2026-11-05 - Planning and Zoning Commission

Mhm.

>> Mhm.

>> Hey.

>> We're waiting for one more commissioner. We'll give her just a few more minutes. We do have quorum without her, but let's see if she comes on in. Oh, here she is. All right, good evening. Welcome

to the planning and zoning meeting for November 5th, 2026. At this time, I would like to call the meeting to order. The commissioners who are present for this evening's meeting are here at City Hall.

We also have staff from the city attorney's and the city's clerk's office, as well as the city's planning department. If you're 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 email [email protected], and they will reply as

quickly as possible. If you simply want to watch the meeting, we encourage you to watch this streaming on the city's YouTube channel. You can access it at meridaincity.org/live. With that, let's begin

with roll call. Madam Clerk?

>> Thank you, Madam Chair. Commissioner Gelsomino?

>> Present.

>> Commissioner [name]?

>> Here.

>> Commissioner [name]?

>> Here.

>> Commissioner Stoll?

>> Here.

>> Commissioner Smith?

>> Here.

>> Commissioner [name]?

>> Here. The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. There are no changes to tonight's agenda. Although we will uh not be taking testimony on Bentwater at Black Cat and [name] as they

have requested a continuance. So, if you're here to testify on those two applications, we will not be taking public testimony. Could I get a motion to adopt tonight's agenda?

>> Move to adopt as presented.

>> Second.

>> It's been moved and seconded to adopt tonight's agenda. All those in favor say I.

>> I.

>> Any opposed? Motion carries. Next item on the agenda is the consent agenda, which is to approve the minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission from October 15th. Could I get a motion to accept

the consent agenda as presented?

>> So moved.

>> Second.

>> It's been moved and seconded to to uh approve the consent agenda. All those in favor say I.

>> I.

>> Any opposed? Motion carries. At this time, I would briefly like to explain the public light uh pro- the public hearing process. We will open each item individually and begin with the staff report.

Staff will report their findings on how the item adheres to our comprehensive plan and our unified development code. After staff has made their presentation, the applicant will come forward to present

their case and respond to staff's comments. They will have 15 minutes to do so. After the applicant is finished, we will open the floor to public testimony. Each person will be called only once during

public testimony. The clerk will call the names individual- individually of those who have signed up on our website in advance to testify. You may come to the microphones in chambers or you'll be

unmuted on Zoom. Please state your name and address for the record, and you will have 3 minutes to address the commission. If you've previously sent pictures or a presentation for the meeting, it will

be displayed on screen and our clerk will help you run the presentation. If you've established that you are speaking on 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 10 minutes. After all those who have signed up in advance have spoken, we will invite any others who wish to testify. You may come forward in chambers or

on Zoom, you may press the raise hand button. And if you're listening on a telephone, you may press star nine and wait for your name to be called. If you are listening on multiple devices such 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 and 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 10 minutes to respond to public testimony. When the applicant has finished responding to questions and concerns, we will close the public hearing and commissioners will

have an opportunity to discuss and hopefully make final decisions or recommendations to city council as needed. With that, we are going to open uh item number H 2026-0013 Bentwater at Black Cat for

the purpose of a continuance. Madam Clerk, do we have a date suggested for this continuance?

>> Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, we have December 3rd.

>> May I get a motion to accept the continuance on December 3rd?

>> So moved.

>> Second.

>> It's been moved and seconded to um continue Bentwater for December 3rd. All those in favor say I.

>> I.

>> Any opposed? Motion carries. Next item we are going to open is item 2026-0050 [name] at Leslie Drive has also requested a continuance. Madam Clerk, do we have a date suggested for that item?

>> Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, we have November 19th.

>> May I get a motion to accept November 19th as a continuance for [name]?

>> So moved.

>> Second.

>> It's been moved and seconded to move [name] to November 19th. All those in favor say I.

>> I.

>> Any opposed? Motion carries. Item number four is 2026-0010, Regency at River Valley Stage 3, requests a modified development agreement, a conditional use permit, and alternative compliance at River

Valley Drive. This is also a continuance from September 19th, and we will begin with the staff report.

>> Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the commission. Uh I get the pleasure of finishing this up with you like I did on September 17th. Um so, if you recall, um you guys did continue this item from

the September 17th hearing. Uh you directed the uh staff to prepare conditions of approval and gave us some some direction to the applicant to address some other items. Some of those were uh the

crosswalk, and I'll go to the site plan here. One was to figure out what we could do with the the offsite crosswalk improvement and and having discussions with ACHD. The commission mentioned some uh

recommendation or maybe looking at striping the roundabout area um in the previous phase of Regency number one. And then, there were some comments about doing something other than a water feature as

one of the amenities. And then, we also spent quite a bit of time about enhanced landscaping and enhanced building materials for sound abatement um since this project is adjacent to State Highway 55

or Eagle Road. Uh as we have in our hearing applicant outlined, the applicant did submit revised plans yesterday. I don't want you to think that it was a last minute effort to do so. They did that in

an effort to address some of your concerns regarding the uh, open space area on the south side of the building. Um, in this area where they had that water feature. So, this graphic that before you is

the applicant has enhanced the seating area here on the south side of the building and they've also enlarged their grill area, which is located in this area and the grill area that's located on the

northern portion of the site as well. And then as I get through uh, the discussion points here, then I'll also share with you some of the conditions of approval that the applicant would like to

discuss and have you take it action on as well this evening. Here's uh, one of the discussion points again was the striping of the roundabout. You can see here the applicant was at the site and did

show um, that area has actually been striped recently. Um, so you can see here they are directing traffic through that roundabout as you guys had requested during the last hearing. Um, this is a blow-

up of that area and if I step back here, you'll also see that it's done in this aerial photo as well. And I'll move forward. Here's their again, this is the revised plan that we note in the hearing

outline for you this evening. And again, the intent was to show you the updated the increase in um, the grill areas and then also that southern open space on the southern side of the building and the

applicant did provide uh, an up close perspective for you as well. So, again, in that area, they'll still keep the water feature, but they have added uh, plaza with pergola. So, got a little bit

larger with a seating area. The water feature does stay in as part of it. Uh, more grassy areas and they also enlarged uh, put a pergola over both of the two grill areas as well to enhance those areas

and one of the grill areas did increase in size. We did receive comments from the applicant this Well, we met with them this morning to go over the conditions of the staff report and these were the

the five items that we wanted to discuss with you this evening. So, you can see here item 2G is a request to to strike a condition of approval. And I'll I'll elaborate on that a little bit more going

back to the site plan. So, there is a condition that requires a pedestrian connection along this portion of the site to tie into the 10-ft multi-use pathway. Um along Eagle Road. Again, the intent

when the code requires that when uh residential use is adjacent to a state highway, we require noise abatement. So, by having an opening there, you're actually increasing the noise into the

development. Um so, that's why it's not a staff can't waive that requirement, but certainly you guys can recommend that as part of your recommendation to strike that if you guys find that there's

adequate inter- internal site circulation that would allow pedestrians to move down through the site to the adjacent sidewalks along East River Valley and then on to Eagle Road. That's something you

can make as part of your findings. Uh then condition 2J uh again, uh the commission wanted additional enhanced landscaping and open space lot number three. And if you recall, that was the linear open

space lot adjacent to the the linear open space adjacent to the parking lot on the west side of the project. Uh if you look closely, the the wall along Eagle Road does jog in and out along that

roadway. And so, there is additional area where the applicant could still enhance the landscaping, but put in open spot number four instead of open space lot number three. So, that's why staff is

amenable to that request. It still kind of meets your intent of getting some some more vegetation in there to help with some of that sound attenuating sound attenuation. Number two is or item 2K

refers to open grass areas. So, whenever we have a multi-family development, we like to have open grassy play areas. If you recall during the September 17th hearing, it was discussed that this again

is phase three of a few of a previous one and two phase of this project. And these projects will be sharing open space and amenities. Uh the applicant did provide an exhibit, so you can see there is

one grassy open space lawn area in this location and one in this location. So, you as a commission have the ability to strike that condition if you make the finding that there's adequate open space

with phases one and two. And then number six is again uh going back to the sound attenuation for building materials and also along Eagle Road. So, the applicant would like the ability to submit

alternative compliance for the wall berm combination along State Highway 55 or Eagle Road. Um they feel like providing an 8-ft wall without a berm will satisfy that requirement along with the

additional building enhancements that they will do with the building. Uh again, because this is a conditional use permit and there's an accompanying DA modification, it does take council action to act

on the alternative compliance. So, really the purpose for you tonight is whether or not you would support them moving forward with an alternative compliance request uh and making that recommendation

to council for them to do that. Uh you don't necessarily need to do that, but it would be nice since you guys are a recommending recommending body to give council your feedback on whether or not you

would support just an 8-ft wall without a berm underneath it. Uh the applicants did uh communicate to staff that they still want fencing along that roadway regardless um because of privacy to the

residents because they are along that busy roadway and they want to screen their parking lot. And then condition number 12 is just a duplicate, so we can staff is fine if you were just to strike that

out. Uh, you should have this also in your packet this evening for review to look back on. But, again, the ones that are probably most important to you is uh modifying 2J. Again, 2G you can strike or

support it or leave it. And then, again, strike condition number 12. And then, if you are supportive of that alternative compliance request, you can make that modification as it's shown before you,

and the applicant will submit that application as they move on to city council. If you move the cuz you are going to be recommending body this evening. Uh, with that, staff has not received any

additional testimony on this application, and I'll stand for any questions you may have.

>> Would the applicant like to come forward, please? Hi.

>> Hi. Good evening.

>> You can state your name and address for the record, please?

>> Sure. [name], [address].

>> Yep. Do you have any additional comments from um from [name]'s um staff report?

>> Uh, no. I I you know, I I think he's spelled out pretty clear our our asks. And I think that the gap in the wall is something that that if it's a requirement, if it's a requirement along Eagle

Road, it'll so be it. But, we prefer not to. Um I do think the sound wall and the berm is just feel like if we're meeting this noise abatement via construction means methods of the building, then we

would just want to limit or reduce the height of the wall and berm. I think it's 10 ft. 2 ft plus 8 ft is a 10 ft requirement. We would just want that reduced down to 8 instead of having the

requirement of both. At a minimum, I think we're we'll look [clears throat] for a 6 ft wall at the end of the day. Um but, probably 6 to 8 ft wall without the berm. But, that's it's that would suffice

for our desired needs and community and residents.

>> Have you um worked with um developers who've had um the proximity to a busy road like this is before? Other developments, have you have you worked with other

>> I personally have not. We we have a local uh sound engineer cued up and and ready to do the looking at the wall assembly and how we're going to do all of that ready cued up to do this analysis for

the building. A local individual, I don't recall her name, but that's who we're prepared to go forward with to do the analysis on the building construction for the noise.

>> Okay. Commissioners, do we have questions?

>> Madam Chair.

>> Commissioner Smith.

>> I just want to make sure I understand correctly. Could you could you walk me through um the berm, the ask around the berm? Is it just that you don't feel it's necessary or is it net better for the

residents to not have the berm? I'm just trying to understand.

>> Yeah, that's fair. Yeah, it really I don't think it really uh affects us that greatly. I think that it I think that it's a noise abatement requirement by code of having a 10 ft high from the center

of Eagle Road at 2 ft and an 8 ft would meet that requirement. So, that's a that's a noise abatement requirement. And then staff and commission put it also a condition on us to do also the noise

abatement to be a sub 45 dB in the building as well. And so, we know we're going to do the sub dB 45 dB in the building as well so that we weren't or we know we can that can be addressed and handled

and just felt like it's being duplicative on the the 10 ft berm. It has That's really the only reason. We do want a wall there. We're not trying to get away from a wall in any way, shape, or form,

please. Um but it is that's purely the There's no big deep reason.

>> Okay. Commissioners, do you have any other questions? All right, thank you.

>> Okay, thank you. Thank you very much.

>> [clears throat]

>> Madam clerk, do we have anybody signed up to testify?

>> Thank you, Madam Chair. No one has signed up.

>> And there's nobody on Zoom. And you're finished with your comments? All right. May I get a motion to close the public hearing?

>> So moved.

>> Second.

>> It's been moved and second to close the public hearing for Regency at River Valley Stage 3. All those in favor say I.

>> I.

>> I.

>> Any opposed? Motion carries.

>> [clears throat]

>> Um the when we met on the 17th, um the commissioners put forth a bunch of conditions. I had um denied [snorts] it and I will probably stay with my um decision. I you know, uh I live I used to live

off of Highway 84 and uh Black Cat those view homes um right along uh I-84. And there was a big hill and we were at the top of the hill and the lights of the cars and the noise were always very much

there. And to have a property so close to the road, I I think will um actually be a little bit of challenge to sell. Although on the other side, you're really close to the village, so it it may

mitigate that. Um but the the difference between the four-story building and the one-story building next to it plus the three-story building behind it, I just think this is too aggressive for that

spot, but that's just for me. Um it also seems like the conditions that the commission put forward to you um and the applicant's response was to either remove it, to modify it, to strike it, uh and

alternative compliance, and delete it. So, everything that we've asked um has been met with resistance. So, that's me. Um I am not the one who chose to continue, so I'll let I'd hear from the other

commissioners to see if you feel that they have met um some of the things that you asked them to uh improve on since our last meeting.

>> Madam Chair.

>> Commissioner Smith.

>> Yeah, I think um I think some of uh at least for for my perspective when I voted or you know, I moved for a continuance was generally speaking of you know, this is kind of the I don't know third or

fourth kind of swing at this. Um I think it's down from an agreement that this is a higher and better use of this land than the current uh uh DA which I believe is storage units. Um And in pursuit of

that trying to trying to make something that works and you know, the this developer I think has has worked really hard on finding the right level of density that isn't you know, doesn't push this up.

If you look at previous um applications, it's you know, it's pushed up right against Eagle Eagle Road in an area that you in a way that kind of is a little bit uh too too close uh raises noise

concerns, light concerns, etc. I think the setback here um with you know, by turning around the the parking, I think it's been helpful. I think a lot of my concerns uh around noise um abatement um and

things like that have been mostly addressed. I think there's um I I don't know if I'm sold on um the alternative compliance ask. I wouldn't oppose it if that if the rest of the commission was fine

with that. Um I think given the proximity to Eagle Road, it makes sense to err on the side of further sound reductions when possible. Um if not even just reducing by a few every decibel counts kind of

at that point especially um you know, if you're on the third floor and uh and uh this extra 2 ft might might drop uh some noise for you know, maybe from a larger truck or something like that. Um so, I

think I'm for the most part uh I'm fine with this. The um the other portion of the internal striping and the um crossing on on the south it seems like those are um you know, in the works or or have

been have been done already. Um and then as for uh the pedestrian connection to the Eagle I I kind of was going back and forth on that. I think I'm okay with it. I don't know how I don't know how much

foot traffic is being saved or foot mileage is being saved by that compared to the sound abatement benefit. Eagle Road's not necessarily the most walkable road in the uh in the state. Um so I I think

I'm I'm okay with that. I think the only area that I'm a little bit you know, not vehemently opposed to but still not quite sold is the reducing the two-foot berm to just the eight-foot fence, but I'm

otherwise I'm in support.

>> Okay. Madam Chair, Commissioner [name].

>> Thank you. I uh largely agree with Commissioner Smith. Um I'm okay with uh with the request to remove the condition um 2G and um just I you know, I I've heard every iteration of this since 2021.

It's definitely an improvement uh from where we were. There's been so many changes since we first discussed it. And and a lot of that area has changed and improved since the first application came

about. Um as far as 2K uh with the grassy areas you know, Steiner Park is right down the road um and so I I don't love that not having a little bit more usable open space, but because the park is so

nearby, I've kind of come to terms with what they've proposed as far as the seating area and the water feature. Um I would like the uh

>> [clears throat]

>> the condition the alternative compliance condition uh I would like that we um include that statement in the staff report that um that council needs to um approve an alternative compliance. I'm in

favor of that. Um I think it's good to be on the record uh that there's an a actual decision that's being made um and that that's part of um you know, our agreement with the with the applicant. Um I'm

totally fine with um deleting condition 12 as well.

>> Okay. Thank you. Any other comments from commissioners?

>> Madam Chair, uh just for the record, um wanted to state that I wasn't at the last meeting, um but I did watch the video and review the record and the previous um public hearing I was present at, so

I'm comfortable uh making a decision on this. Um I'm I'm pretty much okay with what they've laid out um with the I still have concerns regarding the noise abatement. Um

>> [clears throat]

>> If I heard correctly, there wasn't there hasn't been a study done yet. Um as far as noise levels and to say we're going to the other two conditions are going to meet that, um I'd like to have some

proof of that before we remove the berm out of there. Um It's you know, not the best project in the world, but it is a very awkward parcel that I struggle with. Can we get anything better out of it?

And they've come back and tried over and over again. So, um for the most part, with the exception of noise abatement, um I'm for it.

>> They are adding some enhanced materials on the building

>> Yep.

>> for noise abatement as well.

>> Mhm.

>> So, there is that. All right. Uh I'm open

>> Madam Chair.

>> Oh, Commissioner [name].

>> Just wanted to reiterate what the other commissioners said. I I agree 100% and I think the wall should stay. That requirement, yes.

>> the 10 ft.

>> Mhm.

>> Okay. Commissioner Smith.

>> Uh Madam Chair, um I'd like to make a motion um in that case. Uh after considering all applicant, staff, and public testimony, uh I move that we recommend approval of file number apologies.

Approval of the city council uh out out of number H-2026-0010 as presented in the staff report with the following modifications um to remove condition 2G, to um modify condition 2J as presented in um

the updated materials this evening, uh to remove condition 2K, and to remove condition 12. Um and also to include for condition six, uh include the language as presented um in the updated staff

response, which reads unless otherwise approved by alternative compliance.

>> It's been moved and second to approve Regency at River Valley Stage 3. All those in favor, say I.

>> I.

>> Any opposed? I am opposed. But motion carries. Thank you very much. All right, the next item on the agenda is H 2026-0063 YMC Inc. It requests uh the conditional use permit for light industry at

Pine Avenue. And we will begin with the staff report.

>> Good evening, Madam Chair, members of the commission. Next item on the agenda is the conditional use permit for YMC Incorporated. Uh the applicant requested a conditional use permit for a light

industry use consisting of office storage and manufacturing and primarily manufacturing is the reason uh they're in front of you here tonight. Uh as shown on the screen, the existing zoning is zoning

is CG and the future land use map is mixed use regional. Uh site is located at Pine Avenue and the applicant's narrative states by occupying this space it will allow them to consolidate several

properties in Boise and Meridian uh to this location as their primary operational facility for their business. In addition, the applicant states that no outdoor activity will occur at this location

and all business operations will be indoors. Uh their hours of operation are Monday through Friday between 6:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. However, sometimes they do work outside of these hours depending on

demand. Uh they anticipate in approximately 100 to 120 employees um and 100 100 to 120 employee vehicles arriving at the facility per day with 15 five to 15 delivery or freight vehicles per day. Uh

the surrounding area and to preface, this building is already constructed. It is already existing zoned and it was used for warehousing previously. Um but the exist the surrounding area is primarily

industrial and commercial uses around the freight the rail corridor. Uh it is important to note that the vacant land of the just to the west There it is. Uh was approved um recently and it was did

show some residential on there. However, that applicant is proposing to remove the residential and actually include additional employment. So, there will not be any any residential nearby and as

stated, the operation will be indoors. Um so, four driveway access points exist to the site uh two via East Commercial Lane uh to the south, one via East Pine Avenue, and one via private drive aisle.

Uh ACHD has approved the location of all access points um including the loading dock at the rear of the building. Staff is recommending approval of the the conditional use permit um and has not

received any written testimony and I'll stand for any questions that you have.

>> Would the applicant like to come forward? Hi. If you can state your name and address for the record, please.

>> [name], [address].

>> Okay. Did uh [name] address all of the items that you wanted to have presented to the commission tonight?

>> I believe so. Um I I apologize. I've never done this before. Just wanted to let you guys know. Um YMC, if you're not familiar, we've been in Meridian since the 1970s. Um right now we have five

locations throughout the Treasure Valley. Four of them are in Boise and uh we're we're intending, if we get this approved permit, to consolidate almost all of our Boise locations into Meridian and uh

you know, be more efficient within our business.

>> Great. Okay. Commissioners, do we have any questions? All right. Thank you very much. That's an easy, right?

>> [laughter] [gasps]

>> Madam Clerk, do we have anybody signed up for public testimony?

>> Thank you, Madam Chair. I have um [name], did you wish to speak? Okay. And then [name]? No. Okay. No one else has signed up.

>> Okay. And [name], you you're good with your comments? No more? You're good? Okay. May I get a motion to close the public hearing?

>> So moved.

>> Second.

>> It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on YMC Incorporated. All those in favor say I.

>> I.

>> Any opposed? Motion carries. Commissioner [name]? No? Does anybody have any comments on this conditional use permit?

>> Madam Chair.

>> Commissioner [name]?

>> Um I'm just grateful that um long-time local companies want to locate in our city. Um I feel like it's a privilege. There's a lot of great property here, a lot of options, so um I I appreciate that

we were top of the list.

>> Here.

>> Commissioner Smith.

>> After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file number H-2026-0063 as presented in the staff report.

>> Second.

>> It's been moved and second to approve the conditional use permit for YMC Incorporated. All those in favor say I.

>> I.

>> I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much. Good luck with your consolidation. Okay, next item on the agenda is item 2026-0062 for Shep Law Offices. Requests a rezone at Locust Grove Road,

and we will begin with the staff report.

>> Madam Chair, members of the commission, next item on the agenda is the rezone for Shep Law Offices. So, the applicant is requesting a rezone of 1.17 acres of land from the R4 zoning to the LO

zoning district for a law office. The existing zoning is R4, and the future land use map is medium-density residential. Site is located at Locust Grove. Here's our annexation exhibit. Here's our

concept plan. So, although dwelling units are typically desired in the medium-density residential designation, the comprehensive plan does allow for the discretion of city council areas within the

residential the medium-density residential that are under 2 acres and have only direct access to an arterial roadway can be can be rezone LO for office uses. The reason for the restriction in the

comprehensive plan that limits it to office and LO only is because, for one, access is typically limited, and two, any other use could potentially not be compatible with typically what is residential

surrounding it. So, the subject property meets the aforementioned criteria. The applicant proposes to remove the existing home and build a a new two-story 10,000 square foot office building. The

building would be for the applicant's business, a law office, and the applicant indicates the business operates from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. In addition, the applicant has talked

with the abutting neighbor to the south, has indicated the neighbor has no concerns with the proposed change. Um as well as they will be requesting a city council waiver to a 25-foot landscape buffer

on that south portion. Um and it will be reduced down to 9 feet. Um it would be a city council decision on that and then it sounds like the neighbor to the south does not have a concern with that

unless they were here today to to say otherwise.

>> Okay.

>> Um so there are two existing driveway curb cuts as it currently sits. However, the applicant will be consolidating into a single one on the northern portion of the site. Um which is their only

access and will have cross access with the property to the south on the southeast corner of the site plan. Um so staff is recommending approval of the application, has not received any written

comments at this time, and I'll stand for any questions that you have. And here's the elevations as well.

>> Would the applicant like to come forward? Hi.

>> Hi.

>> You can state your name and address for the record.

>> Yeah, [name], [address].

>> Okay.

>> [address]. Um yeah, so first of all, I want to just do a shout-out for [name]. He's been awesome. Um I have this is my first rodeo with at this kind of thing and uh I didn't know what to expect and

it's been a real smooth ride. He's very good at what he does and and made this a very good process. So I have not uh [name] Law Group has been a uh business in Meridian not since 1970 as the last

applicant, but we've been here since 2013 and uh and we have great love the city. We've got our office on Meridian Road now. We're looking to hopefully cover both ends of the north and south of the

Meridian. That's the hope. So Locust Grove is a great we found this great location. Um as you can see from the uh site plan, it's a bit of an odd-shaped uh property which made it a little challenging

in terms of trying to figure out how to uh but I've got some good assistant uh good good help to and I think this came out nicely. Um I think the the use of the property at that location is makes

sense. Um and uh and uh other than that, I I just uh appreciate the time and then stand for any questions.

>> Okay, Commissioners, do we have any questions? Commissioner [name].

>> Um so, one of my concerns in looking at this is um the proximity to the southern parcel. Um that owner may currently be um in agreement, but it is in the county, could annex into the city at some

point, and uh a future owner may not, you know, desire that proximity. So, um when you were you or your team were designing the location of that building, taking to account, obviously, the odd shape

of the parcel, did you look at the options to move that farther north, and there was a site limitation, uh or what was the scenario with that?

>> Uh I'm trying to recall. The first site plan we did actually had the building uh to the north. There was a couple reasons why we did what we did. Uh one was uh the uh access location. I think from

my understanding from the city my talking with [name] that we wanted to try and get that as far north as possible. Um and so, we and there's also a already a curb curb cut there for what that's worth

at that very north end from when they widened the road. Uh there's a drive drive access, I should say. Um but probably the biggest factor for why we did what we did and and how we designed it was just

trying to maximize the use of the property and then still have the parking and all the things that we that are required uh to make uh and then as nice and large uh office building as possible, but um

so, I I mean, I think that's probably why we that is why we we did what we did is because just uh the odd shape of the location. We needed to use that back strip basically for parking. That was the

only real viable use other than just landscaping, which we didn't really want to do. Um that would be kind of I mean it'd be beautiful maybe, but it would be kind of useless. We couldn't use it for

parking. Uh you can't use it for any building that I'm aware of, so um ultimately that south end was the most viable uh location for the building.

>> Okay. Commissioners? All right, thank you very much.

>> Thank you.

>> Madam Clerk, do we have anybody signed up to testify?

>> Thank you, Madam Chair. No one has signed up.

>> Anybody in chambers? All right. Mr. [name], any other further comments before we close the public hearing? You're good? Okay. Uh may I get a motion to close the public hearing, please?

>> So moved.

>> Second.

>> It's been moved and second to close the public hearing for Shep Law Offices at uh Locust Grove. All those in favor, say I.

>> I.

>> I.

>> Any opposed? Motion carries. Um it sounds like that if you have less than two acres, um we can switch it over to um LO, so and the neighbor to the south says okay. I I mean we can't predict what

the future might bring as far as that's concerned. I I guess if that parcel sells, they'll have to kind of cross that road when they get to it. Seeing the proximity of other um commercial in this

area, um seems to make sense and the neighbors on the back side didn't really make any comments either, so um it fit it fits our code and I'm okay with this.

>> And Madam Chair, um I'm I'm inclined to to agree. Um I I don't have any issue, especially given the kind of uh the use envisioned. Um so we're not envisioning something that's super high intensity.

Um I will say and I it's not the end of the world for this uh application. I just have mentioned it once or twice in the past and I think at this point I just want to going to keep pounding this

hammer I know this is a relatively small application so it's not the end of the world. I would just I want to get on record I would recommend I would ask applicants to try to limit the use of

generative AI for elevations. I think the idea is to understand not just the vision but the proportions things like that things that AI is currently maybe aren't the best at again it's one building

here not the end of the world I just want to get that on record. I use AI in my work life constantly so I understand it I'm not I'm not

>> Is this picture of the project AI done?

>> It was the elevation I believe it looks it looks and I'm not making necessarily a claim of certainty I just kind of appears so if that's the case I just mostly want to get on record that I just

would appreciate trying to avoid that in the future.

>> Okay.

>> But not the end of the world I still am in support of this um application.

>> Any other comments? All right after considering all staff and applicant public testimony I move to recommend approval for file number 2026-0062 Shep Law Offices for the hearing date of November 5th

as presented in the staff report.

>> Second.

>> It's been moved and second to approve Shep Law Office all those in favor say I.

>> I.

>> Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much. All right our next application is 2026-0036 for Momentum Subdivision on Meridian Road at Lake Hazel requests a comprehensive plan map amendment a

few re-zones a preliminary plat and a development agreement modification and we will begin with the staff report.

>> Madam Chair members of the commission next time on the agenda is the conference of plan map amendment re-zone preliminary plat and development agreement modification for Momentum Subdivision. The

applicant is requesting several approvals for approximately 106.1 acres and these include a comprehensive plan map amendment to change 60.97 acres from medium high density residential to mixed use

regional on the future land use map, a rezone of approximately 19 acres from from R-15 to R-40 and 8.262 acres from R-15 to CG. A preliminary plat consisting of 11 residential lots, 24 commercial

lots, and three common lots and a modification to the existing development agreement to establish a new development agreement. Uh so, as shown on the screen, the existing zonings are CG and R-15. Uh

future land use map designations are mixed use regional and medium high density residential and this center one shows the proposed FLUM designation change from primarily medium high density

residential on the east side of the development to now primarily mixed use regional. So, the site is generally located at the southeast corner of Meridian Road and East Lake Hazel Road and to provide

some background, in 2024, the applicant received approval for a rezone from R-4 to CG and annexation with the CG and R-15 zoning and as well as a development agreement modification development

agreement to facilitate a mixed use development. At that time, the proposed development included approximately 446,000 square feet of commercial space, 100,000 square feet of office and employment

space as well as residential. Uh since that approval, Costco and its associated fueling facility has been constructed as phase one of the Apex Zenith development, that was the previous name. Uh

currently, uh the current application represents the next phase, which is phase two of the development, which includes several proposed changes from the previous approved development framework and

this is the previous concept plan that we were provided with original the original approval back in 2004. Here's the exhibits. This would be the uh um comprehensive plan exhibit amendment exhibit.

Here's the rezone to R-40 exhibit, which is uh primarily on that eastern portion of the site. Here's the the rezone from R-15 to CG on the east side of that collector. You'll be able to see a little

bit better in that concept plan. Uh so, I would like to note that uh this project was continued from October 1st, and during that time, staff and the applicant um did work together, and the applicant

did provide a revised concept plan uh to show improved pedestrian connectivity throughout the development. Several of the conditions that staff proposed at that time and in the development agreement

have been revised and reflected for you guys here tonight. So, here is that revised concept plan. Uh so, starting with the comprehensive, I'm going to break it down into the different applications cuz

I know there's a few. So, starting with the comprehensive plan map amendment and rezones, so the applicant is requesting to extend the mixed-use regional designation across that 61 approximately 61

acres, and the applicant is also requesting those rezones of 19 acres um from R-15 to R-40 and 8.3 acres from R-15 to CG. So, the applicant states that the map amendment would create a a more cohesive

and functional land use pattern by allowing greater integration of residential and non-residential uses. The applicant also points to the approval of the Sky Ranch subdivision, which is just to the

north of Lake Hazel that's not shown on the screen, um as an all-residential development located uh in the mixed-use regional designation as justification for the requested change. They believe that

allowing additional non-residential uses within their development will allow to help uh balance a variety of uses, especially commercial in South Meridian. However, it is important to note that the

comprehensive plan specifically states that mixed-use areas bisected by arterial arterial roads or highways uh should be considered separate independent area for land use and design integration and

evaluated independently. Uh the applicant has provided an illustrative concept plan showing the proposed extension of the commercial east of Optimum View as well as the additional commercial pad lots.

They did not provide a example or did not provide a concept plan for the residential at this time. However, it's important to note that the R-40 piece will require a conditional use permit for the uh

proposed apartments in the future and they will also have to do an additional preliminary plat for the R-15 portion in the in the southeast corner of the development. So, the applicant has provided

the illustrative concept plan for the commercial uses. The UDC does require a concept plan to accompany a rezone application to demonstrate how the property is anticipated to develop under the

proposed zoning designation. In addition, the proposed residential densities should be supported by commensurate levels of employment which have not been concerned committed have not been confirmed or

committed to with this application at this time. In lieu of providing the residential the residential concept plan, the applicant has provided information indicating they anticipate approximately 400

garden style multi-family units within the R-40 zoning piece, so across those 19 acres. The applicant is requesting that the concept plan provided remain illustrative rather than binding to allow for

flexibility as market demand shift. The staff did does have concerns with this approach because it creates some uncertainty regarding the ultimate development pattern and how the property will develop

in relation to the mixed-use regional designation. However, staff has provided conditions in the DA and through our provisions and conditions through the DA and other and through the preliminary plat

to address a lot of these design principles. We have worked with the applicant to get on that same page for for design of the site as it does build out. However, the applicant is requesting that the

concept plan in front of you remain illustrative and not binding in in the development agreement which staff is asking for you guys to consider tonight whether you're okay with that approach or would

you rather have it more binding or if you rather prefer changes to to our provisions that are in front of you as well and they are included in your packet for you to reference. So, moving on to the

preliminary plat, the applicant is requesting approval of 11 residential lots, 24 commercial lots, and three common lots across approximately 106.1 acres. The 11 residential lots are large lots, which

applicant refers to as super pad lots. These are intended to facilitate future subdivision through subsequent plat preliminary plat applications. Additionally, the R40 piece will require conditional

use permit as I stated earlier for the multi-family development. Uh so, the applicant across all of the residential portion, the applicant anticipates 40 multi-family residential units and 290 single-

family residential units. Uh although the the timing of the residential development has not been identified, the anticipated build-out and estimated uh generated So, the at full build-out, the

estimated uh student generation is 270 school-age children across all grade levels. It's important to note that both Victory Middle School and Mountain View High School are currently over capacity. Uh

lastly, the applicant is requesting a modification to the existing development agreement to establish a new development agreement for the 106 acres. Uh so, the proposed development agreement includes

an updated road layout, pathway layout, and design guidelines. Uh currently, the development agreement requires residential uses to comprise of 10 to 30% of the development, non-retail commercial uses

to comprise of 20%, and retail uses to be capped at 50%. Uh the applicant in their narrative stated they believe that these percentages are too restrictive and could limit their ability to respond to

future market demands, and staff has worked with the applicant um through provisions in the development agreement to uh provide a slight adjustment on these percentages to allowing retail uses to

increase to 55% instead of 50 across the development. So, as shown on the screen, the applicant is anticipating these mix of uses. The estimated development uh mix consists of approximately 51%

retail, 19% office or service uses, um and 30% residential. So, to summarize, one of the one of the primary considerations with this application is the applicant's request for the concept plan to

remain illustrative rather than binding in the development agreement. While staff has concerns with this approach, uh staff has incorporated additional development agreement provisions and conditions

and intended to address key design prevent principles um for the overall development pattern and with future applications. So, ultimately we are asking for the commission tonight to weigh in on

whether they're okay with this approach, whether you would like to see revisions to the proposed DA provisions or and conditions, or if you would like the the concept plan to be more binding in the

development agreement. So, staff has not received any written comments on this and is recommending approval and I I'll stand for any questions that you have.

>> Madam Chair. Commissioner [name]. Um I didn't see anywhere in our information even sort of an outline of where the R-15 or the R-40 will go. So, I'm curious if there's uh an expectation that R-40

is going to bump up against that medium-density residential on the east side.

>> Madam Chair, uh Commissioner [name], so correct. This is this northern portion on the north side of this east-west road, uh Spire, is is the R-40 portion. This is the 19 acres of R-40 and this

would be the remaining R-15 portion, everything south in that southeast quadrant of the development. So, this is all R-15 and this would be the R-40 piece right here. That's correct. Uh this is

anticipated to be a a more of an office use here on the corner that isn't depicted as well as well. Um there is a future north-south collector road that is just off-site for this northern portion that

will be uh will actually extend all the way to the south and connect with Aristocrat at this intersection right here. So, that will be a future north-south collector just on their east boundary.

Correct, but that is off-site currently and with the alignment across the street to the north. Yep.

>> What is on the east boundary that isn't shaded? Is that a park or is that

>> Right here?

>> Yeah,

>> Yeah, currently it would be a county property. That's correct. Um be a county residence. It would not be I think I have it. Maybe I forgot to include it, but it is it's a county residence that it

does not have a concept plan or anything tied to it currently. Correct.

>> Madam Chair.

>> Commissioner [name].

>> So just for clarification, our current flume has medium high density um, to the east on the north side north part and then medium density density residential on the east side to the in the south

part.

>> Mhm.

>> Right? Um, so there may be an area of R- whether there's a collector or not, there may be an area of R-40 that would be in close proximity to the medium density residential in the on the south side

of the eastern property.

>> Madam Chair, Commissioner [name], that's correct. So and you may be able to see it.

>> There just wasn't anything in the

>> You may be able to see it right here. Here you go. This is So yes, medium density, the proposed R-40 piece is roughly in this area. Um, and you can see the kind of the north the east-west road that

bisects it is kind of right here. Where where this line is it just gets extended. So there is correct a portion of it that would be abutting medium density residential to the east when that property

redevelops in the future. It's correct.

>> Madam Chair.

>> Commissioner Gelsomino.

>> Question for staff. Uh, [name]. So I know we whenever we get the findings that school capacity is over capacity, we get mixed messaging. Oh, it's not not going to get any bigger. It's smaller than

it was actually reported. Uh, in this particular case with the two schools projected to be uh, over capacity or are currently over capacity, which specific West data mitigation does the find does

finding four rely on?

>> Madam Chair, Commissioner Gelsomino or Gelsomino, I apologize. Um, so couple different things. I think one one, the applicant didn't provide a timeline for when all of this residential would be

built. Um so, I think that's an important question to maybe address tonight. Two, yes, we hear that enrollment is declining in West Ada, um but the schools are over capacity as it currently sits. Um

and you know, guessing in the future that it will go down because enrollment goes down, uh I don't necessarily tend to agree fully with that. I think that yes, we will see ebbs and flows in school

enrollment. And as additional schools get built by West Ada, you know, it will spread that out, but there also are additional rooftops in South Meridian that a lot of rooftops in South Meridian that

have not been built. Um so, you know, as far as mitigation, they do boundary adjustments um to bus students to different schools. Uh Mountain View High School in in particular, I know is uh one of the

primary overcapacity schools in West Ada School District that they do have challenges with and they are trying to bus students to different high schools to to avoid that. Um But, as far as specific

mitigations, um you know, West Ada is always looking at their boundaries and trying to adjust them for schools. Um how getting them bused to different schools. Uh as far as do they have that I think

that they are going to be looking at it again. I know that they normally meet end of the year early January. Their their board I don't know if the education board I don't know exactly the reference.

Um but, they they do look at that and they do look at provide comments to us as far as anticipated school children, what capacity they're at. And then ultimately, it is a consideration for you guys

when approving projects is, you know, with with the current state of the schools, is it adequate to continue approving projects? Correct. Thank you.

>> All right. Would the applicant like to come forward? [name] with [name] at [address]. I'm just trying to get connected. Okay, so this is Momentum subdivision. Um [name] covered some of the

applications fairly well, but I'm going to go into a little bit more detail on where this is and what we're planning. So, this is an extension of Pinnacle. Um we call this area specifically Pinnacle

Marketplace because it is primarily commercial in nature. Um I want to highlight some of the improvements that have already happened out here and then other planned improvements that we have coming up

soon. Um we have a signal completion at Aristocrat and Meridian Road as well as Lake Pleasant Optima View Road. Um the east side of Meridian Road is completely upgraded as well. Um and we have

completed the yellow internal site um roads as well. The west side of Meridian Road will be um upgraded as well, but that will be completed next year. Or I guess the summer of '28, but yeah. Um I

wanted to show kind of how that actually looks in real life and I don't know if anyone was aware, but the Costco did open today as well. Um so again, just lots of site improvements that we've had out

here. These are actually a little bit older. We do have most of our landscaping in as well out here. Um so hopefully this graphic will show you a little bit better of exactly what the applications are

and how they interact with one another. Um So, the the darker blue is our preliminary plat boundary. Pink is our comprehensive plan map amendment boundary and then the orange and pink are our re-

zones. Um so again, that's kind of how everything interacts there. I think it was a little challenging to to follow. The development agreement modification is going to be for that that entire area.

Um, so here is our existing future land use designation that medium high density residential extends throughout this entire area. And we are planning to change that over to mixed use regional with

this application. Um, this will also show a little bit better of the existing um, R-15 boundary right now. And what we're proposing for R-40. Um, I do want to just clarify a little bit since it

already came up, what does that mean? Um, the R-40 designation does have some different setback and requirements compared to an R-15, but multi-family isn't allowed use in both of those zones. Um, and

so it is something that we've considered uh, this specifically this zone is a little bit better for us in what we do have planned um, which would actually be some low-income housing um, throughout

that area. So that that's kind of the plan as of right now. Um, you know, we don't have an application for that yet. There are specific credit requirements and um, very specific financing things that

have to go through and those are not an application that we are reviewing tonight, but that that again, that's kind of our vision there. Um, and that zone is is a good zone for what we need to do

there. Um, so just to reiterate, we do need future hearings for all of the residential pieces. Uh, future either pre-plat and um, conditional use permit for any multi-family or pre-plat for any uh,

traditional multi-family duplexes, those sort of things. Um, so we we will have to come back no matter what in the residential area. And those are planned for the future because really we are focusing

on the commercial right now. I don't have exact timing um, on the lower commercial uh, the on the lower residential piece. I think the upper if we were to receive anything would probably have an

application in front of commission and council in probably about a year. Oh, sorry. My thing is slow. Um So again, within this area we'll have about 52 acres of commercial designated area, 35 of R15,

and 14 acres of R40, which again would be the multi-family piece. Um Really why we're coming in with comprehensive plan map amendment is due to those restrictions of the the specific um percentages

that that staff needs to see to kind of approve something like this. So originally, we came in and said, you know, "Hey, there's there's a lot of stuff going on in this greater mixed-use area, and we

didn't quite meet the the percentages of what staff was wanting to see there. So when we were looking at it, we thought, "You know what? We could extend this boundary a little bit more, incorporate

some of this stuff, and then we'll get closer to that mix." And as [name] demons- you know, did say, "We're not quite there still. We're we're just slightly above where we would need to be on the

retail side." Um but overall, I think we have a better mix of uses here. So the purple areas, that would be a mix of retail service and office. The darker blue is known office, pink is known um

retail, and then obviously we have our mix of residential uses through here. Um I will just note that mixed-use regional is one of the designations in the comp plan that does anticipate some higher

residential uses within there. Um and so far in that whole kind of grander scheme of things, we we don't have a whole lot of higher density residential throughout that area. So, I think this is a good

thing to bring in and at this time, especially as close to commercial uses as it is, um, I think it's a good layout. So, speaking about the kind of flexibility that [name] is requesting with this

application, um, we want to have some guidelines on what is required, but a little bit more flexibility because commercial is a much different beast than residential. When we come in with a

residential plat, we we know what the houses we're going to build because we're building it. Um, when it's a commercial development, we are either working in conjunction with somebody else, uh, you

know, a business owner or something like that where they're going to come in and build a building, or we build it on behalf and and they'll be a tenant of ours. However, the market is heavily, heavily

driven for commercial projects. It it could sway in five years of what it is we're wanting. And COVID's a great example of that, you know, we built a ton of offices and then we had to back way back

off of office offices and even, uh, restaurants and other things got changed throughout that process. Um, so so we are looking for a little bit of flexibility here and this is kind of what we would

like to be tied to, um, which is the square footage of buildings and building counts. And, uh, so you'll see kind of in different blocks we have an estimated square footage and, you know, obviously if

we're 174,000 instead of 175,000, we we hope that's close enough, but essentially we know that the the area of those spots can't realistically have greater than that square footage. But, that could be

a lot of smaller retail, office, or service buildings, um, you know, like dentists or little quick serves, or it could be maybe one large or grocer, um, and that's really where the market drives it.

You know, if if a grocery store, we just can't find one and there isn't anybody that really wants to go there or the market's not demanding it, we don't have enough rooftops to support that. Um we

would like that flexibility to have maybe um again smaller buildings that that can be fitted in there and work. Um so again, we kind of have that all laid out here and I'm happy to go back to that

later if you guys want to get it in more detail. Um so this again just kind of goes over why why it is we would ask for this type of flexibility. We don't have tenants right now. We have to go secure

tenants for these areas. We don't know what their building is going to look like. We don't know exactly what they're going to need. We don't know what their parking demands are going to be because we

don't know what type of use it is. So there's just a lot of things going on that we have to work through as we work through these. Generally, how the city has handled it is we have to come in every

single time with every single building and do a DA mod. Um that becomes a really big challenge for us because we have issues which we have just had a few really big issues um where every owner in that

development now has to go and resign a DA. And sometimes they refuse to sign a DA. And then we're held up and future tenants are held up due to one owner within our development saying, "No, I don't

agree to the DA mod." Even though they're already built, they're already permitted, they're already there. And the the DA doesn't have really anything to do with them anymore because they're already

occupied. But because they're within a development that we own and we are having to do a DA mod to update our site plan, they're now the holding to that. Um or rather we're beholden to them signing

that off. Um and I I have a slew of examples, but that's one of the main ones that we have run across and and it continues to be a problem for us. Um I'll just also mention that we do have to come in

with every building with either a CUP, a CCZ, or some other type of permitting process including a building permit to get anything new approved. So, there is still planning applications that have to

happen. It's It's not like a building can just come in and never be looked at. Um we have a pretty significant pedestrian flow throughout this development. Um because we don't know exactly what the

the R-15 and the R-40 is going to look like, we did kind of just show some options through here of we know we'll have some detached micro pathways, we know we'll have some um you know major pathways

through there and we'll have some roadway pathways. Um so, anything that's a dotted line is kind of subject to exactly how everything works out, but we know that we're going to be putting some

connections in through there. And then our pathways we kind of have two different pathways or um plazas, I apologize, that we intend to put in throughout the development. We have commercial plazas as

well as pedestrian plazas. So, here's one example of um the commercial plazas. These are very similar to what we have in 10 Mile if you're familiar with the Shields area, um where we have seating,

plantings, and then buildings. Um and we we try to make it so that those plazas are in between buildings. So, this is out at 10 Mile where we have, you know, some shade, some picnic areas, some

enhanced landscaping, and then these are sort of between buildings, so they're a little reprieve for people to go and gather. And then we'll have um some some things that are kind of between areas.

So, this one specifically uh there's there's a spot on the map. Let me go back to it. Um where we are the most right-hand triangle kind of in the center of that. Um where we know that we're going to

be interacting with the residential piece. Um we wanted to look at that a little bit more detailed and see how that could interact. So, we have mirrored on the other side of the commercial a gazebo

and some plantings and um

>> [clears throat]

>> seating and things that will kind of echo on both sides so that it just feels a little bit more cohesive, a little bit more intentional and then we will have some pathway corridors that go through

to both sides so it just it will kind of interact with one another and give people an opportunity to feel like it is one development and not multiple developments even though it is commercial and

residential. And then again this is examples primarily in the 10-mi area which will be similar um for the pathway plazas we have kind of unique hardscaped elements. Mostly we have kind of natural-

looking seats throughout there because we feel like it just it looks really nice and it kind of is a decorative feature if you're not actively walking. So, when you drive by it looks more like

landscaping but when you're walking it's obvious that it's a place to sit and relax if that's what you're wanting to do. Lastly, I'll talk a little bit about the design guidelines. Um This is

something we implemented at 10-mi as well. It just gives the developer a little bit more control to make sure that all of those buildings are cohesive that parking standards are met for what we want

to see as well as what the city wants to see. Our architectural standards are again what we want to see and and we request a little bit heavier on all of those things compared to what the city does.

So, again it just kind of gives us a little bit more say over how the overall design of this area is going to feel and make sure that it is cohesive. And with that we do actually agree with all of

planning's staff recommendations and we agree with their approval. Any questions?

>> Madam Chair.

>> Commissioner Gelsomino.

>> A quick question for the applicant. So, I noticed in the reports that a waiver uh to keep the Ross and Canal open has not been requested. Um before the council hearing, will [name] pipe the canal

through momentum or request the waiver?

>> Yeah, Commissioner Gelsomino. I did actually send an a note in. Um I did send a note in requesting that waiver. Um so, that should be in the public record somewhere.

>> Wonderful. Thank you.

>> lot of documentation, so.

>> Yeah.

>> Madam Chair.

>> Commissioner [name].

>> Uh can you walk us through Can you kind of go back to the um sort of bubble concept here, bubble map that shows the different um commercial residential sections. Keep going. Keep going. Right

there. Um so, can you walk us through what the transitions will look like the from the commercial to the R-15 on the north and the west? Um it looks like there's a road going through there. And then,

what's that road width? And then, what are the setbacks going to be required on both sides?

>> Yes. Uh I don't know the setbacks right off the top of my head. Um that's a local street width, which I believe is 36-ft. Um as far as transitions, you know, I I think with the future garden-style

apartments, we we do have a concept plan put together. Again, I think we're just not quite ready to share that because we know that it could change if the crediting doesn't come through with that. Um

but, we have a lot of the green space and other things kind of butt it up against that commercial area um to to kind of one create a buffer, but also to um to create a nice plaza area between those

two things. Um the transition from the R-15 space, you know, we're kind of transitioning density down. So, we'll have a mix of townhomes, duplexes, um closer to the R-40 area and the also the um east

side there. West side, sorry. Um we'll also have kind of the higher density and then the lower density will filter down toward the east. So, that's fairly typical of what we would do in any

subdivision development, but again we don't have a fully baked plan there.

>> So, it's still possible that there'll be duplexes that will be in close proximity to the commercial area. Um so, I'm asking because we ran into this issue a lot with a Costco in in North Meridian

where we had um you know, apartments that were on the backside of Costco, but then we had an an applicant that came in um on the on the um property just across the the um the roadway that was a little

higher intense use and that applicant was denied because of the proximity to the residential. So, I'm just not wanting to see that process happen again and also just really take into account, you

know, R-15 duplexes are you know, they're detached housing or they're attached housing, but they're not high density like we talked about and I just have a lot of concerns about them being right up

against the commercial. So, um I think those are the kind of things that staff was hoping to have more information about um you know, and I unders- I understand the applicant's desire to want to keep

this flexible. Um but tho- those are the kind of things that kind of give me pause about keeping this as flexible as you're requesting.

>> Um I guess I can talk to that a little bit more as far as um those sorts of transitions. I think they are fairly natural. There are some roadways that um are already installed throughout this area

that would create a separation and a buffer. Let me actually just go back to this one. So, um oh you know, Optimum View actually goes through that entire area already. Spire's only built to the

center, but it will be connected all the way over. That's a requirement of ACHD. So, you know, those those sorts of roadways, which that's a collector, those act as a natural transition and that's a

very normal thing to see throughout the city of Meridian, um between a commercial and a residential area. Um you know, I I think the one thing that maybe you guys just don't see a lot of is is

something this big. Um it is 160 acres for the for the entire picture that you see right here. And so, I think normally what you would kind of anticipate seeing is, "Hey, there's a commercial

developer that comes in and does a piece of this." And then a residential developer would come in and do another piece of this. And they're kind of at odds, um which is not the case for what we do. Is

we we actually do have a very holistic approach. If for some reason, um you know, we came in and and our commercial area wasn't doing well or performing well, um you know, that would be on us to see

what else we needed to do to the to the to the development to make it work. Or, you know, later on if the R-15 seems like it might not work, then we may have to pause, um readjust, and come in with

another application, but you know, we feel like this is a good transi- transition. This is something that we have done in other areas and it has been very successful without people feeling like

they're too close to a commercial area. Um if anything, I I keep hearing that we want more commercial close to us, uh especially over in Mile, that's that's what we hear a lot of is we want more

commercial. We want it near us. We want it in our backyard, basically. So, we hope to get that to people.

>> I'm chair.

>> Commissioner Smith.

>> Can you walk me through, kind of given how the preliminary plat set up, can you walk me through the decision to um focus on mixed-use regional instead of, you know, more kind of separate commercial

and residential? Um you know, in terms of the the CPAM.

>> Yeah, there's there there was a discussion actually with staff about possibly just doing commercial on one side and just doing residential on the other. Um we do want this to integrate um with

both. We want the residents to be able to walk over to the commercial area. We want it to be an integrated project. Um you know, there there is a lot of opportunity for that here. Could we have gone

that direction and and maybe gotten something close? Maybe. Um but, you know, with the way that the roads are already built out, um some of the tenants that we that we do know, again, we we have a

known office user, and we do have the Costco already out there. Um I feel like that would have been more of a challenge than extending the mixed-use regional.

>> I'm chair.

>> Commissioner Smith.

>> I I think that's fair. I think I guess I'll give you a um and and I'll pose this as a question. I'll give you some like kind of where my concern is. Um and I'd love to get your thoughts is that I

understand that the desire for that flexibility. I understand the need want to agree with it. I have a little bit of something that I'm struggling with is is that kind of a lot of the times um we see

mixed-use um applications come in and it is just kind of residential next to commercial. And you don't see a very strong integration of uses. And I think if we're going to move this to mixed-use, um

while this isn't far off, I think it it really would hinge whether it kind of complies with the vision of what mixed-use is supposed to be for is really going to hinge on those shared amenities, the

reduced kind of pedestrian drive aisle, you know, conflicts. I feel like that's really hard to do piecemeal. Um so, I guess that's kind of some concern that I have of how do we make sure that we get

that interconnectivity right? We want it to integrate and not just design it for you, like that's not the goal, but to make sure that we have those shared amenities um if we're treating kind of

different applications kind of one by one, what's the mechanism by which we make sure that we're still aligning to that mixed-use vision as things change over time?

>> I think the way the conditions are written is one way that that I I think that's how we got staff's approval on this. Um you know, we worked hard in over the last month to make sure that the

conditions gave them a level of certainty on what we will commit to, which is we will commit to plazas, we'll commit to a good pedestrian corridor for each area and that will integrate to one another.

Um you know, I think I'll go back to this graphic here. Um while these plaza locations might shift a little, uh it would only be a shift if the buildings changed, right? So, we know we'll have

probably 9 to 12 plazas throughout this area that will be shared public amenities um for both the residential users as well as the commercial users. Um sorry that I keep talking about 10 Mile, but it

it is a very similar concept to 10 Mile where we have, you know, apartment users and we do have residential near us and and all of those people walk through our development. We see them on the

pathways next to the canal by our office all the time, you know, and they come and they hang out at different areas throughout the development and you know, the people we know specifically cuz there's

a lot of [name] employees that live in those apartments. They say, you know, I I don't ever go anywhere else. Like I just walk through here. I get what I need. I go home. That would be the vision here

as well as making sure it does all work together and I think having that um control with the design standards is one way to to make sure that happens even if we were to sell a piece of this property

which I don't foresee happening at all, but if it did happen, those design standards have to stay in play. Those are part of our development agreement. They can't be changed. They can't be removed

unless a development agreement modification came through. Um so no so no matter what happens, all of the multi-family, all of the residential, and all of the commercial pieces have to go through not

only city review, but also [name] review.

>> Thank you.

>> I'm sure.

>> Commissioner Stoll.

>> Uh just so I'm clear, so the applicant is in agreement with staff's proposed development agreement provisions and conditions as outlined.

>> Yes, that's correct.

>> Okay. Thank you.

>> Okay. Any other questions for [name] at this time? All right, thank you very much.

>> Thank you.

>> Madam Clerk, do we have anybody signed up to testify?

>> Thank you, Madam Chair. No one has signed up.

>> Did anybody else have any questions for staff? [name], did you have any closing comments? Nope, you're good. All right, may I get a motion to close the public hearing?

>> So moved.

>> Second.

>> It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on Momentum Subdivision. All those in favor say I.

>> I.

>> Any opposed? Motion carries.

>> Madam Chair.

>> Commissioner [name].

>> Kick us off. Um so for the most part, I'm in favor of the proposed DA provisions. Um I would have preferred that um we kept staff's recommendation for maximum of 20 dwelling use units in R40. And

um I think it was 12 in R15. I would have been more comfortable with that given um the the proximity to the medium high and medium residential on the east side. Um and uh so that's that's my

preference. I That's not something I would I'm a hill I'm going to die on.

>> Right.

>> Um other than that, I'm I'm not opposed to increasing the maximum retail commercial uses. I I do think there's an absolute need for this in that area. I mean, South Meridian's you know, they've

been relegated to coming to North Meridian and South Boise. And I'm excited about this. Um but I have con- I'm excited about the location. I'm excited about the concept, but I have concerns about it

um as it's designed. Um so in general, I'm in agreement with the DA provisions. I However, I agree with staff that I want some more detail in their concept plan. So, there's two developments that come

to mind. Um one is the development that we have um been in conversation with the applicant for a very long time at the corner of Amity and um Highway 69 on the uh west side. And we we asked a lot of

them of getting specific on on um you know, square footages of buildings. Um I mean, open space require- It was just very, very detailed. Um and I feel like that we did that well and we did it for the

public good. And the applicant, you know, they they worked really, really hard for that. Um also, in the district at 10 Mile on the west side, in uh kind of that northwest corner, um same thing, that

applicant had to give us really specific um building sizes, and they came in for a D modification at least once, possibly twice. Um and I'm just much more comfortable. I I uh completely understand

[name]'s concern, how commercial is going, how commercial financing is going, the challenges of developing a commercial [snorts] development right now. I understand that. Um however, I don't feel like

that would be equitable to the other applicants in our community to give that kind of flexibility when we have been so specific with their projects. Um I don't And I also don't feel like it's fair to

the public to approve a concept plan that says, "There may be two buildings here, or there may be eight buildings here. We're not really sure." Um I think if you're a resident in that area, you want

to have a little more specificity than that. Um so, I'm a lot more comfortable with I understand the limitations of constantly coming in and having DA um you know, modifications and the frustration of

that. Um but there really is a purpose for it, and and all the 10 years I've been doing this, I have found that it's made for better um developments. Um so, as it stands, I'm okay with the proposed DA

provisions, but I definitely want some more detail on commercial-residential transitions, um transitions to the east side, and um more specifics on, you know, building sizes or or number of buildings

and sizes of the square footages of the buildings and whatnot.

>> Madam Chair.

>> Commissioner Smith.

>> Um I think Commissioner [name] um s- stole um my comments for the most part. Um, I I think my concern is a lot heavier on the the integration of uses and that transition to the, um, to adjacent

properties. Um, you know, if if we have roughly the same square footage and it's two or three buildings, it I I'm not as, you know, that doesn't give me as much heartburn. I do I would still

appreciate some clarity there. Um, but I think there, you know, when we look at the amount of you know, this kind of void on the residential side of this kind of idea of hey, stuff will be here

>> Right.

>> sort of and we don't know, you know, we prioritize transition a lot and good transition from uh, you know, type of use to type of use. So, I I've been kind of in a spot where I'm generally

supportive of this. I understand, you know, you don't want to be held hostage by one random person refusing to sign a DA agreement. and that's not you know, that's not fair, um, to the applicant. Uh,

but at the same time, I think there's just a a I can see a lot of future late nights for both staff, the commission, the applicant, everyone involved

>> Right.

>> um, trying to make some imperfect thing work

>> Yeah.

>> down the line because we're sort of kicking the can down the road. And again, if that's if that's what it's going to take to make this work for, you know, where the development is, where the market

is, kind of the situation we're in, I'm not going to I'm not going to be up in arms over it. And maybe this is just maybe we're maybe it's just some conditions, um, to establish before this goes to

council and we pass we add some conditions around, you know, locking in more of those transition spaces and maybe holding the applicant more accountable to some portions of that. I don't know what

that specifically looks like and we can workshop that, but that's kind of where I'm at in it. I I want to be able to support this tonight.

>> [clears throat]

>> I'm just kind of I'm struggling with the the lack of of visibility down the line.

>> I agree that each application is individual. So, even though we did maybe have made approvals at Sky Ranch subdivision and the comparison was made, well, if we did it there, we should be able to do

it here. Well, that's over there. So, and even though it might be in proximity, it's still different. I also appreciate using Ten Mile and actually using Costco North as as examples because now we

have a visual in our head. And we already know with Costco North, there's some challenges to that site. Um those apartments right there with that drive aisle in and out wanted to come in. We We denied

it because even though everything should have fit, it doesn't based on the traffic motions in that particular area. And as much as there's more space right now in South Meridian, that doesn't mean

that that's going to happen in the future. And so, having those apartment buildings on a drive aisle in the middle of the technically in the middle of the Costco parking lot right adjacent to, you

know, the loading dock and having the neighbors come out and saying, you know, you can only operate between um till 5:00 p.m. and you can't come back until 5:00 a.m. And so, now restrictions are

putting on your your your tenants that might end up coming in. So, learning from our mistakes as we go forward, I don't want to even say mistakes, but just the challenges of the the space, I think,

becomes important and I'll reiterate what Commissioner Smith and Commissioner [name] is saying that if we have more details, that becomes important. Um having those DA modifications and if those

changes with your current tenants, there needs to be some language in your um in your development agreement with those that if there are changes, they need to help support that because they're part of

a larger picture. Even though they may be an individual tenant, and their um their fees or or their their rent, but they're still part of a bigger picture and if those things change, you know, they

need to go along with it because they're not an island, they're part of a group. So, um I'm um uh the same. I want to be able to support this, but I think the checks and balances for the city, [name]

is going to a lot more um checks than he would with other applica- other applicants than he would normally to make sure because this a big project and there is so much commercial and residential

involved and there's just so many pieces, it actually puts a strain on staff as well. So, and that's not fair because those are things that we don't ask of other applicants because we ask them to come

in with a detailed plan. Those are already identified. Commissioners, any other comments as far as this application is concerned?

>> Madam Chair.

>> Commissioner Gelsomino.

>> Uh The only point I can add to what has already been said is, you know, when it comes to in my time in the 8 years I was serving as Parks Commissioner and Chair, uh whenever it came to dog parks,

uh that's when my ears perked up. In the Planning and Zoning Commission now, whenever I hear any sort of impact to our schools, our school districts, that's when my ears perk up. So, um the only point

I will add to what has already been said is, you know, my concern is always going to be that um existing overcapacity of our schools. And the ways we can mitigate uh you know, the tension and the the

pressure on our already pressured schools.

>> Right. And also understand, schools will respond based on rooftops. And until that gets to a capacity where they're not comfortable, that's when they'll start to react. Um I think [name] mentioned

that right now we're seeing a little bit lower enrollments, but they will it's ebb and flows and they will come. And don't forget there's alternative to schools uh with the magnet magnets and other

charter schools and private schools as well that like already exist in that area. Um someone who works in the schools very closely, I'm actually not as concerned about that at this time because I

don't think they're going to have rooftops for several years.

>> Yeah.

>> And so at that time it the whole wave could have already changed two or three times at that point in time. So we'll just kind of have to cross that bridge when we get to it. But I I agree with your

concerns because overcrowding um does not uh vibe well for um active learners.

>> Absolutely.

>> Commissioner [name]. Can you check your mic? There you go.

>> Thank you. Um so I just have concern that this will create if if we agree to this as is that it will create a bit of a precedence for future developments. Now, there's not very many areas in

Meridian that have this much acreage to develop into commercial, but I don't want to create a precedence where we allow such flexibility um for future applicants um I feel like we'll have a future

applicant come in and say, "Well, you did this, you know, for this applicant." And I I I appreciate that um um Chairwoman Lorcher's, you know, wanting to separate the different applications and they

are different from one another, but I think there is an overall um precedent that gets set and how we handle them. And so that's a concern of mine. Um And then um I the the question I have, am I

permitted to ask staff a question?

>> Uh you're uh to the to staff?

>> Yeah.

>> Yeah, go go ahead.

>> Okay. So, um with this feedback that we're giving do we need to give specifics about what we want to see in a concept plan? Um I mean, we've mentioned specifics, but in our motion do we need to

say, "Here's the specific things that we would like to see." Or is that just something that you're going to take our feedback and work with the applicant on before it goes to City Council?

>> Uh Madam Chair, Commissioner [name], I guess it depends. Are you guys planning to advance tonight? Do you want to continue it to see those changes? Um those are those are some of the things that I

would ask because if there are things you want changed prior to either them coming back in front of you or in front of City Council, yes, I would be specific in what changes you do want to see or what

things you want to be binding in the development agreement that that aren't currently. So, correct. I I would be as specific as you can. Um obviously, I know that there's challenges to that cuz you

don't have all the details as far as the residential portion of it, but if those are the things you do want to see, I would be specific about it, so it gives the applicant clear direction. Correct.

Yep.

>> Madam Chair.

>> Uh Commissioner Smith.

>> I have a question for staff counsel. I I'm as I'm kind of working through some of the specifics, is it feasible, advisable, legal um to

>> Do it.

>> uh you know, there's the question of how, you know, whether the concept plan is binding. Is it feasible to make to require some of it be binding and leave some of it as illustrative if we highlight

specifically, for for example, what I'm thinking is if we if it were possible to make binding uh concept plan uh along the eastern and southern boundary of the residential areas and at the points at

which the the boundaries between the residential and commercial uses, essentially saying, "Hey, where those interact within a mixed-use kind of plan, we want to see something more clearly. Whether you

internally within the residential, whether you need to reconfigure things, that's okay, but we want to see something more binding in those areas of concern." Is that Is that doable?

>> No, Madam Chair, Commissioner Smith, you know, can't say I've seen that, but yes, you know, you guys could uh have specifics tied to specific areas, and then the other areas you could be a little

bit more broad. You would just need to make that clearer in the development agreement. Um, correctly, but yes, it is achievable. I think it it can get probably a little clouded, but as long as it's

clear in the development agreement, so in the future people can interpret it correctly, yes, uh it is it is a possibility.

>> Well, let's hear from the attorney.

>> Uh yes, agree with what staff said. It would just have to be drafted appropriately.

>> Okay, thank you.

>> Thank you.

>> So, Madam Chair, I'm sorry. Just some clarifications for us this evening as we we deliberate on this application. Again, I do appreciate all your perspectives. I guess my question or my ask of you

is, realizing in the staff report, we, you know, the applicant has reservations with a a specific concept plan, so they put together the plans that are before you here. I guess my question to all of

you is, are you are you comfortable with the flexibility in the square footages and the number of buildings that they show here? Is that that's one question. And two, are you are you wanting to see

more of a layout for the residential portion? Cuz right now, um uh we understand the applicant is maybe massaging some of those plans. They're not ready to share those details. There's a lot of work

happening behind the scenes that we're not privy to. But, I can tell you some of the review that [name] and I had with this application is um much of this project is bifurcated by roads. You know,

that's typically what we see. Transitions between these uses are going to be street buffers, so they're collector roadways, so there's 20-ft buffers. Typically, in our mixed-use areas, we have

detached sidewalks and parkways to try to bring in some of those pedestrian elements. So, again, I think [name] has a lot of those things covered in his DA provisions. I'm not trying to minimize the

level of effort or work he'll have to put into that to guarantee that those things have to be uh put in place, but a lot of the some of the work that the applicant shared with you is nearing

completion already. Those were some of the elements they had in their previous their first DA where they had to put all of that infrastructure in ahead of time. So, that's their a way their way of

trying to adjust to market conditions by doing this all this infrastructure work on the front end. So, I understand that yes, not all applications are the same and nor should we look at all of them

the same. Each one has a a different challenge associated with them. And that one on north of this project has a little bit more challenge because they're trying to bring in two pieces that are

actually bifurcated by a road, which posed that challenge. That's a completely separate situation here.

>> Right.

>> So, again, I'm not trying to complicate the matter. I don't I don't know what other details you'd like to see. We asked for the plazas. We've asked for a pedestrian circulation plan. We have those

things. I have worked on a lot of development agreements as you can probably imagine and there have been cases where we've had multiple concept plans tied to one DA to give the applicant flexibility.

Again, we've had discussions with the applicant where as they mentioned, they have no tenants here except Costco. That's the reality. The rest of this is they're trying to meet the requirements of our

parking code, of our landscape ordinance, of our design review standards where buildings should be brought to the street. That's why you see this plan. The big box on here is all conceptual and that's

the one thing where we asked the applicant, "What if there's not a big box, what does that look like?" To me, that's the the elephant in the room in my opinion because again, I can picture all of the

other uses north of Costco cuz you've already acted on a plat with five buildable lots there. So, to me, everything kind of in that northwest corner is somewhat baked um with that with that plat. It

really comes down to the southern half of the project and the R40 piece um that basically has walkways on it. There's no as you said, we don't know if they're three-story apartments, we don't know if

they're four-story, we don't know if they're three and four. We don't know if they're two, threes, and fours. Um so that's to me those are a lot of the details that we were hoping to get when we met

with the applicant. And granted, do we need all those details? Maybe not. Um again, we're coming back with a conditional use permit to to take that up with you um this body. More than likely if

there's no plat, it's coming to you and stopping with you because it's a conditional use permit. All that to say is again, we try to build flexibility in development agreements. Um I can tell you with

the applicant coming forward with their design concept, with them handling the design review, that has made sta- staff's job easier. We use that consistently in the 10-mile area and it works great.

They come in with a CZC, they've got their architectural approval, they give us their letter, and that works fantastic. And uh for the most part, I would say 10-mile has developed the way they've

shown it in their design guidelines and also with their approved plat. So again, I when I've looked at DAs throughout the past um concept plans, I have giving I've heard some of that discussion this

evening where if it's one building, if it's two buildings at 2,000 square feet, or one building at 20,000 square feet, one can probably make an argument it's generally consistent. Um I know [name] had

some concerns about to me it's the integration and the cross sections of crossing the street to get over to the commercial from the residential, and that's where [name] has done a lot of hard work

saying you need to put some of these pedestrian connections across and showing how that's going to work. So to me those are the details that we probably need to focus on more so than if there's eight

buildings versus 12 buildings versus 16 buildings. Again, the intent is to make sure that it's walkable, it integrates, people can cross the street safely. They don't have to go across the street to

get other services. It's supposed to all work in concert. And the streets are supposed to have those pedestrian elements of wider sidewalks, parkways, bulb outs, traffic calming, which I know these

streets incorporate a lot of those things that we've already looked at. So, again, I know I'm just kind of talking through things and trying to help you understand where we're at and why we ended up

with the conditions is because um we know what the applicant wants to do. We know what you guys want. We know you want the integration, you want the mix of uses. And we know ultimately this is going

on to City Council and they're going to make the decision on it. So, again, if if there are things you want to see and you think you can get there with a DA provision or apply condition, include that

in your motion and make it clear to the applicant that they should have those details worked out before City Council. Or if you want to see them before you move them on, then just open up the public

hearing, have a conversation with the applicant again, and say these are the things we want addressed. Are you good with that? And when would you like to continue the project and have the

conversation?

>> Okay, thanks, [name]. Mr. Stoll, did you have some comments?

>> Um trying to remember them now. Uh I really appreciate the the need for flexibility and the changing market conditions. So, I'm supportive of of what staff has laid out as far as the DA the

proposed DA provisions um conditions. Um I agree with you, Chairman, that it's per application. Um we're not locking ourselves in. Um I am comfortable with testing this out and seeing how it works.

So, I'm supportive of the application.

>> I'm also supportive of um in the motion that this is all ready for Council and that not necessarily having to come back here to commission unless you all feel that you need more information to make

a confident decision.

>> Madam Chair.

>> Commissioner Smith.

>> Yeah, I've I've been chewing in on this and I think I think where I'm at I think I'm coming to understand I'm just going to have to sit with a little bit of heartburn on some areas. I think for the

most part this is close to ready for council. I think in terms of you know save for going you know lot and block by lot and block and requiring some to be binding or something like that. I I think the

thing that would mainly um the one that I think is maybe lower hanging fruit is um regarding the transition kind of to medium density is just is just not allowing multi-family um immediately adjacent

to medium dense the medium density. So just that if there is you know multi-family we're fine with that just keeping it away from that transition space to allow for better transition. And then if I if

I could you know wave a wand I don't know how more feasible this is. Maybe this is something that is just some uh you know wish casting a little bit is just a little bit more um clarity around I guess

call them call them keystone amenities. Um I know there's pepperings of plazas. Some of the plaza locations seem like they're a little bit more central to the use like the sub the sub um you know

section rather than the whole application. I understand this is a very large development. Um but I'd like to see a little bit more um I guess shared amenities. Um call them rather than what feels a

little bit like amenities that that everyone could get to but aren't share shared in nature. Um so that's that's where I'm at and I think if we can at the very least get to that um the residential

transition part will be awesome we you the second part but I I think I with those I'd be comfortable sending on to council. I don't know that we need to you know, I don't know if we know that we need

to really kind of paint by numbers across the whole thing.

>> Okay. Commissioner [name].

>> Madam Chair, can we go back to that last slide, please? So, um I'm not trying to compare other other developments, but as um Madam Chair mentioned, we learn from each one. And I'm thinking about um

Orchard Park, and we went back and forth and back and forth on the residential that's on the south side of WinCo. Um I think all in all, that's probably developed out okay, but we had a lot of

conversations with that developer about and the zoning was different. We had a conversation with that developer about um plazas and place making and pedestrian safety. Um and it really kind of hasn't

played out the way that I think we had in our minds in pedestrian. We really wanted that to be uh something where all of those um surrounding residents were walking over there and using that and it

has not turned out that way. And I think that is not because of the businesses that are there, it's not because of the number of buildings that are there, it's because of there not being a design that

makes it friendly to do that. Um I know that [name] is attempting to do that, but I agree with Commissioner Smith that there's still some work to be done on that. Um and so my concern and what is

different from the other developments we've seen is that, you know, if we say in this southern section that there is one building that's 175,000 square feet, which is what's proposed here, yeah. I

mean, I have some challenge with that, right? Cuz now we're talking about two really significant size buildings. So, I would feel more comfortable if we had further clarity on how many buildings for

the square feet and and it can be a range. I just don't want it to say there can be one building that's 175,000 square feet. Now, the northwest corner, you know, three buildings at 60,000 square feet,

well, that's fine because we have commercial all around it. We have an intense use already there. But in the sections that are close to the residential, that's where I'm having heartburn. Um so, same

thing in the green area, you know, two buildings at 45,000 square feet, uh that's kind of significant, right? So, those are the things that I'd like to see addressed. Um you know, 60,000 square foot

one building, that's not a small building. Now, that is next going to be next to the the um R40. So, I'm not as concerned about that, but definitely concerned about the um the commercial that's going

to go around that R15 section for sure. I don't feel a need to have a specific layout in the residential. I'm okay with not knowing the number of buildings. I'm okay with not knowing, you know, how

many duplexes, um but I do want to see how that is going to transition. Um so, whether that's, you know, additional setbacks, whether that's green space, whether that's, you know, whatever that looks

like, I would like to see some of that. Um I don't feel the need to bring this back to us. I think it's fine to go to City Council. I don't need to review that. Um and the but I have one more question

for staff, and that is um you talked about uh traffic calming measures, and I didn't feel like there was really specifics on that. Um you know, these are straight streets. They're not curving through,

and so there isn't a natural traffic calming here. So, I don't know if we're talking about like bumps that bump outs, which I think are amazing in these kind of areas cuz they give a place making

feel, or if we're talking about speed bumps, or kind of what that's going to look like.

>> Yeah, Madam Chair, members of the commission, [name] and kind of look at those details with I know those requirements to do some of those bulb outs and everything at the intersection. so we'll get

more of those details for you. The other part of going kind of back to I I appreciate your perspective and your comments, uh Commissioner [name]. Again, you can say you got to have a minimum three

buildings or minimum whatever buildings you want down there if that's how you want the conversation to go. And again, the applicants probably happy to go forward with that. And if that's something

they want to take up with council, they can say "We don't agree with the commission and council, we think we we have a right with one to nine buildings." So, again, if that's something that you want a

transition between the residential and the medium-density residential, include that. They can provide that detail to council or not. Or ask council to strike that. And the same thing with the the

building layouts here. If you think one building at 175,000, you want to see like a minimum of four buildings on that yellow section, say that. I want to see a minimum four buildings or if that's

four, what is that? Nine plus seven, 16 buildings, so you got a minimum of 10 buildings on that southern half. You can require that, too. I mean, it it's it's your purview to say what you want added

in that. If you want some of those specifics in the DA. Or if you want to cap them at square footages, again, they have another opportunity to take up that discussion with city council.

>> Commissioner [name].

>> Chair. Being the southy on the commission, uh just uh I'm excited to have this application come before us. Um and I uh I do uh agree with the commissioners. More detail would probably uh help us in

this situation. But after reading through the DA and the comments that staff has made and the com- the the comments that are in the DA, I feel quite comfortable uh moving this forward the way it is.

So.

>> Okay. All right. Any other comments before we have a motion?

>> Madam Chair.

>> Commissioner Smith.

>> I think I'll take a crack at a motion. Um, I'm open to amendments if uh other commissioners would like to tweak that. Um, so after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move

that we recommend file number Sorry. Uh, H-2026-00 36 uh for approval to City Council with the following modifications. Um, to uh require the DA mod include a provision that prevents um multi-family

housing from being built bordering uh la- land that is set for medium-density residential. Uh, and to provide additional shared amenity amenities and integration between residential, commercial uh

uses on the south the western side of the south residential application, so between the big box and that residential. Um, and on the I guess I'll call it, you know, if we're looking at this page but

this between this baby blue, the 60,000 square feet, and the residential um that interconnectivity area. Um, so pardon the sloppy language, but that is that is my motion.

>> Seconded.

>> It's been moved and seconded to um recommend to City Council Momentum Subdivision with the aforementioned um conditions. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? I also will say aye. Motion

carries. I will take one more motion for the evening.

>> Madam Chair.

>> Commissioner Gelsomino.

>> Motion to adjourn.

>> Second.

>> It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye.