■ ♦■■■■■ ■ .■■ •• ■D b. ■ ■n ■ n U■ ■� ♦ IIIIIII 111 _ ■■■■■■■■11■■ I/ ■II� �- _ ■III■ I .■� � ♦ • IIIIII/ _ nnnnnnnn _ -=p e I■1►_- IIIIIII■ I■■I■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ IIIIIIIIIIIn1 ■■■■ 111 ■� ■■ ■ j♦IIInn ♦iooiilr Iron V■111■■ I■■1 ♦ ■■■ !, ♦I i■■■■no■�1■•II III IIIIIIII = nnmm�nn, ■1 p ■■p e _ 1�■■ IIIII , �- IIIIIIIIU1 Ills■■■■■ - 1 ■ ♦ Ills► 11 ■ ■II , ♦IIIIII■■ ■ ■■I ■■■■♦♦� ■ 1 IIIIIII►., ■■ _IIIIIIIIIIII �- -___-o _ . IIIII n n� I■_. _ = ml m■p_n■a nlll Iuur nm nm � L-- ♦1 �.- . .■■► 1■ ■ A♦ ♦ .■IIIIIpnno■, nnnnlnnm --- _ ■""- ■ • - Illllllllr�\♦ =■IIIII■■■s ■ ■ IIII ..- 111111111 IIII T ■ ■■■ ■■■■ _ ' It/♦♦IIII___ M ■■■III ♦ -III• ♦♦ . ■■■■■■■■p■■■■■■ ■I .IIIIIII •III IIIIII IIIIIIII III.IIIIIIIIIII �_ ■ ��II II\ / ►I _■■IIIIIIIII 111 + _ III ■■■■■ i■p IIII pp- ■■I ■ ♦ ■ ■■■■■■ ..■■■■■■■� ' - \IIIIIIIIIII /1111111 111111111 Illlllllllq - 1 I _ ■-I�- 'IIIIII + ■■■■■■,♦■■■I - ■ ■p ' II■■■ ■ - ■I I,I ♦ ��i� ■♦Wit'- , -I \IIII � _ ■ ■ _ ■■■■■■�■�■■■■■. • • �1111111111111 IIIIII_ - IIIII 1111111111= =IIII■ _� IIIII - II / j j1�1111 ■_ III►�♦ ■�� ■111 � , ■■Ip■■■ 1♦• �■�-■ � ■■\ ■.•Inu•■•■p�■■-■I 1 _ _ Iimm�= � + ++ (nnnn n■I /■Im ♦ • � •-- nor I � .11111111111111 IIIIIII� � � I IIIII . _ II 1■i■IIIIII ►I ■ � ■P■I ■■ ■■1 ■■■ ■r ■ ' ■sod/1■■_ _ ♦1♦ ■--��■r1 ♦♦j■ �►u.::....♦■.oI■ ■ -: - IIIII�IIIIIIIIIII= 11■■■■■ =■�•♦ n1■■ + - •■- ♦•I ■■■- • -- n■a■■■■■■■ _ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIID IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII • - -:■• nm + ■ I _.I NJ nnn ! pour ■ ■ ■■:i • a■ ■=Q1 ••t I nr■r1u■n■ ■ _ - III11 f + + ■ nnn ■ nnnn ■■ ■ �= � • -•- - �� .m n . - %ulllr� /► Inn■ + lu -p ■ J I ■. . � A♦I■■ ►I ■■■■r■m■■■ �■ � • • • -_ _ ■Inn IITI•�nnnnminn%- �'an■mnnl�lamm� nrn11� � _ � _— - �_ - - =■ r■■■■ n■n■I■■ �■ .�■►�wi♦ ��■■G ■�.■■■ . � �iu1111 ■■I■ • • -1'a = II =_= nl_nnm lug ==_ ==: e== 1■� 111111111 1 + n 1 ■II nnmm� q■ �_ nm 1 Iil Irml I I ,. - -'— ■■■■■■.■ I� • • -■ _ IIL 11111111 111 p p■ _-- -__ - 1■■nnll. _ 11 ■ �� 1 I ■ ■Io■ ..nI1♦■ ■■ r ► :III■1\■ n■■n��■ \ i ♦■ • - IIIIIII IIIII� ♦ SI r l _ _ ■ ■ � ■ ■ - _ , _-___--■[-- ■ -__� + _e • ■11�1�■i _-IIIIIIIII i-__= I I ' IIIII■I■I■ I� -■II ■■■I■� ■ ■■ ■- IIIII■_ � ♦ ■ ■ I I■ ■IIII■IIII /♦ 1111111111 �-_._---© -� 111111111 II__- �• + _,_ n _ - o ,,,,�` _■_=e - •. � �1 �r �■11 _ -_- - 1 ♦ _ -■ - ■ ■�11�■■■■■UI. - I■ ■■■■■ r■III ■-_��_■■■■p ' ♦ ♦•. ■■► r11111111 IIIIIII► - nm■ ■_ I �Iplr"'V` I • • •• • �■■IIII IIII G♦ 11� IIIIIII 111111111 pp■■ n11, ■ ■: ' I n m ■--u 1 _ \� , i-�■■■n1 ♦ -nn sun- m ■� �■■■■■ ■!■ / \ - • III _■ Kill II1III 111111 IIIII 1 IIIIII _-e__ I I _ ■ � r■rIl ■•1 IIIII 1� ■IIII ++ �•- ♦� III _• 1-- II►i �11II1■ ■ _ 111111111 '� '_____ �♦ ♦� ■■■■■ II■I■• ■- ■■ L� �,1 II► �_� ■__- _� ■■■1 ■ ♦ IIIIIIII I ♦ � ■ III,('I��III , � ■-■■■■■■■■■■■ I IIIIIII � III 1 ,■IIII �11111111111 IIII ■IIIIII ■-_ IIII �♦ � ♦ r■■I ` I .♦■Ir■■■■■■.�I • / -� :IIIIIII .. ! 11:� II►11 I■■ •_► _IIIIIIII -_■ IIII =_ - - III ■ n■ ■ •••• ��__ -- _l , ■■■ \II■■■p ► 11■■. mr. ... ■ � I- IIIII � ,IIIIII 11■Ilnll ■ I � \D _ 111111111111► _-- ---■ .__�111111111 _ � ►fi9■■r � II■III■. ■■ ■■ F ►_ ='�♦ 1j11 ►1/11.1 - _I -AIII■I ' IIII� '� III IIII n► IIII■( I �n _ ■■I■■s■■■■■ -:- •••.`'�■.-- IIIIII ' IIIIII■ . . IIIII - IIIIIIIIII 1 I �I �� ■1111111111 nn111 ■■ss■■ nm■■ :�� ■mn IIIUI�: nnnnm l ■ r ■ "u� ' I■lun►i. 1111`, -■111■IIII IIII_ II III IIII Inr■11 un ■uo■Iun■ue■►♦♦ .I Innnnn■ _ 1__--- ■11� ■IIII■.`.■■■■■■■■■■J�I■■!� 11111111 / - -��` I� ■■ : nunuo .:_ nn■nmm■ ■ ♦♦\p♦♦♦p• nm1 Inn t �_ _ m ■ umm�n■■■■■n■ nnI q n►7 n ■ _■ ■ OWN iii■�■ _ __II■IIII_ r r■p■IIII■ -■ 1■r■IIII■I■II■ ■II■■► ♦♦♦ 1111111111111- 111 r - ■■ _ I 1■ ■ I I/ ■■ ♦ IIII I _� IIII -_ ► ■ I■►♦ •♦ �♦ � 11 iI1111I11111111= +-■- IIIII lip" I ■1 IIIIIII•■ -:Q■I■In iii■f■i 17:'ls■ 1 M �111111■�■■ 1� _ Ii►♦■•-- p■■�■ ■ U■ � ♦♦■■■■ - - � � - _ �_ ' ►� � 1//I - ._r a . 1 ♦ _ �_ ■IIIII - ■.__ P _ •■- ■ ■■ ♦ - null . IIIIII �--� - ��■-- ■I■■, •■■_� - ■■ ■■li ■III■■■■ - 1 IIIIIIIIIIII►♦ ■ ■ ■ ■_■INNIN ■■ ■ ■■■ __IIIIII I �\I■■II■■II ♦1■■I ■ - ■■■■■■ '■■�I■■� - ■■ ' ■ ■I ■■ II■■■I s BE ■■ IIIII � -■■■■■■r , - ♦-� ■I/♦ .■.� r■■■I ■I■■■■■■ ■---IIIIIII 1 -♦11�■___ ■■■ 11 _- ' - � / rr■■I � _ ■■■■■■ i rI■■ �•■� _ �■■■ ■� ---, /� ■ I■III■ ■ II■■IIIII r■■■r --- 1 rrI■I■■I ■■._ ■■s■I■■II ■I 11 . ■■■■■ ' \IIIIII I■IIIII nn® ��- umm n 6mI nnm ■ -- I :�innor a �•. 1• , I 1 nn nor + T nn . Iunur n11111■I■■:■■ ■■■■ I ►� ■■ ■■■\ ►r urn■r n■�. ■/rl■1■■■■■■I■1r/�I�♦s'r •ir -_IIIIIIII i ■ ■ + ■■ ■■I� I I■III■■I I__-■IIIII I� �- T T I■III� ■ Ills'_ ■ ■■II ■ _III �• ■■ ___• ♦♦� 1/ - ■I--' 1>■I - I♦\■■■I ■■� � ■r■ IIr■■i�11 "" IIII __ IIIIII III _ ♦ ■ ` F + IIIIIIII -■ -- _■ I 1. n 11■■ ■ ' + . IIEm- 1 ■■ -■ + + +. I' ■■•�- ■ _ ■i �' + +00 ■■ •\ -�-___•'___- I■■■■ :� _�■■ :■:III ■ ■I► ■IIIIIIII 1 -- , - -- t ► I _I •♦ / ■. ■ ' �„ „' F + 1/ IIIII II ■ .■ 111►� / ■Llmm _ ■..�-.■. - : // nnnnnnnn .--- IIo■ I ■ I p •■p:■.■ii + 11 l ■_ I■ IIIIII■■IIIII ►I♦�;____ -� -_• , �IIIIIIU • , �` ♦rr• IIII 1 ` � IIIIIIIIII ■11 ♦ ___- Ir 1 �' � + ■y ♦ � \ _ ♦ ■ ■ I` '■■■� C ■� .. ♦ ■_ ♦ ♦ is•G � + •C � i ♦`' � 1,■■,� �►♦♦ �■■■III ► / � . �. + + ■ \(IIIIIIr♦► -I� ► • L III ♦ ■ ■I IIIIIIIII I IIII ■�I_ i-i-IIIII♦/♦►A�- ■I •■■■ •� 1■■ \-I ` I �- ■■_■ ■ ♦■III■' ■ ■■■■ ♦ ■�■III ' •' % %�A ■! ■ -----� _- - II III ■■■ 11■II ■ ,' ■11�1111■■ �,, ♦ I■•��1■1■III .III■■.■ -'' • _ , �I%I♦ ■•I�♦.��-. ', ■ I♦I♦ _�' +t I IIIIIIIIIIs111111I111111r a�IIII nll■. ♦\• ■■■■■. _ � . , plop I-■ /r ■= IIII ♦ � _ • • • t+ ' _• �, � �-- IIIII •� /_■ ♦ = �-i �IIIIIIII■ ■■■■ ■ ♦ ♦�■■ �_ ■■■- IIIIII■■■■■■ ■ II �♦ \��r■ ♦/ ■ .�• , , �- 1 - • ��// ■i _ ■■ • \. =ufT1= _■ IIIII = 11 ►♦ 1► - _ II ■■■ 11 • • • ., y , %///. � Ji_ 1111111/=� IIIII••■ _ ■ _- ■■■■R■■■- 1 ' \ ♦ 11(IIIIr'•_ -All -■r■■r■■■II■■■ 1■ ■ • ■-- / ■ = I ■ ♦ _ r ■ - - ■ ■IIII■■■■■■IIr■ -� I' I ■■■ l IIIIII ---■ ♦ o■ ♦• a IIIIIIII= ■ •� 11 ■_ -► _ -- ♦♦ -■■■■Ir■■■■■■Ip■■■ r I� .� III■ ♦ - ♦IIIIIIIII\ ■ I+ r■■■■I �■_ ♦1■■1■1■ - � , .►♦� ■IIII ■C :■ - . ■ - 1 ■■ ■ � , II •� .. /I ► � ■ IIIIII - _ - ■1 - .�� I■ IIIII. �m.am ■��= i ►♦��i-nn� 11 - ■ ■ /ii� I IIIIIII . ■ - ►i /��IIIIUII■ ■iI■ '•II'♦ ♦ : : _ = �■■u■ 1'�_-i r riiiiiio■�-.�■ ■1\ 111 __ ■ _�• ■ /�■■ ■■moo i i ■ - - - --- -- ■ ■■■I ■■■■■ ■ I ■ �r11 - . .nn ♦ n �■ ■ ■ , ■ %%■ilr ■■ ■■f - 1 IIIIIII.. - I _ 1 J v r ■■ . nnnn= ■■■ �• �• p nn■♦ , nnm= n mn■__r► ..■ ,i//� I i ■ j ■■ ■ I 1111 ��'I I ■I f■■■■• ,■n■� ono I■nnnm►\■ 1 ■■■_ILo �i v'\■ ■ _II �I�1.::■■11 ly IIIIIII ■ 1 �/ - _ — I_________ ;I /' ■ � � 11 1� - 111 ■ ■ ■ I nm ■ IIII I I■IIIII■ ■I■■I■ 1111111111111111111111111 IIIIIII 111111111 _m ■m- - -- -"'� ■■_ ■ - P■■ I ■�■■ � ■■ ■■ 11 ■ ■■■■■ • C■-- I r - •• ` 1 nm nn■I ■■■ � ===-nm _nun nnml■nnnl- -n n_=1 /-.'�. � ■ �■.- ■ ■ �■�� ■ / ■� ■ ■ ■■■■ / ♦ ■■■■■ • -� \■■II■rIIOIIr ■ I � m- Innnn■mn,=_�■'I=� _ , ■■■■rrO■■_ ,=// / ��■ IIn • �■ 1■l ■I■I■■111/..., ♦ III► ■ ■ ■■■■■_� IIII ■■■■■■ , ■ -- - 1 \ ■■ ■ ■ IIIII -IIIIII ■■■ nm -■ ■III■■ ■__ • I�► • A ■ ■■Irr� r■ ►I►II■ ' + 1■■■■■_� ■■ -■■ 1 I ■II■ ■■- l ■ - rIII■,\■IIII /.IIII I ■ IIIIIIIIIII I ■ ■_. _p ■ I■■■■■■■■■ 1 I ■■ ■■_ ♦ ■■ -■ - IIII■\IIIIII -■ ■ ♦ I ■■■( I�rI1\IIIII =-■11■■1 � ■ ■■■■■ ■_■ • ■ ■rrI■► - • /lam -�♦■ III ■ -■ 1 p __- - 111 '�, 111 11111111 . ■__ 1 1 ■n■n■■ n _- v ■ n un i • no 4�■■ �■ ■■• ■■■■■ ■■■ ♦ •■■■■■■.- ■1 -- - IIIIIII■I■\III■ ■ ■ ■/ •IIIII ■■■■■■ _■ • 4■■■■■■■■Ir �■ �� p ■ ■■■■ ■■ ♦ -■ ♦ -■■ IIr■■■ I-�__■C. ■ 11 - - _ � -�1 � rr ■ 111111111_1, III■" ' ■ ■_■ ■■_■ ♦ _■■ ■■ + 1 i + ■ ■ . ♦ �I_ ■■■■r . --■ �1-I■�__-- IIII - ■IIn-.\■■■ -. �■(--►►►IIIIII ■■■■Ir 1■ II,;�I�■ ■■� " I - ' IIIII ■ ■--- ' �■ ■■ ■■■■■ ♦ + - sI 1■ + ■■■■ _■ ■• ■■ ■■ ■■■rrr_: ii-■��■ r -C■■C _- ■rIIIII■■IIII ■- ■ --- " II • 1 --- ■�■ ■■•■•■■ 1■■11.■ r■■I■■ ■�Isslr _ • ■ nm �_-■ ,- % _ m :anon hnm- 1 III I.1 ■■111111111_■■ _ \ I I II I ni , ■.■■■■■■ /1 •n ■rnn IIr■ . n-m �� - '•■ ■ ♦' — i�II1r\I III 11■■ ■Illr■IIIII j■■nnnn__ ' IIIII ■II II 111 IIIII i\I --■■■■■■ � + i+ �� s1►�q nmm�nn■ I I J_ .■■■ ; -„� �■■■I ■■■■■■■■ III■-�_ �\ �IIIIIII■,:( ' I ■■■■■■■• I'• ♦ T ■l■IIIIIII■■IIn - - nI D' � 1=� . \IIIIII nnn■■(■■ Illlr-1 nnnnl• nnnnnun �� _ IIIIIIIInI/ �nn 1 I - I ••■ 1 =- -- ,_-nm ■■ nn - ■.► ♦-. ■■■ - + 11111111111111 mnmm�nunllnn o-[ • i■:1 + + + + ■1 �� ■■■■■ ■■ ♦♦��`�� A.♦t♦�/� ` a o nA► -.• = - nnn �I., -'� - - IIII IIII �II . s • ■...I / V■ IIIII■ rIIIII IIIIIIIIIII __� ■■ ♦■■ _ ■■ - _ ■■■■■■■■ _ II I._ ■■ .- IIII�111 ■■ rr■■r ■ � ■ ]IN } ■I■■1I111■► + ■- ..I ■■■■ � ♦� � ■ ■■ � I ■11■II■■I ■■■■■■■■■■■i ■■ -- ♦ / � • ■� IIII■■■■■ i i I■■i ��1■■i■ ♦ �■■■; A •1�i= IIII � �♦��I II rrI■■i■IIIIIIIIII■III■■■ \I■III II`I I i ■■ ■:: _� -III �_■ -■i ■■■ •■■■i� ■i r■■r■■■■■■ :■111■IIII ■ __-_ I■I ! � ■�I I ■■ ■■■ a `\�_ ■ I ■ �r■■■ ■ ■► _ ■ -- ■ A. _-_� ♦ 1 -■-■ ■- ---■■- IIIII ■ ■ + + .111 ■--■_■_ ■I■I■ r _- � ,�S�,,.� ■ ■ ♦♦_■. I �=Illr ■■ ■■■ ■ -_` 111■I . I__ ♦ �_ ■■_ -- ■■IIII■-■-_■■rrI■■ ■ � -____-- __ IIII-_ � ■IIII ■■ ; ■■nn n1 -i t ■■ ■ p■■ F ♦ ■ s1■■■■lls �1■IIIIIIIII ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■--_■ p ■I■I■ �l 1 .� IIII ■ ■ ■■I■■■rrI I i+ ■: ♦ ♦.I■■I ■■■■ ■I■ I■■■ ■r r■II��■■ i■Ii ■■r■■ ■■'° ■�■■■■■■■■■ �■■■iI■I■I■ i►■■■■■■ ■■■■I■r ■■■■ ■ I■■■I .IIIII■■ ■_-11 1■_■■ 1 no■ n ■ - �i * nnnn nm■n� mm I 11.►I■■■ �. • rnl■ � T ' ■■II■■■■■■ • ■11■11 •nn■�ry �I -= - + � � //Oo ■ ■■ ■■ ■■■ n mmp/A nm ■■I- + nI►♦a�■Jp�: � ■ �■■ ■■■� - � T ■■■■■11■■I mmnnmp� ♦ ! ■i■i ♦I J - - •■� + ■. ■■ I + --- iii �� ,' ■IIII. �_�■■ + + : ill■--■ ■■■■-■-_ + + ' .■■1■■.■■■- IIIII■IIIII■I■ �■1 ■� ■ r I-.1 + + I_■■. ■fir_ 11 - I■ - -■- ■■■ I I L. ■ ■■ .■■ ■ / �■■■■ ■_ ■ n■■ ■�I ■ ■■■■ ■■ + �. + IIIIIII ■■_ + r ■ InJ ■I ■ iIIIiIIi-1r■oiii�■'■I' i i■ ■ 1 '- _ ' ■ ■■Irl■■► + 1 . ' ■■■■ - ■ ■ ------- , ■ --■ ■�. ■- ' IIIIIII ■►1 ♦♦♦�I:■_ ■■■■■IrrII IIII II I nn■I■n Il ■■■■■■■■■■■I■r► a -- ■ ■I ♦(IION Ir ry / ' � LI IIIIII _ I ■ .■■II � • I ■r _ ■■ ■■■s1 I nnnn �� ; ■■■■■■r1 � -I,♦♦�1♦♦♦1■I■I�1 �♦ I nnn=I ►• :-■ ■I► I► + nnnnr■■ - In ■ ■ m / nr nnmmmin■ nnnnnnnn u 1 - nnn■ ■ L�♦im■p I _nm � ■ ♦ ♦ • • ■ nnn n � - = �•n nI■ nnq •IIIp■. • 1 / ■ • L ■■�� I I ; ♦ - _-111�1 C I ■ I ! i1 i 11=_ _ ' •••rn■ • ■ ♦ „ + ■nor II ■■nn IN JI 1n• I■.�► ■ ■.■■■ + ■■.■III i ■_ IIIIII F I IIIII■II■ ■ I.■in 1 ■■ . nn ■ : J♦-■■� f----------, F ! ■(IIr- r■ , - 1-= iF♦1 ■��r�Ilr 40 ■■ ` . rI■■■■I ■■■■■■ - ■ ■■■I■ ♦� o ■■Ir■I r■■r■■■ • IIr■■ iii-♦i.♦i I no n ■■ I =■ ■nmm� ■ ■ n nnm■ nnm --■ I■r I nnnu■nm ■ , ■ . ■■ ■■■ --■ .Ir Irr■Ir■■■■ ■ III 1■Ir11 -■ ■ ■IIIIII ,�I-■■■■, ' ■■■■ ■■■ 1 I■■ I -:■I 1■■rI■r■r■■I■■■ .■ moms ■I■■■I ■■IIII -- II + _ _IIIII r1111• ■ _-..... • - . . • - I ■ ■ ■ �� I■pr ■■■■■■■■■■ I ■ -■ � ■Irrl■r■r■■ ■■■rrr •■■■■■■ -- IIII■■■■- _ e I:�nn ■-I ■nnn■ T 9■ni■n■■■■■■■-■■-■■■■ ■■ 1 : _ ■ , ■111�•€I:1 ■■IIII �-.I■■II ANNE ■.r ■■■ ■ ■■ •■■■■■I I■■■■■■■� 11111/111 i II _■ ' ■ ■ ■ ■■I ■ \ rrI + , Irr ■ ■ ■ 1 i► r\■ � __ Innu InmlTlllsi=_ ■IIIII 11 ■■ I ■■rI■■I■■r■ I■■n rn I 1/11'■■ II■■■ ■■■ ■■■__- ■. -*- __ ■ ■■ ■ . + + + T,� _--____■ � �■■'�' � I � •A♦ m■I r_ ■ ■■■■. ---. ♦ ■ ► + I _ ____■ ■■rrr■■■■ ■■■ I■r■rlgl _■■ 1 nn■ r IIII ■ ■ -_--■ --• =-_ ■ II r ■r ■ _■■■rr■___■ ■■■■r■ ■ ■■ ■■■■ ' - 1 -■♦IIII,I_■ - ■ � ■■ ■■■ .--■-_I.--- ___ ► � •■III■■r ■ • - I■r.■.► ♦ on IIIIIIIII , II __ I� ■■■•- ■ +•♦i 1 � •iii■i1 + + +. l■■■IIIIII IImI■ ■ ■_ Ilnnm ■■ ■r.•\r■►1 --o-- IIIIIIII_- �_--_■_I + ■■ ■ -_ I ■- i■ .■ - I ■_. ■Ir + 11■ _■ ■ _ ■iniiri IIr.. I ■ (■rIIIII 1 ■■ 1 J�■■II � I ♦ :_ IIIIIII ■1■II ■- II�■ / ■■■■- - + + + ■ ■� __■ _-■I ■_ ■ 1 1 I _ �� \� ! j1■ ■■ • ■■ .. ■■IIIIII rIIIIIIr - ■ 1 _ IIII■Ills■III IIIIIIIIII I e= ■II _■ II -.� � . , IIII I■.11■■rl ■.n _ IL ♦i■■■ .► ■ rr■Ilmr IIII 1111111111111111 .III.-- 111: + + '�� i Ini■-■■■^■i■■i i I��,II p1�1��1 III■ Ir♦� 1■■ ■■ 111 ' i ■- 11111111111111111 •�-r IIIIIII — F - ! ` I 1 —�;��-a!1■ ■is 1■IIIII 1 + t ��■■ ■,� 1 \� ♦ . 1�1�■i■I■ J II Ii■III■.■■11 •'■ • • + ++ + ! ■■� ■. T T- v .. .� _ 7■■1 � r Isom 1 ■ ■ 1�I ( ■1:1 1... _ ■� Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area-Plan ❑ • " + + + +I� ' 1Y�■Yi ■ ■ �� x ! ■ ��\V • • I X X:><X X X \. \�� I \\\� Lr.. - ■r� E/,,1'II'tI►�`11 ,��. ♦. /III I■ � � � .■■■I ♦ • ��_ 1 r n • A Ell J ♦ � _■■ ■IIII �. ' I■IIIII •♦ I _ �, ;r••■♦��1 -'• ■III��■/1 �♦ •■• I_■■ III■II I■ __ � IIIII__-��. • `♦♦ '\ 1 �...■ RPM 11-� __ " ■ ■r 'E ::♦IIII i in I + nnnn - - I ■ ■ .. ■ ��o■ � + - � 111 . - /� ■ ■■■IIIII :�=:: �`,I � - _ - � \ -- -_I �■. .., ■ ■ _ I ■ _ - -�'- nnnn� u■► . .�, _ �� ■►III■.L■.�-'�=■■ � IIII 'II I IJI■ • • • t��; V�F _ = • ' : '�� :ii:iq In■ � I �� .� � „ 84� III ��,l.•�►IIIIn- • ,�►�i� ♦ Inn■. ■■ ■■� ri�l - _ _ _ _ _ _ - ' _ _ .III _ � (IIIIIIII -- IIIII■■ .■ - ■11 ■ I IIIII IIII + + / � Innlll■IIIIIIII■■If 111 �h► � x x x7;j in x • - ,1.'■.■. .I illlll��IIII:`■ 1■ I X x X XK X x x x ' '•■■� ■IIII ii 111� x x x ■■ I . • • X X XX x X X X ■■�I X x X X '- +�liiiil 111• ICI • ■' X X � \\ F � � � ""■I-•1.'� 1' ■ -■- - • ■ slog II m m-n■■■■ � ■IIIm■ � ■n\�� i , ■ _��` �. -�- ■■■■■ ♦ � ■:•■■IIIII■■�i i■- _-� , ♦■-- -■I■I / - ■■■■■■ - II■IIII■ --■ _ ■ in slim■ �11■III ■■I■ ♦I -� -I_■I.rI11 111 IIIII■■I■r �- nII■ ■■■ I ■■■■� - I Ill■�II; �:■■■■ �■nm■n -- -■ ,I ■rrrr � + ' • • III �■m+ IIIII■IIr♦♦� ------_--- '■ ■ �� • ■I•I ♦ _ ■■■ ►Iu■Io nuu■■•♦ F ■■n►,i� _ o■ II/IIIIIIr "I I�1!1 �■ 1 � ■�I • ♦ r - --- ■11■■■ " I • _ IIIm , mu/ ® ■ ♦■ ' 1 - ■1■III■ . , � ,,'� �, ,, ■■■■I■■■ 1 i I■■■■ =1111111111=-■ ; II11= 11,: ■,� • .. ''��N\ III �111■ � �� -_ ■■ft IIII ■nn �.■ Ell ■-� ■■ III anon n11 I � � ■ ��-r•_ ♦ �/pi/pl ON IIII I I ' 1� ,- - o ■ �: I■n■■ '. �I� /♦♦�j ■■111■■■■■ ,1 � • - _ rrI ll • nr■■■r -. ...• �♦ ,� ■ , I - - _ •. •• . . ••IIII ♦ �■ • ■ 11 1 11 m 1 : __ � � ■I ♦♦ null' :► -■00, I=�' i►_�■I■■■■■■I� I _ I I - � nmm�°I � `IIIIIII I `-. � ■ �■ I_ -,..__ __- nn nnl �• � / IIIII■ � ■■ ,1 ■ I _ = IIIIIIII � Illls■■ - �■ ■■� �■ - . 511 IS -■-■ ■ = nnnn . • = nnnn - nnnn l � ■■ �■ / = nnnn - nnnn _ I un ■■� �■ I. - IIIIIII p ■11■■■I■ � ■■�� ' �, 11 ; ■ -------- I' i■_ IIn ■IIIII■I L■ ■ , . + + .t T + — ::_■_ `' 1■ ,1, I nnnnnn m■n nnn ♦ �_■ i ► ■I� ��'7 I Ij q�1 an mI 1 nnnn■■■ n■■ ■■■■■■■■p /I ■■ �-= � ■I ■� Mill ■ ' �� ■♦11� ♦ +• ...,IIIII - -■ ,I■■■I ■ ' ♦�_ s■mI '•_: _ ■■.- •► ,, ■� .,. ♦ ♦ ,,... nnnn m =. ■i ■■ ♦11 WI _ IIIIIII ■ ■■♦� � I.I■;, ■�■■■■' ♦ .� .. ♦ ■'nnnml onus - m■:■ ��♦•11.■ I■ ! :�Illll IIIIIIIII-■ •I��•r� �1�11 ■ ■ ■ ■`I � • �, � ♦ .■ ■_ ♦■■_ .p �� ■ � ` e ♦ •� ♦(■IIIIIIII IIIII _ ♦• _�•■ _ IIIm IIIIIII III. i■/ '� III� ■.:=:r:" IIIIIII -_ � I, _- ■�►� r■■■ -- I � ♦ .■■■1.n 1 _ ■ru IIII .-- - \ ■n J��■1 � �■; ►■■ �t••••(IIIIIIIIII�v /nnm nnnnm ■■ _� IIIIIIIIIII■ice— __ �'-• ••-nn` m ■■■r' _�■■ _ _ (_IIIIII■IIIIIIIIII■■.I IIII 111111111111111 - - _q n■ ■�I•nn■_ / II\■ ■s\ ■■ •■ � � � ■ I � t nnn mmml r ■■ r 11 ■►;,�� m= ■■� ■••■I1� � _ .I - --■ ' _Ids/� '♦,�IIIIII Ir� �► ��■�_ - nnn 1111'llll_■III 11 sl I ■■ I IIII ' III- i' ■ � iii I, - �-n ' ■�� ''� I ■___ mm ml nn■__11 11 1 '' IIII n L ■■■ I ■ _ I II �I • _ ___p nm nn nn n■n � ■■■■ �� 1 --■ _ - I I _ ♦ _ Inn nn nn _ 111 I �-- 11 111 /_ __ _ n I —�� rb-- , , �► 1 IIII - _ II � ■�- �■■I � • I,r ♦ , 'p�l ,, i _ - - � II�'H� I �■ iiI n � 1•■ I�II♦� ■' •• ,,� • ♦ ♦ ♦'�♦ �,`/r �♦O ■__-■--■ _ 1-■III�II111111111111� =��11;�■I___ ,`�_ _ rtl■ ; (t Imo■ �� I � , . ` `�i ♦' , _ _ �111111111 ��♦ 1�■ IIIII � ' ■ ■ ►��=; 1;1111�■■; � • ♦111 �� .III ♦ .. s- . -_- _IIIIIIIIIIIII sl (IIIIr.� IIIIII - ! �III�'�■� ♦,'� � ►-► -111 ►�• . n■�� \I \_ I■ . ♦IIIIIIr ; ■■■■■■■\� �� I ■ ■�■1 ail ■-- I • \IIIII■II■mIl - Irnnn IIII ■�,,'„'• ■■ � �I► f i■r 11■�—, • n__ �, 'I I IIII IIIIIIIII \ �l 11 II III II L,. •� � • .�_ II♦ ♦ I■■Ili , I ♦■■■■■ ♦I ter', � • I►• -In)- ■ rIr _■ 11■ ■, `�■ 1■ ;�� - I • ■- ■Ill II - . ' -■- ' Q__-■11 ■ ■ � _! F • • I►• �� I ii Ir■■ ■ _Issslr=- -.-� \I, ;_1111111� i �■_ ■ — ,�■■I�„ �■■�� ■■ ■ ' • • '- •I • • ■■■IIIIII■-_slll - - _ , I � i■ i Illi■■IIa i • I t 7 � ��l■■■ ■■- III�� ■ , �.-_ ■- �■ �- ■i E + 11 _ r rL ■I _■ . I■ O■ ■ ■! ! I i`�. • ♦ • •11 •• i ■ e, a °e 'll ;�'_.� '`, -■■ ' � I I ♦ 1>• I _- - - ---- � ' /♦IIIm- I_� ♦II ■_--' � - - ■ � , I � ' ,• ■ ■ • • � � • ••/► i•• '�• • ` sss� I _ 11 T �I I :: III■I ■_■_♦ • ■ -■I I • ' , — ■■■ rIIIII I■in go _-_ ♦ ■71 I I ' ®i '- -- --- - - - - - - I `,,��_ • ■ � J� •• • • � ��■■� �_ +�_�.ii i - III■ �-_ III III-1��r --- 111 IIII • `, ■_ lll� ■■■ - I■■ �II,� I IIIIIIIIIIIII\_\III � I '- ■IIII■■■ _ r -- r _ � ■I■I ■\ ■- _ I1111111�1_I 'I � , ` -' ■■■■■ 'f , � ■�III■■■■nrrl■■ 11 ' ' 1 ►I �l- I ■.�r IIIIIIIIIII - ♦ ' 1■- � ,►I,I.,I.L_ � J ,I____',,, � _111 _ __ ' •.,; .°:- 11111111111 1 • I �j mom ---= ------- I - • ♦ 1 II ��`�� I � . � �� IIII 'IIII III■, ■ ■ ._ �� ♦•i.; 1■■II :■■ ■ 1 ' ■■ ■ �♦I 1♦♦� ■■■■■■ ■III■' „ • •. •- • •. • . • • • • ; I ,�� IIIIIII IIIIIIII■ I I r'� IIII Ills _ ■ III I .:::■ ♦�•■ `+1 ■-_ ■ —� IIIIII-_I ■ • . / ♦IIIIII ■ ■■n j■ IIIIIII I r , • ►►♦ 111 I -i i - - -- _ � I ' , �► - , , 11� IIIIIII IIII■11 IIIIIIIII. ■ =�■ • � I , ,. _ _ I �= 1� IIIIIIII s1111111 ! ■■■ ,♦�111♦III♦11�C �■■■ ��■ � • , ■ �1■■III �- ____I -- --.' �_ �1110_ n11111111 IIIII■IIII ■■• ♦♦♦111Q , ■ ■ ■ ■■■■■■■ = ■ 1♦ 1♦ 11 1- � • ! ■ i , __ 1 ■IIII IIIIII __ Y I ■ �♦♦♦1♦♦ 1♦♦ 1 __ _ --`■ ,� • •- • - '. � ■■11■ � � _�I -�i ■ - ■■■ II ♦ ♦� � _.1T,I IIII /IIIm• � _ • - _ - � - - - � __ _ IIII��1 IIII nl■ � 1_ __ ►11 II �♦�I -■ ■nm _ 1 � �■■ � I ■■nI♦i♦ p, iii . Inn •- •- • - - -ram III •i��1 ♦,__•\ I'■anon:■� nnm- , ■ ♦j ♦i,�i i -■(nmm�■ 'I- � - I I • n v =■ � � ! ■rr■ ',, _■-• r IIIII-i1 II■ ■I ■ ' __ _ _ , • ' ' r I - rrr C , ■■■ _ III■•I■ ��♦ III 1 ■ � `\IIIIIIIIIII� 'Q IIIIII I I �' •----! - ■ i • • • • . • • • -• • • • • I �� Iinnlm nn: =riiiriii► � I •1•j••• 'I/ri�� 1� 1■ I rlllununm__' e 9°IIII � ' I /•II•j ••� 11I 1■ II■� • • • • • • • • \ ♦, gum___o.I 1 � - I �_�_ � \ ♦ __ --'IIII � `�I ' • � � �� II=�r-■� � � O:IIII . �IIIIII► -------------- � ♦♦♦..... � �IIIIIII/!, ' _ • � ' � ■■�1■��■ iii ■ I I � ■■. � �� Ill\ •• • •' •• • ••• • • • � - '`� ■ t ■ ■■ ■ ■ II' ' ►�i ■ . +� i ■■■■IIn\■ : ■ /�� 111 ■ I � �` ■.IIIIIII=I�1■�_ . . III 11 • •- • • • • ■ 1 + ■�• , ; ` ,�� ♦ � _i_■■■1 ■11/ . �� I .■n�--IIII --------------- -------------- -- ■ IN JIM IN own ME I U,L-01 lb ME 0 SM,SIM _E 70 1010_02_� ■■ � III:� ■I■ ; � a a , � '��■\ '■IIIIIII Inn� � I � ■ -••\ ♦ ■■■rII■■ III. � I nnn �I •inn■ m■ I�— � i I - .■non� -- ��Gi \ ■� ll I --------------------------------- II II�/ ■■■■■r �` ff■■ � I I�■I■I■I■I s■11■■ll■■IIII■ , - ',► - •�-._; —I_, •- _ ■■IIIIII■■■� I� , I • • • . + • • • ► �`^ —� ' •limn nnuL' ■® . ' + ,• �— , nm♦,rrr. ,� ♦nnn ml� I • im ■■■■ ■■I III_�■III IIn _ - • . - - • I • • • • . - • • i■ ■■ ■■■■■. ___■ -/IIIII• _____ ■_ I♦I♦• ,•I ■�_ ► - �� 1 III■■IIII � � •I ♦ ■� II�•� /■ (■III■ ■C■�\ ♦�■l1�■■■■�■ -_III �I♦♦I♦♦♦I ♦I ■m_ ■/1 I ��■��I ■.'I ��♦j♦ ■_�__ - IIIIIIII �♦ ♦•♦♦I♦I♦♦•II,♦/11 _ � � 'I ■ -\IIIIIIr , iIIIIIIIII■I _s111 111■ �♦ ♦ • ♦ - ■ ■■■■■■■ ♦ - ■IIII IIIII ,IIB♦ , III 1.1 .... Islllll NNE IIIIIIIIIII----111 I� � �� \_ - � ■ man mmrllnll� nn ■: ' �■ IIIII ♦ .�__== �O■o ■II■■I 1 ' ■ ■■■ � � . I. ■■II11�� .--= ��a .... _•-_- ■■■I■■■� -- �� _IIIII _- ■■■ i--�■ 1 ■____ - 1■I- '■■■■._IIII � • �I�1 �• 'IIIIIII� � - ---i I�■■■� 1■Is�� ■ ■p IIIII l_ \ 11p/\ � IIIm :ii■ - �•- - IIII■.• 1 ■.■I �■II ■ IIII • IIIIII��■■ �111►1�,, ■I .IIIIIj; ■ I®-�.r'r��■ ■•�\■ ■■■♦. I 1►111►IIL�J== �my o♦,niil ■ � - - - - - � - � ■n■n■■I■ •♦I■■■III■■■I■II �� ♦♦►►IIII►>I■IIIIII � 1�♦♦I,I • • • • \\\\ • • . IIIII■■■ nm � ♦ , ♦ •• • � i un � ■ \, ♦♦ • nn■ ■■. t • .� nnm= Ciu►�r�♦, ■ IIv�1■■■■■ ■ Innnl ♦\ ♦ ♦♦ nn�■�..�I ♦♦r• :■nnnn� �Ip�♦♦�Iu■. ■ I ■• ►onm ♦\�♦♦�� _/�►`I L•i ♦ ♦♦♦/I • •I�I IIIIII _■_ Iunl► � ♦ IIIIII 11 .�- • _ � ■■ \� ■o■■_ .♦ ■� -__IIII►1= ��11111`p ■11111111111 � ��.- ■-■ ■--■! ♦♦ �■ -111 �� Q1111111■ ■__ p1111111r_ / .,,,. ■rIr■III-- ■ ► ♦ ■► � IIIIII I � - • - • - • I �,.■: �, -/ ■ I,_ ■a�l�;■ '♦� I ■ � IIII; �■ in■IIIII _ nlln■_ nl I]■\ �IIrnIII11I■111 IIIIIIIII � IIII\ IIIIII IIIIIIII ■ ■■., �■ �� 1�IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII In INN IIr■ ■p _ . I ■1' /" \IIII III IIIIIIII ■■ ■II■1111111..■■■ _-►/♦♦Q► ♦,♦ r■r1 _- sssls_-IIIIIIII_ ■ ■-■ ■■ •.IIIIIIII--••- ■Ill\ ♦� IIIIIIII ■ ■1 ■• ■11■C -111111111■:�C: = IIIIr \\�♦♦♦♦♦ ♦ 1♦ ` •1► 1 IIII IIIIIIIIII •♦IIII■�i 1�1�m�1 ■n \� IIIII■m -I -mI■ ♦II►♦�Q 1♦♦ ♦♦ � IIIIIIII � • III-■ •� ' -- ■► �11111111111111 ='i:IIIII ♦r♦♦ � ♦ ♦ 111 j I IIIIIIII_ , nnnn ■_ ♦ Ili: Innnnn n � - ♦r„♦♦♦�♦■ii i ■ � 11.♦ �\IIIIIIII- IIIIIIr.._\ ■■■■■■■Ir■■■Ir �\IIIIIIIIIIII■I ■■■IIIIr♦ ♦ �♦ l■I■ ■ -Ij _ '� ■ei ■IIIIIIIIII► - 1■IIIIII ■ r`I1■■■ _ 1/i♦1 ■■■_■- _. IIII■IIr■ ■■� ` ■ - �� ■'n■rI■■III■■ � ■�._�/ I■II, IIIm n �_ ■■i INN � 1■ i� I Il IIII'nln — ' . III II■n■■ A♦\I- �,■ ■■o. . man ■r ----- /41IIIIIp`r ____ 'I■■■- I � •I■IIn nI■■n_■■I� ■L■III■■ ■■I►\-.� ♦\r�I��■�-._�III\♦ 1 Ib- ■ ��-♦ IIII/ ___ I■■-■ ��- _ �♦♦ �1_■■ ■rI ■r ■.�■.►1. ♦♦'1 _ III\\■ _ ___s1 Il■■- ♦ _-■I■I/♦ ■ ■■ . ■■■■■I 11 ♦ ■ lssls■\ IIIII■ -__ o_ 1 ♦••III--_- -■ II ■L■ ■■\ rl■.-■■■ ♦ 1♦ -�■ _= II d�• -., ._llsllllr � �__■L■■■■■ - -- rrn■L I ._ IIn ■■■■■Ii.1♦♦_ _■ ■nII►�• - - _■lln■Ir-- __ __::■■- �" - --- -��Inn■■�-■ICI ■ ■ ■ _ m�■■©■�1■■■IIn- %I�Innl�ta, III■■ II■■■■■■Ilnrl•A1■II�'❑'■-I■gill■11 -I, , �'-I♦nnssslr /,-JIM ■ �I`�-�_��■■■ I 1.