Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-09-18 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Thursday, September 18, 2025 at 6:00 PM MINUTES ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE PRESENT Commissioner Matthew Sandoval Commissioner Matthew Stoll Commissioner Jared Smith Chairperson Maria Lorcher ABSENT Commissioner Brian Garrett Commissioner Jessica Perreault Commissioner Sam Rust ADOPTION OF AGENDA Adopted CONSENT AGENDA \[Action Item\] Approved Motion to approve made by Commissioner Stoll, Seconded by Commissioner Smith. Voting Yea: Commissioner Sandoval, Commissioner Stoll, Commissioner Smith, Chairperson Lorcher 1. Approve Minutes of the August 21, 2025 Planning and Zoning Committee Meeting 2. Approve Minutes of the September 04, 2025 Planning and Zoning Committee Meeting ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA \[Action Item\] ACTION ITEMS 3. Public Hearing for Lofty Creek Park (Live/Work) (H-2025-0020) by The Corners Office Design, generally located at the NW Corner of S. Eagle Rd. and I-84 Continued to December 4, 2025 Applicant Requests a Continuance A. Request: Rezone of 6.34 acres of land from the L-O zoning to the C-C and C-G zoning districts. B. Request: Short Plat to subdivide the property into two lots to allow for the phasing development. C. Request: Modified Development Agreement to remove, multi-family, as an allowed use and allow for live-work residential units, offices and hotels on the property. Motion to continue to December 4, 2025 made by Commissioner Stoll, Seconded by Commissioner Smith. Voting Yea: Commissioner Sandoval, Commissioner Stoll, Commissioner Smith, Chairperson Lorcher 4. Public Hearing continued from August 21, 2025 for Cherry Blossom East Subdivision (H-2025-0030) by Breckon Land Design, located at 523 W. Cedarbug Dr. and the 0.67 acre property to the east, located in the NE 1/4 of Section 12, T.3N., R.1W. Continued to November 6, 2025 Applicant Requests a Continuance A. Request: Combined Preliminary and Final Plat consisting of three (3) building lots and one (1) common lot on 0.79 acres of land in the R-8 zoning district. Motion to continue to November 6, 2025 made by Commissioner Stoll, Seconded by Commissioner Smith. Voting Yea: Commissioner Sandoval, Commissioner Stoll, Commissioner Smith, Chairperson Lorcher 5. Public Hearing continued from August 21, 2025 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. Recommend Approval to City Council Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2024-0071 A. Request: Modified Development Agreement (H-2017-0058 – Inst.#2018- 000751) to update the conceptual development plan to allow for the development of 904 new residential units consisting of a mix of townhomes, multi-family apartments and vertically integrated residential above ground floor commercial, 200,680 sq.ft. of commercial space including a 128,880 sq.ft. hotel and 71,800 sq. ft. of other retail/restaurant commercial space, 221,340 sq. ft. of office space with 90,000 sq.ft of which is intended for med-tech uses, and 8.3 acres of private and public open space, included additional land area and update certain provisions. B. Annexation of 7.21 acres of land with the I-L (5.29 acres), C-G (1.36 acres) and R-15 (0.56 acre) zoning districts. C. Rezone of 3.07 acres (0.91 + 2.17) of land from the C-G to the R-15 zoning district. D. 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 district. E. Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development consisting of 270 units in two (2) buildings on 6.28 acres of land on Lot 2, Block 1 and Lot 2, Block 3 in the C-G zoning district with requests for 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, to allow zero (0) for studio units and to UDC Table 11-2B-3, which restricts building height to a maximum of 65 feet in the C-G zoning district to allow a maximum building height of 76 feet on Lot 2, Block 3. F. Conditional Use Permit for a height exception for a vertically integrated residential building on Lot 2, Block 2 from 65 feet to 87 feet in the C-G zoning district. G. Director’s approval for Alternative Compliance to UDC table 11-2B-3 to allow an increase in the maximum building height in the C-G zoning district from 65 feet to 76 feet on Lots 1-3, Bock 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 50 sq. ft to zero (0). Motion to recommend approval to City Council made by Commissioner Smith, , Seconded by Commissioner Stoll Voting Yea: Commissioner Sandoval, Commissioner Stoll, Commissioner Smith, Chairperson Lorcher ADJOURNMENT 7:07 P.M. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To view upcoming Public Hearing Notices, visit https://apps.meridiancity.org/phnotices --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting September 18, 2025. Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of September 19, 2025, was called to order at 6:02 p.m. by Chairman Maria Lorcher. Members Present: Commissioner Maria Lorcher, Commissioner Jared Smith, Commissioner Matthew Sandoval, and Commissioner Matthew Stoll. Members Absent: Commissioner Jessica Perreault, Commissioner Sam Rust and Commissioner Brian Garrett. Others Present: Tina Lomeli, Kurt Starman, Bill Parsons, Sonya Allen, Steve Taulbee and Dean Willis. ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE Brian Garrett Jessica Perrault _X Matthew Sandoval X Matthew Stoll Sam Rust X Jared Smith X Maria Lorcher - Chairman Lorcher: Okay. Good evening. Welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for September 18th, 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 and on Zoom. We also have staff from the city attorney's and 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, you -- your ability to be seen on screen -- be seen and -- 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 respond as quickly as possible. If you simply want to watch the meeting we encourage you to watch on this -- the streaming on the city's YouTube channel. You can access it at meridiancity.org/live. With that let us begin with roll call. Madam Clerk. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Lorcher: Next on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. There are no changes to tonight's agenda, but, please, note that Item No. 3, Lofty Creek -- Lofty Creek Park and Item No. 4, Cherry Blossom East Subdivision, have both requested a continuance. So, if there is anyone here to testify on these applications we will not be taking public testimony tonight. Could I get a motion to adopt tonight's agenda? Stoll: Madam Chair, I move to approve the agenda for tonight as presented. F Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 18,2025 Page 2 of 26 Lorcher: Do I have a second? Sandoval: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to approve 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 August 21, 2025 Planning and Zoning Committee Meeting 2. Approve Minutes of the September 04, 2025 Planning and Zoning Committee Meeting Lorcher: Next is the Consent Agenda. The items on the Consent Agenda are to approve the minutes of the August 21 st and the September 4th Planning and Zoning meeting. Could I get a motion to accept the Consent Agenda as presented? Stoll: Madam Chair, I move to accept the Consent Agenda as presented. Lorcher: Do I have a second? Smith: 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 and present their case and respond to staff's comments. They will have 15 minutes to do so. After the applicant has finished we will open the floor to public testimony. Each person will be called only once during the public testimony portion of the meeting. 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 and you will have three minutes to address the commission. If you previously sent pictures or a presentation for the meeting it will be displayed on the screen for our clerk to run the Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 18,2025 Page 3 of 26 presentation. If you established you are speaking on the behalf of a larger group, like an HOA, where others from that group will allow you to speak on their behalf you will have up to ten minutes. After all those who have signed up in advance to testify 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 on Zoom press the raise hand button in the Zoom app or if you are only listening on a telephone please press star nine and your name will 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 don't experience feedback and we can hear you clearly. When you are finished if the commission does not have any questions for you you will return to your seat in Chambers or be muted on Zoom and no longer have the ability to speak. And, please, remember we will not call on you a second time. After all testimony has been heard the applicant will be given another ten minutes to come back and respond. When the applicant has finished responding to questions and concerns we will close the public hearing and the commissioners will have an opportunity to discuss and hopefully make final decisions or recommendations to City council as needed. ACTION ITEMS 3. Public Hearing for Lofty Creek Park (LiveMork) (H-2025-0020) by The Corners Office Design, generally located at the NW Corner of S. Eagle Rd. and 1-84 A. Request: Rezone of 6.34 acres of land from the L-O zoning to the C-C and C-G zoning districts. B. Request: Short Plat to subdivide the property into two lots to allow for the phasing development. C. Request: Modified Development Agreement to remove, multi- family, as an allowed use and allow for live-work residential units, offices and hotels on the property. Lorcher: With that we are going to start with Item No. 3. We are going to open the public hearing, because it is a continuance, which is Item No. 2025-0020 for Lofty Creek Park at Eagle and 1-84. Madam Clerk, do we have a suggested date for Lofty Creek? Lomeli: Thank you, Madam Chair. I do believe they are requesting December 4th. Lorcher: Okay. Can I get a motion to continue Lofty Creek? Stoll: Madam Chair, I move to continue Lofty Creek, H-2025-0020 until December 4th -- Lorcher: 4th. Stoll: 4th. F Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 18,2025 Page 4 of 26 Smith: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to continue Lofty Creek to December 4th. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. 4. Public Hearing continued from August 21, 2025 for Cherry Blossom East Subdivision (H-2025-0030) by Breckon Land Design, located at 523 W. Cedarbug Dr. and the 0.67 acre property to the east, located in the NE 1/4 of Section 12, T.3N., RAW. A. Request: Combined Preliminary and Final Plat consisting of three (3) building lots and one (1) common lot on 0.79 acres of land in the R-8 zoning district. Lorcher: Item No. 4 on the agenda for Cherry Blossom East Subdivision has requested a second continuance. Madam Clerk, do we have a suggested date for that continuation? Lomeli: Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes. November 6th. Lorcher: May I get a motion to continue Cherry Blossom East Subdivision? Stoll: Madam Chair, I move to continue Cherry Blossom East Subdivision application H- 2025-0030 until November 6th. Smith: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to continue Cherry Blossom East Subdivision. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. 5. Public Hearing continued from August 21, 2025 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 (H-2017-0058 — Inst.#2018-000751) to update the conceptual development plan to allow for the development of 904 new residential units consisting of a mix of townhomes, multi-family apartments and vertically integrated residential above ground floor commercial, 200,680 sq.ft. of commercial space including a 128,880 sq.ft. hotel and 71,800 sq. ft. of other retail/restaurant commercial space, 221,340 sq. ft. of Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 18,2025 Page 5 of 26 office space with 90,000 sq.ft of which is intended for med-tech uses, and 8.3 acres of private and public open space, included additional land area and update certain provisions. B. Annexation of 7.21 acres of land with the I-L (5.29 acres), C-G (1.36 acres) and R-15 (0.56 acre) zoning districts. C. Rezone of 3.07 acres (0.91 + 2.17) of land from the C-G to the R- 15 zoning district. D. 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 district. E. Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development consisting of 270 units in two (2) buildings on 6.28 acres of land on Lot 2, Block 1 and Lot 2, Block 3 in the C-G zoning district with requests for 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, to allow zero (0) for studio units and to UDC Table 11-2B-3, which restricts building height to a maximum of 65 feet in the C-G zoning district to allow a maximum building height of 76 feet on Lot 2, Block 3. F. Conditional Use Permit for a height exception for a vertically integrated residential building on Lot 2, Block 2 from 65 feet to 87 feet in the C-G zoning district. G. Director's approval for Alternative Compliance to UDC table 11-2B- 3 to allow an increase in the maximum building height in the C-G zoning district from 65 feet to 76 feet on Lots 1-3, Bock 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 50 sq. ft to zero (0). Lorcher: The next item on the agenda is for the Pine 43 Mixed Use Subdivision. Before we start with this application I would like you to know -- well, you will probably all know I was not here for that meeting on August 21. 1 have reviewed all of the notes. I have watched the video on YouTube and I feel like I am comfortable to make comments and vote on this for this evening, so -- and we are not going to open everything. We are really here to continue the application with the intent that we have already discussed most of it and we are going to address the concerns that were left off at the last meeting. So, with that let me just check my notes again before we go forward. So, this is a continuation for Pine 43 Mixed Use Subdivision off of Pine between Locust Grove and Hickory for a modified development agreement, annexation, rezone, preliminary plat, conditional use permits for multi-family development, height exceptions and the Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 18,2025 Page 6 of 26 director's approval for alternative compliance. I think I got all of that. And we will begin with the staff report. Allen: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. The Commission continued this project from the hearing on August 21 st in order for the applicant to address the following issues: First was the analysis on the feasibility of setbacks for Lot 1, Block 4, north to south away from State Avenue and that was this -- this slot right here, Lot 1, Block 4. And, then, to obtain input from the fire department regarding staffing and equipment and whether they are able to provide adequate service to address the safety needs of this site. Third specific sound and environmental mitigation plans for the southern border of Lot 1, Block 1, and this is Lot 1, Block 1, down here at the southeast corner. And revisions to the overall open space exhibit as requested in the staff report and discussed during the hearing The applicant submitted a written response to these items that is included in the public record and they will be going over that tonight. Steven Taulbee with the fire department is present tonight to answer any questions you may have pertaining to the provision of service for the proposed development. A memo from him is included with your hearing outline that clarifies the fire department comments in the staff report. A revised open space exhibit was submitted as shown that demonstrates compliance with the ten percent usable open space standard for requests for height exceptions through the alternative compliance process for the two vertically integrated residential buildings and the hotel building on Block 4 and that is, again, if you can see my pointer, this is a vertically integrated -- this building here and here and, then, the hotel is located here and, then, also for the multi- family building here on Block 3. The vertically integrated and the hotel buildings do provide that additional ten percent usable open space. The multi-family building does not meet the standards for a height exception, it only meets the open space standards required for multi-family developments based on the square footage of the units. Although the alternative compliance request for height exceptions is a director level decision, comments and/or recommendation from the commission on the matter is welcomed. New exhibits were submitted as shown for the public and/or quasi-public spaces and places proposed within the development, which totaled ten percent of the development area. Prior to the council hearing the applicant will submit an exhibit for the overall Pine 43 development, including the area north of State Avenue, that demonstrates consistency with the development guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan that require a minimum of five percent of the overall site to be supportive and proportional public and/or quasi-public spaces and places. An exhibit was submitted for the vertically integrated building as shown at the southeast corner of the development adjacent to the existing industrial uses to the south that depicts a ten foot wide landscape buffer planted with columnar evergreen trees with a 30 foot tall height and a ten foot width at maturity and an eight foot tall masonry wall along the shared property line as an added buffer. And, finally, an exhibit was submitted showing how the adjacent residential homes on the north side of East State Avenue will be affected by shade from the proposed vertically integrated building on Lot 1, Block 4. This shows the average shadow line during the winter. At the request of staff, based on testimony at the last hearing, the applicant has agreed to submit a comprehensive shade analysis prior to the council hearing to determine impacts to adjacent properties and, again, that Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 18,2025 Page 7 of 26 was for the vertically integrated building right here at the southwest corner of State and Webb. Staff will stand for any questions. The applicant is here to present tonight. Lorcher: Would the applicant like to come forward? Strollo: Good evening, Madam Chair and Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission. So, I will wait here for the presentation. Lorcher: Please state your name and address for the record that would be great. Strollo: Absolutely. My name is Danielle Strollo -- Lorcher: Okay. Strollo: -- and my address for the record is 601 West Bannock Street in Boise. I'm land use counsel here for the applicant DRB Investments on the Pine 43 project. It looks like we are up and running here. So, we are back to present the responses to your request for additional documentation from the August 21 hearing and the design team is here with me as well to cover specific questions that you might have Okay. So, just to remind everyone of where we are. Obviously Sonya did a great job introducing the project, but this is the overview of the site. This Pine 43 community is designed carefully to be a model for the type of urban style development desired in the central core part of Meridian, with a mix of uses that support each other and a dense -- density of residential development to support area employers, including Med Tech, all connected with significant nonvehicle infrastructure and on a public transit line The overarching concerns you expressed at the prior hearing were about compatibility and open space. Specifically you asked for the feasibility of additional setbacks for the vertically integrated building on Block 4 of the project and sound mitigations for the building in the southeast corner of the site, Lot 1, Block 1. You also asked for clarification on fire comments and revised open space exhibits in response to the staff report. We are here to speak to all of those issues tonight. So, I will start with the first issue, Block 4, Lot 1, the vertically integrated building. Commissioner Rust called this at the last hearing the crown jewel of the project. You can see here the perspective of this building looking east from East State Avenue. We first note that 65 feet is what's allowed of right in the C-G zone and the additional 11 feet is allowed with alternative compliance where the development provides open space above baseline standards. We meet these alternative requirement standards as indicated by staff. Next we note that the height is to accommodate view units for the residents in this part of the project. These are high value units and help to provide the financial support for the considerable public plaza amenity this development will provide. The building has significant landscaping -- excuse me -- landscaping to soften its street level appearance as you can see in this slide. We looked into stepping this building back further and determined that it would be more detrimental to the project's architecture and financing than it would benefit the neighboring properties. The building is already set back 50 feet, which is double the zoning requirement. We submitted this exhibit to show the angle of the sun in average winter conditions, showing the most consistent shadow that will occur in the 10 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 18,2025 Page 8 of 26 winter when the sun is the lowest. You can see, essentially, that this building is not blocking the sun from the homes to the north of the building. Of course with the sun coming in from a different angle there won't be any shadowing in the summer months. You can also see that the closest distance between a home and the building is 90 feet, a significant setback above required for the zone allowing for privacy and within that 90 feet will be a designated vegetated streetscape that softens the building and provides a buffer between the uses. Lorcher: Quick question before you continue. Do these houses already exist? Strollo: Yes. Yep. This is a satellite, in fact, that we imposed this. Lorcher: Okay. Carry on. Strollo: Yep. The next issue for -- cops. I'm going to skip. Okay. The next issue for which you requested additional information was sound mitigation and buffering from the vertically integrated building in the southeast corner to the nearby light industrial. So, that's circled here in this -- in this bottom right corner. Pine 43 is providing significant buffering to the light industrial zone properties to our south. In this particular corner the vertically integrated building depicted here on the left is over 50 feet from the property line. Within this 50 feet, as Sonya described, is a six foot pathway adjacent to the building, a 20 foot parking terminal planter island with trees that will grow up to 40 feet at maturity, a 20 foot -- a 26 foot drive aisle and, then, a ten foot landscaping planter island with those dense evergreen -- evergreen trees. At the edge of that over 50 feet is an eight foot masonry wall on the property line. On the other side of the property at K&R Automotive is, then, a 40 foot -- a 42 foot wide parking lot before the building where the auto repair use occurs indoors. So, that's a total building to building space of 105 feet. In addition to that we are also providing high sound transmission classification rated windows and walls on that side of the building. So, this just -- this exhibit just shows all that buffering in the context and you can also see that the present uses to the south are in east-to-west order. The auto repair shop an insulation contractor, a hunting retail store and a multi-tenant building, including a dance center and various offices. These present uses are not noise intensive or noxious, nor does the I-L zone allow uses that would be incompatible with the vertically integrated building or the overall Pine 43 project. In all this is significant vegetated spatial buffering for a light industrial use that takes place inside. We also want to state that light industrial development is not noisy or noxious, but, instead, is characterized by last -- typically by last mile logistics facilities and flex spaces desired by startups, tech companies and innovation leaders. Those looking to live in mixed use urban style developments know that they are not in a suburb, because that's not what they are looking for. They want to be in a dense urban fabric, particularly one like this that's thoughtfully designed and planned. Okay. So, we have also provided more information about open space, including revised exhibits showing that we meet alternative compliance requirements, overall open space requirements and multi-family requirements on the applicable lots, with the exception of Block 3, Lot 2, which we are still working on to comply with that alternative requirement -- alternative compliance requirement. We propose a condition of approval for that F-11 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 18,2025 Page 9 of 26 block, which I will lay out shortly. We appreciate all of Sonya's work on reviewing these exhibits. Yesterday she asked for one additional exhibit showing open space on the entire 121 acres and we will have that for the City Council hearing, but I can say that we provide eight and a half acres of open space for that overall 121 acre property per the DA. The Pine 43 project is intended to be a high end, well designed, comprehensively planned community with intentional and community focused amenities. The quasi- public and public space exhibit we provided in this latest round shows that these public open spaces are located throughout the plan and this exhibit -- additional exhibit shows some examples of the kind of open space venues we are talking about, including benches, tables and other space for socializing, thoughtfully designed green spaces and bicycle furnishings among others The details of the specific amenities will be resolved in future design review processes. This is only the beginning of the process for this application. The prior hearing some of some -- some of you asked about connectivity and we have provided an updated exhibit as well there. The site is well connected with pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure such that those who live on one side of a project can access the amenities in the other sectors. In this connectivity exhibit we have placed a circle that's kind of on the edge of the picture here with a diameter of a half mile and a quarter mile radius from that middle plaza and so this exhibit essentially shows that from the farthest corner of the site to the center plaza is about a quarter mile walk. So, as a final note we did again visit with Deputy Chief Taulbee to discuss his comments on this application of the August hearing. He reiterated that this project will be reviewed against the fire code for compliance at later stages and I did see the memo that was provided to me today. It's pretty much consistent with us. So, his comments were reflective of a general need for staff, rather than specifically concerned about the nature of this product -- this project. We will meet all firework code requirements for the buildings in the site, of course, and we also note that the project's development timeline last -- likely starts about three years from now. So, we are a bit far out from -- from that fire code inspection. With that we would reiterate a request for a recommendation of approval for these applications to facilitate development of this unique and first to Meridian urban mixed use concept. We also reiterate our -- our ask to remove conditions two and 3-F. Two additional requests are for a condition of approval that Lot -- Lot 2, Block 3, meet required open space standards for alternative compliance and multi-family and that the open space design on Block 1, Lot 2, be approved in a future design review application with public space amenities in lieu of a berm requirement and I will talk a little bit about that here. So, with specific regard to that Lot 2, Block 1, we want to note that the code requirement of a four foot berm or barrier adjacent to streets is really a requirement that isn't aligned with urban environments, which this development really strives for. The open spaces on this lot will be the kind of public open spaces that provide for interaction and activation at the street level, making a four foot berm or wall kind of inappropriate for the design that we are going for. So, that's why we are asking that these public amenities be allowed in lieu of that requirement pursuant to the multi-family CUP. So, to close we note that this development meets or exceeds open space requirements overall and that this application, like many others, will be reviewed for design and code compliance in future design review and CZC applications after it's approved at the City Council level and this is a one-of-a-kind development in Meridian. We appreciate that we are -- we are on the F12 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 18,2025 Page 10 of 26 forefront here. One that will be a legacy product for Dennis Baker and D&B and will truly carry out the mixed use vision that Meridian has for this area and overall as the city grows. Mixed use development is very desirable here and in the valley in general and it's more efficient from a land use perspective and it's the type of development that creates a vibrant, inviting and economically beneficial community. This is an opportunity here to develop a large amount of in-fill space exactly the way your comprehensive and strategic plans envision. So, with that thank you for your time and we will stand for questions that you have. Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: Yeah. I have a couple questions. One first for Deputy Chief Taulbee. So, it's kind of been noted a couple times now that that feedback from the fire department was a general statement about staffing levels, equipment, et cetera. I don't -- I don't recall seeing that before on new applications. So, is this something -- is this just kind of coincidentally something that the fire department is starting to do? I'm wondering what the nexus of this comment was? Should we expect to start seeing this feedback from the fire department more or is there something specific about the characteristics of this development that has caused you to -- even if it's at a wide level -- say above a certain height, for example, we have issues? Taulbee: Yes. Madam Chair, Commissioner Smith, I have been in the position here at the city of Meridian coming on -- on a year, so I can't speak to projects before my -- my time here, just -- just to be fair. So, moving forward, you know, in talking with Chief Blume, when we look at projects that are coming through planning we are looking at the scope and the size of the project. So, again, you know, it -- if it was Pine 43 or it was, you know -- you know, Eagleville Height -- whatever that -- that case may be, we are going to apply these comments as applicable based on the scope, size and risk of the property. So, it's -- it's not intentionally towards this specific project, but anything of this scope and size we would provide the same feedback based on our current staffing model and deployment algorithm that we follow based on NFPA 1710 standard. Smith: Are there -- thank you. Just as a follow up, are there -- is there a process -- sorry. Brain swimming in some soup today. What I'm trying to get at is to me this scope and scale of this one project can be also similar to, you know, multiple -- you know, a sum of multiple other smaller projects and so I'm curious what the fire department's algorithm is -- or maybe not in specifics, but the -- is it simply the fact that this is -- the size of this is all happening in one application and kind of what -- what -- I'm curious about what the difference is between that versus kind of the incremental gain and potentially incremental risk of lower response times from multiple smaller projects. Taulbee: Madam Chair, Commissioner Smith, so looking at this, there are some comparable projects. However, with this one when you look at a five to seven story building that is a residential type structure, either apartment, hotel, motel, the -- the risk 13 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 18,2025 Page 11 of 26 goes up incrementally just due to the fact of the -- the individuals that live there and so, you know, that's why we are looking at, you know -- you look at something of the scale, you know, it's not comparable to a three story apartment building or a three story hotel- motel. When you are looking at five to seven stories and anywhere from 50 to 75 feet, there is different components with that. When we show up on scene for evacuation, mitigation, response, how we look at mutual aid, so, again, you know, it's just based on the size and the scale of, you know, when you are looking at -- when you get above that -- that five story level, encroaching up to the seven floors. Smith: Thank you. Madam Chair, another follow up if that's okay. Lorcher: Go ahead. Smith: So, would it be accurate to state -- because I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I think I'm understanding what the comment is. The fire -- it's not that the fire department -- because of any architectural or design issues, it's not that the fire department feels incapable of responding to this -- this development efficiently and effectively, but any development that is above this height with current equipment and staffing. Taulbee: Correct. Smith: Is that -- somewhere. Okay. Taulbee: Correct. Any project that would come through at this scale, again, when you are looking at that five to seven or going towards the mid-rise, high-rise package, it would be applicable as well. Smith: Okay. Thank you. One other question, Madam Chair, for the applicant. Lorcher: Go ahead. Smith: I'm -- I'm not sure if I'm misremembering or if I just -- if there is just a gap in my memory. I don't recall discussion of your ask to strike condition PP E-F about the Animal Farm. Could you go into a little bit what that request is? Strollo: Sure Okay. Yeah. So, we did -- it was on the slide for that slide show in the last presentation, but we never really had much of a discussion about it. Essentially we are -- we are asking that this project be separated from that project that has been held up for various reasons by that property owner. We are -- you know, we just want to kind of separate those two projects. Smith: Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. Sorry to hog the time, but I have a question for staff to that end. Lorcher: Go ahead. 14 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 18,2025 Page 12 of 26 Smith: So, reading through the staff analysis it seems like there is that -- the concern is that creates potential for an illegal division of land. Has something like this been successfully done? Is there -- is there any mechanism by which we can enforce and prevent that illegal division of land if that final plat isn't recorded? Allen: Was that a question if the final plat was recorded? If so -- no, it's not recorded that I'm aware of. Unless it just got recorded. Smith: Madam Chair. I guess -- my -- my question is based on the staff analysis and, again, forgive me for being a little bit sluggish today, but I'm reading -- because the preliminary plat excludes this area it would create an illegal division of land if the final plat isn't recorded. Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat is contingent upon recordation of the final plat. So, I'm curious about kind of -- I guess what I'm struggling with is -- if we could dumb it down for me, what is the rub here? What is the -- if we were to -- from the applicant, I guess, if we were to strike this what is the mechanism by which we ensure compliance and not a legal division? Allen: That -- that is the mechanism, Commissioner. Smith: Okay. Strollo: And if -- if I may weigh in there, too. I mean we are working with that -- I mean that -- so that plat was approved by the city. It's a matter of recordation and we are working with that landowner to get that recorded and get that taken care of. It's more just -- you know, we don't have control of that property. That landowner has to get that done. So, we are doing what we can to get that done. It's just, you know, we don't want our project to be held up by whatever is going on with that landowner. Lorcher: Okay. So, just to -- to reiterate, because this was really never discussed in the last meeting, so you are telling me that there is one portion of this entire big parcel there is a holdout? Strollo: Yes. Lorcher: And so what are you asking of Planning and Zoning in regard to that parcel? Strollo: We are just trying to get our preliminary plat separated from that issue of the recordation of their final plat. That's all we are asking. Lorcher: And, staff, is that what -- is that amenable to you or do you need that listed separately? Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, it's -- I'm trying to go through my memory bank, because I was part of that discussion with the current landowner, not this particular applicant, but we -- through the process we did determine that somehow they had one parcel and they ended up with three and we are like how did you end up with F15] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 18,2025 Page 13 of 26 three parcels, because we showed you only having one and we determined that they went -- possibly went to the county and created these new deeds and illegally subdivided the property. What I can tell you is we have approved a final plat for them to get that done. I can't -- I would need a few minutes to look in the system to see if they are even valid or if we have even signed the plat. So, in our world we only require signature on the plat for them to meet the requirements. If we don't have that done, then, we -- and this property was part of the original Pine 43 project -- or Pinebridge project I should say -- I'm getting the project names mixed up -- then it puts them in a bad bind and particularly this project, because typically if a project was part of a preliminary plat and was split off and not final platted, then, it becomes a remnant piece and so that's why staff put that condition in here is we want to make sure that they are whole moving forward, because without having this piece done it doesn't make them whole. So, how they want to work that out with the applicant -- I hope they have the influence to do that, because I can tell you we worked on this project and I -- we must be getting close to two year window on this particular application. So, staff wants to make sure that it doesn't fall through the cracks and, then, we end up with a situation where we -- no other recourse than to not approve a final plat for them when they come in to submit, because we can't find it being consistent with the overall project. So, they are at risk -- they are at risk if they do take that condition out. We need to have that final -- Lorcher: So, do we need to have that part of our motion? No? Parsons: It's already conditioned -- Lorcher: It's already conditioned -- Parsons: -- to make that happen. Yeah. Lorcher: Okay. Parsons: It's just -- it's difficult to the applicant's point -- difficult, because they don't control the property. But that property owner controls the fate of their plat here. So, it's a -- it's a double edged sword for them unfortunately. But it's something that we have to stay strong on and be consistent with in making sure that we make them whole going forward. Lorcher: Okay. And, then, just bear with me for a second here. So, the condition of -- that they would like to strike, but the -- the city -- the planners would like to include, that doesn't prohibit them from continuing their development of their project; right? It's just a -- more of a negotiation with this land owner going forward; is that correct? You are nodding yes? Allen: Madam Chair, the condition is -- it requires approval of the preliminary plat, is contingent upon recordation of the final plat for Pine 43 Animal Farm, for the property located at the southwest corner of East Pine and North Webb Avenue. A final plat 16 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 18,2025 Page 14 of 26 application shall not be submitted to the Planning Division for any phase of development until the final plat is recorded. I think the latter part is what they are objecting to. Strollo: Yeah. So, it does prevent us from moving forward with the project and part of what's happening, too, is the city has some control over what's going on with the final plat. They signed off on the final plat, but it's still in process, because in part of -- part of the city's actions my understanding. Yeah. Sure. Let's go -- come talk about. I will have him introduce himself. Lorcher: Fine. Just state your name and address for the record, please. Torfin: Madam Chairman, Dan Torfin. I'm -- I'm part of the DRB Group. And so our -- our ask is not to have that hold up our project, because we don't have control. The city has control, because the city has approved their plat, the city has signed the final plat and it is at the county surveyor waiting for some agreements that we are working on with them for cross-access. But as Bill mentioned we have been talking to them for quite a while and they -- and they have their organization is maybe what causes the long lapse of time, but we do not have control over that. Our point is the city has control to issue any further building permits down the road, because what I understand is they want to build another building, but we are actively talking to the newest person in the group to try to get our things done and from what I understand the ball is in their court, signed some agreements, the city wants those agreements and the county surveyor wants those agreements, but it has been a difficult thing and so that's why we are asking that. Not to be held up by them, whereas the city has control over that property and has previously approved a final plat and signed that final plat. Lorcher: But do you also understand from the city's perspective if you have got a lone wolf out there, you have got this beautiful incredible urban setting and, then, you have got this, you know, three divided parcels that could be, you know, somebody's garage that can be just full of stuff; right? And so everything that you have new and shiny. Now you are stuck with something -- whereas if it was part of the entire project, even though you don't have control over it now, you mentioned they have a three year -- before you even start building out you are at least two weeks before City Council, so there is time, but to have this little remnant there from the city's perspective -- I understand both sides; right? You want to go forward. They don't want this to be left behind, because that can create a whole new set of problems going forward with, you know, septic and sewer and -- and county and just this little island in the middle of the city. Torfin: Yeah. Madam Chair -- Chairman, the parcels -- the extra parcels are vacant land and all the utilities have been stubbed to it and so I guess if -- if it doesn't move forward they don't get their building permit; is that correct, Bill? And they can't do any more with their property. So, I think that's what -- it's kind of housekeeping. I'm here to tell you that we are in full cooperation to try to help them do whatever we have to do to get it done. We just -- this little thing holding up a near billion dollar project, doesn't seem like it -- you know, that would be fair to us and it is out of our control. 17 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 18,2025 Page 15 of 26 Strollo: Right. Torfin: But we will cooperate. Lorcher: Okay. Torfin: Thank you. Lorcher: Thanks. Commissioner Smith. Smith: Madam Chair, that's all for now. I think that makes -- I understand the issue now. Lorcher: Okay. Where are we at? So, you are talking. We are asking questions. I'm going to ask you to sit down for a minute -- Strollo: Okay. Lorcher: -- and, then, we will see if there is any -- unless you have a question for them right now? Well, we are going to get public testimony and, then, the applicant can come back and respond. Commissioner Sandoval, do you have any questions for the applicant at this time? Sandoval: Not at the moment. Lorcher: Okay. You are good to go. All right. Madam Clerk, do we have anybody here to testify? Lomeli: Thank you, Madam Chair. No one has signed up. Lorcher: Is there anybody in Chambers that would like to testify? Hi. Thanks for coming tonight. Can you state your name and address for the record? Tompkins: Yes. My name is Ian Tompkins and I live at 1018 Webb Way -- Avenue. The post office accepts both. Building 105 -- Lorcher: Okay. Tompkins: -- which is part of the Dovetail Apartments right across State -- from this development. Lorcher: Okay. Tompkins: Two items that I want to point out that I -- what -- besides my full approval of the project as -- at this full request. Two items I just wanted to make note of real quick. I heavily approve of the additional walkability they are looking for with this project. Right Fl-81 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 18,2025 Page 16 of 26 now if I want to walk to a place to eat or a place to shop, either -- I have got a couple shops there at Fairview -- at the front Fairview there for Pine, but, otherwise, I have got to cross Fairview or I have got to cross Eagle, because it is not walkable between Dovetail and Eagle and Fairview without crossing either Fairview or Eagle Road. There is no sidewalk there. So, this would be -- until a development goes in or if something changes where additional sidewalks are added, this would be -- the commercial being added here would be a huge benefit to the local community in that area, just because of the walkability being provided in that area and in -- the other one, because I do work a little bit in the construction industry, correct me if -- maybe he could correct me if I'm wrong -- I -- apologies -- apologies, I forget your name, but for fire safety do not all buildings three stories and higher that are residential in the city of Meridian require sprinklers -- a solid sprinkler system of some kind? Taulbee: Through the chair. Yes, fire sprinkler requirements are actually based on occupancy and use of the actual building. So, it could be -- isn't necessarily residential. It could be. But, typically, yes, all residential multi-family is always requiring sprinklers. Tompkins: So, while -- yes, there are some worries due to current equipment levels of Meridian fire, which I would put more on just the budget problems that the city of Meridian has due to ongoing problems with the state level, I would say that current code requirements for fire does cover enough for fire concerns to give enough time to help people before a fire does show up, so -- and just in conclusion I do severely support this project and hope that Planning and Zoning approves it to continue on to City Council. Lorcher: Okay. Thank you very much. Is there anybody else in Chambers that would like to testify? Good evening. Begg: Good evening. Madam Chair, Commissioners. My name is Dugan Henderson- Begg. 4410 Cherry Bark Way, Meridian, here in the city. I represent Harvey Performance Company and the neighbor of this development. We are fully in supportive of this. I represent the company being asked to come along. We are working very closely with our neighbors and they have been very helpful in our growth and development of it. We are a global company, continuing to look at our global footprint and it's super important for us to -- nine acres that we own next to this to be able to develop with that. We are really pleased to see the housing that helps us drive the employee base, so they can come in and grow with us. We are 75 employees right now. Growing very quickly. As a global company we have also got people coming in from all over the world to visit. So, having the hotel, having the housing and the opportunities for quick lunches, things like that with these amenities. So, we wanted to share our support of this development as a light industrial. I appreciate the desire for the city of Meridian to continue growing that. It's certainly important to us to have the support of like manufacturers that we can share technologies with and as we -- as we grow with automation and things like that we need that light industrial around us. So, support for this project and just hopefully we can get this through. Thank you. 19 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 18,2025 Page 17 of 26 Lorcher: All right. Thank you very much. Anybody else in Chambers that would like to speak? Madam Clerk, do we have anybody on Zoom? Lomeli: Thank you, Madam Chair. I have one person attending on Zoom. Their hand is not raised. Lorcher: Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward again for any further questions before we close the public hearing? Just out of curiosity, you know, when I watched the city -- the Planning and Zoning meeting online, all of the renderings were very tiny. So, it was hard for me to, you know, really kind of pick out some of the things that -- that you were speaking of, but I got the gist. But just out of curiosity, so Ian mentioned that he was looking for something more walkability. The tenants that you were kind of contemplating having in there, obviously, you know, light food and restaurants, are you thinking also grocery stores where people don't have to have a car, they can kind of live, work and play within this kind of urban community? Strollo: We don't have any grocery store -- like large grocery store, big box things. We are looking more for kind of neighborhood commercial uses, if there is, you know, Bodegas and smaller kind of, you know, opportunities for people to get their groceries kind of needs there, sure, absolutely. But we do -- again, it's kind of in this core area of Meridian where those areas are pretty accessible and we are building out the connectivity to allow that people wouldn't have to get in a car to have to get to those uses. Lorcher: Okay. Commissioners, do we have any other questions for the applicant before we close the public hearing? Danielle, do you -- Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Oh. Commissioner Smith. Smith: Just regarding that open space kind of for -- I think Block 3, Lot 2, just curiosity -- out of curiosity -- and I know we, obviously, don't have an exhibit, but to be comfortable kind of with moving this forward, with that condition, I'm curious what -- what is the -- you know, thumb in the wind intention to expand that open space, is it to reduce parking, is it to rework -- I mean just get an idea. Strollo: Yeah. Yeah. Sure, Commissioner -- Madam Chair, Commissioner Smith. Sorry. I'm not practiced at doing that. So, yeah, we are looking at a lot of different things. We are looking to expand potentially the rooftop amenities in that building. We are also looking at, yes, potentially removing some parking spaces and utilizing that space better. So, it's about 13,000 square feet that we are looking to find and we are pretty confident that we will be able to find it. Smith: Okay. Thank you. F20] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 18,2025 Page 18 of 26 Lomeli: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Madam Clerk. Lomeli: Did you want to give them the ten minute rebuttal? The applicant? Lorcher: Or -- well, are we -- Lomeli: Want me to start the time? Lorcher: Oh. No, I -- Strollo: I think we are done. I'm good. Thank you. Lomeli: Just want to clarify. Lorcher: We have rules; right? Okay. Stoll: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Stoll. Stoll: So, if I have a question for staff can I ask it after we close the public hearing or should I ask it now? Starman: Madam Chair and Commissioner Stoll, your -- either way works, but I would encourage you to -- if you think it might require some interaction between staff and the applicant now is fine. But you can ask questions of staff after the hearing is closed if you wish as well. Stoll: Okay. Still trying to figure out this process. So, if I may. So, in the staff -- Madam Chair? In the staff memo, Sonya, you identified that you had concerns, staff had concerns regarding the increase in residential units, but it sounded at the what -- sounded like at the loss of the commercial space that was available in the development. But in another part of the memo I saw that there is an increase -- and I can't remember the exact figure -- of commercial space -- or let's say nonresidential space beyond what the original agreement was. Am I missing something? I feel like I'm missing something. I'm not sure. Allen: I'm not entirely clear on what you are asking us. Stoll: So, in your staff-- Allen: Is my staff report in front of you? Stoll: No. This is what I read earlier. F21 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 18,2025 Page 19 of 26 Strollo: Do you want me to like rip out -- I have a -- Allen: Sure. If you -- or if -- would you like me to read you my recommendation? Would that help or -- Stoll: No. It's actually a part of the memo that you had where you were commenting that the concerns -- Allen: The staff report? Stoll: Yeah. It was in the staff report. Sorry. The staff report that there is concerns regarding the increase in number of residential units beyond what the -- the original application was and that it was that you need -- that we needed to have more commercial space in Meridian and, yet, as part of the staff report it said also that we had an increase from the original application in the nonresidential space of the development. So -- Smith: Madam Chair? I think I have -- Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: I think what Commissioner -- and correct me if I'm wrong, Commissioner Stoll. I think what you are talking about regarding the increase is on page 11 of staff analysis under the development agreement modification it says this is an increase of 134,000 square foot of nonresidential space over what is currently entitled, which has not yet been built out in Pine 43. Stoll: Thank you. Strollo: Madam Commissioner and Commissioner Stoll, there is also -- it's -- there is a nice table that shows kind of how the development has progressed. What we are proposing, which is an increase of nonresidential space and, then, I would also just emphasize that, you know, the residential density is what provides for the nonresidential uses. Square footages. It supports those uses in other words. Stoll: So, correct me if I'm wrong on this. It seems to me that it's pointing out that we are getting an increase in residential units and we are increasing the nonresidential space -- Strollo: Correct. Stoll: -- from what the original plat was? Strollo: Yes. Stoll: So -- 22 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 18,2025 Page 20 of 26 Strollo: That's right. Stoll: So, we are getting, from my viewpoint, the best of both worlds in that we are addressing the housing crunch that we have identified, not only in Meridian, but across the valley as far as a shortage of residential units, but we are also getting commercial space. May not be exactly located where folks wanted it, but that's part of the flexibility that we all should be having. Strollo: Correct. We are also -- you know, in creating MedTech space that's desirable. So, you know, there is a variety of uses here that the city really wants. Stoll: Okay. That's all I -- Lorcher: Okay. Stoll: Thank you, Commissioner, for finding that spot. Lorcher: Danielle, did you want to add anything else before we close the public hearing? Strollo: No. I don't think so. Lorcher: All right. Thank you very much. Strollo: Thank you. Lorcher: Can I get a motion to close the public hearing, please? Stoll: Madam Chair, I would move to close the public hearing. Smith: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on Pine 43. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: Yeah. I think I have -- I appreciate the applicant going to, you know, the drafting table and addressing some of these concerns. I think that southeast property -- I think the proximity to light industrial with all those modifications doesn't inherently concern me as much anymore. I think there is a balance being struck and I think knowing that all that is indoors I'm not as concerned about air quality and things like that and that sound 23 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 18,2025 Page 21 of 26 mitigation is helpful I think the two areas where I'm -- I'm still -- I guess maybe three areas. One of them's light -- is I don't know that we should strike the Animal Farm plat recording issue. I think -- if that -- it seems like all parties are incentivized to get this done with some haste and I know, you know, in the past we have been burned by something going wrong in development as a city and large projects falling through and so would like to limit any risk of that happening, you know, prior to construction or prior to kind of any of anything getting moved forward. I think the -- one of the issues that we had was regarding the -- kind of height difference on that northern boundary. To be honest I still don't love it. It's not enough to make me, you know, hold back my approval. I would love for the applicant to maybe consider some things. I don't know that I would put this in a motion to require this, but I would love for them to consider additional, you know, landscaping along the property line of the northern homes. I think a lot of it's not inherently about shadow, but privacy and sight lines and even though, you know, while the shadow might not be encroaching on someone's home, being able to -- you know, having a certain amount of people just being able to see in your living room, again, sometimes it's inherent to happen. I live near two story houses, but if we can limit that that would be nice. And, then, the last thing that is -- is a significant concern for me, but it sounds like this is something that the city needs to handle as a whole, is that fire department response. I still am uncomfortable about that. Even if it's not the applicant's fault, it's not a fault of the design, I think there is a lot of discussion of fire safety being happening -- happening in zoning spaces. For example, dual stair requirements for single stairs and things like that. My concern isn't necessarily with fire and incineration, but smoke inhalation, which with a project of this size and buildings of the size with the fire department response does give me some pause. If there is a fire making sure those people at the top have adequate egress and, you know, way finding capabilities through smoke. That's a concern of mine. I don't know that there is anything that we could require the applicant to do. I think this is a larger discussion that probably needs to be had at the city level. So, with that I think there are a lot of things that give me some pause and give me some heartburn, but I do think the applicant has made a significant amount of improvements that -- that have earned in my support. I'm interested to see how this rolls out and I think there is -- there are some good things, even if they don't align with what we are used to in Meridian or what aligns with traditional requirements, I think this could be -- could serve a -- a great benefit for walkability for the community for a third place creation and things like that. Lorcher: Thank you. I will weigh my two cents in, since you haven't heard from me yet. The initial picture of the renderings of the area I think are shocking, because it's all street level. So, you know, it took a while for everybody in Meridian to get used to The Village, but it's kind of sequestered among the parking lots and you really have to go in there to be able to see this. Your project is right on Pine Avenue and you are taking my secret special way to get around town away, because you are adding density, but that's not for three years, so I don't have to worry about that. But it's very ambitious and Tammy de Weerd said that, you know, it -- when you are the first in line to do something different sometimes you -- you get the worst brunt of it, because it's never been done before. My husband has been here from 1973. 1 can only imagine what he thinks when he lived here when there was 7,000 people and he sees what Meridian has become F24] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 18,2025 Page 22 of 26 and it's not necessarily a bad thing, you know, it's -- it's definitely growth. We know that ICOM is a medical school here in Meridian that we desperately need in the state of Idaho. We know that Idaho State University is building a medical complex at the corner of Locust Grove and Central -- question mark? We know that the city of Meridian is pursuing a levy for fire and police, possibly as early as this November to be able to answer some of those questions when it comes to fire, because we know we will continue to grow. I was a little surprised at the statistics as far as single family homes versus apartments, because from a layman's view you see all the apartments here and you think, God, we should probably have enough; right? But if -- if the ratio is still 80/20 or even 90/10 where it's single family homes to, you know, apartments and things like that, we are not in line with other communities. I do know that my daughter works for Alaska Airlines and she can't afford to live in Meridian. The apartment prices are too high. So, she has to live, you know, someplace else and that makes it very difficult for her to have, you know, an adult job and not be able to afford the place that she lives. So, by having mixed pricing and mixed types of use here makes it more accessible to not only young people, but empty nesters and others as well and they are not going to move in there if they don't like the product. If they don't want to move next to a repair shop, then, that's their choice, you know, and if they don't like that there is a two story or three story building behind them, then, they are not going to move there and that will let the market decide on that. So, with that in mind I am inclined to give my stamp of approval to this to go on to City Council and I don't have a problem -- I know city -- the staff doesn't like the residential on the south side of the street, but maybe some people who want to live there don't want to be in the whole mix of things. They don't want to be in the city plaza, they just want to be set back a little bit and having them across the street just gives them a reason to walk a little bit further on purpose. So, those are all good positive things. In regard to that one lone parcel, you know, that's a tough one. If I do make the motion I'm not going to take that out for you. I think you can continue to work through that with staff. I know you don't have control over the owner, but we, as a city, have had challenges with little islands before and I think overall in your project -- project design it's going to come back and haunt you if that administration part -- that part is not taken care of. Commissioner Stoll, do you have any other comments that you would like to give tonight? Stoll: On my microphone. Madam Chair, I really like the project. I stated that at the last meeting. I'm supportive of it. I believe that what you are proposing, as I indicated earlier, increases the residential units, which we drastically need, along with increasing the nonresidential units that are spaced from what the original plat was. I am not inclined to support carving off the Animal Farm parcel just because it is -- it is our one tool to actually get the project done and get things dealt with instead of having a remnant parcel later on. I believe, as I expected, the answer was a global -- we have a problem with fire service across the city, primarily for reasons that are outside of the city's control. The city is looking at solutions to that, but it shouldn't be put onto your shoulders as an application. So, I will leave it at that, Madam Chair. Lorcher: Commissioner Sandoval, do you have any other thoughts than what's already been said? 25 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 18,2025 Page 23 of 26 Sandoval: Yeah, Madam Chair. So, my primary concern was that this corridor was always envisioned to be mixed use; right? So, balancing housing, offices, retail. I took offense to the increase in residential initially. Commissioner Stoll, I'm happy you pointed out and got some clarification on that. Yes, there is an increase in residential, but there is also an increase in that commercial space. I think it's very thoughtfully planned out. They took a lot of time and they were amenable to a lot of the things that we have asked for. So, generally I'm very supportive of this project. I don't think we should carve out one small portion of it though. I think that needs to be resolved now, right, instead of waiting several years for that. Other than that I'm in favor of approving. Lorcher: So, with that in mind, after considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council file number H-2024-0071. To City Council. But do not prohibit the residential development south of Pine and provide the shadow report to City Council on September 18th, 2025. Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: I guess point of inquiry I guess. I'm not sure. I think there was also some additional requests regarding requiring that Block 3, Lot 2, meet open space standards and that Block 1, Lot 1, be approved in a future design review. I just want to make sure you are aware of those. Lorcher: Were those on the staff report? Smith: Those were in the presentation from the applicant. I don't know if we can pull up the presentation of the slide -- of title request to commission. Lorcher: Then if you can help me draft the motion. I don't know all the block numbers. Smith: Okay. Okay. Then in that case, Madam Chair, I move we amend the motion to recommend approval to City Council striking staffs recommended condition of DA number two, which removes residential south of Pine. Also conditioning approval that the project meet required open space standards for alternative compliance and multi- family on Block 3, Lot 2, and that Block 1, Lot 2, open space design, be approved in a future design review application with public space amenity in lieu of berm requirement. Stoll: Second. Allen: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Sonya. Allen: Excuse me. There are not any conditions and -- conditions of approval in the staff report for the multi-family developments, because staff was recommending denial. F26] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 18,2025 Page 24 of 26 Do you wish to continue this project to a later hearing date for staff to draft conditions of approval or would you like to forward it on to Council as is? Lorcher: I would like to forward onto Council as is. Stoll: Clarification, Madam Chair. Lorcher: Commissioner Stoll. Stoll: When staff says forward onto Council as is, do you mean as is how the application was presented or with your conditions that are in the staff report? Allen: There are no conditions in the staff report. So, that's what I was mentioning is the -- is the issue. Typically a project is continued to a later hearing date in order for staff to draft conditions when staff wasn't initially in support of the project. I will defer to legal on this, our city attorney, but, otherwise, staff could draft conditions for Council's consideration in their motion. Lorcher: Kurt. Starman: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, that's going to be my thought as well is that if the Commission is inclined to proceed with the positive recommendation -- that seems to be the situation. I think that could be incorporate -- so, Sonya's last thought -- it could be incorporated into your -- your motion as well, which would be to -- part of the motion would be to have staff prepare appropriate conditions of approval prior to council consideration and so the council -- City Council would have those conditions before them and would be able to, you know, to approve or amend or modify. The only downside of that is that the Commission is not going to have an opportunity to comment or make a recommendation, but I think given the circumstance the City Council will be understanding of why that might be the case. Lorcher: Right. Allen: Another comment, Madam Chair. To include in your motion if you had intended to was the applicant's response that included sound mitigation for the vertically integrated structure next to the industrial, the southeast corner of the development. If you wanted to include those as conditions of approval in the development agreement. Lorcher: All right. There is too many words for me. Jared, can you add those to -- Smith: Sure. Do we -- okay. So, you want to just start from scratch? Starman: I would recommend this, because we are getting -- we are getting into sort of an amendment to an amendment -- Lorcher: I know. So -- 27 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 18,2025 Page 25 of 26 Starman: I'm going to recommend, just for a cleaner record, if the maker of the motion would just be willing to withdraw the motion and then -- that would be part one. Lorcher: Okay. Starman: And, then, part two is if -- if you are okay with this, Madam Chair, you could ask Commissioner Smith to make the motion that includes all those bits and parts that we just discussed. Lorcher: Okay. Let's keep this on the books. I withdraw my motion. So, that's off the table. And, then, have Jared make a brand new one, so you can start from the beginning. Smith: Absolutely. Lorcher: Thank you. Smith: I'm trying to find the number here. Okay. Madam Chair, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony I move to recommend approval of file number H- 2024-0071 as presented the staff report with the following modifications: To require sound mitigation on the southeast corner as proposed by the applicant of the development. To strike DA two in the staff's recommendation, conditions which requires removal of residential south of Pine. To add a condition of approval that the project meet required open space standards for alternative compliance and multi-family on Block 3, Lot 1, and, then, to allow Block 1, Lot 2, open space designed to be approved in a future design review application with public space amenity in lieu of berm requirement. Starman: Madam Chair and Commissioner Smith, one more -- it would be the -- part of the motion would be for staff to prepare conditions of approval for the multi -- for the multi-family aspect of the project prior to City Council consideration. Smith: Madam Chair, I would like to tack on Kirk's language. Lorcher: Okay. Smith: He said it more eloquently than I could. Stoll: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to approve Pine 43 to move on to City Council with the aforementioned items. All those in favor say aye. Any nays? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Lorcher: May I get one more motion for the evening? F28] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 18,2025 Page 26 of 26 Stoll: Move to adjourn. Lorcher: I need it -- Smith: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Any nays? Motion carries. Thank you very much, everyone. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:07 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS. ) APPROVED 10 IO2 I2025 MARIA LORCHER - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK F29 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Approve Minutes of the September 04, 2025 Planning and Zoning Committee Meeting 4 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 4,2025 Page 31 of 31 Smith: So, second concurs? Who was the second on that? Sandoval: Second. Smith: Second? Matt, you were, so you could -- Starman: Same -- yeah, if you would concur as -- you know, the same second would be in concurrent, if you can just confirm that's true. Sandoval: Yes. I second the amendment of the motion. Smith: Second concurs. All right. With that all those in favor, please, say aye. Any opposed? All right. Are we good? We clear? Cool. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Smith: All right. With that I will take one more motion. Stoll: Move to adjourn. Perreault: Second. Smith: Moved and seconded. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Thank you very much. We are adjourned. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:43 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS. ) APPROVED Maria Locher, Commission Chair 9-18-2025 ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK 9-18-2025 35 E K IDIAN:--- iuAn Planning and Zoning Presentations and outline h2 Planning and Zoning September 18, 2025Commission Meeting Zoning MapAerialFLUM Proposed Zoning Exhibit for Overall Site W IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: 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. Application Materials: https:Hbit.ly/H-2024-0071 A. Request: Modified Development Agreement (H-2017-0058 — Inst.#2018-000751) to update the conceptual development plan to allow for the development of 904 new residential units consisting of a mix of townhomes, multi-family apartments and vertically integrated residential above ground floor commercial, 200,680 sq.ft. of commercial space including a 128,880 sq.ft. hotel and 71,800 sq. ft. of other retail/restaurant commercial space, 221,340 sq. ft. of office space with 90,000 sq.ft of which is intended for med-tech uses, and 8.3 acres of private and public open space, included additional land area and update certain provisions. B. Annexation of 7.21 acres of land with the I-L (5.29 acres), C-G (1.36 acres) and R-15 (0.56 acre) zoning districts. C. Rezone of 3.07 acres (0.91 + 2.17) of land from the C-G to the R-15 zoning district. D. 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 district. E. Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development consisting of 270 units in two (2) buildings on 6.28 acres of land on Lot 2, Block 1 and Lot 2, Block 3 in the C-G zoning district with requests for 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, to allow zero (0) for studio units and to UDC Table 11-213-3, which restricts building height to a maximum of 65 feet in the C-G zoning district to allow a maximum building height of 76 feet on Lot 2, Block 3. F. Conditional Use Permit for a height exception for a vertically integrated residential building on Lot 2, Block 2 from 65 feet to 87 feet in the C-G zoning district. G. Director's approval for Alternative Compliance to UDC table 11-213-3 to allow an increase in the maximum building height in the C-G zoning district from 65 feet to 76 feet on Lots 1-3, Bock 4 (hotel and vertically integrated residential buildings) and to UDC 11-4-3-41G to allow a F36 decrease of private, usable open space for studio units in vertically integrated residential from the minimum 50 sq. ft to zero (0). 37 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: September 18, 2025 ITEM # 5 PROJECT NAME: Pine 43 Mixed-Use Subdivision (H-2024-0071) I wish to testify Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing (mark X (Please Print) HOA? if yes) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT C��fEPIDIAN*,­, DEPARTMENT REPORT HEARING 8/21/2025 legend DATE: Continued from: 612612025 Project evocation Area of Impact TO: Planning&Zoning Commission City Limits _ O Analysis I FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner r /-U Li 208-884-5533 _. m I sallen@meridiancity.org APPLICANT: Givens Pursley SUBJECT: Pine 43 Mixed Use Subdivision—ALT, 7 _ \ _Z AZ, CUP,MDA,PP,RZ T1- H-2024-0071 LOCATION: Generally located on the north and south sides of E. Pine Ave.,between N. Locust Grove Rd. and N.,Hickory Ave., in the West '/2 of Section Bin the west 1/2 of Section 8, T.3N.,R.IE. I. PROJECT OVERVIEW A. Summary The Applicants,HPC Buyer and DMB Companies,request the following: • Annexation and zoning(AZ)of 7.21-acres of land with I-L(5.29-acres), C-G(1.36-acres) and R-15 (0.56-acre)zoning districts(Parcel#S1108233755,#S1108233850,#S1108233950, #S1108233995 and#S1108233986); The Applicant,DMB Companies,requests the following: • Modification to the Development Agreement(H-2017-0058 -Inst. #2018-000751)to update the conceptual development plan for the 36.58 acres of land that lies south of E. State Ave. to allow for the development of 904 new residential units consisting of a mix of townhomes (30 units),multi-family apartments(271 units) and vertically integrated residential (603 units) above ground floor commercial/office,481,020 sq. ft. of commercial space including a 128,880 sq. ft.hotel and 71,800 sq. ft. of other retail/restaurant commercial space,221,340 sq. ft. of office space -90,000 sq. ft. of which is intended for med-tech uses, 59,000 sq. ft. of commercial/office in the vertically integrated residential buildings, and 8.3 acres of private and public open space; inclusion of additional land area(i.e. 1.92 acres); and updates to certain provisions in the agreement; • Rezone(RZ) of 3.08-acres(0.91 +2.17)of land from the C-G to the R-15 zoning district; • Preliminary plat(PP) consisting of 41 buildable lots and 3 common lots on 36.58-acres of land in the R-15 and C-G zoning districts; City of Meridian I Department Report 1. Project Overview ■ • Conditional Use Permit(CUP) for a 139-unit multi-family development on 2.87-acres of land on Lot 2,Block 1 in the C-G zoning district. The request includes Alternative Compliance to UDC 11-4-3-27B.3,which requires a minimum of 80 square feet of private,usable open space per unit,to allow studio units without such space; • Conditional Use Permit(CUP)for a 132-unit multi-family development on 3.41-acres of land on Lot 2,Block 3 in the C-G zoning district. The request includes Alternative Compliance to UDC 11-4-3-27B.3,which requires a minimum of 80 square feet of private,usable open space per unit,to allow studio units without such space; and to UDC Table 11-2B-3,which limits building height to 65 feet in the C-G district,to permit a maximum height of 76 feet; and, • Conditional Use Permit(CUP) for a height exception for a vertically integrated residential building on Lot 2,Block 2 from 65-feet to 87-feet in the C-G zoning district. Additionally, alternative compliance(ALT) is requested from the Director to UDC Table 11-2B-3 to allow an increase in the maximum building height in the C-G zoning district from 65 feet to 76 feet on Lots 1-3,Block 4 and Lot 2,Block 3 (hotel,multi-family building&2 vertically integrated residential buildings); and to UDC 11-4-3-41 G, which requires a minimum of 50 square feet of private,usable open space per unit,to allow studio units without such space. B. Issues/Waivers As noted above, a CUP is requested for a height exception for the vertically integrated residential building proposed on Lot 2,Block 2 from 65-feet to 87-feet in the C-G zoning district. Alternative compliance is requested with the CUP for a multi-family development on Lot 2,Block 3 to UDC 11-4-3-27B.3,which requires a minimum of 80 square feet of private,usable open space per unit,to allow studio units without such space; and to UDC Table 11-2B-3,which limits building height to 65 feet in the C-G district,to permit a maximum height of 76 feet; and, Alternative compliance is also requested from the Director to UDC Table 11-2B-3 to allow an increase in the maximum building height in the C-G zoning district from 65 feet to 76 feet on Lots 1-3,Block 4 [hotel and two(2)vertically integrated residential buildings); and to UDC 11-4- 3-41 G,which requires a minimum of 50 square feet of private,usable open space per unit,to allow studio units without such space. C. Recommendation Staff. Staff recommends approval of the proposed development plan per the provisions listed below in Section IV with the exception of the two(2)multi-family residential developments and the vertically integrated residential project located south of E.Pine Ave. in Blocks 1 and 3. Staff does not support residential uses in this area,as the previously entitled commercial plan is considered more beneficial to the City by providing needed employment opportunities and services for nearby residents,while also reducing vehicle trips and supporting trip capture.In addition,Staff does not support the vertically integrated residential use on Lot 1,Block 1 as it is not compatible with adjacent industrial uses and operations. Staff recommends the Commission and City Council consider reducing the number of vertically integrated residential units proposed north of E.Pine Ave. and requiring commercial/office uses above the first floor to provide a more commensurate level of employment and services to support nearby residents and reduce vehicle trips. Commission: Pending D. Decision City Council: Pending City of Meridian I Department Report I. Project Overview ■ I1. COMMUNITY METRICS Table 1: Land Use Description Details Map Ref. Existing Land Use(s) Vacant/undeveloped land - Proposed Land Use(s) Townhomes,multi-family residential,vertically integrated - residential project,professional services(i.e. office,med- tech),commercial/restaurant,hotel Existing Zoning RUT in Ada County;C-G VII.A.2 Proposed Zoning R-15,C-G,I-L Adopted FLUM Designation General Industrial&Mixed Use—Community(MU-C) VILA.3 Table 2: Process Facts Description Details Preapplication Meeting date 12/20/2024 Neighborhood Meeting 10/8/2024 Site posting date 6/26/2025 &8/8/2025 Table 3: Community Metrics Agency/ Description/Issue Reference Element Ada County Highway District • Comments Yes Received • Commission No Action Required • Access N.Webb Way,residential collector street;N.Webb Ave.,local street;E. Pine Ave.,minor arterial street;and E. State Ave.,residential collector street west of Webb and local street east of Webb—all existing streets • Traffic Level Area roads meet ACHD's LOS Planning Thresholds of Service ITD Comments ITD has no comments on this application Received Meridian Fire Fire Dept.will provide service to this development but their response will be inadequate due to staffing and equipment.See comments in Section IV for more information. Meridian Police See comments in public record • Distance to 0.9 miles from headquarters&7.7 miles from North station Station • Response ��alls for Service(CFS)Response Times; Dispatch to Arrival(all units) Time Average Response Times by Priority City of Meridian M74� Priority 3(MPD Goal is within 3 to 5 minutes) 4:06 3:35 Priority 2(MPD Goal is within 8 to 10 minutes) 7:38 6.22 Priority 1(MPD Goal is within 15 to 20 minutes) 12:59 11:3 Meridian Public Works Wastewater • Distance to Sewer available at site Mainline • Impacts or Concerns City of Meridian Department Report II. Community Metrics ■ Meridian Public Works Water • Distance to Water available at site Mainline • Impacts or See site specific conditions Concerns School District(s) West Ada School District • #of students 185-191 estimated for development • Enrollment School Boundary Areas 24-25'Enrollment Architectural Program capacity Capacity Capacity Meridian Elementary 468 650 600 River Valley Elementary 468 700 600 Lewis and Clark Middle 899 1000 - Centennial High 1754 1900 SGR Total Units Single Multi Total Total Estimated Development Area Zone Family Family Single Multi Students Architectural Program Family Family Capacity Capacity Meridian Elementary 0.51 0.2 30 874 191 650 600 River Valley Elementary 0.32 0.2 30 874 185 700 600 (Vote:Student Generation Rates are calculated in reference to the designated elementary schoc within the subject property's associated development area zone.This information is intended a� a reference,rather than a decisive tool. Note: See section IV. City/Agency Comments&Conditions for comments received. City of Meridian I Department Report 11. Community Metrics ■ Figure 1: One-Mile Radius Existing Condition Metrics Reference Parcel:S1108234011 Date Retrieved:2025 16{16 Parcel Count Parcel Acreage Infill Indicator: 973 Surrounding Area 207 1°l0 Not city ® City Limits 40 1,618. 2,411 9 Not City Household Change Household&Population Growth Households 132020 Population Change:17.346 Populatiion ■Growth (Household and Population Change since 2010 Decennial) - 5,000 10r000 15r000 20roo0 Use Types Residential Addresses All Addresses ■ single-family 3196 25% ® Multi-family ® Commercial 0 Preliminary Plats(last_years) Conditional Use Permit(last 5-years) Proposed Proposed Pending Pending Approved pproved 0 100000 200000 300000 0 100000 2013330 300000 400000 ■ Single-family ® Multi-family 2-00 1,500 Single-family 0 E 1-50 lk Residential c { 1,000 � Parcel Diversity 1-00 c ew 0.82 ; 13 Parcel Count vt 0-50 500 0 Average Acres 0-00 T.0 9 0 R-2 F.- RIB R-15 Average Single-family Density by Zoning Average 15-00 10-cc 10.79 5-00 41% 5.37 6.06 0-00 1.23 Dwelling Units!Acre R-2 R-4 R-& R-15 Notes: See VIII.Additional Notes&Details for Staff Report Maps,Tables,and Charts. City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics ■ Figure 2:ACHD Summary Metrics Level of Service Planning Thresholds 1. Condition of Area Roadways Traffic Count is biased on Vehicles per hour(VPH) Roadway Frontage Functional PM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Classification Traffic Count Level of Service Pine Avenue 3,010-feet Minor Arterial 866 Better than "E° Locust Grove Road 419-feet Minor Arterial 939 Better than "E" State Avenue 2,182-feet Collector NIA NIA Webb Way 819-feet Collector NIA NIA Webb Avenue 538-feat Local NIA NIA Commercial Nola Road 274-fee# Local Industrial NIA NIA Acceptable level of service for a five-lane minor arterial is "E"(1,540 VPH). 2. Average Daily Traffic Count (VDT) Average daily traffic counts are based on ACHD's mast current traffic counts- • The average daily traffic count for Pine Avenue east of Nola Road was 11,879 on November 2"d, 2023. The average daily traffic count for Locust Grove Road south of Fairview Avenue was 24,115 on August 15�h, 2024, There are no current traffic counts available far State Avenue, Webb Way, Webb Avenue a Nola Road. Notes: See VIII.Additional Notes&Details for Staff Report Maps,Tables,and Charts. Figure 3: Service Impact Summary ImpactService . . Ready Marginal Caution Ro Notes: See VIII.Additional Notes&Details for Staff Report Maps,Tables,and Charts. IH. STAFF ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code(UDC) A. History • In 2007,this property was included in the annexation(AZ-07-006, Ordinance#08-1348), City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ rezone(RZ-07-010),preliminary plat(PP-07-008)for Pinebridge Subdivision,which consisted of approximately 170 acres of land. A development agreement was required as a provision of annexation,recorded as Inst.No. 108022893. Several time extensions were approved for the preliminary plat(TE-09-015, TEC-11-002, TEC-13-004, and TEC-15-002), which expired on May 7, 2017. The conceptual development plan included in the agreement shown below depicted approximately 3,000,000 sq. ft. of commercial, light office, and multi-family residential uses and a medical campus and included the 50+1-acre property that is now the Scentsy Commons Campus located east of N. Machine Ave. The property was granted C-G zoning based on the development plan approved with the application. � � ,RPORATE ;'OFFICE EAST, 6 B-CLASS m� I.••.. OFFICE r ,� EAST 0 N WE S a....:. a .. • In 2011, a modification to the development agreement(Inst.No. 108022893) for Pinebridge was approved which removed the Scentsy property from the agreement(outlined in red on the map below) and required a new development agreement for that property(Scentsy Campus MDA-10-010, Instrument No. 111052691).A subsequent amendment was approved in 2021 (H-2021-0002—Inst. #2021-059867)that included the abutting parcel to the west (outlined in blue on the map below)that was later acquired by Scentsy,which resulted in the 50-acres east of N. Machine Ave. on the south side of E. Pine Ave.to N. Eagle Rd. being removed from the original Pinebridge DA. Since then, Scentsy has built approximately 567,000 sq. ft. of office and manufacturing space with space for future expansion. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ _ -TZ if1 Itil Jim `• '� ■ I■■■, go T Xmli ���Ilan ■ ■ "f'�M R[Qfiff-Mill'. J6=1F. of fir, F !''�3� IR111itiw�ay,�`- . ■■. ,�;�': .,r, rii� 1 �'a ........... iie •� .� -", ;:�Lo6�t'Via:::.. IIII■■1 Y>> � ��:1 �7�,c� J�!!�AXIIN,FJ�� — . ON EMfiw�tr�............[...1.2 3.r,wn���nRi��A �JWm 01— 1-ter � :uuuu� f y y�p�_ � e�„�•u_(•,�"auu __. iffNlh��t11NHF� •"�•.�L-t� � �I � .- -- �wrn,i,r.F�- ■'�" #. jfNNNINNr}i = - ` WI4iM4rnWIN z {INW�4INIW�Ihl1, .:.a;;ir.iMIX+} N r ,• , xt ■ ■ R E. WA4+k.. ' 1NNWNINNWNNNN.'! ,: i V, u�u�e!!NN 4 WWIh?"} 'INNk�NhN'�A:+§: '� fNl{WNm i!!i14uu t`J r� wu ,' { INA I� . �414WNn4 � i..iF4NNRiHW:::• �1�Y41W!%;�r` �IA ����.;NK ` �. IF I W. ■ -■� �11 'Ems. mom �� ! Yjl •I �1�. f`-'�I..� . l:1 LAND USE AREA BREAKDOWN AFEA'A• OOAMIEACiAL LOTS _&ACRES 7 Lam + - AREAS• WAT14A LYLOTS LEGEND :�ELAL LQM ' - •N tcn 5 CONAM AREAS 1 * ►*DPIMV L(n WOW LOTS •I AREA'C' '��GAYLY tCTS PROPOSED TOwLRb4iLOTS .TW RESO)EWnAL LMM r*DP0XD DETACHED LOT5 •In DETACHED LOTS 91 T0VV*4CK LOTS D !3 1 --�®r. RRaros¢o ruTrrwlrar •79 UVE VJM LOTS + ►ROPGSED CDLILLERCAL AA¢A •TH CC SAONAREAS —--• �.L E.STNC.CLIHME RCuL AREA AREA V COLMEACIN.LOTH r -4 7S ACAFS COMMON AREA •]COMMERC M.LOTS Y �y •SAUMC(LOTS ff((II__11 .A+)wpSEO RORGVM�IwG RREA ARfAF CL2187A C ES LOTS ExgTMD ROAOTa�MO AREAL •1f 87 ALT✓£8 1 19 COMI ERCLLL LO T'.a i CONKM AREAS AREA F C ASIERM L LOTS 1 "', •15ACRES E : •r H COMMERCIAL LCT'S COWL"LM AREA'G' OOWAERpAl LOTS 2250AORES -10 COLwERCM LOTS -6 CONMCw LOTS L. Y T d PINE 43 SUBDIVISION OVERALL SITE PLAN A total of 737 residential dwelling units were approved to develop on the site north of E. State Ave. consisting of 504 apartment units on the east side of Webb Ave.; and 123 single- family detached units and 110 single-family attached and townhome units(19 of which could include vertically integrated residential units)on the west side of Webb Ave. This area has since developed with a total of 713 residential units consisting of 480 multi-family apartment units and 233 single-family residential and townhome units. Approximately 493,000 sq. ft. of commercial non-residential uses (102,000 sq. ft. of commercial and 391,000 sq. ft. of office)was proposed based on the building footprint area shown on the concept plan.The development plan was deemed to be consistent with the vision of"The Core"designation in the Comprehensive Plan for this area,which has since been removed from the Plan. The Core focused on fostering an environment for health sciences,technology and business centers to create sustainable jobs, development products, training and research—a business diversity of the future with jobs in research, development and manufacturing that couldn't be outsourced. The diversity of housing choices was anticipated to provide nearby housing options for employees in this area. Approximately 146,000 sq. ft. (86,000 sq. ft. office and 60,000 sq. ft. commercial) of the commercial area has been constructed in Areas A&D and the red outlined areas in F&G on the plan shown above,which leaves approximately 347,000 sq. ft.yet to build out of the approved 493,000 sq. ft. The Use Comparison/History Table included below(and in Section VII.X) submitted by the Applicant summarizes the change from the original 2008 Pinebridge approval,through the City of Meridian I Department Report 11I. Staff Analysis ■ 2018 amendment,and up to the current built environment as of 2025 and the proposed Pine 43 modification. PINE 43-USE COMPARISON I HISTORY TOTAL approved+ TOTAL MIS Pincbridge 2018 UA Modification 2025 Pine 43 approvedlbuilt+ Approval* Built as of 2018 Approval' built in Pincbridgc Built as of 2025 Application proposed in Pinebridge Area Area 170 acres 170 acres 120 acres 170 acres 170 acres 37 acres 170 acres Residential(units) 850 737 737 713 904 1617 Total Non-Residential(SF') 2,350,000 567,000 493,000 1,U60,000 713,000 481,000 1,194,0011 Commercial 550,0011 102'Quo 102,1100 60,000 72,000 132,000 Officc+Lt Industrial 1,8W,000 567,000 391,U011 958,000 653,000 221,000 874,000 Non-Rcs.in V-1 Rldw 59,000 59,000 Hotel 129,000 129,000 Scenlsy campus,Happy Hippo light industrial, Hold, al,retail, etch,light rial,Indust 567,491 SF Scenery medical offices,North restaurants,office, Hsrs campus wish ulTiee and Pointe treatment center, ]iglu industrial restaurants,retail, single-family KidStrong,ainglofamily eownbomes and muhi- residenlial family residential • 11 Use breakout based on csdmatcs in 77S.Concept Plan in 2008 DA showed 3M SF mixed use. "Lse li—kuut b-.d un Cunccpt Plan in 2018❑A,which was similar to 2017 TIS. All acres and SF shown are appraximale_ B. General Overview Annexation and zoning(AZ): The Applicants(HPC Buyer&DMB Companies)propose to annex and zone a total of 7.21-acres of land with I-L(5.29-acres), C-G(1.36-acres) and R-15 (0.56-acre)zoning districts to accommodate future development and a property boundary adjustment(PBA)between the subject property and adjacent properties in the City.A legal description and exhibit of the annexation area is included below in Section VII.F. The property is currently a County enclave surrounded by City annexed land. The Future Land Use Map(FLUM)designation for this property is Industrial. Because FLUM designations are not parcel specific, an adjacent abutting designation,when appropriate and approved as part of a public hearing with a land development application,may be used as long as it doesn't apply to more than 50% of the land being developed. The Applicant proposes to use the abutting Mixed Use—Community(MU-C) designation on 1.92 acres of the north and northeast portions of the annexation area where R-15 and C-G zoning is proposed. Staff is supportive of this request as it's less than 50% of the land being developed and will accommodate the proposed development plan. The HPC Buyer Applicant owns the property and business(Harvey Performance Company) located at the southwest corner of the annexation area and plans to eventually expand the business into the 5.29-acre portion of the property proposed to be zoned I-L. The remaining 1.92-acres is planned to be incorporated into the adjacent Pine 43 development through a future PBA once the property is annexed,which will resolve a deeded parcel split that occurred previously between the subject property owners that didn't go through the proper process. A conceptual development plan,phasing plan and building elevations were submitted,included below in Section VII.I,that show how the existing industrial business on the abutting parcel is eventually planned to expand into the I-L zoned area in the future. Four(4)phases of development are proposed with a parking area and access driveways via Pine Ave. and Locust City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ Grove Rd. and a shared access via Pine with the adjacent property to the east. The concept plan also shows how the areas proposed to be zoned R-15 and C-G will integrate into the adjacent development. Access points to adjacent streets are not approved with the concept plan and will be evaluated with future development applications. To ensure future development is consistent with the proposed conceptual development plan, phasing plan and building elevations, Staff recommends a Development Agreement(DA)is required as a provision of annexation of the property proposed to be zoned I-L that includes the provisions noted below in Section IV.A.1. Note: The 1.92-acres proposed to be zoned R-15 and C-G will be included in the proposed amended DA for Pine 43. A property boundary adjustment application should be submitted and finalized prior to City Council approval of the amended DA to create the parcel subject to the DA and to transfer ownership of the property. Rezone(RZ): The Applicant(DMB Companies)proposes to rezone 3.08-acres (0.91 +2.17)of land from the C-G to the R-15 zoning district. A legal description and exhibit of the rezone area is included below in Section VII.G. The FLUM designation for this property is MU-C. A conceptual development plan was submitted, included below in Section VILE,that shows how the area to be rezoned is proposed to develop with 17 townhomes. The proposed zoning,use and density is consistent with the MU-C development guidelines.Note: The overall density of the area (3.59 acres excluding adjacent right-of-way)proposed to be zoned R-15 between the annexation and rezone applications and developed with 30 dwelling units is 8.36 units per acre, which is consistent with the desired density of 6 to 15 units in MU-C designated areas. The development agreement modification concurrently proposed with this application will include the subject rezone area. Future development of the rezone area must substantially comply with the conceptual development plan included in Section VILE. Development Agreement Modification(MDA): The Applicant proposes to amend the existing approved conceptual development plan for the undeveloped 36.58 acres of the site located south of E. State Ave. depicted as Areas E,F and G on the existing concept plan above, excluding the areas that are outlined in red,which have already developed with non-residential commercial uses. This area is currently entitled to develop entirely with commercial uses. The proposed updated conceptual development plan is included below and in Section VILE of this report. The Applicant proposes to develop a large portion of the commercial area with 904 new residential dwelling units consisting of 30 townhome dwelling units,270 multi-family residential apartment units and a maximum of 604 vertically integrated residential units above ground floor non-residential space. This is an increase of 880 dwelling units over what is currently entitled to develop in Pine 43 and that is already built out. The remaining area is proposed to develop with 481,020 sq. ft. of non-residential space, including a proposed 128,880 sq. ft.hotel with a restaurant, lounge and conference area and 71,800 sq. ft. of other retail/restaurant commercial space; 221,340 sq. ft. of office space, 90,000 sq. ft. of which is intended for med-tech(i.e.medical office,research and technology)uses; and 59,000 sq. ft. of commercial/office in the vertically integrated residential buildings. This is an increase of 134,020 sq. ft. of non-residential space over what is currently entitled,which is not yet been built out in Pine 43. A total of 8.3 acres(or 23%of the site)of private and public qualified open space is proposed, including developed green spaces, amenities, and a 41,000+sq. ft.public plaza consisting of the "qualified open space"and"open space on non-residential lots"depicted on the open space City of Meridian I Department Report 111. Staff Analysis ■ exhibit in Section VII.N.Note: The private space is provided as part of the vertically integrated residential projects and multi family developments and is not accessible to the public. vo ' •� 'fib. a_ �o r Ls w 4~ e MW r I-L RUT - -= •— -w � _. _ m , BL � e � T � I f LT I Q 't LEGEND L-D JAL �k I PROPOSED TOMHCME5 O PROPOSED MULTI-FAMILY O PROPOSED VERTICALLY-INTEGRATED , S, � �n PROPOSED RESTAURANT �• PROPOSED HOTEL y G ®PROPOSED OFFICE _ I� ©PROPOSED MED-TECH L-O _BLow 13 Or 41. OVERALL ®ANDSOAPE AREA l! i!1 t = - f E� SCHEMATIO,COLOR MASTER PLAN•PIN MIXEp VSE se�-� 54EET2CF 14 n f?s{ The subject property,together with the portion of the Pine 43 development area north of E. State Ave., is designated as Mixed Use—Community(MU-C) on the Comprehensive Plan's Future Land Use Map(FLUM). To evaluate consistency with the MU-C designation,the following analysis considers the broader 121.69-acre Pine 43 development area. In reviewing development applications,the City will consider the following items in MU-C areas: (Staffs analysis is in italics) ➢ Development must comply with the Functional Integration principles for development in all Mixed-Use areas. Integration of Uses: o Mixed Use projects are to be developed with an overall master or conceptual plan for the larger mixed-use area; during an annexation or rezone request,a development agreement will typically be required for projects with a Mixed Use, future land use designation. A conceptual master plan exists for the portion of the site north of E. State Ave., included in the development agreement(DA); an amended master plan is proposed with the subject application for the portion of the site south of E. State Ave.,proposed to be included in an amended DA. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ o Mixed use areas must include at least three land use types within a designation. Exceptions may be granted for Mixed Use designations smaller than 10 acres on a case- by-case basis. Individual projects within a large mixed-use designated area may not warrant a mix of uses,provided compliance with a larger vision and integration of uses. A mix of uses consisting of residential, commercial(including retail, restaurants, etc) and office have been provided to then north of State Ave. and are proposed to the south of State Ave. as shown on the proposed conceptual master plan. o High intensity residential(higher density or significant percent of an overall mixed-use area)requires commensurate levels of employment or other non-residential elements supporting residents and reducing local vehicle trips (see specific allowances of residential and non-residential within each sub-category). The specific allowance of residential is 20-75%with transit available; there is no allowance for non-residential in the MU-C designation. In the overall development, 64.4%of the site is residential at a gross density of 20.75 units per acre based on 1,617 units on 78 acres of land. Staff is concerned that commensurate levels of employment or other non-residential elements supporting residents and reducing local vehicle trips may not be proposed. o Mixed use projects must inherently support intentional opportunities for neighborhood and community services such as recreation centers(e.g. —specialized gyms),daycares, and office(e.g. professional offices). Some of these uses do not need prominent arterial road visibility to be successful,but instead rely on strong connectivity and access nearer to residential and employment areas. See also figures: F132,F133,FBS. Professional office uses, including med-tech, are proposed within the development as shown on the conceptual master plan; a daycare or other community serving uses may be provided but are not specifically proposed. Staff recommends neighborhood and community services as noted are included on a revised concept master plan. o Community-serving facilities such as hospitals, clinics, churches, schools, civic buildings, or public safety facilities are expected in most mixed-use developments thereby reducing extraordinary service and transportation network impacts. No such facilities are proposed;Staff recommends the concept plan is revised to include such in accord with the Comprehensive Plan for mixed-use designated areas. o Supportive and proportional outdoor public and/or quasi-public spaces and places including,but not limited to,parks,plazas, outdoor gathering areas,linear open space, and schools are expected. These areas may be located in spaces between residential and non-residential uses to provide both integration and transition between uses. Outdoor seating areas at restaurants are not considered supportive public spaces unless integrated into shared open space,natural amenities,and interconnected with cohesive pathway elements. See also figures: 17134,FC5,FC7. The exhibit in Section VILN depicts open space on non-residential lots but appears to include portions of the street buffers along Pine Ave. on Lot 3,Block 3 and Lot 2, Block 4, and Lot 1,Block 2, which should not be included. Staff recommends a revised open space exhibit is submitted prior to the City Council hearing that excludes street buffers with details of the public/quasi-public spaces and places with amenities, landscaping,pathways, etc. No schools are proposed within the site; however, there is an existing school southwest of Block 3. Holistic Design: City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ o Mixed use areas are to be centered around spaces that are well-designed public and quasi- public centers of activity. Spaces must be designed with community supportive purpose, incorporate permanent design elements with features to promote frequent use,and support amenities that foster a wide variety of interests ranging from relaxation to play. These areas must be strategically integrated into the overall development, interconnected with meaningful points of interest,prioritize pedestrian infrastructure,be highly visible and accessible,and designed to enhance both the adjacent uses and larger mixed-use area. See also figures: 17135,FC6,FC7. This site lies in four(4)separate quadrants divided by collector and arterial streets. The public plaza area in Block 4 is the main focal point and gathering area of the development and is surrounded by townhomes, two (2) vertically integrated residential buildings, a hotel and a couple of restaurants. Other such spaces are provided by the med-tech buildings and by the east restaurant on the north side of Pine as shown on the open space exhibit in Section VII.N. All of these areas are highly visible and accessible by pathways and vehicles. The other common areas within the development are private and are associated with the multi family and vertically integrated residential developments. Staff recommends details are submitted for the public and quasi public spaces prior to the Council hearing that include permanent design elements with features to promote frequent use, and amenities that foster a wide variety of interests as noted. o In developments where multiple commercial and/or office buildings are proposed,the buildings should be arranged to create some form of common,usable area, such as a plaza or green space. See also figures: FC8,FC9,FD2. The med-tech buildings at the northwest corner of the development have a plaza area in between the buildings for a common usable area. The other med-tech building south of Pine has an internal plaza area and an open space area at the side of the building. The office appears to have a plaza area between the front of the building and the street. o Open space should be purposeful in supporting a visible community and utilized to enhance synergies between residential and non-residential uses. See also figures: FC7, FC9,FD2. Open space is highly visible and located between residential and non-residential uses and should enhance interactions between uses. o Open space should be prioritized along natural or naturalized amenities(i.e. creeks and canals), integrated with pathways and pedestrian corridors, and located away from site features that may obscure visibility and attract dangerous or illegal behavior. See also figures: FC1,FC2. Open space is integrated with pathways and sidewalks and visible from public areas and streets. o Commercial drive aisles must contemplate a pedestrian friendly built environment with a minimal number of conflict points, and oriented so that aisle ingress and egress is generally parallel to multiuse pathways, sidewalks, and linear open space. Drive aisles supporting primary pedestrian connectivity for a site must feel safe,and should include planted and/or hardscaped parkway treatment, or other enhanced separation with both aesthetic and safety benefits. See also figures: FC1. Drive aisles within the site have a pedestrian friendly design with walkways alongside the drives and linear open space. Crosswalks should be delineated for pedestrian safety. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ o All mixed-use projects should be accessible to adjacent neighborhoods by both automotive and alternative-vehicular transportation opportunities. Pedestrian circulation must be convenient and interconnect different land use types.Vehicle connectivity must not rely on arterial streets for neighborhood access. See also figures: FA3,FA4,FB3, FB4. The proposed mixed-use project is accessible to adjacent neighborhoods by both vehicles and pedestrians; two (2) bus stops are also located at the northwest and southeast corners of Pine and Webb.A pedestrian connectivity plan is included in Section VII.O that shows pedestrian access within the development connecting different land use types. Internal driveways are proposed for vehicular access from adjacent public streets. o A mixed-use project should be designed to support alternative transportation such as public transit stops,park-and-ride lots,other ride sharing services including auto,bike, or scooter, and/or other innovative or alternative modes of transportation. Alternative transportation improvements should be integrated as functional,convenient, and comfortable spaces. Electric charging stations for a variety of transportation modes is encouraged. Public transit stops exist at the northwest and southeast corner of Pine and Webb. Electric charging stations are proposed as amenities for the multi family development but are private and not available for public use. There are no park-and-ride lots nearby. o Non-residential buildings should transition to and compliment adjacent residential buildings in mass and form, and include safe and meaningful mitigation for operational impacts such as loading docks, storage,and outdoor equipment. See also figures: FB2, FB4. In Block 1, the vertically integrated residential and multi family buildings are both 5- stories in height and adjoin 1-story industrial buildings to the south, a 3-story office building to the west and 2-story office/warehouse to the east. In Block 2, the 7-story vertically integrated residential building is next to a I-story restaurant and 3-story townhomes, which provides a fairly abrupt transition from the non-residential building to the residential buildings. The townhomes are located across a parking lot and not directly adjoining the vertically integrated building. In Block 3, the office building on Lot I and the med-tech office building on Lot 2 are both 4-stories in height, which will transition in mass&form to the 6-story multi family building between them at the corner of Pine and Webb. There shouldn't be any negative operational impacts to adjacent residential uses from these uses. In Block 4, the 6-story hotel on Lot 2 is next to the 6-story vertically integrated residential building on Lot 3 which is next to a 1-story restaurant and 3-story townhomes. The 6-story vertically integrated residential building on Lot I is next to a 2- story restaurant and 3-story townhomes. The 5-story med-tech offices at the northwest corner of the development on Lots 29& 30 are located across a parking lot from 3-story townhomes. The non-residential uses in this block shouldn't negatively impact the proposed residential uses. The 6-story vertically integrated buildings provide a fairly abrupt transition to the 1-and 2-story restaurants and 3-story townhomes but they are located across a drive aisle and not directly adjoining each other. o New buildings on pad sites adjacent to existing single-family neighborhoods should be limited to no more than a 1-story disparity in building height(or floor height equivalent). City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ Natural features, differences in grade,and other context sensitive neighborhood preservation design features should be considered with transitions. No new buildings are proposed directly adjacent to existing single-family neighborhoods; East State Ave.provides a separation between the proposed development and the existing neighborhood to the north. o Transitions between different residential product types and dissimilar land uses should include the use of alleys,roadways with landscaped parkways,or highly connected open space. The use of barriers such as closed vision fencing or walls that limit connectivity and reduce visibility are typically not appropriate as transitions. See also figures: FBI, FB2. Streets with landscape parkways, drive aisles,parking lots and common open space areas provide a transition between different land use types within the development. ➢ Residential uses are expected to comprise between 20% and 50%of the development area, with gross densities ranging from 6 to 15 units/acre(of the residential area).An additional 15%is allowed because public transit is available, as noted below. A total of 1,617 residential units (713 existing+ 904 proposed) consisting of single family, multi family and vertically integrated residential units have been constructed and are proposed on 77.93 acres, which is 64.4%of the overall development area. ➢ Supportive and proportional public and/or quasi-public spaces and places should comprise a minimum of 5%of the development area are required. Based on the subject area of subject south of State Ave. (36.58 acres), a minimum of 1.83 acres of such spaces and places should be provided; an open space exhibit is included in Section VII.N that depicts open space for non-residential lots. A 0.95 acre public plaza is proposed centrally within Block 4, which is the main feature; other areas are shown on the plan by the proposed hotel, med-tech building and east restaurant consisting of 0.85 acres for a total of 1.8 acres. Some of these areas appear to be in the street buffer along Pine Ave. and do not qualify as noted above.A revised open space exhibit should be submitted that excludes these areas, that demonstrates compliance with the minimum area, and includes more details. Based on the area of the entire Pine 43 development(121.69 acres), a minimum of 6.08 acres should be provided within the overall development. ➢ Where the development site has transit available or stops are planned,an additional 15%of site may be dedicated to residential uses. Alternatively,this bonus may be applied where the development site is within one-mile of planned transit stops or an identified employment area,and where last-mile transportation features are incorporated into the site including thoughtfully located and integrated ride share parking, commensurate with potential trip capture. Other innovations to reduce traffic and/or parking impacts and capture local trips may be considered. Public transit(i.e. bus stops) exists at the northwest corner of E. Pine Ave. &N. Webb Way and at the southeast corner of E. Pine Ave. &N. Webb Ave., which allows an additional 15% of the site to be dedicated to residential uses. ➢ Sample uses appropriate in MU-C areas include: All MU-N categories, community scale grocers, clothing stores,garden centers,hardware stores,restaurants,banks, drive-thru facilities, auto service station,retail shops, and other appropriate community-serving uses. Sample zoning includes: R-15,R-40,TN-R, TN-C, C-C, and L-O. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ Staff is generally supportive of the portion of the proposed concept plan north of Pine as it provides a mix of uses as desired for MU-C designated areas. However, Staff is concerned the proposed amendment would substantially reduce the amount of land designated for employment- generating uses,which may in turn limit future opportunities for family-wage jobs within the area.A total of 713 residential dwelling units were entitled and have been constructed in the northern portion of Pine 43 north of E. State Ave. An additional 466 (maximum)vertically integrated residential units are proposed in the development area between State Ave. and Pine Ave.with an additional 409 vertically integrated residential and multi-family apartment units proposed south of Pine with the amended master plan. Staff and ACHD have significant concerns pertaining to the traffic impact the proposed changes to the concept master plan will have on the surrounding transportation network beyond what was originally anticipated(see Section III.E for more information). For these reasons,it's Staffs opinion the previously entitled development plan for commercial uses in the area south of Pine where multi-family and vertically integrated residential uses are proposed is in the best interest of the City to retain as it provides needed employment opportunities and services for nearby residents,while also reducing vehicle trips and supporting trip capture. Additionally,it's Staffs opinion the vertically integrated residential use on Lot 1,Block 1 is not compatible with adjacent industrial uses and operations to the south.Industrial operations typically produce impacts such as noise,vibration,light pollution, and emissions, which can negatively affect the health,safety,and overall livability of nearby residential environments. Therefore,Staff recommends the concept master plan is revised to reflect commercial/office uses in the area south of Pine Ave. Further, Staff recommends the Commission and City Council consider reducing the number of vertically integrated residential units proposed north of E.Pine Ave. and requiring commercial/office uses above the first floor to provide a more commensurate level of employment and services to support nearby residents and reduce vehicle trips. The following Comprehensive Plan policies support Staff s recommendation: • 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) • Encourage the development of supportive commercial near employment areas. (3.06.02C) • Discourage residential land uses in close proximity to the Wastewater Resource Recovery Facility,the Intermountain Gas Facility on Can-Ada Road, and other incompatible land uses. (3.06.02E) • Encourage compatible uses and site design to minimize conflicts and maximize use of land. (3.07.00) • Proactively address potential conflicts between incompatible uses. (3.07.01). • Provide facilities and services that maintain a premier level of service commensurate with growth. (3.01.01) • Encourage the expansion of medical service-related industries that are needed. (2.05.02A) • High intensity residential(higher density or significant percent of an overall mixed-use area)requires commensurate levels of employment or other non-residential elements City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ supporting residents and reducing local vehicle trips (see specific allowances of residential and non-residential within each sub-category). • Evaluate comprehensive impacts of growth and consider City Master Plans and Strategic Plans in all land use decisions(e.g.,traffic impacts, school enrollment, and parks). (3.01.01A) • 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) Staff has included recommended provisions for the new DA below in Section IV.A.2 Preliminary plat(PP): A preliminary plat is proposed consisting of 41 buildable lots and 3 common lots on 36.58-acres of land in the R-15 and C-G zoning districts, included below in Section VII.J. The plat is proposed to develop in eight(8)phases as shown on the phasing plan included below in Section VII.K.A note is included that states phasing sequence may be adjusted based on market conditions. Staff recommends future development substantially complies with the phasing plan as a provision of the DA; any significant changes to the plan will require approval from the Director. The northwest portion of the preliminary plat includes portions of existing County parcels that will be included in a future property boundary adjustment(PBA) application with adjacent City zoned parcels once the property is annexed with this application. If a PBA isn't approved and a Record of Survey recorded,this would create an illegal division of land if a final plat were recorded.For this reason, Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat is contingent upon final approval of a property boundary adjustment(PBA) application for the realignment of property lines between the HPC Buyer and DRB Investments properties as shown on the preliminary plat.A final plat application should not be submitted to the Planning Division until a PBA application is finalized and a Record of Survey is recorded that matches the configuration of the properties shown on the preliminary plat.In the event a PBA is not finalized,a new preliminary plat application would be required that excludes the land anticipated to be included in the PBA. The property located at the southeast corner of N. Webb Ave. and E.Pine Ave. has received final plat(FP-2022-0017 Pine 43 Animal Farm)approval and the plat has been signed by the City Engineer but has not yet been recorded. Because the preliminary plat excludes this area and would create an illegal division of land if the final plat isn't recorded, Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat is contingent upon recordation of the final plat.A final plat application should not be submitted to the Planning Division for any phase of development until the final plat is recorded. Conditional Use Permit(CUP)—Multi-family Developments: Two (2)requests for conditional use permits are proposed for a multi-family development on Lot 2,Block 1 and Lot 2,Block 3. The one on Lot 2,Block 1 includes 139 units on 2.87 acres of land in the C-G district; and the one on Lot 2,Block 3 includes 132 units on 3.40 acres of land in the C-G district. Between the two developments, a total of 271 apartment units are proposed in the area currently entitled to develop with commercial uses (proposed to develop with multi-family uses with the updated master plan). Alternative compliance is proposed with the conditional use permit to UDC 11-4-3-27B.3,which requires a minimum of 80 square feet of private,usable open space to be provided for each multi- family unit,to allow zero (0)for all studio units; and to UDC Table 11-2B-3,which restricts City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ building height to a maximum of 65 feet in the C-G zoning district to allow a maximum building height of 76 feet on Lot 2,Block 3. This request is to be considered by the Commission and City Council as part of the CUP request. It's Staffs opinion the existing entitled development plan for commercial uses in the areas where multi-family is proposed is in the best interest of the City as it provides needed employment uses and residential services in this area.For this reason, Staff recommends denial of the proposed CUP's for an additional 271 apartment units in this area and recommends the concept master plan is amended to depict non-residential commercial/office uses in this area consistent with the existing entitled plan for the area. The following Comprehensive Plan policies support denial: • #3.06.01B—Monitor and adjust the amount and mix of industrial, commercial, and office areas needed to meet the employment needs of the City. • #3.06.02C—Encourage the development of supportive commercial near employment areas. Conditional Use Permit(CUP)—Height Exception: A Conditional Use Permit(CUP) is proposed for a height exception to UDC Table 11-2B-3, as allowed in UDC 11-2B-3A.3e, for the vertically integrated residential building on Lot 2,Block 2 to exceed the maximum allowed height of 65-feet allowed in the C-G district to allow a maximum height of 87-feet. See Staffs analysis below in Section III.C.3. Alternative Compliance(ALT)to UDC Table 11-213-3: Alternative compliance is requested from the Director to UDC Table 11-2B-3 to allow an increase in the maximum building height in the C-G zoning district from 65 feet to 76 feet on Lots 1-3,Block 4(hotel&vertically integrated residential buildings).See Staffs analysis below in Section III.C.3. Alternative Compliance(ALT)to UDC 11-4-3-41G: Alternative compliance is requested from the Director 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 50 square feet to zero(0) on Lot 1,Block 1; Lot 2,Block 2; and Lots 1 and 3,Block 4. As noted above, Staff is not in support of the proposed vertically integrated residential project on Lot 1, Block 1; therefore,the Director has not approved ALT for that lot. See Staffs analysis below in Section III.C.4. Table 4: Project Overview Description Details History H-2017-0058(DA Inst.#2018-000751);A-2020-0182 [PBA—ROS #12629(property at NEC of Webb&Pine)];FP-2022-0017 [Pine 43 Animal Farm FP(signed by City Engineer but not yet recorded)—property at the SEC of Pine&Webb] Phasing Plan 8 phases over an estimated 10 years Residential Units 904 units consisting of 30 townhomes,270 multi-family units and 604 vertically integrated residential units Open Space See exhibit in Section VII.N below Amenities JL See analysis below in Section III and exhibit in Section VII.Q Physical Features There are no waterways,floodplain or topography issues on this site. Acreage J11110. 111E 7.21 acres(AZ);3.08 acres(RZ);36.58 acres(PP); 6.28 acres(CUP for multi-family) Lots 41 building lots/3 common lots City of Meridian Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ Description Details Density 12.42 units/acre in the overall Pine 43 development C. Site Development and Use Analysis Although Staff is recommending denial of the proposed multi-family developments and vertically integrated project in Blocks 1 and 3,Staff has included analysis of the uses below in the event the Commission and Council approves the uses shown on the proposed master plan. Comprehensive Plan Policy#2.02.02E—Encourage the development of high quality, dense residential and mixed use areas near in and around Downtown,near employment, large shopping centers,public open spaces and parks,and along major transportation corridors, as shown on the Future Land Use Map. 1. Existing Structures/Site Improvements (UDC 11-1): There are no existing structures on this property. There are existing sidewalks along streets. 2. Proposed Use Analysis (UDC 11-2): Townhouse dwellings—principally permitted use in R-15 district Multi-family residential—conditional use in C-G district Vertically integrated residential project—principally permitted use in C-G district Restaurant—principally permitted use in C-G district Hotel—principally permitted use in C-G district Professional service(i.e. office)—principally permitted use in C-G district Med-tech(i.e.research&development,medical offices)—principally permitted use in C-G district 3. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): See UDC Table 11-2A-7 for the R-15 district See UDC Table 11-2B-3 for the C-G district See UDC Table 11-2C-3 for the I-L district Alternative Compliance(ALT)to UDC Table 11-2B-3—Height Exception: Alternative compliance is requested from the Director to UDC Table 11-2B-3 to allow an increase of 17%in the maximum building height in the C-G zoning district from 65 feet to 76 feet for four(4)buildings—the vertically integrated residential buildings on Lots 1 and 3, Block 4,the hotel on Lot 2,Block 4,and the multi-family building on Lot 2,Block 3 as shown on the exhibit included below in Section VII.T. The additional height is requested to accommodate commercial uses and residential density to support the commercial areas. The UDC(11-2B-3A.3d) allows such requests to be approved by the Director that don't exceed 20%of the maximum height allowed for the district when the development provides 10%of the building square feet in open space, courtyards,patios, or other usable outdoor space available for the employees and/or patrons of the structure, excluding required setbacks and landscape buffers in accord with UDC 11-2B-3A.3d. The overall common open space exhibit included in Section VII.N includes portions of the adjacent required street buffers; therefore, Staff is unable to determine if the amount of open space provided meets the requirement for the Director to grant the height exception.An updated exhibit should be submitted that only includes usable outdoor open space as noted. Because Staff is recommending denial of the multi-family development on Lot 2,Block 3, the Director will not act on the alternative compliance request for that lot. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ Conditional Use Permit(CUP)for a Height Exception—Vertically Integrated Residential Building on Lot 2,Block 2: A CUP is requested to allow an increase of 34%in the maximum building height in the C-G district from 65 feet to 87 feet for the vertically integrated residential building on Lot 2, Block 2, shown in the exhibit below in Section VII.T. The UDC(11-2B-3A.3e)requires additional height exceeding 20% of the maximum height allowed for the district to be approved through a CUP. Building heights are allowed up to a maximum of 95 feet in the H-E (High Density Employment) district,which is the most intensive of the commercial districts above the C-G and M-E districts. The Applicant states additional height is needed to accommodate vertical integration of uses and the appropriate urban density to support mixed use and sustainability by allowing for urban density that can support the commercial and office uses in the development consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.See Applicant's narrative for more information (pp. 14-15). The building is situated along E. Pine Ave. and N. Webb Way. The vertically integrated residential building proposed directly across N.Webb Way to the west is similar in height at 76 feet as is the multi-family residential building proposed kitty corner to the site at the southwest corner of Pine and Webb. The Happy Hippo office building directly across E. Pine Ave. to the south and the proposed townhomes to the northeast along E. State Ave. in the same block are located 200+feet away across the parking lot are all 3-stories in height. The biggest disparity in height is the proposed restaurant directly to the east within 40 feet of the proposed structure,which is proposed to be a single story in height. The Applicant asserts that because the building will be surrounded by either commercial uses or buildings of similar height,the additional height shouldn't dwarf any other use.Further, the Applicant states the request meets the required Findings for such in UDC 11-5B-6E in that the building meets all other dimensional standards of the district; the additional height will facilitate the mixed-use development intended in the MU-C FLUM designation and will promote sustainability by allowing for urban density that can support the commercial and office uses in the development in accord with the Comprehensive Plan; the proposed design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing and intended character of the area; and won't adversely affect other property in the vicinity. Staff is generally in support of the proposed height exception as justified by the Applicant and is of the opinion it's appropriate for the proposed development and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan based on the Findings included below in Section V.However, Staff recommends the Commission and City Council consider reducing the number of residential units proposed above the first floor in order to accommodate more employment and service uses to support residential uses in this area and to reduce vehicle trips and encourage trip capture as a condition of approval. 4. Specific Use Standards (UDC 11-4-3): (Staffs analysis in italics) Staff has included the specific use standards below for all of the proposed uses, as applicable.However, Staff is only including analysis on consistency with these standards for the multi-family residential uses proposed with the CUP application and for the alternative compliance requests to the private usable open space standards for studio units in vertically integrated residential project.Analysis for the other uses(i.e.hotel, vertically integrated,restaurant,professional office),which are principal permitted uses in the district,will take place with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application for those uses. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ Vertically integrated residential project—UDC 11-4-3-41: A. A vertically integrated residential project shall be a structure that contains at least two (2) stories. B. A minimum of twenty-five(25)percent of the gross floor area of a vertically integrated 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 project shall be used for nonresidential uses 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 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 11-5B-5 of this title. Compliance with this standard is required for all units except for the studio units for which alternative compliance has been requested and approved by the Director(see analysis below). The Director has not acted on the request for Lot 1, Block 1 as Staff is recommending denial of the use on that lot. Alternative compliance(ALT) is requested from the Director to UDC 11-4-3-41G to allow studio units within vertically integrated residential projects to be developed without private,usable open space. The Applicant states it's not feasible to provide private open space for studio units for the following reasons: 1)it would increase the cost of these units,reducing their affordability; 2) smaller units have a smaller outside fagade on the building and addition balconies to each unit would significantly clutter the exterior appearance of the buildings; 3)in order to meet he area requirements for private open space, balconies would have to be as wide as the entire unit itself—with an adjacent unit's balcony abutting the studio's space,the area wouldn't be private. As an alternative means of compliance,the Applicant proposes to provide private amenity decks,which will be available to all residents in the buildings but will likely be used the most by residents of studio units since they have the least space to host groups of visitors. The decks will have seating areas,built-in grills/outdoor kitchens, planters, firepits, and shade features that will create attractive spaces to host parties conveniently located for building residents.Amenity decks with pools will also have welcoming spaces that include swimming pools and sports courts for socializing and recreation. These rooftop and amenity docks are not open to the public but rather are private open spaces for residents only. City of Meridian Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ The request qualifies for alternative compliance as the proposed design includes innovative design features based on"new urbanism"that promote walkable and mixed-use neighborhoods in accord with UDC 11-5B-5B.2. All of the vertically integrated buildings with studio units include"new urbanism"design features like public plazas and green spaces,landscaped walkway connections between blocks, vertical and horizontal mixing of office, commercial and residential uses,transit accessibility, and bike amenities. Overall,the high degree of mixed use in Pine 43 will promote walkability and community connection,reducing reliance on motor vehicles and creating an urban neighborhood feel. The table below demonstrates the amount of amenity deck private space provided for resident use compared to the amount of private open space that would otherwise be required for the number of studio units in the building—the amount of amenity space available to the studio unit residents exceeds what they would otherwise have in their unit. Lot Number of Private Amenity Area Provided Studio Space Units Needed Block 1,Lot 1 124 11,200 sf 130,500 sf on 5'h Floor Rooftop Amenity Deck Block 2,Lot 2 39 1,950 sf 21,500 sf on 2' Floor Amenity Deck and 6,390 sf on 71 Floor Rooftop Amenity Deck Block 4,Lot 1 51 2,550 sf 23,675 sf on 21 Floor Amenity Deck and 13,370 A on 61'Floor Rooftop Amenity Deck Block 4,Lot 3 28 1,40D sf 17,540 sf on 21 Floor Amenity Deck and 8,500 sf on 61 Floor Rooftop Amenity Deck The Director finds the proposed alternative means for compliance with the private usable open space standards demonstrates the proposed alternative provides an equal or superior means of meeting the intent and purpose of the regulation as required and therefore,approves the request for Lots 2,Block 2; and Lots 1 and 3, Block 4 in accord with the Findings included below in Section V. Because Staff is recommending denial of the use on Lot 1, Block 1,the Director has not approved ALT for that lot. Restaurant—UDC 11-4-3-49: A. Parking 1. At a minimum,one(1)parking space shall be provided for every two hundred fifty (250) square feet of gross floor area. Compliance with this standard is required. Upon any change of use for an existing building or tenant space, a detailed parking plan shall be submitted that identifies the available parking for the overall site that complies with the requirements of this title. Hotel—UDC 11-4-3-23 A. Accessory uses including,but not limited to,restaurants,retail, drinking establishments, and personal services,may be allowed if such uses are completely within the hotel or motel structure. A drinking establishment shall require separate or concurrent approval subject to the regulations of section 11-4-3-10 of this chapter. Compliance with this standard is required. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ B. A conditional use permit shall be required for any hotel or motel use that adjoins a residential district or an existing residence. The proposed hotel does not adjoin a residential district or existing residence. Multi-family Development—UDC 11-4-3-27 (Note:Analysis for both multi family residential buildings on Lot 2, Block 1 &Lot 2, Block 3 is included below) Multi-family developments with multiple properties shall be considered as one(1) property for the purpose of implementing the standards set forth in this section. A. Purpose 1. To implement the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan: a. Plan for safe, attractive, and well-maintained neighborhoods that have ample open space, and generous amenities that provide varied lifestyle choices. b. Require the design and construction of pathways connections, easy pedestrian and bicycle access to parks, safe routes to schools,and the incorporation of usable open space with quality amenities as part of new multi-family residential and mixed-use developments. 2. To create multi-family housing that is safe and convenient and that enhances the quality of life of its residents. a. To create quality buildings and designs for multi-family development that enhance the visual character of the community. b. To create building and site design in multi-family development that is sensitive to and well-integrated with the surrounding neighborhood. c. To create open space areas that contribute to the aesthetics of the community, provide an attractive setting for buildings, and provide safe,interesting outdoor spaces for residents. B. Site design 1. Residential buildings shall provide a minimum setback of ten(10)feet unless a greater setback is otherwise required by this title and/or Title 10 of this Code. Building setbacks shall take into account windows, entrances,porches and patios, and how they impact adjacent properties. The proposed structures comply with this standard. 2. All on-site service areas, outdoor storage areas,waste storage, disposal facilities, and transformer and utility vaults shall be located in an area not visible from a public street, or shall be fully screened from view from a public street.All such areas should be depicted on the plans submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance in accord with this standard. 3. A minimum of eighty(80) square feet of private,usable open space shall be provided for each 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. In circumstances where strict adherence to such standard would create inconsistency with the purpose statements of this section,the Director may consider an alternative design proposal through the alternative compliance provisions as set forth in Section 11-5B-5 of this title. The floor plans included in Section VII.W depict 84 sq.ft. balconies for the 1-, 2-and 3-bedroom units; alternative compliance has been requested to allow no private City of Meridian Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ open space for the studio units—the Director has not acted on this request because Staff is recommending denial of the proposed use (see analysis below). 4. For the purposes of this section,vehicular circulation areas,parking areas,and private usable open space shall not be considered common open space.None of these areas are included in the common open space. 5. No recreational vehicles, snowmobiles,boats or other personal recreation vehicles shall be stored on the site unless provided for in a separate, designated and screened area. Comply with this standard. 6. The parking shall meet the requirements set forth in Chapter 3, "Regulations Applying to All Districts",of this title. The proposed parking complies with these standards (see Section X.D. 4 below for more information). 7. Developments with twenty(20)units or more shall provide the following: a. A property management office. b. A maintenance storage area. C. A central mailbox location,including provisions for parcel mail, that provide safe pedestrian and/or vehicular access. d. A directory and map of the development at an entrance or convenient location for those entering the development. These items should be depicted on plans submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application if the use is approved. C. Common open space design requirements 1. The total baseline land area of all qualified common open space shall equal or exceed ten(10)percent of the gross land area for multi-family developments of five(5)acres or more. When multi-family is approved concurrently with single- family,the minimum open space requirements in Section 11-3G-3 shall apply to the gross land area of entire development. The proposed multi family lots are not contiguous and located in different blocks approximately 700+ 'apart. Lot 2, Block 3 is 3.41 acres and Lot 2, Block I is 2.87 acres, which is below 5 acres; therefore, the baseline standard does not apply. 2. All common open space shall meet the following standards: a. The development plan shall demonstrate that the open space has been integrated into the development as a priority and not for the use of land after all other elements of the development have been designed. Open space areas that has been given priority in the development design have: (1) Direct pedestrian access; (2) High visibility; (3) Comply with Crime Prevention through Environmental Design(CTED) standards; and (4) Support a range of leisure and play activities and uses. Irregular shaped, disconnected or isolated open spaces shall not meet this standard. b. Open space shall be accessible and well connected throughout the development. This quality can be shown with open spaces that are centrally located within the development, accessible by pathway and visually accessible along collector streets or as a terminal view from a street. City of Meridian Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ C. The open space promotes the health and well-being of its residents. Open space shall support active and passive uses for recreation, social gathering and relaxation to serve the development. 3. Alternative compliance is available for the standards listed in subsections(C)1 and (C)2 above,if a project has a unique targeted demographic;utilizes other place- making design elements in Old-Town or mixed-use future land use designations with collectively integrated and shared open space areas. 4. All multi-family projects over twenty(20)units shall provide at least one (1) common grassy area integrated into the site design allowing for general activities by all ages. This area may be included in the minimum required open space total. Projects that provide safe access to adjacent public parks or parks under a common HOA,without crossing an arterial roadway, are exempt from this standard. a. Minimum size of common grassy area shall be at least five thousand(5,000) square feet in area. This area shall increase proportionately as the number of units increase and shall be commensurate to the size of the multi-family development as determined by the decision-making body. Where this area cannot be increased due to site constraints, it may be included elsewhere in the development.Both multi family lots have grassy areas exceeding 5,000 sq.ft. in area in accord with this standard as shown on the exhibit in Section VII.R. b. Alternative compliance is available for the standards listed in subsections (C)1 and(C)2 above,if a project has a unique targeted demographic;utilizes other place-making design elements in Old-Town or mixed-use future land use designations with collectively integrated and shared open space areas. 5. In addition to the baseline open space requirement,a minimum area of outdoor common open space shall be provided as follows: a. One hundred fifty(150) square feet for each unit containing five hundred (500)or less square feet of living area.None of the units are below 500 sq.ft. b. Two hundred fifty(250) square feet for each unit containing more than five hundred(500) square feet and up to one thousand two hundred(1,200) square feet of living area. 115 units on Lot 2, Block 1 = 28,750 sq.ft. (or 0.66 acres); and 124 units on Lot 2, Block 3= 31,000 sq.ft. (or 0.71 acres) of common open space required. C. Three hundred fifty(350) square feet for each unit containing more than one thousand two hundred(1,200) square feet of living area. 24 units on Lot 2, Block 1 = 8,400 sq.ft. (or 0.19 acre); and 8 units on Lot 2, Block 3= 2,800 sq.ft. (or 0.06 acres) of common open space required. A total of 37,150 sq.ft. (or 0.85 acres) is required for Lot 2, Block 1; a total of 40,698.08 sq.ft. (or 0.93 acres) is provided, exceeding the standard by 3,548.08 sq.ft. (or 0.08 acres). A total of 33,800 sq.ft. (or 0.78 acres) is required for Lot 2,Block 3;a total of 16,319.83 sq.ft. (or 0.37 acres)is provided adjacent to the parking lot— additional area is included along the street but Staff is unable to determine what if any of this area qualifies as it has to meet the minimum 20'x 20' dimensions and can't be located in the street buffer.If the use is approved, a common open space exhibit should be submitted with the Certificate of City of Meridian Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ Zoning Compliance application that demonstrates compliance with the minimum standard. 6. Common open space shall be not less than four hundred(400) square feet in area, and shall have a minimum length and width dimension of twenty(20) feet.All common open space areas meet this standard. 7. In phased developments,common open space shall be provided in each phase of the development consistent with the requirements for the size and number of dwelling units. Open space for each of the multi family buildings should be provided in accord with this standard. 8. Unless otherwise approved through the conditional use process,common open space areas shall not be adjacent to collector or arterial street buffers unless separated from the street by a berm or constructed barrier at least four(4)feet in height,with breaks in the berm or barrier to allow for pedestrian access. The common open space area on Lot 2, Block 3 is behind the building away from the collector and arterial street buffers; the common area on Lot 2,Block 1 is adjacent to the arterial street buffer along Pine Ave. on each side of the building —therefore, a berm or constructed barrier should be provided in accord with this standard if the use is approved. 9. Buffer(s): One hundred(100)percent of the landscape buffer along collector streets and fifty(50)percent of the landscape buffer along arterial streets that meet the enhanced buffer requirements below may count towards the required baseline open space.Note: The baseline requirement is not applicable as each of the multi- family developments is less than 5 acres in size. a. Enhanced landscaping as set forth in Article 11-3B, Landscaping Requirements; b. Multi-use pathways; c. Enhanced amenities with social interaction characteristics; d. Enhanced context with the surroundings. D. Site development amenities 1. All multi-family developments shall provide for quality of life, open space and recreation amenities to meet the particular needs of the residents as follows: a. Quality of life. (1) Clubhouse (2) Fitness facilities (3) Enclosed bike storage (4) Public art such as a statue (5) Dog park with waste station (6) Commercial outdoor kitchen (7) Fitness course (8) Enclosed storage b. Open space (1) Community garden City of Meridian Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ (2) Ponds or water features (3) Plaza (4) Picnic area including tables,benches,landscaping and a structure for shade. C. Recreation (1) Pool (2) Walking trails (3) Children's play structures (4) Sports courts d. Multi-modal amenity standards. (1) Bicycle repair station (2) Park and ride lot (3) Sheltered transit stop (4) Charging stations for electric vehicles 2. The number of amenities shall depend on the size of multi-family development as follows: a. For multi-family developments with less than twenty(20)units,two(2) amenities shall be provided from two(2) separate categories. b. For multi-family development between twenty(20) and seventy-five(75) units,three(3) amenities shall be provided,with one(1)from each category. C. For multi-family development with seventy-five(75)units or more, four(4) amenities shall be provided,with at least one(1)from each category. d. For multi-family developments with more than one hundred(100)units,the decision-making body shall require additional amenities commensurate to the size of the proposed development. Based on 139 units on Lot 2, Block 1, a minimum offive (5) amenities are required with at least one (1)from each category; the decision-making body may require more. The following amenities are proposed in each of the required categories: Quality of Life—clubhouse,fitness facility, enclosed bike storage, enclosed storage and commercial outdoor kitchens with built-in grills; Open Space—plaza (private roof top amenity deck including tables, benches, landscaping and shade structures) and a picnic area (including tables, benches, landscaping and shade structures located on the private roof top amenity deck); Recreation Activity Areas—swimming pool with changing facilities and restrooms (located on the private roof top amenity deck and within building) and paved sports courts, including bocce ball and(2)pickleball courts with appropriate surfacing; and Multi-modal—enclosed bike storage within the building and charging stations for electric vehicles within the building. The proposed amenities far exceed the minimum standards. Based on 132 units on Lot 2, Block 3, a minimum of five (5) amenities are required with at least one (1)from each category; the decision-making body may require more. The following amenities are proposed in each of the required categories: Quality of Life—clubhouse,fitness facility, enclosed bike storage, City of Meridian Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ enclosed storage and commercial outdoor kitchens with built-in grills; Open Space—plaza (private roof top amenity deck including tables, benches, landscaping and shade structures) and a picnic area (including tables, benches, landscaping and shade structures located on the private roof top amenity deck); Recreation Activity Areas—swimming pool with changing facilities and restrooms (located on the private roof top amenity deck and within building) and paved sports courts, including bocce ball and(2)pickleball courts with appropriate surfacing; and Multi-modal—enclosed bike storage within the building and charging stations for electric vehicles within the building. The proposed amenities far exceed the minimum standards. 3. The decision-making body shall be authorized to consider other improvements in addition to those provided under this subsection D,provided that these improvements provide a similar level of amenity. E. Landscaping requirements 1. Development shall meet the minimum landscaping requirements in accord with Chapter 3, "Regulations Applying To All Districts", of this Title. Street buffer landscaping is required with development of the subdivision. The landscape plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application should comply with the parking lot landscape standards in UDC 11-3B-8C. 2. All street facing elevations shall have landscaping along their foundation. The foundation landscaping shall meet the following minimum standards: a. The landscaped area shall be at least three(3)feet wide. b. For every three(3)linear feet of foundation, an evergreen shrub having a minimum mature height of twenty-four(24) inches shall be planted. c. Ground cover plants shall be planted in the remainder of the landscaped area. The landscape plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application should comply with the standards for parking lot landscaping in UDC 11-3B-8C. F. Maintenance and ownership responsibilities.All multi-family developments shall record legally binding documents that state the maintenance and ownership responsibilities for the management of the development, including,but not limited to, structures,parking, common areas, and other development features.A recorded copy of the maintenance agreement should be submitted to the Planning Division prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for the building. G. Police access under exigent circumstances. Multifamily developments with units that take access via secured common corridors shall install and maintain a keyless entry system,or suitable alternative,to provide police access to the common corridors under exigent circumstances. The keyless entry system or alternative shall be subject to review and approval by the Meridian Police Department. The developer should comply with this standard. Alternative compliance(ALT) is requested from the Director to UDC 11-4-3-27B to allow studio units within multi-family developments to be developed without private,usable open space. The Applicant states it's not feasible to provide private open space for studio units for the following reasons: 1)it would increase the cost of these units,reducing their affordability; 2) smaller units have a smaller outside fagade on the building and addition balconies to each unit City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ would significantly clutter the exterior appearance of the buildings; 3)in order to meet he area requirements for private open space,balconies would have to be as wide as the entire unit itself—with an adjacent unit's balcony abutting the studio's space,the area wouldn't be private. As an alternative means of compliance,the Applicant proposes to provide private amenity decks,which will be available to all residents in the buildings but will likely be used the most by residents of studio units since they have the least space to host groups of visitors. The decks will have seating areas,built-in grills/outdoor kitchens,planters, firepits, and shade features that will create attractive spaces to host parties conveniently located for building residents. Amenity decks with pools will also have welcoming spaces that include swimming pools and sports courts for socializing and recreation. These rooftop and amenity docks are not open to the public but rather are private open spaces for residents only. The request qualifies for alternative compliance as the proposed design includes innovative design features based on"new urbanism"that promote walkable and mixed-use neighborhoods in accord with UDC 11-513-5B.2. All of the vertically integrated and multi- family buildings with studio units include"new urbanism"design features like public plazas and green spaces,landscaped walkway connections between blocks,vertical and horizontal mixing of office, commercial and residential uses,transit accessibility, and bike amenities. Overall,the high degree of mixed use in Pine 43 will promote walkability and community connection,reducing reliance on motor vehicles and creating an urban neighborhood feel. The table below demonstrates the amount of amenity deck private space provided for resident use compared to the amount of private open space that would otherwise be required for the number of studio units in the building—the amount of amenity space available to the studio unit residents exceeds what they would otherwise have in their unit. Lot Number of Private Amenity Area Provided Studio Space Units Needed Block 1,Lot 2 133 12,640 sf 17,780 sf on 2'Floor Amenity Deck Block 3,Lot 2 28 2,240 sf 16,980 A on 2"d Floor Amenity Deck and 8,160 sf on 6'h floor Rooftop Amenity Deck The Director finds the proposed alternative means for compliance with the private usable open space standards demonstrates the proposed alternative provides an equal or superior means of meeting the intent and purpose of the regulation as required. However,because Staff is not recommending approval of the proposed multi-family developments,the Director has not acted on this request. D. Design Standards Analysis Comprehensive Plan Policy#2.02.02D—Apply appropriate design and construction standards to infill development in order to reduce adverse impacts to existing development. 1. Structure and Site Design Standards (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-19): The site layout is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19. Staff has reviewed these standards and finds the proposed concept plan demonstrates general compliance with the required standards. All structures in the development are required to comply with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. A Design Review application will be required to be submitted and approved prior to submitting building permit applications. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ 2. Qualified Open Space &Amenities (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3G): The minimum qualified open space and site amenity standards in UDC 11-3G-3 and 11-3G-4 do not apply to the townhome portion of the development as it is below 5 acres in size at 3.59 acres. The standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-27C,D for common open space and site amenities apply to the multi-family portion of the development. 3. Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): i. Landscape buffers along streets A 10-foot wide buffer is required along N.Nola Rd.,N. Webb Ave. south of Pine and along N. Machine Ave., local streets; a 20-foot wide street buffer is required along E. State Ave.,a collector street; and a 25-foot wide street buffer is required along N. Locust Grove Rd. and E. Pine Ave.,both arterial streets,with landscaping in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-313-7C. The width of the proposed street buffers all meet or exceed the minimum standards. Landscaping should be depicted on the landscape plan submitted with the final plat application in accord with the required standards.Where the buffer is encumbered by easements or other restrictions,the buffer area shall include a minimum five-foot wide area outside the easement or restricted area for planting shrubs and trees,per UDC 11-313-7C.1b.All street landscape buffers should be depicted on the final plat in a common lot or on a permanent dedicated buffer easement,maintained by the property owner,homeowner's association or business owners' association per UDC 11-3B-7C.2a. ii. Parking lot landscaping Parking lot landscaping is required to be provided within the development in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-313-8C and should be depicted on the landscape plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance(CZC) application for development of each lot. Compliance with these standards will be reviewed with individual CZC applications. iii. Landscape buffers to adjoining uses A 25-foot-wide landscape buffer is required on C-G and I-L zoned properties adjacent to residential uses per UDC Tables 11-2B-3 and 11-2C-3.Landscaping within these buffers is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-9C. Compliance with these standards will be reviewed with individual CZC applications. If a reduction in the width of such buffer is needed, a request should be submitted prior to the City Council hearing for consideration by City Council at a public hearing with notice to surrounding property owners per UDC 11-313-9C.2.A reduction to the buffer width shall not affect building setbacks; all structures shall be set back from the property line a minimum of the buffer width required in the applicable zoning district. 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 per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B- 10C. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ There are many existing trees on the site, depicted on Sheet PP-02 of the plat and on Sheet 14 of the landscape plan,that are proposed to be removed; a mitigation plan is included on the landscape plan that notes the following: 1- EXISTING TREES TO BE SAVED ON SITE THAT WILL ODUNT TOWARDS MITIGATION ARE AS FOLLOWS: (11) -6'CAL ARMSTRONGMAPLES (5)-4'CAL IKATSURA (2)-B'HT.WEEPING NORWAY SPRUCE TOTAL CALIPER INCHES =95 CALIPER INCHES 2. EXISTING TREES TO BE REMOVED ON SFTE (1)-42'COTTONWOOD(NO MITIGATION REQUIRED) M-30'BLACK LOCUST(NOAIITIGATION REQUIRED) (2)-4"BLACK LOCUST(NO MITIGATION REQUIRED) (1)-7 BLACK LOCUST(NO MITIGATION REQUIRED) (14)-1D'POPULAR(NO MFTIGATION REQUIRED) (3)-25'TALL PINE(31 M.TO 7 CAL) (2)-1 Sr TALL PINE(SI M.TO 4.5'CAL) (1)-29'TALL PINE(SI M.TO 5.5'CAL.} (1)-1 IF TALL PINE(SIM.TO 2'CAL.) TOTAL CALIPER INCHES THAT DO NOT REOUI RED MITIGATION=4D6 CALIPER INCHES TOTAL CALIPER INCHES =34 CALIPER INCHES 3. EXISTING TREES TO BE RELOCATED ON SITE. (46)-�"CAL.ARMSTRONQ MAPLES (28)-16 HT COLUMNAR SPRUCE(SI M.TO V CAL) (19) -4"CAL.FLOWER NGCRABAPPLE (14)-4'CAL.KATSURA (11)-0'CAL.WPG.MULBERRY (2)-18'HT.WPG.4607KA SPRUCE(SIM.TO4'CAL.) (21)-0'CAL.MULTI-TRUNK REDBUD (40)-14 AT.SPRUCE(SIM.704'CAL) (5)-1P HT.VYPG.SPRUCE(SIM_TO 2'CAL) TOTAL CALIPER INCHES RELOCATED TREES=890 CALI PER I Q I-ES TOTAL CALIPER INCHES THE REQUIRE M71GATION=34 CALIPER INCHES TOTAL CALIPER INCHES THAT DO NOT REOUI RED MITIGATION=4W CALIPER INCHES METHODS OF MITIGATION TO INCLUDE PROPOSING AN ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE OF TREE RELOCATION=ROTA T-IE EXIS FING ROAD BUFFERS_E)a T1NG TREES 7HA7 ARE RELOCATED ON SITE MAY COUNT TOYOARD TI-E REQUIRED LANDSCAPING.ALTERNLATIVE METHODS WOULD INCLUDE INCREASING CALIPER INCHES OF PROPOSED TREES. Mitigation information should be included on the landscape plan submitted with the final plat application. v. 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. vi. Pathway landscaping Landscaping is required along all pathways per the standards listed in UDC 11-313-12C and will be reviewed for consistency with the standards with future development applications(i.e. final plat and/or Certificate of Zoning Compliance). City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ 4. Parking (UDC 11-3Q: Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards set forth in UDC Table 11-3C-6 for residential uses and 11-3C-6B for non-residential uses. Bicycle parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C- 6G and be designed and located in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C. A minimum of one (1)bicycle parking space is required for every 25 proposed vehicle parking spaces or portion thereof for all the proposed uses, except for the townhome dwelling units. i. Residential parking analysis Off-street parking is required to be provided for each townhome,multi-family apartment and vertically integrated residential unit based on the total number of bedrooms per unit as set forth in UDC Table 11-3C-6. Townhomes: • The number of bedrooms per unit are not identified in the plans. Compliance with the parking standards for these units will be reviewed with the building permit application. Multi-family apartments: • Lot 2,Block 1 —Based on(3 3) studio units, (34) 1-bedroom units, (48)2-bedroom units and(24) 3-bedroom units, a minimum of 266 spaces are required, including guest parking,with 106 of those being covered; a total of 266 spaces are proposed with 240 of those being covered podium/garage spaces in accord with the required standard. A total of 26 surface parking spaces and 45 podium(covered) spaces are provided on the site; another 195 spaces are proposed to be utilized through a cross-parking easement in the adjacent parking garage for the vertically integrated building on Lot 1,Block 1,which is between 86 and 130 feet from the multi-family building. This meets the shared use standards listed in UDC 11-3C-7 for parking standard alternatives as there is convenient pedestrian connections between properties and the properties/uses are within 1,000' of each other. A recorded shared use agreement is required to be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application for the shared vehicle and bicycle parking per the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-7B. Based on the number of vehicle spaces provided(i.e. 266), a minimum of 11 bicycle parking spaces are required.A total of three(3)bicycle parking spaces are proposed on the site and additional parking will be provided through the cross- parking easement on Lot 1,Block 1,which exceeds the minimum standard. • Lot 2,Block 3—Based on(28) studio units, (40) 1-bedroom units, (56)2-bedroom units, and(8)3-bedroom units,a minimum of 237 spaces are required, including guest parking,with 104 of those being covered; a total of 247 spaces are provided with 104 of those being covered in a 1-story podium,which exceeds the minimum standard by 10 spaces. Based on the number of vehicle spaces provided(i.e. 247), a minimum of 10 bicycle parking spaces are required; a total of 84 spaces are proposed(72 internal and 12 external),which exceeds the minimum standard. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ Vertically integrated: • Parking provided with the vertically integrated residential development will be reviewed for compliance with the parking standards at the time of Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. A 2-story parking podium is proposed. ii. Nonresidential parking analysis Non-residential uses in commercial districts are required to provide one(1) space for every 500 sq. ft. of gross floor area. Parking will be reviewed for compliance with these standards at the time of Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. The hotel, east vertically integrated residential and both restaurant buildings in Block 4 all site over underground parking garages. 5. Building Elevations (Comp Plan,Architectural Standards Manual): Photos of the existing building on the HPC Buyer property and a conceptual perspective drawing and elevations have been submitted for the future expansion,included below in Section VII.I. Upgrades are planned to the existing building with the expansion to tie in with the new portion(s). Final design is required to comply with the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual. Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the multi-family portions of the development, included below in Section VII.S, and the 3-story townhomes, included below in Section VII.V. Final design is required to comply with the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual. Building perspectives for the overall development were submitted, included below in Section VII.U. Final design is required to comply with the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual. 6. Fencing (UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): All fencing constructed on the site must comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7, as applicable. A fencing exhibit was submitted, included below in Section VII.M,that depicts existing fencing; no new fencing is proposed. A 4-foot-tall chain link fence exists at the southwest corner of the development around the existing school site and a 6-foot-tall chainlink fence with barbed wire exists along the southern boundary of the site. 7. Parkways (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-17): Landscaped parkways are proposed along adjacent streets throughout the development and must comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17E. If 6-foot-wide parkways are proposed,root barriers and Class II trees are required. E. Transportation Analysis Comprehensive Plan Policy#3.01.01A—Evaluate comprehensive impacts of growth and consider City Master Plans and Strategic Plans in all land use decisions(e.g.,traffic impacts, school enrollment, and parks). All streets have been constructed except for the extension of N. Machine Ave. along the eastern boundary of Block 1,which is required to be extended per the conditions in the ACHD report. Additional right-of-way is required to be dedicated for improvements along the frontage of the property adjacent to Nola Rd. as noted in the ACHD report. ACHD's planned improvements in the Capital Improvements Plan(CIP)/Five Year Plan(FYP) are as follows: City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ • Fairview Avenue is scheduled in the FYP as a corridor improvement to be widened to 7-lanes and to include the construction of enhanced pedestrian and bicycle facilities from Locust Grove Road to SH-55 (Eagle Road) in 2029, The intersection of Fairview Road and Locust Grove Road is scheduled in the FYP to be widened to Nanes on the north leg, 7-lanes on the south, 9-lanes east, and 9-lanes on the west leg, and re-signalized with accessible pedestrian signals with leading pedestrian intervals in 2029. Because the original conceptual plan envisioned a greater proportion of regional trip capture(i.e. more jobs and less residential generation), Staff was concerned the proposed shift in land use may place additional demand on the surrounding transportation network beyond what was originally anticipated. Therefore, an update to the previous TIS was requested. In response,the traffic engineer submitted a technical memorandum to ACHD with additional and updated analysis for the land use changes proposed with this application as requested by the Planning Division. A summary comparison of net new trips between the 2017 TIS and the currently proposed update is included; internal capture of trips between the proposed residential, office and retail uses as well as pass-by trips for retail uses are factored in. Overall,the proposed land uses, as the applicant calculated, are estimated to generate 33 additional net new vehicles during the AM peak hours and 49 additional net new vehicles in the PM peak hours when compared to the previous study. This appears to be a minor difference in overall traffic when compared to the current peak hour volumes on Pine Ave. (1,591 PM peak hour 2-way volume); and on Locust Grove Rd. (1,735 PM peak 2-way volume). This is within the current daily fluctuations in traffic on the adjacent roadway. Additionally,the increase in traffic was not shown to change or impact any of the previously approved conditions of approval for the development as it relates to the transportation system. The study notes the mixture of land uses presented in the proposed site plan offers a substantial opportunity for reduction in overall daily trips associated with the development due to the internal capture of these trips(primarily commuting trips and trips for services such as meals and neighborhood retail)within the development itself. However,both Staff and ACHD have expressed concerns with the calculations and cannot confidently agree with the method or results. Staff expressed concerns that the trip capture rates used were high, and unlikely to be reflective of peak rush hour impacts where the types of jobs and the type of employment in the area are not necessarily correlated. Additionally that many of the daily trip attractors will still require vehicle trips,such as grocery, schools, and as previously noted,jobs. See also ACHD comments below. ACHD had the following comments on the technical memorandum: • The memo utilized a pass-by capture rate of 47% in the AM,41.5% in the PM,and 41.5% overall for Land Use 821. These rates are generally very high. It is typical to utilize an AM pass-by trip capture of 0% for Land Use 821 since many stores are not open during morning rush hour. • Based on proposed trip generation,there is no anchor supermarket for the retail portion of the development. Supermarkets are usually the primary driver of pass- by trips for a retail plaza,so the pass-by capture percent should be further reduced accordingly. • Internal trip capture calculations assume the entire development will function as one site. This is not accurate, as many"internal"trips require vehicles to utilize Pine Avenue or Webb Avenue and will impact operations of the Pine Avenue/Web Avenue roundabout. The overall internal trip capture of 2,533 also utilizes a higher internal trip capture rate than either the AM or PM peak hours,with no supporting calculations. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ Note: These comments are only a general overview and don't constitute a full review by ACHD. The traffic engineer has responded to ACHD's comments and plans to amend the memo to include additional information. 1. Access (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-3, UDC 11-3H-4): Access is proposed via adjacent public streets [i.e. E. Pine Ave. (minor arterial street); E. State Ave. (residential collector street west of Webb and local street east of Webb);N. Webb Way(residential collector street); and N. Webb Ave.,N.Nola Rd. and N. Machine Ave. (local streets)] and internal driveways as shown on the concept plan and preliminary plat. Where access to a local street is not available for non-residential properties, cross- access/ingress-egress easements should be granted to adjoining properties either by recorded easement or as a note on the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-3A-3A.2. Cross- access/ingress-egress easements and driveways should be granted/constructed between all adjoining lots in the subdivision and to the following abutting parcels: Parcel #51108244650 to the east of Block 2 and Parcel#51108233810(HPC Buyer property)to the west of Block 4. Access to the townhomes that front on E. State Ave. is proposed from an internal un-named driveway. This requirement is in accord with Comprehensive Plan policy#6.01.02B,which states, 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 (UDC 11-3A-5): A 10-foot-wide detached multi-use pathway is proposed along the east side of N.Webb Way in accord with the Pathways Master Plan. If located outside of the adjacent right-of-way, a public pedestrian easement will need to be dedicated as required by the Park's Dept. The Park's Dept.requests a public access easement is dedicated for a multi-use pathway(10- foot-wide detached sidewalk) along the west side of N. Machine Ave. if located outside of the adjacent ACHD right-of-way(an attached sidewalk may be considered as Machine Ave. isn't a through street); revise the plans accordingly. 3. Pathways (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-8): A pedestrian connectivity plan showing pathways, sidewalks,crosswalks and bike lanes was submitted with this application,included below in Section VII.O.As noted above, a 10-foot- wide detached multi-use pathway is proposed along the east side of N.Webb Way,north of E. Pine Ave. and required along the west side of N.Machine Ave. in accord with the Pathways Master Plan(see Park's Dept. comments below in Section IV.E.). The pedestrian plan should be revised prior to the City Council hearing to reflect"N.Webb Ave." south of E.Pine Ave.; the Legend should reflect that the 10' wide pathway is a detached pathway; include the pathway along the west side of N.Machine Ave. as required by the Park's Dept.; and depict the existing detached sidewalk around the driveway/cul-de-sac off of E.Pine adjacent to Block 1. 4. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17): All sidewalks shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17. A combination of detached and attached sidewalks are proposed along streets as shown on the pedestrian plan and other plans. Detached sidewalks are depicted along all collector and arterial streets as required; attached sidewalks are proposed along the southern portion of N. Webb Ave., a local street. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ 5. Private Streets (UDC 11-3F-4): No private streets are proposed. Prior to submittal of a Certificate of Zoning Compliance application(s) for structures that don't front on a public street,the Applicant should work with the City's addressing technician to determine if private streets are needed for addressing for emergency way-finding purposes. Private streets, if required, are required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-317-4. 6. Subdivision Regulations (UDC 11-6): Compliance with the subdivision design and improvements standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3 is required. The proposed plat appears to be in compliance with these standards. F. Services Analysis Comprehensive Plan policy 3.03.03G requires urban infrastructure be provided for all new developments,including curb and gutter, sidewalks,water and sewer utilities. I. Waterways (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-6): The Snider Lateral is an open waterway that runs along the southern boundary of Blocks 1 and 3 at the south perimeter boundary of the subdivision. This waterway should be piped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-6. Other smaller delivery ditches also cross the site that may be removed as proposed if they don't provide irrigation water to downstream users. 2. Pressurized Irrigation(UDC 11-3A-15): Underground,pressurized irrigation water is required to be provided to each lot in the development as set forth in UDC 11-3A-15. 3. Storm Drainage (UDC 11-3A-18): An adequate storm drainage system is required in all developments in accord with the city's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances per UDC 11-3A-18. Design and construction shall follow Best Management Practice as adopted by the city. A Geotechnical Recommendation Report was submitted for this development, included in the project file,which states the site is acceptable for the proposed development and includes recommendations for design and construction of future phases of this project. 4. Utilities (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-21): All utilities and street lights should be in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. IV. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. Meridian Planning Division Conditions of approval are not included for the multi-family developments and vertically integrated residential project in Blocks I and 3 south of E. Pine Ave. because Staff is recommending denial of those uses. If the Commission and/or Council determines any or a portion of these uses is appropriate, conditions and updated plans should be included as applicable,prior to approval. 1. Annexation & Zoning—HPC Buyer Property 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 City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions ■ Meridian,the property owner(s) at the time of annexation ordinance adoption,and the developer. 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 date of City Council approval of the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decision&Order for the Annexation request. The DA shall, at minimum, incorporate the following provisions: a. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the conceptual development plan,phasing plan and building elevations and perspectives included in Section VII.I and the provisions contained herein. b. Future development of the property shall comply with the dimensional standards for the I-L(Light Industrial)zoning district listed in UDC Table 11-2C-3 and the development standards in the Unified Development Code. c. A property boundary adjustment application shall be submitted to the Planning Division once the subject property is annexed that depicts property lines that follow the zoning boundaries approved with the annexation. d. The access points to adjacent streets depicted on the conceptual development plan shall be evaluated with future development applications and are not approved with the concept plan. e. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance application shall be submitted prior to submittal of a building permit application(s)for the expansion of the existing use that complies with all UDC standards and the provisions listed herein. £ A Design Review application shall be submitted concurrent with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application for the addition(s)to the existing building that demonstrates compliance with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. 2. Development Agreement Modification—Pine 43 Mixed-Use A property boundary adjustment application shall be submitted to the Planning Division and finalized prior to City Council approval of the amended DA to transfer ownership of the property and to create the parcel subject to the DA. Staff recommends changes to the conceptual master plan prior to the City Council hearing as follows: • Include non-residential uses in place of the multi-family residential developments and vertically integrated residential project in Blocks 1 and 3 on the south side of E.Pine Ave.Neighborhood and community services should be considered as options for alternate uses in accord with the development guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan for functional integration of uses. An amended Development Agreement(DA) shall be required as a provision of the MDA and RZ applications. Prior to approval of the rezone ordinance, the amended DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning Division within six(6)months of City Council's approval of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for the modification and rezone. The amended DA shall only apply to the portion of the development that lies south of E. State Ave. included in the boundary of the updated conceptual development plan included in Section VII.E. The portion of the development that lies north of E. State Ave. shall comply with the provisions in the original DA(Pine 43—Instrument#2018-000751). City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions ■ The owner/developer shall comply with the following provisions associated with the amended development agreement: a. Future development shall substantially comply with the updated conceptual master plan, preliminary plat, landscape plan,phasing plan, and conceptual building elevations and perspectives and other applicable plans included in Section VII. Any significant changes to the phasing plan shall be approved by the Director. b. All future structures shall be designed in accord with the standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. A Design Review application shall be submitted to the Planning Division and approved prior to submittal of building permit application(s)that demonstrates compliance with these standards. c. The Director approved an Alternative Compliance request to UDC 11-4-3-41 G,which requires a minimum of 50 square feet of private,usable open space per unit in vertically integrated residential buildings on Lot 2,Block 2; and Lots 1 and 3,Block 4. The approval allows studio units without such space, contingent upon the provision of private amenity decks as shown in the exhibit in Section VII.R, as an alternative means of compliance. d. The public and quasi-public areas in the development shall be designed with community supportive purpose,incorporate permanent design elements with features to promote frequent use, and support amenities that foster a wide variety of interests ranging from relaxation to play. These areas must be strategically integrated into the overall development, interconnected with meaningful points of interest,prioritize pedestrian infrastructure,be highly visible and accessible, and designed to enhance both the adjacent uses and larger mixed-use area in accord with the holistic design principles in the Comprehensive Plan(see Figures FBS,FC6 and FC7 in the Plan). The plans submitted with future development applications shall demonstrate compliance with this requirement. e. Supportive and proportional outdoor public and/or quasi-public spaces and places including,but not limited to,parks,plazas, outdoor gathering areas,linear open space, and schools are expected to be provided within the development in accord with the principles for integration of uses in the Comprehensive Plan(see figures FB4,FC5,FC7 in the Plan). These areas may be located in spaces between residential and non-residential uses to provide both integration and transition between uses. Outdoor seating areas at restaurants are not considered supportive public spaces unless integrated into shared open space,natural amenities, and interconnected with cohesive pathway elements. The plans submitted with future development applications shall demonstrate compliance with this requirement. 3. Preliminary Plat a. The final plat(s) shall include the following revisions: i. If 6-foot wide parkways are proposed along streets,root barriers shall be depicted on the construction drawings that comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17E. ii. Depict a 10-foot-wide detached sidewalk/multi-use pathway on the construction drawings along the west side of N. Machine Ave. as required by the Park's Dept. (an attached sidewalk may be considered as Machine Ave. isn't a through street—work with the Park's Dept. on this). If located outside of the adjacent ACHD right-of-way, a public pedestrian easement is required per the Park's Dept. comments. iii. Depict cross-access/ingress-egress easements between all adjoining lots in the subdivision and to the following abutting parcels: Parcel#S 1108244650 to the east of City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions ■ Block 2 and Parcel#S 1108233810(HPC Buyer property)to the west of Block 4 either by recorded easement or as a note on the final plat in accord with UDC 11-3A- 3A.2. iv. All street landscape buffers shall be depicted on the plat in a common lot or on a permanent dedicated buffer easement,maintained by the property owner, homeowner's association or business owners' association per UDC 11-3B-7C.2. Where street buffers are encumbered by easements or other restrictions,the buffer area shall include a minimum 5-foot-wide area outside the easement or restricted area for planting shrubs and trees per UDC 11-313-7C.lb. This applies to Lot 3, Block 3. v. Depict the irrigation easement for the Snider Lateral that runs along the southern boundaries of Blocks 1 and 3. b. The landscape plan submitted with the final plat application(s) shall include the following revisions: i. If 6-foot-wide parkways are proposed along streets,root barriers and Class II trees are required per the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17E. ii. Depict a 10-foot-wide detached sidewalk/multi-use pathway along the west side of N. Machine Ave. as required by the Park's Dept. (an attached sidewalk may be considered as Machine Ave. isn't a through street—work with the Park's Dept. on this). iii. Depict landscaping all pathways in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B- 12C. iv. Include mitigation information on the plan for existing trees being removed from the site that require mitigation per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-10C as noted on the Sheet 14 of the landscape plan submitted with the preliminary plat. v. Depict street buffer landscaping in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B- 7C. Where street buffers are encumbered by easements or other restrictions,the buffer area shall include a minimum 5-foot-wide area outside the easement or restricted area for planting shrubs and trees per UDC 11-313-7C.lb. c. All multi-use pathways/sidewalks located outside of the adjacent ACHD right-of-way will require a separate public pedestrian easement as required by the Park's Dept. d. The Snider Lateral that runs along the southern boundary of Blocks 1 and 3 shall be piped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-6; the construction drawings shall reflect this requirement. e. Extend N. Machine Ave. along the eastern boundary of Block 1 as proposed and required by ACHD. f. Approval of the preliminary plat is contingent upon recordation of the final plat for Pine 43 Animal Farm(FP-2022-0017) for the property located at the southeast corner of E. Pine Ave. and N.Webb Ave. A final plat application shall not be submitted to the Planning Division for any phase of development until the final plat is recorded. g. Approval of the preliminary plat is contingent upon final approval of a property boundary adjustment(PBA)application for the realignment of property lines between the HPC Buyer and DRB Investments properties as shown on the preliminary plat.A final plat application shall not be submitted to the Planning Division for any phase of development until a PBA is finalized and a Record of Survey recorded that matches the configuration of the properties shown on the preliminary plat. City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions ■ h. Prior to submittal of a Certificate of Zoning Compliance application(s)for structures that don't front on a public street,the Applicant should work with the City's addressing technician to determine if private streets are needed for addressing for emergency way- finding purposes.Private streets, if required, are required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3F-4. i. Staff s failure to cite all relevant UDC requirements does not relieve the applicant from compliance. j. 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 obtain approval of a time extension as set forth in UDC 11-6B-7. 4. Conditional Use Permit—Height Exception(Vertically Integrated Residential Building on Lot 2,Block 2) a. The vertically integrated residential building on Lot 2,Block 2 is permitted to exceed the 65-foot maximum building height allowed in the C-G zoning district,with an approved height of up to 87 feet, as shown in the exhibit in Section VII.T. b. A conditional use permit,when granted, shall be valid for a maximum period of two (2) years unless otherwise approved by the city per UDC 11-513-6F. 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-year period. Upon written request and filing by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with subsection(F)(1) of this section,the director may authorize a single extension of time to commence the use not to exceed one (1)two-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 this chapter. B. Meridian Public Works hgps://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Doc View.asp x?id=397532&dbid=O&Mpo=MeridianC Lty C. Meridian Fire Department https://weblink.meridiancity.orglWebLinkIDocView.g,v x?id=410927&dbid=O&repo=MeridianC hty The Meridian Fire Department wit(respond to this development but our response will be inadequate due to staffingand equipment. Additionally,this project will require a Technical Fire Protection Report to be submitted to the Meridian Fire Department for review to address all criteria as required by the adopted 2018 international Fire Code and Meridian Title 10,Chapter 4 as it relates to Fire Protection and Fire&Life Safety Requirements for Mid-Rise and High-Rise structures. D. Meridian Police Department https://weblink.meridianciy.org WWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=397606&dbid=O&rCpo=MeridianC ky City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions ■ E. Meridian Park's Department https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=397615&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC LU F. Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho(COMPASS) https://weblink.meridiancity.orQ/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=399592&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC https://weblink.m eridia n c i ty.orQ/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=406026&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC G. Irrigation Districts No comments were submitted. H. Central District Health Department No comments were submitted. I. Idaho Department of Environmental Quality(DEQ) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=398020&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=405980&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty J. West Ada School District(WASD) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/browse.aspx?id=3 79821&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCit X K. Kuna School District https://weblink.meridiancitE.oLgzl ebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=397862&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC ky L. Ada County Highway District(ACHD) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=397539&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty M. Idaho Transportation Department(ITD) https://weblink.meridianciLy.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=401663&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty V. FINDINGS A. Annexation (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 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; Staff finds the proposed map amendment with I-L, C-G and R-15 zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as noted above in Section III. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Stafffinds the map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the districts and the purpose statements of residential, commercial and industrial districts. City of Meridian I Department Report V. Findings ■ 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; Stafffinds the proposed map amendment should not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. 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 map amendment shouldn't result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the City. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. Stafffinds the proposed annexation is in the best interest of the City as it reduces County enclaves and promotes development in accord with the Comprehensive Plan. B. Rezone(UDC 11-511-3E) 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 proposed map amendment to the R-15 district is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as noted in Section III. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Stafffinds the map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the district and the purpose statements of the residential district. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; Stafffinds the proposed map amendment should not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. 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 map amendment shouldn't result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the City. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. This finding is not applicable as the request is for a rezone, not annexation. C. Alternative Compliance(UDC 11-5B-5E)—11-4-3-41(G)Vertically Integrated Residential Private Open Space for Studio Units on Lot 1, Block 1; Lot 2,Block 2; and Lots 1 and 3, Block 4 Note:Staff is recommending denial of the proposed vertically integrated residential project on Lot 1, Block 1; therefore, the following Findings analysis is not applicable to that lot. In order to grant approval for an alternative compliance application,the Director shall determine the following: City of Meridian I Department Report V. Findings ■ l. Strict adherence or application of the requirements are not feasible; or The Director finds it is feasible for the Applicant to comply with the requirement but it would increase the cost of the units, reducing their affordability; and in order to meet the area requirements for private open space, balconies would have to be as wide as the unit itself, which would abut adjacent studios'space and wouldn't be private, as noted by the Applicant. 2. The alternative compliance provides an equal or superior means for meeting the requirements; and The Director finds the provision ofprivate amenity decks as an alternate means of compliance with seating areas, built-in grills/outdoor kitchens,planters,firepits, and shade features will create attractive spaces to host gatherings for studio residents and is an equal or superior means for meeting the requirement. 3. The alternative means will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or impair the intended uses and character of surrounding properties. The Director finds the alternative means will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or impair the intended uses and character of surrounding properties. D. Alternative Compliance(UDC 11-5B-5E)—11-4-3-27(B)Multi-family Private Open Space for Studio Units on Lot 2,Block 1 and Lot 2,Block 3 Because Staff is recommending denial of the proposed multi-family developments,Findings analysis is not included for the associated alternative compliance requests. E. Alternative Compliance(UDC 11-5B-5E)—11-2B-3 Height Limit in C-G District for Multi- family Building on Lot 2,Block 3,Hotel on Lot 2,Block 4, and Vertically Integrated Residential Buildings on Lots 1 and 3,Block 4 An updated common open space exhibit needs to be submitted before Staff can determine if the amount of open space provided meets the requirement for the Director to grant the height exception. Because Staff is recommending denial of the multi-family development on Lot 2,Block 3,the Director will not act on the alternative compliance request for that lot. F. Conditional Use (UDC 11-5B-6E)—Multi-family Development on Lot 2,Block 1 Because Staff is recommending denial of the proposed change to the conceptual master plan that includes the multi-family development,Findings analysis is not included for the associated conditional use permit request. G. Conditional Use(UDC 11-5B-6E)—Multi-family Development on Lot 2,Block 3 Because Staff is recommending denial of the proposed change to the conceptual master plan that includes the multi-family development,Findings analysis is not included for the associated conditional use permit request. H. Conditional Use (UDC 11-511-6E)—Height Exception for Vertically Integrated Building on Lot 2,Block 2 The City Council shall base its determination on the conditional use permit request upon the following: City of Meridian I Department Report V. Findings ■ 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. Stafffinds the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the C-G district. However, the Applicant is requesting conditional use approval of an extended building height from the maximum allowed in the district of 65 feet to 87 feet. 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 additional height will facilitate the mixed-use development intended in the MU-C FL UM designation and in the C-G district. The added height will also promote sustainability by allowing for urban density that can support the commercial and office uses within the development. 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 height and design of the building should be generally compatible with other uses in the neighborhood and with the intended character of the general vicinity in that a mix of uses are planned for this area with similar heights. Further, the height of the building should not change the essential character of this area since it is aligned with the comprehensive plan's vision for urban density and mixed use in this area and on this site. 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 additional height of this building should not adversely affect other properties in the vicinity as the building is similar in height to other buildings within the development and is sufficiently set back from the proposed townhome uses. 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 building with extended height will be served adequately by the essential public facilities and services listed. 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 extended building height will not create excessive 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 neither the additional height nor the use will 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. City of Meridian I Department Report V. Findings ■ 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 no natural, scenic or historic features of major importance exist on the property. I. Preliminary Plat(UDC-613-6) In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat,or short plat,the decision-making body shall make the following findings: 1. The plat is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and is consistent with this unified development code; Staff finds the proposed plat is generally in conformance with the UDC if the Applicant complies with the conditions of approval in Section IV. 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Staff finds public sewer and water are available at the site and will be adequate to accommodate the proposed development. The Fire Dept. can provide service to this development but it will be inadequate due to staffing and equipment. 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the city's capital improvement program; Staff finds the proposed plat is in substantial conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's Capital Improvement Program. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Staff finds 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 Staff finds the proposed development is not detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. Staff finds there are no natural, scenic or historic features on the site. VI. ACTION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed development plan per the provisions listed above in Section IV with the exception of the two(2)multi-family residential developments and the vertically integrated residential project located south of E. Pine Ave. in Blocks 1 and 3. Staff does not support residential uses in this area, as the previously entitled commercial plan is considered more beneficial to the City by providing needed employment opportunities and services for nearby residents,while also reducing vehicle trips and supporting trip capture. In addition, Staff does not support the vertically integrated residential use on Lot 1,Block 1 as it is not compatible with adjacent industrial uses and operations. Staff recommends the Commission and City Council consider reducing the number of vertically integrated residential units proposed north of E. Pine Ave. and requiring commercial/office uses City of Meridian I Department Report VI. Action ■ above the first floor to provide a more commensurate level of employment and services to support nearby residents and reduce vehicle trips. B. Commission: Pending C. City Council: Pending City of Meridian I Department Report VI. Action ■ ' � r a _ W _ + w ' BRA_ a IVIEW jImp 13 LU LU F r PINEgo 1. ♦ `i ��. ,C4 7'? tl t- JI i .J'e i,RP ."-Z�;' Y �� � y' ya• r!I �"fir .4. � "t:r "°c� - � —.�._i six, a �; FRANKLIN a -•- • rr�....r.NNN unrrr W Willi _ U • O , 'in F�rA x � �I m► r if ■a rrl�' � tNi�.r y:;;an�r�. � � +N .�N �l% • !iN rN-� ._. r4r �Nrnrra>r .�. � Q �. i III 1 111� ■■■zi �� ■■■■■■■■■■■■ . Zi •- • nm■■fnn ■ Im m Iloilo pill n■NINIU � arm I� W Igloos Ivan Is E■ �! :@r.1111111 I:■-�n1111u n-gF - 114::I■5i� ong -- t • �y •y ,.Iaa a� �uru If -��ahr m{Bnrral■ \ • - • ` ■111 IIIII: 'Irr'll���r�j ►�—„•~,1, �`•• I BI qRa� ulm mr.nnr lls{II�pLN E °°�����■� - ��I ■■:rrll mini■111u1111 mn r o rnn II , - wal _ unB ni1:11�:I e ■AI■ �n—■r W Z � 1:±1 um:�J,•� U ■p°: ,, W ~RANKLI�N �*lnnmm�°111W . N -•- • nnnaw■■■a.r.:n..rarr_ �mlrrr loss Rol na>;��7,IBrarVl�► urrreuu■,�+,��� {L' �u■un IIaPr■f11B�1111111111111111111111 ■ INNIF e rr�;�� �� � ri ••�fn11111 � f.mnlllnuunllin - •a•���Ll�■� �fI,,�1111111 ��, •.1 iC�" �Imrr\O In■.-IMF v___ ■ilk. ■■■■.� .�I■s-r �y� -� �1.�e °,1 I nllmengll Q ��■o■s_• r1F�:+a■ .�� urn�=im-uu ••r � __-� ■w �a1p111i{rill T_■�u_�:r•1 • �,I� Rrrrrlg�llllllllllullll Qnl1/y����� ;___, � 1B s F*1 � _!�! ^■�:�.�i•� .pm�pnnn� runr�•. - -- +- fa11 lfhi i�■�1=.y�:n� r�:'.�.un-:' rru'�no n�nr z �irur i - r II ■■■ . Im r % 'a1n■� �Oy�r���y%yyidi�� ` W ^ fl{ill■{if��■ ��11111 1■=i r1II/a•I Yam!!-r-...� ..v�i �IINnU�j � , ►'�f1a{/Ii1ff li laal{1■=1�.=��Ur r■/nnaY■'2■\h�� � n11111 i�'6'•a,- �iyr Inn J p■■ f�., ■■Ilrr dal •I-.•.,,. a � L4ilnlnntl I � �■�� IU ft W Kill will i=:A�' .■ -('_-nnn �— p naunl/ � nnl:-m-lni •�C�r 1- �7�� I ���1111�ni 1I 111:111111 illll PI N L nnu!����1�I:...i ! i ■-■, ' i� W '/ 1• 1 III. 1�11■I ■� ■■:111rrll mim■■IIIIIIq`tl� h ■ .`�V ,■■■■� 1•{!1 i1111 Bill■-pow ilk ■1N r�nnn Bill,:na-I ��■� - ■■-■■■` ■ 111■1! [■■�Ri1111■ Z 1,11:••• �1■1 111■�� Is OEM E: ME FRANKL-IN ■1■■■logo■■■■■�� 5. Map Notes Recent Area Preliminary Plats: H-2019-0004 H-2019-0112 H-2019-0149 H-2019-0142 H- 2019-0115 H-2020-0015 H-2020-0054 H-2020-0076 H-2020-0126 H-2021-0012 H-2021- 0017 H-2021-0043 H-2021-0049 H-2021-0069 H-2021-0077 H-2021-0097 H-2022-0040 H- 2022-0069 H-2022-0013 H-2023-0022 H-2023-0032 H-2023-0044 H-2023-0048 H-2017- 0011 H-2023-0073 H-2024-0008 H-2024-0038 Recent Area Conditional Use Permits: H-2020-0029 H-2021-0082 H-2017-0058 H-2022- 0013 City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ B. Service Accessibility Report PARCEL S1108234011 SERVICE ACCESSIBILITY Overall Scare: 37 83rd Percentile Description Location In City Limits GREEN Extension Sewer Trunkshed mains < 500 ft.from parcel GREEN Floodplain Either not within the 100 yrfloodplain or> 2 acres 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 current transit route GREEN Arterial Road Buildout Status Ultimate configuration (#of lanes in master streets 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 School within 1 mile driving GREEN (existing or future) ParkWalkability No park within walking distance by park type RED Report generated on 06-16-2025 by MERIDIAMsal en City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ C. Legal Description & Exhibit Map of Property Subject to Amended Development Agreement TN6 ® MAPPING J LANOQON NAPPING GROUP INC. J U U ENGINEEFSANC. S O B FaMiv OF COMPnrviFS Exhibit"A" Pine 43 Mixed Use Subdivision Development Agreement Boundary Legal Description Project No. 10-24-066 March 18, 2025 A tract of land situate in the west half of Section 8,Township 3 North,Range 1 East,Boise Meridian,City of Meridian,County of Ada,State of Idaho,and being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the west quarter corner of said Section 8;thence from said Point of Commencement,South 89°54'57" East,coincident with the east-west centerline of said Section 8, a distance of 2,649.69 feet; thence leaving said east-west centerline,South 00°31'22"West,a distance of 50.99 feet to the northwest corner of the Plat of Scentsy Commons Subdivision,recorded in Book 108 of Plats,at Pages 15229 through 15233,Ada County Records,hereinafter referred to as"Scentsy Commons",said point also being the Point of Beginning of this description; thence from said Point of Beginning,continuing South 00°31'22"West,coincident with the westerly line of said Scentsy Commons, a distance of 611.32 feet to the northeasterly corner of the Plat of Layne Industrial Park Subdivision, recorded in Book 69 of Plats, at Pages 7113 through 7114, Ada County Records,hereinafter referred to as"Layne Industrial Park";thence North 89°55'42"West,coincident with the northerly line of said Layne Industrial Park,a distance of 507.60 feet; thence leaving said northerly line,the following two(2)consecutive courses and distances: 1. North 00°06'00"West,a distance of 589.75 feet,and 2. North 44°49'58" West, a distance of 28.15 feet to a point on the southerly right-of-way line of E.Pine Avenue; thence leaving said southerly right-of-way line,North 00°05'59"West,a distance of 96.14 feet to a point on the northerly right-of-way line of E.Pine Avenue;thence South 89°53'43"West,coincident with said northerly right-of-way line,a distance of 457.78 feet;thence leaving said northerly right-of-way line,South 00°05'59"East,a distance of 48.04 feet to a point on the centerline of said E.Pine Avenue;thence South 89°54'01"West,coincident with said centerline,a distance of 181.39 feet;thence leaving said centerline, South 00°05'59"East, a distance of 48.05 feet to a point on the westerly right-of-way line of N.Webb Avenue; thence coincident with said westerly right-of-way line,the following eleven(11)consecutive courses and distances: 1. along the arc of a non-tangent curve to the right, concave southwesterly,having a radius of 49.50 feet,through a central angle of 22°48'18",an arc length of 19.70 feet,and a chord bearing South 34°04'19"East,a distance of 19.57 feet, March 18,2025 10-24-066_DA_Bndy_Desc.docx Page 1 of 4 2760 West Excursion Lane,Suite 400,Meridian,ID 83642-5752 H www.lub.com P 208.376.7330 City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ 2. along the arc of a compound curve to the right, concave westerly, having a radius of245.00 feet,through a central angle of 13°34'30", an arc length of 58.05 feet,and a chord hearing South 15052'55"East, a distance of 57.91 feet, 3. South 09405'40"East,a distance of70.96 feet, 4_ along the arc of a curve to the right,concave westerly,having a radius of 99.00 feet, through a central angle of OV35'23", an arc length of 9.56 feet,and a chord bearing South 06'1 T'59"East,a distance of 9.56 feet, 5. South 03'30'18"last,a distance of 19.42 feet, 6. along the arc of a tangent curve to the left,concave easterly, having a radius of 110.00 feet, through a central angle of 19°43'43", an arc length of 37.88 feet, and a chord bearing South 13822'09" East, a distance of39.69 feet, 7. South 230 14'01"East,a distance of 39.19 feet, 8. along the arc of a tangent curve to the left, concave northeasterly, having a radius of 286.00 feet, through a central angle of 07°20'17", an arc Iength of36.63 feet,and a chord bearing South 26°54'09"East, a distance of 36.60 feet, 9. South 30')34'17"East,a distance of46 33 felt, 10. along the arc of a tangent curve to the right,concave westerly,having a radius of 21.1.25 feet,through a central angle of31000'46", an arc length of 114.34 feet, and a chord bearing South 15°03'55" East, a distance of 112.95 feet,and 11. South 001126'28" West, a distance of 182.93 feet to a point on the northerly line of the aforesaid Layne Industrial Park; thence leaving said westerly right-of-way line,North 89P55'43"West, coincident with said northerly line, a distance of 293.92 feet; thence leaving said northerly line,the following two(2)consecutive courses and distances: 1. North 00'27'15"Cast,a distance of 331.21 feet,and 2. North 89654'44" West, a distance of 657,39 feet to a point on the easterly right-of-way line ofN. Nola Road; thence North 00°27'04"Last,coincident with said easterly right-of-way line,a distance of 273.97 feet to a point of intersection of said easterly right-of-way with the southerly right-of-way line of E. Pine Avenue; thence leaving said right-of--way lines,North 00105'59"West,a distance of48.05 feet to the centerline of said R Pine Avenue;thence North 89°54'01"Fasl,coincident with said centerline a distance of 25.45 feet; thence leaving said centerline,the following four(4)consecutive courses and distances: I. North OW26'20"East,a distance of262.04 feet, 2. North 00°26'30"East,a distance of 355.15 feet, 3_ North 58038'10"West,a distance of 166.73 feet,and 4. North 89°3Y38" West, a distance of 485.10 feet to a point on the easterly right-of-way line of Locust Grove Road; March 18,2025 10-24-066 IDA_13ndy_Dese.doex Page 2 of4 City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ thence coincident with said easterly right-of-way line, the following four (4) consecutive courses and distances; I. North 00°13'49"1West,a distance of 117.15 feet, 2. South 89035'35"East,a distance of 22.99 feet, 3. North 00°13'53"West,a distance of 189.59 feet,and 4. North 441153'03" East, a distance of 28.23 feet to a point on the southerly right-of-way line of E.State Avenue; thence leaving said easterly right-of way line, coincident with said southerly right-of-way line and subsequent projections thereof,the following fourteen(t4)courses and distances. 1. North 89°59'59"East,a distance of 196.68 feet, 2. along the are of a tangent curve to the right,concave southwesterly, having a radius of 218.00 feet, through a central angle of 55°24'38", an arc length of 210.83 feet, and a chord bearing South 62°17'42" East,a distance of 202.71 feet, 3. South 34°35'24"East,a distance of 41.97 feet, 4, along the arc of a tangent curve to the left., concave northeasterly, having;a radius of 200.00 feet, through a central angle of 24°02'5I", an arc length of 83.94 feet,and a chord bearing South 46036'49"Fast, a distance of 83.33 feet, 5. South 58Q38'14"East,a distance of 136.06 feet, 6. along the arc of a tangent curve to the right, concave southwesterly, having a radius of 290.00 fett, through a central angle of 170 14'18", an arc length OrK24 feet,and a chord bearing South 50°01'05"East, a distance of 83.92 feet, 7. along the are of a reverse curve to the lel}, concave northeasterly, having a radius of 32a.OG feet,through a central angle of 21'1313311, an arc length of 118.55 feet, and a chord bearing South 52'00'43" Last,a distance of 1 17.87 feet, 8. South 62D37'29"East,a distance of 193.95 feet, 9, along the arc of a tangent curve to the left,concave northerly,having a radius of 720.00 feet,through a central angle of 30'45'29", an arc length of 386.52 feet, and a chord bearing South 79'00'14" East, a distance of 381.89 feet, M along the are of reverse curve to the right,concave southerly,having a radius of 9$0.00 feet,through a central angle of 11000'20", an are length of I9SL24 feel, and a ehcrd bearing South 87'52'49" East, a distance of 187.95 feet, 11. South 82°22'39"East,a distance of 151.74 feet, 12. South 79°22'39"East,a distance of 92.77 feet, 13. along the arc of a tangent curve to the left,concave northerly,having a radius of 220.00 feet,through a central angle of 10"1 l'16", an are length of 39.12 feet, and a chard bearing South 841128'17" East, a distance of 39.07 feet, and 14. South 89°33'55" East,a distance of 354.09 feet; March 18,2025 10.24-066_DA_Sndy_Dasc.docx Page 3 ❑F4 City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ thence leaving said southerly right-of-way line, South 00°26'05"West, a distance of 477,15 feet to a point on the southerly right-of way line of E. Pine Avenue; thence North 89°53'53"East, coincident with said southerly right-of-way line,a distance of 444.45 feet to the Point of Beginning, Containing an area of 16.58 acres of land,more or less. The above-described tract of land is shown on Exhibit"ll"attached hereto and made a part hereof. End of Description. J-U-B ENGINEERS,Inc. This description was prepared by me or under my supervision, If any portion of this description is modified or removed(including, but not limited to,the graphic portion shown on the attached Exhibit"B') without the written consent of Timothy Harrigan, PLS, all professional liability associated with this document is hereby declared null and void. py LA UNS Timothy Harrig 17665 17665 Date March 18,2025 10-24-066_DA_.$ndy T]esc.docx Page 4 oF4 City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ W 141 i 7 E. STATE AVENUE N. WEBB AVENUE ��----�� POC S89'54'57"E 2649.69 7 8 E. PINE AVENUE ° 400 LEGEND _ SHEET Na- SCALEINFEET - - - - SECTION LINE ADJOINER PROPERTY LINE --- TIE LINE RIGHT--GF-WAY LINE - - - CENTER LINE L - BOUNDARY AREA: �EN .0 36.58f ACRES OF LAND 17665 o — CENTER QUARTER CORNER 151 — QUARTER CORNER O 0 — FOUND MONUMENT - O - DIMENSION POINT POI - POINT OF COMMENCEMENT POB - POINT OF BEGINNING EXHIBIT "B" PINE 43 MIXED USE SLJBDIVIS10N Q C..1U DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BOUNDARY SHEET z SITUATE IN THE WEST HALF OF SECTION S,T3N,R1 E, 1 DF$ J�11�6 EN�IXEENS•IMG BOISE MERIDIAN CITY OF MERIDIAN COUNTY OF ADA STATE OF IDAHO 0. City of Meridian I Department Report Vll. Exhibits 93 D. Existing Conceptual Development Plan Included in Development Agreement(Inst.#2018- 000751)Proposed to be Modified z o z Z-2 4 W�Y Vl V 0 V 1 3 qm �� J ��z = �ZZLM 0.21 ��W �W2 WUrp4rfiNE "r4Wrv~am ' E err W�a00 �� M)o .2 uJ 0.6 �n �m �Mf3 �aM� orra o o�r ? o Z > o- LU = w ° o � $ a 2 w w w w i w W W ° Z x g x a C a d d d d w d w � Q w J oil 111L.- - aH NM DhHHPHH 011111P 01'mm'0°ug10 �INHWliNNHONN1�111110 HhHNF s y w_wL s O h&0 K- L f; G IIIIII OINHIH01111110 OHHNHO NN�IIII 10 :�L i =� 6HIN-MIF+MI III III' _ a I OMLL N 177:1 ... L wu N. �IMI I�IlIII IYIIII G � 4 Illu Io-41Hp4NIW mr-' y� � W4NONIHPo I� i H IHHI - a�lsnom — � r City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ E. Proposed Conceptual Master Plan to be Included in Amended Development Agreement— NOT APPROVED s � i � 4 oor f F om ,1VU.M k O IL J w � O •" � � ? � Ox O � a O a a 0 a i s a m a a c a a a a W Y ❑P N � w a ov9e 3n0a915n�01 ry " .>L a . J O City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ F. Annexation Legal Description &Exhibit Map (HPC Buyer Property) IDAHO 9939 W Emerald St 'Boise, ID 83704 ISG SURVEY 'Boise, (208) 846-8570 GROUP Fax: (208) 884-5399 Pine 411-HPC Buyer Annexation Parcel Boundary Description Project Number 24-023 August 27,2024 A parcel of land situated in the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 8, Township 3 North,Range 1 East, Boise Meridian,City of Meridian,Ada County, Idaho, and being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at a brass cap marking the west quarter-section corner of Section 8,being the southeast corner of that annexation parcel described in Amended Ordinance 580, Instrument Number 9257528,records of Ada County,Idaho,and being the southwest corner of that annexation parcel described in Ordinance 409,Instrument Number 8291677,records of Ada County, Idaho,from which a brass cap marking the northwest corner of Section 8, bears NOO"26'22"E 2649.67 feet; Thence N00'26'22"E,606.31 feet along the west line of the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter and the boundary of those parcels described in Amended Ordinance 580 and Ordinance 408,to the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence continuing N00°26'22"E,68.48 feet,along the west line of the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter and the boundary of that parcel described in Amended Ordinance 580 to the southeast corner of that annexation parcel described in Ordinance 689,Instrument Number 95003593,records of Ada County,Idaho; Thence continuing NGD'26'22"E, 140.24 feet,along the west line of the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter and the boundary of that parcel described in Ordinance 689 to an angle point in that"Annexation Parcel 1" described in Ordinance 08-1348, Instrument Number 108022892, records of Ada County,Idaho; Thence S89"33'42"E,57.92 feet alongthe boundary of that"Annexation Parcel 1"parcel described in Ordinance 08-1349 to a 5/8"iron pin; Thence continuing S89°33'42"E,526.53 feet along the boundary of that "Annexation Parcel 1" parcel described in Ordinance 08-1348 to a 5/8"iron pin marking an angle point in that annexation parcel described in Ordinance 18- 1761, Instrument Number 2018-001519, records of Ada County, Idaho; f Thence 558°38'14"E, 120.03 feet along the boundary of that parcel described in Ordinance 18-1761 to a 5j8" 3 Page l of 2 r� City of Meridian Department Report V11. Exhibits 96 • f DA H O 9939 W Emerald St SURVEY Boise, ID 93704 Phone, (208) 846-8570 GROUP fax: (208) 884-5399 Pine 43—HPC Buyer Annexation Parcel continued... iron pin on the boundary of that aforementioned"Annexation Parcel 1"parcel described in Ordinance 08-1348; Thence 500°26'20"W,599.09 feet along the boundary of that"Annexation Parcel 1" parcel described in Ordinance 08-1348 to a 1/2"iron pin marking an angle point in that annexation parcel described in Ordinance 405, Instrument Number 8219758, records of Ada County,Idaho; Thence continuing 500°26'20"W,111.30 feet along the boundary of that parcel described in Ordinance 405 to a 5/8"iron pin; Thence continuing 500026'20"W,38.71 feet along the boundary of that parcel described in Ordinance 405 to the south line of the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter and the boundary of that"Annexation Parcel 2" parcel described in the aforementioned Ordinance 08-1349; Thence N89a54'57"W,25.13 feet along the south line of the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter and the boundary of that"Annexation Parcel 2"parcel described in Ordina nce 08-1348 to the northeast corner of that annexation parcel described in Ordinance 329,records of City of Meridian, Idaho; Thence continuing N89"54'57"W,233.30 feet along the south line of the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter and the boundary of that parcel described in Ordinance 329 to the southeast corner of that annexation parcel described in Ordinance 409, Instrument Number 8281677,records of Ada County,Idaho; Thence N00°25'43"E, 254.36 feet along the boundary of that parcel described in Ordinance 408 to a 1/2" iron pin; Thence NDW26'36"E,203.64 feet along the boundary of that parcel described in Ordinance 408 to a 5/8" iron pin; Thence N58`57'25"W,286.10 feet along the boundary of that parcel described in Ordinance 408 to a 5/9" iron pin; Thence N89033'40"W,123.21 feet along the boundary of that parcel described in Ordinance 408 to a 5/8" iron pin; Thence N89`33'40"W,59.50 feet along the boundary of that parcel described in Ordinance 409 to the POINT OF LAArp BEGINNING. The above-described parcel contains 7.21 acres,more or less- 4 o .34 Page 2 of 2r City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ Le er1 O Found 1/2" iron Pin, as Noted 5 5 E. Fairview Ave. 0 Found 5/8" Iron Pln, as Noted Found Bross Cop Monument Q Found Aluminum Cap Monument I� 1 Qq Colculoted Paint, Nothing Found or Set 1� Annexation Boundary Line Sectlon Line PLS 05—IW PLS Ord. 7015 S89'33'42"E 11334 18-1761 52fi.53' °0 -q- S89'33'42"E PLS `O N 57.92' S58'38'14"E 1t334 120.03' ca ,t N 89'33'40"W PLS 123.21' 7.21 Acres Go �D 7015 PLS 4347 O U) m N89"33'40"W U 6 59.50' a N I Paint of $ W 1 Beginning Q p ni PLS 0 N N cti 4347 � hl N N Ord. 405 LO m C:)I i1] ZI Ln C7 �y -6 i Z E i'a Scale: 1"=12C ¢ u3 PLS 0 30 60 120 240 11335 d✓ Modified State Planer � Ado County Coordinate System r IQ `� PREAPP-2023-0144LLA PLS 1 � �P 1 8'�'� i+} 972 Sa0'26'20"W a z i z SOC'26'20"W o 38. W71 PLS 508 2 N89'54'5 1/4 '429,00 233.30 25 ' 1962.25' Ord. 329 E. Pine Ave. Ord. C 1/4 v:p .431PC POA C-Olt'.d.c 0/271M4 a.s.x�. 0$-134$ Job No. IDAHO Annexation Exhibit drawing for 24-023 SURVEY Pane 43 — HPC Buyer Sheet No. 1 of 1 GROUP, LLC Situated in the SW1/4 of the NW1/4 of Seotlon 8. Dwg. Date 13N., RAE.. B.M.. City of Morldion, Ado County, Idoh R. B/27/2024 City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits 98 # IDAHO 9939 W Emerald St ISGSURVEY Boise, ID 837.04 GROUP EXHIBIT A Phone: (208) 846-8570 Pine 43-FIPC Buyer R-15 Zone Boundary Description Project Number 24-02.3 December 19,2024 A parcel of land situated in the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 8, Township 3 North,Range 1 East, Boise Meridian,City of Meridian,Ada County,Idaho, and being more particukarly described as follows- Commencing at a brass cap marking the west quarter-section corner of Section 8,from which a brass cap marking the northwest corner of Section 8,bears N00°25'22"E, 2649.67 feet; Thence NGD°26'22"E,815.03 feet along the west line of the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter; Thence 589'33'42"E,518.05 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING: Thence continuing S89°33'42"E,66.40 feet to a 5/8"iron pin; Thence 558°38'14"E, 120.03 feet to a 5/8"iron pin; Thence Soo"26'20"W, 141.14 feet; Thence N58`38'14"W,166.73 feet; Thence N89"33'42"W,40.00 feet; Thence N00°00'32"E,97.45 feet; Thence N36'35'54"E,24.39 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. The above-described parcel contains 0.56 acres,more or less. A 34 Page I of 1 ,,T,r��2 City of Meridian I Department Report V11. Exhibits 99 1 S.fi S.5 S.7 S.8 Point of Beginning S89'33'42"E fifi.40' 5.......... 518.... S58'38'14"E N36'35'540E 120.03' 24.39' I i N00'OQ'32"E 0.56 Acres 9 7,4 5 ¢ N N89'33'42'°W /Y (09 ozo 40.00' 7f w M L m w ca 166, a 1 41 ur Q N I 0 }` ' N 7 0I V o ' J Lecend Od Z Q Found 5/8" Iron Pin Found Bross Cop Monument Io Found Aluminum Cop Monument I Calculated Point, Nothing Found or Set I� R-15 zone Boundary Line --- Section Line To Line I I I 1 134 shale: 1"=go' EPA 17P` 0 I 0 20 40 80 1B0 IC11p.E fly % V.- Modified State Plane: $ Ado Gounty Coordinate System PREAPP-2C23-0144 S.7 Lse E. Pine Ave. --- --- 1/4 --589'54'57"E 2649.69'--� �4 P,Pine+!HPU MA 1+—UZ4\d tg}2♦—VLS UhMits—"Rl dwg 12/1U/2W4 1:JPZx PM Joh No. IDAHO R-15 Zoning Exhibit Drawing for 24-D23 SURVEY Pine 43 — HPC Buyer Sheet No- 1 of 1 GROUP, LLC Situated In the SW1/4 of the NW114 of Section 8, owg- Date T,3N,. R,117- B.M., City of Mwrdion. Ado County, Idaho. 12/19/2024 City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits Fool i IDpyHO 9939 W Emerald St ISGSURVEY Boise, ID 83704 GROUP EXHIBIT A Phone: (208) 846-8570 Pine 43-NpC Buyer C-G Zone Boundary Description Project Number 24-023 December 19,2024 A parcel of land situated in the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 8, Township 3 worth, Range 1 bast,Boise Meridian,City of Meridian,Ada County,Idaho, and being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at a brass cap marking the west quarter-section corner of Section 8,from which a brass cap marking the northwest corner of Section 8,bears N00'26'22"E, 2649.67 feet; Thence N00026'22"E,697.89 feet along the west line of the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter to the POINT OF BEGINNING: Thence continuing NOO'26'22"E,117.14 feet along the west line of the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter; Thence S89'33'42"E,518.05 feet; Thence S36'35'54"W, 24.39 feet; Thence S00°00'32"W,97.45 feet; Thence N89°33'42"W, 504.39 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. The above-described parcel contains 1.36 acres,more or less. L 4 cx � Page lofl sue{ yea CL 5 4 City of Meridian I Department Report 101 1 S.6 S_5 S.7 5.8 l� I� S89'33'42"E 518.05' LU cv S36'35'54"W N 24.39' ti 1.38 Acres PoTnt of _ I;V r z eeg nn ng S00'00'32"W 97.45' N89'33'42"W 504.39' I I C � c`a m wr Legend w o cN Found Brass Cap Monument rV 0) Found Aluminum Cop Monument J v Calculated Point, Nothing Found or Set to Z I z ZI C—G Zone Boundary Line I — - --- Section Line r: ar rn r� a I I 1 f1 34 1 0 25 50 100 200 Modified State Plane: Ada County Coordinote System I PREAPP-2023-0144 S,7 $,$ E. Pine Ave. 1/4 S89'54'57"E 2649.69' C1/4 P:\Pfna 43 HK PDA 24-OVVwg%,23-02a Es bl[f-M.tl.9 12/19/2024 IASA1 PM Job Na, IDAHO C—G Zoning Exhibit drawing for 24-023 SURVEY Pine 43 — HPC Buyer Sheat No. 1 of 1 GROUP, LLC Situated In the SWI/4 of the NW1/4 of Seatlon s, awg. Date T.3N., RAE., B.M., City of Meridian, Ada County, idoha. 12/19/2024 City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits 102 IDAHO 9939 W Emerald tt SURVEY Boise, ID 83704 Phone: (208) 846-8570 GROUP Fax: (208) 884.5399 Pine 43-HPC Buyer I-t Zone Boundary Vescription Project Number 24-023 August 27,2024 A parcel of land situated in the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 8, Township 3 North,Range 1 East,Boise Meridian,City of Meridian,Ada County,Idaho, and being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at a brass cap marking the west quarter-section corner of Section 8,from which a brass cap marking the northwest corner of Section 8,bears NOO°26'22"E, 2649.67 feet; Thence N00'26'22"E,606.31 feet along the west line of the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter to the POINT OF BEGINNING: Thence continuing NOOa26'22"E,91.58 feet along the west line of the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter; Thence 589"33'42"E,544.39 feet; Thence 559'38'14"E,166.73 feet; Thence S40"26'20"W,607.96 feet to the south line of the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter; Thence N89°54'57"W,258.43 feet along the south line of the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter, Thence N00°25'43"E,254.36 feet to a 1/2" iron pin; Thence NOO°26'36"E,203.64 feet to a 5/8" iron pin; Thence N58°57'25"W,286.10 feet to a 5/8" iron pin; Thence N89'33'40"W,192.71 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. The above-described parcel contains 5.29 acres,more or less. i CL 4 Page i of i L S. City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 103 Legend 6 5 E. Fairview Ave. Q Found 1/2" Iron Pin 7 8 (D Found 5/8" Iron Pln Found Brass Cup Monument Found Aluminum Cap Monument Calculated Point, Nothing Found or Set i r- -L Zone Boundary Line w --- Section Line I I 589'33'42"E 544.39' cc 6.0. N 89'33'40"W M1 182.71' v ro Paint of L 4-1 Beginning �Sj. 5.29 Acres m N i ���1p,�•dY W O N u7 w U N 4 I m �I W z I � _ N O C40 CD u Im 4 Zr 'p A �£J N }° } EL S.s 0 o I V? [7 i �, I h T !-�J 'n lY Scale: 1-=120' 73 O ¢ r7 J 0 30 50 120 240 N i Q ccv I Modified State Plane: Z Ado County Coordinate System 1/4 PREAPP-2023-0144 7 --- 429.00' ___ 258.43' 19fi2.26' E. Pine Ave. N 89'54'57"W C 1/4 P.\Pine 43 HPC Pen Cl—ts-9 4/2t/202A 6-14,37 ON Job No. IDA'HO I-L Zoning Exhibit Drawing for 24-023 SURVEY Pine 43 — HPC Buyer Sheet No. 1 of 1 GROUP, LLC Situated in the SW1/4 of the NW1r4 of Section B. Dwg. date - - r.3N_, RAE., B.M., CRY of Neridlan, Ada County, Idaho_ 8/27/2D24 City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits 104 G. Rezone Legal Description&Exhibit Map Ova ®l Exhibit"A" Pine 43 Mixed Use Subdivision Y.8 EN01N[ENS,INC_ ♦u�[u av q[powwui[s Rezone Legal Description I Project No. 10-24-066 December 19, 2024 A tract of land situate in the southeast quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 8,Township 3 North, Mange 1 East,Boise Meridian,City of Meridian,County of Ada,State of Idaho,and being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the west quarter corner of said Section 8;thence from said Point o£Commencement,South 89'54'57" East, coincident with the south line of the northwest quarter of said Section 8, a distance of 2,649k9 feet;thence leaving said south line of said Section 8,North 00*30'11"East,coincident with the east line of the northwest quarter of said Section 8,a distance of 442,01 feet to the centerline of E. State Avenue;thence leaving said east line,North 89°33'55"West,coincident with said centerline,a distance of 445,03 feet to the Point of Beginning of this description; thence from said Point of Beginning,continuing North 89°33'55"West,coincident with said centerline,a distance of 305.62 feet; thence leaving said centerline,the following three(3)consecutive courses and distances; 1. South 00,128102"West,a distance of 129.11 feet, 2. South 89131'36"East,a distance of 305.69 feet,and 3. North 04°26'05" East, coincident with said easterly line, a distance of 129,31 feet Co the Point of Beginning. Containing an area of 0.91 acres of land,more or less. The above-described tract of land is shown on Exhibit"B"attached hereto and made a part hereof. End of Description. J-U-B ENGINEERS,Inc. This description was prepared by me or under my supervision. If any portion of this description is modified or removed(including,but not limited to,the graphic portion shown on the attached Exhibit"B'}without the written consent of Timothy Harrigan,PLS, all professional liability associated with this document is hereby declared null and void. Timothy Haijbir,PLS 17665 17665 •*O OF ypP r-Z-1 t-) 1'&PS4-- Date tyecember 19,2024 10-24-066_Pine43-Rezone t.doex Page I of 1 2760 West Excursion Lane,Suite 400,Meridian,tD V642-5752 li www.iub,com P T8,376,7330 City of Meridian I Departtnent Report VII. Exhibits 105 E. STATE AVENUE 445.03' N89'33'55"W 3O5.fi2 -P08 N89'33'S5"W —.-- — --.--, w00 -- -- ,�! ,�? I N cal o z S89'31'36"E 305.69' w I Io IQ I I 7 S E. PINE AVENUE tp—oc S89'54'57"E 2649.69' LEGEND — — — — SECTION LINE — —— —— —— — ADJOINER PROPERTY LINE — - CENTER LINE f REZONE LINE L4r}� — CENTER CORNER a 100t.0 -c - QUARTER CORNER 1 75fi 5SCALE IN FEET D — DIMENSION POINTOF �Q POC — POINT OF COMMENCEMENT PCH — POINT OF BEGINNING EXHIBIT "B" PINE 43 MIXED USE SUBDIVISION fl C. 11'B REZONE - LEGAL DESCRIPTION 1 SHEET SITUATE IN THE SE QUARTER OF THE NW QUARTER OF SECTION 8,T3N,R1 E, 1 OF 1 ` JL$E-E-,I- BOISE MERIDIAN CITY OF MERIDIAN COUNTY OF ADA STATE OF I❑AHO City of Meridian I Department Report Fl 06 (J u'� ri �' �couM ®I�WiRPM1 GvuU➢ MR 0009000- Exhibit"All A17 J•V■KM IMEER Y.IMC iF9 MH YOF GIXY/NIES Pine 43 Mixed Use Subdivision Rezone Legal Description 2 Project No. 10-24-066 December 19, 2024 A tract of land situate in the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 8,Township 3 North, Range 1 East,Boise Meridian,City of Meridian,County of Ada,State of Idaho,and being more particularly described as follows; Commencing at the west quarter corner of said Section 8;thence from said Point of Commencement,South 89154'57" East, coincident with the south line of the northwest quarter of said Section 8, a distance of 2,649.69 feet;thence leaving said south line of said Section 8,North 0013t7'11"East,coincident with the east line of the northwest quarter of said Section 8,a distance of 442.01 feet to the centerline of E. State Avenue; thence leaving said east line,coincident with said centerline,the Following six(6)consecutive courses and dislances: 1. North 89"33'55"West,a distance of 799.13 feet, 2. along the arc of a tangent curve to the right,concave northerly,having a radius of 200A0 feet,through a central angle of 1091'16",an are length of 35.56 feet,and a chord bearing North 84'28'17''West,a distance of 35.52 feet, 3. North 79"22'39"West,a distance of 93.29 feet, 4. North 82122'39"West,a distance of 152.26 feet, 5. along the arc of a tangent curve to the left,concave southerly,having a radius of 1,400.00 feet,through a central angle of 11000'20",an arc length of 192.08 feet, and a chord hearing North 87152'49"West,a distance of 191.79 feet,and 6. along the arc of a reverse curve to the right,concave northerly,having a radius of 700.00 feet,through a central angle of 0t`r°48'5I",an are length of 83.25 feet,and a chord bearing North 89158'33"West, a distance of 83.20 feet to the Point of Beginning of this description; thence from said Point of Beginning, continuing coincident with said centerline, the following six (6) consecutive courses and distances: 1. continuing along the are of said curve to the right,concave northeasterly,having a radius of 700.00 feet,through a central angle of 23156'38",an arc length of 292.53 feet,and a chord bearing North 74°35'48"West,a distance of 290.41 feet, 2. North 62'37'29"West,a distance of 193.95 feet, 3, along the arc of a tangent curve to the right,concave northeasterly,having a radius of 300.00 feet,through a central angle of 21°13'33",an arc length of 111.14 feet, and a chord bearing North 52'40'43"West,a distance of 110,50 Feet, 4. along the are of a reverse curve to the left,concave southwesterly,having a radius of 300.00 feet,through a central angle of 17°14'18",an are length of90,z6 feet, and a chord bearing North 50'01'05"West,a distance of 89.92 feet, Decamher 19,2024 10-24-066_Pine43-Rezone2.docx Page I oft 2760 West Excursion Lane,Suite 400,Meridian,ID 83642-5752 J.! www.oub.com ' 24tt.376.7330 City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits 107 S. North 58"38'14"West,a distance of 136-06 feet,and 6. along the arc of tangent curve to the right,concave northeasterly,having a radius of 180.00 feet,through a central angle of 5°12'40",an are length of 16.37 feet,and a chord bearing North 56�01'54"West,a distance of 16.37 feet; thence leaving said centerline,the following nine(9)consecutive courses and distances: 1. South 36°34'25"West,a distance of 66.14 feet, 2. South 89°33'42"East,a distance of 66.41)feet, 3. South 5K38'14"East,a distance of 120.03 }feet, 4. South 00025155"West,a distance of 141.17 feet, 5. South 00026130"West,a distance of 13.37 feet, 6. South 62°37'29"East,a distance of 303.92 feet, 7. along the arc of a tangent curve to the left,concave northeasterly,having a radius of 830.00 feet,through a central angle of 16630'32",an are length of 239.15 feet, and a chord hearing South 70052'45"East,a distance of 238.32 feet, 8. South 79'24'17"East,a distance of 105.67 feet,and 9. North 04041,34"East, a distance of It 6.23 feet to a point on the southerly right- of-way line of E.State Avenue; thence leaving said southerly line,North 03425'52"Fast,a distance of 2 0.00 feet to the Point of Beginning. Containing an area of 2.17 acres of land,more or less. The above-described tract of land is shown on Exhibit"B"attached hereto and made a part hereof. End of Description. .t-U-B ENGINEERS,Inc. This description was prepared by me or under my supervision. If any portion of this description is modified or removed(including,but not limited to,the graphic portion shown on the attached Exhibit"B")without the written consent of Timothy Harrigan, PLS, all professional liability associated with this document is hereby declared null and void. L � ;c,�N Timothy Ham LS 17665 17665 _4 V Lla,Z,4 Date Deccmber 19,2024 I0-24-066_Pine43-Rexone2.docx Page 2 of 2 City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits 108 LINE TABLE NO. BEARING DIST. { Li N79'22'39'1V 93.29' 4 / L2 N82'22'39"W 152.26' 3 L1 799,13' - L N89'33'55"W 2 POB � E. STATE AVENUE ' � I j {C1 � ' w i__ ,J i N- WEBS C AVENUE 7 $ E. PINE AVENUE--i. -- , --•--•- - � - - POG - S89'54'57"E 2649.69° # - SHEET No, CURVE TABLE Na. RADIUS DELTA LENGTH CH, BEARING CH. DIST, 01 200.00' 10'11'16" 35.56' N84'28'17'W 35.52' C2 1000.00' 11'00'20- 19108' N8752'49"W 191.79' C3 700.00' 6'48'51" 83.25' 7 1489'58'33V 83.20' SCALE IN FEET LEGEND T - - — - SECTION LINE - - - - - -- - ADJOkNER PROPERTY LINE - - - CENTER LINE 17665 - REDONE LINE - CENTER CORNER cv \P� ® - QUARTER CORNER 0 - DIMENSION POINT l POC - POINT OF COMMENCEMENT ><'2-It�I POH — POINT OF BEGINNING l EXH1131T "1317 - PINE 43 MIXE13 USE SUB131VIS113N REZONE - LEGAL DESCRIPTION 2 SHEET ��-■oHow�a,itie, SITUATE IN THE SW QUARTER OF THE NW QUARTER OF SECTION 8,T3N, RI E, 1 OF 4 8OISE MERIDIAN CITY OF MERIDIAN COUNTY OF ADA STATE OF IDAHO City of Meridian I Department Report F-log] I w AIrU � U) - w C4 r U] LLI W -M POB W J W w I N7 r- c$ n tr• S 79. l CURVE TABLE No, RADIUS CEL,TA LENGTH CH, BEARING CH. GIST. C4 700.00' 2358'38- 292.53' N7435'48"W 290,41' C8 830.00' 1 B'30'32" 239.15' S70'52'45"E 238.32' LINE TABLE {� NS-[! N0. BEARING DIST. O 1755 L3 N0325'52-E MOO' SEE SHEET I �1P FOR LEGEND. 50 lLa7 SCALE IN FEET EXHIBIT "B" PINE 43 MIXED USE SUBDIVISION REZONE - LEGAL DESCRIPTION 2 5HI ET �4RONOM��IIi,.No, SITUATE IN THE SW QUARTER OF THE NW QUARTER OF SECTION S,T3N, RI E, 2 OF 4 BOISE MERIDIAN CITY OF MERIDIAN COUNTY OF AAA STATE OF IDAHO City of Meridian I Department Report 1 10 SEE SHEET 4 1 1 F• r i r r S00*26'30"w 13,37' cv w Lu I rn Lu Lu � 3p� I I 0 50 SEE SHEET 1 SCALE INFt_I FOR LEGEND, LAI�p r�,N CURVE TAELE NO. RADIUS DELTA LENGTH CH. BEARING CH. DIST. O 17665 :;;u CS 300.00' 21'13'33" 111.14' N52'00'43'6V 110.50, 9 IT C6 300.00' 17"14,1B" 90.26' N50'01'05"w 59.92' H I - l g �'E.-Z-4. EXHIBIT "B" PINE 43 MIXED USE SUBDIVISION 'r Jus REZONE- LEGAL DESCRIPTION 2 SHEET SITUATE IN THE SW QUARTER OF THE NW QUARTER OF SECTION 8,T3N, R1 E, 3 OF 4 BOISE MERIDIAN CITY OF MERIDIAN COUNTY OF ADA STATE OF IDAHO City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ 589'33'42"E= 6. 56.40' / 0 � I SEE SHEET 3 SEE SHEET 3 �4 GGAL-E IN FEE CURVE TABLE NO. RADIUS DELTA LENGTH CH. BEARING CH. DIST. C6 300.00' 17'14'18" 90.26' N50'01'03W 89.92' C7 180.40' 5'12'40' 16.37' N56'01'54"W 16,37' SEE SHEET 1 FOR LEGEND. LA1O NS ` 17665 pFq Y k{p, EXH1131T "B" PINE 43 MIXED USE SUBDIVISION CJUB REZONE - LEGAL DESCRIPTION 2 SHEET SITUATE IN THE SW QUARTER OF THE NW QUARTER OF SECTION 8,T3N,R1 E;, 4 OF 4 SOISE MERIDIAN CITY OF MERIDIAN COUNTY OF ADA STATE OF IDAHO City of Meridian I Department Report Fl 12 H. Proposed Zoning Exhibit ��� f6GlbL6E�'.Wd 1191FIX3�JNN02 l areee of vnwBr� V eue�uo�swx3 Mn9cz ..� OHV01`NtlI01b3Y4t`k £ 'awl'sd33wi�w3 srrr NOISIAIcans 3sn GRIN Sb 3NId y e l l! #� 1 LP I I { I I j LF Jillr3 U City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 113 I. Conceptual Development Plan&Existing and Future Building Elevations—HPC Buyer Property of Z o w w o B,J r' A ` >z� - IX --N,WE96 WAY Q a �o WZC } d ;1 E A3 1! W w ,ems =1 �' s d ❑ = O❑ cc a w IL was' V N,NOLA RD Z o 0 j C aru OO W r r 1 _ M Z N.LOCUST GROVE RC zz(D 0z ZfFf��Z a0 z ?= d� ozM City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ A E 0 V 4J = t,1 � ,0 0 U) �6 ._ ca CL - CL LU W (D i 2rV1i c6 n a a m U aro a) n � E ro o = U a O City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits Fl 15 pp +l y 700 Ilk till l� � v `, .. .!• r d _ t /'+ ynl ,I � y,.'� ," J ��., - .. � �s. .'• �. �.. ram" . metal roofing j., i fi• % i� 1 r� �} metal � •r�T; concrett e/composite panels a � YAE HARVEY PERF17RMANLE CCMPANy `may I .metal storefront t panels Conceptual Elevations Photo of new facility in other company location. Upon future expansion,detailed architectural plans will be provided. Future expansion will also include upgrades to existing building facility. metal roofing ` concrete :storefront panel windows stucco Existing Facility Elevations Upon future expansion,detailed architectural plans will be provided. Future expansion will also include upgrades to existing building facility. City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ metal roofing - law s - _ storefrontF windows stuccos ' concretepanel - y`Zz"4fifl.l y ��.r MW Existing Facility Elevations Upon future expansion,detailed architectural plans will be provided. Future expansion will also include upgrades to existing building facility. metal 1..' roofing - - r I - y roll up concrete panel Existing Facility Elevations Upon future expansion,detailed architectural plans will be provided. Future expansion will also include upgrades to existing building facility. City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits 118 metal roofing roll up concrete door - panel - J - Existing Facility Elevations Upon future expansion,detailed architectural plans will be provided. Future expansion will also include upgrades to existing building facility. metal roofing concrete panel Existing Facility Elevations Upon future expansion,detailed architectural plans will be provided. Future expansion will also include upgrades to existing building facility. City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits 119 1 t metal metal r roofing 1 _ � c concrete _ panel F Existing Facility Elevations Upon future expansion,detailed architectural plans will be provided. Future expansion will also include upgrades to existing building facility. metal roofing metal d I - roofing concrete " I� , u f I r "y panel store€ron windows Existing Facility Elevations Upon future expansion,detailed architectural plans will be provided. Future expansion will also include upgrades to existing building facility. City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits 120 J. Preliminary Plat(date: 8/19/2025)—NOT APPROVED I _ Ng1VYiLp3N11'J31'O�1d 4Ntl t13AW �g�m Q ® Z 98801'uepuayy J. 4�4 -M-IiMi 3 M09a 0HVa1'NV1(11H3WIL 2 'DNI'Ski33Nl'JN3 9-f1T sbc per' ,..,,,. NOISIAIdans 3Sn 03XIW Eb DNA 'y 3 N G e1AL.sy jig Z �m di'l� o���� W44�� Z O Q i9 L � m i alit Z.�w 0 I $ � 48 � a� g � a x 6.2 WEI o i, UrtltitmWyI el w� � 6°g9i 6� Al �� �`~�� m, Lu INN N y I 91 I'M Z n < A ! a.p _ _ a i - $ J u v City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits 121 �� �e�eWe®la:eroud y e SNg11aN0'J:7NLL51%3 .. C'V ` o Zb9£B 01'uelPlaaW 1 s !E EST m O 6 � aob axi3 M 09u OHVCII`NVI OIb3 W au uoismoa �. oN`SH33NIDN3 a-Tr w°^ H°e NOISIAiaens gsn mXIW D 3NId es5 N I 5 U ( a I — ft � d� ili �-�''�Cf1TIllT�TIH7 m,� I. - a� Z e � 4 w W�I ,I . ._ — City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits Fl 22 j Wd NOISN31410311SSNO1110N0'J03SOdONd eue�w s�rpAx3 M re[z .e m„ OHtl01'NVIUIN3W •JIJ1'sa33N1'JN3 e-n-I' ^s ,,, „��mw�TM•• NOISIAimnS 3Sn OWN D 3NId ' N IN I W- ---------------------------------- - ----- --- - - -- s - � a— I. ,a 1 a id x _ rin 1.1 f II °� n � •!t� a j 1 I Ell City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 123 m �� o s N4"Id NgSN3111r13115SNOIi03SOdOad OOb a 1n3 : OHtl01`N7101H3N1 $ 1! @ 3 CL b 'aN�saaaNlE 3 e n r 'P`` _^ tl, NOISIAIfl9ns 3sn 43XIIN U 3Nld N E - -�•� 9 �i• �n- € •AF�Lr r� n� �1 i I �e • q� A❑ ,t ❑ ❑ ! �_ .I 771 pI, I i -- I I+ I � I Ip City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 124 mE�= oa LO 1� $ NV'Id NgSN3Y110 311S LLIOW SNON 03S0d0kld �qq�m O ON ams x OHtl01'NtlI01H3W A Es 4 CL ONI'S83 NIMN3 e r 'S`` win NOISIAZ966 3sn 03XIW D 3NId H .---.— � w - E I +� m�•ae^C e� I 4 P g3i aE '%' i� "s I R� or o -- ----•-----•-- -------------- City — aeon x of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits Fl 25 K. Phasing Plan—NOT APPROVED � 9 .II �I f mo ! l o ooN � F- J w W j m z J E OJA �V os ❑ � a ❑ z LU _ m a City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 126 L. Landscape Plan ----...._-----------.-----------_s._ R. El o� o„ uxi H m m m m N m � m N m m m N N r o p J J �s o o j /- -- i. Z. LL f o-' w U) F Q c*) U a m w / s z a � a/., u � Z o Z a w F- r H H =p w LU p � �z W.w � _ as ❑ _ roc w> oW w��oWm z ❑ W °� = w;i cJ _ z z3wiz o-ppIV. O �N s ❑ �y f -iwEd U xiwsa Q w i% d w _ Z a� H 6 W ; Wa " U I City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 127 M. Fencing Plan ------------ RFR z _ sl � I, I � ®❑ Cm� I • J p Q ® IQ `�- LO r ° :r o o=o Y❑��� ss o0 o J D W =� 0o Q U U U S i wm a ¢r wo 4Y ¢Y OW z? z? ° ❑ i° i aw �Z �Z Ze Od' N 4 N4 u�o CJ_ ❑ ❑ >� _ _ Z LL® Z = - M � , LU H W � _ i 2 We City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 128 N. Overall Open Space Exhibit-NOT APPROVED - — ,III l ; I - 1 ill V a K m J 1 i I II III _ ___ -_____ r 1 0 — a � oo - Qr I �f m ( e j f u ° LO Y' 1 --- O a J ° uLLi � w � � w !f1 Z. z y o o Z a �W awr, °wc`„i afO om czi� U 16 16w0. �e o w w z wo w �d ( �I J °° X -- - w I City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits 129 O. Pedestrian Connectivity Plan—NOT APPROVED _i - -r �1 I � u � O LJ = - I Aw C �0.1 Yh 7� z J a w -- �� O 5 o F- J w u m y 4 W o o I J Jy W V z } ¢ ¢ V 6 4 0 z 4a z a ❑ ❑ 4 w ❑ Q� w w Z > z m wy w G u x ¢ a w- ❑ ¢ o m a Lu W i LLU ° ma J o X W a City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 130 P. Bicycle Parking Exhibit (D L LO C � N r: 1 1 r U -- Cam- P❑ C 1 O >t o 0 oGp p�o e 0 0 R ml R C RN J a ❑ p ppp O�y � 9 O�y p OW l�L F F 9 F- Fq # w �000 Z,g Y 68 �88 �86 88 88 $$ � 68 8S 8S � 55 mGk mGG mGG m�G EGG mG� mGe mGG mGG m�G myy myy mGG G fee y¢ zm m' Naa Nas raa Nas Asa Naa Naa ri ss Naa r s „-;ss --- --- -- � � ��� g99 099 099 099 099 099 099 099 099 099 099 099 09 093 om��o w City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 131 Q. Site Plan—Multi-Family Development OgRP! mmw2 ) 5 auiff - \ ` z��\a \ I # ■ � - / }» , Ph ; R. RLU § ■ ,.,. .! „ 4 ) | ,,,, .; . ) , •! | \ . ) AN L .! 23 j w----------� � I | I � II � . § ) I � I ' � � ❑ � � ❑ I j � � I zb �Mi © — )§ I ) F_ I ! a I � § I ` / W_ !r§§ § E E , e. w; . § I a <�|() §r}§; 2 L» \ . §J■} /g \� _ & . _ | /]! ( 2 2 . ., ) �i§r§; 2§�$ \ � H. G ! 0a JLU YC) 00<_�o of0%<20 \� . \ ! Qe! ! /§ ! \` ^ )§§ City of Meridian Department Reprt V11. Exhibits ,w R. Qualified Open Space& Site Amenity Exhibit—Multi-Family Development e � 3 9�9 xQ z o � � W ° - W Z a OIE O w O — W — U Y w U d O m W W Z UJ o lL -__> ___- _ -_ O LL r O —W / m City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits F1 E € § LLI s I w� p}} w C $ 2 LL a m § s Qa 29� y 1 b3 1 3" 9 a Y5 V T i� — —— � --- AVm 993M N LL o'a I� w U a O p '► En 'Z" uj o ° } LU LU Zoo a r w o �ia N o co !, 8 3 e Ki33HB-338.3W14GlVW a LL RQ00 A Q m� X wp City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits Fl 34 I --•--- -v. Y - Fn }s I � Igo i m la1 777 o o 4 U n _ LO LU �f 0 � f J �4 d u� Q �� J 04 V w y 1l =e J City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits F135] S. Conceptual Building Elevations—Multi-Family Development 44 OgePIIUUIPlJaw x•p eg EF'P=x£g �b �� .3 ' i e QZ � J LLI _ N Lf § Q LOLQLO m Lftj Y LI M I �I I I LV I I I I I I I I =4 I eR I I I I ae � I I I x n I c9i I I I I I I I I I I I ir— ..-. r oEd 3 0 I I I � I I ; I i I I I I A I I I H LA LEI A LALM 'LtlLll �4 any �,4 w4 �� City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 136 ee__w DOUP \ --y----�--------�\- i 2 � } / / " § � . ( \ LO � - i �. \ h O, -- m} � (\ , \ nk _ ----- ( ® / . \ &. . J / Lfu Lks @�4 Ls +Ll LF , » LFU LOU- @LAU LI&FLhA \) �) !§ (§ City of Meridian Department Reprt V t Exhibits F137] ! §: - !/ / , |/ �m 04e R-_w / paw■() ��d2w J ` -- ;£ � D� : E |iEl EV 3 § ƒ( ] ITI � �77 ) � � WE31 | ; R Er N EJ - !� |; EJJ g | � | • § i � • | ,. o / 9 / .>•.-�r ;HH City of Meridian Department Reprt V t Exhibits Fl 38 T. Site Plan and Conceptual Building Elevations for Height Exceptions , �a»,a u - a,J)� ) � ! / § / ALA \ § — 22 _. � � ! ) :! a o/ � i `y----- § ' ;! !, ) .. ._ . _ » . . > o. City of Meridian Department Reprt V t Exhibits ,y U. Conceptual Building Perspectives for Overall Development a4ePI LUIPPew SS ayLLI IL U W G a t r' 5 { f n +f. l 0 5 City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 140 ■ R a 2� � § \1b4itpi,#�� i) § y> » m� ■ § J £ 7 9 � ! � | I � � _ A | � § »J- ej X� | . | � | | § � | | | � City of Meridian Department Reprt V t Exhibits ,41 V. Conceptual Building Elevation for Townhomes —srr ' 1 �r _� � wwwwwww�_wwww � wwwwww_ww��_ w wa ww w wwwww - www - a! a� a J�I'S:...•f �+ - _ City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 142 W. Floor Plans—Townhome and Multi-family Residential a PO4sJoc] Abe°�7i-.{I,£� ou�,'u a e I = �s�ste�as a�aaa g aGa rl � Et]� a K� i� N Ti 3 Uzi �a 4as u A t m� CL a 5 n A J aF g o J •an�x xarrn J h LL al a n City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 143 X. Use Comparison/History Table § 7-4 � § � k $• § § [$ k § f & | ) ) ) $ § 7 } ) ) § « k � \) / \ � / \19 f ) ) § =7 \ m § § $ ! ! f k C6 f i \ F ) ƒ 2 ; ) C ) § C6 � 2 � \ E \ lu ai@ A $ � § q \\ k § k \ 2 \ �66 a E § § ; ) T r LL w £ $ 2 2f } ) ] G ] f u ( z = City of Meridian Department Reprt V t Exhibits ,& Y. Setback Exhibits gg } O CD H pome � � : =.JB'�7� Ogeep!'ue!puaw . 8�a S738€�8+� �alH 88,H92I $ 6 44 El A'x9 o•, -a•r I J I L a I d C L _ I 1 N j 'D if. r I � I � 1 M ------------ City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits F145] .2 Y Powe OqePI'Llel IJBW a CD 8 .E yCL CL �x�xte�ass��aa � �n a P 1 t y I I II 1 , I I I co O CL 1 1 _ R L i17 I �} ED L City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits Fl 46 a ! m paw uep. p. a 3 1 f a r r rr I 11 r 1 +r f � f 4 2 , � I I I i � y U � d , I m CL , I J R LL m W City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits Fl 47 Z. ammmgHeight/Stories,Roof Top Ameileand#odium Parking Tab k \ & ( aa f ( { \ {{ \ \/ ; \zz z {\\\ zzzz ! I� ) £ kflk \ \ \ : 61 \ / ] ! ) 2 2 ! 2 & ) /zz zz zz z = ) ¥ \ \ \ & \ 1. \ \ ` \ LD { { ( f k � ) ) k ) k § f § 2a 2ie : ' ±tff g ) � : tea 2 � ) ) ) CD '9 q & = n@ � 7 City of Meridian Department Reprt V t Exhibits ,# AA. Legal Description& Exhibit Map for Property Subject to HPC Buyer Development Agreement IDAHO 99391N Emerald 5t SURVEY Boise, ID 83704 Phone: (208) 846-8570 GROUP Fax: (208) 884.5399 Pine 43-HPC Buyer -L Zone Boundary Description Project Number 24-023 August 27,2024 A parcel of land situated in the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 8, Township 3 North,Range 1 East,Boise Meridian,City of Meridian,Ada County,Idaho, and being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at a brass cap marking the west quarter-section corner of Section 8,from which a brass cap marking the northwest corner of Section 8,bears N00°26'22"E, 2649.67 feet; Thence N00°26'22"E,606,31 feet along the west line of the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter to the POINT OF BEGINNING: Thence continuing N00'26'22"E,91.58 feet along the west line of the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter; Thence S89"33'42"E,544.39 feet; Thence 558"38'14"E,166.73 feet; Thence 500°26'20"w,607.96 feet to the south line of the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter; Thence N89"54'57"W,258.43 feet along the south line of the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter; Thence N00"25'43"E,254.36 feet to a 1/2"iron}yin; Thence N00°26'36"E,203.64 feet to a 5/8"iron pin; Thence N58°57'25"W,286.10 feet to a 5/8" iron pin; Thence N89"33'40"W,182.71 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. The above-described parcel contains 5,29 acres,more or less, 1 4 70 Page 1 of 1 rr L S. City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits 149 Legend 6 5 E. Fairview Ave. a Found 112' Iron Pin 7 8 a Found 5/8" Iron Pin Found Bross Cop Monument a Found Aluminum Cap Monument A Calculated Point, Nothing Found or Set �y I-L Tone Boundary Line Section Line ' , II S89'33 42 E 544.39, 00 00 SsB. $'7 N 89'33'40"W ti 182.71' on US Point of oi Beginning �Sj2 5.29 Acres 0 W CY W N v I m �I W zI N � � IJ rt v 4 z dA y {� N a EL S. o fl , v7 L I 01 �YJ TT 5Ca1e: 1 -120' icy U � � 0 30 50 120 240 N ¢ C' Modified State Plane: � II Ada County Coordinate System 1/4- PREAPP-2023-0144 7 fL$ --- 429.00' - - - 258.43' 19s2,26' E. Pine Ave. N 89'54'57"W C 1/4 P\Pi"61 I I K FBA ZL -071£'hblty-4 Cf2T/4oje 4.Is:2i�lA Job No. IDAHO I—b Zoning Exhibit Drawing for 24-023 SURVEY Pine 43 — HPC Buyer Sheet No. 1 of 1 GROUP, LLC Situated in the SM/4 a( the NW1/4 of Section S, Dwg. Date T-314., R.1E-, R.M.. City at Wridlon, Ada County, Idaho_ 8/27/2024 City of Meridian I Department Report F-15o] 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 151 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 152 E IDIAN;--- Applicant Presentation Pine 43 : Mixed Use -I 4 � �VI��. �.r —' if'i. �2�Ea 1� ks�ny�l �. p ar '�tiaHt i yy� A -- �� v t U7. I d: � � 4L J1 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission CA 1 11 DA • • • Pine 43 E - FA act XNAWIA — _ � 7.�r•� 6 •v r � � � � . � I p •e � T•S".. f{ �• _ M + - #4 PI N E43 '�-• - •= ' PROJECT ARE . 1 i t y �.. a .W6 - Mill.I i M— Few. + Commission Requests • Compatibility • Block 4, Lot 1 Vertically Integrated Building • Buffer to light industrial in southeast corner • Fire Department comments • Open Space I � � - MEL Iq POP ouu.Eluuulrul N Nrl I11E11111rEri �ItEIIIdI mwr >. 7+�IFfI .,]III ?� �•� _ ' — j�y `� � ��� �� # f�! 4 .f,.] `fie t �_ a kx A G -77 'jam _ �_. s•. 4. ----. - --------------------- o r — � •rr r � � r Compatibility Mow An- qk- � r t I L RUT _ „y ■■{{ -.wEAvr a LLiy yI'}IF PrI _ k # -- 4 r - .`�' T+ } 1�� Try , - I +� ' T. k LEGEND L- I rAMN:SE0 TOMNIOK1Ey _ Tr ►:i PA-0P SE0 kkknx<,wLr PROPOSED LERTWd-LY-WEGRATEQ -PR'O OWD RESTAUAA A r P0.^�PQ�ED Ig76,k -PR0PO(--0 OFFICE I I• W. FiQFOSEU WED TECHLqM)XXK AREA I I i x 7 : I L I I t QVF-RA4L WHEMATIC COLOR MA5TIER PL -PHE da MI)CI502." � � LkF- rT----r---'- SFfEF t OF'� HIP Compatibility 1 / / / / 5 STORY VERTICALLY INTREGRATED RESIDENTIAL BUILDING WITH ENHANCED / SOUND TRANSMISSION CLASSIFICATION / (STC)IMPROVEMENTS 1 f 1 1 / KAR AUTOMOTIVE / CLASS 2 COLUMNAR 0 ❑ OL1S EVERGREEN TREE SHADEHADE TREE-30- 30'HEIGHT,10 40 FOOT HEIGHT FOOT WIDTH AT j AT MATURITY MATURITY a a 8'HT.MASONRY t WALL AT PROPERTY LINE / PARKING LOT 20' 26' DRIVE AISLE WIDTH PARKING TERMINAL (roc TD FOC) 10' LANDSCAPE PATHWAY PLANTER ISLAND PLANTER ISLAND 42.3' PROPERTY LINE TO EXISTING BUILDING FACE 105' BUILDING-TO-BUILDING Compatibility MULTI-FAMILY HRPPY FNPpq,INC. I I-�1!J ' e i .. BLOCK JI L LOT 2 _] i I f �• El o w _ �ENIsSY I I MULTI-FAMILY Bn PP BLOCK 1, �3.3' ppExtt�rE*0 Siw'G v aapw Ki LOT 1 I �n1S 'ON ELEVATION AT VIR BUILDING TO bTHERN PR PERTY LINL I J. A } I F — I 3 } PROPOSE08' TALL MASONRY A WALL BACKSTAGE DANCE CENTER,PATIO LIFE, EAC MOUNTAIN GEAR INSULCO INC. K8.H AUT M ANNEX INC.,TOUGHLINECUSTOMS, (HUNTING RE TA.L {INSULATION (AU10 REPAIR SHOP) HORROCKS ENGINEERS STORE) CONTRACTOR) • • (IdULTI-TENANT) E. COMMERCIAL ST. i E. COMMERCIAL ST. r EXHIBIT 8-MULTI-FAMILY LOT 1 BLOCK 1 - BUFFER EXHIBIT Open Space/Amenities - -C /f eL�—w 11 I13077.125E - -- _ r�•. . � - -_- i 21 _= = - ______ ____- _---- __ _ __ K LOTS °�-__ ;__- _� - -���•.,~ R-�0� - � . -. ------------------------ 41,463 SF PUBLIC PLAZA 1-L RUT 3L'JCK i, y LOT 3 - 6LOGK d, CgLOLK-d. .975E �.. ..... �. LOr3 'LOT4 r 1&729.97 a1 A931705F _ .� aLocic•2. L, ... .p ..........� C_G � - - 17.017.425E 13,1]8.15 SF 6';905�71�SF' _ ' BLOT Z4, i3,343.17y5P 14,] � � B orTlcl x, ,+�w, H87.2S'SF _ 0 2.975F ILJI r 1Y= VE 11,710 - LEGEND L-C> I in rt o R o o 'aesll 21 .255 COMMON OPEN SPACE - --262,682.09 SF-6.03 ACRES „ 1a.2,e sa s P nor z ROOF TOP AMENITY DECK PERSPECTIVE _ --I.OT. �. ... ... BLOCK3 �TT-� 2109.61 SF ? QUALIFIED OPEN SPACE(R-150NLY) r I I� `Y/ a 49,fl47.11 SF-1.12 ACRES -- �. -- --.. i 2.630.125E C-G a OPEN SPACE ON NON-RESIDENTIAL LOTS 58,676A1 SF-1.36 ACRES - 7,a .7 5p BLDGK t. i � LOT 1 I � 29,7a6 SF o'1? PRIVATE OPEN SPACE(NON-RESIDENTIAL LOPS ONLY) L-0 SC K 3� 34,678.5 SF(8,190 SF OPEN SPACE NOT SHOWN ON HOTEL) {1 4 D,4258f SFI 0.79 ACRE$ m- r � TOTAL SITE AREA:36.58 ACRES d TOTAL PROVIDED OPEN SPACE.406,084.11-9.3 ACRES-25A%OF SITE '%ME:SEE EMISIT 9 FOR PIISLICIONASI4'IJBLIC OPEN SPACE DES,GNATIONS_A-15 L 10ECAPE - -'- -- SVFFER ALONG E.STATE AVE.TO 9E ENHANCED PER ODG 11 80-32 �� .......... ISM A IRA not Big 9 ILMOkMmi-i =ffmw _ .■■■:,._... � ��lllllll�l iiiiiili�iiiii�ii� INNIMEMEMEEMEMER 0. r 0.0.0.1.0.0.r 2..0 ■ MR.ow 18.121 SF W. ---------- ammmm. MUM 1, WISH 10 I .................. mmm .......NONE■....... MEMEMEMEMEN IPI r II II Jill art I k ---------- -Z Connectivity _ _ -_ =-�_ 7' __Il._ __ -TT I. Lill ----------- R I -15- I.- -4Ur. ....... ---------------------- pp RUT E.STATE AVE. RTR C—G CE Hiliffliffliffli 0 I, LEGEND Eli W.PIN 10'WIDEDETACHED PATHWAY DETACHED SIDEWALK ATTACHED SIDEWALK 13 10 13 E �j 111111111111111111 CROSS WALK i ACCESSIBLE ROUTE L-0 E;Qa 7 wm BIKE LANE SIDEWALKS INTERNAL TO SITE 77=' . 7 Fii-m I I-ii I I I I M-Tir-1i--m I 10'WIDE MULTI-USE JACKSON DRAIN PATHWAY C—G .j ACCESS TO SC E NTSY CAMPUS I O'WIDE PATHWAY L-0 CONNECTION TO PROPOSED 0 RAILS-WITH-TRAILS ACTION PLAN .......1011111 114-M I L E WALKING DISTANCE 011, W, zk EXHIBIT 4 PEDESTRIAN-CONNECTIVITY PLAN Fire Service The Meridian Fire Department will respond to this development, but our response will be inadequate due to staffing and equipment. Additionally, this project will require a Technical Fire Protection Report to be submitted to the Meridian Fire Department for review to address all criteria as required by the adopted 2018 International Fire Code and Meridian Title 10, Chapter 4 as it relates to Fire Protection and Fire & Life Safety Requirements for Mid-Rise and High-Rise structures. I • Pine 43 will meet all IFC requirements for aerial access for buildings over 30'. • None of the Pine 43 buildings are high-rises. The taller buildings are mid-rises, similar to others in the City that receive City fire service, including the Bri, Scentsy, Sheels, BVA, and ICCU/Compunet. • The nearby Fire Station #1 has a ladder truck to serve mid-rise buildings. Request to Commission • Recommend Approval of Annexation, Rezone, DA Mod, Preliminary Plat, and CUP ( Height and M-F) • Strike two of staff's recommended conditions (prior hearing requests) : • DA #2 (requires removal of residential south of Pine) • PP #3f (requires Animal Farm plat to be recorded before Pine 43 final plat application) • Additional requests: • Condition of approval that project meet required open space standards for alternative compliance and multi-family on Block 3, Lot 2. • Block 1, Lot 2 open space design be approved in a future design review application with public space amenity in lieu of berm requirement. Block n Public Open S 14.W6 SF LOT 2 kw 1 ' LI BLOCK 1. IDENTIAL L=7 _ l h.••v n III �'II n V' • y� �'• ..add � Wit-. �,z,,� i yy A -- �� v t f i Thank you Supplemental Slides Phasing 7--r7-) - J- t -� �� R-15 +f LL- i R-40 rt.a -- -- - I-L RUT � Lm� �« LEGEND L-0 L r �U � 0 i �+ i 0 PwlSE S k.•-k7 � � .I. rnASE 6 P T Lr0 ©PWLREb aaicxs 40TE PHASING SEOUEWE MAY BE APA13TEO BRSEO ON MARKET COf.MIT*mS i- ... ~.. . y PHASING PLAN WtFH SITE PLAN _ TH Elevation 777 ! _!_w_!_ wwlw�www!!wlw�i� "max r Elevations „1 xemr�eir� _ Q id r r� BLOCK J.LOT 1-VERTICALLYJNTEGRATED RESIDENTIAL BLOCK 2.LOT 2-VERTIC.AELY INTEGRATED RESIDENTIAL BLOCK 3,LOT 1•OFFICE _ 9LOCK T,LOT 2:MULTIFAMILY BLOCK 3,LOT 2-MULTIFAMILY - _ 5 L BLOCK 3.LOT 3-OFFICE SACK 4,LOT 1.UNIT B-VERTICALLY iNTEGRA7ED RESIDENTIL BLOCK 4.LOT 1,UNIT -HDTE& BLOCK 4,LOT 1,UNIT C•COMPKRCU,L BLOCK 4,LUT 1,LRdITO-COMMERCIAL BLDCX 4.LOT I.uN I E-VERTwALLV INTEGRATED RESIDENTIAL 1 �4 IL I aRPllcafion ele,+afionst pempecMs AFX rNV7P/{LrLF,sTn{A�unUxr [wrpcWM/IfF+V+�W�59r Ru, M4 r.PN5r4Rrsp�W44 Pp. v4s —44U PA, - .—VMRsirr iwpq¢,4Fr mTtFkLL PA&wr ACT-A CE71rR4 PWdkY4hi PEBThW/P8 rJL PJ9LC BrY,CE •roia<3►,M.Gl�Br bTxlM3 axdMP id11 L'Yw,YiL w,b ra�AaliSr[T4r Preliminary Plat PREUMINLARY PLAT FOR ' PINE 43 MIXED USE SUBDIVISION lFGMOIIm6X1[ SMATfD IN 7HE SOUTH ROLF OF P-E NORTHWEST Q.t4RTER aND THE NOR-I-AL F OF TI-E SOUP-ME57 QUARTER OF SECTION d -- TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH.RANCE 1 EAST.BOISE MERI]NN MERIDIAN.IDAHO a x ' 2026 x � ' y r 1 ..R.,.,JLL..AL....l16�3d� Y ••, a— ?$ M I-.- a AP "� �•'t} ,.r Sheet List i K pP#1 {a}vf R/IIQPIb71ECI-XFC4lWIKrY i..., 5 iPJ! E%91F1�C4r6TWh9 a e F APA PPdP}7��h01TCrIErBr7E6u}�pr PAW WM PPQPI}1ET19911 pDrOWMiDWJQgr r-M I� } -P'A PPGP07M40VR&&Pr7EC-WZM64 PLAN Ir ia-11 pukCUq'Tr PL* �I , 1 rwa WP4GU14Tr aP#lE9 �=i-" 44 w�1 WY4G4141rF�4iB Ik;� ERi' 9FaFR PalIEk PF QE-� wP11 —1145—IIIIH . 2 I v�Pwtxs mi7 !1{Xi IIy H[IaQ6AM1]XG{r11MQR Iy� - 0MIE 9EVELCPIM ] $rs 11 ram'.u,5 yoT 1 h�1111CW JR.iEM 75��� LUTLH Ri%JN524R41FGFNII _ R ,ARCHFrECT LNIU9GaPE ARCFiTECT itltrrd4r SC.J4.Tr,1K � }bl• P!r/O+IrfNIK4 1.a[�C.'[14XSiwYTQIS _ y �n�1nu �r u�strvrirt�Fr �! cs,rx i� � k� � � r..q.ewo,5•rrr rws.errel5�sn ptr AY+Y 401er rXalv{yy,Xy ••.slrc r.l[I 5k• 6 LANDSUR•uEYTSR CMLEMMEER Sf 41Pr94iR irJ2Ri i. u�.am n• a 2 .CxR,Ch9iC14r 2aiI�F ilSW MSl} Ir11'ISr]•Ii WAI rF1Wv2w�.lplRnl4X Tf w j VL 1rC�P 2 PwOR?£ralrlGl C w.�lc4o4�11»r �ewuv.� + .ciauwoaln FpENERyy4ATEA: RBApwAf m� O Flp�¢ UhD L43E!.IMVARV m+'v1[rsr urnaurrl.vww tmrw. =1d ]5l.211a22"iY4lnC ]Rltl.yd flR!21 fnC3 _ WIFA tp]Rtaid ++" .wrrvx ewe,-.ry [f4Tb.}J69tlrh[..rrounmaarm.�m glYi9 M¢nrF. was 2wx >WK lIR1pVl0.illU hYa612a•aa}r jam � .,...rx....sz..�.�e..•�.Kdini��hi.l wcaar.rcaa..i...aw�..ie awn ]i imi ^�py.lani Iloa a.lu•uo L. r;1 �I•+""� Lwr[M•SGMRIrK ��� lw alive ru x�i.ytvrn,viv•1. " SY rrcma�wrrx¢w rwwrxn era py�q[Ia Yr10,5: 101 � W —� H•nI1,M = •Y. '�1r112 2�• 1 i0151 MIui .ArS 1.1C a[ILIP]111w1khaOt S. i�Iki0.12a �rO12tu'1e1L t P0'iER: IRF4aATgN019TRWF. �— _ rna.al_[nuncui.r>Lr..rrr_*.a5 un5arwu a.IwoXl uo�an}r.w.r. quprp�.r ru�arew�em� ry a -- "— 9.R>rfRYJR=IAR: r� �n�axr�vnwaLYBXWIu�hltwlrvri�i.hlr4xar8lLlL6.a r11 W',h G4rt6�AIr gRr4,Or 494�n � �1J -- —lrnr�lrvxnla5 use—�— ,„,� +.X�rXwXl rXlnn lllo lno rou u.ru..arv, wpwrcwwwrrauimlmXpl �W i YN4 6 mr. 4MFt6Ys 6MBI "^�� 4,arr4„r•lK "IX��i- 2 SrM NURI1wrYM a!•'l•SD nlRH S•rC Y,.r../lA61L R2 ri11r11Lr IRi}.lrl rr4�PelriW ixai.4q�il�, �� ; 4[nlRR :,. M �ovw1 y/a ryyl{ra(pm„nw d�r9li LliWAL r.yrrCp 4alA G ►aCMwrtaiiwa:n:iu.x�f4lrhAl4lcrh[Mwah rwllaaaalWwW MIE89,.RE IPieGTI�F IFOUCAT01WOMTRICT ..w�atawiatnnw l i�'IINAI'4L`G rl Wi{v 3,!�tPWallddP IN 11,M .P.w h,inrw•,N r11[�51rh•r �r km To,PPrArx>' Z ❑ rxealbnlar Wl,Y SnMUI,L.Y•r•. ..",..� wDf{'2 a111GWIXl Fa}`I ll.pry b•,dWf[H i.rx ruaMCa.r..11ro pqy,{+I�OI Ir. 4J {5rri+v+isr l ISr1iu•.q glli fNBL 4MJIltti d w.lw,.. � rnow,m`anan Foi.Sal.wall, a mf_�-� ¢ �" uiwnxYr.xlxa«wns.u:lr��+�w�ta mrwi'Irwu.�`"r•iw�,-r`f+�w1 iC9RmOCYaiiRAl6L s�i G1Z YrkRG?fr}+'SI+'p=:[M]rMSw 0,.'..W P! —.. trr,.tWrceiL I I Il�hYw[i1GMhr,h]xTPou.•SPrh.'S!F114RW,80]I,OT6VTP fGk�0,2}Jw KI1g1Y141r1F1S 4 -0K4b,LiGwG Yi flLPwllw xwufrukbl+<511w iuwi illai wC111� d i+llr.bx Aa wr+wil VR:a e440i tpl�wµi r+4�ui�wa CEq W.D.I.Y. ,se aowvn 1 a�011CµT11Cqu6rrC IaP w.rTl�wrw5i�ls�i�rcwwlomar�ctsrx l/���! ,�� I aK_Mr M21Lh1.11ullo.LruiLMxLyhfr lxiuhdlaMrx —. �- moeur�t.e�ex� normo4,xxuorw�rm�*aw4wrw�-�a��Fa,r� _ _ r+n0•+wM1 4wlT4+!R,,Gu,4•Muu+4.RnSnry __ —.— W}4+e srn 11 sr,erl � 12 rcao--�-llaowio-was,n�uor•w mingKulln rlRaGl i•4+111 a4+wPDX `µ! +Y "•+wi Y» i.r ii 5d,5..-..4l4wl4•eawwlr.i8ir nrilR,1Rl Rl•irwr04i �+. rvK14w u:xi�i.w rxvice.•l.on. 161� — tl .....ee.... Y ..r..,r. erser, II�+.�,;,-wa-,.2.w,r�r•.�lX4 rnrawrr+rww.+�owararx,rtm-tor ��-- r�lnw er IRti *,l•K +ar..rs,2.rrn�.erT2-i*.l weal ounarl•ar. u 16U 865 ",�.� . m 'I url Xis ..:•,<rrnr.lva sw.ciw..umr a .�maa •wrc�n ,e,sndnn..c rr-l�. �d14Yfral " �•. ^• 40 w..al rrtun pE 51r h,L ern'lyllrn Xaolconl..Xaww _������ �5 •us rcv�cw+yrsxmwnvmn4alomcxi clr�oco••o.a�q[N,crula PP-01 1100ti M,.[aY1LYl+'RNfl•4d19r xNF[XIdFGNr4T[=-K M-:x u,=•1 dOP4 T�lb IY!bb" or.,rXn,lalwXl —.__..__— uraar a�iiw,r uwuxwiwolai11wm1vellrX• Public Utility Plan �� LkGEVI: nlVE4@9 n lxt. ' �' cawnaa a.eu a wane c an xm �w S m Ra .a.L'....•.J rVll[lt S:AIEHREET m __ __ [rlp�f1ATl'altlf a.a{F Se4STPPm _-__ Rw¢Lnoll wLl.gLe Eenrnii�e e.hmueEo �I wlxxlnl�nonx T�{[LNPIJEJJs SEWER LICE P e4T VEE❑ 7II�-L`] tl6[CMG �uFALI.EE £8E 3yEET�POB vu.TEa•EnTp xpn-� I`IL EVER LNE A' EEYVTR—E� _E RI[ETPv g a Tpxwe,admPER wJo.'nx -_ y-_--._ GIK K FAR,[J/ LSTFH LI}E 9-SEE&FEETC'] Q o 'ate RJB VN[ 4['Jx lea l.I w K K EET .or FSM%Vf ££N£ALItEI J —21 ETPn tp Jo,m.eJl,e nLwurcnaMrt wo5 � nK KAX r Btxtx Ll\[ .2`_E81[[I I•I'.10 �LVa].YT[rrvY oaewmnalaA rtwl]rreLTweea PTM V�VTM G6ilOn ............ ..r�! S ~�. I����Q]+++Tr � U`�' '""'R'—`•—Ire--�I' II' II 3r E „- �i � sw "3=N9[IllEE 2 S_ __. ._.:.__ ---'---------------•------ -'---.....-.fir. -- ---- co p zD n �... .IhEn [L 1 -- _ --- P PP-06 r+ Fe n ci ng - - - - .. ;11111111 lull III _ 1 } y] rm i4 i 1Y k k z f I-L RUT l . - IJ v B �� 1. t93.—4 LOT 3 = LUI : BLOCK+ ❑F+ I LOTS f . # L'L'3_K1 II n U ! L'J I 1 OII�— I0 LOT 7 ;I f o o ,41 {, LEGEND L-0 - PROPGSEDVEGETATIVE o o o ❑� �� I } SCREEN OR BUFFER rL45T 2, I I ELOOF 1 I r,.LCK ' I PROPOSED B''OrHT.MASONRY L6i e. n WALL o ■I�I��I�1�11 EXISTING ADJACENT 4-MT. dh CHAINLINI41 III�III�III E74STING ADJACENT THT. CIG CHAIMINK WITH BARRED WIRE L-O bLVLT ' it xj i. ------------- FYHIRIT'i-FFNf INf; CUP — Height Exception �F Y!]T FOR y J xs,xusnw e �E D LL J �! y — uw�ns,�xn�r ' � rtuuuuu��- i ssxc-wore+w� ff �5 CD _ 7V7 _a BLOC.:91 LOT i ac.a El 11 BGLLL-,rIF-I'k b If i (poverall site t - ,are MEN— t SGILE Var Mq development 2pp11C2t1on f I�eight axcepliona SS1Plk-1�1F-"N CUP — Multifamily Use PROPOSE DAM ENiTiESffYPICAL] POOL SPA CABANNAS PICKELBALL COURT ROCCEBALLC0URT + 4 GRASS AREA I [ O l I I ❑ -�` ❑ � �IIIl III ❑ ❑� U IIIIIIII�I � ❑ ❑ a - I BLOCK 1 LOT 2 SITE PLAN BLOCK 3-LOT 2 SITE PLAN —M- 1.=40'_0. 1.=.C..o. r r . � i wqv mooa drMWmett w ww eoasa,. • '° apppcada� �]L PI4:n •Fi W�FT6dY1 MIe 80 FXPEPIVaI ��� r ,nc- LYri T3W.MR�rn P�FDxAeOe Eo P6xJ w P~ee ae,3 o Td-..,PuFAC.wEWwd'/4rlT Dr,,M r eBrtPGx�sYir aL-r lCaE>a<B+Y.e>•e'+4s naps UEO PxE aaPXH�•!1 {t21Mf]nA1#q 1Y E%TE4YLJ `10004 ' V i. _ _ s;n■ ■ a®ao■o�i�e�sw i A L © 0.11 �� d Ar &UM mil` 1 �,• IIIIIIIIII��� � y y s; TT tiL� '+�7Y lVs i�- •�.�S� �ii��wi�it�g��iia�i'�-iaG �rv1 � Amenities - Multifamily STREET % UFFER AMILY o . � tri tto.'DECK �i �1��LU ROOF TOP AMENITY DECK PERSPECTIVE .. _N ®� a " : . PEN SPACE SITE AFAENrFY LEGEND GALLCUTNOTESI-&E-LI- EQ RTR ON F KEY MAP ,,,kEXHIBIT 7 MULTI-FAMILY-LOT 2,BLOCK 3 SITE AMENITY AND OPEN SPACE �1 Elevations - Multifamily ONO Q �I�cL nx 41Lrif''1�r��" T)BLOCK 3, LOT 2 SITE PLAN ----------------------- a s �. _ - - -------'r F ----------- -- _ - - • . SdLLE-7�]r.Yp ni E_rrai nr e�u,wL.s�xwwe.0 varw no.anu,rn .cuc-iar.i� trwm�Lra.�ru�FeeRcewbr� �{ ------------------ ' d�+relopma --- ----- appllcatlon suie-+ui•+w 61ock 3,tal2 c,.lcraaR wvaniw-wwurw µ�ave�+c>i�a*++ CICGdtl4f19 Cfl,dk/ncl M7r 'eCN1E-iL7y+I'U �YYIOl3 Mb�E[A 6x u1MA1aM t6L!fGRfa.Wi!xb wERRatbndzV Elevations - Multifamily _ f !� a II I � f � BLOCK 1 LOT 2 SITE PLAN ----------------------- , a r -------------- '0 Q Q� Q F ------------- Y - ---------- RLa: OL 6 M Ea I 6EYA1I ON Mkyn aL"t x SE A-n3Y•rh 4'LCPNR9+/LQW tG CA{hr aFK$T TgN su+s-air•rQ 6CrEF4M PA Ellh4.METAL,MEtt CEHBP ---------------------------1 a■ T. ! ■ ! # ■ � �.� acorn r r r � * ftdavelepment --- ------- appllcatlon block 1,lol 2 EMIEN9Ra4ElYW YI900,NE7+Lt H6ER CEXWT 9CYrW RV+M111W SOA p 1.3F Lx SAL encn aauE.ter.w @ 2YdtIOnS E n3Y fp er>srMmm 1�'ESI.EY S# LI �1 k!4p1}tit k KE\f E R1:& T ['IGfI� '� � i --Z-- — 1 ----� : ------------------- A ZoningMap f � > CIIiTI� � _ ! _ ►S '13 NO LP-3 I sin. 'I. DOVE � DORLS SL.1 k I r .k .P_ ,•`4 �;Lt6!ail �{} . �tik hSL 4l ' i PLAZA SUB 1 r L'E:�'I'Jk:IkC�lr r--f?kVUf� Ph 0 ' �t lam} R r 1 ' I I j , 1 , EL S 1 1 NUTAL ���.i -may -- i Eo A SE&I i w414d"# r'L ]3. {:F" ' l B �'�PY Suit �1UR L'4I $4. I - --- y ;ir:F l,tll P [W TO,• S ill P r 1k'SAN'I r -I i FAII 6% I t ; SU R ; '•_ 1 ARK ,�,1Lj1s LEA; 0 AM MOO'PiO I ES til"B AWL kl F�kl SUR NO 11� ' �•••••` '' i � � �I i 15.%NBll ' PI I� I �4L! ,r (rF:k17'{l F C�' :R f'It iRt [}tl� PI I.i� -�:::.�-�--•----------- ' i '] ti{1 1 !�TFR ANX; 'k fr I .rl F,tIkSll \{lli7 4 t:;rl�a C. PILAF. 1]'[} ('F.NTF'1! t 11 is ,... 43 63 -.*1114P. F LN i. J t I! CENTE y L•E;N�R 1: !ii[}L^? 'fl L R f+k 1 1• --ADD I 4 PDKX) P1%WK L CFE -B SUR Nil OL 61t LtluJ, . r.Fn RAIi.SWE I&H j y_ _----- I1 PUSS PARK$UNl -_�_•" I C11141N1{}N581;13 ; C'1lA1tiE'.RC4; CO\T1110 CA Ir"!S RL•E ; ULTNL"LNDU kTl Ul LpARK- ram"-•- ---:.-...-_-,....-F-r--r-,f+. .��FF�*-.-■-r+�f♦ f- f��a , _ L['JL'U%T GROVE � � t:' OL50'N AND ' p r L�/� ' Tlus 1 1;6 t1 Ley i% Ui R 1 RIAL,FAKK 1 1 HUSH Toning districts i 1'.%HR4§N4II%N4 K Commorcialylsincta Industl9alolaIW2 RoMdOrrNalDlo ietS ;�1 51FI11 1 ---- ; I tt'L'1{L•J•#•` �K 51�I1f1V.X L}4 ,RFI ' Neighborhood Business[C-N] Light Industrial[I-L] Low Density Residantial[R-2] 1 ' % Community Business[GC] . Heavy Industrial[I-H] Medium-Low Density Residential[R-4] ■ General Retail&Service Commercial["I Tradklonai Noigl+horhood 0I5trlcls Medium Density Residential[R-B] ■ Llmi[ed Gffco[L-O] ® Old Town[0-T] \� Medium-High Density Residanual[R-15] Mixed Employment[M.E] Traditional Neighborhood-Center[TN-C] ■ High Density Residential[R-44] ■ Hlgh Density Employment[H-E] . Tredllional Neighborhood-Resldentlal CTIN-R] Animal Farm Plat N $89'Si'57-E 2649.$9 2 c. PINE AVENUE - OF 72.94' eECI1NHRJG s1-94' 718{5W SM54V-W 28135' — — (4+3 .TER CORNER 3-114CR BRASS CAP [5 91] ---- -�-"T----------------------"-`- CPAF IG7150725 l [aa31] - ---- 1 At NO CAP ADT [17665] r+5 506'23'33'E BLOCK 1 = 54.20' [4431] y, CIO L2 � QB J r f I� Elf, RECIPROCAL ACCESS c4 ND. 8 S30'35'56'E FASEu[Nr- SEE ESIrr NOTE: 6. � L' 31-55' L2 Na y\ sp o L3 W51 b LF NX tr ti L5 Na � o � x n 1 rn 1 Y BLOCK 1 0 60 120 2 I SCALE IN FEET I N nrK a OT NOR We I m m I 3 I = k S68'55'�3"E 163.58' -- I I I LAYNE INDUSTRIAL PARK SUODNIS1014 ! SEE SHEET 2 FOR NOTES, BOOK 59 OF PLATS, PAGES 7113 AND 7114. ACR ASEMENT NOTES,REFERENCES, AMC SURVEYOR'S NARRATIVE