Planning and Zoning - Regular Meeting

We're waiting for one more commissioner. So we will start in a few minutes. up. Good evening. Welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for March 5th, 2026. At this time, I would like to call the meeting to order. The commissioners who are present for this evening's meeting are at city hall and Zoom. Commissioner Perau is running a little late and she will join us when she gets here.

We also have staff from the city attorneys and the city's clerk's office as well as the city's planning department. If you're joining us on Zoom this evening, we can see that you are here. You may be obser you may observe the meeting. However, your ability to be seen on screen and talk will be muted. During the public testimony portion of the meeting, you will be unmuted and then be able to comment. Please note, we cannot take questions until the public hearing portion of the meeting. If you have a process question during the meeting, please email city clerk@mercity.org and they will reply as quickly as possible. If you simply want to watch the meeting, we encourage you to watch it streaming on the city's YouTube channel. You can access it at meridiancity.org backlive. With that, let us begin with roll call. Madame clerk.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Commissioner Sandaval, present. He's on Zoom. Uh, Matthew, you're muted. Yeah, present. Can you hear me? Can you repeat that you're here? Yeah, present. I'm here. I can barely hear you. Can you try again? Yeah, I'm here. Okay, very good. Thanks. Thank you. Commissioner Smith here. Commissioner Delamino present. Chairperson Lortcher here. There are no changes to tonight's agenda. Can I move Can I get a motion to adopt tonight's agenda as presented? So moved.

Seconded. It's been moved and second to accept tonight's agenda. All those in favor say I. I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries. The next item on the agenda is the consent agenda. We will approve the minutes from the planning and zoning meeting from February 19th and facts of findings of fact findings of law for the TA box. Could I get a motion to accept the consent agenda as presented? Moved. Second. It's been moved and second to accept the consent agenda. All those in favor say I. I. I.

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

and respond. When the applicant has finished responding to questions and concerns, we will close the public hearing and the commissioners will have an opportunity to discuss and hopefully be able to make a final decision or recommendations to city council. With that, we will start with item number three, H2025-000040, Rolling Hill subdivision subdivision off of O overland road for annexation. And we will begin with the staff report. Good evening, Madam Chair, members of the commission. Next item on the agenda is the annexation request for Rolling Hills. Uh the applicant requests annexation of 8.16 acres of land with the CC zoning district to construct 184 vertically residential units and 18,226 square ft of commercial space spanning across four buildings. So the site is generally located at the northeast corner of Overland Road and Rolling Hill Drive. And as shown on the screen, the existing zonings for the six properties are R1 and Ada County and the flume designation is mixeduse reg mixeduse regional. So in 2023, an application was submitted for five of the subject six parcels with this application and the applicant was requesting annexation a conditional use permit with that application for a mix a mix of vertically integrated residential units and multifamily. In total, they proposed 154 dwelling units across 5.89 acres of land. Uh that application was denied by city council due to the creation of a county enclave, inadequate transition to surrounding areas, insufficient integration particularly with the property to the east. That layout also created a narrow underutilized strip of land between the future road and the edge of the development. In addition, the city council discussed uh vehicular connectivity and traffic as a large concern among several of the members. So, the new concept plan, the one that's

in front of you today, uh as depicted on the screen, uh depicts four vertically uh integrated residential buildings consisting of the 184 residential units and 18,226 ft of commercial space. Uh the applicant has indicated the commercial tenants are envisioned to be gyms, personal professional services, and offices. Um, in addition during uh the review process to address comments from city staff, the applicant did revise their plan to incorporate approximately 53,000 square feet of open space and amenities that include a pickle ball court, botchi ball court, playground, fire pit, pathways, two barbecue areas, and a pergola with outdoor seating as well as a clubhouse. Uh the number of parking stalls required was 272 spaces and the applicant did provide 332 stalls exceeding the UDC standards. And they also provided this exhibit showing which spaces will be um different differentiating the parking stalls between residential commercial users and a mix of both that could be used by either. So, the applicant submitted five building elevations uh which do not meet the city's architectural standards as they currently lie. As previously noted, a reason for the previous application um the previous denial of this application was due to the inadequate transition to the existing county residences to the north. Uh to address this, the applicant proposed elevations for buildings A and B, which would be on the north portion of the site uh to have three stories facing the interior of the site with two stories facing the north. However, the roof height for the buildings remaining uh remains the same from both perspectives, which is approximately 43 feet in height. The previous application had buildings that were four stories in height with approximately a height of with that were approximately 40 feet 45 feet in height. And while staff understands the intent behind the applicant's proposed transition, the overall height of the building has only been lowered by two feet. and staff is

asking the planning and zoning commission city council to carefully consider whether this proposed transition is adequate. Uh the current proposal provides a single access point provides a single access point via rolling hill drive. This arrangement raises concern significant concerns from staff regarding safety as Overland is planned to be widened to seven lanes which would limit access to Rolling Hill Drive to ride in and ride out movements only. In addition, there is no established timeline for the construction of the future collector roadway. And that's why that's in red red tonight. Uh that future collector roadway would not be a part of the application that's been submitted more for visual conceptual purposes. So staff had multiple com multiple discussions with the applicant regarding this concern and has encouraged them to be part of the solution to for connectivity and traffic in this area within this area. Some of the ideas we have discussed is coordination with adjacent developers to pursue that solution uh as well as constructing a portion of the collector on their property and exploring different alignments of the collector road and signal as well as putting money in a road trust. Uh the applicant has indicated they've reached out to the neighboring developer but were unable to engage in productive discussions regarding coordination efforts to potentially work with them or acquire the property. In addition, staff and the applicant explored other solutions uh in an in an effort to address this concern. However, the applicant was was either unsuccessful or chose not to pursue certain options due to it not being financially feasible financially feasible. Uh while staff acknowledges that this present ch this this presents a challenging situation for the applicant without being part of the solution that this shifts responsibility of the collector railway onto all the adjacent properties for future development. Uh the construction of the collector railway is critical to providing adequate connectivity for both this development and anticipate anticipated redevelopment of the surrounding area to the north as well as the Mavado subdivision to the south. And this would be the alignment of that

future collector roadway. This will show it a little bit better. This will be a signalized intersection at some point in the future. So without uh clear without the construction without clear information regarding the timing and construction of the collector roadway there's a risk that this may never be constructed which would be detrimental for this development as well as future developments in this area. In addition the current design raises um concerns about the lack of connection to the adjacent property to the east of fostering continuity. The proposed layout appears to create a physical functional barrier between this development and the future collector road that would hinder integration with the surrounding property and collector roadway in the future. And that was a reason previous reason for denial of the previous application. Is there approximately a 40ft strip of the land from their property line to the actual collector roadway that would essentially be open space that wouldn't be utilized for anything. So, as mentioned in my staff report, staff is supportive of the proposed land use within the within the broader mixeduse regional area. However, large concerns still persist regarding the project's timing and integration with surrounding area. As a result, staff is recommending denial due to safety concerns regarding access, a lack of transition to county residences, lack of integration with the property to the east, and the future collector not having a clear timeline for when the collector and signalized intersection at Overland will be constructed. We have received testimony in the form of eight letters. Two letters are in opposition citing traffic too high of density and safety concerns with additional trips onto Overland Road. We have also received five letters in support of the project. Many of the letters are from property owners for the land in proposed in this development. And the letters support the letters of support site private property rights, need for additional housing, low vacancy rates, and allowing the this area this county subdivision to continue to redevelop

such as it has to the north. In addition, we did receive another letter of testimony which was both in support and against the development at the same time. Uh the support they support private property rights. However, they think integration of the pros project with the surrounding area is not well thought out. and I'll stand for any questions you have at this time.

Would the applicant like to come forward? Amen. Amen. And will I be in control of the the slides?

Just the arrow on the side. Thanks, Bill. All right. Good evening, Madam Chair, members of the commission. My name is Chris Todd with Green Mountain Resources and Planning. My business address is 12545 uh West State Street Suite 102 in Star, Idaho. um here on behalf of Rolling Hill and wanted to introduce our our development team um that's listed on this slide um going through I'll let you see those that are here um all local um professionals in our area. Um we also have some of the land owners um that are here either in person or that have logged in online today to to view the hearing. Um the Rolling Hill project is a thoughtfully designed mixeduse development in a transitioning corridor of Meridian. Um we recognize that transition areas require careful consideration. Um and we feel that we've approached this project with the responsibility of that front and center. A little timeline and history of the project. Um some of you probably remember um the process for us began in 2023. Um the prop property move forward and the proposed development uh was then denied or recommendation from denial from planning and zoning in late 2024 despite at that time having the city of star or city of meridian's uh staff report. So during that hearing um the staff report was actually in favor of the project. In the beginning of 2025 the project was reassessed and work began on modifying the development on the development team has been fully engaged with the subject property owners and the surrounding rolling hill community and the neighbors within that. We have been forthcoming with all

parties, held numerous neighborhood meetings, and employed transparency, communication as we have been developing the plan that you're seeing this evening. This evening plan represents a dramatic improvement in the prior plan and responds nearly all pri or responds to nearly all prior comments and neighborhood feedback. And we're going to run through that this evening. I think Nick and Bill did a great job of or Nick did a great job of kind of explaining the layout um of what we have at Rolling Hill um development. The changes to the proposed project design and layout are deliberate choices corresponding with the city's comprehensive plan. The site is located one-third of a mile from a 25-y year growth bullseye, which is the interstate and Eagle Road kind of interchange is what I would call a bullseye. Um, in this area, obviously, we have lots of employers, new and old, hospitality, services, and commerce in every direction. Large economic and transportation corridors, including Interstate 84, provide access. This is precisely where the city's comprehensive plan encourages regional, commercial, mixeduse, and highdensity housing development. We are extending, excuse me, we are exceeding some of the city's requirements. As Nick hit on, we are exceeding the parking requirement by 60 spaces. We are exceeding the bike parking by 76 spaces. The vertically integrated projects within the city do not require open space. yet there's a proposed 50 thou or 53,000 square feet of it. Finally, the vertical integrated projects, although they don't require amenities during the uh previous round um of the application and testimony uh

from the commission and council, um the message was heard about amenities and we listed those on this slide so you can go through those. Um but basically it's the design is is really looking inward at the clubhouse and then kind of going from there. Um the clubhouse itself um has office space um a dog washing station uh open uh room and kitchen um to create even more um amenities on the inside. the denial of the 2020 20 or excuse me 2024 rolling hill project. In the 2024 planning and zoning hearing, Commissioner Sandaval motioned to deny the project based on a missing land parcel in the center of the site that created a county enclave and a lack of building height transition to the north of the site as it integrates with the existing single family homes um to the north which this area according to the comprehensive plan is targeted as regional mixed use. The single biggest improvement to present this evening is the inclusion of that enclave property into um the project to make it whole. There is no longer a county enclave. This was the core reason for the commission's denial in 2024. Building height. Another substantial improvement that has been made in that we're presenting this evening is that we've reduced the amount of the building stories along the northern property line. No longer will there be three stories of residences looking towards um the neighbors to the north. All buildings in the prior development were four stories tall. Now the northern buildings are two stories facing north and three stories facing south. This creates a buildingstep transition as

requested. To note, the single family homes sites to the west um have been sold and in are in the process of similar commercial development transition and the building height transitions. The building pad elevations of the existing single family home sites to the north are substantially elevated above our building pad. To explain this, we created and shared with the neighbors the diagram seen here this evening. To note, the homes are approximately 270 feet, almost the size of the BSU football field, away from this building, and a human's line of sight will only read approximately 20 ft of the roof roof height. Transition landscaping. To further address neighbor concerns, we agreed with them to add a line of fast growing evergreen trees on our property line to the north that would be really close to the extension of the 5mile creek pathway. By having these trees on the property line to the north, our buildings, the idea was is to create a wall of greenery um that is year-long and will add visual privacy for those homes that are to the north. This adjustment was wellreceived by the neighbors. One neighbor was concerned the proposed buildings would shade his property. To address this concern, we performed a shade study and sent it to him with which alleviated his concerns as it proved that the proposed buildings would not shade his property. Along with the um the two concerns that I kind of went through with the planning and zoning commission, there were also two additional ones from staff that I wanted to hit on tonight. The first one

is the landscape buffer to the east of our property. This landscape buffer was not created by us. The issue was created when Mavado Way was planned in its existing location many years ago. Perhaps Mavado Way could have been planned to stub into Overland at a different location such as what is common is a common property line or even the existing Roaring or Rolling Hill Drive. In understanding the current situation, we can't solve this issue, but also believe it is insignificant to total city planning. To put this buffer in perspective, it's approximately 40 ft wide to the south near Overland and reduces to zero feet as you approach the norththeast corner of our property. We see it as a nice additional open space, streetscape, or buffer for future development that comes in on our neighbors property to the east. the Mavado extension. Um these notes that you see on here is we have attempted to engage with Corey Barton Homes or Endurance Holdings which owns the parcel um to the east regarding partnering uh working with um but however that owner is not interested in pursuing any agreements. Second staff concern that I want to review this evening is the collector road of Mavado and the lack of Mavado way being extended to the north. While we appreciate this concern and hope Mavado way extension is built soon, we object that is that this project should be denied based off of a road improvement on another property not affiliated with this project and on separate private property. To be explic explicitly clear, ACD and

the fire department do not take any issues with the ingress and egress of our proposed project taking access onto Rolling Hill Drive and they have they did not in 2024 as well. As seen on our site plan, we are already planning a stub to the east for our site for future connection to Mato Way once built. Finally, and hit on it one more time, it should be noted that we have engaged been engaged with Endurance Holdings since 2023 in an attempt to work with, purchase, partner, cost share with no meaningful response. We believe that Cory Barton Homes wants our proposed project to fail, which will secure their control of not only the subject properties within our subdivision, but also 14 additional adjacent properties in the Rolling Hill community. Property rights. Idaho holds property rights at the highest of value when multiple land owners voluntarily come together to plan comprehensively and their planning is consistent with city policy and comprehensive plans. I believe that that collaboration should matter. This project represents unified planning and not speculation. A denial of this project limits the subject property owners and numerous surrounding property owners to effectively one buyer. A denial prevents a free and open market to exist, which will in principle drive property value downwards. A denial consolidates control of the access and the development timing to a single developer. The team's opinion is that a denial based on road improvements on a separate property violates local land use law, especially when ACD agrees that our proposed ingress and egress are acceptable. Timing

There's no debate that the Eagle View Landing, Elorado, and Silverstone complexes are huge draws in the community and have significantly altered the fabric and makeup of the area and they continue to grow. Concentrating mixed use density along major corridors with existing infrastructure is how cities manage growth responsibly. recent um approval or recommendations of approval um through the commission are that are close to our site um include the Revolution uh concert house approximately a third of a mile to the northwest um and the St. George uh project recently approved off of Topaz and Overland um approximately a pitching wedge away to the west market and timing vacancy rate. This um these um stats in the market reports that you see in front of you are from um CoStar um which is a commercial um land data clearing house probably the biggest one in the country. Vacancy rate within the onem radius is steady at 5% or less than 5%. Meridian leads the region in net absorption with 819 units leased in 2025. What you can see on these two tables is that there has been a huge decrease in project deliveries over the last 18 months causing demand to rise. The number of units under construction result in low future supply. Summary and conclusion. Tonight's decision is about more than one development. It is not often that a project has ramifications that if not approved would deny property owners the right for a free market for the future of their property. The proposed project

represents discipline, strategic growth, togetherness in the right place at the right time for Meridian brought forth by an experienced and local development team that is in the audience this evening. If we say no to wellplanned cor corridor focused mixeduse pro projects that meet code and align with the vision of the city we ultimately push growth into less appropriate places. With that I stand for any questions and ask for your approval. I would like to make a note that um commissioner Perau has joined us this evening. I mentioned it earlier uh before you got here. Um commissioners, do we have any questions for Mr. Todd, before we open to public testimony, Madam Chair,

Commissioner Perau, can you walk us through the improvements that will be made um to Rolling Hills, obviously on on your side of the of the street, and then kind of how you envision traffic flowing through um coming in, coming out, and especially making that left turn out onto onto Rolling Hills.

Yes. Um, as stated, ACD and um, the fire department um, have not had issues with our ingress and egress. Um, there's approximately, I believe, approximately 15 homes currently off of Rolling Hill Drive. Um, a couple of them are vacant that have sold um, recently. Um, in terms of improvements, um, this, um, Rolling Hill Drive would be responsible for the improvements along um, their western boundary. Um so from View Circle down um to the south to Overland as well as the ride ofway that is along Overland um the um the future plan for expanding Overland and the ride ofway that would be there would be dedicated with this property as well. Um, we have also provided a stub street um to the east uh for future connection to the extension of Mavado Way. when that does come through the city, the View Drive um corridor that is to the north. Um how we see that or how it's been pictured to us is you would have the um way would kind of connect into the view drive and head um to the west and then south of that future um collector would also be the five mile creek um pathway which connects from basically Cloverdale into Eagle View Landing. Um we are open for um other improvements along Rolling Hill. Um we've thrown out um lights, street lights um because we had some um testimony about lighting on the street and it being dark. We're open to that. We are open to speed bumps. We're open to signage. Um we have worked with and come up with a plan and Wright Brothers the building company. Um, you

know, any sort of construction, construction, traffic, storing of vehicles, uh, materials, any of that would not be on any of the roads that, uh, encompass this area and would all be held on site. Madam Chair, Mr. Smith,

uh, two questions. one uh when I I recall uh when this was first before the commission um and we recommended a denial and transition space was was a big focus. It appears to me so I guess one could you confirm for me it appears to me looking at the two site plans that the the buildings uh the actual units have have been moved in the plan further and closer to the border with the adjacent properties. Um, and if that is the case, I'm curious as to like, you know, you're talking about this kind of like felt height disparity, etc. Why would you move, you know, if transition space is a concern, why what was the intention behind moving the properties closer to the border uh with with neighboring

couple of reasons I guess we could get into um and the transition there. Um so looking at the the first um rendition that was denied in 2024, lots of parking um lots of vehicles along that northern boundary. Um not I would say in terms of open space, not a good use of open space in the revised enhanced plan that we have in front of you this evening. Um we're pushing some of that open space up towards the five mile um creek pathway area and then in the middle of the subdivision, well middle of the project, excuse me, there would be more open space that leads into call it the an um a centralized amenity package. Um, we feel that this layout and by bringing that that the enclave into the design and the layout of this project, we get to focus more on on where that clubhouse is located and having it centrally located for all future residents. Um, and then we also have to accommodate the parking. Um we did increase parking as well but um and going back to maybe the parking plan, excuse me. Um having the parking plan, we feel that the layout and the design of this mixes well for the vertically integrated product and the commercial that is say um maybe pushed more towards the endcaps of the property. Um so on the west side we have the incaps of the commercial um and that ver vertical integration um being closer to the roads um rather than trying to put that commercial centrally

located in those buildings. Um we're still like I said 270 ft from the single family homes to these buildings. Um that includes the green space, the pathway, a future road, and then the front yards of those single family homes. Um, in terms of, um, architectural speak, um, I could probably have David Ruby, who's here today as well, um, with the architect's office, speak a little bit more, um, to why we laid it out that way. But, um, coming from me, that just the the overall feel and look of it, um, it feels like it's more of a cohesive development, especially going for a mixeduse type of um, development in a transition area. Thank you. Um and then could you speak to um staff's discussion of um regarding the height? I know you're showing here that um you know we've reduced the the actual stories but in terms of the overall height to the you know uh to the apex seems like that's only come down to feet. I'm curious. I guess we're kind of talking about height in terms of stories as a change here

when the actual vertical measured height hasn't changed much. Is it really

I guess could Yeah. Could you speak to that and kind of help me understand? I would say that the the majority of that height now has been with more of a roof uh view and that's that 20 feet that the human eye would be able to see that's 270 ft away. Instead of seeing three stories of apartments, there would be two stories. Now their roof line is is the roof is encompassing um the building and some of the mechanical and um different mechanical aspects of that of that building. Um and I would say that the um the overall transition is we're knocking off or not knocking off we are reducing the amount of apartments by a third that would have a visual towards the nor towards the north. Um, but when we get into um that line of sight study, um I think that it really needs to be um shown the distance between the existing homes in a transition area. Um which I believe are three homes off of View Circle. Um and that that length of distance is quite significant. Um and we've significantly reduced the amount of apartments that would be seen. And then we've increased um call it green green green space or green buffering um for the landscaping along um the property line and we've um included that landscape plan with the application as well.

Thank you. And one last question chair. Could you help me understand could you articulate your your concerns that you mentioned around the legality or the lawfulness of denial in the context specifically of an annexation? because it's my understanding that in the context of an annexation, the city has a lot more leeway. And so I'm curious if you could kind of better articulate or more clearly articulate for me what specifically you think the contention is here. I guess from a legal standpoint,

I would say in layman's terms is um to to require a land owner to build a road or deny them the right to to annex into the city and and to do a development based on the Mavado extension, which is kind of the um the big concern from the staff. Um we feel that that is setting precedent um that this property and the the uh five land owners um that have come together for this project um are harmed because of something that is outside of their control. Thank you, Madam Chair. Question for staff.

Oh, go ahead. I guess for for legal does that does that at all constitute a taking or anything similar? Is there any concern from legal staff on that. Can you hear me? Can you hear me? Uh, under the UDC, one of the required findings is whether this annexation is in the best interest of the city and it is permissible and your role to determine based on the facts in the record whether it is in the city's best interest. And so if timing is a concern, it doesn't constitute a taking. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you,

Madam Chair. If I may jump in real quick on that as well. So, we're not requiring this applicant to construct that collector. We So, the the alignment has to be on the property to the east as far as the actual intersection. However, we are asking them to be part of the solution for the overall connectivity in this area. And as of right now, that collector roadway is being pushed onto everyone else's future development. And whether they could jog onto this property, they could put the east west collector on the north portion of their site. It doesn't have to go north of the canal there. Five mile creek. It does not have to go there. The master street map is not set in concrete. There's different ways that this collector really could work here. The only place it has to be is in alignment with Mavado, and that's because that's going to be a signalized intersection. So, I want to make that clear that we're not denying this because they're not constructing it. We need them to be part of the solution. That's part of the reason for denials. Yeah. And I guess the the um for the past few years, um we've extinguished a ton of effort to try to be a part of that solution. Um, and there hasn't been um any meaningful um response or um at least a partnership in any form or fashion. Um the alignment that you see in front of you here, although not perfect with a a yellow um dash line, makes the most sense for MAB Mabato to be extended into this site for future transportation planning. At the time in the future when Rolling Hill turns into a ride in and right out, there will need to be a signal. Was this Mavado

um not planned properly or was there maybe an oversight? It could have been um the city of Meridian doesn't necessarily um do a more of a ACD responsibility. Um, we are more than willing to keep working on any solution that the city would like us to see fit based on us being approved. Whether that's dedicating right ofway, whether that's looking at site improvements that would help um the the landscape buffer and that that gap property that would be on the neighbor's property to the east undoubtedly is going to be part of their open space percentage when they would come in for a future commercial or a mixeduse development. Um, and I know just personally speaking with those involved that they've extinguished every effort to try to be a good neighbor and to work with just like they have with the neighbors that are not only a part of this this subdivision but all of the ones along Rolling Hill Drive. Um, multiple meetings back and forth with emails and correspondents, shade studies, line of sight studies. Um the amount of um collaboration and coordination with the neighbors has been very high.

Um Nick, can you reiterate some of the um solutions that the city of Meridian has suggested as far as the Mavado road improvements? So yeah, you know, we've had a lot of meetings on this application. Uh I think we're seven or eight probably in the the time we've had this in process. Um and it's been consistent from the beginning that this was a concern. Um we've explored obviously coordinating with the adjacent developer to see either acquiring the land or partnering with them. Obviously that's not going to work, right?

Uh but there is options to that collector doesn't have to be a straight line. It can jog over. It could build part of it on the west boundary of the site or on the east boundary of the site. I apologize. They could build portion of it on the north boundary of their site. There are ways to do that and we have asked them to do that. It ultimately came to be financially not feasible for them so it didn't pencil. Um we've also looked at a road trust with ACD. ACD wasn't willing to accept a road trust for this. Uh we've looked at even we had conversation with ACD even about potentially moving the signal to Rolling Hill. Not going to be the best in the interest of the city or ACD because of everything that's south of Overland off Mavado. We need all of those to have a signal as well. So that's really the key. And we talked about even opening the north portion of Rolling Hill and that was part of another application to the north that council was pretty clear on that they do not want that opened until more properties on Rolling Hill develop. So we've explored quite a few options and either it didn't work out or it just financially didn't work for the applicant. But ultimately pushing all of that on to somebody else is still an issue. Um and that's why it's brought up in the staff report as a large concern from staff and it has been since day one when we talked with them. We have been consistent throughout this.

Yeah. Mavado I mean any of these collector roads that we're talking about um the logical place for them is always on a common property line. That is the optimal place because it's a cost share between two owners. This is very close, but when they planned it, they shifted it for whatever reason, we don't know. About approximately 40 ft to the east. The alignment that is shown here makes the most in planning sense to free up the neighbor to the east to develop all of his property that he has um and probably tie in with the um looks like a lay down uh storage type of use to his east. And then it lines up with view drive which is already a part of the region. Um by trying to align this or um jog it into the heart of this property when there's um six small properties that are all together for this application. I think we need to understand that as well is that this isn't just like one property owner that has all of this. This is actually five individual owners with six pieces of property.

Madam Chair, um, Commissioner Delamino, question for the staff. Sure. Uh, Nick, could you clarify and elaborate just a little bit on your most recent comment that uh due to feasibility it would shift the uh it would shift it on everybody else. Is that cost uh would that shift responsibility and burden of cost on the surrounding area on the uh surrounding properties and owners? Is that my understand uh am I misunderstanding that?

Yeah, madam chair, commissioner. Uh yeah. So yes, it's cost and land. So you know I know the property to the east, you know, I understand first of all consolidating six properties is always difficult when it's five different owners. So I'm not like I said staff is overall this development if connectivity was better and they resolved some of the concerns from the previous denial I think staff would be supportive of it but this roadway and pushing that on to other developers even to the east it's a single property that's in the meridian the storage to the east of that is actually in the city of Boisee so that is really the boundary of meridian um then you have 40 feet then you have another collector roadway it's probably going to be 48 38 foot street section uh potentially could be reduced. Um so a good portion of that property would be taken up by landscape buffers and the collector which is why it may never be developed because it's encumbered by entirety of it. That's why finding a solution to where this developer could take a portion of that or jog it onto their site may lead into the future to that developing. Um, ultimately it's it's difficult to tell, but you're correct. If if they don't put any of it on their site, it does push all of the financial cost onto the development of the other properties, whichever developer decides to do that in the future. That is correct.

Thank you, Nick, Madam Chair, for a followup. Uh, this one will be addressed to the applicant.

Okay. Uh my question is as having had experience in project management, uh was a potential outcome or or understanding of the financial impact that uh and lay out and uh visual that Nick just gave us taken into consideration. And then also what what percentage of a of a financial impact would it have on the cost of this project for the uh or you and for the company uh to take on the cost that would um uh gosh I'm blanking on the word uh that would pretty much cover all the bases.

Yeah. To be honest, we never even got a price from the landowner to the east of what they would want. We we offered to purchase that property. Uh we offered to partner with them to build a portion or half of that property. Um and we were we were met with um you know silence I guess at the end of the day you would say. Um, and kind of coming back to the cost of the road and and um I have sat on um a couple different transportation committees in the cities that I've resided in in the state of Idaho. Um and I've sat on the citizens advisory committees for those cities with ACD. Um I've helped with five-year integrated work plans and things like that. um this area and this transition area um should be a part of of Meridian's kind of five-year integrated work plan in terms of working with ACD um because that could help with the cost burden to the the eastern boundary. um the cost associated say with with this project um other than the the giving of ride ofway and then the improvements of rolling hill um when I get back up for my kind of rebuttal after the public testimony I'll sit with the team and try to come up with kind of a number for you as well. Um I can't get you one off right now.

Thank you, Madam Chair. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you. Madame clerk, um, who do we have first to testify? Thank you, Madam Chair. We have Kim. Is it Boyak? Hi,

if you can state your name and address for the record. My name is Kim Boyak and my address is 4270 East Overland Road, Meridian, Idaho. Okay. And thank you for having us here tonight. Um, my husband and I uh have owned and lived on 4270 East Overland Road for 40 years. And as you can imagine, we have seen a lot of changes over these past 40 years. Um we're right on Overland Road right across from Mavado Way um on that corner right next to the Corey Barton uh property. That's our place. And if you drive by there, we have a couple horses there. And uh we've always had horses and uh raised our two kids there. And uh we feel like, you know, everything's changing so quickly that we're going to that we'd really like to move. We'd like to move out away from all of the hubhub that we're used to. We both grew up in Star, Idaho um on farms and so this development has kind of uh cramped our style, if you will. Um we went through the process of the widening of Overland Road. We lost half of our front yard um in that process, watching it going from the two lanes to the five lanes that it that it is now. and we're not looking forward to seeing it being widened again or going through that whole process. Um, we went to a land use meeting back in 2017 where they talked about Mavado subdivision and they were showing how they were going to have commercial in the front and apartments and then the subdivision in the back. It's kind of interesting how the commercial property has never come to fruition. that has just all been bare land there and they've never been

required to put the commercial property in there. Also, at that time, they were projecting to put a light in there and I don't understand why they didn't put that burden whether they put it in a trust for the future traffic light. Why they didn't put that burden on Mavado Way when all that traffic comes out of there. They're going to be developing that strip of land from Cloverdale over to Mavado Way. So more houses are going to come in there. So more property is coming off that side of the road. So to me, it doesn't seem equitable to put that burden on this development on this side of the road. I've also heard that it probably won't be until 2040, maybe that there's been a change in that for the road to be widened. So for this to be put on this development and not on future developments, it doesn't make any more sense than saying that they shouldn't put the burden on someone in the future. Um we have been living in an emotional roller coaster for the last five and a half years. We had two offers um during the time before we got this offer where our eventually our realtor said, "Well, you know, let's just not list it because is that my time?"

Yes, if you can finish up.

Okay. Um, we had two offers on our property and they were denied annexation by the city and so basically our realtor told us that they already have um decided that they want this to be a part of the uh BVA development so you just as well take your property off the market. Well, come November of 2021, we had a very persistent, ambitious developer approach us. And so, for the last four and a half years, we have been working with this development company to try and um sell our property to them. But we have had gone through the process of so many hurdles that they have overcome. um you know they have all been mentioned all the hurdles that everybody has mentioned and they have worked very hard to resolve all of those issues only to be told that there's another issue that they have to resolve. To me this seems unfair. It feels like as a land owner that we are a pawn in the middle of all of this, that we can't choose who we sell our property to because the people who are developing our property can't seem to please everyone and be able to um present a project that's acceptable. I'll tell you right now, if I were a person who wanted to live in the city, looks like a pretty nice project to me. I wouldn't be opposed to living there. And uh you know again I don't see why the burden of this stoplight is being put on this project when it should have been on Mavado way.

Okay. Thank you very much. Madam chair. The next person signed up is Rick Boyak. Hi, if you can state your name and address for the record, please.

My name is Rick Boyak. Uh, address 4270 East Overland Road. Um, as my wife mentioned that this project's been going on for four years, over four years. Um, some of the people that has been in the subdivision that's complained about this over the four years, they've either died or moved out or got their places up for sale now. So, um I don't see why this can't move on. One of the biggest things is is I would think the city would want to do this if nothing else just for the tax revenue that this is going to create versus the homes that are there right now. Um to my knowledge, this company has done everything that it's been asked with the exception of putting the stoplight in. I don't see how you guys can ask them to put that in on another person's property. You talk about it coming in and making a sharp left onto the property they want to develop. I don't see how that ACD is going to allow such a sharp turn for them to suck up the property that they're purchasing. Um, in my opinion, this is a very big ask. I've been to other city council meetings that have dealt with the um BVA uh development up there, Top Golf, and all the apartments up there. One of their concern was is getting all those people out of there safely. They talked about bringing that road down along um the uh Ryenbball Canal, cutting across my property and over on Cory Barton's property. I thought it was one of the neighbors up there that wouldn't sell, but I'm becoming to think that it was probably Cory Barton that put the key to that. You guys were concerned about all the vehicles. Um, they figured that Rackom Road in Silverstone Way was good enough to move all those people out of

there. So, I don't see why Rolling Hill wouldn't be enough for this small project. Um, my ask is small. I just ask that you approve this project and thank you for your time. Any questions? No, I think we're good. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. No one else has signed up and I don't see any hand raised um online. And some people just raised their hand online, too. Um gentleman in the blue and then the lady in the pink. Hi, if you could state your name and address for the record.

Chris Moka, 416 44160 East View Circle. Madam Chair, committee, thank you for hearing my testimony. Um, when I I'm I'm probably the most directly impacted home to for this project. When I spoke with staff two weeks ago, they informed me that they could not support this project because it failed to address many of the fundamental issues that doomed the last project, the one that was justly and unanimously struck down by both planning and zoning and city council. Two examples staff gave me, one, there's nowhere to put all the traffic, and two, it does not transition into the existing community. One staff member said, "Imagine looking out and seeing a three-story apartment building in your front yard." They were right. We cannot imagine that. We believe that the applicant realizes the intense impact that this project will have on the area. They have been honest about that. They have also been honest that it needs to be this large because this and only this will pencil. That answer, while understandable, is extremely concerning. Many things will turn a profit that ought not to be done. The city's long-term planning map is a servant that must be ruled by your wisdom. We believe wisdom requires that no more of Rolling Hill subdivision be annexed until the rest of our properties are purchased at a fair market price. Were this to happen, it would solve one of staff's main concerns, lack of transition into the existing community. Though we though we cannot see how high density projects like this can accommodate the traffic concerns until Overland is expanded. As it is now during rush hour, Overland is a parking lot for almost two miles in each direction.

I would like to go on the record and say that this applicant has conducted themselves honorably and if this project did not have such a terrible impact on the surrounding area, we would otherwise support this investment group. I believe that these are the types of people Meridian would want to do business with in the future if their projects would only integrate better into the existing communities. Uh, two last comments. staff mentioned that there were five letters of support. There are five land owners who are selling. So, I just wanted to put that on record. And I do acknowledge that this project is an improvement over the last one, but the last project was was like putting the Empire State Building in our front yard. So, to say that this project is better, while true, um may not be as impactful as as as we're being told. Thank you for your time.

Chris, hold up for a second. Yes. So, you live on View Drive? Yes, ma'am. So, you face south. Yes. So, is it your front door that will face this or is it your backyard?

It's we Well, it's myself and others who will literally have people looking into our front yard. Now, I know the applicant has said the the applicant has made improvements and the applicant had everything that they said about talking to the neighbors and all that I is true. Um, it's just an illconceived project from our vantage. If a developer wants to come in and and do the same for for these fine people that they would do for us, we're willing to talk to them. I I think the plea of our neighborhood is we're exhausted. We're we're open to people coming and saying, "Hey, this is part of the long-term plan and and we're willing to talk." Um what's really sad is the two properties um right next door to me. Uh one of the owners, I believe, is here tonight. They were on the market for about a year. Um these developers could have purchased those properties for pennies on the dollar and and a lot of the a lot of the objection would have would have gone away. Um, we respect your decisions, whatever they may be. Um, we understand the long-term planning. I just I think timing is a huge issue. So, yes, we're we're directly impacted. Um, dozens of people would look down right into my kids uh playing and and and all that. So, it's a huge

Okay. So it's your it's your front drive and you don't feel that their um landscape buffer of of of uh conifers would be enough impact for you. Is that what you're saying,

Madam Chair? Yes. It's it's it's not just Yeah. It I mean I I I at the risk of sounding arrogant, you just have to trust me that that that where we're living just cannot support this. It just it just can't traffic-wise. and and your constituents um whether it's this this project or projects around the county are respectfully begging you to really look at the long-term impact um when I put in my GPS I need to go downtown, it sends me all the way down Cole. I mean, it could take me up to 35 minutes to get on the freeway and I live a mile and a half from the freeway, right? My son plays baseball for Mountain View and I have to plan 45 minutes. I'm a mile and a half from Mountain View. So, the impact's real and I understand you have a tough job to do for sure.

Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. Um there was a another woman who'd like to speak.

Hi. if you can state your name and address for the record. Alicia Eastman and I live at 1485 Rolling Hill Drive. Okay.

Uh and I see Chris's house out my kitchen window caddy corner like this. This project and thank you very much for listening to me. This project's going to be directly across the street from me. And everything that Chris said I echo because it's this monstrosity going to be in front of me. I I know it's about, you know, tax dollars and and the growth and you're going to do what you need to do. Uh but right now, even if you approve it, the the traffic, you know, when you think about right in, right out, the nearest grocery store is east, not west. If you if you have to turn right, you're directed right on to get onto the freeway. How do you even get around to get anywhere? I mean, you're go putting people in the wrong direction. I did contact a while back. Kent Goldthorp and said, "How come we don't have lines painted there at the end of our street?" And he says, "I'll get right on it." Which they did. They put up signs to not block the intersection. That did help. And I think that right there, if they just printed in the street, keep clear, we would be able to get in and out. At least that would help. And the the developer has done a really good job of working with all the rest of the neighbors. They just keep leaving me out and recently I've get letters from the other neighbors and they they showed me that when they said the meeting was wellreceived. I didn't even know about it. But you know that they really were working with the other neighbors about it though. So thank you for listening to me.

All right. Thank you very much. Is there anybody else in chambers? sir.

Hello. Hi. My name is uh David Molesco. I reside at uh 1011 South Beachwood Drive in Boise. Um I own the vacant lot at the end of East Circle. So where the culde-sac turns around. Um, I happen to be somewhat in support of this project, but I kind of echo the neighbors concerns like, you know, just want to make sure it transitions in the way I look at the drawings. I I see the green space and the buffer going into view circle

and any expansion of that road being left on those four property owners there. Um, one other issue, the the FEMA mapping is highly inaccurate in the area. The floodways on View Circle, you know, so that's something that needs to be kept in mind and that's all I have. Okay. So, thank you. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Oh, Commissioner Perau. Yeah, David, hold on a second. Thank you. Um, so just pulled up a a Google map and I see that Rolling Hills connects with Flat Iron to the north. Is that right? This is So I'm at the end of View Circle. It's just a vacant lot. It's where they show the collector road that Yeah. No, I understand. I'm just I'm just just asking about kind of how you drive around your area.

Okay. So, um since since Silverstone Way has gone in, are you seeing yourself or any of the neighbors driving up to Flat Iron and kind of heading back back west to hit the light at Silverstone, has that been a feasible option for all of you? I don't, like I said, I don't live there, so I don't travel those roads often. Apologize. So, it's just a vacant lot. That's all it is. I see. I apologize, but you know, when they built those errand apartments, they put some ballards in and whatnot at the end there. So, I'm not sure as far as how that connects. I believe Silverstone is the main, you know, that's where Top Golf is and all those businesses. I've definitely been over there, but Thank you. I'm sorry about that. No, you're totally fine. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Yeah,

Madam Chair, just to clarify, Commissioner Perau, that is emergency access only for the property to the north. Yeah. Thank you guys. Anybody else who would like to testify? Would the applicant like to come back? Oh, sorry to interrupt. There are a few people with their hand raised. Okay. Sorry about that. All right. Who do we have online? I'll start with Michael Blowers. Can you hear me? All right. Michael, if you can um state your name and address for the record, please.

Yes. Uh Michael Blowers, 1325 Rolling Hill Drive. Um, I want to speak maybe clarify to the last person that came and spoke. Um, I'm not sure what Flat Iron Road is. So, I want to clarify that. Um, but I want to one of the things I want to speak about is that person's property is required in addition to Corey Barton's property in order to create this access road. So, that's one of the things I wanted to just clarify to this thing. Um, the other point I wanted to make is ultimately at the end of the day, even though obviously no one would want this in their neighborhood, um, we're tired of coming here and doing this every 1 to two years, I'm one of the people that was referenced in one of the community comments that our house looks like crap. And it's because since 2017, we've had to be dealing with this um these developments. So, it wouldn't be prudent for us to invest in our properties. Um so, in that respect, we would hope that this gets approved. That being said, um it would be highly irresponsible, I believe, for the city to do this. The main reason being uh to get into or exit this property requires crossing two lanes of traffic and a bike lane. And when you're doing that during peak hours or depending on the time of day, you're talking about uh playing carry Underwood and Jesus takes the wheel

and hopefully you're not hitting anyone when you're going in the cross. And like I say that as a joke, but I'm I can't count how many times that we've been lucky. We haven't been hit. That's only with 15 units on this property. And you're talking about adding another almost 200 with businesses. Um I wanted to clarify the other reason why I wanted to speak today. I didn't plan on doing it was I believe staff said something about a right in out only. Okay. Uh that just can't happen. There's the two elementary schools are east of this place. I don't know what anyone would expect what route they would expect us to take to get over there. Um, including the gas station, including the nearest grocery store. Um, the other point I wanted to make, and I don't want to like disparage Mavado in any way. Mavado has about six or seven ways you can enter that property. I don't know why a light there is necessary. Um although obviously it would be great for them to have. Um I don't understand why city and ACD can can you two work together to get rolling hill and those apartments to get the light there? That would alleviate a lot. Um, it that seems like one of these problems that people talk is a problem and it really shouldn't be. It's an obvious solution. We shouldn't have to be dealing with it. The developer has a much better plan than last time. Like, can you guys deal with that? And then the other issue is to open up this road. We were told 2,000 a day traffic unit. It would exceed it to open up this road. So, it has to be closed off to um the Silverstone Apartments.

And so, is that something that's set in stone? What would require us to go around that? What? Because our concern is well, if we want to develop our properties, which is why we are ultimately in support of this reluctantly, are you going to deny us once you approve this because traffic's going to be insane coming into here? like what we we need some definitive action because doing this every one to two years is a waste of everyone's time. All right. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. The next person is by the name of Amy.

Hi there. My name is Amy Waddles. Um, my address is 1360 Rolling Hill Drive. Um, I just want to share my comments about, you know, the development is great. I feel so badly for the homeowners down there having to deal with two years, two and a half years of this. Um, I know we've recently put our house on the on the market just to be done with it. like nobody wants to sit through year after year after year. The concern however that we're facing is again those apartments were built on the south or on the north end of Rolling Hill. These will be on the south end and we still have a corridor of homes that are sandwiched in between. And so what has happened to Rolling Hill um one of our neighbors compared it to the apartment dwellers using it as a green belt. That's essentially what's happening. People are up and down the road on dirt bikes. The roads are black, uh, dark at night. You can't see anything. Um, random traffic at all times. Um, Amazon, any delivery services using Rolling Hill and parking at the end of Rolling Hill to do deliveries to the apartment. And that's just on the one end. Now, we're compounding that on the south end of the road. And yet again, you know, the question while we're looking at these developments is who's dealing with the consequences of these developments, and it's the homeowners time and time again. You know, was that last year that we had that high-speed chase that ended up on Rolling Hill Drive? I understand things change. Um, but now we have a concert hall going in proximity to Rolling Hill Drive compounding with these apartments here. I did some counting of parking

spots at the Aaron Apartments on the north end. Um, on average there are 65 cars parked on the street surrounding that complex. We sat through hearings where we heard, "Oh, we have plenty of parking. There's we have more than enough what that's where required, but yet 65 cars on average, that's a lot of cars." And in this situation with this development, they're going to end up along Rolling Hill Drive. Um, and I know again the developer has been great about listening to feedback and all of that, but when we're combining that with the concert hall, we have a serious problem here. And and I just am super frustrated that we're in this situation. And I'm like my other neighbors. Whatever we have to do to get out of here is what we want to do. And if that means we approve a development that doesn't coincide, I mean, I don't have the answer. I guess I'm turning to you guys to find an answer here um to get these last homes bought out in a solution happening so we're not all just stuck in this um perpetual stalemate. It's just frustrating.

All right. Thank you very much for your testimony, Madam Chair. The next person is Gary Rainey. Good evening. Thank you, Madam Chair, and members of the commission. I'm going to try to be brief. Um, a lot of the other comments. Um, Gary, can you state your address, please? Oh, I'm sorry, Gary Rainey. We own the property at 1480 Rolling Hill. So, we are a potential seller.

Okay. Thank you. Um, so I could talk about the condition of the property and the best use and the need for space and and all of that, but what I really want to uh spend my time on is the Cory Barton property. So from another developer totally unrelated to this project u but who tried to buy this told me that Cory Barton said not interested in selling and his quote was I have a 10 to 20ear plan. So, if he's only going to develop the property to the east, he doesn't need a 10 to 20-year plan. What it's clear to me is that the 10 to 20-year plan is to to choke point all of the properties from everybody that is speaking tonight except the ones that live directly on Overland and be able to control those until the values go down and then he can buy them up and do his own development. Denying this property would effectively give him the keys to everybody on Rolling Hill and no commercial development there unless he's in control of it to put his road in. So, I hope you consider uh the value of the property. These are properties where the some of the wells are starting to dry up and there's been a number of illegal RV storage and motorcycle repair and different things that go on. I think this is a good opportunity for Meridian to have uh housing which we desperately need next to the development of Eagle View. And um uh the last note, the mention about uh the light moving to Rolling Hill, I don't know if that's feasible at all. I would only point out that there's actually a rolling hill on the south side of Overland, not just on the north side of Overland. Maybe that's a potential idea. I don't know. Thank you for your service. Thank you for listening. I hope you approve this project. Thank you, Gary. Anyone else in chambers? Okay. Now, would you like to come back

up and uh Chris, would you like to answer some of the comments, please?

Madam Chair, members of the commission, I don't have to reset my address, do I? You're good. Okay. Um, I was writing as fast as I can. Um, it's kind of a lost art these days, right? Um, so a couple of things. Your own handwriting.

Yeah. Um, so just wanted to try to go through as many of the comments and try to provide some answers for uh the testimony that you heard this evening. Um, one of the mistakes though that I did make um, talking um, with Commissioner Smith and the transition area was the previous application was for the in 2024 was for the fourstory buildings throughout and I might have misrepresented saying that there um, was threetory. Um, so I just wanted to clear that up. Um, as planning and zoning commissioners, um, a lot of times you're seeing these transition areas and and maybe different areas, you know, where economic agriculture maybe hit sprawl. Um, this transition area is a little bit different. Um, it's where economic corridors are meeting mixeduse development. Um, and there's still some county ground um, that is developable within that area. I think a lot of the comments that you've heard this evening, or at least one of the themes that that I heard was um, the developer of the project is great. Um, the transportation sucks, but I'm looking to sell. Um, and I think that's a a good theme to think about is that this is a transition area that is going through growth. Um, I think that we've seen that with the last two applications that the commission has recommended for approval in this area and I think that it'll continue to have good growth in the area. Um, I think Mr. Rainey hit on it a little bit. There are some rentals um some dilapidation along Rolling Hills that um would be key properties to redevelop um with approval of this project. the um one gentleman that wasn't here today that did submit a letter and I just wanted to hit on this because I heard it in Nick's testimony was the

letters that were in the um or maybe even it was uh Mike's testimony was all the letters are from the owners that are a part of this application. There was another letter that was submitted this morning. It was an email from David Ellis. Um that should be in your packet as well. um he actually owns two properties um on Rolling Hills Drive and he's in favor of this um uh project. Um going into the individual um I don't want to go, this is not personal in any way. I'm just trying to put the name with the comments so that I can address them. Um um Chris was talking about um the transition area um making sure that that the um that the the buildings um are are are having a a green or a screen and the privacy by by bringing those stories down to two stories. Um and maybe if we could bring up the PowerPoint presentation again for the line of sight. um within that transition area. And when we're looking to the north in terms of the building height, um we are looking at the 270 ft, but we're also looking at the the viewshed would be to the um call it the the upper story of the or the upper floor, the second floor. Um these folks would not be looking down on Mr. on Chris's property. Um, these properties also off of View Drive, we're talking about driveways and front yards. Um, we're not talking about people looking in the privacy of somebody's backyard. Um, we are following the comprehensive plan. Um, we feel like we've we've extinguished so much effort to bring the best plan forward to the city of of

Meridian. Um some of the comments I don't know if I agree that um city staff should be sharing some of their personal comments like to Chris when he comes in to talk to him. Um and those should be held for maybe internal discussions or for the actual staff report. Um we are following ACD's road map when it comes to where Mavado is. There's been a lot of discussion on that this evening. This is from ACD's future road use map. Um, and so that's where this alignment's coming from. Looking at our comments about swinging the property or swinging the road back into our property. Um, it doesn't solve the issue that the intersection would still be on private property. Um, so there's still a coordination effort that would have to go forward that we've um, hit a dead end on. Um David who is up here uh owns the vacant lot says he supports the project. Uh we are familiar with the flood plane. Um Alicia Alicia Eastman. Um neighborhood meeting notices. We have given out neighborhood meeting notices to all and mailed those out. I don't know why she didn't get those. We had I was at a neighborhood meeting in the beginning of um even February. Um and we had great attendance from all the the neighbors that were there as well. Um, a lot of the comments too, um, talking about properties that are on the market that can't sell. Um, that is a direct representation of kind of the challenges that we're trying to um, to help be a partner with the city of Meridian to solve. Um, we're not here to try to slam a project into a space that doesn't um, or can't accommodate it. Um, see if I've missed anybody. I'm sorry. Uh,

Michael made a comment about uh opening up Rolling Hill to the north. Um I I I don't know if I can comment on that, but um looking at just transportation planning in general, anytime you can open up a road that is currently closed, whether it's emergency access or limited access, it'll help with your circulation pattern. Um Michael mentioned that it's a better plan. We appreciate that. Um, a lot of neighbors are for the project. Um, talked about David Ellis and the two properties that he owns and the letter that he wrote in support. Um, Amy's comments um said that we were great. Thank you, Amy. Uh, the development is great. Thank you. She's trying to sell. Um, and I do notice that her listing is directed more towards um developers. Um and so getting back to that, you know, this is a a transition area. Um and these are the comments that come in those transition areas. Um and we feel that the project that you have in front of you um follows city code. It follows um their comprehensive plan. Um we have ACD and the fire department's um support and we'd like to move forward and start building this um project out with the local team that we have here today. Um, Commercial Northwest Property Management is here for the client. Um, they are professional property management company that also manages um um my memory, the Betty, which is an apartment complex that this group has done in Boise. Um, Commercial Northwest was helping us out with some of the market studies. Um, I know that they would be great at making sure Amy's concerns on parking deliveries, making sure that the property is just professionally managed. Um, in order for this property to be successful, it has to have professional

efficient management. Um, I appreciate Gary's um, candid conversation. Um, I couldn't agree more. Um, and I stand for any more questions. Madam Chair, uh, Commissioner Smith. Um, so I I did hear some people tonight say, you know, they I wish they would reach out to purchase my property or things like that. I'm curious. Um, obviously there's property to to the east is is one thing, but have you looked into extending the acquisition north and west uh to expand the development? What does that look like?

Um, 100%. Um, it would be something that this group as well as other development groups, not just the one that's involved with this, would be interested in these part properties, but a lot of these developers are looking to see what happens with this property. Um, with approval of this property, as a real estate professional, I have no doubt that these folks property will increase in value with the approval of this project. Um, I I think that that's undeniable. Um, now would we purchase it? Um, I hope so. Um, but it could be that somebody comes in and maybe offers them more or um, their appetite for a different style or or type of development maybe fits into the the overall plan better. Um, and in the mixeduse world, there's lots of different mixed use that people are doing. Um, I have a couple that we're doing even in STAR. Um, and they're very popular. Um the ones that I have off of Star Road and State Street um currently are 100% occupied.

So this is a development with three two and threetory buildings. Correct. Yes. Correct. So the north side would be the two stories and the internals would be three stories. Three Well, there's there's fourstory buildings along Overland. Okay. If we go back, this is a great um um exhibit showing kind of those stories and and how they're how they're stepped away from the north. So, we would go from two stories on the north, the the south side of that building is three stories, same roof line, same viewshed. And then the properties, the buildings that would be on the south side along Overland would be four stories.

Okay. And um are these all rentals or are they any ownership? These would all be rental properties for market market rent and one, two, three bedrooms, I assume. Correct. And what kind of price point were you just looking at? And I'm not going to commit you to anything just ballpark. You know, I believe that the median price for a two-bedroom, two bath rental property in uh Meridian right now is fluctuating between 6650 to750. Okay. Okay. Any other questions, Madam Chair, Commissioner Perau?

Um, so with all due respect to our staff who has worked so hard on this and and yourselves and the work that you've done and uh and Mr. Barton, uh I feel like that if if Mr. Barton wanted to be here to defend his property and to advocate to not have the road go through his property, he has certainly had ample opportunity to do that. Um, and uh, you know, he's he's the he's the ne I mean, I as a as a planning and zoning commissioner, I can't say that because of what he does, he should know better than another neighbor who would just be an individual there. However, he's had many opportunities to come and say, "Hey, I don't want this road. I want to share this road with the neighbor. I I will uh you know we'll cover half the cost or can we can we move can we talk to ACD about moving this uh farther west? There's been plenty of opportunity to do that and I have no doubt he's fully aware of the risk that he takes uh by having the entirety of that section on his property and and what it might do to the value and the the issues of future use. So, I I just I appreciate the staff's desire to see that this goes well. I'd love that that that our staff does that, but frankly, if he had an issue with it, then he needs to come to the table and have a conversation with this applicant and with the city about it. Um, what I would have hoped to have seen from you is more focus, not on what you didn't want to be doing, but more focus on rolling hills and how could that could be improved in a way that would be really um, beneficial to this and to the neighbors. So, for example, um, I would have liked to have seen what's the distance between your exit on Rolling Hills to the Overland intersection. Uh, how do you see those vehicles exiting? Was there any consideration of potentially picking up some rightways so you could have a left turn lane put in? Would that be an improvement that the

developer would be willing to do? Uh what is stacking going to look like for those? Um I assume you've done study on, you know, the the challenges that any commercial user is going to come in here and have coming back on into Rolling Hills, making a left, making a right onto Overland, not being able to make a left onto Overland because of traffic. I imagine you all assessed all of those things before you made these decisions, but I would have liked to have heard more about all of those things. And I'm and and I'm kind of surprised that there wasn't more explan exploration as to Rolling Hills connecting to Flat Iron because it seems to me like it's a little bit farther away, but that gets people out to the light on Silverstone. So, um it's not a criticism of what you all have done. I know you have limitations. uh just having um heard hundreds of applications that that's what I think would have been beneficial for me to help make the decision. Um so I still still thinking about this one. Uh but that's something that I think would have would have been beneficial for us to see how how you could have envisioned that working well with what you already have.

And we'll work with um ACD in terms of that access. um that's what we presented to them that they've approved off of the the rolling hills into the subdivision. But if during the um construction drawing phase um the platting process, if they're looking at or excuse me, the development phases, if they're looking to swing that a little bit north because they see that that would be an issue, we would be more than open to doing that. Um we do um um not take it lightly and that's why we worked with a lot of the land owners along rolling hills or rolling hill drive um and trying to figure out you know if we've offered speed bumps we've offered um signage um lighting um we pushed for I mean it would be beneficial for our project if uh Rolling Hill Drive was opened up um but maybe it's um a part of the transition of as these properties um grow and develop that that finally with some help from Meridian staff is saying that it is time now to open this road. Um and I think that that's kind of a natural um maturation of of Rolling Hill too. Madam Chair,

Commissioner Perau, uh I I understand the neighbors would not be likely in in favor of opening Rolling Hill to Flat Iron for obvious reasons um because they already have enough people coming and going down there. However, um you know, there's been a lot of comments about not being able to make a left on Overland Road and it would allow those those neighbors to just have easier access around their neighborhood. um maybe not make them feel as much rush to sell because they they're the struggle the pinch to to access their properties from the Rolling Hill Overland intersection maybe alleviated a little bit. Um so uh anyhow, we're here now and um thank you.

I don't I don't know if if what I'm saying will change the conversation, but um yeah, just wanted to investigate that. Obviously, this application goes to city council as well. So, um, I would encourage you to give ACD a call again after you've had the results of this meeting and maybe that opens another discussion like Commissioner Perau said to possibly look into a lefthand turn lane or like Miss Eastman said, maybe the words keep clear on that section so that there's more accessibility and having that discussion during city council of those ways of being able to move through Rolling Hills because obviously you can't do anything to the east because the land owner is not cooperating.

Sure. So, any other questions or comments for the applicant before we close the public hearing? Any final thoughts? No. Thank you for your time. All right. Thank you. Um, may I have a motion to close the public hearing, please? Moved. Second.

Has been moved and second to close the public hearing for Rolling Hills subdivision. All those in favor say I. I. Any oppo? Any opposed? Motion carries. Well, it's a lot to pack in um into to one thing. Um I I have to be honest, I'm on the fence. Um, one of the things that I appreciate about the city of Meridian is that every application is evaluated individually and regardless of whatever concert venues across the street, whatever is going on at Silverstone, you know, they're there and we take a look at that in its entire context, but um, your application is reviewed based on its merit and the way it is right now. I appreciate the fact that you have tried out to reach to the to the east landholder and they are not willing to participate. Um but I also understand that there is a lot of changes that's going to be happening to Meridian, excuse me, Overland Road and adding 184 more units to an area that's super congested already um gives me a little bit of pause. Um, I think this plan has been well thought out. I do not prefer the transition um from the north regardless of the road and the distance and the houses. The fact that those houses are still there needs to be acknowledged and appreciated because maybe those land owners won't sell. Um, and uh, I think there's nothing worse than when you have land in Meridian and at your backyard you have a big sign that says for future road use and you're like, well, this is my land.

I'm not going to sell this quite right yet. Um, so infill is always tough. um to be able to fit this into this area at this time I think is challenging. Um I appreciate that you are making a uh entrance onto Mavado but you're not financially contributing to Mavado. Um that that would collect to uh View Circle or View Lane. Um although I would encourage you to um look into the road improvements of Rolling Hills. So, I'm interested to hear what the other commissioners have to say uh before uh I render my vote on this.

Madam Chair, Commissioner Smith,

I think what sits at the heart here is is what do you do when the short and medium-term interest and the long-term interests of the city and its residents are in conflict or in tension? Um, I think it's I think it's really uh clear uh from the testimony tonight that the developer um is is pursuing this project in good faith and doing everything they can to make a really quality project. And if you put this in a vacuum, if you look at just this this development, I think I think it's a great uh great development. I think there, you know, maybe there are some things I would tweak with um trying to increase buffer to the west or or things like that for existing residents there, but but really the the the critical question mark is this future collector. And I don't think um I I'm trying to be diplomatic with my words. I think on one hand I don't think it's in the best interest of the city to approve this without having certainty on that collector roadway. On the other hand, I question the long-term benefit to the city to send a message that and I'm not I'm not trying to say this is anyone's intention, but this is in effect what's happening. Um I don't I I wonder what the long-term benefit to the city and its residents is if we send a message that you could theoretically hold an entire um you know area of the city hostage by acquiring land um that uh contains some critical future infrastructure. Um we are a quasi judicial body. I think there might be a legislative need to to look at this, you know, from whether that's city council or whether that's, you know, looking at Title 67 and LOPA or something like that. Um I I think where I'm at currently

and I'm like you, I'm kind of on the fence. Um I I don't know that I can approve this now. Um I'm I'm but if there's this this aspect where this it's in the city's best interest to see this area developed in the long term and that's all being you know encumbered by this one small strip of land again from from a layman's perspective I'm not a lawyer but I'm thinking is is eminent domain a path you know are these but I don't think that the solution is here tonight right

so uh I think you know I also have the pleasure of sitting on the transportation commission I'm going to send an email to Caleb to ask him to, you know, loop in Mavado for consideration on the next year's integrated 5-year work plan discussions. And I think that's something that, you know, any movement that can happen from the city, I mean, we can try to take it, but uh, you know, to, you know, to to take the progress we can, take the steps we can, but I think there's this there's just this Gordian knot that sits right on the eastern boundary. And I don't know what the solution is, but I don't think it's here tonight. And so that's my disposition. I I don't think I can approve this. Okay.

And that that causes me distress. I feel for the applicant. I feel for the the land owners. Um this is it's not a great situation. It's it's it's an awful situation, honestly. Right. Um but I I don't know that that fix goes through this body. Okay.

Commissioner Pearl. and oh there we go. I'm not a huge fan of the design of the whole project in terms of where the buildings sit. Um would love to have seen smaller buildings and um but I know that they went through this design with staff over and over and over again. The recommendation was made that there be central amenities and that required the applicant to modify essentially what they had designed prior. Um, I I don't love seeing this massive asphalt parking lot. I don't think it's visually appealing, but it's necessary if you're going to have commercial use coming in. So, it's not my job to redesign these. Uh, I don't I don't like how it looks and and and how I think it it will feel, but but that for me is not um as much of a factor as just being able to accommodate the flow of traffic coming in on rolling hills. So, um I I would like I I am not in opposition to this application. I think it needs some more work, but I'm not going to recommend that we continue it at the planning and zoning commission level. I think a lot of that can be done before city council. Um having been a city council member, I have a pretty good idea what's going to be asked and what uh conversations going to be had. Um, so I'm in favor of moving it forward to to city council to um to see their thoughts on on what's going to happen with with that collector. and um would just encourage the applicant to I know you're taking notes, encourage you to keep in mind all the things that we discussed and um maybe just um see how it could be just maybe a little more visually appealing if possible.

Madam Chair, Commissioner Delamino,

I I will echo uh Commissioner Smith and and the Chairwoman. I I'm on the fence as someone who as of up until five four years ago was a resident in an apartment complex that was facing on a very congested road. Uh, I recognize the the safety concerns and I recognize a lot of the traffic concerns, especially especially because the exit that I had to take in that apartment complex had no uh had no signal light either. It was just me playing Frogger. If I made it, I made it. If I didn't, I didn't. So uh I do see a lot of the efforts uh by the applicant to you know improve upon the uh the items that were the cause of denial in the previous uh vis um revision of this project. Uh but again I am I am a little bit on the fence because I do believe that there are those safety concerns that u on the transportation side and the infrastructure side that could be improved upon.

Thank you. Commissioner Sandaval, do you have any other comments?

Uh Madam Chair, I'll keep this really short and sweet. Uh same concern on the collector road here. I don't think it's ready to approve. Um that's my position. Okay, thank you. Um, I guess we're ready for a motion. I think you should take these notes. Uh, again, this goes to city council. Um, we've we've heard a a lot of things today that uh could possibly add to your presentation to them. But I'm going to say after considering all staff applicant and public testimony, I recommend to deny city council H2025- Z00 um 40 for the hearing date of March 5th due to the um transition between uh the north and the the uh and the property due to the collector road issues and the um congestion. um on Overland Road. And if I don't have a second, then someone else can make a motion and the motion dies.

All right. No second. Anyone else for a motion? Madame Chair, I know this was mentioned a couple meetings ago and I know this is mentioned as something that's um rare, but I think in this instance, I don't think this is a product of a divided commission, but I think it's because there's the wealth of the commissioners are are severely on the fence. I know.

So, so with that, I I I think personally I think that there's part of the discussion is also a legislative component. I think that is something that I can't recommend up or down to city council at the moment. And so I don't think there's anything we continue. So with that, I'll be making a motion. Um that is not on here necessarily. Um so after considering all staff Thank you. After considering all staff applicant public testimony, I move uh to forward uh file number H--2025-0040 as presented for the hearing with March 5th, 2026 with no recommendation. So when you say forward, without a recommendation. So you when you say forward, you mean approved?

No, I I I move to send this to city council um without an official uh commission recommendation. Second legal. Are we allowed to do that? Uh it's my understanding that you need to have an approval or a denial. Madam Chair, Commissioner Smith, I believe, and this was due to us not having a risk of not having votes to send one way or the other to Commissioner. I me I believe Kurt mentioned this was something that we could do. I don't You know the law better than I do. Obviously, if that's what you've decided to do, you have the power to do that. Okay.

I don't know. That'd be a first for me after six years. So, um staff, have you ever heard of a forward? That's not okay. They're all They're all shaking their head. No. Okay. It's going to go forward no matter what. Right. Whether whether our comments are approved or denied. Madam Chair, members of the commission, I I can give you some more context if that helps you. That would be great.

Figure out what you what decision you want to go with this evening. So, I think you heard a lot of information about transportation and I think we all agree Overland is heavily traveled. Um, I drive it consistently as well and I understand that as as well. Looking back at when that apartment complex went into the north of this development, so when Rackom East developed, this body was concerned at that time. And you actually asked the applicant at the time, you you commissioned a study from them to study the intersection of Silverstone Way and Overland because you were concerned about the traffic. They did that as they transition from your body from the commission to city council. Part of that that study did confirm that no matter what approvals are in place, that intersection will continue to fail. it was doomed from the beginning because of all the just the way the area is set up. And so, um, at that point though, the applicant was willing to close off Rolling Hill with that emergency access in favor of continuing to let that intersection degrade. So, regardless of what we do here tonight, whether we approve it, deny it, um, staff would feel more comfortable with your a recommendation. I know city council would as well. Uh that's why they appoint you to these positions because they're looking for your feedback. But ultimately, we all know whatever happens with this collector road, everything is funneling to Overland Road. No matter how many roads tie into uh Overland because that's just how the area is set up, there is no connectivity to the east to Boise. And there we have Eagle Road with a major interchange that's occurring in there. So the best we can that's why for us and this application

another signalized intersection is critical. Um and regardless of uh the other part of it is that DA says the city and ACD can look at reopening that road to flat iron and allow other other means of egress from this development. So over but again you're just funning more traffic through apartments through ICCU through a mini roundabout to a signalized intersection that's already exceeding ACHD's thresholds. So really that's kind of the dilemma we have here tonight is this is all going to redevelop at some point. It's mixed use. It's a smaller mixeduse project. Um the comp plan has policies that say look at the whole the area holistically. It's hard to do that when you have just a small piece and we have a major component uh controlled by one landowner. So again, you can see all of these discussions that we've had with the applicant. Now you know why we've had eight meetings with the applicant,

right? And we all agree that timing is all is the concern here. Um and and unfortunately that's where we're at this evening. So, just at least wanted to let you know that uh some of that previous history and let you know that Overland will continue to um have increased traffic on it. Madam Chair, I'd like to withdraw my motion. Thank you very much. Um go for Commissioner Perau. Is this on?

Yes. The reason I chose not to second the motion that was made for denial is because um I didn't I didn't believe it should be denied for those reasons. Um but I would be happy to try another motion. Sure.

That may be for reasons that I think denial should be considered. Um, after considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the city council of file number H 20250040 as presented during the hearing of March 5th, 2026 for the following reasons. Uh believe the applicant has not done sufficient investigation research into um the impact that traffic will have on rolling hills. Um and that uh in in terms of considerations of um traffic that exists on there from current homeowners and the impact of specific impact of traffic that will come from the uh development itself. Um, and I I would I believe that we should deny it for that reason.

Does that make sense? Yes. Do I have a second? Second. It's been moved and second to deny file at 2025-0040. All those in favor say I. I. I. I. All those opposed 21 and I Okay. Uh and none opposed. Motion denial carries. Thank you very much. Um let's take a fivem minute break before and then the next two applications will be combined together.

me if I have to.

Okay, we're going to continue on with the meeting, please. Next up on the agenda is H205-0052. And we're going to combine these two with um the UDC amendment of ZOA 2025- Z002 for Van Trust Real Estate located near the corner of Black Cat and Franklin Roads. And we will start with the staff report.

Madam Chair, members of the commission, next item on the agenda is the annexation and UDC text amendment for Van Trust. Uh, the applicant requests annexation of 23.13 acres of land with a concept plan consisting of six buildings that span approximately 340,000 square feet in the IL zoning district. In addition, the applicant requests a UDC text amendment to adjust the flex base standards to lower the office requirement from 20% to 10%. And I'm going to break this up into I'm going start with the annexation and I'll go to the UDC text amendment at the end.

Okay, thanks. So the site is generally located at the southwest corner of Blackat Road and Franklin Road. And as shown on the screen, the existing zonings are RU and Ada County and the flume designation is low density employment and mixed employment. And for the purpose of this application, the applicant has requested we view the entirety of the project as a low density employment flume designation. So the lowdensity employment flume designation is defined as lowrise and specialized employment areas. The intended land uses for this designation include corporate or business offices, research facilities, and laboratories. In addition, it should be designed to incorporate traditional neighborhood design such as pedestrian circulation, connection to open space, enhanced landscaping, treeline streets, and plazas. And the intent behind this is to create developments that are more attractive, engaging, and accessible. The applicant is proposing the 340,000 square feet of industrial uses across six buildings. The applicant's narrative states that the proposed use for the property uh include light manufacturing and assembly, flex space, warehousing, and distribution. Uh the applicant estimates that the proposed development will create over 575 jobs or 1.91 jobs per 10,000 square ft. In addition, the applicant argues that low density employment is the best flume designation for the proposed development due to this development creating sign significantly more employment than traditional industrial developments. The proposed uses are not noxious or nuisance-like and the architecture and design of the site is heightened. Lastly, the narrative notes that the meridian that the city of Meridian and general region have vacancy rates under 5% for flex spaces. There's the elevations. So staff has met with the applicant six times over the past year to discuss the project. Throughout these meetings, staff has consistently indicated that the proposed annexation cannot be supported without a concurrent comprehensive plan MAP amendment or CPAM application. Uh this this position is

primarily based on the project's inability to meet key design elements that the allowable uses within the lowdensity employment designations or designation. 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. staff has relayed these concerns to the applicant and they maintain that they are consistent with the plan. I'd also like to add that the applicant's presentation will show some changes on the site plan that staff saw for the first time today um just for reference. So they did incorporate some additional neighborhood design elements. Um in addition, the 10mi interchange specific area plan showed the intended transition away from the residential on the east side of Blackat to the industrial node next to the future state highway 16. Staff notes that mixed employment and lowdensity employment designations are limited along the Black Cat and Franklin corridors, including this project. The IL zoning comprises comprises approximately of 40 or 54.15% of the lowdensity employment flume designation and 61.28% of the mixed employment designation. These designations are intended to support a mix of employment and service uses to support employment and residential in the area. With industrial taking over these flume designations, the area will lack key elements of the plan, including office employment uses supporting services for the surrounding indust employment and industrial and residential. In addition to this, it adds significant amount of truck and freight traffic onto Franklin and Blackat the Franklin, Blackat, and 10M corridors that were not contemplated when the 10mi specific area plan was created. And I overlaid a lot of the developments that are here on the 10 mile um the 10mi Black Hat Franklin area that has some of them have been built as you see in the orange these are buildings that are under construction or have been constructed. Uh you obviously have the existing subdivisions here and on the

north side of Franklin, but the rest of it that is not highlighted, which um the non- highlighted portion is yet to be built, which means the traffic impact for this area has not been felt on these roads yet. Um, and in this picture, it roughly depicts about 22,000 or 2,284 residential units and 4,318 and 318,000 square ft of commercial and industrial space within this mile and a half radius, mile or mile and a half stretch of the larger area. Uh staff is asking the planning and zoning commission to carefully evaluate whether this continued expansion of ILN to the low density employment and mixed employment flume designations is appropriate. Uh so access to the site is proposed off the future collector um that uh will connect to Blackat Road. Uh they are proposing an emergency access point off of Franklin Road through a shared access point with beep fence on their western boundary. So, in early late January, early February, ACD provided uh the applicant comments and ACNC staff determined that the only access to Franklin Road is the shared access with BEP fence and as a result, the applicant edited a site plan in early February to eliminate two frontage buildings along Franklin Road and expand their large bay industrial buildings. This then shifted all the access points to the collector on the southern portion of the site. An ACC staff report did indicate that the anticipated trip generation for this development is 1,119 vehicle trips per day. Staff agrees that there may be a strong market demand for industrial uses, but the plan specifically says the intent of the 10mi interchange specific area plan is to create a place that will add long-term economic stability for the city of Meridian and not just respond to immediate market forces and trends.

All right. And then I'm going to move on to the UDC text amendment. So the applicant is proposing to amend the flexbased standards to lower the office requirement in the IL zoning from 20% to 10%. And the applicant asserts that this change would better align with current market conditions and remove an existing barrier to leasing flex space in Meridian. So staff is currently working on a broader a broader code amendment to address the flexbased t standards that were most recently adopted by city council in June of 2025. Uh staff has informed the applicant that the comp the staff is processing this code change and to address inconsistencies in the new newly adopted standards. However, the applicant has elected to proceed with this separate text amendment. Uh staff does not support the proposed UDC text amendment as it allows for implications beyond the individual development. While the applicant notes that flexbased vacancy rates in Meridian are critically low, they also contend that current flexbased standards present present a barrier to leasing which staff finds to be contradictory. Additionally, within the IL zoning district, warehousing is permitted a permitted use that already allows an office component up to 10%. So that would be a maximum of 10%. Adoption of the flex base amendment would perpetuate inconsistencies in the code, including land use percentages that do not add up to 100% total for the floor area of a building and would effectively allow flex space to function identically to warehousing. So staff agrees that revisions to this section of code are warranted. However, the applicant's proposal proposed amendment is narrowly focused on a single development does not adequately consider citywide impacts. staff has met with the UDC focus group which is typically consists of city members and local developers um to discuss proposed revisions and we'll be presenting these changes to the planning and zoning commission and city council later this year and those we there was actually a meeting earlier this week with the UDC focus group. Um so staff is recommending denial of both applications and has not received any written testimony and I'll stand for any questions.

Would the applicant like to come forward? Madam Chair, Commissioner Perau, may I ask staff a question very quickly? Sure. Can you go over the very first first part of um of what you described with the uh number of square feet for industrial that's been approved and the number of units? Can you go back to that? Yes. You're looking for the geo reference. Yeah. You had said the red sections is what's been approved but not built.

So the red the orange highlighted is what has been approved and built. everything else that's not highlighted that is shown in these overlay images. So you have the gateway over here, you got Outer Banks, you got the district, you have Vanguard Village, you have an Adel project, I don't remember the name, uh you have a Cory Barton project, you have Avani subdivision, and then you have Blackat Industrial and Corin Maine. So all approved but not constructed. That that's correct. Um and the total square footages that um were based off of the development agreements. Since I went through all the development agreements, you have 4,318,000 ft of commercial and industrial and approximately 200 2,284 residential units.

Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward? If you can state your name and address for the record, please. Of course. Chris McCcluskey. address is 205 North 400 West Salt Lake City, Utah 8403. Thanks. Uh, Madame Commissioner, before we get started, could I request 20 minutes for our presentation? We actually have a lot of information to cover. As you can see, these are combined. Wanted to see if we could just get a little extra time. Yes, we'll do the 20 minutes since you're doing both at the same time.

Okay, wonderful. Thank you and appreciate everyone's time tonight. Um, I want to be brief. We're going to turn it over to Deborah Nelson, our land use council to kind of get into meat and potatoes of this, but wanted to spend a few minutes to speak uh specifically to sponsorship. So, since 2010, Van Trust has developed over 8 billion uh dollars worth of total project cost. This year, we're projecting about 1.2 billion in total starts. Uh that 95% of that is industrial. So, as you can see, this is our breadandbut product type. So, we're excited for the opportunity to be able to partner with the city of Meridian to produce a project that we think is the right project for the right location for the time. Um, want to spend one second talk about our capital source, the Vantile family. So, we are the largest operating entity for the Vantal family and as such uh they have the capacity to execute this project all cash so all equity. So funding is uh is not a concern as it is for some developers and we are going to go for this project in one phase. So we're anticipating starting if tonight and future meetings go well. But with that being said, make myself available for questions afterwards, but we'd like to turn it over to Deborah Nelson.

Okay. Thank you. Thanks.

Thank you, Madame Chair and members of the commission. Um my name is Deborah Nelson. My address is 601 West Banick Street in Boise. I'm a land use attorney with Given Pursley and I've got a number of other team members here with us this evening. Jason Densmer from the land group, Tyler Martin from TOK Commercial, Hunter Lake from VTRE, and Daniel Stro from my office who are all here available to provide information and answer questions. As Nick mentioned, we've got two applications that are before you. The annexation and zoning to IIL and the code amendment request regarding the minimum office space. Um, we will also have to come back before the city for a preliminary plat and design review um so that we can finalize the detailed platting and um design elements that would accompany uh a landscape plan and architecture details. Um, as Nick noted, we did not seek a a plan amendment as to accompany this application. And that's because amending the comprehensive plan, the 10mi plan from low density employment to me isn't necessary to support IL zoning. Um that's um the LDE is the majority uh of the property and in the compatibility matrix which we'll walk through that supports IL zoning. The city has previously approved zoning on the LDA LD LE designation within the 10mi area. We're asking for the same thing that has been approved. So planning staff's concern is really fundamentally about the end use. um they they have told us they prefer to have a more of a traditional office park here versus a light industrial space. And so we'll I'll address these concerns and try to show how the plan supports that I zoning and how the proposed light

industrial space that we're providing does support employment that's in demand and appropriate for this location um as as well as or better than office could do in this location. the location uh we've already touched on. For the interest of time, I'll just move along and we're this is the conceptual site plan. We'll get into a little bit more details about this. We're proposing 339,000 ft of flex warehousing and distribution space with six buildings in two building types. And all six buildings are designed for multi-tenant use with demisable spaces. So these can change based on tenant demand. This flexibility helps to attract and keep employers in Meridian because as businesses grow, they might outgrow their smaller space but can stay on site and move into a larger space. Our two building types include uh a medium format shallow bay building. We've got two of those. Um these have tenant spaces that range from 18,000 square ft serving local services and light manufacturing businesses. And then we have small four small bay buildings. These are flex spaces. Um and they have tenant spaces as small as 2700 square ft. So serving much smaller businesses. We are not providing any of the large crossbay type warehousing and distribution that is of uh located in the general industrial area. Instead, we given our sizing, we expect to be serving between 30 to 40 small to medium businesses on this site with clean, quiet, non-hazardous indoor lightindustrial uses that provide employment. The property, as I mentioned, does have both and and you heard from Nick as well, the LDE and the ME designations.

Uh the majority is the LDE consistent with the the comprehensive plan. We have aligned our project with that majority as is allowed in the comprehensive plan to use an adjacent property. That way the LDE designation supports the IL zoning as listed in the zoning district compatibility matrix which is included in the 10M plan. And the reason we're requesting the IL zoning district is because it's the most flexible for the types of tenants that are looking for flex space with more permitted and accessory uses that are better aligned with the exact target industries that we believe are both in demand and are looking for this type of space and this existing LDE designation is the right conceptual fit for the project. I'm consistent with the plan. We are providing specialized employment in a variety of flexible spaces with convenient circulation and without retail. Our site includes landscaping, pedestrian circulation, and connection to gathering spaces for employees. Our buildings also meet the LDE description of 1 to three stories, five between 5,000 and 150,000 square feet and a floor area ratio of less than 75. As I mentioned, detailed landscape plans will accompany the plat and and also the buildings will be reviewed at design review. But in light of staff's feedback, we have added some elements to the conceptual site plan now to show where these open space areas will be. So each building will provide a gathering space for employees with landscaping and seating. We will also add a public art

element at the site's interest that's consistent with the 10mi plan elements. Sidewalks and crosswalks will provide connectivity through the site, connecting pedestrians to the buildings and open spaces. And here are some conceptual uh building elevations. Consistent with the 10mi plan, the buildings will include articulation, fenistration, and bu be built to scale so that they don't dwarf pedestrians. Uh the building facades along Franklin and the new collector will include glazing and fenistration to create an inviting appearance and provide compatibility with other uses across Franklin. The small loading docks that will accompany the two medium format shallow bay buildings are oriented to the interior of the site limiting visibility to adjacent properties. And here you can see some conceptual renderings of the smaller microbay flex buildings with differentiated facades, distinctive entrances, and attractive landscaping. Vanrust has signed guidelines for all their projects, so there will be cohesive appearance and project signage consistent with the 10 mile plan and approved through design review. The collector road that Corin Mine has begun to construct on our east will be extended on site to provide access to the project. And this will be designed um with a neighborhood feel including landscaping, a multi-use pathway, and two lanes of traffic adjacent to the project. ACD did not require a traffic impact study for this application as this is just an annexation and zoning at this stage. Um there will be further studies that are done with the preliminary plat before development can proceed. Um they did provide comments on the on the project um including to note that we needed to align our accesses only on the

south on the new collector that no access would be allowed on Franklin. Um that the site is served by transit and that currently the surrounding roadways meet ACD's level of service planning threshold. They also note that both Blackad and Franklin are planned for expansion in the CIP. Um the Franklin improvements in particular are scheduled for 2027 with expanding to five lanes with bike and and pedestrian facilities. The staff report did note a concern with truck traffic, but Vanrust does have experience with exactly this product and they have seen that um in the flex space traffic is almost entirely light truck and standard vehicles. And for the two midsize buildings, the trucks accessing the you these uses are approximately 70% smaller box trucks and only 30% in the semi-truck or larger truck range. This project will have a significant positive impact on the city. It is expected to bring 575 jobs based on existing employment at similar flex and light industrial spaces in Meridian and Boise and at least $26 million in annual payroll impact u based on US census data for wages in Meridian. The types of companies that are expanding into these spaces include LED light manufacturers, plumbers, electricians, and tile installers, as well as high-tech employment in the semiconductor manufacturing industry that as the supply chain companies are starting to move to the valley to support the micron expansion. A recent example of this in Meridian is JST manufacturing who came here for that exact reason. The targeted tenants for this project are in some of the valley's top employment industries that are still

growing and need space. And these are construction, manufacturing, wholesale trade, and transportation and warehousing. And unlike office employees, the jobs in these hands-on industries are less susceptible to being eliminated by AI. These are more sustainable jobs for the future. These same industry sectors support good wages with average wages well above Meridian's average wage of approximately $24 an hour with wages ranging from approximately $29 to $38 an hour. Staff's argument against this use is that it's a prime area for professional office jobs, but class A office developers and tenants want adjacent retail and restaurants, ideally with integrated residential and access to a major intersection. You can see that there are numerous office developments along Eagle Road close to I 84. The activity just down the street at 10 mile and 84 also illustrates this mixeduse concept that is attractive to office tenants closer to homes and plan commercial amenities and an interchange and more details here about the district with the types of commercial uses that serve those offices. These sites are very different from what we have at this property, which is surrounded by um existing and planned industrial uses, including some immediately to our west and east that have outdoor uses. Um for us, this projects with planning light industrial and flex industrial, this is a great location. We'll be compatible. Um this will fit well. Um, but if you're looking to site a traditional office park, a developer is

not going to find this location as desirable. You've got light industrial here around this site and then you have heavier um industrial to the west and in as you get closer to the Highway 16 interchange. Demand for this product is high. The development that is to our south is leasing up very quickly. And just looking at the existing um listings in the Meridian subm market, TOK Commercial compiled this data for us. Um there's currently a total of 24 flex spaces that are available in Meridian in a range of sizes and 33% of these listings are over 25,000 square ft. This large format product dominates the available supply here and yet there has been zero leasing activity in that size category over the past 12 months. Um meanwhile the small bay supply is being absorbed fast and the 0 to 10k size is 37.5% of all the listings but faces the highest transaction volume. So this product, this project's small bay and mid spaces really address the demand that's in this red box here on this slide. And this is the size range where Meridian tenants are actively seeking space. So I'll turn to the the code change. Um, as as has been noticed noted already, we are requesting a reduction in the required amount of office space in the ILE district from 20% to 10%. This is the same reduction that was approved by the city in August for the ME zone and really based on the same reasons that having a required minimum

office limits the tenant flexibility in these flex industrial spaces. So, here are some examples of conceptual floor plans that um VTER has done in other locations and they will certainly have the opportunity to provide this kind of buildout. Here you can see a variety of office setups with with walls and some open workspace opportunities, but this is driven by the tenant. So the tenant may want this kind of configuration and then they could have that or they may want a more flexible space with open workstations instead of walled off areas. That's the nature of the working environment for these users. It doesn't mean that they have fewer employees simply because they have fewer walls around their working spaces. So in short, this is the right project at the right time for this part of Meridian given this location. This provides a nice transition from our mixed uses that are across uh Black Cat to the east to the heavy industrial that's to our west. We'll continue to build out the area consistent with what has been approved by the city with this light industrial flex space that is clean and quiet and non-noxious, non-hazardous. Um, but still provides that great opportunity for mixed employment that is called for in your 10mi plan. And with that, I'll stand for any questions. Madam Chair,

Commissioner Smith,

one of the things you mentioned ear uh early in your presentation was just asking for kind of what's been done before Corin Main's your neighbor. They did a CPAM. So what I guess where's the discrepancy between this application and other applications? Do you have examples of other applications in the 10 mile area that have had light industrial uh in low density employment without having a CPAM? So um both CPM chair and sorry commissioner that both C the uh core in Maine and the AT development um to our south had LDE at its core and still were seeking zoning of IIL and ended up with IIL. Staff's concern with this why they are pushing us to um do a plan amendment is not to seek IIEL zoning. They want us to do a different zone that doesn't allow the same uses that are allowed in IL zoning. So, a plan amendment isn't necessary to facilitate the IIL zone in this area. And that's the the slide that I I showed you with the the zoning compatibility matrix. If we were going to seek a different zone than I, then it may be appropriate. Um, but since we are seeking a zone that is called for as allowed within the LDE, that is not something that we felt was necessary. And again, staff's concerns to us were more about the end use.

Madam Chair, Mr. Smith, can I can I ask that of staff? I my understanding was that staff actually said that we would be, you know, have you have the concerns about growing in the area, but able to support with the CPAM. So,

Madam Chair, Commissioner Smith, that's correct. you know, early on in the process. And I think we were open to IIL zoning. It was more about site design as well. Um, we asked if they would want to do a mix of mixed employment and IIEL on the site, like mixed employment on the front edge on Franklin and then I as it transitions down towards the Rosen Loft. Um, so we did have those conversations. Uh, if this project was either 500 yards to the west in the general industrial, this would be the easiest approval. It's general industrial. This is exactly what we want in that area. If this if they did a CPAM to change this uh designation to either mixed employment or general industrial, I think through design elements, we could have gotten to an approval correct and that was stuff that we did have conversations with early on. It was ultimately determined though that they did not want to do a comprehensive plan map amendment and you core and Maine did do a CPAM. So they did process one last year and that's the main reason we were able to support them. They also worked with site design and all of that stuff with staff to gain that support. The property to the south which is has many different names. Black hat industrial, meridian commerce park, at industrial, the big larger development to the south staff recommended denial of that in 2021 I want to say and city council ultimately found that it was consistent with the plan. So they did not do a CPAM but so that that's so there's one that has and there's one that has not

to answer. Yep. And Madame Chair, may I respond to that as well? M Madam Chair, may I ask a question? Go ahead. Go ahead, Commissioner Pearl.

Thank you. Um can you explain before you respond to that what the downside would be for you in applying for that comprehensive um plan change? Uh, Madame Chair, uh, Commissioner Perau, that's a great question because it's consistent with what I was going to say and, um, my my client may have more to add on this since they were involved in these meetings as well. Um, I guess Nick and I have very different memories of these meetings, um, of the discussion because we had a discussion about whether they would actually support a comp plan amendment if we came forward and we were told no. And so because we didn't the direction from staff that we were told was that they were looking for a different use than we were providing. They wanted more of an office type use to support more professional offices because they felt that that use supported the 10mi plan and they had enough of the industrial to our south and east. So it it didn't make sense to us when we could see in the plan the matrix that allowed and supported the IIL zone and the decisions of the city council that allowed the IIL zone in the same designation to go through a comp plan amendment to be denied for the use that we could see was authorized. So, I I don't know how we had have that big of a disconnect in our meetings cuz we had many um you know, we understood that staff wanted us to seek me zoning. Um they said and I believe it says it in the staff report too that they're concerned that the uses that are allowed in the IL zone are there there are too many allowed uses including um more industrial uh excuse me more warehousing and distribution. And so their concern was again more about the end use in the zone, not the process to get to that zone. So this is the first I've heard that they would have supported IL zoning and the uses were proposing if only

there had been a CPAM. Madam Chair, Mr. Smith, I guess I'm confused because it seems like generally speaking those other uses are not envisioned or contemplated in the in the application. So if the concern around end use was something that you're not doing, what what would be the the do you get my question? What what's the cost of doing that CPAM if it just prohibits you from doing something that you weren't planning on doing anyway?

Um Madame Chair, Commissioner Smith, uh it's important that we are very clear about that. We we will have warehouse and distribution uses here. That's why we've sought the IL zone. So that will be a part of it. The nature of the of those uses is different from larger the large crossbay um buildings because they're small and so the demisable spaces. I mean that's the the point of a shallow bay, right? You have it's not very deep. So you have end up with a smaller space and then you can separate uses easily with demisable walls. The same thing in the micro bay. Um, and these are the same that are in the smaller buildings that were approved in the development to our south. They create these very small spaces and that supports a range of businesses that creates the employment that's called for in your plan. And so that's that's our pitch to you is that we are creating the same employment that is desired by the plan and that we understood was desired by staff by promoting office. Office is just a shell, right? It's who are the users that are going to attract it. We're building a shell that is appropriate that attracts the in- demand users, the employers that are the lead um have have the higher wages and are in the lead and demand right now in the valley. And we're putting them here and they will have um warehouse and distribution uses among other flex industrial light industrial uses.

Thank you. Okay. Um, thank you very much. Thank you. Appreciate the questions.

Madam Clerk, do we have anybody to testify? Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, we have Tyler Martin. They

very much. Hi. If you can um state your name and address for the record, that'd be great. Tyler Martin, 322 Bacon Drive, Boyisey, Idaho. Okay.

I am an industrial broker with TK Commercial. I'm working with the applicant. Um really came up here to speak to you about jobs. Similar testimony I gave to city council late last year. Um you know, this this type of product is what's very very much in demand in the market. Um as we've talked with staff, there's been a lot of comments about different types of development to support jobs. And um I had a couple of comments real quick to clarify. So if you look at the aerial map of the 10-mi plan and you go to the west, it shows all that light industrial land to the west. It's not developable to the best of my knowledge. There's no sewer capacity. So the market's demanding this light industrial flex space, but there's large sections that aren't developable just because of utilities, infrastructure, other concerns that are a long way in the future. Um, also just speaking to staff real quick, um, or countering as far as mixed employment as we've gone through this plan, uh, mixed employment on the front, that was actually the applicant's initial desire was to kind of phase this development. I don't know if mixed employment, but a a product type that was that had more transition kind of lower ceilings to higher. Without access to Franklin Road, and I don't mean to speak for you all, but without access to Franklin Road, you can't have those more retail traffic orientated uses because they're going to have to come up the collector Street and then go through what is essentially, you know, parking lots and truck bays. If there was access to Franklin Road, direct access to Franklin Road, then you could support more retail type uses or more mixed employment type uses. Um, primarily what I want to talk to you about though was just employment numbers. Um, we surveyed 800,000 square feet of space in the market, door knocked uh over 80 doors just to see how many jobs were in each of these buildings. We started in Boisee. For this testimony, I focused solely on Meridian. In Meridian, we I forgot my glasses. uh we surveyed 400 we

have responses from 442,000 square feet of space in those spaces and that was 40 different companies in Meridian in those spaces there was one employee for every 468 square ft these are high employment spaces and it's not always the employees in the building itself they have out they have staff working from home they have staff in the field there's a lot of jobs that flow through these buildings very high demand Um I also wanted to share just some recent work that I've done. Only clients that I've worked with um recently or currently I've worked with five clients that identified Meridian as their core uh where they really wanted to be based on traffic flow employees whatever where their customers are. Um of those we were able to land one in Meridian. Um those companies employed uh similar numbers. Some of them had uh one employee for every 262 square feet but there was no space available in Meridian. So we ended up in Boisee primarily in Boisey. Um but it's all about they were unable to find space. Meridian was the identified location. We were unable to find anything that worked. Move to Boisey to find existing space.

I'm open for any questions. Would love to answer some questions. Actually I'm much more comfortable that way. Okay. Thank you very much. Yeah. Do we have any questions for Tyler at this time? All right. Thank you all very much. I appreciate it.

Thank you. I do know I live in the impact area of highway 16 and uh the city of Meridian and uh Toll Brothers just came into agreement to uh put sewer down Eustic and so they're going to collaborate with ACD so that the road improvements between McDermott and Blackhat and the toll and the lift station with sewer are all done at the same time because the city of Meridian is not planning on sewer and used till 2029 but ACD is going to do road improve improvement in 2027. So optics say why take a perfectly good road and chew it all up again to do sewer, but they end at UTIC. Um ACD and Toll Brothers told me that the extension of the sewer down south on McDermott to Franklin will happen somewhere after 2029. Now, how that connects to Franklin going east to Blackhat, I'm not really sure, but the soonest that you'll probably see sewer coming to Franklin for any kind of retail development would be closer to 2030. So, you can fact check me, but that was a conversation I had a few days ago with the Toll Brothers. Um, I figure our home's going to be under construction for the next 10 years with the ACD project and and Highway 16. So, um, I'm in it for the long haul for as far as construction. Uh, Madame Clerk, do we have any other people to testify?

Madam Chair, I have Keith Whiting.

Hi, if you can state your name and address for the record, that'd be great.

My name is Keith Whiting. Um, part of the trustees of the family trust for the property at 4925 West Franklin Road here in Meridian. Um, my mother is 92 years old. She lives on the property which is just to the east of the development. So our main concern is and I and I've listened to their presentation so I've caught a few things but is just you know how much extra noise of course that's going to create. Um Franklin Road is already a very noisy road. Franklin's going to become even noisier. Currently it's not as noisy of course because it doesn't have that much traffic. But with all the trucks and other vehicles going down to the feeder road just uh just south of our property next to the core main building where they're going to be putting that in. You know, that might be a somewhat of a factor, but our main concern is, you know, in the long term, um after our mother passes away, we're going to need to sell the property. So, is that going to, you know, is this development going to increase or decrease the value of our of our land so that we can someday sell it and and get as much out of the property as we can. But at the moment, you know, mom is, you know, on the property and we do have family caregivers that take care of her at that on that land. So,

how many acres do you have? We have 7.7 acres. Okay. Just under eight acres. Right. because she lost the house due to the highway project. Exactly. The inner the intersection of Frank Franklin and Black. That's correct. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. Oh, did you have a question, Commissioner Peru? No, you're good. Okay. Thank you. So, is there I guess is there an answer? Is there do we know whether or not something like this We'll have the um if if there is an answer, we'll have the applicant respond. Okay. Thank you. Thanks, Madam Chair. No one else has signed up and no one online has their hand raised. Is there anybody else in chambers that would like to speak?

Would the applicant like to come forward and respond?

Um, Madame Chair, if it's all right, I'll get us started and then if anybody wants to add in, they'll come and add into this. Um so I we'll start with Mr. Whiting. Um I think the the main thing that we want to do is build we have to come forward to to the city and build within your plans. And so this is the um that the designation exists on our plan and on his plan. And so by building out consistent with what's called for in the city, then we aren't creating any new conditions that aren't already contemplated by any buyer of of the property. I think it's when you you come forward and do something that's different than the plans that you could change that. But um from my perspective of representing developers, when you see successful development adjacent to you, that increases the value. And so, you know, having the other projects that are approved um to our south um and the corn main property to our east helps support this project as well when you're bringing in consistent uses. And so I would expect that that's going to increase the value of Mr. Whiting's property with a successful decision here. If if the property was not approved and instead it was for such a reason of no, we're going to hold off and wait and see if anybody wants to develop this as a traditional office park, then I would think that is not positive for his being able to sell that property to a developer. Um, so I guess just turning to the the discussion of of the no CPM here. Um, you know, the comment from from staff here was that, you know, that they maybe there's additional design elements. We aren't aware of the additional design elements that would come in um from the the ME designation. You know, I think it

might help to look at, you know, one of these tables from the 10 mile plan. You can see the the red and the blue box there of the different features and the elements that are called for. Everything's the same except for under the 334 the buildings to scale. There's an extra requirement in the LDE. You know, LDE buildings are are lower. They're 1 to three stories. We meet that. Um, so we we meet all we meet all of the specifications and I read those off earlier with the being below the the floor area ratio. We're within the square footage sizing. Um, we've got and now and and to staff's credit, they didn't have this information. We have added the features. They have added all of that we've said would be addressed in the future um detailed landscape plan that comes forward with the plat. But we've brought that forward to show that on our conceptual site plan now to address some of their concerns about those elements. And so hopefully that also helps their concern about those design elements by bringing in, you know, the item that's the items that are mentioned here, including like the public art, having the connectivity to the the public spaces, having those gathering spaces. And so when you look at the images in the plan, the the uses that we're proposing fit better with the look of the LDE. Um the the me tends to be a little more office parky looking. Um but you know the the table the the zoning matrix table does support both uses. Both of the zones support or excuse me both designations support the IL zone. So if if staff truly is of the opinion that the aisle zone is fine and our use is fine, they wanted additional design elements, you know, maybe we have addressed this that these now by bringing forward elements they had not

seen yet. Or if there are additional design elements that you know the commission feels are necessary based on staff's recommendation, then those could be added as conditions of approval and we can you know see if those can work for us or take those up with counsel. But it it's really the fundamentally we're here to confirm the zoning. We're annexing and seeking ILIL zoning and IL zoning is consistent with your 10mi plan compatibility zoning matrix. It is what the city has approved on adjacent developments including one with or without the CPM. But there's nothing in the plan that says you have to do that. That's just a choice. So again, if there's design elements that that brings to the city, we, you know, we're open to that consideration and that doesn't require a denial. That would be um an an approval with a condition. So stand for any questions you have or any other comments from the team. Okay.

Commissioners, do we have any questions? Madam Chair, Commissioner Smith, if there were a CPA PAM, do you envision that substantially changing the um site plan in any way?

Madam Chair, Commissioner Smith, no. No, we don't. This is um the the uses that we expect, you know, they're allowed in the IL zone that we believe are what this applicant plans to build here that meets the market. And so we do expect it would be consistent with IL zoning uses similar to the approved projects that have come forward in the city. I mean Corin Maine also has IIL um and so does the the larger development the 130 acres to our south all have IIL. So they took different processes to get there but they have the same result. There's nothing that requires doing an extra process to get to the same result here.

Right. If the uh UDC text amendment is not approved, would that change your um your application?

Madam Chair, it just limits the flexibility that tenants have. And so to have the most successful project, we would, you know, urge the city to strongly consider that I change consistent with the ME. You know, if you think about the reasons, you know, Adler Industrial was one that came and testified in support of that and they talked about how it was creating, you know, fi financing hurdles for tenants. It was creating leasability problems for flex space u because they didn't have the flexibility to use the space the way they wanted to. And that was in an ME zone. You know, industrial, you've got even more of that flexibility that's needed. Um and so and and you're more likely to have your workspaces spread out through a larger space and not have walls. And so that's yes, it it would impact the success of the project, but so that is part of our request of the city to do that, but they're separate application requests.

Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for the applicant? All right. Thank you very much. Thank you. May I get a motion to close the public hearing? So moved. It's been moved and closed. A second to close this public hearing on both H2025-0052 for the annexation and ZOA2025-00002 for the UDC amendment. All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries.

So, um, commissioners, when you give your comments, please be specific on when we're talking about annexation and, uh, UDC amendment, please. So, Madame Chair, members of the commission, um before you get dive into these two topics, I just wanted to at least give you some context on the the code amendment. It it doesn't go far enough. Um that's that's why we would we didn't want to the applicant to have to take that on. Uh when council made that change in I think it was October last year, September, August maybe, sorry, August, they changed the office component for the flex base, but they did not change the warehouse component. So those numbers no longer match sync up with what the intent of the council was at the time. And that's what we conveyed to the applicant. So it's not that we don't disagree with them. It needs to change. It's just that we feel we're better suited to do it than they are, even though it's not on their timeline. So, I at least wanted to give you some of that context on the code change. The other there's some there's some differences here that I at least want to express to you. And I appreciate the applicant saying that they're willing to work with staff and make changes because I I've been in a lot of those meetings with the applicant and we expressed numerous times pedestrian connectivity, some of those pedestrian scale elements, some of the integration. Um I recall one time I expressed them showing how the adjacent property to the east could integrate with this development because we didn't want with the scale and the bulk of the buildings they have on this site. It's difficult to see how that 8 acre piece on the corner integrates with the rest of the area with core and main and this piece and we just never got those things. Um, I appreciate the applicant coming in and showing you some of those sitting areas and everything,

but when we worked on the Blackat Industrial Project in Farmstone, which is on the other side of Blackat, the Cory Bon piece there near the freeway, we spent several months going back and forth continuations. I think you all remember the many continuations to try to integrate a plaza area and some of that open space and that connectivity. And ultimately, yes, did it meet every element of the plan? No. But we've got consensus with the developer and the com the city felt comfortable moving forward and saying making that finding that it was consistent with the plan. So again, the applicants been great to work with. Uh they were always willing to meet, share their concerns with us. We met with ACD. We asked them I I followed up with Mindy at ACD about why wouldn't access to Franklin be supported. um she was very clear on why they wouldn't support that. We have the same policies, but there is a process to still request that. Um the other thing that I think is is I think the applicants missing on this plan is walling themselves off from BU fence. I think there's a real opportunity for them and be to share an access to Franklin and not have an emergency access. I think that that just doesn't make sense to me on this plan and I'm not I don't develop property. They have to make that. business decision, but that's what we try to do is get interconnectivity between the adjacent properties as well when you have a a a mobility arterial like a Franklin Road. So, I think that crossconnect even between the properties with the addition of the collector that the applicant is building is just a critical component that I see missing from this plan. Again, I'm not I I I think we just need to work with the applicant more to be honest with you. But again, we've had these conversations. The plans haven't changed. This again, this was the first time that we saw an attempt at some

sitting areas. Um and it was just today. And so, again, applicants great to work with. I understand their vision. We want to help them. uh ILIL zoning, ME zoning, LO zoning, it's it's it's all relative. It needs to come in with it comes down to site design. And that's what the 10mi plan is all about. It's about those critical elements. And yes, did does every project in 10 mile have those? No. And if we had to grade ourselves, I wouldn't say we give ourselves an A. But Nick, I think it did a great job laying out what's been approved out there. and a lot of it has not been built yet. So, there will be an impact. I don't know when that's going to happen, but I can tell you I'm in several meetings with all of the developers in these areas, and it's coming.

Yeah. It's going to come quickly. So, uh I I know there's some work that has to be done. We know Highway 16 is going to open. We know Franklin will be probably a freight corridor. I have no doubt about that with that connectivity and that interchange. But again, at least wanted to give you some context there about everything that we've been doing trying to get this to fit kind of that what is it square peg and a round hole if right as you see hear so often at the hearings. Thank you, Madam Chair. Commissioner Perau,

I have a couple questions for staff. Um, one, I want to make sure I'm hearing you correctly that you still feel like there's room for conversation to improve this. Uh, may maybe some um conversation that that could have happened, but there just wasn't a con maybe a little bit of a disconnect with it. Um and I also wanted to ask is there anything that's in all the approvals that we have is there anything like this which is sort of that um light industrial you know small tenant user uh type of project. It seems like we have a really we have the heavy industrial in the in the um property to the south. We have some office focus in other parts of the 10 mile area plan. This to me seems like something that we're not seeing a lot of that that the way that they are um not just the site design but just the what the end user is which it sounds to me like you that's that's really important. And so just curious if if you think this there's a need for this specific style that they are doing or I shouldn't say style this specific type of end user.

Yeah. Commission uh Nick if you wouldn't mind bringing up your your GIS work that you did at least point out what's been approved in there so we can have that conversation with you. So every project that so blackhead Industrial had the small bay component and then the large bay that you see with that Nick shows uh Farmstone is where Nick's cursor is had some of the the small bay as well and then it transition to the bigger bay and then Adler has the same thing. So yes, we we we understand the market what's driving this area. We and we've we've done a pretty good job accommodating it. So, um, again, I appreciate Tyler's expertise because he teaches me something new all the time as well, just learning about industrial. I enjoy having those conversations with them because I think we hear it all the time as well as a city that we need more of this and we want to accommodate it and but at the same time, we want to make sure the plan is right for the area and fits and integrates. Um, again, 10M focused heavily on that job, that housing and job ratio and the transportation network was very laid specifically laid out for that balance to occur. And so Nick and I are tasked with making sure that we keep that balance whole. And I think overall when hearing those numbers that Nick threw out tonight, you can see we have definitely set this up to have some pretty intense commercial industrial uses in this area or quasi industrial, whatever you want to call it, flex space. We're trying we we I think we've done a good job at that and trying to balance that. It just some of those things need to come online. We just over committed to housing right now in the area. So we're trying to get that commercial balance back into the area. And again, the idea is to keep people in this area so they don't have to impact the roadways. They can live, work, and play in this area. That was the vision

for 10 mile. So again, we have to be cognizant of that as we're looking at land use applications in the 10 mile specific interchange area.

Madam Chair,

Commissioner Smith. Um yeah, I think I to offer some thoughts. Um start with the the the short one first. I think with the the zoning um or the UDC amendment, um I I don't think I could support that. I think um you know there's there's the saying, you know, bad facts make bad law. Um I think there's, you know, similar something here of, you know, if we're trying to really do case by case ad hoc, um UDC kind of rules and things like that. Like I I don't think the same way that if council wants to grant a variance kind of for a residential project or if that's something that in their discretion they want to do, um that that's that's their prerogative. I I don't I don't think that I feel comfortable in any fashion, in any sense of the word, trying to um make case specific UBC changes. So, I I can't support that. As far as this property goes, I I think there's a lot to like about it. This development, there's a lot to like about it. I think it does meet a market need. I I just think we got to do it right. And I think there's a lot of question marks here. um not to not to hold anything against the applicant, but I think the fact that we got kind of updated um uh site map, you know, kind of day of um I think there's a lot more work to do. So, I don't know if there's a longer continuence in mind if that is is enough or if we need to deny you if the the idea is to deny and then, you know, reapproach this in the future. Um I just I don't think I can support approving, you know, recommending approval though at the moment

or either for either, but especially for um the latter. Yeah. Okay. Madam Chair, Commissioner Pearl,

I agree with um Commissioner Smith. I I'm at this time don't feel comfortable with supporting a a text amendment without more information. Uh but also um I appreciate the the applicant's pursuit in in um trying to make this something that fits the area and I think that all in all the design is good. I think that I can see the need for this specific type of of product. It's just a matter of making sure that you know that the end use doesn't justify doesn't justify an approval unless it's gone about in the way that that works that with you know what our current structure is with um with our codes and with our comp plan. So I think what what I'm hearing is hey we like the end use is this the right place is this the right location is this um is this the right way to have actually gone about the process. So, I agree with Commissioner Smith. I if the applicant feels like after this hearing that there's things they can do to um improve the application that would meet some of the concerns that have been presented uh or or maybe there's been clarity that's had tonight that wasn't there before, then I'm open to the idea of doing of continuing the application. Is there any interest in opening the public hearing to hear from the applicant on that question or um

Madam Chair? Commissioner Smith, I'd be open to that at first, but before we go down that route, I' I'd like to hear staff's perspective if if that's feasible, if if they feel like we can get to a spot where where they can u be supportive or at least ambivalent before going down that.

Madam Chair, members of the commission. Yeah. So, first of all, I'd like to address, you know, I think looking back at our notes and several emails and all of that, going back to the applicant, I think Bill hit it pretty spot on. It says with the current layout that they have, it was going to be difficult for us to support and both the pre-application meetings we had and other emails that weren't pre-application meetings. Um, we asked them to address these things. there's a list of things to address that may be able to gain our support, but ultimately we didn't see any of those things until they actually submitted. Um, and in my in my notes, it does say, you know, a CPAM application would be required for staff support and but at this time it would be difficult for us to support unless these things are addressed. So, I see where maybe the disconnect was um on our side and on their side. And you know, if that's on me, it's on me and I apologize. Um I I feel like we tried to do a good job relaying that information to them and sometimes we just don't get that information till it's the application's actually submitted and then at that point it's it's submitted. It's in the process and that's what I'm reviewing it for. We didn't end up I mean this these conversations started over a year ago now or maybe a year ago now preliminarily we had our first preapp in June June 4th and then our final preapp was in November and we had several meetings between that and we were asking for you know job information what kind of jobs they would create trip generation we were asking for some of that data and we didn't actually end up seeing that until the narrative was submitted with the application not with a comprehensive plan map amendment and without the CPAM amendment It's like if we continue this without a comp plan amendment, it still going to be difficult to support just because the low density employment is pretty specific about the uses that it wants to see. Yes, it says IIL zoning is one of the choices, but it also says LO, which

is limited office, is one of the best choices. So, I think it's saying there's a balance between the two that would need to be that's what the plan's ultimately saying, which isn't being met here. I agree with the applicant that there's a demand for this. Every project that I talk to people, they call me back. We have storage that people have done and we got flex space on the frontage on 10mi. They called me after they got their approval from city council saying, "Hey, can we change this all to flex space because we got way more interest in this than I thought we were going to." Um, which ultimately I was like, you got to do a DA mod. But that's not for this applicant. And I think that, like I said, it is in demand. I just think sounds like there was some miscommunication or misinterpretation and just not enough information that staff got to be able to say yes, we can support this with the comp plan amendment and we said it was going to be difficult to support without these things being addressed even with a comp plan amendment. So I do see where Deb and them are coming from on that.

Madam Chair, sorry I want a question. You asked another question. I apologize. That's helpful. I I don't know this. I asked a question for anyone staff are would they would it would adding a CPAM without required denial and resubmission.

So the tricky part yeah madam chair members of the commission tricky part is CPAMS only processed twice a year. Uh we already had our December 15th submittal. We have two in process that will be coming in front of you guys here in the next couple months. So they would have to wait until June 15th for that to actually be processed. And I know time is of the essence for them. I know that they've waited a while to get to this point. Um, and I don't know if that's something that they would be interested in. Um, if it is, you know, staff's definitely open to it. Um, you know, I think we still need there's still some work to do, I think, with their site plan and maybe even opening that connection to Franklin is because their site plan did change a month ago, which ultimately eliminated two small flex buildings on the frontage of Franklin, which, you know, staff had worked pretty hard with them to get on the plan that we saw in November. And then ultimately it because ACD wasn't allowing access to Franklin, those were eliminated which then furthered the inconsistency with how his staff views the plan. So um I would like to hear I think hearing from the applicant would be important here. See what they think if if they'd be even willing to wait till June. And yeah,

with that um can I have a motion to reopen the public hearing? So moved. Second. It's been moved and second to reopen the public hearing um to discuss some possible changes with the applicant. Would the applicant like to come forward, please? Do we need to vote on that? Oh, do we vote? Sorry. Hold on. It's getting late. Okay. All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Okay. Come on up. Sorry. I was just hearing them all in my head.

That's all right. And I jumped the gun. I was already up here. So um maybe we start with the first one the connection to Franklin because I think that maybe is a little bit lowerhanging fruit as well. So we have tried to provide a cross access. Obviously the reason we made that limited only to fire access was ACD has also presented to us that that is a temporary drive for B fence as well. At the at the moment when the collector street comes in that drive will be closed. So really making a connection to a drive that's going to be future closed is in our opinion just not really beneficial to any of the developments. And so

hold on one second. So if if B but Fence doesn't have access on Franklin then where would they have access from? As soon as they are required to take the collector street adjacent to theirs which my understanding is but Fence actually subdivided the partially illegally causing annexation to be required and they're coming in soon. I might be misspeaking for staff, but Okay. So, they're going to end up being uh access to the Collector Street as well. That's correct. And nobody's going to have access on Franklin. That is how ACD has presented it to us that that drive will be closed. It is a temporary drive only for use until the Collector Street is adjacent to BU Fence.

All right. Well, we'll have to fact check that, but um we could that's something that we can kind of look at or if you choose to have another meeting with uh staff. So, go ahead.

Yeah. And I was just going to address the seat, but go ahead. Oh, go ahead, Nick. I don't know the process on the No problem. Go ahead. So, we're just going to make it y'all tell me what I do wrong. So, uh let's uh talk a little bit about the C Pam. So, uh, you know, it's kind of a double-edged sword, and I don't want this to come across the wrong, uh, way, but with the timing to Nick's, uh, point, we were trying to facilitate if the CPAM really didn't bring any changes to our site plan. Um, there was no reason to submit when that is required when 60% of it is of one use or majority of the use, you can make it the entire property, right? So the intent was not to circumvent any of the processes by not doing the CPAM. The thought was that and I think Nick and and we got to that at one point was that you know the the intent is if if the applicant has made this to what is market conditions and what we can facilitate if this product type and this use is not the desire the of obviously the commission and then the council that's our concern. And so I think in our opinion if if at at this point delaying it for a June for the CPAME middle is just is is kind of out of the question as far as our concern. We'd rather have a denial and then we'll we'll discuss that at council and to your point maybe that alleviates the concern of text amendments at this level and council maybe could make that or we we'll see how that happens. So I I guess from a timing perspective unfortunately we don't have the time to to wait for that application to come back. We also did the zoning and and I'd like to make a point. It might be a mute point, but the preliminary plat design plans, we still have a lot of things to figure out and what we're trying here is for zoning, right? And so, as long as we're still meeting the requirements of that zoning, we're we're trying to make those adjustments now. So, some of it has been late, some of it is because of ACD

giving us feedback on drive locations a month ago. Um, so we, you know, there's a lot, there's so many steps that when you take them that have repercussions and and that is kind of where we've ended up today. So, Deb, I don't know if I answered all the questions or even if you had more to add, but I I think it from an applicant standpoint, uh, unfortunately, we'd rather proceed to the denial than than

maybe just one quick point. Um, and appreciate Nick's comments just now, but in the end of it, I I think I still heard that you still wanted the CPM to be able to support it. So, I feel like that's where you circled back to. So, I just want to make sure we're clear on that. Um, and so to that end, it's not just the delay to the June, it's that it it it feels like it might be unproductive if we still haven't heard what design elements we might be missing. Now, if there was something that is a an element that again was was needed that could be, you know, added as a requirement, we just haven't heard what that is yet. Um, and and you know, I went through the table, showed you each of those little dots. We've checked each of those boxes. We don't have flexibility because of Franklin. So we have tried to address all of the concerns that for us we're going to come forward in a future landscape detail plan with the preliminary plaque and bring those forward since staff wanted to see them now and and so we've done that. Um so I appreciate that it it you know wish we'd done that sooner um with staff. we just weren't we weren't getting the support for the zone and so we needed to get direction on the zone is why we're here. But if there's a design element that we have not yet incorporated in the conceptual plan that needs to be added, you know, please add that as a condition. And again, we'll consider it and decide whether or not we can incorporate that. We just haven't heard that yet. So pausing longer for a continuence doesn't feel productive from what we've heard so far this evening.

Okay. Um we're not city planners so we wouldn't be able to address what exactly um the planners as far as uh um our conditions are concerned. So we wouldn't be able to pinpoint nor would we want to kind of pigeon hole into saying that if you did A you would get B. So that would not be um something that would be appropriate for us to specifically say. But if you don't feel a continuence to be able to meet with staff one more time would be productive then um we could just go forward. And if you do have that conversation, you'll be prepared when you go to city council. Commissioner Smith, did you have a comment?

Oh, Madam Chair, I just wanted to confirm that we're on that everyone's on the same page regarding preferring a denial. It seemed like there was maybe just a question where I just want to make sure that that's the preference over a continuence. Um, if if an approval is is not feasible, right, Madam Madam Chair, Commissioner Smith, we would prefer an approval just to be clear. Yeah. Second choice is a denial instead of a continuence. Okay. Thank you. I prefer an intact hairline as well. Yes. All right. May I have a motion to close the public hearing? So moved. Second. It's been moved and second to close the public hearing. All those in favor say I. I. Any deny? Motion carries.

Madame chair, just to answer Chris's question. um as far as or not question but his point as far as I can't really speak to but fence because it is an active application. Um but I can't speak to the conversation I had with Mindy over at ACD regarding that but fence access and you know Chris is partially correct in the fact that you know AC basically said you know they have no plans to close that access to but fence even when the collector is available to the south until Franklin Road hits a certain threshold. Um, so which I don't believe is close to at this point. Um, so it didn't seem like it was very likely or imminent that you know that access to be fence will be closed on that frontage and I know that they have their main offices up there uh which would require quite a bit of sight design. So it sounds like they may have had a little bit different of a conversation with ACD than Bill and I did. Um, so maybe good to get clarification on that at least before if this does move to city council before that with ACD and get that in writing. Um because from my understanding of our conversation is you know that access would remain open for the foreseeable future and with the con with yes the caveat that at some point it could potentially be closed if or restricted to write and write out when frankly it's a certain threshold and I understand that's a risk for them and you know they need to have adequate access for people to lease spaces. So I, you know, I'm not going to talk on their part of that. That's they're the experts in that. But, um, I did want to just provide some clarity on that that access point has no plan to be closed even when the Southern Collector will be available for them.

Yeah, that would be huge. I mean, that would probably kill their business right there since their office and then the the landscaping company across the street, I can't recall their name. But you also had in the staff report that Franklin widing widening to five lanes is in 2028. Black Cat widening to 2036 to 2040 and then the Franklin McDermott roundabout in 2027 which supports the highway 16 project. So I'm sure that threshold's going to be a hot minute before it gets to that point. But again, um both uh the applicant should fact check all that information. Um overall in my opinion um because I was on the commission when um planning and zoning denied that um industrial park at Black Hat in the freeway. We thought it was too soon. It was still a two-lane road. It still is a two-lane road. It couldn't accommodate the huge trucks and the traffic that would be because it was mostly farmland. And that still exists today. But city councils thought that there was a value to that and they did approve it which I was actually very surprised at. But um and so now it exists and St. Luke's and a whole bunch of other people are leasing that space. So this has become the industrial corridor and it makes sense because Highway 16 is going to be a major part of our um community in Northwest Meridian and uh that's hopefully all coming to fruition in 2027 which is right around the corner. Um the idea of flex space and having you know small medium small and medium because that's what you're focusing on clearly is a need but in regard to the UDC and um how the industrial parks works and office parks works is should be a city decision not driven uh driven by the city and not driven by the developer because if we did everything the developer wanted we'd be all over all the place understanding that there's

been a lot of exceptions to the rules. So, um, but that is something that you would be able to to take to city council. But at this point in time, as discussed, um, based on the UDC requirements that we have and, um, the future land use map and on all the things we've thrown about a bunch of acronyms with, um, I will support the denial of this and then you can make the adjustments before city council. Any other comments? Matt, do you have anything to add? Uh, nothing for me. Okay. Madam Chair, Commissioner Smith,

after considering all staff applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the city council file number H--2025-000052 and Zoa-2025-00002 as presented during the hearing of March 5th. um for the reasons that um there's still too much lack of clarity around um site design and use um and uh as well as a lack of a CPAM. Seconded. It's been moved and second to deny uh van trust applications. All those in favor say I. I.

I. Any deni any um denied? Motion carries. Thank you very much. I'll take one more motion. Madam Chair, Commissioner Smith move to adjurnn. Second. It's been moved and second to adjurnn. All those in favor say I. I. Any uh deny? Motion approves. Thank