Planning and Zoning - Regular Meeting

Good evening. Welcome to the planning and zoning commission meeting for it. Oh, excuse me, my alarm. Um, let me start again. Welcome to the planning and zoning commission meeting for April 2nd. At this time, I would like to call the meeting to order. The commissioners who are present for this evening's meeting are at city hall. We also have staff from the city attorneys and the city's clerk office as well as the city's planning department. If you're joining us on Zoom this evening, we can see that you are here. However, you're you may observe the meeting. However, your ability to be seen on screen and talk will be muted. During public testimony portion of the meeting, you will be unmuted and then be able to comment. Please note that we cannot take questions until the public testimony portion of the meeting. If you have a process question during the meeting, please email city clerk@meridiancity.org and they will reply as quickly as possible. If you simply want to watch the meeting, we encourage you to watch this streaming on the city's YouTube channel. You can access it at meridiancity.org backlive. With that, we will begin with roll call. Madame clerk.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Commissioner Delsamino present. Commissioner Perau here. Commissioner Smith here. Commissioner Stole here. Chairperson Lorder here. The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. There are no changes to tonight's agenda. Could I get a motion to adopt tonight's agenda? Madam Chair, move to approve as presented. Second. It's been moved and second to approve the uh adoption of the agenda. All those in favor say I. I. I. I.

Any opposed? Motion carries. The next item on the agenda is the consent agenda which include to approve the minutes of the March uh of the planning and zoning meeting on March 19th. All those in favor say I. Oh, wait. I need a motion. May I have a motion? So moved. It's been moved and second to accept the consent agenda. All those in favor say I. I. I.

Any opposed. Motion carries. At this time, I would briefly like to explain the public hearing process. We will open each item individually and begin with the staff report. Staff will report their findings and how the item aderes to our comprehensive plan and our unified development code. After staff has made their presentation, the applicant will come forward to present their case and respond to staff's comments. They will have 15 minutes to do so. After the applicant is finished, we will open the floor to public testimony. Each person will be called only once during public testimony. The clerk will call the names individually of those who have signed up on our website in advance to testify. You may come to the microphone in chambers or will be unmuted on Zoom. Please state your name and address for the record and you will have three minutes to address the commission. If you've previously said pictures or a presentation for the meeting, it will be displayed on the screen and our clerk will help you run the presentation. If you have established that you are speaking on behalf of a larger group like an HOA where others on that group will allow you to speak on their behalf, you will have up to 10 minutes. After all those who have signed up in advance have spoken, we will invite any others to wi who may wish to testify. If you wish to speak on a topic, you may come forward in chambers or if on Zoom, press the raise hand button on the Zoom app. Or if you're only listening on a telephone, please press star 9 and wait for your name to be called. If you're listening on multiple devices, such as a computer and a phone, please be sure to mute those extra devices so we don't experience feedback and we can hear you clearly. When you are finished, if the commission does not have questions for you, you will return to your seat in chambers or be muted on Zoom and no longer have the ability to speak. And please remember, we will not call on you a second time. After all testimony has been heard, the applicant will be given another 10 minutes to come back and respond. When the applicant has finished responding to questions and concerns, we will close the public hearing and the commissioners will have an opportunity

to discuss and hopefully make final decisions or recommendations to city council as needed. With that we will open item number 2 H2025-0000007 Singa Crossing mixed use development for annexation preliminary plant and conditional use permit. We will begin with the staff report. Sorry Dean, the light was green. Anyway, the the next applications before you tonight are request for annexation and zoning, a preliminary plat, and a conditional use permit. The annexation portion of this site consists of approximately 62 acres of land including rideway to the section line of adjacent roadways zoned RU and LO and county and it's generally located at the northwest corner and southwest corner of South Meridian Road and State Highway 16 and West Amity Road. The comprehensive plan future land use map designation is mixeduse community. The applicant is requesting annexation of 62.43 acres of land with R15 zoning which consists of 9.76 acres, R40 zoning which consists of 18.01 acres, LO zoning which consists of 3.05 acres and CN zoning which consists of 2.07 acres and CC zoning which is 29.54 acres. A conceptual development plan um was submitted as shown for the annexation area that depicts how the site is planned to develop. The northwest corner of Amity and Meridian

Road um is a multifamily development consisting of 101 apartment and town home style units at a gross density of 10 units per acre. 21,000 square ft of office uses. a 65,000 square foot grocery store with retail shops, restaurants, and a bank. Public quasi public and plaza areas are also proposed in the commercial portion of the development. All commercial development is proposed to be a singlestory in height, while the residential is proposed to be a mix of four-story apartments and two to threetory town home style units. A mix of at least three different land use types are proposed as desired. However, the proposed development is not functionally integrated in holistic design or integration of uses per the design policies in the comp plan. I.e. the use function the uses function as individual components rather than together as desired. Because of this, ACD is not accepting any trip capture for this development. The proposed density conforms to that desired in the comprehensive plan. Community serving facilities such as hospitals, clinics, churches, schools, civic buildings or public safety facilities are not provided which increases services and transportation network impacts. Supportive and proportional outdoor public and or quasi public spaces and places connected by pathways are proposed consisting of plazas, outdoor gathering areas, and linear open space areas that appear to be approximately 5% of the development area as desired. At the southwest corner of the annexation area, southwest corner of Amity and Meridian Road, um 35,000 square feet of commercial area is proposed, which is anticipated to include restaurants, retail shops, a coffee shop, and gas station convenience store. Across the street on the southern portion of the development, a 322 unit multifamily residential development is proposed with a gross density of 18.23

units per acre. Commercial structures are anticipated to be a single story in height. Residential structures are anticipated to be three to four stories in height. The development pro proposed on the southwest corner is inconsistent with the policies in the comprehensive plan for the following reasons. The residential area is 72% of the site which is 22% more than the maximum allowed of 50% and the 3.23 23 units per acre over the maximum density allowed of 15 units per acre. Commasate levels of employment and other non-residential elements supporting residents and reducing local vehicle trips are not provided due to the excess of residential area and density provided. A mix of at least three different land use types are desired in mixeduse designated areas. Only two are proposed. Supportive and proportional outdoor public and or quasi public spaces and places such as parks, plazas, outdoor gathering areas, linear open space, and schools do not comprise a minimum of 5% of the development area as desired. Community serving facilities such as hospitals, clinics, churches, schools, civic buildings, or public safety facilities are not provided which increases service and transportation network impacts. The applicant has requested the overall project be considered for consistency with the comprehensive plan rather than two individual projects. The comprehensive plan specifically states contiguous mixeduse identified areas that are bisected by an arterial or highway are considered separate and independent areas for use and design integration and will be evaluated independently of each other. Some of the reasons for such include safety and efficiency of the transportation network, pedestrians and motorists alike. This went into effect in the comprehensive plan. I believe it was two years ago. Is that correct, Bill? Okay. So, it is not a a new change to the comprehensive plan.

An overall pedestrian plan was submitted as shown for the annexation area that shows 10-ft wide pedestrian walkways in blue, 5 to 6 foot wide sidewalks in the lighter blue color, and 8 foot wide sidewalks in yellow providing connectivity along streets through parking areas, public quasi public areas, commercial and residential areas. Conceptual building elevations and perspectives were also submitted showing what future commercial retail buildings and plaza areas will look like as well as the residential buildings at the northwest corner of the annexation area. The primary transportation considerations for this development involve the timing and coordination of required off-site improvements, access management along Amity Road and State Highway 69, and completion of internal street and pathway connections needed to support a functional mixeduse neighborhood pattern. The project would add measurable traffic to a network that already experiences operational strain during peak hours, underscoring the need to align development phasing with programmed intersection and signal improvements. Because of its proximity to two major transportation corridors, the design must emphasize efficient side access, safe circulation, and continuous pedestrian and bicycle connections consistent with the city's adopted street and pathway standards. ACD's recommended conditions and findings addressing intersection mitigation, access spacing, and collector completion reflect these shared objectives and are consistent with the comprehensive plan and UDC standards for coordinated land use and transportation planning. A preliminary plat is proposed as shown to subdivide the southwest corner of the annexation area, but the northwest corner is not included in the subdivision plaid. The plaque consists of eight building lots, six commercial and two residential lots on 24.46 acres of land in the proposed R40 and CC

zoning districts. One access is proposed via West Amity Road and one access is proposed via South Meridian Road, State Highway 69. A portion of a future collector street hermitite via West Amity Road is depicted along the southern portion of the west boundary of the site and stubs to the property to the south. The portion that connects to Amity Road is offsite on the adjacent property to the west and is not proposed to be constructed with this development. A waiver from city council is requested to UDC 113H4B2A which prohibits new approaches directly accessing a state highway. Comments have not yet been received from ITD on whether they already have or will grant the access. A backage road generally paralleling Amity Road and Meridian Road, State Highway 69 is proposed for access to the properties fronting those roads. In accord with the UDC, there is a 40 foot wide gravity irrigation easement on the southwest corner of the commercial area as shown. TR trees and large shrubs are not allowed in the easement area. A conditional use permit is also requested for a multifamily development on the southwest corner of the annexation area consisting of 322 apartment units on 16.35 acres of land in the R40 zoning district at a gross density of 18.23 units per acre. Three-story garden style and fourstory podium style multifamily buildings are proposed with parking on the ground floor. The podium style units are proposed here around the clubhouse and the garden style units are proposed on the southern portion of the development. Building materials consist of fiber cement sighting, variegated board and batten in a variety of colors and styles, stucco and brick. The final design, if approved, is required to comply with the design standards in the architectural standards manual. The

collector street access hermitite is needed for emergency access and should be extended from West Amity Road to the site prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy within the multifamily development if approved. Based on 322 units, a minimum of 1.85 acres of outdoor common open space is required. A total of 3.14 acres is provided, exceeding the minimum standard by 1.29 acres. Proposed amenities consist of a clubhouse, swimming pool and spa, a community garden, shade structure, walking trails, children's play structures, and four sports courts. Additional amenities as recommended by staff are recommended by staff if approved. Written testimony. Um, no letters of public testimony have been received. A response to the staff report was received from the applicant as well as a letter pertaining to application updates. Staff is recommending denial of the proposed annexation request and consequently the preliminary plat and conditional use permit requests based on the conceptual development plan not meeting the policies in the comprehensive plan for mixed use and specifically the mixed use community designation as noted in the staff report. The applicant is here to present tonight. Thank you.

Would the applicant like to come forward? We a button at the bottom of the microphone.

How's that? There you go. Excellent. Thank you. Thanks for pulling that up, Sonia. You're welcome. Good evening, commissioners. My name is Ethan Mansfield. Um I'm representing Hawkins Companies this evening. Um, is there is this a PDF? Sonia, can is there any way you can bring up the PowerPoint so I can change slides? And also, if you can state your address for the record. 855 West Broad Street. Sorry about that. Thanks. Thank you. Um, the arrows should help you move along. Oh, the PDF. Okay. She's information service.

Yeah. public.

Sorry about that, Ethan. I downloaded it and went into a PDF, but the clerk has it in your format. Oh, excellent. Thank you. I can I can do it with PDF if necessary. It just takes a little more scrolling and finagling.

Oh, did it not share? Sorry. Thanks, Anya. Good evening, commissioners. Um, I've already introduced myself. Um, thanks for, um, having me tonight. Um, I would like to talk a little bit about Serena Crossing. Uh, Hawkins is really excited to be investing in this project. The reason we're excited about it is because of Meridian's success over the past 20 years as a community. We wouldn't be interested in this site if it wasn't a growing community and a vibrant community. And we think that this project not only complies with the comprehensive plan, but also contributes to the vibrancy and growth of the community, which is why we're here tonight uh to to talk about it. So, I'll just give a brief overview. Sonia touched on it. Um this is an annexation zoning um of 56 acres. It also includes a single development agreement on the northwest and southwest corners of AMD and Meridian roads. Um we are considering this in two phases again under a single development agreement and I'll talk about why that's important in a moment. Um phase one as Sonia mentioned is the southwest corner. Phase two is the northwest corner. And we're also considering a conditional use permit for multifamily on the southwest corner and a preliminary plat on the southwest corner as well. The reason we can't plat these together is because um there needs to be two different plats processed when there's an arterial between the plats. That that's one of the reasons. The other is because we're excited to have a single development agreement uh that that will kind of tie us to a concept plan that we will come in in the future and plat at that time that it's ready to develop.

So really quickly I just want to share a little bit of important history about the project. On July 21st 2020 we came in for a preapp with the city of Meridian for the northwest corner only. The plan for the southwest corner was to remain in the county. Um it's now operating as a wholesale nursery currently, Victory Greens. Um and the plan was to annex the northwest corner with 284 residential units and 130,000 square ft of commercial just on that 26 acres on the north side. So at that time, the city of Meridian said, "Hey, come back with a master plan for both the northwest and the southwest corners." considered under one development agreement considered as a single master plan for the area. And given the um this piece of the comprehensive plan below in orange that says mixed use projects are to be developed with an overall master conceptual plan for the larger mixeduse area. That makes sense. So we're coming in with a grand plan for both sides that considers both sides as a whole. And I'll talk about that in a minute. So, I'll kind of run through kind of what we're proposing, how it complies, how the zoning complies, and then importantly, functional and holistic integration uh items. So, again, 56 acres on northwest and southwest corners, um homes for up to 423 families, that's 14.9 units per residential acre across the site. um 21,000 square feet of dedicated office space that is to be zoned LO. Professional office, medical offices, and daycarees are some conceptual uses. Um anything that's allowed in the LO zone could go here. Um depending on the community demand at the time it's

constructed, obviously. And then we're proposing almost 140,000 square feet of food service, retail, personal services, that's salons, um hair, nail salons, um other commercial services. So like Daily Needs, grocery store is kind of the anchor of this project, this site. Um that's surrounded by shops, buildings, um where any number of uses could be allowed. This is zone CC. So it could be anything from a salon to a medical clinic to a dental office to anything. And really that demand is driven by the surrounding community. It doesn't go here unless it's going to be driven by unless it's going to be supported by the community. And I think that's really important to remember.

Um finally 12% of the area is dedicated to quasi public open space and plaza areas. So um those are circled here and the orientation of these matters. You can kind of see there is a from north to south kind of a a intentional alignment of these areas and we'll talk about that a little bit later too. So let's talk a little bit about zoning. So um here are the sample zonings and I should say everywhere in orange is direct language from the comprehensive plan from Murdian's comprehensive plan. And so anywhere you see that orange text that's marine conference of plan or when I've actually snipped the plan. So sample zoning in the mixeduse community zone or mixed use community uh future land use area is R15, R40, TNR, TNC, CC and LO. You can see here that residential uses are expected to comprise between 20 and 50% residential densities from 6 to 15. We're at 14.9% res gross residential density. Our residential uses are make up 24.4 acres. That's 44% of the development agreement or development area. And you can see down here at the bottom, 9.6 units per acre on that R15 area. 21,000 ft of on the building in the office area. 107,000 ft of building area on that northwest corner community commercial. Almost 30,000 square feet of building area on the southwest corner. community commercial and 18.23 acres on that R40 area. So R40 doesn't mean R40 here. R40 means 18.2 units per acre just across that particular R40 area. So here's some text about the comprehensive plan. Additional flexibility is afforded to these ranges through other reference policies. Any mixeduse project must work towards the

purpose and intent statements including availability of goods and services to the community and must offset impacts by providing quality of life opportunities not typically achievable through other single-use areas of the city. So, we're going to talk about how they're different than other single-use areas. So, first of all, one of the biggest things that's kind of notable about this development is it is, you know, it it circles around a grocery store. A grocery store is a daily need. Um, a grocery store serves the surrounding community. It's an important piece of a mixeduse development. So, the reason this area on the why is the northwest corner commercial area larger and the residential area is smaller. The reason for that is because that grocery store and the surrounding tenants have a commercial synergy that um is important to the tenant mix there. you you know it's it's like when you go to a grocery store, you've got your like main ger and then you've got the pads out front, right? You've got your shops building. So that synergy is important for getting the tenant mix right. Um the pads won't go if there's not an anchor. The anchor won't go if there's not the pads. So it's really important that these are provided together on the same side of the road. And that's why that area is so big. Um, you know, people still drive here. Um, the surrounding density is 5.4 units per acre. People still drive vehicles to this site. Um, the denser the surrounding area is, the fewer vehicle trips as a share will be taken by cars. It's just a simple fact. You know, you're going to if you are within walking distance and there's a pathway to walk on, it's going to be easier to walk than get in your car and drive across a development like this. Um, so another thing to note is that the

northwest corner is uh topographically flatter. It's just easier for larger buildings to be located there. It's also the place where the grocery store wants to be because and and I think the community wants the grocery store to be, right? because that's where you've got people coming home from work, turning right into the parking area, turning right to access all of the all of the services provided within this center, and then turning right to go back out onto Meridian Road or Amity Road. So, it's it's and that's when people go to the grocery store coming home from work, not going to work typically. So, that's just um you know, the reason it's on the northwest corner, not the southwest corner. Um so on the southwest corner um the multif family component on the southwest corner is a critical um component because it offers additional housing typology not found within several miles of this site. I mean apartments are nowhere to be found around here. Um this is the corner of a state highway and an arterial roadway. It's the perfect place for density truly. Um um you know the reason the commercial uses are on the corner is because in this area commercial tenant success um relies upon visibility from roadways still. It's because most people drive. Um and so just kind of to touch on the quality of life opportunities because that's mentioned in the comprehensive plan as a very important thing to offset impacts. We'll talk about this in a second, but essentially this whole thing is linked with a network of pathways and plazas. So I'm going to zip through basically this slide shows that we have four land use types on across the project. And if you look at them separately, we have four land use types on the northwest, sorry, three three land use types on the southwest corner.

322 residential units, 30,000 ft of commercial services, retail services, and then 7.5% of this southwest corner area is dedicated to quasi public uses. That's very, very important. This does not include area reserved for multif family residents alone. All of these areas are accessible by the community. And here's the northwest corner. Four different types of land uses. So let's talk a little bit about functional integration and holistic design. So here's the piece of the comprehensive plan that kind of touches on it. I won't read the whole thing, but let's kind of talk about how this is achieved. So, this is achieved through a really robust network of pathways, including 10-ft sidewalk pathways detached along hermatite, which backs the whole center, backs all of the residential, and then through that significant network through the site. So, you've got a linear park adjacent to the town houses. You've got a large a park area adjacent to the restaurant shops area and you've got a plaza on the corner of Amity and Meridian Road. You also have pathway connectivity to developments to the north and that was actually mentioned as a positive thing by surrounding neighbors at our neighborhood meeting. So there's really a robust network of connectivity here. There's a plaza that connects office space to the residential space that leads you through to the commercial space. Um, here are some pictures. We can blow through them really fast. I think you've seen them already and they should be in your packet. And then here's a southwest corner.

Importantly on the southwest corner, this 10-foot pathway along Hermatite is continued and it's encouraged for people using this future I mean it existing will be existing and it will um be fully constructed in the future with the adjacent property to the west um and as well as provide more residential opportunities there. People can walk through this development to the commercial area comfortably. Right here are all the nodes and here are all the links. So blues are links, reds are nodes that you can actually stop and enjoy yourself. And it's the intent is to create a neighborhood here, not just a Waldoff multif family development. And that's also why we're we're trying to open up this western corner and invite residents from other communities into the development to enjoy being here. Um there's significant grade change across the southwest corner of the site which which does produce challenges to connectivity. Um we wish we could provide more connectivity and there's literally like even at the finished grades the clubhouse finished floor is 12 feet above these building G finished floors down here. And that's after the grading exercise has been completed and we've flattened it out as much as possible. So there truly is I think it's about 25 ft of grade out there right now. So those grading challenges are significant. Um one these are these are just photos of or renderings not photos. This this will be a photo in in 5 years hopefully. Um I also really want to talk about transportation improvements. One big component to this development is the STARS agreement. The STARS agreement that we're looking to pursue with the Idaho Transportation Department makes roadway improvements above and beyond what our development's impacts are

possible. So, you know, we're looking at 9 to 15 million somewhere in there in roadway improvements to the surrounding area. Here they are. They're shown here. And this requires both phases. This requires a phase one and it requires a phase two because STARS agreement relies upon sales tax revenue from commercial development. So we need both to be successful here. And so in addition as part of that STARS program it's it's you know again we're working through this with ITD. We haven't solidified it. We can't solidify it because we don't yet have entitlements for it. Um but this hermatite connection is considered as part of that of part of that stars program. So that hermatite connection will get connected with the rest of the improvements and there is a condition of approval that it be connected with 465 PM trips which basically allows us to con to construct the multif family and virtually no more until that hermatite connection is made. Anyway, that's an ACD um uh condition. So, with that, I'd like to just wrap up and say, uh, thanks for considering this project, and we think it complies with a comprehensive plan.

Thank you very much. Um, commissioners, do we have any questions for Ethan? Madam Chair, Commissioner Smith. Um, yeah. So, first, I guess I'll start with the most recent one in mind. Um, does this STARS agreement with ITD at all rely on um your math regarding trip capture or is do you anticipate it still being feasible with ACD's determination of zero trip capture?

Uh, Commissioner Smith, uh, great question. It will be feasible. Essentially the recommendations of ACD are they stand with a zero trip capture um assumption if you will. So we have a list of conditions from ACD. All of those are conditioned with an assumption of zero trip capture. Thank you. Um Madam Chair, Commissioner Smith.

Uh I also have one regarding the Northwest. uh if looking at the site map my so my understanding of the comprehensive plan is that you know residential and non-residential uses residential commercial uses are supposed to be um closely integrated sharing similar you know frontage uh sharing similar space I'm curious what went into the logic then of having the office as a transition space when seems like mixed use is pretty against transition space honestly and saying hey integrate them together. So, it could walk if you could walk me through that, that'd be great.

Commissioner Smith, this is a fantastic question that I feel gets at the root of some of the challenges that we face as developers when encountering mixed use um uh land use plans because in one sense we hear from planners as a former planner I used to say this like where is your buffer? Where is your buffer between uses to basically prevent impacts from one use from impacting another? Concurrently, we hear where is the integration between the two uses. And to me, that really confuses, you know, as developers, we're like, well, well, which one is it? And so, you know, this office space was included at a recommendation of the planning staff to basically create a buffer between the grocery land use and the residential land use. And what we're trying to do, again, uh staff helped guide us through this is say, hey, you know, create a transition. Don't just put up a big wall of office buildings. Create a transition. So, we tried to do that with the 10-ft pathway, the little plaza area. It's about it's about 8,500 square feet, like a little 8,500 foot area between the office buildings there where that star is. And you know, if if frankly if that gets us over the finish line, we can make that bigger.

Um, question for Steph. So, is that specifically due is that buffer asked specifically due to the intensity of the grocery use like specifically or is something about commercial general that went into that feedback?

Well, let me let me back up just a little bit. The comprehensive plan talks about um integration of uses like having common open space area in between um residential and commercial areas andor a a drive a roadway separating them. Um it it is difficult. I'll I'll give the applicant that you know it's it it can be confusing. um in mixed area in mixed use areas we do want uses integrated more than more than transitioned and more than we want them all as one development rather than individual components and that's that's staff's um issue with the proposed development plan. But so I I guess what I'm um curious about is so applicant mentioned getting feedback of asking for some transition space, you know, to the south. Is that specifically because of the grocery or is there something else regarding was there maybe miscommunication regarding transition versus integration? That's kind of what I'm trying to get to because I look at this and I say, "Hey, this should be more integrated." But the applicants saying that there was kind of a desire for a transition space between. I'm just trying to get make sure

a little both. You know, we we don't want to see the the big box retail right next to the residential. So, Got it. Okay.

Bill, do you have any more to add to that? I mean, I talked to the applicant when they when they um continued the first time about maybe making some revisions to their plan that might incorporate a street or or common open space area and possibly shifting the offices to along the collector street or along the internal drive aisle. They did float a plan past us that showed the two end units um on the left on the west um more oriented towards the collector street and the one on the east more oriented towards the north south internal drive with a larger common area in between and that that did you know work a lot better. Um I encouraged them to maybe go a little bit more that way and then they ultimately decided just to stick with their original development plan. Got it. Madam Chair,

Commissioner Perau, um do you have alternative transportation concept plan if ITD does not approve a ride in write out on either or both um sections?

Commissioner Pro, great question. Um I'll just briefly talk about our de our access kind of in general and then answer that question specifically. So on the northwestern corner, the right in right out is a deed access. So we do have ITD approval for that access on the northwestern corner pending council's approval for a a waiver to approve it. Um on the southwestern corner, ACD is limiting us to a single access on Amity. Um which I think the absence of a right in ride out on State Highway 69 would make uh circulation for future residents of this site and visitors to the site very challenging. Um we've spoken with ITD preliminarily about this write in write out and they have given us good feedback preliminarily again obviously they haven't approved anything right we have no letters but um you know they've looked at it and they said well yeah I mean ACD gave you one access here it makes sense that you would have a right in write out you just have to prove that to the IGD board and so we've commissioned traffic studies to do that and it does seem very supportive of a ride in ride out on state highway 69.

Madam chair. Oh, commissioner. Sorry, I have a couple more questions. I just didn't want to hog

I don't want to hog all the time. Um, okay. So again, I say that I asked this knowing that this is a difficult plan and I'm not trying to, you know, bring the hammer down or anything or gotcha, but I knowing that the comprehensive plan kind of asks for I think it, you know, reducing vehicle trips by having frequent, accessible, and safe pedestrian connectors. And if we're if we're to treat this as one development, walk me through if I'm on building G, what's the path that I without getting in a car, what's the path that I get groceries? What's the path I take?

Commissioner Smith, that is a fantastic question. I've asked the development team and myself that many times because I knew you were going to ask it. Um, yeah. So, if I'm walking to get groceries or biking um in my cargo ebike, I leave my front door, pick up my bike, and I mean jump on my bike that's in the secured bike parking.

Um, and I can do one of two things. Probably the fastest way is going to be for me to jump on the 10-foot pathway on Hermatite and go north. And remember, this future roadway isn't so future, especially considering the stars agreement and con considering the uh I you know ACD condition for 420 vehicle trips. So, this future roadway is pretty imminent. So, I'm jumping on this future roadway. I'm jumping on this pathway. I'm taking this 10- foot path and I'm ending up at the Hermitite Amity intersection. I'm pressing the pedestrian crossing button. I'm crossing. I'm turning right, left, and then I'm at the front of the store. Does that Are you following me? I a little Yeah. blinker. Um

I'm following that. I guess I I'm also looking at you say if I were to go say it was at pad F the closest maybe not even getting groceries if I'm just trying to go to the non the closest non-residential is there I guess my larger question is is there anywhere in the site plan that a resident can get to a non-residential use without first putting themselves in the path of potentially moving vehicle and and if if not do you think that that is in compliance with the the spirit and the the text of the comprehensive plan saying, "Hey, pedestrian connectivity should be prioritized and not secondary." Commissioner Smith, this is a great question. Um, I think there is ways to do this extensively. Well, actually, no. on both corners. This is not possible, but only because there are small drive aisles that need to be crossed or small parking areas that need to be crossed, not because there are large multi-lane roadways to be crossed. So, for example, if I'm in the I got to go to my southwest corner here so I can read the I wish I had a little pointer for you. I'm sorry. So, if I'm in one of these building E, right, which is just south of the kind of fourstory core buildings at the center here, I can jump out onto the 10-ft pathway, go north, past the amenity, past the clubhouse, into that central area. Now, there are two crossings here because there's a a drive aisle that is actually supported by the comprehens. I think because there's actually language in the conference of plan that says you can do like you should do drive aisles or you

know small drive areas to separate uses. Um and then I get to the parking area. The challenge with this community commercial corner the challenge with programming this is the UDC development ordinance development code requires that buildings front the street. That's AMD and Meridian. If buildings front the street, the parking has to go somewhere. So, what we're doing is we're trying to plan a a non-invasive parking field so that we can get that 10-ft pathway through what has to be a parking field because the UDC conflicts with this comprehensive plan vision of not having to cross a parking lot. And we have to provide that parking because as you saw the surrounding density is 5.4 acres units per acre. So people will drive here and tenants need that parking. So that's a challenge that we're trying to work through here with this site. And I think we succeed because we take that 10-ft pathway and we put it directly to these two shops buildings that provide, you know, eight to 10 different uses in them. So, I'll admit it's a challenge, but it's a it's point well taken.

Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. Commissioner Delamino.

Uh quick question. Uh Ethan. So, as a recently former uh city parks commissioner, uh I'm going to bring a little bit of my experience on that commission to this question. uh on the civic uh civic park open space. Uh if the central park is genuinely, you know, Ozai public civic space, uh is there an agreement or is there a plan to record a public access easement on that parcel as a DA condition? Without it, you know, the space is a private residential amenity. Uh, and the southwest corner only has two land use types and a quasi public open space drops to just about 3% below the 5% minimum.

Uh, Commissioner Giloma, I'm sorry I butchered your last name. Commissioner, that's all right. Jel Swamino. Jamino. Thank you, sir. Uh, that is a great question. um we have not considered it but are happy to um because the intent is for it to be quasi public not simply an amenity. So uh we're very open to that idea. Understood. Thank you. And then Madam Chair, one follow-up question. Okay.

Uh and I apologize Ethan if uh you may have answered this question to either Commissioners Perau or Smith. I want to make sure I I'm not repeating any questions that have already been asked, but uh you know, the fire department conditions adequacy of multifamily access on completion of the South Hermatite Avenue. Uh if I'm not mistaken, you do not own the AJ the adjacent parcel that the connection must cross. Correct, Commissioner Gellamino. That That's loud. Commissioner Gamino, that is correct. We do not own it. do have a good relationship with the land owner.

Okay. Uh is there a potential for an agreement that would guarantee that off-site extension is complete before the first of occupancy?

Yeah. Um Commissioner Gamino, we could we could certainly look at that. I think we can agree to that here. Yeah, understood. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Ethan. In terms of the STARS agreement, um you you estimated 9 to15 million worth of improvements. Um was that estimate something that you discussed with ACD and also ITD or is that just your estimate this point in time?

Commissioner Stole, that's a great question. Um we have actually gotten some estimates from ITD that the estimate that we're providing here tonight. It's a obviously a huge range. Um is based on our own pricing of these improvements. So we actually looked at these improvements, looked at the quantities and requirements needed. We were working with KDson who's an expert at uh you know doing public roadway work. Um and we priced it based on that. We also spoke with um ITD so there is some input there as well.

So KDson provided the um cost estimate and did ITD feel like it was in the ballpark or did they commissioner still we received some design um some cost feedback from ITD but we have we are have yet to sit down with ITD and actually talk about that face to face. We basically just said, "Hey, we're interested in doing a STARS agreement." They said, "Yes, we are very interested in you proceeding with the STARS agreement. Let's talk about what it's going to look like, what it's going to include, and this is what we're proposing."

And the primary revenue generator would be the grocery store. So, Commissioner Stole, any commercial activity would generate revenue, but that grocery anchored center is kind of a uh requirement to get the stars agreement off the ground, if you will. the ones I'm familiar with, Cabela is up north, um, the village, you usually have a larger anchor and I'm periodic with periodically the legislature talks about doing away with the grocery sales tax. Um, and I'm just curious what your assessment is of the revenue continuing on to pay off the STARS agreement,

Commissioner Stole. Yeah, that's a great question. Um, we are currently commissioning a sales tax study right now to just kind of look at our term, you know, like length of time to pay off kind of what this all looks like. So, we're kind of in the midst of that right now. Um, noted about the, you know, removing the grocery sales tax that would certainly have a potential impact this this project. But um I do know you know there's been immediately to our south for example on Lake Hazel and state highway 69 uh is using the stars agreement there cost

yes a little bit different. Okay Madam Chair Mr. Smith so I heard some terms of you know pricing feedback and you know potential impact if the sales tax goes away. Now help me understand magic one stars doesn't exist. What does that look like for this project, this development? Say the agreement doesn't go through or you can't align on price, you know, what does that do to the potential improvements here?

Sure thing, Commissioner Smith, that's a great question. Um, I was thinking about that earlier, too. So, much of this much of these improvements remain due to their requirement in the project. Not all. So, Amity will be constructed both on the north side and the south side. Um, Hermatite Backage Road from Lyra down to Amity. Hermatite Backage Road going north um up to um you know where it leaves the property um would be constructed and then the frontage along State Highway 69 on our side. what would not get done and what is a I think a big win for the community and ITD and the state and really everybody I mean us too right um is the full cross-section of state highway 69 gets constructed from where the last stars agreement ends up at the lake hazel stars agreement where that ends on its north side we go then go north almost to Lyra with a full, you know, construct like fully constructed ITD state highway 69 section

in regard to roadway improvements. Not talking about highway 69 but your north south access and her hermitite. Are you providing any uh signalization to be able to have that cross access for people to be able to come through or is it just a pedestrian walkway? Commissioner Lorcher, are you referring to kind of that that plan north that like four-way intersection there? Not on Highway 69, but on Amnity. Yes. Yes. So like the plan north. Yes.

Yep. Okay. So that is planned to be signalized. And are is that u something that you're going to provide or is a you're waiting for ACD to do with it? So we would if if we it it's kind of a complicated thing but essentially we would either build it or pay our fair share through a signal agreement with them depending on the timing of when it gets installed. Okay. And then in regard to Hermitite, you said that's a future roadway. So you'll be responsible for the um the east side of the 10 p 10 mile or the the wider pathway and then the road improvements would be done by the developer to the west. Is that correct?

So on our uh commissioner lcher on our property boundary we'd basically be responsible for the 10-ft pathway and then as this cross-section works which is a 10-ft pathway, 26 foot road section, right? And then another buffer and then 10 foot pathway that 10- foot pathway, buffer, and road section all would occur on our property. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? But Commissioner Perau,

could you pull up the slide at the very beginning where you referenced um the prior application uh where you said that there was an encouragement of the two sections um to be to be developed as one right there. Yep. Absolutely. So, did you happen to um have conversation with staff about this? So, uh, Commissioner Perau, we did bring it up in, uh, conversation and we kind of got to this place where it was like, we're not budging on our position about the two sides being treated differently, two sides being treated as separate projects. That's kind of where we ended up. Um, I understand that's part of the comprehensive plan. Um, but Madam Chair,

Commissioner Perau, just to be clear, you're saying that City of Meridian Feedback, you're saying that this was a um a sentence in the um staff report for that original application in in 2020. Is that what you're saying,

Commissioner Perau? I think I misunderstood you. I know I misunderstood you. This was the recent conversation that we had probably like two weeks ago about this particular application back in 2020. So that's what I was talking about. So in 2020, we did not make an application because they encouraged us to come back with the full thing both sides at that time. There was no that that was what was said there. Is that your question? I guess I'm

Yes. I'm just trying to understand, you know, the the concern you're presenting is that you believe this was was said by staff or was in writing by staff, but but now um staff is saying no, they need to be um applied separately and developed separately because that's what the comprehensive plan says. So, just trying to understand from your perspective how those two disagree with one another,

Commissioner Perau. Yeah. So this is a great question. So we heard come back and develop it as a cons cohesive project. And then when we made the application as a cohesive project about in I guess mid to I guess early February we received the staff report initial staff report for this project and it said these need to be treated as separate projects. That is the first time that I heard about that separate project requirement.

So you're saying that this was this was something that was mentioned in a meeting or verbally or a pre preapp meeting. Commissioner Pro, that's correct. This feedback on the screen here was mentioned in 2020 to us in a pre-application meeting. All right. Any questions before we take public testimony? All right. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Do we have anybody signed up to testify? Thank you, Madam Chair. I have Cooper Sharp.

Good evening. If you can state your name and address for the record. Cooper Sharp, 3578 South Falconer's Place, Meridian, Idaho. Okay.

Good evening, commissioners. Um, I'm I'm expressing my support for this project. Um, I'm a resident just a couple miles away from this project. Um, had the opportunity um lived at this address for about 5 years now. had the opportunity to see a similar development go up at AMD and Eagle which was greatly needed um with the Albertson's um improvement there in the surrounding um commercial developments around it. Um it also has a a multifamily component along the boundaries. Um I think a lot of the the similarities of this project and that is um what it offers from a mixeduse standpoint isn't necessarily in one building itself but from the entire development as a whole. And for my family specifically, uh, that development on Amity and Eagle has greatly reduced the amount of travel that we have to do on a daily basis to get groceries, to go grab lunch, to go grab dinner, um, things of that nature and and it's improved our quality of life. So, similar on this site, there's several other, you know, residential communities in the neighboring vicinity and um would similarly have the same impact as well. For us, we're always looking for opportunities to say south of Overland Road and not have to go up Eagle or down Overland to to find shopping centers or things of that nature. So, it would drastically have an impact to again to our quality of life as well. Um the other part of it, um I think it would be a shame to deny a project like this, um due to not having um a third, um use. Um there's several in the vicinity. There's several churches that are already existent within a mile, two miles away. U Meridian just opened a brand new library facility. Um Kitty Corner on on Locust Grove and Lake Hazel within, you know,

very close proximity to this project. So, a civic facility or a church facility. There's multiple school facilities in the vicinity as well. And so, thinking of a project like this getting denied just because it doesn't have a third use um feels like it there's a lot of benefit that the public is missing out on uh due to a technicality. Um so a a development like this I think has a lot of benefit and I think the surrounding um citizens would have a lot of benefit from it um with what they are providing to the community from a shopping center offer standpoint. Um yeah that's all I would like to share. Thank you.

Thank you very much madam chair. No one else has indicated they wish to speak. There is one person online but they do not have their hand raised. Is there anybody else in chambers that would like to speak before we invite the applicant to come forward? Um would the applicant like to come forward one more time, please?

Any final comments since uh we only had one piece of public testimony?

Commissioner Ler. Uh, I have just a couple remaining comments. I first like to address the uh just thank the person who testified. Thank you, Cooper. Um, I do also want to clarify that we do think this will have a civic use associated with it. It's a quasi public, you know, a string of quasi public areas that are open to the public. Um, but I think what he's referring to is like a church or an actual building that houses some sort of, you know, church or something like that. Um, I'd also like to say, you know, Commissioner Smith, regarding your comment about the office, um, and and the integration there, we are more than happy to take a look at re, you know, kind of messing around with that office space to to make to make it feel more integrated if that gets us over the finish line. I said that before. I just wanted to make sure I was clear on that.

Okay. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Oh, wait. Oh, yes.

Senator Smith. Um, yeah, you you mentioned kind of the the civic nature of of the quasi public space. One thing I'm struggling with is is, you know, even in like the the green space exhibit, you have commercial green space and multif family green space and they they feel very separate to me. Um commercial green space a lot of it or the commercial open space even a lot of it looks like plazas and you with concrete and fountains versus the residential is a lot more uh you know parks and things like that say for kind of this dining area this triangular shape in the northwest corner um I guess I it's a similar question to the one I had about the kind of this GB building thing but you know I'm looking at for example you know building C1.0 and pad F. You know, if I'm if I'm in like I'm struggling to understand what shared open space they have and what quasi public space they have that is clearly intended. Like we can say, hey, legally there, you know, someone's allowed to go to the grocery store and then hop on over to the park down here, but what signage, what what design language is is, you know, when I look at the site plan, I don't understand how that's communicated to someone in the area.

Commissioner Smith, yeah, I'll go into that a little bit more. I have a couple examples. Um, the first I'd like to share was actually expressed by someone who lives on Lyra Street on the east side of the development at a neighborhood meeting. So, we presented this plan at our second or third neighborhood meeting and uh, you know, I asked if they had if uh, attendees had any feedback. One big piece of feedback that I heard and it lasted like 30 or 45 seconds of just talking about how excited they were. They were just excited to be able to hop onto a pathway, a 10-ft pathway, and walk to a shopping area. And so to me, that communicates that someone from an adjacent development is looking at this and saying, "Hey, I'm really stoked that I don't have to get in my car to drive somewhere to go shop." So I think that example is really uh kind of a real example of you know someone who actually lives in the surrounding area being excited about doing it and they can very clearly see this 10-ft pathway. And I pulled this up to kind of talk a little bit more about a couple things. So on the northwest corner we have this connection to the surrounding housing developments. We also have um off of that T that goes north off of Lyra that continues down to the south. Um this pathway is kind of separate from those, right? It's separate from the vehicular connections. It runs past the multif family. You know, these are kind of like these are going to be like town home style, right? So you're kind of out on your patio, but there's like runners going by and cyclists and they're cycling down to this green space down here where then of course there's going to be a softer language in the residential areas and there's going to be more of a heartscape language in the

commercial areas. And I think that's just due to the nature of the spaces. Um but there the idea is that they're still integrated. You still travel from one place to another on foot or on bicycle and it's comfortable. On the southwest corner, we have a connection that was required by the subdivision developer to the south. We've made that a 10-ft pathway. It was required to be a five for him. They're going to come back in preliminary plat, and I would hope that it will be a 10 for him so that it will be continuation of a 10-ft pathway. But we have this 10-ft pathway that goes from the very southern edge of the development up to the north. You do cross a drive aisle, but the challenge is people have cars here. You know, we have to provide parking. What we're trying to do is soften that. And so you cross these drive aisles and you end up in this public park here or quasi public park. This park is an acre, 1.3 acre, so an acre and a third. And you continue north through that. you come into this little community garden space again across a drive aisle and then you really don't cross anything until you get to the very north end of this multif family neighborhood. And so I think we what what I like to do is think about this not as like some big multif family development but as like kind of a a neighborhood of multif family buildings of bigger buildings than we're used to seeing in a single family home development. but it's still designed to be this comfortable neighborhood and it's immediately adjacent and well connected to this commercial area so you can walk seamlessly from one to another. That's kind of how I envision it. That's the language that we talked about when we talked about designing it this way. Um staff mentioned this. We bump we beefed up the pathway size. We beefed up the number of pathways the the where the pathways go. So, this was something we

wanted to pay close attention to um as we designed it. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. May I get a motion to close the public hearing? So moved. Second. It's been moved and second to close the public hearing on Serena Crossing. All those in favor say I. I. I.

Any opposed? Motion carries. Um, a couple of thoughts on on this. I um I commend you on looking at um retail uses really before the residential uses. So many times uh retail won't come until there's rooftops and you've taken a different approach where um the retail will drive the improvements to add to the residential. Um I also agree that all of the retail should be on the um streets. You know, you want that visibility to be able to see that it's there. You don't want them tucked away. even though some of your office space is kind of tucked up towards the northwest corner, but um the signage obviously is important for to attract retail customers. Um I disagree with only having one development agreement. Um, I think that we've had developers come where they've had both sides of the street and each application although flow together and I uh I would have to go back to see if we've approved or not approved things in the past, but typically um they are treated as separate applications even though in a meeting we may do one together. And the one that comes off the top of my head is that uh I live off of uh Eustic and Black Hat. Uh Toll Brothers is doing um two different projects across the north and the south sides of Eustich. We treated that we we presented them together, but they were treated as two separate entities with two different sets of rules to be able

to do mixed use or whatever their code or designation was, which I don't remember off the top of my head. So I disagree that this is one project. I think it should be two and therefore um to fulfill the mixed use of having three different uses on both sides collectively or I mean independently should be looked at compared to what you have. So that would be something you would have to take to council and be able to uh justify. And then finally the um open space towards the south that is surrounded by the multifamily housing. The way I see it right here is that's that's an amenity. I as if somebody was on Amnity or on Meridian Road because of the buildings facing uh Highway 69 really there's no way to know that there would be any open space there. And so uh maybe it takes signage. I'm not really sure. Again, I'll give you an example. Uh Autumn Farah, a black cat has um a very big park in the middle. I've lived there for 10 years and I just recently discovered the park was even there, right? Because I don't necessarily always go into that neighborhood, but they do have signage saying, you know, we've got this huge park, but um and it's open to the public to everyone, but obviously the community uses it more than others. So, to me, that that's not obvious to me that that looks more like an amenity than something that's available to the surrounding communities. So, I'm on the fence as far as whether to give you uh approval or denial for this. I'm I'm really kind of hung up on the development agreement and following the rules. Um, also in the fact that I understand it's kind of like the cart before the horse. You need the entitlements to be able to work with ITD. Uh, but you even ha you haven't even had those meetings yet. And one of the things that we look at when we look

at applications is that is this in the best interest of the city at this time right right now. There's no doubt that the south part of Meridian can use the retail support just like uh Cooper said to be able to not have to cross 84 to be able to get those services. and in regard to your retail and your integration of some of the the residential definitely works but again I don't support the single DA and because you don't have those you haven't really had those one-on-one face conversations with ITD yet and stuck in my head is this the best interest of the city at this time so I'd like to hear from the other commissioners on their thoughts uh as Madam Chair,

Commissioner Smith.

Yeah. I to be candid, I I I came into this uh I came into this hearing uh a little bit uh more ready to to bring the heat. And I forget that the Ethan is is such a a decent uh and uh affable person that it's it's hard to um hold it against him. And and I see frankly if this this feels to me almost like three different developments. Personally, it feels like it there are three there's a really solid multif family, a pretty good uh commercial, and then another pretty good multif family, but I they they just don't have the connectivity to me um that that a multif family needs. I think if I I live uh just north of Settler's Park off on Wasaw uh South Meridian and to me I wouldn't call Settler's Park part of my neighborhood and part of my community because the best way to get to it is to go along Meridian Road and it's to leave my neighborhood. I could kind of take a a winding path or I guess I could go down Elsenor a little bit, but I really that the quickest way there is is to leave my my development. And it seems like treating this as one development. Um if my quickest way from the south side uh it to kind of a lot of these amenities is to leave and to take hermitite or to get out under Meridian. It feels like there's a lot of that connectivity that's missing and it it a lot I I think a lot of my frustration with multiuse or up to this point mixed use up to this point. Thank you. has been this kind of salami slicing apart of like multi multif family or or residential non-residential and then some more residential scattered throughout and I think the developer has has been very thoughtful. I think there are a lot of challenges and I think there are some

economic realities that you know I would love to see more of the of the residential you know closer to the center but I understand that commercial on the corner is really valuable

and so I understand that there are a lot of economic realities and so I can't fault the developer or the applicant for that but but this really kind of gets to a lot of the things that I'm frustrated with about how developments come in or how applications come in regarding mixed that just aren't. And I think we again we have a limited pool of mixed use in the city and we really have to get it right. And I just I think this is again thoughtful in a lot of areas, but the the connectivity, the the integration of uses, if it were just down to the offices and the transitional space, I would be happy to, you know, let the applicant work that out. But I think it's much more than this. I I understand the need for the grocery store, etc. prefer to attract these other other tenants, but there are just a lot of things we're trying to have happen all at once. And in as a result, we're being pretty not great and mediocre at a lot of them. Not to call this mediocre, that feels very insulting to say, but I think, you know, we can't have everything. And so, I don't know what the ideal looks like. I think there are a lot of different things in tension here. I just think this is really far off the mark and it's too much for me to support.

Okay. Thank you,

Madam Chair. Commissioner Delamino. Uh, I will echo a lot of, you know, Commissioner Smith's sentiments, but my my particular hesitation will be closer to your comments, Madam Chair, uh, especially with the uh, State Highway 69, just the conf the conflict with the UDC, uh, especially not having an ITD recommendation, it just puts me in a position where I think that, you know, it would be best to have that ITD recommendation or that ITD report, you know, so that that's that's my thought at the moment.

Okay. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Commissioner Perau.

So when I look at this, I see Linder and Chenden and Orchard Park um similarities and I very clearly remember all of the applications related to that. And one of the big conversations we had was again about pedestrian safety and mobility. And there was a reassurance um that that would be a a pedestrian safe and and um that there'd be you know an encouragement to walk between the library and and um and Paramount and all those things and you never see anyone walking anywhere and that's because there's just so much movement with vehicles and like you and and like you said Ethan you can't get away from that. This is this is a a a vehicle friendly area. Um but I'm trying to imagine I'm I'm I am up in that Orchard Park area quite frequently and I'm trying to imagine there being a big park in front of that windco there. And that's essentially what this is going to look like is that there's going to be a big park in the front of the the windco next to Chindon. And it and that's what that's going to look like and feel like. And so um I I I would love to have a beautiful commercial multifamily development in this corner. I am not against the idea as a whole. I think there's some really really good elements that were put in here. I think there's some very wellthoughtout things here for sure. Um, so I I'm this is you know this is turning over in my mind of like you know what how do we address this technicality with a comprehensive plan while still encouraging you all um to to move forward on on something similar to this

because I think it's very much needed. I think you have ex excellent bones. Um, and I know it's very expensive and very difficult to do these redesigns. Um, it's complicated. It's frustrating and I have a great appreciation for that. Um, I also have concerns about the connectivity, the pedestrian connectivity. you know, as a as a commissioner and then planning and um and then city council member and now commissioner again, I've heard hundreds of applications and um where developers say, well, okay, if we put a lot of multif family in this area, then clearly those folks are going to use the commercial services and clearly it's going to keep, you know, the the mobility within the development and we just haven't seen that honestly to be true in the city of Meridian. Um, you know, I people are still getting in their cars and driving down the road on 10 mile in the interstate to get something to eat and that kind of thing. So, I'm not um this is not you. I hear this same and conceptually it would make sense. Yes. Okay. Everybody would stay within their same community, but it's just unfortunately not really actually happening. And so getting that transportation piece right um is super important because I I don't know that and it's not for effort of the developers that that will really contain all of that movement in the way that that you know there would be a hope that it would. Um, and I know that's not specific to you and that is not meant to, you know, um, comment on on a downside of your project. So, there's a lot of things I like. As I said, the two things I have concerns about as far as the concept goes is the plaza areas that are on the hard corner there. I don't think folks are going to

use that as a plaza. It's going to be noisy, loud traffic coming through. There's big big huge trucks that fly by. Um I just don't think those are very well placed. If there's going to be dining facilities there and just general maybe like small events there, uh you know, wine parties or or whatnot, I don't think that that's going to be a very comfortable space to be. Um and so but aside from that um you know whether these are to be approached as two applications or not uh I don't have a problem with them coming in as one application but I also believe that our comprehensive plan is decided by our public and it's something that we take really really seriously to follow and I don't know what the I don't know you know, the the pre-application meetings. I don't know why staff might have said that. Um, you know, that in 2020 was when we were still going through the comprehensive um plan change. And I don't know if that has something to do I don't know if that if that requirement of the two um the two separate applications and development agreements. I don't know if that was not required at that time in 2020. That would be something that I would imagine staff would have talked to you about. Um, so I I like a lot of things about this. I wish I could say yes, I want to vote, you know, that way this evening, but I just I it's so important to me to uphold our comprehensive plan and I don't know whether uh comprehensive plan I mean it's not a map amend amendment change because you're really not trying to change the use of the two areas. So um yeah, that's my thoughts.

Okay. Thank you. I will try to be brief because a lot of what I was going to say has been said already. Um I am sympathetic to the idea of having it considered as one application. Um and I wish that was the case. Uh but as has been pointed out, the comprehensive plan was updated in between that meeting in 2020 to the present. Um and Amity Road does um cross the the application and it really makes it two different parcels that we need to consider. Um but my overall preference is one application in general. Um I applaud you for looking at and exploring um stars. Um certainly it's one of the key ways that we're going to be able to do improvements on our transportation system and this particular corridor and state highway 69 is a corridor that needs to be improved. Um, I just wish we had more of a response from ITD on what their position was regarding the stars agreement and whether they concurred with the cost estimates that you're providing and whether they can go forward on that. Um, also as has been said, I'd like to be more of a true mixeduse um application um to get my go-ahad that stop.

Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Parson.

Madam Chair, if I could just add some context to one development versus two developments. I I don't want that to get misrepresented on the record. staff has always wanted the applicant to come in with one annexation request because they do own both corners. What we what we didn't want is and and where some of the confusion lies is that when we started discussing this project with the applicant, the mixeduse standards and the comprehensive plan were different. It didn't have that element that you couldn't frost an arterial roadway or you could do that at that time. So of course when we start off these meetings that makes a lot of sense because it will be one development and they own all the property. Well throughout that process it was an iterative process. We met with them multiple times shared our feedback with them and all all the time was we got we got closer and closer. We explained to them that we would be doing a comprehensive plan text amendment to change our mixed use standards. And if that goes into place before they submit they're going to be held to those new standards. And that's why we're here this evening saying it can be to one application. We're just saying you can't sacrifice residential on the north side and get more more residential on the south side. That's what the comprehensive comp comprehensive plan doesn't allow us to do currently. Um the other part is and I appreciate all the effort that the applicants made in the open space. I I I do like a lot of the elements in this plan as well and I want to go on record as saying that because we spent a lot of time with the applicant but we can't also allow the applicant to double dip to say I'm providing a quasi public open space when their multifamily requires amenities and open space. So we have to kind of differentiate those two things as well. While I appreciate that everyone can use that space, we still have to analyze the project and make sure that the multifamily development portion of the site has the required amount of open space and amenities as

well. So, you can't say this is an amenity and open space for the multif family development, then say, "Oh, yeah, this is also our quasi uh public open space." It's that's that's what we can't we can't allow that to happen. We haven't done that historically. I think the one piece that was missed in tonight's public testimony and I just I want to commend the applicant because he's done a pretty good job of of defending his project. But there's also properties to the west and even farther to the west waiting for sewer. And this applicant, although ITD hasn't given us any comments or on the access, they have allowed the applicant to go into their rightway, bring the sewer up, go through their site to the west, and provide sewer for adjacent properties to tag to connect into that and allow them to develop as well. So that's why the applicant is saying we have a good relationship. There's a church about a half mile down the road, Stonehill Church, waiting for sewer. They constantly come to the city and ask for how can we get utilities to develop our church. So I don't want that to get miss mix missed either. You're right. There's some valid concerns with this project, but I don't want anyone to think that the applicant hasn't been trying to work and solve some of these issues. So I just want to go on record and and state that. So thank you.

Yeah. And madam chair, if I may tag on to that just a little bit. Um this is one application. Um staff's in agreement with that. It could also be one development agreement staff's also in agreement with that. But the differentiation there is um the analysis of the northwest corner and the southwest corner separately for consistency with the mixeduse um development guidelines. So just wanted to clarify that. Um, also as I remember the conversations initially back in 2020, um, we had told the applicant that we wanted to see the northwest corner come in if they were coming in with the southwest corner because we didn't want to have leapfrog development, so to speak. So, that's a little more background on that. Um, I do think it's a good commercial and and multifamily development. I I did speak to the applicant about applying for a comp plan MAPAP amendment if that's what they're truly wanting to do. It's just impossible for staff to support a project that's not consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan. So, that's where staff's at tonight on that. So, just wanted to add a little bit more information on that. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. And we also recognize that you have some geographic and topography issues, too, which is why you have some of the buildings placed the way you do. I think you said that that civic park uh in the middle towards the north had a a big um difference in elevation. And so um and obviously having the commercial surround the um the two roads is going to be um imperative for the success of this of this project, but um it it's just a little bit off balance. Commissioner Smith. Oh, if there's no other ready to make a motion. Go ahead.

Okay. All right. Madam Chair, um after considering all staff applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the city council file number H--2025-00007 as presented in the staff report um for the hearing of April 2nd, 2026 for the following reasons. inadequate integration between residential and non-residential uses. Um lack of prioritization of pedestrian mobility within the project and uh existing open space as proposed failing to serve uh residential and non-residential use users adequately under the comprehensive plan. Seconded.

It's been moved and second to deny a seringa uh crossing mixeduse development for annexation. All those in favor say I. I I

I any any opposed. Motion carries. Thank you very much. Um so I would take these comments to you with to uh city council and maybe make some adjustments so that you can be able to advocate for your project. Thank you. Before we adjourn, a couple of things. Um we are having a special meeting on May 28th. So, we'll have back-to-back meetings towards the end of May because our June 4th meeting um will not happen uh due to I believe a public works uh uh event here on that day. So, please put on your calendars May 28th. Also, the city of Meridian is very graciously doing a voluntary appreciation lunchon on April 16th. Um Bill needs to know from everyone on this board on whether or not you can attend by April 9th. So, the mayor's office is asking for headcounts. So, if you're able to attend or not attend, please uh message Bill and let him know that if you would be in attendance or not. With that, I will take one more motion.

Move to adjurnn. Second. Second. Moved moved and second twice to adjurnn. All those in favor say I. I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much. Thank you.