Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-10-14 Regular City Council Regular Meeting City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Tuesday, October 14, 2025 at 6:00 PM Minutes ROLL CALL ATTENDANCE PRESENT Councilman Doug Taylor Councilman John Overton Councilwoman Anne Little Roberts Councilman Brian Whitlock Councilman Luke Cavener Mayor Robert E. Simison ABSENT Councilwoman Liz Strader PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE COMMUNITY INVOCATION ADOPTION OF AGENDA PROCLAMATIONS \[Action Item\] 1. Crime Prevention Month PUBLIC FORUM – Future Meeting Topics RESOLUTIONS \[Action Item\] 2. Resolution No. 25-2540: A Resolution Establishing the Reappointment of Dom Gelsomino to Seat 1 and Jennifer Bobo to Seat 2 of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Commission; and Providing an Effective Date Approved Motion to approve made by Councilman Whitlock, Seconded by Councilwoman Little Roberts. Voting Yea: Councilman Taylor, Councilman Overton, Councilwoman Little Roberts, Councilman Whitlock, Councilman Cavener 3. Resolution No. 25-2541: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Meridian Reappointing Seoyoon Song to Seat 9 of the Meridian Arts Commission and Divya Danesh to Seat 8 of the Meridian Solid Waste Advisory Commission; and Providing an Effective Date Approved Motion to approve made by Councilman Cavener, Seconded by Councilwoman Little Roberts. Voting Yea: Councilman Taylor, Councilman Overton, Councilwoman Little Roberts, Councilman Whitlock, Councilman Cavener 4. Resolution No. 25-2542: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Meridian Appointing Toren Taylor to Seat 9 of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Commission; James Abdel-Monem to Seat 6 of the Meridian Historic Preservation Commission; Advik Bansal to Seat 4 of the Meridian Transportation Commission; and Providing an Effective Date Approved Motion to approve made by Councilman Taylor, Seconded by Councilwoman Little Roberts. Voting Yea: Councilman Taylor, Councilman Overton, Councilwoman Little Roberts, Councilman Whitlock, Councilman Cavener ACTION ITEMS 5. Public Hearing for Century Farm Master Association Gravity Irrigation Easement (H-2025-0044) by Brighton Corporation, located at 4884 S. Tavistock Ave. Approved Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2025-0044 A. Request: A Vacation to vacate the twenty (20) foot gravity irrigation easement and replace it with a new easement that will be rededicated through a new instrument number. The new easement is proposed to be ten (10) feet in width, the same as the public utility, irrigation and drainage easement. Motion to approve made by Councilman Overton, Seconded by Councilwoman Little Roberts. Voting Yea: Councilman Taylor, Councilman Overton, Councilwoman Little Roberts, Councilman Whitlock, Councilman Cavener 6. Public Hearing continued from September 16, 2025 for Latitude Forty Three Subdivision (H-2024-0059) by Rodney Evans + Partners, LLC., located at 675, 715 and 955 S. Wells St. Continued to January 13, 2026 Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2024-0059 A. Request: Annexation of 17.27 acres of land with R-8 (13.78 acres), R-15 (2.42 acres) and C-N (1.07 acres) zoning districts. B. Request: Preliminary Plat to re-subdivide lots 7, 21 and 22, Magic View Subdivision, Amended into 79 residential lots, 1 commercial lot and 11 common/other lots on 15.97 acres of land in the R-8, R-15 and C-N zoning districts. Motion to continue to January 13, 2026 made by Councilman Cavener, Seconded by Councilman Overton. Voting Yea: Councilman Taylor, Councilman Overton, Councilwoman Little Roberts, Councilman Whitlock, Councilman Cavener 7. Public Hearing for Modena Plaza Subdivision (SHP-2025-0004) by Jordan Moorhouse, located at 3147 Belltower Dr. Approved Application Materials: https://bit.ly/SHP-2025-0004 A. Request: Short Plat to subdivide an existing commercial lot in four (4) separate lots on approximately 1.59 acres of land in the L-O zoning district. Motion made by Councilman Whitlock, Seconded by Councilman Overton. Voting Yea: Councilman Taylor, Councilman Overton, Councilwoman Little Roberts, Councilman Whitlock, Councilman Cavener 8. 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. Approved 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%. Motion to approve made by Councilman Taylor, Seconded by Councilman Whitlock. Voting Yea: Councilman Taylor, Councilman Overton, Councilwoman Little Roberts, Councilman Whitlock Voting Nay: Councilman Cavener 9. Public Hearing for UDC Text Amendment (ZOA-2025-0001) by City of Meridian Planning Division, located citywide. Approved Application Materials: https://bit.ly/ZOA-2025-0001 A. Request: UDC Text Amendment to revise the specific use standards associated with drive-throughs and secondary dwellings in Chapter 4 of the Unified development Code (UDC). Motion to approve made by Councilman Cavener, Seconded by Councilman Overton. Voting Yea: Councilman Taylor, Councilman Overton, Councilwoman Little Roberts, Councilman Whitlock, Councilman Cavener ORDINANCES \[Action Item\] 10. Ordinance No. 25-2100: An ordinance (Ten Mile Flex – H-2025-0027) annexing a parcel of land located in the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 34, Township 4 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described in Exhibit “A”; rezoning 5.545 acres of such real property from RUT (Rural Urban Transition) to the I-L (Light Industrial) zoning district; directing city staff to alter all applicable use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps and all official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance; providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Treasurer, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law; repealing conflicting ordinances; and providing an effective date. Approved Motion to approve made by Councilman Taylor, Seconded by Councilman Overton. Voting Yea: Councilman Taylor, Councilman Overton, Councilwoman Little Roberts, Councilman Whitlock, Councilman Cavener FUTURE MEETING TOPICS ADJOURNMENT 8:50 PM Meridian City Council October 14, 2025. A Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:00 p.m. Tuesday, October 14, 2025, by Mayor Robert Simison. Members Present: Robert Simison, Luke Cavener, John Overton, Doug Taylor, Anne Little Roberts and Brian Whitlock. Members Absent: Liz Strader. Other Present: Chris Johnson, Bill Nary, Caleb Hood, Bill Parsons, Nick Napoli, Linda Ritter, Berle Stokes, Steve Taulbee and Dean Willis. ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE Liz Strader X Brian Whitlock Anne Little Roberts X John Overton _X_ Doug Taylor _X_Luke Cavener X Mayor Robert E. Simison Simison: Council, we will call the meeting to order. For the record it is November 14th, 2025, at 6:00 p.m. We will begin tonight's regular city council meeting with roll call attendance. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Simison: Next is the Pledge of Allegiance. If you would all, please, rise and join us in the pledge. (Pledge of Allegiance recited.) COMMUNITY INVOCATION Simison: Tonight's invocation will be delivered by Kyle Jorgensen. If you would all, please, take a --join us in the community invocation or take this as a moment of silence and reflection. Jorgensen: Our dear Father in Heaven, we come before thee this evening as citizens and community members of this great City of Meridian. We are grateful for the blessings that we enjoy living in this country with the freedoms and privileges that we have. We ask thee to bless us that we will recognize those privileges and treat each other with civility and kindness. We are grateful for each of these individuals that are willing to serve. Please bless them for their efforts. We are aware of the difficulties and challenges raging throughout the world and we pray for the leaders of the world and of the nations, that they might be guided by thee and by thy hand and all things we ask for Meridian City Council October 14,2025 Page 2 of 57 blessings to be upon us as we seek to learn from thee and to be like thee and we say these things in the name of Jesus Christ, amen. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Simison: Thank you. Okay. Council, up next is adoption of the agenda. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: I know we are going to at least discuss it on Item 6, but just wanted to at least notate for those that are here that Item 6 on tonight's agenda has requested to be continued, but with that, Mr. Mayor, I move that we adopt the agenda as published. Overton: Second. Simison: Have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and the agenda is agreed to. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. PROCLAMATIONS [Action Item] 1. Crime Prevention Month Simison: First item up is going to be a proclamation. So, if Jennifer and all the team wants to come and join -- whoever is going to be up we will do this. So, we got the whole team with us this evening for this. It's been kind of interesting, for whatever reason my Facebook feed -- I have a lot of other mayors from around the country and I keep seeing them going out for their National Night Out and I'm like why are they going out in October to do national night out and, then, I realize they can only really do it once -- one month a year, where we can do a bit more crime prevention at the right times and spread it out, but we are -- we are here tonight for Crime Prevention Month. So, I will go ahead and read this proclamation and, then, turn it over for any comments that you guys all would like to add on to. Or not. So, leave it up to you. Whereas in 1984 President Reagan designated October as Crime Prevention Month as a time for communities to come together, promote safety and security individually and in neighborhoods and whereas crime prevention is important because it enhances public safety, strengthens communities and improves overall quality of life by reducing fear and promoting a sense of security and whereas effective prevention programs address the root causes of crime, fostering sustainable solutions through encouraging community involvement, education, awareness and collaboration between local law enforcement, schools, businesses and residents and whereas neighborhood watch programs, youth engagement activities and educational forums are just a few examples Meridian City Council October 14,2025 Page 3 of 57 of how people can participate in crime prevention efforts in the City of Meridian and whereas the City of Meridian Crime Prevention Team empowers our community to keep neighborhoods safe and build relationships, while working towards controlling crime. Therefore, I, Robert E. Simison, proclaim October 2025 as Crime Prevention Month in the City of Meridian and express our sincere gratitude and appreciation for those who are committed to the power of prevention and work together to make our community safer, stronger and more caring. Dated this 14th day of October 2025. So, on behalf of myself and the City Council, thank you for all -- you all do to make sure that we are working hard on crime prevention here in our community. So, with that I will present this to you and turn it over for any comments you would like to make. Abrao: I think the proclamation said it all. Simison: All right. Well, then, we will just do a picture. Cavener: Council, as the Mayor is coming up I will just share. This month we -- last month we had the Public Safety Day and if you haven't been to that event, man, put it on your calendar for next year. It's a great date -- day date with your -- with your partner. If you got kids or grandkids -- nine year old Pork Chop like the best day of his life going in between the drones and the dogs, you know, in typical fashion our fire department opens up a fire truck and lets them climb around and sprays everybody at the end. So, just -- I appreciate -- you guys do a great job of really embracing and showcasing public safety in our community for all agencies. Great event. Appreciate you. PUBLIC FORUM — Future Meeting Topics Simison: Thank you, Councilman Cavener. All right. With that we will move on to -- Mr. Clerk, anyone sign up under public forum? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, Jen Card. Simison: Good evening. Card: Oh. Okay. So, Jen Card. I'm in Paramount. I'm here again to talk about Sagarra and give you a little bit of an update. Recently the first duplex went up and it's three stories and talked with my neighbors a little bit and they are like, you know, the duplexes were supposed to be two stories, now they are three. The townhouses were supposed to be three stories, now there are four, and if I recall correctly when I came and we talked about the townhouses, it was because they were signed off by staff level employee, not an elected official, receiving no oversight by Council Members and some Council Members were a little bit surprised at the fact that they were four stories. So, know some work sessions happened and people talked about getting some oversight for those kinds of things, but I don't know where that's -- that's at at this point. My fear is the same thing happened with the duplexes. I did e-mail the city, the contacts that we have, and he said I did inquire with our planning department regarding your question Meridian City Council October 14,2025 Page 4 of 57 about building types and their locations and have been informed that the developer is following approved plans and locations for buildings. That's good to know, but my question was what is being built? Does that match exactly what we talked about in City Council when the development was approved? And that's my question, because there seems to be no oversight. There are loopholes where things get through where we have discussed it, you have discussed it in front of us, you vote on it and that's not what happens. Things change. And that's why I think more oversight is needed on all staff sign off and I know you are tired of seeing me, I'm tired of coming here and complaining to you, because it appears that every issue from building type, design, dust, fence standards, backyard flooding is nobody else's responsibility, even though Paramount residents didn't have these issues before this -- construction of this development began. So, I want to urge you to make the developer accountable for these issues. My understanding Grand View sent out a thing about replacing the fence. Now, it's not going to get replaced. They met with the city, they came to an agreement, they were supposed to reach out to us, now they have sent us a flyer and it's something different and I have notified our contact and sent him the information on that as well. So, it's just frustrating. There is no accountability and I keep getting told, well, the city has a surety bond just in case. Well, that doesn't alleviate the issues that have happened and impacted those residents and nothing has addressed flooding, which is terrifying in my mind, so asking to hold them accountable and start putting things in place so that these things don't happen. Thank you. Simison: Thank you, Jen. Chris, anyone else sign up? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, no. RESOLUTIONS [Action Item] 2. Resolution No. 25-2540: A Resolution Establishing the Reappointment of Dom Gelsomino to Seat 1 and Jennifer Bobo to Seat 2 of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Commission; and Providing an Effective Date Simison: Okay. With that we will move on to Item 2, which is Resolution No. 25-2540, which is a reappointment of Dom Gelsomino and Jennifer Bobo to the Meridian Parks and Recreation Commission. Council, both of these people, hopefully are not a stranger to you all. They have been -- been serving and would like to continue to serve and I think they do an excellent job and would urge you to reappoint them to these positions. Whitlock: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Whitlock. Meridian City Council October 14,2025 Page 5 of 57 Whitlock: I move we approve agenda Item No. 2, Resolution No. 25-2540, resolution establishing the reappointment of Dom Gelsomino and Jennifer Bobo to the Meridian Parks and Recreation Commission. Little Roberts: Second. Simison: Have a motion and a second to approve Resolution No. 25-2540. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and the resolution is agreed to. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. 3. Resolution No. 25-2541: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Meridian Reappointing Seoyoon Song to Seat 9 of the Meridian Arts Commission and Divya Danesh to Seat 8 of the Meridian Solid Waste Advisory Commission; and Providing an Effective Date Simison: Next item up is Resolution No. 25-2541. This, too, is reappointment of two of our youth to our commissions as well. Again, these are -- these are -- our appointments are done in conjunction and talking with our chairs, as well as our staff, to make sure that they are showing up and being active participants and these two individuals Seoyoon Song and Divya Danesh are definitely doing that and so with that we ask for you to reappoint them as well. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Move to approve Item 3, Resolution, 25-2541, resolution of the City Council, City of Meridian, reappointing Seoyoon Song to Seat 9 and Divya Danesh to Seat 8 of the Meridian Solid Waste Advisory Commission. Little Roberts: Second. Simison: Have a motion and a second to approve Resolution No. 25-2541. Discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and the resolution is agreed to. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. 4. Resolution No. 25-2542: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Meridian Appointing Toren Taylor to Seat 9 of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Commission; James Abdel-Monem to Seat 6 of the Meridian Historic Preservation Commission; Advik Bansal to Seat 4 of the Meridian Transportation Commission; and Providing an Effective Date Meridian City Council October 14,2025 Page 6 of 57 Simison: All right. Council, next item up is Resolution No. 25-2544, which is to appoint three more individuals to our youth on commission -- commission seats. We followed the process that we have traditionally done with this and reached out to the members of the community and sometimes we get MYAC'ers, sometimes we don't, sometimes we get people from other walks of life in our community and I think that that is reflected in the three appointments that we are asking you to do this evening. First up we have Advik Bansal is a sophomore at Compass Charter, who is interested in the Transportation Commission and he's curious about how cities and other agencies partner to have a shared vision for growth, decision making and translating ideas into actions, in addition already a published author and looking to do that again. I don't know how that works on transportation, but maybe I will make a spot in the -- in that future book. So, that's -- that's who is being recommended for the Transportation Commission. We have a senior from Meridian High School, James Abdel-Monem, been with MYAC since last year when he served as the vice-chair of community service during two terms. Also serve as a youth ambassador for Avenues of Hope, where he helps lead fundraising efforts for many causes and interest in setting politics, public policy, in college, local government, and rebuilt a sailboat last summer. So, hopefully this will give a good overall roundabout experience through that. And, then, finally, we have a new face Toren Taylor, who's a junior at Meridian High, and this -- this individual was an employee of the city in our Parks and Rec Department over at the swimming pool as a lifeguard the last couple summers. Says I express an interest in, you know, seeing one side of the city, the paycheck side, but maybe now see the other side of it about, you know, the work that it takes to put on good programs here in the community, so active in other parts of the community and a standout student and we won't mention the familiar name if -- between one of our Council Members and this individual, but that does have a familiar name. So, with that these are the recommendations for appointments and stand for any questions you have. Taylor: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Taylor. Taylor: If we didn't have such a full agenda I would ask them to all come up and answer some questions, but given the long agenda I think we will move ahead and I would like to make a motion to approve Resolution No. 25-2542, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Meridian, appointing Toren Taylor to Seat 9 of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Commission, James Abdel-Monem to Seat 6 of the Meridian Historic Preservation Commission and Advik Bansal to Seat 4 of the Meridian Transportation Commission. Little Roberts: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second. Do I have any discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it. It's unanimous. Congratulations. We look forward to your service on these commissions moving forward and thanks for being here this evening. Meridian City Council October 14,2025 Page 7 of 57 Simison: All right. With that we will -- Whitlock: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Whitlock. Whitlock: Can I just compliment you and your office and the youth of our community for wanting to be involved. I think we are probably pretty unique across the country in involving our youth and it says a lot about the -- the quality of our community, the quality of the families that are here, the values that we hold in getting young people involved in their local government at such a young age I think is very admirable and I commend you and your office for placing that as a very high priority. Simison: Well, thank you. But credit goes where credit is due and Mayor Tammy was really the one that drove this initiative and we have continued up her -- her efforts in this area, but I think it's the right thing. Whitlock: Yeah. Taylor: I would also like to compliment you and the work. I think when -- when -- when our youth see just -- have a little bit of their interest peaked in serving, I think the results are -- are borne out years down the road with their desire to serve the community, not just now, but these are really important programs, because it doesn't have to do a lot, just has to do something to kind of give them a little bit of a desire. So, I appreciate the opportunity to have our youth. I mean MYAC has been very impressive as I have got to know them and in particular, hopefully there is a particular young man in the Parks and Rec Commission that will do a good job. He better. Simison: Excellent. Overton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: Just to put a little topping on all this, should go back and remember a little bit of history. Back when Councilman Cavener first came to work for the city I believe he was part of organizing MYAC under Mayor Tammy at that time and helping get that program off the ground and part of the reason that is where it is today is because it had such a good foundation when it started here. Simison: Here. Here. Okay. With that we will move on to our public hearings for this evening. So, first item up is a public hearing for H-2025-0044 for Century Farm Master Association gravity irrigation easement by Brighton Corporation. I know I read that differently than what's on here, but we have apparently changed the order on me. So, it is what it is. So, I will open this public hearing with staff comments by Nick. Meridian City Council October 14,2025 Page 8 of 57 Napoli: Good evening, Mayor, Members of the Council. Next item on the agenda is the Century Farm Master Association gravity irrigation easement vacation. The applicant is requesting approval to vacate a private 20 foot easement for gravity irrigation on Lots 13 and 14, Block 2, of the Hill Century Farm's Commercial Subdivision No. 2. A new easement will be reestablished because of this vacation, which will be ten feet in width. The applicant has indicated that the purpose of this vacation is for a future application that will be coming in front of City Council. In addition to this the applicant has indicated vacating the easement and reestablishing a new one outside the plat -- of the platting process will allow the easement to be dedicated to the correct entity, make it the full length, as the easement is currently missing a portion of the gravity irrigation line. So, this is the existing easement and this is the proposed change. The relinquishment letters were received from Brighton Corporation, as this is a private easement and they were the only holder of it and staff is recommending approval and has received written testimony from the applicant Eli Benski in support of the staff report and recommendation and I will stand for any questions you guys have. Simison: Thank you, Nick. Council, any questions for staff? Is the applicant here to make a very long detailed presentation. Benski: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. Eli Benski. 2929 West Navigator Drive, Meridian, Idaho. 83642. Yes, this is a very long presentation. I'm so sorry, guys. As Nick mentioned this is an application for the vacation of the gravity irrigation easement at Century Farm. This is generally located off of Amity and Tavistock, circled in the yellow. As mentioned there was three errors that we found with this easement. First was that it was dedicated to an association that doesn't exist. Second, we were missing a portion to the northwest corner and, then, third, we actually wanted initially it to match the public utility easement. Instead, we made it ten feet wider than the public utility easement. We have gone forward and recorded a new easement that corrects these three errors, but that's all the information I have. I concur with staff's recommendation of approval and request that you guys also approve tonight here the vacation of the easement. I stand for questions. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Clerk, anyone signed up to testify on this item? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, no. Simison: Is there anybody present or online that would like to provide testimony on this item? If so, if you are online you can use the raise your hand feature or if you are in the audience and would like to come forward you can do so at this time. Seeing see no one online raising their hand or no one coming forward, would the applicant like to make any final comments or do they waive? Applicant waives final comments. Council, what's your pleasure? Overton: Mr. Mayor? Meridian City Council October 14,2025 Page 9 of 57 Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: Seeing no further comments, I move that we close the public hearing. Little Roberts: Second. Simison: Have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Is there any discussion? If not, in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and the public hearing is closed. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Overton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File No. H-2025-0044 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 14th, 2025. Little Roberts: Second. Simison: Have a motion and a second to approve H-2025-0044. Is there discussion on the motion? If not, clerk call the roll. Roll Call: Cavener, yea; Strader, absent; Overton, yea; Little Roberts, yea; Taylor, yea; Whitlock, yea. Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and the item is agreed to. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. 6. Public Hearing continued from September 16, 2025 for Latitude Forty Three Subdivision (H-2024-0059) by Rodney Evans + Partners, LLC., located at 675, 715 and 955 S. Wells St. A. Request: Annexation of 17.27 acres of land with R-8 (13.78 acres), R-15 (2.42 acres) and C-N (1.07 acres) zoning districts. B. Request: Preliminary Plat to re-subdivide lots 7, 21 and 22, Magic View Subdivision, Amended into 79 residential lots, 1 commercial lot and 11 common/other lots on 15.97 acres of land in the R-8, R- 15 and C-N zoning districts. Meridian City Council October 14,2025 Page 10 of 57 Simison: Council, next item up is a public hearing continued from September 16th, 2025, for Latitude Forty Three Subdivision, H-2024-0059. We will hear from staff on the desire for this item. Parsons: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, the applicant is requesting continuance of this item again for -- as you know the city is conducting a study for that area, trying to understand the transportation network. We have been meeting with the applicant on an ongoing basis since that continuance of this project and we know that that study won't be done for several more months. So, we are just asking for more time for the applicant so they can continue to work with staff and get that information so that you guys can make an informed decision on the application. The applicant is also here tonight to answer any questions you may have as well to let you know what their intentions are. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions for staff? Would you like to hear from the applicant as well? Okay. Clark: Hi, everyone. Hethe Clark. 251 East Front Street in Boise. You didn't see me back in May, so I have been asked to help kind of shepherd this along and so I have been part of the conversations with -- with your staff since -- since -- since May. I was able to look at the -- at the video, listen to all the comments. Very much appreciated the comments that the Council made at the time. Also very much appreciated the Council really jumping on this to get this report underway and done in a -- in a timely fashion. You know, that doesn't always happen. You know, I have a lot of clients that get stuck in limbo for a long time. This one we actually see a finish line and so our goal was to -- with this to try to make sure that Council has the information it needs, so we are happy to defer until December. Just one other little bit of procedural I guess trivia is that one of the reasons why we were trying to get this going is that if we have hearings that are scheduled, then, we don't need to start from zero and schedule and notice and be, you know, a couple months out once the staff -- once that staff report is done -- or not staff report, the -- the study is done and in the meantime, as you know, this is one small part of the larger study and so we are kind of monitoring with staff, hoping that maybe there can be some direction on this in the interim. As you might remember from the last hearing -- I think where everyone's feeling pretty good about the northern portion of the project. It's the southern portion that really is -- we would like to have this additional insight on. If the consultant comes back and says, yeah, we know where it's going to be on the southern portion, even though the study is not completed yet, then, maybe we can go ahead as well. So, we are just trying to work with staff to get this done and we appreciate everything Council has been doing to help facilitate getting answers, not only for us, but for the neighborhood as well. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Hethe, I'm happy to see you are working on this project. The application has been continued a bunch of times between Planning and Zoning and City Council and so Meridian City Council October 14,2025 Page 11 of 57 trying to find right the right balance of -- we want to get the right information, but also being sensitive to the impact it is on the neighboring residents -- stakeholders in this project and have a very active vested interest and how do we communicate to them here is where we are going to have the hearing without this, hey, we are going to have a hearing, we are going to need to continue it again for another couple months. We are going to need to continue it again for a couple months. So, can you give myself and Council some -- some flavor -- I know there is a little bit that is out of your control -- a lot that's out of your needle quite frankly -- a happy medium in terms of a date that we could continue this to that would give you the confidence that you have had the opportunity to review and respond, that our staff had the opportunity, obviously, to finalize this project, so that we can really communicate to our residents here is the date for this hearing and -- and we really mean it this time. Clark: Council Member Cavener, you are right that there is a lot of it that's not in our control. It's our understanding that the way -- and the Mayor may be able to correct me -- or staff may be able to correct me on this as well -- that the -- the anticipated date for the completion of the report is January and so we looked at that and said, hey, you know, maybe December makes sense, because maybe we can get some of those preliminary answers by then. If not, then, we are just within shouting distance of having the -- having the consultant's report done at that point. In the meantime, you know, we are happy to continue, you know, collaborating with staff, trying to find out where that stands and we would love to, you know, be as forthcoming with the neighborhood and with staff as possible in terms of making sure that people know what the intentions are. You know, this is one where, you know, it's -- it's -- it's that balancing act of, you know, certainly we want to make sure that the neighbors know and have a -- have a good feeling about what's happening there. We also have concerns on our side of financial issues related to long-term delays, so we are trying to balance all of that together, Council Member Cavener, and still be respectful of our neighbors' time. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: I know you talked December with the report hopefully being finalized in January. Would you feel comfortable if we -- if we held it until January and just gave a little bit more buffer? I -- I'm really sensitive to what you guys have been up against; right? And it is this -- trying to look at it from all different sides for all the vested parties and I -- I worry that a -- yet another continuance really doesn't communicate the right message to our residents that -- that we would want to communicate. So, I almost would prefer to error on the side of going a little bit longer by a few weeks than to try and schedule something in December -- and I'm trying to look at it like I'm a resident. Okay? So, I get this notice. Okay. I'm going to come again and, then, a day or two before, right at kind of a busy time of year, I'm going to get informed by the city, hey, it's actually going to be continued again. It's just -- it's trying to be good partners with our -- with our impacted neighbors, but I -- I'm also not keenly aware as to how that impacts you and your client if -- if we were delaying it by a few more weeks. Meridian City Council October 14,2025 Page 12 of 57 Clark: Council Member Cavener, you can imagine that it's never fun for me to go back to my client and say, yeah, the project got delayed another couple months. Cavener: Yeah. Clark: Never a fun conversation. You know, certainly, you know, we want to be respectful of Council and so if that's the Council's direction, then, you know, so be it. The way I would put it, though, is that in my experience in the development world is that if I don't set a deadline, then, nobody's going to work toward a deadline and so -- Cavener: I agree. Clark: -- I -- I generally like to have that so that we can have a goal to shoot at and, you know, from our view -- you know, we had originally thought, hey, let's try in November. That didn't work out, so we -- so we talked internally and pushed it another month -- so, two months to December. So, we were hoping that that was a meaningful offer and, again, I -- I would love to have a goal to shoot at if we can in terms of those deadlines, Cavener: Thanks. So -- Clark: Yeah. Cavener: -- I will get some more insight from our staff here in a minute. Clark: Absolutely. Yeah. Simison: Okay. Council, anything else for the applicant? Councilman Cavener, questions for staff? Cavener: Yeah. Mr. Mayor, thanks. Bill, kind of back at you. I saw in the -- in the packet that there is at least a whole date maybe for December 16th, the last council meeting of the year. I want to hear from Council here on this, you know, I want to be supportive to the applicant's needs and they are somewhat responsive on some of the work that we are doing. Give me your level of confidence that if we were to continue this to December the 16th that there is not a City of Meridian or a staff related-reason to request another continuance? Parsons: Mayor, Members of the Council, like -- I'm -- I'm kind of in the -- in the same court as the applicant. I don't have that crystal ball either, knowing when that -- that study is going to be done. I can tell you that I keep getting calls from the residents of Woodbridge and they keep asking any new information, any new information, and at least the positive feedback that I'm getting is they -- like where the project is going. They just want to know where that transfer study is going to land and so they don't like getting whipsawed either. So, it's always been staff's position to push it out and wait for the study. But, again, we want to be sensitive to the applicant's needs as well and try to Meridian City Council October 14,2025 Page 13 of 57 understand that information. But in our world getting the information ahead of time and, then, taking action always is better, not only us, but also the neighborhood. Cavener: Okay. Thanks. Simison: I think phone a friend came in. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Councilman Cavener, I did not hear Mr. Parsons' answer, but I thought that -- Simison: No, you -- say whatever you would like. You won't contradict him, I promise you. Hood: Yeah. So, Carl Anderson, who is our project manager for the study, met with the consultants this week. We are on track. January -- we are more comfortable with January. If the concern really is having a hearing on something and expecting -- we may have a draft report by December, but that's not what -- our scope of work and the schedule with our contractor or with our contracted traffic engineers say. So, we, too, are hopeful that maybe we can get something by December 16th I believe the date is, but I'm maybe not that optimistic. Cavener: Okay. Thank you. Simison: Can I ask you a question, Mr. Hood. There is really not very many options to where this can go. Last time I heard they really had settled on an option for this area. Is that not the case? Is there -- are they still evaluating other options? Hood: Mr. Mayor, maybe you are more in the loop than I am on the project. I have not heard that. I understand they are still evaluating it. We did have some conversations some time ago with the development team -- Mr. Clark's team and some of them that have them -- encourage them to look at some options to -- to come up with a solution that would meet some of our objectives in this area, too. So, I think that's something in the next month or two -- or even three that we could continue some of that dialog and see -- obviously we want something that works for their property as an option or two or three in that general vicinity, because it is, to your point, Mayor, we are pretty limited on some of those connections. The study is larger than just this connection though. Simison: And maybe, Council, the thing to just -- are you going to want to adopt the study before you hear the application or not? And I think that's -- kind of goes -- we can get a draft. I mean we could probably say please focus on this in the next month and provide a draft of that information back to staff of what's going to be in that for this area, but are you going to want to act on it until you act on the study? Something I hadn't contemplated, but I think it's -- just because the study comes back doesn't mean you are going to agree to what the study says as it pertains to development. So, I throw that out there for your consideration. Thank you. Meridian City Council October 14,2025 Page 14 of 57 Overton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: Just as a point of reflection when we first looked at this the idea came forward that we could look at just the northern portion and I don't think Council was comfortable with breaking this up at that time and wanted to see it as presented as all three parcels, which is one of the reasons why this was sent back to begin with until we understand what we are looking at for that potential development. I would feel a lot better if we had this reset to a date that coincided with when we believe this study will be done, because, trust me, living in Woodbridge I see the group posts by the residents that live there getting all excited and getting all geared up and ready to come to the meetings and, then, we keep having continuances and I would like to see if there is a way -- understanding your needs and desires and the city's, but also the residents' needs and desires to try to limit at this point the number of continuances we have going forward. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: I agree with Council Member Overton. I just -- because there has been so many continuances on this project I think it is important that we try and hit the mark on this. So, Council, the date that I was looking at -- and I'm going to look to our good clerk Mr. Johnson, let me know if we are over committed on that date. But January the 13th. Johnson: Mr. Mayor, Council President Cavener, I don't believe we have anything scheduled on that date yet. Cavener: I don't either, but I always like to double check. So, Council, that's the date that I'm -- I'm looking. That allows -- I'm sure we have got some staff members that have holiday plans. I'm sure applicant and our residents have holiday plans. It allows everyone an opportunity to go enjoy their holiday season, come back, get back to work. Make sure that that study is complete, shared with the applicant, feedback provided, and that should give us I think some good confidence on the 13th and I'm -- I'm proposing that date and if anybody on our staff or the applicant has concerns with that date or ability to meet everyone's expectations for that date, now is a good time to wave your hands or give me an indication. Okay. So, Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: If you will indulge me, I'm going to move, then, that we continue Item 6, public hearing is continued from September 26, for Latitude Forty Three Subdivision to January the 13th. Overton: Second. Meridian City Council October 14,2025 Page 15 of 57 Simison: Have a motion and a second to continue this item to January 13th. Is there discussion on the motion? Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Real quick. I want to commend our clerk staff -- I know they went over time to communicate again with the residents and make sure that they are aware of that, because I think we have been doing a good job of informing them through our own channels, because they have a good communicated network, I don't think we need the applicant to do any type of paid re-noticing or anything like that. So, just want to commend our staff for a job well done. Simison: Okay. All right. Is there further discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and the item is continued to January 13th. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. 7. Public Hearing for Modena Plaza Subdivision (SHP-2025-0004) by Jordan Moorhouse, located at 3147 Belltower Dr. A. Request: Short Plat to subdivide an existing commercial lot in four (4) separate lots on approximately 1 .59 acres of land in the L-O zoning district. Simison: Okay. All right. With that we will move on to Item 7, which is a public hearing for Modena Plaza Subdivision, SHP-2025-0004. We will open this public hearing with staff comments. Ritter: Good evening, Mayor and Council. So, what we are looking at is a proposed short plat. It's a resubdivision of Lot 3, Block 6 of Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision No. 2. It's consisting of four building lots on 1.59 acres of land in an existing L-O zoning district. So, these are the elevations that -- for the businesses that are being proposed in this location. This is the landscaping plan that they are proposing. This is basically similar to a subdivision that was done to the -- I think it's to the east of this. So, they are just repeating what was done previously. These are the site photos. So, this is the property. You take access off of Bell Tower Drive. It's 3147 West Bell Tower Drive. And this is the previous one. I think it's like Turner Plaza or something like that that was approved previously. So, they are just mimicking what they did there. I did not have any written testimony for this. The applicant is here if you have questions, but I will be more than happy to take any questions that you might have on this application. It's a pretty simple application. They are just dividing a lot into four lots. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions for staff? Then would the applicant like to come forward? Good evening. Meridian City Council October 14,2025 Page 16 of 57 Moorhouse: Good evening. Jordan Moorhouse. 2673 West Tango Creek Drive in Meridian. Like staff said, we -- we did a development just the south of this, Turin Plaza, and we -- we did those four buildings there. When we did that we found a great demand for this type of light office and so we decided to purchase this adjoining lot or adjacent lot and I try to do the same thing there. Like I said, it's been a great need for the community for this -- this type of office space and so we feel like it's a -- it's a good -- a good place for some more commercial construction there. Yeah. Is there any questions for -- for me? Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Thank you, Jordan. Moorhouse: Thank you. Simison: Mr. Clerk, anyone signed up to provide testimony on this item? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, there are no sign ups. Simison: Okay. Is there anybody present that would like to provide testimony on this item, either in the room or online? Seeing no one coming forward or raising their hand, does the applicant waive any final comments? Applicant waives any final comments. Whitlock: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Whitlock. Whitlock: Seeing no one coming forward to offer any additional testimony, I move that we close the public hearing on File No. SHP-2025-0004. Overton: Second. Simison: Have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have been and the public hearing is closed. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Whitlock: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Whitlock. Whitlock: After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File No. SHP-2025-0004 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 14th, 2025. Overton: Second. Meridian City Council October 14,2025 Page 17 of 57 Simison: Have a motion and a second to approve Item 7. Is there any discussion? If not, clerk call the roll. Roll Call: Cavener, yea; Strader, absent; Overton, yea; Little Roberts, yea; Taylor, yea; Whitlock, yea. Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and the item is agreed to. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. 8. 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 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%. Simison: Next item up is Item 8, public hearing for Solara Estate Subdivision, H-2025- 0013. We will open this public hearing with staff comments. Ritter: Okay. Me again. So, this application is for alternative compliance, which was an administration approval, annexation and a preliminary plat. So, this site is .1 -- a little over 15 acres of land. It's zoned RUT and it's located at 1695 East Amity, 4940 and 5050 South Locust Grove Road. So, we are annexing in the LDS church at the corner of Amity and Locust Grove and, then, two lots -- the two lots behind the church. The church is basically coming in as a way for the properties to the south to annex into the city. They are not proposing to do any modifications to their property, they are just assisting the applicant with coming in with annexation, because without the church they don't have a pathway to annexation. So, the plat consists of 19 lots on approximately 9.7 acres. They are proposing alternative compliance along the frontage for the existing home, because with the 25 foot buffer that is required it cannot meet the setback requirements. So, what's being proposed is they put that portion of the landscape buffer in an easement instead of a common lot, but what staff is proposing is the portion that is right in front of the house be reduced to -- be reduced to the 12 and a half feet and, then, the rest of it be the 25 feet, but still within an easement. So, they did submit building elevations with this application and, again, we are asking that a condition be Meridian City Council October 14,2025 Page 18 of 57 placed in the development agreement that requires homes that are along public roadways provide articulation through modulation, bays, banding, porches, balconies, material types and other integrated art -- architectural elements to break up the monotonous wall plains and roof lines that are visible from these public streets. Single family structure -- single family homes will be exempt from this requirement. This is their open space and amenity proposal. One thing that was clarified in the staff report, had put that they had a fire pit, but they are -- they do not have a fire pit. They do have the gazebo and the picnic benches as part of their amenities for the open space that is located here. Again, this is the existing home that is proposed to remain and showing the setback requirements per the alternative compliance for the reduction in the landscaping and the easement for it. Again, this is the church property. The church property as it is does not meet current standards. And, again, they are not proposing to do anything, but they will have to hook up to water and sewer based on annexation requirements. But they are not proposing to do anything else to the church. If they decide to do anything to the church they would have to come in compliance with the parking lot, landscaping, frontage landscaping. But, again, they are not proposing to do anything. One of the things that was talked about is that even though there are no development or modifications being proposed for the property for the -- that the church -- we recommended that the Commission and City Council evaluate the need for a five foot temporary sidewalk within the ACHD right of way on the west and north side of the church property. The sidewalks will provide a pedestrian connection from the south to north and east to west and wrap around to extend the entire length of the property along Amity. Again, this would be part of the annexation of approval, as there are no existing sidewalks along here. So, the Planning Commission felt that it wasn't necessary if road improvements were occurring within the next year or two and if you choose to not move forward with this we will remove this condition from our report. The Planning Commission recommended approval of this application. We had several people that were in opposition of this application. Mark Agenbroad, he felt that the lots should be one acre instead of a half acre. He feels that growth is a concern for this area and would like to see something that fits within the existing area. Bonnie Capelle, she was concerned about losing her view. She has a home -- this home right here. She felt that whatever was going to be built in this area would block her view and she would like a provision to be added that would allow a two story dwelling unit in front of their home -- that would not allow a two story dwelling unit in front of their home. Julie Edwards said that traffic is a concern. Left turns may be an issue. Feels that the rules are being bent with alternative compliance, so that the developer can get what they want. At the church -- she wanted to know if the church sells would the zoning revert to R-2 from R- 8, because the church is requesting R-8 zoning to allow for a church to be there, because they are not allowed in the R-2 zoning district. So, there were no written testimony and the key issues were lot size, loss of view and traffic impacts. The discussion by the Commission was that the future land use map has medium density to the east of the proposed development, which will allow for a natural transition to smaller lots and he said make sure whomever is buying the lots they understand this transition, so that when they come in they are not upset when they start to build that -- that there will be smaller lots next to them. And, again, they were not recommending the temporary sidewalk along the church property on South Locust Grove and Amity. They Meridian City Council October 14,2025 Page 19 of 57 didn't have any outstanding issues for you and we have not received any written testimony since the hearing and at this time I will stand for any questions that you may have. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions for staff? Overton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: Linda, just -- could you go over the sidewalk again? The sidewalk is going to be requested on the north and the west side, a five foot sidewalk? Ritter: So, if you can see my cursor, so it would be here and here to the end of the church property. So, with this development they will be required to put in sidewalks, so a temporary sidewalk along here and along the frontage of the church. Overton: Mr. Mayor, follow up? Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: And maybe this can be addressed by the -- when it's presented as well. But there is usually a lot of times -- in fact, Saturday morning when I went by, because I go down this road all the time, a full length semi parked alongside that church sitting on Locust Grove and if we end up putting a sidewalk in there I just want to make sure as we talk about this this evening there will be no semi parked there on the city sidewalk as this gets annexed into our city. Just want to make sure I put that out there. Thank you. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Linda, can you walk me through kind of what the elevation change is, kind of from where the intersection is at Amity and Locust to where -- I guess the residents would enter into the development? Is there much of a grade change? I just -- I'm over there, again, as well and I'm not intimately familiar, you know, but I -- I know there is lots of hills that kind of converged there and certainly from a traffic safety element with kind of the impact already on Locust Grove, I would like to get some understanding about how the current traffic conditions impact that and if we have any insight about what the redevelopment of that intersection will look like and what, if any, bearing or impact it would have. Ritter: Are we talking about this area? Cavener: I guess I would go from right there, as you would continue to head south on Locust Grove. I don't know if there is an elevation change -- it doesn't look like it to me, Meridian City Council October 14,2025 Page 20 of 57 but I'm not smart enough to understand when there is a grade change, but I feel like that there is. Ritter: Okay. I -- we have someone from ACHD online, so I'm going to see if they can answer that question. Cavener: Great. Troyer: Good Evening Mayor and Members of the Council. This is Kara Leigh Troyer, 5800 North Meeker Avenue. I'm not entirely certain what the elevation change is there on Locust Grove Road. However, within our staff report, we have conditioned that the applicant go forward and do a sight distance analysis for the intersection of their public roadway onto Locust Grove Road to ensure that that is a safe intersection. Any further questions on that? Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Is it -- is it KaraLeigh? Troyer: Yes. Cavener: Thanks for joining us tonight. Are -- are you able to get us the elevation changes? I understand you don't have them in front of you and certainly don't mean to put you on the spot, I'm just -- I recognize what was in the staff report. I guess I'm -- I look at that as a reaction to it. I'm trying to be a little bit more proactive in my understanding before I would be willing to be in favor of an approval. Is that a grade change that you are going to be able to get for us this evening or is that -- are you not able to do that? Troyer: Mayor and Council Member, I believe that that is something that the applicant would have to provide to us and is taken care of during -- is reviewed with our traffic team. That's not something that I have available tonight, but I would be able to get that and get back to you on that if you have further questions. Cavener: Mr. Mayor, maybe one more. Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Can you give the Council just a quick update about what the -- the plans -- I know -- I'm sure they are here in our packet, but the plans to redevelop Locust Grove and Amity at that intersection. What year is that planned for? What is contemplated with that expansion? Meridian City Council October 14,2025 Page 21 of 57 Troyer: Yeah. Mayor and Mr. Council Member, at this point it is scheduled for design from 2023 to 2024, so it has been designed and, then, the land acquisition year is 2029 and there is no scheduled construction at this point. We do have our draft five year plan that is going to be up for adoption soon and within that the design year has been moved up to extend to 2027. At that point, then, the land acquisition year will be 2030 and, again, there is no construction date for this, so it is not a funded improvement, but it is in the five year plan. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Is it a signalized intersection or a roundabout? Troyer: That is a roundabout. Cavener: Okay. One additional question then. Assuming that that roundabout was built and this application would be before us, would the entry -- is the distance between the -- where the roundabout ends in the entrance to this neighborhood begins compliant with ACHD policies? Troyer: Mr. Mayor and Council Member, yes, the distance from the intersection of the roadway to the intersection of Amity and Locust Grove is compliant with policy. And, additionally, that intersection is outside of the scope of the planned improvement project. Cavener: I understand that. I just am trying to look at this -- the totality. So, thank you. Troyer: Uh-huh. Yeah. Of course. Ritter: Mayor? Simison: Yes, Linda. Ritter: Commissioner Cavener, the applicant may have that information for you as far as elevation for that area, because I know the existing house sits up higher and, then, the rest of the property slopes down. So, he will probably have that information for you. Overton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: One last question for KaraLeigh with ACHD. KaraLeigh, my history on this section of road goes back to me being in junior high school riding on a school bus. That's quite a slope coming down Locust Grove and even this last winter when I was over there the pile up of cars coming down that hill was pretty extraordinary one Meridian City Council October 14,2025 Page 22 of 57 morning. They didn't make it to Amity. I'm concerned that if you are going to put a roadway with this many houses in there coming in about halfway down that slope, that there needs to be some form of flashing lights or a warning to drivers that are coming north on Locust Grove that they are about to hit a slope and below that slope is a stop sign. Is that going to be an ACHD responsibility or is that the applicant's responsibility to apply for something? Troyer: Mr. Mayor and Council Member, I believe that if that is for existing traffic, typically that's an issue that is taken care of through our traffic team if that's a concern that is raised through the city or through the neighbors and that's something that can be taken care of typically through that avenue. However, with this development coming in, if that's something that you would like further discussion on, and that's something that the applicant would need to put in as it is pertaining to their development. Overton: Thank you. Simison: Council, any additional questions for staff? Would the applicant like to come forward? Schneider: Good evening. Jadon Schneider. 3770 North Jackie Lane, Boise, with Bronze Bow. I'm the applicant on behalf of the developer and I'm just going to pull this up -- or Linda can. Thank you very much. So, Linda talked about most of the things. just want to kind of briefly go over it. I will try to give a quick application presentation and, then, try to answer as many of the questions that we have or during the report, anyways, but, yes, Solara Estates it's alternative compliance request, annexation and preliminary plat request for the proposed area to be annexed. It is both the north parcel and, then, the two southern parcels, so three parcels each five acres, so 15 acres in total. The north parcel, as Linda said, is the church parcel and the southern two parcels is what would be proposed as Solara Estates Subdivision itself. It's at the corner of Amity and Locust Grove. One thing specific about this site is the landowners live on the property in that southwest corner and they are intending to stay -- if their subdivision is approved stay in that home and be involved in that subdivision process. So, from their point of view they want a subdivision that looks good and works well for the -- this area, because they have to live with it. So, that's something that's a bit unique to this property, which I see as a benefit. The site area specifically for the subdivision itself is just about ten acres -- 9.7 or so. Again, as Linda mentioned, it's in RUT, Rural Urban Transition in Ada county. The annexation proposed would be to bring it into an R-2, which is that low density residential. With the 14 building lots proposed, 13 of them would be new building lots and the average lot size for the site is just about half an acre. It's a little bit more than half an acre. KaraLeigh from ACHD made a couple comments, but, yes, ACHD provided a staff report that provided their support and approval for the development. Just kind of going back. This kind of ties into exactly what was brought up before, but the view portion and the hill coming down right now. Speaking to it from the subdivision point of view, the hill is a benefit to the existing lots right now, because it provides a nice view. The reason that we grabbed this slide and throwing it on here is because the landowners currently right now have a nice view that looks out over to the Meridian City Council October 14,2025 Page 23 of 57 foothills and with the stepping down of this portion of this subdivision it allows for this view corridor and for these homes to be provided in a manner that gives the view step to each of the lots that would be built or the maximum amount of lots that would be built on this. Just kind of touching on this for one comment, one of the things that was brought up in the Planning and Zoning meeting and the neighbor spoke to was concerns about potentially removing a view or keeping away from any sort of existing view for the neighbors. That's not the intent of the developer and I think we have some technical information that should back it up, which kind of loops into other questions involved tonight. The landowner for this parcel is in that southwest corner as mentioned. Their property is at an elevation of about 2,715 feet above sea level. The neighboring parcel to the south, because this is that Locust Grove hill, that is at 2,735. So, they are already about 20 feet higher than the neighbor. And, then, down further from that point, the lot that would provide potentially the largest amount of obstruction to a future view is -- at the finish grade or it would be at a grade around 2,701 feet. So, they are 34 feet higher at the finished ground. So, just at ground level they are already 35 feet higher. So, one other thing that I just wanted to mention -- if you go back to the street view portion that we grabbed as a screen grab -- is that neighbor -- their house is elevated there. So, not only is the lawn elevation 34 feet higher than the potential future lot, they also have a raised patio or a raised deck area, if you want to call it. So, we really feel like there is no obstruction of any views for existing neighbors, which I know people love and it would allow for a potential nice product to be built in the subdivision area where views can be protected. One of the comments that was brought up in Planning and Zoning was is there a way to mention to these homeowners that the land to the -- further to the east is a medium density residential and, hey, people might build in your backyard. Can you understand that you are buying a view right now, is there an opportunity to that -- hard to -- hard to have action to it. We would like to and -- and maybe it's, hey, talking to the realtor who is selling the homes and saying, hey, just so you know this is coming up, but it is a bit of a tale as old as time, someone buys a home and next thing you know somebody wants to develop and they say, hey, I just bought this. So, it's something that the developer would like to do. It's just hard to provide action to it and say, hey, we can really do this anyways. More to the point of this subdivision, we think that this subdivision has adequate view and protects the views to the neighbor. So, we have a bit more concrete information on that going back to that question from the neighbor there, as opposed to what we had at Planning and Zoning. Just kind of overview of where this site sits, just trying to show that it's an area contiguous to development. There is subdivisions around. We feel that this site, even though it is an annexation, isn't annexing as an island, there is subdivisions in the general immediate vicinity. As mentioned this would be a low density residential, which is in the future land use map for the city, next to that medium density residential. So, again, going back to the idea of contiguous development, going from medium density into that low density, having that nice buffer or that nice transition zone between those two zones right there. Just speaking to traffic considerations, what KaraLeigh was speaking to about what is happening in this area in the capital improvement plan and the five year work plan. ACHD's improvements in this area would include a five lane widening of Amity Road, three lane widening of Locust Grove Road, and, then, the big -- the big hot topic would be the multi-lane roundabout proposed at the intersection of Meridian City Council October 14,2025 Page 24 of 57 Locust Grove and Amity right there. I did speak to the designer for ACHD and they were able to provide this graphic, which kind of gives a better -- a better idea of what's happening in this area. This shows the roundabout which they are proposing. This is what would be built out there. This is how they would annex -- or this how ACHD would purchase the right of way area and make this fit for this specific intersection. You can see that the proposal for the frontage improvements across the church property are included in the ACHD portion and that was part of the reason at Planning and Zoning that we discussed is this something that we could allow ACHD to handle in regard to that five foot pathway in front of Amity and Locust Grove for the church property? Is this something where we can allow ACHD to handle it? If we come in, put it in and, then, ACHD says, okay, well, now we need to tear it up, because we need to actually buy a bunch of right of way and put all this in. So, that was the comment there. The other comment on top of that was the pedestrian access in this area in this immediate vicinity is minimal, so providing that five foot wide asphalt pathway wouldn't serve that many residents. So, the developer going back to it, they are not trying to skirt the responsibility of providing pathways or providing frontage, it's just there is really not that many people that we envision using this pathway and, two, we think that ACHD is going to be in here building a much better, more improved intersection and tearing it out in the, you know, near future, at least near future in regard to what ACHD works on. So, that's -- that was the comment there and that's where Planning and Zoning agreed and said, yes, we understand that this is something we could go with or remove from the application item. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Jadon, can we jump back real quick? And I know you have got time. I will make sure that -- Schneider: Yeah, of course. Cavener: -- you get time. But just -- I think this slide is helpful to me. Can you use your mouse and kind of indicate on that roundabout where the entrance to your neighborhood will -- will begin? Schneider: Yes. It's down generally in this area. Cavener: That's -- that's my kind of eyeballing it, so I appreciate you commenting, Schneider: Of course. Of course. And I will come back to this side, because I do want to touch more on that -- on the comments and questions there. Open space. Generally, the idea would be to have that centralized open space, allow for the residents to use it or potential future residents to use it. Kind of go over it quickly here for the alternative compliance request. Linda touched on it. The idea in originally putting this site together, was meeting all of the conditions that ACHD had and the city had which are Meridian City Council October 14,2025 Page 25 of 57 ACHD wants a 50 foot wide right of way and the city has requested a 25 foot landscape buffer. If you give up both 50 feet to ACHD and 25 feet to the city, then, the existing home gets squeezed down into a situation where their front yard and their driveway is no longer usable. You can kind of see this is at the maximum. If the city said we needed a 25 foot landscape buffer, and ACHD needed 50 feet of right of way, this is what would happen. There would be two issues here. One, the existing home would lose -- basically lose access to its driveway, because the access point would get too tight and, two, the home would no longer be conforming to a setback. So, in order to provide this as an approval the city would have to approve some sort of reduced setback for this existing home. So, the alternative compliance that's being proposed is this idea of give ACHD all 50 feet of their right of way, then, provide a 12 and a half foot landscape buffer easement, as opposed to a true common lot, which solves the issue of potentially having a setback issue and, then, in -- because we have reduced that 25 feet down to 12 and a half feet for the landscape easement, increase the number of trees in that area and increase the landscaping. So, going back to the idea of alternative compliance, the developer is trying to comply with the idea of, hey, here is a landscape buffer that buffers the street from the existing home or new homes and this is how they are trying to meet it alternatively. So, that's basically what's happening here. Happy to talk on it more, but, generally, we have tried to work with staff to come up with an idea that we think works well on that. Did I have any more? No. This was this one. Again, Linda showed these elevations. So, simple elevations there and, then, here is the side view. I will just try to touch on some of the comments or questions that we had right away to start with it. Going back to the elevation difference here, there is about 50 feet of elevation difference from the south side of the property all the way to the north side of property. So, talking about Locust Grove, how steep is that hill, for that grade of that hill from the top to the bottom has about a 50 feet -- 50 feet of fall in that situation and, then, going back to the ACHD comment, there is a comment in the staff report. It is the traffic engineering letter and I'm just going to try to read from it, so I didn't have it in the report, but I would have, if I had known we were going to talk about it. It should be at least in the applicant material. But generally it comes from the traffic engineer and it speaks to the distance of the intersection and just quoting from the traffic engineer when they did the review from our field observations, placing the proposed subdivision access onto Locust Grove roughly 550 feet south of Amity Road intersection, will provide safer site distances for vehicles entering and exiting the subdivision. It was also observed that vehicles traveling northbound along Locust Grove Road along the Solara Estates proposed frontage were typically slowing down as they approached the stop controlled intersection with Amity Road. So, we did have a traffic engineer review the intersection and the distance there and, again, going back to what Kara Leigh with ACHD mentioned, it is in ACHD's staff report that in order for this intersection that we are proposing to be approved the plan reviewer, the design reviewer for -- plan reviewer for ACHD, would need to read that letter, agree with that letter, and say, yes, this distance works. Otherwise, we can move it further to the south closer to the hill. However, the idea coming from the traffic engineer is separating that -- that -- or increasing that distance closer to the south side of Locust Grove or the property along Locust Grove adds more variation between the crest of the hill and the actual intersection itself. So, separating it from the crest and having it down at the bottom of the intersection is the balancing act of Meridian City Council October 14,2025 Page 26 of 57 what we are trying to do in that situation. So, there is a separation distance trying to meet from ACHD for the intersection and a separation distance from the crest of the hill that we are trying to meet as well. The traffic engineer who reviewed it did put their stamp on it and say that they believe that this is a safe site distance. One of the comments about coming down the hill that was brought up earlier was is there something we can do. If that's something where we would want to put, hey, a flashing stop ahead at the south side of the intersection if ACHD allowed it, that's something that we could do to provide some sort of warning or heads up that as you crest the hill. It's a bit of an ACHD call, since it's in their roadway and their right of way. But that's something that would be maybe potentially a viable solution to adding that. I believe I answered the questions. I may have missed one. And with that I would be happy to answer anymore questions or questions that I may have missed. So thank you. Simison: Council, any questions for the applicant? Overton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: I don't want to sound like I'm beating a dead horse. I like a lot of what you have got here. I like the lot sizes. I'm just very happy it's not multi-family. What I'm most concerned about when I look at this section of Locust Grove -- and maybe, again, this goes back to KaraLeigh at ACHD -- is we know we are going to get a roundabout, but at some point they are going to redo that section of Locust Grove from the roundabout south to Lake Hazel and I believe the current plan is this is going to go to three lanes. But as I watched ACHD on every one of these similar roadways where you have got a slant coming down that hill is part of what their engineers do in planning is they try to level that out -- to take that hill out and make it more level. Same thing they are doing right now from Lake Hazel on Eagle Road coming down. They took most of that hill out. You are right in the middle of that with a driveway that's going to be coming up on Locust Grove with the fact that if they rebuild that and raise that roadway to level out that hill what kind of impact is that going to have on you and I will leave that in KaraLeigh's hands as well, because I see that as being kind of an issue for you coming down the road. Schneider: Figuratively and literally. Mr. Mayor, Council Member Overton, thank you for that and please -- I don't mean to be rude grabbing my phone. I'm trying to grab an e- mail that I had. We did reach out to KaraLeigh about the actual roundabout itself to try to say, hey, you know, what do we need to account for there? I will -- I can try to find it if you need it, but generally their comment was, hey, we are 50 percent designed at the moment already, so we believe that they are going to have a good idea of what elevation they want that roadway to be and what -- if they are changing the grade what that will be and I do believe that that's the type of thing that the design reviewer for ACHD would analyze and say, hey, your intersection is too low at this stage to meet our roundabout. We are going to need to come up with something that allows us to marry these two up. So, with the fact that ACHD has already -- is already steps and leaps and Meridian City Council October 14,2025 Page 27 of 57 bounds ahead of where we are at on the design phase, because we haven't started the design phase, I believe that this is the type of thing that would get handled at the design review phase with ACHD. Simison: Seeing no other -- Whitlock: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Whitlock. Whitlock: Just a quick question. On the aerial view that we had previously it looked like there was a drainage going north to south through your property or maybe south to north, I'm not sure, but there is definitely a slope in the middle of that pasture area. What impact does that have on the developability, if that's a word, of that property? Schneider: The biggest impact that it would have would mostly be on this lot that we are speaking of that -- to not block the view and it would be the fact that this lot would have a most likely reduced building envelope or retaining wall at the back in order to build a lot that really has a nice flat building pad. The idea would be in this stage build the road out to a finished grade that matches the existing property level and, then, try to level that ground around that. So, for this lot mostly can this lot find a lot -- find a pad elevation that works really well across the entire site. You get into the hillside drainage thing and you can do things like step level homes and you can do that side, but with this site, just because of where it's at, generally this building pad is the only one that would generally be affected and it's not as affected as it appears in comparison, because the fact that the -- you can kind of see the slope -- the contour lines as they come around the existing home start to gradually even out as they get to the actual lot in question itself. So, we -- I believe that it's a non-issue or it's an issue that can be solved pretty standardly for this type of subdivision. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: I have got another question maybe for -- for Kara Leigh if she is still on and at least that would give the applicant an opportunity to respond if needed. KaraLeigh, are you still on with us? Troyer: Mr. Mayor, Councilman, yes. Cavener: Great. What is ACHD's policy on length from a roundabout, like the type of roundabout that would be proposed, to the entrance of the neighborhood? Is it 500 feet? Is it 300 feet? Is it 750 feet? A thousand? Help me understand what the distance is. Meridian City Council October 14,2025 Page 28 of 57 Troyer: Mr. Mayor, Councilman, yes, earlier I misspoke saying that it was compliant and to clarify, the roadway offset for a local roadway that's intersecting Locust Grove Road from the nearest other intersection would be 660 feet. This does not meet that offset. However, we approved it due to the concerns regarding slope, because if it was pushed further away from that intersection, then, the slope would become more of an issue. So, it is 660 feet and it is only about over 500. Cavener: Okay. Thank you. I don't think I have anymore questions, Mr. Mayor. Simison: Okay. All right. Thank you very much. This is a public hearing. Mr. Clerk, do we have people signed up on this item? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we do. Codi Bills. Simison: When your name is called please come forward and state your name and address for the record and be recognized for three minutes. Good evening. Bills: Good evening, Mr. Mayor and Council Members. My name is Codi Bills. I live at 5060 South Locust Grove Road. My husband and I are here in favor of the project. We are actually the residents that reside on this project and we are Idaho natives and we have raised our boys there on this property. We bought this beautiful piece of property so that we could teach our kids farming and -- and have some land and enjoy the area and we are surrounded by wonderful neighbors who have been there way longer than we have and we are in the position where we -- you know, we are done with farming. Our boys are moving and leaving the nest and we thought it would be a nice way to kind of transition to our next step of life and create a neighborhood that we are actually a part of. As you can imagine since we moved there we have been hit up by developers nonstop and our neighbors have experienced the same thing and so when it came to our decision we actually went out and interviewed and found a developer that would work with us and create a community that we wanted to be part of that would be a nice transition, because we know the density is all around and so when we had our neighborhood meeting all of our community around us was very pleasantly surprised and very grateful that we were doing low density, because we wanted to be mindful of the traffic. We want to be mindful of the views, as Jadon just mentioned and so, yeah, we are in favor of it and we believe that the traffic issues that are going on now are due to, you know, Eagle Road being closed and all the construction and with it being low density and such little homes it's not going to make a huge impact on the traffic and we just want to be good neighbors and create a really nice neighborhood, low density, that kind of -- something that was mentioned in the Planning and Zoning meeting is that the members of the committee there we are grateful that it was low density, so it kind of transitions into the high density around the area. So, we just ask that it gets passed and that we can work together as the community and we are just grateful that we are ahead of you guys tonight. So, thank you. Simison: Thank you, Codi. Council, any questions? Meridian City Council October 14,2025 Page 29 of 57 Johnson: Mr. Mayor, that was everyone. Simison: Okay. Is there anybody else present that would like to provide testimony on this item or if you are online you can use the raise your hand feature. Seeing no one raising their hand online or coming forward, would the applicant like to close? Schneider: Only if there are any further questions, but, otherwise, thank you for your time and -- time from staff as well. Thanks for Linda working so hard on this. Thanks. Whitlock: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Whitlock. Whitlock: Maybe not a question for you, but for staff. There is a lot of comments about how you have worked well with the church and they are your path to annexation here. I didn't see anything in the staff report that the church has submitted a letter of support or agreed to annexation. Linda, is that something that we require and did I just miss it? Ritter: Mayor, Council Member, so the church was a part of our pre-application meeting when we met on this project and they provided the affidavit of interest for the application to move forward on their behalf. So, they are part of this. They just allowed Jadon and his group to do the work. Whitlock: Thank you. Overton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: Just a quick staff clear up. On Commission changes to staff recommendation, this is not recommending the temporary sidewalk along the church property. So, is it your intention that we don't require the sidewalk? Ritter: If you choose not to. That was their recommendation. Overton: Thank you. Whitlock: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Taylor. Taylor: To follow up on Councilman Overton's question, was it P&Z's recommendation not to require if there was not to be roadway improvements within a year? Was that -- wasn't that more of the -- what it was recommended? Meridian City Council October 14,2025 Page 30 of 57 Ritter: Mr. Mayor, Council Member, so based on the testimony by the applicant at the last -- at the P&Z hearing, it sounded like the project was already funded and would be done soon, but based on the conversation with ACHD today -- so, it's designed. There -- they still have to get right of way, but there is no construction schedule at this time. Taylor: Mr. Mayor, quick follow up and a comment. So, if we didn't require the sidewalks around the church, but this -- this project would have to have those sidewalks put in, you would have a hundred -- or however many feet long it is of just sidewalks, just -- there. Right. That's kind of what we are looking at if we did not require the sidewalks around the church potentially. Ritter: Correct. When the roundabout comes in ACHD will be providing sidewalks along there, but until that happens there won't be any. Yeah. Even if it was just for the Locust Grove side having a little something going up. But, again, it is your call on how you want this to happen. Taylor: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Taylor. Taylor: Is the applicant paying for those temporary sidewalks around the church? Ritter: Correct. Taylor: Okay. Simison: So, maybe just to highlight that one point, I know one mile north of this we have a temporary sidewalk on the exact same corner that when ACHD did the roundabout they did not put in permanent sidewalk. Whatever happened during that process make sure that doesn't happen in this process. That does say as a -- as something. So, just for note. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: I'm happy to at least kick off some deliberation, just kind of at least share where I -- I'm sitting right now. I came in -- many of my Council Members are very excited about this project. Lower density. Honestly, the layout is a good use of the elevation. Small impact to road network that's constrained, but will be improved. Low Impact on -- on the surrounding schools. It checks a lot of boxes for me. The piece that I am -- I'm struggling to get past is how both the residents of this neighborhood and our community will be impacted by -- by an entrance that doing crude math and a Google map looks like that vehicles will enter and exit as the roundabout is essentially splitting and our -- our good Mayor has been very vocal and he and I have had some very robust debates about the benefits or non-benefits of roundabouts. I have traditionally been a Meridian City Council October 14,2025 Page 31 of 57 fan, but every day I drive past Locust Grove and Victory at that roundabout and see an accident. Every day I see an accident. I have been a witness to two accidents, because I -- I have been there when they have occurred and so I'm very sensitive to the traffic impacts that they have and they are certainly going to be accelerated by the elevation of -- of Locust Grove there at -- at Amity. So, I love every part about this project, but the access and I don't know how you fix that, but it is to me, tonight, too high of a barrier, because this is one of those things that I live just down the street from here; right? That I can envision ten years from now driving past there to go to the library and whatnot and there is an accident right there and it's going to be the people that are going to buy these lots and it's going to be our residents that live in South Meridian that are going to be involved and I just -- I don't want to create what I think is maybe already a challenging issue with roundabouts in this part of town with having this entrance be on an elevated access. So, I'm happy to hear feedback from my -- from my colleagues, but I'm -- I'm really struggling to be supportive this night, although I love every other part about it. Simison: Well, since my roundabout views were brought up and 1, too, am a stone's throw from this intersection, I don't know that I have an opinion about the distance. just want to say thank you to ACHD for finally making the decision on what this is going to be. You know, that -- that was a big hang up that we have had, that I have had is, you know, the Iimboness of what this intersection -- was it going to be an intersection or was it going to be a roundabout and I have asked ACHD to correct me when I spoke with the director if I'm wrong, but if a roundabout goes in at this location this will be the longest non-hill road with roundabouts in maybe Ada county, because you will have three miles of roundabouts, which is quite a huge feat, because that's what they said they want to do is actually create a network of roundabouts. So, unless we are going to go back and say we think another type of intersection is better, I have to defer to the experts that they said this is the best location. Over time our residents will figure out how to navigate roundabouts. I hope. My children included as the case may be. But, you know, this is one of those things where this intersection, irregardless, is going to be a challenge. You know, the -- I'm not so concerned about this elevation, because this one's pretty -- this one's pretty -- you have the crest all the way down. It's a lot longer over down, you know, length versus coming off of the other direction, which is much steeper. So, the -- the elevation changes, the location, I'm not as worried about it once people learn how to effectively navigate the roundabout issue, but this is what you get. You do get more accidents irregardless. They are just not as bad and can hopefully get cleared up sooner. So, just food for thought. That's all I got tonight is food for thought. Taylor: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Taylor. Taylor: I want to clarify just this comment Councilman Cavener made about the -- where this actually intersects. Linda, could you go back to the slide that showed sort of the roundabout design that the applicant had and I don't know if it's to scale or if it's exact, but can you put the cursor, to the best of your guess, about where the access Meridian City Council October 14,2025 Page 32 of 57 point -- about right there? So, where does the road actually start to split to -- for the roundabout; do you know? Anybody? Is it going to be this -- Ritter: This should be your median right here. Taylor: So, the orange would be the median and, then, where you see the two yellow lines that's just kind of indicating the -- there is no median in the roadway, it's just sort of -- Ritter: Striping it looks like. Taylor: Yeah. Okay. And maybe KaraLeigh mentioned this from ACHD, but the distance from the roundabout to the access point -- they were okay with that. That met their standards. Or no? Ritter: It didn't meet the standards. It's a little shorter than the standards. The standard is 660. This is just over 500 she said. Taylor: About a hundred feet. I -- I'm trying to get a better sense what the difference is between what they want to see and what they recommend and what we are actually seeing on the map. Ritter: So, the recommendation from ACHD is that the distance would be 660 feet, but this location is just a little over 500 feet, so it does not meet the requirement. But they were okay with this location based on the elevations. Taylor: Then somewhat related on -- do we know what the roadway network is supposed to look like in the future? Because it looked like on the east side of the property that roadway continues on. Do we have any idea where that would continue through and connect to either Amity or somewhere else? Is there any -- any indication or do we have any understanding of what that might look like in the future? I know that's kind of an unfair question for you guys, but I'm just wondering if we have that. Ritter: So, Mr. Mayor, Council Member Taylor, we are hoping that in the future that these roads line up and, then, come this way eventually. Taylor: Thank you. That's kind of what I was thinking. There has got to be that -- obviously there is a design here to have the -- another access point out. Probably in 20 years. Ritter: Right. That's why you see the dead ends. It's more of the cul-de-sac, so they can be extended in the future. Whitlock: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Whitlock. Meridian City Council October 14,2025 Page 33 of 57 Whitlock: Linda, just looking back at the staff report and the access points for the church and maybe this will get to Councilman Cavener's point, it looks like there are three access points on the church property; is that correct? Two on to Amity on the north and one onto Locust Grove, which would be on the southwest corner of that property. Ritter: Correct. Whitlock: ACHD is recommending, at least looking at the staff report, that one of those be eliminated; is that correct? The conditional use permit approved by Ada county required the applicant to eliminate the northwestern access. Ritter: That was when they received their conditional use permit through the county. They were supposed to get rid of one of those access points and it doesn't look like they did. But that was when they were in the county with their -- Whitlock: It -- it looks like -- Mr. Mayor, follow up. Simison: Councilman Whitlock. Whitlock: It looks like there may have been an access point right on the corner of Amity and Locust Grove, right in that northwest that is now landscaped and buffered off. So, it used to be four access points, but -- Ritter: Correct. Whitlock: -- no concern about the southwest access point onto Locust Grove by the county in their CUP process and I would assume there haven't been really significant issues egressing or entering the church parking lot on that southwest corner at this point. Ritter: Correct. Whitlock: Mr. Mayor, I guess just knowing the -- the kind of traffic that would be there on a Sunday and evenings during the week, I'm not sure that 19 homes would generate significantly more traffic and that excess -- or that access point on the church parking lot is certainly closer than the 660 feet. I guess I don't have as much heartburn about another access point a couple hundred feet away from the current access point on the southwest corner of the church property. I just don't think you are going to generate the kind of traffic that would be generated 200 feet or 150 feet to the north coming and going from the church. It's just my observation. Simison: I don't know that three wrongs make a right, but, again, Victory and Locust Grove, the access points are as close, if not closer, from the off of Coastline. It's definitely below the 660 feet. You have another access point to the north off of Sagemore. Just to the north it's got to be within 200 feet. I don't -- I'm not -- again, we Meridian City Council October 14,2025 Page 34 of 57 see accidents there all the time. I'm not going to say that's -- those are the right things, but, you know -- Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Just a quick -- again using a Google measuring device, Coastline to the center of the roundabout of Victory is 750 feet. So, it's actually further distance than what is -- what is being proposed here and, again, eyeballing it again from where kind of the applicant demonstrated where the access would be doesn't fall within 600 feet. It's closer to 450 and I think that's kind of where my heartburn is, you know, and perhaps this is, I think, a good question to the applicant is if they are going to accept a condition if that entrance to the neighborhood, you know, doesn't exist less than 600 feet I could maybe be open to that idea. I just -- I don't want to create a problem here and I think it's -- it's less of a Sunday issue. I look at it as a 5:30 on a Tuesday issue with residents that are headed to south Meridian and while the resident is trying to get in and can't because traffic is also headed northbound, that you have got some traffic problems, or in the morning someone's trying to rush out there and now you have got an accident before you get to the roundabout. Overton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: You know, first flush I really like this and the problem is the more I'm -- I'm looking at it I got concerns and part of that is how close it is to the roundabout. We have had decisions we have made on projects before where initially when we look at it and we look at just this one we think that looks really good. That's just fine. But we are going to put a stub street to the east and we have to be thinking in our minds sitting up here on the dais, that that could develop and push that much more traffic out onto Locust Grove or these folks could go out onto Amity and I think we need to remember that this church is coming in as part of this annexation, so these other two lots would come in and now we could see that property to the east as well come into the city or have an application. Could already be something they are watching tonight. I can't help but look at that and think about how that whole corner is going to develop and how much residential we are going to plug in that close to the corner. I'm still confused on the sidewalk issue, if we are not going to require sidewalks around the church, then, it's an absolute no go for me, because I would never approve sidewalks that end up going nowhere once they leave this applicant's property. I think we would be looked at as fools trying to be staring at this in ten years if the roadway projects are delayed and we still have dirt on the side of the roads, because we never did the right thing and required the sidewalks when we had the opportunity, which is annexation, and that's what we are here for tonight. So, I'm not in favor right now, unless something changes, at least in what I'm told about how the sidewalk situation is going to be. I know I have to trust the experts from ACHD if they think it's going to be fine when it deals with the elevation. I Meridian City Council October 14,2025 Page 35 of 57 think when they take that old rural two lane Locust Grove and they make it a three lane, which is in their plans, it's going to raise that road bed, because I have watched them do it other places. I watched them do it at my subdivision to the point that I have got quite a lip trying to get out of it and I think you are going to be dealing with that down the road, because they are going to try to mitigate that slope going down that hill. That's just a matter of timing, because we don't know when that road is going to get built. That's all I got. Taylor: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Taylor. Taylor: I think the characteristics of the site probably don't allow for really a different access point, unless the applicant can show us I think this is -- the access point we are seeing is probably what -- the only option probably is, unless there is another way the site could be redesigned. I know we still -- the public hearing is still open, so maybe we could ask the question if -- is there -- I mean if you want to come on up and let me ask you this question. Is there another way to design the site to allow that access point to be further south? Schneider: The simple answer is yes. But in my view the correct answer is no, going back to the constraint being the roundabout intersection and ACHD's request to push an intersection as far away from an intersection -- existing intersection on these collector roads as possible. Just to clarify, 550 feet for that intersection there -- ACHD is 650. The -- ACHD is asking to push that intersection back as far as possible for the site access point, because that is a safety concern for them. They say we want to get these intersections as far back as possible, so that we can provide safe entrance, left turn, right turn, however, from an intersection. However, the other constraint is the fact that Locust Grove has that crest there and with the crest there is a sight distance conflict that takes place. So, when you get into the traffic engineering side of it all, which I only took traffic engineering one in college, so I'm not an expert and I would never claim to be. However, where it goes into is the idea that as the car crests the hill they need a certain amount of sight distance in order to crest the hill, see over the hood of your car and see something in front of you. So, the idea is this is the balancing act between pushing the intersection as far back from the intersection as possible, so that there is adequate spacing forACHD's policy and, then, also the safety issue of can you add that distance on the other side away from the crest of the hill as far as possible. And that's just looking back to why we had the traffic engineer, who actually took way more classes than I did on it, study it and say this is the best location to have it, because it should meet both setback standards. Going back to it again, ACHD in their staff report did say that this would need to be reviewed by their internal traffic design reviewer. They would need to say, yes, we concur with everything. This would make sense there. So, the answer being, yes, you could put the intersection anywhere. No, the intersection is most likely the best in this space based off of the traffic engineer. So, yes and no, I think there. Thank you. Meridian City Council October 14,2025 Page 36 of 57 Taylor: Yeah. That answered my question. Mr. Mayor, I will just -- that's very helpful. Thank you. Just some of my thinking here. So, we are going to have a roundabout. I don't think we are going to be having a different type of intersection. So, this problem doesn't change with -- necessarily. I mean this -- this property has this unique characteristics that we are discussing and debating tonight will be true today as it will be in five years or ten years or whatever down the future. I also look at when you -- this map right here it kind of helps you see -- you know, when you stub that road through how many more homes, potentially, would you bring in? Clearly you will have some, but they will also have an access -- or an exit point onto Amity Road. There is going to be other ways of flowing and it's not like we are looking at hundreds of acres that -- a potential development that would come out that -- that roadway that's being proposed to be developed within this subdivision. So, I appreciate the explanation on kind of finding that balance is within under the 660 feet, which I understand why that's a concern, but it feels like smarter people than me have said this is probably -- with this unique property this is the best you can probably do. I'm comfortable I think with -- with how that's proposed, though I certainly may not be smart enough to understand how the roadway grading might be different, but that might be -- that's clearly going to come after this property is probably developed, you know, with -- ACHD doesn't have funding planned to do any construction until I think you said 2029 or 2030, if I'm recalling correctly. Well, actually, it's not even funded yet. It's not funded yet. So, I asked myself, well, if not this, then what? I don't know that the then what changes much from this. I don't -- I don't see what you do differently to give us, frankly, a housing product that we would like more of. These half acres, larger homes, this is -- this is kind of nice this part of town. It matches our future land use with the low density residential. We want to see that kind of stuff. So, if not this, then, what are we going to have? ACHD says they are okay with that and the traffic studies are saying this is how you would lay this out. I'm comfortable enough with that. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Council Member Taylor brings up very fair and valid questions and I think the -- the hard answer is probably the right answer, which is you have got to rely on development to the east to come in first with that kind of interconnectivity that exists with some of the neighborhoods that are already there off of Amity. This, you know, is kind of a weird, small, new annexation, but kind of functions a little bit like in-fill in that it's reliant I think on some other development to occur. Jadon, maybe just a question for you and your team. You recognize, right, we try to work collaboratively and find the right path forward. Five hundred and fifty feet, would you guys also accept a condition that would make your entrance to your neighborhood right-in, right-out? Schneider: Most likely. It does get a bit tough if somebody wants to go southbound on Locust Grove or the right-in, right-out -- the trouble with the right-in, right-out is in order for someone to turn into that intersection without that roundabout to the south there -- I think if there was a way to do it it would be potentially when that roundabout is Meridian City Council October 14,2025 Page 37 of 57 completed it allows that right-in, right-out, so someone could, then, travel southbound exiting the site, because they could travel northbound, right in and there. So, it might be a bit of a clause, that might be the way to do it, say, hey, as soon as that roundabout is done this needs to be, then, converted to a right-in, right-out. It's to allow somebody to come in. But, then, it still goes back to the idea of people trying to get into the intersection coming from the northbound, headed southbound, turning into that intersection. Gets tough unless they go all the way and loop -- if there is an -- you know, an existing roundabout on the south it would work great, because, then, yeah, you have a longer commute, but you do it. So, it's a bit tough. Like, yes, but in theory it works great. It might have some clauses that might help it. Cavener: Mr. Mayor, follow up. Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Appreciate kind of the thought of like, hey, let's get that -- let's do that when the roundabout happens. So, let's for a minute look into our crystal ball; right? We heard from ACHD 2029, maybe; right? This project's ridiculously successful, right? As soon as you announce your lots are pre-sold, because everybody wants this type of housing product in this part of Meridian. You build. Everything's long gone and done by 2028, 2029, roundabout doesn't get built to 2032, how does the city come back and get this right-in, right-out done? You guys are done, moved on to many more successful projects, your residents are happy, and yet this issue remains without a mechanism for the city to kind of enforce. Schneider: I think what happens in those scenarios is ACHD would be in charge of the road and what's in their right of way and if -- and KaraLeigh can -- if she's still on and hopefully she is not bored to death with my talking about what she says or not. I think what happens in those scenarios is the city goes to ACHD and says, hey, we have a problem that we need to address. This is a point that we would like to handle. Can -- ACHD, can you do something about this intersection? So, yes, it does get tricky in that scenario to say, hey, can we pin this to the developer and can the developer provide some sort of appeasement to it. I think what happens right now is ACHD has reviewed it and said we are good with it at this point and there -- I think, you know, the ideal scenario in a right-in, right-out is the parcel to the east, the 20 acres or so to the east develops, and, then, all of a sudden there is, hey, there is a great secondary access somewhere else. You know, this developer doesn't own that land, they -- yeah. If it was a master planned community it would be a much easier way to say this -- this access is very limited. We can't make this access work for two lane or something like that. Cavener: Just for your -- sorry, Mr. Mayor. Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: I don't know where the rest of the Council is. This has been a good conversation. I think if I were to be supportive it would be a condition you guys would Meridian City Council October 14,2025 Page 38 of 57 need to do it. You would probably need to do it with development of the neighborhood. I want to make sure I'm being real transparent with you. I hear what you are saying on be great later on. I don't want to -- again, I won't -- I won't be here at that time to, then, somebody remember to say, hey, ACHD, the Council talked about this seven years ago. Go build this. They are going to say, well, you should have conditioned that if that was something that you wanted. So, just trying to be upfront with you. Like if -- if I were to be supportive it would be based on a condition that you guys would build this right-in, right-out upon construction development of your neighborhood. Schneider: Can we flesh it out a little bit more? Just with it -- I don't want to -- you know, if that's okay. I guess the intersection to the south -- so, Amity, Locust Grove, if anyone remembers what the intersection of the south would be, that one further down Locust Grove. Simison: Lake Hazel is already a roundabout. Schneider: And so that's a roundabout in that scenario. In that scenario the ask of the lot owners would be instead of making a left-hand turn -- you are traveling southbound on Locust Grove, instead of making a left-hand turn into your intersect -- into your subdivision here you have to travel a quarter mile, three quarter mile down, turn around and get into it. I guess if it's between a denial of the subdivision and a right-in, right-out, there is probably the idea that a right-in, right-out would be -- would be agreeable, you know, potentially. My disagreement might be different with it. But, yes, if it -- it was a -- this is the death penalty or you can take this plea deal, we are probably taking the plea deal on that one. Yeah. All right. Thank you. Yes. Little Roberts: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilwoman Little Roberts. Little Roberts: Mr. Mayor. Council. I am really liking this development. I think it's -- we don't have enough of these. I think that we get a lot of demand for this and I love seeing -- excuse me -- the generational, the family that farmed it, that raised their kids, that are still staying there. I think all of that is about as good as it gets. Little concerned about the road. You know, I wish it was longer. I'm sorry. It's allergy season for me. That we don't have the full 660 feet that ACHD would like to see, but with that slope I certainly understand their concern. My concern with making a right-in, right-out is I have seen so many people lately when they can't get to where they want to with their intersection, are making turns in the middle between intersections and I think that -- especially when it probably really wouldn't be needed to start with until that roundabout got in it wouldn't be convenient, I think we just encourage people to do what's convenient if it's really not the right thing and that's not going clear to the roundabout to get turned around and so at -- at this point where ACHD didn't bring it up, I would be fine with just leaving it as it is and -- and move forward with this development. Not sure about the sidewalks to be honest. I don't see creating sidewalks that are going nowhere and, hopefully, then, Meridian City Council October 14,2025 Page 39 of 57 when ACHD puts the roundabout in, then, we have nice sidewalks instead of temporary sidewalks. Taylor: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Taylor. Taylor: Unless Council wants to continue to discuss and ask questions, I would like to make a motion to close the public hearing on Item 8. Overton: Second. Simison: Have a motion and second to close the public hearing. Is there any discussion on the motion? If not all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and the public hearing is closed. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Simison: A lot of really good discussion. This is kind of a hard one given some of the circumstances, but I want to focus on what I think is really good about this. First off I think it's a great story. I love that you can come, you can have a piece of property, you can raise your family there, you can then -- then evolve into the next phase, what that looks like. We believe in personal property rights and the ability to have control of our -- our future and our destiny and I really -- I really think that we should be trying our best to work to help the citizens of Meridian, Ada county, Idaho, to -- to live that and to flesh that out. So, to me I think that -- that is something important to consider. This is a housing type that we don't see a lot of that I think we want to see more of. This is a great part of the city that is -- hopefully we can see more of that, but I like how the property is laid out. I think the applicant's tried to accommodate the neighbors really well. I think that the way they have designed the development makes sense. I think it's good. I think they have done the best that they can. And, frankly, I don't really see what would be different in the future with what we may see here. So, I hate to stand in the way of something that we see would be there. So, given that ACHD has not indicated that this is a major problem where the access point is and that we have done our best to find that middle ground, I think that bodes well for this application. I won't make a motion yet if there is other Council Members that want to continue to discuss this a little bit now that we are -- we have closed the public hearing, but I will be making a motion to approve this application at the appropriate time. Whitlock: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Whitlock. Whitlock: I would just echo a lot of what Councilman Taylor said and if not this, then what and that what doesn't get any better than what we have here I believe. So, I'm -- I'm also in the same camp of leaning on the expertise of the Ada County Highway Meridian City Council October 14,2025 Page 40 of 57 District that have looked at this, looked at the crest of the hill, balanced the safety concerns, as well as the ingress and egress into this property and -- and signed off on that access point where -- where it's proposed. So, I have to rely on the experts from -- from that standpoint. And, then, as well, you know, if we have got concerns about access on Locust Grove, then, we probably ought to have concerns about the church's ingress and egress there on Locust Grove as well. That church has been there a long time and I'm not aware of significant issues that they have had on the Locust Grove side on Sundays or Tuesdays or Wednesday evenings when youth groups are there, I'm not aware of major concerns with that. So, again, just echoing a lot of what Councilman Taylor says -- said, I think this is a good project. I like the story behind it. I like the fact that this is a product that I think is in high demand and it's 19 homes. It's -- it's not a huge impact. It does open up opportunities to the east, I recognize that, but those properties to the east also have an opportunity to have access points onto Amity Road. So I'm -- I'm going to be in favor of this project tonight. Taylor: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Taylor. Taylor: I guess the one -- before I make a motion -- and maybe Council can weigh in a little bit as to what to do with the sidewalks. I go back and forth, because temporary sidewalks to get pulled -- you know, torn up here in a few years, but maybe a few years is a long time. It's strange to me to just put a few sidewalks in the middle of, you know, what is still a fairly rural area. My inclination is to still require the sidewalks throughout -- across to the church, as the city is recommending, and not to -- to waive that requirement. So, unless anyone disagrees, that would be my intent -- my motion. Okay. Mr. Mayor, I would move that we approve application H-2025-0013, yep, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 14th, 2025, and to clarify that we do intend that the sidewalks be extended around the church property as presented. Overton: Second. Simison: Have a motion and a second. Is there discussion on the motion? If not, clerk call the roll. Roll Call: Cavener, nay; Strader, absent; Overton, yea; Little Roberts, yea; Taylor, yea; Whitlock, yea. Simison: Four ayes. One nay. And the item is agreed to. Best of luck. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT. 9. Public Hearing for UDC Text Amendment (ZOA-2025-0001) by City of Meridian Planning Division, located citywide. Meridian City Council October 14,2025 Page 41 of 57 A. Request: UDC Text Amendment to revise the specific use standards associated with drive-throughs and secondary dwellings in Chapter 4 of the Unified development Code (UDC). Simison: Council, do we need a break or we just want to move on? Okay. All right. Next up is Item 9, which is a public hearing for UDC Text Amendment ZOA-2025-0001. We will open this public hearing with staff comments. Parsons: Good evening, Mayor, Members of Council. The last item on the agenda was -- I labeled it part two of our UDC discussion. I was here before you in August talking about all the changes that we had shared with the UDC focus group. Council at that time elected to hold back two additional items, one being drive-throughs and the other being secondary dwellings or accessory use -- accessory dwelling units and so wanted to at least give you some context. I think probably all of you have seen the public record, received some public testimony on this item. Given the circumstances around what's happened with a previous application that you acted on at that same hearing on the 12th, but I know the Council is aware, but I surely want to make the public aware that we have been messing with the drive-through standards for over a year. This is the third time that I have been in front of you trying to get the standards better. As I mentioned in my previous presentations we have seen a large amount of drive-throughs coming through our -- into our city, not only fast food and as you all know drive-throughs aren't all the same and we have talked about that numerous times at our various hearings. Under the current code a drive-through is an accessory use and so, therefore, it goes in concert with some other use and as we have talked at previous hearings, a bank with a teller window or an ATM is still considered a drive through, but they don't function the same. A Dutch Brothers with two drive-throughs functions quite a bit differently, but under our code it's the same and depending on whether or not you are within 300 feet of another drive-through or 300 feet of an existing residence would dictate whether it's approved at the director level or at a public hearing through a conditional use permit. So, again, that's what's on the books today. A CUP is only required when those two things exist. You are within 300 feet of another drive-through or 300 feet of an existing residence. So, the purpose of what I was trying to -- of what we have been trying to do as a city for the last year and several meetings that we have had -- it's better to define our drive through standards. The intent was never to make the process easier or get out of a process, it was meant to say we understand that all drive-throughs are not the same and we need to get a handle on what that is and so the proposal that I have shared with all of you brings that to you. It comes with a tiered approach to treat them differently, because they are different. Over the years with our conversations we also talked about the requirements, what other things do we need to put into the -- what other standards do we need to make sure that they don't impact adjacent property owners? That was what I had in my proposal to you as well. So, again, that goes to highlight number two, what are we trying to do. Better define drive- through businesses, what they are and how to differentiate. We are doing that. Two, more express standards. We are doing that. And I will get into my presentation a little bit more. And, then, three, probably what you have seen in the public testimony is we are trying to make it easier. Probably the biggest difference between the changes that Meridian City Council October 14,2025 Page 42 of 57 are on the books today and what I have -- the UDC focus group and staff has proposed to City Council is whether or not we want a CUP -- you can't hear me? Okay. Sorry. What we are trying to do is not require a CUP when another drive-through is adjacent to another drive-through, but the current -- or the proposed change still requires the CUP if the drive-through is next to an adjacent residential use. So, again, that portion of the UDC changes are staying consistent with what we currently have on the books. Also noted here just a few other things. The UDC does not grant -- currently grants the City Council authority on conditional use permits. That is granted to our Planning and Zoning Commission. So, again, if you have looked at the public testimony it implies that you guys would -- would lose that right to do that and you -- currently you don't have that unless somebody appeals either the director's decision or the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision and that's why that application a month ago was before you. As part of my presentation tonight, too, I wanted to -- these are word for word the exact standards in the UDC. A currently states that -- goes back to what I already stated, that if you are within 300 feet of another -- a residential use or drive-through, conditional use permit. Unless you are separated by an arterial street or if you are in Old Town zone you are doing a conditional use permit. So, that's really the only requirement for a CUP currently. And, then, everything else is basically showing us your stacking, your windows, your ordering, similar to what we have in our current code. Now, about a week ago -- or at least a month ago when I approached City Council with the changes, you guys wanted me to take it back, go back to our group, the expert that I had been working on the drive-through standards and define the tiers a little bit better and so about a week ago I was able to formulate that and disseminate that information to you so you guys could digest that before tonight's hearing. So, I truly wanted to be transparent on what we were trying to achieve here and not go outside of process. So, you did get a strike through underlying version of the drive-through standards and I didn't compare -- I didn't give you a comparison of what I presented to you a month ago, but what I did in the table I highlighted what I changed and the reason for the change. So, I remember based on that -- our discussion back on August 12 you guys said -- I remember Council Woman Strader asking why do we allow drive-throughs in Old Town. So, she had asked us to look at that. So, I went ahead and honored that request, based on what she had said, and, again, all of this is on the table for your deliberation tonight, of course, but I removed the requirement to allow -- or proposing anyways to remove that element from our Old Town zoning district. C, the highlighted section C, the types of drive-through. That currently is not in our code. As I mentioned, we do not define the different drive-through types. But I know this was a topic with discussion on our August 12th meeting. You felt -- were -- you -- I quote Council President Cavener. Words matter. And so I went back to the gentleman that I was working with from -- that has done drive-throughs throughout the country and I said, hey, I have gotten this feedback from our Council, what can I do better? Or what can we do better to come up with some more express standards to make it clear what a tier one is versus a tier two and what a tier three is and so tier one, two and three has been rewritten from what you previously saw a month ago -- or back in August and so one of the concerns was that with a tier two I had -- including mobile options, mobile ordering only and you thought that implied that it could still be a dual lane drive-through and I was like, no, that wasn't the intent. But in discussions on working through and taking your feedback, we realized that even Meridian City Council October 14,2025 Page 43 of 57 somebody with an online mobile -- mobile -- mobile service or online ordering service could have a one -- could be low impact. Order online, go pick up your food and not have a lot of cars stacking or impacting the neighborhood. So, we went ahead and made that change and took it out of the tier two and the tier three and made it explicit as a tier one, similar to the other less impactful uses. So, really, with the idea behind the tier one, the tier two and the tier three, we are trying to go from least amount of impact to the most amount of impact. So, with tier two and tier three, again, primarily those are associated with our restaurant uses. Again, a restaurant is a principally permitted use in many of our commercial districts. The only time that would require a conditional use permit is if they had that drive-through component and they were within 300 feet of another residence, so, then, the ability for a CUP is still there under the proposed change. But what the previous code had versus this code -- it did not designate that it would only have one ordering point, one stacking lane, one escape lane and one pickup window. So, we provided more express standards there that if you have all -- these four items you are going to be classified at tier two. And, then, tier three, again, is that that more impactful use. Your -- your Chick-fil-A, In-N-Out, double stacking and so even your McDonald's, because if you have been at a McDonald's sometimes they will have two ordering points, but only one stacking lane, and, then, they have pull forward lanes if they get backed up. So, tier three went one step further and said if you have two ordering points and one stacking lane you are still a tier three. So, we built in all of these different scenarios so that we would clearly define what a tier three would be going forward. I think we have got it right this time. I feel better based on the feedback that I heard from Council. I think this does define -- at least define a tier one, a tier two and a tier three, a lot better than what I had previously presented to you on the 12th. The other part of the change that I wanted to share with you was the comment that the Mayor made about pull forward or designating parking stalls and, then, I went back to McDonald's and remembered how they operate or how sometimes some of these other fast food restaurants like to have their customers pull forward into even parking stalls. So, again, if at any time the director and/or the Commission or City Council deems the capacity is insufficient, there is the ability to require pull forward parking or pick up parking, so that people can help guide traffic through the drive-through. And, then, of course, as I mentioned to you last time, if an applicant does not want to meet any one of these standards, they have the right to get in front and go through the conditional use, the public hearing process and convince the Commission that the way they operate they can operate better than what our standards are. So, anyways, I know we have part two to our discussion, but I will go ahead and pause there. I know you guys have had a chance to look at these drive-through standards, but just looking for any feedback or comments from the Council at this point. Simison: Counsel, any questions? Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Meridian City Council October 14,2025 Page 44 of 57 Cavener: Bill, just first start with a compliment. Appreciate the efforts on -- I mean I think night and day difference between kind of the definitions of tier one, tier two, tier three what we are seeing today versus what is presented. I hope you know, too -- and while we appreciate good public feedback, I think Council is well aware of the -- the long process that we have been going through and, you know, certainly, right, we have had some drive-throughs serve as a good example as to why we have been doing this work for so long. So, I appreciate it. Couple just food for thoughts and, you know, kind of gut responses, and I'm looking forward to hearing from the rest of the Council. I would need a little bit more convincing about removing drive-throughs from being permitted in the Old Town region. I understand -- my good colleague is not here tonight, had some strong feelings on that, but one of the things about -- I think Old Town is that we contemplate lots of different types of uses, sometimes untraditional uses, and I -- I am always going to be a little apprehensive about potentially creating a little bit of a vacuum that takes away maybe a particular type of use recognizing, again, that you have got, you know, a coffee shop that classifies as a drive-through that's here in Old Town. You have got some banks that classify as drive-throughs in Old Town. So, I -- I'm not quite sold on that and I don't know if staff has a recommendation or that's just being responsive to the -- to the Council. When it comes to kind of staff level decisions versus not, I think we talked about this last time, tier ones to me I think are -- personally think are a no brainer. That's an easy staff level decision. It's tier two and tier three and it's not that -- necessarily that it needs to land on our plate or on the Planning and Zoning's plate, it's that I think it's important that we have a public hearing component associated with that and so giving our residents that opportunity to weigh in on the real world impacts that those proposed uses would have on them, whether that, again, stays with Planning and Zoning or comes to us, I don't have necessarily a dog in either fight. I just do think that that public hearing process, that component, is going to be critical. So, that's kind of my general thoughts and, again, credit to the Mayor for kind of flagging the importance of kind of additional parking for -- for mobile drive-through. So, I'm supportive of that addition as well. Overton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: Bill, if you could just touch on -- I mean we define tier one, tier two and tier three. What's the difference in the process each one of those tiers goes through when they apply with the city. What is a tier three different from a tier one when they come in and apply through the city for that drive-through? Parson: Yeah. Mayor, Members of the Council, the only difference you are going to see is they have got to meet those requirements and still provide the stacking that's defined in all of those sections below. So, any -- if a tier three were to come in and it was next to a residential use, we are going to tell them that's a conditional use permit. If a tier three -- tier three came in and it was right in the middle of a commercial development with nothing around it, it was just a vacant lot, it's -- it's staff level and that's how it is currently today. If -- it's the same thing today. If someone were to come in at Ten Mile Meridian City Council October 14,2025 Page 45 of 57 and they were the first drive-through in and they met the standards, we are approving it administratively, because, again, the code says a drive-through is accessory and it's only -- if you hit those things that require a conditional use permit. So, it's always been staff level, contingent on where it lands in relationship to either another drive through or residential use. So, that's why I don't want the Council or the public to misconstrue that we are trying to take it away from the public realm. We are not. It's -- it's there still. But the reality is regardless of this change or keeping the current code, it's -- it's still whether or not you are next to another drive-through or next to a residential use. That's -- again, if it's somebody in Ten Mile, they are the first restaurant in with a drive-through or a coffee shop or bank with a drive-through, if they meet the standards we are approving it administratively. The director has -- that's what the code says. We -- we can do that. It's accessory to that primary use, which is either a bank, a restaurant, dry cleaner, the list goes on and on. Overton: Mr. Mayor, quick follow up. Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: So, let's say we are looking at the one we just talked about, which was across a private drive from a residential area. That's a no brainer. What about when we are opening up some of our open areas of the city and there is nothing out there except now, we have got a tier three wanting to come in, but it's next to what should become a residential plat of land. Do we look at that as just an empty piece of land and they are the first ones built or do we look at that as future residential, in which case a tier three should go through the process? Parsons: Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilman Overton, we are looking at it as vacant land and they will know it's there when they build something next to it, because they are the first one in. That's historically how we have -- we have looked at industrial adjacent to future residential. We have got a -- they have -- you know what you are buying next to because it's there. So, Council President Cavener, if I can give you my recommend -- if you want staff's recommendation in Old Town, yes, it was more of -- Simison: Bill, speak into the mic. Parsons: I'm sorry. Council President Cavener, it's more of -- it was something that heard from the Council, so I put it on the table, but staff doesn't have one -- I'm with you, we have some drive-throughs in the Old Town zone. Don't want to -- definitely don't want to create a nonconforming issue if we don't have to, but it's something that I heard, so I thought at least be cognizant of that and show you that that is an option if that's what Council wanted to do. Taylor: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Taylor. Meridian City Council October 14,2025 Page 46 of 57 Taylor: Yeah. Just on that issue I spent a lot of time in the last six to nine months thinking about Old Town and downtown and all that kind of stuff. When I saw you strike that I was a little bit puzzled. I understand the desire, but I don't think it makes a lot of sense to me personally. I would -- my opinion I would like to see that put back in. One thing I have really appreciated, though, just moving on to another kind of different topic, I have appreciated the -- sort of the thorough discussion we have had and kind of clearly identifying the distinctions in different types of uses with the drive-throughs. Generally I'm pretty supportive of allowing for greater efficiency for people working with the city to have staff level approval of these, but only if there is a lot of clarity around what we have empowered staff to do. We -- we have seen in recent actions that having more clarity is more helpful in staff understanding the -- what we want to see and what -- what we don't want to see. I think we have -- we have -- we are quickly arriving to what I think is enough clarity that's not only good for those working with us, but as folks are looking to -- to bring projects forward, they -- they have a lot of clarity about what to expect when they are working with us. So, I really appreciate that. You know, maybe when this is over we are going to start calling you Bill, the Drive-through King Parsons, so -- you have spent -- you have spent a lot of time on this and as I have said before to my utter amazement. I never thought I would spend so much time on drive-throughs in this position. But I like where this is going. I think we are pretty close to having something I think is helpful. But my desire, as -- when I look at efficiency and customer service, is how can we make things more predictable, more efficient, move things along. So, I like where we are headed with all this. Little Roberts: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Little Roberts. Little Roberts: Mr. Mayor. Bill, thank you. Appreciate all the work that you have done on this. Yeah. I was concerned when I saw the Old Town and automatically not doing any drive-throughs. I think that with the ones that we have and -- I think we should -- it's something I think we should stay open to and just be extremely careful with any in the future. But I think that the clarity we are getting is -- is great and can be very helpful in that situation. So, really happy with the work that you have done. So, thank you very much. Simison: So, would you like to take public testimony on this stuff right here right now or do you want to keep going and, then, come back to any comments from the public? Parsons: Mayor and Council, I'm happy just to hit on the ADU real quick and, then, we can open it up for public comment, because we got just one little change to the ADU. Is very -- I remember our -- if you -- if you are good with that. All right. Perfect. Thank you. So, the second item -- and, Caleb, thank you for hanging out with me tonight, but he was the one that said keep them paired together, so we can just do one ordinance was the goal I think at the end of it. But, basically, we were here talking with accessory use -- accessory dwelling units or secondary dwelling, whatever you want to call it, but did make the change that I heard from, again, the Council during that meeting where Meridian City Council October 14,2025 Page 47 of 57 you thought it was appropriate to remove the requirement for residents to live on the property six months out of the year, so that -- that language has been removed. So, it should be good to go to move forward based on the feedback that we got from that hearing. And with that I would stand for any questions and allow you to maybe open it up to public testimony. Simison: Thank you. Council, any additional questions for staff at this time? Okay. Mr. Clerk, anyone signed up to provide testimony on this item? Johnson: We had one sign up. Wade Ramsey. Ramsey: Good evening, Mr. Mayor, Councilman -- Council Members. My name is Wade Ramsey. I am at 4013 West Lost Rapids in Meridian. Full disclosure. On September 9th you appointed me to SWAC. Thank you. This has nothing to do with that. I am also the elected president for Bainbridge, the HOA that was here on that same meeting to keep you here until 11 :00 o'clock, talking about -- chatting about In-N- Out. I was out of town, but our vice-president spoke. This topic of the drive-through thing has obviously touched some nerves in our neighborhood, so I just wanted to bring some thoughts there. But first, more importantly, you don't hear thank you enough. Thank you. Year after year, issue after issue, Planning and Zoning and the City Council has been great partners for our neighborhood in our area in Ten Mile and Chinden for the neighborhoods there and we appreciate it. You don't hear that enough. But if it's important enough for -- for us to keep Planning and Zoning here until 11 :00 and you here to until 10:00, it's important enough for me to show up and say thank you in person tonight. So, regarding UDC amendments that you are considering, clearly some of this is work that you have been doing for quite a while and there is some issues that -- common threads here that I wanted to comment on. Some of the amendment language, if it's reported accurately and I'm not going to repeat some of it, because assume it's not, but there is some noise about that social media wise and reporting and on BoiseDev, that sort of stuff. And, look, our neighborhood and our community benefited greatly from that process, the public -- public testimony process and those sorts of things regarding In-N-Out and I know In-N-Out and Raising Cane's were the two issues that kind of touch on this issue most and pull at the heart strings most -- most over the last several months you guys have dealt with. From our standpoint we benefited from that as a neighborhood and we don't want to -- for you to do anything that denies future neighborhoods from being able to voice and take advantage of that same process and that's our concern. If what I hear is correct, tier one we have no issues with clearly; right? Tier two and tier three are where we have issues. Or tier four; right? But we greatly benefited from that. Other people are going to benefit from that. And so I would encourage you to consider that piece; right? Anything that comes from -- not to take anything away from the staff who does a fantastic job. Obviously the efficiency piece is a big deal, but taking -- taking anything away from the elected officials and public accountability and public hearing is -- is not what we want to see, so -- is what I wanted to say. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Meridian City Council October 14,2025 Page 48 of 57 Simison: Council, any questions? Okay. All right. Is there anybody else that would like provide public testimony on this item? Good evening, Sally. Reynolds: Good evening, Mr. Mayor, Members of City Council. My name is Sally Reynolds, 1166 West Bacall Street. So, I'm kind of here at the request of several residents that are in my area and I will start off by saying I have been on open space committees, I have been on city code committees with Bill and so I understand the process and the work and the amount of, you know, drilling down to the exact words that go into this and so thanks -- thank you, staff, for that. I think I will just echo everything the gentleman before me said. I think that at least people on my side of town really appreciated being able to weigh in on that and I know that there are members on this Council who appreciate the public process and are willing to listen to the residents, even when it can be a little bit hard, but that is what makes Meridian great and so I don't want to see anything taken away from that. I do appreciate the different tiering. I think that that's a wonderful job. I do agree with -- I would like to see with Council Member Overton on tier two and tier three -- I mean at the minimum having a public notice and a public hearing, whether it's at Commission level or coming before this body. I think the reason that you saw so much public testimony come in about this is because of what happened in my area with the Sagarra-Orchard Park development and it happened from planning staff making a unilateral decision under accessory use and that's what this is. So, people saw accessory use and they were thinking -- they are going to have unilateral decision making abilities to just put drive-throughs wherever they want, because we just saw that happen. I have a four story building in my backyard that was supposed to be three stories, so that I think -- if you want a little bit of explanation where that's coming from, but I would really really recommend that we hopefully have public notices and public hearing on tiers two and three, even if they are in the middle of any -- or, you know, nowhere, because I think that the future land use map and potential development does need to be considered. Thank you. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to provide testimony on this item, either in the room or online? Seeing no one further wishing to testify, Council, your direction. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: At least for the easy ones, I don't see any need to make any changes to the language changes on the ADU. I don't know if anybody else on Council has -- didn't hear any comments, so check easy one. I think, Council, it's probably important for us to at least deliberate and discuss about drive-throughs being permitted, not permitted in in Old Town. I know it was stricken. We went back and forth. I don't know if -- I know, again, we have got one Council Member who had a strong opinion who is not here. I don't know if there is more Council that shares that same opinion. I have tried to weigh in on that, but I also want to be -- I'm trying really hard to not bulldoze one decision or another on this particular one tonight. I guess maybe to put a better question, would Meridian City Council October 14,2025 Page 49 of 57 anyone be opposed if we removed the strike through that is before us about not within the -- I guess it's on one of the other pages -- about -- about drive-throughs within the Old Town. Is there anyone opposed with removing the strike through that was put in by staff? Okay. Maybe move forth with that one. Mr. Mayor, Council, any concern about the definitions that have been provided for tier one, tier two, tier three, or I guess any additional changes that have come from staff? Overton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: President Cavener, I feel like I'm getting really picky here, but in the world of what's approved to be built, simply stating that if a tier two, tier three drive-through comes in first next to an area that's supposed to be R-8, but there is nothing there, then, an R-8 application comes in and they start building single family homes before the drive-through gets built, those people aren't going to know which one was filed first and they are not going to care, they are going to know that we have a drive-through within 300 feet of a residential area and I somehow would like to see that if we already know how some of these areas are going to be zoned, that we somehow try to capture the fact that the 300 feet, in instances where we know we are going to have residential built, counts for as though residential was already built. At least have a discussion on that. Otherwise, we can end up in a situation where we are approving drive-throughs in an area that eventually they are going to say why in the heck did we do that? Cavener: Mr. Mayor, maybe a question for my colleague. Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Council Member Overton, are you -- are you suggesting, then, that it be modified that within 300 feet of a resident -- residential area as identified on the future land use map? Overton: Definitely an item for discussion. Cavener: Okay. Overton: I think that would be more inclusive of what we were looking at, as opposed to being you are first in, get approved, and, then, whatever else comes around you. I think we -- I think we always have to be looking a step or two down the road for who that next development is going to be and who is going to live there. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Meridian City Council October 14,2025 Page 50 of 57 Cavener: Councilman Overton, I think I'm tracking with what you are -- what you are proposing. You are trying to just make sure that we are doing as much due diligence as possible for potential impacts and, you know, from my perspective is if twos and threes are having a public hearing, then, that's at least giving that -- that voice and there is no change in terms of operations I guess at that point. So, I would want to get some -- some feedback from our staff about what that impact would be to them and maybe -- I'm sure that they have considered this, so why -- why that was ruled out and maybe they can give us some context that we don't have in front of us. Mr. Mayor, if that's okay maybe you just hear from -- from Bill and Caleb on that. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Mr. Nary. Nary: Or the planning could add legal context maybe to put around that as well, because I understand where you are coming from, Council Member Overton, but the way the code is established, conditional uses are based on existing uses that are surrounding that use and so the problem you have is -- I'm trying to envision the basis a council could use to deny a conditional use for a drive-through in an area where there is no existing people around it, unlikely to have very many people even testify, because they don't live there and what basis or grounds would a council be able to say we won't allow a drive-through there when our zoning allows it. So, I think if your concern is if you don't want to -- and I think it's a very legitimate rationale that you have posed where you could -- what you are trying to avoid is a drive-through business trying to be first in. Well, just get approved today, get bare ground, there is nothing out here, nobody's going to complain and, then, we will just build it ten years from now when there is actually people and you are right, you are going to have people saying when did this happen? I didn't know about it. I had no idea. So, how do we address that? And think from a legal standpoint you are going to have to figure that out more in the zoning context than the CUP context on what you might allow or not allow, but it would be more problematic I think to try to do it in the way you are proposing. Although I agree with what your concern is, I don't think this is the avenue we can get there. So, that's something -- but, again, planning may have a different perspective or a different way of approaching it, but that would be my concern is I don't know what grounds we would have to deny it just because it could impact somebody who isn't here, who doesn't exist yet and may not even -- and may not be built, may not be there before the drive-through is there. So, I don't know. That's the concern I would have. Simison: Or they might come in with a different zoning request -- you know, change the comp plan for an adjacent property before or after. Taylor: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Taylor. Meridian City Council October 14,2025 Page 51 of 57 Taylor: Maybe -- and if I'm hearing Councilman Overton correctly -- it's more clear to say we don't want to see that happen without a public hearing around that. We don't want to say staff can make those approvals without the opportunity to vet it. Am I -- and I just want to make sure I'm kind of tracking this correctly, because I -- what Bill is proposing -- or what staff is proposing with this -- that's not going to change anything in terms of P&Z would still be allowed to grant these CUPs or are you -- and, again, so many words here. I'm just trying to make sure I'm following this correctly. With the new proposed changes, would P&Z still have the same role that they have today with what you are suggesting. That doesn't change; correct? Parsons: Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilman Taylor, that is correct. If -- again, only if they were within 300 feet of a residence or the applicant did not want to comply with the standards, then, they would -- they could voluntarily go through that -- that -- that CUP process. Now, I would also mention to Council a lot of times with the C-C zone or a C-G zone there is hours of operation that are locked down when you about abut a -- and there -- there may be an opportunity where you could see a CUP for extended hours of operation for the drive-through to operate. So, there is other -- like Mr. Nary was explaining, there is other avenues that kind of get you there. It goes back to our discussion on the 12th is if we really want to prevent bad things from happening, then, that's where we look at annexation and say your concept plan has eight drive- throughs. I don't want eight drive-throughs here. I want two drive-throughs on your site. That's where we probably need to focus in and say if we are looking at the bigger area and we are wanting to annex you with the concept plan, that's where we need to dive in and maybe look at those details a little bit more, at least from staff's perspective that's where you have that ability to say this is -- this is residential next here. Why do you have a drive-through next to it? Because that's where neighbors don't always call us and say, hey, what's planned next to me? Because a lot of times with a CUP you are expected to build that within a certain time frame and if you don't, then, you ask for a time extension or you start over. It just depends what process you take. But the expectation is you have two years to start that -- that use under the code. Overton: Mr. Mayor, follow up? Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: Try to clarify my thoughts here a little bit. So, Bill, help me out. I'm a tier two, tier three and I'm the first one into a big open area of the city. I'm still getting a public hearing. I'm going in front of Planning and Zoning? Parsons: Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilman Overton, if it's annexed and zoned and it's consistent with their concept plan and they are the first one in they are getting an administrative approval -- Overton: Okay. Meridian City Council October 14,2025 Page 52 of 57 Parsons: -- for that accessory drive-through. If it's consistent with their -- their entitlements. Their zoning. Overton: That's what -- that's what I thought. Thank you. So, to answer your question, here is my concern. I have met with builders and developers multiple years ago on projects they are planning. They are laying them out. They have got this. They want to do it, but they haven't come to the city yet and applied and now before they do in this area, then, a drive-through comes in and administratively gets approved. There is no public hearing. But yet I have -- I know I have looked at this, but it doesn't exist yet, because it hasn't even started the city process. That's the situation I'm talking about. I feel like I'm not doing my job and somehow I'm dropping the ball on how this can happen. Whitlock: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Whitlock. Whitlock: This predates me serving on the Council, so maybe this would just help clarify and -- I mean we have had two In-N-Outs. There is one that was not approved a couple of weeks ago. There was one that was approved several years ago. Did that require a conditional use permit in that southwest corner of The Village parking lot, which is probably half a mile from residential. Again that predates me, so I don't know what the process was, but it will help me refine my thoughts here. Parsons: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilman Whitlock -- Simison: Can you speak into that -- eat the mic. Parsons: Yeah. Usually you guys hear me pretty well. I will have to start talking like Nick I guess. Get a loud voice. But that -- in that particular case that drive-through was not within 300 feet of a residential use or another drive-through. It was approved at staff level. The director approved that. So, yes, administratively approved. It did not require that -- Whitlock: That -- that helps. Mayor, follow up? Simison: Councilman Whitlock. Whitlock: And Councilman Overton kind of started down the path that I was thinking. You have done a great job defining the types of drive-throughs, tier one, tier two, tier three. But when I first read it it was, then, so what. I mean we have better definitions of what a tier one, tier two or tier three is, but looking here it looks like the only reference to tier two and tier three or a reason for having the tiers are down in Section D(6) dealing with stacking lanes and I think what we heard from public testimony was, you know, is -- is there something in tier two or tier three that ought to generate more scrutiny, more Meridian City Council October 14,2025 Page 53 of 57 public involvement and maybe even a decision by a governing body. So, again, I'm being a little crass when I say so what, but so what. Parsons: Well, Mayor, Members of the Council, what we don't -- what we are missing in the current code is we don't define the width of a drive-through. We don't define the width of an escape lane. We don't require a minimum stacking capacity in our code. So, this is what's -- that's the -- in my opinion that's the so what. We don't require that queuing exhibit to show us how many -- show us -- demonstrate that you can fit those vehicles there. We just have words that say do these things. But now we have defined standards that here is some dimensional things you have to show how it works. As I mentioned to you on the hearing in August, I can't come up with standards to -- to attack to mitigate an In-N-Out. Fifty cars. That's -- it's just -- it's -- it's impossible. And I -- like said as we have talked over the last year about this, we all know things are popular and they slow down. We all know drive-throughs aren't going away. And so we try to prevent bad things from happening through zoning codes and this is -- this to me is above and beyond what I have seen in other places, other jurisdictions, on -- on what we have looked at. I feel pretty good at where it's at today. The other thing to keep in mind is that it's code. This -- this isn't set in stone. So, let's say, for example, Council says, Bill, you are the drive-through king. We love it. We are going to approve it as is tonight and someone complains and they don't like it, someone can change the code. You can have some -- you can have staff change code. It's something where we -- don't know if we will ever get it right, but we don't know unless we try sometimes. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Something for Council to chew on, maybe staff to chew on. So, tier one is all administrative, okay, that's an easy one. I guess kind of where I'm sitting is, okay, tier two, kind of following our traditional process, that -- I think I can understand that, but tier three, regardless, goes and has a public hearing either at Planning and Zoning or the City Council. So, that way the more intense use, the more it triggers that either Planning and Zoning or City Council public hearing involvement and sometimes we are going to see traditional tier twos before our Planning and Zoning Commission. Again, you know, Taco John's isn't in town, so I will just pick them. Taco John's moves all the way out to the outskirts of town. They buy a huge lot. They are going to put a Taco John's in. They are not touching anybody. Administratively nobody's impacted. Great. Move on. But, again, Taco John's wants to do three stacking lanes. Doesn't matter they are going to be out in the middle of nowhere, it still would constitute a public hearing, either before the Planning and Zoning Commission or us. I guess that's kind of where my head is. I don't know if that works for Council. I don't know if that works for staff. But I'm kind of looking at it is the greater the use, the more it should constitute a public hearing with Potato Ole's and chocolate tacos I completely agree. Overton: Mr. Mayor? Meridian City Council October 14,2025 Page 54 of 57 Simison: Council Overton. Overton: Council President Cavener, when we first started this system I was -- my understanding was that the reason we built these tiers was so that the highest tier three, heaviest use, would be the ones that would come in front of us, just because it's a very limited number of drive-throughs, but it's the one that have the heaviest impacts wherever they are at. I'm okay with that. Hood: And, Mr. Mayor, if I can just maybe add to the last couple of comments if that's okay. I mean we really are here to serve at the pleasure -- we have taken feedback working with UDC focus group. You tell us. It's on the table tonight, but we have talked before about the Planning and Zoning Commission being the ones to have these public hearings. If you want to change the code, it's your code. If you want all those drive- throughs to come to Council -- that's within your purview. Again, that's not noticed tonight, but that's the type of direction staff's willing to take. So, I appreciate the sentiment. You know, if it works for staff -- we work for you and the community. So, you tell us what the standards are and we will administer them. This is what our -- we thought we were hearing and, you know, Bill's tried to represent that here, but tweaks or however you want it to read, we certainly can make that happen. Overton: Mr. Mayor, quick follow up to that. Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: Trust me, I appreciate Caleb, Bill, everything you guys do and I know that your heart's in making this the best process, but we have had two tier three drive-throughs. The first one was approved at the P&Z level and only came in front of us as an appeal, but the belief was that it was an entitlement and even some that I think weren't in total agreement with it didn't believe we could turn it down because we didn't have the right argument to turn it down and it's about to have its grand opening. The second one P&Z turned it down and, then, it was appealed to us and we unanimously backed up Planning and Zoning. I guess my issue is that's a lot of pressure that we put on Planning and Zoning on a tier three drive-through to make the right call every time and I would much rather have us, as the Council, be the backup to good job, good call, we agree. I know it causes a more -- more delay -- Simison- And that's where I was going to go actually is my -- my thinking is -- from what I have seen, experience, drive-throughs -- not just those two, but drive-throughs as a general rule have been some of your biggest challenges and the more you put this down the longer it takes to get through the process. Now there is sometimes there is a good part of that, but if it's truly about whether it should or should not exist, you actually speed up the process and make it easier for everybody just to do it once and do it here. Yeah. I don't know how that relates to everything else that P&Z does when they look at things, if necessary, but in my opinion you actually do everyone a favor by bringing it here and having that, because the noticing is no different. The timeline doesn't take anymore and all you -- it does eliminate the appeal by either side on the issue, one way Meridian City Council October 14,2025 Page 55 of 57 or the other. So, it gets to the resolution as quickly or sooner in my -- in my opinion. And, you know, whether it's a Wienerschnitzel or a coffee place or Taco John, you know, these are all the issues that you are really -- have been struggling with is when -- when it's around a drive-through in the commercial areas. Hood: And if I can, Mr. Mayor, respond -- and, again, we can add that to our next round of code changes potentially and go through this process and, you know, see -- see if that's where we want to go. I have heard that -- again, is something we can change and have it skip P&Z and go right to Council with a recommendation from staff, you know, and that -- and that even add another layer of that. That could be for tier two or only tier threes. We could still have them look at tier two and Council get tier three. Yeah, there is options here, depending on how you want to sort of slice that. So, good feedback. That's not -- tonight I wouldn't feel comfortable doing that, because that is a separate section of our code that we haven't noticed the public on that we are going to change. There is a table that talks about who has roles and responsibilities and decision making authority, that we would need a notice and have that -- but we will add it to the list and we can -- we can talk about that for drive-throughs. A little bit -- be careful what you ask for. You will see a lot of them where you are going to have no one in the -- you know, here in the audience, but that's fine. You read the staff report. We do the analysis. Cavener: So, Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: It sounds like, then, really the only -- come back to us on, again, the -- the flow of who would review drive-throughs. That's a future conversation. Preferably sooner rather than later. But what's before us tonight planning -- the public hearing's still open. So, Mr. Mayor, unless there is anyone else that wants to provide any additional public testimony, I move that we close the public hearing on UDC Text Amendment ZOA-2025-0001. Overton: Second. Simison: Have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Is there any discussion? If not all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have been the public hearing is closed. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Cavener: So, Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: I going to move that we approve the proposed changes to the UDC text amendment with one addition, which is to remove the strike through on number three, to remove drive-throughs from being permitted in the Old Town zone. Meridian City Council October 14,2025 Page 56 of 57 Overton: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second to approve ZOA-2025-0001 with an amendment. Is there discussion? Okay. If not, clerk, call the roll. Roll Call: Cavener, yea; Strader, absent; Overton, yea; Little Roberts, yea; Taylor, yea; Whitlock, yea. Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and the item is agreed to. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. ORDINANCES [Action Item] 10. Ordinance No. 25-2100: An ordinance (Ten Mile Flex — H-2025-0027) annexing a parcel of land located in the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 34, Township 4 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described in Exhibit "A"; rezoning 5.545 acres of such real property from RUT (Rural Urban Transition) to the I-L (Light Industrial) zoning district; directing city staff to alter all applicable use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps and all official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance; providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Treasurer, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law; repealing conflicting ordinances; and providing an effective date. Simison: With that we will move on to Item 10, which is Ordinance No. 25-2100. Ask the clerk to read this ordinance by title. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. It's ordinance annexing a parcel of land located in the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 34, Township 4 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described in Exhibit "A"; rezoning 5.545 acres of such real property from RUT to the I-L zoning district; directing city staff to alter all applicable use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps and all official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance; providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Treasurer, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law; repealing conflicting ordinances; and providing an effective date. Simison: Thank you. Council, you have heard this ordinance read by title. Is there anybody that would like it read in its entirety? If not do I have a motion? Meridian City Council October 14,2025 Page 57 of 57 Taylor: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Taylor. Taylor: I move that we approve Ordinance No. 25-2100. Overton: Second. Simison: Have a motion and second to approve Ordinance No. 25-2100. Is there discussion? If not clerk call the roll. Roll Call: Cavener, yea; Strader, absent; Overton, yea; Little Roberts, yea; Taylor, yea; Whitlock, yea. Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and the item is agreed to. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. FUTURE MEETING TOPICS Simison: Council, anything under future meeting topics or do I have a motion to adjourn? Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Move we adjourn our meeting. Little Roberts: Second. Simison: Motion and second to adjourn. All in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it. We are adjourned. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8.50 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) MAYOR ROBERT SIMISON DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Crime Prevention Month E IDIAN .O. - 7'he Office of the Mayor PRO Cl AMA70011ON WHEREAS, In 1984 President Reagan designated October as Crime Prevention Month as a time for communities to come together to promote safety and security individually and in neighborhoods ; and, WHEREAS, Crime prevention is important because it enhances public safety , strengthens communities , and improves overall quality of life by reducing fear and promoting a sense of security ; and, WHEREAS, Effective prevention programs address the root causes of crime , fostering sustainable solutions through encouraging community I nvolvement, education , awareness , and collaboration between local law enforcement, schools , businesses , and residents ; and, WHEREAS, Neighborhood Watch programs , youth engagement activities , and educational forums are just a few examples of how people can participate in crime prevention efforts in the City of Meridian ; and, WHEREAS, the City of Meridian Crime Prevention team empowers our community to keep neighborhoods safe and build relationships while working towards controlling crime . THEREFORE, I , Robert E . Simison , proclaim October 2025 , as Crime Prevention Month in the City of Meridian and express our sincere gratitude and appreciation for those who are committed to the power of prevention and ork ether to make our community safer, stronger and more caring . Dated this 14th day of October, 2025 obert E . miso , Mayor Luke Cavener, City Council President Liz Strader, City Council Vice -President John Overton , City Council Anne Little Roberts , City Council Doug Taylor, City Council Brian Whitlock, City Council IN ;IT IN !'t IN 'v IN N IN ` f �. l H 10 LIZSTP MEN 1 r .f f LF zv Nk s44 x ' b E IDIAN;--- /hl R AGENDA ITEM Public Forum - Future Meeting Topics The Public are invited to sign up in advance of the meeting at www.meridiancity.org/forum to address elected officials regarding topics of general interest or concern of public matters. Comments specific to an active land use/development applications are not permitted during this time. By law, no decisions can be made on topics presented at the Public Forum. However, City Council may request the topic be added to a future meeting agenda for further discussion or action. The Mayor may also direct staff to provide followup assistance regarding the matter. t 7 CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC FORUM SIGN-IN SHEET Date: October 14, 2025 Please sign in below if you wish to address the Mayor and City Council and provide a brief description of your topic. Please observe the following rules of the Public Forum: • DO NOT: o Discuss active applications or proposals pending before Planning and Zoning or City Council o Complain about city staff, individuals, business or private matters • DO o When it is your turn to speak, state your name and address first o Observe a 3-minute time limit (you may be interrupted if your topic is deemed inappropriate for this forum) Name (please print) Brief Description of Discussion Topic E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Resolution No. 25-2540: A Resolution Establishing the Reappointment of Dom Gelsomino to Seat 1 and Jennifer Bobo to Seat 2 of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Commission; and Providing an Effective Date CITY OF MERIDIAN RESOLUTION NO. 25-2540 BY THE CITY COUNCIL: CAVENER,LITTLE ROBERTS, OVERTON, STRADER, TAYLOR, WHITLOCK A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE REAPPOINTMENT OF DOM GELSOMINO TO SEAT 1 AND JENNIFER BOBO TO SEAT 2 OF THE MERIDIAN PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS,Meridian City Code §2-1-1(D)sets forth Advisory Commissions'membership qualifications and terms of service; and WHEREAS, Meridian City Code § 2-1-3.1 establishes the Parks and Recreation Commission, its duties and powers; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Meridian deems it to be in the best interest of the citizens of the City of Meridian to approve the reappointment of Dom Gelsomino to Seat 1 and Jennifer Bobo to Seat 2 of the Parks and Recreation Commission as recommended by Mayor Simison; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY, IDAHO: Section 1. That, effectively immediately, Dom Gelsomino is hereby reappointed to Seat 1, and Jennifer Bobo is hereby reappointed to Seat 2 of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Commission, which terms shall expire October 31, 2028; Section 2. That this Resolution shall be in full force and effect immediately upon its adoption and approval. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this 141h day of October, 2025. APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this 141h day of October, 2025. APPROVED: ATTEST: By: Mayor Robert E. Simison Chris Johnson, City Clerk RESOLUTION FOR REAPPOINTMENT OF GELSOMINO AND BOBO TO THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION-Page I w IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Resolution No. 25-2541: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Meridian Reappointing Seoyoon Song to Seat 9 of the Meridian Arts Commission and Divya Danesh to Seat 8 of the Meridian Solid Waste Advisory Commission; and Providing an Effective Date CITY OF MERIDIAN RESOLUTION NO. 25-2541 BY THE CITY COUNCIL: CAVENER, LITTLE ROBERTS, OVERTON, STRADER,TAYLOR,WHITLOCK A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN REAPPOINTING SEOYOON SONG TO SEAT 9 OF THE MERIDIAN ARTS COMMISSION AND DIVYA DANESH TO SEAT 8 OF THE MERIDIAN SOLID WASTE ADVISORY COMMISSION; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE WHEREAS,Meridian City Code § 2-1-2 establishes the Meridian Arts Commission; WHEREAS,Meridian City Code § 2-1-4 establishes the Meridian Solid Waste Advisory Commission; WHEREAS, Meridian City Code § 2-1-1 establishes duties and authority, membership and terms of appointment for all Meridian City Advisory Commissions; WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Meridian recognizes and values the unique perspective and input of the youth of the Meridian community as it pertains to arts within the City and, to that end, Meridian City Code § 2-1-1(D)(3) states a youth member may be appointed to Advisory Commissions; WHEREAS,the City Council of the City of Meridian deems the appointment of Seoyoon Song as a Youth Member to the Meridian Arts Commission and Divya Danesh as a Youth Member to the Solid Waste Advisory Commission to be in the best interest of the City of Meridian; and NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN,IDAHO: Section 1. That,pursuant to Meridian City Code §2-1-1, Seoyoon Song be appointed to Seat 9 as a Youth Member to the Meridian Arts Commission and Divya Danesh be appointed to Seat 8 as a Youth Member to the Solid Waste Advisory Commission, for terms to expire September 30,2026. Section 2.That this Resolution shall be in full force and effect immediately upon its adoption and approval. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho,this 14t'day of October, 2025. APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian,Idaho, this 14t'day of October, 2025. APPROVED: Mayor Robert E. Simison ATTEST: By: Chris Johnson, City Clerk YOUTH COMMISSIONER APPOINTMENTS—SONG(MAC),DANESH(SWAC) Page I of I W IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Resolution No. 25-2542: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Meridian Appointing Toren Taylor to Seat 9 of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Commission; James Abdel-Monem to Seat 6 of the Meridian Historic Preservation Commission; Advik Bansal to Seat 4 of the Meridian Transportation Commission; and Providing an Effective Date CITY OF MERIDIAN RESOLUTION NO. 25-2542 BY THE CITY COUNCIL: CAVENER, LITTLE ROBERTS, OVERTON, STRADER, TAYLOR, WHITLOCK A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN APPOINTING TOREN TAYLOR TO SEAT 9 OF THE MERIDIAN PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION; JAMES ABDEL-MONEM TO SEAT 6 OF THE MERIDIAN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION; ADVIK BANSAL TO SEAT 4 OF THE MERIDIAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE WHEREAS, Meridian City Code § 2-1-3.1 establishes the Meridian Parks and Recreation Commission; WHEREAS, Meridian City Code § 2-1-3 establishes the Meridian Historic Preservation Commission; WHEREAS, Meridian City Code § 2-1-5 establishes the Meridian Transportation Commission; WHEREAS, Meridian City Code § 2-1-1 establishes duties and authority, membership and terms of appointment for all Meridian City Advisory Commissions; WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Meridian recognizes and values the unique perspective and input of youth in the Meridian community and, to that end, Meridian City Code § 2-1- I(D)(3) states a youth member may be appointed to Commissions; WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Meridian deems the appointment of Toren Taylor to Seat 9 of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Commission, James Abdel-Monem to Seat 6 of the Meridian Historic Preservation Commission, and Advik Barisal to Seat 4 of the Meridian Transportation Commission to be in the best interest of the City of Meridian. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO: Section 1. That, pursuant to Meridian City Code § 2-1-1, Toren Taylor be appointed to Seat 9 of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Commission, James Abdel-Monem be appointed to Seat 6 of the Meridian Historic Preservation Commission, and Advik Barisal be appointed to Seat 4 of the Meridian Transportation Commission as Youth Members, for terms to expire September 30, 2026. Section 2. That this Resolution shall be in full force and effect immediately upon its adoption and approval. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this 14th day of October, 2025. APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this 14th day of October, 2025. YOUTH COMMISSIONER APPOINTMENTS—TAYLOR(PRC),ABDEL-MONEM(HPC),BANSAL(MTC) Page I of 2 APPROVED: Mayor Robert E. Simison ATTEST: By: Chris Johnson, City Clerk YOUTH COMMISSIONER APPOINTMENTS—TAYLOR(PRC),ABDEL-MONEM(HPC),BANSAL(MTC) Page 2 of 2 C� E IDIAN Planning and Zoning Department Presentation and Outline h2 City Council MeetingOctober 14, 2025 Slide 1 h2 Agenda Item Numbers/Order: hoodc, 12/19/2006 Zoning MapAerialFLUM Zoning MapAerialFLUM N. Ten Mile Road Zoning MapAerialFLUM 4940 and 5060 S. Locust Grove Road1695 E. Amity Road Purpose of the Current Proposal:Commission. residence. The UDC delegates CUP authority to the Planning and Zoning through, a residential district, or existing -located within 300 feet of another drivethroughs can currently be approved by the director if they are not -NOTE: Drive(UDC). More discretion by the director as allowed in the Unified Development Code 3.through businesses-More express standards to regulate the various drive 2.through businesses-Better define the various drive 1. A. A drive-through establishment shall be deemed an accessory use where the drive-through facility (including stacking lanes, speaker and/or order area, pick up windows, and exit lanes) iscomplies with the following, otherwise a conditional use permit is required: 1. Not withinFarther than three hundred 300 feet (300’) offrom another drive-through facility, a residential district, use, or dwelling;, or an existing residence or 2. Not the conversion of a tier 1 drive-through to another tiered drive-through in subsection (C) below; orSeparated by any 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.; or 3. Not designed in accord with subsection D below. B. All establishments providing drive-through service shall identify the stacking lane(s), menu and speaker location(s) (if applicable), and window location(s) on the site plan submitted with certificate of zoning compliance and/or the conditional use permit. Speakers are prohibited in the O-T zoning district. C. Types of Drive-throughs. 1. Tier 1. A drive-through associated with a financial institution, automated teller machine (ATM), pharmacy, laundry and dry cleaning, or restaurant limited to online and mobile ordering only. 2. Tier 2. A drive-through associated with a restaurant, limited to a designated order area, one (1) stacking lane, an escape lane, and a pick-up window. 3. Tier 3. A drive-through associated with a restaurant providing at least two designated order areas, one (1) or more stacking lanes, an escape lane, and one (1) or more pick-up windows. CD. AFor all drive-throughs, 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. Designated pick-up or pull-forward parking stalls may be required if the decision-making body determines that the stacking capacity is insufficient. 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 twentyen feet (120’) feet of any residential district, use, or dwellingexisting residence. 4. Any stacking lane greater than one hundred feet (100’) feet in length shall provide for an escape lane. Each stacking lane and designated escape lane shall have a minimum width of ten feet (10’). 5. The site shouldshall be designed so that the drive-through is visible from a public street, or other readily accessible public space, for surveillance purposes. 6. The minimum stacking lane capacity shall be six (6) vehicles per lane for tier 2 or tier 3, and two (2) vehicles per lane for tier 1. 7. All drive-throughs shall submit a queuing exhibit demonstrating vehicle stacking per the lane capacity standards in subsection (D)(6). Each vehicle space within the stacking lane shall be based on a vehicle length of twenty feet (20’). W IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Century Farm Master Association Gravity Irrigation Easement (H-2025-0044) by Brighton Corporation, located at 4884 S. Tavistock Ave. Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2025-0044 A. Request: A Vacation to vacate the twenty (20) foot gravity irrigation easement and replace it with a new easement that will be rededicated through a new instrument number. The new easement is proposed to be ten (10) feet in width, the same as the public utility, irrigation and drainage easement. PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: October 14, 2025 ITEM # 5 PROJECT NAME: Century Farm Master Association Gravity Irrigation Easement (H-2025-0044) I wish to testify Representing Your Full Name Your Full Address (mark X HOA? if yes) (Please Print) Z61 W JN(A61fpto K 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT C'" �fEPIDIAN*,,--, DEPARTMENT REPORT HEARING 10/14/2025 Legend DATE: Project Location TO: Mayor& City Council "I Area of Impact City Limits FROM: Nick Napoli,Associate Planner 0 Analysis 208-884-5533 tL nnapoli@meridiancity.org APPLICANT: Eli Benski,Brighton Corp SUBJECT: H-2025-0044 Century Farm Master Association Gravity Irrigation Easement VAC LOCATION: 4884 S. Tavistock Avenue in the NE of the NE %4of Section 33,T.3N.,RJE. I. PROJECT OVERVIEW A. Summary Vacate a private twenty(20)foot gravity irrigation easement and replace it with a new easement. The new easement is proposed to be ten(10)feet in width,the same as the public utility, irrigation, and drainage easement. B. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the vacation of the gravity irrigation easement as proposed by the Applicant and as agreed upon by the easement holders. C. Decision Council: Pending City of Meridian I Department Report 1. Project Overview I1. STAFF ANALYSIS The Applicant requests approval to vacate a private twenty(20)foot easement for gravity irrigation on Lots 13 and 14,Block 2 of Hills Century Farms Commercial Subdivision No.2.A new easement will be re-established because of this vacation,which will be ten(10) feet and also include public utilities,irrigation, and drainage. The applicant has indicated that the purpose of the vacation is for a future application that will be coming in front of the City Council soon.In addition to this,the applicant has indicated that vacating the easement and re-establishing a new one outside of the platting process will allow the easement to be dedicated to the correct entity and make it full length, as the easement currently is missing a portion of the gravity irrigation line. The exhibit for the new easement is shown below in Section V. The Final Plat for Hills Century Farms Commercial Subdivision No. 2 was recorded on November 14t'',2022. The subject lot is currently zoned C-N. The subdivision established the twenty(20) foot easement along the eastern portion of Lots 13 and 14,Block 2. A legal description and exhibit map of the easement proposed to be vacated is included in Section V below.A relinquishment letter from Brighton Corporation was provided as this easement is private. IIi. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. Relinquishment Letters See public record(copy the link into a separate browser) IV. ACTION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the vacation of the gravity irrigation easement as proposed by the Applicant and as agreed upon by the single easement holder. B. City Council: Pending City of Meridian I Department Report II. Staff Analysis ' I I 4 �� I 4 LLU ct Location of Impact Lu Analysis Ll �.J �1 MONO r Legend • IIII Illl� ' Project • • • IIII II Q ■■Area of Impact �-•�II Ir IIII III ILI ■� 11 0 Analysis ��1� 111 �� •�IIj� �lll -��IIIII► �!C■r 111 �1 11 1 ��� „ ♦F� �f-�I C III '-' �� �� 111111-II �OIIIIII ur II t�11 111�11rIlIrI111111r111 �i1111115 • fi_r I11111� �� -- . ME — r == --00- IJ�� ,� ��1 , w■ Ir li���llu��e• AMITY ,�- _� -MEMO ai:�� I IC 1�III11 Fllllilll 1 .Al EIIIIIIil1111' �� -=lllltlttl nr nmu= pp'lVIEWlli = nine, �s'-r••111lI■IIr � �lelmul— �:�1i1111111lI1i�1� ^.flw luu ��111111111,�:�•rry�� 11!IIIIIIII:IElm IrIIr11 IIIIyC ♦w♦�\IIII • ,����r►j�♦i �=C�C=-::u1 irl•� 4j ♦ IIII .� Q�♦ ♦ ■:-�_�—�C III �— ♦ � ` 111111 ma • yuui� L•,I/I11�r�1�,III �atl- W4�� • rrp I - 3. Future Land Use Legend Project Location ®® Medium Area of Impact ensltyl ©Analysis — =QResidential ® MU- M MU=N Civic Low Density ' Residential t ® ; 4. Planned Development Map Legend i ; Project Location [Be _ r Area of Impact T=` City Limits Planned Parcels OAnalysis -- r-----.---'_ ' 1 t - 1 iETMOw,N�' I ' City of Meridian Department Report V. Exhibits B. Easement Vacation Exhibit km ltdy it M5 Pro L"- Nat 21-2w HIRs cenluryr tarm tornmerdal 5abdl4t5lon No.2 ffiaster pssaciatian Gravity trrRalign ERwn"s Vararinn WO flesc ioion A portion of lots 13 arid 14,Block 2 61 wllrs CEhIu"Fora+,Cmmfftierclal 5ubdlwslon No.2(hoofs 1Z4, Pages 19913.19915,rmrds of Ada Coafntyr Idaho)and further situated In the Nartheast 10 OVA North vmFC 1J4 of Sctditui 33,Tawnsh;p 3 North,Range 1 East,S.M..Ciry i}F Mrrj(riM Adw CoUoty,tdyher and being more parlicularty&escrlhed as follows DEG1NMIMG at a S}g-indh rebar marwingthe soutbwQ€t Wirnefnf said Lot 13,eladl 2,thence Following the nestaiyGneof J*id Lilt 13,Black 2&M theeasterty Fight way line of S.Ta4:5tack AY*-the foalowingihr"(3)courses! 1. 39.69 feet along the arc of curve bathe left,saittcurum naming a radiraaf 331.50fee#.adefia angle of W5341",a chord bearing of NO3'3j'$7'W And a chard uistan,ce of 34.97 feet to a 5f$. Inch rebar, 2, wp5'5B'p5'w a`011ttWe of 103.17 feet ro a brass phag; 3. 9.06 fete#alone the w4;of a curve to the right said curve NArlg a radiuN at 266.5a,a delta arlgp. of ai'43']9",a chord hearing of h06'01i'32'W and a ceded dr5wa a!s1_06 feettb a brass plug marking the narthwrst turner of said cat 13,Btack 2 and the soulthwest corner of said Lot Al Stock 2; Thomm leaving said westerly line of Bald Lat 13,Buick 2 and foWwingthe we-deely line of said Lot 14, 6io&2 and the easterty right-af way of said&Tavistxk Awt.the talk rij four{elj courses. 1. 25.86 feet along the arc Ufa curve t6 thG I'tol,said curry he,ring a wlus of 268.So feet,a delta angle of 4S'31'06",3 Chord lotgring of NO2 24'22'w wW a chard distance QF 25.85`vet to a br#SS plUt 2. NUEI'15'11"E a dlstance arF 1:L4.14 feet to a 5/1-OKh reWF; 3_ N85'30'2S'k a distanceof 20,61 feetto s branoug; 4_ NDO'44'38"E a distance of 2.44 fw to a pra#s plug qn the southerly right-of-way line of E.Amity Rd.; Thence leaving said wesurlyand easterly Irr.rs and Mlowing wall soutt elyiight-0f-wayllne, SB4'15'2t'Ea distanceof 2.004feet Thence leaving said rautherly righl•Ofruay line,SGO'd6'36"W a distance of 10.24 trrt; Thencr 54534'25'w a dixrance of 213.51 fee#; ThsnCe SOa'ib'11AYd a distance Of 105-81fee4; Thence 3139 feet along the arc of a curve to the leis,saidturft hawing a fadlusof 24B.5Ufeet o delta angle of O7'14'19",a chard bearing of S+a3'20 59"E ar o Chord distance of 51.37 feet; Thence SM-58'Cr6"E a dispnce of 143-17feet. ThenteQ.58 feet along the arc of a curve to the rlgbt said curer hawing 0 radius of 3515ofeei,a delta angle of 05'5lY78",a chard bea rinc of 903'29'i4"F and A thoM tliWm(*of 42.56 feet to the souther* tine of 5ald lot 13,Block 2 i 5725 Noreh DUwwry Way-eolsa,idnho a1713+2135.539.54l9.hrrrrrgll p rnm City of Meridian I Department Report V. Exhibits - ; e F I ti 7 I _ Title:GI EamumA Vacation Liam 07-11-'_`0Q5 Scb1c= I inch—50 fed File, Tom1; Q.141Acmc: d_YMSgFmt{7mus-e73!VI—O.(*F*P: Pr-ima--in 564R1,:Ae .eae &h?Fm �a�*y'.:�``a�.�°i,�i.�2tio-°a�i 13-1 047-natlM43&2.9U 011-Nbfi.sm 103.17 02-406. iqu.11 QQR-ma.Y522c21Y.00 Qq3-PM.a63rwl.ae 007-9X 4JSw1a3+Y Qd+G71dI.�T2hr�x'a6 414-rilS.30.25w7Ai! Qq �pp,ldl]el]i.j# 4lS- 51. Ibllwl0&11 04fr`ni5,7025eZa.fiY Mi �K�itr�i��'na City of Meridian I Department Report V. Exhibits C. New Easement to be Established km E N 0 1 N E b R h N 0 !illy+11,2025 ProW Ma=21-200 tiffs Century Farm Commerdal Subdivision No.2 Master Association Gravity Irrigabon Eastwin R Dedication Legal Description A parcel of land fora Gravity lrription easement situated over a portion of Lots 13 and 14,Block 2 of Hill's Century Farm Commercial5ubdIvislon No.2(hook 124,Pages 19913^19915r records&AdA County,Idaho)and furthe r situated in the Northeast 114 of the Northwest 1{4 of Section 33,Township 3 North,lunge 1 East B.M.r City of McNdlan,Ada County,Idaho,and being more particularly descrIbed as follows; Com menCing at a brass Gap marking the northwest corner of sald Section 33 which bears Nl3B'15'22 W a dlsta nct:of 2,660.62 feet from an alu minuet cap marking the north 114 corner of Bald Section 31[,thence fallowing the northerly line of said Northwest if 4,5S'9'15'22"E a 4istarKe of 1,530A0 feet to the northwest corner of sa Id Hill's Century Fafm Co mme rcial Subdivision No-2; Thence leaving said northerly line,SO4'44'38"W a distance of 37.00 feet 10 a brass plug marking the northwest corner of said Lot 14,61wk 2 and being on the southiery right-of-way Ilne of E.Amity Rd.; Thence following said southerly right-of-way Ilne,S99'15'22"E a distarKe of 20-64 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNIM Thence following said 5pulherlyr right-ad- ay line,589'1522 rE a distance of 10.02 feet; Thence leaving said southerly right-of-way line,S02'56'35"E a distance of 19.76 feet; Thence 567'5-3'21"W a dicta n€e of 39-35 feed; Thence SOT16'11"W a dicta nce of 95-75 feet Thence 258-50 feet along the arr of a curve to the lek said curve having a radius of 75&50 feet,a delta angle of 0r14'19',a chord hearing ofS03'20'S9"E and a chord distance of 32.54 feet; Thence S06'5$'OS"E a distanm of 103-17 Feet; Thence 41,24 feet along the arc of a curse to the right,said cum having a radius of 341.50 fee,a delta angle of o6'55'o7'°,a chord hearing of So3'WWE and a chord diaan€e o141-21 feet to the southerly Ilne of said Lot 13,BIDck 2; Thence following said southerly One,N89'15'32"Lhr a distarxe of 10-00 feet M a 519-inch rebar marking the sQvihwre5t owner i?f said wt 13,Black 2,thence following the westerly lane of said Lot Sr Block 2 and the easterly right-of-ways line of S.Tavistxk Ave-the following three 13}bourses_ i. 39-99 feet along trio arc of a curve to the left,sa Id curve having a radius of 331.50 feet a delta angle of 06'53'41",a chord bear;ng of NO3'31'17"W and a chard distarxe of 39,87 feet to a V&- inch rebbr; 2. INOWSWOM a distance of 103-17 feet to a brass plug; 3. 8,06 feet along the arc of a curve to the right,said curve having a radius a#258-50,a delta angle of 0x'43ri3",a Chord bearing of N❑i3'06'32"W and a chord distance of SAC feet to a brass plug marking the northwest corner of Bald Lox 13,Block 2 arrd tha southwest corner of Bald Lot 14, BICKk 2; 57x5 Harth Discover+f Way.Boris,Idaho 83713•20M39-5919•krnerignp-corn City of Meridian Department Report V. Exhibits Thence k k wing said w6,1&ly link lbf said LDt 13,Block 2 and following the westerly line of said Lot 14, Block 2 and the easterly right-of-way of said 5-Tawistork Ave-the following twin(Z)courses, 1, 25,65 feet along the arc of a curve to the rlght,sa Id curve hawing a radius of 268-54 feet,a delta angle of 05°31'06",a chord bearing of NO2'24'22"W and a chard distance&f 2S.85 feet to a brass ptug; 2- PEWIV11"E a d Istanae of 102,46 feet; Thence leaving said waskerly and easterlw litres,N£7'5V21"E a distance of38-94 feet; Thence M)2'56'3VW a distance of 13.2$feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, Said easement destrlptlon contains a total of 3,313 square feel r mare or less. CL. 4 City of Meridian I Department Report V. Exhibits POW OF COMMEMCEMiENT (I HDRTHWEST CORNER SEOTION 33 O fiU 12d 1$ FCUND ORA$$ CAP Plara Scale:1'=60' B?Sr" OF BEARING NW 18'?2,W 2660.62' SW15'22"E 1530-4D' POINT OF — — — soo r Q INNINQ'` E.Amity Rd- I 37-0[Y (TIE) LT cc Gi IX W �l �� 54555`s51E � I Lu 1 � 19.76' aI ih SD�S'�'21 if r M o I Lot 14, Block 2 � T } H j I 10' CCWWRr FARM ULSTER ASSOCIATION GRAVITY IRRIATIDN EkSEMENT u3 " 46 LINE TABLE Hill's Century Farm ��LINE Commercial Subdivision No-2 BEAIpHG DISTANCE � m L1 S89'15'22% 20.84 L2 580L15'22"E ICO2 ti LD# 13, Block 2 L3 M6T59'71'E 36, 4 IW L+G N2 SB'36'1f 13 28 CURVE—TABLE UJRYE kMIUS LEMGiFF DELTA UiGR66RG (310F1G C1 2M-SO' 32.86' 714'19` U20'59% b2.04' NBsa'1S'22-w C2 341-50' 61.24' E'85"07" 5330'34-E 41.21' 100o' C3 331.50' 39.89' 6'53'41' N3'31'17 W 39.87' C4 269-S+G' &06' 1'43'13" NO'QB'32-N B,C$' 0 1 26&50'1 25.86' 1 S 31'O6" NT29'22''M 25.85' ENOINEERIN-a S)2SNORTN QLHUYEFYW4Y PHH0N'1ZMb39-ff 4 Exhibit B- Master Association Gravity Irrigation Easement '--O"U' Hill's Century Farm Commercial Subdivision Na.2 MkIF: i�r]o7s hMS�hT: SKEET; Letts 13 and 14, Block 2 in the Northeast 114 of the Northw t 1/4 oP 1 OF 1 Section 33,T-3N-, R-1E., B.M.,City of Meridian,Ada County,Idaho City of Meridian I Department Report V. Exhibits ro VOS 4 { P u -Y S Titic: G1 Essmient Dedication Dow 07-11-2025 Scats: 1 jneh=50 f0N File: Tract 1; 0.076 Amm 3313 Sq Fret Clagm=M-M2w 0-00 Fed Fredsim-11I 52: Pa3iffw cP=694 Feet OO1�A9,1522r i k2 y°7 °"3'P1 f F 013-aOQ-16i Ir 102.46 e.r u. �, Uzi 4Q2 ,S63�e 19.16 00"9.152zw 10.00 014,n67S92lc3&94 Od3=s67.5921w 39.35 RWL3=U7l taro��s_ai Q13-nO2-%36w 13,26 09 6,1611 w 95.75 010-n%.5808w 103.17 u'°O,R.lvrm' °i '' j° Ql!-SAG 063kw$A6 DD&-.0"S0&I0}-17 O12=nD2.2922w 25,85 City of Meridian I Department Report V. Exhibits C i E IDIAN.;--- Agenda Item Applicant Presentation Century Farm, 2025 th October 14 City of Meridian City CouncilGravity Irrigation Easement Vacation Project Location 3 Tavistock Ave.Amity Rd and location near Generally 2022 Plat Recorded 4 5 New Easement easement.The full length of the •10’ wide.–dimensions The easement •Owners Association Inc. Century Farm North Hill’s –The grantee •following:corrected the The new easement Conclusion Master Association Gravity Irrigation Easement.of the vacation of the Century Farm request approvalWe concur with staff’s recommendation of approval and 6 Discussion w IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing continued from September 16, 2025 for Latitude Forty Three Subdivision (H-2024-0059) by Rodney Evans + Partners, LLC., located at 675, 715 and 955 S. Wells St. Application Materials: https:Hbit.ly/H-2024-0059 A. Request: Annexation of 17.27 acres of land with R-8 (13.78 acres), R-15 (2.42 acres) and C-N (1.07 acres) zoning districts. B. Request: Preliminary Plat to re-subdivide lots 7, 21 and 22, Magic View Subdivision, Amended into 79 residential lots, 1 commercial lot and 11 common/other lots on 15.97 acres of land in the R-8, R-15 and C-N zoning districts. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT C��fEPIDIAN*,­, DEPARTMENT REPORT HEARING 10/14/2025 Legend DATE: Continuedfrom: 51612025 Project Location Area of Impact �= City Limits TO: Mayor&City Council C Analysis FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 sallen@meridiancity.org T'" APPLICANT: Rodney Evans+Partners,LLC SUBJECT: H-2024-0059 IV, _ Latitude Forty Three Subdivision—AZ, PP ® LOCATION: 675, 715 and 955 S. Wells St., in the east _ u 1/2 of Section 17, T.3N.,R.IE. I. PROJECT OVERVIEW A. Summary Annexation of 17.27-acres of land with R-8 (13.78-acres),R-15 (2.42-acres) and C-N(1.07-acres) zoning; and Preliminary Plat to re-subdivide Lots 7,21 and 22,Magic View Subdivision Amended into 79 residential lots, 1 commercial lot and 11 common/other lots on 15.97-acres of land in the R-8, R-15 and C-N zoning districts. Note:Since the original submittal, the plat was revised to include all public streets—private streets are no longer proposed; and the number of building lots were reduced from 81 residential lots, 1 commercial lot and 12 common/other lots to 79 residential lots, I commercial lot and 11 common lots. B. Issues/Waivers Per UDC 11-3A-6C.1, fencing along all natural waterways (i.e. Fivemile Creek) shall not prevent access to the waterway. In limited circumstances and in the interest of public safety, larger open water systems may require fencing as determined by the City Council,Director and/or Public Works Director. The Fivemile Creek bisects this site.A cross-section and photo of the creek is included below in Section VIIJ,which depicts the approximate existing and finished grade on both sides of the creek,the slope and a 4' tall retaining wall on the south side of the creek. The slope on the north side is approximately 3:1,which meets the accessibility and maintenance standards for stormwater facilities in UDC 11-313-11C.6 of a 3:1 slope or less—Staff recommends the north side remain open and not be fenced.The slope on the south side is approximately a 4:1 slope,which exceeds acceptable accessibility and maintenance standards—Staff recommends the south side is fenced with a 6' tall wrought iron fence for public safety in accord with UDC 11-3A-6C.3,unless the slope can be modified to 3:1 or less,in which case the creek should be accessible and not fenced. Council should consider Staff s recommendation and determine if it is appropriate. City of Meridian I Department Report C. Recommendation Staff: Approval with the provisions included below in Section IV. D. Decision Council: Pending II. COMMUNITY METRICS Table 1: Land Use Description Details Map Ref. Existing Land Use(s) Vacant/undeveloped land - Proposed Land Use(s) Single-family residential detached dwellings - Existing Zoning RUT in Ada County VII.A.2 Proposed Zoning R-8 (Medium Density Residential)(13.78-acres),R-15 (Medium High-Density Residential)(2.42-acres)and C-N (Neighborhood Business)(1.07-acres) Existing Future Land Use Map Medium Density Residential(MDR)&Mixed-Use VII.A.3 Designation Neighborhood(MU-N) Table 2: Process Facts Description Details Preapplication Meeting date 8/20/2024 PREAPP-2024-0128 Neighborhood Meeting 10/7/2024 Table 3: Community Metrics Agency/Element Description/Issue Reference Ada County Highway District • Comments Received Yes • Commission Action Required No • Access Access is proposed via E. Gentry Ln. and E.Wells Cir., local public streets;an emergency access only is proposed via E.Magic View Dr.through a common lot/driveway at the north end of the development.Public streets are proposed internally. • Traffic Level of Service Meets ACHD's planning thresholds Traffic Impact Study(Y/N) No(not required by ACHD) ITD Comments Received Yes—ITD requests a Traffic Impact Analysis(TIA)be provided as the development size and proximity to SH- _ 55 will impact the State Highway system. Meridian Fire No comments received Meridian Police No comments received Meridian Public Works Wastewater Sewer is available from Wells St.;located in the Five Mile sewer shed(see conditions) Meridian Public Works Water Water is available at site;each phase will need to be modeled to verify minimum fire flow pressure is maintained(see conditions). See City/Agency Comments and Conditions Section for all department/agency and the public record for comments received on this application. City of Meridian I Department Report III. STAFF ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code(UDC) A. General Overview Comprehensive Plan: Thirteen(13) acres of the subject property is designated on the Future Land Use Map(FLUM) in the Comprehensive Plan as Medium Density Residential(MDR) and the remaining 4.4-acres is designated Mixed Use—Neighborhood(MU-N). The MDR designation allows for dwelling units at gross densities of three(3)to eight(8)dwelling units per acre. The purpose of the MU-N designation is to allocate areas where neighborhood-serving uses and dwellings are seamlessly integrated into the urban fabric. The intent is to avoid predominantly single- use developments by incorporating a variety of uses.Land uses in these areas should be primarily residential, comprising between 30%and 60%of the development area with gross densities ranging from six(6)to 12 units per acre(of the residential area),with supporting non-residential services. Multiple residential product types are desired within a single-mixed use area(see pp. 3-20& 3-21 in the Comprehensive Plan for more info).Non-residential uses in these areas tend to be smaller scale and provide goods or services that people typically do not travel far for and need regularly. Employment opportunities for those living in the neighborhood are encouraged. Connectivity and access between the non-residential and residential land uses is critical in these areas. Tree-lined streets are also encouraged to be designed according to the conceptual MU-N plan depicted in Figure 3D in the Comprehensive Plan(see pp. 3-20 through 3-21 for more information on mixed use land uses and specifically MU-N uses in the Comprehensive Plan). A total of 79 single-family residential detached homes on the property—59 in MDR and 20 in MU-N— at an overall gross density of 4.85 dwelling units/acre in the residential areas of both designations. A gross density of 4.50 dwelling units/acre is proposed on the 13-acre MDR designated portion of the site and a gross density of 6.06 dwelling units/acre is proposed on the 3-acre residential portion of the MU- N designated area of the site,which is consistent with the density desired in the Comprehensive Plan for both designations. Residential uses are proposed over 75%of the MU-N designated portion of the site with narrow 30-foot wide building lots with an average lot size of 2,791 square feet. A commercial pad is proposed on the remaining 25%of the MU-N designated area. Only one housing type(i.e. single-family detached)is proposed in the MU-N area,which Staff supports due to the small size of the site. A street pattern grid is proposed with blocks below 600-feet in length as desired. Staff recommends tree-lined streets are provided along local streets within the MU-N designated area in accord with the Comprehensive Plan.Although the percentage of proposed residential uses is 15%higher than desired in the MU-N area, Staff feels it's appropriate for the site as Staff envisions the area to the east of Wells St. and along Magic View Dr. developing with a higher percentage of commercial uses,which should average out. Office uses exist to the south across E.Wells Cir. and an assisted living facility exists northeast of the site in the MU-N designated area.As only a small portion of the MU-N designated area has developed, Staff anticipates more of a variety of uses being provided in this area in the future when the remainder of the larger MU-N area develops or redevelops. Annexation&Zoning: Annexation of 17.27-acres of land is requested with R-8 (13.78-acres),R-15 (2.42-acres) and C-N (1.07-acres)zoning districts per the legal descriptions and exhibit maps included below in Section VII.C. The area proposed to be zoned R-8 is mostly located in the MDR designation with a small portion where the creek is located in the MU-N designation;the area proposed to be zoned R-15 and C-N is located entirely within the MU-N designation. City of Meridian I Department Report Preliminary Plat: A Preliminary Plat is proposed to re-subdivide Lots 7,21 and 22,Magic View Subdivision Amended into 79 residential lots, 1 commercial lot and 11 common/other lots on 15.97-acres of land in the R-8, R-15 and C-N zoning districts. The plat is proposed to develop in two(2)phases as shown on the preliminary plat in Section VII.D. The minimum lot size proposed in the R-8 district is 4,646 square feet(s.f.)with an average lot size of 5,629 s.f.;the minimum lot size in the R-15 district is 2,730 s.f. with an average lot size of 2,791 s.f. The C-N zoned lot is 29,634 s.f. The proposed plat layout provides a good transition in lot sizes/widths to Snorting Bull Subdivision No. 2 (aka Woodbridge)to the west with some lots only being slightly off-set; Staff recommends the Applicant consider revising the plat so that lot lines entirely align with adjacent lot lines as requested by abutting property owners. The proposed development is consistent with Comprehensive Plan Goal#3.07.01A which states, "Require all new development to create a site design compatible with surrounding uses through buffering, screening, transitional densities, and other best site design practices." Table 4: Proiect Overview Description Details History This property was included in Magic View Subdivision Amended plat as Lots 7,21 and 22.An annexation request was previously approved for this property in 2019, but the development agreement wasn't signed and consequently the property wasn't annexed(H-2019-0127 Andorra Senior Living).Another annexation request, which included a preliminary plat and a conditional use permit for an assisted living facility, was denied by Council in 2021 as it was deemed to not be in the best interest of the City [Wells Street Assisted Living/Andorra(H-2021-0024)J. Phasing Plan 2 phases Physical Features The Five Mile Creek crosses the southern portion of this property. Acreage 15.97-acres Lots 79 single-family residential building lots, 1 commercial lot and 11 common/other lots B. Site Development and Use Analysis 1. Existing Structures/Site Improvements (UDC 11-1): There are no existing structures on this site,all previous structures have been removed. There are existing trees on the site that may require mitigation in accord with the standards listed in UDC 1I- 3B-1 OC.S; the landscape plan should be revised to include mitigation information,as applicable. 2. Proposed Use Analysis (UDC 11-2): Single-family residential detached dwellings are listed as principal permitted uses in the R-8 and R- 15 zoning districts,per UDC Table 11-2A-2. An end-user has not yet been identified for the C-N zoned lot; allowed uses are listed in UDC Table 11-2B-3 for the C-N zoning district. 3. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): See UDC Tables 11-2A-6 and 11-2A-7 for dimensional standards of the R-8 and R-15 zoning districts, and UDC Table 11-213-3 for dimensional standards of the C-N zoning district. City of Meridian I Department Report C. Design Standards Analysis 1. Structure and Site Design Standards (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-19): Compliance with the structure and site design standards in UDC 11-3A-19 is required for the non- residential portion of the development. The pathway proposed through the common area in the residential area on the southern portion of the site should extend into the non-residential portion of the site and provide a pedestrian connection to the building entrance to promote pedestrian mobility within the mixed use development. The proposed commercial structure is required to comply with the non-residential design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual(ASM); the proposed single-family detached structures are exempt from design standards. In accord with the Comprehensive Plan,non-residential buildings should transition to and compliment adjacent residential buildings in mass and form; and transitions between different land uses should include highly connected open space. 2. Qualified Open Space &Amenities (Comp Plan, UDC 11-4-3-27): The proposed development is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan policies and goals: • Plan for safe, attractive, and well-maintained neighborhoods that have ample open space, and generous amenities that provide varied lifestyle choices(policy#2.02.00); and • Open space should be prioritized along natural or naturalized amenities (i.e. creeks and canals), integrated with pathways and pedestrian corridors, and located away from site features that may obscure visibility and attract dangerous or illegal behavior. (pg. 3-18) Compliance with the open space and site amenity standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3 and 11-3G-4 is required. A minimum of 15% (or 2.28-acres)qualified open space is required to be provided within the development based on 15.18-acres of land in the residential area. Open space is required to comply with the quality standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3A.2 and the qualified open space standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3B. The Applicant proposes a total of 2.47-acres(or 16%)qualified open space consisting of active and passive areas that include open grassy areas exceeding 5,000 square feet in area with a natural waterway(i.e.the Fivemile Creek) and linear open space as shown on the open space exhibit in Section VII.I. Amenities totaling a minimum of three(3)points are required to be provided based on 15.18-acres of residential development area. Site amenities totaling 12 points(pts.) are proposed from the Quality of Life and Recreation Activity categories as shown on the exhibit in Section VI1.1 as follows: • Quality of Life: picnic area on a site 5,000 s.f. or greater in size(2 points) Per UDC 11-3G-4C.5, a picnic area is required to include tables,benches, landscaping,and a structure for shade. • Recreation Activity Area: tot lot(1 point),two(2)paved pickleball sports courts(totaling 8 points),and approximately 700-feet of 10-foot wide multi-use pathway(under'/4 mile=0 points). Per UDC 11-3G-4D.3,the tot lot is required to have commercial grade play equipment scaled and designed for the use and safety of younger children; benches for seating shall be provided nearby. City of Meridian I Department Report Per UDC 11-3G-4D.5, sports courts are required to have markings and include benches for seating. i. The proposed common open space and site amenities meet and exceed UDC standards for such. ii. Landscaping is required to be provided in common open space areas in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-5B and maintained in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-5C. The first phase of development consists of the land north of the Fivemile Creek and will include the picnic,playground and multi-use pathway amenities;the second phase consists of the land south of the creek and will include the two(2)pickleball court amenities. 3. Landscaping (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3B): Attractive landscaping and pedestrian friendly design is proposed within the development in accord with Comprehensive Plan Policy#5.01.02G. Landscaping is required to be provided within the development in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B. i. Landscape buffers along streets A 10-foot wide street buffer is required along local streets(i.e. S.Wells St.,Wells Cir., and S. Longitude Dr.) on the C-N zoned lot(i.e. Lot 14,Block 5)per UDC Table 11-2B-3; landscaping is required to be installed within the buffer in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C with development of the subdivision. The landscape plan submitted with the final plat application should include landscaping and calculations that demonstrate compliance with these standards. An 8-foot-wide perimeter street buffer is proposed along E. Magic View Dr. and S. Wells St., local streets. Although street buffers aren't required along local streets in residential districts,a minimum setback of 10-feet is required for fences along streets.Therefore,the buffer should be widened as needed to provide a minimum 10-foot wide setback for the fence as measured from the property line in accord with UDC 11-3A-7C.3. All street buffers are required to be in a common lot or on a permanent dedicated buffer easement,maintained by the property owner,homeowner's association or business owner's association per UDC 11-3134C.2a and should be depicted on the plat. ii. Storm integration Stormwater integration is required in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-11 C. A Geotechnical Recommendation Report was submitted with this application and is included in the project file. iii. Pathway landscaping Landscaping is required along all pathways in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B- 12C.A 5' wide landscape strip is depicted on the landscape plan along both sides of the proposed multi-use pathway; a mix of trees, shrubs,lawn,and/or other vegetative ground cover should be provided within the landscape strips next to the pathway. A minimum of one(1)tree is required per 100 linear feet of pathway. Staff recommends the required trees are spread out more evenly for shade purposes at approximately one(1)every 100'. A calculations table should be included on the landscape plan submitted with the final plat application that demonstrates compliance with the aforementioned standards. City of Meridian I Department Report iv. Common open space Common open space areas are required to be landscaped in accord with the standards in UDC 11-3G-5B and maintained in accord with the standards in UDC 11-3G-5C. Calculations should be included on the landscape plan submitted with the final plat application that demonstrate compliance with these standards. 4. Parking (UDC 11-3C): Off-street parking is required to be provided for each dwelling unit based on the number of bedrooms per unit in accord with the standards for single-family detached dwellings in UDC Table 11-3C-6. On-street parking is available along both sides of internal public streets. Off-street vehicle parking is required to be provided for non-residential uses in accord with the standards in UDC 11-3C-6B.1. Bicycle parking is required per the standards in UDC 11-3C-6G. 5. Building Elevations (Comp Plan,Architectural Standards Manual): Several conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed single-story and 2-story single-family detached residential homes for each of the lot sizes proposed, included in Section VII.H below.A variety of materials are proposed including vertical and horizontal lap siding,board and batten siding, shake siding, smooth panel siding, and fenestration with masonry accents in a variety of colors and design elements/features with varying roof profiles and wall modulation that demonstrate the quality of development proposed. Single-family detached residential structures are exempt from the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual(ASM). Conceptual elevations were not submitted for the commercial structure on Lot 14,Block 5. The commercial structure is required to comply with the non-residential design standards in the ASM. Staff is of the opinion the proposed conceptual building elevations are in accord with Comprehensive Plan Policy#5.01.02L: "Support beautiful and high-quality development that reinforces neighborhood character and sustainability. 6. Fencing (UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): All fencing proposed on the site should comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-6 and 11- 3A-7. A variety of fencing types are proposed as shown on the landscape plan in Section VII.F below.All existing perimeter fencing will either be retained and protected or replaced;the developer will coordinate with all affected neighbors. Per UDC 11-3A-6C.1,fencing along all natural waterways shall not prevent access to the waterway.In limited circumstances and in the interest of public safety,larger open water systems may require fencing as determined by the City Council,Director and/or Public Works Director.A cross-section and photo of the creek is included below in Section VII.I, which depicts the approximate existing and finished grade on both sides of the creek, the slope and a 4' tall retaining wall on the south side of the creek.Approximately a 3:1 slope is shown on the north side of the creek.Because the slope on the north side meets the slope requirements in UDC 11-3B-11C.6 for accessibility and maintenance of stormwater facilities of 3:1 or less, Staff recommends this side remain open and not be fenced in accord with UDC 11-3A-6C.1 but recommends a 6'tall open vision wrought iron fence is installed along the south side of the creek for public safety since the slope in that area exceeds acceptable standards for accessibility unless the slope can be modified to be 3:1 or less—Council may determine otherwise. Fencing depicted along S.Hickory St.on Lots 6 and 7,Block 3 and Lots 5 and 6,Block 2 and along E.Magic View Dr. and S.Wells St.is required to be setback a minimum of 10' from the street side property line per UDC 11-3A-7C.3. The maximum fence height in the required front yard including the front and side yard property lines shall be 3-feet for a closed vision City of Meridian I Department Report fence and 4-feet for an open vision fence per UDC 11-3A-7C.2.The fencing plan and landscape plan should be revised accordingly to comply with UDC standards. Side yard fences that follow the side yard property line are only allowed where the side setback is five or greater per UDC 11-3A-7C.5.This restriction applies to the R-15 zoned lots if a 3' setback is proposed. 7. Parkways (UDC 11-3A-17): No parkways are proposed; however, Staff is recommending detached sidewalks with parkways for tree-lined streets are provided in the MU-N designated portion of the site in accord with the standards for such in UDC 11-3A-17. D. Transportation Analysis A Traffic Impact Study(TIS)was not submitted for this development as ACHD did not require one. Due to the development size and proximity to SH-55,impacts to the State Highway System are anticipated.The SH-55 corridor is already congested and this project will increase the number of vehicle trips.Therefore,the Idaho Transportation Department(ITD) has requested a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA)be submitted for this development and may make further comments upon review of the TIA.The developer is working on this request. Residents in Woodbridge Subdivision to the west have expressed concern pertaining to the high volume of traffic currently passing through their neighborhood between S.Locust Grove Rd. and E.Magic View Dr.via E.Woodbridge Dr.for access to S.Eagle Rd. and the negative impact the proposed development will have,which will exacerbate an already challenging situation. To alleviate this,the Applicant is not proposing public access via E. Magic View Dr. to discourage cut- through traffic. Capital Improvements Plan(CIP)/Integrated Five Year Work Plan(IFYWP): The bridge(#1224) over the Five Mile Creek on S. Wells Street is scheduled in the IFYWP to be replaced in 2029. The bridge is currently designed to match existing facilities,which do not include bicycle lanes or pedestrian walkways;however,the width of the bridge will accommodate these improvements in the future when adjacent properties redevelop and provide these facilities.ACHD will require a road trust from the developer for the cost of these improvements and include them in their project if this development goes forward. Condition of Area Roadways(Traffic Count is based on Vehicles per Hour(VPH): Roadway Frontage Functional PM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Classification Traffic Count Level of Service "Magic View Drive 712-feet Local so N-A Commercial "Wells Street 1,575-feet Local N/A N.A Commercial **Wells Circle 344-feet Local N/A NA Commercial **ACHD does not set level of service thresholds for local streets_ Access (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-3, UDC 11-3H-4): 1. Access is proposed for the site via existing and proposed local public streets. Access to the northern portion of the development is proposed via S.Wells St. from E. Gentry Ave., existing unopened right-of-way. An emergency only access is proposed via E. Magic View Dr. at the northern boundary of the site via a common driveway on Lot 22,Block 1. Access to the southern portion of the development is proposed via S.Wells St. and E. Wells Cir. Two (2) stub streets are proposed to the west to be extended with future development for access and interconnectivity with adjacent developments;no stub streets exist to this property. City of Meridian I Department Report Local street connectivity is proposed within the development in accord with Comprehensive Plan Policy#6.01.02B, "Reduce the number of existing access points onto arterial streets by using methods such as cross-access agreements, access management, and frontage/backage roads, and promoting local and collector street connectivity." 2. Multiuse Pathways (UDC 11-3A-5): Multi-use pathways are required to be provided with development in accord with the Pathways Master Plan.A 10' wide segment of the City's multi-use pathway system is proposed from S.Wells St. to the west along the north side of the Fivemile Creek and to the north and west property line for connection to the existing pathway in Woodbridge Subdivision, in accord with the Plan. A pathway stub is also provided to the property to the west(Parcel#R5443010202) for future extension. 3. Pathways (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-8): All pathways should be constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-8 and in accord with the site specific geotechnical report for light duty paving per UDC 11-313-12C.3. In the case where no geotechnical report is available pathways shall be built using two and one-half(2.5) inches of asphaltic concrete over four(4) inches of crushed aggregate base over ten(10)inches of structural subbase over compacted subgrade. Materials and methods shall conform to ISPWC standard specifications. Pathways are depicted on the landscape plan through the internal common areas for pedestrian access to amenities and the commercial pad on the south end of the site.A multi-use pathway is stubbed to the west boundary of this property from Woodbridge Subdivision. 4. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17): All sidewalks should be constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17. Five-foot wide attached sidewalks are proposed along all local streets within and adjacent to the development. As noted above, Staff recommends detached sidewalks with landscaped parkways are provided in the MU-N designated portion of the site in accord with the Comprehensive Plan. in the inter-im of the bridge being r-eplaeed aer-ess the Fivemile Creek, Staff r-eeemimeads a fninimum 5' wide temper-ary asphalt pathway is provided along Wells St. if there is adequate are alongside the existing read.ACHD confirmed there isn't adequate area for the pathway. 5. Subdivision Regulations (UDC 11-6): Compliance with the subdivision design and improvements standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3 is required. Common driveways: Three(3)common driveways are proposed,which are required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3D. Common driveways should be paved with a surface with the capability of supporting fire vehicles and equipment. A common driveway exhibit is included in Section VII.E below that depicts the setbacks,building envelope and orientation of the lots and structures. Block face: All of the proposed block faces comply with the required standards. The subject property should be subdivided prior to submittal of any building permit applications for the phase of development in which they are located. E. Services Analysis See Service Accessibility Report in Section VII.B below. 1. Waterways (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-6): All waterways, except natural waterways, are required to be piped unless used as a water amenity or linear open space, in which case they may be left open as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6. City of Meridian I Department Report The Fivemile Creek, a natural waterway,bisects this site within a 100' wide easement and should remain open and be protected during development. Building lots do not and should not encroach within the easement. A cross-section of the creek is included in Section VII.1 below that shows the approximate existing and finished grade on both sides of the creek, slope and a 4' tall retaining wall on the south side of the creek. A portion of this site is located within the floodway in zones X and AE.A floodplain permit is required before any grading in the floodplain begins.Floodplain permits are required for each building in the floodplain along with elevation certificates certifying lowest floor elevation is 2 feet above base flood elevation. 2. Pressurized Irrigation(UDC 11-3A-15): Underground pressurized irrigation water is required to be provided in each development as set forth in UDC 11-3A-15. 3. Storm Drainage (UDC 11-3A-18): An adequate storm drainage system is required in accord with the adopted standards, specifications and ordinances; design and construction shall follow Best Management Practice as adopted by the City per UDC 11-3A-18. 4. Utilities (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-21): All utilities for the proposed development are required to be installed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-21. Water service is available at the site and sewer service is available from S. Wells St. Each phase of the development will need to be modeled to verify minimum fire flow pressure is maintained. 5. Topography This property slopes down to the center from the north and the south ends of the site as shown on Sheet 3 of the plat. 6. Hazards Staff is unaware of any hazards that exist on this site other than the Fivemile Creek,which may present a danger to young children. IV. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. Meridian Planning Division 1. A new Development Agreement(DA) shall be required as a provision of the Annexation and Zoning application. Prior to approval of the annexation ordinance, a new DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian,the property owner at the time of annexation ordinance adoption, and the developer. A final plat application shall not be submitted until the annexation is finalized.The DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning Division within six(6)months of the date of City Council approval of the Findings of Fact,Conclusions of Law and Decision& Order for the annexation request. The new DA shall incorporate the following provisions: i. Future development of the subject property shall be generally consistent with the preliminary plat,phasing plan, landscape plan, open space and site amenity exhibit and conceptual building City of Meridian I Department Report elevations included below in Section VII,the conditions contained herein and the standards in the Unified Development Code(UDC). ii. The subject property shall be subdivided prior to submittal of any building permit applications for the phase of development in which they are located. iii. The pathway through the common area in the residential portion of the Mixed Use— Neighborhood(MU-N) designated portion of the site shall extend into the non-residential portion of the site and provide a pedestrian connection to the main building entrance to promote pedestrian mobility within the mixed-use development in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. iv. Tree-lined streets with detached sidewalks shall be provided in the MU-N designated portion of the development in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan for MU-N designated areas. v. Administrative design review shall be required for the commercial structure in accord with the non-residential design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual. The non-residential building shall transition to and compliment adjacent residential buildings in mass and form in accord with the Comprehensive Plan. Single-family detached structures are exempt from design standards. 2. The final plat shall include the following revisions: i. Graphically depict the 14-foot-wide public pedestrian easement for the multi-use pathway with the recorded instrument number of the easement. ii. Depict a 10-foot-wide street buffer along S.Wells St.,Wells Cir.,and S. Longitude Dr. on the C-N zoned lot(i.e. Lot 14,Block 5)per UDC Table 11-2B-3, in a common lot or on a permanent dedicated buffer easement,maintained by the property owner,homeowner's association or business owner's association per UDC 11-3B-7C.2a. iii. Depict detached sidewalks with parkways in the MU-N designated portion of the site in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17 and the Comprehensive Plan. iv. Perpetual ingress/egress shall be required for the common driveways either by a recorded easement or as a note on a recorded final plat as set forth in UDC 11-6C-3D. The easement or plat note shall include a requirement for maintenance of a paved surface capable of supporting fire vehicles and equipment. v. Widen the street buffer along E. Magic View Dr. and S. Wells St.to allow for a 10-foot wide minimum setback from the property line for perimeter fencing along streets in accord with UDC 11-3A-7C.3. vi. Remove the sidewalk along the west side of S. Longitude Dr. and provide right-of-way to the west property line. 3. The landscape plan shall include the following revisions: i. Depict tables,benches, landscaping, and a structure for shade for the picnic area amenity, in accord with UDC 11-3G-4C.5; include a detail for these items. ii. Depict commercial grade play equipment scaled and designed for the use and safety of younger children for the tot lot;benches for seating shall be provided nearby in accord with UDC I I- 3G-4D.3; include a detail for these items. City of Meridian I Department Report iii. Per UDC 11-3G-41).5, sports courts are required to have markings and include benches for seating; include a detail for these items. iv. The 5-foot-wide landscape strips along pathways shall include a mix of trees, shrubs, lawn, and/or other vegetative ground cover as set forth in UDC 11-313-12C;trees should be spaced out more evenly for shade purposes at approximately one(1) every 100 linear feet, additional trees beyond the minimum number may be provided. v. Depict landscaping within minimum 10-foot wide street buffers adjacent to local streets on Lot 14,Block 5 in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. vi. Fencing along S. Hickory St. on Lots 5 and 6,Block 2 and Lots 6 and 7, Block 3 shall be depicted a minimum of 10-feet from the street side property line per UDC 11-3A-7C.3. vii. The maximum fence height in the required front yard including the front and side yard property lines shall be 3-feet for a closed vision fence and 4-feet for an open vision fence per UDC 11- 3A-7C.2;revise accordingly. viii.Include a calculations table that demonstrates compliance with the standards for landscaping within street buffers (UDC 11-3B-7C), along pathways(UDC 11-3B-12C)and within common open space areas(UDC 11-3G-5B). ix. Depict detached sidewalks with parkways for tree lined streets in the MU-N designated portion of the site in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17 and the guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan. x. Widen the street buffer along E. Magic View Dr. and S. Wells St.to allow for a 10-foot wide minimum setback for perimeter fencing from the property line in accord with UDC 11-3A- 7C.3. xi. Remove the fencing depicted along the north side of the Fivemile Creek and depict 6-foot tall wrought iron fencing along the south side of the Fivemile Creek for public safety,unless otherwise modified by City Council. xii. Depict a minimum 5-foot wide temporary asphalt pathway along Wells St. if there is adequate area alongside the existing road.ACHD confirmed there is not adequate area for a pathway. xiii.Include mitigation information for existing trees on the site that are being removed with development in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-1OC.5, as applicable. xiv.Remove the sidewalk along the west side of S. Longitude Dr. and provide right-of-way to the west propei1y line. 4. The common driveways shall be constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3D and building setbacks shall be as shown on the common driveway exhibit in Section VILE. 5. All pathways shall be constructed in accord with the site-specific geotechnical report for light duty paving per UDC 11-313-12C.3. In the case where no geotechnical report is available pathways shall be built using two and one-half(2.5)inches of asphaltic concrete over four(4)inches of crushed aggregate base over ten(10) inches of structural subbase over compacted subgrade. Materials and methods shall conform to ISPWC standard specifications. 6. Submit a 14-foot-wide public pedestrian easement for the multi-use pathway on this site prior to submittal of the final plat for City Engineer signature. 7. Off-street parking shall be provided for all single-family residential dwellings in accord with the standards for such listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6. City of Meridian I Department Report 8. The Fivemile Creek shall remain open as a natural amenity and shall not be piped or otherwise covered in accord with UDC 11-3A-6 and shall be protected during development. 9. All waterways, except natural waterways (i.e.the Fivemile Creek), intersecting, crossing or lying within the area being development are required to be piped unless used as a water amenity or linear open space,in which case they may be left open as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6. If left open, fencing may be required in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-6C. 10. Wayfinding address signage shall be provided at the public street for homes accessed via common driveways(i.e. Lots 6-8 and 19-20 and 31-32,Block 1). 11. A floodplain permit is required before any grading in the floodplain begins. Floodplain permits are required for each building in the floodplain along with elevation certificates certifying lowest floor elevation is 2 feet above base flood elevation. 12. Side yard fences that follow the side yard property line are only allowed where the side setback is five or greater per UDC 11-3A-7C.5. This restriction applies to the R-15 zoned lots if a 3-foot side setback is proposed. 13. Approval of the preliminary plat shall become null and void if the applicant fails to obtain the city engineer's signature on the first phase final plat within two (2)years of City Council's approval of the preliminary plat; or a time extension may be requested as set forth in UDC 11-6B-7. Other Agency comments may be accessed in the project file in the public record. Copy and paste the following link into your browser https:llweblink.meridiancioy.orglWebLink/browse.aspx?id=367307&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity V. FINDINGS A. Annexation (UDC 11-5B-3E) Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full investigation and shall,at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; The Commission finds the proposed map amendment and development plan generally complies with provisions of the Comprehensive Plan pertaining to transition in density, residential densities and compatibility with adjacent uses. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; The Commission finds the proposed amendment to the R-8 and R-15 zoning districts is consistent with the purpose statement of the residential districts in that it contributes to the range of housing opportunities in this area consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; The Commission finds the proposed map amendment will not be materially detrimental to the public health and safety. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to, school districts; and The Commission finds the proposed map amendment will not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services, including the school district based on 2024-2025 student enrollment numbers. City of Meridian I Department Report 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. The Commission finds the proposed annexation with the recommended conditions of approval is in the best interest of the City. B. Preliminary Plat(UDC 11-613-6) In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat,or short plat,the decision- making body shall make the following findings: l. The plat is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and is consistent with this unified development code; The Commission finds the proposed plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with the UDC with the conditions contained herein. 2. Public services are available or can be made available ad are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; The Commission finds public services are available to the site and will be adequate to accommodate the proposed development. 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the city's capital improvement program; ACHD is planning to construct a new bridge across the Fivemile Creek in the CIP; no other improvements are planned. Other than that, the Commission finds there are no scheduled public improvements that affect development of this site. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; The Commission finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development. 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and The Commission finds the proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. The Commission finds the Fivemile Creek, which crosses this site, should be preserved and protected during development of this site. The Commission is unaware of any other such features that exist on this site but if any others exist, they shall be preserved. VI. ACTION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed AZ and PP requests with the requirement of a development agreement and the conditions of approval included above in Section IV. B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard these items on April 3,2025. At the public hearing,the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject AZ and PP requests. I. Summary of Commission public hearing_ a. In favor: Ben Semple,Rodney Evans+Partners,LLC b. In opposition:None C. Commenting: Robin McCulley d. Written testimony: Ben Semple,Rodney Evans+Partners,LLC; Robin McCulley Cassy Peck; Celeste Fox; Kathleen Lewis; Tanya Bader; Erin Russell; Ram Spencer e. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen City of Meridian I Department Report f. Other Staff commenting on application:None 2. Key issue(s) testimony a. The existing fence along Woodbridge's east boundary(the site's west boundary)is crooked and doesn't lie on the property line in many places due to the location of existing trees&poor construction;request for details on what the plan is for fencing along the west boundary of the site—desire for vinyl fencing not to be an approved material in this area; b. The high volume of traffic goingthrough hrough Woodbridge subdivision between Locust Grove&Eagle Roads,which will worsen with more homes beingdped in this area; long wait times at the intersection of Eagle/Allen at the traffic signal and safety concerns—request for this area to be rezoned for non-residential uses; c. Privacy issues with 2-story homes being built next to single-story homes, and question if 2-story homes will have windows facing adjacent rear yards; d. Request for the developer to provide details in writing of their planned building setbacks on lots next to Woodbridge to be included in the DA; e. Request for the developer to address what future builders can do to prevent drainage issues on abutting lots in Woodbridge due to the higher elevation of the subject property f. Ms. McCulley expressed concern about a tree located along her rear property line and how it would be impacted by a new fence. 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission. a. General consensus the proposed development will fit in well with the existing residential development to the west(i.e.Woodbridge)-, b. Recognition of the traffic issues in this area; c. Agreement with Staff s recommendation pertaining to fencing along the Fivemile Creek. 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. At Staff s request,the Commission included new conditions requiring mitigation information to be included on the landscape plan for existing trees on the site that are being removed with development in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B- 1 OC.5, as applicable; and removal of the sidewalk along the west side of Longitude Dr. with provision of ROW to the west property line. 5. Outstandingissue(s)ssue(s) for City Council: a. Council should determine if the fencing recommended by Staff along the Fivemile Creek is appropriate as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6C. C. The Meridian City Council heard these items on May 6,2025.At the public hearing,the Council moved to continue the subiect AZ and PP requests to a later hearing in order to allow additional time to obtain more information on the RFO timeline to consider options to address the transportation issues in this area. 1. Summary of the City Council public hearing a. In favor: Ben Semple,Rodney Evans+Partners,LLC;Ian Connair,Kimley-Horn b. In opposition:None C. Commenting: Robin McCulley, Treg Bernt, Tanya Bader,Janet McDougal d. Written testimony: Celeste Fox,Robin McCulley. Cassandra Peck,Raymond Spencer e. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen f. Other Staff commenting on application:None 2. Key issue(s)of public testimony: a. Requests the developer provide details of their planned building setbacks next to neighbors on Woodhaven St.that will be part of the DA;requests clarification about what the builders can do to prevent drainage issues on lots that abut homes in Woodbridge that are at a lower elevation; and concern pertaining to the erimeter fencing along the east boundary of Woodbridge. City of Meridian I Department Report b. Concern pertaining to the existing fence along the east boundary of Woodbridge—the developer hasn't vet discussed the matter with neighbors. c. Concern pertaining to the increase in traffic in an already congested area and lack of a fencing solution along the shared property line with Woodbridge: and concern pertaining to lack of privacy with 2-story homes abutting her single-story home. d. Concern pertaining to the proposed scale&building setback of homes along the west boundary of the site abutting homes in Woodbridge and lack of privacy—reauest for 20' setback for single-story homes& 30' for 2-story homes. Concern pertainjn t quality of homes built in this development if the current builder drops out—request for the opportunity for the City&the public to review any future changes to the elevations in the event the home builder and/or ownership changes to avoid a potential"bait& switch". e. Request for Council to consider if the proposed development is a good fit for this area. f. The need for more connectivity in this area. 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by City Council: a. Opinion Council doesn't have the right information before them to make a decision on this application at this time—the traffic issue in this area needs to be resolved before approving a development plan for this property. b. Discussion about continuing the project to a later hearing date in order to allow additional time to gather information in hopes of finding a path forward on the transportation issues in this area. One solution might be allowing the northern portion of the development abutting Woodbridge Subdivision to move forward with development. while delaying development of the southern portion until a solution to the traffic issue is identified in case revisions to that portion of the development plan are needed. 4. City Council change(s)to Commission recommendation: a. None City of Meridian I Department Report l� FRANKLiILU 111111ss���\\�11 \ 84® ■ " W r , - a -• • •• FRANKLIN �++ __ • ■■■■■ ■■■���► ■■■■■■■■n■■■■�,��� /�■■■■■■■��■��ii,����� W m „■■■i M■■■110011■4 ram:. :r■■nn..� p MEN -- 84 r OYERL--AND W �� -80 .. FRANKLIN ,t oil,■■toot. W �' ��■■■■ _ �r lllllll� . y� 1 rpo■ ■III IL I, III - r • � c 111 �■■ _ _�� �■■■l 84 —s. _ a 01/ERL-AND., ICJ■��n1 OEM ri ME ONE 11112 -• • •• FRANKL=IN -- slow 0 .:`s� �■■■■■■■■■■■■■ �� Ill `i ,�■ � � �C � 111�: +pr ��=mow*Rl :y: -- ■�:� :- �ell : �.♦ ,� ;li�'r= � ■ ■■■1 ■�■� NU ■, „�. ■■■■ „ OYERL--AND soon 0 ■ ■rLLa,' B. Service Accessibility Report PARCEL R5443010220 SERVICE ACCESSIBILITY overall Score: 26 121st Percentile Location Within 112 mile of City Limits YELLDW Extension Sewer Trunkshed mains < 500 ft.from parcel Floodplain Either not within the 100 yrfloodplain or > 2 acres Emergency Services Fire Response time 5-9 min. YE-LOW Emergency Services Police Meets response time goals most of the time Gf�N i� Pathways Within 1/4 mile of current pathways GREEN Transit Not within 114 of current or future transit route RED Ultimate configurafion(#of lanes in master streets Arterial Road Buildout Status GREEN plan) matches existing (#of lanes) School Walking Proximity Within 112 mile walking GREEN Either High School or College within 2 miles Oita School Drivability Middle or Elementary School within 1 mile driving GREEN (existing or future) Park Walkability No park within walking distance by park type RED Rgx;rtggwla1edun 02-ZI-2025 by MERIDUffSJs City of Meridian I Department Report C. Annexation Legal Description&Exhibit Map Ki[1ley> Horn October 10, 2024 Latitude Forty Three Annexations Description Lots 7,21 and 22 of the Amended Magic Yew Subdivision, filed in Book 52 of Plats at Pages 4445-4446,Ada County Records, being located in the East Half of Section 17,Township 3 North.Range 1 East, Boise Meridian,City of Meridian, Ada County.Idaho. heing more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Center Quarter of Section 1 T.Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian,from which the North Quarter Comer of said Section 17 bears North 00023'48"East. 2,657.09 feet;said Commencing Point being the S out hviest Corner of said Lot 22; Thence along the Lot Lines of said Lots T.21 and 22 the following nine(9) courses and distances; 1. North 00°23'48" East,a distance of 901.42 feet; 2. South 80°09'03"East,a distance of 409.00 feet; 3. North 09°50'57" East,a distance of 25.00 feet; 4. South 80°09'03"East,a distance of 312.19 feet; 5. South 16°49'09"West,a distance of 802.30 feet; 6. South 09°36'26"East,a distance of 324.91 feet; 7. North 89"15'33"West, a distance of 373,45 feet; 8. North 00101121" West, a distance of 773.67 feet; 9. North 89157150" West, a distance of 252.88 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING of this description. Containing 752,265 square feet or 17.27 acres of land, LAIC D D 0 � OEM: I/ City of Meridian Department Report NORTH QUARTER SEGTION 17, CP&F 1[4161984 LINE TABLE + NO. SEARING LENGTH i L1 N00'23+49'E 901-42' o-'�i• � ��� -� � ��r L2 380'09'03"E 409.00' 03 w 1 L3 N09'5057E 25-00r � wo L4 380'13nWE 312.19 b L5 S11Y49'NN1r 802.31F r a L11 309'38'2d"E B24.91' r + r L7 N89'15'33'44 373.45' I t L8 N00'01'21"W 773.07 { 1 � � F o L9 N89'57'50"1M1 252.8d' Ff+� a /�F u N I y L9 CENTER QUARTER EAST QUARTER s� SECTION 17, ii SECTION 17, CPBF 102DO9257 1 i CPBF 1111054175 v ti 1 4 9 s — -L7 — — iL LEGEND LAAD BOUNEARY LINE — — SECTION LINE NORTH 0 — — — RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE o QUARTER CORNER GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET 0 150 300 600 • D 4 PROJECT: T—LE '93'30D Kimle H rn LATITUDE 43 SCALE 1'=� 11W S FDAM UM 210'�r EXHIBIT rrB DATE: 4CdiCa2024 Bom loom WTm ANNEXATION SHEET: wld�li�-I.wear SHEET 2 OF 2 City of Meridian I Department Report I irnlepMorn October 14,24 LaMode Fort}+Tfivae R-8 Zone Das�ra on Lots 7,21 and 22 of the Amended Magir.View Subdivision,filed in Book 52 of Plats at Rages 44454445,Ada County Records,being kxated in the East Halt of 5er-tion 17_Townsh ip 3 North,Range 1 East,Boise Meridian,City of Meridian,Ada County,I daho,being mare particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Center quarter of Section 17,Township 3 North,Range 1 East,Boise Meridian,from which the North Guarter Cornier of said Section 17 bears North DO 2348"East, 2.657.0E feel;said Commencing Point being the Southwest Corner of said Lot 22; Thence along the Lot Linea of said Lots 7,21 and 22 the following seven M courses and distances: 1_ North 00'23'48" East,in d+slance of H1.42 feel; 2 South 80'09'03"Eastr a distance of 409.00 feet; a North 09"W'57" Earl,a dislanca of 25.00 feet; 4. South 8V09'03"East,a distance of 3 12.19 feet; 8_ South 16149109"YYaat,a dlStance of 802.30 Fret- & South 0VW26"Eastr a distance of 363.80 feet; 7_ North 99'15'4V Vkwla a distanrieflt 295-67 feet; Therme North 00°01r21"West,a distance of 320.03 feet to the Westerly Lot line of said Lot 21; Thence along said Lot line North 89°57'50"West,a distance of 252.88 feat to the POINT OF BEGINNING of this description, Containing 604,279 square feet or 13.76 acres of land_ City of Meridian I Department Report I imle )) Horn October 10,2024 Lambdb Fort+Fhrc c R-15 Zama Description A portion of Lot 21 of the Amended Magic 10ew Subrd ivision,filed in Soak 52 of Plats at Pages 4445-4145ti Ada County Records,being kw-Med in the East Half of 5er-tian 17_Township 3 North,Range 1 East,Boise Meridian, City of Meridian,Ada County,Idaho,being more Particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Center quarter of Ser-tion 17_Townsh ip 3 North,Range 1 East Base Meridian,from which the North Quarter Corner of said Section 17 bears North 00'2348"East, 2,65T.09 feet;Thence South 320.113 feet. and East 253_151 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence Sow h W 1 V44" East,a distance of 296.67 feet to the Easterly Lot line i�f said Lot V; Thence along salts Lot IIne South 49°3626"East,a diatanec 4f 3XV feet; Thermos North.89-1544"West,a distance of 351.60 lsct to the Wcsterly Lot line of said Lot 21- Thoh" a to ng-82ild Lot l i no NMh-00'U V 2 V West,a distance of 3Z5.03 feet to the PAINT OF BEGINNING of this descriRtiom Containing 1054356 square fast or 2_A2 acres of tan d. U, 9 CF City of Meridian Department Report I imley> orn Goober 10, M4 Lambj*Eft zom 00sc"Ptoorr A pardon of Lot 21 of the Ame n ded M agic View Subd ivision,filed in Book 5,2 of PI ats at Pages a."W 11 Ada County Records,being I ocated in the East Half of SeGtidn 17_Townsh ip 3 North,Range 1 East_Boise Meridian. Ci ty of Meridian,Ada County,I daho,being m ore particularly described as fellows: Commencing at the Center quarter of 5er-tion 17_Township 3 North,Range 1 East,Baise Meridian,from which the North Guarter C orner of said Section 17 bears North 40 23'48"Eaet, 2,657.09 feet;Thence South 645,22 feet,and East 253.14 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence Soul A9'15:44"East,a distance of 351.68 feet to the Easterly Lot line of said Lot 21; Thence along the Lot Lines of said Lot 21 the fallowing three 13)courses and d istanres: 1_ Thence South 09:36'2ti"East a distance of 130.75 Beet; 2_ Thsnco Nnrt[k 89"15'33"West, a distance of 373A5 feet; 3_ Thence North 40°41-21"West. a distance of 129.61 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING of this descripdnn_ Containing 46,531 square feet or 1.07 acres of land_ City of Meridian I Department Report NORTH CKYkRTER SECTION 17, CPSF 1441619" LINE TABLE w BGSRiG LIENGT}4 ,gig , v c p Li NCO'2 AFE 901.42' I '�^`w8R r L2 SW%Q 0� 4N.PA' inku } r L3 NU9'505TE 2IS-W ID f Ld SW'G$%-F 312.19 L5 S16149'C9'Ui' d02.3D' {j L7 W9 lE44 W 2%.BT w Lb NOD' 7110 320.03' $ +� L9 f'W57151M 252M RAZONE �1 o L14 SIIP'W'25 E =37 L11 S99'15WE 351.6&' L12 MOM71'W 32d.ff eENTcR OUhRTER i— y` — EAST CAJARTER L14 h189'in3ww 37l3 w SECTION 17. 4 SECTION 17, CPBE 102DEW57 qp 4 13 CPAF 1IOD641715 L15 140)QI i12VW 12L I' 1 1 � 1 h 1 L7 � 1 r R-15 ZDNr= ti L11 k I VI ZONE _ r L14—— LEGEND BOUNDARY UNIE SEC I ION LINE N�r11 { — — — NIGH I-OF-V4A4Y LANE 0 (AJAR I E:R CORNER GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET Nr'.q ' l PROJECT: TRLC. .�s Ilar 1 la0000 LATITUDE 43 SCIRM 1'-3W� { 1140 7S S�EEf 1f !r "Am 1 5J�#14 ZONES 9p�.Q1}I�t4r02 1�1ELT ~ rp SHEAF 4 QF 4 City of Meridian I Department Report A Preliminary Plat&Phasing Plan OWWWGIUM _ Y H YI 11.10 {� wi aoiswoens�auuao��ruutn a� i s6•"�R 6�9�kF6 � �. w c �m 4 c w W S NO E 0 a w w M, J a 0 > va ❑ z w ° LU m LL�� r -g'� �iIsaaaas... ❑ Jam , 33 "_' ❑ W HHOA 9m 1y€ea•a 6•.wip NUN 9 its tS�s$SS City of Meridian I Department Report lligg �\ / � -- \ ;� —— W AlVT, C) � - \\� � § / | �.; _�— K t \ } � |� Ou �\� ) � !( KimleyoHorn DETAILS v MERIDLAN.IDAHO City of Meridian Department Report tr. HIP ¢ 13 ❑ ot El T 4 i Fe i ❑ ❑ r # ° ❑ ❑ P El El ❑y„ ❑ ❑ ❑ ,:❑ ❑ El Ej El El OWWI ❑ _ F' I — I I — I❑ 0 •�❑ ❑ ,� r J 3 9 J n n n 9 9 9 9 9 12 S 2 m w S I Y — I -- o© ❑o°o ❑oo 8 a L4TMJDE FORTY Ti-IREESUMVISkOU l�y> Horn pp EXISTING CGNDITIONS MFRIDM IDARO m r. City of Meridian Department Report M U g T A! U�30 S. RE V 4r RS�4 7L bg - ----- ----- Its 31 r aj S. -------------- Jab----.A T-- N !v N) 'I Tl 11 R'3 E-1 7T MATGHLINE SEE GdEfTD5 F Ff LATffUDF-FO---E-...S.- Kimley*Horn PRELIMINARY PLAT MERIDIAN.5DAHO City of Meridian Department Report all .71 9k5 �i�ssg.g; R3af eS` f I 14 r' fir 1 _ WATCtUNE SEE SHEFFD1 rrr �g 4t ;'y�. f OR ��'�' '�— + ' x ��� �� , ••ter r U ECFEEEK ��.•, rr �! L w _w s a� 4 II v_a nl� �!S sled .,I n°a Ise e i R>F 5 E 101LkTdl dl L -� wox q9 !7 5�G ayy s o8°' I •-Q I' m I x x6' g � it8xw �. 1 I I 9� �qp gr. � tivl i 9 I q" --- ---- ----------- e II I E D I {V 3 - s � e � ae � seea �ae9ee:.83992it 2 92222 3 � �� Fs��� eeeeeeaaaaaaaaaiassss'essssegege � - � $ pp g pppt g Ryy 7 i e : g 4 B i 5!Z i B i 7 E■I!S A!Y V C 8 IF } 7 8 ! ;! s II ' J LA7FrUOE FORTY UiREE SUBDIVISION iml Horn s 4 Q ' x PRELIMINARY PLAT fff 'r/ hERIDLAR EAFIO City of Meridian Department Report Ir r rr I f r I r r ! -__ I I •_ ...-r .� rY I --- + ----- - r I + I•��6ENiRY AVE I � I 6 � II � __III V I � I V I I I EEg1ATOR OR {i - I G _p ax®� TM � L4TfTL1DE FORTY THREE5U9DNI51CN Kimley*Horn PHASING PLAN Q m MERIDIAN,IDAHO r City of Meridian Department Report E. Common Driveway Exhibit ---_—_---------------------� I I II — _S WELLSAr HOME 1IIti ''1 I Eu ', l I _�_g 1:� I�NTATlOWf HpM I ca J� p�- IR 5 - II I r �i � jam— " ' I � �A •I -- I ' II - _ I I I .- II I I s ry III 1� J I HaME I I rypME I,I �o� I FT I w I zli b� W�— l� N }o: I Y i I I NaiT1 �A • E E I -' .. :�5r'"'1--- og--,III vl I • LL ui E� Ll_--------� O � I City of Meridian Department Report F. Landscape Plan&Fencing Plan(dated: 3/12/2025) ON AL I —1--.7 a 0 ............ ............. OE MRTY TIR2E 311111IN2111" q o6 Kimley*Horn MFP1D1W,0DAKO 1-4 1 City of Meridian Department Report �,... 6 V,H'M. �- +HIP 9 I� 1 10;;�: + rgcfo_§ L ■tl!i 4 _ ! I ! .. I 1 + 1, _ 1 } - /71 - �- � fff N� :~ --- --- f + `1 y r r I + 1 �.. ::: .. .......-�.. JJ J J - ___ = = L.SENTRY IN. 9 WkTaflUNE SEE SA=R3 000001 a Q a a e s s a A s s e s a r a LATITUDEFOf"THREE SUBDIVISION Kimley*Horn B _ gay �weier r:�emr w.�+Rn r � LANCSCAREPLAN �RIow�L iovio City of Meridian Department Report ,a ;yX4 1 NIRTCFLJNE SEE SFEFf Q2 F F j�3�sa Q E 11♦I `�f 1 S , f I - - -- kF[ j I l I . C�AWtTMD&.�. R + fill I 9 7 I I I I I I - , I q I T 1 I I 1 I I I I. 1 I s 9 LATITUDE FORTY TFREESL18OIhASION lKimleylMorn LANDSCAPE PLAN .a.. � LfRiow:LOAFiO City of Meridian Department Report qq pp } E WGIC y,+Ew � � a : aP If n $ I L 1 r � jz jff Ir� i i P � a � 4 -- ,. City of Meridian Department Report G. Open Space& Site Amenity Exhibit ------------ - --------- T MF w M W jo 0 M L I "I h lip liq I Mgj TUIE FOR-1-1 TIRIE SUM Kimley*Horn OPEN SPACE PLAN MERIDAN,IDAHD City of Meridian Department Report H. Conceptual Building Elevations 24-foot-wide product for lots in Phase 2 (optional garage width does not apply): GENERAL NOTES y s.•a s 'g BOILDING ARFAG 0'�' xg:i 5 Y p fl ---- - Kc ®000 ®®®®®®® -- -- --- -- --  - � FRONT ELEVATION{"B"CMFTSNUN) me wn�a aaavnnAw ------------------- — oa h� LEFT ELEVATION{'B"CRAFTSMAN) A4 DO ----------- if i I ak w Szs s-= s Ri( F"ATON CB°CN*78" .��.... A4 91 City of Meridian Department Report GENERAL NOTES ialgl BUILDINGAREAS ------------------ ----- it =4 ............... V f�-- ---------------- 'lag ------------ FRONT ELEVATION ED"MODERN FARMHOUSE) A D 0 0 jE 0 —---------- m I LEFT ELEVATION("D"MODERN FARMHOUSE) till— --------- - ----- OPT —JE EAR ELEVATION C'U'MODERN FARMHOUSE) L A --------- -------------- ------------- U) oP ICI Z 50 z D 0 ---------------------------------------------------------- Om ------ ----- II II II ------ ----- - ----------------------- --------------------- T RIGHT ELEVATION('D'MODERN FARMHOUSE) City of Meridian Department Report GENERAL NOTES BUILDING AREAS n vENEEa wana nnH s OFT 1—RD—GE OPT 6-SHOP a- m., s a _ � s .....,p e.T..". FRONT ELEVATION("F PACIFIC NORTHWEST MODERN) A --- I a _I 0 v a - _ g �o sse I o 92 o> `rl LEFF ELEVATION I'F PACIFIC NORTHWEST MODERN) A420 roe�Ei w,.A...,N ---------------------— Z i ------------- 1 = 3 =pLEVATION("F PACIFIC NORTHWEST MODERN) 4 L A N N e W ENO u RIGHT ELEVATION("P'PACIFIC NORTHWEST MODERN) A421 City of Meridian Department Report GENERAL NOTES agaE� BUILDING AREAS i ® ------- 00 00 0000 �-�•- i FRONT ELEVATION•G•(SLEEK CONTEMPORARY) li L A ------------------ w w o ppr I I OPr I J Q a.•�.wo. �Z m II ^" ._—_.—__—..—_.—._—..—__—__—__—__ -r —• ------ -__—__—__— —..—_.—._—..—_.—._—._—_S mw LEFT ELEVATION"G"(SLEEK CONTEMPORARY) �•,� A4.40 or. 1 f fi S f REAR ELEVATION"G•(SLEEK CONTEMPORARY) = ¢ L �A w o N p �I Z,O o22 -------------- --------------------------------- II II RIGHF ELEVATION•G"{SLEEK CONTEMPORARY) •�'""� A4.41 City of Meridian Department Report GENERAL NOTES .w1 xEUV-rc.oe =x.., BUILDING AREAS 00 00 a FRONT ELEVATION"H"IMODERN) ESE A N W fn� .�.�...e W�--.�...W..."--- m O m g i O> II II II II --- - -- - ---- ----- -- - -- ---- � LEFT ELEVATION"H"(MODERN) $�if! "mrnwwre« � gy� ____snaucv:w i a P i f ------------- ___---=-=-=-------�. g 1 S REAR ELEVATION"H"(MODERN) L �A ------------- -— O 052 O At.4Ao...nm., - -iif tiNo II -- -- ------------------------------ --- -- -- i--- RIGHT ELEVATION"H^{MODERN) M~� A4 51 City of Meridian Department Report 35-foot-wide product for lots that are 45' or wider: I r E I�i inl - g6i na.�o �I City of Meridian Department Report e ilo �J—III��III�II II ���as Ell o rs GENERAL NOTES ~�9 .,gym. e��^��• - BUILDING AAEAS� ....,.. j -—_-_-_-_-_------------- ------------- �s.�. +_"— — _ R I EMELEVATION"D'(MODERN FARMHOUSES � - �X �. A sc ca.uNN OEra a N v W _ Z on D m 1 „ r O N� -_--_--_--_--_—_—_ LEFT FI EVATION-D-(MODERN FARMHOUSE) »� A4 3U les �W 1-0 @ �ue 'o_y OPT.1T SLIDER REAR ELEVATION"O"(MODERN FARMH(XJSE) d L X N N W Z� 0 0 =9 N n# OD r _—---— C_2___ -----___________-----____________________________________5--------------- RIGHT ELEVATION"D"(MODERN FARMHOUSE) w,v A4.31 City of Meridian Department Report GENERAL NGIES VENEWERR WRAP PLAN BUILDING AREAS MEE a - -------------- X� FROML ELEVATION"P'(PNW MODERN) Oo OPTIONAL&'OOOR J L-- J -a TT II1I s -------------- ---------------- !IR LEFT EL VATEION T"(PNW MODERN) LE A4.Sfl !m WWI It E,—IL --]Lk L TLE ws y01 ----------------- OPT 17 SLIDER REA'R EELEVATION"P(PNW MODERN) L nX - --------------------.-----------_--__ N W Z O �m# r _---.----_ ---------- ----------------------------------------------- III GHT ELEVATION"F"(MODERN PNW) A4.51 City of Meridian Department Report ((5 d i IIIH i a 4¢s$€y W W o A GENER/LNOTES �s -R BUILDING AREA. =f ------ ---------------------- - - V� I wa V of A L ---------------------- ------------_ FRONT ELEVATION"G"(SLEEK CONTEMPORARY) — w Zo oP ioue�a °°`t Q a r ________________ ________________________- - LEFFELEVATION"G"(SLEEK CONTEMPORARY( W A4.60 S 4,3 - Y Ws1 � r"or.eu,onoaru �i V O i OFF. 7 SLIDER SEAR ELEVATION"G"(SLEEK CONTEMPORARY) ®6 7 L X ------------------------ Z 0 0 0 so V 0 ik 06 m r r—--t--_-_-------_- - ----------- - -------- - - -5 RIGHT ELEVATION'+G"(SLEEK CONTEMPORARY) A4.61 City of Meridian Department Report j�. 1s ° W W¢ GENERAL NOTES ----—-------—— ___ BUILDING AREAScV 9 _--------_ _ILL �—t=-=- __- - L ` FRONT ELEVATION"H"(MODERN) e.��...." x I I .�W.w zqg Q 0 �; ESE -------------[ ____________________ L J LEFT ELEVATION"H"(MODERN) A4 70 )�a c1 °oll W><� l li w a H i 1 H w; W 0 1 OPT.12'SLIDER REAR ELEVATION-H-(MODERN) �3 x _ N Z C p F� J R —Z '2 O MNo ________________________________________________J` RIGHT ELEVATION'H'(MODERN) A4 11 City of Meridian Department Report 40-foot-wide product for lots 50' or wider: IF Yr �i Y M iM - - a-.� r�Ne�a Nares_ ■� SNOPOPi �caoGF OPTION :� Y!1■1!M■1. '- .lI �ili.3 y S� Li % -&�7 F�3 ---- na o --------- --m -T- s, o� ---------- It R&W ELEVATION A M.I City of Meridian Department Report GENERAL NOTES a €� BUILDINGAREAS� 3. a�W� a a- F FncnoECA ------ t �u • --�� —r==i IIFl o 0 0 0 H �I II C --- -- — - SHOP�OPTION GARAGE OPTION FRONT ELEV ATION'B" FROM ELEVATION B MCCORMICK OPT. € v 0 3 ; 0 — VENEER WRAP PLAN MOCORMICK OPT. E X ---.-.-.-.-.-- 1 ---- -_ --- �a� z� NmH I TT — —.—ree+..xx� N CO) — d Af - ------ --- LEFT ELEVATION"B"McCORMICK OPT_ -----------------� LEFT ELEVATION'B" A4 2 e �I �•f1. ia9�¢ LUn ro� �xt 0 Q� o; Et� = ---- - i OPT.WINDOW LAYOUTS OPT 9'SLID REAR EL EVATION'D' OFF 10'GARAGE �o w LTHIIIIINAL -o THESE WINDOWS ARE DELE-D WHEN oniownteooaoaMSR EDEO1Eo X�« S LU W� 7 n Otl N mH N N ___ _—_— �_ III IL II ti___ _ _ _ _— — ,A,,, tt___ _ _ _ _ _ _— _— _ _ _ _— _— _ -__ — ___i L_] L�—] RIGHT ELEVATION W WCORMICK OPT RIGHT ELEVATION"B" A4.3 City of Meridian I Department Report 1 GENERAL NOTES ."a BUILDING AREAS Fncnoecnics. .... I I V a g F_--_---- t- SHOP OPTION GARAGE OPTI ON F R O N T E L E V A T I O N'C' �DN pELEVATION C MCCORMICK OPT. Y Hv++ Xw•.w � •wnw J}�T F L VENEER WRAP PLAN 1 T1 ! Ll ------------------J---------------------------------------m=,; A 1-1 _ mom �I I j - �� j III III II a ---- -------J LF FT EL EVAT I ON'C' ate:..-.. A4 4 �°eg v.�. LU W = Ho Wie �uF ME O -----_____ ._-------- u o_f =-___=----4 € OPT_10'GARAGE �1pp OPT WINDOW LAYOUT80PT 9'SLD REAR ELEVATION'C' L EN X _ ❑ Z V W O� NOtl No,- .................................................... RIGHT ELEVATION MCCORMICK OPT. RIGHT ELEVATION"C" A4.5 City of Meridian I Department Report GENERAL NOTES BUILDING AREAS ?all W Lux .w.w .v.. .wr.....ww wwaw.v. __I SHOP OPTION GARAGE OPTIONJ' i V F R O N T ELEVATION"D" 2 1 V�ENE�ER WRAP PLAN S Y L z'6 o> R j nSa Nmf j jl jll I ll I I I II�II — OanDON—DOOR J LEFT ELEVATION"D" aA4.6 €I laa0�g g�ell� ro� d 7 ••nno VU ❑❑ A I I k 7T-1 ❑ of ❑ �I W I a; e I A 3§ ---—_-- OPT_WINDOW LAYOUTS OPT 9'5LD -�---� OPT_id GARAGE REAR ELEVATION"D" " L WHEN �X T N HE OPTN)NAl ARE ROOM OR OPTIONAL BEDROOM 5IS SE—TED !rr J$ ❑ w U LLL__ O> 1�p iR NmH 14 ❑ II III z t---------------- ------------------ RI } GHT ELEVATION"D" �'rNp ]A41 City of Meridian Department Report 50-foot-wide product for lots 60' or wider: IIIETI F-7 ■ fi — - ---- — —y---- e --------- -- --- _ m e �` SI [S ------------- iras�. —---------- ------- o, City of Meridian Department Report -----.-'---- � aM rnZIrm kinv� �m =O' V v u HT no - W S j¢ a FRONT ELEVATION B ••�•: — __-__-- L_ ..� - F.X. W K 4a --:----_-s—e -- - --- -A d: �' �> ,m8 r---- ------------ ----------------------------- II opi I I I I I I H I I � ---------------------------------------------- LEFT _—__—_—_— ELEVATION A4.10 ------------------------..-mow. � au. � LU 0tt-:-:--:-:-:--:-__- mow; JF� __-__-__-__-__�-------------_ RREEA�R ELEVATION i a L x E 0 0 mF r�y OJ ate_ rl orr. OPT. I I I I ------------------ RIGHT ELEVATION A4.11 City of Meridian Department Report --------------- �oI - LU tb (D-i 1 6 V tl 00 0000 - - - - - - •� I r"�� �I I• ] a Ilr FRONT ELEVATION("D"MODERN FARMHOUSE) u--... W.�v x I��. •III "III' p=I o Lu Mop -------------------------------------------- �s Orr — H LEFT ELEVATION A4.30 a, W W I a o m - - m T N � �W d J'e3 V p 9 REAR ELEVATION a ' L X Wa 512 mr ----------------------------------------------------------------- RIGHT ELEVATION A4.31 City of Meridian Department Report 9 fill Ofli Ww5 •sr ul------------------ -- - _ Lwm � J _ � y III i N$' .w.ms._._.__ _�...w.•.� V O I o0 0000 .� 's FRONT ELEVATION("F'PACIFIC NORTHWEST MODERN) e tt� w 0 w wa I I HE LEFT ELEVATION W'� A4.50 � Llg e^ E 0 Wig N + GI yl d SNP __--_--- ---..�_.—_.-__-__-__-__—__—_ -------- _— i REAR ELEVATION d LULli L X Wi N w Ko s�eaomW K o� mr .am.s.�._..._. _O____ - PT OP5_ I I H RIGHT ELEVATION WN. A4.51 City of Meridian Department Report I. Fivemile Creek Cross-Section& Photo rim............................... g vo aoimoa a I: I' 5.. .:.:.:.:... .:. ,. I I m I m I-....n....III I • k:. ! .. _ ; � Il II :.!I L o , p-- ---- _ w-w • rn-n •.• M�.... 1 •r M.a...w• 5 r..... l JY am � l l ...................... _. I' iii I m •............... ........... a l; i. 3 10 --- 1 .:...: : ................... 31N Aa1H 13 . :.:: :.::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. C /A`R City of Meridian Department Report Mv X I �9t t $ -Ra' Y-•f e SSp•�IIj , yJ tNOE d7i�N C' r4tiLy{�C✓ y cS}{ S ��y\'Ta RYYY i +Yp �4� i.-•.y',���it�7`�3-�n i�a.:��bt _r'�'^lq�- ,� .y`. . -tl a — W IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Modena Plaza Subdivision (SHP-2025-0004) by Jordan Moorhouse, located at 3147 Belltower Dr. Application Materials: https://bit.ly/SHP-2025-0004 A. Request: Short Plat to subdivide an existing commercial lot in four (4) separate lots on approximately 1.59 acres of land in the L-0 zoning district. PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: October 14, 2025 ITEM # 7 PROJECT NAME: Modena Plaza Subdivision (SHP-2025-0004) I wish to testify Representing Your Full Name Your Full Address (mark X HOA? (Please Print) if yes) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT C��fEPIDIAN*,,--, DEPARTMENT REPORT HEARING 10/14/2025 Legend DATE: Project Location TO: Mayor& City Council Area of Impact �= City Limits FROM: Linda Ritter,Associate Planner Q Analysis 208-884-5533 Iritter@meridiancity.org APPLICANT: Jordan Moorhouse ~ SUBJECT: SHP-2024-0004 Modena Plaza Subdivisions i • LOCATION: 3147 W. Belltower Drive,Lot 3 Block 6 < of the Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision No. 2,located in the SW'/4 NW '/4, Section 35,Township 4N,Range 1W, Parcel#R1079860301 I. PROJECT OVERVIEW A. Summary Subdivide an existing commercial lot(Lot 3,Block 6 of Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision No. 2)that is approximately 1.59 acres of land in the L-O zoning district into four(4) separate lots. B. Issues/Waivers None C. Recommendation Staff recommend approval of the proposed short plat per the provisions in Section IV in accord with the Findings in Section V. D. Decision City of Meridian I Department Report 1. Project Overview I1. COMMUNITY METRICS Table 1: Land Use Description Details Map Ref. Existing Land Use(s) Vacant - Proposed Land Use(s) Office - Existing Zoning L-O VII.A.2 Proposed Zoning L-O Adopted FLUM Designation Office VII.A.3 Table 2: Process Facts Description Details Preapplication Meeting date 6/10/2025 Neighborhood Meeting N/A Site posting date N/A Table 3: Community Metrics Agency/Element Description/Issue Reference Ada County Highway District IV.E • Comments Received Yes—no improvements required - • Commission Action No - Required • Access W.Belltower Drive/Existing Residential Collector - • Traffic Level of Service N/A - ITD Comments Received Yes/Email stating they have no comments TV.F Meridian Fire Cross Access for Fire Department Access and Turnaround shall be provided. Meridian Public Works Wastewater IV.B _ Distance to Mainline Sewer is available at the site • Impacts or Concerns See Public Works Site Specific Conditions Meridian Public Works Water IV.B • Distance to Mainline Water is available at the site • Impacts or Concerns • Note that all though on the private side applicant to ensure proper protection of service from infiltration trenches is provided. • LDIR to be submitted to cover public works infrastructure review. Note: City/Agency Comments and Conditions Section and public record for all department/agency comments received. Modena Plaza Subdivision SHP-2025-0004(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:R1079860301 Date Retrieved:2025/7/31 Parcel Count Parcel Acreage Infill Indicator: 1,255 Surrounding Area zez O■ ''�4 ■s Not city ® City Limits 2,939 1,578. ■ Not City 7 Household Household& Population Growth i Households 02020 Population Change:9.6°I° Population ■Growth (Household and Population Change since 2010 Decennial) 10,000 20,000 30,000 Use Types Residential Addresses All Addresses ■ Single-family Multi-family —0% 100% 0% ® Commercial do Preliminary Plats (last 5-years) Conditional Use Permit(last 5-years) Proposed I Proposed Pending Pending Approved Approved 0 500 1000 1500 0 200 400 -500 Single-family ® Multi-family City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics 2.00 2,500 Single-family L 2,000 Residential 1.50 V Parcel Diversity (A 1.00 1,500 U 1,000 0 Parcel Count �, 0.50 0.46 500 L a gAve rage Acres � 0.00 0.25 0.19 .09 0 R-2 R-4 R-8 R-15 Average Single-family Density by Zoning Average 15.00 10.00 0 11.18 Residential - Density 0 5.00 3.96 0 5.28 4x4O � 2.16 0.00 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. Figure 3: Service Impact Summary ImpactService . . Ready Marginal Caution Q-ey�o ° Qa�ra� ,�tm Gala. .co°�� � 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 This property is designated as Office on the Future Land Use Map(FLUM)contained in the Comprehensive Plan. This designation will provide opportunities for low-impact business areas. These uses would include professional offices,technology and resource centers; ancillary commercial uses may be considered(particularly within research and development centers or technological parks). Sample zoning include L-O. The property is bordered to the north by the Polaris Learning Center, a daycare facility,and to the south by the Turin Plaza(H-2022-0063 and SHP-2022-0013), a commercial office development completed in 2023 consisting of four separate office buildings. Access to the site will be provided via a shared driveway extending north/south from W. Belltower Drive along the east side of the property. A shared cross-access and cross-parking easement will be established across all four lots to ensure coordinated internal vehicular and pedestrian circulation. Table 4: Pro*ect Overview Description Details History Lot 3,Block 6 of the Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision No.2(AZ-01- 003,DA Inst# 101117652);FP02-025 Phasing Plan 1 Acreage 1.59 Lots 4 building lots Density N/A B. History The proposed short plat is a re-subdivision of Lot 3,Block 6,Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision No. 2, consisting of four(4)building lots on 1.59 acres of land in an existing L-O zoning district. Each of the four(4)lots is 17,300 square feet in area. The existing plat for Bridgetower Crossing No. 2 depicts the following easements applicable to this property: a 35-foot wide landscape easement along N. Ten Mile Rd. with a note prohibiting vehicle access across the easement; a 33-foot wide Idaho Power easement also along N. Ten Mile Rd.; and a 25-foot wide cross-access and City of Meridian sewer easement along the east boundary of the site where the backage road is located. These easements have been carried over to the proposed plat. C. Site Development and Use Analysis 1. Existing Structures/Site Improvements (UDC 11-1): There are no existing structures on this site. There is an existing landscaped street buffer with a detached sidewalk along N. Ten Mile Rd. that was constructed with the subdivision improvements for Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision No. 2.A backage road exists along the east boundary of this site and adjacent lots to the north and south for access via W. Belltower Dr., a collector street to the north. 2. Proposed Use Analysis (UDC 11-2): This property is an undeveloped parcel that was annexed into the City surrounded by developed properties. The proposed development and use of the property is compatible with the scale and use of adjacent properties. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 3. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): The proposed plat and subsequent development is required to comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2B-3 for the L-O zoning district,which require a minimum 10-foot interior side setback—the front and rear setbacks are zero(0). Buildings may not encroach within the street buffer along Ten Mile Rd. D. Design Standards Analysis 1. Structure and Site Design Standards (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-19): The proposed short plat is a re-subdivision of Lot 3,Block 6,Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision No. 2,consisting of four(4)building lots totaling 17,300 square feet on 1.59 acres of land in the proposed L-O zoning district. The existing plat for Bridgetower Crossing No. 2 depicts the following easements applicable to this property: a 35-foot wide landscape easement along N. Ten Mile Rd. with a note prohibiting vehicle access across the easement; a 33-foot wide Idaho Power easement also Long N. Ten Mile Rd.; and a 25-foot wide cross-access and City of Meridian sewer easement along the east boundary of the site where the backage road is located. 2. Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): i. Landscape buffers along streets A 35 foot wide street buffer exists along N. Ten Mile Rd., an arterial street, in accord with UDC Table 11-2B-3, as depicted on the plat. 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 property is adjacent to a daycare within a residential zoning district. Per UDC 11- 3B-9, this requirement applies to a landscape buffer next to residential and/or nonindustrial uses not zoning districts. Therefore, this requirement does not apply. iv. Tree preservation Per UDC 11-313-10,the applicant shall preserve existing trees four-inch caliper or greater from destruction during the development. Mitigation shall be required for all existing trees four-inch caliper or greater that are removed from the site with equal replacement of the total calipers lost on site up to an amount of one hundred(100)percent replacement(Example: Two(2)ten-inch caliper trees removed may be mitigated with four 5-inch caliper trees, five(5)four-inch caliper trees, or seven(7)three-inch caliper trees). Deciduous specimen trees four-inch caliper or greater may count double towards total calipers lost,when planted at entryways,within common open space, and when used as focal elements in landscape design. If trees are proposed to be removed from the property that meet the criteria listed above, the applicant shall add a mitigation section to the landscape plan with final plat submittal. v. Storm integration Per UDC 11-313-11,the applicant shall meet the intent to improve water quality and provide a natural, effective form of flood and water pollution control through the City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 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. vi. Pathway landscaping Not applicable 3. Parking (UDC 11-3C): In all commercial and residential districts the requirement shall be one(1) space for every five hundred(500) square feet of gross floor area, except for self-service storage facilities which shall only require parking based on the gross floor area of any office space. At a minimum,restaurants require one(1)parking space shall be provided for every two hundred fifty(250) square feet of gross floor area. i. Nonresidential parking analysis The applicant is proposing eighty-eight parking spaces. ii. Bicycle parking analysis 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. A total of four(4) bicycle parking spaces is required based on the proposed eight-eight (88)parking spaces. The applicant is proposing to provide twelve(12) bicycle parking spaces, three(3)per bicycle rack. 4. Building Elevations (Comp Plan 5.01.02D,Architectural Standards Manual): Conceptual building elevations for the proposed buildings were submitted, as shown in Section VII.?. The proposed design incorporates materials such as stucco and stone. 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 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 1. Access (Comp Plan 6.01.02C, UDC 11-3A-3, UDC I1-3H-4): Access is proposed via an existing backage road along the east boundary of the site from W. Belltower Dr., a collector street to the north,from N. Ten Mile Rd., an arterial street along the west boundary of the site. Direct access via Ten Mile Rd. is prohibited.A cross- access/cross parking easement should be granted between all of the proposed lots for internal access from the backage road and because some of the parking for each building appears to be located on adjacent lots; this may be done via a note on the plat. 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. Pathways (Comp Plan 4.04.OIA, UDC 11-3A-8): No pathways are being proposed for this application. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 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. A 5-foot wide detached sidewalk exists within the street buffer along N. Ten Mile Rd., an arterial street. 5. Subdivision Regulations (UDC 11-6): i. Dead end streets Not applicable ii. Common driveways Not applicable iii. Block face Not applicable F. 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 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. 1V. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. Meridian Planning Division 1. The applicant shall comply with all previous conditions of approval for this development H-2022- 0063 (RZ); DA Inst. #101117652; FP02-025 2. Future development shall be consistent with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2B-3 for the L-O zoning district. City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions 3. The short plat shall include the following revisions: a. Include a note stating all lots within the proposed subdivision are subject to a cross- access/cross-parking easement. b. Note#8, add the instrument number for the cross access/cross parking easement. c. Note#9, add the instrument number for the sanitary sewer and water easement. d. Provide and show easements/public right-of-way for all the sewer mains that the City will be operating and maintaining. e. Add a note to the plat and show the front and rear ten(10) foot as well as the interior five(5) foot public utilities,irrigation and lot drainage easements for all lots. 4. The existing landscaping along Ten Mile Road shall be preserved and protected during construction on the property. 5. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application is required to be reviewed and approved for each of the structures and associated site improvements prior to submittal of building permit applications. All structures shall comply with the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual. 6. Approval of the short plat shall become null and void if the applicant fails to obtain the City Engineer's signature on the final plat within two(2)years of the approval of the short plat, as set forth in UDC 11-6B-7A.Upon written request prior to the expiration of the final plat,the Applicant may request an extension of time to obtain the City Engineer's signature on the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-613-7C. B. Meridian Public Works SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS: 1. Easements shall be a minimum of 20-foot-wide per utility,or 30-foot-wide for a combined water and sewer easement if the minimum 10 feet separation is maintained between mains. Easements shall extend 10 feet beyond the terminus of the main, service,or hydrant. 2. No permanent structure shall be allowed within a City utility easement including trees,deep- rooted shrubs, fences,trash enclosures, carports, sheds,buildings, etc. GENERAL CONDITIONS: 1. Sanitary sewer service to this development is available via extension of existing mains adjacent to the development. Water service to this site is available via extension of existing mains adjacent to the development. 2. All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. Where approved by the City Engineer,an owner may post a performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C-313. 3. Upon installation of the landscaping and prior to inspection by Planning Department staff,the applicant shall provide a written certificate of completion as set forth in UDC 11-313-14A. 4. A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110%will be required for all incomplete fencing,landscaping,amenities,pressurized irrigation,prior to signature on the final plat. 5. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post with the City a performance surety in the amount of 125%of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer,water 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 applicant shall be required to enter into a Development Surety Agreement with the City of Meridian. 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. City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions 6. 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, and water infrastructure for a duration of two years. This surety amount will be verified by a line item final cost invoicing 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. 7. In the event that an applicant and/or owner cannot complete non-life,non-safety and non- health improvements,prior to City Engineer signature on the final plat and/or prior to occupancy, a surety agreement may be approved as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3C. 8. 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. 9. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 10. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 11. All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-1-4B. 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. 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. 15. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-7 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting(http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272). All street lights shall be installed at developer's expense. Final design shall be submitted as part of the development plan set for approval,which must include the location of any existing street lights. The contractor's work and materials shall conform to the ISPWC and the City of Meridian Supplemental Specifications to the ISPWC. Contact the City of Meridian Transportation and Utility Coordinator at 898-5500 for information on the locations of existing street lighting. 16. The applicant shall provide easement(s)for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way(include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat,but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian's standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement(on the form available from Public Works),a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor,which must include the area of the easement (marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2"x I I"map with bearings and distances(marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted,reviewed, and approved prior to signature of the final plat by the City Engineer. 17. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES permitting that may be required by the Environmental Protection Agency. City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions 18. 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 development plan approval. 19. 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. C. Meridian Fire Department 1. Cross Access for Fire Department access and turnaround shall be provided. D. Idaho Department of Environmental Quality(DEQ) https:llweblink.meridiancity.orglWebLink/Browse.aspx?id=413287&dbid=0&redo=MeridianCit Y E. Ada County Highway District(ACHD) https:llweblink.meridianciU.oLgzl ebLinkIBrowse.aspx?id=413287&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCit Y F. Idaho Transportation Department(ITD) https://weblink.meridiancity.orgzl ebLink/Browse.aspx?id=413287&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCit Y City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions V. FINDINGS A. Short 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 generally in conformance with the UDC and the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Public services are available or can be made available ad are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Stafffinds public services are available to the subject property and will be adequate to accommodate the proposed development. 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the city's capital improvement program; Stafffinds the plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements for this area 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. City of Meridian I Department Report V. Findings VI. ACTION A. Staff: Staff recommend approval of the proposed short plat per the provisions in Section IV in accord with the Findings in Section V. B. City Council: Pending City of Meridian I Department Report VI. Action 1 1 . . uct Location P-51- •5 a Impactof I�Z � F Analysis a,W_ miniiiiiiiiiGa MCMILLAN j At, U • ram. _ Z - e1 — --� -- -U 1 STIG r II-11�� ...MoMMME i. Iloilo vision. n iii■-.I E y.. ■nmul :.nm nnu■rr n■ Legend �ffm�� : rl '��RA�fR�i 11 � nm■nu��nnnn :=;[I .nn • nnll: p m noon v ■ uM .- LocationProject fill 111 MINlIa �p ■ fl ii a■II�monsoon n ■ .-llllr l�Ii me in 11 Ei rp■RI!!■!!M Area of Impact 11l11 MI �IrIIEEINM E•RRIr1111�. III!!N#.,„ O 'M 1►�� IINI I' �■liilnnn IN■Rslr!! 9■ 1 '/irrlr�� -MINE. - IIu= I■INi Analysis �' '�,11INE,� � �,.11 j�i�11M1■ � 11111111 lunll. 4 ate.+n IIIj [IERI/a—�j MCMIILAN E =-. 1111111i1 11 Jp Vim !! 71y Ir111111' ./� _ R tllllll' ��_�AN•' 111111111M`s it Boom !�`' 1111 ♦ �n� f.0:IIII #: I111r1= +u111' �ii1INrSff _w • �11/ 1 �-IIlIB- W-##!INN �Y� 11111 � �� all ,1 IIEL 1 l��IIIN ■ �!r Y "�����-1! y�� LJ •+y�t�/i R �' ••,#fafire�,•ii1lE�1 r n�ln Z =:�:f� nf111 rh ur1! ► �� II ; ` + _ W •04F �aw■lrrlair L 1111' I- I ♦ •IC min► a.■fnrfrr� Aa uirrr •a AMIMM W•�fi■nfnf III I IN IluuyR�j�!► jiiiir��1 1T somom J 1111 i�rltllili ��f�E' 111f ►= 1.i 1 g� {•nR1111E1��Ea1■I r I R1►1,i��' d•� �f {�NrrrrrlprRl Ali ,dBr i 4..i14 a • f ��♦ Irrrr►�I �1�'j . w aam�p n . ♦ �� ����`, �,,�/�ii air.f ii #Il*+ i1lIN �i ♦ ♦ luau r -:rry'. ® US-T-ICK-- q RERIin RI, IkY1111 ■ oleeal I■I��� nn +� � 1 - ■Ir•��pp••...,..... t,uw q■......■iiiii.-■"e /■i■Irri� 7i C■111■ �:■■■■Iir■■i.,-■�fIn■tl■■pP:�■■■■■f= Legend Project Location ■qim *� a rm ..:-tiiliiiiin !Ii r'■no Ilnogr.m■en p=- :iiiiif� ' �-rrrrlh�C�� ri i iiiiii����i■■iilal��i i�11 m nnllr� - rrrr - ail r ,.; nnimplff�ri�l lull 'lilt iiiiiriii IIIir/a19 Area of Impact "-iiA�■r;IBM- ' -lE■n ltl�\ ����� IIIir- yi{{{{ ��1111111 FIIIlllli •---------_ .............._ � 1 IIJ 1� 11 - � I 0 Analysis 4--r_-r-1m- luluuyn: ulllnnlil /alilr� � pon- ,,,III—n a MCMILL-AN ^RIP 11 Ilfll� . r- ►1. �' +n ==='_' G■ oil 7f ta■.,- - •- . 1:�u1111= �tloE1'�r,■IlgAf � y �� Hof � - ��-� IIII I a YJ ■■lull, 4 IIIIi r��tIr�m a „ , Ilf fu #�*eniurl' U --_.'-=x Ir l r;y titer IIII• i1u#�I��n n LLI A nl S. =�14 if � r ii■-_■IIE�1 Z .ni fr, rlIl�H Z u ■ir�, li�rr� E - ��I FI ��+ril�lrir► W G'�s`��• onr h R J lennrr F !O u •■elrrl • _ . _ ie a Ri Mill .OI■Ill - Y ♦�� ■ la i1EA w■ll■IIII . 1� i:�'�i 7f■IIII �►�•■ �• ell, ♦ ggl :�lint--- 1 ee •un,�Vi7 un■ 1 Ill �unr � 7♦ u■qr _ .�i{w'..�'I u.�.� �■■.� w■■ : �r � " IIIHnf111fI/ -- "�hly� Rl,t�i:: _iiiiiii yll�• i'�:: wwul•� -V r� �'7�Con I-iiiiiii=__ 1 1■.n, �` � hRh>Ir 4{�: L==uunuuilr__' �-- IRR►a rnjR ==' r"ligim _M �■■u■r r�{iulni ry USTICK-� ■ rm ninn AEe■ •+..,u■■Iran Ilnnlullq n■ ♦ N ■■■■■ir■iF� 11111 � ! ��.1...e■r■iaa.l'.■mu1FI ■o ■__. _ ■: ■ Jr ��+t�\ =T` - nm■ Is Legend : ��,, f► =^''syr�a� Iw'i=:' ■.nm one■■� nm■: �rrnu �+ �+� _Aililir-�, m � r■inEil "pnw.no imm■�-� Project Location .w■i■r' ' 3��P A�iiii�l-1- fEAiiiiA■•11 ■nnnmq■■mliu --�11 ■ ♦ >*n�=■iiiiil -uErri'�_ uuuArl.ri11.nn■nnr. nia■ie[�' i ..onreiu �riu INN mow m■no winnnllll'if �nN`I■ iii[IIk.Ilulrry�= ■ul�■.■nl - IIIir �■�nni iC 011rlrrl,','liilfEr■q■ ■n„■gilt iii --�urel�- r�+- ��Z���i11�u�-uiuurn ' fy■Inno■e !q■eif11■ =r ImpactArea of City Limits �/inlnr I w I ----- bra unnlAllls,i■ill.■■■■■ ,■rerigll! -' Planned Parcels , l r• • '�' __ lo.{{{{{{■i��:11111111 - lot 51_0 Analysis �� r AaHI►f =='-�f ~- i1LIB�.�IIII� umuuuu 11111 Ilfllll�� � Ir11IIif• ���p -�� ►rll no f- { nlu u1111F � �um�n wuuu lull r�uu° =-- Ilr- `nuunu� it atu■ ■■ �. IlllrIllli/III . f1�■-Ilfr 1 ,�'= IIIp�1fn11+'� : f enr nnn'r,H %e231 ' -�f IlR l ro■e■r (� rlul, �V nunllm ,n,��r�U;1,� +r r/-�l y'� \Nif� it � ■ i■■-i11'�' Z 1 aR�llrrpuril�j ry� ■�■■�:� ifllitil I� R t � ♦ 1::1 �� ■nnrjnl![ / Il►^.rlllii+i. I i �=:! m�Mill - I - at�Irir�fifflee pr Rr�nm� orn nnur INl mn. , G�I! Illllli<llll= Il1ii■-Illillli ■,f � -::'� _nminllllll= 1 el�p7■i1111111�►♦ ���: � I',IR {*Ill lillllrf HL. 1 = er llrlle ■ .. �� 11 ... F m9i alp s- MAR i •8 ' Nqm _mm =_IIIIIIIIIIIIII f'�= � ., � lr f■ � � �>;: I1q�N'� I Ilrlllllllfll IIII a y r - ��All= � 'R� �' ��I j� lly��_�-� nnm /:a•. so wall ,� � f. a■IIIIi = ■ -W 1 r f�-. -=kl a• i uullii= „r � ! R>-cr. +Ii �unnuunr_-_ ■ � •■■i!■■nr ■■rs■tiro i m7m irfr rr��unn�runn■ ► ■ ��-�.uiio rr■■:;a771.nnlu i��i■/!:::'.!\■: ::■��■d:• _ nn �Ilr;:��_GT 5. Map Notes Nearby Recent Preliminary Plats (within last 5-years) H-2020-0004 H-2020-0125 H-2021-0080 H-2022-0047 H-2022-0068 CR-2022-0006 H-2022-0074 H-2022-0087 H-2023-0026 H-2023-0035 H-2024-0050 H-2025-0023 Nearby Recent Conditional Use Permits(within last 5-years) H-2020-0017 H-2020-0018 H-2020-0092 H-2021-0056 H-2021-0088 H-2022-0025 H-2024- 0016 H-2024-0068 City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits B. Subject Site Photos k ti �ba u3' I 4 ■ . . . �- .�a.ig.,a 43�7 : Z City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits Y AAAAk ' vly 1 3 i V e 4 �. 4 � $=Y716Ti $ Y w P'"�.• P � m � � vt City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits t a n s w 001 A <M IN, �. a t, a � � 4� ...a�-'t.' �- ��.-_ _- - .,i.. �. Wes_ �.' �� � �-, .�• ��. " - '�: �'' �,� '� !',' a �"; � �:;:• t: -, �€ -..o C. Service Accessibility Report PARCEL R1079860301 SERVICE ACCESSIBILITY Overall Scare: 33 49th Percentile Description Location In City Limits Extension Sewer Trunkshed mains < 500 ft. from parcel Floodplain Either not within the 100 yr floodplain or > 2 a.---es Emergency Services Fire Response time < 5 min. GREEN Emergency Services Police Meets response time goals most of the time GREEN 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 GREEN plan) matches existing # of lanes) School Walking Proximity From 112 to 1 mile walking YELLOW 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) ParkWalkability No park within walking distance by park type RED City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits D. Short Plat(date: 3/6/2023) ___ __w.mwiuwu Bono MOUENA PLAZA SUBDIVISION ... A REPEAT OF LOT J BLOCK B,BROGETOMER CROSSING SEJBDIW90N NO.2, A PART OF THE SW 1/4 NW T/4,SECTION 35,T.4 N.,R.T W..B.M., MERIDIAN,ADA COUNTY IDAHO 2025 �F LEGEND r u g g! rou�uo'u u —�uwm aaass can owuaar _ -___ `411°''!_ __________-_—_______—__I '$ 0 rcuuu aavuurx W i ! o rcuun r!�"wav aw S mro a... I I� Rcscr w/s/e-war rm - t I w/Pusric.cnn n�.s wee ___-__ O rou�m s/e-wau rw Y ao---�awxo, nam mvn°F — — —--- — ��� PPswee eounonrsr urve E T I I � c __ nor� m — — ------- -- — — ------- ----- ------- --- �Frara�,wra�� weavr7o-w --r- j I. rranAAnvE ,.,m ro.a.wv.Z'axm.ms ,. aue eoan ermm>ac xeme srsrr. /ncss..vww iRECONO MTA eeei-ewa eoax a0.saa ew2 IA seer m prc a� crsaawm xma�va,eo.1 mow,�a r:ra PeaF zo>ao-rz P !VI ason - 9386 ssociates �,� °�' SHEET 1 3/06/1015 u__ ana SHEET f of 3 �^� yvaye irm City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits E. Landscape Plan(date: 6/19/2025) awl ----------------- EL .. ............. LLI N YIYfYBf A -07 -r P 97 -W z— 'm ------- ------ ------------------ - ------ I P.I 5k J- CH-11 I I I I I IA I IL —13 Wei C z -Aim. Lu M -.4 City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits F. Building Elevations (date: 7/18/2025) - MR ELI- Z � U -.1 ------------------- ---------------- SIN � Ui 0 000 __ La t 0 City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits - - - - - - - . 0 0 0 _ � 0 ❑ Zg �g LLJ II A3.1 °o ww 1; 4T � p,o p,o Z R U fig$ w s w AID, lb- dl g 4 5 R d A3.2 City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits --- ❑❑❑— r --------------- --------- o OIAT ------------------------------------------ J i —_—_—_—_—_—__ _—.-----a9®G MATFRIOIF a Q ' z � W y — - - — — ----------- — --- — — — - � : ------------- ---------- sswo , ---- — e S goo MATERIALS N i a � z u3 ; iN City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits o�; =------------------— —-— --------------- — -- �d� e r - - MATERIALS 4 w om o= ----------- - - - ----------- — �b - - - - - - - - --------------- ---- - - Rom`----------------- _—_--. MATERIALS EL ZR ❑>d 3 4 Sara -- V■�., 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. D. ACHD Roadway Infographic Notes The Ada County Highway District utilizes a number of planning and analysis tools to understand existing and future roadway conditions. • Existing Level of service(LOS).LOS indicator is a common metric to consider a driver's experience with a letter ranking from A to F.Letter A represents free flow conditions, and on the other end Level F represents forced flow with stop and go City of Meridian I Department Report VIII. Additional Notes&Details for Staff Report Maps, Tables, and Charts conditions. These conditions usually represent peak hour driver experience. ACHD considers Level D, stable flow,to be acceptable. The LOS does not represent conditions for bikes or pedestrians, nor indicate whether improvements: are possible; if there are acceptable tradeoffs; or if there is a reasonable cost-benefit. • Integrated Five Year Work Plan (IFYWP).The IFYWP marker(yes/no) indicates whether the specified roadway is listed in the next 5-years. This work may vary, from concept design to construction. • Capital Improvement Plan(CIP).The CIP marker(yes/no)indicates whether the specified roadway is programmed for improvement in the next 20-years. City of Meridian I Department Report VIII. Additional Notes&Details for Staff Report Maps, Tables, and Charts 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%. PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: October 14, 2025 ITEM # 8 PROJECT NAME: Solara Estates Subdivision (H-2025-0013) I wish to testify Representing Your Full Name Your Full Address (markif yes)X HOA? (Please Print) 2 5 ` �r 3 0, 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT C��fEPIDIAN*,­, DEPARTMENT REPORT HEARING 10/14/2025 Legend DATE: C., Project Location TO: Mayor& City Council ::=Area of impact a: City Limits FROM: Linda Ritter,Associate Planner Q Analysis 208-884-5533 lritter@meridiancity.org APPLICANT: Jadon Schneider, Bronze Bow Land SUBJECT: H-2025-0013 _ Solara Estates Subdivision ALT,AZ, ' -- PP LOCATION: 1695 E. Amity Road,4940 and 5060 S. Locust Grove Road, located in the NW'/4 of Section 32,Township 3N, Range IE. Parcel(s) S1132223130, S1132223210 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 (IT) 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 11-1 B-4. However,the property did receive CUP through the County City of Meridian I Department Report 1. Project Overview 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 Commission 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 and not requiring the installation of the temporary sidewalk on S. Locust Grove Road and E.Amity Road. D. Decision City of Meridian I Department Report 1. Project Overview I1. COMMUNITY METRICS Table 1: Land Use Description Details Map Ref. Existing Land Use(s) Church,vacant and residential - Proposed Land Use(s) Church and residential - Existing Zoning RUT 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 • 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"B" Amity Road—Better than"E" ITD Comments Received No Comment IV.G Meridian Fire No Comment Meridian Police No Comment Meridian Public Works Wastewater TV.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 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 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 �'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 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 VIIL Additional Notes&Details for Staff Report Maps,Tables,and Charts. Figure 3: Service Impact Summary Ready 0 0 0 0 0 0 Marginal 0 0 0 0 Caution O eye 'All �4�� \°� o �a �\ �� ° Qa�,c� °°\� 0 ,co Qa Notes: See VIII.Additional Notes&Details for Staff Report Maps,Tables,and Charts. City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics IH. 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 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-IB-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 offifteen (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 III. Staff Analysis 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 eytdeer hiv, ttF picnic table, bench and picnic shelter. All common open space areas are required to be landscaped with one deciduous shade tree for every S,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 i. Residential parking analysis The proposal will be required to meet the standards for parking as set forth in UDC 11- 3C-6. 5. Building Elevations (Comp Plan 2.01.01 C,Architectural Standards Manual): 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. 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 III. Staff Analysis 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 I1-3B-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 111. Staff Analysis 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 I1-3A-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 11-1 B-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 AS 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 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. the beet+stGfeve-ate Road n Cur, ofway- aibt#tiffj�the west aFA 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 11-313-5 and maintenance thereof as set forth in UDC 11-313-13. 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 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 11-613-7. 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 I I"map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor.DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted,reviewed, and approved prior to development plan approval. 4. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water(UDC 11-3B-6). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single- point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions 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 11-3A-6. In performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42- 1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. 7. Any wells that will not continue to be used must be properly abandoned according to Idaho Well Construction Standards Rules administered by the Idaho Department of Water Resources. The Developer's Engineer shall provide a statement addressing whether there are any existing wells in the development, and if so,how they will continue to be used, or provide record of their abandonment. 8. Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections(208)375-5211. 9. Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and activated,road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded,prior to applying for building permits. 10. A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110%will be required for all uncompleted fencing,landscaping,amenities, etc.,prior to signature on the final plat. 11. All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. Where approved by the City Engineer,an owner may post a performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C-313. 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 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:llweblink.meridiancity.orglWebLink/browse.aspx?id=392029&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCit Y D. Irrigation Districts 1. Boise Kuna Irrigation District https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=392029&dbid=0&redo=Meridia Lclu E. Idaho Department of Environmental Quality(DEQ) https:llweblink.meridianciU.orglWebLinkIBrowse.aspx?id=392029&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCit Y F. Ada County Highway District(ACHD) h ttps://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/browse.aspx?id=392029&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCit Y G. Ada County Development Services https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/browse.aspx?id=392029&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCit Y H. Idaho Transportation Department(ITD) https:Ilweblink.meridianci(y.oLvlWebLinklbrowse.aspx?id=392029&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCit Y City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions 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; Commission finds 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; Commission finds 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; Commission finds that the map amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to, school districts; and Commission finds the proposed annexation shall not result in adverse impact of services. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. Commission finds the proposed annexation is in the best interest of the City if the property is developed in accord with the provisions in Section IV. B. Alternative Compliance(UDC 11-513-5E) 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 the Director 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. The Director finds 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 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: I. The plat is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and is consistent with this unified development code; Commission finds the proposed plat is generally in conformance with the UDC if the Applicant complies with the conditions of approval in Section IV. 2. Public services are available or can be made available ad are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Commission finds public services can be made available to the subject property and will be adequate to accommodate the proposed development. 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; Commission finds the proposed plat is in substantial conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's Capital Improvement Program. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Commission finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development. 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and Commission finds the proposed development is not detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. 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: The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard these items on September 4,2025. At the public heariniz,the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject annexation, preliminary—plat and alternative compliance requests and did not feel the need to construct a temporary sidewalk along S. Locust Grove or E. Amity Road along the church's property due to ACHD's road construction schedule for that area. 1. Summary of Commission public hearing_ a. In favor: Jadon Schneider representing the property owner Codi Bills,property owner, b. In opposition: • Mark Agenbroad—Feels the lots should be one acre lots instead of half acre lots. Feels that growth is a concern for this area and would like to see something that fits within the existing area. City of Meridian I Department Report VI. Action • Bonnie Capell—Concerned about losing her view,would like a provision to be added that would not allow a two-story dwelling in front of their home. • Julie Edwards—Traffic is a concern, left turns may be an issue. Feels the rules are being bent with the alternative compliance so that the developer can get what they want. If the church sells will the zoning revert to R-2 from R-8? • Jordan Schneider—Requested the removal of the fire pit from the amenity list as that is not something that is being proposed. C. Commenting: Mark Agenbroad,Bonnie Capell,Julie Edwards, d. Written testimony:None e. Staff presenting application: Linda Ritter f. Other Staff commenting on application: None 2. Key issue(s) testimony a. Lot size,loss of view and traffic impacts 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission: a. The future land use map has medium density to the east of this proposed development which will allow for a natural transition to smaller lots. Make sure whomever is buying these lots understand the transition. 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. Not recommending temporary sidewalk along the church property on S. Locust Grove Road and E.Amity Road. 5. Outstandingissue(s)ssue(s) for City Council: a. None C. City Council: Pending City of Meridian I Department Report VI. Action • 1 ct -. location _ X \- l . .. . v. � Analysis AMITY r H P ■a. W ` in.LU � arm nmir _ 41�r�•-' � k � -',�--. .!' a _ _ r. 111111111111 A +�1lykL• • -Sri i�il. . � ■•■�u Legend n■Isno p�! �nnr ellll �v!■� �nu1 w Project • • • 1■11111! ' ': =�� Ilill� Ijlllll'1'r�_jlllli !11 lams IfirrffrirRr h _�n.ssl. _ m m � y ' �pr91 fllllF iiir iris�� - �/ .i pp wru,ao'I�ITIi=�11i1�IIIIL"� �_�� ' zy Cl iiun ill nu r%+1111111111■ r r Illla�f Analysis NO 1 i ��L•r .—�� �. i .p�!-...�Ce IIIIIIIIIFII�: �1��1 w . llrraln rrn I'� -!n■� � �■aa`Ilm!llllllllll�l �•!11 Ca /1-Cs a■— n 1 � ��9 i yj:lulu �W m • � ��■..r�:liii � + :as �fii � �Ga :1 a..Ulla. i��l�`�� 11��1■N�1 ���11i I�r■Ilaa.laa��IN! ���� IIO I OIIl111�a11■�W■1111a� I."„11111111.■11■.p 11��� j1 noon■■■■ KLG:G�1111 AMITY ��- � :l IIn111 uunnnm \ �. 11 IlPingf (aj N uw umgl � � C�In!!-din ►C.�1t•1 r5•y! In111F1. 111 ��• �.��I 1II � Illlrll - ' _ ��� 4�i�� ulrr _ � •1 � ulllr.� m► r, Its � 1111a- 111111111 1� ��� `��1♦ III�`!1 li�'� 1 1 ■ �!■■■f■■■ �111 �1 , III I11111111- 11!1 ,la��� -- WII -R�INK 11 E —= 11 au„■a _�__ WIN p s.�rllli r!r by ♦ I�..� ♦��♦� ♦.■■a. 1"!!!'1►Ill!�..A�u.R� }�ii. Ory� •i i� '.:::n :i■:*il Aa.P� ♦, flrna �• rI111�.awntE rn�a I Legend IIIII' .�♦� ri wl n111■n...... I�au r.� �I rum �ri.r roun�il suar'rn■Io n�I" �Ilun tunmuuuu rturrr�` _unr uuuuln= 'r .♦ t -- a■�i1r111f LocationProject �r7j rullli�y �.����,i --- a �i�� ��unaa i ,rrlTrrrrn lil"I+ rrrl rl-1- jj q. ♦,p, ♦ q�'-_ � ♦ r ono I uuii iuiu aru uu�.+11 1r11�I -• of •• j �,�¢, � -= O�� .r o�-I rlrr unn am uu pClllli IIlI�WI�I•r� ♦if'yj:' �`.y9��'., �` 11u111111,�J' _�rIn1111�� Analysis i��'' ♦iG ��/ ?y44'�i a IIIIIIIIIi. ■r I/ . �� �► �'4 .g • � Illllllllll.��r \I��1� j111rrOr!N1r• RFgIFl1 111111 i IIIIIIIIIIIIaQ� ..■■ails p.nm- W Nr irU: ■���' ■..111.1■.:_Iuu�■_E_! !rmn unn-y,� AMITY -�- nun moor " r r �± 11 uuu nmlll � �t1II1� w _unn+lrLow Density Residential xxlml�of �� I � �� -ul /*��• � � G. alr,l n--� i►n Ilililll fiiuuit r Ilia+ll ■ - � �' �j+`tnTi- r� -r a,l �� • 1, Ilu � ull►�S�ll IN+ IIIIIII= L'=_1k11111� =11 i�� lam -Illllnk 1 y lkw 'rI111111I- � � p lIIi1111 !1 rR117111 ����� �■ WAIII�a�� IllrlllrllF %��1 own O.r.r.= 1�',IIIII 1 -1R1 Iglnl� I�IFEA 4 111111111111� � I 111a NIIFllllllla i r -►�1111= - IIIIIIIII_- Se —Ill/�f1A111111111� IIIIIIIII= Flll��ejlminifin_`!����_Ilpld i�'L•i =nuuflla��';'A k lid �r}rl„i rl! V ♦ ���-- i'/r�11a /^ ! III!�.. ■■wr.. Legend ?�Br � ♦i♦♦i ♦Ii'■'■1::1 V�rua �.��! IIIII!�a tlxnr ru�i IIIII a. �.,••♦.♦� r►ml u1i rl�u nnllNr� r\ q ��i nnnnnm j nIrlr'11N1r!pn I �IElln t111F1 Illy ■ _IIIIL uuuunlC Project LocationArea of I r Il1Il11i/•�♦����j ^-- I lndiulr+ 4orr-Illlfl IIII'un--1111 1111-� �# � ♦ 7jf1 �♦ ♦. �♦i�♦ ��riri�� rrrre�irFr aai}4i i a fl illl I♦I rj ♦4� ♦ ♦�^_^_� lilllll4 lily FIIF-- w ♦IjQ r ♦i♦♦1 gi�} _- i�: : w' u,an`F'Idii=�H11 111� �� _r� Impact .T City Limits I►j ♦Ijj ♦� �i�♦ 4. �t .■...� uuii wTu nu xu% 1 4 j I♦� � � _ .•_-•- y-+-.rt111111111P �r� Illll�fi b � ♦i�}'+r♦♦� � ���� E• •:��...r r. - .111111111111 rr� ,yI IIY1♦ - :+r �� ��N�♦�♦ ��"- • -i111111111111I� �ii����I Planned Parcels 0 Analysis �:[aa:17=r_r•' ��- nulxx Innit'rr, '++++a iS 711w 11111111111'I:I � "�'+,1�iii� I�nr� Ilrr/l-�n1■_��o o � �� rj:01� �.. I I � ■■■ :our._, ♦r.unr ■■ �ne�: � IY7-1�, p -um :un_� I`f►Il Ion �p +� �,��� •iI■''IIIII• lrr rl��� MINIMUM - ,r ii 11111111�:IIn1 a.��Ir, ♦I�f11lO � r[ ,- �1���1� r r111r��rr it� r�fl'7C-C ICi1111l1�tlrl�� r ` ! `'�.",Ll_Llllllllraaal KR�._�_ V P��� ��.~• flrnn —� AMITY ,�- -- -- '== ■�� -c�ruul- aillll •Illln lr111 '1 ® JI!!1 Ilrrrl lla::a::l�y,l Iona mngl � � � ��11�IItyI Wa>tllllun�p1u Innls=a����nrlrl .=nnnu� raj.-` t.Lt li � . IFIF==-_ � ■.■w'r`IIIIIIIIIII j� ���1t1 ,•I♦1 -��C�C' In{ �nnnmml\, ►Ipj`�, ��I� ��F ♦ •i♦ :pi��p..I nllllulo -ualnnm=_=_a�► ���� ���IIII��+�♦�� ��II� 'i♦6 '�Illl IHI IUfll �Ullllllllll=I=. � vI r� � ��Illlrl[;�" - - nu w =noon new �.� �', I I' 'tjryj/�sti^I�i:.ullli< �_=� Ill' ♦tt�tii I III I '��t i, ,0, L/It,+!!'�,�. ,._ � -'►�. 'IIIII•~ n1E �' ► ♦• unn Iuulnl t�► ♦� +� _ s :� f 'rlrin rluu!: tl IIIIII 11111111911 - � . ,. �_�_S IIIIIIIII�-_1 All L i ,♦ �� � � :yIlllllkk r r'1 _-___ �I 1111►� Ill�� 1�_ �■�,� . r wr IlIf111I�11111= �IIIIIIII r �1 I j '��\"IIIIIIII"IIIII= III11111- r1 1==�-_ 11,,I lllllll�poll[ III 71A i!!!!!!!il 1111111111 IIL�I `1���� `■�1 III��\IIIIIri_Illllilll �1IF11111� �1 20 11::111:11':1L'::I::IICII:�: _� - r �BGiG`•�Ir��p\rrr!! III 1111 IIIfIIIIfIIIIfIIII ��' �IEIIIIIIIFIIIIIIIIII�a-_-_- � �y`�uuuglllF�______ 111��- _ ���nnl niiiu �.,. ...,.. ___.;_� now= - r�1nn nnumup i ♦��I nll ini r ,� - --- �Imi ea In.... ar■I=I!!!!!!!!!k!! 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-2022-0036 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 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 140 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 Park alkability Park within 1/2 mile OR a Neighborhood Park within GREEN 114 mile walking City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits C. Preliminary Plat(date: 7/30/2025) N -1 w"¢$ 11III ' Z Im14 = kA 10 r -I D. Site Plan (date: 7/30/2025) r; n� PRELIMINARY PLAT m e' FOR SOLARA ESTATES SUBDIVISION w moo_ �•�"�^� LOCATED INA PORTION OF T1iENW1/40ESEMON32T.3N.,R.1F. Lu ADA COUNTY,IDANO JULY 2025 z ® El c - VOWn �.m ( - a®. I® I ✓kdmY,N� l� City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits E. Landscape Plan (date: 8/5/2025) —-------------- (D -N City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits F. Qualified Open Space Exhibit(date: 7/30/2025) 3:11N m11 I i1 z Ali o o o 11 - ----- --- ----- m m �. H o © o e ' o I � t � aaae 3Tm 3 El�, City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits G. Amenity Exhibit ' I lI .I I L� z� z NOTE: I i_ ---cBB£aw£oar➢e,B,.oB£.Ru•��psREPoMM����� m I � 12 w�+nseweArsew l.F II 'I SIZF.AND—RAL�TOaBECONPi E➢Br➢EVBLaPFA J LOT 13 AMEMI]'4PACE City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits H. Emergency Vehicle Turnaround Exhibit + � w w o © o Z --- — - — - a a 1i o o City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits I. Building Elevations r' r. THE VVELLFS ti THE LANDING City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 5 � Y r ReportCity of Meridian Department wr r .'Jiml THE DFAN City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits J. Annexation Legal Description &Exhibit Map 1001 N.Rosario Street Suite 100 [� Meridian,ID 83642 F*US P(208)974-0075 F(801)352-7989 ENGINEERING&SURVEYING LEGAL DESCRIPTION PREPARED FOR SUNRISE ESTA TES ADA COUNTY, IDAHO 0810112025 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 N80°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 Departtnent Report VII. Exhibits 1001 N.Rosorio Street Suite 100 Meridian,ID 83642 F*US P(208)974-0075 F(80 11 352-7989 ENGINEERING&SURVEYING LEGAL DESCRIPTION PREPARED FOR SUNRISE ESTATES ADA COUNTY, IDAHO 08/0112025 24-5058 JTS LDS C14URCFI 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 Corner of Section 32,Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian,said point being the Point of Beginning; thence 889°10'53"E 661.71 feet along the Centerline of East Amity Road; thence S01 04918"W 334.20 feet to a 112 inch rebar; thence N89°13'23"W 662.85 feet along a fence to the Centerline of South Locust Grove Road; thence h102°00'54"E 334J1 feet along the Centerline of South Locust Grave Road to the Point of Beginning. Contains: 5.08 acres+l- ��p,L LA)y.0 4.y` USE O el. 3271 4 WTON 5 2of4 City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 1001 N.Rosorio Street Suite 10a Me0dian.ID 83642 FU P(208)974-0075 F(80 1)352-7989 �. _ 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 Ir4 3271 4 om rE' l P 3of4 City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits 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 ENGINEER]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 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&SLhV;:)LNU 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 30 29 31 32 NW CORNER SECTION 32, T3N,R1 E,B.M. S87'59'06"E 30.00' (TIE) �n POINT OF BEGINNING S89°72'16"E 632.27' 1 m I R C7 M a � R C¢ u aO s tr z c a Lu Lu m LL o a) W I N89°10 42'W 636.78' I I ' 31 N 1116 CORNER SECTION 32, T3N,R1 E,B.M. 32 SUNRISE ESTATES EN 0@1NORH*- us 1_ZS' LEGAL DESCRIPTION EXHIBIT IOOI NORTH R06R61O 3LHF.fT.SL'1I'I live MERIDIAR IDAHO 8761] 2 4F 2 City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits L. Conditional Use Permit Approved by the Ada County Commission Board M 21p 1975 The CrAmmh 42f ,Tee Christ Of I&vt4 r-My Sa6lhtg % 17avY Yrig%t Rguto n Marid i t:t 14ahp ;93642 GaftelemeC6: Villa lector Is to advise yen Of the ac Yimn hmkAM Pay zhqt Bmrs e f )A& Vlam#y Cmmia a ions" at ycrL r 1J** Pwrsit as-optic - to Caract oKurc:k. Tha BcArd hm vottl to 9--an't the -Condi vi&nai ;fie■ -with tht a cUm ttg Z_ V*A AVP'J CA t S}.0 @CW17' VIUL del bi&bff On ftll$ 11 -ft tbf tiffL" ot• UA Ad& OOL;ntw Plwr=ag and zoi�irtg comoi58im d.6.d )kren 25, 1 , ax * , . htrwia azended. 2. seatiP49 1z, the c�rc4 shL361 not exce-ed r5a a•h,»,. 3. T-e C-0--th—L-4hrn ac-c'wa Sh&U Wk 01AMLI fated. .. Septi-a ayas-en enA wq�]i ■�w11 " $pprovgq �Y 'c;.m. e. ACcvaa, dedications, and Jz-AjTj*LeT* 2 111'l be "-proved 1jY ah& j%cm. _ DrWiru169e into `.Me i write ZL_Cr1 74%*sit sk-JtLi G■ eapra+aed h-j tn+r Naagm- er1-n&n Ir_'igation pia t r:t c;. If 2w ftw wri =taticLs pleeee contact th:a ort'i". FF ;S�4-qM--a2Y. wQ=aI-a C.Se I I 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. D. ACHD Roadway Infographic Notes The Ada County Highway District utilizes a number of planning and analysis tools to understand existing and future roadway conditions. • Existing Level of service(LOS).LOS indicator is a common metric to consider a driver's experience with a letter ranking from A to F.Letter A represents free flow conditions, and on the other end Level F represents forced flow with stop and go City of Meridian I Department Report VIII. Additional Notes&Details for Staff Report Maps, Tables, and Charts conditions. These conditions usually represent peak hour driver experience. ACHD considers Level D, stable flow,to be acceptable. The LOS does not represent conditions for bikes or pedestrians, nor indicate whether improvements: are possible; if there are acceptable tradeoffs; or if there is a reasonable cost-benefit. • Integrated Five Year Work Plan (IFYWP).The IFYWP marker(yes/no) indicates whether the specified roadway is listed in the next 5-years. This work may vary, from concept design to construction. • Capital Improvement Plan(CIP).The CIP marker(yes/no)indicates whether the specified roadway is programmed for improvement in the next 20-years. City of Meridian I Department Report VIII. Additional Notes&Details for Staff Report Maps, Tables, and Charts C i E IDIAN.;--- Agenda Item Applicant Presentation 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 • SOLARA ESTATES SUB •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 W IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for UDC Text Amendment (ZOA-2025-0001) by City of Meridian Planning Division, located citywide. Application Materials: https://bit.ly/ZOA-2025-0001 A. Request: UDC Text Amendment to revise the specific use standards associated with drive- throughs and secondary dwellings in Chapter 4 of the Unified development Code (UDC). PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: October 14, 2025 ITEM # 9 PROJECT NAME: UDC Text Amendment (ZOA-2025-0001) I wish to testify Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing (f yes) (Please Print) HOA. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Proposed UDC Text Amendments UDC Section Topic Reason for Change Proposed Change 11-4-3-11 Drive-through The City is seeing an increased A.A drive-through establishment shall be deemed an accessory use where the Establishments number of requests for drive- drive-through facility (including stacking lanes, speaker and/or order area, pick up throughs. The goal is to have windows, and exit lanes) i-scomplies with the following, otherwise a conditional use better-defined standards to permit is required: eliminate the need for requiring a 1. Not withinFarther than three hundred 300 feet 300' Offrom another- dri..o_ t conditional use permit. �,r,,,,g fee;lit.,, a residential district, use. or dwelling:;or ^H eXistiRg Fesideree OF 2. Not the conversion of a tier 1 drive-through to another tiered drive-through in subsection (C) below; or Separated by^ arterial stFeet fro,.,, ^ „theF drive thFough facility, residential district or- existing r-esi epee, or Removed drive-throughs 2 Not lvithin the n_T zoning Ehstr;et „tl eFwise ^ condition-Al 1-1-se peF„,it; from being permitted in the required OT zone. 3. Not designed in accord with subsection D below. B.All establishments providing drive-through service shall identify the stacking lane sue, menu and speaker locationjs� (if applicable), and window location Us on the site plan submitted with certificate of zoning compliance and or toe conditional use permit. Speak rs ^ „l,ibit a in the n_T zoning aistFk-t C. Types of Drive-throu hs. Improved the definition of 1. Tier 1.A drive-through associated with a financial institution, automated teller each drive-through type. machine (ATM). pharmacy, laundry and dry cleaning, or restaurant limited to online and mobile ordering only. 2. Tier 2.A drive-through associated with a restaurant, limited to a designated order area. one (1) stacking lane, an escape lane, and a pick-up window. 3. Tier 3.A drive-through associated with a restaurant providing at least two designated order areas, one (1) or more stacking lanes, an escape lane, and one (1) or more pick-up windows. D.AFor all drive-throughs. 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: Added language so the 1. Stacking lanes shall have sufficient capacity to prevent obstruction of decision-making body has driveways, drive aisles, and the public right-of-way by patrons. Designated pick- the ability to require up or pull-forward parking stalls may be required if the decision-making body designated pick-up or pull- determines that the stacking capacity is insufficient. forward stalls. DATE: 10/3/2025 1 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 twentyee feet (-120')4eet of any residential district, use or dwell inge*isti*ffesidenee. 4.Any stacking lane greater than one hundred feet (100') feetin length shall provide for an escape lane. Each stacking lane and designated escape lane shall have a minimum width of ten feet (10'). S. The site shouldshall be designed so that the drive-through is visible from a public street, or other readily accessible public space, for surveillance purposes. 6. The minimum stacking lane capacity shall be six (6) vehicles per lane for tier 2 or tier 3, and two (2) vehicles per lane for tier 1. 7.All drive-throughs shall submit a queuing exhibit demonstrating vehicle stacking per the lane capacity standards in subsection (D)(6). Each vehicle space within the stacking lane shall be based on a vehicle length of twenty feet (20'). DATE: 10/3/2025 2 11-4-3-12 Dwelling, Modify the specific use standards 11-4-3-12. - Dwelling, second accessory. secondary for secondary dwelling and rename for consistency with The following standards shall a12121y to the owner of any propertywhere an other codes accessory dwelling unit is built laced or maintained: A. PeirmittedLimit one. The property owner shall build, place, or maintain no more than Bone (1) seeend_­3Iaccessory dwelling unit is peFmitted ^P th-e san+ per rty4a-eonfu i„ aeti14 . ,ith and ..1eaFly subordinate to a single family,1Nye i„9 B.Accessory to primary dwelling.Accessory dwelling units shall be located only on the same property as in conjunction with and clearly subordinate to a primary dwelling. C. Permit required. The property owner shall obtain city permitting a1212roval for an accessory dwelling unit 12rior to building, placing, or maintaining an accessory dwelling unit on any property. D. Owner of Record��. To e .,to .,ram nt-ai„ seeendaFy dwelling,,,,it Removed the requirement qhe pFoper-ty owner-shall Feside on the pr-opeFty for-more than six (6) months in- for the property owner to reside on the property more The plieant for_aSeee,,,1 ,,I o ,dwelling unit shiall ,lomenstFate than 6 months out of the owneFship _'thethat either-the single family dwelling oF the seeoadar-y unit is year. by title Feeor-ds,vehiele registration,voter-FegistFationj or- other-similaF means. Ownership of the primary dwelling shall be confirmed through Ada County records. The accessory dwelling units shall not be subdivided or otherwise segregated in ownership from the single-family primary dwelling t. E. Maximum size. SeeendaFyAccessory dwelling units shall be limited to a maximum of nine hundred (900) square feet or no more than fifty (50) percent of he primary dwelling,whichever is less, and no more than two (2) bedrooms constructed in accord with the adopted residential building code. F. Location. The seoendaryaccessory dwelling unit may be located within or attached to the primary dwelling; a detached structure; or aboveLor--beside, or within a detached structure, sueh as a garage. Detached seeend--yaccessory dwelling units shall be located to the side or rear of a primary dwelling. G. Parking. Required parking for the property shall be as set forth in Section 11- 3C-6, Table 11-3C-6 of this Title for single-family dwellings, as determined by the total number of bedrooms on the property. The conversion of a covered parking area (garage/carport) into an seeenda-yaccessory dwelling unit is not allowed unless the required parking can be provided elsewhere on site. H. Separate e-Rntrance. Both the primary dwelling unit and the accessory dwelling_ unit shall each have at least one 1 exterior egress door: no openings are allowed between dwelling units. Only-ne (1) ent,.. neee ,-leer„f either-the single-family I. Design. The seeond--yaccessory dwelling unit shall be generally consistent in design with the s4i.glo_fnmily primary dwelling, including roof pitch, siding, color, materials, and window treatments. DATE: 10/3/2025 3 11-4-3-12 141. DrnhibitionsProhibited dwelling units. Manufactured and mobile homes 1 continued FeeFea#&nOnlya building constructed on a foundation shall be used as an accessory dwelling unit.vVehicles and tents shall be prohibited for use as accessory dwelling units. K. Number of occupants. The total number of occupants in both the single fam4y- primary dwelling and the second—ar-yaccessory dwelling shall not exceed the maximum number established for a "family", as defined in Chapter 1,Article A, "definitions", of this Title. L. Utilities. The property owner shall be responsible for connecting an accessory dwellina unit to municipal water and sewer services electricity, and for obtaining- solid waste collection services. M.Address required.An accessory dwelling unit shall have its own separate address from the primary residence. The property owner shall be responsible for obtaining an address for an accessory dwelling unit. DATE: 10/3/2025 4 V IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Ordinance No. 25-2100: An ordinance (Ten Mile Flex— H-2025-0027) annexing a parcel of land located in the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 34, Township 4 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described in Exhibit "A"; rezoning 5.545 acres of such real property from RUT (Rural Urban Transition) to the I-L (Light Industrial) zoning district; directing city staff to alter all applicable use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps and all official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance; providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Treasurer, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law; repealing conflicting ordinances; and providing an effective date. Ada County Recorder Trent Tripple 2025-067531 Boise,Idaho Pgs=4 dryalls 10/15/2025 10:16:10 AM CITY OF MERIDIAN IDAHO$0.00 Electronically Recorded CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 25-2100 BY THE CITY COUNCIL: CAVENER, LITTLE ROBERTS, OVERTON STRADER, TAYLOR, WHITLOCK AN ORDINANCE (TEN MILE FLEX — H-2025-0027) ANNEXING A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 4 NORTH, RANGE I WEST, BOISE MERIDIAN, CITY OF MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY,IDAHO, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A"; REZONING 5.545 ACRES OF SUCH REAL PROPERTY FROM RUT(RURAL URBAN TRANSITION) TO THE I-L (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL) ZONING DISTRICT; DIRECTING CITY STAFF TO ALTER ALL APPLICABLE USE AND AREA MAPS AS WELL AS THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAPS AND ALL OFFICIAL MAPS DEPICTING THE BOUNDARIES AND THE ZONING DISTRICTS OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS ORDINANCE; PROVIDING THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE FILED WITH THE ADA COUNTY ASSESSOR, THE ADA COUNTY TREASURER, THE ADA COUNTY RECORDER, AND THE IDAHO STATE TAX COMMISSION, AS REQUIRED BY LAW; REPEALING CONFLICTING ORDINANCES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE WHEREAS, the City of Meridian received a written request from property owner Ten Mile Storage Condos LLC to annex and rezone the land described in the legal descriptions attached hereto as Exhibit"A" and the maps attached hereto as Exhibit"B" ("Subject Property"), which exhibits are incorporated herein by reference; WHEREAS,the Subject Property is contiguous to the corporate limits of the City of Meridian, Idaho; WHEREAS, the City of Meridian is authorized by Idaho Code section 50-222 to annex the Subject Property; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF IDAHO: SECTION 1. That the City Council of the City of Meridian hereby annexes the Subject Property. SECTION 2. That the City Council of the City of Meridian hereby rezones 5.545 acres of such real property from RUT (Rural Urban Transition) to the I-L(Light Industrial) zoning district. SECTION 3. That City Staff is hereby directed to alter all applicable use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps and all official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance. ANNEXATION ORDINANCE—TEN MILE FLEX H-2025-0027 Page I SECTION 4. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a certified copy of this ordinance and its exhibits with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Treasurer, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, within ten (10) days following the effective date of this ordinance. SECTION 5. That all ordinances, resolutions, orders or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed. SECTION 6. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon publication, in accordance with law. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this 14th day of October, 2025. APPROVED BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this 1411 day of October, 2025. MAYOR ROBERT E. SIMISON ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON, CITY CLERK STATE OF IDAHO, ) ) ss: County of Ada ) On this 1 4th day of October,2025,before me,the undersigned,a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared Robert E.Simison and Chris Johnson known to me to be the Mayor and City Clerk,respectively, of the City of Meridian,Idaho,and who executed the within instrument,and acknowledged to me that the City of Meridian executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. Notary Public Commission Expiration: 3-28-2028 ANNEXATION ORDINANCE—TEN MILE FLEX H-2025-0027 Page 2 EXHIBIT A ELEVATED LAND SURVEYING ELEVATED 3534 Apolena Ave. Idaho Falls, Idaho 83401 spencerm(a elevatedlandsurveys.com 435-633-3012 LAND SURVEYING ANNEXATION BOUNDARY A parcel of land located in the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 34. Township 4 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at the East Quarter corner of said Section 34; thence along the section line North 000 52' 43" East 307.01 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; Running thence South 89' 17' 38" West 721.17 feet to a found 5/8" iron rod and no cap; Thence North 000 51' 19" East 344.11 feet to a found 5/8" iron rod and cap marked pis 4998; Thence South 89' 16' 00" East 721.03 feet to said section line; Thence along said section line South 00' 52' 43" West 325.99 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING: 5.545 acres y%CEN 20907 r f Z-,ZO,Zf �R MCC Page 1 of 1 I CERTIFICATION OF SUMMARY: s William L.M.Nary, City Attorney of the City of Meridian, Idaho, hereby certifies that the summary below is true and complete and upon its publication will provide adequate notice to the public. William L. M.Nary, City Attorney,,,_ SUMMARY OF CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 25-2100 An ordinance(Ten Mile Flex—H-2025-0027)annexing a parcel of land located in the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 34, Township 4 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described in Exhibit "A"; rezoning 5.545 acres of such real property from RUT (Rural Urban Transition) to the I-L (Light Industrial) zoning district; directing city staff to alter all applicable use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps and all official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance; providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor,the Ada County Treasurer,the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law; repealing conflicting ordinances; and providing an effective date. A full text of this ordinance is available for inspection at City Hall, City of Meridian, 33 East Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho. This ordinance shall be effective as of the date of publication of this summary. [Publication to include map as set forth in Exhibit B.] ANNEXATION ORDINANCE—TEN MILE FLEX H-2025-0027 Page 3 EXHIBIT B ANNEXATION EXHIBIT SKETCH T CITY OF MERIDIAN lv LOCATED IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 34,TOWNSHIP 4 NORTH,RANGE 1 WEST,BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY,IDAHO FOUND ALUMINUM CAP MARKED PLS 18780 2020 MARKING THE NORTH SIXTEENTH CORNER OF SEC.34,T4N,R1 W,B.M. CP&F N0.2020162067 I I APN:SO434142125 I I FND g"IRON OWNER:10 MILE DEVELOPMENT,LLC ROD AND 4315 N TEN MILE ROAD (RS1-N89°15'19"W 721.08 FT)(RS3-N89°14'48"W) FND P IRON ROD NO CAP _CAP PLS 4998_ S89° 16'00"E 721.03 FT(M) ' LL SCALE:1"=80' 0 I w 0 80 160 FND g"IRON ROD AND I 0 LL CAP PLS 18780 I0 Z_ u�i w _ IQ < L6 O z�l c Ny C I LL W — N O FF IcJ mcv) V)z LL C ILL o K M ANNEXATION BOUNDARY Z W MW w o ADA COUNTY REFERENCE M 241,557 SO FT I F ,�� 0 - o W N N Q N z u� RS1-RECORD OF SURVEY-ROS NO.2024 5.545 AC I Z M m u c RS2-RECORD OF SURVEY-ROS N0.12740 "oo ) $ °, �Z RS3-RECORD OF SURVEY-ROS NO.9814 z I z O RS4-RECORD OF SURVEY-ROS NO.13861 L17 It 04 APN:SO434142006 I Lf) z OWNER:ELIZABETH A VORBECK 4255 N TEN MILE ROAD I U) APN:$0434142020 I lu OWNER:LARRY BOWMAN y10EN 3475 W DOC UN P.O.B. 20907 I FND "IRON S89'17'38"W 721.17 FT(M) FND "IRON (RS1-N89°18'17"E 721.35 FT) ROD AND CAP A c9T ROD NO CAP PLS 18780OFAPN:SO434141955 MCFND r IRON OWNER:VAST PROPERTIES LLCFNDt"IRON ROD NO CAP 4115 N TEN MILE ROAD i L`> ROD AND CAP FOUND BRASS CAP MARKED PLS ANNEXATION PLS4998 18780 2020 MARKING THE EAST CITY OF MERIDIAN QUARTER CORNER OF SEC.34, LOCATED IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF T4N,R1 W,B.M.P.O.C. SECTION 34,TOWNSHIP 4 NORTH,RANGE 1 WEST,BOISE MERIDIAN, LEGEND CP&F N0.2020162066 ADA COUNTY,IDAHO ANNEXATION BOUNDARY LINE P.O.B. POINT OF BEGINNING -- -_— PLSS TIE LINE (M) MEASURED DISTANCE DRAWN BY:SJM // INST. INSTRUMENT el ADJOINING TITLE LINE DATE:5-2-2025 NO. NUMBER CP&F CORNER PERPETUATION AND FILING RECORD SCALE:1"=80' E L E VAT E D GOVERMENT PLSS MONUMENT (SQ) SQUARE FEET CADFILE:25-0005-31685P LAND SURVEYING AS NOTED (AC) ACRES JOB NAME:31685P FOUND SURVEY MONUMENT AS NOTED 3534 APOLENA AVE IDAHO FALLS,ID SHEET NO.1 OF 1 435-633-3012