The URL can be used to link to this page

CC - Commission Recommendation and Staff Report for 11-21 STAFF REPORT E COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT f D A H 0 HEARING DATE: November 21, 2023 Legend 0 TO: Mayor&City Council P�K—_1 Lacs-5or 99 I Pmri 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 '/4 of Section ; 13, T.3N.,RAW. # s 7 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 developmentplan 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 /TR)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. 11. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Acreage 33.1370.4 acres(CPAM); 18.30 acres(AZ) Future Land Use Designation MU-C(Mixed Use—Community)(existing); (existing/proposed) 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 RI 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) Page 1 1 a1 1 vt r . • , IIII 1. � - -y.. r KLII 84 III •F.1 - �v��. �� II�III� �II '- -■ - i- �. lr ��A. 211�ii" m � 4 • Is _-i..i OVERLAND � TIPi. ! q.II•:r • I�ty.j ,!.III�.I S 14'�FaiSl^l�Z 1�IIII::11 :�,i ulu„ _ •aC�{ra_i A �NIIIIIIII'r, ::'=':''7' '� :11L4 LL11 � ■�■ 1. IIII rrlr. Is -___ ■�+r'"i��i � gi's• - - .I II ��IR �� rlllr � 1•�e€��:°L� a I� __ lk�la■. MEN iu nl III-�1�I -=i s�i �■� '�� ■� ■ =iiliiii -- -: ..........21 Ir. Mile ■I�■■+ �vl}I =��IIIN�IIIIIIIOY 18 Mi sruluu m► �� - �nu..nm..Yd- �• ■■■■ G ■� • " S= -= Y � �� Y.S.. u�■� 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 City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper notification published in newspaper 4/5/2022; 10/17/23 5/29/2022; 11/5/2023 Radius notification mailed to property owners within 300 feet 4/4/2022; 10/13/23 5/26/2022; 11/3/2023 Public hearing notice sign posted on site 4/7/2022; 10/23/23 6/3/2022; 11/9/2023 Nextdoor posting 4/5/2022; 10/17/23 5/25/2022; 11/3/2023 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 Mimed Use Regional Commercial (34.3 acres)and Medium High Density Residential(MHDR) (36.1 acres) the adjacent property to the west(see map in Section VIILA). The V„ose ef Me r rr r A designation ;y pr-e+,ide a nik of enfple�,ment-, i;etaik, and-residential d-wellings andjgHblie uses near fliajer af:te 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 3 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 landscapin and nd 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 dwellingproposed uses are consistent with the FLUM designations proposed for the subject property and the property to the west. Note: The initial FL UM 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 Staffs opinion the proposed development plans for both projects are lard ly 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 pathwayproposed 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 Li.e. residential and commercial(includes retail, restaurants, etc.11; 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 inte rrg ated 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 plax —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 buildin (MU-C —single-use developments are proposed that are not well- integrated,- 8 vertically integrated structures are encouraged—none are proposed(MU-C�9 rote rg ation of a variety of uses together, including residential as a supporting use, to avoid predominantly sin lg e 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 4 (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 Staffs 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 roposed MU-R designation. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES(https://www.meridiancitv.orzlcompplan): Goals,Obiectives, &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 rewired to connect to City water and sewer systems. • "Maximize public services by prioritizing infill development of vacant and underdeveloped parcels within the Ci, 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 ug tter, 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 ad'a7 cent 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 boundya 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 roadway multimodal corridors."(3.07.02B) Smaller-scale neighborhood commercial uses are proposed along with two Leger retail building A pedestrian pathway is proposed for access between the subject property and the adiacent proposed Page 5 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 proiects 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 lamer area is surrounded by properties already annexed into the City. The development of this property will result in better provision of City services. The fol evAng analysis is specific to the request for a Mixed Use Regional(MU R) designation, and not the fner-its E)r-benefits of I' t j ' pr-E)pE)s d uses. Analysis for-either-eamplianee with the adepted fettwe 4ad t*se designation of MU C, E)r-another-one,may r-esult in very dif-fer-epA analysis.A pr-operty designated MU R ffffist eemply with both the general mixed used poliees and the NIU R pE)Iieies be! fi9i-a eembination ef eanTatible land uses.within a elese g�eogfwphie ai-ea that agoi�wfor eas-i4,aeeessible funetional andjqkwieal integration ocland uses-, te er-eate and enhanee neighbor-heed sense 6��ee, and to allow develeperis...b.e.,__e. ...gib.ee� ...,...b.......... .....efle.........y. The proposed pr-ojeet is eofnpr-ised entifely of eemmer-eial uses,primarily high tfaffie generating • two big box retail and junior anehor-retail spaees along with drive thfoul--r-estaufants), along with a single gh dediea4ed offiee site. Thet:e are fie residential E)r-publie uses proposed. The a!is fer-a leeations far-day ll > i4ex spaee, > dentists, . —uses. There is also no it4egr-ated r-esiden�ial with E)r-eensider-ation for-the planned pr-ojeet to the west. 4"h a subsequent appheationfor are4denfial development is planned to be submioedfor that pFopepi�L, it has no�yet been submitted as an up�ted Traffie Impaet k S44:y is under review bYA GAP. A the pre applieation meeting, Stwff reeemmended te theApplieant that thej,,wait and submit their applieation Staff finds the ipAegr-ation of land uses in the pr-oposed eoneept is not eansistent with many of the MU R an 1 eff-oft ha-ve been made to addf:ess mixed use r-equir-ements. The following i4ems are addition—al Faents of the general mixed tise designation,the major-ity of w-hieh are not met with the proposed site in reviewing development > ill > per-the Comprehensive Plan (pg. 3 13)! (S4af cc A mixed use pr-ojeet should inelude 4 least difeet)Tes of land uses. Exeeptions may be granted for- smaller-sites on a ease by ease basis. This!and use is not in4eaded for-high density residential develen4 ales Page 6 This.is a 3344 aere site with anky eammer-eitil and-Offiee uses.19twpese6t. This is net a 4mall"site and ti"6effal land I— I W be inekideJ Open&paee areas.shown on the prqjee�i9ite ape • cc Where appr-opr-ime,higher density an&or-ffmiti fafaily residential development is eneoiffaged fe PFE)jeetS With the Potential to Sen'e aS efllplo�qment destination eenter-s and when the pr-ojeet is adjacent to US 70/76 Cu cG Cu 16 or Cu tia » The subjeetprejeetl9r-epeses ne residetitial uses.. The r-eques-tedfuture land use designation does no integration. • cc Mixed Use areas are typioally developed under a master or eonceptual plan; during an annexation o Use designation-.-' Xe master plaH ims submitted and the property to Me west�s met eensidered er integrated into Me meehanieal areas ef Me large and mid bege sites, afld is eetmeeted an4,by q&4ve aisle M • "In de"lopments where fnoltiple eo er-cial and/or-offiee buildings are proposed,the buildings should be affanged to er-ea e some f6fm of eammon,usable afea, stieh as a plaza or-green spaee." There is no shared Vaeefior Pestaur-ants, business gathepiffgs, eo-destination oriented retail(ereati ;, • "The site plan should depiet a tFansitionaluse and'of landseaped buffering between eommer-eial and existing low or-medium density residential development." and the larg�tjqropased usems andpad sites with the greatest impa4q q,-e Ageated-adjoeent to multi fiami4,residential planned tg the west, The s-itelglan does not integrate ether eemmunity,se * - tteAture to >plazas, > open spaee, > ; The l9repesed site plan inehidas several areas 0��eH spaee. H-Oitvmver-, these areas.ai-e in renmaH leeations.or in the middle of a l9a4ing area with no integration and d*ffieulb4msqft jqedestF aeees-s. Aze atherpublie ar quasi publie spaees ar-elgi-ovided in alignment with the purpose and-intent of the niked use d,-sig:Ha6ei*. Page 7 amenities that foster-a wide variety of intefests ranging from leisure to play. These areas should be e ieles and pedestrians." edestria nn )) wouk4 be stibnfitfiHg plans that wei-e eoordinated in aeeoi-danee with Oty,poliey. They,have talked 64-11d etiVe . • "Alleys and foadways should be used to tfansition 4em dissimilaf land'ases, and between fesidential densities and housing types." The pfisipased site plan does ifielude a df:ive aisle leeated behind the large f:etail afiehaf:, that in eembination with a landseape bugaf pfevides "a"tfansition to Attwe residential to the west. This however-is not the point of the mixed use transition standafds. As shown in the mixed use genefal and mixed use fegional comprehensive plan figuf es (3A and 3D,below), foads are generally t1se tfansition with 4eating uses. These foads afe intended to both iategfa4e and to tfansition, and not to mixed e d nt Connectivity Single Family Residiid ential Townhouses or(andos Open —� Space q Multi-family a ti--® z. 0 Transit Stop Live-work,or Townhouses ��- Commercial! Retail Care Office or I Service Use Plaza lOpen Space ArterialRaad _ 4 Feature area(shared space,connectivity;etc.) A Figure 3A from City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan.Note the focus on robdway frontage that transitions and integrates uses,and the open space amenities both integrated and shared. Page 8 Single Family Residential Office or I Hospitality 3 Retail yr - -- Service Use Local � Residential Office Park/ or Office Headquarters _ Q -0 61 Integrated 0 0, 0 Plaza Area o � ® Retail ISI dT A Arterial Road O Feature area(shared space,connectivity,etc.) ----� Figure 3D from City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan.(Vote 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. in reviewing development >the following items w a 11 be considered in AIU R areas, areas.• Development should generally eemply with the general guidelines for-development in all Mixed Use amenity that ties theprejeet teg:ethei,. [Aile it may be eestprohibitive to have sever-al eres-sin Q( qHalio,ef hf-e. X9M.--Staff reeegnLaes-that the Ten Mile Greek s-eparates these Ave prejeets. of the develepfnei:A area at gFoss densities fanging ftem 6 to 4 0 tmits/aer-e. There is neither-a minimum nor- esed on non 1 ffi ldtfy t4 .mot uses.0 , e 0� eo aus There is neither-a minifflUm nor-max* 4 on non retail een*ner-eial uses stieh as offiee-, � o„ et 0 elean ..,1,,.,t.... ..tt.,;,�.�e t uses.� � o ef The site is jqredominate4,retail with a siffg4e effiee pad, Aze auenTts at�e made te inehide er integ-rate Page 9 other 0� Of the dffek)-pfflefft area. CoHneil that eommuni,,�,Pffle s-eiq,iees.s-heHk4 oeeu,-en Waltman to the east; neither applkatien is Aqiere the development proposes publie and quasi publie uses to st+ppoA the developffiel#,the develope may be eligible for-additional afea for-retail developmef+t(beyond the allowed The proposed eoneept is ahigiost entirely retail with ne eMer eommunio,sen,ing uses.Atprevie ),based on the r-aties • Far-land that is designa4ed for-a publie > > the developer-is eligible for- 2:1 bonus. That is to > > areas,be eligible for-two additional acres of retail development. sueh as a park,tot lot, > the develope > area, • For-plazas that are if4egr-a4ed into a f:etail pr-ejeet,the developer-wetild be eligible for-a 6.1 the site wotild be eligible for- Sueh plazas should provide a fecal pE)ipA(sueh as a fou-pAaitt, statue, and water > seating afeas, and some weeAher-pr-oteetion. That wetild mean that by providing a half aer-e plazza, the developef wetild be eligible for-thfee additional aefes of retail development. This guideline is not applieable as no sueh publi8lquasi publie uses are propos Additional Analysisi attemp. I . I — . any of the an site uses or-with any proposed adjaeepA later-nal Cir-eulation and Pedestrian Aeeess! Some effoft has been made to elevate the site plan to suppoft pedestfian safety. iner-eased sidewalks dffoughotA the puldag areas have been provided,unlike eommer-eial strip malls a-ad power-eepAer-s of deeades past. These iWFovemeats however-really only suppeft and benefit, users that. e t the site via „t,..Y,ob to The maze of par-king spaees and drive aisle er-A—i afe fef users not affiving on the site via ean Pa sites have all been loeated on the Outer-edges of-fl ill . -destfia-n er-es i . g fr-equently thf oughou4 the in4eFioF par-king af eas. The uses likely me st attif aetive to adjae pon�--rvos iddeenitts for-Fepea4 tFip s, are the pad sites a4eng Mer-idian Read. These have no dir-eet pedestrian aeeess and r-eVife meandering through the lafger-paf-k4agar= —1 . . y east west drive aisle has a niee pedestfian spine,until it abfuptly ends at no paftieular-destination(the small Fetail Pad 2 site). These ou4er-pad sites with drive thfoughs are not eenneeted to eaeh other-, and t-hef:e is no peFimeter-oifetilmion system around the ou4side of the site ins Adding more sidewalks to a large pafl6ag area and er-eating token open spaee that is suffounded by par-king with no dir-eet aeeess or-unattfaetive afeas(near-dtHmpster-s and leading areas) does not fiwther-mixe pr-ineiples. Lner-eased pedestfian aeeess for-au�o . . —to the site is positive,but t44 would be-a Besides eifettla4ion and aeeess,the proposed uses are the pr-imafy eeneefn. This espeeially when eonsider-ing ifftegr-ation with this site.A single dr-ive aisle eonneetion between the two is not integfation, and is a baseline . . Faent for-all pr-ojeets in the City for-aeeess, eir-ettla4ion, a-ad safiat-y. Mixed ttse areas are intended - serve neigMer-ing eomffmnities. There are no smaller-eamm-unity sef-ving uses-proposed in either-pr--pjeet. The pr-ojeet is laid out to attmet regional au4omotive users and generate Viek t-Fips,with 9 Page 10 — leeations and uses for-fesidents to benefit. These eommtinity sefvi ees afe intended and essential to fe loM trips-. dentist,Uses from the subjeet site r-equife new residents to get into their ears for—viFtually all trips, and most of that would be fitnneled down Waltman and thfotigh an akea4-pr-oblematie and eongested ipAer-seetion. Theft are no seeendafy areas for-fle*uses, afts, da-year-e, live/wofk, small offiee sites�qr-therapists, doeter-s, these uses at an a&r-dable pr-iee point given the ale, loea ion, and ipAer-state visibilit-y. The smallef Retail 2 -pad site (in the middie)may suppoi4 some multi tenant uses,bilt 4-4-o-me off-t-h-Le listed examples are typieally attraeted to these 4�Tes of loeation -i , eirettlation,physieal building design, and general attorneys, or other o vices. The 4 story class A offlee space,is not likely to suppoi4 most of Site Design; To be oonsidered a mixed use pfojeet, an entire site redesign is very likely required.No small atimber-of ehanges will fesolve the tinder-lying design issties. A lafge retail anehor-eould easily be integfate into a mixed ttse projeet,but for-this site in this loeation, it would likely need to be loeated along th-e inter-state or Meridian Road. This is noftnal and typieal both for sites sueh as this, and for major retailers, in othef subufban afeas of the Cou*tfy. The loe4ion as designed prohibits any integration with the adjaeent uses to the west, and disallows the potential�qr-any lesser-eommunit-y sef�vi -1 tlSeS ffE)-M-- eee"��ng spaee along Waltman Lane. Waltman is the ideal Iation-fq--r-P--A- . .uses that do npod ;L p-p—m-n-A-taffor-d thevisibility of the inter-state and Mer-idian Road. The site needs to realize better- eittster-ing of non residential uses to ffame a-ad befiefit r-eloeated open s-paee, c-md there needs to be existing r-esid nti-All mle�as. Destination use nd eommunity setwices for-Weal residents should be e ffieie t and safe. needs the square footage r-ededieated for better-integration of eenununity sei=ving uses.While offiee also desir-ed,there is a eonsider-able amotmt of it being eonstfueted elsewhere in the eommtfoity and eetild also be r-ededieated. The large Retail 1 anehof eottld be easily provided with a eentfal spine aeeess ffofn Wa4man if it was feleeated with the baek faeing the ipAer-state. it would ha-ve gFeater-visibility,be no less aeeessible, and allow mueh better-integfation for-a variety of other-uses. The planned residential to the wes would also then not be liter-ally walled off by the unat4metive side of a large big box, and eould make better- use of views aef:oss the Ten Mile er-eek. None of the pad sites on Mer-idia-a Road need to be lost,though Open spaee provided in the subjeet layout is wasteful and wit-betA signifieant benefit to fu4ur-e,poten4i users. Provision of A' - . "ot a eheekbox r-e"ir-emeat that ean be provided and just make a pfojec4 speeifie pokey. The spaee behind the leading deeks is tinat4metive and likely to be a nuisanee and GPTED issue. The area stfffounded by pafking near-offiee pads is a heat island,unsafe, and diffieult to meess,both for-near-by employees and fof:fesidents. A4iile the een#al open spaee eould serve as something of an ot4doo-r- market, it does not meet the ifftent of the mixed use pfineiples and is poor4y loeated(see above). Finally, and as pr-eviously stated,the site laeks ifAegr-ated design featwes for-user-s to leisufe and The seeendafy mid box(larger-retail -2 along the inter-state) ma-y be diffietilt to integr-ate, and likely instead There afe no elemefi4s of destination wgiona4,fie plaees designed�qr-business visits and ou4door-meetings to happen, or-f6r-user-s to visitef:s to simple 'stay' and ef�oy set=viees with synefgies. The site plan is standard h i gh-w . . .1, designed to usher-in as many whieles as possible, a-ad then to get them otA as quiekly 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 11 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 ep rmits. 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 1/2 of a 36-foot wide street section with curb,_gutter, an 8-foot wide planter stri /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 requiringthe he 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 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 i 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 iyely impact the already congested area roadways and intersections. These Page 12 improvements without significant widening increase corridor travel times and interchange queue lengths, further compoundingexisting x�g 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. 14 sheeld be nated 4ia4 a A Traffic Impact StudX(TIS)was net Pfepafed of 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. site.eeneept plan,whieh is not shown(bt4 may suppeA some tFanspoi4a4ion e"ansion),bu4 would also need to tufn lane net4h of MeDenalds for-example, air-eady has an exeeptionally wide,partially abseur-ed,and very aw4p�va-Fd tufning are. Additional aoFthbetmd left Wm!a-aes on4o Waltman ffom this li&will eompo:HHA existing defieieneies. islands a-ad signals may also need to be Feset,bt4 this pr-ojeet should not seek to benefit and eommanity identity. This all remains upAmown, and is withou4 eowAiiitmeats. The very lafge if4er-seetion is sof4ened s4stantially by the existing 4ndseaping, and th4 should eopAifwe with development of this Anything ea-a be engineered,but tmder-standing the impaets of the entire afea developed and operating at the worst paft of the day,where tr-affie flow is alfeady eompfomised thfough sever-a!inter-seefien ligMs, is. essential. The Mefidia-a8A'Ama-a inter-seetion was not designed to aeeofPmoda4e the proposed impaets, in the e�dsfing eenditions and with the single poifA ufban inter-eha-age (SPUI). Timing will be ftifthef eomphea4e air-eady staek thr-ough these adjaeef4 signals and No&other-dir-eetions of travel,and whieh is fuFthef Page 13 Other T-ranspOARtiOn Coneernse No frontage r-oads are provided to integfate the par-eels in this area. All tfaffie, leeal a-ad regional, is feetised ento Waltman. A r-ebttst loeal ae�wedE shotild inte 4e with a planned fiet4h setith Cer-per-ate Dfive extension a-ad not Fequife east west travel on Waltman exeittsively. The east west drive aisle pfopesed with this pr-ejeet, efessing thfough the middle of a planned private ffmiti ftmii4y development, is not designed to safely aeeE) I , , . I olume through tr-affie. Ftti4her-, if this- eei+neefien exists,the p1mmed multi family pr-E)jt0-#-A-4-1-t-4ke iviest should not have baek out paf king, shoi have wide detached sidewalk to acconunodate bicyclists wid pedestrians, and the buildings should inelude Speenlative Entiflementl Stag believes that amending the Fu4we Land Use Map as proposed, give existing status of speeulative development is unwise. 14 is not clear if one or-both of the projeets tentativAy proposed for the"Waltman area"can reasonably aff-ord or en-' . . ements that adequately eempensate for-their-impaets. Pr-ojeets �qr-the entire adepted Nli*ed Use GewAntmity area need to have eempleted tr-affie impaet studies,have been fitily Feviewed, and have eensider-ed impr-ovements tha4 adequately address the aggr-egmed impacts of pr-ojeets for-the lar-gef afea. This is not possible when neithef pr-ejeet has a solid and eehesive master-plan,when beth may still ehange dr-amatieally, and when they are Valley,not just for-eppeftttait-y,but also operations through this afea. 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. , either-iteratively thFOUgh subsequent requests by diffffeflt Pr-OjeetS, OF by multiple - . . different stages of r- i I I ble haFM to the City's flagship and namesake inteFehange and eStFyWay iHtO the City.There should be lingeFiHg OF unanswered questions, nothing left to ehanee OF ehange later-given the importanee 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 Commercial. The Page 14 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 G Gi%aiag dist-Fiet is eensistent with both the existing Fb:�A4 desigaa4ien of NIU G an A revised 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 a-adajuaier- eher-retail spaee [Retail 1 (130,000 150, 153,300 square feet(s.£)) &Retail 2(80,000-80,500+/-s.£),Retail Leti+-z2 (20,000 30,000 s.f-.)j 3 eut-4 pads, n^'„.ing 2 with drive thro g 's, and a 4 steff 90,0005 shoes. 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 street 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 15 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.0 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 VIILG. 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 f�tprints and orientation,plaza areas and parking on the site with an allowance for up to 20% change in square footages of buildings. uses. The proposed eoneeptual development plan for-the annexation area(and larger-area) only ineludes two (2) land ttse types eommer-cial retail and offiee.Although residential land uses are planned to develop on the adjaeent pr-opeft-y to the west,the pr-opet4y is eoffently entitled to develep solely with eommer-cial uses;the previous residential development proposed for that property was As noted abo"lle in Seetion V,mixed use designated areas should inelude at least three(3)t"es of!and Therefore,Tanner Creek). Reasons for denial ineluded Couneil's determination that the sole residential use of the pt:opeft-y was not eonsistent with the MU G designation beeatise a mix of uses wasn't proposed a-ad the di&4 wan4 to btffden this pr-opet4y with pr-wvidiag only the non residential eomponeat of the mix of uses west to come in for review eeaetiffently in order-to ensure the over-all development is eeasistepA with the development guidelines in the Gempr-ehensive Plan for-the mixed use designati In aeeE)r-d with Staffs analysis above,the pfopesed development is not eonsistent with the general Stag is not ift s"poA of the r-e"ested annexation with the eoneepttial development plan proposed Elue to its ifteeasisteney with the Compr-ehensive Plan. As rwoFffinended in the pr-e appheation meetings for-this property and the adjaeent pr-epefty to the west, Stag r-eeewmmeads de3velopmeat appliea4ioas are s4mit4ed eonettffeatly for-these pr-opet4ies with a master-plan for-the over-all area tha4 demoast-Fa4es eonsisteney with the guidelines in the Compr-eheasive Plan for-mixed use developments and speeifleally the MU C desi- ,. alteffla4e deSigf1a4iE)fi i pr-eposed.Altema4iwly, if stibmitted separately,the develepfnen4 plan for-eaeh pr-epefty should demonstfate eonsisteney with the Plan on its own fner-its. The TIS should also be updated to take into wasidef:a4ion the developmefft impaets of both properties and the neeessar-y road and inter-see improvements needed in this af:ea in oFder-for-the stfeet fietwoFk to funetion suff4eiently with the intensity of developmeni pf:oposed. VII. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends derma gpproval 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. tion. 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 c. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen Page 16 f. Other Staff commenting on application: Bill Parsons 2. Key issue(s) 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 pertainingtpacts 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 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 Kissingev 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 NU-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 17 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. D. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard these items on(continued from October 19, 2023)November 2, 2023.At the public hearing,the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject CPAM and AZ requests. 1. Summary of Commission public hearing_ a. In favor: Ethan Mansfield,Hawkins Companies, Leah Kelsey, Six Mile Engineering b. In opposition: Kelsi Lorcher,Joe Lorcher,Joey Lorcher C. Commenting: Clair Manning d. Written testimony: None e. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen f Other Staff commenting on application: None 2. Key issue(s) public testimony A. Against project due to the impact on traffic in this area from this development and the extension of Ruddy Dr. b. Concerned pertaining to the safety of area residents with the traffic that will be generated from this development and the residential development to the west when Ruddy is extended to Waltman Ln. 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission: A. The Applicant's request to not be required to provide a vehicular connection to the west across the Ten Mile Creek to the adjacent residential development. b. The Applicant's request to not construct a driveway access to the out-parcel at the northwest corner of this site at this time. 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. At Staff s request,modify DA provision#A.1(i)to require the extension of Corporate Dr. to be constructed as required by ACHD. b. The Commision is in support of Council ranting a waiver to UDC 11-3A-3,which requires vehicular connectivity between the two projects via a cross-access easement,to not require a connection(DA provision#IX.A1c). c. Modify the requirement for a cross-access easement and driveway, t�provided to the outparcel(Parcel#S 1213417320)to only require an easement at this time. The easement should,grant consent to the owner/developer of the out-parcel to construct the driveway on the subject property in the future at the time of development. (DA provision#A.1 d). 5. Outstanding issue(s)for City Council: a. None Page 18 VIII. EXHIBITS A. Future Land Use Map—Adopted&Proposed Land Uses (Amended) Date: 10/12/2023 Adopted Land Uses I Feet �� 10.010 Orr" Legend ■ �1 +��// i'♦� ® Area of City Impact Qj 00f ffV// 1 Future Land Uses 0 Citywide ■ � �� Low Density Residential ■ tj II I E Medium Density Residential ■ /`��{I Med-High Density Residential iru r ■ _ High Density Residential - Commercial - 'E Office r - Industrial CIVIC Old Town Proposed Land Uses - Mined Use Neighborhood 0,51 ® Mixed Use Community 1��A%%, %ii;'40 - Mixed Use Regional +!<<rrr==========rrrsr�� riiiif • �r��„ , '' , Mixed Use Non-Residential '/��% Mixed Use-Interchange �/ Ten Mile Specific - Law Density Employment } _ t_. �■-� � I/J�J�J 0F.14 ® Lifestyle Center l ■ �,141;Byrd JiR j - High Density Employment / �'�� //% j�zl ® Mixed Employment I� � ,— ,f`q1 Mixed Use Residential ; ' I �%0111 ® Mixed Use Commercial : . r I j FA ■ � I ■ Iro ■ _ / 0,0 I Page 19 B. Annexation Legal Description and Exhibit Map km E r4GrNEERtryG Februaiy4,2022 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 leasing 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 Ieawing sa id boundary a nd fol.lowing se 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 20 CENTER 1/4, CORNER POINT ❑F DI?MLgF-NCWEHT 51:GTICN 13 W. Waltman Ln, Elf 114 CORNER SECTION 13 FbUNb 519-INCH -2EB R (3ASJS OF BEARING FOUND BRASS cop S&5_215'10"E 2642.64' LI FEE:TARL.E � LINE 13FARIN6 DISTANCE I 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 P+a«�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 21 C. Conceptual Development Plan(REVISED) &Renderings I 0, DT-0 0 0 u�ttrrnmtru �th 0 � _ n III Iri IY� CIP km ate- — IA4 MERIOWi ROAM-L9NL4PlIlAL SfiE PIAN 0PN0N 6-0 "_� ��`_�'�•tiw�'��-n - - c i - i UIIIIIUIIIIIIU F II qa� e I nIIII f lJllli iiiiI l U i ---------------- (T I-84/MERIDIAN RDAD-CONCEMALSITE PLAN Page 22 1- 4 MERIDIAN IDiEILPNIENT CONCEPTUAL,SUBJECT TO CHANGE IA - F pi • .1 r— I F # •��fA cw rlp rte Page 23 - - -- T' y Y �IW6a 5 Sti �. YF11yA'kC-11 V I-�4 Z- is - - PIA/A TvYI Pi - _ -_ - �': ,i•, .I �:•i ri YTRSYFC I I}'h 1 �. - t \ �I I P_u�rn�e Page 24 - � �� __ _ -1-L1]LS I'RIAN CO IV7;('1'[C1N .. 'IP"'� )L •! �.! I �: ^ i e i , ■ i Yi.t 1Tti!1. ww*mc wor NLRl VEC fIV E 2 �p A F ■ D. Tanner Creek and I-84 &Meridian Road Conceptual Development Plan TANNER CREEK & 1-84 MERIDIAN DEVEL®PMENT CONCEPTUAL,SUBJECTTO CHANGE "S `' t air' IS ( 1 p r , - ,,1 I r J_ r / r Ill +, low 04 TANNER CRElEK & 1-84 MERIDIAN DEVEILOPM'iFN'lf-' A PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION C 1-84&MERIDIAN PLAZA TYPE C 6 C III; Y i B TANNER CREEK PLAZA /2 4 -� _ fi Page 27 E. Vehicular Connectivity TANNER CREED & - _ .:r�, �.+.••j FRANKLIIRD. 1-84 MERIDIAN CONNECTIVITY • I'1./�IV s CONNECTIVITY LEGEND B • ? <•••• VEHICLE CONNECTIVITY <••.n. CORPORATE PR.EXTENTION -.c O WALTMAN LN.1 MERIDIAN RD. ••+} w-ncrvawooD sr ' INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS eat* LINDER OVERPASS • {BY ACHDIFFDS � �� ki v • e'� Mav • •' "1 �` dzLe .. . say*.•,'•. - Z. +' - - - -1dtErsr�r�aa •i Page 28 F. Pedestrian Circulation Plan TANNER CREEK & T E4 MERIDIAN I I DI VELOPMENT PATHWAY PLAN _ PATHWAYLEGEND `.... SITE CONNECTIVITY m� } ` _ _ <Ruff.f TEN MILE CONNECTIVITY 9V Y two \ Ak `' J I`X OTHERS l-..►s•.•..�i....._ 1 y__�. - f i r .7 _ .i �'1 ' nn <+• Ia'PA-rHWAY UPROVEMENTS —_ � fF`iiia•a•a�..a � ...' a. i :mac IZ' li 'r a a {I�� ._ �� .,� • F iii��:. a {f J OPEN SPACEAMENIrIES __.. � a ��'' ,h e.u•as•i••.�faL""%sasaaap i Oil -�: _ r�M1 :� i � ZarVi:.-•■tii .Ira a IY ._.•,90 a..........• ICJ_ • L�JI • '�� ! I� ! i Y ter,.:, �n„ I � I�, Page 29 Page 30 IX. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS A. PLANNING DIVISION The Plaflaing Divisiefl has fie eefiditions on this application because the reeommendation is for denial. 1-f be eof4ifmed ' . Fit hearing in order-for-Stag to pr-epafe eonditions 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 followings 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%changequare 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 boundaa(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/in rg ess-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 cross-access/ingress-egress easement shall be provided to the out- parcel(Parcel#S 1213417320)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. The easement shall grant consent to the owner/developer of the out- parcel to construct the driveway on the subject property at the time of development. 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 pathwa sg 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 31 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 ROWke Mile C-eek will e a 58 feet wide b r-ike with 2 feet perii3cis. The ivcc va-y Svirtr-vf as required by ACHD. 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 '/2 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 ri hg t-of- wa(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 32 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 33 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 hyp://www.meridianciU.o�ublic_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:llweblink.meridianciU.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=257681&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCiU D. NAMPA&MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID) https:llweblink.meridiancio2.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=258727&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity E. PARK'S DEPARTMENT hygs://weblink.meridianciU.orgJ ebLink/DocView.aspx?id=310268&dbid=0&repo=Meridian City F. COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST IDAHO(COMPASS) https:llweblink.meridiancit E.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=258617&dbid=0&repo=MeridianQty G. IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT(ITD) https:llweblink.meridiancit E.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=257906&dbid=0&repo=MeridianQE H. ADA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES https:llweblink.meridianciLy.orglWebLink/DocView.aspx?id=259278&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCiiy I. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https:llweblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=267371&dbid=0&repo=Meridian City https:llweblink.meridiancity.orglWebLink/DocView.aspx?id=259453&dbid=0&repo=Meridian City https:llweblink.meridiancity.oLvlWebLinkIDocView.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 34 1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the other elements of the Comprehensive Plan. The Commission finds the proposed amendment from MU-C to A&ced r e n,,.iona!(AI r n 4 Commercial and MHDR and conceptual development plan is ate# enerally consistent with of the AIU n a,sig w,tie n other elements in the Comprehensive Plan in that Ws jqtwdeminant4, including 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. The Commission finds that the proposal to change the FL UM designation from Mixed Use— Community(MU-C) to Commercial and MHDR dees�e4-provides an improved guide to future growth and development of the City as the proposed development plan does 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. The Commission finds that the proposed amendment is n-64 consistent with the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan for the proposed AILIR Commercial and MHDR designations 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. 5. The amendment will be compatible with existing and planned surrounding land uses. The Commission finds the proposed amendment and conceptual development plan will H&t be compatible with existing and planned surrounding land uses felts as noted in Section V above. 6. The proposed amendment will not burden existing and planned service capabilities. The Commission finds that the proposed amendment and development will likely burden transportation capabilities in this portion of the city even without signoeasnt improvements to Waltman,and the extension of Corporate, . 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 bf4 d.esn,,meet many of the mixed, guidelines fop e+ lame, 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 net in the best interest of the City. Page 35 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 &&k+ commercial retail and efftee neighborhood serving uses on the property per the proposed conceptual development plan deesmet demonstrates consistency with the g,,mer ' mixed use ep M 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; 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. 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 rest in the best interest of the City per the analysis in Sections V and VI above. Page 36