Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-07-02 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Thursday, July 02, 2026 at 6:00 PM MINUTES ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE PRESENT Commissioner Jessica Perreault Commissioner Matthew Sandoval Commissioner Matthew Stoll Commissioner Dom Gelsomino Commissioner Jared Smith Chairperson Maria Lorcher ADOPTION OF AGENDA Adopted CONSENT AGENDA \[Action Item\] Approved Motion to approve made by Commissioner Smith, Seconded by Commissioner Gelsomino. Voting Yea: Commissioner Perreault, Commissioner Sandoval, Commissioner Stoll, Commissioner Gelsomino, Commissioner Smith, Chairperson Lorcher 1. Approve Minutes of the June 18, 2026 Planning and Zoning Special Commission Meeting ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA \[Action Item\] ACTION ITEMS 2. Public Hearing continued from June 18, 2026 for 7Brew Coffee (H-2026-0017) by Core States Group, located at 3570 E. Fairview Ave. Recommended Approval A. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a Tier two (2) drive-through establishment on 0.64 acres of land in the C-G zoning district. Motion to approve made by Chairperson Lorcher, Seconded by Commissioner Stoll. Voting Yea: Commissioner Perreault, Commissioner Sandoval, Commissioner Stoll, Commissioner Gelsomino, Commissioner Smith, Chairperson Lorcher 3. Public Hearing for High Desert Veterinary Hospital (H-2026-0022) by Travis Butterfield and McCarter Moorhouse, located at 3147 W. Belltower Dr. Approved A. Request: Conditional Use Permit for an Animal Care Facility on approximately 0.397 acres of land currently zoned L-O. Motion to approve made by Commissioner Smith, Seconded by Commissioner Stoll. Voting Yea: Commissioner Perreault, Commissioner Sandoval, Commissioner Stoll, Commissioner Gelsomino, Commissioner Smith, Chairperson Lorcher 4. Public Hearing for Victory Stake Center (H-2026-0016) by Johnny Watson, generally located at the northwest corner of W. Victory Rd and S. Linder Rd. Recommended Approval A. Request: Annexation of 5.81 acres of land with the R-8 zoning to construct a 22,630 sq. ft. church. B. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a church in the R-8 zoning district. Motion to recommend approval to City Council made by Commissioner Gelsomino, Seconded by Commissioner Stoll. Voting Yea: Commissioner Perreault, Commissioner Stoll, Commissioner Gelsomino, Commissioner Smith, Chairperson Lorcher 5. Public Hearing for Meridian Office Building (H-2026-0020) by CSHQA, located at 3514 E. Louise Dr. Approved A. Request: Conditional Use Permit to construct and operate a 5,000 sq.ft. office building on 0.54 acres in the L-O zoning. Motion to approve made by Chairperson Lorcher, Seconded by Commissioner Stoll. Voting Yea: Commissioner Perreault, Commissioner Sandoval, Commissioner Stoll, Commissioner Gelsomino, Commissioner Smith, Chairperson Lorcher 6. Public Hearing for Regency at River Valley Phase 3 (H-2026-0010) by Bach Homes, located at 3270 E. River Valley St. Continued to August 20, 2026 A. Request: Modified Development Agreement to the existing development agreement (SGI Inst.#113005608 & Bach Storage Inst. #2020-062947) to remove the subject property from the existing agreements and enter into a new agreement with a change to the conceptual development plan and use from an indoor self-service storage facility and retail store (Option A) or drive-through restaurant (Option B) to two (2) multi-family buildings with 88 dwelling units. B. Request: Conditional Use Permit for an 88-unit, multi-family development on 2.57 acres of land in the C-C and C-G zoning districts. Motion to continue to August 20, 2026 made by Commissioner Perreault, Seconded by Commissioner Smith. Voting Yea: Commissioner Perreault, Commissioner Sandoval, Commissioner Stoll, Commissioner Gelsomino, Commissioner Smith, Chairperson Lorcher ADJOURNMENT 8:51 PM Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 2, 2026. Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of July 2, 2026, was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Maria Lorcher. Members Present: Commissioner Maria Lorcher, Commissioner Jared Smith, Commissioner Matthew Sandoval, Commissioner Jessica Perreault, Commissioner Dom Gelsomino and Commissioner Matthew Stoll. Others Present: Tina Lomeli, Tishra Murray, Bill Parsons, Sonya Allen and Dean Willis. ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE (vacant) X Jessica Perrault _X Matthew Sandoval X Matthew Stoll _X Dom Gelsomino X Jared Smith X Maria Lorcher - Chairman Lorcher: Good evening. Welcome to Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for July 2nd, 2026. At this time I would like to call the meeting to order. The Commissioners who are present for this evening's meeting are at City Hall and on Zoom. We also have staff from the City Attorney's and the City Clerk's office, as well as the City Planning Department. If you are joining us on Zoom this evening we can see that you are here. You may observe the meeting, however, your ability to be seen on screen and talk will be muted. During the public testimony portion of the meeting you will be unmuted and, then, be able to comment. Please note 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 stream it on our city's YouTube channel. You can access it at meridiancity.org/live. With that can we begin with roll call, Madam Clerk? ADOPTION OF AGENDA Lorcher: The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the -- of the agenda. There are no changes to tonight's agenda. Could I get a motion to adopt tonight's agenda? Stoll: So moved. Gelsomino: Seconded. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to adopt tonight's agenda. All those in favor say I aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. F Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission July 2,2026 Page 2 of 62 CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] 1. Approve Minutes of the June 18, 2026 Planning and Zoning Special Commission Meeting Lorcher: The next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda, which is to approve the minutes of the Planning and Zoning meeting from June 18th. May I get a motion to approve the Consent Agenda. Smith: So moved. Gelsomino: Seconded. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. 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 a staff report. Staff will report their findings on how the item adheres to our Comprehensive Plan and our Unified Development Code. After staff has made their presentation the applicant will come forward and present their case and respond to staff's comments. They will have 15 minutes to do so. After the applicant has finished we will open the floor to public testimony. Each person will be called only once during public testimony. The clerk will call names out individually for those who have signed up on our website in advance to testify. You may come up to the microphones in Chambers or you will be unmuted on Zoom. Please state your name and address for the record and you will have three minutes to address the Commission. If you have previously sent pictures or a presentation for the meeting it will be displayed on screen for -- and our city clerk will help you run the presentation. If you have established that you are speaking on the behalf of a larger group, like an HOA, where others from that group will allow you to speak on their behalf, you will have up to ten minutes. After all those who have signed up in advance have spoken we will invite any others who wish to testify. If you wish to speak on a topic you may come forward in Chambers or on Zoom press the raise hand button or if you are listening for a -- 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 and to respond. When the applicant is finished responding to questions and concerns we will close the public hearing and the commissioners will have the opportunity to discuss, F Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission July 2,2026 Page 3 of 62 hopefully make final recommendations -- or approvals or recommendations to City Council as needed. ACTION ITEMS 2. Public Hearing continued from June 18, 2026 for 713rew Coffee (H- 2026-0017) by Core States Group, located at 3570 E. Fairview Ave. A. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a Tier two (2) drive-through establishment on 0.64 acres of land in the C-G zoning district. Lorcher: With that we are going to open Item No. H-2026-0017, request a conditional use permit for 713rew Coffee at 3570 East Fairview. Just to let you know we did discuss this at our last meeting and we -- we are at a stalemate, but now we have a full commission, so, hopefully, we will be able to decide on this. Commissioner Perreault and Commissioner Sandoval, do you feel comfortable that you were able to read the minutes and the application that you will be able to respond on this application? Perreault: Yes. Lorcher: Commissioner Sandoval? Sandoval: Madam Chair, yes. Lorcher: Okay. With that we will begin with the staff report. Parsons: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. As you mentioned, this was continued from the last Planning and Zoning Commission hearing. I just want to get the -- the Commissioners that are present tonight to orient with the site a little bit and, then, get into the details of why it was continued. So, the site does consist of 0.64 acres of land currently zoned C-G and is located at 3570 East Fairview Avenue. It was a lot and block that was subdivided with the CenterCal Subdivision back in 2011. At the time that this property was annexed there is a DA that showed a building on this particular lot and as staff noted in the staff report it is consistent with the concept plan that is approved for that overall development of The Village at Meridian. The applicant is wishing to develop the site. Again a conditional use permit -- seeking a conditional use permit for a tier two drive through. Mentioned -- I believe the Commission knows this, but the restaurant -- the building itself or 713rew is actually defined as a restaurant use, which is principally permitted in the commercial zoning district. The drive through is accessory to the principally permitted restaurant use and because there is a -- one ordering point, one menu window, one stacking lane and an escape lane, this is classified as a tier two drive through, which requires approval from this body. So, as I mentioned and as -- as the Madam Chair mentioned, quite a bit of deliberation at the last hearing and there was four commissioners present and it was -- it ended in a tie. So, ultimately this was continued, but as part of your motion you did ask the applicant to come back and bring some additional information forward. The applicant does have -- F Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission July 2,2026 Page 4 of 62 have a presentation for you, so they did provide that additional queuing analysis that you requested and they will share that with you in their response this evening. So, you wanted them to provide queuing data for other city -- other stores in cities of similar size to Meridian and located on major corridors. You wanted them to pursue other options for Village parking in front of the restaurant to allow for overflow parking, see if there was an opportunity to do that and if you can see my cursor here I think the intent was to secure some additional parking, either here in front of the store or along the -- the parking in front of the buffer here for additional overflow parking. So, if -- if queuing does happen on the site there will be an opportunity for those cars to pull forward and -- and get their product and move out of the parking lane to avoid additional congestion on the site. I know some -- one of the commissioners, Commissioner Smith, had brought up some discussion about restricting the hours of operation, making sure that it didn't compete with other businesses in the shopping center. So, that's something that's certainly within your purview to further restrict the hours of operation as part of the CUP process and, then, as I mentioned we had to continue it because we had a tie and you guys wanted to make sure to get this one to the finish line. So, as I mentioned I did add one additional item to the slide that you didn't see -- you did see this particular graphic at the last hearing, but I thought it was beneficial to get you guys up to speed. They showed their queuing -- per the specific use standards for drive throughs they do have to show the amount of vehicles they can stack on the site. So, the graphic on the left does that, but also you wanted to see a mitigation plan for when they open the store and it's -- it's a popular store -- it could be very popular, so you wanted to see if they would address some interim measures to address the newness of the store and, then, hopefully, over time it will go back to a normal operating process. So, this was the exhibit that the applicant shared with you showing you how they plan to route additional vehicles on the site if it is very popular during its opening and not allow vehicles to stack on the primary drive aisle into the shopping center. Again, staff is recommending approval and I will either stand for questions or allow you to get to the applicant, so that they can share their findings with you. Lorcher: Would the applicant like to come forward? Or are they on Zoom? Lomeli: Madam Chair, it looks like they are on Zoom. Lorcher: If you can state your name and address for the record, please. Gantzert: Hi. Good evening. Can everyone hear me correct? Lorcher: Yes. Gantzert: Okay. My name is Mira Gantzert. Address 18215 72nd Avenue, Kent, Washington. 98032. Lorcher: Thank you. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission July 2,2026 Page 5 of 62 Gantzert: So, thank you so much for having us. I want to say that -- oh. Thank you. And is there a way maybe I could share my screen just so I can kind of drive it and change the slides and not -- Lomeli: Yes. We will promote you to panelist. Gantzert: Can everyone see that okay? Lorcher: Yes. Gantzert: Okay. Thank you so much. And thank you so much for being so flexible with allowing some of our team to be virtual and some of our team to be there in the Chamber. So, I kind of wanted to run through and let everyone know who -- who is here this evening on behalf of the applications. And myself Mira Gantzert, I'm the project planner with Core States Group, who is a civil engineer. Anthony Merlino is virtual as well. He is our senior civil project manager online with us. We also have Bill Burton principal with Fehr & Peers. They are our traffic consultant here to answer any traffic study related questions. They are in the Chambers with you. We have Russ Orsi. So, he is VP of construction of Forza Development. They are the developer for 713rew, especially with their expansion here out to the west. There are in person as well. We have Brenton Jackson with the Harman Group. Notably they are known for their KFC franchisees and they will actually be a 713rew franchisee. Brenton will be one for this particular store in the City of Meridian. And, then, we also do have members of the CenterCal property management team. I believe Hugh Crawford is there. We have been working very closely with them on making this project come to life. So, they are also available and may come up to speak just to say a few words once I'm kind of done going through some additional data. So, as Bill had mentioned kind of the three points we wanted to add additional insight on would be the hours of operation, the stacking queuing, as well as any traffic data we can present. So, I will hit on the 24 hours quickly. Our intent is to not pursue the 24 hours. We want to pursue just our standard 5:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. hours of operation. I think that will help alleviate any concerns, since the shopping center typically doesn't open until 10:00 or 11:00 and even with the gym opening earlier I think that will alleviate a lot of traffic and just queuing concerns and, then, any after hour concerns that hopefully the Commission had. I will jump into next kind of the stacking and queuing. So, in our last commission obviously we presented that we have the main drive lane, so that has seven cars, which meets the six car code. Since that hearing we have been coordinating with property management and we have been able to allocate six additional parking spaces specifically for the use. So, they are located here kind of at the exit of the drive through. They will have signage to delineate that it is kind of ten minute customer pickup delivery, so that customers know they can use these spaces and people using the shopping center for long term shopping will not be able to utilize those spaces. We do still have the bypass lane as an emergency overflow. I'm going to go through some stacking data that will show that we don't anticipate to use that on a regular basis. It will truly be a bypass lane, perhaps maybe just some of the beginning opening, but we should be able to contain our queue with cars in the main lane and the six parking spaces. I'm going to show just kind of Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission July 2,2026 Page 6 of 62 high level zoom out. I know everyone knows the shopping center, but most of kind of the stacking queuing will happen in this area here, with being able to utilize these spaces, kind of the stacking we were showing here as worst case scenario will probably be less than this. So, with 7Brew opening earlier than the rest of the center, as I mentioned before, it is likely that most of the employees coming to work will probably utilize some of the spaces right in front of the store. So, any stacking concerns that are happening here won't impact any customers coming to either the gym or the shopping center and it really will only kind of be more of a limited area. So, there are plenty -- plenty of room for cars to circulate the site. There is multiple access points to the drive aisles to circulate and be able to find parking and go around drive aisles. So, our intent is to, obviously, impact as little as possible of the rest of the shopping center during our operations. I will dig into a little bit of traffic data. So, we talked briefly at the last hearing about pass-by traffic. So, with data that's been taken by Kimley-Horn study across a few sites, most pass-by traffic will generally be at about 72 percent. So, again, pass-by traffic is considered someone is already on this roadway, they are going from point A to point B, they happen to be passing by 713rew, so they will make a stop on their way. The shopping center being a destination itself. We anticipate that most of the traffic is already there and so they will just utilize the drive through, get their 7Brew and either go to shopping or go home. So, that leaves about really only 28 percent of actual new traffic coming for the 713rew. And as we had previously talked as well, as new stores open up in the Meridian market that 28 percent for this particular site will decrease as people are able to go to other locations and kind of alleviate that little pressure point. So, we do not anticipate a large amount of new traffic being generated to the center and to this intersection. Next slide here I have starts to break down a little bit of peak hours and gets into details of some of the data we have on the stores. So, the peak hours of operation for 7Brew are the morning hours. They are that 7:00 to 9:00 or 7:00 to 10:00 a.m. The next small peak that we have is kind of what they call that afternoon slump. So, it's more of kind of like the 3:00 to 5:00 or 4:00 to 7:00. So, the data we have here shows trips coming in 7:00 to 10:00 a.m. and, then, trips coming in 4:00 to 7:00 p.m. So, I will caveat this with saying we do not have detailed data on the 6:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. Any cities that have requested traffic studies have never requested that late afternoon time and evening time, just because that's not really typical peak hours at all for coffee drinkers and so really these are the two peak times that we find and what this is showing is 160 overall trips in the morning, 67 overall, and if you kind of look -- a little bit hard to see -- in the breakdown even further it's really 81 plus or minus trips in and kind of the same trips going out and, again, it's significantly less in that p.m. peak of the 4:00 to 7:00 based on the Colorado and Texas site data that we found. Okay. We did talk at the last hearing as well just about putting a little more insight on the stores that we did run data on and tagging on just population. So, one point I do want to make is that population doesn't always correlate exactly to queuing. It is definitely a metric that we can use, but some high populated cities may have a smaller queue, because there are multiple sources let's say of coffee shops there versus maybe a small population is going to show a higher queue because they only have just kind of the one -- the one source. So, it's just one metric to use. It's not a complete picture of what happens. But this kind of breaks down what the cities were like in their populations. What this chart is showing is a max total queue and what I 10 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission July 2,2026 Page 7 of 62 want to point out is that this is not on a regular basis where this is the max queue. This is data that occurred for very short periods of time and that was five minutes or less across a given period that it was studied and so the rest of the day is typically much smaller than this. This was just kind of peak hours, what the maximum could be for five minutes or less. So, then, we took some of that data and we put it more in graph form, so it's a little bit easier to see. The first couple slides are going to show kind of that 7:00 to 10:00 peak time, because that is truly the peak time of 713rew. So, what we are showing here is the green line is just our actual order lane of the seven cars. The orange represents utilizing the six additional parking spaces for the pull forward and, then, the yellow symbolizes if we were to utilize the full bypass lane. So, this particular site you can see during the peak times that you would be utilizing kind of the six pull forward spaces and they were very small windows, so you can see kind of let's say from 8:25 to 8:50 where there could be one, two, three extra cars utilizing that bypass lane. Another example here, Independence, Missouri. Here is kind of the population. Same idea. You can kind of see there is 15 to 20 minute windows where cars would be stacking or using that bypass lane, but everything else would really be contained during that morning peak time within the main lane and the pull forward spaces. And I have a few more just to kind of show -- again they all kind of represent the same picture. There is kind of the 15, 20 minute window at 7:00, 8:00 and 9:00 a.m. where it peaks above the 13 spaces and we would utilize the bypass lane for just that short duration. One more here for South Carolina. This one wouldn't be using the bypass lane. Site in Utah. Again wouldn't be using the bypass lane. Everything's contained through the main lane and the pull forward spaces. And, then, we do have the two sites, one in Texas and one in Colorado. So, we have the peak morning times and, then, we have kind of the next peak, which is that late afternoon, the 3:00 to 6:00. You can see here, obviously, the morning peak times are higher than the afternoon peak times. Coffee usually equals morning. And so in this scenario everything would kind of be contained within that original order lane. And, then, on the Colorado site, same idea. The ratio you can see morning peak time significantly higher than the afternoon peak time and so everything is typically contained within kind of that pull forward space and the original spaces. And I will go back just very quickly to the site plan, so just we can look at it operationally. So, again, the intent is cars would be stacking here. If a car gets their order they leave. If a car gets the order taken and their order is larger it's taking longer, employees can direct cars to pull forward to the spaces. If car let's say three, four and five have gotten their order taken and they just want to leave the queue, they, obviously, just use the bypass lane and free up room here. If car three, four and five have gotten their order taken, but they have not received their order yet and all six parking stalls are full, they could also use the bypass lane just to pull forward and employees can use these two sliding doors to come out, deliver the orders in the striping, get the cars out of the bypass and continue getting cars into the main drive aisle lane. And that's operationally. Obviously every scenario is a little bit different, but we would try not to actually utilize the full bypass lane, maybe just portions of it just to get cars through and out of the main drive aisle. So, that was a lot. I will say -- I just want to make one kind of closing argument before you have any questions or comments. Obviously just to recap. We do meet the tier two code with the six car stack. We have seven. We have the designated bypass lane per code. We did go back and add additional parking stalls F11 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission July 2,2026 Page 8 of 62 for designated pull forward spaces that will be marked. Obviously with all the data we have seen we also understand new opening is usually a lot busier, so it's very common for new businesses to have that initial surge, but that really only typically represents a very temporary period, rather than a long-term operating condition, and so once 7Brew becomes established, the customer traffic will stabilize in a more predictable pattern, kind of like we have seen on these other sites and so for that reason we feel it's important for you to evaluate the project based on the expected long-term operations, rather than that temporary excitement with the grand opening. And we have been working very closely with the property management team and we will continue to and have a traffic management plan in place to work through any of those beginning issues that arise. We all want the business to succeed and we all want the -- the shopping center to succeed and be safe and enjoyable and easy to navigate for everybody. So, we are really looking forward to being here in the beautiful city of Meridian and we really appreciate your time. Lorcher: Okay. Thank you very much. Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: Question for the applicant. Looking at kind of those -- those generation and stacking numbers kind of over those different sites, are these averages -- I guess what is the -- what is the period we are looking at? Is this just a single day? Is this over the course of-- could you help me understand how representative these are of the norm? Gantzert: Sure. So, they were taken over multiple days. Again, we focused on the peak hours. So, the 7:00 to 10:00 a.m. and the 4:00 to 7:00 p.m. hours. Smith: And, then, for these studied locations is there any -- did you do any investigation or any research or any number crunching on the actual corridors? Obviously, with -- with trip capture being kind of a significant driver of traffic to the site. Do we have any numbers regarding average daily trips, you know, along the corridor that these businesses sit on, anything like that? Gantzert: So, we don't -- we don't have that much in-depth data. I mean all of the sites are a little bit different, but, no, we don't have corresponding traffic generation data for each site. This was mostly focused just on the queuing and stacking and, then, some of the sites, again, just the trips in and out. Smith: Okay. And Madam Chair? So, for these sites we have these kind of max total queues. Do you have any numbers for the amount of stacking lanes that -- the non- emergency stacking lanes and parking spots, et cetera, available at these locations? Gantzert: So, we can take a look -- and Bill, I believe, is also on -- he is the traffic consultant as I had mentioned. They -- they were all varied. Some of the sites were 12 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission July 2,2026 Page 9 of 62 smaller sites, so they only really had one stacking lane. Some did have two. It was completely varied. I don't have that data in front of me. Smith: Okay. Is there -- sorry. Just to be clear. Is there someone -- seems like they might have -- Gantzert: Mr. Burton's raising his hand, so he could possibly answer your question. Lomeli: Chair, do you want me to allow him to talk now or wait for that testimony? Smith: If that's kosher. Lorcher: Yep. Mr. Burton, if you could just state your name and address for the record, please. Burton: Yeah. Bill Burton with Fehr & Peers. I'm at 100 Pringle Avenue, Suite 600, in Walnut Creek, California. Yeah. I guess the -- the question here is do we have the -- are there two lanes or are there one lane and what is the total amount of stacking. The answer to that question is yes. I do not have that -- I do not have that answer here on the tip of my tongue, but all of that data is available and just to answer two previous questions. So, the queues that you are looking at here -- this is the maximum queue that was ever observed at these sites. So, when you see the -- the 24, the 14, the ten, that -- that's -- some -- the amount of data that's collected at each is -- varies. Some days it's three days, some days it's for a whole week. It all depends on -- on what a particular city is interested in looking at. But this -- this number and this table is basically the maximum queue ever observed. So, it's fairly conservative. And, then, on the question of the ADT, again, we have some of that information, not all. I don't have it at my fingertips. All of these sites are -- are located on fairly -- fairly well traveled arterial or collector roads I would say in kind of similar traffic conditions to that which is present at -- at this site. Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: Yeah. I guess to -- to help clarify -- and maybe this can be, you know, for Information for, you know, when you come back up at the end. What I'm specifically, you know, looking at is -- so, we saw through these kind of -- when we looked at these, you know, column charts, you know, we saw -- you know, there is some -- some -- some locations where, you know, we rise above kind of where -- where we would need to be using that emergency lane; right? There are some locations where that happens maybe once, some locations happens none, some locations it happens somewhat regularly. I'm trying to understand -- you know, we have this max total queue. I'm trying to understand for these locations what that number is kind of relative to the -- the stacking spaces available for these locations. So, for Aurora, max total queue is 23. Are there 24, you know, stacking -- stacking spots or, you know, parts of -- places in the F13] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission July 2,2026 Page 10 of 62 queue or is it 18? And, you know, we can be confident that 7Brew is able to get through those, you know, extra five pretty quickly. That's what I'm looking at, because, obviously, we have in the code you -- you are not able to use that emergency lane consistently, because that would be consistent with the tier three in Meridian. I'm trying to understand how often that usage would actually be. So, I don't know if you have any information on -- on hand or if that's just I guess helpful for later on, but that's specifically what I'm looking for. Gantzert: Sure. And -- and, Commissioner Smith, I'm sharing my screen just so I can hopefully get you a very quick answer here in front of me by pulling the study and I do understand your question. I will share that information here in just a minute. But I think with the six pull forward spaces really we are able to capture kind of most of the max queue that we anticipate during the peak hours of that 7:00 to 9:00, 7:00 to 10:00 and I think that's just something I want to highlight where -- where that will really be where we see those maximum queues and hopefully given the fact that most of the center is still closed if there is slight spill over kind of into that drive aisle for a very very short period of time, like we said, it's five minutes or less, that is not impacting, you know, people going to park or using those drive aisles for the gym that's open at that time. Smith: I understand. That's helpful. Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: One question for Bill. As you are listening to kind of this -- kind of the discussion of frequency of maybe having to use that emergency aisle, does that align with staffs understanding of what could stay within a tier two of a couple times per day or is it something rarer or more common? Parsons: Yeah. Madam -- Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, I -- I think we are in alignment with the applicant on that. I -- I actually like the sound of that. If car five or six is in the back and they only ordered one coffee and they can get it to the customer quicker and they still have that lane open for that car to pull out, to me that just helps them operate -- operate the drive through more efficiently. So, I think the first time I have kind of heard someone say they have used their -- their bypass lane that way or seen them do that, because I have been to many other coffee franchises and I haven't gotten that opportunity to do that. Usually you are stuck in that queuing and you wait until you get to the window and get your order. So, the fact that they can accommodate that and I appreciate the fact that the applicant got the overflow parking as well. I think that is going to certainly help alleviate that escape lane being used more than it should be. Smith: And so -- so, that would be the occasion -- a few -- handful of times per day would still stay under the threshold for a tier three, is that -- Parsons: I would say so, yes. I don't think staff would have any concern with that. 14 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission July 2,2026 Page 11 of 62 Smith: Okay. Thank you. Perreault: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: I just want to reassure the applicant that I have read through everything actually twice and watched the video from the last hearing. So, I think I'm pretty up to date on this. Could you pull up the site plan again? I have some questions about the actual flow of an individual vehicle through the site. It looks like most vehicles will be heading north in that entrance there and, then, make a right into the site; correct? Gantzert: Yes. Perreault: And, then, there is a little bump out there that says that exists -- that's asphalt that exists I assume for access to the waste. Is that raised or is that flat? Gantzert: It is not. That's just a concrete hatch. So, it's just flat. Perreault: It's flat. Okay. So, vehicles can drive over that? Gantzert: Yes. Perreault: Okay. And, then, they -- they continue east and, then, they make a right and, then, they make another right here? Gantzert: So, if -- if they are coming through the main drive aisle, right, they go into the site, they make a right and, then, make another right. Correct. Perreault: Okay. So, the -- the vehicle that -- that enters the lane -- Gantzert: Uh-huh. Perreault: -- is that a really sharp right that they are going to have to -- are they going to have to kind of swing around towards the vehicles parked to the east to get into that lane? There is a -- there is a coffee shop here in Meridian where that has to be done and the vehicles consistently take the planter out and they have destroyed the curb and it's really hard to get into that lane and it actually causes stacking problems into the parking lot. So, I'm just curious how that flow is actually going to happen around there, because it seems like it's a very sharp turn. Gantzert: Sure. And -- and this particular island actually gives us a little more radius, so a car is able to go ahead and make the turn and get into the lane and one thing I want to point out -- I know in the picture it kind of looks like, you know, a small car, but this truck turning template is designed for like an F-150 truck. So, this accounts for a pretty big car. So, it's -- it's a little bit deceiving when you look at the picture where it 15 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission July 2,2026 Page 12 of 62 just looks like a small car, but this anticipates a pretty big car being able to make the turn and we have run truck turns and they are still able to clear that island to get in. Perreault: Okay. Thank you. Gantzert: Sure. Lorcher: Madam Clerk, do we have anyone signed up to testify? Lomeli: Thank you, Madam Chair. I have Russ Orsi. Brenton Jackson. Lorcher: Hi. If you could state your name and address for the record that would be great. Jackson: Sure. Brenton Jackson. Lorcher: Oh, move the microphone a little closer to you. Thanks. Jackson: Brenton Jackson. 595 Millets Drive, Suite 106, Campbell, California. Lorcher: Okay. Jackson: I represent the operator who will be operating at this site. Lorcher: Okay. Jackson: We currently have one other open stand that is in Denver. It is not the Aurora stand that was referenced earlier, it is actually in Denver proper. We have been operating it for two months and I pulled our recent traffic data from last week. We had one visit last Thursday that was longer than three minutes and for most of the hours all of our visits were less than one minute. So, Commissioner Smith, you were asking earlier how quickly we could get folks through. I think we can get folks through very quickly and that is certainly one of our operational goals, as well as one of the seven corporate operational goals. So, it doesn't help us. We don't want folks to come and hang out with us. We want them to get their coffee and move along. They are a lot happier after they get their coffee. Lorcher: I'm sure. In regard to your -- you said Denver proper; correct? So, is it in a similar situation where it's in kind of a destination mall type thing where there is other restaurants or drive-throughs surrounding the business? Jackson: It is in a Costco development. Lorcher: Okay. 16 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission July 2,2026 Page 13 of 62 Jackson: And so certainly the Costco drives a lot of traffic and -- not as much in the morning, because they aren't open. It would actually be very similar to here. And they are looking at adding additional restaurants and drive throughs to that shop -- to that parking lot, because we haven't been a problem for them in their parking. Lorcher: Okay. Any other questions for this -- all right. Thank you very much. Jackson: Thank you. Lomeli: Madam Chair, I have Hugh Crawford. Lorcher: Hello, Mr. Crawford. Crawford: Hi. Lorcher: If you can state your name and address for the record. Crawford: Yeah. Hugh Crawford. 3597 East Monarch Sky Lane, Meridian, Idaho. Lorcher: Thank you. Crawford: Yeah. My name is Hugh Crawford. I'm the vice-president of property management with CenterCal Properties. I have been managing The Village at Meridian since 2012 when it first opened. I'm very, you know, involved in the traffic and the parking and the impact that the shopping center has and the neighborhood. We are very passionate about making sure we are a good neighbor and so when we are looking at this pad on what we wanted to bring to The Village at Meridian -- we were very conscious about the demands that our other tenants had for parking and the flow in the parking lot and we strategically selected this tenant because of two reasons. One, it's a very low impact parking tenant. They are drive-through concept, so there is not a restaurant where people are coming and parking for an hour and eating and taking up a parking stall, it's not an office tenant where -- which is another concept that we are going to put where people park in a parking stall for six, seven hours a day. Very low impact. I don't know if anybody would -- is planning on parking maybe one or two cars a day would park and walk up and get a drink and, then, it also -- the timing of the flow of -- we consciously said, well, a coffee shop would be ideal, because their demand is in the morning, the demand for our parking is low in the morning, except for some gym users and, then, as the shopping center starts picking up the coffee shop demand balances out and tapers off towards the afternoon and the evening, which is when The Village at Meridian hits its peak. So, we strategically went out and -- and marketed and merchandised this site for a concept like 713rew and they are a great brand that is very responsible and understanding of what is being asked and we have had a lot of conversations with them about working very closely to create a plan. I'm sure you are all aware when we opened In-N-Out. It was a huge demand, we worked tirelessly for months with the tenant, with the City, Meridian Police Department, to create a strategy and a plan that worked flawlessly. No impact to city streets. The parking in the middle F17] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission July 2,2026 Page 14 of 62 of Christmas in December worked fabulously. Flow continued. We continued to have great sales. It shows that CenterCal and our tenants work closely to come up with a very strong plan and a very strong strategy to make sure we are not impacting others and -- and 7Brews is on board with that. We will make their grand opening impact very minimal and work with them to, you know, make sure that they are a great tenant and meets the needs of the shopping center and the surrounding community. Lorcher: Okay. Thank you very much. Crawford: Any questions or -- Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: Yes. I had one question. It is specifically regarding kind of what I tend to see in that area kind of in the evening -- evening hours. I know this is a -- you know, the In-N- Out and kind of the radiating out from there seems to be a good kind of magnet for high school age kids to come and hang out in their trucks, et cetera, which I -- you know, I don't -- I don't know what the line between loitering and third spaces are, but, you know, I'm generally okay with that, but I have seen times where like there is -- circulation is -- is being, you know, limited because of, you know, there is cars that are gathering or people are stopping in the middle of the drive aisle to have a conversation, etcetera, and I see a lot of that around here. This location. I guess are there plans -- I'm happy to see these -- these six kind of parking spots being dedicated. You know, what does kind of enforcement look like on that? What -- how do you kind of balance making sure people feel welcome to visit the center while keeping, you know, traffic flowing, especially during busy hours? Crawford: So, how is like the -- the impact of In-N-Out radiating out into -- Smith: Yeah. For -- for other clients and for -- for the rest of-- of the -- the -- for the rest of the locations nearby, how do you kind of manage keeping traffic flowing? Crawford: We -- through use of our security, communicating with the -- you know, we have a no loitering. If you are not, you know, visiting one of our businesses, then, we ask you to move on. So, kids can't just come and sit and hang out in front of In-N-Out unless they are dining at In-N-Out and we have worked closely with Meridian PD and if we have a problem Meridian PD comes and helps and support keeping the -- you know, the parking lot free of loitering. We don't just let car clubs hang out, we don't just let groups of kids hang out in the parking lot, we have -- we -- we have them move on or they -- if they are not shopping or dining at one of the businesses at The Village at Meridian and we have been learning as the traffic at In-N-Out -- so, you may have seen it, but it's also something that's being addressed on a daily basis with increased security patrols in coordination with Meridian PD and keeping cars and -- you know, not just sitting and gathering. 18 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission July 2,2026 Page 15 of 62 Smith: So, you -- you mentioned increasing -- is there -- have you found there to be a problem in -- or have -- have you had trouble enforcing this? Crawford: I wouldn't say we have had trouble, it's just something we deal with and address it every day. Smith: Okay. Thank you. Lorcher: Any other questions? Thank you very much. Crawford: All right. Thank you. Lomeli: Madam Chair, no one else has signed up. Lorcher: Is there anyone online that would like to speak? Is there anyone in Chambers that would like to speak? Mira, would you like to make any other comments in regard to testimony this evening? Gantzert: No, I don't think so. I just want to say again thank you for kind of listening to the additional facts we have and, again, I just want to point out that our intent is that our peak hours are that morning time and we will not impact the center as heavily after the 6:00 p.m. time and operation -- operationally we are -- we are much different than kind of the In-N-Out or, you know, maybe fast food restaurants with food and so we just have very quick turnaround times and we want to be a good neighbor and the operator and the Center will do what they can to keep everything running smoothly and not impede traffic or other customers for the shopping center. So, thank you again. Lorcher: Thank you very much. Gelsomino: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Gelsomino. Gelsomino: Just one final question for the applicant. May I --just a quick final question. I know you can't have a full crystal ball, but how soon would a new location -- or do you predict a new location would open in the Treasure Valley area or surrounding areas that you mentioned earlier that would alleviate that eventual congestion? Gantzert: So, we are actively looking at sites. I mean we want to be in the city as you guys have mentioned before, as well as the Commissioners mentioned, it's a -- it's a growing city, we want to be here, so we are actively looking to see what locations are possible and when we find the right one the -- we -- we want to be here, you know, as soon as possible. Gelsomino: Thank you. F-19 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission July 2,2026 Page 16 of 62 Lorcher: May I get a motion to close the public hearing? Smith: So moved. Stoll: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for 713rew Coffee. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Lorcher: I -- I will first admit I am not a coffee drinker, so going through some of these lines -- my kids are, so I have been through them and we have plenty -- we have many choices here in the Treasure Valley. I do visit The Village on occasion. It is not in my circle -- daily circle, so I don't always go there, but I think they have been -- answered the questions that we had asked of them from our last meeting to provide those extra spaces, to be able to show a flow chart of how the traffic is going to go. The fact that they have runners moving their product, as opposed to always having to go to the window like some of our other businesses do I think will definitely help move things through and especially if they are predicting a three to five minute window -- even less. You said three minutes I think in Denver was the average time that somebody was in line to be able to get their product and having that escape lane just in case that they have a big order. So, I was in support of this at the last meeting. I am in support of this again. I think it's a good addition, especially since the hours are staggered with some of the other businesses. Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: Yeah. So, at the last meeting I was not in support of this and I appreciate the work that the applicant has done. I think there was some -- some questions that I had that are still not fully answered, you know, still -- still some things that maybe give me a little bit of heartburn around, you know, not understanding kind of average daily trips on the -- you know, the adjacent corridor -- transportation corridor and kind of the -- the average queues and understanding kind of those -- those ratios, you know, I think there -- my mind would be more at ease with those, but I do really think the addition of these six parking spots with them being dedicated and enforceable to be for 713rew, I mean that nearly doubles our -- our -- the allowable stacking space and I -- I don't think that there was a way that I could have supported that -- this application without this -- without that change. I still do have some -- some -- some nitpicks and some qualms and I still do have a little bit of unease about this, but I -- I'm much more open to supporting this and so I think I will be in support of this. I just -- I would really -- I appreciate the work that The Village, you know, has put into keeping circulation flowing in this area and I just -- I would encourage them to -- to, you know, keep those efforts up and to -- to redouble those efforts, because I have seen plenty of -- of gathering in the area and, again, I'm not opposed to -- you know, I'm also not a business owner in the area, I'm not opposed to some kids gathering and meeting together in space. That's F20] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission July 2,2026 Page 17 of 62 certainly something that I think is good to see, so -- of -- of kids outside of their homes. But I just -- the circulation still gives me some pause. I don't think it's enough to oppose this anymore. But just wanted to get that on the record. Lorcher: All right. Thank you. Gelsomino: Madam Chair? Perreault: Madam Chair. Lorcher: Commissioner Gelsomino. Gelsomino: Madam Chair, thank you. I will echo -- being that I was the only other voice of opposition on the application in the last meeting, I will echo a lot of the sentiments that my fellow Commissioner Smith voiced tonight. I do appreciate the applicant's efforts and the -- the data, the information, the adjustments and the flexibility that they have shown tonight with these. I -- of course I still do have my hesitations as well. My mind has dwelled on the thought of -- on two thoughts. On what is the impact going to be on -- on the citizens and the -- and the other visitors and tenants of The Village and, then, does a drive through coffee shop make sense in that particular spot and I have gone back and forth with that knowing that the property manager and someone who has had more experience and the team at The Village has, you know, done their due diligence and has actually marketed for this business to be in this particular location, that does add a little bit more ease of mind, because that means that there has been a strategic plan behind this and -- and the work done behind it. Like I said the traffic, the congestion still does give me pause, but I also am no longer in a position to be in opposition to this applicant. Lorcher: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: Thank you, Madam Chair. I do want to say thank you also to the applicant for working really diligently on this. I know you do this in front of many different cities and they all have different expectations and requirements when you come to these meetings. So, thank you very much for working on this. I won't repeat what my fellow Commissioners have shared, because I -- I do absolutely agree with them. I would have significantly more hesitation if it weren't for those additional parking spots and we will make sure we put those in as a condition of -- of approval. One thing I wanted to just follow up on with my fellow Commissioners is is there any -- any thought on whether we sort of give a probation time on the tier two, like do we -- do we say, hey, in six months maybe we should reassess whether this is really operating in a tier two level. I don't know if that's something that's permitted and I don't know who exactly would be obligated to -- to do that follow up, but just with something that came to my mind from the -- the last hearing when -- when our attorney had mentioned, hey, you know, make sure that you -- you offer -- if there is concerns make sure you offer different opportunities or -- or ways to sort of mitigate those versus, you know, voting in denial of an application. So, just curious my fellow commissioners thoughts on that. 21 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission July 2,2026 Page 18 of 62 Lorcher: Commissioner Perreault, Bill Parsons can answer that question. Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, certainly with the conditional use permit you can control the duration of it. So, that's certainly within your purview to say do X, Y and Z. Now, do I think six months is the right number? I don't know. They still may be in their introductory period at that point. I mean we could even -- I don't know how popular 7Brew is. This is the first time I have ever heard of this franchise as well. I have younger daughters and they told me it's very popular. So, I know it will be a hit with the -- with the younger generation and I'm sure they are going to be very successful here. But, again, typically when we do things -- if we do limit a use for a while it's usually, you know, a year, three years, five year period. I don't know if we need to go to that extreme. Certainly that is within your purview to do that. Lorcher: How long is this conditional use permit? Three years? Parsons: Well, not necessarily. A conditional use permit runs with the land, unless you add a condition of approval that says you come back in another five years or -- for example, you would say come back in six months or three years and we will evaluate you then. You get another conditional use permit. We have done it before. It's rare. It's usually -- it's a tool that we use to allow someone to operate for a finite time, because they have other visions for the property. I think the applicant is here for the long term. I don't see them going anywhere if they were to operate if there were an issue -- code enforcement issue and that stacking lane or that bypass lane became an issue certainly we could reach out. We have a good relationship with you, no doubt about it. I know I hear his name quite a bit. We would certainly reach out to them and say, hey, how can you help us with this situation and they would be more than willing to come to the table and figure out a solution to either, one, maybe say you need to amend your CUP to go to that tier three where you -- again, you would have a bite at that apple to be a recommending body and it would move on to City Council to convert it from a tier two to a tier three. So, I don't want you to think we don't have that ability to do that. We do. But as staff I wouldn't -- I would caution you to say come back in six months and let us reevaluate it. It's just -- it's -- I don't think it's going to be enough time. Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: To kind of opine on -- on that from my end. I think -- I think on the tier three aspect I think I'm okay with that being more of a -- kind of complaint driven, you know, or issue driven kind of process. I'm not opposed to it. If we want to say, hey, in two years come back. Honestly, if they come back in two years and traffic's flowing fine, I'm okay with it being 24 hours. You know, I have never been opposed to -- my issue has never been between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m. Those have not been the hours in question for me. So, also getting that on the record of, you know, if this is flowing fine I'm okay, you know, if we want to bake in something to say, hey, let's revisit this in two years or whatever. I don't -- I don't feel super strongly about it either way. 22 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission July 2,2026 Page 19 of 62 But I think there is also areas where it could be useful not just for saying, hey, does this need to be a tier three, but also saying, hey, they wanted to do 24 hours, is that still something they want to do. This could be a good time to review that. Just food for thought. Stoll: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Stoll. Stoll: I was supportive of the application last time we heard it. I think they met the criteria that the city has laid out for a CUP. I wouldn't be supportive of adding a review period to it. I think if there is a problem let the in enforce process take care of it and working with you and if they wanted to redo the CUP at a later date, then, let the staff bring it back at that point in time. But I'm supportive of the application as presented. I think they have addressed additional questions that were raised at the last meeting and I would vote to move forward. Lorcher: Commissioner Sandoval, do you have any comments? Sandoval: Madam Chair, nothing else to add. Thank you. Lorcher: So, with that, after considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File No. H-2026-0017 -- Stoll: Second. Lorcher: Well, let me finish. Stoll: Oh, sorry. Oh, you paused. Lorcher: I did, because I was double checking my numbers. Stoll: Okay. Sorry. Lorcher: 0017 for 713rew on the hearing date of July 2nd, 2026, with no modifications. Stoll: Seconded. Smith: Madam Chair, just as a point of clarification. I -- I think we would need to modify to require the six parking spots. Lorcher: Is that in the staff report? Parsons: Madam Chair, it is not, so I was going to also have you -- maker of the motion add that as a condition and any direction on the hours of operation if the Commission feels like they need to restrict them to 5:00 -- 5:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. and, again, if the F23] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission July 2,2026 Page 20 of 62 applicant wanted to go 24/7 they could come back at a later date and apply to amend that condition. Lorcher: All right. I will do this again. After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File No. H-2026-0017 as presented in the staff report, including the six designated overflow parking spaces and the hours of operation from 5:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. on the hearing date of July 2nd, 2026. Stroll: Seconded. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to approve 7Brew. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you for your patience. We appreciate it. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. 3. Public Hearing for High Desert Veterinary Hospital (H-2026-0022) by Travis Butterfield and McCarter Moorhouse, located at 3147 W. Belltower Dr. A. Request: Conditional Use Permit for an Animal Care Facility on approximately 0.397 acres of land currently zoned L-O. Lorcher: All right. We are going to move on to Item No. 3, 2026-0022, High Desert Veterinary Hospital, for conditional use permit on Bell Tower Drive and we will start with the staff report. Parsons: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. As you noted, this is a conditional use permit to operate an animal care facility from an existing 3,200 square foot office building that is under construction or nearing completion. It's going to be getting certificate of occupancy fairly soon. So, the site here -- it sits on roughly .4 of an acre. The land is currently zoned L-O and the property is located at 3147 West Bell Tower Drive. A little history on the site. In 2025 this one lot was subdivided through a short plat process to subdivide one parcel into four parcels. This property sits on one of the four platted parcels, which is highlighted here on Lot 1, Block 1. Also the certificate of zoning compliance and design review has been approved for the entire site, so not only are the pad sites done, but the applicant's also installed all of the parking that you see here and the associated landscaping that's in front of you. So, really, this conditional use permit is required, because a vet clinic -- and we define it as an animal care facility -- does require a conditional use permit in the L-O zone. So, again, the building is done, they are just trying to get a tenant to go in there and move in. You can see here on the site plan with animal care facilities there are specific use standards that the applicant has to comply with and really there is two. One, make sure there is no odors and, two, make sure the animals are in a secure location and being supervised at all times. So, you can see here on the exhibit here where there is going to be a small area for the tenant to allow the animals to go out and use the restroom, but the intent is to keep animals inside the facilities at all times and under supervision. Also mention to 24 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission July 2,2026 Page 21 of 62 the Commission that there is a condition of approval that the applicant is not proposing to have any boarding or killing of animals overnight. Again in the L-O zone not allowed to operate a 24 hour facility. It's prohibited. Hours of operation in the L-O zone are between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. And, then, just as that -- on that side note the -- this facility is also proposed to operate between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. So, they are well within that hours of operation allowed in that L-O zoning district. Had a chance to look at the public record. There was no public comments on this application. Staff is recommending approval with conditions of approval and I will stand for any questions you may have. Lorcher: Would the applicant like to come forward? Are they here tonight? Are you the applicant? Butterfield: Yes. Lorcher: Oh. Can you come up for just a second. Not to put you on the spot, but we are going to do that. If you can state your name and address for the record, please. Butterfield: All right. My name is Travis Butterfield at 17438 North Newell Avenue in Nampa. 83687. Lorcher: Do you have anything to add to the staff report for your application this evening? Butterfield: No. Mr. Parsons covered it perfectly. Lorcher: Commissioners, do we have any questions? All right. That's all I needed you for. Thank you. Butterfield: Thank you very much. Lorcher: Madam Clerk, do we have anybody signed up to testify? Lomeli: Thank you, Madam Chair. We have Tony Nicholson. Lorcher: Good evening. If you can state your name and address for the record, please. Nicholson: Tony Nicholson. 4167 North Montellano Way, Meridian, Idaho. 83646. Lorcher: Okay. Nicholson: And on this site plan I live directly to the right-hand side where the -- the road comes out. I just have a couple of questions and concerns. One probably for Bill. Was the building soundproofed per the CUP requirements? Lorcher: Okay. F25] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission July 2,2026 Page 22 of 62 Nicholson: And also he verified the hours, which was my other questions. I would like to see a restriction on the hours. Lorcher: What -- the hours are during business hours. What was it, Bill? 8:00 -- Nicholson: 8:00 to 6:00. Lorcher: 8:00 to 6:00? Nicholson: Which -- which is great, because it was 10:00 p.m. before, so -- Lorcher: Okay. So, 8:00 to 6:00. And is that Monday through Friday? Nicholson: Monday through Friday -- Lorcher: Okay. Nicholson: -- is what they proposed. Lorcher: Okay. So, the soundproofing and you got the answer for your hours. Nicholson: Yeah. And, then, my second one is he mentioned the odor. Did they submit a specialized plan for detailing how they are going to handle clinical and animal waste? How it's going to be stored and disposed of? Lorcher: Okay. Nicholson: If that's part of the CUP requirements. Lorcher: Okay. We will ask the applicant to address those. Thank you. Madam Clerk, do we have anybody else signed up to testify? Lomeli: Madam Chair, we have Jenny Nicholson. Lorcher: You are good? Okay. Lomeli: No one else has signed up. Lorcher: Anybody on Zoom? Can the applicant come forward again? I'm sorry. I don't remember your name. Butterfield: Travis Butterfield. Lorcher: Travis. Thank you. Travis, can you address Mr. Nicholson's concern about soundproofing and animal waste? F26] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission July 2,2026 Page 23 of 62 Butterfield: The animal waste -- the biohazard stuff, they do have a plan for that. They have a freezer. They have all the proper necessities. They already work at a vet clinic. They are a husband and wife team. They have been doing this for a lot of years and now they are going out on their own and so they have everything that is needed for an animal clinic for their specialty. Lorcher: Okay. And the soundproofing as well? Butterfield: The soundproofing. Our standard is that we insulate all walls, every single wall inside the building, so all the animals will be in the back, which is closer to the Ten Mile Road than the neighborhood and so it would have to go through several layers of walls to cause any nuisance. Lorcher: Okay. Butterfield: So -- Lorcher: Thank you very much. Any questions -- commissioners, do you have any questions for -- Gelsomino: Madam Chair? Lorcher: -- for Travis? Go ahead. Gelsomino: Excuse me. Travis. And quick question. Did we specify if they are -- sorry, Bill. First for you? Did we specify there is any surgical procedures that are done at this particular clinic? Butterfield: Yes, they will do surgeries there. Gelsomino: Okay. Perfect. So, with that, you know, I have two dogs and one of them just out of nowhere a couple weeks ago fractured his dewclaw, so unexpected, you know, so things happen with pets that are unexpected and especially during surgeries. What is the clinic's plan -- because being that the conditions expressly prohibit overnight boarding and kenneling, what is the clinic's plan if a patient requires emergency overnight care, for example, post-surgical monitoring? Butterfield: So, if they have to do that they will refer it out to one of the animal hospitals that are 24 hours. They have the ability to board it overnight. Really, they don't want to -- if -- if they know up front that it's going to be this big a deal they will immediately refer them to someone that can take the animal overnight. Otherwise, their intent is to just manage what they can during the day. But, yes, stuff does happen, but they -- they refer that out. They don't want to hold any animals at all. Gelsomino: Perfect. Thank you. F27] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission July 2,2026 Page 24 of 62 Lorcher: Any other questions for Travis? Thank you very much. Butterfield: Thank you. Lorcher: May I get a motion to close the public hearing? Gelsomino: So moved. Stoll: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on High Desert Veterinary. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Lorcher: This seems pretty straightforward. It's an in-fill project of a group of buildings that are already there that will be retrofitted to support this animal care facility. It sounds like that they are taking the care to make sure that the animals are closer to the busy side of the street, so it impacts the neighborhood less. All the landscaping and site requirements have been -- have already been established, so I'm in support of this project. Perreault: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: I just want to say that I live very close to a veterinary clinic and it has a very small -- small parking lot, even more opportunity for animals to get out on the road, but I have never seen an escaped animal and I have never had any smell issues and so I -- as somebody that has that scenario fairly close to my house I think it's doable in a neighborhood. I think it adds a lot of benefit to have those kind of services near so many residences in the community. Lorcher: Any other comments or a motion? Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File No. H-2026-0022. Stoll: Second. 28 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission July 2,2026 Page 25 of 62 Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to approve High Desert Veterinary Hospital. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. 4. Public Hearing for Victory Stake Center (H-2026-0016) by Johnny Watson, generally located at the northwest corner of W. Victory Rd and S. Linder Rd. A. Request: Annexation of 5.81 acres of land with the R-8 zoning to construct a 22,630 sq. ft. church. B. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a church in the R-8 zoning district. Lorcher: Item No. 4 on the agenda is the Victory Stake Center, which is a request for annexation and a conditional use permit at Victory and Linder and we will start with the staff report. Parsons: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. As you stated, this is a request for annexation and conditional use permit. The subject site consists of 5. 81 acres of land, currently zoned RUT in Ada county and is generally located at the northwest corner of Victory Road and Linder Road. You can see the future land use designation of this property is low density residential. The other thing that I would mention as part of tonight's discussion is typically when we have an LDR designated property residents -- or the Commission and Council usually typically sees an R-2 and an R-4 zoning district associated with that designation. However, in this case churches are not allowed in the R-4 or R-2 zoning district, so in order for them to annex this in and develop it with the stake center as proposed, the code requires them to request an R-8 zone and that's why you see a little different zoning than what you would typically see in an LDR designated area. As staff noted in the staff report, the church use is still generally consistent with the low density residential. We anticipate residential, but, again, through the zoning ordinance there are allowances for some nonresidential uses, which a church is one of those. There is the annexation boundary there and, then, their concept plan or site plan required with the conditional use permit, they are proposing to develop an approximately 22,000 square foot LDS stake center or church on the site, place of religious worship I should say. One of the unique things with this project is access. You can see with the -- the overall configuration of the property and with the future plans of a roundabout at that intersection of Linder and Victory, the applicant's location of a church is very limited in how it can be placed. One of the challenges that came with this project was the number of access points that would be allowed to -- for this property. The applicant worked very closely with the Ada County Highway District and just based on the influence of that roundabout and the limited -- and the limited frontage on Amity Road -- sorry. Not Amity. Linder Road. ACHD was very concerned with access and so they only allowed the applicant -- they have only approved one F29] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission July 2,2026 Page 26 of 62 access to this subject property, which is -- and it's located here. So, that -- this is the one access point that will serve the -- the church. Also in the applicant's narrative they did state that they could have up to 300 occupants at this church at any one time, but, again, the intent is for it to be mostly Sunday worship. There are some limited activities during the week, but the majority of the activity will be happening on Sundays, which is off during -- which is not your most peak travel times, like your -- your typical work week. The applicant's also agreed to try to work on traffic mitigation or somebody to help with traffic services on Sunday if that does become an issue, to help move traffic in the area if congestion does become a problem. Staff doesn't anticipate that. I don't think ACHD anticipates that either. Here is the -- the proposed landscape plan that the applicant has set forward. Because access is limited -- so, the site here is consistent with UDC standards. The applicant will work with staff on some drought tolerant waterwise concepts and try to minimize water resources as they develop the site and work with staff. Stepping back a little bit for the access, because access is limited, we are requiring that they provide cross-access to the west and to the north. The flexibility that we gave the applicant is we don't want to define a specific location at this time, because as you look at the overall area of -- the vicinity of the area, there are some estate -- large estate lots that surround this property and so they may redevelop in the future or they may not, but if they do redevelop and other local streets are provided near proximity to the church, then, there will be an opportunity for them to tie into that street network or potentially a common driveway in the future to help alleviate and move traffic in the area in the future. At least that's our hope and our goal with that condition of approval. Here is the proposed elevations. One thing that staff did mention in the staff report was the height of the steeple. So, under the code there are some exceptions to allow taller appurtenances for churches and when there is not occupiable space. This particular drawing is over what the height is allowed in the -- by the zoning code. So, the applicant will have to work with staff and adjust his plans accordingly and lower the height of the steeple to -- I believe the staff report called out a maximum of 55 feet. So, they have been conditioned to do that. They have to do that to meet the height requirements of the zone. So, I did look at the public record. I did not see where anyone had provided public testimony on this application. Again, staff is recommending approval of both the annexation and the conditional use permit with the provisions of the DA and the conditions of approval and I would stand for any questions you have on this application. Lorcher: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: Can you bring back up the -- the -- there you go. So, it looks like most of the parking there being on that east side, vehicles are going to have to go behind the building to get to that and there is a real slim area there just on the north. Curious how -- if you had conversation with the applicant about how the vehicles are going to move past one another, is that wide enough for two vehicles, whatnot? Parsons: So, Madam Chair, Commissioner Perreault, yes, it -- per code the minimum is 20 feet to allow for two way traffic. So, that is more than adequate to -- to allow for two way traffic. 30 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission July 2,2026 Page 27 of 62 Lorcher: Would the applicant like to come forward? Watson: Thank you, Bill. Johnny Watson. 1152 Bond Avenue, Rexburg, Idaho. I don't -- I'm not going to bore you with a whole bunch of details, but Bill hit the nail on the head when he said we have worked on a lot of different scenarios to try to make this fit. You know, ignorance is never an excuse or is -- or the city's, you know, problem to -- to resolve, but when you are working with a big corporation a lot of times these properties are just sitting in a database and somebody says, oh, we have got five acres in Meridian and we desperately need a building. It will work great. But the reality of this particular parcel -- I think, Tina, if I just arrow down that's going to get me where I'm going? Lomeli: Try the left or right arrows and there is a little bit of a lag, so if you give it a second. Watson: Okay. Lomeli: There you go. Watson: So, they don't always really dig into it deep of what -- what's going to -- what the effect is. So, it looks like you have this nice big lot, but, then, when you actually boil down to it and you talk to our friends or dreams guy at ACHD, that we all of a sudden -- you know, they give us this roundabout to put on there and you really -- we start to give back 50 feet of right of way on two sides. Then we add the footprint of the roundabout and we had to wait until I think in December when they had a hearing or something to decide if it was going to be two lanes or one lane. Found out it was going to be two, so that crunches us a little bit. And we have -- we have had two application -- or pre- application meetings with staff and they were just very helpful and we did our very best to try to get this building to address the roundabout and it's -- I mean the owner uses a standard building and without doing a custom building it becomes way too wide and too -- too much to -- to get it towards that roundabout and -- and -- and comply with the -- let's say the -- the feel good portions of our -- you know, of -- of the unified code of let's get the parking behind the building, let's give the building nice street presence, you know, and so we -- we did a number of -- I mean a lot of scenarios that we presented to the owner and -- and in order just to get their patrons in this building this ended up being the -- the very best we could do. Now, we recognize that we have a lot of parking on that east side and so what we did is we went -- we looked at the landscape ordinances for the 25 foot buffer and our initial approach may be incorrect, because Bill mentioned that we need to work maybe on some more drought tolerant things, but we really tried to boost up that buffer to help make that still a very pedestrian friendly, very nice buffered area around the landscape -- around there and still give you a really good streetscape and get close to the -- I have some just really quick, you know, images, but -- and we will still work with staff, you know, but our intent, you know, is -- I just wanted to show you is that we -- we recognize that we have challenges to overcome and the city has objectives that they want to achieve in this kind of streetscape for their citizens and visitors and our goals are aligned, it's just we are trying to get this -- this thing to fit and -- and get you a roundabout, too. The one in question -- and -- and I probably should F31 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission July 2,2026 Page 28 of 62 have asked Nick or Bill beforehand -- that's a little puzzling to me is we do have -- we are allowed 55 feet is a maximum height and your -- your unified code actually allows a appurtenances. I never can say that word, Bill. An exemption of 20 feet. So, I actually could put a steep -- I could actually build a building 55 feet tall with a -- an appurtenance 20 feet above that, which is shorter than what we are proposing. So, we will work through -- I will work through that with Bill. But at least -- it seems to me that I could actually go higher if we wanted to by -- according to your ordinance. Lorcher: Is that true? Parsons: Madam Commissioner, Members of the Commission, I -- I don't have the code memorized, but the maximum height in the R-8 district is 35 feet and typically when we have appurtenances they can go up to 20 feet above the maximum height. So, that's where it's 35 feet to the building and, then, an additional 20 feet for the appurtenance, which gets us the 55. That's how we get there. Watson: So, I -- I have the -- because I -- in Nick's staff report he said 55 feet was the maximum and I read that as -- Lorcher: Yeah. That's at the top of the steeple. Watson: Right. So -- Parsons: Sorry. That is the top of the appurtenance on the building. Watson: So, I -- I was incorrect. So, I retract that. So, thank you. Lorcher: Are you committed to this 65 feet or can you -- or 69 feet or are you amiable to the 55 feet? Watson: We are dying to build the building. Lorcher: Okay. Watson: They -- they really need a building. So, that -- that's probably the least -- Lorcher: Worry? Watson: Least worry that they have. Yeah. Lorcher: Okay. Watson: Yeah. Lorcher: Did you have any other comments? 32 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission July 2,2026 Page 29 of 62 Watson: No. I'm good. Lorcher: I do have a question for you before I pass it on to Commissioner Stoll. Did you have a neighborhood meeting? Watson: Yes. Lorcher: And how do your neighbors that are adjacent to your backyard feel about your property? Watson: Well, we had it back in March and I just barely got out of the hospital, because I was beat to death by them and -- no. I'm -- I'm kidding. We did have a neighborhood meeting and most of them I recognize that are here. I thought it was a really good meeting. We had some really good dialogue. Talked about, you know, concerns. I think -- most of us all share the same concern, which is the impact of the roundabout and I felt like we did our best to show that we were going to be a compliment to the neighborhood. We do understand that, you know, on Sunday we -- we do create a lot of traffic compared to maybe a little more quieter use or something, but we don't have much on as -- on the weekday and we recognize that there already is currently a traffic issue. So, we apologize for that, but we did -- I appreciated the time to be able to talk and meet with them. So, we will -- we will see if they agree. Lorcher: And, then, until there is actual different access points is -- is your client open to having traffic control to be able to move people in and out of that building -- Watson: Yes. Lorcher: -- after Sunday service? Watson: That is correct. The other question is I -- we don't know what the schedule is for the roundabout. If it's three years, four years; right? If we would be able to have an access that we could then -- when the round -- you know, maybe one on Linder to help disperse the traffic right now until the roundabout comes and, then, we remove it as per their guidelines. Lorcher: Got you. Commissioner Stoll, did you have a question? Stoll: Excuse me. So, are you amenable to staff's recommendation regarding cross- access if-- Watson: Yes. Stoll: -- development occurs at a later date? Watson: Yes. That -- really, I mean based on the ACHD's documents their -- you know, their requirements, it's -- that's really our only option of future relief. F33] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission July 2,2026 Page 30 of 62 Stoll: And have you brought up the idea of temporary access to ACHD? Watson: At this stage we are not getting past what the manual says. Stoll: Okay. Perreault: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: So, given the site constraints can you just show -- just out of curiosity share a little bit more about why this is such an ideal location versus finding somewhere else for -- for the church? Watson: Your community is growing at such a rate and I'm doing another facility that I wish was annexed in -- that I would be annexing into your community that's in the county just right over on the -- where McDermott used to be that I'm going through sewer and water -- you know, well issues in a NP study area and it is a disaster. These types of facilities need -- really need to be on municipal systems and to find property like that available in the area that it's -- the facility is needed is nearly impossible. Lorcher: Was this land donated? Watson: I don't know that. I'm sure it was. Lorcher: Okay. Watson: But -- Lorcher: Because the one on -- at McDermott that's across the street from my house, the Rice family -- elder Rice donated those five acres to the -- to the church and that's why that one's there. I don't know Victory and Linder if that land was donated specifically for the church. Watson: Right. We had our neighborhood meeting at the one over on -- I can't think of the -- the road. A mile to the east or whatever. But, yeah, this stake, what they call it, is just busting at the seams and -- Lorcher: Right. Watson: -- they are just begging me to get this thing built for them, so -- Lorcher: Okay. All right. Any other questions for the applicant before we take public testimony? All right. Thank you very much. Madam Clerk, do we have anyone signed up to testify? F34] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission July 2,2026 Page 31 of 62 Lomeli: Thank you, Madam Chair. We have Cindy Bird. Lorcher: Hi. If you can state your name and address for the record that would be great. Bird: Thank you. My name is Cindy Bird and -- Lorcher: Just in the microphone, please. Bird: My name -- thank you. My name is Cindy Bird and we live at 1570 West Victory Road, Meridian. Lorcher: Okay. Thank you. Bird: And we are straight across there from Linder to these guys and so my concern is that -- and I understand that they are losing part of their -- their property for the roundabout. Eventually myself and our other neighbor apparently would lose our homes. Lorcher: Oh. Bird: And so, you know, I understand Mortensen -- Steven Mortensen deeded the property to the LDS people. Lorcher: Okay. Bird: And like I said to the LDS people -- you could -- you could have sold it to the county or to ACHD. But they -- I understand that they want to build their church, serve their people and I do understand that, but we don't like losing our homes after 30, almost 40 years. Lorcher: Right. Have you talked to ACHD? Bird: When this all started we did. We sent letters. We did. And we thought they were doing the roundabout with just one, but it actually cut -- with the two it cuts the corner of our house off. Lorcher: Okay. Bird: So -- and if that's something that we need to do again -- we came to City Hall when they first started all this -- Lorcher: Right. Bird: -- and -- five years ago when they were going to do it in 2025. So, in 2020 and we pleaded our case and so did our neighbors. 35 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission July 2,2026 Page 32 of 62 Lorcher: I -- the city is not in charge of the roads, so -- Bird: Right. Lorcher: -- unfortunately the fight has to be with the highway district and continue to do so. We had eminent domain at our place as well, because I'm on Ustick and the improvements were six inches over the -- our house. Bird: Yes. Lorcher: And so the house was ready to be demolished. Mr. McDermott's house, a historical house here in Meridian -- Bird: Yes. Lorcher: But we were able to negotiate with -- at this time ITD. If we took off the front porch we would be able to be outside the right of way, so we were able to save the house. Now, the disadvantage is is the road is right there; right? Bird: Yeah. Lorcher: But we were able to save our house, so don't give up because they -- I'm not sure you will get what you want, but they could listen and this could be years away as well, so -- Bird: Oh, good. Good. Lorcher: It's just hard to say when that might happen, but our role as Commissioners in this case it's -- because it's annexation will go to City Council -- is to make recommendations for the building and the developer is not in charge of the roads either. Bird: Exactly. Lorcher: So, we are a little bit limited there as well. Bird: Thank you. So ACHD and did you say ITD? Lorcher: So, for me -- I'm in the impact area of Highway 16 -- Bird: Oh. Lorcher: -- and so ITD owns half of it and, then, ACHD owns the other half of it -- Bird: Okay. F36] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission July 2,2026 Page 33 of 62 Lorcher: -- and so eventually ACHD will have everything except Highway 16. So, all the local roads along Ustick and Black Cat and McDermott will all be ACHD. But in the meantime we get to deal with all of them and so -- but we were able to save our house by just adjusting the -- our front porch of being able to take that back. But it was years of negotiations. Not weeks. Many letters. Many meetings, so -- Bird: Was that with the roundabout? Lorcher: No. The widening of Ustick to support Highway 16. Bird: All right. Thank you. Stoll: Madam Chair, if I may be clear? Lorcher: Commissioner Stoll. Stoll: So, it's ACHD in this situation. ITD doesn't have anything to do with -- Bird: Sorry. Stoll: ACHD does not -- it's ACHD that you have to work with on the roadways here. It has nothing to do with ITD. ITD doesn't have anything to do with that. But the other thing I want to -- I believe -- and Bill can correct me on this -- the roundabout is not being caused by the applicant. So, the -- Bird: I know. I know. Stoll: The applicant has no influence on the roundabout. Bird: We talked to them. Stoll: Okay. I just wanted to be clear. Bird: I understand that. Stoll: Okay. Bird: Okay. Lorcher: Thank you very much. Bird: Thank you. Madam Clerk? Lomeli: Madam Chair, we have Ed Bird. Lorcher: Hi. If you can state your name and address for the record, please. F37] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission July 2,2026 Page 34 of 62 E.Bird: Ed Bird. 1570 West Victory. Lorcher: Thank you. E.Bird: Meridian, Idaho. I have two things. Number one, all these pictures show two entrances -- exits and -- in and out and I understand you have only approved one and, number two, how unusual or usual is it for the city to annex in something that's not adjacent to city property? Lorcher: Oh. We will look into that. E.Bird: Because everything else is county, except for the big Corey Barton development on the southeast corner that you guys brought into the city. Lorcher: So, you are across the street and you are county. E.Bird: Yeah. Forty acres of county. Lorcher: Okay. And you are saying that the parcels behind the church are also county? E.Bird: Yes. That was 80 acres and they developed that into five acre lots. Lorcher: Okay. So, if it's adjacent -- there could be a street in between the adjacency. E.Bird: Okay. Lorcher: So, it doesn't have to be property line to property line. There could be a street in between. So, are you saying Corey Barton has a parcel across the street? E.Bird: Yes. It's cattywampus to it. It's southeast -- yeah. Southeast. And where theirs is northwest. Lorcher: Okay. E.Bird: Okay? Lorcher: We will double check on that. E.Bird: But the thing that gets me is which one do we believe, the one entrance or the two? And if you have only approved one, then, make them put the plan show one. Lorcher: Okay. E.Bird: Okay? Lorcher: Yeah. And that will be done before City Council. F38] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission July 2,2026 Page 35 of 62 E.Bird: Okay? Any questions? Lorcher: No. E.Bird: Thank you. Lorcher: We are good. Thank you very much. Lomeli: Madam Chair, we have Robert S. Lorcher: Good evening. If you can state your name and address for the record, please. Schoelkoph: Just Bob. Or Robert Schoelkoph. 2690 South Ariel Lane in Meridian. I'm here to represent about seven people here today, not with a bone of contention, but simply an issue that happened in 2025 during the excavation of the Steve Mortensen property. The owners of the five acre parcels that you see up on the map here were a little north and just slightly west of that. During the deconstruction or up -- leveling out of the property they damaged the irrigation pipes. The unfortunate part of this property is there is an irrigation line that runs diagonally almost I think where that church is about to be built and we all have five acres some of it is product -- produced with animals, some of it's farming -- a mild farming and we are concerned about the water. During the de -- or the excavation of the property the line that feeds our irrigation was destroyed. We couldn't -- in no fault of anybody that I can -- that I'm aware of, I heard that there was a neighborhood meeting. We weren't aware of it. But we were without water for about a month. At our expense we put replacement irrigation pipe in so we could get water. We would like to get reimbursed for that. It's about 18,000 dollars. The other primary or major issue is we are long term residents. I have been there for 32 years. Plan on staying there. Access to water is going to be important when they do that construction. What we put in there for a line is not going to be adequate for what they are planning on building. It was -- it was to get us by for the season. So, I'm requesting two things. I'm requesting to get reimbursed for the cost of-- that is incurred because of the demolition and also we would like to be part of the planning of the routing of that irrigation line and the construction of it, so that we can get access to our water. And that's all I have. Lorcher: Okay. Thank you very much. Schoelkoph: Thank you. Lomeli: Madam Chair, we have Thomas L. Lorcher: Hi. If you can state your name and address for the record. Lemenager: Sure. Thomas Lemenager and I live at 2114 West Aspen Cove Drive. And I'm kind of talking about the same thing that Robert did. We were without water last spring for about -- I think it was over a month and I'm more concerned about what's F39] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission July 2,2026 Page 36 of 62 going to happen in the future with this. You know, what -- can there be perhaps a condition put on the CUP that recognizes our line and that it will be recognized in whole and that it be maintained as well. So, we don't want this to happen again basically. You know, we went through this a month and a half without water last spring, so I think everybody's really concerned about what's going to happen and the drawings show a parking lot over the diagonal layout of the pipe and how is that going to be maintained, how is it going to be operational and how are we going to live without irrigation if it's hit again during construction and during the planning it should be recognized. Lorcher: And is the irrigation for the land, it's not for your home, your own well and septic? Lemenager: Right. It's for the land landscaping, trees and bushes and -- and that kind of thing. Lorcher: Okay. We will address that. Thank you. Lemenager: Thank you. Lomeli: Madam Chair, we have Patrick -- is it Marone? No one's here. John Fitzgerald. Lorcher: Okay. Thank you. Lomeli: Rich Thayer. Lorcher: You are okay? Okay. Thank you. Lomeli: And Meg Thayer. Lorcher: You are good? Okay. Lomeli: No one else has signed up. Lorcher: Anybody online? Would the applicant like to come forward to address some of the neighborhood concerns, please. Watson: Thank you. The images that -- that they are seeing on the screen were from our pre-application meeting. It was before ACHD chopped one of our legs off and so if you look at the images that are actually in the packet they only show one access. I also have given my personal contact to Bob and I'm not -- on behalf of the owner, but as a -- as a consultant for the owner I will take care of their -- the needs. I will make sure that they are smiling when we are done. Lorcher: Okay. And if you can make sure you give your card to Thomas as well, because he has irrigation concerns. F40 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission July 2,2026 Page 37 of 62 Watson: Yep. Lorcher: And so what is the -- what is the plan for managing irrigation if there is going to be a parking lot on top of it? Watson: So, if you -- in our -- in the packet the irrigation canal also has their comments and we have to address those items also. So, if they have a -- I mean if it's actual -- a deeded ditch or whatever we can't impede their water rights -- Lorcher: Right. Watson: -- and so we will work with them to make sure that that's legally established back to where it needs to be. Lorcher: Okay. And, then, my only other recommendation is when you go to Council that the pictures of your application are current with just showing the one entry. Watson: Will do. Lorcher: Okay. Any questions for the applicant before we close the public hearing? Thank you very much, Johnny. May I get a motion to close the public hearing, please? Stoll: So moved. Lorcher: How about a second? Gelsomino: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and second to close the public hearing for the stake center at Victory and Linder. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Lorcher: You know, I -- like I said before, the stake center at McDermott Road and -- and Ustick is being built right now and that's a challenge as well, because McDermott is a dead end. I'm actually kind of excited for a church to be my neighbor. I -- I am not worried about a huge impact on traffic, because it is short term and it is sporadic, you know, limited to certain days. So, knowing -- I am not a member of the church, but I -- I have gone to different stake centers over the years and I feel that the way they landscape and -- and manage their property and how they -- how they build everything has been very thoughtful and they want to be a good neighbor. So, they are challenged with the restrictions that ACHD is putting in front of them, so I don't feel that they should be held accountable for road improvements that they don't have control over. The ultimate question for City Council is that is this in the best time for the city to annex this property and build this church. That's going to be the question when you approach City Council. So, because -- is this one going to be on sewer and septic or is it city water? F41 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission July 2,2026 Page 38 of 62 So, sewer and septic. So, you are annexing in from the county when there is not full services out there, so that will be the ultimate question from -- from Council. The fact that they are going on septic and sewer by us and staying in the county is -- is fine. I know you have challenges as a -- as a builder, but I do know that most of the stake centers are busting at the seams and they do need more facilities to be able to manage their congregation as well. So, I'm in support of this project to forward it to City Council for annexation and hopefully some of the questions from ACHD can be answered by the neighbors and, neighbors, if you do have questions you are also invited to go back to City Council and address those as well. Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: Yeah. I'm also in support of this. I think there is also something to like -- to -- to -- that I want to make sure we speak to regarding some of the -- maybe requested conditions that generally fall outside the purview of -- of the Commission, things like reimbursement and, you know, kind of legal recognitions, et cetera. The -- those are all things that I hope are handled, you know, appropriately, et cetera. But -- but this isn't really the forum that can decide -- you know, we -- we can't make anyone reimburse anyone in this -- in this venue currently. So, obviously, you know, that can -- I encourage the applicant and the neighbors to -- to work that out. You know, but that that kind of belongs outside of this forum or God forbid in a court of law, rather than than here. The same goes for the actual, you know, property lines, et cetera. Those are things that we have the code and, you know, platting and the law to -- to set forth that this body can't actually decide. You know, those kind of more legalistic issues. As for the -- the -- the property itself and the application itself I think -- you know, I have -- I have some slight concerns with the traffic flow, you know, I -- I don't love the risk of it backing up onto -- you know, I don't love the single failure point with just having that one entry-exit that goes into -- behind the church. I don't know that there is anything the applicant could change about the actual application to -- to mitigate those -- those issues. I think that's -- this is an ACHD issue. This is a surrounding development issue. So, for those reasons I'm in support of this. I know it's -- it's a little bit -- you know, there is -- there is some questions around timing, but I don't think the issues are sufficient enough to -- to make me feel this is not the right time. Lorcher: Right. Perreault: Madam? Lorcher: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: I really appreciate the applicant's willingness to receive feedback and work with the neighbors. Sometimes we don't get that much -- that much of willing attitude. So, yeah, I realize that Boise-Kuna Irrigation District didn't send their conditions until about less than a month ago, so probably not a lot of opportunity to reach out to the F42 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission July 2,2026 Page 39 of 62 neighbors with that, but those conditions are pretty clear about how to, you know, work with the neighbors in regard to whether their irrigation services are being compromised and I think that City Council will likely want to have a further conversation to make sure those conditions have been substantially figured out before they make a decision on annexation and -- and so I do want to say in terms of timing, once the Linder Road overpass is completed I think that there is going to be a lot more pressure on Linder Road and I think you are going to see that roundabout then. There is going to be some movement to get that done. I mean nothing happens fast; right? So -- but, that being said, that roundabout is going to allow for that traffic -- because now you don't have a stop there, you -- cars are just going to, you know, flow through and it could back up in that entrance, especially since -- as Commissioner Smith shared, you have to kind of go around this small little space in the back to get to the -- to the east parking. I'm not as concerned about the kind of stacking on Victory Road, because even when this area develops with subdivisions -- and it will once the Linder Road overpass is open, that's going to like literally open the floodgates. It's still a Sunday morning and I think even with a lot of cars that's just like the lowest traffic time, with the exception of overnight that there is. So, I'm not that worried about that. So, that's everything. Lorcher: Thank you. Stoll: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Stoll. Stoll: I'm generally supportive of the application. I appreciate the neighbors coming out and testifying. I think the areas on irrigation as pointed out are covered by the irrigation companies district's conditions. The traffic flow internally does cause me concern, but we live with the limitations that are provided to us by the highway district. Lorcher: Right. Stoll: So, with that I will support the application. Lorcher: Okay. Gelsomino: Madam Chair, I can't add more to what my fellow commissioners and yourself have voiced, so -- Lorcher: You can add a little more. Give a motion. Gelsomino: Absolutely. Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Gelsomino. Gelsomino: I would like to make a motion for the -- or excuse me. After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council F43] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission July 2,2026 Page 40 of 62 of File No. H-2026-0016 as presented in the staff reports -- report for the hearing date of July 2nd, 2026, without any modifications or conditions; right? Stoll: Second. Lorcher: Bill, we don't have to add any modifications; correct? All right. Then we have got a second. It's been moved and seconded to approve the Victory Stake Center. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much, everyone. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. 5. Public Hearing for Meridian Office Building (H-2026-0020) by CSHQA, located at 3514 E. Louise Dr. A. Request: Conditional Use Permit to construct and operate a 5,000 sq.ft. office building on 0.54 acres in the L-O zoning. Lorcher: Let's do one more and, then, we can take a little bit of a break. So, Item No. 5 is H-2026-0020. CSHQA requests a conditional use permit for a 5,000 square foot building at 3514 Louise Drive and when you are ready we will begin with the staff report. Parsons: I'm ready. Are you ready to keep listening? Lorcher: We are ready. Parsons: Perfect. Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, last item I'm covering this evening before I turn the mic over to Sonya is the Meridian Office Building CUP as you mentioned. This is one of those instances where we have zoning in place, but a previous approval has required your action tonight. So, the CUP that was approved in 2000 -- this property was approved through a PUD planning development back in 2005. As part of that requirement every lot within this area -- this development is required to get a detailed CUP approval. So, although we have zoning in place, the use the applicant is proposing is good, the DA and the CUP requires your -- your consideration tonight. So, that's what we are here to talk about. As you -- as you mentioned -- or you see here on the screen the future land use map does show this area is designated as mixed use community. Again, this is part of a larger planned unit development that has a mix of uses. The office, the employment that is proposed on the lot this evening is consistent with the overall land use designation. Access to this site is provided from a shared driveway that ties into the local street network, which is Touchmark. I think -- believe runs along the southern boundary there. So, there is a cross-access -- cross- access easement in place for that. Here is the applicant's proposed site plan. You can see here there is a 5,000 square foot building, along with the associated parking and landscaping. One item that popped up in the staff report -- when this property was subdivided in 2005 the -- the plat created a 20 foot wide public utility and irrigation easement along the west boundary of the site. As you can see here on the site plan the F44] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission July 2,2026 Page 41 of 62 building is encroaching within that 20 foot per the easement and so the applicant is going to be required to vacate a portion of that easement in order to allow that building to be constructed as it's proposed in front of you. So, staff has conditioned the applicant to do that. So, they will have to go through a public hearing process and go to City Council for them to take action on that reduction. The site -- the parking for the site does exceed the UDC standard. So, it's -- it's a 5,000 square foot building. So, ten is required and they are providing 15 on this -- on the site. I did look at the public record before I came to the hearing tonight. There was no public testimony on this item. Staff is recommending approval with conditions in the staff report and I will stand for any questions you may have. Lorcher: I do have a question. So, this is a conditional use permit. This building has not been built yet; correct? Parsons: That is correct. They need your permission to start construction. Lorcher: Okay. And so what are they going to City Council for? For utility -- Parsons: Yes. If they -- they have been conditioned to vacate that easement and as part of that -- a vacation application requires Council action -- Lorcher: Okay. Parsons: -- so nothing you have to worry about tonight. The condition is in there. They are just accepting of that condition and realize there is another application they need to process with the city in order to encroach or provide a ten foot setback along that boundary. Lorcher: Okay. But this Commission is approving the conditional use permit? Parsons: The conditional use permit and they will come back with an application at a later date. Lorcher: Got you. Okay. Perreault: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: I didn't notice in -- in the file any indication of what the end user would be, but if by some chance those parking spaces are not enough is there any overflow area in that general vicinity for some other of the office spaces or Touchmark or -- Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, not that I'm aware of. I know the easement that goes around the -- the road there is an only for ingress-egress easement and utility easement. So, again, these are each individual lots. Usually when we act on F45] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission July 2,2026 Page 42 of 62 this we make sure that the site is adequately parked per UDC standard. So, I am not aware of a shared parking agreement and I'm not -- I'm not sure if the applicant does either. But most of the lots that -- they are -- over the last couple of years we are starting to see this area pick up. There has been a couple CUPs and each one that this body has acted on has met the minimum parking standards, if not exceeded the parking standards. Lorcher: Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward. Hi. If you can name state your name and address for the record that would be great. Hart: My name is Ryan Hart. I'm with CSHQA. We are located at 200 Broad Street, Boise, Idaho. Lorcher: Thank you. Hart: As stated before, we are on 3514 East Louise Drive. We are in a low impact business and the occupancy of our business -- of the building is a Group B occupancy, falling in line with the -- the zone. Like stated before, we have 15 parking stalls. One of those being an ADA, whereas code only requires us to have ten of those. So, we are already exceeding the parking standards, as well as on the floor plan we have ten office -- ten offices. So, we are not expecting to see more than the anticipated 15 people coming in, even if people are visiting the office itself. We are currently working through -- talking with the public utilities to get their vacation letters for all of the utility and we are seeking to relinquish 11 feet of that 20 foot easement for our building. Lorcher: Okay. Hart: And, yeah, I want to thank again for the Commissioners taking the time and I will stand for any questions. Lorcher: Commissioner Gelsomino. Gelsomino: Madam Chair. Ryan, thank you for your -- for coming up tonight. Do you know how far along the process -- is the process of obtaining those relinquishment letters? Hart: Yeah. We have reached out to all of the utility companies. We have received a number of vacation letters already and we are seeking to get the rest of them soon. Gelsomino: Thank you. Lorcher: Okay. Thank you very much. Hart: Thank you. Lorcher: Madam Clerk, do we have anyone signed up to testify? F46] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission July 2,2026 Page 43 of 62 Lomeli: Thank you, Madam Chair. No, no one has signed up. Lorcher: And no one online. Ryan, did you want to add anything else or are you good? Okay. Can I get a motion to close the public hearing, please? Smith: So moved. Perreault: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on Meridian Office. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Lorcher: It seems pretty straightforward. It's an in-fill project of -- of land. It seems like there is a pre-requirement from years ago that any building that's going to go into this area has a conditional use permit. It sounds like they are going through the motions to make sure that they get the utility issues squared away before they start construction and you are, obviously, aware that you have to go to City Council for that condition or waiver as well. Anybody else have any concerns with this application or comments? Stoll: No concerns. Gelsomino: No. Lorcher: Commissioner Sandoval, I keep -- I don't keep forgetting you are there, but out of sight out of mind. Do you have any comments in regard to this application? Sandoval: Madam Chair, nothing further on this one. Thank you. Lorcher: Okay. Thank you. Well, with that in mind after considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File No. H-2026-0020 as presented in the staff report on the hearing date of July 2nd -- Stoll: Second. Lorcher: -- with no modifications. Stoll: Still second. Lorcher: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve file H-2026-0020. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. F47] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission July 2,2026 Page 44 of 62 6. Public Hearing for Regency at River Valley Phase 3 (H-2026-0010) by Bach Homes, located at 3270 E. River Valley St. A. Request: Modified Development Agreement to the existing development agreement (SGI Inst.#113005608 & Bach Storage Inst. #2020-062947) to remove the subject property from the existing agreements and enter into a new agreement with a change to the conceptual development plan and use from an indoor self- service storage facility and retail store (Option A) or drive-through restaurant (Option B) to two (2) multi-family buildings with 88 dwelling units. B. Request: Conditional Use Permit for an 88-unit, multi-family development on 2.57 acres of land in the C-C and C-G zoning districts. Lorcher: We have one more application, but why don't we take a three to five minute break and, then, we will finish the last one. Thank you. (Recess 7:55 p.m. to 8:01 p.m.) Lorcher: All right. Are you ready? All right. Let's -- let's finish our last application. If everyone's ready. Item H-2026-0010, Regency at River Valley, requests a modified development agreement and a conditional use permit for phase three of their development and we will start with the staff report. Allen: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. The application before you tonight is a request for a conditional use permit. There is a concurrent development agreement modification application with this, but that does not require Commission action, only City Council. This site consists of 2.57 acres of land. It's zoned C-C and C- G and is located at 3270 East River Valley Street, northeast of the North Eagle Road, State Highway 55 and East River Valley Street intersection. I will go through a little history on this property. There are two existing development agreements in effect that govern future development of the subject properties. The existing approved development plan for the northern portion of the property is a three story cell service storage facility and the existing approved development plan for the southern part of the property is retail, which is Option A. So, the storage facility here and the elevations -- they are included in the development agreement here on the left. The ones for the property on the southern portion of the property, the Option A retail building is here in the middle and, then, the Option B is on the right side. The Option B is the -- is for -- the western portion of the southern portion of the site has developed with a small retail building as shown on that concept plan, but the drive through restaurant that's also shown has not developed and that is where the southern portion of this site is located. There are two previous development agreement modifications for Regency at River Valley phase three multi-family development that were denied for this property in 2021 and 2022. The application in 2021 -- it's shown there on the left -- was for one 134 unit 48 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission July 2,2026 Page 45 of 62 five story multi-family residential apartment building with podium parking on the first floor. This application was denied by Council due to not having the access with some of the contiguous properties to the north adequately flushed out, issues with traffic and parking and associated traffic circulation and their belief that it wasn't the right time for the city to approve the modification. The application in 2022 is shown on the right there. It was for one 128 unit five story multi-family apartment building with podium parking on the first floor. The City Council found this application was not in the best interest of the city, because the proposed multi-family development would exacerbate existing traffic access and circulation issues affecting the adjacent apartment complex, nearby roadways and emergency response. While the applicant failed to demonstrate that the proposed change from the previously approved self-service storage facility use was a superior development or justified modifying the existing development agreement. The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designation for the property is mixed use regional. The purpose of this designation is to provide a mix of employment, retail, residential dwellings and public uses near major arterial intersections. The applicant is proposing a modification to the existing development agreements to remove the subject property from the existing agreements and enter into a new agreement with a change to the approved development plans and use to an 88 unit multi-family residential development in two four story buildings. Forty-four units in each building. A conditional use permit is requested contingent upon Council's approval of a modification to the development agreements for approval of an 88 unit multi-family residential development in the C-C and C-G zoning districts on 2.57 acres of land. This development is proposed to be constructed in one phase and be an expansion of the existing Regency at River Valley multi-family development directly to the east of this property. A right-in, right-out access is proposed at the southern boundary of the site via East River Valley Street with shared access with the multi-family development to the east for access via Records Avenue and the full access on that site via River Valley. So, I will just show you real quick here. This is the access that's proposed with this application right-in, right-out and, then, this is an overall plan showing the existing development and proposed development. The existing full access driveway to phase one is right here. And, then, again, this is the proposed driveway here. If approved an emergency access easement will be required through the property to the north for access via Eagle Road due to the height of the proposed structures, which will likely reduce parking for the site below the minimum required amount, necessitating additional changes to the site plan. Alternatively, fire department may determine that this existing access that runs from Eagle Road down through here and goes in here may be adequate. Discussions are still going on with the applicant and the fire chief on that matter. So, not sure if he will accept that or not. The last comments to me were that they needed access from the north here. A 35 foot wide street buffer is required along Eagle Road and State Highway 55, which is an entryway corridor, with a ten foot wide detached multi-use pathway. The buffer is -- am I -- am I being halted? The buffer is required to comply with the enhanced buffer standards in the UDC for entryway corridors. Noise abatement is required by the UDC for residential uses along a state highway. An eight foot tall precast sound wall is proposed within the street buffer along North Eagle Road, State Highway 55, on top of a two foot tall berm. A cross-section of the street buffer was submitted as shown there on the bottom right. Because the berm and wall will not F49 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission July 2,2026 Page 46 of 62 be tall enough to buffer the second, third and fourth stories from the adjacent state highway, staff is recommending the structures incorporate sound attenuating construction materials and design features to decrease the interior noise levels inside the building if the use is approved. Common open space is proposed as shown on the plan on the right there consisting of half the street buffer along Eagle Road, linear open space containing a pedestrian pathway and a couple larger open space areas. The UDC requires at least one common grassy area to be integrated into the site design allowing for general activities by all ages and that all common areas are not less than 400 square feet in area and have a minimum length and width dimensions of 20 feet. The large common area at the north end of the site -- it's that kind of green turquoise area -- appears to meet the 5,000 square foot requirement. However, it's encumbered by a dog park, water feature and sitting area and is not an open grassy area as required. Other linear open space areas appears to be under the minimum 20 foot dimension requirement. If approved staff recommends an overall open space exhibit that includes phases one and two as submitted that demonstrates compliance with this standard for the overall development, since residents will have access to all common areas and amenities through a shared use agreement. Site amenities are proposed consisting of a dog park from the quality of life category, a water feature with a seating area from the open space category, walking trails from the recreation category and two charging stations for electric vehicles are proposed from the multi-modal category in accord with UDC standards. Offstreet parking is required to be provided based on the number of units -- excuse me -- bedrooms per unit. A minimum of 143 spaces are required and proposed to be provided. With the changes to phase one to allow for cross-access drives, nine spaces will be removed. A parking analysis prepared for the overall site indicates a total of 11 fewer spaces than required -- will be provided in the existing portion of the development if this development is approved. If approved staff recommends revisions are made to the site plan to accommodate the additional required spaces on this site in order to comply with the minimum parking standards for the overall development. Conceptual building elevations were submitted as shown for the proposed structures with building materials consisting of stucco and fiber cement board and batten siding with stone veneer accents. Final design is required to comply with the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual. An exhibit was also submitted showing the west facade facing Eagle Road with one year trees and fence with ten years and without trees and fence. No written testimony was received from the public on this application. Staff is recommending denial due to many of the same circumstances still existing that were previous reasons for denial by City Council of a multi-family development on this site, including intensification of existing traffic. Access and circulation issues along East River Valley Street. Other reasons for denial are the proposed four story building height and form doesn't adequately transition to existing single story commercial development along the Eagle Road corridor. Concern pertaining to appropriateness of high density residential uses immediately adjacent to a state highway and major transportation corridor. Related to quality of life and the health and well-being of future residents due to vehicle emissions and noise exposure and inadequacy of the buffer to residential uses along a state highway due to the height of the structures. For these reasons staff is of the opinion the current entitlement of an indoor storage facility is a more appropriate use than the proposed multi-family F50] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission July 2,2026 Page 47 of 62 development and is of the opinion it's not in the best interest of the city to modify the existing development agreement as proposed. Staff will stand for any questions. The applicant is here to present tonight. Lorcher: Would the applicant like to come forward? Hi. If you can state your name and address for the record, please. Jordan: Cedar Jordan. 11650 South State Street, Draper, Utah. Lorcher: Oh, sorry. What's your first name? Jordan: Cedar. Lorcher: Cedar. Okay. Thank you. Jordan: Thank you. Yeah. So, really, Sonya's been involved with this project much -- I'm fairly new with this company, but she has been involved and all of these have gone forward and I think a couple of things that have changed since we have come along is the property to the north is now developed and we have a cross-access easement now and it's paved access to get out to Eagle Road from that -- that north side now. I don't think the fire marshal is -- we just got a letter from the fire marshal saying we had some concerns there. So, we are not sure that he is aware of that access or cross-access easement, so that is a change -- or a condition that was new now. I think that also part of -- you know, this property stabilized and there was at the time interest obviously with the storage units and all the other things, but with the growth of your city I think that's why a few years ago they started looking at, hey, let's increase the -- get more units on this phase and keep going and when we look at the traffic -- there is a traffic study which -- we do have a traffic consultant online if we need to have specific -- any technical questions. But one of the comments was that the use of the residential is less impactful than if it was actually a true commercial resident -- or a restaurant. For example, a 2,500 square foot drive-through restaurant would increase ADTs and all kinds of other impacts, a.m., p.m. type of thing. So, just from a traffic standpoint converting it back to an apartment complex would reduce traffic, compared to the approved use. Although I will have to say that storage units also have a kind of an odd traffic pattern than most commercial. But the transition -- you know, the Eagle Road is a corridor -- I think the current -- we have measured the height I think of the current facade or the parapet for the three story and I think we are at 42 feet. I think this building is at 52 feet and the -- and the adjacent buildings next to us or at least the Mattress Firm with the parapet is at 26 feet or 25 feet. So, there is a -- there is a transition that jumps, but does now to the parapet of the storage units from 25 to 42 and this would also just increase it up to the 52, so -- if there is any -- anything I can answer. Lorcher: Okay. Do we have any questions for the applicant? Perreault: Madam Chair? F51 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission July 2,2026 Page 48 of 62 Lorcher: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: Did I hear you correctly that the -- you have access -- physical access to the north and -- and legal access to the north and so is that going to be a right -- like a right turn only onto Eagle Road from there? Jordan: Yes. Perreault: Is that going to be a public -- that goes in -- Jordan: It's existing now. Perreault: -- road to -- Jordan: Sorry. Go ahead. Perreault: Is that a public street that comes from Eagle Road into the development? Jordan: That I don't know. We -- there is a cross-access easement put together with BGI, which I think is a developer at the time and ourselves for that. I'm not entirely clear on if that's a -- it's not a public -- but there is an existing required cross-access easement between both property owners. Is that the question? Perreault: Not exactly. Jordan: Okay. Perreault: And I'm kind of-- had a little bit of a hard time hearing you. Sorry. Jordan: Oh. Perreault: So, you have -- you have that, you know, kind of drive aisle that comes -- that -- that goes along the east side of the property; right? And it doesn't really go up into another -- it goes up into another development, but there is intended to be a road that runs to the south of that development and in the last application it wasn't determined whether that would -- that road -- if it was a public road, if it was a private road, if that road would even be there and whether, you know, there would be access for this property or not and so I just want to understand specifically is there an intention of that applicant at least -- it's been a while since I have been there, so from the photos that's on here it still shows bare land up there. Jordan: Okay. Perreault: And so I want to understand if you have physical access and is that a private road that just exists for the -- yep. So, if you were to head straight north on that drive aisle to the east will there be access to the left if you were to be able to turn left there 52 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission July 2,2026 Page 49 of 62 was a -- at the last application there was supposed to be a determination of whether there was access there on the north side of Copper Canyon. Jordan: The Copper -- Perreault: Is that what you are referring to? Are you -- Jordan: No. No. There is one further to the -- there is one further to the east. If you -- can I point, Sonya, or -- okay. Okay. So -- sorry for the lag. So, this is the northern access that I'm speaking of and that that created -- once this property to the north developed and has developed the parties entered into a cross-access easement for cross-access for both parties to come through that north access, not from -- there is not a north access from this phase if that's your question. They would egress out of this parking lot, go north and, then, east and out here and could go out here or go out -- Perreault: You won't be able to go directly north? Lorcher: It looks like you have to kind of S curve around. Jordan: That's right. That's right. Yeah. I think -- that's right. So -- is my cursor showing? Okay. So, yeah, you have to come out this -- this building. You will have to egress here and can go right and go south and go to River Valley or it will go north, wrap around here and, then, come back out here out to Eagle. Perreault: Okay. Jordan: Does that -- Perreault: That makes sense. Thank you. Jordan: Okay. Sorry. Lorcher: Is the property that's developed north, is that the Copper Canary jewelry store and the Raising Cane's and the oil change place? Jordan: It is. Lorcher: It's all there now? Jordan: Yes. Lorcher: And, then, are those apartment buildings or is that a hotel behind there at the -- at the east side of that property behind -- behind the second phase of-- of-- Jordan: Yeah. F53] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission July 2,2026 Page 50 of 62 Lorcher: -- Regency. Jordan: Those are apartments. Lorcher: Apartments. Okay. All right. Any other questions for the applicant before we check with public testimony? Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: Yeah. So, some of the staff analysis -- or the staff report talks about being under parked and some of the modifications needed will actually -- I think maybe remove some parking on phase one or two next -- immediately adjacent. Can you speak to that? Can you speak to the parking plan how you are going to address that parking need. Not be under parked. Jordan: Yeah. I think so. Part of the -- the specific code that -- I haven't talked to Sonya about or understood how it's calculated -- is the -- for the -- if you -- if you are located near mass transit kind of facility, which there are bus stops there and I didn't know if that's a -- if that's a calculation that could come in and help reduce the 11 deficit. Smith: Okay. Lorcher: Did you have any more? Smith: I guess I did have one question regarding the walking trails. Can you -- can you help me understand where those walking trails are in this application? I ask because I -- I don't -- in -- Jordan: Yeah, it's -- Smith: I don't necessarily think -- Jordan: Is there a way to go to the renderings? Allen: Cedar, did you have those in your presentation? Jordan: I think -- yes. Allen: Okay. Let me switch back to yours. Sorry. Just a moment. Jordan: The trails mostly wrap around to the west and north side. This -- this is the northwest side. Does that make sense? Smith: Got it. So, it's just -- it's general interconnectivity between -- F54] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission July 2,2026 Page 51 of 62 Jordan: That's right. That's right. Smith: Yeah. Lorcher: Okay. Smith: Go for it. Lorcher: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: So, talked about the sharing of amenities -- Lorcher: Have to turn your mic on. Perreault: I apologize. I have a question about the sharing of the amenities. So, just the -- the type amenities that they are and the location that they are, I don't anticipate a lot of residents from the other two phases coming over and using these, but yet those residents will be going over to phase one and phase two and using theirs. So, there is really not like a good reciprocity there. So, the phase one and phase two residents, how will they be impacted in the use of their amenities? Because I just don't see them coming over and using these like kind of in that back corner. Jordan: Yeah. I don't think that the property management -- so, we have a property management division in the company that manages all of our properties. So, it's my understanding that they are -- they aren't worried about the cross-using or the impact of the existing pool and the fitness center there. They are comfortable with what they are proposing to add the 88 units back in -- or add another 88 units wasn't a concern to property management. Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: I have a question for Sonya regarding the -- kind of mass transit part of code that was referenced regarding the impact on parking calculations. I -- could you comment on that or fill me in on -- is that a possible solution to be compliant or what does that look like? Allen: Chairman, Commissioner Smith, Commissioners, there is a section of code parking standard alternatives 113-C-7. It lists favorable conditions for parking alternatives to off-street parking. One of those includes that there is a transit stop within a quarter mile of the use. So, there -- there may be some options there. Jordan: Yeah. There are two bus stops. One on the north -- on the south side and one on the east side. 55 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission July 2,2026 Page 52 of 62 Allen: It says that when alternative modes of transportation are available off-street parking may be reduced by an equivalent amount to the demand that is met by the alternative transportation mode as documented in a transportation plan prepared by a registered engineer. Smith: Okay. So, we wouldn't be able to figure that out -- those numbers out tonight? Allen: No. Smith: Okay. Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: I do have -- sorry. I'm kind of going down a checklist. I do have one question that came up which was regarding the use of -- of trees for sound abatement, et cetera on the side of Eagle. Is that accounting for the power lines that are currently there? It's hard to kind of understand from that 2D perspective. Is there adequate depth for those or -- can you help me understand? Jordan: Well, I think there is adequate height. I'm not sure that we -- where exactly underneath we sit under that transmission line. Smith: Yeah. Well, I ask because I think the transmission lines -- they don't seem super high up and just in reference to this being a four story building. You have trees that are shown to go three or four stories tall -- seem to be pretty sizable -- Jordan: Yeah. Smith: -- landscaping. So, I wanted to just make sure that we are accounting for those power lines. Jordan: That's fair. I think we -- I would have to look at the overlay to see how the power line runs underneath there or where it runs in the right of way. Smith: Okay. Lorcher: Okay. Thank you very much. Jordan: Thank you. Lorcher: Madam Clerk, do we have anyone signed up to testify? Lomeli: Thank you, Madam Chair. We have Perry Coles. Lorcher: Yeah. If you can state your name and address for the record, please. 56 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission July 2,2026 Page 53 of 62 Coles: Good evening, everybody. I'm Perry Coles. I represent East River Valley Street, the owner of Copper Canary property. To give you a little bit of history behind this, it may help you a little bit. We -- we originally owned the piece of property next to The Mattress Firm and that's where we were going to build Copper Canary originally. Lorcher: Okay. Coles: What we found is that the access was so bad coming off of East River Valley Street, because there was a median that was put in for that -- because of the highway. It literally was impossible to get anybody to our property, except to go through the Regency property and do a U-turn or go all the way to Records and try to come all the way around. So, the reality is it would be nearly impossible to get our customers to come to our -- our -- our -- you know, our property and our store. So, we thought long and hard -- we actually had plans set up, but we just couldn't seem to get over the access problem and getting people in and out of the property easily. So, we, then, took over the -- the Chinese restaurant and, then, rebuilt it and -- and here we are, you know, three years later. I totally understand what Bach Homes is going through with this property. It's a very very difficult property because the access is so bad. What I would like to -- first of all, I am in favor of them in this project and I will tell you several reasons why. One is now they are not five story they are four story. Four story is exactly what is behind us with the new apartments -- Lorcher: Okay. Coles: -- behind the Raising Cane's, behind now the new vet building and there is two lots left that originally were -- they were talking about putting a hotel in and I think that went away and I don't know what's going there now. But they are four story right there. So, it's really not out of line for what's in the neighborhood right now and, yes, it's a little bit bigger than us. I'm absolutely fine with it. The fact they have gone to 88 units in two buildings and if you look at the architecture it's beautiful. I mean they did a really really nice job and the way they fed the traffic and everything back into their development makes a lot of sense. Now since we redeveloped our property there is a right turn lane, okay, coming off of Eagle and I think that's the access -- or some connection to that road that goes all the way back that meets both apartment complexes to the right and to the left, you know, going east. So, the access is really good now. Traffic is -- is minimized and trying to put any other business in there I think -- it's just going to sit empty. I think they have owned it for ten or 15 years. There is no buyers. Nobody wants it and yet they are now developing a third phase that fits beautifully into what they already have. The amenities are there and, believe me, I have nothing to do with Bach Homes. So, they didn't pay me to stand up here. Lorcher: Okay. Coles: Okay. But it just seems to make common sense what they are developing. Okay? And, yeah, I would like not to have dirt -- dirt there anymore. It would be -- it would be kind of nice. The -- the other -- you know, basically, like I said, I'm generally 57 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission July 2,2026 Page 54 of 62 fully in favor of it. I find very few problems with it. The one question I had -- and I wasn't sure -- and I heard something, Sonya, that you had mentioned that the buffer wall -- is it eight feet or ten feet? Ten feet. Because they are elevated about two feet above us, too. Lorcher: Okay. Coles: The -- you know, the elevation of the -- of the land. So, it puts a 12 foot wall there. So, aesthetically and visually to our building it kind of blocks us out pretty well. I would like to see maybe some kind of change that -- if that is possible, if you guys decide -- or the City Council decides to approve it. Lorcher: I need you to finish up, please. Coles: I'm sorry? Lorcher: Your time is up, so can you finish up. Coles: Oh, it is? I'm sorry. Okay. Then that's -- that was my only objection. Lorcher: Okay. Coles: Thank you very much. Lorcher: Thank you very much. Coles: Any questions or -- Lorcher: Not at this time. Coles: Okay. Lorcher: Thanks. Lomeli: Madam Chair, no one else has signed up. Lorcher: Would the applicant like to come forward and address Perry's comments or are you good? You are fine? All right. Can I get a motion to close the public hearing? Stoll: Move to close. Gelsomino: Seconded. Lorcher: It's been moved and second to close the public hearing for Item 2026-0010, Regency at River Valley Phase Three. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. 58 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission July 2,2026 Page 55 of 62 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Lorcher: I was by here today. I went to the Habit for lunch today, so I drove down south on Eagle Road to turn on River Valley to go into that development and, you know, went by it. It's a very shallow parcel. So, you have your challenges ahead of you. As well as there is no direct access from Eagle Road, which means you have to kind of meander through. Driving from McMillan to River Valley today I did notice that there are no apartments directly on Eagle Road. Everything is set back for retail more on Eagle than any residential straight up on Eagle Road at this time. That doesn't mean that it couldn't happen in the future, but at this time. I think the other challenge is is that this is probably considered in-fill and when you are the last guy, you know, in line everybody's taken up your traffic; right? So, you are -- you are subject to the traffic conditions that already exist, even though that isn't -- isn't your problem, but now it is because it's already there. Extending the residential from what the storage was going to be from three stories to four doesn't seem very drastic, but the transition -- I agree with the city planners, the transition from the single story of Mattress Firm to a four story seems very dramatic. The open space concept you have in the corner in the back for one of the buildings -- so, if I was in the building that was further south compared to the north I wouldn't even feel that that was part of my open space. It seems like it's private for them. And, then, to cross the parking lot to the pool for the other portion of the property going east seems kind of like a pretty far jaunt. You know, it's a tough spot like Perry had mentioned because of the access and maybe residential might be the answer here, but having it abut against Eagle Road, even with a buffer wall, with the power poles and trees, I don't feel like I can support this particular -- the design of this particular project. I think it could be flipped a little bit and maybe the parking closer to Eagle Road and the building closer to Regency's, so that you are right not -- not right on top of it with the transition for the Mattress Firm, you know, so that it seems like a different transition knowing that there are three story or four story apartment buildings right behind here. So, overall the concept is interesting. I -- I don't feel like it's quite there yet. I lived along Highway 84, you know, and that white noise of that constant traffic is a real thing and it -- and Eagle Road really doesn't stop and there is just really -- how many soundproof walls you have you will never be able to block it out, you are never going to be able to have your window open, because you are always going to have that kind of infestation of -- of whether -- if it's noise or something from a motorcycle or a car or backfire from a vehicle, it's always going to be there and even though it has the ability to be close to mass transit I just think if it was flipped a little bit more it might be a little bit better. But the way this sits right now I am not in support of this project. Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: Yeah. I think I have a lot of issues with this and I think some of them are actually kind of the inverse of yours. I don't know that flipping certain things around would -- would address a lot of the main concerns. F59] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission July 2,2026 Page 56 of 62 Lorcher: I don't know. Smith: I think for me it's, you know, the -- the ones that jump out are obviously parking. There is parking issues and there is open space issues. I think the location of open space, the current design of open space is inadequate. It doesn't -- doesn't -- it doesn't fit the -- the overall design of the -- of the rest of the development it's trying to integrate into. I think we have parking issues that maybe we can address, but, you know, by being near transit. I think there is a big issue with sound mitigation, not knowing if it's going to conflict with power lines, because if-- if it does that -- we lose a big component there on Eagle of being able to mitigate sound. I'm not against residential being more on these kind of large arterials. I think -- and I know -- I know we had some disagreement earlier internally of whether this is technically transit oriented development, but, you know, either in spirit or in letter I am in support of this kind of development for those reasons, either being directly on mass transit or being so close to Kleiner Park and, you know, walking -- walking distance to other commercial amenities and retail amenities. I think this is -- this is a fine intention to put residential here. I think this existing concept -- this existing plan is -- is not fully baked. It's not fully developed. So, for me I can't support it tonight. I don't know if that looks like continuing to a -- kind of significant extent. If -- if the applicant feels that they are able to kind of rework this and a, honestly, somewhat significant manner or if this looks like denying it and letting them take another swing when they are fully ready. I think this is closer than past residential applications on this spot, but I still don't think it's in an area where it's -- you know, I don't think we are just a few tweaks away from this being workable. I'm very in support of this residential of -- of transit oriented development and very -- not to get ideological and very -- I like this kind of development and concept. I just -- this -- this existing plan just doesn't quite fit. I think that also one thing that I started to -- sorry. Commissioner Stoll, for holding me hostage. One thing that I also would like to see more is better interconnectivity to the north to -- to Copper Canary if that's -- if that's workable. That would address a lot of my concerns around circulation having ins and outs, obviously, that -- if that's functional, but -- so I can't support it tonight. I don't know if that looks like a continuance or if that looks like a denial that I think -- I would love to hear the rest of the Commission's thoughts on that. Lorcher: Okay. Perreault: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: So, I have probably heard in the hundreds of applications at this point and there is just those that just -- you never forget and that's this one. I remember the two hearings and continuances so well on this application and all the conversation that we had about access and, you know, it was denied the first time, because there wasn't any access to the property to the north. Nobody knew what was going on. Nobody knew there was apartments that were going to be there and, then, they came back in and they said, hey, there is going to apartments that are going to be here, we are still working on 60 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission July 2,2026 Page 57 of 62 whether we have cross access with that and even if we do is it going to be physically able to get -- to go through the north to get out to Records and we just -- we fleshed out every possible scenario with it. I do appreciate the applicant putting in very clear walkways through the parking lots, because that was something that was entirely missing. There was no obvious way to get from phase three over to phase two. So, that's an improvement that they have made. And I think breaking up the buildings into two buildings was really a good thing, but I agree with Commissioner Smith on the -- the -- where the amenities are. It's very isolated. And I don't think that that really benefits the -- the residents from the other two phases. So, I see so much improvement from -- from what was discussed the last time. Significant improvement. And I think that any other -- any commercial user that would come in there is going to -- it's going to be more complicated for them, because, you know, not being able to get to your -- your storage unit or imagine having fast food in there, like we just had this conversation about drive throughs. So, I don't think that the -- the current entitled use is feasible either. I -- I know phase one and phase two have been in -- in that apartment community quite a bit. For the most part people drive slow through there, like it's not -- nobody's racing through. I don't love how little space there is between -- like in the drive aisles they are very narrow, so if somebody's backing their car out and you are coming down the drive aisle there is lots of opportunities for accidents and wrecks. All that to say I see significant improvements in this and I'm not entirely opposed to this based on -- and I'm not just comparing, you know, what they had -- they have a better plan, I'm comparing to really are they using -- are they doing the best that they can with the -- with the site constrictions that they have and I don't see any other way that they could make an improvement. I mean we -- we -- we worked this and reworked this and reworked this and I don't see any other way that they can make any improvements. I -- I -- I don't know if anything's changed, but I remember that Copper Canyon wasn't willing to give them a cross-access and they didn't want folks, you know, parking in -- in their parking lot and they really didn't want to have a lot of involvement in -- I don't know if that's changed or not, but that was something that was a pretty much like off -- off limits kind of thing. My hope is that -- was that the -- that drive aisle just very -- there to the east would be able to go completely through by Raising Cane's and not have to make a right or go east and head back through and kind of go to the north. But it doesn't sound -- like that was something that we -- we -- we basically told the applicant -- like that that would be the -- I mean if you could get that done that would be huge -- a huge step towards getting approval and I -- it doesn't sound like that that was an option either, but I think for the site constrictions that they have I -- I'm not entirely opposed to it. I do think there is some tweaks that need to be made definitely with the amenities. One of them specifically would be -- I think that the -- the water feature is great, because there is some sound mitigation. I mean that's nice it does -- it does kind of cut through some of the road noise, but I think it would be better to have more of like a gathering area, like a covered gathering area type of feel where people could, you know, have friends over for a graduation party or something, instead of just it being like a -- something that's a visual or, you know, kind of -- kind of situation. So, I agree I don't -- I'm not comfortable voting in favor right at this moment, but if there was some reworking done on the amenities I think it would be worth a good second look. 61 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission July 2,2026 Page 58 of 62 Stoll: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Stoll. Stoll: Generally I like the concept of what they are proposing as far as residential. I have -- as Commissioners have pointed out -- concerns regarding connectivity and internal circulation. I would like to see this continued to allow the applicant to work with staff to come up with some conditions or reworking what they are proposing to come back to us later, as opposed to an outright denial. But that's my two cents, to keep it short. Lorcher: We will have to reopen the public hearing to see if the applicant is open to that or just wants to go on to City Council, so if that is what the Commission would like, may I get a motion to -- Perreault: Madam Chair -- Lorcher: Oh, did you want to add -- Gelsomino: I was going to say I'm -- I'm pretty much in line of giving them another option, so if a continuance is the consensus then -- Lorcher: Okay. Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: Do we have to -- this is a question for staff. Do we need to give them pretty clear specific things that we want them to bring back? If we are going to continue do we need to say, hey, these are the things that we want to see when you come back here? Allen: Chairman, Commissioner Perreault, Commissioners, yes, please. So, that they have clear direction on what to work on between now and then. And, please, give them adequate time. We do need revised plans within 15 days prior to the hearing. So, it will take them a bit to do it and, then, we will need it 15 days prior. Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: Move to open the public -- reopen the public hearing. Stoll: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to reopen the public hearing for Regency River Valley Phase Three. All those in favor say I aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. F62 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission July 2,2026 Page 59 of 62 Lorcher: Cedar, can you come back up, please? What is your preference? Do you feel like if we gave you some direction for a continuance that would be something that you and your team would be interested in or do you want to just go forward to City Council? Jordan: I would to continue -- I would like the continuance. Lorcher: You would like to continue. So, can we give him some direction of things to be able to work on and, then, we can look at dates. Does that sound okay? Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: So, I mean just kind of going off my list and some others that I heard, some were, you know, the landscaping, power lines on Eagle that conflict. Figuring out parking. If we can find a way to meet parking. Reworking the open space. To integrate better with the rest of the Regency. To -- so, there is -- also the issue of northern cross- access to Copper Canary or to another parcel if that's feasible. I also imagine there are kind of draft conditions that we are not considering the staff has in mind. So, I would also imagine allowing some time in there for staff to -- you know, coordinate with the applicant on any other issues. I don't know if there is any other that I missed. Perreault: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: In the reworking -- potential reworking of moving -- I know that they have done -- I don't know how many plans on this, but the idea of moving the parking more towards Eagle Road -- I think one of the issues it created was pedestrian access, then, over to phase two where you are trying to like make it feel like this is a cohesive development and so, then, if you put the building towards phase two, then, pedestrians are walking kind of around the buildings to the north and the south to get over to the amenities and more people are getting in their cars. So, that was kind of one of the things. But I would like to see -- you know, I know -- I know we have asked for so many iterations of this and it's been a long time, but I would like to see more possibility of moving the building away from Eagle Road. I think -- you know, anybody that's going to rent there, they are going to know there is noise. Like they are going to make an educated decision about whether they want to live there, because they are going to know they are on Eagle Road. Lorcher: Right. Perreault: I do think that there will -- you will find a lot of limitations. I think there might be enough people that want to live near The Village and stuff that you will get that. As far as the height of the building goes, I feel like that if you are going to put buildings that high that's the road you put them on. I don't love it, but I understand you have parred F63] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission July 2,2026 Page 60 of 62 down these buildings like 50 units and making that pencil is -- is really hard to do. So, I would like further -- further work done not only on the location of the amenities, but also on the type of amenities. I don't think that's too big of a change. But I know having done multiple hearings that you all have already thought through a whole bunch of these scenarios before you even get to us. So, we are really really not trying to make it hard on you, but we do want -- this is -- you know, anywhere along Eagle Road right now is like a really critical space for our community. So, I just remembered -- like stuffs literally coming back to me as we are sitting here about -- I don't think that there is a connection that could be made to -- like straight north, because there was only one way to get over the South Slough and there was only one way it was going to be bridged and that was by doing it here in the center part of the other -- like the apartments to the east. So, I think that -- I just answered my own question with that. But, yeah, just --just more information, not only like the design but more information on how the amenities are going to be used between the two complexes would be helpful. Lorcher: All right. That was a big laundry list. How much time do you think you might need? Madam Clerk, what does our schedule look like for the next couple meetings? Lomeli: Madam Chair, July 16th there is already seven hearings scheduled. Lorcher: Okay. That's not an option. Lomeli: August 6th there is only one and, then, the other dates after that would be August 20th or September 3rd. Lorcher: So, August 6th or -- what was the second date in August? Lomeli: August 20th. Lorcher: So, August 6th or August 20th. So, basically, August 6th is just shy of-- a little bit over a month and the other one looks like about six weeks. Jordan: Yeah. Let's do the latter. Lorcher: The August 20th? Jordan: Yes. Lorcher: Okay. Can I get a motion to continue Phase Three to August 20th. Perreault: So moved. Smith: Do we need to list the reasons in the motion? We are good? Okay. Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to continue application 2026-0010, Regency River Valley Phase Three, to August 20th. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? 64 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission July 2,2026 Page 61 of 62 Motion carries. Wait. I did that wrong, didn't I? Do I have to close the public hearing? No. We are good. Okay. All right. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Jordan: Thank you for your time. Lorcher: Thank you. We are good. Allen: Oh, I -- I just remembered one thing I was going to ask you. Were you directing staff to prepare conditions of approval? Commissioner Smith -- or Commissioners? Lorcher: I don't think we did. We asked the applicant to come forward to fix some things -- Allen: Okay. Lorcher: -- between now and August 20th. Is it appropriate to ask for staff for conditions of approval to work with the applicant? Allen: I would recommend seeing what the applicant brings forward before you make a recommendation and direct staff to prepare conditions of approval. But that is up to you. Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: Just to clarify on my end, I -- we -- it wasn't in the motion, but my intention was anything along those lines that tend to find their way in conditions of approval or things that, you know, we can resolve that come to mind, I wanted to leave space for you to -- anything that you think while we are in the process of these other things that you can resolve I wanted to leave that kind of space. So, you don't need to do conditions of approval. We can look at the rest. But that was kind of the -- the theme of things that I was saying feel free to work. Allen: Okay. Thank you for that clarification. Appreciate that. Lorcher: Okay, Cedar, so -- Jordan: Thank you. Lorcher: So we are good. August 20th. And if you can't remember what we said this is on public record and you can pull up the minutes and be able to get Commissioner Smith's comments. 65 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission July 2,2026 Page 62 of 62 Jordan: Thank you. Lorcher: All right. Thank you. Can I take one more motion. Gelsomino: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Gelsomino. Gelsomino: I would like to make a motion to adjourn tonight's meeting. Stoll: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:52 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS. ) APPROVED 7 16 126 MARIA LORCHER - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK 66 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Approve Minutes of the June 18, 2026 Planning and Zoning Special Commission Meeting 3 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission June 18,2026 Page 47 of 47 Lorcher: It's been moved and second to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much everyone. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:24 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS. ) APPROVED MARIA LORCHER - CHAIRMAN 7-2-2026 ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK 7-2-2026 F50 E K IDIAN:--- iuAn Planning and Zoning Presentations and outline h2 Planning and Zoning , 2026 nd July 2Commission Meeting Zoning MapAerialFLUM Zoning MapAerialFLUM Zoning MapAerialFLUM Zoning MapAerialFLUM Zoning MapAerialFLUM Site is partially developed with a retail building as shown E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing continued from June 18, 2026 for 713rew Coffee (H-2026- 0017) by Core States Group, located at 3570 E. Fairview Ave. A. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a Tier two (2) drive-through establishment on 0.64 acres of land in the C-G zoning district. 51 00 V 01 U1 O � C C N k O m cr � T N � i Z � � m V —t fD � ° O = 0.., OrQ Ln -YIN o a rD oo � rD N v X 77 ram+ O m D (D l x 0'Q -h !D - r} UQ O v N COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT C�E IDIAN*-- DEPARTMENT REPORT °AHO HEARING 6/18/2026 Legend DATE: Project Location TO: Planning&Zoning Commission -:Area of Impact g +- City Limits � FROM: Nick Napoli,Associate Planner O analysis 208-884-5533 nnapoli@meridiancity.org � APPLICANT: Mira Gantzert SUBJECT: 713rew Coffee Ire H-2026-0017 � LOCATION: Located at 3570 E. Fairview Avenue in Lot 6 Block 2 of the Centercal �T ' Subdivision. I. PROJECT OVERVIEW A. Summary The applicant requests a conditional use permit for a Tier two(2) drive through establishment on 0.64 acres of land in the C-G zoning district. B. Issues/Waivers MPD and staff have concerns about peak hour stacking as it may back out into the private drive aisle and obstruct traffic impacting neighboring businesses. Staff is asking the Planning and Zoning Commission to carefully consider whether the stacking is adequate. C. Recommendation Planning Division: Approval with conditions. D. Decision Planning and Zoning Commission: Pending E. Table of Contents Community Metrics.............................................................................. II StaffAnalysis..................................................................................... III City/Agency Comments and Conditions...................................................... IV Findings............................................................................................ V Action.............................................................................................. VI Exhibits............................................................................................ VII City of Meridian I Department Report I. Project Overview ■ I1. COMMUNITY METRICS Table 1: Land Use Description Details Map Ref. Existing Land Use(s) Vacant - Proposed Land Use(s) Commercial - Existing Zoning C-G(General Retail and Service Commercial District) VILA.2 Proposed Zoning C-G(General Retail and Service Commercial District) Adopted FLUM Designation Mixed Use Regional VII.A.3 Table 2: Proiect Overview Description Details History AZ-07-012,DA Inst#108131103,MDA-11-012(1st Addendum Inst# 111056292;2°a Addendum Inst#112026435) Acreage 0.64 acres Table 3: Process Facts Description Details Preapplication Meeting date 2/24/2026 Neighborhood Meeting 4/20/2026 Site posting date 6/8/2026 Table 4: Agency Comments Agency/Element Description/Issue Reference Ada County Highway District IV.0 • Comments Received Ye; Staff Report - • Commission Action Required No - • Access E.Fairview Avenue via a Drive Aisle - ITD Comments Received No Error! Reference ■ source not found. Meridian Public Works Wastewater IV.B �• Distance to Mainline Available at Site • Impacts or Concerns Yes; See Public Works Site Specific Conditions Meridian Public Works Water IV.B • Distance to Mainline Available at Site • Impacts or Concerns None Note: See section IV. City/Agency Comments&Conditions for comments received or see the public record. Paste the following link into your browser to access the public record: https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLinkBrowse.aspx?id=442334&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics ■ III. STAFF ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code(UDC) A. History The subject property was annexed in 2007 and subdivided in 2011 as a part of the Centercal Subdivision.With the annexation application, a development agreement was approved with a concept plan consistent with the building location as proposed. B. General Overview This property is designated as Mixed-Use Regional(MU-R)on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The use of a drive through coffee shop(restaurant)is consistent with the comprehensive plan for the MU-R designation. The subject site is among a wide range of commercial uses in the Centercal Subdivision(The Village at Meridian) and surrounding area near the intersection of Fairview Avenue and Eagle Road. The proposed use of a restaurant with a drive-through aligns with the desired uses specified within the Mixed-Use Regional designation in the Comprehensive Plan, as noted above. In conjunction with the already approved retail,restaurants,recreation facilities,etc. in the broader area,the proposed use satisfies the general Mixed-Use Regional future land use designation for this area. A restaurant is a permitted use in the C-G zoning district but a Tier two(2)drive through requires a conditional use permit. The proposed restaurant and drive through are required to comply with UDC 11-4-3-11 and 11-4-3-49. The applicant is proposing a 910 square foot drive-through restaurant designed to accommodate seven(7)vehicles in the stacking lane. They have indicated the intended hours of operation are 5:00 am to 11:00 pm, 7 days a week with the possibility of going 24/7 if the demand is there for extended hours of operation. In addition,the applicant has indicated that 713rew typically has 10- 15 employees per shift with an average of 400 customers per day. The applicant's narrative states that their business model of using"runners"instead of a traditional menu board for ordering will speed up the process and prevent queuing from backing up into drive aisles and roads. Staff and the Meridian Polic Department expressed concerns about overflow stacking. As a result, the applicant provided a transportation study from a 713rew location in Santa Rosa California. This provided data showing approximately 77 vehicle trips per hour. In addition,they included queuing data for 12 similar 713rew locations which show the average maximum queue of 7.4 vehicles per lane with wait times varying based on employee count at each location. The applicant also indicated in the event of an emergency,that they would have customers go into the escape lane;however,they do not anticipate needing to do this regularly. C. Comprehensive Plan Policies Policy Analysis "Encourage and support mixed-use The subject mixed-use area is currently a diverse and active areas that provide the benefits of being community,featuring a variety of retail,restaurant,office,and able to live,shop,dine,play,and work residential uses,as well as a multi-family development further north.. in close proximity,thereby reducing The proposed coffee restaurant will enhance this vibrant area by vehicle trips,and enhancing overall adding a popular drive-through coffee chain option for area residents, livability and sustainability."(3.06.02B) especially those living in nearby residential developments.The new establishment will also create job opportunities for nearby residents. "Promote area beautification and The applicant will be required to complete the 35-foot landscape community identity through context buffer along E.Fairview Avenue.In addition,they will landscape the sensitive building and site design internal drive aisle coming off Fairview Avenue. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ principles,appropriate signage,and attractive landscaping."(5.01.02C) "Reduce the number of existing access No new access points are proposed with this development. They will points onto arterial streets by using use an existing private drive aisle to get access to their site. methods such as cross-access agreements,access management,and frontage/backage roads,and promoting local and collector street connectivity." (6.01.02B) M "Require all development to be The proposed use of a drive-through and restaurant is consistent with consistent with Future Land Use Map the Future Land Use Map. The commercial designation allows for a designations for the property." variety of office,retail,employment,restaurants,and service uses in (3.03.03D) which this project will fill in one of the last available pad sites at the Village. "Require pedestrian circulation plans to Along the entire frontage of E.Fairview Avenue,there is an existing ensure safety and convenient access 10-foot-wide pathway located within the buffer.A 5-foot-wide across large commercial and mixed-use detached sidewalk is also present within the landscape buffer along developments."(3.07.02A). the private drive aisle to the west.The development requires a minimum 5-foot-wide sidewalk adjacent to all commercial buildings and along the main driveways within the site.These sidewalks will facilitate pedestrian connectivity and easy access throughout the mixed-use development. D. Site Development and Use Analysis 1. Proposed Use Analysis (UDC 11-2): The proposed use of a restaurant and drive-through establishment aligns well with the Mixed- Use Reginal(MU-R)future land use designation,which supports a blend of residential, commercial,and recreational uses. By offering service options within proximity to both residential areas and existing commercial developments,this project contributes to the community's overall livability and sustainability. Specifically,it adheres to Policy 3.06.02B, which encourages and supports mixed-use areas that provide the benefits of living, shopping, dining, and working nearby,thereby reducing vehicle trips. Additionally,the proposal is consistent with Policy 2.09.00,which encourages creating positive,vibrant, and accessible commercial activity centers. The establishment's location adjacent to N. Eagle Road and within the Centercal Subdivision enhances its accessibility and supports the commercial landscape, fulfilling the need for such amenities in the immediate and broader community. 2. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): Development of the site shall comply with the dimensional standards of the C-G zoning district in UDC Table 11-2B-3. Staff has reviewed the proposed plans and building elevations and they comply with the required standards. 3. Specific Use Standards (UDC 11-4-3): Drive-Through Establishment UDC 11-4-3-11 and Restaurant UDC 11-4-3-49: Drive-Through Establishment: The proposed drive-through establishment is subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-11,Drive-Through Establishment.All establishments providing drive-through service are required to identify the stacking lane, menu, and speaker location(if applicable),and window location on the site plan. The site plan is also required to demonstrate safe pedestrian and vehicular access and circulation on the site and between adjacent properties. At a minimum,the plan is required to demonstrate compliance with the following standards: City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ 1) Stacking lanes have sufficient capacity to prevent obstruction of driveways,drive aisles, and the public right-of-way by patrons. Designated pick-up or pull forward parking stalls may be required if the decision-making body determines that the stacking capacity if insufficient. The proposed restaurant features a drive-through lane with space to queue seven (7) vehicles along with an escape lane, outside of the drive-through lane. The drive-through itself starts at the north side of the building and exits at the south side,facing east. The concept plan also shows that the stacking lane is separate from the drive aisles and parking, however, staff has some concerns about peak hour stacking as it may back out into the private drive aisle and obstruct traffic impacting neighboring businesses. However, the applicant meets the minimum requirements for queuing length and has provided additional data from other locations as discussed above in Section III B. Staff is asking the Planning and Zoning Commission to carefully consider whether the stacking is adequate. 2) The stacking lane shall be a separate lane from the circulation lanes needed for access and parking, except stacking lanes may provide access to designated employee parking. The stacking lanes are separate from the circulation lanes for parking, however staff still has concerns that vehicles could block the main entrance waiting to enter the drive- through. 3) The stacking lane shall not be located within twenty(20)feet of any residential district,use or dwelling; The stacking lane is not located within 20'of any residential district or residence. 4)Any stacking lane greater than one hundred feet(100) in length shall provide for an escape lane. Each stacking lane and designated escape lane shall have a minimum width of ten feet(10'). The stacking lane exceeds 100'in length and an escape lane is required. An escape lane is proposed around the entire building. 5) The site shall be designed so that the drive-through is visible from a public street, or other readily accessible public space, for surveillance purposes. The drive-through is located starting on the north side of the building and ending on the south side of the building. The drive-through is visible from E. Fairview Avenue along the southside of the building for surveillance purposes. 6) The minimum stacking lane capacity shall be six(6)vehicles per land for tier 2 or tier 3, and two(2)vehicles per land for tier 1. The proposed tier 2 drive through has a proposed capacity of seven (7)vehicles. This exceeds the minimum standards for code, however, staff is asking the Planning and Zoning Commission to carefully evaluate whether this is adequate capacity given the layout of the site. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ 7)All drive-throughs shall submit a queuing exhibit demonstrating vehicle stacking per the lane capacity standards in subsection(13)(6). Each vehicle space within the stacking lane shall be based on a vehicle length of twenty feet(20'). The applicant has indicated the cars depicted in the drive through are 20 feet in length and meet this standard. Restaurant: The proposed use is also subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11- 4-3-49 Restaurant,which requires at a minimum, one(1)parking space to be provided for every 250 square feet of gross floor area(see parking analysis below). If queuing and parking are shifted as recommended by staff,the parking will move on-site and will still meet UDC standards. The Applicant did not provide information on how many proposed indoor seats and patio seats will be provided to accommodate customers. E. Design Standards Analysis 1. Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): i. Landscape buffers along streets UDC Requirement Proposed/Analysis Entry Way Corridor: The landscape buffer exists,however,a portion of it on the 35 Feet corner has not been installed and is proposed to integrate with the existing landscaping.The applicant did not provide vegetation coverage calculations and details on ground coverage material.These details shall be provided with the certificate of zoning compliance application. ii. Parking lot landscaping Landscaping is required to be provided along all parking areas per the standards listed in UDC 11-313-8. The majority of the parking is existing as a shared parking for the Village at Meridian; however, the applicant is removing three(3)parking stalls and is proposing to put in a new planter island which meets the requirement for parking lot landscaping. In addition, the applicant has provided seven (7)feet of hangover. iii. Tree preservation Per UDC 11-3B-10,Mitigation shall be required for all existing trees four-inch caliper or greater that are removed from the site with equal replacement of the total calipers lost on site up to an amount of one hundred(100)percent replacement(Example: Two (2)ten- inch caliper trees removed may be mitigated with four 5-inch caliper trees, five(5)four- inch caliper trees, or seven(7)three-inch caliper trees). If any existing trees are removed during construction they shall be mitigated for. The applicant shall provide mitigation calculations with the submittal of the certificate of zoning compliance and design review application. iv. Storm integration 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. v. Pathway landscaping City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ The pathway landscaping was installed with subdivision improvements for Centercal Subdivision. The applicant shall preserve and protect this landscaping during construction. 2. Parking (UDC 11-3C): i. Nonresidential parking analysis UDC Requirement Proposed/Analysis Specific Use Standards: The applicant's building is 910 square feet which would Restaurants: 1 Parking require four(4)parking stalls. The proposed property Stall per 250 Square Feet three(3)new stalls and has several already built on the of Gross Floor Area property as apart of the Village at Meridian.With the existing shared parking agreement for the Village at Meridian,the applicant exceeds the parking requirements. ii. Bicycle parking analysis A minimum of one(1)bicycle parking space must be provided for every 25 vehicle spaces or portion thereof per UDC 11-3C-6G;bicycle parking facilities are required to comply with the location and design standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C. The applicant has provided one (1) bicycle parking space meeting the UDC standard for bicycle parking. 3. Building Elevations (Architectural Standards Manual): Goal 2.09.03A of the Comprehensive Plan highlights establishing distinct, engaging identities within commercial and mixed-use enters through design standards to integrate commercial, multifamily,and parking areas with existing neighborhoods. In response,the developer has submitted conceptual building elevations for the proposed structure as shown in Section VII.C. Building materials consist of stucco, stone veneer, aluminum panels, and glazing. The conceptual building elevations appear to meet guidelines set forth in the Architectural Standards Manual. However,final building design will be subject to the commercial design guidelines and will be reviewed with the design review application. F. Transportation Analysis 1. Access (UDC 11-3A-3, UDC 11-3H-4): Access is proposed off a commercial drive aisle that connects to E. Fairview Avenue. This access point leads into the parking lot of the Village at Meridian and then into the 7 Brew drive through. Staff has concerns that at peak hours/visit times for the Village at Meridian that existing parking may have conflicts with stacking if it extends beyond the seven(7)cars shown in the stacking lane. As a result of these concerns,the applicant provided a transportation study from a 713rew location in Santa Rosa California. This provided data showing approximately 77 vehicle trips per hour. In addition,they included queuing data for 12 similar 713rew locations which show the average maximum queue of 7.4 vehicles per lane with wait times varying based on employee count at each location. The applicant also indicated in the event of an emergency, that they would have customers go into the escape lane;however,they do not anticipate needing to do this regularly. If this becomes a regular occurrence,the applicant would need to apply for a Tier 3 Drive Through establishment. The amount of stacking meets the UDC requirements; however, staff is asking the Planning and Zoning Commission to carefully consider whether it is adequate given the existing conditions in the surrounding area. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ 2. Pedestrian Connectivity (UDC 11-3A-5, UDC 11-3A-8, UDC 11-3A-17): The applicant has provided a pedestrian connection from the existing sidewalk on the east side of the commercial drive aisle. This then connects to a crossing to the main building. The applicant has proposed the crossing to be concrete,which will be delineated from the primary driving surface of the drive through. G. Services Analysis 1. Pressurized Irrigation(UDC 11-3A-15): Underground pressurized irrigation water is required to be provided to each lot within the subdivision as set forth in UDC 11-3A-15. 2. Storm Drainage (UDC 11-3A-18): An adequate storm drainage system is required in all developments in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. Design and construction shall follow best management practice as adopted by the City as set forth in UDC 11-3A-18. 3. Utilities (UDC 11-3A-21): Connection to City water and sewer services is required in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. Street lighting is required to be installed in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. 1V. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. Meridian Planning Division 1. Future development of this site shall comply with the previous conditions of approval and terms of AZ-07-012,DA Instrument#108131103; PP 11-012;MDA-012 (I't Addendum Inst. All 1056292; 2nd Addendum Inst.#112025435)and the conditions contained herein. 2. The site plan and/or landscape plan, as applicable, shall be revised with the certificate of zoning compliance application as follows: i. All mechanical equipment on the back of the building and outdoor service and equipment areas should be incorporated into the overall design of buildings and landscaping so that the visual and acoustic impacts of these functions are fully contained and out of view from adjacent properties and public streets as set forth in UDC 11-3A-12. ii. Depict signage ahead of each pedestrian crossing in the drive-through lane notifying drivers to watch out for pedestrians. iii. The applicant shall submit an overflow stacking exhibit to show where additional cars will be placed if stacking exceeds the seven(7)cars proposed. 3. Compliance with the standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-49 and 11-4-3-11 is required. This project is approved as a tier 2 drive through and shall comply with the tier 2 standards. 4. Preserve and protect the existing landscaping along E.Fairview Avenue during construction, per UDC 11-3B-10. 5. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application shall be submitted and approved for the proposed use prior to submittal of a building permit application. The design of the site and structure shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19;the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual and with the Development Agreement. City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions ■ 6. The conditional use permit is valid for a maximum period of two (2)years unless otherwise approved by the City. During this time,the Applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval,and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground as set forth in UDC 11-5B-6. A time extension may be requested as set forth in UDC 11-5B-6F. City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions ■ B. Meridian Public Works Uvastewater olstance to Sewer Available at Site Services Sewer Shed Estimated Project See appllcatlon Sewer ERU's • WRRF Declining Dal-arlt-@ + Pro)w Consistent Yes with WW Master P1 an/Facility Plarp + ImpactVroncerns See Public Works Site Specific Conditions Water ............................................ • blstanee to Water Available at Site Services PredsureZono + Estimated Project See application Water ERU's + Waterquality None + PrgjeO Consistent Yes with Maer Master Plan + rmpacts/Concerns NtSRP.- City of Meridian Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions ■ C. Ada County Highway District(ACHD) Mlrv;mp,C, P mi +4'�••�-ems v°�,-r�-.�+^ti ACHDrr.rrr WhCtr+arw.cnrm�rvr»r Ua,w Nc K"W.Car-Twvb rw To.- AM GWAZbrr4.Vtar Woo Cora S1a66a GtaW 1 R 15 7? r NrrMhur Soup Kent.WA W032 SAJect: MER2&-ao51lH-20241 W`l? 3570 E Feir'Arw cure 7Eamw Coffee Thu Ada County h49nwft DrWIO 4ACMD)has rgwr wad" yrrbro~apptrt Ilw ha Iht rpp+icaMW r inn r GVR WO haS deWmaoec brat MaP.are no WnprG4ffripn%r" by UW 841104MV SueeA{sk The Kpirant shall tre rgryuirpd i(P i PayalraRfc ffgW ft Rea.lr lic#* Few in "vlons nnvdlrYplhe"Mc.npWtoo please oonW ACH6's Impact Fea Admrrwslramr ad Inapt rl*&&wtxWaho.orfl Itap ,a sralfie rnpact lea ahas heassmaed by ACWO and*IN be dLm pnor In Me dMAams all a buik&N permit by 1W boed agency. This ie a separate mviem pruww5 and d Rs tt+e apRRaarrfs nape iWbMgr la suhrm plane diractly HS ACRID ] P*yvtWt tin be W4*M ftj phO M by collvV(2M$ W7T 8174 Cr cpn ho mn'deliwrhd 1b HW folowwg oddness- Ak19 Cor rnty agNwvy Dtsvo Alm.Dsvel wwd 9errwlcea 58M N WOW A+ %RY Salle.ID OXtt3 aryrrCO the Cie Runt rrr ir4crib'.'W rnOkrrq mu µaymgnt • �Fdad*rr8lh u Fees are subject to cPawge-Knot paid:prior la 4ctnh,er 1" A LI Gw4 pwymuntit we nA+W to A 316 Pr omo fa* c All e- etls payments ere sub b a$1.50 precsasing fee Swrm in dWeway appruaUr muem for any Pmx&W Orl++ r> N'dvoy Awroao wawa can bR kkW4 Qt mwsomV arCh*"ho.orQ wmyDftrewaYApDmaCJS 5 Gomp+y WHO all ACHD poses ana ACHD Stsndald Cardltarrs or AWOr al br any Woft"Tra"M or ~Mark in Ole ft#1R 9faaery 15 00"i P*M1t ta+sny WQ*In the fVhltrhwft prW lO the oRrvwcli)n.repair.or Ira9altsW11 of any rardway Inpawemer"�mr ,putter,sk6walk.pavemwK wKWnrrrrg,dnwewaye,cuhmrla,etc.). connecring you to more aft QMr Av N W.rr gwrkq-Mort MeuuMmrwr•Obak O-am-PH 3WWLan0-M mt-lm u-rrryMraearwr�er V. FINDINGS A. Conditional Use (UDC 11-5B-6E) The commission shall base its determination on the conditional use permit request upon the following: 1. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. Staff finds the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meets all dimensional and development regulations of the recommended C-G zoning district. City of Meridian I Department Report V. Findings ■ 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian comprehensive plan and in accord with the requirements of this title. Stafffinds the proposed restaurant and drive through use will be harmonious with the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with applicable UDC standards with the conditions noted in Section IV of this report. 3. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. Stafffinds the design, construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed use should be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood, with the existing and intended character of the vicinity and will not adversely change the essential character of the area. 4. That the proposed use,if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed,will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. Stafffinds the proposed use will not adversely affect other properties in the vicinity if it complies with the conditions in Section IV of this report. 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools,parks,police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal,water,and sewer. Stafffinds the proposed use will be served by essential public facilities and services as required. 6. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. Stafffinds the proposed use will not create additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. 7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes,materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic,noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. Stafffinds the proposed use will not be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by the reasons noted above. 8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction,loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. Stafffinds the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any such features. 9. Additional findings for the alteration or extension of a nonconfonning use: This finding is not applicable. 10. That the proposed nonconforming use does not encourage or set a precedent for additional nonconforming uses within the area; and, This finding is not applicable. 11. That the proposed nonconforming use is developed to a similar or greater level of conformity with the development standards as set forth in this title as compared to the level of development of the surrounding properties. This finding is not applicable. City of Meridian I Department Report V. Findings ■ VI. ACTION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed CUP application and finds it in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan,UDC with the conditions included in Section IV. and Findings in V. B. Commission: City of Meridian I Department Report VI. Action ■ VII. EXHIBITS A. Project 1 Aerial1. Legend Project Are • ofImpact L 'iY 0: AnalysisJ�{ P i GO IN 2. Zoning x -FAIRVIE1111 - .-L - 4 _ PINE .. Legend Ill IIIII - �i.nl�nen_ -11II IIIOIII q -- III IIIIIIr111._ Project Location Area of Impact R-- . Analysis ��r��nrn �1liOl lrllr uLL I■ C OIl.fllll..� �'���ll.. � •.11111�_ai�i�_y'��711111 \.......p _ `.IIIII111►PIl..l...1.1� aun 7.�♦♦+D of fE1:1 . r.Ir.11.lAA1 •••rlunr J � �■ R i•.��f111111 V ;A�•�g111111 'I�1 IIlIl11 W FA•I RYIIE W � 11•�rnnurlll! mn.n 1 City I�nnftn. s� • m�,�Ilalll lllryll of MeridianDepartment Report 1 3. Future Land Use Legend ®® CO Project Location 0 M_ edium Area of Impact Q`�- Density 0 Analysis .-entlal Low-Density =Higrh Residential De Li � Residential -Con mmercial MU-C High Density General Indus Resitial MU-NR Office MU-RG Civic 4. Planned Development Map Legend r_ ' ®® Project Location City Limits Planned Parcels ,_. Area of Impact t OAnalysis , r i _ ti ism �FTT 7 L City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ B. Service Accessibility Tool(Existing Conditions) Overall Score: 2 2th Percentile Criteria .'-Description Location In City Limits Extension Sewer Trunkshed mains < 500 ft.from parcel Floodplain Either not within the 100 yr floodplain or > 2 acres Emergency Services Fire Response time > 9 min. Emergency Services Police Reporting District meets response time goals most of Pathways Within 114 mile of current pathways Transit Within 114 mile of current transit route Arterial Road Buildout Status Ultimate configuration (#of lanes in master streets plan) School Walking Proximity From 112 to 1 mile walking School Drivability Either a High School or College within 2 miles OR a Park Walkability Either a Regional Park within 1 mile OR a Community City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ C. Subject Site Photos - �--- 71 City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ D. Site Plan(date: 5/14/2026) PRELIOMNARY SITE PLAN ME STATES Pa City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits E. Landscape Plan(date: 5/14/2026) PREJK NARY LANDSCAPE PLAN DORE STATES Z : -- E FAMM XWY IN9W Wl1 WICbC.•l£RNI Lt City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ F. Building Elevations(date: 5/14/2026) 1 4i f s` l - mW dt 2 "NI" A6.2 City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ VIII. ADDITIONAL NOTES & DETAILS FOR STAFF REPORT MAPS, TABLES,AND CHARTS (link to Community Metrics) A. One-Mile Radius Existing Condition Notes This data is automatically derived from enterprise application and GIS databases, and exported dynamically. Date retrieved notes generally reflect data acquired or processed within the last 30- days.Analysis is based on a one-mile radius from the centroid of the identified parcel. Parcel based data excludes certain properties and represents land as it exists now. Properties considered are only those with a total assessed value greater than 0(i.e. excludes most HOA area,transitional development, government,and quasi government facilities). The following values also constrain included property acreage to reduce outliers and non-conforming instances from distorting averages: R-2<5.0; R-4<2.0; R-8< 1.0; R-15 <0.5; R-40<0.25. Conditional Use Permits and Preliminary plat data likely include duplicate project submittals as they may be for the same project, approved at different times through multiple application types. Consider each independently or review prior application approvals. Some approved entitlements, and particularly older ones,may be constructed. Decennial population counts and household counts are based on the most recent Decennial Census. Current population and current household values are COMPASS estimates,usually for the year previous, and are based on traffic analysis zone boundaries(TAZ's). B. Service Assessment Notes This data represents existing conditions derived from our enterprise application and GIS database, exported through dynamic reporting. The system references the most recent available data from various sources, including sewer main lines, sewer trunk sheds, floodplain,fire service areas and response times,police crime reporting,pathway information,existing and planned transit, roadway improvements, school and park proximity, and other resources. The tool provides context for project review,using multiple indicators consistently. Data from similar topics may vary based on different levels of review. The overall score is based on weighted criteria(not a ranked order), and the percentile score compares the parcel to others in the city(higher is better). This tool was developed as a City Council priority and outcome of the 2019 Comprehensive Plan. Scores,whether high or low, are just one data point and should not be the sole basis for decisions. C. 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 ■ Development Application Transmittal Link to Project Application: 713rew Coffee H-2026-0017 CUP Hearing Date: June 18, 2026 Assigned Planner: Nick Napoli 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: 208.888.44331Email: cityclerk(cD_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. F73 E IDIAN;--- Applicant Presentation • Mira Gantzert- Project Planner, CGS • 4b • Anthony Merlino- Senior Civil Project Manager, CSG • Bill Burton- Principal, Fehr & Peers • Russ Orsi- VP Construction, Forza Development • Brenton Jackson- Director Strategic Dev, Harman Group • Hugh Crawford- VP Property Management Ce me rCa I • • CORE STATES • PIL(E%}7 cars in main order lane , _ __ I I I � 3SEWER A F MEPoDIAN SEWERA NQWATER I :N •. • 6 additional pull forward spaces for EASEMENT y___e._, , �• EMERGENCY 19.33' I I OVERFLOW ROUTING queueing relief I I WITHIN VELOPMENT • Bypass lane accommodates 10 , TRASH ENCLOSURE additional cars for temporary emergency Amp. - q O ® •I'I, 5 L Ol 01 I overflow d d PIL(EX} i l ISIS wrw C{,j • "� a I ` NT 7-BREW COFFEE IPCo EASEME 0 MINY USE of GROUND UP a I V CUSTOMER D LANE I ` f I TI P I I -° - - -10'UTILITY DRAINAGE ��--- -� T� �L� -n.. w .. •- AND IRRIGATION ---- -—— .`I I�R • v,a _. - EASEMENT • = 20'WATER LINE - N89'36.59-W 140� °(IRRIGATION)EASEMENT .•.•�'•, •'[ PfL(EX) 6 PICKUP _ - � 4RDERSPACES s CORE STATES FOR OVERFLOW MANAGEMENT c ■ VAR -� IC7-1 Aor 2 loll- ED r i. a .. A CORE STATES Primary trips are defined as trips that are specifically destinod to a 7 Brew Coffee location,where people leave their primary origin to travel to 7 Brew Coffee and immediately return to their place of origin. A pass-by trip is defined as a trip that is already traveling the roadways adjacent to the 7 Brew Coffee between their primary origin and primary destination that stops at the coffee shop as an intermediate stop. TOTALWichita Falls,TX KiingfipOirt,TIN Johnson City,TN HuntsviII2,AL Pass-By Trips 12 32 12 100 2M Total Responses 163 51 15 146 375 Pass-By X 75.G8 62.75% 90.00 68.49% 71.73% CORE R STATES Trip Generation Observations/Data Average Weekday 7 Brew Additional data was collected at other 7 Brew establishments establish the level anticipated vehicle trip generation.Vehicle and pedestrian drive-through arrival and service rates,parking utilization,as well as drive-through queue lengths were observed in January 2026 during the weekday AM(7-10 AM),weekday PM(4-7 PM),and Saturday midday(11 AM-2 PM)peak periods at Peak Hour Trips the following two 7 Brew Drive-Through Coffee locations. e 129 East OviIIa Road,Red Oak,Texas e 13792 East Mississippi Avenue,Aurora,Colorado Ta61e 1:Project Trip Generation 160 Weekday AM 81 79 166 Weekday PM 33 34 67 67 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Fehr&Peers Population: Table 4: 7 Brew Maximum Queue Length Observation Summary Max Total Queue • Aurora, CO — 415,000 Aurora,CO 23 Red Oak,TX 19 • Red Oak TX - 21,600 Kenosha,WI' 14 • Kenosha, WI — 99,500 Sinking Spring, PA' 14 Independence,M01 20 • Independence MO- 121,440 Wichita Fells,Tx2 12 • Wichita Falls, TX- 102,000 Sterning, IL' 16 Boone,h1C 14 • Columbia, SC - 149,000 Huntsville,AL2 24 Shelbyville, IN' 14 • Huntsville, AL- 249,102 Dallas,TV 10 • Kingsport, TN- 57,940 Columbia, 5CI 10 Average Maximum Queue 15.8 • Johnson City, TN- 75,600 1, Source:Fehr&Peers,2026 2_ Source: 7 Brew Coffae�Trip Ganeratiorr,Pass-By,and Oueue Rats Davolopmerrt Momerandum (Kimley-Horn,2026). observations is presented in Table 4.It should be noted that the values presented in Table 4 are the maximum observed queues.These queues only occurred for short periods of time,normally less then 5 minutes across the entire period of the observation. During most other periods of the day the observed queues were considerably smaller. CORE R STATES MAXIMUM QUEUE LENGTH Kenosha, Wisconsin Population=100,000 20 v v > 15 5-Minute Max Queue J v -Meridian Queue Capacity a�i 10 � -With 6 Parking Spaces ' ■ ■■ '■ ' ■■ -With 10Spaces in Bypass Lane 5 0 ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ 0 0 � - N m m v v u0i uni o o � . N m m : v vni o o � % N m m v v u0i n r` r` r` n r` r` r` n n r` r` r` 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0o rn rn rn m m m rn rn m m m rn Time of Day Fehr&Peers MAXIMUM QUEUE LENGTH Independence, Missouri Population=125,000 25 20 v v > 15 ■ 5-Minute Max Queue J a, Meridian Queue Capacity Ob 10 � -With 6 Parking Spaces -With 10 Spaces in Bypass Lane 5 0 ' a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a o m o m o Ln o Ln o Ln o Ln o m o Ln o Ln o Ln o Ln o Ln o m o Ln o Ln o Ln o Ln o Ln 0 0 ry ry T In a v T T o o ti ry ry In In a v T T o o .-i - ry ry rn rn v v T Ln n n n n � � � n n � � � ao ao ao ao ao ao ao ao ao ao ao ao rn rn rn m m m rn rn m m m rn Time of Day Fehr&Peers MAXIMUM QUEUE LENGTH Wichita Falls, Texas Population=100,000 LS 20 U1 u t v > 15 xs s c 5-Minute Max Queue J v -Meridian Queue Capacity a3 10 3 -With 6 Parking Spaces ■ '■ ' ' ' ' ■ -With 10 Spaces in Bypass Lane 5 0 ' ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ 0 0 � NNm7tv0no � Nnvv oo � mvv0n 7! m u u o 7! N n qi 7i N m u r` r` r` n r` r` r` n n r` r` r` 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0o rn rn rn m m m rn rn m m m rn Time of Day Fehr&Peers MAXIMUM QUEUE LENGTH Columbia, South Carolina Population=145,000 25 20 v v > 15 °q 5-Minute Max Queue v J a, -Meridian Queue Capacity a�i 10 Cy With 6 Parking Spaces x � With 10 Spaces in Bypass Lane 5 a ¢ ¢ a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a ¢ a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a � NNm7tv0no � Nnvv oo � mvv0n0 7! m u u o 7! N n qi 7i N m u r` r` r` n r` r` r` n n r` r` r` 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 rn rn rn m m m rn rn m m m rn Time of Day Fehr&Peers MAXIMUM QUEUE LENGTH Provo,, Utah Population=115,000 25 20 v v > 15 5-Minute Max Queue v J a, Meridian Queue Capacity y 10 � —With 6 Parking Spaces —With 10 Spaces in Bypass Lane 5 a ¢ ¢ a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a ¢ a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a � NNm7tv0no � Nnvv oo � mvv0n0 7! m u u o 7! N n qi 7i N m u rl r` r` n rl rl rl n n rl rl rl 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 rn rn rn m m m rn rn m m m rn Time of Day Fehr&Peers MAXIMUM QUEUE LENGTH Red Oak,, Texas Population=20,000 25 20 v v u 15 c 4-Minute Max Queue v J a, -Meridian Queue Capacity 10 -With 6 Parking Spaces Cl -With 10 Spaces in Bypass Lane 5 o aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa oo.1O-iNmvvU� oti Ili Orv°mvuNig9liNmvvU� ooliNmvv1!19liIN Ili T U�99�-1IliT7r Oi r`� � r`� n� r`00000000000000rnmrnmrnrnmrn mmmmmmmmvvvvvvvUlininU)inininin Time of Day Fehr&Peers MAXIMUM QUEUE LENGTH Aurora, Colorado Population=410,000 25 20 v V L N > 15 L on 4-Minute Max Queue v J v -Meridian Queue Capacity y 10 d -With 6 Parking Spaces m -With 10 Spaces in Bypass Lane 5 0 I ���� I IIII�� I II I II IIIII �� II IIIII�I IIII IIII Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a O O N No Mw m V G T O ti O MID N N m't T O O N O MID m't V V1 O O N m V G V1 O ci N N m V NOMID N V1 O O m V G T nnnn� � nn00000000000000rnmmrnmrnmrn mmmmmmmmvavavva�n�n�n�n �n�n�n�n Time of Day Fehr&Peers E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for High Desert Veterinary Hospital (H-2026-0022) by Travis Butterfield and McCarter Moorhouse, located at 3147 W. Belltower Dr. A. Request: Conditional Use Permit for an Animal Care Facility on approximately 0.397 acres of land currently zoned L-0. F74 00 V CA .p W N C © N t� _ X - Gq z � ( 3 m m r+ C � fD iT r+ — m A m ' C Gq l7 N C , b ? N O N Q1 O O N 0 0 N Ln c v v x o -0 v 7 of L" X cD vo � fD o v c � W COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ( E IDIAN --- DEPARTMENT REPORT HEARING 7/2/2026 Legend DATE: Project Location Area of Impact TO: Planning&Zoning Commission �= city omits w FROM: Bill Parsons, Current Planning O Analysis Supervisor 208-884-5533 f. bparsons@meridiancity.org -- �,- APPLICANT: Travis Butterfield ` SUBJECT: High Desert Veterinary Hospital H-2026-0022 �� LOCATION: 3147 W. Belltower Drive,located in the@�M SW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 35, Township 4N.,Range 1 W. I. PROJECT OVERVIEW A. Summary Conditional Use Permit to operate an animal care facility on approximately 0.397 of an acre in the L-O zone. B. Recommendation Planning Division: Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit with the conditions noted in Section IV below. Planning and Zoning Commission: Click or tap here to enter text. C. Decision Planning and Zoning Commission: Click or tap here to enter text. D. Table of Contents Community Metrics.............................................................................. II StaffAnalysis..................................................................................... III City/Agency Comments and Conditions...................................................... IV Findings............................................................................................ V Action.............................................................................................. VI Exhibits............................................................................................ VII II. COMMUNITY METRICS Table 1•Land Use Description Details Ma Ref. Existing Land Use(s) Office Building City of Meridian I Department Report I. Project Overview ■ Description Details Map Ref. Proposed Land Use(s) Veterinary Clinic - Existing Zoning L-O VII.A.2 Proposed Zoning L-O Adopted FLUM Designation Limited Office VILA.3 Table 2: Process Facts Description Details Preapplication Meeting date 5/7/2026 Neighborhood Meeting 5/18/2026 Site posting date 6/10/2026 Table 3:A2ency Comments Agency/Element Description/Issue Reference Ada County Highway District IVX • Comments Received Yes/Staff Report - • Commission Action Required No - • Access W. Belltower Drive/Ten Mile Road I - • Traffic Level of Service Better than"B" ITD Comments Received Yes IV.L Meridian Public Works Wastewater IV.B • Distance to Mainline Available at the site • Impacts or Concerns No Meridian Public Works Water IV.B • Distance to Mainline Available at the site - • Impacts or Concerns No Note: See section IV. City/Agency Comments&Conditions for comments received or see the public record. Paste the following link into your browser to access the public record: by s://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=442707&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics ■ Figure 1: One-Mile Radius Existing Condition Metrics Reference Parcel:51203110005 Date Retrieved:2026/2/26 Parcel Count Parcel Acreage Infill Indicator: 587 Surrounding Area 227 1 2 Of ifl Not city ® City Limits 4,343 1,fifi2. g ■ Not City Household Household& Population Growth Households 02020 Population Change:6.1°I° Population ■Growth (Household and Population Change since 2010 Decennial) 10,000 20,000 30,000 Use Types Residential Addresses All Addresses ■ Single-family no/ Multi-family 190% is 3% ® Commercial Preliminary Plats (last 5-years) Conditional Use Permit(last 5-years) Proposed I I Proposed Pending Pending Approved Approved 0 500 1000 1500 0 50 100 ■ Single-family ❑ Multi-family City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics ■ 2.00 4,000 Single-family H 3,500 y Residential 01 1.50 3,000 *' " 2,500 Parcel Diversity (A1.00 2,000 c°� N 1,500 —y 0Parcel Count ,,, 0.50 0.46 1,000 L Average Acres 0.00 18 0.10 0000 a R-2 R-8 R-15 Average Single-family Density by Zoning Average 15.00 dResidential Net Density 10.00 9.94 p 5.00 �4.32 �5.fi8 4.51 2.16 0.00 Dwelling Units l Acre R-2 R-4 R-8 R-15 Notes: See VIII.Additional Notes&Details for Staff Report Maps,Tables,and Charts. III. STAFF ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code(UDC) Table 2:Proiect Overview Description Details History Modena Plaza Subdivision SHP-2025-0004;CZC,DES A-2025-0093 Acreage 0.397 A. History In 2025, approval was granted for a short plat to re-subdivide Lot 3,Block 6, of Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision No. 2. The subdivision consists of four(4)building lots on approximately 1.59 acres of land within the existing L-O zoning district. A certificate of zoning compliance and concurrent design review application was approved for the construction of a 3,520 office building on the site. B. General Overview This property is designated as Office on the Future Land Use Map(FLUM) contained in the Comprehensive Plan. This designation will provide opportunities for low-impact business areas. These uses would include professional offices,technology and resource centers; ancillary commercial uses may be considered(particularly within research and development centers or technological parks). Sample zones include L-O. C. Comprehensive Plan Policies • "Permit new development only where it can be adequately served by critical public facilities and urban services at the time of final approval, and in accord with any adopted levels of service for public facilities and services."(3.03.03F) City water and sewer services are available and can be extended by the developer with development in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ • "Ensure that quality fire protection,rescue and emergency medical services are provided within Meridian."(4.11.03) The proposed veterinary hospital is within a reasonable response time zone for emergency services. • "Require all new development to create a site design compatible with surrounding uses through buffering, screening,transitional densities, and other best site design practices."(3.07.01A) The Applicant is proposing a 6 foot-tall fence at the northwest corner of the building. A 35 foot- wide street buffer exists along N. Ten Mile Rd., an arterial street, in accord with UDC Table 11- 2B-3, as depicted on the plat. • "Encourage compatible uses and site design to minimize conflicts and maximize use of land." (3.07.00) The proposed veterinary hospital is located adjacent to Ten Mile Road, with office uses to the east and south, and a daycare to the north. The site is situated within a low-intensity office area, and the proposed use is compatible with the surrounding development. Accordingly, the veterinary hospital is not expected to create conflicts with adjacent land uses. • "Ensure development is connected to City of Meridian water and sanitary sewer systems and the extension to and through said developments are constructed in conformance with the City of Meridian Water and Sewer System Master Plans in effect at the time of development." (3.03.03A) The proposed development is already connected to City water and sewer systems. • "Require urban infrastructure be provided for all new developments,including curb and gutter, sidewalks,water and sewer utilities."(3.03.03G) Urban sewer and water infrastructure and curb, gutter and already constructed and provided with development as proposed. • "Slow the outward progression of the City's limits by discouraging fringe area development; encourage development of vacant or underutilized parcels currently within City limits."(4.05.03B) The site is already developed and located within the City limits. The proposed veterinary hospital will provide a valuable service to area residents and businesses while contributing to the development of a vacant tenant space in the new building in a manner that is consistent with the surrounding office and commercial uses. Additionally, the proposed use will support the efficient provision of City services. D. Site Development and Use Analysis 1. Existing Structures/Site Improvements (UDC 11-1): There is a new 3,620 square foot office building on this site, which was approved with CZC/DES application A-2025-0093. 2. Proposed Use Analysis (UDC 11-2): The proposed use "Animal Care Facility"is an allowed use with an approved conditional use permit per the UDC. 3. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): The existing building meets the dimensional standards for setbacks, landscape buffers, parking requirements, landscape requirements and maximum building height. City of Meridian I Department Report 111. Staff Analysis ■ 4. Specific Use Standards (UDC 11-4-3-1): • All animals shall be indoors at all times,except when being exercised.At such times, animals shall be under the supervision and direct control of a caretaker. The applicant has proposed a pet relief area on the northwest side of the building.All animals will be supervised and kept on a leash at all times while outside the clinic. No overnight boarding or kenneling services are proposed as part of this veterinary facility. • The facility owner and/or operator shall comply with all state and local regulations relating to such a facility and shall maintain housekeeping practices designed to prevent the creation of a nuisance and to reduce noise and odor to a minimum. The animals will be indoors at all times except when relieving themselves. All animal waste shall be maintained and discarded in a manner that minimizes odor. 5. Hours of Operation(UDC 11-2B-3B): Business hours of operation within the L-O district shall be limited from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. The applicant is proposing to operate the business within the following hours:Monday through Friday-8 a.m. to 6 p.m. E. Design Standards Analysis 1. Structure and Site Design Standards (UDC 11-3A-19): There is an existing structure on this site. Detached sidewalks along Time Mile Road with a pedestrian connection to the building have been installed.A thirty-five (35)foot landscape buffer is required along Ten Mile Road and has been installed as well as the 5-foot buffer along the north side of the structure. 2. Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): i. Landscape buffers along streets UDC Requirement Proposed/Analysis Arterial Road: 35 Feet The applicant is proposing 35 feet of landscaping along N. Ten Mile Road. ii. Parking lot landscaping Landscaping is required to be provided along all parking areas per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8. The site currently meets this requirement. iii. Landscape buffers to adjoining uses The property is adjacent to a daycare within a residential zoning district. Per UDC 11- 3E-9, this requirement applies to a landscape buffer next to residential and/or nonindustrial uses not zoning districts. Therefore, this requirement does not apply. iv. Storm integration 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. The development meets the requirement per UDC 11-3B-11 for stormwater integration. 3. Parking (UDC 11-3C): i. Nonresidential parking analysis City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ UDC Requirement Proposed/Analysis Commercial: 1 Parking Eight(8)parking spaces are required/The applicant is Stall per 500 Square Feet proposing 20 parking spaces exceeding the parking of Gross Floor Area requirements. *All lots within this subdivision are subject to cross access/cross parking agreement as shown on the plat. ii. Bicycle parking analysis A minimum of one(1)bicycle parking space must be provided for every 25 vehicle spaces or portion thereof per UDC 11-3C-6G;bicycle parking facilities are required to comply with the location and design standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C. The applicant meets the requirements and has proposed two bicycle racks. 4. Building Elevations (Architectural Standards Manual): The building elevations were approved with Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review Application A-2025-0093 and are compliant with the ASM standards. 5. Fencing (UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): The applicant is proposing a small,fenced area on the northwest side of the building for animal relief. The Applicant shall provide a detail of the proposed fencing meeting the UDC standards. F. Transportation Analysis 1. Access (UDC 11-3A-3, UDC 11-3H-4): Access is proposed via an existing backage road along the east boundary of the site from W. Belltower Dr., a collector street to the north,from N. Ten Mile Rd., an arterial street along the west boundary of the site. Direct access via Ten Mile Rd. is prohibited.A cross- access/cross parking easement is granted between all the proposed lots for internal access from the backage road via a note on the plat. 2. Pedestrian Connectivity(UDC 11-3A-5, UDC 11-3A-8, UDC 11-3A-17): Detached sidewalks currently exist along Ten Mile Road. The applicant is providing a five- foot-wide pedestrian walkway from the sidewalk along Ten Mile to the building. G. Services Analysis 1. Pressurized Irrigation(UDC 11-3A-15): The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water(UDC 11-3B-6). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single- point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single point connection is utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 2. Storm Drainage (UDC 11-3A-18): An adequate drainage system is required in all developments by the City's adopted standards, specifications, and ordinances. Design and construction shall follow best management practices adopted by the City as outlined in UDC 11-3A-18. Storm drainage was approved with the construction application and was constructed to City and ACHD design criteria. City of Meridian I Department Report 111. Staff Analysis ■ 3. Utilities (UDC 11-3A-21): Ensure development is connected to City of Meridian water and sanitary sewer systems and the extension to and through said developments are constructed in conformance with the City of Meridian Water and Sewer System Master Plans in effect at the time of development.All utilities are available to the site. Water main,fire hydrant and water service require a twenty foot(20) wide easement that extends ten (10)feet past the end of main, hydrant, or water meter. No permanent structures, including trees are allowed inside the easement. There are existing water and sewer services stubbed to the property.Any unused services shall be abandoned per the UDC. IV. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. Meridian Planning Division 1. The applicant shall comply with all previous conditions of approval for this development (SHP-2025-0004; CZC,DES A-2025-0093). 2. The proposed project shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-22 for animal care facilities. 3. The hours of operations shall be limited to 8:00 a.m.to 6:00 p.m. as proposed. 4. Overnight boarding or kenneling services is prohibited. 5. All animals shall be indoors at all times,except when being exercised or relieving themselves. At such times,animals shall be under the supervision and direct control of a caretaker and remain within the designated fenced area. 6. The Applicant shall provide a detail of the proposed fencing meeting UDC 11-3A-7 standards with the building permit application. 7. The conditional use permit is valid for a maximum period of two (2) years unless otherwise approved by the City. During this time, the Applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground as set forth in UDC 11-5B-6.A time extension may be requested as set forth in UDC 11-5B-6F. B. Meridian Public Works 1. Sanitary sewer service to this development is available via extension of existing mains adjacent to the development. Water service to this site is available via extension of existing mains adjacent to the development. 2. All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C-313. 3. Upon installation of the landscaping and prior to inspection by Planning Department staff,the applicant shall provide a written certificate of completion as set forth in UDC 11-313-14A. 4. A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110%will be required for all incomplete fencing,landscaping,amenities,pressurized irrigation,prior to signature on the final plat. 5. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post with the City a performance surety in the amount of 125%of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer,water infrastructure City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions ■ prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line-item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The applicant shall be required to enter into a Development Surety Agreement with the City of Meridian. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 6. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20%of the total construction cost for all completed sewer, and water infrastructure for a duration of two years. This surety amount will be verified by a line item final cost invoicing provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit,cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 7. In the event that an applicant and/or owner cannot complete non-life,non-safety and non- health improvements,prior to City Engineer signature on the final plat and/or prior to occupancy,a surety agreement may be approved as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3C. 8. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 9. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 10. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 11. All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-1-4B. 12. Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill,where footing would sit atop fill material. 13. The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 14. At the completion of the project,the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. 15. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-7 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting(http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272). All street lights shall be installed at developer's expense. Final design shall be submitted as part of the development plan set for approval,which must include the location of any existing street lights. The contractor's work and materials shall conform to the ISPWC and the City of Meridian Supplemental Specifications to the ISPWC. Contact the City of Meridian Transportation and Utility Coordinator at 898-5500 for information on the locations of existing street lighting. 16. The applicant shall provide easement(s)for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way(include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat,but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian's standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement(on the form available from Public Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor,which must include the area of the easement City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions ■ (marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2"x 11"map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted,reviewed,and approved prior to signature of the final plat by the City Engineer. 17. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES permitting that may be required by the Environmental Protection Agency. C. Meridian Parks Department Detached sidewalks and bike lanes already exist in this location.No multi-use pathways required with this application. D. Idaho Department of Environmental Quality(DEQ) https:llweblink.meridiancioy.or lWebLink/DocView.aspx?id=443245&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty E. Ada County Highway District(ACHD) https:llweblink.meridianciV.orglWebLink/DocView.aspx?id=443244&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC iv F. Idaho Transportation Department(ITD) https:llweblink.meridianciV.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=443244&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC iv V. FINDINGS A. Conditional Use(UDC 11-511-6E) The commission shall base its determination on the conditional use permit request upon the following: 1. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. Staff finds the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use. 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian comprehensive plan and in accord with the requirements of this title. Staff finds the proposed veterinary hospital will be harmonious with the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with applicable UDC standards with the conditions noted in Section IV of this report. 3. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. Staff finds the proposed design, construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed use will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood, with the existing and intended character of the vicinity and will not adversely change the essential character of the area. 4. That the proposed use,if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed,will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. Stafffinds the proposed use will not adversely affect other properties in the vicinity if it complies with the conditions in Section IV of this report. City of Meridian I Department Report V. Findings ■ 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools,parks,police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal,water,and sewer. Stafffinds the proposed use will be served by essential public facilities and services as required. 6. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. Stafffinds the proposed use will not create additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. 7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes,materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic,noise, smoke,fumes,glare or odors. Stafffinds the proposed use will not be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by the reasons noted above. 8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. Stafffinds the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any such features. 9. Additional findings for the alteration or extension of a nonconforming use: Not applicable 10. That the proposed nonconforming use does not encourage or set a precedent for additional nonconforming uses within the area; and, Not applicable 11. That the proposed nonconforming use is developed to a similar or greater level of conformity with the development standards as set forth in this title as compared to the level of development of the surrounding properties. Not applicable VI. ACTION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit with the conditions noted in Section IV of the staff report. B. Commission: The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard this item on[date]. At the public hearing. the Commission moved to approve the subject[app] request. 1. Summary of the Commission public hearin& a. In favor. b. In opposition: None C. Commenting None d. Written testimony: None e. Staff presenting application: f. Other Staff commenting on application: None 2. Key issue(s)of public testimony: a. None City of Meridian I Department Report VI.Action ■ 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission. a. None 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. None VII. EXHIBITS A. Project Area Maps 1. Aerial sV 7�7RN q "a R'exr�iga Legend �! lei eaaxR�a>,a ��tliR�F-fi Project Location ][eT ;'a RI: jR 2iria;Fi aglilkq[IS; ®i - 1 Ju�,R 1 !2 Y�A'g'!lG..WWIWWW R...... Area of Impact .. q, W].[iq l;C�t'p i�yyy FiB C]a�yflM.... �-. ., 9P]If]�6 ill IWW]!F• gd■ .dada 3�f'�C"�CI'��['° Analysis `_ e0a197 1 t ,9SL giFA3f eG r,a aG3 a:f : �. • 4 y i 'rl � Y} .. s! tea• .x. aP_ T I '� YN �F City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ 11111111111 =MEN■...... (/■■■Li' Legend nu run j �i 1111.I�ii11-■■■.Ir■=��r l■iiliR 11�-a.-'�- ■■■r ■■1.will■■ -Project LocationIlr • RIrII `nlll■■ lain::••■�lgiiiii ill• In i -nail:q�- ■■umum r ■rum -unn -:nmm�r■fl.■nluul■■ uunu - • • • • ■ nn �. n�unl��Uul uln��in■no 11■■ r won.'. MINN III unannl,uu1 wIn ■Munn unrEE111 Analysis - 1_prt 111111 -r�=MInriwll �nni,r111� Iu � II n■nfnt■�iiiii_IIIC ni n1 ■_•�,1`r rlrl,ry;^- MC.MIL-L'AN;;;;`` - IIrIv m 1�+�... ■-__a� ■ np i u�rilrr. lull' q■:- 12 -- �',n -Vji1 llnR■w I I r�. Bill d ly: • . =•r r ==.unu= r ■�mn j r,�iunr tr •■■■■■■■ 1 '-��won ar nlr • ino. � fri _,n L� In IInA/nuwp �F"I�:�ilpl�� gill ���1/+�iuuln m>i �C eL��■ ' ■r,f♦•4b rjiil�+• ��•IIIi�1�"'pRuw •11,/!1•w iii 'r►%� Z �'��■��� Irr�%,it►r un a,ar•ii�•1 JOE rra � .uI��1Il1IlAAI ;'` A------- aj.-■ wll-:fluum�'q•1 I�fmlf•Ib•1,"' r. 1!r anwun>,irgr �•j•n!►I�b?�•J��♦1 Ir♦� atliiiiiil-iii r t�i■iij�4�� +ti;�Da; �. IIIIIEI •Il�„�I�aii♦�iI • AN A 4•♦�• !ti hill•hih Ifi f:'E� ..—...�:......'ruul�r■ 1•,.•i .nn. r11r, r.■............. .oRr-�1■il.■ll1I111en1�lr,�•!.■■■:••y ny fin.......■1■■■1■rBE \•`rr■r1 nlrilx►�il...il,E la► ■> � ='wa�>•...u.. 1 !■�a ��� 4r■nrwri�■.► ► r.r . iiihj�� urq s.lutr ■a►� aw I�rf♦i f...:'. •I�i::iiiii� ■♦I♦• `• �rrrii'a •ilia ill nH' .v<.'ii ■® ♦♦�iiii iiiiii.r♦iP o q11.�■ • Rm�Lww am mail Legend • - • iu Project Location - ■ Area of Impact • - • ■.r Rruw .r RR■■■ ■■nl rlln.I1111 • • • _ 'ar41f111� �-umin • • O • ii_IIII ies en MCM�ILLAN - J`■■m■I��IhurLdr IIR PF nulr�. ITo n1� ilrlllr -C w+ ,., ♦�flf,.---- ■,III ii AD Ill,4 ■�- IV11111i111.`- IIf1 SR■1 ,�r►' 1ang1 �,■■IEr .+ �-• ■1���^-nmr a � � lJI, ■ ■- Ilir •�lim■mmE - rT,nm■r �/ uolllln�\�fiimul$ F!1 urf m g f _tr 1_`�'r _m a � �■■ ��►� =•III; 11 r. •.4 • `e - ��.r■.fl r_ fl'J��� I Z •■■■In� - • - • I♦rrl 11 1LUIi i�s�.ww■IIIa ■w l �Ilfff I- i•II n 1 ` .1aI■■ u■I, ♦ ■1114r1�l-.I►rri � mlf■11 �tf, /lI�I�rl11•a:'T rnu-p noon■ ry � I►mail ` ru unu�.,noun �.•■ $1 •Ifq Ii�:•:�C• •,e n/ an„uw �■ail l�■1ly111i�::- �♦ I■.Ip leiiii:m son ♦i •i��0::��::: .jw�.�'I- •Ili•♦:i� lO�����:1�`•♦••• ,•iii 1.•�ffI\wgl��+u uiaRIn ® iilrr►\ 1 USTICK will on nr ♦ +: \ 8.....■r..........■o ■ .....■■..uu■■■r 3r1 a - ■ ��: r ■n • un��ri■ny.p..:::ia 7N■......4 4.�� enr ar i ►�-a un �.:: you ♦ i '• .i nu:�. ��riiii im■�Ir• �3i-:...:♦ii��..ui..r . �•i�♦♦ �.re,r.�!: �iiii■u ID ■i:F!!r-_w.�Ii■�i :::11:�►_.♦�/.��i:0 4. Planned Development Map Legend ®� 0 Project Location FP 7='' City Limits FMIR Planned Parcels Area of Impact aim ® Analysis , ff[M ® r o LH MENEM r �o o� 0 City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ B. Service Accessibility Tool (Existing Conditions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PARCEL S1203110005 SERVICE ACCESSIBILITY overall Score: 34 *th Percentile Criteria . - Location In City Limits Extension Sewer Trunkshed mains < 500 ft,from parcel Floodplain Either not within the 100 yr floodplain or > 2 acres Emergency Services Fire Response time < 5 min. Emergency Services Police Reporting District meets response time goals some of the time Pathways Within 1/4 mile of current pathways Transit Not within 114 of current or future transit route Arterial Road Buildout Status Ultimate configuration (#of lanes in master streets plan) matches School Walking Proximity Within 1/2 mile walking School Drivability Either a High School or College within 2 miles OR a Middle or Park Walkability Either a Regional Park within 1 mile OR a Community Park within 1/2 Report generated�:n02-26-2026 by MERIDIANVritter City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ C. Site Plan (date: 10/24/2025) A i ------- -------- -------- ------------- ------ — --- Jrf Lea City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits D. Landscape Plan (date: 12/5/2025) Ti . ____________ _________1____._._....•. _ _ _ _ _ R _ S'- .S 1.11 11 1 H .1T- "1Lj ... z 6 Wa Lu Lu � j EE— Ent- --- --�-• plontos ., � Lu Lu Lu 2 eau 8 ew ; nxrten �nrs City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ E. Building Elevations (date: 10/24/2025) ------------------ --- ----------- ------------------ ----- ---------- r-7 iyieaeiesti ---------------- ------- Le ---------- J ---------------- — ------- City of Meridian Department Report V11. Exhibits F. Floor Plan (date: 10/26/2025) .................. ........................................................................................... Ail L------------- ROM 77t LILI 77 Lu EHEI FTI 0-0�— zo City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits VIII. ADDITIONAL NOTES &DETAILS FOR STAFF REPORT MAPS, TABLES,AND CHARTS (link to Community Metrics) A. One-Mile Radius Existing Condition Notes This data is automatically derived from enterprise application and GIS databases, and exported dynamically. Date retrieved notes generally reflect data acquired or processed within the last 30- days. Analysis is based on a one-mile radius from the centroid of the identified parcel. Parcel based data excludes certain properties and represents land as it exists now. Properties considered are only those with a total assessed value greater than 0(i.e. excludes most HOA area,transitional development, government,and quasi government facilities). The following values also constrain included property acreage to reduce outliers and non-conforming instances from distorting averages: R-2<5.0; R-4<2.0; R-8< 1.0; R-15 <0.5; R-40<0.25. Conditional Use Permits and Preliminary plat data likely include duplicate project submittals as they may be for the same project, approved at different times through multiple application types. Consider each independently or review prior application approvals. Some approved entitlements, and particularly older ones,may be constructed. Decennial population counts and household counts are based on the most recent Decennial Census. Current population and current household values are COMPASS estimates,usually for the year previous, and are based on traffic analysis zone boundaries(TAZ's). B. Service Assessment Notes This data represents existing conditions derived from our enterprise application and GIS database, exported through dynamic reporting. The system references the most recent available data from various sources, including sewer main lines, sewer trunk sheds, floodplain, fire service areas and response times,police crime reporting,pathway information,existing and planned transit, roadway improvements, school and park proximity, and other resources. The tool provides context for project review,using multiple indicators consistently. Data from similar topics may vary based on different levels of review. The overall score is based on weighted criteria(not a ranked order), and the percentile score compares the parcel to others in the city(higher is better). This tool was developed as a City Council priority and outcome of the 2019 Comprehensive Plan. Scores,whether high or low, are just one data point and should not be the sole basis for decisions. C. 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 ■ Development Application Transmittal Link to Project Application: High Desert Veterinary Hospital CUP H-2026- 0022 Hearin Date: July 2, 2026 Assigned Planner: Stacy Hersh 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. F95 E IDIAN*-- -)AHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Victory Stake Center (H-2026-0016) by Johnny Watson, generally located at the northwest corner of W. Victory Rd and S. Linder Rd. A. Request: Annexation of 5.81 acres of land with the R-8 zoning to construct a 22,630 sq. ft. church. B. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a church in the R-8 zoning district. 96 00 V 01 Ul .p W N O LAN ' o Z G 1 m r+ O So On o CD tx cn � � O oo � LA C v x v N X = N O m D � � ni x ao � M O n, 3 c � COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT C�E IDIAN*-- DEPARTMENT REPORT °AHO HEARING 7/2/2026 Legend --- 7 �. DATE: Project Location 0 ;:.Area of Impact TO: Planning&Zoning Commission City Limits - Analysis FROM: Nick Napoli,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 nnapoli@meridiancity.org APPLICANT: Johnny Watson • • ___ SUBJECT: Victory Stake Center H-2026-0016 LOCATION: Generally located at the northwest corner of W. Victory Road and S.Linder Road in the SE '/4 of the SE '/4 of Section 23, T.3N.,R.1 W. (Parcel#S 1223449000) I. PROJECT OVERVIEW A. Summary Annexation of 5.81 acres of land with the R-8 zoning district and a Conditional Use Permit to construct a 22,630 square foot church. B. Issues/Waivers - Staff is asking the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council to consider the location of cross access to the north and west for future connectivity. - The steeple currently sits at 69 feet 10 inches.However,the maximum height allowed in the R-8 zoning is 55 feet. C. Recommendation Planning Division: Approval with a Development Agreement and Conditions Planning and Zoning Commission: Pending D. Decision City Council: Pending E. Table of Contents CommunityMetrics.............................................................................. II StaffAnalysis..................................................................................... III City/Agency Comments and Conditions...................................................... IV Findings............................................................................................ V Action.............................................................................................. VI City of Meridian I Department Report I. Project Overview ■ Exhibits............................................................................................ VII I1. COMMUNITY METRICS Table 1: Land Use Description Details Map Ref. Existing Land Use(s) Vacant - Proposed Land Use(s) Church - Existing Zoning RUT in Ada County VII.A.2 Proposed Zoning R-8 Adopted FLUM Designation Low Density Residential VII.A.3 Table 2: Project Overview Description Details History N/A Physical Features None Acreage 4.93 acres Table 3: Process Facts Description Details Preapplication Meeting date 2/10/2026 Neighborhood Meeting 3/12/2026 Site posting date 6/22/2026 Table 4: Agency Comments Agency/Element Description/Issue Reference Ada County Highway District • Comments Received Yes; Staff Report - • Commission Action Required Yes I - • Access Linder Road:Minor Arterial Road I - Victory Road:Minor Arterial Road • Traffic Level of Service Linder Road:Better than"E" - Victory Road:Better than"E" ITD Comments Received Yes;No Comment Meridian Public Works Wastewater • Distance to Mainline 450 feet to the West • Impacts or Concerns Yes; See Pubic Works Comments ' Meridian Public Works Water IV.B • Distance to Mainline Available at site • Impacts or Concerns No Note: See section IV. City/Agency Comments&Conditions for comments received or see the public record. Paste the following link into your browser to access the public record: https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/browse.aspx?id=445209&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics ■ Figure 1: One-Mile Radius Existing Condition Metrics Reference Parcel:S1223449000 Date Retrieved:2026/5/28 Parcel Count Parcel Acreage Infill Indicator: 1,309 1,003 Surrounding Area 49% ►vot city ® City Limits 1,084 ■ Not City Household Household& Population Growth Households 02020 Population Change:51.8°I° Population ■Growth (Household and Population Change since 2010 Decennial) 5,000 10,000 Use Types Residential Addresses All Addresses ■ Single-family 18% 17% Multi-family 2% 82% 81% ® Commercial 2.00 {}�y 1,000 Single-family H Q1 H Residential b 1.50 1.46 Parcel Diversity a 1.00 500 U 0Parcel Count 0.50 L *Average Acres 0.00 9-0.19 0-00- 0 a R-2 R-8 R-15 Average Single-family Density by Zoning Average 10.00 L DensityResidential Net V O- 5.00 03.83 1 5.15 4,42 0.00 00.68 :Ao:oo- Dwelling Units 1 Acre R-2 R-4 R-8 R-15 Notes: See VIII.Additional Notes&Details for Staff Report Maps,Tables,and Charts. City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics ■ Figure 2:ACHD Summary Metrics Traffic Count is based on Vehicles per hour(VPH) Roadway Frontage Functional GPM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Classification Traffic Count Level of Service * Linder Road 46-feet Minor Arterial 34 Bcttcr than "E" Victory Road 880-feet Minor Arterial 458 Better than 'E" Acceptable level of service for a two-lane mirror arterial is 'E'(575 VPH). Notes: See VIII.Additional Notes&Details for Staff Report Maps,Tables,and Charts. City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics 1 00 III. STAFF ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code(UDC) A. General Overview This property is designated as Low Density Residential(LDR) on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM)contained in the Comprehensive Plan. This designation allows for the development of single-family homes on large estate lots at gross densities of three dwelling units or less per acre. These areas often transition between existing rural residential and urban properties. Developments need to respect agricultural heritage and resources,recognize view sheds and open spaces, and maintain or improve the overall atmosphere of the area. The use of open spaces, parks,trails, and other appropriate means should enhance the character of the area. Density bonuses may be considered with the provision of additional public amenities such as a park, school, or land dedicated for public services. The Applicant's proposal to develop a 22,630 square foot church on the site is generally consistent with the LDR FLUM designation,which supports residential zoning where a church is allowed as a conditional use. The applicant is not proposing to put any residential on the site and states the primary use of the site will be for Sunday worship with some meetings being on weeknights after 5:00 pm. The applicant indicated the church will allow up to 300 occupants. In the early stages of the preapplication and annexation process,ACHD told the applicant the access closest to the intersection of Victory and Linder would not be allowed,which limited the applicant to a single access point. As a result, City staff is recommending the applicant provide cross access to allow for stub drives and pedestrian connections to the properties to the north and west(Parcels#R5443271300 and#R5443271100) along Linder Road and Victory Road frontages. By providing flexibility on the location of the future stubs,when the surrounding area redevelops it will allow for additional access points for the church that also integrate with the surrounding residential. Staff has concerns regarding traffic circulation during Sunday service times.With a single access point serving a church with an occupancy of up to 300 people,there is potential for significant vehicle queuing within the parking lot and,potentially,onto Victory Road. Staff discussed this concern with the applicant,who indicated they are exploring the option of utilizing a traffic control company during Sunday services to help manage ingress and egress. Staff also evaluated the possibility of relocating the building closer to Linder Road,which would place the majority of the parking area on the west side of the building and provide more direct access to the site's entrance and exit. However,the applicant stated that this alternative was discussed with the property owner and was not preferred, as it would require attendees to walk a greater distance from the parking area to the building. B. Comprehensive Plan Policies Comprehensive Plan Policy: Analysis: "Permit new development only where it can be City water and sewer service is available and adequately served by critical public facilities can be extended by the developer with and urban services at the time of final development in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. approval, and in accord with any adopted levels of service for public facilities and services."(3.03.03F) City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 1 01 "Encourage compatible uses and site design to The proposed church should be compatible minimize conflicts and maximize use of land." with existing and future residential uses in the (3.07.00) vicinity which should minimize conflicts and maximize use of land. "Locate smaller-scale,neighborhood-serving The proposed church will provide an commercial and office use clusters so they opportunity for public congregate in this complement and provide convenient access portion of the City near existing and future from nearby residential areas, limiting access residential uses. to arterial roadways and multimodal corridors."(3.07.02B) "Reduce the number of existing access points The proposed development shows a single onto arterial streets by using methods such as access point to Victory Road. Originally,the cross-access agreements, access management, applicant was proposing two access points to and frontage/backage roads, and promoting Victory Road,however,ACHD did not allow local and collector street connectivity." for the access closest to the roundabout to (6.01.02B) remain. As a result, staff recommends cross access for future stub drives to the north and west for additional future access points as the area redevelops. C. Site Development and Use Analysis 1. Proposed Use Analysis (UDC 11-2): The applicant proposes a church in R-8 zoning district.A church is a conditional use in the R- 8 zoning district. The applicant's narrative states there are no full-time staff or residential components on the site and that the facility will be primarily used for Sunday Worship with some meetings held on weeknights after 5:00 pm. In addition, if the church decides to have any ancillary uses(school,daycare, etc.)they will be required to comply with the allowed uses table for the R-8 zoning district as shown in UDC Table 11-2A-2. 2. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): Future development is required to comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-6 for the R-8 zoning district. The proposed lot and building placement comply with the minimum dimensional standards. 3. Specific Use Standards (UDC 11-4-3): 11-4-3-6: Church or place of religious worship - Schools, child daycare services,meeting facilities for clubs and organizations,and other similar uses not operated primarily for the purpose of religious instruction,worship, government of the church, or the fellowship of its congregation may be permitted to the extent the activity is otherwise permitted in the district. The applicant will be required to comply with the specific use standards. The applicant's narrative states the facility will be used primarily for Sunday worship and won't have any full-time staff.If this changes, the applicant will be required to obtain the correct permits to establish any of the uses listed above. D. Design Standards Analysis 1. Structure and Site Design Standards (UDC 11-3A-19): The applicant's site plan depicts the church building located centrally on the parcel with direct frontage on Victory Road. However, along the Linder Road frontage it is primarily the City of Meridian I Department Report 111. Staff Analysis 102 parking lot facing the road.Due to the shape of the site and access restriction,the applicant decided not to orient the building towards both arterial roadways. The applicant shall apply for alternative compliance as the site layout puts more than 50%of the parking between the building and the street. The alternative compliance application shall be submitted concurrently with the certificate of zoning compliance and design review application. UDC 11-3A-19 requires an unobstructed walkway the length of the drive aisle for any parking area that exceeds 150 parking spaces or is 200 feet away from the primary building entrance. As a result, staff is recommending a pedestrian connection running through the internal parking lot on the west side of the building to meet this requirement. Staff is recommending the applicant provide cross access to the properties to the north and west in accord with UDC 11-3A-3. These vehicular and pedestrian stubs should not be aligned with the existing homes so in the future when the area redevelops it will provide better pedestrian and vehicular circulation throughout the site. 2. Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): i. Landscape buffers along streets UDC Requirement Proposed/Analysis Arterial Road:25 Feet Linder Road:25 feet Victory Road:25 feet The proposed landscape buffers are proposed to be 25 feet in width and include a 10 foot multi-use pathway along both Linder Road and Victory Road. The landscape plan shall be revised with the submittal of the certificate of zoning compliance application to show the easternmost drive aisle removed or designated as emergency access only. ii. Parking lot landscaping Landscaping is required to be provided along all parking areas per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8. The applicants landscape plan depicts parking lot landscaping in mostly compliance with UDC 11-3B-8. The applicant shall lose one (1)parking stall on the western portion of the site due to having thirteen (13) in a row without a planter island. The maximum allowed without a planter island is twelve (12). This shall be revised with the submittal of the certificate of zoning compliance. iii. Tree preservation Per UDC 11-3B-10,Mitigation shall be required for all existing trees four-inch caliper or greater that are removed from the site with equal replacement of the total calipers lost on site up to an amount of one hundred(100)percent replacement(Example: Two (2)ten- inch caliper trees removed may be mitigated with four 5-inch caliper trees, five(5)four- inch caliper trees, or seven(7)three-inch caliper trees). It does not appear that any trees exist on the property; however, if any trees are present and will be removed, the applicant shall mitigate for the tree and provide a tree mitigation plan with the submittal of the certificate of zoning compliance application. iv. Storm integration 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. v. Pathway landscaping City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 103 The applicant has provided landscaping in conformance with the pathway landscaping standards in UDC 11-3B-12. 3. Parking (UDC 11-3C): i. Nonresidential parking analysis UDC Requirement Proposed/Analysis Commercial: 1 Parking Based on the 22,630 square feet proposed,a minimum of Stall per 500 Square Feet 45 parking stalls is required.The applicant has exceeded of Gross Floor Area this requirement and is proposing 228 parking stalls. However,the applicant shall lose 1 parking stall on the western portion of the site as they have 13 in a row without a planter island. ii. Bicycle parking analysis A minimum of one(1)bicycle parking space must be provided for every 25 vehicle spaces or portion thereof per UDC 11-3C-6G;bicycle parking facilities are required to comply with the location and design standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C. The applicant did not provide bicycle parking on the proposed site plans. The applicant shall revise their plan to incorporate a minimum of two (2) bicycle parking spaces with the submittal of the certificate of zoning compliance. 4. Building Elevations (Architectural Standards Manual): Administrative Design Review(DES)and Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC)approval is required before building permit submittal for the church addition. The submitted elevations and site plan will be fully analyzed with the future applications. Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed church. The maximum building height in the R-8 zoning district is 35 feet; however,the UDC allows for steeples to exceed the maximum height by 20 feet. The current elevations show the steeple at 69 feet 10 inches which exceed the maximum height allowed of 55 feet. This shall be revised with the submittal of the design review application. Final design is required to comply with the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual(ASM). 5. Fencing (UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): All fencing constructed on the site is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11- 3A-7. The applicant has depicted fencing on the landscape plan; however, the type of fencing is not specified. The applicant shall provide a detail of the fencing with the submittal of the certificate of zoning compliance application. E. Transportation Analysis 1. Access (UDC 11-3A-3, UDC 11-3H-4): The proposed development includes a single access point from W. Victory Road. During the initial pre-application meeting,the applicant proposed two access points onto W.Victory Road;however,the easternmost access was required to be eliminated due to its proximity to the roundabout at the intersection of Linder Road and Victory Road. The resulting access configuration is consistent with Comprehensive Plan Goal 6.01.02B, which encourages reducing the number of access points onto arterial roadways through access management strategies such as cross-access agreements, frontage and backage roads, City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 104 and improved connectivity between local and collector streets. The proposal is also consistent with Ada County Highway District(ACHD) access management policies. While the proposed single access point complies with both ACHD policies and the Comprehensive Plan, staff has concerns regarding traffic circulation during peak periods, particularly Sunday service times. Given the anticipated occupancy of the church,vehicle queuing may occur within the site and has the potential to extend onto W. Victory Road. Staff discussed these concerns with the applicant,who indicated they are exploring the use of a traffic control company during Sunday services to assist with traffic operations and site circulation. Staff also evaluated an alternative site layout that would relocate the building closer to Linder Road, allowing a greater portion of the parking area to be situated west of the building and closer to the site access. This configuration could improve internal circulation and reduce queuing distances. However, after consideration by the property owner,this alternative was not preferred because it would increase the walking distance between the parking area and the building entrance. 2. Pedestrian Connectivity (UDC 11-3A-5, UDC 11-3A-8, UDC 11-3A-17): The proposed plan includes a pedestrian walkway from the multi-use pathway along Victory Road to the main entrance of the church building. In addition,the parking immediately surrounding the building has parking adjacent to it which allows for several other connection points. The site/landscape plan submitted both reflect compliance with this standard. F. Services Analysis 1. Pressurized Irrigation(UDC 11-3A-I5): The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water(UDC 11-3B-6). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single- point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized,the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 2. Storm Drainage (UDC 11-3A-18): An adequate storm drainage system is required in all developments in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. Design and construction shall follow best management practice as adopted by the City. 3. Utilities (UDC 11-3A-21): Both the Plan and the UDC establish policy and regulations for extending and connecting to City utilities. Goal 3.03.03G of the Plan mandates urban infrastructure be provided for all new developments,including curb and gutter, sidewalks,water and sewer utilities.All utilities for the proposed development are required to be installed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-21. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 105 IV. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. Meridian Planning Division 1. A Development Agreement(DA)is required as a provision of annexation of this property. Prior to approval of the annexation ordinance, a DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian, the property owner(s) at the time of annexation ordinance adoption, and the developer. NOTE: A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Administrative Design Review application shall not be submitted until the Annexation Ordinance is approved by City Council. Currently, a fee of$611.47 shall be paid by the Applicant to the Planning Division prior to commencement of the DA. The DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning Division within six(6)months of the City Council granting annexation. The DA shall, at minimum, incorporate the following provisions: a. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the conceptual development plan and building elevations included in Section VIII and the provisions contained herein. b. The only uses allowed to operate on the property are church or place of religious worship (UDC 11-4-3-6) and those allowed as an accessory use. c. The applicant shall provide cross access and stub drives to the properties to the north and west(Parcels R5443271300 and R5443271100)in accord with UDC 11-3A-3 Conditional Use Permit: 1. The site and/or landscape plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application shall be revised as follows: i. Provide a fencing exhibit and detail showing location and type of fencing. ii. The landscaping between the drive aisle and fence of northern portion of the site above the building shall be widened to 5 feet in accord with UDC 11-3B-8. iii. Revise the plan to incorporate a minimum of two(2)bicycle parking spaces with the submittal of the certificate of zoning compliance. iv. Revise the elevations to lower the steeple from 69 feet 10 inches to the maximum height allowed of 55 feet. v. Lose one (1)parking stall on the western portion of the site due to having thirteen(13)in a row without a planter island. The maximum allowed without a planter island is twelve (12). vi. Add a pedestrian connection through the western parking lot to the primary entrance of the building. vii. Dimension the landscape buffers along both Victory and Linder to ensure they are a minimum of 25 feet. 2. Compliance with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-6 for a church or place of religious worship is required. 3. Future development of the site shall comply with the standards in the City's Unified Development Code(UDC). 4. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance,Design Review, and Alternative Compliance application shall be submitted and approved for the proposed use prior to submittal of a building permit City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions 106 application. The design of the site and structure shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. 5. Provide a traffic control plan with the submittal of the certificate of zoning compliance application for Sunday services. 6. The conditional use permit is valid for a maximum period of two (2)years unless otherwise approved by the City. During this time,the Applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval,and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground as set forth in UDC 11-5B-6.A time extension may be requested asset forth in UDC 11-513-617. City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions 107 B. Meridian Public Works NON-Pilo'CONDI TIONS ftRi.{;VAPkKI,IkrARTmrN7 Site Wfir C:om filliaas of Appro�d L Bumside Ridge has dry Sevier Line approximaidy 150Rtnt1c WestofIr prnpitianisewcr Linc in Victory Rd Applicant Ls rnixiu�in work wigs Burnside Ridge O crknffe proper elevation is inKtalLcd for flbue wrwcaULaL Or instil]Satminimurn slope. 2- Flrinp 9'"&&2"stuh Ln1n propaty(hring in 9"main and have it90degr=Y Wawrmrvieeand fire line to came offofawb. 3- Ifa Wdl is Located e n the site d rnnl he aban&nod pa regulaRary raauiwFwn1s,and proof of sbart"nxrt nnrmL be FwOmded to the CSty_ 4. Ensure no sewer sorviam pass through Infiltration trenches. 5- Provik W Faaaawnis for nmirm hydraw Lalaals and wake sec sag.Fasrnicnls should cuend ip to the and of r ain'hydra W walrr nria and I(r bgoW it. (L. No permanent structures(hcm,hu esr buildings,carports,trash reeeplacLc waLLs,fences, infiltration trenohcs,light poles,ctc-)to bo built within the utility casomonL Camera]il omdLt mm Of Approval 1- AppliiautshaReacmidinatewataairitscuacrnuinsiacandmuting with the PuSGcWcrka Nparunent- 2- Per-Maidim City Code(MCC;),the applicant shall be respontsible to iwWI scwix and water mains island tltretr4eJs ibis dw�cls�-nL App]icarLL nrayhcdip6lc forarcirnhruscrncrrt agreement fm Lnfraifta=e enhanccrnerrt pa MC.0 R fr5. 3- The applicant shall prcwide casarrrut(s)fix all public vwatrxl nrsx nseirus ou�ide of public right of way(inchtdc all%wau savk=and hydmws). SewmAwEbxcamnunt wanesdgtatding on sewer depth.sewer 0-20 fi dccp ncuirre a 30 ft cagmwM 20-25 ft a 40 ft easarraa and 25-30 ft a 45 ft easenwat- F.wxwnoIxrntwentsinmt-wee(treed bushes,buildings,cupomq,trm%hwoeptade walls,fa=infiltratim tFmdv,light pales,cii.)arc built within the utiLity casanauL %b it an esw��iled ca<;crs>rerrt(on the farm available friar Public Worley},a Legs]dcseription prlgranGi by an Tdaho Ilmmod Pmfewsionml Iand 9uryayor,which must include&a amm of the ea wnicr t (mwizd EXHIBIT A)and an 9In"A I I"male wills bearings and rlietawrx(nA"F-XH T3TT B) for review-Bath cALbio must bescalc4 signed and dated by a Profmioral landgurvcyer.M NOT RFCA)RD- 4- Thc City ofMaAanroWiFosOmt pFawuriwd it gatirmsy-Memsbesuppircdbyaycar-round sm mwofwata(l]DC]]-31?,6y The applicmtdwmld he roquirod tease any existing swFwc or wd1 water far else primary%-truce. If a uAwc or well source is not available.a sing"nt cenrsa km to flr a theory water sysrrem dial]be rcquinuL If a!;Ingle-taint erw wa km is wilimd, stet devckgxr%ill.he rcr�►—ible for Ore paymentofassces=rk%for tlreoxnrnmmcas prior to prior in remiving development plan approval 5- Any sUiK=rm that are allowed to remain shall be subject to cvalratiom and rKwOOc rcassWuml of atra3 addrrssirtg icy be in oon*k ncc with MCC- 6- AU irriygum d wh s,canals 1a1wal.?,cw draiM exelraiiw of natrual waterways.Lnterssxting. crossing or laying adjaeent and oeridgueus to the area 1xing RiMvidcd tall be addreasai por UDC L L-3A-& In pafaming such works,the applieaa shall comply with ldalwo Code 42-1207 and am}flthcrappLicmbLe law ne regulation. 7- Any wselh dal%w3]L nntwrdinm to beuwd rcnrA beproperly abmilowd a,xslr3ingto ldaha Well. C,imoi3awn Statudu&Rules admini4cred by the Idaho Departmnt of Wala Rt�wwozs (IDWR)-The DeveLeper,(hwu,orpreled FngLnax,dull provide a ngenxrst addrssasing City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions 108 mAcdi r there arc aay oyustiW wd1s in the do mew and ifmk how dny will continue to he use i,or provide m3cM ofthdr ahws&rhrncrrt 1f%wdLs arc to he alia Amui the prryecs owner or their rcpwsemtatiw niugt wwact the IFYWR Cacwrdumia Protection Section(Aaron Skinner, Hydropoalogist 209-2974972)BFYCWE any work is dcmc to dooaimiiyesirn an cXJNting wall (even.Sk A helimod that the wdl is km than 18 fi deep).Pmaf ofoonmunioation with 1 WR must be sdrntittad to the City Finar to any work being dtmc to dowrani limn tlx wet I_Fallwe to communkke with IDIVR may r=dt in additional wmrk and cxpmae to daxnniiN. n tie wdl.. R Myexi9mgmptiesysbaimwithindtispmjaYshdLheremmAfrumPavicelxrCayikdimrrm Section 9-L4 and 9 d S. Contact C"tral f]istria Health for abubdmrncrt promdu,w and m pwu rom(2MP75-521 I_ 9_ AD impnmnNugFdaledvppa"ieIife.ssfctyandhcaLthshaLlbcciwnpLctodpritxtoocupuicy of the strir-.fircN_ 10_Applicant shall lye rcquircdto pay Public WarksdnolnpmvW plan revim,and axt,-tnrfion Impectim fees,as daemtiincd during the plan review pry pririr to the Lsamnoc of a plan apprmal lc11cr. 1 1_ RshdL hethc rcapomrihility nftheapplicamto crmn that aL1 devdrdxnaM f wr*y with the Arnaldo with TAgaWLiGi N Act and the Fair Houmnp Act. 12_Applicant shell be na>Kmiblc for application and eornpl ianoc with any Imxften 4M Pemutting that may be milmod by the Army CorpN of Fngimmm 13_ fkevdopa shall oxxdimalc wa lbm kratioris with the Mffidian llkm(ffma. 14_CnmMation teAm aulLN shall be Nuhrailt-edtothe-U idian Mlding fkparin ml far all building pads romving c VDecrrdImAfill.what footing wrwdd At atop fill nmrffial I5.71vc drxigp en2bx"shall be m tared to ocrOy that the street cerw rLine i levahiartN am sot a ntininun of 3-face abave the hLgtcut in a isbod peak groundwater dcvation_ This A in caw" tat the be orndevation ofthc crawl 4meea;efhcapN is at kart L-footabovc. I&The applicants d m1g n cngim=Nhall he ref;1rriblc for incpcclion of ail irrigation an&nr drainage facility within this project that dr«not fall under the jwindio ion Man inrigatinm district er ACHD-The dcwLgn engineer shall provide certification that the faulluea have been iretalkd m secordamec with the aF4wmel deNL}'fi pLaas.This certification will he roauirol hckva a crrhifimte of oocupamoy is LvQkCd fix any stnecWM within the prrijocL 17_At theoonMAAion ofiho pu jet the applicant shall bo responsiblctnsuhmit record drawings per tie City of Mcddian AuWCAD standards. 'Tho;c Fee"drawings rusl be ramirnd and approval pricy to the Lsraum=of a certification of a%p ancy fmr any mrw=ert wi b in the prq cct I R A stm ct Light plan will rcxd to be indridcd Ln the civil oombikoinn plans-5tmt light plan regkj enwuq arc Lured msatlien&Softhe Improomwi.Stududa far Saw lighting.A copy of tie sumdudN cam be fmruid at tiw rkSMz7 d-272_ 19_The City of Meridian rogjres that the awnu poet t6 the CO a perfiirinm=surty m the uww t of I M%of the total.canstrw6en ent t far all rnairnpktc=Wff WMbff and FaWC uifhL41L ehyrc prior to fatal plat sIgowe.7lhis surety will he wxifiod by a ILne item omt c i.narrv.pmvLdeai by tic owner to tboCity.7hcswcty can be peed in the forraofmm irrcucrtablo k x afetedit,eask dopasit or IrK n Applicant nxLA file an application for surety,which can be found on the Cswnmmityf]cYchoprnraFkparhnermtwebsitc. PlcasccontkaImAlk+clgimaLLSumccfor morn infrwmation at KV-22 L L. 20.The City of Meridian rogWres that tie owns pm to the City a warranty xurcty in the amount of 20%of the tataL bmwkicuon oad for all etwnpleed amwer,wakr and Feme inkazn3ame for duration ofiwo yeam This swvty will be verified by a Zinc item cast olLmat�c Fwovk cd by the ownutotho CO-The suety can he prk M in the form of an Lmc4ucahle lateroferelit,rash deposit or W&L Applica w rnuat file an application for surety,which can be found on the Cxwnm mitt'11 cw1opmea fkpartmeru websitc. Please cont*d ImA I}c4clginierLL Berries for ntxo infrwmation at 887-221 1. City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions 1 09 C. Irrigation Districts 1. Boise Project Board of Control --TM�• '"" lk Pka K r UkIA"Q�CONTROL °^ •'r �+* wy�r.ryyy r�^K k'rtP APrt�RT�',�.4�hF'OI+,�Y�r'a�cTl iui6rY o.uldtlR >w er,�+i+rew +�ioc•wwnR �.rmrras�wa x,rr.rF�ar,ew.nr.Y rru,��r trrrr�r hrYW POTfax.lk r�omua�wcr +ww�+F*n,our?wWx� .wrv.r epwer AMYL**6YBY xam+•Te�rtn ratan iN CAIK wra,hw ,we o�s,�� W Jam 2026 cih.Clerk'sUf uc 33 L Llmadwap Avcaur Meridian IM SMA2 l t7 {- D JUA fi 4 20 RF.. vic14vY'4Mkv Ccnru 1.05 Chmrrh C, 314 5 S Linder Fed,M1kiidian "412&w$6 .•r,_ -;c>r I F is NLALFln Irti dan Dlarlcs SK-8S SundeR L46% l 93+M 23,r3N.R I W.SM. hick Napoli,PWMMT-.. These em rw Boise Prs*"or BAw-Kurw lerilw6m District #acuities kxmAcd an for ahovL- mauiLwsrri rw(gwnkN;houxver,they du I n foel pwws&ruled Awr r ri0d- E'er Ede4*:3aaom'RL,12. lck:W 1TTkP31orl+dr;rhw@w dikhro-thm cRKs I Iris property, w acr r ne.ghbOrrng pa-4%xt10w must rnmalu urwL sArucred nnrl lxulvekd L) du npryi,►XLAbd VdLWIH"L I*w the Inndnsw r,ds+rioper red t:ontrorcwA I,attiuwrrerldecekTu rntrsL dsr(heir drre drlrgettce to caudo aL L wsrare of neighbming praperties t5ir khN irww4. Ll'wou heur aey frsrthcr gwisdom&nr cvomec%retam&W rhos melter_pkLmm da mat hnisare iu %pl wx I me pr J2ffj 344,114 I. `[irxcrel., A�iay[uiit['n�je+er f`lasuaymr ilp+lr �� rr 4'� KKvin R=Nw wok""et.Dlw,2 Bpac' Alioia Ylawl xLmeinr�-7•rrrwnirr 13KW File City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions 1 10 D. Ada County Highway District(ACHD) ACHD , �� MOM Cmh#-Km w C nrnit� era ��� . it AUNG!a�N*Wwr4 Co ftsw...r Date:May 14.M26 T<K Jorrtirry WmOrr WtF Contact:Mart Pik,Planner Project Dericription_Victory Stake Center Trio Gmeratlon, This 04,reloorr. m iseswnwAd to Weraw 2oo v*K1s1etros oer day 1l3v*hiiCl*ltips pert our in the PM p"k how.tHiW i Or11h►IrWitulo of TrariSportaiian Engineers Trip Ceneration Manual,12"edition. NO "rim ME -CIS PlimnIngTtwesholdr,in ,.he future wl1h planned L connecting you to more We r.Wrft migh-W Qftt-;t-$4100 Xr.e~A�w-NPRIP-Syr;-PNm-7q►-w FK St}743rJ-v"s,r.�p�b!'a�x9 V. FINDINGS A. Annexation (UDC 11-5B-3E) Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Staff finds the applicants proposal to annex 5.81 acres of land with the R-8 zoning district for the development of a 22,630 square foot church is consistent with the Low Density Residential FL UM designation. City of Meridian I Department Report I. ■ 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Stafffinds the proposed map amendment to the R-8 zoning district and conceptual development generally complies with the R-8 purpose statement as the church contributes to a low traffic generating use for nearby residents to congregate. The churches primary hours are Sunday mornings, which is not during peak hour traffic times. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; Stafffinds the proposed map amendment will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to, school districts; and Stafffinds city services are available to the provided to this development. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. Stafffinds the annexation is in the best interest of the city. B. Conditional Use(UDC 11-5B-6E) The commission shall base its determination on the conditional use permit request upon the following: 1. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. Stafffinds the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meets all the dimensional standards in the R-8 zoning district. This determination is based on several factors, including the applicant's revisions to incorporate additional parking, the condition for future cross access to the north and west, and the church operating primarily on Sunday mornings. 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian comprehensive plan and in accord with the requirements of this title. Stafffinds the proposed uses will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. 3. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. Stafffinds the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with residential uses in the area and in the future when the area redevelops. 4. That the proposed use,if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed,will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. Stafffinds that the subject development will not adversely affect other properties in the vicinity. City of Meridian I Department Report V. Findings 112 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools,parks,police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal,water,and sewer. Stafffinds the proposed use can be served adequately by essential public facilities and services. 6. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. Stafffinds the proposed uses will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. 7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes,materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic,noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. Stafffinds the proposed use will not involve activity or processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any person,property, or the general welfare. 8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction,loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. Stafffinds the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss, or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature. 9. Additional findings for the alteration or extension of a nonconforming use: Not Applicable. 10. That the proposed nonconforming use does not encourage or set a precedent for additional nonconforming uses within the area; and, Not Applicable. 11. That the proposed nonconforming use is developed to a similar or greater level of conformity with the development standards as set forth in this title as compared to the level of development of the surrounding properties. Not Applicable. VI. ACTION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment to the Annexation and Conditional Use Permit per the provisions in Section IV in accord with the Findings in Section V. B. Commission: C. City Council: City of Meridian I Department Report VI. Action 113 VII. EXHIBITS A. Project Area Maps 1. Aerial Legend Project Location Area of Impact ® Analysis e, Ok r■■r I 0 ��h x 1 �qna Aea•�R ■i' i9! eye v'#pja�r a,a j�+a .4,, n jj F!1 !!il NO v+la City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ 2. Zoning Map Legend 'C C-C. �®® Project Location TN-R '.":.' Area of Impact R-8 OAnalysis - � o e RUT R1 OTTM am e • RA R-40 3. Future Land Use Legend Med'--High Project Location '"` nsit,,v . 0 4h 9i Cis... Area of Impact I Re�S®e11t1��� HE Analysis L'owrDensity hl Residential ] [F MU-N ® E Medium-Density Residential �^ City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits 115 4. Planned Development Map Legend Project Location 0 City Limits mUEE Planned Parcels Area of Impact OAnalysis am a a s • F- NO City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 116 B. Service Accessibility Tool(Existing Conditions) Description Location Within 1/2 mile of City Limits Extension Sewer Trunkshed mains < 500 ft. from parcel Floodplain Either not within the 100 yr floodplain or > 2 acres Emergency Services Fire Response time < 5 min. Reporting District meets response time goals most of Emergency Services Police the time Pathways Within 1/4 mile of future pathways Transit Within 1/4 mile of future transit route Ultimate configuration (# of lanes in master streets ,arterial Road Buildout Status plan) > existing (# of lanes) & road IS NOT in 5 yr work plan Schaal Walking Proximity From 1/2 to 1 mile walking School Drivability Not within 2 miles driving of existing or future school ParkWaIkability No park within walking distance by park type City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ C. Subject Site Photos - iLn City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits Fl 18 D. Concept Plan (date: 4/1/2026) —JT7 -————— pi -LL 111 6in 11 14jULJjLLLLj—, it E. Landscape Plan (date: 4/1/2026) --R A 4-0 2 0 "a Ucm� Y low amtw am %OPKJ DESIGN GIIGTJF' .z City of Meridian Department Report V11. Exhibits 119 1 F. Building Elevations(date: 4/1/2026) Rvd 0 0 0 0 0 0 .F-. L]U SduTH LEVATEON. •� _ — — j o IIPSA [KI+CI LTM 1 ` lllS� , IE31i5�611A1 FH A - 'iC 7P SiVOMISSION UAS�ECI 0. NPREAPP-7E26-H14 Z10.26 999. 1 e r. I•- nn Eli 1 f II �al..�. y - afnn U. I s warulvanoN A201 -0' Din -- I I a . .�.....:_ ANNEIfATIONRE.ZONElCUP FI i -- ...._ _T.._..... _ _... 5119NESSIDM BASED 0" n NORTH ELEVATION m I y I � Pews r,•ysl 6. I �L ID. .....nn_ I j ; - H --- s EAST REVAiIOH City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 120 G. Annexation Legal Description& Exhibit Map LLGiL UESIMP t IUW FOR CHLFRCH OF JFSL19 CHRIST OF LATTER-13AY!�ALP F� PARCH F A parr�l of lard rocaiar!m me Sa.rhroxl 124 of Itr SOu11fa3SL 114 Sachon 23 TuxW&rJ C? HMx.Ranpe t Wev fl51"FA nmaa.AAaL36L*.IddM *Ater Aee.•ared ea r[Lbk5 BA=4f BEARING Tne Eu9';nB 0.v� S umee f W of 23L 7pr 91/Orl>7.riar+ue 1 l r 9'rae +der.U; dan"d ftr J17und eceacrmurts W faAse w A1.Krr O P<1 Y2'East wN,Ina Li4us tLmv n Mund w be 2f150.52 gyp! NG MW6 eL Sauuwmt corner ofsaid Section n,Te htp 3 Nu h.RirNa!WLSL flume KM49n"m Wt,�h mR kW 1f4"ngr of 6inWl 734e % North W4122'Eat a dularom or 2R50 52 FeeL Thrrm arrrrg s d SaaUmml gamer end along d'r$adh kne of iM SmOtxt 1'4 ar ma %D=eaef 1+4.W nh 89'0847'WNL a-SIMnOe of 579 56 sere I. Tlvrc>�+aevl^7 aaoSa tll hfrNOMCO 5377 EeaL 1a0n9.re[b3en€vnsroFLa li Block 1,klgeahc Urea'Su6dvafan,gook 61,Pages�7 70 3 6111,■uslsnoe at]l5 031ee1. TYerce mpng um Sx&qul.•vrrr and Tong the$W Lere at$MM WI+1 Norm 2S'lld'11'Fat w the NortlmuTaaner of said Cm tT,a dsurbe of 4663,rueL The sang-ad kmtt ms!Lerner and a"Lhe Soup frre 0 Um 12.Bk ok 1,FMeslrc Vww S.ddmBAr't Book 61.Pag*b 5.1466111 S*A 47'35'4rffb L 96"SaL0660r pNrbr at sad Lai 42.■rn5b-s of 230 56 fi e1 Trefot voyng s cr*o&Fras:caner mid Aaq ttm SaAh Iwo cir Lot 13 91sk'.Uwstc VewSubdro6o%Book61 Pago 8110 S-5111.ft FaW%Y:VT*0{2)a5t"t Smrm 52'05 W Eui.s dlstrrxl or 1 i9.99 Ma SmLh 6711 V-Eaal.iu a p7rnL Dn Tit fasl Mne of the SaAheasl 114 a dslanoe of 406 99 Ieer. There skaeV sed Eat Fne.Sow%C8'<42Y1!t'eaL a6rt-w"of 2466319BI 1U the POW OF Hmmodd Sm Parc Wi trning 253,143 sere Fees oe S 6l acres moms Less and a s.rhjad n A emsLeg tan+hT mime aw r'OK9&-0'a'Af 6 u r wcr'J ct tlr'Qlied 104a OFDESCAM M. fwt mm tf Cook.P.,L 5 tm TIm661fine Sane,'+ l'rr NT S Ki7aw Ave Sure 207 t. C-Sh3 it 4m 0300 �ef 44 u 1T1}SVbF1.2S114.64BIE Ig418rIG 31�SE llMLEk F.P ktFtaBStrSiwtvTv4.[{.aLS5M11rJM LCC{h City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 121 T0I'GFRANI1CJBOU NARY SURVEY FOR EAGLE ROCS ENGINEERING - k.l r I r, I I l - -----�--T---- a �� City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits Fl 22 VIII. ADDITIONAL NOTES & DETAILS FOR STAFF REPORT MAPS, TABLES,AND CHARTS (link to Community Metrics) A. One-Mile Radius Existing Condition Notes This data is automatically derived from enterprise application and GIS databases, and exported dynamically. Date retrieved notes generally reflect data acquired or processed within the last 30- days.Analysis is based on a one-mile radius from the centroid of the identified parcel. Parcel based data excludes certain properties and represents land as it exists now. Properties considered are only those with a total assessed value greater than 0(i.e. excludes most HOA area,transitional development, government, and quasi government facilities). The following values also constrain included property acreage to reduce outliers and non-conforming instances from distorting averages: R-2<5.0; R-4<2.0; R-8< 1.0; R-15 <0.5; R-40<0.25. Conditional Use Permits and Preliminary plat data likely include duplicate project submittals as they may be for the same project, approved at different times through multiple application types. Consider each independently or review prior application approvals. Some approved entitlements, and particularly older ones,may be constructed. Decennial population counts and household counts are based on the most recent Decennial Census. Current population and current household values are COMPASS estimates,usually for the year previous, and are based on traffic analysis zone boundaries(TAZ's). B. Service Assessment Notes This data represents existing conditions derived from our enterprise application and GIS database, exported through dynamic reporting. The system references the most recent available data from various sources, including sewer main lines, sewer trunk sheds, floodplain,fire service areas and response times,police crime reporting,pathway information,existing and planned transit, roadway improvements, school and park proximity, and other resources. The tool provides context for project review,using multiple indicators consistently. Data from similar topics may vary based on different levels of review. The overall score is based on weighted criteria(not a ranked order), and the percentile score compares the parcel to others in the city(higher is better). This tool was developed as a City Council priority and outcome of the 2019 Comprehensive Plan. Scores,whether high or low, are just one data point and should not be the sole basis for decisions. C. 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 123 Development Application Transmittal Link to Project Application: Victory Stake Center H-2026-0016 Hearing Date: July 2, 2026 Assigned Planner: Nick Napoli 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: 208.888.44331Email: cityclerk(cD_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. 124 E IDIAN;--- Applicant Presentation E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Meridian Office Building (H-2026-0020) by CSHQA, located at 3514 E. Louise Dr. A. Request: Conditional Use Permit to construct and operate a 5,000 sq.ft. office building on 0.54 acres in the L-0 zoning. 125 i 00 V C) vi .p W N I-, O 0) (D -s N (D � z fD CL iY OCr �Ff c A = -� M rp Qcm�. Q N �. _. N M _ 0 N r+ w � O i O N O 0 0 v v X rD o � v D co x- v In X oa (n -*. rt ao � fD o v c ::3 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT C��fEPIDIAN*,,--, DEPARTMENT REPORT HEARING 7/2/2026 ,� Legend DATE: Project Location 0 19 TO: Planning&Zoning Commission Area of Impact �= City Limits "@ FROM: Nick Napoli,Associate Planner O Analysis 208-884-5533 _ nnapoli@meridiancity.org _ T, L i APPLICANT: Paul Graham f ' i SUBJECT: H-2026-0020 _ Meridian Office Building LOCATION: Located at 3514 E. Louise Drive in the - -- '-- -- north 1/4 of Section 16, T.3N.,R.IE. 1 �_ I. PROJECT OVERVIEW A. Summary The applicant requests a conditional use permit to construct and operate a 5,000 square foot office building on 0.54 acres in the L-O zoning. B. Recommendation Staff: Approval with conditions. C. Decision Planning and Zoning Commission: Pending. City of Meridian I Department Report 1. Project Overview 126 IL COMMUNITY METRICS Table 1: Land Use Description Details Map Ref. Existing Land Use(s) Vacant - Proposed Land Use(s) Office - Existing/Proposed Zoning L-O V.A.2 Future Land Use Designation MU-C(Mixed Use Community) V.A.3 Table 2: Process Facts Description Details Preapplication Meeting date 3/31/2026 Neighborhood Meeting 4/30/2026 Site posting date 6/22/2026 Table 3: Community Metrics Agency/Element Description/Issue Reference Ada County Highway District • Comments Received Yes - • Commission Action Required No - • Access Private Drive Aisle - ITD Comments Received No - Meridian Public Works Wastewater III.B • Distance to Mainline Available at site • Impacts or Concerns No Meridian Public Works Water III.B • Distance to Mainline Available at site • Impacts or Concerns No Note: See section III. City/Agency Comments&Conditions for comments received or see the public record: (https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=362259&dbid=0&repo=Meridian 00). City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics 127 III. STAFF ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code(UDC) A. General Overview This property is designated as Mixed-Use Community(MU-C)on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The proposed use for an office building is consistent with prior approvals and the comprehensive plan for the MU-C designation. The subject site is among several commercially zoned properties surrounding the corner of S. Touchmark Way and E. Franklin Road. The proposed office buildings align with the desired uses specified within the Mixed-Use Community designation. In conjunction with the existing office buildings,proposed future residential, and existing residential the proposed use satisfies the mix of uses desired in the MU-C designation. It is important to note that there is currently a twenty(20) foot public utility easement on the western boundary of the property. The applicant is currently working on getting relinquishment letters from all the utility providers to vacate a portion of the easement to allow for the building to be constructed. Table 4: Proiect Overview Description Details History AZ-05-022;PP-05-054; CUP-05-050 Acreage 1.2 acres B. History and Process The subject property was annexed in May 2001 (Ordinance No. 01.917) and approved a conditional use permit(CUP-05-050)for the applicant to develop the property into a mixed-use retirement community consisting of residential dwellings,medical offices,commercial/retail businesses, and a senior community center. The CUP requires all lots within the scope of the permit to receive detailed CUP approval prior to developing the property. C. Site Development and Use Analysis 1. Proposed Use Analysis (UDC 11-2): The proposed use of an office building aligns well with the Mixed-Use Neighborhood(MU- C) future land use designation,which supports a blend of residential, commercial,and recreational uses. Office buildings are typically principally permitted in the L-O zoning, however, due to a provision in the CUP from 2005, all properties require detailed CUP approval. By offering service options within proximity to both residential areas and existing commercial developments,this project contributes to the community's overall livability and sustainability. Specifically, it adheres to Policy 3.06.02B,which encourages and supports mixed-use areas that provide the benefits of living, shopping, dining, and working nearby, thereby reducing vehicle trips. To align with the current development, staff recommends that the applicant enhance landscaping between the buildings and along the eastern buffer. Goal 2.09.02E of the comprehensive plan emphasizes the importance of consistent landscaping standards for developments. Therefore, staff is advising that these improvements be included with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review submission. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 128 2. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): Development of the site hall comply with the dimensional standards of the L-O zoning district in UDC Table 11-213-3. Staff has reviewed the proposed plans and building elevations and they comply with the required standards. D. Design Standards Analysis 1. Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): i. Parking lot landscaping Landscaping is required to be provided along all parking areas per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8. The proposed landscape plan shall be revised to include 5 feet of landscaping along the southern property boundary. When the property to the south developed, they built parking to abut with the subject property for this development. Staff talked with the applicant about this, and they have elected not to abut parking. As a result, the subject development is responsible for a 10 foot buffer which is why 5 feet of landscaping is required to the north of the sidewalk. ii. Landscape buffers to adjoining uses Landscaping is required to meet the standards of UDC 11-3B-9. The landscape plan meets the minimum requirements. iii. Storm integration Storm drainage is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-18. 2. Parking (UDC 11-3C): i. Nonresidential parking analysis A minimum of one(1) off street parking space is required per 500 square feet of gross floor area. Based on the building being 5,000 square feet, 10 parking stalls are required.A total of 15 parking stalls are provided exceeding the required parking. ii. Bicycle parking analysis A minimum of one(1)bicycle parking space must be provided for every 25 vehicle spaces or portion thereof per UDC 11-3C-6G;bicycle parking facilities are required to comply with the location and design standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C.Bicycle parking is depicted on the plans submitted with this application that meet the requirements. 3. Building Elevations (Comp Plan,Architectural Standards Manual): Goal 2.09.03A of the Comprehensive Plan highlights establishing distinct, engaging identities within commercial and mixed-use enters through design standards to integrate commercial, multifamily,and parking areas with existing neighborhoods. In response,the developer has submitted conceptual building elevations for the proposed structure as shown in Section VII.C. Building materials consist of EIFS stucco, craft chop ledge panels, standing seam metal panels, steel canopies, and glazing. The proposed conceptual elevations are approved. The final design is required to comply with the Architectural Standards Manual for Commercial Design Guidelines. E. Transportation Analysis 1. Access (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-3, UDC 11-3H-4): Goal 6.01.0213 emphasizes reducing the number of access points onto arterial streets by utilizing strategies such as cross-access agreements, access management, and the creation of frontage and backage roads,while also improving connectivity between local and collector streets. The site plan features a single access point via a private drive aisle located on the City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 129 eastern part of the site. This private drive aisle connects to S. Touchmark Way and E. Louise Drive(collector streets). 2. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17): The proposed plan includes a pedestrian walkway from the main sidewalk on the north side of the buildings connecting to the front of each building. Pedestrians do not need to cross driving surfaces to connect with these building so delineation from the drive aisle is not required. The site/landscape plan submitted both reflect compliance with this standard. F. Services Analysis 1. Pressurized Irrigation(UDC 11-3A-15): Underground pressurized irrigation water is required to be provided as set forth in UDC 11- 3A-15. 2. Storm Drainage (UDC 11-3A-18): Storm drainage is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-18. 3. Utilities (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-21): Both the Plan and the UDC establish policy and regulations for extending and connecting to City utilities. Goal 3.03.03G of the Plan mandates urban infrastructure be provided for all new developments,including curb and gutter, sidewalks,water and sewer utilities.All utilities for the proposed development are required to be installed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-21. III. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. Meridian Planning Division 1. Future development of this site shall comply with the previous conditions of approval and terms of AZ-05-022; PP-05-054; CUP-05-050; and FP-06-012 and the conditions contained herein. 2. The site plan and/or landscape plan, as applicable, shall be revised with the certificate of zoning compliance application as follows: - The southern boundary of the site shall be revised to show a 10-foot landscape buffer which can include the 5 foot sidewalk as shown or apply for alternative compliance. - The landscape plan shall be revised to call out the ground coverage materials. 3. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application shall be submitted and approved for the proposed use prior to submittal of a building permit application. The design of the site and structure shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19;the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual and with the Development Agreement. 4. An easement vacation application shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of the building permit. 5. The conditional use permit is valid for a maximum period of two (2)years unless otherwise approved by the City. During this time,the Applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval,and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground as set forth in UDC 11-5B-6. A time extension may be requested asset forth in UDC 11-5B-6F. City of Meridian I Department Report III. City/Agency Comments &Conditions 130 B. Meridian Public Works Pl{NfPIXF C:ONU17'1{1NS Wastewater • drstancetoSewer Sewer AwaYableatsite 5erwices Sewer shed • kstimated Project see application Sewer ILRLJrs • WKHI Ueclinmg Balance r PFWctcansisteat Yes with WW Master F1anJF acilifty Plan • Imps CtS{CBiLCeFIFS • • See Public works Srte specific condrtmons Water lhstance to Water Wi ter Avadahle at Site Services • PFesscre 2nne w Unmated Project see applicaLmn water LKU's • WatertLkU" None • ProlectCansistent Yes wrth Water Master Plan ImpaeWiancerns I None-Please see Public Works me Specific C:ondrtions NON-PLAY CONDITI ONS PUm.IC.44'i1ws DIRAwmi--ir She Spaeifle Conditions of Approval 1. There i;an existing Auh leeatrdal the SW corner ofthc wile-Water roster mc&to connect within V from end ofAulk Call"mnwval ofthe Blnw-off.Water nxim ncod to be locatod in Im bdwaping arcs 2. Water services rcquirc a 21Y eascraca up to the water niter.The city roqueA that the i-mernent r.ncnd4 IQ'paxt tic water ffaerbut only S is FegtdFcd. 3. Single xtnx1 ue multi-tiuml unit,that am for rerdal Holy slwuld have a-angle City nxiw.Ifthe unity wil I he craned individually,then each needs a wat x meter. 4. Caup w6jnd other permaneni Anxfiarq(trace,huyhcx,buildings,irayh rouyAwla walLz,fcneea, infiltration trendius,light pole ems)cannot he hudt withk the utility Ea crncnt 5- Emmire no Scwersewices crass infiltratiantrcnchcs.kwer service lima through undtvg aund gwjycbcai {n swatles MM MPI zdlawtxi ko-rlmms UpMoVtd by dw Cicy P,rtigincer. 6. Water swAoea squire a 21Y eaurncni up in and LC'bcyond the meter or as Aorta to ICY i;poxxible- City of Meridian Department Report III. City/Agency Comments &Conditions 131 General C_andil;onx of Approws] I. Applicant xhAl 4x"dia"watcrarud seven main size and routing with the Public Works TAcparlrnrnL 2. PerMcridiart City Cade(MCC� the appLieant Rhall be rutpen LNc in kstall.RmW rand water mains to and through this deveLoprncnL AppliewA may he eligible for a rcimbwsm as agrocment for infrastruclurc enhwmin eni per MCC 9--Cr5. 3. The applicant;hall provide eascnwmt(s)for all public vwatalscwcr mains outside of public eight of way(includeMl.water vcraiccs and hydrants). Sewcrhwaicrcam uau varies depcndlrg an sewer depth.Sewer 420 fl deep require a 30 ft ca-%mcnft,2425 ft a 4U ft c m"nent,and 25-30 Ji a 45 ft casement- Ensure no pmronent-AnL&ures(trF bushee,wilding.auporK tra_;h romptacle walix,Cenem infiltration trencher:,light poles,etc.)arc hulk within the utility cavement_ Submii an execWed ca_w afar t(on the forni available from Public WorUy a legal du:cripiion prgnrcd by an Tdabo Iiccitwed Prof min onal Iand Surveyor,which must i ncludc the area of the cascmwl (mahad EXH I B F A)and an 8 J fit"a I I"reap with bearings suA diaisuees(marked EXHIBTT B) for review_Both exhihin mkLqi be sealed,signed and dated by a Prafed4enal band Smvcyee_DO N07 REMR]D. 4. The City oC Meridian requires that prexxurized i rrigatinn systcros he suppl icd by a year-round -A"cc of wwcr(IJDC L L-313-6).71he appLicaru should he rcquircdto use any cxistifng yurfaacor well water for the primary vimire. Tf a surface ar wdL ruwuce is fiat avaLLahiC asiFtgjcIXoifut connection lathe ckdinary wwersystera shall he required.If singLo-point conneetUm is ulilLmd, the developer will he rcypram- le far the paymcnt ofays.s r is far the caraff u areas prier to prior to receiving dcvclapmcnt plan apprewaL 5. Any sirtrlums that are allrwrod to remain shrill.he auhjeeito evaluation and pissiblc r aU1gnrncni of sweet addreskang to he in a mpLianec with MCC. G. All ird"ion ditchcx.canals,laterals,ordraim,cxdusivc-of natural waicrway�intcrsafiing, crossing or laying adj accart and eooi.igwcrus to the area heing subdi vidod shall.he addreimed pa TTDC l I-3A#ti In perforrni ng:weh work,&a appLic=xhall comply with Idaho Cade 42-1207 and any other applicable law err regulatiorL 7. Any wdLs that will.not cnNinue to be used must be properly ahandoncd according to Idaho WeLL Ccm.4mdion Standards Rulcs admi nisicred by the Idaho Departmcni of Water Ruwouram The J3cvclolxr's rngiucer�aLL proYidc astatomcinaddrerx�ing wbethtt there arc any ewisung wclLs in the dcvclopmcrct,and Lfse,how they wLLI continue to he used,or provide reeaxd of their abandonrncnL R. Any cxLRUag Rq*c system~within this project shall he rmoycd from service F"C'rty{7r1inanar Seeiion 4-L-4 and9 4 R_ CorctactCrntral DLsirict]3ealth fix abandonment proeedrursand inspcetmam(208)37--5211_ 9. All imprcwcrnentc rdated to public Life,aafcty and hcalth duLl he completed prinrto oearpanoy of the 4ngtares. 10. Applicant shall be roquired to pay Publie Wcwb&%.cicgmmrrt plan review,and eonshtrciien inslwciian Fecm,asdelermincddwingthe pLan review prouyr,priorw Ose issuanoeofa plan approval letter- Ill. It shall he the responsibility of the appLie"to ensure that all dcvcLopnxnt features compLy with the Arncrieans with Diaahilitin Act and the Fair Hmuw ng Act. 12. AppLicant shall be nespon_ciNc for application wJ oornpl iarxe with any&cetion 4141 Permitting that Fray he roquirid by the Arnr}Corpsof FjLgjne 13. Dcvcloper shall crwudinme Fnailhox Locatim%with the Meridian Post(Hrim. 14. Caupaclion test rcsuLts~hall be suhmitied to the Meridian BuiLdl ng Depautnwni for all bui Iding pads fewiuingengjneeredbackfFLl,where footing would sit atop FiLl material_ City of Meridian Department Report III. City/Agency Comments &Conditions 132 15. The deM p enginoer:shall he required t0 certify drat the strut centurlinc cJcvauow arc sct a minimum of 3-fecl ahma the highest etitahlishad peak grmrwtwaicrcicuation. This is I6 ensure that the hcaarn elevationofthe crawl spaces of horncs is at Least l-foot abow- I& The•applimeantu design cnginear shell he rmpoasihla for inmpedion of al.L irrigation arxViar drainage facility within this payees that do not fall.under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or AC.WF)_The design engineer shall pri vide certification that Ibc fwjhtics have been insraLlod in acconiwNx withthe approved,design plank This maification will be rcquircd befcwc a oertificstc of occupancy is issual for any stntawiy,within Oic Fina oat 17. At the completion of the preyecC the applicant shall.he mFwwLsih1e to Fmhmit rcoord drawings per the City of Meridian AutnCAD standards- 7bew nemcd drawing mum be r=lvai and approved prior to the Lwwnoacfacertification cnf nocupaney f w any smeftiru within the penjxt 18. A suca I ight plan will nocd to Inc inelud3d in the civil consu=tion plans_Stmx Light plan requirarMnls are Iistad in saet m 6-5 ofthe Impmvcment%mcl ids for Streit 1_12hting.A crquy of Ohe sianderds mn be fatwd a!http:r7uvrw.rncridianeLty.crrg+publiti_wcwlrs.mpx?id-272_ 19. The City of Meridian requires that the owner past to the City a perfarmanee marry in the anuaLFuL of 125%cf tho total czirtsui kern cc at for all.inwmpLae sewer,water and reuse i.nfra_evuchue prior to final plat signamm-This surety will he verified by a Line item cost esLimatc provided by the owner is the City.The surety can be p4*"in the farm ofan irFevocable Lewf of credit,cash dcpnsit at bond-AppLicartt roust file an appLickan frrr surety,which can be frwid Lon the Community Dcvelopmer t DeparW nt wcbsite. Picric erwrtack I-and Fkydnprreait Service fix miwre Lnfixmation at 887-22L L. W. The City of Mesidian rcquims chat the owner post in the City a warranty surety in the amrwiniof 20%of the Ic"L fi{KL9nrCtiori cost for all.oompk%ed mwa,water and mm:c infiragr+ct rc far duration oftwo yrars.This surety wil.l.be vaified by a line item aku cdlinvW prrn idad by the owner lit the City.Ths surety can ho Fnujid in the form-afar irrcvomW Ldtar of creaks,cash dcpnsit err bond_AppLieant must file an appLieatirwi frrr surcry,which can be found nit the Community Dcvelopmcnt Departnxru wchsite. Picric erwrtaet I-and Deatlnprr mt Service fix maw infcwmation at 897-22L L. IV. FINDINGS A. Conditional Use(UDC 11-513-6E) The commission shall base its determination on the conditional use permit request upon the following: 1. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. Staff finds the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meets all dimensional and development regulations of the recommended L-O zoning district. 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian comprehensive plan and in accord with the requirements of this title. Staff finds the proposed office use will be harmonious with the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with applicable UDC standards with the conditions noted in Section IV of this report. 3. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. Staff finds the design, construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed use should be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood, with the existing and intended character of the vicinity and will not adversely change the essential character of the area. 4. That the proposed use,if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed,will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. Stafffinds the proposed use will not adversely affect other properties in the vicinity if it complies with the conditions in Section IV of this report. City of Meridian I Department Report IV. Findings 133 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools,parks,police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal,water,and sewer. Stafffinds the proposed use will be served by essential public facilities and services as required. 6. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. Staff finds the proposed use will not create additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. 7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes,materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic,noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. Staff finds the proposed use will not be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by the reasons noted above. 8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction,loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. Staff finds the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any such features. 9. Additional findings for the alteration or extension of a nonconforming use: This finding is not applicable. 10. That the proposed nonconforming use does not encourage or set a precedent for additional nonconforming uses within the area; and, This finding is not applicable. 11. That the proposed nonconforming use is developed to a similar or greater level of conformity with the development standards as set forth in this title as compared to the level of development of the surrounding properties. This finding is not applicable. IV. ACTION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed CUP application and finds it in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan,UDC with the conditions included in Section IV. and Findings in V. B. Commission: Pending City of Meridian I Department Report IV. Action 134 V. EXHIBITS A. ProjectAreaMaps Overview)(link to Project 1. Aerial Legend ProArea of Impact Analysis ject ;' ' � 11 �'�' •"'� 2. Zoning w 4 - i �'®g _i�ei4 // .ter �t �''•.(%° t. ► o .• Legend CLIC pltlunlnl+gl+mum ii Inen1111 0 .:... Project Location •fI;{ .T.�IIIINIItlp ' Area of Impact t 1-111111•q. �.�� • 11111\,�111 • • 4II� Analysis l�{l ll. 1 PINE L= r IT ������ ■� �`' FRANKLIN ■I■■■■■ ■■■■■1 W n + III■■■■■■■ ■_■\ //J��1 V-1IVIZ L _ W ._ �•�.'.;.�: _"_�• �: luny �i•��hnC � �fi 'rrun 1�►� � e MeridianCity of •, Report 3. Future Land Use Legend mmercial High De Project Location ®Reside 0 ,.. Area of Impact — ty 0 Analysis �Res! e .ntiah CIVIC General 4 Industrial Low:.Density � Residential ; - ® MU-C ' ® Qffice f MU-RG 4. Planned Development Map Legend Project Location "F City Limits Planned Parcels Area of Impact I OAnalysis --� -�—� 1 O I ® o r f� 1 1 1 1 f City of Meridian Department Report V. Exhibits 136 B. Site Plan(date: 3/13/2026) F --1 MUCEINSTRILICTMEC I THE MEPJDLAN OFFICE BOILING I MARCH 13,202E COW-ACT INFORMATION: SITE IWORMATRID& SINEETIN13TEE, cr, ---------- I• L 7 Ad&e. A CIWIL SITE MAN DISIEWN-NEW1 01101j City of Meridian Department Report V. Exhibits 137] C. Landscape Plan(date: 3/13/2026) MIr CONSTIUJCTION•mc. TILE MOIDN.NOFFICE BUILDING %NtCN 13.20L215 LANDSCAPE LECENo- ♦ ti f �7 L r 4 wr IN ~LANDSCAPE N6TE5: -- $ ------ - 7 e s• hs --------------- W&lam .P- w 25M.D u".le�I Llm Ic I•-IP'Q D. Building Elevations(date: 3/13/2026) 1.YfTCONS7RUCIlON,INC [ T]IC AIEBE61AF41 OFFICE BUILOtkG t MARtlI Li,IOH I 1 EAST ELEVATION L SPUTA ELEVATION J ' �uRD 4W65TELEVAT"m 3n IEIEVAT"m MATOUAL LEGEN6 EXTERIORE"ATIONS lsm.m OEM&BEDEW I EIRM City of Meridian Department Report V. Exhibits F138] Development Application Transmittal Link to Project Application: Meridian Office Building H-2026-0020 Hearing Date: July 2, 2026 Assigned Planner: Nick Napoli 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: 208.888.44331Email: cityclerk(cD_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. 139 W IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Regency at River Valley Phase 3 (H-2026-0010) by Bach Homes, located at 3270 E. River Valley St. A. Request: Modified Development Agreement to the existing development agreement (SGI Inst.#113005608 & Bach Storage Inst. #2020-062947) to remove the subject property from the existing agreements and enter into a new agreement with a change to the conceptual development plan and use from an indoor self-service storage facility and retail store (Option A) or drive-through restaurant (Option B) to two (2) multi-family buildings with 88 dwelling units. B. Request: Conditional Use Permit for an 88-unit, multi-family development on 2.57 acres of land in the C-C and C-G zoning districts. 140 F-� l0 00 V C1 Ln .p W N O N \ N c n � �• � CD � A fD cr � � A Ul v1 b CL N -v Ln N _ CD c z m. N O rz N � d1 O O f-, a o � O � v v x o � v D (D X v m X (D 0q m o c 0) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT C�E IDIAN*_ - DEPARTMENT REPORT °AHO HEARING 7/2/2026 —' P DATE: E 1E<LNA F z u TO: Planning&Zoning Commission - E MOD[- FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner Lti w a' 208-884-5533 - -- fIFSLiE60. sallen@meridiancity.org E GB AM[ APPLICANT: Derek Rindlisbacher,Bach Homes ma SUBJECT: Regency at River Valley Phase 3 — F Ri ALLl,M CUP,MDA H-2026-0010 t g Y as LOCATION: 3270 E. River Valley St.,in the NW 1/4 EY,LtnceEOR of Section 4,T.3N.,R.IE. (Parcels: 55 S1104233975, S1104234010 & $'F R7476320020) ELtiw,"G LH FASONRR� 4RY LN I. PROJECT OVERVIEW A. Summary Modification to the existing development agreements(SGI Inst. #113005608 &Bach Storage Inst. #2020-062947)to remove the subject property from the existing agreements and enter into a new agreement with a change to the conceptual development plan and use from an indoor self- service storage facility,and retail store(Option A) or drive-through restaurant(Option B),to two (2)multi-family buildings with 88 dwelling units; and conditional use permit for an 88-unit multi- family development on 2.57 acres of land in the C-C and C-G zoning districts, B. Issues/Waivers No waivers are requested from UDC standards. Overall, off-street parking for Phases 1, 2 and 3 is short 11 parking spaces—revisions will either be needed to the plans to accommodate additional parking on this site for the spaces lost in Phase 1 or alternative compliance may be requested to the standards in UDC Table 11-3C-6 for multi-family dwellings per UDC 11-513-5. The proposed 4-story buildings are not compatible with the existing development pattern along this segment of N. Eagle Road/SH-55. The project is immediately adjacent to one-story commercial buildings(with higher parapets)to the north and south and does not provide an adequate transition in building height,massing, or scale. As a result,the proposal would create an abrupt height disparity with neighboring properties and would adversely alter the existing character of the corridor. The Comprehensive Plan emphasizes compatibility between adjoining developments, preservation of community character, and the use of transitions between differing intensities and building forms. The Plan also emphasizes residential and non-residential areas within mixed-use designated areas should feel cohesive and integrated—the proposed apartment buildings appear City of Meridian I Department Report 1. Project Overview 141 visually disconnected from the surrounding commercial corridor and overwhelms adjacent structures. High-density residential immediately adjacent to a state highway/major transportation corridor, presents significant concerns related to quality of life and the health and well-being of future residents due to vehicle emissions and noise exposure. Additional concerns include existing congestion,limited access options, and u-turn movements already present on East River Valley Drive,which may be exacerbated by the level of density proposed. Staff finds the proposal is inconsistent with the Plan and would adversely change the essential character of the area. For the above reasons, Staff is of the opinion the current entitlement for an indoor storage facility is a more appropriate use than the proposed multi-family development and is of the opinion it's not in the City's best interest to modify the existing development agreement as proposed. C. Recommendation Planning Division: Staff recommends denial of the Development Agreement Modification and consequently the Conditional Use Permit per the Analysis in Section III and the Findings in Section IV below. Planning and Zoning Commission: Pending D. Decision City Council: Pending E. Table of Contents Community Metrics.............................................................................. II StaffAnalysis..................................................................................... III City/Agency Comments and Conditions...................................................... IV Findings............................................................................................ V Action.............................................................................................. VI Exhibits............................................................................................ VII I1. COMMUNITY METRICS Table 1: Land Use Description Details Map Ref. Existing Land Use(s) Vacant/undeveloped land - Proposed Land Use(s) Multi-family residential apartments - Existing Zoning C-C and C-G V11.A.2 Adopted FLUM Designation Mixed Use—Regional(MU-R) VII.A.3 Table 2:Proiect Overview Description Details History AZ-12-010(SGI—Development Agreement Inst.#113005608);H-2019- 0121 (Bach Storage—Development Agreement Inst.#2020-062947);H- 2021-0059 [Regency at River Valley Phase 3—MDA(denied)];H-2022- r 0057 [Regency at River Valley Phase 3—MDA(denied)] Acreage 2.57 City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics 142 Table 3: Process Facts Description Details Preapplication Meeting date 2/27/2026 Neighborhood Meeting 2/3/2026 Table 4: Agency Comments Agency/Element Description/Issue Reference Ada County Highway District IV.E • Comments Received Yes - • Commission Action Required No - • Access E.River Valley,no access via N.Eagle Rd. - • Traffic Level of Service Not provided ITD Comments Received No IVY Meridian Public Works Wastewater IV.B • Distance to Mainline Available at the site • Impacts or Concerns See Site Specific Comments Meridian Public Works Water IV.B • Distance to Mainline Available at the site • Impacts or Concerns No Note: See section IV City/Agency Comments&Conditions for comments received or see the public record. Paste the following link into your browser to access the public record: https:llweblink.meridianciiy.orglWebLink/browse.aspx?id=445120&dbid=0&repo=Meridian CitX III. STAFF ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code(UDC) A. History There are two(2)existing Development Agreements in effect that govern future development of the subject properties(AZ-12-010 Inst. #113005608; H-2019-0121 Inst. #2020-062947). The existing approved development plan for the northern part of the subject property is a 3-story self- service storage facility and the existing approved development plan for the southern part of the subject property is retail(Option A) or a drive-through restaurant(Option B). Two (2)previous development agreement modification applications for Regency at River Valley Phase 3 multi-family developments were denied for this property in 2021 (H-2021-0059)and 2022 (H-2021-0059). The application in 2021 was for one(1) 134-unit 5-story multi-family apartment building with podium parking on the first floor. The application in 2022 was for one (1) 128-unit 5-story multi-family apartment building,also with podium parking on the first floor. The reasons for denial cited by City Council were as follows: H-2021-0059: • City Council denied the requested DA modification as presented during the hearing due to the following reasons: not having the access with some of the contiguous properties to the north adequately"flushed out"; issues with traffic and parking and associated traffic circulation; and not the right time for the City to approve the modification. Concept plan below: City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 143 AIE{NW'. �I g� 9 €� I� 65 RIVER VALLEY PH.3-2500 N Eagle Rd.Meridian,I &OL 1 8 E:I'N 4' H-2022-0057: • The proposed multi-family apartments would rely,in part, on the existing multi- family apartment complex to the east of the property for ingress&egress; • Traffic circulation within the existing apartment complex is difficult,creating concerns for tenants,the Meridian Fire Dept. and the general public. The proposed multi-family development would compound these existing concerns. • Ingress to the existing apartment complex is difficult due to the volume of traffic on E. River Valley Street,the prohibition of certain turning movements on E. River Valley St.,and the design of the primary entrance to the existing apartment complex, which includes a roundabout. The proposed apartments would compound these existing concerns. • Egress from the existing apartment complex is already challenging due to the volume of traffic on E. River Valley St. and the design of the street,particularly for vehicles proceeding south on N. Eagle Rd. The Applicant's proposed project,which includes a new point of egress near the intersection of E. River Valley St. and N. Eagle Rd., would compound these existing concerns. • The Applicant failed to demonstrate that the proposed modifications,which would change the development plan for the site from self-service storage to multi-family apartments, is superior to the existing development agreement. • Based on the forgoing, it was determined by City Council to not be in the City's best interest to modify the existing agreements. Concept plan below: City of Meridian I Department Report 111. Staff Analysis 144 L a RIVER VALLEY PH.3-2500 N Eagle Rd.Meridian,ID Scn r.W B. General Overview The Future Land Use Map(FLUM)designation for this property is Mixed Use—Regional(MU- R). The purpose of this designation is to provide a mix of employment,retail,residential dwellings, and public uses near major arterial intersections. A modification to the existing Development Agreements(DA's)is proposed to remove the subject property from the existing agreements and enter into a new agreement with a change to the conceptual development plans and uses from an indoor self-service storage facility on the northern portion of the property and retail store(Option A) or drive-through restaurant(Option B) on the southern portion of the property to two(2)4-story multi-family apartment buildings with a total of 88 dwelling units. The Applicant's reason for requesting a modification is that a market analysis they did shows the market is expected to fully absorb the 2023-2025 surplus by late 2026-2027, leaving the proposed units to help with demand in late 2028. Further analysis revealed an over saturation of storage units, especially in Idaho. The combination of these data points led to the Applicant's desire to expand the existing apartment complex rather than develop the site with a storage facility. A Conditional Use Permit(CUP)is also proposed for approval of the use, contingent upon approval of the modification to the DA's, for an 88-unit multi-family development on 2.57 acres of land in the C-C and C-G zoning districts as required by UDC Table 11-2B-2. The proposed buildings will be constructed concurrently in one phase This development is proposed to be an expansion of the two(2) earlier phases of Regency at River Valley directly to the east of this property. The proposed conceptual development plan is included below. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 145 _ aim, _ -- oenv The proposed conceptual development plan depicts better vehicular connectivity to the east with the existing apartment complex,which allows emergency access to be provided via Records Ave. and River Valley. An emergency access drive was anticipated to be provided from the north if residential uses were to develop on this site but one isn't proposed and may not be required by the Fire Dept. if access via Records Ave. through the adjacent development is deemed to be sufficient. Many of the same circumstances still exist that were previous reasons for denial of a multi-family development on this site, including issues with traffic circulation and ingress/egress within and to/from the existing apartment complex to the east due to the high volume of traffic &restricted turning movements on E. River Valley St. and the design of the primary entrance to the existing apartment complex with a roundabout,which will be compounded by adding another phase with more units and another access for the proposed/existing apartment complex via River Valley. There are already at least 802 apartment units within a 1/4 mile of this site on the east side of Eagle Rd./SH-55 [i.e. Regency at River Valley Phases 1 and 2 to the east(300 units),Village Apartments to the northeast(336 units)and Village at Meridian to the southeast(166 units)], none of which are located directly along the state highway. The Applicant's narrative states a market analysis they did shows the 2023-2025 surplus of apartments in Meridian will be absorbed by late 2026-2027 and the additional proposed units will help with demand in 2028. The form of the proposed structures at 4-stories in height doesn't provide an adequate transition to existing single-story(with higher parapet) commercial structures to the north and south along Eagle Rd.A transition in building height should be provided from the commercial structures and the Eagle Road corridor to the 4-story buildings directly to the east. Staff has concerns regarding the appropriateness of high-density residential immediately adjacent to a state highway/major transportation corridor,particularly related to quality of life and the health and well-being of future residents due to vehicle emissions and noise exposure. Because the proposed buildings are 4-stories in height,the 10' tall berm and wall required for noise abatement for residential uses adjacent to a state highway will not provide an adequate buffer. Additional concerns include existing congestion,limited access options, and u-turn movements City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 146 already present on East River Valley Drive,which may be exacerbated by the level of density proposed. For the above reasons, Staff is of the opinion the current entitlement for an indoor storage facility is a more appropriate use than the proposed multi-family development and is of the opinion it's not in the City's best interest to modify the existing development agreement as proposed. C. Comprehensive Plan Policies • "Permit new development only where it can be adequately served by critical public facilities and urban services at the time of final approval, and in accord with any adopted levels of service for public facilities and services."(3.03.03F) City water and sewer services are available and can be extended by the developer with development in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. • "Require all new development to create a site design compatible with surrounding uses through buffering, screening,transitional densities, and other best site design practices." (3.07.01A) The design of the proposed buildings isn't compatible with adjacent commercial buildings along the Eagle Road corridor inform or height and doesn't provide a transition to the 4- story multi family buildings to the east;screening is proposed with a 10'tall berm &wall and landscaping within the street buffer along Eagle Road but will likely not be sufficient to screen 4-story buildings. • "Protect public health and safety by guiding growth and development away from hazardous areas that pose a threat to people and property."(4.10.00) The proposed site layout situates multi family housing directly adjacent to the state highway, which will expose residents to vehicle emissions and have a negative impact on public health and quality of life. • "Encourage compatible uses and site design to minimize conflicts and maximize use of land." (3.07.00) There is no transition in uses between existing commercial businesses to the north and south and the proposed multi family residential development; however, the nature of the existing uses (retail stores)shouldn't negatively impact residents. The noise and emissions from traffic on Eagle Rd./SH-SS isn't compatible with residential uses. The proposed site design with 4-story structures adjacent to single-story structures (with higher parapets) maximizes land but creates a significant height disparity between structures along the Eagle Road corridor. • "Require appropriate building design,and landscaping elements to buffer, screen,beautify, and integrate commercial,multifamily, and parking lots into existing neighborhoods." (5.01.02D) The proposed 4-story structures do not integrate well with existing single-story commercial structures to the north and south along Eagle Rd., creating a height disparity between structures along the entryway corridor. Landscaping and a 10'tall berm and wall is proposed within the street buffer; however, with the building height proposed, it provides for little screening. • "Ensure development is connected to City of Meridian water and sanitary sewer systems and the extension to and through said developments are constructed in conformance with the City of Meridian Water and Sewer System Master Plans in effect at the time of development." City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 147 (3.03.03A) The proposed development will connect to City water and sewer systems;services are required to be provided to and through this development in accord with current City plans. • "Encourage the safety,health, and well-being of the community."(5.01.01) The proposed development will increase the already high volume of traffic in this area and traffic circulation issues creating additional safety concerns. Situating apartments directly next to a state highway presents noise and air quality concerns for its residents and will not contribute to the well-being of the community. • "Require urban infrastructure be provided for all new developments, including curb and gutter, sidewalks,water and sewer utilities."(3.03.03G) Urban sewer and water infrastructure will be provided to the proposed development; curb, gutter and sidewalks will be constructed with development along N. Eagle Rd.ISH--55. • "Slow the outward progression of the City's limits by discouraging fringe area development; encourage development of vacant or underutilized parcels currently within City limits." (4.05.03B) Development of the subject vacant land, currently in the City limits, is encouraged over parcels on the fringe of the City. The development of this property will result in better provision of City services. Per the 2022 Existing Conditions Report, addendum to the City's Comprehensive Plan,Air Quality is also worse near highways, with disproportionate amounts of particulate matter, carbon monoxide, and oxides of nitrogen discharged into the air from vehicle exhaust systems, evaporative emissions, and debris. Infants, elderly, and those with preexisting cardiopulmonary disease and lower socioeconomic status are at higher risk without mitigation. (p. 5-11) D. Site Development and Use Analysis 1. Existing Structures/Site Improvements (UDC 11-1): There are no existing structures on this site. 2. Proposed Use Analysis (UDC 11-2): Multi family developments are listed as a conditional use in the C-C and C-G zoning districts, subject to the specific use standards for such in UDC 11-4-3-27—see analysis below for compliance with those standards. However, without a modification to the DA to change the entitled use of the property, a multi family development is not allowed. 3. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): The proposed development is required to comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2B-3 for the C-C and C-G zoning districts, as applicable. 4. Specific Use Standards (UDC 11-4-3-1): The proposed multi-family development is subject to the specific use standards in UDC 11-4- 3-27, as follows: (Staffs analysis of compliance with these standards is in italic text) B. Site design 1. Residential buildings shall provide a minimum setback of ten(10)feet unless a greater setback is otherwise required by this title and/or Title 10 of this Code. Building setbacks shall take into account windows, entrances,porches and patios, City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 148 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.A trash enclosure is depicted on the site plan at the south end of the development at the entry to the site, which is visible from River Valley St. A detail of the trash enclosure should be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance that depicts doors that screen the enclosure from the public street. 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 site plan states a minimum of 80 sf ofprivate usable open space is provided per unit consisting of patios and balconies. The floor plans submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application should depict the square footage ofprivate open space areas that demonstrate compliance with this standard. 4. For the purposes of this section,vehicular circulation areas,parking areas,and private usable open space shall not be considered common open space.None of these areas are included in the common open space. 5. No recreational vehicles, snowmobiles,boats or other personal recreation vehicles shall be stored on the site unless provided for in a separate, designated and screened area. Comply with this standard. 6. The parking shall meet the requirements set forth in Chapter 3, "Regulations Applying to All Districts",of this title. The proposed parking complies with these standards (see Section III.D. 4 below for more information). 7. Developments with twenty(20)units or more shall provide the following: a. A property management office. b. A maintenance storage area. c. A central mailbox location, including provisions for parcel mail, that provide safe pedestrian and/or vehicular access. d. A directory and map of the development at an entrance or convenient location for those entering the development. These items are not depicted on the site plan. The Applicant states the property management office, maintenance storage area and mailboxes will be in the clubhouse in the existing apartment complex and the existing directory&map will be updated with Phase 3 information. Staff recommends a directory& map be provided at the entry to Phase 3 from River Valley St. if 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- City of Meridian Department Report III. Staff Analysis 149 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 2.57 acres of land; therefore, the baseline requirement is not applicable. 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 primary common open space area is located at the northwest corner of the development, rather than centrally within the development, but is accessible by pedestrian pathways and a parking area. Linear open space with a walking trail is proposed along the west boundary of the site adjacent to the street buffer along Eagle Rd./SH--55.All common open space areas have high visibility from the apartments, drives and parking areas. 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. City of Meridian Department Report III. Staff Analysis 150 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. The area depicted as "Open Space 1"is the only large open space area on this site and is 7,342 sf. in area, including common open space where a walking trail is located leading to the common area. The common area is encumbered by a dog park and water feature with a sitting area so it doesn't meet the grassy area requirement. The Applicant should submit an overall open space exhibit for Phases 1,2 and 3 that demonstrates compliance with this standard for the overall development if the Commission and/or Council directs Staff to prepare conditions of approval. 5. In addition to the baseline open space requirement,a minimum area of outdoor common open space shall be provided as follows: a. One hundred fifty(150) square feet for each unit containing five hundred (500)or less square feet of living area. 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. A total of 20 units have 500 sf or less; 68 have between 500 and 1,200 sf.; therefore, a minimum of 20,000 sf. (or 0.46 acre) of open space is required. An open space exhibit was submitted, included below in Section FILL, that depicts a total of 21,751 sf is provided consisting of half the street buffer along the arterial street(i.e. Eagle Rd.ISH--55), linear open space, and common open space area. Because the exhibit is not scaleable it's unclear to Staff if the areas in Open Space I and 2 where the walking trails are located are a minimum of 20'in width to be qualified open space. The Applicant states Phase 3 residents will have access to the common area and amenities in Phases 1 and 2 through a shared amenity agreement;a copy of this agreement should be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application if approved. The Applicant should submit an overall open space exhibit for Phases 1,2 and 3 that demonstrates compliance with the open space standards if the Commission and/or Council directs Staff to prepare conditions of approval. 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.It appears some of the area in Open Space I and 2 where the walking trails are located are less than 20'in width;if so, they don't qualify toward the minimum open space requirements. The Applicant should submit an overall open space exhibit for Phases 1, 2 and 3 that demonstrates compliance with this standard if the Commission and/or Council directs Staff to prepare conditions of approval. 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. City of Meridian Department Report III. Staff Analysis 151 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 N. Eagle Rd./SH--55 will be separated from the street by a 2'tall berm and 8'tall sound wall. 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 11-3B, Landscaping Requirements; b. Multi-use pathways; C. Enhanced amenities with social interaction characteristics; d. Enhanced context with the surroundings. Because the landscape buffer along the arterial street(i.e. N. Eagle Rd.ISH-SS) is counted toward the required common open space, compliance with these standards is required. Ten-foot-wide multi-use pathways are proposed along both the arterial and collector streets. If the use is approved, the landscape plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application should include details that demonstrate compliance with this standard. D. Site development amenities 1. All multi-family developments shall provide for quality of life, open space and recreation amenities to meet the particular needs of the residents as follows: a. Quality of life. (1) Clubhouse (2) Fitness facilities (3) Enclosed bike storage (4) Public art such as a statue (5) Dog park with waste station (6) Commercial outdoor kitchen (7) Fitness course (8) Enclosed storage b. Open space (1) Community garden (2) Ponds or water features (3) Plaza (4) Picnic area including tables,benches, landscaping and a structure for shade. C. Recreation City of Meridian Department Report III. Staff Analysis 152 (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. A total of 88 units are proposed; therefore, a minimum of four(4) amenities are required with at least one (])from each category. The following amenities are proposed from each of the required categories in accord with the standard: Quality of life: dog park(a waste station is required to be provided) Open space: water feature with a seating area Recreation: walking trails Multi-modal: (2) charging stations for electric vehicles 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. City of Meridian Department Report III. Staff Analysis 153 b. For every three(3)linear feet of foundation, an evergreen shrub having a minimum mature height of twenty-four(24)inches shall be planted. c. Ground cover plants shall be planted in the remainder of the landscaped area. The landscape plan depicts landscaping along building foundations but a plant schedule or calculations table is not included to determine compliance. If the use is approved, the landscape plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance should clearly 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. E. Design Standards Analysis 1. Structure and Site Design Standards (UDC 11-3A-19): There are no existing structures on this site. There is an existing 10'wide detached sidewalk and street buffer along E. River Valley St. Future development of the site is required to comply with the structure and site design standards in UDC 11-3A-19 and the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual. 2. Lighting(UDC 11-3A-11) Outdoor lighting should comply with the standards in UDC 11-3A-11. Pedestrian lighting is required along the multi-use pathway adjacent to N.Eagle Rd./SH-55 as set forth in UDC 11-3H-4C.3 (see standards for specific details). 3. Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): Landscape buffers along streets UDC Requirement Proposed/Analysis Arterial Road/entryway A 38.5'wide street buffer is proposed as depicted on the corridor: 35' (Eagle cross-section included on the elevation plan sheet in accord Rd./SH-55) with UDC standards;and a 20'wide buffer exists along Collector street: 20' River Valley. (River Valley) The Applicant is proposing water conserving landscaping within the street buffer along N.Eagle Rd./SH-55,which must comply with the standards in UDC 11-3B-50. The buffer is also required to comply with the enhanced buffer standards listed in UDC 11- 3B-7C.3f and 11-4-3-27C.9—include call-outs/details on what is proposed toward these City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 154 requirements. The street buffer along E. River Valley St.was installed with previous development. Parking lot landscaping Landscaping is required to be provided in and around the perimeter of all parking areas per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8. Storm integration 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. Development will be required to meet UDC 11-3B-11 for stormwater integration. 4. Parking (UDC 11-3C): Multi-family residential parking analysis (see UDC Table 11-3C-6,Multi-family Dwelling) UDC Requirement Proposed/Analysis Studio(1 space) A total of 143 spaces are proposed with 68 of those being 1 bedroom(1.5 spaces) covered spaces,which meets the minimum standard. 2 bedrooms(2 spaces) Guest parking(1 per 10 units) Based on 20 studio,44 1- bedroom and 24 2- bedroom units,a minimum of 143 spaces are required,including guest parking,with 58 of those being covered in a garage or carport. The overall site plan notes a total of nine(9)parking spaces were eliminated along the west boundary of Phase 1 that abuts this phase to accommodate cross-access drives.A parking analysis for the overall development is included—a total of 762 spaces are required, a total of 751 are provided,which is 11 fewer than the minimum required number.If Commission/Council decides to approve this application,revisions are needed to the site plan to accommodate the additional spaces on this site in order to comply with the minimum parking required for the overall development. 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. A minimum of six (6)spaces are required based on the minimum number of spaces required. The applicant is proposing two bicycle racks—one at each of the buildings— with a total of six(6) bicycle parking spaces in accord with this standard. 5. Building Elevations (Architectural Standards Manual): Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed structures as shown in Section VII.G. Two (2) 4-story 44-unit apartment buildings are proposed. Perspective drawings were also submitted that are included in the project file("Presentation for PZ City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 155 Meeting"). Building materials consist of stucco and fiber cement board and batten siding with stone veneer accents. Final design is required to comply with the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual. 6. Fencing (UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): Noise abatement is required for residential uses along state highways per the standards in UDC 11-3H-4D. An 8'tall pre-cast sound wall is proposed within the street buffer along N. Eagle Rd./SH--55 on top of a 2'tall berm.A cross-section of the street buffer depicting the location of the wall is included below in Section VII.G and VII.J that depicts the top of the berm/wall to be 10'higher than the elevation at the centerline of the state highway as required. An exhibit should be submitted that demonstrates compliance with all of the required standards along with a detail of the wall that demonstrates it's a sound attenuating material. If the use is approved,Staff recommends the multi family apartment buildings incorporate sound-attenuating construction materials and design features sufficient to achieve an interior noise level of 45 dBA Ldn/CNEL or less in all habitable rooms, as verified by an acoustical analysis prepared by a qualified professional. Building permits should not be issued until compliance with this standard has been demonstrated. F. Transportation Analysis ACHD has reviewed this application and has determined there are no improvements required to the adjacent streets with development of this property as proposed. Comments have not been received from ITD,who has jurisdiction over SH-55. 1. Access (UDC 11-3A-3, UDC 11-3H-4): A right-in/right-out access is proposed via E. River Valley St., a collector street along the southern boundary of the site; no access is proposed or allowed via N. Eagle Rd./SH--55. Access is also proposed through the adjacent Regency at River Valley apartment complex to the east under the same ownership via the main access to that development from E. River Valley St., which is a full-access and from N. Records Ave. to the east, also a full-access.A reciprocal cross-access/ingress-egress easement will be required with the property to the east if approved. The property to the north was required to grant emergency vehicle access to this property if developed with a residential use (H-2022-0009 Copper Canary—DA Inst. #2022-048293). The site plan does not depict an access drive from the north; the Fire Dept. will determine if this access is still necessary with access available through the adjacent development to the east via Records Ave. 2. Pedestrian Connectivity (UDC 11-3A-5, UDC 11-3A-8, UDC 11-3A-17): There is an existing 10'wide detached pathway/sidewalk along E. River Valley St.; no sidewalk exists along N. Eagle Rd./SH--55.A 10'wide detached multi-use pathway is proposed along N. Eagle Rd./SH--55 in accord with the Pathways Master Plan. If the pathway lies outside of ACHD's adjacent right-of-way for Eagle Rd., a 14'wide public pedestrian easement should be provided for the pathway as required by the Park's Dept. The pathway should align with and connect to the existing pathway segments to the north and south. The pathway on the property to the north stops short approximately 7 from the south boundary of that property. The Applicant should make a good faith effort to obtain permission from that land owner to complete the off-site portion of pathway to provide a continuous pathway along Eagle Rd.ISH-55 in this area. City of Meridian I Department Report 11I. Staff Analysis 156 Staff recommends a pedestrian connection is provided from the proposed development to the multi-use pathway if the project is approved. Internal walking paths/sidewalks are proposed within the development to common open space and parking areas and to the apartment complex to the east for interconnectivity. G. Services Analysis 1. Pressurized Irrigation(UDC 11-3A-1 S): The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water(UDC 11-3B-6). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single- point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single point connection is utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 2. Storm Drainage (UDC 11-3A-18): An adequate storm drainage system is required in all developments in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. Design and construction shall follow best management practice as adopted by the City as set forth in UDC 11-3A-18. 3. Utilities (UDC 11-3A-21): Ensure development is connected to City of Meridian water and sanitary sewer systems and the extension to and through said developments are constructed in conformance with the City of Meridian Water and Sewer System Master Plans in effect at the time of development. All utilities are available to the site. Water main,fire hydrant and water service require a twenty foot(20) wide easement that extends ten (10)feet past the end of main, hydrant, or water meter. No permanent structures, including trees and walls/fences, are allowed inside the easement. Existing sewer runs through the property.Any unused services shall be abandoned per the UDC. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 157 IV. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. Meridian Planning Division Staff is recommending denial of the proposed development agreement modification and consequently the conditional use permit applications;therefore, conditions of approval are not included. If the Commission and/or City Council determines the proposed development agreement modification 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 https:llweblink.meridiancity.orglWebLinkIDocView.aWx?id=445128&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lty C. Meridian Parks Department https:llweblink.meridiancity.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=445129&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty D. Idaho Department of Environmental Quality(DEQ) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=445554&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lty E. Ada County Highway District(ACHD) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=445673&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC iv F. City of Meridian School Impact Memo for West Ada School District https:llweblink.meridiancity.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=446171&dbid=0&rgpo=MeridianC hty G. Idaho Transportation Department(ITD) No comments were received City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions 158 V. FINDINGS Note:Approval of the Conditional Use Permit is contingent upon City Council's approval of a modification to the existing Development Agreement to allow the proposed use and development plan. A. Conditional Use(UDC 11-513-6E) The commission shall base its determination on the conditional use permit request upon the following: 1. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. Stafffinds the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the districts in which the use is located for this Phase; however, with the provision of cross-access to the existing development, a total of 9 spaces will be removed from Phase 1, resulting in a shortage of 11 spaces overall for the development. 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian comprehensive plan and in accord with the requirements of this title. Stafffinds that the proposed multi family development is consistent with certain policies of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan as it contributes to the mix of land uses and provides higher-density housing opportunities envisioned under the MU-R Future Land Use Map (FL UM)designation. The site's proximity to major transportation corridors and activity centers also supports the Plan's goals for concentrating higher-density residential development in appropriate locations near these corridors. However, the Comprehensive Plan also places significant emphasis on ensuring compatibility between adjacent developments through appropriate transitions in building height, massing, scale, and intensity, while protecting public health and safety. Stafffinds that the proposed 4- story buildings do not provide an adequate transition to the adjacent existing commercial development along the Eagle Road corridor. The proposed building height, massing, and overall scale are not compatible with development patterns along Eagle Rd./SH-SS and fail to achieve the level of transition contemplated by the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, Stafffinds that the location of residential units immediately adjacent to the state highway raises public health and safety concerns. Future residents may be exposed to reduced air quality associated with highway traffic, while existing traffic volumes and vehicular conflicts in the area present additional safety concerns. Therefore, while the proposed use is generally consistent with the site's MU-R future land use designation, Stafffinds that the proposed development is not harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan because it does not adequately address the Plan's policies regarding compatibility, appropriate transitions, and the protection of public health and safety. 3. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. Stafffinds that the proposed operation and maintenance of the use would be generally compatible with adjacent multifamily residential development to the east and commercial uses to the north and south. However, the proposed building design and scale are not compatible with the existing development pattern along N. Eagle Road. Specifically, the proposed building height and massing are substantially greater than the adjacent single-story City of Meridian I Department Report V. Findings 159 commercial buildings (with higher parapets) to the north and south, and the project does not provide an adequate transition in building height.As a result, the proposal would adversely alter the existing character of the corridor and is not consistent with the intended character of the general vicinity. Therefore, Staff finds that this criterion is not met. 4. That the proposed use,if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed,will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. Staff finds the proposed use as designed is not in the best interest of the City in the proposed location and recommends denial of the proposed development agreement modification and consequently the conditional use permit; therefore, conditions of approval are not included. 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools,parks,police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal,water,and sewer. Staff finds the proposed use could be adequately served by essential public facilities and services as required. The school impact data submitted by the Planning Dept. anticipates area schools could accommodate the extra 18 students estimated to be generated from this development and would still be under capacity. 6. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. Stafffinds the proposed use would not create additional costs for public facilities and services and would not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. 7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes,materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic,noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. Staff finds that the proposed use does not satisfy this criterion. The proposed use is expected to exacerbate existing traffic and congestion issues in the area by adding vehicle trips and increasing exhaust emissions that will adversely affect nearby residents and the general welfare. While the proposed use is not anticipated to generate excessive noise, smoke, glare, or odors, the increased traffic impacts are considered detrimental to persons,property, and the general welfare. 8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. Staff finds the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any such features. 9. Additional findings for the alteration or extension of a nonconforming use: Not applicable 10. That the proposed nonconforming use does not encourage or set a precedent for additional nonconforming uses within the area; and, Not applicable 11. That the proposed nonconforming use is developed to a similar or greater level of conformity with the development standards as set forth in this title as compared to the level of development of the surrounding properties. Not applicable City of Meridian I Department Report V. Findings 160 ' 1 r MJNL ,� •�{ I r I Fw I w 7 �III11111 C � -■■■ -,���-k ■1 ■ - 1 moll m■ { n nnu ! .m nmd IF ` uu1111ri "�' 11■11111 --- It,�I1Y�■■: � Ir • �.,. � ',01��f•��e►''=111P/1 Illlg1111 �.■o■ :_f ' , -_ tV■� p�f'•-1111::1 nnm nr��■�.■■■■•� � ,� ■���` �l room a i;►■In llm ��.h �r/ �nn■�■r ■■� 1 �uuq ti1111i� ��mA��ti/,■11 1111 11 w � ..■udill non:.. .muq ■■�� nll urrrr■�� r. :--Illun■ ■� � � -■Ip` �- .- wu111.===■1111 nor.:::■-= 1■ ■.� rrrr■ i �. � 111111:.:. I1111111��•-:�pll ■■11►r11111111 r�l'•rlllll■_ ■.i� La Illrll■1■IIIrsnoop ►r�■■■■n■1\t�� Irl:/� wrt■ Alm AM 11111 ■.�:ii:fir .���.�.�� nn�-nnnnnq ■is �:■■I+:NN 1■nn■u11111►r10 n■f�► lrt► 1/� `.non.nor■■111►� ■.�, NoIN IN NNN IN mom . .. IN .. 1 _ 1■ i11Y � ■i - • :.IIIIIIIII►\. w non _�Lmu T �,1■�■■,I III ,-�•�' ' .iu■ql■. 11 111111111111� iiil�l� ■- _t ■ luunnlr mill iJl- Cif ,�:�i�n "r' . IM i{►+nnu■ru+'1111�II ■111■1•Illllf i■■ululll ,,. 11111■1 111111111/�-.■■■■■i I ■■urr ii ii� �■ ■.��� 1 W �■IIIII�-ii� 'Illllmr�■� � i nu►JIIII ' ■��� � ✓`unn■non �rlll■■tl■1\\I +:ii:�'i� ►,-=.tea+ �`•�•`•� — Ji11111�� litii�■ III■111■■■■�■ � '■��- ■NN soon �■■■■■IIIIIIII/flu■1■1�►7i1■■.1,► ,� vu■■■.Ipuq#IDS ■■�■.*■■ r n■•�1l�►I111'Roam ::�'�ij111Br!r 1�nnn 1 � ■■� Doom FAIR' ' VIEWS - 1 "--noon=��-� ��W� .uuu � ■ -- ------�-- Innnn �■ � 'nuu �a ■■ Irii = ■ �G�nnnm►\`. ■■ � :uuwn III nnY � ��� �•� ■7" ��a7■ t■id iliTiri rv� �n�Ti�i=1^, �� r -1 � _p■III IIIII■III p� .In■�le•r -- !� �� _I�IIf 11111111111 i, _ _ Irr�;j ■=='1=_- r.. .� _n,ll llllllllna u " - � ��ar►r �I ...J ■uu■1 ■RIa� ���� �iGii�Gf JGiiiT� ��■■■�� ■{�;�■ iiiui:--�::moo ■��r + �� ■ ■111 urm■o� �-wdlli rt, n■..no me :=Illlu■,, r elf J. .■Igll`� �iiiiiiA L ■■■■►�IIIuo1\-n i111111� ..� 1l,� h I~�Illlu■nuc ��ee■eee■eelri: WWII nur1C::mom■-■-r-' �� �`'� ��Ir,�,;1111� mnoulllll/gym m..... a i► 1/ ■r■■-r■111■■r■I�11�'IIL._IIIIIIIIIIIII . �■. ,,i gler gr�l+/�ollfl /M�uuuwuuuu. .� ■■,/ ■■ ■ ��•• �miss 2 i,l FAd R.V,LE.W B. Service Accessibility Tool(Existing Conditions) PARCEL S1104234010 SERVICE ACCESSIBILITY Overall Score: th Percentile Criteria ■ ■ Location In City Limits Extension Sewer Trunkshed mains < 500 ft. from parcel ,Floodplain Either not within the 100 yr floodplain or > 2 acres (Emergency Services Fire Response time < S min. (Emergency Services Police Reporting District meets response time goals most of Pathways Within 1/4 mile of current pathways Transit Within 1/4 mile of current transit route Arterial Road Buildout Status Ultimate configuration (# of lanes in master streets plan) School Walking Proximity Within 1/2 mile walking School Drivability Either a High School or College within 2 miles OR a Park Walkability Either a Regional Park within 1 mile CAR a Community Report generated on 06-22-2026 by MERIDIAN`%sa,,en City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits 163 C. Subject Site Photos (from Google) View looking southeast from N. Eagle Rd.: sue` View looking north from E.River Valley St.: - : W 41 �. City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 164 D. Existing Conceptual Development Plans Included in Applicable Development Agreements SGI(AZ-12-010—Inst. #113005608) (south parcel): Option A: Pro'ect Calculations rmr..ve- I I I Ou I 1 I I Fieiai Bldg -�', O- `•,® 1 I �a,ax c7 I I xeoa -Q �IF r17 I I I I 4 S I 9 I I _ -- Illllll�lldllllllllllllll� � a� � . �s ♦ —_ r wraneuFrsll�r ,r r-� e 1 �i1 Landscape Plan-Option A L1._i2 +:Liter + ■ .. l i .aYws -NP- 1/{JhC CLCY�LTIbN ■uLq LMIATKm I - - T — — 4i'x+�1#tlL LM&PU iy75 unk City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 165 Option B: PrdeclCdulation� - µ I I II I I ^^ rl•u rva c.i s - I I If 41 srce�.rvnw���n,a�....R I I I f r ...�_• e b h: �.dya®Plan a—� I I � I I Retai Wig I I 7a.7s' I I .. rive- I I tslo•�"ssa i I I / I W>. - -- - w. --. IL 111g1111111111111111 I' . o r ------------- NO VAUM G= r Landscape Plan-Opbon B ° ° M A 11.03 • ...a F iY 1"�1 T5 .��•�:I:[Y+T144 �IU1C�[E�UCltl1Y �-War-- vs wx EUVATIOM 41!✓ IGiw,�lpn City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits Fl 66 ILd A� �J °Byy sue`.L-C ] ,•♦ �IiiIIIm1 ;�rc�rw, � T .1 R p�5�I !� ;LRS A � s'1: IeA� .�• ice.`-a C�t „��, IIIIIIIII 'i 4 F��� � 11111111111 WM ■-�--��� Ill i��_ ar 'aim IIISIM• ' I . I IL• ... _—� o•rioP � pis s°p®s< �® ®�®e e3� 4CL• — �.®SeBe® ��� � — �� m.r�o.P4o.ao.r.'v.a•.P. m.P9o.✓O:•e..s.:...r.'�iiio.i4 .O Q':...A.✓O..A. ::evssm:a5•:�: ?�<-psx.tis:••:sc•s��::�:r::v�,srve-srevsre R� ■ ....••�4®�P .•:�h••'•,•'.y.�. ..ii�y��{ 94g¢P ✓.ti I:,•�V.O`P O�rp��® �■ 'r: a4r.. •�.�4:?�..: e�:::y.P :a::.{!.i,y0 .a v.a�Vdo'?f 91 ■ � i MO.bi .o4�0P o4®i \ �� � �' � ' \ �®••dry i - 4•i O4{.4•i ti ------------- t 0 i6i m I did:°.��.•P®.�.f:�• ,,1 �1 � ay;serz s--w?•'s•'4 x'F".nrir'� 5• i�dse�;ve•serve•yee--m\®1 � :.•�s':: :.i.. M�...s..p4,i:..1.0... .�., ;v.v4.a.a.°..�a. YYY�� •� :'�.'���:.$�. ,ice s:A"¢ <•.r. ,.,, 1� �N: � f'•.::..:;silt; �iH;�:.,-�»�` �..�.•��•�•:� LOW Im 8 .. _ .. ".saq• t .i 0v�°9°o°•,'v°4 ot•nr��o4$¢✓v a .,.. ;�IL G. Proposed Building Elevations(date: 4/9/2026) ------------------ emuaaw ��ro�iasn�peiue+a7 f I M ■ .�� r '� ■w a all ca �a ■Q ■ Fl a a City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 170 it 1� 1 i j 1 .r m � � c L Y L 0 Cll N � N • F j1.. C.Y+ CA C.YI S� C6 C6 LL LL LL DepartmentCity of Meridian po mj�jjjgj 11111111i' w s aye Ism ` �'ri 4'o'riO••• 'rr'lY �'ri 4'i�'r•':•r.•: ',4 i4oti40 :� ■� ■ IIIIIIII( 8��:$d,��•.�.•�•.mod g �,�y��d."agr••:•"S"y�d"6 �������yid�y�6�� _ d !Wy'y4y4 �Wecr4,Y~' ✓y4 i 4P S.'•4 .. d.•py� I a■ 2°�°4�0=40.:44.a ®4®W�4S:i °4®S•.g 1:®P4®4®�5�® 0100.0®0 � 8 ski✓6 ® i• __ � y ✓ 8 P•�;��;�;: �P y J � � � � ��yQp�✓��y'Yp���y4�����d. 1 1 L Legal Description for Property Subject to New Development Agreement h3m Er;GIMEERING August 9,2021 Project No.21-159 Bach Investments,LLC Conditional Use Permit Legal Description Exhibit A A parcel of land being I ct 2,Block 1 of Rivervalley Retail Subdivision(Book 106 of plats,pages 14591- 114593)and a portion ofthe Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/40Section 4,Township 3 North, Range I East,Boise Meridian,Cityof Meridian,Ada County, Idaho and beingmore particularly described as follows; Cornrnencing at a found brass cap marking the West 1/4 corner of said 5ection 4,which bears 500"360TW a distance of 2,611.39 feet from a found brass cap markingthe Northwest corner of said Section 4,thence following the westerly line of said Section 4,NW36,WrE a distance of 180.44 feet Thence leaving said westerly line,S89'24'W E a distance of 70.00 feet to a found 1/2-inch rebar marking the Northwest corner of said Rive rvaIIey Retail Subdivision,on the easterly right-of-way line of North Eagle Road and being the POINT OF BEGMINING. Theme following sa i d easterly right-of-way line,N00°36rOQ"E a disnncl�of 3 63.SO feant to 9 f0tind 5/8-inch rebar; Thence leaving said easterly right-of-way Iine,589`23`521 a distance of 230.02 feet to a found aluminum cap on the westerly boundary line of Bach Subdivision(Book 113 of platS,pages 16605- 16611); Thence following said westerly subdivision boundary line the following four(4)courses: 1. SOD'33'50"W a distance of 217.06 feet to a found aluminum cap; 2. 500°36'08"W a distance flf 145,UU feet to a found 518-inch rebar on the northerly boundary line of RivervaIley Retail Subdivision; 3. 589°45'23"E a distance of 49.86 feet; 4. S00`36 M'W a distance of 190.00 feet to the northerly right-of-way line of East Rlver Valley Street; Thence leaving said westerly subdivision boundary line arid fnllowingsaid northerly right-of-way fine, N89°45'23"W a distance of 129,75feel to the westerly boundary line of said Lot 2; Thence leaving said northerly right-of-way line and following the westerly boundary line of said Lot 2 the following three(3)courses: 1. N00"14!3-rE a distance of 51.69 feet; 2_ N89°39'28"W a distance of 39.00 feet; 3. NOT08'IrE a distance of 128.24 feet to the northerly bourdarylineof said Rlvervaliey Retail Subdivision; 5725 North 0isEouerg Way- Boise, Idaho 63713-2rx8.fi39.6939- kmengIIp_corn City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits 173 Thence leaving the westerly boundary 11ne of said Lot 2 and following said northerly subdivision boundary 11ne,N 89645'23"W a distance of I09.98 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, Said parcel contains 2.570 acres,more or less,and is subject to al existing easements and/or rights- of-way of record_ All subdivisions,deeds, records of surveys, and other instrurnents of record referenced herein are recorded documents of the county in which these described lands are situated in_ Attached hereto Is Exhlhilt B and by this reference is made a part hereof. Nk, LA o } rL 662 Y 1{eox� City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 174 32 33 TOIYN531 P 4 N SHE �N� LINE TABLE 5 4 FOUND BRASS CAP, LINE BEARING DISTANCE 9Y1 COINER SECTION 4 L1 S89'24'00"E 70.00 UNPL4TTED L2 50`36'08"W 145.00 S89`23'52"E 230.02' L3 S89 45'23"E 49.86 L4 ST36,08"W 180,00 ` L5 N89'45'23"W 129.75 0 70' L6 NO14'37"E 51.69 Lv L7 Na9'39'28"W 39.00 L8 NO'08'13"E 128-24 i+s L9 N88'4S'23"w 109-88 w � LAA'J? LOT I,BLOCK I ENSs' F+} MCH 5UIBDIVISI0N +c. 0 0 z 66 OF En a CEO Y 1{E . tr POINT OF BEGINNING w L 1 L3 1f5 CU L6 I (TIE) L9 ui co O p LOT 2,$LOCK 1 RIVERVALLEY RETAIL SUBDIVISION LOT 1,BIOCI[1 L7 J 5 LOT 3,BLOC K 1,BAcm 5uBDiVI$I0N 4 L5 — — P01#JT OF COMMENCEMENT I*. R ver Valley Street FOIINB GRASS W. W 1/4- CORNER. SECTION 4 0 0 100 200 Plar S::-iIA ENGINEEiRIN0 9715J40RTJi ECK0WERY WkV 90L'E,IOMD33713i EXHIBIT PHCWE Rural E39939 P imeegllp.wn CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT- CITY OF MERIDIAN DATE! $gj=1 PROEM I1-159 SHEET, LOT 2,BLOCK 1 RIVERVALLEY RETAIL SUBOIVIS10N AND A PORTION OF THE SW 1/4 OF THE 1 OF I NW 1/4,SEC.4,T.3 N., R. I E., B-M., CITY OF-MER101AN, ADA COUNTY, ID City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits 175 J. Cross-Section of Street Buffer along Eagle Rd.with Noise Abatement Berm&Wall �f + W mg a w m a ba 3 'a r V 7W_L9VD3Hd a z -0 R 6 N 4N?139 w J a J a o V N N ❑ m Z LLLLI r M Z LU C r W w M� J W Q LL, A .06 w 7 U Z CD o a C o � � 9 } 3 x c� z 0. 3 CV x a __ _ _ _ N R 10'dO'd 31OV3)90 WH JO 3NI1831N3O !e4 City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 176 .5N I J LUMNAIRE FOR PFDFSTR AN LGHTIM as 4'-I� LRNRSGFPE I MULiiuSF.P4iLtwRY L4NASGM1PE LRNASGRPE PLRNFER W SkWFY PSCAF' City of Meridian I I BEpM Puw�ER BED BEA Department10 K. Overall Site Plan N N p p N L G A 4n N N y ?ro N x m v ul d y 'yj C N f Qnl N T N 7J �N NN OJ t7N�N GN 61 QV u ry c m m 7 m `4i y 3 C M f~ mod mm.5 N 2 1-0 d d L 3 C—N d N d N N O 0 0 c C p F U7�N r-F a o J 0� WN ,0 c - j u � v CIO� W g, P '� III -s z LLJ (fl . L ro • Q rCL LU 11 ram)' > y 4� ❑ n� V � V ik rs a 4 .� ❑ �y x N � 9 City of Meridian Department Report 178 L. Open Space Exhibit f L.7 . OPEN PACE 1 . 71 i OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS: UNITS 500 SOFT OR LESS= 1501UNIT UNITS 500-1,200 SQFT=25010NIT 150 x 20=3,00 SQFT 250 x 68= 17,D00 SQFT TOTAL REQUIRED=20,000 SQFT OPEN SPACE PROVIDED: :.. OPEN SPACE'I =7,342 SQFT OPEN SPACE 2=6.221)SQFT OPEN SPACE 3= 1,893 SQFT OPEN SPACE 4=50%OF 12,592 I SQFT=6,296 TOTAL PROVIDED=21,751 SQFT E'2 I 3 f W. ;r;> RACY H4ME5 xr PEN SPACE 116MS.Rafe St. aFaaehr sans+u� Sine 300 (801�727-9500 MoreEa a us�n Draper,UTW20 Worms RIVER VALLEY-PHASE 3 0 AsThE Rk%2Au�-e urrww &25+2026 1.44:15 PM IT2-Pm"1023-MorVaMey Phasa 0D-I44endianWZ-Rvvfl?iver VaffeyPhase 1XII{V26}.rvt City of Meridian I Department Report [179 VIII. ADDITIONAL NOTES & DETAILS FOR STAFF REPORT MAPS, TABLES,AND CHARTS (link to Community Metrics) A. Service Assessment Notes This data represents existing conditions derived from our enterprise application and GIS database, exported through dynamic reporting. The system references the most recent available data from various sources, including sewer main lines, sewer trunk sheds, floodplain,fire service areas and response times,police crime reporting,pathway information,existing and planned transit, roadway improvements, school and park proximity, and other resources. The tool provides context for project review,using multiple indicators consistently. Data from similar topics may vary based on different levels of review. The overall score is based on weighted criteria(not a ranked order), and the percentile score compares the parcel to others in the city(higher is better). This tool was developed as a City Council priority and outcome of the 2019 Comprehensive Plan. Scores,whether high or low, are just one data point and should not be the sole basis for decisions. City of Meridian I Department Report VIIl. Additional Notes&Details for Staff Report Maps, Tables, and Charts 180 Development Application Transmittal Link to Project Application: Regency at River Valley Phase 3 H-2026-0010 Hearing Date: July 2, 2026 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: 208.888.44331Email: cityclerk(cD_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. 181 E IDIAN;--- Applicant Presentation storyRegency at River Valley I I I is the third phase of a Long- standing development which is located directly adjacent to Julius M. KLeiner Memorial Park. The proposed development development on Street between Records Ave. and Eagle Road. _ I � i '`gam� - � �I • ;:�: E.��^. ., .- r r i � , •� _ } • .} rt# - ".ti � �'� , i��`5� • - � — � ail � . igt rt'1 ti I _ s - 4 we • . - • - or- tryway Corridor - • - - 1 r - - . Multimodal HistoricPost Every • 1 ' TaLl sound abatement ♦w� 1 �� y � ram!��,� .. �--�•. r i -0 Sufficient covered and non covered parking wilL be provided to meet code requirements. EV Irging - stations wilL also be provided. 26' wide drive lanes will a.- su • • Ly the ' red I ' I _ -_ • • - hter low L � r ' .r ,. Bicycle parngwill be provided as required. Covered _ awnings provided at all erfrances. 01 1 t� q Al { F ��. ;e 'gyp•- - ""�, ..s -.y+ SOW- k Ap 8u Lill private outdoor space per unit to be �f provides . - . standards. u .1 ���� Based on a unit count of 88. Four quality of Life amenities to be provided from 4 different categories. Along with t b multi-motel EV charging station requirement that will ev `" - met, we will also provide a Dog Park which meets the-.�_:_-. quality e category. - To 4P 9.•-- .. �if � cr, , .pR • 1. - � � ..'� �_ ,."!/ r e� N, ic — ,.. Ow 'A We will provide a water feature which meets the open , space category. _ _ -- -Vill _4t IF, 1 'R . ____ --- _-- —u —_ —_`--' - _•��` _�tier `11 i,;�i NO ti �■ -a walking path tat, - • 4 meets th�e -eation c-ate or At-47 AWL- qP Alf- ... _� - - -- •clip. �..=4, .5.�• _ _ - r - r,- •� I +yT' ..�•.�F' = aaa , '/�.[�` �- - �.�7E:1Iv • '•M' t SITE DATA 40111 _ Open space: f (20) Studios x 150 SQFT = 3,000 SQFT (44) 1 Bed x 250 SQFT = 11 ,000 SQFT (24) 2 Bed x 250 SQFT = 6,000 SQFT Total Required = 20,000 SQFT t- Total Provided = 21 ,893 SQFT Parking stalls: (20) Studios x 1 Stall = 20 Stalls (44) 1 Bed x 1 .5 Stalls = 66 Stalls (44) Covered (24) 2 Bed x 2 Stall = 48 Stalls (24) Covered 1 Guest Stall / 10 Units = 9 Stalls � Total Required = 143 Stalls (68) Covered Total Provided = 143 Stalls (68) Covered Bike Parking Stalls: 1 Bike Stall per 25 provided vehicle stalls 4q rounded down based on fractions of 0.5 ' Bike Stalls Required = 6 Bike Stalls Bike Stalls Provided = 6 Bike Stalls _' �` ELEVATIONS AV r ' West Facade With Year 1 Trees and Fence rr West Facade With Year 10 Trees and Fence n West Facade Without Trees and Fence LLL iLl LLL U EL IL 771 m -q fI11 y'.n i:.r+;per lljlh lilljll�iEjl ��i�14�;lf Ef�11 �[ �• -- — `'y '4 13 1 605 !:'- East Fagade m ❑ ❑ m1 m 117 m 1•t11 ❑ U m ❑ ". ;I] 111 I ❑ III 1 I ❑ f] I ❑ K ❑ 1111 111 I I m in I I 0 �i m �- w Lj n .. �- _R � �� � I m ❑ �7 I•T� m m U-1111aii _�► North Fagade BuildingA North Fagade Building B LH 0 � � � � � • I11_ m f1t m m m- m ;.. - LH I-111 m 11 1 CC] 1 11 LL oil IN Ow III RiM RO South Fagade Building South Fagade Building B { ;., - •� .. J h -. � .�.� .i� �.,..,�,• • . -. Fir j � - .• '�- Y r '�.!`- .i LLL"' y• � , �.� yam. . ... �� •y •YI ~• V`r-` 1 Ij • '�� 1L 's �f' yr' ,� �� �: � � 3 OF LANDSCAPF MULLnuSE PATHWAY LANDSCAPE LANDSCAPE PLANTER WALKWAY ANDSCAP_ BERM PLANTER BED BED