Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-04-03 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Thursday, April 03, 2025 at 6:00 PM MINUTES ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE PRESENT Commissioner Patrick Grace Commissioner Jessica Perreault Commissioner Sam Rust Commissioner Matthew Sandoval Chairperson Maria Lorcher ABSENT Commissioner Brian Garrett Commissioner Jared Smith ADOPTION OF AGENDA Adopted CONSENT AGENDA \[Action Item\] Approved Motion to approve made by Commissioner Rust, Seconded by Commissioner Perreault. Voting Yea: Commissioner Grace, Commissioner Perreault, Commissioner Rust, Commissioner Sandoval 1. Approve Minutes of the March 20, 2025 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA \[Action Item\] ACTION ITEMS 2. Public Hearing for In-N-Out Burger at Ten Mile (H-2024-0058) by In-and-Out th Burger, located at 5985 & 6037 N. Ten Mile Rd. Continued to April 17, 2025 Application Requires Continuance for Re-Noticing to Include the Underlined Text Below A. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a drive-through establishment in the C- G zoning district within 300 feet of another drive-through facility, existing residences and a residential district. The request includes extended business hours of operation beyond the 6:00 am to 11:00pm limit, with hours from 6:00 am to 1:00 am Sunday through Thursday, and 6:00 am to 1:30 am Friday and Saturday. Motion to continue to April 17, 2025 made by Commissioner Perreault, Seconded by Commissioner Rust. Voting Yea: Commissioner Grace, Commissioner Sandoval, Chairperson Lorcher 3. Public Hearing continued from March 6, 2025 for Latitude Forty Three Subdivision (H-2024-0059) by Rodney Evans + Partners, LLC., located at 675, 715 and 955 S. Wells St. Recommend Approval to City Council Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2024-0059 A. Request: Annexation of 17.27 acres of land with R-8 (13.78 acres), R-15 (2.42 acres) and C-N (1.07 acres) zoning districts. B. Request: Preliminary Plat to re-subdivide lots 7, 21 and 22, Magic View Subdivision, Amended into 81 residential lots, 1 commercial lot and 12 common/other lots on 15.97 acres of land in the R-8, R-15 and C-N zoning districts with some Private Streets. Motion to recommend approval by City Council made by Commissioner Rust, Seconded by Commissioner Grace. Voting Yea: Commissioner Grace, Commissioner Perreault, Commissioner Rust, Commissioner Sandoval, Chairperson Lorcher ADJOURNMENT 7:06 PM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To view upcoming Public Hearing Notices, visit https://apps.meridiancity.org/phnotices --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Approve Minutes of the March 20, 2025 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting 3 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 20,2025 Page 17 of 17 Rust: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to approve Core & Main. All those in favor say Aye. Any opposed? Grace: Nay. Lorcher: Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE NAY. Lorcher: Before we adjourn I would like to welcome Commissioner Perreault. She has actually been a Planning and Zoning Commissioner in the past, so just thought you would like to maybe talk a little bit about your experience and welcome you here for the Commission tonight. Perreault: Thank you. I was a -- yes, I was a Planning and Zoning Commissioner from 2017 to 2019 and, then, had the privilege to serve on City Council from 2020 to 2024. So, obviously, I like it here. I'm very excited to return and be able to serve the city in this capacity. Land use applications are a special interest to me. Economic growth of the city special interest to me. I not only enjoy the process, but just love to -- to -- to offer my knowledge as a way to community. So, thank you very much for having me. Lorcher: All right. Very good. I will take one more motion. Rust: Madam Chair, I move that we adjourn. Smith: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and second to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:54 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS. ) APPROVED MARIA LORCHER - CHAIRMAN 4-3-2025 ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK 4-3-2025 F20 Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting April 3, 2025. Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of April 3, 2025, was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Maria Lorcher. Members Present: Commissioner Maria Lorcher, Commissioner Jessica Perreault, Commissioner Jared Smith, Commissioner Matthew Sandoval and Commissioner Sam Rust. Members Absent: Commissioner Brian Garrett. Others Present: Tina Lomeli, Emily Kane, Bill Parsons, Sonya Allen and Dean Willis. ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE Brian Garrett X Jessica Perreault X Matthew Sandoval X Patrick Grace _X Sam Rust X Jared Smith X Maria Lorcher - Chairman Lorcher: Okay. Good evening. Welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for April 3rd, 2025. At this time I would like to call the meeting to order. Just making sure there is no feedback here. The Commissioners who are present for tonight are on Zoom and at meeting tonight. Okay. We also have staff from the city attorney's and the city clerk's office as well the city planning department. If you are joining us on Zoom this evening we can see that you are here. You may observe the meeting. However, your ability to be seen on screen and talk will be muted. During the testimony portion of the meeting you will be unmuted and be able to comment. Please note that we cannot take questions until the public testimony portion. If you have a process question during the meeting, please, e-mail cityclerk@meridiancity.org and they will reply as quickly as possible. If you simply want to watch the meeting we encourage you to watch this streaming on the city's YouTube channel. You can access that at meridiancity.org/live. With that we will go to roll call. Madam Clerk. Lomeli: For the record on the agenda we did list Commissioner Andrew Seal. That is a typo, so I will not be calling him for roll call tonight. So, let's begin. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Lorcher: The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. Please note Item 2, In and Out Burger at Ten Mile, will be open for the sole purpose of continuance. So, if there is anybody here tonight to testify on this application we will not be taking public testimony at this time. Could I get a motion to adopt tonight's agenda? Rust: So moved. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 3,2025 Page 2 of 22 Perreault: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to adopt this agenda. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] 1. Approve Minutes of the March 20, 2025 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Lorcher: Next item is the Consent Agenda. It includes to approve the minutes of the March 20th Planning and Zoning meeting. Could I get a motion to accept that Consent Agenda as presented? Rust: So moved. Perreault: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to present -- to approve the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIES: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] Lorcher: At this time I would like to briefly explain the public hearing process. We will open each item individually and begin with the staff report. Staff will report their findings on how the item adheres to our Comprehensive Plan and our Unified Development Code. After staff has made their presentation the applicant will come forward and present their case and respond to staff's comments. They will have 15 minutes to do so. After the applicant has finished we will open the floor to public testimony. Each person will be called only once during public testimony. The clerk will call the names individually of those who have signed up on our website in advance to testify. You may come to the microphone in Chambers or you will be unmuted on Zoom. Please state your name and address for the record and you will have three minutes to address the Commission. If you have previously sent pictures or a presentation for the meeting it will be displayed on the screen and this lady clerk will help you run the presentation. If you have established that you are speaking on the behalf of a larger group, like an HOA, where others from that group will allow you to speak on their behalf, you will have up to ten minutes. After all those who have signed up in advance have spoken we will invite any others who wish to testify. If you wish to speak on a topic you may come forward in Chambers or on the Zoom app you may press the raise hand button and if you are listening on the phone please press star nine and wait for your name to be called. If you are listening on multiple devices, such as a -- as a computer and a phone, F Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 3,2025 Page 3 of 22 please, be sure to mute the extra devices so we don't experience feedback. When you are finished if the Commission does not have questions for you you will return to your seat in Chambers or be muted on Zoom and no longer have the ability to speak and please remember we will not call on you a second time. After all the testimony has been heard the applicant will be given another ten minutes to come back and respond. When the applicant has finished responding to questions and concerns we will close the public hearing and the Commissioners will have an opportunity to discuss and hopefully make final decisions or recommended to City Council as needed. ACTION ITEMS 2. Public Hearing for In-N-Out Burger at Ten Mile (H-2024-0058) by (n- and-Out Burger, located at 5985 & 6037 N. Ten Mile Rd. A. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a drive-through establishment in the CG zoning district within 300 feet of another drive-through facility, existing residences and a residential district. The request includes extended business hours of operation beyond the 6:00 am to 11:00 pm limit, with hours from 6:00 am to 1:00 am Sunday through Thursday, and 6:00 am to 1:30 am Friday and Saturday. Lorcher: So, tonight I would like to open the public hearing for In and Out, File No. H- 2024-0058, for a continuance for the signage to be renoticed. Madam Clerk, do we have a date in mind? Lomeli: Thank you, Madam Chair. We have April 17th. Lorcher: Can I get a motion for continuance for April 17th, please? Rust: So moved. Grace: Second. Lorcher: Oh. Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: I move that we close the public hearing for In and Out Burger at Ten Mile, H- 2024-0058 and continue it -- and, then, make a second motion to continue or do we make the motion to continue first and, then, close the public hearing? Kane: Madam Chair, the -- the motion would be to continue the public hearing. Perreault: Okay. All right. Madam Chair, I rescind my prior motion. Lorcher: Okay. F Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 3,2025 Page 4 of 22 Perreault: I move that we continue the public hearing for H-2024-0058 to be continued to April 17th, 2025. Rust: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to continue In and Out until April 17th. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. 3. Public Hearing continued from March 6, 2025 for Latitude Forty Three Subdivision (H-2024-0059) by Rodney Evans + Partners, LLC., located at 675, 715 and 955 S. Wells St. A. Request: Annexation of 17.27 acres of land with R-8 (13.78 acres), R-15 (2.42 acres) and C-N (1.07 acres) zoning districts. B. Request: Preliminary Plat to re-subdivide lots 7, 21 and 22, Magic View Subdivision, Amended into 81 residential lots, 1 commercial lot and 12 common/other lots on 15.97 acres of land in the R-8, R- 15 and C-N zoning districts with some Private Streets Lorcher: The next item on the agenda is for Latitude Forty Three Subdivision, for annexation and preliminary plat, and we will begin with the staff report. Allen: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. The first application before you tonight is a request for Latitude Forty-Three Subdivision. I do just want to make a quick note that since the original submittal the plat was revised to include all public streets. Private streets are no longer proposed. And the number of building lots were reduced from 81 to 79 residential lots and the number of common and other lots were reduced from 12 to 11. The applicant is requesting approval of annexation and zoning and a preliminary plat. The site consists of 15.97 acres of land. It's zoned RUT in Ada county and it's located at 675, 715 and 955 South Wells Street and that is Lot 7, 21 and 22 of Magic View Subdivision amended. I will give a little history on this property. In 2019 an annexation request was approved for the development of a senior living facility. However, the development agreement was never signed and, consequently, the property wasn't annexed. In 2021 another annexation request with a preliminary plat and conditional use permit for an assisted living facility was denied by Council due to it not being in the best interest of the city at that time. The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designation for 13 acres of the property, the northern end of the property, is designated medium density residential, which calls for three to eight dwelling units per acre and the southern 4.4 acres is designated mixed-use neighborhood and the residential density within that mixed-use designation calls for six to 12 units per acre. The applicant is requesting annexation of 17.27 acres of land with R-8 zoning and that's 13.78 acres for R-8. 2.42 acres for R-15 and 1.07 acres for C-N zoning for the development of 79 single family residential detached F Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 3,2025 Page 5 of 22 homes, 59 in the medium density residential designated area and 20 in the mixed-use neighborhood designated area at gross densities consistent with the underlying future land use map designations. A commercial building pad is proposed on the south end of the mixed-use neighborhood area for a mix of uses as desired. A preliminary plat is proposed as shown there on the left to resubdivide lots in Magic View amended subdivision into 79 residential lots, one commercial lot and 11 common other lots on 15.97 acres of land. A phasing plan was submitted as shown there on the plat depicting two phases of development. The proposed plat layout provides a good transition in lot sizes and widths to Woodbridge residential development to the west and most lot lines aligning or only being slightly offset. The Five Mile Creek bisects this site within a 100 foot wide easement. Access is proposed via existing and proposed local public streets with an emergency only access to East Magic View Drive. Two stub streets are proposed to the west to be extended with future development. Three common driveways are proposed off internal local streets. ITD has requested a traffic impact analysis due to the development size and anticipated impacts to State Highway 55. The applicant is working on this request. Residents in the abutting Woodbridge development to the west have expressed concern pertaining to the high volume of traffic currently passing through their neighborhood between South Locust Grove Road and East Magic View Drive for access via South Eagle Road and the impact the proposed development will have, which will exacerbate an already challenging situation. In an attempt to alleviate this the applicant is not proposing public access via East Magic View Drive. The bridge on Wells Street that provides vehicular access across the Five Mile Creek is scheduled in the ACHD's five year work plan to be replaced in 2029. The bridge is currently designed to match existing facilities, which do not include bicycle lanes or pedestrian facilities. However, the width of the bridge will accommodate these improvements in the future when adjacent properties redevelop and provide these facilities. ACHD will require a road trust from the developer for the cost of these improvements and include them in the project if this development goes forward. Staff had recommended a five foot wide temporary asphalt pathway be provided alongside Wells Street where the bridge is located over the creek if there is adequate area. However, ACHD has confirmed there is not enough room for a pedestrian walkway in this location. The applicant is proposing landscape street buffers along East Magic View Drive and South Wells Street, a ten foot wide landscape street buffer is required along local streets on the C-N zoned property, on the south end, a segment of the city's multi-use pathway system is proposed from South Wells Street to the west along the north side of the Five Mile Creek stubbing to the west property line for future extension and to the northwest for connection to the existing pathway in Woodbridge in accord with the Pathways Master Plan. So, if you can see right here where my pointer is, this is where the Five Mile Creek bisects the site. There are existing trees on the site that may require mitigation in accord with UDC standards. Fencing is typically not allowed to prevent access to natural waterways, such as the Five Mile Creek. In limited circumstances and in the interest of public safety larger open water systems may require fencing as determined by City Council. A cross-section of the Five Mile Creek was submitted as shown that depicts approximately a three to one slope on the north side of the creek and a four foot tall retaining wall on the south side of the creek, with an approximate four to one slope. Because the slope on the north side meets the slope Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 3,2025 Page 6 of 22 requirements in the UDC for accessibility and maintenance of storm water facilities of three to one or less staff recommends no fencing is installed on the north side, but does recommend six foot tall wrought iron fencing is provided on the south side for public safety. Council should determine if this is appropriate. A portion of this site is located within the floodway along the creek. A flood -- floodplain permit is required before any grading in the floodplain begins and a floodplain permit is required for each building in the floodplain, along with elevation certificates certifying lowest floor elevation is two foot above base flood elevation. A minimum of 15 percent or 2.28 acres of qualified open space is required to be provided within the development. A total of 2.47 acres or 16 percent is proposed as shown on the open space exhibit. A minimum of three points of site amenities are required. A total of 12 points are proposed from the quality of life and recreation activity categories consistent -- excuse me -- consisting of a picnic area, a tot lot and sports courts. Several conceptual building elevations were submitted as shown for the proposed single story and two-story single family residential detached homes for each of the lot sizes proposed. A variety of building materials are proposed in a variety of colors and design elements and features with varying roof profiles and wall modulation that demonstrates the quality of development proposed. Conceptual elevations were not submitted for the commercial structure. Compliance with the nonresidential design guide -- or excuse me -- standards in the Architectural Standards Manual is required. There were several letters of testimony received on this application and I will go through those in just a moment. The applicant also submitted a response to the staff report in agreement with all provisions, but is requesting approval to remove the sidewalk along the west side of South Longitude Drive, so that a detached sidewalk may be constructed with a landscape parkway when the abutting property develops in accord with the comprehensive plan, which desires tree lined streets in mixed-use designated areas and I'm going to go back to that real quick and show you where that's at. So, that's this section, if you can see my pointer here, and this is Longitude, so it's just this little strip right here. So, as I mentioned several letters of testimony have been received. They are included in the public record with concerns from residents of the Woodbridge development to the west that live along Woodhaven Avenue on lots abutting this site. Concerns and comments include the following: The existing fence along Woodbridge's east boundary, the site's west boundary is crooked and doesn't lie on the property line in many places due to the location of existing trees and poor construction. Request for details on what the plan is for fencing along the west boundary of the site and desire for vinyl fencing not to be an approved material in this area. The high volume of traffic going through Woodbridge Subdivision between Locust Grove and Eagle Roads which will worsen with more homes being developed in this area. Long wait times at the intersection of Eagle Road and Allen Street at the traffic signal and safety concerns. Request for this area to be rezoned for nonresidential uses. Privacy issues with two-story homes being built next to single story homes and the question if two-story homes will have windows facing adjacent rear yards. Request for the developer to provide details and writing of their planned building setbacks on lots next to Woodbridge to be included in the development agreement and request for the developer to address what future builders can do to prevent drainage issues on abutting lots in Woodbridge due to the higher elevation of the subject property. Staff is recommending approval of the project with the requirement of a development Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 3,2025 Page 7 of 22 agreement per the provisions in the staff report with two new conditions that Commission should consider including in their motion tonight. The first is include mitigation information for existing trees on the site being removed with development in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-1005 as applicable and the second condition is remove the sidewalk along the west side of South Longitude Drive and provide right of way to the west property line. The applicant is here to present tonight. Staff will stand for any questions. Lorcher: Would the applicant like to come forward? Semple: Good evening, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. Ben Semple with Rodney Evans and Partners, 1450 West Bannock Street, Boise, Idaho. 83702. First and foremost want to thank Sonya and Bill. We have been at this quite a while, gone through a lot of iterations. I'm going to kind of walk you through that to show how we have addressed some of the neighbor concerns, as well as why we think this is a really great opportunity for development of the -- of the site here. So, just to get you oriented again, project site is here. The freeway is just south. Eagle Road is to the east. Locust Grove is to the west. Again just highlighting the current zoning. We have R-4 to the west, R-8 to the north, we have some L-O and some C-G into the north, east and south and, then, there is a lot of RUT kind of enclave parcels in here from Ada county, including a larger lot subdivision to the -- to the west of our southern portion and showing that the future land use again, medium density residential for the northern portion with that MUN on the south. This was the initial concept that we had brought to the city and I believe had been discussed with the neighbors maybe initially. As you can see there is a public road connection to Magic View Drive. If you can see my cursor here. We had brought in a public street off of Wells Street and that would have connected up there. Pretty much the remainder of this remains as it is now. I -- sorry, I do want to highlight that we were -- can you take me back one? Sorry. Can I do that? Thank you. Good. I want to point out that this had 84 residential units initially with this concept. After that initial concept discussed this was actually the pre-application conference concept. We removed the public street connection to Magic View primarily due to some feedback that the developer had received from the neighbors to limit traffic getting out onto Magic View close to where they could turn left and immediately go through the Woodbridge Subdivision. This -- this still had public streets. We were not utilizing a current public right of way that comes off of Wells. It's not opened or turned into a road yet. We were going to vacate that. This had gone -- had raised the unit count to 90 residential units. This was the neighborhood meeting concept that we showed. What we had done was converted the north half to private streets with a gate. We still had the -- the emergency only connection to Magic View Drive and we felt like this potentially could -- oops. What happened? Sorry. That -- that could potentially help with some home values. Again this was 90 residential units. Oops. Sorry. Eighty- five residential units with the private streets. I apologize. We initially submitted a preliminary plat application with 81 residential units and all private streets, again trying to vacate the right of way. After a review with the city and some discussions it was determined that we needed to -- well, first of all, we would have had to extend our process because we would have had to vacate the portion of what is Gentry Street that 10 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 3,2025 Page 8 of 22 is the unopened right of way that has a cul-de-sac bulb on the adjacent parcel here. So, instead of vacating that and extending our process by about six months we decided to use that right of way and made all of the roads public on the -- on the north side again with only a -- an emergency connection to Magic View Drive trying to address some concerns with where traffic would go. If you exit onto Wells Street, if you turn right or south or north it is a pretty quick trip to Allen Street to get out to Eagle Road. This one had 79 residential units. This is the final iteration that we came up with. This does not show the detached sidewalks on the south side in the MUN land use zone, but that is being adjusted currently, so we will have detached sidewalks with eight foot planter strips and street trees along the south -- or in the southern portion. I apologize. Just to highlight the phasing plan, first phase is the north section. Second phase is the south. This is just showing a little bit more detail of the -- the improvements proposed here. We will have sidewalk -- curb, gutter, sidewalk that comes down the west side of Wells Street and just past Gentry Avenue we will stop it there at the predetermined spot where ACHD is starting their bridge project with the installation of the curb, gutter, sidewalk that the trust will be paid. I believe the initial number they gave us was like 90,000 dollars that the developer will contribute to ACHD. So, when they do their bridge project they will use those funds to build the bike lane, the curb, gutter and sidewalk across that bridge. Moving into the southern half, as -- as I stated we -- this current plat doesn't show the detached sidewalks, but we will be modifying that. These lots are plenty deep enough in order to absorb that into the front. So, it won't impact the elevations or any of the home plans for the south. I did want to touch on -- this is just a very conceptual layout on this commercial pad. There is not a user identified yet. It will just be padded out and kind of a build to suit. When a user is identified they would come back in with a CZC or -- or other project -- a proposal to be able to build that out. We are stubbing a pedestrian walkway to the north side of the commercial lot and so I imagine that a condition of approval that requires that to extend to the front entries of a future commercial business would carry through with the development agreement, so that when that business came in they would build a pedestrian walkway to promote that connectivity. The open space exhibit -- I just want to show this again real quickly. Kind of a very large consolidated open space that does include part of Five Mile Creek, but there is a very nice open space green area in the -- in the top here. There will be a tot lot with commercial play equipment. The picnic area will have a solid roof shade structure on it as well and, then, we will have two striped paved pickleball courts on the south side part of phase two as the other amenity and, then, the -- the ten foot wide multi-use pathway that would connect to Woodbridge here to the west and it carries through down like this and over to Wells Street. There is a stub to this parcel here as the ultimate alignment that the city pathway plan calls for is to hug Five Mile Creek, but we don't currently have control of this parcel and so we couldn't put that on there. But we did want to set that up for the future. Preliminary landscape plan here, again, conditions of approval have asked us to relook at this, look at some of the layout of the trees. We are in agreement with that. Currently the -- the consultant is going through those modifications. The fencing plan I did want to highlight. I have called out here. We will remove the fence on the north side of Five Mile Creek per the conditions and we agree with -- with the city staff's evaluation of that and one of the concerns that the neighbors have brought up in almost every letter -- I think probably every letter that I F11 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 3,2025 Page 9 of 22 read -- it's -- there is some variable conditions on that fence. The developer is going to work with those adjacent property owners to figure out some sort of agreement or some sort of ability to work together to make sure that fences are on the property line and that if there is some disrepair. Obviously, with new homes they want to have a high quality fence on the back there as well. But we also know that the bylaws of the Woodbridge Subdivision require wood only material for fencing. So, the developer and the builder is going to continue conversations. They have talked with the neighbors multiple times along here. One of the neighbors went to their design studio and toured a couple of their other communities that are in the valley here over the last couple of days and so I know that there is a very open line of communication between them. While they can't commit to replacing that entire fence they -- with this application they are committed to working with those neighbors to find a solution that works for everyone. Just to highlight again some of the conceptual elevations that are proposed here, there is a mixture of one and two-story homes that would be proposed. The 24 foot wide product up here is only proposed -- well, primarily proposed for phase two. Theoretically they could go on one of the larger lots in the northern portion in phase one if someone decided they wanted a smaller home on a larger lot, but any of these three other groups would fit on any of the large lots on -- on the northern portion. This is a couple pictures that are built communities from Pacific Lifestyle Homes -- is going to be the builder on this project and these were some recently completed homes in the area and, then, one of their other communities that is currently under construction as well. I just wanted to bring up a couple pictures of some real world homes that they have built just to show the quality. Oh. Getting to the neighbor concerns, I did read through all those letters that were received. I think there were seven -- or there was seven public comments received. Traffic is really first and foremost in every one of those letters is the cut-through traffic that goes through Woodbridge. You know really with that in mind we have done everything that we feel that we can do to mitigate traffic going through their -- their public roads. We can't gate the public road for them. ACHD could look at some traffic mitigation options for in there if feasible. The traffic impact analysis that ITD is requiring will more than likely lead to some sort of mitigation items that the developer needs to take on to handle some of the traffic and it could be traffic calming. It could be a lot of different things that they could require the developer to contribute to to help improve the State Highway 55-Eagle Road Intersections to the east here to help promote traffic to go to the arterial roadways like we like them to, rather than cutting through the residential subdivisions. Again we talked about some fencing. We are coordinating with affected neighbors there. Setbacks was another big one. The R-4 zone of Woodbridge requires a 15 foot rear yard setback. Our requested R-8 zone has a 12 foot setback. In talking with the builder, Pacific Lifestyle Homes, they feel very comfortable that their two-story and even their one story model of homes -- the -- the main back wall of the home could be held to a 20 foot from that western property boundary, but they really don't want to restrict that setback, because they do have some options for covered patios on the back of these homes that we feel would help increase the livability of those backyards, so while they feel comfortable with a 20 foot to the home, like to maintain that 12 foot setback in case a buyer chooses to add a covered patio to their home. Every one of the lots that they sell -- they sell the lot to a homeowner, that homeowner chooses their home design. This isn't a spec built F12 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 3,2025 Page 10 of 22 community. This is the homeowner goes to their design studio that's here in town. They pick their finishes, they pick their floor plans, their elevations, their materials. It's a very high quality and collaborative process with the homeowners here. One of the other things that the builders really highlights with their communities is having a nice backyard, because everyone likes to have a nice backyard in their homes. So, they don't want to put up -- the back wall of the home up to 12 feet from that back property line. Again R-4 -- or R-8 would allow that. They feel comfortable with 20. We don't necessarily want to restrict that setback. I think it sets a precedent there, but just to help with the understanding of who this builder is and what they plan to do. If we need to insert some language into the development agreement, yeah, that's something that we could work with staff on. But, again, we feel very good about the homes that will be built on here and that the future homeowners aren't going to want to be -- they don't want a 12 foot backyard that's basically unusable. Home heights were another concern due to privacy. The builder has 50 and 60 foot wide lots along -- all along the western boundary that is adjacent to Woodbridge. They won't be restricting them to one or -- one story only on the west side. It limits their buyer pool. They also have a lot of options within their designs for window locations and, you know, bonus rooms that are on the front rather than the back. A lot of different options. There is a mixture of one and two-story homes on the Woodbridge side of the fence as well and with the additional backyards or the nice backyards it will lead for some additional -- or allow for some additional landscaping treatments for those homeowners and they feel like they can really work to make sure that there is -- to lessen the impacts on the neighbors to the west without requiring them to restrict their home heights. The code already restricts them to 35 feet. It's the same as the height that's restricted to an R-4. So, there is not any homes that would be taller than any of the homes to the west. The drainage issues that the neighbors have mentioned -- so, I'm sure the Commission is aware city, state and federal guidelines don't allow you to run storm water off your site to other parcels and so the development of this portion will actually fix some of those problems. It currently does slope to the west on this property and southwest. I apologize. They will be installing drainage -- you know, drainage facilities and with their gradient design we will make sure to capture all on-site drainage and direct it to the facilities on their site, which should alleviate a lot of the problems that the neighbors are experiencing to the west here. And the last thing was a lot alignment and ratio. Currently we are at a one-to-one ratio. There is 15 lots on the Latitude Forty-Three side. There is 15 lots on the Woodhaven side. Matching up the lot lines exactly creates some issues. We actually get a lot that's narrower than 50 feet, which impacts the builder's desire to put kind of their more premium homes there, which helps protect property values of the neighbors, as well as the future homeowners here and so -- but they are within a few feet of those corners. So, there won't be two homes behind one lot. There will be -- effectively you will see one house behind one house. Again, I just want to touch on real quickly -- we are in agreement with the conditions of approval and after discussions with the staff and ACHD these were just showing our desire to waive the -- or remove the sidewalk on the west side of Longitude, which ACHD and it sounds like city staff are supportive of and other than that we agree with everything. So, I would stand for any question. 13 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 3,2025 Page 11 of 22 Lorcher: Thank you. Commissioners, do we have any questions for the applicant at this time? Perreault: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: Can you go over with me a little bit more about the concerns regarding mitigating traffic on Magic View. So, traffic will exit onto Wells and head north or south. If they head north to Magic View, make a right or left -- Semple: Correct. Perreault: -- help me understand how that actually mitigates any traffic. Semple: So, by having -- we initially had a public access to Magic View right here on the -- right across from another public road that connects. If traffic is exiting there it's much easier for them to make a left turn and go through the neighborhood fast. We feel that with traffic exiting from the north side to Wells down here, the -- the idea is that it's helping because they are further away from that Woodbridge entrance into that subdivision. It's -- there is not much else we can do to mitigate, you know, to stop people from taking those public roads over to Locust Grove. Our hope is that with some of the mitigation that we will be required to do through the traffic impact analysis and by locating our roads as far away from there as possible, that people are just encouraged -- you know, ultimately these are hopefully friendly neighbors to all the Woodbridge neighbors and they all become friends and they all have eyes on the street that can help, you know, lower some traffic speeds and -- that's kind of what we are hoping for. Perreault: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: I appreciate you taking that neighbor feedback into account and attempting to work through that. That's -- that's really great. Personally I like the second access. I -- I know that area really well and I don't think it's going to mitigate any traffic just moving it over to Wells, but if -- if that's, you know, what you are comfortable doing that's great. I'm just -- I wasn't here for the first meeting, because I just came on the Commission, but just wanted to understand that -- that that is being done as a preference from the neighborhood -- or the neighbors or the community and not something that the city is requesting. Semple: Madam Chair and Commissioner Perreault, yes, that's correct. That's a developer driven. That was our decision after getting feedback from the neighbors trying to find a way that we could limit traffic directly accessing Magic View there. The emergency access will be there as required, because we are over 30 lots in there, but it will be bollarded. Effectively it will provide a public access from Magic View through this 14 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 3,2025 Page 12 of 22 development to that multi-use pathway as well, so they don't have to walk around to Wells Street, so -- Perreault: Thank you. Semple: Thank you. Lorcher: Commissioner Grace. Grace: Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to follow up on Commissioner Perreault's question, you -- you mentioned that ITD might require you to engage in some traffic mitigation. What -- what do you think that looks like? Semple: Madam Chair, Commissioner Grace, I have seen them require intersection improvements, widening of intersections. You know, just working with them on timing of lights and, you know, potentially trying to identify I guess another location for an access there. But it's pretty limited with the amount of commercial and office development along Eagle Road. Unfortunately, we don't have their feedback yet as to what that looks like, but I have seen it in some other developments where that's kind of -- they look at the intersections that are on those highways and ways that they can improve that to help traffic move better. Grace: Follow up? Lorcher: Uh-huh. Grace: The -- the points -- the points that you made about the fencing and the setback is that going to be memorialized in the -- in the development agreement? Are you agreeing -- will you agree, then, to -- I thought I heard you say a 20 foot setback on that western boundary and, then, excuse me, with the fences -- you said you would work with them. So, we don't know exactly what that means right now, but will you -- will you agree to work with them in the -- in the DA? Semple: Madam Chair and Commissioner Grace, yes. You know, I -- I want to make sure to -- to state that we don't want to encumber and place a 20 foot setback line on the back of those lots, but the developer has had conversations internally, the builder has -- and they have looked at all their lots with all their home models and the majority of them they want -- would stay at 20 feet. So, they are pulling them closer to the street, because they want to provide their residents and buyers with a nice backyard. I can follow up with you during my rebuttal on that and after I have a chance to talk with the builder and see how far he is willing to go on that commitment, but definitely committed to working with the neighbors on the fence issue and they are trying to protect everybody's privacy is -- is very important. F15] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 3,2025 Page 13 of 22 Grace: Okay. And just last question, Madam Chair. The commercial structure -- it didn't sound like you -- you knew what the design elements would be. What -- just a little more information about what you are maybe intending for that commercial. Semple: Madam Chair, Commissioner Grace, yeah, I don't -- the user that we have for the residential portion is not a commercial developer. You know, there is some office uses down here. With the C-N, you know, there is a lot of different allowed uses within that land use -- Grace: Right. Semple: -- and so nothing that drives too much traffic to the area. I think -- you know, you won't be in here listening to an In and Out presentation for that location. I would imagine something that's complimentary to the neighborhood though. It could be a small cafe. It could be, you know, a couple office buildings, something like that. Grace: Yeah. It looked like that was the -- the appropriate type of thing for that -- for that -- what is it, C -- C-N? Semple: Yeah. Grace: Yeah. So, smaller scale, so -- okay. Thank you. Semple: Thank you. Lorcher: I had a couple questions for you. In regard to the commercial portion, following up with Commissioner Grace, will the commercial portion also have access via Freeway Drive or do you have to kind of meander through to get to the southern -- from -- to the southern portion of it? Semple: Commissioner Lorcher -- sorry. Council President. Lorcher: You are totally fine. Semple: Yeah. I know. No, that one will have access from Wells Circle. There is -- Freeway Drive does come down here. It's just off the picture. It does loop in and connect to the south side of Wells. So, Freeway Drive could access that commercial -- Lorcher: That commercial -- Semple: -- site. Yeah. It doesn't have direct access. Lorcher: So, I don't have to meander through the whole subdivision to get to those commercial parcels. And, then, this is showing off the freeway like you would be able to see it from the freeway? 16 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 3,2025 Page 14 of 22 Semple: Correct. Lorcher: Got you. Oh. That's a better picture. Okay. Thank you. One other question regard to setbacks. So, you said that each home is built to suit per whatever the customer -- client wants. What happens when one wants a 12 foot setback with a bigger backyard and one says, oh, I don't want a big backyard, so I will go 15 and, then, another says, well, I want 20 and, then, all you have got is this staggering thing kind of going on. How do you manage that to make it look like they all belong together on the same street? Semple: Sure. Commissioner Lorcher, yeah, the -- the fronts will all be up, you know, similar to a front that you see on any public street. The backyards, even on the -- the existing homes to the west vary in depth. There is some that are up to I think 25 to 30 feet even there. There is some that are right at that 15 foot setback when I was just taking some measurements off of aerial photos. So, I -- you know, it will be a case-by- case basis. Typically something with a two story home on it is going to have a larger backyard than a one story just by the sheer take of square footage that they can get out of the two-story by not having to have as large of a footprint. But I mean I don't know if they are really going to restrict them to all have a flat plane across the back either. I don't know if that would really be desirable. Lorcher: Okay. Thank you very much. Commissioner Rust, did you have any comments at this time? All right. Thank you very much. Semple: Thank you. Lorcher: Madam Clerk, do we have anybody signed up to testify? Lomeli: Thank you, Madam Chair. We have Christine -- is it Collard or Crawler? Lorcher: Would you like to come up? Okay. Lomeli: Madam Chair, no one else has indicated they would wish to testify. Lorcher: And there is nobody on Zoom? Lomeli: If the people on Zoom would like to testify, please, raise your hand using the app. Lorcher: I see you. Lomeli: Madam Chair, no one online is raising their hands so she's welcome to come up. Lorcher: Yep. So, you are more than welcome to come up if you would like to testify. F17] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 3,2025 Page 15 of 22 McCulley: Hello. Lorcher: Hi. If you could state your name and address for the record, please. McCulley: Robin McCulley. 728 South Woodhaven Avenue, Meridian, Idaho. Lorcher: Okay. McCulley: And, sorry, I don't know the proper addresses. Lorcher: You are fine. McCulley: Okay. So, a couple quick things. I have been a resident of Woodbridge for ten years now and as you all know we have been going to battle about this property for a long time, but we like these people and -- but a couple things we want to talk about. We are waiting on traffic analysis. We don't need the analysis. There is a lot of traffic. We all know that. Almost all of you probably here cut through our property to get to Eagle. We all do. So, there is going to be a lot of traffic. Mitigating. There is no mitigating. There is nowhere to go. So, this is it. The fence. The fence is -- it's 20 years old. It's my -- it's 20 years old. It's old. It's crooked. It's old. There are trees. My fence is being held up by a tree that we don't know if it's ours or theirs. My issue with the fence is we are going to talk about it, we are going to talk about it, we haven't talked about it. Nobody's talking about it. And, then, we definitely need a survey. The pins are still back there from the original survey. I have pictures of my pin. It's a solid eight to ten inches off back there. The tree that's holding my fence appears to be ours, which is going to cause problems. No amenities. They said they have a lot of amenities. The only amenities is the pickleball courts. No pool. The connection of the path to our path leads straight to our pool. They have no intention of putting a pool. They told us it's too expensive. They are not going to do it. They have a tot set or whatever that is. I'm not sure what that is. It sounds like a piece of grass. Then no single story homes. I didn't see any single story homes when he put the pictures of the single story homes. But they said that that's an option for the people. Sounds like -- I don't think we are getting single story homes. It sounds like they are all going to be two stories. I just say you guys know that area very well. I'm sure all of you do. You -- everybody drives through it. You know how much traffic there already is. There will be a ton more. We -- of course, we were all praying and hoping that would stay commercial -- medical or commercial, so that we would only get them during the week and have actually a weekend break, but that's not going to happen. So, we would just like you to take all of this into consideration. I know all this we are talking -- we are talking -- we are going to talk about. But if we say okay to this before we have it nailed down what do we do and, then, you know, we are -- and we already get it. There is -- construction is going to be a nightmare. Loud. Obnoxious. Nails in all of our tires. Yours, too, because you drive through there. But we are -- you know, we are prepared -- the city is growing like crazy. We get it and we want -- we want to do what we can for them as well. But, please, I think we need to get it nailed down before we start Fl-81 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 3,2025 Page 16 of 22 construction or -- or even take it to the board to say approve it, because we are just not -- I feel like we are way too early just yet. We have too many unknowns at this point. Lorcher: Okay. Thank you. Before you go. McCulley: Oh, sure. Lorcher: I have a quick question for you. McCulley: Yes, ma'am. Lorcher: So, if I am a resident of Woodbridge -- McCulley: Yes, ma'am. Lorcher: -- how do I get access to the pool? Do I just walk in? Is the gate always open? Do I have a key? McCulley: You do need a key. However, we had to install monitors, because -- and we have a police officer that stops by that we hired to check twice, because they are climbing over our fence and swimming at night and that came from -- we had some construction around the corner at the corner of Locust Grove and Franklin. No. Yes. Franklin and Locust Grove. When those condos went in there or townhouses we started having people jumping our fence and -- and swimming at all hours of the night and ruining furniture and things like that. So, that's when we installed the cameras and, then, we also hired somebody to come twice at unknown times to check to make sure that nothing's happening and even our residents don't know when that is, so that everybody's on the same page. Lorcher: And has that worked to be able to create safety for your pool? McCulley: For -- for safety purposes, yes. Well -- yes. The problem is when you have teenagers they will open the door to anybody and as they come in and they come in frequently and when we put 79 more houses over there with potentially five to six people living in each house, that pathway that's connected right there, though, it's a beeline straight to our pool. Straight. Lorcher: Okay. Anybody? Nope. We are good. McCulley: Thank you. Thanks, guys. And ladies. Lorcher: Anybody else in Chambers that would like to speak? Would the applicant like to come forward to address some of the concerns? Semple: Madam Chair, thank you again. Ben Semple with Rodney Evans and Partners. 1450 West Bannock Street, Boise. 83702. Yeah. I mean I think we are F-19 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 3,2025 Page 17 of 22 trying to do the best we can with a development with a piece of property that falls in a medium density residential land use. The portions that are in a mixed-use neighborhood we are trying to incorporate some more commercial use down there. Regarding the traffic, I mean we are, again, trying to push it as far away as we possibly can. With ITD -- we are not really sure what they are going to require. It could be a financial impact to the project. It could be, you know, something that's pretty intensive and, you know, we are all kind of dealing with the traffic around wherever development happens and I'm not sure what else we can do, other than go through the process with ITD to get, you know, their recommendations and incorporate that into the development. Because the traffic impact analysis was required as part of this development application it would be inserted into any development agreement that that would be a condition that it would -- the development would have to comply with. The floor plans and elevations I think, Commissioner Grace, to your point, will be incorporated into the development agreement as well and those floor plans show the footprints with the depths of the homes and so any variance from those depths would have to go through probably another CZC process. So, while they are very comfortable that those fit within and would allow for a 20 foot setback, the developer does not want to restrict their project to a 20 foot setback and -- and I don't know what more we can do other than to insert these floor plans and elevations and demonstrate that these -- that the builder builds a very high quality product and a very high quality community. Amenities. The tot lot is a playground for kids. There -- there is a lot of pathways through here. We will have a picnic area with tables and benches that also has a covered shade structure. More details of that will be developed as we go from this to City Council. So, I anticipate having some more information to present at that time, as well as the revised landscape plans per the conditions of approval. I guess I would stand -- we are, again, committed to working with affected neighbors on -- on fencing. You know, if it's on our property and -- or if it's on their property, you know, we want to resolve that if at all possible. So, I would stand for any additional questions that you might have. Lorcher: I have a couple of questions. So, is the -- is the traffic impact analysis going to be ready by the time you get to City Council or are you at the mercy of -- of their time frame? Semple: Madam Chair, we kind of are. If you give me one second I can ask our civil consultant if they have had any feedback. Madam Chair, they reached out today to ITD. They didn't get any feedback. They do have their scoping memo into ITD that's being evaluated. So, we anticipate at least having the scope of the analysis by the time we get to the City Council. Maybe not the full evaluation or the determination of what those mitigation items may be. Lorcher: Okay. Commission? Commissioner Grace. Grace: Thank you, Madam Chair. Do you know -- the property to the west, the Woodbridge is -- what zoning -- is that R-8 or 4? Semple: Madam Chair, Commissioner Grace, R-4. 20 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 3,2025 Page 18 of 22 Grace: Okay. And you said the building heights are the same for both of those? Semple: Thirty-five foot is the max height. Grace: Okay. Semple: Yeah. Grace: Thank you. Lorcher: Commissioner Rust. Rust: Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to clarify, is there going to be a separate fence on that western boundary that will be part of your community or is it just going to be the one fence? Semple: Madam Chair, Commissioner Rust, we would prefer a single fence, you know, and working with those neighbors to ensure that there is a high quality single fence there, rather than the doubled up fence that, you know, then, is in various states of disrepair or repair and that would be the idea is to have one fence there, whether that's to connect to the existing if it was in good condition, replace portions of it, work with those neighbors to cost share like you typically would with a neighbor when you replace a fence on a shared property line. Rust: Thank you. Lorcher: And in regard to the survey markers for the properties, it seems like there is some confusion that possibly there has been landscaping that have grown over the survey markers that may be part of your land, may be part of that land. When you get this project approved all of that will be settled; correct? Semple: I'm sure. Yes. That's -- that's the case. You know, they -- they have set those pins out there. I'm not sure when they built the fence why they moved it around so much. I can -- maybe there were some other trees that were growing there at the time or -- it -- it is kind of jaggedly and moves around a lot along that property line. So, I mean, obviously, if the property is the neighbors it's their property and if their fence is on our side, you know, we would rather have it be on -- on the property line. Lorcher: Right. Okay. Very good. Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: Madam Chair, thank you. Staff had mentioned that you were in agreement with everything that's in the staff report all conditions. Just wanted to double check that you are also in agreement with the two new conditions regarding the mitigation for the existing trees and then -- and, then, we talked about removing the sidewalk. So, just want to get confirmation that -- 21 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 3,2025 Page 19 of 22 Semple: Madam Chair, Commissioner Perreault, correct. We are in agreement with all conditions of approval, including the two added conditions. Perreault: Thank you. Lorcher: Commissioner Sandoval, did you have anything to add? Sandoval: No, Madam Chair. Lorcher: All right. I think we are good. Thank you so much. Semple: Thank you. Lorcher: Can I have a motion to close the public hearing? Grace: So moved. Rust: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for Latitude Forty- Three Subdivision. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. Lorcher: I will start. I think when you have in-fill it's always challenging to find the square peg that's going to fit in the round hole or vice-versa that's going to take care of everyone and we also have public streets, which no homeowner owns and so if people choose to meander through Woodbridge end up into Latitude Forty-Three to work their way over to Highway 55, you know, we discourage it, but we can't stop them because they are public roads. It sounds like the developer is willing to work with the western portion residents in regard to survey lines, to fencing, to right of way, to removing the sidewalk to make sure that it's a walkable and pleasant place. I did forget to ask you one question, but that's -- okay. I was wondering what the price range of these products are, but based on -- you are telling me that it's built to suit, it's probably a little bit more elevated, as opposed to a starter home. So, in regard to those things and the fact that you have been talking with the community and you are willing to work with them, I think this is a good project for this in-fill here. I like the fact that you can access the commercial portion from the south portion, so that you don't have to meander through the neighborhood whatever that business happens to be. So, that, you know, I'm not driving down side streets to get to my doctor's office or whatever that happens to be. So, I'm in favor of this. Rust: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Rust. 22 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 3,2025 Page 20 of 22 Rust: Yeah. I -- I agree with you. It's always challenging in these in-fill lots and I was very curious what the design elements would be when I heard this project was coming up and I was pleased to see that it's generally going to match Woodbridge. It's going to be higher end homes. I would bet that these are going to be, you know, not quite a million, but probably in that seven to eight hundred thousand dollar range. I appreciate the effort that went into the report and from the applicant to -- to be good neighbors. Even the one testimony that we had and several of the letters also mentioned that they have had good dialogue and even though there was concerns raised I think everybody recognized this is a really good fit for the general area. Something's going to go in here and I think that this matches the character of the neighborhood well. It's going to round out this section well. And I know that there is some traffic concerns and we don't have the study and the fencing is going to be -- you know, it's always a little challenging when you are trying to figure out -- we have one fence, we have got two entities that need to pay for it and figuring out how to split that baby, but I -- I believe that this is a good project and that we should give it a recommendation to the City Council. Lorcher: Thank you. Commissioner Grace. Grace: Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah. I'm tracking with both of my fellow Commissioner comments. I am hopeful that some of these issues in the -- in the development agreement can be worked out. I -- I appreciate the good faith effort put forward by the applicant with regard to the fencing. Hopefully you will have -- you will listen and have conversations about the vital fencing and whether that's appropriate, along with the tree mitigation and the setback. I understand the limitations of the setback. You can't promise to -- you know, you don't want to tie the developer's hands in that regard. So, I -- I understand there is probably a happy medium in there. So, I can appreciate that. The traffic it is -- I -- I totally understand that. I live on the corner of -- in a development in the corner of McMillan and Linder and people westbound on McMillan cut through it all the time, because they don't want to wait at that light and so I get that. I'm not sure what mitigation -- I don't think ITD is going to come up with any magic solution there. It's -- it's -- it's an in-fill project and it's -- it's -- it's consistent as you can get with what's -- with what's around it. If it helps the City Council, I do agree with the staff recommendations on the fencing around the natural waterway. I think they were proposing fencing to the north, but not the south and if I got that wrong I apologize, but I agree with the staff recommendation. I think that was -- yeah. I think that's all I had. I'm in -- I'm in favor as well. Thank you, Madam Chair. Lorcher: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: Thank you, Madam Chair. First I would like to say that I really appreciate the attention to the amenities. You went above and beyond what's required in terms of number of points for the amenities for the size of project that you have. So, thank you for doing that. Keeping that in mind. I know that's a significant cost to the developer to do that. In the time that I was on Planning and Zoning prior and City Council and now Planning and Zoning again I have seen many iterations of what was to go on this property and the last applicant did not do as good a job working with the neighbors, so F23] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 3,2025 Page 21 of 22 thank you very much on that. I had hoped that there would be some more commercial in this, but I appreciate that you tried to be in line as possible with the Comprehensive Plan on the -- on the density and as well as the lot sizes. So, I guess that's where the best case scenario -- if we are going to have more residential use on here. I would have liked to have seen that second access. I think connectivity is huge in these kinds of neighborhoods, but I don't think it's something that's going to be like a huge issue I guess in the end, but -- yeah. So, that's all we have to say. Thank you very much. Lorcher: Commissioner Sandoval, any other comments? Sandoval: No, Madam Chair. I think you guys did an excellent job. Pretty much my exact thoughts though. Nothing for me. Lorcher: Okay. Thank you. Rust: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Rust. Rust: After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval of File No. H-2024-0059 to City Council as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 3rd, 2025, with the two new conditions as highlighted in our brief here. Lorcher: Do I have a second? Grace: I will second. Lorcher: Do we need to -- do we need to reiterate those two conditions or -- Kane: Yes, please. Specifically. Rust: Yeah. The two conditions specifically -- to include mitigation information for existing trees on the site being removed with development in accord with the standards listed in the UDC 11-313-10C.5 as applicable. And, then, the second condition to remove the sidewalk along the west side of South Longitude Drive and provide right of way to the west property line. Grace: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to approve Latitude -- or recommend to City Council Latitude Forty-Three Subdivision, file No. 2024-0059 for annexation and preliminary plat. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. 24 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission April 3,2025 Page 22 of 22 Lorcher: Before we have one more motion for the evening, this is Commissioner Grace's last meeting and the Mayor is providing you a certificate of appreciation for your service to Planning and Zoning. Grace: Thank you. Lorcher: And thank you very much. It's been a great pleasure. You started at the same time I did, so I feel like I'm losing a co-worker. Grace: Thank you very much. Lorcher: One more motion, please. Grace: Move to adjourn. Rust: Second. Grace: Second. Lorcher: All right. It's been moved -- Grace: Seconded my own motion. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:06 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS. ) APPROVED MARIA LORCHER - CHAIRMAN 4-17-2025 ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK F25 E K IDIAN:--- iuAn Planning and Zoning Presentations and outline Changes to Agenda: th  Item #2: In-N-Out Burger – CUP (H-2024-0058) – Application needs to be continued to April 17 due to an error with the public hearing notice (it didn’t include the request for extended hours of operation). Item #3: Latitude Forty Three Subdivision (H-2024-0059) Note: Since the original submittal, the plat was revised to include all public streets – private streets are no longer proposed; and the number of building lots were reduced from 81 to 79 residential lots and the number of common/other lots were reduced from 12 to 11. Application(s):  Annexation & Zoning  Preliminary Plat Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 15.97 acres of land, zoned RUT in Ada County, located at 675, 715 & 955 S. Wells St. (Lots 7, 21 & 22, Magic View Subdivision Amended). History: In 2019, an annexation request was approved for the development of a senior living facility; however, the DA was never signed and consequently the property wasn’t annexed. In 2021, another annexation request with a preliminary plat & CUP for an assisted living facility was denied by Council due to it not being in the best interest of the City at that time. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MDR (13-acres) & MU-N (4.4-acres) Summary of Request: Annexation of 17.27-acres of land with R-8 (13.78-acres), R-15 (2.42-acres) and C-N (1.07-acres) zoning for the development of 79 SFR detached homes – 59 in the MDR & 20 in the MU-N designation – at gross densities consistent with the underlying FLUM designations. A commercial building pad is proposed on the south end of the MU-N area for a mix of uses as desired. A preliminary plat is proposed to re-subdivide Lots 7, 21 & 22, Magic View Subdivision Amended into 79 residential lots, 1 commercial lot & 11 common/other lots on 15.97-acres of land. A phasing plan was submitted depicting 2 phases of development. The proposed plat layout provides a good transition in lot sizes/widths to the Woodbridge residential development to the west with most lot lines aligning or only being slightly off-set. The Fivemile Creek bisects this site within a 100’ wide easement. Access is proposed via existing & proposed local public streets with an emergency only access via E. Magic View Dr. Two (2) stub streets are proposed to the west to be extended with future development. Three (3) common driveways are proposed off internal local streets. ITD has requested a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) due to the development size & anticipated impacts to SH-55; the Applicant is working on this request. Residents in the abutting Woodbridge development to the west have expressed concern pertaining to the high volume of traffic currently passing through their neighborhood between S. Locust Grove Rd. & E. Magic View Dr. for access to S. Eagle Rd. and the impact the proposed development will have, which will exacerbate an already challenging situation. In an attempt to alleviate this, the Applicant is not proposing public access via E. Magic View Dr. The bridge on Wells St. that provides vehicular access across the Fivemile Creek is scheduled in ACHD’s 5-year work plan to be replaced in 2029. The bridge is currently designed to match existing facilities, which do not include bicycle lanes or pedestrian facilities; however, the width of the bridge will accommodate these improvements in the future when adjacent properties redevelop & provide these facilities. ACHD will require a road trust from the developer for the cost of these improvements and include them in their project if this development goes forward. Staff had recommended a 5’ wide temporary asphalt pathway be provided alongside Wells St. where the bridge is located over the creek if there is adequate area; however, ACHD confirmed there is not enough room for a pathway. The Applicant is proposing landscaped street buffers along E. Magic View Dr. & S. Wells St.; a 10’ wide landscaped street buffer is required along local streets on the C-N zoned property. A segment of the City’s multi-use pathway system is proposed from S. Wells St. to the west along the north side of the Fivemile Creek stubbing to the west property line for future extension and to the NW for connection to the existing pathway in Woodbridge, in accord with the Pathways Master Plan. There are existing trees on the site that may require mitigation in accord with UDC standards. Fencing is typically not allowed to prevent access to natural waterways; in limited circumstances and in the interest of public safety, larger open water systems may require fencing. A cross-section of the Fivemile creek was submitted that depicts approximately a 3:1 slope on the north side of the creek and a 4’ tall retaining wall on the south side of the creek with an approximate 4:1 slope. Because the slope on the north side meets the slope requirements in the UDC for accessibility and maintenance of stormwater facilities of 3:1 or less, Staff recommends no fencing is installed on that side but does recommend 6’ tall wrought iron fencing is provided on the south side for public safety – Council should determine if this is appropriate. A portion of this site is located within the floodway along the creek. A floodplain permit is required before any grading in the floodplain begins & a floodplain permit is required for each building in the floodplain along with elevation certificates certifying lowest floor elevation is 2’ above base flood elevation. A minimum of 15% (or 2.28-acres) qualified open space exhibit is required to be provided with development; a total of 2.47-acres (or 16%) is proposed as shown on the open space exhibit. A minimum of (3) points of site amenities are required; a total of 12 points are proposed from the Quality of Life & Recreation Activity categories consisting of a picnic area, a tot lot & sports courts. Several conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed single-story & 2-story SFR detached homes for each of the lot sizes proposed. A variety of building materials are proposed in a variety of colors and design elements/features with varying roof profiles and wall modulation that demonstrate the quality of development proposed. Conceptual elevations were not submitted for the commercial structure; compliance with the non-residential design standards in the ASM is required. Written Testimony: The Applicant submitted a response to the staff report in agreement with all provisions but requests approval to remove the sidewalk along the west side of S. Longitude Dr. so that a detached sidewalk may be constructed with a landscaped parkway when the abutting property develops in accord with the Comp Plan which desires tree-lined streets in MU-N designated areas. Several letters of testimony have been received, included in the public record, with concerns from residents of the Woodbridge development to the west that live along Woodhaven Ave. on lots abutting this site – concerns & comments include the following:  The existing fence along Woodbridge’s east boundary (the site’s west boundary) is crooked and doesn’t lie on the property line in many places due to the location of existing trees & poor construction; request for details on what the plan is for fencing along the west boundary of the site – desire for vinyl fencing not to be an approved material in this area;  The high volume of traffic going through Woodbridge subdivision between Locust Grove & Eagle Roads, which will worsen with more homes being developed in this area; long wait times at the intersection of Eagle/Allen at the traffic signal and safety concerns – request for this area to be rezoned for non-residential uses;  Privacy issues with 2-story homes being built next to single-story homes; and question if 2-story homes will have windows facing adjacent rear yards.  Request for the developer to provide details in writing of their planned building setbacks on lots next to Woodbridge to be included in the DA;  Request for the developer to address what future builders can do to prevent drainage issues on abutting lots in Woodbridge due to the higher elevation of the subject property; Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the project with the requirement of a DA per the provisions in the staff report with two new conditions, as follows:  “Include mitigation information for existing trees on the site being removed with development in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-10C.5, as applicable.”  “Remove the sidewalk along the west side of S. Longitude Dr. and provide right-of-way to the west property line.” Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval of File Number H-2024-0059 to City Council, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 3, 2025: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial of File Number H-2024-0059 to City Council, as presented during the hearing on April 3, 2025, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2024-0059 to the hearing date of _________ for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) h2 Planning and Zoning April 3, 2025Commission Meeting FLUM Aerial MapZoning Map w IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing continued from March 6, 2025 for Latitude Forty Three Subdivision (H-2024-0059) by Rodney Evans + Partners, LLC., located at 675, 715 and 955 S. Wells St. Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2024-0059 A. Request: Annexation of 17.27 acres of land with R-8 (13.78 acres), R-15 (2.42 acres) and C-N (1.07 acres) zoning districts. B. Request: Preliminary Plat to re-subdivide lots 7, 21 and 22, Magic View Subdivision, Amended into 81 residential lots, 1 commercial lot and 12 common/other lots on 15.97 acres of land in the R-8, R-15 and C-N zoning districts with some Private Streets. L� 21 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE : April 3 , 2025 ITEM # ON AGENDA : 3 PROJECT NAME : Latitude Forty Three Subdivision ( H - 2024 - 0059 ) Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify ( Please Print ) HOA ? ( mark X if yes ) If yes, please provide HOA name 1 _ I ary Aar 00 ►1q UA5` -gyp A v i� v < u 23U i eO p 1✓tz v 4*1 00 3 � � S �►\u cN � � luj 4 L G� SQ Vl C� 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 i COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT C��fEPIDIAN*,­, DEPARTMENT REPORT HEARING 4/3/2025 Legend DATE: Continuedfrom: 31612025 Project Location Area of Impact TO: Planning&Zoning Commission City Limits Analysis FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 sallen@meridiancity.org APPLICANT: Rodney Evans+Partners,LLC .` _ - r - ,J_s SUBJECT: H-2024-0059 - Latitude Forty Three Subdivision—AZ, PP ® 'J LOCATION: 675, 715 and 955 S. Wells St., in the east ". ND ; 1/2 of Section 17,T.3N.,R.IE. �; u 1. PROJECT OVERVIEW A. Summary Annexation of 17.27-acres of land with R-8 (13.78-acres),R-15 (2.42-acres) and C-N(1.07-acres) zoning; and Preliminary Plat to re-subdivide Lots 7,21 and 22,Magic View Subdivision Amended into 79 residential lots, 1 commercial lot and 11 common/other lots on 15.97-acres of land in the R-8,R-15 and C-N zoning districts. Note:Since the original submittal, the plat was revised to include all public streets—private streets are no longer proposed; and the number of building lots were reduced from 81 residential lots, 1 commercial lot and 12 common/other lots to 79 residential lots, I commercial lot and 11 common lots. B. Issues/Waivers Per UDC 11-3A-6C.1, fencing along all natural waterways (i.e. Fivemile Creek) shall not prevent access to the waterway. In limited circumstances and in the interest of public safety, larger open water systems may require fencing as determined by the City Council,Director and/or Public Works Director. The Fivemile Creek bisects this site.A cross-section and photo of the creek is included below in Section V11.1,which depicts the approximate existing and finished grade on both sides of the creek,the slope and a 4' tall retaining wall on the south side of the creek. The slope on the north side is approximately 3:1,which meets the accessibility and maintenance standards for stormwater facilities in UDC 11-313-11C.6 of a 3:1 slope or less—Staff recommends the north side remain open and not be fenced.The slope on the south side is approximately a 4:1 slope,which exceeds acceptable accessibility and maintenance standards—Staff recommends the south side is fenced with a 6' tall wrought iron fence for public safety in accord with UDC 11-3A-6C.3,unless the slope can be modified to 3:1 or less,in which case the creek should be accessible and not fenced. Council should consider Staffs recommendation and determine if it is appropriate. C. Recommendation Staff: Approval with the provisions included below in Section IV. City of Meridian I Department Report 22 D. Decision Pending II. COMMUNITY METRICS Table 1:Land Use Description Details Map Ref, Existing Land Use(s) Vacant/undeveloped land - Proposed Land Use(s) Single-family residential detached dwellings - Existing Zoning RUT in Ada County VII.A.2 Proposed Zoning R-8 (Medium Density Residential)(13.78-acres),R-15 (Medium High-Density Residential)(2.42-acres)and C-N (Neighborhood Business)(1.07-acres) Existing Future Land Use Map Medium Density Residential(MDR)&Mixed-Use VILA.3 Designation Neighborhood(MU-N) Table 2: Process Facts Description Details Preapplication Meeting date 8/20/2024 PREAPP-2024-0128 Neighborhood Meeting 10/7/2024 Table 3: Community Metrics Agency/Element Description/Issue Reference Ada County Highway District • Comments Received Yes • Commission Action Required No • Access Access is proposed via E. Gentry Ln. and E.Wells Cir., local public streets;an emergency access only is proposed via E.Magic View Dr.through a common lot/driveway at the north end of the development.Public streets are proposed internally. • Traffic Level of Service Meets ACHD's planning thresholds Traffic Impact Study(Y/N) No(not required by ACHD) ITD Comments Received Yes—ITD requests a Traffic Impact Analysis(TIA)be provided as the development size and proximity to SH- 55 will impact the State Highway system. Meridian Fire No comments received Meridian Police No comments received Meridian Public Works Wastewater Sewer is available from Wells St.;located in the Five Mile sewer shed(see conditions) Meridian Public Works Water Water is available at site;each phase will need to be modeled to verify minimum fire flow pressure is maintained(see conditions). See City/Agency Comments and Conditions Section for all department/agency and the public record for comments received on this application. III. STAFF ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code(UDC) A. General Overview Comprehensive Plan: City of Meridian I Department Report ■ Thirteen(13) acres of the subject property is designated on the Future Land Use Map(FLUM) in the Comprehensive Plan as Medium Density Residential(MDR) and the remaining 4.4-acres is designated Mixed Use—Neighborhood(MU-N). The MDR designation allows for dwelling units at gross densities of three(3)to eight(8)dwelling units per acre. The purpose of the MU-N designation is to allocate areas where neighborhood-serving uses and dwellings are seamlessly integrated into the urban fabric. The intent is to avoid predominantly single- use developments by incorporating a variety of uses.Land uses in these areas should be primarily residential, comprising between 30%and 60%of the development area with gross densities ranging from six(6)to 12 units per acre(of the residential area),with supporting non-residential services. Multiple residential product types are desired within a single-mixed use area(see pp. 3-20& 3-21 in the Comprehensive Plan for more info).Non-residential uses in these areas tend to be smaller scale and provide goods or services that people typically do not travel far for and need regularly. Employment opportunities for those living in the neighborhood are encouraged. Connectivity and access between the non-residential and residential land uses is critical in these areas. Tree-lined streets are also encouraged to be designed according to the conceptual MU-N plan depicted in Figure 3D in the Comprehensive Plan(see pp. 3-20 through 3-21 for more information on mixed use land uses and specifically MU-N uses in the Comprehensive Plan). A total of 79 single-family residential detached homes on the property—59 in MDR and 20 in MU-N— at an overall gross density of 4.85 dwelling units/acre in the residential areas of both designations. A gross density of 4.50 dwelling units/acre is proposed on the 13-acre MDR designated portion of the site and a gross density of 6.06 dwelling units/acre is proposed on the 3-acre residential portion of the MU- N designated area of the site,which is consistent with the density desired in the Comprehensive Plan for both designations. Residential uses are proposed over 75%of the MU-N designated portion of the site with narrow 30-foot wide building lots with an average lot size of 2,791 square feet. A commercial pad is proposed on the remaining 25%of the MU-N designated area. Only one housing type(i.e. single-family detached)is proposed in the MU-N area,which Staff supports due to the small size of the site. A street pattern grid is proposed with blocks below 600-feet in length as desired. Staff recommends tree-lined streets are provided along local streets within the MU-N designated area in accord with the Comprehensive Plan.Although the percentage of proposed residential uses is 15%higher than desired in the MU-N area, Staff feels it's appropriate for the site as Staff envisions the area to the east of Wells St. and along Magic View Dr. developing with a higher percentage of commercial uses,which should average out. Office uses exist to the south across E.Wells Cir. and an assisted living facility exists northeast of the site in the MU-N designated area.As only a small portion of the MU-N designated area has developed, Staff anticipates more of a variety of uses being provided in this area in the future when the remainder of the larger MU-N area develops or redevelops. Annexation&Zoning: Annexation of 17.27-acres of land is requested with R-8 (13.78-acres),R-15 (2.42-acres) and C-N (1.07-acres)zoning districts per the legal descriptions and exhibit maps included below in Section VII.C. The area proposed to be zoned R-8 is mostly located in the MDR designation with a small portion where the creek is located in the MU-N designation;the area proposed to be zoned R-15 and C-N is located entirely within the MU-N designation. Preliminary Plat: A Preliminary Plat is proposed to re-subdivide Lots 7,21 and 22,Magic View Subdivision Amended into 79 residential lots, 1 commercial lot and 11 common/other lots on 15.97-acres of land in the R-8, R-15 and C-N zoning districts. The plat is proposed to develop in two(2)phases as shown on the preliminary plat in Section VII.D. City of Meridian I Department Report 24 The minimum lot size proposed in the R-8 district is 4,646 square feet(s.f.)with an average lot size of 5,629 s.f.;the minimum lot size in the R-15 district is 2,730 s.f.with an average lot size of 2,791 s.f. The C-N zoned lot is 29,634 s.f. The proposed plat layout provides a good transition in lot sizes/widths to Snorting Bull Subdivision No. 2 (aka Woodbridge)to the west with some lots only being slightly off-set; Staff recommends the Applicant consider revising the plat so that lot lines entirely align with adjacent lot lines as requested by abutting property owners. The proposed development is consistent with Comprehensive Plan Goal#3.07.01A which states, "Require all new development to create a site design compatible with surrounding uses through buffering, screening, transitional densities, and other best site design practices." Table 4: Proiect Overview Description Details History This property was included in Magic View Subdivision Amended plat as Lots 7,21 and 22.An annexation request was previously approved for this property in 2019, but the development agreement wasn't signed and consequently the property wasn't annexed(H-2019-0127 Andorra Senior Living).Another annexation request, which included a preliminary plat and a conditional use permit for an assisted living facility, was denied by Council in 2021 as it was deemed to not be in the best interest of the City [Wells Street Assisted Living/Andorra(H-2021-0024)]. Phasing Plan 2 phases Physical Features The Five Mile Creek crosses the southern portion of this property. Acreage 15.97-acres Lots 79 single-family residential building lots, 1 commercial lot and 11 common/other lots B. Site Development and Use Analysis 1. Existing Structures/Site Improvements (UDC 11-1): There are no existing structures on this site,all previous structures have been removed. 2. Proposed Use Analysis (UDC 11-2): Single-family residential detached dwellings are listed as principal permitted uses in the R-8 and R- 15 zoning districts,per UDC Table 11-2A-2. An end-user has not yet been identified for the C-N zoned lot; allowed uses are listed in UDC Table 11-2B-3 for the C-N zoning district. 3. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): See UDC Tables 11-2A-6 and 11-2A-7 for dimensional standards of the R-8 and R-15 zoning districts, and UDC Table 11-2B-3 for dimensional standards of the C-N zoning district. C. Design Standards Analysis 1. Structure and Site Design Standards (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-19): Compliance with the structure and site design standards in UDC 11-3A-19 is required for the non- residential portion of the development. The pathway proposed through the common area in the residential area on the southern portion of the site should extend into the non-residential portion of the site and provide a pedestrian connection to the building entrance to promote pedestrian mobility within the mixed use development. The proposed commercial structure is required to comply with the non-residential design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual(ASM);the proposed single-family detached structures are exempt from design standards. City of Meridian I Department Report 25 In accord with the Comprehensive Plan,non-residential buildings should transition to and compliment adjacent residential buildings in mass and form; and transitions between different land uses should include highly connected open space. 2. Qualified Open Space &Amenities (Comp Plan, UDC 11-4-3-27): The proposed development is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan policies and goals: • Plan for safe, attractive, and well-maintained neighborhoods that have ample open space, and generous amenities that provide varied lifestyle choices (policy#2.02.00); and • Open space should be prioritized along natural or naturalized amenities (i.e. creeks and canals), integrated with pathways and pedestrian corridors, and located away from site features that may obscure visibility and attract dangerous or illegal behavior. (pg. 3-18) Compliance with the open space and site amenity standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3 and 11-3G-4 is required. A minimum of 15% (or 2.28-acres)qualified open space is required to be provided within the development based on 15.18-acres of land in the residential area. Open space is required to comply with the quality standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3A.2 and the qualified open space standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3B. The Applicant proposes a total of 2.47-acres(or 16%)qualified open space consisting of active and passive areas that include open grassy areas exceeding 5,000 square feet in area with a natural waterway(i.e. the Fivemile Creek) and linear open space as shown on the open space exhibit in Section VII.I. Amenities totaling a minimum of three(3)points are required to be provided based on 15.18-acres of residential development area. Site amenities totaling 12 points(pts.) are proposed from the Quality of Life and Recreation Activity categories as shown on the exhibit in Section VII.I as follows: • Quality of Life: picnic area on a site 5,000 s.f. or greater in size(2 points) Per UDC 11-3G-4C.5, a picnic area is required to include tables,benches, landscaping,and a structure for shade. • Recreation Activity Area: tot lot(1 point),two(2)paved pickleball sports courts(totaling 8 points),and approximately 700-feet of 10-foot wide multi-use pathway(under'/4 mile=0 points). Per UDC 11-3G-4D.3,the tot lot is required to have commercial grade play equipment scaled and designed for the use and safety of younger children; benches for seating shall be provided nearby. Per UDC 11-3G-4D.5, sports courts are required to have markings and include benches for seating. i. The proposed common open space and site amenities meet and exceed UDC standards for such. ii. Landscaping is required to be provided in common open space areas in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-513 and maintained in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-5C. The first phase of development consists of the land north of the Fivemile Creek and will include the picnic,playground and multi-use pathway amenities;the second phase consists of the land south of the creek and will include the two(2)pickleball court amenities. City of Meridian I Department Report 26 3. Landscaping (Comp Plan, UDC I1-3B): Attractive landscaping and pedestrian friendly design is proposed within the development in accord with Comprehensive Plan Policy#5.01.02G. Landscaping is required to be provided within the development in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B. i. Landscape buffers along streets A 10-foot wide street buffer is required along local streets(i.e. S.Wells St.,Wells Cir., and S. Longitude Dr.) on the C-N zoned lot(i.e. Lot 14, Block 5)per UDC Table 11-2B-3; landscaping is required to be installed within the buffer in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C with development of the subdivision. The landscape plan submitted with the final plat application should include landscaping and calculations that demonstrate compliance with these standards. An 8-foot-wide perimeter street buffer is proposed along E. Magic View Dr. and S. Wells St., local streets. Although street buffers aren't required along local streets in residential districts,a minimum setback of 10-feet is required for fences along streets.Therefore,the buffer should be widened as needed to provide a minimum 10-foot wide setback for the fence as measured from the property line in accord with UDC 11-3A-7C.3. All street buffers are required to be in a common lot or on a permanent dedicated buffer easement,maintained by the property owner,homeowner's association or business owner's association per UDC 11-313-7C.2a and should be depicted on the plat. ii. Storm integration Stormwater integration is required in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-11 C. A Geotechnical Recommendation Report was submitted with this application and is included in the project file. iii. Pathway landscaping Landscaping is required along all pathways in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B- 12C.A 5' wide landscape strip is depicted on the landscape plan along both sides of the proposed multi-use pathway; a mix of trees, shrubs,lawn,and/or other vegetative ground cover should be provided within the landscape strips next to the pathway. A minimum of one(1)tree is required per 100 linear feet of pathway. Staff recommends the required trees are spread out more evenly for shade purposes at approximately one(1)every 100'. A calculations table should be included on the landscape plan submitted with the final plat application that demonstrates compliance with the aforementioned standards. iv. Common open space Common open space areas are required to be landscaped in accord with the standards in UDC 11-3G-5B and maintained in accord with the standards in UDC 11-3G-5C. Calculations should be included on the landscape plan submitted with the final plat application that demonstrate compliance with these standards. 4. Parking (UDC 11-3C): Off-street parking is required to be provided for each dwelling unit based on the number of bedrooms per unit in accord with the standards for single-family detached dwellings in UDC Table 11-3C-6. On-street parking is available along both sides of internal public streets. Off-street vehicle parking is required to be provided for non-residential uses in accord with the standards in UDC 11-3C-6B.1. Bicycle parking is required per the standards in UDC 11-3C-6G. City of Meridian I Department Report 27 5. Building Elevations (Comp Plan, Architectural Standards Manual): Several conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed single-story and 2-story single-family detached residential homes for each of the lot sizes proposed, included in Section VII.H below.A variety of materials are proposed including vertical and horizontal lap siding,board and batten siding, shake siding, smooth panel siding, and fenestration with masonry accents in a variety of colors and design elements/features with varying roof profiles and wall modulation that demonstrate the quality of development proposed. Single-family detached residential structures are exempt from the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual(ASM). Conceptual elevations were not submitted for the commercial structure on Lot 14,Block 5. The commercial structure is required to comply with the non-residential design standards in the ASM. Staff is of the opinion the proposed conceptual building elevations are in accord with Comprehensive Plan Policy#5.01.02L: "Support beautiful and high-quality development that reinforces neighborhood character and sustainability. 6. Fencing (UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): All fencing proposed on the site should comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-6 and 1I- 3A-7. A variety of fencing types are proposed as shown on the landscape plan in Section VII.F below.All existing perimeter fencing will either be retained and protected or replaced;the developer will coordinate with all affected neighbors. Per UDC 11-3A-6C.1,fencing along all natural waterways shall not prevent access to the waterway.In limited circumstances and in the interest of public safety,larger open water systems may require fencing as determined by the City Council,Director and/or Public Works Director.A cross-section and photo of the creek is included below in Section VII.I, which depicts the approximate existing and finished grade on both sides of the creek, the slope and a 4' tall retaining wall on the south side of the creek. Approximately a 3:1 slope is shown on the north side of the creek. Because the slope on the north side meets the slope requirements in UDC 11-3B-11C.6 for accessibility and maintenance of stormwater facilities of 3:1 or less, Staff recommends this side remain open and not be fenced in accord with UDC 11-3A-6C.1 but recommends a 6'tall open vision wrought iron fence is installed along the south side of the creek for public safety since the slope in that area exceeds acceptable standards for accessibility unless the slope can be modified to be 3:1 or less—Council may determine otherwise. Fencing depicted along S.Hickory St.on Lots 6 and 7,Block 3 and Lots 5 and 6,Block 2 and along E.Magic View Dr. and S.Wells St.is required to be setback a minimum of 10' from the street side property line per UDC 11-3A-7C.3. The maximum fence height in the required front yard including the front and side yard property lines shall be 3-feet for a closed vision fence and 4-feet for an open vision fence per UDC 11-3A-7C.2.The fencing plan and landscape plan should be revised accordingly to comply with UDC standards. Side yard fences that follow the side yard property line are only allowed where the side setback is five or greater per UDC 11-3A-7C.5. This restriction applies to the R-15 zoned lots if a 3' setback is proposed. 7. Parkways (UDC 11-3A-17): No parkways are proposed;however, Staff is recommending detached sidewalks with parkways for tree-lined streets are provided in the MU-N designated portion of the site in accord with the standards for such in UDC 11-3A-17. D. Transportation Analysis A Traffic Impact Study(TIS)was not submitted for this development as ACHD did not require one. City of Meridian I Department Report 28 Due to the development size and proximity to SH-55,impacts to the State Highway System are anticipated.The SH-55 corridor is already congested and this project will increase the number of vehicle trips.Therefore,the Idaho Transportation Department(ITD) has requested a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA)be submitted for this development and may make further comments upon review of the TIA.The developer is working on this request. Residents in Woodbridge Subdivision to the west have expressed concern pertaining to the high volume of traffic currently passing through their neighborhood between S. Locust Grove Rd. and E.Magic View Dr.via E.Woodbridge Dr.for access to S.Eagle Rd. and the negative impact the proposed development will have,which will exacerbate an already challenging situation. To alleviate this,the Applicant is not proposing public access via E.Magic View Dr. to discourage cut- through traffic. Capital Improvements Plan(CIP)/Integrated Five Year Work Plan(IFYWP): The bridge(#1224) over the Five Mile Creek on S. Wells Street is scheduled in the IFYWP to be replaced in 2029. The bridge is currently designed to match existing facilities,which do not include bicycle lanes or pedestrian walkways;however,the width of the bridge will accommodate these improvements in the future when adjacent properties redevelop and provide these facilities.ACHD will require a road trust from the developer for the cost of these improvements and include them in their project if this development goes forward. Condition of Area Roadways(Traffic Count is based on Vehicles per Hour(VPH): Roadway Frontage Functional PM Peak Flour PM Peak Hour Classification Traffic Count Level of Service *`Magic View Drive 712-feet Local 80 N:A Commercial `*Wells Street 1,575-feet Local NIA NIA Commercial '*Wells Circle 344-feet Local NIA NIA Commercial *'ACHD does not set level of service thresholds for local streets. Access (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-3, UDC 11-3H-4): I. Access is proposed for the site via existing and proposed local public streets. Access to the northern portion of the development is proposed via S.Wells St. from E. Gentry Ave., existing unopened right-of-way. An emergency only access is proposed via E. Magic View Dr. at the northern boundary of the site via a common driveway on Lot 22,Block 1. Two (2) stub streets are proposed to the west to be extended with future development for access and interconnectivity with adjacent developments;no stub streets exist to this property. Local street connectivity is proposed within the development in accord with Comprehensive Plan Policy#6.01.02B, "Reduce the number of existing access points onto arterial streets by using methods such as cross-access agreements, access management, and frontage/backage roads, and promoting local and collector street connectivity." 2. Multiuse Pathways (UDC 11-3A-5): Multi-use pathways are required to be provided with development in accord with the Pathways Master Plan.A 10' wide segment of the City's multi-use pathway system is proposed from S. Wells St. to the west along the north side of the Fivemile Creek and to the north and west property line for connection to the existing pathway in Woodbridge Subdivision, in accord with the Plan. A pathway stub is also provided to the property to the west(Parcel#R5443010202) for future extension. City of Meridian I Department Report 29 3. Pathways (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-8): All pathways should be constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-8 and in accord with the site specific geotechnical report for light duty paving per UDC 11-313-12C.3. In the case where no geotechnical report is available pathways shall be built using two and one-half(2.5) inches of asphaltic concrete over four(4) inches of crushed aggregate base over ten(10)inches of structural subbase over compacted subgrade. Materials and methods shall conform to ISPWC standard specifications. Pathways are depicted on the landscape plan through the internal common areas for pedestrian access to amenities and the commercial pad on the south end of the site. A multi-use pathway is stubbed to the west boundary of this property from Woodbridge Subdivision. 4. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17): All sidewalks should be constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17. Five-foot wide attached sidewalks are proposed along all local streets within and adjacent to the development. As noted above, Staff recommends detached sidewalks with landscaped parkways are provided in the MU-N designated portion of the site in accord with the Comprehensive Plan. In the interim of the bridge being replaced across the Fivemile Creek, Staff recommends a minimum 5' wide temporary asphalt pathway is provided along Wells St.if there is adequate area alongside the existing road. 5. Subdivision Regulations (UDC 11-6): Compliance with the subdivision design and improvements standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3 is required. Common driveways: Three(3)common driveways are proposed,which are required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3D. Common driveways should be paved with a surface with the capability of supporting fire vehicles and equipment. A common driveway exhibit is included in Section VILE below that depicts the setbacks,building envelope and orientation of the lots and structures. Block face: All of the proposed block faces comply with the required standards. The subject property should be subdivided prior to submittal of any building permit applications for the phase of development in which they are located. E. Services Analysis See Service Accessibility Report in Section VILB below. 1. Waterways (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-6): All waterways, except natural waterways, are required to be piped unless used as a water amenity or linear open space, in which case they may be left open as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6. The Fivemile Creek, a natural waterway,bisects this site within a 100' wide easement and should remain open and be protected during development. Building lots do not and should not encroach within the easement. A cross-section of the creek is included in Section VII.I below that shows the approximate existing and finished grade on both sides of the creek, slope and a 4' tall retaining wall on the south side of the creek. A portion of this site is located within the floodway in zones X and AE. A floodplain permit is required before any grading in the floodplain begins.Floodplain permits are required for each building in the floodplain along with elevation certificates certifying lowest floor elevation is 2 feet above base flood elevation. City of Meridian I Department Report 30 2. Pressurized Irrigation(UDC 11-3A-15): Underground pressurized irrigation water is required to be provided in each development as set forth in UDC 11-3A-15. 3. Storm Drainage (UDC 11-3A-18): An adequate storm drainage system is required in accord with the adopted standards, specifications and ordinances; design and construction shall follow Best Management Practice as adopted by the City per UDC 11-3A-18. 4. Utilities (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-21): All utilities for the proposed development are required to be installed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-21. Water service is available at the site and sewer service is available from S.Wells St. Each phase of the development will need to be modeled to verify minimum fire flow pressure is maintained. 5. Topography This property slopes down to the center from the north and the south ends of the site as shown on Sheet 3 of the plat. 6. Hazards Staff is unaware of any hazards that exist on this site other than the Fivemile Creek,which may present a danger to young children. IV. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. Meridian Planning Division 1. A new Development Agreement(DA) shall be required as a provision of the Annexation and Zoning application. Prior to approval of the annexation ordinance, a new DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian,the property owner at the time of annexation ordinance adoption, and the developer. A final plat application shall not be submitted until the annexation is finalized.The DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning Division within six(6)months of the date of City Council approval of the Findings of Fact,Conclusions of Law and Decision& Order for the annexation request. The new DA shall incorporate the following provisions: i. Future development of the subject property shall be generally consistent with the preliminary plat,phasing plan, landscape plan, open space and site amenity exhibit and conceptual building elevations included below in Section VII,the conditions contained herein and the standards in the Unified Development Code(UDC). ii. The subject property shall be subdivided prior to submittal of any building permit applications for the phase of development in which they are located. iii. The pathway through the common area in the residential portion of the Mixed Use— Neighborhood(MU-N) designated portion of the site shall extend into the non-residential portion of the site and provide a pedestrian connection to the main building entrance to promote pedestrian mobility within the mixed-use development in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. iv. Tree-lined streets with detached sidewalks shall be provided in the MU-N designated portion of the development in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan for MU-N designated areas. v. Administrative design review shall be required for the commercial structure in accord with the non-residential design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual. The non-residential City of Meridian I Department Report 31 building shall transition to and compliment adjacent residential buildings in mass and form in accord with the Comprehensive Plan. Single-family detached structures are exempt from design standards. 2. The final plat shall include the following revisions: i. Graphically depict the 14-foot-wide public pedestrian easement for the multi-use pathway with the recorded instrument number of the easement. ii. Depict a 10-foot-wide street buffer along S.Wells St.,Wells Cir.,and S. Longitude Dr. on the C-N zoned lot(i.e. Lot 14,Block 5)per UDC Table 11-2B-3, in a common lot or on a permanent dedicated buffer easement,maintained by the property owner,homeowner's association or business owner's association per UDC 11-3B-7C.2a. iii. Depict detached sidewalks with parkways in the MU-N designated portion of the site in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17 and the Comprehensive Plan. iv. Perpetual ingress/egress shall be required for the common driveways either by a recorded easement or as a note on a recorded final plat as set forth in UDC 11-6C-3D. The easement or plat note shall include a requirement for maintenance of a paved surface capable of supporting fire vehicles and equipment. v. Widen the street buffer along E. Magic View Dr. and S. Wells St.to allow for a 10-foot wide minimum setback from the property line for perimeter fencing along streets in accord with UDC 11-3A-7C.3. 3. The landscape plan shall include the following revisions: i. Depict tables,benches, landscaping, and a structure for shade for the picnic area amenity, in accord with UDC 11-3G-4C.5; include a detail for these items. ii. Depict commercial grade play equipment scaled and designed for the use and safety of younger children for the tot lot;benches for seating shall be provided nearby in accord with UDC 11- 3G-4D.3; include a detail for these items. iii. Per UDC 11-3G-4D.5, sports courts are required to have markings and include benches for seating; include a detail for these items. iv. The 5-foot-wide landscape strips along pathways shall include a mix of trees, shrubs, lawn, and/or other vegetative ground cover as set forth in UDC 11-3B-12C;trees should be spaced out more evenly for shade purposes at approximately one(1) every 100 linear feet, additional trees beyond the minimum number may be provided. v. Depict landscaping within minimum 10-foot wide street buffers adjacent to local streets on Lot 14,Block 5 in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. vi. Fencing along S. Hickory St. on Lots 5 and 6,Block 2 and Lots 6 and 7,Block 3 shall be depicted a minimum of IO-feet from the street side property line per UDC 11-3A-7C.3. vii. The maximum fence height in the required front yard including the front and side yard property lines shall be 3-feet for a closed vision fence and 4-feet for an open vision fence per UDC 11- 3A-7C.2;revise accordingly. viii.Include a calculations table that demonstrates compliance with the standards for landscaping within street buffers (UDC 11-3B-7C), along pathways(UDC 11-3B-12C)and within common open space areas(UDC 11-3G-5B). City of Meridian I Department Report 32 ix. Depict detached sidewalks with parkways for tree lined streets in the MU-N designated portion of the site in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17 and the guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan. x. Widen the street buffer along E. Magic View Dr. and S. Wells St. to allow for a 10-foot wide minimum setback for perimeter fencing from the property line in accord with UDC 11-3A- 7C.3. xi. Remove the fencing depicted along the north side of the Fivemile Creek and depict 6-foot tall wrought iron fencing along the south side of the Fivemile Creek for public safety,unless otherwise modified by City Council. xii. Depict a minimum 5-foot wide temporary asphalt pathway along Wells St. if there is adequate area alongside the existing road. 4. The common driveways shall be constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3D and building setbacks shall be as shown on the common driveway exhibit in Section VII.E. 5. All pathways shall be constructed in accord with the site-specific geotechnical report for light duty paving per UDC 11-3B-12C.3. In the case where no geotechnical report is available pathways shall be built using two and one-half(2.5) inches of asphaltic concrete over four(4)inches of crushed aggregate base over ten(10) inches of structural subbase over compacted subgrade. Materials and methods shall conform to ISPWC standard specifications. 6. Submit a 14-foot-wide public pedestrian easement for the multi-use pathway on this site prior to submittal of the final plat for City Engineer signature. 7. Off-street parking shall be provided for all single-family residential dwellings in accord with the standards for such listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6. 8. The Fivemile Creek shall remain open as a natural amenity and shall not be piped or otherwise covered in accord with UDC 11-3A-6 and shall be protected during development. 9. All waterways, except natural waterways (i.e.the Fivemile Creek), intersecting, crossing or lying within the area being development are required to be piped unless used as a water amenity or linear open space,in which case they may be left open as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6. If left open, fencing may be required in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-6C. 10. Wayfinding address signage shall be provided at the public street for homes accessed via common driveways(i.e. Lots 6-8 and 19-20 and 31-32,Block 1). 11. A floodplain permit is required before any grading in the floodplain begins. Floodplain permits are required for each building in the floodplain along with elevation certificates certifying lowest floor elevation is 2 feet above base flood elevation. 12. Side yard fences that follow the side yard property line are only allowed where the side setback is five or greater per UDC 11-3A-7C.5. This restriction applies to the R-15 zoned lots if a 3-foot side setback is proposed. 13. Approval of the preliminary plat shall become null and void if the applicant fails to obtain the city engineer's signature on the first phase final plat within two (2)years of City Council's approval of the preliminary plat; or a time extension may be requested as set forth in UDC 11-6B-7. Other Agency comments may be accessed in the project file in the public record. Copy and paste the following link into your browser: https:llweblink.meridianciU.orP/WebLink/browse.aspx?id=367307&dbid=0&repo=Meridig City City of Meridian I Department Report 33 V. FINDINGS A. Annexation(UDC 11-5B-3E) Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full investigation and shall,at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Stafffinds the proposed map amendment and development plan generally complies with provisions of the Comprehensive Plan pertaining to transition in density, residential densities and compatibility with adjacent uses. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Stafffinds the proposed amendment to the R-8 and R-15 zoning districts is consistent with the purpose statement of the residential districts in that it contributes to the range of housing opportunities in this area consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; Stafffinds the proposed map amendment should not be materially detrimental to the public health and safety but recommends the Commission and Council rely on public testimony to determine this finding. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to, school districts; and Stafffinds the proposed map amendment should not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services, including the school district based on 2024-2025 student enrollment numbers. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. Stafffinds the proposed annexation with the recommended conditions of approval is in the best interest of the City. B. Preliminary Plat(UDC 11-613-6) In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat, the decision- making body shall make the following findings: 1. The plat is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and is consistent with this unified development code; Stafffinds the proposed plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with the UDC with the conditions contained herein. 2. Public services are available or can be made available ad are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Stafffinds public services are available to the site and will be adequate to accommodate the proposed development. 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the city's capital improvement program; City of Meridian I Department Report 34 ACHD is planning to construct a new bridge across the Fivemile Creek in the CIP; no other improvements are planned. Staff finds there are no scheduled public improvements that affect development of this site. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Staff finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development. 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and Stafffinds the proposed development should not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare but recommends the Commission and Council rely on public testimony to determine this finding. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. Staff finds the Fivemile Creek, which crosses this site, should be preserved and protected during development of this site. Staff is unaware of any other such features that exist on this site but if any others exist, they shall be preserved. VI. ACTION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed AZ and PP requests with the requirement of a development agreement and the conditions of approval included above in Section IV. City of Meridian I Department Report ■ ' l � FRANKLiILU tom_* 46 84® rMA 1k OVERLAND • .� ._ - a -• • •• FRANKLIN �++ __ ■■■■■■■■n■■■■�,��� . �..: :�■■a■■■■� ram:. :r■■nn..� p Bill -- 84 r OYERL--AND W �� ■. 709 L .. FRANKLIN �1oi■�■■1■11� III - r • � c 111 �■■ _ _�� !mill 84 —s. _ a 01/ERL-AND., ICJ■��n1 moll ri ME ONE -• • •• FRANKL=IN -- 11 .:`s� �■■■■■■■■■■■■■ �� ill `i ,�■ � � W:,C:l•.y iC■7C� 7CCii Cia.Gra1r1.iL� tom' ■111►�■■■ _ Mill 119 „ra ■■.. „ OYERL--AND ���■ ■ �W' ti,■yi� ■ r. ' /■ B. Service Accessibility Report PARCEL R5443010220 SERVICE ACCESSIBILITY overall Score: 26 121st Percentile Location Within 112 mile of City Limits YELLDW Extension Sewer Trunkshed mains < 500 ft.from parcel Floodplain Either not within the 100 yrfloodplain or > 2 acres Emergency Services Fire Response time 5-9 min. YE-LOW Emergency Services Police Meets response time goals most of the time Gf�N i� Pathways Within 1/4 mile of current pathways GREEN Transit Not within 114 of current or future transit route RED Ultimate configurafion(#of lanes in master streets Arterial Road Buildout Status GREEN plan) matches existing (#of lanes) School Walking Proximity Within 112 mile walking GREEN Either High School or College within 2 miles Oita School Drivability Middle or Elementary School within 1 mile driving GREEN (existing or future) Park Walkability No park within walking distance by park type RED Rgx;rtggwla1edun 02-ZI-2025 by MERIDUffSJs City of Meridian I Department Report F38 C. Annexation Legal Description&Exhibit Map Ki[1ley> Horn October 10, 2024 Latitude Forty Three Annexations Description Lots 7,21 and 22 of the Amended Magic Yew Subdivision, filed in Book 52 of Plats at Pages 4445-4446,Ada County Records, being located in the East Half of Section 17,Township 3 North.Range 1 East, Boise Meridian,City of Meridian, Ada County.Idaho. heing more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Center Quarter of Section 1 T.Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian,from which the North Quarter Comer of said Section 17 bears North 00023'48"East. 2,657.09 feet;said Commencing Point being the S out hviest Corner of said Lot 22; Thence along the Lot Lines of said Lots T.21 and 22 the following nine(9) courses and distances; 1. North 00°23'48" East,a distance of 901.42 feet; 2. South 80°09'03"East,a distance of 409.00 feet; 3. North 09°50'57" East,a distance of 25.00 feet; 4. South 80°09'03"East,a distance of 312.19 feet; 5. South 16°49'09"West,a distance of 802.30 feet; 6. South 09°36'26"East,a distance of 324.91 feet; 7. North 89"15'33"West, a distance of 373,45 feet; 8. North 00101121" West, a distance of 773.67 feet; 9. North 89157150" West, a distance of 252.88 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING of this description. Containing 752,265 square feet or 17.27 acres of land, LAIC D D 0 � OEM: I/ City of Meridian Department Report 39 NORTH QUARTER SEGTION 17, CP&F 1[4161984 LINE TABLE + NO. SEARING LENGTH i L1 N00'23+49'E 901-42' o-'�i• � ��� -� � ��r L2 380'09'03"E 409.00' 03 w 1 L3 N09'5057E 25-00r � wo L4 380'13nWE 312.19 b L5 S11Y49'NN1r 802.31F r a L11 309'38'2d"E B24.91' r + r L7 N89'15'33'44 373.45' I t L8 N0O'01'21"W 773.07 { 1 � � F o L9 N89'57'50"1M1 252.8d' Ff+� a /�F u N I y L9 CENTER QUARTER EAST QUARTER s� SECTION 17, ii SECTION 17, CPBF 102DO9257 1 i CPBF 1111054175 v ti 1 4 9 s — -L7 — — iL LEGEND LAAD BOUNEARY LINE — — SECTION LINE NORTH 0 — — — RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE o QUARTER CORNER GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET 6 150 300 600 • D 4 PROJECT: T—LE '93'30D Kimle H rn LATITUDE 43 SCALE 1'=� 11W S FDAM UM 210'�r EXHIBIT rrB DATE: 4CdiCa2024 Bom loom WTm ANNEXATION SHEET: wld�li�-I.wear SHEET 2 OF 2 City of Meridian I Department Report F40 I irnlepMorn October 14,24 LaMode Fort}+Tfivae R-8 Zone Das�ra on Lots 7,21 and 22 of the Amended Magir.View Subdivision,filed in Book 52 of Plats at Rages 44454445,Ada County Records,being kxated in the East Halt of 5er-tion 17_Townsh ip 3 North,Range 1 East,Boise Meridian,City of Meridian,Ada County,I daho,being mare particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Center quarter of Section 17,Township 3 North,Range 1 East,Boise Meridian,from which the North Guarter Cornier of said Section 17 bears North DO 2348"East, 2.657.0E feel;said Commencing Point being the Southwest Corner of said Lot 22; Thence along the Lot Linea of said Lots 7,21 and 22 the following seven M courses and distances: 1_ North 00'23'48" East,in d+slance of H1,42 feel; 2 South 80'09'03"Eastr a distance of 409.00 feet; a North 09"W'57" Earl,a dislanca of 25.00 feet; 4. South 8V09'03"East,a distance of 3 12.19 feet; 8_ South 16149109"YYaat,a dlStance of 802.30 Fret- & South 0VW26"Eastr a distance of 363.80 feet; 7_ North 99'15'4V Vkwla a distanrieflt 295-67 feet; Therme North 00°01r21"West,a distance of 320.03 feet to the Westerly Lot line of said Lot 21; Thence along said Lot line North 89°57'50"West,a distance of 252.88 feat to the POINT OF BEGINNING of this description, Containing 604,279 square feet or 13.76 acres of land_ City of Meridian I Department Report 41 I imle )) Horn October 10,2024 Lambdb Fort+Fhrc c R-15 Zama Description A portion of Lot 21 of the Amended Magic View Subd ivision,filed in Book 52 of Plats at Pages 4445-4445ti Ada County Records4 being located in the East Half of 5er-tion 17,Townsh ip 3 North,Range 1 East_Boise Meridian, City of Meridian,Ada County,Idaho,being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Cents r Quarter of Ser-tion 17_Tawnsh ip 3 North,Range 1 EasL Boise Meridian,from which the North Quarter Corner of said Section 17 bears North 00'2348"East, 2,65T.09 feet;Thence South 320.143 feet. and East 253_151 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence SOW W16'44" East,a dlstanee of 296.67 feet to the Easterly Lot line i�f said Lot 21; Thence along salts Lot IIne South 49°3626"East,a dia nco 4f 3XV feet; Therm;e North 0-15'44"Watt,a dlstarice of 351.60 lsct to the Wcsterly Lot line of said Lot 21- ThahU along s;&ltl Lot lino North fl0"0T2V West,a distance of 325.03 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING of this descriRtiom Containing 105,356 square feet or 2A2 acres of land. U, CF City of Meridian Department Report 42 I imley> orn Goober 10, M4 Lambj*Eft zom 00sc"Ptoorr A pardon of Lot 21 of the Ame n ded M agic View Subd ivision,filed in Book 5,2 of PI ats at Pages 4 "W 11 Ada County Records,being Iocated in the East Half of SeGtidn 17_Township 3 North,Range 1 East_Boise Meridian. Ci ty of Meridian,Ada County,I daho,being m ore particularly described as fellows: Commencing at the Center quarter of 5er-tion 17_Township 3 North,Range 1 East,Baise Meridian,from which the North Guarter C orner of said Section 17 bears North 40 23'48"Eaet, 2,657.09 feet;Thence South 645,22 feet,and East 253.14 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence Soul A9'15:44"East,a distance of 351.68 feet to the Easterly Lot line of said Lot 21; Thence along the Lot Lines of said Lot 21 the fallowing three 13)courses and d istanres: 1_ Thence South 09:36'2ti"East a distance of 130.75 Beet; 2_ Thsnco Nnrt[k 89"15'33"West, a distance of 373A5 feet; 3_ Thence North 40°41-21"West. a distance of 129.61 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING of this descripdnn_ Containing 46,531 square feet or 1.07 acres of land_ City of Meridian Department Report 43 NORTH CKYkRTER SECTION 17, CPSF 1441619" LINE TABLE w BGSRiG LIENGT}4 ,gig , v c p Li NCO'2 AFE 901.42' I '�^`w8R r L2 SW%Q 0� 4N.PA' inku } r L3 NU9'505TE 2IS-W ID f Ld SW'G$%-F 312.19 L5 S16149'C9'Ui' d02.3D' {j L7 W9 lE44 W 2%.BT w Lb NJ4'9r 7110 320.03' $ +� L9 f'W57151M 252M RAZONE �1 o L14 SIIP'W'25 E =37 L11 S99'15WE 351.6&' L12 MOM71'W 32d.ff eENTcR OUhRTER i— y` — EAST CAJARTER L14 h189'in3ww 37l3 w SECTION 17. 4 SECTION 17, CPBE 102DEW57 qp 4 13 CPAF 1IOD641715 L15 140)QI i12VW 12L I' 1 1 � 1 h 1 L7 � 1 r R-15 ZDNr= ti L11 k I VI ZONE _ r L14—— LEGEND BOUNDARY UNIE SEC I ION LINE N�r11 { — — — NIGH I-OF-V4A4Y LANE 0 (AJAR I E:R CORNER GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET Nr'.q ' l PROJECT: TRLC. .�s Ilar ,5�,a000n LATITUDE 43 SCIRM V=3W 11Q¢i tow gar !f !r "Am y9'F0 5J�#14 ZONES X { 9p�.Q1}I�t4r02 1�1ELT ~ rp SHEAF 4 QF 4 City of Meridian I Department Report 44 A Preliminary Plat&Phasing Plan OWWWGIUM _ Y H YI 11.10 {� wi aoiswoens�auuao��ruutn a� i s6•"�R 6�9�kF6 � �. w c �m 4 c w W S NO E 0 a w w M, J a ❑ z w ° Lu� LU m LL -g'� �iIsaaaas... ❑ J a w Via, ❑ W HHOA RN wip $ q e15 8 NUN 9 its tS�s$SS City of Meridian I Department Report 45 lligg �\ / � -- \ ;� —— W AlVT, � - \\� � § / | �.; _�— C) K v. t \ } � |� Ou �\� ) � !( KimleyoHorn DETAILS v MERIDLAN.IDAHO City of Meridian Department Report F46 tr. HIP P 13 ❑ ot El T 4 i Fe i ❑ ❑ r # ° ❑ ❑ P El El ❑y„ ❑ ❑ ❑ ,:❑ ❑ El Ej El El OWWI ❑ _ F' I — I I — I❑ 0 •�❑ ❑ ,� r J 3 9 J n n n 9 9 9 9 9 12 2 m W S I Y — I I -- o© ❑o°a ❑oo 8 a L4TMJDE FORTY Ti-IREESUMVISkOU l�y> Horn pp EXISTING CGNDITIONS MFRIDM IDARO m r. City of Meridian Department Report F47 M U g T Tel 4 U�30 S. E R V 4r RS�4 M 7L bg - ----- ----- Its 31 r aj S. -------------- Jab----.A T-- N !v N) 'I Tl 11 R'3 E-1 7T MATGHLINE SEE GdEfTD5 F Ff LATffUDF-FO---E-...S.- Kimley*Horn PRELIMINARY PLAT MERIDIAN.5DAHO City of Meridian Department Report F 48 all .71 9k5 �i�ssg.g; R3af eS` f I 14 r' fir 1 _ WATCtUNE SEE SHEFFD1 rrr �g 4t . f OR ��_�_' ��— I � x ��� �� , .•ter r FfYEU ECFEEEK 1��•t rr �! L w _w s a� 4 II v_a nl� �S �'a� ,sa Ise e i R>F 5 E 101LkTdl dl L -� wox q9 !7 5�G ayy s o8°' `I iR6xa E. SIT I •-Q I' m I x x6' g � it8xw �. 1 I I 9� �qp gr. � tivl i 9 I q" --- ---- ----------- e II I E D I {V 3 - s � e � ae � seea �ae9ee:.83992it 2 92222 3 � �� Fs��� eeeeeeaaaaaaaaaiassss'essssegege � - � $ pp g pppt g Ryy 7 i e : g 4 B i 5!Z i B i 7 E■I!S A!Y V C 8 IF } 7 8 ! ;! s II ' J LA7FrUOE FORTY UiREE SUBDIVISION iml Horn s 4 Q ' x PRELIMINARY PLAT fff 'r/ hERIDLAR EAFIO City of Meridian Department Report F49 Ir r rr I f r I r r ! -__ I I •_ ...-r .� rY I --- + ----- - r I + I•��6ENiRY AVE I � I 6 � II � __III V I � I V I I I EEg1ATOR OR {i - I G _p ax®� TM � L4TfTL1DE FORTY THREE5U9DNI51CN Kimley*Horn PHASING PLAN Q m MERIDIAN,IDAHO r City of Meridian Department Report 50 E. Common Driveway Exhibit ---_—_---------------------� I I II — _S WELLSAr HOME I Eu ', l I _�_g 1:� I�NTATlOWf HpM I ca I __-1� � I; 4110.PIEHTATpN'; J� p�- IR 5 - II I r �i � jam— " ' I � �A •I -- I ' II - _ I I I .- II I I s ry III 1� J I HaME I I rypME I,I �o� I FT I w I zli b� W�— l� N }o: I Y i I I NaiT1 �A • E E I -' .. :�5r'"'1--- og--,III vl I • LL ui E� Ll_--------� O � I �y �i`"03�OH71✓� .I � �---II _�z ' I i �� C_ City of Meridian Department Report ■ F. Landscape Plan&Fencing Plan(dated: 3/12/2025) ON AL I —1--.7 a 0 ............ ............. OE MRTY TIR2E 311111IN2111" q o6 Kimley*Horn MFP1D1W,0DAKO 1-4 1 City of Meridian Department Report F52] �,... 6 V,H'M. �- +HIP 9 I� 1 10;;�: + rpss°:og L ■tl!iy 4 _ ! I 1 .. I 1 + 1, _ 1 } - /71 - �- � fff N� :~ --- --- f + `1 y r r I + 1 �.. ::: .. .......-�.. JJ J J - ___ = = L.SENTRY IN. = _ ___ ___:£:... 9 WkTaflUNE SEE SA=R3 000001 a Q a a e s s a A s s e s a r a LATITUDEFOf"THREE SUBDIVISION Kimley*Horn B _ gay �weier r:�emr w.�+Rn r � LANCSCAREPLAN �RIow�L iovio City of Meridian Department Report 53 ,a ;X4 1 NIRTCFLJNE SEE SFEFf Q2 F F j�3�sa Q E 11♦I `�f 1 S , f I - - -- kF[ j I l I . C�AWtTMD&.�. R + fill I 9 7 I I I I I I - , I q I T 1 I I 1 I I I I. 1 I s 9 LATITUDE FORTY TFREESL18OIhASION lKimleylMorn LANDSCAPE PLAN .a.. � LfRiow:LOAFiO City of Meridian Department Report F54] qq pp } E KIGIC}.,�w � � a : aP L. If n $ I L 1 r � jz jff i Ir� i i P � a � 4 -- ,. City of Meridian Department Report 55 G. Open Space& Site Amenity Exhibit ------------ - --------- T MF w M W jo 0 M L I "I V h lip liq I Mgj TUIE FOR-1-1 TIRIE SUM Kimley*Horn OPEN SPACE PLAN MERIDAN,IDAHD City of Meridian Department Report F 56 H. Conceptual Building Elevations 24-foot-wide product for lots in Phase 2 (optional garage width does not apply): GENERAL NOTES y s.•a s 'g BOILDING ARFAG 0'�' xg:i 5 Y p fl ---- - Kc ®000 ®®®®®®® -- -- --- -- --  - � FRONT ELEVATION{"B"CMFTSNUN) me wn�a aaavnnAw ------------------- — oa h� LEFT ELEVATION{'B"CRAFTSMAN) A4 DO ----------- if i I ak w Szs s-= s Ri( F"ATON CB°CN*78" .��.... A4 91 City of Meridian Department Report 57 GENERAL NOTES ialgl BUILDINGAREAS ------------------ ----- it =4 ............... V f�-- ---------------- 'lag ------------ FRONT ELEVATION ED"MODERN FARMHOUSE) A D 0 0 jE 0 —---------- m I LEFT ELEVATION("D"MODERN FARMHOUSE) till— --------- - ----- OPT —JE EAR ELEVATION C'U'MODERN FARMHOUSE) L A --------- -------------- ------------- U) oP ICI Z 50 z D 0 ---------------------------------------------------------- Om ------ ----- II II II ------ ----- - ----------------------- --------------------- T RIGHT ELEVATION('D'MODERN FARMHOUSE) City of Meridian Department Report F 58] GENERAL NOTES BUILDING AREAS n vENEEa wana nnH s OFT 1—RD—GE OPT 6-SHOP a- m., s a _ � s .....,p e.T..". FRONT ELEVATION("F PACIFIC NORTHWEST MODERN) A --- I a _I 0 v a - _ g �o sse I o 92 o> `rl LEFF ELEVATION I'F PACIFIC NORTHWEST MODERN) A420 roe�Ei w,.A...,N ---------------------— Z i ------------- 1 = 3 =pLEVATION("F PACIFIC NORTHWEST MODERN) 4 L A N N e W ENO u RIGHT ELEVATION("P'PACIFIC NORTHWEST MODERN) A421 City of Meridian Department Report 59 GENERAL NOTES agaE� BUILDING AREAS i ® ------- 00 00 0000 �-�•- i FRONT ELEVATION•G•(SLEEK CONTEMPORARY) li L A ------------------ w w o ppr I I OPr I J Q a.•�.wo. �Z m II ^" ._—_.—__—..—_.—._—..—__—__—__—__ -r —• ------ -__—__—__— —..—_.—._—..—_.—._—._—_S mw LEFT ELEVATION"G"(SLEEK CONTEMPORARY) �•,� A4.40 or. 1 f fi S f REAR ELEVATION"G•(SLEEK CONTEMPORARY) = ¢ L �A w o N p �I Z,O o22 -------------- --------------------------------- II II RIGHF ELEVATION•G"{SLEEK CONTEMPORARY) •�'""� A4.41 City of Meridian Department Report 60 GENERAL NOTES .w1 xEUV-rc.oe =x.., BUILDING AREAS 00 00 a FRONT ELEVATION"H"IMODERN) ESE A N W fn� .�.�...e W�--.�...W..."--- m O m g i O> II II II II --- - -- - ---- ----- -- — -- ---- � LEFT ELEVATION"H"(MODERN) $�if! "mrnwwre« � gy� ____snaucv:w i a P i f ------------- ___---=-=-=-------�. g 1 S REAR ELEVATION"H"(MODERN) L �A ------------- -— O 052 O II -- -- ------------------------------ --- -- -- i--- RIGHT ELEVATION"H^{MODERN) M~� A4 51 City of Meridian Department Report 61 35-foot-wide product for lots that are 45' or wider: I r E Ii -- - z�l� inl - g6i na.�o �I City of Meridian Department Report 62 e ilo �J—III��III�II II ���as Ell o ~� GENERAL NOTES ~�9 .,gym. e��^��• - BUILDING AAEAS� ....,.. j -—_-_-_-_-_------------- ------------- �s.�. +_"— — _ R I EMELEVATION"D'(MODERN FARMHOUSES � - �X �. A sc ca.uNN OEra a N v W _ Z on D m 1 „ r O N� -_--_--_--_--_—_—_ LEFT FI EVATION-D-(MODERN FARMHOUSE) »� A4 3U les �W 1—_@ �ue 'o_y OPT.1T SLIDER REAR ELEVATION"O"(MODERN FARMH(XJSE) d L X N N W Z� 0 0 =9 N n# OD r _—---— C_2___ -----___________-----____________________________________5--------------- RIGHT ELEVATION"D"(MODERN FARMHOUSE) w,v A4.31 City of Meridian Department Report 63 GENERAL NGIES VENEWERR WRAP PLAN BUILDING AREAS MEE a - -------------- X� FROML ELEVATION"P'(PNW MODERN) Oo OPTIONAL&'OOOR J L-- J -a TT II1I s -------------- ---------------- !IR LEFT EL VATEION T"(PNW MODERN) LE A4.Sfl !m WWI It E,—IL --]Lk L]TIE ws y01 ----------------- OPT 17 SLIDER REA'R EELEVATION"P(PNW MODERN) L nX - --------------------.-----------_--__ N W Z O �m# r _---.----_ ---------- ----------------------------------------------- III GHT ELEVATION"F"(MODERN PNW) A4.51 City of Meridian Department Report 64 ((5 d i IIIH i a 4¢s$€y W W o A GENER/LNOTES �s -R BUILDING AREA. =f ------ ---------------------- - - V� I wa V of A L ---------------------- ------------_ FRONT ELEVATION"G"(SLEEK CONTEMPORARY) — w Zo oP ioue�a °°`t Q a r ________________ ________________________- - LEFFELEVATION"G"(SLEEK CONTEMPORARY( W A4.60 S - Y Ws1 � r"or.eu,onoaru �i V O i OFF. 7 SLIDER SEAR ELEVATION"G"(SLEEK CONTEMPORARY) ®6 7 L X ------------------------ Z 0 0 0 so V 0 ik 06 m r r—--t--_-_-------_- - ----------- - -------- - - -5 RIGHT ELEVATION'+G"(SLEEK CONTEMPORARY) A4.61 City of Meridian Department Report 65 j�. 1s ° W W¢ GENERAL NOTES ----—-------—— ___ BUILDING AREAScV 9 _--------_ _ILL �—t=-=- __- - L ` FRONT ELEVATION"H"(MODERN) e.��...." x I I .�W.w zqg Q 0 �; ESE -------------[ ____________________ L J LEFT ELEVATION"H"(MODERN) A4 70 )�a c1 °oll W><� l li w a H i 1 H w; W 0 1 OPT.12'SLIDER REAR ELEVATION-H-(MODERN) �3 x _ N Z C p F� J R —Z '2 O MNo ________________________________________________J` RIGHT ELEVATION'H'(MODERN) A4 11 City of Meridian Department Report 66 40-foot-wide product for lots 50' or wider: IF Yr �i Y M iM SNOPOPi �caoGF OPTION :� Y!1■1!M■1. '- .lI �ili.3 y S� Li % -&�7 F�3 ---- na o --------- --m -T- s, o� ---------- It R&W ELEVATION A M.I City of Meridian Department Report 67 GENERAL NOTES a €� BUILDINGAREAS� 3. a�W� a a- F FncnoECA ------ t �u • --�� r==i IIl F— C --- -- — - SHOP�OPTION GARAGE OPTION FRONT ELEV ATION'B" FROM ELEVATION B MCCORMICK OPT. € v 0 3 ; 0 — VENEER WRAP PLAN MOCORMICK OPT. E X ---.-.-.-.-.-- 1 ---- -_ --- �a� z� NmH I TT — —.—ree+..xx� N CO) — d Af - ------ --- LEFT ELEVATION"B"McCORMICK OPT_ -----------------� LEFT ELEVATION'B" A4 2 e �I �•f1. ia9�¢ LUn ro� �xt 0 Q� o; Et� = ---- - i OPT.WINDOW LAYOUTS OPT 9'SLID REAR EL EVATION'D' OFF 10'GARAGE �o w LTHIIIIINAL -o THESE WINDOWS ARE DELE-D WHEN oniownteooaoaMSR EDEO1Eo X�« S LU W� 7 n Otl N mH N N ___ _—_— �_ III IL II ti___ _ _ _ _— — ,A,,, tt___ _ _ _ _ _ _— _— _ _ _ _— _— _ -__ — ___i L_] L�—] RIGHT ELEVATION W WCORMICK OPT RIGHT ELEVATION"B" A4.3 City of Meridian I Department Report 68 1 GENERAL NOTES ."a BUILDING AREAS Fncnoecnics. .... I I V a g F_--_---- t- SHOP OPTION GARAGE OPTI ON F R O N T E L E V A T I O N'C' �DN pELEVATION C MCCORMICK OPT. Y Hv++ Xw•.w � •wnw J}�T F L VENEER WRAP PLAN 1 T1 ! Ll ------------------J---------------------------------------m=,; A 1-1 _ mom �I I j — �� j III III II a ---- -------J LF FT EL EVAT I ON'C' ate:..-.. A4 4 �°eg v.�. LU W = HO Wie �uF ME O -----_____ ._-------- u o_f =-___=----4 € OPT_10'GARAGE �1pp OPT WINDOW LAYOUT80PT 9'SLD REAR ELEVATION'C' L EN X _ ❑ Z V W O� NOtl No,- .................................................... RIGHT ELEVATION MCCORMICK OPT. RIGHT ELEVATION"C" A4.5 City of Meridian I Department Report 69 GENERAL NOTES BUILDING AREAS ?all W Lux M M Lux[E FwcnDE cuts �� - "••N• w -.�," —_ _",•�"�"� ��k .w.w .v.. .wr.....ww wwaw.v. __I SHOP OPTION GARAGE OPTIONJ' i V F R O N T ELEVATION"D" 2 1 V�ENE�ER WRAP PLAN S Y L z'6 o> R j nSa Nmf j jl jll I ll I I I II�II — OanDON—DOOR J LEFT ELEVATION"D" aA4.6 €I laa0�g g�ell� ro� d 7 ••nno VU ❑❑ A I I k 7T-1 ❑ of ❑ �I W I a; e I A 3§ ---—_-- OPT_WINDOW LAYOUTS OPT 9'5LD -�---� OPT_id GARAGE REAR ELEVATION"D" " L WHEN �X T N HE OPTN)NAl ARE ROOM OR OPTIONAL BEDROOM 5IS SE—TED !rr J$ ❑ w U LLL__ O> 1�p iR NmH 14 ❑ II III z t---------------- ------------------ RI } GHT ELEVATION"D" �'rNp ]A41 City of Meridian Department Report 70 50-foot-wide product for lots 60' or wider: IIIETI F-7 ■ fi — - ---- — —y---- e --------- -- --- _ m e �` SI [S ------------- iras�. —---------- ------- o, City of Meridian Department Report ■ � aM rnZIrm kinv� �m =O' V v u HT no - W S j¢ a FRONT ELEVATION B ••�•: — __-__-- L_ ..� - F.X. W K 4a --:----_-s—e -- - --- -A d: �' �> ,m8 r---- ------------ ----------------------------- II opi I I I I I I H I I � ---_-----__—__—_—_— LEFT ELEVATION A4.10 ------------------------..-mow. � au. � LU 0 -:-:-_-:-:-:--:--- mow; JF� __-__-__-__-__�-------------_ RREEA�R ELEVATION i a L x E 0 0 mF r�y OJ ate_ rl orr. OPT. I I I I ------------------ RIGHT ELEVATION A4.11 City of Meridian Department Report 72 --------------- �oI - LU tb (D-i 1 6 V tl 00 0000 - - - - - - •� I r"�� �I I• ] a Ilr FRONT ELEVATION("D"MODERN FARMHOUSE) W.�v x I��. •III "III' p=I o Lu Mop -------------------------------------------- �s Orr — H LEFT ELEVATION A4.30 a, W W I a o m - - m T N � �W d J'e3 V p 9 REAR ELEVATION a ' L X Wa 512 mr ----------------------------------------------------------------- RIGHT ELEVATION A4.31 City of Meridian Department Report 73 9 fill Ofli Ww5 •sr ul---------------- ----- - k�mw vw �O _ Lwm � J _ � y III i N$' .w.ms._._.__ _�...w.•.� V O I o0 0000 .� 's FRONT ELEVATION("F'PACIFIC NORTHWEST MODERN) e tt� w 0 w wa I I HE LEFT ELEVATION W'� A4.50 � Llg e^ E 0 Wig N + GI yl d SNP __--_--- ---..�_.—_.-__-__-__-__—__—_ -------- _— i REAR ELEVATION d LULli L X Wi N w o K 0 s�eaomW K o� mr .am.s.�._..._. _O____ - PT OP5_ I I H RIGHT ELEVATION WN. A4.51 City of Meridian Department Report 74 I. Fivemile Creek Cross-Section& Photo rim............................... g vo aoimoa a I: I' 5.. .:.:.:.:... .:. ,. I I m I m I-....n....III I • k:.�.� :.:.:.:.:.! .. _ ; � Il II :.!I L o , p-- ---- _ w-w • rn-n •.• M�.... 1 •r M.a...w� 5 r..... l JY am � l l ...................... _. I' iii I m •............... ........... a l; i. 3 10 ;• _ ~ --- 1 .:...: : ................... 31N Aa1H 13 . :.:: :.::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. C /A`R City of Meridian Department Report 75 Mv X I �9t t $ -Ra' Y-•f e SSp•�IIj , yJ tNOE d7i�N C' r4tiLy{�C✓ y cS}{ S ��y\'Ta RYYY i +Yp �4� i.-•.y',���it�7`�3-�n i�a.:��bt _r'�'^lq�- ,� .y`. . -tl a — m LATITUDE 43 SUBDIVISION Meridian, ID 83642675, 715, & 955 S. Wells St.Meridian, ID 83642675, 715, & 955 S. Wells St.3, 2025APRILHEARING P&Z0059-2024-H-PP-AZLATITUDE 43 SUBDIVISION3, 2025APRILHEARING P&Z0059-2024-H-PP-AZ CURRENT ZONINGFUTURE LAND USE INITIAL CONCEPT PRECONFERENCE CONCEPTAPPLICATION- NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGCONCEPT INITIAL PRELIMINARY PLATSUBMITTAL FINAL PRELIMINARY PLATITERATION (CURRENT) PHASING PLAN PRELIMINARY PLATPHASE 1 PRELIMINARY PLATPHASE 2 OPEN SPACE EXHIBIT LANDSCAPE PLAN FENCING PLAN NEIGHBOR CONCERNS AND COMMENTS development.h that they would protect property values of surrounding sucalong that side are designed to provide the greatest flexibility of home sizes, and allow for the value of those homes to be hile lot lines are not matched exactly, the 50’ and 60’ wide lots WLots along the Woodbridge Subdivision shared property line is at a 1:1 ratio (15 lots in Woodbridge, 15 lots in Latitude 43).–Lot Alignment/Ratio runoff to the adjacent residential lots.as the project grading will be designed to prevent any ng,collection system will be installed, which should improve the conditions of nuisance water the neighbors have been experiencio drain to adjacent properties. With the development, a site and not allowed t-As required by the City, State, and Federal policies, all stormwater/drainage runoff must be contained on–Drainage 4 zone).-8 zone (maximum building height of 35’, which is the same in the R-homes will meet the standards of the Rhe home of their choice for the lot they purchase. All story homes along Woodhaven Ave.). Future home buyers will be able to select t-Woodbridge Subdivision (there is a mix of 1 and 2story homes, as is the case with the adjacent -te both 1 and 2level on the west side of Phase 1. That being said, the lots are set up to accommoda-Homes will not be restricted to only single–Home heights ng Woodbridge neighbors and future Latitude 43 residents alike.stiadhered to. Landscaping will be installed in the rear yards of homes as they are built, which will protect privacy of the exion will be in the Development Agreement, and will be isithe adjacent Woodbridge Subdivision are 15’. Setback language for the homes along the west portion abutting Woodbridge Subdivpatio up to the 12’ setback line. Required rear setbacks of ed they are comfortable with a 20’ setback to the main body of the home, but would like to retain the option of building a coverthe project has provided information and plans that 8 zoning area (Phase 1) that abuts the Woodbridge Subdivision will be 12’ minimum. The builder of-Setbacks within the proposed R–Setbacks materials and conditions, and the fence may not be on the lot line.coordinated with affected neighbors, as there are a variety of beFencing within the development is proposed to be installed along all perimeter lot lines. The existing fence to the west will–Fencing ups.-intersections to reduce traffic backImpact Analysis and may require mitigation measures at nearby through traffic as much as is feasible. Additionally, ITD is requiring a Traffic -View Dr. to alleviate this and discourage cutoper has proposed only an emergency access to Magic through traffic on Magic View Dr. With that in mind, the devel-The biggest concern we heard from the neighbors was regarding cut–Traffic development.h that they would protect property values of surrounding sucalong that side are designed to provide the greatest flexibility of home sizes, and allow for the value of those homes to be hile lot lines are not matched exactly, the 50’ and 60’ wide lots WLots along the Woodbridge Subdivision shared property line is at a 1:1 ratio (15 lots in Woodbridge, 15 lots in Latitude 43).–Lot Alignment/Ratio runoff to the adjacent residential lots.as the project grading will be designed to prevent any ng,collection system will be installed, which should improve the conditions of nuisance water the neighbors have been experiencio drain to adjacent properties. With the development, a site and not allowed t-As required by the City, State, and Federal policies, all stormwater/drainage runoff must be contained on–Drainage 4 zone).-8 zone (maximum building height of 35’, which is the same in the R-homes will meet the standards of the Rhe home of their choice for the lot they purchase. All story homes along Woodhaven Ave.). Future home buyers will be able to select t-Woodbridge Subdivision (there is a mix of 1 and 2story homes, as is the case with the adjacent -te both 1 and 2level on the west side of Phase 1. That being said, the lots are set up to accommoda-Homes will not be restricted to only single–Home heights ng Woodbridge neighbors and future Latitude 43 residents alike.stiadhered to. Landscaping will be installed in the rear yards of homes as they are built, which will protect privacy of the exion will be in the Development Agreement, and will be isithe adjacent Woodbridge Subdivision are 15’. Setback language for the homes along the west portion abutting Woodbridge Subdivpatio up to the 12’ setback line. Required rear setbacks of ed they are comfortable with a 20’ setback to the main body of the home, but would like to retain the option of building a coverthe project has provided information and plans that 8 zoning area (Phase 1) that abuts the Woodbridge Subdivision will be 12’ minimum. The builder of-Setbacks within the proposed R–Setbacks materials and conditions, and the fence may not be on the lot line.coordinated with affected neighbors, as there are a variety of beFencing within the development is proposed to be installed along all perimeter lot lines. The existing fence to the west will–Fencing ups.-intersections to reduce traffic backImpact Analysis and may require mitigation measures at nearby through traffic as much as is feasible. Additionally, ITD is requiring a Traffic -View Dr. to alleviate this and discourage cutoper has proposed only an emergency access to Magic through traffic on Magic View Dr. With that in mind, the devel-The biggest concern we heard from the neighbors was regarding cut–Traffic NEIGHBOR CONCERNS AND COMMENTS IN AGREEMENT WITH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF 13. Agreed.-Condition 4S. Longitude Dr.on of the requested waiver for the west side of N designated portion of the site, with the excepti-ix. Depict detached sidewalks with parkways for tree lined streets in the MUCondition 3. Landscape PlanS. Longitude Dr.iver for the west side ofN designated portion of the site, with the exception of the requested wa-iii. Depict detached sidewalks with parkways in the MUCondition 2. Final Plat revisionsalong the shared property line. rtunity to save existing treesonot be used or provide any discernable benefit to the area at this time. Removing the sidewalk would also allow for more oppthis development would likelyhand with any future, development of the parcel to the west, the sidewalk could be installed. A sidewalk in this location witn the curb and property line,ea. We would request a waiver of the sidewalk along the western side of S. Longitude Dr. This will allow for landscaping betweN designated portion of the development.-lined streets with detached sidewalks will be provided in the MU-iv. TreeCondition 1. Development Agreement will be prepared and submitted to the City of Meridian per the staff report.13. Agreed.-Condition 4S. Longitude Dr.on of the requested waiver for the west side of N designated portion of the site, with the excepti-ix. Depict detached sidewalks with parkways for tree lined streets in the MUCondition 3. Landscape PlanS. Longitude Dr.iver for the west side ofN designated portion of the site, with the exception of the requested wa-iii. Depict detached sidewalks with parkways in the MUCondition 2. Final Plat revisionsalong the shared property line. rtunity to save existing treesonot be used or provide any discernable benefit to the area at this time. Removing the sidewalk would also allow for more oppthis development would likelyhand with any future, development of the parcel to the west, the sidewalk could be installed. A sidewalk in this location witn the curb and property line,ea. We would request a waiver of the sidewalk along the western side of S. Longitude Dr. This will allow for landscaping betweN designated portion of the development.-lined streets with detached sidewalks will be provided in the MU-iv. TreeCondition 1. Development Agreement will be prepared and submitted to the City of Meridian per the staff report.THE STAFF REPORT AND AGENCY COMMENTSIN AGREEMENT WITH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE STAFF REPORT AND AGENCY COMMENTS