Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-06-26 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING SPECIAL MEETING City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Thursday, June 26, 2025 at 6:30 PM MINUTES ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE PRESENT Commissioner Brian Garrett Commissioner Jessica Perreault Commissioner Jared Smith Chairperson Maria Lorcher ABSENT Commissioner Sam Rust Commissioner Matthew Sandoval Commissioner Matthew Stoll ADOPTION OF AGENDA Adopted CONSENT AGENDA \[Action Item\] Approved Motion to approve by Commissioner Smith, Seconded by Commissioner Perreault. Voting Yea: Commissioner Garrett, Commissioner Perreault, Commissioner Smith, Chairperson Lorcher 1. Approve Minutes of the June 5, 2025 Planning and Zoning Committee Meeting 2. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for El Pollo Loco (H-2025-0018) by ADN Architects, located at 3471 W. Chinden Blvd. 3. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Elite Fitness (H-2025-0021) by Chelsi Spencer, located at 2640 E. State Ave. ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA \[Action Item\] ACTION ITEMS 4. Public Hearing for Durango Subdivision (H-2025-0017) by KM Engineering, Connor Lindstrom, generally located on the north side of W. Ustick Rd., 1/4 mile east of N. McDermott Rd. Vacated 5. Public Hearing for Pine 43 Mixed-Use Subdivision (H-2024-0071) by DRB Investments, LLC., generally located on the north and south sides of E. Pine Ave., between N. Locust Grove Rd., and N. Hickory Ave. Continued to August 21, 2025 Applicant Requests Continuance A. Request: Modified Development Agreement to (H-2017-0058 - Inst. #2018- 000751) to update the conceptual development plan and certain provisions and include additional land area. B. Request: Annexation of 7.21 acres of land with I-L (5.29 acres), C-G (1.36 acres) and R-15 (0.56 acres) zoning districts. C. Request: Rezone of 3.07 acres (0.91 + 2.17) of land from the C-G to the R-15 zoning district. D. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 41 buildable lots and 3 common lots on 36.58 acres of land in the R-15 and C-G zoning districts. E. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development consisting of 270 units in two (2) buildings on 6.28 acres of land on Lots 2, Block1 and Lot 2, Block 3 in the C-G zoning district. F. Request: Alternative Compliance to UDC 11-4-3-27B.3 which requires a minimum of 80 sq. ft. of private, usable open space to be provided for each multi-family unit and to allow zero (0) for studio units, and UDC Table 11-2B- 3, which restricts building height to a maximum of 65ft. in the C-G zoning district to allow a maximum building height of 76ft. on Lot 2, Block 3. G. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a height exception for a vertically integrated residential building on Lot 2, Block 2 from 65ft. to 87ft. in the C-G zoning district. H. Director’s approval for Alternative Compliance to UDC Table 11-2B-3 to allow an increase in maximum building height in the C-G zoning district from 65ft. to 76ft. on Lots 1-3, Block 4 (hotel and vertically integrated residential buildings) and to UDC 11-4-3-41G to allow a decrease of private, usable open space for studio units in vertically integrated residential from the minimum requirement of 50sq.ft to zero (0). Motion to Continue to August 21, 2025 made by Commissioner Smith, Seconded by Commissioner Perreault. Voting Yea: Commissioner Garrett, Commissioner Perreault, Commissioner Smith, Chairperson Lorcher 6. Public Hearing (Continued from 6-5-2025) for Idaho Power McDermott Substation (H-2025-0008) by KM Engineering, LLP., located at SW corner of McMillan Rd and Owyhee Storm Ave. Recommend Approval to Council Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2025-0008 A. Request: Annexation of 2.69 acres of land from RUT in Ada County to the R- 15 zoning district. B. Request: Conditional Use Permit to allow the development of an Idaho Power Substation. Motion to recommend approval to Council made by Chairperson Lorcher, Seconded by Commissioner Smith. Voting Yea: Commissioner Garrett, Commissioner Perreault, Commissioner Smith, Chairperson Lorcher 7. Public Hearing for Habit Burger (H-2025-0022) by CDR West, located at 445 Innovation Ln. Approved Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2025-0022 A. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a new 2,426 Sq. Ft. Habit Burger including a drive-through and escape lane located within 300 feet of an existing drive-through facility on approximately 1.16 acres of land in the C- G zoning district. Motion to approve made by Commissioner Smith, Seconded by Commissioner Perreault. Voting Yea: Commissioner Garrett, Commissioner Perreault, Commissioner Smith, Chairperson Lorcher 8. Public Hearing for Mogul Industrial Park Subdivision (H-2025-0006) by The Land Group, generally located at the northwest corner of Black Cat Rd and I-84. Recommend Approval to Council Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2025-0006 A. Request: Preliminary Plat to subdivide two (2) existing parcels into eleven (11) building lots across three (3) phases in the I-L zoning district on 88.20 acres of land. Motion to recommend approval to Council made by Commissioner Smith, Seconded by Commissioner Perreault. Voting Yea: Commissioner Garrett, Commissioner Perreault, Commissioner Smith, Chairperson Lorcher 9. Public Hearing for AOCI Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment (H-2025-0029) by City of Meridian, located citywide and at 12504 W. Amity Rd. Recommend Approval to Council Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2025-0029 A. Request: Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment (CPAM) to modify the boundaries of the Future Land Use Map (FLUM), along with a subsequent request to Ada County to re-establish the modified boundary of the Area of City Impact (AOCI), which includes the removal of 38 parcels totaling approximately 507.34 acres and adds one 5.06 acre parcel. Motion to recommend to Council approval to Council made by Chairperson Lorcher, Seconded by Commissioner Smith. Voting Yea: Commissioner Garrett, Commissioner Perreault, Commissioner Smith, Chairperson Lorcher 10. Public Hearing for UDC Text Amendment (ZOA-2025-0001) by City of Meridian Planning Division, located citywide. Recommend Approval to Council Application Materials: https://bit.ly/ZOA-2025-0001 A. Request: UDC Text Amendment to revise certain regulations, add new definitions, figures, and update specific use standards throughout Chapters 1-5 of the City's Unified Development Code (UDC). Motion to recommend approval to Council made by Chairperson Lorcher, Seconded by Commissioner Smith. Voting Yea: Commissioner Perreault, Commissioner Smith, Chairperson Lorcher Voting Nay: Commissioner Garrett DEPARTMENT REPORTS 11. Proposed Updates to Meridian City Code Title 8 Regarding Addressing ADJOURNMENT 10:13 P.M. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To view upcoming Public Hearing Notices, visit https://apps.meridiancity.org/phnotices --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting June 26, 2025. Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of June 26, 2025, was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chairman Maria Lorcher. Members Present: Commissioner Maria Lorcher, Commissioner Jared Smith, Commissioner Jessica Perreault and Commissioner Brian Garrett. Members Absent: Commissioner Matthew Sandoval and Commissioner Sam Rust. Others Present: Tina Lomeli, Ali Breshears, Caleb Hood, Bill Parsons, Linda Ritter, Brian McClure, Carl Anderson and Dean Willis. ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE _X Brian Garrett X Jessica Perreault Matthew Sandoval Matthew Stoll Sam Rust X Jared Smith X Maria Lorcher - Chairman Lorcher: Good evening. Welcome to Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for June 26th, 2025. At this time I would like to call the meeting to order. The Commissioners who are present for this evening's meeting are at City Hall. We may have another Commissioner join us later on Zoom. We also have staff from the City Attorney's office and the City Clerk's office, as well as the City Planning Department. If you are joining us on Zoom this evening we can see that you are here. 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 that we cannot take questions until the public testimony portion of the meeting. If you have a process question during the meeting please e-mail cityclerk@meridiancity.org and they will reply as quickly as possible. If you simply would like to watch the meeting we encourage you to watch the streaming on the city's YouTube channel. You can access it at meridiancity.org/live. With that we will begin with roll call. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Lorcher: The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. There are no changes to tonight's agenda. Please note that Item No. 4, Durango Subdivision, has vacated their application and Item No. 5, Pine 23, has requested a continuance. So, if there is anyone here tonight to testify on these applications we will not be taking public testimony this evening. Could I get a motion to adopt tonight's agenda? Garrett: So moved. Perreault: Second. F Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission June 26,2025 Page 2 of 68 Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to adopt tonight's agenda. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] 1. Approve Minutes of the June 5, 2025 Planning and Zoning Committee Meeting 2. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for El Polio Loco (H-2025-0018) by ADN Architects, located at 3471 W. Chinden Blvd. 3. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Elite Fitness (H-2025-0021) by Chelsi Spencer, located at 2640 E. State Ave. Lorcher: The next item is the Consent Agenda, which include to approve the minutes of the June 5th Planning and Zoning meeting, Findings of Facts, Conclusions of Law for El Pollo Loco and Elite Fitness. Could I get a motion to accept the Consent Agenda as presented? Smith: So moved. Perreault: Second. Garrett: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] Lorcher: At this time I would briefly like to explain the public hearing process. We will open each item individually and begin with the staff report. Staff will report their findings 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 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 in Chambers or you will be unmuted on Zoom. Please state your name and address for the record. 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 screen and our clerk will help you run the presentation. If you have established that Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission June 26,2025 Page 3 of 68 you are speaking on behalf of a larger group, like an HOA, where others on that group will allow you to speak on their behalf, you will have up to ten minutes. After all those who have signed up in advance have spoken we will invite any others who wish to testify. If you wish to speak on a topic you may come forward in Chambers or if in Zoom please press the -- press the raise hand button in the Zoom app and if you are only listening on a telephone please press star nine and wait for your name to be called. If you are listening on multiple devices, such as a computer and a phone, please, be sure to mute those extra devices so we do not experience feedback and we can hear you clearly. When you have finished if the Commission doesn't have any questions for you you will return to your seat in Chambers and be muted on Zoom and no longer have the ability to speak and, please, remember we will not call on you a second time. After all testimony has been heard the applicant will be given another ten minutes to come back and respond. When the applicant has finished responding to questions and concerns we will close the public hearing and commissioners will have an opportunity to discuss, hopefully make final decisions or recommended -- recommendations to City Council as needed. ACTION ITEMS 5. Public Hearing for Pine 43 Mixed-Use Subdivision (H-2024-0071) by DRB Investments, LLC., generally located on the north and south sides of E. Pine Ave., between N. Locust Grove Rd., and N. Hickory Ave. A. Request: Modified Development Agreement to (H-2017-0058 - Inst. #2018-000751) to update the conceptual development plan and certain provisions and include additional land area. B. Request: Annexation of 7.21 acres of land with I-L (5.29 acres), C- G (1.36 acres) and R-15 (0.56 acres) zoning districts. C. Request: Rezone of 3.07 acres (0.91 + 2.17) of land from the C-G to the R-15 zoning district. D. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 41 buildable lots and 3 common lots on 36.58 acres of land in the R-15 and C-G zoning districts. E. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development consisting of 270 units in two (2) buildings on 6.28 acres of land on Lots 2, Block s1 and Lot 2, Block 3 in the C-G zoning district. F. Request: Alternative Compliance to UDC 11-4-3-27B.3 which requires a minimum of 80 sq. ft. of private, usable open space to be provided for each multi-family unit and to allow zero (0) for studio units, and UDC Table 11-213-3, which restricts building height to a Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission June 26,2025 Page 4 of 68 maximum of 65ft. in the C-G zoning district to allow a maximum building height of 76ft. on Lot 2, Block 3. G. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a height exception for a vertically integrated residential building on Lot 2, Block 2 from 65ft. to 87ft. in the C-G zoning district. H. Director's approval for Alternative Compliance to UDC Table 11-213- 3 to allow an increase in maximum building height in the C-G zoning district from 65ft. to 76ft. on Lots 1-3, Block 4 (hotel and vertically integrated residential buildings) and to UDC 11-4-3-41G to allow a decrease of private, usable open space for studio units in vertically integrated residential from the minimum requirement of 50sq.ft to zero (0). Lorcher: So, we are going to open the application for Pine 43, which has asked for a continuance. We really didn't talk about this in the premeeting. Do we have a date that is considered for continuation for this application? Lomeli: Madam Chair, August 21 st. Lorcher: Can I get a motion to continue the application for Pine 43 for August 21 st, please? Smith: So moved. Perreault: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to continue Item No. H-2024-0071, a mixed use subdivision of Pine 43, for August 21 st. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. 6. Public Hearing (Continued from 6-5-2025) for Idaho Power McDermott Substation (H-2025-0008) by KM Engineering, LLP., located at SW corner of McMillan Rd and Owyhee Storm Ave. A. Request: Annexation of 2.69 acres of land from RUT in Ada County to the R-15 zoning district. B. Request: Conditional Use Permit to allow the development of an Idaho Power Substation. F Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission June 26,2025 Page 5 of 68 Lorcher: Item No. 6 on the agenda is the Idaho Power at McDermott Substation for annexation and conditional use permit at the southwest corner of McMillan and Owyhee Storm Roads and we will begin with the staff report. Ritter: Good evening, Commissioners. Linda Ritter from the planning department. So, tonight we are here for a request for annexation of 2.69 acres of land from RUT in Ada county to R-15 zoning district and a conditional use permit to allow for the development of the Idaho Power substation. So, this property went through a property boundary adjustment to allow for a new lot. The county allows for a one time split. Normally the lots in Ada county are five acres, but they do allow for a one time split for smaller lots and so it went through that process to create this new lot. So, this property is located at the southwest corner of McMillan Road and North Owyhee Storm Avenue. So, the applicant is proposing the construction of a new substation to enhance the reliability and resilience of electrical service in Meridian and the surrounding areas of Ada county. Currently customers in the region are served by Can-Ada station in Nampa and the Ten Mile substation in Meridian. So, with the rapid ongoing growth through the Treasure Valley it has placed increased demand on the existing facilities leading to service strain and reduced liability. The proposed substation is strategically designed to accommodate future growth and development, while alleviating pressure on the existing infrastructure by rerouting service lines. The new -- the new facility will not only serve new residents and commercial customers, but also improve service continuity and reliability for current users. So, as you can see on the site plan they are proposing up to two transformers to each serve four distribution feeders up to two breakers beneath the transmission termination structure, up to two metal clad structures, which manage switching of distribution feeders. One small control building, which houses racks of switches and communication equipment. One transmission and dead-end structure, which connects the transmission line to McMillan Road. So, public utility major and public infrastructure is the permitted use within the R-15 zoning district upon the approval of a conditional use permit and compliance with the specific use standards per the UDC. Staff has determined that the proposed project aligns with these standards and is essential to support the area's long-term utility needs and as you can see from the site plan access will be from McMillan Road and the Owyhee Storm and this will allow for safety to accommodate the maneuvering of large transport vehicles doing infrequent deliveries of major electrical equipment, such as transformers, breakers and the metal clad switch gear to the substation. Under typical operating conditions there would only be a single access point, but for this particular development it was determined that two access points would be needed. So, although the development of a power station is located within the residential zoning district, the applicant is proposing 30 feet of landscaping buffer to the west and south of the property to mitigate any noise that may be generated from the substation and there is no building, but the applicant is proposing an eight foot tall precast stamped concrete wall along McMillan Road and Owyhee Storm Avenue frontage, but staff is requiring the wall be extended around the entire substation, because to the west and to the south will eventually be residential development. The application will have to go through a final design, then, they will be required to meet the standards of the architectural standards manual and go through a certificate of zoning compliance prior to building permit issuance and, then, residential Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission June 26,2025 Page 6 of 68 zones, the maximum height of any fences are six feet, but the applicant is requesting eight feet, so they will be going through a separate permit process outside of this to increase the height of the proposed wall to eight feet and that is based on site security and to deter trespassing and the applicant is also requesting barbed wire on top of the fence, but within residential districts it is prohibited per our UDC. So, this is just an aerial of the area. This is the area in which the substation will be placed. So, that is all the information I have on this project and at this time I will take any questions from the Commission. Lorcher: Would the applicant like to come forward? Hi. If you could state your name and address for the record that would be great. Lomeli: Give me just one second. Okay. You can try it now. Hopkins: Hello. Okay. Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, Stephanie Hopkins with KM Engineering. Our address is 5725 North Discovery Way in Boise and joining me is David Hazel with Idaho Power. Hazel: Nice to meet you guys. Hopkins: I'm here on behalf of Idaho Power to request annexation and conditional use permit for a planned substation near Owyhee Storm and McMillan in northwest Meridian. Staff covered our request really well, so we will try to keep our presentation pretty short and David's here to provide any technical information you might have on the operation of the substation. So, the purpose of this project is to fulfill a need that currently exists and future development that will happen to fulfill that need as well. So, we are requesting to locate it near -- it's in The Fields sub area plan, which is anticipated to include a variety of uses in the future, including commercial, residential, industrial and, then, public uses. So, a new substation in this location will well serve the community. Substations are the point in which Idaho Power serves their customers directly with power. As this graphic shows there are multiple ways in which power is generated. Those are all grayed out, but you could have natural gas or there could be purchased power. Those all go to -- they are moved to a larger switching station and, then, those are moved to transmission lines. From there it moves to a substation, like the McDermott substation, and it's distributed to homes and businesses. So, the objective of this project is to meet the electrical growths and demands in this area with a new substation. This will help to relieve existing facilities. Customers in this area are currently served by the Can-Ada substation in Nampa and the Ten Mile substation in Meridian. This substation, the McDermott substation, will connect to the existing North Side substation with a new 138 kilovolt wire from the existing 230 kilovolt transmission line poles. Those really large facilities along McMillan. Linda covered where this is located pretty well. So, there are two points of access proposed to the site. One is to McMillan. The other is to Owyhee Storm. Both accesses will be gated and the entire site will be secured with a fence. As Linda mentioned, we are requesting that the south and west boundaries of the site, which are adjacent to currently undeveloped property, in the future they will be residential and I think multi-family kind of uses, with a chain link Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission June 26,2025 Page 7 of 68 fence. There is a 30 foot buffer area there that we believe will buffer future use as well and we think that the chain link with that buffer will provide adequate spacing and buffer to future uses. A precast concrete wall eight feet, as Linda mentioned, will be located along McMillan and Owyhee Storm. This site will include up to two breakers, two metal clad structures, a small control building, which will house a variety of controls for the actual substation and one transmission dead-end structure on the site. So, the transmission will come in from the dead end. It will go to the transformer, which steps the electricity down to 130 -- or from 138 kilovolt to four 12.5 kilovolt distribution feeders and that will go to customers through the metal -- metal clad. So, this is -- this is our -- this is what the precast concrete wall looks like on the left-side of your screen and, then, the chain link that we are proposing to locate on the south and west sides of the site would be more like the right picture and we have been working with Public Works on pressurized irrigation requirements for the landscaping that we are showing here. Our intent would be to try to work with them to delay the landscaping if we can to coincide well with development that's planned in the area. So, we are still working with them on that and trying to find a good solution and this is just basically saying that we are complying with the Comprehensive Plan and the city's codes for each of the uses that are -- for the uses proposed. So, the specific use standards as well as the annexation and conditional use permit standards. We have enjoyed working with staff and are really excited about this project. Think it will provide a really necessary service to residents within this area and will help alleviate some of the constraints that are currently being noticed in the area, too. So, I will stand for any questions. Lorcher: Commissioners, do we have any questions for the applicant? Garrett: Yes. Lorcher: Commissioner Garrett. Garrett: Question. I heard that barbed wire is not permitted. Now, how else will you harden the site given that there has been a lot of threats on the various water and electrical systems? Hopkins: Madam Chair, Commissioner Garrett, David might cover that. Hazel: Yeah. So, that's -- I mean that's kind of the whole intent of the increase had on that concrete wall and what we typically do, because I know that barbed wire is not allowed, sorry, but we will kind of cantilever that on the inside of our fence, so it's not seen, so it's pretty much obstructed by that wall; right? But that's really part of our security protocol as far as detect, deterring, delaying, if anybody was to enter our site without authorization. So, that's kind of our main intent there. And we do that with a combination of fencing, you know, barbed wire, cameras, all that good stuff. Garrett: Okay. Thank you. Hazel: Yep. Flo Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission June 26,2025 Page 8 of 68 Lorcher: Do you plan on having cameras at the site? Hazel: It's still kind of determined at the moment. We will at some point in the future, but I don't know if -- once this project is energized I don't know if we will have cameras on at that point. It's kind of security -- Idaho Power's security is kind of evaluating these distribution stations and the level of security required. So, our standard right now doesn't require that, but we are currently re-evaluating that given the history right now, so -- Lorcher: So, in regard to this particular site, I can't really speak to the one at Pocatello, but this one seems to be surrounded by residential, you know, with McMillan being one, you will have residential across the street, you are going to have all three sides residential. How common is it to have a station like this engulfed in residential areas or are you more kind of on the sticks a little bit with the Ten Mile and the Nampa facilities? Hazel: Are you --just the general location? Is that kind of questions? Would you mind going back to that main map? So, there is kind of a few things in play here. So, that existing line -- sorry. Which we are showing on this depiction; right? So, you can see basically from northside down McDermott at that intersection there is an existing line there. So, we are basically pulling conductor up north side, tagging on the existing line, which goes -- runs right by that property we purchased. Lorcher: Right. Hazel: So, it's also -- I mean convenience that our transmission lines there, right, without having to build new lines through the city, but at the same time it helps us relieve some of the capacity on our existing feeders. Lorcher: Right. Hazel: So, location is critical to our existing feeders that serve that area and taking some of that relief off with this new station. Lorcher: Let me clarify my question. Hazel: Yes. Lorcher: The substation specifically. The location of the substation, which is totally fine. Hazel: Yeah. Lorcher: But in this case right now there is just empty lots around you. Hazel: Correct. F-11 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission June 26,2025 Page 9 of 68 Lorcher: But five years from now, ten years from now, you are going to be surrounded by residential, which, you know, electricity and kids is a concern. So, you are proposing a brick wall on a portion of it. You are proposing a chain link fence on the other proportion of it. Is that the best materials to use, knowing that you are going to be here for a long time, along with the development that's coming up, is that sufficient materials enough to be able to be a good neighbor to the future residents who will be moving in next to you? Hazel: Yes. And so a lot of our standards are written around the chain link right now and we actually put concrete curbing under the chain link fence as well, so that people can't access underneath the mesh material. So, I mean chain link is our standard currently. We have been kind of converting to some of these concrete walls in specific situations; right? And so it's just trying to make sure that with the change in material that we are used to is making sure we are capturing all of our security elements given the location like you had mentioned. Lorcher: Right. Hazel: So, to answer your question, yes, we do everything in our power to secure our site as much as possible from the general public. Lorcher: Okay. I think from an esthetic point -- I live at Ustick and McDermott, so it's -- it's somewhat right down the street. Not that it's in my, you know, peripheral vision, but as a neighbor I would prefer to see the whole thing walled in, as opposed to having a chain link fence and that way you are your own little island and nobody can kind of see in, you know, deters any kids from jumping in the wall. You are down the street from the high school and it would just create more of an esthetic, especially with the landscaping that's around it. Would -- would putting a wall around the entire unit be within your periphery or are you committed to the chain link both sides? Hazel: It's certainly an option, but I do want to back up to that security feature; right? That -- I mean either material we choose we are meeting specific safety standards that aren't only within our company; right? I mean we have other entities that regulate us, so we are strict to those guidelines as well. I mean we certainly have the option to do the concrete if you would like. That's just an increase in cost for us. Lorcher: Right. Hazel: And maintenance and that kind of stuff can be a little bit tricky. You know, ten to 15 years from now if concrete starts falling versus just replacing chain link, you know what I mean? So, there is some caveats there. But I mean all in all we are open to either option, whichever you guys would prefer. But our initial intent would be to stick to our standard where we can and that's why that chain link is shown. Lorcher: Okay. As you go to City Council I'm -- I have a feeling that's going to come up again, so it might be something you would like to talk with the city planners with -- 12 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission June 26,2025 Page 10 of 68 Hazel: Absolutely. Lorcher: -- as far as just, you know, a conversation one way or another. Commissioners, any other questions for the applicant before public testimony? Perreault: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: So, perhaps you could speak to that in regard to your station at Black Cat and Franklin, because you have a school right next to that and residential right next to that. So, the concerns that Madam Chair has, could you address whether you had issues with that substation -- substation? Hazel: Not to my knowledge. I would have to check our security team, but I'm not aware of any issues and -- Perreault: Okay. Hazel: -- I haven't heard any issues with that site, so -- Lorcher: Okay. Thank you very much. Hazel: Yeah. Thank you. Lorcher: Madam Clerk, do we have anybody signed up to testify? Lomeli: Thank you, Madam Chair. We have Eli Hyman. Lorcher: No? Not for the power station? Okay. Thank you. Lomeli: Madam Chair, Patty Golden. Same? Lorcher: Same? Okay. Lomeli: No one else has signed up. Lorcher: David and Stephanie, did you have anything else to add before we close the public hearing? Okay. Can I get a motion to close the public hearing, please? Smith: So moved. Perreault: Second. F13] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission June 26,2025 Page 11 of 68 Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for Idaho Power McDermott Substation, Item No. H-2025-0008. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Lorcher: I mean it's pretty straightforward. We can definitely use the power. You know, McMillan's got huge power lines that make sense of where they are going. I'm just kind of -- knowing -- knowing the area, because I live in that area, knowing that all of The Fields is going to be developed in a long term plan -- I'm not a fan of chain link, but that's just me. So, if it was my choice to be a neighbor of the substation I would like to see it cemented in, but I wouldn't hold the application back just on an esthetic. Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: I think I tend to agree with you. I think there is probably also some argument to be made regarding security -- increased security of a concrete wall. It's harder to see through and see what's going on inside. I think there is a higher chance to deter anyone getting an idea of jumping over if you don't know if there is someone on the other side of the wall, et cetera. But, again, I think -- I don't think it's going to be something at -- you know, at the end of the day I don't think it's going to make or break this. I think where I'm at is I prefer to just maybe have that in the recommendation and have that so city -- City Council can have a conversation, which I think they will have either way, but if that's how the Commission intends to be feeling, maybe we just recommend that. But that's just kind of where I'm at. Lorcher: Any thoughts? Perreault: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: Given how many of these substations are in the area and how experienced Idaho Power is with this, they are obviously highly committed to security in their locations. It wouldn't be good for the community if they weren't committed to that. So, I'm -- I'm not as concerned about that. I mean they have had many many opportunities to try out different areas and if there were concerns about access or security I would guess they would have already run into those at some point. Lorcher: Right. Okay. With that after considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend File No. H-2025-0008 as presented in the staff report for the hearing of June 26, 2025. Smith: Second. 14 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission June 26,2025 Page 12 of 68 Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to approve the -- or recommend annexation and a conditional use permit to City Council for the Idaho Power McDermott Substation. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. 7. Public Hearing for Habit Burger (H-2025-0022) by CDR West, located at 445 Innovation Ln. A. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a new 2,426 Sq. Ft. Habit Burger including a drive-through and escape lane located within 300 feet of an existing drive-through facility on approximately 1.16 acres of land in the C-G zoning district. Lorcher: The next item on the agenda is Item No. H-2025-0022, Habit Burger for the conditional use permit for a restaurant drive-through at 445 Innovation Lane and we will begin with the staff report. Parsons: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. Next item on your agenda is the conditional use permit for the Habit Burger. The subject site consists of 1.16 acres of land, currently zoned C-G, located at 445 South Innovation Lane in the Ten Mile Center development near 1-84 and Ten Mile. We are here tonight to talk about the conditional use permit, because this particular drive-through is within 300 feet of another drive-through and that's way the -- later on in the evening we will talk about some changes to the drive-through standards, but as it's currently -- currently on the books today this does require a CUP when it's adjacent to another drive-through. Up to the north is the Costa Vida drive-through that you guys have approved and, then, also south of it is Cafe Zupas. South Innovation Lane itself was a private street that the city approved with the subdivision of the property. You could also see on the future land use map that the -- this area is designated commercial, where we anticipate a mix of commercial, restaurant, drive-through uses on the site. So, again, this is consistent to the plan that is currently in place with the city and the development. And, then, on this graphic here you can see where this is sandwiched between the two sites that I had mentioned previously. So, the applicant is here tonight to discuss an approximate 2,400 square foot restaurant with that accessory drive-through use. They are proposing two access points from South Innovation Lane, which is technically a commercial drive aisle slash local street. So, there really is no restriction on the number of curb cuts that they could have on that particular local street. You can see customers enter the drive- through from the northern portion of the site and there is adequate stacking for those vehicles. In addition to that, the applicant is providing the escape lane per UDC standards along the outer rim of the proposed lot, which runs along the north and, then, the west boundary, so cars can exit if they need to without picking up from the ordering window. Looking at the overall proposal, both the use and the drive-through use do meet UDC standards. Because this is a restaurant use the UDC does have a higher parking ratio than our typical commercial uses. This particular site is required by code to provide a minimum of ten parking spaces and the site plan before you this evening 15 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission June 26,2025 Page 13 of 68 depicts 57 parking spaces, which is -- far exceeds what UDC code requires. Looking at the public record we did not receive any public testimony on this site and as the applicant moves through the process with us they will have to get their design review approved from the Ten Mile Center design review board and they come back with a future certificate of zoning compliance to finalize their site design. But, again, everything that's before you this evening does meet UDC standards. So, with that I will conclude my presentation and stand for any questions you may have. Lorcher: Would the applicant like to come forward? Are they in Chambers? Oh. Wong is raising his hand. And you just muted your -- oh, no, you are not. Wong: Yes. Lorcher: Okay. Wong: Hi. Good evening, everybody. Thank you so much for the application. This is Tom Wong with Commercial Development Resources. CDR. We are consultant to Habit Burger. Burger is spelled with -- with the b-u-r, as opposed to b-r-u. Anyway -- Lorcher: Can we get your address for the record, please? Wong: Sure. It's 695 Town Center Drive in Costa Mesa, California. 92626. Lorcher: Okay. Thank you. Wong: Yeah. Basically it's a pretty straightforward, you know, layout. Pretty much very similar to our south property where we have a drive coming in from north and coming out to the south and, you know, we -- we did as best we could with the site. So, it's -- looking forward to moving this forward. But did you have any specific questions for us? Lorcher: Commissioners, do we have any questions for the applicant at this time? Nope. I think we are good. So, I will have you sit back for a moment and we will see if there is anybody signed up for public testimony, okay? Wong: Okay. Thank you. Lorcher: All right. Thank you. Madam Clerk, do we have anybody signed up? Lomeli: Thank you, Madam Chair. No one has signed up. Lorcher: Mr. Wong, do you have any other comments before we close the public hearing? Wong: I do not have any other comments or questions. Lorcher: Okay. F16] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission June 26,2025 Page 14 of 68 Wong: Thank you. Lorcher: May I get a motion to close the public hearing, please? Smith: So moved. Garrett: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for Habit Burger. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Lorcher: This is restaurant row. So, you know, adding -- adding another one we knew it was coming it was just a matter of time, as long as it fits the city's descriptions of filling out the codes and making sure that there is through traffic and its design standards, I don't see why it would have any, you know, complications of offering a conditional use permit. This makes it closer to my house. So -- and, actually, for this side of Meridian we don't have a drive-through Habit. The one in The Village is a walk up restaurant. Any other comments about the Habit? Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony I move to approve File No. H-2025-0022 as presented in the staff report. Perreault: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to approve the Habit. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much, Mr. Wong. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. 8. Public Hearing for Mogul Industrial Park Subdivision (H-2025-0006) by The Land Group, generally located at the northwest corner of Black Cat Rd and 1-84. A. Request: Preliminary Plat to subdivide two (2) existing parcels into eleven (11) building lots across three (3) phases in the I-L zoning district on 88.20 acres of land. Lorcher: Okay. Moving right along. The next item on the agenda is Item No. 2025- 0006 for a preliminary plat to subdivide two existing parcels into smaller lots across F17] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission June 26,2025 Page 15 of 68 three phases for Mogul Industrial Park at Black Cat Road and 1-84 and we will begin with the staff report. Parsons: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. You nailed the description of the project. Thank you. It is a preliminary plat on 88.2 acres of land currently zoned I-L. As you mentioned it is adjacent to 1-84 and Black Cat. If you recall this project was before you in 2022. We received this annexation with that I-L zoning designation. As part of that approval there is requirements for road improvements. Amount of uses were restricted through that development agreement. Timing for thresholds for extending the collector road through the site. So, I want to make it clear to this body tonight that this property does not require it to be subdivided. The applicant is just proposing to do that. So, under that current DA there is nothing in there that doesn't allow them to move forward with additional development on this site. Again, for construction purposes and phasing is what I understand being the primary driver for subdividing the property. You will also notice looking at this map that it seems like the two parcels are disjointed or not connected. That isn't a typical subdivision that you see in front of you, but I can assure you based on what you are seeing here the applicant has done a series of property boundary adjustments to carve out the configuration that you see here, so they are legal parcels and, then, in our coordination with the Ada county assessor's office they have said as long as the right of way touches between the two parcels and ACHD signs the plat and it's within the same section of the city it could be considered as one preliminary plat. So, even though you see it connected by a roadway, the county still sees this as one plat and so we have moved forward with that determination from the county. The other pieces that are gray around this area are still part of that development and the applicant does have CC&Rs in place that basically align all of these properties to share in the landscape responsibilities, roadways and cross-access between all the properties. You can see here on the future land use map that it does have two Comprehensive Plan designations. I won't go into that too much, just for the fact that it's already been annexed and zoned and there is a DA. So, again, currently there are six buildings constructed on the site and ready to be occupied on the site. So, they have already moved forward with a large portion of the site and they are ready to get tenants and businesses operating in this part of Meridian. So, here is the preliminary plat. It does consist of 11 industrial lots on 88.2 acres of land. You can see here in the preliminary plat these four lots here have existing buildings on them. This larger parcel just to the west is St. Luke's that was purchased from the applicant and that's developed and there is an existing building here that was just recently signed off by planning as well with all parking and landscaping in. So, really, what we are looking at is the remaining of this portion here and, then, as you recall a few -- three, four months ago this property was annexed into the city by the same developer. Enter into a DA, which that property is still part of the overall development for this site. So, again, it's one cohesive development, just coming in on different phases and different parts and pieces or different -- and different timing. As part of this development the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan calls for specific collector roadways to be built within this development. You can see that here on the concept plan. So, this is the east-west collector portion of that master street map required collector road, which is called Grand Mogul. It's currently built to about this location -- about a third of the way into the site Fl-81 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission June 26,2025 Page 16 of 68 and that's been essentially deeded to ACHD and constructed per their development agreement and per ACHD standards. As I mentioned to you and as -- as the Chair mentioned, this -- this preliminary plat will be phased in three developments. So, again, this middle portion will be phase two and, then, the last phase will be this northwest quadrant and a portion of the north-south collector road here. So, probably it's -- there is a picture of the phasing plan here, but it's probably -- we have got a blown up picture here probably for you, so you can see the phasing a little bit more here. So, phase one those first two lots and phase two are the three interior lots and, then, the last phase is Lot 3, Block 2, which also includes a portion of the north-south roadway that we will spend probably some time discussing this evening. All right. Also with industry -- this is the other unique part about this development is some of the landscaping is already in along the street frontage and so anytime a developer has to subdivide the property the code either requires those street buffers to be in in a common lot or a dedicated easement and so as the applicant works with staff on their phasing and their plats and their plat submittals they will have to graphically depict those easements on their final plats to ensure they are meeting the required landscape buffers per city code. So, along Black Cat they have installed a 25 foot buffer and, then, on the collect street require a 20 foot buffer. The other part of it -- of the street network the applicant's also providing ten foot sidewalks on each side of the roadways as well. So, they are -- rather than having the multi-use pathway along the interstate within the 50 foot buffer. During the annexation of the property the Parks Department agreed to allow the applicant to put those -- add those to the on-street network with the collector street. So, that's why you see ten foot sidewalks on each side of that collector roadway, along with the northern portion of the north side -- north-south collector roadway, which is along the west boundary here. Again, here is -- you saw where I was mentioning the existing conditions. So, you can see they have progressed quite a bit on the property and, then, here is the landscape plan that coincides with their phasing. Again those required buffers are depicted on all on the roadways. Again, they will have to indicate that here, because of these four parcels that's a requirement or a condition of approval in the staff report and, then, along the freeway we require a 50 foot buffer and so they will -- again they will do that and I will let the Commission know that the landscaping will be phased consistent with the phasing plan that I just shared with you. So, really, if you had a chance to look to the staff report the applicant did send me an e-mail, had a few items of discussion they wanted to take up with you this evening. Probably a majority of it is really the extension of the north-south collector roadway along Lot 3, Block 2. So, this area here. So, this is a schematic that I put together to explain what we are trying to achieve at least in the area and with -- with the extension of the collector network. So, I asked the applicant to provide an exhibit how the east-west -- or the north-south collector road could be extended in the future and that's the red line that you see on the graphic here. You can see that it jogs off -- runs up about three quarters of the property and dead ends. The turnaround would -- the required ACHD turnaround will be on Lot 3, Block 2, in this general location. So, don't be alarmed that there is not a required turnaround at the end of the street. There is. They are just working with ACHD on that and when they come in with their final plat they will provide that -- show that turnaround easement on their buildable lot and, then, ACHD construction or review staff will -- will approve that turnaround. And, then, as it heads north off their site it is running on the 19 1 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission June 26,2025 Page 17 of 68 adjacent property on the west side of the Rosenlof Drain, which you see here. The reason why I brought it up in the staff report is because our long range planning staff is working with ACHD on the widening of West Franklin Road and so the connection point -- or that intersection isn't quite laid out or planned yet and so now that we are here with -- we have some vacant properties in the area we are subdividing, now it's maybe the right time to have that conversation to make sure the plans that we are working on align with what we are trying to achieve in the area. There is some pros and cons to that. So, the exhibit here, the lines in the blue is what staff's recommended as far as the -- as the alignment for the north-south collector. The applicant would only be required to stub to this portion. So, the blue north of that is just a graphic representation of what it could look like consistent with the master street map. As you head on the other side of Franklin Road -- you see my yellow line here at the top of the graphic. That's where it's depicted on the north side of Franklin. That's where the master street map shows it aligning. So, if the applicant were to -- or if this road was to connect into Franklin where the applicant is proposing, there is a possibility or chance that that intersection wouldn't align and it would be offset, which could be problematic. It's not uncommon, but it could be problematic. When I looked at the recorded development agreement for this site and the concept plan in that DA it did show the road along the entire boundary stubbing to their north boundary. So, it did -- this -- this plan or this plat does fall short of it going to the north boundary consistent with the concept plan. But I don't want you to get into the weeds on that too much, because, again, they are still providing that north-south collector roadway consistent with the master street map. ACHD has approved the location as proposed by the applicant. So, really, I wasn't trying to derail the conversation tonight, I just wanted us to have the conversation as what -- when the timing and what is the best location for that roadway, because we are -- the city is starting to see some development happening in this location on the east-west side of Black Cat and it's starting to funnel westward. So, we are starting to build this existing east-west collector road north of this development and so we really have to be cognizant on how all of this connects and aligns in the future. But, like I said, again, collector road was required with the DA. It's there. ACHD has said yes. Keep in mind the other reason why staff has recommended that I go on the east side of the drain versus the west side is just a logical expansion of city services and development in the area. But when talking with the applicant they raised some valid concerns, too. By moving the road to the east you are impacting smaller developments, which have a harder time carrying the cost and building those roadways when you have a large property to the west that's still vacant and could also easily facilitate the extension of that roadway. So, again, more discussion points. I know the applicant is going to discuss with you kind of their rationale for why they located where the road is, but I just wanted to at least have that conversation and show you that there is other alternatives here than just putting it on the north and south. I mean looking at the -- again, staff is recommending approval with conditions. There are a few modifications that I would like the Commission to make tonight as far as the conditions of approval go. So, like I mentioned to you earlier in my presentation, the applicant -- one of the concerns we raised with the applicant before we even processed the application was how is cross- access going to work with the parcels that aren't part of the subdivision? We can -- when you subdivide a property we can have them add a note on the plat that addresses F20] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission June 26,2025 Page 18 of 68 cross-access, but how does it work when you have a portion of a project that's platted and a portion that isn't, but it's still all governed by one DA and one -- one master plan and so the applicant did provide us a recorded copy of their CC&Rs and the entire property is encumbered by those. So, in my e-mail discussion with the applicant staff feels comfortable, as long as the plat notes that their CC&R is in effect and that cross- access are bound by those CC&Rs. We are good with changing the language that they don't need to either add a note to say cross-access is provided or add a note that references the CC&Rs that we have on file and, then, that way we know cross-access is covered by -- for the entire development, just not a portion of it. The second request is to strike condition 4-B. That was a redundant condition that did not need to be in there. It referenced landscaping on both sides of the pathway and because the ten foot multi- use pathway or sidewalks are within -- contained within the 20 foot buffers, the code doesn't require us to double dip and get -- require twice the landscaping along that. So, they are only required to meet those subdivision -- or the street buffer requirements of the landscape ordinance, not the pathway requirement. So, again, it was just a redundant condition that needs to be stricken from the -- the record. And, then, the applicant also wants to -- staff also had a condition five in there. It speaks to adding additional landscaping adjacent to the collector roads. We ask that they provide an additional five feet of -- if parking was going to be adjacent to the street buffers, because we don't want vehicles overhanging into that buffer or overhanging the pathway. I don't know if that necessarily needs to be a plat condition. It's something that we can work with the applicant on as we go through that CZC design review process with them. That's really a parking lot landscape requirement that we look at as we get farther into the weeds. But we just at least want the applicant to be on notice that if there is parking they are going to have to mitigate that somehow by adding additional parking, whether it's three feet of parking with wheel stops, curbing or adding five feet and shortening their parking stalls and allowing the vehicles to overhang a little bit more into that parking. But, again, had a conversation with the applicant and they understand that and, again, if you feel desire -- so desired to strike that condition you can. Again, we will get it with CZC design review. I haven't formally asked you to strike it, because it's -- it only says it's required if it abuts parking, so it wouldn't be applicable if they didn't have parking there. So, I will let the applicant try to sway you or advocate for that as they present to you. But other than that I think for the most part we are pretty -- pretty much in alignment with the applicant. Looking at the public record there was no public testimony that came in on this application. Again, I will conclude my presentation, stand for any questions you may have. Lorcher: Bill, a couple questions. In regard to the item five parking, is it for consumer parking or employee parking or any parking? Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, it's any parking. Lorcher: And one other question before the applicant comes up for clarification. So, phase three talks about the north-south access. Do we know when Franklin is proposed to be widened? 21 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission June 26,2025 Page 19 of 68 Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, I can look that up on ACHD's website, but maybe the applicant knows more. They work more directly with them on that. I can tell you -- the one thing that I can tell you is when the applicant was in front of you with the annexation they tried hard to work with the adjacent property owner to build that road as part of this development, so we could get that out sooner -- get it done sooner rather than later, but it just couldn't get that easement in place to extend that roadway as I showed you in their exhibit. So at least I -- you know, they tried and they can't -- and they couldn't. But, again, this is consistent with the master street map. We just want to make sure is it in the right spot and will it align in the future with Franklin. If not keep in mind it's the third phase. So we do have time to work with the applicant. They have the time, they will work with ACHD. So, I think whether or not we don't solve that tonight we can certainly continue to work with the applicant and maybe have some more definitive answers as we go to City Council and bring up this topic. Lorcher: One more thing. Can you bring up the slide that shows the -- the shadows of the property -- property lines that you had before with your -- with your blue lines and your red lines there. So, is this -- is this an existing road that goes north-south or is that just between properties? So, I'm looking at the storage lot and, then, I think I'm looking at the plantation house I think is currently for sale. Is that a street that goes through there right now or is that just access for the farms? The red line. Parsons: Oh, this red line here? Lorcher: Uh-huh. Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, that is their proposal where they think it will connect to Franklin. So, there is nothing there. That gravel road that you see adjacent to that red line is the ditch. It's the irrigation district's access and probably to -- along Rosenlof Drain there. Lorcher: Okay. And so the McDermott Road is further west than the two parcels shaded gray? Parsons: You got it. Lorcher: Okay. Okay. Just want a point of reference. All right. Any other questions for staff before we invite the applicant up? All right. Would the applicant like to come forward? Hi. If you can state your name and address for the record that would be great. Densmer: Sure thing. I don't know if I can quite get to the microphone. Lorcher: That's fine. Densmer: Thank you. My name is Jason Densmer. I'm a principal civil engineer with The Land Group. Our address is 462 East Shore Drive in Eagle. I'm pleased to be here F22 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission June 26,2025 Page 20 of 68 tonight on behalf of the applicant. The other members of the development team are here also should you have any questions that I need to fall back to them. Bill and the staff have done a great job of analyzing our application and summarizing it for you. We are pleased to be here tonight almost in full support of his recommendations. As he mentioned the project was annexed in 2022 and has a development agreement. Since, then, the development has been progressing pretty rapidly. There are six buildings complete today. We have completed the first third or so of the east-west collector road called Grand Mogul Drive and dedicated that to ACHD. We have constructed street frontage improvements along Black Cat, including landscape and multi-use pathways and we have gotten to a point now where the proposed subdivision would allow us to continue the regular development of the project. As Bill mentioned we could continue under the development agreement, but having these parcels separated into individual lots allows greater flexibility for the owner in terms of financing and ownership. The layout of the project and the design is still consistent with the development agreement, we are just asking for approval to superimpose new property lines on top of that development. So, do I -- Lorcher: You might have better luck with the arrows up and down. Densmer: There we go. Regarding the conditions of approval we are in support of all of them, including the recommendations for modifications that Bill described tonight, with the exception of condition number two and you will notice there is actually two condition number twos. So, I mean the second one that's in bold text. Lorcher: I'm not sure if that's in front of us right now. Can you tell us what -- do you know what that is? Densmer: It has to do with the north-south collector road. Lorcher: Oh. Okay. Densmer: The condition number two requires that we resubmit updated preliminary plat materials within 15 days of the City Council hearing to redesign the north-south collector road to the east side of the Rosenlof Drain. As Bill said there has been a lot of prior work on this and we would like to just talk through the logic of it, because until the staff report was issued last week we didn't realize that there was any concern from the city about where the north-south collector road ran. As I mentioned we have been working out here for a while and have coordinated with ACHD and reviewed the master street map and have ACHD's support through their staff report for our proposed location of the north-south collector. It's a little bit of unique situation, because along the north boundary of the Mogul Industrial Park or Meridian Commerce Park as we are putting on the sign, is the Rosenlof Drain and as it gets to the west edge of Meridian Commerce Park the Rosenlof Drain makes a 90 degree corner and heads due north, both on our property and as it extends to the north the drain is centered on the property line and so the easement, which is Nampa-Meridian's easement, affects both property owners, both us in the case of the south and our neighbors to the north and, then, once the drain F23] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission June 26,2025 Page 21 of 68 turns to the north and heads towards Franklin, Nampa-Meridian's easement affects both property owners on each side and so stubbing a road due north at the corner actually puts it right on top of the Rosenlof Drain and in conflict with Nampa-Meridian's easement. So, it seemed to us early on that it was going to be necessary for that north- south collector to diverge either to the east or to the west, because it clearly can't be on top of the drain. ACHD and Nampa-Meridian get along in a lot of ways, but they will not let us put a road on top of a drain easement and I think ACHD had realized that also, because the master street map also shows that the road will be located west of the Rosenlof Drain. So, we thought that that was what agencies had laid forward as far as groundwork for us and it also made sense logically that the roadway be west of the Rosenlof Drain, because that's a single large parcel. So, about 103 acre parcel. It's under single ownership. There is a lot of flexibility with a parcel that size to develop and accommodate construction of a road in a -- kind of a logical way. Conversely, on the east side of the Rosenlof, which is staff's recommendation that we consider, the -- there is two parcels. They are both smaller. One of them is currently being used as a storage parcel and just by the virtue of the fact that there are two getting the road from our project to Franklin Road will require two parcels to develop, which sequentially may not happen as quickly as a single large parcel could. In addition to that the two parcels being smaller are more restricted from a planning standpoint and a road is much more impactful in terms of percentage of the land area. The smallest parcel there is about eight acres and just a conceptual design for the road suggests that almost 20 percent of it could be consumed in the roadway, which is a tremendous amount of land area for that one parcel to have to dedicate and not leaving much flexibility for anything else to happen. So, we think there is logic in our proposal. It was supported by the master street map at ACHD and supported by ACHD's staff report that agreed with our location. So, it would be our request that as you are considering the conditions of approval tonight you strike condition of approval number two, part two, that asks us to redesign the project on that one element. Other than that we appreciate staff's support and agree with those conclusions and we would love your support as we move forward to a City Council meeting. Lorcher: I have a few questions. In regard to the property to the west where you are suggesting that the road goes, you have no ownership in that parcel; correct? Densmer: No. The parcel to the west is owned by a third party. Lorcher: By a third party. And that's not going to be part of your subdivision where the north-south -- and I'm talking about the one that hits Franklin where you are proposing the road to go and, then, what you are suggesting is that you want it to the east -- no. You want it to the west; right? And, then, city is suggesting to the east, which would affect those two smaller parcels. So, from a business standpoint, you know, if -- if ACHD and the irrigation companies, you know, want those roads -- and now you have got a drain in the middle of all of this at the same time, the marketability of the western property just gets compromised, because the road goes there. You know, because of your buffers and your land and all those other types of things. So, there may be some financial impact to that larger landowner and, obviously, a significant financial impact to F24] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission June 26,2025 Page 22 of 68 the two smaller parcels. So, ACHD has their wish list. You have yours. What does the irrigation company prefer? Where would they like to see it? Do they want to see it east of the drain or west of the drain? Densmer: Madam Chair, that's actually an interesting question. I don't think the irrigation district weighed in in providing a staff comment on that question. We have worked with them extensively on the other areas of it and, in fact, under the development agreement the city agreed that the Rosenlof Drain should remain open. I think that's the irrigation district's primary concern is just that the drain remain open and continue to function. Lorcher: And when you say open you mean not tiled. Open as -- okay. So, now we have a property to the west who is -- if the land -- if the road goes to the west you have got a property who is going to lose, what, 40, 50 feet of marketable area, because of the road and the drainage ditch or if you move it to the east now you are compromising two smaller parcels with an open drain and a road. If I'm that small guy, not the storage guy, but if I'm that little guy right there you just took about 20 percent of my land in order for me to sell that to anybody and as much as the collector road would be fabulous for In-N-Out, but now my parcel is a tiny little rectangle compared to what it is before. So, the placement of this road actually becomes a bigger picture for future development and, technically, it shouldn't be yours, because you are to the south of that, but it all kind of ties together, right, and we have time because of the phasing and, then, you add on top of that Franklin Road being expanded in the future and the city wants alignment, because we don't want to be zigzagging all over the place so -- for continuity, I would be interested to hear what the irrigation company -- besides the fact that they want it opened -- of where they would prefer the road and how that's going to affect all three of those landowners. So, you know, if I owned any one of these parcels I would have concerns, because that road -- whether it be done through eminent domain or however it's going to become, is going to going to become a big issue as we go forward -- as the city grows, as you create connectivity with your third phase, so as you go forward to City Council I would implore you to talk to the irrigation district to see what -- if they had their -- they were king for a day where would they want the road and, hopefully, between -- you have already seemed to get your blessing from ACHD. The city has their proposal of what they want and what you want and hopefully everyone can come to the conclusion of what the best impact is -- not only for today, but five years from now or whenever -- whenever those roads are going to be developed. Does that make sense? So -- okay. Commissioners, do we have any other questions for the applicant before we open public testimony? Garrett: Yeah. I mean just from an economic standpoint I agree that if you could go west that's a much less impact on that larger property than it would be on the two smaller ones. You are almost negating the value of the two smaller ones with a road. Lorcher: And that's -- and that's what they would like. The city would like them to go east. F25] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission June 26,2025 Page 23 of 68 Garrett: That's correct. Lorcher: Okay. Garrett: That's why I'm -- I see the -- the east as the most favorable compromise and that's what it is as a development. Lorcher: Okay. Smith: Madam Chair? Simison: Commissioner Smith. Smith: Question I guess for staff or the applicant. I just want to confirm that both -- on the north side of Franklin and the south side these would be left in? Oh, like is that -- is that -- they are not going to be right -- right-in restricted -- right-in, right-out or like that. Lorcher: I don't think so. Smith: I just wanted to confirm, because I think that's the -- that's the one thing that we have not discussed I think in terms of takings and, you know, the -- the most equitable move, I think that's -- I think we have had that conversation, but also just making sure we preserve the connectivity. I don't have as much of a concern if -- rather than I'm trying to go northbound -- instead of going straight up I take a right and, then, a left. I don't have as much of a concern there, as long as that's not somehow being prohibited by the configuration of the street. That's -- that's why I was asking, but -- Densmer: Madam Chair, Commissioner Smith, of course the intersection with Franklin of this north-south collector is not part of our application or our project, but my belief is that ACHD envisions that to be a full motion intersection when it's constructed in the future and in addition to that there was a question earlier about the status of ACHD's Franklin Road project. I think it was articulated in ACHD's staff report that that's currently under design. They intend to do property acquisition over the next couple years, but they haven't yet identified a construction year for the project. Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: That actually raises a question for me. If the intention is for it to be a controlled intersection are you saying that it's your belief that they intend to move the north connection also to the west or -- and I guess what I'm struggling with is their plan for that to be a full controlled intersection. How would that work if this moves to the east and is now out of alignment with that northern, you know, collector? 26 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission June 26,2025 Page 24 of 68 Densmer: Commissioner Smith, it's pretty hard for me to design ACHD's intersection from the dais here, but I'm sure that they would figure out a solution that's safe for everyone. The -- maybe the -- I guess the pertinent point that we wanted to bring forward is that this north-south collector is anticipated to be built by development. It won't be an eminent domain. ACHD is not going to go acquire property to construct the north-south collector and it will wait until the property owners between us and Franklin Road develop. Looking in the crystal ball you have to consider whether you think it's more likely for the two small land owners to develop and make that connection or if it's more likely that the single large landowner would bring forward an application to do that. Ultimately, you know, everyone I think would like to have it connected as soon as possible, but it's under the control of those other people that aren't here tonight. Lorcher: Right. And also understand our purview, too, is to do what's -- what's in the best interest of the city, not just at this point in this application, but looking at the future land use map and how that all connects together and when we are dealing with undeveloped land, even though we are evaluating your application individually, it does connect and that is something as a commission we need to look at as well, so -- okay. Thank you. Let's open for public testimony and we will go from there. Madam Clerk, do we have anybody signed up to testify? Lomeli: Thank you, Madam Chair. No one has signed up. Lorcher: And no one online as well. Jason, do you have any other comments that you would like to make before we close the public hearing? Okay. Can I get a motion close the public hearing, please? Smith: So moved. Perreault: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for Item No. H- 2025-0006. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Parsons: Madam Chair, I just wanted to go on the record. Got some new information on that. It looks like ACHD is moving in Franklin Road up to 2029. Lorcher: 2029? The only portion of Franklin Road that's not wider, because Black Cat is right up until that second or third parcel and, then, ITD is doing just down the street at McDermott. So, we are less than, what, a mile that just needs to be widened, so that everybody is the same width and length and because you are industrial or light industrial and access to the freeway and Highway 16 is going to be a big part of your marketability of your project, you know, it's important that all these pieces kind of fit together. I guess -- you know, I'm looking at it as a landowner who is in the impact area of Highway 16 and very familiar with people taking -- developers working with land, 27 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission June 26,2025 Page 25 of 68 ACHD working with land, widening roads and things like that, I understand your point of moving it to the west, which makes sense for the larger land owner to assume the financial costs of that road. It would be very detrimental for the two smaller parcels to do it, but what I have learned in this valley is that water trumps everything. So, you know, I have seen people do improvements along the irrigation district based on the county -- specifically Ada county and, then, had to rip everything out, because Nampa- Meridian Irrigation said that's not allowed. So, as long as those two agencies continue to work together, the irrigation and ACHD, along with the developers, I think -- I think will be fine. The fact that they want it open surprises me considering we are looking at industrial development mostly in that corridor. I'm not going to hold back this application based on the location of the road, but -- and phase three it sounds like it's going to be a few years away, so there is time, but before you go to City Council you might want to get a weigh in from the irrigation district of where their preference of the road might be and that might help with long-term planning as far as whether it should be east of the drainage ditch or west of it. I personally I'm -- I'm not inclined to -- I guess -- I guess I don't feel like I have enough information to say we should strike item number two to redesign for the east, but I would like to hear from the other Commissioners and see what they think. Smith: Madam Chair, I think -- I think I'm in agreement with you. I think especially -- and I know this isn't the prerogative of the applicant, but this does factor into the decision what ACHD's plans are about that intersection. If it's -- if it's an uncontrolled intersection that -- I think that is one decision, but if there is intention for it to be a controlled intersection I think that -- that really changes the calculus on whether it's important for there to be a straight through connection or, you know, a right angle kind of turn scenario. So, I think if the road gets moved to the west by City Council I don't think there is -- there is -- it's the end of the world. I think this is still a good application aside from that, but I don't think I'm comfortable moving to strike that language at the moment, just lacking that knowledge and I don't know that this is a big enough issue to need to continue over, but I think it's definitely something that is -- lacking that information I think my judgment is defaulting to staffs recommendation absent kind of some of that clarity. Perreault: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: I apologize if I wasn't tracking on this. I have a question for Bill. As far as that applicant is concerned, they are only responsible for taking that section up to the northern boundary of lot -- of Lot 3; right? So, they are not -- I mean their responsibility is just to take that up to the section of their property. So, we are talking about whether we are moving to the east or the west and ultimately they are not the ones that's -- that are going to put that road in, so help me connect the dots here on whether we are just talking about how they design it up to their northern lot line and how we are tying that to the decision of the preliminary plat. Like how are we making that a condition of the F28] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission June 26,2025 Page 26 of 68 preliminary plat? Because all the time I have been doing this I don't recall us having this specific type of decision. Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, Council Woman -- or Council -- wow. Commissioner Perreault, you are -- you are correct. We are only talking about that much of it and, like I mentioned to you, the concept plan that's in the development agreement did show it going all the way up along that boundary, but as the applicant mentioned as you start having those discussions and figure out where this road lands, sometimes those things change. In a DA it's a concept plan and, then, when you are starting to get actual development plans and looking at constraints and trying to align everything, things can change and that's where as planning we -- we lean on ACHD to say, hey, what is the best approach? And, then, we also coordinate with ACHD on the master street map and so, yes, the conversation is broader than it needs to be, but at the same time I think it's an important conversation, because if we don't get it right where are we shifting that burden on one or the other property owner, it's -- at the same time we have to do what's in the best interest for the city and the future development of this area. So, ultimately, you are right, 20 percent of the smaller property is being affected, but what if somebody buys all of those properties and now it becomes -- and consolidates it and it's one larger project? Now it's not such a burden, because they have consolidated properties to do something different. Not saying that's going to happen, but we have seen it time and time again where people can come consolidate properties and get a larger piece to offset some of those costs. I agree with you, if it was just that road on that small piece of property, it looks like it is burdening the smaller property owner versus the bigger property owner. But for tonight's purposes the plat is a mechanism for extending roadways and if the condition is written that they stub it to their north boundary, not -- Lorcher: All the way. Parsons: -- where it aligns on Franklin, just you stub it to your northern boundary and, then, where it goes from there will be determined. But that's how the condition is currently written. Lorcher: Okay. Perreault: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: So, that piece has to be completed and built to the northern line by the certificate -- by the time the certificate of occupancy is issued for that lot. Parsons: That is correct. 29 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission June 26,2025 Page 27 of 68 Perreault: And there -- will there be other opportunities for the same conversation to be had prior to that or is this the last opportunity for Commission or Council to have -- to put teeth into that or to create that condition? Parsons: Correct. Like when we go to a final plat we can't change the condition of approval or we provide more restrictive -- or new conditions on the applicant. So, this -- this is the time to get it right. Again, the condition can be flexible. It can say work with Nampa-Meridian, work with the city, work with ACHD. As I mentioned, this is their third phase, so it may be some time before they have to get that resolved, but there is time, but this is the time to figure out where we generally want it located. Lorcher: On another note, all of the other items that you have as far as your development look great, but like Bill said, we want to make sure we get it right not only for your business plan and your move ability for your tenants to be able to use that collector road in an efficient way, but also what's in the best interest of the city. So, as far as conditions are concerned, you know, honestly, I know the city likes it to the east, but I have to say if the -- if the burden of the road is going to be on the developer those two smaller parcels, I agree with Jason that would be a huge financial burden compared to the west, regardless if it gets consumed by a bigger one or not. I think the only condition I would want to put before it goes to City Council is that the applicant works with ACHD and specifically the irrigation district of where they see it happening, because the water is going to be one of the most essential parts of that construction at the end of your development and the future connectivity of where your tenants will be able to move around; right? So, it's -- it's in your best interest that we get this road right, that not everybody's doing all these little S curve -- curves and all these other things and that -- especially if the irrigation district is going to be open and you have box trucks and possibly 18 wheelers going through. So, any other comments from Commissioners? Garrett: Yeah. I would like to see maximum flexibility, because, as you say, the variables between the irrigation district, whoever is going to own those properties, if there is going to be an additional owner or new owner, I think -- and that length of time between now and I think Bill said 2029, 1 mean, gosh, we -- I mean that's a long time. Lorcher: It is. Garrett: And we don't know what the irrigation district is going to say and so I think committing to a certain position I think is just too unknown right now. Lorcher: Any other comments before we make a motion? Perreault: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: I agree with Commissioner Garrett on that. I would like to see maximum flexibility on this and wonder if there isn't even a way that we can change the wording of 30 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission June 26,2025 Page 28 of 68 the condition to make sure that when Council does the same deliberation that we have -- that it's reflecting we believe there should be some flexibility in that. I understand staff's recommendation to -- to make it a condition that that shift -- that that section shift to the east. I just have -- I have some concerns of -- of setting that condition in how it's currently worded, but the revised wording I can't recommend. Lorcher: And, then, Bill, you also wanted to add to our motion that the CC&Rs in effect include cross-access throughout the property is provided and did you want us to strike 4-13, which references -- Parsons: Correct. Lorcher: -- landscaping on a street buffer requirement? Parsons: Yes. Madam Chair, that is correct. The requirement for pathway landscaping is not required. Lorcher: Pathway landscaping. Perreault: Madam Chair? Lorcher: To pathway landscape. Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: I guess this is -- I guess this is a legal question regarding, you know, in terms of requiring things prior to the City Council hearing. If I could wave my magic wand I would say something like, you know, you need to get feedback from NMID and ACHD on this. That sounds like that's also putting the prerogative on them that -- or it's -- it's -- it's contin -- it's placing a condition that depends on ACHD and NMID getting back to them in time. So, I'm just curious is there a way that we can do that legally, but not -- I don't know if you get what I'm saying. If -- if someone at NMID is on vacation or drops the ball, I don't want it -- that's a -- you know, be -- I don't think we can make that the developer's fault, if that makes sense. Breshears: Madam Chair, a way you could word that would be to say that you require them to reach out to ACHD and the irrigation company by X date requesting feedback and, then, they have done their part, you know, in two weeks or a week or whatever it is, however long you want to give them and, then, if they hear back great and if they don't then they have at least complied with the condition. Lorcher: Commissioner Perreault. F31 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission June 26,2025 Page 29 of 68 Perreault: Bill, Madam Chair just mentioned adding that plat note. Is that not already condition 3-D. Parsons: Yeah. Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, it is. It's just modifying -- we will wordsmith it a little bit, but it says and and it can probably be or. We will wordsmith it a little bit more. Because they -- like I mentioned to you in my staff presentation, we have the CC&Rs, so we know cross-access is out there. We just need to make sure that it's referenced correctly on the plat. Lorcher: Okay. Densmer: Madam Chair, I'm sorry, I realize I'm completely out of order because the public hearing has been closed, but as I hear you wrestle with this north-south collector road alignment question, we are happy to reach out to Nampa-Meridian, ACHD, whoever you would like. There is risk that, you know, ACHD has already said that they were comfortable with our proposal. There is a risk that we wouldn't get a response back and even if they did respond I think that we are all trying to figure out what the right thing will be several years from now and to make that decision over the next couple of weeks before a council meeting might kind of circumvent the natural evolution of this area I would be in -- I think we would be in -- in stronger favor of a rewording of the condition of approval, just to provide us flexibility to resolve the final alignment of that street as we get towards phase three of the project in a few years. Certainly the picture will be clearer then than it is today or will be in the next week or two. Lorcher: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Do you want to take a stab at this or do you want me to? Smith: Well, Madam Chair, I think that raises a question, again, kind of defaulting back to that question of when do -- will we get another, you know, at bat or, you know, if -- when is the latest that we can kind of require some -- some compliance. I think what -- what the applicant said it makes sense to me, but I don't know how we could, essentially, delay past the final plat. Lorcher: Oh, I wouldn't want to delay the application. I mean just say have due diligence to communicate with the agencies and, you know, take it more information to City Council. Smith: Yeah. Lorcher: And, then, they can deliberate, like Jessica said, to -- you know, based on their knowledge of the area as well. Smith: Yeah. Madam Chair, I think I'm specifically talking to the -- the desire to require some reconciliation prior to phase three, but not within the next few weeks of City Council. I don't know that there is a mechanism and if there is any -- staff can correct 32 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission June 26,2025 Page 30 of 68 me if I'm wrong. I don't know there is a mechanism by which we can do that. Is that -- is that right? Parsons: Well, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, they are -- they are phasing the project. So, again, if you want a condition on their preliminary plat you can say prior to submittal of phase three they have the alignment of the collector road figured out whatever that is. I don't have the wordsmith either, but we can come up with some language if that's the desire of the Commission to do that. Like I said it could be -- could be tomorrow. The risk that we run is keep in mind that there is a development agreement and in the DA they don't need to subdivide the property. So, it really becomes a plat condition, not necessarily a DA -- DA provision. Again, like I mentioned to you, the concept plan and the DA showed it along that east -- their west boundary stubbing to the north. But, again, it was a concept plan. There is nothing in the DA that says thou shalt do that, other than the picture. And, again, we -- we try to give applicants flexibility, because we know things can change as you talk with the different agencies and understand what's occurring around development, so -- but I'm comfortable if you -- if you like that verbiage, if you want to do that, and, again, like you said and it's going to go to Council and Council can -- can discuss it and see whether or not they agree with that or not and I'm sure they will -- they will watch this and will report back to in your commission rec that this was a topic of discussion and they will probably want to know more about it and, hopefully, the applicant will get some more information and we can continue to work with the applicant as they transition as well, though I'm sure they will reach out to us and say, hey, what can we do to try to get this resolved before City Council? Lorcher: Right. Parsons: At least that's my -- been my experience with them. Lorcher: Okay. Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: I can try taking a stab at this. Lorcher: Okay. Smith: All right. After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval of File No. H-2025-0006 as presented in the staff report with the following modifications: To modify Condition 3-D to read -- or to change the word between subdivision and add -- to modify that from an and to an or and, then, to strike condition 4-B and, then, lastly, to modify the second condition to -- to require the applicant -- have alignment of the north-south collector road with staff and NMID and ACHD prior to submittal of phase three. F33] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission June 26,2025 Page 31 of 68 Perreault: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to approve File No. H-2025-0006 to City Council with modifications mentioned. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you for your patience. We appreciate it. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Lorcher: Okay. Do we need a break or you want to keep going? We have got a few Comprehensive Plan map and UDC text amendments. It's 8:00 o'clock. Why don't we take five minutes and, then, we can reconvene for more of the land use applications. Thanks. (Recess: 8:00 p.m. to 8:08 p.m.) 9. Public Hearing for AOCI Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment (H- 2025-0029) by City of Meridian, located citywide and at 12504 W. Amity Rd. A. Request: Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment (CPAM) to modify the boundaries of the Future Land Use Map (FLUM), along with a subsequent request to Ada County to re-establish the modified boundary of the Area of City Impact (AOCI), which includes the removal of 38 parcels totaling approximately 507.34 acres and adds one 5.06 acre parcel. Lorcher: Okay. Thank you for your patience. Call the meeting back to order. The next item on the agenda is Item No. H-2025-0029 for a comprehensive plan map amendment to modify boundaries on the future land use map and we will begin with the staff report. Anderson: All right. Good evening, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. For the record and for those of you I haven't had the pleasure of meeting yet, my name is Carl Anderson. I'm a long range associate planner here with the City of Meridian. Tonight what you have before you is a request to modify the city's future -- Comprehensive Plan land use map amendment, modify the city's future land use map, along with the city's area of city impact. I will go through that request before you tonight. This request, after Council -- it's heard by Council will go to Ada county for the reestablishment of the city's area of impact. Thank you. That is better? Thank you. So, why this -- this request is before you tonight -- during the 2024 state legislative session Idaho Code 67-6526 was amended modifying the area of city impacts criteria. A few key highlights of that state code. Those amendments in there were -- the requirement for areas of city impact must be within two miles for municipal city limits. Also considerations for service planning. Some of those criteria evaluating those areas of city impact was included in there. Those are listed in the staff report on pages ten and 11 with review there as well. Additionally to clarify that areas of city impact fall F34 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission June 26,2025 Page 32 of 68 under the jurisdiction of Ada county or the -- the counties that those cities or those municipalities lie within. It also establishes that cities may have planning activities, including comprehensive planning outside of the area of city impact. So, the change before you tonight -- the request includes the proposal to remove 38 parcels totaling 507.34 acres, not including right of way, and the addition of one parcel total in 5.06 acres. This request is located at 12504 West Amity Road. This was recently removed from the city of Boise area of city impact and that resolution is contained within the staff report. This parcel would be designated as medium density residential on the city's future land use map. Additionally the modifications would include entryway corridor modifications accordingly. So, for those areas being removed extending through the portions that are remaining within the area of city impact and along West Amity Road. All noticing requirements have been met. Courtesy notices were sent to all property owners for the parcels involved with the request. Staff did receive one phone call from a property owner whose parcel was being removed from the city's area of impact. Staff detailed the -- what -- what the request was involved in and answered questions. The property owner didn't indicate whether they -- whether they were in favor, neutral or opposed to the request. So, the map on the left is the area that's located in southwest Meridian area of impact. This area includes 512.95 gross acres. The difference here being areas that are right of way that are inclusive therein. The map on the right is the area that's proposed to be added to the area of city impact. It's 507 gross acres. Again this is inclusive of right of way. This would have the designation as shown here as medium density residential as is consistent with the properties within Meridian city limits, which are medium density residential on the future land use map as well. Staff is recommending approval of H-2025-0029 to Meridian City Council is recommended. One point of clarification just to the staff report. A little bit of a scrivener's error in the first finding. Seventeen, it's consistent with all statutes of LUPA, all 17 statutes as written out, followed by the 18 in parentheses. As of today it's -- it's 17. We did evaluate all 18 in the staff report. I think it's pages 11 and 12 in the staff report. Well, it will be 18 as of July 1, 2025, due to a recent legislative change, which adds an additional criteria that we are required to find for in our comprehensive planning efforts. So, next steps. This will be followed, as I mentioned earlier, with a requested to City Council to hear -- hear the request. That would be followed by an application to Ada county to go through their formal process to re-establish the city's area of impact. I'm happy to stand for any questions that the Commission may have. Lorcher: Okay. So, since the city is the applicant, we don't have an applicant to come forward. Is there anybody -- do the Commissioners have any questions for staff at this time? Do we have anybody signed up for public testimony? Lomeli: Madam Chair, no one has signed up. Lorcher: Okay. Anything else you would like to add before we close the public hearing? F35] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission June 26,2025 Page 33 of 68 Anderson: The only point I would like to add is the property owner of the 5.06 acres are proposed to be added to -- to the area of impact and future land use map is present. They may wish to speak or --just as a point of order. Lorcher: Would the homeowner like to speak? Which -- who is the homeowner? Jack Frans. Lorcher: Mr. Frans, is that you? Would you like to speak at all about the -- okay. Thank you. And he is in agreement? Anderson: Yes, Madam Chair. Perreault: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: Question for staff. First let me say I can't describe how far my eyes rolled back in my head when I saw this, because I remember the many painstaking months of Kuna and Meridian determining where their line -- where their boundary lines -- their area of impact lines were going to be. So, my question is is -- so, now this goes back into Ada county's comprehensive plan, into their future land use map is my understanding. It will be removed from ours and -- and put back into theirs. So, then, in the future it's possible that the line that was created for area of impact for Kuna and Meridian could shift again; is that correct? And, if so, what is -- how is Kuna approaching this? Anderson: Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair, Commissioner Perreault. That is correct. I believe those parcels that are here -- at least the majority do appear to be within two miles from city of Kuna city limits. I don't know if all 38 of those in that area -- I don't know if all 38 of those in that area are included or all 38 of those parcels proposed to be removed from the city's area of impact are within two miles or not. I believe a good portion of them are. It's possible that the city of Kuna could look to include them as well. I don't have an answer as to where they are at with their process as it stands today. I would draw your attention back to -- it's not just the two miles. Those areas would need to be included as part of their capital improvement planning programs and so forth. They would need to plan for services in those areas. Lorcher: Okay. Can I get a motion to close the public hearing, please? Smith: So moved. Garrett: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for Item No. 2025- 0029. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. F36] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission June 26,2025 Page 34 of 68 MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Lorcher: It seems very straightforward. It looks like legislature made some changes for the impact areas that we need to comply with. I know that the City of Meridian probably went to great lengths to incorporate it and now we are putting it back out and maybe that will come to us again at the future, but right now we need to comply with the legislature's request for impact areas. Any other comments about this application before we make a motion? Perreault: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: I just have one more question. So, as our city limits expand southward how often is this two mile radius reassessed? Anderson: Thank you, Madam Chair, Commissioner Perreault. State statute requires that we reevaluate the area of city impact every five years as has been amended. I do believe it can be amended more often. I'm going off memory. So, if there were a need to take a look at it within a few years with conditions changed significantly, it could be something that the city looks at in a more near time frame. And as previously stated, just a point out on -- the city does anticipate continuing to plan for these areas outside of the impact and its other planning efforts, it's just not as shown on the future land use map. Hood: Madam Chair, if I can almost reiterate what Carl said, but I think he covered it well. I think we will monitor that and I don't expect it to be five years. I -- you know, depending on what annexations occur over the next coming months we could look to renegotiate it with Ada county sooner than that is the hope. Like you said, we spent quite a bit of resources, including this area. I would like -- I'm hoping this is a temporary thing where we comply with state code, but we come back relatively in short order and reincorporated in our area of city impact. Lorcher: After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend File No. H-2025-0029 as presented during the hearing of June 26, 2025, with no modifications. Smith: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to approve of the Comprehensive Plan map amended -- amendment. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Lorcher: Carl, thank you very much. F37] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission June 26,2025 Page 35 of 68 Anderson: Thank you. 10. Public Hearing for UDC Text Amendment (ZOA-2025-0001) by City of Meridian Planning Division, located citywide. A. Request: UDC Text Amendment to revise certain regulations, add new definitions, figures, and update specific use standards throughout Chapters 1-5 of the City's Unified Development Code (UDC). Lorcher: The next item on the agenda is Item No. ZOA-2025-0001 for a UDC text amendment and we will begin with the staff report. Parsons: Thank you, Madam Chair. Give me one moment here and I will get -- get things pulled up here. There we go. That's -- that's better. So, again, another city application before you this evening. This is this year's 2025 code changes. Not sure if we will be back in front of you with other ones later in the year, but at least that is the plan after we get these ones moving forward. But I think as the Commission knows the city set out with a group of stakeholders and community support members and stakeholders and groups of developers where we formulated a UDC focus group four or five years ago, maybe six years ago and we get together once a year. The city tracks these changes on a spreadsheet. We take suggestions from our development partners as well and members from the community and we formulate these code changes and city code requires that you are the recommending body and City Council is the decision making body on code changes. This is one of the only times -- most of the other code changes just go to City Council and they act on it and it's presented typically by that department or legal department, but the Planning and Community Development -- the Planning Division takes the lead on UDC code changes with those various partners. I won't go through all of the details, but Caleb and I are actually tag teaming this or partnering some of the -- part of this this evening. He will primarily cover flex space and secondary dwelling units, which under the current code provisions in front of you are the proposed changes, we are changing that to accessory dwelling, so you may see it in the list of secondary dwelling, but it -- moving forward we hope to change that to accessory dwellings, so it aligns with the building code. I will spend time on drive-throughs, maybe some home occupations if you have time for it. Private streets and, then, fencing. We also have Lacy Ooi, who is our code enforcement supervisor. She is part of that group and she also lends a lot of valuable insight to these code changes, because she is the one out there explaining it to the many residents that have questions when she's out there serving violations or trying to educate the public on how our processes work. So, I do appreciate everyone being here to support and answer any questions you may have. Also mention to you that one change that's come about is Caleb and I were actually in front of City Council about six weeks ago before the application was transmitted at a workshop and we shared these code changes with them as well. That's one of their requests that they wanted to get in front of that and look at and look at these code changes ahead of time as well, so they could digest those as well, which I think was a great suggestion. So, I'm sure they are eager to see what you guys do on the changes F38] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission June 26,2025 Page 36 of 68 tonight and as this moves to City Council they will be interested in what you have to say and I'm looking forward to that discussion with them as well. So, like I mentioned to you, we are not going to hit on all of these. In my staff report typically when we do code changes it's tip to tail. So, this round of code changes we started with chapter one and we ended it with chapter five. So, there are a total of seven chapters in our unified development code. So, we have touched -- we have touched five out of seven this time, which is pretty typical when I come before this body and as you know usually it starts out at a smaller code change, but by the time I get the application to you based on the discussions that we have with all the stakeholders and the UDC focus group, it typically morphs into something bigger, which isn't a bad thing. I think what we are presenting to you tonight is -- I'm pretty proud of where we started -- from where it started to where we are tonight. Feel pretty good with what we are going to be sharing with you. So, I'm going to go ahead and kind of go through these very quickly and just go down and start right out the gate with drive-throughs and that's something that I know we have talked about over the last five years particularly since COVID and we have seen quite a few drive-throughs -- mostly fast food restaurants with drive-throughs, but it's a full gamut and I think as this body knows not all drive-throughs are created equal and so really this particular code change was probably the one that we broke off into -- got with some industry experts, looked at other city codes and, then, came up with a mesh of what we felt would work well for the City of Meridian. So, as this body knows typically when there is a drive through within 300 feet of a residence or another drive through, it's an automatic conditional use permit. In this particular case we are trying to make drive- throughs what we call a principally permitted use. So, less hearings and -- but having more express standards, so that we can approve them at a staff level versus them coming to this body. It's not that we want to take work away from you, but at the same time we want to make things efficient as well for our applicants and make sure that we have a solid code in place. So, this particular code change does not -- there will still be instances where a CUP will be required. We have not removed the requirement for that 300 foot radius to a residential use. So, that will remain in place. But what's really unique about this is -- if we do have more specific design standards, but if you here -- look at number four, if an applicant can't meet those design standards, then, they have the ability to come to you through a conditional use process and you guys can take that under consideration whether or not they can eliminate an escape lane or do something different based on their operational needs and not necessarily -- or how they operate versus on the specifics of the code. So, I think there is going to be some -- not only greater flexibility for the city, but also for you as a recommending body on conditional use permits -- or a decision making body on conditional use permits I should say. So, in working with the UDC focus group we broke drive-throughs -- I know they are through -- into different categories. So, we have a tier -- tier one, a tier two, a tier three, because we know they are not all alike and, then, there is some criteria for how they are classified in this definition. So, that's one criteria -- or one way to get there and, then, also we made it clear that stacking lanes have to be away from a residential district, at least 20 feet, again, consistent with a landscape buffer required by code. We still are keeping a stacking lane requirement in for an escape -- or, excuse me, an escape lane. And that's something that we have recently had a discussion with the UDC focus group. We haven't quite figured out what we want to do, get rid of it or keep it. For now we F39] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission June 26,2025 Page 37 of 68 think there is an importance to keep it. I know City Council has some interest in that topic as well. So, again, as we transition through the public hearing process would love to get your insight on a requirement for an escape lane. Caleb and I talked about it quite a bit as well and we feel like item four addresses that topic. If someone does not want to comply with the escape lane standard they have the ability to go through a conditional use process and have that discussion with you and see if they can explain their operation characteristics and see if that -- if an escape lane isn't necessary. One other portion about this code that I -- that I like about it is it does speak to a minimum width for the drive through or the stacking lanes, which is 20 feet total. One for the drive-through stacking lane and one for the escape lane. At a minimum it has to be 20 feet wide and, then, we do put a minimum stacking lane capacity for specific tiers. So, again, your tier two and your tier threes are probably going to be your fast food restaurants with ordering boards and menu boards and, then, tier three are your drive- throughs with the dual drive-through lanes. Again a tier three could go through a staff level approval if it met all the criteria. I know when we shared this with the Council they asked staff if tier three would be conditional use permits and I said the way it's drafted currently we are not proposing that in this code change. So, anyways, that's our requirements for drive-throughs. Certainly happy to stand for questions unless you want to hold your questions and, then, continue -- have Caleb and I go through our -- our list of high level changes with you. Perreault: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Yeah. Let's go subject by subject, because by the time we get to number five we might forget number one. Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: Thank you. I have a question about D-3. So, the way that the text is -- is stricken it -- I'm trying to follow it. So, the stacking lane shall not be located within 20 feet of any residential district; is that correct? Parsons: That is correct. Perreault: That -- that number of feet isn't changing; right? It's just clarifying how it's written here. Okay. Thank you. Parsons: Yeah. When -- so, the change is from ten to 20. So, the strikeout -- so, anytime we give you code changes the underlying is new and, then, the strikeout is the current and, then, the underline is the -- Perreault: It looks like it's going from 120 feet to ten feet. Parsons: Yeah. I can see that. Yeah. That's how -- that's how they like it when they go ahead and make the changes. The publishers have a specific criteria that we have to meet. F40] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission June 26,2025 Page 38 of 68 Lorcher: Okay. Any other questions about drive-throughs at this time? Okay. Let's go to the next subject. Parsons: So, it looks like the next subject here is secondary dwellings, so I will go ahead and turn it over to Mr. Hood and he can give you the background and what we are trying to achieve with this code change. Hood: Thanks, Bill. Madam Chair, Commissioners, thank you for having me this evening. I will -- I will tackle ADUs as they are going to be known going forward. Not secondary dwelling units. And maybe before I jump into some of the things that are on the screen now, when Bill was doing his introduction he actually had some -- there is some impacts to our definitions. I won't go through those, but, basically, we are adding primary to a lot of them to talk about the primary structure that's on there. Typically a single family residential dwelling unit as being the primary and, then, we are taking the secondary language and, again, making that accessory, but it is still ancillary or secondary to the primary. So, I will also just say before I jump into some of the more detailed specific standards for what constitutes an ADU. There are some impacts as well to Title 8 and like Bill mentioned at the beginning Title 11 is unique in that it has two bodies that actually review and approve that; right? Planning and Zoning makes a recommendation to City Council. Title 8 is not subject to that same process. However, we have Brian McClure here who is going to run through some of the ancillary related changes that he needs to go forward to City Council concurrently with these UDC provisions and you are actually -- in Title 8 and 11 you are charged with looking at some of those appeals -- when someone appeals an address or a suite number. Doesn't happen very often, but it happens from time to time. So, we thought was a good opportunity to bring him along to explain some of that, so when you do -- when if you do see those in the future you have a little bit of that background information. So, again, the definitions are largely the same. Some of that also is -- like we did with drive- throughs even, look -- you know, we -- a lot of things in our code we are proud of, but we didn't -- it didn't maybe originate with us. We are not -- we are not too proud to steal from other communities. So, we are -- you know, ADUs is a pretty typical term used throughout the country and some of the standards you are about to see are, you know, us seeing what other communities are doing and picking and choosing the ones that are right for Meridian, but also evaluating and saying why did they do this, what do they have? So, with that kind of background into this I think I'm just going to start with D. A, B and C are largely -- there is some change there, but they are not -- they are just a definition really in what they are, that an accessory dwelling unit really does need to be accessory to the primary dwelling unit. You need a permit to have one. D, E, and G -- the proposed -- I'm sorry -- the proposed D, E and G aren't really changing substantively either for the most part, but they got a lot of discussion at the UDC focus group. The owner occupancy piece of that is debated throughout the country. If I live out of state seven months of the year, but I call this home, does that count? The dirty little secret is we aren't, you know, checking on that too terribly much; right? At all really. If someone complains and says, hey, I think there is two renters here, we may investigate something like that. It is kind of on the honor system, but the intent is that an owner live in one or the other at least the majority of the year. And, again, that's something that F41 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission June 26,2025 Page 39 of 68 not everyone agreed on, but this is where we landed and thought best for our community is to have some oversight of the property by an owner and either the ADU or the primary dwelling unit. That really isn't changing though. That's -- that is our current standard, just some -- again, some wordsmithing there to make it a little bit cleaner if you will. And, then, on E, the location. Again nothing really is changing with location. But there was a lot of talk about -- over the last few years, actually, about the location. Should we give some -- I will use the word variance. It's not really a variance, but some allowance for setbacks. Should these be able to encroach into a rear setback, closer than your primary dwelling or a side or even a front. So, we had some conversations about that, but at the end of the day the location needs to comply with the setbacks of the underlying zoning district. That's where we landed as a group. That's the proposal to you this evening. Again, that does vary throughout the country from neighborhood to neighborhood. Sometimes you can have even in front of your primary dwelling or encroaching in other setbacks. That's not where we landed with this. And, then, G, parking. Again, this can be seen as a negative for communities that are looking to install these. It takes up more area and we don't have a lot of larger lots in Meridian that can even accommodate these. You account for setbacks, garages, everything else, now you need a pad for your up to 900 square foot ADU and a parking pad that's a least 20 by 10. You cut a lot of the lots out of the market. You can't do one. So, we had a lot of conversation about that, but, again, at the end of the day where we landed as a group was we think the community character of the neighborhood is important to have on-site parking -- not on-street parking. You can park on the street if that's allowed, but you need to have a dedicated spot on your property for the dwelling unit. I will say, however, though, that's a -- a combined number. So, it's number of bedrooms combined. If you have got two in your ADU and three in the -- in the primary residence that's five and you would need to meet whatever that requirement is. So, it's a combined number. So, could trigger more parking if you already have a three car garage and three parking pads you may be able to just get away with building the ADU and still counting the parking for that, because in whole on the -- on the parcel you have enough parking for that, so -- so, again, no real changes to those, but those were kind of the sticking points where we had a lot -- a lot of dialogue on those things. The other ones I think I want to highlight just relatively quickly are the proposed J and the new L. They do need to be constructed on a foundation. We have had -- historically we have had some issues -- questions with that and so we are clarifying that to -- to be classified and permitted as an accessory dwelling unit it does need to be connected to utilities and on a foundation. Part of the discussion with utilities was do they have to have their own separate independent utilities and as you will see in what's proposed we landed on no. So, you can use the utilities of the primary dwelling. So, trash service, electrical, water, whatever, but you have to be hooked -- you have to be using those services. You can get a separate service, but you don't have to have a separate service, so -- but, again, a lot of conversation about that. And, then, again, just to kind of close this out -- and Brian will talk a little bit more about this, but we consulted with fire code, building -- it just overall at the end of the day made sense to give these a standalone separate address. So, we will be addressing these going forward, assuming this -- this goes through at City Council. So, I think those are the things I wanted to touch on regarding F42 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission June 26,2025 Page 40 of 68 previously second -- well, still currently secondary dwelling units, proposed to be accessory dwelling units going forward. Lorcher: Caleb, have you -- has the city gotten a lot of requests about ADUs? I know there was some press about it a couple years ago, maybe even less, where it was a mobile unit. I don't know if it was RV, but it was something on the trailer. It wasn't on a foundation and it kind of made the press a little bit, which kind of spurred the conversation again for affordable housing here in our community. But are you getting -- as a city as a whole getting requests? Is this why we are kind of revising this portion of our code, because we are seeing that happen more often? Hood: Yes, Madam Chair. Certainly, the interest is peaked more over the last -- Bill said five years for drive-through, so we will just go with that. I don't know. Over the last recent history anyway. We are getting more and more inquiries of that. You know, the cost of housing and some call it a crisis even. It is a lever we can pull a little bit to kind of encourage -- again, that's where we have these conversations about location and parking. Every time you regulate it more and more you see people out of that potential market though. So, that is something where we struggled with quite a bit was how much do we open this up and how much do we kind of preserve and protect neighborhood character that's existing? So, that was kind of the push and pull. But, yeah, there is definitely more interest. I can even just tell you, you know, anecdotally -- I don't have a number, but monthly, if not weekly, we get inquiries about this from our staff and we are -- we are working with these -- with these -- our residents to figure out what we can do with the current standards and talking to them even about what's being proposed. So, yeah, certainly more interest. It's tough, though, there is -- actually, Brian did some research -- it's been a couple three years now. At that time we had about 40,000 dwelling units in Meridian and I think it was around ten percent of them could even fit one on their property. Lorcher: Right. Hood: And we don't know how many of that ten percent even wanted to have one. It's a pretty small percentage. We are not going to solve the housing crisis with these changes. Lorcher: Okay. Thank you. Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, just to add a little bit to your -- your question that the city actually has a separate ADU permit now that they apply through the building department. So, we even created a separate record so we can keep better track of these as they go forward, because a lot of times that's kind of the caveat with this, too, is that we are trying to align our code with building code. It's step one. And, then, determine what do we call these? Is it really a remodel, expansion of an existing home, versus a true ADU and that's why we have -- we have separated it out and try to provide that clarifying language in the code that Caleb shared with you to try to align with that. So, we know we can -- when someone asks us how many have F43] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission June 26,2025 Page 41 of 68 we permitted, we can run a report and share that information with the community, because we -- we are seeing more and more in these permits being submitted to the city. Lorcher: Commissioners, any questions about ADUs before we go to the next subject? Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: I do have one regarding owner occupancy and it's -- it's kind of what happens -- say you are in compliance and, then, you decide you are -- the owner decides they want to move or they are temporarily moving or something like that, are they able to still rent out the entire property as a whole just not to two separate renters or does the ADU have to, then, be taken down? Hood: So, Madam Chair, Commissioner, a similar example. If I live in the home and I am going to move away forever maybe even, but I want my kid to stay there, they don't technically own it, but it's my kid, is that an owner occupancy if they are an heir or, you know, by blood or they are going to inherit it eventually or those types of things? You know, we haven't run through all of those potential scenarios. I don't think -- to qualify as an ADU you would need to meet these qualifications. We haven't gone to the point of, okay, you have to -- you have to deconstruct it, raze the ADU necessarily. But, in theory, I guess, it could come to that. I don't necessarily see us being that heavy handed, but in theory I guess yes. Smith: Thank you. Lorcher: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: Thank you, Madam Chair. My favorite subject. We have been talking about this how many years, gentlemen? I'm very excited to see these come about, because it's been a long long conversation. So, good job on everything. I just have a couple of questions on wording. Under 4-312 when we are talking about the permits required under C, it says that they shall obtain a permit prior to building, placing or maintaining an ADU on any property. Can you give some more description on the definition of maintaining? When does that start? When does that stop? How does that look? Hood: I don't -- I don't know that I can actually. So, this -- this was done on all of the UDC changes just sort of as an aside. We are done with legal present and I believe one that Ms. Emily Kane came up with, so -- and she is not here tonight, so I hate to put anyone else on the spot that way, but that is something that our legal staff -- certainly the placed and constructed I get. The maintained may just be a conversion piece, because we get -- a lot of the inquiries are actually taking a garage area or garage-like area and converting it type of a thing. So, then, you are maintaining a living quarters even though you may have not converted anything with permits or whatever. So, F44 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission June 26,2025 Page 42 of 68 speculating there a little bit, but -- but that's some of I believe the intent. No way, shape or form can someone be living -- should anyone be living there without the proper permits. Ooi: Could I -- could I add to that, what I would think? It's not maintaining as in maintenance, but I would assume that if we in code enforcement was notified that someone was already living in one that had been built, then, we would ask them to get a permit, so it would be as maintaining the structure that was already there, as opposed to it being placed or built, but that someone was already utilizing it and, then, we ask them to get the permit, to make sure it goes through all of the proper channels. Perreault: Thank you. Madam Chair, I have another question if I may. Lorcher: Go ahead. Perreault: Thank you. That makes sense. Thank you very much. My next question is actually farther up on the definitions for dwelling and for townhouse or detached -- single family detached. It says that the dwelling unit is located on a separate property, so it's a separate taxable parcel; correct? I'm wondering if-- getting technical here, but I kind of feel like separate property is really too broad of a term. I feel like we should narrow that down and just say, you know, separate taxable parcel or -- or separate subdivided piece or I -- I don't know. I just -- it seems kind of generic to me. Hood: So, I think I can respond to that. Sorry. Madam Chair, Council Woman Perreault. You know, I appreciate the wordsmithing there a little bit. We do have definitions for property, though, too. And even some of the ones you just put out there. You know, you can go create a tax parcel with the county and we don't really want to go there, because a parcel doesn't make it a legal parcel for building type of thing. And not everything we have in Meridian is part of a subdivision either. You have section ground land that you can do it. So, it is intentional to have property. What we don't have on the screen is -- we do have a definition of what is a parcel, a property, a lot. So, it does -- it does all sort of work together and tie together. Again, I appreciate you looking and even the comments and questions and making -- let's make sure that it reads the way we want it to and intend it to. The last comment I will just have on that is we aren't proposing to change that. That's been the way it's read, separate property, for quite some time, so that isn't underlined or strike through. I can verify with our -- again our legal team again, but I believe this is the way they would prefer it read for those reasons. Lorcher: Okay. Any other comments about ADUs before we go to the next subject? Okay. Thank you very much. Hood: Okay. It looks like I'm up again, so, sorry, you are stuck with me for one more and, first, I think I will apologize. I have done a pretty poor job of marketing these changes to our development partners and -- and with -- with everyone else that -- that's read it. So, hopefully, this presentation will help clarify some of that. I did discuss and F45] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission June 26,2025 Page 43 of 68 try to explain these with -- with assistance from others. It wasn't just me, but I am the lead on this one. We did go to the Building Contractors Association of Southwest Idaho. Obviously, the UDC focus group and others. But there still seems to be some confusion and even concern over the draft standard. So, we did -- we do have four letters. Some of them came in just this -- two of them came in just this afternoon. So, I would call your attention to those in the packet. Again, if you -- if you checked back at even at 4:00 o'clock you would have missed one of them, so -- but there are four letters. They are all very similar and I will -- I will address those. I think the first one that I can hopefully just put to bed early, three out of the four, I believe -- I don't think all four of them talked about parking, but, actually, the -- at one point in time we did have a 500 square foot parking. So, the E that Bill is just kind of hovering over, a 500 square foot parking per and as you can see we have -- we have had a thousand, but at one point in time we did have a version that talked about having a 500 square foot. So, I think that puts at least the parking concern that -- that is in some of those letters to bed. This is more consistent with a hybrid industrial commercial type of a standard for parking. I think the other thing I want to just start off with is the definition of flex, because I think that's where we can kind of get things confused sometimes. Flex is just a land use designation or a land use definition when we are looking at a myriad of options that a -- that property could be and I want to just start with the definition of what it means to be a flex space building. So, flex space is defined in the UDC as the use of a building or portion thereof for small scale warehousing and/or light industry with associated office and/or retail showroom space. Period. Flexibility in the use of interior spaces and low scale attractive exterior appearance character -- characterized flex buildings. That's on the books. We aren't proposing to change that. That's -- that's how we generally define what a flex building is. We are -- the intent of flex buildings is in the name. We do intend for them to offer some flexibility in how the square footage is allocated for different uses and it is appropriate in a lot of situations. However, the ratio of warehousing and light industry to office and retail is critical in both establishing and maintaining business neighborhood integrity and meeting some of the city's goals for targeted industries. Some control through minimum and maximum square footage allowances is necessary for the stability of areas that may tend to have more retail or office than envisioned for those that are like in industrial areas or more industrial warehousing than envisioned in planned commercial or mixed use areas. So, the letters really speak to it being too -- requiring too much office or retail showroom type of a site, but could be the other way. You could have someone that wants to go in an industrial district and really is a retailer and they are saying, hey, I want to be in this district, because it's cheap land and let me go there. No, the flex building is to allow some flexibility, but really where we were seeing flex buildings a lot are kind of those tweener zones, where it's -- it's commercial or retail areas -- it's okay to have some warehousing and we could even call you a flex building. It doesn't mean you have to be necessarily a retailer and that's -- we had a conversation this last week as staff even where we had some corporate offices want to come in for office equipment and they wanted to have their corporate offices, pretty substantial retail component, as well as some back stock warehousing for it and we talked about it. In fact, okay, they are bringing offices and retail, do we call them flex? Do we call them retail? Do we call them office? I mean it could be any one of them, because it's all about a third and -- F46] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission June 26,2025 Page 44 of 68 and, again, that's -- that's kind of the intent with flex is to allow some flexibility, but not to allow industrial in commercial and just call it flex; right? If that makes sense. Or the other way around. That's why we have a cap on the amount of retail office you can have, because we don't want to see those retailers go in an industrial zone. So, some flexibility. The other thing I just want to point out -- we thought we were being helpful here as right now it requires 30 percent in all zones everywhere all the time to qualify as flex and we are like, okay, that -- maybe we don't need as much of that like in industrial zones. We can have those pair back. But in -- again, in commercial -- C-C, community business district, we thought having a higher percentage of that building be allocated for, again, nonindustrial warehousing type of uses, office, showroom, retail, whatever made sense for that character of that zone, of that business park, of that whatever. So, I think just within that what I wanted to say is we are definitely as staff willing to work and understand what that business model is and their floor plan and -- and put -- you know, fit you in a nice classification. We got to -- we got to call you something and flex is -- is a nice one where it's -- you are doing a little bit everything and you are primarily, you know, warehousing even, but you do have that -- that component. Other uses, though, that I will just call out real quick that are -- that are similar and often get confused with are wholesale sales, warehouses, light industry, food and beverage products processing, building materials, garden equipment and supplies. Those are all separate things that you could also do, but they are a different land use than flex. There is a very specific, you know, definition in these standards that I will jump into here for just a minute, so -- so, again, we -- we hear the -- the -- the industry. We understand that. I think there is a little bit of a, you know, push and pull there of, yes, we are trying to be flexible, but not to the extent where we just get, you know, a hundred thousand square foot warehouse buildings in our C-C district. So, you can see the changes are actually pretty straightforward. It wasn't rocket science. This is, again, where I think we looked at a couple of other codes but we just said, hey, how about five percent, you know, as you go up or down the ladder on zoning. So, it's certainly not scientific, but it is thought out. Understand it doesn't go quite as far as -- as again some folks would like it to go, but we think this is appropriate for our community. Again, there is not a laundry list of changes -- two kind of changes of substance that are more -- it's adding more flexibility to the definition of flex than currently on the books. But with that I think I will pause for any questions or comments or discussion or whatever you want to do. That's, essentially, where we landed on flex space. Lorcher: So, in a flex situation if I'm a landscaper and, you know, I'm putting in sprinklers and I'm -- to me flex has always been -- when I have been in the business community has always been kind of -- I have always seen it synonymous as temporary, you know, a flex -- you could be there multiple years, but I'm not buying a building because maybe I don't know if my business model is going to work. So, what you are telling me is if I'm a landscaper and I have a bunch of hose and I want a showroom where I can show my cool sprinkler things. I have an office. I have a receptionist and a little warehouse in the back holding my hoses, flex space wouldn't be for me, because you have a separate designation specifically for landscapers? F47] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission June 26,2025 Page 45 of 68 Hood: So, that's -- it's a very good question, Madam Chair. Potentially. It kind of depends on your floor plan and your site; right? A lot of landscapers we actually call a contractor's yard. It kind of depends on what you are doing and how much of the site is used for what purpose. How much is -- you know, how much are you really retailing versus wholesaling? How big is your warehouse? How big is your yard? How big is your parking area? So, there is a lot of things that factor in and we -- we don't have -- well, we may have a definition for a landscape something, but basically contractor or landscape contractor would -- may be the definition in your -- your hypothetical. Could be flex. Could be. That's what I'm saying. There is -- there is a lot of, you know, wiggle room or quite a bit of wiggle room, but when we let one of the qualifications to be flex, though, is you need to have at least -- whatever percentage, depending on the zone, of an office showroom component. If you don't have that, then, you won't -- then we got to look for something else. We got to call you -- we -- you know, some other classification. So, that's why we do have these standards as -- as some metric within defining a flex building you need to have an office showroom space. Lorcher: Okay. I guess one of the other examples I wanted to ask about was -- we are starting to see more manufacturing of -- and retail of some food service within kind of industrial and flex space spots. So, for example, say I have a gelato store and I want to make it there, but I also want to have a retail component, my showroom. Is that eligible for like a flex -- is that one of the reasons flex space is there because it's a small business that I can no longer cottage out of my house and I want to have some more space, but I also -- Hood: Sure. Lorcher: -- need commercial type of thing happening? Hood: Yeah. Madam Chair, it -- it may be eligible. It may not even be the best fit for you. Again, depending on what you -- you know, if you really think that your retail side of that is going to be successful and you are setting aside a good chunk, but you are still just making your ice cream or gelato or whatever you said in the back -- Lorcher: Uh-huh. Hood: -- it may be better to call you a restaurant, you know, for Central District Health purposes. You may want to be classified as something else. So, we factor all those things in. But, again, I think some of the genesis of flex was more to your point of a ma and pa wanting to do the next step and kind of have a dedicated space where they could still mess with wood or do whatever and it is -- and that's why we don't have a square footage on small scale, but that's in the definition. I mean it isn't -- it is meant for -- maybe I have a couple roll-up doors, you know, but -- but -- but it is a smaller space, however you want to kind of define that. It's not 20 roll up doors with docks and everything. That's not -- that's not flex; right? I mean unless the building's huge. We wouldn't -- I don't think you would qualify for that. So, that's where I -- I kind of want to just -- the definition and what we are trying to do, that's going to be warehousing or F48] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission June 26,2025 Page 46 of 68 distribution. That's primarily what you are doing, so -- now, if you added some corporate offices to that now we can talk flex potentially, but even that square footage, though, small scale. Lorcher: Right. Okay. Any other questions on flex space before we move to the next subject? Okay. Thank you very much. Parsons: Next item I just want to quickly touch on. I know it wasn't part of the four that I talked about, was just because we are on specific use standards, is home occupation. So, I think the Commission is aware you can operate a business from your home if you meet a certain criteria. Well, we are broadening that a little bit this time, this round of code changes. So, essentially, we have some residents in Meridian that like have an outdoor swim pool -- swimming pools and they like to do outdoor lesson -- swim lessons from their home and currently the way the code is written they are not allowed. You are not allowed to have any outdoor activity associated with a home occupation and this went before City Council and City Council directed staff to come up with code changes to allow that type of use. So, really, that's what this is achieving -- attempting to do. Again, this was shared with the Council back last year when I did the last round of code changes. So, we have added that as an allowed use for outdoor swim lessons for six or fewer students and, then, the other important portion of that is the fact that, again, it's only -- it's capped at a certain time of year. Obviously you can't swim in an outdoor swimming pool unless it's well heated throughout the whole year. So, there is a perm -- a limit. They don't need to renew their permit every year, just their approved home occupation permit would allow them to operate between those months. Lorcher: Okay. Very good. Parsons: But pretty straightforward. Lorcher: Any questions about that? Smith: Madam Chair? Madam Chair? Simison: Commissioner Smith. Smith: Just curiosity. Why swimming specifically? And is there any discussion -- I mean say I'm the basketball coach. I have a hoop in my backyard or something. Is -- is there a reason swimming specifically came up and that's considered? Parsons: Yes. And that was the discussion that we had with -- with Council when we were hesitant to change the code, because, again, if it weren't so specific we could end up with someone having a batting cage in their backyard and you are hearing people hitting baseballs throughout the day and basketball court and all of those things, so -- again, like Caleb says, like the home occupations -- or the accessory use permits we are trying to maintain neighborhood character and we feel like if this is a limited amount of children or a very specific purpose, that that does that. Not saying you won't have F49] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission June 26,2025 Page 47 of 68 noise associated with it, but the other part of that is we would allow in-home daycares with six or fewer. So, even if kids are playing in the backyard that's kind of how we found the nexus with allowing the swim lessons versus a daycare use and that's why the six or fewer aligns with also the daycare standards. Hood: Madam Chair? If I can just add one more thing that I recall from last year is there are some swimming pools, but not a whole lot in Meridian, and a need for swim lessons. So, there was a niche there that some could serve. Basketball courts are a little more prevalent and you can go hold that at a park or whatever, but with only having a couple of public swim pools and those types of things, it was like we want kids to learn how to swim and if we can even to some degree encourage them, still have neighborhood character, but this was one of those lessons types of things where we have a safety thing and for people that have backyard pools and are willing to do some lessons -- anyways that was part of the conversation, too. Smith: Thank you. Lorcher: Yeah. I wish I had it 20 years ago, because I had to take my kids to Boise, because the only other option was Meridian pool back in the day and they were booked up. So, I could only imagine with our increase in population having that flexibility -- especially with subdivisions having pools -- having these kids have lessons is a good move overall for safety. Okay. So, home occupation. Any other questions before we move to the next subject? Bill, what do you got? Parsons: We have fences. So, again, this is a joint effort between planning and code and legal. As Caleb mentioned, we have -- as we can attest over the last couple of years we have gotten some interesting fencing showing up in our community and so this is our attempt at what we call -- this is something unusual that I haven't done, but it's called repeal and replace. So, rather than giving you a bunch of strike through underlined text to read through, this is actually going to repeal the existing fence code and replace it with the new code. So, it's just a way that's allowed under the law -- the state statutes that we can effectively modify the code without strike through, underlining format by introducing a new code. This essentially takes a lot of the existing code that we currently have in place. It reorders it, restructures it, with some additional wordsmithing from code enforcement and our legal department. But it also takes it one step further where it allows somebody to do some decorative features in their backyard. Currently the way the code -- fence code is written and where people have found loopholes in the fence code is they may put up a fence -- put up trellises and, then, they -- eight foot trellis in the side yard and they think it's a decorative feature and they put vegetation on it and they don't understand that that can be construed as an extension of their fence. Or you have probably -- we have had code enforcement cases where someone's put lattice on the top of their existing fence or another lattice adjacent to it, so they can raise the height of the fence. And, again, just because it may not be attached or even if it is or adjacent it's still considered an extension of the fence and currently in the residential district you can't exceed six feet in height and that's where we see a lot of these issues coming up for us is -- so, this code tries to do that. Again, we 50 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission June 26,2025 Page 48 of 68 -- we thread that needle to say six foot fence is allowed and if you do these things it's something else -- or it's allowed if it's a decorative feature and we put parameters on that. The other part of the fence code is just updating our graphics. So, I wanted to share this with you. So, a lot of times residents come to us and they want to know what type of fencing they can put on their property. So, we do have graphics in the fence code -- in the code currently. This was just a way that we could modernize that moving forward and share all the different scenarios someone could face with a -- go to erect a fence on their property. I would mention to the Commission that we are going to tweak this a little bit. Currently on some of the graphics here the way the code is currently being presented to you tonight there is a requirement for a 45 degree angle when a side yard fence abuts the front yard of an adjacent property. The code doesn't explain whether it needs to be 45 with a six foot fence or it just says a fence. It has to go in at 45. So, we feel like there is an opportunity that we should probably clarify that language in the fence code that says six foot fence needs to be 40 -- six foot solid needs to be a 45 degree for visibility, but if it was a three or four foot -- three foot solid or four foot open vision fence that it would be allowed to run along the property line. So, we will -- we will get that clarified and update that graphic, but at least wanted to share that with you and -- and point it out in code because I did have a chance to look at that before I came to the hearing tonight and that's this number five here in front of you. You can see here it just says fence. So, we will -- we will put some -- some sideboards on that and, then, update that figure as well. The other piece that's a little bit different than currently in code -- and we have been dealing with this issue is currently the fence code -- fence for -- so, when someone goes to construct fencing on their property they -- we measure the fence setback from property line. Not sidewalk. So, that causes some issues, too. And, then, what compounds it even more is if you have a corner property the code says your fence has to be in ten feet from the property line, so you never get to truly use your side yard, because your fencing is ten feet in and so, then, neighbors are walking their dogs in the evening or you buy this corner lot thinking you have this great side yard and you find out you can't use it and, then, people are putting up fences in the wrong spot and, then, we are going to have -- we are going out there knocking on their doors telling them to tear the fencing down. So, this particular code gives greater flexibility to that standard. So, in this particular case what you can see here -- if there is a detached sidewalk adjacent to the street, then, we are going to allow the homeowner to put their fence two feet from the sidewalk, so rather than ten and we are going to define the setback from the sidewalk and not the property line. Unless there is no sidewalk, then, property line would still apply. But most of the residential subdivisions there are sidewalks, either attached or detached and so if there is an attached sidewalk the graphic down here below says you can go up to five feet. So, we are giving them five additional feet and the reason why we landed on that is, one, if it's two feet from the sidewalk it allows someone to get a lawnmower between the fence and the sidewalk. Or also if you are walking in the evening or biking, you know, you have some elbow room there and you don't have to worry about hitting the fence or doing damage to somebody's property. It just gives a little bit more space and that allows some more comfort to that pedestrian or bicyclist on the sidewalk. But really those are the draft changes. I know Lacy has a lot more history with fence code issues, but I think we were F51 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission June 26,2025 Page 49 of 68 able to get on the same page with these changes and they feel pretty good that it's going to be -- hopefully easier enforcement on their end to explain those standards. Lorcher: Okay. Any questions on fencing? Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: One question on the definition. It looks like there is -- some of the language just struck that specifies as manufactured materials. Would that make, for example, vegetation -- say shrubbery or hedges, fence, and, if so, is that the intention? Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, we are -- we do not regulate landscaping on buildable lots. So that's still in play. So, you are right, just because we are trying to maintain visibility at a -- from people backing out of their driveways or -- they still can put up multiple shrubs there and block those open vision fencing. But, again, the city code does not require landscaping on buildable lots, only common lots. Smith; Thank you. Hood: If I can maybe just add to that a little bit though. So, what Bill said is correct, but manufactured, faux -- that was some of the issue and I'm getting into Lacy's business a little bit, but we are getting some pretty creative folks. That's not a fence that's on a screen. That's not a wall. So, that -- that is a lot of what the intent is of the definitions is to clarify. You can't put up a blue tarp and say that that's okay, that it is a fence or isn't a fence, so we went back and forth a lot on what that -- what defines a fence or a screen or a wall and those types of things. So, yeah, I probably shouldn't even said anything, but that is -- that is something we saw quite a bit was -- was some of the manufactured ivy type of things. We wouldn't regulate it if it were living, but when it's a manufactured material -- depending on where it's placed, it can constitute fencing material, because it's screening potentially. Lorcher: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: Are we seeing a lot of this issue with line of sight problems, like around corners? Obviously, if you have a four foot fence at a 45 degree angle and somebody puts up an eight foot arborvitae you have just lost your line of sight. You know, that that 45 degree angle is useless at that point. So, is that kind of what we are trying to prohibit? Hood: So, I will maybe give the first stab at that and feel free to jump in. That wasn't the nexus necessarily for some of these changes, but that has been a concern that's been brought up, particularly in some of these corner lots on a side yard where they are bringing a six foot fence up and now someone's driveway is only five feet off of that. Backing out of your driveway you can't see around the fence to see if any car is coming 52 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission June 26,2025 Page 50 of 68 to back out. So, yes, that was thought about and is a result of some of these changes. It's not necessarily why we are making the changes though. Lorcher: Okay. Next subject. Parsons: Well, the last topic on -- for my portion of the presentation, then, we can certainly open it up to questions or even public comments as this is a public hearing, is private streets. Lorcher: Private Streets. Parsons: Yes. And this -- this one actually wasn't even on our radar, but we met with some of our UDC focus group members and they had expressed a need to change or modify this section of our code and like Caleb said to you on his portion with the accessory dwelling units, this was one that got a lot of feedback and a lot of conversation around it, because as we know, you know, for longevity public streets are better than private streets; right? For maintenance. We all pay that. There is taxes. There is a way to maintain the road. Where we were hesitant with private streets on -- from a city's perspective is the cost and maintenance of those over time. But, again, staff was willing to open the door -- crack the door open a little bit and allow some more flexibility to use private streets, particularly if it's in-fill or a planned unit development, because that's really where, again, if you are going to -- in-fill as you know can be very tricky. There may be enclaves in the city where there is no street stub to it or it may -- may not necessitate a public street or the cross-section of a public street's too wide and it doesn't make it feasible to do an in-fill project, because you have taken up the property with a roadway similar to the discussion we had earlier this evening. So, we have got to be able to have some flexibility in the code to allow certain -- these in certain instances. So, currently the way the code is written is you can do -- it's discouraged to do private streets, unless it's a MEW or gated development. That's how it's written. Doesn't say you can't do it. It just says if you are going to do it and if we are going to entertain it, we may be supportive if it's -- you have those two options. If it's commercial or multi-family, we -- we typically would require private street for addressing purposes, because of the size of the development we want to make sure it's for emergency services. A lot of those provisions are staying in place with this code change. It -- but we realize there are some -- some holes or some gaps that we need to fill or leap at least make it a little bit more flexible. So, this code doesn't say you can't do a MEW or gate it, we just took it out that it's not that. That's not the only purpose for it. And, then, again, it's one of those where we looked at other code sections like we typically do, we don't reinvent code, we look and see what other communities are doing in the area and so some of this wordsmith was from those code sections and, then, going back and forth with the UDC focus group. So, again, I can see this tool being used more for in-fill, gated communities still and possibly commercial developments where maybe Ada county or the fire department or emergency services need something named for addressing purposes to get -- for public safety. That's really how this tool is meant to use and I think that will continue to be the case. The other portion of this is trying to have standards that what applies to a residential development versus a commercial 53 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission June 26,2025 Page 51 of 68 development and trying to separate those two things out as well. So, currently the way the standards are drafted, again, residential you are going to have your own design standards that you have to meet and, then, in commercial it can happen a couple different ways. One we can get the private streets with the multi-family development or commercial development and it could be just a commercial drive aisle or in some cases I have been part of where someone may not have access to a street, but they want to name their -- an existing drive aisle with -- name it a private street and, then, convert that to a private street, so that they can get a physical address for their business, because they are off the beaten path and they can't -- they are not seen from the street, so they want to make sure there is a street sign where people can get to them and so this code does that. It allows the process to get it with a gated community and in-fill a PUD or with a multi-family development, commercial development and, then, also rename existing or convert existing drive aisles to private streets or basically name them for emergency services purposes. Other than that it's pretty straightforward. I know Council had some reservations with opening the crack a little bit wider just because of, again, cost of maintenance to those doing that. I don't -- I don't see that being much of a burden for multi-family development and commercial, because, again, it's probably these smaller in-fills and how do they tackle that, but, again, that's CC&Rs and dues and we haven't seen a lot of it, to be honest with you. Most of the time people just do common driveways and do the four lots and they move on. But, again, we will shape -- we will see how this shapes -- shakes out, see what Council wants to do with it, but certainly happy to answer any questions about this topic. Lorcher: I know this Commission has not been a fan of the private streets in subdivisions, because of just the congestion of utilities where you -- you allow four houses on this little spur and the last guy, you know, has to walk -- or, you know, emergency services or utility services, you know, can't get in there without having to back up for garbage or any other kind of types of things. So, it looks like that that -- or allowed use will continue, but, you know, it seems to me when you are dealing with a blank slate and creating a subdivision and you are allowed to have these private streets or these, you know, off-- offsets, it's like you don't -- you shouldn't have to, because you have got a blank slate to be able to do it. But I'm not sure -- you know, we don't see how the neighbors all react years later to those types of things. But we will see what City Council has to say. What -- any other comments from Commission in regard to private streets? Okay. Was that our last subject? Parsons: That's the last item that I wanted to touch on. So, if you want to open it up to public testimony you certainly can. Lorcher: Okay. Commissioners, do we have any questions from Bill or Caleb before we open public testimony? Okay. Do -- Madam Clerk, do we have anybody scheduled to testify? Lomeli: Thank you, Madam Chair. We have Will Goode. F54] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission June 26,2025 Page 52 of 68 Lorcher: Hi. If you could just state your name and address for the record that would be great. Goode: Yes. Will Goode with Adler Industrial, 8665 West Emerald Street in Boise, Idaho. Madam Chair, Commissioners, Council Woman Perreault, congrats. I didn't know you were on Council, but that's been a whole bunch of times tonight people have called you Council Woman, so -- thank you guys for staying so late. Thank you for -- to staff for being open to feedback from the development community on -- on these code updates. For the most part I'm supportive of everything. There is just one item and -- with flex use that -- that I wanted to touch on and where this really matters is in mixed employment and the edge of C-G zones where you are up against other industrial and appreciate, Caleb, your definition -- the definition you gave of -- of what flex use is. I guess how we view it -- and Adler Industrial, we are the largest industrial developer in the valley. We own 20 plus buildings in Meridian and we have got five more under construction right now. How we view flex industrial is -- is exactly like you described it, Madam Chair. It is -- it is -- tends to be small industrial users, often with a -- some sort of a public facing retail component that they want to be able to -- they make cabinets and they want to be able to sell their cabinets in the front and, then, actually distribute out of the back or stone -- we find a lot of the demand is around building materials or construction supply type uses, where they want a public facing component, but they also need some warehouse and distribution in the back. So, to give you our perspective on this I wanted to compare two developments. We recently -- or just about to finish two flex concrete tilt buildings on the north side of Ten Mile Crossing. They are just south of the Tesla building and these two 36,000 square foot buildings are designed to demise down to six to 12 thousand square foot spaces, which is a small industrial user. That's like, you know, you have grown out of your garage in your house and you want 6,000 square feet, you are going next level. Those buildings are just about complete and we have zero leases signed. We have tons of interest. I will tell you why we have no leases signed in a little while. Comparing that with a building we have in Boise, similar building, designed for six to 12 thousand square foot users, we just finished the shell there and it's 60 percent leased and those last two spaces are probably going to be leased in the next -- next 60 days. We have agreed otherwise on both of them. The difference is we get more inquiries on the Meridian buildings and, then, we tell them that to be able to -- to go on this -- in this location you have to do 30 percent office and that drives up their lease rate to a point where they can't afford it anymore and they say, oh, I love the location, I can't go here, but what else do you have? And you either have to do 30 percent lease rate or apply for a conditional use permit to be able to qualify as warehouse. So, that's why this is near and dear to our hearts. Because I understand that we are -- we don't want warehouse in the mixed employment or the C-G zones. Their house is three to seven percent office. So, we are -- we are well above warehouse, but I do think that -- I don't think anyone here just wants vacant buildings that can't be leased, because they are not actually meeting a need in the market and that's right now kind of what we have. This flex use is overly strict. It's moving in the right direction and I appreciate that. In the letter we sent -- I'm sorry I'm taking too much time here. The letter we sent we proposed 15 percent office and showroom in the mixed employment zone and, then, 20 percent in the C-G zone as you step from, you F55] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission June 26,2025 Page 53 of 68 know, commercial to mixed employment to industrial, which is what really that mixed employment zone is designed for and I got a little -- little bit overly excited with data and graphs in my -- in what I presented just based on our portfolio, but that would at least allow us to appeal to, you know, half -- 50 percent plus of flex tenants that are out there and, hopefully, get these buildings leased up. So, thank you. Sorry I took too much time. Lorcher: Thank you. Lomeli: Madam Chair, no one else has signed up. Lorcher: Anybody else in Chambers? Wardle: Madam Chair, Commission Members, Mike Wardle, Brighton Corporation. 2929 West Navigator, Meridian. 83642. Our particular interest really is on the private street standards and as Bill noted it wasn't on the staff's radar particularly, but we found through our age qualified projects and some in-fill that we have been doing that there has been some challenges with the way that the -- the code -- sometimes it's interpretation, but still there were some issues that we brought forward to staff and, then, over the course of many months there has been a lot of participation with the staff, as well as other community members on these, standards along with the others that they brought forward. So, through that participation we are pleased with the outcome that is before you and we encourage your recommendation for the plan -- of the planning commission to recommend approval to the City Council and I would just note one item. We are talking private streets, not common driveways, which was your concern, Madam Chair. But I would also note -- and it's been a standard before, but it's reiterated in the proposed new standards that staff has recommended. It's three -- 3F- 4A-8, says comply with the ACHD structural standards for streets as shown on design and construction documents prepared and certified by a registered professional engineer and in all of our projects that we have done -- and you are probably acquainted with our Cadence product. We have three communities in place and another that will be in front of you soon. We have always designed those and constructed those to ACHD standards as though it was going to be their street period. We have never done anything less than that. So, we support what staff has brought forth and presented to you and encourage you to pass on that affirmative recommendation. Lorcher: All right. Thank you very much. Wardle: Thank you. Lorcher: Anybody else in Chambers? Hi. If you could state your name and address for the record that be great. LeClaire: My name is Tom LeClaire. I live at 1923 East Pratt in Meridian and I'm a member of the Meridian Transportation Commission. F56] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission June 26,2025 Page 54 of 68 Lorcher: Okay. LeClaire: We -- we received a transmission from ACHD in May and it was a drive- through business. You probably saw it, too. But they -- the ACHD required them to attach a queuing analysis with engineering stamp and -- and they asked our group if-- if the city was planning to set standards for drive-through businesses and we were told the UDC group is working on it. So, as I read through these, though, I don't -- and I don't know if it needs to say that, but it might be something to think about. Is if our standard is not met should there be some kind of language referring to a queuing analysis may be required by ACHD, where the -- it just -- there is -- there is a -- they want us to have a standard and yet they are really the ones that would implement such a standard and so I guess that's the concern I have about this is is there a gap in there between what the city is going to require and what ACHD may do based on what we require and so that's just some feedback to this process and I didn't want to -- I don't know how I would vote if I was in your shoes, honestly, but it gives me some pause to wonder does the city need these standards? Is this something ACHD is going to do on a case-by-case basis anyway? And so those are some thoughts and maybe staff can -- can provide thoughts to those questions. So, that's all I had and I just wanted to share those concerns with your group and wish you well in considering this ordinance. Lorcher: All right. Thank you very much. Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission -- Lorcher: Madam Clerk, is that it for public testimony including online? Lomeli: Yes, Madam Chair, that is it. Lorcher: Okay. We have some comments from you? Parsons: Yeah. I'm happy to address the public testimony that we got, because it -- it was a topic of discussion with the UDC focus group and we did the same thing. We went -- I'm sure you had ACHD staff come and say, yep, we require it, but it's not all the time or it's only in certain circumstances. So, they couldn't tell you when it was required or when it wasn't and so my experience in working with the UDC focus group and the industry experts that does drive-throughs throughout the country, we landed on saying provide a queuing exhibit like you see in number seven. Certainly I am not a queuing analysis expert or transportation expert, but I know that I have seen a few queuing analysises -- wow, that's a mouthful -- and the reason why it was required by ACHD was because they were concerned it was going -- the vehicles were going to stack on the adjacent roadways -- the public right of way. So, they use their professional judgment and, then, say, yeah, we need you to provide this to make sure it shows how it works, just like a traffic study. So, we couldn't really come up with a standard to say when a queuing analysis would be required and when it wouldn't be and so the gentleman and I that crafted this language we agreed that that queuing exhibit made a lot more sense, because, then, you can see the number of vehicles that can fit in those stacking lanes F57] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission June 26,2025 Page 55 of 68 and determine whether or not it can meet the requirements and you can -- then I took it one step further and said, well, we are not going to allow you to count Toyota Priuses as your length, we are going to require minimum vehicle length and that's where I came up with 20 feet. So, if you go up above it says for tier -- for stacking lanes we are looking at tier two or number six there, it says six vehicles for tier two. So, you are looking at a minimum of two drive-through stacking lanes at 240 feet. Again, that won't address the In-N-Outs of the world or the Chick-fil-As at busy times, but it will allow a lot of stacking to occur on the property more than what you would see at a -- and that's why we put some thought into breaking them out into the tier one, tier two, tier three, because we know not all of them are alike. So, again, this -- this took some of what I learned from my experiences looking at other code and, then, making it work for Meridian and so this does go above and beyond some of the codes that I have seen out there as well. So, I -- I don't -- I won't profess that it's perfect. I think ACHD will still have that right to ask for that queuing analysis on a case by case basis and, again, the city does transmit its applications to them, so, whether it's in front of you or us transmitting it to them through our certificate and zoning compliance process, they get a copy of the application and have access to the plans and if they want those -- ask for that information the applicant will work with ACHD and provide that information as part of the application. Lorcher: Well, I also like the fact that if they don't fit into tier one, tier two or tier three and if it is, you know, a completely different animal compared to what fits in those three categories, they still have the ability to come to Council to have a conditional use permit and variances. So, you are right, it may not check all the boxes, but at least there is three standard mechanisms and also a flexible mechanism in place to be able to accommodate whatever kind of growth might come next and I would imagine with any kind of UDC text amendment if it's not working for the city we could also amend again as our city continues to change and grow so -- okay. Any other comments in regard to -- well, Mr. Wardle complimented the private streets. So, I think we have kind of hit the -- hit the mark on that one. Any other comments in regard to flex use? Garrett: Yeah. I'm a big believer in having more flexibility in that area, now the definition, as opposed to less. Hearing from the industry I think that that gives us a handle on some of that, as opposed to -- I have no idea what, who and why somebody would occupy a building like that, but, obviously, the builders know far better than we do. So, having a little more flexibility in the definition I think would help. Lorcher: So, would you support less than 30 percent showroom space and -- as far as what -- what the city is asking for right now as far as the percentages of use? Garrett: Yes. Lorcher: Okay. Garrett: Just because I think that gives -- gives the developer a little more opportunity and, of course, the more buildings get occupied the more tax base for the city. 58 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission June 26,2025 Page 56 of 68 Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: I guess where I stand on that it's -- it's a question of, you know, we heard about, you know, warehouse space -- office space is maybe up to seven percent. I guess my question, then, is what about that gap of seven to -- seven to 20 percent -- seven to 25, something to -- yeah. Twenty-nine. Under the existing code. I think -- I think in the letter the request was for ten percent. I don't know that it was necessarily even for that -- for that small of a gap, but I'm curious of say here at 12 percent office space where does that land you? Does that still keep you in warehouse? And is there at least a space for that? Hood: So, Madam Chair, I'm not -- I'm not sure that I can totally answer that question without having like a specific plan in front of me. I will just try to answer it a little bit, but on the fringes. Just back to my comment about -- we want -- we want flexibility, too. We are not trying to be so rigid and strict in some of these things. But, again, in the commercial districts -- even the C-G zones that are on the fringe and may be bought up, trying to protect some of those jobs even, it's not -- it's not just even about the tax base, it's about the jobs that we may be losing out on if the square footage -- the proportion of jobs to, you know, in a retailer square foot versus a warehouse square foot is less and so there is -- there is some of those components that even play into this. But I guess my comment was going to be to somewhat answer your question. Flexibility -- even things like the lavatories and hallways and things like that, like we are usually pretty generous in counting those towards your non-warehouse square footages. Building Code comes into play at some point, too, and what type of occupancy you need as well. So, it's -- it's a little more complex than seven or 12 percent. It kind of depends on how things are demised and separated and the type of occupancy you need in some -- some areas. So, this is pretty high level planning code. Building Code comes into play at some point, too. And, yeah, I'm sorry, I just -- I can't fully answer that. Smith: That's fine. I guess my question is is there -- you know, regardless of the specific use or specific plan or what the -- what is constituted -- as non-warehouse use, if I am in that gap, you know, I guess what is -- what is the -- the plan? It sounds like from some of the public testimony that really the answer is CUP. But is -- is that, basically, the only output if you are in that gap between that seven for warehouse and -- and 30 for -- for flex, that seems like a big space and so I guess I'm just curious what is the -- what is the way that they can have some non-super burdensome -- Hood: A CUP may be the way -- and I will just say it, a CUP is not super burdensome. It is -- it is a process and it does take some time and some money and some expense. I'm not trying to totally downplay that. But in a situation like that that may be appropriate. I mean having to go through a public hearing for something that's marginal at best, in my opinion, may be the best way forward. At least you get your day in court; right? You can make a case for it at least. Again, I think there is a lot that goes into that. So, depending on what the -- these -- these gap projects or gap scenarios or F59] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission June 26,2025 Page 57 of 68 whatever you want to call them, I would really like to see if we can get there. So, again, what does the building even look like? You know, how can we -- how can we work with developers on some of these things to make it fit? That's really what it is about, about fit here. It's not even -- to me -- it's not so much about the percentage of the floor space, it's what are you doing in the building? The example I mentioned before -- they have corporate offices, but it's not as big as their retail or their -- we could call them whatever -- they had options; right? We could call them offices. We could call them retail. We could call them flex. What's in their best interest? What's in the city's best interest? How does the building fit on the property in that specific situation? Yes, there is some code. The flex space is really meant to have a caveat to say, okay, to differentiate you from a warehouse you need to have some of this or else you are just a warehouse. If you are seven percent, sorry, you're a warehouse. You know, that's kind of where I'm at. Like even eight percent I'm like that's a pretty small percentage. If there is another number -- I mean, again, I'm open to some of that, but that's what we are trying to protect against again. So, I do appreciate -- I will just say -- well, that, you know, everyone stayed this late and for the comments and the letters and the feedback. So, do appreciate that. But I -- it could be tough. We will work with them at the end of the day it may be a CUP. It may be no. It may be, yeah, you got to go to another community, quite honestly. Again, we are trying to protect some jobs, the integrity of the future buildings potentially. Lorcher: Previous to this revision in regard to flex space with the percentages of 30 percent being front of the house and the rest being back of the house, is that always been the consistent number or was it higher before in flex space? Hood: Bill might be able to -- I'm not aware of us changing it ever. I think this has been the standard. Lorcher: So, 30 percent has been our standard in our city for quite a while. So, there is really no change there. Hood: Again, we thought -- I thought I was being helpful in opening it up a little bit more to say, okay, yeah, let's have a lesser percent in some of these other zones. It's just been 30 percent in all zones to qualify as flex. Lorcher: Got you. Hood: We are like okay. Lorcher: And so there is really is no -- no change in that language at all. But the develop -- I mean I understand from a developer standpoint or owner like Adler, who wants to be able to create more marketing opportunities to be able to sell their space by saying you don't have to have 30 percent, maybe it's 20 percent front of the house and, then, you know, whatever else is -- and you still can be in that flex space. But what you are telling me is that 30 percent has been the standard for quite a while. That part hasn't changed. F60] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission June 26,2025 Page 58 of 68 Hood: Absolutely. For quite a while. I don't know -- I'm not going to say 20 years, but as far as I know it's been -- Lorcher: Quite a while. Hood: -- years. I don't remember us changing it. Lorcher: Okay. Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, it's funny you bring that up, because Adler -- although it wasn't Adler at the time was at the table when we came up with the flex space standards. We worked with Brad Miller. He sat on there and I know even at that time he thought 30 was high. But, again, as Caleb mentioned, the -- it really is a quasi-industrial use. So, you are -- we are skirting that -- that line between a commercial versus industrial and it's -- that's why we call it flex space. I don't think Boise even has a flex space definition in their code if I'm not -- so they just like, yeah, if it's allowed in the district you kind of go in there and you are this use. So, although I think we -- we are trying to create flexibility here, it's -- sometimes it does confuse our applicants as to what that really means and that's -- I think Caleb is trying to do his best -- or staff is trying to do our best to say we -- we want to be flexible. We hear you, but at the same time we don't want to go so far that now we have created an industrial use in a -- in a C-G zone or a commercial district. It really -- for staff -- or at least my experience in planning -- current planning is everything -- everything we do is about compatibility. The context. What is developed around it. The example Will gave with the Ten Mile Crossing property, he is part of a large mixed use commercial development. His buildings blend in. So, to me in that situation if code were different I would say I am good with something more industrial in nature, because it was part of -- it's store -- it's around storage. It blends in. It's part of that. It's -- it could fit in that situation. But, like you said, if this was a flex space next to a residential district or an in- fill piece maybe it didn't. It doesn't work. So, to me I think what we can do -- at least if -- if you guys want to change the standards or recommend a change that's certainly within your purview tonight to have Council take that into consideration. But I would like the opportunity to maybe work as we transition to City Council on getting with these industry experts and maybe coming up -- not necessarily a CUP, but maybe coming up with a standard that allows the director to deviate a certain percentage when somebody can demonstrate that it fits in with the character -- or I don't know what that threshold is. I'm just talking, spitballing ideas. But some codes out there do give the director latitude to make those determinations to say, hey, we are willing to let you do 20 percent in the C-G zone if you can demonstrate these things or the 15 percent in the I-L. Give you that five percent deviation in the office if you can show us how you maintain the jobs or whatever -- whatever the threshold may be through how the business operates, because to me that's -- that's -- like Caleb said, there is so many variables to this -- Lorcher: Right. 61 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission June 26,2025 Page 59 of 68 Parsons: -- I can't sit here and say -- give you the perfect scenario. It's just -- it's impossible, because everything we do it comes down to definitions and how we interpret the code and what that end use can be. Like Caleb says, we have a lot of flexibility, we just have to find where you best fit. Lorcher: Yeah. One of the things I appreciate about this Commission and this process with the city -- with Planning and Zoning being the first step and, then, City Council being the second step is that each application is addressed on its own merit by itself and that the city -- like what you have told us when we were trained, we want this Commission to say yes, because the planners have done everything that we can to be able to make that box fit into that space, but as our city grows and there is pockets, there is going to be, you know, always certain circumstances and what you are suggesting here for this UDC text amendment is the beginning of the discussion, the baseline of the conversation; right? And, then, like you said, maybe having the director or even through the CUP process, having that flexibility. It's like, you know, it does fit, but, you know, this is -- this is our goal, but in your case, because you are right next to FedEx, you know, maybe this warehousing does comply with only 15 percent front and, then, you know, the rest of the back, because we treat each application individually. But I also understand that as a city we have to have a code and a standard and a place to start, a minimum, and that's where the variances come in. So, as we go through this process with the City Council and it would be interesting to see what they say as far as flex space, maybe there is some language in there saying 30 percent is the standard and, you know, with a little asterisk on occasion open for, you know, discussion type of thing. But the standard needs to be written, so -- Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: I just -- I want to -- first off I want to thank you. I think we are asking a lot of questions tonight, which the answer is it depends. I think it's probably -- in lawyer -- for lawyers and city staff as far as I understand are probably the most common words. But I think that's kind of where my head's at. I guess I don't know how this comports with the rest of code, but I wonder if there is some way to also -- yeah. In this -- the same way that there is the drive-throughs, there is kind of here is the standard and if not it specifies in the code it's a CUP and I think maybe some of the question marks that -- that I have and maybe some applicants have is that the -- the alternative or the -- the alternative way to gain compliance is unclear. So, I think having that kind of direct -- you know, director level decision maybe in the code or even a CUP as an outlet in the code can be helpful, because I also look at that and I think, well, is there something that maybe I need to go to Council instead of -- of CUP and kind of outlining those a little more quickly. Again, a lot of it depends, but maybe having some more specificity there, so, then, when an applicant like -- like Adler, you know, instead of, hey, there is kind of this extra stuff you got to do and, then, there is -- these -- the other question it's -- instead it's, hey, here is a very clear thing that might take. Here is the expected timeline. Here is the expected cost and you can factor that in, rather than it being kind 62 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission June 26,2025 Page 60 of 68 of the scary unknown for a potential new tenant. So, less of a question and more I guess I think that's the right path and I think that's worth going -- the path worth going down. Lorcher: We are still in public testimony; correct? Am I allowed to bring a -- am I allowed to bring a person back up? Hood: You certainly can. Yeah. Breshears: Madam Chair, if they are coming up to rebut new information, then, they can come back up. In your discretion. Goode: Thank you. I wouldn't call it rebut. Lorcher: Need to call it rebut. Goode: Okay. Wait, I am rebutting new information. I was responding to new information. Lorcher: Okay. There you go. Goode: Will Goode. 8665 West Emerald Street, Boise, Idaho. Lorcher: Thank you. Goode: The CUPs -- so, when a tenant is faced with should I lease here or should I lease here and one option requires a CUP, which adds time, money and uncertainty, because CUPs are discretionary, they almost all the time will just choose the other option and to your question, earlier the option for 12 percent is to go into an I-L zone. The -- in Boise you have commercial and you have industrial butting up to each other. Meridian tried to create a mixed employment zone to ease the transition between commercial and industrial and what we are trying to do is thread the needle of what does that transition look like? If you will notice right now, if you look at your land use map, there is hardly any mixed employment land that's developed, because it's not developable. The -- because warehouse isn't allowed -- most things aren't allowed. Building materials isn't allowed. So, flex is allowed, but of our four million square feet, one and a half percent of it has greater than 30 percent office and showroom. We can't build a building to appeal to one and a half percent of the market. I can't convince investors. I can't -- I can't convince anyone to get behind that. So, the CUP usually will just scare away a tenant unfortunately. I wish it didn't. And, yeah, 12 percent means you just go to an I-L zone basically, so -- thank you for the -- Lorcher: Thank you. Okay. Did you have any other comments before we close the public hearing? No? Commissioners, any other questions before we close the public hearing? Can I get a motion to close the public hearing? 63 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission June 26,2025 Page 61 of 68 Smith: So moved. Perreault: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on Item No. ZOA- 2025-0001. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Lorcher: Well, this is a stacked deck, isn't it? I think all the changes that -- for this particular text amendment are in the best interest of the city. It defines things a little bit differently and I'm talking about all of them, not anything in specific. For -- for me personally. You know, I wrote down that the drive-throughs -- if they don't fit the -- the categories they have the CUP. The ADUs for -- for safety, for the primary structure, for addressing, all makes sense. The flex space, the 30 percent is a -- is a good start, but it's sounding like the market is saying that they need less. So, that's maybe a conversation that, you know, when it gets to the City Council they -- they can look at, but we need a standard and it sounds like that's been the standard. Home occupation with the -- the swimming I think is a lovely idea. Consistency in fencing and the private streets, you know, all seem to make sense without a lot of controversy. I think as we continue with the industry and City Council working with the flex space, I'm sure we can come up with some language that would be able to bridge developers in the city and what's in the best interest of both to be able to move our city forward. So, I'm in favor of the things that are -- the way they are written right now. Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: I think I tend to agree with you. I -- I -- it seems to me a lot of the flex space issues also kind of more targeted around that, you know, I-L I mean kind of area where it might be 20 percent -- maybe it's not the 30 percent areas, the CCUs, that it's -- it's the huge issue, but it's those -- those more border -- borderline cases and maybe there is a case for rolling that 20 percent down to 15, but leaving everything else the same. I think there is maybe some discussion that, you know, staff can have before this gets to Council and some discussion at Council about that. But I think -- I think, really, the question is is the City of Meridian going to be seriously hurting if we get this wrong in the sense of, yeah, what will hurt more if we get it wrong in what direction. If we have the ratios too low and, then, the anticipated kind of uses of the zoning kind of aren't aligned with what the plan is, I think that's more harmful than, you know, maybe we take a more temperamental -- more of a slow and steady reduction to kind of try to thread the needle and find the right percentages there. So, I think -- yeah, I see the argument for a lower percent and very well may get there at some point, but I don't know that it's an urgent enough case to do it right now and that we need to jump at lowering the numbers. Maybe -- maybe in six months, a year, two years that ends up with -- that's what it ends up at, but I think -- I think I'm okay with where staff is at now, especially 64 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission June 26,2025 Page 62 of 68 with some sort of mechanism, especially at the director level to help maybe limit some of the CUP concerns and some of the City Council concerns, but even, then, you know, having a more clear path for variance I think will be helpful. Garrett: I have a comment. I'm on the other side of that, because I think the minute you time -- you add time or variable people are reticent to invest their money and add time to it, because time is money for them and especially if they are having to borrow money or if he is looking for investors. Any developer is looking for that investor or that bank and the longer things go the more it costs and so they are going to say I'm going to go somewhere else. So, I think if we are serious as a city to encouraging these types of businesses and having this flex zone somehow we have to communicate that we are flexible. You know, you -- you can't go down to five percent, but, you know, if you are at 15 or 20, yeah, we are happy to look at it. So, somehow in that way I think we have to communicate that out and, obviously, you know, if we are competing against other municipalities they are going to go elsewhere and, then, we end up with raw land unused. Lorcher: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: I'm going to somewhat land in the middle here. I really like Bill's idea about taking that time to sit down with our stakeholders and our commercial developers and fleshing that out more, seeing if we can come to a little bit more detail on that and figuring out if there are some criteria that would allow those percentages to change up or down. Maybe we start talking minimums instead of maximums and I feel like that -- I think that it would be better for us to have more information to -- before the decision is made and I would like to see that happen before Council, if possible. I don't know what the time frame is, but I will leave that to you all. But I think that would be really wise on our part, so that -- not that staff doesn't already have a really good grasp on what's going on with -- with commercial development, but just as that -- you know, just the opportunity for the community to have a little bit more voice in it and see if there is some way that we can -- as far as -- I understand what Commissioner Smith is saying. I -- as far as like director level decisions and there still has to be kind of a criteria that the director follows. So, one way or the other you are still developing some additional criteria that says, hey, we are going to agree to this or we are not going to agree to that. Whoever the decision maker is. Lorcher: Right. Perreault: So -- Lorcher: So, are you suggesting a continuance, so that they come back with the flex space or do we make a -- vote a motion with a condition that -- that conversation happens before Council? Perreault: If the Commission wants to -- wants staff to do that and come back before us and have another discussion, then, yes, we would continue it. 65 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission June 26,2025 Page 63 of 68 Lorcher: Right. Perreault: If-- Lorcher: Is that what you are suggesting? Perreault: No. No. No. I'm suggesting that staff have those conversations hopefully before Council. Yeah. If it's possible. I don't know what your time frame is. Hood: Well, Madam Chair, I mean I certainly am happy to talk to Will more about it. We have talked about and I understand where they are coming from. I mean we can talk and if you want to change percentages that's up to you. I'm trying to keep an open mind, but I don't see -- this is already going that direction. If you want to make it 20, then, that's a motion and you can make it 20. 1 don't know that me talking to Will anymore is going to be -- again, I enjoy our conversations, but I don't know that either one of us are going to be convinced. So, it's fine, I get his perspective. I think I understand everything and I -- if I'm in his shoes I under -- I'm writing the same letter. I have a different -- I wear different shoes, though, and I have a different perspective and you do as well. So, if you want to change it, then, you can make that motion, a continuance to talk about it some more I'm afraid is not going to change staffs recommendation at this point. What I will commit to, irregardless of what you do and ultimately what the Council does, we will continue to monitor it and be back in six months, a year, two, three -- I don't know how long, but we will monitor it still. I'm not too worried about vacant land just sitting there. That hasn't been a problem for the last 20 years. I'm not saying we are trying to be, you know, a -- you know, obstinate to development, but we want the right type of development. That's what this is really all about. If you want just development we could -- why have zoning? Just -- we get rid of all the zoning codes and people -- let people go crazy. Okay. If that's what you want to do make that part of your motion. And, again, I can meet with Will and I will before we go to Council. I don't know what that's going to gain anyone necessarily; right? Perreault: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: I apologize, I got the impression that you hadn't had those conversations. You had mentioned something along the lines of maybe not having had as many conversations and I -- with stakeholders and I didn't know if it was about this specific issue or other issues in -- in -- in the code changes that are recommended. Hood: So, Madam Chair, maybe just a little bit of what's happened over the last couple of years. Will has not been part of our tighter UDC focus group, but for the last meeting, maybe two. We have talked about it on and off, though, through other interactions we have with developer stakeholder groups and other things. So, we have had conversations over the time -- over the last six months or more even going back. So, again, I'm -- I'm trying to be open minded and listen, I just can't take everything and just 66 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission June 26,2025 Page 64 of 68 make those changes in good confidence with what I feel is in the best interest of the community. But that -- that is my just professional opinion. I mean I will -- again I will talk -- I will talk to him. We will talk maybe even right after this meeting. I know it's getting late, but I will definitely connect with him between now and Council. I just don't know that's going to equate to any real change, because I feel like we have -- we have been having some of those conversations and this is where we have landed for now. Lorcher: Right. Hood: It's a change in the right direction. Is it all the way to there? Maybe, maybe not. We will keep tracking it and can come back again if we need to change it more. Smith: Madam Chair, I think -- I think that's -- to clarify, I think where I'm at that's kind of my position. I'm thinking of this as, you know, lowering the limit is like adding salt to a dish, or you can always add a little bit more, you can always reduce a little bit more, but it's really hard to -- when you add too much salt -- when you lower the limit too much -- Lorcher: Right. Smith: -- there is -- there is -- there is that risk there and so -- yeah, I do think, you know, those numbers maybe matter to the applicants and they matter to the developer. I think it's more of a question of how hard pressed the city is right now at this very second to get that -- those -- that ME zone or those specific zones developed. We want to see them used -- developed and use, but I think it's a question of are we -- are we under the gun really trying to get them developed now and that's a different conversation. I don't think that's where we are at and so I think this is an opportunity for, you know, if we still land high we can -- we can come back around I think to Caleb's point and, you know, try -- try getting a little lower if that's still a need. I think, you know, I think there is a risk here of mistaking a step in the right direction or a step in the wrong one, just because it's not a big enough step and so I think -- I think this is -- I think this is good. I think this is really good. And, again, I really do like -- to -- Commissioner Perreault, to your point about having some standard, I do like kind of -- Bill, maybe -- maybe an offhand idea, but I think a good one of having that, again, specifically a five percent discretion, you know, I think that might help cover a lot of the ground. I know some of the letters asked for five percent lower and so if we can say, hey, it is five percent lower if you can do these things and there is -- there is that director discretion, I think there is -- that is helpful there. I don't know if that's something that gets workshopped a little bit and brought before Council, I don't know if we make a motion tonight to leave that up to rest of the Commission. I don't know if that's baked enough for that. But I think that's the direction that makes more sense to go, rather than dropping it and trying to drop it now or make a big drastic change to it. Lorcher: Well, knowing that City Council is going to be very aware of our conversation about flex space and it's probably going to be presented again at Council as well, I -- you know, I don't see us being the governing body to make that change here. The 30 percent, you know, can stay and in the meantime stakeholders and the city can F67] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission June 26,2025 Page 65 of 68 continue to talk and, then, when it goes to Council it will -- it will come up again and if the city feels at this point in time that it is in the best interest of the city to change that standard, then, that's when it will come up. So, with that in mind -- after considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I recommend to approve of File No. ZOA-2025- 0001 as presented the staff report of the hearing date June 26, 2025, to City Council. Smith: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to approve the UDC text amendment. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Garrett: Opposed. Lorcher: City Clerk -- Madam Clerk, you can note the denial and it is still three to one. So, motion passes. Lomeli: Thank you, Madam Chair. Lorcher: Do we need to do anything with the other document reports that were listed on the agenda? Then I will take one more motion. Yes? We do want to talk about the document report. Okay. Or department, not documents. I can't even read my own handwriting. Department Reports. Thank you for coming. DEPARTMENT REPORTS 11. Proposed Updates to Meridian City Code Title 8 Regarding Addressing McClure: Members of the Commission, this is -- as previously noted an information item only. P&Z makes formal recommendations to City Council on Title 11. This is Title 8. However, P&Z does make on occasion decisions regarding Title 8 addressing and we still would like to have your input if you have any on it to share with City Council. Lorcher: Okay. McClure: I will keep this brief, but since I don't get to talk about addressing to you very often, it's usually the comp plan or something else, I thought I would just give you a little recap of what it is, especially for the newer commissioners. So, our addressing technicians do code compliance, participate in interagency reviews and there is a great deal of technical workflows, not just within the city, but multiple agencies. We have an interagency data sharing system called ACX, for which Ada County leads and Boise and Meridian are part of. Sorry. Wrong slide. This is just a simple infographic sort of showing where addressing data goes, sort of what I just mentioned, and, then, you will note it goes to Esri, Google Maps, a whole lot of different services and systems. It's using a lot of things. Basically every permit through the city. Finance uses it for billing addressing. There is a lot of behind the scene work there. It's also much more complex F68] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission June 26,2025 Page 66 of 68 than this. Ada county has an extensive number of workflows that are far more advanced than this. On the city side we have our own workflows. It's also multiple database systems talking to each other and working back and forth, not trying to oversell it, it's just very complex and there is a lot of review that goes into it. Back to the purpose of the update tonight. You all have a detailed memo in your packet. I'm not going to go over those in great depth, but I will sort of cover high level what those topics are and, then, if you have any specific areas you want to discuss I would love to do that with you. This first topic area, as Caleb mentioned earlier, relates to Title 11 UDC changes and specifically accessory dwelling units. Both changes in Title 8 and Title 11 are intended to align with building code as a sort of the cornerstone or anchor. High level. We are adding in some very broad definitions for single, multi and accessory dwellings. A few cleanup changes as a result of those definitions and, then, sort of defining -- and this is the important part -- when an ADU gets addressed. This is a little complex for me, so I'm just going to sort of explain it the way I was told and understood it. I apologize for that. Lots of things by definition. You know, even in Title 11 are an ADU. Then there is the standards in Title 11 or Title 10 building code, the standards. So, you can be an ADU, but you can be an illegal ADU just like you can be an ADU that meets all of our standards the big change here is in order to get an address and you -- if you meet those standards you will get an address, whether you decide to use it or not. And if you do not meet those standards, if you are, quote, an illegal ADU, you will not get an address. The reason for that is some direction basically the city was told to go after -- I'm going get it right. We were basically told to go that way. So, there is -- there was a judge involved and there were some comments earlier about -- about some news -- news a couple years ago. The second round of changes are consistency and clean up for the most part. They generally involve multi-unit residential or suites. So, apartments or suites. The first big change is to basically decide that we are not going to follow a system previously where buildings were addressed based off whether they were under single or common ownership in an apartment complex. The Postal Service does not like doing that anymore. They have asked us not to do that. What that means is we are not going to give buildings letter identifiers anymore. So, you have not Building A, not Building B, with their own apartment -- apartments and, them, it's now each one of those buildings has their own address. This is actually helpful for the city as well, because we don't determine when a property might be subdivided later -- later on and if it is subdivided, then, each one of those buildings has to, then, be readdressed, which is a nightmare. So, it's -- we have already been doing this, but it reflects sort of direction from USPS. The second one. There are four suites. This area is one where we have a lot of direction from a number of different systems, including NENA or the 9-1-1 Association, fire and building code. Again, USPS. Others. They don't provide a lot of direction on how we should address suites or apartments for that matter, except that we want to be consistent in how we do it. We haven't always been super consistent in a few areas. We have lost institutional -- institutional knowledge. Things have changed. But some of the things that we have been consistent on we are now codifying, so that there is some less -- there is less external pressure of telling us, you know, what someone wants to do, rather than what we need to do for 9-1-1 or emergency purposes and, then, there is some other ones where we recognize we haven't been doing them great apartment -- apartment numbers, for example, and what F69] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission June 26,2025 Page 67 of 68 1 call pinwheel, so external access single floor sort of units, not walk-up garden style or mid-rise internal hallway sort of apartments. Standardizing how we do those and making it more consistent with everything else we are doing. That's really high level. I'm happy to dive into any of the specific code changes if you want, if you -- something you just want us to share with Council I'm happy to do that. I will note we also added some diagrams just help people understand some of the common things we see and are asked about. Yeah. I will stand for any questions. Lorcher: The only question I have is that everything is moving -- going forward or are you going to -- are you going to retro any of this stuff? Like -- well, specifically with like the ADUs, you know, is it only new applications that come through or have you identified if somebody changed their -- you know, put a unit in the backyard and it was illegal and now it's going to be legal, because code enforcement asked them to go through the process, you know, are you searching them out or are you just waiting for them to come to you as they are identified as we go forward? McClure: Commission President, that's -- that's a great question. This is primarily intended for moving forward. However, we will be working to go back through our Enterprise system and find previously approved ADUs that meet those standards and add them to the system and add addresses if they don't already have them and, then, we will modify it as we become aware of issues, but we are not going to do a complete overhaul and trying to figure out where all the legal ones are or whether they approve or could be approved or -- Lorcher: Right. And same with apartment buildings, so no more letters, but the ones that already have them will still be identify them as -- McClure: Correct. We are not going to up -- upend everyone's lives. Yeah. Lorcher: Okay. Okay. That was all. Any comments from you? There is nothing to really approve, but thank you for sharing. So, I think it seems very straightforward and cleaning up changes and making life easier for the post office and the city seems to make a lot of sense. So, thank you very much. McClure: Thank you. Lorcher: All right. I will take one more motion. Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: Move to adjourn. Perreault: Second. 70 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission June 26,2025 Page 68 of 68 Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:13 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS. ) APPROVED 7 I 17 125 MARIA LORCHER - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK F71 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Approve Minutes of the June 5, 2025 Planning and Zoning Committee Meeting 5 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission June 5,2025 Page 55 of 55 Stoll: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:23 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS. ) APPROVED 6 126 I 25 MARIA LORCHER - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK F60 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for El Pollo Loco (H-2025-0018) by ADN Architects, located at 3471 W. Chinden Blvd. F61 CITY OF MERIDIAN wl IDIAN;=-- FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND � DAHO DECISION& ORDER In the Matter of the Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a 2,000 Square Foot Drive-Through Establishment within 300 feet of Another Drive-Through and Residential District,Located at 3471 W. Chinden Boulevard in the C-G Zoning District,by AND Architects. Case No(s).H-2025-0018 For the Planning& Zoning Commission Hearing Date of. June 51'',2025(Findings on June 26', 2025) A. Findings of Fact I. Hearing Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of June 5r'', 2025, incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of June 5t'',2025,incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of June 5t'',2025, incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of June 26t'',2025,incorporated by reference) B. Conclusions of Law I. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the"Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975,"codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code(I.C. §67-6503). 2. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has,by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian,which was adopted April 19,2011,Resolution No. 11-784 and Maps. 3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 11-5A. 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s)received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed. 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this decision,which shall be signed by the Chairman of the Commission and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2025-0018 Page 1 62 upon the applicant,the Planning Department,the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. 7. That this approval is subject to the conditions of approval in the attached staff report for the hearing date of June 5t'',2025, incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application. C. Decision and Order Pursuant to the Planning &Zoning Commission's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 11- 5A and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that: 1. The applicant's request for a conditional use permit is hereby approved in accord with the conditions of approval in the staff report for the hearing date of June 5r'',2025,attached as Exhibit A. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits Notice of Two(2)Year Conditional Use Permit Duration Please take notice that the conditional use permit,when granted, shall be valid for a maximum period of two(2)years unless otherwise approved by the City in accord with UDC 11-513-6F.1. During this time,the applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval,and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground. For conditional use permits that also require platting,the final plat must be signed by the City Engineer within this two(2)year period in accord with UDC 11-5B-6F.2. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11-5B-6.F.1,the Director may authorize a single extension of the time to commence the use not to exceed one(1)two (2)year period.Additional time extensions up to two (2)years as determined and approved by the Commission may be granted. With all extensions,the Director or Commission may require the conditional use comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code Title 11. E. Judicial Review Pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-652 1(1)(d), if this final decision concerns a matter enumerated in Idaho Code § 67-652 1(1)(a), an affected person aggrieved by this final decision may,within twenty-eight (28)days after all remedies have been exhausted,including requesting reconsideration of this final decision as provided by Meridian City Code § 1-7-10, seek judicial review of this final decision as provided by chapter 52,title 67, Idaho Code. This notice is provided as a courtesy; the City of Meridian does not admit by this notice that this decision is subject to judicial review under LLUPA. F. Notice of Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis Pursuant to Idaho Code §§ 67-6521(1)(d) and 67-8003, an owner of private property that is the subject of a final decision may submit a written request with the Meridian City Clerk for a regulatory takings analysis. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2025-0018 Page 2 63 By action of the Planning&Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the 26th day of June ,2025. COMMISSIONER MARIA LORCHER, CHAIRMAN VOTED COMMISSIONER JARED SMITH,VICE CHAIRMAN VOTED COMMISSIONER BRIAN GARRETT VOTED COMMISSIONER ANDREW SEAL VOTED COMMISSIONER PATRICK GRACE VOTED COMMISSIONER MATTHEW SANDOVAL VOTED COMMISSIONER SAM RUST VOTED Maria Lorcher, Chairman 6-25-2025 Attest: Chris Johnson, City Clerk 6-25-2025 Copy served upon the Applicant, the Planning and Development Services divisions of the Community Development Department,the Public Works Department and the City Attorney. 6-25-2025 By: Dated: City Clerk's Office CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2025-0018 Page 4 65 G. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of June 5th, 2025. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2025-0018 Page 3 64 Exhibit A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT C��fEPIDIAN*,-­ DEPARTMENT REPORT HEARING 6/5/2025 Legend DATE: Project Location City Limits 0 TO: Planning&Zoning Commission ::: Area of Impact O Analysis FROM: Nick Napoli,Associate Planners" 208-884-5533 ' nnapoli@meridiancity.org APPLICANT: Steve Shaw SUBJECT: H-2025-0018@ El Pollo Loco LOCATION: Located at 3471 W. Chinden Boulevard in a portion of the northeast'/4 of Section 27,TAN.,R.1W. L PROJECT OVERVIEW Summary A Conditional Use Permit(CUP) is requested for a 2,000 square foot drive-through establishment within 300 feet of another drive-through and residential district. The site consists of 0.87 acres in the C-G zoning district. Recommendation Staff. Approval with conditions. Decision Commission: CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2025-0018 Page 5 66 II.COMMUNITY METRICS Table 1: Land Use Description Details Map Ref. Existing Land Use(s) Vacant - Proposed Land Use(s) Restaurant/Drive Through Establishment - Existing Zoning C-G(General Retail and Service Commercial District) Proposed Zoning C-G(General Retail and Service Commercial District) Adopted FLUM Designation Commercial Table 2: Process Facts Description Details Preapplication Meeting date 2/4/2025 Neighborhood Meeting 3/27/2025 Site posting date (Click or tap to enter a date) Table 3: Community Metrics Agency/Element Description/Issue Reference Ada County Highway District Comments Received Yes Commission Action Required No Access Private Drive Aisle ITD Comments Received Yes Meridian Public Works Wastewater Distance to Mainline Available at site Impacts or Concerns No Meridian Public Works Water Distance to Mainline Available at site Impacts or Concerns No Note: See section IV. City/Agency Comments & Conditions for comments received or see the public record. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2025-0018 Page 6 67 Figure 1: Service Impact Summary ImpactService • • Ready a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Marginal 0 0 Caution 0 e wave oa� � CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2025-0018 Page 7 68 III. STAFF ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code(UDC) A. General Overview The subject property is designated as commercial on the Future Land Use Map(FLUM). The use of a restaurant and drive-through establishment is consistent with the plan for the commercial designation. The site is among several commercially zoned properties at the corner of Chinden Boulevard and Ten Mile Road in the Lost Rapids Subdivision. The proposed use of a restaurant with a drive- through aligns with the desired uses specified in the Commercial designation in the comprehensive plan, as noted above. In conjunction with the neighboring drive-throughs(Key Bank, Swig,Dutch Bros, and Slim Chickens) and Costco to the south,the proposed use satisfies the commercial FLUM designation for this area. While the comprehensive plan did not envision all the lots fronting Chinden Boulevard as drive-throughs,the market has led them to become drive-throughs. In addition,El Pollo Loco has indicated their hours of operation are intended to be 10 am to 11 pm,which is consistent with the UDC and the surrounding businesses. The hours of operation were an important factor during the original entitlement of the subdivision from the neighboring subdivisions. A restaurant is a permitted use in the C-G zoning district,but the drive-through is within 300 feet of a residential district, and another drive-through triggers the requirement for a conditional use permit. • "Minimize noise, lighting,and odor disturbances from commercial developments to residential dwellings by enforcing city code."(5.01.0117) The location of El Pollo Loco is not directly adjacent to a residential use or district but within 300 feet of one. The hours of operation are proposed to be 10 am to 11 pm, which is consistent with the neighboring businesses. Operation of the proposed use should comply with City ordinances regarding noise, lighting, and odor disturbances. • "Plan for a variety of commercial and retail opportunities within the Area of City Impact." (3.05.01J) While the subject property and drive-through are surrounded by several other drive- throughs, the market for drive-throughs continues to be in demand within the city. While this is not the intended vision for the area, it is an allowed use based on the C-G zoning. The proposed drive-through restaurant will contribute to the variety of uses and fast food options on the corner of Ten Mile and Chinden. • "Encourage the safety,health, and well-being of the community."(5.01.01) The applicant has indicated that El Pollo Loco provides a healthier alternative to similar fast food in the area, as their chicken is grilled. Staff have also received several phone calls from the community in support of this restaurant and location. • "Permit new development only where urban services can be reasonably provided at the time of final approval and development is contiguous to the City."(3.01.0117) City water and sewer service stubs have been provided to this site with the development of the subdivision. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2025-0018 Page 8 69 Table 4: Proiect Overview Description Details History H-2018-0004(CPAM,AZ,PP,VAR—Lost Rapids);H-2019-0056(FP); DA Inst#2018-079970;PBA-2022-0019. Acreage 0.87 Acres B. History In 2018,the subject property was annexed as part of a larger development area consisting of residential and commercial property zoned R-40 and C-G and included in a preliminary plat.A development agreement was required as a provision of annexation,which governs future development of the property. The property was later included in a final plat as a portion of Lot 5, Block 1,Lost Rapids Subdivision. Additionally,this property and the neighboring property to the west(SWIG)had a property boundary adjustment done in 2022 to make this site larger and the neighboring property smaller. C. Site Development and Use Analysis Proposed Use Analysis (UDC 11-2): The proposed use aligns with the Commercial FLUM designation in the Comprehensive Plan. A restaurant is a principal permitted use in the C-G district,but a drive-through establishment requires approval of a conditional use permit(CUP)when the property is within 300 feet of another drive-through facility, a residential district, or an existing residence in accord with UDC Table 11-213-3. In this case,the property is within 300 feet of another drive-through facility directly to the north(i.e. SWIG and Dutch Brothers), and existing residences/residential district to the west(Bainbridge Sub No. 12). Additionally, it is important to note the applicant is providing two tenant spaces on the property. The first being for El Pollo Loco(Restaurant and Drive Through) and a shell space that will later be developed as retail or restaurant use. Both uses are permitted in the C-G zone. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): Development of the site hall comply with the dimensional standards of the C-G zoning district in UDC Table 11-213-3. Staff has reviewed the proposed plans and building elevations and they comply with the required standards. The proposed hours of operation are 10:00 am to 11:00 pm which is in compliance with the C-G zoning district. Since the property does not directly abut a residential district the hours of operation are not restricted. Specific Use Standards (UDC 11-4-3): Drive-Through Establishment: The proposed drive-through establishment is subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-11,Drive-Through Establishment.All establishments providing drive-through service are required to identify the stacking lane,menu and speaker location(if applicable),and window location on the site plan. In order for the outside travel lane to function as an escape lane as required for drive-throughs that exceed 100 feet in length, Staff recommends that no stacking is allowed in this area. Signage should be installed notifying patrons not to block the escape lane. The site plan is required to demonstrate safe pedestrian and vehicular access and circulation on the site and between adjacent properties. A sidewalk is proposed along the southern boundary of the site for safe pedestrian access to the east and west. Because a private drive-aisle runs along the southern boundary of the site that CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2025-0018 ■ Page 9 provides access to adjacent properties to the east and west, a cross-access easement/driveway is not required to be provided to adjacent properties to the east and west. The applicant revised their plan to depict a pedestrian connection from the sidewalk along the southern drive aisle. At a minimum,the plan is required to demonstrate compliance with the following standards: 1) Stacking lanes have sufficient capacity to prevent obstruction of driveways,drive aisles and the public right-of-way by patrons; The site plan accommodates queuing for a minimum of eight vehicles before the menu board and twelve vehicles before the pickup window. Based on data provided by El Pollo Loco, this appears to be sufficient. According to the applicant, their Southern California locations serve approximately 325 vehicles per day, typically maintaining a queue of around six vehicles, with occasional peaks of seven to eight vehicles. In anticipation of heightened interest during the initial opening period, staff have discussed traffic management with the applicant and recommended implementing temporary traffic control measures to manage potential surges in demand. 2) The stacking lane shall be a separate lane from the circulation lanes needed for access and parking, except stacking lanes may provide access to designated employee parking. The stacking lane is separate from the escape lane and main drive aisles. If the drive-through stacks past the 12-car allotment, it will spill into the main drive aisle but will not impede entering or exiting from the property. 3) The stacking lane shall not be located within ten(10) feet of any residential district or existing residence; The stacking lane is not located within 10'of any residential district or residence. 4)Any stacking lane greater than one hundred(100)feet in length shall provide for an escape lane; and The stacking lane is greater than 100 feet from the point of entry to the drive-through window; therefore, the stacking lane exceeds 100'in length and an escape lane is required.An escape lane is depicted on the site plan. 5) The site should be designed so that the drive-through is visible from a public street for surveillance purposes. The drive-through is located on the west side of the building and is visible from W. Chinden Blvd. and from the drive aisle along the southern boundary of the site for surveillance purposes. Restaurant: The proposed use is also subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3- 49 Restaurant,which requires at a minimum, one(1)parking space to be provided for every 250 square feet of gross floor area. See parking analysis below. D. Design Standards Analysis Structure and Site Design Standards (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-19): Extend or improve streets, drive aisles,cross access easements or similar vehicular and pedestrian connections provided from adjacent properties. The subject property will be accessed from a shared private drive aisle on the southern boundary.Along this southern boundary runs a sidewalk for pedestrian connectivity for the large development. The applicant revised their drawings to provide a pedestrian connection to the building from the sidewalk along the southern drive aisle. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2025-0018 Page 10 71 For lots with frontage on a public street, a minimum of 30%of the buildable frontage of the property shall be occupied by building facades and/or public space. The proposed site design meets this requirement along W. Chinden Boulevard with only a drive-through lane between the building fagade and the public street. Parking lots: For properties greater than two (2) acres in size,no more than 50%of the total off-street parking area for the site shall be located between building facades and abutting streets. The proposed site design meets this requirement along W. Chinden Boulevard. Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): Landscape buffers along streets A 35-foot wide street buffer is required along W. Chinden Boulevard, an entry way corridor arterial roadway. The Buffer shall be landscaped per the standards in UDC 11- 3B-7C. The proposed landscaping was installed with the final plat for Lost Rapids Subdivision. The combination of the existing and proposed landscaping exceeds the minimum requirements. Parking lot landscaping Landscaping is required to be provided along all parking areas per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8. The proposed landscape plan appears to meet the minimum requirements. The applicant shall provide vegetation coverage calculations with the submittal of the certificate of zoning compliance submittal. Landscape buffers to adjoining uses Landscaping is required to meet the standards of UDC 11-3B-9. The landscape plan meets the minimum requirements. Tree preservation Mitigation shall be required for all existing trees four-inch caliper or greater that are removed from the site with equal replacement of the total calipers lost on site up to an amount of one hundred(100)percent replacement(Example: Two(2)ten-inch caliper trees removed may be mitigated with four 5-inch caliper trees, five(5)four-inch caliper trees, or seven(7)three-inch caliper trees). Deciduous specimen trees four-inch caliper or greater may count double towards total calipers lost,when planted at entryways,within common open space, and when used as focal elements in landscape design. The applicant shall preserve and protect the existing trees in the neighboring properties landscaping buffers. If trees are proposed to be removed, the applicant shall provide mitigation calculations with submittal of the certificate ofzoning compliance application. Storm integration Storm drainage is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-18. Drainage swales should not be within the landscape setbacks along W. Chinden Boulevard. Pathway landscaping Landscaping is required to be provided along all pathways per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C.No pathways are proposed or required within the site. Parking (UDC 11-3C): Nonresidential parking analysis CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2025-0018 Page 11 72 A minimum of one(1) off-street parking space is required per 250 square feet of gross floor area for the proposed restaurant. In this case, staff is going to assess one(1) space per 250 square feet of gross floor area for both tenant spaces, as it will allow for a restaurant to occupy the empty space in the future.Based on the 3,250 square foot building, a minimum of 13 spaces are required.A total of 24 parking spaces are proposed, exceeding the minimum standard by 13 spaces. Bicycle parking analysis A minimum of one(1)bicycle parking space is required for every 25 vehicle spaces or portion thereof per UDC 11-3C-6G;bicycle parking facilities are required to comply with the location and design standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C.Based on the proposed number of vehicle spaces (i.e. 24), a minimum of one(1) bicycle spaces should be provided. A total of two (2)spaces are proposed, which meets and exceeds the minimum standard. Building Elevations (Comp Plan,Architectural Standards Manual): Goal 2.09.03A of the Comprehensive Plan highlights establishing distinct, engaging identities within commercial and mixed-use enters through design standards to integrate commercial, multifamily,and parking areas with existing neighborhoods. In response,the developer has submitted conceptual building elevations for the proposed structure as shown in Section VII. Building materials consist of stucco,metal awnings, and glazing. The proposed elevations do not meet all the standards listed in the ASM and the Development Agreement. Staff is recommending additional fenestration along the North fagade. The additional fenestration may be achieved through alternative measures or faux windows. Staff will work with the applicant during the design review phase. The final design is required to comply with the Architectural Standards Manual for Commercial Design Guidelines. E. Transportation Analysis Access (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-3, UDC 11-3H-4): Goal 6.01.02B emphasizes reducing the number of access points onto arterial streets by utilizing strategies such as cross-access agreements, access management, and the creation of frontage and backage roads,while also improving connectivity between local and collector streets.Access is proposed via the east/west private drive aisle along the southern boundary of the site; direct access via W. Chinden Blvd./SH 2O-26 is prohibited. A reciprocal cross- access easement exists between all lots in the subdivision as noted on the Lost Rapids subdivision plat. Multiuse Pathways (UDC 11-3A-5): An existing multi-use pathway exists along W. Chinden Boulevard, this shall be preserved and protected during construction. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17): The proposed plan was revised to include a pedestrian walkway from the Multi-use pathway along W. Chinden Boulevard. Where pedestrian walkways cross vehicular driving surfaces, they're required to be distinguished from the vehicular driving surface through the use of pavers, colored or scored concrete,or bricks as set forth in UDC 11-3A-1913.4. The site/landscape plan shall be revised to specify the material being used for the connection.If the connection crosses through the drive aisle, it shall be delineated from the driving surface through pavers, colored or scored concrete. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2025-0018 Page 12 73 F. Services Analysis Pressurized Irrigation(UDC 11-3A-15): An underground pressurized irrigation system is required to be installed to provide irrigation in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-15. Storm Drainage (UDC 11-3A-18): An adequate storm drainage system is required in all developments by the City's adopted standards, specifications, and ordinances. Design and construction shall follow best management practices as adopted by the City as outlined in UDC 11-3A-18. Storm drainage will be proposed with a future Certificate of Zoning Compliance application and shall be constructed to City and ACHD design criteria. Utilities (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-21): Ensure development is connected to City of Meridian water and sanitary sewer systems and the extension to and through said developments are constructed in conformance with the City of Meridian Water and Sewer System Master Plans in effect at the time of development. All utilities are available to the site. Water main, fire hydrant and water service require a twenty- foot(20)wide easement that extends ten(10)feet past the end of main,hydrant, or water meter.No permanent structures, including trees are allowed inside the easement. Comprehensive Plan policy 3.03.03G require urban infrastructure be provided for all new developments,including curb and gutter, sidewalks,water and sewer utilities. IV. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS& CONDITIONS Meridian Planning Division 1. Future development of this site shall comply with the previous conditions of approval and terms of H-2018-0004(CPAM,AZ,PP,VAR—Lost Rapids); H-2019-0056(FP);DA Inst# 2018-079970; PBA-2022-0019 and the conditions contained herein. The site plan and/or landscape plan, as applicable, shall be revised with the certificate of zoning compliance application as follows: No stacking is allowed in the outside travel lane that serves as an escape lane; depict signage notifying patrons not to block the escape lane. Signage shall be installed ahead of the north/south crossing,warning drivers to watch out for pedestrians. Provide details for what material will be used to delineate the pedestrian connections from the drive aisle. All mechanical equipment on the back of the building and outdoor service and equipment areas should be incorporated into the overall design of buildings and landscaping so that the visual and acoustic impacts of these functions are fully contained and out of view from adjacent properties and public streets as set forth in UDC 11-3A-12. Update the landscape plan the match the site plan. 2. Compliance with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-49 and 11-4-3-11 is required. 3. Preserve and protect the existing landscaping on the north, east, and west buffers of the site during construction,per UDC 11-3B-10. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2025-0018 Page 13 74 4. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application shall be submitted and approved for the proposed use prior to submittal of a building permit application. The design of the site and structure shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19;the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual and with the Development Agreement. 5. The conditional use permit is valid for a maximum period of two (2)years unless otherwise approved by the City. During this time,the Applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval,and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground as set forth in UDC 11-5B-6.A time extension may be requested as set forth in UDC 11-5B-6F. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2025-0018 Page 14 75 Meridian Public Works Wast�.rat� • EMAnnIeta5mmr AvdildbkolSiLe + Surer Vwd • Estimated Nojrd See appliLaL'aan Sevier EMYS • WRlir D} Iinirlg 6dtanle P•oject Consistent Yes with WW Mailer Pldn/Fadlky Plau IRIpdmNfrz3nLt!mh • SeePuhlkYJdr►sSiYeSpe,rii"re{olldiuuns Water Mtan[eto54aler WALL4ArilahleatSite Servk&% s Pressure Zone + Estimdted Nojed See Jpl7IILJLIUrI Wa Lee E RLYs WaterQLUIitY Nune + P•ujeLt CunsistvnL Yrs wiLhWiter MJsLvi Pld•I + Im LL%jCIXr6erm Nune- NON-PLAT CONDITIONS Mix:4►i3mPL4 LIKPAll1M Kh'l Site#Ip�Tic l:4rditiuo3,of Apprural 1_ %NEC has an imIN ing S'Wale!club Inlu Ehe prL3rm:ny_All iwnnmrmp rs(hydranLq,wake mumu,lire lurcx)ahuuld L�m olloL rhos sluh.1:014mL Lhc m�va3 0l Lhc plow ull'arnl how Lla=wzwT xT Wv Lmwlcct a maximum 01'3 ft lrylm Llrc LTd uEltx sLuh. 2_ Nu L+mgcs Eu public wafer IolmL Lru AL Ommo in rci wd_Any than wv muss k-aRp vvd l+y puMw works.'Lbls IodudL3 hvdhmLs iK L1u abaoJrmr -m rd'w LL7 rnams. 3_ WaILT 1L7vim:sh mk Ix perperHllcular Lium thr nvrn Lo 7hr walLT mL7LL-r.L'mm3&'a Ur mscmLilr up Lo and S'lKL cd Lk waLcr nxlcr. 4. iijwum no ncwa scrviucs pans through inflltm on Uembes. 5_ 14ouxk Ar Rmmxms fw mums,hydranL Ialaahaud waLcr sLTVKL%_lia mwoLsshuuld L;n IL'ml up Eu ah-cml of nralnlhyd=EhvalLT mILLT and llr buynod It 5_ Nu peramcrrt Itlrtichlrm(trmi,bu b=buildings emporls,leach meeptaelc wally it kxa, infiltranian trcnehca.light pulefl,cta)to be built within the utility msv mcoL CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2025-0018 Page 15 76 C lereral C_udiGuax or App"o. 1_ Applw=L shall LNKirdmatc w LL7 aThd srwLT mruo srru WW nmuo6 wiLb the Public Wurks 2_ 1`L7 Mcrmlian C ily Cadu(MCJI.').Ibr applwaiiiiL shall be mxjwasibk Iu imEal1 x, 7 and wakr imams Lo and Lhnmgh Mom dLrckr]mmcrrL- Apple; l rror be uliKlbk for a m rr*mL rsrnLan agm cmmm Jnr mfrastrLxiurc rnhaocLmrcnt pL7 MC_U R 6 5_ 3_ TbL aMlaanl Aull pmyxk LasL7rwoLlx)Cur all pmMic waudscwcrmarmours.du ofpubhrngtrl of way(imludr all waLc7 scrvmxs and hydrants). ScwcmLwmLcr L2=7m[A Farms LkpoKbagLm scwcr dcpl]L YLv.L7 0 20 rL dcgi nqmm a 30 ill LawcmmnL,20 25 11 m 40 L1 casLmrnrt,and 25 30 1.1 a 45 It LusL7 M. 1"vLs nu pLTmanuoL raruu s(Ir=,hn bs .hw Idrn$s,carp Ttm'Lraxh MLL3Narlc walls,JLm ._infdLraLinn trti cbLx,]rghL poIL3,LbL.)arr bmlt wLLhm the uLi]rty mscmLmL. UbMIL m cxaculLtiLcaxcrnL7r1(sm the Gran avwLmhlr fmrn Public WurU).a legal dcsc7iplr pr TT d by m klhho L. L7 d Pmkssmmal La xl Sm Lyur,whIL+must iocludc ilrc a M ur lhu La WLmL (rn2r6d EXHIBIT A)am!au li FT'T'x I L"nmp with bLarinp wad dixlm ua(nmrkLMl EXLJ LHTJ'd3) fix mviL� .IkAh LmbilmLxinast he sxalcrl,signed and dand by a PmJL�slimal land Vmmi:} .LX) NC"'RECORD. d_ lTw cay urMcrrdiam TcL]LurLs Lbz L prmurinnd wngalmm sys7L7ns be supphcd by a year Tuurd sLwra ofwaLn CUM'11 3116).Tic-aMumurlabuuld hL'Tugum 1.La asuamycxrsbng%=EG -m w0l waicr We Liu lmr y sLm - Il'a smrlaoc or wul]s -is m A aradabk.a singlc puny Lmon,mliou lu Ida:ud mart'uratLz myslcm shall bL rayLurcd.If a mmglc 1rumL Lmowu liun is Lruha:A Lhc di:%YkLpLT will Ix Tcspamsrblc for drr paymrni ol'as mww7rts Jor thr commun areas prrur Lu prruT up rcL7:ivnig dcvL:luprtK:mL plan apprisval. 5_ Any AmLYurum LhaL an:allnwrd lu n--mrn shall&YuhjLmL Iri cralualiun and pnmsiblc nmsignmi:m] of=M1 a WIX aing lu be in LNmrlr]rarrL+c WAK MCC. 6_ All imgalism diLchLz,ruwls,Ia1Lr.LIs,4m drarngcxclusrxc of nalural wakrways,inLLTsuc[mg, LmiL sing ur laying mdjau mL and cuMrgurrus;Lo ihra bcmg suhdrrrdud shall lic adLbcsa7l rL7 UIX:1] 3A 6. In perkK mg such work,the aWlimrrishall mrmply wah Idaho Cbdc 42 1207 and any nlhrr a39rliLZML law uT rrgubuun. 7_ Amy wc1 Is lhal wi II MA Lvmlinuc in Tic uxLTJ must bu pro]x71y ahanrduncd aLtiNmhog Lir Ldahn Wcll Canxlru1mm SLwm:uTLs LWIL:s administm d by LIIL kL"p LkporumaL of Wa1LT KL m3wcL-m. TIOL: Ilumkgrcr-m]`.ngirmxrAwJl pw6dL a slnlun m2mid u-saamg w1mAiLr WLTL arL:any rimsmg VPUI&ill. Ek dcvckjmwnt,and rf so,hrrw lhcy wi 11 Lmououc lu be used,or provmlc ix-v Td of Lhcn aban&mzrm rL ]� Any cnisLing pbrsyslcros walun Lhim prujucL shall Ix rnnuxal fmrn wwwc per City t]rdirrmrac %k Lmm 4 L 4 and 4 1 R_ {AmEL l C'cniml Lhstna Llmllh forabmr lnomi:ML procedures and umpmtkiins(2=)375 52 L 1_ 9_ All mgrrowmicak mLaLLA to pubic lik,sakly and healLh Aidl be nmrlr]Licd Fff L Lo occupy y of 1121L 31trucLura_ 10. App lwanL shall bL Tcyu iFLA to lKLy Public Works dcvclopmont per rLvww,and 4:omLrucuun inYpcL-LKm V=,m dac7Tmmod dunng Lhc phnn�Kw pTLxrL,pom W rhr eau L 01'a]elan appruxal Icucr_ 11. ]L shall Im fk-ruNpLwLsrbrhly of the aMliL-md lu cmuTc Ibw all dcxcl4pLx7rl ILaLua�cwmply with Lh-Ana7Tt with ULsabdruL ALY and LIr Fay Llnusiog Acl. 12. ApplwanL shill be nspKmsibk Iiir applwMLLuio and LymrlpllaocL wiLh zmy SLrlwat 4Cri J`LTnuLUog lhaL may hL mquwcd by Lhr Army Ow7w of TigmmTs. 13_llk ckyjr 7 shall micirdrrsuu mw1hAm lmx di4ms wall 1hL Meridian lk a C}Il'ar. 14.Cbmp icuun bmt nxLL]Ls shall Ix sutrmFLIW lu Lint.M4.nd3aa Bwkbog Llepm tmLmL k u all bw IdLng pads rLmcivmg ayg3mLTvd backG II,w1hurc foouog w+mld mil alup Jill ma cral. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2025-0018 Page16 77 13. TbL clL3rgn crLgrrkccr shall be n.Nuucd m,LLTury EhGmL Lhr An-a cLmLvl IOL clrvaLKnLs Luc Nd a nuolmum Ld'3 IcLl ahn1+ Lk hl&3t L3r21bl3slLad Peak gnwndwzrcr rlrs'alrLaL. 'L'blx Is Iu Lms, LI10L LhL hilllllm LksaLlrlo nfibL Mwl spmxs ur h=L3 Is aA ILasl I lira[shun. 1& I&HMIIL'anLs LILY.lgn LM8ULa[rsball he n--srK II!'rblr Gu rrtapLxixmol'all Imgawpn andlur dramagc IaLIIILy vnLluo Lhls pmJaL Lhat do ml Iall wwJL7 Orr pr1W iciKwL of m=puian LLsLncL Lrr ACLI L}_Tbc dL31gn Lmgmocr shall Proykk LL-rulicawm Ibal OLr 1krIhlK:s bavc biro inAalkd m accwd+rrr wrLll dw 2ppm 4:d rk-slgm plain_This adilkmUun will hL rclpmrnl brl;r acLrLihmiL ur ocrupanLy 3s LaauLd liw mry%LmLli�s wKhm drr PmigL 1. 17. At Ehe Lximpk[lom ordw pmjcLE,IbL apphcmMshall be n.3pulkmble LomtrmrL rLL4K-d druurnppLT [hc City Aunpil.AL}Amdardx. 11u3 ri:yNKd druwrog WILLs1 lrc r=1VLd and ap]mil�d prior tit Lhr Issminm i fa LL-rulicampn LIfmcquaLy Lirr any r.UiL7urL-.i wrLlua Lhc pno-jrCL. 1N. A NMLI light plml will orxd lu bL roLlwLLd to IbL Lml a Nn.L;lrnLY]LVLPIans.SLroLL hgbL plan n.Nuvcrn-nl.N arc IlsLcd in n Lluo 6 5 mf Llrc Lmpros'i:=Lmt:4.m L%3r&fur MFLLL I.Igbumg.A aupy urtbL Aaodwdy,can be k nd aJ ILLy1:rwww.nlrnihaurLy�rstlplLhhr_wurkxasryx'.'rd-372 11). I&L'IIy ur Mi'['nllun rupurL's IhaL Lhl'I]wmLT pusl to 11m Lh1}'a M-rk rmmL'L'surely Im dw amourlL ur 125%ur Ibe lolal cxaiLNlnuwun curi Gw all i=n'lIL'EL%L3 LT,waILT and rLUW rnL'mxlructuix pnur mt Final plat s16mahuc.17us sLucLy 1n1I be vcnrrcd by a Imc rLL-m Lmt LNLlrrldlc pruwickA by Ehc owner lu thL CAy_ThL su ly cm bL rypsEcd m Lhr roam ml'm nTL mdhk kuL ur cwda,cash 11L'pL [m hLV L ApplK L must Li IL m apphLalKw1 Gorr sLmAy,which cam bL round m Or: ('Im irnouly l'kwclopairm lL1rre.1mcMwcbs3Lc. FiLxsruLallaA L LLM DLVdUp7MEL LkTVXL:ISM =m mlbffn=Lam at 987 2.211. M.Tlipi;chLy urMcnillanrcqurL3lba[Ole uwrrLT pLre1 Lu ft VigaNvwnmLynwAy m Lbu=miiiinlvr AM ur Ibc kraal txmLaruLKwm cusl Lor all camplcw d m wur,vmuz and ri:w r iinihm la[mc Iirr dwra[.loo oftwu ycarx This sLLraAywill be vcnl"by a Imc ILcm rust L3arrraLc pruwllk:d by Ehc uwrlcr lu Ehr[)[y_TbL surLLYcan hL Prlydall m Lhr rwm of as mLvucdblc koLLT ur OXAL,+a"h L1LpL [m I ri. ! Aryli!LanL must li IL m appbmiKwL roc sL Ey,which cm hi:Fuuad um the Opii rrllw Ly LkvLlopnaml L)LTarinrcntwchmLc. Pkas cxmLa-1 lamd lkY kgwrrcM SLT Kr Gorr mare oLliwlrulLulo aL HX7 7211. V.FINDINGS Conditional Use(UDC 11-5B-6E) The commission shall base its determination on the conditional use permit request upon the following: 1. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. The Commission finds the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meets all dimensional and development regulations of the recommended C-G zoning district. 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian comprehensive plan and in accord with the requirements of this title. The Commission finds the proposed restaurant and drive through use will be harmonious with the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with applicable UDC standards with the conditions noted in Section IV of this report. 3. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. The Commission finds the design, construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed use should be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood, with the existing and intended character of the vicinity and will not adversely change the essential character of the area. El Pollo Loco is not proposing to deviate from the neighboring businesses and nearby residents request to have all businesses closed by 12:00 am. In addition, the subject site is not directly adjacent to a residential use or zone. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2025-0018 Page17 78 4. That the proposed use,if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed,will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. The Commission finds the proposed use will not adversely affect other properties in the vicinity if it complies with the conditions in Section IV of this report. 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools,parks,police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal,water,and sewer. The Commission finds the proposed use will be served by essential public facilities and services as required. 6. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. The Commission finds the proposed use will not create additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. 7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes,materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic,noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. The Commission finds the proposed use will not be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by the reasons noted above. 8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction,loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. The Commission finds the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any such features. 9. Additional findings for the alteration or extension of a nonconforming use: This finding is not applicable. 10. That the proposed nonconforming use does not encourage or set a precedent for additional nonconforming uses within the area; and, This finding is not applicable. 11. That the proposed nonconforming use is developed to a similar or greater level of conformity with the development standards as set forth in this title as compared to the level of development of the surrounding properties. This finding is not applicable. ACTION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed CUP application and finds it in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan,UDC with the conditions included in Section IV. and Findings in V. B. Commission: The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard this item on June 5', 2025.At the public hearing.the Commission moved to approve the subject conditional use permit request. 1. Summary of the Commission public hearing a. In favor: Stephen Shaw b. In opposition:None c. Commenting:None CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2025-0018 ■ Page 18 d. Written testimony: Wade Ramsey,Bainbridge HOA President,reiterating neighboring subdivision would like the business to close prior to midnight with no overnight deliveries. e. Staff presenting application:Nick Napoli f. Other Staff commenting on application:None 2. Key issue(s)of public testimony: a. None 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission: a. The commission ask the applicant about delivery times and the applicant indicated they would try to do deliveries during the day to avoid conflict with the neighboring subdivisions. 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. None CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2025-0018 Page19 80 EXHIBITS Project Area Maps (link to Project Overview) Aerial Legend ,7 Project Location Area of Impact ®Analysis tilvigowl■� *stir ae' rl�l�4, p s or�ri arl ' I piRr AAIR�a�s ia':aiq`R '" � iYAwe •c_' r r� AiKa�, 1 nurpaul I216+44 4 .Cnl... t+ - �F: I - -�Fa.�: e•sg ��.�� .H ?ae lalne� A e 1 r ...t rlmi�mm ean.r.•m - ar. :'w RI AA'1T! 011141 IR R _ _ pp ■des■ . �• dsr�e. e�..e IX sW - i _ '�` �IPIF�aM{4iFrJwl{111+i ♦ - ,p� w 11 U � 1{ i1 AAA 1lQ�!r1�IiY rlifye■/� �I ruieRyir sFnsi+r+ >s?�1'r } a1P1 a IFI iR RAI1No. r1YR� 11'Y ■eea1���A � tlF lri-7 � jai` -�Ir�al�eeyRw yb,*. AE sn :�► �w .�► Ri1tlXRrR11Ff I�';°� °gy o:>1DtE! ';a �y 4A�. atl4gq i _r1IM/ti•atEiSA .sue !F M))lf 7d1 li i 1 quR rri !'�SR r 1RNRwRrR11R�N' dti`eli�/eli tlIdF7tl: '•fl r rb.:'Ji-'4'��w hylsCla/e'i a� �Ia1e��, W. .. lA9tl ,� ,'��F'1lgiCRtlli.!1 -•• 'P+f 7 A,7ili r tr11v y R•�1 �MaRll saepRRA a ,k'dRR6119! �� r a.,7 rw�w��: sWtrilFiPiti�.7 ' • ■Rtl9Is^nr' .Y. P ♦ rr�rtle+"l ray= 7,�nlh� � raR�� r■r rryy ys <iiip it Altltl�l WUN XF�R willF.iy fw F-44r, RON■•���r!!}I Yrr��r.� `i -%w J�Sg0,��aAel111104 A+MfI+J ILK i,ii1�1 F F lie :w9RAF�M1�1 '�' 1e111i Wx ��EVA I y�A6J� R'IRRR{ .r, -'i�XJ..�::rYllN��B�®,emu 1e�AL fifE CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2025-0018 Page 20 81 i�illt C: 'p . •�� t.1 a+drr fE■E •r1111� p' t% all �WOM1111N�ti ��il,ylr '��• peq Mwlilll lln[ IIIMI/• �arr�� ;aal dl"10 MIN1■1►h +.■■■■+t■■■pt ■ �,� 111 ■ i mn „ W CHINDEN • er null'1 nl■n J ` • u null r_ nnn 1 ■nnum=1 live nru ??C emnnnnn! N I- :al I'l■EEIar nuu■q �- I � �p � rruum■ nunra�.�`�p a 1 iiiii 1 Z =::z�4r ':�� r.:'anaer■..n1 ri♦�► • r_-_� q, not/_■r . 1 W ....Ii r Ilu ■ irnunu r►v+ fir•. �C � Ipn q1 r F rnrn■►\ �-�iumura� ++{IIr�. V 1 n1 11 nrr �° r•iEr a _ ��t11\ '■ � ,� ■H-■ rr!!!r■r■s I� In111! __ qr E...;I Il :■:� �1 1111 1! A . y'-�tronlo!►�♦i9 Vuuu Bill .■ ■r11•Iflf i r.ji uw � trill/� r■ 1111� � r ■__ +r Ellrrl 11lr-� ��■I1r ' ♦Y■MIj1�1ii 11.'�fr1 I p nIF�i ._.1llrrl�lllt o�. rurl ; ♦ na11111 `r■ A■r m w a�I I f�. �� f�r �■4a =r� Elllq 'iiuuu'�. .� run nnk C ��•III�r r q �.■InE■ysunm � .it H!!: ■ � � '(t�� :�ahpnu �111I1 IIINO f � anrllr �� /�{_�- In[I Ir'■.� W! rr1■OI1� 7rn H■Err S f}1■r!! '�„3���'� i. ■ 'Qlrllllll�C-`W! � IIIE�Itlrrrl�� r■!■■Ern■Er►► �iiiii • f+t/{ i n■► � _ �111111l♦=/!!!! 1111E-7 n n!!N r r■■■llnW■r�� ��: 1 ■onus■Enrrn�nW ♦1tr11�-url■ � girt=-,'� � ■trrr trio Ili� � ■!!rn r■�iw•�In■n■r■r■rO r■rlRrni Urnr iin►--J��r - '::nor■nr I�.► ►'Illrrli po�■�11�s allnar• � ��•r Ie1�:�� r .■nn■nnnl.plmn H!!!\ + nn..=„=='iiiiiiiii 1� ■nn■nnn .nrWa �IIIrrlrl•ri::■nlul 1: �i�Ql ll!►��Hon■a� nanl p��\ ■nnnlr■r■■r nnn■■ J �{I{•;'�!►emu i�ihC.�ilw • _ I - ■ - � • �.�� ME ". null: ��' s • •►■ l�+r A■N �*� ��_ � _ _ •IN r: . r OC�' .-�2 I��,f�rr�l�r � ., r�-1 ♦Ii��1111 IIHC'� �.i ■IIIaIA� i.•r C �I/// �t ar. `w' A Ir -sell IIIIII •,, _ f�lfl rlAr1/ti `o Nv r_ ��II�a1 -- rl llda 111 1r1111\ ,, 'CHIND.EN� ` /�/ry'•7 SUR1111111i a■n'nn111J IIIIIIl1I�, �1■nnuillllll lull ll �pnnn ul■n■� nT� Illll, i llu gill _' 11111111 nuuu m■r Ellell■nuw p uwa,:.0 nun nuu nqulll 1111111 r ilil�l7 rill■1■nlew ■aa■an�1111111■= r • - o �rrrr ■■■■■■ pp -llrii�rnllll�N ■�=_I Ir!!ram p �=■■_ .rur�■■m: - tI�� '� _ __IIIIIIII.El n IQ� 1.1111'= 'IL ���- ��� r1■EEIII■1glrRa �luummulp 3.u%u;�innal --p 1 - nnnrn nruyair,�`Q1 �� +111FC�,1111111lIIII■ IIErn� till 11111111 �-��'���!1 �", ranralan■■nrl 4• • �!- ► �� � ntll Y����tt.■ �/ t■1 �rlln■EE■ ■i ♦ • •=tea?== '" ;:IIIII111E, nor -r, in � r � +► a• Ir r1: �nn rinuiu►` n■� I-�rorrrlr■�►� `�u ('.)r�_�_���►Ilrn 111112�r■r. •� M rTillll nn11E1111 /`+• u�? 'mnrna� lit NINE _ ���'�� ���--C o11\ ;..■•• .� • �. ♦ n�_�nrnrn■*sir N Illun �[.i1'J_hlj-•=..�I h •;:•p. •�Ir ari� �mnlnnnnlu. ,� h. a �rlunrlrlA Q�rinuu -- j owl �RIr��.�' : :�•.ruu m1i'e lgjal_�■ rr�1;�llt� tlnlnnl►i'��mm� q� R_ -�r�I�V�E.EI IC` ■ ••EII!!IlnH'�'� al ■■r11! Y■rrrNINE t1•'� JII/r►�=1aAQ-tr-�uu�•� �� •.uononr..��E=� ::■w •�A ♦ 4mn 'r.a EIIIIIII Alll►r l uuu° n�1 1 rr �� fr "r parr iiiiiiiii ♦�rrn.r �J.���ak _. .. rinnl krill►a='_�► •III►��a � !a► �:i11n■anrlunr nlrJ gyp_,::! .AHrr n!n.• ■m uneE;�e�m�wl ili Ulli\,f r aar�v��Hiii uuuuul .� •IIn 11H1 Ir111\=1/■. Iurrnllnnnlll nlulu E!r nnW\� r.El•�• �- ++s�11 Inwn!r�ours W■►► F-1 no llrlr a++r■■arHrr � porn •:IinIN■�jn � Qi111111 �1 \Iilu17 r 'r uunnllr►� rann�� �. nnn■oou ■■■■rmn■■rI• ♦lt/11,:■a■•1 A�■Nr p y K t n_ten` +-11�ar1An!:.1•nos■■■nn■n�rinn r�rr11�•m■■a •�^ - e • _ n■lilll Z::n■••a nlrllnl�• IW N uun■■r■nor \arlAt�.■■ ■ ..Or■rEE!■' ■■!A■off! I►lIlirrlrrrHrlr .�_.rrnil 11l.l p■_■a I�r ■ •• Wl i:ur•1rl1unnr 1php=�t�•.�ouout• • ■r!nme■ ■■■r■■1 NEC . ■o:■►E�r r1r1r1■n■■■unrom no■■k■n■r • 1 11 Planned Development Map Legend Project Location C7 Area of Impact ,= City Limits ` Planned Parcels t ®AnalysisHEMM �� , a i- B � -4 1 1ftftf- ---- F H��-J � CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2025-0018 Page 22 83 Subject Site Photos i 0 . CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2025-0018 Page 23 84 Service Accessibility Report Description Location In City Limits Extension Sewer Trunkshed mains < 500 ft.from parcel GREEN Floodplain Either not within the 100 yr floodplain or > 2 acres GREEN Emergency Services Fire Response time < 5 min. GREEN Emergency Services Police Meets response time goals some of the time YELLOW Pathways Within 1/4 mile of current pathways GREEN Transit Not within 1/4 of current or future transit route RED Arterial Road Buildout Status Ultimate configuration (#of lanes in master streets GREEN plan) matches existing ( of lanes) School Walking Proximity From 1/2 to 1 mile walking YELLOW Either a High School or College within 2 miles OR a School Drivability Middle or Elementary School within 1 mile driving GREEN (existing or future) Either a Regional Park within 1 mile OR a Comrnun.u.- Park Wal kability Park within 1/2 mile OR Neighborhood Park with' GREEN 114 mile walking CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2025-0018 Page 24 85 Site Plan(date: 5/24/2025) ��.. . Im4F; ,- ------------------ SHOPPING CENTER +sm as r. 1� I — w:.�.ewe L jaa ___ _ _ -• I o �` vila�ev.vaaanv .'}Is -o — --- --"- ------------ � SITE PLAN • Ci CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2025-0018 Page 25 86 Landscape Plan(date: 4/24/2025) PrFW •�-�^—7racaF~.i.�s�; k � 4 a e�.�r••— '.. ��y E� •a O w mru wre ux.cmeEs Ey C0.�S� .•• b '71'CCC6-•� ••••• '�.ASS;+ems .' ��-aTng �—�e�..:^•�� � � c � F f�LAH�5C14PE ENRREMEM PLAN nFw -- �' ter. LE CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2025-0018 Page 26 87 Building Elevations (date: 4/24/2025) F K� Q - I r NORTH ELEVATIM-REAL WALL RV CHINOEN 6LVD-I w�...- ie r.�ir Pis I WEST ELEVATION-NAIVE THAN s HATEFUL LEOENO A5 �ICshIACs� �� '�� i N I' d C / N d P � �• .i' ra Sou TH EL EVAI ION-SIDE ENTRANCE ��{ •w••• YMu4 n�lh 1 ----------------. !�ICxiJAGE O — - , N N r d d p �iLiw'GL7ii I EEAAST ELEVATION-MAIN ENTRV YATER1AL LEAENR Q.•.+. SERE vaK pru IN •1! t!t Z.1"771il�• r •9IND Wlwx,+ A4 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2025-0018 Page 27 F881 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2025-0018 Page 28 89 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Elite Fitness (H-2025-0021) by Chelsi Spencer, located at 2640 E. State Ave. F90 CITY OF MERIDIAN wl IDIAN;=-- FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND � DAHO DECISION& ORDER In the Matter of the Request for a conditional use permit for an indoor recreation facility in the I-L zoning for Elite Fitness,Located at 2640 E. State Avenue in the I-L Zoning District,by Chelsi Spencer. Case No(s).H-2025-0021 For the Planning& Zoning Commission Hearing Date of. June 51'',2025(Findings on June 26th, 2025) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of June 5r'', 2025, incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of June 5t'',2025,incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of June 5t'',2025, incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of June 26t'',2025,incorporated by reference) B. Conclusions of Law 1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the"Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975,"codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code(I.C. §67-6503). 2. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has,by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian,which was adopted April 19,2011,Resolution No. 11-784 and Maps. 3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 11-5A. 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s)received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed. 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this decision,which shall be signed by the Chairman of the Commission and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S).H-2025-0021 Page 1 F91 upon the applicant,the Planning Department,the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. 7. That this approval is subject to the conditions of approval in the attached staff report for the hearing date of June 5t'',2025, incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application. C. Decision and Order Pursuant to the Planning &Zoning Commission's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 11- 5A and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that: 1. The applicant's request for a conditional use permit is hereby approved in accord with the conditions of approval in the staff report for the hearing date of June 5r'',2025,attached as Exhibit A. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits Notice of Two(2)Year Conditional Use Permit Duration Please take notice that the conditional use permit,when granted, shall be valid for a maximum period of two(2)years unless otherwise approved by the City in accord with UDC 11-513-6F.1. During this time,the applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval,and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground. For conditional use permits that also require platting,the final plat must be signed by the City Engineer within this two(2)year period in accord with UDC 11-5B-6F.2. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11-5B-6.F.1,the Director may authorize a single extension of the time to commence the use not to exceed one(1)two (2)year period.Additional time extensions up to two (2)years as determined and approved by the Commission may be granted. With all extensions,the Director or Commission may require the conditional use comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code Title 11. E. Judicial Review Pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-652 1(1)(d), if this final decision concerns a matter enumerated in Idaho Code § 67-652 1(1)(a), an affected person aggrieved by this final decision may,within twenty-eight (28)days after all remedies have been exhausted,including requesting reconsideration of this final decision as provided by Meridian City Code § 1-7-10, seek judicial review of this final decision as provided by chapter 52,title 67, Idaho Code. This notice is provided as a courtesy; the City of Meridian does not admit by this notice that this decision is subject to judicial review under LLUPA. F. Notice of Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis Pursuant to Idaho Code §§ 67-6521(1)(d) and 67-8003, an owner of private property that is the subject of a final decision may submit a written request with the Meridian City Clerk for a regulatory takings analysis. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S).H-2025-0021 Page 2 92 G. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of June 5', 2025 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S).H-2025-0021 Page 3 93 26th By action of the Planning&Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the day of June ,2025. COMMISSIONER MARIA LORCHER, CHAIRMAN VOTED COMMISSIONER JARED SMITH,VICE CHAIRMAN VOTED COMMISSIONER BRIAN GARRETT VOTED COMMISSIONER ANDREW SEAL VOTED COMMISSIONER PATRICK GRACE VOTED COMMISSIONER MATTHEW SANDOVAL VOTED COMMISSIONER SAM RUST VOTED Maria Lorcher, Chairman 6-26-2025 Attest: Chris Johnson, City Clerk 6-6-2025 Copy served upon the Applicant, the Planning and Development Services divisions of the Community Development Department,the Public Works Department and the City Attorney. By: Dated: 6-26-2025 City Clerk's Office CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S).H-2025-0021 Page 4 94 Exhibit A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT C��fEPIDIAN*,­ DEPARTMENT REPORT HEARING 6/5/2025 Legend - -?� , DATE: Project Location '� _ 0 TO: Planning&Zoning Commission :::Area of impact = City Limits _} FROM: Nick Napoli,Associate Planner Q Analysis —� 208-884-5533 _- m r , E nnapoli@meridiancity.orga APPLICANT: Chelsi Spencer -� 1 SUBJECT: H-2025-0021 Elite Fitness �_��� J�" - r LOCATION: Located at 26401 E. State Avenue, Suite #120 in the NE /4 of Section 8,Townships - - . 3N.,Range IE. (Parcel #R3073781000) PROJECT OVERVIEW Summary Conditional Use Permit request to operate an indoor recreation facility(indoor personal training gym) from Suite 120(3,972 square-foot)in an existing 23,000 square-foot flex building on 1.325 acres of land in the I-L zoning district. Issues/Waivers The Planning and Zoning Commission should carefully consider whether the continued expansion of commercial businesses into industrial-zoned areas is appropriate. Recommendation Staff. Approval with the conditions outlined in Section IV. Decision Commission: Approved. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S).H-2025-0021 Page 5 F951 COMMUNITY METRICS Table 1: Land Use Description Details I Map l Ref.' Existing Land Use(s) Car Warehousing and Office - Proposed Land Indoor Recreation Facility - Use(s) Existing Zoning I-L(Light Industrial)Zoning 0 Adopted FLUM MU-NR (Mixed Use Nonresidential) 0 Designation Table 2: Process Facts Description Details Preapplication 411512025 Meeting date Neighborhood 412212025 Meeting Site posting date 512712025 Table 2: Community Metrics Agency/Element Description/Issue Reference Ada County Highway District Comments Received Yes - Commission Action Required No - Access Existing:E. State Avenue,Local - Street Meridian Public Works Wastewater Distance to Mainline Existing at site Impacts or Concerns No Meridian Public - Works Water Distance to Mainline Existing at site Impacts or Concerns No Note: See section IV. City/Agency Comments&Conditions for comments received or see the public record. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S).H-2025-0021 Page 6 96 STAFF ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code(UDC) General Overview/History The purpose of the MU-NR designation is to designate areas where new residential dwellings will not be permitted, as residential uses are not compatible with the planned and/or existing uses in these areas. For example,MU-NR areas are used near the City's Wastewater Resource Recovery Facility and where there are heavy industrial or other hazardous operations that need to be buffered from residential. The applicant proposes to establish an indoor recreation facilityspecifically, a personal training gym—within a portion of an existing flex building. This building was previously approved through an administrative application(A-2021-0021),consistent with the industrial zoning and planned unit development approved in 1991 (via the Gemtone CUP). That approval allowed a broader range of uses beyond what is typically permitted in the I-L(Light Industrial)zoning district. Although indoor recreation facilities are not standard uses within industrial zones,they may be considered through a Conditional Use Permit. As such,the Planning and Zoning Commission should evaluate whether continued expansion of commercial uses within industrial areas remains appropriate. The surrounding area includes a mix of uses such as a church, offices,flex space,warehousing, employment centers,and other indoor recreation facilities(e.g.,Kl Speed and Flying Pickle). The proposed personal training gym would be located adjacent to offices and near other recreational uses,which suggests it would be compatible with the area's character and offer additional recreational opportunities. Based on these considerations, Staff finds the proposed use to be appropriate within the MU-NR FLUM designation. "Plan for an appropriate mix of land uses that ensures connectivity, livability, and economic vitality."(3.06.02) The proposed use will contribute to the mix of uses in this area and should add to the livability and economic vitality of the community. "Monitor and adjust the amount and mix of industrial,commercial, and office areas needed to meet the employment needs of the City."(3.06.0113) The proposed use will contribute to the mix of uses in this area; however, the desire for industrial and employment uses are diminished. "Encourage and support mixed-use areas that provide the benefits of being able to live, shop, dine,play, and work in close proximity,thereby reducing vehicle trips, and enhancing overall livability and sustainability."(3.06.02B) The subject mixed-use area currently contains office, church,flex space, warehousing, and an indoor recreation facility(KI Speed go-kart track&Flying Pickle—pickleball courts) in the warehouse on the property to the west. The proposed use will provide another recreational opportunity in close proximity to residential neighbors to the west thereby reducing vehicle trips and enhancing livability of the area. "Preserve the industrial base within designated industrial land use areas by discouraging non-industrial uses and focusing on light manufacturing,distribution, flex-space, and base- employment."(3.07.01D) CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S).H-2025-0021 Page 7 97 The proposed use is a non-industrial use requesting a CUP to occupy an industrial land use area approved for flex space. Staff has some concerns about approving another commercial use for an indoor recreation facility(personal training gym) within the vicinity proposed for industrial uses. If approved, this would be the third such use in this building. "Provide,partner, and preserve public and private indoor and outdoor recreation amenities for a diverse range of physical activities." (5.01.01C) The proposed indoor recreation facility offers opportunities for recreation through a personal training gym to the public and will contribute to the range ofphysical activities offered in the City. Table 3: Proiect Overview Description Details History A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review(A- 2021-0021)to construct a 23,000-square foot flex building. Acreage 1.325 Acre Property Site Development and Use Analysis Proposed Use Analysis (UDC 11-2): The proposed use of an indoor recreation facility(indoor gym)is a conditional use in the I-L zoning. The I-L zoning and FLUM designation is meant to provide opportunities for low- impact business areas which typically includes professional offices,research and development, etc. This use adheres to Policy 3.07.02B,which promotes a mix of land uses that ensures connectivity, livability, and economic vitality.While there are several indoor recreation facilities in the area,this indoor recreation facility is more specialized, allowing trainers and clients to have a more privatized training environment with no more than 14 people at the facility at any one time.Additionally,there will be no outside activity. The proposed indoor recreation facility provides a unique neighbor serving use that can be an essential use for residents in the city. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): The proposal meets the dimensional standards for setbacks, landscape buffers,landscape requirements and maximum building height. Specific Use Standards (UDC 11-4-3): A. General standards. LAll outdoor recreation areas and structures that are not fully enclosed shall maintain a minimum setback of one hundred(100)feet from any abutting residential districts. The playing areas of golf courses, including golf tees,fairways, and greens, are an exception to this standard. No outdoor recreation areas are proposed; all activities will take place within the building. 2.No outdoor event or activity center shall be located within fifty(50)feet of any property line and shall operate only between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. No outdoor events or activities are proposed. 3.Accessory uses including, but not limited to, retail, equipment rental, restaurant and drinking establishments, may be allowed if designed to serve patrons of the use only. Noted. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S).H-2025-0021 ■ Page 8 4.Outdoor speaker systems shall comply with section 11-3A-13, "outdoor speaker systems", of this title. No outdoor speakers are proposed. B.Additional standards for swimming pools. Any outdoor swimming pool shall be completely enclosed within a six-foot nonscalable fence that meets the requirements of the building code in accord with title 10, chapter 1, of this Code. Not applicable. C.Additional standards for outdoor stage or musical venue. Any use with a capacity of one hundred(100)seats or more or within one thousand(1,000)feet of a residence or a residential district shall be subject to approval of a conditional use permit. No outdoor stage or musical venue is proposed. DJOutdoor lighting.) Outdoor lighting, including lighted fields, designed for the site shall comply with Section 11-3A-11, "outdoor lighting,"of this title. These standards may be modified through the approval of a conditional use permit. Noted. Design Standards Analysis Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): The site has already been approved under permit A-2021-0021 and no additional improvements will be required. Parking (UDC 11-3): Nonresidential parking analysis A minimum of one(1) off-street parking space is required per 2,000 square feet(s.£) of gross floor area. Based on the 23,000-square-foot multi-tenant buildings, a minimum of 12 parking spaces are required.A total of 49 parking spaces were built with the building, exceeding UDC standards for the I-L zoning. However, these standards are for industrial buildings with industrial users. The parking standards for a commercial building and commercial user, such as an indoor recreation facility, are one (1) off-street parking space per 500 square feet of gross floor area.At staff's request, the applicant provided a parking study to evaluate available parking on the site. Day of the Week Time of Day Spaces Available Monday Morning/Evening 44/32 Tuesday Morning/Evening 39/39 Thursday Midday 41 Friday Evening 34 Saturday Midday/Evening 33/47 With the more specialized nature of this indoor recreation facility and the maximum number of people in the gym being 14, staff is in support of the proposed use. There is also the ability for on-street parking on E. State Avenue if the parking lot were to fill up. Bicycle parking analysis A minimum of one(1)bicycle parking space must be provided for every 25 vehicle spaces or portion thereof per UDC 11-3C-6G;bicycle parking facilities are required to comply with the location and design standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C. Bicycle parking is depicted on the plans submitted with this application that meet the requirements. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S).H-2025-0021 Page 9 F991 Building Elevations (Comp Plan,Architectural Standards Manual): The approved building elevations and perspectives were submitted for the flex building as shown in Section IX.D.As stated throughout this report, these elevations have already been approved through the administrative process and the building is already existing. The submitted elevations are for supplementary purposes only. Transportation Analysis Access (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-3, UDC 11-3H-4): One(1)driveway access is depicted and approved on the overall site plan via E. State Avenue (local street).ACHD and the City has approved the location of the access driveway with the administrative approvals for the overall flex building(A-2021-0021). Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17): There are existing 5-foot wide attached sidewalks along E. State Avenue and N. Hickory Avenue that meet UDC standards. Any damaged curb, gutter,or sidewalk is required to be replaced. Services Analysis Pressurized Irrigation(UDC 11-3A-15): Underground pressurized irrigation water is required to be provided as set forth in UDC 11- 3A-15. Storm Drainage (UDC 11-3A-18): Storm drainage is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-18. Utilities (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-21): Both the Plan and the UDC establish policy and regulations for extending and connecting to City utilities. Goal 3.03.03G of the Plan mandates urban infrastructure be provided for all new developments,including curb and gutter, sidewalks,water and sewer utilities. All utilities for the proposed development are required to be installed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-21. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS& CONDITIONS Meridian Planning Division The applicant shall comply with the site plan,landscape plan, and building elevations approved with A-2021-0021,including the modifications listed below. The proposed project shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-2 for Art, Entertainment, or Indoor Recreation Facility. • Accessory uses including,but not limited to,retail,equipment rental,restaurant, and drinking establishments may be allowed if designed to serve patrons of the use only, and not the general public. • All outdoor recreation areas and structures that are not fully enclosed shall maintain a minimum setback of one hundred feet(100')from any abutting residential districts. The playing areas of golf courses,including golf tees, fairways, and greens,are an exception to this standard. (Ord. 07-1325,7-10- 2007). • No outdoor event or activity center shall be located within fifty feet(50') of any property line and shall operate only between the hours of six o'clock(6:00)A.M. and eleven o'clock(11:00)P.M. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S).H-2025-0021 Page 10 11001 • Accessory uses including,but not limited to,retail,equipment rental,restaurant, and drinking establishments may be allowed if designed to serve patrons of the use only. • Outdoor speaker systems shall comply with section 11-3A-13, "Outdoor Speaker Systems",of this title. The conditional use permit is valid for a maximum period of two (2)years unless otherwise approved by the City. During this time,the Applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval,and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground as set forth in UDC 11-5B-6 A time extension may be requested as set forth in UDC 11-5B-6F. Prior to occupying the space,the applicant shall obtain either a tenant improvement or certificate of occupancy fast track approval from the Building Division. FINDINGS Conditional Use (UDC 11-511-6E) The commission shall base its determination on the conditional use permit request upon the following: That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. The site meets all the dimensional and development regulations of the I-L zoning district for the proposed use. Therefore, the Commission finds the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian comprehensive plan and in accord with the requirements of this title. The Commission finds the proposed use will be harmonious with the Comprehensive Plan in that it will provide an indoor recreation use, which will contribute to the mix of uses desired in the MU-NR Comprehensive designation as desired. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. The Commission finds the design, construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed use with the conditions imposed, should be compatible with other uses in the general vicinity but may moderately change the character of the area due to the limited I-L zoning within the City. That the proposed use,if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed,will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. The Commission finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the proposed use will not adversely affect other property in the area. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S).H-2025-0021 Page I 11011 That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools,parks,police and fire protection, drainage structures,refuse disposal,water, and sewer. The Commission finds the proposed use will be served by essential public facilities and services as required. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. The Commission finds the proposed use will not create additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes,materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic,noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. The Commission finds the proposed use will not be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by the reasons noted above. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction,loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. The Commission finds the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any such features. Additional findings for the alteration or extension of a nonconforming use: Not Applicable. That the proposed nonconforming use does not encourage or set a precedent for additional nonconforming uses within the area; and, Not Applicable. That the proposed nonconforming use is developed to a similar or greater level of conformity with the development standards as set forth in this title as compared to the level of development of the surrounding properties. Not Applicable. ACTION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed Conditional Use Permit per the provisions included in Section IV in accord with the Findings in Section V. Commission: The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard this item on June 5th, 2025. At the public hearing,the Commission moved to approve the subject conditional use permit request. 1. Summary of the Commission public hearing a. In favor: Chelsi Spencer b. In opposition: None C. Commenting: None d. Written testimony: None e. Staff presenting application: Nick Napoli £ Other Staff commenting on application:None 2. Key issue(s)of public testimony: CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S).H-2025-0021 Page 12 [102] a. None 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission: a. None 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. None CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S).H-2025-0021 Page 13 [103] LegendEXHIBITS Project Area Maps (link to Project Overview) Aerial Project Location J' . Area of Impact0 Analysis IIII'°111EIIlil �` .`Y a" . j��•[ - i CITY i •I�iyL ui OF OF • • OF • ORDER CASE • H-2025-0021 r • /f I fil.1.. I mm� `r f I,i..,■In��EEE Il.ln.� W ■■� IN • - • • r � Lr!!..n...EElllll W • L- s 0 II lu FAIRVIEW •I�=�`ja.�R C' ' VI nrrrrn I(I lIIIn11 ♦ .ulluu M r.:C C _ ■ w:�► y�•�•a•�G r *rri�Iii i��A i��1111 i I � a • w••n �!![ •:nfl�iu�dr.�r wall Cf�� . 111 111.I1� �� �• FRANKL-IN ��llqslfliii+���� ��i: i • unun++aiti�'..,dun '+• •■• �\ IN IN lE..uanlnllllllir.![!nail durL/� `anon inronr'rm..� IN IN A-IRVIEW - °-F - ° ng'on I7 1411111 dill 135161, ►q.:i silo INC. I logo IN ZWAl K���i1 F - IIO ■.:wr C ��� ;::vimZ IN ■rlli•'� O IN m�nflc c� 4 cef e - . ° • J FRANKL-IN w - • I II Planned Development Map Legend Project Location Area of Impact ' � r T=' City Limits — Planned Parcels (° ...... ' 0 Analysis - , Q TIT , I o ' 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S).H-2025-0021 Page 16 [106] Subject Site Photos .F, k CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S).H-2025-0021 Page 17 [107] Service Accessibility Report Description Location In City Limits GREEN Extension Sewer Trunkshed mains < 500 ft.from parcel GREEN Floodplain Either not within the 100 yrfloodplain c ? at-es GREEN Emergency Services Fire Response time < 5 min. GREEN Emergency Services Police Meets response time goals most of the time GREEN Pathways Within 1/4 mile of current pathways GREEN Transit Within 1/4 mile Of cur,=it tr is`t rCLl'e GREEN Arterial Road Buildout Status Ultimate configuration (#of lanes in masie =t e-t= GREEN plan) matches existing # of lanes) School Walking Proximity Within 1/2 mile walking GREEN Either a High School or College within 2 miles OR a School Drivability Middle or Elementary Schaal within 1 mile driving GREEN (existing or future) Either a Regional Park within 1 mile OR a Community Park Walkability Parkwithin 112 mile OR Neighborhood Park within GREEN 1/4 mile walking CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S).H-2025-0021 Page 18 108 Site Plan (date: 4/6/2022) A-3 L_ I • s • e L— ,•} z �a z oc Mo per• •.R�,...n• a^cr..ar.•u�o .�,... N� F TF O xd .�m� a,..• &zd _•. rs..a� a w u ��ny��.y.w yo,� •��n. «. y �ys—,yar..-------��� CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S).H-2025-0021 Page 19 11091 Landscape Plan(date: 4/6/2022) PLANTING SOIL NOTES :... T�aal� + PLANTsoHEDULE. ! 1.1 - GENERAL NOTES _ iiIGHT OF WAY LANDSCAPE NOTES - .. ...t. - FR�i'La'!•^... _ E. STATE AVE?&JE m »..,,'....... LANDSCAPE ail• LANDSCAPE SPEUKATIOHS - l\ •-- �_ a •� �` •J.SS.j - .rt ��-�.m .�. - _..... M.��+c .•. »• .`ram .......nrr.�n wr.vW.mr...,,wx.,. —_.. ..�n_� .�wr�u 4 PT DMMBVLOM TI r RlW.MAI IR HTS ..�....,-..,.,....�........m�... ....a.v.v�-�.....-,....�..........-.. .�....m..,m�`....e...� �. »�SFF.SHE�L2 0 PFg IG�.Cb' Rrivi CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S).H-2025-0021 Page 20 11,01 Building Elevations (date: 4/6/2022) r 4 - :-.-..-.-.. - --g M1R{HRFfSLAF. El 14" r O i i ..FAST -•.A U' 9 4 -11Y 4 01 • L OA F ' U - i !- •:, s I � va i �waa CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S).H-2025-0021 Page 21 Fill] C E IDIAN�-- Public Presentation(s) To: Meridian Planning & Zoning Staff and Commission From: Cory L. Thacker (5900 W Us?ck Rd., Meridian, ID 83646 th Date: 9 of June 2025 To Whom It May Concern: When I bought my house in 2013, I thought I found my forever Heaven; I bought a home that was in a rural se?ng but was close to everything. Everyone from delivery drivers to friends and family stated how perfect it was to live in such an idealis?c place, surrounded by nothing but farm ground. Then, my world was recently upended when I was no?fied they would be pu?ng in Hwy 16 necessita?ng the crea?on of the McDermo? Bypass. Why they did not acquire enough property at the ?me, I do not know; the bypass was ran down my western property line crea?ng an intersec?on 242 feet away from my driveway. The problem of having been placed on an already busy corner was complicated when I pointed out that regula?ons state there must be a 300 foot distance from the intersec?on from my driveway as it existed prior to the bypass. I was simply told that they would move my driveway… I have horses and to upend my life because they cannot follow their own rules, plus steal pasture away from my horses… huh? The Dayspring subdivision to my south was announced. At first, I was devastated about the announcement; in addi?on to the Owyhee High School encroaching on my peace with the traffic and never turned off lights of the football field. It dawned on me, my water rights come from the Safford Line that runs right through the Dayspring Subdivision; How will they ensure I get my water I have rights too? The next bit of news, I was told that some of my property would be purchased for the expansion of Us?ck, again… Diminishing pasture for my horses. If I did not want to sell, because of an addi?on to the original Eminent Domain that took place in 2006 during the last housing boom ironically, they would take it because they added eminent domain is appropriate for public access to water and mining… and now a nice path as long as it is parallel to a road. Weird. Long Story Short, I want out of Dodge before it is too late. If my requests are not appropriately considered, I worry I will end up like the SW corner of Us?ck and 10 mile, SW corner of Us?ck and Black Cat, NW corner of Franklin and Black Cat, and so many others. Due to lack of appropriate access, these lots are not viable. They produce no substan?ve value to the city of Meridian in taxes, business development, or aesthe?c appeal. The subdivision Durango is being presented. I would ask that the city of Meridian give due considera?on to the op?ons available to my property which will make my soon to be, over crowded for my taste, corner viable for commercial use. Consider, you have approved commercial use for the surrounding subdivisions and nobody would reasonably want to live on my corner; the only logical use would be commercial. Being that it is only a drain ditch behind my house, a deal may be struck to culvert or ?le said drain ditch making many op?ons available for an access point to the all access point of Us?ck proposed by Durango subdivision. An all access point on the less busy road of McDermo? should not be a problem. Please help me in turning my property into a sellable piece so I can let development occur in peace while I seek my peace elsewhere. Please look at, and approve, the connec?ons allowing access and rezoning of my soon to be annexed property into a useful aesthe?c property to the city of Meridian. I will present my ability to sell my property is based upon access, selling the parcel without the eminent domain purchase, etc… The more the city, and state, impact my property, the more it becomes a horrid place to me; without my requested accesses, which are reasonable requests, the state condemns me to live in a hellish landscape I did not create. 5900 W USTICK RD83646MERIDIAN, ID MY PIECE OF HEAVEN (2013) CLOSER VIEW OF MY HEAVEN 3 CONCERNS 4 IS 300’)242’ CODE –EXCEPTIONALLY TOO BUSY INTERSECTION (SOON TO BE DRIVEWAY TOO CLOSE TO – CONCERNS 5 WATER RIGHTS– CONCERNS 6 EMINENT DOMAIN– EXAMPLES OF CORNER LOTS IN MERIDIAN 7 access matters regardless of the use.redeveloped into useful, job producing, tax generating, service providing uses because You’ll notice these parcels all have something in common: they have not been developed or •find a few.development as mine would be if not granted cross access through Durango but we did It was hard to find many parcels in Meridian that are as isolated from surrounding •DEVELOPMENTSCROSS ACCESS THROUGH NEIGHBORING WITHOUT SW CORNER OF USTICK & 10 MILE 8 SW CORNER OF USTICK AND BLACK CAT 9 NW CORNER OF FRANKLIN AND BLACK CAT 10 NE CORNER OF LINDER AND CHERRY LN.11 I DON’T WANT THIS TO HAPPEN TO MY 12 MCDERMOTTAND EXAMPLES OF CORNER LOTS IN MERIDIAN 13 because they had the access required. of being developed into useful, job producing, tax generating, service providing uses You’ll notice the majority of these parcels have either been developed or are in the process •access through neighboring properties.It was much easier to find these examples as the vast majority of corner lots have cross •DEVELOPMENTSCROSS ACCESS THROUGH NEIGHBORING WITH SOUTHERN CORNERS OF TEN MILE AND PINE 14 SW CORNER OF MCMILLAN AND LOCUST GROVE 15 NE CORNER OF MCMILLAN AND LOCUST GROVE 16 NW 17 CORNER OF MCMILLAN AND MERIDIAN SE CORNER OF MCMILLAN AND 18 LINDER NORTHERN CORNERS OF MCMILLAN AND 19 LINDER CORNERS OF CHINDEN AND BLACK CAT… AND MANY MORE 20 SOLUTION: PROVIDE CROSS ACCESS TO MY 21 SUBDIVISIONCORNER PROPERTY THROUGH THE DURANGO SOLUTION FOR A USEFUL, MARKETABLE, 22 VALUABLE PROPERTY HELP ME GET THE 23 before it becomes something I hate.involved, and I can get out of there space into something useful for all a little bit of planning, we can turn this inconvenient corners of Meridian. With be stuck on one of the most If considerations are not allowed, I will DODGEHELL OUT OF C� E IDIAN Planning and Zoning Department Presentation and Outline h2 Planning and Zoning June 26, 2025Commission Meeting Zoning MapAerialFLUM Zoning MapAerialFLUM Zoning MapAerialFLUM Modify Condition 3d: . Add a plat note stating a blanket crossStrike condition 4bdevelopment. orandwithin the subdivision access easement encumbers all lots - Changes to the Agenda:  Item #4: Durango Subdivision (H-2025-0017) – Applicant requests project is vacated from the agenda and put back on a future agenda at such time as an agreement is reached between the adjacent developer and the City to extend sewer service to this area. st  Item #5: Pine 43 Mixed-Use (H-2024-0071) – Applicant requests continuance to Aug. 21 in order to allow additional time to respond to Staff’s recent questions and comments pertaining to the project. Item #6: Idaho Power McDermott Substation (H-2025-0008) Application(s):  Annexation, Conditional Use Permit Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 2.69 acres of land, zoned RUT, located at SW corner of McMillan Road and N. Owyhee Storm Avenue, located in the NW ¼ NW ¼ SEC 32 4N 1W, Parcel No. S0432212450. History: ROS No. 13689 Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Medium High Density Summary of Request: Annexation of 2.69 acres of land from RUT in Ada County to the R-15 zoning district and a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow the development of an Idaho Power substation. The applicant is proposing the construction of a new Idaho Power substation to enhance the reliability and resilience of electrical service in Meridian and the surrounding areas of Ada County. Currently, customers in this region are served by the Can-Ada Substation in Nampa and the Ten Mile Substation in Meridian. However, rapid and ongoing growth throughout the Treasure Valley has placed increased demand on these existing facilities, leading to service strain and reduced reliability. The proposed substation is strategically designed to accommodate future growth and development, while also alleviating pressure on the existing infrastructure. By re-routing service lines, the new facility will not only serve new residential and commercial customers but also improve service continuity and reliability for current users. The site is proposed to be developed with a substation that includes up to two transformers, each to serve four distribution feeders; up to two breakers beneath the transmission termination structure; up to two metalclad structures, which manage switching of distribution feeders; one small control building, which houses racks of switches and communication equipment; and one transmission dead-end structure, which connects with the transmission line on McMillian Road. Public Utility, Major and Public Infrastructure is permitted use within the R-15 zoning district upon the approval of a Conditional Use Permit and compliance with the specific use standards per UDC 11-4-3-31. Staff has determined the proposed project aligns with these standards and is essential to support the area's long-term utility needs. Access to the property will be via McMillan Road and Owyhee Storm Avenue, to be designed in accordance with Ada County Highway District (ACHD) requirements. These two access points are necessary to safely accommodate the maneuvering of large transport vehicles during infrequent deliveries of major electrical equipment such as transformers, breakers, or metal-clad switchgear to the substation. Under typical operating conditions, a single access point will generally be sufficient to support routine inspection and maintenance activities. The substation yard will be graveled to allow for safe operation of the ground-grid system underneath the surface. The gravel is specific for utility use, typically 3-inch rock that also allows for water drainage. Since no vehicle parking occurs within the substation, the applicant is not proposing to pave the surfaces inside the yard. Although the development of the power substation is located within a residential zoning district, the applicant is proposing a thirty (30) foot landscape buffer to the west and south of the property to mitigate any noise that may be generated from the substation. Although there is no building, that applicant is proposing an eight (8) foot tall pre-cast stamped concrete wall along the McMillian Road and Owyhee Storm Avenue frontages. Staff is requiring the wall extended around the entire substation. Final design is required to comply with the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual and recorded development agreement. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) and Design Review (DES) approval is required prior to building permit issuance. The Comprehensive Plan’s goal is to require appropriate building design, and landscaping elements to buffer, screen, beautify, and integrate commercial, multifamily, and parking lots into existing neighborhoods. The maximum height of fences and walls within residential zoning districts is 6 feet. The applicant is requesting alternative compliance through a separate permit outside of this process to increase the height of the proposed wall and fence to eight (8) feet in order to maintain site security and deter trespassing at a later date upon approval of the annexation. Barbed wire is prohibited in residential districts per UDC 11-3A-7. Commission Recommendation: Approval of the requested annexation with conditions Written Testimony: None Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval of File Number H-2025-0008, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June 26, 2025: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial of File Number H-2025-0008, as presented during the hearing on June 26, 2025, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2025-0008 to the hearing date of \[date\] for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) Item #7: Habit Burger (H-2025-0022) Application(s): Conditional Use Permit Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 1.16 acres of land, zoned C-G, located at 445 S. Innovation Lane. History: In 2020, the subject property was part of a larger application for Ten Mile Crossing to rezone, plat, and modify the existing development agreement to allow for a mixed-use development consisting of a mix of commercial, employment, and residential. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Commercial Summary of Request: The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit for a new approximately 2,426-square-foot restaurant, including a drive-through, and escape lane located within 300 feet of an existing drive-through. The purpose of the Commercial designation is to provide a full range of commercial uses to serve area residents and visitors. Desired uses may include retail, restaurants, personal and professional services, and office uses, as well as appropriate public and quasi-public uses. Multi-family residential may be allowed in some cases, but should be careful to promote a high quality of life through thoughtful site design, connectivity, and amenities. The subject site is one of the multiple commercially zoned and designated properties that surround the intersection of Ten Mile, Franklin, and the I-84 Interchange. There is a variety of commercial uses existing and under construction, with more available as this area continues its build-out. The proposed use of a restaurant with a drive-through is one of the desired uses outlined in the commercial designation of the comprehensive plan. While it was not envisioned that the majority of the frontage lots would develop as drive-throughs (Costa Vida, Chick-fil-A, Café Zupas, etc.), the market has driven them to develop largely as restaurants with drive- throughs. The proposed use, in conjunction with the already approved or constructed uses, satisfies the general Commercial future land use designation for this area. Staff find that the proposed project is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. A minimum of one (1) off-street parking space is required per 250 square feet (s.f.) of gross floor area. Based on the 2,426-square-foot restaurant, a minimum of 10 parking spaces are required. A total of 57 parking spaces are proposed, exceeding UDC standards. The site plan includes two (2) access points from S. Innovation Lane, a private street located on the eastern side of the property. Vehicles accessing the site can do so from the northeast, or southeast and have the option to park in the lot in front of building or proceed northwest to drive-through lane. These lanes are equipped with menu boards for ordering and allow for exiting back to the drive aisle in the southeast direction. The second lane, farthest from the building, serves as an escape lane, leading to the drive aisle along the south side of the building in accord with UDC standards. Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed structure as shown in Section VII.C. Building materials consist of stucco, brick, metal panels, metal awnings, and glazing. The proposed conceptual elevations are not approved. The final design is required to comply with the adopted TM Crossing Design Guidelines. Commission Recommendation: Approval with conditions Written Testimony: None Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2025-0022, as presented in the staff report th for the hearing date of June 26, 2025: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2025-0022, as presented during the hearing th on June 26, 2025, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2025-0022 to the hearing date of ___ for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) Item #8: Mogul Industrial Park Subdivision (H-2025-0006) Application(s): Preliminary Plat Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 88.2 acres of land, zoned I-L, generally located at the northwest corner of Black Cat Road and I-84. History: This overall development (Known as Black Cat Industrial and/or Meridian Commerce Park) consists of five (5) parcels all governed by one Development Agreement (DA #2022-082504). The existing development agreement contains a conceptual development plan consisting of seventeen (17) buildings located within the industrial park. The applicant has 6 buildings completed and a seven soon to start construction. The development agreement does not restrict the property from being subdivided. The applicant is proposing that only two of the existing five parcels be included in the subdivision. This is due to the property boundary adjustments that have occurred (PBA-2022-0025 and PBA-2025-0004), which have allowed the applicant to reconfigure three buildings on individual properties. The collector roadway (W. Grand Mogul Drive) has been partially constructed and extended through the site. Additional right-of-way will need to be deeded as the phases of the subdivision are completed. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Mixed Use Employment and Low Density Employment Summary of Request: The applicant is proposing a preliminary plat consisting of 11 building lots across 88.2 acres within the I-L zoning district. The plat excludes the parcels containing the St. Luke’s building, Building J, and Building M. Development is proposed to occur in three phases. Each phase includes the construction of the 10-foot detached multi-use pathway along Grand Mogul Drive, as well as the full installation of the street landscape buffers along I-84, Grand Mogul Drive, and north/south collector road corresponding to that proposed phasing plan. The subject properties are annexed with the Light Industrial (I-L) zoning designation, which allows for a variety of uses. The narrative discusses the existing and proposed buildings will be industrial buildings with industrial users. Currently, the existing Development Agreement limits certain activities, specifically prohibiting “storage facility, self-service” and vehicle impound sales and repair unless conducted entirely indoors. This restriction aims to support industrial users and job creation. The property will remain subject to the same Development Agreement provisions, along with the restrictions in UDC 11-2C-2. Access is proposed via the extension of W. Grand Mogul Drive, a collector street from N. Black Cat Road, an arterial street. W. Grand Mogul Drive shall be extended to the west boundary of the site to connect with the future north/south collector roadway prior to the certificate of occupancy being issued for Lot 3, Block 2. Additionally, a portion of the north/south collector shall be constructed in accordance with the TMISAP street section C prior to certificate of occupancy on Lot 3, Block 2. Direct lot access to Black Cat Road and Grand Mogul Drive is prohibited except for access specifically approved for this application or by ACHD. Commission Recommendation: Approval with conditions. Staff recommends removal of condition of approval and modify condition 3 to change the wording from and to or. Written Testimony: Issues: Extension of the north/south collector roadway. ACHD has approved the location proposed by the applicant. Staff recommends it shift to the east as shown in the exhibit. Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval of File Number H-2025-0006, as presented in th the staff report for the hearing date of June 26, 2025: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial of File Number H-2025-0006, as presented th during the hearing on June 26, 2025, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2025-0006 to the hearing date of ____for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) Item #9: AOCI Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment (H-2025-0029) Application(s): Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Summary of Request: The City of Meridian Planning Division is applying for a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment (CPAM) to Amend the City’s 2019 Comprehensive Plan. This amendment modifies the boundaries of the Future Land Use Map (FLUM), along with a subsequent request to Ada County to re-establish the boundaries of the Area of City Impact (AOCI). The intent of the amendment is to align the City’s AOCI with the adopted Idaho State Code §67-6526, Areas of Impact, as amended in the 2024 legislative session. Per section 67-6526 of Idaho Code, areas of impact boundaries are required to be within two miles of a city’s municipal boundary. The subject amendment would remove 38 parcels, totaling 507.34 acres (more or less), which are over two miles from municipal boundaries from the City’s FLUM and AOCI. Additionally, the amendment would add one parcel 5.06 acres (more or less) of land and generally located at 12504 W Amity Road to the City’s FLUM and AOCI. The proposed designation on the FLUM of the subject addition is Medium Density Residential (MDR). The proposed amendment does not modify any policies or text of the current City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan. Written Testimony: None Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval of File Number H-2025-0029, as presented during the hearing on June 26, 2025, for the following reasons: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial of File Number H-2025-0029, as presented during the hearing on June 26, 2025, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2025-0029 to the hearing date of June 26, 2025 for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) Item #10: 2025 UDC Text Amendment (ZOA-2025-0001) Application(s): UDC Text Amendment Summary of Request: T he proposed updates include a variety of modifications, additions, and clarifications to Chapters 1 through 5 of the Unified Development Code (UDC). Additionally, some are clean-up items that have been identified since the last code amendment cycle. Key proposed changes include: 1. UDC 11-1A-1: Definitions – Introduction of new definitions and revisions to existing ones for improved clarity and consistency. 2. UDC Table 11-2A-4: Dimensional Standards for the R-2 District – Clarification of the interior side setback requirements in the R-2 zoning district. 3. UDC 11-3A-7: Fences – Repeal and replace the existing fence code. 4. UDC 11-3F: Private Streets - Revisions to allow private streets for single-family and townhome developments, regardless of whether they are gated or mew community. 5. Chapter 4: Specific Use Standards – Updates to various specific use standards, including those for drive-throughs, secondary dwellings, flex space, and home occupations. These changes have been reviewed collaboratively through the UDC Focus Group to ensure alignment with City goals and stakeholder input. All proposed text changes to the UDC and supporting documents are included in the public record. To reduce the overall size of the report and enhance its readability for the public, Commission, and Council, the exhibits were intentionally excluded from the report. However, all related materials can be accessed by following the link provided in the Exhibits section below. Commentary explaining the purpose of each proposed modification or addition to the code is included in the corresponding table. NOTE: Additional changes are anticipated as this application moves through the public hearing process. Staff is updating the fencing graphics and making minor edits to the private street standards, which should be ready prior to the Commission hearing. These changes have been reviewed collaboratively through the UDC Focus Group to ensure alignment with City goals and stakeholder input. In summary, City Staff believes the proposed changes will make the implementation and use of the UDC more understandable and enforceable. Written Testimony: Tyler Martin, MArk Bottles, Corey Barton and Will Goede in opposition of the proposed flex space standards regarding the ratio between office/retail and the warehouse. Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval of File Number ZOA-2025-0001, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June 26, 2025: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial of File Number ZOA-2025-0001, as presented during the hearing on June 26, 2025, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number ZOA-2025-0001 to the hearing date of June 26, 2025 for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) W IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing (Continued from 6-5-2025) for Idaho Power McDermott Substation (H-2025-0008) by KM Engineering, LLP., located at SW corner of McMillan Rd and Owyhee Storm Ave. Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2025-0008 A. Request: Annexation of 2.69 acres of land from RUT in Ada County to the R-15 zoning district. B. Request: Conditional Use Permit to allow the development of an Idaho Power Substation. 112 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE : June 26, 2025 ITEM # 6 PROJECT NAME : Idaho Power McDermott Subdivision ( W2025 = 0008 ) I wish to testify Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing ( mark X ( Please Print ) HOA ? if yes ) Hy 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 June 26, 2025 McDermott Substation0008-2025-H Project Purpose grow.tocontinueselectricityfor demandastraditioncontinue thatushelpof Owyhee Storm Avenue and McMillan toat the southwest corner substationa buildtoplanWeand surrounding Ada County area.Meridian toenergyreliableplentiful, deliveredsafelyhasPower Idahogenerations,For Project Objectives from the existing 230kV transmission line poles along McMillan Road.McDermott Substation will connect to the existing Northside Substation with a new 138kV wire hung Idaho Power’s Eastern Treasure Valley Electrical PlanProposed substation will accommodate new growth and will relieve existing facilities.Meridian.Ada Substation in Nampa and Ten Mile Substation in -Customers in area are currently served by CanMeet electrical growth demands with a new substation Owyhee Storm Ave Project Features end structure-One transmission deadOne small control building structuresmetalcladUp to two transmission termination structure. Up to two breakers beneath the four distribution feeders.Up to two transformers, each to serve  Idaho Power Substation in Meridian at Amity and Eagle Roads Project Features Idaho Power Substation in FruitlandRoadsPolelineIdaho Power Substation in Pocatello at Eldredge and Request approval of barbed wire for all fencing to meet operational security requirements.on the west and south boundaries of site.chainlinkRequest approval of Standards Evaluation Conditional Use Standards–6 -5B-11§Annexation Standards–3 -5B-11§Proposed driveways into the site will be surfaced with a dustless material•Outdoor storage areas and/or outside activity areas will be screened from McMillan and Owyhee Storm•Public utility, major; and public infrastructure–31 -3-4-11§6 (Conditional Use Permit Standards):-5B-11§3 (Annexation Standards), and -5B-11§infrastructure), 31 (Public utility, major; public -3-4-11§Sections is in compliance with the Ada County CodeThis application residents and businesses are met.term utility needs of Meridian’s existing and future -Coordinate with service providers to ensure the long, Goal 3.08:supports Meridian’s Comprehensive PlanThis application  Landscape Plan Station 37 dB https://www.faa.gov/noise/aviation_noise/fundamentals_of_noise -Source buildingNearest -210 feet >1 dB37 dBpropertyEdge of –135 feet 5 dB43 dBInside Substation–6 ft 37 dB65 dB-59Location from SourceTransmission LineTransformer Substation Magnetic 1.1 Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) -International Commission on Nonhttps://docs.idahopower.com/pdfs/Safety/EMFbrochure.pdf-Source 500 feet9.311.07400 feet11.881.09300 feet8.91.16200 feet17.451.1100 feet18.891.05Substation Fence3.854.11ICNIRP Guideline41672000Location from Sourcefield (Volts/meter)Substation Electric Field (milligauss) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT C��fEPIDIAN*,,--, DEPARTMENT REPORT HEARING 6/26/2025 Legend - DATE: Project Location TO: Planning&Zoning Commission ::: Area of fmpact �= City Limits i FROM: Linda Ritter,Associate Planner O Analysis 208-884-5533 Iritter@meridiancity.org APPLICANT: Stephanie Hopkins, KM Engineering, LLP SUBJECT: H-025-0008 Idaho Power McDermott Substation Annexation and CUP LOCATION: SW corner of McMillan Road and N. Owyhee Storm Avenue, located in the NW '/4 NW'/4 SEC 32 4N 1 W,Parcel No. SO432212450 I. PROJECT OVERVIEW A. Summary Annexation of 2.69 acres of land from RUT in Ada County to the R-15 zoning district and a Conditional Use Permit(CUP)to allow the development of an Idaho Power substation. B. Issues/Waivers The applicant will be requesting alternative compliance to increase the height of the proposed wall and fence to eight(8)feet in order to maintain site security and deter trespassing at a later date upon approval of the annexation. C. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the requested annexation per the conditions of approval included in Section IV in accord accordance with Findings in Section V. D. Decision City of Meridian I Department Report 1. Project Overview 113 I1. COMMUNITY METRICS Table 1: Land Use Description Details Map Ref. Existing Land Use(s) Vacant - Proposed Land Use(s) Public infrastructure - Existing Zoning RUT VII.A.2 Proposed Zoning R-15 Adopted FLUM Designation Medium High Density Residential VII.A.3 Proposed FLUM Designation NA Table 2: Process Facts Description Details Preapplication Meeting date 1/7/2025 Neighborhood Meeting 2/26/2025 Site posting date 5/22/2025 Table 3: Community Metrics Agency/Element Description/Issue Reference Ada County Highway District • Comments Received Yes/Staff Report - • Commission Action Required No - • Access McMillian Road existing arterial - • Traffic Level of Service Better than E - ITD Comments Received No comments IV.F Meridian Public Works Wastewater IV.B • Distance to Mainline Sewer available at the site • Impacts or Concerns See Public Works site specific conditions J Meridian Public Works Water IV.B • Distance to Mainline Water available at the site - • Impacts or Concerns None Note: See section IV. City/Agency Comments&Conditions for comments received. City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics ■ Figure 1: One-Mile Radius Existing Condition Metrics Reference Parcel:S0432212450 Date Retrieved:2025/4/ 14 Parcel Count Parcel Acreage Infill Indicator: Surrounding Area 1,4755 1,85 76% vot aty ® City Limits 582.4 ■ Not City Household Household& Population Growth Households 02020 Population Change:87.5°I° Population ■Growth (Household and Population Change since 2010 Decennial) 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 Use Types Residential Addresses All Addresses ■ Single-family Multi-family is 0% 0% 1aa% ® Commercial Preliminary Plats (last 5-years) Conditional Use Permit(last 5-years) Proposed I Proposed Pending Pending Approved Approved 500 1000 1500 0 100 200 300 ■ Single-family ❑ Multi-family City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics 115 >� Single-family y 2.00 1,000 1.50 (AResidential Parcel Diversity a 1.00 41 500 U E3 Parcel Count 0.50 L a.a� a Average Acres 0.00 0.00 0 R-2 R-4 R-15 Average Single-family Density by Zoning Average 15.00 V 13.88 L DensityResidential Net 10.00 - . 6.91 �.38 p 5.00 0 3.99 0.00a.aa Dwelling Units 1 Acre R-2 R-4 R-8 R-15 Notes: See VIII.Additional Notes&Details for Staff Report Maps,Tables,and Charts. Fieure 2:ACHD Summary Metrics Level of Service Planning Thresholds 1. Condition of Area Roadways Traffic Count is based an Vehicles per hour(VP'H) Roadway Frontage Functional PM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Classification Traffic Count Level of Service McMillan Road 330-feet Minor Arterial 386 Better than°E" Owyhee Storm Avenue 305-feet Collector 230 Better than"D" *Acceptable level of service for a two-lane minor arterial is°E"(575 VPH). *Acceptable level of service for a two-lane collector is°D"(425 VPH). 2. Average Daily Traffic Count(VDT) Average daily traffic counts are based on ACHD's most carrent traffic counts_ • The average daily traffic count for McMillan Road east of McDermott Road was 6,747 on January 25,2024_ + The average daily traffic count for Owyhee Storm Avenue south of McMillan Road was 4,321 on January 25, 2024. Notes: See VIII.Additional Notes&Details for Staff Report Maps,Tables,and Charts. City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics 116 Figure 3: Service Impact Summary Service Impact Tools Ready Marginal i Caution �\00a y�\te Qo\`Le rs'a �ta��•� a��0� �\� \Q``e \� e1`� Qa� (-P 00 b° Notes: See VIII.Additional Notes&Details for Staff Report Maps,Tables,and Charts. City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics ■ III. STAFF ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code(UDC) A. General Overview The Future Land Use Map(FLUM)designates the area proposed to be annexed as "Medium High Density"This designation allows for a mix of dwelling types including townhouses, condominiums,and apartments. Residential gross densities should range from eight to twelve dwelling units per acre. These areas are relatively compact within the context of larger neighborhoods and are typically located around or near mixed use commercial or employment areas to provide convenient access to services and jobs for residents. Developments need to incorporate high quality architectural design and materials and thoughtful site design to ensure quality of place and should also incorporate connectivity with adjacent uses and area pathways, attractive landscaping and a project identity. The applicant is requesting to zone the property R- 15. The applicant is proposing the construction of a new Idaho Power substation to enhance the reliability and resilience of electrical service in Meridian and the surrounding areas of Ada County. Currently, customers in this region are served by the Can-Ada Substation in Nampa and the Ten Mile Substation in Meridian. However,rapid and ongoing growth throughout the Treasure Valley has placed increased demand on these existing facilities, leading to service strain and reduced reliability. The proposed substation is strategically designed to accommodate future growth and development,while also alleviating pressure on the existing infrastructure. By re-routing service lines,the new facility will not only serve new residential and commercial customers but also improve service continuity and reliability for current users. This use is permitted within the R-15 zoning district upon the approval of a Conditional Use Permit and compliance with the specific use standards for both Public Utility,Major and Public Infrastructure. The proposed project aligns with these standards and is essential to support the area's long-term utility needs. Table 4: Pro aect Overview Description Details History ROS No. 13689 Physical Features Vacant Lot Acreage 2.50 acres B. History The property resides within Ada County and is currently zoned RUT. The property owner did a one-time property division on October 26, 2022,to create this 2.50-acre lot. See Record of Survey below. C. Site Development and Use Analysis 1. Existing Structures/Site Improvements (UDC 11-1): The property is currently vacant,the applicant is proposing to construct,maintain,and operate an electrical substation on an undeveloped parcel of land in northwest Meridian. The new McDermott Distribution Substation will connect to the existing electrical grid and provide increased capacity and reliability to existing and new customers in Meridian,Ada County,and the surrounding area. The applicant will need to submit a Certificate of Zoning Compliance(CZC)and Design Review(DES)application for review and approval prior to building submittal. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 118 2. Proposed Use Analysis (UDC 11-2 and 11-4-3-31): The proposed use"public infrastructure"requires a conditional use permit for the R-15 zoning district. A. Accessory uses directly related to the maintenance and fueling of vehicles (including,but not limited to,truck and trailer washing, fuel pumps,garages for minor repair)may be allowed. Not applicable B. Installation of underground fuel tanks shall require written approval from the Idaho Division of Environmental Quality, Idaho Department of Water Resources, and the appropriate fire authority. Not appliable as the applicant is not proposing underground fuel tanks. C. No portion of the outside storage areas and/or outside activity areas may be visible from any highway,interstate,gateway corridor,principal arterial, or minor arterial as herein defined. Staff determined no outside storage will be visible from the roadways and this will be a condition of the permit. D. All driveways into and through the facility and any open area with a driving surface shall be surfaced with a dustless material including,but not limited to,asphalt, concrete, pavers or bricks. Staff determined the all driving surfaces are being constructed with dustless material. E. For any use requiring the storage of fuel or hazardous material,the use shall be located a minimum of one thousand(1,000)feet from a hospital. Staff determined the facility is located at a minimum of 1,000 feet from a hospital. 3. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): The proposal will be required to meet the dimensional standards for setbacks,parking requirements,maximum building height,landscape buffers and landscape requirements and for the R-15 zoning district and the requirements of UDC 11-4-3-31 Public Utility,Maj or; and Public Infrastructure. D. Design Standards Analysis 1. Structure and Site Design Standards (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-19): The applicant is proposing to develop the site with a substation that includes the following: up to two transformers, each to serve four distribution feeders;up to two breakers beneath the transmission termination structure;up to two metalclad structures,which manage switching of distribution feeders; one small control building,which houses racks of switches and communication equipment; and one transmission dead-end structure,which connects with the transmission line on McMillian Road). The substation yard is graveled to allow for safe operation of the ground-grid system underneath the surface. The gravel is specific for utility use,typically 3-inch rock that also allows for water drainage. Since no vehicle parking occurs within the substation,there will be no paved surfaces inside the yard. 2. Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): i. Landscape buffers along streets A 25-foot landscape buffer is required along McMillan Road and a 20-foot landscape buffer along Owyhee Storm Avenue. Both street buffers will include a ten(10')foot wide City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 119 1 detached sidewalk/multi-use pathway and landscaping in accordance with the requirements of the UDC. The applicant will need to revise the landscape plan to meet UDC-11-3B-7, if the unimproved street right-of-way is ten(10) feet or greater from the edge of pavement to edge of sidewalk or property line,the developer shall maintain a ten- foot compacted shoulder meeting the construction standards of the transportation authority and landscape the remainder with lawn or other vegetative ground cover. ii. Landscape buffers to adjoining uses Although the development of the power substation is located within a residential zoning district, the applicant is proposing a thirty(30)foot landscape buffer to the west and south of the property to mitigate any noise that may be generated from the substation. iii. Tree preservation Per UDC 11-3B-10,the applicant shall preserve existing trees four-inch caliper or greater from destruction during the development. Mitigation shall be required for all existing trees four-inch caliper or greater that are removed from the site with equal replacement of the total calipers lost on site up to an amount of one hundred(100)percent replacement(Example: Two(2)ten-inch caliper trees removed may be mitigated with four 5-inch caliper trees, five(5)four-inch caliper trees, or seven(7)three-inch caliper trees). Deciduous specimen trees four-inch caliper or greater may count double towards total calipers lost,when planted at entryways,within common open space, and when used as focal elements in landscape design. iv. Storm integration Per UDC 11-3B-11,the applicant shall meet the intent to improve water quality and provide a natural, effective form of flood and water pollution control through the integration of vegetated,well designed stormwater filtration swales and other green stormwater facilities into required landscape areas,where topography and hydrologic features allow if part of the development. Development will be required to meet UDC 11-3B-11 for stormwater integration. v. Pathway landscaping Landscaping for pathways shall meet the requirements outlined in UDC 11-3B-12. The applicant is required to provide a landscape strip a minimum of five(5) feet wide shall along each side of the pathway. Designs are encouraged in which the width of the landscape strip varies to provide additional width to plant trees farther from the pathway, preventing root damage. The minimum width of the landscape strip shall be two (2)feet to allow for maintenance of the pathway. The landscape strips shall be planted with a mix of trees, shrubs, lawn, and/or other vegetative ground cover. The applicant is proposing landscaping along the multiuse pathways along McMillian Road and Oywhee Storm Avenue. 3. Parking (UDC 11-3C): i. Residential parking analysis Not applicable ii. Nonresidential parking analysis As there is no building and this is an unmanned site,parking spaces are not required. Bicycle parking analysis As there is no building and this is not a manned site, bicycle parking is not required. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 120 4. Building Elevations (Comp Plan 5.01.02D,Architectural Standards Manual): Conceptual elevations were submitted for the proposed substation as shown in Section VII.D. Although there is no building, that applicant is proposing an eight(8)foot tall A pre-cast stamped concrete wall along the McMillian Road and Owyhee Storm Avenue frontages. Staff is requiring the wall extended around the entire substation. Final design is required to comply with the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual and recorded development agreement. The Comprehensive Plan's goal is to require appropriate building design, and landscaping elements to buffer, screen, beautify, and integrate commercial, multifamily, and parking lots into existing neighborhoods. 5. Fencing (UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): All fencing constructed on the site is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11- 3A-7. The applicant is proposing a pre-cast stamped concrete wall along the McMillan Road and Owyhee Storm Avenue frontages. The applicant is also proposing a chain-link fence with barbed wire along the west and south boundaries. However, barbed wire is prohibited in residential zoning districts.As the proposed substation will eventually be surrounded by residential development, staff recommends that the applicant install the pre-cast stamped concrete wall along all sides of the substation for consistency and compliance with residential standards. E. Transportation Analysis 1. Access (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-3, UDC 11-3H-4): The applicant is requesting access points on W. McMillan Road and N. Owyhee Storm Avenue, to be designed in accordance with Ada County Highway District(ACHD) requirements. These two access points are necessary to safely accommodate the maneuvering of large transport vehicles during infrequent deliveries of major electrical equipment such as transformers, breakers, or metal-clad switchgear to the substation. Under typical operating conditions, a single access point will generally be sufficient to support routine inspection and maintenance activities. 2. Multiuse Pathways (UDC 11-3A-5): Multiuse pathways shall be constructed in accord with the city's comprehensive plan, the Meridian Pathways Master Plan, the Ada County Highway District Master Street Map and Roadways to Bikeways Master Plan. 3. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17): All sidewalks constructed as part of this proposal are required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17. The applicant is proposing a ten (10)foot wide detached sidewalk/multi-use pathway along McMillian Road and Owyhee Storm Avenue frontages. F. Services Analysis 1. Waterways (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-6): Not applicable 2. Pressurized Irrigation(UDC 11-3A-15): The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water(UDC 11-3B-6). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single- City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 121 point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single point connection is utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 3. Storm Drainage (UDC 11-3A-18): An adequate storm drainage system is required in all developments by the City's adopted standards, specifications, and ordinances. Design and construction shall follow best management practices as adopted by the City as outlined in UDC 11-3A-18. Storm drainage will be proposed with a future Certificate of Zoning Compliance application and shall be constructed to City and ACHD design criteria. 4. Utilities (Comp Plan 3.03.03G, UDC 11-3A-21): Ensure development is connected to City of Meridian water and sanitary sewer systems and the extension to and through said developments are constructed in conformance with the City of Meridian Water and Sewer System Master Plans in effect at the time of development.All utilities are available to the site. Water main,fire hydrant and water service require a twenty foot(20) wide easement that extends ten (10)feet past the end of main, hydrant, or water meter. No permanent structures, including trees are allowed inside the easement. Comprehensive Plan policy 3.03.03G requires urban infrastructure be provided for all new developments, including curb and gutter, sidewalks, water and sewer utilities. IV. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. Meridian Planning Division I. A Development Agreement(DA)is required as a provision of annexation of this property. Prior to approval of the annexation ordinance, a DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian,the property owner(s) at the time of annexation ordinance adoption, and the developer. A certificate of zoning compliance application will not be accepted until the annexation ordinance and development agreement are approved by City Council. Currently, a fee of$303.00 shall be paid by the Applicant to the Planning Division prior to commencement of the DA. The DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning Division within six(6)months of the City Council granting the annexation. The DA shall, at minimum,incorporate the following provisions: a. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the concept plan and conceptual building elevations included in Section VII and the provisions contained herein. b. Other than the access specifically approved with this application,direct lot access is prohibited to McMillan Road and Owyhee Storm Avenue. c. Future development of the site shall comply with the ordinances in effect at the time of development. d. Development of the subject property shall comply with the R-15 standards listed in UDC 11-2A-7 and UDC 11-4-3-31 Public Utility,Major, and Public Infrastructure. e. No portion of the outside storage areas and/or outside activity areas may be visible from the roadways. City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions 122 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1. Outdoor lighting shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-11. Lighting details shall be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application that demonstrates compliance with these standards. 2. The landscape plan shall be revised to meet UDC -11-3B-7, if the unimproved street right-of- way is ten(10)feet or greater from the edge of pavement to edge of sidewalk or property line, the developer shall maintain a ten-foot compacted shoulder meeting the construction standards of the transportation authority and landscape the remainder with lawn or other vegetative ground cover. 3. The applicant shall submit an alternative compliance request for the 8-foot tall stamped concrete wall along all boundaries of the site for review and approval. Barbed wire is prohibited in residential districts per UDC 11-3A-7. 4. Provide a 30-foot landscape buffer to the south and west side of the property per the approved site plan. 5. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance(CZC) and Design Review application shall be submitted and approved for the proposed wall prior to submitting a building permit application. The design of the site and structures shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19;the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. 6. The Applicant shall comply with all conditions of ACHD. 7. Staff's failure to cite all relevant UDC requirements does not relieve the applicant from compliance. 8. The conditional use permit is valid for a maximum period of two (2)years unless otherwise approved by the City. During this time,the Applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval,and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground as set forth in UDC 11-513-6. A time extension may be requested asset forth in UDC 11-5B-6F. B. Meridian Public Works Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1. All dry utilities need to be at least 4' from the water main. Power poles need to be at least 5' from the Water main. 2. No permanent structures are allowed in easements including covered parking,light poles and trees. Correct all areas that apply. 3. Engineer to verify if there is a well onsite. If a well is located on the site it must be abandoned per regulatory requirements and proof of abandonment must be provided to the City. General Conditions of Approval 1. Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department. 2. Per Meridian City Code(MCC),Extension of sewer mains to and through the site is not required as part of this application,per direction from the City Engineer. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5. 3. The applicant shall provide easement(s) for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way(include all water services and hydrants). Sewer/water easement varies City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions 123 depending on sewer depth. Sewer 0-20 ft deep require a 30 ft easement, 20-25 ft a 40 ft easement, and 25-30 ft a 45 ft easement. Ensure no permanent structures (trees,bushes, buildings, carports,trash receptacle walls, fences,infiltration trenches,light poles,etc.) are built within the utility easement. Submit an executed easement(on the form available from Public Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor,which must include the area of the easement(marked EXHIBIT A)and an 81/2"x I I"map with bearings and distances(marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. 4. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year- round source of water(UDC 11-313-6). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized,the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 5. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC. 6. All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals,or drains, exclusive of natural waterways,intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. 7. Any wells that will not continue to be used must be properly abandoned according to Idaho Well Construction Standards Rules administered by the Idaho Department of Water Resources. The Developer's Engineer shall provide a statement addressing whether there are any existing wells in the development, and if so,how they will continue to be used, or provide record of their abandonment. 8. Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections(208)375-5211. 9. All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. 10. Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process,prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. 11. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 12. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 13. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 14. Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill,where footing would sit atop fill material. 15. The design engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. 16. The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions 124 been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 17. At the completion of the project,the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. 18. A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting.A copy of the standards can be found at h!Ltp://www.meridiancily.org/public works.aspx?id=272. 19. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a performance surety in the amount of 125%of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer,water and reuse infrastructure prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 20. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20%of the total construction cost for all completed sewer,water and reuse infrastructure for duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. C. Meridian Park's Department 1. The project developer shall design and construct multi-use pathways consistent with the location and specifications set forth in the Meridian Pathways Master Plan Map and Master Pathways Plan Document Chapter 3). Any proposed adjustments to pathway alignment shall be coordinated through the Pathways Project Manager. Interactive Pathway Map 2. Prior to final plat approval the applicant shall dedicate a public access easement for the detached multi-use pathways within the landscape buffers along W. McMillan Rd. and S. Owyhee Storm Ave. Easements shall be a minimum of 14'wide(10'pathway+2'shoulder each side). Easement need only be dedicated to the City for multi-use pathways that lie outside the public ROW. Use standard City template for public access easement. Submit all easements online through Citizen's Access Portal. 3. Construct multi-use pathways per paving section based on existing site conditions as recommended by project civil engineer in accord with UDC 11-3A-8 and 11-313-12. Prior to final approval the applicant's engineer shall provide written documentation that the pathway segment was constructed per the recommended specifications. 4. The owner(or representative association) of the property affected by each public access easement shall have an ongoing obligation to maintain the multi-use pathway. D. Idaho Department of Environmental Quality(DEQ) https:llweblink.meridiancity.oLylWebLinkIBrowse.aspx?id=389735&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCit X City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions 125 E. Ada County Highway District(ACHD) https:llweblink.meridianciU.oLglWebLinkIBrowse.aspx?id=389735&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCit X F. Idaho Transportation Department(ITD) https:llweblink.meridiancity.orQ/WebLinkIBrowse.aspx?id=389735&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCit X G. Ada County Development Services https:llweblink.meridiancity.org WWebLinkIBrowse.aspx?id=389735&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCit X H. Irrigation Districts 1. Nampa&Meridian Irrigation District https:llweblink.meridianciU.oLvlWebLinkIBrowse.aspx?id=389735&dbid=0&repo=Meridia Lclu V. FINDINGS A. Annexation(UDC 11-513-3E) Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Stafffinds the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designates the site as Med-High Density Residential(`MHDR'). In accordance with this designation, Idaho Power has requested annexation and zoning to R-15 zoning designation. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Stafffinds the planned use of the subject property is a substation that will be operated and maintained by Idaho Power. The UDC identifies the proposed use as 'public infrastructure" that is permitted in the R-15 zone with the approval of a CUP. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; Stafffinds annexation with an R-15 zoning designation will not be detrimental to public health, safety, and/or welfare. Idaho Power is committed to the safety, health, and welfare of their employees, customers, and the communities that they serve. Proposed site design, fencing and vegetation has been designed to ensure the security of the substation while providing an attractive facility. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to, school districts; and Stafffinds the annexation of the subject property and the proposed use of a substation will not impact the delivery of public services by any provider. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. Stafffinds the annexation of the site is in the best interest of the City as it will facilitate the expansion of Idaho Power's service in this area and throughout the Treasure Valley. City of Meridian I Department Report V. Findings 126 B. Conditional Use(UDC 11-5B-6E) The commission shall base its determination on the conditional use permit request upon the following: l. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. Stafffinds the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed substation and provide adequate space to safely operate and maintain the facility. 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian comprehensive plan and in accord with the requirements of this title. Stafffinds the proposed substation is in accordance with the goals and policies found in the City's Comprehensive Plan. 3. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. Stafffinds the proposed substation is an integral part of the landscape, similar to other types of infrastructure that deliver essential services to our communities. Idaho Power is proposing to make every effort to keep the property compatible with the character of the area. The design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the substation will complement the existing agriculture and residential character and the intended medium high density residential character by improving the capacity ofldaho Power's operations to effectively serve existing and future customers in the area. The applicant is proving a site obscuring wall and landscaping around the perimeter of the site to screen the operation. 4. That the proposed use,if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed,will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. Stafffinds the proposed substation will be located entirely on private property.A combination of site obscuring fencing and a landscape buffer will be installed around the perimeter of the site, ensuring that the substation will not negatively impact neighboring properties. The proposed Idaho Power substation will enhance service to local customers and positively affect the surrounding area. 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools,parks,police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal,water,and sewer. Stafffinds the proposed Idaho Power substation will be served adequately by essential public facilities required for the operation of the facility. 6. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. Stafffinds the substation will not create additional costs for public facilities and services.As the proposed Idaho Power substation operations will improve the economic welfare of the community. 7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes,materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic,noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. Stafffinds the proposed Idaho Power substation will not produce excessive traffic, noise, smoke,fumes, glare or odors as traffic will be limited to Idaho Power employees only.Idaho City of Meridian I Department Report V. Findings 127 Power employees typically visit a substation once a month. No excessive noise will be generated during the operations of the proposed substation.Any operational noises will not exceed 65 dB(decibels)per the Code of Federal Registry Section 24.An analogy of 65 dB sound level would be a normal conversation at a three(3)foot distance. No other activities will be occurring at the site. 8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. Stafffinds the subject parcel has been used as agriculture and no natural, scenic, or historic features were identified. 9. Additional findings for the alteration or extension of a nonconforming use: Not Applicable 10. That the proposed nonconforming use does not encourage or set a precedent for additional nonconforming uses within the area; and, Not Applicable 11. That the proposed nonconforming use is developed to a similar or greater level of conformity with the development standards as set forth in this title as compared to the level of development of the surrounding properties. Not Applicable VI. ACTION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the requested annexation per the conditions of approval included in Section IV in accord accordance with Findings in Section V. B. Commission: Pending C. City Council: Pending City of Meridian I Department Report VI. Action 128 ' 1 1 . - low ct Location of Impact '+ ---;- - 0 �:. Analysis UJI e•. j U MCMILLAN '' ' r. 140 Legend I . 1 _ rr rrrr rr � � ii�i�rrrrrl Project . . . a f Impact Area • �MMILLAN �� -i������� II V�1p1� IilTIniuli_-l=iln n i E`•�IIl►te l►l-rl l�l•1il,i nllr1llurn nI1lilln lll1lslnulyll1irl�un1lilui1lnr_ill11 rn l.:•,.�. . Analysisnnfin n1uLl umk •�o�I� l r�i l•r ur l�l!►ulrl�lIu�, ��_l���ln��lh uN,lI���luuolIl,Hn�lumll.l 1 m4�f urlI,11�iCw11,S*,i 11l1 zprr! �� nlll ►� iiiul I r r4ri i. � Il N 11 tnul+ti'niln- :_ irn I.G inn N-" r Ilq#1##�`'� llllllll = t -, arnlRlllii:�n - � 1�m1�►�.Y !�I`�� loll!#1 rrrl++i�l a �nnml,� #r s►�-'��� nrrnrr � �� #i• �!#1-`�- 'urrlurul =iriiiiiN+"lurr.�.111E 1 mrrr knn =!.Hill unlnl-n■ml =11im' Ikll u>`nr1� �nqo=_-11111 -uumn J ul glllt Illll��f111111# e TlTnnnn mml, Oil ti oil, Iflf. o 1� nuq, . r - Legend ��� -burl rruurrrn e IIN111�I�rrRrl` i • -Illlu•II � --IIIIl�11111--i all.•Area • ImpactLocation • -lrnr ouRllllllll'�IIIIIIIAnalysis II:� Low r_�II IIIIIIIIIIIIEII'Ilflllnertlr I�IMI�p���i+ l ririiii �L.111-i �rrrrr n�,.,yr+ Reside tial ■nll rAa :O 'Imm � •�- - �- III IP� � � �'�''r'I�II,IIIl1?+ ,11111111 Illllllt< 0 Ie IIIII,IR�7111r1 Illllll III (� •=rif uuuwxl unnl�nnnnr nu ;I, _ minnull Ilum a nnrl'uu _� +nnnnfllu nnn� MCMIL-LAN Il,l,l�i imxlxmurmxlt� �..nxnxnl �"1"r Ir.11j i 11111�_I'Ill�annnl!1 nnl7j Illllll 11111111i 1 p`' ^�=111: ursuli Ilurrnl+■1■nm e■ E= �;=1 �ji3i7 nnxlr7r,lnunuul��t►`," �iRin: o I lnrr►IRrr pn.'' ■:_;�Iu r1Rq 4;nNf11�-.r . ♦y1Lrt 11 Fields tulur/�rf7lil:.. i!l RfgrU�.nllrl+ � '� �hlll l 0 o pnn p'.tn#1 ve_ a; rgrrUrrrly%'tr„rl!#� ��Ill,lllll nm■ q�, Iri�rtli;r�`'=��onuln 4u�i_n == -nn Rom__ i �.llllll'll Med-High Density txu rurru!-: .�. r,r �, -C llllllal 1rr++s'ii NW Residential �rRRlrlr hu nuuy� l Medium - I II 'u„ram �€- =1 'i�� IFIIUI�IIrResidential rl==lnoln A uulltl� 3:3111111111' 11�, aaz �IIIIM+ Illlra�IN fw 11' Y, .. fl,e ill•, �MIIIM .Fr z I MUNNIR 1�lri�crai�� LegendProject Location a of ImpactI�■ = uliriii■nrturi~--►�I�y. _ 11111�11111-C -rlll — - - --�� nwnun -r1x1 111g-rz' City Limitsllllllll' Ry�!f!1!lglElli gllllnrmr��I�Illpl�F� -III11117111#11111111111!� �-__= J^uu1.111i111 Illllll` �/�1►�5•��•5 ___�___' � ol■r<�, Oyu �,ky, �,3�� =Homo �,n�! _f.flli r11■r ■� ��IIHI Planned Parcels 0 Analysis iiii�iiie x3� W aBSG:;" ►�lllllllf<�� xl llllll Mill l,lllrls�Qiul IIlnlm ___onn,ln= Q�= . _[ 1 Illlllllllll Illrlll lllrllllll'1 mr,mn,nr W x.........MIIIIII C -rlllrl' m man,up � Illllllllr llllll���llllll MCMT-LEAN �! _ 111�, I[II� a, mllnllrtnnll �irmn.n ���.--l-Y.■��•6"li'rp_+lil'j�� ; rlllll lllllllli7/f IIIElnlxl ,=��._ _Cq_ xlll Illllrll qlp llllll IIIIMII � I �1 nlx r 49 1�1111111111 ��� ,'�rflxrn.��■#1 1 r rrH '-:' Inl rr►q s a�llfl��f��i�I yiiu Rrrrrrry ■-�Irr, 1 r► 4 tuner/��ntul-..�-_- RN N.r►rU;:�fullrlrr •� III is -nnA^'mn>A c rlrr��, ��h�llfll`,rli'•.,�pp lllllllll " 41N1 v'E 1=== {rnu ;I lilt� ri,rR tlrlfi. ��llllou t ", - tnn rlNrlr!�.nl_Ilffrrrllf, - �IIII�� Rry rl■.uu7»l ullrriiitir _� �111111n ,Y,/R1I1�; Ra� !'Iul , 17ru,a� IlnlH11H\� -- ,INl.►� .=.lnllll►► �=�Illl II ur _�'. �ipil!!1 llllll p�-IIII'� M Irlll! llllll nn IIII tllln■►� Suff=_=lnn JEe=uuunn ".i7[7. �1111111111 1r "'n„ �nnMy � Inun 1N1}• 1' �„1� Y� �11111111 � -�11111111� MIIIIII 5. Map Notes Nearby Recent Preliminary Plats(within last 5-years) H-2018-0075 H-2021-0078 H-2022-0052 H-2022-0056 H-2023-0011 Nearby Recent Conditional Use Permits(within last 5-years) H-2019-0013 H-2019-0133 H-2020-0025 H-2020-0093 H-2021-0065 H-2022-0056 H-2020-0047 B. Site Plan (date: 4/3/2025) I � MCMILLAN RD. ....:...:....:.. - - --------- km ,OF, City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 131 C. Landscape Plan(date: 4/3/2025) �. � ,v `s. ��;err°•...,W �a',F:,.twa uxx��na�, TA '��•J S nCf1�.w.vrt5 V. q 0o a o ooao �. m LANDSCfSPE PLAN F•••v`•^ Y 'L o City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 132 D. Building Elevations (date: 3/5/2025) Lima w: 4 _ T City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 133 •1yy5 1 �k k� k r,. �fJ.Qe rr� �f�p .i y�i"C N 1- �7. 7�• �.i y�,+ �1`��� � � i. Y RIP " •xx•.`A�F� F �ef n .,�y` �+1•F��� ,t+ I{ �Sz a�Ir��'�x � .� _ 1'1.P•! ' �� r ,�4'4�i`«s {r r � `'�r�,-«� +ire# •9 . +•SR .•['_�[r 4 t?iY� � rty-x.� �.y f •'+�' r �' t -a r� =s ��,� - Illjjf�...'°" �• a ,^4�► ~�y:..il' •,t•F•� �d`2!g 4L^? i�A���f j-�"�- '+F- `. +v � 1. �Aw w,s�,•r,,•_. - •. . ' is y-�-, �� � er f � `� ` '� •sue w �+Y - + � .. � �,�5 - f �. ,� .til "�%Ilk a�.` ��'~•r fir'-� !� �b ,�.� +!°tea � _ • >�'+k ;. • •i a - '�.. "`' .fl` •��,�Vic' .,, x ��,.,�`� _ E. Annexation Legal Description& Exhibit Map am E mG. 14EEkING February 19,2025 Project No.22-189 Annexation and Rezone to R-15 Legal Description Exhibit A A parcel of land situated in a portion of the Northeast 114 of the Northwest V4 and the Northwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 32,Township 4 North,Range 1 West,Boise Meridian,Ada County,Idaho and he1ng more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at a found aluminum cap marking the North 114 comer ofsaid Section 32,which bears 589'22'22"Ea distance of 2,645.45 feet from a found aluminum cap marking the Northwest corner of said Section 32; Thence following the northerly Ifne of said Northwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4,589'21'S1"E a distance of 25.00 feet to the centerline of N_Dwhyhee Storm Ave.; Thence leaving said northerly line and fallowing said centerline,5W35'45"W a distance of 330.00 feet; Thence leaving said centerline,N89°22'22"W a distance of 25.00 feet to afound 5/8-inch rehar, Thence N89°22'22"W a distance of 330.00 feet to a found 5/8-Inch rebar, Thence N00°3645"E a distance of 130.00 feet to a found 5/8-inch rebar on the northerly line of said Northeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4; Thence following said northerly line,S8922'22"E a distance of330.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said parcel contains 2,639 acres,more or less,and is subject to all existing easements and/or rights-of-way of record or implied. Attached hereto is Exhibit B and by this reference is made a part hereof. *pL LAND EMS 3$ , a 0 6 a dp� O F kip QlC 1 H Y t15�� 2 19/2025 S725 North Discovery Way•Boise,Idaho 83713•268.639.r's939-kmengllp.com City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits F135] POINT OF BEGINNING rOU NO ALUMINUM CAP NORTH 1/4 CORNER SECTION 32 FOUND ALUL41NUM CAP W. McMillan Rd. NORTHWEST CORNER SEMON 32 BASIS OF BEARING . . . . . . . . . . . . S99'22'22"E 254G.45.. . . • . . . . - 3p 29 S89'22'22"E 330.00' 29 31 32 32 a ° S89'21'51"E N 25,00' � f fV 0 0 60 120 18O < k 0- Plan 5cale: 1"=60' of f� � o y w Rezone Area:2.589±AC �, APW 50432212450 �� p r, Current Zoning:RUT o in Proposed Zoning:R-15 rz o O y Z G I N , 1 25.00' f o _ 3 N89'22'22"W z 25.00' . N89'22'22"W 330.00' �tyhL LAND Unplatted I rn _ nL a N x o M a 06 OF - 8E( HYtA54j FOUND ALUMINUM CAP a I CENTER 1/4 CORNER SECTION 32 Ion N ENGIN -I EERING 4 5725 NORTH 015COVEWY WAY 6015k,EOX 1Mo U713 eeanElzoaI633.6539 Exhibit B kme+,allp.wrn Annexation and Rezone to R-15 Pa7E: February 2025 q PROJECY P-M 2 SHEET: A portion of the NE 1/4 of the NW 114 and the NW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of � 1 OF 1 Section 32,T4N., RIM, B.M.,Ada County, Idaho City of Meridian I Department Report 136 Title: Date:02-12-2025 Scale; 1 inch=60 feet File:Deed Plotter.des Tract 1: 2.689 Acm: 117151 Sq Feet:Closure=nOO.3754c O.00 Fcct: Prccision=11364623: Pcrimctcr=1370 Fcct OOI=s89.2151e 25.00 004=n89.2222w 330.00 002=sN3645w 330.00 005=n003645e 330.00 003=n89.222.2w 25.00 006=s89.2222e 330.00 City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits 137 F. Record of Survey(10/26/2022) RECORD OF SURVEY ROS No.._l?bq FOR A ONE-TIME DIVISION NORTHERN LAND HOLDINGS,LLC A PARCEL OF IANO SITUATED IN A PORTION OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST V4 Of SECTION 32,TOWNSRIP4NORTH,RANGE 1 WEST,WISE MERIDIAN,ADA COUNTY,IDAMO. a . W. Will..Rd3 wen sceN.s.cso Vw mu Ixs+x aaaa�axvx ————————————— ssrxx'xz's zee x5__—___ _________ sR crsr xa'r xo xozz-cessza x i x x x 30 29 SRe'21'x2'E fO Ll-E 2g ___________________ _ser22'11-1 5w-oo'_ 2 � -------------------�4-------------- s its rr PaadR 8 °Rs ii m zsoo.Ac b M>a�oul� rri g� xeazrzz^w sw.00 a I A RRze. `c xn rWxo i=°�xw xEx.x 6t s. �I� ie—�.-- R x�n� .n.xx .� I>: � a - --------------- R' i Dr NBt10'5]"W el2.23' zs. >a'.e i xxe m'(riq p. NOT15'xe'W R3.02'` _—`--n,wl_MleOre�--- i w oouivan-�_ a _____- i 91 _____________ ¢ __-_-xa)•5E'24''W 1w5.3R'_-_--___- �,k�8 x v sieoireiox w 1 T 33/1�crer ixsr.xe.,ironoxz w esev�rxiz `"ioz�=c�esge\ iEGENO REFERENCES CERTIFICATE OF COUNTY RECORDER CERTIFICATE OF SURVEYOR -- U 1 .x x z xrc.i wn cwnr f 4S _ __ x,or ors, irvsmuuwr xxMeex��'D��� rrrs vw is nr RSPassxxnn5u aE sx E, x� o x'wxeo'xFew xrsxwxzxr na.xoxv-aosvuz,rrtavxos or it `rsn rYsi DEREL wo wP'ou�Mve�meo� sNmn, xc+t o 6 o Noxuudx SURVEY NARRATIVE ry `6s62 co o° N vx - .a,x I��eYdre-- y w�+° km N F E R A6 k"— � rxE/a- M vuni[uP - - xn wrs rourvo ro E w rcz�l` �lr FEW�"� wE`�uv.Ta�r9 nv 0 scra5/a- uric uv suesrnx w unroawxeE mrn me xcewm. p0 10 t�2y vmMvmn, - Eo we RSR s City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 138 G. Service Accessibility Report PARCEL S0432212450 SERVICE ACCESSIBILITY Overall Score: 21 8th Percentile Description Location Within 1/2 mile of City Limits YELLOW Extension Sewer Trunkshed mains > 2,000 ft. from parcel RED Floodplain Either not within the 100 yrfloodplain a: = a�- es GREEN Emergency Services Fire Response time < 5 min. GREEN Emergency Services Police Meets response time goals most of the time GREEN Pathways Within 1/4 mile of current pathways GREEN Transit Not within 1/4 of current or future transit route RED Arterial Road Buildout Status Ultimate configuration (#of lanes in master streets YELLOW plan) > existing (# of lanes) & road IS in 5 yr work plan School Walking Proximity Within 1/2 mile walking GREEN Either a High School or College within 2 miles DR a School Drivability Middle or Elementary School within 1 mile driving GREEN (existing or future) Park WaIkability No park within walking distance by park type RED City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits 139 H. Subject Site Photos N. LMw y � r" 1 - - 1 4— City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits Fl 40 VIII. ADDITIONAL NOTES & DETAILS FOR STAFF REPORT MAPS,TABLES,AND CHARTS (link to Community Metrics) A. One-Mile Radius Existing Condition Notes This data is automatically derived from enterprise application and GIS databases, and exported dynamically. Date retrieved notes generally reflect data acquired or processed within the last 30- days.Analysis is based on a one-mile radius from the centroid of the identified parcel. Parcel based data excludes certain properties and represents land as it exists now. Properties considered are only those with a total assessed value greater than 0(i.e. excludes most HOA area,transitional development, government, and quasi government facilities). The following values also constrain included property acreage to reduce outliers and non-conforming instances from distorting averages: R-2<5.0; R-4<2.0; R-8< 1.0; R-15 <0.5; R-40<0.25. Conditional Use Permits and Preliminary plat data likely include duplicate project submittals as they may be for the same project, approved at different times through multiple application types. Consider each independently or review prior application approvals. Some approved entitlements, and particularly older ones,may be constructed. Decennial population counts and household counts are based on the most recent Decennial Census. Current population and current household values are COMPASS estimates,usually for the year previous, and are based on traffic analysis zone boundaries(TAZ's). B. Mixed Use Analysis Notes This data is derived from enterprise application and GIS databases, and exported dynamically. Data considered for analysis are only those areas overlapping the overall Mixed Use boundary area. Mixed Use areas across arterial roadways are distinct, separate, and not considered as they do not meet the mixed use principles in the Comprehensive Plan(e.g.pedestrian safety, transportation efficiency, etc.). Mixed Use parcel areas may be greater or smaller than the future land use area designation boundary due parcel size,configuration,right-of-way, and other factors. Conditional Use Permits and Preliminary plat data likely include duplicate project submittals as they may be for the same project, approved at different times through multiple application types. Consider each independently or review prior application approvals. C. Service Assessment Notes This data represents existing conditions derived from our enterprise application and GIS database, exported through dynamic reporting. The system references the most recent available data from various sources, including sewer main lines, sewer trunksheds, floodplain, fire service areas and response times,police crime reporting,pathway information,existing and planned transit, roadway improvements, school and park proximity, and other resources. The tool provides context for project review,using multiple indicators consistently. Data from similar topics may vary based on different levels of review. The overall score is based on weighted criteria(not a ranked order), and the percentile score compares the parcel to others in the city(higher is better). This tool was developed as a City Council priority and outcome of the 2019 Comprehensive Plan. Scores,whether high or low, are just one data point and should not be the sole basis for decisions. D. ACHD Roadway Infographic Notes The Ada County Highway District utilizes a number of planning and analysis tools to understand existing and future roadway conditions. • Existing Level of service(LOS).LOS indicator is a common metric to consider a driver's experience with a letter ranking from A to F.Letter A represents free flow conditions, and on the other end Level F represents forced flow with stop and go City of Meridian I Department Report VIII. Additional Notes&Details for Staff Report Maps, Tables, and Charts 141 conditions. These conditions usually represent peak hour driver experience. ACHD considers Level D, stable flow,to be acceptable. The LOS does not represent conditions for bikes or pedestrians, nor indicate whether improvements: are possible; if there are acceptable tradeoffs; or if there is a reasonable cost-benefit. • Integrated Five Year Work Plan (IFYWP).The IFYWP marker(yes/no) indicates whether the specified roadway is listed in the next 5-years. This work may vary, from concept design to construction. • Capital Improvement Plan(CIP).The CIP marker(yes/no)indicates whether the specified roadway is programmed for improvement in the next 20-years. City of Meridian I Department Report VIII. Additional Notes&Details for Staff Report Maps, Tables, and Charts 142 V IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Habit Burger (H-2025-0022) by CDR West, located at 445 Innovation Ln. Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2025-0022 A. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a new 2,426 Sq. Ft. Habit Burger including a drive- through and escape lane located within 300 feet of an existing drive-through facility on approximately 1.16 acres of land in the C-G zoning district. 143 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE : June 26, 2025 ITEM # 7 PROJECT NAME : Habit Burger ( W2025 - 0022 ) wish to testify Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing ( mark X if yes ) ( Please Print ) HOA7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WE PI DEPARTMENT REPORT HEARING 6/26/2025 Legend 10 DATE: Project Location ` i TO: Planning&Zoning Commission ..Area of Impact = City Limits FROM: Nick Napoli,Associate Planner Q Analysis 208-884-5533 , - - nnapoli@meridiancity.org APPLICANT: Alena Kriachko - - SUBJECT: H-2025-0022 --� -- Habit Burger Ten Mile M� � __ � _ 'T _ LOCATION: Located at 445 S. Innovation Lane in the West'/2 of the Northwest '/4 of Section 14, Township 3N.,Range 1 W. �. I. PROJECT OVERVIEW A. Summary Conditional Use Permit request for a new approximate 2,426-square foot Habit Burger including a drive-through, and escape lane located within 300 feet of an existing drive-through facility on approximately 1.16 acres of land in the C-G zoning district. B. Recommendation Staff. Approval with the conditions in Section IV. C. Decision Commission: Pending City of Meridian I Department Report 1. Project Overview 144 11. COMMUNITY METRICS Table 1•Land Use Description Details Map Ref. Existing Land Use(s) Vacant/Undeveloped - Proposed Land Uses) Commercial:Restaurant and Drive Through - Existing Zoning -1 C-G VILA.2 Adopted FLUM Designation Commercial VII.A.3 Table 2:Process Facts Description Details Preapplication Meeting date 2/11/2025 Neighborhood Meeting 3/6/2025 Site posting date 6/11/2025 Table 3: Community Metrics Agency/Element Description/Issue Reference Ada County Highway District IVX • Comments Received Yes - • Commission Action Required No - • Access Private Street(S.Innovation) - Meridian Public Works Wastewater IV.B • Distance to Mainline Available at Site • Impacts or Concerns See Public Works Site Specific Conditions Meridian Public Works Water iV.B • Distance to Mainline Available at Site • Impacts or Concerns None Note: See section IV. City/Agency Comments&Conditions for comments received, or see the public record. City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics 145 Figure 1: Service Impact Summary ReadyQ Marginal Caution Odd Qa Notes: See VIII.Additional Notes&Details for Staff Report Maps,Tables,and Charts. City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics 146 III. STAFF ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code(UDC) A. General Overview This property is designated Commercial within the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan on the Future Land Use Map(FLUM). The purpose of the Commercial designation is to provide a full range of commercial uses to serve area residents and visitors. Desired uses may include retail,restaurants,personal and professional services, and office uses, as well as appropriate public and quasi-public uses. Multi-family residential may be allowed in some cases,but should be careful to promote a high quality of life through thoughtful site design, connectivity, and amenities. The subject site is one of the multiple commercially zoned and designated properties that surround the intersection of Ten Mile,Franklin, and the I-84 Interchange. There is a variety of commercial uses existing and under construction,with more available as this area continues its build-out. The proposed use of a restaurant with a drive-through is one of the desired uses outlined in the commercial designation of the comprehensive plan. While it was not envisioned that the majority of the frontage lots would develop as drive-throughs(Costa Vida, Chick-fil-A, Cafe Zupas, etc.),the market has driven them to develop largely as restaurants with drive- throughs. The proposed use, in conjunction with the already approved or constructed uses, satisfies the general Commercial future land use designation for this area. Staff find that the proposed project is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. • "Minimize noise, lighting,and odor disturbances from commercial developments to residential dwellings by enforcing city code."(5.01.01F) Operation of the proposed use should comply with City ordinances pertaining to noise, lighting, and odor disturbances. • "Require pedestrian circulation plans to ensure safety and convenient access across large commercial and mixed-use developments."(3.07.02A). A 10 foot wide pathway is proposed to be constructed within the buffer area along the entire frontage of S. Ten Mile Road, as part of the final plat site improvements approved for TM Center Subdivision No. 1. Additionally, the Applicant is proposing a 5-foot wide pedestrian walkway extending from this pathway along Ten Mile Road. Additionally, the applicant has provided a pedestrian connection to the east that will connect with the future sidewalk on the east side of Innovation Lane. The pedestrian facility provides a connection passing through the drive-through lanes to the front entrance of the building. • "Permit new development only where urban services can be reasonably provided at the time of final approval and development is contiguous to the City."(3.01.0117) City water and sewer service stubs have been provided to this site with the development of the subdivision. • "Plan for a variety of commercial and retail opportunities within the Area of City Impact." (3.05.01J) While the subject property and drive-through are surrounded by several other drive- throughs, the market for drive-throughs continues to be in demand within the city. While this is not the intended vision for the area, it is an allowed use based on the C-G zoning. The proposed drive-through restaurant will contribute to the variety of uses and fast food options on the corner of Ten Mile and Franklin. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 147 Table 4:Proiect Overview Description Details History H-2020-0074 MDA,PP,RZ(DA#2021-089157);FP-2022-0009;PS A- 2022-0188 Physical Features None Acreage 1.16 B. History In 2020,the subject property was part of a larger application for Ten Mile Crossing to rezone, plat, and modify the existing development agreement to allow for a mixed-use development consisting of a mix of commercial, employment,and residential. The subject property has sat vacant since the previous approval. C. Site Development and Use Analysis 1. Proposed Use Analysis (UDC 11-2): The proposed use aligns with the Commercial FLUM designation in the Comprehensive Plan. A restaurant is a principal permitted use in the C-G district,but a drive-through establishment requires approval of a conditional use permit(CUP)when the property is within 300 feet of another drive-through facility, a residential district, or an existing residence in accord with UDC Table 11-2B-3. In this case,the property is within 300 feet of another drive-through facility directly to the north(i.e. Cafe Zupas and Costa Vida). 2. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): Development of the site hall comply with the dimensional standards of the C-G zoning district in UDC Table 11-2B-3. Staff has reviewed the proposed plans and building elevations and they comply with the required standards. 3. Specific Use Standards (UDC 11-4-3): Drive-Through Establishment: The proposed drive-through establishment is subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-11, Drive-Through Establishment. All establishments providing drive-through service are required to identify the stacking lane, menu and speaker location(if applicable), and window location on the site plan. In order for the outside travel lane to function as an escape lane as required for drive- throughs that exceed 100 feet in length, Staff recommends that no stacking is allowed in this area. Signage should be installed notifying patrons not to block the escape lane. The site plan is required to demonstrate safe pedestrian and vehicular access and circulation on the site and between adjacent properties. A sidewalk is proposed along the east side of Innovation Lane to allow for safe pedestrian access to the east and west once it's been developed. Because a private street(Innovation Lane) runs along the eastern boundary of the site that provides access to adjacent properties, a cross-access easement/driveway is not required to be provided to adjacent properties to the north and south. The applicant depicts two (2)pedestrian connections, one from the ten (10) foot multi-use pathway along Ten Mile Road and one from S. Innovation Lane. However, the material for delineating it from the drive aisle was not specified. This shall be specified with the submittal of the certificate of zoning compliance and design review. At a minimum,the plan is required to demonstrate compliance with the following standards: 1) Stacking lanes have sufficient capacity to prevent obstruction of driveways, drive aisles and the public right-of-way by patrons; City of Meridian I Department Report 111. Staff Analysis 148 The site plan accommodates queuing for a minimum of ten (10) vehicles before the pickup window. Based on data provided by the Habit Burger, this appears to be sufficient.According to the applicant, their other locations serve approximately 80 vehicles per day, typically maintaining a queue of around four vehicles, with occasional peaks of eight vehicles. In anticipation of heightened interest during the initial opening period, staff have discussed traffic management with the applicant and recommended implementing temporary traffic control measures to manage potential surges in demand. 2) The stacking lane shall be a separate lane from the circulation lanes needed for access and parking, except stacking lanes may provide access to designated employee parking. The stacking lane is separate from the escape lane and main drive aisles. If the drive-through stacks past the ten (10) car allotment, it will spill into the main drive aisle but will not impede entering or exiting from the property. 3) The stacking lane shall not be located within ten(10) feet of any residential district or existing residence; The stacking lane is not located within 10'of any residential district or residence. 4)Any stacking lane greater than one hundred(100) feet in length shall provide for an escape lane; and The stacking lane is greater than 100 feet from the point of entry to the drive-through window; therefore, the stacking lane exceeds 100'in length and an escape lane is required.An escape lane is depicted on the site plan. 5) The site should be designed so that the drive-through is visible from a public street for surveillance purposes. The drive-through is located on the west side of the building and is visible from Ten Mile Road. Restaurant: The proposed use is also subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3- 49 Restaurant,which requires at a minimum, one(1)parking space to be provided for every 250 square feet of gross floor area.See parking analysis below. D. Design Standards Analysis 1. Structure and Site Design Standards (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-19): Extend or improve streets, drive aisles,cross access easements or similar vehicular and pedestrian connections provided from adjacent properties.No cross-access easements are provided to the properties to the north and south. The subject property will be accessed from a private street on the eastern boundary of the property. Currently, along this eastern boundary there is not a sidewalk, however with future development, there will be a sidewalk on the east side of the private street that will connect with the businesses. The applicant revised their drawings to provide a pedestrian connection to the building from the ten (10) foot multi-use pathway along Ten Mile Road. For lots with frontage on a public street, a minimum of 30%of the buildable frontage of the property shall be occupied by building facades and/or public space. The proposed site design meets this requirement along Ten Mile Road with only a drive-through lane between the building fa(ade and the public street. Parking lots: For properties greater than two(2) acres in size,no more than 50% of the total off-street parking area for the site shall be located between building facades and abutting streets. The proposed site design meets this requirement along Ten Mile Road. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 149 2. Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): i. Landscape buffers along streets A 35-foot wide street buffer is required along Ten Mile Road, an entry way corridor and arterial roadway. The Buffer shall be landscaped per the standards in UDC 11-3B-7C. The proposed landscaping was installed with the final plat for Ten Mile Crossing. The combination of the existing and proposed landscaping exceeds the minimum requirements. ii. Parking lot landscaping Landscaping is required to be provided along all parking areas per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8. The proposed landscape plan does not meet the minimum requirements. The City's Public Works Department required the removal of 4 trees from planter islands due to easements. The applicant shall apply for alternative compliance with their certificate of zoning compliance application to relocate the trees on site.Additionally, the applicant shall provide vegetation coverage calculations with the submittal of the certificate of zoning compliance submittal. iii. Landscape buffers to adjoining uses Landscaping is required to meet the standards of UDC 11-3B-9. The landscape plan meets the minimum requirements. iv. Tree preservation Mitigation shall be required for all existing trees four-inch caliper or greater that are removed from the site with equal replacement of the total calipers lost on site up to an amount of one hundred(100)percent replacement(Example: Two (2)ten-inch caliper trees removed may be mitigated with four 5-inch caliper trees, five(5)four-inch caliper trees, or seven(7)three-inch caliper trees).Deciduous specimen trees four-inch caliper or greater may count double towards total calipers lost,when planted at entryways,within common open space, and when used as focal elements in landscape design. The applicant shall preserve and protect the existing trees in the neighboring properties landscaping buffers.If trees are proposed to be removed, the applicant shall provide mitigation calculations with submittal of the certificate ofzoning compliance application. v. Storm integration Storm drainage is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC I I-3A-18. vi. Pathway landscaping Landscaping is required to be provided along all pathways per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C.No pathways are proposed or required within the site. 3. Parking (UDC 11-3C): i. Nonresidential parking analysis A minimum of one(1) off-street parking space is required per 250 square feet(s.£) of gross floor area. Based on the 2,426-square-foot restaurant, a minimum of 10 parking spaces are required.A total of 57 parking spaces are proposed, exceeding UDC standards. ii. Bicycle parking analysis A minimum of one(1)bicycle parking space must be provided for every 25 vehicle spaces or portion thereof per UDC 11-3C-6G;bicycle parking facilities are required to comply with the location and design standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C.Bicycle parking is shown on the plans submitted with this application that meet the requirements. A City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 150 detail of the bicycle racks shall be provided on the landscape plan submitted with the future Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review Application. 4. Building Elevations (Comp Plan,Architectural Standards Manual): Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed structure as shown in Section VII.C. Building materials consist of stucco,brick,metal panels,metal awnings, and glazing. The proposed conceptual elevations are not approved.The final design is required to comply with the adopted TM Crossing Design Guidelines. E. Transportation Analysis 1. Access (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-3, UDC 11-3H-4): The site plan includes two(2) access points from S. Innovation Lane, a private street located on the eastern side of the property. Vehicles accessing the site can do so from the northeast, or southeast and have the option to park in the lot in front of building or proceed northwest to drive-through lane. These lanes are equipped with menu boards for ordering and allow for exiting back to the drive aisle in the southeast direction. The second lane, farthest from the building, serves as an escape lane, leading to the drive aisle along the south side of the building. 2. Multiuse Pathways (UDC 11-3A-5): An existing multi-use pathway exists along Ten Mile Road,this shall be preserved and protected during construction. 3. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17): The proposed plan was revised to include a pedestrian walkway from the Multi-use pathway along Ten Mile Road. Where pedestrian walkways cross vehicular driving surfaces,they're required to be distinguished from the vehicular driving surface through the use of pavers, colored or scored concrete,or bricks as set forth in UDC 11-3A-19B.4. The site/landscape plan shall be revised to specify the material being used for the connection. If the connection crosses through the drive aisle, it shall be delineated from the driving surface through pavers, colored or scored concrete. F. Services Analysis 1. Pressurized Irrigation(UDC 11-3A-1 S): An underground pressurized irrigation system is required to be installed to provide irrigation in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-15. 2. Storm Drainage (UDC 11-3A-18): An adequate storm drainage system is required in all developments by the City's adopted standards, specifications, and ordinances. Design and construction shall follow best management practices as adopted by the City as outlined in UDC 11-3A-18. Storm drainage will be proposed with a future Certificate of Zoning Compliance application and shall be constructed to City and ACHD design criteria. 3. Utilities (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-21): Ensure development is connected to City of Meridian water and sanitary sewer systems and the extension to and through said developments are constructed in conformance with the City of Meridian Water and Sewer System Master Plans in effect at the time of development.All utilities are available to the site. Water main, fire hydrant and water service require a twenty- foot(20)wide easement that extends ten(10) feet past the end of main,hydrant,or water meter.No permanent structures,including trees are allowed inside the easement. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 151 Comprehensive Plan policy 3.03.03G require urban infrastructure be provided for all new developments,including curb and gutter, sidewalks,water and sewer utilities. IV. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. Meridian Planning Division 1. Future development of this site shall comply with the previous conditions of approval and terms of H-2020-0074 MDA,PP,RZ(DA#2021-089157); FP-2022-0009; PS A-2022-0188 and the conditions contained herein. 2. The site plan and/or landscape plan,as applicable, shall be revised with the certificate of zoning compliance application as follows: i. No stacking is allowed in the outside travel lane that serves as an escape lane; depict signage notifying patrons not to block the escape lane. ii. Signage shall be installed ahead of the western crossing,warning drivers to watch out for pedestrians. iii. All mechanical equipment on the back of the building and outdoor service and equipment areas should be incorporated into the overall design of buildings and landscaping so that the visual and acoustic impacts of these functions are fully contained and out of view from adjacent properties and public streets as set forth in UDC 11-3A-12. iv. Provide details for what material will be used to delineate the pedestrian connections from the drive aisle. v. Apply for alternative compliance for the relocation of the trees that are in public works easements. vi. Install curbing or boulders on the northern property boundary,where there are two existing curb cuts,to prevent the northern property from accessing your site. 3. Compliance with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-49 and 11-4-3-11 is required. 4. Preserve and protect the existing landscaping on the north, south, and west buffers of the site during construction,per UDC 11-3B-10. 5. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application shall be submitted and approved for the proposed use prior to submittal of a building permit application. The design of the site and structure shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19;the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual and with the Development Agreement. 6. The conditional use permit is valid for a maximum period of two(2)years unless otherwise approved by the City. During this time,the Applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval,and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground as set forth in UDC 11-5B-6. A time extension may be requested as set forth in UDC 11-5B-6F. City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions 152 B. Meridian Public Works wLrZA. LQ Delman La Sewer Aao&d&a Site Sn,iil� + Sewer Shod f Lstimaled Prgea fee appiratnn Sewer C RiYs WRRF aodinirLS L3alsnce + PTO)MLC.onsisLenL Yes with WW Maaw Nan%fFadiity Plan r ImpacisfraLr�nLs, f See Public Works SitefMifirCorii:1 ons Vv3tcr C7ist w to WziwL Vr4Ler Available at Ste Scrvbui, FYcr.LanclbrLc + Em imatod Pruj Lrt See apF icnion Water ERLYs Warm Qualiq More FYojeCL(.onsisLenL Yes with Wader Master Flan tyma m ncems Mont NON-PLAT CONDITIONS PLIRI.Ii'VLORKL;IIF.rh RrLtf*!r Site Sp Fc CLtnditiom■E Apprvrr 1_ NLI pL1mm l AML'Iu�can he wrehm ar L 71111 Ll IR UY 17 A.L-" T inimn.'I'll LN 3M]Lldl'% bw ldirip,L-wpi ru,bm.N l 4.7rl'1murL=L,nx=i�dLcp muting hushcs,ctL. 2 An,;uoLo"Walla,SL-wLT rnam ur]LTYiLYx will Ire ruyuin l Lu Ck abardLnu l per Uty ur Mcndiam riwic uNL1 ]_ boy uusLing well inuslL be d3 sLumL�4�x(kd froLn miy bui ldmp IbaL Tummin wild Ylflulm TrLLi ufdiI uo -Lhyr MIL- Ulm Public Rinks 1]LvwL]nLmE.WrIlx LhaL will nut imintimir to Ire mmd maxi hL prupi;dy alrsnrLltmuL�ilrlLlamota kin of ahamdaorn-mi will bu nalurrLTJ ui her suhariauvL Ltr Lhu CiLy.CLIM&LL]dabs L}i ^�lLlrtmcrn of W2LLT]R4-w LnLL'fur abanlimuri LTL '1_ 1:, s nu YNYTSLTLi K pass LbruLLgh infilbmLr Ln_v h6 - S. Provide 2Q'Fm neat%for mains,bydramL lairds and water scrykcs_Fo m moLs should cKtcmd LiF to the and of mmiJlrydramYwabc r me cr and 1 Or beymd iL City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions 153 ❑ciiiicrd fldiLiawsof Approval. I. Appli=Lshall camdioa a wadcrand K erwia xixe acid routiryg wiLh Lhc Anhlic Warlsx r-Taiimen'L 2. Par Meridian CkyCade{MCC}.the 3pplicatshall be respousrlrlc to m=ll scwffmrdwatQ mains to and LbraLkgh LhisdevelolxnurL. Applk=L may be eligible rnrareirnbw.wramL agreement for infrasQuclure enlrantemcm pQ M{'['R 6 S. 3. The applicanc shall r rivide ea%crrwrL(s)fom all public waLcrf war maims outsidenfpublic right of way(include all waLer servllecs and hydranLi). Sewcr w3LVr cmmTormL karies deprndiog an sewer dgL]r.ScwQ 4 2(l ft dip ocquirc a SO R casmwoL,20 25 ft a 40 ft casemenL,and 25 30 ft a 45 fL cascmcoL 111 w noperasaramLSLrurtures(trots,bushes,buildiggs,rarlrars,Lsashreceptacle walks,!cores,iofiltr3Lk a Lrcnnccs,light poles,c1c.)arc built»iLhin Lbe urilily eaMWW OL. Submit aneRxutodea&arn nt{no Lbe form available Cmm J'uMic Wcicks},a lap]dexriEti^n IroEmed by an Edahn Liceoesod}lnfessional Land Surveyor,which must include Lhc area of Lbe easement (cnakedE-IE11131rA}and amS1f2"x1l-map with beiringy.md•iis' {rmribmiH€]Irarrli) for review.Go&echibiLs musLbe scaled,sigood and dated by aPrDreiskmal]and%LncyDr.DO NOT RGCORD. A. the My ofMmidim roquics LhaLpressurii od irrigat6m syxLemKbe suplrlicdlvy ayear rouQd smrQ of walcr(IfDC L 1 313 6).The applicam should be ragLired to uNc any crisLi qg,sudaec w well crataFortfic aryswrce. rfasurfamoruxll source isootauailahle,admSlepoim rarroection lo-thecilinrcy waver syswrn shall he required.rfa single NmLcnrmectim is utilimd, the deve"r will be responsrlrk fire the payment of a ssrnenLs for Lbe comrraro areas pror Ln priortDmcciving deLrlopmcM plan approval. 5_ Amy.iLrucLores Char are allowed to Tcmain shall be subjod 1a evahmLinQ and possible reaakgrmwcrL or streel addressing to be in compliance with M[Y'_ d_ All injgaLitn dlLcbes,canals,lacraks,or drains,exclusive nfaalmal waLcrways,ici LcrmNAin&, cmi iqg L r laying adjmxnL and comtipxv-m 6n the area being subdivided shall be addreswd per llrH'1 1 3A 6. rn performing such%wwLL,Lhc applicant shall comply wiLh Idahn Code 42 1207 and arfy oUwr applicable law arregulation. 7. Amy welisthat will onlrnntituctD1rcusedmusLbepmnperlyahandnoodaccordingto Idaho Well CWS&Udon SLandamds Riles administered by Lhc Idaho Oopm ment DrWaler Rewitums. The Oe loper'x Iingpreerxhal]pni%xLe astatemenaaddresxifygwhether there err any ex6mingS llsio the devclq mcrvL avid ifwN haw they will c=Lituc to be used,a pmVdc mcamd Qrtbclr ahrardmarcol $1. Amy a irtifg soltic sysbarr s withim this praja�L Khali be rcmnvad pa OLy Omdimrice Soctim 9.1 4 and 9 4 R. CooLact 17,entral DkUi t]Leahh for alandoomenL prnoodures and itspoairos(248)375 5211. 9. All irnrxmvemantKTelated to public He,saro[y arid lmaltlr shall be completed prior Lo oecupamy of Lhc sLrucLureK. 10.Aliplb=Lshall be roquiredto pay Pubic Works daaxlopment plan review,and carKfruction imUeaino foes,m ddermirod during Lbe plan review prunes,pTiec to Ibe i%ni mcc ora plan approval Iclter. ]L ILshallbe the rcKponsibiliLy or LbeappliC:amLtomKure Lhalalldevelopment feaum cemrply with dre Americans wiLh Diwbilkics AcLand Lbe fair Ikxuorg Act. 12 AFrlicrnLKhali be rimpocisihle rnrapplicalinQ and comliance wiLh any Seed n 40 PernliLliog dhaL may be required by Lbe Army Carps of rrgineem. 11,Developer shall coardinatc mai Rroc locations witb Lbe Meridian Past 0 rice. 14.C.Dmpaclinn lest results shall be submitted to Lbe Meridian Ruildilyg DcpvimcM for all building pads reocivingcngioecrod backfill,wbara rnMiLgwould saLaiap fill material. 15.The design mgiraer shall be regrind to conify that Lbe KVML ccmLerlioe elevations ae son a micimunaf3foeLabma Lbe higbestekablislredpcalLgroundwa davalion_ This isLneciva LbaL Lbe bdLnm elevation DFthc crawl spa %or hordes is aL least 1 fool alien. 16.The applicants desigQ engine shall be responsible for irrsspedion of aA irrigation aod•'nr drainage facility withim this pmjacLLhaLdo rasL rail under Lhc jurwilsw+afm irigadon district m ACI ID.The desigpenginoer shall provide cerlificalion thaL Lbe EaciliLies havc been iostalled in accordance with the approveddesigo plans.This certification will be roquimsd berorea certiFcaLe ornccupancy is issued rnrarly slru_7wvs within Lbe rrnjcct. 17.At Lhc conlrktinn nfdre pmjocL.Lhc applicant shall be mspnnsble 1D submit mcord drawirr¢s per the Citya MerWiam AuLaCA7D standards. Them xccmd drswmp mrasL be reccivod and apprrrvcd prior to Lbe ismmrce ora ocnificaLkm ofacculrarcy fccaoy sLruauncsvithin the lrrnjocl 1It.A slrootligLLTAM will need trrhe inchded in Lbe civil comstructiotr plans.4tmcL light rlan roquiremeMs arc Iis6od in s Linofi 5 oribe Lnls ,arnurL SLaridards for SVocL L.ightiog A copy or Lho standards cam be fmmd al. w{KLLS.MPq ?id 27-2. 19.The City oFMeridia n roquies OUL the nwncr post Ln Lhc City a p¢fornarmoe surely im Lhc ammmt or izS%ofthe total onnswbrinn ansifor all iodrmplaw mwer,wale and reuse inrr ieLTuctum prior to Foal plat sigaaimc.This surely will he va ifiad by a lima'item cosL estimaw provided by Lhc owocrta Lbe City.The sumclycan be posted in the rormaim irrevctimblc letrcrofccdir,cash deposit em hand.Applicarrt MUKL rile an applicaliem foT sWcly,which carr be fmmd no Lhc C'. r roily OcaxlopmcnL flcpartmmt wclrsite. Pl_asecoaLr L L.aod I']evclnrmentScnicc for more infarmatirm aL k87 221 L. 20.The City a Meridian requires draLdw43wmcr post tnthe CiLya warranLy surely in Lbe amnunLaf 20 ofthe Mal conxwwnion crist for allcnmplcled serer,wwnr and reLyx inframvcturc For duralieo ortwn}'*a�..This surely will be verified by a line iteira cost emianate provided by Lhc owri,n to Lbe Vtry.The.surety coo be To Led in the ram am iaetncable keuer afcrediL,casb dclrusiL or bond.AprlicarrimLBL file an applicalicm foTiwely,srhichcan be fmandon Lhc Comrntmey rkirlolrmed Fkparlmmt wchaile. Pka crroLai:L Land DevclnpmentService far mrrn infmmatirm aL NV 2211. City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions 154 C. Ada County Highway District(ACHD) ACHD NPVIPI :wry{ 7p own*Ktinolk&o CDR 6515 Turn CenjW JJN",SW$116 Qmta WEa.i A WSM Subject MER25-345&H-210254X)?-2 465 5 Innovation Lwv Hahn 13rrger lire+ode Cour*y H4prway DKalc!{ACWD)hm rewwwad" UZFn4 ed appkdllon hx Ihr appik-atla, hem bMO&t a*h83 Oerer-med uket 049re We np impr4VW4rrtS MQWOO W the$d SlnxC{ } The 4pp"nt Sh.911 b@ r4g0red ip 1 P&ytibaf in1;lKtilMe.ItitWli t)t(e For any VWnsr*gatOng the"Me in1poctfoopIrMOd' 00 ACHOrs Itnpeet Fee Adpw&Lralor at imoadfmB'!p Jxbaahmoro If appWAM.a tral6e Imped lee ahrY he asSesyed by ACHDand wlll be due pnor Lo Me rssuarwe at a buikfwMi perrrot by the mad agency. ;his is a separate TwAm process and it is the appkarq's raapoedWy to sublet plan■ereclty to►kCFtl] p#yaygl W b#a DMW OV4 &B plrpr by dr CFn 1e 94rW deirmemd io the fallliowwrg addrer.E Aes Coumty Frry"C%wct Asti:prlr~wd$oMms 5M N.IHF44IW A4etwre 6oi.a.ID 0713 • F94f4r4yrt#to 04 m,rmbm O ova wrtrgn makwv dm ppyr„grit fSFrarxlrrroCa o Feasaresutajecifacharagednalpeid�riorwCk�oterl" c Ail rid pwyrrr4ntR ry Uublrcl to a 9%ptwmving fey o AUI k paymem are suhpe€#to a S1.5d pFoms trig fee 4. SuUme a 4a+4way axmukeh reQu0v for any Propmw drimways prmeway approKh pormm Can be(Gund at hIJWr:.'Ww-AV,,&dahp.Qj:WhqTFm1_ ddpcurnenLA8&16.38245965711FAC4lDO 5. Campty with all ACHD Powcies and ACHD Swidard C xr dibam or Appravw for any improwernents or work in the nght-cf-wry 6. Obtain a pwmit kir any work in Iha rrght-uf-way prior la the mnrt7ursli)n.repair.ur installation ct arry hNbdway Im mv*merrta(tern.NtLof eldewe&.pe,rarnenl vMan",d wawayu,euMm.at.f. connecting you to mare rawcwf,�b"h.WG.Arm-7r74aMwM@rAyr FawID-VWM-m7GO-ra'rVW-■Y7d&-J%W W.rw+Wrdrwary V. FINDINGS A. Conditional Use(UDC 11-5B-6E) The commission shall base its determination on the conditional use permit request upon the following: 1. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. Staff finds the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meets all dimensional and development regulations of the recommended C-G zoning district. City of Meridian I Department Report V. Findings [155] 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian comprehensive plan and in accord with the requirements of this title. Stafffinds the proposed restaurant and drive through use will be harmonious with the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with applicable UDC standards with the conditions noted in Section IV of this report. 3. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. Stafffinds the design, construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed use should be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood, with the existing and intended character of the vicinity and will not adversely change the essential character of the area. The Habit Burger is not proposing to deviate from the neighboring businesses in hours of operation and is not adjacent to existing residential but will be neighboring a future residential use to the east. 4. That the proposed use,if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed,will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. Stafffinds the proposed use will not adversely affect other properties in the vicinity if it complies with the conditions in Section IV of this report. 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools,parks,police and fire protection,drainage structures, refuse disposal,water,and sewer. Stafffinds the proposed use will be served by essential public facilities and services as required. 6. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. Stafffinds the proposed use will not create additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. 7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes,materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic,noise, smoke,fumes,glare or odors. Stafffinds the proposed use will not be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by the reasons noted above. 8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. Stafffinds the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any such features. 9. Additional findings for the alteration or extension of a nonconforming use: This finding is not applicable. 10. That the proposed nonconforming use does not encourage or set a precedent for additional nonconforming uses within the area; and, This finding is not applicable. It. That the proposed nonconforming use is developed to a similar or greater level of conformity with the development standards as set forth in this title as compared to the level of development of the surrounding properties. This finding is not applicable. City of Meridian I Department Report V. Findings [156] VI. ACTION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed CUP application and finds it in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan,UDC with the conditions included in Section IV. and Findings in V. B. Commission: Pending City of Meridian I Department Report VI.Action 157 ' 1 1 ION - SW FRANKL-IN im MEW LA I w � 84 -- n n■ ■■■■m■■■■■■ ��1 - ��','�FRANKL-IN'01 l Innn►j`�nnnnnnl�Inur 1 � � ���, Mo Al 111111111� 11 until � �IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII � � =IIIIII IIIIIIIIII -- fN 1 i■ tt■GY� • _ �■m■ n nn • ■tttt��� MINE '. 11 1111■ 1■1111111 III ► _° IIIIIIIII W -I . _ 111111 , e_ - LLJ 1 Hill H '� °jvll■■n■■■ y� ■■ ■mm■ F�+,fit■ 1 MEN ■.1. • �nnmunnllllllr ��p�lunny m �� �w Q� ,�� 7�1■� ���� 1 ■ t ■ - d nnl� 1� � � ����tr■u► Ilmnaiilll\ea� r � ■.• �.e:.elm 96 nnnnnnnn unmIMln -----_ _ �v ��- " � ■�i �'t`�ir'll- =IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 84 B. Service Accessibility Report Overall Scare: 31 3 8th Percentile Description Location In City Limits GREEN Extension Sewer Trunkshed mains < 500 ft. fron, p-- = GREEN Floodplain Either not within the 100 yr floor:slain c a e4 GREEN Emergency Services Fire Response time 5-9 min. YELLOW Emergency Services Police Meets response time goals most of the time GREEN Pathways 3Nithin 1/4 mile of current pathways GREEN Transit 3Nithin 1/4 mile of current transit route GREEN Arterial Road Buildout Status Ultimate configuration (#of lanes in master street_ GREEN plan) matches existing (# of lanes) School Walking Proximity From 112 to 1 mile walking YELLOW Either a High School or College within 2 miles OR a School Drivability Middle or Elementary School within 1 mile driving GREEN (existing or future) Park WaIkahility No park within walking distance by park type RED City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits 160 C. Site Plan(date: 5/5/2025) 9��ih ! - .- . ror r: -_ . - -- - - - - 16, �' I I...... LIB ': t r. •.. . Ir1L�8 ��a ....•. �, i i � - Y..�_�_�-..._ a`g Ell 152Im �...-�--- 1m AFLUITECTLRM SHE RAH 1 15 p -. ® -- ca 0 — o o a — 0 0 0 1 0 1a o En ED d) AN5 .Ib11P•rev •- C2 City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 161 A Landscape Plan (date: 5/5/2025) -, F-z7- 1: ---zprh. I--,- 4 City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 162] E. Building Elevations(date: 5/5/2025) Y ItllE4 0 EXTERM FAH Ilt1F.f61iL 9CHE IEA F MW i @ � Eq NMI S0.1 f H H-E4AIICN O } :E -- MO O fl g f4F UZTELLIMMH 1 o EKTff iFAH PATERAL SCHFDLEE 1 �:.���.... '3 naem ELEWSTICH 1 0 a �T +J YIESI HtYh110H 1 City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 163 W IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Mogul Industrial Park Subdivision (H-2025-0006) by The Land Group, generally located at the northwest corner of Black Cat Rd and 1-84. Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2025-0006 A. Request: Preliminary Plat to subdivide two (2) existing parcels into eleven (11) building lots across three (3) phases in the I-L zoning district on 88.20 acres of land. 164 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE : June 26, 2025 ITEM # 8 PROJECT NAME : Mogul Industrial Park Subdivision ( H = 2025 - 0006 ) I wish to testify Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing ( mark X f yes ) ( Please Print ) HOA7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (:�WEPIty DEPARTMENT REPORT HEARING 6/26/2025 Legend @ 0 DATE: M Project Location TO: Planning&Zoning Commission Area of Impact = City Limits FROM: Nick Napoli,Associate Planner O Analysis , 208-884-5533 , o nnapoli@meridiancity.org F APPLICANT: Jason Densmer,The Land Group SUBJECT: H-2025-0006 Mogul Industrial Park Subdivision LOCATION: Generally located at the northwest corner of Black Cat Road and 1-84 (Parcels: S 1216141821 and S 121613 120 1)in the east half of section 16, T.3N.,R.1 W. e e 1. PROJECT OVERVIEW A. Summary Preliminary plat to subdivide two(2)existing parcels into eleven(11)building lots in the I-L zoning district on 88.20 acres of land. B. Issues/Waivers Extension of the north/south collector road at the west boundary(see analysis below). C. Recommendation Staff. Approval with conditions. Commission: Pending D. Decision Council: Pending City of Meridian I Department Report 1. Project Overview 165 11. COMMUNITY METRICS Table 1•Land Use Description Details Map Ref. Existing Land Use(s) Industrial Buildings - Proposed Land Uses) Industrial Buildings - Existing Zoning -p I-L(Light Industrial) VILA.2 Proposed Zoning I-L(Light Industrial) Adopted FLUM Designation Mixed Employment and Low-Density Employment VILA.3 Proposed FLUM Designation Mixed Employment and Low-Density Employment Table 2:Process Facts Description Details Preapplication Meeting date 10/22/2024 Neighborhood Meeting 2/4/2025 Site posting date 6/13/2025 Table 3: Community Metrics Agency/Element Description/Issue Reference Ada County Highway District IV.K • Comments Received Yes - • Commission Action Required No - • Access Black Cat Road,an arterial - Grand Mogul Drive,a collector • Traffic Level of Service Black Cat Road:Better than"E" - Meridian Public Works Wastewater IV.B • Distance to Mainline Available at site • Impacts or Concerns See Public Works Site Specific Conditions Meridian Public Works Water TV.B • Distance to Mainline Available at site • Impacts or Concerns See Public Works Site Specific Conditions Note: See section IV. City/Agency Comments&Conditions for comments received or see the public record. City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics 166 Figure 1:ACHD Summary Metrics Level of Service Planning Thresholds 1. Condition of Area Roadways Traffic Count is based on Vehiclas per hour(VPH) Roadway Frontage Functional PM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Classification Traffic Count Level of Service Franklin Road None Principal Arterial 543 Better than"E" Black Cat Road 954-feet Minor Arterial 417 Better than'E" "Acceptable level of service for a five-lane principal arterial is°E" (1,780 VPH)- Acceptable level of service for a two-lane minor arterial is'E"(575 VPH)- Notes: See VIII.Additional Notes&Details for Staff Report Maps,Tables,and Charts. Figure 2: Service Impact Summary ImpactService . . Ready Marginal -\Moo* Caution z`'�o�ye ����t \ooa ��\te 5 o\`oe �r�a� �a��•� o'Z' \Q`\Ae �a�� o o o�� o �- oa�L fro Qa Notes: See VIII.Additional Notes&Details for Staff Report Maps,Tables,and Charts. City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics 167 III. STAFF ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code(UDC) A. General Overview The subject properties fall within the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan (TMISAP) and are designated as Mixed Employment and Low-Density Employment on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The applicant is proposing a preliminary plat consisting of 11 building lots across 88.2 acres within the I-L zoning district. The plat excludes the parcels containing the St. Luke's building, Building J, and Building M. Development is proposed to occur in three phases. Staff recommends that the subject properties be subdivided prior to the issuance of any building permits within the subdivision. If the property isn't subdivided,the applicant will be responsible for installing the remainder of the infrastructure and frontage improvements for the one larger parcel. Each phase should also include the construction of the 10-foot detached multi-use pathway along Grand Mogul Drive and Black Cat Road,as well as the full installation of the street landscape buffers along I-84, Grand Mogul Drive, and Black Cat Road corresponding to that phase. The applicant has indicated a desire to phase these improvements, and based on the submitted phasing plan,they can be implemented in alignment with the three proposed development phases. "Work with the existing industrial businesses to expand or relocate operations in appropriate area"(Goal 2.08.03C). The subject site has been annexed and zoned with the Light Industrial(I-L)zoning. The proposed subdivision will allow for the phased expansion of industrial businesses within close proximity to I-84 and future SH-16. "Plan for industrial areas with convenient access to state highways or the rail corridor,where appropriate"(Goal 3.06.02D). As noted above, the subject subdivision is in close proximity to both I-84 and the future SH-16 expansion. This allows industrial user and freight to have easy access to main transportation corridors in the valley. "Preserve the industrial base within designated industrial land use areas by discouraging non- industrial uses and focusing on light manufacturing, distribution,flex-space, and base- employment"(3.07.011)). While the subdivision does not dictate the uses allowed in the industrial area, the existing development agreement and UDC restrict certain uses to promote industrial users that will generate employment opportunities in the city. Table 4:Proiect Overview Description Details History H-2021-0064 AZ;DA Inst#2022-082504,PBA-2022-0025,PBA-2025- 0004 Phasing Plan 3 Phases Physical Features Rosenlof Drain on the north boundary of the site. Acreage 88.2 Acres Lots 11 Building Lots B. History This overall development(Known as Black Cat Industrial and/or Meridian Commerce Park) consists of five (5)parcels all governed by one Development Agreement(DA#2022-082504) with an amendment(DA#2025-005936)for the recent annexation for Black Cat East(H-2024- 0047). City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 168 The main development agreement contains a conceptual development plan consisting of seventeen(17)buildings located within the industrial park. The applicant has two(2)buildings completed with another four(4)currently under construction. The development agreement does not restrict the property from being subdivided. The applicant is proposing that only two of the existing five parcels be included in the subdivision. This is due to the property boundary adjustments that have occurred(PBA-2022-0025 and PBA-2025-0004),which have allowed the applicant to reconfigure three buildings on individual properties. The collector roadway(W. Grand Mogul Drive)has been partially constructed and extended through the site.Additional right-of-way will need to be dedicated as the phases of the subdivision are completed. C. Site Development and Use Analysis 1. Proposed Use Analysis (UDC 11-2): The subject properties are annexed with the Light Industrial(I-L)zoning designation,which allows for a variety of uses. The narrative discusses the existing and proposed buildings will be industrial buildings with industrial users. Currently,the existing Development Agreement limits certain activities, specifically prohibiting"storage facility, self-service"and vehicle impound sales and repair unless conducted entirely indoors. This restriction aims to support industrial users and job creation. The property will remain subject to the same Development Agreement provisions,along with the restrictions in UDC 11-2C-2. 2. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): The I-L zoning district requires a 35' street setback,20' landscape buffer along collector streets, 25' wide buffer along arterial streets, 50' wide buffer along interstates, and allows height up to 50'. The concept plan and elevations submitted appear to meet these requirements. Any future development shall comply with the I-L dimensional standards listed in UDC 11-2C-3. D. Design Standards Analysis 1. Structure and Site Design Standards (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-19): UDC 11-3A-19 mandates a minimum of forty(40)percent of the buildable frontage of the property shall be occupied by building facades. Based on the applicant's concept plan,it appears to be in compliance with this standard as the buildings frame the W. Grand Mogul Drive. Additionally,the applicant has oriented the parking to meet the requirement of no more than fifty(50)percent of the total off street parking area shall be located between building facades and abutting streets. 2. Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): i. Landscape buffers along streets A 20-foot-wide landscape buffer is required along collector streets(W. Grand Mogul Drive), a 50-foot-wide buffer is required along interstates(I-84), and a 25-foot-wide buffer is required along arterial streets (S. Black Cat Road). The buffer along S. Black Cat Road is addressed through the Certificate of Zoning Compliance(CZC) and Design Review(DES)applications for each individual building and will be installed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. In contrast,the required buffers along W. Grand Mogul Drive and I-84 have not yet been installed for the lots within the subdivision. These will be required as part of the subdivision improvements and implemented with each phase of development. Existing improvements include Grand Mogul Way and landscaping on both sides of the collector beyond the St. Luke's parcel. City of Meridian I Department Report 111. Staff Analysis 169 The applicant is proposing to phase these improvements according to the submitted phasing plan,dividing them across the three planned phases. Additionally,each individual lot will be required to submit a CZC application.Where parking areas abut the 2-foot landscape strip behind the 10-foot multi-use pathway, a minimum of 5 feet of additional landscaping will be required. The applicant shall comply with the vegetation coverage calculations with the final plat to ensure they are meeting the 70%vegetation coverage at maturity with no more than 65%of this coverage coming from lawn or other grasses. These buffers shall be landscaped per the standards in UDC 11-3B-7C. ii. Parking lot landscaping Landscaping is required to be provided along all parking areas per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8. The requirements include 5 ft.perimeter adjacent to streets and islands of at least 50 sq. ft. per every 12 parking spaces. Any parking that does not abut 7 feet of overhang shall have parking blocks. These requirements will be analyzed with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance. iii. Tree preservation A Tree Mitigation Plan should be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance detailing all existing trees and methods of mitigation outlined by the City Arborist before any trees are to be removed as set forth in UDC 11-3B-1OC.5. iv. Storm integration Storm drainage is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-18. Drainage swales shall not be within the landscape buffers along W. Grand Mogul Way. v. Pathway landscaping A minimum of 5 feet of landscaping is required on each side of the multi-use pathway along W. Grand Mogul Way. It appears that 8 feet of landscaping is provided in the parkways along W. Grand Mogul Drive,however,it does not appear there is 5 feet of landscaping on the back side of the pathway. These standards will be evaluated with the final plat application and shall comply with UDC 11-3B-12. 3. Parking (UDC 11-3C): i. Nonresidential parking analysis UDC 11-3C-6 requires one space for every two thousand(2,000) sq. ft. of gross floor area in industrial districts. The original concept plan appears to exceed these standards however,they will be analyzed with the submittal of the certificate of zoning compliance applications. ii. Bicycle parking analysis A minimum of one(1)bicycle parking space must be provided for every 25 vehicle spaces or portion thereof per UDC 11-3C-6G;bicycle parking facilities are required to comply with the location and design standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C. This will be reviewed with the submittal of the certificate of zoning compliance applications. 4. Building Elevations (Comp Plan,Architectural Standards Manual): Building elevations were not submitted with the preliminary plat request. However,the development agreement that governs the site requires development to be consistent with the Meridian Architectural Standards Manual. Staff will evaluate the building elevations for consistency with the ASM,DA, and TMISAP with the submittal of the certificate of zoning compliance and design review applications. City of Meridian I Department Report 111. Staff Analysis 170 5. Fencing (UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): Fencing is not depicted on the concept or landscape plan. Any future fencing shall be in compliance with UDC 11-3A-7 and 11-3A-6. 6. Parkways (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-17): UDC 11-3A-17 requires parkways of a minimum width of 8 feet. The applicant has indicated in their narrative that the parkways are 8 feet in width,however it is not dimensioned on the landscape plan. The parkways shall be dimensioned and a minimum of 8 feet in width in the final plat application. E. Transportation Analysis 1. Access (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-3, UDC 11-3H-4): Access is proposed via the extension of W. Grand Mogul Drive,a collector street from N. Black Cat Road, an arterial street.W. Grand Mogul Drive shall be extended to the west boundary of the site to connect with the future north/south collector roadway with phase 2, as proposed. Additionally, a portion of the north/south collector is required to meet the design standards in the TMISAP,unless otherwise modified by the City and ACHD. To ensure consistency within the development,this the street section has been modified so that it is designed with the same cross-section as Grand Mogul Way consistent with previous actions of the City and ACHD. However,staff has concerns with the proposed alignment of the north/south collector road, as it currently does not extend to the northern boundary of the development. While the applicant has provided an exhibit illustrating how the road could potentially be extended in the future,ultimately connecting to Franklin Road further north, staff believes the alignment should be reconsidered. �Rr_ = Fw. FRANKLIN RD. a a �Pz S.- (NAMPA-PAERIDIAN STING ROS=N_CF DRAIN o IRMATIM 3 d 2 wt o� i I NOT PAI T B2 LS i B2 L2 i B2 Ll I ST LUKES "�� I I I CSC � z --_Y 6RANQ —MAUL o — T m City of Meridian Department Report 111. Staff Analysis 171 Long-range planning efforts,in coordination with ACHD,may lead to a more logical connection to Franklin consistent with the Master Street Map(MSM). Staff recommends shifting the roadway alignment farther to the east on the property, stubbing it at the northern boundary, and aligning it near the eastern edge of the Rosenlof Drain as it heads toward Franklin.This alignment may facilitate a four-legged intersection at Franklin and provide improved access for this property and properties north of the site and east of the Rosenlof Drain. In addition,the MSM anticipates an east/west collector north of the subject development. This planned road would provide access to this site independently of the adjacent property to the west,which may not develop for some time due to limited sewer access.Note: While ACHD has approved the street alignment as proposed by the applicant,staff recommends a shift eastward to better align with long-range connectivity goals. This would also require a significant redesign of the plat. Direct lot access to Black Cat Road,Grand Mogul Drive, and the north/south collector is prohibited except for access specifically approved by this application and ACHD. Three parcels adjacent to the proposed subdivision are not included within its boundaries. Under the original entitlement for Black Cat Industrial, cross-access was planned between parcels both within and outside the subdivision. This cross-access must be preserved, including for the parcels outside the subdivision,as it aligns with the access provisions envisioned in the original entitlement.A copy of the industrial park CCR's were submitted with the subject application that demonstrates cross access remains in place even with these parcels being excluded from the proposed plat. In 2022, a traffic impact study was completed with the previous application and is not required with this application. However,the TIS addressed concerns regarding traffic from this development and it was found that the infrastructure will be able to manage the 2.2 million square feet that will be developed within the broader project. This property was included in that scope. Since this approval,there has been a significant amount of development in the vicinity that is either being built or has been approved. This includes 378,360 square feet of commercial and industrial uses across Black Cat Road as a part of Farmstone(H-2023-0045),256 residential building lots to the northeast as a part of Avani Subdivision(H-2023-0049), 552 Dwelling units as a part of Vanguard Village, 330 single family lots and 240 apartments as a part of Braya Subdivision, and a large amount of commercial,industrial, and residential in the District at Ten Mile,which contribute impacts to the area roadways. These developments also have requirements and restrictions on development until certain road improvements are completed. Specific to this applicant,the development agreement specifies that certain road improvements are required once specific square footage thresholds are reached. Currently,the site features 559,295 square feet of industrial space under development,with more planned. When the total exceeds 960,000 square feet,the following improvements shall be completed prior to 1,500,000 square feet being reached per the DA and ACHD recommendations: Black Cat Road will be widened to five lanes between Grand Mogul Drive and Franklin;the intersection of Black Cat and Franklin must be upgraded; and the McDermott and Franklin intersection will need enhancements, including a two-way left turn lane,unless Franklin has already been widened to five lanes. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 172 The applicant should add a plat note stating a blanket cross-access easement that encumbers all subdivision lots,and the references the recorded CCRs that are place for the development for those parcels that are outside of the plat to ensure cross access is maintained for the entire development. Comprehensive Plan Policy#6.01.02B—"Reduce the number of existing access points onto arterial streets by using methods such as cross-access agreements,access management, and frontage/backage roads,and promoting local and collector street connectivity." 2. Multiuse Pathways,Pathways, and Sidewalks (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-5, UDC 11-3A-8, UDC 11-3A-17): The preliminary plat proposes an extension of the 10-foot multi-use pathway along W. Grand Mogul Road to the western boundary of the subdivision in compliance with the pathway master plan. In addition to this,the applicant shall provide a 10-foot multi-use pathway along the east side of the north/south collector on Lot 3,Block 2. However,the pedestrian connections from the multi-use pathway to the front entrances of each building have not been depicted. The pedestrian connections shall be depicted with the submittal of the certificate of zoning compliance and design review applications for each site. 3. Subdivision Regulations (UDC 11-6): i. Dead end streets ACHD is requiring a temporary cul-de-sac to be located at the terminus of the north- south collector roadway on the western boundary of the subdivision. This will be a requirement on the final plat application. ii. Block face ACHD is requiring traffic calming along W. Grand Mogul Drive. These details will be provided with the final plat application. F. Services Analysis 1. Waterways (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-6): The Rosenlof Drain runs along the northern boundary of the subdivision and was approved to remain open with the annexation of the property. 2. Pressurized Irrigation(UDC 11-3A-15): An underground pressurized irrigation system is required to be installed to provide irrigation to each lot in the subdivision in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-15. 3. Storm Drainage (UDC 11-3A-18): An adequate storm drainage system is required in all developments by the City's adopted standards, specifications,and ordinances. Design and construction shall follow best management practices as adopted by the City as outlined in UDC 11-3A-18. Storm drainage will be proposed with a future Certificate of Zoning Compliance application and shall be constructed to City and ACHD design criteria. 4. Utilities (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-21): Ensure development is connected to City of Meridian water and sanitary sewer systems and the extension to and through said developments are constructed in conformance with the City of Meridian Water and Sewer System Master Plans in effect at the time of development.All utilities are available to the site. Water main, fire hydrant and water service require a twenty- foot(20)wide easement that extends ten(10)feet past the end of main,hydrant, or water meter.No permanent structures,including trees are allowed inside the easement. City of Meridian I Department Report I11. Staff Analysis 173 IV. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS& CONDITIONS A. Meridian Planning Division 1. Future development of this site shall comply with the previous conditions of approval and terms of H-2021-0064(AZ—DA Instrument#2022-082504)and the conditions contained herein. 2. Future development of the proposed lots is required to comply with the dimensional standards I-L zoning districts in UDC Table 11-2B-3, as applicable. The 25-foot-wide arterial street buffer and the 20-foot wide collector street buffer may be placed in an easement rather than a common lot in accord with UDC 11-3B-7C.2a. 2. Fifteen(15)days prior to the City Council hearing,the applicant shall submit a revised preliminary plat that shifts the north/south collector road farther to the east and stubs to the north boundary of the Rosenlof Drain and coordinate with ACHD on the requirements for the crossing over the drain. 3. The final plat shall be revised as follows: a. Depict street sections for W. Grand Mogul Drive and the future north/south collector consistent with Street Section C in the TMISAP with a modification that allows for 8-foot parkways and detached 10-foot wide sidewalks/pathways in lieu of on-street bike lanes as required TMISAP. Streetlights are required at a pedestrian scale (see pg. 3-20, 3-22, 3- 23). b. Depict required street landscape buffers in common lots or on permanent dedicated buffer easements,maintained by the property owner,homeowner's association or business owners' association, as applicable, as set forth in UDC 11-313-7C.2. c. Revise the plat and landscape plans to accurately depict the dimensions of the landscape buffers along W. Grand Mogul Drive and north/south collector road(20-feet wide), S. Black Cat Road(25-feet wide), and I-84(50-feet wide) on the plans. d. Add a plat note stating a blanket cross-access easement encumbers all lots within the subdivision and add a note that references the recorded CCR's in effect for the development. 4. The landscape plan shall be revised as follows: a. Revise the plat and landscape plans to accurately depict the dimensions of the landscape buffers along W. Grand Mogul Drive and the north/south collector road(20-feet wide), S. Black Cat Road(25-feet wide)and I-84(50-feet wide)on the plans; currently both landscape buffers do not accurately depict the landscaping as required by UDC Table 11- 2B-3. b. Depict landscaping within required street buffers in accord with standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C; all required landscape buffers along streets shall be designed and planted with a variety of trees, shrubs, lawn, or other vegetative ground cover. Plant materials in conjunction with site design shall elicit design principles including rhythm, repetition, balance, and focal elements. c. Revise the plat and landscape plans to include the dimensions of the pathways. d. Depict landscaping along all pathways per the standards in UDC 11-3B-12C. A 5' wide landscape strip is required on both sides of the pathway planted with a mix of trees, shrubs, lawn and/or other vegetative ground cover. e. Sidewalks,walkways and pathways shall include dedicated crosswalks at the intersection City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions 174 with all streets of W. Grand Mogul Drive with changes in color,markings,materials, texture and/or surface to distinguish them from the surrounding pavement as set forth in the TMISAP(see pg. 3-28,Crosswalks). 5. With the submittal of each certificate of zoning compliance application,provide a minimum of 5 feet of landscaping when parking abuts the 2 feet of landscaping on the back side of the 10-foot multi-use pathway per UDC 11-313-8. 6. Comply with all of ACHD's staff report conditions of approval. 7. Depict bike racks and pedestrian connections on the plans submitted with the future CZC and Design Review application in accordance with UDC 11-3C-5C. 8. Upon completion of the landscape installation, a written Certificate of Completion shall be submitted to the Planning Division verifying all landscape improvements are in substantial compliance with the approved landscape plan as set forth in UDC 11-313-14. 9. The preliminary plat approval shall become null and void if the applicant fails to either: 1) obtain the City Engineer's signature on a final plat within two years of the date of the approved findings; or 2)obtain approval of a time extension as set forth in UDC 11-6 B-7. 10. Staff s failure to cite all relevant UDC requirements does not relieve the applicant from compliance. City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions 175 B. Meridian Public Works PRE:-FLM'Cr<1N1?L'1 IONS wastewater nestamoe to 5ewwr snmr Awallable at site 5eFVKAS Sewer shed « Est fated Project Sae application Sewer kRU's WHRI Declining Balance + Project Consistent Yes wuh ww Master PLan/Facilwity Plan + Impa€tsfmttoerrts + • 5ee Public worksSLte specific Condittans Selater « Otstance to water water Available at Same Services + Pracotrn lamp • Estimated Project see application Water LHU's Water w None Project Consisteot Yes with water Master Plan • 1Mpa %kbFKerms None- PueLAC WUFLILS DrvAtrr.Hr:h-r Ske.9ged lr CAndlllons of Approval I. Numiditimal.buildings can be�rm&A tcd wLlil wic uftk'fulluwuW uwxhtiuux baste Lx ii mct. -A godc;mnimtiuu fIUnI[IK Nu1111(fuur l)or +� -2 urw mvmK-6fGtMls frtnn r6r Haxt uumL riug[u 7A w 2. 2. WaLcL maim im,,-J aL;asiaE wIKLI crossing Sxavitymid prrtoturc urig.aLliLu that LimiLs mxt:xs w ti Im7 of LIK ycm cm is uamjc t i[ d out of c iKrLIL ufclay pipuW.h-Akira tuoWAL, NiLIEL to JMNH[ t]Lat 111r City WiLI lravu at17=KN at A IInLLN.Aho Fpmvi&Ific uwicrial 4&dK urigwGou Jim- I. F'im klydrai&ILquicu aL k-mA S'spacing past UK hydlli L&L for futurr uailLLcuwKc_Piwidr do c-LunviblaLitm fL¢Pu E that ctrvri s rbr bwlraiAx ur pruvidc a 2{r witk taNLmcu[ilmt catcju6 al.a nt iLti LlLunl 5'ImNL[kIc hydraid a-ldwugh 16 is]}I L'fiL Ii LL_J°t Lhfhascmcal Liquirvinu'ILL will.bL'dre savx ftn any waL_r xcrviu:%. A. NLI Ixurnumil NErmimLs(h Lux,buxlKs,buil{brlgs,mrpu[ts,traxlr[o crfadu wallsy fei 1% i nfiltra[IOIL[ruiKbL^,Ji Elii.pukes,CLL.)[u 11 ImAL Widrilr[hr L1LIJ][y ra'4L"n uni.. City of Meridian Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions F176] 5_ F'usurc nusLwCr serv:Las pass Wn3ugh iufiRratiLrcl Lcurlrls. General Coodfitimsof Appraval 1. Applkairtskdl.nllrruliisilc wAri aiW srwci main 3a3'!L'andn3utirig wide dw Public Wui" f)<gpwlIIKirl,wed L;xu xLL".xLaridalJ fin nLx of lauL'u KriLN for arty roainx Lhat arr ruyuirul.6P Lxuridi: sLYkinr ovltwidl:ufx puULiL:rigJd�rf-way. P.immauo wvrr zrvrr 3cCwrr rnaius i3z[hrci fLx'l,ifuwrr fnnn tup LIf pipe toxulrgFalk ix Lt-Ns ILiaJI Lhrix fc-LL dwrr altcuiaLc uLxtrrials xluLl Ur ux;iJ iu u iforuiiwi x of City of Mc,irliwii Publiu Wrrrkx]1LpmL rLvLw rx xkrrd Slrxifr Lirxlx 2. Pc-r Mcridimi City Cudr(MCC),LPL appikail slwlL bL-rL7gXrIC IWL-W IIIslx 1.%-wcc mid wxLnr n nim lu mld ilmmglii dii-N dvvL'Lir]9iuL'I11. Al4dic'm11 Ilmy Irc L:LOWLr fIN a mimburxuurcvt xgrurulrlrL f m irifmNLruLALur ]TL'I W.C.kfi-5- 3. Thr alglliL A shall pruvilk La&La uiruL(x)fear alk piiddic wx1L0x wrr mains wtyiLIL:of pubhu r i0it of way(iurlwJc aLl wa is 3 rvkr mid LiArmrts). 'LLr Lxw iimmit wWflmxlwll bz:2&4mt wide firr a xngell:utility,La 30-fcd wilk fur twa. 'lliu LawruLrldw slwll uzA Ix"iCarLal Viatlw plat,Inrt rathudc kmkd aulaidc the VIM putom letting the CiLyof Mmidian's standard ronku.The c=LiNud 3dmll km,gralpliiiiadly dypickid ou drC plat firr Ickri.7imu purIKM-Y.Suhurit nrl c�Llxutci.L Cl IIIrL-td{ou Ihr f NMLnvadablc fruw J3uULc W1 rLs a Iuj*dim-riptuelr picr ucd lryml Jdalxr LiL: i" d PmfcsNi Piml]. uKl Surveyxn,which I3LLEd I iw LLNIL ilic m Lv of dK t�rirLZIL(nwrk LA EXH IL31T A)and an 81 f2"x I I"rtrap with h mrimp and djuanx-q(maAod F.XHIBIT B)far u6vicw-Huth rxliWL%uruxL br x miikA xigiwd mid 46Lcd by a hofL-oouual 1-mid 5w rcyor-JX) N(l'l(EC RIX Add x imAL to We 14al rtifc-l'rr ing 11n!4 dlwumIL'rIL All cd3r13Lc1ILx nILLA by xubnitic-A mid appio"pruar Iu 4kvvJ;4mr Cul pLair appruval- 4. Thu City of ML-ridimI Prquiri:N ILA])rtNsu6md iiirigxliuiii sy-;Eia s Iw slLlrlrlicid by a ycar-rowlll suurlx of watci(LJDC. L L-3B-fI).'I'IK appliu ilNI mILL Lac rLquircd to u miv cxiYLirig3w1a or well waU for ikiv prirrwry suuux_ If a surfm:c ur wr11 suwcu is uzrt avaiudi.7,a 36ugk pviid ccxulu Iiun lu thU wlivary wxtcr sysLuu AiaL1 UL rLY'L3Icd-Jf a Ni=iWlrpuiuE L iiiinxAiuu Iw LiLilicrd, t1wdLvLii;gl 7 will tw rc�puusiblc for thu luymuiA uf�nrirtw fur Ow cuuuutm mtl priur Lrr priur LAP uxciviugJrvrlrgxnrld pLmr appuwal- Y All raisriirg srruuLwc'tliaL me I Lquircd to UC rriumM shall UC]3I urr to siViatut on rlir final]alaL by OIL:City Emg6 R=. Amy drudiuuL Out me ullowcd UP rumaiu sLLaJI bi:subjLcL to L:vAuatiuu mlll pi 3 iblc rra-wnignriiicmt of strrCr m Mi=iug kl UC i lr uwnpli; li x w ith MCC. 6. All iu igatiurl Jit x-r,Lzuiu s,Lalo ads,ur drains,rxcknivr of uatwal warcr ways,irr -mm-16W, ca uming or Iayiug adjacrii mid cuuti]gLx> Lo thr mca Lxniug sulAividLA s1uJl Ix.:wklri:�.soLl per UDC 11-3A-6. In pufuruii6W-Awli wurk,Ikiv a3r]rlilvuL Nhul.l cumpLy wide IJalxa CrIJL-42-12VF Mid miy udICI xppl"PIL:law uI Icgulaturil. T Any wcihL th d will IKA LANI iuur LAr br IXWLL uuLwl Lac pru x�Ly2jK KIUi"a urdiugtzr id2dmr Wcll Cwodruumii';ImPLmdx halo;x&iii iLdcrL:d Iry tIc I"iu LIB uAr3lcid of Wabu Itcsaurixs. Thr rkwc open's FAIJ ihi xz xldL pro idr a%Lxrunwrt xJrLcsxuy''w"''�1hL-Lk7 ticrr&x miy cm6611lg wL4Is in t11r JCVdL"ixiII,a l if m&lluw Iloy will mmilinur to hu uwLx rN JKOwidc rcamiJ of th it x"INLIVIrI3LCIIL II. Any cxlsLing mwplu xys. -i Lw wiUlin Ulis lrr4&LL L slwlL be rul31krvud frum Scmiec W City Chili im wu 9u-tiuu 4-14 wKl 44 R. t aiiiij lCaarLal OistriL;l ILLIrItli ItN almiiid6iuiwu1 Fm4wc-J,Lresmid ipnagwLtium(2"373-5211- i. atrr.L'L xigim mc lu be III pkux-.Yauiiwy wL-wc'I and warvi syNlun AiaLl bVA14NO"arid al'II.r VxIL� rural Lr�vL appruvLaLl by thu Ada Cu iry 1 J igliway JANIxiL'L mid UK Kraal PL LL for tliis mdicLivixuru shall hiz iummdui,priur to a1a1I1yiug fur Uuildiug]acuniLx. 10. A Irticr of Vri�Jii or u Nh xuicty iu UK wirlmit of L LO%will liti"rued for aLL unL nnpILLA funciug.L uiLtwCaping.a1ipuiilicN.tie.,pchn tV slgiwrurL-LNI vk fuel lrlaL- 11. All irlgsluvriuviktw rrlakd ILI I3ublic life,safL�ty mid lwallh JiuL1 br ulrnpki Lel priur Lrr L Liipmiuy ult1K 3&L Lui Ls-W IICIL apl3luvLad by ILr City Engiircri,mi owrru may poxL a pLifuunmrcv xuri:Ly City of Meridian Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions 177 f[a%Lc II 6111morcnludm ill ofdff Ih Obt3nl C'.ity Bnginen%igllalu[L Ml LIK f6lld IFlal as NUL fLatll ill 12. Appli"d%Ilan hL nxiiii LI Lxi Lip pay ISAPlit;W;m k.%duyckv17111L"IIL plan rL"YIL"w,a.Id cmN1kuuLill[I 6im3xLtiuu fcuy�a%dLLcunii"during Iklr p1laLl rLr ViLW IMi pe MM0 ]a Lipr Ill AL:]LinmlLx ip12111 ILL II gIIN aIILUrl. 1.1. 11 dbaLl Lx LIK respumibili[y LFf[LK-appliuud tip Lamuctllat all ikvdshlrrJnu fL- upmi cum ply Willi Hie A13W[iLam%w iIb 1}6313ililkL ALIT d tllc Fair 15uL LW ALA. 14. Applicaui%ILalt be impu3niblu hm appliLmliwi uukl L,p111pliainx with awy SL;cl[ plr 404 Frrnlillinffg LI1a[clay Ix ruyuim-A by Ibu A1311y CMTM Ld Engin=N. I?. Draclolx[%11aJ1 LxmrdilLAL:Friailb ux ILKatIWn with LIK Mcridiall hWA Off3m. 14. Coulpa 61711 ILj Ic%LJL%%Llall bFL 3aL6aa%A lutllc L41470im1 Building likllmr[111L,11 fur a116uik6 g pall%lrYL"V1116'r119L11L'"led 1pa kfd%wllurr f[Klhug windd mil a[op fill ulatLrial_ 11. I kiv drmiEu cugLlxrl%hall Lx rL,'Lii4A 111 Critlfy 11W tllc%L[ue[c'oiluILIIIL'ulcYa"um ary Meta millillmnl of 1-fc LL JK WE Ihu 6igllc%[ustabLisboJ pLak g1 oLIIOW&L"I c'Ic'VUli LIE I- 1 6�Lx to 01a'n" t1Lal Ills bu[tVnL dr YaLi Mil Llf the crawl spaL6rs of IRnnLx 1%at Lca30 I-fmi alluvr. lL.Thin alr k=ntY dmi6p cmgjii&Lz Yllall Lx rc-4[xl%iblc fur illlhj xEiuu lrf all i1Tima6ml MOM draiiiilapL"falL'ifty wi1111n tlli%prgjcd Lhal dLl IIoL fall LiiKk-i dre juli3diL'tilnl of all IITIgOtilWl diArkl or ACE dr ig[1 c[1gi11Lr1 hall pruvilk ccrtifwaliou that LI1e fa di[ic%Hare LX l illa;lblls;d ill aLx &uicL will)tliu alj)ruwd ikmigll Idal1Y.TWN c'L"Itlfic'aliLl[I will Ix iuquirrd br forc a L;rlifi aw of uLiniiinuivy i%ixxucd for any Asuc[urru widiiu dlc]}lujc'L L 14). Al Ills L,pmldLtiuu of Lklr puljrcL,tic appliLraull%baLl be ILMKILI%ibk Up subMil 1cLr+rd drawiugs]xr th--Ciry rrf Muiliau fLutrpC.AU x1alpLlald3L TbLx:LcL4md drawing%LnuxL br[cui"mld appr[FUL,I pri La to Lk Lill 11L'l"of a ccr[i Ewati Ll[I ipf uL3L'LgI ii L'y[or ally 9l[lle wrs wi di III UK pl uj cai 20. A Aunt Liglll]alms will iimd Up Lx ikILkk-iJ in tI1L civil{;misLrL=ttiLKi pLallx.short Iighl Owl roqui rc�iirxlu%mu Ii3cW io 3we6un(rS of[kc Impruvrinc"ILL Stain Jx fm mt Lighting_A Lmpy } of Llic 3&uKL ixLLN can Ix finuld al IlbpJlw ww_ulrl ldiuirily.[Xepublir workx.a TA:9id-272. 21.Tbr Gty of Muridiml Ic'L1Lu[M 161 tllU uw11LT port Lu[LK:C-ily a]pcifu rirmai Le*L"irL the anLOWd of 1.21%of dlr[uL d Lvicitlllcl[ p11 L4KA is all i L4plllpldu%L7wc[,wall,mill cumc infra%1CLLL.Lurc priu[Lip filial pLa[Niguatu[c_'l'bix%LI[cty will bL-,VL71 ifLciJ lay a Lille ifi ill CLINE L-[ti11La1L'p[Llv]d L by LLilleowlxl[o dir C. a City- %u[cly L <I Ix]n KALd ill Ik1r f[n I11 of=I Il rr"xaldL Iel[cl Llfcll'lliFYI y i'a.311 4k-IKF%1[La bund_Algdicmd 13LMS fik all applicaliuu for nucly,wbicll call lw fowido11 Iflu C"oullnuuiLy]hYclupuleu[13cpxrLuod L1rL�oLi4:. 1'ILmvL:online[l.arld llcvciulxoL,ll$L7Yw:a:fLJL nua1C ilduunaliuu al 88'1-22I I. 22.'I'br City of Muridiul lcyuimL [Lod tllc owner post to[6L City a warimay slucry in the anmm it of i'{l%of I]IL'iUL;IJ cLxL%LJ LLLlioll 6 UM fLl1 all Gon111IL"Lcd 3FL'wL'1,watLl mal IL-utLu Infra%LrLKIu[L for durmtim of two ycws_'Fbix%Lusty will bL vLl ifcd by a li lie ilrlu cuss etiliah:plovi[Lvl lFy ilc owuur Iu tic City.'111e sucTy LmLLI Ix poYLL,I ill tilU folnl Llf all Llru"xaldc ILAEu 4ncdiL,cuxll 4k-lKY.ii[[a build_AppliLald rimA frk all applicaliuu for nuc[y,wbidi call k-fould ono dIL C:inulnuui Ly]k YclupllLen[1]cpaJ1luuuL wLJloLi4:. 1'IL>L'LL;L�IpI�JLL'[1.arld 1}cVL�L1I1L�Llll 3LZ Y1Li:for nlolc i ufLulnaliuu 01 991-22I I. City of Meridian Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions 178 C. Meridian Park's Department C>VE IDF�� Parkaarid Rsxrcation ReneWer. Klm warren/Pathways Pro)ect Manager Plan eerAsslgnedr NkkNapoll PmjertName- MogulYhdrMIalPark5ubdivision File No,H-W25-11tID6-PP Dates 3-1fZIM 1 he following will be required for developnherht of the propmed prgeck COMMONS OF APPRUVAL-PATHWAYS 1. 1he project developer shall desgn and constnxt mine pathways consistent with the kxannn and specifications set forth In the Meridian Pathways Master Plan Map and Master Pathways PWn Document Chapter 31. Pny proposed adpazirkentsto pathway alig mentshall be coordinated through the Pathways Project Manager-JnteraxfJm Futhhrs Aftp 2- Prior to fowl appmml itheappbEmashad dedicate a public anew mien for a multiH"pathway {10' whdedetxbedsldewalk)along both sides&W(;rand mogul way,far the length aftheproject. MawWallgn with pathway that has a Iready been rmcrnr tad In the eastern pardon of the project. Because of the alignment of M m this Iecatlon and steep fill slopes along Mack Cat Raad approaching the fhrfiare freeway overpass,na pathway will be reWined Ln the landscape buffer along I-9a (I his had been stated as a requirement in prdi n rLary re/ewm) Additionally,10'detached mulwuse pathway WN be required abng the future mid-mile aollextor road planned along the west edge of the project Easements shall M a minimum of ld'wide J11V pathway+2'shoukkr each side.)Lasmyiients need cialf be dedicated for mulh-use pa&Auys that Ile atrtsAe tt*public RDW. Usestarrd'urdaty LernpilideJarpuhYc amens aimm ent Sw4Axq a9aws mwnzs gnrmc th,awgh L:WFCFeJ Ar ress Pbrtml 3- Construct mutt,use pathways per paving sectlon based on extstirg sAe corhdltlaris as recommended by project cavil engineer In accord with UDC 11-3"and 11-3&12-Pnar to final approval tre app can's engineer shall provide written documentation that the pathway segment was constructed per the recommended spec,ficat 4- 1 he owner(or representahwe.acsocaloonl of the property affected by each puNic aces easement shar have an orgimag oblgatlon to maintain the mulUiue paidvmay. S- If appllCabl%A'ho open vision fencing shall be installed between pathways and(live)water Irrigation czrels and Laterals as detailed In the Wrldian Pathways Master Plam chapter 3,page 3-5. All other ferxe details per tin[11-3A-L 6 rwojectdeheoper"Iberfpomblefmobtarningkwseageement and other permissio0s)asrequred for comtruct ng withim or cress,ng,inrigatlon d wvt easerhhentst l- Should any discrepancy exist between these conditions of approval and the requirements of the rrrigahan distrIM the developer shall~work with Pathways Prcgert Manager to aJreoe a pathway design that meets bath Oty and irrlgaten district objectives.City requirements as stated shall"Vnor are they rhtanded to) owemdie those of the Inrlgetion district hav,ng jurisdiction over the project area- raw.ai,a7.a� D. Ada County Highway District(ACHD) Click or tap here to enter text. V. FINDINGS A. Preliminary Plat(UDC-6B-6) In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat,the decision-making body shall make the following findings: City of Meridian I Department Report V. Findings [179] 1. The plat is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and is consistent with this unified development code; Stafffinds the proposed plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and will be consistent with the UDC if the Applicant complies with the above-noted conditions. 2. Public services are available or can be made available ad are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Stafffinds public services are currently being extended and will be available to serve the site and will be adequate to accommodate the proposed development. 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the city's capital improvement program; Stafffinds the proposed plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's CIP. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Stafffinds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development. 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and Stafffinds the proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. Staff is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that need to be preserved with this development. VI. ACTION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed preliminary plat with the conditions listed above in Section V. B. Commission: Pending C. City Council: Pending City of Meridian I Department Report VI.Action 180 ProjectVII. EXHIBITS A. o Project Overview) 1. Aerial Legend Project Location Area of Impact 0 Analysis 2. • GC r �— W _ m ., Zoning Map LegendProject Location RUT M1 Area of Impact RUT 0 Analysis � FRAN�LIN =�— 1 - �Q A RI RI ■ UT1111 OVERLAND --a =��► ���� 1 n nn • - • • • � _... —� ' ==' III �iuiu � FRANKL-IN-,_ 84 �„ „' OVERLAND Y KL=IN • . -. •. - 11. � `1 �mmVj,l.,,mmmqumumm�,� Illluuiq��\„� • 411�1111111111 I����I= \, 11 1111111111 II IIIIII`I. . ;, ,","" OVERLAND v =■� l/� B. Service Accessibility Report Overall Score: 16 3rd Percentile Descriptionk Location In City Limits [GREEN Extension Sewer Trunkshed mains < 500 ft.from parcel GREEN Floodplain Either not within the 100 yrflaodplain or > 2 acres GREEN Emergency Services Fire Response time > 9 min. RED Emergency Services Police Not enough data to report average response t.n-1 e RED Pathways Within 1/4 mile of future pathways YELLOW Transit Within 1/4 mile of current transit route GREEN Ultimate configuration (#of lanes in master st eet= Arterial Road Buildout Status GREEN plan) matches existing # of lanes) School Walking Proximity Within 1/2 mile walking GREEN School Drivability Not within 2 miles driving of existing or future sc:io:� RED Park Walkability No park within walking distance by park type RED City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits 183 C. Site Plan (date: 4/29/2025) - . �, ----__—.__ Preliminary Plat wio Mogul Industrial Park Subdivision JEE Cm try Yaaa....i,.,ei gin.i..ii�,i x.i•e.it —� - I _ •III fnwrlr3 I.,c- X,nron ��� i ill I � r � • � -ram�� k�l 11.8121 PP g2 City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 184 A Landscape Plan (date: 4/29/2025) � � 1 1 1 1 F I � � F11[ixIBIYRINN •,,j I r. II *---- ----- r--------I------� F — `L------------- -'�'}--------------Z - I i -• = v ------------- 1 o 0 1� r ---------Ij • LL-________.____l r �rae+rx �0. OJ r-- _ Lug= i I Neale-6rad NN-I East 111sa I I = a Ell.-Grad Yyd Eaa llna f'► City of Meridian ! Department Report VII. Exhibits 185 i � d IL ;. - I ll _ _ a f. e •F• ! fl 1 I I ' fi I ' I �� • ® h cv �m `-_--= - of I le - - - _------- Landwar-6ranJ Yqul Wcs[Ama II � PL OY I �lad�eah-Fi{Eatl4u — Em C op City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits Fl 86 I ! OJ i ++ I �a.i -Faa rr r.r LUI r -- L— PL 04 d 00 1IM2=0 3 4 ail I I i I I I I -A.A Colas t De W h City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits Fl 87 E. Preliminary Plat and Phasing Plan (date: 4/29/2025) a Prellmlriary Plat c,..-�-- .1 x o ' Mogul Industrial Park Subdivision' lip: IN — _ ... .01iK. ! _ - r WMuu 11«rl._ 3 T._Tf:rr-: .t ;,. = .--- Vj m Pr 81 City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 188 W IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for AOCI Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment (H-2025- 0029) by City of Meridian, located citywide and at 12504 W. Amity Rd. Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2025-0029 A. Request: Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment (CPAM) to modify the boundaries of the Future Land Use Map (FLUM), along with a subsequent request to Ada County to re-establish the modified boundary of the Area of City Impact (AOCI), which includes the removal of 38 parcels totaling approximately 507.34 acres and adds one 5.06 acre parcel. 189 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE : June 26, 2025 ITEM # 9 PROJECT NAME : AOCI Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment ( H = 2025 - 0029 ) I wish to testify Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing ` f yes ) ( Please Print ) HOA ? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (:�WEPIty DEPARTMENT REPORT HEARING DATE: 6/26/2025 as 0 TO: Planning&Zoning Commission 16 55 FROM: Carl Anderson, 26 ti Long-Range Associate Planner 208-884-5533 cnderson@meridiancity.org APPLICANT: City of Meridian Planning Division 4 SUBJECT: H-2025-0029 Legend 2025 AOCI Comprehensive Plan AOCI Map Amendment County — es LOCATION: AOCI Boundary/Citywide Line Future Road I. SUMMARY A. Summary The City of Meridian Planning Division is applying for a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment (CPAM)to Amend the City's 2019 Comprehensive Plan. This amendment modifies the boundaries of the Future Land Use Map(FLUM),along with a subsequent request to Ada County to re-establish the boundaries of the Area of City Impact(AOCI). The intent of the amendment is to align the City's AOCI with the adopted Idaho State Code §67-6526,Areas of Impact, as amended in the 2024 legislative session. Per section 67-6526 of Idaho Code,areas of impact boundaries are required to be within two miles of a city's municipal boundary. The subject amendment would remove 38 parcels,totaling 507.34 acres(more or less),which are over two miles from municipal boundaries from the City's FLUM and AOCI. Additionally,the amendment would add one parcel 5.06 acres (more or less)of land and generally located at 12504 W Amity Road to the City's FLUM and AOCI. The proposed designation on the FLUM of the subject addition is Medium Density Residential(MDR). The proposed amendment does not modify any policies or text of the current City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan. B. Issues/Waivers None C. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to remove the subject 507.34 acres from the City's Future Land Use Map and Area of City Impact and include 5.06 acres as described to the AOCI and FLUM,with a designation of Medium Density Residential,and authorize staff to request apply with Ada County to re-establish the boundaries of the City's Area of City Impact. City of Meridian I Planning Department—Long range Division Page 1 of 15 1 90 II. COMMUNITY METRICS Table 4:Process&Notification Details Description Details Planning&Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Preapplication Meeting date 5/13/2025 Neighborhood Meeting N/A Site posting date N/A Agency Notice 6/5/2025 Notification Published in news paper 6/10/2025 Notification mailed to property N/A N/A N/A owners within 300' Courtesy notice to property owners 6/11/2025 Nextdoor PSA 6/6/2025 III. STAFF ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code(UDC) A. Project Overview The City of Meridian Planning Division is applying for a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment (CPAM). This amendment concurrently modifies the boundaries of the Future Land Use Map (FLUM)and re-establishes the boundaries of the City's Area of City Impact(AOCI). The intent of the amendment is to align the City's AOCI with the adopted Idaho State Code §67-6526,Areas of Impact, as amended in 2024 legislative session. The proposed amendment does not modify any policies or text of the current City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan. The revised §67-6526,Areas of Impact of Idaho Code provided for multiple amendments the State statute governing areas of impact. State statute establishes criteria in modifying or confirming an existing area of impact, as set forth in the criteria found in Idaho State Code §67- 6526 (4),Provisions applicable to areas of impact. City staff have been in communication with Ada County staff to coordinate compliance with current State statue. Pursuant to Idaho code 67-6526(la)County commissioners make the final determination regarding area of impact boundaries with their County. The proposed amendment to the boundary of the City of Meridian Area of City Impact will not be re-established and recognized by the County,until such time that the Board of County Commissioners adopts such an ordinance. Additionally, as a product of timing, a property owner that was recently granted approval to exclude his property from the City of Boise AOCI and FLUM,has requested to be incorporated into the City of Meridian's AOCI and FLUM. This request is detailed further in section II.A.2 of this report. There are two proposed areas of change for this map amendment that modify the boundaries of the Area of City Impact and the future land use designation shown on the FLUM. Each of these areas are south of Interstate 84. As of the submittal of the subject application and writing of this staff report,there are thirty-nine(39)unique parcels affected by the proposed changes,with thirty (30)unique owners. Letters notifying each of these owners of the specific change were mailed on June 10,2025. Below are descriptions of the changes,organized by each of the two areas.Maps of each of these areas are included in the Exhibits section of this report. City of Meridian I Planning Department—Long range Division Page 2 of 15 191 1 A.1 Area 01 Description—Removed from FL UM&AOCI Thirty-eight(38)of the total thirty-nine(39)parcels affected by this application are generally located in the southwest corner of Meridian's AOCI. All 38 parcels have a designation of Low Density Residential on the FLUM and are proposed to be removed from the City's current AOCI. The combined area of the parcels is 507.34 acres(more or less). (See Exhibit A.2 for a map of the area). The basis for the change is to align with Idaho State Code §67-6526. The proposed amendment removes all land area that wholly extends beyond two miles from current City limits, except where a portion of a given parcel extends beyond the two-mile buffer, such area is included in the proposed AOCI as allowed by Idaho State Code §67-6526.4(b). The FLUM is being amended to match the boundary of the proposed AOCI. It should be noted that these areas will continue to be included in other Meridian planning efforts such as, and not limited to,the 2025 Meridian Water Master Plan,2023 Collection System Master Plan Update,and the 2023 Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update. Idaho State Code §67- 6526.1(b) states"...A city may adopt a comprehensive plan and conduct infrastructure, capital improvement,and other planning activities that extend beyond its current area of impact...". When the subject parcels are within two-miles of municipal boundaries,the City will likely seek to once again include the parcels back in the City's FLUM and AOCI. A.2 Area 02 Description—Included in FL UM&AOCI One(1)of the subject properties is owned by Mr. Frans and is located at 12504 W. Amity Road (parcel no. S 1128449082). The parcel is 5.06 acres(more or less). The property has historically been in the City of Boise's AOCI but was recently removed. If included in Meridian's AOCI& FLUM as proposed,the parcel will have a designation of Medium Density Residential,the same designation as properties to the west. Of note,the FLUM also designates E Amity Road just west of the subject parcel as an entryway corridor. Therefore,the entryway corridor designation on the FLUM will need to be extended to the full length of the subject property. The applicant has provided his written consent to be included in the City's AOCI, and FLUM,with a designation Medium Density Residential(See Exhibits A4&B4 for reference).A resolution(Recording No.2025-021233) from the City of Boise detailing the exclusion of the subject property from the Boise AOCI has been provided and is included in the exhibits attached to this report. Mr. Frans has indicated his intentions of developing his property in the near future(as evidenced by PREAPP-2025-0061),however,the property owner is not requesting annexation at this time. Staff have also provided a map of the proposed addition. Refer to the exhibits section for a review of the aforementioned documentation. B. Summary of Future Land Use Changes&Area of City Impact Changes B.1 Summary by Future Land Use Area Table 1.Summary by Future Land Use area Change Type Current proposed Designation Acres Designation AOCI Removal Low Density None 507.34 Residential LDR AOCI Addition None Medium Density 1.06 Residential(MDR) Total Area Removed from AOCI 507.34 Total Area Added to AOCI 5.06 Total Area Impacted 512.4 (Note: The table does not include associated ROW.) City of Meridian I Planning Department—Long range Division Page 3 of 15 192 B.2 Summary by Parcel The following table describes the future land use designation changes for each affected parcel. Table Z Area to be Removed from AOCI&FLUM Summary by Parcel Parcel Ada Zoning Acres Current Future Land Use Map R1895900040 RUT 4.66 Low Density Residential R3311160010 RUT 10.41 Low Density Residential R3311160020 RUT 10.34 Low Density Residential R3311160030 RUT 10.55 Low Density Residential R3311160050 RUT 10.62 Low Density Residential R3311160060 RUT 10.26 Low Density Residential R3311160072 RUT 1.00 Low Density Residential R3311160076 RUT 9.23 Low Density Residential R9575310100 RUT 5.01 Low Density Residential R9575310200 RUT 7.55 Low Density Residential R9575310300 RUT 5.00 Low Density Residential S1228325635 RUT 4.53 Low Density Residential 51228336006 RUT 10.79 Low Density Residential 51228336085 RUT 12.03 Low Density Residential 51228336300 RUT 10.05 Low Density Residential S1228336315 RUT 9.93 Low Density Residential 51228346900 RUT 19.62 Low Density Residential 51228347000 RUT 19.07 Low Density Residential 51233212710 RUT 36.60 Low Density Residential 51233212810 RUT 8.27 Low Density Residential 51233212840 RUT 10.37 Low Density Residential 51233223303 RUT 23.35 Low Density Residential 51233325420 RUT 1.63 Low Density Residential S1233325500 RUT 117.37 Low Density Residential 51233336320 RUT 5.00 Low Density Residential 51233336380 RUT 5.00 Low Density Residential 51233336420 RUT 5.00 Low Density Residential 51233336460 RUT 5.00 Low Density Residential 51233346630 RUT 3.86 Low Density Residential S1233346650 RUT * 1.00 Low Density Residential S1233346680 RUT 5.00 Low Density Residential 51233346700 RUT 5.00 Low Density Residential 51233346750 RUT 5.00 Low Density Residential S1233346800 RI 1.00 Low Density Residential 51233427840 RUT 40.00 Low Density Residential 51233438405 RUT 35.03 Low Density Residential 51233438615 RUT 10.34 Low Density Residential 51233449800 RUT 12.86 Low Density Residential Total Acreage 507.34 City of Meridian I Planning Department-Long range Division Page 4 of 15 193 Table 3.Area to be Added to AOCI&FLUM Summary by Parcel Parcel Ada Zoning Acres Proposed Future Land Use Map R1128449082 RUT 5.06 Medium Density Residential Total Acreage 5.06 B.3 Changes to Area of Impact Boundary The AOCI boundary line on the current Map will be revised to reflect all future land use area subtractions and additions. See the Exhibit sections A&B for reference to proposed changes. C. Comprehsnive Plan Analysis CA Future Land Use Map Designation (https:11meridiancity.or lcommuniU-development/plannin /�comprehensive plan/future-land-use- mqo Staff Review: This application does not include any annexation,rezones,or new entitlements. As such,no specific analysis is provided for the proposed changes. The following future land use designations with descriptions are copy and paste from the Comprehensive Plan and are included in the application for reference. Low Density Residential: This designation allows for the development of single-family homes on large and estate lots at gross densities of three dwelling units or less per acre. These areas often transition between existing rural residential and urban properties. Developments need to respect agricultural heritage and resources,recognize view sheds and open spaces, and maintain or improve the overall atmosphere of the area. The use of open spaces,parks,trails, and other appropriate means should enhance the character of the area. Density bonuses may be considered with the provision of additional public amenities such as a park, school, or land dedicated for public services. Medium Density Residential: Medium Density Residential(MDR): This designation allows for dwelling units at gross densities of three to eight dwelling units per acre. Density bonuses may be considered with the provision of additional public amenities such as a park, school, or land dedicated for public services. Entryway Corridors: The City feels it is important to identify roadways that introduce and welcome both visitors and residents to the City of Meridian. These roadways are noted as entryway corridors on the FLUM and are subject to additional standards within the Unified Development Code. C.2 Comprehensive Plan Policies(https://meridianciU.org/implementationtable.aspx) Staff Review: The Following policies are found to be relevant and/or informative to the project: 3.01.01C Ensure that regulations and plans support and encourage desired development and land use patterns within the Area of City Impact. Staff Review: The proposed re-establishment of the AOCI improves consistency of the Plan and Idaho State Statute. As is permitted by Idaho Code,the City will continue to plan for the area proposed to be removed from the AOCI to ensure that plans support and encourage desired development land use patterns should the subject area be included with the AOCI in the future. The addition of the 5.06 Acre parcel,as described herein,has a proposed designation of Medium Density Residential on the FLUM which is consistent with existing City of Meridian I Planning Department—Long range Division Page 5 of 15 194 development abutting the property to the west. Services are available to facilitate future development of the property. 3.02.01 Develop and implement master plans for all public facilities, services,and safety to guide the growth of the City. Staff Review: The City's current master plans account for 38 of the 39 parcels subject to this application.New development master plans for all public facilities, services,and safety to guide growth are not being proposed at this time as they are regularly updated. See section III.C.3.a of this staff report for a list of updated plans and studies which support and contribute to the Plan. The City will continue to include the subject area that is being removed from the AOCI in its planning efforts as is permitted by Idaho Code to ensure orderly growth of the City. 3.03.01A Continue to develop and implement the desired vision in special areas, areas with specific plans, and along key transportation corridors. Staff Review: The proposed amendment will extend the entryway corridor at the east-most end of Amity Road in alignment with this policy. The proposed entryway corridor along the west-most section of Lake Hazel Road will be removed as this area will no longer be in the City's FLUM. 3.03.02H Require rural area residential development to submit alternative development plan to allow for the efficient extension of urban services in the future(resubdivision plan). Staff Review: The City of Meridian coordinates with and provides comment on development applications that are within the City's AOCI and under the jurisdiction of Ada County in support of this policy. The re-establishment of the City's AOCI contributes to the implementation of this policy. 3.06.01C Coordinate with Ada County to ensure all applicable land use ordinances and provisions of this Plan are recognized when development within the Area of City Impact but outside City Limits is proposed. Staff Review: The City of Meridian staff review and provide comment on development applications with the AOCI,which fall under the jurisdiction of Ada County,to ensure that all applicable land use ordinances and provisos of the Plan are recognized. The proposed amendment will reduce the area included as part of the exiting agreement with Ada County, however,the City will continue to plan for the area proposed to be removed from the AOCI to ensure that plans support and encourage desired development land use patterns should the subject area be included with the AOCI in the future. C.3 Other Comprehensive Plan Consideration: List of Adopted Plans and Studies By Reference Staff Review: The 2019 Meridan Comprehensive Plan(the Plan)is integrated with a series of plans and studies which are adopted by reference by the City are enumerated on page C of the Plan itself and Exhibit 13.3 of this report. Each of these planning efforts support and contribute to the Plans overall vison and planning requirements. Similar to the Plan itself,many of these planning efforts are regularly updated to remain current and responsive to the existing conditions and needs of residents. The City has identified that there are multiple plans that have been adopted by reference which are no longer the most current plan of its scope. The adopted plans as referenced are inclusive of the specific plans and any future update will likely refer to the most current version of the Plan, so as to remain as current as possible. The City intends to bring forward a future amendment addressing these items at a later City of Meridian I Planning Department—Long range Division Page 6 of 15 195 date. Plans of note include, and may not be limited to (Current Planning Documents are linked to the text below): • Meridian Water Master Plan o The current version of this plan is the 2025 Water Master Plan, completed in February of 2025. The prior version of this plan is listed as the City of Meridian Water Master Plan (2018). • Ada County Hazard Mitigation Plan o The current version of this plan is the 2022 Ada County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, completed in April 2023. The prior version of this plan is listed in the table as Ada County Hazard Mitigation Plan(2017). • City of Meridian Collection System Master Plan o The most current version of this plan is the 2023 Collection System Master Plan Update completed in November of 2023 and approved by the State of Idaho in 2024. The prior version of this plan is listed in the table as the City of Meridian Collection System Master Plan(2017). • City of Meridian Strategic Plan o The most current version of this plan is the City of Meridian Strategic Plan 2020-2025. The prior version of this plan is listed in the table as the City of Meridian Strategic Plan(2016- 2020). • City of Meridian Parks and Recreation Master Plan o The Most current version of this plan is the City of Meridian Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update 2023. The prior version of this plan is listed in the table as the City Meridian Parks and Recreation Master Plan(2015). • Downtown Meridian Neighborhood Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan(2012) o The current version of this plan is the 2024 Downtown Meridian Neighborhood Transportation Plan with the lead agency being ACHD. The prior version of this plan is listed as the Downtown Merdian Neighborhood Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan(2012). • Eastern Treasure Valley Electric Plan o The current version of this plan is the Eastern Treasure Valley Electric Plan 2023-2024 Update. The prior version of this plan is listed as the Eastern Treasure Valley Electric Plan (2012). • Meridian Water Conservation Plan o The current version of this plan is the 2023 Meridian Water Conservation Plan. The prior version of this plan is listed as the Meridian Water Conservation Plan(2011). Area of City Impact Staff Review: Chapter 3,Evolving Community of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, discusses the role of the AOCI as considered in Idaho State Code § 67-6526.Namely that unincorporated properties within the City's AOCI are governed by Ada County for day-to-day administration of zoning matters.Additionally,pursuant to the current agreement between Ada County and Meridan for the AOCI,the Meridian Comprehensive Plan will apply within the City's established AOCI. The following is copy and paste from the plan and discusses the City's vision and approach areas within the AOCI(pg.3-2 &3-3 of the Comprehensive Plan). "Within the AOCI, the county has generally applied a Rural Urban Transition (RUT) zone which permits five-acre-lot, single-family residential development, as well as agricultural-related uses and a range of conditional uses. County development applications within the AOCI are reviewed by the City of Meridian for compliance with the comprehensive plan and applicable City policies. City of Meridian I Planning Department—Long range Division Page 7 of 15 196 The City of Meridian desires, over time, all development within its Area of City Impact to be served with urban services from the City of Meridian. Such services primarily include sanitary sewer, water, reclaimed water,fire,police, and parks. Secondarily, the City considers the availability and capacity of the school system, transportation facilities, libraries, and storm water facilities in any review of development within the AOCT All requests for annexation into the City limits will require that the owner extend City-owned services at the time of development. The importance of cooperating with Ada County and neighboring cities is imperative to successful long-term land use, transportation, and utility planning. There are very significant financial and quality-of-life implications for not doing so.As such, the City of Meridian is committed to fulfilling the terms of its Area of City Impact Agreement with Ada County and coordinating with adjacent service providers. Meridian aims to guide growth in a way that efficiently expands infrastructure and services to support sustainable growth patterns. Targeting the right development and growing responsibly—in the right locations with the right services—is the foundation of the Evolving Community Vision." D. Municipal Code&Unified Development Code(UDC)Analysis Comprehensive plan amendments-Title 11 Chapter 5B Section 7. Staff Review: The following contains a review of Meridian City Code, Title 11,Chapter 5B Section 7 which requires all Comprehensive Plan Amendments to be processed as detailed below. The following are not exhaustive of the aforementioned standards and contain only those standards found to be relevant to this request. 11-5B-7 11-5B-7. C.Process. 1. Comprehensive plan amendment initiated by the city. The Planning and Zoning Commission may propose to amend the comprehensive plan following notice and public hearing procedures in article A, "general provisions", of this chapter and the hearing procedures in Idaho Code § 67-6509. Staff Review: A request to amend the City of Meridan Comprehensive Plan has been submitted and is subject to the notice and public hearing procedures outlined in Article A"general provisions"of the required chapter and the hearing procedures of Idaho Code § 67-6509.Note: A Neighborhood meeting is not required and has not been held on this request, due to the request being City Wide. While not required, staff have sent courtesy notice to those property owners whose properties are included within this request. 3. The City Council shall not consider amendments to the land use map of the adopted comprehensive plan more than twice per calendar year. The application deadlines for amendments to the land use map component of the comprehensive plan shall be June 15 and December 15 of every year. Staff Review: The subject application was submitted was submitted on May 22na, 2025,prior to the June 15t1i deadline. 4. Amendments to the text component of the Plan may be submitted at any time. Amendments to the text of the comprehensive plan may be recommended by the Commission consistent with section 11-5A-6 of this chapter. Staff Review: An amendment to the text component of the Plan is not being proposed as part of this request. City of Meridian I Planning Department—Long range Division Page 8 of 15 197 5. The commission,prior to recommending the adoption, amendment, or repeal of the comprehensive plan to the Council, shall conduct at least one(1)public hearing in accordance with article A, "General Provisions",of this chapter and in accordance with the procedures in Idaho Code § 67-6509. Staff Review: As part of their review and prior to recommending an amendment to the Plan, a public hearing has been noticed for the June 26, 2025,Planning&Zoning Commission meeting. 11-511-7.D. Required Findings. Staff Review: The required findings may be found in Section VI"Findings"of this staff report. E.Area of City Impact—Meridian Municipal Code Title 1 Chapter 11 Staff Review: The following contains a review of the standards contained within Meridian City Code Title I Chapter I I pertaining to Area's of City Impact. The following are not exhaustive of Chapter 11 and contain only those standards found to be relevant to this request.Note Sections 1- 11-5 & 6 are included for reference purposes, and a staff review is not provided for each. 1-11-3 Meridian Area of City Impact Boundary: 1-11-3.A.Area shown on map. The Meridian Area of City Impact is the area designated on the Meridian Area of City Impact boundary map, fully incorporated herein by this reference, copies of which are available for inspection and delivery at the City Clerk's office. Staff Review: The Meridian Area of City Impact Boundary Map is shown on the adopted Future Land Use Map for the City. 1-11-3.B.In case a property under single ownership is divided by the boundary line of the area of city impact and the line divides such property so that one(1)or both of the parts has a depth of three hundred(300)feet or less, such part may be included in the jurisdiction within which the remainder and larger portion of the property is located. Staff Review: Idaho State Code Section § 67-6526.4(b) states that, "An area of impact boundary shall not divide county recognized parcels of land. If only a portion of a recognized parcel falls within the two(2)mile limit,then the boundary may extend beyond two(2)miles on that parcel so that it encompasses the entire parcel". As part of this update, the proposed 2-mile buffer would bisect multiple parcels as discussed in Section III.A.1 of this staff report. In these cases,the AOCI boundary has been extended to encompass these parcels. This being the case,this requirement is being met as the AOCI boundary line will not be dividing a recognized parcel of land. 1-11-5 Applicable comprehensive plan policies and ordinances: 1-11-5 A.Application of provisions. The Meridian Comprehensive Plan shall apply to the Meridian Area of City Impact. 1-11-5-B. Submission of subdivision plats. All subdivision plats,for land situated within the area of impact, shall be submitted to the city for approval, in addition to Ada County for approval,as provided in IC 50-1306. 1-11-5-C. Street and utility easement plan. All subdivision plat applications in the urban service planning area of the city for land zoned by Ada County as RT(rural transition)shall require a street and utility easement plan. Said plan shall provide for future resubdivision to urban densities and such easements shall be included on the final plat. This requirement may be waived if a letter is submitted to the Ada County Director of Developmental Services from the City Council prior to preliminary plat approval by the Board of County Commissioners approving the waiver. 1-11-5.D. Sewer and water lines. A condition of approval for all subdivision plats in the urban service planning area of the city for land zoned by Ada County as RT(rural transition) City of Meridian I Planning Department—Long range Division Page 9 of 15 198 shall require that,prior to occupancy of the subdivision's first dwelling unit, dry line sewer and water lines shall be installed to accommodate the future resubdivision to urban densities. This requirement may be waived if a letter is submitted to the Ada County Director of Developmental Services from the City Council prior to preliminary plat approval by the Board of County Commissioners approving the waiver. 1-11-5.E. County zoning ordinance. The Ada County Code,title 8,the Ada County Zoning Ordinance, shall be the zoning ordinance applicable to the land in the area of city impact which is outside the city limits and within the boundaries of the area of city impact. 1-11-6 Coordination of amendments and zoning applications. 1-11-6.A.County and city coordination. All applications for Ada County and Meridian amendments to their respective comprehensive plans and implementing ordinances which apply within the area of city impact shall be sent by the entity considering such amendment to the other entity. A separate referral process shall be adopted by resolution by each entity regarding procedures and time periods for, and the effect of, sending such amendments, and such resolution may be amended from time to time upon mutual agreement in writing by Ada County and the city. 1-11-6.B.Applications to city. All Ada County applications for planned developments, subdivisions,rezones,private roads,and conditional use permits within the area of city impact shall be sent to Meridian,in accordance with the referral process arrived at pursuant to subsection(A)of this section. 1-11-7 Renegotiation. 1-11-7.A.Request.In accordance with IC 67-6526(d),the City Council or the Board of Ada County Commissioners may request, in writing,renegotiation of any provision of this chapter at any time. Within thirty(30)days of receipt of such written request by either party,a meeting between the two(2)jurisdictions shall occur. Staff Review: This application will be followed by a written request from the City of Meridian to the Ada County Commissioners for the re-establishment of the Meridian AOCI.No additional modifications are proposed to this chapter as part of this request. D.Idaho Code§67-6526 Areas of Impact Staff Review: The following contains a brief review of the standards contained within Idaho State Code § 67-6526,Areas of Impact. The following are not exhaustive and contain those standards found to be relevant to this request. §67-6526(4)Provisions applicable to areas of impact. (a) In defining an initial area of impact or in modifying or confirming an existing area of impact,the criteria set forth in this subsection shall be considered: i. Anticipated commercial and residential growth; ii. Geographic factors; iii. Transportation infrastructure and systems, including connectivity; iv. Areas where municipal or public sewer and water are expected to be provided within five(5)years; and v. Other public service district Boundaries. Staff Review: The City of Meridian's Comprehensive Plan consider each of these elements as enumerated with the Plan,Future Land Use Map and all supporting planning efforts. Anticipated commercial and residential growth, geographic factors and transportation infrastructure systems,municipal services and other service district boundaries, are City of Meridian I Planning Department—Long range Division Page 10 of 15 199 1 considered and integrated throughout the Plan text,the adopted plans, studies,policies and FLUM. Areas where municipal or public sewer and water are expected to be provided are regularly reviewed by the City. The City's planning efforts account for a five-year period and in some cases extend beyond a five-year period. Please see Section III.C.2.a of this report for a list, and link to,the most current plans pertaining to municipal public sewer and water. See also staff review provided under section(b) contained in the next section for additional comment. Pursuant to the text of the Plan, all requests for annexation into the City limits will require that the owner extend City-owned services at the time of development. Please refer to the 2019 Comprehensive Plan and current supporting documents and studies for additional information as needed. (b) In addition to the criteria set forth in paragraph(a) of this subsection,an area of impact shall not exceed the areas that are very likely to be annexed to the city within the next five(5) years. Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, an area of impact shall not extend more than two(2)miles from existing city limits.An area of impact boundary shall not divide county recognized parcels of land. If only a portion of a recognized parcel falls within the two (2)mile limit,then the boundary may extend beyond two (2)miles on that parcel so that it encompasses the entire parcel.Adjustments to an area of impact may be proposed and considered at any time following the initial establishment of the area of impact. Staff Review: The City of Meridian plans for future development within its established AOCI, and as previously noted,now beyond the proposed AOCI for some services like sewer and water. The City plans for orderly growth within the AOCI. The city plans for utility expansion through both capital improvement planning and development led expansion. While programmed expansion in the City's Capital Financial Plan are not funded to all areas, development-led extensions are all feasible. The City's master plans include a great deal of contingency expansion.As previously stated,all requests for annexation into the City limits will require that the owner extend City-Owned Services at the time of Development. Please refer to the 2019 Comprehensive Plan and current supporting documents and studies for additional information as needed. The proposed amendment removes all land area that wholly extends beyond two miles from current City limits,except where a portion of a given parcel extends beyond the two-mile buffer, such area is included in the proposed AOCI. E.Idaho Code§67-6505 Planning Duties Staff Review: The following contains a brief review pertaining to the Idaho State Local Land Use Planning Act(LLUPA) § 67-6508,Planning Duties.At the time of the public hearing noticed for the Planning&Zoning Commission on June 26,2025,there are 18 planning duties listed which include: property rights;population; school facilities; economic development; land use; natural resources;hazardous areas;public service,facilities ,and utilities;transportation; recreation; special areas or sites;housing; community design; agriculture; implementation; national interest electric transmission corridors; and public airport facilities. During the 2025 legislative session Senate Bill No.1083 was passed and signed into law with an effective date of July 1, 2025. The bill amendment multiple sections of Idaho code and of relevance to this application added to LLUPA § 67-6508. Among some textual changes,the revision added a new section stating, "(r)when considering amending,repealing, or adopting a plan,the local governing board shall consider the effect the proposed amendment,repeal, or adoption of the plan would have on the source, quantity, and quality of ground water within the area." City of Meridian I Planning Department—Long range Division Page 11 of 15 200 In review of the addition of the property located at 12504 W. Amity Road,the subject property lies within the certified service area of Veolia. (As evidenced by preapplication notes and email correspondence from the City of Meridian Assistant City Engineer to the property owner).Water is available to serve the property with services previously negotiated and provided by Veolia. Sewer is available to the property from Grayson Dr.; however,development may encounter issues with enough coverage for manhole on southern half of development(as evidenced by preapplication notes). IV. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS& CONDITIONS Comments from outside agencies and City of Meridian Departments associated with this application and received by June 18',2025, are summarized below. Interagency comments can be found on Laserfiche at the link below and within Exhibit C: https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WeUink/Browse.aspx?id=401127&dbid=0&repo=Meridian City A. Meridian Public Works • Water Modeling Review: Distance to Mainline—NA; Impacts of Concerns—Future water planning will plan accordingly. (https:lleplanreview.meridiancit E.oMIProiectDoxWeb UIlProiect/Index?ProiectID=2746 3&tab=correctionsTab) B. Idaho Department of Environmental Quality(DEQ) • The Boise Regional DEQ Administration has no comments at this time. C. West Ada School District(WASD) or Other District/School • Kuna School District—Kuna School District has reviewed the application of Case No. H- 2025-029 and has no objection to the application as it is presented. D. Idaho Transportation Department(ITD) • ITD does not have any comments regarding the comprehensive plan snap amendment. V. FINDINGS A. Comprehensive Plan(UDC 11-513-71)) Upon recommendation from the Commission,the Council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan,the Council shall make the following findings: 1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the other elements of the comprehensive plan. Staff Finding: Staff finds that the proposed amendment is consistent with the elements of the 2019 Comprehensive Plan and which contribute to all seventeen (18) elements required by Idaho State Statute. Staff finds the amendment maintains this consistency as no changes are substantive to policy. Evidence includes the application, supporting materials submitted, and the staff report with all exhibits for case file H-2025-0029. Evidence also includes the 2019 Comprehensive Plan and all associated policies, studies and plans. 2. The proposed amendment provides an improved guide to future growth and development of the city. Staff Finding:By maintaining and keeping the Comprehensive Plan up to date and current with State of Idaho Statute, staff finds that the proposed Plan provides an improved and current guide to future growth and development with the City. Evidence includes the application, supporting materials submitted, and the staff report with all exhibits for case file City of Meridian I Planning Department—Long range Division Page 12 of 15 201 H-2025-0029. Evidence also includes the 2019 Comprehensive Plan and all associated policies, studies and plans. 3. The proposed amendment is internally consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding: Staff finds the proposed amendment is consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Maintenance of the Plan is directed by policy within the Plan and the State of Idaho. Evidence includes the application, supporting materials submitted, and the staff report with all exhibits for case file H-2025-0029. Evidence also includes the 2019 Comprehensive Plan and all associated policies, studies and plans. 4. The proposed amendment is consistent with this Unified Development Code. Staff Finding: Staff finds the proposed amendment is consistent with the Unified Development Code, as no policies in the Comprehensive Plan modified, and no development proposed. Evidence includes the application, supporting materials submitted, and the staff report with all exhibits for case file H-2025-0029. Evidence also includes the 2019 Comprehensive Plan and all associated policies, studies and plans. 5. The amendment will be compatible with existing and planned surrounding land uses. Staff Finding: The primary purpose of this amendment is to align the Meridian Area of City Impact with the State ofldaho Statute governing Areas oflmpact. The proposed addition of 5.06 acres is compatible with surrounding land uses which are predominantly residential in nature. The proposed designation of Medium Density Residential matches the existing future land uses of the City of Meridian to the West. Future development of the parcel will be reviewed at the time that the subject property is annexed into the City of Meridian. Staff finds the proposed Plan will be compatible with existing and planned surrounding land uses. Evidence includes the application, supporting materials submitted, and the staff report with all exhibits for case file H-2025-0029. Evidence also includes the 2019 Comprehensive Plan and all associated policies, studies and plans. 6. The proposed amendment will not burden existing and planned service capabilities. Staff Finding: Staff finds that the proposed Plan will not burden existing and planned service capabilities. This amendment maintains the relationship between service planning, and reflects coordination with partner agencies in service planning. Evidence includes the application, supporting materials submitted and the staff report with all exhibits for case file H-2025-0029. Evidence also includes the 2019 Comprehensive Plan and all associated policies, studies and plans. 7. The proposed map amendment(as applicable)provides a logical juxtaposition of uses that allows sufficient area to mitigate any anticipated impact associated with the development of the area. Staff Finding: The proposed amendment is intended to align the City's AOCI with Idaho State Statute. Stafffinds that the amendment does not require mitigation of impacts associated with development as development is not proposed at this time. Evidence includes the application, supporting materials submitted, and the staff report with all exhibits for case file H-2025-0029. Evidence also includes the 2019 Comprehensive Plan and all associated policies, studies and plans. 8. The proposed amendment is in the best interest of the City of Meridian. Staff Finding: Staff finds the proposed amendment is in the best interest of the City maintains the ensures the City of Meridian remains in compliance with Idaho State Statute governing Areas of Impact; maintaining the plan improves relevancy; and provides for orderly development of land that are proposed to be included in the AOCT Evidence includes City of Meridian I Planning Department—Long range Division Page 13 of 15 202 the application, supporting materials submitted, and the staff report with all exhibits for case file H-2025-0029. Evidence also includes the 2019 Comprehensive Plan and all associated policies, studies and plans. VI. ACTION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to remove the subject 507.34 acres from the City's Future Land Use Map and Area of City Impact and include 5.06 acres as described to the AOCI and FLUM,with a designation of Medium Density Residential, and authorize staff to request apply with Ada County to re-establish the boundaries of the City's Area of City Impact. B. Commission: Pending C. City Council: Pending City of Meridian I Planning Department—Long range Division Page 14 of 15 203 VII. EXHIBITS: A. Application Packet& Supporting Materials A.1 Application A.2 Narrative&Letter: May 22,2025 A.3 Table—Area to be removed from AOCI&FLUM A.4 Tabel—Area to be added to AOCI&FLUM A.5 Letter of Request&Consent—Jack Frans—Signed: May 15, 2025 A.6 Letter Re: William Road Extension: May 14,2025 A.7 City of Boise Letter&Resolution No.RES-236-25 A.8 2025 Current Meridian AOCI A.9 Meridian Current Future Land Use Map(FLUM) A.10 2 Mile Radius from Meridian City Limits A.11 Parcels over two miles from Meridian City Limits A.12 Proposed Addition to AOCI&FLUM B. Supplemental Documents B.1 Pre-Application Meeting: May 13, 2025 B.2 Letter from Ada County: February 26,2025 B.3 List of Adopted Plans And Studies By Reference—2019 Comprehensive Plan Extract B.4 FLUM Addition—Medium Density Residential C. Agency/Department Comments Received: June 17,2025 C.1 Kuna Schools: June 12,2025 C.2 Idaho Transportation Department(ITD): June 7,2025 C.3 Department of Environmental Quality(DEQ): June 9,2025 CA Meridian Public Works Department: May 28,2025 City of Meridian I Planning Department—Long range Division Page 15 of 15 204 Exhibit A Application & Supporting Materials F 05 Exhibit A.1 Planning Division (:�V- E IDIA �1�T.-----' HEARING APPLICATION DAHO Type of Review Requested Hearing File number: H-2025-0029 Assigned Planner: BIII Parsons Related Files: Applicant Information Applicant name: CARL ANDERSON, CITY OF MERIDIAN Phone: Applicant address: 33 E. BROADWAY AVE., MERIDIAN, ID 83642 Email: canderson@meridiancity.org Owner name: Phone: Fax: Owner address: Email: Agent name(e.g.architect,engineer,developer,representative): CARL ANDERSON Firmname: CITY OF MERIDIAN Phone: Fax: Address: 33 E. BROADWAY AVE. Email: canderson@meridiancity.org Contact name: Phone: Fax: Contact address: Email: Subject Property Information Location/street address: R1895900040, R3311160010, R3311160020, R3311160030, R3311160050, R3311160060, R3311160072, R3311160076, R9575310100, R9575310200, R9575310300, S1228325635, S1228336006, S1228336085, S1228336300, S1228336315, S1228346900, S1228347000, S1233212710, S1233212810, S1233212840, S1233223303, S1233325420, S1233325500, S1233336320, S1233336380, S1233336420, S1233336460, S1233346630, S1233346650, S1233346680, S1233346700, S1233346750, S1233346800, S1233427840, S1233438405, Assessor's parcel number(s): S1233438615, S1233449800 Township,range,section: 3N 1 W33 Project Description 33 E Broadway Avenue,Suite 102 a- Meridian,Idaho 83642 Phone:(208)884-5533 d- Facsimile:(208)888-6854 d- Website:www.meridaincity.org 1 F206] Project/Application Name: AOCI Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment- CPAM Hearing Date: June 26, 2025 Planner: Carl Anderson Project: AOCI Comprehensive Map Amendment Description of work: Request: The City of Meridian Planning Division is applying for a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment (CPAM). This amendment concurrently modifies the boundaries of the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and re-establishes the boundaries of the Area of City Impact (AOCI). The intent of the amendment is to align the City's AOCI with the adopted Idaho State Code §67-6526 Areas of Impact, as amended in 2024. The proposed amendment does not modify any policies or text of the current City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan. Location: City wide 33 E Broadway Avenue,Suite 102 a- Meridian,Idaho 83642 Phone:(208)884-5533 d— Facsimile:(208)888-6854 d— Website:www.meridaincity.org 2 F207] Application Information APPLICATION TYPES Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment-CPAM: CHECKED Is this City Initiated?: Yes PROPERTY INFORMATION General Location: City Wide Total Acreage: -507.34 +5.06 Traffic Study Required per ACHD: No FLUM DESIGNATION(S) Low Density Residential: CHECKED Acreage-Low Density Res: - 507.34 Medium Density Residential: CHECKED Acreage-Medium Density Res: +5.06 PROJECT INFORMATION What was the date of your pre-application meeting?: 05/13/2025 Pre-Application Permit Number(ex PREAPP-2021-0001): Preapp-2025-0063 PROPERTY POSTING I agree to comply with the Commitment of Property Posting regulations per UDC I1- CHECKED 5A-6D: PROPOSED FLUM DESIGNATION(S) Low Density Residential: CHECKED Acreage-Low Density Res: - 507.34 Medium Density Residential: CHECKED Acreage-Medium Density Res: +5.06 TIME EXTENSION INFORMATION Number of months extension: 24 PLAN REVIEW Verified submittal standards and checklist items: CHECKED Verify that all drawings/documents will be uploaded in Project Dox as Individual CHECKED PDF's: APPLICATION DISCLAIMER I have read and accept the above terms: CHECKED Your signature: Carl Anderson MISC Is new record: No 33 E Broadway Avenue,Suite 102 a- Meridian,Idaho 83642 Phone:(208)884-5533 a- Facsimile:(208)888-6854 a- Website:www.meridaincity.org 3 2os Exhibit A.2 Mayor Robert E. Simison City Council Members: E IDIAN� Luke Cavener, President Liz Strader,Vice President D A H O Brian Whitlock Doug Taylor John Overton Anne Little Roberts May 22, 2025 Bruce Freckleton Community Development Director City of Meridian 33. E. Broadway Ave. #102 Meridian, ID 83642 RE: Amendment to the Future Land Use Map & Re-establishment of the Area of City Impact Boundary Dear Mr. Freckleton, The City of Meridian Planning Division is applying for a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment (CPAM). This amendment concurrently modifies the boundaries of the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and re-establishes the boundaries of the City's Area of City Impact (AOCI). The intent of the amendment is to align the City's AOCI with the adopted Idaho State Code §67-6526 Areas of Impact, as amended in 2024. The proposed amendment does not modify any policies or text of the current City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendment removes all land area that wholly extends beyond two miles from current City limits, except where a portion of a given parcel extends beyond the two-mile buffer, such area is included in the proposed AOCI as allowed by Idaho State Code §67-6526.4(b). The FLUM is being amended to match the boundary of the proposed AOCI. At the time of submittal of this request, there are thirty-eight (38) parcels generally located in the southwest corner of Meridian's AOCI,that are proposed to be removed from the City's AOCI. All thirty-eight parcels have a designation of Low Density Residential on the FLUM.The combined area of the parcels is 507.34 acres (more or less). Additionally, as a product of timing, a property that has recently been approved to exclude itself from the City of Boise AOCI and FLUM, has requested to be incorporated into the City of Meridian's AOCI and FLUM. Community Development Department . 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Suite 102, Meridian, ID 83642 Phone 208-884-5533 . www.meridiancity.org F209] The subject property is owned by Mr. Frans and is located at 12504 W. Amity Road (parcel no. S1128449084). The parcel is 5.06 acres (more or less). Mr. Frans has intentions of developing his property in the near future, however, is not requesting annexation at this time. The property is proposed to have a designation of Medium Density Residential. The applicant has provided his written consent to be included in the City's AOCI, and FLUM, with a designation Medium Density Residential. City staff are coordinating this effort with Ada County staff. The proposed amendment to the boundary of the City of Meridian Area of City Impact will not be adopted, nor official until such time that the Board of County Commissioners adopts such an ordinance. Pursuant to Idaho code 67-6526(1a) County commissioners make the final determination regarding area of impact boundaries with the County. Supporting documentation and materials are included as part of this request and may be further detailed in the subsequent staff report. Sincerely, Carl Anderson I Long Range Associate Planner City of Meridian I Community Development Department Phone: 208.489.0328 cnderson@meridiancity.org CC: Caleb Hood, Deputy Director Brian McClure, Long Range Planning Supervisor 2 F-] 210 Exhibit A.3 Area to be removed from AOCI & FLUM -Summary by Parcel Parcel Ada Zoning Acres Future Land Use Map R1895900040 RUT 4.66 Low Density Residential R3311160010 RUT 10.41 Low Density Residential R3311160020 RUT 10.34 Low Density Residential R3311160030 RUT 10.55 Low Density Residential R3311160050 RUT 10.62 Low Density Residential R3311160060 RUT 10.26 Low Density Residential R3311160072 RUT 1.00 Low Density Residential R3311160076 RUT 9.23 Low Density Residential R9575310100 RUT 5.01 Low Density Residential R9575310200 RUT 7.55 Low Density Residential R9575310300 RUT 5.00 Low Density Residential S1228325635 RUT 4.53 Low Density Residential S1228336006 RUT 10.79 Low Density Residential S1228336085 RUT 12.03 Low Density Residential S1228336300 RUT 10.05 Low Density Residential S1228336315 RUT 9.93 Low Density Residential S1228346900 RUT 19.62 Low Density Residential S1228347000 RUT 19.07 Low Density Residential S1233212710 RUT 36.60 Low Density Residential S1233212810 RUT 8.27 Low Density Residential S1233212840 RUT 10.37 Low Density Residential S1233223303 RUT 23.35 Low Density Residential S1233325420 RUT 1.63 Low Density Residential S1233325500 RUT 117.37 Low Density Residential S1233336320 RUT 5.00 Low Density Residential S1233336380 RUT 5.00 Low Density Residential S1233336420 RUT 5.00 Low Density Residential S1233336460 RUT 5.00 Low Density Residential S1233346630 RUT 3.86 Low Density Residential S1233346650 RUT 1.00 Low Density Residential S1233346680 RUT 5.00 Low Density Residential S1233346700 RUT 5.00 Low Density Residential S1233346750 RUT 5.00 Low Density Residential S1233346800 R1 1.00 Low Density Residential S1233427840 RUT 40.00 Low Density Residential S1233438405 RUT 35.03 Low Density Residential S1233438615 RUT 10.34 Low Density Residential S1233449800 RUT 12.86 Low Density Residential Total Acreage 507.34 F211] Exhibit A.4 Area to be added to AOCI & FLUM -Summary by Parcel Parcel Ada Zoning Acres Future Land Use Map R1128449082 RUT 5.06 Medium Density Residential Total Acreage 5.06 F 12 Exhibit A.5 Outlook [Draft]Request letter to the City of Meridian From Draft saved Mon 5/12/2025 11:16 AM To Jackie Lee <jackfrans@msn.com> This is a request to the City of Meridian to include the property located at 12504 West Amity Road to the area of impact of Meridian.This is 5.06 Acres and is Parcel No. S1128449082. I consent to the future land use map designation of medium density residential. Jack Frans eC, F213] Exhibit A.6 May 14,2025 Jack L.Frans 12504 W.Amity Road Boise,Idaho 83709 RE: Willandra Road Extension Dear Jack: This letter concerns our consent to the extension of Willandra Road from the Northwest Corner of our property to the Southwest Corner of our property. Our consent for an extension of Willandra Road is subject to the following conditions: I. Before any construction begins,we have an eight(8)to ten (10) foot privacy fence on the East side of the planned road from our North fence to Amity Road. 2. We would require an irrigation ditch to be constructed to allow drainage from our irrigation system,which ditch needs to run parallel to East side of the privacy fence to the Nine Mile feeder ditch. Sincerely yours, Bruce Whittig ( . 1 t W Holly Whittig F214] Exhibit A.7 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERViCES B 0 1 S E MAYOR: Lauren McLean I INTERIM DIRECTOR: Hannah Brass Greer i I T Y .^F ,3 G S May 22, 2025 Jackie Frans 12504 W Amity Rd Boise, ID 83709 iacklrans',c�3msn.com Re: CPA25-00001 / 12504 W Amity Rd / Resolution Dear Applicant: On May 20, 2025, the Boise City Council approved and adopted the resolution (ICES-236- 25) for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to modify the boundaries of the Area of City Impact (AOCI) shown on The Future hand Use Map by removing 5.06 acres located at 12504 W Amity Road from The Boise City Comprehensive Plan, and providing an effective date. Questions can be directed to the assigned planner, Jesi Ule at (208) 608-7857 or lile( 'citvofbuise.oig. Sincerely, Maureen Brewer Interim Deputy Planning Director Boise City Planning and Development Services MB/nr cc: Frans Family Trust 5/30/19/Owner Marisa Keith/Southwest Ada County Neighborhood Association Rob Lockward/Deputy City Attorney/r -7L.jvI01 Jim Pardy/Boise City Public Works/ trc± Q:cioboise.Ofg Jason Blais/Boise City Building Official/ blais:scityofboise.org Brent Copes/Central District Health/l_ooes's cdh-idaho.aov Planning Review/ACHD/ =-I ini:i.inorevii-w a rir.hdidaho.f)rfjj The City of Boise Planning and Development Services Department acknowledges the ancestral,cultural,traditional,and unceded territory of the Shoshone,Bannock,and Northern Paiute people on which our land use and development decisions are made. BOISE CITY HALL:150 N.Capitol Boulevard I MAIL-.PO Box 500,Boise,Idaho 83701-0500 1 P:208-608:7100 1 TTY:800-377-3529 BOISE CITY COUNCIL:Colin Nash(President), Meredith Stead (President Pro Tern}, Kathy Carless,Jimmy Hallyburton,Jordan Morales,Luci VEI C I TYOF BO I S F=,0P G/P DS Ada County Recorder Trent Tripple 2025-031233 Boise,Idaho Pgs=3 boberbillig 05/20/2025 04:34:30 PM CITY OF BOISE$0.00 Electronically Recorded Resolution NO. RES-236-25 BY THE COUNCIL CORLESS, HALLYBURTON, MORALES, NASH, STEAD AND WILLITS. A RESOLUTION (CPA25-00001) FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO MODIFY THE BOUNDARIES OF THE AREA OF CITY IMPACT (AOCI) SHOWN ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP BY REMOVING 5.06 ACRES LOCATED AT 12504 W AMITY ROAD FROM THE BOISE CITY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, on March 10, 2025, the Boise City Planning & Zoning Commission held a public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to modify the boundaries of the area of city impact (AOCI) shown on the future land use map by removing 5.06 acres located at 12504 W Amity Road from the Boise City Comprehensive Plan boundary; and, WHEREAS, on March 10, 2025, the Boise City Planning & Zoning Commission recommended approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment; and, WHEREAS, on April 15, 2025, the Boise City Council held a hearing and approved by formal motion the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to remove the 5.06 acres from the Boise City Comprehensive Plan boundary to modify the boundaries of the area of city impact (AOCI) shown on the future land use map. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOISE CITY, IDAHO: Section 1. That Blueprint Boise be amended to modify the boundaries of the area of city impact (AOCI) shown on the future land use map as shown in Exhibit A by removing 5.06 acres from the Boise City Comprehensive Plan boundary. Section 2. That this Resolution shall be in full force and effect immediately upon its adoption and approval. F 16 Instrument # 2025-031233 05/20/2025 04:34:30 PM Page 2 of 3 ADOPTED by the Council of Boise City, Idaho, on May 20, 2025. APPROVED by the Mayor of the Boise City, Idaho, on May 20, 2025. APPROVED: ATTEST: auren McLea , yor = +Jmi�e=einze rling, City erk F217] W Hollandale Dr s S ° W 9F a F ¢Q E > //S4h Gate o N W 03 G 'l BOO p '+✓•Easy acn MN CPA25-00001 et/Or C° co„ h W Netherland Dr 1 1 000' E Los W Hiawatha Dr EfDrainfl a B_ O_ I_ S_ E ra os[D. W Grey\xng Ct W Grayling Dr W Tioga St Instrument#2025-031233 p` Y 0_ 0520/2025 04:34:30 PM Page 3 of 3 E.Moon_. Q °} G m ° E Dipper St Y 4 ��# W Tioga Ct 2 �■ io U) N m Or ¢�c W Peconic Dr - cn r. +;. ;EV,ictory,Rd _ W Victory.Rd o j3 CD Aerial Map Boise Area of Impact Outline _- W Verde Ln O Subject parcel v � r y W Verde�Dr Boise City Limits E DarlingtonFDr� i v D m to N y <'Jv m ZI'% O i E Brentor St J'v '• ° W Brentor St 1 a,F0 i d a S eca C 'E Silver o . o N E Elen,mile d L rVi eak rn XjJrAr' !�a°j�o �� � F View Cto„ Feederan Cal ew St U + E Awb ey St, W Awbr�ey St Waya W Moh`awk-Dr t'DaR ' �: J w +�+ ' U S Sumter N 3 i 44'� t -E Darby? p. Y E 'alula Ln -E'-POrid1 E_gott Ln _ � a ��o _ o G a C7 o QI\N•Bott Ln E.Pe erful� =EClearyU LL #* W Hem\opk. w .. y& Pond Dr - N m - W Reutzel Dr $ (P r U E Fratello St Q ��r W'Fairlawn Ct `� ¢ LL �T'�-� W Arabian Way ✓a� W ArabiarnDr Nco cn = `' esoh cn� ��, a Eightmile o w o DID CA I�. U Q cn Creek - CD ° W Shetland Rtl E Amity Rd �. .ti ° W Amity Rd11 � a) N E Woodmurra St -?�- o' l Q ry mQCD o �_ E Kalinga St , �. W DalrCODW Blackmoor St- U?mod' Q y ll cn Ymple St,f a�> S 218 _ n -a i ParklStr+ W Billabong St t2hi° v y�°'o e W Harness St '� rrf Cn, ay re E Hillsong St o _ COS Hon Lateral Exhibit A.8 STAR . �'■ '4 a 4• • •f ♦ EAGLE ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ i ' New BOISE a ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ � r. ■ ■ w MERIDIAN a ■ NAMPA ■ ■ ■ i. ■ ■ ■« ■ ■ a ■ � . or ■ ■ Legend ■ ■: ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ! a ■ ■� Area of Impact County Line ■ ' All Ada County KUNA ! �� MERIDIAN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ ■ Ada County Cities I ■ Canyon County Cities ' ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 0 Print Date: -r: canderson The information shown on this map is compiled from various sources and is subject to constant revision.The City of Meridian makes no warranty or guarantee as to the content,accuracy,timeliness,or completeness of any of V the data provided,and assumes no legal responsibility for the information contained on this map. 219 Exhibit A.9 r ' � STAR ' -I I %% EAGLE '_11 ' - Ila 1 � f I 1 , • h 1 1 Cemetery 'F �i- 1 MERIDIAN Power I 101SE 1 ' I r WRRF —' 1 Golf Course, �+ I Al1 Library � r�_ "�1ifr0 id 11101 Ali LL, hmp r Post OfficeT14iii7 L 0 Gen.Plaza NAMPA � � _ -�-- -M7i 11 � o .Wmetteryyyy r\/ �� ----_ I D�' ' State P1ice � 1 — PA _li Idaho Power � 1 FI� 1 U �►.. 1 I 1 i — Idaho 1 1 1 Power 1 1 1, 1 - r Legend KUNA Future Land Uses 11 old Town Mixed use Commercial 1 0 Low Density Residential ®Mixed Use Neighborhood i Area of Impact ' Medium Density Residential ®Mixed Use Community M County Line ' — � 1 Med-High Density Residential-Mixed Use Regional All Ada County High Density Residential -Mixed Use Non-Residential MERIDIAN 1 r Commercial ®Mixed Use-Interchange Ada County Cities , OfficeOffice -Low Density Employment Canyon County Cities ` -Industrial I�Mixed Employment Civic I�Mixed Use Residential Current Future Land Use Map , , .5 1 Miles 0 Print Date: -r: canderson The information shown on this map is compiled from various sources and is subject to constant revision.The City of Meridian makes no warranty or guarantee as to the content,accuracy,timeliness,or completeness of any of the data provided,and assumes no legal responsibility for the information contained on this map. OVIERIDIAM, 220 Exhibit A. 1 TAR l _� ► �� EAGLE �w•iw— `i::ti� GARDEN �J ■ �fl� ■■il��� fl Iiri� � r, BOISE MERIDIA 11111111 � �, 11111■1'1�1�� � - 11111i,•` 111111� '' • 1 11 nft 11 fAl■lilli� _�1■■IlhllllilllllV`��■�I�I�:-'a�I•�'`'• r'' _ �-••c' Parcels Ove two Miles form City Limits �I�/11■�� alp=��Lp 1 ����I;�I tit IIUI � 1 ■ LAddition / I �LegendProposed Parcel ii Potential Addition2 Mile radius from City Limits v ;:! iiRemove from AOCI proposedParcels within AOCI fill 6 Area of Impact MERIDIAN__i County Line All Ada County Ada County Cities Canyon County Cities KU 2 Mile Radius From City Limits �5 ,Miles Print Date: 5/20/2025 � User: canderson The - - - -City information . .. compiled . . . . and . .constant . of Meridian makes no warranty or guarantee as to the content,accuracy,timeliness,or completeness of any of the data provided,and assumes no legal responsibility for the information contained on this map. 221 IDAHO Aq r i _. -�.. o •""�•,�� e -too ~� 'III �— �oOF s iA � � , I „CIF ■ Parcels Over Two Miles from City Limits 0 Print Date: 5/22/2025 User: canderson 0 0.1 0.3Mies The information on this map is compiled from various . and is subject .constant revision. of Meridian makes no or arantee as - .. . . . .-. . . . - . -.. responsibility -informationcontained on .. C-/ E IDIAN— IDAHO Exhibit A.12 Legend -_A Area of Impact MERIDIAN Parcels ® Potential Addition _ • � I 1 f E ARABIAN DR 3 ✓��FSoH cT W - - w. nal Mill H MERIDIAN S�112�8449082 E GRAYSON DR r ■ E AMITY RD >:. r 6 1'� The information shown on this map is compiled from various sources and is subject to constant revision.The City of Meridian makes no warranty or guarantee as to the content,accuracy,timeliness,or completeness of any of the data provided,and assumes no legal responsibility for the information contained on this map. 223 Exhibit 6 Supplemental Documents F 24 Exhibit B1 Planning Division (:�z'WE 1D1N^'' PREAPPLICATION MEETING D A�i t3 Type of Review Requested Pre-Application Request File number: P REAP P-2025-0063 Assigned Planner: Nick Napoli Scheduled Date: 05/13/2025 Scheduled Time: 9:30 AM Applicant Information Name: CARL ANDERSON, CITY OF MERIDIAN Address: 33 E. BROADWAY AVE. 83642 Phone. Email: canderson@meridiancity.org Additional Attendee(s) Subject Property Information Location/street address: Assessor's parcel number City Wide (s): Township, range, section: Project Description Project/Application Name: AOCI & FLUM Amendment Description of Work: Amentment to the City's Area of Impact and Future Land Use Map Application Information APPLICATION TYPES Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment -CPAM: CHECKED Is this City Initiated?: Yes MEETING TYPE Do you plan to attend this preapplication meeting in person or in person virtually via Microsoft Teams?: PROJECT INFORMATION A neighborhood meeting is good for 3 months and is required prior CHECKED to application submittal: I acknowledge pre-app notes are good for 4 months: CHECKED I acknowledge that a Site Plan will be uploaded in the attachment CHECKED section: Site Plan Date (MM/DD/YYYY): 04/30/2025 33 E Broadway Avenue, Suite 102 a— Meridian, Idaho 83642 Phone: (208)884-5533 a— Facsimile: (208)888-6854 a— Website: www.meridaincity.org 1 F 25 PROPERTY INFORMATION Total Acreage: +/- 507.34 Acres (Potential +5.06) PROPOSED FLUM DESIGNATION(S) Acreage - Low Density Res: - 507.34 Acreage - Medium Density Res: +5.06 Designation NOT confirmed Low Density Residential: CHECKED Medium Density Residential: CHECKED TYPE OF USE PROPOSED Other Type of Use Proposed: City Wide ZONING DISTRICT(S) County: CHECKED Review Type Reviewer Review Notes Wastewater Plan Review Notes Vicki Ly Area is currently accounted for in Sewer Master Plan. Required 2 lift stations and the construction of the McDermott trunk line to service area Legal Review Notes Kurt Starman Recommend that we describe this as the 'reestablishment" of the AOI to better align with the language in I.C. 67-6526 (6). The City will need to coordinate with the County, since the County is responsible for adopting the AOI under I.C. 67- 6526. 33 E Broadway Avenue, Suite 102 a- Meridian, Idaho 83642 Phone: (208)884-5533 5— Facsimile: (208)888-6854 a- Website:www.meridaincity.org 2 F226] Exhibit B.2 ADA COUNTY is DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 200 W.FRONT STREET,BOISE,IDAHO 83702-7300 PHONE(208)287-7900 https://adacouniy.id.gov/developmentservices FAX(208)287-7909 BUILDING COMMUNITY PLANNING ENGINEERING& SURVEYING PERMITTING February 26, 2025 Caleb Hood Deputy Director City of Meridian 33 E. Broadway Avenue Meridian, ID 83642 Re: Area of Impact Update Dear Caleb: Thankyou for proactively reaching out about the updates that were made to section 67-6526 of Idaho Code in the 2024 legislative session, which requires cities and counties in Idaho to work together to update or reestablish their area of impact boundaries by December 31, 2025. We look forward to working with you on this and appreciate the work the City has already completed to ensure we have adopted your city's most recent comprehensive plan for use within your area of impact. As you are aware, section 67-6526 of Idaho Code, requires area of impact boundaries to be within two miles of a city's municipal boundary. We've identified parcels within your current area of impact that are over two miles from your city's limits, as shown on the attached maps. These parcels will need to be removed from your city's area of impact in order to comply with the new legislation. Please reach out if you would like to discuss these properties further, or see things differently with regard to this requirement. Once an agreement has been reached regarding the area impact and Meridian has addressed any necessary city applications and approvals, Ada County will process the application to formalize the boundary, and adopt any other proposed changes. This application would include a zoning ordinance amendment to adjust the boundary and update the area of impact agreement, and a comprehensive plan amendment if any adjustments are required to future land use designations, or to adopt a new comprehensive plan. F227] Stacey DuPuis from our Community & Regional Planning Team will oversee this effort and manage the Ada County application. You can reach out to her at any time for questions regarding the application process. We look forward to working with you to help ensure the County's area of impact boundaries and associated planning documents are accurate and up to date. Respectfully, Richard Beck Director Attachment: Maps of Area of Impact Parcels Over Two Miles from City Limits CC: Leon Letson, Community Planning Manager, Ada County Stacey DuPuis, Community & Regional Planner, Ada County F228] Meridian Area of Impact Parcels Over Two Miles from City Limits * i �s ' .,' � , • 2.y I _ r i ij �,� Area of Impact Boundary NO, VW Meridian City -"ram"` iwa�'11..• _ • L i� f _-•� 11 itll 1 ,T L ry • w Parcels Over Two Miles Fromi — '�I Cit Limits IN I AT; v !}[TmTffk- F ` � - 229 F KA ' �� Source: Esri,Mexar,EarGhstar Geographies,and the GIBS User Co t � 1 h. r• c�ayuummu „ Exhibit B.3 LIST OF IMPLEMENTATION TOOLS The following table lists existing tools which will be utilized to implement the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan. These tools are already approved through City ordinance, but may require updates to most effectively implement this Plan. Meridian's online City Code is maintained by a third party and is available via the City's website. ToolsList of Implementation Tool Link City of Meridian Architectural Standards Manual (2016) https://meridiancity.org/designreview Meridian City Code (2019) https:Hmeridiancity.org/CityCode Unified Development Code(Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances,Title 11 of Meridian City Code) (2019) https://meridiancity.org/UDC LIST OF ADOPTED PLANS AND STUDIES BY REFERENCE The following table lists plans that are adopted by reference by the City of Meridian. The most current major amendment dates are reflected on this table. Sites listed without a www.meridiancity.org domain are not maintained or operated by the City. AdoptedList of Plan Lead Agency Link Meridian Arts Commission Strategic Plan (2019) Meridian Arts Commission https://meridiancity.org/mac/ Meridian Environmental Programs Plan (2019) City of Meridian https://meridiancity.org/environmental/ Welcome to Meridian Signage Plan (2019) City of Meridian https://meridiancity.org/WelcomePlan Communities in Motion 2040 2.0(2018) COMPASS https://meridiancity.org/TransportationPlanning Existing Conditions Report(2022) City of Meridian https://meridiancity.org/comp-plan Meridian Water Master Plan (2018) City of Meridian hUas://meridiancity.org/WataLMESummary Roadways to Bikeways Master Plan (2018) Ada County Highway District https://meridiancity.org/TransportationPlanning Valley Connect 2.0(2018) Valley Regional Transit https://meridiancity.org/TransportationPlanning Ada County Hazard Mitigation Plan (2017) Ada County https:Hmeridiancity.org/AdaHazardPlan City of Meridian Collection System Master Plan (2017) City of Meridian https://meridiancity.org/CollectionMPSummary City of Meridian Strategic Plan 2016-2020(2015) City of Meridian https://meridiancity.org/StrategicPlan www.meridiancity.org/compplan 231 List of Adopted Plans By Reference Plan Lead Agency Link Meridian Parks and Recreation Master Plan (2015) City of Meridian https://meridiancity.org/masterplan Downtown Meridian Street Cross-section Master Plan City of Meridian https://meridiancity.org/StreetPlan (2014) Meridian Historic Preservation Plan (2014) Meridian Historic Preservation https://meridiancity.org/HistoricPlan Commission Downtown Meridian Neighborhood Pedestrian and Ada County Highway District/City of https://meridiancity.org/transportation Bicycle Plan (2012) Meridian Eastern Treasure Valley Electric Plan (2012) Idaho Power https://meridiancity.org/ElectricPlan Airport-Overland Corridor Study(2011) ACHD and City of Nampa https://meridiancity.org/TransportationPlanning Meridian Water Conservation Plan (2011) City of Meridian https://meridiancity.org/water/conservation Destination Downtown (2010) Meridian Development Corporation https://meridiancity.org/downtown Meridian Pathways Master Plan (2010) City of Meridian https://meridiancity.org/pathways Meridian Rail-With-Trail Action Plan (2010) City of Meridian https://meridiancity.org/TransportationPlanning ACHD Transportation and Land Use Integration Plan Ada County Highway District https://meridiancity.org/TransportationPlanning (2009) US-20/26 Corridor Study(2006) Idaho Transportation Department https://meridiancity.org/TransportationPlanning (ITD) Downtown Meridian Transportation Management Plan Ada County Highway District/City of https://meridiancity.org/TransportationPlanning (2005) Meridian Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan (2007) City of Meridian https://meridiancity.org/TMISAP Destination Downtown (2010) Meridian Development Corporation https://meridiancity.org/downtown Fields Subarea Plan (2021) City of Meridian https://meridiancity.org/Fields www.meridiancity.org/compplan NJ Exhibit B.4 jr.:� ■ ■ F'iq E ARABIAN DR �1Fso • !� �cT • o S�112844908�2 �= N ' E GRAYSON DR E-AMITY-RD - �' +* •• W O Q ' LA E WOODMURRA " Legend '- ST + �■ Area of Impact r r Proposed - Medium Density Residential Medium Density Residential Le The information shown on this map is compiled from various sources and is subject to constant revision.The City of Meridian makes no warranty or guarantee as to the content,accuracy,timeliness,or completeness of any of the data provided,and assumes no legal responsibility for the information contained on this map. 233 Exhibit C Agency/Department Comments Received: June 17, 2025 F 34 Exhibit C.1 Kuna School District Kuna School District kS D� Future Ready Empowering students to lead productive lives. Date: 06/12/25 RE: H-2025-0029 Dear Commissioners and Council Members, Kuna School District has reviewed the application of Case No. H-2025-0029 and has no objection to the application as it is presented. Thank you. Sincerely, Tim Jensen&Jason Reddy Kuna School District Planning Team Kim Bekkedahl, Brian Graves, Jason Reddy, Bradley Steadman, Superintendent Asst. Superintendent Assistant Superintendent Chief Financial Officer Allison Westfall, Kevin Gifford, Kelly Schamber, Communications Director Curriculum, Instruction& Special Education Director Assessment Director 711 E. Porter Rd., Kuna, Idaho 83634 Phone: (208) 922-1000 F235] Charlene Way From: Timothy Jensen <tejensen@kunaschools.org> Sent: Thursday, June 5, 2025 2:13 PM To: Clerks Comment Subject: AOCI Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment H-2025-0029 ':',xteirur:d: Sender der-Please use caution with links or attachments. Kuna School District has no official comment on this application as it does not lie within our boundaries. Tim Jensen Prfiwip�l I amour.' S N\II 1 F'r ,ulrrt CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail, including attachments, is intended solely for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. Any review, dissemination, copying, printing or other use of this e-mail by persons or entities other than the addressee is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete the material from your device. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail, including attachments, is intended solely for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. Any review, dissemination, copying, printing or other use of this e-mail by persons or entities other than the addressee is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete the material from your device. 1 F 36 Exhibit C.2 Charlene Way From: Kendra Conder <Kendra.Conder@itd.idaho.gov> Sent: Saturday, June 7, 2025 3:16 PM To: Clerks Comment Subject: AOCI Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment H-2025-0029 Il teirirmlll Sender-Please use caution with links or attachments. -------------------------------------------------------- Good Afternoon, ITD does not have any comments regarding the comprehensive plan map amendment. Thank you! Kendra Conder District 3 1 Development Services Coordinator Idaho Transportation Department Office:208-334-8377 Cell:208-972-3190 Idi 1 F237] Exhibit C.3 Charlene Way From: BRO Admin <BRO.Admin@deq.idaho.gov> Sent: Monday, June 9, 2025 10:47 AM To: Clerks Comment Subject: RE: Development Application Transmittals - AOCI Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment H-2025-0029 ':'Xteirur:d: Sender der-Please use caution with links or attachments. The Boise Regional DEQ Administration has no comments at this time. Sincerely, Carlene Oberg Administrative Assistant I Idaho Department of Environmental Quality 1445 North Orchard Street Boise, Idaho 83706 P: (208)373-OSSO I http://www.deq.idaho.gov/ Carlene.Oberg@deq.idaho.gov Dev-e-Co -E PaH-y. 3eG� From: clerk@ meridiancity.org<clerk@meridiancity.org> Sent:Thursday,June 5, 2025 9:47 AM To: BRO Admin <BRO.Admin@deq.idaho.gov> Subject: Development Application Transmittals-AOCI Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment H-2025-0029 CnAU 'INOIP' . This email originated outside the State of Idaho network. Verify links and attachments BEFORE you click or open, even if you recognize and/or trust the sender. Contact your agency service desk with any concerns. Development Application Transmittal 1 F 38 Link to Project Application:AOCI Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment(H- 2025-0029 Hearing Date:June 26, 2025 Assigned Planner: Carl Anderson To view the City of Meridian Public Records Repository, Click Here The above "Link to Project Application" will provide you with any further information on the project. The City of Meridian is requesting comments and recommendations on the application referenced above. To review the application and project information please click on the application link above. The City of Meridian values transparency and makes a variety of information available to the public online through our public records repository. We request that you submit your comments or recommendations prior to the hearing date specified above.When responding, please reference the file number of the project. If responding by email, please send comments to comment@meridiancity.org. For additional information associated with this application please contact the City of Meridian Planner identified above at 208-884-5533. Thankyou, City Clerk's Office 33 E. Broadway Ave., Meridian, Idaho 83642 Phone: 208.888.44331Email: cityclerk@meridiancity.org Built for Business, Designed for Living All e-mail messages sent to or received by City of Meridian e-mail accounts are subject to the Idaho law, in regards to both release and retention,and maybe released upon request,unless exempt from disclosure bylaw. 2 239 Exhibit C.4 Project Name: H-2025-0029 Project Description:AOCI Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment-CPAM Review Comments List Date: 6/17/2025 Ref.#1,Water Modeling Review,Tyson Glock, 5/28/25 9:24 AM, Cycle 1, Info Only Comment: Distance to Mainline - NA Impacts or Concerns- Future water planning will plan accordingly. F240] E IDIAN;--- Applicant Presentation AOCI Comprehensive Plan Map June 26, 20250029-2025-H Amendment Why the Change Cities may have their own planning areasCounty sets AOCIConsiderations for service planningof municipal city limitsRequires AOCI be limited to within 2 miles with Ada County in 2025Area of City Impacts must be reestablished , amended in 20246526-67§Idaho State Code  Areas of Change Notices sent to affected property ownersModify entryway corridors accordingly Density Residential on the FLUM.Designate the property as Medium approved releasing from their AOCI.of this application since Boise already was a request and supported as part 1 parcel totaling 5.06 parcel acres. This Addsimilar)way or -of-(does not include right38 parcels totaling 507.34 parcel acres Remove Remove from AOCI Areas of Change (Exhibits)(5.07 gross acres)Add to AOCI Request and Next Steps begin AOCI negotiations.Formal Application to Ada County to City Council HearingNext Stepsrecommended in the Department Reportthe Meridian City Council as 0029 to -2025- W IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for UDC Text Amendment (ZOA-2025-0001) by City of Meridian Planning Division, located citywide. Application Materials: https://bit.ly/ZOA-2025-0001 A. Request: UDC Text Amendment to revise certain regulations, add new definitions, figures, and update specific use standards throughout Chapters 1-5 of the City's Unified Development Code (UDC). 241 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE : June 26, 2025 ITEM # 10 PROJECT NAME : UDC Text Amendment ( ZOA= 2025 = 0001 ) wish to testify Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing ( mark mars ) ( Please Print ) HOA ? GU 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 STAFF REPORT E COMMUNITY N -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING 6/26/2025 DATE: ' 16 44 55 0 TO: Mayor&City Council 26 FROM: Bill Parsons, Current Planning Supervisor 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: ZOA-2025-0001 — 2025 UDC Text Amendment Legend �. LOCATION: City wide AOCI County — 69 Line Future Road I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Meridian Planning Division has applied for a Unified Development Code (UDC)text amendment to update certain code sections AND add new definitions,uses, figures, and specific use standards throughout Chapters 1-5,Title 11 of Meridian City Code. II. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: City of Meridian Planning Division 33 E. Broadway Ave, Suite#102 Meridian,ID 83642 III. NOTICING Planning&Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Notification published in newspaper 6/6/2025 Public Service Announcement 6/5/2025 Nextdoor posting 6/5/2025 Page 1 ■ IV. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS (Comprehensive Plan) A. Comprehensive Plan Text(https:llwww.meridianciU.or /g compplan): 3.01.0113 -Update the Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code as needed to accommodate the community's needs and growth trends. Many of the requested code changes associated with this text amendment are meant to serve community needs, support current growth trends and maintain the integrity of the plan. 3.04.01B—Maintain and update the Unified Development Code and Future Land Use Map to implement the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. City staff keeps a running database of code revisions throughout the year. The Department is tasked with keeping the code current and relevant. Staff believes the proposed changes encompass the vision of the plan and is largely supported by those who participated in the process. V. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ANALYSIS UD The proposed updates include a variety of modifications,additions,and clarifications to Chapters 1 through 5 of the Unified Development Code(UDC).Additionally, some are clean-up items that have been identified since the last code amendment cycle. Key proposed changes include: 1. UDC 11-1A-1: Definitions—Introduction of new definitions and revisions to existing ones for improved clarity and consistency. 2. UDC Table 11-2A-4: Dimensional Standards for the R-2 District—Clarification of the interior side setback requirements in the R-2 zoning district. 3.UDC 11-3A-7: Fences—Repeal and replace the existing fence code. 4.UDC 11-3F: Private Streets-Revisions to allow private streets for single-family and townhome developments,regardless of whether they are gated or mew community. 5. Chapter 4: Specific Use Standards—Updates to various specific use standards,including those for drive-throughs, secondary dwellings, flex space, and home occupations. These changes have been reviewed collaboratively through the UDC Focus Group to ensure alignment with City goals and stakeholder input. All proposed text changes to the UDC and supporting documents are included in the public record. To reduce the overall size of the report and enhance its readability for the public, Commission, and Council, the exhibits were intentionally excluded from the report. However, all related materials can be accessed by following the link provided in the Exhibits section below. Commentary explaining the purpose of each proposed modification or addition to the code is included in the corresponding table.NOTE:Additional changes are anticipated as this application moves through the public hearing process. Staff is updating the fencing graphics and making minor edits to the private street standards, which should be ready prior to the Commission hearing. These changes have been reviewed collaboratively through the UDC Focus Group to ensure alignment with City goals and stakeholder input. In summary, City Staff believes the proposed changes will make the implementation and use of the UDC more understandable and enforceable. Page 2 F 43 VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed text amendment to the UDC based on the analysis provided in Section IV and V and the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in Section VIII. B. Commission: C. City Council: Enter Summary of City Council Decision. Page 3 F 44 VII. EXHIBIT A. Proposed Code Changes— UDC Text Amendment ZOA-2025-0001 (Insert this link into your preferred browser and click on the project drawings folder.) VIII. FINDINGS 1. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT AMENDMENTS: (UDC 11-5B-3E) Upon recommendation from the Commission, the Council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing, review the application. In order to grant a text amendment to the Unified Development Code,the Council shall make the following findings: A. The text amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Staff finds that the proposed UDC text amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies and Goals, Section IV, of the Staff Report for more information. B. The text amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; and Staff finds that the proposed zoning ordinance amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare if the changes to the text of the UDC are approved. It is the intent of the text amendment to further the health, safety and welfare of the public. C. The text amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the City including, but not limited to,school districts. Staff finds that the proposed zoning ordinance amendment does not propose any significant changes to how public utilities and services are provided to developments. All City departments,public agencies and service providers that currently review applications will continue to do so. Please refer to any written or oral testimony provided by any public service provider(s)when making this finding. Page 4 F 45 E IDIAN;--- Applicant Presentation 11-4-3-21. - Home occupation accessory use. In addition to the noticing requirements set forth in subsection 11-2A-2A of this title,the following standards apply to all home occupation accessory uses with the exception that strict adherence to the standards contained in subsections (E), (F), (G) and (H) of this section in the TN-C and TN-R districts is not required. A.The home occupation accessory use shall only be allowed as an incidental, secondary use to an allowed residential use.The operator of the home occupation accessory use shall be responsible for obtaining an accessory use permit, as well as any and all other applicable licenses, permits, or inspections, prior to operating the home occupation accessory use. Where a home occupation accessory use includes the provision of lessons or instruction to a group of seven (7) or more students at one time, prior to submittal of an application for an accessory use permit, the applicant shall hold a neighborhood meeting in accord with subsection 11-5A-413 of this title. B.Allowed home occupation accessory uses include, but are not limited to: 1. Personal and professional services. 2. Direct sales. 3.Artisan craft production or instruction. 4. Art, dance, music, or other lessons/instruction. 5.Any other similar use, as determined by the Director. 6. Outdoor swim lessons for six(6) or fewer students C. Prohibited home occupation accessory uses include, but are not limited to: 1. Vehicle repair. 2.Vehicle rental. 3.Vehicle washing. 4. Equipment repair. 5. Equipment rental. 6. Retail sales, except: a.The sale of services or items produced or fabricated on the premises as a result of the home occupation accessory use; b.The sale of products secondarily related to the personal service aspect of the home occupation accessory use; or c.The sale of products sold online that are delivered to customers by mail. 7.Any other use prohibited by this title or in violation of the purpose statement of this Code, as determined by the Director. 11-3A-7. - Fences A. Purpose: The purpose of these standards is to regulate fences in order to: (1) Provide safety and security for private property; (2) Enhance the visual appearance of the built environment in the city; (3) Establish an attractive streetscape; (4) Ensure visual compatibility with public and private spaces; and (5) Promote street and neighborhood character. B. Standards for all districts 1. No person shall install a fence or allow a fence to be installed without first obtaining a fence permit, except that a fence installed in conjunction with a building permit for a principal use shall not require a separate fence permit. 2. All fences shall be measured from the back edge of the sidewalk. In cases where no sidewalk exists, the measurement shall be taken from the property line. 3. No person shall install, keep, or allow to be installed or kept a fence which includes or incorporates any of the following components: a. Electric wire. b. Barbed or razor wire , except in the M-E, I-L, and I-H districts when such barbed or razor wire is shown by the property owner to be necessary for securing the property, and the lowest barbed or razor wire is located a minimum of six feet (6') above grade. c. Boxes, sheet metal, tarp, fabric, broken masonry blocks, rotting wood, or damaged, discarded, or unsightly materials. d. Any protruding staple, spike, nail, barb, or element that presents a safety or health hazard. 4. Where screening is required in this title, chain-link fencing with or without slats shall not be used as a screening material. 5. No person shall install, keep, or allow to be installed or kept on his or her property a fence within three feet (3') of, or that otherwise obstructs access to, any utility box, meter, or other infrastructure. D. In no way shall the home occupation accessory use emit lighting, noise, fumes, smoke, dust, odors, vibrations, or electrical interference that can be observed outside the dwelling. A sign may be displayed at the dwelling for advertising the home occupation accessory use in accord with the standards set forth in subsection 11-31D-8.13 of this title. E.The home occupation accessory use shall be conducted entirely in the dwelling, and not more than ten (10) percent of the overall area of said dwelling shall be used for a home occupation accessory use or for storing goods associated with the home occupation accessory use. An attached garage shall be included in the calculation of the area of the dwelling for this purpose. Home occupations for outdoor swim lessons are exempt from this standard. F. No activity connected to the home occupation accessory use or any storage of goods, materials, or products connected with a home occupation accessory use shall be allowed in any detached garage or detached accessory structure. G.The home occupation accessory use shall not have more than two (2) outgoing pick-ups per day from a common carrier. H.The home occupation accessory use shall be conducted by the inhabitants of the dwelling, and no more than one (1) nonresident employee shall be permitted at any time. I.The home occupation accessory use shall not serve as a headquarters or main office where employees come to the site and are dispatched to other locations. J. Off street parking shall be provided as set forth in section 11-3C-6 of this title, in addition to the required off street parking for the dwelling. K.All visits by clients, customers, and/or employees shall occur between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. I. Additional standards for outdoor swim lessons: 1.The valid permit holder shall conduct the swim lesson activities between May VY and September 30tn 6. No person shall install; keep; extend from his or her property; or allow to be installed, kept, or extended from his or her property; a fence or any portion of a fence which encroaches on a sidewalk. 7. No person shall install; keep; extend from his or her property; or allow to be installed, kept, or extended from his or her property a fence or any portion of a fence which encroaches on the public right-of-way; except under the terms of a valid license agreement from the transportation authority. 8. The property owner shall keep all fences free from advertising and graffiti. 9. The property owner shall maintain in good repair all fences delineating private property and a publicly accessible area. A fence shall be deemed not in good repair if it has missing or broken boards or other components, or if it constitutes a public nuisance or safety hazard. 10. The natural grade of a property shall not be artificially modified to increase fence height, except as allowed in this section and subsection 11-31-1-4(D). Fence height must be measured from the existing, unaltered grade at the base of the fence. An exception to this standard is permitted for fences located along designated collector and arterial streets. In such cases, the combined height of any berm and fence shall not exceed eight feet (8'), as measured from the centerline of the adjacent street. 11. For property abutting a pathway or publicly accessible open space (public or private school or public park), the property owner may install a fence only where such fence complies with one of the following standards: a. An open vision or semiprivate fence up to six feet (6') in height, b. A closed vision fence four feet (4') in height or a closed vision fence four feet(4') in height with an additional two feet (2') in height of open vision fencing at the top of the fence, c. If fully visible from a public street, a closed vision fence up to six feet(6') in height. 12. See subsection 11-3A-6(C)(2) of this article for additional fencing requirements along irrigation ditches, laterals, canals, and/or drains. C.Additional standards in the C-N, C-C, C-G, M-E, H-E, I-L, and I-H districts. 1. The maximum fence height shall not exceed eight feet(8'). 2. All fences adjoining an alley, whether such alley is on the rear or side yard, shall be open vision and be set back a minimum of five feet(5') from the alley(measured from property line). D.Additional standards in the R-2, R-4, R-8, R-15, R-40, L-O, O-T, TN-C, and TN-R districts. 1. The maximum fence height shall not exceed six feet(6'), subject to the provisions set forth in subsections (D)(2) and (D)(3) of this section. 2. The maximum fence height in any required street yard shall be three feet (3') for a closed vision fence and four feet (4')for an open vision fence. See figure 2 of this section. 3. On corner properties, one of the following shall apply: a. Where the sidewalk is attached to the curb, fences located on the street side yard must be set back a minimum of five feet (5') from the back of the sidewalk. b. Where the sidewalk is detached from the curb (i.e., separated by a parkway), the fence must be set back a minimum of two feet(2') from the back of the sidewalk. 4. Decorative panels and trellises adjacent to fences are permitted, provided the following: a. They are not physically connected to or used to extend the height of the fence structure; b. They are used for the purpose of supporting vertical landscaping or decorative features; c. They do not exceed eight feet (8') in height; and d. They do not extend more than fifty percent (50%) of the required yard. 5. Where the rear yard of one (1) property adjoins the front yard of another property, the fence along the rear and side yards where they adjoin the adjacent front yard shall be flush or angled at forty-five (45) degrees to provide continuity with the adjoining fence and property line. See figure 3 of this section. 6. Side yard fences that delineate the boundary of the side yard shall only be allowed in the street yard where the side setback is five feet(5') or greater. In the R-15 and R-40 zoning districts, no side yard fence shall be allowed in any street yard unless it is explicitly reviewed and approved as part of the subdivision application. 7. Side yard fences that extend from one (1) building to an adjoining building are allowed where the adjoining dwellings have use easements on the side yard area. Such fences shall be set back a minimum of two feet (2') behind the enclosed portion of the front of the building adjoining the fence. 8. Side yard fences that extend from one (1) building to an adjoining building that are greater than three feet(3') in height and constructed of wrought iron or similar material shall provide a gate for emergency access to each side yard. 9. The property owner shall comply with the following standards for all fences in the side and rear yards: a. Fences shall not exceed six feet (6') in height in the side and rear setbacks. If there is a grade difference between two properties, the common fence must be no higher than six feet (6') above the highest grade measured within five feet of the common boundary line. (See below) .x •-Fenn. 5'upslopt G�mrnnr1 Boundary Line b. Only one fence shall be allowed in the side setback, including the fence delineating the boundary of the side yard. Only one fence shall be allowed in the rear setback, including the fence delineating the boundary of the rear yard, except as noted in D(5). 10. All fences within the required rear yard of alley accessed properties shall comply with the fencing standards in accord with subsection 11-3A-7(B)(9). Fences shall be set back a minimum of five feet (5')from the alley(measured from property line). 11. Additional height shall be allowed for arbors, arches and/or other architectural appurtenances that are coterminous with gates and/or other fence openings. Such appurtenances shall not exceed five feet (5) in width and/or eight feet (8') in height. 12. The Director may consider deviations from the fence requirements through the alternative compliance provisions as set forth in Section 11-513-5 of this title. FIGURE 1 FENCE REGULATIONS E.G.,5 112"picket .� E.G.,S 1(2"spacing n n n n n 6'Semiprivate 6'Open Vision 2'Open Vision 4'Closed Vision Q Yard, Street Property Line Fence, 6-foot Maximum closed vision Dwelling Unit •--�—�� Fence, 3-foot maximum closed vision ❑ Utility boxes and meters must or 4-foot maximum open vision be outside of fence enclosures Driveway, typical OL W O W H N W 45 degree fence H continuity angle, typical 2' minimum street yard setback from 0 detached sidewalk with parkway, typical Q Parkway Sidewalk I 0 ' I 0 I 0 STREET 5' minimum street yard setback from attached sidewalk, typical Title 11-UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 3. - REGULATIONS APPLYING TO ALL DISTRICTS ARTICLE F. PRIVATE STREET REQUIREMENTS ARTICLE F. PRIVATE STREET REQUIREMENTS 11-3F-1. Purpose. The purpose regulations of this article are to pFeVide better support the City's transportation goals by ensuring safe and adequate circulation within commercial, industrial,mew, multi family develepmeRts and ga" residential developments by establishing a clear emergency vehicle travel lane and for private street name addressing purposes. Private streets serving single-family, duplex and townhouse developments may be permitted at the discretion of the decision-making body in cases where the project qualifies as an infill or planned unit development,where compliance with public safety and access requirements can be demonstrated.The Fire Marshal may require that a private street be designated within an existing or proposed development where necessary to facilitate emergency response and ensure public safety.theeth than these that create a cernmen Fnew through the site design or that propose a limited gated resideRtial development.The pli -bility Fnay be exteRded where the director or fire Fnarshal deteFFniRes that private streets vVill enhance the safety of the development.The fire marshal may requiFe designation of a private street within existing developments where it is- V n the best inteFest ef the publie safety and health W he able te better lecate a given propeFty in the eve.nt ef-an (Ord. 10-1463, 11-3-2010,eff. 11-8-2010) 11-3F-2. Applicability. The provisions of this article apply to any existing or proposed properties that do not have frontage on a public street or where frontage is not required.The applicability may be extended where the director or Fire Marshal determines that private streets or conversion of drive aisles are necessary for wayfinding or other public safety considerations. (Ord.05-1170,8-30-2005,eff. 9-15-2005) 11-3F-3. Process. A. An application and fees, in accord with chapter 5, "administration",of this title,shall be submitted to the director on forms provided by the Planning Department.The application may be reviewed on its own or reviewed as part of a concurrent hearing level application. B. Upon tentative appFe al of the app ^,+^^ review and approval by the director subject to any applicable conditions of approval and the regulations of chapter 5, "administration",of this title,the applicant or owner shall have ene �two 2 -years,or as otherwise established as part of a concurrent development application, to complete the following tasks: 1. Ada County Highway District(ACHD)Compliance: a) Obtain approval from the Ada County Street Name Committee for a private street name(s); 2-. r^^ta�t the transp^rtat;^^autheFity(ACHD)tei!nstall an approved street name sign that complies with the regulations of the Ada County uniform street name ordinance. Meridian, Idaho,Code of Ordinances Created: 2024-12-05 16:55:20 [EST] (Supp. No.10) Page 1 of 5 c) For residential private streets,submit a statement from a registered professional engineer stating that the street complies with the ACHD structural standards and is constructed consistent with the Cit - approved set of construction plans. 23. Create a perpetual ingress/egress easement or a single platted lot for the private street to all properties served by such private street. 34. The applicant or owner shall provide documentation of a binding contract that establishes the party or parties responsible for the repair and maintenance of the private street, including regulations for the funding thereof. 4§. Upon completion of the items noted above,the director shall issue a letter stating that the private street has been approved. No building permit shall be issued for any structure using a private street for access to a public street until the private street has been approved. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005,eff. 9-15-2005) (Ord. 10-1463, 11-3-2010,eff. 11-8-2010) 11-3F-4. Standards. A. General standards:Residential private streets shall only be permitted at the discretion of the decision- making body,subject to the following 1. Unique or special circumstances exist with respect to the proposed use, design, location, topography,or other features of the development or its surroundings such that private streets will serve to enhance the overall development. 2. The design promotes safe and effective movement of bicycles and pedestrian travel to and through the project by providing sidewalks and/or pathways connections to abutting properties at a minimum of two(2) locations. 3. Adequate guest parking and maneuvering areas are provided for service and emergency vehicles, as determined by the director and Fire Marshal. 4. The private street provides for a connected transportation system and adjacent property will not be landlocked nor have reduced access, by the site layout. 5. The use or alignment of a private street does not interfere with the continuity of public streets. 6. An appropriate mechanism has been established for the repair and maintenance of the private street, including provisions for the funding thereof. 7. The use of private streets does not prohibit access to existing or planned multi-use pathways,as shown in Chapter 3 of the Meridian Pathways Master Plan. 8. Comply with the ACHD structural standards for streets,as shown on design and construction documents prepared and certified by a registered professional engineer. AB. Design standards. 1. Easement.The private street shall be constructed on a perpetual ingress/egress easement or a single platted lot that provides access to all properties served by such private street. In instances where the subject property is being subdivided,the preference is that the private street be a lot within such subdivision. 2. Connection point.The private street shall connect to a local or collector street.The private street shall not connection to an arterial street is prohibited, unless otherwise allowed by the decision- making body as part of a concurrent hearing level application.Where the point of connection of Created: 2024-12-05 16:55:20 [EST] (Supp. No.10) Page 2 of 5 the private street is to a public street,the private street connection shall be approved by the transportation authority. 3. Emergency vehicle.The private street shall provide sufficient maneuvering area for emergency vehicles as determined and approved by the Fire Marshal. 4. Gates. Gates or other obstacles(if applicable)&W4may be allowed subject to the following standards: a. The proposed development is residential. b. The proposed development shall have no more than one hundred (100)dwelling units.A greater number of dwelling units may be approved with a planned unit development. One (1)gated entry shall be .,FeVided f9F.,.,e FY fifty(50).Dwelling units. C. The proposed gate(s) do not prohibit pedestrian and bicycle access to and through the development. pathways as shewn in Chapte-F_3 ef the Pathways 5.4-a-steff Plan. de. The applicant shall provide access to the gate for emergency vehicles as determined and approved by the Mpredwan Fire Marshal DepaFtment and Public Works Department. ef. To allow sufficient vehicle stacking and turn-around distance,the gate shall be located a minimum of fifty(50)feet back from the ultimate edge of right-of-way to the connecting public street and include a dedicated paved vehicle turnaround area. 5. Cul-de-sac. No private street that ends in a cul-de-sac or a dead end shall be longer than five hundred (500)feet. 6. Common driveways. No common driveways shall be allowed off of a private street unless the street section allows for parking on at least one side of the street or the development has designated adequate guest parking dispersed throughout, as determined by the director. 7. Street network.The overall street network within the surrounding area shall allow for properties to connect at regular intervals in order to promote connected neighborhoods and traffic flow within the mile section. -9C. Construction standards. 1. 0eCommercial. For proposed commercial private streets and the conversion of an existing commercial drive aislefaei+ity to a private street at the direction of the Fire Marshal` following apply: a. All drive aisles shall be posted as fire lanes with no parking allowed. b. If a curb exists next to the drive aisle, it shall be painted red. C. For proposed commercial private streets,sidewalk shall be provided on at least one side of the private street,except when converting an existing drive aisle. d. When converting an existing drive aisle,a written statement from a certified engineer must be submitted stating the existing drive aisle can support emergency fire apparatus. 2. For all other private streets. Created: 2024-12-05 16:55:20 [EST] (Supp. No.10) Page 3 of 5 a. Roadway and storm drainage.The private street shall be constructed in accord with the roadway and storm drainage standards of the transportation authority or as approved by the City of Meridian based on plans submitted by a certified engineer. b. Street width.The private street`hall be^ nstF eted within an ^`and shall have a minimum travel lane width of twenty-four(24)feet or twenty-six(26)feet as determined by the Fire Marshal relative to the height and size of the proposed structures that adjoin the private street. C. Sidewalks. For private streets serving dwellings, aA five-foot(51 wide attached sidewalk or four-foot 4' wide detached sidewalk shall be provided on both sides of the private street. This requirement may be wa+vedmodified by the decision making body if the applicant can demonstrate that an alternative,similar pedestrian path exists. d. Fire lanes. All drive aisles shall be posted as fire lanes with no parking allowed. In addition, if a curb exists next to the drive aisle, it shall be painted red,unless parking is allowed on one or both sides of the street. 3. Alternative compliance. Upon recommendation of the City Engineer and Fire Marshal,the Director may approve,or recommend approval of alternative design or construction standards when the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed overall design meets or exceeds the intent of the required standards of this Article and ss4Ais not be detrimental to the public health, safety,and welfare. 4. Nonconforming private streets. Existing private streets that are not consistent with the standards as set forth in this Section shall be deemed a nonconforming use.Applicants seeking to add additional lots and/or development accessing such private streets shall seek conditional use approval as set forth in subsection 11-113-4.A.2 of this Title or improve the full length of the private street to meet the design and construction standards as set forth in this section. (Ord.05-1170, 8-30-2005,eff. 9-15-2005;Ord. 10-1463, 11-3-2010,eff. 11-8-2010;Ord. No. 22-2001, § 14, 11-1- 2022) 11-3F-5. Required findings. In order to approve the appl+satiena private street,the DiFeGt0Fdecision making body shall find the following: A. The design of the private street meets the requirements of this Article; B. Granting approval of the private street would not cause damage, hazard,or nuisance,or other detriment to persons, property,or uses in the vicinity; C. The use and location of the private street shall not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and/or the Regional Transportation Plan;and D. The proposed residential development(if applicable) ism a gated community, promotes infill, or is a planned unit development. (Ord.05-1170,8-30-2005,eff. 9-15-2005;Ord. 10-1463, 11-3-2010,eff. 11-8-2010) Created: 2024-12-05 16:55:20 [EST] (Supp. No.10) Page 4 of 5 Created: 2024-12-05 16:55:20 [EST] (Supp. No.10) Page 5 of 5 Proposed UDC Text Amendments UDC Section Topic Reason for Change Proposed Change 11-1-5B Measurements Add a new language on how to 8.A fence shall be measured from the lowest grade at the base of the fence unless measure the height of a fence. otherwise stated in UDC 11-3A-7. 11-1A-1 Definitions Modify definition of multifamily Dwelling, multi or multifamily. A structure, or portion thereof, that contains three (3) to add "multi" for more or more primary dwelling units or apartments,where all such units are located on consistency with Title 8. the same property. For the purposes of this title, a multifamily dwelling shall be deemed multifamily development. 11-1A-1 Definitions Modify definition of a secondary Dwelling, accessorv:A habitable dwelling unit, either attached or detached dwelling to "accessory" and from but established in conjunctionwith on the same property and subordinate to a clarify intent. single rimar dwelling unit, nstF e*^a ^ _a fe-un -atio , -aAa PAAAPC#qQd t-0- municipal services. The term shall include guesthouse, granny flat, tiny house, in- law unit accessory dwelling unit ADU carriage house, secondary dwelling. garage apartment and caretaker unit. 11-1A-1 Definitions Add a new definition of dwelling, Dwelling, rimar . A habitable dwelling unit providing independent living facilities primary. for one 1 "family" as herein defined including provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation. 11-1A-1 Definitions Modify definition for consistency Dwelling, single-family attached. A structure containing two (2) primary dwelling amongst all dwelling types. units attached by a common wall or walls, where each dwelling unit is located on a separate property. 11-1A-1 Definitions Modify definition for consistency Dwelling, single-family detached. A detached structure that accommodates a single amongst all dwelling types. primary dwelling. 11-1A-1 Definitions Modify definition for consistency Dwelling, townhouse. A structure containing three (3) or more primary dwelling amongst all dwelling types. units attached by common walls where each dwelling unit is located on a separate property. 11-1A-1 Definitions Modify definition for consistency Dwelling, twe fiami4,duplex. A structure containing two (2) primary dwelling units amongst all dwelling types. attached by a common wall, where both dwelling units are located on the same property. 11-1A-1 Definitions Modify the definition of a fence. Fence. An enclosureLoF barrier,wall,trellis, or other design element peen-st-pup*^a ^f wood, masonry, stone,wir-e, metal or- other-manufactuFed materials used to enclose, screen, designate, adorn or separate an outdoor areas.Walls, latticeweFi, and scireen aire considered fences. 11-1A-1 Definitions Add a new definition of a Sidewalk. A facility or easement reserved or intended for use by pedestrians, sidewalk. whether such facility is publicly or privately owned which is adjacent to or within a public right of way or a private street. DATE: 06/5/2025 1 Table 11-2A-4 Dimensional Clarify the requirements of the standards for the interior side setback in the R-2 R-2 district district. R-2 Standard Requirement Rear setback(in feet) 15 Interior side setback 3(in feet) 7.5 fstety Notes: 'Measured from back of sidewalk or property line where there is no adjacent sidewalk.A reduction of the collector street setback shall be granted for homes that front on a collector street when on-street and required off-street parking is provided and garage access is from an alley,common drive or local street.The required twenty-foot landscape buffer easement shall be measured from back of curb and the dwelling setback shall not be less than ten(10)feet from the back of sidewalk along the collector.See Section 11-1A-2,figure 4 of this article. 2 A reduction to the width of the buffer may be requested as set forth in subsection 11-313-7.C.1.c of this title. 3 An additional setback of 7.5 feet per story is required for multi-story buildings.This requirement does not a12121y to basements. 11-3A-7 Fences Repeal and replace the fence See separate exhibit code. 11-3A-17D Sidewalks and Provision to allow a waiver to D. Sidewalks shall be required on both sides of the public street, except for the pathways sidewalk requirement if it following: doesn't serve a public purpose due to impracticality. 1. Where the average width of lots, as measured at the street frontage line or at the building setback line, is over one hundred fifty (150) feet; sidewalks on only one (1) side of the street may be allowed.. Si,-�o..,alks„shall t be required*.along p Fiv CtCe StFeetSY11'F e-s iid-en Ci-al developments_As set forth il�"CCFtieele F "private l street FequiFements", of this chapter 2. The City Council may modify this standard, upon recommendation from the transportation authority,when strict adherence is not practical. 11-3F Private streets Modify this section of code to See separate exhibit allow private streets to be used for single-family and townhome developments that may not be a gated or mew development. 11-4-3-11 Drive-through The City is seeing an increased A.A drive-through establishment shall be deemed an accessory use where the Establishments number of requests for drive- drive-through facility (including stacking lanes, speaker and/or order area, pick up throughs. The goal is to have windows, and exit lanes) i-scomplies with the following, otherwise a conditional use better-defined standards to eliminate the need for requiring permit is re uired: a conditional use permit. 1. Not withinFarther than three hundred 300 feet 300' of another drive thFo„g f eility, a residential district, use, or dwelling,or an existing r sid-enee 0 2. Not the conversion of a tier 1 drive-through to another tiered drive-through: or epa-r-.,tea by any ar-teri.,ll street fFem any other- arivee-thr,,,,g facj it., rer-Ad EhstFiet eFexistingFesidence; eF DATE: 06/5/2025 2 3. Not within the 0-T zoning district, otheFwise ^ conditional use per-mk �� 4. Not designed in accord with subsection D below. B.All establishments providing drive-through service shall identify the stacking anefs)., menu and speaker locationjs) (if applicable), and window location Us on he site plan submitted with certificate of zoning compliance and/or toe conditional use permit. Speakers are prohibited in the 0-T zoning district. C. Types of Drive-throu hs. 1. Tier 1.A drive-through associated with a financial institution, automated teller machine (ATM), pharmacy, or laundromat. 2. Tier 2.A drive-through associated with a food and beverage service with one (1) stacking lane and may include options for online and mobile ordering. 3. Tier 3.A drive-through associated with a food and beverage service with at least two (2) stacking lanes, and may include options for online and mobile ordering. D.AFor all drive-throughs. a site plan shall be submitted that demonstrates safe pedestrian and vehicular access and circulation on the site and between adjacent properties.At a minimum the plan shall demonstrate compliance with the following standards: 1. Stacking lanes shall have sufficient capacity to prevent obstruction of driveways, drive aisles, and the public right-of-way by patrons. 2. The stacking lane shall be a separate lane from the circulation lanes needed for access and parking, except stacking lanes may provide access to designated employee parking. 3. The stacking lane shall not be located within twentye feet (-120')4e4 of any residential district, use, or dwell inge*isti*ffesidenee. 4.Any stacking lane greater than one hundred feet (100') feetin length shall provide for an escape lane. Each drive-through lane and designated escape lane shall have a minimum width of ten feet (10'). 5. The site s) dshall be designed so that the drive-through is visible from a public street, or other readily accessible public space, for surveillance purposes. 6. The minimum stacking lane capacity shall be six (6) vehicles per lane for tier 2 or tier 3. and two (2) vehicles per lane for tier 1. 7.All drive-throughs shall submit a queuing exhibit demonstrating vehicle stacking per the lane capacity standards in subsection (D)(6). Each vehicle space within the stacking lane shall be based on a vehicle length of twenty feet (20'). DATE: 06/5/2025 3 11-4-3-12 Dwelling, Modify the specific use standards 11-4-3-12. - Dwelling, second accessory. secondary for secondary dwelling and rename for consistency with The following standards shall a12121y to the owner of any propertywhere an other codes accessory dwelling unit is built laced or maintained: A. PeirmittedLimit one. The property owner shall build, place, or maintain no more than Bone (1) seeond­yaccessory dwelling unit is po,.mitted ^P th-e came.�er rty4a-eonfu;,, , eti1,,, . ith and ,a,,. Fly subordinate to a single f-„ti,;ly dNye4i*9 B.Accessory to primary dwelling.Accessory dwelling units shall be located only on the same property as in conjunction with and clearly subordinate to a primary dwelling. C. Permit required. The property owner shall obtain city permitting a1212roval for an accessory dwelling unit 12rior to building, placing, or maintaining an accessory dwelling unit on any property. D. Owner occupancy. To eFeate and r, n+.,;n a seeendaFy dwelling u4+it +The property owner shall reside on the property for more than six (6) months twelve month each calendar year in which the accessory dwelling unit is occupied. The a ,Bean,for a SeeendaFy,dwelling unit shall th t o;+l,o,- the single g or the seeondaFy unit is oc-eupied by the owner- of the Owner occupancy i-sshall be demonstrated by title records, vehicle registration,voter registration or other similar means. Seeondar-yAccessory dwelling units shall not be subdivided or otherwise segregated in ownership from the single fa,Y 4y primary dwelling . E. Maximum size. Seeon4ffyAccessory dwelling units shall be limited to a maximum of nine hundred (900) square feet or no more than fifty (50) percent of the primary dwelling,whichever is less, and no more than two (2) bedrooms constructed in accord with the adopted residential building code. F. Location. The seeend--yaccessory dwelling unit may be located within or attached to the primary dwelling; a detached structure; or aboveLo-r-beside, or within a detached structure, suchas a g rage. Detached second--yaccessory dwelling units shall be located to the side or rear of a primary dwelling. G. Parking. Required parking for the property shall be as set forth in Section 11- 3C-6, Table 11-3C-6 of this Title for single-family dwellings, as determined by the total number of bedrooms on the property. The conversion of a covered parking area (garage/carport) into an secondary accessory dwelling unit is not allowed unless the required parking can be provided elsewhere on site. H. Separate eE-ntrance. Both the primary dwelling unit and the accessory dwelling unit shall each have at least one 1 exterior egress door: no openings are allowed between dwelling units. n„l.,„ o ( ) ent,.aneee a,,,,,.„f ee;*heF the single family dwelling or-the second g unit shall be located facing any one (1) stFeet. I. Design. The second--yaccessory dwelling unit shall be generally consistent in design with the-single f ...il y primary dwelling, including roof pitch, siding, color, materials, and window treatments. DATE: 06/5/2025 4 11-4-3-12 141. DrnhibitionsProhibited dwelling units. Manufactured andmobile homes 1 continued FeeFea#&nOnlya building constructed on a foundation shall be used as an accessory dwelling unit.vVehicles and tents shall be prohibited for use as accessory dwelling units. K. Number of occupants. The total number of occupants in both the single fam4y- primary dwelling and the second—ar-yaccessory dwelling shall not exceed the maximum number established for a "family", as defined in Chapter 1,Article A, "definitions", of this Title. L. Utilities. The property owner shall be responsible for connecting an accessory dwellina unit to municipal water and sewer services electricity, and for obtaining- solid waste collection services. M.Address required.An accessory dwelling unit shall have its own separate address from the primary residence. The property owner shall be responsible for obtaining an address for an accessory dwelling unit. 11-4-3-18 Flex space Request to change the ratio of 11-4-3-18 - Flex space office to warehouse space in the specific use standards based on A. Office and/or retail showroom areas shall comprise a minimum of thirty (30) zoning. percent of the structure and/or tenant space in the C-C District, twenty-five (25) percent in the C-G and WE Districts, and twenty (20) percent in the I-L and I-H Districts. B. Light industry and warehousing shall not comprise more than seventy (70) percent of the tenant space in the C-C District, seventy-five (75) percent in the C-G and WE Districts, and eighty (80) percent in the I-L and I-H Districts. C. In the C-C, C-G and WE Districts, roll-up doors and loading docks shall not be visible from a public street. D. Retail use shall not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of leasable area in any tenant space. E.At a minimum. one (1) parking space shall be provided for every one thousand (1,000) square feet of gross floor area. 11-4-3-21 Home occupation Modifying this section of code to See separate exhibit accessory use allow outdoor swim lessons. 11-4-3-27G Multi-family Modify this standard to clarify G. Police access under exigent circumstances. Multi-family buildingsdevelop ne ts development the system needs to be with units that take access via secured common corridors shall install and maintain operational and function with at least one functioning,— -4 pin-based access control a keyless o„tr.,system, the access system, not only be integrated with the building's electrical and entry system, for each side of the present on building and change g g y y terminology to meet industry building that contains a residential ingress. ^r suitable alternative, to provide police standards. access to the common corridors under exigent circumstances. The pin-based access control Keyless entry—system ^r alter-native access control system shall be subject to review and approval by the Meridian Police Department. DATE: 06/5/2025 5 11-4-3-41 Vertically Modify this standard to clarify 11-4-3-41. -Vertically integrated residential project. integrated the system needs to be residential project operational and function with A.A vertically integrated residential project shall be a structure that contains at the access system, not only be least two (2) stories. present on building and change B.A minimum of twenty-five (25) percent of the gross floor area of a vertically terminology to meet industry standards. integrated residential project shall be residential dwelling units, outdoor patio space on the same floor as a residential unit may count towards this requirement. C.A minimum of ten (10) percent of the gross floor area of a vertically integrated residential project shall be used for nonresidential use as specified in subsection E below. D. The minimum building footprint for a detached vertically integrated residential project shall be two thousand four hundred (2,400) square feet. E. The allowed nonresidential uses in a vertically integrated residential project include: arts, entertainment or recreation facility; artist studio; civic, social or fraternal organizations; daycare facility; drinking establishment; education institution; financial institution; healthcare or social assistance; industry, craftsman; laundromat; nursing or residential care facility; personal or professional service; public or quasi-public use; restaurant; retail; or other uses that may be considered through the conditional use permit process. F. None of the required parking shall be located in the-front of the structure. G.A minimum of fifty (50) square feet of private, usable open space shall be provided for each residential dwelling unit. This requirement can be satisfied through porches, patios, decks, and/or enclosed yards. Landscaping, entryway and other accessways shall not count toward this requirement. The Director may consider an alternative design proposal through the alternative compliance provisions as set forth in Section 11-513-5 of this title. H. Police access under exigent circumstances.Vertically integrated residential buildings that provide access to the units via secured common corridors shall install and maintain at least one functioning, in-based access controls stem integrated with the building's electrical and entry system, for each side of the building that contains a residential ingress. This provision provides police access to the common corridors under exigent circumstances. The in-based access control entry system shall be subject to review and approval by the Meridian Police Department. 11-SA-6C Neighborhood Clarify this section of code that S. Location of the meeting must be within five (5) miles of the project site, at meetings virtual neighborhood meetings Meridian City Hall, or virtually through a publicly accessible online platform are allowed. allowing live participation. DATE: 06/5/2025 6 11-513-61F1 Time limitations Change the requirements for the 1. A conditional use permit,when granted, shall be valid for a maximum period of commencement of a CUP. two (2) years unless otherwise approved by the city. During this time,the applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval,a-ad acquire building permits,and commence construction of permanent footings,or- stFuetur-es on oF in the install underground city utilities or record a final plat. DATE: 06/5/2025 7 FIGURE 2 FRONT YARD FENCE , 6'maximum at front setback / 3'maximum closopeed vision equired front yardvis,on in FIGURE 3: FENCE REGULATIONS ON CORNER PROPERTIES 6'maximum at front setback 3 maximum closed vision 4'maximum open vision in 45'angle /' required front yard Utility boxes and meters must lofeer m property line be outside of fence enclosure 6 feet maximum Property line E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Proposed Updates to Meridian City Code Title 8 Regarding Addressing 246 MEMORANDUM E COMMUNITY N -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT I D A H O May 30, 2025 TO: Mayor Robert Simison City Council Members Planning&Zoning Commissioners CC: Chris Johnson, City Clerk Emily Kane, Deputy City Attorney Bruce Freckleton, Community Development Director Caleb Hood, Community Development Deputy Director FROM: Brian McClure, Long-range Planning Supervisor RE: Proposed Updates to Meridian City Code Title 8 Regarding Addressing This memorandum serves as a request for the attached proposed changes to City Code of Meridian, Idaho, Title 8—Public Ways and Property, Chapter 2. —Uniform Street Name and Address Number Code (Addressing Code). Unlike Title 11, Unified Development Code changes, there is no formal application process. Requested Addressing Code changes cover two general topic areas; addressing accessory dwelling units ("ADUs"); and changes to align current addressing standards and best practices in City Code. The ADU-related changes support Current Planning efforts to clean up existing code and better align with International Building Code by clarifying the process for assigning addresses for ADUs. These changes include coordination with the Fire Department; addressing also supports adopted Fire Code. These changes standardize the process so that only ADUs meeting planning and building standards will be given an address. On the opposite spectrum, no address will be assigned to an ADU that does not meet standards. These changes are somewhat self-contained, working with new or old planning code. On the "cleanup" side, all changes are intended to standardize current practice. Some of this code is no longer relevant. The primary example is removing code that directs building letter identifiers for some multi-dwelling buildings. The United States Postal Service has not supported this practice for some time. The practice has also caused a great deal of confusion when property is later subdivided. Other changes reflect current practice, generally what is already done,with improvements to transparency and elimination of subjective criteria. For addressing, striving for consistency is the greatest mandate across several national guiding standards and best practices. Attachments: • Addressing Code Changes, with strike-through and underline. Community Development. 33 E.Broadway Avenue,Meridian,ID 83642 Phone 208-884-5533 . Fax 208-888-6854 . www.meridiancit 2 " 47 Addressing Code Changes E COMMUNITY N -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT H n O May 30, 2025 The following are proposed code changes to Meridian's Title 8, Chapter 2.—Uniform Street Name and Address Number Code changes. Proposed changes are shown in s#•-ike thr-ough-(remove) and underline (addition). Staff comments in code sections are represented by [*Text*]. 8-2-3 Definition,Front Door Description Adding a definition of"front door" The Issue Addresses are assigned based on the named street toward which the front door faces. Defining the term"front door"will clarify which street will be used for the address. Proposed Code Front door means the main pedestrian doorway that fronts a street or that provides direct (with changes) ingress to and egress from a habitable interior space from a public or publicly accessible space. Proposed Code Front door means the main pedestrian doorway that fronts a street or that provides direct (Clean) ingress to and egress from a habitable interior space from a public or publicly accessible space. Additional See related code change for 8-2-7-E-12-b. Explanation 8-2-3 Definition,Address sub designation Description Simple definition cleanup The Issue Buildings are(literally)not a type of sub designation for addressing in the Meridian Enterprise Addressing Database. Proposed Code Address sub-designation means the address alpha or numeric sub-designation used to (with changes) identify individual bungs units or suites within a common complex. Proposed Code Address sub designation means the address alpha or numeric sub-designation used to (Clean) identify individual units or suites within a common complex. Additional None. Explanation Community Development. 33 E.Broadway Avenue,Meridian,ID 83642 F248] Phone 208-884-5533 . Fax 208-888-6854 . www.meridiancity.org 8-2-7-E-12-b Street Address Numbering Standards,Street Frontage Description Corner lot address numbering guidelines related to the"front"of a structure The Issue There are cases where garages and"front doors"face different streets.The current standard practice is to use the"front door"facing a named street,rather than the garage.However, staff are pressured to use the garage door at times due to street name preference. Front doors are the primary point of entry for E.M.S.and where address points are located in GIS,used in CAD by Ada County Dispatch.They are also typically where doorbell cameras are placed,and where most packages are left.It is understandable why sometimes a property prefers a different street name;the purpose however is first and foremost consistent wayfinding.Property owners don't"select"their street name for any other property type.Codifying what is already standard practice will help staff to be more consistent by reducing external pressures. Proposed Code Corner lots(residential).The address shall be assigned to the street en-toward which the (with changes) front door is oriented the mainent f nee of the pfimafy s*..,.,.twe ffents. Proposed Code Corner lots(residential).The address shall be assigned to the street toward which the front (Clean) door is oriented. Additional A definition for"front door"was added,to simplify this code section. Explanation 8-2-3 Definitions,Primary and Accessory Dwelling Units Description Define what is commonly known as Accessory Dwelling Unit(ADU)and differentiate from other common dwelling types. The Issue Accessory Dwelling Units or"ADU"need to be defined to better aid in adhering to Court guidance and in better aligning with planning and building codes.What the City defines as an"ADU",must be given an address under previous legal direction. To align with building code and changes to planning code,the term"Dwelling,accessory", will be used to define an ADU. Proposed Code Dwelling,accessory shall be defined as set forth in the Meridian Unified Development (with changes) Code. Dwelling primary shall be defined as set forth in the Meridian Unified Development Code. Dwelling,multi shall be defined as set forth in the Meridian Unified Development Code. ML- Proposed Code Dwelling,accessory shall be defined as set forth in the Meridian Unified Development (Clean) Code. Dwelling,primary shall be defined as set forth in the Meridian Unified Development Code. Dwelling,multi shall be defined as set forth in the Meridian Unified Development Code. Additional Definitions are intended to be generic and limit contradictions with other Code definitions Explanation in other Titles.Additional changes related to addressing Dwelling,accessory(ADU)are included in other following sections. Attachment Page 2 249 8-2-7-E-11 Street Address Numbering Standards,Single-family Dwellings Description Revise language regarding single-family dwellings to also apply to accessory dwellings. The Issue This is the primary change related to Dwelling,accessory or"ADU".The intent is to make it clear when an accessory unit must be given an address,and when it cannot. The context here is that the decision is yes or no,with no grey area due to previous judicial direction. The code is intended to align with planning and building code.In short,if it meets building code definition for a Dwelling,accessory,then it must be addressed,and if it's some other perhaps livable"secondary"space,not meeting the standards,it cannot be addressed. Proposed Code Single family dwell�R�.Dwellings primary and accessory" � rt�o � ' a �»:�R Both (with changes) primary and accessory dwelling units shall receive airindividual address numbers in conformance with the Assessor's Street Name and Address Database,except that an accessory dwelling unit that does not meet all applicable City standards and requirements for such use shall not receive an address. Proposed Code Dwellings primary and accessory.Both primary and accessory dwelling units shall receive (Clean) individual address numbers in conformance with the Assessor's Street Name and Address Database,except that an accessory dwelling unit that does not meet all applicable City standards and requirements for such use shall not receive an address. Additional Terminology is intended to be black and white regarding whether a recognized dwelling Explanation type may be addressed or not. Attachment Page 3 250 8-2-7-E Street Address Numbering Standards,Multi dwelling buildings Description Change to reflect that letter identifiers for multi dwelling buildings are no longer used. The Issue Addressing for multi-family buildings with letter identifiers is no longer supported by the United States Postal Service.This primary addressing method also causes significant issues for the City and residents where properties are later subdivided(a recent example is Summertown on Ustick Road).Address numbers for each multi-family building regardless of whether buildings are in common ownership or on individual parcels,are now standard practice. Proposed Code 2. Multifamily dwelling residential developments and multi-tenant commercial (with changes) developments. a. Multi dwellings buildings.The City shall assign an individual address number to each building within a multi dwelling residential development,in conformance with the Assessor's Street Name and Address Database with sepafate addresses in eemmen development.When indivi&al buildings within a eeRIME) multifamily development are assigned separate.,aa-esse . Individual unit numbers shall also be assigned to each dwelling-trnA,with no duplication of unit designations within each building.First floor units shall be assigned 100-series numbers,second floor units shall be assigned 200-series numbers,and so on for each successive floor.Basement units shall be assigned 10-series numbers if the next higher floor is designated the first floor;or basements shall be designated 100- series if the next level is designated the second floor. (1) For exterior accessed multi dwelling buildings or interior access with units on only one side of a common hallways,units shall be assigned in increments of 1 (e.g.— 101, 102, 103,and so ongenerally from left to right facing the frontage of the building_ (2) For interior accessed multi dwelling buildings with units on both sides of a hallway,units shall be assigned in odd/even number parity. b. Multifamily buildings with single address in eammen development.When multifamily developments eensisting ef mer-e than ene(1)stmetuFe have bee assigned a single address, each individual building shall also be assigned a letter a address number.Unit or apartment numbers shall then be assigned to each ",elliag tmit,with no duphea4ion of unit designa4ions within eaeh building.Firs series num0 eond 44ear-units shall be assigned 200 series mtmon or-eaesttee0 ss",ejqeer-.Basement units shall be assigned 10 series number-s if the next higher-fleer-is designated the fir-s fleef;ef basements shall be designated 100 sefies if the next level is designated the seeend fleer-.Eaeh unit number-shall begin with the let4er-assigned te the building zn in whieh the unit is leeated(e.g.,Unit AWO), [*New Sub Designation Numbering Example: See Proposed Code(Clean),following.*] Proposed Code 2. Multi dwelling residential developments and multi-tenant commercial developments. (Clean) a. Multi dwelling buildings.The City shall assign an individual address number to each building within a multi dwelling residential development,in conformance with the Assessor's Street Name and Address Database.Individual unit numbers shall also be assigned to each dwelling,with no duplication of unit designations within each building.First floor units shall be assigned 100-series numbers,second floor units shall be assigned 200-series numbers,and so on for each successive floor.Basement units shall be assigned 10-series numbers if the next higher floor is designated the first floor;or basements shall be designated 100-series if the next level is designated the second floor. Attachment Page 4 251 (1) For exterior accessed multi dwelling buildings or interior access with units on only one side of a common hallways,units shall be assigned in increments of 1 (e.g.—101, 102, 103,and so on)generally from left to right facing the frontage of the building. (2) For interior accessed multi dwelling buildings with units on both sides of a hallway,units shall be assigned in odd/even number parity. Figure: Multi-unit Residential F — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — --I Parcel of Land #107 #108 #103 #105 a #106 #104 3 a #103 = #104 #102 #101 � #101 #102 4530 Meridian Blvd 4570 Meridian Blvd Meridian Blvd 4500 (Address Range) 4600 Additional This change does two things.The first change is to reflect that original code which was Explanation specific to projects under single or multiple ownership,is no longer relevant.As an aside, the City generally tries to stay out of the ownership structure of projects. The second change is to standardize City practice.Over the years multi-unit buildings for small fourplex, "pinwheel"type developments,have not been consistent. Attachment Page 5 252 8-2-7-E-2 Street Address Numbering Standards,Multitenant Buildings Description Change to reflect standard practice by the City of Meridian and Ada County for suite addressing. See also previous recommended changes to multi-family numbering. The Issue The most important guidance for wayfinding and addressing in International Fire Code (IFC),International Building Code(IBC),National Emergency Number Association (NENA The 9-1-1 Association),and United Stated Postal Service(USPS)is consistency. Meridian's current practice for addressing of suite numbers is to begin at 100,increase in increments of 10,and to do so facing the building and working from left to right. This is standard practice in the County.This change is intended to codify current best practice to ensure consistency. Proposed Code eb. Multi-tenant commercial building.The City shall assign a single address to each (with changes) commercial building,in accordance with this section.The City shall assign a unit number to each suite within a commercial building.For each building,the first floor units shall be assigned 100-series numbers starting with 100 increasing by a value of 10 for each additional suite,second floor units shall be assigned 200-series numbers starting with 200 increasing by a value of 10 for each additional suite,and so on for each successive floor.Basement units shall be assigned 10-series numbers if the next higher floor is designated the first floor;or basements shall be designated 100-series if the next level is designated the second floor. Suite numbering shall be assigned from left to right either facing the frontage of the building or from the main entry within a shared lobby.For exhausted sequences in existing conditions,increments of 5 may be used for new suites,or for large buildings with 10 or more suites,ranges of 1000 may be used for new buildings.In the absence of suites,the City shall not assign suite numbers,even if multiple tenants are co-located in a single building. [*New Sub Designation Numbering Examples: See Proposed Code(Clean),following.*] Proposed Code b. Multi-tenant commercial building.The City shall assign a single address to each (Clean) commercial building,in accordance with this section.The City shall assign a unit number to each suite within a commercial building.For each building,the first floor units shall be assigned 100-series numbers starting with 100 increasing by a value of 10 for each additional suite,second floor units shall be assigned 200-series numbers starting with 200 increasing by a value of 10 for each additional suite,and so on for each successive floor.Basement units shall be assigned 10-series numbers if the next higher floor is designated the first floor;or basements shall be designated 100-series if the next level is designated the second floor. Suite numbering shall be assigned from left to right either facing the frontage of the building or from the main entry within a shared lobby.For exhausted sequences in existing conditions,increments of 5 may be used for new suites,or for large buildings with 10 or more suites,ranges of 1000 may be used for new buildings.In the absence of suites,the City shall not assign suite numbers,even if multiple tenants are co-located in a single building. Attachment Page 6 253 Figure: Multi-tenant Commercial A Parcel of Land #100 #110 #120 2070 Meridian Blvd #110 #120 (Parking) #100 #130 2030 Meridian Blvd Meridian Blvd 2000 (Address Range) 2100 Figure: Multi-tenant Commercial B Parcel of Land Parcel of Land #110 #120 #130 #120 a #100 Q #130 #100 #110 0 3530 Meridian Blvd I 3570 Meridian Blvd Meridian Blvd 3500 (Address Range) 3600 Additional Staff have received some pushback on this practice,but the conditions are usually the tail Explanation wagging the dog,where site improvements occurred without understanding best practices for addressing,that in turn affects perception of addressing. Signage for example can be poorly interpreted when it does not take into account this standard.By documenting in code with examples,at least the practice is more available. Attachment Page 7 254 MEMORANDUM E COMMUNITY N -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT I D A H O May 30, 2025 TO: Mayor Robert Simison City Council Members Planning&Zoning Commissioners CC: Chris Johnson, City Clerk Emily Kane, Deputy City Attorney Bruce Freckleton, Community Development Director Caleb Hood, Community Development Deputy Director FROM: Brian McClure, Long-range Planning Supervisor RE: Proposed Updates to Meridian City Code Title 8 Regarding Addressing This memorandum serves as a request for the attached proposed changes to City Code of Meridian, Idaho, Title 8—Public Ways and Property, Chapter 2. —Uniform Street Name and Address Number Code (Addressing Code). Unlike Title 11, Unified Development Code changes, there is no formal application process. Requested Addressing Code changes cover two general topic areas; addressing accessory dwelling units ("ADUs"); and changes to align current addressing standards and best practices in City Code. The ADU-related changes support Current Planning efforts to clean up existing code and better align with International Building Code by clarifying the process for assigning addresses for ADUs. These changes include coordination with the Fire Department; addressing also supports adopted Fire Code. These changes standardize the process so that only ADUs meeting planning and building standards will be given an address. On the opposite spectrum, no address will be assigned to an ADU that does not meet standards. These changes are somewhat self-contained, working with new or old planning code. On the "cleanup" side, all changes are intended to standardize current practice. Some of this code is no longer relevant. The primary example is removing code that directs building letter identifiers for some multi-dwelling buildings. The United States Postal Service has not supported this practice for some time. The practice has also caused a great deal of confusion when property is later subdivided. Other changes reflect current practice, generally what is already done,with improvements to transparency and elimination of subjective criteria. For addressing, striving for consistency is the greatest mandate across several national guiding standards and best practices. Attachments: • Addressing Code Changes, with strike-through and underline. Community Development. 33 E.Broadway Avenue,Meridian,ID 83642 Phone 208-884-5533 . Fax 208-888-6854 . www.meridiancit" Addressing Code Changes E COMMUNITY N -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT H n O May 30, 2025 The following are proposed code changes to Meridian's Title 8, Chapter 2.—Uniform Street Name and Address Number Code changes. Proposed changes are shown in s#•-ike thr-ough-(remove) and underline (addition). Staff comments in code sections are represented by [*Text*]. 8-2-3 Definition,Front Door Description Adding a definition of"front door" The Issue Addresses are assigned based on the named street toward which the front door faces. Defining the term"front door"will clarify which street will be used for the address. Proposed Code Front door means the main pedestrian doorway that fronts a street or that provides direct (with changes) ingress to and egress from a habitable interior space from a public or publicly accessible space. Proposed Code Front door means the main pedestrian doorway that fronts a street or that provides direct (Clean) ingress to and egress from a habitable interior space from a public or publicly accessible space. Additional See related code change for 8-2-7-E-12-b. Explanation 8-2-3 Definition,Address sub designation Description Simple definition cleanup The Issue Buildings are(literally)not a type of sub designation for addressing in the Meridian Enterprise Addressing Database. Proposed Code Address sub-designation means the address alpha or numeric sub-designation used to (with changes) identify individual bungs units or suites within a common complex. Proposed Code Address sub designation means the address alpha or numeric sub-designation used to (Clean) identify individual units or suites within a common complex. Additional None. Explanation Community Development. 33 E.Broadway Avenue,Meridian,ID 83642 Phone 208-884-5533 . Fax 208-888-6854 . www.meridiancity.org 8-2-7-E-12-b Street Address Numbering Standards,Street Frontage Description Corner lot address numbering guidelines related to the"front"of a structure The Issue There are cases where garages and"front doors"face different streets.The current standard practice is to use the"front door"facing a named street,rather than the garage.However, staff are pressured to use the garage door at times due to street name preference. Front doors are the primary point of entry for E.M.S.and where address points are located in GIS,used in CAD by Ada County Dispatch.They are also typically where doorbell cameras are placed,and where most packages are left.It is understandable why sometimes a property prefers a different street name;the purpose however is first and foremost consistent wayfinding.Property owners don't"select"their street name for any other property type.Codifying what is already standard practice will help staff to be more consistent by reducing external pressures. Proposed Code Corner lots(residential).The address shall be assigned to the street en-toward which the (with changes) front door is oriented the mainent f nee of the pfimafy s*..,.,.twe ffents. Proposed Code Corner lots(residential).The address shall be assigned to the street toward which the front (Clean) door is oriented. Additional A definition for"front door"was added,to simplify this code section. Explanation 8-2-3 Definitions,Primary and Accessory Dwelling Units Description Define what is commonly known as Accessory Dwelling Unit(ADU)and differentiate from other common dwelling types. The Issue Accessory Dwelling Units or"ADU"need to be defined to better aid in adhering to Court guidance and in better aligning with planning and building codes.What the City defines as an"ADU",must be given an address under previous legal direction. To align with building code and changes to planning code,the term"Dwelling,accessory", will be used to define an ADU. Proposed Code Dwelling,accessory shall be defined as set forth in the Meridian Unified Development (with changes) Code. Dwelling primary shall be defined as set forth in the Meridian Unified Development Code. Dwelling,multi shall be defined as set forth in the Meridian Unified Development Code. ML- Proposed Code Dwelling,accessory shall be defined as set forth in the Meridian Unified Development (Clean) Code. Dwelling,primary shall be defined as set forth in the Meridian Unified Development Code. Dwelling,multi shall be defined as set forth in the Meridian Unified Development Code. Additional Definitions are intended to be generic and limit contradictions with other Code definitions Explanation in other Titles.Additional changes related to addressing Dwelling,accessory(ADU)are included in other following sections. Attachment Page 2 8-2-7-E-11 Street Address Numbering Standards,Single-family Dwellings Description Revise language regarding single-family dwellings to also apply to accessory dwellings. The Issue This is the primary change related to Dwelling,accessory or"ADU".The intent is to make it clear when an accessory unit must be given an address,and when it cannot. The context here is that the decision is yes or no,with no grey area due to previous judicial direction. The code is intended to align with planning and building code.In short,if it meets building code definition for a Dwelling,accessory,then it must be addressed,and if it's some other perhaps livable"secondary"space,not meeting the standards,it cannot be addressed. Proposed Code Single family dwell�R�.Dwellings primary and accessory" � rt�o � ' a �»:�R Both (with changes) primary and accessory dwelling units shall receive airindividual address numbers in conformance with the Assessor's Street Name and Address Database,except that an accessory dwelling unit that does not meet all applicable City standards and requirements for such use shall not receive an address. Proposed Code Dwellings primary and accessory.Both primary and accessory dwelling units shall receive (Clean) individual address numbers in conformance with the Assessor's Street Name and Address Database,except that an accessory dwelling unit that does not meet all applicable City standards and requirements for such use shall not receive an address. Additional Terminology is intended to be black and white regarding whether a recognized dwelling Explanation type may be addressed or not. Attachment Page 3 8-2-7-E Street Address Numbering Standards,Multi dwelling buildings Description Change to reflect that letter identifiers for multi dwelling buildings are no longer used. The Issue Addressing for multi-family buildings with letter identifiers is no longer supported by the United States Postal Service.This primary addressing method also causes significant issues for the City and residents where properties are later subdivided(a recent example is Summertown on Ustick Road).Address numbers for each multi-family building regardless of whether buildings are in common ownership or on individual parcels,are now standard practice. Proposed Code 2. Multifamily dwelling residential developments and multi-tenant commercial (with changes) developments. a. Multi dwellings buildings.The City shall assign an individual address number to each building within a multi dwelling residential development,in conformance with the Assessor's Street Name and Address Database with sepafate addresses in eemmen development.When indivi&al buildings within a eeRIME) multifamily development are assigned separate.,aa-esse . Individual unit numbers shall also be assigned to each dwelling-trnA,with no duplication of unit designations within each building.First floor units shall be assigned 100-series numbers,second floor units shall be assigned 200-series numbers,and so on for each successive floor.Basement units shall be assigned 10-series numbers if the next higher floor is designated the first floor;or basements shall be designated 100- series if the next level is designated the second floor. (1) For exterior accessed multi dwelling buildings or interior access with units on only one side of a common hallways,units shall be assigned in increments of 1 (e.g.— 101, 102, 103,and so ongenerally from left to right facing the frontage of the building_ (2) For interior accessed multi dwelling buildings with units on both sides of a hallway,units shall be assigned in odd/even number parity. b. Multifamily buildings with single address in eammen development.When multifamily developments eensisting ef mer-e than ene(1)stmetuFe have bee assigned a single address, each individual building shall also be assigned a letter a address number.Unit or apartment numbers shall then be assigned to each ",elliag tmit,with no duphea4ion of unit designa4ions within eaeh building.Firs series num0 eond 44ear-units shall be assigned 200 series mtmon or-eaesttee0 ss",ejqeer-.Basement units shall be assigned 10 series number-s if the next higher-fleer-is designated the fir-s fleef;ef basements shall be designated 100 sefies if the next level is designated the seeend fleer-.Eaeh unit number-shall begin with the let4er-assigned te the building zn in whieh the unit is leeated(e.g.,Unit AWO), [*New Sub Designation Numbering Example: See Proposed Code(Clean),following.*] Proposed Code 2. Multi dwelling residential developments and multi-tenant commercial developments. (Clean) a. Multi dwelling buildings.The City shall assign an individual address number to each building within a multi dwelling residential development,in conformance with the Assessor's Street Name and Address Database.Individual unit numbers shall also be assigned to each dwelling,with no duplication of unit designations within each building.First floor units shall be assigned 100-series numbers,second floor units shall be assigned 200-series numbers,and so on for each successive floor.Basement units shall be assigned 10-series numbers if the next higher floor is designated the first floor;or basements shall be designated 100-series if the next level is designated the second floor. Attachment Page 4 (1) For exterior accessed multi dwelling buildings or interior access with units on only one side of a common hallways,units shall be assigned in increments of 1 (e.g.—101, 102, 103,and so on)generally from left to right facing the frontage of the building. (2) For interior accessed multi dwelling buildings with units on both sides of a hallway,units shall be assigned in odd/even number parity. Figure: Multi-unit Residential F — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — --I Parcel of Land #107 #108 #103 #105 a #106 #104 3 a #103 = #104 #102 #101 � #101 #102 4530 Meridian Blvd 4570 Meridian Blvd Meridian Blvd 4500 (Address Range) 4600 Additional This change does two things.The first change is to reflect that original code which was Explanation specific to projects under single or multiple ownership,is no longer relevant.As an aside, the City generally tries to stay out of the ownership structure of projects. The second change is to standardize City practice.Over the years multi-unit buildings for small fourplex, "pinwheel"type developments,have not been consistent. Attachment Page 5 8-2-7-E-2 Street Address Numbering Standards,Multitenant Buildings Description Change to reflect standard practice by the City of Meridian and Ada County for suite addressing. See also previous recommended changes to multi-family numbering. The Issue The most important guidance for wayfinding and addressing in International Fire Code (IFC),International Building Code(IBC),National Emergency Number Association (NENA The 9-1-1 Association),and United Stated Postal Service(USPS)is consistency. Meridian's current practice for addressing of suite numbers is to begin at 100,increase in increments of 10,and to do so facing the building and working from left to right. This is standard practice in the County.This change is intended to codify current best practice to ensure consistency. Proposed Code eb. Multi-tenant commercial building.The City shall assign a single address to each (with changes) commercial building,in accordance with this section.The City shall assign a unit number to each suite within a commercial building.For each building,the first floor units shall be assigned 100-series numbers starting with 100 increasing by a value of 10 for each additional suite,second floor units shall be assigned 200-series numbers starting with 200 increasing by a value of 10 for each additional suite,and so on for each successive floor.Basement units shall be assigned 10-series numbers if the next higher floor is designated the first floor;or basements shall be designated 100-series if the next level is designated the second floor. Suite numbering shall be assigned from left to right either facing the frontage of the building or from the main entry within a shared lobby.For exhausted sequences in existing conditions,increments of 5 may be used for new suites,or for large buildings with 10 or more suites,ranges of 1000 may be used for new buildings.In the absence of suites,the City shall not assign suite numbers,even if multiple tenants are co-located in a single building. [*New Sub Designation Numbering Examples: See Proposed Code(Clean),following.*] Proposed Code b. Multi-tenant commercial building.The City shall assign a single address to each (Clean) commercial building,in accordance with this section.The City shall assign a unit number to each suite within a commercial building.For each building,the first floor units shall be assigned 100-series numbers starting with 100 increasing by a value of 10 for each additional suite,second floor units shall be assigned 200-series numbers starting with 200 increasing by a value of 10 for each additional suite,and so on for each successive floor.Basement units shall be assigned 10-series numbers if the next higher floor is designated the first floor;or basements shall be designated 100-series if the next level is designated the second floor. Suite numbering shall be assigned from left to right either facing the frontage of the building or from the main entry within a shared lobby.For exhausted sequences in existing conditions,increments of 5 may be used for new suites,or for large buildings with 10 or more suites,ranges of 1000 may be used for new buildings.In the absence of suites,the City shall not assign suite numbers,even if multiple tenants are co-located in a single building. Attachment Page 6 Figure: Multi-tenant Commercial A Parcel of Land #100 #110 #120 2070 Meridian Blvd #110 #120 (Parking) #100 #130 2030 Meridian Blvd Meridian Blvd 2000 (Address Range) 2100 Figure: Multi-tenant Commercial B Parcel of Land Parcel of Land #110 #120 #130 #120 a #100 Q #130 #100 #110 0 3530 Meridian Blvd I 3570 Meridian Blvd Meridian Blvd 3500 (Address Range) 3600 Additional Staff have received some pushback on this practice,but the conditions are usually the tail Explanation wagging the dog,where site improvements occurred without understanding best practices for addressing,that in turn affects perception of addressing. Signage for example can be poorly interpreted when it does not take into account this standard.By documenting in code with examples,at least the practice is more available. Attachment Page 7 City Code Title 8 June 26th, 2025Planning & Zoning Commission Addressing Code Changes Introduction City Council.We still want your feedback to share with outside of Title 11 are City Council only.requests, but all code change applications P&Z has oversight of addressing variance update only on Title 8 Addressing changes.an action item or public hearing. Staff Not Quick Tangent Ada County addresses for smaller cities.Boise and Meridian participateaddressing exchange, ACX.Meridian participates in a Countywide internal databases)agencies and enterprise systems (multiple Technical communication between multiple naming)Interagency Review Committee (street Code ComplianceAddressing is complex. Addressing: MEAD Topic Areas and standards in other Titles.shall not based on definitions Direction on addressing is shall or When to address “ADU”single, multi, and accessory.New definitions, generic, for Building codesAlignment with Planning and Dwellings, Accessory (or “ADU”) Topic Areas consistencytransparency and institutional New Figures to improve conditions on a single property.single and multiple building Additional handling of suites in and internal access.residential buildings, external Additional handling of multi unit Codify best practiceletter identifiersMulti unit residential, no building Codify Postal Service directionConsistency / Cleanup changes QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS New Figures