Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-04-02 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Thursday, April 02, 2026 at 6:00 PM MINUTES ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE PRESENT Commissioner Jessica Perreault Commissioner Matthew Stoll Commissioner Dom Gelsomino Commissioner Jared Smith Chairperson Maria Lorcher ABSENT Commissioner Matthew Sandoval ADOPTION OF AGENDA Adopted CONSENT AGENDA \[Action Item\] Approved Motion to approve made by Commissioner Gelsomino, Seconded by Commissioner Stoll. Voting Yea: Commissioner Perreault, Commissioner Stoll, Commissioner Gelsomino, Commissioner Smith, Chairperson Lorcher 1. Approve Minutes of the March 19, 2026 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA \[Action Item\] ACTION ITEMS 2. Public Hearing continued from March 19, 2026 for Syringa Crossing Mixed Use Development (H-2025-0007) by Hawkins Companies, generally located at the northwest and southwest corners of S. Meridian Rd./SH-69 and Amity Rd. Recommend Denial to City Council A. Request: Annexation of 62.43 acres of land with R-15 (9.76 acres), R-40 (18.01 acres) C-N (2.07 acres), C-C (9.12 acres) and C-G (23.47 acres) zoning districts. B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 8 building lots on 24.46 acres of land in the proposed R-40 and C-C zoning districts. C. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development consisting of 322 residential apartment units on 16.35 acres of land in the R-40 zoning district. Motion to recommend denial to City Council made by Commissioner Smith, Seconded by Commissioner Gelsomino. Voting Yea: Commissioner Perreault, Commissioner Stoll, Commissioner Gelsomino, Commissioner Smith, Chairperson Lorcher ADJOURNMENT 7:31 PM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To view upcoming Public Hearing Notices, visit https://apps.meridiancity.org/phnotices --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 4, 2026. Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of April 4, 2026, was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Maria Lorcher. Members Present: Commissioner Maria Lorcher, Commissioner Jared Smith, Commissioner Jessica Perreault, Commissioner Dom Gelsomino and Commissioner Matthew Stoll. Members Absent: Commissioner Matthew Sandoval. Others Present: Tina Lomeli, Kurt Starman, Bill Parsons, Sonya Allen and Dean Willis. ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE (vacant) X Jessica Perrault Matthew Sandoval X Matthew Stoll _X Dom Gelsomino X Jared Smith X Maria Lorcher - Chairman Lorcher: Welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for April 2nd. At this time I would like to call the meeting to order. The Commissioners who are present for this evening's meeting are at City Hall. We also have staff from the city attorney's and the city's clerk office, as well as the city's planning department. If you are joining us on Zoom this evening we can see that you are here. However, you are -- you may observe the meeting, however, your ability to be seen on screen and talk will be muted. During public testimony portion of the meeting you will be unmuted and, then, be able to comment. Please note that we cannot take questions until the public testimony portion of the meeting. If you have a process question during the meeting please e-mail cityclerk@meridiancity.org and they will reply as quickly as possible. If you simply want to watch the meeting we encourage you to watch the streaming on the city's YouTube channel. You can access it at meridiancity.org/live. With that we will begin with roll call. Madam Clerk. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Lorcher: The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. There are no changes to tonight's agenda. Could I get a motion to adopt tonight's agenda? Stoll: Move to approve as presented. Smith: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to approve the adoption of the agenda. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 2,2026 Page 2 of 28 MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] 1. Approve Minutes of the March 19, 2026 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Lorcher: The next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda, which include to approve the minutes of the March -- of the Planning and Zoning meeting on March 19th. All those in favor say aye. Oh, wait. I need a motion. May I have a motion? Gelsomino: So moved. Stoll: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to accept the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] Lorcher: At this time I would briefly like to explain the public hearing process. We will open each item individually and begin with the staff report. Staff will report their findings on how the item adheres to our Comprehensive Plan and our Unified Development Code. After staff has made their presentation the applicant will come forward to present their case and respond to staff's comments. They will have 15 minutes to do so. After the applicant is finished we will open the floor to public testimony. Each person will be called only once during public testimony. The Clerk will call the names individually of those who have signed up on our website in advance to testify. You may come to the microphone in Chambers or will be unmuted on Zoom. Please state your name and address for the record and you will have three minutes to address the Commission. If you have previously sent pictures or a presentation for the meeting it will be displayed on the screen and our clerk will help you run the presentation. If you have established that you are speaking on behalf of a larger group, like an HOA, where others on their group will allow you to speak on their behalf, you will have up to ten minutes. After all those who have signed up in advance have spoken we will invite any others to -- who may wish to testify. If you wish to speak on a topic you may come forward in Chambers or if on Zoom press the raise hand button on the Zoom app or if you are only listening on a telephone, please, press star nine and wait for your name to be called. If you are listening on multiple devices, such as a computer and a phone, please, be sure to mute those extra devices so we don't experience feedback and we can hear you clearly. When you are finished if the Commission does not have questions for you you will return to your seat in Chambers or be muted on Zoom and no longer have the ability to speak. And, please, remember we will not call on you a second time. After all testimony has been heard the applicant will be given another ten minutes to come back F Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 2,2026 Page 3 of 28 and respond. When the applicant has finished responding to questions and concerns we will close the public hearing and the Commissioners will have an opportunity to discuss and hopefully make final decisions or recommendations to City Council as needed. ACTION ITEMS 2. Public Hearing continued from March 19, 2026 for Syringa Crossing Mixed Use Development (H-2025-0007) by Hawkins Companies, generally located at the northwest and southwest corners of S. Meridian Rd./SH-69 and Amity Rd. A. Request: Annexation of 62.43 acres of land with R-15 (9.76 acres), R-40 (18.01 acres) C-N (2.07 acres), C-C (9.12 acres) and C-G (23.47 acres) zoning districts. B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 8 building lots on 24.46 acres of land in the proposed R-40 and C-C zoning districts. C. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development consisting of 322 residential apartment units on 16.35 acres of land in the R-40 zoning district. Lorcher: With that we will open Item No. 2, H-2025-0007, Syringa Crossing Mixed Use Development for annexation, preliminary plat and conditional use permit. We will begin with the staff report. Allen: The next -- the applications before you tonight are a request for annexation and zoning, a preliminary plat and a conditional use permit. The annexation portion of this site consists of approximately 62 acres of land, including right of way to the section line of adjacent roadways, zoned RUT and L-O in Ada county and it's generally located at the northwest corner and southwest corner of South Meridian Road and State Highway 16 and West Amity Road. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation is mixed-use community. The applicant is requesting annexation of 62.43 acres of land with R-15 zoning, which consists of 9.76 acres, R-40 zoning, which consists of 18.01 acres, L-O zoning, which consists of 3.05 acres and C-N zoning, which consists of 2.07 acres and C-C zoning, which is 29.54 acres. A conceptual development plan was submitted as shown for the annexation area that depicts how the site is planned to develop. The northwest corner of Amity and Meridian Road is a multi-family development consisting of 101 apartment and townhomes style units at a gross density of ten units per acre. Twenty-one thousand square feet of office uses, a 65,000 square foot grocery store, with retail shops, restaurants and a bank. Public, quasi-public and plaza areas are also proposed in the commercial portion of the development. All commercial development is proposed to be a single story in height, while the residential proposed to be a mix of four story apartments and two to three story townhome style units. A mix of at least three different land use types are proposed as desired. F Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 2,2026 Page 4 of 28 However, the proposed development is not functionally integrated in holistic design or integration of uses per the design policies in the comp plan, i.e., the use function -- these uses function as individual components, rather than together as desired. Because of this ACHD is not accepting any trip capture for this development. The proposed density conforms to that desired in the Comprehensive Plan. Community serving facilities, such as hospitals, clinics, churches, schools, civic buildings or public safety facilities are not provided, which increases services and transportation network impacts. Supportive and proportional outdoor public and/or quasi-public spaces and places connected by pathways are proposed, consisting of plazas, outdoor gathering areas and linear open space areas that appear to be approximately five percent of the development area as desired. At the southwest corner of the annexation area, southwest corner of Amity and Meridian Road, 35,000 square feet of commercial area is proposed, which is anticipated to include restaurants, retail shops, a coffee shop and gas station convenience store. Across the street on the southern portion of the development a 322 unit multi-family residential development is proposed with a gross density of 18.23 units per acre. Commercial structures are anticipated to be a single story in height. Residential structures are anticipated to be three to four stories in height. The development proposed on the southwest corner is inconsistent with the policies in the Comprehensive Plan for the following reasons: The residential area is 72 percent of the site, which is 22 percent more than the maximum allowed of 50 percent and the 3.23 units per acre over the maximum density allowed of 15 units per acre. Commensurate levels of employment and other non-residential elements supporting residents and reducing local vehicle trips are not provided due to the excess of residential area and density provided. A mix of at least three different land use types are desired in mixed-use designated areas. Only two are proposed. Supportive and proportional outdoor public and/or quasi-public spaces and places, such as parks, plazas, outdoor gathering areas, linear open space and schools, do not comprise a minimum of five percent of the development area as desired. Community serving facilities, such as hospitals, clinics, churches, schools, civic buildings or public safety facilities are not provided, which increases service and transportation network impacts. The applicant has requested the overall project be considered for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, rather than two individual projects. The Comprehensive Plan specifically states contiguous mixed-use identified areas that are bisected by an arterial or highway are considered separate and independent areas for use and design integration and will be evaluated independently of each other. Some of the reasons for such include safety and efficiency of the transportation network, pedestrians and motorists alike. This went into effect in the Comprehensive Plan -- I believe it was two years ago; is that correct, Bill? Okay. So, it is not a -- a new change to the Comprehensive Plan. An overall pedestrian plan was submitted as shown for the annexation area that shows ten foot wide pedestrian walkways in blue, five to six foot wide sidewalks in the lighter blue color and eight foot wide sidewalks in yellow, providing connectivity along streets, through parking areas, public, quasi-public areas, commercial and residential areas. Conceptual building elevations and perspectives were also submitted showing what future commercial retail buildings and plaza areas will look like, as well as the residential buildings at the northwest corner of the annexation area. The primary transportation considerations for this development F Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 2,2026 Page 5 of 28 involve the timing and coordination of required off-site improvements, access management along Amity Road and State Highway 69 and completion of internal street and pathway connections needed to support a functional mixed-use neighborhood pattern. The project would add measurable traffic to a network that already experiences operational strain during peak hours, underscoring the need to align development phasing with programmed intersection and signal improvements. Because of its proximity to two major transportation corridors, the design must emphasize efficient site access, safe circulation and continuous pedestrian and bicycle connections consistent with the city's adopted street and pathway standards. ACHD's recommended conditions and findings addressing intersection mitigation, access spacing and collector completion, reflect these shared objectives and are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and UDC standards for coordinated land use and transportation planning. A preliminary plat is proposed as shown to subdivide the southwest corner of the annexation area, but the northwest corner is not included in the subdivision plat. The plat consists of eight building lots, six commercial and two residential lots on 24.46 acres of land in the proposed R-40 and C-C zoning districts. One access is proposed via West Amity Road and one access is proposed via South Meridian Road, State Highway 69. A portion of a future collector street, Hermatite, via West Amity Road, is depicted along the southern portion of the west boundary of the site and stubs to the property to the south. The portion that connects to Amity Road is off site on the adjacent property to the west and is not proposed to be constructed with this development. A waiver from City Council is requested to UDC 11-3H-4B-2A, which prohibits new approaches directly accessing a state highway. Comments have not yet been received from ITD on whether they already have or will grant the access. The backage road generally paralleling Amity Road and Meridian Road, State Highway 69, is proposed for access to the properties fronting those roads in accord with the UDC. There is a 40 foot wide gravity irrigation easement on the southwest corner of the commercial area as shown. Trees and large shrubs are not allowed in the easement area. A conditional use permit is also requested for a multi-family development on the southwest corner of the annexation area, consisting of 322 apartment units on 16.35 acres of land in the R-40 zoning district, at a gross density of 18.23 units per acre. Three story garden style and four story podium style multi-family buildings are proposed with parking on the ground floor. The podium style units are proposed here around the clubhouse and the garden style units are proposed on the southern portion of the development. Building materials consist of fiber cement siding, variegated board and batten, in a variety of colors and styles, stucco and brick. The final design, if approved, is required to comply with the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual. The collector street access, Hermatite, is needed for emergency access and should be extended from West Amity Road to the site prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy within the multi-family development if approved. Based on 322 units, a minimum of 1.85 acres of outdoor common open space is required. A total of 3.14 acres is provided, exceeding the minimum standard by 1.29 acres. Proposed amenities consist of a clubhouse, swimming pool and spa, a community garden, shade structure, walking trails, children's play structures and four sports courts. Additional amenities as recommended by staff -- are recommended by staff if approved. Written testimony. No letters of public testimony have been received. A response to the staff report was Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 2,2026 Page 6 of 28 received from the applicant, as well as a letter pertaining to application updates. Staff is recommending denial of the proposed annexation request and consequently the preliminary plat and conditional use permit request based on the conceptual development plan not meeting the policies in the Comprehensive Plan for mixed-use and specifically the mixed-use community designation as noted in the staff report. The applicant is here to present tonight. Thank you. Lorcher: Would the applicant like to come forward? Be a button at the bottom of the microphone. Mansfield: How is that? Lorcher: There you go. Mansfield: Excellent. Thank you. Thanks for pulling that up, Sonya. Allen: You are welcome. Mansfield: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Ethan Mansfield. I'm representing Hawkins Companies this evening. Is there -- is this a PDF, Sonia? Can -- is there any way you can bring up the PowerPoint so I can change slides? Lorcher: And also if you can state your address for the record. Mansfield: 855 West Broad Street. Sorry about that. Lorcher: Thanks -- thank you. And the arrows should help you move along. Allen: Sorry about that, Ethan. I downloaded and it went into a PDF, but the clerk has it in your format. Mansfield: Oh, excellent. Thank you. I can -- I can do it with PDF if necessary, it just takes a little more -- Allen: Yeah. No worries. Mansfield: -- scrolling and finagling. Allen: Oh, did it not share? Sorry. Mansfield: Thanks, Sonya. Good evening, Commissioners. I have already introduced myself. Thanks for having me tonight. I would like to talk a little bit about Syringa Crossing. Hawkins is really excited to be investing in this project. The reason we are excited about it is because of Meridian's success over the past 20 years as a community. We wouldn't be interested in this site if it wasn't a growing community and a vibrant community and we think that this project not only complies with the Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 2,2026 Page 7 of 28 Comprehensive Plan, but also contributes to the vibrancy and growth of the community, which is why we are here tonight to -- to talk about it. So, just give a brief overview. Sonya touched on it. This is an annexation, zoning of 56 acres. It also includes a single development agreement on the northwest and southwest corners of Amity and Meridian Roads. We are considering this in two phases, again, under a single development agreement and I will talk about why that's important in a moment. Phase one, as Sonya mentioned, is the southwest corner. Phase two is the northwest corner. And we are also considering a conditional use permit for multi-family on the southwest corner and a preliminary plat on the southwest corner as well. The reason we can't plat these together is because there needs to be two different plats processed when there is an arterial between the plats. That's one of the reasons. The other is because we are excited to have a single development agreement that -- that will kind of tie us to a concept plan that we will come in in the future and plat at that time that it's ready to develop. So, really quickly, I just want to share a little bit of important history about the project. On July 21 st, 2020, we came in for a pre-op with the City of Meridian for the northwest corner only. The plan for the southwest corner was to remain in the county. It's now operating as a wholesale nursery currently, Victory Greens. And the plan was to annex the northwest corner with 284 residential units and 130,000 square feet of commercial just on that 26 acres on the north side. So, at that time the City of Meridian said, hey, come back with a master plan for both the northwest and the southwest corners. Consider it under one development agreement. Consider it as a single master plan for the area and given the -- this piece of the Comprehensive Plan below in orange, that says mixed-use projects are to be developed with an overall master conceptual plan for the larger mixed-use area, that makes sense. So, we are coming in with a grand plan for both sides that considers both sides as a whole and I will talk about that in a minute. So, I will kind of run through kind of what we are proposing, how it complies, how the zoning complies and, then, importantly, functional and holistic integration items. So, again, 56 acres on northwest and southwest corners. Homes for up to 423 families. That's 14.9 units per residential acre across the site, 21,000 square feet of dedicated office space that is to be zoned L-O, professional office, medical offices and daycares are some conceptual uses. Anything that's allowed in the L-O zone could go here, depending on the community demand at the time it's constructed, obviously. And, then, we are proposing almost 140,000 square feet of food, service, retail, personal services, that's salons, hair nail salons, other commercial services. So like daily needs -- grocery stores, kind of the anchor of this project, the site. That's surrounded by shops, buildings, where any number of uses could be allowed. This is zoned C-C, so it could be anything from a salon, to a medical clinic, to a dental office, to anything -- and, really, that demand is driven by the surrounding community. It doesn't go here unless it's going to be driven by -- unless it's going to be supported by the community and I think that's really important to remember. Finally, 12 percent of the area is dedicated to quasi-public open space and plaza areas. So, those are circled here and the orientation of these matters. You can kind of see there is a -- from north to south kind of intentional alignment of these areas and we will talk about that a little bit later, too. So, let's talk a little bit about zoning. So, here are the sample zonings -- and I should say everywhere in orange is direct language from the Comprehensive Plan -- from Meridian's Comprehensive Plan. So, anywhere you see that orange text that's 10 1 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 2,2026 Page 8 of 28 Meridian Comprehensive Plan or when I actually snipped the plan. So, sample zoning in the mixed-use community zone -- or mixed-use community future land use area is R- 15, R-40, TN-R, TN-C, C-C and L-O. You can see here that residential uses are expected to comprise between 20 and 50 percent. Residential densities from six to 15. We are at 14.9 percent gross residential density. Our residential uses are -- make up 24.4 acres, that's 44 percent of the development agreement -- or development area and you can see down here at the bottom, 9.6 units per acre on that R-15 area, 21,000 square feet of building in the office area, 107,000 square feet of building area on that northwest corner community commercial. Almost 30,000 square feet of building area on the southwest corner community commercial and 18.23 acres on that R-40 area. So, R- 40 doesn't mean R-40 here. R-40 means 18.2 units per acre. Just across that particular R-40 area. So, here is some text about the Comprehensive Plan. Additional flexibility is afforded to these ranges through other reference policies. Any mixed-use project must work towards the purpose and intent statements, including availability of goods and services to the community and must offset impacts by providing quality of life opportunities, not typically achievable through other single use areas of the city. So, we are going to talk about how they are different than other single use areas. So, first of all, one of the biggest things that's kind of notable about this development is it is -- you know, it -- it circles around a grocery store. A grocery store is a daily need. A grocery store serves the community. It's an important piece of a mixed-use development. So, the reason this area on the -- why is the northwest corner commercial area larger and the residential area is smaller? The reason for that is because that grocery store and the surrounding tenants have a commercial synergy that is important to the tenant mix there. You -- you know, it's -- it's like when you go to a grocery store you have got your like main grocer and, then, you have got the pads out front; right? You have got your shops building. So, that synergy is important for getting the tenant mix right. The pads won't go if there is not an anchor. The anchor won't go if there is not the pads. So, it's really important that these are provided together on the same side of the road and that's why that area is so big. You know, people still drive here. The surrounding density is 5.4 units per acre. People still drive vehicles to this site. The denser the surrounding area is the fewer vehicle trips as a share will be taken by cars. It's just a simple fact. You know, you are going to -- if you are within walking distance and there is a pathway to walk on, it's going to be easier to walk than get in your car and drive across the development like this. So, another thing to note is that the northwest corner is topographically flatter. It's just easier for larger buildings to be located there. It's also the place where the grocery store wants to be, because -- and -- and I think the community wants the grocery store to be, right, because that's where you have got people coming home from work turning right into the parking area, turning right to access all of the -- all of the services provided within this center and, then, turning right to go back out onto Meridian Road or Amity Road. So, it's -- it's -- and that's when people go to the grocery store coming home from work, not going to work typically. So, that's just, you know, the reason it's on the northwest corner, not the southwest corner. So, on the southwest corner the multi-family component on the southwest corner is a critical component, because it offers additional housing typology not found within several miles of this site. I mean apartments are nowhere to be found around here. This is the corner of a state highway and an arterial roadway. It's the perfect place for F11 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 2,2026 Page 9 of 28 density truly. You know, the reason the commercial uses are on the corner is because in this area commercial tenant success relies upon visibility from roadways still. It's because most people drive. And so just kind of to touch on the quality of life opportunities, because that's mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan is a very important thing to offset impacts. We will talk about this in a second, but, essentially, this whole thing is linked with a network of pathways and plazas. So, I'm going to zip through -- basically this slide shows that we have four land use types on -- across the project and if you look at them separately we have four land use types on the northwest -- sorry -- three -- three land use types on the southwest corner, 322 residential units, 30,000 square feet of commercial services, retail services and, then, 7.5 percent of this southwest corner area is dedicated to quasi-public uses. That's very very important. This does not include area reserved for multi-family residents alone. All of these areas are accessible by the community. And here is the northwest corner, four different types of land uses. So, let's talk a little bit about functional integration and holistic design. So, here is the piece of the Comprehensive Plan that kind of touches on it. We won't read the whole thing, but let's kind of talk about how this is achieved. So, this is achieved through a really robust network of pathways, including ten foot sidewalk, pathways, detached along Hermatite, which backs the whole center -- backs all of the residential and, then, through that significant network through the site -- so, you have got a linear park adjacent to the townhouses. You have got a lot -- a park area adjacent to the restaurant, shops area and you have got a plaza on the corner of Amity and Meridian Road. You also have pathway connectivity to developments to the north and that was actually mentioned as a positive thing by surrounding neighbors at our neighborhood meeting. So, there is really a robust network of connectivity here. There is a plaza that connects office space to the residential space that leads you through to the commercial space. Here are some pictures. We can blow through them really fast. I think you have seen them already and they should be in your packet. And, then, here is the southwest corner. Importantly on the southwest corner this ten foot pathway along Hermatite is continued and it's encouraged for people using this future -- I mean it existing -- will be existing and it will be fully constructed in the future with the adjacent property to the west and -- as well as provide more residential opportunities there. People can walk through this development to the commercial area comfortably; right? Here are all the nodes and here are all the links. So, blues are links, reds are nodes that you can actually stop and enjoy yourself and it's -- the intent is to create a neighborhood here, not just a walled off multi-family development and that's also why we are -- we are trying to open up this western corner and invite residents from other communities into the development to enjoy being here. There is significant grade change across the southwest corner of the site, which does produce challenges to connectivity. We wish we could provide more connectivity and there is literally -- like even at the finished grades, the clubhouse finished floor is 12 feet above these Building G finished floors down here and that's after the grading exercise has been completed and we flattened it out as much as possible. So, there truly is -- I think it's about 25 feet of grade out there right now. So, those grading challenges are significant. One -- these are -- these are just photos of -- or renderings, not photos. This -- this will be a photo in -- in five years hopefully. I also really want to talk about transportation improvements. One big component to this development is the STARS agreement. The STARS F12 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 2,2026 Page 10 of 28 agreement that we are looking to pursue with the Idaho Transportation Department makes roadway improvements above and beyond what our developments impacts are possible. So, you know, we are looking at nine to 15 million, somewhere in there, in roadway improvements to the surrounding area. Here they are. They are shown here. And this requires both phases. This requires a phase one and it requires a phase two, because STARS agreement relies upon sales tax revenue from commercial development. So, we need both to be successful here. And so in addition as part of that STARS program it's -- it's -- you know, again, we are working through this with ITD. We haven't solidified it. We can't solidify it, because we don't yet have entitlements for it. But this Hermatite connection is considered as part of that -- part of that STARS program. So, that Hermatite connection will get connected with the rest of the improvements and there is a condition of approval that it be connected with 465 p.m. trips, which basically allows us to -- to construct a multi-family and virtually no more until that Hermatite connection is made anyway. That's an ACHD condition. So, with that I would like to just wrap up and say thanks for considering this project and we think it complies with the Comprehensive Plan. Lorcher: Thank you very much. Commissioners, do we have any questions for Ethan? Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: Yeah. So, first I guess I will start with the most recent one in mind. Does this STARS agreement with ITD at all rely on your math regarding trip capture or is -- do you anticipate it still being feasible with ACHD's determination of zero trip capture? Mansfield: Commissioner Smith, great question. It will be feasible -- essentially the recommendations of ACHD are they -- they stand with a zero trip capture assumption, if you will. So, we have a list of conditions from ACHD. All of those are conditioned with an assumption of zero trip capture. Smith: Thank you. Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: I also have one regarding the northwest -- if you are looking at the site map, my -- so my understanding of the Comprehensive Plan is that, you know, residential and non-residential uses, residential-commercial uses are supposed to be closely integrated and sharing similar, you know, frontage, sharing similar space. I'm curious what went into the logic then of having the office as a transition space when it seems like mixed- use is pretty against transition space, honestly, and saying, hey, integrate them together. So, they could walk -- if you would walk me through that would be great. Mansfield: Commissioner Smith, this is a fantastic question that I feel gets at the root of some of the challenges that we face as developers when encountering mixed-use land F13] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 2,2026 Page 11 of 28 use plans, because in one sense we hear from planners -- as a former planner I used to say this -- like where is your buffer? Where is your buffer between uses to basically prevent impacts from one use from impacting another. Concurrently we hear where is the integration between the two uses and to me that really confuses -- you know, as developers we are like -- well -- well, which one is it? And so, you know, this office space was included at a recommendation of the planning staff to basically create a buffer between the grocery land use and the residential land use and what we are trying to do -- again, staff helped guide us through this -- is say, hey, you know, create a transition. Don't just put up a big wall of office buildings. Create a transition. So, we tried to do that with the ten foot pathway, the little plaza area. It's about -- it's about 8,500 square feet, like a little 8,500 square foot area between the office buildings there where that star is and, you know, if -- if -- frankly, if that gets us over the finish line we can make that bigger. Smith: Question for staff. So, is that specifically due -- does that buffer ask specifically due to the intensity of the grocery use like specifically or is it something about commercial in general that went into that feedback? Allen: Well, let me -- let me back up just a little bit. The Comprehensive Plan talks about integration of uses, like having common open space area in between residential and commercial areas and/or a -- a drive, a roadway separating them. It is -- it is difficult. I will -- I will give the applicant that. You know, it's -- it -- it can be confusing in mixed -- in mixed-use areas we do want uses integrated more than -- more than transitioned and more than -- we want them all as one development rather than individual components and that's -- that's staff's issue with the proposed development plan. Smith: But -- so, I guess what I'm curious about is -- is the applicant mentioned getting feedback of asking for some transition space, you know, to the south. Is that specifically because of the grocery or is there something else regarding -- was there maybe miscommunication regarding transition versus integration? That's kind of what I'm trying to get to, because I look at this and I say, hey, this should be more integrated, but the applicant is saying that there was kind of desire for transition space between. I'm just trying to get -- Allen: Yeah. A little both. You know, we -- we don't want to see the -- the big box retail right next to the residential, so -- Smith: Okay. Allen: Bill, do you have any more to add to that? I mean -- I talked to the applicant when they -- when they continued the first time about maybe making some revisions to their plan that might incorporate a street or -- or common open space area and possibly shifting the offices to along the collector street or along the internal drive aisle. They did float a plan past us that showed the two end units on the left -- on the west more oriented towards the collector street and the one on the east more oriented towards the 14 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 2,2026 Page 12 of 28 north-south internal drive, with a larger common area in between and that -- that did, you know, work a lot better. I encourage them to maybe go a little bit more that way and, then, they ultimately decided to stick with their original development plan. Perreault: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: Do you have alternative transportation concept plan if ITD does not approve a right-in, right-out on either or both sections? Mansfield: Commissioner Perreault, great question. I will just briefly talk about our -- our access kind of in general and answer that question specifically. So, on the northwestern corner the right-in, right-out is a deeded access, so we do have ITD approval for that access on the northwestern corner, pending Council's approval for a waiver to approve it. On the southwestern corner ACHD is limiting us to a single access on Amity, which I think the absence of a right-in, right-out on State Highway 69 would make circulation for future residents of this site and visitors to the site very challenging. We have spoken with ITD preliminarily about this right-in, right-out and they have given us good feedback preliminarily. Again, obviously, they haven't approved anything; right? We have no letters. But, you know, they have looked at it and they said, well, yeah, I mean ACHD gave you one access here. It makes sense that you would have a right-in, right-out, you just have to prove that to the ITD board and so we have commissioned traffic studies to do that and it does seem very supportive of a right-in, right-out on State Highway 69. Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Oh, Commissioner Smith. Smith: I have -- Lorcher: You are fine. Smith: -- a couple more questions. I just didn't want to hog -- I don't want to hog all the time. Okay. So, again, I -- I say that -- I asked this knowing that this is a difficult plan and I'm not trying to, you know, bring the hammer down or anything or a gotcha, but I -- knowing that the Comprehensive Plan kind of asked for -- I think it -- you know, reducing vehicle trips by having frequent accessible and safe pedestrian connectors and if we are -- if we are to treat this as one development, walk me through -- if I'm on Building G, what's the path that I -- without getting in a car what's the path that I get groceries? What's the path I take? Mansfield: Commissioner Smith, that is a fantastic question. I have asked the development team and myself that many times, because I knew you were going to ask it. Yeah. So, if I'm walking to get groceries or biking in my cargo a-Bike, I leave my 15 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 2,2026 Page 13 of 28 front door, pick up my bike and -- I mean jump on my bike that's in the secured bike parking and I can do one of two things. Probably the fastest way is going to be for me to jump on the ten foot pathway on Hermatite and go north and, remember, this future roadway isn't so future, especially considering the STARS agreement and considering the, you know, ACHD condition for 420 vehicle trips. So, this future roadway is pretty imminent. So, I'm jumping on this future roadway, I'm jumping on this pathway, I'm taking this ten foot path and I'm ending up at the Hermatite-Amity intersection, I'm pressing the pedestrian crossing button, I'm crossing, I'm turning right, left, and, then, I'm at the front of the store. Does that -- are you following me? Smith: Yeah. Yeah. Mansfield: I get a little blinker. Smith: I'm following that. I guess I'm also looking at -- you say if I were to go -- say it was at Pad F, the closest -- but maybe not even getting groceries, if I'm just trying to go to the non -- the closest non-residential, is there -- I guess my larger question is is there anywhere in the site plan that a resident can get to a non-residential use without first putting themselves in the path of a potentially moving vehicle? And -- and if -- if not, do you think that that is in compliance with the -- the spirit and the -- the text of the Comprehensive Plan saying, hey, pedestrian connectivity should be prioritized and not secondary. Mansfield: Commissioner Smith, this is a great question. I -- I think there is ways to do this extensively -- well, actually, no. On both corners this is not possible, but only because there are small drive aisles that need to be crossed or small parking areas that need to be crossed, not because there are large multi-lane roadways to be crossed. So, for example, if I'm in the -- I got to go to my southwest corner here, so I can read the -- I wish I had a little pointer for you. I'm sorry. So, if I'm in one of these Building E's, right, which is just south of the kind of four story core buildings at the center here, I can jump out onto the ten foot pathway, go north past the amenity, past the clubhouse into that central area. Now, there are two crossings here, because there is a -- a drive aisle that is actually supported by the Comprehensive Plan we think, because there is actually language in the Comprehensive Plan that says you can do like you should do, drive aisles or, you know, small drive areas to separate uses and, then, I get to the parking area. The challenge with this community commercial corner -- the challenge with programming this is the UDC development ordinance, development code, requires that buildings front the street. That's Amity and Meridian. If buildings front the street the parking has to go somewhere. So, what we are doing is we are trying to plan a -- a non-invasive parking field, so that we can get that ten foot pathway through what has to be a parking field, because the UDC conflicts with this Comprehensive Plan vision of not having to cross a parking lot and we have to provide that parking, because as you saw the surrounding density is 5.4 acres -- units per acre. So, people will drive here and tenants need that parking. So, that's a challenge that we are trying to work through here with this site and I think we succeed, because we take that ten foot pathway and F16] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 2,2026 Page 14 of 28 we put it directly to these two shops buildings that provide, you know, eight to ten different uses in them. So, I will admit it's a challenge, but it's a point well taken. Smith: Okay. Thank you. Gelsomino: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Gelsomino. Gelsomino: Quick question. Ethan, so as a recently former city parks commissioner I'm going to bring a little bit of my experience on that commission to this question. On the civic -- civic park open space if the central park is genuinely, you know, quasi-public civic space, is there an agreement where -- is there a plan to record a public access easement on that parcel as a DA condition? Without it -- you know, the space is a private residential amenity and the southwest corner only has two land use types and a quasi-public open space drops to just about three percent below the five percent minimum. Mansfield: Commissioner Gilsuma -- I'm sorry, I butchered your last name. Commissioner, that's a great question. Gelsomino: That's all right. Gelsomino. Mansfield: Gelsomino. Thank you, sir. That is a great question. We have not considered it, but are happy to, because the intent is for it to be quasi-public, not simply an amenity. So, we are very open to that idea. Gelsomino: Understood. Thank you. And, then, Madam Chair one follow up question. Lorcher: Okay. Gelsomino: And I apologize, Ethan, if you may have answered this question to either Commissioners Perreault or Smith. I want to make sure I -- I'm not repeating any questions that have already been asked. But, you know, the -- the fire department conditions adequacy of multi-family access on completion of the South Hermatite Avenue, if I'm not mistaken you do not own the -- the adjacent parcel that the connection must cross; correct? Mansfield: Commissioner Gelsomino, that -- that's a lot. Commissioner Gelsomino, that is correct. We do not own it. We do have a good relationship with the landowner. Gelsomino: Okay. Is there a potential for an agreement that would guarantee that offsite extension is complete before the first certificate of occupancy? Mansfield: Yeah. Commissioner Gelsomino, we could -- we could certainly look at that. I think we can agree to that here. Yeah. 17 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 2,2026 Page 15 of 28 Gelsomino: Understand. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Ethan. Lorcher: Thanks. Stoll: In terms of the STARS agreement, you estimated nine to 15 million dollars' worth of improvements. Was that estimate something that you discussed with ACHD and also ITD or is that just your estimate at this point in time? Mansfield: Commissioner Stoll, that's a great question. We have actually gotten some estimates from ITD. That -- the estimate that we are providing here tonight it -- it's, obviously, a huge range -- is based on our own pricing of these improvements. So, we actually looked at these improvements, looked at the quantities and requirements needed. We are working with Kittelson, who is an expert at, you know, doing public roadway work and we priced it based on that. We also spoke with ITD. So, there is some input there as well. Stoll: So, Kittelson provided the cost estimate and did ITD feel like it was in the ballpark or did they -- Mansfield: Commissioner Stoll, we received some design -- some cost feedback from ITD, but we have -- we have yet to sit down with ITD and actually talk about that face to face. We basically just said, hey, we are interested in doing a STARS agreement. They said, yes, we are very interested in you proceeding with the STARS agreement. Let's talk about what it's going to look like, what it's going to include and this is what we are proposing. Stoll: And the primary revenue generator would be the grocery store? Mansfield: So, Commissioner Stoll, any commercial activity would generate revenue, but that grocery anchored center is kind of a requirement to get the STARS agreement off the ground if you will. Stoll: The ones I'm familiar with, Cabela's up north, The Village, usually have a larger anchor and I'm periodic with -- periodically the legislature talks about doing away with the grocery sales tax and I'm just curious what your assessment is of the revenue continuing on to pay off the STARS agreement? Mansfield: Commissioner Stoll, yeah, that's a great question. We are currently commissioning a sales tax study right now to just kind of look at our term -- you know, like length of time to pay off, kind of what this all looks like. So, we are kind of in the midst of that right now. Noted about the, you know, removing the grocery sales tax, that would certainly have a potential impact on this -- this project. But I do know, you know, there has been immediately to our south -- for example, on Lake Hazel and State Highway 69 is using the STARS agreement there -- Stoll: Costco. Fl-81 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 2,2026 Page 16 of 28 Mansfield: Yes. Stoll: A little bit different. Okay. Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: So, I heard some terms of, you know, pricing feedback and, you know, potential impact if the sales tax goes away. Now, help me understand magic wand STARS doesn't exist. What does that look like for this project, this development? Say the agreement doesn't go through or you can't align on price -- you know. What does that do to the potential improvements here? Mansfield: Sure thing, Commissioner Smith. That's a great question. I was thinking about that earlier, too. So, much of this -- much of these improvements remain due to their requirement in the project. Not all. So, Amity will be constructed both on the north side and the south side. Hermatite Backage Road From Lyra down to Amity. Hermatite Backage Road going north up to -- you know, where it leaves the property would be constructed and, then, the frontage along State Highway 69 on our side. What would not get done and what is I think a big win for the community and ITD and the state and really everybody, I mean us, too; right? Is the full cross-section of State Highway 69 gets constructed from where the last STARS agreement ends up at -- the Lake Hazel STARS agreement, where that ends on its north side we go -- then go north almost to Lyra with a full, you know, construct -- like fully constructed ITD, State Highway 69 section. Lorcher: In regard to roadway improvements -- not talking about Highway 69, but your north-south access and Hermatite, are you providing any signalization to be able to have that cross-access for people to be able to come through or is it just a pedestrian walkway? Mansfield: Commissioner Lorcher, are you referring to kind of that -- that plan north -- that like four way intersection there? Lorcher: Not on Highway 69, but -- Mansfield: On Amity. Lorcher: -- Amity. Yes. Mansfield: Yes. So, like the plan north. Lorcher: Yes. Mansfield: Yeah. Okay. So, that is planned to be signalized. 19 1 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 2,2026 Page 17 of 28 Lorcher: And are -- is that something that you are going to provide or is -- you are waiting for ACHD to do it? Mansfield: So, we would -- if -- if we -- it's kind of a complicated thing, but, essentially, we would either build it or pay our fair share through a signal agreement with them, depending on the timing of when it gets installed. Lorcher: Okay. And, then, in regard to Hermatite, you said that the future roadway. So, you will be responsible for the -- the east side of the -- Ten Mile -- or the -- the wider pathway and, then, the road improvements will be done by the developer to the west; is that correct? Mansfield: So, on our -- Commissioner Lorcher, on our property boundary we would basically be responsible for the ten foot pathway and, then, as this cross-section works, which is a ten foot pathway, 26 foot road section -- Lorcher: Right. Mansfield: -- and, then, another buffer and, then, ten foot pathway, that ten foot pathway buffer and road section all would occur on our property. Lorcher: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Perreault: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: Could you pull up the slide at the very beginning where you reference the prior application where you said that there was an encouragement of the two sections to be -- to be developed as one. Right there. Yep. Absolutely. So, did you happen to have a conversation with staff about this? Mansfield: So, Commissioner Perreault, we did bring it up in conversation and we kind of got to this place where it was like we are not budging on our position about the two sides being treated differently. Two sides being treated as separate projects. That's kind of where we ended up. I understand that's part of the Comprehensive Plan, but -- Perreault: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: Just to be clear, you are saying that City of Meridian feedback, you are saying that this was a sentence in the staff report for that original application in -- in 2020; is that what you are saying? F20] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 2,2026 Page 18 of 28 Mansfield: Commissioner Perreault, I think I misunderstood you. I know I misunderstood you. This was the recent conversation that we had probably like two weeks ago about this particular application back in 2020. So, that's what I was talking about. So, in 2020 we did not make an application, because they encouraged us to come back with the full thing. Both sides. At that time there was no -- that -- that was what was said. There -- is that your question? I guess I'm -- Perreault: Yes. I'm just trying to understand, you know, the -- the concern you are presenting is that you believe this was -- was said by staff or was in writing by staff, but now staff is saying, no, they need to be applied separately and developed separately, because that's what the Comprehensive Plan says. So, just trying to understand from your perspective how those two disagree with one another. Mansfield: Commissioner Perreault, yeah. So -- this is a great question. So, we heard come back and develop it as a cohesive project and, then, when we made the application as a cohesive project about in -- I guess mid to -- I guess early February we received the staff report -- initial staff report for this project and it said these need to be treated as separate projects. That is the first time that I heard about that separate project requirement. Perreault: So, you are saying that this was -- this was something that was mentioned in a meeting or verbally or a pre-app meeting? Mansfield: Commissioner Perreault, that's correct. This feedback on the screen here was mentioned in 2020 to us in a pre-application meeting. Lorcher: All right. Any questions before we take public testimony? All right. Thank you very much. Mansfield: Thank you. Lorcher: Madam Clerk, do we have anybody signed up to testify? Lomeli: Thank you, Madam Chair. I have Cooper Sharp. Lorcher: Good evening. If you can state your name and address for the record. Sharp: Cooper Sharp. 3578 South Falconers Place, Meridian, Idaho. Lorcher: Okay. Sharp: Good evening, Commissioners. I'm -- I'm expressing my support for this project. I'm a resident just a couple miles away from this project. Had the opportunity, lived at this address for about five years now. Had the opportunity to see a similar development go up at Amity and Eagle, which was greatly needed with the Albertsons improvement there and the surrounding commercial developments around it and it also 21 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 2,2026 Page 19 of 28 has a -- a multi-family component along the boundaries. I think a lot of the -- the similarities of this project and that is what it offers from a mixed-use standpoint isn't necessarily in one building itself, but from the entire development as a whole and for my family specifically that development on Amity and Eagle has greatly reduced the amount of travel that we have to do on a daily basis to get groceries, to go grab lunch, to go grab dinner, things of that nature and -- and it's improved our quality of life. So, similar on this site. There is several other, you know, residential communities in the neighboring vicinity and would similarly have the same impact, as well for us we are always looking for opportunities to stay south of Overland Road and not have to go up Eagle or down Overland to -- to find shopping centers or things of that nature. So, it would drastically have an impact to -- again to our quality of life as well. The other part of it -- I think it would be a shame to deny a project like this due to not having a third use. There is several in the vicinity. There is several churches that are already existent within a mile, two miles away. Meridian just opened a brand new library facility kitty corner on -- on Locust Grove and Lake Hazel within, you know, very close proximity to this project. So, a civic facility or a church facility. There is multiple school facilities in the vicinity as well. And so thinking of a project like this getting denied just because it doesn't have a third use feels like it -- there is a lot of benefit that the public is missing out on due to a technicality. So, if a development like this I think has a lot of benefit and I think the surrounding citizens would have a lot of benefit from it with what they are providing to the community from a shopping center offer standpoint. You know, that's all I would like to share. Thank you. Lorcher: Thank you very much. Lomeli: Madam Chair, no one else has indicated they wish to speak. There is one person online, but they do not have their hand raised. Lorcher: Is there anybody else in chambers that would like to speak before we invite the applicant to come forward? Would the applicant like to come forward one more time, please. Any final comments since we only had one piece of public testimony? Mansfield: Commissioner Lorcher, I have just a couple remaining comments. I would first like to address the -- just thank the person who testified. Thank you, Cooper. I do also want to clarify that we do think this will have a civic use associated with it. It's a quasi-public -- you know, a string of quasi-public areas that are open to the public. But I think what he is referring to is like a church or an actual building that houses some sort of, you know, church or something like that. I would also like to say, you know, Commissioner Smith, regarding your comment about the office and the -- and the integration there, we are more than happy to take a look at, you know, kind of messing around with that office space to -- to make -- to make it feel more integrated if that gets us over the finish line. I said that before, I just wanted to make sure I was clear on that. Lorcher: Okay. Thank you very much. Smith: Madam Chair? F22 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 2,2026 Page 20 of 28 Lorcher: Oh, wait. Commissioner Smith. Smith: Yeah. You -- you mentioned kind of the -- the civic nature of -- of the quasi- public space. One thing I'm struggling with is -- is, you know, even like the -- the green space exhibit, you have commercial green space and multi-family green space and they -- they feel very separate to me. Commercial green space a lot of it -- or the commercial open space even a lot of it looks like plazas and with concrete and fountains versus the residential is a lot more, you know, parks and things like that, save for kind of this dining area, this triangular shape in the northwest corner. I guess I -- it's a similar question to the one I had about the -- kind of this G Building thing, but, you know, I'm looking at, for example, you know, Building C -- dot C1 dot O and Pad F, you know, if I'm -- if I'm in like -- I'm struggling to understand what shared open space they have and what quasi-public space they have that is clearly intended. Like we can say, hey, illegally they are -- you know, someone's allowed to go to the grocery store and, then, hop on over to the park down here, but what signage what -- what design language is -- is -- you know, when I look at the site plan I don't understand how that's communicated to someone in the area. Mansfield: Commissioner Smith, yeah, I will go into that a little bit more. I have a couple examples. The first I would like to share was actually expressed by someone who lives on Lyra Street on the east side of the development at a neighborhood meeting. So, we presented this plan at our second or third neighborhood meeting and, you know, I asked if they had -- if attendees had any feedback. One big piece of feedback that I heard -- and it lasted like 30 or 45 seconds of just talking about how excited they were, they were just excited to be able to hop onto a pathway, a ten foot pathway and walk to a shopping area and so to me that communicates that someone from an adjacent development is looking at this and saying, hey, I'm really stoked that I don't have to get in my car to drive somewhere to go shop. So, I think that example is really kind of a real example of, you know, someone who actually lives in the surrounding area being excited about doing it and they can very clearly see this ten foot pathway and I pulled this up to kind of talk a little bit more about a couple things. So, on the northwest corner we have this connection to the surrounding housing developments. We also have off of-- that T that goes north off of Lyra that continues down to the south. This pathway is kind of separate from those; right? It's separate from the vehicular connections. It runs past the multi-family. You know, these are kind of like -- these are going to be like townhome style; right? So, you are kind of out on your patio, but there is like runners going by and cyclists and they are cycling down to this green space down here where, then, of course, there is going to be a softer language in the residential areas and there is going to be more of a hardscape language in the commercial areas and I think that's just due to the nature of the spaces. But there -- the idea is that they are still integrated, you still travel from one place to another on foot or on bicycle and it's comfortable. On the southwest corner we have a connection that was required by the subdivision developer to the south. We have made that a ten foot pathway. It was required to be a five for him. They are going to come back in preliminary plat and I would hope that it will be a ten for him, so that it will be continuation of a ten foot pathway. But we have this ten foot pathway that goes from the very southern edge of F23] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 2,2026 Page 21 of 28 the development up to the north. You do cross a drive aisle, but the challenge is people have cars here. You know, we have to provide parking. What we are trying to do is soften that and so if you cross these drive aisles and you end up in this public park here or quasi-public park. This park is an acre -- at 1.3 acres, so an acre and third and you continue north through that, you come into this little community garden space, again, across a drive aisle and, then, you really don't cross anything until you get to the very north end of this multi-family neighborhood and so I think we -- what -- what I like to do is think about this not as like some big multi-family development, but as like kind of a -- a neighborhood of multi-family buildings -- of bigger buildings than we are used to seeing in a single family home development, but it's still designed to be this comfortable neighborhood and it's immediately adjacent and well connected to this commercial area, so you can walk seamlessly from one to another. That's kind of how I envision it. That's the language that we talked about when we talked about designing it this way. Staff mentioned this. We bumped -- we beefed up the pathway size. We beefed up the number of pathways. The -- the -- where the pathways go. So, this was something we wanted to pay close attention to as we designed it. Smith: Thank you. Lorcher: Okay. Thank you very much. Mansfield: Thank you. Lorcher: May I get a motion to close the public hearing? Smith: So moved. Stoll: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on Syringa Crossing. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Lorcher: A couple of thoughts on -- on this. I -- I commend you on looking at retail uses really before the residential uses. So many times retail won't come until there is rooftops and you have taken a different approach where the retail will drive the improvements to add to the residential. I also agree that all of the retail should be on the streets. You know, you want that visibility to be able to see that it's there. You don't want them tucked away, even though some of your office space is kind of tucked up towards the northwest corner. But the signage, obviously, is important for -- to attract retail customers. I disagree with only having one development agreement. I think that we have had developers come where they have had both sides of the street and each application, although flow together, and I -- I would have to go back to see if we have approved or not approved things in the past, but typically they are treated as separate applications, even though in a meeting we may do one together and the one that comes F24] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 2,2026 Page 22 of 28 off the top of my head is that -- I live off of Ustick and Black Cat. Toll Brothers is doing two different projects across the north and the south side of Ustick. We treated that -- we -- we presented them together, but they were treated as two separate entities with two different sets of rules to be able to do mixed-use or whatever their code -- or designation was, which I don't remember off the top of my head. So, I disagree that this is one project. I think it should be two and, therefore, to fulfill the mixed-use of having three different uses on both sides collectively -- or I mean independently should be looked at compared to what you have. So, that would be something you would have to take to Council and be able to justify and, then, finally, the open space towards the south that is surrounded by the multi-family housing, the way I see it right here is that that's an amenity. I -- if somebody was on Amity or on Meridian Road, because of the buildings facing Highway 69, really there is no way to know that there would be any open space there and so maybe it takes signage. I'm not really sure. Again I will give you an example. Autumn Fair off a Black Cat has a very big park in the middle. I have lived there for ten years and I just recently discovered the park was even there; right? Because I don't necessarily always go into that neighborhood, but they do have signage saying, you know, we have got this huge park, but -- and it's open to the public -- to everyone, but, obviously, the community uses it more than others. So, to me that -- that's not obvious to me that that looks more like an amenity than something that's available to the surrounding communities. So, I'm on the fence as far as whether to give you approval or denial for this. I'm really kind of hung up on the development agreement in following the rules. Also in the fact that I understand it's kind of like the cart before the horse, you need the entitlements to be able to work with ITD, but you even -- you haven't even had those meetings yet and one of the things that we look at when we look at applications is that is this in the best interest of the city at this time; right? Right now. There is no doubt that the south part of Meridian can use the retail support, just like Cooper said, to be able to not have to cross 84 to be able to get those services and in regard to your retail and your integration of some of the -- the residential definitely works, but, again, I don't support the single DA and because you don't have those -- you haven't really had those one-on-one face conversations with ITD yet and stuck in my head is this the best interest of the city at this time? So, I would like to hear from the other Commissioners on their thoughts as well. Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: Yeah. I -- to be candid, I -- I came into this -- I came into this hearing a little bit more ready to -- to bring the heat and I forget that the applicant -- that Ethan is such a decent and affable person that it's -- it's hard to hold it against him and -- and I see -- frankly, if this -- this feels to me almost like three different developments personally. It feels like it -- there are three -- there is a really solid multi-family, pretty good commercial and, then, another pretty good multi-family. But I -- they -- they just don't have the connectivity to me that -- that a multi-family needs. I think if I -- I live just north of Settlers Park on Wausau just off Meridian and to me I wouldn't call Settlers Park part of my neighborhood and part of my community, because the best way to get to it is to F25] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 2,2026 Page 23 of 28 go along Meridian Road and it's to leave my neighborhood. I could kind of take a -- a winding path -- or I guess I could go down to Elsinore a little bit, but it -- really the -- the quickest way there is -- is to leave my -- my development and it seems like treating this as one development. If my quickest way from the south side to -- kind of a lot of these amenities is to leave and to take Hermatite or to get out onto Meridian, it feels like there is a lot of that connectivity that's missing and it -- it -- a lot -- I -- I think a lot of my frustration with multi-use -- or up to this point -- mixed-use up to this point, thank you, has been this kind of salami slicing a part of like multi-family or -- or residential, non- residential and, then, some more residential scattered throughout and I think the developer has -- has been very thoughtful. I think there are a lot of challenges and I think there are some economic realities that, you know, I would love to see more of the -- of the residential, you know, closer to the center, but I understand that commercial on the corner is really valuable -- Lorcher: Yep. Smith: -- and so I understand that there are a lot of economic realities and so I can't fault the developer or the applicant for that. But -- but this really kind of gets to a lot of the things that I'm frustrated with about how developments come in -- or how applications come in regarding mixed-use that just aren't and I think we -- again, we have a limited pool of mixed-use in the city and we really have to get it right and I just -- I think this is, again, thoughtful in a lot of areas, but the -- the connectivity, the -- the integration of uses. If it were just down to the offices and the transitional space I would be happy to, you know, let the applicant work that out, but I think it's much more than this. I understand the need for the grocery store, et cetera, for -- if you attract these other -- other tenants, but there are just a lot of things we are trying to have happen all at once and, then, as a result we are being pretty not great and mediocre at a lot of them. Not to call this mediocre. That feels very insulting to say. But I think, you know, we can't have everything. And so I don't know what the ideal looks like. I think there are a lot of different things in tension here. I just think this is really far off the mark and it's too much for me to support. Lorcher: Okay. Thank you. Gelsomino: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Gelsomino. Gelsomino: I will echo a lot of, you know, Commissioner Smith's sentiments, but my -- my particular hesitation will be closer to your comments, Madam Chair, especially with the State Highway 69, just the -- the conflict with the UDC, especially not having an ITD recommendation, it just puts me in a position where I think that, you know, it -- it would be best to have that ITD recommendation or that ITD report, you know, so that that's -- that's my thought at the moment. Lorcher: Okay. Thank you very much. 26 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 2,2026 Page 24 of 28 Perreault: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: So, when I look at this I see Linder and Chinden and Orchard Park similarities and I very clearly remember all of the applications related to that and one of the big conversations we had was, again, about pedestrian safety and mobility and there was a reassurance that that would be pedestrian safe and -- and that there would be, you know, an encouragement to walk between the library and -- and -- and Paramount and all those things and you never see anyone walking anywhere and that's because there is just so much movement with vehicles and like you -- and -- and like you said, Ethan, you can't get away from that. This is -- this is a vehicle friendly area, but I'm trying to imagine -- I'm -- I'm -- I am up in that Orchard Park area quite frequently and I'm trying to imagine there being a big park in front of that Winco there and that's, essentially, what this is going to look like, is that there is going to be a big park in the front of the Winco next to Chinden and it's -- and that's what that's going to look like and feel like and so I -- I -- I would love to have a beautiful commercial multi-family development in this corner. I am not against the idea as a whole. I think there is some really really good elements that were put in here. I think there is some very well thought out things here for sure. So, I -- I'm -- this is -- you know, this is turning over in my mind of like, you know, what -- how do we address this technicality with a Comprehensive Plan while still encouraging you all to -- to move forward on -- on something similar to this, because I think it's very much needed. I think you have excellent bones and I know it's very expensive and very difficult to do these redesigns. It's complicated, it's frustrating and I have a great appreciation for that. I also have concerns about the connectivity -- the pedestrian connectivity. You know, as a -- as a Commissioner and, then, Planning -- and -- and, then, City Council member and now Commissioner again, I have heard hundreds of applications and where developers say, well, okay, if we put a lot of multi-family in this area, then, clearly those folks are going to use the commercial services and clearly it's going to keep, you know, the -- the mobility within the development and we just haven't seen that honestly to be true in the City of Meridian. You know, I -- people are still getting in their cars and driving down the road on Ten Mile and the interstate to get something to eat and that kind of thing. So, I'm not -- this is not you. I hear this same -- and conceptually it would make sense, yes, okay, everybody would stay within their same community, but it's just, unfortunately, not really actually happening and so getting that transportation piece right is super important, because I -- I don't know that -- and it's not for effort of the developers that that will really contain all of that movement in the way that -- that, you know, there would be a hope that it would. And, then, no, that's not specific to you and that is not meant to, you know, comment on -- on a downside of your project. So, there is a lot of things like as I said. The two things I have concerns about as far as the concept goes is the plaza areas that are on the hard corner there. I don't think folks are going to use that as a plaza. It's going to be noisy, loud, traffic coming through. There is big huge trucks that fly by. I just don't think those are very well placed, if there is going to be dining facilities there and just general maybe like small events there. You know, wine parties or -- or whatnot, it -- I don't think that that's going to be a very comfortable space to be and so -- but aside F27] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 2,2026 Page 25 of 28 from that, you know, whether these are to be approached as two applications or not, I don't have a problem with them coming in as one application, but I also believe that our Comprehensive Plan is decided by our public and it's something that we take really really seriously to follow and I don't know what the -- I don't know, you know, the -- the pre-application meetings, I don't know why staff might have said that, you know, that -- in 2020 was when we were still going through the Comprehensive Plan change and I don't know if that has something to do. I don't know if that -- if that requirement of the two -- the two separate applications and development agreements I don't know if that was not required at that time in 2020, that would be something that I would imagine staff would have talked to you about. So, I -- I like a lot of things about this. I wish I could say yes. I want to vote, you know, that way this evening, but I just -- it's so important to me to uphold our Comprehensive Plan and I don't know whether a Comprehensive Plan -- I mean it's not a map amendment -- amendment change, because you are really not trying to change the use of the two areas, so -- yeah. That's my thoughts. Lorcher: Okay. Thank you. Stoll: I will try to be brief, because a lot of what I was going to say has been said already. I am sympathetic to the idea of having it considered as one application and I wish that was the case, but as has been pointed out the Comprehensive Plan was updated in between that meeting in 2020 to the present and Amity Road does cross the -- the application and really makes it two different parcels that we need to consider. But my overall preference is one application in general. I applaud you for looking at and exploring STARS. Certainly it's one of the key ways that we are going to be able to do improvements on our transportation system and this particular corridor and State Highway 69 is a corridor that needs to be improved. I just wish we had more of a response from ITD on what their position was regarding the STARS agreement and whether they concurred with the cost estimates that you are providing and whether they can go forward on that. Also as has been said, I would like to be more of a true mixed- use application to get my go ahead. With that I will stop. Lorcher: Okay. Thank you very much. Parsons: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Mr. Parsons. Parsons: Madam Chair, if I could just add some context to one development versus two developments. I -- I don't want that to get misrepresented on the record. Staff has always wanted the applicant to come in with one annexation request, because they do own both corners. What we -- what we didn't want us -- and -- and where some of the confusion lies is that when we started discussing this project with the applicant the mixed-use standards in the Comprehensive Plan were different. It didn't have that element that you couldn't cross an arterial roadway -- or you could do that at that time. So, of course, when we started off these meetings that makes a lot of sense, because it will be one development and they own all the property. Well, throughout that process it 28 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 2,2026 Page 26 of 28 -- it was an iterative process. We met with them multiple times, shared our feedback with them, and all -- all the time was we got closer and closer. We explained to them that we would be doing a Comprehensive Plan text amendment to change our mixed- use standards and if that goes into place before they submit, they are going to be held to those new standards and that's why we are here this evening saying it can be one application, we are just saying you can't sacrifice residential on the north side and get more -- more residential on the south side. That's what the Comprehensive Plan doesn't allow us to do currently. The other part is -- and I appreciate all the effort that the applicant's made in the open space. I -- I -- I do like a lot of the elements in this plan as well and I want to go on record as saying that, because we spent a lot of time with the applicant. But we can't also allow the applicant to double dip, to say I'm providing a quasi-public open space when their multi-family requires amenities and open space. So, we have to kind of differentiate those two things as well. While I appreciate that everyone can use that space, we still have to analyze the project and make sure that the multi-family development portion of the site has the required amount of open space and amenities as well. So, you can't say this is an amenity and open space for the multi-family development and, then, say, oh, yeah, this is also our quasi-public open space. It's -- that's -- that's what we can't -- we can't allow that to happen. We haven't done that historically. I think the one piece that was missed in tonight's public testimony and I just -- I want to commend the applicant, because he has done a pretty good job of -- of defending his project, but there is also properties to the west and even farther to the west waiting for sewer and this applicant -- although ITD hasn't given us any comments -- or -- on the access, they have allowed the applicant to go into their right of way, bring the sewer up, go through their site to the west and provide sewer for adjacent properties to tag -- to connect into that and allow them to develop as well. So, that's why the applicant is saying we have a good relationship. There is a church about a half mile down the road, Stonehill Church, waiting for sewer. They constantly come to the city and ask for how can we get utilities to develop our church. So, I don't want that to get missed -- missed either. You are right, there is some valid concerns with this project, but I don't want anyone to think that the applicant hasn't been trying to work and solve some of these issues. So, I just want to go on record and state that. So, thank you. Allen: Yeah. And, Madam Chair, if I may tag on to that just a little bit. This is one application and staffs in agreement with that. It could be also be one development agreement. Staff's also in agreement with that. But the differentiation there is the analysis of the northwest corner and the southwest corner separately for consistency with the mixed-use development guidelines. So, just wanted to clarify that. Also, as I remember the conversations initially back in 2020, we had told the applicant that we wanted to see the northwest corner come in if they were coming in with the southwest corner, because we didn't want to have leapfrog development so to speak. So, that's a little more background on that. I -- I do think it's a good commercial and -- and multi- family development. I did speak to the applicant about applying for a comp plan map amendment, if that's what they are truly wanting to do. It's just impossible for staff to support a project that's not consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan. So, that's F29] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 2,2026 Page 27 of 28 where staff sat tonight on that. So, I just wanted to add a little bit more information on that. Thank you. Lorcher: Okay. Thank you. And we also recognize that you have some geographic and topography issues, too, which is why you have some of the buildings placed the way you do. I think you said that that civic park in the middle towards the north had a big difference in elevation and so -- and, obviously, having the commercial surround the -- the two roads is going to be imperative for the success of this -- of this project, but it's just a little bit off balance. Commissioner Smith. Smith: Oh, if there is no other -- Lorcher: Any other comments? Smith: -- ready to make a motion. Lorcher: Go ahead. Smith: All right. Madam Chair, after considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File No. H-2025-0007 as presented in the staff report for the hearing April 2nd, 2026, for the following reasons: Inadequate integration between residential and non-residential uses. Lack of prioritization of pedestrian mobility within the project. And existing open space as proposed failing to serve residential and non-residential use users adequately under the Comprehensive Plan. Gelsomino: Seconded. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to deny Syringa Crossing Mixed-Use Development for annexation. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Lorcher: Thank you very much. So, I would take these comments to you with -- to City Council and maybe make some adjustments so that you can be able to advocate for your project. Thank you. Before we adjourn a couple of things. We are having a special meeting on May 28th. So, we will have back-to-back meetings towards the end of May, because our June 4th meeting will not happen due to I believe a Public Works event here on that day. So, please, put on your calendars May 28th. Also the City of Meridian is very graciously doing a voluntary appreciation luncheon on April 16th. Bill needs to know from everyone on this board on whether or not you can attend by April 9th. So, the Mayor's Office is asking for head counts. So, if you are able to attend or not attend, please, message Bill and let him know that if you would be in attendance or not. With that I will take one more motion. Stoll: Move to adjourn. F30] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 2,2026 Page 28 of 28 Smith: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved -- Gelsomino: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded twice to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:31 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS. ) APPROVED 4 116 26 MARIA LORCHER - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK F31 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Approve Minutes of the March 19, 2026 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting 3 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 19,2026 Page 17 of 17 Smith: After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File No. H-2026-0003 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 19th, with a modification to allow for Tier 1 drive-throughs. Gelsomino: Seconded. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to approve North Meridian Fields. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Lorcher: I will take one more motion. Smith: Madam Chair -- Stoll: Move to adjourn. Gelsomino: Seconded. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much, everyone. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:54 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS. ) APPROVED 4 2 26 MARIA LORCHER - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK F20 E K IDIAN:--- iuAn Planning and Zoning Presentations and outline Changes to Agenda: None Item #2: Syringa Crossing (H-2025-0007) Application(s):  Annexation & Zoning  Preliminary Plat  Conditional Use Permit Size of property, existing zoning, and location: The annexation portion of this site consists of approximately 62 acres of land including ROW to the Section line of adjacent roadways, zoned RUT & LO in Ada County, generally located at the NWC & SWC of S. Meridian Rd./SH-69 & W. Amity Rd. History: See History in staff report (Section III.A) Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Mixed Use – Community (MU-C) Summary of Request: The Applicant requests annexation of 62.43-acres of land with R-15 (9.76 acres), R-40 (18.01 acres), L-O (3.05 acres), C-N (2.07 acres) and C-C (29.54 acres) zoning districts. A conceptual development plan was submitted with the annexation application that depicts how the site is planned to develop. NWC: At the NWC of the annexation area, a multi-family development is proposed consisting of 101 apartment & townhome-style units at a gross density of 10 units per acre; 21K s.f. of office uses; a 65K s.f. grocery store with retail shops, restaurants and a bank. Public/quasi-public and plaza areas are also proposed in the commercial portion of the development. All commercial development is proposed to be a single story in height, while the residential is proposed to be a mix of 4-story apartments and 2- to 3-story townhome style units. A mix of at least (3) different land use types is proposed as desired; however, the proposed development is not functionally integrated in holistic design or integration of uses per the design policies in the Comp Plan (i.e. the uses function as individual components, not together, as desired) – because of this, ACHD is not accepting any trip capture for this development. . The proposed density conforms to that desired in the Plan. Community-serving facilities such as hospitals, clinics, churches, schools, civic buildings, or public safety facilities are not provided, which increases service and transportation network impacts. Supportive and proportional outdoor public and/or quasi-public spaces and places connected by pathways are proposed consisting of plazas, outdoor gathering areas and linear open space areas that appear to be approximately 5% of the development area as desired. SWC: At the SWC of the annexation area, 35K s.f. of commercial area is proposed, which is anticipated to include restaurants, retail shops, a coffee shop & gas station/convenience store. Across the street on the southern portion of the development, a 322-unit MFR development is proposed with a gross density of 18.23 units/acre. Commercial structures are anticipated to be a single-story in height; residential structures are anticipated to be 3 to 4-stories in height. The development proposed on the SWC is inconsistent with the policies in the Comp Plan for the following reasons:  The residential area is 72% of the site, which is 22% more the maximum allowed of 50% and 3.23 units/acre over the maximum density allowed of 15 units/acre.  Commensurate levels of employment and other non-residential elements supporting residents and reducing local vehicle trips are not provided due to the excess of residential area and density provided.  A mix of at least (3) different land use types are desired in mixed-use designated areas, only (2) are proposed.  Supportive and proportional outdoor public and/or quasi-public spaces and places such as parks, plazas, outdoor gathering areas, linear open space and schools, do not comprise a minimum of 5% of the development area as desired.  Community-serving facilities such as hospitals, clinics, churches, schools, civic buildings, or public safety facilities are not provided, which increases service and transportation network impacts. The Applicant has requested the overall project be considered for consistency with the Comp Plan, rather than (2) individual projects. The Comp Plan specifically states, “contiguous mixed use identified areas that are bisected by an arterial or highway are considered separate & independent areas for use & design integration and will be evaluated independently of each other. Some of the reasons for such include safety & efficiency of the transportation network (pedestrians & motorists alike). An overall pedestrian plan was submitted for the annexation area as shown that shows 10’ pedestrian walkways (blue), 5’-6’ wide sidewalks (lighter blue) and 8’ wide sidewalks (yellow) providing connectivity along streets, through parking areas, public/quasi-public, commercial and residential areas. Conceptual building elevations & perspectives were also submitted showing what future commercial retail buildings and plaza areas will look like as well as the residential buildings at the NWC of the annexation area. The primary transportation considerations for this development involve the timing and coordination of required off-site improvements, access management along Amity Rd & SH-69, and completion of internal street and pathway connections needed to support a functional mixed-use neighborhood pattern. The project would add measurable traffic to a network that already experiences operational strain during peak hours, underscoring the need to align development phasing with programmed intersection and signal improvements. Because of its proximity to two major transportation corridors, the design must emphasize efficient site access, safe circulation, and continuous pedestrian and bicycle connections consistent with the City’s adopted street and pathway standards. ACHD’s recommended conditions and findings addressing intersection mitigation, access spacing, and collector completion reflect these shared objectives and are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan & UDC standards for coordinated land use & transportation planning. A Preliminary Plat is proposed to subdivide the SWC of the annexation area but not the NWC. The plat consists of 8 building lots (6 commercial & 2 residential) on 24.46 acres of land in the proposed R-40 & C-C zoning districts. One (1) access drive is proposed via W. Amity Rd. and (1) is proposed via S. Meridian Rd./SH-69. A portion of a future collector street (Hermatite) via W. Amity Rd. is depicted along the southern portion of the west boundary of the site and stubs to the property to the south – the portion that connects to Amity Rd. is off-site on the adjacent property to the west and is not proposed to be constructed with this development. A waiver from Council is requested to UDC 11-3H-4B.2a, which prohibits new approaches directly accessing a state highway. Comments have not yet been received from ITD on whether they already have or will grant the access. A backage road generally paralleling Amity Rd. & Meridian/SH-69 is proposed for access to the properties fronting those roads in accord with the UDC. There is a 40’ wide gravity irrigation easement on the SWC in the commercial area as shown – trees & large shrubs are not allowed in the easement area. A CUP is also requested for a multi-family development on the SWC of the annexation area consisting of 322 apartment units on 16.35-acres of land in the R-40 zoning district at a gross density of 18.23 units/acre. Three (3) story garden-style & 4-story podium- style multi-family buildings are proposed with parking on the ground floor. Building materials consist of fiber cement siding variegated board & batten in a variety of colors & styles, stucco & brick. The final design, if approved, is required to comply with the design standards in the ASM. The collector street access (Hermatite) is needed for emergency access & should be extended from W. Amity Rd. to the site prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy within the MFR development. Based on 322 units, a minimum of 1.85 acres of outdoor common open space is required – a total of 3.14 acres is provided, exceeding the minimum standard by 1.29 acres. Proposed amenities consist of a clubhouse, swimming pool & spa; a community garden; shade structure; walking trails, children’s play structure & (4) sports courts. Additional amenities are recommended by Staff if approved. Written Testimony: No letters of public testimony have been received; a response to the staff report was received from the Applicant as well as a letter pertaining to application updates. Staff Recommendation: Staff is recommending denial of the proposed annexation request, and consequently the preliminary plat & CUP requests, based on the conceptual development plan not meeting the policies in the Comp Plan for Mixed Use & specifically the MU-C designation, as noted in the staff report. Possible Motions: Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number H-2025- 0007, as presented during the hearing on April 2, 2026, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H- 2025-0007, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 2, 2026, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2025-0007 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) h2 City Council Meeting, 2026 nd April 2 Zoning MapAerialFLUM CC-CN- E IDIAN*-- -)AHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing continued from March 19, 2026 for Syringa Crossing Mixed Use Development (H-2025-0007) by Hawkins Companies, generally located at the northwest and southwest corners of S. Meridian Rd./SH-69 and Amity Rd. A. Request:Annexation of 62.43 acres of land with R-15 (9.76 acres), R-40 (18.01 acres) C-N (2.07 acres), C-C(9.12 acres) and C-G (23.47 acres)zoning districts. B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 8 building lots on 24.46 acres of land in the proposed R-40 and C-C zoning districts. C. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a multi family development consisting of 322 residential apartment units on 16.35 acres of land in the R-40 zoning district. 21 00 1.4 ol Ul vi O*Q z OIQ M x Cr m r U\) CIq � 2 -1i C m c m *Q Q 0 (D Ln m Ln m m r+ m r+ rD CU =3 r+ ;x 0 0 0 (D 0 (D > (D 0 (D 3 aq COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT C` fE IDIAN -- DEPARTMENT REPORT A"o HEARING April 2,2026 legend DATE: Continued from: 1211812025, 215126& Project Location . 2119126 :. Area of Impact = City Limits@ Planning&Zoning Commission Analysis --- TO: FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner m 208-884-5533 - sallen@meridiancity.org APPLICANT: Hawkins Companies SUBJECT: H-2025-0007 Syringa Crossing Mixed-Use ; Development(aka Hawkins Syringa \ Crossing Subdivision)—AZ, CUP,PP LOCATION: Generally located at the northwest and southwest corners of S. Meridian Rd./SH-69 &W. Amity Rd., in the SE 1/4 of Section 25,T.3N.,R.1 W and the NE 1/4 of Section 36, T.3N.,R.1W. I. PROJECT OVERVIEW A. Summary The Applicant has submitted the following application requests: • Annexation of 62.43-acres of land with R-15 (9.76 acres),R-40(18.01 acres), L-O(TBD acres C-N(2.07 acres), and C-C(94-2 TBD acres), and r, '-'(23.47 ^^res' zoning districts; • Preliminary Plat consisting of 8 building lots on 24.46 acres of land in the proposed R-40 and C-C zoning districts for Hawkins Syringa Crossing Subdivision; and • Conditional Use Permit(CUP) for a multi-family development consisting of 322 residential apartment units on 16.35-acres of land in the R-40 zoning district. B. Issues/Waivers Issues: The proposed conceptual development plan and 6 G zoning is not consistent with the general mixed use and MU-C principles in the Comprehensive Plan for the following reasons: • The proposed development is not functionally integrated in holistic design and integration of uses per the design principles in the Plan(i.e. the uses function as individual components,not together, as desired). • The southwest corner(SWC) of the development is 72%residential with a gross density of 18.23 units per acre,which is 22%more residential than the maximum allowed of 50%and 3.23 units per acre over the maximum allowed density of 15 units per acre. Commensurate City of Meridian I Department Report 1. Project Overview ■ levels of employment and other non-residential elements supporting residents and reducing local vehicle trips are not provided due to the excess of residential area and density provided. doesn'tdesignated area for-the following reasons: e The C G dist+iet is not listed as a sample zoning distriet in the MU G designation as it's a Paor-e intense dist-Fiet typieally rvsef�ved for-the largest seale a-ad broadest fni*of retail, offiee, serviee, and light industfial uses in Commer-eial and Mixed Use Regional(Mu- R) designated areas. e The G G zoning distr-iet for-the planned offiee and eommer-eial areas transitio ' . - id uses between the proposed eommer-eial and multi ftani4y residential development on the noithern portion of the development area and fi+ttife residential uses to the west. e The C G zoning district allows a variety of more intense non offlee uses,which may not be appropriate adjaeeat to residential uses and eould limit the mix of uses i • A mix of three (3)different land use types(i.e. commercial, office,residential, civic and industrial)are required to be provided in each development area. The neft -west eome� r-esidefttial),whieh if developed, opts the -e f 1m,1 use types u,,we ,o, Staff is eeneemed if other-non offiee eew.-Aer-eiai uses develop in the G G distr-iet,the mix of uses will be-ade"ate.The SWC of the development only includes a mix of two(2)different land use types (residential and commercial). • Community-serving facilities such as hospitals, clinics, churches, schools, civic buildings, or public safety facilities are not provided in either development,which increases service and transportation network impacts. • Supportive and proportional outdoor public and/or quasi-public spaces and places such as parks,plazas, outdoor gathering areas, linear open space and schools, do not comprise a minimum of 5%of the development area on the SWC. These areas are not located in spaces between residential and non-residential uses to provide integration and transition between uses in either development area. • The updated conceptual engineering plans for sewer and water service for the proposed development, submitted on Febfu 17t1i,have not yet been reviewed by the Public Works Dept. as of the date of transmittal of this report;therefore,it's unknown if this development can be serviced as proposed. Waivers: 1) The UDC 11-4-3-27C.8 states common open space areas in multi-family developments 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 on the berm or barrier to allow for pedestrian access. The Applicant requests approval through the CUP for common open space areas in the multi-family development to be located adjacent to a collector street buffer without a berm or barrier separating it from the street. The reason for such is an enhanced interaction is desired between the street and 10' multi-use pathway along the collector street with a narrower street section and wider pathway adjacent to common areas. 2) The UDC(11-314 4B.2a)prohibits new approaches directly accessing a state highway. City Council may consider and approve a modification to the standard upon specific recommendation of the Idaho Transportation Dept. or if strict adherence is not feasible, as determined by City Council. The Applicant is requesting Council approval of the proposed access; a recommendation has not yet been received from ITD on the access. City of Meridian I Department Report 1. Project Overview ■ C. Recommendation Staff: Denial Commission: Pending D. Decision Council: Pending II. COMMUNITY METRICS Table 1: Land Use Description Details Map Ref. Existing Land Use(s) Northwest corner(NWC): Single-family residential, - vacant/undeveloped agricultural land. (There is an existing multi-tenant building with a church and office space and a transfer station for Northwest Pipeline Corp. along Meridian Rd.,which will remain and are included in the annexation but not the development area.) Southwest corner(SWC): Wholesale nursery(Victory Greens) Proposed Land Use(s) NWC: Commercial(grocery store,retail shops,restaurants and a bank,some with drive-throughs),office(i.e.medical office,gym,daycare,personal service,professional service),and multi-family residential(townhome-style& apartments). SWC: Commercial(restaurants,retail shops,drive-through establishments,fuel sales facility/convenience store)and multi-family residential. Existing Zoning RUT&LO in Ada County _ JL VII.A.2 Proposed Zoning R-15 (9.76 acres),R-40(18.01 acres),L-O(TBD acres),C- N(2.07 acres),C-C(9-42 TBD acres),aaa r r(23.47 Future Land Use Designation Mixed Use—Community(MU-C) VII.A.3 Table 2: Process Facts Description Details Preapplication Meeting date 1/21/2025 Neighborhood Meeting 1/21/2025 Table 3: Community Metrics Agency/Element Description/Issue Reference Ada County Highway IV.J District • Comments Yes—The proposed development requires revisions to meet ACHD - Received policies. • Commission No - Action Required • Access Access is proposed via S.Meridian Rd./SH-69,W.Amity Rd.,W.Lyra - St., S. Solaris Ave.and S.Hermatite Ave.as shown on the concept plan and preliminary plat. • Traffic Level of Meets ACHD's LOS planning thresholds Service(LOS) • TIS Required? Yes,mitigation is reuqired ITD Comments ITD is reviewing the TIS and working on a staff report. Received City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics ■ Meridian Public Distance to Mainline: See Public Works site specific conditions;Impacts IV.B Works Wastewater or Concerns: See Public Works site specific conditions Meridian Public Distance to Mainline: available at site;Impacts or Concerns:none IV.B Works Water School District(s) (Enter school district providing service) IV.I • Capacity of See Community Development School Impact Data III.I Schools Enrollment Capacity • Number of Mary McPherson Elementary School 526 550* Program Capacity - Victory Middle School 1094 1000 Students Meridian High School 1739 2075 Enrolled • Estimated#of This development could have 67 school aged children students See City/Agency Comments and Conditions Section for all department/agency comments received. Figure 1: One-Mile Radius Existing Condition Metrics Reference Parcel:SM5449650 date Retrieved:2026 f 2 113 Parcel Count Parcel Acreage Infill Indicator: L535 869 Surrounding Area 41 % cmy ® City Limits 1,11c} Not City Household Change Household&Population Grovuth Households 132020 Population Change: 37.6°l0 Population ■Growth (Household and Population Change since 2410 Decennial) 5,000 10,000 15,000 Use Types Residential Addresses All Addresses ■ Single-family % 0% 6 is ® Multi-family is ® Commercial Preliminary Plats (last 5-years) Conditional Use Permit (last 5-years) Proposed Proposed Pending Pending Approved PR Approved i I I I � I I I I 0 1000000 2000d0U 30OD0DO 4000000 0 201) 400 to ■ Single-family ® Multi-family, i City of Meridian Department Report II. Community Metrics ■ 2.00 1,500 Single-family N Residential 1.50 � 1,000 Parcel Diversity w 1.00 ip.27 13ParcelCount i 0.50 500 a 0 Average Acres 0.00 0 0 R-2 R-4 R-15 Average Single-family Density by Zoning Average 15.00 DensityResidential Net a 10.00 10.35 590 3.75 5.85 5.41 9-o0a.aa Dwelling Units i Acre R-2 R-4 R,g R-15 Notes: See VIII.Additional Notes&Details for Staff Report Maps,Tables,and Charts. Figure 2:ACHD Summary Metrics ACHD Planned Improvements 1. Capital Improvements Plan (CIP} Firm Year Plan (FYP): Amity Road Is scheduled in the FYP as the Amily Corridor A project to be widened to 5-1anes from SH-69 (Meridian Read) to Locust Grove Road with a construction year yet to be determined. * Victory Road is scheduled in the FYP as the Victory Corridor project to be widened 10 erthee 3-lanes or 5-lanes from SH-69(Meridian Road)to Locust Grove road with a construction year yet to be determined- . The intersection of Amity load and Margaret Avenue is scheduled in the FYP as part of the Amity Carridcr A project to be improved with a pedestrian crossing with a construction year yet to be determined- . The intersection of Amity Road and Locust Grove Road is scheduled in the FYP to he reconstructed as a rnulli-lane roundabout with 1-lane on the north leg, 1-lane on the south.2- lanes east, and 2-lanes on the west leg with a construction year yet to be determined, * Victory Road is listed in the CIP to he widened to 3•lanes from Linder Road to Meridian Road between 2031 and 2035. ■ Lake Hazel Road is listed in the CLP to be widened to 3-lanes from Linder Road to SH-69 (Meridian Road)between 2036 and 2040. * Linder Road is I isted in the CIP to be widened to 3-lanes from Lake Hazel Road to Amity Road between 2036 and 2040. Linder Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to 34alnes from Amity Road to Victory Road bel"en 2036 and 2040. * The intersection of Amity Road and 811-1-65(Meridian Road)is listed in the CIP to be widened to 6-lanes on the north leg, 6-lanes on the south, 7-lanes east, and Nanes on the west ley, and re-signalized between 2031 and 2035. ■ The intersection of Amity Road and Linder Road Is Bled in the CIP to be reconstructed as a single lane roundabout 4-lanes on the north leg, 4-lanes on the south. 2-lanes east. and 2- lane5 on the west leg between 2036 and 2040. * The intersection of Lake Hazel Road and SH•69 (Meridian Road) is listed in the CIP to be widened to 64anes on dsa north leg, 6-lanes on the south, 7-lanes east, and 7-lanes on the west leg, and re-signalized between 2036 and 2040. Note:Notice the timing of the above-noted planned improvements. City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics ■ Northwest Parcel: Level of Service Planning Thresholds 1_ Condition of Area Roadways Trarfir.Count is based on Vehicle5 per hour(VPHI Roadway rrantage Functional PM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Classification Traffic Count Level of SINICa ***SH-69(Wrldlan 1,219-feat Principal Arterial 1,561 NIA Road 'Am ly Road 1,169-feet Minor Arterial 347 Better than"E' —Lyra Slreei 450-fast Collector NJA NSA *Acceptable level of service for a two-lane minor arterial is"E"(675 VPH), �•Acceptable level of service for a two-Iano collector ig-D-(42:5 VPH), *"ACHO does not set level of service thresholds for State Highways_ 2. Average Daily Traffic Count(VDT) A mage daffy lyaffro counts are based-on ACHO s most carrenl tmffm oot;rtts. The averacje daily traffic Mount for SH-69(Meridian Road)south of Victory Road was 33.SM on October 71,2D21. The average daily traffic count for Amity Road between Linder Road and SH-69 (MendLen Road)was 7.602 belween October W"and Novernber 2114,2024. + There are no currerrt traffic counts available for Lyra Street, Southwest Parcel: Level of Service Planning Thresholds 1. Condition of Area Roadways Traffic Count is based on Vehicles per hour(VPH) Roadway Frontage Functional PM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Classification Traffic Count Level of Service ** SH-$9Weridian goad 1,263-feet Principal Arterial 1,798 NIA Amity Road 829-feet Minor Arterial 347 Better than"E" Acceptable level of service for a two-lane minor arterial is "E"(575 VPH). "ACH❑ does not set level of service thresholds for State Highways- 2. Average Daily Traffic Count (VDT) Average daily traffic counts are based on ACHD's most current traffic counts. • The average daily traffic count for SH-691Meridian Road south of Amity Road was 39,548 on October Ss", 2024. • The average daily traffic count for Amity Road between tinder Road and SH-69lMeridian Road was 7,602 between October 161h and November 21", 2024. Notes: See VIII.B 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) Table 4: Proiect Overview Description Details History CPA-08-004/AZ-08-005/VAR-08-008-Meridian&Amity [an amendment to the FLUM was approved from Medium Density Residential (MDR)to Mixed Use—Regional(MU-R);Annexation with R-15,L-O,C- C and C-G zoning approved pending DA;variance for(3)accesses via Meridian/SH-69—withdrawn];MDA-11-010(2-year time extension to sign DA-approved);VAR-12-001 [(3)accesses via Meridian/SH-69— approved]Because the DA was never signed, the property wasn't annexed. Phasing Plan 1 phase of development is proposed for the preliminary plat at the SWC. Residential Units NWC: 101 multi-family units(mix of apartments and townhome-style)- conceptual SWC: 322 multi-family apartment units Open Space SWC multi-family development: 1.85-acres required/3.14-acres proposed Amenities SWC multi-family development:tot lot,swimming pool&spa,(2)dog parks,(3)pickleball courts,half basketball court,basketball court,(2) community gardens,and a shade structure Physical Features NWC:Carlson Lateral runs along west boundary of site;the Williams Northwest gas pipeline bisects the site. There is approximately a 10'grade difference on the site, sloping down from Amity Rd.to the north. SWC:The Carlson Lateral bisects the site in two(2)different locations. There is approximately a 25'grade difference on the site,sloping up from the northeast corner of the site to the center and sloping back down again to the south(see topography on Sheet PP2.0 of the plat). Acreage The annexation area is 62.43 acres,the preliminary plat area is 24.46 acres and the CUP area is 16.35 acres. Lots SWC: 8 building lots(6 commercial&2 residential)/0 common lots NWC:NA(plat is not proposed) Density NWC: 9.57 units/acre(gross)—Net density has not been provided SWC: 18.23 units/acre(gross)—Net density has not been provided A. History In 2010,the property at the NWC of Meridian/Amity received approval of an amendment to the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) in the Comprehensive Plan from Medium Density Residential (MDR)to Mixed Use—Regional(MU-R) and annexation with R-15,L-O, C-C and C-G zoning districts, contingent upon approval of a Development Agreement(DA)within 12 months. A concurrent application for a variance for three(3) access points via S. Meridian Rd./SH-69 was submitted but later withdrawn due to ITD's denial of the access. In 2011, a modification to the DA was approved,which allowed an additional two(2)years for the developer to sign the DA. In 2012, a variance was again submitted for the three(3)access points via S.Meridian Rd./SH-69,which was approved based on ITD's approval of the access due to policy changes. The DA was not signed within the required timeframe and the annexation approval expired. An amendment to the FLUM designation from MU-R to Mixed Use— Community(MU-C)was later approved with the Comprehensive Plan update in 2019. In 2021,the property owner of Parcel#R4622730010,Jessica Condominiums,Inc., entered into a Consent to Annexation agreement with the City,recorded as Inst. #2021-112368,and an Agreement for Provision of Water Service Outside Meridian City Limits,recorded as Inst.#2021- 112398. The Consent to Annexation agreement states the owner consents to annexation when such units are eligible for annexation and execution of such agreement is a condition of City's City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ commitment to provide water service to the property. The property is currently provided with City sewer and water service. B. General Overview Proposed development application summary: The Applicant proposes to annex a total of 62.43-acres of land located on the NWC and SWC of S. Meridian Rd./SH-69 and W. Amity Rd. with R-15 (9.76 acres),R-40(18.01 acres),L-O (TBD acres C-N(2.07 acres-out-parcel with church/office uses), and C-C(9-42 TBD acres), nd G (23.47 aer-es)zoning districts. At the request of Staff so as not to create County enclaves with the proposed annexation,the Applicant included the 1.59-acre property owned by Jessica Condominiums Inc. (Parcel#R4622730010), developed with a multi-tenant building with a church and office space; the 0.07-acre property owned by Intermountain Gas Co. (Parcel #S 1225449220)with utility infrastructure; and the 0.29-acre property owned by Northwest Pipeline Corp. (Parcel#S 1225449910)with a transfer station. A conceptual development plan is proposed for the overall annexation area, included below in Section V.E., showing how the property is anticipated to develop with 423 multi-family dwelling units consisting of 4-story podium apartments with parking on the ground floor, 3-story garden- style walk-up apartments and 3-story townhome-style units; 146,840+/- square feet(s.f.)of commercial space and 20,800+/-s.f. of office space. The property at the SWC is proposed to annex and develop at this time(i.e.Phase 1)with a preliminary plat and conditional use permit for a multi-family development. The NWC is only proposed to be annexed at this time(i.e. Phase 2)with a conceptual development plan. Both portions are eligible for annexation separately as each are contiguous to City annexed land. Phase 1 is proposed to consist of approximately 35,000 s.f. of commercial area anticipated to include restaurants,retail shops, a coffee shop and a gas station/convenience store in the C-C zoning district; and a 322-unit multi-family residential development in the R-40 zoning district. Commercial structures are anticipated to be a single-story in height;residential structures are anticipated to be 3 to 4-stories in height. Phase 2 consists of 30.6 acres of land proposed to develop with a 65,000+/- s.f. grocery store with retail shops,restaurants and a bank and 21,000+/- s.f. of office uses that could include medical office, a gym, a daycare,personal care services or professional services in the C—G L-O zoning district; all structures are anticipated to be a single-story in height. A 101-unit multi-family residential development is proposed consisting of a mix of 4-story apartments and 2 to 3-story townhome-style units in the R-15 zoning district. A Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use Permit(CUP)are proposed for the SWC of the annexation area. The plat consists of 8 building lots(6 commercial&2 residential)on 24.46 acres of land in the proposed R-40 and C-C zoning districts and is proposed to develop in one(1) final plat phase. The CUP is for a multi-family residential development consisting of 322 apartment units on 16.35-acres of land in the R-40 zoning district,located on the southern portion of the SWC property.A mix of 1, 2 and 3-bedroom units are proposed for a variety of living situations. The Applicant requests the following be included in the development agreement to provide for flexibility to develop the commercial and residential areas in accordance with changing community preferences and values.All changes would remain in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan: (Staff's comments in italics) o Allowance for up to 15 dwelling units per acre across the residential area of the overall site for a total of 423 residential units.Because an arterial street bisects the project, the density is calculated on each of the mixed-use development areas and not the overall property; City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ therefore, Staff is not supportive of this request. As proposed, the density of 18.23 units/acre on the SWC exceeds the maximum allowed of 15 units per acre by 3.23 units/acre; and the residential area (72%) exceeds the maximum allowed(50%) by 22%. o Allowance for a deviation of up to 15%(higher or lower)of total gross floor area within each use type and Phase(Office,Commercial,Residential). The general layout of the site will be consistent with the submitted concept plan. The MU-C designation only includes a minimum and maximum percentage of residential uses—there is no such requirement for office and commercial uses. To achieve the mix of uses desired to support residential uses by providing employment opportunities, neighborhood services and other non-residential supporting services within the development, which reduces vehicle trips, residential uses should not exceed the established 50%maximum. Staff is not supportive of any deviations to the provisions in the Comprehensive Plan that would increase the allowed residential area or density. o Cross-access to the existing church/office parcel shall be granted at such time when development plans are submitted for the northwest corner of the site. The reason is because the exact location for cross-access will be determined by the final configuration of the proposed development and the future use of the office and church space at the time when cross-access is provided. Staff is amenable to this request as access is currently provided via S. Meridian Rd./SH--69. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: This property is designated Mixed Use—Community(MU-C) on the FLUM contained in the Comprehensive Plan and is part of a larger enclave area surrounded by City annexed land. The purpose of the mixed-use land use designations is to provide for a combination of compatible land uses within a close geographic area that allows for easily accessible and convenient services for residents,workers,and visitors. The purpose of the MU-C designation is to allocate areas where community-serving uses and dwellings are seamlessly integrated into the urban fabric. The intent is to integrate a variety of uses, including residential,and to avoid mainly single-use and strip commercial type buildings. Non-residential buildings in these areas tend to be larger than in Mixed Use Neighborhood(MU- N) areas,but not as large as in Mixed Use Regional(MU-R)areas. Goods and services in these areas tend to be of the variety that people will mainly travel by car to but also walk or bike to(up to three or four miles). Employment opportunities for those living in and around the neighborhood are encouraged. Developments are encouraged to be designed according to the conceptual MU-C plan depicted in Figure 3E. Functional Integration Development review for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan will consider the integration of use and holistic design sub-sections(below)in all mixed-use areas unless otherwise noted. To be successful,the principles outlined must be considered as interrelated features serving the basis of plan design. Contiguous Mixed Use identified areas that are bisected by an arterial or highway are considered separate and independent areas for use and design integration and will be evaluated independently of each other per the Plan(pp.3-14&3-16). City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ FA3. Mixed Use Community Concept Color Diagram with Markup Preference for i Retail.t5ffic�or fronting units with ti ! I Service Uses on-street parking for + i - Relail AnEhar new developments M � Multi-family 5mge•#ansEly it t Neighborhood Residential Connectivity d Neighborhood uses and integrated open space that _ "hold the corners"with LEGEND inward facing focus. Points of Interest Support for a variety of Primary Loral Corridor tom? l Community uses clustered (Visual and Physical) ;�' around shared urban amenities Secondary local Corridar ~ (`risua!and Physiral) i Figure 3E: Mixed Use Community Concept Diagram Single family I I { i , Residential Apartments, four plexes L or Duplexes Office, Local or Collector Road Day-care or Service Use a Integrated Plaza Area Do � ago Office or 0 Service Use _� 4 Retail the JL(Q:T Arterial Road City of Meridian Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ Integration of Uses—Review Successful projects reduce vehicle trips for nearby residents and/or visitors by having frequent, accessible and safe pedestrian connections. Residential and non-residential areas feel cohesive, as one neighborhood, even when developed across multiple properties over multiple years or by different developers. Consistent with the Plan Review Yes No N/A Design Principle& Review Design Principle: 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 Q ❑ ❑ use designation. Review:A conceptual development plan was submitted for the overall annexation area. If the property is annexed, a development agreement (DA)will be required as a provision of annexation. Design Principle: 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 designation area may not warrant a mix of uses, provided compliance with a larger vision and integration of uses. Note:For the purposes of the Mixed- Use section, the City identifies five(5)different generalized land use types:commercial(includes retail, restaurants, daycares, etc.); Q Q ❑ office;residential;civic(includes both public and quasi-public open space for leisure, active play, or enhanced natural spaces);and industrial. Review:The NWC includes a mix of three (3) different land use types consisting of multi-family residential (apartment and townhome style units), office and commercial,which complies with this design principle.The SWC only includes two(2)different land use types consisting of multi-family residential (apartments) and commercial,which does not comply with this design principle.See the conceptual development plan below in Section V.E. Design Principle: 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 Q Q ❑ sub-category). The specific allowance of residential is 20-50%of the development area with gross densities ranging from 6 to 15 units per acre;if transit is available, an additional 15%is allowed. Review: In the NWC, 34%of the 30.66-acre site is residential at a gross density of 9.57 units per acre based on 101 units on 10.55 acres of land,which complies with this design principle. In the SWC, City of Meridian Department Report 111. Staff Analysis 32 72%of the 24.45-acre development area is residential at a gross density of 18.23 units per acre based on 322 units on 17.66 acres of land,which is not consistent with this principle.The excess residential area and density limits commensurate levels of employment or other non-residential supporting elements that reduce local vehicle trips. Design Principle: 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. Q ❑ ❑ Review: Office pads are proposed on the NWC as a transition between the grocery store and multi-family residential area that could house such neighborhood and community services in accord with this design principle; h^wever, there ; RG gUaFaRtee these afl �the .1-pirgest scale a""irauhrr^vcadest mix of retail, office, ` rvrry"cc and light industrial uses, pless r.,r+riete J f.,r eh through the hn No such uses are proposed on the SW portion of the development,which is not consistent with this design principle. Design Principle: 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. ❑ Q ❑ Review: No such facilities are included in the proposed development,which does not comply with this design principle and will have a negative impact on the service and transportation network.There is an existing church on the periphery of the NW portion of the site in the multi-tenant building oriented toward Meridian Rd./SH-69 that is not part of the proposed development. Design Principle: 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 Q Q ❑ 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. Review: On the NWC, a plaza area is proposed at the southeast corner between Pads A& B with a pathway connecting to a linear City of Meridian Department Report Ill. Staff Analysis 33 open space area adjoining Pads D & E; and another plaza area is proposed between the office buildings on Pads J & K,which complies with this design principle. On the SWC, a plaza area is proposed at the northeast corner of the development area but no other significant quasi-public areas are provided,which does not comply with this design principle. No schools are proposed. Neither of the quasi-public areas are located between the multi- family and non-residential uses for integration and transition of uses. Holistic Design—Review The uses and site elements of a proposed mixed-use project will be designed foremost around the idea of visible, attractive, and accessible destinations. The designer(s) must purposefully layout features to create focal elements that are visibly and physically linked within a development, to ensure that residents and employees have prioritized access to the places and services of most interest. Consistency with the Plan Review Yes No N/A Design Principle& Review Design Principle: 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. Review: On the NWC, commercial building pads are arranged ❑ Q ❑ around a linear quasi-public space with pedestrian pathways and green space that connects to the plaza area at the southeast corner of the site that is highly visible. Only the commercial area is situated around the area,which doesn't meet this design principle as the larger mixed-use area is not centered around it and therefore doesn't provide an integration and transition of uses as desired. On the SWC,the plaza at the northeast corner of the site is the only significant quasi-public area and uses aren't centered around it, it's on the periphery of the development. Other common open space areas are part of the multi-family development,are private in nature and situated internal to the multi-family development,which does not comply with this City of Meridian Department Report III. Staff Analysis 34 design principle. Permanent design elements to promote frequent use and amenities that foster a wide range of interests are not identified other than pedestrian pathways and hardscape areas with planters. Design Principle: 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. Review: On the NWC, commercial Pads D & E on the eastern portion of development are arranged to create a common, Q ❑ ❑ usable green space area; commercial Pads A& B are arranged to create a plaza area; and office Pads J & K are arranged to create a small green space area between the buildings, which complies with the design principle. On the SWC, commercial Pads C& D at the northeast corner of the site are arranged to create a plaza area, which complies with the design principle. Design Principle: Open space should be purposeful in supporting a visible community and utilized to enhance synergies between residential and non-residential uses. Review: Open space in the proposed development is not ❑ Q ❑ situated to enhance synergies between residential and non- residential uses—open space is provided separately in the residential and commercial portions of the development, which does not provide interaction between uses and does not comply with this design principle. Design Principle: 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. Review:There are no natural amenities on this site—existing Q ❑ ❑ laterals are proposed to be piped. On the NWC,the commercial open space area is integrated with pathways, is highly visible and located away from site features that may obscure visibility, which complies with this design principle. On the SWC,the open space areas in the multi-family development are integrated with pathways and are highly visible from within the development and from the collector street, which complies with this design principle. Design Principle: Commercial drive aisles must contemplate a Q ❑ ❑ pedestrian friendly built environment with a minimal number of conflict points, and oriented so that aisle ingress and egress is City of Meridian Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ generally parallel to multiuse pathways, sidewalks, and linear open space. Drive aisles supporting primary pedestrian connectivity for a site must feel safe and should include planted and/or hardscaped parkway treatment, or other enhanced separation with both aesthetic and safety benefits. Review:The proposed drive aisles contemplate a pedestrian friendly environment with landscaped parkways providing separation between adjacent drive aisles,with aisles generally parallel to pedestrian walkways, which complies with this design principle. Design Principle: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. Q ❑ ❑ Vehicle connectivity must not rely on arterial streets for neighborhood access. Review:The proposed projects are accessible to adjacent existing and future neighborhoods by streets, sidewalks and multi-use pathways, which complies with this design principle. Design Principle: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 ❑ ❑ Q be integrated as functional, convenient, and comfortable spaces. Electric charging stations for a variety of transportation modes is encouraged. Review: No public transit routes exist or are planned in this area, nor are ride share lots or other such services. Electric charging stations are encouraged. Design Principle: Non-residential buildings should transition to and complement adjacent residential buildings in mass and form, and include safe and meaningful mitigation for operational impacts such as loading docks, storage, and outdoor equipment. Review: On the NWC, single-story office buildings are planned Q ❑ ❑ adjacent to 2 and 3-story multi-family structures, which shouldn't have negative operational impacts and complies with this design principle. On the SWC, single-story commercial buildings are separated from 3 and 4-story multi-family residential buildings by a local street with landscape buffers on each side, which complies with this design principle.There shouldn't be any negative City of Meridian Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ operational impacts from commercial uses on the adjacent residential development. Design Principle: 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 Q ❑ ❑ sensitive neighborhood preservation design features should be considered with transitions. Review:There are no existing single-family neighborhoods adjacent to proposed pad sites. Proposed pad sites are anticipated to have single-story buildings. Design Principle: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. Q Q ❑ Review: On the NWC, there is no such transition between the residential and non-residential portion of the development, which doesn't comply with this design principle. On the SWC,the proposed multi-family buildings are separated from commercial uses by a local street and landscaped parkways, which complies with this design principle. City of Meridian Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ Mixed-Use Community(MU-C)—Review The purpose of this designation is to allocate areas where community-serving uses and dwellings are seamlessly integrated into the urban fabric. The intent is to integrate a variety of uses, including residential, and to avoid mainly single-use and strip commercial type buildings. Non- residential buildings in these areas tend to be larger than in Mixed Use Neighborhood (MU-N) areas, but not as large as in Mixed Use Regional(MU-R)areas. Goods and services in these areas tend to be of the variety that people will mainly travel by car to, but also walk or bike to (up to three or four miles). Employment opportunities for those living in and around the neighborhood are encouraged. Consistency with the Plan Yes No N/A Design Principle& Review Design Principle: Development must comply with the Functional Integration Q Q ❑ principles for development in all Mixed-Use areas. Review: See above analysis. Design Principle: 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). Review: On the NWC, 34%of the 30.66-acre site is conceptually residential at a gross density of 9.57 units per acre based on 101 units on 10.55 acres of Q Q ❑ land, which complies with the design principle. On the SWC, 72%of the 24.45-acre site is residential at a gross density of 18.23 units per acre based on 322 units on 17.66 acres of land,which exceeds the maximum allowed and does not comply with the design principle. Note: The density is not calculated cumulatively between the NWC& the SWC because the development is bisected by an arterial street. Design Principle: Supportive and proportional public and/or quasi-public spaces and places should comprise a minimum of 5%of the development area are required. Review: On the NWC, quasi-public spaces and places appear to comply with the minimum percentage of the development area required in accord with Q Q ❑ this design principle. On the SWC, quasi-public spaces and places do not meet the minimum percentage required in the commercial area and the open space areas in the multi-family development don't qualify toward this requirement since they're private in nature and meant for residents of the multi-family development, which does not comply with this design guideline. Design Principle: Where the development site has transit available or stops are planned, an additional 15% of the 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 ❑ Q ❑ 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. Review: Public transit is not available in this area, no routes or stops are planned and no ride-share-parking exists or is planned in this area, thus making more neighborhood-serving uses essential in this area to capture local trips. Q ❑ ❑ Design Principle:Sample uses appropriate in MU-C areas include: All MU-N categories, community scale grocers, clothing stores, garden centers, City of Meridian Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ 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. Review:A 65,000 s.f. grocery store, restaurants, coffee shop, a bank, drive- through facilities, fuel sales facility/convenience store, retail shops, office type uses (i.e. professional/personal services, medical office, gym, daycare, etc.) and multi-family residential uses are proposed,which is generally consistent with the MU-C designation.Staff recommends the grocery store not exceed 65,000 s.f. to ensure a traditional community scale grocer. Based on the above-noted general mixed-use and MU-C design principles and analysis, Staff does not find the proposed development plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and therefore, cannot provide a recommendation of approval on the annexation request and consequently the preliminary plat and conditional use permit requests.Additionally,the plans for extension of sewer and water service for this development area do not meet City standards as submitted and are not approved. If City Council determines the proposed annexation is in the best interest of the City at this time, Staff recommends the following modifications to the Applicant's request: • Removal of the NWC development from the annexation area until such time as development is proposed to ensure zoning isn't granted without a more firm plan in place for development that complies with the Comprehensive Plan. • The zoning of the office uses on the NWC of the development • Pads 1,j, L 0 instead of C G for-the following reasons: • The L 0 distfiet is less intense and pr-ovides a befter-tFansition in zoning and uses between the groeef�, stofe to the soi4h and the multi family f:esideiitial deNelopment to the north and futufe residential to the west. distAet afe limited from 6:00 am to 11:00 pm when the propei:ty abt4s a residential use of dktpiet. The Applicant is now requesting L-O zoning, • The zoning of the eommer-eial uses on the NIAIC of the development is C C instead r for-the following reasonsi City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ z9in#e ig",in height. e it provides a better-tfansition to ft4afe meditim deasity Fesidei#ial uses to the west a-ad operation within either distriet are limitedfront 6.--00 a.ni. �e I 1.,00 P.m. when Me 19roperty, abuts a residential use or distriet-,- a CUP may,be requestedfer extended hours in eithe The Applicant is now requesting C-C zoning. • The conceptual development plan for the SWC of the development should be revised to reflect residential uses comprising between 20% and 50% of the development area with gross densities ranging from 6 to 15 units/acre(of the residential area). Currently, 72%of the 24.45-acre site is residential at a gross density of 18.23 units per acre. • If the NWC property is annexed,the conceptual development plan for that development should be revised to include driveway(s) accesses to the out-parcels(#R4622730010, #51225449220&#51225449910) along S.Meridian Rd./SH-69 that currently take access via S.Meridian Rd./SH-69 for internal access from within the site. C. Site Development and Use Analysis 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): NWC: There is an existing multi-tenant building with a church and office space and an existing utility infrastructure for Intermountain Gas Co. and transfer station for Northwest Pipeline Corp. with associated improvements on three(3) out-parcels along S. Meridian Rd./SH-69 included in the annexation area. There is also an existing home and accessory structures on the west parcel that will be removed with redevelopment of the site. The remainder of the site is vacant/undeveloped agricultural land. SWC: There is an existing structure and accessory structures on the property that will be removed with redevelopment of the site. 2. Proposed Use Analysis (UDC 11-2): The proposed uses as shown on the proposed conceptual development plan and described in the application narrative are all desired uses in the MU-C designation, although the percentage and density of residential uses on the SWC of the project exceeds the maximum allowed. The proposed uses are all principally permitted in the proposed zoning districts except for multi-family residential,which requires conditional use approval, and drive-through establishments,which also require conditional use approval if they're within 300' of an existing residence or residential district. 3. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): See UDC Tables 11-2A-7 and 11-2A-8 for dimensional standards of the R-15 and R-40 zoning districts,respectively;UDC 11-4-3-27B.1 for multi-family residential; and UDC Table 11-213-3 for dimensional standards of the L-O, C-N, and C-C zoning districts. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ 4. Specific Use Standards (UDC 11-4-3): Staff has included links to the specific use standards below applicable to the identified uses for information purposes only. Staff is only including analysis on consistency with these standards for the multi-family residential proposed on the southwest portion of the SWC development with the CUP application. Analysis of the other use's consistency with these standards will take place with future Certificate of Zoning Compliance(CZC) and/or CUP application(s), as applicable. Restaurant—UDC 11-4-3-49 Financial institution—UDC 11-4-3-17 Fuel Sales Facility—UDC 11-4-3-20 Daycare Facility—UDC 11-4-3-9 Arts,entertainment or recreation facility,indoors and outdoors (i.e.gym) —UDC 114- 3-2 Drive-through Establishment—UDC 11-4-3-11 Multi-family Development—UDC 11-4-3-27 A CUP is only requested for the multi-family residential development on the SWC of the development;therefore,the following analysis only applies to that multi-family development and not the one proposed on the NWC of the development. 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.Note:Although two (2) lots are proposed for flexibility of ownership and financing/refinancing opportunities for the multi family development, the development will share all common areas, open space, amenities, and maintenance responsibilities and operate as a single development. A. Purpose 1. To implement the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan: a. Plan for safe, attractive, and well-maintained neighborhoods that have ample open space, and generous amenities that provide varied lifestyle choices. b. Require the design and construction of pathways connections, easy pedestrian and bicycle access to parks, safe routes to schools,and the incorporation of usable open space with quality amenities as part of new multi-family residential and mixed-use developments. 2. To create multi-family housing that is safe and convenient and that enhances the quality of life of its residents. a. To create quality buildings and designs for multi-family development that enhance the visual character of the community. b. To create building and site design in multi-family development that is sensitive to and well-integrated with the surrounding neighborhood. c. To create open space areas that contribute to the aesthetics of the community, provide an attractive setting for buildings, and provide safe,interesting outdoor spaces for residents. B. Site design 1. Residential buildings shall provide a minimum setback of ten(10)feet unless a greater setback is otherwise required by this title and/or Title 10 of this Code. City of Meridian Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ 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 open space exhibit states 80 sf. will be provided for each unit. The floor plans submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application should demonstrate compliance with this standard if the use is approved. 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 111.1). 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. The location of these items are required to 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 development consists of 16.35 acres of land; therefore, the baseline requirement is 1.64 acres; a total of 2.28 acres is provided per the open space exhibit included below in Section V.M. City of Meridian I Department Report 111. Staff Analysis ■ 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. The proposed open space areas have been integrated into the development as a priority, are accessible by pathways and internal drive-aisles, are highly visible and incorporate a mix of active and passive uses as desired. 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. 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. Several common grassy areas are provided that meet and exceed this standard. 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. 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. c. Three hundred fifty(350) square feet for each unit containing more than one thousand two hundred(1,200) square feet of living area. All 322 units have between 500 and 1,200 square feet of living area. Therefore, a minimum of 1.85 acres of outdoor common open space is required—a total of 3.14 acres is provided, exceeding the minimum standard by 1.29 acres. 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 counted toward qualified open space meet this standard. 7. In phased developments,common open space shall be provided in each phase of the development consistent with the requirements for the size and number of dwelling units. The development is not proposed to be phased. 8. Unless otherwise approved through the conditional use process,common open space areas shall not be adjacent to collector or arterial street buffers unless separated from the street by a berm or constructed barrier at least four(4)feet in height,with breaks in the berm or barrier to allow for pedestrian access. The common open space adjacent to S. Meridian Rd./SH--69 will be separated from the street by a 3-4'tall berm and barrier. The common open space adjacent to S. Hermatite Ave. is proposed to not have a berm/barrier—the Applicant requests City Council approval of such through the CUP. 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. a. Enhanced landscaping as set forth in Article 11-313,Landscaping Requirements; b. Multi-use pathways; c. Enhanced amenities with social interaction characteristics; d. Enhanced context with the surroundings. Because the landscape buffers along the collector street(i.e. S.Hermatite Ave.) and arterial street(i.e. S.Meridian Rd./SH--69) are both counted toward the required common open space, compliance with these standards is required. Ten- foot-wide multi-use pathways are proposed along both streets. 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 City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ (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. 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. The amenity rendering included below in Section V.M depicts the following amenities from each category: Quality of life: Clubhouse,(2)dog parks Open space: Community garden, shade structure City of Meridian Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ Recreation: Swimming pool and spa,walking trails, children's play structure and sports courts [(3)pickleball courts and a half basketball court]. If the use is approved,based on 322 units, Staff recommends the following additional amenities from the Multi-modal category: bicycle repair station and charging stations for electric vehicles.As part of the proposed amenities, waste stations in the dog parks and a picnic area,including tables,benches and landscaping are required with the shade structure.A detail of the proposed children's play equipment should also be submitted. 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 per the standards in UDC 11-3B-7C. Parking lot landscaping is required with site development per the standards in UDC 11-3B-8C and will be reviewed for compliance with these standards with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. 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. If the use is approved, the landscape plans submitted with the final plat and Certificate of Zoning Compliance, as applicable, should be revised to reflect compliance with these standards. 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. 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 obtain approval by MPD for any such systems. 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. Existing structure and Site Design Standards (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-19): Compliance with the structure and site design standards in UDC 11-3A-19 is required. The purpose of UDC 11-3A-19 is to encourage site design that provides an interconnected network of walkways,pathways, streets, and/or drive aisles that combined promote pedestrian and vehicular mobility within the development and connect to adjacent City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ developments; and to facilitate the efficient movement of traffic into,out of, and through a site,protect pedestrian and bicycle users, establish an aesthetically consistent street presence and limit the visual impacts of large parking areas on a site. NWC: There is an existing home and associated outbuildings on the west side of the development area and an existing multi-tenant building with a church/office space,utility infrastructure for Intermountain Gas Co. and a transfer station for Northwest Pipeline Corp. along the east side of the development area adjacent to Meridian Rd./SH-69. SWC: There is a wholesale nursery(Victory Greens) occupying the site. Future development is required to comply with the structure and site design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19. 2. Qualified Open Space &Amenities (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3G): The standards in this section are not applicable; see the standards in UDC 11-4-3-27C for common open space and site amenity requirements for multi-family developments addressed above in Section CA. 3. Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): i. Landscape buffers along streets Landscaped street buffers are required to be constructed as part of the subdivision improvements on the SWC of the site, as follows: • A 35' wide buffer is required along S. Meridian Rd./SH-69, an arterial street and entryway corridor; • A 25' wide buffer is required along W. Amity Rd., an arterial street; • A 20' wide buffer is required along S. Hermatite Ave. and W. Lyra St.,both collector streets; and • A 10' wide buffer(s)is required along local/private streets. Street buffers are conceptually proposed for the overall site as required. On the portion of the site being platted(SWC), all street buffers should 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 owner's association. Landscaping is required within the buffers per the standards in UDC 11-3B-7C. Additional landscape design features are required within street buffers along entryway corridors per UDC 11-313-7C.3f,which may include berms of no less than four to one (4:1) slope to at a three-foot minimum height, decorative landscape walls(no greater than three (3)feet in height), decorative open vision fencing(no greater than four(4)feet in height), or design elements with a similar level of effort(Example: a dry creek design with river rock,boulders, etc.). Detached sidewalks within landscaped buffers are required along entryway corridors. On the SWC,in the southern portion of the street buffer along Meridian Rd./SH-69 adjacent to residential uses, a 3-4' tall berm at a 4:1 slope is proposed with a 10' wide detached sidewalk/pathway,trees, shrubs,vegetative groundcover and decorative boulders/rocks. In the northern portion of the buffer adjacent to commercial uses, a dry stream bed with river rock is incorporated into the buffer with a 10' wide detached sidewalk/pathway,trees, shrubs,vegetative groundcover and decorative boulders/rocks. ii. Parking lot landscaping Parking lot landscaping is required with development per the standards listed in UDC 11- 313-8C. Development of the area not included in the CUP application will be reviewed for City of Meridian I Department Report 11I. Staff Analysis ■ consistency with these standards with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) application for future development. The landscape plan submitted with the CUP application generally complies with the required standards; a detailed review will take place with the CZC application. The "hatched"areas identified in the Plant Schedule as internal parking lot landscaping should be further defined to demonstrate compliance with the standards in UDC 11- 3B-8C.2d and 11-3B-5N,which requires planter islands to be covered with low shrubs,lawn,or other vegetative groundcover at a coverage of at least 70% at maturity. iii. Landscape buffers to adjoining uses A 20' wide buffer is required to adjoining residential uses in the L-O and C-N districts and a 25' wide buffer is required to adjoining residential uses in the C-C and C 0 zoning districts per UDC Table 11-2B-3, landscaped per the standards in UDC 11-3B-9C. Because the out-parcel proposed to be zoned C-N is already developed, Staff recommends a 20' wide buffer is provided on the subject property to buffer the proposed residential uses to the west in Building H. iv. Tree preservation Mitigation is required for all existing trees 4"caliper or greater that are removed from the site with equal replacement of the total calipers lost on site up to an amount of 100% replacement per the standards in UDC 11-3B-1OC.5. There are several existing trees on the SWC that will be removed with development, some in poor and some in good condition. The Mitigation Calculations shown on the landscape plan submitted with the preliminary plat included below in Section V.J, state 190 caliper inches are required for mitigation with 200 caliper inches provided, in accord with UDC standards. There are also several existing trees on the NWC that will be evaluated for mitigation requirements with submittal of a development application for that property. v. Stormwater integration An adequate storm drainage system shall be 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. vi. Pathway landscaping Landscaping is required along all pathways per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C. Minimum 5' wide landscape strips are required on each side of all pathways with landscaping consisting of a mix of trees(one per 100 linear feet), shrubs,lawn,and/or other vegetative groundcover. The landscape plan should reflect compliance with these standards.Because trees are not allowed within the Northwest gas pipeline easement on the NWC,an alternative compliance application should be submitted to UDC 11-3B-12C.2,which requires one(1)tree per 100 linear feet of pathway. 4. Parking (UDC 11-3Q: All parking spaces shall comply with the required stall dimensions in UDC Table 11-3C-5. i. Residential parking analysis Off-street parking is required per the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 for multi- family dwellings; the number of parking spaces is based on the number of bedrooms per unit. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ SWC: Based on(116) 1-bedroom units, (168)2-bedroom units and(38) 3-bedroom units, a minimum of 656 spaces are required with 322 of those in covered carports or garages. A total of 693 spaces are provided,with 330 of those being covered in podium(129), carports (145)and garages(56),which exceeds the minimum standard by 37 spaces. NWC: Parking will be evaluated for compliance with these standards with future CUP and/or CZC applications. ii. Nonresidential parking analysis Off-street parking is required per the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-6B.1,unless otherwise required by the specific use standards for the use. Parking will be evaluated for compliance with these standards with future development applications for detailed site plan approval. iii. Bicycle parking analysis A minimum of one(1)bicycle parking space must be provided for every 25 vehicle spaces or portion thereof per UDC 11-3C-6G;bicycle parking facilities are required to comply with the location and design standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C. For the multi-family development on the SWC, a total of 693 vehicle parking spaces are provided; therefore, a minimum of 28 bicycle parking spaces are required—28 are provided. 5. Building Elevations (Comp Plan, Architectural Standards Manual): Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the single-story commercial Pad A at Plaza A building along with perspective drawings of Plaza A and B and the adjacent commercial buildings,included below in Section V.F.All commercial buildings are anticipated to be a single-story in height. Building materials consist of brick veneer, stucco and wood siding in neutral colors with flat roofs and parapets. Conceptual elevations were not submitted for the grocery store. The multi-family structures (Building F)at the NWC are anticipated to be 2 to 3-stories in height, depending on the number of bedrooms,with first floor garages similar to the photos below in Section V.O of the Broadstone project in Nampa. Building H is proposed to be of similar architecture to Building E on the SWC shown below in Section V.N. Elevations were also submitted for the 3-story garden-style and 4-story podium-style multi- family buildings with parking on the ground floor on the SWC, included below in Section V.M. Building materials consist of fiber cement siding variegated board&batten in a variety of colors and styles(8"clapboard, 10.25"vertical shiplap,lap siding), stucco and brick. All structures are required to comply with the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual. 6. Fencing (UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): No fencing is proposed. The UDC (11-311-41))requires traffic noise abatement to be provided for residential uses adjoining SH-69 consisting of a berm or a berm and wall combination parallel to the state highway that meets the standards listed in UDC 11-3H-4D.A detail of such should be depicted on the landscape plan submitted with the final plat application. 7. Parkways (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-17): Detached sidewalks with landscaped parkways are proposed along all streets. The minimum width of parkways planted with Class II trees shall be 8'; the planter width for Class II trees may be reduced to 6' if there are root barriers that are a City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ minimum of 18" below subgrade adjacent to the sidewalk and a minimum of 24" below subgrade adjacent to the curb. The root barriers shall extend 2" above grade. Compliance with these standards is required. E. Transportation Analysis Comprehensive Plan Policy#3.01.01A—Evaluate comprehensive impacts of growth and consider City Master Plans and Strategic Plans in all land use decisions(e.g.,traffic impacts, school enrollment, and parks). The primary transportation considerations for this development involve the timing and coordination of required off-site improvements, access management along Amity Road and SH- 69, and completion of internal street and pathway connections needed to support a functional mixed-use neighborhood pattern. The project would add measurable traffic to a network that already experiences operational strain during peak hours,underscoring the need to align development phasing with programmed intersection and signal improvements. Because of its proximity to two major transportation corridors,the design must emphasize efficient site access, safe circulation, and continuous pedestrian and bicycle connections consistent with the City's adopted street and pathway standards. The Ada County Highway District's recommended conditions and findings addressing intersection mitigation, access spacing, and collector completion reflect these shared objectives and are consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code policies for coordinated land use and transportation planning. While traditional traffic modeling evaluates vehicular capacity, it does not fully capture the pedestrian,bicycle, and access-conflict dynamics that accompany higher-intensity mixed-use and multi-family development.Within these contexts, design features—such as continuous multi-use pathways, clearly defined pedestrian crossings, separated sidewalks, and internal circulation loops—serve a critical safety function that extends beyond aesthetic or amenity value. The City's Comprehensive Plan and adopted Pathways Master Plan identify these elements as necessary infrastructure to ensure that residents and visitors can move safely and efficiently between uses without over-reliance on the arterial network. For this site, intentional design of frontage paths, internal connections,and collector stubs is essential to mitigating localized conflicts and supporting the overall transportation performance of the surrounding system. The City's mixed-use policies emphasize pedestrian-oriented design as the foundation for functional,higher-density development. These areas are intended to place walking and biking at the top of the circulation hierarchy,with vehicular access and parking designed to complement— not dominate—the public realm. As projects seek both greater residential densities and auto- attractive commercial uses,design quality must correspondingly increase to manage the intensity and ensure safe, direct, and convenient pedestrian movement throughout the site.Features such as continuous sidewalks,building-oriented pathways,compact block structure,and minimized driveway conflicts are integral components of this expectation. This approach aligns with the Comprehensive Plan's mixed-use and transportation policies,which direct that density and design be balanced through form, connectivity, and safety rather than by roadway expansion alone. The proposed site plan includes elements that are detrimental to this concept that should be revised if the application is approved. Additionally, as noted in the ACHD report under Traffic Impact Study—Summary and Findings, "The applicant has indicated that site is multi-use and that contributes to trip capture rate. While there are a mix of uses proposed on the site plan they are not integrated, as the multi- family is stand alone and separated from the commercial uses by parking lots with no clear vehicular access via drive aisles or dedicated pedestrian facilities.The commercial uses are oriented towards SH-69 and include auto-oriented uses(fast-food with drive-thru,drive- thru coffee shop,gas station, etc.).Because of the mix of uses,the layout of the site plan and City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ parking lots, and prior experience with trip capture,ACHD will not be accepting any trip capture for this development." 1. Access (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-3, UDC 11-3H-4): Comprehensive Plan Policy#3.07.02B—Locate smaller-scale, neighborhood-serving commercial and office use clusters so they complement and provide convenient access from nearby residential areas, limiting access to arterial roadways and multimodal corridors. Comprehensive Plan Policy#3.02.01 G-Establish and maintain levels of service for public facilities and services, including water, sewer,police, transportation, schools,fire, and parks. Comprehensive Plan Policy#6.01.02B-Reduce the number of existing access points onto arterial streets by using methods such as cross-access agreements, access management, and frontage/backage roads, and promoting local and collector street connectivity. Access is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-3 and 11-3H-4 for state highways. The intent of these standards is to improve safety by combining and/or limiting access points to collector and arterial streets and ensuring that motorists can safely enter all streets. Access is proposed for the overall site(NWC& SWC)as shown on the conceptual development plan,included below in Section V.E. ACHD's Master Street Map(MSM) depicts a planned collector street along the west boundary of the NWC property connecting to W. Lyra St at the north boundary and S.Meridian Rd./SH-69. See the ACHD resort for existing conditions, analysis of the project and improvements required with the proposed development(SWC). NWC: This portion of the development is estimated to generate 10,366 vehicle trips per day, 1,166 trips per hour in the PM peak hour,based on the Traffic Impact Study(TIS). The conceptual development plan depicts two (2) driveway accesses via W.Amity Rd. as well as a collector street(S. Hermatite Ave.)access at the west boundary of the site in accord with the MSM; one(1) driveway access via S. Meridian Rd./SH-69;two(2)accesses via W. Lyra St., a collector street; and two(2)accesses via S.Hermatite Ave., a collector street. South Solaris Ave. is proposed to extend into the site 45' from the north property line. ACHD only supports one(1) access via Amity located a minimum of 660' west of the Amity &Meridian/SH-69 intersection since the property will have access to a lesser classified street (i.e. Hermatite)—UDC 11-3A-3 supports this by limiting access to arterial and collector street to improve safety and ensure motorists can safely enter all streets. ACHD recommends this access is a temporary full access,restricted to a left-in/right-in/right-out when the Hermatite/Amity intersection is signalized in the future. This driveway may be further restricted in the future as traffic conditions warrant, as determined by ACHD or if the west leg of the Amity&Meridian/SH-69 intersection is widened beyond 5 lanes. Comments have not been received from ITD pertaining to the access via Meridian/SH-69. In 2012,the City granted a Variance(VAR-12-001)to UDC 11-3H-4B.2a,which prohibits new accesses to a state highway,to allow three(3)access points to SH-69/Meridian Rd. between Harris St. &Amity Rd., one of which lies on the subject property. This approval was based on ITD's approval of the access. All existing approaches should be removed. UDC 11-3A-3A.2 requires cross-access/ingress-egress easements to adjoining properties, either by recorded easement or as a note on the final plat.Additionally,UDC 11-3A- 3A.3 requires all subdivisions to provide local street access to any use that currently takes direct access from an arterial or collector street—this applies to the three(3) out- parcels along Meridian Rd./SH-69(i.e.Parcel#R4622730010,#S1225449220 and City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ #51225449910)—the existing accesses shall be removed with development of the site and sole access should be provided internally from within the development area. The access points depicted on the conceptual development plan are not approved and should be evaluated with a future subdivision application. SWC: This portion of the development is estimated to generate 6,378 vehicle trips per day, 551 trips per hour in the PM peak hour,based on the Traffic Impact Study(TIS). There are three(3)existing driveways via Meridian/SH-69—the use of these driveways should cease upon development, and the approaches should be abandoned and removed in accord with UDC 11-3H-4B. The conceptual development plan depicts one(1)driveway access via W. Amity Rd. and one (1)driveway/private street access via S.Meridian Rd./SH-69.A portion of a future collector street(Hermatite)via W. Amity Rd. is depicted along the southern portion of the west boundary of the site and stubs to the property to the south—the portion that connects to Amity Rd. is off-site on the adjacent property to the west and is not proposed to be constructed with this development. The collector street access is needed for emergency service providers to adequately provide service the multi-family development; therefore,the collector street should be extended from W.Amity Rd.to the site prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy within the multi-family development. Two (2)access driveways are proposed via Hermatite in the multi-family development. The UDC (11-311 4B.2a)prohibits new approaches directly accessing a state highway. City Council may consider and approve a modification to the standard upon specific recommendation of the Idaho Transportation Dept. or if strict adherence is not feasible, as determined by City Council.The Applicant is requesting Council approval of the proposed access; comments have not yet been received from ITD on whether they already have granted or will grant the access. A backage road generally paralleling Amity Rd. and Meridian/SH-69 is proposed for access to the properties fronting those roads in accord with UDC 11-3H-4B.3. As part of the development,the Applicant proposes improvements to the existing Amity& Meridian Rd./SH-69 signalized intersection. ACHD has modified these improvements to include widening of the west leg of the intersection to 5-lanes,with two(2)receiving through-lanes, one(1)left-turn lane, one(1)through-lane and one(1) shared through/right- turn lane,which will require adjustments to the striping on the east leg to reflect this configuration and any necessary modifications to the existing signal. Although ACHD cannot require the Applicant to improve/widen the eastern leg of the intersection, ACHD Staff recommends the Applicant improve/widen the eastern leg of the intersection to 5-lanes to match the west leg.If the proposed development is approved, City Staff recommends these off-site improvements are required as a provision in the DA. 2. Multiuse Pathways (UDC 11-3A-5): All multi-use pathways should be constructed in accord with the City's Comprehensive Plan, the Meridian Pathways Master Plan,the ACHD Master Street Map and Roadways to Bikeways Master Plan per UDC 11-3A-5. The Pathways Master Plan(PMP)depicts multi-use pathways along S. Meridian Rd. and along the Northwest gas pipeline corridor with a connection across the northwest corner the NWC property to the future north/south collector street to the west at the half mile between Meridian&Linder Roads. The conceptual development plan depicts 10' wide pathways in accord with the Plan. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ All pathways should be located outside of irrigation district easements unless permission is specifically obtained from the governing irrigation district. For pathway segments and other improvements within the pipeline easement,the developer should work with Williams Pipeline Co.to secure the necessary permissions and approvals. Easements for the pathways should be a minimum of 14 feet wide(10' pathway+2' shoulder each side). Public use easements are only required to be dedicated for multi-use pathways that lie outside the public right-of-way. If this project is approved and if the developer can obtain permission from the property owners, Staff recommends a DA provision that requires the developer construct a 10' wide detached pathway across the frontage of the out-parcels (i.e.#R4622730010, #S1225449220 and#S1225449910) along Meridian Rd. for continuity and pedestrian safety. 3. Pathways (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-8): All pathways shall comply with the standards in UDC 11-3A-8. Internal pathways are proposed through common open space areas in the residential and commercial areas and throughout the development for pedestrian connectivity as shown on the exhibit below in Section V.G. 4. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17): Sidewalks are required along all streets in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17. Detached 10' wide sidewalks are required along all arterial and collector streets and 5' wide attached sidewalks are required along all local streets although detached sidewalks may be provided. The proposed plat depicts sidewalks as required. The proposed eoneeptual development should.PlaH fOF the NMIC doesn't inelude 10' wide sidewalks along the eolleetor-str-e (LYM44ffmadte) and The concept plan was revised to include 10'wide sidewalks along Lyra &Hermatite. 5. Private Streets (UDC 11-3F-4): Private streets are not proposed but should be provided for addressing purposes in the locations shown on the exhibit below.A private street application should be submitted with the final plat application for approval of these streets and should be depicted on the final plat. The requirement for private streets on the NWC will be evaluated with a future subdivision application for that property. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ u c� �� J af' _aasgJ yi� a f _ o 06 6. Subdivision Regulations (UDC 11-6C): The design,location and widths of all street and street intersections shall comply with the requirements of the transportation authority,unless alternative standards are adopted by the City.All driveway openings in curbs shall comply with the requirements of the transportation authority. i. Dead end streets The proposed plat does not depict any dead-end streets. ii. Common driveways The proposed plat does not depict any common driveways. iii. Block face The proposed plat complies with the block face 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 Carlson Lateral runs along the west boundary of the NWC and crosses the SWC property in two(2)locations. The laterals on the SWC property are proposed to be relocated and piped with development in accord with UDC 11-3A-6B. Easements for such should be depicted on the plat; any development within the easements should be approved by the easement holder.The Applicant has secured agreements with the Bureau of Reclamation to relocate the easements as shown below. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ ------------- E ------ Eli I Ij 1 U I r 14 4E � II 3 c x I ,•' .— 1 '4 2. Pressurized Irrigation(UDC 11-3A-15): An underground pressurized irrigation system is required with development to provide irrigation water to each lot within the subdivision as set forth in UDC 11-3A-15. There is a 30-40' wide gravity irrigation easement on the commercial portion of the SWC proposed to be improved with a drivable rock dry stream bed for access when needed by Boise Project Board of Control vehicles(see exhibit in Section V.P below). Irrigation piping, trees, and large herbaceous shrubs are not allowed within the easement. 3. Storm Drainage (UDC 11-3A-18): An adequate storm drainage system shall be required in all developments in accord with the city's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances.Design and construction shall follow Best Management Practice as adopted by the city. A Geotechnical Investigation report was submitted with the application, included in the public record. 4. Utilities (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-21): Comprehensive Plan Policy#3.02.OIE-Phase-in developments in accordance with their connection to the municipal sewer and water system and the provision of other necessary infrastructure and services. All utilities for an approved use should be installed at or below grade in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. Street lighting should be installed in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. All development should connect to the City water and sewer systems,unless otherwise approved by the City engineer.ITD has granted conditional approval for this development to install a sewer line within the SH-69 right-of-way. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ Adequate fire protection is required in accord with the appropriate fire district standards. IV. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. Meridian Planning Division Staff is recommending denial of the annexation application and consequently the preliminary plat and conditional use permit applications; therefore, conditions of approval are not included. If the Commission and/or City Council determines the proposed annexation is in the best interest of the City with the proposed development plan,the project should be continued to a later hearing date in order for Staff to prepare recommended conditions of approval. B. Meridian Public Works The updated conceptual engineering plans for sewer and water service for the proposed development,submitted on February March 17t'',have not yet been reviewed by the Public Works Dept. as of the date of transmittal of this report; therefore,it's unknown if this development can be serviced as proposed. C. Meridian Fire Department Based on the review of the current Fire Access Exhibit provided by KM Engineering,the proposed access outlined for the Commercial Development is acceptable however the access for the Multi-Family Residential Development is only sufficient upon the completion of S. Hematite Avenue before being acceptable and meeting the criteria as outlined in the 2018 IFC,Appendix D for secondary access and remoteness. D. Meridian Police Department https://weblink.meridianciN.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=420383&dbid=0&re2o=MeridianC Lty See Service Accessibility Reports below in Section V.B. E. Meridian Park's Department https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Doc View.asp x?id=420384&dbid=O&Mpo=MeridianC hty F. Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho(COMPASS) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Doc View.asp x?id=421739&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty G. Irrigation Districts Boise-Kura Irrigation District https://weblink.meridiancity.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=423842&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty Boise Project Board of Control https://weblink.meridiancity.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=421301&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lty H. Idaho Department of Environmental Quality(DEQ) hggs://weblink.meridiancity.oty WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=421645&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty I. West Ada School District(WASD) hyps://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=422248&dbid=0&repo=Meridian C hty City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions ■ J. Community Development School Impact Data https://weblink.meridianciU.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=420985&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC ky K. Ada County Highway District(ACHD) NW portion: https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=418302&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC ky SW portion: hggs://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=418301&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lty L. Idaho Transportation Department(ITD) ITD has not yet issued a staff report for this project. https://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=422848&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC ky V. FINDINGS A. Annexation and/or Rezone(UDC 11-513-3E) Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Stafffinds the proposed conceptual development plan associated with the map amendment to the R-1 S, R-40, L-O, C-N, and C-C atid C- zoning districts is not consistent with the general mixed-use and Mixed Use—Community development guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan as noted above in Section X. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Staff finds the proposed map amendment to the R-1 S and R-40 zoning districts and conceptual development plan with a mix of multi family housing types (i.e. apartment and townhome-style units) complies with the purpose statement of the residential districts in that it provides for a range of housing opportunities. However, the percentage and density of residential uses on the SWC is greater than allowed in the MU-C designation; therefore, the map amendment with the proposed development plan is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff finds the proposed map amendment to the L-O, C-N, and C-C and C- zoning districts and conceptual development plan complies with the purpose statement of the commercial district in that it provides for the retail and service needs of the community. However, the percentage of commercial uses and public/quasi-public uses on the SWC is less than desired in MU-C designated areas. Therefore, the map amendment with the proposed development plan is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; Staff finds the proposed map amendment with the traffic generation anticipated from the proposed uses and intensity of development will 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 Stafffinds the map amendment may result in an adverse impact upon the West Ada School District as the 2024-2025 enrollment for Victory Middle School was over capacity and additional children from this development could further adversely impact services. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. Stafffinds the annexation is not in the best interest of the City with the proposed development plan as it isn't consistent with the mixed use and specifically the Mixed Use—Community development guidelines as noted above in Section III. Further, the revised conceptual engineering plans for sewer and water service for the site have not yet been approved by Public Works so it's uncertain if services can be provided in accord with City requirements. B. Conditional Use (UDC 11-5B-6E)—Multi-family Development on SWC Because the annexation request is recommended for denial, the subject property would remain in the unincorporated area and outside the City's jurisdiction. The City does not have legal authority to approve a conditional use permit for property located outside its corporate limits. Therefore, no findings analysis is provided for the associated conditional use permit request. C. Preliminary Plat(UDC-6B-6)—SWC Because the annexation request is recommended for denial, the subject property would remain in the unincorporated area and outside the City's jurisdiction. The City does not have legal authority to approve a conditional use permit for property located outside its corporate limits. Therefore, no findings analysis is provided for the associated preliminary plat request. VI. ACTION A. Staff: Staff recommends denial of the proposed annexation based on the proposed development not being consistent with the mixed-use and MU-C development guidelines as discussed above in Section III. Consequently, Staff recommends denial of the associated preliminary plat and conditional use permit requests since the City doesn't have legal authority to approve land use applications outside its corporate limits. B. Commission: Pending C. City Council: Pending VII. EXHIBITS A. Project Area Maps (link to Project Overview) City of Meridian I Department Report VI. Action ■ • -f :1\ � � Tom. f � r \ 1 r i Z i - ,. vows I. _ _ ��1OI■;1���■1 f■� ?_e__=. t!H '�� � �O fl11A/� IIIIIff1�■��111 1 7i11! • • 11{ 11111 a��■�MEN r LIl ■>•1 pI a fir, r Iluml:11MO.1��i��/!�■Iliii1111 1 f .,Sfl11111■■■■■■■■■p R II1111a1O1■f1111111■�� 1111111■ • - • • • WI Jill mum unr ■nnnunn■ •fl111 r /r111r{!!1 11 f r NR►1 1 Simn Impliesw-19 n11� �ll{{���a� {/1IIIIr�I� �y ♦♦i\':'solo1111i 111 and ' :�� • • �IIII{���pulll �� � � � �� ��iiiiiiiiil�iiiiii� .�� llll //lll/�w ♦ r� � 1! ♦ .w::�:J 1111111• i�� ■IR/R 1,1l1/ r .♦. .. in �1 ii:u■n :n�' .. !{I nu n■ ■nn rrn il''Ilic <►��ti�V.�aun uuuuunail �In■ ' pff11i1■1111■1fl■//fl Elill 1111111111111--1�� me. 11111I In a Ri�o� �LIC/ ♦� f � ■C■■_7 Q 7��111111!l11111 i:.^,11111l1111l11 IIIa 11l■111111 Z ��� �111111111111 l =■■�� �r�.1 31111f��1111 !Illp _y 11,1 11I J • �lj,� .0 1 -', 111111 011lll■ nn l ll i 1 nulnnl, Iy �EM ME - 7 ■ �annlrr� rrrrr 3. Future Land Use Legend _ Project Location ry, Low Density Area of Impact ` Residential y n Analysis O ! _ Medlum-Density- J � Densens R Resdential Med-High Density �� e L,,, Residentiai CIVIC MU-C tv \J I I 4. Planned Development Map Legend FHH Project Location 7TTFTM 0 ;:.Area of Impact T=� City Limits ® ®® -- � Planned Parcels '� __ AnalysisEB � ----�--��� ' m � ___ dEffRrll�Rlip, , k 17 ®® City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ 5. Map Notes Northwest Parcels: Recent Area Preliminary Plats(last 5 years): H-2023-0033; H-2023-0041 Recent Area Conditional Use Permits: H-2018-0100 H-2018-0054 H-2018-0129 H-2019- 0129 H-2020-0067 H-2019-0150 H-2020-0117 H-2021-0021 H-2021-0036 H-2021-0087 H- 2015-0005 H-2019-0097 H-2022-0050 H-2023-0031 H-2023-0041 H-2023-0055 H-2024- 0014 H-2024-0022 H-2024-0067 Southwest Parcel: Recent Area Preliminary Plats(last 5 years): H-2023-0033; H-2023-0041 Recent Area Conditional Use Permits: H-2018-0100 H-2018-0054 H-2018-0129 H-2019- 0129 H-2020-0067 H-2020-0117 H-2021-0021 H-2021-0036 H-2021-0087 H-2019-0097 H- 2022-0050 H-2023-0031 H-2023-0041 H-2024-0014 H-2024-0022 H-2024-0041 H-2024- 0067 H-2025-0041 City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ B. Service Accessibility Reports Northwest parcel: Southwest parcel: PARCEL S1225449650 SERVICE ACCESSIBILITY PARCEL S1236110060 SERVICE ACCESSIBILITY Overall Score: 8 2nd Percentile Overall Score: 8 2nd Percentile Location Within 1/2 mile of City Limits YELLOW Location Within 1/2 mile of City Limits YELLOW Extension Sewer Trunkshed mains<500 ft.from parcel Extension Sewer Trunkshed mains<500 ft.from parcel Floodplain Either not within the 100 yr floodplain or>2 acres Floodplain Either not within the 100 yr floodplain or>2 acres Emergency Services Fire Response time>9 min. Emergency Services Fire Response time 5-9 min. YELLOW Emergency Services Police Reporting District does not meet most response time Emergency Services Police Reporting results por ing District does not have enough data to report goals - Pathways Within 1/4 mile of current pathways Pathways Within 1/4 mile of current pathways Transit Not within 1/4 of current or future transit route Transit Not within 1/4 of current or future transit route ll ltimate configuration(#of lanes in master streets Ultimate configuration(#of lanes in master streets Arterial Road Buil dout Status plan)>existing(#of lanes)&road IS NOT in 5 yr work ■ Arterial Road Buildout Status plan)>existing(#of lanes)&road IS NOT in 5 yr work plan plan School Walking Proximity From 1/2 to 1 mile walking YELLOW School Walking Proximity From 1/2 to 1 mile walking YELLOW Either a High School or College within 2 miles OR a Either a High School or College within 2 miles OR a School Drivability Middle or Elementary School within 1 mile driving ■ School Drivability Middle or Elementary School within 1 mile driving (existing or future) (existing or future) Park Walkability No park within walking distance by park type Park Walkability No park within walking distance by park type Report generahsi on 01-07-2025 by MERIDIAN15all- Report generated on 01-07-2026 by MERIDIAH1s 11- City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ C. Site Photos NWC (looking northwest): �i. r ,ate 6 SWC(looking southeast): ift { C s - . City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ D. Annexation Legal Description& Exhibit Map—L-O&REVISED C-C EXHIBIT TO BE SUBMITTED PER COLOR EXHIBIT BELOW I= E N G I N E E R I N G September 1,2023 Project Na.23-151 Annexation Legal Description Exhibit A A parcel of land situated in a portion of the East 1/2 of the Southeast 114 of Section 25 and a portion of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 36,Township 3 North,Range 1 West,Boise Meridian,Ada County,Idaho and being more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at a fnund aluminum cap marking the Southeast corner of said Section 25,Which bears 500'32'50"W a distance of 2,664.88 feet from a found aluminum cap marking the East 1/4 corner of said Section 25,thence fo€lowing the easterly line of said Northeast 1/4 of Section 36,SW'37'50"W a distance of 1,320.65 feet to the North 1/16 corner of said Section 3G; Thence leaving said easterly line and following the southerly line of said Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4, N89'13'03"W a distance of 893.66 feet to a found 5/8-inch rebar; Thence NOO'36'05"E a distance of 1,322.93 feet to the northerly line of said Northeast 1/4 of Section 36; Thence following said northerly line,N89"04'18"W a distance of 343.66 feet; Thence leaving said northerly line,N06'15'42"E a distance of 1,48C.39 feet to a found 5/3-111ch rebar; Thence 552'04'27"E a distance of 240.08 feet to a found 5/8-inch rebar; Thence 589'15'25"E a distance of 274.79 feet to a found 5/8-inch rebar on the boundary of Stapleton Subdivision No.1{Book 120 of Plats,Pages 18746.18750); Thence following the boundary of said Stapleton Subdivision No.I the fallowing six(6)courses; 1. S89°15'25"E a distance of 66.00 feet to a found 5/8-inch rebar; 2, 500`3250"W a distance of 79.93 feet to a found 5/&inch rebar; 3. S89°18'36"E a distance of 144.81 feet to a found 5/8-inch rebar; 4. 89,63 feet along the arc of a curve to the left,said curve having a radius of 300.00 feet,a delta angle of 17'07'04",a chard beating of N82'07'52"E,and a chord distance of 99.30 feet to a found 5/8-inch rebar; S. 99.99 feet along the arc of a curve to the right,said curve having a radius of 300.00 feet,a delta angle of 16.58'30",a chard bearing of N82'03'35"E,and a chord distance of 88.56 feet to a found 5/8-inch rebar; 6. S69'27'10"E a distance of 156.27 feet to a found 5/8-inch rebar; Thence leaving said subdivision boundary,569'27101 a distance of 82.00 feet to the easterly line of said Southeast 1/4 of Section 25; Thence following said easterly line,S00'32'50"W a distance of 1,280.20 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said parcel contains 62.432 acres,more or less,and is subject to all existing easements �4�KL EAV S and/or rights-of-way of record or implied. �,� 41cENSQ All subdivisions,deeds,records of surveys,and other instruments of record referenced herein are recorded documents of the county in which these described lands are situated. a Attached hereto is Exhibit B and by this reference is made a part hereof_ OF �7+r t HY A a" 91ff7013 5725 North Discavery Way-Boise, Idaho 95713-208.639.6938• kmengllp.corn City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ EAST t/4 CORNER 25 30 SECTION 25 �� Unplatted Stapleton N o L2 O o vbdivision No. 1 L5 C. � L6 0 400 8OD 1200 L4 a ° Plan Seale: 1" =400' L7 LEGEND FOUND ALUMINUM CAP o I „} FOUND 5/8" REBAR r°x CALCULATED POINT �� CID N�� SECTION LINE ZD� � BOUNDARY UNE w CD nJ zo Annexation Area: ADJACENT BOUNDARY LINE 20: V 62.432± AC 0 0Lei POINT 0F' BEGINNING EDUTHEAST 1/4 CORNER SbUTH 1 f4 CORNER SECTION 25 SECTION 25 25 1398-77' W.Amity Rd. 29 3+3� _ _ 343.fi6' 394.34' 36 R N89'04'18"W — — y 36 311 N89'04'18"W 2636.77'— 1 3 w CURVE TABLE zz CURVE RAprLJS LENGTH DELTA CHORD BRG CHORD Rl C1 300.00' 89.63' 1707'04" N82'07'52"E 89,30' w 'r C2 3DD_DO' 88.88' 16'58'30" N82'03'35"E 88.56' w � � w LINE TABLE O LINE BEARING DISTANCE w Ll S5Z04'27`E 240.08 z L2 S59'15'25"E 274.79 L3 S59'15'25"E 65.00 L-4 S00'32'50"N 79.93 0 N99'13'03"W 893,66' t� L5 SB9'18'351 144,81 llnplatted LIS SB9'27'1O"E 156.27 L7 S89'27'10"E 82,40 rAST 1/4 CORNER SECTION 36 E N 0 1 N E E R I N G 36 3] 5775 NORTH DISCOVERY WAY 3015E,IDAHO 93723 PHONE[2VN 537-5939 Exhibit B Ian@nEllp c Annexation PATE: Srpt—b-7R)9 i'ROJEC: 23-151 SHEET: A portion of the E 112 of the SE 1/4 of Sec. 25 and a portion of the 1 OF 1 NE 114 of the NE 1/4 of Sec. 36, T3N., R1W., B.M., Ada County, Idaho City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ �m � _ � W.LTRASiPFET I I I r (D (D Q (D E Z] r 3 V1 R 5, z e II II II II II I 0 r (D (D O ML PA9 0 � I I •js .$E I I n I II 3 52• II II II II _ W,>Mlry Aan� — -- E CON NU-- -----------------------_SEE P nG n c E € G zacscso onono s n� [JA paESB'F '^K W � � Fj � sssc�Gnsxu a ��g gCF� ncs aae S tl e�ga:sea �+ � by AMITY&MERIDIAN-NORTHWESTCORNER nelsw�+s MERIDIAN,IDAHO CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN E�Ot 5€z City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ SEESHEEf 121FORCMTIN.If ION ? I I I I I III I I I w.Mttaoio— w i- I xl - i,• _ o n i II O E7{7f [1 -' I Ili 44 MfW.aA �" Q7 it "s i K H 4F 9 �R § Hd o o m G cg9 I I r 4 � 2F O e x � �R✓ePP�4� 6 3y j � I � r l I I ` JFTT h�2 um -+�9dw i .tSrr�I� I I I _� Pm � { 6 (D � I I I 2=-j E y I I .➢ yy a I r. N rn k �.. Af _.yei. i�4wu !e',x✓'A�.^4.q=, 'i^� ,L,s I I I I I H2OC €€ Fpm�1�1 Ma' »§ : i ema�fi o II II II II M. I I I I3 i &OG.9 9.1. �Pvo�mi lip YE,3' �R3 8 �8d� Pd� S �ai�'����a Ri d Ti aeyedIt a�P^ s 5 55555 B a r` ® rr FF Es In o €�A�R�� m�� �FccccccGccoozakac Y �acmea=��? 5 gg ra p A= AMITY&MERIDIAN-SOUTHWEST CORNER aflls�us MERIDIAN,IDAHO b IS CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ km E N G 1 N E E R I N G February 25,2025 Project No.23-152 Rezone to R-15 Legal Description Exhibit A A parcel of land situated in a portion of the East 112 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 25,Township 3 North, Range 1 West,Boise Meridian,City of Meridian,Ada Cc unty, Idaho and being more particularly described as follows; Commencing at a found aluminum cap marking the Southeast corner of said Section 25,u+hich bears 500'32'50"W a distance of 2,664.88 feet from a found aluminum flap ma rking the East 2/4 corner of said Section 25; Thence following the easterly line of said Southeast 1/4,N{)W32'50"E a distance of 910.29 feet to the boundary of the Plat of Jessica Condos Project Amendment No.1(Book 12.3 of Plats,Pages 19519-19522); Thence leaving said easterly line and following said subdivision boundary, N89"27'10"W a distance of 297.81 feet to the PAINT OF BEGINNING. Thence leaving said subdivision boundary,NB9°27'10"W a distance of 25.11 feet; Thence SOG 32'50"W a distance of 30.00 feel;; Thence N89"27'10"VV a distance of 177.12 feet; Thence S00D32'50"W a distance of 51.95 feet; Thence N89"27'10"W a distance of 655.57 feet; Thence N06`15'42"E a distance of 656.20 feetto a found 5/8-inch rebar; Thence 552°04'27"E a distance of 240.08 feetto a found 5/8-inch rebar; Thence S69115125PE a distance of 274-79 feetto a found 5/8-inch rebar on the boundary of Stapleton Subdivision No.1(Book 120 of Plats, Pages 18746-18750), Thence following the boundary of said Stapleton Subdivision No.1 the following six(6)courses: 1. 589015'25"E a distance of 66.00 feet to a found 5/8-inch rebar; 2 S00°32,50"W a distance of 79.93 feet to a found 5/8-inch rebar; 3. S89"18'36"E a distance of 144.51 feet to a foun d 5/3-inch rebar; 4. 899.53 feet along the arc of a curve to the left,said curve having a radius of 300.00 feet,a delta angle of 17°07'04",a chord bearing of N82°07'52"E,and a chord distance of89.30 feet to a found 5/8-inch rebar; S. 88.88 feet along the arc of a curve to the right,said curve havang a radius of 300.00 feet,a delta angle of 16°58'30",a chord hearing of N82°03'35"E,and a chord distance of 88.56 feet to a found 5/8-inch rebar; 6. S89°27'10"E a distance of156.27 feet to a found 5/8-inch rebar; Thence leaving said subdivision boundary,589°27'10"E a distance of 82.00 feet to said easterly line; Thence following said easterly line,500°32'50"W a dicta nee of 68.23 fleet; Thence leaving said easterly fine,N89'27'10"W a distance of 70.00 feet to the Northeast comer of said Plat of Jessica Condos Project Amendment No.-1; 57,Z5 North Discovery way• Boise, Idaho 53713 • 208.639.6939• kmengllp.com City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ Thence following the boundary of said Jessica Condos Project Amend ment No. 1 the following two(2)courses: 1. S86°13'04"W a distance of 245.22 feet; 2. S02°49'51"E a distance of 283.67 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said parcel contains 9.762 acres, more or less,and is subject to all existing easements and/or rights-of--way of record or implied, All subdivisions,deeds,records of surveys,and other instruments of record referenced herein are recorded documents of the county iri which these described lands are situated. Attached hereto is Exhibit B and by this reference is made a part hereof, *A t. L A,ya v CD PAGE 12 City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ CURVE TABLE CURVE RADIUS LENGTH DELTA CHAR❑BRG CHORD C1 300.00' 39,63' 17'D7'04" N82'07'52"E 89.30' C2 300.00' 83,88' 15'58'3O" N82'03'35"E 88,56' p 230 5DO 750 Plan Scale: 1" 250' LINE TABLE z5 3O LINE BEARING P15TANU EAST 1/4 CORNER, SECTION 25 L1 S89'15'25"E 86.t}4 SS Unplatted Stapleton m L2 S06'32'50"IN 79.93 � 5ubdfvision No. 1 1 L3 589'18'36"E 144.81 2 C�p } ' S89"15'25"E L1 PO L4 SB9'27'1 Q"E 156-27 274,79' L3 C1 G2 L4 L5 a L5 S59'27'10"E 82.00 to cv qa Rezone Area:9.762±AC $8Gi 3'04"W L7 ❑o U ro L6 SOO 32'50'1N 6$.23 APN:S1225449650 z Z45.22' `10 L7 N89'27'10"W 70.00 Proposed Zoning: R-15 Jesslca Current Zoning: RUT 502 49'81"E Condos 253.67' 0 o Project (D N89'27'101Y 25.11 Amendment S00'32'50"W 34.04' No. 1 0 N89'27'10'W 177.12' 297.81' 5OQ'32'54"YV Naa,27'10' 51,96, N89'27'10"W 655.87' POINT OF BEGINNING Unplatted I LEGEND FOUND ALUMINUM CAP Q FOUND 5/8" REW _ Li CALCULATED POINT n 1 I+7 SECTION LINE , BOUNDARY LINE I a LOT LINE 34i -- ADJACENT BOUNDARY LINE t r-a r'i POINT OF COMMENCEMENT SOUTHEAST CORNER, SECTION 25 JJ 25 30 — W.Amity Road — — ' E N G I N E E A I N G 5725 NOM DISOOV€RY WAY E015E,IDAHO 93723 PHOPMf 2081639-6939 Exhibit B kmang]Ip.wm Rezone to R-15 DATE: Fcurwary 2025 PROJECT: 28-151 SHEET: A portion of the E 1/2 of the SE 1/4 of Section 25, 1 OF 1 T.3N., R.1W., B.M., City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits F70] km E N G I H E E R 114 0 September 1,2023 Project No.23-151 Rezone to 13-40 Legal Description Exhibit A A parcel of land situated in a portion of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 36,Township 3 North,Range 1 West,Boise Meridian,City of Meridian,,Ada County,Idaho and being more particularly described as follows- Commencing at a found aluminum cap marking the Northeast corner of said section 36,which bears N00"37'50"E a distance of 2,641.47 feet from a found aluminum cap marking the East 1/4 cornerof said Section 36,thence following the easterly line of said Northeast 1/4 of Section 36,500"37'SOr,W a distance of 694.11 feet to the PIOINT OF BEGINNING. Thence following said easterly line,S00'37'50"W a distance of 636.54 feet to the North 1/16 corner of said Section 36; Thence leaving sa id easterly line and followingthe southerly line of said Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4, N89`13'03"VV a distance of 893.65 feet to a found 5/8-inch rebar; Thence NOO°36'05"E a distance of 1,055.25 feet; Thence 589°22'10"E a distance of 375.19 feet; Thence 235.62 feet along the arc of a curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 150.00 feet,a delta angle of 90-00'00",a chord bearing of SW22'10"E,and a chord distance of 212.13 feet; Thence 500°37'50"W a distance of 238.08 feet; Thence 51.84 feet along the arc of a curve to the left,so id curve having a radius of 33.00 teet,a delta angle of 90`00'00",a chord bearing of 544'22'10"E,and a chord distance of46.67 feet; Thence 589'22'10"E a distance of 335.00 feet to the POINT OF 6EGINNING. Said parcel contains 18.OID7 acres,more or less,and is subject to all existing easements and/or rights-of•way of record or implied. Attached hereto is Exhibit B and by this reference is made a part hereof. LANp S rye LOGE N 5 t^ a o 9p 0 F kaP 5725 North discovery Way + 6oise, Idaho 83713 *208,639.6439* kmenjllp.com City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ 0 200 400 600 -7 Plan 5ca'e: V'=200' I V ram,✓S W. Amity Rd. �F - _ — — 25 30 36 3 POINT OF COMMENCEMENT NORTHEAST 1/4 CORNER SECTION 36 � I 589'22'10'E 375.19' Rezone Area: 18.007f AC ' f ARN:5123611O46D Proposed Toning: R-40 oG i-- Unplatted Current Zoning: RUT N o rn ify 589'22'1 O"E Ln 336.0p' u� m LEGEND POINT OF BEGINNING �a w o FOUND ALUMINUM CRP } FOUND 5f8" REBAR o b CALCULATED POINT 'Z ct �- SECTION LINE M BOUNDARY LINE ADJACENT BOUNDARY LINE aaQ q� CURVE TABLE b o m+aj Lni CURVE RADIUS LENGTH DELTA EHoRD 6RG CHOPID I Cl 150,00' 235.62' 90'0O'OT S44'22'10"E 212.13' 02 33.00' 51.84' 90'01)'00" S4422'10"E 46.67' o f N89'13'03-W 893.56' iv• Unpiatted&am o I N r] EAST 1/4 CORNER SECTION 36 fl E NGIN EERI NG 3fi 31 5725 NORCM PLWQV[RY WAY NOISE,IDAHO erns r PMONE{2os)fin-l"19 Exh i b[t B kmengffpAc Rezone to R-40 Waif: 5eptem6w 2A29 PROJECT: 23-251 SH=: A portion of the NE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 36, 1 OF 1 UN., RlW., B.M., City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ krn E N G I N E E R I N G Novembers,2023 Project No.23-151 Rezone to CN Legal Description Exh i bit A A parcel of land situated in a portion of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 25,Township 3 North, Range 1 West,Boise Meridian,City of Meridian,Ada County, Idaho and being more particularly described as follows; Commencing at a found aluminum cap marking the Southeast corner of said Section 25,which bears SW'32'50"W a distance of 2,664.Sa feet from a found a I uminum cap marking the East 1/4 corner of sa id Section 25,thence following the easterly line of said Southeast 1/4,N00°32'50"E a distance of 910.29 feet to the POINT OF BEGI NNING. Thence leaving said easterly line,N89°27'1D"W a distance of 70,O0 feet to the westerly right-of-way line of S. Meridian Road and being the Southeast corner of the Plat of Jessica Condos Project Amendment No.1(Book 123 of Plats,Pages 19519-19522); Thencefollowing the boundary of said Jessica Condos Project Amendment No.1 the fallowing three(3) courses: 1. 1189°2TXl V a distance of 227.91 feet; 2. NO2°49'51"W a distance of 253.67 feet; 3. N86°13'04"E a distance of 245.22 feet to said westerly right-of-way line; Thence leaving said subdivision boundary,5B9°27'10"E a distance of 70.00 feet to said easterly line of the Southeast 1/4; Thence fallowing said easterly line,500"32'50"W a distance of 301.69 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said parcel contains 2.072 acres,more or less,and is subject to all existing easements and/or rights-of-way of record or implied. All subdivisions,deeds,records of surveys,and other instruments of record referenced herein are recorded documents of the county in which these described lands are situated. Attached hereto is Exhibit B and by this reference is made a part hereof. �4*pL L A Np a . 0 5 a� �o g�f OF HY r.C11/4/2025 5725 North Discovery Way• Boise, Idaho 83713 • 208.639.6939• kmengilp.com City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ 25 30 EAST 1/4 CORNER SECTION 25 } D 150(IN 3U1J 450 I4 Nan Scale: 1" = 150' m� • I STAPLETON SUKIVISION W. 1 L 4"E 245.2Z � L2 U NP TATTED NSA'13 0 0°4o t9 LEGEN❑ 7o.aa cc � ra°c Rezone Area:2.072 AC N c FOUND ALUMINUM CAP pPN; R4fi22734410 Q LL CALCULATED POINT m Proposed Zoning:CN �' a T SECTION LINE Jr- Current Zoning: LO -Ni 4 BOUNDARY LINE ! N o LOT LINE 4- JESSICA CONDOS ADJACENT BOUNDARY LINE " PRaJEOT AMENDMENT 7- No. 1 N89'27'10"w 227.81' L1 POINT Of BEGINNING LINE TABLE LINE BEARING ❑I57ANCE i L1 N$9'27'1O'W 70.DD UNPLATTED � L2 SB9'27'1O"E 70.00 o i f yin POINT Of COMMENCEMENT ���n SOUTHEAST CORNER ~ SECTION 25 25 30 E N G I N E E R I KG 30 31 5725 NORTH DISCOVERY WAY 13015E,IDAHO S3713 MOW[ZN9 639-6939 Exhibit B kmergllp.tam Rezone to CN DATE: novemhrr,IM :PRCUECT 23.151 PR ET: A portion of the SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 25, 1 OF 1 T.3N,, R,1W., B.M, City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ E. Conceptual Development Plan for Annexation Area(dated: 1/6/26)-REVISED 5YRINGA CROSSING MEXED-USE DEVELOPMENT ELOPMENT PhIASE 2 ElOPEN SPACE EA MULTI-FAMILY ■COMMERCIAL .OFFICE 14 ! � I hr W. YRA STRE,_ _ r s . r, 1 }'ist� r _ - _ R-15 _ ..... � � rwul YN]J IF .CTG sj '`• NOTA z....... .. PART! llI' � CONCEPTUAL,SUEJEC7 TO(HANG L City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ SAGA CROSSING D-USE DEVELOPMENT OPEN SPACE 7MU I-I I-FAMILY COMMEXIAL OF* - '--. . - -- - - - E AMITY RQAQ `�r.=rl" Ell R-40 ___ BUIIAINGA-2 f i � y CLULWuu5E .• 1 0 F ' t PADF ' I I I- JA J I r tlVILVING tr2.V 11I0NGEI2 ov� BUILVING E-1.1 I BUILVINGC-1A L r t - - 1®�BUILE Oil BNLCiNG 61 ' BUILOI� I BUILVING&2 BUILDINGB-1 = BUILVING G7A "'AAA""" II i ly - ra tlLILL1N'�GI Li _ -- '._ - ---- - -� CONCEPTUAL-SUBJECTTO CHANGE City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 76 €s �7Rl7MA�Q '-•.... _ dour ! jj I r :R o-;F4 4,..888 i} sY yp€ 'Lid II S a II i 1' � ��♦J G I II L s Nkl IMl MAC �A61 � M. �w I 1 I II Y r.ee 1 I I I II 1 Inl i s �C5 I1 II I K � �p II II S rwk !?!IV�akKrt2aX. - i rokr - I I I I "�i Ir�G• 1 I I I II II SEE SHEET E[10 F!-0R C[IWI1NIlATIOW ............. . . . . . . . . . E � '!�]Ysk a ' RFell Yo AM HY&MER IO IAN-NORTHWEST CORNER man MERIOLAN,IOAHO p FF ;�i+' CON CEPTLIAL SITE PLAN Mi�.• �6 City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ s� r .arancoHnlluanoH I I I r Ii r.I J. `—— ——— -- i III a r-- ml '1 r: ��� -.� F • y ��� o I I r l - YLIIMI�I• '+ - • ' I I I r• ' r � I I 1 1 7�wf 9p$ � S f II II 3 rw '1��Fa g§� zs•i�•cs �i . C>� � �szi '�•c �t-. g �+ - .- 1 r 4 I r P A I t,' .•'tat Ine�a y _ I I _ , �� '�r w'. ... �. a KC { y�yy[Yraaweb:�M cfma.aen�^4]'S.Hrsyl.. ae.p III! YS 3 n ` ��� 8 :4� 4 p8 � br Y�•v Y¢ �� - :[ �?L I I I I I _ T_• ! 3_ 1 I 1 Fyy ppgg f222� � iF FG 4 i k: q4 2 0 0 0 ilk �~ y ti �n I i'a � F;�•'i F„y�3n � 3^ ' �'. •act rci4C�'3:Q'i '!['' .. _.....-_..... � .�x I I I I a 77:: � '}� IrIr � � � ��1 n.+ •OUMr� � ��jT L I I I I �w .. .pie •J'iii ii l'�I_ �i� � I1 I } _ W. I r I s■I .-^R 'y��p� �L[•� °��.� q n u.n� I IA .F'c- s�i�r�° �.$� a I I Eo I s � xTj ���¢5�k9 E��3� �:::-. .._i I. :. :.-i-SSE Y•�.r I I �I R II 1 II E� j 1` i r AR a r ... i a €l6k a E;s. • nrt.aast E Y & 3 pge�j a` AMITY&MERIDIAN-SOUTHWEST COE NER o leunlelu kJ w MERIDIAN,IDAHO Ei CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN li�.• {P City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ a� :'8"x#�,.., .. .z,_.�... _�y:�x 5:i3�,'!�'t?;''r'��n�SY?�iY::.�rti.'i:b:.x.;wi e?e:`r9'&«{��� -.y�,I�`Tinr�i"�.Ak....r F 2:".l�'•;'',..r.��4-�:.Y�:'.�L�Y':.'[':�.i:.=7.:u'.[.uY:isr.�.i�-�:S.:>h.'if[��,•.�r:J�• ... -..... -�.. _ ..J:.. __ r .�#i_ '.�S�9a:itp�,-ir..L4r_f�.�eG��:t� •,if.>F, .... I ,_--- ��_-- --�,— --_--- ,_---_w--�— `---- ___� e.�'r`i�22":il:t::4:�`y=.....�;.s..sls•a.'�:::,ti:•+e=_ _�ja�:i:- ., .. .�.�.. —.�.—.�—.�—_ ————— 9�Y.'1^.._.'J.'.Y�i'f !'•. •� � sc.�- '.`-;Sr-"-'nti_•:'s::L{.• •i ��'. F Z: X.•, n 1 i __ •ef:•rf:....r..__.,.....�' L'm:f ale..^.y,a+s.... 4 I 2. - # R4. I I n5a n :.�•I.�,y. _. � - s- - :•:tix.•s::ire:.e;so,r•tJn:,.....','e:s::xt.r' I gq � $g � � Yjr+.v.�ff':?i'��:'S:"' -�.�"3Q.�::•nTf:...f...�;sivr.k �I�F'y�� ^'i�5'u:`ir :r.Y.:x,£� I Iv �m 3 Q ro a Ve�j 3"yi AMITY&MERIDIAN-SOUTHWEST COP NER ^E ij sr MERIDIAN,IDAHO CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN G H- M�f.E p City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ F. Conceptual Commercial Building Elevations&Perspectives for Plaza Areas :a F ozroseaai rvviaiaa�n � � N- ei $ to LE9al'35i0e'OOEb 15OVOMe MSSBOki NV10Ia3YY SSL6e- P�tfik � C") I € m� NVIflRI3W V AIM R, !p 5 i �$F 2'16 R! Y '1111101 1 11€¢'-" p I zl C9 NI r I Z .- I I I _ _ I � o � � pG pK City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ MIXED-USE DEVL�LOP?0. ENT ODKEPMAL.SuHAUT4liatGE COMMERCIAL PLAZA A A n - — -�.., W.LYRdSTREET 'a #'1 I i • L'� i .. r .. • # O� i O�q}. 'o �4. a a COMMERCIAL PLAZA I' 1_,+L * � L ` Ob '"02j }' DININGLSTABLISHMENT r PLAZA 11 4 L �" I�NMI ,7 _ L � Imo. 's.T City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ ` ca © rp PLAZAA Rs City �� � :•fir:_ i of MeridianDepartment Re 11Exhibits G. Overall Pedestrian Plan -REVISED SY RINGA CROSSING MI E-D-USE DEVELOPMENT W.LYRJIp RE ET • » "si C-N NOT APART _ z + 3 V 4w �a J r...nnnnn.un.[..�,�.�i.�.�1.1n n:,.,.:.n,6.•�.�"+A •�i. :' ��r � � - � ,,[+r ..i.►•emu.a IiS .� . �+►+�,slir M 1� JSJ� 'R G - Ir •rrlFgn nr ' PAOF 1� „� r • J n �Gm' -q .[ ,b .yn i•mn...u•n:. ..;......:q �,� _ 3 Rau to s �B .Y96 : ' r,nr -a 9 ..I .nry...... _ ....... CONNECTIVITY LEGEND ., ..... ....:..�,...., `{'oaoo 5'•6'SICIEWALI{ r, _ I CONCEPTUAL,SU&JECT TO CHANGE City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ H. Preliminary Plat(dated: 1/23/26) Fza z cn z = a a W �N O'n 00 00o py r•. W _ Z 00 �� _ �e ss ax sxsss 4b=_aa�sss a s L Q O ¢ z@ J w H w F 0 �� 0 F2�p z - 4 �i$ � a 4 `aix'o Q N m = 6 9 gg �� apR G y E<� a gp �'a� do e F- 2pF H 0~_ h �� 'dd7 9 � 3B 11F11 3 V 2Z !S ;,z CL p y 3 Q ==z GS '� 4 1 3? 3Q _ ~ ° ��NI 4 g E3 Z F. 8,00 1 12 66VIN: g � 4 Y �,6!g f id®p`p yS 210;[61g [A Sa; �§�°g� ��°1 J. � gggg��gggg o c 21 IT All- 0 a Mm '� 9 b Duos xupisow's I a s ati�.rw�a3wa �Ig 5.a w __` w xr ueure.wun T I 1 3 I ROB I 1 w I yl I 0.. - 1/nor � , 4®qs� I Ia I I i i �i p - u IIa w 1 1 I 1"+.w�a a� II I� ✓`.sl i I 1 � i I I II AY I I sl----------- -r Lr a II I �I i le_ III I rl I wmaio I I � I e 5 I f I of-sales w JI I I j I II I I I 'I IF _______ _________ _____ / I J— _ _— µ—_Nam_ �I City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ m =mz `j5i�V QQR 4 V=1(.') O Q < d Z W Z j III II Q� m �=�a 500a z ��z �i Nis s d w Q CCxz = a¢K O 9 ¢ z~ a ae aF g sg £g 3 s a ® j a�= — — r e — — — --- --- _----_---- — — s `------- �\--I� f I.pI f ! 1 1 I1l11 / 1 rllll I I I I I I ! 11 frlr I I I I r 1 , tlE 1,1,,�l�lll 4/1it Ell / /�/ I1.�•� -- -_ - .f�'zzS13.G0.99AG1 `! \ \ � ,`L~ �- City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ W (> z Q @ @ ® WyI m I� �_ 0 0 s g 4 4 �SylS 2 0- W w g Z � Z U 'gyp Y3' � 3� � � � "• } � o �Zzo W �illlllllallll!II � 10Ln Z N N Z r Q e $ o 4 w Y o a g � z�i a Q adz a Z i �46 in g ^I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------------- i w1I gV�o I it I �s I m3�� I I I I 9g a�Np II �� rl •���' J _ -- --- � � it 9 I I ! it Yy i1c ! 1 k ICIj1( II'I 3 I 1 C II J ------------ J I it /N a I 11 I IIf I P City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ I. Access Exhibits for Southwest Corner a 119 IH K3553]7V IVI 831W W$ s �n ❑I'N VIO N>lVW 1NIM013/V3❑NVIOIH3W❑NV ALWV zS 2E e t F, x� s 'o - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ❑VOH NVIOIN3W$3>I � s _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I I I � I IR I I ! I I I o' I 'QI � I I I � a J ® ®Ff � I I I I I I 00 a g AYNMOe OnB d 03SOdOUd IQ p 131 m QQ / ! I og I I I 1 a m ,• City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ $y SEE SX E 7 E](l A FOR CONTIN NARIO" 77—� _ '——————— ————————————————————�I III g�Ag �����€ 8g� �'°�sY:tiRF�N�1n']YkNHiah� .•,�•��giLG2P1G3i%S:ii°2F1°ii3�uw'LRf�X�Y� .._-. _ __ __ I �k��'a ���3�@ o� � �. �" � xta�..i--�'•f-�,•-�= �p_sx�;3•a:a���a e �aR � a RA gg € ' f R 55 4�9� i4i 3R�X euAp16A 1 I I I • _ •� ! 1 9F b i 6 x �3i Lv q $` �....RL a ` •1 1 �I } Ir i I1 pp P {r i AkitaOn � II ate.JE _...�L'�•b� x':ppRy� w I.i.=f�"g V�:ii - A 1: •� I 1 S p j ��pE 'f y5'yJ ...r;.• ���� I I I 12 11, S j gE Si ° � 'S?s-ij r It e 8 �`s�� �.5�� I PIN ii �i PP yZ ifi i3 gc E .�co �z ��C���� tlC�GGCCCCCGGCggEEE�� E� �El�tltl•�� AMITY&MERIDIAN-SOUTHWEST CO RN ER MERIDIAN,IDAHO E is CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ J. Preliminary Plat Landscape Plan(dated: January 12,2026) WV A 2 1 2 r, E 9JI M . . . ... I j fi E 11H - --- ----- debz E!I 1H., I flal 14 lo lip S RJR ------- 0 5itrnaa FrFF q 22 'M I Jimilull TWF ....... 8 W.-HP. JA Big City of Meridian Department Report V11. Exhibits 1 � s I i li IE3 I III 1 a a. I 1 I I II 1 I I I I 1 ' I 1 it 1 I I 1 vi � I' � i II 1 i ' 1 �� � '£• oil Eg ad I �;l• li I I ,'i � e I ;: o � I� .; � i� �� B m� � o���� I + •I`, I III I i' � i � �� �p"p� �� �� e° � �s� ���� �1 Jl�r 1* A Pt 5� a c e Ir 1 A. "Eat 1 I I g y= y 5� � 1 City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ u m oaf� a . , ° z c 5 @ 9 s 1 0 �1 m I i g � a x 1 m s s R ao gc F� o:aa ' 4^1 0000 1 9"YHdliilli iii-illl H3LYW — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ........................... .. 771!11� �` - _ — ------ --- ------ -- 1 � 1 i :1 p o � c 1 ' I _ I I 1 DVWJ33HS33S-3Wl HOLLVW City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ u 0 - s � m ■ 1 oFlmd3�s3�-■inmdm m Fuu o€ 1 000000 �offi Ws $� n 1 II s Vet Wlo f 1 '1 3 3 ] 9 3 a e x 1 `1 E m 11,1� 1 Effiw =a � 1 ! W� In 3-A ioi € Y ■ C Ud333N5335-3NI7 Helm IIIIIIIIII 1 II I 1 I I I 1 II I I 1 I I I I � 1 I I ❑ rill I I S I g�F ° ■ I gI I I I I 1 I g 1 a' a bl w a 1 I I IIo cc I I I I II 1 }sa I I _ I I i I I 1 I I a Zq f Lu City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ s si gg m �3� t� =�4 =a 4 O C O p Z�w _ Z Y w d � 2 t 0 � z c g a yy � s y s ggZ g 8 y qp ptlg �H — _ 1 l II } I I I I I V I I I I I J I I i 11 • annaa J I I I I I } I I O I II I a igar Imaa I II I ��� F I I� ' ��,,q k 3 F,..aaf3-�,#aaTi�!f�" Y:rru�:,'-�'�.�kr:-:wsi..�t;c'tl:3vk�".z..c�,:<.c.xi..I;Y'fi4�N:`4•°.c�,c,...�A�.S;" City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ K. Conditional Use Permit Site Plan for Multi-family Development(dated: 12/18/24) U3AOa-11YNU3d 3SnIMOLLIONO3 OVHdI•NVIOIU3W B " •s3f15 9N ISSOU�VDNIUAS SNIUMVH :@ Baas I g Q Y BBB 3 E A P; ggP4 E " 4rEEF »333a 5�a G �9 � �ARA � R � � �� � ��•$ Will sa$ eaa$ � � p$g$gggqg Cam ggqq a � 3Y m��a ��� pppppppp pppppp pppppp pppppp m >5 .. � g� � yff s 9q 5�tl ^=1:g5 'tl 8R3 Qee I Fl6 H WV' I •, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ;;i.f--- =_ - - - - - _—_- - - _ _ - - _ — — _ _ - - - - -- - _ moMMA9tl3lV3 a � I 1�- I F9 I I qal ao�a •I - I1� ••11 1 m II{�.,� `�� I� I b bt R II � 99 / tl IJ1 I I - City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ NV1d 311S 03NOISN3W10-11WQd3d 3Sn WNOWONO1 W g!a=a o _ OVHOI'NVIOIN3W sMdsren 'qns ONISSOM VONINASSNIMMVH rl �OO�C�O00000� III I 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -- — — — — T� —- -- — +. lz 1 YOM— I ae@�h `�O T - w I.. 1 3' Jyv I _ 7 - � LI I f LLLLI l a. 1 m iopa� amm�rvudwxxs ' �n 3sloe vlo3w 3tivnb5rvMo1 —1 City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ N, ld 311S03NOISN31NI(I-11WH3d 3Sn 17NO111UNW_ _ GVH01'NNIOIN3W srvask3a 'gns!)N ISSOM tl9NINAS SNINMVH :@ Jujj w 1 1 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - --- -- 1 ' - 1. •, w 1 1 - 1 u� a , - 1 _ •E LA 1 I - 1 '9 1 A� City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ 9NIH33NI9N3 AlIVNIV41 Id-llWtl3d 35f1 IVNOLLIaNO3 W OVHOI'NVICHOW s sn3u 91159NISSOI V9NIUASSNIJIMVH LIP 29 �gs�e J a ee�g to 1 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -—u-- - 1 1 rl ge I ,1 Z. ,lo r�Mm sI�i 1 �F. , —' 1 (ry 9mmnP 77- III' II � IIII 1"— — im m 351DA YIRYI3JY(IOSNMOI / City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ 9NI933N19N3 AQdVNIWI139d-11WN3d 3Sh IVNOLLI(INO:) 9 -i OtlHal'NtlI41N3W snusra• '9f159NISSONJ tl9NINA5 SNINMVH :@� ������ g °s�� s $� ¢a! yy gg as ®®a @a. � �P�° I IIIIIII• ��� ��� 1� I � t � �000 1 - - _ _ _ _ _ - - - - _ 1 — LI~ ` —T- R. VIA 1 IA =g IME 1 • Ir • �1 ;l I y III � I- I m •y�2 III l i 1 f I II n J f,�➢ LLL - I City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ L. Conditional Use Permit Landscape Plan for Multi-family Development(dated: 1/12/26) 3 Mild 3dVS5ONV9 dO7 W d § o OHV01�NVIOIH3W sr�dsn e w -am xJNI550H]tl9NIHAS SNIHMVH €I � n �� § d a n FI & P p gaff y e $ se N ss oi� sa R$ �� e G 2 5��� 'S �'�� a$ ffa w S �s z e.3s g. ea Ee B e g Yq � yEY E a �B�FQb�9 -'§� S Y ���•' s 93 gg g99 c F Y r z s s a w s R 3w z F �g • pd �e � �;s` r �• �,��tg�= � �p Ysa Yeri� ° 3 ' a w;8� � ���•g-�s € �� 'a � � aN 1 - .� II I l i � a m z R s z City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ M. Conditional Use Permit—Multi-family Development Open Space & Site Amenity Exhibits (dated: 1/12/26) LIUIHX33]VdS N3d4dn x OHVOI•NVIOIN3W ° sndsreu '9ns 9N I90'3 V9NINAS SNDIA&VH s @ »» sa r» a °86 86 c e 'e 8 6 86 9 8 e 8 8 86° a 2 8 6 as o 4 @4 ag a $ @4 Ha @4 g F ggHB a � �E.. gFgHgBg� 'y ww ��EH�H4 Ell pi ��� �!H H"g1 e�� ��4g ggw @»yBw gI � a e ` a .�� d as ���" a p dd33 �_� yH gg''gg q @ @ pj z 5§ � 6b.`^�6 68�kaa, Bbt aka a5 B��. I; `u B � a@@• T H I . I � I' R I — I f i Ogg P go OIL pFF� ry _ Z A§��s City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 1 00 L ---• .. K" ��'� z.�. ♦�tiR �� � r.t r �� .� aye• 42 m 11111VIhOEM .= r Sol Poo City ,M ' �.. t of MeridianDepartment Re 11Exhibits F1-ol I SYRINGA CROSSING MIXED—USE DEVELOPMENT pNIIMERCIAL GREENSPAU COWEPTlL1 WBACTT004AME A r-Ij C 6 '' - OL - I Qr # f UV f JD JPj 1+'+Ln,6I _ ' `_�"� � �_ •m i. o�; .,#,�i�� � mow,•_ , q� # r ?hk ° $ + _ II r 'K r _ ppµ + # i ,�y rE z rA WP as L 4 # ff a .r Ak11TY npA,DJam- 'Li 5k f. - E N1iTtLQ - . f ..# 4 MULTI FAMILY ENTRANCE GREENSPACE 1%10 I R MULTI FAMILY AMENITY GREENSPACEr 4 - l J - I{y O P 4 - J ' � �w•gF;li1� � � LING •4 �'I rt�i �ILpIG7i LUWG1�1 � '-;iios *_. .." 7/ City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits Fl 02 N. Conditional Use Permit—Multi-family Building Elevations T Q :5 "+�-, I xs__rs� o c (el(�arsanr•� I I I I I I I I I A3.00A s — s 9 4 x 4 4 - 4 4 4 _ IN (f Y 4 T Y r I I I I I C A3-OOB City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 103 i I � �O IM I I I I I I I I �eeebxs�.�.e E�„nx rlewinwv�.soE E�e.nx., e A3.00C I a HN E E i� I � 4 — $gg rt�Fr#xe. i :�euwwc o.fimxr e�ee�mx r�avawxc o.awee�evanox.� .,„J1L_..,y � A3.aao City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits Fl 04 eau, - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- A3.00E j j I I A� A3.00G City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits Fl 05 I 7atun& VIEW 5 p z md VIEW 2 VIEW 6 z f N F G �q � o - VIEW 3 .- VIEW 7 'J OPMEAMW g E a VEW ® ® _ City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits Fl 06 O. Conceptual Building Elevations for Multi-family Residential Buildings at NWC Building H: Anticipated to be of similar architectural style to Building E on the SWC Building F: Elevations will be modeled off of units at the Broadmore project in Nampa and will be 2 to 3-stories in height, depending on the bedroom count,with first floor garages, as follows: I ■P rii i it 1r rr loss F-r nr if 11 v ed City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 107 P. Schematic Gravity Irrigation Exhibit for 40'Wide Easement I �Tn N, 1, M r be 011 -i 21 15 LAl P i Mg w q V City of Meridian Department Report V11. Exhibits 108] 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). prioritized outcome of the 2019 Comprehensive Plan. B. 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 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 1 09 Mayor Robert E. Simison City Council Members: V I�IAl�T John Overton, President �"� Anne Little Roberts,Vice President Brian Whitlock Liz Strader Doug Taylor Luke Cavener March 27, 2026 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning &Zoning Commission FROM: Sonya Allen, Associate Planner CC: City Clerk RE: Syringa Crossing (H-2025-0007)—Application Revisions Since the original staff report was issued, a revised overall conceptual development plan and pathway plan was submitted that depicts wider 10-foot-wide sidewalks along collector streets (W. Lyra St. & S. Hermatite Ave.) on the northwest corner(NWC) of Amity& Meridian/SH-69, a new pathway segment on the southwest corner(SWC) of Amity &Meridian/SH-69 in the commercial area leading to the common open space area across the street in front of the clubhouse in the multi- family development, and a wider 10-foot-wide pathway extending through the multi-family development to common open space areas and adjacent roadways. A change to the zoning is also requested on the NWC—the C-G zoning is proposed to be replaced by C-C zoning for the commercial area and L-O zoning the office area. No other changes are proposed. The staff report has been updated accordingly in strike-out/underline format and updated exhibits are included. Flo] Development Application Transmittal Link to Project Application: Syringa Crossing Mixed Use Development H- 2025-0007 Hearin Date: December 18, 2025 Assigned Planner: Sonya Allen To view the City of Meridian Public Records Repository, Click Here The above "Link to Project Application" will provide you with any further information on the project. The City of Meridian is requesting comments and recommendations on the application referenced above. To review the application and project information please click on the application link above. The City of Meridian values transparency and makes a variety of information available to the public online through our public records repository. We request that you submit your comments or recommendations prior to the hearing date specified above. When responding, please reference the file number of the project. If responding by email, please send comments to comment(a)_meridiancity.org. For additional information associated with this application please contact the City of Meridian Planner identified above at 208-884-5533. Thank you, City Clerk's Office 33 E. Broadway Ave., Meridian, Idaho 83642 Phone: 208.888.44331 Email: cityclerk meridiancity.org Built for Business, Designed for Living All e-mail messages sent to or received by City of Meridian e-mail accounts are subject to the Idaho law, in regards to both release and retention, and may be released upon request, unless exempt from disclosure by law. 111 E IDIAN;--- Applicant Presentation - r � rr rr , �. Hm2025 � 0007 0 Syr 0 I Crossing _ n 4 _ f � 9 EAM Planning and Zoning Commission PIA°° April 2 , 2026 PLAZA B J` ; HAWKINS � , Location Map }} r f nrRdma+n jr- T oroY#11�=jr=y4, • Request: 71 Milli, �.� 5 _ �, Annexation, Zoningand Development Agreement of 56 acres .V '�i�!"� '� �� � '�� �� on NW and SW corners of Amity and Meridian Rds. MUMMOL 1P.. —2 Phases considered under a single development agreement ' a7w -14I -1 W Lyra 5t Phase I: SW Corner Phase 11: NW Corner CUP and Preliminary Plat on SW Corner (Phase 1) jL le KID 'E AwIlY Rd I h 7F11 * i .2 {Licraior rNO i.� } � • � .r is il r -LLaidera bc' �HAWKINS 2 History - Consider as a Single Project • July 21, 2020 - Pre-app with City of Meridian for Northwest Corner only. SWC - Remain in County for Future County Use (currently wholesale nursery) NWC - 284 residential units and 131,000 SF Commercial on 26 acres • City of Merdian Feedback: Pursue Master Plan for both NW and SW corners, considered under one development agreement. 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. Location Map 7 OPEN SPACE MULTI-FAMILY IP]COMMERCIAL• El OFFICE 44111 �I I I F r Request: • Annexation Zoning and Development Agreement on NW and r SW corners 1'kk VY Lyra 7# 5 7Y ��fl �� m, _ aa, x • CUP and Preliminary Plat on SW Corner (Phase 1) IW } v J '- .. • Project Summary: . T . 0 4P # a . : • —56 acres on NW + SW Corners of Amity and Meridian Rd Vvre • Homes for u to 423 families 14.9 units residential acre h N oo J R l 11,u�l IuT IT aHAWKINS 'JI I 9' I F 4 Location Map 7 OPEN SPACE MULTI-FAMILY IP]COMMERCIAL• El OFFICE - Request: � r��yl � __._ • Annexation, Zoning and Development Agreement on NW and }— 1 SW corners -:r # � �� - � ' • CUP and Preliminary Plat on SW Corner (Phase 1) f � VIA :. : _ • Project Summary. r[ a 4.it : • —56 acres on NW + SW Corners of Amity and Meridian Rd _ _ �� 1 • Homes for up to 423 families 14.9 units residential acre _ :f;. �,»�» • 21,000 sf of dedicated office space (e.g. professional office, medical offices, daycare) �� •ice — — � _ � .-- - --o a b��•, - ��,��t�� 1, I TM ' L �I d . � r �HAWKINSa`..: 'I 5 Location Map 7 OPEN SPACE MULTI-FAMILY IP]COMMERCIAL El OFFICE - U r ■0 im - Request: � r��yl � __._ • Annexation, Zoning and Development Agreement on NW and �7 1 a - SW corners wv i-yra � I r lea�p �, e+i� .��� F.P� f / • _ £ V -4 CUP and Preliminary Plat on SW Corner (Phase 1) 'A �+ . :: = .. • Project Summary: p • —56 acres on NW + SW Corners of Amity and Meridian Rd 3 � • Homes for up to 423 families 14.9 units residential acre ! 1 »��.o �I! • 21,000 sf of dedicated office space (e.g. professional office, medical offices, daycare) 137,280 sf of food, retail, personal services, other commercial - services (e.g. daily needs grocery story, restaurants, hair/nail salon, bank, gas station, daycare, medical clinic) 411 �I �HAWKINSa`..: 'I 6 Location Map 7 OPEN SPACE MULTI-FAMILY IP]COMMERCIAL El OFFICE - U r ■0 im !�� � ;yl dI r_ -_.-.___, • Annexation, Zoning and Development Agreement on NW and VVi-yrx ; JP SW corners # CUP and Preliminary Plat on SW Corner (Phase 1) .._ • Project Summary: • —56 acres on NW + SW Corners of Amity and Meridian Rd • Homes for up to 423 families 14.9 units residential acre r 0 . N.I. "� � �_ _ � ; -� �-� ; . ��� • 21,000 sf of dedicated office space (e.g. professional office, FOO-i — k medical offices, daycare) _-== E=_ - __ _ • 137,280 sf of food, retail, personal services, other commercial services (e.g. daily needs grocery story, restaurants, hair/nail .o salon, bank, gas station, daycare, medical clinic) ul ` '` • 12% of area is dedicated to quasi-public open space and plaza 4 areas for "leisure, active play, or enhanced natural spaces' L I N • 2 Phases considered under a single development agreement : W o ■ Phase I: SW Corner 7�3 Phase 11: NW Comer a C ' ,4 JJ �HAWKINS I Proposed Zoning • Mixed-Use Community: Sample zoning includes: R-15, R-40, TN-R,TN-C, C-C, and L-0 -Yra �x R ,5 4 (MetlUm Hlgl1 I #' Residential uses are expected to comp rise between s o�nslty i �, ��- Aesidenkial - 20 and 5O of the development area, with gross -P r _ densities ranging from 6 to 15 units/acre (of the - residential area)- ODpffhlod Y = I t • Gross Residential Density: 14.9 units/acre ti Residential Uses■ 24.4 acres (44% of development area) C(Cor�murliry � - �o►nntercisll � • Proposed Zoning (net acres): • R-15 - 8 acres • L-0 - 2.8 acres • C-C (NW Corner) - 16.4 acres (Community • C-C (SW Corner) - 6.8 acres Commercial} �-- • R-40 - 16.4 acres • Proposed Zoning (gross acres and densities): • R-15 - 10.55 acres 4 up to 101 units 4 up to 9.6 units/acre R-40 ., • L-0 - 2.8 acres 4 21,000 SF of buildings (High Density Residential) ` r • C-C (NW Corner) - 17.3 acres 4 107,000 SF of building area 1 i ® i C-C (SW Corner) - 6.8 acres 4 29,900 SF of building area * R-40 - 17.66 acres 4 322 units 4 18.2 units/acre �HAWKINS 8 . � • Mixed-Use Community: Sample zoning includes: R-15, R-40, TN- Whynot equal parts on each side . R TN-C C-C, and L-0 � 1VrNrUWPI f7_2 JM Recognizing the dynamic nature of mixed use areas, additional flexibility is afforded to 1 , these ranges through other referenced policies. Any mixed use project must work towards era sx the purpose and intent statements, including availability of goods and services to the R ;5 `Mom sign II � community, and must offset impacts by providing quality of life opportunities not typically r r A9Side�klal) � _ r achievable through other single use areas of the City. 00 Grocery/Daily Need Store on one corner anchors shopping center. `°rftd Y_ =' This requires significant acreage to meet community's needs. ti Commercial Synergy leads to tenant mix that has high value to surrounding Cr(CW�murliry community Reduces vehicle trips (increases trip capture) - Still, adequate parking is important since low surrounding density creates large trade area. Le. most trips will be via car. • C-C �unity Average ntial Net Goods and services in these areas tend to be of the variety that people will (Comm Densft Commercial} 5.41 mainly travel by car to, but also walk or bike to (up to three or four miles). 1 Dwelling Units I Acre w Grocery/Daily Needs user preference for NW corner based on surrounding I'll IL ALLtraffic patterns (High�e sity NW corner flatter than SW corner - easier for large buildings (e.g. 65,000 Residential) sf grocery store) la Office offers transition between grocery user and residential aHAWKINS 9 Why not equal epartson each side? _ Aw �, ;Yr j -i • Mixed-Use Community: Sample zoning includes: R- 15, R-401 TN- ! : I R,TN-C, C-C, and L-0 if+ke�UmHIry I *�. • Multifamily component on SW corner offers additional housing rr Aesidenklal) -P ffr4 '+ M typology not found within miles of site. r Y Commercial Area on SW corner designed to tie into NW corner crate Y commercial center C(Car�murlrry • Commercial tenant success relies upon visibility from Meridian Rd �o►nntercisll � and Amity Rd. • Commercial tenant success = Community success ---------------- - Commercial uses wrap corners to buffer negative impact of intersection noise on residents. (Community Commercial} Residential areas are adjacent to future/proposed residential uses to buffer from commercial uses 9 Quality of Life Opportunities 40 De _ Parks, Plazas, and Pathways exist within and between each use on both corners (High Density Residential} r of development that connect each use to all others. la Neighborhood meeting moment: Surrounding residents to north expressed + � excitement about future commercial opportunities within the project. �HAWKINS 10 Mix of Uses ❑OPEN SPACE MULTI-FAMILY IP]COMMERCIAL El OFFICE • M ixed use areas must include at least three land use types r �> � ����� 4 IMI within a designation. - Intrinsic to the success of mixed use areas where Generalized Land Use Types people may live 1st Place), work 2nd Place and la •*� � Ii +rI - __._ For`the purposes of the Mixed Use section,the City identifies or spend time (3rd Place), is a healthy balance of both five different generalized land use types: residential and non-residential uses. Having a 3rd place JP W Lyra 7[ �+ in close proximity to home or work, a place to escape, . 1. commercial (includes retail, restaurants, daycares, etc-). i kzr- ~56f office, is essential to the emotional and physical health and residential; well-being for most people. Not all mixed use areas are 4. civic (includes both public and quasi-public open space, expected to be all places to all people, but they are for leisure, active play, or enhanced natural spaces; andsexpected to be more than just where any given person 5. industrial- u _ e ., �' either lives or works. • Project Summary: acres on NW + SW Corners of Amity and Meridian Rd i s i >r »L.% kr • Homes for up to 423 families (14.9 units/residential acre) -=—=_ = =_=-E-- -_ -- - _ • 21,000 sf of dedicated office space (e.g. professional office, medical �- offices, daycare) 1 137,280 sf of food, retail, personal services, other commercial services (e.g. daily needs grocery story, restaurants, hair/nail salon, i LJ ul A bank, gas station, daycare, medical clinic, "community-serving" uses) r' ' ' • 12% of area is dedicated to quasi-public open space and plaza areas �`' ' ` for "leisure, active play, or enhanced naturals aces" � " - • 2 Phases - considered under a single development agreement: . Phase I: SW Corner AHAWKINS j • Phase 11 NW Corner Mix of Uses (SWC - Phase 1) OPEN SPACE MULTI-FAMILY COMMERCIAL OFFICE • Mixed use areas must include at least three land use types within _ a designation. Intrinsic to the success of mixed use areas where -- " 1111147 -� `-- - — Generalized Land Use Types EAMt7YROAD _ � - - Y people may live (1st Place), work (2nd Place), and play --- -- For the purposes of the Mixed Use section,the City identifies or spend time (3rd Place), is a healthy balance of both ^AN— - • ti five diffL!3-rent generalized land use types residential and non-residential uses. Having a 3rd lace � 9 P in close proximity to home or work' a place to escape, . I. commercial (includes retail, restaurants, da cares, etc_); ` - - - ■� �. office; is essential to the emotional and physical health and _ _ -- - ' .�• well for most people. Not all mixed use areas are 3. residential; g pe p R-4o--TJ. I '. r 4. civic (includes both public and quasi-public open space, expected to be all places to all people, but they are 'W- for leisure, active play, or enhanced natural spaces); and, expected to be more than just where any given person 5. industrial. .•, � � : , ; • � �� -- �: . +, ----— -� �� either lives or works. • SWC Summary: = y,y = -� f y • —24.4 acres on SW Corner of Amity and Meridian Rd t - - -- � -: ,�_ • 322 residential units (18.23 units/acre) aEn. r, • —30,000 sf of food, retail, personal services, other commercial services (e.g. shops buildings with restaurants hair nail salon retail' bank as station p g / , g , ----- - ----+ ' daycare, medical clinic, "community-serving" uses) • 1.9 acres (7.5% of area) is dedicated to quasi-public open space and plaza areas for "leisure, active play, or enhanced natural spaces", excluding pathways connecting areas. This does not include area exc/usive/yreserved ' - - - IL6 for mu/6-family residents 31111ING Gx PlllWG4f % i - "^ --- ---- - 10' pathways connect all uses and connect to existing and future developments to the north, south, east, and west �HAWKINS 12 Uses (NWC - Phase 11) r - I -A I _C_ MkilI I III � • Mixed use areas must include at least three land use types OPEN SPACE MULTI-FAMILY COMMERCIAL 0FFICF Within a designation. r Intrinsic to the success of mixed use areas where 4 Eli Gencrakzed Land Use Types people may live (1st Place), work (2nd Place), and play _ "�• 1I + Forthe purposes of the Mixed Use section,the City identifies or spend time (3rd Place), is a healthy balance of both five different generalized land use types: residential and non-residential uses. Having a 3rd place 1_ commercial includes retail, restaurants, daycares, etc_); in close proximity to home or work, a place to escape, 311) — office, is essential to the emotional and physical health and 3. residential; well-being for most people. Not all mixed use areas are 4. civic (includes both public and quasi-public open space, expected to be all places to all people, but they are F1 for leisure, active play, or enhanced natural spaces), and, expected to be more than just where an given person 5. industrial_ i. w� either lives or works. c- ,1 � IDT� Rr r +f • NWC Summar • � # 30.7 acres on NW Corner of Amity and Meridian Rd - 0 L r • Up to 101 residential units 1 ` r • 21000 sf of dedicated offices ace (e.g. professional office medical offices, daycare) �R;4 107,400 sf of food, retail, personal services, other commercial services WI (e.g. daily needs grocery story, restaurants, hair/nail salon, bank, gas station, daycare, medical clinic, "community-serving" uses) ' AI Linear park, open space adjacent to Pads D and E, an office plaza, and 771 commercial plaza all contribute to quasi-public open space and plaza - --- areas for "leisure, active play, or enhanced natural spaces" a SLIP aHAWKINS 13 Functional integration/ Holistic Design [7 OPEN SPACE MULTI-FAMILY ❑COMMERCIAL• OFFICE CONNECTIVITY LEGEND I.RI11MI '1 ��� �. � .I . �.'; +rs..a. 1O' aDEV11ALl • A varlet of uses, both residential and non-residential, are r__= B'SIDEWALFC 4 : F{ critical in successfully creating spaces that are unique / distinctive, and attractive. Successful projects reduce vehicle ` W trips for nearby residents and/or visitors by having frequent, accessible and safe pedestrian connections. S — cG 4L The design of quality mixed use areas is not accomplished b merely including a variety of land use types, elements and `............ ; .�..:.� features, but by the manner in which such elements and ° features are seamlessly integrated towards the purpose and N ° vision of mixed use. The uses and site elements of a proposed r mixed use project will be designed foremost around the idea of visible, attractive, and accessible destinations. -n............ Y our rvc¢ - . .....................dry. # fY LEGEND . _r - i SIc)FWAIK SIDEWALK '4 DEWALK 14 �HAWKINS Functional integration/ Holistic DesignNWC - Phase IIX Uff orww 1MIN' " OPEN SPACE MULTI- FAMILY COMMERCIAL OFFICE `r l i 10111-11 , =Lrm Mill kk � urjV I I �• � �I 1 _ L ��'�� 1 Y{Yl flaiYnlsanal/gym�+H _— LYRA STREET fV Yµ _ -- _ -— _ f NWC Summary: Z. l� µL INC F ILJ Lyra St mfir�..5k 1 i - -N • P • 10' Pathway connections to larger pathway network to north. .�.y,f, ✓ NOT A PART or JI i - r • 10' Pathway connections to SW corner at corner of Amity and Meridian -§ _ :� Rd and Amity and Hermatite Ave. PROI (.a_i, � , .- _ • 10 pathway connects directly to Grocery/Daily Needs store front. �(.unn u,uw niur�� I ....If►Y�ff'li R�n.ti ' -... - mow: • 10' pathway along Hermatite provides :z �ratiu..rrnr.r..r.i.nh.rr...111.i..Ir.nlr........... `� •'+a, 1 � I:r�r'• = • Linear Park connecting residential areas to north to office and p(n ilinn.uul..iuulru...ri..)_ '. ,z: = NOT commercial uses to south and southeast. lug E .•A., pnnlL ••�-- a - • 8,400 sf office plaza/greenspace links residential and office uses A. �!' ' }� - • PAI1 L. �yr1l llllllln ll�l. Irin n.��' "AFC _ u1An 111A .�YJ• p�j.n lliunu- _ 4 ; ` -Jp . - .-_---_ L nrt rVOnRn ti11 �HAWKINS Functional integration/ Holistic DesignNWC - Phase II OPEN SPACE MULTI-- FAMILY COMMERCIAL OFFICE _ 3 .b rl Oran = f .f r� Milk �• � I _ 1 PM17]n I+ I STREETn � +....., A � iasl�al.11l.all. . '%O- 9UILC1INCf- •'�,�C,,t.l!{llalln�.lr - --------- - Lyra St NOT A PART f - - ..fir;::. •y4 � � c t �-- rQ, LEH [11LCIING=.' �� ......................��� + ;;ol' 1 a I 1'A9h rrtaPh ......ni.�+rrl _ice 1 a� .. .. � r nruil►. �u p(uiliunluuL.iuulr.l r..... %*- eel v= rao - •'� ARE i ki ,-Atli �{lulluanlu m }� VAIIL. _ �. Irlrl 1.�: CACtF PAC)A -�••-� I ��IIYhy1.11Y11If- -11— Iljr�11'1�N/41j 1��� 1. r�{Ial�l rr lr��11111�111 la .aY � r �� p'� I w �HAWKINS 16 Functional integration/ Holistic DesignNWC - Phase II �. •� = 1 U ww 4 I 'NSi' , OPEN SPACE MULTI- FAMILY COMMERCIAL OFFICE tr i r � �� I i1! �� �r r 3 Milk. 40MLA COMMERCIAL �- GREENSPACE'. '� M!'ntlln�nmgrl.y�r+ryry Y, A� VY.LYFtJA STREET '+ryrr i PAD E NOT PA+rr wqy Lyra St is E5IRBL15 % *' r � 'l NOT A PART *,FV. - r [11LDING ................... PADa PAD E a..nl�aaa PiryROliI r. j�KPAUj DINING 9� � �_-�_ ESTABLISHMENT ,. a ...... PLAZA l;.. PLAZA I �ONiM�AC]A lu _ E A. - IF NQT,d L GRE�:N x;� PAD 1' R51'LC'1'1VE 3 DINING ESTABLISHMENT sss111(((,,,,,,ttt �V' - W.AMITY XOAO PLAZA COMMERCIAL • GREENSPACE PADS PaoA -'i + = r.; '(R...hy.... ....a uil •IM w` it 1.� 1��ainglHirn.. E' y + ! r J_- - - r -„r • _ __ _ — COMMERCIAL '' c nrtA1-rV-- GREENSPACE �HAWKINS 17 Functional integration/ Holistic DesignNWC - Phase IIX Uff orww 1MIN' " OPEN SPACE MULTI- FAMILY COMMERCIAL OFFICE `r l kkL Mill �• � �I 1 _ w A W LYR STRE+i_T •yry� yq Cs BI.TSH ]ENT PLP +a �y.i.,I ,........r.n. •�� '9•�••.II�F)r.I.I.IC — 4. PAP ERS ? V - O- 9UILC1INC r_ r.. A PA —� ST Ly• a St S L = _ I W AMITY RDAD r' C-N � r NOT A PARTFi or - - [11LCII4G=.1 ..u..u.... + •'T-�-_ �• - __ _ t •..r., . . + mil`•tii�S _ 7r � = _�(.w uu m[-)Jkjr ....r rr ..ti _.. 1F ,.•;r � � - -.E� �_- .. •�' — - � �= - � .tea:+ � � � ��r,.ti.�....r,r....r.....h.r�n...uiu.r..u1.�..i..n.�-'!� _ � � � � _ ..� _ t ^ {■■■�`+ l�� r —t•;� � i4xn5 i �� e Qh � -,.� it • nrn0��l..IIlrlliir I� '-kr� �� � r'r�i,lF'�h r�r�R �i •"r�l J.�,IN • �r �1 ti i..u.r..........> !xn a 1OTd J f Ui� PAnits` ARE ` DINING ESTABLISHMENT PLAZA + . }� - • PAI1L. �yIlI1111111J 11�1. .....r.l..�� "PF[I .�lJ �angiainu- %g".111141IL rif �HAWKINS 18 Functional Integration/ Holistic DesignSWC - Phase ❑ OPEN SPACE MULTI-FAMILY COMMERCIAL OFFICE . SWC Summary. --`'- - -- _ _ --= -- EAMFrY�OAD = 10' pathway links and amenity nodes integrate all uses and connectto �llly{rrrrrr[�11 - -- fJllr .. - ;4 E�o+s;�RoomI&IR`K—,; existing and future developments to the north, south, east, and west PADC PAD 8' DA I Z • Central "Spine" Pathway connects proposed residential to south to quasi- public amenities throughout project to commercial area to north. a y _ . 74 • ,, ILaItiU# _ • 10 Detached Pathway on Hermatite Ave (western boundary of site) and -'"Is waiver to fence and berm requirement invites pedestrian and cyclist use from wOH future developments to west to utilize quasi-public open space, amenities, p and pathways. This sets precedent for other sections of Hermatite . w = Site Plan Updated February 2026 to Enhance Connectivity and Integration p Y Y g _ � n of Uses d.l]:+1G 164kILPING ` BVLEI . I%i 3.• - - � -3P E .,.E-1.2 r.- �. F.i C-1.0 • 10' Pathway links to connect quasi public nodes (Parks, Plazas) f # =3 Reduce multi family parking on SW corner to provide more open space RRRr{riRiH rr rff� }I#I Rrfli.A{1'.•.5 _" `k.. h,..i f f •.r F Grade changes on SW corner necessitate smaller buildings and — irrrr�rr 9l]ILGin predominantlyeast-west arkin field layout. Focus on several large north- CONNECTIVITY LEGEND .. rr+'y'JRrarrJ,+trr rr"r}utra ."` - p g Y g 5`-6'51DEWALiG : HU�LUIN� f. I6111LdING .. - t.21 . [JUII:7IVGB-� $�I�I �, -� south pathways due to ramp/retainingwall requirements. 1 Q'SIDEWALK • Clubhouse Finished Floor is 11' above Pad C finish floor -�: S'SIDE ALK — u .01M, • Clubhouse FF is 12 above Building G finish floor . I �HAWKINS Functional Integration/ Holistic DesignSWC - Phase ❑ OPEN SPACE MULTI FAMILY COMMERCIAL OFFICE IEW > /� y�lll�y{rilrugpll -- I'd Flun _.J- .- - PAD PAOA T t� _ r"eV rANM W1kti R�1s"�rnrlr^ ;3� , -- %.+ 1. O 6A - PAGE: �. P0.0 B 10 PLAZAA BUILpINUp2 46 ° rr - -e� r PLAZA B till opqjw = LUBHOU f or OWNS&- COMMERCIAL PLAZA B PERSPECTIVE R I• &lIL6lNG kiti;l.l]:+1G � I BUILDING � .' BV�LEI�.� I%i `�'r Pik -.1 E-2P E-1.2 F.1 . - t-�.o .' T''f ..ems- E.AMrr ROAD r f . aldba I — 3 RRR"{•f•iH•J"f��f� 1fi II I,hl f f r�r if" 911 LDIN CONNECWITY LEGEND _ +'y'J" +q,+#q�+n„d,i" +a, N"` - Imo. ,r -.✓ .i _, '�' .�MERIDIAN ROAD o 5`-6'51DEWALiG EUR[IIivG r ire f. IBUIL6ING t-2.1 BUII DING 8-2 BUILDING 11 0sm 1 Q'SIDEWALK ---. - '- - �r1 _ -�: S'SIDEALK _. roti > y,. v ---- 4 - - n p PLAZAB B ' �HAWKINS 20 Functional Integration/ Holistic DesignSWC - Phase ❑ OPEN SPACE MULTI-FAMILY COMMERCIAL OFFICE --- -- --_ _ _ --= E.AMFTYROAD - DA IL �` '4` #r4{�rl�Y�lMlktiRrAsrrAnRy� � — . I i o PADS i -• �' Sao a - f.A Z A *- ,w- T'VTTTC d J Y PLAZA A • �r 46 r BUILpINGA2 �' ° : . + Tye LUBHOU Z F PAD 0 ► y r =� — — q• 6 I.:.. 2 - AL ' I S a y • k PLAZA B " - kiti;l.l]:+1G � I BUILDING• � R I'BIJ�LL11.� I%i &lILD1NG �•..,. - - � E-2P E-1.2 F.r C-i.o r r x l Irdidba FRR Rr{riRiH rr rf��f�r }I#I RrflirA{1'...5 _ I�� - .-C•-' _ • .� �•:;. L i +rrrr+ rr BUILGIIti' •uuruprrup Air CONNECTIVITY LEGEND - - 5r-6'S1DLWALK HUiLUI c [JU II:11VG B-� f. I BUILDING t-2.1 BUILDING C1A + �.s..af 1 Q'SIDEWALK _ s � -�: 8'SIDE ALK ultalry G = - rori > '• V V n -+.•�I�r ,wl �HAWKINS 21 Functional Integration/ Holistic DesignSWC - Phase ❑ OPEN SPACE MULTI-FAMILY COMMERCIAL OFFICE { l �` 1l� E FW1kU lIs!!l u!!yr• ;37 �. 4 ' I ,I PR6C I D pA PADo '+ -r - '. I J i S BLDG.AQ . ■ ■ ■ ;,. \ 2 x„ +# 'rr +g'+ BUiLpINGA 7 l h 4 R r + ..hr. 2 ti «. Y LEGEND �• w ' i'SIDE.WAI.K w ' SIDEWALK _.�. � ;° - ;•s ,� - �. CONNECTIVITY LEGEND — - 5'-f3'SIDEWALK NAY (mnaaa 1 O'SIDEWALK $'SIDEWALK "HAWKINS Functional Integration/ Holistic DesignSWC - Phase ❑ OPEN SPACE MULTI-FAMILY COMMERCIAL M .OFFICE SLOG A-1 ff - � ' I PR6 C BLDG E-1 2 - � j +� 1 ' BLOC E-I.l _ UJOHOU or � Is . Ry�� 3 Lr BUILCHNG ft,1 LOINGI -ill l I.11;, rj r AA A CLVf110115f - JRERR"{"iRiH"."71pf� }I#"R.f"i4F"{1'...5 IL CONNECTIVITY LEGENDId _ .. y±J{""`J"itq��n„Ja,i" a, N"` - I� ,r ✓ -- M 51-6151DLWALiG HUIL[IItvG, �rC f. I6UILOING BU11:11 Vi 8-2 BUILDING I 1 Q'SIDEWALK a ca J r S'SIDEALK is MIL ; = _ - ' HAWKINS 23 Functional integration/ Holistic Design [7 OPEN SPACE riMULT1-FAMILY ❑COMMERCIAL• OFFICE Project ect Summary. ti-- f `WL �i G J J CONNECTIVITY LEGEND . r ' Hermatite Ave backage collector with 10' pathways allows .4 brio • vehicles and bike/pedestrians to have mobility without traveling •••�. 1 O'SIDEWALK on major arterial roadways. r--= B'SIDEWALK 4 ° F y {M 10' pathways connect all uses and connect to existing and future �n.�� ►p7Apylr +l ` developments to the north, south, east, and west •,. "' ` 10' Pathway connections across Amity Rd in two locations and _ - • invites bicycle and pedestrian use in plaza areas that form i ment entrances to each development .s , p 4 cG AN $ w • — _ -- t PAD s 1 ' - 4 Is .� .. --tea - -- — .- — I'� l5�'E'C� _ IVE 1 , 1- - snon 8 PAD Fp PLAZA B 6 :(r .................. r.rrrr..r. nr.re.............. i..... ry LEGEND ,.-,,-_ — $IpFWAiK SIDEWALK J +F'+ IDEWALK - - AHAWKINS ; 24 I ♦ 1 / 1 1 1 � � • • , I I ! rar aJ� I � rl' Y ■� 17 � r !r1■ IIII � 'I'�..-_. +111 '+ I I �",d' � I' �, ma's !� ,i ��I yT'"i!�"�� — ��..h�rJI�-:::���� . - I� .-, ,r�''� _J� ..ky . 11,7, �" •�,� mi JT - ._-_-.-- - - - - - - - 1 72 F" ' WhyOur Plan Works and Complies with Merdian 'sComprehensive Plan Recognizing the dynamic nature of mixed use areas, additional flexibility is afforded to these ranges through other referenced policies. Ultimately, any mixed use project must work towards the purpose and intent statements, including availability of goods and services to the community, and must offset impacts by providing quality of life opportunities not typically achievable through other single use areas of the City. The base land use coverage ranges are a starting point, with exceptions expected to include justification not on current market conditions, but the health and wellbeing of the community, and the market potential and buildout overtime for the service area of each mixed use designation. • Across NW and SW corners, density remains consistent with Comprehensive Plan. • Mixed-Use Community desires <15 units/acre. We propose <15 units/acre. • Across NW and SW corners, we offer 4 different land use types that are functionally integrated with safe, convenient, and accessible pathway connections. This wi//increase the share of non-motorized trips to/from the development. • Commercial • Residential • Office • Civic/Quasi-public • The higherthe residential density of the project, the greaterthe share of non-motorized trips to/from the development will be. • Successful mixed use projects not only require a mix of uses, but people who live within convenient walking/cycling distance of those uses. �HAWKINS 26 WhyOur Plan Works and Complies with Merdian 'sComprehensive Plan • STARs Agreement made possible by successful Commercial Center (only possible by grocery-anchored center) • Additional transportation improvements above and beyond what is required to mitigate development impacts. • Shopping Center with Grocery Anchor requires more land on NW Corner, which shifts larger residential area to SW Corner • Density of NW corner chosen to match existing residential uses to the north and northwest. • Different densities across NW and SW corners allow for a diversity of product types, increasing options for future residents. • Single Development Agreement provides clear expectations • One developer, one owner on both sides of road, provides a unique opportunity for collaboration between City and Developer to create truly integrated plan. • City and Developer have clear understanding of how the entire property will develop. aHAWKINS 27 Thankyou ! Please recommend approval of H -2025-0007 to CityCouncil pp Questions? r � PADA PARE OThrn . h t tit I -� f+ti. L A lr 1 �HAWKINS 28 Gravity Irrigation E_AMITY ROAD �.11YA'■d4 ki6 5.' �� �I.rerJo-;ro�wn.b ptlN+lli s�LMI IAl y nr mar+i-• L r.waTr:ixs�.z� Dal 7,1 K MlC IIdY]IX.Y.Ig10 f� � �� �GH]li:1N11afM 'r_JYM•r5'J� 6f LLI pw r y rPRP,,� rn•.fA DW*AW I C 1JI vi A ,1.a6 , w 1 -— 4—--� ..— .. _ I I� I •Irow�em�••u°F°ireec.,�sRrrla�°irs..w.wp ——————————————— I Y�Y+ErLrt Id pL v`rV+l6 Ix�y{Ya — rx L-n,r suwmu SCHEMATIC GRAVITY IRRIGATION EXH1BIT SH 5.I/Idr[r[HSrca uw�o nw.o-A[W IIII.'R}'9MITLL. sdr_-ec �ceo',...wltal_rifren� �HAWKINS 29 TIS - Traffic Counts Table . Updated N ort h Pro ert Pro see TrI Generation r • ■ Weekday AM PeakiWeekday PM Peak Hour Total ■ ■ Out Gross ■f ips 1 RO94 698 377 321 1,411 732 679 Intemal Trips ( ,647) (84) (4 ) (4 ) (270) (135) (135) External Trips 10,447 614 335 279 1#1 1 597 POSS-By Taps (2,728) (11 ) (5 ) (5 ) ( 45) (1 4) (1 1) Net New Trips 7,719 502 279 223 896 473 423 Tall . l! dated Southr art r0 ad Geeraflon Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour Total • • Gross Trips ID,324 902 426 4746 853 463 390 fnterryc:f Trips (1,:m) (120) ( ) ( ) (156) (79) (78) External Trips 8,436 782 366 425 697 3W 322 Pass-By Trips (3,946) (393) (197) (1 ) (302) (152) (150) Net New Trips 4.p490 389 169 220 395 233 162 aHAWKINS 30 Proposed Right- in/ Right-out Access 1 11 1 V Va y �� 7.� - � C.�—a •1i 1 � 1 y Irk 11 1 -� �: lfll I I ' Ij I1: Wit 11' , 11 1` /1 11 �� .,.��.rr� � •art.-"'--'�� 4 J 11, 11 1�'• 1 0 -� ���li� Ik 11 � r � f I 11 17 11 •11 �, II II 11 11 � J Proposed 1 Corner .:.eW;YN.:-♦.::�w3!3+h'hsY.=:a'>+5{�-r'F.w YY� IY11111<r� _ r Ir µF ■!� s ter` 1 i 'pa -lFy _p'� r 1� h 111 ii L�Y. J L �� � .. 1 IZJ■ {:J�114f�::�#!#I��11!!Ei���ll1�±Ei3?iq.E�l1l���d#IIEE�3tl1��Il��Ei€#IIIE##!i`,� 4 i _ M + E y■ � h F I RI I It I Ulf p IN " 1 i ■■ �■ ■■�;� ■ui■rrpilll n■. uil �1 �i■ ■qll■■ Y�f� . r � � llll!!1� R .• -Umm ��i 1-- �--- L11 ##{ 11 II�J ■11 INI! I.I1�11111 11� 1 11 #1 oil ` A I High -QualityMaterials & Finishes w VINYL WINDOWS BLACK VRI WINDOWS 8B7F a ARCHMECTURAL METALS& STOREFRONT WINDOWS F48 DARK BRONZE 4B`413 CANYON MIST RUNNING ROND 1A1A MUTUAL MATERFAL FIBER CEMENT SIDING y4 '��' INDIOOBATIK r r�_,4 '�:fw' :.. .." '"'*`:- VARIEGATED BOARD 3 BATTEN ALLURA FIBER CEMENT SIDING STEELY GRAY VARIEGATED BOARD&BATTEN ALLURA 716E - STUCCO 1ESC LIGHT GREANI FII3ERCEMENT$IDINIG MEDiLjm SAND PEBBLE FINISH WARM V9IiIS#Y 10.25"VERTrGAL SFII PLAP JAM ES 1-IAIDIE 1 HSA 1 Fiakk CEMENT LAP SIDING FIBER CEMENT SIDING WHITE BLACK MAGIC TRADITIONAL LAP T CLAPBOARD ALLURA ALLURA JACKSON I MAIN THE HAWKINS AT ARCIiiTECTiJfi YRIl�lf"w1L pOSSIN MATERIAL 317 FIRST AVENUC5t71_ITI7 ti] 1 1 ��J�J/'y CROSSING &AT P I F.wA'A-I M SELECTION 12136 324 ASW %vArOYJACKS3NnWIN.Crm PROJECTNQ.= 23CC5 ❑RAWRBY: mo / �HAWKINS 1 f = i r '1 �. { a Multifamily Elevations and Renderings amp - - F rr, oaf Aw HAWKINS _ •� r A f MultifamilyElevations and Renderings PfECESSkU,FRNAIk SIGrLL4llllik tlU.Jtl ACtFfll TAI:ClV r�JAIkU FfEAIAING IL7 SIfiONG tlXfCK Ll4XU AL6NCa I'ME T PATIO WPW WARM 7HAT BLENDS WY H THE PXOUIpE ylaplM1G A-D a BOLD `3 GR4pHp LEVEL &ILOPPANPLING WAR14R TCNE�MdTEPldt9 WTYNE OF M1{hTERIAS TO CdEATE AREFINED. RLl5TIC N6AIE Um G. 7 15 F �—EE4EL R3 I 7 I LEYELUQ _ _ 3 JII. 'l L 0' 17' — nE+n 4 F 4 iII I 3 BUILING G-D FRONT ELEVATION ,. ,,� ,rsrrxr{naaru.nsp LIIN.l1G axTn pEX R4-rY ,p�,ApF ixwwc ail};3pLp GLbI�G'MR1.1sF Nkal4ll l{xip HAND Ia 0FY.'I4 Ire'.f-0' NhTCRYli ro oPLiIG A RQSxcc ww.xi for L 0f W-AY /�xYM pu': I I GItlI10[a Jt••IIVLB I re.src HOLY F F r 03 as artzyrs-ixc T A F r.s _ � h oil a pl- LL I I I I I I BUILUIN 6 B-REAR E LEVATION �HAWKINS x MultifamilyElevations and Renderings } T T H T E D 8 A REUSSED,PR(VATE RIFCESSE0 WARM COLOR ANGLED DARK PROJECTIDNS BRdCK ACCENT PROFILE WRAPS PATH]WITH COOL GREY- I I 'GASKET"AT MAIN TOWERS TO PROVIDE ARTICULATION OF APoaUNID TO PROVID$A SHARP 13LUL VERTICAL SIDING TO DWIDE UP JASSING THE FA.0 ADE AND INTEGRA4 ❑ELINEATIDN EW- WEEN MASSES 7 16 F 1 C 2 A 1 SHADING 1 C A E 5 l 1 —671 7 1 6 F i BLDG R=ROOF - - - - O _ BLDGA•L4 BLDG A_L3 _ — T it aLy'—0 n — � � Lrv•�J BLDG11- A-B•D CE.UJ METAL CANOPY AT LOBBY OPENINGS INTO PARKING GARAGE LEVEL ENTRANCE FOR WEATHER I I SCREENED WITH METAL TRE1119 FOR I I l I I PROiEGTION AND WAYFINDING VERTICAL GREEN WALL.PROVIDING PRIVACY AND 9I0PHILIG BENEFT$ BLDO A - NORTH ELEVATION AHAWKINS 39 Commercial Shops BuildingConcept Elevation 7 7 1 7 � � I SiGN SIGN SIGN - ---�----.--------�--- f----�----�---- ------- ---�---� �---- -ate I 1 Y _ 4 Ir Y I I � 1 I I I I - -�- ------ -�--�------ -----�- - - lam 1 } I I � I 1 pAO A PLAZA A EAST ELEVATMN �HAWKINS 40 ConceptualTownhome Examples r i Y-1 1 I I w. j �►� ... .. � ''tam-�-'•� _.. �-� - -�`�_:-�. �HAWKINS Conceptual Townhome soon N I rr HAWKINS y err r_ _ �; - ; pp d Ti • vow '- �; •�t�-• �M�s� 5 - Intersection view ICI _ _ F STARS Agreement �M!3 1 Wr E MUL71—UEE PATH-WAv feasibleOnly 1 1 d as • I r I�� �� 1 single project Hermatite Ave extended as part u 1 +F• of development IM 16 PEW FbDVd I � - 1■ I v: 1 r � - `• � yF uu a a a a � _ - - F 1 f