Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-05-06 Regular City Council Regular Meeting City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Tuesday, May 06, 2025 at 6:00 PM Minutes ROLL CALL ATTENDANCE PRESENT Councilman Doug Taylor Councilman John Overton Councilwoman Anne Little Roberts Councilwoman Liz Strader Councilman Luke Cavener Mayor Robert E. Simison ABSENT Councilman Brian Whitlock PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE COMMUNITY INVOCATION ADOPTION OF AGENDA Adopted PUBLIC FORUM – Future Meeting Topics RESOLUTIONS \[Action Item\] 1. Resolution No. 25-2517: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Meridian Appointing Matthew Stoll to Seat 6 of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission; and Providing an Effective Date Approved Motion to approve made by Councilwoman Little Roberts, Seconded by Councilman Overton. Voting Yea: Councilman Taylor, Councilman Overton, Councilwoman Little Roberts, Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Cavener ACTION ITEMS 2. Public Hearing for Core & Main (H-2024-0066) by K2 Construction, Located at 299 S. Black Cat Rd. Approved Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2024-0066 A. Request: CPAM (Comprehensive Plan Amendment) to change the future land use designation on approximately five (5) acres of land from the Low- Density Employment to Mixed-Employment. B. Request: Annexation of five (5) acres of land from RUT in Ada County to the Light Industrial (I-L) zoning district. Motion to approve made by Councilman Taylor, Seconded by Councilman Overton. Voting Yea: Councilman Taylor, Councilman Overton, Councilwoman Little Roberts, Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Cavener 3. Public Hearing for Mondt Meadows Subdivision (H-2024-0067) by Gregg Davis, Breckon Land Design, located at 6101 and 6162 S. Terrega Ln. Approved Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2024-0067 A. Request: Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map (CPAM) to change the future land use designation on 10.28 acres of land from Medium Density Residential (MDR) to Low Density Residential (LDR). B. Request: Annexation of 10.84 acres of land from RUT in Ada County to the R-2 (8.48 acres) and R-4 (2.36 acres) zoning districts. C. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 11 building lots (10 new and 1 existing) and 4 common lots on 10.28 acres of land in the proposed R-2 and R- 4 zoning districts. Motion to approve made by Councilman Cavener, Seconded by Councilman Overton. Voting Yea: Councilman Taylor, Councilman Overton, Councilwoman Little Roberts, Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Cavener 4. Public Hearing for Latitude Forty Three Subdivision (H-2024-0059) by Rodney Evans + Partners, LLC., located at 675, 715 and 955 S. Wells St. Continued to August 12, 2025 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 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 with some Private Streets. Motion to continue to August 12, 2025 with city-paid re-noticing made by Councilman Cavener, Seconded by Councilman Overton. Voting Yea: Councilman Taylor, Councilman Overton, Councilwoman Little Roberts, Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Cavener ORDINANCES \[Action Item\] 5. Ordinance No. 25-2081: An ordinance (965 E. Ustick Rd. – H-2024-0063) annexing a parcel of land located in the northwest quarter of the northeast quarter of Meridian City Council May 6, 2025. A Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6.01 p.m. Tuesday, May 6, 2025, by Mayor Robert Simison. Members Present: Robert Simison, Luke Cavener, Liz Strader, John Overton, Doug Taylor and Anne Little Roberts. Members Absent: Brian Whitlock. Other Present: Chris Johnson, Bill Nary, Sonya Allen, Nick Napoli, Linda Ritter, Kyle Ludwig, Steve Taulbee and Dean Willis. ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE X Liz Strader Brian Whitlock _X_Anne Little Roberts _X_ John Overton _X_ Doug Taylor _X—Luke Cavener X Mayor Robert E. Simison Simison: Council, we will call this meeting to order. For the record it is May 6, 2025. It's 6.01 p.m. We will begin tonight's regular City Council meeting with roll call attendance. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Simison: Next item is the Pledge of Allegiance. If you would all, please, rise and join us in the pledge. (Pledge of Allegiance recited.) COMMUNITY INVOCATION Simison: Next up is our community invocation, which tonight will be given by Nick Armstrong. If you would all, please, join us in the community invocation or take this as a moment of silence and reflection. Nick, thanks for being here. Armstrong: Father, thank you for making this a great place for us to live. We thank you for Council Members, the Mayor, that deliberate matters that affect our quality of life and making this a great place to live. I pray for the departments that keep our city a clean place and a safe place to live and oftentimes putting their lives at risk for our own benefit. And, Father, as we contemplate the good things you have placed in this city for us that we would be generous with our visitors, new residents and just guests that are here in this community. Just thank you for your goodness and for your son, in Jesus' name, amen. Meridian City Council May 6,2025 Page 2of51 ADOPTION OF AGENDA Simison: Thank you. Okay. Up next is adoption of the agenda. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Mr. Mayor, no changes to tonight's May regular City Council agenda, so I move we adopt the agenda as presented. Strader: Second. Simison: Have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and the agenda is agreed to. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. PUBLIC FORUM — Future Meeting Topics Simison: Mr. Clerk, anyone signed up under public forum? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, nobody signed up. RESOLUTIONS [Action Item] 1. Resolution No. 25-2517: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Meridian Appointing Matthew Stoll to Seat 6 of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission; and Providing an Effective Date Simison: Okay. Then with that we will move on to Item 1 . Council, Item 1 is a resolution appointing Matt Stoll to Seat 6 of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission. You may recall that we recently just had another appointment and so we had a lot of applicants and once we finalized that appointment another member stepped down. So, I took all those former applicants that weren't selected into reconsideration and we did have a few people that also applied for the second time and -- and Matt was one of those. Matt is not a stranger to this community. He has been a volunteer on our Parks and Rec Commission in the past and he has also been leading the Community Planning Association here in -- located in downtown Meridian, but really serving the Treasure Valley and sometimes beyond in terms of helping land use and transportation integration on a macro scale. Well, it's my pleasure to bring him forward for consideration and so he will take his macro and get to go a little bit micro on a project- by-project basis, see how the real work gets done in that context. But I'm excited. I know that he is committed to the service to our community and will be a great addition Meridian City Council May 6,2025 Page 3 of 51 to our Planning and Zoning. So, with that I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have or open for motions. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Not a question, just a comment. I just think Matt is a phenomenal nomination for this position and I'm really excited to see kind of how you can intersect all of the learning and -- and everything that's happened at COMPASS with, you know, real world decision making on individual land use applications. I think that's really exciting. So, I just really am supportive of this and think he will do a great job. Thanks. Simison: Thank you. Overton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: Again just a comment. I had the opportunity to work with Matt in his previous job as director of COMPASS. Phenomenal human being. I mean he knows more about overall countywide, statewide planning for traffic issues than anyone else in this room. He lived it, he breathed it for an entire career and the fact that he is willing to retire and, then, stand in front of us and become part of our Planning and Zoning just shows how much commitment he has for our community and I -- I salute him. He is a tremendous human being. I appreciate him very much and I can't wait to have him be part of our city. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: I want to say all sorts of terrible things about Matt, but I can't come up with a single item. This is an exceptional nomination, Mr. Mayor. I echo what my two colleagues have said. Our -- our community, certainly our Planning and Zoning Commission, is leveling up with Matt's addition and really looking forward to your analysis and feedback as we read the minutes and we get ready for our City Council meetings. I know you will do a great job. Little Roberts: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Little Roberts. Little Roberts: Well, I echo what my colleagues have said. I had the privilege of working with Matt a couple of different times and just really appreciate the fact that he is willing to spend part of his retirement time back with us. So, if no one else has anything Meridian City Council May 6,2025 Page 4of51 else to say, I would be honored to make the motion that we approve Resolution 25-2517 that appoints Matt Stoll to Seat 6 of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission. Overton: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second to approve Resolution No. 25-2517. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it. The resolution is agreed to and Matt can start work. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Simison: But, Matt, invite you up to come say any words that you would like to make for Council and the community that's here today. Probably for land use applications. Stoll: Mr. Mayor, Council Members, thank you for the kind words. Greatly appreciate that. I appreciate the nomination and the appointment to Planning and Zoning Commission. I look forward to working with -- for the community again and the residents again in this as a commissioner. I enjoyed my term as a Parks and Rec Commissioner and I look forward to using my knowledge that I gained over my career to consider applications that have been submitted to the city, but also learning from the staff and also the residents on how the region -- how the city should grow and the projects that are being proposed. So, thank you again. I look forward to it. ACTION ITEMS 2. Public Hearing for Core & Main (H-2024-0066) by K2 Construction, Located at 299 S. Black Cat Rd. A. Request: CPAM (Comprehensive Plan Amendment) to change the future land use designation on approximately five (5) acres of land from the Low-Density Employment to Mixed-Employment. B. Request: Annexation of five (5) acres of land from RUT in Ada County to the Light Industrial (I-L) zoning district. Simison: Thank you very much, Matt. Appreciate it. With that we will move on to Item 2 tonight, which is public hearing H-2024-0066. We will open this public hearing with staff comments from Nick. Napoli: Good evening, Mayor and Members of the Council. Next item on the agenda is the annexation, Comprehensive Plan map amendment for Core & Main. The applicant is requesting Comprehensive Plan map amendment to change the future land use designation on five acres of land from low density employment to mixed employment and annexation of five acres of land from RUT in Ada county to the Light Industrial Zoning District. The site is located at 299 South Black Cat Road and as shown on the screen the existing zoning is RUT in Ada county and the FLUM designation is low density employment, but the applicant is proposing to change it to mixed employment. Meridian City Council May 6,2025 Page 5of51 So, although this property has no prior development history, the adjacent property to the south does provide relevant context for its redevelopment. In 2021 the City Council approved the annexation of approximately 129.2 acres under the Black Cat Industrial Project designating the area as mixed employment and low density employment with the future land use and -- and has the zoning of I-L. The City Council determined that the industrial center aligned with the goals of the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan. However, that the approval covered a significantly larger area compared to this five acre request and this would be that subject 129 acres that was annexed with the I-L. So, currently the low density employment designation does not permit light industrial uses -- uses such as the one proposed. However, a change to the mixed employment designation would allow the development -- development under the I-L zone. While the preferred zoning in the mixed employment designation is the ME zoning district, alternative zones may be considered when they align with the plans' vision and integrate with surrounding properties. The applicant asserts that the I-L zone is compatible with the adjacent properties to the south. Staff concurs with this, knowing that the proposed use aligns with the prior approvals in the area and would contribute to the expansion of light industrial space along the Black Cat corridor. Additionally, while the proposed use does not provide a large amount of employment, it is providing some employment in a relatively low impact use in the area. However, it is important to note that mixed employment and low density employment designations are limited along the Black Cat and Franklin corridors. Currently the I-L zone comprises of 40.01 percent of the low density employment FLUM designation and 55.24 percent of the mixed employment FLUM designation. These designations are intended to support a mix of employment uses, service and services providing a transition between the residential uses east of Black Cat and industrial areas further west and that's what's shown on this. This is the current zoning map on the left and, then, on the right is the FLUM designation and you can see where I-L is taking up some of that mixed employment and light -- low density employment. So, staff is concerned that the continued expansion of I-L zoning with these FLUM designations may reduce employment diversity, create additional truck traffic and disrupt intended transition. While this specific five acre request may have minimal impact, further expansion of I-L into these areas should be carefully evaluated by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. So, the concept plan proposes a 19,000 square foot building with 14,492 square feet designated as warehouse space and 4,508 square feet designated as office. The remaining site would be used as a contractor's yard and outdoor storage. In addition, the applicant has indicated that the number of employees at the site is approximately 18, with ten trucks entering the site on any given day and this would be Core & Main's second location in Meridian as their business continues to grow. So, access to the site is proposed from a future collector street along the northern portion of the property. The applicant is responsible for extending this collector road as outlined in ACHD's master street map. ACHD found that the proposed development meets all of ACHD's policies. However, to align with the UDC, which seeks to limit access points to collector and arterial roadways, staff recommends restricting the western access off the future collector street to truck traffic only and the applicant is okay with that. Additionally, a traffic impact study was not required as the size of the development is relatively small and is not anticipated to account for significant traffic counts in the area. On the screen Meridian City Council May 6,2025 Page 6 of 51 are the existing entitlements and planned road improvements along this section of Black Cat and this is also in the hearing outline for you guys to look at, so I will leave it up there for a little bit. There is a lot of information. For the building elevations the applicant is proposing a large one story industrial building designed with higher ceilings and upper windows to create the appearance of a two story structure. The exterior materials include granite stone, optimal metal panels, sand stone veneer, with moderate to large setbacks from the street. The applicant has been highly receptive to staff feedback and has worked to refine the building elevations, site and landscape plans to better align with the architectural standards and UDC. In response the applicant has adjusted the building's orientation and incorporated addition -- additional materials, fenestration and modulation. At the Commission hearing Cheryl Whiting Stores, Greg Stores, Keith Whiting and Colton Stores testified in opposition of the project. Their concerns include buffering the adjacent residential to the north, not having adequate transition as the plan had originally -- originally envisioned and noise pollution. Since the Commission hearing the applicant has provided a sound study from their current location to help address the concerns of the neighbors and they will discuss this in their presentation. Staff and the Commission are recommending approval of this project and have not received any written testimony since the Commission hearing. And I will stand for questions at this time. Simison: Thank you, Nick. Council, questions for staff? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward? Good evening. State your name and address for the record. Walker: Glenn Walker. Excuse me. Glenn Walker. ADP Architects, 1831 East Overland Road. That's in Meridian. Nick, do we have the presentation by chance? Oh, it is. How do we go through this here? Just pushing the arrows? Is that how it works? Oh. And they -- oh, yeah. There we go. Good evening, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. I'm here on behalf of Core & Main to discuss our proposal for the five acre site at 299 South Black Cat Road. We appreciate the opportunity to present this project and the collaboration guidance provided by the city staff throughout this process. Project overview. This application includes a comprehensive plan map amendment from low density employment to mixed employment and annexation from Ada county RUT zoning to the City of Meridian's light industrial district. Core & Main proposes to develop a light industrial facility on the site, consistent with the city's Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan or the TMISAP and adjacent uses to the south. The five acre site is currently vacant. Proposed uses, light industrial facility, supporting employment and economic development. The design incorporates enhancements based on city staff feedback, including architectural refinement, pathways and screening. Alignment with city goals. This proposal directly supports city broader economic development and land use goals. Supports of the TMISAP, which is light industrial, is an allowed used within the mixed employment designation. It provides a transition. The project offers compatible land use buffering between residential to the east and heavier industrial west of Black Cat. It encourages investment. The development will drive additional growth on nearby vacant parcels and create jobs. Core & Main will generate quality employment at wages that support local households here in the City of Meridian and also in the valley. Design and site enhancements. We worked closely with the staff to ensure that the site is well Meridian City Council May 6,2025 Page 7 of 51 designed, visually compatible with the area and consistent with the city standards. Core & Main is providing an eight foot closed vision fencing all around the four sides of this property. Ten multi -- ten foot multi-use pathway along the future collector and south -- along South Black Cat Road, which aligns with the pathway master plan. Site design minimizes the impacts. Estimated average of ten trucks per day. Significantly less intense than other industrial uses especially in this area. Architectural elevations enhanced per staff directions to meet Meridian's expectations for employment centers. Also the site will feature thoughtfully designed landscaping that complements and enhances the architectural character of the building. The landscape plan will follow best practices and incorporate a diverse selection of plant materials. In addition it will include a mix of soft and hardscape elements that harmonize with those found in the surrounding developments. Addressing concerns. We understand staffs caution regarding the expansion of I-L zoning. However, this project represents a modest, well planned addition that aligns with adjacent zoning and land use patterns. The five acre scale is small relative to prior approvals. For example, the 129 acre Black Cat development -- industrial development just to the south of this property. No traffic impact study was required due to the low intensity use of this project. In the project respects the intent was a mixed-use development Future Land Use Map over the FLUM, a designation while advancing community goals for employment and tax based diversification. So, in summary, this proposal supports Meridian's visions for economic vitality, fits within the existing planning frameworks and reflects a thoughtful collaborative design process. On behalf of Core & Main we respectively request your approval for this annexation, the future land use map amendment and I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have. Simison: All right. Thank you. Council, any questions for the applicant? Little Roberts: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Little Roberts. Little Roberts: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Walker, thank you for being here and for your presentation. Could you give us a little bit more information about the sound study? I know that there is a neighbor that was fairly close that had mentioned concerns about some noise. Walker: Yeah. Absolutely. So, Becky, who is also with me -- is that up? Did you pull that up, Nick? So, Becky gracefully went out to the site and had a reader to go out and measure the sound that was at the existing site. As Nick mentioned this is the second location for Core & Main. They present -- presently have a location here in Meridian and I will let Becky kind of take over and explain the sound report. Becky: Good evening. Yes. So, I was able to download a decibel recorder onto my -- my Phone and so I went out to the existing Core & Main site. Okay. Sorry, guys. Okay. This is their existing site. So, you can see I took three different sound recordings. Recording number one was just outside their existing building. Recording Meridian City Council May 6,2025 Page 8 of 51 number two was standing directly next to a forklift and, then, recording number three was across the street approximately 90 feet away from their property line. So, this kind of shows you where I was standing. I'm not very good at this. I apologize. Yes. Okay. So, this kind of gives you a summary of the recordings. There are reports and sound attenuation calculations, but it goes to show the closest residence is about 500 feet away from our property line and so I was able to calculate with recording number three that the maximum decibel recorded from 90 feet away was 60 decibels. If you calculate that out to 500 feet away is 44.2 decibels, which according to this WebMD chart is approximately the sound of an average house noise. So, with these recordings we feel really confident that there will be a very minimal amount, if any at all, sound pollution that reaches the Stores' residence or any of the other ones nearby. Little Roberts: Great. Thank you so much. Taylor: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Taylor. Taylor: Appreciate that. Glen, can you give me a better sense -- do you have a -- as far as the -- the type of use, you talked about low trucks or traffic. Do you already have a tenant for this or what kind of space is it -- is it going to be sort of delivery? Is it retail? Walker: Oh, no. Core & Main is the -- will be occupying the building. They are the -- going to be the owners of the building. It's mostly outdoor storage -- storage yard on the outside and, then, the single story building is going to house office use and warehouse use. And it's -- if I -- if I hadn't mentioned, I just want to say that this is a single story building that we have designed it to look more like a two-story building to work closely with the comments that we received from city staff and so we feel that we worked really well and try to make the design to the City of Meridian's design standards and we feel that we have done that. Taylor: Mr. Mayor, quick follow up? Simison: Mr. Taylor. Taylor: So, the -- the -- you won't have a retail traffic, it will be the people that work there and, then, some delivery trucks or -- I don't know if it's delivery trucks, but people taking materials there to store it on site. That's the kind of traffic flow? Walker: That's correct. Yeah. Yeah. There is no retail whatsoever. It's strictly just shipment that comes on trucks and, like I said -- and like Nick mentioned, that the truck traffic is really just about ten trucks a day is all they -- they do in a day. So, you will get the bigger semi-trucks coming in unloading the product and, then, Core & Main will take it off the trucks, stack it into their yard or vice-versa. They will take the product and stack it onto the truck and, then, the truck moves on and delivers. I don't know if you have already been to or seen their existing site, but it's actually surprisingly very very Meridian City Council May 6,2025 Page 9 of 51 clean for a type of yard or storage that they do. Core & Main does just a really excellent job of keeping their yard very clean looking. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Thank you. I was curious on your sound study. So, you have -- you know, kind of you measured it and, then, you are doing a calculation to adjust the sound over a different distance. Could you just explain how that calculation works? Is that like a -- something that's kind of standardized widely accepted? How does that work? Becky: Yes. There is a -- it's called a sound attenuation calculator or a -- I can't remember. Can we go back to it, Nick? Sorry. I have the map -- the calculations in the report that I can show you. So, it's like it's at the very end. Really slow this time. It will be like two pages after this one. Yes. This page. So, this is it. It is called a -- an inverse square law is what they call it. This was provided by the WKC Group, which is a consulting firm, and so you can see that I can plug in the decibel level. This is from recording number one, which was just inside their yard. I was about 15 feet away from the general sound. This distance to the source is the distance I used to the closest residence. You can see in this little photo up at the top. The source was where the sound was recorded and where you are trying to calculate the sound pressure at and, then, the computer calculates it for you to what that anticipated decibel level will be. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Thanks. That's helpful. I think having you walk us through that is -- is helpful. Certainly individual situations will vary; right? Just -- I mean because sound bounces off of things and -- and so it's -- it's hard to -- I think it's hard to sort of extrapolate, but I appreciate you kind of walking us through it and that you have used a sort of standardized approach. Curious if at your other location have -- have you all found things you can do Internally within the yard to sort of manage -- further manage the sound? If you wanted to kind of walk us through any other potential mitigations that you are considering to be a good neighbor. Because I know that this is a big concern from the residents nearby. Walker: I do have the gentleman who actually works for Core & Main step in and he could probably answer that question better than I can. Strader: Perfect. Van der Veen: Hi. I'm Dan Van der Veen, the branch manager of the local branch here. Yeah, we have -- so, we actually just -- the way for efficiency's sake we have -- so, we are a distributor of -- we have different types of water pipe -- we are a waterworks infrastructure distributor. So, a lot of the exterior of our yard is the best place to house Meridian City Council May 6,2025 Page 10 of 51 the -- the pipe, so -- so, really, a lot of it does kind of get encaptured with the pipe. We have got all of our smaller like fittings and valves kind of in the middle and along the fences is where -- is where a lot of the pipe and the larger fire hydrants and stuff will be stored. So, a lot of that does capture it. We do have three forklifts. They are all, you know, mandated by OSHA to be at certain levels and whatnot and we do require our receiving hours -- so, our operating hours are typically 7.00 to 5.00. We do receiving hours 8.00 to 4.00 just to keep the -- the incoming-outgoing, you know, traffic in between those hours and I guess that's -- we haven't had the case where even any of our employees are OSHA regulated for any ear plugs or anything. It's -- it's really -- it hasn't gotten that high; right? Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Thank you. That -- I think that's helpful context for people in the audience as well, just to sort of understand your approach. Maybe just to preview, Mr. Mayor, if you will allow me to preview a question for city staff that I want to ask as well. Like I know when we approved the Black Cat industrial -- and something that's always in my mind is we have always been under weighted, in my opinion, from a high level perspective on industrial land throughout the City of Meridian. Do you all have some kind of a general calculation? We have done this before where it's like this is how much we have compared to how much we would normally expect citywide. If you have any kind of rule of thumb around that. And it might take you a little bit. If you don't have it it's okay, but I just more like intellectually was curious to revisit that conversation, just because I think that was part of our thinking with the development to the south. Thank you. Walker: Can I speak on the previous question, too? I think it was Mr. Taylor. Taylor: On the types of uses? Walker: Yeah. Yeah. Just so we are -- Core & Main is a -- we are a distributor. So, we supply waterworks infrastructure materials. So, we have been in the area and supporting, you know, all the local municipalities for decades. If you recognize the name, like Hughes Supply or National Pipe, those were our names previous and, then, we were HD Supply before Core & Main. So, those names might be more familiar. Our direct competitors are Ferguson Waterworks, Consolidated Supply and HD Fowler. So, it's kind of the same -- if you know those names we are doing the -- the same thing, providing infrastructure, support via main -- mainline piping. So, sewer pipe, water pipe, water services, water fittings and fire hydrants. That's what we are supplying. So, there is -- while there is not retail, there is, you know, contractors if we are -- if we can't deliver it to them contractors might come up there truck to pick up, you know, what they might need. Simison: Council, any additional questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you very much. Meridian City Council May 6,2025 Page 11 of 51 Walker: Thank you very much. Simison: So, Mr. Clerk, do we have anyone signed up to provide testimony on this item? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, not for this item. Simison: Okay. Is there anybody present who would like to provide testimony on this item, either here in the room or online? If you are online you can use the raise your hand function. If you are here if you would like to come forward. Council, no one is raising their hand online and no one is coming forward. Would the applicant like to make any final comments or do you waive at this time? Walker: Mr. Mayor, City Council, I think we are good., So I'm -- I'm good. Simison: Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Would it be okay if we check into the city staff on my question? Napoli: Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Strader, so I don't have an exact percentage, but I can get that for you. We did have a study that came out from -- actually this year. It was in 2025. Our long range staff did it. And our zoning district areas -- for industrial we are about at 9.7 percent of the city -- what's annexed into the city is industrial and from feedback we get from a lot of industrial users and people looking for Meridian, because we are the center of the valley, it definitely is a need I would say. So, it's definitely in demand and we do have a lot more general industrial to the -- just to the -- here I can pull up the map. Just to the west of this on the future land use there is a significant portion that will be designated as general industrial as well. Let me find that for you. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Like if -- if -- if you all look at -- like Urban Land Institute type feedback or that sort of thing, would be curious to circle back to kind of what -- what may be a different way of asking the question is when we did our original future land use map and the whole Comprehensive Plan -- maybe a good way of answering this is what was our goal in that process in terms of the amount of industrial we were kind of looking for holistically. That might be -- that might be a different way to answer the question. Meridian City Council May 6,2025 Page 12 of 51 Napoli: Yeah. Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Strader, it's a good question. You know, as far as with this -- really the intention -- and I would say specifically for the area that's on the screen, obviously, industrial users are important to the city, important for the valley, but the difference between I would say general industrial, mixed employment and low density employment is really the employment numbers that's significant there. Industrial users -- typically they can provide a lot of employment, but compared to some other uses that we do see in the mixed employment and low density employment, it's not as significant as providing the employment numbers that we really have envisioned. So, when I did say -- I guess just caution for using -- putting I-L in these zones, it is really to hit employment numbers that when the Comprehensive Plan designated this being able to provide the employment, so, you know, future residents and current residents of the city can -- can work and live in the same city and we do have, you know, adequate employment throughout the whole valley. This isn't just for the City of Meridian. We are the center of the valley and we are a very desirable location for a lot of businesses because of that. So, I don't know if that fully answers your question, but I can -- I can follow up with you on exact numbers as far as how much industrial we do have and percentages. Strader: Mr. Mayor. That would be great if you could find that out. I mean in the time I have been on the City Council I can think of many examples where we have taken industrial land and, unfortunately, it had gone to a different use. I can think of very few examples where we took a use and wanted to go back to industrial. So, this is sort of anecdotally where I was coming from. If you can find that out that would be super. You could just hand me a note or we could revisit it, but I -- I think at some point in the future talking about that again would be good. Thank you. Taylor: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Taylor. Taylor: Not hearing any additional folks who want to provide testimony, I would move that we close the public hearing for Item H-2024-0066. Overton: Second. Simison: Have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Is there any discussion on the motion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and the public hearing is closed. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Taylor: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Taylor. Meridian City Council May 6,2025 Page 13 of 51 Taylor: Just some of my -- my thoughts on this. If I look at the Comprehensive Plan and the future land use map and what we want to do, I recognize that there -- there are situations where we want to make some changes and adjustments, because the plan was meant to be a good guide, but it wasn't meant to be a specific detailed document. We adopted this six years ago. Certainly things have changed in our city and the circumstances in which we live. So, some flexibility I think is good. So, whenever I look at an application where we are considering amending the Comprehensive Plan, I -- the first thing I look for is are we still compatible with the idea in the area and if we were proposing a high density multi-family unit here that would clearly not be compatible with what we were hoping to have in this area. So, to me that checks the box in -- in terms of compatibility with the surrounding areas and I appreciate the staff highlighting the differences and sort of the goals we are trying to reach with not having too much of the change here, because it could -- you know, we could have a lot of land tied up with not a lot of potential jobs if it was heavy in industrial. But this is -- looking at the specific application I'm not concerned with it. I think there is good transitions. I think it's in the right part of town. I also appreciate Council Woman Strader's questioning on -- on sort of the percentage we have, because we don't want a community that's just heavy residential. We want a good mix of -- of usage. So, I -- I think this is a good proposal and I will be supporting it tonight. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: And just a comment. I think -- I think it would be good to just like circle back holistically to that kind of comparison that we have done in the past of -- this is kind of the amount we were looking for each type of land use like holistically as a city and this is kind of where we are trending. I think it's not -- it's not something that should affect our -- at least my decision tonight. It's more of just I think helpful to kind of have that sense of like are we on track with just from a high level perspective where we want to head. I -- I feel like I have -- I have seen enough anecdotal information and data over the last, you know, five plus years that I'm pretty confident that, if anything, we have a lack of industrial opportunity and I think this is a decent fit. The other thing like light industrial -- to me light industrial is a bit different. If this was a very heavy industrial use I think I would be scrutinizing it a lot more. If I felt like there was a really bad environmental impact with residential neighbors, if there was -- you know, if there were a lot of chemicals involved or something like that, then, yeah, we would think about the compatibility of those uses more. So, I agree with Councilman Taylor, I think -- I think this is a good opportunity for us and good way to support a local business and I appreciate that we have all the different comprehensive map amendment changes coming out at the same time every year and I feel like that also helps us avoid kind of these one-off situations. This is more coordinated where the public knows if we are, you know, changing from our Comprehensive Plan they know that that's happening at a certain time every year. I think that helps them, too. So, I feel pretty comfortable here on this one. Meridian City Council May 6,2025 Page 14 of 51 Taylor: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Taylor. Taylor: Unless there is any other comments that my colleagues would like to make, I would make a motion that we approve File No. H-2024-0066 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date May 6th, 2025. Cavener: Second. Simison: Have a motion and a second to approve Item H-2024-0066. Is there discussion on the motion? If not Clerk call the roll. Roll Call: Cavener, yea; Strader, yea; Overton, yea; Little Roberts, yea; Taylor, yea; Whitlock, absent. Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and the item is agreed to. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. 3. Public Hearing for Mondt Meadows Subdivision (H-2024-0067) by Gregg Davis, Breckon Land Design, located at 6101 and 6162 S. Terrega Ln. A. Request: Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map (CPAM) to change the future land use designation on 10.28 acres of land from Medium Density Residential (MDR) to Low Density Residential (LDR). B. Request: Annexation of 10.84 acres of land from RUT in Ada County to the R-2 (8.48 acres) and R-4 (2.36 acres) zoning districts. C. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 11 building lots (10 new and 1 existing) and 4 common lots on 10.28 acres of land in the proposed R-2 and R-4 zoning districts. Simison: Thank you, Nick. Next item up is a public hearing for Mondt Meadows Subdivision, H-2024-0067. We will open this public hearing with staff comments. Ritter: Good evening, Mayor and Council Members. Linda Ritter here. So, tonight we are looking at an annexation, a comprehensive plan map amendment and a preliminary plat. This site consists of 10.28 acres of land. It's currently zoned RUT in Ada county and it's located at 6106 and 6162 Terrega Lane. So, this parcel went through a property boundary adjustment within Ada county to separate this parcel so that it could be Meridian City Council May 6,2025 Page 15 of 51 developed for the -- as part of the preliminary plat that you will be looking at tonight. So, the original Comprehensive Plan designation for this property right now is medium density and the applicant is requesting to amend the Comprehensive Plan future land use map to change the future land use designation to medium density -- from medium density residential to low density residential. They are annexing the property. Part of it will be -- 8.48 acres will be R-2 and, then, 2.36 they are looking to zone it R-4. This preliminary plat consists of 11 lots, ten new and one existing. Again, this is the proposed amendment to the comp plan map. These are the future land uses. This is the existing and this is the future. Again, this is the exhibit for the R-2 zoning and this is for the R-4 zoning. So, this is our preliminary plat here. So, these four lots here will be R-2. It has an existing house on one of the lots that is -- currently the property owner's son lives there and this portion is on the property that is adjacent to it. So, they are doing six lots with a future phase and they are doing a temporary turnaround on the property to the north of them, which will be coming in at some point for a plat to be annexed in and platted in the city. So, access to this property is from Sublimity Avenue. This is a property -- this is a roadway that was built by Brighton that is in. They will take access from this road into the property. These four lots will have a private drive on it. Fire did look at this and say that the private drive was acceptable. It is gated. Meets the private drive standards. And, then, the other lots for the R-2 will take access off of the -- this new road Mondt Meadows, with the temporary turnaround. They will have a 20 foot landscape wide buffer along the collector road. The -- the -- the adjacent developer to the east is installing the landscaping along Sublimity Avenue and so the applicant will be adding the landscaping along the new collector road that they are proposing -- local road that they are proposing. And any fencing that they are providing will have to meet the city standards. In their open space they are providing a couple of amenities. They are providing a pergola for coverage and a fire ring and a picnic table bench. So, all of these will be part of the open space that they have there. And on the screen before you are some pictures of the property. It's actually a beautiful location. Again this is their landscape plan. As you can see they are providing landscaping along the collect -- the local roadways here and we are in the process of modifying the landscape plan. They are still going to meet the requirements, but we will have some modifications to it. But they will still meet the requirements of it. Again these are the amenities that they are providing. The fire pit. The pergola. The bench and the table. These are the elevations that were provided by the applicant. These are conceptual elevations that were submitted for the proposed development. The homes -- they will be a mix of different product types. Two-story. Single story. Detached family homes. They will be designed with elevations that create interest through the use of broken planes, windows and stations that produce a rhythm of material and patterns. Design review is not required for single family detached structures. But staff recommends a DA provision provide these elevations that are along the -- facing Sublimity Avenue and will be high visibility that they have elevations, incorporate articulations through changing two or more of the following: Modulations, base, banding, porches, balconies, material types and other integrated architectural elements to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines that are visible from adjacent streets. Any single story homes will be exempt from this requirement. They do have a waterway that goes through the property -- is the Watkins ditch. It runs along the eastern portion of the property and that -- the Meridian City Council May 6,2025 Page 16 of 51 ditch has to be placed within a 38 foot easement. The applicant is proposing to leave the ditch open to keep it as a natural element. So, the applicant is requesting a waiver from Council to leave that ditch open. It has been placed in the common lot, but they need a waiver from you guys to keep it open. There is a dry ditch located on this property. The -- the applicant will need to provide documentation saying that this ditch has been abandoned and is no longer in use and we will need that written documentation from them prior to the city engineer signing the final plat. There are several other easements that are on the property and which written document to -- documentation to relinquish the easement shall be submitted to the city engineer prior to the signature on the final plat also. And these are those easements. There is like a 30 foot easement that runs the length of the property on the north side. There is a 30 foot wide access easement, which we are asking the applicant to vacate access to that private road once the new road has been built and, again, for that dry ditch. Again, I would enjoy living here. It's a beautiful scenery. So, Commission did recommend approval of this. There were no written comments and staff has not received any comments since the public -- Commission public hearing. The comment that we received at the public hearing was from Carson White. Again he resides on the property that will be within that private street area. He is definitely in favor of it. So, there were no key issues discussed by the Commission, no changes to staff recommendation and there were no outstanding issues for you. So, with that staff is asking the Council to approve this application and I am -- I stand for any questions that you might have. Simison: Thank you, Linda. Council, any questions? Overton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: Just a quick one. Linda, are we taking up the request to leave the active ditch open as part of this application tonight? Thank you. Simison: Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward? Good evening. Breckon: Good evening. Jon Breckon. 6661 North Glenwood Street, Garden City. I have a little bit of a presentation. I might kind of flip through that quickly, because Linda was so thorough. I see quite a bit of this is going to be redundant, so I will just kind of skip through it in the interest of time. But it is available to answer questions. School sites. There is an overall plan and this -- this one actually might be helpful. You know, there is -- there is existing ditches on the site. I could expand on that a little bit and -- let's see if I can point here. We have done quite a little bit of work. We are also working on the preliminary plat to -- for the property to the north that Linda mentioned and so as part of that our plan to address the surface water and pressurized irrigation is to -- I have a little trouble here with the -- the mouse. I apologize. Boy, I'm going the wrong direction. I apologize. Here is -- okay. Here we can see there is the dry ditch on the -- on the north that Linda mentioned and -- and there is -- so, there is a pipe that exits there -- gravity irrigation pipe that was previously used for farming and -- and flood Meridian City Council May 6,2025 Page 17 of 51 irrigation. Anyway, that's where the water rights come from and our plan is to pick up that pipe and right now it kind of comes down and it doesn't do -- and from talking to all the adjacent neighbors here to the south it really hasn't provided water for those folks for quite some time. Anyway, we are hoping to remedy that as part of these two projects. We will pick that up, we will pipe it over and we have talked to Boise Project Board of Control Irrigation District. They would like to see a pond installed, along with the pump stations and the pressurized irrigation system and, then, we will have a drainage pipe or overflow pipe from that pond that will come down and through this landscape buffer area and overflow into the Watkins drain, which is the larger ditch on the south side that we would like to leave mostly open. It is a substantially large ditch in that the pipe feeding into it is a 48 inch diameter and would be substantial cost to pipe that entire east side there and that's why we are requesting that variance. As part of this irrigation design we have met with the two project owners, as well as the adjacent owners here to the south who are still in the county and we are working on a plan to provide pressurized irrigation for all those folks, because they have water rights off of that pipe. Here is a quick snippet here of that Shafer View Ridge project to the north that we are also working on and planning on submitting preliminary plat very soon. Part of -- part of the inner workings of this is to connect the sewer and water utilities from Sublimity to and through the Shafer View project as well. So, this shows the water -- water line connections, as well as sewer connections. The plan is to connect to the north there and, then, that would drain down and connect to the trunk line in Sublimity Avenue on the east. Now, here is the irrigation improvement so you can kind of see the supply location. There is a shot of the amenities. It's located here in the common area. Common lot. Largest common lot. There is elevations again. Stand for questions. Simison: Thank you, Jon. Council, any questions for the applicant? Overton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: You might have answered this, but I'm going to ask it maybe a different way. With the dry ditch, if Council approves this project tonight and gives you the okay to develop and abandoned that dry ditch, I'm assuming there are still active water rights from an irrigation company that need to be legally abandoned through that process. Breckon: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Overton, yes, the -- the dry ditch would get piped and -- and, then, we would utilize those water rights to provide pressurized irrigation for everyone. Overton: Thank you. Simison: Okay. Taylor: Mr. Mayor? Meridian City Council May 6,2025 Page 18 of 51 Simison: Councilman Taylor. Taylor: The -- on the -- the open ditch that you have there, it sounded like you wanted to keep that open. Obviously there is a fiscal impact, but also you kind of sound like you wanted to make it a natural amenity in a way. Is there going to be a pathway alongside it or is it just going to be an easement and kind of left open? I mean what's your vision for how that may be used? And, then, along that same line will there be a fence line between those properties and the open waterway? Breckon: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Taylor, yes, there -- so, I will explain all that, that we want to enhance it. Right now it's just, you know, your -- your run-of-the-mill drainage farm7 ditch and so it's -- kind of is what it is. But where -- where we abut -- it's on this east side here and you can see that -- you can see the property line, right of way line there along Sublimity and so what -- what's going on there is we have -- there is that strip on the Sublimity side that that development is putting in a landscape strip and a fence on the property line and, then, we have the ditch and the easement associated with it and that's reflected by the property lines at the back of those two lots and those two lots will have a fence along the back as is required, but it would just -- that -- would like that to be kind of an open vision fence, so that those lots can see it and -- and, then, just enhance that ditch so it still functions, but look nice and, then, tie that into the landscaping along the road frontage here where we have our amenities located right here at the corner. Taylor: Mr. Mayor, a quick follow up. Simison: Councilman Taylor. Taylor: Would that prop -- would the -- along the waterway would that be maintained along with the other green space? Because what I would hate for to see is it just to be an overgrown mess anyway. But is that the plan? Is that -- is that a requirement? Maybe city staff could answer that. Is that required for them to maintain that? Ritter: Council Member Taylor, that is in the common area. It's in a common lot. So, it has to be maintained by the HOA. Simison: All right. Thank you very much. Breckon: Thank you. Simison: Mr. Clerk, do we have anyone signed up on this item? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, nobody indicated they wanted to speak. Simison: Okay. Is there anybody present that would like to provide -- if you would like to come forward one at a time and just state your name and address for the record and Meridian City Council May 6,2025 Page 19 of 51 you will be recognized for three minutes. If you are online, please, use the raise your hand feature. Go ahead. White: Brian White. 6180 South Terrega Lane, Meridian, Idaho. 83642. So, this is our property that we are developing and just to explain that, there is currently -- they currently just -- Brighton just put a six foot privacy fence right along that east property line. They built -- built it up in a pretty good berm and, then, put up a fence along there and we really want to keep it open, because we have pairs of mallard ducks and blue herons and geese that like to come there and hang out, so if it's all piped in there will be less place for them to do that. We really -- we wanted to have the two eastern lots go all the way to the -- the fence line that's there now, but because of the guidelines they can't be part of that, but we wanted to keep that relatively open. So, it will essentially be kind of part of their backyard. We have lived here for 34 years. No Boise projects or no one has ever even set foot on that -- or done any maintenance on that ditch other than us. So, we feel like we can maintain it and have it still part of the property. These are our children. They are going to build houses there. So, we think it's going to be a pretty nice place. I stand for any questions. Simison: Council, any questions? Thank you, Mr. White. C.White: Hello. Carson White. 6162 South Terrega Lane. So, that existing home is the one that I live in there at the corner and the other thing is -- so, as far as the -- the irrigation ditch that I think all the neighbors are excited about finally having access to that, which will be really nice, that those south properties will be able to actually utilize their water. We have always had a hard time trying to get that water uphill. I don't know if you know how water works, but that doesn't go very well. So, that will be really nice for them and, really, just keeping those green spaces open and available for, you know, us to have some nature out there is what -- what we are looking for and other than that I just appreciate you guys' time. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Thank you. After you there is two more over there, so -- D.White: Yeah. They are just here for the cuteness factor. Dane White. 10324 West Mossywood Street, Boise, Idaho. I am another brother. I just want to say on a -- just hope for you guys' approval of this plan. It has been a long process trying to get the Comprehensive Plan changed and meet all the city requirements and it has been like the dream of my parents. They have worked really hard to always improve their property, own it, be good citizens and it will be a dream of ours to be able to raise our kids on the same place where we grew up and my kids already love and enjoy spending Sundays over there and we just thank you for your time and consideration and -- yeah. Any questions? Overton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Overton. Meridian City Council May 6,2025 Page 20 of 51 Overton: I was going to ask your father earlier, but, Dane, how many generations of Whites are in the building right now? D.White: Three. Three generations. Yeah. Thank you. Simison: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to provide testimony? I do see a White online, so I won't force it, but -- would the applicant like to close? Applicant waives closing. Overton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: Seeing no further comments, I move we close the public hearing. Cavener: Second. Simison: Motion and second to close the public hearing. Is there any discussion? Overton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: Just happened to have known this family for a long time and I got to tell you how much I appreciate -- we don't see applicants come in very often where it makes sense in today's world to build big lots and big houses in R-2 and R-4 and it makes me feel good to know that you are going to do something and preserve some of this area and we are going to see that low density taken advantage of an area where you have lived for literally decades and I -- I knew it was coming a few months ago and looking forward to this and I think it's going to be a great addition and I appreciate you using that 48 inch ditch as an amenity. I got to tell you I live right on Five Mile Creek and we have baby ducks and baby geese out there right now as we are watching them grow up and that's kind of a special thing for my grandkids. So, I appreciate everything you said. Thank you. Simison: Is there further discussion on the motion? If not in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and the public hearing is closed. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: A couple of my thoughts. This is a pretty cut and dry application. In the city we talk a lot about diversity of housing and that often refers to duplexes and multi- family, but this is also diversity and so, Jon, I -- I appreciate even bringing kind of piece Meridian City Council May 6,2025 Page 21 of 51 by piece out here really doing some amazing work, really building out a really special part of Meridian and keeping it special. So, I'm in full support. I think this makes sense for the area. It's going to be a really nice addition to south Meridian. Unless anybody's got anyone else -- anything else to say, I'm happy to make a motion. After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move we approve Item 3, Mondt Meadows Subdivision, H-2024-0067, as presented in the staff report of Tuesday, May 6th, to be inclusive of granting the applicant the waiver to leave the ditch open. Overton: Second. Simison: Have a motion and a second to approve Item H-2024-0067. Is there further discussion? If not, clerk call the roll. Roll Call: Cavener, yea; Strader, yea; Overton, yea; Little Roberts, yea; Taylor, yea; Whitlock, absent. Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and the item is agreed to. Good luck. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. 4. Public Hearing 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 79 residential lots, 1 commercial lot and 11 common/other lots on 15.97 acres of Simison: Council, with that we will move on to Item 4, which is a public hearing for H- 2024-0059. We will open this public hearing with staff comments. Allen: Alrighty. Members of the Council, the next applications before you tonight are a request for annexation and zoning and a preliminary plat. This site consists of 15.97 acres of land. It's zoned RUT in Ada county and is located at 675, 715 and 955 South Wells -- South Wells Street. In 2019 an annexation request was approved for the development of a senior living facility on this site. However, the development agreement was never signed and, consequently, the property wasn't annexed. In 2021 another annexation request with a preliminary plat and a conditional use permit for an assisted living facility was denied by Council due to their determination that it wasn't in the best interest of the city at that time. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation on this property is medium density residential for 13 acres and mixed-use neighborhood for approximately 4.4 acres of the site. The applicant is requesting annexation of 17.27 acres of land with R-8 zoning, which is 13.78 acres, R-15 zoning, Meridian City Council May 6,2025 Page 22 of 51 which is 2.42 acres and C-N zoning, which is 1.07 acres, for the development of 79 single family residential detached homes, 59 of which are in the medium density designation and 20 are in the mixed-use neighborhood designation. That gross density is consistent with the underlying future land use map designations, which is 4.5 units per acre and the medium density designation in 6.06 in the mixed-use neighborhood designation, which is at the lower end of the desired densities in both of those designations. A commercial building pad is proposed at the south end of the mixed-use neighborhood designated area for a mix of uses as desired. A preliminary plat is proposed to resubdivide Lot 7, 21 and 22 of Magic View Subdivision amended into 79 residential lots, one commercial lot and 11 common and other lots on 15.97 acres of land. The phasing plan was submitted as shown depicting two phases of development, with phase one being on the north end of the development north of the Five Mile Creek. The proposed plat layout provides a good transition in lot sizes and widths to the Wood -- Woodbridge residential development to the west, with most lot lines aligning or only being slightly offset. The Five Mile Creek bisects the site within a one hundred foot wide easement. Access is proposed via existing and proposed local public streets, with an emergency access only via East Magic View Drive at the northern boundary. Two stub streets are proposed to the west to be extended with future development. Three common lot driveways -- excuse me -- 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 to South Eagle Road and the impact the proposed development will have, which will exacerbate an already challenging situation in this area. In an attempt to alleviate this the applicant is not proposing public access from Magic View Drive. The bridge on South Wells Street that runs along the eastern boundary of the site that provides vehicular access across the Five Mile Creek is scheduled in 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 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 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 did confirm that there is not adequate room for a pathway. 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. 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 Subdivision 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 Meridian City Council May 6,2025 Page 23 of 51 open water systems may require fencing. 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 meets the slope requirements in the UDC for accessibility and maintenance of stormwater facilities of three to one or less, staff recommends no fencing is installed on that 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 the site is located within the floodway along the creek. A floodplain development permit is required before any grading and the floodplain begins and a floodplain permit is required for each building in the floodplain along the -- along with elevation certificates certifying lowest floor elevation is two feet above base flood elevation. A minimum of 15 percent or 2.28 acres of qualified open space is required to be provided with 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, consisting of a picnic area, a tot lot and sports courts. Several conceptual building elevations were submitted 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 standards in the Architectural Standards Manual is required. The Commission recommended approval of the project with the requirement of development agreement provisions in the staff report and I will go over a summary of the Commission public hearing. Ben Semple of Rodney Evans + Partners, LLC, the applicant's representative, testified in favor. Robin McCulley commented on the application. Written testimony was received from the applicant Ben Semple, Robin McCulley, Cassy Peck, Celeste Fox, Kathleen Lewis, Tanya Bader, Erin Russell and Raymond Spencer. Key issues of public testimony were as follows: The existing fence along Woodbridge's east boundary, which is the site's west boundary, is crooked and doesn't lay 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 the 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 and Allen 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 question if two-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 development agreement. 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. Ms. McCulley expressed concern about a tree located along her rear property line and how it would be impacted by a new fence. Key issues of discussion by the Commission were as follows: General consensus -- consensus the Meridian City Council May 6,2025 Page 24 of 51 proposed development will fit in well with the existing residential development to the west Woodbridge. Recognition of the traffic issues in this area. An agreement with staffs recommendation pertaining to fencing along the Five Mile Creek. The Commission made the following changes to the staff recommendation. At staff's request the Commission included new conditions requiring mitigation information to be included on the landscape plan for existing trees on the site that are being removed with development in accord with the standards listed in the UDC for mitigation as applicable and removal of the sidewalk along the west side of Longitude Drive with provision of right of way to the west property line. Outstanding issue for Council tonight is that Council should determine if the fencing recommended by staff along the Five Mile Creek is appropriate as set forth in the UDC. Written testimony received since the Commission hearing. The applicant submitted a letter in agreement with the Commission recommendation, which included approval to remove the sidewalk along the west side of Longitude Drive, so that a detached sidewalk may -- 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 neighborhood designated areas. As is there is not adequate area to do so, so that is the reason that the applicant is asking for that and staff is in support of that. Several letters of testimony have been received since the Commission hearing as follows: Celeste Fox. She is requesting the developer provide details of their planned building setbacks next to neighbors on Woodhaven -- Woodhaven Street that will be part of the development agreement. She requests clarification about what the builders can do to prevent drainage issues on lots that abut homes in Woodbridge that are at a lower elevation and concern pertaining to the perimeter fencing along the east boundary of Woodbridge. Robin McCulley. Concern pertaining to the existing fence along the east boundary of Woodbridge. The developer hasn't yet discussed the matter with the neighbors. Cassandra Peck. Concern pertaining to the increase in traffic and already congested area and lack of fencing solution along the shared property line with Woodbridge and concern pertaining to the lack of privacy with two-story homes abutting her single story home. And Raymond Spencer. Concern pertaining to the proposed scale and building setback of homes along the west boundary of the site, abutting homes in Woodbridge and the lack of privacy. He requests a 20 foot setback for single story homes and 30 feet for two-story homes. Concern pertaining to the quality of homes built in this development. If the current builder drops out. He requests the -- for the opportunity for the city and the public to review any future changes to the elevations in the event the home builder and/or ownership changes to avoid a potential bait and switch. The applicant is here tonight to present. Staff will stand for any questions. Simison: Thank you, Sonya. Council, any questions for staff? Taylor: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Taylor. Taylor: Would you, please, kind of speak to the fence issue again with the recommendation not to have the fencing potentially on -- let's see here. It says because Meridian City Council May 6,2025 Page 25 of 51 the slope on the north side meets the slope requirements in the UDC for accessibility maintenance, Staff recommends no fencing is installed on that side, but six foot tall wrought iron fence. Could you just maybe -- I think I remember the slide that you had, but could you just speak to that recommendation again? I just want to get my mind wrapped around that a little bit more. Allen: Yeah. Give me just a moment and I will pull up that slide again. So, the UDC basically -- basically states that they feel an acceptable slope for safety is three to one. That's -- you know, one foot up, three -- three feet over, you know, like that. So, the -- the -- the slope on the south side is four to one. That -- that's not deemed to be acceptable in the UDC for safety. If someone should fall out they -- not as easy for them to get out on that slope. So, that is why staff is recommending a fence on the south side. If you feel that it's -- it should also be required on the north side, that's -- that's your call tonight. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Sonya, can you walk through the staff and -- and the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation to remove the sidewalk on South Longitude? I guess I'm not tracking where their recommendation is coming from -- and why that's being requested. Allen: Yeah. So, as I mentioned it's in -- the city's Comprehensive Plan likes to have tree lined streets and mixed-use designated areas. The current area right there, the width of that area does not accommodate a detached sidewalk, so they would have to attach the sidewalk in that location, which would not allow for tree lined streets. So, it will be constructed in the future when the abutting property to the west develops, it just won't be constructed at this time. So, the -- the condition requires them to provide right of way to that west property line. Cavener: Got it. Thank you. Overton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: Just a couple quick questions. Sonya, it says right up front and you mentioned in your staff report that there was a request for a traffic study by ITD, but we don't have that. Has it been produced or is it normal for us as a Council to make decisions on a project when we don't have that traffic study? Allen: This -- yeah. Mr. Mayor, Councilman Overton, Council, it -- it is. I mean we can go ahead with that. They have asked for a traffic analysis. I know the applicant has been working on that and should be able to provide an update to you on that. To my Meridian City Council May 6,2025 Page 26 of 51 knowledge it hasn't been completed yet, but the applicant may have knowledge of that that I don't have. Overton: Mr. Mayor, follow up? Allen: They haven't asked the city to weigh in on their -- in their decision on the matter. Overton: Sonya, in ACHD's report they mentioned that the widths that were proposed by the applicant on both Wells and on Magic View at 28 feet were not acceptable and did not work for their policy and they requested them to be at least 36 feet, but I don't see anything updated from ACHD saying that's been agreed to. Allen: They really don't have a choice. They have to comply with that, so -- yeah. Overton: Okay. Mr. Mayor, one last one. Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: Sonya, do you know if this application also preserves the right of way for any future development to the south of Woodbridge? The roadway right of way is what I'm referring to on the edge of this development. Allen: I'm not following. On Woodbridge Subdivision or -- Overton: If the potential for redevelopment happened south of Woodbridge Subdivision from Locust Grove through into this development, is the roadway being preserved in this application, so that that could happen? Allen: Not that I'm aware of. I believe that our long range planning is working on some -- some kind of solution to the traffic issues in this area, but there is nothing -- there is not a plan -- specific plan at this point. Overton: Thank you. Allen: If that answers your question, Mr. Overton. Thanks. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: This has been a tough area to figure out to say the least. So, you know, normally as a city our philosophy has been that interconnectivity eventually helps improve situations. In this case, you know, staff appears to be kind of on board with this recommendation of not having the Magic View access to public traffic and I just kind of wanted to -- to hear your opinion about what the right approach is to this area from a transportation perspective holistically. I think kind of to Councilman Overton's point is Meridian City Council May 6,2025 Page 27 of 51 there any kind of long-term vision for how we -- how -- options that could be used in the future to try to improve the situation? Allen: Yeah. Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Strader, Council, I did speak with long range about that. They -- they are looking at this area. They do not have a -- they do not have a plan at this point, but they are looking at it and trying to figure out some long-term plan. Simison: And maybe just to expand on that. I mean it's not just -- we -- we -- we are actively going out to get someone to do this work this year on this area and I will say the transportation network is the driving conversation for this more so than the land use, but the land use will also be evaluated. So, in essence, that this decision could impact that, because it will limit the options potentially. I'm not going to say that this wouldn't meet -- wouldn't be able to allow to -- to happen, but it does make a question if this is approved or not. We would be able to do everything that we look to ask the questions in this area. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: No. I think that's really proactive and -- and interesting. Is there any sense of timing on what kind of time frame would be needed to achieve some kind of a plan with different options? I'm just kind of curious about that, because I feel like, again, this area has been really tough to figure out. So, if it was like, okay, this is actively being worked on, we are kind of expecting something, you know, in the next few months that would be really good to know, but if it's a longer term, like much later this year or 12 months from now, I think those are all -- I don't know. I just sort of general question about timing. Simison: I would like to say by the end of the calendar year is what our discussion was. We -- we had already planned to start this, but we -- we had a -- we hired a long range person. They were here very briefly. They left. We had to refill the position. So, that's what has delayed this project for moving forward until we got the new person on and I understand that this -- this is their number one thing that they are looking at. I just don't know how long it's going to take and I don't want to say three months and, then, have it be longer. Council, any additional questions for staff? Okay. Then I will invite the applicant to come forward. Semple: Good evening, Mr. Mayor, Members of Council. Ben Semple with Rodney Evans + Partners, 1450 West Bannock Street, Boise. 83702. 1 sent -- she's pulling it up. Yeah. And I think Sonya did a great job of an overview. I'm going to touch on some of the comments and the questions and kind of the process that we have gone through on this project from the start. So, yeah, again, Rodney Evans + Partners. I'm representing -- Pacific Lifestyle Homes is going to be the builder and, then, Prestwick Capital is the developer of this site. So, there is a builder that's been selected. All the home elevations that you have seen are representative of products that they build. They are more of a custom home builder. They don't do spec homes on these lots. They have a lot buyer that, then, comes in, they have a design studio here locally that Meridian City Council May 6,2025 Page 28 of 51 the homeowner goes through, picks finishes, everything on it, so it is very much a custom home design process. Project site south of Magic View Circle, west of South Wells Street. Wells Circle is a cul-de-sac that runs along the southern boundary of this project. That is a public roadway that ends in a cul-de-sac. That could be extended to the west through the other Ada county parcels that are south and Council Member Overton to address kind of that question that you have for staff. Additionally, there is an existing cul-de-sac right of way that is, you know, basically just north of -- just north of Five Mile Creek and that public right of way will be extended to the west to the parcel that's just north of Five Mile Creek and we are doing everything we can to stub to these. So, going back to the start. This is the initial concept that we had for Wells Street Subdivision. Public roads that connected to Magic View Circle. They are in alignment with another road there to the north. After conversations with the neighbors there is some concerns that that connection would drive traffic more so through the development of -- through Woodbridge on their surface streets and so the developer went back and we put together another option for a pre-application conference, which is here showing an emergency connection only. It's ballarded. So, we will have access connected there. This was still looking at public streets internally. We also -- the neighborhood meeting, looking to further reduce impact. We looked at making all the streets north of Five Mile Creek as private and having this as a gated community. There were some concerns about that from ACHD, as well as the existing right of way that is just south of -- or just north of Five Mile Creek. We would have to get ACHD to sign plats and do all -- or vacate the right of way and just wasn't feasible to -- to continue down that road. So, the initial preliminary plat submittal did include the private street and, then, after meetings with city staff we adjusted that to this final iteration. You can see we are utilizing the existing right of way that stubs to a parcel that is north of Five Mile Creek that could be redeveloped residentially and, then, all of the streets are public within this. There is no private gated condition here. And, then, south of Five Mile Creek we are also stubbing to that parcel that is there, both with our Equator Drive that's proposed and, then, Wells Circle that is existing there stubs. I wanted to touch on the sidewalk, the request for the removal of the sidewalk. Along Longitude Drive -- and this is a pretty decent -- so, this road right here, north-south, initially we had attached sidewalk here, but with the detached sidewalk we would have had to compress that whole development area between the western property boundary and Wells Street and rather than doing that we thought it would be nice not only to have -- when this property to the west redevelops, they could build the sidewalk. We could build the planter strip, which right now includes six to eight pretty mature trees that are right on the fence line, that if we don't have to build the sidewalk those could potentially be saved, more so than if we had to build sidewalk there. That was kind of the -- the driving force behind that request. So, it wasn't just because they didn't want to build the sidewalk, there is -- you know, they -- they feel like it meets the goals there. Phasing plan. Again north of the creek was phase one. South of the creek would be phase two. That also includes the commercial lot. Currently it's just a padded build-to-suit lot is what's proposed. Any future redevelopment of that lot would have to go back through a process, come through with the zoning certificate design review type of application. The phase one preliminary plat. This has a lot of our open space. One of the reasons that I think we are -- we like the idea of not fencing the north side of Five Mile Creek is that the majority Meridian City Council May 6,2025 Page 29 of 51 of our open space falls along the edge of Five Mile Creek. There it has very low slopes. We will have our playground, tot lot, picnic area and the ten foot wide pathway that runs along the north side of the creek would all be right in that area. So, it really creates this seamless really nice kind of microclimate down in there with the creek. We would be able to address some of the -- if there is any noxious weeds or any other plant material that needs to come out we could remove that and, then, enhance that -- that corridor as well. We are working on getting an arborist report for the site. Phase two. We have additional open space, as well as two pickleball courts that will get built down there. And, again, the -- the condition of requesting a pedestrian connection to the front door of the commercial building in the future, we will stub that pathway to that site, so that in the future the development agreement would cover the need to extend that to that building when it is designed. Here is, again, our open space exhibit. We are at 16 percent open space. Picnic area. Sport courts. A little playground area for -- for children to play in. With the floodplain area it's hard to identify a space for open -- for an open space area that would, you know, be more developed I guess for look like a pool or a clubhouse. We have tried to really highlight that Five Mile Creek corridor through there and really have that be as the -- a very high level amenity. The landscape plan. This has not been updated per the staff report for the detached sidewalks within the mixed-use area south of Five Mile Creek, but that is currently in process, as well as the other comments regarding the -- the landscape plan. There is a fencing plan. Again, the fence that's shown on the south side of our open space here would not be built, but we would have fencing along the back of these lots as they will back up and, then, have -- to -- to grade that out effectively retaining wall with a -- a fence on top of that and you can see the styles of fencing at the bottom of this exhibit. The builder has been in conversations with some of the neighbors to the west in Woodbridge. Is going to continue those conversations with them to figure out this fence line issue. It is -- kind of jogs all over the place. When Woodbridge built that fence I don't know if they just left trees and worked the fence around them. The site has been fully surveyed. The surveyor is going back out to pick up additional information to really highlight this area, figure out what can be done and where the fence needs to go. But that is something that the developer has told me and I agree with him and believe him that he is going to be working with whoever he can to figure out this fence line issue, which seems to be one of the hot button issues for the neighbors and just these elevations that Sonya had provided, any of these could fit on any of the lots or the -- the smaller option could fit on any of the lots. The larger 50 foot wide product is specifically chosen for that western property boundary along Woodbridge, as it complies more with those lot sizes and home sizes on that side. The Woodbridge side has a mix of one and two bed -- or one and two-story homes. That's what this builder would like to do on his property as well. These are some real world photos of product that Pacific Lifestyle has built here in the valley. I believe Ryan, one of the heads of Pacific Lifestyle Homes, is -- has taken at least one of the neighbors to some of these communities just to show them the quality of the product. These are the concerns of the traffic. ITD. We did get our scoping memo into them. They responded and said that it was an appropriate traffic impact analysis, so it wasn't a full study of the traffic generated, it was what would this development -- what are the impacts this development will have on the ITD system there on Eagle Road. There is not a whole lot that can happen. ITD has purchased all Meridian City Council May 6,2025 Page 30 of 51 of the right of way that's available along there. They have done everything they can to this point. It doesn't mean that they won't come back and ask for some sort of mitigation from this development, but we do have that -- the engineer was just wrapping up their QC on it. They are getting that back to ITD I believe this upcoming week, if not later this week. So, we anticipate getting a response with them -- from them at some point. ACHD didn't require a traffic impact study and the city didn't either, but we are going to comply with ITD. Again, talked about fencing. Setbacks is another issue that had been brought up a lot by neighbors. The R-8 -- the R-8 district that we are proposing would allow a 12 foot rear yard setback along the western property boundary. The homes that my client builds he feels comfortable that the majority of them would remain about 20 feet from the rear property line. He is not comfortable restricting in the development agreement a setback to 20 feet, let alone 30 feet. That would basically take up a third of the lot depth on that side. These lots were specifically designed to accommodate a very nice home that they build and provide a very nice backyard. Their buyers don't want a tiny backyard either. They are going to want trees in their backyard to protect their privacy as well from two-story homes that are on the west. So, there is -- it's -- it's really just a matter of, you know, these -- these homes will fit very easily on these lots. They are not squeezing it to the setbacks, but they really don't feel comfortable having a restriction placed in the DA that would push them further than the Woodbridge side has to be. The Woodbridge rear setback is 15 feet, so we feel like 12 feet is pretty appropriate with the higher density, knowing that these homes -- you know, they might have a covered patio that goes to that 12 foot, but, you know, the majority of them they felt comfortable with where -- and this was a conversation had at the neighborhood meeting as well as afterwards. Home heights. Again, one and two-story. They will meet the standard for the zone, 35 foot maximum, which is the same height maximum in R-4 or Woodbridge to the -- to the west. Drainage. As the Council is well aware all drainage has to be collected and kept on site. The engineer is working on those grading plans right now to ensure that that west side they understand that that is a problematic area. There is some common area on the south side of those blocks -- or that block of lots to accommodate that drainage there, without having to move it too far. And, then, the lot alignment ratio we are at a one-to-one number of lots, 15 to 15. It's really hard when my client wants to build a 50 or 60 foot wide product to really match those up, because Woodbridge's lot sizes are not consistent and with that I would stand for any questions. We, again, are in agreement. We will have a development agreement pulled together here pretty soon and, then, all the other conditions we agreed to. Simison: Council, any additional questions? Taylor: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Taylor. Taylor: I do have a question a little bit on access. So, I'm just looking at my -- my maps here. Do you anticipate the majority of people who would purchase a home here would access through Allen Street off of Eagle Road or are they going to be coming primarily Meridian City Council May 6,2025 Page 31 of 51 through -- from Locust Grove through Woodbridge Drive and accessing it that way? What's -- because I see very limited access to this. Semple: Mr. Mayor and Council Member Taylor, yeah, it's a challenge here. We have public roads that connect from Eagle Road to Locust Grove. They are all open public roads owned and maintained by ACHD. We have limited options for creating additional connections. We are trying to create connectivity as much as possible and what isn't really reflected -- or I didn't touch closely on was that we went -- we started with closer to 90 lots and we are at 79 now. So, we are really trying to respond to the neighbors' concerns and traffic concerns. To answer the first part of your question, though, I guess it kind of depends on where they are going or coming from, but Eagle Road is closer than driving through the neighborhood to the west. So, I -- I mean it's just a choice of which way they want to drive I guess. If they have to go to Eagle Road they will go there. If it's busy they might take the road through Woodbridge. Again, public streets. Taylor: Mr. Mayor, quick follow up. Simison: Councilman Taylor. Taylor: So, if I am coming home from work from Boise -- let's say if I'm coming down the freeway, I get off on Eagle Road, can I turn left there on Magic View Drive, Allen Street on Eagle or is that -- is that -- do I have to go up to the -- I'm just trying to think where do I turn? Can I actually turn off of Eagle Road left? Semple: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Taylor, you can turn left at the traffic light that goes into St. Luke's. Taylor: Oh, yeah. That's a signalized intersection there. Semple: And, then, the light -- you don't have to go to the light if you are leaving and exiting onto -- there is another way to get -- to turn right onto Eagle Road. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Ben, you -- you touched a little bit about some of the neighbors' concerns about setbacks and you indicated that you weren't necessarily willing to put a condition on yourself for 20 feet when Magic View is at 15. Twelve is a little rough. Would -- would you and your client be willing to accept the condition at 15 feet, so that you are mirroring exactly what's going on in Magic View? Semple: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Cavener, can I follow up with you during my rebuttal? Cavener: Yeah. I think that would be fine. Meridian City Council May 6,2025 Page 32 of 51 Semple: Thank you. Okay. Simison: Okay. That will be it for now, so -- Mr. Clerk, do we have anyone signed up on this item? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we had lots of names. One person marked they want to speak and that's Robin McCulley. Simison: Can you, please, say your name and address for the record? McCulley: Hi. My name is Robin McCulley. My address 728 South Woodhaven Avenue, Meridian, Idaho. Mr. Mayor, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Council, quickly, I have lived in -- at this residence for ten years. The past ten years, as you -- as many of you know we have been fighting for this for a while now. I think the biggest question you have to ask yourself is this the right fit for that area? We have a lot of traffic happening. Probably many of you cut through our neighborhood like so many in Meridian do from Locust Grove to Eagle Road. The traffic issue is a huge issue. I know you guys are talking about possibly mitigating traffic. We were told by this particular -- not builder, but owner that ACHD had no intention of putting that through road there. They said it's too close to the highway. That's what we were recently just told. So, I know that you guys say you are working or going to talk about working on that. So, we have gotten a little mixed things that we were told about that. So, that's important to know. We also should consider that we have that rehabilitation center on the corner, Meridian Meadows. The parking for that is poor at this moment. Those people are all parking in the lots adjacent to their property at this time, because there is not enough parking there as it is. Also the property to the east of this property that we are speaking of is deemed for a higher residency. So, I believe it's deemed for apartment complexes. So -- an apartment complex. So, eventually, that will be even more traffic in that area. Things to consider for us that I think while you are thinking of this. We are concerned about the fence that my property is facing the new property. As he -- as we said, there are pins already there from a previous survey and those do not make the fence. There is a solid eight, ten, twelve inches where the property -- the existing fence and the line is and there are several trees, mine being one that there is a tree in between, and we believe that it could potentially be on our property or at least halfway between ours and theirs. We did reach out before we went here tonight with them and try to mitigate and talk with them about the fence, so that we could bring it forward and say this is how we - - we have all agreed upon that. That was unsuccessful. The other question is the connecting of the pathways from their property to ours and along that creek line. The biggest thing is a guarantee from the builder. If we are saying 79 houses back there, if during this volatile time in our economy, if this builder decides to not build the 79 houses, will it be changing? A lot of unknowns with commercial building on the end. What is potentially going to go in there, how much more traffic will exceed it? I just would really love for you guys to think about it. Is this a good fit for our city, for all of us, for the travelers, whether it's through our neighborhood or not. There is a lot going on there. I know Councilman Taylor had asked about turning left onto Magic View. Unfortunately, it's not a direct turn. You have to go down to the light and turn around the Meridian City Council May 6,2025 Page 33 of 51 Chevron and come around. That's only a two way stop and we already have potential dangers there. People are running that thinking it's a four way stop. It's not, I know ACHD is talking to the residents now about putting speed bumps through our neighborhood, because we are getting upwards of 2,500 cars through that neighborhood at a time and so that we are talking about speed bumps at this time for that and, then, adding these additional homes and business will definitely cause an impact in that area. So, we just ask that you will reconsider is this a good fit for our city and for that area. I'm sure many of you are familiar with those -- that -- that area. Simison: Thank you. Council, questions? Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Strader. Council Woman Strader. Strader: Thank you, Robin. It's been a really tough area to develop. There are pluses and minuses to everything. Something eventually is going to go here. Pros and cons. I mean to play devil's advocate, at least with this proposal the lot lines match up really close to what Woodbridge has. I guess as you are sort of thinking about this, maybe just to level set, so the City Council makes land use decisions, but we don't make decisions on individual developers. So, we can make a determination about zoning, annexation, but I have never seen us say it must be this developer and if this developer didn't do this project no other developer would be allowed to do that. I -- I just wanted to share that feedback. That -- that -- that's not something that we typically do. We try to avoid kind of picking winners and losers among developers. Like only certain developers could do certain, you know, projects. That -- that really wouldn't be fair for us to do that. So, I just kind of wanted to have that dialogue with you, because I have heard a couple of comments from different people, including yourself tonight, about like this is a volatile environment. What if they don't build it and we end up with like less quality homes around us? I don't know if I'm -- I hope I'm not misinterpreting what you were saying. I just kind of wanted to clarify on my end and, then, maybe hear some more from you about your concern. McCulley: I think the biggest concern, because we have been through several different attempts at this property, is that nothing could change in -- in the 79 houses. If it's approved tonight at 79 houses and one commercial lot, it can't, then, change to 95 houses, smaller areas, smaller, you know, lots, that type of thing. I think we have worked really well with these -- this builder and these -- these people to try to -- because we -- we as well, the community of Woodbridge, we know something's coming. Everything's coming. We get it. We have been fighting for this for ten years. It is a very beautiful part of our city and, you know, we are very blessed to be across from the Police Department and -- and -- and the area that we are and so we want to keep it beautiful -- beautiful for everybody. I mean I think across from St. Luke's, you know, it's very well-known, it's very well-traveled, and I just think that that area is definitely becoming more dangerous for our children that play on the roads -- for all of us. We -- we get out, we walk, you know, and that kind of thing and -- and the idea that this, you Meridian City Council May 6,2025 Page 34 of 51 know, could change potentially from what they are asking if anything changes that -- I think that's where it's coming from is -- Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Would it be okay if we have Sonya maybe give us -- maybe give Robin a little bit of an overview on what could change and what couldn't change. Would that be okay? Allen: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Strader, Council. So, yeah, staff is recommending a development agreement as a provision of annexation of this property and the development agreement will require the applicant to develop the property generally consistent with the plans that they submitted with this application and that includes the preliminary plat, the phasing plan, the landscape plan, open space and amenity exhibit and the conceptual building elevations. So, when an applicant comes in to develop we will be reviewing those concept -- or, excuse me, those -- those detailed elevations when they come in to assure that they do meet those quality of development that they proposed with this annexation and if they don't meet those we will reject it and require that they either provide better elevations that are consistent or that they apply for a modification to the development agreement to change the elevations and we have done that in the past for several different developments. So, that -- that is how we can assure that you have the quality of development that you are seeing with this application. As far as the preliminary plat, we would not consider any development plan that proposes more building lots to be consistent with the provisions in the development agreement. They could go with fewer lots, not -- not significantly fewer, but a few fewer lots and we would still consider that consistent, but not more than what they are proposing now. So, hopefully, that answers your questions and -- and we wouldn't -- a little further on that. We wouldn't allow any less qualified open space either. They could do more, that -- we consider that generally consistent, but not less. So, we want the bar to be high with what they are proposing with this application. Thank you. Simison: Counsel, any additional questions? All right. Thank you very much. McCulley: Thank you. Simison: We -- we have someone online. Johnson: Yes. I'm going to unmute. Idaho Senate, you should be able to unmute yourself. Simison: Who could this be? Yes, if they are technology challenged it's definitely Mr. Bernt. Bernt: Can you hear me? Meridian City Council May 6,2025 Page 35 of 51 Simison: Yes, we can. Bernt: Does it really say Idaho Senate on your side? Simison: It does. Bernt: I apologize for that. It's my personal Zoom account. Mr. Mayor, Members of Council, my name is Treg Bernt. I reside at 531 South Tiburon Avenue in the Woodbridge Subdivision. Grateful for this opportunity to speak to you this evening. There is a reason why the application from 2019 is the only application that's been approved by this body. There has been many others that have came before us and -- or excuse me. You. And I sat in your seat before, so apologize for using the word us. But there is a reason why others have been denied and it's because of the type of use that will be in that area and the type of traffic that it -- this -- these type of developments will bring. It will be tough for any type of development to make sense for this area until the unincorporated Ada county subdivision to the south is redeveloped with -- that -- that has to do with the future land use map and the -- and the future comprehensive plan. It's all about connectivity and I don't care if you are coming from Locust Grove or if you are coming from Eagle Road, it -- it's very difficult to -- to navigate these areas during certain times of the day and the amount of traffic that comes through these areas is significant and I don't believe this has anything to do with the developers that have came before your body in the past or the builders, I -- I believe that the builder is going to build a good product. I -- I believe that the -- the developers from the past and this particular developer have good intent, but until there is more connectivity in this area you will have problems and these problems aren't going away. So, next comes the argument well, then, you know, it's our -- sometimes developments just aren't ready and sometimes it's okay to say, no, not right now, but maybe in the future when -- when we are able to have more connectivity in the area and I don't believe that that's going to happen until the -- until the property to the south is redeveloped. It's just a reality in this area. It doesn't matter what time of the day it is, there is -- there is backed up traffic -- and I forgot the road. It's the road that goes -- it's the unsignalized -- it's the unsignalized access to Eagle Road, to -- to 55 from this area. It doesn't matter what time of the day it is, traffic's backed up a hundred yards sometimes and it could be in the middle of the day. So, I'm, obviously, here to testify against. I appreciate your time and -- and it's unfortunate that we are not ready as a city to take on projects like this in my opinion and I can't -- and I can't wait for the day until we are able to when there is more development to the south that will allow this to happen. Simison: Thank you, Mr. Bernt. Council, any questions? Okay. Appreciate it very much. Bernt: Thank you. Simison: Okay. We did have other people signed up, but no one wished to testify. Is there anybody that would like to come forward and testify at this time? Go ahead and come on up. Meridian City Council May 6,2025 Page 36 of 51 Bader: Council Members, I'm Tanya Bader. I live at 624 South Woodhaven. I'm one of the 15 homes that butts up against where this property is being built. We have lived there for 20 years. We have been to a lot of meetings. Council Woman Strader, we have had properties that we have approved. We have gone to all the meetings. My kids have been in this building a ton, dragging them with us. There is a property north that we did approve and they were single story townhomes. Unfortunately, that builder built, what, three sets of townhomes and, then, filed for bankruptcy and I think Corey Barton owns those -- that property now and nothing's ever been built there. So, we have approved. The senior center that was going to be approved, we all met with those -- that was right behind my house. We approved that as well. So, we are not against development. But every time our plea to the city is help us with this limited access. We are stuck with the Eagle Road -- years ago, 20 years ago, you could turn left off Eagle Road onto Magic View. You can't do that anymore. They put up -- because traffic got worse and worse. Locust Grove. We have taught both my kids to drive. It's chaos on Locust Grove. When both my kids went to Renaissance High School we taught them to go out to Eagle Road at the light, drive all the way around, so they could go to the fire station, turn left at that light, so they could go to school. It's, what, a quarter mile away? But they have to go all the way around. Even today my daughter had an appointment. We were six cars back at 3.30. Chaos. And, then, when Danik was approved the gymnastics center across the street from our community on Locust Grove, parents are insane, like coming out if -- there is always near accidents. It's just -- we begged for lights there. We are total we have been denied for lights. If that road on Bentley, which there is a light, the -- the south of us, that would be huge. If we had a plan to open that I would gladly cut through this new neighborhood to get to that light. It would be perfect. But we have -- we haven't had any help from the city and we are always our biggest plan. This builder that wants to build here, the homes are gorgeous. I think they are lovely. I love their design. I just don't think the city has a plan. It's been 20 years and we haven't had any help. It's just getting worse and worse. So that's where we stand with this. It has nothing to do with a builder, nothing to do with what's being built back there, it's just we need a better plan, because the -- we are just so -- it's challenging. That was the word that came up. Very challenging. Thank you. Simison: Council, any questions? Overton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: Are you -- were you aware that, actually, the city changed to zoning -- Bader: Yes. Overton: -- on the subdivision to the south, allowing it to be developed in a different fashion than it sits now? Meridian City Council May 6,2025 Page 37 of 51 Bader: I don't -- no, I think we -- it was changed to build those little townhomes. You know which area I'm talking about? I don't think it has a name. It's by Rigley Meadows. Overton: Okay. So, what I'm referring to is the subdivision to the south between the interstate and Woodbridge -- Bader: That -- that road that goes through? Overton: That on our master plan we changed the zoning, the city did, several years ago, on what could be developed there that's now different from what exists there today. Bader: No. Overton: I just know if you knew that had been done by the city. Bader: I just know that the road is still not open. Overton: That is correct. Bader: That's -- that's all I care about. If you opened it up it would be huge. I think this would be less of an issue. That would give us there ways in and out. I -- I feel like living here so long, like the city doesn't always make the best decisions, like Silverstone Plaza, it took me 17 minutes to get from Eagle Road at the light to TopGolf is where I work in that area. Seventeen minutes. And Eagle was backed up. This is like at 8.15 in the morning. So, I just -- and also with something Robin talked about is Meridian Meadows, the senior facility, that was assisted living. That was a huge problem. That was one of the issues we had was like is there enough parking and that they -- we were assured there was enough parking and, then, guess what, not enough parking where the bus is it was actually Cascade Transportation that ended up calling the city and saying we can't fit our buses through here, because people are parking so tight. So, I don't know where -- whatever is built where are those people going to park? It's just kind of -- and we have been walking in our neighborhood for 20 years. If you -- those stop signs that are there, you can take them down, because they are run a hundred percent. We watch them, we -- we look at the people -- we make eye contact with them. Those stop signs don't exist. And if they do stop, then, someone's hitting them and they are knocked over. Overton: Thank you, Tanya. Bader: Thank you. Taylor: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Taylor. Meridian City Council May 6,2025 Page 38 of 51 Taylor: Tanya, I have a question if you want to come on back. So, I'm curious how you access -- you live in Woodbridge. Bader: Yes. Taylor: Do you get off Eagle Road? Do you go down to Meridian Road? How do you actually get there? And I'm curious how often you use the signalized intersection there across -- right where St. Luke's is on Allen Street to go around the Chevron, is that -- is that your typical access point through Eagle Road through that? Bader: I go to the light, because the traffic that -- if you go to the right the south of Chevron, like my husband will turn there, I can't do it, I -- it's too much traffic. So, I go to the light, I wait until it's green and turn right and I work over in Silverstone Plaza. Taylor: Do people -- is it common for people to go up to Franklin and around to get there, to come down through Locust Grove, or do most people try to turn there on Allen? Bader: People turn there. I -- there are -- one of the things that was brought up in Planning and Zoning is that -- one of the members made a comment that the roads are public. We don't own them. And I don't really have a problem with the people going through the neighborhood if it's faster. We all cut through people's neighborhoods. It's just the limit -- it's -- like it's -- it's just the access that we only have two entrances and exits that we are just kind of stuck. Taylor: Thank you. Bader: Thank you. Simison: Is there anybody else who would like to provide testimony on this item? Why don't we go ahead and take a ten minute break and, then, we will have the applicant come back up and close at that point in time. So, take a recess until 8.15. (Recess: 8.06 p.m. to 8.16 p.m.) Simison: All right. We will go ahead and come on back. It looks like everyone's back in their seats and ready to go. Ask the applicant to come forward to make final comments. Semple: Mr. Mayor, Members of Council, again, Ben Semple with Rodney Evans + Partners. 1450 Bannock, Boise, Idaho. 83702. So, I guess a couple quick things. Parking for this project, all these homes have two car garages, all the driveways accommodate a minimum of two cars in them and, then, some of the public streets are wide enough that they will have parking on one side or the other. So, we are very comfortable that this project will be able to accommodate any parking that is associated with the homes and I wanted to reiterate what Sonya had mentioned, that the development agreement will memorialize the number of homes, buildable lots, the elevations that are proposed and, then, the commercial development area will have to come back to the city through a CZC and comply with all the UDC standards through Meridian City Council May 6,2025 Page 39 of 51 that review. So, there will be another bite of the apple, if you will, on that commercial development. Regarding the density and just traffic generated here, you know, the -- the future land use map for this area is medium density residential and a mixed-use neighborhood. That could allow for denser residential development than what is proposed right now or commercial uses that drive more traffic than what is proposed at this time. Neither ACHD or the city staff brought up some of the concerns that we have heard tonight during our pre-app or any of the subsequent meetings that we have had regarding access or traffic. ACHD didn't require a traffic study. ITD just asked us to evaluate the impacts from this development. But at no point did someone say, well, you can't develop this, because the access won't allow you. I mean that effectively creates an undevelopable property unless you went extremely low density, which, then, doesn't comply with the comp plan. So, ultimately, I feel like we have gone through multiple iterations on this to reduce our lot count. We have looked at ways to design the road system to encourage traffic to use a state highway and the larger road systems in the area. Unfortunately, we can't extend the roads from an Ada county development to the southwest and it -- yeah, I mean we are -- we are really doing everything we can. Regarding setbacks, I did talk to my client about that. For the most part it's -- it -- it could be accommodated. It's a struggle. There are some homes that there is some bulb outs at the corners that restrict the lot depth, which that we run up against that setback if we make it larger than 12 feet. The developer had indicated that if it's, you know, a tipping point for a decision, 15 could be accommodated, but they would like the development agreement to include a provision that a covered patio could extend to the 12 foot setback as allowed in the R-4 -- or R-8 zone. And I would stand for any additional questions you might have. Simison: Council, any additional questions of the applicant? Okay. Thank you very much. Semple: Thank you. Simison: I will leave that up to Council if you -- we just heard from the applicant. The applicant has the final word, so -- Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Neighbors have been through a lot of these and typically the process is the public testifies, then, the applicant. If that person hasn't provided any testimony I -- I would be happy to hear it if she wants to provide it, but, then, the applicant will have another opportunity to provide any other follow-ups. Ma'am. McDougal: Thank you. Thank you. Simison: Just wait until you get up to the microphone, please. Meridian City Council May 6,2025 Page 40 of 51 McDougal: Yes. Thank you. My name is Janet McDougal. I moved here in 2013 and I have attended the council meetings before and everyone said that they agree it's a challenge. Well, I have been to these meetings and I learned that Green Hill Estates, which is north of us, is not part of Meridian. For whatever reason they were never annexed. Locust Grove Heights, which is to the south of us, is not part of Meridian. For whatever reason they have never been annexed. Our area was called Snorting Bull when the developer came in and that's inspired me to be the snorting bull and to come up with this comment that maybe Woodbridge should no longer be involved in Meridian. Let's go to West Ada -- or Ada county and see how they are going to handle us and you don't have to worry about us and you don't have to say it's a challenge. We are paying our taxes to you and we feel like we have been neglected. Now, we are neglected because of this anomaly of ACHD that's not responsive. The -- the streets cannot handle all the traffic. They are not coming up with any plans and, you know, I'm becoming an aggressive driver now, because I moved to Meridian and I have trouble getting out. So, I'm at fault for being in there when it's yellow and turning. I'm at fault in going around. I'm at fault for being an aggressive driver. Thank God when I go home tonight I don't have to worry about the traffic. I'm shaking, because I am so upset about coming to these meetings and finding out, sorry, we can't do anything. It's not the developer's fault. Let the developer work with Ada county. They are not part of you yet. You want to -- you want to annex them because of the revenue. Well, how about deciding we don't want to be part of you and let Ada county take care of it. Thank you for your time. And if you have any questions I'm more than happy to answer. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Overton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: Jan, thank you for coming tonight and being the snorting bull. Simison: Maybe just a couple of general -- and if the applicant wants to come back up and make any final comments they are -- they are more than welcome. I will save my comments for after your final comments. Semple: Yep. Mr. Mayor, Members of Council, if this could happen in Ada county I'm sure that my client would, you know, look at that, but as far as I understand when you do a subdivision development project, Meridian is a forced annexation jurisdiction, so we are required to come into the city to provide that revenue. That's really all I had. I'm not going to be as colorful. Thank you. Simison: Okay. Thank you. Overton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Overton. Meridian City Council May 6,2025 Page 41 of 51 Overton: I would like to take a moment to have a rather lengthy comment. Woodbridge was approved in 2001. 1 happen to remember that. When it was first developed phase one had Woodbridge Drive as the collector street and when it was laid out it had a collector street going all the way through to Magic View and it was going to be one long raceway. So, the City Council at the time decided to modify phase two of Woodbridge, so that it was residential streets, not collector streets. The idea was it was going to be traffic calming. Well, what ended up happening is it was the only cut through between Eagle and Locust Grove and that cut through traffic was going in front of houses now instead of on a collector street. Looking back I talked to those council members at the time, that wasn't their best moment, but we live with what those decisions were at the time. We all heard that have lived in that subdivision a long time that it was supposed to be part of a medical corridor and we all love that medical corridor idea. Well, that medical corridor idea is not gone. One of the things that concerns me enough that I need to make a statement tonight is I think we don't have the right information in front of us this evening to make a decision to approve or not approve this application and here is the reason why. This is probably one of the best applications we have had on this property and I know that, because there is not 125 of you sitting in the room, because Woodbridge will get up and they will protest when something is wrong and you have approved three of five previous applications. You are not anti-growth, you are just trying to find out what's the best one. Two thousand vehicles come west of Wells Street on Magic View. That traffic count over 2,000 vehicles was in 2021 . We don't have a more current one, but we know it's higher than 2,000 vehicles a day. Seven hundred and ninety-four vehicles a day are expected to come out of this development and that's only with 79 homes. The problem we have got is if we just looked at this application on its own and let it happen we could be absolutely jeopardizing the future of redevelopment to the south of Woodbridge coming from the signal on Locust Grove all the way through and into this area that we are talking about redeveloping and if we do that, if we screw that up, then, we are all stuck with what we have got now and it will never get better and as a city that's a huge mistake that we could make and I will tell you the part that no one's mentioned tonight that needs to be on the record. On September 10th this City Council approved an expansion of the Idaho State University Health Science Campus, 23 acres across the street from Woodbridge on Locust Grove, and if we don't get that project done that creates that extra housing and right of way and roadways that come through to the south of Woodbridge, we will not be able to provide the housing necessary for Idaho State University's Health Science Campus and can you imagine where that traffic's going to go. So, we would not only be getting it coming from the east side, we would be getting it from the west side and it would be so broken we -- I can't even begin to describe what we would be facing. So, to my Mayor and Council as we sit here and to the applicant, you have a tremendous application. You truly do. And they acknowledge it. But we have a tremendous problem and I think we are not in possession of enough information tonight to know for a fact that we are not jeopardizing that future development that has to happen to make this whole area work. We have to remember as we are looking at traffic and traffic studies are done, that there is a huge difference between business traffic and residential traffic. We had an application earlier this evening, you folks were sitting in here and they were talking about business traffic 7.00 to 5.00, Monday through Friday. When it's residential traffic it can go anytime 24 Meridian City Council May 6,2025 Page 42 of 51 hours a day, seven days a week, which is usually when all of our children in Woodbridge are riding their bicycles on the sidewalks headed to the pool and enjoying their lives. So, that's why when it's residential I get that much more concerned about the impacts we are going to have with in the 279 homes that make up Woodbridge today. So, what I'm asking the Mayor and Council to do is -- we need to consider not making a decision, continuing or making the ultimate decision on this application tonight. I don't think we have the information in front of us. I think it's premature that we make a decision on this project because of the area it is and the potential for destroying our opportunities for the future development to the south of Woodbridge. Simison: Thank you. If I can just add a little bit on -- on to that element and, you know, I -- I think it's just -- just so people understand where things are. So, the last -- 11 months ago, the state of the city, I specifically called out this area as one that the city needed to do some studying on and that was followed by putting money in the budget for -- to hire someone to do -- help do this work, which Council approved. Unfortunately, we had a staff member leave and it -- so, it took a little while. The RFP -- the RFQ closes on Friday. So, this Friday, in theory, we will have someone that we can start engaging with to do the work and in my conversations with the team, you know, our goal was to have this done by the end of this calendar year. This does encompass both land use and transportation, but transportation is the number one component that they are going to try to get done quicker, but if the land use comes into it, it will take a little bit longer to finish besides December. So, in some regards I think that there is a light at the end of the tunnel, because I think whatever we come up with will be the plan moving forward for Council and, you know, I'm going to give my own two cents and I'm sorry for those who are on Council, I think it's only one or two, but when we did this last time I think we kicked the can down the road. There was a lot of people from that subdivision that came out in the county and the Council I don't think went where -- we probably should have been taking a hard enough look and -- and solve this issue in 2019 -- 2019 to 2020, at that point in time, which is why we are coming back to do it again, because we really didn't come up with a real solution. Yeah, we did a land use, but we didn't really do a transportation component and we knew if we didn't -- without a good transportation component it's not going to work. Since then, as John's mentioned, ISU has come into the equation. So, really, what we are asking -- our RFQ is looking to go from Eagle Road actually all the way over to Meridian Road, because it's not just this section coming through here, the central has real problems with a 90 degree followed by an immediate left at that point in time and it goes -- actually go all the way over to Waltman, because in order for that property to develop the transportation network it's supposed to come in off of Corporate, which would be the back half bottom of this evaluation from Eagle Road all the way over. So, I feel bad that this information wasn't shared with the developer. Maybe they -- maybe they were aware, maybe they weren't, but, you know, this has been something that's been contemplated for at least a year by the city and, like I say, it's -- it's going out for consideration. Now, personally, the north half of this project is -- you know, I think you could go. I don't -- you know, that part is -- I think it aligns. It's not in the area where anything is going to be impacting. The possible transportation, but the -- the south portion from the creek on down to the Interstate, somewhere within there is likely going to need to be a road connection and Meridian City Council May 6,2025 Page 43 of 51 what, where and how if -- if this were to be approved it's -- it's limiting that dramatically in that point. May only allow for one possible road network connection to exist. But this is what we are going to be working on in theory, but if Council votes a certain direction I don't know how that will impact our RFQ. It may not. We still may have that conversation. But it's -- it's a much different conversation to this area. So, I -- I agree with Councilman Overton's comments that, you know, I -- I think that this is, unfortunately, just a little early, but I do want to get there, so we can make decisions, because everybody -- everybody needs to have good information, so quality decisions can be made long term for this. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Yeah. I'm -- you know, kind of where I was going with this in terms of where my head is at, it's about the same as when we started the hearing, which is I think if we are actively studying this as a city and actively trying to come up with a solution, which is what I'm hearing from you, Mr. Mayor, then, the course of action that makes the most sense to me is a -- I guess a much longer continuance at this point while we do that work. This -- we have -- everyone is correct, like we have -- we have seen multiple applications for this area and the truth is we are really not going to be getting to a sustainable point until we can figure out the transportation solution here. I really do think that that's where we are at. I do like the north part of the proposal as well. Like I -- I think that the -- the lot lines matching up are very nice. I think the quality of the homes are very nice. Like I think from the neighborhoods' perspective that part of the development is a really nice fit. So, that's why I was kind of challenging a couple of you in your public testimony a little bit, because, you know, it's going to take time to get this right, but there are parts of this proposal that are very compelling, but I just don't think holistically we are quite ready yet. It feels like more connectivity is the answer as opposed to less. I think with ISU that that is a consideration and something that -- that we can take into account as we kind of work through a solution for this. It -- I think as a city we have to own this. You know, people are frustrated, because there is not an answer here and the developer is frustrated, the neighbors are frustrated, I am frustrated, but I appreciate your commitment, Mr. Mayor, to really working on this and trying to find some kind of at least a partial answer to this by the end of the year I think is the right approach. That's where I'm at. Cavener: Yeah, I -- Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: As much as I want to, I can't support this application tonight and if I was -- if I was the applicant I would be rightfully frustrated. The city made a decision when we redid the Comprehensive Plan to look at this part of Meridian differently. At the time we were told that staff was going to handle that -- those changes and that didn't happen and, then, Mr. Mayor, you were correct, at your state of the city last year you called for Meridian City Council May 6,2025 Page 44 of 51 this and it's taken a year and if I'm the applicant I would be very frustrated that here at the 11th hour I'm being told, oh, we will have more information for you next week. I think we have done the applicant a disservice. So, if they are frustrated I don't blame them, I'm frustrated. Likewise, if I'm the public who comes to these meetings and you see a new application time after time and you are frustrated, I share that frustration. I'm frustrated, too. My hope is, Mr. Mayor, is that we are going to become a little bit more proactive about our communication both to the residents about what's occurring in this area and to the development community. Council Member Strader hit the nail on the head. We have -- we have failed in our -- in our execution on this, both in our planning and our communication and I -- I hope that not another year goes by before we start to have some answers on this. Little Roberts: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Little Roberts. Little Roberts: While I sit here looking at the list of things that I felt like I didn't have enough information on and that just is what we have gone over tonight. I think the bigger picture is so critical for this area and I'm partly at fault. I helped kick that can down in 2019, helped kick it down the road when we had an opportunity. But hindsight's always better. And so I think we are kind of at a point that we do need a continuance until we have more information. Simison: Council, would you like to have the applicant come back up? Cavener: Mr. Mayor, I think it's incredibly appropriate. The applicant has some comments. I think, Mayor, and for our staff, you know, it sounds like maybe this is headed towards a continuance, which certainly I'm -- I'm in favor of. I think being able to give the applicant some understanding of a runway in terms of timing, so they can go into this with eyes wide open as well, whether it's three months, six months, 12 months, 24 months. Simison: The short answer I have is end of the year for a majority of it, but it kind of depends upon who responds. What if we don't get any responses? You know, what -- you know, the negotiation to get them on board and, then, the time frame, because, you know, the public -- it will be a public process. You are good. Trust me. Semple: Mr. Mayor, Members of Council, I really appreciate this conversation. I appreciate that you recognize that we are in a tough spot here. What I did here, though, is that you guys like the north half of the project and the south half is really the part that is kind of in limbo. That's where you are looking for a connection through. Simison: Potentially. It may be okay, but we don't know yet. Semple: Sure. So, I mean I think we would rather have a continuance than a denial, obviously. Is there a potential that if we work with staff to look at phase two being Meridian City Council May 6,2025 Page 45 of 51 contingent on this additional information and this study for the south half, which is phase two, but allowing for the north half to continue at this time? Is that something that -- and I don't know if you can answer that right now, but that is kind of our thought process right now. Obviously, we have a developer, landowner and a builder that has put in a lot of money and time and effort to get to this point and I think it would be -- it's something that they would consider, you know, to allow the city to explore their options for connectivity and still exercise some development rights that they -- they have. Cavener: I would be open to that. Simison: I -- I said it, so I'm okay with it, but I don't get a vote on it, so -- Cavener: And, Mr. Mayor, I -- I certainly am supportive of maybe continuing this for three to four weeks to give the applicant time to meet with staff on a -- on a multi-phase approach that would be guided potentially with conditions in the development agreement, particularly about the southern portion, recognizing that that southern portion would either come back as a separate application or further continued. No. Reevaluate in a month. I -- I -- to me that makes sense. I think it addresses the larger concern, while allowing the Council to get some better data on the piece that is maybe a little bit more problematic. Simison: And, frankly, it allows you to work through the public process. You are going to be part of the process helping make determinations about what that looks and feels like and how that would be impacted in a lot of ways. Semple: And I think, Mr. Mayor, we would be welcome -- you know, we would welcome that opportunity to provide that input and coordination with the city to find the right spot for that connectivity. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I think -- I think that gives you a path, an opportunity. I want to be open. I think for me it's the context of what the possibilities are to address this area from a transportation perspective. It's kind of important for me that those possibilities are outlined and that I come away with the determination definitively that the north part of your project could proceed without foreclosing one of those paths. So, I haven't really received that feedback. So, I just want to be open that -- I'm open to that; right? But if that information were to come back and it were to become clear that like proceeding with the north part of your property kind of piecemeal without an answer could be problematic I think. I also think it could be problematic if -- if there is an option that city staff comes up with that would impact the north part of your project and if you were to sort of foreclose that by proceeding, but I -- I -- I think keeping this open and continuing it makes sense and we could do a check in on that component of your project in a few months. But it does sound to me like -- at least what I'm hearing and I would love for Meridian City Council May 6,2025 Page 46 of 51 people to -- the Mayor to weigh in if it's not the case, but at least what I'm hearing right now is that answers would come in December like more full city answers about what the plan is for this area would come and so I think it will be hard to move forward with a part of your project if there are big questions still kind of unanswered. So, maybe it's three months or what have you, whatever you are comfortable with to check in, but you may not actually get the answer that you want at that point. So, I -- I just think it's good for you to be aware of that. It sounds like you are. Yeah. Either a continuance or a withdrawal of the application is probably what makes the most sense. I would -- if I were in your shoes I would ask for a continuance to -- to try to work through it and, again, you know, I think we all own it, but I think we -- we apologize to everybody, because it's a -- it's about that situation, but we do need to fix it. We need to actually get an answer for -- for this area and I think that's what everyone is aligned around doing in this meeting, so -- I guess that's my feedback for you. Semple: And so, Mr. Mayor and Council Woman Strader, I appreciate that a lot. I would like to highlight that the north part of this project we are accessing with the public right of way that is stubbing to the west that preserves that connection. But north of the creek we have Woodbridge to our west that is all fully developed. The county subdivision that is looking to be redeveloped to provide connectivity would -- I feel like is the path for bringing a road through from the west and so, really, south of Five Mile Creek is the part that is available. There is a parcel between our south half and that county parcel -- or county subdivision to the west and Wells Circle stubs into a cul-de-sac at the south end of that property, that large green space right by the hospital symbol there. Yeah. Right there. Just north of that is a separate outparcel and so it feels like -- I mean Wells -- where Wells makes that bend, that's where that cul-de-sac comes in, which would fall right along the southern edge of Woodbridge and that will be extended with -- you know. And that's owned by a separate entity, but they could theoretically extend that to the west property boundary and, then, get into that subdivision -- that county subdivision to the west. And I feel like the north half really stands alone. There is really not a whole lot that could be done to provide additional connections to the west from that point. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Just from a common sense perspective, I would tend to agree with you; right? But not -- not -- not knowing ahead of time what some future report will outline as potential solutions, it's just I wanted to caution you that I -- I just -- I don't want you to look at it like in three months you have got a slam dunk on the north part of this development, because I don't think that's the case. I think we need to take a hard look at it, figure out what the possibilities are with city staff and -- and really how the RFQ goes. I mean there is just a lot -- I think that, again, you know, professionals come up with all kinds of solutions to things and sometimes they may surprise us. So, that's all. It -- it's just a caution to you that, you know, it may not be a silver bullet is all. But, you know, I -- I'm very sympathetic in the sense that, you know, you all have put significant resources into this and I -- as -- as a business person myself I very much understand Meridian City Council May 6,2025 Page 47 of 51 that. You know, we pride ourselves on -- on being a very business friendly city and also a city that listens to our neighbors and tries to respond to their concerns and creates good -- good neighborly adjoining land uses and has appropriate transitions and I mean the one thing I -- I will say is like if there is not a line of sight into -- like if in three months there is not like some kind of a solid plan coming together with a high level of probability, I do feel like just adding additional housing to the north, without having a path to solving this, is just making the problem worse in many ways. So, again, I'm open, I -- I just kind of wanted to talk through that. Simison: And without doing the math thing, I'm not mapping how many homes are in that northern part. Semple: Fifty-nine. Simison: So, secondary access will be -- Semple: We have emergency -- Simison: -- emergency works. So, we have got -- that will stand alone in that case, so -- okay. Semple: And just as some more context, the city's pathway system connects to Woodbridge right there at the southwest corner of the north portion of the property. The sewer main, the trunk line also runs right through that space, so that's where we would be talking in, so it kind of stands on its own as well. Simison: My -- my guess is once we get somebody on board to help us with this -- I mean I think staff personally -- our staff would eliminate the northern half very quickly, but I think with a -- someone else on board we could get that eliminated. I have not seen it in any consideration at any level to this point in time and so, hopefully, we will at least be able to take that off the board relatively quickly for conversation. Semple: I have Ian Connair with Kimley-Horn. He is the civil engineer on this that did this work on the traffic study. Simison: Did you apply for the RFQ? I'm just kidding. Connair: I wish. Yeah. Great to hear about that. I wish I actually had. Ian Connair with Kimley-Horn. You know, just to kind of touch on a few points here, Council Woman Strader and Councilman Cavener. Bad with names, so I hope I pronounced those correctly. To Ben's point about the northern portion of the site, Council Woman Strader, I appreciate you, you know, saying that with common sense. It does make a lot of sense. And Pacific Lifestyle Homes is a quality builder that will be matching a lot of the intent of, you know, the preservation of high quality living that comes with the Woodridge community or Snorting Bull if we want to read plat names. I come to you not as a snorting bull, maybe more as a whimpering dog as an engineer who values seeing quality communities added to Meridian, as I am a citizen of Meridian myself. Ben brings Meridian City Council May 6,2025 Page 48 of 51 up the constraints of the northern piece and I would like to echo a point that was made early on in the presentation that ACHD has a five year plan to -- to improve the Wells Street bridge that crosses Five Mile Creek. Regardless of any engineering study that comes out of your RFQ, there is no way that ACHD is gladly going to abandon a brand new bridge that they construct within five years. If that RFQ suggests a collector road that sweeps and replaces Wells Street's current alignment, fantastic, but you are going to be in an uphill battle getting ACHD to gladly throw away the engineering plans they have spent thousands of dollars producing. So, if you look at the constraints that bind our northern property, we have got about -- I believe 58 single family lots in R-8 zoning there, which complies with the future land use map very well. Sonya pointed out that it is significantly less dense than we could apply for within that future land use. You have an ACHD bridge that has been invested in and is built within their capital improvement plan funding plan and you have Five Mile Creek to the south. We are not planning for any access to Magic View Drive in compliance with the requests of the Woodbridge Subdivision neighbors. So, everything we are doing within that northern portion is as constrained as possible. I love master planned communities. I love the idea of a medical facility. You know, sparkling on both sides of Eagle Road, but I agree that planning for a long time has not shared that vision. So much so that within our city staff report we were never suggested to provide a collector road stubbing to the west. If you look at ACHD's functional classification map, what you guys all should have access to, it does suggest that a collector road would align with your RFQ running through the -- the county land there. That was never suggested to us by city staff within pre-application meetings, within our P&Z and here tonight at Council as well. Everything here is shown as a local road and we would appreciate if Council could understand the constraints that face our northern portion, while allowing us to have a continuance to negotiate with each department within the city to figure out the best plan for the southern portion. I thank you for your time. Stand for any questions, along with Ben. Again, whimpering dog. Sorry for the shaky voice. Simison: Thank you. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Much like asking where we all want to go for dinner, we all have good ideas and they are all different ideas. You know, four weeks is probably too aggressive. I also think it's beneficial for the applicant to at least have some insight about maybe where the city is headed with this RFQ. So, I'm hearing some folks say in four months, hearing some say two. We will make everybody unhappy and maybe go for three months is kind of what I'm thinking. Council, I don't know your thoughts on that. If three seems appropriate. I'm open for any insight. If not I'm prepared to make a motion. Or at least maybe ask the applicant for some insight about some potential dates. Taylor: Mr. Mayor? Meridian City Council May 6,2025 Page 49 of 51 Simison: Councilman Taylor. Taylor: Just kind of weigh in a little bit. I haven't made any comments yet. But I think it -- we need to have enough time so the applicant can see where we are sort of headed on -- on this and get some more feedback. I -- I'm -- I'm usually one to be pretty willing to allow a project to move ahead when it sort of matches up with all the things we have asked them to do, but I remember being on the comprehensive plan as an at large community member discussing this area for quite some time with lots of ideas and I remember my take away being is we just didn't really know what we were going to do. So, we just kind of put some future land use designations as what we thought we would like to see with a lot of hope, so I am glad to hear about the idea of really unlocking the entirety between Eagle and Meridian Road, because it's really -- like you said -- I think you brought it up, Tanya, that it's kind of just -- you are just sort of locked in there. But that's the entirety of that -- of that two miles there. But the idea is that we can maybe put together a plan that shows us a path forward on all of that, I think that's fantastic. I don't -- I think four weeks is too soon. Obviously we don't want to delay it too long, but I think we need at least -- two months is -- is kind of short to me. I would be okay with that. But I think we need at least three or four months, so that the applicant actually has some -- some real feedback from the city on where we are going on this. So, I could support that. Cavener: So, Council, you know, in August we have got National Night Out on -- on August 5th. The next week would be August 12th, which I think puts us about 13 weeks out from tonight. Does that seem -- I see -- I see a shrug and a nod from the applicant, so I think they seem cautiously okay with it. All right. So, Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: I'm going to move that we are going to continue tonight's public hearing or application H-2024-0059 to August the 12th and the reason why I'm doing that for those that are here is that we still want to invite you if you have got other feedback or commentary you are still welcome to pass that feedback along to the City Council, which we will receive in preparation for our continued item on the 12th. Overton: Second. Simison: Have a motion and a second to continue this item to August 12th. Is there any discussion on the motion? Nary: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Mr. Nary. Nary: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, between now and August would you -- would you like this renoticed? If so, do you -- who do you want -- do you want the city to Meridian City Council May 6,2025 Page 50 of 51 absorb that cost of the renoticing? If -- if so we just need to have that clear, just because it will come up. Cavener: Council, I would look for your feedback on that. To me if we renotice it I think the city should be covering those costs, but -- okay. So, I'm seeing nods, so thank you, Mr. Nary. Mr. Mayor, I think my motion, then, should be amended to include that we are going to continue to August 12th. Have this meeting renoticed at the city's expense. Overton: Second agrees. Simison: Second agrees to include that component. Is there further discussion? If not all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and the public hearing is continued to August 12th. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. ORDINANCES [Action Item] 5. Ordinance No. 25-2081: An ordinance (965 E. Ustick Rd. — H-2024- 0063) annexing a parcel of land located in the northwest quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 6, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described in Exhibit "A"; rezoning 1.11 acres of such real property from the R1 (Estate Residential) zoning district to the L-O (Limited Office) zoning district; directing city staff to alter all applicable use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps and all official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance; providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Treasurer, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law; repealing conflicting ordinances; and providing an effective date. Simison: With that we will move on to Item 5, which is Ordinance No. 25-2081 . Ask the clerk to read this ordinance by title. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. It's an ordinance related to 965 East Ustick Road, H- 2024-0063, annexing a parcel of land located in the northwest quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 6, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise meridian, Ada county, Idaho, more particularly described in Exhibit "A"; rezoning 1.11 acres of such real property from the R1 zoning district to the L-O zoning district; directing city staff to alter all applicable use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps and all official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance; providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Treasurer, the Ada County Recorder, and the Meridian City Council May 6,2025 Page 51 of 51 Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law; repealing conflicting ordinances; and providing an effective date. Simison: Thank you. Council, you heard this ordinance read by title. Is there anybody that would like it read in its entirety? Seeing none, do have a motion? Taylor: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Taylor. Taylor: I move that we approve Ordinance No. 25-2081 . Little Roberts: Second. Simison: Have a motion and a second to approve Ordinance No. 25-2081 . Is there discussion? If not, clerk call the roll. Roll Call: Cavener, yea; Strader, yea; Overton, yea; Little Roberts, yea; Taylor, yea; Whitlock, absent. Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and the item is agreed to. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. FUTURE MEETING TOPICS Simison: Council, anything under future meeting topics or a motion to adjourn? Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: I move we adjourn our meeting. Strader: Second. Simison: Motion and second to adjourn. All in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it. We are adjourned. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:58 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) 5 / 20 25 Luke Cavener, Council President DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK E IDIAN;--- /hl R AGENDA ITEM Public Forum - Future Meeting Topics The Public are invited to sign up in advance of the meeting at www.meridiancity.org/forum to address elected officials regarding topics of general interest or concern of public matters. Comments specific to an active land use/development applications are not permitted during this time. By law, no decisions can be made on topics presented at the Public Forum. However, City Council may request the topic be added to a future meeting agenda for further discussion or action. The Mayor may also direct staff to provide followup assistance regarding the matter. CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC FORUM SIGN-IN SHEET Date: May 6, 2025 Please sign in below if you wish to address the Mayor and City Council and provide a brief description of your topic. Please observe the following rules of the Public Forum: • DO NOT: o Discuss active applications or proposals pending before Planning and Zoning or City Council o Complain about city staff, individuals, business or private matters • DO o When it is your turn to speak, state your name and address first o Observe a 3-minute time limit (you may be interrupted if your topic is deemed inappropriate for this forum) Name (please print) Brief Description of Discussion Topic Section 6, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described in Exhibit “A”; rezoning 1.11 acres of such real property from the R1 (Estate Residential) zoning district to the L-O (Limited Office) zoning district; directing city staff to alter all applicable use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps and all official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance; providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Treasurer, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law; repealing conflicting ordinances; and providing an effective date. Approved Motion to approve made by Councilman Taylor, Seconded by Councilwoman Little Roberts. Voting Yea: Councilman Taylor, Councilman Overton, Councilwoman Little Roberts, Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Cavener FUTURE MEETING TOPICS ADJOURNMENT 8:58 PM E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Resolution No. 25-2517: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Meridian Appointing Matthew Stoll to Seat 6 of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission; and Providing an Effective Date CITY OF MERIDIAN RESOLUTION NO. 25-2517 BY THE CITY COUNCIL: CAVENER, LITTLE ROBERTS, OVERTON, STRADER, TAYLOR,WHITLOCK A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN APPOINTING MATTHEW STOLL TO SEAT 6 OF THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Meridian City Code 2-2-2(A) establishes the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission, its members and terms of their appointments; and WHEREAS,the City Council of the City of Meridian deems the appointment of Matthew Stoll to Seat 6 of the Planning&Zoning Commission to be in the best interest of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission and the City of Meridian; NOW THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY, IDAHO: Section 1. That pursuant to Meridian City Code § 2-2-2(B),Matthew Stoll is hereby appointed to Seat 6 of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission, with a term to expire January 31, 2028. Section 3. That this Resolution shall be in full force and effect immediately upon its adoption and approval. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this 61h day of May, 2025. APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this 61h day of May, 2025. APPROVED: Mayor Robert E. Simison ATTEST: By: Chris Johnson, City Clerk APPOINTMENT OF MATTHEW STOLL TO SEAT 6-MERIDIAN PLANNING&ZONING COMMISSION C� E IDIAN Planning and Zoning Department Presentation and Outline Changes to Agenda: None Item #2: Core and Main (H-2024-0066) Application(s):  Annexation  Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 5.0 acres of land, zoned RUT in Ada County, located at 299 S. Black Cat Road. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Low-Density Employment History: Although this property has no prior development history, the adjacent properties to the south provide relevant context for its redevelopment. In 2021, the City approved the annexation of approximately 129.21 acres under the Black Cat Industrial project, designating the area as Mixed Employment (M-E) and Low-Density Employment (LDE) within the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and zoning it as Light Industrial (I-L). The City Council determined that the industrial center aligned with the goals of the TMISAP. However, that approval covered a significantly larger area compared to this 5-acre request. Summary of Request: The applicant requests a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to change the future land use designation on 5.0 acres of land from the Low-Density Employment to Mixed Employment and the Annexation of 5.0 acres of land from RUT in Ada County to the Light Industrial zoning district. Currently, the Low-Density Employment designation does not permit Light Industrial uses such as those proposed. However, a change to the Mixed Employment designation would allow development under the I-L zone. While the preferred zoning in the Mixed Employment FLUM designation is the M-E zoning district, alternative zones may be considered when they align with the plan’s vision and integrate with surrounding properties. The applicant asserts that the I-L zone is compatible with adjacent properties to the south. Staff concurs, noting that the proposed use aligns with prior approvals in the area and would contribute to the expansion of Light Industrial space along the Black Cat corridor. Additionally, while the proposed use does not provide a large amount of employment, it is providing employment and a relatively low impact use in the area. However, staff notes that Mixed Employment (M-E) and Low-Density Employment (LDE) designations are limited along the Black Cat and Franklin corridors. Currently, I-L zoning comprises 40.01% (38.1 acres of 95.1 acres) of the LDE FLUM designation and 55.24% (83.7 acres of 151.5 acres) of the M-E FLUM designation. These designations are intended to support a mix of employment uses and services, providing a transition between the residential east of Black Cat and industrial areas further west. Staff is concerned that continued expansion of I-L zoning within these FLUM designations may reduce employment diversity, create additional truck traffic, and disrupt the intended transition. While this specific 5-acre request may have a minimal impact, further expansion of I-L zoning in these areas should be carefully evaluated by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. The concept plan proposes a single 19,000-square-foot building, with 14,492 square feet designated as warehouse space and 4,508 square feet as office space. The remaining site would be used for a contractor’s yard and outdoor storage. In addition, the applicant has indicated that the number of employees at this site is approximately eighteen (18), with ten (10) trucks entering the site on a given day. This would be Core and Mains’ second location in Meridian as their business continues to grow. Access to the site is proposed from a future collector street along the northern portion of the property. The applicant is responsible for extending this collector road as outlined in ACHD’s Master Street Map. ACHD found that the proposed development meets all of ACHD’s policies. However, to align with UDC 11-3A-3, which seeks to limit access points to collector and arterial roadways, staff recommends restricting the western access off the future collector street to truck traffic only. Additionally, a traffic impact study was not required as the size of the development is relatively small and is not anticipated to account for significant traffic counts. For the building elevations, the applicant proposes a large, one-story industrial building designed with higher ceilings and upper windows to create the appearance of a two-story structure. The exterior materials include Granitstone, Optimo metal panels, and stone veneer, with moderate to large setbacks from the street. The applicant has been highly receptive to staff feedback and has worked collaboratively to refine the building elevations to better align with architectural standards. In response, the applicant has adjusted the building’s orientation and incorporated additional materials, fenestration, and modulation. Staff is also exploring fenestration alternatives with the applicant that may be addressed through a design standard exception during the design review application. Commission Recommendation: Approval Summary of Commission Public Hearing: i. In favor: Becky Moose, Glenn Walker, Dave Heupel, Melanie Anderson ii. In opposition: Cheryl Whiting-Storrs, Greg Storrs, Keith Whiting, Colton Storrs. iii. Commenting: Becky Moose, Glenn Walker, Dave Heupel, Melanie Anderson, Cheryl Whiting-Storrs, Keith Whiting, Colton Storrs. iv. Written testimony: None Key Issue(s) of Discussion by Commission: i. The Commission discussed the planned transition from residential to industrial users and deemed that Core and Mains recommendation for approval was consistent with the approval of the Black Cat Industrial Park to the south and that it is a relatively low-impact user. Commission Change(s) to Staff Recommendation: i. None Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: i. Determining if the change from Low-Density Employment to Mixed-Employment to allow for an Industrial user is appropriate, considering the planned transition in this area. Written Testimony since Commission Hearing: None Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2024-0066 as presented in the staff th report for the hearing date of May 6, 2025, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial of File Number H-2024-0066, as presented th during the hearing on May 6, 2025, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2024-0066 to the hearing date of ______ for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item #3: Mondt Meadows Subdivision (H-2024-0067) Application(s):  Annexation, Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Preliminary Plat Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 10.28 acres of land, currently zoned Rural Urban Transition (RUT) in Ada County, located at 6106 and 6162 Tarrega Lane. History: Parcel S1131346605 was created through a property boundary adjustment through Ada County. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Medium Density Residential Summary of Request: The applicant is proposing the following:  Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map (CPAM) to change the future land use designation on 10.28- acres of land from Medium Density Residential (MDR) to Low Density Residential (LDR);  Annexation of 10.84-acres of land from RUT in Ada County to the R-2 (8.48 acres) and R-4 (2.36 acres) zoning districts; and  A Preliminary Plat consisting of 11 building lots (10 new and 1 existing) and 4 common lots on 10.28-acres of land in the proposed R-2 and R-4 zoning districts. Property Boundary Adjustment: The property owner recorded a property boundary adjustment on January 16, 2024, to reconfigure the lot lines in order to subdivide the norther half of their property. Access: Access to the property will be via Sublimity Avenue a collector street. Landscaping: The UDC requires a twenty (20) foot wide buffer along collector roads (Sublimity Avenue). The adjacent developer to the east will be installing the landscape along Sublimity Avenue as part of their project approval. Fencing: All fencing constructed on the site is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. The landscape plan shows a six (6) foot tall solid vinyl privacy fencing along the perimeter of the plat and a six (6) foot open vision fence along the common area on the east side of the project. Per UDC 11-3A-7. A.3, barbed wire fencing is prohibited. The applicant shall work with the neighboring property owner to remove the existing fence and replace it with a fence that meets the current fence standards. Open Space: Based on the standards in UDC 11-3G-4A, a minimum of two (2) amenity points are required as the overall project is ten (10) acres in size. The amenities proposed are an outdoor fire ring, picnic table, bench and picnic shelter. All common open space areas are required to be landscaped with one deciduous shade tree for every 5,000 square feet of area and include a variety of trees, shrubs, lawn or other vegetative groundcover per UDC 11-3G-5B.3. Future Development Phase: Lot 1, Block 1 shows a future development, this development shall align with the proposed roadway connection from the development (Skyranch Subdivision) to the west. Private Street: Staff reviewed the application for private streets within the development as shown on the preliminary plat. The street is proposed to be located in common lot in the subdivision and will connect to a local street; the point of connection of the private street to the public street is subject to approval by ACHD. The Fire Department has approved the request contingent upon both sides of the street being signed “No Parking Fire Lane.” A gate is being proposed at the entry of the private street. The Director has tentatively approved the request subject to completion of the tasks listed in UDC 11-3F-3B within one (1) year in accord with the Findings listed in the staff report. Existing Structures: The current use of the property is residential with two (2) residential properties existing. The structures will remain and the existing well and septic system will be abandoned as required. City utilities are required to be extended to serve the proposed development. The plat map shows the structure on Lot 1, Block 3 of the proposed plat as an existing shop. However, Ada County Assessor describes the structure as a single-family dwelling. Lot 1, Block 3 is not eligible for another residential unit unless the existing structure is removed or converted to a secondary dwelling and meets all the UDC requirements. The existing structures will be required to connect to city services and the existing wells and septic system will need to be abandoned as required. The property owners of the two parcels shall relinquish their rights to access and utilize the private road Tarrega Lane. Written documentation shall be submitted prior to the City Engineer’s signature on the final plat. Building Elevations: Eight (8) conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed subdivision as shown in Exhibit VII.H. The applicant states the homes in the Mondt Meadows Subdivision will include ten (10) homes with a mix of different product types, two-story and single-story detached single-family homes. Buildings shall be designed with elevations that create interest through the use of broken planes, windows, and fenestrations that produce a rhythm of materials and patterns. Design review is not required for single-family detached structures. However, because the rear and/or sides of homes facing Sublimity Avenue will be highly visible, Staff recommends a DA provision requiring those elevations incorporate articulation through changes in two or more of the following: modulation (e.g. projections, recesses, step-backs, pop-outs), bays, banding, porches, balconies, material types, or other integrated architectural elements to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines that are visible from adjacent public streets. Single-story homes are exempt from this requirement. Waterways: There is a private drainage ditch (Watkins Ditch) that runs along the eastern portion of the property which needs to remain and shall be placed within a thirty-eight (38) foot easement. The applicant is proposing to leave the ditch open and keep it in its natural state. The applicant needs to submit a document requesting a waiver from Council to leave the ditch open. In Residential Districts, irrigation easements wider than ten (10) feet shall be included in a common lot that is a minimum of twenty (20) feet wide and outside of a fenced area, unless otherwise waved by City Council. Dry Ditch: Dry ditch that runs through parcel S1131346650 along the east side needs to be either depicted on the plat map within an easement or provide written documentation showing the dry ditch had been abandoned and is no longer in use by the affected property owners. Easements: There are several easements on the property in which written documentation to relinquish the easements shall be submitted prior to the City Engineer’s signature on the final plat. Commission Recommendation: Approval Summary of Commission Public Hearing: v. In favor: John Breckon, representing the property owner vi. In opposition: None vii. Commenting: Carsten White resides at 6162 Tarrega Lane and will continue to reside on one of the proposed lots as well as hopefully his other brothers. The family would like to keep the property lower density so they can all have space to roam and let their kids run around and have a good time and enjoy Meridian. viii. Written testimony: None ix. Key Issue(s): Key Issue(s) of Discussion by Commission: ii. None Commission Change(s) to Staff Recommendation: ii. None Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: i. None Written Testimony since Commission Hearing: None Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2024-0067, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of May 6, 2025: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2024-0067, as presented during the hearing on May 6, 2025, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2024-0067 to the hearing date of \[date\] for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) Item #4: Latitude Forty Three Subdivision (H-2024-0059) 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. 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 (i.e. 4.5 in MDR & 6.06 in MU-N). 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. Commission Recommendation: Approval of the project with the requirement of a DA per the provisions in the staff report. Summary of Commission public hearing:  In favor: Ben Semple, Rodney Evans + Partners, LLC  In opposition: None  Commenting: Robin McCulley  Written testimony: Ben Semple, Rodney Evans + Partners, LLC; Robin McCulley; Cassy Peck; Celeste Fox; Kathleen Lewis; Tanya Bader; Erin Russell; Raymond Spencer Key issue(s) of public testimony:  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;  Ms. McCulley expressed concern about a tree located along her rear property line and how it would be impacted by a new fence. Key issue(s) of discussion by Commission:  General consensus the proposed development will fit in well with the existing residential development to the west (i.e. Woodbridge);  Recognition of the traffic issues in this area;  Agreement with Staff’s recommendation pertaining to fencing along the Fivemile Creek. Commission change(s) to Staff recommendation:  At Staff’s request, the Commission included new conditions requiring mitigation information to be included on the landscape plan for existing trees on the site that are being removed with development in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B- 10C.5, as applicable; and removal of the sidewalk along the west side of Longitude Dr. with provision of ROW to the west property line. Outstanding issue(s) for City Council:  Council should determine if the fencing recommended by Staff along the Fivemile Creek is appropriate as set forth in UDC 11- 3A-6C. Written Testimony: The Applicant is in agreement with the Commission recommendation, which included 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 since the Commission hearing, as follows:  Celeste Fox – Requests the developer provide details of their planned building setbacks next to neighbors on Woodhaven St. that will be part of the DA; requests clarification about what the builders can do to prevent drainage issues on lots that abut homes in Woodbridge that are at a lower elevation; and concern pertaining to the perimeter fencing along the east boundary of Woodbridge.  Robin McCulley – Concern pertaining to the existing fence along the east boundary of Woodbridge – the developer hasn’t yet discussed the matter with neighbors.  Cassandra Peck – Concern pertaining to the increase in traffic in an already congested area and lack of a fencing solution along the shared property line with Woodbridge; and concern pertaining to lack of privacy with 2-story homes abutting her single-story home.  Raymond Spencer – concern pertaining to the proposed scale & building setback of homes along the west boundary of the site abutting homes in Woodbridge and lack of privacy – request for 20’ setback for single-story homes & 30’ for 2-story homes. Concern pertaining to the quality of homes built in this development if the current builder drops out – request for the opportunity for the City & the public to review any future changes to the elevations in the event the home builder and/or ownership changes to avoid a potential “bait & switch”. Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2024-0059, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of May 6, 2025: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2024-0059, as presented during the hearing on May 6, 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 City Council Meeting, 2025 th May 6 Slide 1 h2 Agenda Item Numbers/Order: hoodc, 12/19/2006 Future Land Use Map: Aerial MapZoning Map Existing and Proposed Zoning MapFLUM Map Zoning MapAerial MapFLUM There are existing easements on the property that are being proposed to be use by the affected property ownersdocumentation showing the dry ditch had been abandoned and is no longer in either depicted on the plat map within an easement or provide written Dry ditch that runs through parcel S1131346650 along the east side needs to be •road improvements in the same location.will be relinquished with the recordation of the final plat due to the public which runs across the east 302.15’ of the south boundary of parcel S1131346650 The existing thirty (30) foot wide access easement, (Instrument No. 9037915), •required and will be relinquished with the recordation of the final plat. as well as the west thirty (30) feet of each parcel. These easements are no longer -2021There is a thirty (30) foot wide access easement (Instrument No. 7520424 & •relinquished. FLUM Aerial MapZoning Map Phase 2Phase 1 W IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Core & Main (H-2024-0066) by K2 Construction, Located at 299 S. Black Cat Rd. Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2024-0066 A. Request: CPAM (Comprehensive Plan Amendment) to change the future land use designation on approximately five (5) acres of land from the Low-Density Employment to Mixed- Employment. B. Request: Annexation of five (5) acres of land from RUT in Ada County to the Light Industrial (I- L) zoning district. PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: May 6, 2025 ITEM # ON AGENDA2 PROJECT NAME: Core & Main (H-2024-00676) 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 ►1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT C��fEPIDIAN*,­, DEPARTMENT REPORT0 HEARING 5/6/2025 legend DATE: Project Location I,EO TO: Mayor& City Council "_: area of Impact r� OAnalysis FROM: Nick Napoli,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 nnapoli@meridiancity.org APPLICANT: Becky Moose SUBJECT: H-2024-0066 Core and Main LOCATION: Located at 299 S.Black Cat Road in the ' NE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 16, Township 3N,Range 1 W. I. PROJECT OVERVIEW A. Summary Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to change the future land use designation on 5.0 acres of land from the Low-Density Employment to Mixed Employment and the Annexation of 5.0 acres of land from RUT in Ada County to the Light Industrial zoning district. B. Issues/Waivers Mixed Employment(M-E) and Low-Density Employment(LDE)designations are limited along the Black Cat and Franklin corridors. Currently,I-L zoning comprises 40.01% (38.1 acres of 95.1 acres)of the LDE FLUM designation and 55.24% (83.7 acres of 151.5 acres)of the M-E FLUM designation.These designations are intended to support a mix of employment uses and services,providing a transition between the residential east of Black Cat and industrial areas further west. The continued expansion of I-L zoning within these FLUM designations may reduce employment diversity,create additional truck traffic, and disrupt the intended transition. Staff acknowledges that this project extends the approval of Black Cat Industrial to the south; however,unlike that project,this one did not necessitate a traffic impact study. Moreover,improvements tied to Black Cat Road won't be required until Black Cat Industrial reaches 960,000 square feet of occupied buildings(it's currently at approximately 560,000 square feet).Although this 5-acre proposal may have a limited effect,any additional I-L zoning expansion in these areas should be carefully evaluated by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. C. Recommendation Staff: Approval with a development agreement. Commission: Approval with no changes to the staff report. City of Meridian I Department Report 1. Project Overview D. Decision Council: Pending City of Meridian I Department Report I. Project Overview I1. COMMUNITY METRICS Table 1: Land Use Description Details Map Ref. Existing Land Use(s) Residential - Proposed Land Use(s) Industrial - Existing Zoning RUT in Ada County VII.A.2 Proposed Zoning Light Industrial Adopted FLUM Designation Low Density Employment Proposed FLUM Designation Mixed Employment Table 2: Process Facts Description Details Preapplication Meeting date 11/5/2024 Neighborhood Meeting 11/13/2024 Site posting date 4/25/2025 Table 3: Community Metrics Agency/Element Description/Issue Reference Ada County Highway District IV.D • Comments Received Yes - • Commission Action Required No - • Access Via a new collector on the north portion of the site from - Black Cat Road. • Traffic Level of Service Black Cat: Better than"B" - Meridian Public Works Wastewater IV.B • Distance to Mainline Available at site • Impacts or Concerns See Comments in Section IV. Meridian Public Works Water TV.B • Distance to Mainline Water available at site • Impacts or Concerns See Comments in Section IV. Note: See section IV. City/Agency Comments&Conditions for comments received or see public record. City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics Figure l: One-Mile Radius Existing Condition Metrics Reference Parcel:S1216110054 Date Retrieved:2025/1/13 Parcel Count Parcel Acreage Infill Indicator: 313 1,335 Surrounding Area 63% Not city 0 ® City Limits 1,211 788.3 ■ Not City Household Household& Population Growth • Households 132020 Population Change:50.3°I° Population ■Growth (Household and Population Change since 2010 Decennial) 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 Use Types Residential Addresses All Addresses ■ Single-family 59% 58% 2% Multi-family 41 ® Commercial Notes: See Error! Reference source not found..Error!Reference source not found.. Figure 2:ACHD Summary Metrics Q Black Cat Existing Lanes © Planned Lanes Notable • Comments V/ a (Primary roadway impact) Programmed IFYP 9 Programmed CIP Notes: See Error! Reference source not found..Error! Reference source not found.. Figure 3: Service Impact Summary Ready O O O O O Marginal Qw O Caution O O O o�yeo\\`e �a A y a���� `\oo ���� 4e �a\� �o Notes: See Error!Reference source not found..Error!Reference source not found.. City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics III. STAFF ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code(UDC) A. General Overview The subject property falls within the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan(TMISAP). The adopted Comprehensive Plan designates 299 S.Black Cat Road as Low-Density Employment. The Low Density Employment designation is defined by the TMISAP as low-rise office and specialized employment areas. LDE areas should provide a variety of flexible sites for professional offices and similar businesses. Low Density Employment areas should be designed with elements of Traditional Neighborhood Design.Design and development standards such as landscaping,pedestrian circulation and connection to open spaces, are recommended to help make developments more attractive, engaging and accessible places.Appropriate land uses include corporate and business offices as well as research facilities and laboratories. The Mixed-Employment designation is described by the TMISAP as an area to encourage a diversity of compatible land uses that may include a mixture of office,research and specialized employment areas,light industrial including manufacturing and assembly, and other miscellaneous uses. Mixed Employment areas should provide a variety of flexible sites for small, local or start-up businesses, as well as sites for large national or regional enterprises. Mixed density employment will accommodate a wide variety of employers and serve as a primary gateway to Meridian and Meridian's prosperity. The applicant requests an amendment to the comprehensive plan to redesignate the subject property as Mixed Employment(M-E)and annex it with Light Industrial(I-L)zoning.According to the applicant's narrative,this change aligns with the TMISAP, as light industrial is an allowed use within the M-E designation,though mixed employment is the preferred zone,I-L is allowed. The applicant also notes that this request would serve as a continuation of the previously approved Black Cat Business Center(H-2021-0064)to the south. Under the Unified Development Code,the proposed use is defined as a contractor's yard. The concept plan proposes a single 19,000-square-foot building,with 14,492 square feet designated as warehouse space and 4,508 square feet as office space. The remaining site would be used for a contractor's yard and outdoor storage. In addition,the applicant has indicated that the number of employees at this site is approximately eighteen(18),with ten(10)trucks entering the site on a given day. This would be Core and Mains' second location in Meridian as their business continues to grow. However,staff notes that Mixed Employment(M-E) and Low-Density Employment(LDE) designations are limited along the Black Cat and Franklin corridors. Currently,I-L zoning comprises 40.01% (38.1 acres of 95.1 acres)of the LDE FLUM designation and 55.24% (83.7 acres of 151.5 acres)of the M-E FLUM designation.These designations are intended to support a mix of employment uses and services,providing a transition between the residential east of Black Cat and industrial areas further west. Staff is concerned that continued expansion of I-L zoning within these FLUM designations may reduce employment diversity,create additional truck traffic, and disrupt the intended transition.While this specific 5-acre request may have a minimal impact,further expansion of I-L zoning in these areas should be carefully evaluated by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. Comprehensive Plan Policies Envisioned in this Area: • Focus on developing industries that exceed the living wage, such as technology,healthcare and other similar industries. (2.06.01E) While this use does not provide a significant amount of employment, the applicant will be providing additional jobs that will provide opportunities that will pay a living wage for residents. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis • Evaluate development proposals based on consistency with the vision as well as physical, social,economic, environmental, and aesthetic criteria. (3.01.01D) Theproposed development does not meet all of the intended goals of the TMISAP, however, the applicant has worked with staff to substantially change their design to better integrate with the plan's intentions. • Slow the outward progression of the City's limits by discouraging fringe area development; encourage development of vacant or underutilized parcels currently within City limits. (4.05.03B) The subject property is eligible for annexation and has city limits on two (2) of its four sides. Currently, this property is vacant and by redeveloping it will provide opportunities for properties to the north and west to develop. • Ensure that regulations and plans support and encourage desired development and land use patterns within the Area of City Impact. (3.01.01 C)Based on feedback from stakeholders, the desired land use for this area is primarily industrial as Meridian has very little vacancy and is a desirable location for industrial users. Table 4: Pro*ect Overview Description Details History N/A Physical Features Rosenlof Drain on the Southern Boundary Acreage 5.0 acres Percentage of I-L zoning in Low 40.01% Density Employment FLUM Percentage of I-L zoning in Mixed 55.24% Employment FLUM B. History Although this property has no prior development history,the adjacent properties to the south provide relevant context for its redevelopment. In 2021,the City approved the annexation of approximately 129.21 acres under the Black Cat Industrial project,designating the area as Mixed Employment(M-E)and Low-Density Employment(LDE)within the Future Land Use Map(FLUM) and zoning it as Light Industrial (I-L). The City Council determined that the industrial center aligned with the goals of the TMISAP. However,that approval covered a significantly larger area compared to this 5-acre request. Extending I-L zoning onto this parcel may further erode the planned low-density employment transition between the residential areas east of Black Cat Road and the General Industrial FLUM designation located approximately a half a mile west along Franklin Road. This shift may impact the balance of employment uses envisioned in the comprehensive plan and TMISAP. C. Site Development and Use Analysis The Applicant proposes an amendment to the FLUM to change the existing low-density employment designation to mixed employment. The Mixed Employment areas encourage a diversity of compatible land uses that may include a mixture of office,research, and specialized employment areas, light industrial including manufacturing and assembly, and other miscellaneous uses. These areas generally do not include retail and consumer service uses serving the wider community. While the I-L zone is not the preferred zone in the Mixed Employment designation, it can be an appropriate zone if the applicant can demonstrate the use of the property minimizes the impacts to surrounding properties and meets the intent of the TMISAP. In conversations,between staff and City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis the applicant,it was determined this use would be relatively low impact and additional design changes were incorporated into the concept plan to ensure the site meets the intent of the M-E designation. 1. Existing Structures/Site Improvements (UDC 11-1): If annexed,the two existing residential structures will be removed, and the well and septic system abandoned in accord with the UDC. 2. Proposed Use Analysis (UDC 11-2): The applicant is requesting a modification to the Comprehensive Plan FLUM designation from Low-Density Employment to Mixed Employment and seeks annexation with Light Industrial(I-L)zoning. According to the applicant's narrative,the property would be developed as a new facility for Core and Main,including office and warehousing with an outdoor contractor's yard. The proposed hours of operation are Monday through Friday, from 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM,with approximately 18 employees on-site. Currently,the Low-Density Employment designation does not permit Light Industrial uses such as those proposed. However,a change to the Mixed Employment designation would allow development under the I-L zone. While the preferred zoning in the Mixed Employment FLUM designation is the M-E zoning district, alternative zones may be considered when they align with the plan's vision and integrate with surrounding properties. The applicant asserts that the I-L zone is compatible with adjacent properties to the south. Staff concurs,noting that the proposed use aligns with prior approvals in the area and would contribute to the expansion of Light Industrial space along the Black Cat corridor. Additionally,while the proposed use does not provide a large amount of employment,it is providing employment and a relatively low impact use in the area. 3. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): The I-L zoning district requires a 35' street setback,20' landscape buffer along collector streets, 25' wide buffer along arterial streets, and allows height up to 50'. The concept plan and elevations submitted appear to meet these requirements. The updated plans with the submittal of the Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review shall be in compliance with UDC 11-2C-3. 4. Specific Use Standards (UDC 11-4-3): UDC 11-4-3-8: Contractors Yard A. All structures or outdoor storage areas shall be located a minimum of one hundred(100) feet from any residential district. The proposed contractor's yard is located further than 100 feet from any residential district. B. Outdoor storage areas shall comply with Section 11-3A-14, "outdoor storage as an accessory use", of this title. The applicant is proposing the outdoor storage to be screened from the public right of way and will have a designated area on the site for it. The applicant has proposed an eight(8)foot fence to enclose the entire contractor's yard with additional landscaping to help screen the yard. The applicant has worked with staff to enhance the fence material and will provide finer landscaping details with the certificate of zoning compliance submittal. C. The site shall not be used as a junkyard or vehicle wrecking yard as herein defined. The applicant understands and will comply with this standard. Design Standards Analysis City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 5. Structure and Site Design Standards (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-19): UDC 11-3A-19 and Comprehensive Plan Goal 5.01.02D emphasize the significance of building frontages along public streets and/or public spaces. The applicant proposes to comply with the requirement by providing a minimum of 30%building frontage along Black Cat Road.Additionally,by having the building frontage along Black Cat Road,the applicant has helped screen the contractor's yard and outdoor storage from view along the arterial street. The applicant complies with these standards. 6. Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): i. Landscape buffers along streets A 20-foot wide landscape buffer is required adjacent to the future collector on the northern portion of the site,and a 25-foot wide buffer is required adjacent to arterial streets(S. Black Cat Rd.). The proposed landscaping along the future collector does not appear to meet the requirements for a 20-foot buffer as the fence should be stepped back to allow for adequate pathway landscaping(see analysis in subsection v). Additionally, staff is recommending additional trees in the southern portion of the buffer along Black Cat Road to provide additional screening. These buffers shall be landscaped per the standards in UDC 11-3B-7C. Additionally,the drainage ditch along Black Cat Road shall be piped in compliance with UDC 11-3B-6. Landscaping requirements will be analyzed with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance. ii. Parking lot landscaping Landscaping is required to be provided along all parking areas per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8. The requirements include 5 ft. perimeter adjacent to streets and islands of at least 50 sq. ft.per every 12 parking spaces. These requirements will be analyzed with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance. iii. Tree preservation A Tree Mitigation Plan should be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance detailing all existing trees and methods of mitigation outlined by the City Arborist before any trees are to be removed as set forth in UDC 11-3B-1OC.5. iv. Storm integration Storm drainage is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC I I-3A-18. Drainage swales should not be within the landscape buffers along S. Black Cat Road. v. Pathway landscaping The proposed pathways along S. Black Cat Road appear to include five(5)feet of landscaping on both sides,meeting UDC requirements. However,the south side of the ten(10)foot multi-use pathway along the northern collector does not appear to have the required five(5)feet of landscaping. To comply with the TMISAP's street section requirements,ten(10)feet of landscaping is required south of the pathway. Given that the TMISAP includes on-street bike lanes, which is not the standard when ten(10)foot multi-use pathways are present, staff has determined that if trees are placed within the eight(8) foot parkway,the applicant may reduce the landscaping on the south side of the multi-use pathway to five(5) feet. However, if trees are not provided in the parkway,the full ten(10)feet of landscaping must be included, as specified in the TMISAP (page 3-20, street section C). These requirements will be reviewed during the Certificate of Zoning Compliance process and must comply with UDC 11-3B-12. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 7. Parking (UDC 11-3C): i. Nonresidential parking analysis In Industrial districts,the requirement shall be one(1) space for every 2,000 square feet of gross floor area. With the proposed I-L zone and building square footage of 19,000 square feet,ten(10)parking stalls are required. The applicant is providing 24 spaces which exceeds the UDC requirements. The applicant has indicated that no more than 18 employees will be present at any one time,which will leave roughly six(6)parking stalls for customers. ii. Bicycle parking analysis A minimum of one(1)bicycle parking space must be provided for every 25 vehicle spaces or portion thereof per UDC 11-3C-6G;bicycle parking facilities are required to comply with the location and design standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C. 8. Building Elevations (Comp Plan,Architectural Standards Manual): Comprehensive Plan Goals 5.01.02C and 2.09.03A prioritize area beautification and community identity by promoting enhanced design standards that result in distinct and engaging developments. The Architectural Standards Manual(ASM)and TMISAP require surface plane modulation at intervals of no more than 50 feet,the inclusion of at least two pedestrian-scale architectural features, and a combination of at least two primary field materials and one accent material. The applicant proposes a large, one-story industrial building designed with higher ceilings and upper windows to create the appearance of a two-story structure. The exterior materials include Granitstone, Optimo metal panels, and stone veneer,with moderate to large setbacks from the street. While the primary entrances are oriented inward toward the collector street to the north,the proposed frontages do not meet the ASM's 30%fenestration requirement along public streets. The applicant has been highly receptive to staff feedback and has worked collaboratively to refine the building elevations to better align with architectural standards. In response,the applicant has adjusted the building's orientation and incorporated additional materials, fenestration,and modulation. Staff is also exploring fenestration alternatives with the applicant that may be addressed through a design standard exception during the design review application. Final elevations will be evaluated during the design review process to ensure compliance with industrial design standards. 9. Fencing (UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): Outdoor storage and contractor's yards require closed vision fencing when visible from public right of way. With the extension of the collector along the north boundary and the Rosenlof canal on the south boundary,the entirety of the yard will be visible and will require an 8-foot closed vision fence around the entirety of the outdoor storage. D. Transportation Analysis 1. Access (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-3, UDC 11-3H-4): Goal 6.01.02B of the Comprehensive Plan prioritizes reducing access points on arterial streets through strategies such as cross-access agreements, access management, and the development of frontage and backage roads.Additionally,it emphasizes improved connectivity between local and collector streets. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis Access to the site is proposed from a future collector street along the northern portion of the property. The applicant is responsible for extending this collector road as outlined in ACHD's Master Street Map. ACHD found that the proposed development meets all of ACHD's policies. Table: Road Infrastructure and Developments Along the Black Cat/Franklin Corridor Category Details Existing and Planned Road Infrastructure W. Franklin Road Existing: 2 lanes,no curb,gutter,or sidewalk. Planned: Widen to 5 lanes between W. McDermott Rd and S. Black Cat Rd after 2028. S. Black Cat Road Existing: 2 lanes,no curb,gutter, or sidewalk. Planned: Widen to 5 lanes between W. Overland Rd and W. Franklin Rd,2036- 2040. Franklin&McDermott Intersection Planned: Multi-lane roundabout, construction scheduled after 2027. W. Franklin Road Connection Planned: Future connection to SH-16 via a signalized intersection. Planned&Approved Developments Full Impacts of these projects are yet to be Impacting the Corridor realized. Black Cat Industrial (H-2021-0064) 2.2 million sq ft of industrial space to the south. Farmstone(H-2023-0045) 378,360 sq ft of commercial and industrial uses across Black Cat Road. Avani Subdivision(H-2023-0049) 256 residential lots to the northeast. Vanguard Village 552 dwelling units. Braya Subdivision 330 single-family lots and 240 apartment units. District at Ten Mile Large mixed-use development(commercial, industrial,residential) impacting area roadways. Development Conditions Some projects are restricted from further buildout until key road improvements are completed. Traffic Impact/Construction of Collector from Proposed Use: The applicant anticipates approximately 18 employees on-site daily,with around 10 semi- trucks entering and exiting the property each day. To align with UDC 11-3A-3,which seeks to limit access points to collector and arterial roadways, staff recommends restricting the western access off the future collector street to truck traffic only. Additionally, a traffic City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis impact study was not required as the size of the development is relatively small and is not anticipated to account for significant traffic counts. Additionally,the applicant is required to construct the future collector road along the northern portion of the site in accordance with the TMISAP Street Section C exhibit. If trees are planted within the eight(8)foot parkway,the applicant may reduce the landscaping on the south side of the ten(10)foot multi-use pathway to five(5)feet. However,if trees are not placed in the parkway,the full ten(10)feet of landscaping must be provided,as outlined in TMISAP (page 3-20, Street Section Q. 2. Pathways and Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-5, UDC 11-3A-17): The applicant is proposing to construct a 10-foot multi-use pathway along the south side of the future collector and along S. Black Cat Road. This is consistent with the UDC standards and the city's pathway master plan for this area. However,the applicant shall also construct the portion of the 10-foot multi-use pathway on the north side of the future collector that falls on their property(near the collector and Black Cat intersection). This shall be shown on the certificate of zoning compliance submittal. E. Services Analysis 1. Waterways (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-6): The Rosenlof Drain runs along the southern boundary of the site. The applicant is proposing to leave the drain open as they will not be impeding access to the irrigation canal. 2. Pressurized Irrigation(UDC 11-3A-15): Underground pressurized irrigation water is required to be provided to each lot within the development as set forth in UDC 11-3A-15. 3. Storm Drainage (UDC 11-3A-18): An adequate storm drainage system is required in all developments in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. Design and construction shall follow best management practice as adopted by the City as set forth in UDC 11-3A-18. 4. Utilities (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-21): Connection to City water and sewer services is required and are available to be extended by the developer with development in accord with UDC 11-3A-21 and Goals 3.03.03G& 3.03.03F.Urban sewer and water infrastructure and curb, gutter, and sidewalks are required to be provided with development. IV. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. Meridian Planning Division 15 days prior to the city council meeting,provide a revised concept plan with the following revisions: - Depict the portion of the 10-foot multi-use pathway on the north side of the future collector that falls on the property(near the collector and Black Cat intersection). - If trees are provided inside the eight(8)foot parkway along the northern collector,the applicant may reduce the landscaping on the south side of the ten(10)multi-use pathway to five(5)feet.However,if the trees are not provided in the eight(8)foot parkway.The applicant shall provide the ten(10)feet of landscaping as indicated in the TMISAP page 3-20 for street section C. - Provide a fencing detail of the proposed eight(8)foot fence. City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions - Provide trees that touch maturity along the Black Cat landscape buffer south of the building to aid in screening the contractor's yard. Prior to approval of the annexation ordinance,the DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian,the property owner(s) at the time of annexation ordinance adoption,and the developer. A certificate of zoning compliance shall not be submitted until the DA and Ordinance is approved by City Council. a. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the concept plan, landscape plan, and conceptual building elevations included in Section VII and the provisions contained herein. b. Any future development of the site must comply with the City of Meridian ordinances in effect at the time of the development. c. The western entrance off of the future collector roadway shall be signed and used for truck traffic only. d. All existing structures shall be removed from the property within 90 days of the annexation approval. e. Comply with the architectural standards manual and TMISAP. f. Construct the collector roadway on the north boundary in accordance with the street section exhibit C as listed in the TMISAP page 3-10 or to ACHD's standards prior to certificate of occupancy for the building. A cross-street exhibit shall be submitted with the certificate of zoning compliance. City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions B. Meridian Public Works Wastewater • Distance w Sevrer Available i t Site Serwioes Sewer Shed • Estimated Project See application Sewer ERU's • WRRF Mining Balance • Project Consistent WS with WW Master Plan/Farifty Plan • Impacts/concerns See Public Works Site SpeeifirCanditians Water + Distance to Water Water Available at 5mw Serwirm Pressure Zane Estimated Project See application Water ERU's Water Quality None • Project Consistent Yes with Water Master Plan + ImpactVCancemr. See Public Works Site Specificfinndidons NON-PLAT CONDITIONS PURUC.WORKS 1W.Pn3tTMF_ r Site Specific CaudMausof Ap ffavat 1. Ifa WCLL is Lorded on the sltc it umtbe abarb&mei per wgULatnry raquiraocrwi and prrm)fof abandonment mist he prowidad to dw City. 2. kwer acxn!�s to the went is not rcquircd_I f thcrc are no fulum expansion pla¢v;in that direction,the end--Gf--line sewer must be imstalled at a U-69%s lope_ 3. Tho water main along the north boundary news to ba welve-i oclr. 4. Water maim~mLL5t have a caa,inp when crrmriing irriyatiim mZM with seaxanal access restrictions;_liithcr provide a casing or demcrostrate that the{'ity will have year-round aDMirl. 3_ Fire hydranLc and water services mitcidc of the ROW or the public utility csacrncM along the mad squire a Psi'caacment up to and 5'beyond arc hydnw1fmctor_ fx If hydrants or water-wrvieca arc irrsidc the ROW or public utiUty m9mcnt,omsure no troca or parnanont struotures are within Sr of fire hydranlafmcter_ F. Ensure no p,xmanml strucnus(treca,bushes,buildings,carports,trash Fewptadc walls,fcnecs, infiltration tronchm Light poles,eta-)am huiIt within tho utility QasanonL Applicant still respcoMbleto noxt all.landscaping requircnwat and should conedinaw with their planner_ City of Meridian Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions {tee eml.C'andition9 of A pproval I. Applicant shall zkwvdinain water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Work& Department. 2. Por Meridian City Code(MCC),the applicant sh&LL he rLN.ffmsLbLo to Install-Newer and water main&Land thmugh this dcxclapnwnt Applieant may he cligihLo for a rdintpu. rjwrrt agroemcnifar inftastrucbirc onhanoemait por MCC R- S. 3. The applicant shall pravidc a ont(s)for all public waicrlscwa main&outside of public right of way(inchide all water acrvia s and hydrams+). SewcOwatcr casement varies depending on sewer depth.Scwcr U-20 ft deep roquirc a 30 ft casement,20-25 ft a 44 ft cavcrncnt,and 25-34)ft a 45 ft casement. Frawe no permanent swcWra(trees,hushes,buildings,am piwts,trash rccqPt3aLc walls,fonaca,infiillraiian Imnohes,light poles,etc)arc buiLt within the uliLLty casement. Submit an axes od csaernmt(on the form avaLLado from Public Works),a Legal description prcpamdby an Idaho I.ic4an9cd Pmfeasinnal Lamd surveyor,whioh mat ineLi de the arcs ofthe easmcni (marked EXHIBIT A)and an 8I12"x I I"map with tcsring_c and dja wam(marked EXHIBIT B) fix review.Both exhibiL4 must be Radod,signed and daled by a ProfcFional Land Surveyor-DO NOT RECORD. 4. Tho City of Mcridkm rcgluirea drat prossurLmd irrigation aystema be supplied by a year-Found sm r=of water(llDC I I-3B-6)-The applicant AouLd be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary same- If a surface or wall&ource is not ava.ilahle,a singlo-paint asnncc ion in the cuLinary water mysiern shall be rogluircd-Ifa single-paint oannoction i&utilized, the deveLoper will be rcflpansiNa for the paymatt of&sacs.merm far the comnwn areas prior is priar to receiving dovdopment plan approval.. S. Any Rtruetnres that arc aLLowed to remain shall be subjoet is cvaluatian and pm.uhlc rca9aignrncM ofstmaet&Unm&ing to bo in campliancc with MCC;. 6. All irrgation ditabm canals,labuala,or draimFk exclusive of natural waterway&,intersecting, cramsing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the arcs bei ng subdivided shall be addressod per 'UDC I 1-3A-6. In performing Fnich Work,the app]i=nt shall comply with Idaho CCrdc 42-1207 and any other applhmWc law or regulation. 7. Any wdls that wit]not conlinuc to he used must he property aban. ancdaeoerding to Idaho Well Coostm aim standards.Rulra adminvuFed by the Idaho Dcpartmoniof Water Remourees. The DcvAorcfs F:npinmrshsll pravidc astatcmcnt addressingwhahor there many existing wc]]s in the dcvclopmcmi and S mo,haw they will crxttinue to he u.wd,or provide record of their abandonment. R. Any cxisling mcpticsystenu within this projcat&hall he rcvno x from scrvk;i pa City(Ndinanee Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8- Contact Central Dia 6u Health for abandanmeni proxdurrs and uupe:tian&RDS)375-521 t. 9- All i mprovwcas related to public life safety and health shall be eompLMcd prior to occupsacy cftbe structures. 10-Applicant&hall he required to pay Public W orkrt dcvclopwnrt plan review,and cartatruetioa umpoctiion fay,as determined duringthc plan rcviow pco-o ,prier to the issuanec of a plan approval letter- ]1. It&ball he the rosprxtsihiLity of the applicant to rn&urc that all development features comply with the Amcricanswith DLgRNIitios Ae!and the Fair Hnu&ing Act. 12. Applicant d WI he ratpon4bic for appliCiWan andcornpiLuwcwith any Section 404 Permitting that may he rcquacd by the Army Corps of Enginxrs. 13. DcvcloNrshaLL coordinate raaAbox Locations with the Meridian Post Office. 14. Compactim test rosuLts shall be suhrnitted to the-dcridiam Building E"aftrnmt for all building pads rood ringenginmed backfill,where Nwing would sit atop fill materW- City of Meridian Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions 1 S. The design engineer shaLl he squired la certify that the atrert ccnicrlinc clavations:arc met a minimum of 3-fact ahrwc the higheaestadished peak groundwaierelevation- 771is is to ensure that the hottorn elevation ofthc crawl spaceq of hones is st Lca-it L-fiat above. 16. The appLicants design cngincer sbaLL he respiKi Nc for Lnspoetinn of all i nigatinn airdfar drainage facility within this pmjeet that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an i nigafian digit et or ACHD.The design engineer shaLL pruwide"ification Brat the facilities have been instaLLcd in aecordanac with theapprove d design plans_This certification will be required before aoertificatc efoccupancy is issued far any structures within the project. 17. At the completion of Bra prujoct,the applicant shad I be rmponsihLe to submit mwrd drawings per the City of Meridian AuR AD standards. These rccard drawings must he=dvad and appriwed prier to the uses boc of s aatifiaetion afoeeupanay for any RwmetureS within the project 18. A stract Light plan wiLL nced to be iirehrdod in the civil cwrs=fmn plans.Sacct light plan requiremcnLs arc listed in soctioo fry of ft Improvcmant Stmels for Street Iighting-A copy efthe standards can he found at W:f(%VWWMeridimncit3r-i rF puh1ic_work4.aspx?id-2721. 19. The City of)sieridian requires that the nwnar poet to the City a perFonnmca surety in the amount of 125%of the total cow:tnmlion crest far aLL incomplcta sevrer,waterand reuse infrastructure prior to final plat dgnshm,.T hia surety wi Il bo verified by a Line item east estimate prrwidai by the awnerto the City.Thcsurety can he postal in do firm of an irrcvacaNc letter of credjL,cash dgrosit or bend.Applicant must file an appLieation for surety,which can be found on the {Community Devclnpmcnt Dgmrtment wch,,ite. Please contact Land DcvcLopmont Service fiK mere infmTnatLon at 897-221 L. 20. 'The City of Meridian rcquirex that the miner pa6t to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 2U%rrf the total eorisiruetion coat for all completed sewar,water and FQ=infraatructurc for duration of two}cars.7hL%surety wi I I be verified by a line item cost estimate provided.by the owner to the City-'The surety can he posted in the form of an inrevocandc Lounrofercditr each dgwsit or band.Applicant must file an appLication frw surety,which can be found on Bic {Community Dovclopmdu DqiartmenL weh,.ite. Plcaac contact Land Development Service for morc Lnfiurnation at$R7-221 L. City of Meridian Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions C. Nampa&Meridian Irrigation District *� Mwd4aw 7rz44ajwpr& FAX r7664&uM nrndory i1M{E MEMW �M+8d Y"I CYty C'levk'sot£r1:c Cky 1:4-wrw1w 13 E,&05&ey A4aer.c,$u 19 wridrl,1Pa.w -2614 11191 11."3 164r Z".w B$Re'M On MI C9rc&Ne eJ lr Td Wuffrn it%k%Ca}IKVM '�L+mp.A Merldwl IrnplH n Diw kl NM1n]hqulrm n rikd L-md r is 0w9t APINIrmwaer mm W* FriorI&finLl:Ohnmg. ,iJO ON21e Ldffsh MW w&OC wW PW bt M*ixLvd the Di-amm ki)wminf Flmin cnurw Oiru4h Ow uwlh pmWrcy Ilnt orM6 whq�qkR�. ilk U tricih epiKar,011 Nir the kownl%4 t11nM SI LYIL%k�rlm i! a mini mam +F sr.ent} Foot{701 Mud !hire} F�d (wrl n#m and rwr Fco 440'1 Ir[1'. hokkW dti"mw in d4rvma Tidal&hdd9 ere rae be proftmigrd_ Amy e1cr*Nh2N11 wkhvu r&VAcd Lima Agram W qn L ■pprmed pb■btFfwv4moNmrurelmsiswmKx"alp, All IriwiwiNl nipof4kv drninqr ewa be r47LlelN on siW1. 1f M'Y■ILllkhr II LY1P ry L6rnn&c Iva%ew the suS NMIUmusl r4nim{Irlrym@P plow.De%clerpo'rnnsicwmply wrlh ldnhn(hie]I-}llflj Plcesa feej 1FOd 10 6ti'Alrw 4 il+r i,n kirl I"infmml iiw. �Aevr 7�de� 1kkc4rpnWear LnL.w.Irrr+Lx damp.�rerridon ITT�p11iaP[)iptriot ?ant Cc 4ffi13o-rile a}.OWEA1 A.WW,31* AlrpLicaN 4 eatYnnw nnllr Agee ILSOE+f4.EO�7rI5 OD'4 City of Meridian Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions D. Ada County Highway District(ACHD) CHD Kane GeYd�he'pr,CnnTlWrwar J LS"Wy Cunmsac 1411t ooLrk�NNccor%Canftwd w date:FebruaryZ11%2025 To Becky Moose Staff Contact:Mott Pak,Plan rter Project Deseriptiam Care&Main Trip GLMLeFaTr4rk TENS develO rmra is emiMamed w generale 74 srehldC triips per day. 9 vehida Trip psir t+4u r ih tM Pta p"k hour,bi#W On Thai Imilutf OF Trardponat k)6 Eng ineersTripGeneration Manual,I"edition_ Proposed 01%*Wprnent ComrnenM *The tables above 4st the existing conditions of tho surrounding roadways without the proposed development as this application is for annexation and mmne ony.Wth a Uwe devOmment appkstwn.Ihli wrrimaryWll be Updated to reflect the OeveW rnent an0 its impxt. GofNmCLx1'ig"u to more Ada Cs ry n-Yr.ay r*Wk.T.377L Adjm Eic w-CsV6in Croy,Ir3-B37ra-Ph7M W74D O-FX 34rr7r£.O.�add1d*ha 134 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; Based on previous approvals, the Commission finds the proposed development is consistent with the TMISAP designation of Mixed Employment and the proposed development will be City of Meridian I Department Report V. Findings consistent with the previous approval of the Black Cat Industrial Business Complex on the property to the south. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; The Commission finds that while the proposed map amendment to I-L zoning is not the preferred zoning in the Mixed-Employment area, it aligns with the existing zoning to the south and the intended use of the site supports the purpose statement of the I-L zone. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; This application proposes to annex 5.0 acres of property with the I-L zoning district to allow for a small employment and low impact user to expand its operation in the city. The Commission finds the proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to, school districts; and The Commission finds that the proposed zoning amendment will not result in any adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing services to this site. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. The Commission finds the proposed annexation and zone of I-L to be in the best interest of the city due to previous approvals for the property to the south and providing employment through a low impact user. B. Comprehensive Plan(UDC 11-513-71)) 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 a amendment to the Comprehensive Plan,the Council shall make the following findings: 1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the other elements of the comprehensive plan. The Commission finds the proposed amendment to M-E is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that the proposed development will provide employment and help with a transition from light industrial to residential as this use is relatively low impact on the overall area. 2. The proposed amendment provides an improved guide to future growth and development of the city. The Commission finds that the proposal to change the FL UM designation from Low Density Employment to Mixed Employment will allow for an extension of the approval on the development to south of this property and provide a low impact employment use. 3. The proposed amendment is internally consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The Commission finds that the proposed amendment is consistent with the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan as noted in Section III. 4. The proposed amendment is consistent with this Unified Development Code. The Commission finds that the proposed amendment is consistent with the Unified Development Code. City of Meridian I Department Report V. Findings 5. The amendment will be compatible with existing and planned surrounding land uses. The Commission finds the proposed amendment will be compatible with existing industrial to the south and due to the low volume of truck traffic will provide an adequate transition to the residential across S. Black Cat Road. 6. The proposed amendment will not burden existing and planned service capabilities. The Commission finds that the proposed amendment will not burden existing and planned service capabilities in this portion of the city. Sewer and water services are currently available to this site. ACHD has determined the traffic along S. Black Cat Road and W. Franklin Road will have sufficient capacity to allow for the addition of this use in the area. 7. The proposed map amendment(as applicable)provides a logical juxtaposition of uses that allows sufficient area to mitigate any anticipated impact associated with the development of the area. The Commission finds the proposed map amendment provides a logical juxtaposition of uses and sufficient area to mitigate any development impacts to adjacent properties 8. The proposed amendment is in the best interest of the City of Meridian. For the reasons stated in Section III and the subject findings above, The Commission finds that the proposed amendment is in the best interest of the City. VI. ACTION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment to the Future Land Use Map and Annexation per the provisions in Section IV in accord with the Findings in Section V. B. Commission: The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard these items on March 20', 2025. At the public hearing,the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Annexation requests. 1. Summary of Commission public hearin&. a. In favor: Becky Moose, Glenn Walker,Dave Heupel,Melanie Anderson b. In opposition: Cheryl Whiting-Storrs, Greg Storrs,Keith Whiting, Colton Storrs. c. Commenting: Becky Moose,Glenn Walker,Dave Heupel,Melanie Anderson, Cheryl Whiting-Storrs, Greg Storrs,Keith Whiting, Colton Storrs. d. Written testimony:None e. Staff presenting application:Nick Napoli f. Other Staff commenting on application: Kurt Starman 2. Key issue(s)of public testimony A. Cheryl,Greg,Keith, and Colton all had concerns with the proximity of this industrial use next to the existing residential to the north in Ada County and with the new residential subdivisions beiniz built on the east side of Black Cat Road. In addition,they concerns that allowing this change from Low-Density Employment to Mixed Employment will erode the planned transition envisioned with the TMISAP and Comprehensive Plan. 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission: a. The Commission discussed the planned transition from residential to industrial users and deemed that Core and Mains recommendation for approval was consistent with the approval of the Black Cat Industrial Park to the south and that it is a relatively, low- impact user. 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. None City of Meridian I Department Report VI. Action 5. Outstandingissue(s)for City Council: a. Determining if the change from Low-Density Employment to Mixed-Employment to allow for an Industrial user is appropriate considering the planned transition in this area. C. City Council: Pending City of Meridian I Department Report VI. Action ' I 1 PINE C U FRANKLIN ion■ri�.u1 Lu INJUNIZE 84 -imm MENEM y - III uq�Y.nl■='.a1�7f�iir�7�+Rii.p� �:::e �rVu.■■:Gala.' a�uua's.3��: PINE 4LU V � m RON • -�- � _ FR,ANKL-IN H 84 I ` BEd �ii � 3. Existing/Proposed Future Land Use: Om dote;VI 3 f'2.025 o i' Feet Adapted Future Land Wes FA' KL N + ++ + +-* +4+ t�+ Legend Pvhue Land uses Cilyrrii39 , _LOW De iav Resi6e Mal McQum Derrny Resklenhd kwwlenho tt+ + * # i Huh[]ensily Rcsideniinl + + + i - -Ganwotrmbl + +++ 4 *+ + i t ++ # + +. F.I. -InO,;s3rid Proposed Future Lund Uses _Old rpwn _Mued U.Neighb rhood Mti d Use CcAlrn iry -M k&d Use ReCAamcI � k NWed use Non Xi nllo + �{M cd Uw-HerchonQe Ten)Ale Specific tl -L&,D"ry&-Or erf LIIes7Me Center r High Denslly Empbyrnenr -MuCd Fmplcymenr � � _. . -hhued Lrse Poesidenliol _ _ mixed Use Comm nai 1 + 4 4t F + + � T +f#+ f + + I City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 4. Planned Development Map Legend 9 Project Location '-- � � 9 0 I Area of Impact _ .- ® �® 9 T='- City Limits rT Planned Parcels ® �f OAnalysis - , - ;: � 1 O 11 1 '.'ili3 I I 11 0 0 City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits B. Subject Site Photos wqm _ I F L R u{, 1471, A,'y w {fin .j r� V, r ' w R..R City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits C. Service Accessibility Report Overall Scare; 11 2nd Percentile Lciation Within 1/2 mile of City Limits YELLOW Extension Sewer Trunkshed mains e 50Q ft.from parcel GREEN Floodplain Either not within the 100 yr floodplain cr > 2 acres GREEN Emergency Services Fire Response time > 9 min. RED Emergency Services Police Not enough data to report average res;,cnse t,rne RED Pathways Within 1 J4 mile of future pathways YELLOW Transit Within 1/4 mile of current transit route GREEN Arterial Road Buildout Status Ultimate configuration (#of lanes in master streets GREEN plan) matches existing (# of lanes) School Walking Prcximity Within 112 mile walking � GREE School Drlvablllty Not k ithin 2 miles driving of existing or future school RED Park Walkability No park within walking distance by park type City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits D. Original and Revised Site Plans(date: 1/16/2025) a mps 3 3 a I ' �e,s I I uraw wmi�aa'��n-en u r vnu I '_ I o,00m�.:.sc�iwm 5 � I Q I I -- -- -- $ ------------- -----ro—amw— --- ------ 6 '$ PfF PLMtlHY o ` SCHEME 5 PREtlh4lNARY C1D1 City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits � J y955F� I FFTTMISCHT Pffff SWUIOFT FENCE - R - _--_-___-__-_-------_ 5T In.S'i l� ry ` yA� lhRlflvH i ava- Lill. ^SP.iCI'S=.51�'.tia•,:'F4 AF511 I�FT C _�n iLy7i7R 111E I In TJ{ Y 1 WIN CD FAl31\fi b ��== ff� wSREIIp�EA 6FFICE � !FF`JI i� •r�R 51M1. auHrsrEn s ® {+rf+ EOCATgr- •� 1 FROUIPL 17xIG I TTALLSWFTPMf -- 1— —' - � _ � .��.:�-�_�.� FF TALL•�ICl W71 F City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits E. Building Elevations(date: 2/21/2025) a i rVV= �a QIQ ynI IQ rlQ�e.Aswsv �F �.�..�.. SCHEME K I-KR PRELIMINARY A201 mwrsc uc w ! _ LJ1J m � ` y a� T T 4 Z C3� ��•�� ate.... SCHEME K �► �! ... PRELIMINARY A202 �n�xVvai�aud� City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits F. Annexation Legal Description& Exhibit Map W, FronMVk R& IS-95.1 D _ I 58917'D4'E �' r I I 1 41I �R v 4 ac n i Ann"ation Area 4 w� 5.04 kar�i 0 Ig 1 Q r I I r�l pf, NAn3`16'w 4-94_31' L3�gi^nL+p � i Legend 2, Faum &Jn CAp NaSJAiilll Fnw d Alw iAum CW Mmn wL 1/* a.me. w J aht M$:g S.1$ S.15 �- —--—--— Annwo4a+ 9aur-da•'r'Liry � Ij(z�.1�f rc a � 30 R6*t-of-Way LAr •T ?• t [)F 5 L J - Fi Ann pr Dl4G4L4d FIighS-a{-MGy ?5 'ill I-,: 7l? ~�� � Exhlbl# Drawing fora:N.SURVEY hnnexatlon ..� H4 �....y="' 299 S. Black Cat Rd. 1 GROUP. LLC F Pv lm it IHr 1E1 f}al w rE�{a 11.1;m IR tr� aata T.]M.R1M_&N_Mai lae iilx{�;ais City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits IDAHO 9939 W Emcrlkld St SURVEY ,to arc fir-; [70P1 90-F57a GROUP Fax. (209f BOA.5399 Uuscnprion fiar Anncxatkin-City of Meridlas Novoiffier 26,2024 The foik3rmng P'esmbes a ParGN 4f 4and peing 0 Porlipn prlht Nvnhraq6i 114 of the Ncrtheaat 1i4 of SOWI)n I&-owmshsp 3 North.Range 1 WMel,Flake Meddian,Ada Cauntp ldaha and more particularly descrl4ed at iallawt COMMENC1610 a"the Ncirttw awa Carrier of Section 16,Towrnhlp 3 North.Flange 1 Wesl bale M&Amn.rnirn whirh.the Sa4APwwt Comer of the Noinhismi 19 East I M Comer}of avid Seclian 18 tearit.Satdh 6G-aIdr?''Alem �957.M leer.Thence aloft the E,AMerly ikc of aaid Swim 16. Soulh p0`4:T04'bleat.13M.SSfeei to the North 1116 camer the POINT Of BEWNN IMQ: Theme leaving said Easterly line wro akmg the Saulherty line at s&4 r%iwheaat 1 fd al the NartheaN lid.hrprlh a$°23'1$'We#.494 31 fed Xtience fearing said Southerly Tine,North 00'40CK7'East,.8&1 50 leek Theme.N[M 7t—w 0'fast Amw reel, Thence.South 8W1 7'00'East,05.981eattoihe Easiertp line of said Seclwn !6: Thence a ang said fast"I",Saurdr OW43W Weat.479 04 mat to the POWT OF 9Ed1NNlIO- The atsawa Damribed Parcer of La nd contains 5-04 acre6.m are or less. its r%uZaf 42 1 1� City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits C i E IDIAN.;--- Agenda Item Applicant Presentation C May 6, 2025Meridian, IdahoCity Council Hearing--H ORE & MAIN PROJECT OVERVIEW city staffDesign enhancement based on collaboration with •Supports employment and economic development•Site is currently vacant•Proposed Use: Light industrial Facility 299 S. BLACK CAT ROADL)-acre from RUT to Light Industrial (I-Annexation of 5•Low Density Employment → Mixed Employment •Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment•Request ALIGNMENT WITH CITY GOALS wage employment opportunities-Provide living•Creates Jobs Addresses lack of industrial vacancy•Facilitate development of neighboring properties•Encourages investment general industrialCompatible buffer between residential and •Provides a transition Low density, light industrial use•Supports the TMISAP DESIGN & SITE ENHANCEMENTS collector road and Black Cat RoadTrees, shrubs, and ground cover along new •LandscapingRefined through collaboration with city staff•Building Elevationsand Black Cat Roaduse path along the future collector -ft multi-10•Pathwaysvision fencing on all sides-8 ft. closed•Fencing ADDRESSING CONCERNS transitional intentintensity use respects FLUM designation and maintains -Low•No sound pollution •Hours of Operation 7am to 5pm, Monday to Friday•Minimal traffic with only 10 trucks per day•Low Impact UseCoherent extension of previous industrial development •property to the south.0064) to light industry of neighboring -2021-acre annexation (H-129.21•Prior approval SUMMARY L)-Light Industrial (I••: Approval of annexation and FLUM designationRequest Reflect thoughtful, collaborative design process•Fits within existing planning frameworks•Supports Meridian’s vision for economic vitality•This proposal is in alignment with city goals K2CORE ' CONSTRUCTION, INC. Sound Report Purpose: Investigate potential sound pollution from proposed New Core & Main facility at 299 South Black Cat Road, Meridian, ID as it related the property to the north at the intersection of Franklin Road and Black Cat Road. Recording Location: Core & Main 3338 E Commercial St Meridian, Idaho 83642 Date: 04/30/2025 Time: 9:00 AM Weather: Sunny, 50°F, 6 mph winds Equipment: Decibel X App on iPhone 13 Table of Contents Summary.................................................. 1 Context Maps .......................................... 2 Reports & Calculations ............................ 4 Page 1 of 13 Report Summary Audio Recording #1 Max dB: 70.5 Calculated dB at Residence: 39.2 Notes: Multiple forklifts were moving throughout the yard and a flat bed truck was in the yard picking up a delivery. Audio Recording #2 Max dB: 84.3 Calculated dB at Residence: 29.5 Notes: Taken while standing next to a forklift. During the recording the forklift was started and backed out of it parking space, initiating the back up alarm. Audio Recording #3 Max dB: 60.0 Calculated dB at Residence: 44.2 Notes: In the parking lot across the street from Core & Main, surrounding street traffic was significantly more audible. Decibel Comparison Chart sill NOISE LEVELS wi ambw ra f conditioner. Off ice noi5e, r4wrestaurant. chainsaw, AveraW inside car power lawn Boon box,ATV leaf blower. Stock car home noise a160mph FK)WU motorcgde snowmobile races Leavesrusiling, Normal Ya(vom Subway, �chopl Sport5awl, Gunshot. soft music, conversation, tleanef, shouted dance rock concert, siren at whisper hack�FGUnd ,average ; conversation budsymphony 10ofm MUSIC radio AS Sounds above 85 dB are harmful Page 2 of 13 Context Maps 1. Audio Recording Locations } 4�r - • ■ O&ft IL Audio Recording #2 `1 W r (Next to a forklift) JAN k; w- a } 4 • � .1• , r1` w.. Mew Audio Recording #1 LIM • I i Audio Recording #3 f (90 LF from C&M Fence) Page 3 of 13 2. Proximity to Project Site . -, Y --.,�r.,_�.�••`••f.:Yr5����:y-���-w�.:����•il _ "+��htC�k'�:. - - � �_� . .. .'�50�� wi* RUIMM I`�• L11 MEMb a ` Ar 1 HIV' , ' ii;} y� 4'I � 1� il�•^r,:.,, H•'�:.L:1, i 4'�Yi'. � + 4� ,'� p.11 'ik"�SbF`lj,' s7,:*i.;. r,. 1 �.r l•+'7�.!?�`.ql�.q��,, J0. a"•ti I; i -�'"fi'7: ' J1•' .� �/.f]4fY, rt.'r'� .'F r.K_fJ.:��+ti:.jl r� . F.• 5f �!i#�� 'P5 •'l `. {�rw.j{yihJ� h•.!l �;'4![ r7.L•.�htil,��_. +,� J' F'.e: Lr1{ ,+ ,r 5�• '.t .r:.�;�:rJ, ;:� y ti. '!c' isy '.:.;` f." '-nor t;.'' f dk..• ".'{•},� 'ri'� .'. t:yr� '�'',��; f'..::ilr Ir iC � i.., � J 'if. •1 ',� � � '.."*�,i,',�pLL-,, �f�:rf aN...,�,:,:._„f y�•, t..,'•�.'S'Sf:13�X5 ,ry,�Rr'YL•�i��}R.r ` `._f., •{ 'S'rY}:;.II- r<J:•Tr T." x51�afr 4 4 WTR.,°lf � C 'yp•° f F}r,rr.G .°1htr"4.•] 1. t .� rl g� ��S'rl'��r�µ���'Li ' Yh"S aY � I'4Y i'4f�•Ki:' l` r �i1'y,'y.r`.�yri'{'.ti, }'�.1 L r�xtiRe:.4y4�r 57'v„�,' , ;}'i• f! t r}},�JS+' - +-.,]r � aG,w•�{i'+y's +'�•''-• �'� 9�y.r'rJr'S{�c r�i� r nJ.s4,ii{�, 4�.4d � h4r,/ y �}1 �'-ti'i'i.a��•v�,�{� �rS4��+ItY.'��,y,�.�A'J �f'i: :.S' ti15.w t f�y.� h.f'f`f'.1 y i•:5 rr-"k*K�T.:+M1 rl.� .•,i.a�LL•i.¢f: r,r F f - • 4; 4.m. •'•R .. Measure distance Clickonthemapto add toyourpath h <, L a� . h # Total distance-552.63 ft(169 44 m) RM. Tw Page 4 of 13 Audio Recording #1 Measurement Report Name: in yard 1 Duration: 42s Time: Apr 30, 2025 At 9:10 Am Location: Meridian ID Device: iPhone 13, iOS 18.1.1 Notes: Measurement configurations Audio File for Audio Recording #1 Frequency weighting A Response time Fast (0.2s) Calibration +0.0 dB Avg/Leq 61.6 dB Min 56.5 dB Max 70.5 dB Peak 75.7 dB Measurement results Standard NIOSH Threshold 85 dB Exchange rate 3 dB TWA 0.0 dB Dose 0.0 % Projected dose 0.0 % Graph Page 5 of 13 120 0'04 0108 0113 017 0:22 0:26 0130 0=85 0'30 100 80 40 20 0 Created by Decibel X www.sky w.com Page 6 of 13 Sound Attenuation Calculation Audio Recording #1 5 r Known Calculaled sauna S4Urw Pressure ResSure i rl SDUrce Lp(R1) i Lp(R2) R1 i R2 Known sound pressure level (dB(A)) 70.5 Select Metric or Imperial Units: Metri c #Imperial Distance from source for known sound pressure level (R1) (ft) 15 Tested sound pressure levels are commonly given at 1 m or aft(R1) Distance from source to position R (ft) 552,63 Attenuated sound pressure level (dB(A)) 39. Source: WKC Group https://www.wkcg rou p.com/tool s-room/inverse-square-law-sou nd-ca I cu I ato r/ Page 7 of 13 Audio Recording #2 Measurement Report Name: in yard (next to forklift) Duration: 22s Time: Apr 30, 2025 At 9:11 Am Location: Meridian Device: iPhone 13, iOS 18.1.1 Notes: Audio File for Audio Recording #2 Measurement configurations Frequency weighting A Response time Fast (0.2s) Calibration +0.0 dB Avg/Leq 75.7 dB Min 64.1 dB Max 84.3 dB Peak 87.4 dB Measurement results Standard NIOSH Threshold 85 dB Exchange rate 3 dB TWA 0.0 dB Dose 0.0 % Projected dose 0.0 % Graph Page 8 of 13 120 0'02 0'04 0106 0109 0111 0113 0'16 0118 0'20 100 80*` . 60 , .. -yam •.t 40 20 0 Created by Decibel X www.sky w.com Page 9 of 13 Sound Attenuation Calculation Audio Recording #2 Known 5 Caludaled }+ Sound ti ti Sound ! Pressure I Pressure source Lp(Rl) I I WXR2) R1 i R2 Known sound pressure level (dB(A)) 84.3 Select Metric or Imperial Units: Metri c #Imperial Distance from source for known sound pressure level (R1) (ft) 1 Tested sound pressure levels are commonly given at 1 m or aft(R1) Distance from source to position R (ft) 552.63 Attenuated sound pressure level (dB(A)) 29.5 Source: WKC Group https://www.wkcgroup.com/tools-room/inverse-square-law-sound-calculator/ Page 10 of 13 Audio Recording #3 Measurement Report Name: accross the street Duration: 30s Time: Apr 30, 2025 At 9:14Am Location: Meridian ID Device: iPhone 13, iOS 18.1.1 Notes: Audio File for Audio Recording #3 Measurement configurations Frequency weighting A Response time Fast (0.2s) Calibration +0.0 dB Avg/Leq 55.8 dB Min 51.6 dB Max 60.0 dB Peak 64.2 dB Measurement results Standard NIOSH Threshold 85 dB Exchange rate 3 dB TWA 0.0 dB Dose 0.0 % Projected dose 0.0 % Graph Page 11 of 13 120 0'03 0106 0109 012 0115 0118 0'22 0'25 0'28 100 s0 60 40 20 0 Created by Decibel X www.sky w.com Page 12 of 13 Sound Attenuation Calculation Audio Recording #3 � 5 5y Known ` Iculal�d Sound 5 Sound Pressure Pressure SourcL LKR1) i Lp(R2) R2 Known sound pressure level (dB(A)) 60 Select Metric or Imperial Units: Pv1 etr i c * Imperial Distance from source for known sound pressure level (RI) (ft) 90 Tested sound pressure levels are commonly given at 1 m or aft(R1) Distance from source to position R (ft) 552.63 Attenuated sound pressure level (dB(A)) 44. Source: WKC Group https://www.wkcgroup.com/tools-room/inverse-square-law-sound-calculator/ Page 13 of 13 W IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Mondt Meadows Subdivision (H-2024-0067) by Gregg Davis, Breckon Land Design, located at 6101 and 6162 S. Terrega Ln. Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2024-0067 A. Request: Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map (CPAM) to change the future land use designation on 10.28 acres of land from Medium Density Residential (MDR) to Low Density Residential (LDR). B. Request: Annexation of 10.84 acres of land from RUT in Ada County to the R-2 (8.48 acres) and R-4 (2.36 acres) zoning districts. C. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 11 building lots (10 new and 1 existing) and 4 common lots on 10.28 acres of land in the proposed R-2 and R-4 zoning districts. PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: May 6, 2025 ITEM # ON AGEN A.. PROJECT NAME: Mondt Meadows Subdivision (H-2024-0067) Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify (Please Print) HOA? (mark X if yes) If yes, please provide HOA name 2 blg) 3 �"/ku s 4 A 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT C��fEPIDIAN*,,--, DEPARTMENT REPORT HEARING 5/6/2025 Legend DATE: Project Location TO: Mayor& City Council :::Area of Impact 4= City Limits - FROM: Linda Ritter,Associate Planner ®Analysis -_ 208-884-5533 -Irifter@meridiancity.org �r 5 APPLICANT: Gregg Davis,Breckon Land Design SUBJECT: H-2024-0067 --, � Mondt Meadows Subdivision AZ, , CPAM, PP J ' LOCATION: 6101 and 6162 S. Tarrega Lane, located in the SE '/4 of the SW '/4 of Section 31, _7 ' T.3N,R.1E,Parcels S1131346650 and -L S1131346605 1. PROJECT OVERVIEW A. Summary • Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map(CPAM)to change the future land use designation on 10.28-acres of land from Medium Density Residential(MDR)to Low Density Residential(LDR); • Annexation of 10.84-acres of land from RUT in Ada County to the R-2(8.48 acres) and R-4 (2.36 acres)zoning districts; and • A Preliminary Plat consisting of 11 building lots (10 new and 1 existing) and 4 common lots on 10.28-acres of land in the proposed R-2 and R-4 zoning districts. B. Issues/Waivers • The Future Land Use Map designates this area as Medium Density Residential. The property owner is requesting a change to Low Density Residential to allow for larger estate lots, consistent with the existing development pattern in the area,with the intent of preserving the property for future generations. • The existing house is within a thirty(30)foot access easement to the north and thirty(30) foot access easement to the west. These easements will need to be relinquished or vacated before the City Engineer signs the final plat. • Per UDC 11-3A-6, in Residential Districts, irrigation easements wider than ten(10) feet shall be included in a common lot that is a minimum of twenty(20)feet wide and outside of a fenced area,unless otherwise waived by City Council. There is a 30-foot-wide irrigation easement along the northern portion of the property,which is required to be placed in a common lot unless the requirement is waived by Council or documentation is provided showing the easement has been relinquished by the owner. City of Meridian I Department Report 1. Project Overview • Council waiver to leave the private drainage ditch(Watkins Ditch)that runs along the eastern portion of the property open within a thirty-eight(38) foot wide easement. C. Recommendation Staff. Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment to the Future Land Use Map, annexation and preliminary plat per the provisions in Section IV in accord with the Findings in Section V. D. Decision City of Meridian I Department Report 1. Project Overview I1. COMMUNITY METRICS Table 1: Land Use Description Details Map Ref. Existing Land Use(s) Residential - Proposed Land Use(s) Residential - Existing Zoning Rural Urban Transition(RUT VII.A.2 Proposed Zoning R-2 and R-4 Adopted FLUM Designation Medium Density Residential VII.A.3 Proposed FLUM Designation Low Density Residential Table 2: Process Facts Description Details Preapplication Meeting date 11/5/2024 Neighborhood Meeting 11/21/2024 Site posting date 4/7/2025 Table 3: Community Metrics Agency/Element Description/Issue Reference Ada County Highway District IV.G • Comments Received Yes, Staff Report - • Commission Action Required No - • Access Sublimity Avenue - • Traffic Level of Service See Figure 2:ACHD Summary Metrics - ITD Comments Received No Comment or Concern Error! R eference source not found. Meridian Fire Turnaround shall be in accordance with 2018 International Error! R Fire Code,Appendix D,and shall meet the minimum eference specifications of 96'exclusive of shoulders and curbs. source not found. Meridian Police No Comment Error! R eference source not found. Meridian Public Works Wastewater IV.B • Distance to Mainline Available at the site • Impacts or Concerns See Site Specific Conditions of Approval Meridian Public Works Water IV.B • Distance to Mainline Water is available at the site • Impacts or Concerns No Note: See City/Agency Comments and Conditions Section and public record for all department/agency comments received. Mondt Meadows Subdivision AZ,CPAM,PP H-2024-0067 (copy this link into a separate browser). City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics Figure 1: One-Mile Radius Existing Condition Metrics Reference Parcel:S1131346650 Date Retrieved:2025/ 1/3 Parcel Count Parcel Acreage Infill Indicator: 485 1,044 Surrounding Area 45% vot city 397 ® City Limits ■ Not City Household Household& Population Growth Households 02020 Population Change:113.9°I° Population 723717172, ■Growth (Household and Population Change since 2010 Decennial) 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 Use Types Residential Addresses All Addresses a% ■ Single-family is 7% Multi-family0% ® Commercial Preliminary Plats (last 5-years) Conditional Use Permit(last 5-years) Proposed Proposed Pending Pending Approved Approved 1000 2000 3000 0 10 20 30 4U ■ Single-family El Multi-family City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics 2.00 500 Single-family y 1.50 (AResidential Parcel Diversity a 1.00 U E3 Parcel Count 0.50 L a.09 a *Average Acres 0.00 a:aa 0 R-2 R-4 R-15 Average Single-family Density by Zoning Average 15.00 �11.49 ResidentialDensity 10.00 06.29 5 94 p 5.00 1.85 0.00a.oa Dwelling Units I Acre R-2 R-4 R-8 111-15 Notes: See VIII.Additional Notes&Details for Staff Report Maps,Tables,and Charts. Fieure 2:ACHD Summary Metrics Level of Service Planning Thresholds 1. Condition of Area Roadways Traffic Count is based on Vehicles per hour(VPH) Roadway Frontage Functional PM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Classification Traffic Count Level of Service "*State Highway 0--feet ArteCJaJ 1,798 WA 69fhleridian Road * Lake Hazel Road 0-feet Principal Arterial 167 Better than °E" *Sublimity Avenue 47-feet Collector N/A NIA *Acceptable level of service for a two-lane principal arterial is 'E" (690 VPH)_ *Acceptable level of service for a five-lane principal arterial is'E" (1,780 VPH)_ "Acceptable level of service for a two-lane collector is "D" (425 VPH). "*ACHD does not set level of service thresholds for State Highways_ 2. Average Daily Traffic Count(VDT) Average daily traffic courts are,based on AGHD's most current traffic counts_ • The average daily traffic count for SH-69 (Meridian Road) south of Amity Road was 39,546 on October 8, 2024. • The average daily traffic count for Lake Hazel Road east of SH-69 was 3,747 on June 12, 2018_ Since these counts were taken Lake Hazel Road from SH-69.iMeridian Road to Locust Grove Road has been widened to 5-Janes. There are no existing traffic counts for Sublimity Avenue north of Lake Hazel Road_ Notes: See VIII.Additional Notes&Details for Staff Report Maps,Tables,and Charts. City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics Figure 3: Service Impact Summary . Service Impact Tools Ready Caution o��L� °R �a\+ .4 p �a� OP 0 Q- Notes: See VIII.Additional Notes&Details for Staff Report Maps,Tables,and Charts. City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics III. STAFF ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code(UDC) A. General Overview The current Future Land Use Map(FLUM)designation for the properties is Medium Density Residential and the zoning district is RUT as the property is located within Ada County. The applicant is requesting a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment(CPAM)to change the FLUM from MDR to LDR to accommodate zoning that allows large and estate lots at gross densities of three dwelling units or less per acre. Low Density Residential is adjacent to the property to the north,Mixed Use Regional(MU-RG)is to the west and Medium Density Residential is to the east and south of the proposed project.After reviewing the comprehensive plan and nearby properties, staff believes the requested Low Density Residential designation is appropriate given the proximity to the existing large estate development to the north.Additionally,the Low Density Residential FLUM designation,which already exists to the north of this property, further supports this recommendation. Medium Density Residential: The Comprehensive Plan identifies Medium Density Residential land uses as the development of dwelling units at gross densities of three to eight dwelling units per acre. Density bonuses may be considered with the provision of additional public amenities such as a park, school, or land dedicated for public services. Low Density Residential: The Comprehensive Plan identifies Low Density Residential land uses as the development of single-family homes on large and estate lots at gross densities of three dwelling units or less per acre. These areas often transition between existing rural residential and urban properties. Developments need to respect agricultural heritage and resources,recognize view sheds and open spaces, and maintain or improve the overall atmosphere of the area. The use of open spaces,parks,trails, and other appropriate means should enhance the character of the area. Density bonuses may be considered with the provision of additional public amenities such as a park, school, or land dedicated for public services. Staff s analysis of the CPAM request are as follows: 1. Alignment with Existing Uses: • The current use of large estate residential lots aligns more appropriately with the Low Density Residential(LDR) designation,which accommodates lots ranging from 8,000 to 12,000 square feet or larger. 2. Compatibility and Planning Goals: • R-2 and R-4 Zone Suitability: The proposed zoning is consistent with the characteristics of large estate lots,mirroring similar developments to the north and south. • Surrounding Zoning: - The properties to the north and south are zoned Rural Urban Transition(RUT). - The northern property, designated for Low-Density Residential use, is planned for R-4 zoning. - The southern property remains RUT with a minimum lot size of five acres. - The proposed R-2 and R-4 zoning aligns with existing land use patterns and zoning designations. 3. Site Design and Community Impact: • The Low Density Residential designation supports the continued development of large estate lots, fostering a cohesive and compatible land use pattern. • Adjusting the Future Land Use Map(FLUM)to LDR maintains consistency with existing uses and complements surrounding residential development. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis Given the proximity of large residential estate lots to the north and south, staff finds the proposed Low Density Residential FLUM designation appropriate for this location. Table 4: Proiect Overview Description Details History Parcel S 1131346605 was created through a property boundary adjustment through Ada County. Phasing Plan 2 phases Residential Units 11 (10 new and 1 existing) Open Space Provided: .63 acres/12%—Required: .42 acres/8%R-2 Provided: .43 acres/16%-Required: .32 acres/12%R-4 Amenities 2 amenity points/ Physical Features Watkins Drainage Ditch Acreage 10.28(R-2: 7.89 acres and R-4:2.36 acres) Lots 11 building lots(10 new, 1 existing)and 4 common lots Density 1.26 dwelling units per acre B. History The property resides within Ada County and is currently zoned RUT. The property owner recorded a property boundary adjustment on January 16,2024,to reconfigure the lot lines in order to subdivide the norther half of their property. See Record of Survey below. RECORD OF SURVEY CtXWTY RECWVV?S CER7"CA 7E eavn�nnr«rvF Avrc�srNFvr emz NAHPF r*xre an i .xwrrcw cr LAM]Lm Vr rr¢nr,f+ T :,saem mM..rr Y- 2k3s TJ�5�iJ[pF RE$w 1/¢01$['orrpv Sr.T'N.Arr. ADA COUNTY—STATE OF AAXO .as n� B =�°'�`J ti I r r� T r rrsrcw �i ac7""� �x RfFERt7YCE5 i � p f.^f SAMS OF HEARING ° $ s 89 SPY wEErwEF++roV+v LEGE7'ID caervrRca�•.o-e is u.p rrrF f/[��x�mrwnr ro I � __ _ �r may, �I Mx r,fuC1::W. _ _•_•_a]mr �w ��� _ _5 E➢37W"F___!�,�ti= �T>mTTlT°aaere rwwn 0.0>'�AE<M` mrav chi+u' SIMYEY47R'S lJARRA TILE: { � 1 q P • M,� in. aw 4y n to '' --L 2- W.n riff 17 x,nnv' ��I � �° Nl➢96'79"!r ]OY-50' rcewu C£R7MiCA TE OF Sl/RLEYTAR ,acc,.wArF DISG.AIAIfR MaPvc ape a a>o„ r r r Prr+.W+-�'KrM.°NKY wrr,Gtt acwau z., lmm�w aw �ovs uW/¢rt COVutt pfavu°aµ{s taMG rR9 ° w�T w.,nG ra r+.E�Y°l.+A•!CE cr y i � � P �+ rean�a aeL m o�p s-rs�r i dyi NWY r � —rTs.ou•_ — �._ ,fus..W S r7[er' oa§' rcaw�r ^'l,S 8 WW'F n A•vd"]B'w esx S 69 f6'38"FP w^°�[ •nQ'is vmxu ilF F [r r CMVE TA${,[ �l �� P '<. ACCURATE _ ,. . •: e -------------x5L1%8'BABEL XD.45----------r.2X. R.rrr.i.-'E. '•ern-`er. --- R.r.c ems. a �.' mmc um asm: une,dee•wr City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis There are existing easements on the property that are being proposed to be relinquished. • There is a thirty(30)foot wide access easement(Instrument No. 7520424&2021- 049475),that runs across the north boundary of both parcels in the project, as well as the west thirty(30)feet of each parcel. These easements are no longer required and will be relinquished with the recordation of the final plat. • The existing thirty(30)foot wide access easement,(Instrument No. 9037915),which runs across the east 302.15' of the south boundary of parcel S 1131346650 will be relinquished with the recordation of the final plat due to the public road improvements in the same location. • Dry ditch that runs through parcel S 1131346650 along the east side needs to be either depicted on the plat map within an easement or provide written documentation showing the dry ditch had been abandoned and is no longer in use by the affected property owners. C. Site Development and Use Analysis 1. Existing Structures/Site Improvements (UDC 11-1): The current use of the property is residential with two (2) existing structures. The plat map shows the structure on Lot 1, Block 3 of the proposed plat as an existing shop. However, Ada County Assessor describes the structure as a single-family dwelling. Lot 1, Block 3 is not eligible for another residential unit unless the existing structure is removed or converted to a secondary dwelling and meets all the UDC requirements. The existing strucutres will be required to connect to city services and the existing wells and septic system will need to be abandoned as required. Lot 1, Block 1 shows a future development, this development shall align with the proposed roadway connection from the development(Skyranch Subdivision) to the west. 2. Proposed Use Analysis (Comp Plan 2.01.01 C, UDC 11-2): The applicant is proposing single-family detached homes which are listed as a principal permitted use in UDC Table 11-2A-2 for the R-2 and R-4 zoning districts. The project will be developed in two phases. The developer provided a future layout showing how the property will be redeveloped. The future phase roadway shall align with the approved project to the west, Skyranch Subdivision. Comprehensive Plan policy 2.01.01 C allows for a range of residential land use designations that allow diverse lot sizes, housing types, and densities. 3. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): • In the R-2 zoning district, a twenty (20)foot landscape buffer is required along Sublimity Avenue and a ten (10)foot landscape buffer is required along E. Escalation Drive. The maximum building height for this area is thirty-five (35)feet with an interior setback of 7.5 feet per story and a rear setback of fifteen (15)feet. The minimum street frontage is eighty(80)feet. • The dimensional standards for the R-4 zone are the same as the R-4 except the interior setback is five (5)feet and minimum street frontage is sixty(60)feet. D. Design Standards Analysis The proposed plat and subsequent development are required to comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-6 and 11-2A-7 for the R-2 and R-4 zoning districts. The proposed lots comply with the dimensional standards of the above-mentioned districts. City of Meridian I Department Report 111. Staff Analysis 1. Existing Structure and Site Design Standards (Comp Plan 5.01.02A, UDC 11-3A-19): The current use of the property is residential with two (2) residential properties existing. The structures will remain and the existing well and septic system will be abandoned as required. City utilities are required to be extended to serve the proposed development. Comprehensive Plan Policy 5.01.02A requires the applicant to maintain and implement community design ordinances, quality design criteria, and complete street policies to set quality standards citywide. 2. Qualified Open Space &Amenities (Comp Plan 2.02.00, Comp Plan 2.02.0IB, UDC 11-3G): Based on the standards in UDC Table 11-3G-3, a minimum of 8% (or 0.42-acres)for the R-2 zoning district and 0%for the R-4 zoning district, as it is less than five(5) acres in size) of qualified open space is required to be provided within the development. An open space exhibit was submitted as shown in Section VITF, that depicts 9.65% (or 0.988-acres) of open space that meets the required quality and qualified open space standards. Based on the standards in UDC 11-3G-4A, a minimum of two (2) amenity points are required as the overall project is ten (10) acres in size. The amenities proposed are an outdoor fire ring, picnic table, bench and picnic shelter.All common open space areas are required to be landscaped with one deciduous shade tree for every 5,000 square feet of area and include a variety of trees, shrubs, lawn or other vegetative groundcover per UDC 11-3G-5B.3. Comprehensive Plan policy 2.02.00 requires the applicant to plan for safe, attractive, and well-maintained neighborhoods that have ample open space, and generous amenities that provide varied lifestyle choices. Comprehensive Plan policy 2.02.0IB requires the applicant to evaluate open space and amenity requirements for consistency with community needs and values. 3. Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): i. Landscape buffers along streets UDC 11-2A-6 requires a twenty(20)foot wide buffer along collector roads (Sublimity Avenue). The adjacent developer to the east will be installing the landscape along Sublimity Avenue as part of their project approval. ii. Tree preservation Per UDC 11-3B-10,the applicant shall preserve existing trees four-inch caliper or greater from destruction during the development. Mitigation shall be required for all existing trees four-inch caliper or greater that are removed from the site with equal replacement of the total calipers lost on site up to an amount of one hundred(100)percent replacement(Example: Two(2)ten-inch caliper trees removed may be mitigated with four 5-inch caliper trees,five(5)four-inch caliper trees, or seven(7)three-inch caliper trees).Deciduous specimen trees four-inch caliper or greater may count double towards total calipers lost,when planted at entryways,within common open space, and when used as focal elements in landscape design. If trees are proposed to be removed from the property that meet the criteria listed above, the applicant shall add a mitigation section to the landscape plan with final plat submittal. iii. Storm integration Per UDC 11-3B-11,the applicant shall meet the intent to improve water quality and provide a natural, effective form of flood and water pollution control through the integration of vegetated,well designed stormwater filtration swales and other green City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis stormwater facilities into required landscape areas,where topography and hydrologic features allow if part of the development. Development will be required to meet UDC 11-3B-11 for stormwater integration. iv. Pathway landscaping Landscaping for pathways shall meet the requirements outlined in UDC 11-3B-12. The applicant is required to provide a landscape strip a minimum of five(5) feet wide shall along each side of the pathway. Designs are encouraged in which the width of the landscape strip varies to provide additional width to plant trees farther from the pathway, preventing root damage. The minimum width of the landscape strip shall be two (2)feet to allow for maintenance of the pathway. The landscape strips shall be planted with a mix of trees, shrubs, lawn,and/or other vegetative ground cover. There are no pathways required or being proposed for this development. 4. Parking (UDC 11-3C): Off-street parking is required to be provided for each home based on the total number of bedrooms per unit as set forth in UDC Table 11-3C-6. On-street parking is also available on the proposed streets. i. Residential parking analysis The proposal will be required to meet the standards for parking as set forth in UDC 11- 3C-6. 5. Building Elevations (Comp Plan 2.01.01 C,Architectural Standards Manual): Eight(8) conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed subdivision as shown in Exhibit VII.H. The applicant states the homes in the Mondt Meadows Subdivision will include ten (10) homes with a mix of different product types, two-story and single-story detached single-family homes. Buildings shall be designed with elevations that create interest through the use of broken planes, windows, and fenestrations that produce a rhythm of materials and patterns. Design review is not required for single-family detached structures. However, because the rear and/or sides of homes facing Sublimity Avenue will be highly visible, Staff recommends a DA provision requiring those elevations incorporate articulation through changes in two or more of the following: modulation (e.g.projections, recesses, step-backs,pop-outs), bays, banding, porches, balconies, material types, or other integrated architectural elements to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines that are visible from adjacent public streets. Single- story homes are exempt from this requirement. Comprehensive Plan policy 2.01.01 C encourages the applicants to maintain a range of residential land use designations that allow diverse lot sizes, housing types, and densities. 6. Fencing (UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): All fencing constructed on the site is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11- 3A-7. The landscape plan shows a six(6)foot tall solid vinyl privacy fencing along the perimeter of the plat and a six(6)foot open vision fence along the common area on the east side of the project. Per UDC 11-3A-7.A.3, barbed wire fencing is prohibited. The applicant shall work with the neighboring property owner to remove the existing fence and replace it with a fence that meets the current fence standards. 7. Parkways (Comp Plan 3.07.01 C, UDC 11-3A-17): Per Comp Plan policy 3.07.01C appropriate landscaping,buffers, and noise mitigation with new development along transportation corridors(setback,vegetation,low walls,berms, etc.) is required. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis Per the UDC the minimum width of parkways planted with Class II trees shall be eight(8) feet. The width can be measured from the back of curb where there is no likely expansion of the street section within the right-of-way;the parkway width shall exclude the width of the sidewalk. Class 11 trees are the preferred parkway trees. The applicant is proposing a parkway along E. Escalation Drive.. E. Transportation Analysis 1. Access (Comp Plan 6.01.02B, UDC 11-3A-3, UDC 11-3H-4): Access to the property will be via Sublimity Avenue, a collector road. The property owners will need to relinquish their rights to the private road(Tarrega Lane). Written documentation is required prior to the City Engineer's signature on the final plat. 2. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17): All sidewalks constructed as part of this proposal are required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17 3. Private Streets (UDC 11-3F-4): Staff have reviewed the application for private streets within the development as shown on the preliminary plat. The street is proposed to be located in common lot in the subdivision and will connect to a local street; the point of connection of the private street to the public street is subject to approval by ACHD. The Fire Department has approved the request contingent upon both sides of the street being signed `No Parking Fire Lane."A gate is being proposed at the entry of the private street. The Director has tentatively approved the request subject to completion of the tasks listed in UDC 11-3F-3B within one (1)year in accord with the Findings listed in Section V below. 4. Subdivision Regulations (UDC 11-6): i. Dead end streets No streets or series of streets that ends in a cul-de-sac or a dead end shall be longer than five hundred(500)feet except as allowed by UDC 11-6C-3. There are no dead end streets being proposed that are longer than five hundred(500) feet. ii. Block face UDC 11-6C-3-regulates block lengths for residential subdivisions. Staff has reviewed the submitted plat for conformance with these regulations. The intent of this section of code is to ensure block lengths do not exceed 750 ft, although there is the allowance of an increase in block length to 1,000 feet if a pedestrian connection is provided. In no case shall a block face exceed one thousand two hundred(1,200)feet,unless waived by the City Council. As currently designed, the proposed plat meets the block face requirements. F. Services Analysis 1. Waterways (Comp Plan 4.05.OID, UDC 11-3A-6): Per UDC 11-3A-6, requires limiting the tiling and piping of natural waterways, including, but not limited to, ditches, canals, laterals, sloughs and drains where public safety is not a concern as well as improve,protect and incorporate creek corridors (Five Mile, Eight Mile, Nine Mile, Ten Mile, South Slough and Jackson and Evan Drains) as an amenity in all residential, commercial and industrial designs. When piping and fencing is proposed, the standards outlined in UDC 11-3A-6B shall apply. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis In Residential Districts, irrigation easements wider than ten (10)feet shall be included in a common lot that is a minimum of twenty (20)feet wide and outside of a fenced area, unless otherwise waved by City Council. There is a private drainage ditch (Watkins Ditch) that runs along the eastern portion of the property which needs to remain and shall be placed within a thirty-eight(38)foot easement. The applicant is proposing to leave the ditch open and keep it in its natural state. The applicant needs to submit a document requesting a waiver from Council to leave the ditch open. Comprehensive Plan policy 4.05.OID requires improving and protecting creeks and other natural waterways throughout commercial, industrial, and residential areas. 2. Pressurized Irrigation(UDC 11-3A-15): The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water(UDC 11-3B-6). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single- point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single point connection is utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 3. Storm Drainage (UDC 11-3A-18): An adequate drainage system is required in all developments by the City's adopted standards, specifications, and ordinances. Design and construction shall follow best management practices as adopted by the City as outlined in UDC 11-3A-18. Storm drainage will be proposed with a future construction application and shall be constructed to City and ACHD design criteria. 4. Utilities (Comp Plan 3.03.03G, UDC 11-3A-21): Ensure development is connected to City of Meridian water and sanitary sewer systems and the extension to and through said developments are constructed in conformance with the City of Meridian Water and Sewer System Master Plans in effect at the time of development.All utilities are available to the site. Water main,fire hydrant and water service require a twenty foot(20) wide easement that extends ten (10)feet past the end of main, hydrant, or water meter. No permanent structures, including trees are allowed inside the easement. Comprehensive Plan policy 3.03.03G require urban infrastructure be provided for all new developments, including curb and gutter, sidewalks, water and sewer utilities. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis IV. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. Meridian Planning Division 1. A Development Agreement(DA)is required as a provision of annexation of this property. Prior to approval of the annexation ordinance, a DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian,the property owner(s) at the time of annexation ordinance adoption, and the developer. A final plat will not be accepted until the Annexation ordinance and development agreement are approved by City Council. Currently, a fee of$303.00 shall be paid by the Applicant to the Planning Division prior to commencement of the DA. The DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning Division within six(6)months of the City Council granting the annexation. The DA shall, at a minimum,incorporate the following provisions: a. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the preliminary plat, landscape plan,phasing plan,and conceptual building elevations for the single-family dwellings included in Section IV and the provisions contained herein. b. The rear and/or sides of 2-story structures that face Sublimity Avenue shall incorporate articulation through changes in two or more of the following: modulation(e.g. projections,recesses, step-backs,pop-outs),bays,banding, porches,balconies,material types, or other integrated architectural elements to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines. Single-story structures are exempt from this requirement. c. No building permits shall be issued prior to the plat being recorded. d. The Open Space amenities shall meet the following requirements: the picnic area shall include tables,benches, landscaping, and a structure for shade; and the outdoor fire ring shall meet fire safety standards, is located on a noncombustible surface and includes fixed seating. e. The property owners of parcel(s) S 1131346650 and S 1131346605 shall relinquish their rights to access and utilize the private road Tarrega Lane. Written documentation shall be submitted prior to the City Engineer's signature on the final plat. f. The existing homes shall connect to City water and sewer service within 60 days of it becoming available and disconnect from private service, as set forth in MCC 9-1-4 and 9- 4-8. g. The single-family structure on parcel S 1131346605 located at 6162 Tarrega Lane can remain in its current location once the following easements have been relinquished: o There is a thirty(30)foot wide access easement(Instrument No. 7520424&2021- 049475),that runs across the north boundary of both parcels in the project,as well as the west thirty(30) feet of each parcel. These easements are no longer required and will be relinquished with the recordation of the final plat. o The existing thirty (30)foot wide access easement,(Instrument No. 9037915),which runs across the east 302.15' of the south boundary of parcel S 1131346650 will be relinquished with the recordation of the final plat due to the public road improvements in the same location. City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions h. Written documentation to relinquish the easements listed above shall be submitted prior to the City Engineer's signature on the final plat. i. Lot 1, Block 1 shows a future development,this development shall align with the proposed roadway connection from the development(Skyranch Subdivision)to the west. 2. Submit the following revisions for the Preliminary Plat included in Section VII, dated 4/7/25: a. Revise the plat map to depict the dry ditch on parcel#S1131346650 and its associated easement or provide written documentation showing the dry ditch had been abandoned and is no longer in use by the affected property owners. b. Lots shall meet the dimensional requirements of the R-2 and R-4 zoning districts per UDC 11-2A-4 and UDC 11-2A-5. 3. The Landscape Plan included in Section VII, dated 4/7/25, shall be submitted for review and approval with the following revisions prior to final plat approval: a. Show the open vision fence location. b. Tree mitigation for the future development shall be addressed on the revised landscape plan submitted with the final plat application. 4. The applicant shall comply with the open space exhibit approved as part of this plat application that depicts 8%(R-2)and 12%(R-4)or 1.06-acres(0.74 acres required) of qualified open space and exceeds the required amenity points. The picnic area shall include tables,benches,landscaping, and a structure for shade. The outdoor fire ring shall meet fire safety standards, is located on a noncombustible surface and includes fixed seating. 5. The applicant shall construct all proposed fencing and/or any fencing required by the UDC, consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-7 and 11-3A-6B, as applicable. 6. The development shall comply with standards and installation for landscaping as set forth in UDC 11-313-5 and maintenance thereof as set forth in UDC 11-313-13. 7. The development shall comply with all subdivision design and improvement standards as set forth in UDC 11-6C-3, including but not limited to driveways,easements,blocks, street buffers, and mailbox placement. 8. Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 for single-family detached dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. 9. The private streets are approved subject to completion of the tasks listed in UDC 11-3F-3 within one year. Documentation of such shall be submitted to the Planning Division in order to receive final approval. 10. The private streets within the development shall be 26-feet wide and constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-31F-4B.2. 11. The Applicant shall have a maximum of two(2)years to obtain City Engineer's signature on a final plat in accord with UDC 11-613-7. 12. The Applicant shall comply with all conditions of ACHD. 13. Staff s failure to cite all relevant UDC requirements does not relieve the applicant from compliance. City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions B. Meridian Public Works Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1. To meet to-and-through requirements make sure the main is 8"up to the property boundary and have a 6"hydrant lateral coming off of the main. Fire hydrant appears to be located on property to the north. The City will require a 20ft easement up to the fire hydrant(easement centered on the lateral). The City requests that the easement extends 10'past the hydrant but only 5'is required. This easement will need to come from the owner of the property. 2. Provide 20'Easements for mains,hydrant laterals and water services. Easements should extend up to the end of main/hydrant/water meter and 10'beyond it. Water and sewer running in parallel require 30ft easement. 3. Water mains need a casing when crossing irrigation that limits access to times of the year. Either provide casing or proof that the City will have access at all times. 4. Water mains are not to be installed along driveways. Instead,locate water meters in landscaping area and run services to houses. 5. Meters should be located close to the road. 6. Services cannot cross private property other than the property being served. 7. No permanent structures (trees,bushes,buildings, carports,trash receptacle walls,fences, infiltration trenches, light poles,etc.)to be built within the utility easement. 8. Ensure no sewer services pass through infiltration trenches. General Conditions of Approval 1. Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department,and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet,if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2. Per Meridian City Code(MCC),the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5. 3. The applicant shall provide easement(s) for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way(include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat,but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian's standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement(on the form available from Public Works),a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor,which must include the area of the easement(marked EXHIBIT A)and an 81/2"x I I"map with bearings and distances(marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted,reviewed, and approved prior to development plan approval. 4. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water(UDC 11-3B-6). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions 5. All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC. 6. All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals, or drains, exclusive of natural waterways,intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. 7. Any wells that will not continue to be used must be properly abandoned according to Idaho Well Construction Standards Rules administered by the Idaho Department of Water Resources. The Developer's Engineer shall provide a statement addressing whether there are any existing wells in the development,and if so,how they will continue to be used, or provide record of their abandonment. 8. Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections(208)375-5211. 9. Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and activated, road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded,prior to applying for building permits. 10. A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110%will be required for all uncompleted fencing,landscaping,amenities, etc.,prior to signature on the final plat. 11. All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures.Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B. 12. Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process,prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. 13. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 14. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 15. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 16. Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill,where footing would sit atop fill material. 17. The design engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. 18. The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 19. At the completion of the project,the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions 20. A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting.A copy of the standards can be found at http://www.meridiancity.org//public works.aspx?id=272. 21. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a performance surety in the amount of 125%of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer,water and reuse infrastructure prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit,cash deposit or bond.Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 22. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20%of the total construction cost for all completed sewer,water and reuse infrastructure for duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. C. Meridian Fire Department 1. Turnaround shall be in accordance with 2018 International Fire Code,Appendix D, and shall meet the minimum specifications of 96'exclusive of shoulders and curbs. D. Irrigation Districts 1. Nampa&Meridian Irrigation District https:llweblink.meridianciU.oLgzl ebLinklbrowse.aspx?id=379817&dbid=0&repo=Meridia nCi 2. Boise Project Board of Control https:llweblink.meridiancioy.orglWebLink/browse.aspx?id=379817&dbid=0&repo=Meridia nCi E. Idaho Department of Environmental Quality(DEQ) https:llweblink.meridiancioy.orglWebLink/Browse.aspx?id=379817&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCit X F. West Ada School District(WASD) or Other District/School https:llweblink.meridianciU.orglWebLink/Browse.aspx?id=379817&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCit X G. Ada County Highway District(ACHD) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=379817&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCit X 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: City of Meridian I Department Report V. Findings 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Commission finds annexation of the subject site with an R-2 and R-4 zoning designation will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Low Density Residential FLUM designation if the Comprehensive Map amendment is approved and if the Applicant complies with the provisions in Section IV.As the designation will be in line with the large estate surrounding properties in the area. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Commission finds the proposed lot sizes and layout proposed will be consistent with the purpose statement of the residential districts if the Comprehensive Plan map amendment is approved and that housing opportunities will provide consistency with the Comprehensive Plan for that area. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; Commission finds that the map amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to, school districts; and Commission finds the proposed annexation shall not result in adverse impact of services. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. Commission finds the proposed annexation is in the best interest of the City if the property is developed in accord with the provisions in Section IV. B. Comprehensive Plan(UDC 11-513-71)) 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 amendment to the Comprehensive Plan,the Council shall make the following findings: 1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the other elements of the comprehensive plan. Commission finds the proposed amendment to R-2 and R-4 is consistent with the zoning in that the proposed development will integrate with the existing land use to the north and south of the property that reside in Ada County and have existing large estate lots. 2. The proposed amendment provides an improved guide to future growth and development of the city. Commission finds that the proposal to change the FLUM designationfrom Medium Density Residential to Low Density Residential will allow a transition in uses between existing Rural Urban Transition five(5) acre lots to half acre lots providing a larger estate lot than allowed within the medium density residential designation. 3. The proposed amendment is internally consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Commission finds that the proposed amendment is consistent with the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan as noted in Section III. 4. The proposed amendment is consistent with this Unified Development Code. Commission finds that the proposed amendment is consistent with the Unified Development Code. City of Meridian I Department Report V. Findings 5. The amendment will be compatible with existing and planned surrounding land uses. Commission finds the proposed amendment will be compatible with abutting existing residential uses in the near vicinity. 6. The proposed amendment will not burden existing and planned service capabilities. Commission finds that the proposed amendment will not burden existing and planned service capabilities in this portion of the city. Sewer and water services are currently available to this site. 7. The proposed map amendment(as applicable)provides a logical juxtaposition of uses that allows sufficient area to mitigate any anticipated impact associated with the development of the area. Commission finds the proposed map amendment provides a logical juxtaposition of uses and sufficient area to mitigate any development impacts to adjacent properties. 8. The proposed amendment is in the best interest of the City of Meridian. For the reasons stated in Section V and the subject findings above, Commission finds that the proposed amendment is in the best interest of the City. C. 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; Commission finds the proposed plat is generally in conformance with the UDC if the Applicant complies with the conditions of approval in Section IV. 2. Public services are available or can be made available ad are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Commission finds public services can be made available to the subject property and will be adequate to accommodate the proposed development. Sewer and water are available at the site. 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the city's capital improvement program; Commission finds the proposed plat is in substantial conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's Capital Improvement Program. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Commission 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 Commission finds the proposed development is not detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. Commission finds the development is preserving the irrigation ditch by keeping it open as a natural feature. D. Private Streets In order to approve the application,the Director shall find the following: City of Meridian I Department Report V. Findings 1. The design of the private street meets the requirements of this Article; The Director finds that the proposed private street design meets the requirements. 2. Granting approval of the private street would not cause damage hazard, or nuisance, or other detriment to persons,property, or uses in the vicinity; and The Director finds that the proposed private street would not cause damage, hazard, or nuisance, or other detriment to persons,property, or uses in the vicinity if all conditions of approval are met. 3. The use and location of the private street shall not conflict with the comprehensive plan and/or the regional transportation plan. The Director finds the use and location of the private street does not conflict with the comprehensive plan or the regional transportation plan because the proposed design meets all requirements. 4. The proposed residential development(if applicable) is a mew or gated development. The Director finds the use and location of the private street does not conflict with the comprehensive plan or the regional transportation plan because the proposed design meets all requirements and is gated part of the development. VI. ACTION A. Staff: Staff recommend approval of the proposed amendment to the Future Land Use Map, annexation and preliminary plat per the provisions in Section IV in accord with the Findings in Section V. B. Commission: The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard this item on April 17,2025.At the public hearing.the Commission moved to approve the subject annexation. Comprehensive Plan Map amendment and preliminary plat request. 1. Summary of the Commission public hearing: a. In favor: John Breckon-Breckon Land Design representing the property owner b. In opposition:None c. Commenting: Carsten White resides at 6162 Tarrega Lane and will continue to reside on one of the proposed lots as well as hopefully his other brothers. The family would like to keep the property lower density so they can all have space to roam and let their kids run around and have a good time and enjoy Meridian. d. Written testimony:None e. Staff presenting application: Linda Ritter f. Other Staff commenting on application:None 2. Key issue(s)of public testimony: a. None 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission: a. None 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. None C. City Council: Pending City of Meridian I Department Report VI. Action ' 1 , . Z ct Location of Impac .......... LU -': Analysis f- � fy l w I i I r.i l Lkfm HAZEL I Legend ; Project f Location Analysis %'!Area of Impact 11� L1Je- ■r ���p ♦~� •••••,ii 11 0RUT 11 ` ■s 1 �� ounuu, hw4Mrann,I ENo.ff � ril nar•,I , �. ME E p milli KE _�nn Legend .- f 4 � 1 Project Location Q Low Density: Area of Impact Residentia . Analysis r ffiedlu s uiin� mnrii I �� r� 1\ 9 milli jig 111 ■� t■ Illnlllll I`�� Density 11111111�= �nnmm� =� _-Resi NINYN _ 'ann � i1NIB �+1 . — • .. _ LAKE HAZEL 1$r,► ,Med-High Density I�i,rgp� Residential -1 a 1. . . Legend LocationProject c Area of Impact fY�nnln IuuR1 � i:n City Limits W nun morn = I��nr• '�='r "7 _ _8411_',-1 1�'- ww ww =[Ellllitllll `•a,lt - � .�v, Planned Parcels ___ o :: nnnnnm - �►j �� 1 . Analysis =cliu�luuiul ul� __unuunw=_.� �j 111111' 1 Illlr� 1 til�til�l�l Irinn�f •. ,,,, Inllr� =_d' �ppgll 111':111l IIII _ IIIII�liil-�ll'wnlnui ,�. „�� n HIllh� -- 1}■ .It.,IL.ILA...6..11..11..�- =__ lli 11�� _ on•�� -=IIIIIIIIIIIIIuI IIIIIIIIIII 111 "'�l ■ __=lllllllllllllllll� iIIIIIIIIIII _ 1.111=_ -IIIIIIIIIIRIIII I-IIIIIIIII'II 11= �+�� rl�zir��:9-11111.--�mtunlul u _ ��mrr ql IIIIII.1�11�___�J _111`11111 1 J -�-=111111111111� �- I 11� 1 LAKE HAZEL - - Ilnlllllln'Illilllilllll=i.-_ Il�llllllljlllllll ill ol.y pin• - ��m ra+� 4 y���IIII =IDnl 111[I is BE 11111111=i=_ ��= --- i1�==m 7111`IIIII�l�l�lllln Illllu"1 �Ir 5. Map Notes Recent Area Preliminary Plats(within last 5-years): H-2021-0020,H-2022-0036,H-2023- 0041 Recent Area Conditional Use Permits (within last 5-years): H-2020-0009, H-2020-0057, H-2020-0117,H-2021-0021,H-2021-0036,H-2021-0087, H-2020-0056, H-2019-0097 H-2022-0036,H-2022-0050,H-2023-0041,H-2024-0014,H-2024-0041 B. Subject Site Photos w., - M t City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 1, ,V City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 'i r� r l City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits i a' t . A. �a 1 r City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits r _ a • _____ ii�l1 ^. !• - Ip�il� #4'$ r{ Yp 11llll!! _ Y i �� ��-r ems+ ---"vol, a��t �. a.� !���� �� � �„ .t %Y'�$s�`as�'�' ^g. J� ` s� ��1,' ""�� 't� �'•l�''rlb> •f' y � 3 �, "S ,d ��t. f.� f tvsr y�e_r Asa I f � I 1 7I 17.1 �ha��:;1Yri: �y 7r,, ` :���'• ,� �w��Yrf�: �� � '+�'':.- Y�i�� .��q�l �Y'R Ej '' •—•1 fir- ��i, `,i��e� � — � ��-- `-`�� �' s+ �'+�� LEE �_ II Y tit -rH✓¢ ✓ti M .Y ye„xa e ZAut � t ' r , ryyi �14 4 mz maw mm$ �c. u w t>l•r e I •.. �M �� fir.-.'.. � i MeridianDepartment 10 �r-dPkL jr- 14 } v �.—+�l'�,1� �� '. � -''.}• ti.yam,�; � _z ,� '� �a • 1 '�4•�54�L'}' i V - �fir"�• ..z rtx• ' '-� - +� �`•'' 'fir r' tiJ. , .# t .w City of MeridianDepartment Re 11Exhibits i . � 7 ry 7 ti - DepartmentCity of Meridian po C. Service Accessibility Report PARCEL S1131346650 SERVICE ACCESSIBILITY Overall Score: 1 �2nd Percentile Description Location Within 112 mile of City Limits YELLOW Extension Sewer Trunkshed mains 500-2,400 ft.from parcel YELLMV Floodplain Either not within the 140 yr floodplain or > 2 acres GREEN Emergency Services Fire Response time 5-9 min. YELLOIV Emergency Services Police Meets response time goals some of the time YELLMki Pathways Within 1/4 mile of future pathways YELLOW Transit Not within 1/4 of current or future transit route Arterial Road Buildout Status Ultimate configuration (#of lanes in master streets YELLOW plan) > existing (* of lanes) & road IS in 5 yr work plan School Walking Proximity From 112 to 1 mile walking YELLOIV School Drivability Not within 2 miles driving of existing or future school 1PRED Either a Regional Park within 1 mile OR a Community Park Walkability Park within 1/2 mile OR a Neighborhood Park within GREEN 1/4 mile walking City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits A Preliminary Plat(date: 4/7/2025) � `fig 0 ❑' i F.� S 1611M I - ❑ gym "r- -------- - ------I ----------- — —�----r— m p p i n GIB mM I M I ) M _ _ a � � I IsFI An Al ;Iuc-i I I I I I am d I $BLOGK4 A$yzyGm$l SsFmTor��0I 0�oy�gm S OC�lo�I�Il�Z;ni�II r L------JL---- �� z—ZTaT+D0 lCDam7l O 2 Z Ir---r--- i pr� D`-------_. m Da0 O y r NQO, Z uN12 nzpv w 5LOGK3 A®& M0p a "' � 1' pq I !^ � �8 NHrrE IOBE OWATIR l/lll _e 8 ------ I 1 Q ��s��� Ijr• I I I Y I I � � F�i■ �0 r �O I I ' 1 / I I , � I 1 .-J � •' s � 9� � D ... r� v m Mz MONDT MEADOWS SUBDIVISION $e l l a 6162 S. TARREGA LANE !I MERIDIAN, ID 83642 PRELIMINARY PLAT PRELIMINARY PLKF-- City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits E. Landscape Plan(date: 4/7/2025) I O ' m " ®. «� --- --i r--- --r r----i-, tr I - ' I _ D i ou _ 1 y 1 , M w,Av rr # 1 g$ t g} .i-...- �. RR r----,—r r-------z.r----'�i--�-- —` y � � ■k: 1�° BI�}$S1 i$ 8�6�F${ qF II II I — I g $ F X --------------87— � L__----J L______] Ir-----------� r--------i—� gg ggva � V I m ll I 33 y 8g _ --- - - I I�gi_pImil I Jill- i r-----� gaa¢ 1 g/ s EH--g9 ���� � ����1�� ---- --- . e FRO ooeuwe gill lips a@a@ y� 8 pp 79 Jill IAA 1Q ' 111 I I I I I I ' I I II I I I f I I f a a I I A I �I i >E yy YY yy 14 lip ------` ---- L--`-------- 1—�' i� z a auru�rnr Arae�pnuNri o g qa $ga 3 _ m F4 FF P'I F F4AA� §4 9E m �s a 8§ Z rn MONDT MEADOWS SUBDIVISION ' 6162 S.TARREGA LANE " a g MERIDIAN,ID 83142 EL11MINARY PLAT OVERALL LANDSCAPE PLAN City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits F. Qualified Open Space Exhibit(date: 4/7/2025) CITY OF MERIDIAN SINGLE FAMILY (R-2 AND R-4) OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS QUALIFIED OPEN SPACE R-7i as GPE34 SPACE TOTAL AFm A. slalsgRy fM QYME TMaURE" =.TJ1 SP tlpa 9F{.42AW mm5FtBOACJ RK*LIFIEJ7 OPE14 SPWCU {-5-25 AG] V, 13% Q-4•12%ORN 5PAr.•E MUN.AAL& !fir JE .MOP{9.5 hi} REWRED 115,142 5F E9}Dq 5F{3]+wJ 0;,e2AEIpw op"9P-L Nam AO 12% LANDSCAPE LEGEND GUFLIFIFD tlP@I SPlrCE w Q H a z •-T AREA-5.340 SQ.RT. AREA-29.747 SQ.FT. r - - - - - - E. E 30ALATION DRIVE 4712025 4r �y Y x 9 NICNDT MEADOWS SUBDIVISION PRDJECT#2aosa Y� S. TARIREGA LANE, MERIDIAN . --- OPEN SPACE EXHIBIT EX1.2 City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits G. Open Space Amenities Exhibit(date: 4/7/2025) r1PERGOLA AMENITY /n1FIRE PR AMENTY /i-1TABLE AMENITY y Z CALLOUT LEGEND — � � a �W �ZN 7 CO w a X qI� 0Q¢ Q~c Z tAMENRY AREA ENLARGEMENT n6ENCH AMENITY " T Exii -r - nPERGOLA AAAENITY AFIRE PIT AMENITY STABLE AMENITY r1 0 ,M on a:ia fV2 BENCH AMENITY City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits H. Building Elevations (date: 12/13/2024) 7.4 �r r �A City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits f qPh } City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■WAvow-.lor"w- f f City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits I. Annexation Legal Description &Exhibit Map .,ACCURATE *-I, r re SURVSwING & MAPPING r f r A V I LE Jab No_23-257 Exterior Boundary Description A parcel of land being a portion of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 31,Township 3 North,Range 1 East of the Boise Meridian,Meridian,Idaho,being more particularly described as fellows: BEGINNING at the found 2 inch aluminum cap on a 5/8 Inch iron pin stamped PL5 11463 at the Center-South Sixteenth Corner of Section 31,T.3 N.,R.1 E.,from which the found 5/8 inch iron pin with plastic cap labeled PLS 12459 at the Quarter Corner common to Sections 31&6 bears 500'15'S44 W a distance of 1341.76 feet; Thence along the east boundary line of the said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 315 W 15'S4"W for a distance of 391.80 feet to a found 5f 81'inch iron pin with a 2 inch aluminum cap stamped PL5 11463; Thence 5 00"15'54"W a distance of 391.80 feet to a found 5je inch iron pin with a 2 Inch aluminum cap stamped PLS 11463; Thence 133.61 feet along curve to the right,said curve having a radius of 523.50feet,a central angle of 14'87' 23"and a long chord bearing N 82°25'25"W a distance of 133.25 feet to a fund 5/8"inch iron pfn with a 2 inch aluminurn cap stamped PL5 11463; Thence N 75'06'43"W fora distance of 94.39 feetto a found 5/801 inch iron pin with a 2 inch aluminum cap stamped PL5 11463; Thence 122.R4 feet along a curve to the left,said curve having a radius of 476.50 Feet,a central angle of 14'43' 21"and a long chord bearing N 82'28'24"W a distance of 122.10 feet to a found 5/9"inch iron pin with a 2 inch aluminum cap stamped PL511463; Thence continuing N 89'So'D4"W fora distance of 308,87 feet to a found 5f811 inch iron pin with a 7 inch aluminum cap stamped PL5 11463; Thence N 89'49'59"W for a distance of 653,49 feet to a found 1/2 inch iron pin with a plastic cap labeled PLS 11463; Thence N 00'06'14"W for a distance of 334.40 feet to a found stone monument with a chiseled"x"; Thence S 89'5V 3r E fora distance of 1309.14 feet to a found 5/8"'inch iron pin with a 2 inch aluminum cap stamped PILS 11463,said corner being the Center-South 1/16th Corner the POINT OF RIEGINNING; Said parcel contains 10.278 acres,more-or less. Q � 11463 1520 W.Washington St.,Boise,ID 83702 •Phone:208-488-4227 • � www.acc❑rate5urveyors-corn City of Meridian I Department Report Vll. Exhibits EXHIBIT MAP A PORTION OF LAND LWNC WITHIN THE SE 114 OF- THE SW 114 OF SEC77ON X. T31d.. R.1E., B.M. ADA COUNTY—STATE OF IDAHO Q415ELE0 X" IN S7ONE S 89'51 33"E 1309.14' SCALE: 1"-200' 11167N a 10.278-+AC, ' . n 3 z v, a• �N m� N89 49 59 W 653.49 3p8.$7 m M LEGEND m BOUNDARY LINE N 7,5 p1'43" C2 ' °SECTION LINE 94.39 ` PARCEL LIME q m FOUND 2"ALUA41NLW CAP [n 4 IN ASPHALT ■ FOUWTH P AS77 IRON PIN, 3631 N 89 4_2_74" W__2494.4C_' 1 E_ 31 ]14 CORNER N47H PLA571C CAP, AS NOTED __�_ T.3 N. I> FOUND 5/8"IRON PIN H7F11 1 6 SECTION CORNER E [A}f(E HAZEL RD. T•2N. R.1.E B. 6 2"ALUMINUM CAP, PLS 11463 R.1 W.I R.i E. FOUND 112"IRON PIN, WTH PLAS77C CAP, PLS 4725 O SET 518"IRON PIN W7H 2"ALUMNUM CAP, PLS 11463 P.O.B. POINT OF BEGINNINC S' ATE CURVE TABLE ACW V ' SURVEYINO & NAPP1#0 1146 3 53 1520 W.Washington SL CURVE ARC LENGTH RADIUS DELTA ANGLE CHORD BEARING CHORD LENGTH i 122.44' O*L r Idabo 8370 2 3 . 0' .1 9 (203)488.4227C2 5235 14'37'23' N 62-25'25" W 133.25' OF Accurat r"PF,54 um N J. DRY DATE DEC 7024 "24-ZM City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits J. R-2 Rezone Exhibit(date: 3/18/2025) 4�i� racy .,ACCURATE � �o 5JRVEYikG & MAPPING t 8 F R V;T. Job No-24-244 Description for Re-Zoning A parcel of land being a portion of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 31,Township 3 North,Range 1 East of the Boise Meridian,City of Meridian,Idaho,being more particularly described as follows-. BEGINNING at the found 2 Inch aluminum cap on a 5/8 inch iron pin stamped PL5 11463 at the Center-South Sixteenth Corner of Section 31,T_3 N„R.1 E.,from which the found 5/8 inch iron pin with plastic cap labeled PLS 12459 at the Quarter Corner common to Sections 31&5 bears S 00'15'54"W a distance of 1341.76 feet; Thence S 89'51'33"E for a distance of 62.50 feet to a point on the centerline of S,Sublimity Ave.as shown in the proposed plat of Apex Northwest Subdivision#4,Page 2,Block 14; Thence 5 00'15'54"W along the centerline of said 5.Sublimity Ave.for a distance of 391.80 feet; Thence N 89'51'33"W for a distance of 62.50feet to a found 5/8 inch iron pin with a 2 inch aluminum cap stamped PL5 11463; Thence 133.61 feet along a curve W the right,said curve having a radius of 523.50 feet,a central angle of 14`37' 23"and a long chord bearing N 82'25'25"W a distance of 133.25 feet to a found 5/81'inch iron pm with a 2 Inch aluminum cap stamped PLS 11463; Thence N 75'D5'43"W for a distance of 9439 feet to a found 5/8"Inch iron pin with a 2 inch aluminum cap stamped PLS 11463; Thence 122.44 feet along a curve to the left,said curve having a radius of 476.50 feet,a central angle of 14'43' 21"and a long chord bearing N 92'28'24"W a distance of 122.10 feet to a found 5/81h inch iron pin with a 2 inch aluminum cap stamped PLS 11463; Thence continuing N 89'50'04"W for a distance of 308.87 feet to a-Found 5/81h inch iron pin with a plastic cap labeled PLS 4725; Thence N 85'49'59"W for a distance of 346.90 feet to a set 5{3tn inch iron pin with a 2 inch aluminum cap stamped PLS 11463; Thence N GO'10'01"E fora distance of 334.54 feet to a set 5/8t'inch iron pin with a 2 inch aluminum cap stamped PL511463-1 Thence S 89'51'33"E fora distance of 1000.97 feet to a found 5/8m inch iron pin with a 2 inch aluminum cap stamped PLS 11453,said corner being the Center-South 1/16th Cornerthe PQINTOF BEGINNING: Said parcel contains 8.480 acres,more or less. 11463 1520 VV.Washington St..Boise,ID 83702-Phone:208-488-4227 www.accu mtesurveyors.corn City of Meridian I Department Report V11. Exhibits EXHIBIT MAP A PARCEL DE LAND L7]NO W P41N WE SE 114 OF THE SW 114 QF SECTION 31, T.31V., R.I E. B.M. ADA COUNTY—STATE OF IDAHO C—s SCALE: 7"=200' S 69'51 33" E 1063.47' I/16TH P.O.D- LEGEND w T000.97' r I L 1 L. BOUNDARY LINE °_ 3 ?lfK 'a o ----- SECTION LINE + z 3 I ' k2> 7.9I8fAC. ■ �c o z " PARCEL LINE IF SPHAL T ALUMINUM CAP O • P70UNO 5/8'IRON PIN. 010 PLASAC CAP, AS NOTED 348.9 , 0 IV ¢ 1 e F1W10 5/8"IRON PIN H1TH N 89 48'59" W 308.87 m y 1 4 w 2'ALUMINUM CAP, PLS 71463 0 • F041NO 112"IRON PIN, 64TN C2 C2 PLASTIC CAP. PLS 4725 N 75 O6'43' { 0 sEr 5/8"IRON PIN WN 94.39' f �I 2"ALUMINUM CAP, PLS 11463 1 0! P.D.B. PLWT OF OEQ'VNING 1 0 CALCULATED POINT 36 7 ____N 89 42 24" W__2490.40_ T.3NR.1_E_ L T I14 CORNER T 1 B SfC11ON CORNER E. LAKE HAZEL RD. iT.ZN. R.1.E s-S.M. R !a• 6 LINE TABLE R.1 W.1 _I E. LJNE BEARING p15TANCE LLy- L1 5 BT51 33 E 62.50' �^ ACCURATE L2 N 89'S3'39" W S2.S0 "v tl 1 1 4C3 2 a9R520W.W i �fnSP CURVE TABLE 1520 W.Washim�lpn 5r_ IND 114F.25� Base,Idaho 8M2 CURVE ARC LENGTH RADIUS DELTA ANOLE CHORD BEARING CHOfiD LENGTH (208)488-427 CF lDT wu^n•.accuratesurveyors¢xn C7 122-44 478-50 14'43'21" N W2824 W f22.10' '1q NJ.n��G C2 133.61' 523.50' 14'37'23 N 82'2525'W 133.25' LAM DEC;2424 JO,724-244 City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits K. R-4 Rezone Exhibit(date: 3/18/2025) ACCURATE � y � SURVEYING $ MAPPING y 'Pt 0 c Job No.23-257 Description for Ike-Zane A parcel of land being a portion of the Southeast Quarterof the Southwest Quarter of 5ection 31,Township 3 North,Range 1 East of the Boise Meridian,Meridian,Idaho,being more particularly described as foilows; Commencing at the found 2 inch aluminum cap on a 5/8 inch iron pin stamped PLS 11463 at the Center-South Sixteenth Corner of Section 31,T_3 N-,R.1 E.,from which the found 5/8 inch iron pin with plastic cap labeled PLS 12459 at the Quarter Corner common to Sections 31&6 bears 5 00'15'54"W a distance of 1341-76 feet; thence N 89.51'33"W a distance of 1000.97 feet to a set 5/8"inch iron pin with a 2 inch aluminum cap stamped PL5 11463 and the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence 5 00'10'01"W for a distance of 334.54 feet to a set 5/8tn inch iron pin with a 2 inch aluminum cap stamped PLS 11463; Thence N 89'49'59"W for a distance of 3D5-59 feet to a found 1/2 inch Iron pin with a plastic cap labeled PLS 11463; Thence N 00'W 14"W for a distance of 334.40 feet to a found stone monument with a chiseled"X"; Thence S 89'51'33"E for a distance of 308.17 feet to a set 518"inch iron pin with a 2 inch aluminum cap stamped PL5 11461,the POINT OF BEGINNING; Said parcel contains 2.350 acres or 102,809 square feet,more or less. R J¢ 11463 1 1520 W.Washington St., Boise,IQ 83702•Phone:208-488-4227 www-accuratesurveyors.com City of Meridian Department Report V11. Exhibits EXHIBIT MAP A POR710N OF LAND LYING IWTHfN THE SE i/4 OF 7N£ SW 114 OF SEC 770N Jr. T,3Y.. R.1E., B AI. ADA COUNTY—STATE OF IDAHO CHISELED X' 1N sTON£ S H9�1:33" F 1309.14' 30817' P.C.S. 1000.07' c-s SCALE: V'=200' S B951'33" E 3 i/167H It a n g o 2.360,EAC. 306.59" tl. ¢ H w IV 69 4959" W ❑a r u o❑ G7 a R 4 SECTION CORNER 1 f4 CORNEli 36 1 N 89 4_2_24" W_ 2490._40__L.,,jN, p,} 114 cc. 31 LEGEND 6 T E. CAKE HAZEL RD. r.zN. R 1.E B.M. s BOUNDARY LINE -- SECRON LJNE PARCEL LINE FOUND 2'ALUA41NUW CAP IN A5PHALT ■ FOUND 5/8"IRON PIN, WM PLASTIC CAP, AS MOVED FOUND MNU i1463 IRON PIN N114 ACLU'yam TH 2"ALUMINUM CAP, PLS • FOUND 14'IRON PIN, w7H SURVEYING & YAPPING PLAS77C CAP, PLS 4725 11463 s•:r•z5 O SET 518"IRON PIN ami5B.F..dah.83-2 , 2'ALUMINUM CAP, PL5 I7463 91F'OF �Op wwwaa0stesurveyon.00m . 488-4227 D.B. POW'CF BEGINNING ��AN J❑��G DATE,DrC MM J0824-244 City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits L. CPAM Exhibit(date: 3/I8/2O25) Fay t Adopted FUNFe Laud Uses Legend x ___ _ _ ______ ___ Fuiurc Land Uses --- - ------- CI1ywJt,- - Lnw prrr.Ily Rl:.5i FItinI rhndlUm Dtmsilyf2cnidcnlitil frrd-H di DunylyRasidcrrriA - Hiph Density Residenlicil — Commercial LdlfE•HAfiFL�- — -- - Ofrioe - IncludAw Live` Proposed Future Land Uses - C3al rows mlxea Ux�-N ht:.rt sand ® Mixed Us,-- Mixed Us-Regional — Mimad Use Nor-R%ide iid r Mixed Use-Interchange Ter Mile Spsci!ic - Low DonsiFy Employ:on`- ' Lifestyle Cerier — __ . -___High Density Employment # MiweG Employment E mixed Ue-•kf.siden[bl +-- - ------- -' ® Mlxr U Usp C.mmrxadcd SAKE HAIEL City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits VIII. ADDITIONAL NOTES & DETAILS FOR STAFF REPORT MAPS,TABLES,AND CHARTS (link to Community Metrics) A. One-Mile Radius Existing Condition Notes This data is automatically derived from enterprise application and GIS databases, and exported dynamically. Date retrieved notes generally reflect data acquired or processed within the last 30- days.Analysis is based on a one-mile radius from the centroid of the identified parcel. Parcel based data excludes certain properties and represents land as it exists now. Properties considered are only those with a total assessed value greater than 0(i.e. excludes most HOA area,transitional development, government, and quasi government facilities). The following values also constrain included property acreage to reduce outliers and non-conforming instances from distorting averages: R-2<5.0; R-4<2.0; R-8< 1.0; R-15 <0.5; R-40<0.25. Conditional Use Permits and Preliminary plat data likely include duplicate project submittals as they may be for the same project, approved at different times through multiple application types. Consider each independently or review prior application approvals. Some approved entitlements, and particularly older ones,may be constructed. Decennial population counts and household counts are based on the most recent Decennial Census. Current population and current household values are COMPASS estimates,usually for the year previous, and are based on traffic analysis zone boundaries(TAZ's). B. Mixed Use Analysis Notes This data is derived from enterprise application and GIS databases, and exported dynamically. Data considered for analysis are only those areas overlapping the overall Mixed Use boundary area. Mixed Use areas across arterial roadways are distinct, separate, and not considered as they do not meet the mixed use principles in the Comprehensive Plan(e.g.pedestrian safety, transportation efficiency, etc.). Mixed Use parcel areas may be greater or smaller than the future land use area designation boundary due parcel size,configuration,right-of-way, and other factors. Conditional Use Permits and Preliminary plat data likely include duplicate project submittals as they may be for the same project, approved at different times through multiple application types. Consider each independently or review prior application approvals. C. Service Assessment Notes This data represents existing conditions derived from our enterprise application and GIS database, exported through dynamic reporting. The system references the most recent available data from various sources, including sewer main lines, sewer trunksheds, floodplain, fire service areas and response times,police crime reporting,pathway information,existing and planned transit, roadway improvements, school and park proximity, and other resources. The tool provides context for project review,using multiple indicators consistently. Data from similar topics may vary based on different levels of review. The overall score is based on weighted criteria(not a ranked order), and the percentile score compares the parcel to others in the city(higher is better). This tool was developed as a City Council priority and outcome of the 2019 Comprehensive Plan. Scores,whether high or low, are just one data point and should not be the sole basis for decisions. D. ACHD Roadway Infographic Notes The Ada County Highway District utilizes a number of planning and analysis tools to understand existing and future roadway conditions. • Existing Level of service(LOS).LOS indicator is a common metric to consider a driver's experience with a letter ranking from A to F.Letter A represents free flow conditions, and on the other end Level F represents forced flow with stop and go City of Meridian I Department Report VIII. Additional Notes&Details for Staff Report Maps, Tables, and Charts conditions. These conditions usually represent peak hour driver experience. ACHD considers Level D, stable flow,to be acceptable. The LOS does not represent conditions for bikes or pedestrians, nor indicate whether improvements: are possible; if there are acceptable tradeoffs; or if there is a reasonable cost-benefit. • Integrated Five Year Work Plan (IFYWP).The IFYWP marker(yes/no) indicates whether the specified roadway is listed in the next 5-years. This work may vary, from concept design to construction. • Capital Improvement Plan(CIP).The CIP marker(yes/no)indicates whether the specified roadway is programmed for improvement in the next 20-years. City of Meridian I Department Report VIII. Additional Notes&Details for Staff Report Maps, Tables, and Charts C i E IDIAN.;--- Agenda Item Applicant Presentation Mondt Meadows IDAHO, MERIDIAN Subdivision H 4 zoning districts-2 and R-10.28 acres in the proposed RPreliminary Plat consisting of 11 building lots (10 new and 1 existing) and 4 common lots on 4: 2.36 acres-R2: 8.48 acres-R Annexation of 10.84 acres of land from RUT in Ada Countydesignation from Medium Density Residential to Low Density ResidentialAmendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to change the future land use AZ, CPAM, PP0067 Mondt Meadows Subdivision-2024- Site Location PROJECT SITE SiteProject East of Meridian Road North of Lake Hazel Road and Future Land Plan Amendment to adjust to Proposing a Comprehensive Density Residential zoneProperty resides in Medium Use Map Zoning Map 2-R4-R development15 -is approved as an RSky Ranch to the south and west 4 Medium Density Residential-R2 Low Density Residential / -RProposed to annex and zone as Transition (RUT) in Ada CountyProperty is Rural Urban Sky Ranch ZoningUpdated 2-RApex 8-RApex 15-RApex 4-RShafer View Estates 2-4 / R-Proposed RMondt Meadows4-Proposed RShafer View Ridge 15-Approved R Schools ELEMENTARYMcPHERSONMARY VICTORY MIDDLE SCHOOLSCHOOLMOUNTAIN VIEW HIGH Project Site 2.3 miles–Mary McPherson Elementary School 3.8 miles–Victory Middle School 4.2 miles–Mountain View High School Emergency MERIDIAN FIRE STATION #7MERIDIAN FIRE STATION #4 Project Site 1.5 miles–Meridian Fire Station #7 5.3 miles–Meridian Fire Station #4 Services Proposed Site Open space provided: 1.15 AC4 @ 12%: 0.35 AC-R◦2 @ 8%: 0.42 AC-R◦Open space required: 0.74 AC0.85 AC)-(0.2837,000 SF -Lots from 12,000 family residential lots-10 single10.28 AC site Plan Related Projects Mondt MeadowsShafer View Ridge Roadways◦Pressurized Irrigation◦Water◦Sewer◦timeline for synergyExpect to construct on the same in near futureand preliminary plat to be submitted Shafer View Ridge Subdivision annex Public Utilities developmentsto future To and Through (not shown)connection To offsite water mainExisting 12” water mainProposed 8” View Drconnection offsite in E Shafer nd 2subdivision8” water main within the in S Sublimity AveConnect to existing 12” water main WATER INFRASTRUCTURE Public Utilities developmentsto future To and Through gravity mainExisting 18” gravity mainProposed 8” 8” sewer main within the sitein S Sublimity AveConnect to existing 18” main SEWER INFRASTRUCTURE Irrigation HG 3.44Supply from pondand retention Pump station all common & residential lotsProvide pressure irrigation stubs to Shafer View Ridge, and neighborsshared between Mondt Meadows, and retention pond, expected to be Construct irrigation pump station to propertyPipe irrigation water from headgate View DrHeadgate 3.44 north of E Shafer Improvements Amenities Elevations Elevations Elevations Elevations Thank You! w IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing 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 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 with some Private Streets. PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: May 6, 2025 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 4 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 2 iEEE� 17 3 '72 is �S . W���^�-Uev� - 4 2 0 0 io kA-Vx"""4-'k-- �""-1414"Aru -r-'o 83 5 6MW &>3642- 6 7 8 �2 9 A a_ � 10 51 A'S�7-- '4� 12 13 14 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT C��fEPIDIAN*,­, DEPARTMENT REPORT HEARING 5/6/2025 Legend DATE: Project Location Area of Impact TO: Mayor&City Council City Limits ®Analysis FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 sallen@meridiancity.org APPLICANT: Rodney Evans+Partners,LLC �tW=F ti. SUBJECT: H-2024-0059 - Latitude Forty Three Subdivision—AZ, ;�; F 3 PP LOCATION: 675, 715 and 955 S. Wells St., in the east 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 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. City of Meridian I Department Report III. STAFF ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code(UDC) A. General Overview Comprehensive Plan: 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. City of Meridian I Department Report 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. 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)J. 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. There are existing trees on the site that may require mitigation in accord with the standards listed in UDC 1I- 3B-1 OC.S; the landscape plan should be revised to include mitigation information, as applicable. 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 11-213-3 for dimensional standards of the C-N zoning district. City of Meridian I Department Report 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. 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 VI1.1 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. City of Meridian I Department Report 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-5B 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. 3. Landscaping (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3B): 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 11-3134C.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. City of Meridian I Department Report 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. 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 11- 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 City of Meridian I Department Report 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. 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 Hour PM Peak Hour Classification Traffic Count Level of Service "Magic View Drive 712-feet Local so N-A Commercial "Wells Street 1,575-feet Local N/A N.A Commercial **Wells Circle 344-feet Local N/A NA Commercial **ACHD does not set level of service thresholds for local streets_ Access (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-3, UDC 11-3H-4): 1. 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. Access to the southern portion of the development is proposed via S.Wells St. and E. Wells Cir. 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. City of Meridian I Department Report 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. 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 inter-im of the bridge being r-eplaeed aer-ess the Fivemile Creek, Staff r-eeemimeads a fninimum 5' wide temper-ary asphalt pathway is provided along Wells St. if thefe is adequate are alongside the existing read.ACHD confirmed there isn't adequate area for the pathway. 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 VII.E 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 VII.B 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. City of Meridian I Department Report 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.1 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. 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 City of Meridian I Department Report 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 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. vi. Remove the sidewalk along the west side of S. Longitude Dr. and provide right-of-way to the west property line. 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 I I- 3G-4D.3; include a detail for these items. City of Meridian I Department Report iii. Per UDC 11-3G-41).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 11-313-12C;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 10-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). 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.ACHD confirmed there is not adequate area for a pathway. xiii.Include mitigation information for existing trees on the site that are being removed with development in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-1OC.5, as applicable. xiv.Remove the sidewalk along the west side of S. Longitude Dr. and provide right-of-way to the west prope , line. 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 VILE. 5. All pathways shall be constructed 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. 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. City of Meridian I Department Report 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.meridiancioy.orglWebLink/browse.aspx?id=367307&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity 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; The Commission finds 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; The Commission finds the proposed amendment to the R-8 and R-1 S 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; The Commission finds 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. City of Meridian I Department Report 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 The Commission finds 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. The Commission finds 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; The Commission finds 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; The Commission finds 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; ACHD is planning to construct a new bridge across the Fivemile Creek in the CIP; no other improvements are planned. Other than that, the Commission 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; The Commission 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 The Commission finds 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. The Commission 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. B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard these items on April 3,2025. At the public hearing,the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject AZ and PP requests. City of Meridian I Department Report 1. Summary of Commission public hearing_ a. In favor: Ben Semple,Rodney Evans+Partners,LLC b. In opposition:None C. Commenting: Robin McCulley d. Written testimony Ben Semple,Rodney Evans+Partners,LLC; Robin McCulley; Cassy Peck; Celeste Fox; Kathleen Lewis; Tanya Bader; Erin Russell; Raymond Spencer e. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen f. Other Staff commenting on application: None 2. Key issue(s) testimony a. The existing fence along Woodbridge's east boundary(the site's west boundary)is crooked and doesn't lie on the property line in manyplaces 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; b. The high volume of traffic goingthrough hrough Woodbridge subdivision between Locust Grove&Eagle Roads,which will worsen with more homes beingdped 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; c. 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; d. 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; e. 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 ro e f. Ms. McCulley expressed concern about a tree located along her rear property line and how it would be impacted by a new fence. 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission: a. General consensus the proposed development will fit in well with the existing residential development to the west(i.e.Woodbridge); b. Recognition of the traffic issues in this area; c. Agreement with Staff s recommendation pertaining to fencing along the Fivemile Creek. 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. At Staffs request,the Commission included new conditions requiring miti ag tion information to be included on the landscape plan for existing trees on the site that are being removed with development in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B- 1 OC.5, as applicable; and removal of the sidewalk along the west side of Longitude Dr. with provision of ROW to the west property line. 5. Outstanding issue(s) for City Council: a. Council should determine if the fencing recommended by Staff along the Fivemile Creek is appropriate as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6C. City of Meridian I Department Report l� FRANKLiILU 111111ss���\\�11 \ 84® ■ " W r , - a -• • •• FRANKLIN �++ __ • ■■■■■ ■■■���► ■■■■■■■■n■■■■�,��� /�■■■■■■■��■��ii,����� W m „■■■i M■■■110011■4 ram:. :r■■nn..� p MEN -- 84 r OYERL--AND W �� .. FRANKLIN �1oi■�■■1■11� -omme X ,e � Ulm� rt+�■ii■tip� III - r • � c 111 �■■ _ _�� !mill 84 —s. _ a 01/ERL-AND.,. ICJ■moll 5 ME ONE -• • •• FRANKL=IN -- .:`s� �■■■■■■■■■■■■■ �� ill `i ,�■ � � W:,C:l•.y iCi7C� 7CCii Cia.Gra�1�r1.iL� tom' ■111►�■■■ _ Mill 119 „ra ■■.. „ OYERL--AND MEMO 0 ■ �W' ti,■yi� . �--a �IN.■■■tit■.�>` 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 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 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 N00'01'21"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 0 150 300 600 • D 4 PROJECT: T—LE '93'30D Kimle H rn LATITUDE 43 SCALE 1'=� 11W S FDAM UM 210'�r EXHIBIT rrB DATE: 4CdiCa2024 B@M loom WTM ANNEXATION SHEET: wld�li�-I.wear SHEET 2 OF 2 City of Meridian I Department Report I irnlepMorn October 14,24 Lawode 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 distancGflt 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 I imle )) Horn October 10,2024 Lambdb Fort+Fhrc c R-15 Zama Description A portion of Lot 21 of the Amended Magic 10ew Subrd ivision,filed in Soak 52 of Plats at Pages 4445-4145ti Ada County Records,being kw-Med in the East Half of 5er-tian 17_Township 3 North,Range 1 East,Boise Meridian, City of Meridian,Ada County,Idaho,being more Particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Center quarter of Ser-tion 17_Townsh ip 3 North,Range 1 East Base Meridian,from which the North Quarter Corner of said Section 17 bears North 00'2348"East, 2,65T.09 feet;Thence South 320.113 feet. and East 253_151 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence Sow h W 1 V44" East,a dlstanee of 296.67 feet to the Easterly Lot line i�f said Lot V; Thence along salts Lot IIne South 49°3626"East,a diatanec 4f 3XV feet; Thermos North.89-1544"West,a distance of 351.60 lsct to the Wcsterly Lot line of said Lot 21- Thoh" a to ng-82ild Lot l i no NMh-00'U V 2 V West,a distance of 3Z5.03 feet to the PAINT OF BEGINNING of this descriRtiom Containing 1054356 square fast or 2_A2 acres of tan d. U, 9 CF City of Meridian Department Report I imley> orn Goober 10, M4 Lambj*Eft zom 00sc"Ptoorr A pardon of Lot 21 of the Arne n ded M agic View Subd ivision,filed in Book 5,2 of PI ats at Pages a."W 11 Ada County Records,being I ocated in the East Half of SeGtidn 17_Townsh ip 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 09"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 I Department Report 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 NOD' 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 1 la0000 LATITUDE 43 SCIRM 1'-3W� { 1140 7S S�EEf 1f !r "Am 1 5J�#14 ZONES 9p�.Q1}I�t4r02 1�1ELT ~ rp SHEAF 4 QF 4 City of Meridian I Department Report 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 0 > va ❑ z w ° LU m LL�� r -g'� �iIsaaaas... ❑ Jam , 33 "_' ❑ W HHOA 9m 1y€ea•a 6•.wip NUN 9 its tS�s$SS City of Meridian I Department Report ff lligg �\ / � -- \ ;� —— W AlVT, -4 � - \\� � § / | �.; _�— C) K t \ } � |� Ou �\� ) � !( KimleyoHorn DETAILS v MERIDLAN.IDAHO City of Meridian Department Report tr. HIP ¢ 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 S 2 m w S I Y — I -- o© ❑o°o ❑oo 8 a L4TMJDE FORTY Ti-IREESUMVISkOU l�y> Horn pp EXISTING CGNDITIONS MFRIDM IDARO m r. City of Meridian Department Report M U g U�30 S. RE V 4r RS�4 7L bg - ----- ----- Its 31 r aj S. -------------- Jab----.A T-- N !v N) 'I Tl 11 R'3 E-1 7T MATGHLINE SEE SHUT05 F Ff LATffUDF-FO---E-...S.- Kimley*Horn PRELIMINARY PLAT MERIDIAN.5DAHO City of Meridian Department Report all .71 9k5 �i�ssg.g; R3af eS` f I 14 r' fir 1 _ WATCtUNE SEE SHEFFD1 rrr �g 4t ;'y�. f OR ��'�' '�— + ' x ��� �� , ••ter r U ECFEEEK ��.•, rr �! L w _w s a� 4 II v_a nl� �!S sled .,I n°a Ise e i R>F 5 E 101LkTdl dl L -� wox q9 !7 5�G ayy s o8°' 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/ �,••�"•v hERIDVUyIDAHO u..mrM City of Meridian Department Report 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 H MERIDIAN,IDAHO r City of Meridian Department Report E. Common Driveway Exhibit ---_—_---------------------� I I II — _S WELLSAr HOME 1IIti ''1 I Eu ', l I _�_g 1:� I�NTATlOWf HpM I ca 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 LF___s'_� I i nbuVtnr3+ ,II I =- o I zli b� W�— l� N }o: I Y i I I NaiT1 �A • E E I • LL ui E� Ll_--------� O � I 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 �,... 6 V,H'M. �- +HIP 9 I� 1 10;;�: + rgcfo_§ L ■tl!i 4 _ ! I ! .. 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 LATITUDEFOf"THREE SUBDIVISION Kimley*Horn B _ gay �weier r:�emr w.�+rn r LANCSCARE PLAN �RIow�Lioallo City of Meridian Department Report ,a ;yX4 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 LATITUI)E FORTY TFREESL18OIhASION lKimleylMorn LANDSCAPE PLAN .a.. � LfRiow:LOAFiO City of Meridian Department Report qq pp } E WGIC y,+Ew � � a : aP If n $ I L 1 r � jz jff Ir� i i P � a � 4 -- ,. City of Meridian Department Report G. Open Space& Site Amenity Exhibit ------------ - --------- T MF N w M W jo 0 M L I "I h lip liq I Mgj TUIE FOR-1-1 TIRIE SUM Kimley*Horn OPEN SPACE PLAN MERIDAN,IDAHD City of Meridian Department Report 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 GENERAL NOTES ialgl BUILUINGAREAS ------------------ ----- it =4 ............... V f�-- ---------------- 'lag ------------ FRONT ELEVATION ED"MODERN FARMHOUSE) A D 0 0 jE 0 —----------- LEFT ELEVATION("ID"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 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 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 bw 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 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) $�if! "mrnwwre« � gy� ____snaucv:w i a P i f ------------- ___---=-=-=-------�. g 1 S REAR ELEVATION"H"(MODERN) L �A ------------- -— j orr. O 052 O At.4Ao...nm., - -iif tiNo II -- -- ------------------------------ --- -- -- i--- RIGHT ELEVATION"H^{MODERN) M~� A4 51 City of Meridian Department Report 35-foot-wide product for lots that are 45' or wider: I r E I�i inl - g6i na.�o �I City of Meridian Department Report e ilo �J—III��III�II II ���as Ell o rs GENERAL NOTES ~�9 .,gym. e��^��• - BUILDING AAEAS� ....,.. j -—_-_-_-_-_------------- ------------- �s.�. +_"— — _ R I EMELEVATION"D'(MODERN FARMHOUSES � - �X �. A sc ca.uNN OEra a N v W _ Z on D m 1 „ r O N� -_--_--_--_--_—_—_ LEFT FI EVATION-D-(MODERN FARMHOUSE) »� A4 3U les �W 1-0 @ 'o_y OPT.1T SLIDER REAR ELEVATION"O"(MODERN FARMH(XJSE) d L X N N W Z� 0 0 =9 N n# OD r _—---— C_2___ -----___________-----____________________________________5--------------- RIGHT ELEVATION"D"(MODERN FARMHOUSE) w,v A4.31 City of Meridian Department Report GENERAL NGIES VENEWERR WRAP PLAN BUILDING AREAS MEE a - -------------- X� FROML ELEVATION"P'(PNW MODERN) Oo OPTIONAL&'OOOR J L-- J -a TT II1I s -------------- ---------------- !IR LEFT EL VATEION T"(PNW MODERN) LE A4.Sfl WWI It L TLE ws E,—IL --]Lk y01 ----------------- OPT 17 SLIDER REA'R EELEVATION"P(PNW MODERN) L nX - --------------------.-----------_--__ N W Z O �m# r _---.----_ ---------- ----------------------------------------------- III GHT ELEVATION"F"(MODERN PNW) A4.51 City of Meridian Department Report ((5 d i IIIH i a 4¢s$€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 4,3 ling'! - 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 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 40-foot-wide product for lots 50' or wider: IF Yr �i Y M iM - - a-.� r�Ne�a Nares_ ■� 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 GENERAL NOTES a €� BUILDINGAREAS� 3. a�W� a a- F FncnoECA ------ t �u • --�� —r==i IIFl o 0 0 0 H �I II 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 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' :wN 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 GENERAL NOTES BUILDING AREAS ?all W Lux .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 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 M - 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 0tt-:-:--:-:-:--:-__- 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 --------------- �oI - LU tb (D-i 1 6 V tl 00 0000 - - - - - - •� I r"�� �I I• ] a Ilr FRONT ELEVATION("D"MODERN FARMHOUSE) u--... 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 9 fill Ofli Ww5 •sr ul------------------ -- - _ 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 Ko s�eaomW K o� mr .am.s.�._..._. _O____ - PT OP5_ I I H RIGHT ELEVATION WN. A4.51 City of Meridian Department Report 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-- ---- t. - :..... I.,, _ 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 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 — C i E IDIAN.;--- Agenda Item Applicant Presentation LATITUDE 43 SUBDIVISION Meridian, ID 83642675, 715, & 955 S. Wells St.Meridian, ID 83642675, 715, & 955 S. Wells St.6, 2025MAYCITY COUNCIL HEARING 0059-2024-H-PP-AZLATITUDE 43 SUBDIVISION6, 2025MAYCITY COUNCIL HEARING 0059-2024-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-meet the standards of the Rtheir choice for the lot they purchase. All homes will story homes along Woodhaven Ave.). Future home buyers will be able to select the home of -Subdivision (there is a mix of 1 and 2homes, as is the case with the adjacent Woodbridge story-level on the west side of Phase 1. Lots are set up to accommodate both 1 and 2-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 topographic information to fully understand the property line/fencing discrepancy.ssues will be resolved. The surveyor is gathering additional t imaterials and conditions, and the fence may not be on the lot line. Overall property has been surveyed and any fence alignmencoordinated 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-meet the standards of the Rtheir choice for the lot they purchase. All homes will story homes along Woodhaven Ave.). Future home buyers will be able to select the home of -Subdivision (there is a mix of 1 and 2homes, as is the case with the adjacent Woodbridge story-level on the west side of Phase 1. Lots are set up to accommodate both 1 and 2-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 topographic information to fully understand the property line/fencing discrepancy.ssues will be resolved. The surveyor is gathering additional t imaterials and conditions, and the fence may not be on the lot line. Overall property has been surveyed and any fence alignmencoordinated 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 4Condition 3. Landscape Plan revisions will be completed and submitted with the future Final Plat application.Condition 2. Final Plat revisions will be incorporated prior to submittal.Condition 1. Development Agreement will be prepared and submitted to the City of Meridian per the staff report.13. Agreed.-Condition 4Condition 3. Landscape Plan revisions will be completed and submitted with the future Final Plat application.Condition 2. Final Plat revisions will be incorporated prior to submittal.Condition 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 W IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Ordinance No. 25-2081: An ordinance (965 E. Ustick Rd. — H-2024-0063) annexing a parcel of land located in the northwest quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 6, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described in Exhibit "A"; rezoning 1.11 acres of such real property from the R1 (Estate Residential) zoning district to the L-0 (Limited Office) zoning district; directing city staff to alter all applicable use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps and all official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance; providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Treasurer, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law; repealing conflicting ordinances; and providing an effective date. Ada County Recorder Trent Tripple 2025-027978 Boise,Idaho Pgs=4 cfowler 05/07/2025 08:45:11 AM CITY OF MERIDIAN IDAHO$0.00 Electronically Recorded CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 25-2081 BY THE CITY COUNCIL: CAVENER, LITTLE ROBERTS, OVERTON STRADER, TAYLOR, WHITLOCK AN ORDINANCE (965 E. USTICK RD. — H-2024-0063) ANNEXING A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A"; REZONING 1.11 ACRES OF SUCH REAL PROPERTY FROM THE Rl (ESTATE RESIDENTIAL) ZONING DISTRICT TO THE L-O (LIMITED OFFICE) ZONING DISTRICT; DIRECTING CITY STAFF TO ALTER ALL APPLICABLE USE AND AREA MAPS AS WELL AS THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAPS AND ALL OFFICIAL MAPS DEPICTING THE BOUNDARIES AND THE ZONING DISTRICTS OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS ORDINANCE; PROVIDING THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE FILED WITH THE ADA COUNTY ASSESSOR, THE ADA COUNTY TREASURER, THE ADA COUNTY RECORDER, AND THE IDAHO STATE TAX COMMISSION, AS REQUIRED BY LAW; REPEALING CONFLICTING ORDINANCES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE WHEREAS, the City of Meridian received a written request from property owner MMW&T LLC to annex and rezone the land described in the legal descriptions attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and the maps attached hereto as Exhibit "B" ("Subject Property"), which exhibits are incorporated herein by reference; WHEREAS,the Subject Property is contiguous to the corporate limits of the City of Meridian, Idaho; WHEREAS, the City of Meridian is authorized by Idaho Code section 50-222 to annex the Subject Property; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF IDAHO: SECTION 1. That the City Council of the City of Meridian hereby annexes the Subject Property. SECTION 2. That the City Council of the City of Meridian hereby rezones 1.11 acres of such real property from the R1 (Estate Residential) zoning district to the L-O (Limited Office) zoning district. ANNEXATION ORDINANCE—965 E USTICK RD H-2024-0063 Page I Instrument # 2025-027978 05/07/2025 08:45:11 AM Page 2 of 4 SECTION 3. That City Staff is hereby directed to alter all applicable use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps and all official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance. SECTION 4. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a certified copy of this ordinance and its exhibits with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Treasurer, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, within ten (10) days following the effective date of this ordinance. SECTION 5. That all ordinances, resolutions, orders or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed. SECTION 6. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon publication, in accordance with law. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN,IDAHO,this 5th day of May 2025. APPROVED BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this 5th day of May 2025. MAYOR ROBE T SIMISON ATTEST: � SEAL CHRIS JOH SON, CITY CLERK STATE OF IDAHO, ) ) ss: County of Ada ) On this_5th day of May,2025,before me,the undersigned,a Notary Public in and for said State,personally appeared Robert E.Simison and Chris Johnson known to me to be the Mayor and City Clerk,respectively,of the City of Meridian,Idaho,and who executed the within instrument,and acknowledged to me that the City of Meridian executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. y ;CHARLENE WAY Notary Public COMMISSION NO. 67390 Commission Expiration: 3-2 -2028_ NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF IDAHO ANNEXATION ORDINANCE-965 E USTICK RD H-2024-0063 Page 2 Instrument # 2025-027978 EXH1BP7V0A2025 08:45:11 AM Page 3 of 4 LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR ANNEXATION OF 965 E USTICK ROAD A parcel of land located in the in the Northwest 1/4, of the Northeast 1/4 Section 6, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho and being further described as follows: BASIS OF BEARING: The North line of said Northwest 114, of the Northeast 114, derived from found monuments and taken as S8904728"E with the distance between monuments found to be 1324,50 feet. BEGINNING at a point on the North line of the Northwest 1/4, of the Northeast 1/4 Section 6, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian from which the from which the East 1116 corner of said section 6 bears South 89047'28" East a distance of 493.86 feet. Thence leaving said North line, South 00'16'42"West, a distance of 252.69 feet; Thence North 89042'02" West, a distance of 192.00 feet; Thence North 00030'53" East to a point on said North line, a distance of 252.39 feet; Thence along said North line South 89"47'28" East, a distance of 190.96 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said Parcel containing 48,356 square feet or 1.11 acres, more or less and is subject to all existing easements and rights-of-ways of record or implied. END OF DESCRIPTION. Kenneth H. Cook, P.L.S. 9895 Timberline Surveying NL 847 Park Centre Way, Suite 3 r'l S I- Nampa, Idaho 83651 s ti (208) 465-5687 k rn 0 15- F I'D H. U:\TS-23\ADA\23013 - MUSSELL-USTICK-LOCUST GROVE\survey\LEGALS\23013- MUSSELL ANNIXATIONAf Instrument # 2025-027978 05/07/2025 08:45:11 AM Page 4 of 4 W TIMBERFALLS 0 -0 w z SUB©IVISIO ( 1 fl.Ofl'WATER AND o � ovaC7 SEWER EASEMENT N AS SHOWN ON TIMBERFALLS o PLAT pip 4a.6`z' — a NOt7_3©'53"E-252,39' N Z p m - 38.00° < 71r ° I zC ztj Z I lit m �C g� o x � I No N r tz 0 d' 38.Q4' _ 214.69' _ _ W ccn (� � C7 -� -I �SLJO°7'B'42"®W-251,69' m _ -i m 0 a:r m (� C)- F"Cf) 1} CO co > 00 Z R1 r < © ;U 1 I alQ fi'3 r- o m I C7 - 4 m zz � ° o 00 D © Ill QQzrn I -o T' zQzy> > I I � zc �> E `¢ z m - o p C/) (D C/) M woO > „ o -o a s © z M 1Z a 0 N o� z © � z © Q o Q ex z m z m m C z Dz C-' U_) x D --I ITI G7 M -i za Om �< � D � U' w = o •. CAQD � n O 1 � �� rn _ � � r o 0 o?r D U'i CERTIFICATION OF SUMMARY: William L. M. Nary, City Attorney of the City of Meridian, Idaho, hereby certifies that the summary below is true and complete and upon its publication will provide adequate notice to the public. William L. M.Nary, City Attorney SUMMARY OF CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 25-2081 An ordinance (965 E. Ustick Rd. —H-2024-0063) annexing a parcel of land located in the northwest quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 6, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described in Exhibit"A"; rezoning 1.11 acres of such real property from the R1 (Estate Residential) zoning district to the L-O (Limited Office) zoning district; directing city staff to alter all applicable use and area snaps as well as the official zoning maps and all official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance; providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Treasurer, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law;repealing conflicting ordinances; and providing an effective date. A full text of this ordinance is available for inspection at City Hall, City of Meridian, 33 East Broadway Avenue,Meridian,Idaho. This ordinance shall be effective as of the date of publication of this summary. [Publication to include map as set forth in Exhibit B.] ANNEXATION ORDINANCE—965 E USTICK RD H-2024-0063 Page 3