Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-09-04 E IDIAN HO PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Thursday, September 04, 2025 at 6:00 PM MINUTES ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE PRESENT Commissioner Jessica Perreault Commissioner Matthew Sandoval Commissioner Matthew Stoll Commissioner Jared Smith ABSENT Commissioner Brian Garrett Commissioner Sam Rust Chairperson Maria Lorcher ADOPTION OF AGENDA Adopted CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] Approved as Amended 1. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for CapEd at Ten Mile (H-2025-0026) by Megan West, Slichter Ugrin Architecture, located at 657 S.Vanguard Way. 2 Ar,V,r.,Ve Mi-n toS of the August 21, Planning and Zoning !'.,,-,,mittoo Meeting Removed from Consent Agenda ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] ACTION ITEMS 3. Public Hearing for Fairbourne Subdivision No. 4 (H-2025-0036) by Rodney Evans + Partners, LLC., generally located at the northwest corner of W. Chinden Blvd. and N. Black Cat Rd., at 4837 W.Waverton Dr. Recommend Approval to City Council Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2025-0036 A. Request: Combined Preliminary/Final Plat consisting of one (1) buildable lot on 5.2 acres of land in the C-G zoning district. Motion to recommend approval to City Council made by Commissioner Stoll,Seconded by Commissioner Perreault. Voting Yea: Commissioner Perreault, Commissioner Sandoval, Commissioner Stoll, Commissioner Smith 4. Public Hearing for Solara Estates Subdivision (H-2025-0013) by Jadon Schneider, Bronze Bow Land, located at 1695 E.Amity Rd. and 4940 and 5060 S. Locust Grove Rd. Recommend Approval to City Council Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2025-0013 A. Request: Annexation of approximately 15 acres across three (3) parcels of land from Ada County into the City of Meridian with requested zoning of R-8 and R-2 from RUT which includes parcel numbers 51132223130, S1132223210 and S1132223320. B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 14 single-family lots, including one existing home site to remain and five (5) common lots for a total of 19 lots on 9.72 acres of land (parcels S1132223210 and S113223320). C. Request: Alternative Compliance to reduce the landscape buffer along the street adjacent to Lot 11, Block 1 by 50%. Motion to recommend approval to City Council made by Commissioner Perreault, Seconded by Commissioner Sandoval. Voting Yea: Commissioner Perreault, Commissioner Sandoval, Commissioner Stoll, Commissioner Smith ADJOURNMENT 7:43 P.M. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To view upcoming Public Hearing Notices, visit https.Ilapps.meridiancity.org/phnotices --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting September 4, 2025. Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of September 4, 2025, was called to order at 6:02 p.m. by Vice-Chairman Jared Smith. Members Present: Commissioner Jared Smith, Commissioner Matthew Sandoval, Commissioner Jessica Perreault, and Commissioner Matthew Stoll. Members Absent: Commissioner Maria Lorcher, Commissioner Brian Garrett and Commissioner Sam Rust. Others Present: Tina Lomeli, Kurt Starman, Sonya Allen, Linda Ritter and Dean Willis. ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE Brian Garrett X Jessica Perrault _X Matthew Sandoval X Matthew Stoll Sam Rust X Jared Smith Maria Lorcher- Chairman Smith: Okay. Good evening. Welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for September 4th, 2025. At this time I would like to call the meeting to order. The Commissioners who are present for this evening's meeting are at City Hall. We also have staff from the City Attorney and the City Clerk's Office, as well as the City Planning Department. If you are joining us on Zoom this evening we can see that you are here. You may observe the meeting, however, your ability to be seen on screen and talk will be muted. During the public testimony portion of the meeting you will be unmuted and, then, be able to comment. Please note that we cannot take questions until the public testimony portion. If you have a process question during the meeting, please, e-mail cityclerk@meridiancity.org and they will reply as quickly as possible. If you simply want to watch the meeting we encourage you to watch the streaming on the city's YouTube channel. You can access it at meridiancity.org/live. With that let's begin the roll call. Madam Clerk. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Smith: The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. There are no changes to tonight's agenda. Could I get a motion to adopt tonight's agenda? Stoll: So moved. Perreault: Second. Smith: It has been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. F Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 4,2025 Page 2 of 31 MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] 1. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for CapEd at Ten Mile (H-2025- 0026) by Megan West, Slichter Ugrin Architecture, located at 657 S. Vanguard Way. Smith: The next item on the Consent -- the next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda, which includes Finding of Facts, Conclusions of Law for CapEd at Ten Mile and the approval of the minutes of the August 21 st Planning and Zoning meeting. ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] Stoll: Mr. Chair, I would like to request that Item 2, approval of the minutes from the August 21 st meeting, be pulled off to correct some typos and a vote that was there, particularly references you as Simison several times and, then, it references Elaine Clegg in part of the discussion as Wayne Clegg and, then, most substantively the motion to continue the Pine 43 discussion. It was a three-two vote instead of a four-one vote. Commissioner Rust and myself voted no. Smith: All right. Kurt, just so the -- I imagine one -- one member asked to remove it would remove it. What is the process going forward? Starman: Mr. Chairman, I guess I would recommend that the -- if the Commission as a whole is amenable to that I would recommend that we just refer the item back to staff for corrections and we can put it back on your next agenda with the corrected material. So, if you can maybe entertain a motion to that effect that would be great. Smith: All right. Can I get a motion to that effect? Stoll: I move to remove the minutes from August 21 st from the Consent Agenda, remand it back to staff for corrections as discussed. Perreault: Second. Smith: It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Smith: Beyond that could I get a motion to adopt the remainder of the Consent Agenda as presented? Perreault: So moved. F Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 4,2025 Page 3 of 31 Stoll: Second. Smith: It's been moved and seconded. Can I -- all those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Smith: All right. At this time I would like to briefly explain the public hearing process. We will open each item individually and begin with the staff report. Staff will report their findings on how the item adheres to our Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code. After staff has made their presentation the applicant will come forward to present their case and respond to staff comments. They will have 15 minutes to do so. After the applicant has finished we will open the floor to public testimony. Each person will be called on only once during the public testimony portion. The clerk will call the names individually of those who signed up on our website in advance to testify. You may come to the microphones in Chambers or will be unmuted on Zoom. Please state your name and address for the record and, then, you will have three minutes to address the Commission. If you have previously sent pictures or a presentation for the meeting it will be displayed on the screen and our clerk will run the presentation. If you have established that you are speaking on behalf of a larger group, like an HOA, where others -- others from that group will allow you to speak on their behalf you will have up to ten minutes. After all of those who have signed up in advance have spoken we will invite any others who may wish to testify. If you wish to speak on the topic you may come forward in Chambers or if on Zoom raise the -- raise your hand and if you are only listening on a phone please press star nine and wait for your name to be called. If you are listening on multiple devices, such as a computer and a phone, please, be sure to mute those extra devices, so we do not experience feedback and we can hear you clearly. When you are finished if the Commission does not have questions for you you will return to your seat in Chambers or be muted on Zoom and no longer have the ability to speak and, please, remember we will not call on you a second time. After all testimony has been heard the applicant will be given another ten minutes to come back and respond. When the applicant has finished responding to questions and concerns we will, then, close the public hearing and the Commissioners will have the opportunity to discuss and hopefully be able to make final decisions or recommendations to City Council as needed. ACTION ITEMS 3. Public Hearing for Fairbourne Subdivision No. 4 (H-2025-0036) by Rodney Evans + Partners, LLC., generally located at the northwest corner of W. Chinden Blvd. and N. Black Cat Rd., at 4837 W. Waverton Dr. A. Request: Combined Preliminary/Final Plat consisting of one (1) buildable lot on 5.2 acres of land in the C-G zoning district. F Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 4,2025 Page 4 of 31 Smith: All that said, Item No. 3 on the agenda is H-2025-0036 for a preliminary and final plat for the Fairbourne Subdivision on Chinden and Black Cat. We will begin with the staff report. Allen: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. The first application before you tonight is a request for a combined preliminary and final plat. This site consists of 5.2 acres of land. It's zoned C-C and it's generally located at the northwest corner of North Black Cat Road and West Chinden Boulevard. In 2018 this property was included in a rezone, preliminary plat and a development agreement modification application for Fairbourne Subdivision, which included the adjacent residential subdivision to the north and west. A new development agreement was approved with the modification, which governs future development of the overall property. Final plat applications were approved for all of the property included in the preliminary plat, except for this last remaining area, which was intended to be included in the last phase. However, a final plat application was never submitted. A time extension was not requested and the preliminary plat has since expired. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map. designation for the property is mixed use community. A combined preliminary and final plat is proposed consisting of one building lot on 5.2 acres of land in the C-C zoning district. A conceptual development plan was submitted as shown there on the left that depicts three commercial building pads for retail office use. The largest Pad A is proposed to be a grocery store at 25,623 square feet. Pad B is 11,234 square feet and Pad C is 4,964 square feet. The proposed development is consistent with the provisions in the development agreement. Access is proposed via one existing access driveway from West Waverton Drive and one access driveway from North Black Cat Road. No access is proposed or allowed via Chinden Boulevard. An emergency access exists to this site through a blanket easement across Lot 17, Block 7, in the abutting Fairbourne Subdivision No. 2. And that is in this location right here where my cursor is. On the west side of the property detached five foot wide sidewalks exist on the side along Waverton and Black Cat. A ten foot wide detached sidewalk and pathway exists in the street buffer along Chinden. ITD submitted a letter requesting the developer contribute a proportionate share toward installation of a westbound right turn lane at Chinden and Black Cat. After a little more investigation on that that area for the right turn lane was off site. It's not part of this. This site is located on the northwest corner of Chinden and Black Cat. Where ITD is talking about is on the -- in front of the property on the northeast corner. So, that would be an off-site improvement and staff is not requesting that be a condition of approval of this application. The street buffers exist on this site along abutting streets that were installed with the adjacent subdivision improvements. Additional landscaping and design features are needed in the buffers to comply with the minimum UDC standards. Conceptual building elevations were submitted as shown for the proposed grocery store. Final design is required to comply with the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual. Loading docks are prohibited in commercial districts facing collector streets, such as Waverton and Black Cat, or arterial streets, such as Chinden per the Architectural Standards Manual. Written testimony has been received from the applicant's representative Ben Semple. He is in agreement with the conditions in the staff report. Staff is recommending approval. Staff will stand for any questions. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 4,2025 Page 5 of 31 Smith: Would the applicant like to come -- actually, are there any questions for staff? Would the applicant like to come forward? And, then, please state your name and address for the record. Semple: Good evening, Members of the Commission. Ben Semple with Rodney Evans and Partners. 1450 Bannock Street, Boise, Idaho. 83702. 1 want to thank Sonya for the presentation. She did a great job encapsulating what this portion of the project is, which is basically cleaning up an original or a previous preliminary plat and a subsequent phase development. The -- as stated the existing preliminary plat has expired. This was always intended to be a single lot for the final phase. A final plat was never filed by the previous developer. My client has since entered into a contract to purchase this property and that's when this came up that effectively it's not a developable parcel until this subdivision is approved. So, this will legalize the parcel for development. There aren't any frontage improvements required with the subdivision itself. We did submit a conceptual development plan for the site. The intent is for a grocery store to be on this site that will go back through a CZC process with the city and at that time the city staff, ACHD and ITD will be able to further evaluate the project based on the intensity of the use or -- so that they can determine what improvements may be required off site, as well as on site and on the adjacent roadways. So, we -- the property itself is within -- sorry, I can't see if my presentation was up. Is that up there? Allen: I'm sorry. Just a moment. Semple: No. You're okay. Allen: You are ready to go. Semple: It's not on. Allen: No, it's not. Semple: Thank you. Didn't realize it was a touch screen. So, yeah, thanks. Again this is Fairbourne Subdivision No. 4. Again, it's the final plat to clean up this final phase of the Fairbourne Subdivision. So, the northwest corner of Chinden and Black Cat. As Sonya stated, here is the vicinity map. The current zoning is C-C. We are not asking to rezone it. The future land use is that MUC and the use of the -- this -- as a commercial lot within that -- or within the subdivision is allowed. We -- this is the original preliminary plat. The lot in question is highlighted in red. We have not proposed any changes to what was originally proposed with this lot. As you can see just reoriented, the current preliminary plat and final plat are in conformance with that. We have reviewed the development agreement that was recorded with the overall subdivision and this does fall within the provisions within that for the use, as well as the proposed subdivision to be a single lot. Here is an aerial photo on the right of the existing frontage improvements. The buffer along Black Cat will be improved with existing -- or additional trees, as well as the frontage along Chinden to ensure -- excuse me -- that the -- those buffers meet the current UDC standards. I believe that they have been updated since 2018, so there Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 4,2025 Page 6 of 31 is some additional stuff that needs to go in there. The emergency access will remain an emergency access. That won't be opened to any vehicular traffic. It's currently ballarded. It will remain that way. These are the conceptual building elevations that Sonya showed you. Again, the architect is working on this. They are going back and forth with their client to determine what they want their building to look like. That will come back in with a CZC application. There will be a full landscape plan that is developed with that and is, then, evaluated again by staff. We are in agreement with all the conditions of approval that are in the staff report. As Sonya stated, access to Chinden is prohibited. There was a note on the final plat that stated direct access to Black Cat was prohibited and that was an error that the surveyor had on that plat, so that will get removed. There will be direct access to Black Cat as well. That is in conformance with the provisions within that recorded DA as well. We will add the DA provision -- or the instrument numbers and the license agreements, as well as updating the landscape plan as I stated. I would stand for any additional questions you might have. Thank you. Smith: Thank you. Commissioners, are there any questions for the applicant or staff? Commissioner Stoll. Stoll: I do So, ITD submitted a comment regarding the right turn lane and that there is a previous agreement with the applicant for that to be built prior to occupancy being granted for any of the buildings. Is that tied to the previous phases or this current phase? Semple: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Stoll, my understanding is that it was a provision in the previous development agreement and that prior to any occupancy within maybe this lot it was supposed to be built. I was not part of and neither was my client currently part of that previous development team. We received the letter yesterday from ITD and in conversations with Sonya it was determined that this development will pay its share of improvements required by ITD for off-site here, including a right turn lane, when they have the opportunity to review a development plan and a use and not just a conceptual plan, because at this point, until the subdivision is recorded, we can't submit any plans for a use and so they can't give us formal feedback or determine what that -- those offset improvements might be, including a right turn lane off Chinden, which we do anticipate. Smith: Okay. Any other questions? Stoll: No. That's it. Smith: All right. Thank you. Semple: Thank you. Smith: At this time we will take public testimony. Madam Clerk, is there anyone signed up to testify? Flo Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 4,2025 Page 7 of 31 Lomeli: Thank you Mr. Chair. Yes. I have Paul McLaughlin. He has some pictures he is going to share with you as well. Smith: Thank you. And, please, state your name and address for the record. McLaughlin: Good evening. Paul McLaughlin. I live at 6811 North Maple Stone, which is in the Fairbourne community. I'm the -- I'm here representing that the HOA as well. Okay. So, several months ago we met with Mr. Semple. He met with a limited group of people that were within the immediate vicinity of the proposed development and he addressed concerns with us and told us what the development was. You know, what they were planning on doing. A lot of the questions that night revolved around three particular areas and that was traffic, noise and lighting. Mr. Semple was able to provide pretty reasonable responses regarding the noise and lighting and what was going to be done to mitigate that and what the requirements of the city were. He could not answer any questions regarding traffic mitigation or roadway improvements, because that didn't fall within his purview and he was deferring us to ACHD, ITD and the city regarding what was going to be done for road improvements. I'm going to say I'm generally not in favor of outright opposing a project that meets the zoning requirements of the land and in this case it's no different. My concern is that we just want to address some of the, you know, problems that are likely to come up as a result of this -- this property, you know, and what's being done. Are we -- is this -- we got the first photo? Lomeli: Right now it's playing through a slide show, but you can use arrows if you want to reference a certain picture. McLaughlin: All right. So, is there a way to stop the scrolling, so I can address these? Lomeli: Try it now. McLaughlin: Oops. Yeah. That's not doing anything. Anyway. So, Black Cat between Chinden and Waverton, which is the -- the access street that you are going to have to use to get in there, which is this section -- well, it was right there. Currently I heard there was some discussion about whether or not there was going to be access allowed onto Black Cat, which is going to be this driveway to left up here -- right -- right -- well, above that arrow. That's not so much the concern. It can -- you can see that this was developed with the idea of putting in a right turn lane off of southbound Black Cat onto Chinden. The bigger concern for me is the northbound traffic. This section that has the -- the red square around it is a median that's currently in there now and the primary purpose is to prevent people coming out of the modern craftsman development from turning left onto the street because of its proximity I'm assuming to Chinden and the potential traffic concerns, so they have to exit from the next farther north driveway. The -- the issue this proposes, you know, that brings up is that there is not going to be any access off of Black Cat into that development. There will be access out of it, unless they remove this. Both of those alternatives create problems. If they take it out, then, we are going to have big backups along Black Cat going north. If they leave it in, then, I think that's still going to propose, you know, a problem when you get up to Waverton. F11 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 4,2025 Page 8 of 31 Can we go to the next slide? These arrows aren't working. So, if you see where the end of that red box is that starts the left turn lane to get onto Waverton. You have to turn onto Waverton and, then, again, turn left into this property. I have looked all over. I have looked at maps, I have -- it may not be -- I wouldn't say that it's -- it's unprecedented to have -- to access -- to make two left turns on residential collector roads to get into a development -- commercial development, but from what I can see and what I have researched for a project this size and requiring two left turns, which, you know, causes traffic problems more than what a right turn would be, this is rare if not unique. This left turn lane that would allow people to turn on -- onto Waverton at most is going to accommodate about four cars before the -- you start backing up and stopping traffic northbound on -- on Black Cat. The -- if we go to the next photo. Okay. So, this is a photo I took on Sunday, which is pretty much all Rock Harbor Church traffic coming out. I didn't sit around waiting for traffic to get bad. I launched the drone. Took this within three minutes and, you know, it was just what it was and this was a half hour after their -- one of their later morning services let out. They have currently I think five services on Sundays. On holidays they have up to ten services on Saturdays and Sundays and sometimes even on Fridays and there is a great deal of traffic comes out of that and a lot of it comes out from Waverton onto Black Cat -- southbound on Black Cat. Additionally they have a satellite parking a little farther down Black Cat that they are constantly driving people to and from on. As you can see the left turn lane at some point if you are -- you can see that little red car there, I mean he is already maneuvering to get into the left turn lane, that's going to become the left turn lane to go into this development. So, you know, traffic is going to be concerned generally just because of the two left turns on this residential narrow collector road. The other problem is there is no markings or left turn lanes on Waverton right now, which I think would have to be incorporated into this as well. If we -- the -- I'm sorry -- you know -- and as this starts to impact people coming out of there and not being able to turn left and, then, the Rock Harbor traffic going south, what's going to eventually happen here is you are either going to have so much traffic going in and out of there that people are going to resort to going farther down and coming back around off of Chinden farther west and onto Waverton and coming east on Waverton, which we have already got people doing during rush hour. We got people cutting through an undeveloped piece of property, because it's a straight shot and, actually, if -- can you pull up the next photo? Okay. So, you can -- that -- that street -- the main street cutting through there is Waverton. It's going to produce quite a bit of traffic there when people start circumventing the Black Cat access trying to come around from eastbound on Waverton. That circle there is of concern, because we have approximately 60 homes in the southern part of the subdivision and many children living down there and that street -- crossing that street where that circle is is how they get to the park and the pool and it's, you know, already getting to the point where we got people speeding down that street. We talked to Mr. Semple about, you know, what could be done to mitigate that and he did -- we did talk about speed bumps, which apparently is not a real popular thing with the city or the fire department and I get that. The other thing is he brought up -- he said, well, speed bumps statistically, you know, people tend to go -- slow down to go over the bump and, then, they go even faster to get to the next speed bump. So, I don't know what we can do. One of the things that we have talked about since then is possibly up there at the 12 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 4,2025 Page 9 of 31 driveway that exits onto Waverton prohibiting left turns out of there. That might at least affect the egress, but not the ingress. You know, we got some issues here that I'm hoping we can address more than anything the traffic ones I think -- there is -- there is four things that I think need to be done to address future traffic concerns. One of them is, again, prohibiting left turns onto Waverton out of that north driveway. The second one is installing a right turn lane from southbound Black Cat onto westbound Chinden, which I think is a no brainer. I think that's probably going to be incorporated into this. Another right turn lane installed from westbound Chinden to North Black Cat, which is the discussion that we had before and, then, the last one is how do we keep that northbound traffic going up Black Cat from Chinden towards Waverton from backing up or coming to a complete stop, particularly when you have all that southbound traffic coming out of Rock Harbor and out of that -- this subdivision and I'm -- the only thing I could think of -- I try not to come with problems. I want to have solutions if I can. The only thing I can think of would be if we could -- if there is a way to widen that street that would allow for a through lane on Black Cat so that anybody getting to the subdivision is not going to get stuck waiting for people that are backed up in that left turn lane. Again, I think our biggest concern is the speed of traffic on Waverton and I don't know what, if anything, can be done to affect that, but, again, we got a lot of kids that are crossing that street, especially during the summer to get to the park and the pool and, you know, I just -- again, I don't want to say this shouldn't be done, but these are issues that I'm hoping we can address in the planning and perhaps if it's -- if it's feasible the only thing I can think of would be widening Black Cat a little bit more to the point where it would have to encroach on -- on what they have already designed to put in there, because there would have to be at least one more lane going northbound. But that's all I have. Do you have any questions for me? Smith: Commissioners, are there any questions? I have a question for staff. I'm looking at the site plan and my understanding of the site plan and of the discussion was that the road, which is the emergency access road, is only bollarded off heading into the actual neighborhood. Is that -- is that -- my understanding incorrect? My -- when I looked at this it looks as -- as though they will be able to take access off of Black Cat directly -- not going through Waverton, but directly onto that road into the parking lot. Is that wrong? McLaughlin: I can tell you there are no bollards there now, but, again, there is that center divider. So, it would only allow for you to exit there, not enter from for the majority of traffic which is going to be coming off of Chinden. Smith: Is that -- is that -- double checking. Is that kind of-- Allen: I didn't quite catch that. There is no access proposed or approved from Chinden, but there is one access from Waverton and one access from Black Cat. Smith: Yes, there is one access from Black Cat. It's just constrained by the median. Allen: Right here is the Black Cat access and, then, right here is the Waverton access. F13] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 4,2025 Page 10 of 31 Smith: Okay. Thank you McLaughlin: The other thing I would ask is there any reason why you might consider even removing that barrier? Again, that would prove -- you know, it would come up with its own problems, but other than that, like I said, there is no ingress from Black Cat, you would have to go to Waverton. Smith: Staff can correct me. I think that's -- since that's on Black Cat that's ACHD's purview, is that -- Allen: It is ACHD, yes. Smith: What I will say is a lot of the times things like this -- I have the fortune of being able to sit on the Transportation Commission as well and a lot of the times things like traffic calming ideas on Waverton or this discussion on Black Cat, a lot of the times ACHD will consider some of these things depending on input from the neighbors and input from the community and so sometimes what they will do is if -- if a certain neighborhood is concerned about speeds they will do a speed study. They can -- they can commission a speed study and, then, determine if it falls within their criteria for ACHD to finance traffic calming. They also have methods for -- if the HOA wants to finance traffic calming and things like that. So, I think those are some things that may not be resolved tonight, but might be avenues to be able to resolve that going forward. McLaughlin: Well -- and, again, these are kind of unique challenges. You don't see those -- those center barriers frequently around the city and, again, I can't find another example of a project this large that requires you to have two left turns, you know, possibly backing up traffic to get into a property, you know, located where this one is or like this, so -- thank you. Smith: Thank you very much. Madam Clerk, is there anyone else signed up to testify? Lomeli: Thank you, Mr. Chair. We have Larry Walker. Walker: Good evening. My name is Larry Walker. I live at 4569 West Sugar Tree Drive. That's in the Spur Wing Subdivision, which is off of North Black Cat and I -- I would try not to repeat what that gentleman just sad, but he gave you a lot of information. Most of it was fairly well done and accurate. I would only give you a little better picture of it. One of the things that I -- that strikes me about the church traffic he spoke about, to let you know they are paying for security in the neighborhood to get the people out of the parking lot there. We get stopped by traffic guards. They are stopping residential traffic to let people out of that parking lot. I understand they are going to move, but I don't know if that's going to happen. That's not going to reduce them much. But they have tremendous amount of traffic in that neighborhood. The other thing that -- so -- so, I would say traffic on Black Cat is -- is the biggest concern, but -- but I have a bigger thought about the intersection of Chinden and Black Cat and that is you need to rebuild the intersection. It's not -- it's not adequate. If you send a traffic engineer out F14] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 4,2025 Page 11 of 31 there to look at it he will tell you that intersection is going to fail the way it is right now and it needs to be rebuilt. For six years we have been driving down Chinden at 55 miles an hour trying to make a right turn with no right turn lane and that -- the northbound traffic lane there on Black Cat is not hardly wide enough to make the turn. Big pickup trucks have a hard time even making that turn and when they have to slow down when traffic is coming up behind you 55 miles an hour, it's -- I'm surprised nobody's gotten killed there yet and I have -- we have worked with Congress -- or Councilman Whitlock and I have told him about this. There is skid marks out there where near collisions have happened. So, I believe the entire intersection needs to be rebuilt. Black Cat needs to be widened. The access to that grocery store on Black Cat is going to do nothing but cause problems, because it's between Waverton and Chinden and there is no room for there to be backup, because traffic going in and out of that grocery store right there is just going to back up the signal light. So, the whole intersection needs to be redone, a right turn lane is installed to get onto Chinden and a right turn lane to get everybody off of Chinden without getting killed coming onto Black Cat. That's what needs to be done. Waverton, you may know, has been put all the way through to the west -- all the way over to Highway 16. Traffic can come from there and there is a signal light down there, I think it's called Levi, and traffic can come in there and come down Waverton onto Black Cat or they can go all the way out Waverton as that development grows west over towards Highway 16, the traffic is just going to get more intense and if you see the room there you know what's going to happen to Waverton Drive at Black Cat. So, those are our concerns and I'm talking on behalf of a lot of people in my neighborhood. So, that's about all I had to clarify some of that for you. Thank you. Smith: Thank you. Madam Clerk? Lomeli: Mr. Chair, the next person is Bob Misko. Misko. Smith: And please state your name and address for the record. Misko: Hello. I'm Bob Misko. 6548 North Oakstone. Our house backs up to the lot. These previous gentlemen stole a lot of my -- my notes, so I'm going to just abbreviate this if I -- if I may. I guess the first point would be, you know, putting a grocery store -- when -- when -- when we bought our house my wife and I were, you know, looking for a house, the realtor said, oh, this is commercial, but it's 9:00 to 5:00. 1 said, oh, okay. Well, maybe a dentist office or a nail salon or something like that. That -- I guess that's okay. But, you know, there is nothing -- there is no commercial property within really a -- the closest one is Costco and that's a mile away. This is a residential area, the whole area, and with the new development coming in towards the freeway that's huge. I don't know how many homes are going to go in there, but that -- the traffic on Waverton is going to be insurmountable. I don't know if I'm off base with this, but was talking to a couple of people and they said, well, if -- if you -- if you rezone this back to residential single family, everybody would win. We would have new neighbors to greet and -- and the developer I believe could actually make more money if it was residential, turning it into highest and best use. So, I would suggest that maybe that -- I know we are quite a F15] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 4,2025 Page 12 of 31 ways down the road, but I have seen this happen a couple of times in Arizona where they have had big master plans and, of course, they set aside some property for schools and parks and -- and commercial, but oftentimes that land lays vacant and that eventually is rezoned in a residential one. So, I would -- I would just throw that out for food for thought. Thank you. Smith: Thank you. Madam Clerk. Lomeli: Mr. Chair, I have Jessica Pirc. Smith: Please state your name and address for the record. Pirc: My name is Jessica Pirc and I'm at 6560 North Oakstone Avenue. I back up to this development. My fence is the backside of this property. My biggest concern is landscaping. Our fence, if we walk out onto our patio we will see a parking lot and so I am wondering what they are going to do to make sure there is not a lot of sound or I feel like I -- when I'm in my backyard that I am sitting inside of a parking lot. I would like to second Paul on traffic. He did an amazing presentation on traffic flow, which is a huge concern. I have an eight year old son that rides the bus to school at Pleasant View and he has to cross Waverton to get to the bus stop. I know when we talked with the lawyer previously at the meeting we talked about maybe putting in a crosswalk in between the neighbor -- in between the two neighborhoods. I don't know if that's something we can do and, obviously, this is an ACHD issue. Noise is a big concern, which I know they kind of have addressed, but that's my two cents and what I'm worried about with that going right behind my house. Any questions? Smith: Commissioners, any questions? Pric: Thank you. Smith: Thank you very much. Madam Clerk. Lomeli: Mr. Chair, no one else has indicated they wish to testify. Smith: Is there anyone in the audience who would like to testify or on Zoom? All right. Would the applicant like to come back forward then? Semple: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Again, Ben Semple with Rodney Evans and Partners. 1450 West Bannock Street, Boise. 83702. Yeah, to address -- we did discuss -- you know, I think there is -- there is some stuff that does need to be addressed with the future development of this property. A lot of this that the neighbors have concerns about we share concerns about. The traffic, the parking, the speeds on Waverton and that will all be addressed when we have the opportunity to submit a development plan that addresses an actual use. We have talked to ACHD and ITD, they have said, yeah, we will have some improvements that you need to do to submit an application, so we can evaluate the use, because that drives their parking counts and their parking studies. F16] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 4,2025 Page 13 of 31 We anticipate a right turn off of Chinden onto Black Cat as part of the ITD off site and I anticipate that ACHD and ITD could require a right turn off of Black Cat onto Chinden as well. We are very supportive of working with the neighborhood. This is part of the neighborhood to address, you know, speed mitigation, traffic mitigation with the overall neighborhood. I think we are -- we are very supportive of that. We can't really do much about the parking from the church that is, you know, a little ways away. It sounds like there is a lot of people that do park in this area or walk and there is a lot of traffic that comes out of there on Sundays. We will do our part in figuring out how to mitigate traffic, again, after we get through this subdivision process. I want to reinforce this is a conceptual plan right now. We are doing the subdivision. We are not proposing this building or this use, it -- you know, there are two other pads that probably will be something more like an office use that isn't, you know, after hours. This grocery store, the user that my client is working with, they use primarily smaller sprinter van style delivery trucks, so there is not a lot of semis that pull in here. They have also committed to making sure that those delivery hours are midday and not mornings and evenings and, then, as -- as was discussed at the neighborhood meeting all of the lighting will be full cut off shielded that's installed here and they want to be really great neighbors, so enhancing that landscape buffer to prevent sound as much as possible bleeding over into the residential area. This site was planned and is zoned C-C for commercial use. The development agreement includes this type of use as an allowed use with -- on this lot and the land use -- it's my understanding that a single family residential use on here wouldn't be supported by staff. This was planned to be a commercial use. This will help with some trip capture where people could walk to a store. If you live in a large neighborhood that has -- where you have to get in a car to drive, it can be frustrating, because you are dealing with a lot of traffic. If you had that benefit of having a place where you could walk to, I -- we see this as a benefit for the neighborhood in the long run. I would stand for any additional questions. Smith: Thank you. I have one question and I just want to make sure that I'm clear on this access from Black Cat. Is -- is the intention the staff, applicant -- is the intention for those barriers to be removed, so that access can be taken from Black Cat from northbound drivers, not just southbound? Semple: Mr. Chair, my understanding from just the standards of ACHD with development like this in proximity to a state highway, that barrier will not be removed. We wouldn't propose that being removed. We would not want traffic backing up to that intersection. But we will work with ACHD and ITD to figure out the solution as much as we can to mitigate what we can here. There aren't any improvements on -- other than the sidewalk and some grass -- kind of a grassy swale on the west side of Black Cat and even a little bit on the east side of Black Cat. So, I do think they are anticipating widening that road in both directions somehow. Smith: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: Mr. Chair, thank you. Will there be traffic estimates put together before the CZC -- before the end user comes in -- the grocery store comes in and they get all of 17 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 4,2025 Page 14 of 31 their conditions of approval, will there be any traffic counts done? I mean I'm assuming that -- that ACHD isn't requiring a traffic impact study, because they would have asked for one, but do you have any idea if there will be any numbers put together on peak houruse? Semple: Sorry. Mr. Chair, Commissioner Perreault, we have had just some cursory conversations. I think they didn't provide anything this time, because they are looking at a one lot subdivision that's a commercial lot without a use. I don't think they will require a full traffic impact study, but I do think that they will require an analysis of that intersection -- of Waverton and Black Cat, as well as Black Cat and Chinden when we submit an application for this. My client is anticipating that as happening. Part of the development agreement talks about the improvement of this intersection. So, yeah. Smith: Commissioner Stoll. Stoll: Mr. Chair, this probably is targeted towards Sonya, maybe the applicant. The existing development agreement has requirements as far as transportation improvements, such as what ITD mentioned in their letter and I assume also ACHD -- ACHD does, too. Those requirements -- or that development agreement is in place until you come in -- until an actual application comes in with a proposed development -- not development, but use at a later date; is that correct? Semple: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Stoll, yes, that's my understanding of the development agreement is they -- they don't want to require something at this point when they -- it could change -- you know, I mean the client could -- you know, a deal could fall through pretty easily. This has to happen as the subdivision before they can even close on the property at this point. So, they are kind of taking a risk here. But, again, they do -- we will see what has to happen here once we submit an application. We have been told that they are like -- yeah, anticipate road improvements when you apply. We will tell you what your proportionate share is or what you have to build. Stoll: Appreciate that. Sonya, does that conform with your understanding? Allen: Yeah. Mr. Chair, Commissioner Stoll, Commissioners, the development agreement that's in effect for the Fairbourne development is this property is also subject to that development agreement. It does not include any requirements from ITD or ACHD, other than dedication of -- preserving right of way for dedication for the widening of Chinden, which has occurred. And just a note. Prohibiting access to Chinden as well. So, there is -- there is nothing else in the development agreement. Stoll: So, the -- sorry. Mr. Chair. Sonya, the agreement that's referenced by ITD in their letter that they submitted, is that a separate agreement that they have with -- Allen: I believe that's a separate agreement that ITD had with the developer of Fairbourne. It's not a city agreement. 18 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 4,2025 Page 15 of 31 Sandoval: Mr. Chair? Smith: Commissioner Sandoval. Sandoval: Yeah. My question is specific to the screening on the west boundary. Now, in your landscape plan it looks like the same as the satellite imagery, which is some shrubbery. Are -- are you going to build a more robust screening system in there or leave the shrubs as is? Semple: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Sandoval, there is actually a pretty substantial amount of tree cover along that western boundary, both evergreen and deciduous. The southern part, south of the emergency access, actually has almost a solid screen of probably about a 16 foot tall evergreen row, but with the redevelopment when we come back in with CZC we have talked to the client, there is a 25 foot landscape buffer there, we are planning to enhance that buffer by planting, you know, stuff in between the existing plantings, because there is some space there and, again, they really want to be a good neighbor and we anticipate having that be a pretty substantial buffer, along with the fencing that's solid there. Smith: Any other questions of the applicant or staff? All right. Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Perreault: Mr. Chair? Smith: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: I move that we close the public hearing for Fairbourne Subdivision No. 4, H- 2025-0036. Sandoval: Second. Smith: It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Smith: All right. Discussion. I think there are two items at play here. One I think is the -- the merits of the application and the merits of the subdivision and, then, two, I think there is the constant kind of reliance on ACHD to move -- or desire for ACHD to move and I think we have to keep those kind of -- not entirely and always, but there has to be some separation between those two. I think what ACHD and what improvements are going to happen on Black Cat and on Waverton and on Cherry on -- going onto Black Cat I think are going to -- it's in the best interest of the applicant to make sure that that traffic pattern makes sense and I know that ACHD has widening Black Cat south of cherry on -- I think it's still on their TBD section of the work plan, but that is -- that is still something that's on their list and so I do see some space, some right of way on the north end. They don't anticipate this being a -- a permanent intractable problem. I think 19 1 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 4,2025 Page 16 of 31 there, obviously, is always growing pains, especially with something -- I know this isn't residential, but it is still I guess in-fill kind of, but -- so, I think there is that. I think the other thing is -- this is probably the first time I have heard neighbors ask for residential, instead of commercial. Often I hear the inverse and I think there is a lack of commercial in this area. I think there is more commercial slated to be -- you know, if you look at the -- the -- a future land use map west of the subdivision there is intended to be C-G zoned and commercial mixed use zoned areas. So, I think this is this -- this property on its own I think is -- is worth supporting from my perspective, but I also think it is potentially a valuable test case in helping kind of get this -- this conversation going with ACHD prior to some of these other maybe larger plats coming in. Any other -- I mean -- Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: Mr. Chair, just stay on the commission long enough and you will see it. We had some folks that shared testimony. Unfortunately, they have left the Council Chambers, but I wanted to say that just for clarification that the Commission's decision this evening is really narrow and it's really just whether we approve this particular set of engineering plans for that specific individual lot and it doesn't include us adding any conditions to -- it doesn't include us adding any conditions that the applicant would have to follow really outside of our decision to approve this particular set of-- of plans. So, as far as traffic goes, as -- as the chair said that's not in our purview and we really can't add anything additional that would be reflective of -- of concerns outside of just really what the landscape buffer is and -- and these engineering plans. So, I just wanted to make that clear, because I -- I understand the -- the neighbors' concerns and I understand coming and hoping that we have the ability to change things that, unfortunately, we don't. So, I just wanted to clarify that, because we -- we really just have a fairly narrow decision to make this evening. So, I have watched the traffic come in and out of the Boise Co-op at The Village often -- been there quite a bit -- not to the Co-op per se, but just that area and it can get a little backed up, but it really isn't an overwhelming amount of -- of traffic coming in there and that's a much heavier commercial use than what will be here and having a second location I think in Meridian will actually probably make the traffic less, because there is two -- two options and so I'm not going to say I'm not concerned, because I do understand where the neighbors are coming from. At the same time the Fairbourne Subdivision was approved in 2018 and the use in the zoning for this lot have been the same since then. It hasn't changed. We are not proposing changing that this is going to be commercial use. So, for all of those who thought that might become residential at some point, I -- I'm very sorry to hear that. I think this is a good use for this. I think the applicant is trying to be aware of all of the different potential challenges and try to -- trying to address those, but we are not here tonight to consider whether a grocery store should go there. It's just whether we can -- we want to approve these set of plans essentially. So, I don't have an issue with it as it sits. Smith: Other Commissioners? Sandoval: Mr. Chair? F20] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 4,2025 Page 17 of 31 Smith: Commissioner Sandoval. Sandoval: Yeah. I think it's a great use for this, whatever it's going to be, any commercial space that's going to mitigate some of the traffic. Hopefully people are using pedestrian pathways, walking; right? That would be -- that would be great to see. But, yeah, no issues with this. Smith: Commissioners, also take a motion if there is -- Commissioner Stoll, do you have any -- Stoll: No. Smith: Is there a motion then? Stoll: Mr. Chair? Smith: Commissioner Stoll. Stoll: After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File No. H-2025-0036 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of September 4th, 2025. Perreault: Second. Smith: Moved and seconded. All those in favor? Any opposed? Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. 4. Public Hearing for Solara Estates Subdivision (H-2025-0013) by Jadon Schneider, Bronze Bow Land, located at 1695 E. Amity Rd. and 4940 and 5060 S. Locust Grove Rd. A. Request: Annexation of approximately 15 acres across three (3) parcels of land from Ada County into the City of Meridian with requested zoning of R-8 and R-2 from RUT which includes parcel q numbers S1132223130, S1132223210 and S1132223320. B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 14 single-family lots, including one existing home site to remain and five (5) common lots for a total of 19 lots on 9.72 acres of land (parcels S1132223210 and S113223320). C. Request: Alternative Compliance to reduce the landscape buffer along the street adjacent to Lot 11, Block 1 by 50%. F21 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 4,2025 Page 18 of 31 Smith: All right. Next item on the agenda Item No. 4 is for H-2025-0013 for an annexation, preliminary plat and alternative compliance for the Solara Estates Subdivision at Amity and Locust Grove Roads. We will begin with the staff report. Ritter: Good evening, Commissioners. So, again, tonight we are here for Solara Estates Subdivision. So, this site consists of a little over 15 acres of land. It's currently zoned RUT. It's located at 1695 East Amity Road, 4940 and 5050 South Locust Grove Road. So, the annexation -- they are requesting a zoning designation of R-8 and R-2. The church -- the -- the existing Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints would like to be zoned R-8, because churches are not allowed in R-2 and R-4 zones and the preliminary plat -- the subdivision is requesting a zoning of R-2. So, the preliminary plat will consist of 14 building lots and five common lots for a total of 19 lots on approximately 9.72 acres. They are also requesting alternative compliance, which is an administrative process to reduce a portion of the landscape buffer along the street adjacent to Lot 11. So, along this portion. They did submit some building concepts for this and staff is recommending that lots -- the rear and ide lots of facing and Locust Grove, that they provide -- incorporate articulation through change into more of the building modulations, recess -- projections, recesses, step-backs, pop-out, bays and porches. So, all of this is for any of the two story lots. Single story homes will be exempt from this. So, these are examples of the homes that they are proposing for this -- for their preliminary plat. These are the amenities. So, R-2, only -- it's only required to have eight percent open space and not the regular 15 percent that's required by most of the zoning and so these are their amenity details. They are proposing a covered shelter and picnic tables. So, there is hard surface here where the pic -- covered sheltered and the picnic table and an open grassy area. This is their open space exhibit. So, the existing home will remain here. So, as part of the alternative compliance as you can see once you put in the requirements from ACHD, which is requiring 50 feet of right of way from the center line to the lot, so there is 17 feet of right of way, plus a three foot wide gravel shoulder and a ten foot wide multi-use pathway, along with the city's 25 foot landscape buffer. So, there is approximately four feet of difference between the house and the landscape buffer. So, what is being requested is that that 25 foot landscape buffer be in an easement instead of a common lot. We will -- the director has agreed to allowing a reduction of the landscape buffer around the area where the -- where the driveway is and, then, the rest of it will be 25 feet, but it will all be within an easement and not within a common lot to help mitigate some of the issues on this lot. Another thing -- so, the church will remain as an existing church. With annexation it will be required to hook up to sewer and water, as well as the existing home. With annexation, as the church is not proposing to do any kind of expansion, alterations, so currently the parking lot and the access do not meet current city standards. If there is any additions or modifications to this they will have to meet the current standards. But staff did propose if the Commission or the Council warranted maybe a temporary five foot sidewalk along Locust Grove and along Amity for the church, but it's not anything that the -- that staff is requiring, is only if the Commission thinks it's warranted and recommends that Council requires it, because at this point the church itself -- it came in -- so, they are not really -- they are not requesting any modification, again, but they agreed to the annexation solely to provide a path of F22 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 4,2025 Page 19 of 31 annexation for the Solara Estates Subdivision, because the properties are under -- and, again, because the properties are under two separate ownerships we are requesting two separate development agreements to govern each property. ACHD has not -- and, again, as this church was approved through a CUP process within Ada county and they have more access points than that would be allowed within the city, unless the Commission recommends removal of some of those access points, staff is not recommending removal. ACHD has not submitted anything requiring them to remove any of the access points. The report from ACHD basically just looked at the annexation and not for any kind of development on this property for the church. So, they did not require any improvements for the church or removal of any access points at this time. If the church comes in for any -- again, if it comes in for any kind of modification it will have to go through the CUP process, because currently it's nonconforming for some of the things and at that time it will be looked at by ACHD for any kind of improvements that would be required along the frontage of this property. So, basically, it's kind of a straightforward development. It's 14 buildable lots and the lots are bigger than what is normally required, because R-2 requires 12,000 plus square feet of land for the lots and they are -- they are proposing around 22,000 square feet of land. So, their density is about 1.44 dwelling units per acre. So, pretty straightforward. So, at this point I would be happy to answer any questions that you guys might have regarding this development proposal. Smith: Are there any questions for staff? Perreault: Mr. Chair? Smith: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: Looking at all the drawings I'm trying to understand why the church property needs to be a part of the development. It looks like that this isn't going to, you know, be built onto their parcel. Is that not the case? Ritter: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Perreault, so the church is not part of the development, it's just annexing in so it can provide a pathway to annexation for the properties to the south. So, without the church annexing in the properties to the south do not have a connection -- a pathway to annexation, because they are not close to any of the properties that are already annexed into the city. Perreault: I see. Okay. Thank you. Smith: Any other questions for staff? Would the applicant like to come forward and, please, state your name and address for the record. Schneider: Good evening. Jadon Schneider. 3770 North Jackie Lane, Boise, with Bronze Bow. I'm the applicant working on behalf of the developer and the owner. First off thank you, Linda, for -- she killed it. I don't have too much more to say, other than I appreciate her saying it's a straightforward development, because we really feel like it F23] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 4,2025 Page 20 of 31 is. Let me try to pull this up here. Yeah. So, Solara Estates Subdivision, as Linda said -- I will try to just kind of briefly go through it. I had a lot more to add to it -- or not a lot more to add to it, because Linda did a great job running through it herself. As Commissioner Perreault asked, there the proposal is for the annexation of the church, because the north property, north of Amity Road, is the area for the southern boundary for the city in this area. So, in order for this project to go forward the church would need to be that path to annexation. As Linda mentioned, there is the three parcels in total, just about 15 acres. The two parcels on the south side are what's proposed as the Solara Estates Subdivision portion and, then, the church parcels to the north is that annexation portion right there. This site is just at the corner of Locust Grove and Amity right here and I will just kind of talk a little bit more specifically about the actual proposal for the subdivision itself. As Linda said it's about ten acres in total. It's a rural-urban transitionary area. The proposal is for those two lots. The goal with the subdivision between the owner and the developer is that they wanted to create these nice larger estate lots, because they really feel like this would fit well in this project. As Linda mentioned, they are about 22,000 square feet, so just about half an acre. They are a little bit over half an acre in total for all of that and ACHD reviewed and approved what we have proposed to them so far. So, we are really happy with everything that we have received back at this point and just kind of a few nuances to the project. As Linda mentioned, there is an existing home on the property. That is the owners -- the current owner of the property. Their plan is to stay in that existing home and stay there throughout the development and post-development, too. So, obviously, they want to see a project that comes together and looks nice, because they have to live with it, just like the neighbors, if this group be approved. So, they want to see something nice that comes together quite well. So, just one thing that I wanted to mention about this site that makes it unique and makes it special and why they would like to do some of these larger homes and what would look nice in this area. It's rather elevated in the southwest corner of the site where the existing home is. This is just a Google street view looking from basically the southwest corner out towards the northeast. So, you have this nice view corridor in here in this area. The existing home is about 40 feet higher -- the finish grade is about 40 feet higher than the furthest point at the northeast corner. So, if you go from the southwest and northeast it's trailing down. So, what the goal is with this site is to create lots that provide these nice view corridors, so you can have this view as it's stepping down naturally. So, the benefit of that on top of it all is the fact that the neighbors' homes here that already have nice views, we are hoping to protect those as well. One of the things in the staff report that it mentions is R-2 has a zoning that speaks specifically to height standards of 35 feet. So, with their homes -- them being the neighbors -- and the current owners, their homes being in that highest elevation there, the idea would be they would still have homes that would have that view opportunity and maintain that throughout the development. Just talking about where it's at and just trying to show congruent development with this subdivision, you have Reflections Ridge Subdivision to the north, Paisley Meadows to the north and Southern Highlands Subdivision to the east. So, we are trying to show that this subdivision isn't on an island, it's not way out there in the distance. I know we talked about the path to annexation and sometimes it can get a bit, oh, hey, piecemeal the project together, because you have these weird lots that show this long skinny path to annexation. We 24 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 4,2025 Page 21 of 31 really feel that it is close to the city and it's just in that congruent development growth area. Just talking about the future land use map. This is in that low density residential. So, the development itself with the R-2 -- or when I say the development -- the subdivision portion is in that R-2. So, the goal is to keep that R-2, keep that low density residential, which is in the future land use map itself. Traffic considerations. ACHD in their staff report spoke specifically to a number of the improvements that they are planning on doing in their capital improvement plan and in their five year work plan. Amity Road is proposed to be upgraded to five lanes. Locust Grove is upgraded -- or is proposed to be upgraded to three lanes and, then, the big one is there is going to be a multi-lane roundabout at the intersection of Amity and Locust Grove. Interestingly enough, in that five year work plan it is dedicated to be designed in 23-24, so as I understand it it is either designed or it is in the works of being designed with the idea of it being constructed in the near future and coming online sometime soon, which would be great for this development and, hopefully, great for any sort of traffic concerns that there might be, obviously, of-- well, obviously, but in theory a roundabout intersection is going to work a lot better than a four way stop intersection. As Linda's mentioned open space right here. The idea would be to have plenty of open space for this subdivision, even though it is a smaller subdivision, try to have that amenity space centralized where people can go congregate and something that looks nice for all the residents there. Linda mentioned on it -- and, you know, I will just try to add to it, not -- not that she didn't do a great job, but just try to explain the alternative compliance request. Basically ACHD is asking for a 50 foot right of way on this side of the road. It's a hundred foot total. So, giving up 50 feet to ACHD and, then, following city's code, which would be another 25 feet for a landscape buffer, would mean that this -- the new property line for the existing home, as Linda said, would be about four feet away from that existing portion. So, here is just kind of a quick cross-section of what that would look like. The idea being giving up both 50 feet of right of way and 25 feet for landscape buffer would cause this site -- this home to be, one, within the setback and the existing driveway to basically render it unusable. So, what the developer is requesting is they would like to give up the full 50 feet of right of way to ACHD as they have requested there, but go through the alternative compliance where instead of adding a 25 foot landscape buffer in this area, they would reduce that down to a 12 and a half foot landscape easement with increased number of trees and shrubs and things like that to add that landscaping buffer to meet the intent of the code with still allowing the existing home to, one, not be encroaching on a setback and, two, that driveway to maintain usability through there. So, the idea from the owner and from the developer is still to meet the intent of the code. However, in an alternative way and I'm happy to explain that more in detail if there is any questions about it. I know that the first time I was trying to work through it -- it's a bit tricky. As Linda said, there is some elevations that we wanted to talk about overall, but just as a project in a whole we are really happy with it and I would -- oh, just wanted to mention on the staff report -- the one comment that Linda brought up about the temporary pathway around the church property, the only comment that the developer had was with the roundabout coming in from ACHD the question of is the temporary pathway necessary if ACHD is going to be coming in and putting in their roundabout and their sidewalks in this area. Not so much from a, hey, we are trying to skirt any sort of responsibilities that we are trying to do, but mostly the idea of there is 25 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 4,2025 Page 22 of 31 not a lot of pedestrian traffic in this area at the moment, so it was just a question from the developer on, you know, hey, we understand what the intent was. If there wasn't a roundabout coming in in theory right around the corner is there -- you know, then, yeah, absolutely, makes a lot of sense. But if it is going to be built by ACHD when they come in and they build out their entire thing, that was the only comment from the developer on that. And, then, one other comment that I caught just reading it before the meeting, in the amenity portion in the staff report I think it mentions a fire pit and I don't think -- I don't think we have proposed any fire pit in there. It had the picnic shelter and it had the gazebo or the picnic tables and whatnot. If I'm wrong I'm wrong, but I think I saw it in there. The only thing is I don't think that the developer had originally said we were going to put a fire pit in that community area. So, just --just -- I -- it may have been -- it may have been in there and I -- or it may have been missing it. But, anyways, I would be happy to stand for any questions and I appreciate your time and especially appreciate Linda's time and all the work she's done on it. Thank you. Smith: Thank you very much. Commissioners, are there any questions for the applicant at this time? All right. I did have -- sorry. I did have one question. Schneider: Yeah. Smith: Knowing that the -- knowing that the area to the east of this development is on the future land use map of medium density residential, rather than low density, without having slightly different height considerations and things like that, has there been any discussion or consideration of that for when those are developed trying to have the -- have your development set up in a way that they are not at odds for view shedding and things like that when those developments go in? Obviously, you can't predict the future, but -- Schneider: Of course. The main comments that we have been having so far with -- with talking with builders and trying to figure out how the developer is putting it together would be to have those homes closer to the higher side of the lots, so that they can maintain their view with that exact idea. If there is a future development that comes by, obviously, it's tough when you say, hey, you know, we are selling you this view, but someone could, obviously, come and develop it. The adage of don't buy a view you don't own, it gets tough. But the idea would be in this one to try to put the homes in a location that would add the most height for them, so that they could continue to see hopefully with the same idea of not blocking views of existing neighbors because of that exact idea. We -- we don't want to be a bad neighbor to anybody and build a house and block their view in any way. Smith: Thank you. Perreault: Mr. Chair? Smith: Mr. Perreault. F26] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 4,2025 Page 23 of 31 Perreault: Thank you for bringing that up. Along those lines I just have a recommendation. Schneider: Yes. Perreault: We have another neighborhood west of here where there is large lots. They are still in the county and it bumps up against MDR and there has been a battle on that property for a very very long time and so I would just recommend to your home buyers to let them know that there is going to be a different density and I know that's not ideal to let them know that, you are trying to sell homes. I'm a realtor. I understand. But that has -- just that one thing would have really -- I mean it's been literally development after development -- development that's tried to come into that MDR space and the neighbors have just fought it and fought it. So, you will actually do yourself a favor if you do that. Schneider: Understood. Thank you. Smith: Commissioners? Schneider: Great. Thank you. Smith: Thanks. Now, move on to public testimony. Madam Clerk, is there anyone signed up to testify? Lomeli: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have Kathy -- is it Carter? Corter? Okay. Smith: Is that you? Would you like to come up and speak? Okay. Lomeli: Next on the list is Codi Bills. Smith: Just, please, state your name and address for the record. Bills: Good evening, Mr. Chair and Commissioners in the council. My name is Codi Bills and I reside at 5060 South Locust Grove Road. We are actually the owners of the existing house involved in this project. My husband Curtis and I are Idaho natives and we know how sacred Idaho farmland is. We actually have raised our four sons there and we actually taught them how to farm and we own other farmland in other areas as well. We are in a different stage of life and we are ready to kind of take a break with the farming and we didn't want to move, we could have moved and sold out to a big -- you know, big huge developer and high density and that's not something we wanted to do to ourselves or our neighbors and so we actually interviewed developers and partnered up with these great fellows and we feel like this subdivision will just be an asset to the community. We had a really fabulous neighborhood meeting back in January. Most of the neighborhood -- neighbors were very glad that it wasn't high density. They were happy to see that they were just half acres. There were a little concerns about traffic, but we feel like, you know, with the proposed developments coming up and with it only being 13 homes it shouldn't have an impact on the traffic and with existing construction F27] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 4,2025 Page 24 of 31 that's going on right now is making a big impact on -- on traffic jams on Locust Grove, but that will definitely soften up as those projects get finished up. We love this area. We have no intentions of leaving and so that is why we are in full -- full support of this project and actually have been hands on. Smith: Thank you. Are there any questions? All right. Thank you very much. Madam Clerk, is there anyone else signed up to testify? Lomeli: Yes. Mr. Chair, I have Mark Agenbroad. Smith: And just, please, state your name and address for the record. Agenbroad: Mark Agenbroad. 1420 East Amity Road. And thank you for your time. We are some of the newer folks in the area. We have been there 32 years and others 50 plus and, obviously, things have been changing and most of -- we are not -- we are all in county, so we maybe don't fit in here very well, but I kind of speak for eight to ten of those folks that have one to 12 acres in this area and nobody is excited about further development. As you can imagine with the Brighton developing a mile off of us and the traffic there, people are just less than excited about more and more. So, our -- you know, if we are going to do a development why not one acre lots that fit in with the surrounding areas and -- and just the impact to existing property owners. We know that the intersection is going to change. ACHD has gone through multiple project managers trying to make something work there and they have kind of shot themselves in the foot a number of times, but, anyway, will there be turn lanes to allow for the increased, you know -- and I -- it's probably not a city issue, but just traffic lanes. It only takes one car to back up a bunch of people trying to turn into or out of a subdivision and so -- and those are just some of our concerns, just the growth in itself and just something that fits in with the existing area and the impact to our properties Thank you for your time. Smith: Thank you. Madam Clerk. Lomeli: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have Mike Homan -- Homad. Okay. Smith: Anyone else? Lomeli: Okay. And she hasn't signed up, but the lady in the front aisle here would like to testify. Smith: Ma'am, would you like to come forward and testify? I said would you like to come up and testify? And, then, just -- you can grab one of those microphones and give us your name and your address for the record. Capell: My name is Bonnie Capell. I have got a little bit of vertigo, so that's what -- Smith: Okay. All right. F28] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 4,2025 Page 25 of 31 Capell: We live right behind the Bills, kind of, and just a little bit in. We have been there for 50 years and this is a bit of an adjustment, but we like the neighbors -- Smith: Could I -- sorry. Could I bother you? Could you speak into the microphone, so we could hear you. It's totally okay. You can move it. Capell: This way? Smith: Yeah. That's totally fine. Capell: Sorry. Smith: No worries. Capell: I wasn't going to do this and I don't think my husband wants me to. But our concern is losing our view, because we are -- if the Bills' house is right there, then, there is another -- this is the lot we are concerned about, because we live -- this other thing here that's been rooted, so it doesn't show all our messes. You know. That was supposed to be a joke. Is where we live and if there was a big two story house there or even one with a real high roof it would cut off our view and I just wondered if there is any way that you can put in a contract or so on that there wouldn't be a real high two story house there. We are trying to cooperate with the rest of us and we want to probably subdivide our property, because we have four plus acres right above it. We used to own the whole thing and gradually as we get older and older -- I'm only 25. It -- it gets more of a concern. Plus we have children that all think they should have a part. Anyway, that's all -- that's all I wanted to do is express that concern, that that lot directly below us could be put in a contract some way that it doesn't spoil our view. Okay. Thank you for letting me break the rules. Smith: Well, thank you so much. Is there anyone else who would like to -- or, Madam Clerk, is there anyone on Zoom or -- Lomeli: Mr. Chair, yes. There is a Julie on Zoom that's raising her hand. Smith: All right. Julie, would you like to speak? And, then, can we have your name and address for the record. Edwards: Sure. My name is Julie Edwards and I'm at 1310 East Mary Lane and the first question I had -- Lomeli: Just one second. We can't hear you very well, so if you can -- I'm going to adjust the microphone volume and if you could speak up. Edwards: Okay. Can you hear me better? Smith: That's great. 29 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 4,2025 Page 26 of 31 Edwards: Okay. Holding it close. So, the first question I had was already answered and it was why the church was on the same application as a residential development. So, thank you for answering that. Secondly, traffic. This morning -- it's always a concern most weekdays, as this morning, it was backed up heading northbound from about the library at Locust Grove and Lake Hazel all the way to Amity and, then, another stretch from Amity to the Victory roundabout was just a solid line and I just think that that's going to get worse. Like the gentleman had said, you know, one person turning -- heading southbound turning left into the subdivision will hold up a line and, likewise, somebody exiting that subdivision trying to make a left will not happen in the morning hours or the late evening hours and I just wanted to say also in regards to the traffic that, you know, we have seen so much growth in this part of town specifically and it really sort of boggles my mind. When I saw the Bills' house being built, you know, the neighbors and I were all saying, wow, I can't believe somebody is building that close to the road. It's -- it's awfully close to the road and just with knowing that the road -- Locust Grove in the future would likely be widened, I was just curious and this might not be a question you can answer, why it wouldn't have been suggested to them while they were doing permits and whatnot to set that back further and, then, that would have eliminated the need for the alternative compliance request and that goes along with just -- it seems like the bending of rules happens often and so, therefore, I feel like developers just plan what they want, knowing that there is a good chance they will get the variances they want and that could just be a coincidence that's happened in my neck of the woods. I know Brighton has had a lot of variances and so I just feel like, you know, we have rules, we should stick to the rules as best we can. And, lastly, another question is say down the road the church closes and the lot is up for sale and it's sold to a developer, now is there anything that says that that zoning would go back into R-2 or R-4, because it's no longer a church requiring an R-8 zoning? And, lastly, I'm glad this isn't an apartment building going in, but, again, thank you for your time. Smith: Thank you very much. Madam Clerk, is there anyone else online? Lomeli: Thank you, Mr. Chair. There is one more person online, but they are not raising their hand. Smith: Okay. If you would like to testify if you are online, please, raise your hand. Otherwise, is there anyone else in Chambers who would like to come forward? All right. With that I guess would the applicant like to come back forward? Schneider: Jadon Schneider. 3770 North Jackie Lane, Boise. First off, yeah, thanks for everybody who spoke and stepped up and I know public speaking isn't always for everybody, so I appreciate when -- when people step in and provide their opinions and their thoughts on it. Just trying to answer as many questions as I can. Mark and Julie both specifically asked about the right of way -- or, sorry, the roadway itself. ACHD hasn't provided any sort of requirements to the developers specifying, you know, an additional turn lane or anything into this one here. Kind of going back to the idea of the capital improvement plan from ACHD, they are planning on widening this road to that five lane portion. The size of the development being 14 building lots didn't require any 30 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 4,2025 Page 27 of 31 sort of traffic impact study, so ACHD did not require that. Obvious -- when that usually is triggered there is around a hundred lots. So, that's -- that's coming back to the traffic portion. One of the comments that the Bills had made -- Codi had mentioned to me was just Eagle Road has been under construction for so long and it's kind of kicked a lot of traffic over here onto Locust Grove. So, it's noticeable that there is traffic on Locust Grove that's backing up, especially when Eagle Road is going through so much construction right there. I don't live in the immediate area, but that's my understanding of -- at the current state what's happening and if you are out there today I'm sure. Julie asked about the location of the existing house and it kind of ties into Bonnie's question about view corridors and everything there. The existing home was placed there when the Bills built it, mostly because they were working with Bonnie and her husband in regard to trying to find a view corridor that didn't block their neighbors. It's kind of interesting on the site itself, if you can see my mouse, the site is highest at that northeast -- or southwest portion -- portion of the site and from the Bills' backyard it drops down about 15 to 20 feet right off of the back of this patio area right here. So, the actual portion of Lot -- I don't have the lot of numbers on here, but the lot that Bonnie was talking about right there is about 20 feet lower already just in this short distance, mostly because there is just a high point in that very corner and it coincidentally worked out well for the Bills to build their house there, which did meet all the setback standards at the time and didn't block any views from Bonnie at the time as well. So, the -- the idea coming forward from them wasn't that they were trying to jam their house into the corner and get away with something later in the development, obviously, that's not what Julie was referencing, but it wasn't -- there wasn't an intent to try to cause some sort of alternative compliance request, but that was kind of the backstory that I was given on -- on what was happening there. The other idea on the alternative -- alternative compliance is the fact that they are trying to comply in an alternative manner. They are not trying to ask for a variance and say, hey, we can't do this and just let us slip away without doing something to try to make this work. So, alternatively they are trying to make something work there. And, then, yeah, just going back to Bonnie's question specific with that view. The whole idea right there is just to try to preserve those views for not just them, but all the homes, especially the Bills and especially anyone who already has those existing homes. That idea being that there is that pretty steep drop off, which allows them to work there. I know that the developer has been talking with Bonnie specifically and asking like, hey, you know, what would work here? So, I believe that they have already been trying to make that happen and there is a good way naturally with the topography to make it happen, where no one's views are blocked. Thanks. Smith: Thank you very much. Commissioners, are there any questions? I do have one question regarding that southern property and I will try to use my words to describe the specific building or specific location that I'm talking about. The kind of center bottom building right on the left side of the cul-de-sac -- the western side of the cul-de-sac right there -- Schneider: Uh-huh. F31 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 4,2025 Page 28 of 31 Smith: -- how much lower -- like what does that incline render -- I mean I don't need exact numbers, but roughly speaking is that still kind of on a similar plane as that southbound property, because that's -- I'm thinking of the view. That's kind of the building in question. Schneider: In the preliminary plat we do have the grading -- the existing features plan. Would we be able to pull that up, because it has the topography in there and it would show it. If we don't that was -- sorry. That was kind of what I was referencing to the 15 to 20 feet. That lot is the lot that's about 20 feet lower -- or in the center of that lot. So, that hopefully answers, but there is in the preliminary plat application, there is the existing features, which includes the topographic elevations on there as well to see it. Smith: That's -- that's fine. I think knowing that general height with also the 30 foot limit for even the two story with the zoning, I think it -- that makes sense to me. Okay. That's the only question I had. Any Commissioners have any other questions? Great. Just double checking. Yep. Okay. Cool. Is there -- can I get a motion to close the public hearing? Stoll: I move to close the public hearing. Perreault: Second. Smith: Moved and seconded. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. I didn't say thank you. Thank you by the way. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Smith: Discussion. Which Commissioner wants to go first? Perreault: Mr. Chair? Smith: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: Five years ago when the city was doing their Comprehensive Plan, their future land use map, we had a lot of requests to keep the residential out here in R-2 and so I think this is a really good use for this area and of all of the different kind of residential that can go out here and, then, it has gone even further to the south as was mentioned, this will be a much lighter use and so I'm -- I'm in support of this application. I think the applicant has thought this out well and it sounds like they will continue to work with the neighbors to accommodate as best as possible. So, I feel like this is a really good use for this -- for these parcels. Smith: Thank you. Other Commissioners? Commissioner Sandoval. Sandoval: Mr. Chair. Yeah, I agree with almost a half an acre per lot, very very low density. Good fit for the area. On that temporary sidewalk portion, you know, I don't 32 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 4,2025 Page 29 of 31 think that we should include something like that, especially with the development of the roundabout and there is no adjacent sidewalks. So, it just doesn't make sense to ask for that. Smith: Commissioner Stoll, do you have any? Stoll: I'm supportive of the application, so you get good use for the land, it's within how the area is developing, so -- Smith: Thank you. Yeah. I think this is a good development thing for the R-2 as looking at ACHD's five year work -- work plan and like the applicant was saying, the design phase was 2023-2024, the right of way is slated for -- for -- on Amity Road for 29-30. So, usually, ACHD doesn't like to sit on right of way too much longer after acquiring it. So, I -- you know, hopefully, at some point there should be some easing congestion, at least east-west and, then, you know, Locust Grove I think, you know, the -- south Meridian does need -- need some good attention. I think that's been a focus for a minute. But I think overall these specific properties -- I think the developer is trying to work to be a good neighbor. I can see some ways to -- you know, the right site selection or the right property or housing construction, housing design in the right locations can -- can hopefully abate any concerns about kind of that view and losing that view. Also, hopefully, mitigating those concerns with that eastern medium density residential. That is the one thing that I do want to make clear is -- is the future land use map has some -- some medium density residential to -- you know, to the east and that's what that's planned for; right? And I don't know when that's going to happen. I don't know if it's going to happen anytime soon, but I think this is an area where this development is actually going to be a very valuable transitional space to keep that the rural character on the west and the south, while still allowing for a more natural transition into kind of more suburban Meridian to that northeast. So, I think I'm fully supportive of it. I appreciate the neighbors' concerns in the comments and I understand for a lot of people who have kind of been in this area for a while, I understand that change is hard. Our -- our goal is to identify the -- you know, what is the best and the highest service for the City of Meridian and for its residents as a whole and I think this is some -- something like this could actually do a great job to that end. With that is there a motion? Perreault: Mr. Chair? Smith: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: Just -- just one more comment. I don't have an issue with the alternative compliance request. I mean ACHD is requesting 50 feet for when they eventually widen the road, so that's going to be there and I mean, obviously, we can't move that existing house. So, I don't think that's -- I think that's going to be a minimal impact. I'm not concerned about it. In light of that, I would like to make a motion. After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council F33] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 4,2025 Page 30 of 31 a File No. H-2025-0013 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of September 4th, 2025, with no modifications. Sandoval: Second. Smith: It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Oh. Ritter: I just need you guys to -- I know Commissioner Sandoval had said something about the temporary sidewalk, so that needs to be in the motion, whether or not you are recommending it or not. Smith: Okay. So, we will rewind about 30 seconds. Ritter: And you can add the alternative compliance in there also. Smith: Okay. So, we will need to just make sure I guess for the motion whether we want to allow the alternative compliance and then -- which I think you have covered, but also that temporary sidewalk. Perreault: Mr. Chair, I apologize. Could you run that by me again? We need to include in the motion the alternative compliance decision and also the temporary sidewalk? Is that right? Ritter: Yes, please. Perreault: Okay. Thank you. I will do my best. Mr. Chair, I think you have to ask for a new motion or shall I withdraw my motion? Smith: Kurt, is there a best way to do this? Starman: I think a couple choices. One, you can amend your motion with the concurrence of your second or you can withdraw the motion and, then, do a new motion. Either way it works. Smith: I think -- I think maybe amending the motion might be the simplest. Perreault: Sounds good. All right. I move to make a new motion. After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File No. H-2025-0013 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of September 4th, 2025, with the following modifications: The Commission is in agreement to grant the alternative compliance request to reduce the required landscape buffer along the street frontage of Lot 11, Block 1, to 12 and a half feet and the Commission is not in agreement with staffs recommendation -- excuse me -- the Commission is not in agreement with the need to add a five foot temporary sidewalk within the ACHD right of way on the west and north side of the property. 34 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 4,2025 Page 31 of 31 Smith: So, second concurs? Who was the second on that? Sandoval: Second. Smith: Second? Matt, you were, so you could -- Starman: Same -- yeah, if you would concur as -- you know, the same second would be in concurrent, if you can just confirm that's true. Sandoval: Yes. I second the amendment of the motion. Smith: Second concurs. All right. With that all those in favor, please, say aye. Any opposed? All right. Are we good? We clear? Cool. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Smith: All right. With that I will take one more motion. Stoll: Move to adjourn. Perreault: Second. Smith: Moved and seconded. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Thank you very much. We are adjourned. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:43 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS. ) APPROVED Maria Locher, Commission Chair 9-18-2025 ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK 9-18-2025 35 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for CapEd at Ten Mile (H-2025-0026) by Megan West, Slichter Ugrin Architecture, located at 657 S. Vanguard Way. 3 CITY OF MERIDIAN C� E IDIAN --- FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ID A H O DECISION& ORDER In the Matter of the Request for a Conditional Use Permit for CapEd at Ten Mile,Located at 657 S. Vanguard Way in the C-G Zoning District,by Megan West, Slichter I Ugrin Architecture. Case No(s).H-2025-0026 For the Planning& Zoning Commission Hearing Date of. August 21, 2025 (Findings on September 4,2025) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of August 21,2025, incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of August 21, 2025, incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of August 21, 2025, incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of August 21, 2025, incorporated by reference) B. Conclusions of Law 1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the"Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975,"codified at Chapter 65, Title 67,Idaho Code(I.C. §67-6503). 2. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code,and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has,by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian,which was adopted April 19,2011, Resolution No. 11-784 and Maps. 3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 11-5A. 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s)received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed. 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this decision,which shall be signed by the Chairman of the Commission and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk upon the applicant,the Planning Department,the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). CAPED AT TEN MILE CUP H-2025-0026 ❑ Page 1 4 7. That this approval is subject to the conditions of approval in the attached staff report for the hearing date of August 21,2025, incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application. C. Decision and Order Pursuant to the Planning & Zoning Commission's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 1I- 5A and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that: 1. The applicant's request for a Conditional Use Permit is hereby approved in accord with the conditions of approval in the staff report for the hearing date of August 21, 2025, attached as Exhibit A. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits Notice of Two(2)Year Conditional Use Permit Duration Please take notice that the conditional use permit,when granted, shall be valid for a maximum period of two(2)years unless otherwise approved by the City in accord with UDC 11-5B-6F.1. During this time,the applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground. For conditional use permits that also require platting,the final plat must be signed by the City Engineer within this two(2)year period in accord with UDC I 1-513-617.2. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11-513-6.F.1,the Director may authorize a single extension of the time to commence the use not to exceed one(1)two(2)year period.Additional time extensions up to two (2)years as determined and approved by the Commission may be granted.With all extensions,the Director or Commission may require the conditional use comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code Title 11. E. Judicial Review Pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521(1)(d), if this final decision concerns a matter enumerated in Idaho Code § 67-6521(1)(a), an affected person aggrieved by this final decision may,within twenty-eight (28) days after all remedies have been exhausted, including requesting reconsideration of this final decision as provided by Meridian City Code § 1-7-10, seek judicial review of this final decision as provided by chapter 52,title 67, Idaho Code. This notice is provided as a courtesy; the City of Meridian does not admit by this notice that this decision is subject to judicial review under LLUPA. F. Notice of Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis Pursuant to Idaho Code §§ 67-6521(1)(d) and 67-8003, an owner of private property that is the subject of a final decision may submit a written request with the Meridian City Clerk for a regulatory takings analysis. G. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of August 21, 2025 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). CAPED AT TEN MILE CUP H-2025-0026 Page 2 5 By action of the Planning&Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the 4th day of September ,2025. COMMISSIONER MARIA LORCHER, CHAIRMAN VOTED COMMISSIONER JARED SMITH,VICE CHAIRMAN VOTED COMMISSIONER BRIAN GARRETT VOTED COMMISSIONER JESSICA PERREAULT VOTED COMMISSIONER MATHEW STOLL VOTED COMMISSIONER MATTHEW SANDOVAL VOTED COMMISSIONER SAM RUST VOTED By Jared Smith Vice Chairman 9-4-2025 Attest: Chris Johnson, City Clerk 9-4-2025 Copy served upon the Applicant,the Planning and Development Services divisions of the Community Development Department,the Public Works Department and the City Attorney. By: Dated: 9-4-2025 City Clerk's Office CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). CAPED AT TEN MILE CUP H-2025-0026 Page 3 EXHIBIT A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT C`�fEPIDIAM,,DEPARTMENT REPORT t DA H O HEARING 8/7/2025 Continued to 8/21/2025 Legend DATE: Project Location TO: Planning&Zoning Commission :::Area of Impact i= City Limits FROM: Linda Ritter,Associate Planner Q Analysis = 4 _ 208-884-5533 :1 J APPLICANT: Megan West, Slichter Ugrin Architecture - SUBJECT: H-2025-0026 , _ CapEd Ten Mile-CUP J- e LOCATION: 657 S Vanguard Way, located in the SW r - 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 14, Township 3N,Range 1W, Parcel No.R8484040030 I. PROJECT OVERVIEW A. Summary The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit(CUP) for a detached two-lane drive- through for two self-service automated teller kiosks,with a bypass lane for the credit union is approximately 708 square feet overall and is 16.3 feet in height detached drive-through that is within 300 feet of another drive-through for CapEd bank on 1.489 acres of land zoned C-G for two self-service automated teller kiosks that will operate 24/7. B. Issues/Waivers None C. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the proposed conditional use permit with the conditions in Section IV per the Findings in Section V. D. Decision Approved with conditions City of Meridian I Department Report 1. Project Overview I1. COMMUNITY METRICS Table 1: Land Use Description Details Map Ref. Existing Land Use(s) Vacant - Proposed Land Use(s) Financial Institution w/a drive-through - Existing Zoning General Retail and Service Commercial District(C-G) VII.A.2 Proposed Zoning General Retail and Service Commercial District(C-G) Adopted FLUM Designation Commercial VII.A.3 Proposed FLUM Designation Commercial Table 2: Process Facts Description Details Preapplication Meeting date 4/l/2025 Neighborhood Meeting 4/22/2025 Site posting date 8/11/2025 Table 3: Community Metrics Agency/Element Description/Issue Reference Ada County Highway District • Comments Received Yes/Staff Report - • Commission Action Required No - • Access S.Vanguard Way/Collector - ITD Comments Received No comment or concerns at this time Meridian Fire No Comment Meridian Police No Comment - Meridian Public Works Wastewater IV.B & Distance to Mainline Available at the site - • Impacts or Concerns See Public Works site specific conditions Meridian Public Works Water • Distance to Mainline Available at the site • Impacts or Concerns None 0 Note: City/Agency Comments and Conditions Section and public record for all department/agency comments received. CapEd Ten Mile-CUP H-2025-0026 (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:R8484040030 Date Retrieved:2025/6/5 Parcel Count Parcel Acreage Infill Indicator: S92 Surrounding Area AtMk 32 1 0�o Not city 1W ® City Limits 1,523 ■ Not City 7 7A f Household Household& Population Growth I % Households 02020 Population Change:55.4% Population ■Growth (Household and Population Change since 2010 Decennial) 5,000 10,000 15,000 Use Types Residential Addresses All Addresses ■ Single-family 77% 72% �% Multi-family 23% 22% ® Commercial Preliminary Plats (last 5-years) Conditional Use Permit(last 5-years) Proposed Proposed Pending Pending Approved Approved i 0 2000 4000 6000 0 2000 4000 6000 0 Single-family ® Multi-family City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics 2.00 500 Single-family y Residential T 1.50 a 3 Parcel Diversity (A 1.0o u° 0 Parcel Count �, 0.50 L 0.25 D.14 .11 a Average Acres 0.00 0 R-2 R-4 R-8 R-15 Average Single-family Density by Zoning Average 10.00 09.41 ResidentialDensity Q 7.08 a 5.00 E) 7.02 0.00 ---4DO.39 Dwelling Units 1 Acre R-2 R-4 R-8 R-15 Notes: See VIII.Additional Notes&Details for Staff Report Maps,Tables, and Charts. Fiuure 3: Service Impact Summary Ready 0 0 0 0 0 w l w l Marginal 0 0 Caution 0 o��e e�e� \ooa �\�e O\``e �aA� a�y \oc �a�� �\�e ��\\- �eSQ `' L0 oo� oo o as 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 Future Land Use Map(FLUM) designates this property as Commercial. This designation will provide a full range of commercial uses to serve area residents and visitors. Desired uses may include retail,restaurants,personal and professional services, and office uses, as well as appropriate public and quasi-public uses.Multi-family residential may be allowed in some cases but should be careful to promote a high quality of life through thoughtful site design, connectivity, and amenities. Sample zoning include: C-N, C-C, and C-G. The proposal to construct a new 10,884-square-foot financial institution at the corner of Ten Mile Road and S. Vanguard Way is an allowed use within the C-G zoning district. However,the detached 16.3-foot-tall drive-through structure,which includes two self-service automated teller kiosks operating 24/7 and landscaping along two perimeter property lines,requires approval of a Conditional Use Permit because it is located within 300 feet of another drive-through. Table 4: Pro*ect Overview Description Details History Ten Mile Center(H-2020-0074),DA Inst.#2021-089157] Phasing Plan 1 Acreage 1.489 acres B. History In 2020 a Development Agreement modification was approved to terminate all existing agreements in the Ten Mile Crossing development area in favor of one master agreement to govern future development of the overall area. The proposal includes a request for adoption of project-specific design guidelines to supersede those in the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan(TMISAP),which include deviations from certain goals and guidelines including decreased floor area ratios, different street and streetscape designs, landscape and architectural design elements and site development standards,including an increase in height in the C-G zoning district of up to 100-feet to allow for 6-story buildings. The purpose of the design guidelines is as follows: to encourage flexibility, innovation and creativity in Ten Mile Crossing's overall design and development that respond to market demand and site specific conditions while enhancing the economic viability and quality of Ten Mile Crossing and the City of Meridian; allow for innovative design solutions that create visually pleasing and cohesive patterns of development; provide for the implantation and balance of a variety of uses within the development including viable mixed-use projects; identify and define standards for uses that may allowed in each of the land use categories; create functionally integrated development that allows for a more efficient and cost effective provision of public services;provide for the public health, safety, enjoyment, convenience and general welfare, and provide efficient and effective administrative processes. An administrative framework for the development process was established for this area and includes the creation of an in-house design review board("TMCDR Board")and internal design review process prior to application submittals to the City for Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC)and Design Review(DR)approval. This Board would forward its decisions to the City for their consideration of all project applications. Staff would review these applications and the decision of the Board. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ C. Site Development and Use Analysis 1. Existing Structures/Site Improvements (UDC 11-1): The proposed use includes construction of a new 10,884-square foot building at the corner of Ten Mile Road and S. Vanguard Way, along with a detached, two-lane drive-through structure measuring 16.3 feet in height. The drive-through will serve two self-service automated teller kiosks operating 2417, and landscaping is proposed along two perimeter property lines. The applicant is proposing a total of forty-three(43)parking spaces for the development, which exceeds the minimum requirement of twenty-two (22)spaces per UDC 11-3C-2. However, the Ten Mile Development Plan requires 4.5 spaces per 1,000 gross square feet, resulting in a total requirement offorty-nine(49)spaces. The applicant has indicated that Brighton Land Holdings, LLC/Ten Mile Crossing Inc. has approved the proposed forty-three (43)parking spaces, acknowledging that they exceed the UDC requirement but fall short of the Ten Mile Development Plan standard. 2. Proposed Use Analysis (UDC 11-2 and 11-3A-16): The proposed use includes a detached, two-lane drive-through for two self-service automated teller kiosks, with an additional bypass lane for CapEd Credit Union. The structure will be approximately 708 square feet in size and 16.3 feet in height. A drive-through establishment must be approved through a Conditional Use Permit as it is within 300 feet of an existing drive-through. The hours of operation being requested through this conditional use permit for the proposed automated teller kiosks are 2417. The proposed use complies with the zoning for the site and is subject to specific use standards as listed in UDC 11-4-3-11 drive-through establishment, 11-4-3-1 7financial institution and 11-3A-16 self-service uses. 3. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): The proposed detached, two-lane drive-through—serving two self-service automated teller kiosks and including a bypass lane for the credit union—will be approximately 708 square feet in size and 16.3 feet in height. The site complies with the dimensional standards of the C- G zoning district. 4. Specific Use Standards (UDC 11-4-3-11): A. A drive-through establishment shall be an accessory use where the drive-through facility (including stacking lanes, speaker and/or order area,pick up windows, and exit lanes)is: 1. Not within three hundred three hundred(300) feet of another drive-through facility, a residential district, or an existing residence: or 2. Separated by an arterial street from any other drive-through facility,residential district or existing residence; or 3. Not within the O-T zoning district. Otherwise a conditional use permit is required. B. All establishments providing drive-through service shall identify the stacking lane,menu and speaker location(if applicable),and window location on the certificate of zoning compliance or the conditional use permit. Speakers are prohibited in the O-T zoning district. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ C. A site plan shall be submitted that demonstrates safe pedestrian and vehicular access and circulation on the site and between adjacent properties.At a minimum the plan shall demonstrate compliance with the following standards: 1. Stacking lanes shall have sufficient capacity to prevent obstruction of driveways, drive aisles,and the public right-of-way by patrons. 2. The stacking lane shall be a separate lane from the circulation lanes needed for access and parking, except stacking lanes may provide access to designated employee parking. 3. The stacking lane shall not be located within ten(10)feet of any residential district or existing residence. 4. Any stacking lane greater than one hundred 100 feet in length shall provide for an escape lane. 5. The site should be designed so that the drive-through is visible from a public street for surveillance purposes. D. The applicant shall provide a six-foot sight obscuring fence where a stacking lane or window location adjoins a residential district or an existing residence. Staff find the applicant meets the requirements for a drive-through establishment. 5. Specific Use Standards(UDC 11-4-3-17 Financial Institutions): A. The location,access and safety features of all automated teller machines(ATMs) shall be subject to review and approval by the Meridian Police Department, and in accord with the standards set forth in section 11-3A-16 of this title. B. All ATMs shall be deemed an accessory use to a financial institution. C. All approaches and entrances to ATMs should be highly visible and adequately lit so that people cannot loiter, or enter,without being seen. The addition of security cameras are highly recommended. Staff find the applicant meets the requirements for a financial institution. 6. Specific Use Standards(UDC 11-3A-16 Self-Service Uses): Any unattended, self-service uses, including,but not limited to,laundromats, automatic teller machines(ATMs),vehicle washing facilities,fuel sales facilities, and storage facilities, shall comply with the following requirements. The Meridian Police Chief or designee may approve alternative standards where it is determined that a similar or greater level of security is provided. A. Entrance or view of the self-service facility shall be open to the public street or to adjoining businesses and shall have low impact security lighting. B. Financial transaction areas shall be oriented to and visible from an area that receives a high volume of traffic, such as a collector or arterial street. C. Landscape shrubbery shall be limited to no more than three(3)feet in height between entrances and financial transaction areas and the public street. Stafffind the applicant meets the requirements for a self-service uses. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ D. Design Standards Analysis 1. Structure and Site Design Standards (Comp Plan 3.07.02A, Comp Plan 5.01.02D, UDC H- 3A-19): Require pedestrian circulation plans to ensure safety and convenient access across large commercial and mixed-use developments. Require appropriate building design, and landscaping elements to buffer, screen, beautify, and integrate commercial, multifamily, and parking lots into existing neighborhoods. Therefore, buildings shall be designed in accord with the "City of Meridian Architectural Standards Manual." Per UDC 11-3A-19 pedestrian walkways shall provide a continuous walkway that is a minimum of five(5)feet in width from the perimeter sidewalk to the main building entrance(s)for nonresidential uses. The internal pedestrian walkway shall be distinguished from the vehicular driving surfaces through the use ofpavers, colored or scored concrete, or bricks. 2. Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): i. Landscape buffers along streets Per UDC 11-2B-3, landscape buffers along arterial shall be thirty-five (35)feet in width. The applicant will be required to install the landscape buffer along S. Eagle Road. The applicant is proposing a twenty(20)foot wide landscape buffer along the internal drive aisle. ii. Parking lot landscaping Per UDC 11-3B-8, the applicant shall provide perimeter and internal parking lot landscaping to soften and mitigate the visual and heat island effect of a large expanse of asphalt in parking lots, and to improve the safety and comfort of pedestrians.A five-foot wide minimum landscape buffer adjacent to parking, loading, or other paved vehicular use areas. iii. Landscape buffers to adjoining uses The applicant is proposing landscaping along the multiuse pathway along S. Ten Mile Road that shall comply with UDC 11-3B-12. iv. Storm integration 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 practices as adopted by the City as set forth in UDC 11-3A-18. v. Pathway landscaping Landscaping for pathways shall meet the requirements outlined in UDC 11-3B-12. Staff find the landscape plan shows the applicant meets the requirements of UDC 11-3B- 12 for pathway landscaping. 3. Parking (UDC 11-3C): i. Nonresidential parking analysis Per UDC 11-3C commercial buildings require one (1)parking space for every five hundred(500)square feet of gross floor area. The total number of parking spaces required is twenty-two (22). However, the Ten Mile Development plan requires 4.5 stalls per 1,000 gross square feet which equates to 49 stalls. The applicant is proposing forty- City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ three(43)parking spaces which exceed the required number of parking spaces for this proposal. ii. Bicycle parking analysis Per UDC 11-3C-6.G requires one (1) bicycle parking space shall be provided for every twenty-five(25)proposed vehicle parking spaces or portion thereof, except for single- family residences, two-family duplexes, and townhouses. Based on the forty-three (43) parking spaces being proposed, two (2) bicycle parking spaces are required. 4. Building Elevations (Comp Plan 5.01.02D, Architectural Standards Manual): Conceptual building elevations for the proposed multi-tenant building were submitted, as shown in Section VII.E. The proposed design incorporates materials such as composite lumber, brick veneer, metal, and aluminum panels. Final building design must comply with the standards outlined in the Architectural Standards Manual(ASM). The applicant has submitted applications for a Certificate of Zoning Compliance(CZC) and Administrative Design Review(DES). The City approved the CZC, and the design review was approved by Brighton Land Holdings, LLC/Ten Mile Crossing Inc. The Comprehensive Plan's goal is to require appropriate building design, and landscaping elements to buffer, screen, beautify, and integrate commercial, multifamily, and parking lots into existing neighborhoods. E. Transportation Analysis Ada County Highway District(ACHD)reviewed the submitted application and has determined that there are no improvements required to the adjacent street(s). 1. Access (Comp Plan 6.01.02C, UDC 11-3A-3, UDC 11-3H-4): Access to the property is from S. Vanguard Way via S. Ten Mile Road. The Comprehensive Plan's goal is to require new development to establish street connections to existing local roads and collectors as well as to underdeveloped adjacent properties. 2. Multiuse Pathways (UDC I1-3A-5): Multiuse pathways shall be constructed in accord with the city's comprehensive plan, the Meridian Pathways Master Plan, the Ada County Highway District Master Street Map and Roadways to Bikeways Master Plan. The Pathways Master Plan does not depict a multi-use pathway on this site. No pathways are proposed except for sidewalks required along streets within the development. 3. Pathways (Comp Plan 4.04.OIA, UDC 11-3A-8): Comprehensive Plan policy 4.04.OIA ensures that new development and subdivisions connect to the pathway system. The proposed development The Pathways Master Plan does not depict a multi-use pathway on this site. No pathways are proposed except for sidewalks required along streets within the development. 4. 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. F. Services Analysis The applicant has been in discussions with Brighton Homes regarding a potential location for the installation of a'Welcome to Meridian'monument sign. After evaluating all options,Brighton Homes has chosen to continue working with the City to identify a suitable location for the City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ proposed sign without involving CapEd. The City is currently holding a surety for the completion of the sign installation. l. Waterways (Comp Plan 4.05.01 C, UDC 11-3A-6): N/A. There are no waterways on the existing property. 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): The applicant shall design and construct an adequate storm drainage system in accordance with the city's adopted standards and shall follow Best Management Practice as adopted by the city. 4. Utilities (Comp Plan 3.03.03A, 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. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ IV. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. Meridian Planning Division 1. This project is subject to all current City of Meridian ordinances and shall comply with the previous conditions of approvals associated with this site [Ten Mile Center(H-2020-0074), DA Inst. #2021-0891571. 2. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance was submitted,reviewed and approved for the proposed use(A-2025-0058). 3. Development of the property shall comply with the C-G standards listed in UDC 11-213- 3 and the standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-11 for Drive-Through Establishments,UDC 11-4-3-17 Financial Institutions and UDC 11-3A-16 Self-Service Uses. 4. Outdoor lighting shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-11. 5. The Applicant shall comply with all conditions of ACHD. 6. Staff s failure to cite all relevant UDC requirements does not relieve the applicant from compliance. 7. The conditional use permit is valid for a maximum period of two (2)years unless otherwise approved by the City. During this time,the Applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval,and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground as set forth in UDC 11-5B-6. A time extension may be requested asset forth in UDC 11-5B-6F. B. Meridian Public Works Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1. Site has an existing 8" stub into the property. All connections (hydrants, water service, fire lines) should come off of this stub. Callout the removal of the blow-off and have the water service connect a maximum of 3 ft from the end of the stub. 2. Existing water main stubs installed that remain unused by new development shall be abandoned at the time of the new development. These stubs shall be abandoned at the active main by removal of the gate valve and installation of a blind flange or plug at the fitting. Gate valves shall not be abandoned in place without prior approval of the City Engineer. Any associated easements that are in place for these stubs shall be properly eliminated per City requirements. 3. If a Well is located on the site it must be abandoned per regulatory requirements and proof of abandonment must be provided to the City. 4. Ensure no sewer services pass through infiltration trenches. 5. 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. 5. No permanent structures (trees, bushes, buildings, carports, trash receptacle walls, fences, infiltration trenches, light poles, etc.) to be built within the utility easement. City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions ■ General Conditions of Approval 1. Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department. 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). Sewer/water easement varies depending on sewer depth. Sewer 0-20 ft deep require a 30 ft easement, 20-25 ft a 40 ft easement, and 25-30 ft a 45 ft easement. Ensure no permanent structures (trees,bushes, buildings, carports,trash receptacle walls, fences,infiltration trenches,light poles,etc.) are built within the utility easement. 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. 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. 5. 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. All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 13. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions ■ 14. 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. 15. 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. 16. 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. 17. 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. 18. 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 hllp://www.meridiancily.oriz/public works.aspx?id=272. 19. 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. 20. 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. Irrigation Districts 1. Nampa&Meridian Irrigation District https:llweblink.meridianciLy.or lWebLink/Browse.aspx?id=405543&dbid=0&redo=Meridia nCi D. Idaho Department of Environmental Quality(DEQ) https:llweblink.meridiancity.ory WWebLink/browse.aspx?id=405543&dbid=0&redo=MeridianCit X E. Ada County Highway District(ACHD) https:llweblink.meridiancioy.or lWebLink/Browse.aspx?id=405543&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCit X F. Idaho Transportation Department(ITD) https:llweblink.meridiancioy.or lWebLink/browse.aspx?id=405543&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCit X City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions ■ V. FINDINGS A. Conditional Use(UDC 11-5B-6E) The commission shall base its determination on the conditional use permit request upon the following: l. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. Stafffind that the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use. The site is 1.489 acres in which the proposed drive-through will occupy 0.016 acres. The proposed detached two-lane drive-through for two self-service automated teller kiosks, with a bypass lane for the credit union is approximately 708 square feet overall and is 16.3 feet in height. 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian comprehensive plan and in accord with the requirements of this title. Stafffind the proposed detached drive-through will be harmonious with the uses allowed in the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with applicable UDC standards with the conditions noted in Section VII of this report. 3. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. Stafffind the design, construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed use will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood, with the existing and intended character of the vicinity and will not adversely change the essential character of the area. 4. That the proposed use,if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed,will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. The detached drive-through complies with the purpose statement of the C-G zone which is to provide the largest scale and broadest mix of retail, office, service, and light industrial uses. Other permitted uses within the C-G zone include retail, restaurants,personal and professional services, as well as appropriate public and quasi public uses. 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools,parks,police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal,water,and sewer. Stafffind the proposed use will be served by essential public facilities and services as required. 6. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. Stafffind the proposed use will not create additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. 7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes,materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic,noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. Stafffind the proposed use will not be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by the reasons noted above. 8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction,loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. Stafffind the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any such features. City of Meridian I Department Report V. Findings ■ 9. Additional findings for the alteration or extension of a nonconforming use: This finding is not applicable. 10. That the proposed nonconforming use does not encourage or set a precedent for additional nonconforming uses within the area; and, This finding is not applicable. 11. That the proposed nonconforming use is developed to a similar or greater level of conformity with the development standards as set forth in this title as compared to the level of development of the surrounding properties. This finding is not applicable. City of Meridian I Department Report V. Findings ■ VI. ACTION A. Staff: After reviewing the project for compliance with the city's comprehensive plan and unified development code, staff find the project complies if the applicant adheres to the conditions outlined in Section IV per the Findings in Section V of the staff report. B. Commission: The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard this item on August 21,2025. At the public hearing.the Commission moved to approve the subject Conditional Use Permit request as it is lower in volume relative to some of the restaurant type drive-through. 1. Summary of the Commission public hearing: a. In favor: John Dixon with Slichter Ugrin Architecture and the applicant Megan West b. In opposition:None c. Commenting:None d. Written testimony:None e. Staff presenting application:Nick Napoli 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 City of Meridian I Department Report VI. Action ■ J FI ct Location • of Impact \ yZ 4L, le® RA}'NKL-IN KA �a ,, ` � \ � 1" ;��' .'�.:-•#1:� DYEETEM RL-AND u®NMI _ FRANKL-IN • a y a � ; V Z � W J � IIIIII o� m =IIIIIII' IIIIIIIIIZ�� �i�.'� sa I�I��I�►�I� ����► �i MEN ovN� - ij� a�u-1 ...Iny r�rlllu� ����. i 4 r ♦�• enHlllluununuxunlnll _ �� �p�,��i�Li�',l: Legend Uj Project Location Area of Impact a N nll-ti Y#{ l ii: O O An LU alysis Z FRANKL-IN � � - �uunnn� ° �■fin■�1 Q 10 _..N*3 • j .i ....1 301,0212 - • .Illllfll I�IllllllllI U • • - '��1�� '�� _=fIIIIfII IIIIIIIIfIIZL=�"��::, 84 ►�/�►- � num 4nm - . - mo■ ■■� —1 01/ERL-AND Legend Project Location Area of Impact City Limits Planned Parcels �,1,j iil•,, �ryrgl■"i a �r h ■■ ='FRANKR-IN ' - __ ■I ■r.L ..�bk1■px101xlllllll ICI" � 1 11111 \IIIIk111.-=111 �� �!i� •■ -����� + � L � I ISM II Ixx111 � 1 0 Analysis �1IIIIr(/f1rriiiii!!"„"rrr1� w � //mr Illly�jr!!gal1111/UBlrlfdgo W-1 ;.:...■.,; .0 11111 r —aiTloiiiino`nunl`J_ � � WE • �I/1 JC■ anlni rill .11== � IIIIIIIII� I === � � 11 IEIAlI/ moo VilhlElllillllll 1111III_Illlm._ ♦ j,� �'I! ?Ilxllll ��� �' I�� �:rll�r II If fl f Ilf Illlf Ifl �m _ .� �I111111111111111111 �=: -� z�� -OVERLAND+ 3 EI:Ic 1 1 . /"1. ■ "11 1 5. Map Notes Nearby Recent Preliminary Plats ,within last 5-years Z H-2019-0076 H-2019-0089 H-2020-0007 H-2020-0010 H-2020-0099 H-2020-0113 H-2021-0035 H-2021-0054 H-2021-0055 H-2021-0063 H-2021-0081 H-2018-0125 H-2022-0080 H-2022-0079 H-2023-0020 H-2023-0018 H-2023-0054 H-2024-0006 H-2024-0010 H-2024-0011 H-2024-0018 H-2024-0030 H-2024-0026 H-2024-0051 Nearby Recent Conditional Use Permits(within last 5-years) H-2020-0005 H-2020-0039 H-2020-0074 H-2020-0099 H-2020-0083 H-2020-0113 H-2020-0120 H-2021-0014 H-2021-0063 H-2021-0081 H-2018-0125 H-2022-0004 H-2022-0001 H-2022-0088 H-2022-0079 H-2023-0045 H-2023-0049 H-2024-0010 H-2023-0071 H-2024-0043 City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ B. Subject Site Photos -- �T - - y 4 "g-.y �� F'µX' _ � - u5"a '�e=•"*.'ter n-'^�°„' � 'b r-M Ina r , City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ , F -Y. a. City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ C. Service Accessibility Report PARCEL R8484040030 SERVICE f!�! Overall Score: 31 38th Percentile Description I _ Location In City Limits GREEN Extension Sewer Tr.inks:-,e--' ma'--is = 500 ft. f-c-- p GREEN Floodplain Either not within the 100 yr floodplain or > ? a GREEN Emergency Services Fire Response time 5-9 min. YELLOW Emergency Services Police Meets response time goals most of the time GREEN Pathways Within 1/4 mile of current pathways GREEN 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 Proximity From 1/2 to 1 mile walking YELLOW Either a High School or College within 2 miles OR a r School ❑rlvablllty Middle or Elementary School within 1 mile driving GREEN (existing or future) ParkWalkability No park within walking distance by park type RED City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ D. Site Plan (date: 5/6/2025) Rj i air"' •IMF ;: ::;.:;' ;:,:::;: ::;• ...� o I 1 _ .-1.::.:...:.::.:.is-:•.-: rT` -- -- - SITE PLAN coxc[nunt ruxs m�imi.:.0 oe,� .� ® ern ®uumnrmeuu nEon vICINRY 1MP l5RE PLRx u dYlilMiQN/Mc A1J1 m 24024 City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ E. Landscape Plan(date: 5/5/2025) REo�,�ME�,s s�K � 1 SlS23I� A� 0'g t-- L100 g e City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ F. Building Elevations(date: 5/6/2025) i Q� fi.. {I a . k I Sl11dO-A��ll RAT rwrrmeolsisaa cv�u.r DRIVE-THRU - WEST •.✓ 54�9.I.r Ql Q2 13 6 rxlllm Sim-'RAY I � I 1�____.. .,_. .�. �L....____._.4_s_-.'•]pia•" DRIVE-THRU - EAST YJYG li1S. I'aT Ed 3a ❑� I Y�' �r :} Zik. DRIVE-THRU - SOUTH F s�tie�nr I�a PmN 3a i L sluo,a�wi sear realm,Dooms urm eu,r DRIVE-THRU - NORTH E +r•�^,� I�ar City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ 1 2 3 4 5 fi 6i] 8 9 10 10 9 8 ] fi fi 5 4�9 2 1 I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I f I I I I EAST ELEVATION C I I I I I I I SOUTH ELEVATION1-4 B I n � F Q oc Y Y Qc e A I I I I I I I I I I i NORTH ELEVATION A CONCEPTUAL PLANS n�rmre.vim;oc.rm ,� ® r rn ®uu�anveo[wceeur BUILDING 2.DRIVE.Ti RIJ ELEVATIONS .W1A��IF#A!EE A3.11 24024 City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ G. Conceptual Renderings (date: 5/6/2025) W- -- C NORTHEAST� NORTXWESi�rl Edl E Y•f DRIVETHRU/6 SOUTHEAST/1 MORTGAGE CENTER COMMUNITY ROOM ENTRY/1 - f y m SOUTHWEST/1 MAIN ENTRANCE/1 CONCEPNFLYWiS mamvu ua AVO �.m .� mucim�wuaeon CONCBNLLYENOBBIGS City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ VIII. ADDITIONAL NOTES &DETAILS FOR STAFF REPORT MAPS,TABLES,AND CHARTS (link to Community Metrics) A. One-Mile Radius Existing Condition Notes This data is automatically derived from enterprise application and GIS databases, and exported dynamically. Date retrieved notes generally reflect data acquired or processed within the last 30- days.Analysis is based on a one-mile radius from the centroid of the identified parcel. Parcel based data excludes certain properties and represents land as it exists now. Properties considered are only those with a total assessed value greater than 0(i.e. excludes most HOA area,transitional development, government, and quasi government facilities). The following values also constrain included property acreage to reduce outliers and non-conforming instances from distorting averages: R-2<5.0; R-4<2.0; R-8< 1.0; R-15 <0.5; R-40<0.25. Conditional Use Permits and Preliminary plat data likely include duplicate project submittals as they may be for the same project, approved at different times through multiple application types. Consider each independently or review prior application approvals. Some approved entitlements, and particularly older ones,may be constructed. Decennial population counts and household counts are based on the most recent Decennial Census. Current population and current household values are COMPASS estimates,usually for the year previous, and are based on traffic analysis zone boundaries(TAZ's). B. 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. City of Meridian I Department Report VIII. Additional Notes&Details for Staff Report Maps, Tables, and Charts ■ 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 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 ■ E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Approve Minutes of the August 21, Planning and Zoning Committee Meeting 36 E K IDIAN:--- iuAn Planning and Zoning Presentations and outline Changes to Agenda: None Item #3: Fairbourne Subdivision No. 4 (H-2025-0036) Application(s):  Combined preliminary & final plat Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 5.2 acres of land, zoned C-C, generally located at the NWC of N. Black Cat Rd. & W. Chinden Blvd. History: In 2018, this property was included in a rezone, preliminary plat and development agreement (DA) modification application for Fairbourne Subdivision, which included the adjacent residential subdivision to the north & west. A new DA was approved with the modification, which governs future development of the overall property. Final plat applications were approved for all of the property included in the preliminary plat except for this last remaining area, which was intended to be included in the last phase; however, a final plat application was never submitted, a time extension was not requested, and the preliminary plat has since expired. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Mixed Use – Community (MU-C) Summary of Request: A combined preliminary & final plat is proposed consisting of (1) buildable lot on 5.2 acres of land in the C-C zoning district. A conceptual development plan was submitted for the site that depicts (3) commercial building pads for retail/office use. The largest, “Pad A”, is proposed to be a grocery store at 25,623 sq. ft.; “Pad B” is 11,234 sq. ft. and “Pad C” is 4,964 sq. ft. The proposed development plan is consistent with the provisions in the DA. Access is proposed via (1) existing access driveway from W. Waverton Dr. & (1) access driveway from N. Black Cat Rd.; no access is proposed or allowed via W. Chinden Blvd. An emergency access exists to this site via a blanket easement across Lot 17, Block 7 in the abutting Fairbourne Subdivision No. 2 to the west. Detached 5’ wide sidewalks exist on the site along Waverton & Black Cat; a 10’ wide detached sidewalk/pathway exists in the buffer along Chinden. ITD submitted a letter requesting the developer contribute a proportionate share toward installation of a westbound right-turn lane at Chinden & Black Cat. Street buffers exist on the site along abutting streets that were installed with the adjacent subdivision improvements. Additional landscaping & design features are needed in the buffers to comply with UDC standards. Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed grocery store. Final design is required to comply with the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual. Loading docks are prohibited in commercial districts facing collector (i.e. Waverton & Black Cat) or arterial (i.e. Chinden) streets per the Architectural Standards Manual (#5.3A). Written Testimony: Ben Semple, Applicant’s Representative – in agreement with the conditions in the staff report Staff Recommendation: Approval Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H- 2025-0036, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of September 4, 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 to the City Council of File Number H-2025- 0036, as presented during the hearing on September 4, 2025, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2025-0036 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item #4: Solara Estates Subdivision (H-2025-0013) Application(s):  Alternative Compliance (Administrative Approval), Annexation and Preliminary Plat Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of + 15 acres of land, zoned RUT, located at 1695 E. Amity Road, 4940 and 5050 S. Locust Grove Road. History: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints received a Conditional Use Permit to build a church on May 21, 1975. The Bills’ property has an existing home, formerly used for pasture and agriculture, which will remain on Lot 11, Block 1. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Low Density Residential Summary of Request:  Annexation of approximately +15 acres of land with a zoning designation of R-8 and R-2 from Rural Urban Transition (RUT) within Ada County;  Preliminary Plat consisting of 19 lots on approximately 9.72 acres; and  Alternative Compliance to reduce a portion of the landscape buffer along the street adjacent to Lot 11, Block 1. The applicant is proposing to annex and zone the properties to the R-8 and R-2 zoning districts. The property located at 1695 E. Amity Road is proposed to be zoned R-8 to retain the existing church use. The request for R-8 zoning is necessary because churches are prohibited in the R-2 and R-4 zoning districts. The City has received a copy of the approved Conditional Use Permit (CUP) from Ada County for the existing church use, and any future expansions of the facility will require CUP approval through the City. As part of annexation, the church will also be required to connect to City services and abandon the existing well and septic system in accordance with UDC 11-3A-21. The church use is considered nonconforming for street buffers and parking lot landscaping and may require the approval of a conditional use permit to expand the non-conformity in accord UDC 11-1B-3. The properties located at 4940 and 5060 S. Locust Grove Road are proposed to be zoned R-2 with the approval of the preliminary plat to subdivide the parcels into 19 lots (14 building lots and 5 common lots). The existing home at 5060 S. Locust Grove Road will remain on Lot 11, Block 1, and will be required to connect to City services and abandon the existing well and septic system. At this time, the church is not requesting any modifications to the existing property or structures but has agreed to annexation solely to provide the path of annexation for the Solara Estates Subdivision. Because the properties are under two separate ownerships, staff recommends two separate development agreements to govern each property. Although no development or modifications are proposed for the property located at 1695 E. Amity Road, staff recommends that the Commission and City Council evaluate the need for a 5-foot temporary sidewalk within the ACHD right-of-way on the west and north side of the property. The sidewalks would provide a pedestrian connection from the south to the north and east to west and wrap around to extend the entire length of the property along Amity Road, as part of the annexation approval, as there are no existing sidewalks at this intersection. If you choose not to move forward with requiring a temporary sidewalk this condition will be stricken from the staff report per your recommendation. Alternative Compliance The applicant is requesting alternative compliance for Lot 11, Block 1, due to the impacts of ACHD’s required right-of-way dedication and roadway improvements along Locust Grove Road. ACHD requires a fifty-foot (50’) right-of-way dedication from the centerline, pavement widening extending seventeen feet (17’) from the centerline, a three-foot (3’) gravel shoulder, and a ten-foot (10’) multi-use pathway located 26.5 feet from the centerline adjacent to the site. Combined with the City’s 25-foot landscape buffer requirement, these improvements substantially reduce the usable area on Lot 11, Block 1, where an existing home is located. As a result, the home would be positioned approximately four feet (4’) from the landscape buffer property line, encroaching into the R-2 zoning district’s required setback. The applicant also notes that the buffer placement further limits usable driveway space and raises concerns about access to the home’s northwest-facing garage. The Director approved the reduction in landscaping buffer by fifty (50%) percent only for the area around the driveway where it encroaches into the buffer and placing the buffer for Lot 11, Block 1 in an easement rather than a common lot.. The remaining buffer shall meet the 25-foot requirement. Building Elevations Five (5) conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed subdivision as shown in Exhibit VII.H. 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 Locust Grove Road 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. Temporary Sidewalk Although no development or modifications are proposed for the property located at 1695 E. Amity Road, staff recommends that the Commission and City Council evaluate the need for a 5-foot temporary sidewalk within the ACHD right-of-way on the west and north side of the property. The sidewalks would provide a pedestrian connection from the south to the north and east to west and wrap around to extend the entire length of the property along Amity Road, as part of the annexation approval, as there are no existing sidewalks at this intersection. Additional Access Points to Church The existing church has two access points via E. Amity Road and one access point via S. Locust Grove Road. The Conditional Use Permit approved by Ada County required the applicant to eliminate the northwestern access. Commission and Council should determine whether or not access should be further restricted or remain as is until future development occurs on the property. Note: ACHD has not placed any restrictions on the existing access points. Issues/Waivers  The applicant is requesting Alternative Compliance for Lot 11, Block 1, due to the impact of the Ada County Highway District’s (ACHD) required right-of-way dedication and associated improvements along Locust Grove Road. ACHD requires a fifty-foot (50') right-of-way dedication from the centerline, pavement widening extending seventeen feet (17') from the centerline, a three-foot (3') gravel shoulder, and a ten-foot (10') multi-use pathway located 26.5 feet from the centerline adjacent to the site. When combined with the City’s required twenty-five-foot (25') landscape buffer, these requirements substantially reduce the usable area on Lot 11, Block 1, where the existing residence is located. The applicant is therefore requesting Alternative Compliance to reduce the required landscape buffer along the street frontage adjacent to Lot 11, Block 1 to twelve and a half (12.5) feet.  Currently, the church property doesn’t meet the landscape regulations of the UDC. Therefore, the property is deemed as a non-conforming use and subject to the standards outlined in UDC 11-1B-4. However, the property did receive CUP through the County and may continue to operate under that approval until future development is proposed for the property.  The church property at 1695 E. Amity Road currently has three (3) access points along E. Amity Road and one (1) along S. Locust Grove Road. ACHD has not included any site-specific conditions on this property since no development is currently proposed. Future access will be evaluated at the time of development application in accordance with UDC 11-3A-3. Written Testimony: None Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the proposed annexation, preliminary plat, and the Director approved the request for Alternative Compliance, in accordance with the provisions of Section IV and the Findings in Section V. Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H- 2025-0013, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of September 4, 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 to the City Council of File Number H-2025- 0013, as presented during the hearing on September 4, 2025, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2025-0013 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) h2 Planning and Zoning September 4, 2025Commission Meeting Slide 1 h2 Agenda Item Numbers/Order: hoodc, 12/19/2006 Zoning MapAerialFLUM Zoning MapAerialFLUM 4940 and 5060 S. Locust Grove Road1695 E. Amity Road W IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Fairbourne Subdivision No. 4 (H-2025-0036) by Rodney Evans + Partners, LLC., generally located at the northwest corner of W. Chinden Blvd. and N. Black Cat Rd., at 4837 W. Waverton Dr. Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2025-0036 A. Request: Combined Preliminary/Final Plat consisting of one (1) buildable lot on 5.2 acres of land in the C-G zoning district. 103 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: September 4, 2025 ITEM # 3 PROJECT NAME: Fairbourne Subdivision No. 4 (H-2025-0036) I wish to testify Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing (mark X (Please Print) HOA? if yes) IQ '-A-�6JA \cko- 2 3 A V-1 4 �C Viv L cbwcatlij &�ji IV- mAAcJj0o1(-1W c MMtPjV Y 'f, 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT C��fEPIDIAN*,,--, DEPARTMENT REPORT HEARING 9/4/2025 Legend DATE: Project Location 0 TO: Planning&Zoning Commission Area of Impact +- City Limits 'k FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner ®Analysis 208-884-5533 j 4-1(,7 sallen@meridiancity.org i a@ _ a APPLICANT: Benjamin Semple,Rodney Evans+ e - -- - Partners,LLC _ SUBJECT: H-2025-0036 Fairbourne Subdivision No. 4 J � LOCATION: Generally located at the northwest corner of W. Chinden Blvd. &N. Black Cat Rd. `� r at 4837 W.Waverton Dr.,in the SE 1/4 of Section 21,TAN.,R.1 W. I. PROJECT OVERVIEW A. Summary Combined preliminary and final plat consisting of one(1)buildable lot on 5.2 acres of land in the C-C zoning district. B. Issues None C. Recommendation Staff: Approval D. Decision Commission: Pending City Council: Pending City of Meridian I Department Report 1. Project Overview 104 I1. COMMUNITY METRICS Table 1: Land Use Description Details Map Ref. Existing Land Use(s) Vacant/undeveloped - Proposed Land Use(s) Commercial - Existing Zoning C-C(Community Business) VII.A.2 Adopted FLUM Designation MU-C(Mixed Use—Community) VII.A.3 Table 2: Process Facts Description Details Preapplication Meeting date 3/26/2025 Neighborhood Meeting 4/17/2025 Site posting date 8/22/2025 Table 3: Community Metrics Agency/Element Description/Issue Reference Ada County Highway District • Comments Received No - • Commission Action Required No - • Access (1)access via W. Waverton Dr. &(1)access viaN.Black - Cat Rd. • Traffic Level of Service - ITD Comments Received No comments were received Meridian Fire No comments were received Meridian Police No comments were received Meridian Public Works Wastewater • Distance to Mainline Sewer stub service line is available from Waverton Dr. • Impacts or Concerns Meridian Public Works Water • Distance to Mainline Served by Veolia • Impacts or Concerns Note: See section IV. City/Agency Comments&Conditions for comments received. III. STAFF ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code(UDC) A. General Overview The subject property is designated Mixed Use—Community(MU-C) on the Future Land Use Map(FLUM)in the Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of this designation is to allocate areas where community-serving uses and dwellings are seamlessly integrated into the urban fabric. Table 4: Proiect Overview Description Details History H-2018-0052 Fairbourne Subdivision(Development Agreement Inst. 2018-098361 Physical Features NA Acreage M 5.2 acres _ Lots 1 buildable lot City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics 105 B. History In 2018,this property was included in a rezone,preliminary plat and development agreement (DA)modification application for Fairbourne Subdivision,which included the adjacent residential subdivision to the north and west. A new DA was approved with the modification, which governs future development of the overall property. Final plat applications were approved for all of the property included in the preliminary plat except for this last remaining area,which was intended to be included in the last phase;however, a final plat application was never submitted, a time extension was not requested, and the preliminary plat has since expired. C. Site Development and Use Analysis 1. Existing Structures/Site Improvements (UDC 11-1): There are no existing structures on the site. Street buffer landscaping was installed along W. Chinden Blvd. and N. Black Cat Rd. with development of the adjacent subdivision improvements. 2. Proposed Use Analysis (UDC 11-2): Three(3)commercial building pads for retail/office use are proposed to develop on the site per the site plan included below in Section VII.F. The largest pad,"Pad A", is proposed to be a grocery store at 25,623 sq. ft.; "Pad B"is 11,234 sq. ft. and"Pad C"is 4,964 sq. ft.Note: The proposed development plan is consistent with the provisions in the DA. Retail and professional services(i.e. office)are both principal permitted uses in the C-C district; see UDC Table 11-2B-2 for a complete list of allowed uses in the C-C district. 3. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): Compliance with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-213-3 for the C-C district is required. Business hours of operation are limited from 6:00 am to 11:00 pm adjacent to residential uses per UDC 11-213-313; extended hours may be requested through a CUP. Extended hours are not anticipated. D. Design Standards Analysis 1. Structure and Site Design Standards (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-19): The proposed site design and commercial structures are required to comply with the structure and site design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19. 2. Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): Internal parking lot landscaping is required to comply with the standards in UDC 11-313-8C. A minimum 35-foot-wide street buffer is required along W. Chinden Blvd., an entryway corridor, and a minimum 20-foot-wide street buffer is required along W. Waverton Dr. and N. Black Cat Rd.,both collector streets,measured from back of curb. Landscaping is required within the street buffers per the standards in UDC 11-313-7C.Additional landscape design features are required along entryway corridors per UDC 11-313-7C.3f. The existing landscaping was installed with the adjacent subdivision improvements and was never reviewed for consistency with UDC standards or approved prior to installation.The existing landscaping will need to be supplemented with additional landscaping to comply with current UDC standards.The landscape plan submitted with the final plat for City Engineer signature should demonstrate compliance with these standards. City of Meridian I Department Report 111. Staff Analysis 106 A 25-foot-wide buffer is required along the west boundary of the site adjacent to existing residential uses, landscaped per the standards in UDC 11-3B-9C. This buffer will be required with lot development and is not a subdivision requirement. 3. Parking (UDC 11-3C): Off-street vehicle parking is required to be provided on-site for non-residential uses in commercial districts based on the gross floor area of the structure per UDC Table 11-3C- 6B.1. 4. Building Elevations (Comp Plan,Architectural Standards Manual): Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed grocery store,included below in Section VII.G. Final design is required to comply with the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual. Loading docks are prohibited in commercial districts facing collector(i.e.Waverton&Black Cat) or arterial(i.e. Chinden) streets per the Architectural Standards Manual(#5.3A). 5. Fencing (UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): A fence exists along the west boundary of this site along the back side of existing homes. All existing fencing will either be retained and protected during construction or replaced—the developer will coordinate with all affected neighbors. E. Transportation Analysis 1. Access (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-3, UDC 11-311--4): Access is proposed via one(1) existing access driveway from W. Waverton Dr. and one (1) access driveway from N. Black Cat Rd.;no access is proposed or allowed via W. Chinden Blvd. An emergency access exists to this site via a blanket easement across the common lot (Lot 17,Block 7)in the abutting Fairbourne Subdivision No. 2 per the plat. 2. Multiuse Pathways (UDC 11-3A-5): The Pathways Master Plan depicts a 10-foot-wide multi-use pathway along the east boundary on this site adjacent to N. Black Cat Rd. There is an existing 5-foot-wide detached sidewalk within the street buffer,which the Park's Dept. is allowing in lieu of a wider pathway. 3. Pathways (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-8): No pathways are proposed or required with this development. 4. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17): A 10-foot wide detached multi-use pathway/sidewalk exists along W. Chinden Blvd. and 5- foot wide detached sidewalks exist along W.Waverton Dr. and N. Black Cat Rd. in accord with UDC 11-3A-17 and UDC 11-3H-4C.4. 5. Subdivision Regulations (UDC 11-6): The proposed subdivision should comply with the subdivision design and improvement standards in UDC 11-6C-3. The proposed development is consistent with Comprehensive Plan policy#2.02.01D, "Require pedestrian access in all new development to link subdivisions together and promote neighborhood connectivity." F. Services Analysis The proposed development is consistent with Comprehensive Plan policy#2.02.02,Maximize public services by prioritizing infill development of vacant and underdeveloped parcels within the City over parcels on the fringe. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 107 1. Waterways (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-6): There are no waterways that lie on or adjacent to the site. 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. 1V. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. Meridian Planning Division 1. Future development shall comply with the provisions in the existing development agreement for Fairbourne Subdivision(H-2018-0052)recorded as Inst. #2018-098361. 2. The final plat shall be revised as follows: i. If ACHD allows the proposed access via N. Black Cat Rd.,modify note#6 to not prohibit access. ii. Note#10: Include the recorded instrument number of the development agreement(i.e. #2018-0098361. iii. Note#11: Include the recorded instrument number of the ACHD license agreement for landscaping. The revised plat shall be submitted with the final plat application for City Engineer signature. 3. The landscape plan shall be revised as follows: i. Depict landscaping within the street buffers along W. Chinden Blvd.,W. Waverton Dr., and N. Black Cat Rd.per the standards in UDC 11-3B-7C. Additional landscape design features are required along entryway corridors (i.e. Chinden Blvd.)per UDC 11-3B- 7C.3f. The existing landscaping was installed with the adjacent subdivision improvements and was never reviewed for consistency with UDC standards or approved prior to installation. The existing landscaping will need to be supplemented with additional landscaping to comply with current UDC standards. 4. Staff s failure to cite all relevant UDC requirements does not relieve the applicant from compliance. 5. The combined preliminary/final plat approval shall become null and void if the applicant fails to either: 1)obtain the City Engineer's signature on a final plat within two years of the date of the approved findings; or obtain approval of a time extension as set forth in UDC 11-6B-7. See the Agency Comments folder contained in the project file in the public record for other City Department and Agency comments and conditions: (copy the link into a separate browser) hnps.Ilweblinkmeridiancity.ormlWebLink/Browse.aspx?id=409718&dbid=0&repo MeridianCi tv City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions 108 V. FINDINGS A. Combined Preliminary and Final Plat(UDC-6B-6) In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat,or short plat,the decision-making body shall make the following findings: 1. The plat is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and is consistent with this unified development code; Stafffinds the proposed plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and will be consistent with the UDC if the Applicant complies with the above-noted conditions. 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Stafffinds that sewer service is stubbed to the site and water service will be provided by Veolia. 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the city's capital improvement program; Stafffinds the proposed plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's CIP. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Stafffinds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development. 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and Stafffinds the proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. Staff is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that need to be preserved with this development. VI. ACTION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed combined preliminary and final plat with the conditions included above in Section IV. B. Commission: Pending C. City Council: Pending City of Meridian I Department Report V. Findings 1 09 ' 1 1 Mn " Q 'Y m . 1 i�� -- tttttfl r■Inn � ♦�,L ,_ •�f r —.i rs -- �. 'r �� �' fir 'e 1_ ��= �� •� r�11111�Iti i111111 .I s s���jrir-p11111i=� s ly �n' C�++�w■' �Ixi - CHINDEN i � LL',,- _e Q .LN1..v • �•��� uilll Illlll fllllllll ww.= mml,. • -j _ n:iiii! UI__ Zlnle Y �Ala I�� Grlmm�nr tim ■ ��' I�?�r11__,ulnnnll 1111`u.:::, �.. �IrrgrAr hrnr+r N� Zi 410 a Elmna • 111 1ni�:� 1 �illir+Tirrr rulU - ply 1 r ►F 1- �. i I+1 rr rrrraumi Tlil d n .f. a�1 RIB ir+lrlll111 lElllly ==�� Q�--` +.11�fir_■�:::At inrnrlAi■ 1lIII�IIIIIC r r +.■'1lIIIIn...V-��11All,fiw rrli i,1•:= rIr1111 IIAAA+rr= _ 11111�1111l=;:I-1111 1�e w. _ w ir1U Brri w� �■pN a .w■ it■�g1111111 PIIM.+ 7 fir- � 11111 lirill!llllll lIIr1!3-C■. �. �• IEn Ifi1111 iri11►�1 AIn11A • .r _lIIRIIIIIlI�Illlllnmutt ry- �� nlii��* r== IIIn1111 r In1 I�a ii°iiii��� r�', ��►t4{1 t In1 ����ir� .r ♦�� illilll r��oneffm L=nx1'nm mu �N� r'i t 111 r!Q � - �J �4 + ��t � soil`;►+�..,I:;J��_�.��rC111111\�i NMI rina� ■IIr\�� I fie`��� �����I�C..ir* ■�C i I � r1�ti ar.�-T_;trnrrll� � a a � ■.. 4�' ■w �C�,I I_ �=r■nIr �ap��`yi�a.�a;'�.' ��+ 1�1�■ �.�.. � ni11!� .._, -�:::�� �i}an/ area ■�y�� �■ �m poll I f '�- il[IIII\�I ,rill+' ##l1♦fti�r,��"�"o- ♦ �y�jV�1�■111II■i� 133. irr �ilF:`-'"r � CH3NDEN R • IIIIIIIIIIIE111111111111111111111111 %�� 11+IIIIIIf1E1111 11111111/ limbo ,yi i�nm uun■loom=: IAAIA� /��I !� 'Illllll�llun.wnnlll 111111 [C mm�l C nll :Inlll! Ijk i - • li■■i■a■�IlRllili=-11111 w ��HIII=- • _ al r'1 _iEglla III -:■ ��■` 7�ul�l:11�1 1!I �n■il�=Ini 111lI� _I ■�C�-111111111u1Ib- III\► `IIIIIII�� _ • ■1 �\n11�su■n[nnl-. um� ygnypyll mn11i Wii�'.0 //�I t a■I■*�-uul►� �- -C:O:-p r� !11�. �� \+y I-1,I�1111111 1� f11lVUr14r1L S}a� � In== rll:I1111+1 i® !!�i�I�w : =i1Q y� �.mn1111 �'I+1411ry _ pAy1 . ■IIr11� _1 .-��11111 Ilil���1 1 I Q� Illpriii iei�unilli'nu.� �u--ulty/ ���wf��1'a 1111'r-' r,.`=■'.w��� lulllrllr--��1��Z� iillrr w �r rIr. =It■1Q�-� .Ili�.. . -�__In en1n 1■mnn■■!nn!111Ibl111 n1+1m11 1aa_1�1 11 iln1#m11 a'•'.:•:•rrr.:�.■�ww\'-�##h\#rnn■y�l.Rnmllamu'm...C.�■_,.1•UYnII_�_L'•i �+!I[•�1[I1l . III■.�• -�-,_a�m_h• W W hill H Irl .r---- IIBIIII IIIIIII I�-- 0' Jill,11111111MM ',■' ��j'♦t+�♦�'I�1\\ r 1111a+++ai}■�Qv�:�♦ 4�yiiii�ll� soiiiii V=11111■eon Inn ,� •Ifl I'` }d!n`II '-.. _ �Q .�. ■� ♦ �� fa\ ■�a■■■i,++�rJ:p++inr� �I+nll!M■re nllu►1 y1• nu■►,- ♦ ♦� ♦ alalll r�u!■r wl Ir �s �sq C■lu ��I ♦ \■■■::■ :Imu hlln►�a�yv`rn a r■In ■ ��,�■ rI �`�n1■ram �.R�.rr ■`��■'4i • ► __ IHr ��1 11 rwnr f■f LJL �.ar,�p �fiil ar*�.,?-■ttt\r IS E7■i'i1r�i r+�. i}�o/ rua���1yf� m•�i ��a w '� G f rim mI ► rnnl aN Illarllnl■IUl Li1uuui - p� w. +roll• �r�i11111�_ I Ilnn II nnllln LI luunu■ullnm - C-�i ~w 1j'i###111 r� ♦� v 1 � �11!llllf F� IIIRflII■III1111111 {IIIII■!II' III Ihnll■111111111 � — I I � -�' . , ■+Illllal I rliur� r##l■����,.i � ' ii• �. 1. lllllll IIIIII_ "Ilf xl numla � � �Ih��1��!■ !�� �t2 1 � �r-IrII11111�Y111111111111111�I r •h I��I In1.:h 111111�, y�C tl CHINDENo' i�G'� muwnluumnilluil71911n11 1 pnun: ,noun wuu■ illlll IIIIII■Illlllll_�Illlll :fllllill .IIIIIII �IEIIII■ Illpl�llllll 111111111=� Inn r $Illy 3--Inll= _■n111 � 1 �111- iiiiil � ':I•YI�� �I =11�_ � .xu 1� I IIIIIII 11111111� I �� �� pl=Ilu IIAII- = =-ai-1111111111r�1 JI\E 'r Q , ��� nnllilom fil I ■�D�+r.t��snul[nnl: um� 4rs1m•u■n� rW"t jw:� n i:=wwr �yl - ��:�O��IIl11 ■Ir11r i I all if � .r ��`p�w • 1=I= � .II l��i�� :�! ��i:^�i1111 u11i'.���4�����ynnll W nlyy �♦.•`nuq _ i■Irw#+�fiF'-�1.t1+1__� .:.. ....:: alb/li ' is��`p��.w�ryri'r. P -ra■>:Q�--w�nlI=�^�!i\�:��^!n■111■In`�_n�!�+W .11� naml_II;������w.ri■ ##a � IIIIII n111►Cv � �,.V "'.In11n111nE=C i_Illlll��ar� r nI■,1lIh1!.._._V_..�1�1i111nf'ai 11111 Irll!i�,r1al[[ Ilea III�1��� €1111 llI1111#111111 rl■++lll-~�i■� .IIIIIII n1�-.•1111-11II', 1111# rrlll,�Ir1111111 1111OIIllllllnll IIIIIII I 1111[III■■ IOr11 Lr4 � ■ _��� 111 1111n11111a�r--�►r'{\\\\����► \ L-mnnuuuullnnnulwnllnu o m mnlli�� m r�9� ♦��►�_`-- pv �CO�ir ��g11u111■,Ilnnrnrrl._mnumn=___--� 1■'- Inn 11111 �\\a�♦ �� r11��1i`•aa+ a+rim LQw'�: •�Iu1111��-Irnnmr I q��nlllllllln a==a=__a�■ �11ulr�j _-_-=_Ilillllul-• .�� �Q ♦ �f �rr +�i■iP�t+�r„i,il•"I��w�� h, ,_ r - �rlllnl\��Irrq Illlrt►�wr.11lllll=__--S�m-■■ ��11� ___-_ �n11■♦�'I ♦ � �r■■�i..}!} _�:r w I. �nri !�q __�r�C� ■■ �■fli ------= I �♦ ♦♦ rw.■l .Im � film rj■olilr�;� � I■ ■■ =■■■■ B. Service Accessibility Report PARCEL SO421449SOO SERVICE ACCESSIBILITY Overall Score: 20 7th Percentile Description Location In City Limits Extension Sewer Trunkshed mains E 500 ft.from parcel Floodplain Either not within the 100 yr floodplain or>2 acres Emergency Services Fire Response time 5-9 min. YELLOW Emergency Services Police Not enough data to report average response time Pathways Within 1/4 mile of current pathways Transit Not within 114 of current or future transit route Arterial Road Buildout Status Ultimate configuration(#of lanes in master streets YELLOW plan) > existing(#of lanes)&road IS in 5 yr work plan School Walking Proximity Within 1/2 mile walking PREEN Either a High School or College within 2 miles OR a 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 Report generated on 08-28-2025 by MERIDIAM,sallen City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits 112 C. Preliminary Plat(date: 6/12/2025) 4 LL @ 9 i� Il ,v a all 11-wii iI I W.B HS N 2 88 M IN, O j1111 g ; WIN w r 9 p 1 C � � y 4 0 aIa �zch o 4: a � o a 8 O Z City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 113 D. Final Plat(date: 7/17/2025) aEj $ s fi=moo _ ' 'a8 _ �? 90 pO g w�io'd�og uo z4 az zz ag�i_ ■r•^)n °g I �'o i as ioOS aoa3�6q �° ° 36 �Wo I �o i'�� �¢ a s 8� I go da $ ;iox 7uai��g=ogxq � �# �oo Rl jIz n �y 3i x°� o� m isz000 000°t fw$ �J �3a4 �k� ro 30�,s Wo a'o i"o�eSo°.'°„GoG ,�o sa oLL-'^z �$-4Wma Evai �r oiPJ'yg+zo flid�s'�g'=fzogoG6mg_&@'d ti_-ows�`zw�$�w3oo���O=z��m nzg��m.00z 2ooco"o zc�LL��S UGm400vW Gocm mzOo�^w�=�Gadz�cz�d�zog-o�aWam w o S�° z wo° C�UZ7� �k $ � ❑ZCv'7 v az a f v M r m a ' — 9roroaaaiovsve NI" IG SISV6 (SAWA 11,WLL) 3 °� n tt'oiz m.aroz.00� yg. 'aa sr�x°ro'�a .� ��'9° •iFsz H6'6B[h129AE.006 $ no �� z o II b b O °]Z I l 1 1 m I I eta 3 �cn �W z rya W a d o = QOR f Q co a�L---- -- -- I alY9F mx gFlt� mo9 00O1 3 9B'E99 aav az �sr' ooru � .az.oam o= ,' � Ir�r riam�iwvrs,w,imva., z= I m ? om o= aw Z. �j 6 V nam-Z G gzz< o$ z ._ g o a`; _ o f5 o w s $� m mas O_ iw m N � M M W o-aEe Q Z W® � Sb8PXPX � aggg City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ E. Landscape Plan(date: 7/30/2025) 3 Y b4e9 -, ��ss�?a SCgCg� e aaff� xs4 e 4 @ @ A Lim, g� 114124H1. w 6 R§�F IB 11 iil �' l 1 z�b eai 2$ €ai9Me9�1^gg �!�9����' l e @ 3@ w � 11 �l5 s�Q 9 �ea asap 3. € b '� 5 ¢• p'$ S � .a .: I°ff. g g yy�g qa@1 pg3g'g`' gy5� ee yp�° 3 s @q F o �y�S 1 I ee�o MINIM 9�€� �gF8�5 22 u+ � Po� E MI M @@° a gl,j, Al a��s�3 MW � ff 77777- e O O de7 � _ ,A, r o m Q ® a U QB Z- ® � A ai A City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 115 F. Site Plan (dated: 4/2/2025) v {a3i ia3�ui a3d a3j ne 3da saNv sc Cc', ® � I ti a mN�=�2 U l _ ss3��v A — ... ____------ -------------- r ---- ___ 2 O 4 � s IN 7 �c E' oiag m I � s €a En Lu - I I l � 11 _ I w —_ rg�r� 3 6�sm�easune 3da�sannn oz -- '_ ---- -- ----- -- _ _ _ —� �� AN City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 116 G. Conceptual Building Elevations(dated: 4/17/2025) rn 3 N34N1H3 'B IVO NOV19 . a 11 Q r w i oo�asioe n og I U —AO AaVNIWI13ad-N0110na15NOO aOd ION z s z & hp flll � ` G P � 0 � ,I H 1¢ LIL F F o r e City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ E IDIAN;--- Applicant Presentation FAIRBOURNE SUBDIVISION NO. 4 Meridian, ID 83646Northwest corner W. Chinden Blvd. & Black Cat Rd.HEARING SEPTEMBER 4, 2025P&Z0036-2025-H-PFP VICINITY MAPFUTURE LAND USE CURRENT PRECURRENT FINAL PLATPLAT (2018)-ORIGINAL PREPLAT- LANDSCAPE PLANEXISTING LANDSCAPE CONCEPTUAL BUILDING ELEVATIONSCONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN IN AGREEMENT WITH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF QUESTIONS?QUESTIONS?s of the UDC.oni. Landscaping along all property lines and road frontages will be supplemented to ensure compliance with the current provisiCondition 3. Landscape Planiii. Note #11 will be updated to include the Instrument Number of the ACHD license agreement.ii. Note #10 will be updated to include the Instrument Number of the DA.Meridian, as well as the recorded DA. Direct access to W. Chinden Blvd. is prohibited and not proposed.Dr., as approved by ACHD and the City of WavertonW. out (as is existing). Full access is also provided from -in/right-i. Direct access to Black Cat is allowed by ACHD with a rightCondition 2. Final Plat revisionsrne Subdivision.bouCondition 1. Future development of the parcel shall comply with the provisions of the existing development agreement for Fairs of the UDC.oni. Landscaping along all property lines and road frontages will be supplemented to ensure compliance with the current provisiCondition 3. Landscape Planiii. Note #11 will be updated to include the Instrument Number of the ACHD license agreement.ii. Note #10 will be updated to include the Instrument Number of the DA.Meridian, as well as the recorded DA. Direct access to W. Chinden Blvd. is prohibited and not proposed.Dr., as approved by ACHD and the City of WavertonW. out (as is existing). Full access is also provided from -in/right-i. Direct access to Black Cat is allowed by ACHD with a rightCondition 2. Final Plat revisionsrne Subdivision.bouCondition 1. Future development of the parcel shall comply with the provisions of the existing development agreement for Fair THE STAFF REPORT AND AGENCY COMMENTSIN AGREEMENT WITH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE STAFF REPORT AND AGENCY COMMENTS C E IDIAN�-- Public Presentation(s) T"7+� . . ,: Err ,, ��� ,X rw• x .. �Yy b/,{+'{,`y "t -• ` �. "�'},� ' «� � 4' y _ A. R:+ " �6 �7`I G • � k ; •Q yi w'�i dyif' M ;.} 6�4A 'ia.. irl �' �'� 'x. � F �if`._y i . R i��y.•a' �N` •�} s • , ,.U7 NG ++If • <t ' tf . '''!xt. �!. �j �f '!• � . V. will Ill R .l w jsop. M u ,•• -» . Y.> � i �' �♦ a 1K'.a„ firms a < . t;,'�. r 1 v "1 9 - t�} . 'r - �Ari r� • yia ' - M AZ •• , ,ka, : ef.�y r 'a" iT ai ' �1',.. . ',JyW • ,.w►. ,,- aet ' r. .. i +t� + 'ta570, "► 6 , O o `�� < by • }. . - • •#. 'i :Y dy6 � ' •4tt i .'A+ ,,ss• v.w,�{i1.3` _,:: y, O!`a 1• - <iv(F' o fit. • f' Z.t w�.' '. r .J1�: +. • a • ik. F' s Y F •`'ai' s e �' d �:. r i�w• ,F '' t ;JAL 0 AIM; M1 • w7 .• . ' V V :6 Y dtf t ♦ #--1 f� ' s r c ,a.,r e , A �{s. + iw J, ; n " 9w ♦ '1 ° 4 *tN 4el: `"Y tWill :•a ? • 3': ?4'4�'ti•'r wy., : t.• �`• �. ' • . • y yy 71 M 'F tl, `P '' ` • $ �' r 'aV t ' '� ^• - ' : •` s. .bi'.a ids . •vwI � v ' (.., a • ': 'F N". L Y s '* • .. t 1� • 1 } . > T4 � ': wy A,Y� y 0 t 'tt " .5s e r ..`� p .z. " Aw w4 Y `�' d 4 . �• : � -• Q 1 r.a - 1 ' �f ♦ ... s .�" # pa4c, §F. - '� r 4' '1 k r � v : y " , a.. . `-'� �L �a+,�+�'� .} ' I I �i . � '�."Y; '' .. . . •�� p'k' � , •t • ♦.,` l# iF d..?.ldi.- •<► ; :�.• �_ .-T- _ kt.'�` ." s • . a - _ r �` Y .1�e nmti "� s +i a a,M ;, ' " 3 "•'rt 4 • , ,c n ' 4 y. �'3��0 ,��Ff „ yr4 , v Ec ,, . . x,a , "i�t i` i, #�► "�-_:• '•c z3 _iv A, Ill K �. i � +7F"' ,• q�- • •�alf1 .. Aym ,. ; ' S •' fie. - _ .� •� I • - • $, , 'w1 w T i •. 7 r -.' . a of r7e' is , r:A. -y�: x ., 'il.,. ! -�_ ' . +- PI ' tr , �. ► . wC, r-. �LA d. Y.. ir' � .Ly '.t-. �• t � n.. �•� ` -yf < '• � • �ti • • t • '• i aaJ - t. ...i_' •e <. ♦ it , _ ,..{' fell. ► T K Ilk ot 44 L.. Ll All � 1 c y fl #• s .; #F n+ i aft f i 3� .. 4.. - ter ,,. a a a a m e > a • 1 v it tol w " - > , , y - o jor tot dd Itl ii Alf it To y. w _ I Ilk it lbw 1- • It Y f Y 1 1 _.� tim . - - - li .ice r.^� '' � --a iL - ..� t _ nL`rA4I rOl,t,. LF ttt .116 btOhic ItI pM x _ • ,;. _ ti +ram • � . ''� . y * ' 4 y . ` -` �+T wrla+,•,,iK t I '1 l !�T .i l • <, I r r O < !i �Y' +� - y' •.YCs ,i Ml ,'ice 1 a a ,•- - s _ ' ' �.. - y; ��a ti » tines � 'h�±��jN ' -• .•r _ �L �. � -. . >• � J► y aM2'r '� V .. w _ - ` .�ys'?i>.� w V.+vl� ' c �� v - ••'�`� Vl It bl ,++,� _ � � r 7>S � .. -•tea'[ � ';may, x'�irr'.S�iy�[ �'�'�" .w. •'d�-?-t� 'a^�-7�• ! s't : �5i{ "' « �+ t'u y �� ..<• t^`" " - fy a ! ' -,. - . , : ��/ k,E ..-.�, y >1•�+n G' +0n.�i- s d i - a.. r4ai `` 5.- 'Y ?? It wr J ` •�R-U ^+•rs - Pam..;,,, iq y f'• s t h^.diw+y,i.f •�g,, ,D. �. i•'.-.1 - •�9,`�- � �_ I '� +yam It �' „ .�� ,� Yti �a•iS' •� � ;''-L�`=,y� • .�•' '.y�.`~'� \.�'�Y�,>r,..w4"yYr•• � �A`�,`. • .' q v 4 lyr4 ' 1 9 .. I. e ( n. Y Y: � : . . . -� .y oT� . i �~_ _n4. �? . _ .�w �� a_-/^J Y � ` R ����•'� , s � ',°�. - _ � _ , �� ��,;,'� r;"'i�: ' z� Y.�S�'' 'ate" �^,jam ,��vr�,,,� + ;�;�. � - - y,'- -�r•- _ - - - ` ,.i�. 4-'yf��� ..t 1 n. 7"�?`'a. ��a_ '? • a. ='�e`-������_+� �,y� �'�i �._. . . ': �- ,,, }, 9 r14A.1`,.��c.. +�.�l...v'���e:����'i,-,,4�Fa�`-vy� �•�.► - J��CS.. - S � 'Sn - y�'�. �.=;rfyY_iS � ;a-. •ZA.�,[?•, yt �-r ,y .: : _ , . ..; y . � . ':'Y".: . _ d✓ v _ .' ' l! eyi� ;1<' i7,est - ,r + r .. 5v�31` � xtl >r U �-Jy1�,. a.'�J.-_ _ `�` ri�1,A����•r'• ��` -s � w + _ ,- a?ti n1F - 6< � ' �"ChN �'. s2--a •� Y9r `C+ _._h3- ,.l - - ','by1 - _ ✓ '.� �p �_ R� ,� ,Y¢.:^ 7 ii'• =Y� v-+ e� � '� ` •} +fi:' i1 =1�-._-a•ar, _ � =a • .,• .- ram/ ' r f + Y x r` .. . �• •1~ ���<1.k �1� _ `��\ •`�A�a �. ­ _^[ �1.�4 < ^'"4S ,a r `4-:. ,_ .r .b "'�8 - �y''�a� Win: ` 4% S ' .: 1 .r r--�•<-� • a ant , w � � g i , ' : > ' , y ,�. l nallr�,yr�.,. ,?.Y . �i y„�t. j.�f�F to - -.-,rw, _tef ,_t •. Y { + .. •' .. '. ` r �4 !fir *c4,'6 _ ' . ��� y • L It - - • » . / �y ' - ..,rL-� / c _ - . r - � ` . - ._ . L, • T � .. r \ ;�"L v _ All , 1 ° I,fT7`4 < - 1� ` •�:�r{� • '4s b., • _ t tea. �G'. v-. i -� - .o. i: j.�"7�- > LL . t :. ° ./ s_. r r. - w'�•~ .f�7 ' �s ' _ '�-a' ' y:C,1�.a[����y a. • �YK '` � . j� ' K ~�C'� • Lam. • � !" I^ VI r ` , r • i _ b a i_ .. �j P ♦ '.i' ` s, . ` `�- v~�.•i�^ 4� _ w r.. `yh� � '� �!', YYY11 ` _ •• �+# a �, It illlt I .p ^1 . r RY . r + �� • c Iit iItt mtllllllow Itt I Atop _ IN i ` ;ih`�r►y��1+' �+ ` t �1., `'fr�; �r ,► grow . !"' 4 _ ,d r •L. n i+ ' 1.f Ito, • r i • ; • •-t J.! •`. ` fir _ Y. ' 14 .' ..Tit• . 1i �� f F �'4 . / -^�. tr tot . , wlt . �•♦a � .. r f 1. ;y. _ iDf 4 3, ,a. . . I` �S • k , Ada e 41 VIIP - aIr 'Y , IV, Y 41 MVip OrVd , • i y ,.Idw R r Aw- AP .. " e, ; te 1j�• .p� • w 'x •;r *: . �' v -�_. ti: ♦ 'le. ..Me 1 . f. .. k* IIIJ r ' , . ,'#. „ , ! y 1, r . . , V ma ' ,� � r ..a f• } -tL )� . � ''# , _ R _ { c " . . .:� .. . r .. :efMlfli• ': $. �' .•w r •. 'ram € t ; � �I � ', - � - q 'j�L - - r ,f 4 > ;4 s. .. l Pam' G+. ,! a . "'. - .Iti` IIt 4. . _ t , .#: w. >a;•a t ^`„�,'aiR .;q ;, '^'vt:. - :P 'ti' ^,R. ..- ri, T - a . - _ . ,- , c.. ,ag,. ;zlh"4'c1%:'r!rv_ ' xrw.1E' +"°"rx'r'� s+ • .' q"hTwaNFA. `r'ic . ...'+, Y ;J..ur,'� � 3" ' .w S. - al,��"(. w��, 4"11 Its, « . - ,.. ;� 9►'MK.a:•�- -.}.�Ws s. .... .,. VI a s:w r. Rl. .+r, . .. : .Ycw" ,aa ,+g a7 }'+.,1 ,Y, .t :i. r r•J.�- }Y e ..s ; :`•". �f9R+e• . Y•. -.. Y - .. �i Im IPV toot IV 1 ` . : �i IL MI*VAtI At s all low IVk tafaas�� �a� • � w -� . lei ti r, • , . �- , dam_ � ,.•- • _ % '',k y�. � � ' * � f. t � - 1f^ _ v.��' ; ' �r d� �• 'a . :Iw - _ a , - . n! - - � . a ` � - s. s .:.,a+ � . R- " ' v. . . . . . � x ' r > �.- , a• y ,= ' ,. ` � r 'R J a. . . '°' ,_^,�1 �:.: Y Y �. ,"' 'Fl �$. • � ��� f. g A ?.�� �Yra '�� ♦�ti:l . 1 e X .:d Y. _ y - ` 4 4 . . w • • 1 . ! •, yI a : d f . 1 , .1 , � _ ` v `� "« . ' vs k�-4 ^ia_! Y33:5..'• : r 1 _-Lr ' '� ^, :4 - �� � �i 10 C. - • _ , it , / • w ' '4 �k � N , Y ir Nk IIIAII T ti IVI rr tit !�T ` 1 _ vis k � pk dw - a .. a I[ i — 2f4'f v Air 96 MEW r' u MINNOW 5. - - . - �,�.�,,. .. �.,,..m. .r. •tea —'��. � � r Y _... 'N.u.,« .. ,. - . v - - - - _ yam•.+. - _ _ 4¢ � .• :°�r f`M' ' - ..j{- '&e•i K..- ,. ',.. "►:•A� .S '•' k tip. -s.� _ -•,. .., - +'yp„- .,,.ems '� bi ML .c'• s. - ♦. �s _ ,3F ' ,+€ x1 +.j f>�. e-X i +1[Q �'.• '., � l�•tiE F - . ,., R._" "" _ .>• -e3 ..-. -."��'„ "'• - « - '_ , � --. � r. "�'' <..�-1V��x� ���'t yw.""'max- '� "_"J-=• y„S ��,.�', � �Ka µ ems` ff _ a - >.prr All WI _ ry w• P , Y .„`ateftI .. ,♦w- .a y _ .._ Ste*•.- ,.- . _ w. ... _ .. w 77 y v ` G / �.•,. d •-6 Mtn e' dTt.� � .: •� .- � �� _ _ - +� w w Velma . � - '. ♦ tea. s.. ✓. ,w,. AA AI - �� 1 ,-. 4 - $� . ...,. .. q"• n, r / romp _ 1� V - `T� 3. - 17 Asa a c yet , u y � J! fo 104 t �1 �S' 1 .�� 9 •f �. ., yq .- "Fria ter•"'• ._. _ V ♦ � � - 1 rt fah — - ,Au .. �4 4 n ` = jY a `. x ` ,''' . •_'�Y t-8ci"" z d a. . ''�` a`.s• ~ c7�....J T L let, go 34 n ' AP OOOW 00 , v 1 ' w 1 lop .r - '�«OF f 1 w t 41 *IYt� vJ r ' If r 5 1w ,� w!;. 'y, ' '� . � � ' vi, 'fig _ ke�=Z,'�' �'+Gf�•• \ . ,� , • .� • � ' r : wr ~ ✓ - vU f c '� - - �'� / -Iwo �_ 7= - '�., Terri � r ' �� .r" .i - " .w 00 Aj Pl 10 Ar Immw O - _ Jill Ati -- - - t ✓ 3 `4 iy �� f a � o �t ^ - w - 4. 401 AIII AF i - v allr A w + � y f + 4'" •� - i V W IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Solara Estates Subdivision (H-2025-0013) by Jadon Schneider, Bronze Bow Land, located at 1695 E. Amity Rd. and 4940 and 5060 S. Locust Grove Rd. Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2025-0013 A. Request: Annexation of approximately 15 acres across three (3) parcels of land from Ada County into the City of Meridian with requested zoning of R-8 and R-2 from RUT which includes parcel numbers S1132223130, S1132223210 and S1132223320. B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 14 single-family lots, including one existing home site to remain and five (5) common lots for a total of 19 lots on 9.72 acres of land (parcels S1132223210 and S113223320). C. Request: Alternative Compliance to reduce the landscape buffer along the street adjacent to Lot 11, Block 1 by 50%. 118 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: September 4, 2025 ITEM # 4 PROJECT NAME: Solara Estates Subdivision (H-2025-0013) I wish to testify Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing (f yes) (Please Print) HOA.7 1 2 3 Q�cwa n,2 n o nLAA 6 / YD�v 7 i zt 8 69 p 9 6 10 11 12 13 14 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT �E DEPARTMENT REPORT REPORT �✓ �r HEARING 9/4/2025 Legend a .-... .. DATE: OO Project Location TO: Planning&Zoning Commission Area of Impact = City Limits FROM: Linda Ritter,Associate Planner O Analysis 208-884-5533 fritter@meridiancity.org APPLICANT: Jadon Schneider,Bronze Bow Land ' SUBJECT: H-2025-0013 . G Solara Estates Subdivision ALT,AZ, ` PP I LOCATION: 1695 E. Amity Road,4940 and 5060 S. Locust Grove Road, located in the NW '/4 '_ T-1 ®�® of Section 32, Township 3N, Range lE. ®® Parcel(s) S 1132223130, S 1132223210 and S1132223320 I. PROJECT OVERVIEW A. Summary • Annexation of approximately±15 acres of land with a zoning designation of R-8 and R-2 from Rural Urban Transition(RUT)within Ada County; • Preliminary Plat consisting of 19 lots on approximately 9.72 acres; and • Alternative Compliance to reduce a portion of the landscape buffer along the street adjacent to Lot 11, Block 1. B. Issues/Waivers • The applicant is requesting Alternative Compliance for Lot 11,Block 1, due to the impact of the Ada County Highway District's(ACHD)required right-of-way dedication and associated improvements along Locust Grove Road. ACHD requires a fifty-foot(50') right-of-way dedication from the centerline,pavement widening extending seventeen feet (1T) from the centerline, a three-foot(3')gravel shoulder, and a ten-foot(10')multi-use pathway located 26.5 feet from the centerline adjacent to the site. When combined with the City's required twenty-five-foot(25')landscape buffer,these requirements substantially reduce the usable area on Lot 11,Block 1,where the existing residence is located. The applicant is therefore requesting Alternative Compliance to reduce the required landscape buffer along the street frontage adjacent to Lot 11,Block 1 to twelve and a half(12.5) feet. • Currently,the church property doesn't meet the landscape regulations of the UDC. Therefore,the property is deemed as a non-conforming use and subject to the standards outlined in UDC 11-1B-4. However,the property did receive CUP through the County City of Meridian I Department Report I. Project Overview 119 1 and may continue to operate under that approval until future development is proposed for the property. • The church property at 1695 E. Amity Road currently has three (3)access points along E. Amity Road and one(1) along S. Locust Grove Road. ACHD has not included any site- specific conditions on this property since no development is currently proposed. Future access will be evaluated at the time of development application in accordance with UDC 11-3A-3. C. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the proposed annexation,preliminary plat, and the Director approved the request for Alternative Compliance, in accordance with the provisions of Section IV and the Findings in Section V. D. Decision Select: (Multi-combo) City of Meridian I Department Report I. Project Overview 120 11. COMMUNITY METRICS Table 1•Land Use Description Details Map Ref. Existing Land Use(s) Church,vacant and residential - Proposed Land Uses Church and residential - Existing Zoning RUT I VII.A.2 Proposed Zoning R-8 (Church Property)and R-2(Residential Subdivision) Adopted FLUM Designation Low Density Residential VII.A.3 Proposed FLUM Designation Low Density Residential Table 2:Process Facts Description Details Preapplication Meeting date 1/14/2025 Neighborhood Meeting 1/30/2025 Site posting date 8/15/2025 Table 3: Community Metrics Agency/Element Description/Issue Reference Ada County Highway District IV.K • Comments Received Yes/Staff Report - • Commission Action Required No - • Access Existing Arterial/S.Locust Grove Road - • Traffic Level of Service Locust Grove Road-Better than"E" ■ Amity Road—Better than"B" ITD Comments Received No Comment IV.L Meridian Fire No Comment IV.0 Meridian Police No Comment IV.D Meridian Public Works Wastewater IV.B • Distance to Mainline Sewer available in Locust Grove Road approximately 350' north of Amity Road • Impacts or Concerns The applicant is proposing to connect to a sewer shed different from the one identified in the master plan.The City Engineer has reviewed and approved the proposed change. The applicant is permitted to tie into the existing sewer line on Locust Grove Road. Meridian Public Works Water IV.B • Distance to Mainline Water available at the site • Impacts or Concerns Approval of the water system is contingent upon obtaining a variance to connect to Pressure Zone 5 instead of Pressure Zone 4.All conditions and requirements associated with the variance must be met,subject to approval by the City Engineer.The variance has not yet been issued.No connection to Pressure Zone S may occur until written approval is provided by the City Engineer. Note: See City/Agency Comments and Conditions Section and public record for all department/agency comments received. Solara Estates Subdivision H-2025-0013 (copy this link into a separate browser). City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics 121 Figure 1: One-Mile Radius Existing Condition Metrics Reference Parcel:51132223320 Date Retrieved:2025/3/25 Parcel Count Parcel Acreage Infill Indicator: 1,964 743 Surrounding Area 36% vot aty 4 W ® City Limits 1,932 ■ Not City Household Household& Population Growth Households 02020 Population Change:24.2°I° Population ■Growth (Household and Population Change since 2010 Decennial) 5,000 10,000 15,000 Use Types Residential Addresses All Addresses ■ Single-family a% Multi-family 190% 194% ® Commercial Preliminary Plats (last 5-years) Conditional Use Permit(last 5-years) Proposed Proposed Pending Pending Approved Approved 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 0 10 20 30 4U ■ Single-family El Multi-family City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics 122 2.00 2,000 Single-family y Residential a 1.50 1,500 Parcel Diversity y 1.00 1,000 U 0 Parcel Count 0.50 500 L 0.29 m FW a Average Acres 0.00 0.00 0'11 0 R-2 4 R-15 Average Single-family Density by Zoning Average 10.00 1a9.23 Residential Density L 5.00 0 5.89 Q 03.49 4.86 0.00a.aa Dwelling Units 1 Acre R-2 R-4 R-8 R-15 Notes: See VIII.Additional Notes&Details for Staff Report Maps,Tables,and Charts. 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 Locust Grove Road 978-feet Minor Arterial 321 Better than°E" Amity Road 636-feet Minor Arterial 462 Better than°E" 'Acceptable level of service for a two-lane minor arterial is°E"(575 VPH)_ 2. Average Daily Traffic Count(VDT) Average early traffic counts are based on ACHD's most current traffic counts. • The average daily traffic count for Locust Grove Road north of Mary Lane was 6,728 on July 25, 2024_ • The average daily traffic count for Amity Road west of Eagle Road was 9,539 on November 2,2022. City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics 123 ACHD Planned Improvements 1. Capital Improvements Plan (CIP)l Five Year Plan (FYP): • Amity Road is scheduled in the FYP to be widened to 5-lanes from SH-69(Meridian Road)to Locust Grove Road with a design and construction year yet to be determined. • The intersection of Amity Road and Locust Grove Road is scheduled in the FYP to be reconstructed as a multi-lane roundabout with 1-lane on the north leg, 1-lane on the south, 2- lanes east, and 2-lanes on the west leg with a design year of 2023-2024 and a construction year yet to be determined. • Locust Grove Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to 3-lanes from Amity Road to Victory Road between 2036 and 2040. • Locust Grove Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to 3-lanes from Lake Hazel Road to Amity Road between 2036 and 2040. • Amity Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to 5-lanes from Locust Grove Road to Eagle Road between 2031 and 2035. Notes: See VIII.Additional Notes&Details for Staff Report Maps,Tables,and Charts. Figure 3: Service Impact Summary Ready O O O TO O O Marginal Q O O Caution Q eyeaA5 o �a �\ � ° 0 Notes: See VIII.Additional Notes&Details for Staff Report Maps,Tables,and Charts. City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics F124] 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 Low Density Residential and the zoning district is RUT as the property is located within Ada County. This designation allows for 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. The applicant is proposing to annex and zone the properties to the R-8 and R-2 zoning districts. The property located at 1695 E. Amity Road is proposed to be zoned R-8 to retain the existing church use. The request for R-8 zoning is necessary because churches are prohibited in the R-2 and R-4 zoning districts. The City has received a copy of the approved Conditional Use Permit (CUP) from Ada County for the existing church use,and any future expansions of the facility will require CUP approval through the City. As part of annexation,the church will also be required to connect to City services and abandon the existing well and septic system in accordance with UDC 11-3A-21. The properties located at 4940 and 5060 S. Locust Grove Road are proposed to be zoned R-2 with the approval of the preliminary plat to subdivide the parcels into 19 lots(14 building lots and 5 common lots). The existing home at 5060 S. Locust Grove Road will remain on Lot 11, Block 1, and will be required to connect to City services and abandon the existing well and septic system. At this time,the church is not requesting any modifications to the existing property or structures, but has agreed to annexation solely to provide the path of annexation for the Solara Estates Subdivision. Because the properties are under two separate ownerships, staff recommends two separate development agreements to govern each property. Table 4: Project Overview Description Details History CUP for the existing church Phasing Plan 1 Residential Units Single-family Detached Open Space 0.78 acres required/0.965 acres provided(9.9%) Amenities 2 points required/2 points provided Physical Features N/A Acreage +15 acres Lots 19 lots(14 building/5 Common) Density 1.44 du/ac B. History The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints received a Conditional Use Permit to build a church on May 21, 1975. The Bills' property has an existing home, formerly used for pasture and agriculture,which will remain on Lot 11, Block 1. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 125 C. Site Development and Use Analysis 1. Existing Structures/Site Improvements (UDC 11-1): The property located at 1695 E. Amity Road is currently used as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which will continue to operate as a church. This use is considered nonconforming for street buffers and parking lot landscaping and may require the approval of a conditional use permit to expand the non-conformity in accord UDC 11-1B-3. Although no development or modifications are proposed for the property located at 1695 E. Amity Road, staff recommends that the Commission and City Council evaluate the need for a 5-foot temporary sidewalk within the ACHD right-of-way on the west and north side of the property. The sidewalks would provide a pedestrian connection from the south to the north and east to west and wrap around to extend the entire length of the property along Amity Road, as part of the annexation approval, as there are no existing sidewalks at this intersection. The property located at 5060 S. Locust Grove Rd. is currently used for residential and agricultural purposes. It contains one (1) existing residence, which is proposed to remain. Since the existing residence will no longer have access to Locust Grove, the applicant will need to work with the City on a new home address with the platting of the property. Both the existing church and residence will be required to connect to City services.As part of this process, the existing wells and septic systems must be abandoned in accordance with applicable regulations. 2. Proposed Use Analysis (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 zoning district. The church requires a conditional use permit in the proposed R-8 zoning district;subject to the specific use standards in Chapter 4. 3. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): In the R-2 and R-8 zoning districts, a twenty-five (25)foot landscape buffer is required along S. Locust Grove Road and E.Amity Road. In the R-2 zoning district, the maximum building height is thirty-five(35)feet, with an interior setback of 7.5 feet per story and a rear setback of fifteen (15)feet. The maximum street frontage is eighty(80)feet. The proposed building lots range in size from 13,553 square feet to 61,912 square feet, all of which exceed the minimum lot size requirement of 12,000 square feet for the R-2 zone. In the R-8 zone, the maximum height is also 35 feet with an interior setback of 5 feet and arear setback of twelve(12)feet. Existing structures should conform with the height and setback standards of the district which they appear to do. D. Design Standards Analysis 1. Structure and Site Design Standards (Comp Plan 5.01.02A, UDC 11-3A-19): The current use of the property located at 5060 S. Locust Grove Road is residential with one (1) residential property existing. The structure 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 current use of the property that is located at 1695 E.Amity Road is a church and will remain a church with the proposed annexation. 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. City of Meridian I Department Report 111. Staff Analysis 126 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.An open space exhibit was submitted as shown in Section VITF, that depicts 9.9%(or 0.965 acres) of open space that exceeds the required 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-five(25)foot wide buffer along arterial roads(Locust Grove Road). The applicant is requesting alternative compliance for a portion of the landscape buffer along Locust Grove Road that borders Lot 11, Block I due to the existing structure (see analysis below). 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 the final platy application. 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 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. 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. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 127 i. Residential parking analysis The proposal will be required to meet the standards for parking as set forth in UDC H- 3C-6. 5. Building Elevations (Comp Plan 2.01.01 C, Architectural Standards Manual): Five(5) conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed subdivision as shown in Exhibit VII.H. 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 Locust Grove Road 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 adjacentpublic streets. Single-story homes are exemptfrom 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. 7. Parkways (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-17): 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. Comprehensive Plan policy 3.07.01 C appropriate landscaping, buffers, and noise mitigation with new development along transportation corridors(setback, vegetation, low walls, berms, etc) is required. E. Alternative Compliance The applicant is requesting alternative compliance for Lot 11,Block 1, due to the impacts of ACHD's required right-of-way dedication and roadway improvements along Locust Grove Road. ACHD requires a fifty-foot(50')right-of-way dedication from the centerline,pavement widening extending seventeen feet(17') from the centerline, a three-foot(Y)gravel shoulder,and a ten- foot(10')multi-use pathway located 26.5 feet from the centerline adjacent to the site. Combined with the City's 25-foot landscape buffer requirement,these improvements substantially reduce the usable area on Lot 11,Block 1,where an existing home is located. As a result,the home would be positioned approximately four feet(4')from the landscape buffer property line,encroaching into the R-2 zoning district's required setback. The applicant also notes that the buffer placement further limits usable driveway space and raises concerns about access to the home's northwest-facing garage. To address these constraints,the applicant proposes reducing the landscape buffer width along the west side of Lot 11 from twenty-five feet(25')to twelve and a half feet(12.5'),placing the buffer within an easement rather than a common lot. The reduced buffer would include enhanced landscaping to meet the intent of the code,with the landscape architect proposing seven(7) additional trees to improve visual screening and sound attenuation between the arterial roadway and the home. City of Meridian I Department Report 111. Staff Analysis 128 The Director approved the reduction in landscaping buffer only for the area around the driveway where it encroaches into the buffer. The remaining buffer shall meet the 25-foot requirement. F. Transportation Analysis 1. Access (Comp Plan 6.01.02B, UDC 11-3A-3, UDC 11-3H-4): The existing church has two access points via E. Amity Road and one access point via S. Locust Grove Road. The Conditional Use Permit approved by Ada County required the applicant to eliminate the northwestern access. Commission and Council should determine whether or not access should be further restricted or remain as is until future development occurs on the property. Note:ACHD has not placed any restrictions on the existing access points. Access to the proposed preliminary plat is via Locust Grove Road with the existing house taking access from a new internal roadway in accord with UDC 11-3A-3. The applicant is also proposing two (2)stub streets—one at the east boundary and one at the south boundary. 2. Multiuse Pathways (UDC 11-3A-5): Multiuse pathways shall be constructed in accord with the city's comprehensive plan, the Meridian Pathways Master Plan, the Ada County Highway District Master Street Map and Roadways to Bikeways Master Plan. 3. 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. 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. 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. The proposed block lengths do not exceed the maximum length of 750 feet. G. Services Analysis 1. Pressurized Irrigation(UDC 11-3A-15): The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water(UDC 11-3B-6). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single- point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single point connection is utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 2. Storm Drainage (UDC 11-3A-18): An adequate drainage system is required in all developments by the City's adopted standards, specifications, and ordinances. Design and construction shall follow best management practices as adopted by the City as outlined in UDC 11-3A-18. Storm drainage City of Meridian I Department Report I1I. Staff Analysis 129 will be proposed with a future construction application and shall be constructed to City and ACHD design criteria. 3. 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 requires urban infrastructure be provided for all new developments, including curb and gutter, sidewalks, water and sewer utilities. 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 minimum,incorporate the following provisions: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Property(1685 E. Amity Rd.) a. The existing church property is deemed a nonconforming use and shall be subject to the standards outlined in UDC 11-1B-3. b. The existing church 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. c. Existing accesses to E.Amity Road and S. Locust Grove Road, including cross access to parcel#S 1132223050, shall be evaluated with future development of the property in accordance with UDC 11-3A-3. d. The property shall be limited to the operation of the church or place of religious worship, subject to the specific use standards outlined in UDC 11-4-3-6. City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions 130 Solara Estates Subdivision a. Future development of this site shall be substantially consistent with the preliminary plat,landscape plan, open space and amenity exhibits, and conceptual building elevations for the single-family dwellings included in Section VII and the provisions contained herein. b. The rear and/or sides of 2-story structures that face Locust Grove Road 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. If warranted,the applicant shall construct a 5-foot temporary sidewalk within the Locust Grove and Amity Road ACHD right-of-way abutting the west and north side of the church property. d. No building permits shall be issued prior to the final plat being recorded. e. 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. 2. The Preliminary Plat included in Section VII, dated March 2025,is approved with the following revisions: a. All utility easements reflected in the utility plan shall be included on the final plat. b. Other than the access approved with this application, direct access to S. Locust Grove Road is prohibited. 3. The Landscape Plan included in Section VII, dated July 30,2025 shall be revised as follows: a. Provide fence details for any proposed fences for this development. b. Provide a details page for the proposed landscape. c. The director has approved the alternative compliance request. The reduction in the landscape buffer for Lot 11 shall only be for the area around the driveway. The remaining buffer shall meet the 25-foot requirement. 4. Prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer,the applicant shall submit a public access easement for the multi-use pathway along S. Locust Grove to the Planning Division for approval by City Council and subsequent recordation or unless required by ACHD. 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 11-3B-5 and maintenance thereof as set forth in UDC 11-3B-13. 7. Pathway and adjoining fencings and landscaping shall be constructed consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-7A7, 11-3A-8 and 11-3B-12C. 8. 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. City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions 131 9. 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. 10. The Applicant shall have a maximum of two (2)years to obtain City Engineer's signature on a final plat in accord with UDC 11-6B-7. 11. The Applicant shall comply with all conditions of ACHD. 12. Staff s failure to cite all relevant UDC requirements does not relieve the applicant from compliance. 13. The existing home on Lot 11,Block 1 shall update its address once a new address is issued with the recordation of the final plat. B. Meridian Public Works Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1. The applicant is proposing to connect to a sewer shed different from the one identified in the master plan. The City Engineer has reviewed and approved the proposed change. The applicant is permitted to tie into the existing sewer line on Locust Grove. 2. Approval of the water system is contingent upon obtaining a variance to connect to Pressure Zone 5 instead of Pressure Zone 4.All conditions and requirements associated with the variance must be met, subject to approval by the City Engineer. The variance has not yet been issued. No connection to Pressure Zone 5 may occur until written approval is provided by the City Engineer. 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 11"map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted,reviewed, and approved prior to 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 City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions 132 utilized,the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 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 I I-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 I I-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. City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions 133 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. 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.meridianciU.oMIgublic 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 Park's Department https://weblink.meridiancity.op /WebLinklbrowse.aspx?id=392029&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCit X D. Irrigation Districts 1. Boise Kuna Irrigation District https://weblink.meridianciN.ory WWebLinkIBrowse.aspx?id=392029&dbid=0&repo=Meridia nCi E. Idaho Department of Environmental Quality(DEQ) https://weblink.meridiancily.or /WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=392029&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCit X F. Ada County Highway District(ACHD) https://weblink.meridiancily.org/WebLinklbrowse.aWx?id=392029&dbid=0&repo=Meridian Cit X G. Ada County Development Services https://weblink.meridianciU.orglWebLinklbrowse.aspx?id=392029&dbid=0&repo=Meridian Cit X H. Idaho Transportation Department(ITD) https://weblink.meridianciU.orglWebLinklbrowse.aspx?id=392029&dbid=0&repo=Meridian Cit X City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions 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; Stafffinds annexation of the subject site with an R-8 and R-2 zoning designation will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Low Density Residential FL UM designation 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; Stafffinds the proposed lot sizes and layout proposed will be consistent with the purpose statement of the residential districts if the Comprehensive Plan 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; Stafffinds 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 Stafffinds the proposed annexation shall not result in adverse impact of services. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. Stafffinds 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. Alternative Compliance(UDC 11-5B-5E) In order to grant approval for an alternative compliance application,the Director shall determine the following: 1. Strict adherence or application of the requirements are not feasible; or The existing house cannot meet the requirements for the required twenty-five (25)feet landscape buffer along Locust Grove Road and still access to the garage or meet the required setback. The Director approved the reduction in landscaping buffer only be for the area around the driveway where it encroaches into the buffer. The remaining buffer shall meet the 25 foot requirement. 2. The alternative compliance provides an equal or superior means for meeting the requirements; and A minor reduction is proposed to allow access to the driveway and enable the home to meet the required setbacks of the R-2 zoning district, therefore staff finds the alternative provides an equal means for meeting the landscape buffer requirement. 3. The alternative means will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or impair the intended uses and character of surrounding properties. Stafffinds that the proposed alternative means will not be materially detrimental to public welfare or impair the intended uses and character of surrounding properties. City of Meridian I Department Report V. Findings [135] C. Preliminary Plat(UDC-6B-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; Staff 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; Staff finds public services can be made available to the subject property and will be adequate to accommodate the proposed development. The sewer is approximately 350 north of Amity Road. The applicant is proposing to connect to a sewer shed different from the one identified in the master plan. The City Engineer has reviewed and approved the proposed change. The applicant is permitted to tie into the existing sewer line on Locust Grove. 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the city's capital improvement program; Staff 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; Staff finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development. 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and Staff 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. There are no significant natural, scenic or historic features within the proposed development area. VI. ACTION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed annexation,preliminary plat and the director has approved request for alternative compliance per the provisions in Section IV in accord with the Findings in Section V. B. Commission: Pending C. City Council: Pending City of Meridian I Department Report VI.Action 136 ' 1 1 . . . ct i k ' f T �\ W W F ti Ir f II � n ... - ! J• •- .„,��,@ .,Dill Eli �tun111At a� i 12 u mTm Inn nnnnm - ♦ /� - �I11_�� 'O��••-�-�'�.�..�'. �1�1�1 Imo% 'I. ip �y-911/r■. �■.ram It /►�I�, - ►��1---••':u�� �-ii III 1�� 1■ln�• /1111..■/T/■e/1 Legend 11���►•�����,��r6nm mm�nnn\I �p/■ram��i■\� �� 1■111■11 %ry■n■III nninmo o�I� �nnn nnnnnmm_ � w1���� -unn�Inmmn Project �. 1�`� _ 1.♦ Uumun• Innn1mm nn-nu i 1.1 ,�In1111,I;.�;r ♦ ii r nmT m� �=�1�1�1=1C Are ��� I, p ♦ �,�i I1 �i A.-unn♦ VId p, iOp��� p�G,� ___ o � ��i`�-tnnll- nmi nunnun����n„--u■nn� � of Impact �jl,��,,��,�,��'�����G�'O�1 C- _ ♦ ^'\. '�:�::: iuui.i nnr�=�iqu Lltn �� ■■ • I ♦ ,I�I I �.D� �i'�i�i'�i� '��-.�C� _"nu'�n`" "n�`_I�111111111■, - ■ t11tI1i I � Analysis �i �itlll���Qd .�tiJ L�i ..o'.�.� -:�::��::.C��C�g=lnlnlnln I'...■r 11 1 ♦IInn111/nD' IlAnnn IIIAIIf r.�'u1�� Illlli IIIIIIIIIIIL :�r,1/111� •_- \t11■. -► • �, Qom, 1,� � 11� \\I IttTji - 111 7 .::ICI, :Iltlt�`11� � ■■ 1�� ♦♦ ♦ .IIi IItP � � ►III/� � nm i I/t/I.� �� 1/ ■■ /tt.1 �,��� -••noon pp■nln■�_�► A lllllt ■ ii 11111111..11111�- 1I Illtlt `• I ,,'�'11f1■I%NnIP/n/:�nlll p�// r r • t11-t-���r Illlllllr Itt/:p 11---J- nnnnnn AM•I-TY - •- Z ,' I_ =C •,, �CIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII„1 IIII .,, rrrAAAAAAAA n IIIIII,• n AA_ 1.:1 C 1111111■ � Illlnn��` Jl�� nnnnnn- non moor \ �. 11111 itn1� (7 1■t ittlll� nnnmmq � Cj111D-,I ��:pv/���Q�1111nII/em1 10 nnnm� fa . �� � • �rnmr � r�I�1������1 ♦��♦•�U���i��fW,pC::-:pl nnnnl�n1 ����I�������I�IIII ��_��i�.��IIIIIII- ���1�✓�11 m ti �� �O►i��� yr m� • p�nl►t ,�1 , �•.■■.'.:.��'•:.move O 11111111 :1 �- rrr��a,r.....- ... i - /����,�■\�/I■r,�=�1� l�Iim nn�ilJ1 nnum1°-- oe C Il! C =jl �7C i �1 11111 �- �I�IQ :111111111111��= '1 11 - -� � � y� n■■--nu,.... fir ��m 11►�Ii_Lii '�AAAAAAl11R� 1 ' ��IIII/�'I♦♦i♦♦i� ••:.:::11 :n 1 ..III Q► 1 1�■■.♦ �� /IIII.. ■■tltl.11/►. Mai- Legend IIIII��.���.♦�♦�♦�S1►nm mm�nun� moo■.r�,�ir�. �I Ilnl .II_I■IIIII\� uun■nno a�I� �nml nunnnmm_ � �■uT��= rnm lnnmm� ♦ �� IUuunnr• nn nn__nn nn= \ ProjectI���.�,,,nnllll�,�♦♦♦�♦iji, :�____ �I1 �i♦♦i ��non i mm.nnn m�lill_�_-_-p Area of Ij�L;;• I,♦�Oji�♦♦1��0��� ,,� ^.,����,`�:��11��1: nu��mmi m�wl-�1119 LI/1.�111���� Analysis t/��♦��♦��,I�����♦I��I�I�� � ♦�h0� �,�.�p��,iy�,i� �!�■___���_ nw�n�i nny-�1111111111 Ji��III�II�ri ♦I,♦,'�111 ♦��� ► I�Q' �������i�i4��. e D - 111111111111 _-n� 11 1 �11111np1 nor `-1'= I---".mom 1-1-Inn1-\ ♦♦.♦♦,♦:Ii i���% Innl 1111�1 nllllll`.Q;ttt\��1 IIII -.__. Ln■. p11r I■■111 _"(.IIIII■�_-.,1 1♦A■IIIII NJ ��1 IIn117 n1��Onl - ,,1�111■��::nnno.� a ♦♦i♦a nun __�S - 11111111. �-I� :1:�ICI AM•ITY ■■I Z -��-I 111111111111- ■■���. ' mnl 5 i110ll � IIIIIIIIIIn= �s.unn unmr W�nnmlltmq °� � pil11D��U � m�llm ulinml. of � �■��� �r����t♦I��I ��Ij11 \-� ♦♦i♦�i i� ♦� �:i �Ipll _=� �����1��11►�� III ►►Ttr�'i�illln►�`-__ ,� ,allllll� III�I�II r� ` �•I �i�1,►� � ♦.nn ♦ -.� nuluu .� i �IIInI II�IIVO1111■ IIII 1 - IIIIIIIII;'llll_I _ 111111111111� f IIIIIIIIi= ■.^ ___ :__ —�1.114,IIIU11_=B IIII_ uC�1111 � /111111115 al_I-dl���1111111111111_���11►�♦II./ail _011111111�..��i.. IN Legend IIOWnt`�G.♦�♦�♦�r6nm n.nnlnln\,S7t:7sa� �'�� I IIIIIIIIIup�IIO omll\� uuniumo III I Inm nmmnlnm_ Itt_ v���— _nnli lnnnnll: �♦ice •� �_ ,� ���/nmm�r I►.- I�, 1111111/rII'♦I�I��I, ��= 7G�i♦I ��■■■■■�i IIIIII LII IIII'llll nl IIn �\ 1� �I .►i♦ ♦ ♦�,, -��_ �� �,���� �I1I111��_ 111111.111111 nn nn C�IIII�111� ■ �1♦�I�,♦11♦ I,♦�i♦�I��♦♦♦♦I�� C� - ^.\ �i.... mu it of ili :IIII 1/1.� ♦I'♦♦♦1,���♦♦♦�♦♦♦��I�O ►I��' a��� •��������� ,��:-���- mn�il`�m�L`I�111111111� �i�III�Ii I q p ♦ I�♦i♦i :•�� ':��.�.p.,�,�,� _��_..:.:.�:C-__ lunllnm �iD u 1 nunm IIpAf '11n■i♦�♦jam IIIIII i11111111111C I II11 _ tam�i IUi11:►nn cqu n\�i v,�.j♦� 1.n1• ��nil- I�=:..■�: iiiii�\♦♦p; ♦.;♦i.'...■.I ■ � l'LT1�, - ..... : IIII_ � ♦♦♦IL IIIIII ■- Project Location Area of Impact City Limits Planned Parcels �,�f>•f>• =--.■1■1111 LIIIII_ .�.'♦.'....IIIII 0 Analysis :........1=rim �=��. ♦O.p...nln on ' 1>•` IGnnu1�uu: .. �• 11LI111111_InIIIILIIIIIIIn11�@■1G,�G I AMI-TY •�:— I lei. `��I�Q r� ■=-- -- 'O. �Innm I�limnml --_■ IIIII fj Illlllll♦♦j • W-__= J'c _�nl �p IIIIIII•�'' C7 =1= 'nml= 11/IIIn�G�\ a.11l►� ��IIIIIInll1=1 1111111 moor IIIII IIIII�L -�1111 IIIIII nar'r:, nnm wall � '�•� 7. ■i . W —�W 1 r ..�i -D��i1 1�Sp■p� � �Illlnm_IIIII nn=_= 17 0.■�-nnnnnn I♦ I`�=� . P I ♦� ♦ ♦ ��♦ �/rI♦. ♦. --I� � : - -�IIIIIIIIIIIII\��`;I,►III�, � ,I�,I,♦.,,�� '��; �.,,♦♦1♦♦�■ ':=i--- _i IIIII� �IIIIIIIIIIIII__Q 1♦� I��i ,` �� I•I�♦� ��111111����i♦♦i♦.♦♦j♦i, ': � =:i (IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIII__ \�, ♦♦•,�.�. ��� , , �♦ 111On ♦ ♦ ♦♦ a, I♦+ nnlnnnl_ =uuiuwTu=_�►�,`� Q��O,��,� �j�� •,��.�� ,�-��.��G/011t 'ice♦i'�1111 nn Ilnl_ _uuun nn► �O\ III♦� ,�—I,a�� 1� ITT �_ - �___' ID �p1'II �n�:�1A iA���� � •��1� IIIIII► o___ lin mni IIIIII ����i v,\O�<V � ♦1����� ♦ -��_- ♦i HOI • ���♦I � ��1�� 1�1 I� I��1► ICI III I /♦♦♦ 1 111 - L I ��U=•�� �♦O� ♦ii�C�p�� _ ���% ���♦ �1 �►Iy�ITi= �w`` �1 11 �� ��00 I, ♦ � _ �1♦ ♦ 11111�.. � r0 ♦i, II♦ �I O�O`00 �.,0��� ��, ♦ ,� 1� ♦p♦1�,n_���n►\(,_IIIII. p �. � � I���Op�� �O�� wm 1 ♦ � .1, O♦ �Inuar mn.. .n wm Uuul lluu ��� � � � ���� �� ��I� � III♦ 11, i111110-_ nnu nnunum ��� ♦♦ ♦ , • ♦ - (IIIIII- ■I _____ �T,S' ..� �I ii►�0=��♦�� .` ���== ���'�'��♦�i���nmw1=='= _mom� -�■ _:�_ ,,�jj unD�Im��� �%�" ;�= ����� �j������■-iiiiiiii�iii9ii =nnnu' ::1 _�__�_.,_ !!11111111_Illlli��ll ••, _ .. ._ �� _11111111�:1 111-�luuuuul 1111111111�'//IIII i�.���.��\��III�,�g1111.1�111111111 IIIIII n11"u�l '1C;ICAITII":III:IC:111:1.: 111�1�'-"""'- �GiGiGi1I��p.11111 �pl IIII 1 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII-- ��nnl n,IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII=====_ '� �IAII 11111111>- 1 1111111� . �� �____IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII_ � _-_-_-_- 111111111111 7C----- - • IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII"" nl= ----1, J 111111111111---- _�I:11�l111111__- �11111� ��\ ■■A IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIII=____ ■I\pu._�nlll_ - - �nn_==rm....'.�,I._Amm�!!n 3m�O 11►�♦G. Lill�nnnuN.��i. 5. Map Notes Recent Area Preliminary Plats(within last 5-years): H-2018-0087 H-2019-0119 H-2019-0134 H-2021-0020 H-2021-0062 H-2022-0012 H-2022-003 6 H-2024-0007 H-2024-0044 Recent Area Conditional Use Permits (within last 5-years): H-2019-0123 H-2020-0006 H- 2020-0009 H-2020-0030 H-2019-0134 H-2018-0115 H-2020-0057 H-2020-0117 H-2021- 0021 H-2021-0087 H-2021-0086 H-2017-0068 H-2017-0129 H-2020-0056 H-2018-0017 H- 2019-0097 H-2022-0014 H-2022-0036 H-2022-0089 H-2023-0004 H-2023-0047 H-2024- 0014 H-2024-0022 H-2024-0041 City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits 139 B. Service Accessibility Report PARCEL S1132223210 SERVICE ACCESSIBILITY Overall Scare: 20 7th Percentile Description ! ! Location Within 1/2 mile of City Limits YELLOW Extension Sewer Trunkshed mains < 500 ft.from parcel GREEN Floodplain Either not within the 100 yrfloodplain or > 2 a:-es GREEN Emergency Services Fire Response time 5-9 min. YELLOW Emergency Services Police Meets response time goals some of the time YELLOW Pathways Within 1/4 mile of current pathways GREEN Transit Not within 1/4 of current or future transit route RED Arterial Road Buildout Status Ultimate configuration (#of lanes in master streets YELLOW plan) > existing (# of lanes) & road IS in 5 yr work plar School Walking Proximity Within 112 mile walking GREEN Either a High School or College within 2 miles OR a School Drivability Middle or Elementary School within 1 mile driving GREEN (existing or future) Either a Regional Park within 1 mile OR a Community ParkWalkahility Parkwithin 1/2 mile OR a Neighborhood Parkwithin GREEN 114 mile walking City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits 140 C. Preliminary Plat(date: 7/30/2025) 1 m' W 1 -- -- — Z i �� 15 ifi 17 s8 19 sl Z +I O 14 � I m 15 I 0 0 i ❑7 i , If I 3 Iq it I � — + ❑ I �} ,9 A Site Plan(date: 7/30/2025) PRELIMINARY PLAT n _ m FOR SOLARA ESTATES SUBDIVISION w ...dQ_ _•�'�^� LOCATED IN A PORTION OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 32 T.3N.,RAF. Lu ADA COUNTY,IDAHO TULY 2025 Z O FB yTyp. r� n r ANSI i a a®. o YkrnMA6v H City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 141 E. Landscape Plan (date: 8/5/2025) w.,.,... Oul 1 40 U .,. _ ._ .._, w L 11� •� [Tit City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 142 F. Qualified Open Space Exhibit(date: 7/30/2025) N O°i a ----- -- ----- -- rVAI Z a 0 x �q, IE i as IA rKII F y �fcecucmn®ea Wo,m W 0 I 1 I o Q . City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 143 G. Amenity Exhibit 5•� 5�. I '' 8 7❑ 6 i I ..tia.�9 vixc NOTE: O wxuv.nuvvacs evvn..v1`xwnwu¢ :'. � _ s=u nuaex,nE m BE w,a1-111 DEVEWHR � 12 1 11 I I A 1� I City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits Fl 44 H. Emergency Vehicle Turnaround Exhibit LU j VA o 0 0 Z p . o ------------- --- all o = I I � City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 145 I. Building Elevations r + r M _ _ K THE VVFFIFS 417 AW, T H E FANDING City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 146 � k [Ell IE3 � � LR ■ ■ THF KIMBFRL� THE JAX City of Meridian Department ■■■■■ ■■■■ram r � � ■ �� ��il�f�.i�. Report y f f f r 4 � sr _ I I IL DIAN City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits Fl 48 J. Annexation Legal Description & Exhibit Map 1001 N.Rosario Street Suite 100 [� Meridian,ID 83642 Flk:US P(208)974-0075 F(801)352-7989 ENGINEERING&SURVEYING LEGAL DESCRIPTION PREPARED FOR SUNRISE ESTA TES ADA COUNTY, IDAHO OW0112025 24-5058 JTS CURTIS BILLS PARCEL LEGAL DESCRIPTION A part of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 32,Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, located in Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest Comer of Section 32,Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian; thence S02°00'54"W 334.71 feet along the Section line between the Northwest Corner of Section 32 and the North 1116 Corner common to Section 32 and 31,T3N, R1 E, B.M.to the Point of Beginning; thence S89°13'23"E 662.85 feet along a fence to a 112 inch rebar; thence SO°40'36"W 667.90 feet along a fence to a 112 inch rebar; thence N89°10'42"W 666.78 feet along a fence to a point on the Centerline of South Locust Grove Road; thence 1\1102°00'54"E 667.45 feet along the Centerline of South Locust Grove Road to the Point of Beginning. Contains: 10.19 acres+l- L A ND ct ytCcwstp 3271 4 1 of 4 City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits F149] 1001 N.Rosorio Street Suite 100 rveleridian,ID 83642 F*US P(208)974-0075 F(801)352-7989 ENGINEERING&SURVEYING LEGAL DESCRIPTION PREPARED FOR SUNRISE ESTATES ADA COUNTY, IDAHO 08101/2025 24-5058 JTS LDS C14URCF1 PARCEL LEGAL DESCRIPTION A part of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 32,Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, located in Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest Comer of Section 32,Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian,said point being the Point of Beginning; thence S89°10'53"E 661.71 feet along the Centerline of East Amity Road; thence 801 049'18`W 334.20 feet to a 112 inch rebar; thence N89`1373"W 662.85 feet along a fence to the Centerline of South Locust Grove Road; thence NO2'00'54"E 334.71 feet along the Centerline of South Locust Grave Road to the Point of Beginning. Contains: 5.08 acres+l- 4L LAN.0 ��yLO U,CEMS£p `�G�G 3271 4 � x WT4N 5 2of4 City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits F_15o] 1001 N.Rosorio Street Suite 100 Meridian.ID 83642 FU P(208)974-0075 F(801)352-7484 �. _ S ENGINEERING&SURVEYING LEGAL DESCRIPTION PREPARED FOR SUNRISE ES TA TES ADA COUNTY, IDAHO 08101/2025 24-5058 JTS OVERALL ANNEXATION LEGAL DESCRIPTION A part of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 32,Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, located in Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest Comer of Section 32,Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian,said paint being the Point of Beginning; thence 889°10'53"E 661.71 feet along the Centerline of East Amity Road, thence SO1°49'18"W 334.20 feet to a 112 inch rebar; thence S01°40'36"W 667.90 feet along a fence to a 112 inch rebar; thence N89°1042"W 666.78 feet along a fence to a point on the Centerline of South Locust Grove Road; thence NO2°00'54"E 667.45 feet along the Centerline of South Locust Grove Road; thence NO2°00'54"E 334.71 feet continuing along the Centerline of South Locust Grove Road to the Point of Beginning. Contains: 15.27 acres+l- wry k)rLNSIro el 4 �a1Vl��7r I[ 3271 4 om Ar l P 3of4 City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits 151 GRAYSON SUBDIVISION POINT OF E AMITY RD BEGINNING [RECORD:S89°10'34"L• 26450l') LDS PARCEL MEASURED:S89"10'53'E 2BM4.$8' 30 29 S89"1 453•E 661.71' 9 NW COR 31 — 31 — SECTION 32 — �SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY N 114 CORNER T3N,R1E,B.M. ti E AMITY ROAD c SECTION 32 PARCEL S1132223130 T3N,R1E,B.M_ w CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF 5.08 ACRES LATTER-DAY SAINTS � WORDEN INSTRUMENT NO.8$6109&88611U SUBDIVISION w PROPOSED ZONING:R-S 589°7323"E 662,15' POINT OF BEGINNING BILLS PARCEL EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY I LOCUST GROVE ROAD n - + PARCEL S1132223050 hBROWN,THOMAS K a � ti PARCEL S 1 132223 110&S 1132223120 CD $ I BILLS,CURTIS ro z z ' INSTRUMENT NO.2019030613 �a L LAND 10.19 ACRES+1- ) 01+5ED G� d PROPOSED ZONING:R-2 CROW rn 10 m 0. 3271 4 D LI RCEL3ARD,LL4h{C AWIP'lpE2 W 66&78' N 1116 CORNER COMMON TO PARCEL S 1132223525 = SECTION 29 CAPELL FAMILY LIVING TRUST AND 31 29 ' T3N,R1E,B_M. 31 orcni,xo� JWU � ANNEXATION EXHIBIT 5 ENGTNEER]NO AND SURVEYING,LLC LDS CHURCH & CURTIS BILLS Iwi NORTH RQURIOMEU.SUFF 19D 4 OF 4 ML•R1DIAK.IDARO&]412 Fli:(2-0&h4MW3 vrv.foNrrx City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits Fl 52 K. Preliminary Plat Legal Description & Exhibit Map 1001 N_Rosario Street Suite 100 Meridian, ID 83b42 F U S P(208) 974-0075 F(801) 352-7989 ENGINEErumu&SL,KV;:)LNO LEGAL DESCRIPTION PREPARED FOR SOLARA ESTATES MERIDIAN, IDAHO 212112025 24-5058 MLW PRELIMINARY LEGAL DESCRIPTION A part of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 32,Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, located in Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest Corner of Section 32, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian; thence S02°00'54"W 334.06 feet along the Section line between the Northwest Corner of Section 32 and the North 1116 Corner common to Section 32 and 31,T311N, R1 E, B.M.;thence S87°59'06"E 30.00 feet to the Point of Beginning; thence 889°12'16"E 632.27 feet; thence S01037'42"W 667.68 feet; thence N89°10'42"W 636.78 feet; thence NO2°00'54"E 667.47 feet to the Point of Beginning. Contains: 423,525 square feet or-9 72 acres+l- PRELIMINARY DESCRIPTION: FOR REVIEW ONLY 1 of 2 City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits 153 30 29 31 32 NW CORNER SECTION 32, T3N,R1E,S-M- Sa7°59'06'E 30-00' F' (TIE) POINT OF gym, BEGINNING 589'12'16'E 632.2V 1 I M _M � e � JLU 4 c W n M I LL a � co f NSQ°!0 42'W 636.78' I I r 31 N 1116 CORNER SECTION 32, T3N,R1 E,B.M. 32 ,WUS, SUNRISE ESTATES ENG01NORIIR AMII$URVFYTN ,I-t-C LEGAL DESCRIPTION EXHIBIT T.-R DIAKA MIO&O3LRF.f0*014 Ia6 2 4F 2 ML•BIDIAK.16AIi08]47]FlI:f�R19'4-0OTS vr�.fovs-ex City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits Fl 54 L. Conditional Use Permit Approved by the Ada County Commission Board MAY fix 1975 F The C1 urg3 ft &f j0hua Chr tt of I&tter-Dw Saints Hia.Wlp Tracy Wright Runt■ #3 ParidI-kn:o ►w 3 � orntIAadh t; TrAz Imutor to to advise yea of ,he #c i:kQn bike.n by 7-be zooard crf ,h A42L -Cg=tY aaiaeldra On ytrL R COetdi'..`_dial 1JA4j Pfrvit $otilieatjLCn to 4:�*trizct & cqure:s. T%a Bo+rd ]4m vat" to grant the (!mdIUOft&I adp■ %dth tho fWAosing 1- VM JLPPUC*At *h-1 OM017 W1.2L &U hlkra of fiid with the 13ffidO Of tiid *dd 001AM7 P W= g REA ZC�Ming C.,'1Gl UA 8 S rr d■wd March 25, 15rJ5, azyftit u herain awndad. 2. DnktLo-g I& N'to ch4rch shL21 not axed 750 par.%cma. ttaµth—*tArn 1uxa+s■ abaa be ei minted. k.. ,Septi13 Spit" &tL� "11 3r.}21 r.D �pp-,M4 by 00;m. �. Aecaaa, 1JadI13AtIc4, &rid ctrJtLTwg* ohpdl De a�vx�r+ed Gila ACID. $. DrairuL9w fIItb '.lte irri,,&ti1Oa l.*t*rl;Z skuLl Ga $4-&Y{1'4i8d E}'f tYnw ,fz--pdL-U@rI.Id , Ira•14;AtSorr Di*tT-!q;. I f-4 hSTS WW e;utatlaat �Jaa as 4 nCnJA ± th_a ottaoa. ILAFD OFADACu4a1_L �4.LJNL.L F.1 a�.li Y'—Y 7 w l*•9 aC'L�: City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits 155 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 V111. Additional Notes&Details for Staff Report Maps, Tables, and Charts 156 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 157 E IDIAN;--- Applicant Presentation AREA PROPOSED S LOCUST GROVE RDE AMITY ROAD PLAT)-(PRESUBDIVIDED BE ANEXED PROPOSED TO AREA ONLYTO BE ANEXED •S LOCUST GROVE RDE AMITY ROAD developmentapproved the proposed ACHD has reviewed and •)s.f.2 Min = 12,000 -(Rs.f.Average Lot size = 22,659 •existing lot)(13 new building lots and 1 14 Total building lots proposed •Density Residential)2 (Low -Proposed zoning = R•CountyURBAN TRANSITION) *Ada -Current zoning = RUT (Rural•acres-Site Area = 9.72 SOUTHERN HIGHLANDS SUB.S LOCUST GROVE RDE AMITY ROAD REFLECTION RIDGE SUB S LOCUST GROVE RD SOLARA ESTATES SUBPAISLEY MEADOWS SUB E AMITY ROADS EAGLE ROAD SOLARA properties. residential and urban between existing rural These areas often transition dwelling units or less per acre. at gross densities of three homes on large and estate lots -development of singledesignation allows for the Low Density Residential: This SUBDIVISIONESTATES Traffic Considerations LANES-WIDENED TO 3LOCUST GROVE ROAD S LOCUST GROVE RDS EAGLE ROADROUNDABOUTLANE -MULTILANES-WIDENDING TO 5AMITY ROAD between 2031 and 2035. lanes from Locust Grove Road to Eagle Road -• Amity Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to 5Road between 2036 and 2040. lanes from Lake Hazel Road to Amity -widened to 3• Locust Grove Road is listed in the CIP to be Road between 2036 and 2040. lanes from Amity Road to Victory -widened to 3• Locust Grove Road is listed in the CIP to be and a construction year yet to be determined. 2024 -on the west leg with a design year of 2023lanes -lanes east, and 2-lane on the south, 2-leg, 1lane on the north -lane roundabout with 1-as a multiRoad is scheduled in the FYP to be reconstructed The intersection of Amity Road and Locust Grove Grove Road -lanes from SH-to 5Amity Road is scheduled in the FYP to be widened • Capital Improvements Plan (CIP)//Integrated 1.ACHD Planned Improvements developmentACHD has reviewed and approved the proposed • •compliance with setback requirements.preserving driveway access and visual and sound screening, while with seven additional trees to maintain easement (not a common lot), enhanced on the west side to 12.5 feet within an proposes reducing the landscape buffer The developer Proposed Solution:•functionality.restricting garage access and driveway 2 setback and -encroaching into the Rhome only 4 feet from the buffer, landscape buffer leave the existing foot -improvements and the city's 25Required Impact on Lot 11:•significantly reduce usable lot space.on Locust Grove Road, which dedication and roadway improvements way -of-11, Block 1, due to ACHD’s rightThe developer is seeking relief for Lot Request for Alternative Compliance:•compliance with setback requirements.preserving driveway access and visual and sound screening, while with seven additional trees to maintain easement (not a common lot), enhanced on the west side to 12.5 feet within an proposes reducing the landscape buffer The developer Proposed Solution:•functionality.restricting garage access and driveway 2 setback and -encroaching into the Rhome only 4 feet from the buffer, landscape buffer leave the existing foot -improvements and the city's 25Required Impact on Lot 11:•significantly reduce usable lot space.on Locust Grove Road, which dedication and roadway improvements way -of-11, Block 1, due to ACHD’s rightThe developer is seeking relief for Lot Request for Alternative Compliance: E AMITY ROADS LOCUST GROVE RD