City Council - Regular Meeting

Evening council. The meeting will come to order. For the record, it's April 14th, 2026 at 6:05 p.m. and we'll begin this evening's regular meeting with roll call attendance. Madam clerk, thank you. Councilman President Overton, Councilman Cavender here. Councilman Taylor here. Councilwoman Strader here. Councilman Whitlock here. Councilwoman Little Roberts here. And Council President Overton

here. If you would please all rise and join us in the Pledge of Allegiance. To the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. For tonight's community invocation, we have Sandra Ramirez. Well, good evening members of the council. It is a privilege and an honor to stand before you um as a minister of Christian Faith Center, but also as an employee here at the city of Meridian. And so, um with that, I would just like to um open us up in prayer. Father, we come before you, Lord God. And I just thank you, God, for the opportunity, Lord. I thank you Lord for each one of these council members and our mayor Father for the leadership Father God that you have appointed Father over this city of Meridian. Father God I pray God that every single um decision that they make Lord God is is founded on you based on you God that there is unity amongst this council Father. And Lord may their leadership Father bring honor and glory to you. May you bless all of the first responders, Lord, that represent the city here in Meridian, Lord God. Every employee, Father, would you bless them? And Father, may we bring you honor and glory. And we say all of this in Jesus' name. Amen. Thank you so much. God bless.

Thank you. Thank you, Sandra. Next up is adoption of the agenda. Mr. President. I move we adopt the agenda with the removal of number five. Second. We have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda removing item number five from the consent agenda. Is there any other discussion? If not, all signify the approval by saying I. I. I.

Opposed? A eyes have it. The agenda is approved. Next up is a proclamation. I'll step down to the microphone below. Julie, would you join me up here? Tonight's proclamation is for our children and youth of military members from the officer of the mayor. Whereas, April is the month of the military child and is an opportunity to recognize military children for their courage, personal sacrifices, and resilient spirit. And whereas the strength of our armed forces come not just from those who wear the uniform, but from the families who also serve on behalf of our country. And whereas military children continue to make significant contributions to family and community as they endure prolonged and repeated absences of one or both parents and adjust to families moving on an average of two to three years and changing schools. And whereas these children and youth are a source of pride and honor to us all. And it is only fitting that we take time to recognize their contributions and celebrate their spirit. And whereas the month of the military child will recognize that military children serve too. And citizens of Meridian will be afforded the opportunity to dawn the color purple

every Friday in April in support of these children. Therefore, I, John Overton, President of Midian City Council, on behalf of Mayor Robert E. Simmonson hereby proclaim April 2026 as month of the military child in the city of Meridian and encourage all residents of our community and communities across the country to observe the month for military kids and to wear or display purple to honor and support and thank our military children.

Um, good evening everyone. My name is Julia. I am the Idaho National Guard uh child and youth lead coordinator out in Genfield. I just wanted to thank the city of Meridian for recognizing April as month of the military child. Um I personally am not a service member, but I have worked in youth development and specifically with military audiences. So getting to see um how resilient and how the youth have been able to adapt through um adversities is really amazing. Um, we would like to thank you guys again from the program and also to those service members who may currently be deployed and their children having to navigate how to um overcome that and that we hope that their family members come back safe.

And Julia, one one quick comment. Um, the mayor is out of town, so I have the opportunity to give this proclamation tonight. And I couldn't be happier cuz my oldest son's been serving for 22 years and is currently sitting on a um aircraft carrier. Can't tell you where. There's a lot of them, but he's been deployed now three deployments in a row. And my young granddaughter is sitting in Colorado. So, it's it's hard on the families and I watch it happen all the time. So, I'm so glad that this is happening and this is occurring. So please join me in for Council, that brings us to any announcements or recognitions.

Mr. President, kind of the last minute here, but I just wanted to make sure that everyone realized that Captain Lesley has announced his retirement and the 23rd is his last day. And so just wanted it on the record since I could not do it when he was here last time our deep appreciation for his service. So Chris, you have to tell him that this was done from the dis and it's probably a good thing that he's not here or I would be in tears. So thank you for indulging me.

Well said. Any other announcements or recognitions? If not, brings us to tonight's consent agenda. President Council Member Little Roberts, I move we approve the consent agenda again with number item number five having been removed at this point. Second. Consent agenda has been approved and seconded. Is there any discussion? Oh, and amended, sir. for the council president to sign and the clerk to attest. Second. Second agrees. There's no further discussion. All in favor say I. I.

I. Oppose. Nay. The eyes have it. The consent agenda is approved. There are no items moved from the consent agenda to be heard tonight. Madam clerk, was there anything on the public forum? Thank you. Councilman Overton, no one has signed up. Okay, thank you. Brings us to our department reports. Item 13, countywide impact fee update. And we have staff Kurt delivering the message tonight.

Good evening, Council President Overton and members of council. Thank you for a few minutes to chat with you about countywide development impact fees. So, this is a topic that you've uh are well familiar with. It's been a few months since we discussed it, but we had several conversations in 2025. And I'll just kind of refresh the for the council's benefit benefit, but for the audience as well, just kind of briefly recap that. But, um, I think Mayor Simmonson and the mayor's office thought it'd be a good idea to update the council on where that stands and perhaps get some additional direction from the council this evening as to next steps. So, that's so where we'll kind of go. I'll kind of recap where we've been, a snapshot of where where we are now, meeting both Meridian, but also our fellow cities and what they have done or not done at this point in time, and then perhaps talk about next steps and uh timing and things of that nature. So, as a reminder, actually the county when they first came to us was looking at uh countywide uh development impact fees in four categories. one of which pertained to the sheriff's office and that was really only for the unincorporated area and I think it was Mayor Simmonson actually made the recommendation some time ago that that's really within the county's purview today and you know that had um suggested they may want to push forward that on their own since they're able to do so and the county did and so to their credit the county has adopted uh its uh sheriff uh impact fee which is applicable only in the unincorporated parts of the county not within the incorporated cities So that leaves three other categories. The corner fee, the emergency medical services or EMS fee, and the jail fee. And so just by way of reminder in terms of dollar amounts, the similar to the city's impact fee program, it differs based upon whether we're talking about single family homes or commercial development or other categories of development. But kind of an easy way we often talk about is what is the the cost per single family residents is kind of a

typical metric. So, just by way of reminder, the county analysis that you have seen and we'll talk about more in a moment, uh, the corner fee was proposed on a countywide level at $59 per single family home. The EMS fee was calculated at $175 per single family home. And then the jail impact fee was at $516 per single family home. And when the council when you first let me back up and say this has sort of been a start and stop process for the county. They've actually been at this for about I say three years or perhaps a little bit longer and they started and we had some discussions and they paused and then they it sort of uh went to the back burner for a while and now they came back again mo sort of in earnest in 2025 and the um so the city council had a couple conversations about this topic in the summer of 2025 and then later um uh at the end of last calendar year you all adopted the capital improvement plans as well as amended the city's comprehensive plan to incorporate the the county's uh impact fee studies and the fees that are attached to those. We didn't approve the fees, just the studies at that point in time. So, when you discussed this as a council back in the summer of June, I think to be more precise, in June of 2025, we outlined and talked about a four kind of a four-part implementation plan. One of the problems or challenges is probably a better word is that um under the county's proposal it requires city cooperation all of the incorporated cities as well as the county need to cooperate and adopt local ordinances to put these fees in place. So to use that that adage uh sometimes that's like hurting cats and so it can be difficult. Um and so at that point in time actually Meridian we were one of the first cities to say yes we want to be good partners with the county and we're interested in working with you and we do think that growth ought to pay for growth and so we had you know a fairly welcoming message

from the get-go but we also recognized that um other cities need to come to the table and there needs to be a level playing field and everybody needs to participate. So we developed I guess sort of simplistic a four-step or four-part implementation plan and we've finished the first couple and we're at step three now. But just as a way by way of reminder, we have entered into intergovernment ever pardon me intergovernmental agreements with the county and the EMS district. You might recall those are two separate legal entities. The county of course is um what we're familiar with and then for EMS that is from a legal perspective as an entity it stands on its own. So we have an agreement with the MS district and we have a an agreement with the county itself for a total of two. we uh entered into those in I'll call them a limited intergovernmental agreements that basically said here's what we're prepared to do today. We're going to designate the county advisory committee as the advisory committee for this purpose. We're going to agree to work with you on the adoption of the CIPs and on uh an amendment to our comprehensive plan. And so we put all that in writing and um enter into a contractual obligation between the county and the city and the MS district and the city. We subsequently uh throughout from that time going forward um multiple steps including public hearings in front of the planning and zoning commission and this city council and public testimony. But we after going through that process required by state law, the um city council did adopt the capital improvement plans for two of the three proposed fee categories. We adopted the CIP for um the EMS CIP and we adopted the jail CIP. You recall, and I'll talk about this a little bit more later in my presentation, but you recall discussions about the coroner's office and whether that was provided for within state law and there's some ambiguity there. Um, so the city council made the decision that we were not prepared yet to adopt the CIP and we had asked the county to seek clarification from the legislature which

they attempted to do during his last session and I'll talk more about that in a few minutes. Um, so we adopted two of the uh two of the three CIPs and then we also subsequently amended our comprehensive plan as required by state statute and so that's all been accomplished. So we're essentially at I'll call step three, which is we said we're going to pause once we finish those tasks and we're going to wait for other cities to catch up with us. And so we all want to sort of be on the same same place and same playing field and other cities had not quite done as much as that point in time. So we'll talk about that tonight as well. Um if we get beyond that point um and then again uh for future discussion this evening uh the next steps should we decide to proceed we've we said that contractually that if we get to that point we would conduct the public hearings uh necessary to consider the impact fees and that also requires successor agreements with the county and the MS district that would replace the initial or original agreements and they'd be more complete and talk about fee collection and identification and things of that nature and then also So um we would need to adopt ordinances that would implement the actual fees and allow the city to collect those fees on behalf of the county essentially. So that was a game plan or implementation plan that the city council um agreed to back in June and then we have been working doing our part and consummated with the adoption of the CIPs and amendment of the comprehensive plan in late 2025 about four months ago. So, I'll give you a quick stash report on where other cities stand and we're sort of all back to this hurting cats. It's uh kind of it's going to sound a lot like that. So, that's where we're at. We're we're hurting cats. Um and so I'm going to take these out of these in alphabetical order. I'm going to take them a little bit out of order just to kind of put them in categories of, you know, who's made the most progress, who's in between, and then, you know, um those that have not made as much progress. So, I'll start with both Eagle and Star. My understanding from multiple

sources including from the county from their chief administrative officer is that the uh both uh Eagle and STAR have completed the process in its totality and are in are now after the first of this year after January 1 of 2026 are now collecting all fees including the coronor fee are collecting those fees on behalf of the county and so they've adopted the um the fees by ordinance. They have agreements with the county. they're collecting the fee on behalf of the county and they're transmitting that revenue periodically to the county and then doing the accounting that's behind that. So again, that is STAR and Eagle. Um the next category is sort of where we're sort of described as um maybe halfway halfway complete or maybe a smidge more in some cases and that in that category is Garden City and Cuna. So, Garden City um went as far as they actually uh introduced the necessary ordinances for first reading and they did that I think back in January and then I I really can't speak to kind of the inner workings of what the thought process was but they have tabled that item since that time. So, they've not uh pursued it. my understanding they're they're having some questions now about the coroner fee as well and I think they may have some questions or uh trying to coordinate better where maybe cities implement this more you know together at close in time as opposed to being separated you know more separated in time so I don't want I really don't have uh the inside information as to why that has stalled but garden city has prepared ordinances introduced for first reading they have not proceeded with second or third reading they've not adopted the fees and they're gathering additional information. So, I talk with their city attorney fairly frequently and he's still doing some research on things like the corner's office and things of that nature. Uh Cuna has is um in a way not quite as far along as Garden City, but on the other hand um uh they've made good progress. So, in the

case of CUNA, they were actually going they had scheduled a public hearing uh for earlier this month to um consider and that no guarantee they would adopt, but to consider um uh the ordinances and agreements necessary to proceed with the uh countywide impact fees in Cuna. that public hearing, there was some discussion still occurring between the city attorney for Kuna and uh county council and so that was not resolved prior to the hearing and was therefore that hearing was um I don't know if it was continued or if it was just vacated and it will be rescheduled but one of the two it has not yet occurred. Um my understand is it may occur before the end of April but I haven't seen a date yet. Uh in the case of CUNA, I'll note that CUNA had and their attorney they have a contract council that CUNA has the same concern that you all had and that some others have relative to the coroner's fee. So CUNA does not intend to adopt the corner fee. They're not convinced that it's um uh that state law allows for that. And so CUNA does not intend to uh adopt the corner fee at this point in time, but are receptive or at least considering uh the jail fee and the EMS fee. And then lastly on the group here is Boise City. So Boise City uh they did have a a joint meeting between the Boise City Council and county commissioners earlier this year. Uh I want to say I want to say it was February but plus or minus but it's been a few weeks ago now. But they did have a joint hearing. I watched the video of it about an hour discussion. and they were actually asking some very high level um questions in a sense of just really the Boise City Council really asking some fundamental questions. So my sense is they haven't done a lot of spade work quite yet there at the end of that meeting there was an interest amongst or there was a stated interest amongst the party to continue to collaborate. I did talk um uh with a county representative late last week and nothing of substance has occurred yet.

Um but so with the case of Boise City, they're probably um have done have not made a lot of progress in the sense that um they haven't considered the CIPs in any you know formal way. they had not entered into agreements and really have not done a lot of the kind of the initial work that that you all have done already and some of the research and questions that you've already asked and we've answered to the best we can. So uh so I guess to recap real quick we have uh Eagle and Star have implemented and are collecting. We have Garden City and CUNA that are making progress but not to the finish line. And we have Boise City who is still kind of in the uh maybe not in the starting blocks but not far from the starting blocks either. So they're they have some work to do on their end. Uh with regard to the corner fee, I mentioned that a few times now. So that was in a topic of interest to the council. You recall the issue is in state law, you know, impact fees can be used for certain categories of expenses for capital projects for facilities and one of which is public safety facilities. And so clearly and there's some examples given in the definition of what that means and it talks about police and fire and um things of that nature. There's no reference to coroners or coroner facilities either. And so, um, when we had when you all had your discussion back in June of last year, we talked with the county that that's uncomfortable for us. This would be the first the first countywide impact fee program that I'm aware of in Idaho. So, when you're on the cutting edge, you like to be a little bit more cautious and be judicious. Uh, we weren't convinced that the language um covers the coroner's office. And even that was the smallest of the three fees provided. So, the county had made a commitment to uh pursue legislation this session in 2026 to seek clarification. And I was told, and I have every reason to to believe this is true and accurate, is that the county did um draft language, which is fairly simplistic or simple, um did approach at least one potential author and had some interest, but then that author declined to advance the legislation or introduce the legislation

and they were not able to find a a different author. So, or a legislator to carry that bill. So long story short is that that issue has not changed. There was no legislation introduced this past session. It's now concluded. Um and so the county has indicated they will take a look again in 2027. But they've also acknowledged that they for that reason they were not able to resolve our concern or question. And as I mentioned CUNA and perhaps others like Boise will have similar concerns. So my understanding is the county I've been told that the county is willing just to postpone that idea that fee altogether until that issue is resolved. they don't want to try to force the issue or uh if it hasn't if they haven't been able to get clarification. So, um I think as we have our conversation on a going forward basis, we're going to be focused on the jail fee and on the EMS fee and we will continue I think that would be the council's desire to continue to table the coroner fee until there's additional clarity around that topic. Uh the other uh legislation I did want to talk about that did pass out of this past session in 2026 and was signed by the governor recently is House Bill 766. And just by way of introduction to that, you may recall from your discussions in 2025. We all you all I shouldn't put myself in that you all as the decision makers talked about that you want to be supportive of the county and be a good partner and we do believe as as a city that growth ought to pay for growth. Um, but there was also there was sort of a lament that why can't we just do it's so convoluted. It's so difficult. Why can't we do this more like the ACD model where ACD adopts its own ordinance. It does all the heavy lifting. The city collect by contract. We collect the fee as a courtesy to ACD and we distribute the revenue, but we don't get into the weeds as we're required to do in this instance. We don't adopt ordinances. We don't adopt CIPs. We don't change our comprehensive plan. And you remember the answer to that was there's a constitutional um prohibition that essentially it's been interpreted this way by the courts is that county

ordinances have no force or effect within incorporated cities and vice versa. So city ordinances have no force or effect within the unincorporated county. ACD is not a city nor is it a county. It falls as a district and actually is not encumbered by that provision. the House, excuse me, the legislature passed House Bill 766 this year that sort of did the ACD model for fire districts, rural fire districts and for uh ambulance districts, which is the 80ount EMS district essentially, and says I'm I'm simplifying greatly here, but essentially sort of gives them the ACD wand that says you can do an ordinance and you can adopt your own. And so really uh so I did talk with the c my county colleagues about that and that you know that's how I read this legislation is you could do the a model and adopt your own ordinance. You could be done with it in one fell swoop and you're there and we would be happy to talk with you about an agreement to collect that fee at the building permit stage and you know collect an account and provide that revenue to you. The response I had from you know my counterparts at the county was they prefer to stay with the the the model we've been talking about I think for a couple reasons. One is I'm trying to do my best to speak to their issues. One is that they're they're well into this process and they have some cities that have already agreed to do it this way and are doing it this way. And so I think they're reluctant to um change course um sort of that they're halfway there, not quite there yet. But um so I think they're reluctant to revisit that issue and kind of do it a whole different way. It just they're far into the process with all the cities. And in in the case of Star and uh Eagle, they've actually adopted the fee and are collecting as we speak. Uh so there's that issue and then their other point is that regardless if they could adopt their own program or not via ordinance, there's no mechanism for collection. So they don't have a tool because they're not the ones issuing building permits just like ACT quite frankly. So they don't have a tool, a good tool for collection because they are not there

when the building permit is issued or other points in the development process where it makes sense to collect an impact fee. And so their point is that they would need agreements with all the cities regardless. And so you know if they stick with the model that they've chosen, it still gets us to the same spot and they're they've already made progress with many cities down that path. So now whether that resonates with you all you we can talk more about that later if you have questions and so forth or we can have the county chat with you more. I do think that uh just for ease of description that ACHD model is available now for the EMS district. Um so in terms of future steps, so just recap very quickly. We talked about that four fourpart implementation plan that we would have uh in agreements. We adopted a CIP. We amended our comp comprehensive plan. We're pausing till other cities catch up and we're more closer in time. Um and then we said we're going to pause. So that's where we're at today. And so I think for I know that Mayor Simpson unfortunately is not able to be here, but just some discussions that uh he and Billy and I had. I think you know the mayor is feeling he wants to be a good partner as you all do as well. Wants to be a good partner with the county and does not want to see this issue. language does does agree language does not and does agree that um uh you know growth should pay for itself and impact fees if they're thoughtful and they're well justified they make sense and they serve an important purpose as we grow as a community throughout the entire valley and certainly growth has countywide impacts. So I know the mayor is receptive to being a good partner and would like to see this move forward. Um but we may not be may or not may or may not be there. So, I think that the the thought was it'd be good to kind of update you all. Here's where we're at. This is this is a status report. How do you feel about this? And you know what what does our next steps look like? So, the two obvious ones are number one and number two. I'm sorry. You know what? I I skipped ahead, but let me let me finish that thought. I'll come back to my screen here in a second. So, the question is, you know, how do we go

about that? We can sort of stay the course. We can accelerate our process knowing that we we would finish a little earlier than others. Um, so give that some thought because I jumped ahead. Let me go back to the screen. uh but in terms of future steps uh that I talked about we have to negotiate new agreements draft all this takes time and effort so it's a matter of you know putting pen to paper number one secondly is reaching agreement between the city and the county and as things go back and forth and takes time so all this stuff takes you know it doesn't happen in a week it'll take weeks plural and perhaps longer so you know there's a process involved here but we need to negotiate new inter agency agreements that would um replace the existing interim agreements ments. These would be the more complete agreements that would talk about how everything works including you know collection and um uh protest and um you know if we're challenged identification, who takes the lead on litigation, things of that nature. So lots of lot more detail than what we have in our current interim agreements. We would need to draft the ordinances that are required for the jail fee and the EMS fee. we are required by state law to you know published and notice and publish and then hold conduct uh public hearings on those fees and um then we'd have to adopt those agreements and the necessary ordinances as well. So all that all that takes time of course and so that is even if we started tomorrow you know we're not going to be back in front of you for quite some time. So it takes a while to get that get all that together. So that's part of the equation as well in terms of our next steps and when do we take action. Um this is the slide I was talking about prematurely. So you know the I think the kind of fundamental choices are we can stick with the implementation plan that we have outlined which I you know the county has accepted this point and they understand that uh our rationale about you know basically the council was interested in a level playing field. We don't want to be uh you know one of the first out of the shootute and collect the fee and others ultimately decide not to participate. That puts us in an odd spot. It's an unlevel playing field for

our property owners and developers. So that's that's um something to consider. Um so I think the county understands that and they're prepared to say that's if we want to be sort of the last or one of the last to uh officially approved then they understand that. Uh I'm sure they'd love for us to move quicker but they understand our what we're trying to accomplish as well. Uh secondly, we can accelerate our process. Uh knowing that we have a couple other cities that have done so already, Star and Eagle in particular and others that are somewhere in between. Uh we can accelerate our process. It's all those steps I just talked about a moment ago that will take time and effort and so even if we started that sooner rather than later that'll take some time to complete. Uh but we can certainly do that. The two cautions I guess I would just you know just in for the interest of complete disclosure so you can make good informed decisions you know one is I guess in terms of pitfalls one is or potential pitfalls one is the unequal playing field. So to the extent we adopt um before others and others don't adopt timely then we have you know we're collecting fees others are not it's sort of that unlevel playing field situation

and that's a policy issue that you all can that's you know as decision makers as council members um you know that's within your purview to decide. The one that has some legal consequences I think um is uh I I would have some concerns to extent we adopt the the fees jail and EMS fees let's say just say magically today um and then one or more of the cities don't adopt ever and just decide not to participate and I won't name name we won't name a name here but just a city one or more of the bigger cities let's say decide not to participate um in my opinion that puts the validity of the the fee into question uh because the study was based upon looking at the county as totality that was the service area. The math was all done on the county as totality. All cities participate. To the extent one or two of the large cities don't participate in my opinion that if the analysis is no longer valid, you need to go back and redo the analysis, redo your calculations. The numbers will likely change. Um, and so we may find ourselves, you could find yourself, you know, we've been collecting a fee only to learn out learn later that someone decides not to participate and then we might have been collecting the wrong fee. Too too little, too much, I don't know. Uh, just puts us in a in a delicate spot. So, I don't want to overstate that point, but we just be should be mindful that I think the integrity of the fees that are being proposed rely upon all cities participating. If they don't, um, that analysis needs to be refreshed. So, um, and I'm sure there lots of other permutations and different variations of these ideas. Those are the two basic ones, but you may have some other ideas or questions that might prompt some additional ideas as well. So, the purpose really of tonight, as I mentioned, was one is just to um give you all a status report, get you up to speed on what's happening, what what we've accomplished, where are we at today, what our potential next steps, and then to the extent you're um comfortable or able to provide some direction going forward. Do we feel like we we in order to be good partners, we might want to accelerate our process, or do we prefer to stick with the four, you

know, to the the situation where we pause until others catch up? Um, so I'll I'll pause there. be happy to answer questions you may have and uh both Bill and I be happy to answer any of the potential legal issues that might um arise because of that last topic I talked about where some cities don't participate.

Thank you, Kurt. Uh before I ask rest of council for comments, I will confirm that I had those conversations with the mayor and with the coroner's office out of this scenario. I think he was interested in seeing what we could do moving forward, rearranging our priorities into these two versus all three and being prepared to move forward. I still think we'll let council discuss the validity of moving forward, not knowing if we're going to be collecting the right fees or what other cities are going to do. And with that, I'd open it up for comment from the rest of council. Mr. President, Councilman Taylor.

Um, hey, thank you, Kurt. Appreciate it. There's so many moving parts. It's good to get a refresher. Um, I have a question on that last issue you brought up. Is there a scenario where the impact fees uh would need to be remitted back to the developer that are collected if they're found to be done so in a way that it's call illegal or inappropriate or not withstanding a court uh ruling. Is that a scenario that is possible?

Thank you, Council President, Council Member Taylor. So, I don't want to overstate that concern, but I think the short answer is yes, that's a possibility to the extent we implement a fee and later one or more cities don't participate and we find out the fee was too much in that example that the fee was um should have been lower because the analysis changed because the service area was not the entire county but something smaller. I think there's there's room for a challenge that the we overcolcted and the fee was too high and you know some some amount of money would be due back to those that had paid the fee. Council President, just a quick followup. Um, just on that note, the liability to pay it back would be the county or would it be the city of Meridian?

Council President and Council Member Taylor. Um, so we had this I'm going to talk a little bit about identification in Idaho law that you might recall this discussion from June as well. So, we will structure the agreement that puts that burden on the county. Number one, the agreement between us and the county will make that a b a county burden and we will also require the county to identify us. There are some big impediments in Idaho law and the Idaho constitution about whether cities and counties can identify any third parties. So um we all have used this term of art. We often times we try to avoid identification provisions altogether because they're questionable. When we can't we try to insert those magic words to the extent allowed by law, Idaho law in particular. um which is sort of a shortand saying this may or may not be enforceable. So identification provisions are a little dicey uh just as in general in terms of how the courts look at them. Um there's some constitutional issues there that we won't need to get too far into the weeds, but certainly contractually we would make that the county obligation whether we can and we would also have an identification clause that would require them to defend us if we're sued. But to what extent if that came push came to shove, there's some questions here. Council President,

Council Member Cavar,

Council President Overton, uh Kurt, I I appreciate you're shephering this thing along. I think like sometimes we're trudging a wagon through peanut butter and sometimes I feel like we're making a lot of progress. Then we get these updates, so they're helpful. I'll begin. Conceptually, I'm I'm very supportive of this. I think it's the right direction for us to be moving, particularly with the corners piece being moved out. That was always a little bit of a hang-up for me. So, personally have no issues with starting to begin work on at least crafting language for review. Not maybe quite ready to say let's have a public hearing on this date and time, but I think to get language prepared and shared, but that's where I think some of my my questions lie is is the ordinance language that Eagle and Star adopted. Is it anticipated that's the same language that CUNA, Garden City, Meridian, and Boyisey would also be asked? Is it is it the same?

Thank you, council president and council member Kavner. Uh I think it's likely that because there's some certain requirements that are just statutory in nature that are required of any ordinance. So they'll likely have a lot of similarities, but they will not be identical. We'll craft our own ordinance um you know based upon our experience with our program and then we will you as we often do in our profession, we will um you look for good ideas elsewhere and borrow good ideas from other people. But uh I think each jurisdiction will likely have some very you know have their own ordinance that will vary to some extent but they'll include the same basic uh elements. Okay. Council president overton maybe a follow-up. Council cabin

Kurt if we have the ability to maybe be meridian specific language. Is there a scenario in play where we could enact the ordinance saying, "Hey, we will collect these impact fees on behalf of the county, but enforce it at a later point in time." Meaning, we would pass something again. Let's say we pass, but let's say we pass it tonight, but we wouldn't begin collecting or enforcing that for a 12-month period with a clause that if by that 12-month period arises, if not all municipalities have adopted it, then this comes back before the council and we could retract it. Is is there a scenario where we could do that,

council president and council member Cavar? Uh, yes, that's a that's a very creative and good thought. Yeah. So, we certainly can have, you know, in terms of implementation date, it can be delayed. So, it doesn't have to be at the time of adoption. could be 6 months, 12 months or some other trigger that that allows the ordinance to go into effect. So short answer is yes, you could have you have delayed implementation based upon a particular criteria.

Thank you, Council President. Just maybe to comment on that. I I I recognize nobody want be wants to always be the first one out the gate. Um but I think that we have an obligation as a as a city to lead on this and um but I think it's important it's imperative that all of us, not just all but maybe one, move forward. And so I want to make sure that again we're being equitable to all county residents particularly those who live in Meridian our future residents. So I think that would be just in terms of where I would be heading in terms of a recommendation is let's begin working on this schedule a public hearing at a later point in time but the language would need to be really clear regardless of when we pass. We would not begin enforcing until a date certain with the conclusion that all jurisdictions impacted have all signed on collectively.

Council President, Council Member Strader.

Thank you. Um, I was thinking along those lines as well. Um, I'm not sure about a delayed implementation date. I I was looking at it more like um like a condition precedent to effectiveness that all the other cities are prepared to um that they've all signed the same ordinance. Like I I think we could pass an ordinance that says it's like subject to the other jurisdictions doing the same. Then we'll start collecting the fees. The only scenario I'm really have heartburn about is a scenario where we begin collecting fees and then have to refund the fees and the messiness of that. I think um if you can negotiate some language that um is like a a condition precedent to effectiveness or a condition precedent to us collecting the fees or something that kind of protects us, make sure that the other cities have come alongside us. I think that's fine. Um I I agree. I think we do need to to get it going uh further. you're you're kind of on step three of five or whatever. So, I think continuing to do that is fine. I the only scenario I'm really worried about is the the one where we actually end up collecting some fees have to refund them and it gets messy. I also want to make sure that if there was partial adoption by like let's say four of the five cities but maybe one gigantic city that chose not to for whatever reason, I want to make sure that that invalidates like conclusively invalidates the study and then we all kind of come back and have a discussion.

Uh I think that's important. So, um I also will just say I I understand the reason that you know they've started a process. EMS doesn't want to have to do its own ordinance, but you know that the legislation did specifically provide for that. It is actually to me an easier mechanism and a more simple mechanism for the EMS districts to just go ahead and pass their own ordinance. So, I'm not saying that we shouldn't still do it. I just think it's worth having a conversation with them. Um it seems a little shortsighted on their part. Thanks, Mr. President, Councilman Woodlock.

Um Kurt, thanks for updating us on everything that's been done to date and and there's significant work that's already gone into this. I guess my question kind of follows up on um Council Member Cavender and Councilwoman Strader's comments. Um, but it's more in line with if we were to give you direction to start drafting or crafting an ordinance to have in your hip pocket, how flexible and nimble can we be as a city in terms of a timeline so that once others start to adopt um or we get critical mass, how quickly can we move through the noticing, public hearing, and adoption of an ordinance?

Council President and Council Member Whitlock. Um so I think if we had sort of on the shelf the the ordinance was prepared and ready to um ready for your consideration and then you know likewise um the agreements the successor agreements with the county and the MS district those were complete and just sort of waiting for you know others to um or for the time to be correct. I think we did it pretty quickly. So you um identified the the kind of the major time consideration which is uh it does require you know the noticing requirement and a public hearing. I'd have to go look at the or at the statute again for what the requirement is. Typically for fees, it's it's I don't for normal just kind of run the mill fees. It's two notices and two weeks apart. I think there's specific requirements for development impact fees. I don't have those on my fingertip, but it's not it's not months. We're talking about, you know, weeks type of thing or it's fairly short. Um and then you adopt your ordinance. You could wave second and third week readings if you choose. That's allowed. And then uh we have to publish and there's a if I recall correctly in the stat the development impact fee statute I think there's a a wait time before the fee comes into effect. So there's a little bit of a wait time between the ordinance and the time you begin collection. So I don't have a definitive answer for you but if we had those documents sitting on the shelf and you said let's proceed. I think you probably talk just in ballpark you know probably 60 days or so to get from start to finish. Thank you. Council President, Councilman Taylor.

Thank you. And I asked some questions, but share some thoughts. I agree with what Councilman Cavar said. I think we should be proactively pushing ahead and moving ahead, leaving ourselves with some flexibility with how we might want to handle it when we get to it. But I think we need to be working with the county to try to move it ahead. I think as other municipalities see us actively working on it towards a solution, it's going to be helping the whole process along. So my inclination is that we are moving actively towards implementing something.

That is fantastic direction. So I happy if you someone if you'd like to recap or you want to but I think that that's excellent direction. I think it was what the mayor was looking for as well. So appreciate the good discussion. I think that's we have what we need to proceed. But uh anything else council president? I was going to ask you to go back one slide Kurt.

Yeah. to the steps. So if what I'm hearing is correct as we're talking majority of council anyway is looking at going back and immediately starting on negotiating the new inter agency agreements based upon the new information drafting the proposed ordinance but at this point not holding any public hearings until we see what's going to happen. I mean we want to be fair to the city meridian. We want to be respectful to the county and try to do both things at once and that's what we've been trying to do this whole way along. That concur. I think we got the shake of the heads. Okay. Very good. Thank you for the direction. Appreciate it.

Thank you, Kurt. That'll complete our department reports for this evening. We'll move into public hearings. We'll now move to item 14, which is a public hearing for Ledges Business Park, H2026-00008. And we'll start off with staff comments.

Thank you, uh, Councilman, Council President and Council. Uh, so item number 14, applicant has failed to post that property correctly per the ordinance. So they are asking for continuence till to next Tuesday which is April 21st. Mr. President, Council Member Kavar, I make a motion. Is there anybody in the audience that was here tonight planning to testify? Excellent. Okay. Uh Mr. President, Council Member Kavanaaugh,

I would move that uh we continue item 14, application HS226-00008 uh to April 21st, 2026. Second. I have a motion and a second to move item H2026-00008 a continuence until April 21st of 2026. Madam clerk, roll call vote. Thank you. Councilman Overton Cavender. Hi Taylor. Hi. Strader Whitlock. Hi. Little Roberts. Hi Overton. Hi.

Item 14 is continued. Next up is item 15, a public hearing for center cal expansion subdivision SHP-2026-00003. We'll start with staff comments.

Thank you, Mr. President, members of the council. Next item on the agenda is the center cal expansion subdivision. This is a short pla request in front of you. It does not require a neighborhood meeting or posting of the site. Um the site consists of 14.23 acres of land currently zoned CG and is located near the northeast corner of Eagle Road and East Fairview Avenue. Um history on this property. Um the current configuration that you see before you on the screen was approved with a property boundary adjustment in 2022. Um but when it originally applated in 2020 in 2012 I believe it was lot two portion of lot two block two of the center subdivision. If you driven down Eagle Road recently you've noticed probably three buildings being constructed in the area. Um those three buildings sit on these lots. The majority of these lots anyways. Uh the existing landscaping along Eagle Road and Fairview Avenue will remain protected during the site and those do meet current UDC standards. So no requirements for that. As part of the conditions of approval, staff has recommended that the applicant grant reciprocal cross access to all the properties for shared parking, access to utility easements, and of course shared a access to shared drive aisles to the adjacent roadways as well. uh had a chance to talk with the applicant before the meeting this evening and they are in agreement with all conditions of approval. Uh staff is recommending approval and I'll stand for any questions you may have. Council, any questions for staff? No questions for staff. Thank you, Bill. Would the applicant like to come forward?

You state your name and address for the record in 15 minutes. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. President, members of the council, my name is Jason Densmer with the Land Group. Our address is 462 East Shore Drive in Eagle. Um, thank you for the 15 minutes. I'm sure I will not need all of that time. Um, we've been working with staff over the past months uh as they've reviewed this short plat for Center Cal expansion subdivision. We're very thankful for their hard work and are in agreement with all the conclusions in their staff report. Um as you know the village at Meridian um is undergoing expansion currently and so I think the name of the subdivision being center cal expansion is a little bit appropriate. Uh this is a reubdivision of one of the lots of the original center subdivision from 2012. The largest new lot um will be will house the three buildings that are currently under construction. the three other lots that are being created um provide pads for future buildings that are yet to come within the village. Um and as Bill said, he kind of stole my thunder, but uh we are in agreement with the staff report and all the conclusions and recommended conditions. Um although I'm speaking on behalf of SenCal tonight, Juan Mononttoya with Senator Cal is actually here and so I'd like to hand off to him and then when he's done speaking if you have any questions for either of us will be happy to come back and answer them for you.

You just state your name and address for the record, please.

Yeah, good evening. Uh my name is Juan Mononttoya and my address is 4500 Via Marina Marina del Rey. Uh I flew out here just for this meeting. I just want to honestly thank the Meridian community and all of you at large uh for your continued partnership on the village. I'm coming here on behalf of our CEO John Paul Wordy. He's he was kind of here in 2012 when the village was negotiated uh with maybe some of you who are still here. So we just want to thank you all for your continued partnership. We're really really excited about what's happening. the growth uh of the village wouldn't be happening if this wasn't a fantastic place to live. Tenants in our business are everything and they see that and that's why they want to be at the center. So, um I'm here to answer any questions you might have in relation to the plat, but this is really driven by kind of tenant request and the demand we're getting there. So, we need to subdivide the parcels to create different tax parcels so we can build them appropriately. So, that's it. Thank you all. Appreciate it. Thanks. Thank you.

If you have any questions, not we can just hand off and let you deliberate. Council, any questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you very much, Madam Clerk. Do we have anybody signed up for this? Thank you, Council President. No one has signed up. Is there anyone in the room who wishes to make a comment on this application or is there anybody online that would like to speak? You can use a raise your hand feature. Seeing none, would the applicant like to close? He waves that right. Council, what's your action this evening? Council President, Council Member Strader,

I'm happy to make a motion on it. I view this as continued success at um an important development that we've already approved. Uh so with that, I move that we close public hearing on this item. Second, we have a motion and a second to close public hearing. All in favor say I. I. Nays. All eyes. Public meeting is closed. Okay. After con uh Mr. President. Council member Straer. Okay. Happy to make a motion. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file number SHP2026-00003 as presented in the staff report for today's hearing date.

Second. We have a motion and a second to approve SHP 2026-003. Madame Clerk, can you call roll? Thank you, Council President Cavaner. Hi. Taylor, hi. Strader, I Whitlock. Hi. Little Roberts. Hi. Overton I.

Item 15 is approved. Thank you. Next up tonight's agenda is item 16. It's public hearing for North Marian Fields H2026-00003. We'll start this off with staff comments. Good evening, council president and council. Next item on the agenda is the annexation for North Meridian Fields. So the applicant requests annexation of 71.45 acres of land with the R8 zoning in the CN zone R8 and CN zoning districts. The R8 zone consists of 47.8 acres and the CN zone consists of 23.6. Uh the site is generally located at the southwest corner of State Highway 16 and Chinden Boulevard. As shown on the screen, the existing zoning is RU and Ada County and the Flume designation is mixeduse interchange and medium density residential. So, I want to start off by uh explaining a little bit. The community development uh and public works directors made a determination for the subject development allowing for annexation to move forward without sewer service being readily available. As you all are probably aware, uh currently the city is installing a sewer trunk line in McMillan Road that will ultimately serve the site um from Star Road just to the west. So the property is located within the field sub area plan and is intended to follow the modern rural design theme include co cohesive architecture, landscaping, lighting, open space, pathways and other high quality design elements. The applicant has submitted a conceptual plan proposing single family detach residence on the southern twothirds of the site and a commercial development on the northern one-third. At this time the detailed development plans have not been provided. However, the applicant provided a road layout, open space layout for the larger development, and this provides some highle information into the integration of the residential and commercial uses. In the applicant's narrative, they

propose to exclude the following uses, including fuel fuel sales facilities, convenience stores, storage facilities, and vehicle washing facilities. Uh the mixeduse interchange designation is intended for low traffic generating us uses and as a result staff and the commission recommended further restricting uh the permitted uses by prohibiting tier 2 and tier three drive-through establishments vertically integrated residential uses and retail stores exceeding 10,000 square feet. And the primary reason behind uh the square footage cap on retail stores is to avoid big box retailers um that would exceed the traffic count that mixeduse interchange is really envisioning. And at this time we don't really have a square footages to base traffic on um which I'll get into a little bit further in my uh presentation. This is the building elevations and kind of conceptual plan that they had for the commercial and the residential portion. Right. So, the applicant has depicted the primary access points for the development coming off the future extension of North Hawaii Storm Avenue, a collector roadway, which is located here on the site and will service the future Cole Valley Christian School to the south as well, and Hawaii High School. Um, this extension will lead to a signalized intersection with Chinden Boulevard. And in addition to this, the applicant is proposing to construct two east west collectors that would connect North Ursat's Place with North Hawaii Storm Avenue. And here's the first collector and the second collector would be down here. Many of the details that would typically be required with an annexation have not been provided, which is why the commission uh and staff is requiring a development agreement modification prior to any future applications or development uh being submitted. The future DA mod will be required to provide in-depth details from the field sub area plan, comprehensive plan, and

UDC as well as updating the concept plan and any elevations at that time. Um the staff has had conversations with the applicant before tonight's hearing and they will have some proposed changes to that to development agreement provisions uh for you guys to consider in their application, but these are the ones that commission has recommended to you for tonight. Um, so at the at the planning and zoning commission hearing, Darcy Hart testified with concerns regarding the lack of detail provided with the application, no traffic impact study, density potentially being too high, and design not adhering to the field sub area plan. Uh, however, the commission is recommending approval with a development agreement, and we have not received any written testimony since the PNZ hearing, and I'll stand for any questions that you guys have.

Council, any questions for staff? No questions for President Overton. Council member Straight. Thank you. Um, a couple questions. So, um, I see the DA provision, but outside of the DA provision about the provision of sewer services, generally, if we annex a property into the city, does that create an obligation for the city to provide services? and help me understand how that would play out if there was a delay.

President uh Council President Overton, Council Administrator. Yes. So, you're correct. Typically, when we annex a property, it does require an obligation to serve. um which is why I received a director's determination to essentially move forward with the annexation for this subject development because we are putting the infrastructure in McMillan Road which will be brought up star and will serve this project eventually. You're right in the fact that if I didn't have that director determination, I probably would not be recommending approval of that tonight. But that is the direction that um we've received. Um and this is just kind of show you the conceptual. This is Star Road. This is where the sewer will eventually lead to this site. Um, that is the future plan. I think something to highlight on this is that there are other properties in the area that are would be contiguous if this property was annexed that are also looking to annex that would bring services to this property. Um, so there is some annexation going on in the event that or for future plans that we know that sewer is going to be there. And like I said, that director's determination is really the the primary driver here for for staff's support on the project um and you know moving forward with the annexation with services potentially correct not being available and could be delayed um for a future time. and I the applicant does know that we have had conversations with them and they would still like to proceed which is why we're here tonight.

Couple followups. Council member Strider.

Thank you. Um so I I guess I would be curious as to a status update on where we're at with the sewer. Like where where have we gotten to on this map? How close is it? Um what is the time frame? So I guess that's one follow-up question. And then my other follow-up question is just much more general than that, which is um this is a huge development. It's at the corner of a critical infrastructure point with the extension of Highway 16. There's no traffic impact study and I'm looking at the most bubbly of bubble plans that I've seen. And this is a a real lack of detail. As a control freak, I hate all of that. So, how how typical is this size of development to come with this kind of a concept plan and a lack of a traffic impact study or detailed plans even on what the commercial use would be? Help me understand the advantages and pitfalls of where we're at with that.

Council President Overton, I apologize. Uh, Councilwoman Strader. Uh so to start off with your first question as far as um an update on the sewer. Uh the last time I talked with our public works department on it. Um you know they we're still on schedule for the finish of December. I I don't Warren's here. Perfect. I'll have Warren come up and speak to that a little bit more. That was a couple months ago. So things could have changed as far as exactly where we are. Thanks Warren. So, thank you council uh councilwoman Strader. Uh the the project is under construction. We are putting in the trunk sewer line and the pressure sewer line in McMillan Road between Kenned and Star. It's supposed to be the intersection of Star in June. And then they will continue with the pressure sewer line that'll go all the way to the Oaks Lift station on McMillan and basically uh uh McDermott and that will be completed around December, maybe slightly after the first of the year, January, December, January of this year. The piece that's going up Star Road would is anticipated to be built by development at this point. Although there has been some discussion about whether to add that to the 10-year plan for the public works department, but we haven't received direction to do that yet. So,

Council Member Strader,

thank you. So, if I'm understanding, we we have a plan to get to McMillan and Star Road. And the the further plan though to actually make it up to where this development is isn't necessarily something that the city is intending on putting in as a piece of infrastructure. That's something that depends on private development. And and I guess what maybe just to talk out loud like what's making me nervous? This just feels very like leaprog to me. Um, doesn't it seem logical that we would start approving developments around where the sewer trunk has been extended to and then approve, you know, contiguous developments along the sewer line? I've never seen this kind of a scenario. And I guess have you or how do you feel about the risks and and benefits of approving something like this without the uh private developments in between here and there being approved first? I think there's a excuse me uh members of the council council president um I think there's a few things to keep in mind. So one um water for this particular project will probably first come through the Cole Valley Christian uh extension and so it's going to have water when the Cole Valley Christian school comes in. We do there is a possibility that the s city will complete a project or do a project to install a portion of the of the sewer line going upstar road. We know there's a lot of interest with other developers who own property along there if that was to occur or when that occurs there is other growth that's going to occur. And to answer your question, have we ever seen that before? The answer is yes. We annexed 1,400 acres in South Meridian or I think it was close to that. Maybe it was 11,200 acres in South Meridian uh

under a very similar scenario where we annexed thousands of acres of property put them in kind of a holding zone and we've grown into that and that's kind of what the concept is here essentially for this. I think that's why the uh the developer is willing and understands the risk, understands that the the services won't be there initially, but is willing to work towards the growth and orderly development of that entire area. You'll probably hear from them though. Council member Little Roberts,

Council President, um Warren, thank you for being here. And since you and I have had discussions regarding another several parcels, you'll probably understand why this is making me very concerned because we've got a parcel that's waiting to build to get their services that you and I sat down and looked at the map and everything and this is feeling very similar to me. Can you make me feel like it's not the same because that has been not a good situation. Yeah, I think that the difference here is the the individuals who um agreed to the annexation initially eventually sold the property and maybe there was an anticipation or at least a belief that things were going to happen faster than than what they have out there, but the city was not in control of that. So in fact we we tried to make it very clear that they were they were beholding to other entities to bring that sewer to them. So I although it's possible that this could go the same way right now it wouldn't because the owner of the property is also the developer of the property.

Followup. So coal you said coal valleys how they're going to get water. I've heard through the grapevine that Cole is considering either not building it all or delaying it. That could be rumor, but if

Well, they are they know that they have to build this the the gravity sewer line from the intersection of Star Road and McMillan down McMillan Road to the school. They were going to build it. In fact, the entertain building at the same time we're doing the pressure sewer line, but their bids came in higher than they had anticipated. Welcome to our world these days. Um, and so they had to delay that until they could uh earn or raise some more funds. My understanding that that's the process that they're in right now. They're in the process of raising additional money so that they can go ahead and complete the project. But I'm certainly not an agent for Co Valley Christian, so that's just what I have heard. Any other questions for staff? Thank you, Warren.

The applicant would like to come forward. Say your name and address for the record. You have 15 minutes.

Good evening, council president and council members. My name is Emily Mueller, 839 South Bridgeway Place. I represent uh Mark Bottles and 5B Holdings. And I just want to thank staff for their time um in reviewing this project and coordinating on it. As staff mentioned, we've talked with them many times and I appreciate that. Um as mentioned, this is an annexation and zoning with a development agreement request. Tonight, I'll kind of go quickly through some of these things because you already got the ground uh groundwork and I want to address some of your questions and concerns. Um so, quickly again, the property is approximately 70 acres. Um the current applications annexation and zoning with a development agreement. Future applications will include a preliminary plat will include a development agreement modification and any cups that um are deemed desirable or necessary at the time. So there will be many future applications on this property and for this project as staff mentioned the future land use map designates this area for mixeduse interchange along Chindon Boulevard and medium density residential. Currently there is a storage site that has been constructed on Chinden. So that this the larger picture is looking at the boundary um the southern boundary of that storage site and that is what has currently been developed out here. Um we are excited to bring the our property into the city of Meridian and see it developed within the city of Meridian's specific area plan and framework for this area. So again here is the vicinity map. We have Cole Valley directly to the south as discussed. The city of Star has been annexed um just to the north side of Chinden and um the city of Meridian is

um growing into this area into this specific area plan area as um as the sewer is brought out. As discussed, we are requesting 23.6 acres of commercial along Chinden and 47.81 81 acres of R8 medium density residential um along as as you move south um that will integrate in with the school. As staff mentioned, we have provided design guidelines for the residential community um in and they are consistent with the field sub area plan. Um the de the conceptual elevation show single family detached homes single and twotory um which will reflect a modern farmhouse style gable roof forms board and batten accents neutral color patterns. We have also provided a conceptual internal pathways and street network to reduce reliance on arterials and to plan for the connection with the school to the south and future development. This promotes walkability internal trip cap in internal trip capture between the school residential and commercial. We agree and and maybe I'll just stick with this for a moment because this is where I want to address um Councilwoman Strader's concerns, Councilwoman Little Robert's concerns. Um and so Councilman Stra Councilwoman Strader asked, you know, what are the pitfalls of this? And I'm here to say that there I do not believe there there are any pitfalls. Um we will be back before you for a development agreement modification for the commercial um where you will have discretion to approve a conceptual lot layout where we will closely follow the field sub area plan and we are not ready to develop that commercial yet. Really

none of this is ready tomorrow to be developed. Um and to the second question about the pitfalls in the sewer. Um the the development agreement states that we will not be able to develop until until sewer is ready. We understand that. Um and we have been in contact with Cole Valley School. Um Mr. Bottles um has been in close contact with them. They do plan on developing. they are continuing to have to raise more money um for their sewer extension. But we understand the timing of this and the reason for an annexation now is it it's good planning. It's good public planning and good private planning. It helps is just the first step of multiple steps where we will be here again but it's the first step in imple implementing the city's comprehensive plan. it um materializes and just puts a second layer of skin on it which creates a more stable environment for investing for when we do do our traffic impact studies. We already we know that the city sees this as residential consistent with its comprehensive plan. So when we pay for those traffic impact studies and when we follow those it it it creates um a little more safety in the investment in this area down the road. Um so I would say that there are no pitfalls in annexing um this right now. Um it is it is our commitment uh to the city that we see this developed within the city's framework within the very carefully planned out specific area plan. And in fact um there is a risk to the 5B holdings group in annexing um before city or before services are available. um sewer is available in STAR right now. Um so so it it is a risk to say we won't develop in the county, we won't do that and we will wait until um sewer gets

brought closer or when we invest in bringing it closer. Um so with that, we agree with all of staff's conditions of approval. We um were a part of the future or excuse me, the specific area plan when it was adopted many years ago. Um, we understand staff's desire for this to be a low lower traffic impact area. We are voluntarily agreeing with those conditions. Um, and so we we agree with all of that. Um, as staff mentioned, we would like to amend condition the the final condition AF, which as written would require us to have a development agreement modification and preliminary plot application for both the commercial and the residential development. We believe that with the submitt of the building elevations, fencing, pathways, conceptual roadways that a development agreement, modification won't be necessary for the residential portion. We will still come through for a preliminary plat, have landscaping plans approved, have design review, review um the conceptual elevations that we've provided, and any veering or any offset of those um in any substantial form would would require development agreement modification. So with what we have submitted though I we do not believe a development agreement modification is going to be necessary for the residential portion. We do agree and acknowledge to have a development agreement modification um to put the next layer of skin on this the next um conceptual layout plan for the commercial. Um and we'll be back here um to discuss that when when it's time and when we know exactly what uses will be put in here. So um we do agree with that. Um so again our recommended um changes to this conditional of approval would just to state that prior to any development of the property within the CN zone, the owner of the CN zoned

property shall submit a DA modification to provide that concept plan consistent with the design elements in the field sub area plan comprehensive plan and udc. So with that um we believe that this is a great project integrated um under the guidance of the specific area plan um and would request your approval vote of approval um with the condition as amended. So with that I will stand for any questions. Council any questions for the applicant? Council President Overton. Council member Straer.

Yeah. Um, no, I I appreciate um appreciate the presentation and you uh starting to address my concerns. I I guess the scenario I'd be concerned about I I feel like annexation is the point at which the city has the most discretion to approve or deny um a property coming into the city. And so we can determine if it's in our best interest. If we've um already uh approved an annexation, then that discretion goes away. And so my concern would be um you know we've approved basically just the concept that you'll put residential on twothirds of your property and we've not seen a traffic impact study any details. U you have some examples of elevations but it just it feels like a really low level of control where we're a city council that often cares about whether kids have a playground if there are sidewalks. Um I can think of a number of items. So, just help me get comfortable with your request to to only have to come back to modify the development agreement for the Cien zone. Um, that just feels really tough to me. Thanks,

Council President and um, Council Administrator. Thank you. Yes. um the residential development um you know I think the you're right that the discre any kind of disc you know really discretionary nature out of the residential development would be removed so at that point we rely on your very wellcraftrafted code to to provide the type of amenities the open space requirements all of those things um that make a complete neighborhood um And you know, looking at um I I think the the main thing that we think can give you comfort is is again the elevations. You're not going to get I I know that this happened elsewhere. You're not going to get a threestory you're not going to get a threestory building. Um you're going to you're going to get what we have shown you. And if we want anything else, anything different than what we have presented tonight. Um and or if you want to see anything else and make that a part of a we would I guess what we would rather have is is um maybe more specific conditions um if you wanted there to be a um specific type of amenity in the in the uh subdivision. But um so all that all that to say is we have sh I think we have shown what the subdivision will look like. Um and again um we and then your discretion remains entirely with um remains with any of the commercial development.

Council President um council member Straer

is that really true though? I because I I want to give an example. So my understanding is there's been a change in state law and now like for example multif family is is potentially allowed as of right in any commercial zone for example. So, if I approved this annexation today, could I see, for example, a six-story multif family building in the commercial part of your um development, council president, um and council administrator, any development, whether it's permitted, whether we want to put in a library, anything will need to come through for a development agreement modification um with a concept plan. And that is up to your discretion. is a development agreement modification is the city council's discretion. So even though something is and that's my understanding. Um you can ask um staff if they agree with that. Um but that would be my answer is that anything even if it's principally permitted even it's even if it's the most advantageous desired use out here like again a library um would need a development agreement modification and would need your approval in the future.

Thank you. Council member Cavender Emily. Well, thanks for the presentation. I and I I read and watched the planning and zoning hearing a couple of times. I know you guys have been working really really hard on this project and I also want to begin because I've got a lot of questions,

but I want to begin like I have a lot of confidence that you and your organization could execute on on an approval. So my concern is about there, but as you're well aware, council feels maybe they've been bit a couple of times and we're much more particular about what an annexation is and and where we grant it. So I'm going to ask a real high level question just to gain some insight from where you guys are coming from on this and then they may dive into some additional questions. What's the rush? Council um President Overton, Councilman Cavner, what I as I said earlier, it isn't a rush. This is the first step in a long process. So, as I mentioned, it's good public and private planning. It helps it helps with the um knowing where infrastructure is going to come. Um it helps all of the budgets and and everything to see into the future. And it helps as a land owner and representing a land owner. It creates um some shared agreement and some level of confidence. It creates one more level of confidence, one more step, one more level of confidence that um this is how the city intends for this area to develop. So when we work with um developers, when we work with commercial developers um particularly your residential developers, they can start um seeing this site develop um like I I mentioned um investing investing in the area knowing that it's already annexed into the city and yes, you have more hoops to jump through. We've got a lot more applications, but it's the next step. It's it's a it's a level of comfort knowing that hey, we've seen your comprehensive plan. We agree with your comprehensive plan and it helps that development process move forward.

Council President Overton, Councilman Cavvern,

Emily, you said I wrote it down that you know this you view this as as good planning and I'm just going to share I don't see it that way and I kind of want to lay out why and then maybe you can give me some again as an expert maybe where my line of thinking has is not correct. So again, what I'm seeing is let's just start begin with the sewer, which is a which is a really really big deal. Um, in addition to you, if this development would be approved, it likely would incentivize additional annexation requests that would come before us that may ask us to accelerate a timeline that I'm going to be really uncomfortable with because you've got schools that in that area that are already over capacity with a significant amount of students to come in that area. I don't look at approving an annexation that puts students in an over capacity school. Good planning. It's also going to put vehicles on roads that the highway district has said star road is rated F. That that's a big struggle for me to overcome. And McMillan the hits just keep coming is I think rated better than E which is also not great. And so what I see is huge challenges that I I hear from from my boss, kids in the classroom, cars on the roads are some of their biggest frustrations in an area that is going to be incredible one day. And I'm struggling to understand what the community benefit is for that good planning to approve an annexation tonight without the necessary infrastructure to support our existing neighbors that are in that area before we invite more um development into that part of Meridian. So, help me understand where I'm wrong.

Yeah.

And I really mean that because I I am this this one is a is a I don't think I just being very fr I don't think I've been more opposed to an annexation in a number of years. Not because I don't think this is going to be great. It's because it's it should it's not the right time for something like this. So, educate me. Help me see from your guys' perspective. President Overton. Um, uh, Councilman Kavanaaugh, I'm not I would never call you wrong, but here is genuinely how I believe it and and how I see it. Um, an annexation at this point before a preliminary plat gives all of those the school district um, opportunity to see what is coming down the road. We will not be um, we will not be developing homes in the next year, in the next two years, probably far out from there. Um so it gives it it gives the it gives us a a further sight of vision. It it extends the horizon of what the school district can plan for and see and understand. So I think this is you know in in in some jurisdictions um right now is what they are doing is um or what they have proposed in some places is once if schools are at capacity they put a pause on when the developer can start developing for three years. So it gives the school district a head start. It gives them a head start to see when development will actually come down the road. So this is actually in my view is actually perfect planning and it's in fact some of what other jurisdictions are doing. It it extends that horizon and lets them plan even further into the future.

Council President Overton, maybe just one more comment.

Council, maybe two comments. One, you are welcome to tell me I'm wrong anytime. I really value a partnership and it's with everybody that's here. You wouldn't be the first to tell me that I'm wrong. Second, you you touched on something that I I want to make sure that you're comfortable with, which is you you're saying condition us through all the conditions you want. And I I will tell you as a council that has tried very hard to not be a heavy-handed council to design a neighborhood to say this must be here, that must be here, that is that is a slippery slope. And and if that is truly what you ask for, I think we can have a very large conversation. But I think that at least the level of conditioning that would need to come from me to satisfy an annexation approval may not be those types of conditions that you're going to be looking for. So I just I I just urge some caution about inviting that. And I I would urge caution from my colleagues on that. I don't think that that's how Meridian tends to function. We try to respond to what development community wants to bring to us with what meets the best interest of our community. So just just I think some food for thought to to consider is I I'm happy to do that, but I I I worry that that would be a complex and nonbeneficial process for you, your client, and the council.

Councilman or President, thank you. Thank you, uh, Councilman Governor. And yes, I I agree that that we don't want to design a full project by conditions. That that makes no sense. Um, so I agree with you completely. Uh, my point more narrowed is if there is a specific element um that you um or a council member would like to have a conversation about, I'm hap we're happy to um discuss that. But as you mentioned, if if if yours is multiple pages, then that's not an appropriate way to design a a project.

Maybe council member Overton, just maybe a question then. Would would you and your client accept a condition that we wouldn't issue a certificate of occupancy to any building until 2035? Councilman uh president, excuse me, Overton. Um Councilman Cavender. Um probably not. I would need to ask my client. Um 8 years uh nine years out. That's that's a long way away. Um so um probably not would be my answer. I I figured as much, but I just I think that's just a starting point of where I'm thinking about in terms of the long-term impact of this development in that part of Meridian.

Yeah. Thank you, Councilman Overton. Councilman Taylor,

this might be a question for staff, too, but is this property in the Meridian area of impact or is it where does it fall right now? And I don't Emily, I'm not sure if that's a question for you or maybe I'm looking at Nick to answer that question. Council President, council uh Councilman Taylor, that is correct. So it is in the field sub area plan. It does fall in our area of impact area of impact actually border is Chinden north side of Chindon to Star Road. So this property would be essentially contiguous to Star Road or to the city of Star um once this property is annexed up here. Uh but yes, it is in our area of impact. It is contiguous to the Cole Valley Christian School to the south. Um and yes it is in the field sub area plan which is the northwestern most portion of our city and really the where our area of impact meets star and Nampa. So that is correct.

Councilman Overton just to follow up in your presentation you talked about um access to sewer from city of Star that they had sewer there. Did I'm just curious have you had conversations about getting access to sewer from Star? Has that been part of the discussion before that you've had? I'm just kind of curious why you would bring that up in the sort of your presentation,

President Overton. Um, Councilman Taylor, no, we have not discussed that with Star. Um, we also manage property in directly north of this in the city of Star, which is why we know that that sewer is there. Um, and the Star Sewer and Water District operates separately from Star. Um, so we just we know that and I I guess I just bring it up as to to say that um it's um it's a risk for us at some point to develop not knowing when sewer is going to be available. Um to the counterpoint of what was discussed earlier with um Mr. Warren of um Mr. Stewart of waiting of we know we know that we're going to have to wait um and we won't be forcing the city's hand on that.

Councilman Overton Council.

Um yeah and I I think I'm I'm leaning a little bit towards what Councilman um Tamar shared and even the concerns that Councilwoman Strader shared about the lack of detail. I'm not I'm probably not as insistent on wanting to see a high level of detail. I know we've looked at applications before where they were kind of they were big. They were kind of bubble concepts with the idea of coming back to bring in more clarity. And I I see this as sort of saying here's sort of how it's going to take shape. But I do agree it's hard to um I'm actually a little bothered by the idea of not coming back with a development agreement for the residential. like it just seems trust but verify is what you're asking of us and I'm not sure I'm there but I I'm not opposed to the idea of of approving of concepts but it seems so in some ways hypothetical about what you're suggesting to us like it it could take a lot of different turns especially because we know the likelihood of this of dirt moving and things being built is is down the road a little ways right you got to get the infrastructure there and so we're a little ways away from that how do market conditions change. Um, what kind of interest is there? So, I'm still looking to for a little bit more of a compelling argument as to why it does make sense to approve this annexation with such a low level of clarity about plans. I'm not opposed to it because I have voted to approve other sort of bubble concept plans for in the city. Um, but can you and I I don't think it's a perfect way to plan. And I mean, we have our future land use map that gives people a sense of what we're looking for. And I see this as sort of halfway between future land use map and a more wellthoughtout u proposal. So I see what you're arguing in terms of this helps us get greater clarity, but it doesn't give us the kind of clarity that I'm not I'm not sure if council's quite there. I don't think I'm

quite there yet, but I maybe I could be. I'm still open to some more thought and input and testimony and discussion, but if you could help me revisit quickly, and this will be my last question, why would we not want you to come back uh with a development agreement on the residential? I I know you you talked about it. I wasn't clicking in my head. I don't understand why why that is a is not a good idea. I don't want to give a bunch of conditions today. I think you should come back when you have more clarity of of thought about that. So, help me understand why you made that argument.

President Overton and Councilman Taylor, the argument is that we have provided enough information for you to know what that development will look like, the types of homes, the pathways, um the those sorts of things. And then on top of that, we will comply with an any and all code. And and and maybe I'll also have um staff speak to this because this is a condition that we've discussed a lot. Um, and um, I don't want to put words in staff's mouth, so maybe I'll have you say what we talked about on the phone the other day, and I know your condition has stayed the same, but there are other opportunities for you to continue to review this, for staff to review um, the preliminary plat, and to make sure that there are other avenues to make sure that this complies, the the verification um as you mentioned. So I don't know Nick if you're if if there are other opportunities that you can speak to to what you would be reviewing in the future.

Mr. President, member of the members of the council, I want to help give you some clarity tonight as well. I think there's some things that we should help clear up for you tonight. I think it's important. So a couple things right now. Um Nick and I continually meet with applicants waiting for the sewer to get done. So, I was a very appreciative that Warren was here this evening giving you a timeline because they're waiting for that piece to get done and they will have the ability to extend water and sewer to this area. Part two of tonight's discussion and and I want to thank the applicant for being here. They were also part of the fields area sub area plan. They were they they worked in partnership with us in developing in that plan and some of the concepts and goals in that plan speak to the city growing from the east to the west. That was our priority because we did not want to leaprog. We didn't we knew that the Canada lift station was happening further to the west, but we didn't want we wanted to make sure we didn't start there and then grow to the east. We want to make sure that we start from the east and grow west. And as part of that plan, it says that the city here's some of the recommended items that are actually highlighted in the plan for you. And I'm going to read them word for word for you. So it says favor development that proceeds east to west in approvals and entitlement decisions. The timing for that 1 to 3 years. So the plan's been adopted not very long. Here we are a couple years later talking with you. We have pending applications that we're processing currently for that area that will open up additional infrastructure expansion. So just want to share that with you. And then part two of that recommended action was that we would coordinate with developer groups to insist in the creation of community infrastructure district or alternatively a local infrastructure district. So we've been talking with developers, they've been talking with public works, they've been talking with our community development director on coming up with a plan to facilitate the expansion of those that infrastructure sooner rather than later. So, as we're talking about

this this development tonight, I agree it's the R8 looks to me it looks far enough along what we would envision. The roads are there, open space. We don't have lot sizes, but we can visualize what that could look like. That's why typically when we don't have all the information for the commercial, we have the applicant. Our our typical process is come back with a plan when you're ready. Now, the council, you still have the ability to say staff, you're wrong. We don't think the R8 is far enough. come back with the DA for all of it. But again, um that is your prerogative for this evening. But for tonight, I think we're doing exactly what the plan wants us to do. We're trying to get this annexed. We're working with other developers. We're having those conversations to to meet kind of these recommended actions that you set in policy for us to do. And though it seems far off in the distance, it's going quicker and going to happen a lot faster than we all realize. And so I just want to at least give you that context as you deliberate on this application tonight. We are doing what's expected. The unique piece about this is the sewer for this piece of property is actually coming from the west to the east even though the plan tells us to go east to west. But I know uh Emily's group has been talking with that developer. Um so again I those those are ongoing discussions that we need to have and we will continue to work with our public works department to come up with a solution. Council President Overton, uh, Council, just wanted to add a little more clarification, um, as well, be a little more blunt, I think, to some of the comments from Councilman Gavin about traffic and schools. There's been discussions with properties to the west who are um, interested in developing sooner than than this parcel is interested and have had discussions with Star Water and Sewer District and the county and have had pre-applications with the county proposing to go to the county. So, a little bit to the comments and the concerns that I heard expressed, this council body may not have an option to have input if that were to happen.

And so, to some degree, that's another important factor in the proper policy, planning, long-term um outlook for the city as we continue to look at what's best for the city and the community as well as our development partners. And so, I want to thank staff and thank the applicant as well for having that foresight to some degree. Um, but that is a risk that's out there that I think is important to put on the record um that we've experienced and heard as well and happy to answer any additional questions.

Staff, any additional questions?

Emily, thank you. Thank you so much, Madam Clerk. Do we have anybody signed up on this hearing? Thank you, Council President. I have Josh Leonard.

Welcome, Josh. If you can state your name and address for the record, please.

Thank you very much, Council President. Uh, council members, Josh Leonard of the Clark Wle Law Firm, uh, 251 East Front Street, Sweet 310 in Boisee. Uh, as you probably know, our law firm as a practice doesn't oppose applications, and that's not what I'm here for tonight. Uh, I'm I'm here to ask for additional information uh from this applicant. Uh, I'm going to echo a little bit. I'm going to jump off my prepared remarks and and and echo a little bit about what council members Strader, Cavar, and and Little Roberts have said tonight. Um, this this is a large area. This is a very I like the term bubbly or bubble plan that that you used uh without a lot of detail. Uh in one instance in the staff report uh table four I'd draw your attention to that. It has I believe nine areas of information to be provided and in six of them it says to be determined with a future development agreement modification and preliminary plat. The only information that's provided there is the size of the acreage and the fi the physical features that include the west tap lateral. Um the best question that was asked tonight in my opinion was what's the rush? Uh it it feels a little bit rushed. It feels like I don't know exactly as a as a member of the the community what uh what is planned for this area and I I'd like to know a little bit more. I also am concerned about the fact that there is a a gap in that's dep development dependent for sewer. Uh even though conversations have been um been going on, that type of a gap often leads to concerns and and and problems of the type that council uh council member Little Roberts mentioned. Um again, I uh as I stated at the outset, I don't oppose this application by any means. I have uh clients that I'm sure will benefit from this application. Uh, and ultimately I think it it uh it should be approved. I just don't know

that that time is now. Thank you, council. Any questions? Thank you, Josh. Madam Clerk, Councilman President, no one else has signed up. Is there anyone else in the room that would like to comment on this application at this time? And if not, is there anyone online that would like to comment by using the raise your hand feature? Seeing nobody else wanting to comment, Emily, would you like to close?

President Overton and council. Um, thank you. Um, the first thing that I will say is that I talked with my client and he is happy to do a DA mod for the residential if um if that hopefully I believe would give the council the continued discretionary approval that they would like in the future. So um the the conditional change that I suggested we are okay leaving it with as written by staff. Um the second thing that I would like to say is appreciated u Mr. Leonard's comments and I maybe missed at first who he represents. Um in the past um he has represented the uh storage facility user. Um the the city did oppose that storage facility when it was developed. Um again developed totally outside the vision of the specific area plan. And part of my client's hope um is to not let that happen again. Um to see this area develop as it was planned. And this is an important first step to implement it just not just for this parcel but for the entire area. Um, and I hope that um I hope that that's uh received well and and again my client's intention to um see this area developed as the city staff has um has prepared. I was in this room when the uh specific area plan was adopted and we want to see this this was you know said it to be the last best area of the city of Meridian. We want to see that happen. um and with a development agreement modification on the entire property, we will be back for discretionary approvals. Um and so that's what I will end with and appreciate um yeah,

appreciate the opportunity if anyone has any other questions. Council, any additional questions? Thank you.

Thank you. Council, Mr. President, Councilman Whitlock, um I don't know if you can go back to that very first slide for me again. Um when Emily first showed that, it jumped off the screen to me that the city of Star is highlighted there and our only connection is from the south um through Cole Valley Christian. the rest of the city of Meridian there to the east. You know, we've got a a uh nice highway that's going in there and it's not contiguous yet city of Meridian with this property to the to the east of the property. Um I appreciate uh Mr. Miles comment that there is a risk. I don't know how big of a risk. I don't know how easy it is for the city of Star to reach across Highway 26, Chindon Boulevard there. And uh but if conversations have been happening with other developers in this area, to me that's a risk. Um I think this area is too valuable to put it at risk of being um serviced by the city of Star or Star uh sewer and water. So again, I I appreciate this depiction that's on the screen. I appreciate the additional conversation that we've had. Um I I consider I I hope that we as a council will consider the risk of not doing something um and moving forward. Um and that would be my answer to the question of what's the rush. I I I would like to avoid any risk uh of losing this access to this land and adjacent properties. So, um, that's that's my two cents at this point.

President, Councilwoman Little Roberts,

Mr. President, colleagues, um, I'm kind of thinking along those lines myself. That's been when I saw the map pop up, I concur with Councilman Whitlock's kind of assessment regarding that. I've got a friend that recently moved just a little bit north and was given originally a Meridian address to only to find out that that is not correct. So, it is definitely some gray area and I think by going ahead and doing the annex it would prevent any gray area in that spot. Um, that's just my concern at this point, but it and it doesn't sound like they're in a rush. I know they'd like to get things going, but it doesn't sound like they're in a rush to get things building because they can't. They understand they have to wait until they have sewer, water, etc. And so, um, I think and it sounds like we'll have plenty of opportunity to be part of those steps as things go along. So, I would like to see us go ahead with this project. council. I haven't made any comments this evening yet to this point. Um, and quite honestly, one of the issues I have, especially with our legislature just coming to a close, that I've discovered that my crystal ball is broken. And trying to figure out and determine what's going to occur and how it's going to occur for our city is is many times not in our own hands. But I can't help but go back to some of the basics of this application with one of the basic parts being that the landowner is a player at the

table helping design how this area was going to be laid out. I don't think we're looking at somebody who's going to sell out to someone else. I don't think we're looking at somebody who's trying to come in from out of state and make a quick buck and get out of town. I think we're talking about somebody who's made major investments in this valley, major investments in our city. And I think you have to remember that as we look at this, there's a lot of unanswered questions. There are secondarily, and I do this a lot because I put a lot of faith in our subject matter experts, whether they're with public works or community development. To me, you guys are our are our ears and eyes of what's going on. And when you guys sit there and tell me how this is going to work, how it's going to play out, the only thing we don't understand right now is the time it's going to take to get these hookups connected. But this isn't a situation where the applicant's going to come back to us in two years and say, "Hey, where's my connection?" because you know as of right now that nobody in this room can guarantee the date that that'll happen. That date is uncertain. I think this is a very important corner of our city and I surely would like to see it developed and maintained and serviced by the city of Meridian. I think we've talked about this area for a long time. um a long time. And uh because of that, because of many different factors, I agree with the unknown. I appreciate the fact that we'll be looking at a DA mod on the residential. I think we deserve that. Quite honestly, I think the rest of the city deserves that to be fair with other

applications. Um I would stand at a point I'd be supportive of this application moving forward. Council President Overton, Council Member Strader.

Um I have some thoughts and a question actually for um Bill Ner if that's okay. Um so I I appreciate the dynamic with STAR. I had not thought about that too much, but I'm kind of struggling with accelerating a development that in my opinion is not at the stage of application where it should normally be for this step because of that dynamic. I don't know where I'm going to land on that. Um I do appreciate the applicant's uh offer of uh a DA mod on the residential. I think I would be an absolute no if it wasn't for that um potential avenue. I guess my my question for Mr. Ner is what is the real risk of annexation by STAR into our area of impact under state law? Like what what would that look like? How would that process play out if there was a dispute uh or if there's a a jump ball property that somehow is is in between us? How does that work?

So, Mr. President, members of Council, Council Member Strader, there is nothing in the state code that prohibits a city from annexing into another city's error of impact. If they are contiguous and consensual, it's not only allowed, it's not even actionable by an opposing party or an opposing city. That would be against that. So there is nothing that prohibits it. Followup. Council woman straighter. And so hypothetically even with approving this application properties to the west of us could still annex into STAR, right?

So Mr. President, members of council, I mean again contiguity is going to be the key. So yes, I mean some of those properties that are still adjacent to Star um still have that potential. Uh some of it obviously is depend on serviceability as well but u the contiguity is going to be the key for the things below those ones that are below Chinden um would be more problematic for those because you'd need again for that domino of having to get another one and another one to get there. So versus this would be adjacent to some of those council president and I apologize because this is going to take us down another rabbit hole. Would it be okay if we hear from Warren really quick on a question I have about that?

Gots won't straighter. Absolutely. Thank you.

So my question is uh what is the geographic and functional viability of the city of Star actually extending their sewer line under Shinden Boulevard in your opinion? just as a subject matter expert, what would be involved in them actually extending their sewer trunk line below, you know, that major uh roadway?

Council President, Councilwoman Strader, um it wouldn't be that hard. In fact, uh there's already a property to the west who has requested it. Um I think it's important for the city council to understand that the city of Star and Star Water and Sewer District are not the same entity. They are completely separate and so Star Water and Sewer District can do what they want even if the city of Star doesn't follow along. And Star Water and Sewer District has been asked to extend sewer or yeah sewer and uh water uh underneath Chinden Boulevard to a property west of where we're talking about right now. And they have agreed to file an application to make that happen. They would just have to put a casing. They bore a casing underneath the roadway and slip the pipes underneath.

We've done it multiple times on Chendon and they could do the same thing. Okay. And they have already expressed that they would have no problem trying. Followup.

Council administrator. And so what you know anytime that we're planning for sewer and I and I know this because the very one of the first meetings I had when I was running for city council was to sit down with the planning director to really understand the importance of sewer trunk lines and what a huge investment it is. So we've made I think a pretty bold step of extending a sewer trunk line all the way down McMillan. And so the we're doing that through some partnerships and stuff and the city is taking on an enormous infrastructure burden and accelerating a plan that we actually had foreseen a couple of years down the line. What is the risk to us of putting that infrastructure in place and then potentially having properties to the west that we expected would be part of that sewer trunk shed, not part of it? like ho how does that refactor into our modeling and our and I'm not expecting you to model it right now today but like what what would that mean for us? What would that scenario be like and how would it play out long term in terms of the viability of our sewer infrastructure in this area? Uh, council president, council administrator, we have already because of the circumstances that have occurred out there that we have become aware of. Um, we have done a lot of that very exact modeling. So, anytime you reduce or remove parcels from the sewer shed boundary that you set or your your uh master plan boundaries, um, you remove a portion of that. you're removing a certain amount of flow because we would have anticipated in our master plan that that would have developed according to the comprehensive plan and we would have factored that in to the size of the main lines. So potentially if we lost enough property it would mean that the infrastructure that we have already invested in might be oversized and

bigger than we need. And you might say well that's unfortunate. But the other thing that happens is the pieces of that line that haven't been built that will be extended will also need to be reduced in size. And anytime you reduce the size of a main line, you have to increase the slope of the main line in order to keep this the effluent flowing uh correctly, the hydraulics in the pipe working. What that means is we can't reach as far without putting in another lift station. So, if we lose enough property in the right locations, I can't tell you exact scenario because I don't know, you know, which parcels it might be, but you could be looking at a situation where we would have to put in additional lift stations, which are extremely expensive, uh, both to build and operate in order to serve areas that now don't have the sewer flows to justify the larger pipes that keep the elevations down and allow cost to serve further out.

You Thank you, Mark. Council President Overton, Councilman Taylor,

some of this discussion reminds me of a couple years ago the boundary battles between Star and Middleton and ultimately the legislature had to get involved to require them to redraw some area of impacts and boundaries and I kind of see that a little bit happening here. Um, I see this really, this is really the city of Meridian putting it flag down saying this is a property that's um, important to us, important to how we want to grow and develop and it's a, it's a high priority area and it's going to grow incredibly quickly once Highway 16 is completed and there's going to be a ton of demand. I'm very concerned about school overcrowding. Usually I'm okay with that because of how West ADA adjusts the boundaries. This area is feeling quite a bit of a pinch. I really struggle with that. Um, but I've also seen our our enrollment trends going down and I know West ADA has been continually uh adjusting that to accommodate as best that they can. I think they've done West has done an incredibly good job with that. this is an area that's going to just feel a little bit of pain with when it comes to some overcrowding with respect to that. But, um, I can support this tonight because I do think it's a high priority area, but I would require that the applicant come back with a DA modification for the entire property because I I'm not convinced that we know exactly what it's going to look like despite all the input that is required uh the field sub area plan and everything else that we have in city code. So, um, I'm not thrilled, but I understand why it makes sense as a as a strategic move for the city of Meridian. So, I think I'll be supporting tonight.

Council President Overton, Council Member Strader,

I think that's where I'm shaking out. Um, it really bothers me though. Um, it really bothers me to kind of um set up a lower bar for what I consider to be uh appropriate readiness for an annexation. Um, I just think that the public investment in infrastructure that we've already made in our sewer trunk line that we're already extending down McMillan Road is of such a magnitude and um I actually was against uh accelerating some of that infrastructure um at the time for some of these similar reasons. I just it really bothers me to to accelerate infrastructure. However, uh we we chose to do that already and I respect that decision. And so for that reason, because I feel that the public investment um would not be um let's call it the highest and best use of our taxpayers money and our investment as a city. Uh I will I will approve this with the only with the condition being we have to have a DA mod on the entire thing. Um, I think that's the only way that I could ever get comfortable and it again with a lot of heartburn and I agree that the overcrowding in the schools of this area is uh quite acute.

Mr. President, Councilman Woodlock.

Um, Mr. President, I just um I appreciate that and I I would agree as well that we do need to have um the applicant come back with a a DA. Um and while there may be some heartburn, I I have a level of confidence in this. I know that the applicant has been involved in this area for a long long time and has an interest in seeing it developed properly. In fact, we're going to have a regional park in this area thanks to this applicant and partnering with the city of of Meridian. So, I don't have as much heartburn. I there's some concern obviously, but um also a degree of confidence that this will be developed in time when the infrastructure is there and available and it will be done in a way that um that we'll have a chance to look at it and approve any any development agreements moving forward. So, I'll be supportive of this tonight.

Council, if there's no further comments, do we have a motion to close the public hearing? Mr. Mayor, Mr. President, sorry, I just promoted you. Mr. President, I move that we close the public hearing on agenda item number 16. Second. I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All in favor say I. I. Nay. Eyes have it. The public hearing is closed.

Mr. Mayor, and I want to make sure I get this right. So, the condition I got it wrong again, Mr. President. I want to make sure conditions that were shown on the screen are included in the motion. Do you need me to read each of those or just that are included in the staff report? Council President, uh, Councilman Whitlock, this is as recommended by the commission and staff at this point. So, this is what's in the report right now. If this is what you guys agree with, which does require the development agreement modification for the entirety of the site, that would be just as presented in the staff report. Thanks, Nick. Mr. President Councilman Whitlock.

After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve file number H2026-00003 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 14th, 2026. Second. I have a motion and a second. Madame Clerk, roll call vote. Thank you, Councilman President. No. Taylor. Hi. Strader. Whitlock. Hi. Little Roberts. I Overton. I. Five eyes and one nay. The motion passes.

Council, we move on to number 17 on our list tonight. It's a public hearing for Van Trust H 2025-000052. Before we open this for staff comments, Councilman Whitlock.

Uh, Mr. President, um, before we go to staff comments, I live a stones throw from these next two agenda items. I passed through the intersection of, um, Black Cat and Franklin Daily. Um, so I'm very familiar with the area. However, I just wanted to disclose I have not had any visits to the applicant site, nor have I had any exparte conversations with anybody involved. I'm prepared to participate in the public hearing tonight. Councilman Whitlock, I'll open it for staff comments.

Council President, uh members of the council, next item on the agenda is the annexation and UDC text amendment for Van Trust. And just uh it is two separate applications. I will be doing it in my presentation as one, but I will break it up into the annexation first and then the UDC text amendment at the end. And I I'll clarify that when I do make that transition. Um, so the applicant requests annexation of 23.13 acres of land with a concept plan consisting of six buildings that span a total of approximately 340,000 square feet in the IL zoning district. In addition, the applicant requests a UDC text amendment to adjust the flex space standards to lower the office requirement from 20% to 10% in the IIL zoning district. Uh the site is generally located at the southwest corner of Blackat Road and Franklin Road. And as shown on the screen, the existing zonings for the two properties as RU and Ada County, and the flume designation is low density employment and mixed employment. Uh for this application, the applicant did request that we view the entirety of the project as the lowdensity employment flume designation um as it is the majority of the the flume designation for the two properties. All right. So the lowdensity employment designation is defined as a low as lowrise and specialized employment areas. The intended uses for this designation include corporate or business offices, research facilities, and laboratories. In addition, in addition, it should be designed to incorporate traditional neighborhood design such as pedestrian circulation, connection to open space, enhanced lands, landscaping, treeline streets, and plazas. Uh the intent behind this is to create developments that are more attractive, engaging, and accessible. Uh so the applicant, and this is the 10mi plan. This is straight from the 10 mile plan. Um on the right hand side is really the low density employment description and then here on the left hand side is one of the zoning compatibility matrix um which in this it does say office and research as the uses

that would be envisioned under the lowdensity employment. So the applicant is proposing 340,000 square feet of industrial uses across six buildings. Uh the applicant's narrative states that the proposed uses include light manufacturing and assembly, flex space, and warehousing and distribution. The applicant estimates over 575 jobs or 1.91 jobs per 10,000 square feet will be created. In addition, the applicant argues that the project aligns with the lowdensity employment designation due to higher employment density, non-nuisent like uses, and enhanced design. Lastly, the narrative uh notes that the city of Meridian and the general region has vacancy rates under 5% for flex spaces. So, staff has met uh with the applicant multiple times over the past year to review the project and throughout these discussions, staff has consistently stated that the annexation cannot be supported without a concurrent comprehensive plan map amendment. Uh this position is based on the project's inability to meet the allowable uses within and the key key design elements of the lowdensity employment designation. Uh the commission and staff found that the applicant's proposal does not align with the intended uses in the low density employment designation and lacks the traditional neighborhood design that is called for. I would like to add that the applicant did make some changes since the commission hearing. They're going to highlight that a little bit more in their report um to try to address specifically more of the design elements rather than the uses. Um and um the the applicant will show that a little bit more in their report as far as in depth. Uh in addition, the 10mi interchange specific uh area plan envisions a transition from res residential uses east of Blackat Road to an industrial node near state highway 16. Staff notes that mixed employment and lowdensity employment designations are limited along the Black Franklin corridors, including the including this project. The IL zoning currently comprises of approximately 54.15%

of the lowdensity employment flume designation and 61.28% of the mixed employment flume designation. With industrial uses taking over these flume designations, the area staff has concerns that the area will lack key elements of the plan including office and employment uses supporting and supporting services. In addition to this, it adds a significant amount of truck and freight traffic onto Franklin and Black the Franklin, Blackat, and 10M corridors that were not initially contemplated when the plan was adopted. So, here's an image of an overlay image of all the approvals that we've had in this area. Um, anything that's shown on the map is existing. Um, but anything that's actually highlighted, so pretty much this area is um what's been entitled. Anything highlighted in orange is what has been built. Uh highlighted in yellow is the applicant's proposed site and anything that's not been highlighted is yet to be constructed. Um so uh the the overlay depicts approximately two 2,284 residential units and 4,318,360 ft of commercial and industrial space. um most of which has not been constructed yet and we have not realized the traffic impact of that yet. Um so staff is asking the council to carefully evaluate whether the continued expansion of the IL zoning into the lowdensity employment and mixed employment flume designations is appropriate. I'll go back to their site plan. So access to the site is proposed from a future collector street near the southern portion of the site and a shared access off Franklin Road with the western neighbor which is but fence. In addition, the applicant has stubbed a frontage road to the property to the east to allow for cross access in the future and that would be right here. So in early February, ACD um and had

indicated to the applicant that they determined the only access to Franklin would be the shared access with but so that did significantly change the applicant's concept plan. Uh they actually had two small bay industrial buildings up here that would more have met the intent of the plan, but since they didn't have access, uh they felt that the feasibility of those buildings would not be possible. And I'm sure that they will go into that a little bit more with theirs. Um so when staff learned about this obviously the plan changed in February um to for the applicant um and you know shaft staff shared a lot of the same concerns that ACD did um and ultimately with ACD's recommendation to only allow for that shared access point. It did change their concept plan significant significantly. Um ACD uh ACH staff report indicated that the anticipated trip generation is 1,119 vehicles per day for this development. Uh so staff agrees that there may be a strong market demand for industrial uses, but this 10mi specific area plan specifically says the intent of the plan is to create a place that will add long-term economic stability for the city of Meridian and not just respond to immediate forces and trends. So that's the annexation portion. I'm going to move on to the UDC text amendment and then I'll add a summary of the commission hearing at the end. So, um, the applicant is proposing to amend the flex space standards to lower the office requirement in zoning from 20 to 10%. The applicant asserts that this change would better align with the current marketing conditions and would remove an existing barrier to leasing flex space in Meridian. Staff is currently working on a broader code change uh, amendment to address the flex space standards which were most recently adopted by the city council in June of 2025. uh staff has informed the applicant that uh the comprehensive code change is being developed to address inconsistencies with the newly adopted standards. Um and one of that is that percentages don't add up to 100% in the current standards and uh that's something staff's working

on changing so that there is correct a complete code um that it is cohesive. Um so however the applicant did elect to proceed with the proposed amendment. Um the commission and staff do not support support the proposed UDC text amendment as it would have implications beyond this individual development. While the applicant notes that flexbased vacancy rates in Meridian are critically low, they also contend that current flex flex base standards present a barrier to leasing. Um and staff finds this to be a contradictory statement. Uh additionally the within the IL zoning district warehousing is a permitted use that already allows an office component up to 10%. Adoption of the proposed flex space amendment would perpetuate inconsistencies in the code, including percentages that do not total 100% and would effectively allow flex space to function identically to warehousing in the IL zone. Staff agrees that revisions to this section of code are warranted. However, the applicant's proposed amendment is narrowly focused on a single development and does not adequately consider citywide impacts. staff has met with the UDC focus group to discuss proposed revisions for the flexbased standards and we will be presenting these changes to the planning and zoning commission and city council later this year. Um so at the planning and zoning commission hearing the commission recommended denial of both applications due to the site not meeting design site design standards, the absence of a comprehensive plan map amendment and wanting staff to lead the UDC text changes rather than a developer for a single development. Uh we have received written testimony from the Thrusten family um since the planning and zoning commission hearing. Um and they are in support of the proposed uh the proposal as their property is one of the properties included in the concept plan and they would look to move forward with the sale of their property. In addition, they said the existing home will likely be wiped out with the future expansion of Franklin Road. Overall, they are in support of the project and I'll stand for any questions that you guys have at this time.

Council, any questions for staff? Council President, Council Member Strader.

Hello. Um, so with this one, would you mind going to the um, Black Cat uh, map that shows Yes. could you just zoom in a little bit on this property and walk me through what we've approved in this area? And part of it is my gut after reading the application is like, of course, we should consider a comp plan amendment for this area if this is a burgeoning industrial corridor, which it appears to be. maybe that I mean we we've always said we're underweight industrial as a city like that like just stepping way back but could you kind of walk me through like what have we approved have we approved residential here like let me understand what exactly has been approved in these um surrounding context for this property

council president council strader so you just want me to highlight all the projects that are shown on here okay perfect I just want to make sure you weren't focusing on one section of it so I'll start in the the northeast corner so this is the gateway at 10 milei mixeduse development. You have multifamily, some vertically integrated and commercial uses. Uh then it goes into Outer Banks, I believe is what it's called. You have commercial uses, a lot of which that have already been constructed out there, uh with more multifamily behind it. Uh then you have the district at 10 Mile, which is a large mixeduse project that does include multifamily, retail, um you know, some office, uh and employment. Uh then you have Vanguard Village uh which you'll probably see an amendment to that but this was approved for multifamily. Uh you have an Adler project I don't remember the name it was included I think in the district at 10 mile which is industrial and then you have Farmstone which is mixed employment which is industrial uses some industrial um with some quasi industrial uses and then you have Avani subdivision which is single family homes. Uh I don't have the exact number off the top of my head, but I want to say roughly around 300 single family homes. You have at industrial or blackhat industrial meridian Commerce Park has several different names over the years. Um roughly I think two and a half million square footage of industrial IIL zoning. You have Cormine which you guys saw last year I want to say um which is they did a comp plan amendment to be mixed employment which would allow for some industrial uses and it is an industrial use and then you have the band trust property um and you'll see a lot more coming. Um and I one thing just to add on to that um is we do have a lot of industrial out here. the trunk line for in McDermott um will be at UTIC

at some point you know in the next year or so I think uh that agreement has been signed and executed and I know Toll Brothers is working on that um and there have been other conversations with applications that aren't in the system yet um to bring it further down so this industrial area is possible to have sewer at it you know not in the direct future but you know in in the near timeline of the next five years um I think is realistic. And just to give you some backsight that there is a lot of general industrial just to the west of this that hasn't developed yet um that will develop as general industrial um and that's yeah quick followup. Council member Straer

do you view there being any unique risk to having so much industrial or a certain amount of industrial develop in this area? I mean, I just I would view it as a good thing just generally, but I just want to understand is there something I'm missing? Is there besides that like I I totally do not understand why this was the approach and it seems like a comp plan amendment makes way more sense, but help me understand that piece like is there something I'm missing where like you know besides I understand the 10 mile plan, believe me, I was a big proponent of it and had had held firm to it for a long time, but we've we've departed from that anyway. And so what is the risk of a comp plan amendment and creating a larger industrial corridor here or is there one?

Yeah, council president, councilman strader, you know, for one, I think traffic is going to be freight traffic in in particular. I know state highway 16 will connect and have an off an on-ramp on Franklin. Um, but uh a lot of these roadways, especially 10 mile, I think is better than E as it currently sits. And when you in introduce freight traffic that was not in initially intended in the area that does negatively impact, you know, commuter cars, the everyday driver um because freight traffic does slow down the roads. It congests um at a rate that I don't remember the exact I talked with our long range staff. They have a little bit more of the statistics and I can find that for you if you would like as far as um what the addition of freight traffic. But I think that's what staff kind of wants to hear from you guys tonight as well. I think if city council does want to see some more industrial in this area and the mayor I think that's feedback that maybe not with this application but I think that is something that I want I would want to hear as a staff um because a 10mi plan doesn't necessarily contemplate that but if that is the kind of the direction we want to go in the future I think that not only is it beneficial for staff to know that I think it's beneficial for the development of community so we can plan as a be a good partnership with the city and you know the private sector to really do what we want out here. What the what you and the mayor has envisioned for this area. So, as far as, you know, long-term impacts, I think it's one not being consistent with the plan is my is obviously part of staff's uh recommendation for tonight and commissions. Um I think that traffic is one of the largest ones as far as freight traffic that wasn't initially um you know, contemplated with the plan. you know, in their plan, they do have a lot of uh loading docks. So, there's obviously going to be a lot of freight traffic that, you know, with a mixed employment, I guess mixed employment and low density employment was kind of envisioned to be Silverstone. That's what it was in the original. I get I I think when the plan was

intended, I think it was most more to be a more of kind of an office park. Um, obviously economics have changed. Uh, you know, demand has changed. I hear it every day uh when I'm talking with the development community. you know, there's not the demand for office anymore that there once was. Um, and I think that, you know, the plan, it still calls for it. And I think that's where we need to find the balance and maybe get feedback from you guys as well to see, um, if this is the direction we still want to go with the 10 mile plan and, um, if this is how we still want to interpret the code or the plan and the code, um, or if we want to, you know, amend some of that to align better with what we really have envisioned. So, I I hope that answers your question. And if you have any more, I'm happy to to answer them. Um, but that's really what from staff's perspective, that's where we're at at this point. Correct.

Mr. President, council member Governor.

Nick, first appreciate the report and update. I always recognize always in a hard spot for staff to be in recommending denial and I know that's not where you guys like to begin and recognize council's decisions sometimes create some of that push and pull that comes from the development community and I've been responsible for some of that. So, apologies. Appreciate you working with us. um your comment about, you know, the the impact on industrial around traffic consideration. I think that's very appropo in that area. Uh it's not the first time that you've heard me rally about the challenges with Blackat. If I recall, Nick, the the Black Cat industrial project the council approved a year, two years ago, if I recall, limited their growth model based on the expansion of Blackat. Am I remembering that correctly? And I don't expect you to have that off the top of your head, but maybe as we get closer to wrapping up, if you could give council a flavor for what the decision was of the of the council when that decision was made, because I I do think that certainly would be unfair inappropriate to to limit one land owner's ability to grow in industrial while granting a very similar use to to go on. So, I think that's an important piece that we need to probably um consider before we make a decision. So, that's one. And then uh I think second I recognize hypothetically I think that this area does make more sense now for industrial than maybe what has been previously contemplated. So just one voice to share with that and then maybe third just to make sure that I'm tracking this correctly. I don't know where council is going to land on this. I don't know where I'm going to land on this. But if council were to want to move forward with an approval this evening, we couldn't necessarily take that action this evening. We would need to continue at a later time for staff to draft findings for council to be able to lean on as part of their approval process. Am I tracking everything correctly?

Yeah. Council President, uh, Councilman Overton, start with your last question. Yes. Uh, it would we would need to do findings and we would all we need to revise the findings and have conditions of approval. I do have some draft conditions of approval, but I would want to, you know, work with the applicant before the hearing so we were on the same page or at least, you know, we were on the same page on what we're not on the same page about. So when we go into the hearing, um, so yes, that to site that, yes, we would need to I think continue is the correct that would be my first time doing that, but yes, um, in this role. But for your first question, um, you're correct. Meridian Commerce Park at Industrial. I think it was 960,000. I I'm very familiar with this area now. I have done a lot of the industrial projects out here. Was 960,000 was their square footage before it triggered certain improvements. And I want to say it was 1.5 million. That's triggered additional improvements. And I can I can pull up that DA and I can read that off for you guys verbatim um in a little bit maybe after we hear from the applicants. So you guys are refreshed on that. But there were correct in that development agreement. There were thresholds that were placed on that development as far as once you hit a certain occupancy threshold. So not maybe necessarily construction threshold. It was placed on occupancy um of those buildings you have to do certain it triggers certain improvements to the roadways. That is correct. Um and I apologize your second question was I think it was more of a comment. Okay Mr. President just comment and appreciate it.

Yeah. Thank you. Any other questions for staff? Would the applicant like to come forward? Please state your name and address for the record. Yes. Good evening, council. My name's Chris McCcluskey with Van Trust. Address is 205 North 400 West Sweet 100 Salt Lake City 8084003. Uh before we begin, could I request from the council to additional aotment of time? We've got quite a bit to cover. So we wanted to go to 20 minutes in le of the 15. Is that approvable? President 15 and we'll judge it at the 15 mark.

That works wonderful. Well, again, my name is Chris McCcluskey with Van Trust. I run development for the Northwest and will be the lead on this project. Councilman President, sorry to interrupt. I think he's asking for the additional time because it is two applications that kind of combined. Just to clarify, because we're doing both the UDC amendment and the Sorry. Thank you for keeping me straight. You're welcome. Thank you, team. 20 minutes is approved. Thank you.

Wonderful. Thank you. Uh again, Chris McClleskey with Van Trust. I think uh I wanted to start out a little bit talk about sponsorship as the council uh considers these projects. Obviously, that's one of the large components. And so since 2010, Van Trust has de developed over $8 billion worth of total project cost of which equals about a little over 73 million square feet. This year we're projected to do about 1.2 billion across the country, of which 95% is industrial flex products. So we obviously have a little bit of history with the uh with the product type that we're proposing here today. And we're excited to be part of the community. So, we look forward to this being our flag in Idaho and being in this location hopefully uh barring approval obviously. But with that being said, I would want to introduce our land use council, Deborah Nelson. She's going to give you a little more depth on the project. Thank you.

Thank you, Council President, members of the council. We'll try to keep it um as tight as we can um to cover all everything that we want to cover. Um I think you've already heard the overview of the applications. I'll just note additionally that we are also going to oh, excuse me, Deborah Nelson's 601 West Banic Street for the record. Um, but we're also going to come forward uh with a preliminary plat and a design review application in the future. Um, we're here on the annexation and zoning and the code amendment um in large part because we do need the council's direction because we haven't um seen eye to eye with staff yet on the use. And so before we go through a lot of those detailed designs, we do need information from you about whether this is a use that you support in this location. So um Nick already covered the project overview, but I just want to touch on a couple of things that we are going to have these two different product types. Both of them are allow multi-tenant use. So the um medium format shallow bay has sizes that are as small as 18,000 square feet and the micro bay flex will have sizes down to 2700 square ft. So this flexibility allows Meridian to attract and keep employers because these businesses can stay in their space even as they grow. That demisability of space is really what's in demand um by employers. Uh we're not providing any of the large crossbay type warehousing and distribution such as what you'd see with an Amazon. Um that that's really going to be located in your general industrial area to the west of this site. We expect that these six buildings will support 30 to 40 small to medium businesses with clean, quiet, indoor, non-hazardous,

lightindustrial uses that provide that specialized employment. Um, Nick's already noted that the majority of the site is in the LDE designation and we've asked to use that consistent with your comprehensive plan that allows you to use the majority of the property. And so, next I want to turn to some of the questions and comments that have already come up. And why do we believe that the 10mi plan as it is drafted now supports the IIL zoning without a comprehensive plan amendment? Um that amendment from LDE to ME which are just two different designations within your employment district um isn't necessary to support IL zoning. Both of these dis designations could support IL zoning and that's shown here in the zoning district compatibility matrix. So it's exactly on point to what we're asking is which zones are compatible with these designations. both um the of the LDE and the mixed employment support industrial and importantly the LDE designation is noted as favorable in this um for for IL zoning. You can see with the check and the plus that we've highlighted here and it's consistent with that. Um also the city has already decided to interpret its plan that way and that's what you did exactly on the 200 acres to our south. um and the Blackat Industrial Project, you interpreted this to allow IL zoning without a comprehensive plan amendment. And so we followed in that same path that you outlined. This the type of uses that we are asking for here are the same types of uses that were contemplated there. So not only from the zoning that we're requesting, but from

the end use that we're requesting. it's contemplated those are allowed uses in the IL zone and they're appropriate for this site in this designated area. Um, fundamentally staff's concern that they've expressed to us throughout a lot of discussions and we really appreciate all of their time that they have spent with us on this application. Uh, it's been very involved and and the the um the topics that they've been concerned about have really focused on that end use. they have um wanted that more traditional office and understood that to be what was originally anticipated here and so they wanted us to pursue a a comp plan change to me to support me zoning me zoning does not work for our uses and the end product that we want similar to the uh property to the south it doesn't include warehouse and distribution as allowed uses which just adds additional hurdles for tenants um that makes the project unfeasible. Um so again, we want the IL zoning that is contemplated here in this employment designation. We're also consistent with um the description um of the LDE area. It's the right conceptual fit. The ME designated area tends to have a little bit more of that traditional office park look. Also larger buildings in scale. Um and we are going to provide that specialized employment that it has that the flexible spaces with the convenient circulation without retail. We will have the landscaping. We will have pedestrian circulation and the connection to gathering spaces. We meet the um description of the types of buildings that are contemplated in LDE better than the description of the types of buildings that are contemplated in ME. LD has these lower profile buildings. They're 5 to 150,000 square ft. They

have a floor area ratio of under.75. Um, and they're three stories or lower. All of those criteria describe our buildings. Um, contrast that with me that has um up to four stories, up to a million square feet, and over the 75 um floor area ratio. And so we're more compatible with the type of buildings that were anticipated for the LDE designation as well. um looking at the design elements in your 10mi plan. Um we meet the designations whether it's LDE or ME because they're virtually the same. Um LDE has uh one additional design element that we also meet and that's that the buildings are to scale. Again, that's consistent with that low-rise building that's contemplated, not the taller, larger buildings. Um we we meet all of these design elements with architectural and facade. Um the site will have the cohesive signage and public art and I'll describe a little bit more of that. Here are some concepts of the buildings. Um now again this will be reviewed in more detail during design review but wanted to you to see some concept images of the two medium format shallow bay buildings. Um, these will have multiple points of vertical and horizontal articulation to break up the facades, pedestrian scale entrances to each tenant space, and um, significant glazing along the Franklin and the new collector road to create that inviting appearance. The small loading docks are oriented to the interior of the site, limiting visibility to adjacent properties. And here you can see some of those micro bay flex buildings also with significant architectural differentiation um and the facades and glazing with that pedestrian scale entrance on the open space. Um as Nick mentioned, we have continued to make improvements

to add additional details um to address staff's questions and concerns about this. Um and and some of this has even been updated since the planning and zoning commission. So, we appreciate staff's willingness to continue to meet with us and work on that. Um, each building will have a gathering space for employees with hardscaping, landscaping, and seating. There will be public art placed at the site's entrance. A pathway will run along the east side of our site. This was requested by staff to provide that connectivity from Franklin down to the new collector. Um, we will also have 10-ft wide multi-use pathways along both sides of that east west collector and additional sidewalks and crosswalks will be throughout um to provide that connectivity between the the employment in the users and their gathering spaces. And here you can see some of the plaza imagery um for concepts of what the plaza and seating area elements may look like here. and signs will have cohesive sign guidelines consistent with van trusts um in industrial complexes and other locations and as called for in your 10mi plan. The collector road um will have that neighborhood feel that really pulls together some of the elements in the traditional neighborhood and called for in your plan uh with the landscaping, the detached um 8- foot landscape buffer, a 10-ft multi-use pathway on each side and just two lanes of traffic there. Um ACD provided preliminary comments on this. They'll provide additional details when there's a detailed development plan, but they um commented that we could not take access from Franklin and Nick mentioned that they preferred it to be from collector. They cite to the 10mi plan as one reason which says it prohibits access onto arterial. So

that's part of the city plans. They also look at their own access um policies to determine that and they prefer to have access off of the lesser traveled road. that did require us to make some site plan changes um which we had which we have done now. Um but they also noted that the area roadways currently meet ACD's level of service planning thresholds and uh ACD does plan to widen Franklin to five lanes next year which is before this project would come online and the site is served by transit. Um also wanted to call out that some differences between light industrial traffic and office. Um there in general light industrial has slightly lower trip generation than office. But I think the important thing really to call out is that light industrial tends to have dispersed times of of operation more so than office. Office workers tend to have that more typical 8 to5 which really impacts the peak hour travel times and light industrial has more dispersed times and so has lower impact on um those peak peak hour intersections. Um the economic impact of the project is is strong and I may um you know move through these slides pretty quickly and we just take questions of course if you have if you want more of it because you're already aware of that and based on the the preliminary comments. I don't want to spend too much time on this but we do want you to know that um we we think that this is a very valuable asset of employment in this employment district as called for in your 10mi plan and is in need in in your city. um we're we're attracting the types of businesses that need this flexible space that need this type of shell. Um you know, office or light industrial, it's really all about the type of shell that you're

attracting those employers and this is the type of product they really need. Um the targeted tenants for this type of of zoning and this type of product that we're delivering are in some of the valley's top industries that are still growing and need space. Uh construction, manufacturing, wholesale trade and transportation and warehousing. And unlike office employees, these jobs are on in hands-on industries. So they're less susceptible to being replaced by AI. their more sustainable jobs for the future. These same industry sectors uh support good wages with average wages ranging from 29 to $38 per hour, exceeding Meridian's current $24 an hour average. City staff has really been pushing more to have a traditional office park here. So, we want to talk a little bit about that. you do have a lot of other office that's developing in the in the city um around Eagle Road in 84 and also around 10 mile and 84. Um but and and these locations are serving this new office better because class A office the demand for it and the locations that they're desiring has really changed it. It they're not desiring this type of location that we have on our property anymore. they want to be in a mixeduse development where they've got commercial um where they've got residential integrated into that same site. Um they typically want to be at these larger interchange areas. And so that's where you're seeing office going. Um the the district at 10 mile and 84 is a great example of those kinds of mixes that are going in there. And that's really different from what we have here. Um we are in an area that um is has become this uh light industrial transition between the heavier

industrial that's to our west and the mix of uses that's to our east that includes that office that includes that residential and includes some lighter industrial as well. And with the uses that are immediately adjacent to us, we have the same types of products that we're providing and we have even some that have outdoor uh storage. This is a great location for us. we're compatible with those uses. This is not a great location for a traditional office park that that is not going to be sought after by development or successful in attracting tenants. Um, Meridian Crossing to our south is leasing up very quickly in the same types of product and there continues to be high demand. They're bringing in great employers with St. Luke's, uh, Crescent Electric, Carpenters Union. those same types of um employers are still looking for location in Meridian, particularly as the supply chain um industries supporting the Micron expansion are continuing to come to the valley. TK Commercial um did compile existing listings and to look at what's out there and there is there there are 24 flex spaces currently available in Meridian in a range of sizes but 33% of these are over 25,000 and that that large format product really dominates the available supply. TOK data shows that zero leasing activity in that size category that's available. But contrast that with small bay supply that's being absorbed really fast. The 0 to 10,000 square foot is 37.5% of the listings but faces the highest transaction volume. So this project small bay really does address that demand that's shown in this red box here. This is the size range where Meridian tenants are actively seeking space.

And I think that's a good opportunity to turn to a question that was raised um by council member Strader about you talking about what has been approved in the area. So of the um 4.3 million square feet that Nick highlighted as being approved in this immediate area, um much of that is commercial, not industrial. So that's just looking at the non non uh residential space. So just under half of that is commercial. So if we look at the industrial, these are largely in three projects. You've got Adlar's 10mi west project which I would note is zoned me and it also has a development agreement that says it cannot have flex warehouse or distribution. So it does not compete with this site or with the development to our south. That is a that's a different project and a different product. Um secondly, you've got Farmstone Crossing, which Nick highlighted. Also zoned uh ME doesn't have the same development agreement restrictions, but it makes it harder. It adds those additional hurdles because you don't have warehouse and distribution as allowed uses. And then you've got the AT or Blackcat industrial project to our south and that is continuing to lease up very quickly and there continues to be high demand there. I do want to just touch on the code change briefly. Um, we don't need to spend a lot of time on this. I know you guys are already familiar with the change that was um, passed for the ME zone. We're simply asking for the same change here. We appreciate that staff is working on a larger um, code change. They didn't have language that they were willing to share with us at this time. So, we just need to make sure that we're also putting before you a request for that change that has been made in the ME district to be made in the IL district where it's as if not more important to have this flexibility in how office space is aligned. And and again, we appreciate that they're thinking about

how this fits into their large your larger code um and making adjustments as needed to make sure that all of the uses add up to 100%. We just want to make sure that we've got flexibility in how office is structured. And in these types of spaces, you could have floor plans that have um significant walls that are built to house um office type spaces, or you could have an open floor plan that has workspaces that have no walls. And there isn't really a clear way of defining that. So what we're looking for is flexibility um and how this is how these spaces can be built out because that is driven by the tenant and whether they have walls around their workspaces or not does not change the value of that employer or the number of employees they have. And so that's the all we're looking for there is is flexibility. So, for all of these reasons, um we really appreciate your consideration of this um your support for industrial that you've offered in the past um in this area and um really would welcome questions you have for us about this project or how it fits within your 10 mile plan. Thank you,

council. Any questions for the applicant? Council member Stra.

Yeah, thank you. Um, Council President Overton, I appreciate it. So, just in initial thoughts, I I think it's um what I'm struggling with is the the method with which you go about um annexing in. And I think where I'm struggling a little bit is I I'm sensing this unwillingness. I mean, you said you're unwilling to do a comp plan amendment into the ME zone. Are you open to a comp plan amendment into industrial I guess would be my question to you. Um and not not that necessarily that should be driven by you by the way. I mean I think it might make sense for the city to talk and have a discussion about whether we want to amend our comprehensive plan to expand our industrial corridor just based on what we're seeing here.

Um the traffic impacts are a big deal. I don't want to gloss over that. That's a big concern for me. But I'm struggling with an annexation request and then to make this work, you're requesting a UDC text amendment that really specifically is tailored toward your application. And I just as a city, I hate for us to go about any UDC amendments in that manner. Um, it just feels really inefficient and not like the right way to to do things. If the city was willing to consider amending our our comp plan, would you be willing to take a continuence to let that process happen? Are you asking for just this is the only way this works for you today? Like what's your sense of timing? I just want to understand what's your timing and why this specific approach uh because it just seems really out of the norm.

Yeah. Council President, Council Member Strader. Um, yes, I'd be happy to to address that. So, we've had a long history of meetings with the staff about this project. Um, in our in our early meetings with staff, we laid out this product. We haven't changed in what we want to bring forward and what we want to bring to this site. Um but we did talk to staff about um design elements and that they wanted to see and also the uses and the process and they did not get supportive of the uses, right? They they wanted a different use here. Uh they did initially suggest at some of our very earliest meetings that we would need a comp plan amendment to industrial because that's what we were asking for was industrial. But then we would we followed that up with a question of but would you support industrial a comp plan change to industrial and the answer was no. Um because that led us to an end use. So it it didn't you know facilitate getting us down the path. Um more recently they've been talking about um an amendment to the me. Um but again coupled with the question and answer but would you support this and and we understood the the answer to be no that it was still about the use that that staff didn't support the use and so it you know initially we had the time to do that um but now as time has gone on as you know to change the comp plan is a six months only every six months so it does create time delays and so when we look at your plan, you know, so we don't have staff support for that process and we just need to find out if the use is going to be allowed here for the developer to move on or try this site. Um, we look at your 10mi plan and we see that IL zoning is clearly allowed in your zoning matrix and so it doesn't

require a comp plan. So, it felt fruitless to us and really I guess not not even following staff's direction to pursue a a comp plan amendment to pursue a use that they didn't support when we can see in the comp plan that it is already part of your designation. I mean, you guys have already decided this is an employment district, right? You've put LDE on it. So, if LDE supports zoning, why would we ask you for a different designation? Why would you ask you to change your vision and plan for the area? So it didn't feel like uh fruitful for you or us or staff because we're still going to come forward with the same product. So I do understand that they have continually suggested different paths of of this but not to an end of an approval. So um and even at the PNZ we had the same conversation and I think you know we heard a few different comments from staff that we questioned about you know well at one point they said okay the it's really become about design but by the end of it they circled back to no we just fundamentally you know don't support this use in this area and so again we didn't take a continuence we wanted we need to get the direction on whether this use in this zone is appropriate here as we see being allowed in your plan. Um, and at this point it would be another delay to get there. So, we we'd rather not pursue process for process sake, but if if if it came with, you know, supporting this, we certainly would have been aligned with that. We weren't trying to thumb our nose at that opportunity if we knew that was an opportunity. Does that answer your question,

Councilman? certainly uh helps give some flavor for the discussions. Thank you, Councilman Overton. Councilman Taylor,

Deb, I appreciate the presentation. Kind of what I'm I'm hearing is that as a city, in some regards, we've lost a little bit of a vision of what this area, what we want it to look like. We had the 10 mile area specific plan. I'm probably the most guilty of any council member of chipping away at that because I found it to be a little outdated. Um, but there's a reason we have plans because it provides us with some understanding about what we want to see and that provides you with some clarity. But what we've created is a sense of you're trying to work within what we've laid out which is at conflict with itself in a little bit. Mhm.

Um, I'm probably one of the biggest proponents of flex space because to me that creates a sense of economic diversity where you can tailor a space for a variety of needs. Office space tends to cater to just a certain type of employer. Um, retail tends to just obviously cater to that. I see flex space kind of touching all of the above and a lot of flexibility. Um, I want to kind of get into the the UDC changes a little bit and talk about the the percent the 10% we've mentioned. I've always felt like uh requiring a certain percentage of it was an arbitrary number and I always wanted data to kind of confirm it, but I also there's a reason we have a a minimum standard because we don't want these places to turn into just warehouses, right? We want employment there. We want people to go there for jobs. We want to see some diversity there. Can you talk a little bit more about um the changes that you want to see us make? Uh why 10% seems to be the number that you're settling on if it's just kind of syncing up with what we've already got? And I would also say I I think that the city needs to have a continue this conversation. I know staff is about what we want to see with the flex space because I want to see a lot more of it because we can see it in these industrial spaces. We can also see this in other settings where it, you know, it it fits in really well. We've seen a few other projects that are some small flex space that are really quite attractive, but he talked to me a little bit more about that 10%.

Yes. Uh, Council President, Council Member Taylor. Um, yes. First of all, I would just comment that the sequence of this and this gets to council member Strader's comment before um if if we weren't ahead of where the city was in that process, we'd happily weigh in at the city when the city is amending their code. Um but we were ahead of that game. Um and as I mentioned, we don't know yet if staff is going to address the light industrial zone at that time. So, it is appropriate for this application or needed for this application and supports it. And so we wanted to make that request for you. If you um want to defer that to um have have that be a larger discussion within the city, I certainly understand the desire to fix this at a broader level as well. Um as far as the the percentage, it was simply to build on uh what you had already decided. And so it wasn't that we think that 10 is the magic number. I think complete flexibility is the perfect for this type of owner. it finds that balance um and maybe accomplishes a little bit about what you were saying, council member Taylor, that you want there to be some um component there. Uh but yes, it was just building on what you recently did for the ME and trying to bring that into the IL as well.

Um Councilman Overton, quick followup, Councilman Taylor,

it you know, when I look at initially, it feels like the tail wagon the dog sort of on on the changes here. like we're making this change which I anticipate I would be in favor of moving this direction anyway but we're not there yet and so this application is sort of forcing this discussion a little before maybe staff is ready to present some of their suggestions and recommendations and before we've had a chance to really think about it and tackle it. So we're being forced to think about a UDC change when we're maybe not ready but you make a compelling argument for why we're here in this situation. Um that said, um in terms of timing, um is this application, you know, I know we got two of them here before us. Is the land use application completely determined or conditional upon the UDC changes as you would like to see them? cuz I'm just wondering if we could separate the two and we could say look the land use works and I'm okay with that but then the the change is does it have to come later? I don't know if we can but I'm just kind of thinking out loud if that is required from your perspective that both need to move together or could we separate this discussion just a little bit.

Right. Um, Council President, um, Council Member Taylor, certainly legally you can separate them and make your own decisions independently, but I think what you're asking me is if um, if we have a preference, if we're need this to be able to proceed and and that's our ask and I'm going to ask Chris to come up and address that because that's a business decision.

Thanks, Council. Uh, Council President, Councilman Taylor, um, you know, I never like to put finite yes or nos, draw lines in the sand. Uh, unfortunately with us because we have had this site under contract for a year, we're coming to the end of our diligence also with the land seller and also van trust ability to continue through on DD. So, uh, our anticipation would be to put this into production as soon as possible. Um, and so separating these two does not allow us to move on to the preliminary plat process. also with the uh CCC process and some of the other hurdles we have to get through to get through entitlements. So unfortunately, yes, it it was not separable in our eyes. Um just because without this flexibility, we're not able to lease the product as we think it's going to be leased or could be leased and that limits our leasing ability. Leasing is our bread and butter, right? We don't it's not beneficial for the city or for us to have empty buildings set out there. Um so unfortunately yes these these need to go together. Uh due to the fact that I mean can anyone sit here tonight and say when that code change would happen? Uh you know you could say could be down the road it could be I mean obviously it's got to go through a process right and so we need that certainty. So unfortunately they are tied together.

Uh Councilman Overton quick follow up with Mr. McCcluskey while I was here. talk a little bit about um the types of tenants that you're hoping or that you've seen in other developments that you're envisioning bringing here. Talk to me about like the how that flexibility works into attracting what kind of employers. Is it spec space? Is it people come to you say I want a space? Then you go in and do the tenant improvements as they request. So talk to me a little bit about the business side of filling up these buildings.

Of course. I'll I'll give a little flavor for the van trust side and what we anticipate. Then I'd like to call up Mr. Martin. He's with token about the tenant profiles that he's seeing and the meridian side of it a little more. Uh Van Trust is a spec developer. So we will develop these buildings speculatively with no tenants in tow. Our anticipation is to do the whole project uh because we think they complement each other just from the factors that we've talked about thus far. Kind of that offsetting types of uses. The four buildings I did want to highlight, and I think you did a great job, Deb, but just to clarify one more time, those southern four buildings do not have dock high positions. So, they're grade level drive-in doors similar to the front buildings on at Industrial. So, there will be no truck traffic to the south of the collector. Um, the two northern ones, obviously, there's truck courts turned on each side on their uh onto each other, so they complement each other a little bit there. But from our perspective, we'll go in and just to be full transparency, we'll put in a spec office, which will probably be around that 10% for the first space. What that allows for is a tenant who needs to move quickly, could take a bay or two. We can move that tenant in and continue to work our way through leasing them. Uh we've seen a lot of variation in those tenant types across the nation. Uh a lot of the points about the types of jobs being actually very well-paying jobs, higher tech jobs, and I'll see if I could get Mr. Martin up here a second to do a little better job on the on the type of tenants. But, you know, to further elaborate on the 10% a little bit that Deb brought up, you know, for example, an LED manufacturer, we put that in. They made LED signs in the warehouse. So, they would have some of the LED components come in, they would assemble them, they used them at like the high school football games and some of the other locations for uh wherever you see the LED signage. they were working more employees in the actual construction area, not in what was called office. So when we permitted it, it looked like it had very little office, but they actually had more employees than it would have gotten the density that a

normal office would had in that same space because they were assembling those products and pushing them out. And that's a lot lot we're seeing in these flex jobs as you were as you were mentioning earlier. But maybe if we could get Mr. Martin up here, I'd love to have him talk a little more about the actual types. President Overton, members of council, uh Tyler Martin, 322 Bacon Drive, Boisey 83712. Um want to talk a little bit about and can I roll my presentation in here? I was going to talk a little bit later, so don't know about format here, but um I want to talk a little bit about the types of jobs we're seeing in these buildings. Um and these are I have a lot of we did a survey, I presented it to you last summer. We surveyed 800,000 square feet of these spaces, multiple tenants. I've since narrowed that down to just Meridian. And so in Meridian, we surveyed, so these are all very similar buildings to the small bay, midbay product and the larger buildings. It's along Franklin Road. Um, we surveyed 442. We we got actual results for 443,000 ft of space. In those spaces there was 945 employees or about one employee for every 468 square feet. We had one, two, three, four, we had five companies that had employment uh per square foot near 250 uh square feet per employee, which is a historical office number. GSA historically has said that they're supposed to be about 250 square feet per office employee. We now have industrial space in Meridian doing that. And it's incredible the number of jobs we see run through these. And so when we went and did this survey, the question we asked wasn't how many jobs are here, but how many paychecks flow through this building? And so what we found was there's a lot of companies where they have three or four folks working in these buildings, but they have multiple field employees, salespeople working from home. So we have so we were really counting the the paychecks that flow through those buildings that are all locally based.

Um, and then I'm just going off ex my experience of companies I've worked with, uh, worked with Crescent Electric who leased space in at Industrial to the South. They're consolidating four locations across the Treasure Valley into one location for centralized distribution. 25 employees minimum. Many of those employees long time with the company since it was Interstate Electric, you know, 15, 20 years ago. Um, I've also worked with four other contractors or companies who specifically wanted to be in Meridian. Meridian's done a great job. Heart of the Valley 16's coming in. This is where you service a broader valley is right in Meridian. Of those companies, of those four companies, I was able to get one in Meridian. We leased a property before it hit the market. Everyone else ended up in Boisee because that was where we were able to find space further east than they wanted to be. Um, and just to kind of follow up on that, I also have a BVP. Um, BVAP does a a wins every year and they release survey data as far as what type of leads they get. Last year, 93% of the leads they got were somewhat industrially based. And so we had 54% manufacturing, 17% semiconductor, 15% food. Only 7% was warehouse and distribution. Honestly, we're not a wonderful warehouse and distribution location when you look at transportation networks. Um, and to go off Council Person Taylor's comment, I believe the fear of turning these spaces into warehouse and distribution. Uh, quite honestly, in my opinion, Meridian's done an excellent job and the space is now too expensive. And so, if you want a big space for distribution, you're not finding that in Meridian. There are some. So, I mean, there's definitely some larger spaces, but if you want a big space, you're really looking at um economics. Economics is key. You're

really focused on a lower rental rate. Meridian right now, the tenants I'm working with are trying to service the valley, service the valley, high employee counts. They're paying considerably more to be in Meridian than points further west where we have higher vacancy rates. And that is just so they can service the valley with employees moving throughout the valley. a lot of these companies are are local to our valley. Um I think really with with that that's I wanted to leave it open to questions. I guess regarding the office space um I see a huge variation in office as I work with employee employers across the valley. Um you know right now I'm working with a company that's doing 30,000 square feet Meridian company looking to expand consolidate a couple of locations. Um, right now we might end up in Boisee because there's no space. There's not a 28,000 foot space available in Meridian right now. Adler's building product, uh, at Industrial to the best of my knowledge has a single 40,000t space left available that they can't demise due to the design of the building. They can't really make it smaller. Um, but my that client is looking at 28,000 ft roughly 10,000 ft of office, high employee count. work with other folks that also have high employee counts, smaller office. And so really, it feels like I say that 10,000 square feet of office would support a higher base level of office, but all I'm really trying to say is let the market decide on that point. There's a lot of folks we work with that still have high employee counts that don't need large office. They have employees in the field. They're coming and going. They don't need an office presence. And so really, it's just those baselines are a hindrance to development if I have to overbuild office. Just for reference, currently right now, most folks are quoting office build out at $200 a square foot inside the building. So, the envelope's already established. Um, but it takes it's another $200 a square foot and about six months to build out office space. So, it's just another hurdle if

you have to reach if you have to reach a certain threshold and not just respond to the market. Open to questions. Council, any further questions?

Council President Cavern or Council President Overton, I apologize. I apologize. Can I just chime in real quick? I wanted to clarify something that Chris said, and that there might just be a misunderstanding between us and him regarding the separation of the two. So, let's say council tonight hypothetically approves the annexation, but doesn't want to approve the UDC text amendment. Um, you still they're going to be required to subdivide the property. So because they have public right away running through it. So the preliminary plat's going to be required at a minimum for a next application which they can do while the code change is being worked on. Um in addition to that CDC and design review which would be the next steps which is administrative at my level which is really site plan elevation review could also be in the process even building permit could be in the process while you know that code change is under progress. And I also want to highlight that warehousing if I zone granted it's you know let's say annexations approved as presented with IIL zone warehousing as it currently sits office not to exceed 25% of the building so they could go down to 10% as with a warehousing use as it currently sits which a warehouse is a permitted use just like flex space is an IL so it wouldn't actually hinder their ability to have the 10% office it would just be a warehousing use instead of a flex space Um, so that's kind of just something I wanted to clarify for you guys that they can still move forward in the progress if that's your guys' prerogative tonight even without the UDC text amendment. It's not necessarily UDC text amendment is going to hold them up in the process for the rest of the applications that need to come through.

Yeah, Mr. President, members of the council, just to add on to what Nick said, I think all of you understand this and what Tadler's explained to you is very accurate. We don't know the tenants until they come forward. But I think everyone gets it that we have a schedule of use allowed use table in our code. And so although we're kind of hyperfocused on flex space tonight, there's many other uses that go in these buildings that don't need to meet the flex requirements because they're different defined differently in the code. So they don't need to do any of those things. So it's it that's why it's difficult for us to say please change our code and help fix it when we're like we don't see this as an immediate issue for us in the city at this time because we have all these other things. If you want light manufacturing that's a completely different use in our code doesn't even apply to flex space. If you want a construction company in there, that could be a flex space. But again, it could be defined as a contractor's yard and we can work with you on those percentages and make you make that tenant space work for that particular use because it's a different use than what flex space is. So, as as I said, the code gives them a lot of flexibility. And same thing with the warehouse like Nick mentioned, warehousing is 25% or less. Flex base currently is 20% or more. So again, if you want to call yourself distribution or warehousing, then we'll say, okay, that's what you're defined as a warehouse and look at your floor plan and say, you know what, you're at 20% office, you're good to go as a warehouse. We'll let you move in there and operate. We don't care who's in there working. Uh, as long as you meet those thresholds and those requirements. So again, it's it's kind of that cart before the horse. If we don't know who's going in there, it's hard to say if it's the right time to change the code or not. And uh I think council understands that. Uh I mean when we changed the code six months ago or eight months ago, I think I think you guys were sympathetic to that understanding the needs at the market at the time and you you changed

one portion of the code, but it kind of it didn't go far enough to change the other section of the code and that's why we immediately put it on our list of code changes to fix that at least have that conversation with you. I also realized the council is they like to follow process. you've kind of established these rules, staff, what are you bringing forward as code changes? We're like, here's what we're changing. Are you good with that? Yes. And then we meet with a UDC focus group and we vet that out through all this different committee and then bring back forth a a recommendation that works. Now, do I think the UDC focus group would have concerns with us changing the warehouse uh component? Probably not. Um I've been on with I've met with them multiple times and they all agree we have to tweak this and fix this for sure and get that balance right. Um so again I don't have anything to share with you tonight or what's being proposed but what I can share with you is that we do do have a future code change planned. Uh we have some others that have uh you guys set the policy. So if you say bill I want that in front of me next month. Certainly I'll make that happen and bring that forward if that's if that's your prerogative. But right now again we think it's okay the way it's working. Um but just want to let you know that we do know we do realize there needs to be a change. We're just not there at this point.

Council President Overton, Council Member Straighter. Um, thank you. That was really helpful. What is your sense of timing on those additional code changes? I think that would help me. It probably helped the applicant quite a bit too to wrap their head around what their options are because I like really feel like this second request is a is a tough one for me. But what what's our general sense of timing on those changes?

U Mr. President, members of the council, it's it's hard to say. I know I've had discussions with our director um uh we've we've had we met with the UDC focus group in January I want to say to go over some of these cleanup items that we want to take forward. I am toying with the idea of maybe assigning a staff member to bring forward those so that we can get them moving quicker uh than later in the year. Um but we'll have that discussion as a department. So currently right now I have two other code changes that I'm working on um with some subsets. So this week or actually tomorrow, I'm working with code enforcement on our limited duration signage. And then we're also meeting with a group to talk about our PUD changes and PD changes. So a whole another new section to the code. So uh those are kind of my two priorities right now. But again, if you ask staff to give us a time frame or when you would like to see something coming forward, I'm happy to take that feedback and start working on that um moving forward. But at this time there is no definitive date. Um but more likely it would be fall if I had to guess. Late summer, early fall.

A quick followup. Council member Straighter. Okay. But if it was prioritized or even if it was if it was that that set of code changes that relate to extending what we've already done into these other zones were to become a higher priority which I don't know right like everyone has to have that discussion but I mean what is the fastest that realistically you could get some suggestions in front of council? I mean just just the just brainstorming. I mean, the art of the possible. Yeah. Yeah. Mr. President, members of the council, uh, probably a hearing in miday, first part of June, and then council in July. It's probably a realistic time frame. Okay.

Or we could work with the clerk and go quicker to counsel, save a week or two, but you're more than likely end of June. And depending on the holidays and how those fall with Junth and Fourth of July, that always puts a little wrinkle in it. Yeah. Council President Overton, Councilman Taylor.

So, let me tell you what, let me restate what I heard. Um, in your opinion, and I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but you believe from what you've seen and understand that the uses they've envisioned, they can do those without the required changes they're seeking with the UDC code. What I'm hearing from the applicant is it's really helpful for them to market this as flex space because flex space uh conveys a certain understanding about what the tenants are looking at especially if you're building speculative space then the ability to lease it. So that's what they want. I'd like to help get them there. You're saying today they if we approve this land use application, your interpretation is they could probably still do everything that they're asking to do under current code. Councilwoman Strader's line of questioning about timeline moving May, June, July is extraordinarily fast for a government deliberative body like us. And so that would seem to be okay. Uh I would like to move quickly on that too because I do think I've I've thought actually a lot about this since we had the last discussion about other changes but am I understand am I interpreting that correctly if I restating it in my yes you're doing that great and then also as part of that if that is the direction you want staff to to take then I'd also encourage maybe some discussion around if you do want the office space and the warehouse space to align with 100% total that 100% % like it previously did. So just curious on your take there because a lot of times uh a lot of times when Nick and I meet with applicants as well, they get flex base confused. They think it's a multi-tenant building. So they're looking at I can have multiple tenants in one building and it's like, yeah, that's one way to look at it, but that's just a

multi-tenant building in our world. You're going to have one building and demise the wall, put in demising walls and have multiple people running out of that building. Um, so that's the other piece of it is sometimes the terminology is a little bit different, but in our code we're very specific as to what flex is. We define the the parking ratios, the mix of light industrial versus office and it has to be usually it says it's small scale. So there and it can be either an attire building or only one tenant space. So for example an an applicant or an architect can't come to the city and say well I have one of my tenants is an office and I want to do all warehouse cuz now in the building I have 50% offices in this one end and this is all warehouse and that's flex space. No that tenant is office and this other space is warehouse. It's not you can't use the all the uses within the building to say you're a flex space. It's it's either one building or each individual tenant has has to meet that requirement is how we interpret the code. Council, I have a quick question for our city attorney to clarify. Mr. ary from the moment we opened this and discussed it by staff by the applicant and by our questions from council we've been discussing both 17 and 18 but I only opened the public hearing for 17 the correct procedure from this point be forward we go forward as we're discussing both we only vote on 17 and then open 18 for any new comments and vote on Uh, Mr. President, I guess I I thought you had opened both, so I apologize. I thought I thought you had I'm Mr. President, if I really never interrupt, Mr. Ner, but I just was agreeing with him that I I was under the impression when you opened both or when

you opened public hearing, it was for both. And I think even staff had indicated as part of their staff report that they were speaking to both. Certainly the applicant presented as part of their narrative on both. So I appreciate the the question, but just from my perspective I I was under the impression that you had opened the public hearing on both. And I guess Mr. President, members of council, I think when the when the first thing the applicant asked was could I have more time because there's two presentations on two and you agreed to that. I think you did open vote.

Long as you agree with that, I'm okay with it. Thank you. There's no more questions for the applicant. Madam clerk, do we have people signed up for this? Thank you, President Overton. I have Tyler Martin. Oh, he already spoke. Excuse me.

I have Gina and Ken Thirsten. Welcome. You have three minutes if you can state your name and address. And now you can talk about either one of them.

Hello. Thank you for letting me speak this evening. My name is Gina Thrusten and I'm at 496 East Molly Court in Meridian 83642 and we own the property at issue in this application and we are here to speak in support of the project. I'm an Idaho native. When I was born, my family lived at the southeast corner of Eagle and Overland, which is now Silverstone. So, and then my husband Kenneth Thrust and family has lived in Idaho for over 58 years. They grew up on the property at 5035 West Franklin. And after the children grew up, grew up and moved, um, my father-in-law sold his property and bought the property next door, which is 5201 West Franklin. Um, my family enjoyed or the family enjoyed farming these properties for over 50 years. And over the years, we have watched all the areas that have changed around us. Um, our Meridian farms are turning into family homes. Out here, we're now surrounded by industrial or planned industrial, including But Fence, which is right next door. Um, and at Industrial's development to our south. All of this growth also means road widening. And in fact, Franklin Road's planned widening at this property means where my husband grew up, the home is going to be demolished. So encroaching non-ag development has made it harder to farm and widening roads will soon make it less appealing to live. So when vitri reach out to us with this project we decided to sell. This is the right project at the right time for the city. It will allow for a needed employment and tax base for the city of Meridian and will create nearly 600 good jobs for loc for growing local

businesses. It will be nicely designed with clean modern buildings as they showed you in their presentation and it won't have lots of emissions or noise. So the project will also extend the planned connector road from Black Cat Pass Core and main property to take pressure off the other roads. Bree has been transparent in this process and we've enjoyed working with them. They really do want to create a quality project here and it's a project that makes sense and I know the council carefully weighs public input and we truly believe this project is a win-win for everyone, the city of Meridian, the community and our family of Idaho natives that's looking to move on to the next chapter of our lives. This project offers a positive forward-thinking outcome and we respectfully ask for your support. Thank you.

Thank you, council. Present. Counciloman Cavana. Gina. Yes. I just want to say thank you for your testimony. Uh sitting here with us all night to get up and provide your uh perspective is appreciated. We I talk about this from time to time. I've lived in Meridian my whole life, too. And it's it's weird when you didn't move to Meridian, but Meridian kind of moved to your doorstep. And I can understand those frustrations and challenges, but I appreciate you providing kind of a a real world perspective about where you live. So thanks for joining us tonight. Council President Overton. No one else has signed up.

Is there any anyone else present in the room that would wish to speak on either one of these applications, the annexation or the UDC text amendment?

You could state your name and address for the record. Okay. And Craig Stores. Uh my permanent mailing address is 4925 West Franklin Road here in Meridian. Um thanks for the opportunity to to visit for just a second. I hadn't anticipated doing this when I first came in. First of all, I want to appreciate each one of you for for what you do. I don't envy what you do and sitting through the the meeting this night. certainly uh uh emphasized that. But what I did want to say was um I've I lived in Merid Meridian uh 1975. There's 2500 people and um we've seen a lot of change over the years. I've come and gone since then. I was last um the last five to seven years u have been in the process of my mother-in-law um my wife Cheryl is is Birdie Whiting's daughter and she's the one that occupies the land there at the corner of Black Cat and Franklin and she currently lives there. She's now 93, I believe, and just the sweetest little lady you'll ever want to meet. I think that um a as we've gone through this process of watching all of this here and at the county, uh I think our idea was to just to be able to see what it was that you folks are thinking both here and on the county level to be able to also communicate with Nick and Bill um several times visiting and uh each of them I appreciate each of them and their willingness to be able to listen and

give ideas and thoughts. On the other side of the coin, we've also seen all of the the construction, all of the growth that's happening. And our major concern in the very beginning was here's this this wonderful little lady sitting in the middle of all of this with all the trucks going by and the noise and all the things. It was difficult. Uh the change was difficult because ACD came in and took her home and we moved her away for a while, brought her back into a manufactured home there on the property and got approval for that. And then um we've had the opportunity then to to watch everything that's happening. Sometimes, you know, the term the tail wagging the dog was that birdie was definitely the the the the tail. The dog has been wagging the tail and Birdie has been the tail. And what we want to do now is to be able to as my my wife and her brother there who are trustees of the trust want to pre prevent and help her to be have the very best possible life she can during the time that they're there. Now uh regarding Vanrust is that my time?

Yes.

Oh okay. Van Trust. Uh Chris I I we've sat and met with Chris. I've had also the people who who set up and and put together the the real estate deal with Chris had many conversation. A good friend of mine from way back when he was a friend of my daughter in grade school and we had the opportunity to be able to kind of walk through this whole thing. Also, just to let you know, you see the professionalism they provided in what a wonderful presentation today. Great. But anyway, the the professionalism with what they've done to help you guys to understand what they're trying to do and you guys have very well eloquently explained what your concerns are. Unfortunately, we have some boxes here that everybody has to live within and we're trying to to maneuver those. And in the middle of this is all of this. This is little old lady, this sweet little old lady. So what I would suggest and what I would hope that the council could do would be able to take it take what has been said from each the positive parts of it from each from Van Trust from staff and the questions and wonderful questions have been asked and to say how can we go back to the center of this whole thing which is Birdie Whiting. And how can we make it possible so that she and the owners and the and the the the people who help her with her estate to be able to move forward can make the best positive informed decisions. We feel like that having the the current proposal approved would be the best possible thing for her to be able to put

this thing to bed. She's surrounded already. Now, it's just a matter of finding out how you folks can work together with them to make it happen. Thanks. Thank you, council. Any questions? Is there anyone else in the room that would like to speak on either of these two public hearings? Come forward. State your name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.

My name is Trina Neto. I am at 2434 West King Road in Kuna, Idaho. Um I am uh also a power of attorney for Mark Toy who owns the property at 5035 West Franklin Road that is uh in this project. Um, and I wanted to just come and from Mark's perspective and my own uh indicate uh that I have been um utterly amazed at what Meridian has been able to accomplish over the years watching as president of the Chamber of Commerce in Cuna, what Cuna has suffered and your uh realistic look at what is needed and when it is needed has been really amazing. That is something CUNA has never been able to manage. They dislike residential. So, uh, anyway, we'd like to just say cong, you know, I I really am amazed with what you guys have been able to do. Um, the only reason I really wanted to stand today is, um, the one of the ironic reasons that we're here today is when Vanron came to Mark Choy asking if he would sell, he did not want to. This was not something he was looking to do. He has a rental property at the at this property and it has been sustaining him for his form of retirement forms and uh, selling was not on the table. Uh he actually did tell Vantrust no and went away until we had received a letter from the city that said it was a mandatory that he annex into the city. Uh he had a expansion from the ACD had taken part of his property and in that demolished his septic tank and water source and and so they had to putting in the city sewer and city water to provide that with AC's doing that in subject to Mark Choy annexing. I can tell you the only reason we're here today is because of that annexation letter that was required because Mark lives in Tennessee and is not interested in doing that himself. Um, so watching what the van trusts have had to go through, um, we highly support this project, especially for the

annexation because with Mark gone, I'm going to be the one stuck doing it and I don't want to do it. So, we appreciate that. Um, but anyway, just wanted to say thank you for that. Um, and then I'll just add another note with uh the new expansion of uh Franklin Road. They're now going to be taking Mark Choice home uh that will be demolished up to 10 feet and the new road will go right through the middle of his living room. Uh so he will also be losing his uh form of retirement that he was hoping for. So um this project has been interesting because it has been subject to ACD even with their offer. uh they offered him $39,000 for his house because they felt this project would be going forward, which is interesting since they're also the ones who stopped us from having industrial into office space when they wouldn't allow access. This is something I thought I'd thought was ironic. Anyway, I just wanted to show that. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, council. Any questions? Is there anyone else in the room that would like to make a comment on either one of these applications? No. Is there anybody online that would like to make a comment? Use the raise your hand feature. Seeing no further public comments, would the applicant like to come up and close? start.

Um, yes. So, I think we had a few probably an inappropriate time, but I just want to kind of circle back on some things that Bill brought up and some of the closing comments we heard. I feel like uh we had some great support in the room tonight. So, very appreciative of that. Not a whole lot I think we can address on on many of those except that we have tried to accommodate some of that cross access to the neighbors to the east. So, we're we're trying to remember that and take take into consider that as long as well as having the uh pedestrian pathway that we've now added along the east side gives us a little more buffer from that adjacent property as well. So, hopefully improving the value and the long-term use as well, pushing us back just a little more. But, uh, one of the things that I know Nick brought up and I just wanted to circle back on a little bit was in this UDC amendment kind of context and timing. Um, you know, there's there's obviously contracts and there's land sellers and and that's not pervy of the council and that's not your problem to deal with obviously but the big thing for us our next steps include preliminary plat CC there is a large amount of commitment from land trust from a capital perspective uh also not the council's concern except for we're unable to proceed forward with that. It's a a sign significant amount in probably that you know 300 to $400,000 range to just continue on through those processes due to the plans we have to present um some of the design work that needs to be required. So to move forward with that we just need that certainty and so that was really the reason for us pushing so hard on the on the request for that change right now. appreciate that we do have time that we do have to go through those processes, but starting those processes is right now unfundable from a van trust perspective as capital out the door without certainty uh to move forward and that leasing uncertainty kind of presents that challenge to us. So that was one of the things that I did just want to touch on

a little bit. Um but open to you know council's comments on that a little bit and appreciate the time. Obviously I want to give Dev a chance here to close a little more as I just wanted to address that one specific comment.

Yeah, I think uh Chris covered it very well. I just kind of wrap it up by saying, you know, we really appreciate the landowners supports and comments um and they're the people that are involved in this as well. But you do have a um a sophisticated and motivated developer that's here bringing a product that I think is of interest to the city. And so we are asking for um support of the annexation and zoning that will give them more of that certainty. We're asking for the code change to try to remove some of the hurdles that are in your current code that make it harder to lease up the property. We also appreciate um the city's continued efforts to um clean up those codes to make sure that it makes sense across all of the sectors. You know, we did just touch on the one that's important to us consistent with the change that was made. We understand you have broader um concerns there, but having that certainty is really what they need to continue to make this investment. Um it is a it's a relatively small piece of property um but a significant investment on their front um and will bring significant space to the city. Um and because of its size, it does seem like they're able to move forward with it relatively quickly if they get the go-ahad um from the city to bless it. So um with that, we would just stand for any additional questions you have.

Council, any questions for the applicant? No questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Councilman. Sorry, Dean. I thought I turned it on. My finger just didn't press the heart off. Thanks. Um I I would maybe encourage us at least deliberating a little bit before maybe a motion is made to close um the public hearing because I I do think there is an important element um that we haven't discussed as a body that is to me is is the elephant in the room. So I spoke earlier. I support more industrial in this area. I think it makes sense. I think we can work through some of the administrative pieces and appreciate staff's efforts and where the applicants coming from. Um the the biggest hurdle for me in me being in favor of an approval this evening is that um and right district 6, this is the area in which I I represent and I know not everybody that's here tonight was a part of this decision, but the council again kind of put the nose under the tent with granting an annexation for some industrial in this area with significant concerns about the traffic impacts of this area. And that is very real. that is outlined um in ACG staff report. Um you've got an applicant who's saying, "Hey, this use is going to mirror what is already in existence." I would be really frustrated if I was another applicant, another developer who been told you can't grow anymore only to have somebody who's doing a similar use be granted that's your neighbor be granted that access. So, I I don't think I can, as much as I want to see more of this, and and this is the part that is really hard for me is because this council, previous councils have been waving their arms about this area for years with the highway district. We saw this coming as representatives of this community. We have sounded the alarms. We have banged our pots and pans and we have asked the highway district to look at this area. Um, you even have another applicant

who's actually went out and sought out right away to expand Black Cat only for the highway district to say, "We're not interested." So, we're in this weird situation where we as the council knows that this is needed. You have a use that contemplates expanded roadways that is a higher traffic use. Staff voicing concern about approving an annexation because the traffic impacts and yet we forecasted this as an issue. So, I I don't think I can be in support of this application this evening and not because I don't want to. I think this is great. I just think that we have said we're already at our capacity for this part of Meridian when it comes to industrial traffic. And until we can get a plan for how particularly how Blackat south of Franklin is going to address this added capacity, I I I as I hate saying I don't think that we should be voting in favor of of an annexation for this type of use right now. So, um I I recognize not everybody was here that was part of that and opinions can change. Um but I know that was important to me when I was in council reason. I was supportive of granting that initial annexation knowing that these types of things would come. My hope would be is that the highway districts would have been our partner and come side by side to address this and until they are um we're in a really hard position where granting something that I think makes sense for Meridian and is good for Meridian long term is going to create significant traffic challenges for our existing residents.

Council member Strereer. Thank you. Uh question for staff. Could you refresh our memory as to the conditions that we attached to that development and what the milestones are? And then also um where are we at with Franklin? When will it be widened? Is that a certainty? Help me with all of that. But yeah, let's let's go through those conditions. Again, I I agree that there's an issue my colleagues raised that is a very good point. Um, and I struggled a lot with that application and we noodled over it and we really crafted a solution for it. So maybe you could refresh our memory.

Yeah, Council President, Council Ministrader. So yes, I was actually surprisingly actually spot on with my last comment about Black Hat Industrial. Um so greater than 960,000 square feet um of occupied space. Blackcat must be widened to five lanes between the east west collector gr known as grand mogul now um and Franklin. The intersection of blackat and Franklin must be improved as recommended by ACD. And the intersection of McDerma and Franklin must be improved with a two-way left turn lane unless Franklin has been widened to five lanes. Completion of these improvement uh improvement permits o wow that's weird kind of weird word. Completion of these above improvements um must be done prior to occupancy for up to 1.5 or 100 1,500,000 square feet. Um and then the other provision on that was greater than one point or 1,500,000 square feet. Um, Franklin must be wedded into five lanes between Black Blackat and State Highway 16. A traffic signal must be constructed at the intersection of Blackat and the East West on-site collector when a signal warrants when a signal analysis warrants it. Um, which with the district at 10 mile probably be coming in the near future. Um, yeah, east west collector onsite. So there and I don't let me see if I have a better overview. I do on my presentation that be able to show you guys get a little bit better visual. So here's that east west collector known as grand mogul right now and then that will actually have a north south collector that's not on their property and will be actually on this property most likely. um they'll construct a portion of it and it will align somewhere roughly here on Franklin that

may be signalized at some point once it hits a certain threshold. Um but it says the east west collector will be extended from blackat west incrementally as progress. So, which they have done. The applicant has done a phasing plan that will dictate when the sections of that east west collector are constructed. Um, which they already have a good portion of it, about a third of it already constructed. And then as far as the widening of Franklin Road, Franklin Road is scheduled um to be widened five lanes from McDermott Road to Blackat Road in 2027. So to answer your questions, you guys set thresholds at 960,000 square ft, 1,500,000 square feet. Um the East West Collector had some conditions on it and then Franklin will actually be widened, which is part of the improvements that were required in this in 2027 by ACT between State Highway 16 and Blackat. Um but yep, I do I'll stand for any questions if you guys have any. Okay. Council, any questions for staff.

Council President,

can you um realizing that was that was our creature that we invented and that was how we were trying to address this like intractable transportation issue for a good project. Is there any consistent framework of conditions that you can think of that can be applied to similar projects that you feel like there is a level of consistency there? Because I think that that's the challenge. Like I think instinctually it's like, okay, well, how do we dump more annexations onto this roadway network that don't have those conditions? I agree like that that that's a real challenge intellectually, but I just I'm curious like do you think there is a consistent framework that could be utilized uh or is it just too tough because this one the roadway situation is different. They're not taking access directly off Franklin. Like help help me think through that and brainstorm a little bit.

Uh council president, council administrator, it's a good question. Um, is there a consistent framework that we have where we, you know, you have improvements that are required when you hit a certain threshold? I think from my knowledge, Black Hat Industrial because of the size really, you know, you had, yeah,

it was 2.2 million square feet um at full buildout. Uh, you know, I think that was definitely concerns and I assume I know they did traffic study. You know, the size of their project didn't require traffic study. So, we don't have some of the same information. Um, and I'm not going to talk for the van trust team, but I did we I have talked with Chris about, you know, is there possibility of phased what what the timing of that is? Obviously, we don't have a pre-plat in front of us and I don't want to speak for him, but I know it was their intent to do this, you know, pretty

in one phase essentially. Yeah. You know, that it would be construction would be going on in the whole site is from from my knowledge and from the conversations I've had with them. Correct me if I'm wrong. Okay. Um, so as far as phasing it and putting those same conditions on this site, I it's difficult. I see your perspective. It's not something you know we I would say that's been done on maybe like the district and some of the other large project little different non-industrial commercial little different farmstone even or the the Adler project. Uh it's it is different and it's challenging and I think blackhead is primarily the main concern. It looks like Franklin probably going to have five lanes to Franklin to highway state highway 16 and we're going to have that on and off ramp. I think that will function probably pretty well. It's the intersection of Blackhead and Franklin. Um and to be honest, the east west collector that this site's going to be building when Corin got approved, you know, and I talked with AC about potentially I think a left-hand turn lane would work probably pretty good here. Unfortunately, we don't have the threshold to do the left-hand turn lane. So, it's not being designed that way and it's not being constructed that way. So, left hand turns onto Blackcat, you know, it will get a left-hand turn lane eventually, but unfortunately, it's not being constructed right now as it is with Cormain with a left-hand turn lane because it didn't warrant it at the time. I had that conversation. Ultimately, it was determined what it was. Um, so there's concerns there as well. You know, freight traffic trying to make a left-hand turn on the two-lane road peak hour of the day is going to be

very challenging. Uh, so how we mitigate that issue and how you guys mitigate that through conditions as a council and through staff, I don't I don't have a good I guess and maybe Bill does. I'll lean on Bill a little bit. I don't necessarily have a good uh avenue that would mitigate those concerns while also still meeting what the applicant's intent is for the development. Um, because I understand they have a financial aspect that I'm not a part of with it and I want to be sensitive to that as well. So

m Mr. the president, members of the council, just Nick did a fine job explaining to you, but the the the consistent framework is difficult when you have multiple property owners along a roadway. And that's why ACD is hard to enter into a cooperative development agreement or use that tool when you don't control all the property. And so when when ACD has been successful with that tool, that's because the property owners controlled a lot of the property and they were able to execute that and get things uh built ahead of time. this this in this particular situation. Although I appreciate those DA provisions, I don't know how realistic they are. But what I can tell you is there is a collector road happening that wasn't there when Black Hat Industrial got approved. So you see what's happening to the east of this project. Those road that road improve that road between Blackat and 10M should be punched through here within the next couple months from from my understanding sometime in June or July. and there will be a light at that intersection. So again, things will slowly improve over time as these developments come online because as you know, there are conditions of approval on projects and as they hit certain thresholds, they're required to do these upgrades. So I know the the developer to the east is going through a roundabout study, some getting their roundabout approved with ACD, and they're also um looking at putting in some more lights on Franklin for their development, not necessarily for this one. The other challenge, and I think the council understands this, and Mr. Ner can probably chime in, it's it's hard to put those off-site conditions on this particular development when they're not even fronting on Black Hat. Although, they will have somewhat of an impact to that. They are on Franklin. So, that's too much of a stretch even with annexation to say, hey, do some improvements on on Blackat to help mitigate this. Um, so anyways, just wanted to give you that information, little more information anyways to digest. Thank you.

Thank you, staff. Council, any further comments? If there are no further comments, do I have a motion to close the public hearing? Council President, Council Kavar, I'll make a motion that we close the public hearing. Second. I have a motion and a second to close public hearing. All those in favor say I. I oppose. Nay. The eyes have it. The public hearings for both items are closed.

Um council. Uh I I don't want to make a motion for a denial. I know um that we've got a recommendation of denial from staff and from the planning and zoning commission. I also understand that time is of the essence. Um but I can't support this application this evening. And even if I wanted to, again, we don't have the findings. So, council, I I guess I would maybe like to hear a little bit more deliberation um from where you would want to go. I I'm prepared to make a motion to continue this out for 60 to 90 days to give staff an opportunity to maybe look at roadway for us to hear from highway district, but I also know that that 90 days may equate to to a denial and and and I hate that. um if if we continue it and then the applicant withdraws their application, at least gives them a little bit more flexibility to come back as opposed to wait for a significant period of time. I know if it if the doors closed for this applicant, it may be closed. Um I hate because I think we're we're going to miss out on a on a good opportunity for a good project, but that's at least where I'm motion I'm prepared to make this evening. um barring a a better mouse trap that any of you would maybe suggest. Okay. Uh council, I'm going to move that we continue uh item 17 uh vanrust H2025 0052 to June the 16th and a request that our planning staff engage with highway district staff on the future

development of Blackcat and Franklin and also to have our planning staff connect with the adjacent land owner that has the condition placed on them for roadway way improvements to uh grant their expanded use and for staff to prepare a report from those findings prior to June the 16th. Um that should also give the staff ample time to prepare conditions of approval for the council. Councilman Caver,

quick question clarification. You said item 17. You mean 17 and 18? I I had planned to make the same motion when we got to the next one, but I I figured because we're taking action on those separately. Um I wouldn't be as verbose with my basis for the continuence for the next one, but just that it would be continued to the same evening. Council President Overton, Council Member Straighter.

Yeah, I that's a great start to a discussion. I I think I'm I'm in the same place where it's like I I I don't want to, you know, sadly I think we may miss out on a fantastic project just because I think that the level of certainty that the applicant needs from us tonight is higher than certainly I could give them. Um my I'm struggling a lot with item 18. Um I'm struggling with both items, but I'm struggling a lot with item 18. I don't think it's appropriate for one development uh to lead wholesale UDC changes, especially when we have them in process. And I think our staff's capable of prioritizing that item. Um my suggestion as one council member would be to ask that that become a priority item. Um but I'd love for other people to weigh in on that. I think between now and June, it's possible that we could get a lot of clarity. And I think I think there's been a real openness and willingness to expand our um see the flex space that we're seeing and to like support that use. I think we understand that today's economy has changed in terms of what level of office is fundamentally needed in this remote work AI environment. And I I think we get all that. Um, I'm very open to a comp plan discussion holistically about our industrial corridor and where that borders with the 10 mile plan because I think that that's a really worthwhile discussion. Um, I I don't think I could get there on this tonight for the same reason articulated by Councilman Kavana. That particular project and the acute issues on Blackat were so severe that we really did craft like this customized approach to the roadway network. Um, I like the idea of a continuence, but understanding that the reality of that may mean that it is effectively means we we may not see this project. That's very unfortunate. Um, I just that's where my head's at today. I I couldn't get there on it. I I can't

think of a condition that would make sense to to get there and I definitely do not uh agree that item 18 is the right approach at all. Uh, so that's just where I'm at right now. I'll second that that motion. Sorry,

Mr. President. Real quick, if I may. Uh I I specifically picked that date in June based on some of that feedback from staff. So again, I think there's parallel tracks. Again, I think our concern is that probably the clock may be running out for our applicant and I'm sympathetic to that. trying to find the most aggressive timeline to try and be responsive to that while also recognizing the time it will take for our staff. So I uh and I don't think that in any way form continuing both would preclude any council member from voting in favor or against should that be on our agenda. Council president over to

Councilman Taylor first off we have a motion for continuance and a second Councilman Taylor. Yeah, for discussion on the motion. Um I think it'd be helpful for the applicant just to kind of get a greater sense of kind of where some of us are thinking. Um you know, one of the things that I think is uh as much as we can provide certainty to our partners in development, it's very helpful. Um, I really uh I'm I would support the project going through as it is, but I wouldn't support um changes to UDC tonight without a further fuller discussion with staff and recommendations because I think we have a responsibility as a city council to consider um the entirety of the city and I'd want to have that kind of feedback. And if that were a um if that makes this a non-starter for the applicant, then that would I would that's unfortunate. Um but I don't see how I could be supportive of both of them tonight. I could support the the land use application despite some of the concerns about conditions on other projects. I don't believe that um we should hold hostage some uh applications because of other applications and their development agreements and any conditions that are in that. I don't think that's fair. Um but I I think right now the best way to possibly see that this project could pass is to vote to support a continuence to the date that the council councilman Cavar suggested. Um, I I see that as really the only pathway to maybe see this project succeed. And I think in that time frame, count or staff can provide us as council the the um

uh suggestions and and more holistic approach to looking at the UDC changes on flex space that we need to make an informed decision. Uh, and I agree with Councilman Strader's comments. It's a mistake for us to approve the UDC changes under the circumstances tonight. Though I do think where the changes are going I think would be helpful to where the applicant wants to see. We just have to we have to follow a process. We have to go through what we have to go through to um uphold our oath of office and be responsible to the citizens. So that's kind of where I'm at. I really really one of my really great application. I do think that this entire area is gonna should look more industrial. I actually on the traffic I get the two-lane roads, but I like to see industrial next to a freeway. I don't want to see them driving through neighborhoods. I don't want to see them driving three miles off of a and this is a great spot once, you know, Franklin Road opens up 10 mile or the Highway 16. We're going to have great access. This is what this area needs to see. And I think, you know, for staff, we should have this conversation about what this whole area looks like. But that's a great project. Um, that's where I am. I'm going to support the motion for a continuence because I think that's the only way that this application could possibly succeed is when we get to that point. Council have a chance to weigh in on this. Um I think some great thoughts have been brought out on the table tonight. Um I think this application is an excellent application. It's just the timing is not good. you know, we don't control the roadways. I wish we could approve the project and say, "Oh, by the way, build me a five-lane road on Blackat as well, but we don't have that authority." Uh, we never have. And this particular part of the city, especially Blackat on both

sides of Franklin, is well, I heard you talk about being in Idaho back in 1975. That road hasn't changed. That's what it was in 1975. I remember. And it's still the same way. It's one of the last bastions of two-lane country roads that we've got running on that west side of town. And it's it's impossible to try to approve something like this based upon where we're sitting right now. I think uh we need to have those conversations with the restrictions we put on other applicants before this. It's completely unfair, I think, if we don't have those conversations and make sure we understand all the ramifications that were applied to them before we approve something else. That's just being fundamentally fair to everyone who comes in front of us as a city. Um the UDC text amendment, I couldn't agree more. I've worked with bill and planning on different text amendments over the past few years and they worked just as hard as they can on all the different amendments we've got for all the different parts of text. Um, we spent months working on just drive-throughs. I mean, it we we need to make sure we get these right when we make these changes so we don't do them haphazard and we certainly just don't do them quickly to try to get something done. And that's what I'd hate to see. when it's done, it needs to be done right. So, I I stand in support of Councilman Kavanaaugh's uh motion for continuance till June 16th. I think it's the right motion and on the address of whether it means it's the end of the application. You know, I don't want to sound heartless, but at some point, we have to look at what's best for the city. I mean, that's the reason we're sitting up here. And I don't ever want to hurt an applicant. I don't ever want to hurt a homeowner, but in the end, we've got to protect the city and how that comes together.

Councilman Caver, Councilman President, I just was going to deliberation done. I was going to call for the question.

Mr. President, let me let me deliberate just a second for um and at the risk of being repetitive of what's been said. I I think it is a good project. I think it fits well. Um I think traffic from this would flow to the west and catch Highway 16 and off they go and life is good, especially on the 10 mile corridor. Um, so I'm, you know, I I don't have any concerns that it will push traffic more towards the other types of developments we're seeing in the 10 mile area. Um, I'm heartened to hear from Trina and Greg and Gina that they're supportive as homeowners and they think this is probably the right direction to go. And so I would like to get to a point where we could approve something like this. And I think that the motion that we have on the table of continuing this until June 16th gives us the opportunity to get all the parts and pieces in in the right place um so that hopefully we don't have Franklin Road running through a living room and residents displaced and no solution for them to look forward to. So I'll be supporting that motion and hope that we can get to a resolution on June 16th. Council, if we have no more comments, roll call vote on the motion to continue till June 16th.

Thank you, Council President Overton. Cavaner, hi. Taylor, I Strader, Whitlock, I. Little Roberts, Overton, I. Council at six eyes for continuence until June 16th of 2026 on item 17 and item 18. Mr. President, Councilman Kevin, I move that we continue item 18, Vantrust application ZOA-2025-00002 to June 16th. Second.

We have a motion and a second to continue item 18 until June 16th of 2026. Madam clerk, call RO. Thank you. Council President Overton Kavanaaugh. Hi Taylor. Hi. Strader. Hi. Whitlock. I Little Roberts. Hi. Overton. Hi. We have all eye votes on 18. It is also continued to June 16th of 2026. That brings us to the end. Do we have any future meeting topics, council? There's no future meeting topics. Do I have a motion to adjurnn? Council President Overton, move we adjourn.

We are ajourned. Thank you.