Planning and Zoning - Regular Meeting

Okay.

all right good evening uh welcome to the planning and zoning commission meeting for may 28th uh 2026 i'd like to call the meeting to order commissioners are present tonight at city hall and we're joined by staff from the city attorney's office city clerk's office in the city planning department if you're on zoom we can see you you may observe but you'll be muted on screen and audio and on screen and in audio until the public testimony portion when we'll then unmute you to comment we cannot take questions before then For a process question during the meeting, email cityclerk at meridiancity.org, and they'll reply as soon as they can. If you are only here to watch, you can stream the meeting on the city's YouTube channel at meridiancity.org slash live. With that, let's begin with the roll call. Madam Clerk.

Thank you, Vice Chair Smith. Commissioner Perot? Commissioner Gelsomino?

Present.

Commissioner Sandoval?

Present.

Commissioner Stoll?

Here.

And Vice Chair Smith?

Here. The first item is adoption of the agenda. There are no changes to tonight's agenda, but please note that item number four, Starling Ridge subdivision, will be open only for the purposes of a continuance. May I get a motion to adopt tonight's agenda? So moved. Seconded. It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. The next item is the consent agenda, which includes to approve the minutes of the May 21st, 2026 commission meeting. May I get a motion to accept the consent agenda as presented? So moved. move and second it all those in favor say aye aye any opposed motion carries um let me quickly uh explain the public hearing process we open each item individually beginning with glee uh explain the public hearing process we open each item individually beginning with the staff report where staff explains how the application aligns with our comprehensive plan next we will open public testimony each person is allowed to speak only once The clerk will call one at a time the names of those who signed up in advance on our website. You may come to the microphone in chambers or you'll be unmuted on Zoom. State your name and address for the record and you will have three minutes. If you sent pictures or a presentation in advance, the clerk will display it. If you've been designated to speak for a larger group, such as an HOA, you will have up to 10 minutes. After everyone who has signed up made to speak for a larger group, such as an HOA, you will have up to 10 minutes. After everyone who has signed up has spoken, we'll invite anyone else who wishes to testify to be recognized. Come forward in chambers or press raise hand on Zoom, or if you are on the phone, press star nine and wait for your name. If you're on multiple devices, please mute the extras so we can avoid feedback and can hear you clearly. When you finish, if commissioners have no questions, you'll return to your seat or be muted and you will not be called on again. After all testimony, the applicant will have another 10 minutes to respond. We will then close the public hearing and the commissioners will discuss and make their decisions or recommendations to city council as needed. With that, we'll get started on item number two, file H-2025-0001, Durango subdivision for annexation and preliminary plot.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the Commission. The first application before you tonight is a request for annexation and zoning and a preliminary plat.

Excuse me, I need to share my presentation.

Just a moment. All right, let's try that again. This site consists of 35.88 acres of land. It's zoned RUT in Ada County and is located at 5630 West Eustick Road, which is off the northeast corner of Eustick Road and McDermott Road Bypass. There has been no other previous development applications on this site. The comprehensive plan future land use map designation is medium density residential which calls for three to eight residential units per acre and office. You can see that on the map here on the on the left hand side here. The applicant is requesting annexation of 37.08 acres of land with R8 zoning, which is 29.53 acres of the site, and LO zoning, which is 7.55 acres of the site, for the development of 127 single-family residential detached homes at a gross density of 4.48 units per acre, six office buildings, and associated common open space areas. A conceptual development plan was submitted, as shown, that depicts the residential development and anticipated site layout for the office portion of the development along the frontage adjacent to Eustick Road, consisting of approximately 51,255 square feet of office uses. Excuse me, I'm on the wrong one there. This is the concept plan. The comprehensive plan states future land use map designations are not parcel-specific and that an adjacent abutting designation, when appropriate and approved as part of a public hearing with a land development application, may be used but may not be applicable to more than 50% of the land being developed. The applicant is proposing to extend the office designation at the southeast corner of the site further to the west along the frontage of Eustick for an additional approximate 3.24 acres of land. or 16 of the development area staff is supportive of this request as approximately half an acre of the site designated office is encompassed by the sky pilot drain easement that is this area right here And cannot be developed and an additional 1.7 acres of office designated land to the east will not develop as such with spring day subdivision do the location of the collector street and the remaining area not being large enough to develop with office uses, and that is this area right here that I was referencing. The proposed density housing types and office use is consistent with the medium density residential and the office future land use map designations for this property. A preliminary plat is proposed as shown, consisting of 127 residential building lots, 6 commercial building lots, and 14 common lots on 35.87 acres of land. A minimum lot size of 5,547 square feet is proposed with a maximum lot size of 687 square feet. and an average lot size of 5864 square feet. The plot is proposed to develop in three final plot phases, as shown on the phasing lines are right here. This is the first phase and encompasses the residential and the office portion of the development. This is the second phase here and the third phase along the northern boundary. There is an existing home and accessory structures on this site that will be removed prior to development of the property. Access is proposed via West Eustick Road and North McDermott Road bypass. Cross-access is proposed to the adjacent properties to the west and east. Cross-access easements are required to be granted to these properties and internally within the LO zone lots. Direct lot access via Eustick Road is prohibited. Landscape street buffers are required along internal and adjacent streets in accord with UDC standards. A minimum of 15% or 4.4 acres of the residential area is required to consist of qualified open space. A total of 7.63 acres is provided, which is 25.41% of the site, exceeding the minimum standard by 3.23 acres. Site amenities are required totaling a minimum of six points consisting of... What's proposed consists of a dog waste station, open space commons, and pathways for a total of 11 points. Although amenities exceed the minimum standard, staff is recommending an additional amenity. Covered shelter is provided in Lot 9, Block 3 for the open play areas as a provision of the development agreement associated with the annexation. The eight mile lateral runs along the northern boundary of this site in a 50 foot wide easement and is proposed to remain open. The sky pilot drain also runs through the site and is proposed to be rerouted and piped. The 100 foot wide easement for the drain will provide a separation between residential and commercial land uses. Sewer service is not yet available to this property. A cooperative agreement exists between the city and the developer of Spring Day and Dayspring subdivisions to the east and south to extend the McDermott trunk line south down McDermott Road to Eustick Road and east to serve those subdivisions, which will also provide service to this site. Development is not allowed to commence until sewer services readily available at the site, the development is subject to the oaks lift station and West data school district reimbursement agreements. Water service exists and used to grow, which can provide service for up to 50 lots and beyond that a second water connection is required. Conceptual building elevations were submitted as shown that demonstrate the quality of development proposed in the residential and office portions of the development. Final design of the office buildings are required to comply with the design standards in the architectural standards manual. Written testimony has been received from Corey Thacker, the abutting property owner to the west. And this, he did submit comments on the original application that was submitted last year. So just keep that in mind if you read that, some things have changed since that time with the site layout. He had concerns pertaining to the proximity of his driveway access via Ustick Road to the McDermott Road bypass intersection. It's at 242 feet versus the 300 feet requirement. Water rights, eminent domain, and desire for cross access through the proposed subdivision to his property. And just to reiterate, cross-access is being provided to his property. Connor Lindstrom, KM Engineering, the applicant, submitting written testimony in agreement with the staff report, but requests a clarification to condition number 1A to include that cross-access ingress-egress easements are required between all commercial lots in the subdivision. Right now, it does not differentiate between residential and commercial, so we definitely want to do that. Staff is in agreement with this clarification. Staff is recommending approval of the project with the requirement of development agreement. Staff does have one additional recommendation that wasn't included in the staff report, and that's for the requirement of North Del Norte Avenue to be extended as a stub street to the out parcel at the southwest corner of the site for interconnectivity. And that is this street right here. So as I mentioned, Corey Thacker is the owner of the out parcel here. And that is also the subject of the next application before you tonight used to commercial. Staff is finished with the presentation. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to respond.

Are there any questions for staff? Would the applicant like to come forward? And could I have your name and address for the record?

Thank you, Commission. Connor Lindstrom with KM Engineering. Address is 5725 North Discovery Way, Boise, 83713. Here representing the property owner, J&J Hess. Mark Hess is here on behalf of the LLC as well. Pull up the presentation.

Awesome.

And then do I just control it by clicking? Yes.

Great arrows.

Okay. Thank you, Sonia. I think Sonia covered everything very well. This is Durango subdivision. Our request is for annexation and zoning into the city of Meridian with a preliminary plan. As stated, the portion that we are annexing is 37.08 acres located here on Eustick and McDermott bypass. The actual subdivision itself will be 35.87 acres following right of way dedication, those other adjustments. I will note the SkyPilot drain, as staff noted as well, does bisect the property in the southwest corner. If you can see my cursor here. Well, it's a little slow. Yep, here's where the Skypilot drain comes through and then goes west. It provides a buffer currently between that hard corner parcel that Hawkins' application is about and subject property. We are proposing to pipe and reroute that drain, which I'll go into a little more detail here in a second. We are proposing to have two zonings, one being our eight for the single family residential portion of the development. And then we have the LO or limited office zoning. As you can see here, the property is currently in the county RUT zoning, but we are adjacent to day spring and spring day. I believe it's spring day to the east with the R8 zoning. So we'll be seamlessly you know, integrating with that zoning as it moves west, and then the LO along the Eustick frontage, which will be a great transition into the commercial that's proposed by Hawkins to the southwest of subject property. Here's the future land use map, just kind of clarifying things again. The R8 zoning is looking for three to eight dwelling units per acre. We are proposing 4.48 dwelling units per acre for the residential R8 zoning, so that'll fall right within that designation. We have 127 residential lots that will be within the development. Here's that preliminary plat layout. Then I'll go into... The conceptual Lo building layout. We have those six office lots. Those would be limited office. So any future uses on those specific loss would have to comply with the zoning designation and dimensional standards.

We are providing here, if I can see my cursor.

There it is here on the east side. We are providing a stub to the east that out parcel there just for future cross access. We think that would be a great idea to have. We don't know the plans for that property, but it is within this Lo designation. So you probably expect similar type uses there, so it would make sense to have some additional cross access. We also have a day spring way there you can see is the main entry into the site from you stick that aligns with day spring development to the South and their collector roadway. You'll notice that we have lot one there. It's the 32,000 square foot lot that is for the 100 foot wide easement for the sky pilot drain. It's an amper meridian irrigation district. We work closely with them. and ACHD to come to a solution as to how we're gonna pipe this drain and the direction it's gonna take through the development. It was clear that that still needed to be within 100 foot wide easement, even though it will be piped, but we are able to provide grassy open space there and still have a pathway through it. And they will also allow for as it goes north and then heads west towards McDermott bypass, we're allowed to have that service drive there to provide cross access to the southwest corner parcel. They will also allow for shrubs, grass plantings, but just no trees within that that easement. We will also have access, not just from the service drive to McDermott Bypass, but also on Telluride Street there, where we're providing an additional access, all of which have been accepted by the Highway District. This is just an integration conceptual site plan that shows the McEustick commercial proposed by Hawkins and how it will integrate with Durango as we go from residential to commercial and into McEustick. In speaking with the property owner, they are supportive of Mike you stick commercial subdivision plans and will. You know, be great neighbors as hawkins looks to develop there we've also been in coordination quite a bit with toll brothers they're, the ones that are developing day spring and spring day and have brought her are bringing the sewer down. And along you stick row there. We actually plan to us. Well, we did submit this application for Durango last year, long time ago. It's gone by fast. So but we were told to, you know, put things on pause until toll got their approval and was able to sign that service or sewer agreement with the city of Meridian. So we made sure to put things on hold, wait for that agreement to take place. and then come back before you. So that's why it's taken this long, but we have come to an agreement with Toll. The property owner has, they've actually signed off on a contract to stub into that sewer line for Durango subdivision. Lots of coordination that's taking place. This slide just shows some of the landscape sections along both Ustick entryway corridor. It is an entryway corridor, so there has to be some additional landscaping provided. We have the detached 10-foot-wide sidewalk with the park strip, as well as the dry creek bed, some trees, additional shrubs, and then along McDermott. And another detail sidewalk with some plantings and then the this. cross section here on the bottom is between make you six subdivision and the residential lots if I go back here at my cursor, so this is along the sky pilot drain here. oh i'm sorry. That's what that cross section shows. So we're going to have quite a bit of open space here. As I said, we can only do so much within Nampa Meridian Irrigation District's easement. So we are providing some open space and then we have the pathway. There's going to be a privacy fence on the back of those residential lots as well as some smaller shrubs. They can only be about six feet tall, I think, is what we came to an agreement with with Nampa Meridian Irrigation District.

Okay.

um sonny already kind of went over this but this is our really only our requested modification to the conditions that were provided in the staff report we received late last week we just would like to make sure that commercial is outlined here is the the cross-access that we're trying to obtain between the commercial lots. Wouldn't it make sense to have cross-access from one residential lot to another? So just a clarification. Going into the other condition that Sonia brought up tonight was talking about having a stub here or some sort of street coming south. We don't believe that that is necessary just because we already have the Dayspring Way connection here going north from the commercial into the residential. And then also along McDermott, there's going to be an additional access here. So we don't believe that that vehicular access there between the development is necessary. I think it would cause some more issues perhaps with neighbors. City Council Chambers, Driving right up against their property line, we do have that pedestrian connection and I believe that should should be sufficient. City Council Chambers, And then the last slide just show it sonny had already provided some conceptual building elevation so. City Council Chambers, Overall, I think that covers it if you have any specific questions you'd like to ask of me or of property owner who's here, we are happy to answer, thank you.

City Council Chambers, Are there any questions for the applicant. Mr. Chair, Commissioner pro.

Good evening.

Good evening.

Can you go over the section that says future drive, whatever that little road is there on the south side of the train? What's the plan for that?

Yeah, in here, maybe if I go sorry so from day spring way as you travel west you'll see this is that service drive this will be a drive that will provide access to not only these office lots but will also provide access to the proposed commercial to the west that hawkins is proposing so it'll just act as an additional service access for those properties and that will be within phase one we'll have that stub to the commercial lots.

Mr. Chair. And that is intended to be used by the public or just by the commercial property owners or, you know, whoever's owning or renting those spaces?

It would be by the public.

Is it going to be a full street or what's the street width?

Yeah, so, I'm sorry, I'm not, remind me of your name, Commissioner.

Jessica Perot.

Row, thank you. So this would be a, it would be built more of a private road standard, you know, where we would ensure that we're meeting any requirements of the city of Meridian, but it's not going to be a normal local road. It would be more of a service drive that you would see within a commercial development. I'm trying to think of some off the top of my head, but.

I understand.

Okay.

Thank you. Make sure there's any other questions. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Madam Clerk, is there anyone signed up to testify?

Thank you, Vice Chair Smith. We have Greg Larson.

And if I could just get your name and address for the record.

Thank you. Yes. Greg Larson and my address is 95592 Willow Bridge Lane and that's Lakeview, Oregon. I am the property owner. where you come out here onto the bypass, straight out of Durango. I own the 13 and a half acres across the street there. And I'm working with K&M Engineering right now. And our goal will be to align with the city of Meridian on the future use of this as mixed use interchange. It'll be light commercial, like space type support for all these roofs you see going in here. We think it's important to have this as, is available service like commercial so i'm here on record um i just want to make sure or state my concern for this access road coming out of durango that we also have access onto the bypass road here and my concern being this 90 degree corner to the north and the proximity to that we will be coming off of my property on the inside of that 90 degree corner and so i think there's some restrictions as to how close you can be to that and and therefore i'm here on record stating my concern for that and just noting the proximity to that 90 degree corner making sure That we can have access straight across from that dren go access into this commercial we think it's important because there's no other access to our property, other than a private driveway to the West. So. As we develop this and get it submitted for annexation here in the near future, we're going to want that access onto the bypass directly across from Durango and probably one to the north as well onto the bypass so that we can have efficient access to those commercial services in there. you uh commissioners are there any questions no questions and as it's as it's presented here that that access into durango could be moved south a little bit if needed and you would still maintain your distances to the the roads to the south there so there is there is an option there if that corner was ever to be a problem but i'm just hoping that that corner is not a problem

I guess one question for you is how far south does your property that is kind of you're working on at the moment extend?

Sure. Let me get this mouse here. All right. I'm struggling. Right. I go to right there. I believe it's the nine. Is it the nine-mile lateral that goes through there? Okay. I go to the nine-mile.

Okay.

Okay, cool.

Thank you, any other questions question okay.

Thank you very much appreciate your time, thank you very much. and click.

Thank you very sure Smith i'm Sean Sean mortal.

Commissioners, Sean Wardle, 2239 East Griner Street, Meridian, Idaho, representing John and Cheryl Wardle, who own the parcel directly east here, adjacent to the office commercial piece. So applicant has already clarified for me my question, which was cross-access to that parcel through that. And it sounds like they're going to perfect the cross-access across the commercial with an easement. And so... We agree to that and appreciate the access to that. And I would stand for any questions.

Commissioners have any questions? Thank you. Question for staff. Does that need to be anything to ensure that the staff report is that adequate?

It's in the staff report already. Just with the clarifying remark that it's commercial lots, not all the lots, as the applicants request it.

Madam Clerk, is there anyone else?

Thank you, Vice Chair Smith. No one else has signed up and no one online is raising their hand.

Anyone else who would like to testify? Please come forward. And if I could have your name and address for the record.

Corey Thacker 5900 West Eustick, the other question to pop. I just want to make sure that it's understood that like a year and some ago, it may have came across who knows how it came across but basically thanks to Sonia and staff I mean we got that cross access that I have no objections to this particular issue, other than if mine doesn't get done. So, thank you.

Any questions commission. All right, thank you very much. Is there anyone else who would like to testify? All right. Would the applicant like to come back forward?

Thank you. I don't have much else to add other than I think Mr. Larson's point about access to the McDermott bypass. We understand where he's coming from. I'll just say that we worked with ACHD. They approved our access to the McDermott Bypass. The 90-degree turn there, the curve for the McDermott Bypass was not a concern of theirs for our access. So that's all I will say. We haven't delved in too much deeper other than that. But if there are concerns, I'm sure we'd be willing to work with ACHD and the neighbor as they come forward.

Question for staff. I guess regarding this, we don't have a crystal ball, but are there any concerns that immediately stand out regarding that ability for the neighbor to take access, whether at that spot directly across or further south?

Commission. Not necessarily. I mean, that can change from pre-plat to final plat, but the applicant is correct. If you recall, McDermott bypass is still under the jurisdiction of ITD. They said they had no comments regarding this application, so they seem to be good with that. ACHD and their staff report has indicated that as long as that intersection is 830 feet from from Ustick Road that they would approve it. So the applicant is correct. There doesn't appear to be any issues with that. But again, if the adjacent landowner and this owner want to work on a minor adjustment, that's something they'll work with either ITD and ACHD and provide that with their final plot with a minor change. I don't want them to shift it too much, but somewhere, because I... PB, Harmon Zuckerman, I do agree with the gentleman saying that there's always there are site distance concerns when you get get around those curves on roadway so that that has been an issue when in other applications that we've you've acted on in the past. While I have your attention too, I just wanted to also ask the applicant, maybe pose a question to the mission. You know, I don't want to co-mingle the applications too much with the use the commercial in this one, but you can see that they have been working pretty closely together to make sure that these projects do integrate. In my discussions you can see here on the graphic that they used a commercial piece. It has a little more landscaping on the south side of the driveway than this office portion of the development. So wasn't sure if that's something that you guys I know that was something we discussed at the previous hearing for that project. But I know the applicant's working with this particular, the same consultant, so I didn't know if their plan was to do the same thing on the office portion. So just would like to get some clarification maybe from the applicant on that and decide, like to get feedback from the commission as to whether or not you want to make that a condition to provide some of that landscape treatment on south side of the driveway. Thank you.

I guess I'll extend that question to you, if you could clarify that.

Yeah, thank you. Thanks, Bill. Commission. Yeah. So at this time, we do not have a specific landscape plan here. If I go back, this is a conceptual building layout. And without really knowing what will develop on those lots, it's hard for us to say, yes, we will put a specific landscape buffer that looks this way versus Hawkins, who has more of a detailed plan as to what those uses might be. So that's why we're not showing anything at this point. It's going to take some time before those lots are sold off to in buyers who will then have to go through their own design review applications and make sure that they follow the landscape code at that time. So generally we don't get into the details of showing landscaping internal to the office lot set at this time, but hopefully that answers your question.

Mr. Chair. Commissioner Giacomino.

Just a quick question. Part of it's going to be directed to staff, part of it to the applicants. Staff, do we have a picture that displays lot nine, block three, where the proposed condition for the covered the common shelter will be? OK, perfect. Thank you. And For Connor, have we, because I didn't see it, I don't believe I saw it in the report, so just to confirm, do we have any agreement on whether the condition for that common shelter is approved or accepted as part of this discussion?

Yeah, thank you, Commissioner. We saw that condition of approval in speaking with the property owner. We agree that that would be a great amenity to add to the development. and we're in agreement with that condition. We do not have a specific detail or elevation as to what that shelter would look like, but we'll make sure we work with staff to provide maybe some sort of rendering as to what that could look like moving forward.

Excellent, thank you.

Commissioner Pro, you had a?

Yes, Mr. Vice Chair, thank you. So the train easement there directly east of the entrance That's 100 feet, correct? Is there any permitted use? I understand there can't be anything permanent. But is there any kind of recreational use or permitted use rather than just being a grassy area that would benefit the commercial section at all?

Yeah, that's a great question. We worked with Nampa Meridian Irrigation District and we asked the same question. What can we do with this land? It's it's difficult because they say you know they need access to their easement to make any Or it's a you know maintain the drain itself and they've specifically said no structures. we're not really looking for people to be spending long amounts of time in that area, they were fine, though, with it being a grassy area and people are welcome to walk. Through it, we can even have a pathway across it and folks can recreate within it, but they didn't they didn't want to see any kind of. like basketball hoops or courts of any kind, things like that. So we did explore that option, and they pretty much said grass, small shrubs, pathways, service drive. Those are the options.

Are you planning on implementing anything, a pathway?

Yes, we do have, as you can see there, along Dayspring Way. That's a sidewalk or a pathway along Dayspring Way. Then we will have a pathway that cuts across to the east going into the commercial, those office lots there. So you could walk west and get across to the other commercial and further down to McEustick subdivision. So there is some pedestrian connectivity through that area. But that's all that we're showing at this time.

Okay, I just have kind of seen these sort of empty spaces not be taken great care of when nobody really knows what they're for, you know. But visually the public is not going to understand that that's a drain easement. So just curious kind of how that maintenance is going to look, hopefully as an entrance to a commercial area, I assume that there's some sort of association that we're managing that. Hopefully they'll take that pretty seriously, but you never know.

Totally understand, yes. And there will be an HOA with this development, and they'll have a maintenance agreement that they'll have to maintain these open space areas. And also to the irrigation district, they require it to be maintained because they need to have adequate access to that easement. So hopefully together that'll... keep it looking nice. Because this is an entryway corridor, as we understand, along Eustick Road. So it is important that we have enhanced landscaping and it looks nice. So I understand where you're coming from. Thank you.

Mr. Vice Chair. Mr. Stoll. Connor, on the extension of Del Norte South as a sub street, can you just reiterate your concerns regarding that?

Yeah. Here, let me go... Thank you, Commissioner. Yeah, so if you can see here, let me get the mouse again. It's kind of hard. There we go. So we already have Dayspring Way as it goes north from Eustick through the commercial office lots. sorry this is not cooperating with me but i'll just speak the day springway goes north from the commercial loss into the residential subdivision we also have access into the residential subdivision from mcdermott bypass so two entryways into that development this being about 120 it's 127 residential lots which will also be stubbed to the east into um spring day. So I always mix them up. We'll provide a third access point. So with that, we think there's plenty of vehicular connectivity through this acreage. And we'll also have that service drive through the commercial lots into the proposed commercial at the hard corner. So that's a significant amount of vehicular access options throughout the site. So we think adding another point of access directly south there from Monte Vista where Del Norte goes south would be cumbersome, mostly for those neighbors. You can see they have a common drive uh driveway that's that's what that little uh flag is going south to get access to those lots um we think if we have that as well as another access drive it creates more um but we're just gonna have to mitigate more traffic coming through there and it could create some more i don't know concerns with pedestrian crossing there as you see with the sky pilot drain we have a pathway proposed across there so they're just more

interaction with those houses that we don't think is really necessary there's other ways to get throughout the development hopefully that answers your question mr vice chair staff question yeah so sonia can you walk me through why you all are recommending that we extend the stub yeah chairman um commissioners um the udc you know encourages interconnectivity you know between uses um

Stapp, Bill and I were just discussing and we're okay with retracting that recommendation for a step straight. Stapp, We agree with the applicant that that should be sufficient. Thank you.

What question again not to come angle this and then following application. Does that imply also being okay with retracting that connectivity or could I imagine you can't have that connectivity and the next application. If you don't have the step street to connect to

Not sure I understand your question. The used to commercial property would have access via Dayspring through a cross access easement through the subject property?

So I think the again, not trying to mix these up too much, but I think it's item maybe one of these other considerations that northern vehicular connection that the draft conditions of approval are asking for. That wouldn't be feasible without the step street to connect to on this development agreement. So is that. Am I reading that?

Mr. Chair, members of the Commission, that is correct. Both projects have been asked for you to consider whether or not additional connectivity is going to be required. So that's your purview. If you don't require them to stub the road to the service drive, then that condition, when we get to the next project, will be something we need to address with that application. Okay. Thank you.

Any other questions from the Commission? All right.

Thank you very much.

Can I get a motion to close the public hearing? Move to close the public hearing. Seconded. It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. I'll go first on this. I think... Yeah, there's just a couple of questions here that I think we should probably discuss. Obviously, there's that stub straight. It seems like staff is okay with retracting that. That does carry that implication over to the McEustick application, but... for this application on its own. I think that staff's kind of retraction makes sense. I think there's, it looks like there's adequate pedestrian and I actually think this, not having that vehicular connection could kind of, to the applicant's point, you know, cushion or ease the transition could keep that commercial and residential connectivity still, active through a day spring, but not so direct that it becomes kind of, you know, you're living right next to, um, on top of the commercial kind of feeling. Um, I think the only other question that I have is if the Commission wants to kind of require some additional landscaping on the south side of the trackway. I know the applicant doesn't seem like it's the intention to leave that fully bare, but it's more just a lack of clear visibility. But part of me is wondering if There's interest in kind of having some requirement to have it continuous with the sort of landscaping that it is on the McKusick side or matching appropriately to just have, you know, again, ease that transition to the residential. But beyond that, I'm generally supportive of this. I don't see any major issues.

So with the removal of the Stub Street, I'm very comfortable with what staff has recommended. I think the question about the landscaping is really, is it going to be coming back to us anyway to have that discussion when the commercial properties are coming forward? or we can put the condition in there and just say future commercial development will have some sort of landscape, appropriate landscaping to buffer the residential and commercial. I'm okay with either way, but I'm supportive of the project.

Commissioners? Commissioner Perreault?

Mr. Chair, Mr. Vice Chair. Um, I'm in agreement regarding the step street and not, um, having that as a condition, um, as for the, excuse me, the landscaping I'm fine with, with, uh, With what the applicant decides as long as it's according to code, I mean, I think it makes sense that on the corner that you have a different. kind of buffering and feel there, then in that section, you know and farther East section of you stick. My. let me say this. My one thought about the substrate, let me go back to that, is if there is any benefit to the Ustick commercial, the future owners of those properties, is there any benefit to having that access where folks are coming off McDermott and just heading straight south into their four lots versus coming up Dayspring or winding around? I think I understand the the applicant's thoughts on that. I think, you know, they're ideally probably not wanting to run that over the drain area, even though it's going to be buried. But I kind of see it as having less, you know, less traffic through the middle of the subdivision if they're able to just come in on McDermott and head straight south. And, you know, that's not ideal for those three additional lot owners, but that's essentially it affects those three additional lots versus a driver coming off McDermott and then heading all the way down Telluride, all the way down Dayspring, and then heading back west again to get to those commercial lots. So that's just my thought on that. It's not something that I... you know what I'm gonna encourage to have put back in as a condition but something to for my fellow commissioners to consider. Also not a condition per se but I would like to encourage the applicant to do something more interesting than just a covered area in the park space. even if it isn't a requirement. I know these are larger lots. I know a lot of people are just going to use their backyards. But it's been a good long time since we've been OK with there being just green space when we're out in an area of the city that doesn't have a lot of park access. So just a recommendation there.

Thank you. I think one thing that I do want to clarify It's kind of obscured in this image by the landscaping and the lines, but their staff can clarify. There is access in that future drive to McDermott, right? Again, that will be an access point without having to go through.

Are you asking about right here? Yeah. Yes.

Okay. That should still be maintained, I think, so they don't have to go through the residential at all. If they come in off McDermott, they can just come directly into that McEustick commercial without having to go around to McDermott.

Yeah, Mr. Chair, I might add that that applicant is not in favor of having a street connection from the north. Thank you.

City Council Chambers, To that chair. City Council Chambers, Am I permitted to ask questions for to staff without an open application or without an open.

City Council Chambers, yeah I believe so yeah okay.

City Council Chambers, Is would that entrance be permitted that close to the intersection I don't know if if he is involved in that, or I guess, maybe it is involved in that I just assumed that that would not be permitted.

I don't know how many feet it is. Again, the bypass is owned by ITD currently. Bill, did ACHD comment on the proximity of the access here of the drive on the used to commercial property to the intersection? Do you know? Again, that's not part of this application, so I'm not sure we should be discussing it right now, but we can certainly check on that.

did approve it yes yes achd did approve that access location um any other commissioners all right um would anyone like to make a motion mr chair

City Council Chambers, After considering all staff applicant and public testimony I moved to recommend approval to the City Council of file number H two zero two five dash 0017 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of may 28 2026 with the following modifications or yeah with falling modifications basically the approval of the conditions Mike correct.

so you would add any modifications to the staff report that you'd want oh i apologize so as uh as presented okay vice chair just for clarification on the motion um does your motion include the insertion that we're commercial with that one uh that cross-access uh condition yes thank you thank you and then kurt since it's not in the staff report if we're not

if the intention is, I don't know, Commissioner Gelsomino's intention. So that'd be worth clarifying. But if his intention is not to include the requirement of a stub street, It would still be just as presented with that commercial. Right.

Yeah. Mr. Vice chairman referred to the planning staff. I can't recall if that was a condition or just a topic for discussion. Maybe you can clarify Sonia.

Yes. Mr. Chair, if I could clarify if staff's recommended and the applicants requested change to condition number one, a, to include the cross access ingress, egress easements are required between all commercial lots to specify commercial.

on that are you in agreement with that if you could include that in your motion yes uh so with the uh to include that the cross-access Ingress egress easements are required between all commercial Lots in the subdivision thank you

Mr. Vice Chair, I'm not sure if I think I tracked your question. The other issue, Sonia, is do the conditions right now talk about that stub road that we are not recommending any longer, or was that just a topic for discussion?

No, that was an added recommendation by staff that was not in the staff report, so there's nothing to correct on that. The record will reflect that you weren't in favor of that.

So, Mr. Vice Chair, I think the motion has not been seconded yet, but the motion on the floor probably is sufficient as is.

Second.

moved and seconded all those in favor say aye aye any opposed motion carries all right thank you then mr vice chairman can i uh if i ask you to pause for like one minute i need to consult with commissioner sandoval just for a moment for you before you open the next hearing okay thank you we'll take a couple minutes uh break Mr vice chair, thank you for the accommodation so they just for the record, I want to mention, so I just consulted briefly with Commissioner sandoval. The next hearing that you're going to open here shortly was originally was open on may 7 and then was continued to this evening, Mr sandoval was not not at that meeting, but he and I just consulted he confirmed that he's reviewed the record is prepared to participate and deliberate and vote, so he will be participating tonight.

Mr sandoval that's that.

tracks okay cool.

All right, great. Well, then the next item on the agenda is item number three, file numbers H-2025-0059 and H-2026-0007, you stick commercial comprehensive plan amendment annexation and preliminary plan.

We'll begin with the staff report. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the Commission. Last item on tonight's agenda is the continued item, Ustick Commercial slash McUstick Subdivision. Just give you a quick recap of what's transpired since the May 7th hearing. So I'll just reorient you. The site consists of approximately 4.31 acres of land, currently zoned RUT in Ada County, and is located at 5900 West Ustick Road. CURRENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION OR FLUME DESIGNATION IS MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND THE APPLICANT ON MAY 7TH, WE DISCUSSED THAT CHANGE FROM GOING FROM MDR TO COMMERCIAL. ALONG WITH THAT, THE COMP PLAN AMENDMENT, THE APPLICANT ALSO SUBMITTED A CONCURRENT ANNEXATION AND POLYMERIA PLAT APPLICATION FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. SO THEY ARE REQUESTING CC ZONING AND THEIR PLAT CONSISTS OF FOUR COMMERCIAL LOTS. here's their cpam exhibit that was provided to you and shown to you on the 7th and here is the kind of their adjacency to the durango subdivision that you saw tonight and acted on recently and here is the proposed concept plan that was excuse me shown to you on may 7th as well at that hearing you did again condition or continue the item to direct staff to bring back some A MEMO WITH SOME CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. AS PART OF THAT, TOO, YOU ALSO WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS PROJECT WOULD BE HEARD AT THE SAME HEARING AS THE GERANGO SUBDIVISION. THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS DISCUSSED AT GREAT LENGTH. EXCUSE ME. STAFF DID HAVE THE ONE MOMENT. John Potter, dry throat apologize for that so after the hearing staff did have the ability to meet with the applicant, I did inform you at that hearing that we did have some draft conditions of approval, met with the applicant went through those draft conditions of approval. put that out in a memo to all of you for tonight's consideration this evening. But as part of that memo, there were also some other topics that we wanted to discuss and get your comments on. I think the chair did speak to the one about the northern connection point with the residential subdivision. Based on the action you did on that application, staff would be amenable to you striking that condition from the staff report or from the memo. And then DA provision two, one thing that wasn't known at the May 7th hearing that did come to light when I met with the applicant was hours of operation. So as we were working through those DA provisions, one of those provisions were the hours of operations were going to be restricted between the hours of 6 a.m. and 11 p.m. unless otherwise approved with a conditional use permit. Now, that provision in code applies when a project abuts a residential use or district. In this particular case, this project does not abut a residential use or district currently. It's vacant ground around it, and there's roadways. So, technically, that provision, the requirement for a conditional use permit is not required currently by code. If they were to get their annexation and zoning approved tonight or through the city council, technically they could operate a 24-hour use until that residential use or zoning came into play. So the applicant did convey to me that one block one, which is this convenience store located on the concept land, they would like that that potential operator would like the ability to to operate 24 hours a day currently and so i informed the applicant that i would bring that up with you this evening because we didn't really have a chance to discuss it at the last hearing because there were no conditions of approval so again the code doesn't require them to get a conditional use permit at that time so therefore you do have the purview to allow a 24-hour use as part of a da And the council does too. So is that something you want to include or provide a recommendation on? That's what staff is asking you to do this evening. If you're amenable to just one lot operating as a 24 hour use. And then also my discussions with the applicant, we also talked about timing for construction. Typically, the normal process is when you have a preliminary plat, we'd like the applicant to go through the final plat process, put in the infrastructure, build everything they need to do, record the plat, and then develop the lots. Commercial is treated a little differently. I mean, you're not required to subdivide commercial property. They could move forward, annex this, and not have to subdivide it. It could build multiple buildings on it without doing that and still commence with development without a subdivision. So the applicant is asking for the commission's consideration to add a condition of approval to allow them to obtain one building permit prior to certificate of occupancy for the first structure on the site. We have done that historically, so it is in a new condition that they would just ask you to weigh in on that topic as well. And then at the last hearing, we also spent quite a bit of time on the auto-oriented uses on the site. You know, that was one of the reasons for staff's recommendation for denial of the CPAM was how it was going to integrate and work with the adjacent uses. So the applicant also provided you a new exhibit showing how they're going to buffer the commercial a little bit more, the commercial portion. That's why you see this new exhibit here. That was also attached to the exhibit. then as part of that the applicant and i did discuss the number of drive-throughs on the site so you can see here currently on on the concept plan there are two drive-throughs and so as you're aware we recently changed our code to tier drive-throughs so we have a tier one tier two tier three drive-through so If this truly is going to be neighborhood commercial, that's something within your purview that you can limit the number of drive-thrus as part of the annexation request, or you can cap what type of tier you want on the drive-thrus on the project. So that's something that's part of your purview tonight. So again, you have the conditions of approval. I don't have a slide or anything showing those, but you do have the memo that If those three items or four items you want to address as part of your emotion tonight, if you are leaning one way difference from stats recommendation, then I would encourage you to add those additional conditions of approval as well, and with that stand for any questions you have.

I do have one question regarding unconditioned to and. kind of hours of operation. My question specifically around like noise, noise pollution and things like that. Every time that I've kind of been at a gas station at 2 a.m. or whatever, it's pretty quiet. I'm just curious, does the city treat gas stations and C-stores differently regarding commercial? I guess, does my perception, my anecdote, does that track with kind of how the city tends to consider these regarding hours of operation and the noise impact of late night or early morning gas station C-store usage?

Commissioner, I think I'm following your... So currently the noise ordinance is 6-11, I believe, under the... I think the portion that the police department enforces is 6 to 11. But if there are instances like this where there's a 24-hour exception, then they allow that to control because there's a development agreement that says they can have that. So if you do allow a 24-7 use, I mean, someone can still file a complaint. That can happen. And the police can tell them to quiet down. But they're not treated any differently other than the fact that they're open. more or longer beyond those hours that we would typically police either by the udc or the the meridian police department itself um commissioners are there any other questions for staff mr vice chair um so

uh bill i know you can't comment as to the end use but i understand that the applicants considering a drive-through coffee shop and a drive-through fast food facility are those all both tier one are those

Mr chair members of the Commission those any restaurant use with a drive, it would be a tier two. tier two yes and then depending on. How many ordering windows, how many menu boards would be a more intense tier three us, but yes, that would require. Those type of tier tier uses would require condition use, regardless of its proximity to a residential use and would come before P and Z Commission.

Okay. And for the request regarding the building permit being issued for the site prior to the recording the plot is that is that a can do we need to add that as a condition if we're in agreement with that? When we make a motion, Mr.

Chair, members of the commission, yes, you would need to add that as a conditional as a DA provision.

um bill just to clarify or recommend a da provision i guess so you mentioned that the restaurant is tier two the coffee shop to my understanding would also be tier two is that right okay both would be tier two correct great um commissioners other questions all right that's what the it's prudent for the applicant to come back forward right correct where i know where i'm just trying to remember where we're technically in the public hearing

we just received the staff presentation now it's opportunity for the applicant to present his app application and then we'll have a public comment after that yeah then name and address for the record good evening commissioners thanks for having me back my name is ethan mansfield with hawkins companies uh 855 uh west broad street boise idaho 83702. So I will breeze through most of this. I have similar slides, mainly for the benefit of Commissioner Sandoval, but he's already reviewed the record. I don't want to... What is the thing about beating a dead horse? I don't want to beat a dead horse tonight, so I will go quickly. I did want to just first... Just really say thanks to KM Engineering for really collaborating with us on this. I mean, as you know, they're our engineer too, but I think they did a really, really fantastic job working with both us and Mark Hess to create some synergies here. When we first looked at this, we were really excited because we saw this opportunity for cross access, and Mark was very, very willing KM was very willing to put that exhibit together, help us get coordinated. That was back in June, and here we are now with, I think, a plan that's pretty cohesive. I also want to say thanks to Bill for kind of working through these conditions with us. We did some significant... collaboration with Nampa Meridian Irrigation District to allow us to provide their service drive within our service drive so we don't have to do a bunch of roads within their easement. They're just willing to use our commercial service drive as their service drive for their canal. So I think that's a really good use of space. Commissioner Perot was talking about using space efficiently earlier. It's not recreation space necessarily in this case, but it is kind of a doubling up on multi-use of a service drive. Just to clarify, the McDermott bypass access into this commercial development is approved by both, well it's approved by ACHD pending the transfer from ITD to ACHD. We've been in touch with Kendra at ITD and she confirmed yet again that process typically takes three to four months and it's been about three weeks since we last spoke so we're looking at about three months now. Hopefully that all goes as scheduled and that transfer can be completed without issue and that will happen well before we put shovels in the ground.

Let's see, what else do I need to touch on here?

Yeah, I mean, it's just Durango coordination is really critical here. As you can see, as Bill mentioned, we added the landscape buffer and we coordinated with Nampa Meridian Irrigation District. We'll talk more about that. I think we can skip over these slides, but again, this is why we're proposing it. We've seen a massive amount of public investment in auto-centric development, and that's why we're proposing auto-oriented uses. Last time, we talked a lot about impacts to the surrounding community. know two-thirds of these trips to this development are going to be pass-by trips which means they're on their way from somewhere to somewhere else and are just stopping at ours only a third are either diverted which means they're going to block out of their way or actually new trips impact fees we talked about that our per acre impact is actually very much on par with a medium density residential development at eight units per acre To sum up that piece, any current or future residents within this box will travel for less time and less distance to access our commercial use than any other commercial use outside the box. There's not really any other commercial uses inside the box right now. That's speaking to the past by nature of these uses and how they actually could reduce VMT pollution, congestion, etc. Just to talk a little bit about our the orientation of the single family uses you know, there was some concern initially from staff that there's a negative impact. of of the commercial uses to the residential uses to the north, I think that impact would be no matter what, no matter what this use is, much less than the impact of Eustick Road on residential uses immediately north of Eustick Road. So that's why this commercial development makes a lot of sense here. And again, with the additional landscaping that's being proposed, As well as I think, you know, we're really supportive of having only the sidewalk extending north-south, and I think we're all on board with, you know, it's a good thing to not have that additional roadway connecting Durango and this development. And just keeping it pedestrian-oriented allows for a much more comfortable pedestrian experience and more limited impact to any of the residential uses to the north. um so you know we can talk a little bit more um i'd like to kind of talk about this in the context of the 24-hour use that we are proposing on the corner and again we're only asking for one of these uses to extend beyond the typical 6 a.m to 11 p.m hours and that would be the fuel station um know we've we've provided extra care to provide a significantly larger buffer um than many of the other surrounding uh as you'll see soon other surrounding uh developments to residential and you know i think to commissioner smith's point you know you're right like when you're It's 2 a.m. at a convenience store. Most people are just pulling in, getting gas, getting out of there. You know, you might go in for a pop or something. You know, when my wife and I go to a concert at the Ford Idaho Center Amphitheater, we're driving back home. We very frequently pass. We use U-Stick and we go back on U-Stick. Sometimes it's 1130 or midnight when the show gets done and we have to get gas. So this is like, yeah, I would hate to not be able to stop and have to go another two miles because Sometimes we neglect to fill up our gas tank, and it's kind of scary. So this provides an opportunity for that sort of use. And again, it's important to understand all of these uses are still subject to the noise ordinance that's in code, not necessarily the UDC ordinance about hours of operation. But if there are loud noises coming from this gas station and it's outside the typical hours that the noise ordinance allows, absolutely there can be a violation of that. you know, between the buffering, the noise ordinance, I would really humbly request that you approve a 24-hour use for just lot one, block one. Here's some more perspective on what we're proposing for the landscape buffer. You know, this is the same consultant, KM Engineering. Their landscape team is great. You saw the right side of this diagram earlier, and now you can see the left side of this diagram. You know, trees are, as confirmed by Nampa Meridian Irrigation District, not allowed within the easement. So what we've done is we've located these trees outside of the easement. We have some of the lower evergreen screening within the easement, but the trees themselves are located outside of that easement. So that will fly with Nampa Meridian Irrigation District, which was a critical piece of making this all work. So here's just some more, how do the other buffers compare You know, you have single family adjacent to the Jackson's Car Wash on Pine and 10 Mile, McMillan and Park Crossing Ave, 38 feet between the single family and the coffee user, 70 feet between single family and the Walmart on Fairview and Venture, you know, and a bunch more here, all, of course, less than our distance of 185 feet. So it's not like an unprecedented thing. Many fast food users and fuel stations are open 24 hours. In fact, most fueling stations themselves, like when you roll up and fill up your gas tank, those are all 24 hours. I've never seen one that's not anymore, because you just scan your card and away you go. But there's one that's 60 feet from a residential use. So I don't think we're asking for anything out of the ordinary here. And we're taking especially deep care to ensure that it's buffered appropriately and there's enough space between them. And the SkyPilot drain creates a wonderful sense of separation. And the pathway still allows for connectivity. So it's kind of like the best of both worlds, I think. So this site really is well-suited for this commercial use. So kind of in summary, you know, this is a great spot to put this both from an individual impact spot and for a overall community impact because of the pass by trips. You know here's kind of the summary slide residential units adjacent to you stick would be far more negatively impacted by noise light and odor. If homes were developed on the subject site, there would be negative impact to quality of life of future residents. And then most of the traffic on this site would be passed by trips. So to Commissioner Smith's point, again, at times when there's minimal traffic on Ustick, there's going to be even less traffic into the site, right? I mean, like, you know, you're not stopping everyone on Ustick that goes into the site. It's a lot of traffic on Ustick at all hours of the day, and then even fewer kind of use the site at all. So, you know, from an impact perspective, this is actually probably better than houses going on the corner. So, you know, we've talked about this. Bill, I think, did a really great job of summarizing our perspective. I did create language to use if you choose to adopt this condition. Obviously, feel free to modify, but I think this is the intent that we're looking for and I think it kind of protects both us as well as the city and kind of gets a nice compromise. The future tenant of lot one, block one shall be allowed to operate 24 hours per day, seven days per week. Business hours of operation of additional tenants shall be limited from 6 a.m. to 11 p.m. unless extended with a conditional use permit. And as we have a known user that wants to operate 24 hours a day, that's what we're asking for. The other users, there's many who are interested and no leases have been signed because we're waiting to get an entitlement here. So that bridge can be crossed at a later date if, in fact, there is any interest from those tenants to operate outside of these hours. And we can assess those impacts at that time. This is some suggested condition language for the question that Commissioner Perot asked earlier about what do we need to add to allow the site to have site work and an associated single building permit issued prior to the recordation of a plat. This is how I would suggest that we incorporate those. I think it, again, hits everything we need and nothing additional that we don't. City Council Chambers, So i'm preparation of the site, including installation drive aisles utilities parking fields pedestrian walkways may occur prior to recording the final plan so again that's just site work. City Council Chambers, And then condition 10 separate condition up to one building permit may be issued prior to the recording of the final plan we're not building the whole thing out we're just asking for one. Um, one thing we did want to talk about that we didn't, um, really have a chance to talk with Bill about ahead of time. And I apologize for this bill. Um, but we, you know, while we are working to coordinate the timing on the Durango commercial and the McEuston commercial, um, There's no guarantee that this drive aisle will be constructed at a certain time. I mean, it's absolutely considered within phase one of the Durango commercial plat. But if there's no users there, right, there's no real... John Pimentel, Input is to construct it and that's fine we're not asking for anyone to construct it early, but what we are asking for is for a right in right out a temporary right in right out access. John Pimentel, To both the acoustic commercial and durango commercial right shared on the property line um. Until such a time that day spring road is completed from music road and connected to the acoustic subdivision from the durango commercial drive aisle. So we're just simply looking for an ability to get from you stick to the site without going through that intersection. And we think this is actually beneficial to the public as a whole. We actually looked at this in the context of doing a permanent write-in, write-out. ACHD will not allow a permanent write-in, write-out. So we're seeking a temporary one. And if you look at the difference between a Table 16, which includes three accesses, one from Durango, one from McDermott, and one from Ustick, It's actually significantly both the signalized, so when U-Stick and Dayspring are signalized, both that scenario and without that signalization, again, U-Stick will always be signalized. So we're looking at the speed on westbound U-Stick Road in the PM. It's significantly less delay in terms of travel time with a right-in, right-out access. So that's what all those numbers mean. In the PM peak, when people are trying to go westbound on Ustick, there's significantly less delay when you have that ride in, ride out. You know, if that's true in a permanent condition, it's obviously true in a temporary condition, probably even more so when the Durango access is not created yet. Everyone then goes through that intersection to access McDermott. So for that reason, we're simply asking for a temporary write-in, write-out access to Ustick until that Durango develops. And I'm done here. And I think this one's removed already. So thank you very much. And I look forward to a recommendation of approval to city council of H20-2559, H20-2607 with the updated DA conditions 1-4, 1-5, 9, 10, and the removal of condition 2-2 from this memo. And I'm happy to answer any questions, concerns, thoughts, ideas.

I have one question before we kind of get into the nitty gritty of some of this. One concern I do have regarding noise past 24 hour. I'm someone who's had to also fill up my tire at 2 a.m., unfortunately. Um, where is that? Is there intended to be a compressed air station? I know some, and you're not the owner, but if that were, is there any intention for that to be like any idea where that would go in the application?

Vice President Smith, that is a fantastic question. We have not gotten into the site design of this particular fuel user. I do assume, I'm going to look at my pal Bronson here, he might know a little bit more about the user's operations, but maybe not. I'm assuming there will be compressed air. And I would also assume that we could be a little bit sensitive to the concerns of noise and could locate that in a way that minimizes noise for surrounding users. What's that? Oh, yeah. Yeah, I mean, would that be on the southern side? Yeah, we could put it on the south side of the building. Yeah. Okay.

Thank you. Commissioners.

Vice Chair.

Vice Chair Perot.

So walk me through that. We'll call it a drive aisle from McDermott. A driver is heading north and they make a right turn into that, there's no right turn lane. So are we stopping, you know, at this point ACHD is saying they're not widening McDermott Road past three lanes for a significant amount of time. So is that stopping all traffic there as somebody's waiting to turn right, hopefully not a long wait turning right. Turning left, however, If they're coming out of there and they're turning left, are we creating issues with the property directly to the west? That gentleman came and spoke that there might be some problems with them having to... put the entrance to their property further south than Durango. Just kind of walk me through that. Or the traffic coming south on McDermott, and now there's traffic stock behind them waiting to turn left to get into the gas station. I'm not, I'm really, I understand the need for this. I just, I think that it's going to create a lot of problems.

Commissioner Perot, I can certainly walk you through. So I just want to clarify, you're talking about the access onto and off of McDermott.

Okay.

Yeah. So I will first start with the kind of planner answer. As a former planner, I can kind of recite the ACHD like access shall be taken from a lesser classified street whenever possible. So that is providing an access onto and off of McDermott bypass because ACHD is not allowing a permanent right in, right out. Their perspective is the property requires a full access and it's a collector and ACHD has approved the access. So it technically meets all of ACHD's policy criteria to allow a full access onto and off of the McDermott bypass in that location. Now, I guess, from another perspective, you know kind of from a user perspective, which I think is equally if not more important than the policy manual, but I didn't say that if he's listening. There is a Center turn lane on mcdermott bypass so as you said it's three lanes so two lanes in either direction, and then a Center turn lane so. know i liken it to like i was just pulling out of happy camper on chinden boulevard right and chinden is a much wider street but it does have that center turn lane it also has huge amounts of volume on it and i waited for some time to turn left out of my business that i was a you know happy camper um so you know certainly It will take longer to turn left out probably than it will to take a free right. And when we analyzed level of service for that intersection, given the trips from both the future Durango commercial in this quadrant, not the other commercial on the other side of the public road. Let me go to the... So not the commercial on the right side, on the east side of the public road, but we did analyze the Durango commercial on the west side, including McKustick commercial. When we analyze that, that driveway's level of service, that is the delay that people experience, was not great enough to warrant another access point, permanent access point. So ACHD determined, so we did look at the experience delay. I do not have the number on me right now, but it does not operate at an E or an F, it operates better than that. So I think it was a B, maybe an A or a B level of service, which corresponds, I can't remember what number of seconds of delay that corresponds to, but that was analyzed and it was assumed to be acceptable based on the traffic volumes using that. So acceptable in fact that they would not allow us a full or sorry they would not allow us a permanent right in right out along you stick.

Commissioners questions. Could you pull up. I think your proposed nine and 10. Conditions. There we go. So actually, sorry, it's not this one. It is the temporary access from uStick. Sorry, I thought that was 9.10. I want to just make sure I'm clear. The intention is this prior to any occupancy for construction purposes and that only, or is this also intended for temporary write-in, write-out during commercial activity, like user activity?

Commissioner Smith, great question. Thanks for allowing me to clarify that. This would be a right in, right out that would operate potentially during commercial activity for customers. And the reason it would be temporary is because it would provide another access point to minimize traffic into and out of that McDermott Drive before the Dayspring access is constructed, if that occurs. So basically what it allows us to do is construct the... at least the first building permit, potentially more, but construct what we have constructed, operate certain users without the requirement that that Dayspring Road have been constructed already. And so it allows us that temporary access so that not every single car who's coming into and out of our development goes to the McDermott access.

Okay, and Bill, question for you on this. I know this is something that I guess we wouldn't have enough time to analyze ahead of time, but I guess as initial reactions or general kind of approach, does that align with what is appropriate, like what staff feels is appropriate in other, maybe similar circumstances, or is your early read on it?

Mr chairman members of the Commission, I think this is one where I think. applicants well aware of our policies to. It really does take Council waiver for access to arterial so again i'm. I'm going to have to stay with code and say we have to prohibit access unless otherwise approved by City Council. So to me, that's if that's something that you want Council to take under consideration, you support what the applicant is asking for. You can certainly include that and endorse that. But ultimately, um ACHD has said no access to USTIC and our policies say no access to USTIC so that's why we're being very restrictive in the DA saying that you're not getting the access because they do have a they are approved for full access to that McDermott bypass based on ACHD's findings but I certainly understand where the applicant's coming from in regards to it's temporary um Again, none of us know the timing for when Dorado gets started or when they get started. Again, everything along Ustick is going to be waiting on Ustick, use ACHD to widen and sewer to be there. So it could be a whole nother year or two years before we even see anything starting out here. So that's really, it's all about timing and when they can even move forward. So yeah. i think my recommendation would be is maybe as we transition to city council maybe the applicant can maybe get something from achd kind of supporting that temporary right in right out and then at least have that information for council because they're really the ones that have to say yes this is good and then have encouraged the applicant to come back with maybe a plan showing how that can be remediated in the future if it does go away if it is truly going to be temporary in nature Commissioner Stoll?

That was going to be my question, whether ACHD has weighed in on the temporary access.

Commissioner Stoll, they have not yet weighed in. However, we are very much aware that they would need to weigh in. So that's kind of on our list of things to essentially what the removal of or the change of this condition does, the modification of this condition does, is it allows ACHD's decision to kind of be the decision. And it allows us to not have to go back. So let's say counsel requires the condition to remain as is, prohibits access. That means that if we can get ACHD to agree to a temporary write-in, write-out, we then have to go back to council to get their permission for a write-in, write-out. And what I'd like to do is, first of all, I'd like to try and get ACHD and everyone rowing in the same direction prior to council. But... What it does is if I cannot get ACHD to be rowing in the same direction prior to council, it doesn't mean ACHD gets ignored. It means we still have to talk with ACHD and council is saying, look, if ACHD is cool with it, we're cool with it temporarily. That's all we're looking for here.

Commissioner, any other questions? I do have one other question regarding these two drive-thrus. So, like Bill said, you know, a coffee shop, I believe, is generally Tier 2. A restaurant can be Tier 2, can be Tier 3. Could you help me understand the intention behind, I guess, what level of drive-thru...

um you know volume expectations etc commissioner smith vice president smith or vice vice chair vice chair excuse me i will refer to you as vice chair from now on um vice chair smith um Yes, I'm frantically clicking to a nice picture of our development here. What we've established with our users, just our knowledge of site plan development and shopping center development with the 50 years of development that Hawkins has doing this, is this site, because of its size, there's no way it could support two Class 3 users. There's just too much stacking, there's too much, you know, going on for such a small site. We totally acknowledge that. What we'd like to be able to do is say we would be open to restricting drive-throughs to a maximum of one class three use. and either another Class 1 or Class 2 if it is in the cards. And again, this is conceptual. We may not have four users here because of a Class 3 drive-through eating up too much space. So we're really, really cognizant because we've done this so many times, we're really cognizant about the customer experience, the user experience, the staff experience on this site. We don't want to create conflict. And so for that reason, I think that's why we're agreeing to a condition for one Class 3, no more than one Class 3 drive-thru, and the other drive-thru has to be either a Class 1 or a Class 2.

Just to remind me, I have a question for Bill. What's the definition of a class three again? Drive-thru?

Mr. Chair, members of the commission, Tier 3 is basically a restaurant with two stacking lanes, two ordering points, two ordering menus, just a more intense drive-thru. So what he has drawn here is not going to be anywhere close to a Tier 3. They're probably Tier 2. So again, it's not... The commission doesn't have to add anything. It's just something that you can if you want to. I know recently you guys have been getting into the weeds a little bit more of that, and staff has been coming forward with DA provisions that said, hey, we're good with some drive-thrus, but what do you think about maybe locking down to a Tier 1? So, again, if you feel comfortable with the concept plan, there's a DA provision that says generally comply with the concept plan. And they, regardless if it is a tier one or tier three, they're coming back with a CUP. So it's, it's just whether or not you guys want to lock down the intensity of the site, or if you feel like you need to build in that extra assurance that it won't be too intense for the future residential or the road or the transportation network that we know gets a lot of trips on you sick. We know it's going to have a lot of vehicle trips in that area. So that's why I just bring it to your attention.

Did you, I did want to, was there anything you wanted to add? Okay. Cool. Any other questions? All right, I guess we'll go, Madam Clerk, is there anyone signed up to testify?

Thank you, Vice Chair Smith. Yes, I have Corey Thacker.

Okay. If I could just get your name and address for the record.

Hello again. Corey Thacker, 5900 West Eustick, property in question. I'm not going to go through the same, this all sucks for me, my noise stuff. All right, so at two o'clock in the morning, I got somebody with a souped up car blowing down the road. Has nothing to do with any commercial property, but yet I hear it just fine. And so it's kind of one of those things that, you know, you're asking good questions for somebody that wants to move into a neighborhood, but I'm experiencing these things and it ain't even there yet. And it's already happening to me. So, I mean, as I kind of told you before, it's kind of the point where it's like, well, I'm cool with Durango going in as long as I get to go out. And the conditions would be is, of course, if all this moves forward, I don't want to be there. I had some random person at some point in time come in and cut one of my horse's tails, just the hair. And like, you wake up and say, who gave my horse a haircut? And it's only going to get worse because we're putting in all these extra people and I'm going to get surrounded. So I would ask you to worry more about the person who lives there and is being impacted as opposed to the people who are going to pick and choose and have the opportunity to decide that's where they want to live. So that's all I had.

Thank you very much. Madam Clerk, has anyone else signed up to testify?

Thank you, Vice Chair Smith. No one else has signed up, and no one has their hand raised online.

Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to come forward? I'd like to get your name and address for the record.

Thank you, Commissioner Conner-Lindstrom, KM Engineering 5725 North Discovery Way. I apologize for not signing up to testify, given that I was the applicant on the previous application. I just wanted to speak on behalf of the HEST development and Durango that we've been working closely with Hawkins, and we're in agreement with what they're proposing and their proposed new conditions and modifications. So I just wanted to make that clear. Thank you. Thank you.

Is there anyone else who would like to testify?

Great. Okay, great. Can I get a motion to close the public hearing? So moved. It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? All right. Does someone want to go first? I can give thoughts, but someone asked. All right, I'll go first. So I generally, for some reason, this has been sticking in my head a lot since we first heard it over the last couple weeks. And the more I've chewed on it, I think it's as appropriate for some automotive-oriented uses. I think a gas station sees where it makes sense here. I think the commercial use makes sense, I think, to the applicant's point and to the current homeowner's point. Backing off of U-Stick is, I think, is generally a good idea, backing the residential off of U-Stick. So I'm generally in support of this. I'm not comfortable at this time, including anything to allow access from you stick. I think that's something that can bring to City Council with a CHD at least again, this is my perspective. I don't know how the rest of the Commission feels. But I just I'm not comfortable, including that recommendation at the moment. Um, but it seems like that'll be something that you'll work on and you can bring up there. Um, the only other thing, um. I don't need to add something for the compressed air or anything like that, but I'd like, I do appreciate knowing that it would be on the South side. And if the goal is to prevent more noise pollution, um. Um, of the type of the, you know, the current homeowner is experiencing from you stick. Um, the only other thing I'd say is to Bill's point, it seems like there's not any tier three, um, kind of envisioned in the concept plan. I prefer, I'd feel more comfortable recommending locking that in. Um, If there is a tier three, I'd like for it to be the only drive-through on the location. I don't know how the rest of the commission feels about that. But I think if the goal is to kind of let this commercial also serve as a bit of a transition space, I don't think it makes sense to have a very high volume drive-through in that. But beyond that, I generally am okay with the rest as the applicant presented. Those are just some concerns I wanted to call out. Any other? Commissioner Stoll?

Make sure I got the mic on.

I agree on the tier three. I think limited to a tier two or tier one is fine. Generally, it does seem to fit exactly with how the area is developing. yeah i don't have a problem especially now that we're not stubbing the road uh del norte through um i'm comfortable with the project as proposed the commissioners thoughts commissioner pro thank you mr vice chair um

So the entrance off McDermott has given me heartburn. But if the transportation entities are in agreement, then... You know, I wouldn't recommend denial for this application for that reason. I just think this is going to be a really, really active corner with the gas station with folks coming off of Highway 16. And I just see a lot of opportunities here for safety issues with traffic. So as for the the our operating hours, I'm I'm fine with recommending that to counsel with the 24 hour use. Because I agree with Mr. Thacker that that any future residents will know that that's going to be the case that there's going to be 24 hour use and so they they have full knowledge of that prior to purchasing in that area. I'm also okay with the applicants request to allow building permit to be issued prior to the recording of the plat. I don't know specifically which building permit that, or excuse me, which building it's going to be for. I assume it will also be for the gas station, but I'm fine with it as long as it's limited to just one building permit for the entire project. And I agree with Commissioner Smith that if the applicant is in agreement with limiting themselves to having one tier three drive-through max, then I think that we should just go ahead and make that recommendation for it to go into the DA. I think I've covered everything. Any other commissioners?

Mr. Vice chair, Mr. Sandoval. Yeah. Extending the hours just makes sense. It's a gas station. You don't want to go in there two o'clock in the morning and not be able to get a drink. Right. Um, it just makes a lot of sense as far as the class three versus class two versus class one conversation. Yes. One class three, I think is appropriate or two class twos. I would say max.

All right. Any other commissioners?

Mr. Chair, I'll echo the majority of my colleagues in the commission.

Well, if there's any other commissioners or if anyone would like to make a motion, I'd be open to that.

I can also make a motion.

Commissioner Pro?

will attempt okay to make a motion after considering all staff applicant and public testimony i move to recommend approval to city council of file number h20250059 and h20260007 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of may 28th of 2026 with the following modifications um See, I recommend that we modify the conditions of approval to remove condition 2.11 or 2.ii, I guess, which is the additional drive that would be added to the north. So removing that. And then... allowing for the applicant i don't i apologize i don't know the condition numbers that's associated with this allowing the applicant to have a 24-hour use on lot one block one and that we make that recommendation to to counsel um also allowing the applicant to Be issued one building permit for. A site prior to the recording of the plat. And. And then an ad adding that as a da provision. Do we miss anything? Do you want, should I go back and add those condition numbers in numbers and letters? Do we have it all? I don't have them in front of me.

Mr. Vice chair and commissioners. Now I think your, your motion is sufficient. We understand what you're talking about. The one thing I would ask me, the motion maker, there was some discussion about fire throughs and tier one, two, and three. If you want to include anything of that in your motion as a question, I think your motion as it stands right now is, is fine.

Would you like to include any language around Tier 1, 2, 3, or is it your intention to?

Yes. I'll add to the motion a recommendation to not allow for any more than one Tier 3 drive-through classification.

Okay. Move. Is there a second? Just...

John Potter, question on the condition proposed condition for. John Potter, lot one block one as we're seeing on our screen here is your intention to limit the other buildings to or businesses to business hours of operations between 6am and 11pm.

I don't know that we need to state that because that's already what it will be unless they get approval otherwise through a conditional use permit. So that conditional use permit, they'll need to come before us. So I don't think it needs to be restated that we leave those hours in place.

The intention is only for a lot one block one to be 24-7? Correct. Second. It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Um, thank you. Uh, the last item we have on our agenda is item number four file H dash two zero two six dash zero zero zero nine Starling Ridge subdivision, which will be open for the purpose of continuance. Um, madam clerk, is it my understanding, right? That they're asking for continuous to July 16th. Thank you.

Vice chair Smith. That is correct.

Can I get a motion?

Mr. Chair, I move that we continue the public hearing for Starling Ridge subdivision H-2026-0009 to July 16th. July 16th. Second.

It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Can I get one more motion? Move to adjourn. Seconded. It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. All right. Thank you all.