PZ - Staff Report 11-2-2023
Page 1
HEARING
DATE:
November 2, 2023
Continued from: October 19, 2023
TO: Planning & Zoning Commission
FROM: Sonya Allen, Associate Planner
208-884-5533
SUBJECT: H-2021-0099
I-84 + Meridian Road – CPAM, AZ
LOCATION: Generally located at the northwest corner
of S. Meridian Rd. and I-84 on the south
side of W. Waltman Ln., in the southeast
¼ of Section 13, T.3N., R.1W.
Note: Since this project was remanded back to the Commission, the Applicant has changed their CPAM request
from MU-R to Commercial and included the Tanner Creek project to the west in the amendment with a change
from MU-C to MHDR at the recommendation of Staff. An amended conceptual development plan and associated
exhibits have also been submitted. The staff report has been updated accordingly.
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map (FLUM) to change the future land use
designation on 33.1370.4-acres of land from Mixed Use – Community (MU-C) to Mixed Use – Regional
(MU-R) Commercial (34.3-acres) and Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) (36.1+/- acres); 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
STAFF REPORT
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Description Details
Acreage 33.1370.4 acres (CPAM); 18.30 acres (AZ)
Future Land Use Designation
(existing/proposed)
MU-C (Mixed Use – Community) (existing);
Commercial (proposed on subject 34.3-acre property) & MHDR (Medium High
Density Residential) (proposed on adjacent 36.1-acre Tanner Creek property)
Existing Land Use Single-family residential and vacant/undeveloped land
Proposed Land Use(s) Commercial
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,
hazards, flood plain, hillside)
The Ten Mile Creek runs along the west boundary of the site.
Page 2
B. Project Maps
Note: The Future Land Use Map shown below includes the property subject to the CPAM request; the
other maps only depict the AZ property.
Neighborhood Meeting Date 12/9/2021
History (previous approvals) Annexation Ordinance #435 (High Country of Idaho) & 02-987 (Urban
Renewal MDC); H-2019-0101 (Resolution #19-2179) – Future Land Use Map
change
Future Land Use Map
Aerial Map
Zoning Map
Planned Development Map
Page 3
III. APPLICANT INFORMATION
A. Applicant:
Ethan Mansfield, Hawkins Companies – 855 W. Broad Street, Boise, ID 83702
B. Owner:
Hawkins Companies – 855 W. Broad Street, Boise, ID 83702
C. Representative:
Same as Applicant
IV. NOTICING
Planning & Zoning
Posting Date
City Council
Posting Date
Newspaper notification
published in newspaper 4/5/2022; 10/17/23 5/29/2022
Radius notification mailed to
property owners within 300 feet 4/4/2022; 10/13/23 5/26/2022
Public hearing notice sign posted
on site 4/7/2022; 10/23/23 6/3/2022
Nextdoor posting 4/5/2022; 10/17/23 5/25/2022
V. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS
EXISTING FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION: This property and the adjacent property to the west totaling
70.4 acres of land 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 that
people 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-C plan depicted in Figure 3C. (See pgs. 3-11 through 3-16 for
more information.)
PROPOSED FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION: The proposed FLUM designation for this property is Mixed
Use – Regional Commercial (34.3 acres) and Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) (36.1 acres) for
the adjacent property to the west (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.)
The Commercial 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
Page 4
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.
The MHDR 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.
The Applicant submitted a conceptual developmet plan for the area included in the FLUM amendment (see
Section VIII.D). The subject property, proposed to be designated Commercial, is proposed to develop with a
mix of regional commercial/retail and restaurant uses with some neighborhood serving uses. The adjacent
property to the west, proposed to be designated MHDR, is proposed to develop with a mix of residential
uses, including single-family, townhome and multi-family dwellings. The proposed uses are consistent with
the FLUM designations proposed for the subject property and the property to the west.
Note: The initial FLUM amendment request for this property was from MU-C to Mixed-Use Regional (MU-
R). The Commission recommended denial to City Council based on their belief the proposed use isn’t
consistent with the general mixed-use development guidelines, the existing MU-C or the proposed MU-R
guidelines; they also felt a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) was needed. Council heard the application and
remanded it back to the Commission in order to be reviewed concurrently with the Tanner Creek application
in an effort to determine consistency with the Comprehensive Plan for the overall property.
After review of these applications, it’s Staff’s opinion the proposed development plans for both projects are
largely inconsistent with the purpose statements and development guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan for
the general mixed use and specific land uses (i.e. MU-C and MU-R) for the following reasons: 1) functional
and physical integration of land uses is desired – these are two separate residential and commercial
developments with only a pedestrian pathway proposed for interconnectivity – no integration of uses is
proposed; 2) a mixed use project should include at least three (3) types of land uses – only two (2) are
proposed [i.e. residential and commercial (includes retail, restaurants, etc.)]; 3) community serving
facilities such as hospitals, clinics, churches, schools, parks, daycares, civic buildings, or public safety
facilities are desired – none are proposed; 4) 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 – none are proposed; 5) mixed-use areas should be centered around spaces that are
well-designed and integrated public and quasi-public centers of activity that are activated and incorporate
permanent design elements and amenities that foster a wide variety of interests ranging from leisure to play
– no such public/quasi-public areas are proposed; 6) a mixed use project should serve as a public transit
location for future park-and-ride lots, bus stops, shuttle bus stops and/or other innovative or alternate modes
of transportation – no such stops or lots are proposed; 7) community-serving uses and dwellings should be
seamlessly integrated into the urban fabric for an integration of a variety of uses to avoid mainly single-use
and strip commercial type buildings (MU-C) – single-use developments are proposed that are not well-
integrated; 8) vertically integrated structures are encouraged – none are proposed (MU-C); 9) integration
of a variety of uses together, including residential as a supporting use, to avoid predominantly single use
developments such as a regional retail center with only restaurants and other commercial uses (MU-R) – no
residential uses are included in the proposed MU-R designated area, which creates a single use development
with only commercial uses; and 10) retail commercial uses should comprise a maximum of 50% of the
development area (MU-R) – most if not all of the proposed MU-R designated area consists of
commercial/retail uses, no residential, office, civic or other uses are proposed.
For this reason, Staff recommended the Applicant change their request for a map amendment from the MU-
R to the Commercial designation and include a map amendment on the adjacent property to the west
Page 5
(Tanner Creek) from MU-C to MHDR, as agreed to by both Applicants. This change better aligns with the
proposed development plans for both properties and in Staff’s opinion is more compatible with adjacent
existing and future residential development in the area and provides a good transition between these uses to
the proposed commercial uses and is more appropriate than the existing and previously proposed MU-R
designation.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES (https://www.meridiancity.org/compplan):
Goals, Objectives, & Action Items: Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable
to this application and apply to the proposed use of this property (staff analysis in italics):
• “Ensure development is connected to City of Meridian water and sanitary sewer systems and the
extension to and through said developments are constructed in conformance with the City of Meridian
Water and Sewer System Master Plans in effect at the time of development.” (3.03.03A)
The proposed development will be required to connect to City water and sewer systems.
• “Maximize public services by prioritizing infill development of vacant and underdeveloped parcels
within the City over parcels on the fringe.” (2.02.02)
The surrounding properties have all been annexed into the City; the property to the north is
developed, the property to the west is proposed to develop with residential uses (i.e. Tanner Creek).
Development of this infill property will result in more efficient provision of public services.
• “Require urban infrastructure be provided for all new developments, including curb and gutter,
sidewalks, water and sewer utilities.” (3.03.03G)
Urban sewer and water infrastructure and curb, gutter and sidewalks is required to be provided with
development.
• “Require collectors consistent with the ACHD Master Street Map (MSM), generally at/near the mid-
mile location within the Area of City Impact.” (6.01.03B)
The MSM depicts Waltman Ln. as a collector street where it abuts the site due to the increased traffic
anticipated with this development and the adjacent property to the west (Tanner Creek).
• “Require pedestrian circulation plans to ensure safety and convenient access across large commercial
and mixed-use developments.” (3.07.02A)
A pedestrian circulation plan was submitted for the site, included in Section VIII.F.
• “Improve and protect creeks and other natural waterways throughout commercial, industrial, and
residential areas.” (4.05.01D)
The Ten Mile Creek along the site’s west boundary should be protected during construction.
• “Support Valley Regional Transit's (VRT) efforts to construct multi-modal transit centers in areas of
high commercial activity and employment as well as areas with transit-supportive residential
densities.” (6.01.01B)
A bus stop is proposed within this development, which will serve residents of the residential
development to the west and employees and customers of the proposed commercial development.
• “Locate smaller-scale, neighborhood-serving commercial and office use clusters so they complement
and provide convenient access from nearby residential areas, limiting access to arterial roadways and
multimodal corridors.” (3.07.02B)
Smaller-scale neighborhood commercial uses are proposed along with two (2) larger retail buildings.
A pedestrian pathway is proposed for access between the subject property and the adjacent proposed
Page 6
residential property (Tanner Creek) to the west. For better connectivity, a more direct access, and to
reduce traffic on the collector street (Waltman Ln.), Staff recommends a vehicular driveway/bridge is
provided across the Ten Mile Creek between the two projects for easy access from the residential
development in accord with UDC 11-3A-3A.2.
• “Slow the outward progression of the City's limits by discouraging fringe area development;
encourage development of vacant or underutilized parcels currently within City limits.” (4.05.03B)
The proposed vacant parcels are within the City limits and the larger area is surrounded by
properties already annexed into the City. The development of this property will result in better
provision of City services.
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 and physical integration of land uses, to create and enhance neighborhood sense of place, 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
dedicated office site. There are no residential or public uses proposed. The subject proposal is for a
commercial project without any mixed-use elements. There are no community supportive services such as
locations for day cares, flex space, or small locations for doctors, dentists, or other typical community
serving uses. There is also no integrated residential with or consideration for the planned project to the west.
Note: A Development Agreement modification was previously proposed to change the development plan on
the adjacent property to the west from commercial to residential but was denied (i.e. Tanner Creek). The
current entitlements for that property are approximately 400,000 square feet of professional office, hotel,
and retail uses (for more information, see existing Development Agreement AZ-06-063 Inst. #108131100).
Although a subsequent application for a residential development is planned to be submitted for that
property, it has not yet been submitted as an updated Traffic Impact is Study is under review by ACHD. In
the pre-application meeting, Staff recommended to the Applicant that they wait and submit their application
for this development at the same time as the adjacent development to the west so that the projects could be
reviewed together for overall consistency with the requested map amendment but the Applicant decided to
proceed forward on their own against Staff’s recommendation.
Staff finds the integration of land uses in the proposed concept is not consistent with many of the MU-R and
existing MU-C policies. The proposed concept plan is more indicative of a commercial development and
minimal effort have been made to address mixed use requirements. The following items are additional
requirements of the general mixed-use designation, the majority of which are not met with the proposed site
plan.
In reviewing development applications, the following items will be considered in all Mixed-Use areas,
per the Comprehensive Plan (pg. 3-13): (Staff’s analysis in italics)
• “A mixed-use project should include at least three types of land uses. Exceptions may be granted for
smaller sites on a case-by-case basis. This land use is not intended for high density residential
development alone.”
Page 7
This is a 33+/- acre site with only commercial and office uses proposed. This is not a “small” site
and additional land use types should be included. Open space areas shown on the project site are
disconnected, difficult to access, unsafe (i.e. located in or adjacent to vehicular use areas), and do not
support the purpose or intent of a mixed-use designation.
• “Where appropriate, higher density and/or multi-family residential development is encouraged for
projects with the potential to serve as employment destination centers and when the project is
adjacent to US 20/26, SH-55, SH-16 or SH-69.”
The subject project proposes no residential uses. The requested future land use designation does not
address the land to the west, which currently contains the same MU-C designation. If approved there
would be adjacent properties with different FLUM designations, design standards, and lack of
integration.
• “Mixed Use areas are typically developed under a master or conceptual plan; during an annexation or
rezone request, a development agreement will typically be required for developments with a Mixed-
Use designation.”
No master plan was submitted and the property to the west is not considered or integrated into the
subject application and concept plan. The property to the west, is walled off, adjacent to loading and
mechanical areas of the large and mid-box sites, and is connected only by a drive aisle that
inadequately addresses safety or connectivity for bikes and pedestrians between the two sites.
• “In developments where multiple commercial and/or office buildings are proposed, the buildings
should be arranged to create some form of common, usable area, such as a plaza or green space.”
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.
Page 8
• “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.
• “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.
Page 9
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
Page 10
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,
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
Page 11
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
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:
Access is proposed via three (3) driveways to/from Waltman Lane, a local street, at the project’s north
boundary. ACHD’s Master Street Map (MSM) designates Waltman Ln. abutting this site as a collector street.
Improvements are required to Waltman Ln., including reconstruction of the bridge over the Ten Mile Creek,
Page 12
west of this site with the Tanner Creek project. Improvements to the section of Waltman that abuts this site
will be determined by ACHD with a future development application since this only an annexation request.
The extension of Corporate Drive to the northwest of this site, designated as a collector street on the MSM,
including construction of a bridge over the Ten Mile Creek from the north to Waltman Lane, is proposed to
be completed with the first phase of development of the Tanner Creek project prior to issuance of building
permits.
If the Tanner Creek project doesn’t go forward and complete the improvement to Waltman Ln. and
Corporate Dr. as planned, Staff recommends these improvements are completed by this developer
through a Cooperative Development Agreement (CDA) with ACHD, as follows:
• Extend Corporate Dr. off-site from its current terminus north of Ten Mile Creek to Waltman Ln. and
construct a new bridge over the Ten Mile Creek, within existing ROW. The roadway north of the
bridge should be constructed as a 40-foot wide commercial street section with vertical curb, gutter
and 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk. The crossing of Ten Mile Creek will require a 58-foot wide
bridge with 2-foot parapets. Staff recommends the roadway south of the bridge to Waltman
Lane is constructed as a complete street section with detached 10-foot wide multi-use pathways
along both sides of the street. These improvements should occur with the first phase of
development and should be complete prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy for the site..
• Construct Waltman Lane as ½ of a 36-foot wide street section with curb, gutter, an 8-foot wide
planter strip/parkway and a 10-foot wide detached sidewalk within 29-feet of right-of-way (ROW)
from centerline with 7-feet of the sidewalk located outside of the dedicated ROW abutting the site.
All improvements are proposed to be constructed south of the existing edge of pavement for
Waltman Ln., shifting the centerline 8-feet south to the south. ACHD is requiring the Applicant to
construct the north side of Waltman with a minimum of 12-feet of pavement from centerline, a 3-
foot wide gravel shoulder and a borrow ditch to accommodate the roadway storm run-off. Center
turn lanes are required to be constructed on Waltman Ln. if determined necessary by ACHD. The
improvements to Waltman Ln. will require reconstruction of the existing bridge over the Ten Mile
Creek as a full 36-foot street section with curb and 5-foot wide attached concrete sidewalks. This
will require a 54-foot wide bridge with 2-foot parapets. These improvements should be completed as
required by ACHD and shall occur with the first phase of development and be complete prior to
issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy for the site.
The proposed commercial development is estimated to generate 10,891 vehicle trips per day (VTD) (950
vehicle trips per hour in the PM peak hour). Based on the findings of the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) for the
proposed project, which included the Tanner Creek project, the Meridian Rd./Waltman Ln. intersection
would exceed ACHD’s Acceptable Level of Service thresholds. With previous development applications for
the Tanner Creek property, ACHD did not recommend any mitigation at the intersection due to right-of-way
(ROW) constraints, impacts to existing businesses, and substantial intersection redesign and construction,
making the recommended mitigation infeasible.
A letter prepared by Six Mile Engineering, dated 1/23/23, in response to comments and feedback during the
City Council hearing for this project, was submitted to ACHD proposing phased alternative improvements at
the Meridian Rd./Waltman Ln. intersection to address traffic impacts from these developments. A three-
phase concept design was proposed in which the first two designs did not require any additional ROW
dedication and the final phase did. ACHD reviewed their proposal and does not recommend any
modifications to the intersection as under all concept designs, these modifications would negatively impact
existing operations of both the interchange and ramps. ACHD’s concerns also extended to the impacts the
proposed modifications would have to the Central Dr. and Corporate Dr. intersections at Main St. and
Progress Ave. While the proposed improvements may benefit both of these proposed developments in the
short-term, they’ll likely negatively impact the already congested area roadways and intersections. These
Page 13
improvements without significant widening increase corridor travel times and interchange queue lengths,
further compounding existing congestion in this area. ACHD believes there are other alternatives that may be
considered such as converting Central Dr./Waltman Ln. and Corporate Dr. to a one-way couplet, which is
anticipated to reduce both queue lengths and the impacts to the Meridian Rd. and the I-84 interchange system
(see ACHD’s letter for more information).
The construction of the Linder Road overpass (3/4 mile to the west), scheduled in ACHD’s IFYWP for
construction in 2026-2027, should greatly improve traffic conditions on Meridian Rd. by providing
another north/south connection over I-84. The Commission and City Council should consider if higher
levels of traffic and congestion in this area are acceptable when acting on this application. If not,
consideration should be given to the inclusion of a provision in the Development Agreement, which
limits development to the large retail (Retail 1) store at this time and delays the Retail 2 building and
Pads 3 and 4 until such time as the Linder Road overpass is completed or other area improvements
occur that allow for an acceptable level of service to be provided, as determined by ACHD.
TRANSPORTATION FOCUS – EXISTING TRANSPORTATION NETWORK CONCERNS
Staff and ACHD have concerns with the ability of the existing transportation network to support the
proposed development. It should be noted that a A Traffic Impact Study (TIS) was not prepared or submitted
for the subject project; a memo with additional information was also submitted. There are already signal
timing issues at the Waltman and Meridian intersection and this development will add to the wait times and
congestion.
• 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
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
Page 14
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).
VI. STAFF ANALYSIS
A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT (CPAM)
Based on the analysis above in Section V, Staff finds the proposed development plan is generally
consistent with the requested FLUM designation of Commercial for this site and the requested
designation of MHDR for the adjacent property to the west (Tanner Creek) and is compatible with
adjacent existing and future land uses. Further, the proposed FLUM designations provide for a better
transition in uses from existing and future residential uses to the west and northwest and are compatible
with adjacent FLUM designations in this area. Note: If the proposed amendment to the FLUM is not
approved, Staff finds the proposed development is not consistent with the existing MU-C FLUM
designation for the reasons noted above. See above analysis in Section V for more information.
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 Commercial. The
Page 15
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 revised conceptual development plan was submitted as shown in Section VIII.C 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 (130,000-150,000 153,300 square
feet (s.f.)) & Retail 2 (80,000 80,500+/- s.f.), Retail 3/Lot 2 (20,000-30,000 s.f.)], 3 out- 4 pads,
including 2 with drive-through’s, and a 4-story 80,000 square foot office building 5 shops. 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.
As proposed by the Developer in the updated application narrative, a minimum of 10% of the total
building square footage for the site will be reserved for non-retail commercial uses that may include such
uses as office, clean industry, entertainment, hospitality/hotel, fitness and/ or recreation, personal
services, non drive-through restaurants, health care, daycare, finance and/or banking, and educational
and/or training uses.
The conceptual development plan depicts a future VRT bus stop at the northeast corner of the site along
Meridian Rd., an arterial street. For safety reasons and for better accessibility from the proposed
residential development to the west, Staff recommends it’s relocated off the arterial str eet to the
plaza area at Shop 1 or another location acceptable to VRT.
A vehicular connection/stub is not depicted on the revised concept plan to the property to the west for
future extension across the Ten Mile creek and interconnectivity, only a pedestrian pathway is proposed.
Staff recommends a driveway is provided (alongside the proposed pathway) in accord with UDC
11-3A-3A.2, which supports limiting access points to collector streets and requires a cross-
access/ingress-egress easement to be granted to adjoining properties where access to a local street
is not available, unless otherwise waived by City Council. The Applicant has submitted an emergency
access easement agreement with the property owner to the west for secondary emergency access to
Ruddy Dr. and Waltman Ln. At no time should construction traffic associated with the development of
this site be allowed to access this site using Ruddy Dr. through The Landing and Tanner Creek
Subdivisions.
A 10-foot wide pedestrian pathway exists along Meridian Rd. adjacent to the site. In accord with the
Pathways Master Plan, a detached 10-foot wide multi-use pathway should be provided within the
street buffer along Waltman Ln.; and a 10-foot wide multi-use pathway shall be provided
east/west through the site with connections to the pathways along Waltman Ln. and Meridian Rd.
and internal pedestrian walkways. The Applicant should coordinate the location of the pathway
through the site with the Park’s Department. A 14-foot wide public pedestrian easement is
required for the multi-use pathways; a recorded copy of such should be submitted to the Planning
Division prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for the development. Internal
pedestrian walkways should be a minimum of 5-feet wide and should be distinguished from the
vehicular driving surfaces through the use of pavers, colored or scored concrete, or bricks as set
forth in UDC 11-3A-19.
The City may require a development agreement (DA) in conjunction with an annexation pursuant to
Idaho Code section 67-6511A. To ensure the site develops as proposed with this application, staff
Page 16
recommends the provisions discussed above are included in a DA for the subject property. The
entire property depicted on the conceptual development plan in Section VIII.C shall be governed
by the DA as agreed upon by the Applicant. A legal description for the boundary of the property
subject to the DA is included in Section VIII.G. Future development of the property should be generally
consistent with the conceptual development plan in Section VIII.C. The Applicant requests flexibility in
the general configuration and size of the building footprints and orientation, plaza areas and parking on
the site with an allowance for up to 20% change in square footages of buildings.
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
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 approval of the proposed amendment to the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and
the proposed annexation per the updated analysis above in Sections V and VI and the Findings in Section
X. If City Council does not approve the requested amendment to the FLUM, Staff recommends denial of
the annexation request based on incompatibility of the proposed development with the existing MU-C
FLUM designation.
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 application: Sonya Allen
Page 17
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 pertaining to 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. Key issue(s) 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 MU-C
guidelines or the proposed MU-R guidelines; also need a Traffic Impact Study.)
5. Outstanding issue(s) for City Council:
a. None
C. The Meridian City Council heard these items on June 14, 2022. At the public hearing, the Council
moved to remand the subject CPAM and AZ requests back to the Commission.
1. Summary of the City Council public hearing:
a. In favor: Ethan Mansfield, Hawkins Companies; Matt Schultz, Representative for the
Tanner Creek development to the west.
b. In opposition: Joe Lorcher, Kelsi Lorcher, Clair Manning; William Kissinger; Joey
Lorcher
c. Commenting: Mike Swenson; Kristy Inselman, ACHD
d. Written testimony: None
e. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen
f. Other Staff commenting on application: None
2. Key issue(s) of public testimony:
a. Concern pertaining to traffic impact on the Meridian/Waltman intersection from the
proposed development;
b. Against the intensity of uses proposed with the MU-R FLUM designation and resulting
traffic in this area and at the Meridian/Waltman intersection;
c. Desire for a true mixed use project to be developed on this site as opposed to an entirely
commercial development.
3. Key issue(s) of discussion by City Council:
a. Preference for this property and the abutting property to the west to come in together or
concurrently with a master plan for the overall area that demonstrates consistency with
the existing or proposed FLUM designation;
b. Desire for the transportation issues to be addressed before a development plan is
approved;
c. Desire for changes to be made to the concept plan to be more consistent with the general
mixed use guidelines and specifically the requested MU-R designation.
4. City Council change(s) to Commission recommendation:
Page 18
a. Council voted to remand this application back to the Commission for review of
anticipated changes to the concept plan to be more consistent with the general mixed
use guidelines and specifically the requested MU-R guidelines; and so that a master
plan can be reviewed for this property and the Tanner Creek property concurrently.
Page 19
VIII. EXHIBITS
A. Future Land Use Map – Adopted & Proposed Land Uses (Amended)
Page 20
B. Annexation Legal Description and Exhibit Map
Page 21
Page 22
C. Conceptual Development Plan (REVISED) & Renderings
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26
Page 27
D. Tanner Creek and I-84 & Meridian Road Conceptual Development Plan
Page 28
E. Vehicular Connectivity Plan
Page 29
F. Pedestrian Circulation Plan
Page 30
G. Legal Description & Exhibit Map for Property Subject to the Development Agreement - forthcoming
Page 31
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.
1. A Development Agreement (DA) shall be required as a provision of annexation of the subject
property. The DA shall be signed by the property owner(s) and returned to the City within six (6)
months of City Council approval of the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decision & Order
for the Annexation request. The new DA shall include the following provisions:
a. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the conceptual development
plan, renderings, pedestrian circulation plan and vehicular connectivity plan, included in Section
VIII and the provisions contained herein. Flexibility in the general configuration and size of the
building footprints and orientation, plaza areas and parking on the site shall be allowed with an
allowance for up to 20% change in square footages of buildings.
b. As proposed by the Developer, a minimum of 10% of the total building square footage for the
site shall be reserved for non-retail commercial uses that may include such uses as office, clean
industry, entertainment, hospitality/hotel, fitness and/ or recreation, personal services, non drive-
through restaurants, health care, daycare, finance and/or banking, and educational and/or training
uses.
c. A vehicular connection/driveway shall be provided to the west boundary (alongside the
pedestrian pathway) of the site for interconnectivity in accord with UDC 11-3A-3A.2, unless
otherwise waived by City Council. A cross-access/ingress-egress easement shall be granted to
the adjacent property to the west and a recorded copy of the easement submitted to the Planning
Division with the first Certificate of Zoning Compliance application for the site.
d. A vehicular driveway and cross-access/ingress-egress easement shall be provided to the out-
parcel (Parcel #S1213417320) at the northwest corner of the site and a recorded copy of the
easement submitted to the Planning Division with the first Certificate of Zoning Compliance
application for the site.
e. A detached 10-foot wide multi-use pathway shall be provided within the street buffer along
Waltman Ln.; and a 10-foot wide multi-use pathway shall be provided east/west through the site
in accord with the Pathways Master Plan with connections to the pathways along Waltman Ln.
and Meridian Rd. and internal pedestrian walkways. Coordinate the location of the pathway
through the site with the Park’s Department. A 14-foot wide public pedestrian easement shall be
required for the multi-use pathways if located outside the public right-of-way; a recorded copy
of such shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to issuance of the first Certificate of
Occupancy for the development.
f. Internal pedestrian walkways shall be a minimum of 5-feet wide and shall be distinguished from
the vehicular driving surfaces through the use of pavers, colored or scored concrete, or bricks as
set forth in UDC 11-3A-19.
g. A bus stop should be provided in the plaza area near Shop 1 or an alternate location acceptable
to Valley Regional Transit (VRT).
h. At no time shall construction traffic associated with the development of this site be allowed to
access this site using Ruddy Dr. through The Landing and Tanner Creek Subdivisions.
Page 32
i. If the improvements to Waltman Ln. and Corporate Dr. aren’t completed by the developer of the
project (Tanner Creek) to the west as planned, these improvements shall be completed by this
developer through a Cooperative Development Agreement (CDA) with ACHD, as follows:
• Extend Corporate Dr. off-site from its current terminus north of Ten Mile Creek to Waltman
Ln. and construct a new bridge over the Ten Mile Creek, within existing ROW. The
roadway north of the bridge should be constructed as a 40-foot wide commercial street
section with vertical curb, gutter and 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk. The crossing of Ten
Mile Creek will require a 58-foot wide bridge with 2-foot parapets. The roadway south of
the bridge to Waltman Lane shall be constructed as a complete street section with detached
10-foot wide multi-use pathways along both sides of the street. These improvements shall
occur with the first phase of development and shall be complete prior to issuance of any
Certificate of Occupancy for the site.
• Construct Waltman Lane as ½ of a 36-foot wide street section with curb, gutter, an 8-foot
wide planter strip/parkway and a 10-foot wide detached sidewalk within 29-feet of right-of-
way (ROW) from centerline with 7-feet of the sidewalk located outside of the dedicated
ROW abutting the site. All improvements shall be constructed south of the existing edge of
pavement for Waltman Ln., shifting the centerline 8-feet south to the south. The north side
of Waltman shall be constructed with a minimum of 12-feet of pavement from centerline, a
3-foot wide gravel shoulder and a borrow ditch to accommodate the roadway storm run -off.
Center turn lanes shall be constructed on Waltman Ln. if determined necessary by ACHD.
The improvements to Waltman Ln. shall include reconstruction of the existing bridge over
the Ten Mile Creek as a full 36-foot street section with curb and 5-foot wide attached
concrete sidewalks. This will require a 54-foot wide bridge with 2-foot parapets. These
improvements shall be completed as required by ACHD and shall occur with the first phase
of development and be complete prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy for the
site.
B. PUBLIC WORKS
Site Specific Comments
1. No Public Works infrastructure was provided as part of this submittal, any changes must be
approved by Public Works.
2. Water main must connect to the existing main in Waltman Lane at two locations.
3. Provide a water main connection to the west.
4. Ensure no permanent structures are built within a utility easement including but not limited to tree,
shrubs, buildings, carports, trash enclosures, infiltration trenches, light poles, etc.).
5. Ensure no sewer services pass through infiltration trenches.
General Comments
6. Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works
Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide
service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover
from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in
conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications.
7. Per Meridian City Code (MCC), the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water mains
to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement agreement for
infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5.
Page 33
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.
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.
Page 34
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.meridiancity.org/public_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.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=257681&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity
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.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=257725&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity
F. COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST IDAHO (COMPASS)
https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=258617&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity
G. IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT (ITD)
https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=257906&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity
H. ADA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=259278&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity
I. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT (ACHD)
https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=267371&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity
https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=259453&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity
https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=309476&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity
X. FINDINGS
A. Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment
Upon recommendation from the Commission, the Council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the
public hearing, review the application. In order to grant an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, the
Council shall make the following findings:
Page 35
1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the other elements of the Comprehensive Plan.
Staff finds the proposed amendment from MU-C to Mixed Use – Regional (MU-R) Commercial and
MHDR and conceptual development plan is not generally consistent with the intent of the MU-R
designation other elements in the Comprehensive Plan in that it’s predominantly a single-use
development (retail) and does not include any residential uses as desired, including the provision of
a transition in uses and compatible uses, as noted in Section V.
2. The proposed amendment provides an improved guide to future growth and development of
the city.
Staff finds that the proposal to change the FLUM designation from Mixed Use – Community (MU-C)
to Mixed Use - Regional (MU-R) Commercial and MHDR does not provides 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 is consistent with the proposed
development plan and existing and future uses in the area, as discussed in Section V above.
3. The proposed amendment is internally consistent with the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Staff finds that the proposed amendment is not consistent with the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of
the Comprehensive Plan for the proposed MU-R Commercial and MHDR designations as noted
above in Section V.
4. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Unified Development Code.
Staff finds that the proposed amendment is consistent with the Unified Development Code.
5. The amendment will be compatible with existing and planned surrounding land uses.
Staff finds the proposed amendment and conceptual development plan will not be compatible with
existing and planned surrounding land uses for the reasons as noted in Section V above.
6. The proposed amendment will not burden existing and planned service capabilities.
Staff finds that the proposed amendment and development will likely burden transportation
capabilities in this portion of the city even without significant improvements to Waltman,and 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.
Staff 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, Staff finds that the proposed
amendment is not in the best interest of the City.
Page 36
B. Annexation and/or Rezone (UDC 11-5B-3E)
Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the commission, the council shall make a full
investigation and shall, at the public hearing, review the application. In order to grant an annexation
and/or rezone, the council shall make the following findings:
1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan;
Staff finds the proposed map amendment to the C-G zoning district and plan to develop solely
commercial retail and office neighborhood serving uses on the property per the proposed conceptual
development plan does not demonstrates consistency with the general mixed use or the MU-R
guidelines in the Plan Commercial FLUM 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;
Staff 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;
Staff 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
Staff 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.
5. The annexation (as applicable) is in the best interest of city.
Staff 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.