Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-10-21 Regular City Council Regular Meeting Tuesday, October 21, 2025, at 6:00 PM City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho ROLL CALL ATTENDANCE PRESENT Councilman Doug Taylor Councilman John Overton Councilwoman Anne Little Roberts Councilman Brian Whitlock Councilman Luke Cavener Mayor Robert E. Simison ABSENT Councilwoman Liz Strader PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE COMMUNITY INVOCATION ADOPTION OF AGENDA Adopted PUBLIC FORUM – Future Meeting Topics RESOLUTIONS \[Action Item\] 1. Resolution No. 25-2538: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Meridian Appointing Hailey Stewart to Seat 4 and Harold Wilson to Seat 5 of the Meridian Historic Preservation Commission; and Providing an Effective Date Approved Motion to approve made by Councilman Cavener, Seconded by Councilman Whitlock. Voting Yea: Councilman Taylor, Councilman Overton, Councilwoman Little Roberts, Councilman Whitlock, Councilman Cavener ACTION ITEMS 2. Public Hearing for Fairbourne Subdivision No. 4 (H-2025-0036) by Rodney Evans + Partners, LLC., generally located at the northwest corner of W. Chinden Blvd. and N. Black Cat Rd., at 4837 W. Waverton Dr. Approved Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2025-0036 A. Request: Combined Preliminary/Final Plat consisting of one (1) buildable lot on 5.2 acres of land in the C-G zoning district. Motion to approve made by Councilman Cavener, Seconded by Councilman Overton. Voting Yea: Councilman Taylor, Councilman Overton, Councilwoman Little Roberts, Councilman Whitlock, Councilman Cavener 3. 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. Approved Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2024-0071 A. Request: 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, multi-family apartments and vertically integrated residential above ground floor commercial, 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; include additional land area (i.e. 1.92 acres); and update certain provisions. B. Request: Annexation of 7.21 acres of land with I-L (5.29-acres), C-G (1.36- acres) and R-15 (0.56-acre) zoning districts. C. Request: Rezone of 3.08-acres (0.91 + 2.17) of land from the C-G to the R-15 zoning district. D. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 41 buildable lots and 3 common lots on 36.58 acres of land in the R-15 and C-G zoning districts. E. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development consisting of 139 units on 2.87-acres of land on Lot 2, Block 1 in the C-G zoning district with a request for alternative compliance 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 studio units without such space. F. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development consisting of 132 units on 3.41-acres of land on 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 square feet of private, usable open space to be provided for each multi-family unit, to allow studio units with no such space; 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. G. Request: 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, by DRB Investments, LLC H. Request: 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 & two 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 square feet to zero (0). Motion to approve made by Councilman Overton, Seconded by Councilwoman Little Roberts. Voting Yea: Councilman Taylor, Councilman Overton, Councilwoman Little Roberts, Councilman Whitlock Voting Nay: Councilman Cavener FUTURE MEETING TOPICS ADJOURNMENT 9:23 PM Meridian City Council October 21, 2025. A Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:02 p.m., Tuesday, October 21, 2025, by Mayor Robert Simison. Members Present: Robert Simison, Luke Cavener, John Overton, Doug Taylor, Anne Little Roberts and Brian Whitlock. Members Absent: Lis Strader. Other Present: Chris Johnson, Bill Nary, Bill Parsons, Sonya Allen. Berle Stokes and Steve Taulbee. ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE Liz Strader X Brian Whitlock Anne Little Roberts X John Overton _X_ Doug Taylor _X_Luke Cavener X Mayor Robert E. Simison Simison: Council, we will call this meeting to order. For the record it is October 21st, 2025, at 6:02 p.m. We will begin tonight's regular City Council meeting with roll call attendance. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Simison: Next item is the Pledge of Allegiance. If you would all, please, rise and join us in the pledge. (Pledge of Allegiance recited.) COMMUNITY INVOCATION Simison: Council, next up is our community invocation, which tonight will be delivered by Rajan Zed, president of the Universal Society of Hinduism. If you would all, please, join us in this prayer or take this as a moment of silence and reflection. Zed: It is an honor to read the invocation in this great hall of democracy of the great City of Meridian. I shall be reading from ancient Hindu scriptures, some as old as 1500 BCE in Sanskrit then interpreting in English. May all rise, please. We meditate on the transcendental glory of the duty supreme, who is inside the heart of the earth, inside the life of the sky and inside the soul of the heaven. May he stimulate and illuminate our minds. Lead us from the unreal to the real. Lead us from darkness to light. Lead us from death to immortality. Strive constantly to serve the welfare of the world, while devotion to selfless one attains the supreme goal of life. Do your work with the welfare of others always in mind. May we be protected together. May we be nourished Meridian City Council October21,2025 Page 2 of 60 together. May we work together with great vigor. May our study be enlightening. May no obstacle arise between us. United your resolve. United your hearts. May your spirits be at one that you may long together dwell in unity and conquered. Peace. Peace. Peace be unto all. Thank you. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Simison: Thank you very much, Rajan Zed. Appreciate it very much. And best of luck on your commute to Star. Council, next up is adoption of the agenda. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Move we adopt the agenda as published. Overton: Second. Simison: Have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda as published. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and the agenda is agreed to. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. PUBLIC FORUM — Future Meeting Topics Simison: Mr. Clerk, anyone signed up under future meeting topics -- or public form? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, there is no sign-ups. RESOLUTIONS [Action Item] 1. Resolution No. 25-2538: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Meridian Appointing Hailey Stewart to Seat 4 and Harold Wilson to Seat 5 of the Meridian Historic Preservation Commission; and Providing an Effective Date Simison: Okay. So, with that, Council, we will move on to Item 1, which is Resolution No. 25-2538 bringing forward to you two new members to our Historic Preservation Commission. Had a lot of interested applicants in this open call for people to serve and -- but there -- there are a little bit of similarities in I think some of the outcoming purpose, but with all the great people who applied we -- I didn't -- I always give preference to people from our community first and foremost and I think that -- that was an important component to -- because we had several people applied that were in the area of city impact or in Boise that want to come serve in this -- in this role. But these were two Meridian residents. I will start with Harold Wilson, who has a long time Meridian Meridian City Council October21,2025 Page 3 of 60 connection and really, you know, he -- he wants to protect the memories of his childhood. I think that -- that's an important part of what he wants to bring to the table. You know, loves history. He is an assistant Dean of General Education at the College of Western Idaho. A teacher. Been involved with Friends of Meridian Library. So, you know, that library connection is actually a great one as we continue to transition our historical collections to the library and so having a little bit of that interest in their really showcase his interest in this area. The other one was Hailey Stewart. She's just looking to get engaged in her community, but also believes in learning from the past and really wants to focus on how do we get our younger generation involved. I think that was kind of probably a little theme in my -- in my engagements this time around was when does history really start, you know, for people. You know, I -- I -- I try to imply that we make history up here every week. Good. Bad. Relevant. Irrelevant in some cases. But, you know, is history 50 years ago, 20 years ago, five years ago, so how -- how do you really look at that and I -- I think that Hailey really kind of talked about, you know, sometimes you have to get younger people involved with relevant history and not just looking back on things that they can't really connect to through that. But they all expressed an interest and willingness to be involved and engaged, whether it's helping lead the -- the tours or rolling up their sleeves and trying to apply their -- their trades where Hailey's a senior communication specialist and -- and how to help grow the work that their Historic Preservation Commission is doing. So, with that I'm happy to answer any questions. Otherwise, I would consider a motion on these two individuals. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: First credit to you and HPC for continuing to attract such great candidates. Just -- it's really just great to see how -- how HPC is continuing to flourish and grow. So, Mr. Mayor, I'm happy to move that we approve Resolution No. 25-2538, appointing Hailey Stewart to Seat 4 and Harold Wilson to Seat 5 of the Meridian Historic Preservation Commission. Taylor: Second. Overton: Second. Simison: Have a motion and a second to approve Resolution No. 25-2538. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and the resolution is agreed to. So, congratulations to our newest members of the Historic Preservation Commission. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. ACTION ITEMS Meridian City Council October21,2025 Page 4 of 60 2. Public Hearing for Fairbourne Subdivision No. 4 (H-2025-0036) by Rodney Evans + Partners, LLC., generally located at the northwest corner of W. Chinden Blvd. and N. Black Cat Rd., at 4837 W. Waverton Dr. A. Request: Combined Preliminary/Final Plat consisting of one (1) buildable lot on 5.2 acres of land in the C-G zoning district. Simison: Okay. With that we are going to move on to our Action Items this evening. We got a -- a busy -- busy evening together. But first item up is a public hearing for Fairbourne Subdivision No. H-2025-0036. We will open this public hearing with staff comments. Allen: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council and the first application before you tonight is a combined preliminary and final plat. This site consists of 5.2 acres of land. It's zoned C-C and it's generally located at the northwest corner of North Black Cat Road and West Chinden Boulevard. In 2018 this property was included in a rezone, preliminary plat and a development agreement modification application for Fairbourne Subdivision, which included the adjacent residential subdivision to the north and the west. A new development agreement was approved with the modification, which governs future development of the overall property. Final plat applications were approved for all of the property included in the preliminary plat, except for this last remaining area, which was intended to be included in the last phase. However, a final plat application was never submitted, a time extension was not requested and the preliminary plat has since expired. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation is mixed-use community. A combined preliminary and final plat is proposed consisting of one buildable lot on 5.2 acres of land in the C-C zoning district. A conceptual development plan was submitted as shown there on the left that depicts three commercial building pads for retail and office use. The largest Pad A is proposed to be a grocery store at 25,623 square feet. Pad B is 11 ,234 square feet and Pad C is 4,964 square feet. The proposed development plan is consistent with the provisions in the development agreement. Access is proposed via one existing full access driveway from West Waverton Drive and one right-in, right-out access driveway from North Black Cat Road. No access is proposed or allowed via West Chinden Boulevard. An emergency access exists to this site by a blanket easement across Lot 17, Block 7, in the abutting Fairbourne Subdivision No. 2 to the west and that is -- if you can see my cursor right here -- through that common driveway right there. Detached five foot wide sidewalks exist on this side along Waverton and Black Cat. A ten foot wide detached sidewalk and pathway exists in the street buffer along Chinden Boulevard. ITD submitted a letter requesting the developer contribute a proportionate share toward installation of a westbound right-turn lane at Chinden and Black Cat as required with the original Fairbourne development, which has not yet been constructed and that is in that little area there shown in -- shown in red. Street buffers exist on this site along abutting streets that were installed with the adjacent subdivision improvements. Additional landscaping and design features are needed in the buffers to comply with UDC standards. A 25 foot wide buffer to residential uses also exists along the west boundary Meridian City Council October 21,2025 Page 5 of 60 of the site with a six foot tall closed vision fence. Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed grocery store as shown on the right. Final design is required to comply with the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual. Loading docks are prohibited in commercial districts along collector streets, which is Waverton and Black Cat or arterial Chinden Boulevard -- streets per the Architectural Standards Manual. The Commission recommended approval of this application to City Council. Ben Semple, the applicant's representative testified in favor. There was no opposition. Paul McLaughlin, Larry Walker, Bob Misko and Jessica Pirc commented on the application and there was no written testimony that was submitted. Key issues of discussion were as follows: The access and traffic concerns pertaining to vehicles turning left into the development and stacking issues that may occur. Safety concerns pertaining to traffic and children in the area. Belief that the Chinden and Black Cat intersection needs to be rebuilt for safety reasons to accommodate the high volume of traffic in this area and concern pertaining to landscaping between the site and the abutting residential neighborhood to the west to ensure residents aren't looking at a parking lot. Key issues of discussion by the Commission were traffic generated from the proposed development and the use and zoning -- just a statement that the -- the use and zoning are not the subject of this application, just a reminder that this is a subdivision application. The Commission did not make any changes to the staff recommendation and there are no outstanding issues for Council tonight. There has been written testimony since the Commission hearing that's been received from Christy Keller. She has concerns pertaining to traffic and inadequate infrastructure for the development of a grocery store on this site and from Jessica Pirc, opinion the proposed -- or, excuse me, the existing landscaping and fence height along the west boundary is inadequate to buffer the adjacent residential neighbors from noise, lighting and traffic impacts from the proposed development. Concern pertaining to increased traffic in the area and children's safety crossing Waverton Drive to reach the school bus stop. Request for taller fencing and more robust landscaping to be provided in buffers with mature trees and shrubs. Reevaluation of access points to minimize traffic being funneled onto Waverton and greater consideration of residential impacts, particularly around school routes. Both of those folks submitted written testimony. Jessica did submit some videos as well that were included in the public record and staff will stand for any questions. Simison: Thank you, Sonya. Council, any questions for staff? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward? Good evening. Semple: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of Council. Ben Semple with Rodney Evans and Partners. 1450 West Bannock Street, Boise. 83702. If I can get this speakerphone to cooperate. Sorry. I had my presentation on my phone and it's trying to make me do something different here. Okay. So, yeah, I want to first of all thank Sonya for the presentation. She did a good job encapsulating what the -- the application is here before you tonight. Again, Fairbourne Subdivision No. 4 at the northwest corner of West Chinden and Black Cat Road. Just to reiterate, the vicinity map, the area of the future land use as mixed-use community and the current zoning is C-C. This is the original pre-plat as shown from 2018 for the overall Fairbourne Meridian City Council October21,2025 Page 6 of 60 Subdivision. In red is the lot in question. As Sonya stated this was the final phase of this multi-phased project and this was with the original pre-plat and zoning and annexation was assigned to C-C zone with the intent of this developing with commercial uses per the approved development agreement. The current pre-plat you can see on the upper right there, basically the same, just a single lot preliminary plat and, then, the final plat is representative of that single lot final plat. The landscape plan is on the left here demonstrating some upgrades along the road frontages for landscape buffering. The western landscape buffer currently meets the UDC standards, but based on comments from neighboring residents to the west there I'm working -- I'm the landscape architect on this project and will be for the upcoming actual site development package that gets submitted for review and intend to work on, you know, adding some additional buffering, filling in some gaps. There is some lawn over there that's kind of on a berm, but the fence doesn't actually sit on the berm, so it's kind of an interesting situation where the -- my client would like to make sure that he is being a good neighbor and provide some additional buffering to -- to those users. Additionally the site plan was developed to ensure that most of the -- the use is as far away from the residents as possible. There is parking that's there, but that is outside the 25 foot landscape buffer that's required and if you have gone to a grocery store, which I'm sure you all have, you try to park as close to the store as possible, so anticipate that that western side probably ends up with some employee parking and I'm going to be talking with that developer about that option of maybe setting those aside for employees, so that there is not car doors opening and closing next to residential that way. Just an aerial photo of the existing landscape that's there on the site right now. The conceptual building elevations are still in process of being developed. These will get more fleshed out as we get through this process. The issue we have here is that because this was never final platted. My client can't submit an application for this building or a site plan until we have a legal lot to be able to submit to the city. Upon that submittal, you know, we are going to have another neighborhood meeting, we are going to work with -- I have been talking with the Fairbourne Subdivision HOA president pretty extensively trying to set up a meeting, not only with the Fairbourne Subdivision, but Modern Craftsman and Spur Wing also feed into this area in terms of traffic -- have expressed some desire to get some feedback and kind of provide some feedback to us on this plan and so I'm working with my client to set up a time after he has a more fleshed out development plan here for the -- the actual site. The two pads that are up by Chinden are intended to be kind of a build to suit. They could be retail. They could be office. None of them are drive- through restaurant. You know, trying to stay away from some other drive-through establishments that have come through and I wanted to point out to the conceptual site plan, which is based on those pad sizes -- at least the ones on Chinden and, then, on the building size and use that we are anticipating for the grocery use. The total parking required for those three uses would be 85 parking spaces. What we have shown here right now is 216 parking spaces. Just the grocery store use alone would require 81 -- oh, I'm sorry. We would be 81 above the requirement that is for that use and that was driven by the potential user Boise Co-op that really wants to make sure that they have adequate parking for their customers, as well as, you know, to buffer any issues, if you have been to some other smaller grocery stores where they have some smaller parking lots, we want to avoid that, too. And, finally, I guess -- or we are in agreement with all of Meridian City Council October21,2025 Page 7 of 60 the terms and conditions of the staff report. All the agency comments here are -- are kind of our responses to those conditions. We have made some adjustments already or will be making adjustments to the final plat before it's submitted for signature and, then, we will supplement the landscape as I discussed. I did want to mention that a lot of what is -- a lot of the concern here with traffic parking, access we want to address as well. My developer shares some of the concerns from the neighbors in the neighborhood regarding those things. Safety being one of those. And we can't get formal feedback from ITD or ACHD until they have a use application, so that they can base their numbers and their traffic generation numbers on the actual use and, again, we can't submit that application for the use until we have this final plat approved for a lot. So, tonight, as Sonya stated, this is about the single lot subdivision. We have -- we share concerns with traffic and -- and look forward to addressing those as we get through ACHD and ITD submittals and feedback. I would stand for any questions that you may have regarding the application. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions for the applicant? Whitlock: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Whitlock. Whitlock: Ben, thanks for the overview and long before this application came over there have been concerns about the traffic on Chinden and -- and Black Cat and as you drive by the turn signal seems to be right where a turn lane would -- would be. So, there definitely are some mitigation efforts that need to go into this. You have seen the ITD letter and I -- I understand the -- the explanation that you need to have the use permitted before you can have those -- a traffic study I would imagine and, then, clearance to move forward from ITD and ACHD on -- on Black Cat. One of the concerns is just if -- if that traffic study comes by -- comes back and indicates that not only do you need an enhanced right turn off of Chinden to go north on Black Cat, but also from Black Cat to turn westbound onto Chinden, is that something that you would participate in with ITD? Semple; Mr. Mayor and Council Member Whitlock, yes, we anticipate getting a lot of feedback from ITD regarding all of those situations and ACHD not only turning off of Chinden, but onto Chinden, potential acceleration lane along Chinden. We do anticipate a lot of road improvements that will be generated once we can get an application in front of those jurisdictions. We have also -- we will be talking to them about how do we mitigate for some of the traffic on Black Cat between Chinden and Waverton. There is kind of a short run there. There is a center median that prevents a left turn off of Black Cat into this site. But we also want to be sensitive to the residents within the neighborhood to the north that Waverton is a -- while it is a residential collector there is a lot of pedestrian activity along there, a lot of kids walking around there, too. So, working with ACHD on how we mitigate -- you know, do some traffic calming, something like that, to help address that as well. So, I -- I guess that's a long answer to, yes, we plan to participate with all of the jurisdictions to improve this area. Meridian City Council October 21,2025 Page 8 of 60 Whitlock: Thank you. Taylor: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Taylor. Taylor: Could you just, then, give us a sense for -- you -- you talked about the neighbors to the west and that you would work to kind of mitigate some of the -- maybe deficiencies, my word, for that barrier. Can you give me an idea what you are actually wanting to do and how that would look? Semple: Yeah. Mr. Mayor, Council Member Taylor, right now there is some smaller deciduous flowering trees that are along there. There is kind of an alternating series of those with some smaller evergreens. I think as the designer and hearing some of the neighbors' concerns, I'm looking at filling those gaps with some larger evergreens. I think removing some of that lawn area would allow for an expansion of the planter bed, so that we can get some larger plant material in there to really buffer not only sound, but site. And, then, obviously, any lighting that goes in the parking lot around the building, full cut-off shields, making sure there is no light trespass as well. Taylor: Mr. Mayor, quick follow up? Simison: Councilman Taylor. Taylor: A lot of times we see berms with a fence on top of the berm to give you that extra height. Some of the videos I'm seeing that's not how it looks like it's laid out. Probably can't make any changes there because of property ownership, but I'm assuming you wouldn't be changing any fence lines, you would just be working to add more vegetation and sort of, you know, creating a shield there with just natural vegetation; is that -- is that right? Semple: Yeah. Mr. Mayor, Council Member Taylor, that's correct. We can't move the fence and when they built the subdivision it looks like they built the fence on the property line and, then, put a berm on this property side, so -- I mean we may -- there is opportunity maybe to grade that down a little bit, but, you know, we are -- we will work with our civil on grading design just to keep that area, as you know, plantable as possible I guess. But, yeah, that's the intent. Plant material. You know, we can talk about fence height. It's a six foot fence. I don't think that we can go any higher based on code right now, but anything we can do to help alleviate some of those concerns we definitely want to look at. Simison: Council, any additional questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you very much. Semple: Thank you. Simison: Mr. Clerk, anyone signed up on this item? Meridian City Council October21,2025 Page 9 of 60 Johnson: Mr. Mayor, yes. First is Paul McLaughlin representing an HOA. Simison: Good evening. State your name and address for the record. McLaughlin: I'm sorry? Simison: State your name and address for the record. McLaughlin: Paul McLaughlin. 6811 North Maplestone in Meridian. And like was mentioned I'm the president of the HOA for Fairbourne. I did have a chance to talk to Mr. Semple before this meeting tonight and he was able to answer some of my questions. There are other things that he brought up that would obviously make some of my questions moot, because, again, until things go in the right order and they get the -- the use permit, then, traffic studies come after that, but, you know, right now traffic is the biggest concern with the residents, not only of Fairbourne, but of Spur Wing and of Modern Craftsman, because that -- that road is already insufficient at certain times of the day or certain times of the week. I think we brought up before that Rock Harbor Church pours out onto Black Cat on Sunday and they have services all day. There is -- there is a total of I think -- I think they are up to six services on -- on a typical Sunday now and on holidays they have Saturday services and, like I said, it just pours out of there and the concern with the traffic coming in is, first of all, there -- I wanted to bring to your attention there is a note on one of these -- on the city agency comments that says if ACHD allows the proposed access via North Black Cat, which I don't know who is proposing that, because Mr. Semple has indicated he is only looking for a right turn in and a right turn out, but I just want to get it on the record, since I don't know if I'm going to get another bite at the apple, that we absolutely would not be able to back up traffic to allow people to turn left from Black Cat into there, but if you go farther up -- if you go far enough north towards Waverton there is that center divider there and at the most you are going to get four to maybe five cars that can get in that left turn lane and with traffic coming out, you know, from Rock Harbor, because Waverton doesn't line up with Tree Farm, so you get all these people turning left out of Tree Farm and we have been watching the traffic the last several Sundays and people don't stop to allow people to turn onto Waverton, they don't allow people to come from Waverton into the Modern Craftsman and I just want to make it -- put it on the record that, again, any access -- at least left from northbound on Black Cat is going to be disastrous there. A right turn in, right turn out I don't see any issues with that. You talked about -- somebody talked about right turn lanes, you know, coming out of -- off of Black Cat. Again, we are already at the point where, you know, that's a long signal. They -- they have shortened the signal cycles on Sunday to favor the people coming out for the church, but the rest of the week you got people that are wanting to make a right turn and you got to wait a whole signal cycle there because that light is so long. It says here, you know, modify the note -- note number six to not prohibit access if that's approved and that note number six says direct lot parcel access to West Chinden and North Black Cat is prohibited. Access shall be from West Waverton at the previously approved and constructed approach and that was another concern that was brought up by the residents of Fairbourne at least was that Waverton doesn't appear to be -- it -- it doesn't Meridian City Council October21,2025 Page 10 of 60 have any center divider. So, I don't know how people -- the majority of the traffic is going to be coming off of Chinden onto Black Cat and onto Waverton, which is going to require a left turn onto Waverton and another left turn into the lot and it's -- you know, again, that street isn't -- has no lines on it. I don't know if it's even wide enough to put a center divider there. It was also brought up by Mr. Semple about the concerns, but -- the fact that everybody south of Waverton has to cross Waverton to get to their bus stop, the kids in the morning, and ever since they put the signal in west of us into the subdivision that they are working on it's -- we are getting an amazing amount of traffic coming through there now, because people are just using it as a shortcut. So, that was, again -- you know, Mr. Semple addressed to the degree that he could. My other concern is about -- was about the right turn lane from Chinden onto northbound Black Cat. You know, what I was reading -- and I apologize I had notes on my phone and it was in an app that locked me out, so I can't get to it, but what it essentially said was that the Fairbourne developer was required back in 2018 to put that right turn lane in when this was developed and even now today this -- these current documents say that Fairbourne is responsible for that, but if he's selling that lot -- you know, there was something in there that said that because he was required to do it and he has yet to do it, that this development would not be held up because of that right turn lane and, again, we are having problems there where people got to come from 55 miles an hour down to nothing to make a very sharp turn, because, again, that's been brought up before that that intersection is not sufficient to handle the kind of traffic it's already getting and now we are going to add a -- you know, a grocery store in there and a couple others that are going to, you know, significantly add to the traffic. So, there -- one other concern that was brought up and I don't know if it's anything -- I can probably discuss it with Mr. Semple. I forgot to talk to him about this, but somebody was asking about possibly putting a short fence in front of the berm on the parking lot side that would prohibit people from -- or at least, you know, deter them from walking up on that berm, because they are going to be selling ready to eat food that -- the concern is people are going to go sit up on that berm and maybe eat something from the -- the deli inside and -- and if you are sitting on that berm -- even sitting down you can see right down into those backyards and we have eight residences that are going to be impacted by that, so -- as far as lowering that berm I don't know if there was some sound issues that were taken into consideration when it was put in and if you are increasing the privacy by reducing the berm, are you lowering the -- the sound mitigation? I don't know. But those were, again, concerns that were brought up by some of those homeowners that live -- that back up to that lot. So, the main thing I wanted to get across is we -- I just want to make sure I put it on the records -- if I don't get another chance to talk about this -- that we absolutely need the right turns coming in off of Chinden and coming out onto Chinden from Black Cat and that we got to do something about how we are going to get -- you know, depending on what the traffic counts are going to be, how we are going to mitigate this traffic with these two left turns to get into that -- that shopping center, especially with all that Sunday traffic. So, that's all I had. Anybody have any questions for me? Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Maybe just a comment. On an unrelated issue to this, we did have a meeting yesterday that involved ITD and we were Meridian City Council October21,2025 Page 11 of 60 informed that they were putting in their plan -- this decal lane for right-hand turns at this location. McLaughlin: Sorry. What? Simison: They are putting in their normal plans for construction of a decal lane at this location. It's not in a year yet or funded, but it is on their to do list to -- to make that happen, Whether it's through this development or through their own processes in the not -- I don't say -- I won't -- I won't give a time frame, but -- McLaughlin: Well, and -- but the concern is, like I said, that this -- we are already way past the point where this is needed. It's really -- Simison: I'm just -- McLaughlin: -- harrowing to have to slow down and watch a rearview mirror when you are -- Simison: Correct. I'm just informing you that they informed me yesterday that they are making that -- they will get to making that put in. McLaughlin: Okay. I appreciate it. Simison: Yep. McLaughlin: Is that it? Simison: Yep. McLaughlin: Okay. Thank you. Simison: Thank you. Johnson: Mr. Mayor, next is Ray Pirc. Simison: Good evening. State your name and address for the record, please. Pirc: My name is Ray Pierce -- or Pirc. Either way. I go by both my whole life and live at 6560 North Oakstone, so I'm one of the lots on the west side that will back up to this development. One, I did want to focus on a couple of the positive. Some of the conversations with the developer we have had is, you know, the Co-op is the proposed tenant. The delivery hours was a big concern, but the delivery hours at the Co-op leverages is during normal working hours, not semi-trucks at night coming through, which would not even be able to fit into the slots to begin with, but that was a positive and it does meet a need. You know, they talked about in this area nothing like this around. So, I do think there is, you know, some positive sentiment from me and some Meridian City Council October21,2025 Page 12 of 60 of the other residents in the area. But, again, some of the concerns -- so, the privacy aspect. The video that my wife submitted I think you have that. I'm -- that's from our backyard. So, it does highlight, unfortunately, for me, my doctor's chart, I'm just below six foot and that video highlights that the fence is not quite six foot, but even I can stand and just see over the berm, which would be a parking lot, which is an eyesore, you know, to me as a homeowner. I understood this would be developed originally, which I know is not up for debate. We were told when we purchased it would be Monday through Friday appointment-based businesses, such as doctor's offices and now we are talking about a grocery store, which, again, fits a need, but different plan to be looking out your back door to and, then, also as highlighted, if you walk up on that berm you can see straight down to our lawn and so my two young children sitting in the back playing, you know, people just being able to peer into our backyard like that and the rest of the lots along that way over half of them have small children as well. So, that's been a concern of privacy for that -- the other traffic aspect, which has been talked about a lot and extensively, you know, one is Waverton on the north side. You know, we were told that's a public road, so, you know, when we talked about it being in a subdivision, it's a public road was the -- the term we were given during one of the original meetings, but it was approved by the city to go through a subdivision and as he mentioned my sons walk across Waverton to their bus stop. All of the other kids, which in that section of the neighborhood there is a high number of kids all around the same age, that's how we walk to our community pool, to our community playground, to their friends' houses. So, we talked about, you know, would the developer be willing to pay -- put in a lighted crosswalk. We were told speed bumps weren't an option. But, again, this is a -- a road that goes through a subdivision with amenities that we -- the residents pay for and as mentioned further down Chinden at Levi, I believe, there was a -- a light recently put in. Since that has been put in there is more traffic that detours through Waverton to bypass the traffic on Chinden and the cars do not follow speed limit, some of them 40, 50 miles an hour. There has been some close calls with some residents and so putting a grocery store in here, increasing traffic on that, people taking Waverton from the grocery store because the right turn and, then, right turn onto Chinden will back up and, then, again, the Rock Harbor aspect -- I go to Rock Harbor. Love the fact that there is such a demand for people to go to church, but we have seen the traffic back up beyond Costco going down Chinden during service hours have been coming back from Fred Meyer and there is people -- if you look on the map there is like a dirt where they would turn into the grocery store on. Sundays from my backyard I watch people park along there and, then, walk to Rock Harbor. So, I -- you know, from the developer that on Sunday he will likely have a parking lot full of people walking to Rock Harbor, which I just think further highlights there is some congestion. So, again, it meets a need, but one that we want to ensure protects the safety of -- first of all our children, but the residents as a whole. Thank you. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Meridian City Council October21,2025 Page 13 of 60 Cavener: It's Ray, right? Pirc: Yeah. Cavener: Thanks for your testimony. Pirc: Yeah. Cavener: Help me understand you and your wife at the Planning and Zoning Commission, we have got her e-mail, your three videos. I appreciate our clerk putting them up so everybody could see them. The request before the Council tonight is very narrow. Pirc: Uh-huh. Cavener: What is it your -- what is your hope that the Council does tonight based on what -- what is requested before us this evening? Pirc: So -- well, we understand that there is a grocery store proposal and that it would be to approve this development to, then, go to considerations for the traffic. Is that -- that -- okay. Cavener: I -- and I -- I think if -- it would be helpful and -- and I -- I know that they probably touched on this a little bit at Planning and Zoning. I didn't watch it. I just -- I read the minutes, but it seemed that maybe they moved past that a -- a little bit more quickly. Pirc: Okay. Cavener: A decision about a -- a grocery store is not a decision that's before the Council this evening. What we are really looking at is -- is a lot line and a -- and a property adjustment and so it's not a case of do we want grocery stores, do we not want grocery stores, should this come in as -- as retail or as commercial or something different, it's -- we are -- we are really at a -- at a preliminary and a final plat stage and so that's -- I just -- I want to make sure you and your -- your family have invested a lot of your time -- Pirc: Yes. Cavener: -- to participate in the process -- Pirc: So -- Cavener: -- and so trying to make sure that we are -- I -- I want -- I'm -- I'm hearing everything that you are saying -- Meridian City Council October21,2025 Page 14 of 60 Pirc: Yes. Cavener: -- but I'm also trying to wrestle that with what decision I, as a Council Member, can and cannot make this evening. Pirc: Could you provide more clarity, then, on the decision tonight? Cavener: What I would like to do -- sorry, Mr. Mayor. Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Is -- Ray, if you are comfortable is -- is let's get through the -- the rest of the public testimony and, then, I will ask our -- our staff -- our planning staff, so I don't screw itup -- Pirc: Yeah. Cavener: -- to lay out, again, specifically what the decisions are before the City Council this evening, just so we -- we are hearing the same information that you are hearing at -- Pirc: Yeah. Cavener: -- all at the same time. Pirc: Okay. Well, I mean to be clear the decision made about the lot and we are expressing concerns about a proposed plan, so -- Cavener- I appreciate that. Thank you. Simison: Council, any additional questions? Okay. Johnson: And, Mr. Mayor, we have Mason Pirc. Mason Pirc. Sorry, Mason. You can pull either of those microphones down to you. M.Pirc: Hi. My name is Mason. My dad -- I'm living in the same house. Just one of the things all my friends come over to my house and we hit the baseballs over the fence and we hit everything out of the fence and like people are parking, like what would we do if we shattered a whole entire car? Like what would we do if that happened? So, it's like can we higher a fence or anything or like -- I don't know. Like what to do. Like it's like all my friends -- like I'm going to the bus stop and, then, right after school I'm walking back and there is some cars just rolling and I'm trying to cross back to home and they are probably going like 60 miles an hour and it just scares me. Like I don't know if I'm going to get hit and there is some traffic like -- we go to this gas station over here. It's pretty far like when it's -- when the building is like open like and on church days we probably go sometimes, like what -- like I just want to know like how are we Meridian City Council October 21,2025 Page 15 of 60 going to just transfer -- like all of these places we go and there is about like 20 kids in our neighborhood that just hang out and all that stuff and I just don't know what to do with my friends and just like get -- if they are hurt and that happens sometimes when a car almost hits us and it just scares me so bad. Thank you. Simison: Thank you very much. I think it's going to start with a whiffle ball bat for Christmas will -- will be the first things, because you are just going to get bigger and hit that ball further. So, we are going to have to cut down on that. Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Mr. Mayor. Mason, how old are you? M.Pirc: Eight. Cavener: Eight? M.Pirc: Uh-huh. Cavener: Third grade? M.Pirc: Uh-huh. Cavener: Listen, Mason, I have been sitting up here for almost 12 years and we hear a lot of testimony. You have done some of the best work I have heard from anybody who has ever provided public testimony, so in ten years when you are ready to run for City Council you give me a call I will be happy to make a donation to your campaign. You are doing a great job being a great advocate for your family and your neighborhood. I appreciate you being here. Taylor: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Taylor. Taylor: Just ask a question. I don't know if there is a fence that could keep your balls in, but how high of a fence would we need to keep those home run balls in your yard? Twenty feet? Thirty feet? What do you think? M.Pirc: Twenty would be fine. Taylor: Okay. Good. Put that on the record, please. Simison: Thank you, Mason. Appreciate it. Johnson: Mr. Mayor, that is everyone that signed up in advance. Simison: Okay. Is there anybody present who would like to provide testimony on this item, either in the room or online? If you are online use the raise your hand feature and Meridian City Council October21,2025 Page 16 of 60 if you are in the room go ahead and come on up to the mic. Seeing no one raising their hand online or coming forward, would the applicant like to come forward to close. Semple: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of Council. Ben Semple with Rodney Evans and Partners. 1450 West Bannock Street, Boise. It's a hard act to follow there. I -- really appreciate that feedback, you know, and -- and I -- I started the -- at the top here with -- with Paul's questions and comments. I just want to reinforce we are not proposing changing the access on northbound Black Cat. We are not proposing a left in off of northbound Black Cat. That would cause some major issues with backing up into that intersection at Chinden. I will -- we will be talking with ACHD about -- it looks like there is room to widen Black Cat slightly, especially as you approach the intersection there and, then, we will also talk with them about the light timing. I know that when they develop intersections that have more development around their intersections, the light timing -- they work on that to help move traffic a little more efficiently. So, hopefully, that light cycle isn't as long, so there is not as many people stopped stacking to turn. Definitely be talking to them about striping on Waverton, primarily for traffic movement, so that customers for this development, as well as residents have a little bit more visibility of how they should be navigating that area and happy to talk to them about a crosswalk. You know, safety of -- of school kids here is paramount. You know, we -- I raised both my kids in -- in the Treasure Valley and, you know, I -- I would not want them to have to deal with, you know, almost getting hit by a car. That -- that would scare me, too. The DA that is currently enforceable includes uses -- restaurant, retail sales, store, including grocery, personal service office, professional service office, healthcare services or financial services. None of those are off the table because of this and so there could be that these two other pads are appointment 8:00 to 5.00. 1 also know in talking with the Co-op individuals -- and I was glad to hear the neighbor had -- had heard that, too, is that their deliveries are primarily daytime hours, operating hours and they use mostly sprinter vans. So, smaller vehicles. They might have a smaller trailer truck that comes there periodically, but that is not their primary deliveries. The ITD turn lane, once we submit, will be provided with here is your proportionate share for this and, hopefully, with that funding maybe ITD can accelerate their time frame for installing that right turn lane at minimum. So, you know, again, planting trees to help with that buffer along there, I will try to get some tall trees, you know, over 20 feet tall. I will get some varieties that are pretty dense, so stop some baseballs at least for now. Yeah. And -- and, again, just really work with these jurisdictions out here on safety in this area, you know, vehicular and pedestrian safety and, then, one other thing briefly that Paul mentioned, definitely be working with my client about a secondary fence on that berm. It would -- it would be open vision, because I don't want to propose something that creates this tunnel that people could hide behind, but open vision fencing to prevent people accessing that berm or that buffer area. I also know that the Co-op intends to have an outdoor space immediately adjacent to their building and the space where they do the ready to eat food that will include a patio space, as well as some landscaped areas so people could sit there rather than right next to somebody's fence. Ultimately really feel good about this project. I know that's just the preliminary-final plat tonight, so there is going to be a lot of other opportunity. I believe we have a neighborhood meeting with CZC for something like this and so I will be working with my client, his Meridian City Council October21,2025 Page 17 of 60 architect and everyone else to -- to keep working with the HOA and neighbors to really hopefully make a great addition to their neighborhood, so they don't have to walk as far to a gas station or -- or some other, you know, business to get what they need. I'm happy to stand for any additional questions you might have. Simison: Thank you. Council, any additional questions for the applicant? Whitlock: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Whitlock. Whitlock: I don't know if we can call up the Google map, but I'm -- I'm looking on Google map and can you just help me understand -- and I'm going to butcher this, is it Carrigana Street -- is that intended to be a through street through this parcel from the neighborhood to the west from Fairbourne? Semple: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Whitlock, no, that's an emergency only access. It's bollarded at the west side at that fence line that goes into that neighborhood. That's their secondary connection, because they -- I believe they have over 30 lots in there. So, they needed a secondary point. That emergency access will remain open and accessible by emergency services now, during construction, after construction, nothing to impact the ability if -- if something happened that needed to be accessed that way. Whitlock: Okay. Thank you. Taylor: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Taylor. Taylor: Not really question as much as a comment, but I -- I really appreciate you -- your comments about working with the HOA, the neighbors on some of the privacy concerns with those neighbors on the west. I would strongly encourage you to work directly with even the neighbors and take some of their input as some of their ideas, not just what you think would be best, but kind of incorporate some of the ideas that they have I think would be well received by them to ensure their privacy. Because I would -- I could -- I'm certainly sympathetic. If I lived there, the ability for someone to walk up on a berm and look down on my kids -- I have got four kids, I would not appreciate that either, even though I understand living in a -- in a community. So, strongly encourage you to do that. It sounds like you are and I appreciate that. Semple: Thank you. Simison: Okay. Thank you very much. Semple: Thank you. Meridian City Council October21,2025 Page 18 of 60 Simison: Sonya, would you like to answer -- answer Councilman Cavener's query for him and the audience? Allen: Yes, Mr. Mayor, Council. So, a preliminary and final plat is basically a survey document. It subdivides the land. In this case all of the land around it was subdivided through a final plat recorded, which left this remnant piece, which was not a legal division of land and we couldn't issue a building permit for it because of that. So, this is just a -- a way to basically subdivide the property and -- and make it a legal parcel for development purposes. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Allen: Oh, if I -- let me -- let me expand just a little bit more on the uses. So, with the previous Fairbourne development at that time that's what gave the property the current zoning, which allows for the proposed uses as principal permitted uses in the zone. So, as such the proposed uses won't be back before you through another application. It will be a staff level approved application, so the -- the use is not in question tonight. That use was essentially approved with the zoning of the property several years ago. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Not saying this, but if I were to say, man, I -- I don't like a grocery store there, not a decision for the City Council to make tonight; correct? Allen- That is correct. Cavener: Thank you, Sonya. Appreciate it. Allen- The time to consider that would have been when the zoning was approved for the property. Thank you. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Not seeing anybody asking for any additional questions, so I will move that we close the public hearing on Item No. 2, application H-2025-0036. Overton: Second. Meridian City Council October21,2025 Page 19 of 60 Simison: Have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and the public hearing is closed. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: For some quick deliberation, I appreciate when neighbors get involved in the process and it's -- I know it's frustrating when you want to come and say we would like X to occur and it's not a decision that the City Council can -- can necessarily make on this particular evening. I -- I am reassured that we have got a great applicant who has a -- a pretty good track history in Meridian about following through other things that they say they are going to do and so, you know, can't promise, right, that every -- every request -- no -- no -- no Green Mile in North Meridian is going to be built, but I really trust that the applicant's going to do their best and we have got a good community partner that wants to build here. So, because of -- of what is before us, Mr. Mayor, I'm going to move that we approve application H-2025-0036 as presented in the staff report on the date of October 21 st, 2025. Include all staff, applicant and public testimony. Overton: Second. Simison: Have a motion and a second to approve Item 2, which is H-2025-0036. Is there discussion on the motion? If not, clerk call the roll. Roll Call: Cavener, yea; Strader, absent; Overton, yea; Little Roberts, yea; Taylor, yea; Whitlock, yea. Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and the item is agreed to. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. 3. Public Hearing for Pine 43 Mixed-Use Subdivision (H-2024-0071) by DRB Investments, LLC., generally located on the north and south sides of E. Pine Ave., between N. Locust Grove Rd., and N. Hickory Ave. A. Request: 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, multi-family apartments and vertically integrated residential above ground floor commercial, 481 ,020 sq. ft. of commercial space including a 128,880 sq. ft. hotel and 71,800 Meridian City Council October 21,2025 Page 20 of 60 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; include additional land area (i.e. 1.92 acres); and update certain provisions. B. Request: Annexation of 7.21 acres of land with I-L (5.29-acres), C- G (1.36-acres) and R-15 (0.56-acre) zoning districts. C. Request: Rezone of 3.08-acres (0.91 + 2.17) of land from the C-G to the R-15 zoning district. D. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 41 buildable lots and 3 common lots on 36.58 acres of land in the R-15 and C-G zoning districts. E. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development consisting of 139 units on 2.87-acres of land on Lot 2, Block 1 in the C-G zoning district with a request for alternative compliance 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 studio units without such space. F. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development consisting of 132 units on 3.41-acres of land on 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 square feet of private, usable open space to be provided for each multi-family unit, to allow studio units with no such space; 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. G. Request: 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, by DRB Investments, LLC H. Request: Alternative compliance is requested from the Director 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, Block 4 (hotel & two vertically integrated residential buildings); and to UDC 11-4-3-41 G 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). Meridian City Council October21,2025 Page 21 of 60 Simison: Next item up is Item 3, which is a public hearing for Pine 43, mixed-use subdivision, H-2024-0071 . We will open this public hearing with staff comments. Allen: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. There are several applications associated with this next project and I will just go through those. The first is a combined preliminary and final plat, a development agreement modification -- excuse me. I think that that is -- thank you. That -- I don't know how that got on my outline, but that is not correct. So, disregard that. Development agreement modification, annexation, rezone, preliminary plat, conditional use permit for a multi-family development on Lot 2, Block 1, with alternative compliance to UDC 11-4-3-27-B3, conditional use permit for a multi- family development on Lot 2, Block 2, with alternative compliance to UDC 11-4-3-27-B3 and to UDC 11-2-133 and conditional use permit for a height exception on Lot 2, Block 2. Additionally, alternative compliance is requested from the director to UDC Table 11-2-B3 to allow an increase in the maximum building height in the C-G district from 65 to 76 feet on Lots 1 through 3, Block 4, and Lot 2, Block 3 and that's the hotel, the multi-family residential building at the southwest corner of Webb and Pine and two vertically integrated residential buildings and to UDC 11-4-3-41G, which requires a minimum of 50 square feet of private usable open space per unit for the vertically integrated residential developments to allow studio units without such space. The director has tentatively approved the alternative compliance requests for increased building height contingent upon City Council's approval of the associated land uses, including building height. So, the -- the alternative compliances that are before Council tonight are the ones associated with the conditional use permit. The other ones are director level decisions. This site consists of 36.58 acres of land. It's currently zoned R-8 in Ada county and C-G in the city. It's generally located on the north and south sides of East Pine Avenue between North Locust Grove Road and North Hickory Avenue. This property was annexed with C-G zoning back in 2008 with a preliminary plat for Pine Bridge Subdivision, which consists of approximately 170 acres of land. A development agreement was required as a provision of annexation. The conceptual development plan for the site depicted three million square feet of commercial, light office and multi- family residential uses and a medical campus and included the property that is now the Scentsy Commons campus located east of North Machine Avenue. Subsequent amendments to the development agreement were approved in 2011 and 2021 , which each removed portions of the 50 acre Scentsy property east of Machine Avenue from the agreement. In 2017 another amendment to the development agreement was approved, which updated the conceptual master plan for the site and certain provisions in the agreement, along with a rezone of 59 acres of land from the C-G to the R-15 and R-40 zoning districts on the portion of the site north of State Avenue. The updated plan included commercial components of office and retail and a variety of residential housing types consisting of single family residential detached and attached homes, townhomes and multi-family residential apartments on 120 acres of land. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation for the Pine 43 site is mixed-use community and it is general industrial for the HPC buyer site. Annexation and zoning of 7.21 acres of land is requested with I-L zoning, which consists of 5.29 acres and C-G zoning, which consists of 1.36 acres and R-15 zoning, which consists of .56 of an acre for the property surrounding the parcel at the northeast corner of Locust Grove and Pine. So, that is this Meridian City Council October21,2025 Page 22 of 60 area right here with the hatch line. The future land use map designation for this property is General Industrial. Because future land use map designations are not parcel specific and adjacent abutting designation when appropriate and improved 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 percent of the land being developed. The applicant is proposing to use the abutting mixed-use community 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 percent 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 to be zoned I-L. The remaining 1 .92 acres is planned to be incorporated into the adjacent Pine 43 development through a future property boundary adjustment 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 and phasing plan and building elevations were submitted as shown 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 phases of development are proposed with a parking area and access driveways via Pine Avenue and Locust Grove Road 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 plans. Staff recommends a development agreement is required as a provision of annexation of the property proposed to be zoned I-L that includes the provisions noted in the staff report. The 1.92 acres proposed to be zoned R-15 and C-G will be included in the proposed amended development agreement for Pine 43. A property boundary adjustment application should be submitted and finalized prior to City Council approval of the amended development agreement to create the parcel subject to the development agreement and to transfer ownership of the property. A rezone of 3.8 -- 3.08 acres consisting of two parcels .91 and point -- excuse me -- and point -- geez, I cannot talk tonight -- 2.17 acres of land from the C-G to the R-15 district is proposed for the future development of 17 townhomes. The proposed zoning, use and density is consistent with the mixed-use community development guidelines. The overall density of the area proposed to be zoned R-15 between the annexation and the rezone applications, which is 3.59 acres, excluding right of way and developed with 30 dwelling units is 8.36 units per acre, which is consistent with the desired density of six to 15 units per acre in MUC designated areas. The development agreement modification concurrently proposed with this application will include the subject rezone area. A development agreement modification is proposed to amend the existing approved conceptual development plan shown on the left for the undeveloped 36.58 acres of the site located south of East State Avenue, depicted as areas E, F and G and that is the dashed red outline areas and it does include the areas that are just outlined in red, which have already developed with nonresidential commercial uses. This area is currently entitled to develop entirely with commercial uses. An updated concept master Meridian City Council October21,2025 Page 23 of 60 plan is proposed as shown on the right. The applicant proposes to develop a large portion of the commercial area with 904 new residential dwelling units consisting of 30 townhome dwelling units, a total of 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 square feet of nonresidential space, including a proposed 128,880 square foot hotel, with a restaurant, lounge and a conference area and 71 ,800 square feet of other retail and restaurant commercial space, 221,340 square feet of office space, 90,000 square feet of which is intended for med tech, i.e., medical office research and technology uses and 59,000 square feet of commercial office in the vertically integrated residential buildings. This is an increase of 134,020 square feet of nonresidential space over what is currently entitled, which is not yet built out in Pine 43. Conceptual renderings of the overall development were submitted as shown. I will just go through those and let you look real quick here. A revised overall open space exhibit was submitted as shown that depicts a total of 9.23 acres or 25 percent of the site of private and public open space, including developed green spaces, amenities and a 41,464 square foot centralized public plaza. A pedestrian connectivity plan was submitted as shown. 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 mixed-use community designated areas. However, staff -- 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 in the area. 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. The applicant's traffic engineer submitted a memo that includes additional and updated analysis for the proposed development. A comparison of trip generation between the previously approved land uses south of State Avenue from the approved 2017 traffic impact study and the proposed land use changes are included in the memo and those are in the public record and included in the staff report. For these reasons it's staff's opinion the previously entitled development plan for commercial uses in the area south of Pine where multi-family residential 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 staff's opinion that vertically integrated residential use on Lot 1, Block 1 -- I will just back up to the concept plan here and that is on this lot here at the southeast corner of the development. Staff's of the opinion that it's 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 impact health, safety and overall livability of nearby residential environments. The Commission did not agree with staff's recommendation and did recommend approval of the proposed development plan with no changes. A preliminary plat is proposed consisting of 41 buildable lots and three common lots on 36.58 acres of land in the R-15 and C-G zoning districts. The plat is proposed to develop in eight phases as shown on the phasing plan on the right. The northwest portion of the preliminary plat Meridian City Council October21,2025 Page 24 of 60 includes portions of the existing county parcels that will be included in a future property boundary adjustment application with adjacent city zone parcels once the property is annexed with this application. If a property boundary adjustment 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 application for the realignment of property lines between the HPC buyer and the DRB Investments properties as shown on the preliminary plat. A final plat application should not be submitted to the planning division until a property boundary adjustment application is finalized and a record of survey is recorded that matches the configuration of the property shown on the preliminary plat. In the event a property boundary adjustment is not finalized a new preliminary plat application would be required that excludes the land anticipated to be included in the property boundary adjustment. The conditions of approval in the staff report currently cover all of this, so no worries on including any of that in your -- in your decision. A landscape plan showing required street buffer landscaping for the development was submitted as shown. Two conditional use permits are proposed for a multi-family residential development in the C-G district on Lot 2, Block 1, and Lot 2, Block 3, and, let's see, I will go back to the concept plan real quick and show you which ones those were. So, it's this one here at the southwest corner of Pine and, then, the other one here on the south side of Pine and just west of Machine Avenue. The one on Lot 2, Block 1, includes 139 units on 2.87 acres of land and the one on Lot 2, Block 3, includes 132 units on 3.4 acres of land. Between the two developments a total of 271 apartment units are proposed in the area currently entitled to develop with commercial uses. Alternative compliance is requested with the conditional use permits to UDC 11-4-3-27-B3, which requires a minimum of 80 square feet of private usable open space to be provided for each multi-family residential unit to allow zero for all studio units. As alternative compliance the applicant is proposing private rooftop 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 leased space to host groups of visitors and those are shown on the color drawings there before you. This request is to be considered by Council as part of the conditional use permit request. A similar request was submitted to the private usable open space standards for vertically integrated residential units, which requires a minimum of 50 square feet of private area, which the director has approved contingent upon Council's approval of the proposed development plan. Alternative compliance is also requested to UDC Table 11- 2-133, which restricts building height to a maximum of 65 feet in the C-G zoning district to allow maximum building height of 76 feet on Lot 2, Block 3. Again that was the building at the southwest corner of Pine and Webb. An additional ten percent of the building square footage is proposed to be provided an open space courtyards, patios or other usable outdoor space as required for such requests. This request is to be considered by City Council as part of the conditional use permit request. Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed multi-family residential structures as shown. A conditional use permit is proposed fora height exception to UDC Table 11- 213-3 for the vertically integrated residential building on Lot 2, Block 2, as shown at the northeast corner of Pine and Webb. To allow -- or excuse me -- to exceed the maximum building height allowed of 65 feet in the C-G district to allow maximum height of 87 feet. Meridian City Council October21,2025 Page 25 of 60 This would be an increase of 34 percent in the maximum building height in the C-G district. 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 plan. 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. However, the City Council should consider if reducing the number of residential units proposed above the first floor is necessary in order to accommodate more employment and service uses to support residential uses in this area and to reduce vehicle trips and encourage more trip capture as conditions of approval. The Commission did recommend approval of the subject applications and I will go through a summary of the Commission hearing. Deborah Nelson, Givens Pursley, testified in favor. She's representing the applicant. Tammy De Weerd, Ian Tompkins, Danielle Strollo Givens Pursley, Doug Henderson-Begg from Harvey Performance Company all testified in favor of the application. Garrett Schultz and Brian Farnsworth commented on the application and there was no written testimony. Key issues of public testimony was as follows: In favor of the proposed mix of uses, but against the scale of the development as it's way out of proportion for this location and with the residential homes to the north. Against the proposed height of structures in the development and the transition to existing single family residential homes to the north. Desire for a shadow study to be conducted to determine the impact of the height of the proposed structures on the adjacent single family homes. Concerns pertaining to the amount of additional traffic the development will create and the light and noise pollution impacts on the residents to the north. Opinion that proposed mixed-use development provides benefits of walkability, viability and long-term economic strength and contributes towards a diverse housing stock, employment, supported uses of pedestrian infrastructure and high-quality public spaces, which aligns with the Comprehensive Plan goals. In favor of the proposed development, including building heights. Question pertaining to if the proposed development would be part of the existing homeowners association. The answer was no. HPC is in support of the housing and hotel uses proposed that will help their employment base, as well as nearby commercial opportunities the development will provide. Key issues of discussion by the Commission were as follows. Proposed building heights and transitions to existing single family residential homes to the north and proposed townhome units within the development along State Avenue. Opinion that proposed development fits well in this area and will provide nice amenities. Contemplated the type of commercial uses in the vertically integrated residential buildings specifically in Block 1. Transition to the south between residential and industrial uses and specific mitigation plans in place for noise. Transition in height from the residential homes to the north across State Avenue to the proposed development to the south. Specifically the vertically integrated residential building on Lot 1 , Block 4, to provide greater privacy to the residential lots to the north. Not comfortable with the fire department's response that they can't adequately provide service for the proposed development, although the structures will be sprinklered. Not in support of removing the condition that requires the Animal Farm plat to be recorded prior to submittal of a final plat application for this development and, lastly, although residential uses are proposed Meridian City Council October 21,2025 Page 26 of 60 to increase in this area so are commercial uses. The commercial -- excuse me. The Commission made the following change to the staff recommendation. They were in favor of the residential uses south of Pine and requirement for the shadow study to be submitted prior to the City Council hearing. Approval includes requirement of enhanced construction materials for sound mitigation as offered by the applicant for the vertically integrated building on Lot 1, Block 1, and include conditions of approval of conditional use permit. They weren't originally included, because staff was recommending denial of the conditional use permits for multi-family and meet open space standards for multi- family residential buildings at the southwest corner of Pine and Webb on Lot 2, Block 3, for an increase in the building height. The applicant has submitted an updated open space exhibit for that lot that does comply with the extra open space that's required for the additional building height. The applicant has also submitted an overall exhibit for the public and quasi-public space for the overall development, as well as just that portion south of State and they are demonstrating compliance with the guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan. They have also submitted an exhibit as shown here for the vertically integrated residential building next to the industrial uses at the southeast corner of the development. They are proposing a ten foot wide landscape buffer with dense evergreen trees along that boundary and an eight foot tall wall and they have also submitted a shadow study at different times of the year. I will just run through those. So, that's the most impactful here at winter solstice time. Outstanding issue for Council. It's really not an outstanding issue, just a comment, that the director will issue findings for the alternative compliance request for the building height based on Council's action on the increased building height in the discussion at the public hearing tonight. Written testimony since the Commission hearing has been received from Kathy Crowley. She is opposed to the proposed development. Her letter is in the public testimony file. Staff is recommending at the applicant's request that Council remove condition number 3-F requiring the final plat for Animal Farm to be recorded prior to submittal of a final plat application for any phase of this development. The reason why is because the final plat for Animal Farm has been approved by Council. City engineer has signed the plat and it is just waiting to be recorded. We are hoping that the applicant will go ahead and do that. I have reached out to them. Don't think I received a response back on that. But they were checking with the owner to see when that would be done and if there was a -- what the hold up was on it. So, hopefully, we can get that taken care of quickly. That concludes staff's presentation. Staff will stand for any questions. Simison: Thank you, Sonya. Council, any questions? I know that was a lot. Taylor: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Taylor. Taylor: This is the kind of question for maybe fire. Do we have any concerns with the exceptions we are requesting on the height of the buildings? Meridian City Council October21,2025 Page 27 of 60 Taulbee: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Taylor, I don't -- I don't have any concerns specifically with the -- the high exceptions. Prescriptively they would still have to meet the building and fire code once it -- once it was submitted. Simison: Council, any additional questions for staff at this time? Cavener: Mr. Mayor, no questions. I just -- I have got a quick comment before we hear from the applicant. Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Thanks, Mr. Mayor. Council, just want to make you all aware -- it's probably a year or two ago Mayor de Weerd reached out to me to ask me to meet with the applicant to talk about their new visioning for the area. I can't recall if what is before us is -- exactly matches what they provided. They had no open application at the time. During that course the conversation I conveyed feedback from our public about concern about impact on schools, roads and just maybe the general feeling from our community about too many multi-family, too many apartments in Meridian. They didn't have an open application at the time. I'm prepared to participate this evening, but if anybody on Council feels it would be best for me to recuse myself I'm happy to do that as well. Little Roberts: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Little Roberts. Little Roberts: Mr. Mayor, I should -- and, Council, I should also disclose that I met with Mayor Tammy and went over the plan and the plot as well. To be honest with you, it's been close to when I was just back on Council and honestly couldn't tell you if there is any changes between or not. And I'm happy to recuse if we need to as well. Overton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: To make it a majority of our Council this evening, I did -- was contacted by former Mayor Tammy de Weerd and asked to meet with the applicant to look at this post project somewhere in the future and that was at least I want to say over a year ago and it was so big at that time I can't tell you exactly if it's what we are looking at tonight, but it was long before anything was submitted to the city officially. Whitlock: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Whitlock. Whitlock: Shortly after being appointed to the City Council I sat down with former Mayor de Weerd and just talked concept at the time. There was not an application before the Meridian City Council October 21,2025 Page 28 of 60 city, but just a discussion about what possibly could be envisioned here. So, that was the extent of the discussion. Simison: I -- I, too, sat down with the applicant before this was submitted to the city and so I'm familiar with the concept, but unless something really weird happens tonight and I -- I won't be involved in any decision making process one way or the other, so -- Taylor: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Taylor. Taylor: Left out. I was not contacted by anybody. I guess I get to make the decision tonight. Simison: All right. With that would the applicant like to come forward. Nelson: Mayor, before we begin may I have 20 minutes? As you can tell there is a lot going on here. Simison: You may. Nelson: Thank you. Simison: We will go ahead and take a break for 20 minutes and reconvene at 7:45. Oh. Oh. You want 20 minutes of time -- Nelson: For the presentation. Simison: Yes. With -- yes. Sorry. I -- I thought you needed 20 minutes to get your paperwork in order. Nelson: Thank you all for that accommodation. That was nice. Simison: Yes. We will probably want to break after you are done. Nelson: Probably. Okay. Great. Thank you. Good evening, Mayor and Members of the Council. My name is Deborah Nelson. My address is 601 West Bannock Street in Boise. I'm a land use attorney with Givens Pursley here on behalf of the applicant. We have many members of our applicant team here tonight and available to answer your questions. Much thanks to Sonya. You can tell from her recitation of the applications this is a very complex, involved project and it has taken a lot of work from staff to work through application details and issues and we are very appreciative of their efforts. Dennis and Matt Baker and the entire DMV Company's team have been planning this project for four years and they have put their heart and souls into it. They look at this as a legacy project and they want to leave something lasting and quality in Meridian. As Sonya summarized everything very well, so I'm going to try to focus on the highlights of Meridian City Council October21,2025 Page 29 of 60 the new Pine 43 design and what is different from what is approved now in the 2018 approval and how we meet the Comprehensive Plan. Just briefly, the site includes 37 acres around the intersection of Pine and Webb. It's close to downtown and The Village and the application brings forward a vibrant, integrated, mixed-use urban community to this -- this strategically located site. The in-fill location provides for the efficient delivery of services and minimizes vehicle trips. There are multiple parks, schools, libraries, healthcare facilities, retail, grocery, churches, fitness studios and daycares in the area. Just within a one mile radius, which is shown within the red circle, there are two grocery stores, four daycares, four schools, multiple healthcare facilities, multiple fitness facilities in Centennial Park, plus many others just outside that mile radius. Utilities are stubbed to the site. The developer has already improved the surrounding roads with prior phases and Fire Station No. 1 is less than one and a half miles away and is equipped with a ladder truck. The site supports dense development here, because it's close to two activity centers and it's served by existing transit with an active bus route through the site. In addition, the rail corridor shown in the dashed orange here is just to the south, which is planned for future passenger rail. This application changes what was effectively planned as a surface parked single use office park on 37 acres, now a very dated concept and it's changed into a thoughtfully planned and modern mixed-use community. By going up we can add a range of needed housing, including executive homes, workforce housing, student housing and vertically integrated spaces, while also increasing and maintaining nonresidential uses and space. This mix of housing is missing in this area and this project will fill the void left by nearby developments like The Village„ who initially envisioned vertically integrated housing, but didn't deliver that. Pine 43 is supported by major med tech players. ICOM, ISU and the Meridian Chamber are behind this project, because the mixed-use nature and quality design of Pine 43 will help attract med tech businesses and the talent that they need to succeed. These images really showcase why the P&Z commissioners referred to this as bold, different than the usual application and the crown jewel. It's beautifully designed. There is no sea of asphalt thanks to the developer's significant investment in underground and podium parking. It features a signature public plaza, tree lined pathways, numerous public and quasi-public gathering spaces, upscale amenities and activated street fronts. Exactly what the city has said it wants in its urban core. The project meets COMPASS and Comprehensive Plan goals, in-fill, transit, mixed-use, jobs, housing, sustainability and connectedness and it builds on existing quality. It is located near some of the highest quality development in the city, with Scentsy and Blue Cross and the medical corridor and this project doesn't dilute it, it extends it with more services to support those existing uses. This application modifies what was originally called Pine Bridge and was approved in 2008. So, this has been a -- a long project in the making. Pine Bridge covered 170 acres and included a mix of residential and nonresidential uses. It included the 50 acre Scentsy campus in the southeast. Since, then, Scentsy has built 567,000 square feet of office and manufacturing space with room for more expansion. The DA was modified in 2018 to introduce a new concept plan on the remaining 120 acres with changes in the residential and nonresidential uses to meet then market demand. The area of north of State Street is largely built out now. Market support for the Pine Bridge uses has continued to evolve since that 2018 DA. Housing demand has dramatically increased and while demand for general office parks has declined, Meridian City Council October21,2025 Page 30 of 60 demand is high for urban style mixed-use development that combines commercial and office spaces with conveniently located housing beyond the traditional single family detached homes. So, that brings us to today where this application reimagines the unbuilt 37 acres south of State into an integrated mixed-use community with 904 residential units and a variety of residential products and 481 ,000 square feet of nonresidential space, including commercial office, med tech uses and a hotel with integrated lounge, retail, restaurants and conference area. This table summarizes the history that I just described. The highlighted column in the center shows what is approved now within the original 170 acre site. The highlighted column on the right side shows the total uses if you approve this application. The difference is shown in red at the far right. This application adds 880 residential units to the existing approval by adding vertically and it also adds 134 thousand square feet of nonresidential square feet made up of a slight increase in commercial, a slight decrease in office, new nonresidential space in the vertically integrated buildings that could be commercial or office and a new hotel use. So, rather than replacing nonresidential with residential, it's additive of both by adding vertically and densely. I want to highlight just some features of Pine 43, starting with the well-designed open space throughout the site. The project signature design feature that I mentioned is it's 41 ,000 square foot, nearly one acre public plaza. This unique space provides a gathering area for residents and employees within this development and the surrounding area. The plaza includes seating and public amenity space and is surrounded by restaurants, the hotel and other residential uses in the first floor of the vertically integrated building. Open space and site amenities are provided to meet residential requirements for the townhome lots and for the multi- family uses. Pine 43 provides approximately 260,000 square feet or nearly six acres of common open space for residential units in the multi-family and vertically integrated buildings and offers residential amenities, including fitness centers, six pools, outdoor kitchens, barbecues, picnic areas, bike storage, EV parking, sports courts and green open space. Over ten percent of the site includes public and quasi-public space to serve the community. These spaces will contain seating areas and art features providing for social connection interaction, plus intentional landscaping for connection to nature in an urban space. These are some of the examples of design features for these spaces reflecting the project's emphasis on placemaking to make residents and employees feel more connected and to really activate the streetscape and the uses. Pine 43 extends and enhances the city's premier Pine Avenue bike corridor and adds new connectivity for bikes and pedestrians in and around the site. Pathways and sidewalks are included throughout, providing connections among the multiple uses in the project. The red circle here depicts a quarter mile radius from the plaza in the center of the site illustrating the walkability of the development. Pine 43 includes extensive parking, 174 spaces more than is required for all of the uses within the site. Remarkably this includes over 500 spaces in an underground parking garage that covers most of Block 4 and serves the hotel, restaurants and residents in that block. Additionally, the vertically integrated and multi-family buildings in the other parts of the project include podium parking, all to avoid a sea of surface parking and at significant expense to the developer for incredible quality and urban design. Pine 43 also provides extensive bike parking amounting to 50 percent of all vehicle parking. The applicant met with ACHD about the proposed changes in this application and ACHD determine a Meridian City Council October21,2025 Page 31 of 60 new traffic study was not needed, because the change in trip generation is not significant. All levels of service continue to be met on surrounding roads and the developer already made the required road improvements around the site, with earlier stages of the development. ACHD did require additional pedestrian improvements which have been included. City staff requested additional traffic analysis of the trip generation for the new uses, so the project traffic engineer Kittelson prepared a technical memorandum summarizing the change in trip generation, which now incorporates comments from ACHD. The study with ACHD's comments shows that the net change in peak hour trips with this application over the 2018 approval is 130 more a.m. trips and 165 more p.m. peak trips. So, to provide context for these numbers, Kittelson points out that the changes associated with this application are less than ten percent of the total volumes entering the site and well within the typical variation of traffic volume from day to day. Pine 43 is aligned with the Comprehensive Plan in multiple ways. The mixed-use community designation calls for three different land uses to be functionally integrated and calls for residential uses at a minimum of 20 percent and up to 65 percent for sites next to transit as this one is. Pine 43 three checks all of the boxes on the MUC designation with the mix of uses, including residential within these ranges, true horizontal and vertical integration of those uses, all incorporated within a common design scheme with limited surface parking, public gathering spaces and multi-modal transportation. Staff's recommendation to remove residential entirely south of Pine would segregate uses, not integrate them as called for in the comp plan and the Planning and Zoning Commission rejected that recommendation and was supportive of the density, because it supports transit and because it supports area businesses and it supports the needed commercial. Pine 43 is aligned with the -- the Comprehensive Plan specific housing goals in the plan by providing multiple housing types for diversity and density adjacent to public transit, downtown and employment centers and we are aligned with the specific Comprehensive Plan goals related to mixed-use by providing a mix of employment and retail uses to serve residents without the need to get in their car, creating a livable and walkable village within a city. Vertical integration of uses adds significant value because it maximizes the use of land adding needed residential without giving up non-residential. The vertical integration also builds into the -- in the complementary uses that are needed for success of the project. Without dense residential you don't get commercial and without residential and commercial you don't have successful office. Pine 43's mix of uses leads to a higher level of trip capture than in other developments and the urban density and mix of uses is compatible with and supports the surrounding light industrial and office uses and provides new commercial uses to serve surrounding residents. Staff raised concerns with compatibility to the adjacent light industrial uses. As was mentioned again tonight, the Planning and Zoning Commission accepted input from the developer regarding that particular southeast area, including to add additional glass protection for noise and to add an eight foot wall masonry fence in that location and significant landscaping and so -- and -- and also when we pointed out the distances of 105 feet between the two buildings and the type of uses that were to the light -- in the light industrial zone just south of that vertically integrated, the Commission was satisfied with those -- with those comments about compatibility. We have significant support from our area organizations, educational institutions. Pine 43 has received several letters of support from the -- the Meridian City Council October21,2025 Page 32 of 60 entities that are listed here. They support the addition of a hotel and a convention space in their area. They recognize the need for an attractive mix of housing and commercial uses to help them attract and retain employees and they believe this project will support the emerging med tech corridor. The Planning and Zoning Commission was -- made a unanimous decision to recommend approval following two hearings where the applicant responded to their questions and requests. A couple of comments I will highlight. Commissioner Stoll said this project does support the bus line on Pine that the city has invested in and would provide potentially the needed ridership that line needs and we are getting from my viewpoint the best of both worlds and that we are addressing the housing crunch in Meridian, as well as across the valley, but we are also getting commercial space. Commissioner Rust said there is a ton of community value here for residents, for those that will come in and appreciate the public square and everything else that's happening here. This is very different from other multi-family projects we see and we are not going back to the pre-COVID era of these suburban office parks and everything that happens is -- really is more about that lifestyle. My generation wants village-type living, working and playing spaces and this provides that. In all we believe that this is a needed and desired and anticipated project for the City of Meridian. It is functional. It's ready. It's beautifully designed. It's an in-fill project that will bring jobs, housing, transit and sustainability together. It reinforces COMPASS and Comprehensive Plan goals and we are in support of the conditions in the staff report as described by Sonya this evening. We would ask for your approval and stand for any questions. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions for the applicant? Little Roberts: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Member Little Roberts. Little Roberts: Mr. Mayor. Council. Deb, thank you very much. Appreciate your presentation. Do you have kind of a timeline and segments that are kind of the order of the project? And I know that's like what -- you know, how's your -- how's your vision into the future? But at least I know that there is one there if you could share it with us. Nelson: Yeah. I have brought some extra slides in case you had questions, including a phasing plan. So, Mayor and Council Member Roberts, the -- the time frame is expected to be approximately ten years. Might be ten to 12 or other time frame as driven by market conditions. The phasing will also be driven by market conditions. But they have thought about this for quite a while and have an expectation of the order that they intend to proceed in and that's shown here in this phasing plan. Generally proceeding from the northeast corner and south first and, then, moving over to the west side on the north and so -- and these numbers are a little hard to see here, so -- I can describe that a little more completely. The current -- the current thought on the west side is to go to Block 4, which is the vertically integrated in gray there and, then, to the west of that where the hotel and in -- in the turquoise there and, then, up further to the Meridian City Council October 21,2025 Page 33 of 60 west and, then, move down into the southwest quadrant. So, for that second phase. So, that's the contemplated phasing at this time. Thank you. Little Roberts: Follow up. Simison: Council Woman Little Roberts. Little Roberts: Deb, I think -- is Block 4 one of the ones that's got the height variance request In it and whichever block that's in? I'm sorry, my -- my allergies are kicking in. Because we have just gone through a -- kind of a situation where we gave a height variance and, then, the added amenities on the top basically looked like another -- that we ended up with an even taller building than we had anticipated. So, any access to like a patio or anything on the top? Wanted to make sure that that was included in the heights that have been requested. Nelson: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Roberts, that building in Block 4 is not subject to the height request for the conditional use permit. It is one of the buildings that is requested of the planning director, though, for a height exception, because it falls within the percentage over the allowed height that is within the discretion of the planning director. So, we have that building with -- is proposed at 76 feet and that is inclusive of the amenities and all of the architectural features to address your specific question. The only building that is subject to the conditional use permit level of height exception is to the east of that on Block 2 and so further to the -- closer to the central part of the site and that's proposed at 87 feet. Little Roberts: And includes -- Nelson: And that includes all architectural features and amenities. Little Roberts: I just want to make sure. Thank you. Simison: Council, any additional questions for the applicant? Okay. All right. Nelson: Thank you. Simison: Thank you. Council, would you like a break or do you want to keep on going through our public testimony? Little Roberts: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Little Roberts. Little Roberts: Excuse me. If we could at least do one more testimony before we take a break. I would like one of our firefighters -- maybe our senior firefighter to come up and kind of share his thoughts if he wouldn't mind. Meridian City Council October 21,2025 Page 34 of 60 Simison: Should we take that through the public testimony normal process? Have a seat for now. We will see if anyone signed up in advance. Mr. Clerk, anyone signed up in advance? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, yes. Charli Anderson. Simison: Good evening. State your name and address for the record. Anderson: Yes. My name is Charli Anderson. My address is 2005 East Presidential Drive, Meridian. Just put my phone away, which has my little speech, so -- I apologize. So, where I live is directly north of Block 4, Lot 1, the -- the vertically integrated building in question from earlier and I have been to multiple meetings that the developers have had along with the previous meetings here and I want to reaffirm my support for the overall Pine 43 development, the benefits that it's going to bring to the city of Meridian. However, I would like to voice my concerns again just for that building specifically at Block 4, Lot 1, and the height of that and the relativity to those homes directly to the north. I know that was brought up by another homeowner in the previous meeting. It's been brought up by me multiple times and my neighbor as well and I just want to ensure that that is heard with your consideration. One of the new documents that was submitted was the shadow study which again worries me some, because I just installed solar panels on my house and now the -- a lot of time is going to, you know, block the sun that will directly impact my energy usage, my cost of living and my overall quality of life, because one of the reasons I bought that home was because It faces south in the sun. I'm a sun lover. You know, this is my forever home. I had a custom built after saving 15 years for a down payment on it. I'm a single homeowner -- or a single individual, you know, I'm by no means, you know, a wealthy individual. I'm not asking to halt or derail the broader development and I understand how long that this has been in the works, but, you know, given that this project is being developed in phases I just respectfully ask DRB Investments and the Council to consider the design of that mixed- use building to respect the privacy, sunlight access and concerns of the homeowners to the north of that development. That is all. Thank you. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Thank you. Johnson: Mr. Mayor, is Tammy de Weerd. De Weerd: Tammy de Weerd. 2621 North Miranda Avenue. It's weird being on the side of things, but thank you for your time this evening. I'm excited to support this development. I first heard it as a citizen and I testify tonight as a citizen. This project is ambitious. It's not another subdivision or it's not a strip mall. It's a thoughtfully planned, vertically integrated, mixed-use community that really does bring the city's Comprehensive Plan to life, not just in concept, but in execution. Over my tenure with the city it's a development that we had always hoped for. Input and -- input and feedback was sought from community, business, education and health science leaders. So, we got this right prior to our application. Pine 43 reflects the city's vibrant and connected vision themes, where walkable streets, rooftop amenities and public plazas Meridian City Council October 21,2025 Page 35 of 60 create a strong sense of place. Our buildings are pulled up to the street, not surrounded by a sea of asphalt. Parking is integrated. Sidewalks connect to open space, office, dining and transit that already exists today. They are not a concept. They exist. This is an in-fill project alongside, in between designated activity centers where density is encouraged, where job services, transit and infrastructure already exist. The project includes professional and med tech office space and I think those of you who know me that is something that I have really been a proponent for and have pushed for. It's in our Comprehensive Plan and it's what the core targets essential to our economic future. It brings over eight acres of open space into the heart and creates a civic plaza. It offers housing that meets the needs of remote workers, professionals and families and not all of -- it's not existing here today. It's within walking distance of the -- The Village, transit and a future rail corridor. This isn't just a cookie cutter development. It's complex. It's a complete neighborhood. It's a gateway to our downtown, which is essential to the vibrancy and economic feasibility of our downtown and what we are trying to do in our downtown. It's a catalyst for quality economic development and built to stand the test of time. I want to thank you for your leadership and the vision that creates the possibility for a project to be considered like this and I would stand for any questions. Simison: Thank you. I think you got a hometown crowd on that one, because they stopped the timer on you right before it went off, so -- De Weerd: Woot. Woot. And -- and that is an unusual occurrence. Simison: I was getting ready to gavel you down. So, I don't know -- Council, any questions? Thank you. Taylor: I have a quick question. Simison: Councilman Taylor. Taylor: This is a really fascinating project with a lot of things that have long been ideas that the city's talked about going back when you were mayor, obviously, with some of these priorities. I'm just kind of really fascinated with how it kind of came together. You know, how did -- were you able to share some of your thoughts with the applicant? You know, obviously, you had some conversations with them. Were you able to kind of work with them to help them understand some of the longer vision or the big picture items that the city's long prioritized going back, you know, years ago when you were mayor and kind of coming forward, because this is a project that's obviously been years in the making in some way. So, just kind of curious kind of how things sort of came to where they are today with this really kind of interesting project and sort of your perspective with -- with the applicant with that. De Weerd: You know, as you probably read in the testimony I gave at Planning and Zoning, I -- I had the opportunity to participate in the city's first comprehensive plan when I was on Planning and Zoning and to see it evolve and see the updates that we Meridian City Council October21,2025 Page 36 of 60 have and how we wanted to -- how it went from a small town into a growing city and now into an urban environment and many of the things that we tried to put into the current comprehensive plan was to consider these urban elements and how we can develop for markets in the future and that would be sustainable. When I walked into their office on -- at their invitation I thought I was getting a free lunch. They wanted my input and I was super excited, because as I mentioned earlier this is exactly what we have been hoping to see, with the buildings pulled up to the streets, with the vertically integrated, the mixture of uses in a building as well, with rooftop amenities. I would say -- my -- my daughter lives in South Africa and for a number of years she lived in one of those high rise buildings that had high amenities just like it is today. She's a remote worker and it's something that I could envision her living in and maybe even keeping her here. I don't think I will get her back now, but that's another story. This is what is responding to a lot of the need and, in fact, one of those business neighbors that we talked to had a new executive that joined us at the meeting and she said I want to sign up. I just came from Chicago. This is the kind of -- of home I'm looking for. You know, when is it going to be ready. It shows you that there is a need and in the past one of the things that our staff and -- and leaders grappled with is in order for our citizens or those that worked in our community 8:00 to 5:00, they had to go to another community to find it. This will close that circle and -- and allow those kind of opportunities here in Meridian so we can keep our citizens here. Simison: Thank you very much. De Weerd: Thank you. Johnson: Mr. Mayor, that's everyone that marked they wanted to speak. Simison: Okay. Is there anybody else that would like to provide testimony at this time? Good evening. Tompkins: My name is Ian Tompkins and I live at 1018 North Webb Way, Apartment B105. That is the apartment complex directly north of State from Block 2 and before I continue on I would like to thank the firefighters who are here for their service so far and for as long as they decide to stay firefighters. I'm here to continue on my support fully for the project as it currently -- at current requests from the applicant. Meridian is -- and the valley as a whole is in bad need of additional -- additional residential, especially when it comes to apartment level residential of the studio single and double bedroom variety. Currently -- the current average prices per month for apartments sit between 1,400 and 1 ,500 dollars a month for a single bedroom of about 750 square feet. That is shockingly high and is almost 500 dollars more than what it was just before the pandemic and is at the point where before taxes are taken out of wages an hourly -- hourly worker would need to work between 16 and 18 dollars an hour to afford to live at that monthly cost and that includes -- and that would also include any -- insurance, car, Internet, because most apartments don't include Internet, so apartments don't even include lighting, power, so that -- taking all that into account it would have -- the cost of apartments has gotten to -- in the valley and in Meridian to very high levels and anything Meridian City Council October21,2025 Page 37 of 60 we can do to maximize the increase to apartments is badly needed. This place -- it also has great walkability. Currently the only way to walk from the -- what is currently there for Pine 43 to the southwest corner of Eagle and Fairview where Red Robin and Krispy Kreme are is you would need to walk along the sidewalks along Pine until you reached the intersection of Pine and Eagle and, then, either walk through the Blue Cross Blue Shield development or cross across over as there is no complete sidewalk on Fairview, nor there -- is there a complete sidewalk on Hickory, so having this additional commercial within walking distance of what's currently there for Pine 43 is highly desirable and, honestly, I'm hoping that whatever additional traffic it does bring causes ACHD to reset the lighting at Pine-Eagle as currently it is the shortest cross light compared to its neighbors. Thank you. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Cavener: Hey, Ian. Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Ian, thanks for being here. We -- we don't get a lot of apartment residents who come and testify. So, I appreciate you being here and so I -- go back to like the decisions I made when I lived in an apartment. That was a long time ago. So, help me -- what were the deciding factors on what made you choose the current apartment that you live in? Are you -- are you from Meridian? Did you move here from somewhere else? Help me -- help me look at a little bit inside of your psyche as to what helped to make those decisions. Tompkins: So, I was born and raised in the Treasure Valley. I was born in the St. Luke's downtown and, then, I have lived in Meridian my entire life. I chose what was at the time Jasper Apartments in -- during the pandemic of 2020 as they were newly under construction and they were sitting on Pine, which is a direct ten minute route to work. So, it made simple sense just for driving. It's close to -- close driving time to nearby commercial, which made sense to me and at the time it was sitting -- I want to say between 1 ,100 and maybe 1,200 at max rent per month at the time and so while I knew that rental prices had gone up from when I was in college back in 09/2010 when I was first looking for apartments before I decided -- I was living in -- I was going to Boise State and, therefore, could live at home. That level of increase didn't seem too bad, but the level of increase we have seen since then is shocking as year on year increases and dovetail does not allow for any increases of time beyond one year. So, you always renew every year. You can't do anything longer. The cheapest increase of cost per year has been 80 dollars and, unfortunately, my wage has not increased enough per year to create enough of per year to create enough of a barrier for me to think about moving elsewhere and that was before this. If I were to move elsewhere it would likely be somewhere else within the Pine 43 development into one of the townhomes potentially or one of the houses nearby in order to be -- keep walkability with the upcoming commercial that would be coming in with this. Meridian City Council October21,2025 Page 38 of 60 Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Thanks. I really appreciate your comments and -- and I really value your perspective this evening. Thanks for sharing it with us. Tompkins: Thank you. Simison: Thank you very much. Mr. Nelson. D.Nelson: Can we get Mason back in here, please? I would like him to do this for me. Should have started this when I was eight years old. Wouldn't be quite so nervous, even though I have talked to you guys plenty of times. I should also disclose I was hired by Mayor de Weerd, so I don't know if that means anything. I was there when we got our first truck that we spoke of, so I can appreciate all this. We should put that out there. Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, thank you for the opportunity to speak here again. I have neglected doing this more often. I would probably be a lot better at it, but I'm here today representing the 130 plus members of the Meridian Fire Department as the president of the union -- Simison: And your name is -- D.Nelson: Oh. Simison: For the record. D.Nelson: Right. For the record. Derek Nelson. No relation. Do I know Deb. Share last name. I live at 323 West Rescue in Boise, Idaho. Now, you know, I wanted to at least get up here tonight and provide you guys if nothing else for a little bit of perspective from the line personnel who are going to respond to emergencies in a development of this size. I agree -- everything I have heard tonight I -- I actually hadn't dug into some of the details. Great to see some of the things they were doing. I, having recently broken my neck, appreciate some walkability to be able to get around when one's kind of pent up, but -- so, seeing the development itself the Fire department doesn't have really any issues with it I wouldn't say. I don't think the line personnel would have any issues with it, but I do want to provide some perspective and I know this is some of the stuff that we have been talking about for quite a while and now certainly -- Simison: Stay on the microphone, please. D.Nelson: Sorry. What's that? Simison: Stay on the microphone. Meridian City Council October21,2025 Page 39 of 60 D.Nelson: Oh. I'm sorry. I -- it certainly relates to the ongoing levy conversation that we are having that we put in for the voters and I think -- I almost feel like I want to turn this dais around and speak to them directly, because I think this is what -- what gets us to that vote -- or -- or this is -- things like this is what gets us to that vote is that even with where we are at today we are still behind and developments like this put a strain on those numbers. We are already struggling with -- our numbers are less than what they should be to meet the needs of this city. The city has grown so fast and numbers have grown so fast that our department hasn't grown to meet it. Even with the bold action that you guys took to secure the SAFER grant that got us to where we are today, we are still technically behind. A development of this size -- and, you know -- and even that -- the multi-story going up 86 feet and that number of people being housed in -- in a structure that big requires numbers and for us the math wouldn't math. It would require this entire department of our city -- if an incident was there -- a large scale incident would use all of those people -- 32 of them right now on any given day, plus a battalion chief. That would ask our neighbors, then, to fill in. So, I guess what we are -- the perspective I want to provide for you is, you know, kind of some ask -- you -- we have to kind of ask ourselves some questions. So, if we are going to continue doing what we are doing is like what does that mean, you know, to -- to our community, what does that mean to our people. If we are at a large scale incident like this where it drains our entire city, we are, then, asking our neighboring cities to help us provide service to those areas we can no longer get to. We can no longer meet the needs and we already struggle to do that. The -- the truck which Mayor de Weerd was so instrumental in procuring for us, has a 68 percent response rate, meaning that it -- one quarter of the -- out of -- for every four calls one -- one time they are -- they are not going to -- they are not going to be available. The nearest engine company at Station 3 has about an 80 percent reliability rate. Reliability rate. Not response rate. Sorry. Meaning that, you know, out of five, you know, there is -- out of five calls there is one time they are not going to be there. So, our reliability is already limited. Our numbers are already too small. So, as we move forward -- and I know this is a ten year plan, but these are those things that we have to continue to talk about and continue to consider. Is it numbers have to make sense. Numbers have -- the math has to math. We need the people to, you know, serve the people that we have already here. I just want to provide that perspective. Thank you very much. Simison: Thank you. D.Nelson: Questions for me? Simison: Questions? Councilman Taylor. Taylor: Mr. Mayor. Derek, thank you. I was just kind of reading the P&Z notes, some of an exchange that Deputy Director Taulbee had with one of the commissioners and I guess the question I have is -- talking about numbers, but what we are really talking about with a development like this is it's the complexity of what you are seeing, not so much maybe the number of people that are there. So, if I'm -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- the way I'm thinking about it is I can look at a -- a residential development of Meridian City Council October21,2025 Page 40 of 60 similar size that's not going to be as challenging in terms of the technicality or the complexity of any response when I'm looking at something that's above five stories and that's kind of why I asked the question initially is I -- I do recall a conversation a couple years ago before I was on Council listening and on -- you know, the higher you go the more complex the response gets. So, could you just kind of put a finer point -- maybe both of you I would be appreciative of some perspective. Can you explain the -- how the complexity of responding goes up so much once you -- in a project like this or above -- you know, was it four or five stories? It's -- kind of trying to get a better sense of that. D.Nelson: Well, certainly, as you can imagine -- and Chief Taulbee, you can jump in if you would like. Square footage is just people. So, if you put a whole bunch of square footage that takes that many more people to provide, you know, A, just that initial response. You got search we have to think about. You know, how are we hitting all of our benchmarks, you know, within there. So, whether you go, you know, just sheer square footage, like if it's a million square foot, you know, warehouse facility or it's, you know, a multi-level, multi-family facility we just need people to meet the square footage. Then you add in a human component. If there is people living there, that's a whole different from a rescue, you know, perspective and that -- that just requires people. People require people. Square footage requires people. Taulbee: Mr. Mayor and Councilman Taylor, just going back -- and I do apologize, didn't elaborate much on your earlier question. However, it wasn't necessarily looking -- height is a -- is, obviously, a considering factor, but it's the overall scope, size and the use of the property. So, again, if we had a -- a mid or high rise office building those individuals they leave at the end of the day and where these individuals are -- you know, they are -- they are sleeping, so they are not alert, they are not oriented and so our response capabilities to that property would -- obviously, the initial assignment and, then, we would have evacuation, we would have our operational and, then, that's just showing up on the initial response. So, if there is actually a working incident to get this amount of people down stairwells and into certain areas and provide fire and EMS support it's just a different complexity. Taylor: Mr. Mayor, quick follow up. Simison: Councilman Taylor. Taylor: So, really, if -- and I'm putting words in your mouth, but tell me if I heard it wrong. It is more complex. There is more challenges as you highlighted. More people -- it's a manageable challenge, but it's a -- it's a people on people sort of response. Like you are concerned that you don't currently have the staffing levels to respond to a high capacity like incident here with the current numbers that we have, is that an accurate reflection of what you are -- D.Nelson: Yeah. That's an accurate -- certainly we haven't -- you know, the explosion at the rate at which we have grown we don't have, yeah, straight up numbers of people. We don't have even, you know, a standard written, you know, guidelines on how to Meridian City Council October21,2025 Page 41 of 60 handle something that big. So, I mean we are still struggling to catch up as it is. I mean, Luke, you know, you were -- excuse me. Councilman Cavener joined us at our most recent union meeting in which we -- we -- one of those questions that was directed right at -- actually was like where do you think we are realistically as a city and you were like -- or a department that is and you said about three years behind, you know, and so here we are talking about, yes, this is ten years out, but -- so, this is things we need to be thinking about if we are going to grow -- continue to grow like this is it make sure it's, you know, across the board departments as well to meet that need. Overton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: Derek or for either one of you, to assist in a -- in a unit this large, I mean, obviously, all the units are sprinkled, but is there also a requirement on the two tallest buildings that a -- is -- I think it's called the FARS system is installed. Is that required on these two in this application? Taulbee: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Overton, based on the scope of what I have seen proposed as far as what would be required, again, that's just conceptually what -- from what I have looked at so far. In addition to the other fire protection systems that would be required for this type of building. Overton: Thank you. And would you elaborate for everyone that doesn't know what FARS is this real quick? Taulbee: Yes. Mr. Mayor, Councilman Overton, so FARS as is the firefighter air replenishment systems that was adopted by ordinance by city -- city council that's currently in an appendix to our 2018 IFC and there are certain restrictions when buildings are built more than five stories, square footage requirements or so many store -- any level below grade and that's essentially what that system provides as capabilities for our firefighters. When we go into rehab during firefighting operations, if we don't have an air resource availability we are able to connect into a system and replenish our SCBAs or self-contained breathing apparatus and continuing our firefighting operations. So, it makes things more effective and efficient for what we are doing in these larger style buildings where we would have operations for hours, depending on what we have working. D.Nelson: In theory it allows us to stay there versus exiting, coming back recycling more people. So, maybe they are -- you know, those individuals are staying in the fight longer to say. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Meridian City Council October 21,2025 Page 42 of 60 Cavener: Thanks for being here. No reason to be nervous. We are all -- we are all friends and neighbors here. I just -- I want to touch on something to make sure I heard right. You kind of were initially -- with your initial comments, which is right it's not lost on us, we have got -- we are asking the voters to support a public safety levy here in a few weeks, but it sounds like what I heard from you is whether the voters support that or not I was right, because not -- not changing anything, we are maintaining status quo if this passes, that -- that your opinion is that you have got concerns about the ability for you and your colleagues to be able to support a large scale -- I mean for lack of a better word a disaster or something -- you know, something we hope never happens; right? We have to often wonder what if. But you would have concerns for -- for the department to be able to respond in an effective manner. I mean it doesn't sound like it's more of a -- it's not a timing issue, it's about the ability to be effective, not just here, but across the rest of the community without mutual aid, is that kind of what you were trying to -- D.Nelson: I mean I think that's -- sure. Yes. That is correct. Cavener: Mr. Mayor, just a quick thought. Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Mr. Nelson, how often does the city require or request mutual aid our neighboring agencies? Does this happen on a monthly basis, a quarterly basis, a weekly basis? Help me understand who is -- who is not in your industry. D.Nelson: So, I mean that -- that's where those numbers or those reliability ratings come in. So, when we have, yeah, apparatus that are not able to meet their calls 80 percent 68 percent as it is with Fire Station 1, that means another district is having to fill in behind them. Now, is that a district within the city of Meridian or is that, you know, another agency from outside? I can't speak to the exact numbers. If we had, you know, Chief Butterfield can speak to that better being that's his -- his -- his bailiwick is those numbers, but I mean frequently -- when we -- we provide the same service to our neighboring agencies as well, but, yeah, I mean that's -- Cavener- Okay. Thank you. D.Nelson: We are asking other agencies. Simison: Mr. Nelson, that's where I was going to kind of touch on -- D.Nelson: Yeah. Simison: -- the role of mutual aid and how we have used that here in the valley for everything. Boise just built in a 22, 23 story. Did they go add a bunch more firefighters for -- I don't think so. I mean do -- do they -- if they had two fires in two of their downtown buildings do they have enough people to staff two mutual things going on at Meridian City Council October21,2025 Page 43 of 60 once? Even if there is one we are covering their flanks more than likely. This is a common occurrence in how we are set up in the Treasure Valley. The expectations. I'm not going to say we -- we live by their standards or they live by our standards, but I don't know anybody that can sustain a large -- even a two story, three story unit of significant breadth could be enough. D.Nelson: Yeah. I mean I -- when I started here I -- my -- my first experience was the Oregon Trail fire. I was I think fresh out of the Academy at the time that that happened and so -- I mean that drained the entire valley and now when we had -- granted we were much smaller at the time, all the departments were, but I mean even as we are now you just look at -- around us, it's not just us that have grown. I mean, you know, our Star, Middleton has grown. Everyone's growing. You know, our neighbors to the west are growing and so we are all asking a lot of, you know, of our agencies, of our departments, of one another, you know, for that cooperation. I mean worst case scenario, yeah, there is not enough people to -- to deal. We are going to be calling on, you know, other states as they do, you know, when they have large scale incidents in, you know, California where they ask us for their support. So, yeah, we are always going to -- that's always going to be there, but it's more the perspective is in this conversations that we have been continuing to have is that, you know, we have to still attempt to meet what we have, you know, and we are -- we are still a little -- we are still behind that. Simison: I -- I get that. D.Nelson: Yeah. Simison: The other -- D.Nelson: And we are looking at a ten year project here. So, like let's be thinking ten years from now and this is complete. Simison: Correct. And I think the other part of that is, you know, people often will say cities are chasing the dollar, that we are trying to grow for the tax revenue, but in-fill actually does provide tax revenue to help in some cases. This would actually -- if the levy doesn't pass when you -- when you have additional revenue and you don't have to add more stations on the outskirts you can put the resources more into your internal locations to provide those, whether it's a fourth person on an engine or a second engine company and, you know, takes away some of those costs. So, sometimes in-fill actually helps us get to where we want to go more so than other types of development on the edges, which just stretch the resources because of time distance travel. I'm not -- I don't know what the right answer is. It's just perspective. D.Nelson: Sure. Yeah. And those are the considerations or where it is asking. I mean I think, again, if we are going to dig into numbers, whether it's a reliability rate or it's even our response times, I mean with the added traffic, the -- I mean the very first development we talked about I mean, you know, getting on and off Chinden now is a hassle, you know. Eagle Road is a hassle. It slows us way down on our ability to get Meridian City Council October21,2025 Page 44 of 60 to, you know, emergencies in a meaningful, you know, period of time and -- and, you know, if people knew what -- how long it's really taken us it's -- it's -- you know, it's not great. Simison: Okay. Thank you. D.Nelson: Thank you. Simison: Is there anybody else that would like to provide just -- come on forward. Baker: Thank you, Mayor, Council Members. I'm Matt Baker. I'm co-owner with Dennis Baker and DRB Investments LLC, the applicant. I just thought after Council Member Taylor you asked Mayor Tammy de Weerd kind of the personal side of the project, so I thought just really quickly I would give a little background. You know, Dennis, my father, has been a developer in the Valley since the late '60s. Really started out in west Boise. Went to southeast Boise. I was the youngest of five kids. Drove my mother crazy. She got me out of the office, threw me in his office and started doing this with him since I was five and he eventually knew heading out towards Micron things were going to end, so he acquired this property mainly in the early '90s. He was developing Danbury Fair Subdivision, you know -- you know, across the road there on Locust Grove in the late '80s and early '90s with Mr. Torfin behind me and as we acquired this property, we are doing things in Eagle as well, we kind of knew we needed to get Pine Avenue. Dan -- Dennis started working with Mayor de Weerd. We got Pine in. Had acquired all of the property kind of from Locust Grove to Eagle Road north up to Fairview and as you have seen the different applications and modifications that Sonya mentioned earlier, you know, we have Pine 43, the subdivision, phases one, two and three. Then we are now doing the Shops at Pine 43 up front. We have got five of the buildings in there now on the east side. We have started construction on the next two buildings on the west side you see under construction now. So, three and a half years ago we came to Dan, say, okay, Dan, 33 and a half acres left, this has become in-fill. When we buy it it was suburbia. We need to figure out what's the highest and best use. That's when we got with Mayor de Weerd, we have such respect for her, we sat down with Andy Erstad and the team and we really started brainstorming, what can we do that's really bold and unique. At 89 now Dennis is still there every day. He didn't come tonight. He just told Dan and I not to screw it up when we left and, essentially, we put three -- last three and a half to four years working with this great team behind us to come up with a one-of-a- kind project for the valley, but especially from Meridian and the community around there. So, this is something that we look at as a legacy project. This is something that if we are fortunate enough to get this entitlement we are asking from you guys we are probably a year, year and a half for sure going through the design process on the first building or buildings. At that point you get through design review, you get to construction drawings, then, we bid it out, then it's a -- it's a -- you know, we are three and a half -- three to three and a half years from today if we were fortunate to get this from you. We would be three to three and a half years before either we have an occupancy permit, both for the -- for the office, certainly the retail or let alone the residential. So, this is something that's going to take time to get there. But it's just Meridian City Council October 21,2025 Page 45 of 60 really -- we are really excited. We have put a lot of time and effort. We are appreciative for all of the time -- the staff, everybody's come together. Fire. We understand there is - - this is a very big project, but it's something we are very excited and we are going to put absolutely everything we can to make this one of a kind. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Councilman Whitlock. Whitlock: Mr. Mayor. Yeah. Matt, thanks. Baker: Yeah. Whitlock: As long as we are getting personal. Baker: Yeah. Whitlock: I ride my bike up and down Pine all the time -- Baker: Yeah. Whitlock: -- and so I have -- I have coveted your property. If -- if I were to ever win the lottery I -- I would love to buy one of those parcels and build a compound and live there forever. I -- I think it's probably the most prime real estate in the City of Meridian. So, I applaud you for your vision. I applaud you for coming forward with something that truly is bold. Having said that you have also heard tonight concerns from a neighbor who has installed solar panels. Any mitigation that you might consider there with this project? Baker: Yeah. And we are -- I appreciate that question, Councilman Whitlock. We spent time with Erstad on architecture on the stair step. So, if you look at that building and -- you can see as we stair step down, then, we went to the buffering of just the townhouses along that area. For the first section -- I don't know if that slide's up there. If they can put that up there. But, you know, we have got the sports court and I think the pickleball court, then, there is about four houses in there I think that really have some component of impact there. On the shade study you are -- you are going to have different periods throughout the day and I -- and I understand you -- I drive there, because as you guys -- I think you know we built our office up there against Locust Grove. We put the surgery center right across the parking lot there. As I drive that up and down all day long you are going to see different sections at, you know, 10:00 a.m., noon, 2:00 p.m. So, we are aware that there is going to be a component of shade, but there is going to be a -- you know, during wintertime that sunset's more to the northwest, it's going to be different throughout the year. So, it's a factor of -- to be able to create that plaza, that crown jewel, that residential area in there is just so -- such a key driver to be able to make the viability of all that commercial and that crown jewel work. So, what we tried to do was be able to keep the amount of residential, but stair step down and create so that we didn't have it just looming. I think that -- I think the distance between the backyard to us is about 65 feet, Dan? Was it 65 or 70? Ninety. Ninety. Meridian City Council October21,2025 Page 46 of 60 Yeah. So, 90. So, if you get out and you do 90 feet, we feel -- we feel really comfortable that that's a really strong buffer between that neighborhood -- those four or five houses and what we are proposing there with that building. Along with the fact that I think we have -- you know, if you know Dennis, he lives to landscape. I think he does it more to landscape than they actually worry about what money he makes and he is going to tree line that thing more than Rodney Evans could ever imagine just putting on -- on a design application. I mean he is -- he is going to make this place look like nothing else and so we will buffer that in there so nicely that it will look as -- anything you see that we have done in there this will be to the highest level we can do. I think it was chair -- is it Chair Lorcher on the P&Z? You know, after she -- she knew that we had built the Arbor Farms nursery and left Nampa and brought it over to Meridian on -- off of Black Cat in Franklin and so he has got the nursery over there at Arbor Farms and he said, please, let anybody know, I'm just dying to landscape it. If they want more I will give them more. So, we are planning on making sure that's a beautiful buffer on each side of -- or on that side of State Avenue with that building. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Matt, I always love your enthusiasm, man. It's hard to not get excited when you start talking about a project. So, I'm always enthusiastic about Pine Avenue. I just think it's a really -- really unique corridor in Meridian and, you know, it's -- it's not the same Pine Avenue it was, right, when we were kids. Baker: Sure. Cavener: It's grown. Our city's grown. But I'm -- I'm looking at where your project is going to go and -- and this is going to be one of my larger concerns is you have got both Locust Grove and Pine rated better than E right now by the -- by the highway district, with no plans for improvements in at least five years. So, how do we -- how do we support the transportation needs of our current residents, as well as your future residents, on kind of an intersection that's really close to being constrained already and no plans in place to improve? Baker: Well, my personal opinion -- I can get Jamie Markosian up there and he is really going to be able to answer that better than I can. What I can tell you, though, is that I drive that road ten, 12 times a day. State Avenue. Webb to Fairview. Webb down to Pine. Pine to Eagle. 8.00 in the morning 10:00, noon, 2.00 -- I think now and going forward, especially with the trip capture of the multi-family with the retail and the office, we are going to capture so much -- everyone's going to stay within that predominantly and I just don't believe that you are going to have the -- over the next 12 years -- let's say the buildout is over 12 years, that ability to service that -- I haven't hit a time yet where I have had any problem being able to navigate those roads at this time, let alone as we build that space out with the office retail, hotel and multi-family. So, I personally Meridian City Council October21,2025 Page 47 of 60 just believe we have got plenty of infrastructure there to handle that between Locust Grove, Pine, Webb, State to Eagle. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: A follow up. Council's been asked kind of by the highway district -- we are going to discuss this, you know, corridor prioritization and I'm -- I'm on that road a lot and so if you asked me I would say we should be prioritizing Locust Grove over Meridian Road. What's your perspective and the -- the highway district was asking the City Council which corridor that we should prioritize. If you don't -- if you are not concerned with Locust Grove should we be prioritizing Meridian Road, then, instead or should we be prioritizing the corridor by this potential development? Baker: When you say prioritizing for Locust Grove, can you -- Cavener: Prioritizing in terms of -- it's more important for the City of Meridian when we go to the highway district for what we think they need to be investing in. They are kind of looking for us to say do you want us to prioritize Locust or do you want us to prioritize Meridian. Now, I -- I would have walked in tonight and said Locust Grove all day long. also -- you're a subject matter expert and you are on those roads a lot, would you encourage the Council to continue to prioritize Locust Grove or because you are concerned about the ability to capture all this traffic should we focus on Meridian Road? Baker: I -- I mean I would -- for us Locust Grove -- Cavener: Okay. Baker: But I still think there is room. But, yes, I would say Locust Grove for sure. Cavener: I appreciate -- appreciate that. Thanks. Baker: Yeah. Simison: So, two -- two questions, comments'ish is I drive that road pretty frequently as well. I go to Arby's a lot. It's well known. But I think that that intersection at the end of the day, of Locust Grove and Pine, that -- that -- that's -- that's when it fails. I don't see any really end of the time during the day. So, I think there are some impacts that people need to really consider, because people are backing up almost to the roundabout trying to make a left-hand turn right there onto Locust Grove. It's not so much going straight, not so much going right, but that left-hand turn. So, I don't know how that impacts in the traffic, so just that -- the other component that -- when I -- since we did disclose our conversations, I'm hopeful that there would be a condominium project as part of this. Is there -- if the state law allows condominiums to maybe be a little bit more protected, do Meridian City Council October21,2025 Page 48 of 60 you see a condominium project maybe replacing some of your apartments in this project? Baker: Yeah. We will absolutely look at that and -- and evaluate that as we -- as we go forward, just depending on kind of market conditions and where we are at. But that is certainly something that we have had a lot of discussion and will continue to have discussion on. Simison: Okay. Thank you. Baker: Yeah. Simison: Thank you very much. Baker: Thank you. Simison: Is there anybody else that would like to provide testimony on this item? Come on up. Markcosian: Good evening, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. My name is Jamie Markosian of Kittelson and Associates, traffic engineer for the project. I'm at 101 South Capital Boulevard in Boise, Idaho. Just wanted to come up here and offer some perspectives from a traffic -- you know, traffic component. You know, this project has been before you for a long time. We have -- we have been careful to adjust and -- and identify opportunities within the work where traffic is less of an issue and to answer Mr. Cavener's question, I think from a -- from an operations perspective we have looked at not necessarily traffic operations, so, in other words, how well the traffic signal performs or how well the roundabout performs, the levels of service on these roadways, we have looked at the amount of trips that are going to be produced by this type of a development and through those findings we are -- we are -- we are calculating based on nationwide data that these trips that we are producing, while they are more and exceed the -- the values of the 2017 approved traffic impact study, they are well within the ten percent buffer of a typical daily traffic volume that may occur and so when we think about operations on site and within the site we have built out facilities. We have a five lane roadway on Pine Avenue. We have got turn lanes. We have a nice roundabout and we have a traffic signal that has opportunity and room for improvement in the future in terms of traffic signal timing improvements and adjustments. There are components of additional capacity, but our findings have not indicated the need for those additional capacity in relation to the ACHD standards of operations and levels of service. So, think holistically we are taking a comprehensive look at what the impact of our development is from a trip generation perspective and -- and adding that to, you know, the capture of those trips because of the intended uses, keeping the majority of those trips on site, as opposed to, you know, making a single trip for one purpose. They are able to make one single trip for multiple purposes thereby reducing the total number of volume that's actually moving to and through these intersections and streets. Meridian City Council October21,2025 Page 49 of 60 Simison: Council, any questions? Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Thanks for -- for being up here. In the ACHD staff report, you know, it says that the proposal doesn't -- the proposed development requires revisions to meet ACHD policies. Can you walk Council through what those revisions are in order for you guys to meet ACHD policies? What all that you guys are having to do? Markosian: Mr. Mayor, Council Cavener, I cannot off the top of my head. If I was looking at it I could walk through it with you without problem. I know that -- I know the staff report grants us access and creates those -- those locations for which access is approved by ACHD. We have also, you know, already, as been mentioned, have developed these roadways, such as Pine Avenue, the Webb roundabout and in discussions with ACHD the additional traffic infrastructure that was requested or required by their standard would be enhanced pedestrian safety measures, which have been installed as a RFB treatment for crossings of that -- of that roundabout intersection. Simison: Councilman Cavener, we do have -- Cavener: I plan to -- to chat with them here in a second. I just didn't see that up. I -- appreciate it. Help me -- then one more, Mr. Mayor, if I can. Because, again, not a traffic engineer; right? And -- and rely on subject matter expertise and sometimes I challenge that subject matter expertise, because I'm not smart enough to understand; right? When I -- when I see on an ACHD staff report Pine and Locust better than E, it's not great. I -- I -- again, I -- I look at this as a -- as a resident; right? As a citizen, as a -- as a commuter who is on that road a lot. Markosian: Sure. Cavener: And if -- if I see, man, City Council's approving 900 more residential units and expanded commercial on roads that are rated better than E, somebody's going to say City Council's not paying attention to listening to our community. So, help -- help me understand where I'm erring and -- and why, you know, you think that this enhances our transportation network. Markosian: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Cavener, the -- the verbiage of better than E is challenging. I agree with you. I think when you look at the -- or the arterial classification of these roadways, though, they are -- they are built and their intention is to move large volumes of traffic. They are both five lanes in nature. They have multiple lanes east and west and north and south, depending on the roadway that you are on and they are classified by ACHD to capture a level of traffic volume that will fit within those lanes. Now, to improve operations there is certain measures that we can take as transportation engineers, as local governments and agencies that have jurisdiction over the roadways. Those might include widening the roadway, which may include buying people's properties or displacing residents. It may include adding additional types of traffic control; right? Enhancing the signalization properties of that intersection or creating -- Meridian City Council October21,2025 Page 50 of 60 creating opportunities with the traffic signal that exists it may include building a large scale roundabout, which can process more vehicles and -- and kind of add to that that -- that puzzle. So, there are a few opportunities that we have in our tool belt, so to speak, of how we could get to better than D, for example, or better than C. But when you look at the functional classification of these roadways, both of them are arterial in nature. They are moving large -- large volumes of vehicles and that measure of service E is related to delay. No -- no shadow about that. No doubt about that. You know, that is indicate -- indicative of the time spent waiting at that location if you were to arrive when the light turns red and have to wait there until it turns green for you to go; right? And so that LOSE is also sort of a snapshot in time and so when we look at the 24 hours throughout the day you might experience that level of delay or that -- that period of LOSE or -- or, you know, nearing that, 15 minutes of the day, 30 minutes of the day and it might not be all right back-to-back and so we are taking these things into consideration both from ACHD's perspective and from my perspective as a -- as a consultant and somebody who studies this for a living, the -- you know, these -- these periods of time are -- are small. We are looking at a holistic category of a roadway and the amount of volume that it processes or is able to process over the course of the day and that's really the -- the kind of guiding direction that the agencies are using, such as ACHD, ITD and, then, that's really what we follow as traffic engineers who are consulting with folks like DB Investments and other people around the valley. Cavener: Maybe just one more real quick. Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: And I guess this is the -- the hard part, right, is the -- the highway district isn't asking you to make no improvements to -- to Locust Grove. They are not asking to make improvements to Pine and so I -- I recognize when our roadway authorities saying this isn't it. They are not asking you to fix -- mitigate any of those, it's hard for you to say, well, we are going to mitigate, you know, problems. So, I -- I appreciate you kind of giving me a little bit more insight and I appreciate your perspective. Thanks for being here. Markosian: No problem. Thank you. Simison: Thank you. Council, any additional questions? Thank you. Good evening. Henderson-Begg: Good evening. Dugan Henderson-Begg, General Manager of Harvey Performance Company, 1410 East Pine Avenue just down the road. So, staff did a great job of kind of summarizing our support for this project. I just want to stand up here and add, you know, as we grow -- an international company growing very quickly, this is the sort of pioneering development that we need in this area to help us bring people in. Nobody does what Harvey Performance in Meridian does, making some car -- solid car by cutting tools and so we have to go to larger cities to bring people into the area and attract them in here. So, having these types of developments, these types of housing helps us develop and bring people into the environment. We did Meridian City Council October21,2025 Page 51 of 60 a study of our employees, all but five live within seven miles of the facility and so it's super important to have people able to get to work quickly, make those short transitions to work and the overtime and things that we do. So, we are really supportive of this program, having people close, having people able to get there and I wanted to be here just to support this and make sure we can answer any questions maybe relative to Harvey Performance as a company in the Meridian area. Thank you. Simison: Council, any questions? Thank you. Appreciate it. Erstad: Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Andy Erstad with Erstad Architects, 310 North 5th Street, Boise, Idaho. I'm wondering where that break we were going to have has gone, but thank you for staying here. I just wanted to touch base quickly on the -- the issue of design and fire. Fire wise design and safety -- life safety. We live in the world of life safety. Anything we do, any building we build comes with the -- with the moniker that we must be designing structures that include all of the life safety protection components, so -- and we met -- we met with the fire department and really appreciated it. We have done a number of rather large buildings, multi-family, mixed-in - - mixed-use facilities and as there is a concern with the fire department about the ability to staff and the ability to respond to multiple incidents, the -- the thing that I think is not really being spoken about much is the fact that we are -- we, like the fire department, are guided by the fire codes. We are divided -- we are driven by the International Building Codes. We -- we deal with NFPA, which is the National Fire Protection Association's model code, which is NFPA 13, NFPA 14 and the list goes on and on and on. But -- but they have very specific design guidelines for multi-story buildings. One story, two story, three -- you go up. We are at 15, 16 stories in some of our structures. So, it's great to know that the City of Meridian has adopted codes for fire -- fire air replenishment systems, particularly underground and whatnot. But all of those -- all of those components become part of the design process and so the building types, the construction types, the -- the ratings, which are based on -- based on how long a structure basically stays standing if -- if there is a -- if there is an incident. With a fully fire sprinkled building the design of those structures is to -- is to basically preserve the structure, suppress the fire and give the fire department safety as they go in and -- and manage the -- the incident. So, we are -- we are here to just let you know that as we design these buildings we have very much at the top of our -- of our thought process what life safety is and it's not just the residents, it's the -- it's the people that are the first responders that come in and -- whether it's a heart attack, a fall, a kitchen fire, the -- the systems are designed for, you know, protecting life and -- and making the access easier. So, thank you very much. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Erstad: Okay. Thank you. Simison: Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to provide testimony on this item at this time? Seeing no one else coming forward, Council -- Councilman Cavener, Meridian City Council October21,2025 Page 52 of 60 do you want to ask anything about ACHD or would you like the applicant to come forward? Cavener: Mr. Mayor, I guess I'm -- in light of the -- the comments and -- I need to use the restroom, so I -- I guess I'm -- I'm -- I'm -- I'm respectfully asking for maybe a ten to 15 minute recess if I can. Simison: All right. Let's go ahead and take a break until 9:00 o'clock and, then, we will come back and maybe ask ACHD some questions or let the applicant come forward. Cavener: Thanks. (Recess) Simison: All right. Well, everyone who seems to be here and got quiet, so we will go ahead and continue. Councilman Cavener, would you like to have any questions for ACHD? Would you like the app -- okay. Mindy, are you there? Wallace: Hi. I'm here. Yes, I'm here. Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Mindy, thanks for being here. Thanks for sticking with us. Johnson: Councilman Cavener, can you grab your microphone. Cavener: What's up? Check. Check. Okay. Got it. Thanks. Thanks. Mindy, can you hear me okay? Wallace: I sure can. Thank you. Cavener: Thanks for sticking with us late tonight. I guess my -- my question kind of dovetails a little bit off of the -- the question I was kind of asking Matt earlier, which is really about Locust Grove and Pine both being rated level of service better than E. At what point -- how many -- how many trip count or -- or what is the threshold for when that designation of being better than E moves to F? Wallace: Mayor and Councilman Cavener, that's a -- that's a good question. On that did do some math while I was sitting here. So, I know that it is hard -- better than E is hard, but I think this may help put it in perspective. So, based on our current traffic counts Pine Avenue is using about 56 percent of its available capacity. So, 44 percent of that capacity is still available before we -- we would be hitting that F threshold. Cavener: Okay. Meridian City Council October21,2025 Page 53 of 60 Wallace: And, then, on Locust Grove it's currently at about 60 percent capacity. So, we are looking at about 40 percent of available capacity before we would get to that F threshold and what we use for our level of service threshold for a five lane minor arterial, which both roadways are classified as, it would be 1,540 vehicle trips per hour in the p.m. peak hour and that's a little bit confusing. So, I think it's easier to talk about it in terms of the percentages. Cavener: Yeah. So, Mr. Mayor -- Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: -- quick follow up. And so 57 -- 56 percent capacity on Pine, 60 percent'ish on Locust, should this project be -- receive its approval tonight what does that do, then, to the capacity of -- of both? Does it move Pine from 56 to 58? Does it move Locust from 60 to -- to 80 percent? What are -- what are the impacts of those on -- on the capacity of those roads? Mindy: Madam Mayor and Councilman Cavener, I did not do that math, but we would still be below those capacity thresholds if we are looking at probably about a ten percent increase in each we may go up to probably between a 60, 65 and a 70. So, we still would have capacity based on our level of service standards. Cavener: Okay. Thank you. Simison: Any other questions for ACHD? All right. Would the applicant like to come forward to close out. Nelson: Thank you, Mayor and Council. If I could use a couple slides from our presentation to address some of the comments. I want to first address Ms. Anderson's comments about worries about the -- the building height near her and impacts on -- on solar for her property. You know, first just a couple of -- of comments. We have got -- set me get to the right slides here if I could. Might be before this. Yeah. I will walk through these solar study slides to show this. So, first of all, this building -- and this was part of our discussion earlier and my response to Council Member Roberts questions, but this -- this building of -- at issue here is -- is 65 feet allowed of right in this zone. We are adding 11 additional feet with the alternative compliance and so this isn't part of the conditional use permit, but -- and so it's 11 additional feet to bring it to 76 feet. So -- and this height is necessary. Matt mentioned this to accommodate the view units for the residents. It provides significant financial support for being able to do things like underground parking and podium parking, a point that Commissioner Rust acknowledged in the P&Z hearing and -- and it provides that diversity of housing that's very valuable to the overall development. The applicant has offered to install significant landscape screening that you can see in this perspective and rendering here to soften that appearance. The building depth there is at closest 90 feet to the closest townhome and a hundred feet to the others that move further east. Most of the height of the building, because it does step up as was mentioned already, the taller portion of the Meridian City Council October21,2025 Page 54 of 60 building is largely in front of the amenity. The sports park of the development with only a selected number of townhomes that are impacted and, then, they are only impacted for a portion of the year with the shade and that's -- here you can see that sport court and the distance is there and, then, we did the solar study in response to comments and looked at the equinoxes to just take kind of the extremes of the weather and -- and -- and sun conditions and so there is also different times of day that were studied and so you can see that as staff pointed out it's really not until you get to the -- the wintertime that you have impacts. This is the worst day of the year. So, we wanted to show you that worst case scenario and you can tell here with different times of day there will be sunlight on these townhomes. This -- it's only a portion of the day that there is impacted. So, the neighbor testified has the seventh house in when you count from the east to west and so just really just to the west and north of that drive there and so is only impacted by the 10:00 a.m. darkness at the peak of winter and so you are not getting a lot of solar power on your solar panels during the winter anyway, but it will only be partial day in the extreme times of the winter. Maybe the more important thing to point out about this slide is that the 65 foot building allowed of right, which is the shade is shown in that solid line, covers the townhomes in the same way and so the additional height we were asking for with those 11 feet does not extend further across their homes, instead it further extends into the sport court further or in -- in front of the -- the street in front of their homes. So, there isn't a difference in the impact on their homes from this -- the extra 11 feet that's requested in the alternative compliance. Also wanted to touch on fire briefly. Andy was able to cover this from a design perspective to point out that these buildings will be sprinkled, they will have stand pipes, they will have all of the design requirements that are required by the International Fire Code and the building code. Also want to point out that these are not high rise buildings. These are mid-rise buildings and they are comparable to and in some cases less high than existing mid-rise buildings that are in your city, such as the Bri, Scentsy, Scheels, BVA, the ICCU component building and others, that all currently and will continue to receive city fire service. So, they are -- they are designed to be fire protective and they are consistent with other buildings -- mid-rise buildings in the city that receive that service. As -- as the Mayor touched on, there is also a benefit of having this dense in-fill development and we touched on this in our presentation as well. It's a more efficient delivery of services and you are also concentrating significant property taxes here with this scale of development that will help fund those needed services and -- and, then, I just want to wrap up with some points to remind the Council about why we are here, why the Commission was so supportive of this. Your comprehensive plan calls for this type of development in this location. They call for residential at the density that we are providing. They call for -- it calls for a mix of uses and it calls for dense development along transit and near the city's core and this is a great opportunity. It's been commented a number of times. Council Member Whitlock you noted it's a great use of that land. It's prime real estate. Your Comprehensive Plan calls for maximizing land and you call for dense development in those locations, because you don't have very much of that kind of land. You want to maximize the opportunities where people can take advantage of -- of transit, as Commissioner Stoll noted the benefits of, and also to get that great quality design that the Bakers have come forward with is a unique opportunity. So, we hope we will -- you will see the -- the benefits of this. We Meridian City Council October21,2025 Page 55 of 60 appreciate the support we have received and we hope we have addressed your questions and concerns and would stand for any further questions you have. Simison: Thank you, Deb. Council, any additional questions for the applicant? Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Deb, I just want to make sure that my assumption is correct. If this is approved this would be those mid-rise, high-rise, the largest residential unit in Meridian, though; right? I think all the other buildings you cited were all commercial in nature; right? Nelson: Not the Bri; right? Isn't the -- Cavener: Bri is residential. Nelson: Bri is residential. Cavener: Thank you. I appreciate that clarification. Nelson: Thank you very much. Simison: Thank you. Overton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: I don't see any more members of the public wanting to come forward and testify. If there is no more comments I would like to move that we close the public hearing. Little Roberts: Second. Simison: Have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Is there any discussion? If not, on in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it the public hearing is closed. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Overton: Mr. Mayor, I would like to start off with my comments first. Simison: Yes. A little closer to the mic. Meridian City Council October21,2025 Page 56 of 60 Overton: You know, I can't help but remember the past in this area that we are talking about. When you grow up here and you ride a school bus around that corner of what was Locust Grove and Pine and it was all farmers that used to get on the school bus and their kids, we have come a long way and we get asked as City Council to not just remember the past, but try to look into the future and what impresses me with this is what a job has been done by this team. I mean I don't have one person sitting in that front row. It's a team sitting in front of me that has done such a great job on this project. I live the closest to this project. My district. I drive Locust Grove and Pine almost every day and I do that because, well, Eagle Road is also in my district and I avoid it at all costs. With that said the transportation part to this was what first impressed me. The collector streets were all in. Locust Grove and Pine were already built out as far as we know they are going to be built out to handle the traffic. VRT runs right through the middle of where this project is going to be and the number one option for east to west travel from Caldwell, Nampa through Meridian to Boise, which has been determined by COMPASS, will be light rail at some point in the future and that future -- when we say the term ten to 15 years, well, it kind of resonates with kind of the same thing we are talking about here tonight. So, we are very close to where light rail would be coming through. We are already on top of where Valley Regional Transit comes through and we are in a situation where the roadway system is already built and working well. I remember when I first heard the words from Mayor Tammy about a medical corridor, because I was having a house built right in the middle of it and watching as things were happening around me and although we don't use that terminology much anymore, I -- I do from time to time talk about how that was still the dream of that area to be that medical corridor. Now, with all the partners that have stood behind you and supported this project and the fact that we have ICOM and we have another big project that could take the next 30 years and Idaho State University bringing in a campus just down the road, there is going to be a significant need for the housing, the residential and the commercial to support all of that. I do have one area of caution and I say this in a mixed way. It's the baseball season. We are getting ready for the World Series and I want to say that as I stare at a group of you out there you guys really hit for the fence. When we see a lot of projects that are just residential or a commercial and this has got so many different aspects that benefit this community. I mean you have really really hit this out of the park. But in so doing I need to tell you that you are competing against over 6,000 multi-family in this city that have already been approved. So, you need to keep hitting it out of the park and keep building the most premier product that we can see, because with 6,000 and most people don't know that. I had that updated for me this afternoon. That's a lot of other multi-family, some of it approved as long ago as 2020, shovel ready, but no shovels hitting the dirt. It makes it hard for us to plan what our community needs when we approve so many projects to see the city move forward, only to not have them take that action. So, I'm kind of depending on Mayor Tammy to hold your feet to the fire as we move forward, assuming this project is approved, to keep you on track to build this project and bring it to our city. It's a pretty amazing way to take care of a lot of in-fill in our city and in -- if you didn't do a project like this I'm not sure what that -- all that land would look like, but watching how you have developed the rest of it over the past ten to 15 years has been pretty remarkable. But I don't know that I need to say it, but, obviously, I will be supporting this project. Meridian City Council October21,2025 Page 57 of 60 Simison: Council, any additional comments, motions? Overton: Mr. Mayor, if there was no more comments -- Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Appreciate Council Member Overton's comments. I -- I share some of them. We -- we haven't discussed a lot tonight about the -- and the various requests for height on some of these buildings. I think for me that is -- that is the piece that I'm -- I'm most concerned about. What sits with me as a -- is a comment that was made by one of our Planning Commissioners. I wasn't talking about the architectural design, which I think the applicant has addressed. Everything that they do from the design of the building is built around safety. But it's really about just the size and scope of this project and concern that our -- our chief reinforced the Planning and Zoning Commission is really our inability to effectively staff a project like this and I -- I look at it, like sewer, like water; right. Except for if -- if we heard from our water department we weren't going to be able to provide accurate water or sewer services we would work with the applicant and say, hey, I need you to build a lift station. Extend the line; right? Those are easier solutions. This one I can't -- I can't wrap my head around and so I'm -- that's the piece that I'm -- I'm struggling with, but I don't want to belabor the conversation if the rest of Council is satisfied with the responses from the applicant and feel comfortable moving forward and I could go on and on about the things that I like about this project and there are many and it's weird, because this is -- it's not quite an industrial area, it's not quite a residential area, it's not quite a commercial area, it's kind of a hodgepodge of all three and I -- I do think that the -- many of the things that the applicant is asking for I'm supportive of, even if it's contrary to staff's recommendations, but the -- the building height is the piece that I -- and maybe it's that I'm getting old and I just -- I worry more. My kids tell me I worry all the time. But I -- I worry about our ability to respond in that thing that you hope never happens happens and I hold the feedback from our chief and from our local -- it's first time I think in 12 years the local has ever came to testify in an application. I thought they were as diplomatic as Derek can be, voiced concerns and said, listen, they will respond and they will rely on other cities to cover for us and we know that that happens more already than it should and if I had a crystal ball as to what our staffing levels would be when this is built that would probably calm that -- that concern. So, that's -- that's the piece for me that I'm -- I'm really hung up on and, again, I probably said more than enough, if -- if Council is ready to move forward I'm happy to -- to get out of the way. But I think this is a big piece that I -- I think requires some strong deliberation, some additional feedback from our fire department and from our planning department. Taylor: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Taylor. Meridian City Council October21,2025 Page 58 of 60 Taylor: I think Councilman Cavener brings up a really good point. I -- you know, some of my questioning showed I was a little bit fixated on the height and the fire response and kind of what that meant and the complexity of the -- of the challenges. Of course as I was kind of considering the height and some of the reasons behind it, it -- you know, a lot of those to integrate some of the parking and to allow for a little bit more density and so you had an aesthetically pleasing development. You didn't have big parking lots. You had more development and -- and I -- I think to me that -- I'm okay with that I think in terms of the -- needing those -- to have a little bit of a higher building to accommodate some of the design elements to make this project work. You know, as this area is kind of developed over the last few years it's been very nice. It's been very attractive. It's brought some really nice patrons and some housing that's there. I have driven through it a few times. It's -- I have been -- I have liked what I have seen. I think it's been a really nice addition and, you know, I -- I'm still a little bit unsettled about some of the response and the fact that some of the comments that I read in the P&Z and -- and hearing the local talk about it a little bit, does make me pause a little bit more than I typically do on a project like this, but I have yet to see an incident in the valley that hasn't been adequately responded to and it may -- while the City of Meridian may not have the ability to respond to all these things if there is an incident, surely Eagle, Boise, all these other -- we all come and -- you know, I -- I don't -- I don't doubt the ability for the collective value to respond to major crises if that's -- if that's the case. So, that -- that's what helps me overcome some of the concerns I do have that were raised with the fire department. I -- I am a little bit more unsettled with this project than I have been with many other projects I used -- I really like what we are seeing here. So, valid concerns. I think I don't need to discuss it anymore myself personally, but would be open to that if the rest of the Council wanted to -- to take another shot at that. But I think I would be supportive of this application tonight. Little Roberts: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Little Roberts. Little Roberts: Mr. Mayor, Council, I think that -- I mean height was obviously -- I brought it up so many times was obviously a concern that I had. We have had issues with it recently about getting clarification about the height is the height. It's not going to have something on top that makes it even taller and, obviously, with fire it's been a concern. So, I was very pleasantly surprised to hear that the architect had sat down with fire and had had these discussions about making it safe and so I know that that's definitely the intent and I'm familiar with Andy's work and so very pleased to know not only is he the architect, but went the extra mile to make sure that -- that safety within his power -- I guarantee that everything is done. And so that was a really pleasant surprise for me. So, I had come kind of in with -- with the intent of can we make these buildings a little shorter, but with all that we have heard tonight I'm good with the project moving forward and will be supporting it. Whitlock: Mr. Mayor? Meridian City Council October21,2025 Page 59 of 60 Simison: Council Whitlock. Whitlock: I will just piggyback on the comments that you had made as well. I think this is a high value project and it will generate tax revenue. It will be good for the city. I think it's high quality. In fact, I might move there, except I would be in Councilman Overton's district and I'm ready to proceed tonight. I -- I know that there are some -- some concerns, but, you know, not too far from this location we have -- we have got the Scentsy building and not too far from that we have got St. Luke's and if something went terribly wrong at either of those facilities we would -- we would have the same kind of concerns that -- that we are talking about tonight. So, I don't know that you can discount anything from ever happening, but at the same time I think we need to press forward and rely on the fact that the design has incorporated all the best standards and that we will move forward in a -- a safe and efficient manner. So, I'm ready to move forward tonight. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Just, then, maybe one quick request for whoever makes the motion. There have been some kind of specific requests from staff particularly related to some of the director discretion. So, I'm -- I'm not going to be supporting the motion and so I won't be making that motion, but I would encourage -- just to provide a very clean, very clear motion that touches on a lot of the feedback that we heard from staff and I know Sonya and Bill will keep us accountable if we miss something, but just wanted to make sure that we are providing as much clarity as to what Council is intending on this particular motion. Overton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: To Council President Cavener, I did go over that with staff ahead of time. And if there is no further comments I would move forward. After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony and removing condition 3-F, I move to approve File No. H-2024-0071 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 1 , 2025. Little Roberts: Second. Simison: Have a motion and a second to approve the item. Is there discussion on the motion? If not, clerk call the roll. Roll Call- Cavener, nay; Strader, absent; Overton, yea; Little Roberts, yea; Taylor, yea; Whitlock, yea. Meridian City Council October21,2025 Page 60 of 60 Simison: Four ayes. One nay. And the item is agreed to. Did I do the math right? Thank you. Yes. So congratulations. Look forward to seeing what you are able to bring forward to the city to make that vision a reality. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT. FUTURE MEETING TOPICS Simison: Council, anything under future meeting topics or a motion to adjourn? Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Move we adjourn the meeting. Little Roberts: Second. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:23 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) MAYOR ROBERT E. SIMISON 11-5-2025 ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK 11-5-2025 E IDIAN;--- /hl R AGENDA ITEM Public Forum - Future Meeting Topics The Public are invited to sign up in advance of the meeting at www.meridiancity.org/forum to address elected officials regarding topics of general interest or concern of public matters. Comments specific to an active land use/development applications are not permitted during this time. By law, no decisions can be made on topics presented at the Public Forum. However, City Council may request the topic be added to a future meeting agenda for further discussion or action. The Mayor may also direct staff to provide followup assistance regarding the matter. CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC FORUM SIGN-IN SHEET Date: October 21, 2025 Please sign in below if you wish to address the Mayor and City Council and provide a brief description of your topic. Please observe the following rules of the Public Forum: • DO NOT: o Discuss active applications or proposals pending before Planning and Zoning or City Council o Complain about city staff, individuals, business or private matters • DO o When it is your turn to speak, state your name and address first o Observe a 3-minute time limit (you may be interrupted if your topic is deemed inappropriate for this forum) Name (please print) Brief Description of Discussion Topic V IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Resolution No. 25-2538: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Meridian Appointing Hailey Stewart to Seat 4 and Harold Wilson to Seat 5 of the Meridian Historic Preservation Commission; and Providing an Effective Date CITY OF MERIDIAN RESOLUTION NO. 25-2538 BY THE CITY COUNCIL: CAVENER, LITTLE ROBERTS, OVERTON, STRADER, TAYLOR,WHITLOCK A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN APPOINTING HAILEY STEWART TO SEAT 4 AND HAROLD WILSON TO SEAT 5 OF THE MERIDIAN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Meridian City Code § 2-1-1(D) sets forth Advisory Commissions' membership qualifications and terms of service; and WHEREAS, the Meridian City Code Section 2-1-3 establishes the Meridian Historic Preservation Commission, its duties and powers; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Meridian deems it to be in the best interest of the citizens of the City of Meridian to approve the appointment of Hailey Stewart to Seat 4 and Harold Wilson to Seat 5 of the Meridian Historic Preservation Commission as recommended by Mayor Simison; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY,IDAHO: Section 1. That, effective November 1, 2025, Hailey Stewart be appointed to Seat 4 and Harold Wilson be appointed to Seat 5 of the Meridian Historic Preservation Commission, which terms shall expire October 31, 2028. Section 2. That this Resolution shall be in full force and effect immediately upon its adoption and approval. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this 2 1" day of October, 2025. APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho,this 2 1"day of October, 2025. APPROVED: ATTEST: Mayor Robert E. Simison Chris Johnson, City Clerk RESOLUTION APPOINTING STEWART SEAT 4)AND WILSON SEAT 5)TO THE MERIDIAN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION C� E IDIAN Planning and Zoning Department Presentation and Outline Changes to Agenda: None Item #2: Fairbourne Subdivision No. 4 (H-2025-0036) Application(s): Combined preliminary & final plat Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 5.2 acres of land, zoned C-C, generally located at the NWC of N. Black Cat Rd. & W. Chinden Blvd. History: In 2018, this property was included in a rezone, preliminary plat and development agreement (DA) modification application for Fairbourne Subdivision, which included the adjacent residential subdivision to the north & west. A new DA was approved with the modification, which governs future development of the overall property. Final plat applications were approved for all of the property included in the preliminary plat except for this last remaining area, which was intended to be included in the last phase; however, a final plat application was never submitted, a time extension was not requested, and the preliminary plat has since expired. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Mixed Use – Community (MU-C) Summary of Request: A combined preliminary & final plat is proposed consisting of (1) buildable lot on 5.2 acres of land in the C-C zoning district. A conceptual development plan was submitted for the site that depicts (3) commercial building pads for retail/office use. The largest, “Pad A”, is proposed to be a grocery store at 25,623 sq. ft.; “Pad B” is 11,234 sq. ft. and “Pad C” is 4,964 sq. ft. The proposed development plan is consistent with the provisions in the DA. Access is proposed via (1) existing full access driveway from W. Waverton Dr. & (1) right-in/right-out access driveway from N. Black Cat Rd.; no access is proposed or allowed via W. Chinden Blvd. An emergency access exists to this site via a blanket easement across Lot 17, Block 7 in the abutting Fairbourne Subdivision No. 2 to the west. Detached 5’ wide sidewalks exist on the site along Waverton & Black Cat; a 10’ wide detached sidewalk/pathway exists in the buffer along Chinden. ITD submitted a letter requesting the developer contribute a proportionate share toward installation of a westbound right-turn lane at Chinden & Black Cat as required with the original Fairbourne development, which has not yet been constructed. Street buffers exist on the site along abutting streets that were installed with the adjacent subdivision improvements. Additional landscaping & design features are needed in the buffers to comply with UDC standards. A 25’ wide buffer to residential uses also exists along the west boundary of the site with a 6’ tall closed vision fence. Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed grocery store. Final design is required to comply with the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual. Loading docks are prohibited in commercial districts facing collector (i.e. Waverton & Black Cat) or arterial (i.e. Chinden) streets per the Architectural Standards Manual (#5.3A). Commission Recommendation: Approval Summary of Commission Public Hearing: i. In favor: Ben Semple, Applicant’s Representative ii. In opposition: None iii. Commenting: Paul McGloughlin; Larry Walker; Bob Misko; Jessica Pierce iv. Written testimony: None v. Key Issue(s): a. Access and traffic concerns pertaining to vehicles turning left into the development and stacking issues that may occur; safety concerns pertaining to traffic and children in the area. b. Belief that the Chinden/Black Cat intersection needs to be re-built for safety reasons to accommodate the high volume of traffic in this area. c. Concern pertaining to landscaping between the site and the abutting residential neighborhood to the west to ensure residents aren’t looking at a parking lot. Key Issue(s) of Discussion by Commission: i. Traffic generated from the proposed development; ii. The use and zoning are not the subject of this application. Commission Change(s) to Staff Recommendation: None Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: None Written Testimony since Commission Hearing:  Christi Keller – Concerns pertaining to traffic and inadequate infrastructure for the development of a grocery store on this site.  Jessica Pirc – Opinion the existing landscaping and fence height along the west boundary is inadequate to buffer the adjacent residential neighbors from noise, lighting and traffic impacts from the proposed development. Concern pertaining to increased traffic in the area and children’s safety crossing Waverton Dr. to reach the school bus stop. Request for taller fencing and more robust landscaping to be provided in buffers with mature trees/shrubs; re-evaluation of access points to minimize traffic being funneled onto Waverton; and greater consideration of residential impacts, particularly around school routes. Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2025-0036, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 21, 2025: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2025-0036, as presented during the hearing on October 21, 2025, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2025-0036 to the hearing date of __________ for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) Item #3: Pine 43 Mixed-Use Subdivision (H-2024-0071) Application(s):  Combined preliminary & final plat  Development Agreement Modification  Annexation  Rezone  Preliminary Plat  Conditional Use Permit - Multi-family Development (Lot 2, Block 1) with Alternative Compliance to UDC 11-4-3-27B.3  Conditional Use Permit - Multi-family Development (Lot 2, Block 3) with Alternative Compliance to UDC 11-4-3-27B.3 & to UDC 11-2B-3  Conditional Use Permit – Height exception (Lot 2, Block 2) Additionally, 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’ to 76’ on Lots 1-3, Block 4 and Lot 2, Block 3 (hotel, MFR building & 2 vertically integrated residential buildings); and to UDC 11-4-3-41G, which requires a minimum of 50 square feet of private, usable open space per unit for vertically integrated residential developments, to allow studio units without such space. NOTE: The Director has tentatively approved the ALT requests for increased building height contingent upon City Council’s approval of the associated land uses, including building height. Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 36.58 acres of land, currently zoned RUT in Ada County & C-G, generally located on the north & south sides of E. Pine Ave., between N. Locust Grove Rd. & N. Hickory Ave. History: This property was annexed with C-G zoning in 2008 with a preliminary plat for Pinebridge Subdivision, which consisted of 170+/- acres of land; a DA was required as a provision of annexation. The conceptual development plan for the site depicted 3,000,000 sq. ft. of commercial, light office & MFR residential uses and a medical campus & included the property that is now the Scentsy Commons Campus located east of N. Machine Ave. Subsequent amendment to the DA were approved in 2011 & 2021, which each removed portions of the 50+/- acre Scentsy property east of Machine Ave., from the agreement. In 2017, another amendment to the DA was approved, which updated the conceptual master plan for the site & certain provisions in the agreement, along with a rezone of 59 acres of land from the C-G to the R-15 & R-40 districts on the portion of the site north of State Ave. The updated plan included commercial components of office & retail and a variety of residential housing types consisting of SFR detached & attached homes, townhomes & MFR apartments on 120 acres of land. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Pine 43 site - MU-C (Mixed-Use Community) & HPC Buyer site – General Industrial Summary of Request: Annexation and zoning of 7.21-acres of land is requested with I-L (5.29-acres), C-G (1.36-acres) & R-15 (0.56-acre) zoning districts for the property surrounding the parcel at the NEC of Locust Grove & Pine. The FLUM designation for this property is General 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 & northeast portions of the annexation area where R-15 & 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 SWC of the annexation area and plans to eventually expand the business into the 5.29-acre portion of the 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 & building elevations were submitted 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 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 plans, Staff recommends a DA is required as a provision of annexation of the property proposed to be zoned I-L that includes the provisions noted in the staff report. The 1.92-acres proposed to be zoned R- 15 & C-G will be included in the proposed amended DA for Pine 43. A PBA application should be submitted & finalized prior to City Council approval of the amended DA to create the parcel subject to the DA & to transfer ownership of the property. A rezone 3.08-acres (0.91 + 2.17) of land from the C-G to the R-15 district is proposed for the future development of 17 townhomes. The proposed zoning, use and density is consistent with the MU-C development guidelines. Note: The overall density of the area proposed to be zoned R-15 between the annexation & rezone applications (3.59 acres excluding ROS) 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. A DA modification is proposed to amend the existing approved conceptual development plan (shown on the left) for the undeveloped 36.58 acres of the site located south of E. State Ave. depicted as Areas E, F & G, excluding the areas outlined in red, which have already developed with non-residential commercial uses. This area is currently entitled to develop entirely with commercial uses. An updated concept master plan is proposed as shown on the right - the Applicant proposes to develop a large portion of the commercial area with 904 new residential dwelling units consisting of 30 townhome dwelling units, a total of 270 MFR 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. Conceptual renderings of the overall development were submitted as shown. A revised overall open space exhibit was submitted as shown that depicts a total of 9.23 acres (or 25% of the site) of private and public open space, including developed green spaces, amenities, and a 41,464+ sq. ft. centralized public plaza. A pedestrian connectivity plan was submitted as shown. 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. 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. The Applicant’s traffic engineer submitted a memo that includes additional & updated analysis for the proposed development – a comparison of trip generation between the previously approved land uses south of State Ave. from the approved 2017 TIS and the proposed land use changes are included in the memo. For these reasons, it’s Staff’s opinion the previously entitled development plan for commercial uses in the area south of Pine where MFR & vertically integrated residential uses are proposed is in the best interest of the City to retain as it provides needed employment opportunities & services for nearby residents, while also reducing vehicle trips and supporting trip capture. Additionally, it’s Staff’s 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. The Commission did not agree with Staff’s recommendation and recommended approval of the proposed development plan with no changes. A preliminary plat is proposed consisting of 41 buildable lots & 3 common lots on 36.58-acres of land in the R-15 & C-G zoning districts. The plat is proposed to develop in (8) phases as shown on the phasing plan on the right. The NW portion of the preliminary plat includes portions of existing County parcels that will be included in a future PBA application with adjacent City zoned parcels once the property is annexed with this application. If a PBA isn’t approved & a ROS 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 PBA application for the realignment of property lines between the HPC Buyer & DRB Investments properties as shown on the preliminary plat. A FP application should not be submitted to the Planning Division until a PBA application is finalized & a ROS 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. A landscape plan showing required street buffer landscaping was submitted as shown. Two (2) conditional use permits are proposed for a MFR development in the C-G district on Lot 2, Block 1 & Lot 2, Block 3. The one on Lot 2, Block 1 includes 139 units on 2.87 acres of land; and the one on Lot 2, Block 3 includes 132 units on 3.40 acres of land. Between the two developments, a total of 271 apartment units are proposed in the area currently entitled to develop with commercial uses. Alternative compliance is requested with the CUP’s to UDC 11-4-3-27B.3, which requires a minimum of 80 s.f. of private, usable open space to be provided for each MFR unit, to allow (0) for all studio units – as alternative compliance, the applicant is proposing private roof top 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. This request is to be considered by City Council as part of the CUP request. A similar request was submitted to the private usable open space standards for vertically integrated residential units, which requires a minimum of 50 s.f. of private area, which the Director has approved contingent upon Council’s approval of the proposed development plan. Alternative Compliance is also requested to UDC Table 11-2B-3, which restricts building height to a maximum of 65’ in the C-G zoning district to allow a maximum building height of 76 feet on Lot 2, Block 3. An additional 10% of the building square footage is proposed to be provided in open space, courtyards, patios or other usable outdoor space as required for such requests. This request is to be considered by City Council as part of the CUP request. Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed MFR structures as shown. A CUP is proposed for a height exception to UDC Table 11-2B-3, 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. This would be an increase of 34% in the maximum building height in the C-G district. 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. 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. However, the City Council should consider if reducing the number of residential units proposed above the first floor is necessary in order to accommodate more employment and service uses to support residential uses in this area and to reduce vehicle trips and encourage more trip capture as a condition of approval. Commission Recommendation: Approval Summary of Commission Public Hearing: a. In favor: Deborah Nelson, Givens Pursley, representing the Applicant; Tammy deWeerd; Ian Tompkins; Danielle Strollo, Givens Pursley; Dugan Henderson-Begg, Harvey Performance Company (HPC) b. Commenting: Garrett Schultz; Brian Farnsworth c. Written testimony: None Key Issue(s) of Public Testimony: a. In favor of the proposed mix of uses but against the scale of the development as it’s way out of proportion for this location and with the residential homes to the north; against the proposed height of structures in the development and the transition to existing single-family residential homes to the north, desire for a shadow study to be conducted to determine the impact of the height of the proposed structures on adjacent single-family homes. Concern pertaining to the amount of additional traffic the development will create and the light and noise pollution impacts on the residents to the north. b. Opinion the proposed mixed-use development provides benefits of walkability, viability and long- term economic strength and contributes toward a diverse housing stock, employment, supported uses of pedestrian infrastructure and high quality public spaces, which align with Comprehensive Planning goals. c. In favor of the proposed development, including building heights. d. Question pertaining to if the proposed development would be part of the existing HOA – the answer was no. e. HPC is in support of the housing and hotel uses proposed that will help their employment base as well as nearby commercial opportunities the development will provide. Key Issue(s) of Discussion by Commission: a. Proposed building heights and transitions to existing single-family residential homes to the north and proposed townhome units within the development along State Ave. b. Opinion the proposed development fits well in this area & will provide nice amenities. c. Contemplated type of commercial uses in the vertically integrated residential building specifically in Block 1. d. Transition to the south between residential and industrial uses and specific mitigation plans in place for noise. e. Transition in height from the residential homes to the north across State Ave. to the proposed development to the south, specifically the vertically integrated residential building on Lot 1, Block 4, to provider greater privacy to the residential lots to the north. f. Not comfortable with the Fire Dept.’s response that they can’t adequately provide service for the proposed development although the structures will be sprinklered. g. Not in support of removing the condition that requires the Animal Farm plat to be recorded prior to submittal of a final plat application for this development. h. Although residential uses are proposed to increase in this area, so are commercial uses. Commission Change(s) to Staff Recommendation: i. In favor of residential uses south of Pine and requirement for shadow study to be submitted prior to the Council hearing (see exhibits in Section EE below). Approval includes requirement of enhanced construction materials for sound mitigation as offered by the Applicant for the VI building on Lot 1, Block 1 (SEC), include conditions of approval of CUP; and meet open space standards for MFR building at SWC of Pine and Webb on Lot 2, Block 3 for an increase in building height. Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: The Director will issue Findings for the ALT request for building height based on Council’s action on the increased building height and discussion at the public hearing. Written Testimony since Commission Hearing: Kathy Crowley – opposed to the proposed development. Staff recommends Council remove condition #3f requiring the final plat for Animal Farm to be recorded prior to submittal of a final plat for any phase of this development. Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2024-0071, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 21, 2025: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2024-0071, as presented during the hearing on October 21, 2025, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2024-0071 to the hearing date of __________ for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) h2 City Council MeetingOctober 21, 2025 Zoning MapAerialFLUM ACB ACB Zoning MapAerialFLUM Proposed Zoning Exhibit for Overall Site Spring Equinox (March 20) Summer Solstice (June 20 or 21)Autumn Equinox (Sept. 22 or 23) Winter Solstice (Dec. 21) W IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Fairbourne Subdivision No. 4 (H-2025-0036) by Rodney Evans + Partners, LLC., generally located at the northwest corner of W. Chinden Blvd. and N. Black Cat Rd., at 4837 W. Waverton Dr. Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2025-0036 A. Request: Combined Preliminary/Final Plat consisting of one (1) buildable lot on 5.2 acres of land in the C-G zoning district. PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: October 21, 2025 ITEM # 2 PROJECT NAME: Fairbourne Subdivision No. 4 (H-2025-0036) I wish to testify Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing (mark X (Please Print) HOA? if yes) 3 W � 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT C��fEPIDIAN*,,--, DEPARTMENT REPORT HEARING 10/21/2025 Legend DATE: Project Location 0 TO: Mayor& City Council Area of Impact +- City Limits FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner ®Analysis -43 " 208-884-5533 r j � `� �� sallen@meridiancity.org ' @ _ o APPLICANT: Benjamin Semple,Rodney Evans+ Partners,LLCL _ SUBJECT: H-2025-0036 6 LAii Fairbourne Subdivision No. 4 Ji LOCATION: Generally located at the northwest corner @Y�@ '@ of W. Chinden Blvd. &N. Black Cat Rd. � � <� r i at 4837 W.Waverton Dr.,in the SE 1/4 a �� "- T of Section 21,TAN.,R.1 W. I. PROJECT OVERVIEW A. Summary Combined preliminary and final plat consisting of one(1)buildable lot on 5.2 acres of land in the C-C zoning district. B. Issues None C. Recommendation Staff: Approval D. Decision Commission: Approval City Council: Pending City of Meridian I Department Report 1. Project Overview I1. COMMUNITY METRICS Table 1: Land Use Description Details Map Ref. Existing Land Use(s) Vacant/undeveloped - Proposed Land Use(s) Commercial - Existing Zoning C-C(Community Business) VII.A.2 Adopted FLUM Designation MU-C(Mixed Use—Community) VII.A.3 Table 2: Process Facts Description Details Preapplication Meeting date 3/26/2025 Neighborhood Meeting 4/17/2025 Site posting date 8/22/2025 Table 3: Community Metrics Agency/Element Description/Issue Reference Ada County Highway District • Comments Received No - • Commission Action Required No - • Access (1)access via W.Waverton Dr. &(1)access via N.Black - Cat Rd. • Traffic Level of Service - ITD Comments Received No comments were received Meridian Fire No comments were received Meridian Police No comments were received Meridian Public Works Wastewater • Distance to Mainline Sewer stub service line is available from Waverton Dr. • Impacts or Concerns Meridian Public Works Water • Distance to Mainline Served by Veolia • Impacts or Concerns Note: See section IV. City/Agency Comments&Conditions for comments received. III. STAFF ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code(UDC) A. General Overview The subject property is designated Mixed Use—Community(MU-C) on the Future Land Use Map(FLUM)in the Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of this designation is to allocate areas where community-serving uses and dwellings are seamlessly integrated into the urban fabric. Table 4: Proiect Overview Description Details History H-2018-0052 Fairboume Subdivision(Development Agreement Inst. 2018-098361 Physical Features NA Acreage M 5.2 acres _ Lots 1 buildable lot City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics B. History In 2018,this property was included in a rezone,preliminary plat and development agreement (DA)modification application for Fairbourne Subdivision,which included the adjacent residential subdivision to the north and west. A new DA was approved with the modification, which governs future development of the overall property. Final plat applications were approved for all of the property included in the preliminary plat except for this last remaining area,which was intended to be included in the last phase;however, a final plat application was never submitted, a time extension was not requested, and the preliminary plat has since expired. C. Site Development and Use Analysis 1. Existing Structures/Site Improvements (UDC 11-1): There are no existing structures on the site. Street buffer landscaping was installed along W. Chinden Blvd. and N. Black Cat Rd.with development of the adjacent subdivision improvements. 2. Proposed Use Analysis (UDC 11-2): Three(3)commercial building pads for retail/office use are proposed to develop on the site per the site plan included below in Section VII.F. The largest pad,"Pad A", is proposed to be a grocery store at 25,623 sq. ft.; "Pad B"is 11,234 sq. ft. and"Pad C"is 4,964 sq. ft. Note: The proposed development plan is consistent with the provisions in the DA. Retail and professional services(i.e. office)are both principal permitted uses in the C-C district; see UDC Table 11-2B-2 for a complete list of allowed uses in the C-C district. 3. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): Compliance with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-213-3 for the C-C district is required. Business hours of operation are limited from 6:00 am to 11:00 pm adjacent to residential uses per UDC 11-213-313; extended hours may be requested through a CUP. Extended hours are not anticipated. D. Design Standards Analysis 1. Structure and Site Design Standards (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-19): The proposed site design and commercial structures are required to comply with the structure and site design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19. 2. Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): Internal parking lot landscaping is required to comply with the standards in UDC 11-313-8C. A minimum 35-foot-wide street buffer is required along W. Chinden Blvd.,an entryway corridor, and a minimum 20-foot-wide street buffer is required along W. Waverton Dr. and N. Black Cat Rd.,both collector streets,measured from back of curb. Landscaping is required within the street buffers per the standards in UDC 11-313-7C.Additional landscape design features are required along entryway corridors per UDC 11-313-7C.3f. The existing landscaping was installed with the adjacent subdivision improvements and was never reviewed for consistency with UDC standards or approved prior to installation.The existing landscaping will need to be supplemented with additional landscaping to comply with current UDC standards. The landscape plan submitted with the final plat for City Engineer signature should demonstrate compliance with these standards. City of Meridian I Department Report 111. Staff Analysis A 25-foot-wide buffer is required along the west boundary of the site adjacent to existing residential uses, landscaped per the standards in UDC 11-3B-9C. This buffer will be required with lot development and is not a subdivision requirement. 3. Parking (UDC 11-3C): Off-street vehicle parking is required to be provided on-site for non-residential uses in commercial districts based on the gross floor area of the structure per UDC Table 11-3C- 6B.1. 4. Building Elevations (Comp Plan,Architectural Standards Manual): Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed grocery store,included below in Section VII.G. Final design is required to comply with the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual. Loading docks are prohibited in commercial districts facing collector(i.e.Waverton&Black Cat) or arterial(i.e. Chinden) streets per the Architectural Standards Manual(#5.3A). 5. Fencing (UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): A fence exists along the west boundary of this site along the back side of existing homes. All existing fencing will either be retained and protected during construction or replaced—the developer will coordinate with all affected neighbors. E. Transportation Analysis ITD submitted comments stating, "Per ITD's TIS Acceptance Letter dated March 3, 2018, Fairbourne Development was conditioned for the installation of a westbound right turn lane at Chinden Blvd. &Black Cat Rd. This improvement was to be installed prior to development occupancy and has vet to be completed. This turn lane remains a priority; therefore. Fairbourne Development will need to work with IT to determine a proportionate share contribution to ensure this improvement is completed."Because this improvement is located along the frontage of the property located at the northeast corner of Black Cat Rd. and Chinden Blvd. as shown below,which is off-site, Staff is not recommending a condition of approval that the developer comply with this request with the subject application. US 1126 AA} 1. Access (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-3, UDC 11-3H-4): Access is proposed via one(1) existing access driveway from W. Waverton Dr. and one(1) access driveway from N. Black Cat Rd.;no access is proposed or allowed via W. Chinden City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis Blvd.An emergency access exists to this site via a blanket easement across the common lot (Lot 17,Block 7)in the abutting Fairbourne Subdivision No. 2 per the plat. 2. Multiuse Pathways (UDC 11-3A-5): The Pathways Master Plan depicts a 10-foot-wide multi-use pathway along the east boundary on this site adjacent to N. Black Cat Rd. There is an existing 5-foot-wide detached sidewalk within the street buffer,which the Park's Dept. is allowing in lieu of a wider pathway. 3. Pathways (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-8): No pathways are proposed or required with this development. 4. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17): A 10-foot wide detached multi-use pathway/sidewalk exists along W. Chinden Blvd. and 5- foot wide detached sidewalks exist along W. Waverton Dr. and N. Black Cat Rd. in accord with UDC 11-3A-17 and UDC 11-3H-4C.4. 5. Subdivision Regulations (UDC 11-6): The proposed subdivision should comply with the subdivision design and improvement standards in UDC 11-6C-3. The proposed development is consistent with Comprehensive Plan policy#2.02.011), "Require pedestrian access in all new development to link subdivisions together and promote neighborhood connectivity." F. Services Analysis The proposed development is consistent with Comprehensive Plan policy#2.02.02,Maximize public services by prioritizing infill development of vacant and underdeveloped parcels within the City over parcels on the fringe. I. Waterways (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-6): There are no waterways that lie on or adjacent to the site. 2. Pressurized Irrigation(UDC 11-3A-1 S): Underground pressurized irrigation water is required to be provided in each development as set forth in UDC 11-3A-15. 3. Storm Drainage (UDC 11-3A-18): An adequate storm drainage system is required in accord with the adopted standards, specifications and ordinances; design and construction shall follow Best Management Practice as adopted by the City per UDC 11-3A-18. 4. Utilities (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-21): All utilities for the proposed development are required to be installed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-21. IV. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. Meridian Planning Division 1. Future development shall comply with the provisions in the existing development agreement for Fairbourne Subdivision(H-2018-0052)recorded as Inst. #2018-098361. 2. The final plat shall be revised as follows: i. If ACHD allows the proposed access via N. Black Cat Rd.,modify note#6 to not prohibit access. City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions ii. Note#10: Include the recorded instrument number of the development agreement(i.e. #2018-0098361. iii. Note#11: Include the recorded instrument number of the ACHD license agreement for landscaping. The revised plat shall be submitted with the final plat application for City Engineer signature. 3. The landscape plan shall be revised as follows: i. Depict landscaping within the street buffers along W. Chinden Blvd.,W.Waverton Dr., and N. Black Cat Rd.per the standards in UDC 11-3B-7C. Additional landscape design features are required along entryway corridors (i.e. Chinden Blvd.)per UDC 11-3B- 7C.3f. The existing landscaping was installed with the adjacent subdivision improvements and was never reviewed for consistency with UDC standards or approved prior to installation. The existing landscaping will need to be supplemented with additional landscaping to comply with current UDC standards. 4. Staff's failure to cite all relevant UDC requirements does not relieve the applicant from compliance. 5. The combined preliminary/final 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. See the Agency Comments folder contained in the project file in the public record for other City Department and Agency comments and conditions: (copy the link into a separate browser) https.Ilweblink.meridiancituor,-/WebLinkIBrowse.aspx?id=409718&dbid=0&repo MeridianCi tv V. FINDINGS A. Combined Preliminary and Final Plat(UDC-611-6) 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; The Commission finds the proposed plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and will be consistent with the UDC if the Applicant complies with the above-noted conditions. 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; The Commission finds that sewer service is stubbed to the site and water service will be provided by Veolia. 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the city's capital improvement program; The Commission finds the proposed plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's CIP. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; The Commission finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development. City of Meridian I Department Report V. Findings 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and The Commission finds the proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. The Commission is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that need to be preserved with this development. VI. ACTION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed combined preliminary and final plat with the conditions included above in Section IV. B. Commission: The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard this item on September 4,2025. At the public hearing,the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject PFP request. 1. Summary of Commission public hearing_ a. In favor: Ben Semple,Applicant's Representative b. In opposition: None c. Commenting: Paul McGloughlin; Larry Walker; Bob Misko;Jessica Pierce d. Written testimony: None e. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen f. Other Staff commenting on application:None 2. Key issue(s)of public testimony_ a. Access and traffic concerns pertaining to vehicles turning left into the development and stacking issues that may occur; safety concerns pertaining to traffic and children in the area. b. Belief that the Chinden/Black Cat intersection needs to be re-built for safety reasons to accommodate the high volume of traffic in this area. c. Concern pertaining to landscaping between the site and the abutting residential neighborhood to the west to ensure residents aren't looking at a parking lot. 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission: a. Traffic generated from the proposed development; b. The use and zoning are not the subject of this application. 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. None 5. Outstanding issue(s) for City Council: a. None C. City Council: Pending City of Meridian I Department Report VI. Action ' 1 1 Mn " Q 'Y m . 1 i�� -- tttttfl r■Inn � ♦�,L ,_ •�f r —.i rs -- �. 'r �� �' fir 'e 1_ ��= �� •� r�11111�Iti i111111 .I s s���jrir-p11111i=� s ly �n' C�++�w■' �Ixi - CHINDEN i � LL',,- _e Q .LN1..v • �•��� uilll Illlll fllllllll ww.= mml,. • -j _ n:iiii! UI__ Zlnle Y �Ala I�� Grlmm�nr tim ■ ��' I�?�r11__,ulnnnll 1111`u.:::, �.. �IrrgrAr hrnr+r N� Zi 410 a Elmna • 111 1ni�:� 1 �illir+Tirrr rulU - ply 1 r ►F 1- �. i I+1 rr rrrraumi Tlil d n .f. a�1 RIB ir+lrlll111 lElllly ==�� Q�--` +.11�fir_■�:::At inrnrlAi■ 1lIII�IIIIIC r r +.■'1lIIIIn...V-��11All,fiw rrli i,1•:= rIr1111 IIAAA+rr= _ 11111�1111l=;:I-1111 1�e w. _ w ir1U Brri w� �■pN a .w■ it■�g1111111 PIIM.+ 7 fir- � 11111 lirill!llllll lIIr1!3-C■. �. �• IEn Ifi1111 iri11►�1 AIn11A • .r _lIIRIIIIIlI�Illlllnmutt ry- �� nlii��* r== IIIn1111 r In1 I�a ii°iiii��� r�', ��►t4{1 t In1 ����ir� .r ♦�� illilll r��oneffm L=nx1'nm mu �N� r'i t 111 r!Q � - �J �4 + ��t � soil`;►+�..,I:;J��_�.��rC111111\�i NMI rina� ■IIr\�� I fie`��� �����I�C..ir* ■�C i I � r1�ti ar.�-T_;trnrrll� � a a � ■.. 4�' ■w �C�,I I_ �=r■nIr �ap��`yi�a.�a;'�.' ��+ 1�1�■ �.�.. � ni11!� .._, -�:::�� �i}an/ area ■�y�� �■ �m poll I f '�- il[IIII\�I ,rill+' ##l1♦fti�r,��"�"o- ♦ �y�jV�1�■111II■i� 133. irr �ilF:`-'"r � CH3NDEN R • IIIIIIIIIIIE111111111111111111111111 %�� 11+IIIIIIf1E1111 11111111/ limbo ,yi i�nm uun■loom=: IAAIA� /��I !� 'Illllll�llun.wnnlll 111111 [C mm�l C nll :Inlll! Ijk i - • li■■i■a■�IlRllili=-11111 w ��HIII=- • _ al r'1 _iEglla III -:■ ��■` 7�ul�l:11�1 1!I �n■il�=Ini 111lI� _I ■�C�-111111111u1Ib- III\► `IIIIIII�� _ • ■1 �\n11�su■n[nnl-. um� ygnypyll mn11i Wii�'.0 //�I t a■I■*�-uul►� �- -C:O:-p r� !11�. �� \+y I-1,I�1111111 1� f11lVUr14r1L S}a� � In== rll:I1111+1 i® !!�i�I�w : =i1Q y� �.mn1111 �'I+1411ry _ pAy1 . ■IIr11� _1 .-��11111 Ilil���1 1 I Q� Illpriii iei�unilli'nu.� �u--ulty/ ���wf��1'a 1111'r-' r,.`=■'.w��� lulllrllr--��1��Z� iillrr w �r rIr. =It■1Q�-� .Ili�.. . -�__In en1n 1■mnn■■!nn!111Ibl111 n1+1m11 1aa_1�1 11 iln1#m11 a'•'.:•:•rrr.:�.■�ww\'-�##h\#rnn■y�l.Rnmllamu'm...C.�■_,.1•UYnII_�_L'•i �+!I[•�1[I1l . III■.�• -�-,_a�m_h• W W hill H Irl .r---- IIBIIII IIIIIII I�-- 0' Jill,11111111MM ',■' ��j'♦t+�♦�'I�1\\ r 1111a+++ai}■�Qv�:�♦ 4�yiiii�ll� soiiiii V=11111■eon Inn ,� •Ifl I'` }d!n`II '-.. _ �Q .�. ■� ♦ �� fa\ ■�a■■■i,++�rJ:p++inr� �I+nll!M■re nllu►1 y1• nu■►,- ♦ ♦� ♦ alalll r�u!■r wl Ir �s �sq C■lu ��I ♦ \■■■::■ :Imu hlln►�a�yv`rn a r■In ■ ��,�■ rI �`�n1■ram �.R�.rr ■`��■'4i • ► __ IHr ��1 11 rwnr f■f LJL �.ar,�p �fiil ar*�.,?-■ttt\r IS E7■i'i1r�i r+�. i}�o/ rua���1yf� m•�i ��a w '� G f rim mI ► rnnl aN Illarllnl■IUl Li1uuui - p� w. +roll• �r�i11111�_ I Ilnn II nnllln LI luunu■ullnm - C-�i ~w 1j'i###111 r� ♦� v 1 � �11!llllf F� IIIRflII■III1111111 {IIIII■!II' III Ihnll■111111111 � — I I � -�' . , ■+Illllal I rliur� r##l■����,.i � ' ii• �. 1. lllllll IIIIII_ "Ilf xl numla � � �Ih��1��!■ !�� �t2 1 � �r-IrII11111�Y111111111111111�I r •h I��I In1.:h 111111�, y�C tl CHINDENo' i�G'� muwnluumnilluil71911n11 1 pnun: ,noun wuu■ illlll IIIIII■Illlllll_�Illlll :fllllill .IIIIIII �IEIIII■ Illpl�llllll 111111111=� Inn r $Illy 3--Inll= _■n111 � 1 �111- iiiiil � ':I•YI�� �I =11�_ � .xu 1� I IIIIIII 11111111� I �� �� pl=Ilu IIAII- = =-ai-1111111111r�1 JI\E 'r Q , ��� nnllilom fil I ■�D�+r.t��snul[nnl: um� 4rs1m•u■n� rW"t jw:� n i:=wwr �yl - ��:�O��IIl11 ■Ir11r i I all if � .r ��`p�w • 1=I= � .II l��i�� :�! ��i:^�i1111 u11i'.���4�����ynnll W nlyy �♦.•`nuq _ i■Irw#+�fiF'-�1.t1+1__� .:.. ....:: alb/li ' is��`p��.w�ryri'r. P -ra■>:Q�--w�nlI=�^�!i\�:��^!n■111■In`�_n�!�+W .11� naml_II;������w.ri■ ##a � IIIIII n111►Cv � �,.V "'.In11n111nE=C i_Illlll��ar� r nI■,1lIh1!.._._V_..�1�1i111nf'ai 11111 Irll!i�,r1al[[ Ilea III�1��� €1111 llI1111#111111 rl■++lll-~�i■� .IIIIIII n1�-.•1111-11II', 1111# rrlll,�Ir1111111 1111OIIllllllnll IIIIIII I 1111[III■■ IOr11 Lr4 � ■ _��� 111 1111n11111a�r--�►r'{\\\\����► \ L-mnnuuuullnnnulwnllnu o m mnlli�� m r�9� ♦��►�_`-- pv �CO�ir ��g11u111■,Ilnnrnrrl._mnumn=___--� 1■'- Inn 11111 �\\a�♦ �� r11��1i`•aa+ a+rim LQw'�: •�Iu1111��-Irnnmr I q��nlllllllln a==a=__a�■ �11ulr�j _-_-=_Ilillllul-• .�� �Q ♦ �f �rr +�i■iP�t+�r„i,il•"I��w�� h, ,_ r - �rlllnl\��Irrq Illlrt►�wr.11lllll=__--S�m-■■ ��11� ___-_ �n11■♦�'I ♦ � �r■■�i..}!} _�:r w I. �nri !�q __�r�C� ■■ �■fli ------= I �♦ ♦♦ rw.■l .Im � film rj■olilr�;� � I■ ■■ =■■■■ B. Service Accessibility Report PARCEL SO421449SOO SERVICE ACCESSIBILITY Overall Score: 20 7th Percentile Description Location In City Limits Extension Sewer Trunkshed mains E 500 ft.from parcel Floodplain Either not within the 100 yr floodplain or>2 acres Emergency Services Fire Response time 5-9 min. YELLOW Emergency Services Police Not enough data to report average response time Pathways Within 1/4 mile of current pathways Transit Not within 114 of current or future transit route Arterial Road Buildout Status Ultimate configuration(#of lanes in master streets YELLOW plan) > existing(#of lanes)&road IS in 5 yr work plan School Walking Proximity Within 1/2 mile walking PREEN Either a High School or College within 2 miles OR a School Drivability Middle or Elementary School within 1 mile driving GREEN (existing or future) Park Walkability No park within walking distance by park type RED Report generated on 08-28-2025 by MERIDIAM,sallen City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits C. Preliminary Plat(date: 6/12/2025) 4 LL @ 9 i� Il ,v a all 11-wii iI I W.B HS N 2 88 M IN, O j1111 g ; WIN w r 9 p 1 C � � y 4 0 aIa �zch o 4: a � o a 8 O Z City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits D. Final Plat(date: 7/17/2025) aEj $ s fi=moo _ ' 'a8 g �? 90 pO g w�io'd�og uo z4 az zz ag�i_ ■r•^)n °g I �'o i as ioOS aoa3�6q �° ° 36 �Wo I �o i'�� �¢ a s 8� io° Rl jIz n �> 3i x°� o� m isz000 000°at fw$ �J �3a4 �k� ro 30�,s Wo �'o i"o�eSo°.'°orGoG ,�o sa iPJ'yg+zo flid�s'�9'=fzogoG6mg_&@'d ti_-ows�`zw�$�w3oo���O=z��m nzg��m.00z 2ooco"o zc�LL��S UG-m400vW Gocm mzzOo�^w�=��Ga$dz�-°z4�d'czWog- w o SE° z wo° C7V �k $ E ' r❑ZCv'7 v az a f v M r m a ' — 9roroaaaiovsve NI" IG SISV6 (SAWA 11,WLL) 3 °� n tt'oiz m.aroz.00� yg. 'aa sr�x°ro'�a .� ��'9° •iFsz H6'6B[h129AE.006 $ no �� z o II b b O °]Z I l 1 1 m I I eta 3 �cn �W z rya W a d o = QOR f Q co a�L---- -- -- I alY9F mx gFlt� mo9 00O1 3 9B'E99 aav az �sr' ooru � .az.oam o= ,' � Ir�r riam�iwvrs,w,imva., z= I m ? om o= aw Z. �j 6 V nam-Z G gzz< o$ z ._ g o a`; _ -o f5 o w s $� m W a" mas O_ iw m N � M M W o-aEe Q Z W® � Sb8PXPX � aggg City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits E. Landscape Plan(date: 7/30/2025) 3 Y b4e9 -, ��ss�?a SCgCg� e aaff� xs4 e 4 @ @ A Lim, g� 114124H1. w 6 R§�F IB 11 iil �' l 1 z�b eai 2$ €ai9Me9�1^gg �!�9����' l e @ 3@ w � 11 �l5 s�Q 9 �ea asap 3. € b '� 5 ¢• p'$ S � .a .: I°ff. g g yy�g qa@1 pg3g'g`' gy5� ee yp�° 3 s @q F o �y�S 1 I ee�o MINIM 9�€� �gF8�5 22 u+ � Po� E MI M @@° a gl,j, Al a��s�3 MW � ff 77777- e O O de7 � _ ,A, r o m Q ® a U QB Z- ® � A ai A City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits F. Site Plan (dated: 4/2/2025) v {a3i3ia3A)ui3 aid a333ne 3dVOSGNY1 9c Cc', ® � I ti a mN�wy�B� Lj t III -------- — sa Gov A — ... _______ -- -------------- ---- r ---- 2 O 4 � s IN I IV P7- Lu — I I l � 11 _ I w —_ rg�r� 3 6�sm�ea53.rne 3da�saNv3 oz -- '_ ---- -- ----- -- � City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits G. Conceptual Building Elevations (dated: 4/17/2025) rn 3 N34N1H3 'B IVO NOV19 . a 11 Q r w i oo�asioe n og I U —AO AaVNIWI13ad-N0110na15NOO aOd ION z s z & hp flll � ` G P � 0 !, 1¢ LIL F F o r e City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits C i E IDIAN.;--- Agenda Item Applicant Presentation FAIRBOURNE SUBDIVISION NO. 4 Meridian, ID 83646Northwest corner W. Chinden Blvd. & Black Cat Rd.CITY COUNCIL HEARING OCTOBER 21, 20250036-2025-H-PFP VICINITY MAPFUTURE LAND USE CURRENT PRECURRENT FINAL PLATPLAT (2018)-ORIGINAL PREPLAT- LANDSCAPE PLANEXISTING LANDSCAPE CONCEPTUAL BUILDING ELEVATIONSCONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN IN AGREEMENT WITH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF QUESTIONS?QUESTIONS?s of the UDC.oni. Landscaping along all property lines and road frontages will be supplemented to ensure compliance with the current provisiCondition 3. Landscape Planiii. Note #11 will be updated to include the Instrument Number of the ACHD license agreement.ii. Note #10 will be updated to include the Instrument Number of the DA.Meridian, as well as the recorded DA. Direct access to W. Chinden Blvd. is prohibited and not proposed.Dr., as approved by ACHD and the City of WavertonW. out (as is existing). Full access is also provided from -in/right-i. Direct access to Black Cat is allowed by ACHD with a rightCondition 2. Final Plat revisionsrne Subdivision.bouCondition 1. Future development of the parcel shall comply with the provisions of the existing development agreement for Fairs of the UDC.oni. Landscaping along all property lines and road frontages will be supplemented to ensure compliance with the current provisiCondition 3. Landscape Planiii. Note #11 will be updated to include the Instrument Number of the ACHD license agreement.ii. Note #10 will be updated to include the Instrument Number of the DA.Meridian, as well as the recorded DA. Direct access to W. Chinden Blvd. is prohibited and not proposed.Dr., as approved by ACHD and the City of WavertonW. out (as is existing). Full access is also provided from -in/right-i. Direct access to Black Cat is allowed by ACHD with a rightCondition 2. Final Plat revisionsrne Subdivision.bouCondition 1. Future development of the parcel shall comply with the provisions of the existing development agreement for Fair THE STAFF REPORT AND AGENCY COMMENTSIN AGREEMENT WITH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE STAFF REPORT AND AGENCY COMMENTS 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: 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, multi-family apartments and vertically integrated residential above ground floor commercial, 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, include additional land area (i.e. 1.92 acres); and update certain provisions. B. Request: Annexation of 7.21 acres of land with I-L (5.29-acres), C-G (1.36-acres) and R-15 (0.56-acre) zoning districts. C. Request: Rezone of 3.08-acres (0.91 + 2.17) of land from the C-G to the R-15 zoning district. D. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 41 buildable lots and 3 common lots on 36.58 acres of land in the R-15 and C-G zoning districts. E. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development consisting of 139 units on 2.87-acres of land on Lot 2, Block 1 in the C-G zoning district with a request for alternative compliance 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 studio units without such space. F. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development consisting of 132 units on 3.41-acres of land on 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 square feet of private, usable open space to be provided for each multi-family unit, to allow studio units with no such space; 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. G. Request: 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, by DRB Investments, LLC H. Request: Alternative compliance is requested from the Director 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, Block 4 (hotel &two 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 square feet to zero (0). PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: October 21, 2025 ITEM # 3 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 �� 20CW-�)( VD ub_�- 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT C��fEPIDIAN*,­, DEPARTMENT REPORT HEARING 10/21/2025 Legend " @ � DATE: Project Location Area of Impact TO: Mayor&City Council City Limits _ OAnalysis I ! J FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner r �= ' 208-884-5533 �_. �' ��; m I �' ®! ! sallen@meridiancity.org APPLICANT: Givens Pursley SUBJECT: Pine 43 Mixed Use Subdivision—ALT, Al4 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 11-213-3 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,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: The Commission recommended approval to City Council of the proposed development, including the two(2)multi-family residential developments and the vertically integrated residential project located south of E. Pine Ave. in Blocks 1 and 3. City of Meridian I Department Report 1. Project Overview D. Decision City Council: Pending II. 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) VII.A.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. AM Meridian Police See comments in public record • Distance to 0.9 miles from headquarters&7.7 miles from North station Station • Response Dispatch Average Response Times by Priority City of Meridian M74; Time Priority 3(MPD Goal is within 3 to 5 minutes) 4:06 3:35 Priority 2(MPD Goo;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 City of Meridian Department Report II. Community Metrics • Distance to Sewer available at site Mainline • Impacts or Concerns 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 Total Total Development Area Zone Single Multi Single Mutt! Estimated Architectural Program Family Family Students 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 Note:Student Generation Rotes are calculated in reference to the designated elementary scho 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 II. Community Metrics Figure 1: One-Mile Radius Existing Condition Metrics Reference Parcel:S110823401i Date Retrieved:2025/6 f 16 Parcel Count Parcel Acreage Infill Indicator: 973 Surrounding Area 207 1% Not City 40 ■® City Limits L518. 2,411 9 N of C ity Household Change Household&Population Growth Households 02020 Population Change:1 7.36 Population ■Growth (Household and Population Change since 2010 Decennial) 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 Use Types Residerdial Addresses All Addresses Single-family 41a6 A31259G ® Multi-family ® Commercial Preliminary Plats{last 5-years) Conditional Use Permit(last 5-years) Proposed Proposed Pendingjj:jj Pending App rowed Approved 0 100" 200000 300000 0 1A0000 200400 300000 400000 ■ Single-family ® Multi-family 2.00 am 1,500 Single-family N �, Residential # 1.54 1,QQQ � Parcel Diversity 1.00 CU 0.82 0 Parcel Count it 050 500 ■Average Acres 4.44 ic. .19 4y Q a R-2 R-4 RIB IR-15 Average Single-family Density by Zoning Average 15.CC 4U Residential Net Dens&V 10.00 10.79 5.00 E)4.95 5.3T 6.0 0.04 1.23 Dwelling Units f 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 based on Vehicles per hour(VPH) Roadway Frontage Functional IPMPeakHour PM Peak Hour Classification I 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 638-feet Local NIA NIA Commercial Nola Road 274-feet 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 ACHUs most 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"1, 2024. • There are no current traffic counts available for State Avenue, Webb Way, Webb Avenue or Nola Road. Notes: See VIII.Additional Notes&Details for Staff Report Maps,Tables,and Charts. Figure 3: Service Impact Summary pact Too] Ready Marginal Caution b e e Note:No park within walking distance is noted as "caution". Distances for determining an acceptable walking distance are as follows: I mile—regional park, 0.5 mile—community park; and 0.25 mile neighborhood park. Distances are based on the approximate centroid of a project. Notes: See VIII.Additional Notes&Details for Staff Report Maps,Tables,and Charts. City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics III. STAFF ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code(UDC) A. History • In 2007,this property was included in the annexation(AZ-07-006, Ordinance#08-1348), 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. 6 om -IYIl1LTl•FR611LY' � RESIDENTIAL f 6v lT •r� f�';'f`°'€ � s-�;�' E -�I ICJ � -. -" N -_•�-�f ��.w�..r�-�.a-�..-.tea.` -- 1_ '' .. _ - _.. • 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 AFW11'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' '��MANLY 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 •SB CC&SAONAREAS —--• �.L E.STNC.CLIHME RCuL AREA AREA V COLMEACIN.LOTH r -4?S ACAEH 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 ACa�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+ T(YrAL 2008 Pinebridge 2018 BA Modification 2025 Pine 43 approved/built+ Approval' Built as of 21118 Approval` Area in Pincbridge 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) 2,35Q 000 567,000 493,000 1,060,000 713,000 481,000 1,194,060 Commercial 550,000 102,000 102,000 60,000 72,000 132,000 Office+LtIndustrial 1,800,000 567,M) 391,ofkl 958,000 (153,000 221,000 874,0110 Non-Res.in V-1 Bid— 59,000 59.0ou Hotel 129,00u 129,000 Sucutsy campus,Happy Hipp,,light industrial, Hotel,med tech,light industrial,entail, 567,491 SF Seentsy medical offices,Narlh res1xu[xnt5,afGce, Uses campus with ollice and Pointe lr,,alment ecn6.v, light industrial res taurants,retail, singlo-family ICidSlrong,single-family lawnh—cs and multi- residential family residential 'Use breakuul based on estimates in 77S_Concept Plan in 2005 DA showed 3M SF mined use_ ss Use breakuut b-ud un Concept Plan in 2018❑A,which was similar to 2017 TIS. A[[--.and SF shown are appm.imale_ 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 V11.1,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 84 340 9.23 acres(or 24 9.4 25.2%of the site) of private and public "alified open space is proposed,including developed green spaces, amenities,and a 41,464+sq. ft. centralized public plaza eeasis6a of the"qualified open spu^�open sp ii et3*ial lots" City of Meridian I Department Report 111. Staff Analysis and"3r-iv to e��as depicted on the open space exhibit in Section VII.N.Note: The pm,ate-"common open space"is provided as part of the vertically integrated residential projects, amd multi family and o ace developments and is mostly not accessible to the public, except for the areas along adjacent streets. Dx R-I5 4 I-L RUT .tRy e�K3, .�AA T swats. r 11 r.� w-z acles� r G r , — LEGEND L-o — i a .ri PROPOSEDTOMHOMES 4 :��� wx 4 - �1• ,X� r I t O PROPOSED UULTbFMILY vh 6LXK L�11. O PROPOSED VE RTICALLY-INTEOFMTED ---- '! -•-�n —PROPOSED RESTAl1RANT - - ••-- _ __ _ ®PROPOSED HOTEL _ - C-G — O PROPOSED OFFICE O PROPOSEDMED-TECH . L-Q LANDSCAPE AREA41 lJ r k ��rlr � I I MA TER PLAN PINE 43 MIXED V r L r, SHEET2OF 14IFT 5$� 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 City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis subject application for the portion of the site south of E. State Ave.,proposed to be included in an amended DA. 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 a res: 17132,17133,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: F134,FC5,FC7. The exhibit in Section VII.Ndepicts open space on non-residential lots bw appears to Wbit is submime-digrier te the City Geuned hearing that ex-e1Hd,-s street bbtffie� pa-tli-wa e.A revised open space exhibit was submitted along with renderings of public-quasi-public spaces and places with amenities (see exhibit below in Section BBB City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis No schools are proposed within the site; however, there is an existing school southwest of Block 3. Holistic Design: 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. Renderings were submitted, included below in Section VII.BB, as requested. 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 City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 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. 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 1-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 I-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 see exhibit below for the distance ofseparation from the adjacent townhomes across E. State St.,).-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 City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 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. Shad from WWOI sun i fisa - AL _ c 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). 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 south of State Ave. (36.58 acres), a minimum of 1.83 acres of such spaces and places should be provided; art public and/or quasi public open space exhibit-is included in Section VITNBB Mat a piets epen&paeejCei- residential"e*S.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 uses consisting of 0.85 , r r r a total of 4-.8 3.81 acres or 10%of the site. Some ­4"-O r ., City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis A 7 appear to be in the street buffer along Pine Ave. and de nat qua!6�,as.neted abe .�-r-r'c=v'-iS'ccc 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.An open space exhibit sheuld be was submitted for the overall Pine 43 development that demonstrates e�compliance with this development guideline, included below in Section DD. A total of 7.51 acres (or 6.2%) of the site is proposed to be public or quasi public open space. ➢ 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. 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. The Commission did not share this opinion and recommended approval of these uses. 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 City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis commercial/office uses in the area south of Pine Ave. The Commission was in support of the proposed use provided sound mitigation is provided as proposed. 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 Commission did not recommend reducing the number of units to accommodate more commercial/office uses. 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. (3.06.01B) • 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 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. City of Meridian I Department Report 111. Staff Analysis 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 DRIB 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 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 Staff s 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 Commission recommended approval of the multi-family developments as proposed. 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. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 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 11-213-3A.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 Staff's analysis below in Section III.C.3. Alternative Compliance(ALT)to UDC Table 11-2B-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 Staff's 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: Proiect 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 VILN below Amenities 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 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 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. The Commission recommended approval of these uses. 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. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 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 11-213-3—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(VI)residential buildings on Lots 1 and 3,Block 4,the hotel on Lot 2,Block 4,and the multi-family MF 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.-A shadow study was submitted, included below in Section EE,that demonstrates shadows will not impact the adjacent residential neighborhood on the north side of State except during the Winter solstice. A comparison is included that demonstrates the difference between the allowed 65' height and the proposed 76' height. 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. updated e��ibit should be submitted that only ineludes usable eu4deer-open spaGe as noted. An updated open space exhibit was submitted that depicts usable outdoor space, included below in Section VII.N. The VI building on Lot 1,Block 4 is 271,243 sq. ft.,therefore, a minimum of 27,124 sq. ft. of usable outdoor space is required—a total of 37,466.74 sq. ft. of open space is proposed consisting of a plaza and rooftop deck,which meets and exceeds the standard(see exhibit in Section CC below.Note: The requested increase in height amounts to less than 45%of this building and will accommodate amenities as well as view units. The building's tallest point is at the northeast corner and more than halfofthe height is across from the nei hg boring community's sports court amenity, with hei hg t stepping down east to west as shown on the last exhibit below in Section VII.Y The building is set back by up to 100 feet from the back of the homes on the north side ofE. State Ave. The building is softened by landscaping, including two (2,) rows of Class II trees, one on each side of State Ave. The VI building on Lot 3,Block 4 is 153,719 sq. ft.;therefore, a minimum of 15,372 sq. ft. of usable outdoor space is required—a total of 27,582 sq. ft. is proposed consisting of a rooftop deck and common area on the north side of the building,which meets and exceeds the standard. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis The hotel on Lot 2,Block 4 is 125,240 sq. ft.;therefore, a minimum of 12,524 sq. ft. of usable outdoor space required—a total of 22,420 sq. ft. is proposed consisting of pedestrian seating, gathering areas and a plaza area on the ground floor and a rooftop deck with a pool, which meets and exceeds the standard. The MF building on Lot 2,Block 3 is 155,545 sq. ft.;therefore, a minimum of 15,555 sq. ft. of usable outdoor space is required to meet the 10%required for a heightption,which can't include required setbacks and landscape buffers.An additional 31,000 sq. ft. of outdoor common open space is required to meet the multi-family standards in UDC 11-4-3-27C.5 for a minimum total of 46,555 sq. ft.—a total of 2�4 46,680 sq. ft. is proposed,which meets the minimum standards and doesn't include required setbacks or landscape buffers4rr-UPC 5 b * t the standard f >, b �: }}�3J 2,��iu 6csiivc�ixccc-crr2�3�r� cr�n�cirCcperv�. Based on the revised open space exhibit and calculations,the Director was able to verify the required amount of usable open space is provided for the verticallygrated residential and hotel buildings and the multi-family building in order to grant the alternative compliance requests on Lot 1, Block 4,Lots 2 and 3,Block 4; and Lot 2,Block 3. Beeai se St 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 City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 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. The Commission did not recommend any changes to the development plan. 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. 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 I as Staff is recommending denial of the use on that lot. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 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. 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 5ffi Floor Rooftop Amenity Deck Block 2,Lot 2 39 1,950 sf 21,500 sf on 2d Floor Amenity Deck and 6,390 sf on 7'h Floor Rooftop Amenity Deck Block 4,Lot 1 51 2,55D sf 23,675 sf on 21 Floor Amenity Deck and 13,370 sf on 6'h Floor Rooftop Amenity Deck Block 4,Lot 3 28 1,40D sf 17,540 sf on 2' Floor Amenity Deck and 8,500 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 and therefore,approves the request for Lot 1,Block 1; Lots 2,Block 2; and Lots 1 and 3, City of Meridian Department Report III. Staff Analysis Block 4 in accord with the Findings included below in Section V provided Council approves these uses. Bee e Staff ff is reconffneading denial of the„ on 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. 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 City of Meridian Department Report III. Staff Analysis 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 11-513-5 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 such private open space for the studio units—, which the Director has not aeted on approved(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 III.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 City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 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. 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: City of Meridian Department Report III. Staff Analysis a. One hundred fifty(150) square feet for each unit containing five hundred (500)or less square feet of living area. Lot 2, Block I—33 units x 150 soft. = 4,950 soft. Lot 2, Block 3—28 units x 150 sq. ft. = 4,200 soft. 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. 41cnits en Let 2, Blee 1 — 29,7 0 sq. r. (u n 6� ae-res d 12 4 units Esc Let 2, B eek-3- a 1,000 sq. t (ep n 71 , o ea Lot 2, Block I—82 units x 250 soft. = 20,500 sq. ft. Lot 2, Block 3—96 units x 250 soft. = 24,000 soft. 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 Hnit en '. Lot 2, Block I—24 x 350 soft. = 8,400 sq. ft. Lot 2, Block 3—8 x 350 sq. ft, = 2,800 sq.ft. A total of 3 7-,150 33.850 sq.ft. (or 0-.85 0.78 acres) is required for Lot 2, Block 1; a total of 40,698.08 75.868 sq.ft. (or 0-.9-3 1.74 acres) is provided, exceeding the standard by 3,348.08 42,018 sq.ft. (or 0.48 0.96 acres). A total of 33,-800 31,00 sq.ft. (or 0-.78 0.71 acres) is required for Lot 2, Block 3; a total of 16,319.83 32, 43,579 sq.ft. (or n.?v-✓7 0.75 1.00 acres) is provided consisting of a 44-420 30,020 sq. ft. area including two (2,) 5,000 sq. ft. open grassy areas and rooftop decks, 24M 3,101 soft. in the parking area, and 13,559 soft. between the buildingand nd adjacent street bu ers. street but&aff is unable to detepmine what tf- any ef this area qualoes as i submitted with the Gei-toeate of Zoning GenThanee applieagen Ma While the area in the parking lot is not ideal, it meets the minimum dimensions to count toward the open space requirement. The UDC(11-4-3-27C.8)states, "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 4 feet in height, with breaks in the berm or barrier to allow for pedestrian access."The Applicant requests approval of this area to count toward the open space standard through the CUP without a berm/barrier being installed. Note: The open space provided dee�tet meets the 10%requirement for alternative compliance to be approved for a hei hg t exception for the building 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 City of Meridian Department Report III. Staff Analysis 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. TA portion of the common open space area on Lot 2, Block 3 is behind the building away from the collector and arterial street buffers, the remainder is adjacent to the street buffers along Pine and Webb Ave.; the common area on Lot 2,Block 1 is adjacent to the arterial street buffer along Pine Ave. on each side of the building , j4M this standard if the W . The Applicant requests a berm or barrier not be required on either of these lots throumh the conditional use permit. 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 S 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 (2) Ponds or water features (3) Plaza (4) Picnic area including tables,benches, landscaping and a structure for shade. City of Meridian Department Report III. Staff Analysis 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 (S) 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 (S) amenities are required with at least one (])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 City of Meridian Department Report III. Staff Analysis 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 facade 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. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 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 11-5B-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 Prig ate Amenity Area Provided Studio Space Units Needed Block 1,Lot 2 133 12,640 sf 17,780 sf on 21 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 and approves the requests. , 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. 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. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 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 11-3B-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 11-3B-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 11-3B-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. Although a buffer is not required on C-G zoned property adjacent to I-L zoned property, the Applicant proposes a 10-foot wide buffer along the southern boundary of Lot 1, Block 1 to buffer the proposed residential uses from the existing industrial uses to the south. The buffer is proposed to be planted with columnar evergreen trees with a 30' height and 10' width at maturity(see exhibit in Section VII.L) and an 8' tall masonry wall is proposed on the shared propertline as an added buffer. 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 SrrE THAT WILL COUNT TOWARDS MMGATION ARE AS FOLLO'NS: (11) -V CAL ARMSTRONG MAPLES (5)-4"CAL KATSURA (2)-V HT.WEEPING NORWAY SPRUCE TOTAL CALIPER INCHES =96 CALIPER INCHES 2. EXISTING TREES TO BE REMOVED ON SITE (1) -42"COTTONWOOD(NO MITIGATION REQUIRED) (7] -3('BLACK LOCUST M MITIGATION REQUI RED) (2) -4"BLACK LOCUST(NO MITIGATION REQUIRED) (1) -6"BLACK LOCUST(NON ITI GATION REQUIRED) (14)- 1 T'POPULAR(NO MITIGATION REQUIRED) (3)-25F TALL PINE(SIM.TO 6"CAL.) (2)-1BrTALL PINE(SIM.TO4.5"CAL.) (1)-21Y TALL PINE(SIM.TO 5.5"CAL.) (1)-10'TALL PINE(SIM-TO 2-CAL.) TOTAL CALIPER INCHES THAT DO NOT REOUI RED MITIGATION=406 CALI PER I NCHES TOTAL CALIPER INCHES =34 CALIPER INCHES 3. EXISTING TREES TO BE RELOCATED ON SITE (46)4r CAL.ARMSTRONG MAPLES (28)-15-HT COLUMNAR SPRUCE(SIM.TO4"CAL) (19) -4"CAL.FLOWER NGCRABAPPLE (14)-4"CAL.KGATSURA (11)-&CAL.WPG.MULBERRY (2)-1V HT.V4PG.N4OTVA SPRUCE(SIM.TO4"CAL.) (21)-BE CAL.MULTI-TRUNK REDBUD (40)-14'HT.SPRUCE(SIM.TO 4-CAL) (5)-V HT.W G.SPRUCE(SIM_TO 2'GAL.) TOTAL CALIPER INCHES RELOCATED TREES=1390 CALI PER I NCHES TOTAL CALIPER INCHES THE REQU IRE MITIGATION=34 CALI PER INCHES TOTAL CALIPER INCHES THAT DO NOT REQUI RED MITIGATION=4LIB CALI PER I NCHES METHODS OF MITIGATION TO NCLUDE PROPOSING AN ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE OF TREE RELOCATION FROM THE EXISTING ROAD BUFFERS.EXISTING TREES THAT ARE RELOCATED ON SITE MAY COUNT TOWARD THE RECL,I=�=D LANDSCAPING.ALTERNATIVE METHODS WOULD INCLUDE I NCREASI NG CALIPER INCHES OF'ROPOSED 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. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis vi. Pathway landscaping Landscaping is required along all pathways per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C and will be reviewed for consistency with the standards with future development applications(i.e. final plat and/or Certificate of Zoning Compliance). 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(33) 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. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 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. 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 revised fencing exhibit was submitted,included below in Section VII.M,that depicts existing and proposed fencing; no new f nei — i ^r^^ a. 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. A vegetative screen or buffer is depicted at the southwest corners of the development area adjacent to the industrial properties on the north and south sides of W. Pine Ave. and an 8- foot tall masonry wall is proposed along the south side of Lot 1, Block 1 adjacent to existing industrial uses. 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. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis E. Transportation Analysis Comprehensive Plan Policy#3.01.O1A—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: • 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 SM-55 (Eagle Road) in 2029. + The intersection of Fairview Road and Locust Grove Road is scheduled in the FYP to be widened to 7-lanes 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. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis • 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. 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. A memo was submitted from the traffic engineer, dated October 14, 2025,that includes additional and updated analysis for the proposed development. A comparison of trip generation between the previouslyapproved land uses south of State Ave. from the approved 2017 TIS and the currently proposed land use changes are included in the memo and shown below. Table 4. Proposed Land Use Trip Generation Comparison, February 2024 Land Use Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Trips Total In Out Total In Out Total Net New Trips (2017 Study) 6315 752 587 165 781 209 572 Total Net New Trips (2025 Site Plan) 8872 749 358 391 784 357 427 Net New Trips (Difference) 2557 -3 -229 226 3 148 -145 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 #S1108244650 to the east of Block 2 and Parcel#S1108233810(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. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 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 pedestr4aplan should be revised prior-to the City Getineil hear-ing to r-efleet'W.Webb Ave."sou4h e E. Pine Ave.;the Legend should refleet that the 10' wide pathway is a detaeked pathway; ineltide the pathway aleng the west side of N. Maehiae Ave. as required by the Park's Dept.; and depiet the existing detaehed sidewalk around the dr-iveway/eul de sae off of E. Pine adj aee^*to Bl eek 1. The pedestrian plan has been revised as requested. 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. 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 11-3F-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. 1. 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. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 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 afe net ineluded for-the multi family develepmet4s a-ad vei4ieally ifftegr-a4ed residential pr-ejeet in Bleeks 1 and 3 south of E. Pine Ave. beeause Sta r-eeemmending denial of these uses. if the Geffffaission and/or Couneil dete a portion of these uses is appr-opr-ia4e, eenditions a*d updated plans should ineluded as appfie-able,pr- to appfaval-. Because the Commission was in support of the proposed multi-family developments and vertically integrated residential project in Blocks 1 and 3, south of E. Pine Ave., Staff has included conditions of gpnroval for the applications associated with these requests. 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 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. City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions 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. f. 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 followsi inelude ROB Fesidential uses in plaee of the multi family residential developments Note: The Commission did not recommend approval of these chance 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). 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 1,Block 1; 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 City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions 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 FB5,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. f. The developer shall provide enhanced construction materials(i.e. high sound transmission classification rated windows and walls) for sound mitigation as proposed for the south side of the vertically integrated residential structure on Lot 1,Block 1 adjacent to existing industrial uses to the south. Z. The Director approved an Alternative Compliance request to UDC Table 11-213-3 to increase the maximum building heiaht in the C-G zoning district by 17%,from 65 feet to 76 feet,for the hotel on Lot 2,Block 4;the multi-family building on Lot 2,Block 3; and the two vertically integrated residential buildings on Lots 1 and 3,Block 4, as shown in the exhibit in Section VII.T. This approval is contingent on providing 10%of the building_square footage as open space,courtyards,patios, or other usable outdoor areas for employees and/or patrons, exclusive of required setbacks and landscape buffers, in accordance with UDC 11-213-3A.3d, as shown in the open space exhibit in Section VII.N. 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 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 11-313-7C.2. Where street buffers are encumbered by easements or other restrictions,the buffer City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions 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 11 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-1OC 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.Ib. 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. 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 11-317-4. i. Staff's failure to cite all relevant UDC requirements does not relieve the applicant from compliance. City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions 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 11-513-617. 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. 5. Conditional Use Permit—Multi-family Development(Lot 2,Block 1 and Lot 2,Block 3) a. Compliance with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-27 for Multi-family Developments is required except for the standard requiring 80 square feet of private, usable open space per unit.An alternative compliance request to UDC 11-4-3-27B.3 was approved by the Director to allow no private open space for studio units, contingent upon the provision of private amenity decks as shown in the exhibits in Section VII.R. b. Compliance with the dimensional standards for the C-G zoning district in UDC Table 1I- 2B-3 is required, except for the 65-foot maximum building height for the multi-family building on Lot 2,Block 3.An Alternative Compliance request was approved by the Director to permit a maximum height of 76 feet, contingent upon providing 10%of the building square footage as open space,courtyards,patios, or other usable outdoor space for the employees and/or patrons of the structure, exclusive of required setbacks and landscape buffers, as shown in the open space exhibit in Section VII.N. c. A revised site/landscape plan, as applicable, shall be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application(s)that includes the following_ i. Depict landscaping alongall pathways per the standards listed in UDC 11-313-12C; include a calculations table that demonstrates compliance. ii. Depict parking lot landscaping in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8C. iii. Depict all on-site service areas, outdoor storage areas,waste storage, disposal facilities, and transformer and utility vaults in an area not visible from a public street, or fully screened from view from a public street in accord with UDC 11-4-3-27B.2. iv. Depict the location of the property management office,maintenance storage area, central mailbox location(including provisions for parcel mail that provide safe pedestrian and/or vehicle access),and a directory and map of the development at an City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions entrance or convenient location for those entering the development in accord with UDC 11-4-3-27B.7. v. All street facing elevations shall have landscaping along their foundation that complies with the minimum standards in UDC 11-4-3-27E. Note: The common open space areas adjacent to the arterial street(i.e. Pine Ave.,)buffer are allowed to count toward the open space requirements as part of the conditional use permit without being separated from the street by a berm or constructed barrier as allowed by UDC 11-4-3-27C.8. d. A recorded copy of a shared use parking agreement shall be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application for the multi-family structure on Lot 2, Block 1 per the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-713 to allow a portion of the required off- street parking spaces to be provided in the parking garage for the vertically integrated project on Lot 1,Block 1. e. Off-street parking shall comply with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 and the site plan submitted with this application, included in Section VII.Q. £ 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 as set forth in UDC 11-4-3-27F. A recorded copy of this agreement shall be submitted prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for the building(s). g_ 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 as set forth in UDC 11-4-3- 27G. The keyless entry system or alternative shall be subject to review and approval by the Meridian Police Department. h. 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 11-5B-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 mabegranted.With all extensions,the director or commission may require the conditional use comply with the current provisions of this chapter. B. Meridian Public Works https:llweblink.meridianciU.org WWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=397532&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lty C. Meridian Fire Department https://web link.meridian city.oLv WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=410927&dbid=0&repo=Meridian C ky City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions The Meridian Fire Department will 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.meridiancity.or lWebLink/DocView.aspx?id=397606&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty E. Meridian Park's Department https://weblink.meridiancity.orzlWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=397615&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lty F. Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho(COMPASS) https://weblink.meridianci(E.or lWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=399592&dbid=O&repo=MeridianC ky https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=406026&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC ky 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&re2o=MeridianC Lty https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Doc View.asp x?id=405980&dbid=O&repo=MeridianC Lty J. West Ada School District(WASD) https://weblink.meridiancity.orglWebLink/browse.aspx?id=379821&dbid=0&Mpo=MeridianCit X K. Kuna School District https://weblink.meridiancioy.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=397862&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty L. Ada County Highway District(ACHD) https://weblink.meridianciU.or lWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=397539&dbid=O&repo=MeridianC hty M. Idaho Transportation Department(ITD) https://weblink.meridiancity.oLvlWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=401663&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC ky City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions 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; The Commission 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; The Commission finds the map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the districts and the purpose statements of residential, commercial and industrial districts. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; The Commission finds 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 The Commission finds 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. The Commission finds 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; The Commission finds 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; The Commission finds 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; The Commission finds the proposed map amendment should not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. City of Meridian I Department Report V. Findings 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 The Commission finds 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 A49te.,Staff isreeommending denial of Me proposed vei-tieag�,integraied residential projeet on In order to grant approval for an alternative compliance application,the Director shall determine the following: 1. 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 Beeause Stag is r-eeoffffnendifig denial of the pfopesed multi family developmei:As,Findings analysis is not ineluded for-the asseeiated a4emative eemplia-nee requests. In order to grant a0roval for an alternative compliance application,the Director shall determine the following: 1. Strict adherence or application of the requirements are not feasible; or The Director° ands it is feasible for the Applicant to comply with the requirement but it would increase the cost of the units, reducingtheir heir affordability; and in order to meet the area requirements for private open space, balconies would have to be as wide as the unit itsef which would abut adjacent studios'space and wouldn't be private, as noted by the Applicant. City of Meridian I Department Report V. Findings 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 ofsurrounding properties. 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 Aft iipdeAed een*nen open spaee e*hibit needs to be submit4ed before Stag ean deteFmifie if ameiif4 of open spaee provided meets the r-equir-efneftt for-the Pir-eeter-to gr-aPA the height e*eeptierr.-An updated common open space exhibit was submitted that demonstrates compliance with the 10%common open space requirement for alternative compliance to be considered for the proposed structures. Beeai+se Stag is r-eeeffffnending denial of the multi family developmePA on Lot 2,Block 3,the epen si3aee does not meet-the miaiittn-ccqiriicrixci-cc-vrzrrcmxc-vi;itdoof simcc for-arccriicccrvz 1. 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. 2. The alternative compliance provides an equal or superior means for meeting the requirements; and The Director finds the provision of 10+%usable outdoor space for the multi-family residential, hotel and vertically integrated residential buildings where a height exception is requested,provides an equal means for meeting the requirement as allowed by UDC 11-2B- 3A.3d. 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; eensidei-ing the request and has not yet deeided n Me N t4e ands the alternative means will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or impair the intended uses and character ofsurrounding properties. F. Conditional Use(UDC 11-5B-6E)—Multi-family Development on Lot 2,Block 1 Beeause Stag is feewmneading denial of the pf:epesed ehange to the eeneeptuai master-plan ineludes the multi family development,Findings analysis is not ineluded for-the asseeia4ed 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. The Commission finds the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all dimensional standards of the C-G district. 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian comprehensive plan and in accord with the requirements of this title. The Commission finds the proposed multi-family development will be harmonious with the Comprehensive Plan and in accord with the requirements of the UDC. 3. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. The Commission finds the design, construction, operation and maintenance 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. 4. That the proposed use,if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed,will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity_ The Commission finds the proposed multi; amily development will not adversely affect other properties in the viciniU if it complies with the imposed conditions of approval. 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools,parks,police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal,water,and sewer. The Commission finds the proposed use will be adequately served 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. The Commission finds 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 7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes,materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any_persons,property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic,noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. The Commission finds the proposed multi-family development will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons,property or the general wel are by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. 8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. The Commission finds no natural, scenic or historic features of major importance exist on the propeLty. City of Meridian I Department Report V. Findings G. Conditional Use(UDC 11-5B-6E)—Multi-family Development on Lot 2,Block 3 Beeattse Stag is r-eeemmeading denial of the proposed ehange to the eeneeptuai master-plan ineludes the multi family development,Findings analysis is flet ineluded for the asseeimed ndition i , pefmit request-. The City Council shall base its determination on the conditional use permit request upon the following: 1. That the site is lar eg enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. The Commission finds the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all dimensional standards of the C-G district; however, the Applicant requests alternative compliance to increase the building height from the maximum allowed 65efeet to 76 feet, which has been approved by the Director. 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian comprehensive plan and in accord with the requirements of this title. The Commission finds the proposed multi-family development will be harmonious with the Comprehensive Plan and in accord with the requirements of the UDC. 3. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. The Commission finds the design, construction, operation and maintenance 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. 4. That the proposed use,if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed,will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. The Commission finds the proposed multi-family development will not adversely affect other properties in the vicinitoif it complies with the imposed conditions of approval. 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools,parks,police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal,water,and sewer. The Commission finds the proposed use will be adequately served 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. The Commission finds 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 7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes,materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic,noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. The Commission finds the proposed multi-family development 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. 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. The Commission finds no natural, scenic or historic features ofmaior importance exist on the propeLty. H. Conditional Use(UDC 11-5B-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: 1. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. The Commission finds the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and 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. The Commission finds 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. The Commission finds 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. The Commission finds 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. The Commission finds 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. The Commission finds 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. City of Meridian I Department Report V. Findings 7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes,materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic,noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. The Commission finds 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. 8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction,loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. The Commission finds 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: I. The plat is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and is consistent with this unified development code; The Commission 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; The Commission 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; The Commission 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; The Commission 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 The Commission 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. The Commission 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 I 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 City of Meridian I Department Report VI. Action 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. B. Commission: The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard these items on August 21,2025.At the public hearing,the Commission moved to continue the subject applications to September 18,2025 in order to address the following issues: • The Applicant should provide analysis on the feasibility of setbacks for Lot 1,Block 4,north to south away from State Ave. • To obtain input from the Fire Dept.regardingstaffing affin a�quipment and whether they able to provide adequate service to address the safety needs of this site. • Specific sound and environmental mitigation plans for the southern border of Lot 1,Block 1. • Submit a revised overall open space exhibit as requested in the staff report. 1. Summary of Commission public hearing_ a. In favor: Deborah Nelson, Givens Pursley,representingthe he Applicant; Tammy deWeerd; Ian Tompkins; Danielle Strollo,Givens Pursley;Dugan Henderson-Begg,Harvey Performance Company ((HPQ b. In opposition: c. Commenting: Garrett Schultz; Brian Farnsworth; d. Written testimony: None e. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen f Other Staff commenting on application: Steven Taulbee,Fire Dept. 2. Key issue(s)of public testimony_ a. In favor of the proposed mix of uses but against the scale of the development as it's way out of proportion for this location and with the residential homes to the north; against the proposed height of structures in the development and the transition to existing single- family residential homes to the north, desire for a shadow study to be conducted to determine the impact of the height of the proposed structures on adjacent single-family homes. Concern pertaining to the amount of additional traffic the development will create and the light and noise pollution impacts on the residents to the north. b. Opinion the proposed mixed-use development provides benefits of walkability,viability and long-term economic strength and contributes toward a diverse housingstock, tock, employment, supported uses of pedestrian infrastructure and high quality public spaces, which align with Comprehensive Planning goals. c. In favor of the proposed development, including building heights. d. Question pertaining to if the proposed development would be part of the existing HOA— the answer was no. e. HPC is in support of the housing and hotel uses proposed that will help their employment base as well as nearby commercial opportunities the development will provide. 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission: A. Proposed building heights and transitions to existing single-family residential homes to the north and proposed townhome units within the development along State Ave. b. Opinion the proposed development fits well in this area&will provide nice amenities. c. Contemplated type of commercial uses in the vertically integrated residential building specifically in Block 1. City of Meridian I Department Report VI. Action d. Transition to the south between residential and industrial uses and specific mitigation plans in place for noise. e. Transition in height from the residential homes to the north across State Ave. to the proposed development to the south, specifically the vertically integrated residential building on Lot 1,Block 4,to provider greater privacy to the residential lots to the north. f. Not comfortable with the Fire Dept.'s response that they can't adequately provide service for the proposed development although the structures will be sprinklered. g_ Not in support of removing the condition that requires the Animal Farm plat to be recorded prior to submittal of a final plat application for this development. h. Although residential uses are proposed to increase in this area, so are commercial uses. 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. In favor of residential uses south of Pine and requirement for shadow stud, to be submitted prior to the Council hearing(see exhibits in Section EE below). Approval includes requirement of enhanced construction materials for sound mitigation as offered b the he Applicant for the VI building on Lot 1,Block 1 (SEC),include conditions of approval of CUP, and meet open space standards for MFR building at SWC of Pine and Webb on Lot 2,Block 3 for an increase in building height. 5. Outstanding(s)for City Council: a. None 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 i 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 00031'22"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_17A_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 D. Existing Conceptual Development Plan Included in Development Agreement(Inst.#2018- 000751)Proposed to be Modified z N Eo N N m JJ J }y2 � J(J72 FQF �2 JJ J JJ y U� UJ JyUJ a N J W W W W W W ¢N Q W W J x SaULL�I LL�1007 ZZ V��� VO-e V� O w r 7 Q C O W Q G N'[O Q �d 0 Z o- LU = w ❑ O 0 O 0 a 2 w w w w w 0 i w W W ° Z > I I I x g x a C a d d d d w d w 0Q w J Oil uu WN" . OHNIF-0 t011HI011111PcoHW NNHONN1�111110 LLL L WW � - „ 7,F III III OINHIH01111110 " — —� OHHNHO"111110 — — 6HN MF MI III T L � --- , . r � w� ,;,,mi i�nnumni c a — 1 �OHMIC �����, HNC 1 u4INOHNIW 'Nlt W4NONNIPo LL It F HE � IONNI — '1� a�lsnom — � r City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits E. Proposed Conceptual Master Plan to be Included in Amended Development Agreement- REVISED E;i o �= J &1 $k 0 - ''�s� — Mass•,ry c`o - Y !!!777 J k' 4 YO Q ]{g M a V Z w a W W W pWp pWp W pWp q — O O O O O O ❑ ❑ a a a a a u a ¢ i a.•oa 3A u i nwl N JI 7 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 • f DAH 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 4 0 s 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 l � �F 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 # 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 1 of 1 ,,T,r��2 City of Meridian I Department Report V11. Exhibits 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"=gD' EPA 17P` 0 I 0 20 40 80 1B0 IC11p.E fly % V.- Modified State Plane: $ Ado Gounty Coordinate System PREAPP-2C23-D144 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. Dwg- Date T,3N,. R,117- B.M., City of Mwrdion. Ado County, Idaho. 12/19/2024 City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits 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 V1I. Exhibits 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-2p23-0144 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 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 I Department Report VII. Exhibits 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 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 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 VII. Exhibits (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 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 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 NO. 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' �nU C3 700.00' 6.48.51" 1 83.25' 1 1489'58'33"W 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 M13CE0 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 Vll. Exhibits I Lu w C-1 r ` W W 2 POB , [!} � W LLI - U7 I ce n 0 z S79. CURVE TABLE No, RADIUS DELTA LENGTH CH, BEARING CH. DIST. C4 700.00' 2356'38- 292.53' N7435'48W 290,41' C8 830.00' 1 B'30'32" 239.15' S70'52'45"E 238.32' LINE TABLE c�,� NSL[! L NO. BEARING DIST. O 1755 L3 N0325'52-E MOO' SEE SHEET I � FOR LEGEND. 0 50 SCALE IN FEET EXHIBIT "B" DINE 43 MIXED LIRE SUBDIVISION a f. B REZONE - LEGAL DESCRIPTION 2 SHEET SITUATE IN THE SW QUARTER OF THE NW QUARTER OF SECTIONS,T3N, R1 E, 2 OF 4 BOISE MERIDIAN CITY OF MERIDIAN COUNTY OF ADA STATE OF IDAHO City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits 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 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 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 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 � YA 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 - - - 27, �— - storefront - - windows stucco concrete pane! .a ice,s ° i� �°� 4r'•� vim ..'-.. a w,� .r➢ F' a. �k Yr a,u L.� �y� fl z(3'.. fit. 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 roll up �. _ ddor 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. City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits metal roofing �.. 77- roll up concrete door panel - 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 QL _ _ iW6 - _l 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 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 J. Preliminary Plat(date: 8/19/2025) I _ Ng1VYiLp3N11'J31'O�1d 4Ntl t13AW �g�m Q ® Z 98801'uepuayy J. 4�4 -M-IiMi 3 M09a OHVQI'NVl(]lH3WIL 2 'DNI'Ski33Nl'JN3 9-f1T sbc per' ,..,,,. NOISIAMens 3Sn ORIW Eb DNA 'y 3 N G e1A 5y L.jig PFF Z ��g�� Z O Q di'l L � co i a a z¢ wLLJW x oWEI ffiAl, UrtmtmWyI e� w� � 6°g9i 6� 191 Lu INN N a i Ii � Epp 3a Nw 11PHINIMMAR NX M h y I l I'M Z n < A ! a.p _ _ e-_a 3 r®h_slcea MIN§@ �� g w8 TI ¢ a i w awgg8 - $ J u III ; I �I v9II City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits �� �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 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 City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 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 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 .---.— 1-1 Hill � 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 K. Phasing Plan a I - 9 .II �I f mo O I g 1 F- LO ! l F- J w W j m z J E OJA LU �V os ❑ � a � ❑ Z _ m a City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 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 ~�| _ � ¢ - } 64ii ? . - �! 2 ■ � _ & _ -I ° J ° °c § gg ! wE � § � J v R {§ § § . .E /§� y!� �� |\ § k _ E • . w R� - � ----- - - o � | � � \ LU LL A| M / . f§ \� k } N§ j )$ :- \S - §� City of Meridian Department Reprt V t Exhibits Y� d u w z J Z 0 ¢ m ❑ a z � N � Q Y pw F } W � z $ J 2 F ~ a � w MEa w � �a ri e d� ¢ A w S F aw � wo x a z ■s on o LJ m � i � o m owOR �0 LU ! Z Q � W� Z 0 w W=N d Q H � Fmhw I� �a W 0- 2 -- NZF W 0oo mi gg nr a L w 2 �# w a ------------- ---------------------------------------------� City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits M. Fencing Plan-REVISED �HDVN IN Pr 'I I= ®® EB ' I I. kIOmTrmrrr I r � J • 'fit If i I j Al � I f z -JEM o o II V LL R;mr , ppp pppp a� a� J n J x_x -r City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits N. Overall Open Space Exhibit& Calculations—REVISED C P) A ............ EEE11 ... ....... 0 3 z, 0 ct i t c'q U u LU na aF 5 w -44 City of Meridian Department Report V11. Exhibits O. Pedestrian Connectivity Plan-REVISED oil Lm LL --- ,�J'' �11+ II I i I � � � H Q H RTR C3 f h 0 Pi -1313- F- C3 I" w 0 LLJ z z z cc LLJ LL, LLJ 2 00 LOH City of Meridian Department Report V11. Exhibits 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 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%<0 \� . \ ! Qe! ! /§ ! \` ^ )§§ City of Meridian Department Reprt V11. Exhibits g R � qy " g� $a� ❑ a ��� �' 81 a p ¢•a aaa i4 a � 5� Y d� �� IT 9g y gg p gg gg p �� qg g w 1�...; FSJJ gggn+ gag€ 3�a9p a grpgq m w� `u '3���4 ��� 0��°�� � ��� ¢ w HQ00E 9-c gsl gap W HOM 3:: j N r 3nf 3_AV 3 N I H 'N J J i® Y U J FL m > LU J € J ❑ Z ❑J _ ❑ L ¢ 2 LU LLJ LU 0 SO cr o J U w LU R z U. ItP uj . W U U & . � d — m LLJZ" - -, -- -- --•— — OJa s City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits aa �y{ g 7{5 tt p� p G jII 4� P Sg��$] �8 �p � ■ � � aaj� $ ; �p = r Y �1 KC �5 i�3 �' YYY Y Q,gj y$� d rt e Iliggit „ s81 1 MH I I I Hi i Is HIM 8 gg a i a � 7 9iiSIM1 �d35 Si� N i a Q00E WS cn � I Z fA I• $ rY c � uLU � � a w ° ° J s z w 0 W � d • � V L � I � J —x {mow m , Y � Vr � m � N" H J - 3 City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits R. Qualified Open Space& Site Amenity Exhibit—Multi-Family Development-REVISED ;;nN3nd71NlHnVA N — � T- - � w f R�RR - LU K--J 21 [m E z 7 ~ _ Y LU V V � r 1 0- w w - - - - z City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits -i W60 o - 3 i € 19999 F 3 N 5ff w LU Y N d ■�i�8 � �' � � !I Yr�a R�q � � g yASH r, -----..--�3nN3AV SSW _ J i LU LU y �n ❑ o �w a w d 7 w w r r -• KiHe->3a--s�#r7nw � �y N R��E]El 9 x w !11 3 5i City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits c o I Ig�O s I J 1 1 1 � 4 I ml :! er/31 El o o e Sm 41 o000 o " A S: " a } I x 0 0 � o I F N LaL 20 i' G 4 x'o I J I r2 20 5 j'p 1 W m ----------------- I_I_I ----avoa anaaoi 001 N J yuv� City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 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 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 ! §: - !/ / , |/ �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 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 U. Conceptual Building Perspectives and Renderings for Overall Development a4ePI LUIPPew SS ayLLI IL U W G a t r' 5 .I { f n i 0 5 City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ R a 2� � § \1b4itpi,#�� i) § y> » m� ■ § J £ 7 9 � ! � | I � � _ A | � § »J- ej X� | . | � | | § � | | | � City of Meridian Department Reprt V t Exhibits JL— � t F 11 I��e Also _ itAk Q ,. Ow P11 ;� 0+ tle{. , a: �9W � � aw , c City of MeridianDepartment Re 11Exhibits 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 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 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-Updated pome � � 9: =.JB'�7� Ogeep!'ue!puaw d€—' 8�a S738€�8+� �alH 88,H92I $ 6 A'x9 o•, -a•r I J I I L a I d C L 1 N I 14-C, r 0 o _ r i � I � I � 1 M N � m h 4 City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits .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 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 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 .� Legend 6 5 E. Fairview Ave. 0 Found 1/2" Iron Pin 7 8 Q Found 5/8" Iron Pan Found Bross Cup Monument Q Found Aluminum Cop Monument is Colculoted Point, Nothing Found or Set - I-L Zone Boundary Llne oy --- Section Lfne I r u S89'33 42 E 544.39, rn �66$T N 89'33'40"W 1ti 182.71' p Point of i Beginningj. 5.29 Acres Or W c � ttil v of M 41 W 21 tp Prj fz N 4 z Of 04 Gi '� � � ZD V) L Scale: 1"=120' ro ¢ ro 0 30 50 120 240 N { CV I Modified State Plone: � Ada County Coordinate System 1/4 PREAPP-2023-0144 7 --- 429.00' -- - 258,43' 19C2.26' E. Pine Ave, N89'54'57"W C 1 f4 P Pint 45 fIPC PBA 75-02310uq�79-OZS£M1 blt:.tl.S C/;ff/P�9 3.1G.ti=u Job No. IDAHO I—L Zoning Exhibit Drawing for 24-023 SURVEY Pine 43 — HPC Buyer Sheet Na. 1 of 1 GROUP, LLC Situated in the SW/4 of the NW1/4 of Section 8, Dwg. Date T-3N-, R.1E, B-M.. City of IJeridlan, Ada County, Idaho- 8/27/2024 City of Meridian I Department Report Vll. Exhibits BB. Public/Quasi-Public Exhibit& Renderings ®® Kw Jilli ® Frc '[ s J it RTR -.1 ,. w ■ e III ,t "W 9 0 • °n ® ° e J w LU mom 4 Q J w m U V 1 II it N d 0 �A tip ^ 04 d ON a7 qmim ,II °�wo it a0 nw V J �m d m° III w p LL W na w H W O O m^ z City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 0 i t y a I _ I - y I io ,rLL d U_ i a I � o A A. m_ City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits CC. Site Plan for Lot 1,Block 4—Vertically Integrated Residential v 'q${ y � S■$y 7 3 E $E W �HIM i 4 3 qa gyy �$Eyg g3 gggg in° rtggqg 9@ a 011 LU z CA I' f LLI I I LU LU z J J 7 W Cfl ❑ N ` z w CC § LU LU Jillag9ppn ��� � • � ; ~ LU 393� g L�Xsus-3 �_ f� Q J �I•I ,.I W � o g pppp ggg g j W yW Ir FL El El a 1 a Jill Jill Lq y Uu ° jo 6 - E City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits DD. Overall Public/Quasi-Public Open Space for Pine 43 Development 'FA FAlLLM'l�4OILl //�� 4III IIn IIII��III��II� ;� � �ry 111■]�;' �mY l.JORI■QT '— nnrr �I ri ri rig+ — �I � I�{91Fi EF r r� I oanme■TILT ' � L _1.• �IIII III■ I ' !'f I ��f � x: �IIII'II I { our13 sP :UST fi winui a } _gg IIII IIIIIIIIIII all � ■ :. T, — —' C:TATL YIK. ryllllll lllyllyl�ll�I l ll�lllly�Ild� YLAK/JVC _ jl� W nm/AR on'. I I Ina 4 _Wluuuuuu■uuuuulq1uuuuurruuuuu mumyr HAI LEGEND PUBLIC 4RQU&SH-LMLIC _ -.-11111 _ TOTAL BETE AREA:121 ACRES TOTAL PRChTEQ PLBUG DR GUAZFFLEI COPEN SPWE:32?AaAS B.F.-7.P1 ACRES-&2%0=THE SITE fh E#HIBIT9-PINE 43 OVERALL OPEN SPACE p City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits EE. Shadow Study ch z o cV CO � Q' 0 W v] L d I f = lz , L cn i7 Lj m a� n 131 NN O � O y1 CL !V MINE ul I= W u City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits x LO o a n- z o w a L7 z ❑ O ca - Z J m 1 4 11 •L a.� Q v40 NOME AL' W r � u City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits LLJ g CN p � o O O p C N � cn C• WC CC C r 0 _ Z co J ' � Q i ............... 1 Q] o a- rye CAI V�. City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits x o a z o Z cl� 0 0 0 t w m z Q ` _ _i ❑ ;f:R� 0 ' } U m ya f - �- rnrn�oann "rrn,nnrn .� ••Mr. � I� Nr .a. a� Q 4F w NOME y _ H W City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits Iu Ln U a a a � �~ c' p O O Q. 0 0 o O N � u7 O• W H 7Z 7 - , { o Z _ •i' • r ` � • ; •,• Iir ii r, co •1i. f 4 C i •� t7 Q] o � Q Cq !j 43 NOME W I nL' W City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits W F H 7: CN °z= Q a n- o o o J LU o O o LU Ln 0 V) Q \_- . t4 _ In ..•• �.I. �•• 4� ifs _ ]L 1 I Il • - I J� r nnr,r,aonn�' � f rr�nnrn�r FA Fl I - �- tom:/� � I aui n � I i. v o N nL' W r1 6..d City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 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 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 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 i 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 00031'22"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_17A_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 D. Existing Conceptual Development Plan Included in Development Agreement(Inst.#2018- 000751)Proposed to be Modified z N Eo N N m JJ J }y2 � J(J72 FQF �2 JJ J JJ y U� UJ JyUJ a N J W W W W W W ¢N Q W W J x SaULL�I LL�1007 ZZ V��� VO-e V� O w r 7 Q C O W Q G N'[O Q �d 0 Z o- LU = w ❑ O 0 O 0 a 2 w w w w w 0 i w W W ° Z > I I I x g x a C a d d d d w d w 0Q w J Oil uu WN" . OHNIF-0 t011HI011111PcoHW NNHONN1�111110 LLL L WW � - „ 7,F III III OINHIH01111110 " — —� OHHNHO"111110 — — 6HN MF MI III T L � --- , . r � w� ,;,,mi i�nnumni c a — 1 �OHMIC �����, HNC 1 u4INOHNIW 'Nlt W4NONNIPo LL It F HE � IONNI — '1� a�lsnom — � r City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits E. Proposed Conceptual Master Plan to be Included in Amended Development Agreement- REVISED E;i o �= J &1 $k 0 - ''�s� — Mass•,ry c`o - Y !!!777 J k' 4 YO Q ]{g M a V Z w a W W W pWp pWp W pWp q — O O O O O O ❑ ❑ a a a a a u a ¢ i a.•oa 3A u i nwl N JI 7 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 • f DAH 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 4 0 s 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 l � �F 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 # 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 1 of 1 ,,T,r��2 City of Meridian I Department Report V11. Exhibits 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"=gD' EPA 17P` 0 I 0 20 40 80 1B0 IC11p.E fly % V.- Modified State Plane: $ Ado Gounty Coordinate System PREAPP-2C23-D144 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. Dwg- Date T,3N,. R,117- B.M., City of Mwrdion. Ado County, Idaho. 12/19/2024 City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits 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 V1I. Exhibits 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-2p23-0144 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 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 I Department Report VII. Exhibits 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 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 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 VII. Exhibits (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 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 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 NO. 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' �nU C3 700.00' 6.48.51" 1 83.25' 1 1489'58'33"W 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 M13CE0 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 Vll. Exhibits I Lu w C-1 r ` W W 2 POB , [!} � W LLI - U7 I ce n 0 z S79. CURVE TABLE No, RADIUS DELTA LENGTH CH, BEARING CH. DIST. C4 700.00' 2356'38- 292.53' N7435'48W 290,41' C8 830.00' 1 B'30'32" 239.15' S70'52'45"E 238.32' LINE TABLE c�,� NSL[! L NO. BEARING DIST. O 1755 L3 N0325'52-E MOO' SEE SHEET I � FOR LEGEND. 0 50 SCALE IN FEET EXHIBIT "B" DINE 43 MIXED LIRE SUBDIVISION a f. B REZONE - LEGAL DESCRIPTION 2 SHEET SITUATE IN THE SW QUARTER OF THE NW QUARTER OF SECTIONS,T3N, R1 E, 2 OF 4 BOISE MERIDIAN CITY OF MERIDIAN COUNTY OF ADA STATE OF IDAHO City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits 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 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 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 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 � YA 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 - - - 27, �— - storefront - - windows stucco concrete pane! .a ice,s ° i� �°� 4r'•� vim ..'-.. a w,� .r➢ F' a. �k Yr a,u L.� �y� fl z(3'.. fit. 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 roll up �. _ ddor 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. City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits metal roofing �.. 77- roll up concrete door panel - 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 QL _ _ iW6 - _l 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 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 J. Preliminary Plat(date: 8/19/2025) I _ Ng1VYiLp3N11'J31'O�1d 4Ntl t13AW �g�m Q ® Z 98801'uepuayy J. 4�4 -M-IiMi 3 M09a OHVQI'NVl(]lH3WIL 2 'DNI'Ski33Nl'JN3 9-f1T sbc per' ,..,,,. NOISIAMens 3Sn ORIW Eb DNA 'y 3 N G e1A 5y L.jig PFF Z ��g�� Z O Q di'l L � co i a a z¢ wLLJW x oWEI ffiAl, UrtmtmWyI e� w� � 6°g9i 6� 191 Lu INN N a i Ii � Epp 3a Nw 11PHINIMMAR NX M h y I l I'M Z n < A ! a.p _ _ e-_a 3 r®h_slcea MIN§@ �� g w8 TI ¢ a i w awgg8 - $ J u III ; I �I v9II City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits �� �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 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 City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 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 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 .---.— 1-1 Hill � 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 K. Phasing Plan a I - 9 .II �I f mo O I g 1 F- LO ! l F- J w W j m z J E OJA LU �V os ❑ � a � ❑ Z _ m a City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 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 ~�| _ � ¢ - } 64ii ? . - �! 2 ■ � _ & _ -I ° J ° °c § gg ! wE � § � J v R {§ § § . .E /§� y!� �� |\ § k _ E • . w R� - � ----- - - o � | � � \ LU LL A| M / . f§ \� k } N§ j )$ :- \S - §� City of Meridian Department Reprt V t Exhibits Y� d u w z J Z 0 ¢ m ❑ a z � N � Q Y pw F } W � z $ J 2 F ~ a � w MEa w � �a ri e d� ¢ A w S F aw � wo x a z ■s on o LJ m � i � o m owOR �0 LU ! Z Q � W� Z 0 w W=N d Q H � Fmhw I� �a W 0- 2 -- NZF W 0oo mi gg nr a L w 2 �# w a ------------- ---------------------------------------------� City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits M. Fencing Plan-REVISED �HDVN IN Pr 'I I= ®® EB ' I I. kIOmTrmrrr I r � J • 'fit If i I j Al � I f z -JEM o o II V LL R;mr , ppp pppp a� a� J n J x_x -r City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits N. Overall Open Space Exhibit& Calculations—REVISED C P) A ............ EEE11 ... ....... 0 3 z, 0 ct i t c'q U u LU na aF 5 w -44 City of Meridian Department Report V11. Exhibits O. Pedestrian Connectivity Plan-REVISED oil Lm LL --- ,�J'' �11+ II I i I � � � H Q H RTR C3 f h 0 Pi -1313- F- C3 I" w 0 LLJ z z z cc LLJ LL, LLJ 2 00 LOH City of Meridian Department Report V11. Exhibits 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 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%<0 \� . \ ! Qe! ! /§ ! \` ^ )§§ City of Meridian Department Reprt V11. Exhibits g R � qy " g� $a� ❑ a ��� �' 81 a p ¢•a aaa i4 a � 5� Y d� �� IT 9g y gg p gg gg p �� qg g w 1�...; FSJJ gggn+ gag€ 3�a9p a grpgq m w� `u '3���4 ��� 0��°�� � ��� ¢ w HQ00E 9-c gsl gap W HOM 3:: j N r 3nf 3_AV 3 N I H 'N J J i® Y U J FL m > LU J € J ❑ Z ❑J _ ❑ L ¢ 2 LU LLJ LU 0 SO cr o J U w LU R z U. ItP uj . W U U & . � d — m LLJZ" - -, -- -- --•— — OJa s City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits aa �y{ g 7{5 tt p� p G jII 4� P Sg��$] �8 �p � ■ � � aaj� $ ; �p = r Y �1 KC �5 i�3 �' YYY Y Q,gj y$� d rt e Iliggit „ s81 1 MH I I I Hi i Is HIM 8 gg a i a � 7 9iiSIM1 �d35 Si� N i a Q00E WS cn � I Z fA I• $ rY c � uLU � � a w ° ° J s z w 0 W � d • � V L � I � J —x {mow m , Y � Vr � m � N" H J - 3 City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits R. Qualified Open Space& Site Amenity Exhibit—Multi-Family Development-REVISED ;;nN3nd71NlHnVA N — � T- - � w f R�RR - LU K--J 21 [m E z 7 ~ _ Y LU V V � r 1 0- w w - - - - z City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits -i W60 o - 3 i € 19999 F 3 N 5ff w LU Y N d ■�i�8 � �' � � !I Yr�a R�q � � g yASH r, -----..--�3nN3AV SSW _ J i LU LU y �n ❑ o �w a w d 7 w w r r -• KiHe->3a--s�#r7nw � �y N R��E]El 9 x w !11 3 5i City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits c o I Ig�O s I J 1 1 1 � 4 I ml :! er/31 El o o e Sm 41 o000 o " A S: " a } I x 0 0 � o I F N LaL 20 i' G 4 x'o I J I r2 20 5 j'p 1 W m ----------------- I_I_I ----avoa anaaoi 001 N J yuv� City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 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 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 ! §: - !/ / , |/ �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 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 U. Conceptual Building Perspectives and Renderings for Overall Development a4ePI LUIPPew SS ayLLI IL U W G a t r' 5 .I { f n i 0 5 City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ R a 2� � § \1b4itpi,#�� i) § y> » m� ■ § J £ 7 9 � ! � | I � � _ A | � § »J- ej X� | . | � | | § � | | | � City of Meridian Department Reprt V t Exhibits JL— � t F 11 I��e Also _ itAk Q ,. Ow P11 ;� 0+ tle{. , a: �9W � � aw , c City of MeridianDepartment Re 11Exhibits 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 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 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-Updated pome � � 9: =.JB'�7� Ogeep!'ue!puaw d€—' 8�a S738€�8+� �alH 88,H92I $ 6 A'x9 o•, -a•r I J I I L a I d C L 1 N I 14-C, r 0 o _ r i � I � I � 1 M N � m h 4 City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits .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 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 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 .� Legend 6 5 E. Fairview Ave. 0 Found 1/2" Iron Pin 7 8 Q Found 5/8" Iron Pan Found Bross Cup Monument Q Found Aluminum Cop Monument is Colculoted Point, Nothing Found or Set - I-L Zone Boundary Llne oy --- Section Lfne I r u S89'33 42 E 544.39, rn �66$T N 89'33'40"W 1ti 182.71' p Point of i Beginningj. 5.29 Acres Or W c � ttil v of M 41 W 21 tp Prj fz N 4 z Of 04 Gi '� � � ZD V) L Scale: 1"=120' ro ¢ ro 0 30 50 120 240 N { CV I Modified State Plone: � Ada County Coordinate System 1/4 PREAPP-2023-0144 7 --- 429.00' -- - 258,43' 19C2.26' E. Pine Ave, N89'54'57"W C 1 f4 P Pint 45 fIPC PBA 75-02310uq�79-OZS£M1 blt:.tl.S C/;ff/P�9 3.1G.ti=u Job No. IDAHO I—L Zoning Exhibit Drawing for 24-023 SURVEY Pine 43 — HPC Buyer Sheet Na. 1 of 1 GROUP, LLC Situated in the SW/4 of the NW1/4 of Section 8, Dwg. Date T-3N-, R.1E, B-M.. City of IJeridlan, Ada County, Idaho- 8/27/2024 City of Meridian I Department Report Vll. Exhibits BB. Public/Quasi-Public Exhibit& Renderings ®® Kw Jilli ® Frc '[ s J it RTR -.1 ,. w ■ e III ,t "W 9 0 • °n ® ° e J w LU mom 4 Q J w m U V 1 II it N d 0 �A tip ^ 04 d ON a7 qmim ,II °�wo it a0 nw V J �m d m° III w p LL W na w H W O O m^ z City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 0 i t y a I _ I - y I io ,rLL d U_ i a I � o A A. m_ City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits CC. Site Plan for Lot 1,Block 4—Vertically Integrated Residential v 'q${ y � S■$y 7 3 E $E W �HIM i 4 3 qa gyy �$Eyg g3 gggg in° rtggqg 9@ a 011 LU z CA I' f LLI I I LU LU z J J 7 W Cfl ❑ N ` z w CC § LU LU Jillag9ppn ��� � • � ; ~ LU 393� g L�Xsus-3 �_ f� Q J �I•I ,.I W � o g pppp ggg g j W yW Ir FL El El a 1 a Jill Jill Lq y Uu ° jo 6 - E City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits DD. Overall Public/Quasi-Public Open Space for Pine 43 Development 'FA FAlLLM'l�4OILl //�� 4III IIn IIII��III��II� ;� � �ry 111■]�;' �mY l.JORI■QT '— nnrr �I ri ri rig+ — �I � I�{91Fi EF r r� I oanme■TILT ' � L _1.• �IIII III■ I ' !'f I ��f � x: �IIII'II I { our13 sP :UST fi winui a } _gg IIII IIIIIIIIIII all � ■ :. T, — —' C:TATL YIK. ryllllll lllyllyl�ll�I l ll�lllly�Ild� YLAK/JVC _ jl� W nm/AR on'. I I Ina 4 _Wluuuuuu■uuuuulq1uuuuurruuuuu mumyr HAI LEGEND PUBLIC 4RQU&SH-LMLIC _ -.-11111 _ TOTAL BETE AREA:121 ACRES TOTAL PRChTEQ PLBUG DR GUAZFFLEI COPEN SPWE:32?AaAS B.F.-7.P1 ACRES-&2%0=THE SITE fh E#HIBIT9-PINE 43 OVERALL OPEN SPACE p City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits EE. Shadow Study ch z o cV CO � Q' 0 W v] L d I f = lz , L cn i7 Lj m a� n 131 NN O � O y1 CL !V MINE ul I= W u City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits x LO o a n- z o w a L7 z ❑ O ca - Z J m 1 4 11 •L a.� Q v40 NOME AL' W r � u City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits LLJ g CN p � o O O p C N � cn C• WC CC C r 0 _ Z co J ' � Q i ............... 1 Q] o a- rye CAI V�. City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits x o a z o Z cl� 0 0 0 t w m z Q ` _ _i ❑ ;f:R� 0 ' } U m ya f - �- rnrn�oann "rrn,nnrn .� ••Mr. � I� Nr .a. a� Q 4F w NOME y _ H W City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits Iu Ln U a a a � �~ c' p O O Q. 0 0 o O N � u7 O• W H 7Z 7 - , { o Z _ •i' • r ` � • ; •,• Iir ii r, co •1i. f 4 C i •� t7 Q] o � Q Cq !j 43 NOME W I nL' W City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits W F H 7: CN °z= Q a n- o o o J LU o O o LU Ln 0 V) Q \_- . t4 _ In ..•• �.I. �•• 4� ifs _ ]L 1 I Il • - I J� r nnr,r,aonn�' � f rr�nnrn�r FA Fl I - �- tom:/� � I aui n � I i. v o N nL' W r1 6..d City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits C i E IDIAN.;--- Agenda Item Applicant Presentation P 3 � �1 9 P 'F -�-•e��y per, d i`i Rp 19 dew Am A Fe In ice, r4 •w � f ' d 3� • • • l i�yz i �w rf, r .rr i �.• � r �`£ } ice. . � � •rt`•L or qr •` r � � �• � PINE43 ' A PROJECT F E i:_ ie i I 'ISM ;• x � r � ���.1���fJ� L� re al�.�SF'iil�r• �.. �� � � � • !'�-ram* � *. r I L--v 'bi d ki. L r r - ��/i - t o� Radius Mile Rad #� Dreamland `r.OL �F� �rsr :F + +rt �• 4 y � . Learning Center W+ s Ch6�f losePh i+�� $CI100I of the + t Urgent Kleener ArU Care Raric New Had n " Ax�t Fi �1 b ` Academy{RFC-Yy `. • .. �■' The Village _.. . Chrefty Pill r o 3 r Shope n�ten#e � - - ► � V1�Imart �f. TrinityU-arrlihg ' I' i ■ { Stonehenge Center plaza - fMledlcal Mc��diara - - � } GayareN ' _ � �y ilk 0 Idaho Ear Cllrrdc Dental Crossroads _ #� Clinics CIAlbrtsons� I�irf in: Cola Valley Ralnhow nays -r ��mffrriary 5t#�oo� f t a _ �,7L- f}re5ch441 Riml Ll Mlaistrili4, _ _ r 1 - k • -NMI. ` f Raisin Angels Dnwntawn ' 5e] RBik .iycaFe Life Chmct _ M eridian 4 Crossroa s =�' School •� Middle School Childcare r+� � � .- *••"` Imo,i, -�, __ � ' I �h •t� ••.�•`�is� i�. r; -� '.-`�` � � I f*— � .'� - _- � Healthcare - -' 5happing Comm an Ground 4* _ - :� � �- -fir irrtia rw � Church HIth{ + Worship 0 # Meridiall Pediw4cs df Parks -�' - 5ts rey • Academy Park s r ` +r t bfdf]�f Civic rr � Merid Bus Transit ian Mon�siari *� .� � }��•- ! S � (Ll �. Marketplace School � • �' n Learning � Railroad 1i11arld Presthnal i St,lukc's - �i- • +� Medical Children's MuseumA * _ tenter of Idaho y clinks .ill Renaissance � '�, - - Hksh Idaho Fine �4 f a, Arts Academy - - , - f •. - i —— - �. - - PM !t •�... F �u- i�•�■ r �Allr . = y —.�?]t �i!71 O r�,• ro,;,'�■1vi�i�°' _r■ y,e � IN. �"r ■ 1r k �YF l '7 �'�r `, ?s ■il S m �: �li. 51 -i "''oo "P �■r �, � .���1�,.Y r".Y 1i 1145 y..- IUN■ I� ■ - f.1 _ r y ' ! 1 aril �m ss,r j 111111� r�" ■�iC S� '' ri _ �F ,A - \ its 'f. fr - rw 9 'l�arM�fk•� �, .y q �.. �.ti..:•t I:. Ir �"" I _ _ II ���� i � � �$p +��1�y�Jj! �..^`�^`y—�y ii I. { _ �a V!IO�.Y.i$' 18i rY LSk 2 LI AR '�i �= �� � .ter- . . • 4.4 _ �� �, 1� -�!�'� ._�,I� ` - - - 011 :� 7 ,44qd A�. IBM —_ a -mom fIV 1 ' i� Air e r , History Pinebridge— 2008 Approval ( 170 acres {yam y���1r_ a■� � �14 1 ELL MAO 1 ` ti. F } { '• �1�r��-1y�-r�y�r t UFFU 4 f� � 1 z�1•: _-r-r�ri v Y 1 History — 2018 Pine 43 Approval ( 120 acres r r�tw.%. -r 1111 4 f 111 �` \r' ❑ 4 4L+14 }^ LAND USE AREA BRRAK"Wxl AREA 00MMERCIALL0, T -7 LOTS •5C4NIAaN LI)TS AREA 10' WUL-TI-FA ILY LOTS LEGEND1.J7B 0.0kCS is"Rr9D9jrVL UWI's M 64 L6---G a CQNWN hRV a a +II PF DF%Ea UVE VKM WT5 AREA 9Y 61HOLE-FAWLY LDT8 PrMSE0 T "me LOSS 'W.24 ACRES ��� � 1•W4 �F�Eo oefprOPlEa LOTS -1 is DETACH E a LOTS -.Rwf gUFMED MLATFFAMLY -119 LIVE YdRK L" Alt- �eoroaeocomnelscwLwsa� -1dCOW00 AFUG 1sR64a CC1hi.1 Fly' exurlrla aamwtltcuL ntgcf, 4.75 ACRE$ f � r , 6 L'OAIF. HLETS IF PR:NMEFa OkGPANG AFE - R RW Ak ,{A64'€" COMMULGIAL Wh F.=L' - - aoS'IN�RL 1ANPAMING.4MC -11 A?ACREB f y a ! -4 CCAIF•DNAREAS A4REALT- CQMMERQIALL.Or$ 8,5ACRES GQ"NEVa V-1c 4 COMMON LOTS f I ,aRFA WM•1E.RMA,L L UrS III CCMW9bCIAL LOTS 8 COkIMON LOTS l0. ! I PIN 43 SUBDIVISION OVERALL S I`fE PLAN 2025 Pine 43 Master Site Plan ( 37 acres fµ Y I h efface<. 26 25 la w- IfllM1 , '...1.r� R— D ,. e3SOS nxe Iql I-L- RUT 73+ „ o g 6TAYE _ 4 A BL 2. q �r ...s _ 6 B 8 10'li�2 19 F'11T�,• � I __ .SQ �.1 Il1f{�JMI�3C_R..L. .E.`. F t b r ' PIOC. LOCK 4. LOT f LOT1' BLULK 2, `S^ r •• - BLOCK a. . LOT2 �•�'y LOT 1 v r •� \, Lti ' F eLocKz, - � F'P' al nCK a LCi-1 LOT 2 I - —r- - FWWM .r w.PINE wE. � i w NNE AVE. •1 LEGEND L-Q • 5 I:I d I PROPOSED TOWNHOMES a if '' { - -f I OT2 rp - i � ` liroCKI. PROPOSED MULTI-FAMILY �L(,[Jis }r T .. OT', '; 4 PROPOSEO VERTICALLY-INTEGRATED #� PROPOSED RESTAURANT PROPOSED HOTEL PROPOSED OFFICE i ® BL ©PROPOSED MED-TECH LOT, L_O � r LANDSCAPE AREA I ��- 3 LUI' W ff —L [=L A OVERALL SCHEMATIC COLOR MASTER PLAN PINE 43 MIXED USE SHEET 2OF 14 xaonerevw�s•exnYau> - Use Comparison History 5-7 TOT.IL appraNed+ I'OTAL 2008 Pinebridge 2018 DA Modification 2025 Pine 43 approved/built+ Built as of 20iR built in Pinrhrid�e Built as c}i'211ZS Approval* Approvatl** Area Application proposed in Pluebridg Area 170 acres 170:acres 120 acres 170 acres 170 acres 37 acres 170 acres Residential (units) 850 737 737 713 904 1617 +880 units Tote!Non-Residential(SF) 2.350,t100 1567.000 493,0110 1,060,000 713,000 481,0011 1,194,000 + 134,000 SF Commercial 550,000 102,000 102.000 60,000 72,000 133,OM0 + 30,000 Office+Lt Industrial 1,800.000 567,000 391.000 958,000 653,000 221,000 g?4,000 -84,000 Non-Res.in V-I Rldpa 59,000 59,000 + 59,000 Notes 12G).00I1 12q.t1[11t + 129,000 Scentsy campus. Happy ilot.tl, med tech, light Hippo light industrial, ,industrial,retail 567,491 SF Scentsy medical offices. North restaurants, tail,office. Uses campus with office and Pointe treatment center. Single-family light industrial restaurants, retail. KidStrong, single-faniily townhomes and multi- residential family residential Ole *Use breakoul based on estimates in TIS.Concept Plan in 2008 DA showed 3M SF mixed use:. ** Use breakout based on Concept Plan in 2018 ❑A,which was similar to 2017 TIS. All acres and SF shown are approximate. 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 �� 'ilk too G= � i.` ��+A �`,■ � — J� f}�y4 L 1.1Fr�1■.I 1■.II :::�1q:1! / lllllll —■■�■i�iiii�■■■ Morn, ■Ili■■■11■■Pr�CL` #� I.■IIL.■.II.■VL.R■ � '�1 YI ' N. ■II■II r■■■11■■r7■ I ■ ,■ - — :I i1 •w 1 111111111■111 0 loom -I -MW AS I1r 1■■III■■ ■■■■■■. iii.■. 11■■III■■ 77 � K4 x ■■■■■■■■■■■■ mix ti� uuuu a 11■1111■■ II1 J 1� �� � 11111� II � I1111111111 � �JI• 111111■� �� �w„�°'� � � Ii �� R �f } ON "1 ■�V .L7n - �n�:■■ ■ ua u1■ n IN i1 ■ _ u i1. u n �I' I HE . F 41 ' - l ��� ---------- -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 • Underground Parking Garage for �,nr�,,,,,p,,,n,n, Partial Podium Parking + Underground Garage for V-I Bld Pa r � n g Hotel, Restaurants, V-I Bldg � :� � g g g - - ' _ � s i -:---R-40 � I I 2-story Podium Parking for V-1 Bldg 1-L RUT [.6rATEaVE. - - ' 00 nu uulllnu t-C ` --------- 11 ON LEGEND L-O - 1B'WIDE DETACH ED PATHWAY DETACHED SIDEWALK U�PU ATTACHED SIDEWALK 111111111111111111 CROSSWALK-CESEIBLE ROUTE •1 °ram® - �I LLrr¢¢JJ BIKE LANE uuuuee.uuuuu SIDEWALKS INTERNAL TO SITE 16'W IDE MULTI-USE JACKSON BRAIN II` 11111111111111111111111 PATHWAY L-O 1-story Podium Parking for MF Bldgs J Wrap with 4-story Internal Parking Garage for V-1 Bldg ` ,; '„ ED1Eh4MFF} LP1 ,WOW I PEIu1 F19E9 GEMENr w—%5-TK- E14L'K 8CALE 111Y+/e GI�QT ALTNI[Y Transportation Table 1 . Difference of Trips between Z01 7 Site Plan and 20Z5 Site Plan Land Use daily Al Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Trips Total I n Out Total I n out Tota I Net New Trips (2017 Study) 6315 752 587 165 781 209 572 Total filet New Trips (2025 Site Plan) 9916 882 510 372 946 3-91 555 Net New Trips (Difference) 3601 13 =77 207 1,65J 1:82 -17 KITTELSON SOITES Future Land Use Map : Mixed Use Community Mixed Use Comm urntty (MU-Q rat i/ ` The purpose of this designation is to allocate areas where '40" � community-searing uses and dwellings are seamlessly r:�� �� {� /•% ��/�"�� integrated into the urban fabric. fI r L-- nR , • j - intenttointegratea varietyofuses, includingresidentiaL w and toavoidmainly single-useandstrip ■ - ■ ,.. , 011 - X W Mixed use areas must include at least three land use types within a designation. Comprehensive Plan - Residential Support a balance and integration of diverse housing and . 1. neighborhood types, I , Locate higher density housing near corridors with existing or 2.01.01H Iplanned transit., Downtown, and in proximity to errs ployrnent centers. Comprehensive Plan — Mixed Use Encourage and support mixed-use areas that provide the benefits of being able to live, shop, dire, 3.06.02E play, and work in close proximity, thereby reducing vehicle trips, and enhancing overall livability and sustain - sty. 3.07.00 Erg courage compatible uses and site design to minimize conflicts and maximize use of land. Comprehensive Plan — Transit Oriented Development 106.02r Allocate land uses near the rail corridor to both support industrial and freight movement but also residential and the movement of people within the corridor. .0/.f12C Focus development and redevelopment intensity on key transportation corridors. Pursue a transit-supportive densities of residential and employment ent uses along key multi-modal` corridors. Support Valle Regional Transit's (VRT) efforts to construct muIti-modal transit centers in areas 6.01.0113 of high commercial activity and employment as vvell as areas with transit-supportive residential densities. Letters of Support • Meridian Chamber of Commerce • Scentsy • Idaho State University • Off the Field • Roundhouse • Idaho College of Osteopathic Medicine "This project does support the b line on Pine that the City has invested in and would provid potentially the needed riders that line needs." - Commissioner Stoll "We're getting an increase in residential units, and we're increasing the nonresidential spa from what the original plat wa . PZC Support "My daughter works for Alaska Airlines an We're getting from my viewpoint she can't afford to live in Meridian; the the best of both worlds in that apartment prices are too high. ... By having we're addressing the housing mixed pricing and mixed type of use here crunch in Meridia n as well as makes it more accessible to not only young across the valley but we're also people but empty nesters and others as we getting commercial space:' — Commissioner Lorcher - Commissioner Stoll "This project makes a lot of sense conceptually. It fits well; this concept is nique and it's something that 1 really like. 1 think we're gaining in density in an area that's best suited for it without sacrificing commercial in a meaningful sense." - Commissioner Rust "There's a ton of community val ere for residents, for those that will come in and appreciate the public square and everything els PZC Support that's happening here. This is very "This is something that is going to prop different from other multifamily the City of Meridian forward not just projects that we see" today for into the future as well." - Commissioner Rust - Commissioner Rust a "�� ��� �° — tip ��dE _ s ►� � P qk 44 Cm ot r ,F lip �AJi mA a; _ * ; kP ad I r 1 Supplemental Slides r FP 911 Iq ...' iiiiiiii Fiiii......i. s -' ° - s uuruuuurruuw - � x, 4' ' ouu.Eluuulru ) ,�- N Nrl I11E11111rEri /W.I�ItEIIId L € � lE III , , mom r e _ _ j li+I1d i�.s �Y �- �_ a kx A G -77 'jam _ �_. s•. 4. ----. - --------------------- o r — � •rr r � � r 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 �� Solar Study i. i w ~` -- - '•+•rY�lii ...•a.raru.•rYrrr#;s 'ass. •l i l•1■ ■i•i q•Y*i Y y f r i••f Y••f r•r� s a* � .f� r ........ I U00AM r erstadine 13 BLOCK 4VIR BUILDING SHADOW STUDY -SPRING EGUINOX 211 3 9-29-2025 Solar Study _ ry ■ _ sr�.r..�i i. '.a.ra riii■i.rr...a...i... — ■ {- •` = �-' f- '3 n • ....,... 1 O:OOAM 41 - l _`■ ll r t d Mine 11 btO K 4 VIR BU ILDJNG SHADOW STUDY -SPRING EQUINOX 211 OD3 9.29-2025 Solar Studymaw Fv1Rjq - ■ rJ ■ F -- If - y i ........ 10:00A R d _ - 44 A ft '' i! i r' . _. . .. . . 4,,00F M ersta+ Pile 43 BLOCK 4 VIR BUILDING SHADOW STUDY - SUMMER SOLSTICE 211003 9- 9-2025 Solar Study r s - ; - D + ff' -- f _ + I r ! --L fill 71 zi 3 F-afm tx44 f Y f ,y Mao! 4,OOPM r'F G# � ■r■■ r�r Plne 43 BLOCK 4 VIR BUILDING SHADOW STUDY - AUTUMN EQUINOX ;- lc)3 4-24-2025 SolarStudy , Ara;ii l...■!!■.i..l..l,fl.■. a. slow e • • • 11�7i1.a.l,.l.a....../.�.R.■!.i■ !l,RFl.. - • -Mar f r • � a • • ■.■ _ iFa a.ills.♦ • _,� SOLID LINES INDICATE cm rrr r ALLOWED 65 HEIGHT d q:sa. ■■■■■■■. IO:04AN1 4 /f ........ 1 ,1.�V}/V�Ip71AV�1 Pine 43 BLOCK 4 VIR BUILDING SHADOW STUDY - WINTER SOLSTICE e r s t a d 21 1 Doi 10.7.2025 Block Bldg - E. STATE AVE. 1 • ' I = * -i_ O _ . A � j. 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 _ Future Land Use Map : Mixed Use Community PINE 43 Residential uses are expected to comprise between 20° and 50% o the development area, with gross Residential areas within total 121 acres: densities ranging from 6 to 15 units/acre (of the guideline: 65%; 17 un/ac residential area). provided: 49.5% (59.84 / 121 acres); Where the development site has transit available 12.42 (743 units /59.84 acres) or stops are planned, an additional 15% of the site may be dedicated to residential uses. Alternatively, Residential areas (R-15, R-40) plus MF in C-G Mixed this bonus may be applied where the development Use area within total 121 acres: site is within one-mile of planned transit stops or an identified employment area, and where last-mile guideline: 65%; 17 un/ac transportation features are incorporated into the provided: 54.6% (66.11 /121 acres) site i ncIuding thoughtfully located and i nteg rated 15.3 (1015 units /66.11 acres) ride share parking, commensurate with potential trip capture. other innovations to reduce traffic and/ or parking impacts and capture local trips may be Gross density 13.6 (1617 units / 121 acres) considered. Comp Plan — Commercial and Med -Tech 106MC Encourage the development of supportive commercial rear employment areas. • Pine 43 provides 72,000 SF of commercial uses, a 29% increase over the 2018 approved plan, plus a new hotel and additional non-residential in the V-1 buildings. 2,0&01E Focu s on devel oiling i ndu stries that tend to exceed the living wage, such a s te(h nol o9 , healthc are and other similar industries. • Pine 43 includes a minimum 221,000 SF of office and med-tech / light industrial space designed to attract med-tech employers. Schools 44T , •+ vA West Ada SCHOOL DISTRICT August 20, 2025 Meridian City Council —33 E. Broadway Avenue— Meridian, ID83642 Re:Pine 43 Development Dear Mayor and Members of the Meridian City Council, On June 25,2025, we submitted a letter regarding the proposed Pine 43 development.We ask that our earlier comments be included in your packet for this project.This correspondence is intended to share additional observations and offer further comments for your consideration. F est Ada School District does not take a position for or against specific developments,we recognize that the ect includes several positive features for Crossroads Middle School and other schools in the surrounding area. ly,its pedestrian-focused design provides safe and direct walkways to school bus stops and to Crossroads itself. connectivity supports student safety and aligns with our ongoing efforts to promote safe routes to schools. We also note that Pine 43 reflects a higher-density housing model. Based on our demographic studies,these types of communities typically produce fewer school-aged children than lower-density neighborhoods. For this reason,we are confident that our schools can absorb the estimated 185-191 students projected from this development at full build-out without undue strain on capacity. We value the opportunity to continue working in partnership with the City of Meridian to support thoughtful planning that benefits both the community and our schools.Thank you for your careful consideration of these observations as you deliberate on the Pine 43 project. Resravid ly, i Dr. einhart Fire Service Our comments were made based on a question asked by city planning staff. I want to reiterate that the project will have to meet prescriptive fire code requirements when it is submitted for permitting to the City of Meridian. The comments made by the Meridian Fire Department are not to be interpreted as an "approval" or "denial" for a proposed project. Our comments relating to the scope of this project are based on its scope, size, and risk relating to the response capabilities of the Meridian Fire Department in its current capacity. "We will respond, but our response will be inadequate". In a clearer language, NFPA 1710 outlines criteria for responses to various buildings based on size, height, and the overall risk/hazard category. "The NFPA 1710 standard for a project of this scope is 43 firefighting personnel for the initial response based on the Deployment Algorithm. The Meridian Fire Department currently has 32 firefighting personnel on duty each day. Under current conditions, the Meridian Fire Department cannot meet this standard in serving this property". Again, this is a not an "approval" or "denial" of the project, it is a comment based on the size and scope of what is being proposed and our abilities to serve it. Prescriptively, the project will have to meet all adopted Fire Codes and Standards as applicable. These comments would be applicable to any proposed project of this scope and size within the City of Meridian's Fire Department Response area. Letters of Support Meridian Chamber of Commerce: This project brings together housing, hospitality employment space, and public amenities in a way that complements our city's comprehensive plan and the long-term vision for "The Core.' It builds on the tone for quality set by employers like Blue Cross and Sc ntsy and tales it one step further offering are urban gateway into downtown that is modern, walkable, and designed for the next generation of workers and residents. Idaho State University's Health Science Center: This development reflects a clear commitment to place-making, talent attraction, and long-term economic vitality in the region. ISU, specifically the Health Science Center in Meridian, enthusiastically supports the Pine 43 project and its role in shaping a dynamic, integrated environment for healthcare, education, and innovation. Compatibility — SE Corner MOD dp"& r x V * k ` C 1 �} ' I L" RUT r w - +r;T n F 4 f � L. LEGEND rAMPCM0 TCMNIOK1Ey _ T ►:i P.3'3POSEo K%tnFALTLY UL91LL PROPOSE D LERTWM-L'f-M TEG%%TEQ I + -PR'O OWD RESTAUAA A r -. P0.^PQ�-.ED FpT6,k -PR0PO(--0 OFFICE I I I'a W. FiQFOSEU WED TECHLqM)XXK AREA I I i QVF-RA4L WHEMATIC COLOR MA5TER PL N I " rT----r---'- SkfEF t OF'4 f �'{ Compatibility — SE Corner , / , / 5 STORY VERTICALLY INTREGRATED RESIDENTIAL BUILDING WITH ENHANCED / SOUND TRANSMISSION CLASSIFICATION (STC)IMPROVEMENTS 1 f 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 — SE Corner FNPPO'INC oI MULTI-FAMILY BLOCK 1 L LOT 2 _] i I f �• o El LJ w TE _ �ENTsSY I I MULTI-FAMILY N `� BLOCK 1, rsum �3.3'PPppExtt�rE*0 BnSiw'G aapw vKi LOT 1 I SECTION ELEVATION AT VIR BUILDING TO UTHERN PR PERTY UNL I A } I F — I 3 } PROPOSE08' TALL MASONRY A WALL RACK8TAGE DANCE CENTER,PATIO LIFE, EAC MOUNTAIN GEAR INSULCO INC. KBfi AUT M ANNEX INC.,TOUGHLINECUSTOMS, (HUNTING RE TA.L (INSULATION (AU10 REPAIR SHOP) IICRRCCKS ENGINEERS STORE) CONTRACTOR) • • (IdULTI-TENANT) E. COMMERCIAL ST. i E. COMMERCIAL 5T. r EXHIBIT 8-MULTI-FAMILY LOT 1 BLOCK 1 - BUFFER EXHIBIT Compatibility — Residential to Light Industrial -4Dow, v - - t`_.'i-�a�.: - q► - Fr oil Ap Ad .CIA _ �'. r, �.� �� "'fin_•,,`�.. . - - y�� ' �`L _ �-� ' . fie �, �r '� -•--. �aa'a.'4'" [ Pine 43 INTERMIXED ZONING EXAMPLE-ADARE AND NEW PATH ersta d 2,,0,, 8.20.2025 Compatibility — Residential to Light Industrial ;3 --i,at Pi QW MIXED USE PROJECT dw INDUSTRIAL 34 id COMMERCIAL %Iry jAr10 4w g u•_ - 4 ersta d Pine 4s INTERMIXED ZONING EXAMPLE-ADARE AND NEW PATH 211003 8.20.2025 i. �. 11 I I Compatibility — Residential to Light Industrial y�• { ` L.- ....... ..... MIXED USE PROJECT INDUSTRIAL i }� �.. •` COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL r 7 .Y ersta d Pine 43 INTERMIXED ZONING EXAMPLE-BOARDWALK 211003 8.20.2025 Animal Farm Plat N $89'Si'57-E 2649.$9 2 c. PINE AVENUE - OF 72.94' eECI1NHRJG s1-94' 718{5W SM54V-W 28135' — — (4+3 .TER CORNER 3-114CR BRASS CAP [5 91] ---- -�-"T----------------------"-`- CPAF IG7150725 l [aa31] - ---- 1 At NO CAP ADT [17665] r+5 506'23'33'E BLOCK 1 = 54.20' [4431] y, CIO L2 � QB J r f I� Elf, RECIPROCAL ACCESS c4 ND. 8 S30'35'56'E FASEu[Nr- SEE ESIrr NOTE: 6. � L' 31-55' L2 Na y\ sp o L3 W51 b LF NX tr ti L5 Na � o � x n 1 rn 1 Y BLOCK 1 0 60 120 2 I SCALE IN FEET I N nrK a OT NOR We I m m I 3 I = k S68'55'�3"E 163.58' -- I I I LAYNE INDUSTRIAL PARK SUODNIS1014 ! SEE SHEET 2 FOR NOTES, BOOK 59 OF PLATS, PAGES 7113 AND 7114. ACR ASEMENT NOTES,REFERENCES, AMC SURVEYOR'S NARRATIVE Preliminary Plat PREUMINLARY PLAT FOR ' PINE 43 MIXED USE SUBDIVISION lFGMOIIm6X1[ SMATfD IN 7HE SOUTH ROLF OF P-E NORTHWEST Q.t4RTER aND THE NOR-I-AL F OF TI-E SOUP-ME57 QUARTER OF SECTION d -- TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH.RANCE 1 EAST.BOISE MERI]NN MERIDIAN.IDAHO a x ' 2026 x � ' y r 1 ..R.,.,JLL..AL....l16�3d� Y ••, a— ?$ 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+ Fencing ---------------------- I-L RUT LUTI n L------- � ..._ . 77 it LEGEND • 1 PROPOSED VFGI=TATIYF - Fcr CHMLM �'1111 lul:'IFII IIIU'lli Illlll;� I �� II ` tnn�. r �!!HRlS! +lFll Illlll■ __ '� C-G 1A ���urau nano _ 1 --ter iinmi7iR I 111'I ` BLCCk uYr i. _ f.► •T' Bike Parking -`� _ � s r I q elf i pcli� `ti� L�� � ! _'__— �.� � � •'—•� 46 �= R-1 5 , => , I-L RUT "�x r 1 91NE PARKING LOCATIONS; BIKEPARKING REQUIREMEN75 1T 1& 1i T LOT 1,BLOCK 1-VEHTK:ALLY INTEt SATEp R6:ipEWhAL Iwtw.rt K-1 . .. .Yn-.p 1nt� NmYp1wF] 11. =wlLOT B�OOx1- L�IiAIi....r.w..unau�a.ww.o •�'L 2L9CK 1. C 0 ° LOT 1 5 6 ] 2 9 10 11 13'i LOT o,9LOCK 2-RESTAURPHT II LOT BLOGCa v#+TICALL,mTE +ATEp E1+T1 eLac�a.° ° IeeLUCK4, p W � ..wv..'.w,....wc.w.e.. Lor a - I ora .C9Lccn■ — +III LOTS�+I�BLDpC2•SIi1GLE FAMILY q q Lmz @YLQT 2x, I - ..�w�,o.w,...>.�.a. n BLooe x. ..IIW wKbuAn„ciralcbn•w1 -- ROCK LIT 1,@LOpC7-OPPIpEP4 LOT tollLOT Y,BLOd[�.L%1LTIiAT�Y LOTx LOT 3.BLrtOCK 3-MBL>`TEGH LOT Z,@LOGE+-NOTEL o-e •• � LOT 1,BLO��++-WFRTICALLY RTTEGRATW -RE&OEN,UL �_� _ n n = u�ew«�.+.cv.ors��+,er•w..e.w«Nxw.rm...wewo-.. ° ° q .. , LQT5@Ll'= RE@iAYRAM p n p n Ch �i�in�,vlw,M���v oo6 sP. IMMTMMMV LOT Z.� - Si_ O q Viill lli lli BL9CK3 - _ L9T 71 LOT�,ELOCIC+•RESTAURAM LOi 9, .YGi[�4[rtihYw�5w.1.�iMit. um{1'I�Y @.4 9 p 111111 1 III Jill iiiiiiiv, VHM LOT 9.@LOCK+-WYRRCALLY RITEGRATEO FEMENTIAL 1♦ 1 L¢T$3.M.6gGca YS�lC�E FArtnlLr .o.r.w..�o V-G __ LdTS 2A.3 P$616LI(d.M1106.T1CM y I II T-Yrk-S TE @WEPAPKING9PACE REQUIREMENTS: - I YLOCK 1. BIHE kOm*4 sP-M pEOudER 9m INTERNhL TO BALDING PROW10Ea 492 EXTERNAL OF 9UIL1WNG PRO.9DBD 210 T°TAL BIKE PARKING SPACES PPOV"O:M2 Al lt EXHIS17 5-BIKE PARKIN I-L I-L ! qV �iY7 Annexation and Initial Zoning + Rezone c: c 1$ 971 X r F-20 I-L L..— r ' ____�_ .____— ____ _______ __ F rezone} R-15 . a (rezone.) � II 0 0 0 00 0 I-L eow�rsrr.ascaarea.�rs., L,� roc, ... cim i yaWdr�eNW BiihIrYE1Jw i iCXO1 ■MyW�Fx'.�rl/5ci Mry isles 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] 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 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� LK E%:E7�81k1T&"PP'FT I�� 1 L ff �5 CD _ 7V7 _a ac.a ❑� BCp1L-,rIF-I'k b If iWd I I i cpoverall Site t �� ,are t Mq development 2ppllC2tlon 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��� 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 Residential Figure 2 7.202 1 Housing Underproduction in Larger Treasure VaIIey Jurisdictions Source: ECoNorthwast anaNsis of ACS 5-year 2021 Region 18,06 Boise City 5,935 Meridian 3,322 Nampa 2.441 Ada 1 ,566 Canyon ■ 1 ,139 An Caldwell ■ 1 ,09 Eagle ■ 889 Tuna ■ 70 Star 1 51 Garden City 1 25 Middleton 1 24 - ,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 Underproduction ,moor" MMMMMINNErv- "Regional Housing Coordination Plan: Ada and Canyon Counties, Idaho," COMPASS (October 2023).