Centrepointe Mixed Use MDA H-2022-0035 CITY OF MERIDIAN
FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW C�f[EFI
DIAN:-~'
AND DECISION&ORDER
In the Matter of the Request to modify the existing development agreement(Villasport,Inst.#
2019-060877)for the purpose of updating the concept plan and provisions to construct a mixed-use
development consisting of commercial space and a multi-family development in lieu of an athletic
club/spa and commercial building on 11.17 acres in the C-G zoning district,by Givens Pursley.
Case No(s). H-2022-0035
For the City Council Hearing Date of. July 12,2022 (Findings on July 26, 2022)
A. Findings of Fact
1. Hearing Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 12, 2022, incorporated by
reference)
2. Process Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 12,2022,incorporated by
reference)
3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 12, 2022,
incorporated by reference)
4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code(see attached Staff Report for the hearing
date of July 12, 2022, incorporated by reference)
B. Conclusions of Law
1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the"Local Land Use
Planning Act of 1975,"codified at Chapter 65,Title 67,Idaho Code(I.C. §67-6503).
2. The Meridian City Council takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified as
Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has,by
ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian,
which was adopted December 17,2019,Resolution No. 19-2179 and Maps.
3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 11-5A.
4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s)received from the governmental
subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction.
5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose
expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed.
6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this Decision,which shall be
signed by the Mayor and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk upon the applicant,the
Community Development Department,the Public Works Department and any affected party
requesting notice.
FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER
FOR(Centrepointe Mixed-Use MDA—FILE#H-2022-0035)
- I -
7. That this approval is subject to the Conditions of Approval all in the attached Staff Report for the
hearing date of July 12, 2022, incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be
reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the
application.
C. Decision and Order
Pursuant to the City Council's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 11-5A and based upon
the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that:
1. The applicant's request for Development Agreement Modification is hereby approved per the
conditions of approval in the Staff Report for the hearing date of July 12,2022, attached as
Exhibit A.
D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits
Notice of Preliminary Plat Duration
Please take notice that approval of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat,or
short plat shall become null and void if the applicant fails to obtain the city engineer's signature
on the final plat within two(2)years of the approval of the preliminary plat or the combined
preliminary and final plat or short plat(UDC 11-6B-7A).
In the event that the development of the preliminary plat is made in successive phases in an
orderly and reasonable manner, and conforms substantially to the approved preliminary plat,
such segments, if submitted within successive intervals of two(2)years,may be considered for
final approval without resubmission for preliminary plat approval(UDC 11-6B-7B).
Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord
with 11-6B-7.A,the Director may authorize a single extension of time to obtain the City
Engineer's signature on the final plat not to exceed two(2)years. Additional time extensions up
to two(2)years as determined and approved by the City Council may be granted. With all
extensions,the Director or City Council may require the preliminary plat, combined
preliminary and final plat or short plat to comply with the current provisions of Meridian City
Code Title 11. If the above timetable is not met and the applicant does not receive a time
extension,the property shall be required to go through the platting procedure again(UDC 1I-
6B-7C).
Notice of Conditional Use Permit Duration
Please take notice that the conditional use permit,when granted, shall be valid for a maximum
period of two(2)years unless otherwise approved by the City. During this time,the applicant
shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the
requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, and acquire building permits and
commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground. For
conditional use permits that also require platting,the final plat must be signed by the City
Engineer within this two(2)year period.
Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord
with 11-5B-6.G.1,the Director may authorize a single extension of the time to commence the
use not to exceed one (1)two(2)year period.Additional time extensions up to two (2)years as
FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER
FOR(Centrepointe Mixed-Use MDA—FILE#H-2022-0035)
-2-
determined and approved by the City Council may be granted. With all extensions,the Director
or City Council may require the conditional use comply with the current provisions of Meridian
City Code Title 11(UDC 11-513-6F).
Notice of Development Agreement Duration
The city and/or an applicant may request a development agreement or a modification to a
development agreement consistent with Idaho Code section 67-6511A. The development
agreement may be initiated by the city or applicant as part of a request for annexation and/or
rezone at any time prior to the adoption of findings for such request.
A development agreement may be modified by the city or an affected party of the development
agreement. Decision on the development agreement modification is made by the city council in
accord with this chapter. When approved, said development agreement shall be signed by the
property owner(s) and returned to the city within six(6)months of the city council granting the
modification.
A modification to the development agreement may be initiated prior to signature of the
agreement by all parties and/or may be requested to extend the time allowed for the agreement
to be signed and returned to the city if filed prior to the end of the six(6)month approval
period.
E. Judicial Review
Pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-652 1(1)(d),if this final decision concerns a matter enumerated in Idaho
Code § 67-6521(1)(a), an affected person aggrieved by this final decision may,within twenty-eight
(28)days after all remedies have been exhausted, including requesting reconsideration of this final
decision as provided by Meridian City Code § 1-7-10, seek judicial review of this final decision as
provided by chapter 52,title 67,Idaho Code. This notice is provided as a courtesy; the City of
Meridian does not admit by this notice that this decision is subject to judicial review under LLUPA.
F. Notice of Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis
Pursuant to Idaho Code §§ 67-6521(1)(d) and 67-8003,an owner of private property that is the
subject of a final decision may submit a written request with the Meridian City Clerk for a regulatory
takings analysis.
G. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of July 12,2022.
FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER
FOR(Centrepointe Mixed-Use MDA—FILE#H-2022-0035)
-3-
By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the day of ,
2022.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BRAD HOAGLUN VOTED
COUNCIL VICE PRESIDENT JOE BORTON VOTED
COUNCIL MEMBER JESSICA PERREAULT VOTED
COUNCIL MEMBER LUKE CAVENER VOTED
COUNCIL MEMBER TREG BERNT VOTED
COUNCIL MEMBER LIZ STRADER VOTED
MAYOR ROBERT SIMISON VOTED
(TIE BREAKER)
Mayor Robert E. Simison 7-26-2022
Attest:
Chris Johnson 7-26-2022
City Clerk
Copy served upon Applicant, Community Development Department,Public Works Department and City
Attorney.
By: Dated: 7-26-2022
City Clerk's Office
FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER
FOR(Centrepointe Mixed-Use MDA—FILE#H-2022-0035)
-4-
EXHIBIT A
STAFF REPORT E COMMUNITY
N --
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
HEARING 7/12/2022 tR 88
Legend �
DATE: R% 0 0
Project Location '15 C-2
TO: Mayor&City Council Liu C_I
FROM: Joseph Dodson,Associate Planner 4 R=8� R-3
�
208-884-5533 C-G
C-N
SUBJECT: H-2022-0035 RUT REI C -
-R- C 8
Centrepointe Mixed-Use MDA R 15 _Rl R_1�5 R1 - R-8
R-8 R-2 -
LOCATION: Project is located at 3030 N. Cajun Lane RUT '+
and 3100 N. Centrepoint Way,near the RI R-2R 8 RUT::
southwest corner of N. Eagle Road and ®R 14 R.1 R-2�R1
E.Ustick Road,in the NE 1/4 of the NE RI L_p C-C
1/4 of Section 5, Township 3N,Range R-8 R-2 RI R-4 RUT R-40 R-4
lE. �=d UT C-G
1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Request to modify the existing development agreement(Villasport, Inst. #2019-060877) for the
purpose of updating the concept plan and provisions to construct a mixed-use development consisting
of commercial space and a multi-family development in lieu of an athletic club/spa and commercial
building on 11.17 acres in the C-G zoning district,by Givens Pursley.
IL APPLICANT INFORMATION
A. Applicant:
Kristen McNeill, Givens Pursley-601 W Bannock Street,Boise, ID 83702
B. Owner:
Mike Maffia,MGM Meridian,LLC-5 Naranja Way,Portola Valley, CA 94028
C. Representative:
Same as Applicant
III. NOTICING
City Council
Posting Date
Legal notice published in
newspaper
6/12/2022
Radius notice mailed to
properties within 500 feet 6/10/2022
Page 1
Public hearing notice sign posted 6/17/2022
NextDoor Posting 6/10/2022
IV. STAFF ANALYSIS
History
The subject application encompasses two(2)parcels surrounding the southwest corner of N. Eagle
Road and E.Ustick Road. These parcels were part of a Development Agreement Modification and
Conditional Use Permit(CUP) application in 2019 that removed the subject parcels from an existing
Development Agreement(DA) for the purpose of entering into a new DA with a new conceptual plan
and building elevations (H-2018-0121,DA Inst. #2019-060877) and a request for a new athletic club
and spa(indoor recreation facility),Villasport. The CUP approval for the indoor recreation facility
has since expired and the property has been sold to the current owner.Therefore,the current DA
contemplates a use that would require a new CUP approval and is under new ownership that has a
different vision for the property.
Development Agreement Modification& Comprehensive Plan
The approved DA(Inst. #2019-060877) depicts an approximate 90,000 square foot 2-story gym with
an outdoor pool adjacent to the south boundary and the existing residential development to the south
and included some ancillary commercial along Eagle Road. Furthermore, a Traffic Impact Study
(TIS)was required as part of the previous approvals and estimated approximately 3,213 additional
daily trips in 2018. This volume of trips recommended certain roadway improvements including
construction of an eastbound right-turn lane from Ustick Road into the shared private drive aisle—
this drive aisle is technically unnamed as it is a commercial drive aisle but it is essentially an
extension of N. Cajun Lane from the south. The right-turn lane and internal drive aisle connection to
Cajun Lane is constructed and fully functional to date.
Through the subject DA Modification,the new owners are proposing to terminate the previous DA in
order to enter into a new DA consistent with a new concept plan and associated provisions for a
mixed-use development consisting of multi-family residential and commercial space. Specifically,the
Applicant's narrative states the inclusion of 259 multi-family units and approximately 9,600 square
feet of commercial space on the existing 11 acres in the C-G zoning district. The submitted concept
plan is more detailed when compared to most concept plans submitted with DA Modifications. The
Applicant chose this option to provide the City Council and Staff with as much detail as possible to
ensure Staff more analysis on the proposed project.
Before getting into the details of the submitted concept plan and perspectives, Staff finds it necessary
to analyze and discuss the project in a broader scope, specifically how it relates to other development
in the area. The subject site is designated Mixed-Use Regional(MU-R)on the future land use map
and is part of a much larger area of MU-R along the Eagle Road corridor that includes The Village,
Regency at River Valley apartments,as well as multiple other commercial users and a large
undeveloped area. Specifically,within the MU-R area in this southwest corner of Eagle and Ustick,
there is the Jackson Square development and commercial buildings to the south and on the hard
corner to the northeast. The Comprehensive Plan discusses that projects should not contemplate uses
across arterials even if they share the same future land use designation as it is not anticipated for users
or residents to readily walk or bike across these transportation facilities.However, Staff finds it
prudent to analyze all projects in this area with at least the four corners of development around the
Ustick and Eagle intersection because, in reality,the transportation impacts and expected users will
come from and go beyond just the southwest corner of this intersection.
To the north are a number of big box stores(Kohl's, Dick's, and Hobby Lobby)and the new
Brickyard vertically integrated development;to the north east is Lowe's and various other
Page 2
commercial and restaurant buildings;to the east is Trader Joe's,multiple restaurants, and the Verraso
townhomes; and to the southeast are traditional garden style apartments,restaurant users, and the
Village. In terms of the ratio of commercial to residential within this area,there is currently a healthy
mix of commercial and residential uses within walking distance of each other. Consistent with this
discussion, Staff finds the addition of the proposed multi-family development and additional
commercial pad sites would offer residential to support the mix of commercial uses in this area.
Therefore, Staff believes the proposed project is generally consistent with the MU-R designation
because the subject MU-R area currently consists of a number of retail,restaurant, office, and
residential uses available to the region and the addition of these units should not over saturate this
area with residential.
Concept Plan
The submitted concept plan(Exhibit VI.B below) depicts five(5)multi-family buildings with internal
access(not garden style apartments)and two commercial buildings—the multi-family is split into
three (3)4-story buildings on the larger area of the site west of the Cajun Lane and two (2) 3-story
buildings between the two commercial buildings Cajun Lane. The submitted plan depicts at least a
25-foot landscape buffer along the entire perimeter of the site except for the southeast area of the site
that abuts commercial uses. Further, it appears no building is proposed within 150 feet of the existing
residences to the south of the site and includes the 25-foot buffer, carport parking, a drive aisle, and
surface parking between the proposed 4-story apartment buildings and the existing homes. For
comparison,Villasport was approved approximately 65 feet from the existing homes. Staff finds this
separation should significantly help mitigate any issues with the height disparity of the existing two-
story homes to the south and the proposed 4-story buildings. The Applicant has provided a
perspective drawing from the intersection of Centrepoint and E. Picard looking northeast to help
show the view from the street(see section VI.B).
Overall, Staff finds the proposed layout to be an efficient use of the space for the proposed multi-
family use and provides for the safest access available. However, Staff does have concerns with the
viability of the proposed open space to meet code requirements and the design of the southeast
portion of the site.According to the specific use standards for multi-family development(UDC 11-4-
3-27), common open space may not be counted towards the required minimum when it is adjacent to
arterials unless approved through the CUP process. Therefore,the proposed open space shown may
not all be qualified open space if Planning and Zoning Commission do not approve it in its current
location. This is concerning because if the Commission does not approve it,the proposed site plan
and open space will not comply with the minimum open space standards and major revisions would
likely be needed or a relatively major reduction in units would need to occur to reduce the amount of
qualified open space needed.
Staff s other main concern is in regards to the southeast area of the project that depicts two
commercial buildings and two multi-family buildings. The required landscape buffer to Eagle Road is
35 feet and the concept plan depicts a 25 foot buffer instead. In addition,the color concept plan
depicts the multi-use pathway segment required within this buffer to be completely out of alignment
with the two existing segments to the north and south. Because the design for the commercial and
drive-through is shown to be directly abutting the 25-foot buffer,the Applicant will need to shift the
entire commercial site west at least 10 feet to comply with UDC requirements. Furthermore,the
Applicant will need to extend the multi-use pathway from the existing locations on their north and
south boundary and place this pathway within the landscape buffer and not within ACHD right-of-
way as currently shown.
These required revisions would likely create a need to redesign this area of the project because there
will be a reduction in the area available for parking, open space, and circulation. Therefore,to help
Page 3
mitigate this,and potentially increase the available commercial area, Staff has specific
recommendations to City Council to revise the concept plan prior to the Council meeting:
1. Increase the Eagle Road buffer from 25 feet to 35 feet to comply with the UDC.
2. Continue the multi-use pathway in alignment with the existing locations stubbed to the north
and south property lines.
3. Continue the pedestrian network shown along the southern boundary to connect from the
west half of the site to the multi-use pathway along Eagle and provide for a connection from
the commercial building sidewalks,consistent with code.
4. Remove one or both of two 3-story multi-family buildings or reduce their size to a point that
allows more commercial space,more parking, and a plaza that can be more directly shared
between the 3-story multi-family buildings and the commercial or the 4-story multi-family
and the commercial—there are a number of ways this could be accomplished but Staff is
recommending the following:
a. Remove building D in lieu of a larger shared plaza in its location.
b. Reduce or remove the plaza area currently shown as the noise and smell from the
Eagle Road traffic largely reduces the appeal of outdoor seating along this corridor.
c. Increase the size of the retail building for added commercial space.
With the recommended revisions,the density can be slightly reduced which also reduces the
amount of required parking(further discussion below),amount of qualified open space
required,and allows the site to comply with dimensional and parking standards—Staff believes
these revisions maintain the original intent of the Applicant's design but also increases the
available commercial space and area for parking.
According to the site data table,the multi-family units consist of 41 studios, 108 1-bedroom units,
and 110 2-bedroom units to total 259 units. The minimum parking required for the proposed
distribution of unit types and clubhouse is 457 stalls with 218 of them covered;the Applicant is
proposing 457 stalls with 218 covered and an additional 20 stalls for the commercial to total 477
parking stalls. The commercial drive-through has already received conditional use permit approval
but the proposed multi-family residential would require a CUP in front of the Planning and Zoning
Commission should Council approve this DA Modification.
However,the site plan contemplates a Starbucks as one of its commercial users which is considered a
drive-through restaurant in our code and requires a different commercial parking ratio of 1 space for
every 250 square feet. Therefore,the minimum commercial parking required for the proposed
commercial area is 24 spaces and the Applicant would need to obtain 4 additional parking spaces in
this area of the site based on the elements shown on the submitted plan. It has been Staff s experience
that coffee shops, especially Starbucks,require parking beyond code minimums so the submitted
concept plan causes concern for Staff,as discussed above. Further, should additional restaurant uses
be proposed, additional parking would be required to meet code or they would not be allowed.
In addition,there are a number of parking spaces proposed west of Centrepoint Way with no other
development on this area of the site. In order for future residents to use this parking lot they will need
to cross Centrepoint Way which would be anticipated as a busy roadway with the existing residences
and the addition of the proposed multi-family. Staff has concerns over the safety of access to this
parking lot. Centrepoint Way is public right-of-way so if any crossing is proposed,the Applicant
would need to work with ACHD to obtain approval to modify the intersection depicted on the
concept plan. Staff supports the inclusion of bulb-outs and striping at a minimum in order to
Page 4
help create safer pedestrian access to and from these areas of the property and the Applicant
should work with ACHD.
In addition to parking,overall access into the site is integral to the analysis of the proposed project.
Main access is depicted from Ustick via the shared drive aisle near the center of the development and
via Centrepoint Way near the west boundary;no access to Eagle is allowed or proposed. Two access
points are depicted to each of these for the multi-family project in the center of the site with the east
retail site and 3-story multi-family buildings proposed with an access to the shared drive aisle. All
access points are aligned with any access points on opposing sides of the roadways. Because of the
proposed use and the existence of the right-turn lane from Ustick to Cajun Lane, Staff supports the
proposed accesses and does not find alternatives available without accessing the roadways to the
south which are split between public right-of-way and a private lane.
As discussed above,the previous use was approved with a CUP and required a TIS,which noted that
approximately 3,213 additional daily vehicle trips were anticipated. In anticipation of the proposed
use and number of units,the Applicant reached out to ACHD to determine if a new TIS would be
required. The proposed use of multi-family and the reduction in commercial area is anticipated to
generate less trips than the previous use of an indoor recreation facility. Therefore,ACHD is not
requiring a new TIS but instead requested an abbreviated study that includes turn lane analyses,
parking analyses, and an updated trip generation study for the multi-family use. The Applicant
performed the requested analyses and provided an abbreviated TIS report to ACHD and Staff.
According to this document,the proposed multi-family project is anticipated to generate
approximately 1,249 daily trips which is a reduction of approximately 1,964 trips per day. Therefore,
the proposed project is anticipated to generate less than 40%of the previously anticipated vehicle
trips. This is a significant reduction in vehicles trips for the adjacent local and private streets as well
as to the intersection of Eagle and Ustick.
V. DECISION
A. Staff:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed MDA with the proposed site plan revisions and per
the DA provisions in Section VI.C.
B. The Meridian City Council heard these items on June 28, 2022 and July 12,2022.At the public
hearing.the Council moved to approve the subject Development Agreement Modification
request.
1. Summary of the City Council public hearing:
a. In favor: Mike Maffia,Owner/Applicant; Deborah Nelson,Applicant Representative;
Brandon McDougald,Applicant Engineer-
b. In opposition: Janet Bailey.neighbor;J.R. Schofield.neighbor;Wendy McKinney
resident:Joe White.nei bor
c. Commenting: Janet Bailey; J.R. Schofield:Wendy McKinney;Joe White;Julie Vrba:
d. Written testimony: 2 pieces—Jared Schofield and Steve Grant,neighbors
e. Staff presenting application: Joseph Dodson,Associate Planner
f. Other Staff commenting on application: Bill Nary,City Attorney
2. Key issue(s)of public testimony:
a. Traffic and parking concerns with proposed multi-family use, specifically with cross-
traffic through private street to the south and out to Eagle Road:
b. Concerns with proposed height disparity of existing two-story single-family homes and
proposed 4-story apartment buildings—appreciation for Applicant's change to 3-story
but still concerned with traffic circulation:
Page 5
C. Concerns with new proposed building alone west property boundary and its transition of
density and height to existing R-2 lots west of the site•
3. Key issue(s)of discussion by City Council:
a. Issues presented by written testimony_, specifically if any discussion occurred regarding
continuing a masonry wall along west boundary:
b. Traffic flow for Proposed multi-family use in terms of volume and anticipated
circulation through existing development to the south-
C. Volume of traffic of proposed use(Multi-family)versus existing approvals (Villasportl:
d. Height transition of existing approvals and proposed 4-story product type—Council
requested no more than 3-story tall buildings:
e. Proposed parking counts and location—Council was not comfortable with parking area
west of Centrepoint Way and expressed a desire for all buildings to be self-parked
within their respective areas of the site:
f. Does Staff find proposed apartment along west boundary representative of adequate
transitional density and use•
g= Appreciation of Applicant's decision to reduce height of proposed buildings and self-
park areas of the project per Council's discussion-
h. Screening of west building to existing homes—i.e. continuing wall along west
boundary,including a buffer along west boundary, and additional dense landscaping
beyond what code requires:
i. Design of Centrepoint Way and whether parking is allowed or should be restricted;
Thought process of Applicant to propose more multi-family instead of office along west
boundary—discussion on Applicant's preferred option and market consideration-
4. City Council change(s)to Staff recommendation:
a. Strike DA provision VI.C.6:
b. Add provision to continue masonry wall along west boundary:
c. Limit height of buildings per Staff s recommended provision in presentation:
d. New provision to have Staff and Applicant work with ACHD to prohibit parking alone
Centrepoint Way.
Page 6
VI. EXHIBITS
A. Existing Concept Plan
NMTHE
GROUP
LA 0
U91 NUP
Km t.n:
USTICKROAV
7, .......
4 -7AI AREA A EAB-
0101 C1.02
I:ZLI.1�111
Sheet New,:
En
............ ...........
— — — — — — — — Ploj
— —
�7 acr Cal culations: LU
LU
all
AREA AREA I- AREA E-
.05
load Regulations:
L.
U)
4U
31.
..an
4&
.1.cn
7
C1.00
Page 7
Project IMormatlan:
I MITI,
IAYYAF&6,+16iF BHGGPE GNxiGIIF�IW
GGLE ID W616
W I UST(CNROAR I rnmF. We.rLe,awr
........
"�flii AREA A- IAREA B-
C1 01 C1 a2 =
I
�AE30§4'9hE�Y�7ce�mna�¢3aFoaFornEes�M��L ^-���d I — I
R8i>
Ti 'c
a,.
_ I
Leo uniM6 r .
�°s�enanar�r� V � � � •� '�'
AREA C- as 7 AREA A E mm.
� � I AR
EA E
C1.03 C1 04 C1.R5
3
9
� _ O
-- ......
I
Site Plan-Overall
12
.R.I,,.
Page 8
B. Proposed Conceptual Site Plan and Perspectives (NOT APPORAIED)(RE
VISED Jule:
SITE INFORMATION
0
cp--:
----------
D7,
F,71 IL 7110 .............
MEW
I-7D
LEGEND
7F
F
T@i
T
L
7 1-7-
_77""
CONCEPT SITE PLAN -CENTREPOINT
Eagle&Ustick Meridian,ID July 8,2022
Kimley)))Horn��
Page 9
OPEN SPACE CALCULATIONS
SITE I
1. —T
"T 1
SITE 2
4
SITE 1
AL
SITE I OPEN SPACE SITE 2 OPEN SPACE
CREDTFQn0P%1)
CONCEPT OPEN SPACE EXHIBIT-CENTREPOINT
Eagle&Wli&Meridian,ID July 12,2022
Kimley))Horn
=�
Page 10
c �r
M�F yyyyt�l
4
ya
INA,
IIIII
Mill
4 4.
� 4 I ________________
RY — _
E- -PAR7MENT
RY 2-STORY
3 _ HOME 2-STORY
HOME
APARTMENT PARKING E BOURBON ST
SITE SECTION
0' 30, BY
SECTIONS AP3.20
EsZ3_= 3100 CENTREPOINT MERIDIAN W28Qo2.2
Page 12
C. Staff s Recommended Development Agreement Provisions:
1. Future development of this site shall be substantially consistent with the submitted concept plan
and color renderings included in Section VI and the provisions contained herein.
2. Future development shall comply with the standards outlined in the multi-family development
specific use standards,UDC 11-4-3-27.
3. All future pedestrian crossings that traverse shared drive aisles within the development shall be
constructed with brick,pavers, stamped concrete, or colored concrete to clearly delineate the
driving surface from the pedestrian facilities,per UDC 11-3A-19B.4b.
4. The required landscape street buffers and multi-use pathway segment shall be constructed and
vegetated with the first phase of development along E.Ustick Road and N. Eagle Road;the
proposed 25-foot landscape buffer along the west and south boundaries shall be constructed with
the first phase of development.
5. Applicant shall work with ACHD to construct a safe pedestrian crossing from the multi-family
site area to the parking lot along the west boundary across N. Centrepoint Way.
6. Prior-to the City Couneil hearing,revise the site plan generally eensistefft with StafPs
r-eeemmeada4ieas i Seet en W.
7. With the future Conditional Use Permit for the multi-family development,the building along the
west boundary shall be no more than two-stories in height and the three(3)buildings within the
center of the project shall be no more than three-stories in height, consistent with the Applicant's
revised concept plan and presentation to Council.
8. Applicant shall continue the masonry wall along west property boundary consistent with adjacent
development and to help buffer the proposed project.
9. Staff and Applicant shall work with ACHD to mark Centrepoint Way as no-parking on both
sides, should ACHD allow it.
Page 13