The URL can be used to link to this page

2022-06-14 Regular City Council Regular Meeting City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Tuesday, June 14, 2022 at 6:00 PM Minutes ROLL CALL ATTENDANCE PRESENT Councilwoman Liz Strader Councilman Treg Bernt Councilwoman Jessica Perreault Councilman Luke Cavener Councilman Joe Borton Councilman Brad Hoaglun Mayor Robert E. Simison PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE COMMUNITY INVOCATION ADOPTION OF AGENDA Adopted PUBLIC FORUM – Future Meeting Topics ACTION ITEMS 1. Public Hearing for Bountiful Commons East (H-2022-0015) by KM Engineering, LLP, Located at 5960 and 5984 N. Linder Rd. Continued to July 19, 2022 A. Request: Modification to the Existing Development Agreement (Linder Mixed Use - Inst. #2018-052340) to update the conceptual development plan and building elevations. B. Request: Combined Preliminary and Final Plat consisting of three (3) building lots on 2.20 acres of land in the C-C zoning district. Motion to continue to July 19, 2022 made by Councilman Hoaglun, Seconded by Councilman Borton. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Cavener, Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun 2. Public Hearing on Proposed Water and Sewer Fees 3. Resolution No. 22-2329: A Resolution Adopting New Fees of the Meridian Public Works Department; Authorizing the Meridian Public Works Department to Collect Such Fees; and Providing an Effective Date (June 15, 2022) Approved Motion to approve made by Councilwoman Perreault, Seconded by Councilman Borton. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Cavener, Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun 4. Public Hearing for Ten Mile and McMillan (H-2022-0011) by Anne Kunkel, Varin Thomas, LLC., Located at the Northeast Corner of N. Ten Mile Rd. and W. McMillan Rd., Encompassing Nine (9) Parcels Approved A. Request: A Development Agreement Modification of the Ten Mile and McMillan Development (Inst. #2020-040967) for the purpose of amending a DA provision regarding cross access between the commercial properties and the senior living property. Motion to approve made by Councilman Hoaglun, Seconded by Councilman Cavener. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Cavener, Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun 5. Public Hearing for Hatch Industrial (H-2022-0029) by Hatch Design Architecture, Located at 160 N. Linder Rd. Approved A. Request: Vacation of the 30-foot wide utility easement along the east side of Lots 8 and 9 of Heppers Acre Subdivision. Motion to approve made by Councilwoman Perreault, Seconded by Councilwoman Strader. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Cavener, Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun Abstaining: Councilman Bernt 6. 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 Remanded to Planning and Zoning Commission 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 remand to Planning and Zoning Commission made by Councilman Borton, Seconded by Councilman Hoaglun. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Cavener, Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun 7. Public Hearing for Future Land Use Map Ada County Area of City Impact Cleanup (H-2021-0098) by City of Meridian Planning Division Approved 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 approve made by Councilman Hoaglun, Seconded by Councilman Cavener. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Cavener, Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun FUTURE MEETING TOPICS ADJOURNMENT 9:19 pm Meridian City Council June 14, 2022. A Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:01 p.m., Tuesday, June 14, 2022, by Mayor Robert Simison. Members Present: Mayor Robert Simison, Joe Borton, Luke Cavener, Treg Bernt, Jessica Perreault, Brad Hoaglun and Liz Strader. Also present: Chris Johnson, Bill Nary, Caleb Hood, Joe Dodson, Sonya Allen, Laurelei McVey, Tracy Basterrechea, Joe Bongiorno, and Dean Willis. ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE Liz Strader _X_ Joe Borton _X_ Brad Hoaglun _X_Treg Bernt X Jessica Perreault _X Luke Cavener _X_ Mayor Robert E. Simison Simison: Council, we will call the meeting to order. For the record it is June 14th, 2022. It is 6:01 p.m. We will begin this regular City Council meeting with roll call attendance. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Simison: Next item is the Pledge of Allegiance. If you would all, please, rise and join us in the pledge. (Pledge of Allegiance recited.) COMMUNITY INVOCATION Simison: We had no one sign up for the Community Invocation. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Simison: So, we will move into adoption of the agenda. Hoaglun: Well, Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Just to note for the record for those that might be here or online, that Item No. 1, the public hearing H-2022-0015, Bountiful Commons East, they are requesting that it continue to July 19th and we will take that up when we get to that point, but just for a point of information. But I move we adopt -- adopt the agenda as published. Borton: Second. Meridian City Council June 14,2022 Page 2 of 61 Simison: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda as published. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and the agenda is adopted. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. PUBLIC FORUM — Future Meeting Topics Simison: Mr. Clerk, do we have anyone signed up under public forum? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we did not. ACTION ITEMS 1. Public Hearing for Bountiful Commons East (H-2022-0015) by KM Engineering, LLP, Located at 5960 and 5984 N. Linder Rd. A. Request: Modification to the Existing Development Agreement (Linder Mixed Use - Inst. #2018-052340) to update the conceptual development plan and building elevations. B. Request: Combined Preliminary and Final Plat consisting of three (3) building lots on 2.20 acres of land in the C-C zoning district. Simison: Okay. Then with that we will move into Action Items. First item up is public hearing for Bountiful Commons East, H-2022-0015. I will open this public hearing with those comments -- would staff like to make any comments after what Councilman Hoaglun just referenced? Allen: No comments really. The applicant just wasn't able to be here tonight, so that's the reason for the continuance request. Thank you. Simison: Okay. Was there anybody that was here that was hoping to speak on this item this evening? Okay. Seeing none, do I have a motion to continue? Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: I move that we continue the public hearing for H-2022-0015 to July 19th, 2022. Borton: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second to continue this item. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and the public hearing is continued. Meridian City Council June 14,2022 Page 3 of 61 MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. 2. Public Hearing on Proposed Water and Sewer Fees Simison: Next item up is a public hearing on proposed water and sewer fees. We will open this public hearing with staff comments and turn this over to Director McVey. McVey: All right. Thank you, Mayor and Council. So, as the Mayor mentioned this is our proposed two percent increase to the water and sewer base user rates that we presented to you on May 24th. So, as we mentioned, the average impact to our customers would be about $1 .22 per month. We have noticed this in the newspaper for the past two weeks and included it on all city utility bills for the last cycle. To my knowledge we have received very little feedback. We did get a couple of phone calls -- two phone calls to MUBS. We didn't get any in Public Works. So, just wanted to let you guys know that. I know we talked about this the last time, but for the benefit of anybody watching tonight, the main driver for the need for this increase is a significant increase in costs in utility operations and capital projects. As a reminder, we have not increased our utility rates since 2014, so this is the first increase in that time and in order to improve our fund solvency we are seeking a two percent increase today and, then, we are also anticipating adjusting our assessment fees this fall, but the hearing today is just for the two percent utility fees. One of the things to note is that we may potentially need future increases, but we look at our revenue and our expenses and model our -- our -- run our model every year to see if those come in with our projections or not. So, that's the reason why we are not asking for a bigger increase today as we would like to see if these -- some of these large capital projects that are coming in in the next couple of years, how those come in and, then, make adjustments each year as we go forward. As a reminder, Meridian has some of the lowest utility rates in the valley, even with the increases and that is due to current and past council and mayors' and staff's diligent and conservative planning and budgeting and so with that I will stand for any questions. Simison: Thank you, Laurelei. Council, any questions? Okay. Thank you very much. This is a public hearing. Mr. Clerk, do we have anyone signed up to provide testimony on this item? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, nobody signed up in advance. Simison: Okay. If there is anybody present who would like to provide testimony on this item, if you would like to come forward at this time or if you are online you can use the raise your hand feature and we can bring you in for comments as well. Seeing no one coming forward or anyone's hand raised online, Council, would you like any further comments from the director or do I have a motion to close the public hearing? Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Meridian City Council June 14,2022 Page 4 of 61 Borton: Just to comment. I -- I appreciate the fact that there is not public here in the sense that -- I think it's a byproduct of work really well done, Laurelei, not only in Public Works, but also Keith Watts and -- and how we bid projects and are conservative and forward thinking with some of these really expensive capital projects. Efforts are made to save costs long term. It's always a long term vision. The reason you can do relatively modest increases is because of that dedication and discipline. So, much appreciation from all of us to you and your leadership to make this happen, keeping us looking long term. The public benefits and part of our obligation is to take care of those that are, you know, generations down the road and I think that foresight that you lead with provides great benefit to them. So, thank you for that. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: I'm ready to make a motion if we are ready. Simison: To close the public hearing? Perreault: Yes. I move that we close the public hearing. Borton: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and the public hearing is closed. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. 3. Resolution No. 22-2329: A Resolution Adopting New Fees of the Meridian Public Works Department; Authorizing the Meridian Public Works Department to Collect Such Fees; and Providing an Effective Date (June 15, 2022) Simison: Next item up is Resolution No. 22-2329. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: I move that we approve Resolution No. 22-2329 adopting new fees of the Meridian Public Works Department and authorizing Meridian Public Works Department to collect such fees and provide -- providing an effective date of June 15th, 2022. Borton: Second. Meridian City Council June 14,2022 Page 5 of 61 Simison: I have a motion and a second to approve Resolution No. 22-2329. Is there a discussion? Seeing none, Clerk will call the roll. Roll call: Borton, yea; Cavener, yea; Bernt, yea; Perreault, yea; Hoaglun, yea; Strader, yea. Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and our thanks to you and your team.. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. 4. Public Hearing for Ten Mile and McMillan (H-2022-0011) by Anne Kunkel, Varin Thomas, LLC., Located at the Northeast Corner of N. Ten Mile Rd. and W. McMillan Rd., Encompassing Nine (9) Parcels A. Request: A Development Agreement Modification of the Ten Mile and McMillan Development (Inst. #2020-040967) for the purpose of amending a DA provision regarding cross access between the commercial properties and the senior living property. Simison: Next item up is Item 4, which is a public hearing for Ten Mile and McMillan, H- 2022-0011. We will open this public hearing with staff comments from Mr. Dodson. Dodson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Good evening, everybody. The first one here should be pretty -- pretty easy for everybody, so -- the application before you tonight is for a DA modification. It's for nine parcels located around the northeast corner of McMillan and Ten Mile. It's currently zoned C-G and has been for some time. There was a DA modification of 2019 to remove it from a larger DA and, then, a CUP in 2020 regarding an age restricted multi-family unit in the very back lot, the largest lot here. The DA modification before you tonight is specifically for one provision. Because the approved DA includes a provision that requires the senior living facility and the commercial parcels to provide cross-access and cross-parking, the inclusion of this provision is standard for commercial properties, but should have been excluded -- or they should have excluded the senior living property because the city does not want cut-through traffic or shared parking between the commercial sites and the senior living property. Further, the existing approvals required a commercial drive aisle along the rear of each commercial building lot, which provides for the required cross-access. This drive aisle has been constructed already and is in place. So, this is the proposed language. Top is what the applicant submitted in their narrative is the proposed. The bottom is what I am proposing as the recommended DA language, just because it specifically lists the application that started and created the CUP for the multi-family. So, after that I will stand for any questions. Simison: Thank you, Joe. Council, any questions for staff? Is the applicant with us this evening? State your name and address for the record. Kunkel: Anne Kunkel. Verin Thomas. 242 North 8th Street, Suite 220, Boise. 83702. The applicant doesn't really have much to add. We have confirmed with staff that we are Meridian City Council June 14,2022 Page 6 of 61 fine with the languages as they have proposed. That's -- given the limited nature of the DA modification we don't have anything more to say. We agree. We enjoyed working with staff and to reach this resolution and it accomplishes the goals that we were looking for as part of the modification. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions for the applicant? Okay. Appreciate it. Mr. Clerk, do we have anyone signed up on this item? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we did not. Simison: Okay. If there is anybody that would like to provide testimony on this item, if you would like to come forward at this time or use the raise your hand feature on Zoom. Seeing no one coming forward or raising their hand, would the applicant like to make any final comments? They are waived. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: I move we close the public hearing for H-2022-0011 . Borton: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on H-2022-0011. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and the public hearing is closed. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: After considering all staff and applicant testimony, I move to approve file number H-2022-0011 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June 14th, 2022, and that the staff's recommended language has been agreed to by all parties. Cavener: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? If not, Clerk will call the roll. Roll call: Borton, yea; Cavener, yea; Bernt, yea; Perreault, yea; Hoaglun, yea; Strader, yea. Meridian City Council June 14,2022 Page 7 of 61 Simison: All ayes. Motion carried and the item is agreed to. Thank you, Joe. Have a good night. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. 5. Public Hearing for Hatch Industrial (H-2022-0029) by Hatch Design Architecture, Located at 160 N. Linder Rd. A. Request: Vacation of the 30-foot wide utility easement along the east side of Lots 8 and 9 of Heppers Acre Subdivision. Simison: Next item up is a public hearing for Hatch Industrial, H-2022-0029. We will open this public hearing with staff comments. Allen: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. The next application before you is a request for a vacation. This site is located at 160 North Linder Road on the east side of Linder just north of West Franklin Road on 1.52 acres of land in the I-L zoning district. An amendment to the future land use map was recently approved for mixed use community to industrial for a larger 42 acre property that included this property and this property was annexed with I-L zoning. The current Comprehensive Plan future land use designation is industrial. The applicant is requesting approval to vacate the 30 foot wide easement along the east side of Lots 8 and 9 of Heppers Acre Subdivision. This easement is presumably for utilities, but there does not seem to have ever been any utilities installed within the easement area. The applicant is proposing to vacate this easement, so that the building being constructed on the site can be located closer to the eastern boundary of the site within the existing easement area. A legal description and exhibit map of the easement proposed to be vacated is included in the staff report and is shown on the right there. Relinquishment letters were received from CenturyLink, Idaho Power, Intermountain Gas Company, Sparklight and Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District for the easement proposed to be vacated. No written testimony has been submitted on this application. Staff is recommending approval of the vacation request. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions for staff? Seeing none, is the applicant here? Are they online? Allen: Steve Thiessen or Jeff Hatch? Simison: Okay. Don't see the applicant here. So, Council, would you like to continue to proceed without the applicant? Okay. Then do we have anyone signed up to provide testimony on this item? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we did not. Simison: Okay. Is there anybody present who would like to provide testimony on this item? Seeing no one wishing to provide testimony, do we have a motion? Meridian City Council June 14,2022 Page 8 of 61 Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: I move that we close the public hearing for Hatch Industrial, H-2022-0029. Strader: Second. Simison: Have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and the public hearing is closed. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: I thought -- thought this was pretty clear cut and so I'm going to go ahead and make a motion. I move that we approve the request for vacating the 30 foot wide utility easement along the east side of Lots 8 and 9 of Heppers Acre Subdivision with application H-2022-0029. Strader: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second to approve item H-2022-0029. Is there any discussion on the motion? Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Question for staff, Sonya or Bill. Bill is not here, so, Sonya, I guess you get the short straw. I'm struggling to recall a time that this has happened where we haven't had -- or -- I know we have had an applicant not be here for an annexation and we have continued that. Can you maybe walk us through the process? My gut is to vote in opposition of the motion, simply because I haven't heard from the applicant, but I don't want to -- I also would probably vote in opposition of a denial without hearing from the applicant either. So, help me understand -- maybe some historical about -- if we have experienced this in the past and what the process has been. Allen: Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Council, I -- I don't -- I don't believe there is any issues, unless you have questions for the applicant that you need to have answered before you make a decision on the application before you. The applicant has submitted an application request. That's what's before you tonight. If you don't have any heartburn Meridian City Council June 14,2022 Page 9 of 61 with it I would -- I would suggest making a motion. If you -- if you need additional information, then, I would suggest you continue. Cavener: Thanks. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Discuss the motion. Yeah. I'm in favor. I mean this is very straightforward. It's a -- I don't want to say routine, because it was a request. But all the paperwork is in. It's -- it's just a very common -- not uncommon to have these come forward for easement vacations and as long as everything is submitted properly, every -- all the parties are in agreement, staff is in agreement, I -- I have no problem going forward just based on the type of application that it is, so -- Simison: Almost as if we had the planning administrator this could just like fly right on through. If there is no further comments, ask the Clerk to call the roll. Roll call: Borton, yea; Cavener, yea; Bernt, absent; Perreault, yea; Hoaglun, yea; Strader, yea. Simison: All ayes. Motion carries. The item is agreed to. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. 6. Public Hearing 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). Simison: Next item up is a public hearing for 1-84 and Meridian Road, H-2021-0099. We will open this public hearing with staff comments. Allen: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. The next applications before you are a request for annexation and zoning and a Comprehensive Plan map amendment. The Comprehensive Plan map amendment portion of this site consists of 33.13 acres of land and it showed there on the map on the left and the annexation portion consists of 18.3 acres of land, zoned C-G and RUT in Ada county, that's generally located at the northwest corner of South Meridian Road and 1-84. A little history. The northern portion Meridian City Council June 14,2022 Page 10 of 61 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. The applicant is requesting an amendment to the future land use map to change the designation on 33.13 acres of land from mixed use community to mixed use regional and annexation of 18.3 acres of land with the C-G, General Retail and 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 big box retail stores and a junior anchor retail space and that's retail one, consisting of 130,000 to 150,000 square feet. Retail two, which is 80,000 square feet and retail three, lot two, 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 .2.132 allowed uses in the commercial districts regardless of whether or not the annexation is approved. So, I'm just going to back up here for a minute and reiterate that. So, if you can see the red line here on the screen that kind of zigzags, the portion north of that lane is already -- line is already annexed into the city and the portion that's to the south is what is proposed in the annexation area. A vehicular connection and stub is depicted on the concept plan to the property of 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 MUC designation because a mix of uses wasn't proposed and they didn't want to burden this property with providing only the nonresidential 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. The applicant chose to move forward on their own because the traffic impact study for Tanner Creek was behind theirs and ACHD's queue for review and they didn't want to be delayed with this project. The TIS for the proposed development included the planned residential development to the west, Tanner Creek, and has been accepted by ACHD as of yesterday I believe. A staff report has not yet been received from ACHD. It will probably be another three weeks at least they said until we receive that. In accord with staff 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 vehicular and pedestrian conflicts and safety issues. No public or quasi-public uses are proposed, except an open Meridian City Council June 14,2022 Page 11 of 61 space area that's located in the middle of the parking area with unsafe access and at the periphery of the development along the west side. Staff is also concerned with the ability of the transportation network being able to support the proposed development even with improvements. 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 preapplication 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 mixed use community 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 Commission's recommendation was for denial consistent with the staff report based on their belief the requested use is not consistent with the general mixed use development guidelines, the existing mixed use community guidelines, or the proposed mixed use regional guidelines. Also they needed the findings for the traffic impact study before they were able to support the application. I will go over a summary of the Commission hearing. Ethan Mansfield, Hawkins Companies, the applicant, testified in favor, along with Matt Schultz, representative for Tanner Creek development to the west. Kelsey Lorcher and Joe Lorcher testified in opposition. Claire Manning and Nona Haddock commented on the application. There was no written testimony received. The key issues of discussion were the public testimony and agreement with staff's recommendation of denial due to not having a master plan with the Tanner Creek development to the west. Concern pertaining to impacts on traffic in the area from the proposed development and testimony from the Tanner Creek developers representative that they are in favor of the proposed development and intend to resubmit a residential development plan for the property to the west once ACHD has accepted their traffic impact study. Key issues of discussion by the Commission were as follows: Concern pertaining to the impact on traffic in this area if the proposed development plan is approved and desire to have the traffic impact study reviewed and accepted by ACHD for the overall development area in order to know the impacts and transportation improvement requirements for the development and consistency of the proposed development plan with the comprehensive plan. The Commission again did not make any changes to the staff recommendation, which was for denial and there has been no written testimony received by the city since the Commission hearing. I believe there is a representative for ACHD here tonight to answer any transportation questions you may have. Staff will stand for any questions. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions for staff? Okay. Thank you. Is the applicant here? Mansfield: Sorry about that, Mr. Mayor. I got too excited and jumped up before it was my turn. I have a presentation. I think Sonya is pulling it up right now. Simison: If you could state your name and address for the record. Meridian City Council June 14,2022 Page 12 of 61 Mansfield: Sure. My name is Ethan Mansfield. I'm with Hawkins Companies and our address is 855 West Broad Street in Boise, Idaho, and we are the developers on this project. Let's see if I can make -- oh, thanks, Sonya. Okay. First I would like to thank you all for your time this evening and I would like to thank staff for working on this application with us. Your service to the community is much appreciated during this time of exciting growth. 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 17 acres on the northwestern corner of Meridian Road and 1-84. Before we dig in I think it's extremely important to acknowledge that 16 acres of this site is already entitled and zoned C-G, as Sonya mentioned. As you all understand, the zoning of a piece of land governs the specific uses and the design criteria of those uses allowed on that land. The land use map or comprehensive plan, on the other hand, helps define and guide the general character of future development. 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. The northern land is entitled and only a site plan approval is required to develop it. 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. Next the only way to access this portion of the site is directly through the northern portion of the site. As such, regardless of zoning or land use, the character of the development of this southern parcel of land will largely reflect what is developed on the 16 acres of entitled property to the north. Please consider this point throughout the discussion tonight. Now, let's chat about the overall plan for our site. Hawkins proposes to develop a mix of retail, food and office uses. Anchoring the development is a 145,000 square foot national retailer. Here are the renderings of this user. Here is a perspective looking west and northwest and here is looking west and, then, looking south from Waltman. In addition we are proposing another large format retail box, as well as a junior anchor. Several food users and a 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 to provide connectivity to the east and west and a pedestrian and bicycle access bridge to Tanner Creek, the residential development to the west. A sidewalk currently exists to provide connectivity to the south. The development includes a one acre parklet positioned to provide a transition from the apartments proposed to the west to our commercial development. It includes a one-third acre urban plaza located near the office development and while we understand that outdoor patio seating does not officially qualify as an amenity per code, outdoor patios don't suck and so we have decided to include two next to our shops building and these are directly connected to Tanner Creek via a pedestrian pathway that does not go through a parking area and here is the renderings of these features. So, this is looking at the park, looking northeast from the park and southeast, northwest and, then, here is a bird's eye view of the urban plaza. A couple more views of the plaza and, then, this is the outdoor patio space. 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 the same Tanner Creek proposal. Why? Because it did not have commercial uses required by the mixed use land use designation -- designation Meridian City Council June 14,2022 Page 13 of 61 associated with it. As Matt Schultz will share with you later this evening, Council specifically directed him to wait until commercial uses developed to the east. Well, here we are. Our application fulfills City Council's request. It provides office space, retail and restaurants within walking distance and thoughtfully connected to the Tanner Creek development. So, why couldn't we wait for Tanner Creek's application to apply with ours? First, comp plan amendments are only processed two times per year, December 15th and June 15th. Tanner Creek had proposed to submit in early January, relatively concurrent with our December 15th deadline. However, ACHD required Tanner Creek to submit an updated traffic impact study. These take a while, both to produce and to be reviewed. Tanner Creek submitted their updated TIS in late March and it was approved yesterday and now Matt is busy assembling the final application documents and he is planning to hold his neighborhood meeting next Monday and will submit -- submit shortly thereafter. At this point to require Tanner Creek to come in concurrently with us would, at a minimum, require a six month hold until next December. As we need housing and commercial services to serve the intense growth that Meridian is experiencing right now, this is a risky and potentially costly move. We may not have a commercial user in six months. It's also a move that could be avoided by simply acknowledging the reality of the situation, that 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 additional entitlement process. There is an existing development agreement on this site that governs the development of the site. Only one of two site plans could be built in that location right now without City Council approval. This is the first one and this is the second one. Anything else outside of these two site plans would require a trip back to the City Council for approval. What is the likelihood that if our site is approved for retail, food and office uses, that the contiguous land owner would scrap a residential project and sell the land and, then, that another 37 acre development with the same uses as ours will develop next door in one of those two specific configurations shown here. Right now I think that likelihood is nonexistent and I think we can all agree that this corner, our corner, is the right place for the commercial component of a mixed use development, while the previous location was not. Now, let's talk about the comp plan amendment and the subsequent rezone. Here is a description of the mixed use and mixed use regional 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. Development should be anchored by uses that have a regional draw with appropriate supporting uses. Now, here is a map showing the general location of our development overlaid with -- over the top of 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. Two regional entertainment uses and event center exist across the freeway to the south. The interchange is also the gateway to downtown Meridian and Meridian Road in front of the site is the third busiest roadway segment in the state, surpassed only by two segments on Eagle Road. In other words, the entitled portion of the site is begging to be developed Meridian City Council June 14,2022 Page 14 of 61 into a regional destination. 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 housing units within walking or biking distance of our site. Put simply, our development will serve residents of the entire region, while maintaining walkability to residents of adjacent multi-family and single family housing developments. Per the comprehensive plan the mixed use regional designation is also the only mixed use land use designation that supports the general retail and service commercial zone. This appears to be expressly designed for the subject parcel. Commercial uses in, quote, unquote, 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 have heard from staff at the preapplication 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 limit the use of the land on this very visible regional corner, it might be better if we simply increase the capacity of the transportation network. Here is how we propose to do this. First, we propose to work with ACHD to extend Corporate Drive across Ten Mile Creek to Waltman. Next we will improve Waltman to a collector roadway with a center turn lane throughout the project. We will also install infrastructure for a future transit stop on the corner of Waltman and Meridian Road. Here is a cross-section of the proposed roadway improvements in front of the site. We originally proposed an additional left-hand turn lane onto Waltman from Meridian Road and a corresponding second westbound lane on Waltman along the site. This was not accepted by ACHD. The accepted proposal does not include a northbound left turn lane or a second westbound lane on Waltman per ACHD's direction. I'm about out of time, so I would like to quickly address the integration of our site with the residential uses to the west. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: I'm going to give you some more time. I have a question for you. Mansfield: Thank you, sir. Bernt: Can you be more specific and elaborate a little bit more about the transportation aspect of what you just described? Like what you are willing to do. What -- okay. There we go. What ACHD said you couldn't do, as opposed to what they said you could do. Mansfield: Mr. Mayor -- Bernt: That was just too quick. Meridian City Council June 14,2022 Page 15 of 61 Mansfield: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Bernt, a great question. I can go through that a little more slowly. So, would you like me to start with the extension of Corporate Drive? Bernt: Right here. Mansfield: So, Mr. Mayor, Council Member Bernt, we are proposing to extend Corporate Drive across Ten Mile Creek to Waltman and that will be a -- a two lane roadway. We are going to improve Waltman Drive to a collector roadway with sidewalks on both sides -- or, sorry, sidewalks on the south side where -- where we have control of the construction of sidewalks, a multi-use pathway, two lanes in either direction and a center turn lane. Bernt: Mr. Mayor, follow up? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: So, you are going to improve -- I noticed that the -- the -- the portion that goes across Ten Mile Creek from Corporate to Waltman is not sort of near where your project is. It's -- it's further -- it's further west; right? Mansfield: Mayor Simison, Council Member Bernt, that's correct. Bernt: So, are you proposing to not only do that, but that entirely -- so, are you proposing to redo the transportation network on that -- basically the entire road of Waltman Lane or just your portion of it? Mansfield: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Bernt, we are proposing to do just our portion. We anticipate and expect Tanner Creek to also do their portion and that's why I'm showing that red line, because once both -- we -- we are kind of -- as you have seen master planning -- Bernt: Right. Mansfield: -- this development and so we are anticipating that entire segment to be constructed as a collector roadway. Bernt: Got it. Mansfield: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Bernt, do you want me to keep going? Bernt: Yeah. Yeah. And so another question would be maybe a little bit more detail on what -- in what you proposed to ACHD and they said no to, but said yes to what they approved. Mansfield: Mr. Mayor -- Mayor, Council Member Bernt, yes, absolutely. So, what we proposed in our TIS to ACHD -- what we submitted in our traffic impact study that ACHD reviewed was a northbound left-hand turn lane on Meridian Road and, then, a westbound Meridian City Council June 14,2022 Page 16 of 61 lane on Waltman to receive that second northbound turn lane and, then, in addition, our traffic impact study proposed to continue that westbound lane all the way to the third westernmost boundary or driveway of our retail site. ACHD in their comments back to us essentially said, no, you don't -- you don't want to -- or you don't need to do that northbound left turn lane and we only want one westbound lane as shown here. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: If I remember correctly there is already an area on Meridian Road for a left -- a second left turn lane. It's currently stripped out right now, but it exists. It's there. So, I -- I'm not -- ACHD is saying no to that? It's actually already existing, it's just not being able to be used right now, but it's -- it's there, the left -- a second left turn lane going north on Meridian Road onto Waltman, it already exists, but they have it stripped out, so -- Simison: Well, we have ACHD on here, so we can pick that up with them as soon as we get through the presentation. Bernt: I'm clear. We are good. Mansfield: Mr. Mayor, thank you. And -- and I'm, again, happy to answer any of these questions and -- and help clarify, but we will let ACHD take a crack at it first, because they are the experts. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Can we go back another slide to the overall -- no. One more. Yeah. So, would -- would your proposal include acquiring all of the right of way of West Corporate Drive? At what point would that be completed, that connection? Mansfield: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Strader, that right of way currently exists and has been acquired previously by the efforts I believe of ACHD, but I -- I don't know by whom. But it does exist as right of way. Strader: Mr. Mayor, if I could follow up. Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Just to make sure I am understanding, are you proposing with ACHD that you do an agreement and that you will build the road or are you proposing just to build the segment on your C-G property and, then, you believe ACHD will complete this? Because we -- we are going to need a complete -- my opinion we need kind of a comprehensive solution to come forward here through one -- one way or another. Meridian City Council June 14,2022 Page 17 of 61 Simison: And maybe we can help answer that. I believe that this Corporate Road connection has been part of all the previous conversations for the development of this project for the last 16 years. So, it's probably already tied to the existing development agreements on this property. Mansfield: Mr. Mayor, you -- you are correct. We are anticipating and we have discussed with ACHD the possibility to cost share on the Corporate Drive to -- to ensure that's extended, as well as the bridge over Waltman, you know, redone as a collector bridge -- bridge over Ten Mile Creek. Excuse me. You know, prior to certificate of occupancy of any -- any of our developments. Strader: Thanks. Simison: Ethan, we will let you finish your presentation, then, we can come back to questions. Bernt: Sorry, buddy. Simison: No, you are good. Mansfield: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, let's -- let's pick it up where we are discussing the integration with the surrounding development. So, I would like to quickly address the integration of our site with the residential uses to the west. We both integrate and buffer our regional development by providing a one acre pocket park between the residential portion of the development and the commercial portion of the development. This represents nearly 40 percent of the frontage along Ten Mile Creek and serves bicycle and pedestrian traffic that travel between the two uses. The remaining frontage is separated by 129 feet of riparian area creek, landscaping, and a 20 foot drive aisle. Importantly, we feel that this building is oriented in the best way a regional store could be to minimize impacts to the surrounding residential development. In sum, we are beefing up the transportation infrastructure to keep pace with a mix of uses that we want to be on this corner. Our proposed mix of uses is of a similar scale and fits appropriately within the surrounding development. While we can develop the northern portion of the site with only a site plan review, we want to incorporate the land to the south, which will develop in a character similar to the north and integrate with the residential property to the east. With roadway improvements and enhanced connectivity delivered by this project and Tanner Creek to the west, we proposed to capitalize on the location of this site to deliver homes, jobs, goods and services at the population epicenter of the Treasure Valley. We look forward to your approval of this project. Thanks so much and I'm happy to stand for any questions. Simison: Thank you. Council, questions? Bernt: Mr. Mayor, I got a question. Simison: Councilman Bernt. Meridian City Council June 14,2022 Page 18 of 61 Bernt: Thank you for your clarity early with the transportation stuff. I appreciate it. So, my next question has to do with your -- your amendment to the comprehensive plan, the FLUM. So, if you -- my -- my question is if you are already trying to make a -- you know, a FLUM change, comprehensive plan change, why wouldn't you make that change if you are needing to match the -- the -- the -- the -- the commercial use? Why not do it C-G throughout the whole project, instead of having it be mixed use, when you don't have any anticipation of making anything residential? Mansfield: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Bernt, that is an excellent question and we did have a reason behind it. So, the -- the main there -- there are kind of two reasons. So, the first reason is because we anticipated coming in concurrently with a residential use in Tanner Creek. The reason that they got held up was simply because of a TIS issue. They were fully intending to come in with us as planned, so we had actually applied in December -- and we met the December 15th deadline and Matt was expecting to apply and, then, he contacted ACHD to just check in and ensure that everything was okay and at that point was instructed that he needed to do an update to his -- to his plan. So, at that point we had already submitted with mixed use regional. Staff actually directed us not to go to the commercial, because, then, we would be leaving the mixed use community portion upon which Tanner Creek is placed, as a purely residential project with no mix of uses. So, we -- that's the entire reason that we -- you know, we were originally planning to come in together was because he had the residential, we had the commercial and that -- I mean that complements each other to a mixed use development and I should note that we are extremely open to a comprehensive plan change to commercial if that is what the Council desires. I would also hate to leave Matt in a lurch by, then, having to provide some small component of commercial or development just to comply with the mixed use comp plan designation when we have a mix of uses here already. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: We love it when --when developers and applicants get together and try to sort of do a mini master plan of an area. So, thank you for working together in that regard. But I do have a question about that. If Tanner Creek were not to be approved, then, where does that leave you guys as far as now you are no longer meeting your development agreement to have multiple uses. That -- that's the -- the first question. And -- and, then, of course, then, how would -- you know, would you just re -- redo your concept plan or what would you do? Mansfield: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Perreault, that's a -- that's also a great question and I -- I think I have an answer for you. So -- yeah. So, what if Tanner Creek didn't come in? So, currently there is -- there is two kind of commercial plans that exist on that and they would -- whatever developer would have to probably come back to you all to seek to get permission to what -- for whatever came next if Tanner Creek did not come. So, at that point you would have some discretion over whether or not you wanted additional commercial there or if you were more interested in having residential, you know, you Meridian City Council June 14,2022 Page 19 of 61 would have the authority to kind of guide that and dictate that, because it is mixed use -- commercial community now. So, you know, another option would be simply to allow us the FLUM designation of commercial, which would, you know, give us what we want, but, again, I would hate to -- to not allow Tanner Creek to come through because of that and if you guys are okay with that -- or Council is okay with that, then, that's perfectly acceptable to us, as long as we can both come in. Another alternative is that we can offer to remove the 80,000 square foot big box store. I -- I do have a Massey plan that shows residential on the site, so we could potentially do a multi-family product there if that's something that -- that Council is interested in. The reason, obviously, we did not propose this originally was because we know that Tanner Creek is right behind us, so -- but, you know, if -- if that is something that Council desires and they want some residential there, we are certainly happy to accommodate that. And, again, I should also mention really quickly that would require a conditional use permit, so it would be reviewed for all of the standards in the UDO that -- that are important. Strader: Mr. Mayor, I have a quick question for staff. Simison: Council Woman Perreault still has questions. Strader: Oh, I apologize. Simison: No worries. Perreault: Sorry about that. So, one of the -- you know, the project that you mentioned to the east with Home Depot and Winco, you know, getting in there is sometimes a little bit awkward. It's a narrow road. However, they have that frontage road that runs all the way along -- you know, the front of Winco, around Home Depot, and if-- if all of that traffic was moving through the parking lot north, you know, and out of Winco on the north side onto that, essentially, what would be an extension of Waltman, that would be an entirely different flow of traffic; right? Because they have that frontage road it -- it's able to move traffic and disperse it away from the multiple stores in there in a much more even capacity. Is there any -- has there been any consideration of doing that same concept on your site, so that Waltman isn't carrying the load of all the vehicles coming in and, then, they are going up and down the parking lot to exit versus going out onto a frontage road to exit? Mansfield: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Perreault, were -- did you have additional questions you -- Perreault: Yeah. One --just one more. Mansfield: Sure. Perreault: Just some feedback really. The little plaza area in the middle, I personally wouldn't go buy food and walk to the middle of the parking lot and sit down and eat it or hang out there. I -- I would feel that -- I feel like it would be a lot more -- I mean you got car exhaust and all that stuff. I feel like it would be a lot more beneficial to take smaller Meridian City Council June 14,2022 Page 20 of 61 spaces and put them up next to the restaurants and whatnot to create more of that plaza space, but that's just a -- I wouldn't go out -- it's almost like an island unto itself. I probably wouldn't utilize it, but if you had smaller spaces all around the buildings that create the same effect I think it would be more efficient. That's all. Mansfield: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Perreault, that is great feedback and we will certainly look into -- to doing that. I -- I can see a spot that appears like it may work well, in fact. So, thank you. To answer your other question, you know, we -- we do have a few different kind of continuous drive aisles and I wish I had highlighted those more kind of robustly, but that first kind of eastern most driveway does kind of feed a continuous -- it's a little bit hard to tell, because there is so many trees on this plan, but you can -- you can actually see how it curves, so it starts south, curves around, and, then, it kind of provides access to each of these pads and, then, it loops around and -- and connects to this main east-west drive aisle in the center of the site and, then, you curve back and -- and -- and can kind of go out behind that retail one building. So, I think, you know, we -- we can additionally kind of add kind of wayfinding markings to -- to enhance that connectivity if that's of interest, but that's kind of the intent and also a lot of the traffic to reach the southern portion of the site would come south or through the --the drive aisle behind retail one. I'm not -- did that answer your question? Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Yeah, it -- it -- yes, it is a bit hard to see on this, so I -- I didn't quite gather it. I just assumed like the -- the two -- the two aisles that loop around on the east side, those are drive-throughs; right? And -- yeah, I just don't -- I guess I just don't see like a main road that's coming in that's collecting all of the traffic and keeping people from driving across all the parking spaces. Mansfield: Yeah. Let me -- or Mr. Mayor, Commission -- or Council Member Perreault, let me -- let me get to a better site plan for you, because I think it will become a little bit more clear. I think maybe our transportation piece might show it. So, here is kind of the start of the eastern most drive aisle of our site. You can tell there is no parking spaces right on it. You do have to turn off into a parking field and, additionally, you know, you turn either as you are, you know, driving into it to the right to access the retail one parking field or to the left to access the pad parking fields and -- and/or the drive through area. So, you know, this is kind of a feeder. I would say the main feeder really to get back to the -- the stuff on the south is on the far western drive aisle. So, obviously, the drive aisle immediately in front of retail one would most likely only be used by retail one customers would be the anticipation. That's how it's -- that's how it's designed to function here. Simison: Council Woman Strader? Strader: Thanks, Mr. Mayor. A quick question for staff and, then, maybe the applicant will react to it if appropriate, but I guess -- you know, so my understanding is that we Meridian City Council June 14,2022 Page 21 of 61 consider comprehensive plan amendments twice per year, but I -- I didn't interpret that that we can only approve them certain times per year. So, I guess my question would be if we were --we started considering this. If we were to continue it is it true that they would have to wait until December or could we perhaps continue this for two months until Tanner Creek could come through and, then, continue considering -- you know, continue to consider it. Allen: Council Woman Strader, Mr. Mayor, I will defer to the planning manager on that. Hood: Mr. Mayor, Council, good evening. We actually -- we talked about this, because the language in the code actually says the Council may act on comprehensive plan map amendments twice a year. Now, that's a calendar year or how that works -- it is actually a question. I don't know if Bill wants to also chime in here, but it did come up, because we were playing that scenario. They -- obviously, we are together tonight with the two that were submitted then. I think that is a viable option potentially to continue this for some time and still be within the confines, but I'm not an attorney. And, again, did -- did bring that up and raise that -- that same question here recently. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Yes, Mr. Nary. Nary: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, so prior -- when this used to be part of the Idaho Code before it was in the UDC, that was the standard that the courts applied. You had to apply for it, but presuming -- Council can't hear all of these things in one day or in one evening or make one decision one time. So, we have bundled them over the years and, then, process them through as long as they meet the deadline for -- to apply for the change. So, I have no concern if the desire of the Council is to continue this for a bit to let Tanner Creek catch up and, then, hear them together. Again, I don't know if the applicant's okay with that, but I don't have a legal issue with that. Simison: Council Woman Strader, the applicant is getting their feedback for you on that question. Councilman Borton. Borton: While they are doing that, Sonya, can you put a fine point on the specific use that you can do with the mixed use regional that you cannot -- the -- with the zone, but mixed use community prohibits it. Why is the map amendment required for this project? Allen: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Borton, Council, because of the square footage of the big box, it's over 30,000 square feet -- Borton: I thought that was already annexed and zoned. Allen: Excuse me. You are right. It is. On that portion of the site. Simison: Let's go back to question -- Meridian City Council June 14,2022 Page 22 of 61 Allen: I believe it was the office -- was -- was it 80,000? Yeah. Eighty thousand square foot office building. And that is in the annexation area. It's not allowed in the mixed use community, but it is in the mixed use regional. Borton: Okay. Thank you. Simison: Back to your question, Ethan. Mansfield: Mr. Mayor, the question was about the continuance or -- Simison: Yeah. Council Woman Strader was essentially asking if we didn't have to make a decision tonight and want to continue. Staff said that's okay. Mansfield: Mr. Mayor, our -- our-- obviously our preference would be to reach a decision tonight. We are happy to provide additional information to you tonight if that helps make a decision and I -- it makes it really difficult, primarily because we have, you know, something in the works with retail one that, then, gets pushed off and the more it gets pushed off the less likely it is to happen and so we are --we are challenged in that respect, because the economics of it are continually changing and we can -- we understand that, you know, you cannot make decisions based on that, so that's just kind of where we are and I'm just trying to be honest with -- with Council. Yeah, we would obviously prefer an approval, but -- and -- and happy to answer any questions that would help you make the decision and if it's just waiting for Tanner Creek we -- that is what it is. Simison: To play off of that, you also have something in the works for the four story office? Mansfield: They -- we -- we do have several interested users, Mr. Mayor, yes. Simison: Maybe in companies in the community, they are looking to stay here and expand. Mansfield: To my knowledge there -- there are companies in the community that are interested. Simison: Yeah. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: So, among the challenges that this chicken or the egg has is you are -- you are, in essence, saying -- you are asking to be conditioned to provide extremely significant off- site improvements -- roadway improvements, some of which are perhaps coming with -- with agreement in a future Tanner Creek application. Maybe. Maybe not. Right? But that's part of it. But also the connection to Waltman, which isn't annexed yet, so how does Meridian City Council June 14,2022 Page 23 of 61 -- if -- if that's a piece of the puzzle that's required that you are consenting to provide the northern connection -- or not Waltman. Excuse me. Corporate. Yes. Right? That crosses county property that's not subject to any application, I believe. So, how does that condition -- and you are asking to agree to that, but that's a -- I don't see how you can do that. Mansfield: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Borton, in previous approvals there have been -- I should -- let me start over. Previous approvals have been conditioned upon providing the Corporate Lane extension and bridge. The -- the assumption being the right of way is there, there needs not be a land use application to improve what is now a piece of grass and no bridge, to a bridge and a roadway. So, there -- there needs not be a land use application to construct those improvements. Those are off-site improvements that we, in discussions with ACHD, have agreed to construct with them. Borton: Mr. Mayor -- and I may be missed -- Simison: Councilman Borton. Mansfield: I think I might be missing something, too. Borton: So, the -- the connection -- Waltman going north to connect to Corporate, who owns that land? I mean who -- whose property are you building a road on? Mansfield: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Borton, currently nobody's property. It's -- it's currently right of way. It's been acquired by Ada County Highway District. Borton: Okay. Okay. That's -- that was the disconnect. Okay. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Just to I guess dialogue a little bit further. I mean of course you would like an approval tonight. I'm sure every applicant that comes before us would. I'm struggling with the same concept as Councilman Borton, which is that the comprehensive strategy to address the transportation network is dependent on the development of another property. In your presentation in your timeline you stated that you would have to wait until December. We have established that that is not true. It's possible that you might wait two months for Tanner Creek to come through and, then, you are off and running. Do you -- so, are you saying, no, no matter what, I want a decision tonight or are you more flexible? And I will just tell you like I -- with the information before me today, without Tanner Creek before me, I -- I can't get on board with it. That's just me. But I -- anyway, if you want to maybe reflect further, but -- Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Meridian City Council June 14,2022 Page 24 of 61 Simison: Yeah. Let the applicant -- if they would like to reply at this time or not. Okay. We are going to defer on that response to Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Thank you very much. I wanted to add on to what Council Woman Strader was saying and that's just that Tanner Creek isn't approved. You are coming back with another comprehensive map amendment to C-C on that southern property and you are going to spend just as many months out waiting to do that in December than if you wait for two months for Tanner Creek to come through and have an approval potentially at the same time. So, you could be risking more time delay if-- you know. And so I guess that's -- you know, the -- if-- if Council -- again these are ifs; right? I'm just -- I'm just talking this out to make sure that we are -- that -- that we are helping the timeline work for you. If you were to get a denial this evening based on the fact that --that we don't see this as a mixed use regional in and of itself, then, you are waiting a year before you apply again. So, I -- I -- I agree with Council Woman Strader in that I am concerned -- I'm concerned about approving your application based on something another applicant is doing, but we don't have the information and no guarantee it will get approved and, you know, I understand that when they apply, if they are -- if they are applying and -- and stating that they are a portion -- that -- that -- they are mixed use community currently as well, I think, and so, then, they are going to say, well, you know, our commercial piece is -- is -- is the Hawkins application, then, I just think it -- I mean was there any discussion about actually submitting these applications jointly and realizing that you need this comprehensive map approval to do that, but -- Mansfield: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Perreault, that was the -- the original intent was to submit them concurrently, not -- not jointly. In the TIS we included background traffic from Tanner Creek and vice-versa. So, essentially, what we had was joint -- pretty much joint applications, with the exception of Tanner Creek experiencing the delay, because they had to update their TIS versus us who had a TIS ready to go -- or, frankly, us who really didn't need a TIS, because we are not coming through with a conditional use permit or a preliminary plat. This is all just a comprehensive plan amendment and annexation and rezone. I suppose one other point -- or one other point I would like to just understand is if we did pursue the same project, but instead of the 80,000 square foot big box, we provide multi-family thereby meeting the intent of three different types of uses, would that push us anywhere into the approval this evening, because that appears -- if we are simply waiting for a residential component to come along, we can provide that and it does appear that what I'm hearing is that we expect Tanner Creek to provide that. However, we are willing to also provide a component of multi-family housing. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Ethan, can you go back -- you had a -- I think the previous slide that kind of had your more commercial, your more retail concept map before us. Mansfield: Yeah. Something like this or more zoomed in -- Meridian City Council June 14,2022 Page 25 of 61 Cavener: More zoomed in. Mansfield: Okay. Cavener: It was like the previous slide that you were on before you moved over to that one. Mansfield: The woes of having too many slides. Cavener: And while you are looking for that I guess what I'm going to ask you to do -- that one right there. Perfect. Help walk me through -- if -- if I'm a customer at lot -- lot eight or lot six, that south -- southwestern property and I want to leave to get onto Waltman to go home, what -- what are my options? How do I get there? And I will just share -- because here is kind of what I'm envisioning a little bit is the retail complex at -- at Eagle and Fairview, very popular, but there is a challenge if you are shopping at let's say the marketplace Albertsons and, then, you want to go to Goodwood for dinner, navigating through that to get there is really challenging and it's something that has been challenging both for the customers, the -- the owners, the employees and -- and at first glance I see some of the same problem. I think it's -- to what Council Member Perreault is trying to inquire about how you are trying to move traffic through there. So, maybe walk me through -- if I'm a customer at -- at-- at lot six what are my ways that I'm able to get home? And you can use your mouse if that's helpful. Mansfield: Thank you. Mr. Mayor, Council Member Cavener, I -- I just want to make sure we are kind of on the same page with referring to this particular -- this southwestern -- so, if I am a customer trying to leave the center -- I have a couple of options. I think the most efficient would be to head north out of the parking lot, turn left on this service drive here, go north and, then, I can turn either left or -- left or right onto Waltman, depending on if need to go north, because keep in mind we have connectivity now to the north. Cavener: So, Mr. Mayor, if I may. Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Ethan, I agree with you. I think that that's likely the place that the -- I think not just the customers from the lot eight, but I think throughout the complex are going to use that kind of backage area to kind of be an express lane out and I worry, because it's right by where you have put this little pocket park and so I can appreciate what I think that you are -- you are doing. I -- I just think that there needs to be a little bit more thought put into how you are going to navigate pedestrians, bicycles, but you are wanting to be thoughtful of them and putting them in direct conflict of -- where I think is going to be kind of the -- everybody knows it's the secret way out and I think that this -- if you are wanting to move forth in -- in a manner which I -- which I think you are trying to accomplish, which is to really integrate the --the residential and the commercial uses together, how are you going to orientate traffic needs to -- in my opinion to have a second look? Meridian City Council June 14,2022 Page 26 of 61 Mansfield: Yeah. Mr. Mayor, Council Member Cavener, that's noted and I think that's a great point. I -- I think it's also -- my colleague Colby just mentioned to me that we -- we do have two other routes that are -- that are possible. So, another route that might be equally used is -- is up here, you know, going this way on the north kind of the -- sorry. The eastern most side -- heading north on the eastern most drive aisle to get out here, likely to turn right on Meridian. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Ethan, you are an expert when it comes to some of this stuff. I know you are not here before me kind of implying that's where you think people are going to go. I mean that is the furthest approach that a -- that a customer is going to take and I appreciate that it's there as an option and certainly if that back way is blocked that's the way people will go, but I think it's important that we look -- and you know the buying habits and the driving habits of the customers that your tenant is seeking out and I think that we -- we all know that they are not going to take the long way to get home after they have got a -- you know, a trunk full of groceries and other--other dry goods from --from a proposed retailer. So, just for what it's worth I'm going to push back on you a little bit. I -- I think you guys have put a lot of thought into this, but I think the way you are going to move traffic deserves the equal amount of thought being put into it. Mansfield: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Cavener, that's noted and I think one option might be to -- but, you know, potentially look at some sort of paint or other kind of traffic calming measures on that rear driveway and I think, you know, to -- to -- to get out to Meridian Road and turn right and go south -- this may not truly be the -- the slowest route. I -- I -- I don't-- I don't know. But, obviously, if you are trying to get north this would be the fastest here for sure. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Mr. Nary. Nary: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I guess I want to just address one thing of timing that the applicant has raised is the --the-- simply switching out a commercial office --or commercial user to a residential component hasn't been reviewed by planning, hasn't been reviewed by P&Z, has been reviewed by ACHD and, of course, it wasn't noticed, by that way, so I don't know that neighbors in that area would have a bigger concern about that than they know right now it's just two stores or multiple stores and restaurants. So, I would be concerned in simply just saying we will flip it to a -- a -- a residential component and we are good to go, because I really am concerned about that from a record standpoint. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Meridian City Council June 14,2022 Page 27 of 61 Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Cavener: Thank you. I would like to share a couple of thoughts based on what Councilman Cavener was presenting. A comparison of two shopping centers I can think of right now that have these backage roads. One that I think does it well and one I think does it poorly. Centrepoint Way on Ustick and Eagle -- Centrepoint Way -- it is a collector road. That's not what you are proposing here, but is a collector road that runs behind Kohl's and all those other stores. It's done especially well. You know, gets people out of that parking lot, there is multiple exits out of there. In Nampa the -- the area that has the Chick-fil-A and the Burlington Coat Factory and everything on that south side, there -- there are these roads that run behind the stores there on the west side of that. No one ever uses them, because they don't even know they are there. So, one is done well and one is done not so well, but both with the same intent. So, my recommendation would be to make that either -- if that's going to be one of your main exits and entrances to -- to really build it up that way and -- or to build up the -- the most easterly exit as more of like a boulevard type of feel. One way or the other you need to have a design that shows that this is how you are exiting, because there is nowhere in here that is obvious that you are supposed to use this as the main entrance and exit. So, I think that's what Councilman Cavener was somewhat getting at. The second thing I wanted to ask was -- from another slide that you had it showed that maybe there was some multi-family that was going to go in there in the western side and the Tanner Creek development. Why buffer one section of that and -- the north section and not the southern section when there is essentially going to be multi-family all up and down that same -- same side. There is not different uses that are abutting that western boundary; right? Mansfield: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Perreault, are -- and you are referring to the multi- family -- Perreault: On the Tanner Creek application. Mansfield: On the Tanner Creek application. And you are referring to our buffer with our current kind of proposed plan? So, you are referring to this area right here? Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: No. I mean the park. So, why have the park and all of that space that's buffering -- yes, the -- that building is -- is big, but the building to the south is not small, so unless there is a different type of residential use between the -- the largest building and, you know, where the park is buffering it and I don't understand the reason to buffer the north side, instead of the south side. They are both pretty significantly sized buildings. Mansfield: Mr. -- Mr. Mayor, Council Member Perreault, the -- the site plan -- we -- we are open to feedback on the site plan I think. I mean it's not -- I think we site planned it this way because this small parklet does provide a buffer to some of the development and I Meridian City Council June 14,2022 Page 28 of 61 also did want to point out that there is 130 feet between the building and even the sidewalk on the -- across the side -- across the canal on the Tanner Creek side. So, there is 130 feet and an additional 20, probably, to the actual building itself. You know, we could explore changing the open space a little bit. I don't -- I don't know that we are completely closed off to the idea of working to get a site plan that makes more sense and I think we certainly can't -- we feel that this is the best that we could come forward with at this time, but we are certainly open to -- to -- you know, we are not omniscient. If you guys have feedback we appreciate it. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: I might not have phrased my question very well. It wasn't a -- a recommendation necessarily. What I was asking is is there something specific about Tanner Creek on the west side that causes you to buffer one area and not the northern area and not the southern area? Mansfield: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Perreault, I'm sorry I misunderstood your question. No, the product is similar. It's both multi-family. The Tanner Creek product -- and Matt's here and he can speak a little more to this perhaps, but the Tanner Creek product is all multi-family along the portion that interacts with our development. Simison: How about for the property to the north of that open space, I don't -- with open space -- I mean to be honest with you this open space to me is just like a fish out of water, except for we didn't want to put too much next to that property and a lot of the property to the north -- or -- I'm trying to look at this as the regional and -- you know, everything all together and why does this open space exist on your portion of the property. I cannot go to any regional retail center and expect to go sit in the park. I mean per -- it just seems like we are just throwing something in to make it -- me check a box that's required for development in a lot of ways, because it just seems awkward, but -- Mansfield: Mr. Mayor, you know, you are correct, I don't -- I don't go to a shopping center to go sit in a park either and -- and, frankly, we would not be opposed to removing that park area I don't think. The -- the intent was not to put it in the center of a parking lot, because, then, you really have -- you know, you have got the Home Depot in Eagle, right, where you walk up and you see this dilapidated little sad looking gazebo thing that's like rotting away and you are like, oh, that was a failed city planning exercise. As a former planner, you know, I realize it's extremely valuable to -- to have open space and sometimes in certain developments it's just not appropriate, because we all know it won't get used and so we are -- I -- I don't disagree with you that it may not get used in this location. The intent was to provide a -- an extra little bit of buffer. If we are going to put it somewhere -- if we have to put it somewhere, this is the spot that makes the most sense, because the adjacent walkers and bikers may actually use it, rather than walking to the middle of a parking lot and drinking their Coke. Meridian City Council June 14,2022 Page 29 of 61 Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Yeah. I -- I -- I think this is one of the areas where, you know, I -- I sort of see a shortfall in terms of what we ask for from our mixed use and I -- and I think we are trying to get better and better about it, but like the true integration of uses I think is a -- is a high mark to try to hit, but like an example of that might be, you know, if -- if instead of the island in the middle of the parking lot, all along the west side you had this kind of continuous strip of green space and, then, that saddled up to, you know, restaurant uses that had integrated their patios with that park space, for example, and you had bike paths going from the residential so people could come and have like a dining experience off of this park near some retail uses, like that would be an example to me of sort of integrating those things together. I'm not seeing that integration necessarily. I think it's good to keep the areas separated out if it can be achieved, but that -- that's just some feedback about the open space. I agree like having it as kind of a little island in the middle of a parking lot is not the best use. If you feel that buffering and transition are needed, I would rather see more of it than less and, then, I also agree with Councilman Cavener, I think -- I think you need to come back with a lot more -- if it even, you know, moves forward a lot more thought around explaining the traffic flow within the parking lot, how people enter and exit. So, I just -- I don't -- I don't personally feel like this concept is baked tonight enough to make a decision, like saying things like maybe we will swap out a residential use -- like that doesn't give me a lot of confidence to make a decision. But I -- I have already said where I'm at, but just -- I -- I guess that's more feedback for you. Mansfield: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Strader, just -- just to make a comment, this -- this is an annexation and a rezone, it is not a site plan review, so I think -- I appreciate all of the comments and these can be dealt with in a site plan review and if specific -- if specific things are needed we -- you know, this is -- you -- you can condition these in a site plan -- for a site plan review. You know, we -- and -- and, you know, I can think about all of these things that you are saying tonight and we can start working on making changes to them, so just my thoughts on -- on the application at hand. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Yeah. I appreciate that, Ethan. Yeah. I -- whatever we decide -- I don't know what that is, but I -- I would like to hear from everyone tonight and move forward. That will probably bring up some more questions and issues and whatnot and -- and, then, we can keep trudging forward and -- and see where we end up. So, I'm -- I'm ready to hear from some others if you wouldn't mind. Meridian City Council June 14,2022 Page 30 of 61 Simison: Thank you, Evan. Mr. Clerk, do we have anyone signed up to provide testimony? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we do. First is Joe Lorcher. Simison: And when you --when you come forward if you will state your name and address for the record and be recognized for three minutes. Lorcher: Joe Lorcher. 740 West Waltman Lane. My property is the property where the red arrow was going north. That property I sold to Ada County Highway District back in 2008. So, that is owned by Ada County Highway District. So, I just wanted to clarify that. I'm here to testify saying that it just can't handle the traffic that this is going to bring. If any of you have tried to use that intersection to try to get through -- I know the fire department can't get through at 5:00 o'clock. We have seen fire trucks stuck at that intersection trying to get through and with the Ada County Highway District saying they are not going to add another turn lane, that there is still going to be just one lane and expected usage is 900 cars per hour during peak season -- or peak hours, I'm a one car trying to get through there. Right now it's probably five cars per hour and we get stuck. So, something major has to be done to that intersection before this can be considered regional. Let's keep it community mixed. Let's try to keep the density down as much as we can and the fact that they are saying they are with Tanner Creek and Tanner Creek is saying they are with them, but they are not. They are just using the good part of being together and not coming and showing all the parts together. So, I really would like them to present together their proposals and their traffic impact studies together, instead of saying -- just using the fact that this one's residential, so this will help us and this one's commercial, so this will help us on the mixed use definition, but they are not coming in together to make it so we can see the whole picture and all the traffic impact that that's going to cause and they are asking to change it to a regional land use, instead of community land use, and one of his definitions was easily access to a regional land use area. Again, this is not easy access. This intersection it's just way overcrowded now and -- and just can't use this kind of usage and I can't remember who talked about a second turn lane already stripped out. It's not stripped out, it's an island. It can be changed, obviously, and take that island out, but right now there is only one lane turning left, one lane going on to Waltman Lane and -- and with this increase of traffic that's got to change -- and I mean it's not something you guys can do, it's obviously Ada County Highway District, but just want to put all those things in thoughts together and -- and I think the best thing to do -- is -- is hopefully just postpone this and wait until they can come together and present it together. We are not against developing this land. There is coyotes over there killing my cats, so I would like something to happen, but I want to keep it minimal as possible. Keep it community, mixed use, so that we don't have 400 houses across the street, we have 200 houses, which is plenty. That's all. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Thank you. Johnson: Mr. Mayor, next is Kelsee Lorcher. Kelsey is on Zoom. Meridian City Council June 14,2022 Page 31 of 61 K.Lorcher: Hi. Can you hear me? Simison: Yes, we can. K.Lorcher: Okay. Kelsee Lorcher. 2099 West Snyder Drive, Meridian, Idaho. The city requested for Tanner Creek and Hawkins to apply together or at the same time and to propose a master plan. Hawkins has failed to provide that master plan and moved forward and applied on his own anyways. Yet Hawkins is still relying on Tanner Creek to be his other elements of mixed use to have his proposal approved today. This area is designated for mixed community and should remain mixed community, as Waltman Lane, Meridian Road intersection is already burdened with heavy traffic issues. Mixed regional is highly inappropriate for this area, as it is a high dense commercial development and will create a bigger burden, more traffic issues, for the gateway of Meridian. Development in this area needs to follow the comprehensive plan that took two years and 200,000 dollars to complete. So, we should follow it. Another important issue with this application is Hawkins does not have their impact study -- traffic impact study completed and neither does Tanner Creek. So, there are many details and facts that are not being presented today and without all the facts and without a master plan this development should not be approved. Hawkins jumped the gun when they should have waited for Tanner. Per the staff report in regards to the northbound left turn from Meridian Road, it says there is inadequate storage for northbound left turns into the project site onto Waltman Lane. A dual left turn is likely needed in this location, even with community use -- even with community uses occurring here, let alone regional serving uses and as you heard from Ethan there will be no second left hand turn lane. According to Ethan's slideshow at the neighborhood meeting last week there is a slide that said that there would be 10,891 vehicles daily on Waltman Lane and that's not even considering Tanner Creek daily vehicle trips and over 950 vehicles per hour during peak hours. This intersection absolutely cannot handle that kind of traffic. I want to leave off with an important paragraph from the staff report. It said -- 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 -- irreparable harm to the city's flagship and namesake interchange and entryway into the city. There should be no lingering or unanswered questions and nothing left to chance or later change given the importance of this area. That's all. Thank you. Simison: Thank you, Kelsee. Council, any questions? Okay. Johnson: Mr. Mayor, next is Clair Manning. And Clair has a slideshow, so he's coming in as a panelist and, Clair, you can share your screen. Manning: Hi. Can you hear me? Simison: Yes. Meridian City Council June 14,2022 Page 32 of 61 Manning: I'm -- I'm Clair Manning at 650 West Waltman Lane. Can you see my screen now? Simison: Yes. Manning: Okay. So, first I would like to thank the Planning and Zoning staff for their detailed analysis of this application. They did a phenomenal job on the report and I don't think you have -- I don't think the responsibility of the city leaves you with any other choice but to deny this application. The city did spend a lot of time and resources developing this comprehensive plan and there is a good reason this was designated mixed use community and not mixed use regional and the simple fact is that we can't --that this area does not -- is not well suited for the high traffic those kind of commercial buildings will bring. So, I had a couple quick sides to show -- illustrate some of this. You can see from the -- from the image on the right that there is just this really short left turning lane. It is not stripped out as Joe pointed out and there is just an island here and I was looking at it today after I talked to ACHD and the reason they were telling me they don't want that is there is not a real good way to put in that second -- that second lane and so I would encourage you to bring them into your questioning, because there really isn't a good way to improve this left hand turn and you can see once you are on Whitman Lane there really is a really short runway before you are into the complex and it really just can't sustain the amount of traffic that you are trying to put through there without backing things up and blocking the arterial intersection. There is a lot of things to talk about here I don't have time for, but there is a whole slew of problems with this intersection and they are really not making any improvements to this beyond widening the road out here to Waltman on a collector. So, I would encourage you to bring in the ACHD representative to talk a little bit about that and your questions and so ACHD is currently evaluating the traffic study and they will only provide a staff report after a site plan, so that report is not part of that access you have in this area. However -- so, I did include an excerpt that I was able to get today and you can see that with their analysis with the Tanner Creek isn't a report card that any parents can be proud of, because there is a lot of level service at F ratings on this intersection and I saw in the report 13,500 trips being generated from the retail alone, which really outstrips the 3,000 trip guideline for a collector. So, I really do think that you are overburdening this area. So, in conclusion this area really can't sustain the current commercial zoning. They are entitled, sure, but it really just can't sustain it and, you know, for that reason you can't really compound this problem by changing the land designation to mixed use regional, because it can't handle it. So, I can't really say anything better than your staff did when they pointed put that you could cause irreparable harm to the flagship entrance to the city, so please deny this application. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Meridian City Council June 14,2022 Page 33 of 61 Perreault: Thank you for your presentation. Did -- this is impressive. So, you had mentioned that you didn't see any other improvements that the applicant was suggesting to Waltman other than widening it. Were there are specific things that you had in mind that you would like to see there? Manning: Well, I mean -- I'm going to go back up to this. I mean really this kind of needs to be only a right hand turn, because -- you can see where I have my truck parked there to turn like into that insurance and if you look backwards here you can see that you are blocking anything trying to go to the left-hand turn and that's really -- that's really causing a dangerous situation. So, you are only going to be able to get out from the right hand here and, then, yeah, they can widen it through here, but I mean with 13,000 trips on -- for retail, I just don't think that they can sustain it and I -- I think once they put this in there is no way I'm going to be able to get out of here without going through like the Corporate interchange. I would also encourage you to bring in ACHD on the timing, because I don't think they can actually develop it until that bridge is done, so I'm not exactly sure why they are trying to rush this through and saying that they can get services needed to Meridian faster. Do I answer your question? Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Yes, it did. Thank you. I really appreciate the feedback. Manning: All right. Thanks. Simison: Council, any the additional questions? All right. Thank you very much. Johnson: Mr. Mayor, next is William Kissinger. Simison: Good evening. Kissinger: Good evening, Mr., Mayor, Council, staff and fellow community members. I'm William Kissinger. 420 Waltman Lane, Meridian. I have occupied that property located at 420 Waltman Lane for the past 17 years. However, this property and the farmhouse located there has been there since 1918, making it over 104 years old. Now, it's probably one of the older houses still left standing in Meridian. If it sounds like I'm proud of that, I am. I appreciate each of your commitment toward the future of Meridian and do not envy your task of diligently reviewing an ever growing list of requests. I appreciate your doing your very best due diligence on this one, an extremely important one, and as many others have put it, a very gateway to our downtown area. I'm not sure what I might be able to say in my allotted three minutes that may sway your opinion in one way or another from the hours of compelling testimony that the applicant and others has already presented, but I do know that if I say nothing I would probably live to regret it. So, at the risk of seeming redundant, if you have never had the pleasure of traveling down Waltman Lane I would encourage you to do so. It's just that. A lane. It's not a road. It's not a street. It's Meridian City Council June 14,2022 Page 34 of 61 not an arterial or a collector. It's a lane. Now, envision over 10,000 vehicles a day traveling on this thoroughfare and adding to the already congested intersection at the end. Just because you pay so-called experts for a traffic study doesn't mean it's automatically a good idea. It sounds like this Council is justifiably concerned about traffic. Any road improvements suggested by this project, as well as the Tanner Creek project, fall short, if not completely fail to address this issue, collectively or individually. The proposed secondary left turn as we have talked about on the northbound Meridian Road was reportedly denied by ACHD. That was confirmed tonight. As well as the fact that putting a center left turn lane down Waltman does very little toward addressing the tremendous increase in traffic volume. I think we all agree with that. From what I see the pedestrian walkway proposed by Hawkins Development only goes part way down Waltman ending at their property line. As you know, community development should be about community type service, including connectivity for such things as bikes and pedestrians, both of which may be in all -- all in our futures given the current price of gas. Allow me to clarify one thing that Mr. Mayor may have said that was regarding the open space to the north of the proposed park, the one acre park. To my knowledge that is -- that grayed area is private property and not part of this project. This property should be developed, but deserves a purposeful plan worthy of the location that is being developed or proposed for. The city planner is right. Waltman is the ideal location for community serving uses. I will wrap up. There are multiple reasons this project, as well as the Tanner Creek project, are not the right fit for this location. That said I would encourage this Council to recognize the recommendations of your very experienced planning staff and deny this applicant on the basis of not fulfilling the comprehensive plan towards a true mixed community use. Thank you. Simison: Thank you. And, yes, you were putting at my -- my point, because that piece was private property, not part of it, which is why I think they put that piece down below to help -- Kissinger: And the buffer further up to the north. Simison: Yes. Okay. Council, any questions? Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: I don't have a question. I just want to say thank you for coming. We do take these public hearings very seriously and so your comments don't go unnoticed. So, thank you. Kissinger: I wish I would have paid attention in FFA to parliamentary procedure. Johnson: Mr. Mayor, next is Matt Schultz. Meridian City Council June 14,2022 Page 35 of 61 Schultz: Good evening, Mayor and Council. Matt Schultz. 4914 South Colusa, Meridian. As a Meridian resident I'm excited to see something happen on this -- this property. Been driving by for the last 22 years. I know when we started Tanner Creek five years ago we always said some day the property east of the Ten Mile Drain will be commercial and we are not the commercial property, even though that got approved 12, 13 years ago for some commercial. Ironically with the same anchor that wants to move and flip across the -- the -- the Ten Mile Drain now. So, essentially, what Tanner Creek was asking for was to move that commercial site plan over here and let us be the -- the residential transition, if you will, going west into the existing medium density. The only reason we are not here in front of you with them -- hate to be the spoiler of the party, but ACHD said, hey, your traffic study is four years old that you did back in 2017. Go update your traffic counts and resubmit. Well, updating traffic counts to do to the new study took a couple months and, then, they are at about five, six months right now in review. We just got approval of the traffic study itself yesterday to be able to submit to you and when that is submitted to you the application gets transmitted to ACHD and that's when they generate a formal staff report at that -- at that juncture. So, whether you approve it tonight or in a few months I do think it's worthy of approval that -- that commercial they -- they able to bring in this -- what was an ITD parcel that -- that got auctioned off with the Ten Mile interchange redo. That's the one they are asking to annex. The rest of it was already annexed and so it's - - it was a surplus ITD property that they would like to bring in and kind of bring it into the fold with the rest of their stuff. There is some site plan questions. There is some other issues you guys are going to work through, but in general I think the -- the -- the C-G is the proper zone. I personally think they should be prohibited from multi-family. That's just -- that's just me -- under a DA and -- and that we are providing that and we haven't officially done that. I know you may not approve it, but for the record we did -- staff did -- did recommend approval twice. P&Z recommended approval twice. The first time we came through the comp plan was going through and you said, hey, come back later when the comp plans done. That was the reason we didn't want to talk about it. And, then, we came back, it was COVID summer of 2020 that I was up on Zoom out of McCall. You said, hey, Matt, a lot of things we like about Tanner Creek, but until we know for sure that there is commercial coming in next door, we don't want to let it go, essentially. That's how -- that's what I took from it. I know it's been portrayed a little bit differently, but I took from it you didn't want to let all that commercial go and what if they bring in a bunch of residential and -- so, again, it's this issue of-- of submitting jointly, which we attempted to do and -- and Hawkins was afraid of missing the boat by six months and it seems like they won't miss it by six months potentially. I'm not saying you should continue it, but we will probably be in front of you, if all goes well, by late August, early September is what it's looking like. So, we support them as a neighbor and traffic's a big deal. No matter what Corporate gets extended with our first phase or their first phase no matter what. Something has to happen to that intersection. I'm surprise ACHD shot down the -- the extra left-hand turn lane. That blows my mind, because something needs to happen with that intersection. If Tanner Creek doesn't blow it up, the commercial blows it up, whether it be community or regional. The commercial something has to happen there. It doesn't really -- it's -- it's splitting hairs I think on -- on uses when it relates to traffic, so -- so, with that that's just my thoughts. Thank you. Meridian City Council June 14,2022 Page 36 of 61 Simison: Thank you, Matt. Council, questions? Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Such irony in asking you for updating your traffic study when I just saw one last week in an ACHD report that had traffic counts from 2018, but, you know, whatever. So, my question, though, is do you anticipate when you send in the -- the traffic study with updated numbers that they could potentially, then, agree to an additional left turn lane or is there a right of way issue that's -- that's preventing it? I mean is it possible they come back, and say, yeah, okay, Tanner Creek, plus -- you know, plus the commercial application, now we are -- I mean has that conversation been had with ACHD? Schultz: Yeah, Mayor, Council Woman Perreault, I am under the impression that our traffic study and their traffic study both considered each other in their background counts and so what you have is the full story and the traffic studies at that intersection today. That -- that is what's in there. We -- we -- we made sure we -- we coordinated, we integrated. I know that our residential is like 75 percent less traffic generation than commercial. Commercial is, obviously, the elephant in the room when it -- when it comes to traffic generation. But there is going to be some heavy infrastructure done and I'm shocked that there is not something that needs to be done more at that -- that Main intersection for the commercial, so -- Simison: Council, any additional questions? Thank you, Matt. Johnson: Mr. Mayor, the last sign up is Mike Swenson. Simison: Good evening. Swenson: Yeah. Mike Swenson. 815 West Waltman. So, we are right on the very end. We have lived there 27 years and our -- our house was built in '53, so we are not the oldest house, but we are pretty old. The -- you know, I am actually going to say something for the development. There was actually something before Tanner Creek that was proposed. We have been watching these things for a long time and they drug their feet so long that the commercial developer pulled out and the thing folded. But the big issue is -- is just even the traffic on Meridian Road. I mean it's -- it's a zoo there, you know. You -- you know. I mean you make a left. I mean you are lucky if you get through, you know, that -- you almost have to honk your horn and pray for -- you know. You know, one accident in that -- in that area is, you know, going to be catastrophic. I mean we are -- we are going to be backed up until next Tuesday that -- it will be ugly. And you know -- you know, unless we come up with a better plan, you know, in terms of traffic and getting it moving, you know, I -- I don't think we can go forward. Thanks. Meridian City Council June 14,2022 Page 37 of 61 Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Okay. Thank you very much. Is there anybody else that would like to provide testimony on this item in the room? If you would like to come forward and state your name and address for the record, please. J.Lorcher: I'm Joey Lorcher and I live at 740 Waltman Lane. Not a lot I can say that hasn't already been said by my family and other people in our community, but one thing would like to point out that Ethan's presentation was a lot of -- well, they should do this as pertaining to Tanner Creek's plan. Well, we are going to build, you know, sidewalks and whatnot to this point and they should do this. There is no -- they haven't presented a contract or a written agreement to us between the two developers saying this is how it's going to be, you know, black and white. We are going to build it to here and, then, we are going to build it the other way. I would like to see that, because it would just, you know, be more comprehensive and also we were presented with a map from Tanner Creek after this last time we went through this for a road going -- connecting the two developments, not a pedestrian pathway, but a road going through one to the other and I don't know if that got last -- they ditched that plan or what, but just a little wishy washy on what they are saying they are going to do and what they are going to do. I would like to see an actual plan of what they are both going to do, so that's all. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to provide testimony at this time? Council, would you like to ask ACHD any questions? Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, yes, I would. Simison: Okay. Kristy. Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Kristy, if-- if you could weigh in. A couple of things have popped up I would like input on and one, of course, is -- is the no second left turn lane off of Meridian Road, the thinking behind that, and also the -- the Corporate extension. The time frame for that, for the bridge and -- and the extension of that roadway, what -- what are the time frames that ACHD is looking at for that extension? Inselman: Mayor Simison, Council Member Hoaglun, this is Kristy from ACHD, for those who don't know. For Corporate Lane, that's a collector roadway, so that's typically done through development. We don't have a timeline specifically set for when that road is going to be extended. It's through development. So, if it's part of the requirement of this developer to extend that roadway it would be done with this development. We do have the right of way already through that property, so there is kind of like a little strip of land that you can kind of see between the two properties. So, we already have right of way up to the Ten Mile Creek and, then, obviously, there would have to be coordination with the irrigation district to get that bridge across to make that connection when that roadway is built. It would be done at the same time. We wouldn't want a road to go up and just stub to the creek and not go anywhere. We would require that connection and that would necessitate coordination. With regards to the left turn lane, I'm not sure I can provide a lot of enlightenment on that this evening. There was a -- a report that was already in the Meridian City Council June 14,2022 Page 38 of 61 packet for you that was written by Paige in our office and I did reach out to her and -- because this is kind of an annexation and rezone we typically don't get into really detail as to what we would require of a development application. So, when we saw a development application they would look at that a little closer. She did have in here that -- the no left turn -- no additional left turn lane there at that intersection. She just said it wasn't feasible. There is not enough existing right of way and unique intersection configuration. But I think that -- I mean, obviously, we would look closer when we saw a development application. I think another gentleman brought up that -- that first driveway access and her brief said that that would be restricted to right-in, right-out, so you wouldn't be able to turn left into that first driveway access from Waltman, it would be a right-in, right-out only. Hoaglun: Thank you, Kristy. I do have a follow up, Mayor. Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: And, Kristy, I'm just -- out of curiosity, the state highway coming from Kuna to Meridian at -- at what point does that -- is that ACHD jurisdiction for that intersection or is that ITD or how -- how is that particular intersection managed? Inselman: Let me take a look. I apologize. It may take a minute or two, because when I'm switching back and forth to my very detailed map on my remote desktop it slows down my internet, so it might take me a minute to get that answer. I don't know where our right of way line ends and theirs begin, so I will -- give me just a few minutes and I will pull that up. Hoaglun: Yeah. Mr. Mayor, it's -- it's one of those things where you have jurisdiction lines and --and not sure where that--where that comes together and who is --who is in charge of what and -- or if there is -- like we do with the adjoining communities is if there is coordination on some things like that. So, just kind of curious about that. Inselman: So, jumping over to my right of way map, that's under our jurisdiction. Hoaglun: Okay. Thank you, Kristy. Thank you, Mayor. Inselman: You are welcome. And there is just one left turn lane there today. It's not -- there is no striping for a second. There is that landscape median that's there. So, there is not two currently. Hoaglun: Okay. Thank you. Inselman: But I -- I don't -- I don't know what that would mean. That would -- other staff would need to evaluate the reasons why. Simison: Council, any additional questions for Kristy? Okay. Seeing no additional questions, Kristy, you are good for now. Council, would you like to take a quick break Meridian City Council June 14,2022 Page 39 of 61 before you have the applicant come up and close? Okay. We are going to go ahead and take a ten minute break. We will reconvene at 8:10. (Recess: 7:58 p.m. to 8:10 p.m.) Simison: All right. Council, we will go ahead and come on back and I will go ahead and invite the -- well, I will do one more call for anybody who may have shown up during that recess to provide testimony. I don't see anybody new. So, I will invite the applicant to come forward for any final remarks. State your name and address and be recognized for up to ten minutes. Mansfield: Mr. Mayor, my name is Ethan Mansfield. Hawkins Company. 855 West Broad Street Boise, Idaho. And thanks for -- thanks again for having me. Appreciate the discussion on this one. I don't have a ton to add. I would like to point out that ACHD has accepted the traffic study. Some of the testimony sounded like that wasn't clear. I just want to make that clear. On June 3rd we got an e-mail -- it comes in e-mail form and I clarified that with Paige at ACHD. So, there is just an e-mail that says we have accepted your traffic study and here is what we will expect of the development or here is what we are kind of looking at and, again, there is no formal staff report as Kristy noted, it's just the e-mail, so -- so, what -- what we are talking about is an e-mail from ACHD, no formal assessment. I will note that we are open to the installation of a northbound left turn if there is space. We would work with ACHD on that if that's something that moves the needle and -- and a corresponding receiving lane on -- on Waltman. So, I want to point that out. I would like to kind of remind everybody, once again, that the north half of this site is already zoned general commercial. You know, we can move forward with retail one. We -- what we would like to do is incorporate the entire center into one cohesive development. We have office users, as you asked Mayor Simison. We have office users lined up. They want to do it. We can't move forward with them until we have entitlements. So, that's the challenge that every time we push the entitlements farther down the road the -- the vision gets murkier and murkier for tenants looking to open office space and office space is becoming increasingly more tenuous and we would like to nail some folks down before they make different decisions. And, then, finally, I think it's our perspective that -- you know -- and I said this in the presentation that, you know, this might be a little bit tough -- tough corner from a transportation perspective. It's a piece of vacant land right now. We think that rather than limit the number of trips in and out of that land, why don't we increase the infrastructure. Why don't we enhance the infrastructure to support the geographic nature of this. You know, I -- I think that there is kind of two options. One is to limit the land use. The other is to expand the transportation network and I think the city as a whole would be better served and, you know, I have lived in the valley my whole life and it's changed a whole lot and I -- I just think we would be really well served to allow us to help with the transportation infrastructure, install critical pieces of transportation in exchange for this -- this development. I think that's all I have got. I'm happy to answer any questions. Simison: Thank you. Council, questions, comments? Meridian City Council June 14,2022 Page 40 of 61 Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Ethan, yeah, I -- I don't disagree with you. We worked awfully hard -- or others, Council and the Mayor's office, at one time to get ITD to give up this land that wasn't being used really very productively and like to see it be used for good purposes. But, you know, these two properties are joined at the hip pretty much and I just wanted to get your thoughts on -- we heard Matt talk about late August, early September coming in with Tanner Creek. Is that a possibility from your perspective of -- of coming back at that time and we can hear the two proposals, but -- because they are joined at the hip, because I have to say, you know, under the MUC guidelines or what you are requesting for MU regional, it -- it doesn't cut it, you know. So, by our own rules we can't go there. So, your thoughts, please, on coming in with Tanner Creek back -- when Tanner Creek comes in. Mansfield: Yeah. Absolutely. Mr. Mayor, Council Member Hoaglun, this -- this is a great question. I think, you know, if I were to rank my preferences, obviously, an approval would be most welcome. A continuance -- sure. We -- we can work -- work with that. It's not preferred and, then, obviously, we would not like a denial. That's kind of where we are looking. Another option -- would the Council be -- what -- what is the Council's thought on a commercial designation? I can't remember if it was Council Member Bernt or -- or Borton that asked the question why not commercial and we are completely open to commercial. We feel that this proposal complies with commercial. We --we would accept that right now. It -- it -- but we don't want to leave Tanner Creek out to dry and I'm wondering like can we move past this, you know, understanding that mixed use has to be like a jurisdictional line in the sand. This area has -- you know, like mixed use in this region has to contain three mixes of uses and this use and this region has to contain three uses and can we kind of understand that this area here can be commercial and this area here can be residential and achieve the same --the area has mixed use and it's the same project. So, I'm curious if we can -- as a -- as a community kind of think about it like that. I -- I guess that would be my thought and I understand the value of the comp plan and I think we all understand that the comp plan is a -- is a valuable tool. Extremely valuable. I was a planner at the city of Boise. We lived and died by the comp plan, second only to the zoning code. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Mansfield: That's my thought. Simison: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Yeah. Ethan. Yeah, the comp plan we do try to follow it, but there are times where we find that, you know, it needs tweaking. What we thought would happen isn't happening or didn't happen like we thought and -- and so sometimes those -- you know. Meridian City Council June 14,2022 Page 41 of 61 And that's something -- you know, I'm not necessarily opposed to considering, but I think looking at legal counsel Mr. Nary to do that C-G that would -- would take a process that we are not set up to do tonight; is that correct? So, the -- the fact is even if we were open to that as a Council -- I don't know where others are on that -- you would have to go back through the process, come through, so our timing frame would be, oh, maybe late August, early September -- not. Mansfield: Mr. Mayor -- Mayor, Council Member Hoaglun, you make an excellent point. I was under the impression that legal counsel had -- had mentioned the change in use. If we changed a commercial -- the commercial -- the specific use being -- moving to residential instead of keeping the site plan exactly the same, because that would really impact -- certainly have some impact on the surrounding community. There would be fewer trips generated, because we would be swapping out commercial for residential, but ACHD would still deserve another look, maybe a shortened look, but another look. With this proposal we wouldn't be proposing anything different, other than calling it commercial. But I may have misunderstood the legal counsel's direction. Hoaglun: And -- and Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Just to follow up, Ethan. One of the things that -- by hearing both of them at the same time, traffic impacts -- we have heard from the -- the neighbors, you know, there is going to be an impact and will the roads be adequate to handle what would be coming with both developments and I think that really needs to be understood before we -- we make any -- any decision. So, it's -- I -- you know, what -- what you have proposed, what you brought forth I can get excited about. Yes, you know, there is roads, there is access, there is those types of things, but in terms of what Meridian needs with some commercial space, with some office space, there is some good things about that, so -- but it's just all these other issues that we have to nail down and make it all work together and -- and I don't know if it will, but by coming back at the same time I -- I think that would at least give us a good chance of reviewing everything and making a really informed decision. But that's my opinion. Other Council Members might think differently, but that's -- that's how I look at it. Mansfield: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Hoaglun, I would just like to ask a quick question and that question would be if we did come back what elements of the combined plan that is -- other than what's in front of you, which is a combined site plan and two TIS's, one that takes into account -- each one taking into account the other, what additional would you need to see to be comfortable in the approval of both together versus one now and one later? Is it simply a syntax issue with the mixed use regional or are there very specific things that we can do, you know, if, in fact, this is continued what --what might we be able to do with Tanner Creek more than what we have shown now to -- to help you all feel comfortable with the development? Perreault: Mr. -- Mr. Mayor, may I address this? Meridian City Council June 14,2022 Page 42 of 61 Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: It's -- it's not a wording issue, it's not a comprehensive plan issue, it's not a zoning issue, it's that since the application -- applications were not presented together or as one application, we can't -- we can't take the other application into account at all in favor of your application and vice-versa. That's not what we are -- and -- and -- and staff will have to -- have to clarify this, but we -- we have talked about floating, you know, map changes and I don't know whether that would qualify in this situation or not, but that's why I was asking about whether you were going to join your applications, not just present them at the same time, because we -- we can't technically take that into account at all, because it has -- it has its own -- you know, it has its own requirements within its own zoning. It has -- I mean they are just -- they are two totally separate applications in our minds and we -- we -- and we have to look at them that way. Our planners have to look at them that way. So, really, the only -- you are kind of asking us to guarantee that we can take both into consideration at the same time. The only way we can really do that is if they are in the same application. So, as Councilman Hoaglun mentioned, as it stands right now, since it doesn't meet the mixed use regional, I don't -- I don't want to vote denial, because I think that this is a -- you know, a great proposal, but I wouldn't be able to say that this meets the mixed use regional on its own and so that being said, you -- you mentioned something along the lines of could we switch this to commercial. Are you talking about actually changing the comp plan -- doing a comp plan amendment to the commercial -- comprehensive plan category or with --with a C-G zoning or are you talking about--that's -- that's kind of where I'm -- because there is an actual comprehensive category with the C-G zoning and we actually haven't had a conversation about that tonight, but I think that's what Councilman Bernt was referring to. Why don't you keep -- why don't you actually, you know, suggest the commercial and not a mixed use regional? Mansfield: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Perreault, I was, in fact, when I was responding to Council Member Hoaglun, referring to the commercial land use designation. We are requesting a C-G zoning designation regardless of whether we are going for MUR or commercial land use designation and so the thought being, yes, there is actually an e- mail in my inbox from -- from Sonya recommending that we do not switch to commercial. That was kind of the initial -- we -- we floated it and it was not recommended, because they still wouldn't be able to support the entire project, because Matt's project wouldn't have the mixed use component. So, we would be fine to go to commercial. If you wanted to approve us with commercial tonight we would absolutely accept that and the only thing that would change in the legal description is mixed use regional to commercial. The project would remain exactly the same and so that's why I was asking if it was a wording issue and -- and I guess that's what I'm -- I'm asking tonight is -- is that is -- is that on the table? Because I believe it -- based on my understanding the comprehensive plan we do actually comply with the commercial land use designation. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Meridian City Council June 14,2022 Page 43 of 61 Strader: Personally I am in the mixed use category at this time, but I can't speak for anybody else. There -- there is a piece of information I'm going to need, even if this is pushed into September, which is not just for ACHD to accept the two different traffic impact studies, but I'm looking for the feedback from ACHD on the whole picture. So, that -- that -- that's important to me. Hopefully that helps. Simison: And if I could piggyback on that then. I would love for ACHD to, quite frankly, come and present on why two left-hand turn lanes, for example, are not plausible, possible, or is it just in the current right-of-way configuration or long term. I know that may be a lot of work for them to -- I don't want them to overanalyze it, but I would like to say, then, to tell us why you can, can't, sort of shouldn't long term, short term, forever and, you know, ultimately I'm -- my hope is that Linder Road will reduce some of the traffic in this area that makes some of these turning movements okay, but for how long, you know, for -- for what purpose. You know, there -- there is other things in play that could help, but, you know, we -- I go up Meridian Road and turn left into the Winco, you know, off of Meridian Road and you only see eight cars stacked there and you are turning into a major commercial area, so the other lane could probably -- I think it's right to ten is on the other side. I don't know which one will generate more long term from that standpoint. So, a little bit more from ACHD's perspective about the impacts. We have invested a lot of money between the MDC, the city, ACHD in the road network configuration, the property and we want to see this move forward, we just don't want to be -- to turn into a traffic jam for everybody all the time and especially from 4:30 to 6:00 each day -- we are going to 7:00? Okay. 7:00. You know, from that standpoint. So, more -- and, Kristy, I know you are on there and this may be a little bit out of whack, but we would love to see a little bit more from ACHD's participation on the conversation ultimately. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: There we go. Am I on? Am I off? Okay. Good. So, I -- what I -- what I think would be helpful for me -- the mixed use community designation and the -- the descriptions in the staff report are spot on. I see. These -- they are adjacent uses, they are not mixed uses, and that's a big distinction and I think the staff report and our staff did an exceptional job in describing what in their opinion they thought the application lacked with regards to mixed use and integration and a lot of those elements, if it's -- it's maybe more a redesign than -- than you were thinking might be necessary. This and Tanner Creek, quite frankly. And I would think it gets remanded -- this would get remanded to P&Z to marry up with Tanner Creek, not just remanded to us about a future date and let P&Z see both applications together, see how you can address the mixed use community. Our staff report talks about the -- kind of the letter and the intent of the mixed use community designation and what it's trying to do. I think there is a huge opportunity in this location to apply those elements in both projects, let P&Z vet that. I agree with the Mayor, it would be great to hear ACHD's detailed analysis on the access and, then, quite frankly, yours. This single left-hand turn, if ACHD says it will be single left forever, I don't -- I just cannot get my head around how this project can be successful with a regional Meridian City Council June 14,2022 Page 44 of 61 draw with a single left with no stacking. You said it, you -- this property's been entitled for commercial. This could have been built ten years ago and if somebody could have done it they would have done it and I think -- and I have heard this for at least ten years, that is a fatal flaw and challenge for this property. That's not your fault; right? But -- but I think that's just the elephant in the room is how do you -- even if you get entitled how can you be successful with lack of access coming north realistically. I just don't get it. So, the mixed use integration I think -- again, our staff and the staff report really answers a lot of your questions and how this -- there is opportunities for it to be better and if it gets remanded back, marries with Tanner, gets vetted at P&Z, you know, vetted it before and raised some of these concerns. Just trying to be helpful. I think you deserve that. To see what might give it a chance to be successful. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Just -- I wanted to piggyback on Councilman Borton's comment about, you know, going back through the process, because I think if-- if you want to come back with that full C-G for this, that would have to go back through the process and my -- my comments might better be so far off, you know, because if -- if that's what you want -- because we just can't change that on the fly. That -- that might be the -- be the route to go is -- is if you want to redo it and say, okay, if we are going to come in with Tanner Creek, they are going to do this and it -- you know, staff can relook at it. I mean we have got our future land use map for that area. I don't know, Sonya, you know that process better than I do, but--what that would look like and if it's that-- how that-- how that works. Mansfield: Mr. Mayor, can I ask a clarifying question really quick? Mr. Mayor, Council Member Hoaglun, you -- you said come back with the full C-G zone or -- because we do actually -- that is what we are proposing is the full C-G. We are not proposing the commercial land use at this time. Sorry. I just want to make sure I understand. Hoaglun: For--this is for your southern parcel that would be annexed. That--that portion sounds like -- because you got the entitlement already. Mansfield: Right. Hoaglun: Northern portion. Mansfield: And we are asking for C-G zoning on the southern portion as well. That's part of our current application. Hoaglun: Okay. That's right. Not -- well, MU -- yeah. It's MUR right now. Mansfield: Correct. Not the commercial land -- Hoaglun: Okay. Meridian City Council June 14,2022 Page 45 of 61 Mansfield: The language got -- Hoaglun: I got it. I got it. Mansfield: It's very confusing. Sorry. Hoaglun: No, I -- Mansfield: I just wanted to make sure I was on the same page and understanding with you. Hoaglun: Yeah. I was looking at Commission recommendation, denial based on the belief -- the request not consistent with general mixed use development guidelines, the existing MUC guidelines, or the proposed MUR guidelines, which is our--our requirement -- what our future land use is -- is requiring. So, I guess that's why I'm looking at you, Sonya, and was trying to figure out if they are at C-G, does that have to go through that whole process or is that a future land use map amendment that we would have to go through? What is the exercise that somebody -- somebody has to jump through hoops here somewhere, I'm just not sure who it is. Allen: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Hoaglun, Council, the issue is is that the current land use designation, mixed use community, their development plan is not consistent with. Mr. Borton asked earlier what the square footage of that other -- that office building. It's 80,000 square feet. What I -- what I also didn't answer, Mr. Borton, was that the other commercial retail building is also 80,000 square feet. That is over the threshold of the square footage allowed in the MUC designation, unless there is a vertically integrated use or it's a grocery store. A grocery store is limited to 60,000 square feet. Everything else, unless it's vertically integrated, is limited to 30,000 square feet. So, when you raise that -- you can have C-G zoning either way, with mixed use community or mixed use regional it's the threshold of development that is allowed in each of those designations that is the key factor here. So, if you go up to the mixed use regional, then, keep in mind that with that you are increasing the intensity of the use and the transportation issues in this area and if-- if--what I --what I told the applicant is his -- his development is more commercial in nature and that probably would be more fitting designation for this area, but if just this property is designated commercial, that would leave the other mixed use community portion on its own with a much smaller area and it -- it would be impossible to develop consistent with the mixed use community designation. I told the applicant if they wish to do that to change to commercial from mixed use community, that the adjacent property to the west should also come in with the comp plan map amendment, so that that property isn't left with mixed use community. So, either -- I would recommend with the current development plan for Tanner Creek probably a medium density residential and a medium high density residential designation to allow for the single family and the multi-family use. So -- so, there is some different variant -- variations that you -- we could get there on, but the -- the -- the big factor is if -- if you go above the mixed use community to either commercial or mixed use regional, you are looking at significant traffic impacts to this area with the type of development that could be allowed. Meridian City Council June 14,2022 Page 46 of 61 Mansfield: Mr. Mayor, I have a quick clarifying question for Sonya as we move forward, if, in fact, we do continue. I just want to make sure I understand. The comp plan, I believe, mentions a 30,000 square foot footprint versus total building square footage. I don't believe the office building itself is out of compliance with the mixed use community land use designation. I think the reason we are asking for regional is solely because of the 80,500 square foot big box store. Can you -- can you clarify that for me? Allen: Mr. Mayor, Council, the applicant is correct. I just verified that. So, I misspoke earlier on the retail building. Mansfield: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thanks, Sonya. And I didn't mean to put you on the spot. I just wanted to make sure that we were -- yeah, we are not coming forward and proposing something crazy. Make sure we are -- we all know what's going on. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: So, I don't know if the applicant wants to answer this or maybe Sonya as well. Why can't you come in with a comp plan amendment for commercial and just -- not a mixed use at all and Tanner Creek come in with a comp plan amendment for residential and -- and not -- I mean that just seems so much cleaner to me. Does it have to do with the timing? Because if they already have an application in -- or if they -- they are going to have an application for their project in, but even if they don't have an application for their -- for their plat or -- or whatever, they could also come with a -- could have -- no. One more day. With a comp plan amendment as well and it just seems like it would be so much cleaner to go that route than trying to tie these two together. Mansfield: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Perreault, that is certainly an option that -- I -- I think we --we would totally consider I think. Unfortunately, you know, what I'm --what I'm hearing from all this is -- so -- so, the unfortunate piece is that would have to be applied for tomorrow by Matt and I think what I'm hearing here is that it seems to be working -- like both of the plans on their own seem to be working out --we support it -- it sounds like most of Council supported Matt's project last time, but the reason they didn't support it was because there wasn't a commercial component, which is now here and so now that the commercial component's here I'm hearing that we are on the right track generally with it and so it -- it -- it appears that there is like -- this is fine, this is fine, this is only fine with this, that's only fine with that. So, I guess -- but I guess it -- it appears to be -- because it's going to be the same project whether or not the comprehensive plan says commercial or mixed use regional and Matt's going to come in with the same project whether it says -- whether the underlying comp plan designation is mixed use community or medium density residential, I don't understand why they -- I guess I -- as a -- as a planner myself -- a trained planner myself I don't understand why the comp plan is -- is held up as the -- the -- the thing we -- we need to pay attention to when they -- when we are suggesting the same exact land uses, land use patterns, and circulation -- everything. It's just Meridian City Council June 14,2022 Page 47 of 61 commercial versus mixed use regional. But I'm totally -- yeah, I'm open to feedback and listening. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: You know, it's not uncommon for us when we get in these patterns of, you know, if you do this or if we do that or, you know, we might be amenable to it if you did this and we wish you did that or we don't like that park there, we want to tot lot there, we want, you know, to get rid of the skyscraper here, but we want a dog park over -- it always turns into a complete mess on the dais one hundred percent of the time and I'm not going to tell you how I would hope that you would do your project, because, guess what, I'm not a planner, you are and Hawkins Companies have been doing this for how many decades, you know. So, I'm not going to tell you what you should and shouldn't do and -- because you guys are the smart guys, I have full faith that you are going to put something together, along with your neighbor, that's going to make sense. I hope that it's creative. I hope that it's thoughtful and I hope that you guys do a good job at it. For me right now the reason why I am not supportive of your project as it stands is because of the impact that it's going to provide to this area. It's not ready. It's not even close to being ready and you said something earlier about murkiness. My -- my -- what -- what keeps me awake at night with these type of projects is not dotting all the I's and crossing all the T's and making it even more murkier, not only for this geographic area, but, you know -- or this -- this one project, but -- but the entire intersection. It's going to be -- for me to be comfortable with approving your project or Matt's project or any other project in this area, the transportation aspect of it has to be fixed. We need details and I know this is a unique ask from ACHD, but we cannot approve this -- at least I can't -- I can't come to the table with even coming close to an approval until I know that the transportation and access to this works. For me that's it. I trust you. I trust Matt. You guys are going to come together and make a great project whatever that is. Whatever. I don't care. I just want the transportation of this fixed before you come back. I hope I was clear. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: I -- and we haven't closed the public hearing, so I -- I would like to hear from Matt on his thoughts on this. What we are talking about being joined at the hip. Maybe he has a whole different perspective on this. Doesn't want to touch them with a ten foot pole. I doubt it. But we will find out. Schultz: Well, Matt Schultz again. I'm a little murky, so -- after listening to you guys up here debating it. The nuances of-- of the comp plan versus the zoning and how it comes -- and if you remember when I got up here I said I just hope he gets this commercial and I get the residential and it's --the whole thing's considered a mixed use. We have the Ten Mile Creek going through the middle of us, so it's -- we are going to have connections. Meridian City Council June 14,2022 Page 48 of 61 We are going to have vehicular connection in the middle, plus Waltman, and so I -- but I don't think there is any way for you guys to get the big picture and I said it before, I'm shocked that there is no major improvement to that intersection recommended by ACHD and that needs to -- we need some clarity on that and -- and -- and, B, I just think they need to come back with us. We are not -- I don't think we need to do a comp plan amendment. Get creative with it, I think we can, hopefully, just continue them tonight and we would work together to make sure we do come back. We are --we are both a hundred percent on the same page and we have all these details worked out on -- on the traffic, so there is no murkiness, because that's not good. Murkiness is not good. So, that's -- we heard you. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Schultz: Thanks. Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Follow up, Matt. I mean if we continue this -- I mean we can pick a date later in August, not knowing where you will be in the process -- Schultz: That would be close enough I think. Hoaglun: We can continue -- Schultz: We will let him speak, but -- Hoaglun: I mean it's their project, but we could continue theirs and -- and marry -- marry the two up for a future--future time when that comes through, if that's the Council's desire, so -- Mansfield: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Hoaglun, we are willing to accept a continuance. I think that seems like the right move here. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Mr. Nary. Nary: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, as I spoke earlier, my concern is, again, we don't really have a plan here. We have a zone and we have a comp plan amendment that may or may not marry up to what the ultimate request is and we have never noticed that to these neighbors. These neighbors came to talk about a regional shopping center and an office park and now we are talking about adding another office building, instead of another -- another commercial store and I don't know what their opinion of that is, because no one's ever told them that until tonight. So, that's what I'm concerned with on whether or not we should continue this or remand it, because it's never been looked at by P&Z. It has not been evaluated by planning. I guess I'm concerned about from a noticing Meridian City Council June 14,2022 Page 49 of 61 standpoint and our record to simply pivot here at this meeting and, then, just keep moving forward in two months. Mansfield: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Nary, I would like to just state that we have no intention of changing what we originally came here and proposed tonight, which is a comprehensive plan map amendment to mixed use regional proposing the site plan that was presented today. I did present some options. Those are apparent -- those are now off the table. Just want to be clear. That we are -- we are looking for an approval of an annexation, a rezone, and a comprehensive plan map amendment, all of which are noted very clearly in the notice and I -- I think Sonya would agree with me and -- what are your thoughts, Sonya? Just want to make sure we are all on the same page here. Allen: The current development plan is not consistent with the mixed use regional designation. So, if that's what you are planning to stick with, I -- I believe that you need to make some changes to your concept plan to make it more consistent with the mixed use regional designation as -- as outlined in the staff report. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Thank you. Just wanted to ask a clarifying question. So, if -- if this southern property is annexed would the applicant not need to bring -- I assume they are going to do some sort of plat and DA and a concept plan that would be attached to the DA. Is that not going to be a future part of this process that --where we would have further discussion regarding the concept plan or does that have to be figured out now? Allen: Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Perreault, Council, annexation is part of this application, so the development agreement is what is under your purview right now. The northern portion is already annexed. There is no development agreement on that and they are not required to come back in with the subdivision plat. They do have existing parcels out there that they can reconfigure if they wish. They could plat it if they want to, but I don't believe that that's their intent. So, this is your bite right here. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: So, that was one of the reasons I suggested remanding it to P&Z, as opposed to continuing it. It doesn't slow it down for you at all, quite frankly. It wouldn't get to us until Tanner Creek was here. They got to go through P&Z anyway, so that allows that to be vetted and to give I guess input on it, if there is no change in the plan -- I mean I agree with staff, I -- I'm not -- I will just tell you really supportive at all. In addition to the transportation problems, because it -- it is in essence is saying your comp plan is wrong and I get it, but if it's saying the mixed use components of comp plan, whether it's community or regional, all of that is wrong and as a city we should do something just Meridian City Council June 14,2022 Page 50 of 61 totally different. That's, in essence, what your application is and -- and -- which appreciate, but I'm not so certain our comp plan in this area is wrong with those mixed use components. So, whether you change this -- this site plan, concept plan, whether Tanner Creek does anything different than what you have done today, totally up to you, but from my perspective there would be value at that remand married up with P&Z to have the mixed use components -- I think community, but at least regional addressed and that's -- that would require some change in -- in what you presented, in my opinion. Either way it goes to P&Z first. Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: Murmur about remand. The question for Bill is because we don't have a date yet when P&Z would be, we almost need to pick a date, knowing that at that date we would remand it to P&Z. It seems clumsy, but we are kind of stuck. Nary: So, yeah, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Borton, no, we have -- we have done this before. We have -- remand it back to P&Z at this point. They will have to, then, work with planning to find the date of when it would best, because it will have to be noticed and, again, if there is going to be some change from mixed use regional to mixed use something else or whatever else they want to do and -- and if you don't mind, Mr. Mayor, maybe I could add at least for the applicant's perspective -- when -- when the city approved this new comp plan in 2019, because you were asking sort of in the vein of comp plan is a guide, ordinances is the code, and the code is the ordinance you have to follow and that is true. But this City Council has made a commitment to our community that we are going to be slowed down on changing those comp plan designations and not simply change them because somebody asked to. So, it is something that this Council has committed to and that's why we added that provision into our UDC that allows it only twice a year, rather than anytime they asked. So, there is other factors at play and that's what I think -- why we are here and I didn't know if you knew that, just because the way you asked that question. I kind of got a sense from your planning side why you were asking that. But we would simply direct a remand. They would work with the Clerk and the Planning Department to set a new date and they would have to renotice it. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: I just want to make sure I'm understanding Councilman Borton's recommendation. So, Planning and Zoning heard this already. I assume that this similar presentation was made to them as what we saw tonight, is that -- is that not the case? Is there something -- are you recommending that they take whatever changes they are going to make to Planning and Zoning, plus like ACHD's information and, then, have P&Z review it or what -- what changes is P&Z going to review from what we have already seen -- or what we have seen this evening. I apologize, I wasn't tracking with that. Meridian City Council June 14,2022 Page 51 of 61 Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: That's up to the applicant. Ultimately what, if anything, they change to try and address the mixed use components -- maybe nothing and you may choose to go to P&Z, which had recommended to us in its current form denial and they very well -- if you bring the exact same application, without being, you know, next to Tanner Creek, we might get the same answer, so if there is a change or perhaps no change, but seeing Tanner Creek with it gives it comfort it didn't already have, P&Z would, then, provide some context for all -- for us and our decision making process. But if you do make some changes and try and incorporate some of the mixed use components, I think all the better and P&Z might agree with that as well. Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: I will make a motion to move this forward, but before I do when we get to this clumsy clunky part of local government it's just trying to get this thing right, which I -- delays stink. They really do. I totally get it. Matt knows it; right? You have been in the middle of these things. But we are trying to get this right and this is a critical -- you know, in the heart of the city. We have been struggling with this for a while. So, hopefully, this process gets us there. I'm going to make a motion that we continue H-2021-0099 -- excuse me -- remand it. Remand this application -- Simison: Need to close the public hearing -- Borton: Do we keep it open? Simison: -- on a remand? Nary: Mr. Mayor, actually you close the public hearing, because it's going to renotice it as well and start a new public hearing. So, that's fine. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: I will amend that motion to close the public hearing on H-2021-0099. Bernt: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Is there any discussion? Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Meridian City Council June 14,2022 Page 52 of 61 Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Just a question about this. We haven't done a lot of remanding since I have been on Council, so I -- I don't know that the -- I -- I didn't hear from the applicant that they are necessarily planning on changing this -- changing their concept plan to comply with mixed use. What I have been hearing is that they -- they want us to call what is essentially commercial mixed use and we are not able to do that, so it -- I just am trying to still wrap my head around the purpose of the remand if -- I haven't heard from the applicant that they are intending on making any changes to their concept plan to fit the mixed use regional. It's the fact that they really just need to not use the mixed use regional or come in with a -- with a joint application with Tanner. So, I still would like some more clarification on the -- have the applicant said, hey, yeah, we are definitely going to go ahead and change our concept plan and we will make it fit with mixed use regional no matter what happens with Tanner, then, I would understand a remand to Planning and Zoning. So, I apologize if I'm just not getting it and everybody else is, but would like more clarification on that. Simison: Councilman Borton, would that be something you would make clear in your motion on the remand? Borton: Sure. Well, I think the motion is to close the public -- Simison: Right. The motion is there. That's why I'm -- I don't want to -- we would need to -- Borton: I will do that next. Simison: Okay. Is there further comments on this -- on the -- to close the public hearing? Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: I apologize. I -- I somehow heard that his motion was to remand, so my apologies. Simison: He will get there. Perreault: I wanted to make sure I had an opportunity to say something before it got completely voted on. Simison: Okay. All those in favor of closing the public hearing say aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and the public hearing is closed. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Meridian City Council June 14,2022 Page 53 of 61 Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, part of the reasoning that the remand exists is there is a possibility that if there are no changes, just like what we are presented with today, that it could get a vote for denial. In lieu of a denial it's an opportunity to -- at the very least address additional information forACHD, both from the developer's perspective and from the highway district's perspective on these fatal -- these difficult transportation challenges that -- that we -- we are trying to wrestle with. But also the -- whether or not you believe it's really necessary to make any mixed use components -- elements that both P&Z and our planning staff and our comp plan require of this area or whether you want to continue as you have understandably -- you have explained it. To continue as you have, not make any changes and come back with what you have already presented today. That's a decision you have got to make. So, does that help kind of answer that? Okay. So, with that context, I move that we remand H-2021-0099 back to the Planning and Zoning Department for the reasons described in today's public hearing, for the applicant to work with our Planning staff and City Clerk to coordinate the next public hearing, the noticing requirements et cetera, so -- Hoaglun: Second the motion. Simison: I have a motion and a second. Discussion? Hearing none, Clerk will call the roll. Roll call: Borton, yea; Cavener, yea; Bernt, yea; Perreault, yea; Hoaglun, yea; Strader, yea. Simison: All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. 7. Public Hearing for Future Land Use Map Ada County Area of City Impact Cleanup (H-2021-0098) by City of Meridian Planning Division 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). Simison: Thank you. And work on this and, hopefully, come back with something for everyone. Okay. Next item up is Item 7, public hearing for future land use map county area of city impact cleanup, H-2021-0098. Open this public hearing with staff comments from Mr. McClure once he's ready. Hoaglun: Yeah. Mr. Mayor, just while they are getting things ready, I just thought maybe for each Council meeting we could have a theme for the night and I think tonight's theme is murky. Meridian City Council June 14,2022 Page 54 of 61 Bernt: Yeah. I -- you know -- Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: I was a hair passionate. I have been doing this for five years. You guys shouldn't be that surprised. Murky. Hashtag murky. McClure: Mr. Mayor, Members of Council, apologies for that. I'm here to present an application for a comprehensive plan future land use map amendment. Haven't had enough of those tonight. There are no associated entitlements with this application. The genesis for this application goes back to December of 2019 and is focused on the area of city impact boundary. After the new comprehensive plan was submitted Ada county staff led some coordination efforts to define the boundaries between most of the cities. The Board of County Commissioners ultimately adopted our new comprehensive plan in 2021 with some minor tweaks to the area of city impact boundaries. This amendment generally aligns with those boundary changes. There is also an additional AOCI change 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. They have decided to move forward in Boise and they have coordinated that both with Ada county and Boise. As stated, a key element to this amendment is continued coordination with other agencies. It's also intended to better reflect our service planning, to improve transparency, to reduce errors and to maintain the plan as a living document. Broadly, the changes proposed with application are either map changes, either to the area of city impact and the future land use designations or they are simply graphic changes. The map changes are broadly shown by the purple circles on the map here. The graphic changes include a new special planning area designation previously just for the Ten Mile Plan and some other land use symbology and general land use tweaks -- legend tweaks. The Field Sub Area Plan, which was previously adopted, is now shown and delineated on the future land use map and I will briefly walk through the specific changes in the next few slides. Area one is on the left. The only change is to remove the highlighted area from the area of city impact. This change is already adopted by Ada County, having previously been coordinated with Star and Meridian. Meridian does not plan to service this area and there is no access to it from within Meridian. Area two is on the right. This is really exceptionally minor. I just wanted to daylight it, because it's something I like to try to get normally. It's just a request for consistency. Generally we like land use changes to either follow the center line of roads preferably and if that's not occurring to consistently do whatever else has been occurring, which in this area it was following parcel lines. It -- it just -- it's a little wonky and it's hard to see here, but normally that would be a scrivener's error I would just fix, but since I'm doing these I figured I would throw it up there. Like to have consistency would be the short. Area three on the left here is the ACHD change I previously mentioned. Area four is a little bit of a mess. There are no impacts to properties within Meridian. The properties have previously been annexed, zoned, and are entitled and the future land use designations are being stretched or shrunk to align with prior decisions. Areas being removed are already zoned in Boise or planned to be serviced by Boise. Area five on the left is another area of city impact cleanup to remove property that has already been annexed into Boise. If you are familiar with the old barn on Fairview east of Meridian City Council June 14,2022 Page 55 of 61 The Village, that's -- that's basically this. Boise's annexed that. The changes on the right in Area Six -- both of these have civic designations, which is for agencies or quasi-public agencies. However, both of these properties are privately owned. The one on the right is Old City Hall, which is now a wonderful building and the one on the left is a bit of a mystery, but it's a single family home that is R-4 zoned and surrounded by medium density residential. So far as I can tell it's been that way for decades. Anyways, both of them were civic and they shouldn't be. Area Seven here, these changes are cleaned up -- are cleanup to reflect previous entitlements and uses. The one on Franklin includes a commercial office development in Meridian and a county commercial use wedged between industrial and the cemetery. The proposed change is from medium high density residential to commercial to reflect the commercial uses already entitled. The other change is from commercial to civic to reflect property owned by the educational institutions. Those are the map changes and area of city impact changes. So, just briefly go over some graphical changes. This is a new symbology for the future language map being proposed. We have been using these internally and for some unofficial maps for a while now. There was an effort here to balance how -- how busy the map appears with how readable it is. Previously it wasn't very readable. Many of the colors were too similar without other distinguishing elements. However, we didn't want to just code every single -- every symbol with a bunch of patterns and major eye hurt. So, hopefully, we have achieved some balance here that makes the map a little bit more readable, while remaining clear. We have had positive comments from staff that have various color deficiencies on this new symbology. As previously mentioned, the other graphic changes to note is the special planning areas. The red dashed line here used to be just the Ten Mile specific area plan on the legend. Now we are proposing it be special planning areas. Sub area plans. You can see the Ten Mile Plan would still have it, but now we have added to The Fields area in the -- in the northwest corner of the city. On March 4 staff had all properties falling under the -- the changes -- the AOCI and future land use designation changes. On April 21st the Planning and Zoning Commission heard this application and recommended it forward to Council without -- for approval and without any changes. There was no public testimony at the hearing. On June 8th there was a letter sent to Council by a citizen from Alpine Point I believe with some concerns changes northwest of Eagle on Ustick, Area Four. While appreciate their interest, time and diligence, the comments do not change the side boards that define the context per staff's recommendation. Previous decisions in this area I believe set the stage and this is intended simply to reflect them. I have another exhibit I can go through if you would like to talk about it, but, otherwise, would stand for questions and request that you approve H-2021-0098. Simison: Thank you, Mr. McClure. Council, questions for staff? Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Thanks a lot, Brian. I'm really struggling with area four. It just doesn't make sense to me. I have read through it. I think he just offered to walk through that in some Meridian City Council June 14,2022 Page 56 of 61 more detail. If you could do that I would really appreciate it. And, then, I guess a follow- up question is understanding that the county is kind of driving the bus, what if we disagreed on Area Four? What would happen? Thank you. McClure: Mr. Mayor, Councilor, the map here describes some of the nuance behind the Area Four changes. The green hatch on the right going top left to bottom right is the city of Boise. The blue hatch going bottom left to top right is Meridian city limits. The area in the middle is the county enclave, which is part of Boise's area of city impact. Looking at the large blue dashed line, the extent of the future land use designations in the 2019 comprehensive plan, we have already deviated from it quite a bit. Part of the Delano parcel south of the enclave there has -- was previously split in Meridian and Boise. Council has already acted on that. Council has also acted on the Fast Eddy's project in the lower right area. The property that has the store on it was actually part of Boise's area of city impact. They negotiate -- he negotiated that with both cities. The property in the middle is part of an agreement that goes way back with the city and what is now -- I'm going to lose their name here. Used to be United Water then New Suez now Veolia -- I probably butchered that. But, basically, we have agreed to not service -- service that with water and, then, in the top northern corner where you have the future collector going through behind the office park and adjacent to the subdivision in Meridian, all of that's actually already been annexed by Boise as well. It looks like there is a lot of landscaping back there, but most of that's owned by the county and will be a future roadway. So, there is plenty of opportunity I guess to disagree with the county and certainly your purview, but most of the decisions here have actually already been made there. The only real one that's on the table would be the one in the middle. I would just say that we try very hard to coordinate with our partner agencies. We do have an agreement to basically not provide services here and the current area of city impact lines split the property anyways, so, hopefully, that answered your question, but most of this has already basically been decided. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council? Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Oh. Councilman Cavener. Sorry. Cavener: Mr. Mayor. Brian, I guess speaking -- I -- and I guess I kind of share some of Council Member Strader's concerns about Area Four more than anything. So, that -- that piece of land there in the middle that's -- that doesn't have any type of an effect on it, has the -- the property owner indicated a preference in terms of -- if annexation were to occur would they prefer it to be in Boise? Would they prefer it to be in Meridian? Have we had that -- any communication with them and what has been their response? McClure: Mr. Mayor, Councilor, I sent them a postcard notification. They have reached -- not reached out to me. I couldn't say whether they have coordinated with Ada county Meridian City Council June 14,2022 Page 57 of 61 or city of Boise. I would have to believe they were notified by those agencies when that change occurred on their side, but I don't know that for sure. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: I hope I'm understanding this correctly, but that section that Councilman Cavener just mentioned, Ada county approved area of impact, is that -- am I understanding that correctly? Is that AOCI? McClure: Mr. Mayor, Councilor, yes. So, the AOCI stands for Area of City Impact. The gray and white dashed line there is the Ada county approved one, which reflects Boise's boundaries and land use designations. The blue one is the one that Meridian -- it's our planning area that we approved with the 2019 comprehensive plan that currently splits that property down the middle. Perreault: Mr. Mayor, a follow up? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: So, the owner of that property could apply for a use change to Ada county and Ada county could take them through that process? McClure: Mr. Mayor, Councilor, they are currently zoned in the county, so anything they wanted to do -- well, there is some nuance here that maybe Caleb wants to touch on. Ada county requires anyone touching our -- our -- our boundaries to -- to talk to us. But if we didn't -- they didn't like what we said, they could eventually choose to pursue something in the county. However, they are part of Boise's area of an impact and Boise has a future lines designation over their entire property. Perreault: Mr. Mayor, one more question. Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: So, we had a lot of conversation about that section of Centrepoint Way going through their property with the Delano application. If they were to apply for, you know, use in the county, does the county have to honor the desire for Centrepoint to go through that? I mean are they -- I assume they are subject to the master street plan that ACHD has, but I mean can that significantly change where Centrepoint is anticipated to go if that's the route they were to take? I know that's not part of what we are considering here this evening, but I just am curious. Hood: Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Perreault, so Brian kind of mentioned it, but our area of city -- area of city impact agreement with Ada county, they would not process an application for real development on their property. They could rebuild a home. They Meridian City Council June 14,2022 Page 58 of 61 could even do an addition. But if they wanted to develop their property they are contiguous to Meridian city limits, they would not process a real development application, they would push them -- right now they would push us to probably us and Boise, to one or the other, because the property is split, but, no, that scenario could --would not happen, because Ada county would not be the lead land use agency. The property has to be annexed as the next step. I will just -- if you don't mind, Mr. Mayor, just to piggyback a little bit on Mr. Cavener's question. I have not talked to them either, but back when we did the comp plan and Delano, as Council Woman Perreault just mentioned, that property owner was part at the table. I never directly talked to them, but they were engaged, they were part of that and that's my understanding, too, is they understand -- I don't know if they had a preference to be in Boise or Meridian, but they are okay with being in Boise. Again, I have not heard that from their mouth, but that's what -- that's -- I'm under the impression and understanding that -- that that is the case and, again, to Brian's point, all the utility providers have had those same conversations about that and -- and that is really the plan at this point. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Is there a technical reason that we can't provide utility services to this parcel? Hood: So, Mr. Mayor, we -- we don't have anybody from Public Works here. That -- that was part of the concern, though. I don't remember exactly what it is. I don't think there is any way to loop -- so, water isn't our issue; right? That's Veolia -- Veolia -- however you say their new Suez name. Their service area. So, water really isn't our concern or city of Boise, because it's contracted either way with them. Sewer, though, was a concern with -- with depth of that elevation and getting it back to service. So, again, Public Works had some level of concern. Could you do it? Sure. Throw enough money at it you can -- you can make it go uphill. But that was part of the conversation. Boise was -- Boise is better positioned to service that property than Meridian. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Mr. Hood, I think that goes back to the -- you know, we -- we have long worked well with Boise on these -- on these parcels to make these determinations. Very few people have a strong desire for one city or the other. It is really about serviceability. Nary: And Mr. Mayor -- Simison: Mr. Nary. Nary: -- members of the Council, my recollection when we did that land swap previously for the prior application, that was one of Suez's asks at the time, because it is already in their service area, because it was originally in Boise's area of impact. So, that's why they wanted to keep what they have had there and so that's -- that was our agreement with Meridian City Council June 14,2022 Page 59 of 61 them, because we have cooperative agreements with Suez, Veolia on where service will be done by the city and where the service will be done by Suez. So, I think that was Public Works compromise, that this parcel was not problematic to them to not serve. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Yeah. That -- that's starting to make more sense to me in terms of the rationale of why Area Four is being -- you know, kind of coming out this way then. So, that makes more sense. And, then, I guess my only remaining concern would just be similar to Council Woman Perreault, just making sure that -- you know, that our Centrepoint Way connector ultimately comes through, but it sounds like ACHD's master street map will reflect that, so just confirming that. You know, the city of Boise works with ACHD the same exact way that we do, so there is no chance of somehow the city of Boise having a different vision and that's not getting that critical road connection. Hood: Mr. Mayor, I -- I can address that, although I won't guarantee that something crazy couldn't happen at the city of Boise. They will review an application -- at the staff level, though, we are on the same page. We have got both ends of Centrepoint and they understand that that is the plan and -- but, again, it's subject to public hearing. But to your point, Council Woman, same master street map, same ACHD, that is certainly the plan and there is an expectation that any development app -- when a development application is submitted on that property, the two points of Centrepoint will -- will connect. McClure: Mr. Mayor, I would just note that the dashed pink line being shown on the map bisecting that property is the master street map line. Strader: Got it. McClure: Thank you. Strader: It sounds like we have done everything we can from a communication perspective, so that it will all come out the way we need it to be. Thank you. Simison: Council, any additional questions for staff? Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: I don't have any questions. I just want to say thank you for these kinds of -- these kinds of applications. They are the super boring part of what you guys get to do, but they -- but they help us in a huge way and they help keep us on track and helps the public be clear in what we are doing and so just really appreciate the time and effort you guys have put into this. Meridian City Council June 14,2022 Page 60 of 61 Simison: All right. This is a public hearing. Mr. Clerk, do we have anyone signed up to provide testimony on this item this evening? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we did not. Simison: Okay. We have no one who signed up in advance. Nobody online. But one person in the audience and he's waiving. So, with that, Council, what's your pleasure? Hoaglun: Well, Mr. Mayor, will this come back I think with the actual action item? McClure: Mr. -- Mr. Mayor, this would come back with a resolution. We are looking for your approval tonight on -- Simison: And close -- Hoaglun: I will close the public hearing. Mr. Mayor, I move we close the public hearing on H-2021-0098. Cavener: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it. The public hearing is closed. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. Hoaglun: I'm sorry, let me go back to my original question. That was -- we are going to -- you are going to have an action item coming back to us or do you want us to take action by -- Hood: So, Mr. Mayor, yes and yes. So, if you can approve this tonight and we will prepare a resolution probably two weeks or so, that will also be on your consent agenda and we will ask you to take action on it as well. Hoaglun: Okay. So, Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: I move that we approve the future land use map Ada county area of city impact cleanup H-2021-0098 as presented to us tonight by staff. Cavener: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second to approve the Planning and Zoning recommendations? Is there any discussion? If not, Clerk will call the roll. Meridian City Council June 14,2022 Page 61 of 61 Roll call: Borton, yea; Cavener, yea; Bernt, yea; Perreault, yea; Hoaglun, yea; Strader, yea. Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and the item is agreed to. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. FUTURE MEETING TOPICS Simison: Council, anything under future meeting topics? Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: I move we adjourn. Simison: Motion to adjourn. All in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it. We are adjourned. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:19 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) 6 / 28 / 2022 MAYOR ROBERT E. SIMISON DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK E IDIAN;--- AGENDA ITEM Public Forum - Future Meeting Topics The Public are invited to sign up in advance of the meeting at www.meridiancity.org/forum to address elected officials regarding topics of general interest or concern of public matters. Comments specific to an active land use/development applications are not permitted during this time. By law, no decisions can be made on topics presented at the Public Forum. However, City Counicl may request the topic be added to a future meeting agenda for further discussion or action. The Mayor may also direct staff to provide followup assistance regarding the matter. i i i CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC FORUM SIGN-IN SHEET Date: June 14, 2022 Please sign in below if you wish to address the Mayor and City Council and i provide a brief description of your topic. Please observe the following rules of the Public Forum: • DO NOT: o Discuss active applications or proposals pending before Planning and Zoning or City Council o Complain about city staff, individuals, business or private matters • DO o When it is your turn to speak, state your name and address first o Observe a 3-minute time limit (you may be interrupted if your topic is deemed inappropriate for this forum) Name (please print) Brief Description of Discussion Topic E IDIAN.;--- Planning and Zoning Presentations and outline Page 4 City Council Meeting June 14, 2022 Item #4: Ten Mile & McMillan MDA ZONING MAP Proposed DA Modification agreement. A recorded copy of said easement agreement…”including the parcel at the southwest corner of this site that is not subject to this but0004) and is located at 4923 N. Cortona Way (the “Excluded Property”), -2020-Facility (HDevelopment Agreement, which was approved as McMillan Independent Senior Living excluding that real property legally described in Exhibit C to the in the development, parking to all lots -access/cross-“An easement agreement shall be recorded granting crossStaff’s recommended language:said easement agreement…”at the southwest corner of this site that is not subject to this agreement. A recorded copy of including the parcel restricted to seniors, age 55 and older (the “Excluded Property”), butfamily development -Development Agreement, which shall be developed as multiexcluding that real property legally described on Exhibit C to the in the development, parking to all lots -access/cross-“An easement agreement shall be recorded granting crossApplicant’s request: Item #5: Hatch Industrial VICINITY MAP Easement Vacation– Item #6: I FLUMAERIALZONING MAP CPAM, AZ –84 & Meridian Road - Proposed Map Amendment Proposed Annexation Conceptual Development Plan Changes to Agenda: th  Item #1: Bountiful Commons East (H-2022-0015) – Applicant requests continuance to July 19 as they are unable to attend the hearing this evening. Item #4: Ten Mile & McMillan MDA (H-2022-0011) Application(s):  DA Modification Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 9 parcels, zoned C-G, located at the northeast corner of N. Ten Mile and W. McMillan Roads. History: H-2019-0126, DA Inst. #2020-040967; H-2020-0004 (CUP) Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Commercial Summary of Request: The approved DA (Inst. #2020-040967) includes a provision that requires the senior living parcel and the commercial parcels to provide cross-access and cross-parking. The inclusion of this provision is standard for commercial properties but should have excluded the senior living property as the City does not want cut-through traffic or shared parking between the commercial properties and the senior living project. Further, the existing approvals required a commercial drive-aisle along the rear of each commercial building lot which provides for the required cross-access—this drive aisle has been constructed per the previous approvals. Staff Recommendation: Approval Written Testimony: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2022-0011, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June 14, 2022: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2022-0011, as presented during the hearing on June 14, 2022, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2022-0011 to the hearing date of \[date\] for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) Item #5: Hatch Industrial (H-2022-0029) Application(s): Vacation Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site is located at 160 N. Linder Rd. on the east side of Linder, just north of W. Franklin Rd. on 1.52 acres of land in the I-L zoning district. History: An amendment to the FLUM was recently approved from MU-C to Industrial for a larger 42-acre property that included this property; and this property was annexed with I-L zoning. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Industrial Summary of Request: The Applicant requests approval to vacate the 30’ wide easement along the east side of Lots 8 & 9 of Heppers Acre Subdivision. This easement is presumably for utilities but there doesn’t seem to have ever been any utilities installed within the easement area. The Applicant proposes to vacate this easement so that the building being constructed on the site can be located closer to the eastern boundary of the site within the existing easement area. A legal description and exhibit map of the easement proposed to be vacated is included in the staff report. Relinquishment letters were received from Century Link, Idaho Power, Intermountain Gas Company, Sparklight and Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District for the easement proposed to be vacated. Written Testimony: None Staff Recommendation: Approval Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2022-0029, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June 14, 2022: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2022-0029, as presented during the hearing on June 14, 2022, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2022-0029 to the hearing date of _______ for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) Item #6: I-84 + 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 & 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 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 s.f. 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. & 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 & 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. The Applicant chose to move forward on their own because the TIS for Tanner Creek was behind theirs in ACHD’s queue for review and they didn’t want to be delayed. The TIS for the proposed development included the planned residential development to the west (Tanner Creek) & has been accepted by ACHD; a staff report has not yet been received from ACHD. 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 & at the periphery of the development along the west side. Staff is also concerned with the ability of the transportation network being able to support 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. Commission Recommendation: Denial based on their belief the requested use is not consistent with the general mixed-use development guidelines, the existing MU-C guidelines or the proposed MU-R guidelines; also need findings from the Traffic Impact Study. Summary of Commission Public Hearing: i. In favor: Ethan Mansfield, Hawkins Companies (Applicant); Matt Schultz, Representative for Tanner Creek development to the west. ii. In opposition: Kelsi Lorcher, Joe Lorcher iii. Commenting: Clair Manning, Nona Haddock iv. Written testimony: None v. Key Issue(s):  Public testimony in agreement with Staff’s recommendation of denial due to not having a Master Plan with the Tanner Creek development to the west;  Concern pertaining to impacts on traffic in the area from the proposed development;  Testimony from the Tanner Creek developer’s representative that they’re in favor of the proposed development and intend to re-submit a residential development plan for the property to the west once ACHD has accepted their Traffic Impact Study (TIS). Key Issue(s) of Discussion by Commission:  Concern pertaining to the impact on traffic in this area if the proposed development plan is approved;  Desire to have the TIS reviewed & accepted by ACHD for the overall development area in order to know the impacts and transportation improvement requirements for the development;  Consistency of the proposed development plan with the Comprehensive Plan. Commission Change(s) to Staff Recommendation: None (Commission recommended denial based on their belief the requested use is not consistent with the general mixed-use development guidelines, the existing MU-C guidelines or the proposed MU-R guidelines; also need Traffic Impact Study.) Written Testimony since Commission Hearing: None Notes: Possible Motions: Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2021-0099, as presented during the hearing on June 14, 2022, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2021-0099, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June 14, 2022: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2021-0099 to the hearing date of ______ for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) 7/tem 77 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Bountiful Commons East (H-2022-0015) by KM Engineering, LLP, Located at 5960 and 5984 N. Linder Rd. Applicant Requests a Continuance to July 19, 2022 A. Request: Modification to the Existing Development Agreement (Linder Mixed Use - Inst. #2018-052340) to update the conceptual development plan and building elevations. B. Request: Combined Preliminary and Final Plat consisting of three (3) building lots on 2.20 acres of land in the C-C zoning district. Page 4 7/tem 77 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing on Proposed Water and Sewer Fees Page 18 Item#2. C� fIEN , IN4, IDAHG-. MEMO TO CITY COUNCIL Request to Include Topic on the City Council Agenda From: Laurelei McVey, Public Works Meeting Date: June 14, 2022 Presenter: Laurelei McVey, Public Works Estimated Time: 15 minutes Topic: Public Hearing on Proposed Water and Sewer Fees Recommended Council Action: Hold a public hearing for proposed changes to water and sewer fees. Background: The City of Meridian has not increased its water or sewer utility rates since 2014. Our utility rates remain some of the lowest in the Treasure Valley due to our methodical and proactive planning and budgeting. The City's "save before you spend" philosophy has allowed the City to remain debt free while still funding significant projects that have enabled the City to maintain high levels of services while also meeting ever increasing state and federal regulations. Due to the continued increase in operational and capital costs, the Public Works Department is recommending a 2% increase to the water and sewer utility bill, effective June 15th, 2022. This represents an increase of approximately$1.22/month on the average customer's bill. Fee description Current fee amount Proposed new fee amount Water rate—base (administrative fee) $5.49 $5.60 Water rate—use charge (per 1,000gallons) $1.90 $1.94 Sewer rate —base (administrative fee) $8.65 $8.82 Sewer rate —use charge (per 1,000gallons) 1 $5.54 1 $5.65 This public hearing was noticed in the Idaho Press Tribune on May 29th and June 5th. This public hearing was also noticed in the May 20th and June 51h utility bills. Questions related to this topic should be directed to Laurelei McVey, Public Works, lmcvey@meridiancity.org, 208-985-1259. Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the City Council Public Hearing Page 19 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET z DATE: June 14, 2022 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 2 i PROJECT NAME: Proposed Water and Sewer Fees Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify (Please Print) HOA? (mark X if yes) If yes, please provide HOA name 1 2 3 4 ' 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 2% Water & Sewer Utility Rate Laurelei McVey, 2022 th June 14Public Works Public HearingIncrease •$5.65$5.54(per 1,000 gallons)use charge –Sewer rate $8.82$8.65(administrative fee)base –Sewer rate $1.94$1.90(per 1,000 gallons)use charge –Water rate $5.60$5.49(administrative fee)base –Water rate fee amountProposed new amountCurrent fee Fee description 2% IncreaseProposed Recycling Rates•Trash Rates•EPA Fee•Sewer Usage Rate•Sewer Base Rate•Water Usage Rate•Water Base Rate•Utility Bill Components•Water/Sewer utility rates were last increased in 2014 Drivers:Stability of rates•Stability of fund balance•5 years st Solvency, at least for 1•Save before you spend philosophy•Goals:Chemicals, electricity, fuel•Increasing Costs of Doing Business•Many projects are required for regulatory or capacity•Did not add significant new projects•Added approximately $46.4M to existing 10 year CFP•Significant Construction Cost Increases• One model. This will be evaluated annually.remain solvent in the save before you spend Future rate increases may be needed to Note:assessment fee calculations. Likely effective date of summer 2022.*PW is currently finalizing a cost of service study, which will update the 3.75)-$58.26 (EPA Fee Sunsets(2024 on)$62.01 (+1.22)2% increase (2022)Current RateMonthly RateAverage Customer $6,925 (+1,068)(Estimated*)Proposed Assessment FeeCurrent Assessment Fee$62.01 (+1.22)Proposed RateCurrent Rate time 2% Rate Increase and New Assessment Fees- Monthly Summer Base and User Rates Comparison$ 73.48 $ 46.69 $ 26.79 Average$ 60.79 $ 40.98 $ 19.80 Meridian (Current)$ 61.85 $ 36.25 $ 25.60 Star$ 62.01$ 41.80$ 20.21 Meridian (Proposed)$ 63.96 $ 42.60 $ 21.36 Caldwell$ 74.48 $ 39.00 $ 35.48 Eagle$ 76.18 $ 50.30 $ 25.88 Garden City$ 79.67 $ 46.58$ 33.09 2 Boise$ 82.76 $ 52.61 $ 30.15 Kuna$ 88.18 $ 65.22$ 22.96 1 NampaTotal MonthlySewer RatesWater RatesCity Boise sewer rates reflect changes (7.5% increase) effective 5/1/22.2.proposed for October 2022.s a 16.75% sewer increase udeNampa does not use winter reading months during the summer, therefore, average use of sewer will equal water. This rate incl1.Summer rates based on 8,000 gallons average use of water and 5,320 gallons average use of sewer. Questions 7/tem 77 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Resolution No. 22-2329: A Resolution Adopting New Fees of the Meridian Public Works Department; Authorizing the Meridian Public Works Department to Collect Such Fees; and Providing an Effective Date (June 15, 2022). Page 20 Item#3. C� fIEN DL4,,A H �. MEMO TO CITY COUNCIL Request to Include Topic on the City Council Workshop Agenda From: Laurelei McVey, Public Works Meeting Date: June 14, 2022 Presenter: NA Estimated Time: NA Topic: A RESOLUTION ADOPTING NEW FEES OF THE MERIDIAN PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT; AUTHORIZING THE MERIDIAN PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT TO COLLECT SUCH FEES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE Recommended Council Action: Approve the resolution adopting new water and sewer rates with an effective date of June 151h 2022. Background: The City of Meridian has not increased its water or sewer utility rates since 2014. Our utility rates remain some of the lowest in the Treasure Valley due to our methodical and proactive planning and budgeting. The City's "save before you spend" philosophy has allowed the City to remain debt free while still funding significant projects that have enabled the City to maintain high levels of services while also meeting ever increasing state and federal regulations. Due to the continued increase in operational and capital costs, the Public Works Department is recommending a 2% increase to the water and sewer utility bill, effective June 15th, 2022. This represents an increase of approximately$1.22/month on the average customer's bill. Fee description Current fee amount Proposed new fee amount Water rate—base (administrative fee) $5.49 $5.60 Water rate—use charge (per 1,000gallons) $1.90 $1.94 Sewer rate—base (administrative fee) $8.65 $8.82 Sewer rate—use charge (per 1,000 gallons) $5.54 $5.65 This public hearing was noticed in the Idaho Press Tribune on May 291h and June 51h. This public hearing was also noticed in the May 201h and June 51h utility bills. Questions related to this topic should be directed to Laurelei McVey, Public Works, lmcveyPmeridiancity.org, 208-985-1259. Page 21 CITY OF MERIDIAN RESOLUTION NO. 22-2329 BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BERNT, BORTON, CAVENER, HOAGLUN, PERREAULT, STRADER A RESOLUTION ADOPTING NEW FEES OF THE MERIDIAN PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT; AUTHORIZING THE MERIDIAN PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT TO COLLECT SUCH FEES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, following publication of notice in the Idaho Press on May 29, 2022 and June 5, 2022, according to the requirements of Idaho Code section 63-1311A, on June 14, 2022 the City Council of the City of Meridian held a hearing on the adoption of proposed new fees of the Meridian Public Works Department, as set forth in Exhibit A hereto; and WHEREAS, following such hearing, the City Council,by formal motion, did approve said proposed new fees of the Meridian Public Works Department; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN,IDAHO: Section 1. That the following fees are hereby adopted: Fee description Fee amount Water rate—base (administrative fee) $5.60 Water rate—use charge (per 1,000 gallons) $1.94 Sewer rate—base (administrative fee) $8.82 Sewer rate—use charge (per 1,000 gallons) $5.65 Section 2. That the Meridian Public Works Department is hereby authorized to implement and carry out the collection of said fees. Section 3. That, as of June 15, 2022, the fees set forth in Exhibit A,will supersede all previous fees previously adopted for such services. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this 14th day of June, 2022. APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this 14th day of June, 2022. APPROVED: ATTEST: Robert E. Simison, Mayor Chris Johnson, City Clerk RESOLUTION ADOPTING PUBLIC WORKS FEES PAGE I OF 2 7/tem 77 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Ten Mile and McMillan (H-2022-0011) by Anne Kunkel, Varin Thomas, LLC., Located at the Northeast corner of N. Ten Mile Rd. and W. McMillan Rd., encompassing nine (9) parcels A. Request: A Development Agreement Modification of the Ten Mile and McMillan Development (Inst. #2020-040967) for the purpose of amending a DA provision regarding cross access between the commercial properties and the senior living property Page 23 Item#4. C� fIEN , IN1, IDAHO PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact: Sonya Allen Meeting Date: June 14, 2022 Topic: Public Hearing for Ten Mile and McMillan (H-2022-0011) by Anne Kunkel,Varin Thomas, LLC., Located at Located at the northeast corner of N. Ten Mile Rd. and W. McMillan Rd., encompassing nine (9) parcels Request: 1. Request: Development Agreement Modification of the Ten Mile and McMillan Development (Inst. #2020-040967) for the purpose of amending a DA provision regarding cross access between the commercial properties and the senior living property Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the City Council Public Hearing Page 24 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: June 14, 2022 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 4 PROJECT NAME: Ten Mile and McMillan (H-2022-0011) Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify (Please Print) HOA? (mark X if yes) If yes, please provide HOA name e- 10 11 12 13 14 Item#4. STAFF REPORT E COMMUNITY N -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING 6/14/2022 Legend �® DATE: Project Location 7� TO: Mayor&City Council C-C 'E R-8 r6 FROM: Joseph Dodson,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 ll:�i L-O R_81 SUBJECT: H-2022-0011 IRM5 N. C-G _!-O C-C R-15 Ten Mile and McMillan MDA le L-O —RUT I�I LLLL R-4 R-4 LOCATION: Project is located at the northeast corner TU of N. Ten Mile Road and W. McMillan R:g C-NA R-8 Road encompassing nine(9)parcels,in L-O RUT the SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 26, R-4 Township 4N, Range 1 W. R'2 ! �� RUT I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Request to modify the existing Development Agreement of the Ten Mile and McMillan development (Inst. #2020-040967) for the purpose of amending a DA provision regarding cross access between the commercial properties and the senior living property. II. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Anne Kunkel,Vann Thomas, LLC—242 North 8'Street, Ste, 220, Boise,ID 83702 B. Owners: See multiple affidavits of legal interest in public record for all owners that are part of the Development Agreement. Senior Living Owner: 55 Resort at Verona Place,LLC— 105 Decker Court, Ste.460, Irving,TX 75062 C. Representative: Same as Applicant III. NOTICING City Council Posting Date Legal notice published in newspaper 5/29/2022 Page 1 Page 25 Item#4. Radius notice mailed to properties within 500 feet 5/26/2022 Public hearing notice sign posted 6/3/2022 NextDoor Posting 5/25/2022 IV. STAFF ANALYSIS History The subject application encompasses nine (9)parcels surrounding the northeast corner of N. Ten Mile Road and W. McMillan Road. These parcels were part of a Development Agreement Modification in 2020 and were removed from an existing Development Agreement(DA) for the purpose of entering into a new DA with a new conceptual plan and building elevations (H-2019-0126, DA Inst. #2020- 040967)to show a future independent senior living facility. The largest property of the nine parcels received conditional use permit(CUP) approval for the independent senior living facility in 2020(H- 2020-0004), consistent with the new concept plan and elevations. Development Agreement Modification The approved DA(Inst. #2020-040967)includes a provision that requires the senior living parcel and the commercial parcels to provide cross-access and cross-parking. The inclusion of this provision is standard for commercial properties but should have excluded the senior living property as the City does not want cut-through traffic or shared parking between the commercial properties and the senior living project. Further,the existing approvals required a commercial drive-aisle along the rear of each commercial building lot which provides for the required cross-access—this drive aisle has been constructed per the previous approvals. The Applicant is therefore requesting the following modification to provision 5.Lc: "An easement agreement shall be recorded granting cross-access/cross-parking to all lots in the development, excluding that real property legally described on Exhibit C to the Development Agreement,which shall be developed as multi-family development restricted to seniors, age 55 and older the"Excluded Property),but including the parcel at the southwest corner of this site that is not subject to this agreement.A recorded copy of said easement agreement..." Staff supports the DA Modification request because of the shared drive-aisle,the fact the senior living facility will stand on its own in terms of access and parking, and a desire for the City to limit cut-through traffic between commercial and residential properties. However, Staff does recommend a slight revision to the revised language proposed by the Applicant to make it more clear which property is excluded from this provision and remove redundant language found within an existing provision: "An easement agreement shall be recorded granting cross-access/cross-parking to all lots in the development, excluding that real property legally described in Exhibit C to the Development Agreement,which was approved as McMillan Independent Senior LivingF acilit(H-2020-0004)and is located at 4923 N. Cortona Way(the"Excluded Property),b including the parcel at the southwest corner of this site that is not subject to this agreement.A recorded copy of said easement agreement..." V. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed MDA per the modified provision in Section VI.B. Page 2 Page 26 Item#4. VI. EXHIBITS A. Existing DA Provisions 5 CONDITIONS GOVERNING DEVE,LGPMENT OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: 5.1. Owner and/or Developer shall develop the Property in accordance with the following special conditions: a. Future development of this site shall substantially comply with the conceptual development plan and building elevations contained in Exhibit A of the Staff Repert that is attached to the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, attached hereto as Exhibit 44 , b. Development of the subject property (Le. site design and building design) is requited to comply with the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and the City of Meridian Architectural Standards Manual. c. An easement agreement shall be recorded granting cross-access/cross-parking to all lots in the development,including the parcel at the southwest corner of this site that is not subject to this agreement. A recorded copy of said easement agreement shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Zoning Compliance application for the site. d. The age of the residents living in the multi-family development shall be restricted to seniors, age SS and older. DEVi:L.oPMENT AQREEMENT--TF-w MILE AND MCMILLAN PAGE 3 or 8 Page 3 Page 27 Item#4. B. Proposed Revisions to the existing Development Agreement Provision 5.Lc: Applicant's request: "An easement agreement shall be recorded granting cross-access/cross-parking to all lots in the development, excluding that real property legally described on Exhibit C to the Development Agreement,which shall be developed as multi-family development restricted to seniors, age 55 and older(the"Excluded Property"),but including the parcel at the southwest corner of this site that is not subject to this agreement.A recorded copy of said easement agreement..." Staff's recommended language: "An easement agreement shall be recorded granting cross-access/cross-parking to all lots in the development, excluding that real property legally described in Exhibit C to the Development Agreement,which was approved as McMillan Independent Senior LivingF acilit(H-2020-0004)and is located at 4923 N. Cortona Way(the"Excluded Property"),but including the parcel at the southwest corner of this site that is not subject to this agreement. A recorded copy of said easement agreement..." C. Noted"Exhibit C,Excluded Property" from revised DA provision: Parcel"A' A parcel of Land located in a portion of Mcfr 12 of Me Amended Plat of Verona Subdivision No-4, as the same is shown on the officraf plat thereof,filed in Book 102 of Plats at Page 13476,Ada County Records, and shown as Parcel A on Record of Survey No_ 12081, recorded November 6,2019,as Instrument No.2019-1 10665,being situate in the Southwest quarter of Section 26;Township 4 North.Range 1 West_Boise Meridian,City of Meridian,Ada County, Idaho,hieing more particularly described as follows: Commencrng at the Southwest comer of said Section 26(from which the South quarter comer of said Section 26 bears South 88'58'52"East,2602_82 feet distant),thence North 00*21*16'East,848.02 feet on the West Section line of said Section 26.thence Leaving said west section line,South 88'58'52'East.30.DO feet to the Northwest corner of said Amended Pleat of Verona Subdivision No_4,said point being common with the Easterly right-of-way of North Ten Mile Road and the Southerly right-of-way of West Milano Drive;thence South 88'58'52"East,296.55 feet on the Northerly boundary tine of said Amended Plat of Verona Subdivision No.4.said point being the POINT OF BEGINNING;thence The foilowing eight(8)courses and distances on the Northerly and Easterly boundary line of said Amended Plat of Verona Subdivision No.4: South 88'58'52"East,74.70 feet_thence South 82'0354'East,321.73 feet to a point of curvature;thence 22M09 feet an the-arc of a curve to the right,having a radius of 153.00 feet,a central angle of 82'2514`,and along chord bearing South 40'51'19r East,201,60 feet;thence South 00'21'16'Westa 60.32 feet;thence South DD'24'03'East,151.75 feet;thence South DU'21'16'West,60.17 feet;thence North 89'35'57'East, 117.34 feet to a porcrt of curvature;thence 107.98 feet on the arc of a curve to the right,having a radius of 273.00 feet,a central angle of 22'39'43'.and a long chord bearing South 20°53'49East, 10728 feet;thence Leaving said Easterly boundary line,NorM 80'00'00"West.458.40 feet to a point of curvature;thence 43.96 feet on the arc of a curve to the right,haAng a radius of 84.00 feet,a central angle of 29'59'54",and a long chord bearing North 75'00'03"West,43.48 feet;thence North 60'00'06'West,66.00 feet to a point of curvature;thence 58.68 feet on the are of a curve to the left,having a radius of 116.00 feet,a central angle of 28'59104'r and a long chord bearing North 74'29'38'West,58.D6 feet;thence North 88'59'10'West,48.40 feet to a Point of Curvature;thence 29.49 feet on the are of a curve to the right,having a radius of 1900. feet,a central angle of 88°55'10",and a long chord bearing North 44'31'35"West,26.62 feet:thence North 00'04'00'West,490.25 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Page 4 Page 28 E IDIAN.;--- Applicant's Presentation Page 4 55 RESORT AT VERONA PLACE, LLC Boise, Idaho 83702Street, Suite 220 th 242 North 8Thomas LLCVarinAnne C. Kunkel TEN MILE AND MCMILLIAN MDA0111-2022-H LOCATION OF PROJECT4923 NORTH CORTONA WAY DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Located adjacent to commercial pads subject to the Development Agreement•bedroom unitsUnit mix consists of studios, one bedroom, and two –Consisting of 160 units •Senior Living Facility with associated amenities• SCOPE OF REQUEST OF MODIFICATION OF for additional clarity:Applicant has no objection to Staff’s changes to Applicant’s proposed language •development condition (Section 5.1.c)Exclusion of Project subject property from Cross Access Easement •040967-INSTRUMENT NO. 2020DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT REASONS IN SUPPORT OF properties and commercial properties based on previous approvalsDesign of Project contemplates landscape buffers between the residential •commercial propertiesExisting cross access drive aisle previously been installed to service the •commercial uses and residential usesPrevention of cut through traffic and shared parking between transitory •MODIFICATION REQUEST FOR DEVELOPMENT for a cross access easementto release the Project from any requirement Development Agreement of the the City Council approve Applicant’s request for a modification of Section 5.1.c For the reasons set forth here, and in the Staff Report, we respectfully request •AGREEMENT MODIFICATION QUESTIONS 7/tem 77 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Hatch Industrial (H-2022-0029) by Hatch Design Architecture, Located at 160 N. Linder Road A. Request: Vacation of the 30-foot wide utility easement along the east side of Lots 8 and 9 of Heppers Acre Subdivision Page 29 Item#5. E IDIAN:-- IDAHO C� PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact: Sonya Allen Meeting Date: June 14, 2022 Topic: Public Hearing for Hatch Industrial (H-2022-0029) by Hatch Design Architecture, Located at 160 N. Linder Road Request: Vacation to vacate the 30-foot wide utility easement along the east side of Lots 8 and 9 of Heppers Acre Subdivision Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the City Council Public Hearing Page 30 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: June 14, 2022 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 5 PROJECT NAME: Hatch Industrial (H-2022-0029) Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify (Please Print) HOA? (mark X if yes) If yes, please provide HOA name 10 11 12 13 14 Item#5. STAFF REPORT E COMMUNITY N -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT .►A H O HEARING 6/14/2022 Legend DATE: f I PFnje--t Lorca fan 0 LO TO: Mayor&City Council ix FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner 208-489-0573 J SUBJECT: H-2022-0029 Hatch Industrial-VAC LOCATION: 160 N. Linder Rd.,in the SW 1/4 of �f Fla-HKLJf = = Section 12,T.3N.,R.1 W. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Request to vacate the 30-foot wide utility easement along the east side of Lots 8 and 9 of Heppers Acre Subdivision. II. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Hatch Design Architecture—200 W. 36'St., Garden City,1D 83714 B. Owner: Ron Hatch—PO Box 776,Meridian, ID 83680 C. Representative: Jeff Hatch,Hatch Design Architecture—200 W. 36th St., Garden City,ID 83714 III. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE Per UDC Table 11-5A-2,vacation of a utility easement falls under"all others", which requires approval from City Council at a public hearing. IV. NOTICING City Council Posting Date Newspaper Notification 5/29/2022 Pagel Page 31 Item#5. Radius notification mailed to 5/26/2022 properties within 300 feet Next Door posting 5/25/2022 V. STAFF ANALYSIS The plat depicts a 30-foot wide"easement"along the eastern boundary of all lots in Heppers Acre subdivision,which is presumably for utilities but there doesn't seem to have ever been any utilities installed within the easement(see Section VII.A below). The Applicant proposes to vacate this easement on Lots 8 and 9 so that the building being constructed on the site can be located closer to the eastern boundary of the site within the existing easement area. A legal description and exhibit map of the easement proposed to be vacated is included in Section VI.B below. Relinquishment letters were received from Century Link, Idaho Power, Intermountain Gas Company, and Nampa&Meridian Irrigation District for the easement proposed to be vacated(see Section VII.0 below). VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the vacation of the utility easement as proposed by the Applicant and as agreed upon by the applicable utility companies. Page 2 Page 32 Item#5. VII. EXHIBIT A. Heppers Acre Subdivision Plat *4Y +}I� Rai i road I � WaX 0 .__—.S OW'"'E_ 2 aem, — I I I * I I J[iJI � 9ER'i1FR; I I I IiB•yyFE r O II n, 568' R Nf a I c iP � z QLL N. 13 0 7P E � 0 � ^, + -D i-to •7aE Elf r I I �' G7 t q n n z N�F*JO�E +q� M- Y S ih w C Y � y : n a tr 14 {13 .$. 30 < 2 Page 3 Page 33 Item#5. B. Legal Description&Exhibit Map Showing the Utility Easement Proposed to be Vacated 4�ti F�t't ACCURATE f SUAVE Ills i WAFFIN6 y df t r 1 tE lob No. 22-158 (Iylity Emement Vacatinn Description An easement to be vacated over and across a potion of Lots 8 and 9 of Heppers Acre Subdivision a5 recorded in Book 19 of Plats at Pages 1298 and 1299,Records of Ada County,said parcel is located in the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 12,Township 3 North,Range 1 West of the Boise Meridian,Ada County,Idaho,being more parttulady described as fellows: Commencing at the found 4 inch aluminum cap monument at the corner common to Sectio-ns 11, 12, 13 and 14,T3N, R I W from which the found 3 inch brass cap monument is asphalt at the quarter corner common to 5ectiDns 11 and 12,T3N, R1W bears N 0Q°32' 39"E a distance of 2645.87 feet; thence N W 3V 39" E along the section line for a distance Cf 447.74 feet;thence N 88"31' 38"E for a distance of 324.52 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence N 00'46'31"E far a distance of 192.61 feet; Thence N 89'41'22"W along the line common to Lots 8 and 9 for a distance of 30.01 feet to a found 5J81 inch iron pin with a cap stamped PIS 11463 at the northeast corner of Lot 8; Thence 5 W 46' 31"W for a distance of 192-00 feet to a found 5180 inch iron pin with a cap stamped PL5 11463 at the southeast corner of Lot 9; thence 5 88'31'3r E along the Ihte common to Cats 9 and 10for a distance of 30.02 feet to the REAL POINT Of BEGINNING, Vacated Easement contains 0.133 acres,a 5,772 square feet, more or less. S 11463 0 Y Za k, + * OF 14} N J. � 1520 W Washington St.Bo*e, ID$370 • Phone.24& -4727 VANW.aiCCu ratesurv"ors-corn Page 4 Page 34 Item#5. XI MAR .30' WIDE VIXITY EASMENT VAOA RON ACROSS ,A POR17ON or LOTS 8 & 9, NEPPERS ACRE SU901 90N, BOOK 19 OF PLATS, PACES I29B—F299, AAA COUNTY RECGIROS, L WNC WHIN ME SW x f4 OF THE SIN 114 OF SECTION 7 'r-w., R.?W,. 9.0, CITY OF MERIDIAN --- COUNTY OF ADA — STATE OF IDAHO . PANE AVE 11 1 CORNER � 0 114 .OF SCALE: 1"�40' a' LEGEND + N CINDER R O- —--—-- — SFC noN LINE I p PARCEL LINE EA SEMI T a FWND 3' BRASS GAP I Q g MONUA &WT IN ASPHAL f + Ency �110,'�I{�+rw+'E►'1T )N AsPHAL T + a ' i IriJNA 518" fRoN FIN, WTH PLASIX CAP, AS NOTEV • FOUND 112- IRON P,yv, +Os " :. MTN PLASPC CAP, AS NOTED tCti "I + q irF ❑ CAtC1CA7ED POINT ZE � D PL.1 TIED LOT h+tloB,ER ` + k rsv P D.e. POINT OF fLumly Nc I W k LAYDER RD. � + + u r UNE TABLE E-A"ENT rO BE VACATED LINE BEARING DISTANCE L1 N 89'41'22" E 30,01' S 88;3 f'36" w .324-52' L2 S W 31 38' W 30.02' P.0.8. a 40' Ta ' r ACCURATE w r dp SUrMMEYIRB & MAFPIA& - -—-� - - - -- � sway•e�-azzr 14 41 c aar „w,vwecurrt�survnrt a,m COWER It M I# DATE:APRIL 2022 JOB 22-15B Page 5 Page 35 Item#5. C. Relinquishment Letters from Easement Holders—All Consenting to the Proposed Vacation 1. Century Link: https:llweblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=261825&dbid=0&repo=Meridi anCi 2. Idaho Power:No existing utilities in the easement area. https:llweblink.meridiancity.orzlWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=261827&dbid=0&repo=Meridi anCi 3. Intermountain Gas: No existing utilities in the easement area. https:llweblink.meridianciU.oLglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=261828&dbid=0&repo=Meridi anCi 4. Nampa&Meridian Irrigation District: No existing utilities in the easement area. https:llweblink.meridianciN.oLgzl ebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=261829&dbid=0&repo=Meridi anCi Page 6 Page 36 7/tem 77 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing 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). Page 37 Item#6. E IDIAN:--- IDAHO C� PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Sonya Allen Meeting Date: June 14, 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 City Council Public Hearing Page 38 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: June 14, 2022 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 6 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 q20 Lt� A-um y LL AfvA I t>S I t,� 0-1e-L� 4; CAV LAI- /3 Lo c-C 1,o ,7 N114 �d /y 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Item#6. STAFF REPORT C�I w IDIAN -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT .►A H O HEARING June 14,2022 Legend DATE: 0 lei PFujeat Luca-iar TO: Mayor&City Council 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 Ely of S. Meridian Rd. and 1-84 in the southeast'/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 Page 39 1 1 1 r . 11111! 1 L,k �7 1 _lWill Ell �i......�� .F . 03, Iii 2I�lllllil•Y 1.: �. — �'t+;— '�i ��'x NII uuu Nllll _ - -_- OVERLAND �... ■■ �. �.a �� .I. ;fi. ,ITT ; �A ��•T " FRAFd KLItd lk- 1 .NIIY lLT2 �� ■_ N !- WL.0 11111� ' ■r■ram I. �Illl 1' NINON 1:■„� ■�■1 - llllll : llllll p_ llllll _ 1 , 111111 _ l®■ a� 1 1 ■1 illll • ■l.m illll, u-I■■ul�l IEEE■w21 — 11■x all■uY 1.: Nisx llll uu 1. NII 111111 Nllll 84 NII 111111 Nllll tyi � � • ll i Item#6. C. Representative: Same as Applicant IV. NOTICING Planning& Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper notification published in newspaper 4/5/2022 5/29/2022 Radius notification mailed to property owners within 300 feet 4/4/2022 5/26/2022 Public hearing notice sign posted 4/7/2022 6/3/2022 on site Nextdoor posting 4/5/2022 5/25/2022 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& 3-17 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 Page 41 Item#6. 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 Staffs 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 FL UM 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 Page 42 Item#6. 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 Page 43 Item#6. • "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. i I II I I I Connectivity = 4 --1 I I {— 'I Single Family Residential Townhouses or Condos Open oca or Iles or oa Space a q q Multi-family a D' i Transit Stop Office, Live-wnrk,or_ ice► �� Townhouses o Commercial! —Aetail Co Office I I I I Service Use Plaza)Open Space Arterial Road O Feature area(shared space,connectivity;etc.) I F Figure 3A from City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan.Note the focus on rokdway frontage that transitions and integrates uses,and the open space amenities both integrated and shared. Single Family Residential i Office or Hospitality ® Retail or _ Service Use ® Local or Collector Road _ e ° ID Residential Office Park/ or Office Headquarters d6 Q Integrated Plaza Area - 0 0 .g Retail 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 Page 44 Item#6. 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 Page 45 Item#6. 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 Page 46 Item#6. 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 Page 47 Item#6. 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 Page 48 Item#6. 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 Page 49 Item#6. 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. B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard these items on April 28,2022. At the public hearing,the Commission moved to recommend denial of the subject CPAM and AZ requests. 1. Summary of Commission public hearing_ a. In favor: Ethan Mansfield,Hawkins Companies;Matt Schultz,Representative for Tanner Creek(to the west) b. In opposition: Kelsi Lorcher,Joe Lorcher C. Commenting: Clair Manning,Nona Haddock d. Written testimony: None e. Staff presenting gpplication: Sonya Allen f. Other Staff commenting on application: Bill Parsons 2. Key issue(s)of public testimony a. Public testimony in agreement with Staff s recommendation of denial due to not having a Master Plan with the Tanner Creek development to the west; b. Concern pertainingto o impacts on traffic in the area from the proposed development; c. Testimony from the Tanner Creek developer's representative that they're in favor of the proposed development and intend to re-submit a residential development plan for the property to the west once ACHD has accepted their Traffic Impact Study(TIS). 3. Ke, ids)of discussion by Commission: a. Concern pertaining to the impact on traffic in this area if the proposed development plan is approved; b. Desire to have the TIS reviewed&accepted by ACHD for the overall development area in order to know the impacts and transportation improvement requirements for the development; C. Consistency of the proposed development plan with the Comprehensive Plan. 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. None (Commission recommended denial based on their belief the requested use is not consistent with the general mixed use development guidelines,the existing guidelines or the proposed MU-R guidelines; also need a Traffic Impact Study.) 5. Outstandingissue(s)ssue(s) for City Council: a. None Page 12 Page 50 Item#6. VIII. EXHIBITS A. Future Land Use Map—Adopted&Proposed Land Uses Date:4118J2M Adopted Land Uses OPAWM - _ r --- ---- Feet ti I/� fir► � �/�� I % / '/'//.Z' I:i5001010 � 61F. /j`= �1i�; ■• 4 l/� Legend ROO ��'�t "`i!•/ ® Meridian AOCI Future Land Uses ■■jW 41.4�'��t�l�` ilk �A IT[) �Cityvuide � Low density Residential - % / Medium Density Residential / Med-High Density Residential �, ' � / High density Residential �/ I(/ �� r ► �/ I I I I I I � � Commercial 0 Office - OVERL• Industrial A4I}W , Civic f' ,/ I I/ Old Town Proposed Land Uses ® Mixed Use Neighborhood r / , /'��i,/ OW Mixed Use Community �I��f��//�� •� f, J�i� I = Mixed Use Regional r.� ��// i�=� f '911 lro f/Mixed Use Non-Residential s ® Mixed Use-Interchange Ten Mile Specific r �rr•�r r,t ■ .�///,��•�_��_.`.ram Low Density Employment ® Lifestyle Center r� ■ `/, ■ _ High Density Employment ■ ow Mixed Employment jjW■■ or --` o �s Mixed Use Residential ITD � o �■ -►�� i____=J�` © Mixed Use Commercial ; r OF OAF FVFFIRVA Page 13 Page 51 Item#6. B. Annexation Legal Description and Exhibit Map km E r4GrNEERtryG Fet?ruaiy4,2022 Project No„20-176 I-W!Aeridian Road 6thlbtt A Legal Dearriptlan for Anmxatkm Knd Rezone toC-G A parse I of I and being a port Ion of the Northeast 114 of the Southeast 1{4 of Section 13,Townshl p 3 North,Range!west,8_M.,Ada[aunty,Idaho being mare particularly descrlbed as follows= Commencing at a bra ss Ca p marking the East 114 oo rrLer of said Section 13,wh Irb bears 589'2t}'1Q"E a dicta nce of 2,642.64 feet fro m a 5{g-inch re bar rna r1 irig the'Center 1/4 Corner of so id ype Lion 13,thence followi rtg the a ante riy I ine of the 5outh4m st V4 of said Secti on 13,501'02'43"W a di5ta nce of 420.62 feet to the POINT OF BEGIN MING. Thence following said easterly Ilne.SU1'01'4YW a distance-of 614.71 feet to the boundary of the City of Meridian par ofdrnance number 343r also known as South Gate Annexatlon,dated May T,1979; 1_ Th&ncie Ieawine sald easterly I i ne and forlawing said bound aryr the to Iiowing flue J 5�cou rses.. NEW58'17''W a d istarice of 96.37 feet; 2- 571*02'14"W a distanre of 373-86 feet; 3. 574'40'17"W a distance of 471.15 feet; 4. 583'2913"4V a distance of 332.94 feet; 5. N89°34'12'W a distance of 85.20 feet to the westerly Ii ne of sa id Northeast 1{4 of the Southeast 1/4r rf a ntA leaving sa id boundary a nd fol.lowing sa id westerly Ilne,N00'43'22"E a dicta nce of 664.99 feet to a 5{ -inrii reber; Thence leaving said westerly line,589832'05'E a digtanCe of 968.55 feet to a 5{9-inch mbar; Thence H01r41136"E a distance of 244,37 feet Thence S99'08'09"E a distance of 349.98 feet to the PCHNT OF GE61KNING. Sa id pa reel conta i ns a total of 18.304 acres,more or less. Attached herea Is Exhlbit B and by this refer-ence Is made a part hereof. pL L:11Iq o � m c 1 66 L, Y I(E' �`- 4 5725 North Discovery Way+Balser idahD 63713• 208.639.6919-kmengllp.com Page 14 Page 52 Item#6. CENTER 1/4, CORNER POINT ❑F DI?MLgF-NCWEHT 51:GTICN 13 W. Waltman Ln, EAST 114 CORNER SECTION 13 FbUNb 519-INCH -2EB R (3ASJS OF BEARING FOUND BRASS cop S&5_215'10"E 2642.64' LI NE TARLE LINE 6EARIN6 DISTANCEI v � Li N66513'17W 96.37 of _ ew L2 S71'02'14-W 373.85 POINT bF BEGINNiWG i# L3 332.94 L4 N159'34'12-W 55.20 S99'08'O$"E ;U . 49.9W Unplatted Current Jw .t Zoning:R a , r� S59'32'O5"E 9681.55' � Annexation.Area- 18.304±AwL a C Prop-osed Zoning:C-G a Uri tatted m 51213417707,SIZ13417690&51213417699 � V3 '8 C>urr�rgt a V3 Zouing:RUT i L1 - Eerw I aJw Al I Y1 WSW.-8� I l'I !.� LA p LEGEND ERA$5 CAP -- Cr 0 ALUMINUM CAP 6662 - 5/8-INCH REAR 44 CALCULATED POINT OF — — — ANpW_KAn0W & REZONE BOUNDARY —SECTION LINE " Exp3nNn RIGHT--or-wAY LJH� 0 250 500 750 Plan Sca IG;1'-250' IEHGINEEAING 57'tS ndTn-I di�JGwCrA'W4t EIf715F,�4H[Y 83713 «�owl aowms Exhibit B Annexation and Rezone owe r.b��mx SHEET; 1-841 Meridian Road 1 OF 1 NE114 Ski/4 Sec, 13,TAN, RIW, BM. Ada County, Idah-D Page 15 Page 53 Item#6. C. Conceptual Development Plan orb• E aK I �.._. ,. MI .i I u , f =:. 0 i 0 0 0 0 ... .0 .... Me emus x lnTllllfTTff I�I I I I I l a �TIII TTI I U I I I I I I fill �, __ f f11111111ffII10111111f� ti '� ti � � 1�4 MERIOL4N RORO-CCMMPMLLWE PLRN OPTION 6-4 `.,.. cio Page 16 Page 54 Item#6. 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 I. 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 Page 55 Item#6. 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.m eridian city.org/WeUink/Doc View.aspx?id=2 5 7681&dbid=0&repo=Meridian City Page 18 Page 56 Item#6. D. NAMPA&MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=258727&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity E. PARK'S DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridianciV.oLvlWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=257725&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCiU F. COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST IDAHO(COMPASS) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.asp x?id=25861 7&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity G. IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT(ITD) https://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=257906&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCiU H. ADA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES https://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=259278&dbid=O&rgpo=Meridianciu I. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=259453&dbid=O&rgpo=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. The Commission finds 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. The Commission finds 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. The Commission finds 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. The Commission finds that the proposed amendment is consistent with the Unified Development Code. Page 19 Page 57 Item#6. 5. The amendment will be compatible with existing and planned surrounding land uses. The Commission finds 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. The Commission finds 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. The Commission finds 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, the Commission finds 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; The Commission 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; The Commission finds 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; The Commission finds 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 The Commission finds 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 Page 58 Item#6. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. The Commission finds 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 Page 59 E IDIAN.;--- Applicant's Presentation Page 4 Meridian Interchange Center Development-PreProject Manager,Ethan Mansfield June 14, 2022Meridian City Council0099-2021-H Request G) of ~17 acres-Annexation and Rezone to General and Service Commercial (C-acresR) of ~33 -Use Regional (MU-Comp Plan Amendment to Mixed- VICINITY MAP Use requires only CZC/DES Commercial –G -Entitled CRequestSubject of Annexation/Rezone 84 and Meridian Rd.-NWC of ILocation: VICINITY + SITE PLAN residential unitsProposed 400 –Tanner Creek requires only CZC/DES Commercial Use –G -Entitled CRequestSubject of Annexation/Rezone 84 and Meridian Rd.-NWC of ILocation: CONCEPT RENDERINGS Looking NWLooking West RETAIL 1– CONCEPT RENDERINGS Looking South Looking West RETAIL 1– VICINITY + SITE PLAN residential unitsProposed 400 –Tanner Creek requires only CZC/DES Commercial Use –G -Entitled CRequestSubject of Annexation/Rezone 84 and Meridian Rd.-NWC of ILocation: VICINITY + SITE PLAN residential unitsProposed 400 –Tanner Creek requires only CZC/DES Commercial Use –G -Entitled CRequestSubject of Annexation/Rezone residential unitsProposed 400 –Tanner Creek 84 and Meridian Rd.-NWC of ILocation: VICINITY + SITE PLAN residential unitsProposed 400 –Tanner Creek requires only CZC/DES Commercial Use –G -Entitled CRequestSubject of Annexation/Rezone residential unitsProposed 400 –Tanner Creek 84 and Meridian Rd.-NWC of ILocation: BIKE/PED CONNECTIVITY AMENITIES + OPEN SPACE COMMON OPEN SPACE AKA PARKLET Bollardsfrom Tanner CreekBikeway/Ped Connection Looking NEBirdseye View COMMON OPEN SPACE AKA PARKLET Looking NWLooking SE URBAN PLAZA Birdseye ViewLooking NW URBAN PLAZA Looking NELooking SE PATIO DINING (NOT OFFICIAL “AMENITY”, BUT PED ORIENTED)Looking NorthLooking South ADJACENT PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT residential unitsProposed 400 –Tanner Creek Use requires only CZC/DES Commercial –G -Entitled CAnnexation/Rezone RequestSubject of 84 and Meridian Rd.-NWC of ILocation:commercial uses. Here we are!Why wasn’t Tanner Creek approved 2x previously? It did not contain •What about Tanner Creek?• VICINITY + SITE PLAN Next available deadline for CPAM–December 15, 2022•Estimated approval of Tanner Creek Traffic Study–July •Tanner Creek Submits Traffic Study to ACHD–March •Traffic StudyWill not accept Prelim Plat or CUP without –City of Meridian •Must update Traffic Study (from 2021)–ACHD •Planned to submit early January–Tanner Creek •Dec 15 and June 15–CPAM submittals • ADJACENT PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT Currently Governs Development of Property•Existing Development agreement from 2008• ADJACENT PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT ADJACENT PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT MU R FLUM-G ZONE + MU-C appropriate supporting uses.Developments should be anchored by uses that have a regional draw with the and residential dwellings and public uses near major arterial intersections… R designation is to provide a mix of employment, retail, -The purpose of the MUallows for easily accessible and convenient services for residents and workers.combination of compatible land uses within a close geographic area that Use\] designation is to provide for a -In general, the purpose of \[the Mixed R Land Use Description:- PROPOSED LAND USE UseRegional C only CZC/DES Commercial Use requires –G -Entitled CAnnexation/Rezone RequestSubject of R FLUM-G ZONE + MU-C uses… Close proximity and/or access to interstate or arterial intersections.Largest scale and broadest mix of retail, office, service, and light industrial G Zoning Description:- TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS ACHD Accepted TIS 6/3/22•roadway system?Instead of limiting land use, why not just improve surrounding •(excluding Interstate Highways) (ITD, AADT 2019)busiest roadway segment in the state -But, this is the third•support a Regional Use. Extremely Fair Point.Staff Concern: Transportation Infrastructure is insufficient to • TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS Waltman and Meridian Rd.Install transit infrastructure (for future transit stop) on corner of •use pathway-Install 10’ multi•Improve Waltman to Collector Roadway•Extend Corporate Drive across Ten Mile Creek to Waltman• PROPOSED TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS StopTransit Future use pathway-wide multi-10’ ACHD ACCEPTED TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS StopTransit Future use pathway-wide multi-10’ INTEGRATION WITH SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT Bollardsfrom Tanner CreekBikeway/Ped Connection building orientationthese would exist regardless of –landscape buffer) and drive aisle natural barrier (creek and family uses by 129’ of -the multiRemaining 62% is separated from Creek is reserved as a park. 38% of frontage along Ten Mile VICINITY + SITE PLAN by ACHD 6/13TIS Accepted –residential units Proposed 400 –Tanner Creek requires only CZC/DES Commercial Use –G -Entitled CRequestSubject of Annexation/Rezone 84 and Meridian Rd.-NWC of ILocation: Thank You!Questions? DEVELOPMENT OPTION OPTION: Change to Commercial Land Use Designation?UseRegional DEVELOPMENT OPTION family units OPTION: Replace 80,000 SF Box with 250 multi DEVELOPMENT OPTION family units OPTION: Replace 80,000 SF Box with 250 multi SURROUNDING ZONING – CONNECTIVITY AND GRADING CONSTRAINTS CONCEPT RENDERINGS OFFICE– TRIP GENERATION (Max Commercial) TRIP GENERATION (Tanner Creek) TRIP GENERATION (with MF component) FULL ACCESS ON EASTERN DRIVEWAY? FULL ACCESS ON EASTERN DRIVEWAY? FULL ACCESS ON EASTERN DRIVEWAY? FULL ACCESS ON EASTERN DRIVEWAY? ADJACENT PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT Currently Governs Development of Property•Existing Development agreement from 2008• INTEGRATION WITH SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT PlanProposed INTEGRATION WITH SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT No understanding of congruency across canal to the east-Less congruent with existing neighborhood to west -Approved Plan on Tanner Creek site (2008) INTEGRATION WITH SURROUDING DEVELOPMENT with residential uses??do you want more integration or less –These appear contradictory neighborhoods. in an attempt to protect residential more onerous activating uses This requirement suggest that the City is attempting to make ADJACENT PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT ADJACENT PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT E IDIAN.;--- Public Presentations and Documents 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 Traffic Study Under Evaluation Thank You Backup Trip Generation Traffic Analysis 7/tem 77 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM 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). Page 81 Item#7. E IDIAN:--- IDAHO C� PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Brian McClure Meeting Date: June 14, 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 City Council Public Hearing Page 82 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: June 14, 2022 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 7 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 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ®— '� ♦ ♦ �� ■ ■■■� ire �� ^ _ram■ o■i■-_■ ' !,�j111 ♦�� =1=�J'� --__--- /�—r1m�� I V - V ' —� �- _�� _. i►A'�I♦ ♦� ■■I ��1 '■I■■■■I ,.,,,.,ti.l- I ♦II■��r L rD �A 1 �l .��II `�� `��. =1 L■ -��`�� ♦♦1 ♦ ■/ ��t�ll�•1 i kM441t ♦i ♦♦♦ii � �■1�mmn■■m �:■ ♦ - 11 ■ ► ; ■ 1 � �� .r� �-,I■ ... ...■■•■■�►�•■1•■■1•/■�- ■ �� 11■■■■■/ ♦ ♦�■I■ ■►♦ �� /L ♦ � `i�hl IIIu• � � p_■ 'I L■■1�1� I �� . / -� ■ � � � ■ �♦ ■■ r ■■I �\ ` Iilj MEN -11 ..► ■.IEI�■�� ■■:�■.JJ��,,♦� SEES ��I '�•:••Ip1 ✓� � -- - � � \ ' ■ � � ; •� � ■ �� `.�/IIIjI1j p o �/ ��■► I �� IIIII l ■_ _-l1� - •.•/. ♦♦ ♦� II■■■ � .�- � � �� / ■ �� ,� � •i1 r . ♦♦,♦ /■ .�■ � 11 } ♦♦ ■■■�_SEES►♦♦ ��•11 •`♦♦��/1 �19 1111�1 ��"�. �. �� / ■I ■ ■� ♦■■■■■■■•� _ ��, _ 1j♦ � . ■ � /6 � EII - � � _� I�r■rIl■ . .� �,,�♦•♦�■�'�-■ Il ilrlll��'I' t■■■�1/`�■■■�♦,�� -- 111�1!1 I " `♦III■ _I■ � �, � _� � ��.. f� _ 1 1 .■ �i .■ � \J � `� ��■�11 C� 1l-i0�t !� �- �'� .� ��--�� I �� ® T''►. !�1 ■■ ■,r l •-�/� � ► ►i,♦II I.p � I - fl I 1 /■ �� I ` /U +. �� I� ��■ ��=� \ ��I� 1�• �_ •■LJ♦ (III - � � rip w 1� ■ �. row w . • Ells • I I + � ,��.., .. , - � �I�1�1 �` �al'��j�!.+♦�,irk� � � l �%��.�;� � �1► � �i;; I + T ■ . +4 •:� �� II■■� � ♦� ��Iw �:� � ►��;� � �I I �� ■■■�■■IIII �� _� ... � +, ,` �:� �ti. y � � � r • ,t, � �� ■�•�'�' •®` •,®, ��i� •i`' � ,■♦iy►�■��1►� �1l.�i11I1111111•■ �� min ��,. � � -_ _ �� ♦ � \ � �. � �♦ ■�■•.� .� ♦� 1 Imo♦ ■u-1 �■ ♦� �� '1 �� ♦ �I �� • �' � ��■ A � � .� ■ � � III♦ ��II ��,.,�,� 1 � ■II � i _ •■I� • nnn► +� � � - _ � , . , � � ♦ � � i ♦ � = 111E •1 � �( - -- i I .� I �� ■■ VGA ■■1 I � / _ �� _ _-.� � ��®�� ,J■■■ ♦ � _ o..p'�♦■■■■■■■1111111111 �.��•1111�L■ � �1 . � �� I r � � ■■■ � SEES■ �••t- I�IIIIt� �� `� ------�__-- ■ , , ■■■ ® ��!I_.■■♦ 1♦ �♦ ♦io -- - -��i...:_�w► ICI `�� ■■ -'--� ! � '1` ■� �_ � ® I•Ij♦ ♦♦ art�1♦�i�■�• I II ? �111 e __ ,-.' r ■ ■SENSE_■ IN on EEEEE ■ EEEI► .■. __..., _ _ ,_ ., - ' � .--. •• ■ iii\I�__\IIIIIII ♦=■i■�=� 1 � :�\ ,'111 •♦ �,\� 1� �♦♦ ♦♦♦ 1 . ♦SEES■I■� �SEES' �■N � • /11 \.A,•. 1 `•� ♦j♦/i ��N r � 3 • % �. _ e_■_ ■ e II \ ._ A ■■■- ®�� ■■ •♦I SEES IN ♦��; ♦I � � � '-- -■ I •■■■ '�� I■11�11,. ♦11��•�=_� ��J:�I�:I- � .■■„ ■� tC ■ •� s"-1�-1♦� ♦ 1 -IIIIII♦ IIII 11■► I ,�� ® ♦♦ nn► a In■nll-�� ♦ ♦ �1 , ■ N� ■� ■■ ® . � _. � •_� � =nnnn■� - • �� _ � .♦ • - .'� - � ■ I ; • _,I �' �11'■IIII■ �■1■ 'roll Im - ,.■11■■ �. ■ � ,'� ■ i � . • • •�. ■' r ----� - - �-p_ � 1■1�■■■�®�Y■■i■..nWil - ■ � 1■11 • ■ � •® ' -1 _ _J�%�IA.�� _ • 1 , . _ I ^ ' _ __ ► _- _ 1 ICE �■_■■- ■,:�_ I■ � �■ � �� ■= veil ��- , .. � ��i I,;-�•'��/♦1 _ ° ■ _ r � - -- �■ �II nnn ,■■1■:-5'' - ■-- ■ ■■■E_�� ■■�,® •�� 1=�'. /I••1•j�♦■1� �� I � �_ II' - - — _ ■m (nmm� ? I �__■ ■ IIIIIII■ _ r ® •♦ /) • • • • ■ I ' il'I ! E ■ • • ■ , ■ ■ .• - - - ■. ■ ,• �� l:•,eta ''�i�• ,n i . - _ , ■■■�_� I► lip _ ,.. II 1�: n 'rv.., - _■-� =IIIIIIIIIIII= -- " �I'_ j■.►�■■�■ ■■ ■� 1 EEN■■ �\ � 1 �I II,,''+r�'"�11� \ ■■. � 1 ■ 1 1 UI■ t • •- • , �I In■mn� li■ u I � - •- � - - - - - - -. .. _. .. _ .. �_ `� - ►I:1=j � :� - -�_ -= _ _ •• . _ _��--------------------- ---�� _►��. _■II. 11■■ --- �� _��■■■■■■�■■,�II� -I R��I��IIIII■7� � � / ��/�/� � imnlnnnnnlllnln qll 11111111/,.- pllllllllllllllllllllll nnminnm�m�T�Ir' • '� I,IIIIJ■1ilL • �r:■ram , ■■�■r■■q I ■ ■ ■ I ' (IIII IIIIII IIIIIII = L.� ' _■11111111 -I�.nnm_.nnm .nnn ■■■_ .=_ ` ♦ • • _ _ •• • ■_ ■r��__ _1► ► ♦n■n i' ,�■■.i4� I��`: 111111�111111 IIIIIII 2 _ - - _ • - _ � ; �C 111111111E--- I--- � ►♦ � \■■■ ♦" � � EEE■■■1 IIIIIII - 11111111 ■IIII■_?■IIII r- 11111E IIIII ■ -■-■ • • • /'-• ' -C � i � ,� �/ .�=1■■1■I■■ I� -_- _nn nn �� -■ + ' 'n■nnm mlmn IIIIII _ _- _ -- _ �� 1� 1--I • ■ / i IIIIIII i 1■IIIII III■ II I�■■■■■11E I! __-+ I■■■■11■I IIEIEIE L■ ■ • - -i +� ■_ E111111■ �1 i ■�I ♦I i■1 EEEI■■♦♦�� ■` ■nn■nn,,,r= . • • - n - t I �i-•�/i �� /♦ ., Ili►• ��\III■D♦ ■ / I/ �r & - mn1111111_ IIIIIII � ��11111 i o ii ii 1 ■■� + ■I■11■■■■ IIIIII► 1■ ■ ■■ � I ■ • • ",„ i 7 '■_■■■ ♦♦ I■ • �■ / \IIIIT_IIIIIII I■1■I eo o■■_ = •�� III11■■11 ■■■EII I _ . _ ■ ■ .►■ /■ / 1 ■ • a ■■ ! 1 _■ IIIIIII■ ■■-■■■ • • ■I • - - III ■ ■■` 1_ + ' �- ■--■ r r11 ►I ■ ■ -__■ ■ ■--■-- ♦ •••. i ti- ■■I■■■En • ■0_■■■■-■ 11 • SEE■■■I / ♦ ■■■1,� �; /y/' ,� / �� p■■ ■■■■111111111 ■I■I■/..\ �o,l1E „11 ■■ ■III■III ♦♦♦ �♦ Illl lllllnn■■�_ m _ Y + I i■■■�■- /1, 111•I •■III■ _■IIIII►II/j♦1,/��r11 �r.� � ///% _::____- SEES EEEI ►,. _ ' -"'---- r •` ==_ ■■■■■■■■■♦ rl ■ F I _�� • ♦ I I ♦■■I - Ii ♦i ♦ .o1r1 * ��///.r//��iii� ■- ■ ___ _� 1■_ _ __�� All IIIII 11♦ II� IIIIII■11■ p■■d111111■ II■I■■1■■■ - -- I -■SEES■■ ■ -I��r�� l■■I■■■■►i' ♦♦ 111 ♦�E� I ♦ � 1' -■-- ■■III II■ !n_■� -_ �. � II►-_ SEES■■Eft_ ♦ _ ■ _ ■ -■ �� l ♦ I � r III■I ♦♦ ♦ �■ •� �/� 't' _ �Il 111� ■-. .-____ . ■i f�� ■ .►► I V-EMM■ ♦ I■IIIII■\\ _■■■■III■■11■■III ■■r ■ SEES■ ' SEES■ ■1■■ ►�► / ♦♦ 1 'H I■IIIIII■ 111 ■i-�'I ■�-i�i_■IIII 111E■�tl � � �•■ 11■IIIIIII � I 11111111111 ■II■11 ■11 � - IIn 1 ■� ■11 � � SEES■-■■■��I ♦11 r11� �.; � : :I►�. � ■ II_■-. --■■ .. ■ 11-►•�•I■I■■■I■\♦/v -111111111E I• � , ■■■ •II I��I .N ,•_'- -- --■■I■ ■ I I _ YY I (IEE-•/�■ ■. �♦� ► ♦/AA � �■i I -. 1- --� l■IIII II. _- f ------ 11111111 ti I ► � .■ IIII■III ■■ II / .■ _ - IIIII■EII\ I■IIIIIIIII 11 - _I ■..■_. ♦ A■ ♦ ♦ • , \ C-___IIIII-_ ■■ I■IIIIII ■._,-_ ■■■ IIIII III/ _ _ ♦ , ♦ ■■_ ♦� EE■■ �1�:•• ♦ ■ •� , i■■_IIIIIIIII■i ■�II'■■■-■ IIIIII IIIIII \ , ��j��11■IIIIIIII C- ®�■ ♦�i1/1 h 1■111■ SEES■I■■■■ ,■■I■■■./II p■ .�,,:♦=;■■ ■��=�:1' ■■■= EEEI 1■U I ■ �- -■�.,-_�_ 'IIII �- ■ IIII IJ - -_��♦ i■ - �■► � � / ♦• 1 �■■■ ■ �■■■■■■ �� ■ ■ 111■EII SEES► p■IIIIII■. • __� ■■■ IIIII ■■■ ' � ■IIII ®� / _• ♦ ■■11■►► ._:■ G♦►�.•�►�■■■■■ �i■■ ■ I�■■■■■■■■ ■ ♦ IIIIIII ■1■ IIIIIII ._- ■■ I�■ ■� pr/11�■1 � ■ + + SEES■'SEES■ ■mnnl InI1111 1111111111 IIIIIII ■ \IEEE ■� A A - ♦1 : ■ IIIII EII / ----- , nnn111Onn.■..t■ ii • I ►nnnnm■ + . 1 I I■■■. ►■EEEEE ■ ■II ■■ . ■■ III IIIII 1 j,i r + IIIIIIIII � III11 IIIII II ■111 \■I SEES■ ♦ ■\■■\�■ IIIIIIIII �► ir.= II■E ■I■■■■■I■ � nnn■IIII■■■■:IIIIIIII if nErr1 � IEEE■■rl /III■■■■■-I•Ir■■■ ■■■ ■�■nnnno■�-= ►11_• \IIIIIII ■. 11■II■■■■■ - ■ ■■E■■■E■1 \ I■ + + + ♦ �-- ■nnnnm IIIIII ' �==♦��'�1►EEEEE ► �� ■ ■I■1E11■1 ■■■■■■■■11■• w■■■. -i■ ■ _.. 1■ IIII •SEES■e. l + , � �♦ Ail �C-� �♦ IIIIII ■�11■■IIII■I \ � I IIII \■ i 11■1E■■■■ SEES ■-_ + _► + i■- _= I ■■-�■■■■■ � � ■ ■■■ /� , -.r■■ �1 ■IIII R ♦ ��.♦y�1`n i 1 ♦ ♦ ■-� \ 1.■I■I►�_ ■■■I■III■\ ■:♦ _�■ IIIII ■■■I■I■■ ■EEEEE ■■11 .-E� , -.• ■_SEES f� i SEES■■■I■IIf ■_IIIIII�■ ■ ■. I •ti ■ \EEEI■ ■■IEI■ ■IIII■ + ♦ _ -i ♦ ■II■-_ ■■r II■ •■■ II III I► �.m .■ _■ ■_ ■11■IIIII _ ► ■ =r11♦ ■. .■ ■ III �_ 1 + + + �■ Y _ �■ 1 �■ ■ a 1, ■• ' ___- ■IEE -■ ■ i- ■• -- � :IIIIII ' ♦ -%■IEEE. � •\SEISE■■I a l .1 ♦♦•■■■�� ♦1j1nn ■ ■ _ L■.■ . i■■ill h II■■� I\■■111�'''� I n---- ■I■■■ ++ -- _ - IIIII ♦ n n- � IIII■ � ■ ■• '■■ \IEEE ■ - ■n �� ■ ♦♦ ♦♦ -■o ■■■■IIE, 1■■■■I - ■ ■■- IIIIII -- :::■ ::::"■ - + ® i II= I ♦♦�- ■rEnr -molllr ■� ■ 1• ■, ■ ■■■■ ♦111 -■ -- ♦ ♦- �� - ►► - ■1111 ■ - +■■ E11I �_■ � �" ___ t __ _- - ♦♦� � - ■ �_-� 111 ■ ■_ •II■■ IIE 11111E \ . .-=_IIIIIII ■■III i + + , `• ■ ♦ - • �a- � , 1 ■I ■ A _ IIII IIII ►. �■ � ��_♦ 1•■ , ■.. \ II■:■11 ' ♦1�■I -d __• _ ♦ EI .�EEE_. �i 1 / �- ■�■ �/ � ... J• - �♦ � IIII■■■■�■II■II■►loon nm■ � � IIIIIII■ ■■.'♦1�■�'p1:::II IIII ■\IEEE■ + L G■IIIIIII■ ♦ 1■■___■ ..� -- � - I,■ ■_ ® 1■ -_ � � ■ 1111I111� 1■ .�-_. �.- ■■■r D r1 IIIII■■� mm nnn nnnnm �■ ■ .EEEI. m■ 11 ♦um I ■ -- ■■■■ � ♦■■E■I ■ ■■■ ... ■D b. ■ ■n ■ n U■ ■� ♦ IIIIIII 111 _ ■■■I■■■■II■■ I/ ■II� �- _ ■III■ I .■� � ♦ � ♦ IIIIII/`..• _ 1111111111111111 �_ -p p C � I■I►=_- IIIIIII■ �■II■E■EEI■■■I■■■■ IIIIIIIIIIIn1�SEES 111 ,� ■■ ■ j♦IIEnn �E'i1111ii1r IrO1 �■■111■■ I■■1 � ■■f �� ♦I � i■■■■r..■■�1■■�I III IIIIIIII■= nnmm�nn, ■1■ e e■e _ 1�■■ IIIII , �- IIIIIIIIU1 111■EE■■■ - 1 ■ ♦ 111■► n ■ ■1E , ♦IIIIII■■ ■ EEI ■■■•♦■� ■ 1 IIIIIII►., ■■ _IIIIIIIIIIII �- -___-o _ . IIIII n n� I■_. _ = ml m■p_n■n nlll Iuur nm nm � L-- ♦1 �.- . .■r► 1♦ ■ A♦ ♦ .■I■Illpnno■, nnnnlnnm --- _ ■""- ■ • - IIIIIIIIIIII\♦ =■IIIIII■.■■ ■ ■ IIII ..- 111111111 IIII T ■ ■■■ ■I11 _ ' It/♦IIII■___ E■■f11 -EII• ♦♦ . ■■■■■■■■p■E■E■E ■I .IIIIIII IIIII IIIIII ■III■III III.�IIIIIIIIIII �_� ■ IIII II\ / ►I _■■IIIIIIIII 111 + _ III ■■■E■ �i■p IIII pp- ■■r � � ■ ♦ � ■ r■EEE■ E�■EEEEE■� ' - \IIIIIIIIIII /1111111 111111111 Illlllllllq - 1 I _ ■-I�- 'IIIIII + EEEEE■ ,■■■I - ■ ■p ' II■■■ ■ ■ ■I I•• 1 ��i� ` ..;�- , -� \IIII � _ ■ ■ _ ■E■E■■�■�■■■■■. • • 1111111111111 IIIIII_ - IIIII 1111111111■ =IIII i _� IIIII - II / j j1�1111 ■_ III►�♦ I::: ■111 , ■■Ip■■■ •♦• ■■-■ ■■\ ■rnmpp�■■■�'■-■I + ++ nnnn Emil /■Im ♦ • ••• nnr I ■ .11111111111111 IIIIIII� � � I 111E . _ Will II ■ � IPE I EE ■■1 ■■■ ■E ■ ' ■Sod/1■■_ _ ♦1♦ ■■■��■r• ,1•j■ �►u.::....♦■EOE■ ■ -: - IIIII�IIIIIIIIIII= 11 SEES■ �=�•♦ n1■■ + _ .■1 ♦I/ ■■■- I -- i■■♦■EE■■■■■ ■ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIID IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII • - -:■♦ nm + ■ I _.I nrl nnn ! nnEmr ■ ■ ■:i • a■ ■=Q1 ••t I irEplu■o■ ■ _ - III11 f + + ■ nnn ■ nnnn� ■■ rr■ �= � • -•- - �� .m n ■ = - � - %ullll� /► Inn■ + 1■ -p ■ J I ■. . � A♦1■■ ►I ■■■■rim■■■ �■ • • • _ ■Inn II_Tl��nnnnnmm "an■mnnl�lamm� nrn11� - __ - - =■ ►SEES , n■n■I■■ �■ .�■►��i♦ ��t■G ■�.■E■ . �11u1111 ■■11 • • -1'a _ II =_i nli nnm lug ==_ ==: e== 1■� 111111111 1 + n 1 EII Inlmm q■ �_ nm 1 Iil Irml I I ,. - -'- ■■■■■■.■ I� • • -■ _ IIE 11111111 111' p pp _-. -__ - I■■nnll. _ 11 ■ �� 1 I ■ EEE■ EEn11♦■ ■■ r ► :IIf■■\■ n■■n��■ \ i ■■ • - IIIIIII IIIII� ♦ SI r l _ _ ■ ■ � ■ ■ - _ ___--■[-- i -__ + _e • ■11111�E_i IIIIIIIII i-__= I I ' IIIII EEEEE I� -EEE EEEI. ■ ■■ ■. IIIIII_ ■ ■ I I■ ■IIII■IIII /♦ 1111111111 �■_._---© -■ 111111111 II__- �• + _,_ n _ - o ,,,,�` _■_=e - •. � �1 �r �■11 _ -_- - 1 ♦ _ -■ _ - ■ ■■11�■■■■■■EIS - E■ EEEEE r■EEE ■�_I�_■mn■ ' ♦ ♦1. ■■► r11111111 IIIIIII► - nm■ ■_ �Iplr"'V` I NJ • • •• • �■i11111111 G♦ 11� IIIIIII 111111111 pp■■I nll, � . ■i ' Inln ■--u 1 _ \� , i-�■■■n1 ♦ �-nn inn- � m ■� �■SEES ■!■ / \ - - III _■ IIIIIIII111111111 IIIII 1 �111111 _■___ 1 II ■ • � r■r11 ■■1 IIIII 1� ■IIII ++ ,.- ♦E 111 _■ 1-- II►i I�1�111■ ■ _ 111111111 '� '_____ �♦ �� E■■■■ EEEEE� ■- ■i L� �,1 II► �_� ■__- _� EEEI ■ ♦ IIIIIIII I ♦ ■ III„ I,,;;,,EI , ■-■■EEE■EEE■■ I IIIIIII � 111 1 ,■IIII �11111111111 IIII ■IIIIII ■-_ IIII �♦ � ♦ �■■I ` I .♦■Er■■■■■■.�1 • / ,� :IIIIIII .. ! 11:� •IIII I■■ •_► _IIIIIIII -_■ IIII =_ - - III ■ nr ■ •••• ��__ -- _l , ■■■ \II■E■p ► 11■■. mE. ... ■ � I_ IIIII � ,IIIIII IlEllnll ■ I � \D _ 111111111111► _-- ---■ .__�111111111 _ � ►fig■Sr � IIIIII■. ■■ ■■ OF 1= ='�♦ 1►11 ►11.1.1 _ _I -AIII■I ' IIII� III IIII n► IIII■► I �n _ ■II■E■1E■E■ -:- •••. �■.-- IIIIII ' 111■11■ . . IIIII - IIIIII1111 1 I �I ■1111111111 IIIIIII ►SEES■ m■III\ : Smn IIIII.�: noon■l ■ I ■ II■lun►i. IIII`,.r1I1■IIII IIII 5 � � ■■ III IIII mn11 nEm nnn mnnnnle■►♦♦ � .I nnnn'n _ ■� � ■n11■.f.■■■■■■■■■■�I■n m�11111111 /■ - -��` ' I � I � , I ■■ :I nunun .:_ nn■nmmm ■ ♦♦\p♦♦�♦p• nm1 Inn I t �_ _ m � ■ umm�n■■■■■n■ nn1 q n►7 n ■ _■ ■ aa�■iii■�■ __II■IIII_J �•m1EmE1E�■ -■ IEI■IEEE.....■ ■III■■►♦� ♦♦♦ � (IIIIIIIIIIII- � 111 r - ■■ - I 1■ �■ ■ ■ I■�/ I/ ■■ ♦ IIII - I _� IIII -_ ► ■ I■►♦ •♦ �♦ � 11 iI1111I11111111= +_■ IIIII 111' I ■1 1111111�■ -:Q■I■I■■ iii■f■i r7:'1■■ I ■ I■ • ■� � __ ■111E■ II■E ■r■E E■1E 1■ ■ ♦♦ \♦♦ --�_ = ■ ■■ SEES■ - 111 � _ ___ _ _ � ■ ■• ♦ ♦ 111111111111 I_ ■ I ■ ■� � -_� ■-i_ ■�� ■ ■/■ E� IIIIII■ � ♦ 1►1 _ G11_■� -■■ ♦♦ � ■ r ' ►� � 1/1■ - . ��♦ 7r ■ ..� .: ■•♦ ♦♦♦ ��i IIIII = IIII■■ _� a -iEEEEEi:. ■ _ ■-- 11_ � ■/�� I �_ ■IIIII _ �G.__ _ P � ■_ •■■ ■ ■■ ♦ - moll I . 11■■11 _■_� _ ��■--�EI■I, •■■_�I ■ � - ■■ ■Eli� ■E1E■n■ � � I IIIIIIIIIIII►♦ ■ ■ ■ _ __ - ■_■■■ ■ ■■■ __IIIIII I \I■■11■■II ♦1■■I ■ - SEES■■ '■■�I■■ - ■■ i __, .- ■_■■■ SEE■■SEE■■ ■■■ ■11EI ■-■■ ♦• . ■-■■■ ,- ■ \ - ■ / ■ •__ •■■■�,,, ►SEISE ■■■ ■■■ I _ - ' ,, '■IE■I■ • ■r■IIr■■■I ■�■�■ ■ �� \I■� ' ■ ■I ■■ .EEE■I ■■ IIIII -■■■■■■r , - ♦-� EI/� .■■� � 1♦I, - ' rE■■E IIIII.■■ ■---IIIIIII 1 -♦11�■___ ■■■ 11 _- ' _ � / ■IEEE � _ SEES■■ i r■■■ �•■� _ �■■■ ■� ---, /� ■ I■III■ ■ 11■■111E■ Er■■E --- 1 EEI■E■EI ■■._ ■■■■IEEE. ■I 11 ■ ■■■■■ ' \IIIIII I■IIIII nn® ��- umm n 16mI mom ■ -- I :�inno• a �•. 1• I 1 nn nnr + T nn Eunur nlllllEmE■■:■■ SEES I ►� ■■ ■■■\ ►r -- �rE■1E■■�1�11 ■/r171■■■■■III:11��rs'r Sir >• - � -_■IIIIIII i ■ ■ + � ■■ ■■/� I I■III■■I I__-■IIIII �� -- _ T T nm1� ■ 111■'_ ■ ■■1E ■ _EII iii ■■ ___• ♦♦� I/ - ■I--' �I - I♦\E■■E ■■� ■E■ 11E■■��11 "" I■11 __ IIIIII III _ ♦ ■ ` F + IIIIIIII -■ -- _ _■ I 1. 11 11■■ ■ ' � + . II 1 ■■ -■ + + +. I' ■■ii- ■___ ■i �' + + ■■ •\ -�-___•'---- I■■■■ :� � _�■■ :■:EEI ■ ■I► ♦■IIII■■■■ 1 -- , - -- t ► I _I •♦ / ■. L 4■IIIIII + ■I _ �' , t ♦-■■ . n • 1 •• �■■ ■" F + � 11 EII■■■ II ■ n 111►� /�►�/nEmnnY._�p..�-.■. - : // nnnn"1°°' ---- IIn■ I ■ I ■. •n■'■.■iii + II ■ �_ I■ IIIIII■IIIIII ►I♦��;____ -� -_♦ , A1111111► • , �` ♦r■I IIII 4- + ■y ♦ \ _ ♦ ■ ■ I` '■■■� C ■� .. ♦ ■_ ♦ ♦ is■G � + •■ � i ♦`' _ 1,■■,� �►♦♦ �■■EEEI ► L III ■ ■ ■■ IIIIIIIII I IIII ■�I_ i-i-IIIII♦/♦►A�- ■I ■EEI •� 1■■ \-I I �- ■■_■ ■ ♦■■11■'. ■ ■■■• • ■�E111 ' •' POP A ■! ■ -----� _- - - ■■■ II■j1 ■ ,' Ell�lllln E �,, ♦ I■•.��1■1■11E .IEE EE.E -'' • _ , �I%I♦ ■•I�♦.��-. ', ■ I�I■ _�' +t I IIIIIIIIII■IIIIIIIIIIIIIr a�IIII nll■. ♦\• - (nnn ■■■■■. _ � . ♦ I C _ ��I/I. _ TI �_ 1 ■II■■■i■ _■ SEES_ - _ , n1�♦ ♦♦ ♦ `II-■ , I I-■ /r ■= IIII ♦ _ _ • • t+ ' _• , � �-- IIIII •� ._■ ,♦ = �-i �IIIIIIII■ I11■ ■ ♦ ♦�■■ �_ ■■■- 1EE1ElEE■■■■ ■ II �♦ \��r■ ♦/ ■ .�• , , �- 1 - • ■i � _-_ ■■ • \. =ufT1= �_■ �IIIII � = 1• ►♦ 1► - _ II ■■■ 11 • • • ., �■ , %///. � �_ 1111111/=� IIIII ii■ _ � ■ _- �■■■ERE■E- 1 ' \ ♦ 11 11111r'i_ ,I1■I_■r■■r■■EEE■■■ 1■ � • ■-- / ■ = I ■ ♦ _ r ■ - _ ■ EEEEE■■■■■■EEE■ -� I' • I ■■■ I IIIIII ---■ ♦ o■ ♦• a 11111111= ■ /� ► ■_ -■ _ -- ♦♦ -■■■■SEE■■■■■Ip■■■ � • + '' r I� .� .EEE ♦ - ♦I■■IIIIII\ ■ Ir r■■■■I �■_ ♦1■■1■1■ - i , .►♦� E11EE ■_C :■ - � ■ - 1 ■■ ■ - , II •� .. /I ► � ■ ■IIIII - _ - ■1 - .� � I■ IIIII. �m.am ■��= i ►♦��i-nn� 11 - ■ ■ /ii� I IIIIIII . ■ - Ii /��►IIIIIII■ I■11 '•■I'♦ ♦ : : _ = �E■■■■ 1'�_-i r riiiiiio■�-.�■ ■1\ 111 __ ■ _�• ■ /�■■ ►■■moo i i ■ , ■ %%■'IEEE ■■ ■� - 1 .IIIIII.. - I _ 1 11 I 11 IIIIII ► I - .'�•�I J v r ■■ . nnnn= ■■■ �• �� p nn■♦ , nnm= n mn■__r► ♦ 1 -. _ ..■ ,i//� I � ■ j ■■ ■ I I 111 ��'I I ■I `IEEE• ,■n■� ono I■nnnm►\■ I ■■■_/Lo �i�\■ ■ _II �I�1.::■■11 ly IIIIIII ■ 1 �/ - _ — I_________ ;I /' ■ � � ■I 1� - 111 ■ ■ ■ I n1 I IIII I I■IIIII■ E I■■I■ 1111111111111111111111111 IIIIIII 111111111 _m ■m- - -- -"'� ■■_ ■a� I ■ ■, ■■■ ■■III ■■■ �r � EEE■■ iI-�,�_ _ ■ - --_ -■. -■ ' ■ ■■�-■■■- I � I�'- � ■ - P■■ I ■�■■ � ■■ ■■ II ■ ■■■■■ • C■�� I r - •• ` 1 nm nnml ■■■ � ===-nm _nun nnml■nnnl- -n n==1 /,.'�. � ■ �■.- i ■ �■I� ■ / ■� ■ ■ ■■■■ / ■ SEES■ • -� \■■I1E rEEOIEm ■ I � m- Innnn■mn,=_�E'I=� _ , ■■■EEEEE■■_ =// / .■ EEn E I■ 1■l ■IEI■IIII♦, ♦ III► ■ ■ ■■■■■_� IIII ■■■■■■ , ■ -� - 1 \ ■■ ■ ■ IIIII -IIIIII ■■■ nm -■ ■EEE■■ ■__ • ii► • Ill � ■ ■■Ed� � rr ►QII■ _ + IEEE■■__ � ■■ -■■ . ■ SEE■ ■C� l ■ - IEEE■,\■■EEE /..III I ■ IIIIIIIIIII I ■ ■_. iii��//. _p ■ I■■E■E■■■■ 1 I ■■I ■■_ ♦ ■■ -i - .EEE■\E1■111 -■ I ♦ E ■■■( I�rE1\IIIII =_-■11■■1 � ■ SEES■ ■_■• ■ I■11■♦ _- r Ili -�♦■ III ■ -■ f i __� - 111 '�, 111 11111111 . ■__ 1 1 ■n■nv n _� v ■ n un i • 4�� ■ ■r1 ■■■■■ ■■■ ♦ �■SEES■■- ■1 -- _ EEEIEEI■I■■E1E■ - ■ ■■ (IIIIII ■■■■■■ _■ • 4■■i■■EEEI► 1■ �� p ■ ■■■■ ■■ ♦ -■ ♦ -■■ IIr■■■ I-�__ii. . 11 - - _ � -�I � r■ ■ 111111111_1, 111■" ' ■ ■_■ ■■_■ ♦ _i■ ■■ �+ 1 i + ■ ■ . ♦ �I_ EEEEE .�--■ �1-I■�__-- IIII -�■Elmo\■■■ -. �■(--►►►IIIIII ■■■SEE 1■� II,;�I�■�■■� " I I - ' IIIII ■ ■--- ' �■ ■■ ■■■■■ / + - 1E 1■ + ■I■■ _■ ■■ ■■ ■I ■■■EEC_: ii-■�MEN�I r _C■■C _- ■r1■IEEE■1■1E ■- ■ --- " II • 1 -_- �■�■ ■■•■•■■ '1■■11■■ Er■E■E ■�I■■Ir _ / ■ nm� �_-■ ,- -% _ m �■anon hnm- 1 III I.1 ■■111111111_■■ _� \ I I I II I ni , ■.■■■■■■ /1 •n ■nm I En . Soo■ - '•■ ■ ♦' - i'II\\I EII IIII ■1111■IIIII j■■nnnn__ ' IIIII ■II II 111 IIIII i\E --■■■■■■ ■ + i+ �� ■I►�q nmm�nn■ I I J. �■■I � �,�� EEEI ■I■■■III mn-�_ �\ �IIIIIII■,:(- IIIIII. - __ � I _.___ I I I � 1 I ' I ■■■■■■■• I' ♦ T 11■IIIII■I■■■In _ - ■■■ D' 1= . \IIIIII nnnEE1■■ Illlr-1 nnnnl• nnnnmm� �� _ IIIIIIIIEmI/ nn 1 - I ••■ 1 =- -- ,_-nm ■■ -oil - �■.► ♦-. ■■■ '- + 11111111111111 mnmm�nunllnn LEI • i■:1 + + + + ■1 �� UE■E EE■ ♦♦��`�� A.♦t♦�/� ` a o nA► -.• = - nnn �I., -'� - /�1 _ - IIII IIII �II . s • ■EEEI / ■ IIIII■ r IIIII IIIIIIIIIII __� ■■ ♦■I _ ■■ - _ ■■■■■■■■ _ II I._ ■■ .- IIII�111 ■■ EEE■■ ■ � ■ - ,} ..- \■■■■IIIII■► + ■-■■i..i n■11►IEEE. � �♦�I►VV � ■ ■■ �� I ■■11■III■I IEEEEE■■■■■I % ♦ -_ _ • ■. IIIIIIIII ■ ■■■.. i ��■ •� � ' 9111-IIIII-' 1111111111 -i■L■ ■■ 1 / \ r ■ - i-■■--- rr■SEE■■ ♦ ■■■♦ / ■■ \- 11 /III■♦ 1 _ ■1 ■ -�I , _ ■ 1 I ■ I:::��II - i ■■ ■ ♦ ■■_ 1♦■ I-�•■ \-■■ IN •EEE■■ .► 41.E■r1111■E11EII■III■■■I■ �uu = i i ■ CAI n■1 IISIII r ��i■■■ ■11 IIIIIIIII 11 IIII 111� IIII■■1111110■f ' ■■ 111-11 ■ .■ ■ ■_ - . II ■■SEES ■ rI111II111■I■■II I■11■III - ■ ■ ■_ 11■ ■■■r■■1■ I-i ♦ ■ SEES■■■■ T _ ■ _ t SEES■ ■IIII IN IIIIIII IIIIIII Emil; . � /\■ ■EEEI■■■I =- �. �■ ■� IIII SEES■ ■i I■■i ��1■■i■ ♦ �■■■; A •1�i= IIII � �♦��I IN rEE■■i■IIIIIIIIII■III■■■ \I■III II`1 I i ■■ ■:: _� -�11 ■ -■i ■■■ •i■■i� ■i r■■r■SEES■ :■111■111 ■ __-_ I■I ! A ICI I ■■ ■■■ a `\�_ ■ I ■ �I■■■ ■ ■► _ ■ -- r __-_� ♦ 1 -■-■ ■- ---■■- IIIII ■ ■ + + .111 ■--■_■_ ■I■I■ r _- � ■ ■ ♦■_■. I �=111r ■■ ■■■ ■ -_` III■I . ■__ ♦ �_ ■■_ -- ■■EEEI■-■-_■■EEE■■ ■ � -____-- __ IIII-_ ■ ■.EEI EII ; ■■SEE■ n1 -_ �° o ■ MEN F I ■ ■1■■■■11■ �1■IIIIIIIII ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ In + --_i i ■I■I■ �I 1 .� ��I ■SEES■EEr/ �i ■i+ ■ ♦ ♦EIS■\ SEES ■11 I■■■ ■r r■II ri■■ i■Ei ■ESE■ ■■° ■�■■■11■■■I �■:■iEEE■E■■.►■:SEES SEES■■► SEES ■ \EEEI ■1EEEE■■■ EII 1■■■ 1 nEm■ n ■ - "i * jinn nm■n� mm I 11.►I■■■ �. • rnl■ i T � ■SEE■■■■■■ • ■11■11 •nn■�Ev �I -= � + � � //Oo ■ ■■ ■■ ■■■ n ■nmp�A nrn ■■E- + n1lra�I■�: r ■ ♦■■ IIII - � T ■■EEEI\■■I mmnnmp� ♦ ! � ■i■i ♦I J ■- - •■� + � ■. ■■ ■ + ---� ii i �� '� r' ■IEmI. �_�■■ + + :�ill■--■ SEES-■-_ + + ' I■■1■■.■■I- EEEEEEEEEEEEE■ �■1 ■� ■ ■ I-.■ + + I_■■. ■fir_ 11 - I■ - -■- ■■■ I I L. ■ All ■■ .■■ ■ / �■■■■ ■_ ■ n■■ ■�1 _ - ■--- � _ I ♦■■■IEE■■■ �� ■ ■■■■ ■■ + I �. + � IIIIIII -�- ■■_ + r ■ nq n ■ innni-�nniinni' i i■ ■ 1 '-i_j _ ' ■ ■■EEI■■► + 1 . ' SEES - ■ ■ ------- , ■ --■ ■�. ■- ' IIIIIII �■►1 ♦♦♦�r:■_ _ � ■ ■ •. ■ ■ n►• \IEEE _■. r SEES ■I 1■II ► - , A. SEES■EEEEE IIII ♦ ♦ � II I nn■I■n II ■■■EEE■SEE■I■■► a -- ■ ■I ♦11EE ry / ' � LI IIIIII _ I ■ .■■II � • I ■E _ ■■ ■■■■I I nnnn �� ; SEES■EEI � -I,♦♦�1♦♦♦IEm■I�1 - -�♦ I nnn=I ►• :-■ ■I► I► + nnnn►■■ - In ■ ■ En / nE nnmm■nEn■ nnnnnnnn u 1 - � � nnn■ �■ �I♦�♦im■p :i • _ • , � mm - ♦ ■ I/ � ■ ■IEE ■� I nmm� _ - � - I _nm � ■ ♦ ♦ ♦ • ■ nnn n � - = �•n nE■ nnq 11♦gn. • 1 / ■ • L ■■�� I I ; ♦ - _-111�1 C I ■ I ! iI i r1=_ _+ r1E ■ ■■. SEES■ Ii r ' ■■■En■ • ■ ♦ � „ + inn■ 11 ■inn� '1-1 J/1n• I■.�► EEEEE 1 © .. A�■ 'a I■■- 1`Irl ■ ■•■■� + � ■■I.IIII �I �_ IIIIII F I IIIII■111; ■ I■■- 1 ■■ . nn ■ : ; HIM EEEEE J_-■■� 1----------, F ! ■EEE►- ■■ , - I-= iF■1 ■��r.IEIS j iu ;_ 1 - . • • . 1 Y - ■E r■■ ,-- 1 MILS ■■ ` ■ r1E1E■I I■■1E■ - ■ ■SEES ♦� o ■EEEEE ■■EEr■E . SASS iiin♦i.♦i I no n ■■ I =■ ■nmm� ■ ■ n nn1■ nnm � � ..■ I■r I�I nnnu■nm I� ■ I ■ � 11 E■■ .-■ •EE IEEEEE■■■■ ■ III 1■I■11 -� ■ ■IIIIII ,��11■■1 E■■ ■ ■IE C ?:n I■■EE■E■E■SEES■ E■ III■IEI ■■1■■1 -- II + _ _IIIII►IIIII ■ __nm • - . . • - I ■ ■ ■ + _ null '■■■ IEEE■■■IEI ■ - -■ � ■IEEEEE■Er■ ■.■EEE •r1E1■I -- IIII■■■■- IIIIIII■�■- 1■ + .�t 1 plll■=111■-_ Ip�nn ■�I ■nnn■. T -•I■_1■n nnnn■inn■■ ■■ 1 i _ ■ , ■111�=I:� ■■IIII EEEEE '-C_I■■1■ ' ■.. ■■■ ■ ■■ ■1EE111 IIIEEEI� 11111/111 i II _■• ■ :■ ' ■■■ , IIr r ■■ ■■■ ■■ ■■ ___ _■ EEE11E r11 ■ �■ ■ 1�► I■■ � __ Innu InmlTlllsi=_ ■IIIII + T .EEE■■■E __ IIE■EIE■■ ■ I^,/■I,I Ar r 11 ■E I ■■rE■■1■■E■ I■rr■Em rn I 1/11'■■ II■■■ ■■E ■■■__- ■. -*- __ ■ ■n 17 + + + + T,� _--____■ �■■' •A♦ m■I I-_ ■ ■■■■- ---■ ■ ■ ► + I _ ____■ EEEEE■■■■ ■■■ I■I■r1•Q _■■ 1 EEE■ r r1El ■ ■ -_--■ --- '-_ ■ 1E r ■E ■ _■■Err■___■ SEES■■ ■ ■■ ■■■■ ' - 1 _'.IIII,I_■ - ■ � ■■ ■■■ ---■-_I■--- ___ / � SEE IEEE. ■ • - I■I.■I► ♦ -- IIIIIIIII , 11 __ '-■�■i EEI ■ ■ ; II -ii ■ ■_ ■-- -_- + rrrrrr __■■Er■■E■■■■r ■■SEES■■ •• ♦I♦i__--■ ' I I I� ■■■-- ■ i +•♦i I � •��I■i1 •• + � + +. 1■■■IIIIII 11m1■ I ■_ IIIIIm1 ■■ ■p.\■I►1 --o-- IIIIIIII_- �_■-_■_I ■EE + II■ _■��■ _ ■iniiri IIr.. I ■ I■SIIII► 1 ■■ 1 J�■■II � I ♦ :_ I111■11 ■1■11 ■- II�■ / ErE■- - + + + ■ ■� __■ _.■I ■_ ■ 1 1 I _ �� \� ! j1 I ■■ • ■■ •. ■■EEEEE( ■I1■\EEI - ■ 1 _ IIII IIII■■III IIIIIIIIII I e= ■II _■ II -.� � . , IIII I■.11■■SI ■.n _; _ IL ♦i1EE .► ■ ,; nmmr IIII 1111111111111111 .111E-- 111: + '�� i Imi nn■■-_■i■■i i I��,II plV•I��I III■ 11♦� 1■■ ■■ 111 ' i i- NMI11111111111111111 •�-r IIIIIII �;��-a!1■ ■i■ ■IIIIII 1 + t ��■■ ■,� j - - ♦ ♦♦ �'.. iii an - + 1 \� ♦ . 1�1�■i■I■ J E1 Ii■(IIE.■III •'■ • • + ++ + !41 ■■� ■. 7■■1 � r 1■mn 1 ■ ■ ICI ( ■1:1 IEEE • _ ■� Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area-Plan ❑ • " + + + +ice ' 1Y�iYi ■ ■ �� x ! ■ IN V . . . \ � - . � / •• nl■' .•. SEES•■ wwZ = 11 � EII r E■ r►r.E► ■�� ,��. ♦. IIII I■ � � � .rr■I ♦ • ��_ 1 �� . . • u. II iii♦Ii••w I- + Inn- ,, ■rrI■�♦�~� --• EEE • A ■■iL J ♦ � _■■ ■IIII �- ' I■IIIII •♦ I _ �, ;�•♦■♦��1 -'• ■1■I��■/1 �♦ •■• I_■■ III■■I I■ __ � EEEEE__-�! • ♦♦♦ \ 1 �...■ (EEI -i■■■ 1-� __ ■ ■r� 'E� �.: �::♦IIII i rnn�n + nnnn - - I ■ ■ .. ■ ��o■ _ � + - � 111 . - /� ■ ■■■EEEEE :�=:: ,I � - _ - \ -_ -_� �■. .., ■ ■ _ I ■ _ - -�'- nnnn� Em■► - nnn■► ■ •° = r:nn�� ` . .�, _ �� ■IIIILL■.�-'�=■■ � IIII 'lI I ��■ . • • • t��; V�F _ = • ■ ' : '�� :ii:iq.n■ � I �� .� � „ 84� III ��,l.•�►IIIIn- • ,�►�i� ♦ min. ■■ _ Iiu r� mn �■. ■■� ri�l - _ _ _ _ _ _ - ' _ _ .III _ (IIIIIIII -- IIIII■■ .■ - ■11 ■ I IIIII IIII ■ + + / � I■■nlll■IIIIIIII■■Irlll �h► � x x xlam in MENEM x • - ,1.'■.■. .I illlll��IIII:`■ 1■ I ., x X K x x x x ' '•■■� ■IIII IIIII x x x ■■ I . • • X x X X x X X X ■��I X x X X + liiiil 111• ICI • ■' x X \\ F ""■I-■1.'� ■ ■- II m n■-n■■■■ � ■►IIn■ � En\�� 1 n_■ i I IInII■ ��■.-� r ■ _ i nn ,, f ■11 ■ i I _ ♦ ■■I♦ �, ■ ; e - so • ! 3 /_ �� `r SEES■ + + _ --- 1 = ■1 _ !I' • •.►:. - __ IIIII■ + __: ' I ► ♦ ■� i , ■ _��` �. -�- IIIII ♦ � ■Ci i■IIIII■.�i i■- _-� , ♦■-- -■I■I � ?■(nnnn - ■__ _ / - EEEEE■ - 11EEEEE■� --■ I■■11■ �r1■III ■11■ ♦I -� -I_■I.E111 111 ■■1E1SSE■r �- n11■ ■■■ I ■■■■� - I�I■I■�,I; =:IIII �■nnm -- -■ ,I EEEEE � + _ ' • • III �■m+ IIIII■IIr♦♦� ------_--- '■ ■ �� • � ■I•I ♦ _ IIE ►Iu■Io nuu E■•♦ F ■■n►,i� _ o■ II/IIIIII\ "I I�1!1 �:: 1 � ■�I • ♦ r ' --- ■III■( " I • _ IIIm , mu/ ® ■ ♦♦ ' 1 _ ■I■IIII . , � I ,,'� �, ,, � ■■EII■■■ 1 i I SEES =1111111111=-■ ; 111■= 11,: ■,� • .. ''��N\ EII �11I■ � �� -_ ■■� IIII inn �.■ ■�� ■■ III anon n11 I ■. � ■ ��-r•■ ♦ �/pi/pl i I .IIII■■ •■ ■ 1_�� ■ __I■ �,////1 IIII � I ' 1� ,- - o ■ �: IrnEE '. �I� /•♦�j ■■111 SEES■ ,1 � • - _ 1E111 • SEES►■. -. ...• �♦ ,� EEEEE � , I .. EEEEE ■ .... -- � ._ ■ � I - - - .. ■• .. . . ..IIII ♦ �. ■ � t' • • � J _ Iiv►� III . _ n■EEEI .. �/ � ��■1 IIIQ/�� null' �:► -■I:___ ■� I - -- ,�I=�' i►_�■I SEES■■I� I _ I I - � nmm�°I � `IIIIIII I `-. � ■ �■ I_ -,..__ __- nn nnI �• � / IIIIII � ■■ ,1 ■ J � I �� I _ = IIIIIIII � IIII■■■ - �■ ■■� �■ -■-■ ■ = nnnn . _ � � • = nnnn - nnnn l � ■■ �■ / = nnnn - nnnn _ I un ■■� �■ 11■111■■■ ■ I. - IIIIIII p III■■■I■ � ■■__� ' �, 11 ; � ■ � � ■■■_ '-------- I' !i■_ IIn ■IIIII■I L■ ■ , . + T + � — ::_■_ `' 1■ ,1, II � nnnnnn min � nnn � ♦ �_■ i �► ■�� '7 I Ij q�1 an mI 1 nnnn■■■ n■■ ■■■■■I■■p /• ■■ �-= � -� I ■ ■� � .,. ♦ ♦ ,,... mmn m =. ■i ■■ � ♦11 �I _ IIIIIII ■ ••♦� �� ,.I■;, � ■�■■■■' �� ♦ .� .. ■'nnnnm nnu■ - � m■:■ ��♦•IIII_ I' !�:IIIII IIIIIIIII-■ •la��Ir1 ,1�11 ■ ■ ■ ■`I � • �, � ♦ .■ __ III\ ■_ ♦■■_ .p �� ■ � ` e � •� ♦E■IIEEEEEE IIIII _ ♦• _�•■ _ III■�IIIIIII EII. i■ III■■ ■.:I:r:" ■IIIIII ■_ � I, _- _ __ �l ♦► I - .�� __ III •III ■. � F w■ ■ ■ m�1 ■�►� r■■■ _- I � ♦ .■■■1.n 1 ■ ■Eu /III .-- - \ ■n J��■1 � �■; ►■■ �1�1I11111111�v /nnm nnnnm EE _� IIIIIIIIIII■ice— __ �'-• ••-nn` m _ ■■■If,' __■■ � _ � _ I_IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII■■■I IIII 111111111111111 ■� � - - -•� _q n■ ■�I•nn■_ / II\■ ■� ■■ n ■■■L m-nl I � __ -_ m■ � � � I I � t nnn mmml r ■■ r 11 ■►;,�� m= ■■� ■••■1I1 m � _ .' - --■ ' _I■/� '♦,�IIIIII Ir� � ��■�_ - nnn 1111'IIII_■III 11 p I ■■ I IIII ' 11E- i' ■ _ i■1 I, - ■�■ � ■�� •�'I� I ■_____ mm ml nn■__11 11 1 ' 1�� n L ■■■ I ■ _ I II �I • _ __p nm nn nn m■m � ■■■■ �� _ 1 _--■ _ - I I _ ♦ _ Inn nn nn _ 111 I ��- 11 111 /has. _ __ _ - I —�� rb-- , , �► 1 IIII - _ II m ■�- ■r■■I � • I,r ♦ , 'p�l ,, i _ - - � ��H"� ■ �■ iiin � 1•■ ��♦� ■' •• ,,� • ♦ ♦ ♦'�♦ �,`/r �♦O •__-■--■ _ 1-iIII�lI111111111111� =��11;�■I___ ,`�_ _ rtl■ ; (► ��■ �� I � , . ` `�i ♦' , _ _ �111111111 ��♦ 1�■ IIIII � ' ■ ■ ►�■=; 1;1111�■■; • ♦111 �� .III ♦ .. s- . -- _(IIIIIIIIIIII ■I IIIIIs IIIIII - ! III■��■� ♦,' ■1 ■�■1 ail ►-► -111 ►�• . n1�� \I \_ ■ . ♦Illlllr ; ■SEES■■\� �� ■-- I • \IIIII■\\Im11 - Ernnn IIII ■�,,'„'• ■I � �I► f i■1 11■�—, • ■�__ �, 'I I IIII IIIIIIIII \ �I II II III II L,. •� � • .�_ II♦ ♦ I■■Ili , I ♦SEES■ ♦I ter', � • I►• -In)- ■ rEE _■ 11■ ■, `�■ 1■ \' I _■■■■■ ■-_ ' 111 - �-■ -.■IIn■ n I1010 • ■- ■IIIII _ -�- Q__-■11 ■ ;� ■ � _! F • • I►• EEE■ ■ _I■■■I■=� -.-� \I, ;_1111111� i �■_ ON N�■■I�„ ■■�� ■■ ■ ' • • '- • • • - ■■IIIIIII■-_■III - - _ , I •I__= i■ i IIII■■Ifa i .► � I II■■11■�■III_- ■_� -_ , ►�■= ■■ - _ _ IIIII� ■■■■■■ESE-- _ ��. ��r- — ■� 11 -■ _--_ __� 1 ■ _ ■■ ■ ■■1E E + II _ r �L ■I _■ . I■ O■ ■ ■! ! I i`�. • ♦ • •1► •• i ■ e, a °e 'll ;�'_.� '`, -■■ ' I I ♦ I _� - - ---- /♦►IIn- I_ ♦II ■_--' � - - ■ � , I � ' ,• ■ ■ • • � � • ••/► i•• '�• • ` � I _ 11 T �11 :: IIIII ■_■_♦ • ■ -■I �11 SEE■ - -_--__ ._ • ■ J� •• • • �N■■� +�_�.i i i - III■ -_ ■11 11�-1��.r ■ ■ ' �--- 111 IIII • `, ■_ I■■1 ■■■ - I■■ �Ir,� I (IIIIIIIIIIII■_\III 001 � I '- ■IIII■■■ _ r -- r _ � 11■I ■\ ■- _ ,_. .I I1111111�1_I 'I � , , ` -' ■ii■� '� � . . � ■�III■■■■nrrt■■ II - _ r =_ �� 1 ■� 11 __ • .- I _ �.� � ' - , ,E� \ I' SEE■ ■ EI ' ' 1 ►I �l- I ■.�r 11111111111 - � ' 1■- � .1,1.,11E � J ,I____',,, � _111 _ __ ' •.,; .°:- 11111111111 ��`�� I � . � �� IIII 'IIII III■, ■ ■ ._ �� ♦•i.; ■IIII :■■ ■ I ' ■■ ■ �♦I1♦♦� ■EEEI\ IIII■' „ • •. •- • •. • . • • • • ; I ,�� IIIIIII IIIIIIII■ I I � r'� IIII � nn _ ■ III I .:::■ ♦�•■ `+1 ■-_ ■ —� IIIIII-_I ■ • . ► A111111 ■ ■■Elf■ IIIIIII rr , • ►►♦ 111 I -i i - - -- _ � I ' , �► - , , 11� IIIIIII IIII■11 IIIIIIIII. ■ nnr .1 1♦1 ♦ e ■\___ =�■ • � I , ,. _ _ I �= 1� IIIIIIII ■IIIIIII ! ■■■ ,♦�111♦III♦11�I �■EI ■ � �=ii �= - SEES .♦♦♦♦ 1 I , ��■ • , ■ �1■IIII �- ____I -- --.' ■_ �1110_ m11111111 IIIII■IIII ■■• ♦♦♦111Q , ■ n ■ ' , ■_�_-_- ��1�111��1 - �� p , ■ ♦1 ♦1 11 ►1 it . - SEES ■ ■ SEES■■■ = ■ 1♦ 1♦ 1►1- ■ ! ■ i , __ 1 ■IIII IIIIII __ Y I ♦♦♦1♦♦ 1♦♦ 1 `■ ,� • •- • - '. /1� ■■11■ � � _�I -E■i ■ - IIE II ♦ ♦� � _.1T,I IIII /IIIm• _ • - _ - � - - - ■ I __ _ ■III��1 IIII■■ � 1_ __ ' ►11 II ♦��I -■ ■nm _ 1 � �■■ � I E■EmI♦i♦ p, iii . Inn •- •- • - � - ---- - - I -ram III � •i��1 ♦,__•\ I'■moon:■� nnm- , ■ ♦j ♦i,�i i -■(nmm�■ 'I- � � I I • n v =■1 � � ! ►EEE ',, _■-• r�11II1-i1 11■ ii I ■ ' __ _ _ , • ' I r I _ rI r i , III _ III■•i■ ♦♦♦ IEE ...................__ �„ MINE J SEES■■I■r, ,'lir■� 1s 1 ■ � `\IIIIIIIIIII� 'Q IIIIII I I �' •----! - ■ I U,L-01 1k NO 0 i • • • • . • • • -• • • • • I �� Iinnlm nn: =riiiriii► � I ►1►j••• 'I/ri�� I� 1■ I rllrununm__' e 9°IIII � ' I ••II•j ••� 11I 1■ II■� • • • • • • • • \ ♦, gum___oil 1 � - I �_�_ � \ ♦ __ --'IIII � `�I ' • � � �� n�� II=�r-■� � � O:IIII . �IIIIII► -------------- � ♦♦♦EEEEE � �IIIIIII/!, ' _ • � ' � ■■_1■��■ iii ■ I I � ■■. � ��_�� ♦ 1EEEEI■■■■■■ „� IIII •• • •' •• • ••• • • • � - '`� ■ t ■ .� , ■ II' ' �i , . �'� i 11■III_( : /.� 111 ■ I � �` ■.IIIIIII=I�1■�_ . . III 11 • •' • • • • ■ 1 + ■�• , ; ` ,�� ♦ � _i_EEEI ■11/ . �� I .■n�-_IIIII 1i11� •' •• • -• • • • • •' •• •, • • `•' r I ,'. \■EEEI� `� ®� � IL� - �� III■�■ � ! �- `� ' 1 ■■�t®�� --------------- -------------- -- ■ ■■ � Ili:� ' ' I�■II■ I■�I ■E■ ; � a � , � '��■\ '■IIIIIII Inn� � I � ■ -■•\ ♦ ■■■SEE■■ EE1. � I i nnn �I •inu■ m■ I�- � i I - I11I�.(nnm� / SEES■► �` ff■■ � I I�■I■I■I■I ■III■■11■■IIII. , - ',► - ♦�-._: —I_, �- _ ■■IIIIII■■■� I� , I • • • . + • • • ► �`^ —� ' ♦ •limn nnuL' ■® . ' + ,• �— , nm♦,rrr. ,� ♦nnn m1� I _ _ ♦�', mn m1 � �� • in SEES ■■I m11_�p■111■ _ - • . - - • I • • • • . - • • i' �■■ SEES■■ ___■ -/■IIII► _____� p_ � I♦I♦• ,•I� ■�_ II�•� /■ IIIII■ ■C■�\ ♦�■■I�■■■■�■ -_III �I♦♦I♦♦♦I ♦I ■1- ■/1 ��■��I ■�'I ♦j♦ ■_�__ - IIIIIIII �♦ ♦•♦♦I♦I♦♦•II,♦/11 _ � � 'I ■ \Illlllr , :�'■1■IIIII■I _■111 111■ �♦ ♦ • ♦ - - • • . - - • . - • - - • • • see - • • • - ■ I • ■■■II ■ /♦ i♦�' �♦1111 IIIIIq�I Q♦ ♦ I■i■ ■ EIIIE■■ � ♦� _ �IIIII IIIII Iq1.♦ , ii: 1.1 .... I■IIIII .11E IIIIIIIIIII----111 I� � - r�_ __ \_ - � ■ man mm/llnll� nn .. ;-pEE IEEE _ • ■ m � ,� 1 ■: ' �■ IIIII ♦ .�__== �0■o III■■( 1 ' ■ ■■■ . . . 1. ■■IIII�� .--= ��a .... _•-_- EI■I■EEE► -- _� , _IIIII _- ■■■ i--�■ I■■_ I■■Em:_.EEE � • �•�1 �� IIIIIII� � - ---i I�■ii� IEEE�� ■ EmEm IIIII l_ �-� � \ %/1 1 1p/\ � IIIm :ii■ - �•- - IIII..■ 1 mm■I ■I� ■ IIII • IIIIII��■■ 111►1�,, ■I .IIIIIj; ■ I®-�-"'��■ ■E►�\■ ■■E♦. I 1►111►IIL�J== �mq o♦,niil ■ � - - � - - � - � ■EE■IEm III •♦III■�n11111■II �� ♦�■■IIII►'■IIIIII � 1�♦♦I►I • • • • \\\\ • • . IIIIII.■ nm � ♦ , ♦ I► • � i un � ■ \, ♦♦ ♦ nn■ ■■. t ■ .� nnm= Ciu►I�1♦, ■ Ilvv1■■■■■ ■ fnnnl ♦\ ♦ ♦♦ nn�■�..�I ♦♦r• :■nnnn Ip�♦♦�Ian. ■ I ■• ►nnm ♦\�♦♦�� _/A►`I L•i ♦ ♦♦./I ■ •I-IIIIIII _■_ Iunl► • � ♦ IIIIII 11 .�- • _ ■■ \� ■o■■_ -♦ ■� -__IIII►1= �11111`piiiii1111111 � SEES-�.-■ � _ ■■_��■ - n�■- ■-■ ■--■! ♦♦ �■ -111 �� Q1111111■ i__ p1111111E_ / ■N,,. ■EE■■EEE-- ■ ► ♦ ■► IIIIII I __ � - • - • - • I �,.■: �, -/ ■ I,_ i a�l�;■ '♦� E ■ � IIII; �■ in■IIIII _ EmIIEm■_ nl I]Ir CIE■EmIEIIII■111 IIIIIIIII � IIII\ IIIIII IIIIIIII ■ ■■., �■ �� 1�IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII In n�11 IEE■Irn _ . I ■1' /" � � \IIII III IIIIIIII ��/ - - - - ♦ ■ ��I■■� �► 111111111::::il ■- 11 � nnI ,.■_ A■ i ■■ ■■I■IIIIIII eo■■■ _-►/♦♦Q► ♦,♦ .EEI _- EEEI\_ IIIIIIII_ ■ ■-■ ■■ •■IIIIIIII--••- ■IIII ♦� IIIIIIII � ■ ■1 ■i ■11■C -111111111■:�C: = IIII► �\\�♦♦♦♦♦ ♦ 1♦ ` •1► 1 IIII IIIIIIIIII •♦IIIIE�i 1�1�m�■ ■n \� IIIII■m -I _m1 r ♦pp�Q 1♦♦ �♦ � IIIIIIII � • 11�-■ •� ' -- ■► �11111111111111 ='i:IIIII ♦r♦♦ � ♦ ♦ ••1 j I IIIIIIII_ , nnnn ■_ ♦ Ili: Innnnn n � - ♦r„♦♦♦�♦rii i ■ � 11.♦ �\IIIIIIII- 111111r.■_\ ■■■■■■■■E■■■EE �■IIIIIIIIIIII■I ■I■IlI Ir♦ ♦ �♦ ■ -Ij _ '� a■� ■......EEEI► - 1■IIIII\ ■ r�IIIIIIIEI _ 1/i♦'=_■i■■_ _. IIII■IIr■ ■■� � ■ - IS'nm■■III■I - _�� ESI� IIIm n �_ ■■i■G 1■■� I Il IIII',mn — ' . Ill II■■Em.■ A♦\�- �,■ ■■■■. � �rEEE ■r ----- /4111111II`r ____ I I■■■- II ♦■ -■■In�I== _ ♦�. ■ �i it I■EEEEIEnr 1�_❑______• ` �� ■ � •I■■In mI■■n_■■I'� ■L■III■■ ■■I►\--� ♦\E II��■■ MEN III\♦ 1 Ib- ■ ��-� IIII/ ___ I■■-■ ��- ♦♦ �l_■■ ■■1 ■�■ I■�■ii i�■ ♦1�♦-1♦ I_- _ (IIr\■ I� ___■I 11■■- 1 --■II■/♦ ■ • _ d ■�, . 1■■I■■\ IIIII■_ i__��o_ ■� /♦ -_ -. ■ . EEEEE ♦ ♦ . i .I■■I■IIr ._ 1 I .■ _-_-_■IIII � Sri_ _ -.■■_- ♦♦1♦' I_- - _ ■__ _ _ ---� ■■ EEn■L■ -_ EEm ■■o Ili►1♦♦- _■ -mr•`• -MEN MEN _- __ I■ ■■ --- -�_�■�I�nnl-■ICI ■�■■©i 1■■■EEn %InmE■�u E11■■ iI■I■■■EEmEI■d1111�' _IIIII -1, , ■I�■■■■■■■■r•/,_■ I`�-__��■■■ I .- Item#7. STAFF REPORT E IDIAN -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT .►A H O HEARING 6/14/2022 ;55 DATE:TO: Mayor&City Council 6 0 2s FROM: Brian McClure, Comprehensive Associate Planner 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2021-0098 —, 2022 Future Land Use Map AOCI Legend �. Cleanup, CPAM _ M AOCI LOCATION: Various; Citywide r County — 69 Line 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 Page 1 Page 84 Item#7. 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 Page 85 Item#7. 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 I-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 Civic Old Town Cleanup Civic MDR 0.75 Cleanup MHDR Commercial Cleanup Commercial Civic 19.99 AOCI Remove MU-RG 2.94 AOCI Remove MDR 31.91 AOCI Remove 6.96 AOCI Remove MDR 1.14 AOCI Add MU-RG 1.44 AOCI Add MU-RG 1.64 AOCI Remove MU-RG 0.41 AOCI Remove Commercial 1.91 AOCI Remove Ahndustrial 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 Page 86 Item#7. Parcel# Current Acres Description of Future Land Use Change Zoning R0797730010 C-G 0.81 High Density Residential to Commercial R0797730020 C-G 0.14 High Density Residential to Commercial R0797730030 C-G 0.15 High Density Residential to Commercial R0797730042 C-G 0.21 High Density Residential to Commercial R0797730052 C-G 0.14 High Density Residential to Commercial R0797730060 C-G 0.15 High Density Residential to Commercial R0797730070 C-G 0.36 High Density Residential to Commercial R0797730080 C-G 0.15 High Density Residential to Commercial R0797730090 C-G 0.15 High Density Residential to Commercial R0797730100 C-G 0.25 High Density Residential to Commercial 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 pro e ) 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 R9322500077 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) S1109438950 M 0.52 Industrial to None(remove from AOCI) S 1109448970 M1 1.07 Industrial to None(remove from AOCI) S 1118120731 R 0.57 High Density Residential to Commercial S 1 1 1 8 120740 R6 0.69 High Density Residential to Commercial 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 Page 87 Item#7. 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 4/5/2022 5/29/2022 newspaper Notification mailed to property owners within 300' N/A N/A Applicant posted public hearing notice sign on site N/A N/A Nextdoor posting 4/5/2022 5/25/2022 V. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS(Comprehensive Plan) A. Future Land Use Map Designation(https.IlmeridiancituoralFLU1Vn 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 Page 88 Item#7. • 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 Page 89 Item#7. 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-1 areas: o Land uses within the MU-1 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-I 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 Page 90 Item#7. 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(httos.Ilmeridiancity.orz/compolan): The following policies are relevant to the project: • 3.04.01B,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 Page 91 Item#7. 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: The Meridian Planning &Zoning Commission heard this application on April 21, 2022. The Commission did not have any concerns or changes and recommended the application forward to City Council for approval. There was no public testimony provided during the hearing. C. City Council: Enter Summary of City Council Decision. Page 9 Page 92 Item#7. VII. EXHIBITS A. Area Exhibits i 1 1 r �y AOCI Remove Z i "^,CI Remove r , Meridian AOCI ounty AO�l - - Future Roadway CHINDEN FLUM Changes ti - • ti AOCI Add o ® AOCI Remove W 1 Cleanup �U tg FUM 0 - PINE Cleanup boundary - - - - V adjustment - -- a j i Meridian AOCI FR►ANKLIN Q County AOCI W .J - - Future Roadway FLUM Changes 1 z L3 AOCI Add Room ® AOCI Remove Cleanup Page 10 Page 93 :raaaa, dium 1De�. ., ■ 11111111/J 1•�In-g■n■-=1r/■ 1a rrli�Mensity.�- uunq d1>.i�� ==:■ 11►■ Jill o esiden_tial'; � �� 1■■■1■Iglll'r11::1 Illr�- �arrr:p fr_ .�r''�■+111111 ,r:!�I : ��r111: !milli ■■N N11111 rllll I 1 j j�l jll� =■=r��11111111_■ civic I ■� ��11 General ■■ 1 . Industrial + + • • Meridian AOCI SO ninon 011millim"M County ■ 0 AOCl Asking ■i��1� �'I�� ►r::1: Future Roadway * ■ ter► ■r ��' � - r■ QIII� i MUC �•* ■a•�i■ :■■r ME FLUM Changes -.i -- ■ i Jill AOCl Add AOCl Remove onion I son Cleanup .11111111� An logo 1u' MINN anlnnu; im ■nm ..■' •i r l■nnnrrn �•n ■noon!J i q r�. ., .i, ►�►.q ■rq f C■:i,nor,■■.1 rnJ Lnnm b�irrrfi� �&Vrs►►■■■G■IISO �plllllnp�'I'll Or r■r--,...1..1■■1 r J ■�:111 1=n mom. P+ 9°"'►• i■r! r; 71 ��+m nnrrQ J�q an:_ 1 ■n■:.nnm r` - III_■rrrrltlnnnri ii•i�rrli, y►�. ��rl�.:�Q ■.�1 �.a• `p L:�apn■In 1#r 3j h■r�■nor, �V i�\� ��■■■■r. .r0 ►p'.��" r:"I ■r Irl r�a►{+■Mijl�p■ irk ♦`.�_.. ' ► ♦ �n: \rn n Ilrrr rl■:...� ►,111:'► ■:1 "" ��iur�0ia► .ii *i■i■�f��i ~ ��• arnrn.� IFFS nllrrl!�nlmmn ►.�■■■u►`I.I�rrrri h \►-r U. I alnn■:annnm:MU- I_Illlllllr■"""' �a7 �nm,u�r►nnnnnn ■1\ — — a�• rllllplllllllllll�]Ir,1 u�`r,■T , . .. .� • •- - 1�: ■Inn_:e::=-�■r■n ;::� II Low Density //,-y�� ■■=� � ....1..�:��ra `;;,1:■■ n: i\�f:QF7r.■�I�-. I .Ilrlllllrlr\ ._ 11■.. .... Residential ,�� ..■q,■Iq �,...■.,I,Ia�- �■■■■■�*■, LEEVA,rr Ia11Cf JI �inm mi•11r1��/r�laaaa1111i CIVICa • ��IsI■� ' 1 ,all • • rf lrr�■ �1 s E son nr {�/ ■ .Inns-� I ��.:� a++ir■Iglniilil iiiiiiii= I ni►� ►�.-: n nnm=:urn� Ir�l •..• : MU-C rllll :I, " Ir milli 1--..■ ��-- tio rnnnl�+`1■. arl■ C3lrimerc011 ■al ■nn,�,�r m nm■ n n:nni rm nnnmr �• • • �.. MU-RG .,II nnmul 11111 �i � • • - � =`�� e a 111111 nm ,III nnnnnm �■�� 1111 1111 IIIIIIIIIII i. 1 411 11 m i Office ■■■■ rA�� I u■n nn■ n■■H■n■■■■■■ES soon ■1■■I■ lam■ ■�■■■� ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ Area 05�,111111 ``�■■�=:■1 Low Density �� ~■ 1�� II1111, c ResidentialVII �■�■■�`� � loon� �1 i-r— loon.. ■I ■�■a■■\I — !f■■ 1 ■. + I��■.. + � '.'_:��:�� rl►�IJ ■oar Irf■ter I 111111 ■■■■■� 1 1I111 Q . • milli IIIIIIIIIIIIIi:. ill 111 zzzzzz _ �-Milli ■11 - •••• Hi Densi =�=J1e h �� :111111 Resid�al f � _ �" lrllll Illlllllr,_L- .111111 ■■r�� ■1■■� • • .. �ls Ill44, ■■■■■■■ ■ �� • - 1■`...III■■■■ ■ 11111111► ►■1 ��a1 ■I IIII■■ .� � I■� �: m111111■■IIIIIIIIIIL IIIII■ _____ ��_.�� ,Commercial + Area b8 + +,�NO +•' . nmmr■�:nn� C�Tc •�`Iy ■ ■; High Density ■ nil■i�-..mr ■ r■mM===nil ■p� ■ rrrrrrrri rrr� r Residential Illlrlllll■►Ir1 + + I\ ■� ■III ■loon.■■■■,■■■v■. ■M ■ WIFE r-I �..�+f-■■■�/,�Pby�■ ■■■�tj' ,mil F um Density,:■ ■�■■ ■■■■■�r�Resident�al�r��r�r ■■■■■■■■■ e M'■r I M ` :•■■■■■■■■■Office Old Town ■■■■■■�i cif■�I 11� .C111�1�;�� LU ri - . ■rtrr MU-c' MeridianCl .iCivic County A Cl to MDR • Future Roadway FLUM Changes Ge ren al ndustrial a ■CI Remove Civic CleanupCommercial Item#7. Cleanup Civic to Old Town - — — — ,z,, ill opilp%�� 1 ` %�iR+NKLIN. u� , 1 . F10-1 �� Cleanup MHDR �ii/ Q A to Commercial EQ iil♦OV •�• �/ I��r/.'I'I%r / Cleanup %u1 `ri. i .►� �r� %fir ►i i /?d/./././, �i Commercial 6,10 to civic p Meridian AOCI ffioroo?'F �I 0 County AOCI Future Roadway FLUM Changes OPAr� - ® AOCI Add® ,AOCI Remove .0 , ^Ii�� '•/ R OVERLAND Cleanup1 '� 'izPage 13 Page 96 Item#7. B. Future Land Use Map (with all changes) a� i g 3• � � � c] 3 _ n 26 V s MCNiIWn Rd `p`p City or Meridian Future Land Use Map -�� H" Leeena ®areaac� A ne Ln ry lmyaat svaooi Fiaara�y aaa 4 • F'oe — : Sdml m Tnneir 3retion E 2 Fururt Fadrlry :f —e:nayway comaor -F ..� s Oaedantl Rd r�.r�FulureCwssing * r Fulure ROaer9y -... _ O . .... S a 0.M U.5 _ Ylctory Rtl � �iQ�E IDIZ IAN�— lit Adopted Nmlth,Day,Year vaF.m W eane�n.»,nv oiruxa caaaax rr.na Not— FutureLand Uses Citywide Ten Mile Specific tow bensiry Resiaenuai )�Cms �ww bensrtY Empwymem Meamm bensiry Resmeneat ae Tam �Rpn bensiH Empbymnl .., a-XieF OanseY Resilenlul MMetl nse NeikaherMma MMM ErrplaymeM _n sieemm ., aea use cemmuniry Mace uua Ramenmr �cam�iu my� �Mown uar Rae�ariai Q�MMm uaa coaime�ai � _Oaiw Muatl Uae Noni4sldenllal �IMwlryi Mrcaa Vae-Irneraianpe A full size exhibit of this map will be available in the project folder on Laserfische,here: https://weblink.meridianciU.or zlWebLink/Browse.aspx?id=251825&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity Page 14 Page 97 Item#7. 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.meridianciiy.orylWebLink/Browse.aspx?id=254980&dbid=0&repo=MeridigpCitX 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. Stafffinds the amendment maintains this consistency as no changes are substantive to policy. 2. The proposed amendment provides an improved wide to future growth and development of the 61y. By maintaining and keeping the Comprehensive Plan relevant, Stafffinds 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, jectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Stafffinds 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. Stafffinds 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. Stafffinds 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 any 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. Stafffinds that the amendment does not require mitigation of impacts associated with development. Page 15 Page 98 Item#7. 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 Page 99 E IDIAN.;--- Applicant's Presentation Page 4 Comprehensive Plan Brian McClure, Comprehensive PlannerJune 14, 2022City Council Future Land Use Map Amendment Background This was previously coordinated, but no formal action had been taken.–ACHD property to Boise.Letter from Ada County Highway District consultant requesting release on June 2021(CPAM) in the future.advance. Meridian staff to process subsequent comprehensive plan map amendment This included minor revisions to the original request, and coordinated with Meridian in –2019 Comprehensive Plan.Ada County Adopted Area of City Impact (AOCI) to match Meridian’s February 2021 Purpose for continued refinement.–maintain accuracy (reduce errors); and–Improve land use and service planning;–align with coordinated efforts by Ada County;–include changes to:the Area of City Impact. Generally, these To make cleanup revisions in various areas of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment (CPAM) Overview of Changes symbol stylingother minor adjustments to layout/legend –better distinguish certain colors; andto revised land use designation symbols –boundary);the dedicated Ten Mile Interchange ” (replacing Special Planning Areasnew “–Graphic changes (the Legend), including:changes.future land use cleanup –; andAOCI revisions–Map changes, including:Several Categories: Map Changes Map Changes Map Changes Map Changes Graphic Changes (Legend)and color intensities.Increased differentiation between Future Land Use designations with similar hue  Graphic Changes (Legend)FieldsTen Mile SAPspecific/subarea plans.Includes both adopted Special Planning Areas RecommendationQuestions discussion.with no changes. There were no notable questions or recommend these changes to City Council for approval meeting, the P&Z Commission th At the April 28Planning And Zoning Recommendation: Eagle and Suez/Veoliabe provided by Water service to Suez/Veoliabe provided by Water service to in Boiseand future collector already Most of the landscape area in Boiseand future collector already Most of the landscape area already in BoiseEagle View Lane already in BoiseEagle View Lane Boundaryn in 2019 Comp PlaPart of Delano not Boundaryn in 2019 Comp PlaPart of Delano not Plan Boundaryin 2019 Comp Fast Eddy’s not Plan Boundaryin 2019 Comp Fast Eddy’s not Plan BoundaryComprehensive 2019 Plan BoundaryComprehensive 2019 Approved AOCIAda County Approved AOCIAda County AreaUstick Handy to Have https://gis.meridiancity.org/portal/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=99576f3ff07245e79a29d9183896a3ef–Planning Map:https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=258751&dbid=0 &repo=MeridianCity–Proposed FLUM with All Changes:https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=258660&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity–Staff Report:https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Brow se.aspx?id=251825&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity–Project Folder: