Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-11-06 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Thursday, November 06, 2025 at 6:00 PM MINUTES ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE PRESENT Commissioner Jessica Perreault (until 7:21 P.M.) Commissioner Sam Rust Commissioner Matthew Sandoval (Remote) Commissioner Jared Smith Chairperson Maria Lorcher ABSENT Commissioner Brian Garrett Commissioner Matthew Stoll ADOPTION OF AGENDA Adopted CONSENT AGENDA \[Action Item\] Approved Motion to approve made by Commissioner Smith, Seconded by Commissioner Rust. Voting Yea: Commissioner Perreault, Commissioner Rust, Commissioner Sandoval, Commissioner Smith, Chairperson Lorcher 1. Approve Minutes of the October 16, 2025 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting 2. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Ada County Sheriff's Office Training Center by Ada County Sheriff's Office/Training Center, located at 2568 E. Lenark St. ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA \[Action Item\] ACTION ITEMS 3. Public Hearing for Farrington Heights Subdivision RZ, PP, MDA (H-2025-0016) by Studio H Architects, generally located at the NW corner of E. Pine Ave. and N. Adkins Ave. Continued to December 4, 2025 Applicant Requests Continuance A. Request: Rezone of 2.9 acres of land from the R-4 to the R-15 zoning district. B. Request: Preliminary Plat on 4.68 acres of land consisting of 25 building lots and 6 common lots. C. Request: Development Agreement Modification to terminate the existing development agreement and establish a new one. Motion to continue to December 4, 2025 made by Commissioner Smith, Seconded by Commissioner Rust. Voting Yea: Commissioner Perreault, Commissioner Rust, Commissioner Sandoval, Commissioner Smith, Chairperson Lorcher 4. Public Hearing continued from September 18, 2025 for Cherry Blossom East Subdivision (H-2025-0030) by Breckon Land Design, located at 523 W. Cedarbug Dr. and the 0.67 acre property to the east, located in the NE 1/4 of Section 12, T.3N., R.1W. Recommend Approval to City Council Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2025-0030 A. Request: Combined Preliminary and Final Plat consisting of three (3) building lots and one (1) common lot on 0.79 acres of land in the R-8 zoning district. Motion to recommend approval to City Council made by Commissioner Smith, Seconded by Commissioner Rust. Voting Yea: Commissioner Perreault, Commissioner Rust, Commissioner Sandoval, Commissioner Smith, Chairperson Lorcher 5. Public Hearing continued from October 2, 2025 for Apex Cadence (H-2024-0061) by Brighton Corporation, generally located south of E. Lake Hazel Rd. and west of S. Locust Grove Rd., including 6575 S. Locust Grove Rd. Continued to November 20, 2025. Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2024-0061 A. Request: Modification to the existing Development Agreement (Inst. #2020- 178120) to replace it with a new agreement for the subject property and to include specific design requirements. B. Request: Annexation of 0.86 acres of land with an R-15 zoning district. C. Request: De-Annexation of 0.52 acres of land from the City to Ada County. D. Request: Rezone of 56.11 acres of land from the R-8 to the R-15 zoning district. E. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 228 single-family residential building lots, 41 common lots and 16 other lots on 51.50 acres of land in the proposed R-15 zoning district with private streets in the gated portion of the development. F. Request: Planned Unit Development with a request for deviations to certain street, side, and rear yard building setbacks and to allow more than 100 dwelling units in a gated community. Motion to continue to November 20, 2025 made by Commissioner Smith, Seconded by Commissioner Rust. Voting Yea: Commissioner Rust, Commissioner Sandoval, Commissioner Smith, Chairperson Lorcher 6. Public Hearing continued from October 2, 2025 for St. George (H-2025-0004) by Shaun Wardle and Jason St. George, located at 3870 E. Overland Rd. and 1545 S. Topaz Ave. Continued to December 18, 2025 Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2025-0004 A. Request: Annexation of 2.0 acres with the R-15 zoning district to construct nineteen (19) multi-family units, 7,987 Sq. ft. of commercial space and four (4) vertically integrated residential units. B. Request: Two Conditional Use Permits, one for the multi-family residential and one for the vertically integrated residential project in the R-15 zoning district. Motion to continue to December 18, 2025 made by Chairperson Lorcher, Seconded by Commissioner Smith. Voting Yea: Commissioner Rust, Commissioner Sandoval, Commissioner Smith, Chairperson Lorcher ADJOURNMENT 9:08 P.M. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To view upcoming Public Hearing Notices, visit https://apps.meridiancity.org/phnotices --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting November 6, 2025. Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of November 6, 2025, was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Maria Lorcher. Members Present: Commissioner Maria Lorcher, Commissioner Jared Smith, Commissioner Matthew Sandoval, Commissioner Jessica Perreault and Commissioner Sam Rust. Members Absent: Commissioner Matthew Stoll and Commissioner Brian Garrett. Others Present: Tina Lomeli, Kurt Starman, Bill Parsons, Sonya Allen, Nick Napoli and Dean Willis. ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE Brian Garrett X Jessica Perrault _X Matthew Sandoval Matthew Stoll _X Sam Rust X Jared Smith X Maria Lorcher - Chairman Lorcher: All right. Good evening. Welcome to Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for November 6th, 2025. At this time I would like to call the meeting to order. The Commissioners who are present for this evening's meeting are here at City Hall and also on Zoom. We have staff from the city attorneys and the city clerk's office, as well as the city's planning department. If you are joining us on Zoom this evening we can see that you are here. You may observe the meeting, however, your ability to be seen on screen and talk will be muted. During the public testimony portion of the meeting you will be unmuted and, then, be able to comment. Please note we cannot take questions until the public testimony portion of the meeting. If you have any process questions during the meeting, please, e-mail cityclerk@meridiancity.org and they will reply as quickly as possible. If you simply want to watch the meeting we encourage you to watch this streaming on the city's YouTube channel. You can access it at meridiancity.org/live. With that let us begin with roll call. Madam Clerk. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Lorcher: The next item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. There are no changes to tonight's agenda, but please note that Item No. 3, Farrington Heights Subdivision has requested a continuance. So, if anybody is here tonight to testify on this application we will not be taking public testimony this evening. Could I get a motion to adopt tonight's agenda? Rust: So moved. Smith: Second. F Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 6,2025 Page 2 of 59 Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to adopt tonight's agenda. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] 1. Approve Minutes of the October 16, 2025 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting 2. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Ada County Sheriff's Office Training Center by Ada County Sheriff's Office/Training Center, located at 2568 E. Lenark St. Lorcher: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda, which include to approve the minutes of the October 16th meeting. I didn't write down anything else. I think that was it. Is that correct? I just have the minutes, so -- Lomeli: Madam Chair, there is a findings of facts -- Lorcher: Oh. Facts and findings -- Lomeli: That's for the Ada County Sheriff's Office training -- Lorcher: Oh, the Ada County Sheriff's Training Office. Could I get a motion to accept the Consent Agenda as presented? Smith: So moved. Rust: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] Lorcher: At this time I would like to briefly explain the public hearing process. We will open each item individually and begin with the staff report. Staff will report their findings and how the item adheres to our Comprehensive Plan and our Unified Development Code. After staff has made their presentation the applicant will come forward and present their case and respond to staff's comments. They will have 15 minutes to do so. After the applicant has finished we will open the floor to public testimony. Each person will be called only once during public testimony. The clerk will call names individually of those who have signed up on our website in advance to testify. You may Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 6,2025 Page 3 of 59 come to the microphones in Chambers or you will be unmuted on Zoom. Please state your name and address for the record and you will have three minutes to address the Commission. If you have previously sent pictures or a presentation for the meeting it will be displayed on screen and our clerk will help you run the presentation. If you have established that you are speaking on behalf of a larger group, like an HOA where others from that group will allow you to speak on their behalf, you will have up to ten minutes. After all those who have signed up in advance have spoken we will invite any others in Chambers who wish to testify. If you wish to speak on a topic you may come forward in Chambers or if on Zoom hit the raise hand button or if you are listening on the phone you may press star nine and wait for your name to be called. If you are listening on multiple devices, such as a computer and a phone, please -- please be sure to mute those extra devices so we don't experience feedback and we can hear you clearly. When you are finished, if the Commission does not have any questions for you, you will return to your seat in Chambers or be muted on Zoom and you will no longer have the ability to speak and, please, remember we will not call on you a second time. After testimony has been heard, the applicant will be given another ten minutes to come back and respond. When the applicant has finished responding to questions and concerns we will close the public hearing and the Commissioners will have an opportunity to discuss, hopefully make final decisions or recommendations to City Council as needed. ACTION ITEMS 3. Public Hearing for Farrington Heights Subdivision RZ, PP, MDA (H- 2025-0016) by Studio H Architects, generally located at the NW corner of E. Pine Ave. and N. Adkins Ave. A. Request: Rezone of 2.9 acres of land from the R-4 to the R-15 zoning district. B. Request: Preliminary Plat on 4.68 acres of land consisting of 25 building lots and 6 common lots. C. Request: Development Agreement Modification to terminate the existing development agreement and establish a new one. Lorcher: The first item -- or the next item on the agenda is Item 3, H-2025-0016 for Farrington Heights Subdivision -- has requested a continuance. Madam Clerk, do we have a date in mind for this continuance? Lomeli: Thank you, Madam Chair. We have December 4th. Lorcher: May I get a motion to continue Farrington Heights Subdivision? Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 6,2025 Page 4 of 59 Smith: Thank you. I move we continue Item H-2025-0016 to the date of December 4th. Rust: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to continue Farrington Heights Subdivision to December 4th. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. 4. Public Hearing continued from September 18, 2025 for Cherry Blossom East Subdivision (H-2025-0030) by Breckon Land Design, located at 523 W. Cedarbug Dr. and the 0.67 acre property to the east, located in the NE 1/4 of Section 12, T.3N., RAW. A. Request: Combined Preliminary and Final Plat consisting of three (3) building lots and one (1) common lot on 0.79 acres of land in the R-8 zoning district. Lorcher: Item 4 on the agenda is H-2025-0030 is to continue the Cherry Blossom East Subdivision from the August 21 st Planning and Zoning meeting for a combined preliminary and final plat. I would just like to say for the record I did not attend the meeting on August 24 -- 21 st. Excuse me. I was not in Chambers. But I have reviewed the testimony and the notes and I feel confident I can guide this -- this presentation, as well as vote on it. With that we will begin with the staff report. Allen: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. The Commission continued this project from the last two hearings in order for the applicant to obtain an assessment of the existing irrigation system to determine if it's adequate to serve the proposed development in addition to the existing Cherry Blossom Place Subdivision and to meet with the neighbors to work out outstanding issues, including obtaining an easement to extend water service to the property. I will just let the applicant give an update on that to you. Written testimony has been received since the last hearing from Margie Williams, Shawn Freeman and Kimberly Laukala and it is included in the public record. At the applicant's request staff is recommending Condition No. 11 is modified to read the developer shall pave the existing driveway via Northwest 4th Street on the adjacent property to the east at 1303 Northwest 4th Street with a surface capable of supporting fire vehicles and equipment. That red-lined version of that condition is included in your hearing outline tonight as stated. Staff will stand for any questions. Lorcher: Would the applicant like to come forward? Good evening. Breckon: Good evening, Madam Commission -- Commissioners. Jon Breckon. 6661 North Glenwood Street, Garden City. Lorcher: Thank you. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 6,2025 Page 5 of 59 Breckon: And I have got a few -- a bit of a presentation here. Just kind of reiterate where we left off and so forth. So, there is -- there is three building lots and two common lots on .79 acres and zoned R-8 and, then, just kind of summary of the -- some of the follow-up items where we had left off last time. There was some question about the easement for water main extension on the previous plan and it was determined that that existing access easement did not cover utility extensions or was not a utility easement per se and so we worked with staff and the fire department and figured out we could -- instead of extending out water main onto the property and having services off of it for the three lots, that we would extend water services to the lots and, then, sprinkle the furthest lot, so that we don't need a water main basically. Here is a -- here is a graphic that kind of shows that. Shows a fire -- fire service line to that lot -- to the furthest one to the west and where those service lines would come in and, then, one of the items was a request for a qualified consultant to review the plans of the existing irrigation system and, you know, particularly the pump station and that whole delivery for pressurized irrigation. So, we -- we had Precision Pump -- Precision Pump did the installation on that pump and has been maintaining it. Steve went out and checked it out and said that it is providing the 80 gallons per minute, a hundred psi as was designed and, then, additionally, we went back and looked at all the old calculations and tried to figure out what the issue was, because there is some -- something was not working right and running the pump dry and so forth. Went and looked at -- analyzed the water rights again and just went through all of the data from -- that we had from Cherry -- from the Cherry Blossom Subdivision. These three lots were originally supposed to be part of that, because -- but because of the access they were removed from the final -- final plat. Anyway, we found out that -- or just verified that there is -- there is plenty of water available, it's just not getting where it's supposed to be to the pump and so, you know, as part of this project is -- he is adding these three lots. We need to pipe -- there is another -- another ditch that goes north. We need to pipe that ditch around and I need to fix this issue, so that they don't have issues with the pump and so that's -- we have got that figured out. We are going to add some boxes there and so that we get the water that we are supposed to out of the ditch and so that that wet well doesn't run dry. As part of that also we will put a -- we will add a float valve to the wet well, so that just in case the water does go low that pump will automatically shut off and alert someone to, you know, go check it out. Other item was -- well, since we were here last we had two neighborhood meetings and just trying to iron out these items and see if we could figure things out with the neighbors. You know, Cherry Blossom Subdivision has had a lot of issues with the water supply and so irrigation maintenance as an HOA and so they would -- they would prefer to have that HOA signed over to them, instead of the developer being in charge of it, which I can understand, because, then, they can, you know, manage their own pump station and hire whatever landscaper they want for maintenance and that sort of thing and so one of the things that we have -- we have is we have got a letter from the developer that says he will sign that over as soon as we can get this project approved and -- and -- anyway. So, that was -- I thought that was a positive item. The -- the age, the -- the -- the other thing to note was, you know, as part of this whole pump station thing, which I can understand, they are very -- very very frustrated about it. They wanted to -- this new -- the Cherry Blossom East to have their own pump station and I guess it would be one way to do it, but, then, Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 6,2025 Page 6 of 59 you would have two pump stations right next to each other and so forth. After verifying all the water rights and seeing what's going on there with that pump station it just seems very inefficient. I mean the thing was -- that pump station is designed to provide plenty of water for these -- for the subdivision that's there, as well as these three lots. I mean that's how it was originally designed. So, we are -- we would like to -- you know, as part of this, you know, the pump station will get signed over to the HOA. They will manage it. They will maintain it. And, then, they will just bill these three folks for their portion of maintenance of the pump. That's what we are proposing there. One of the things that came up at the last hearing was -- there are some questions about access -- emergency access, how is this going to function and so forth. Yeah. That's it. Okay. And so, you know, what we are proposing is this hammerhead turn around meets all city requirements. Worked with fire department in particular to make sure we had -- we were okay there with -- with the widths and that functionality. And so -- because we have got a -- we have got a power pole that needs -- it's kind of sticking out and it's just very -- it's right on the edge there and so he was -- he was gracious enough to allow us to where you see the dimensional -- how that kind of works out. There is a little bit of a jog around that power pole. Lorcher: Based on this picture that you had right there -- Breckon: Yes. Lorcher: -- go back to the -- I don't know if you can use the arrows to go back. Five feet. Two, three and five. Where is the power pole exactly? Breckon: Yeah. So, on -- see if I can point it out here. There is a power pole right -- Lorcher: Oh, I see it. Okay. Breckon: -- at this point. Lorcher: Thank you. Breckon: You can see a little bit of a jog here. This is a roll -- rolled curb is what we are -- would like to do there. And, then, the rest of it would be -- would be asphalt. Lorcher: Okay. Thank you. Breckon: Okay. And, then, the other thing that we were supposed to check on was the access. So, fire and garbage truck access, what that looks like. So, we put together a little graphic here that shows -- this is existing conditions essentially that -- you know, the undeveloped area and, then, the neighbors have a driveway and so, you know, there is really not a real good way to turn around, other than driving around on that lot and somehow turning around there and, then, you can see by putting this in we get a nice all weather hammerhead turnaround with proper widths that will allow any of those large vehicles to come in, access, pick up the trash, access for fire and so forth. Okay. 10 1 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 6,2025 Page 7 of 59 And, then, we had our first neighborhood meeting September 10th. Some of the specific requests were to convert to two buildable lots and to build a park on the -- on the west side. The developer would like to maintain the three lots if at all possible like we were presenting it. Other item was that neighbors didn't want the new lots to be part of Cherry Blossom Place HOA or to have access to Cherry Blossom Place amenities and don't want to be responsible for maintenance of the proposed common drive, which I understand. And so, you know, we explained that this is a whole new subdivision. They will not be part of the HOA. They won't have access to their amenities and -- and they don't need to worry about maintenance -- maintenance of the driveway. That will be on these three -- these three lots. Some other items were -- I think I mentioned that already, but they would like the HOA turned over to the neighborhood as soon as possible, so they can address their landscape issues and, yeah, like I said, the developers agreed, turn -- turn it over to the HOA soon as we can get the project approved and we have a letter stating as much. Neighbors asked about existing trees, power pole, guy wire that could block vehicle access to the pump station. So, where the existing pump station is there is power coming to it via overhead on a power pole and there is a guy wire that kind of stretches across and so we checked on that, talked to Idaho Power, and we -- Idaho Power -- we are going to have Idaho Power move that pole and fix the guy wire so they have good access to the pump so it's not an issue. Also there was a question about some existing trees on the site. The city arborist will go verify that all these tree -- the existing trees on site do not require mitigation. They are just considered weed trees and so those will be removed. There was a request for a new cedar fence on the north property line of the proposed project and the developer is glad to split the cost of that to put a new fence in. Okay. Here is the gravity -- I think that's -- that's -- I'm probably getting close to my ten minutes. I can go into further details and stand for questions. I have got a graphic here that shows detail of the pump station area and those connections, as well as some setbacks and those sorts of things. So, if we need to get any specifics there should be able to answer any of those questions. This is -- oh, this was the other -- that we -- so, we had another neighborhood meeting on October 8th. Probably better mention that. And what came out of that was they would like -- they want -- the neighbors would like to have written confirmation that the Cherry Blossom Place HOA would be turned over to them and -- at the time that this is approved and so this is the letter that the developer signed. Other items on that second neighborhood meeting. The neighbors requested the narrative, submitted that the city be updated with changes since its initial submittal and that's -- yeah, that's not a problem, that -- city and staff has -- has addressed that to update. One of the things that's referring to is initially we had different lot numbers and realized during the course of the project that they need to be sequential for code and so we have changed those and there were lots that were being referenced in some of the comments and so we just want to make sure that nothing was confused there. Access easement. So, this one -- there is the access -- there is -- there is the access easement that gets us to these three lots on the -- on the east side and it references Lot 16, 17 and 19, because of when it was written and -- which is not accurate and should be updated and MSO, we -- we talked to city attorney and staff and figure out, you know, how do we go about doing that and I think we have got that worked out at this point. The agreement's still -- still valid. The access is needed to the irrigation pump power box to Cherry F-11 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 6,2025 Page 8 of 59 Blossom Place for maintenance. So, that was one of the other things that maybe I will go back to this graphic here. There is a couple other things that kind of came up. Here is -- on this west side there is a transformer here. It's right on the property line and so, you know, fencing will need to jog around that. The other -- there is a power switch box or meter box in the back corner that provides power to the -- to the pump station, which is right here and so one of the concerns was with -- especially with the -- issues with the pump to be able to go and shut off that pump if it runs dry. Neighbors wanted to have access through this driveway, so they get down here to that shut off and we asked staff about it. Staff didn't really support it. And so we left that off after we figured out that we will have -- that we are going to fix the pump and make sure that that works and so they shouldn't need to be running over there all the time to -- to shut it off. And I guess we can -- we can address that a little bit more through questions. Lorcher: Okay. Commissioners, do we have any questions for John at this moment? Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: I do have one question just regarding the HOA. So, there is the three plats on the north side. The two that are on the south side taking access from this drive, are they already part of the existing HOA subdivision -- Cherry Blossom Place or are they -- do they have -- would they be absorbed into this new HOA? Breckon: Mr. Smith, that's a great question, because there -- there is really -- there is two things we have kind of been addressing here and that's the -- you know, the neighbors to the south of the drive, they are -- they were there before Cherry Blossom Place went in and -- and as well as their drive and access, which is right along that property line south side of the proposed driveway and -- and so -- yeah. So, that -- that's -- no, to answer your question directly. They are not part of Cherry Blossom Place and they will not be part of this subdivision. They are just totally separate. Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: And, then, just to follow up on that, so the -- my understanding is -- so, I guess a yes or no, is this correct. That would mean these three homeowners and not the neighbors would be responsible for the maintenance of this common drive and the neighbors would not be responsible under the agreement? Breckon: Correct. Commissioner Smith, they would not be responsible for maintenance of this proposed -- any of these proposed improvements, because they -- all their improvements are already in. They are on their own property. All the proposed improvements we are making are on -- are north of the property line. We would just be F12 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 6,2025 Page 9 of 59 abutting driveways essentially and there would be some inherent benefit to that for access, but, yeah, maintenance and all that would not be on them. Lorcher: Okay. Thank you very much. Breckon: Thank you. Lorcher: Madam Clerk, do we have anybody signed up to testify for Cherry Blossom? Lomeli: Thank you, Madam Chair. The first person that signed up is Gloria Swihart. She has indicated she is -- okay. Lorcher: Okay. Lomeli: Karen Blanton, would you like to? Okay. Working my way down the list. Jack Harp. Lorcher: No? You are good. No? Okay. Lomeli: Kimberly Laukala. Lorcher: Good evening. Thank you for being here. If you can state your name and address for the record it would be appreciated. Laukala: Yes. It's Kimberly Laukala. My address is 1435 North Parkshire Way. I'm commenting because I don't feel that the pump survey that was done was adequate to what we were concerned about. They came out and certified that the pump was built to spec. We already knew that. The issues we are having is that there is not enough water. There is no water pressure. There is sporadic times when places just won't water, because there is too many people doing it at the same time and they didn't do testing until after the canals were dry, so there was no way that they could run a full test of our system. So, we are still concerned that it is not adequate, that it will not support three more houses, because it doesn't currently support what we have. The other issue we have is no winterization has been done to the pump this year. Period. And the last scheduled winterization done to the pump, which would be maintenance, which is our concern, was in February of 2022. So, our pump has not been maintained. So, there is another issue. Who is going to maintain it? Who is going to pay to bring it back up to where it's supposed to be? Because we don't feel that the homeowner should have to pay for that, because we have not been in charge and my third point is we feel we are being held hostage. The developer has said he will turn over the HOA when the new property is approved. That could take seven years. Ten years. May never be approved. What happens then? Do we end up with no HOA representation until that point? If it's -- if he means to turn it over to us, the homeowners, then, do a good faith and do it now, instead of waiting and holding us hostage. It's just -- it doesn't seem right, so -- and -- oh. My last thing before my time is up. The October 16th letter that was written by the developer, it says that it was submitted to the HOA president, who is F13] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 6,2025 Page 10 of 59 the developer as the declarant. So, it was really submitted to himself. I don't know how that's even legal that you can do that, you know, play both sides. So, those are my concerns. Lorcher: Okay. Quick question. Laukala: Uh-huh. Lorcher: You said that your pump hasn't been winterized since 2022. Laukala: Correct. Lorcher: And so who do you feel is in charge of doing that? Laukala: That would be the developer, because he is the one that's been in charge of the pump. Lorcher: This entire time. Laukala: This entire time. Lorcher: Okay. And I believe the October 16th letter, regardless of who it was sent to, was -- was -- the purpose was to have it on record for this meeting. Laukala: I think so. Lorcher: So, if he wrote it to himself because he is the president and the developer, it -- it really doesn't matter. It's a matter of public record; correct? Laukala: Correct. Lorcher: Okay. And, then, has your community, including back to 2022 addressed these water pressure issues with your HOA developer? Laukala: We have been complaining and addressing it with him since we moved in in 2023 and there has been nothing. The only time -- Lorcher: No communication? Laukala: No. No communication. And we had -- in August '23 we were turned over to a management company and so we have addressed it with them and they are trying their best, but they can't do anything, because it all goes back to the developer and nothing's happening. The only time I saw movement was when we started having these meetings and I brought up the issues. Lorcher: Okay. Thank you very much. F14] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 6,2025 Page 11 of 59 Laukala: Uh-huh. Thank you. Lomeli: Madam Chair, the next person is Bob Flaten. Lorcher: Okay. Thank you. Lomeli: And, then, the last person that signed up is Todd Hanson. Lorcher: And before we go further, Bob, you know Farrington Heights we are not taking public testimony this evening; right? Hanson: Yes, ma'am. Lorcher: Okay. Just want to make sure you weren't -- I mean please enjoy the meeting. So, thank you for being here. All right. And if you can state your name and address for the record. Hanson: My name is Todd Hanson. My address is 1247 Northwest 4th Street. I own the driveway -- the easement on the south side of the Cherry Blossom Subdivision, which is being proposed. At this point we have no interest in granting the applicant an easement to the property, knowing that we have an existing fire access road that is abutting my driveway to the -- which would be the north of that driveway. Last -- or last meeting my driveway was so far to a 12 foot -- or 11 foot driveway and I have a 30 foot easement to the -- to the south, which for whatever reason became kind of a comical thing. So, I do believe that having a 30 foot easement, as well as my -- my driveway there is -- there should be a barrier between the subdivision and myself, as well as having -- abstaining -- keeping my fire access or you know -- right now I was told I would lose the fire access. I would lose my trash pickup. My access, basically, to my subpar driveway, which was established 25 years ago. Can't find record of what those codes were 25 years ago. Why my -- why -- well, you know, it was approved. I have been living there this long. So, to have someone to come in and say I'm lose -- I'm going to lose this, we are going to -- we are going to have to give -- give into this subdivision is -- it's not right in my eyes. We stand -- we -- we haven't established everything as it is and I think it should stand as it is. Now, I heard tonight that possibly we would be had -- we would have access to the new -- or the new -- Lorcher: Okay. Three houses. Yes. Hanson: That -- that has never been told to us that we would -- we would have that. I talked to Breckon about combining the driveway. He said I would have to get an easement from the applicant. Therefore, I'm not doing that. The other issue is the power poles. There is two power poles. One at 4th Street and one halfway up my driveway sitting 19 feet in -- or 19 feet in that 20 foot easement and now I see that it's pulled back to 18 feet. So, between the fire department and you folks and, you know, we have got -- I think you have more of an issue than just okaying this subdivision with Fl-51 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 6,2025 Page 12 of 59 the HOAs and the pump issues. Last meeting with all HOAs and pump. I appreciate you. Lorcher: Before you take off. So, in regard to the driveway easement, is it your choice, then, to have a fence divide your driveway -- drive aisle portion to the other side? Hanson: That or the five foot barrier. It was -- it has been drawn with the five foot landscape berm -- Lorcher: Uh-huh. Hanson: -- and/or -- and, then, it was changed to -- to a fence -- an open iron fence and I think that that fence needs to go the full length of Doug's property or the applicant's property to my pin at 4th Street if there is a fence to be built. Lorcher: Do you have -- Hanson: And -- but the -- at the same point I don't -- I'm not -- the city or someone is going to be responsible if my 30 foot easement needs to turn into a 20 foot fire easement at that point. I mean -- because that's where it was addressed that I have 30 feet. I have room to go the south to build a new driveway, therefore, I don't think my house is sitting in the right spot. But, again, that's -- that's on -- it's on the city and the developer to correct these issues. Lorcher: Are you in the City of Meridian or Ada county? Hanson: I'm in -- I'm -- Lorcher: City of Meridian? Hanson: -- 4th Street. Yeah. City of Meridian. Lorcher: Well, there is parcels all over the city that belong -- that are islands in Ada county. Hanson: I could be -- yeah. Lorcher: We are the City of Meridian and, then, is it your preference to have a fence? Hanson: My preference is to have a berm, but -- Lorcher: Berm. Hanson: -- at the same point -- Lorcher: Okay. F16] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 6,2025 Page 13 of 59 Hanson: -- there are -- there are some other issues there. Lorcher: Okay. Hanson: Because I do have trailers. I have used -- I have used that fire access road to pull in and out, bigger -- you know, my -- my -- my camp trailer. Lorcher: Right. Hanson: But yet at the same point I can stay on my 11 feet driveway. Lorcher: Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Perreault: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: I have a question for Mr. Hanson. Lorcher: Don, can you come back, please? Perreault: Good evening. Hanson: Who is speaking? Perreault: So, I have read through all the testimony and I'm just not a hundred percent clear on what the downside would be to share -- from your perspective to share a common drive to the north. Hanson: I think -- I think the main thing is -- I have got a 25 year old concrete driveway. You know. And I have talked to -- you know, it's not just that and it's not that I'm totally against -- against it. I think -- I think from the beginning when this process started with the land developer we were going to lose our -- our -- our fire -- our access to that -- not just the fire, but this -- the garbage pickup. You know, that was written out that if we don't grant them easement that we would -- we would have to -- we would be on our own -- we would be on our own island. We would have to get our private access. We would have to get our own trash pickup. Fire -- fire access -- I think if -- you know, the City of Meridian could get a fire hose to my house and I don't care about pulling the trash cans out either. But the lot -- the biggest thing is the expense where you are going to be part of the HOAs of the new subdivision or are you going to -- or you are going to maintain your own driveway and try to police who is going to drive in and out and -- and maintain that when a concrete truck or an excavator -- now especially when -- when they are going to build a new road in, who is going to repair my driveway during this construction time and how am I going to keep them off of it by not -- not giving them an easement? So, you know, there is -- there is all kinds of variable things that we have -- we have talked about. Obviously it would be great if it was the same. I could roll my F17] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 6,2025 Page 14 of 59 trailer in and out of that nice fire turnaround and drive it into my yard. I would -- that would be fine, too. But it's -- I think it's more the -- more my -- my personal property rights to have somebody come in and say, hey, you know, give me this and now -- or if you don't you are going to lose all this or all the -- you know, all the things that the city has provided me over the 25 years. I mean that's kind of -- kind of the -- where I stand and even now it's like, okay, you got 18 feet to pull your -- to build a new road without moving the power poles. To me that is -- that's a code violation there without act -- you know, with where my driveway sits and, really, the -- where my driveway sits the concrete line, I do have more than the 11 foot there to the north. So anyway -- Lorcher: Okay. Thank you. Madam Clerk. Lomeli: Madam Chair, no one else has signed up. Lorcher: Is there anybody in Chambers that would like to speak? I looked at this gal first and, then, the one in the middle. Williams: Good evening. So, my name is Marjorie Williams. I live at 1251 Northwest 4th Street. Just to add on to a couple of things Todd spoke about, why do we care if the driveways are combined? I had an appraisal done by a realtor and it would decrease the property value of our house by at least ten percent. People don't like sharing driveway -- buying houses on driveways I guess with six houses. So, approximately a million dollar home, that's at least a hundred thousand dollars. So, that's why this is worthwhile to me. Also -- okay. Let's see here. So -- and the issue I -- and, then, one of the major issues is the geometry of the turn off 4th Street onto the 20 foot common driveway of the new development. Fire trucks can't make that turn. They need at least 24 feet, possibly more when you look at the auto turn format that they put out there. Garbage trucks need more than that, too. So, yeah, when you apply the standard auditor and fire truck template, the rear -- rear wheels and overhang of a ladder truck cannot stay inside the 20 foot easement. Power poles at the corner restricting the turning radius and the city's own staff report states that the open vision fence has been removed to allow more room for emergency vehicle maneuverability on the abutting southern properties. That means the city is assigning a public safety function to land the applicant doesn't own and for which has no cross-access, easement. This fails to demonstrate compliance with Idaho Fire Code 503.2.4, turning radius must be provided within the property served and UDC 11-6C-3-E4, which requires emergency access to be located within the development or a recorded easement. Approving a layout that depends on neighboring private property conflicts with Idaho Code 67-6511 and amounts to a taking under Article 1 and 14 of the Idaho Constitution and the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The staff report also says the Cherry Blossom East access easement is separate from the southern easement, yet the design functions as one continuous corridor. Same pavement, same alignment and the same turning path. If the easements are truly separate the fire access isn't met. If they are combined our property has been incorporated into a new plat without consent. Either way the findings before you violate UDC 11-6C-3-E4 and Idaho Code 67-6511, because they rely on an access arrangement that is neither legally granted, nor consistent with Fl-81 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 6,2025 Page 15 of 59 the record. And, then, finally, the development continues to own the pump house parcel that supplies with irrigation for both subdivisions, while claiming there are two independent HOAs conflicts with UDC 11-3A-5A and Idaho Code 55-3206(2)(4) which -- okay. To close I would ask the developer to address the code violations detailed in the written comments I submitted. Lorcher: Thank you. Williams: Thank you. Any questions? Lorcher: Nope. Williams: Okay. Lorcher: Thank you. Ma'am, if you would come up. Oh, you are good. Good evening. Reese: Good evening. I'm Janet Reese and I live at 1384 North Parkshire Way. I have a few comments regarding the October 29th project manager memo and this project manager submitted the application. He claimed that a separate Cherry Blossom East HOA will be created. That HOA, the east one, will be comprised of three homes. In Idaho generally HOAs must have more than 20 lots or units to register with the Idaho Secretary of State. So, these proposed three new homes will be dubious -- dubiously referred to as another HOA? The memo further states an agreement between the two HOAs will be created for the new homes use of the existing irrigation pump currently serving the 47 Cherry Blossom Place HOA homes. That's also dubious considering there are no existing legal HOA documents which would facilitate any such agreement. The developer controls the existing HOA, as Kimberly pointed out, and will control the other three homes as well. I'm going to amplify on the current condition and capacity of the existing pump. A system that exhibited pressure problems this summer. It's questionable whether the system efficiently supports the 47 homes on it now. An assessment of the pump station was supposed to be done before this meeting by a professional engineer qualified to certify in writing the condition and capacity of the pump station. But this wasn't done. Instead a Precision Pumping systems service engineer came out and took a look. He could not confirm or certify in writing how many properties the output performance would accommodate according to his October 10th memo that's posted. The additional homes in another HOA should have its own separate pump. This project should not progress until the issues regarding the capacity and condition of the existing pump system is resolved. Additionally, legal documents that certify the new homes will be in a separate HOA should be required before this project is approved. Thank you. Lorcher: Thank you. Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. F-19 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 6,2025 Page 16 of 59 Smith: I do have a question. Lorcher: Ms. Reese, can you come back? Smith: So, I just want to clarify what your preference is. So, you identify that you are opposed -- and correct me if I'm misunderstanding -- it seems you are opposed to these three homes being in their own HOA. Would you prefer that they join the existing HOA or is there some other -- Reese: Absolutely not. Smith: Is there some other -- Reese: Well, first of all the issue is the pump. Is it going to -- is it going to work for three more houses? And the other issue is we don't -- we don't want them on the HOA. They -- they are not our locale and, really, the HOA should be turned over right now before anything else goes on so homeowners have a say in this matter. Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: So, is there another configuration I guess -- and not to dig into legal weeds or anything like that. I'm just trying to understand to make sure -- is there a different configuration that you would prefer if not -- a new HOA, not the existing HOA? Is there some other preference that you have? Reese: Well, if they are going to call three homes Cherry Blossom Place East, they ought to have their own pump system. Why would they annex the one we are using and we don't even know if it's efficiently serving the 47 homes on it. It has problems now and we have no say. Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: So, if they have their own pump station -- or if you were confident that the property could be adequately served is -- your issue is not with that -- they would be their own HOA, it's specifically with the pumping. Reese: We don't -- we don't want another group of homes using the pump that is not certified as far as how many homes it can serve. I really -- it really needs to be checked out by an outside professional that can give an objective view point on -- is this going to work or not. Smith: Okay. 20 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 6,2025 Page 17 of 59 Lorcher: Thank you. Reese: Thank you. Lorcher: Anybody else in Chambers that would like to speak? I looked at this gentleman in the hat first and, then, sir. J.Williams: Good evening, everybody. Lorcher: Hi. J.Williams: Justin Williams. 1251 Northwest 4th Street. Mine's super easy and small. I don't think there is adequate parking for the three houses that are going in. So, if those three houses have anybody come over or they have a child in house and they have more than two cars there is no parking. So, everybody's going to be parking to the south on our property. So, the third house is almost not possible to drive into the driveway without backing onto our property. So, if I happen to put a trailer there or a fence there, it's almost impossible for somebody to back out, because it's less than 20 feet. So, nobody addresses that. Also back to Todd's point. The problem is is that our driveway is crumbling. They are not offering to rebuild it. They are not offering to share an easement. They are not offering to buy our property. They are just expecting that it's going to be okay for people to drive up and down the property. As soon as those houses are built and they have a small party at one house, it will not be legal for any police officer or fire department or fat or trash to be able to drive down the driveway, because right now you can barely drive two cars down as it is. So, if any party parks on the curb -- this should be redone and there should be more parking. I believe there should be more parking -- they should have to have more parking. There is no street parking. Lorcher: Okay. Thank you very much. J.Williams: Thank you. Lorcher: Sir. D.Laukala: I'm Daniel Laukala. 1435 Parkshire Way. I just want to touch on the pump. The pump, they -- Steven looked at it as an engineer sitting at his desk. Ran the numbers. The pump is adequate. The pump should be able to run a golf course. Our problem is Doug Jayo as the declarant of our subdivision has abandoned us. He has abandoned maintaining that pump. He has abandoned making sure that it's up kept. That's our biggest investment in our neighborhood. That's our only asset. If we have got a low ditch -- and I have talked to Precision Pumping. I have talked to one of their service guys that came out. Number one, '22 was the last winterization. February of '22. So, after winter. They have came out and replaced motherboards on it every year. They have came out, replaced valves, but it's never been serviced. When they do a winterization they check the valves, they unhook the bolt on the bottom, let the water F21 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 6,2025 Page 18 of 59 drain out. Right now we had to shut the pump off ourself. We had to walk to the breaker box, flip it off, because the owner next to that pump could hear it screaming dry when the irrigation ditch dried out. Why do we have to do that? If it was serviced and they did an assessment like they were supposed to they would have seen that the float wasn't working. There is another valve that must not be working, because there is two fail safes to shut that pump off when the water is dry. So, what is the health of our pump? Why didn't they run a wet assessment? They waited until the ditches were dry. Sonya sent a letter to them saying, hey, the ditches are going to dry out this next Wednesday next week, you need to go out and do an assessment. An assessment isn't done at a desk. That pump will do it if it's maintained and right now I have pictures the pump is still energized. It is still set to auto. All somebody has to do is walk over to that breaker box and flip the breaker box and the pump will burn up again. I asked Rob that turned it off -- and I said, no, you did the right thing, because I got my butt chewed by the HOA for touching it. So, Rob did the right thing. If your car is on fire do you want me to call the fire department or do you want me to use a fire extinguisher to put it out while the fire department is coming? Precision Pumping said, no, you did the right thing, turn it off, de-energize it. It hasn't been winterized. There is still two inches of mud in the ditch. I have got pictures of vegetation in the pipes. I'm just very unhappy. Lorcher: Thank you very much. D.Laukala: Questions? Lorcher: No. I think we are good. Is there anybody else in Chambers that would like to speak? Madam Clerk, do we have anybody online? Lomeli: Madam Chair, no. Lorcher: Would the applicant like to come forward and address some of the concerns of the neighbors? Breckon: Jon Breckon. 6661 North Glenwood Street. Lorcher: Thank you. Breckon: I'm not sure where to start. I can't speak to the winterization as I have not been involved in that -- that piece of it or the maintenance thus far. The -- regarding the letter to the HOA -- that turns over the HOA, that letter was sent to Tammy Riddle, who is the -- the president of the HOA. She is part of the property management group and so that was to be dispersed from her. I clarify that item. As far as, you know, turning over the HOA I think everybody would like to turn it over. I will speak to that. One of the reasons for not turning it over is that part of Lot 2 is still part of Cherry Blossom and that's owned by the developer and so as part of this plat that lot will be combined and make Lot 2 and allow us to do these lots. F22 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 6,2025 Page 19 of 59 Lorcher: Quick question. In regard to the lots that are in the vicinity of this Cherry Blossom Subdivision, historically developers turn over once a hundred percent of lots are developed. After this east project are there any other undeveloped lots within this -- or this vicinity that that developer owns that would prohibit him from extending the HOA to the community? Breckon: Madam Chair, no. There is -- yeah. And I think that's why, you know, he said in the letter that he would be willing to sign it over as soon as we get this approved. That's kind of the first time that it really makes sense is, then, that -- that lot can go -- can be combined and complete this other subdivision. Lorcher: Okay. Breckon: I understand the frustrations about the pump. Was obviously spoken to. I guess I would fall back to what I was saying before in that we did do a full assessment of it. Precision Pump went out there while the water was still on and when they did their inspection. As engineers we look at the numbers. That's how we did our assessment of the water rights and so forth. Check the calculations and it just all checks out. Lorcher: I don't think the community is objecting that the size of the pump or not ability to be able to do it, as the neglect of the developer -- or the homeowners association to maintain it. So, is the developer willing -- the new develop -- developer willing with these three new parcels to put in a separate pump for these three parcels or are they going to be able to fix the one that they have so that the community has the water that they need? Breckon: What we are -- Madam Chair, what we are proposing is to fix the one that we have, because we are only at -- you know, there is 47 lots. We are only adding three more to it. The pump is well capable of servicing those three lots and so, you know, we need to -- we need to do some additional piping there. We need to -- we need to make some improvements to make sure the water is getting into the wet well. I mean that's what we determined out of our assessment is that water is just not getting into the -- to where it needs to for the pump. That's why it's running dry. And so we need to make those upgrades. That's in the plans that we submitted to staff. Yeah. It just needs to be fixed and so that's what we are proposing is to fix those things, so this thing runs like a Swiss watch -- Lorcher: Right. Breckon: -- I mean which -- which it should. Lorcher: One gentleman mentioned some parking. Breckon: Yes. The parking -- I mean these are single family homes. They have got two car garages, as well as a 20 foot driveway. That's -- that's what we are relying on for -- for parking. The -- one thing I would like to speak to is -- is the barrier between the F23] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 6,2025 Page 20 of 59 properties. We -- you know, maybe I should go back when we initially presented the project to the first neighborhood meeting we brought two concepts. They were both drawn up per city code, which stated that there should be a five foot buffer and/or a fence to separate and that's what we showed. We also presented an option to work through a cross-access agreement so that -- and rebuild their side of the driveway, so that everybody could share this new driveway and everybody would have access down and through the whole thing. What came out of that is the neighbors did not want the barrier between and I think that was worked through with staff and that requirement by the -- for the five foot buffer was removed and -- and that's how we came to where we are today. So, there is some misunderstanding there. We are not asking for an easement -- additional easement for the neighbors. We are not asking for them to share the drive. You know, it's separate. I guess, you know, if they want a fence we are okay with that as well. That's what we had back in previous concepts. So, we feel confident we can make that work if that's the preference. I think that answers that area there. There was a question about turning radiuses and access. I'm quite familiar with the IFC, International Fire Code, and those turning radiuses. Inside turning radius for a fire truck is 28 feet as a minimum and I guess I just disagree, I mean we have run this by the fire department and staff and we have looked at it ourselves. We have got a program that does these training radiuses. I think we are good. So, I would be glad to look up any additional code and see where -- if we are missing something there, but to the best of my knowledge we are in compliance. Lorcher: Okay. Commissioners, do we have any questions for the applicant? Rust: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Rust. Rust: Thank you. I would just like to clarify what you are saying to make sure that I understand it properly. You are saying the HOA was not turned over because currently the lot that the pump house sits is incorporated into -- into Lot 2 and so to get this plat approved allows you to split off that lot and, then, give that to the HOA. So, that's why the developer has not turned over to the HOA yet. Is that -- am I understanding that correctly? Breckon: Madam Chair, Commissioner Rust, yes. That is correct. Rust: Okay. Excellent. Breckon: It's kind of a -- not typical situation. Rust: Okay. Thank you. Breckon: Yes. And that's why we wrote the letter to show that -- glad to do that. Lorcher: Okay. I think that's it. Thank you very much. 24 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 6,2025 Page 21 of 59 Breckon: Thank you. Lorcher: Can I get a motion to close the public hearing? Smith: So moved. Rust: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for Cherry Blossom East. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Lorcher: I struggle with this on a couple different levels. I am not an HOA expert. I lived in a Corey Barton subdivision. I was the 12th of 62 houses that was built. So, we were right in the middle. The HOA was not turned over to our community to a property management company until a hundred percent of the buildable lots were completed. I think that is usual and customary in communities. I don't know if there is a law or a code or a -- or whatever, but that's been my experience. So, the fact that that hasn't been turned over is not surprising. It is extremely disappointing that this particular development has not -- developer has not taken care of its community before it chooses to build something new. So, there definitely is some neglect there of being able to provide the water pressure needed for this community. But on the second hand it sounds like there is a commitment to not only fix the pump to improve it, as well as turn the HOA, so, then, the developer is no longer involved, but you can work with the property management company that's been hired or you, as a community, you can elect a president and take matters in your own hands so you are not listening to grinding gears or things of that nature. The developer has a right to develop undeveloped land and if it's been used as a convenience for this community it has been at the graciousness of the developer. It is not your land. It belongs to future development and because it's been used as fire truck turnaround or garbage truck turnaround has been more of a convenience than a rule. But with that said making sure that there is proper access and accessibility is also important. So, you know, it's like this weighing thing; right? We have got this open lot. Nobody wants to see it developed, maybe a park, but the developer doesn't make any money on a park, he makes money by selling homes and having three homes on .79 acres is not considered unreasonable. It's unreasonable that three houses have to be part of their own HOA because this community won't welcome these houses in there, but it all goes back to the pump; right? So, if the developer -- the developer needs to be faithful to the commitments that are made not only here tonight, but at City Council. The pump needs to be fixed. The roads need to be maintained. The HOA needs to be turned over and those houses to be welcomed into your community. Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. F25] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 6,2025 Page 22 of 59 Smith: I agree with you. I think by and large a lot of the issues that I heard raised tonight and that I have seen raised aren't necessarily about the development itself. It's about the fact that this community just plain doesn't trust the developer. I think there are certain standards with it. When you look at the actual development itself what is on paper, what the developer is legally going to be held to, I think the project is a good one. As our former chair and colleague Andy Seal would say in-fill is just hard and this is a really difficult piece of land and I think with all of that said this is -- this is a good project. Now, regarding the developer's long-term maintenance commitments to the community, I agree, I think that the community has -- maybe it sounds like been underserved by the developer and I think the best way to ameliorate that problem, in addition to requiring the pump station be serviced and fixed as part of this -- this existing development is to get this HOA in the hands of the community as soon as possible. I think that is by approving this project. So, that's where I stand. Yeah. It's a weird project. There are a lot of things that are not done how we are used to or not -- the configuration of the existing property given access it's not standard and that's kind of what you get with in-fill sometimes, but I think with what cards were being dealt and the developer's been dealt they have done a good job on this specific project. Lorcher: Any other comments from Commission or a motion? Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: After hearing all applicant, staff and public testimony, I move to recommend approval of File No. H-2025-0030 to City Council with a modification of Condition 11 being modified to read that the developer shall pave the existing driveway via Northwest 4th Street on the adjacent property to the east at 1303 Northwest 4th Street with a service -- surface capable of supporting fire vehicles and equipment. Rust: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to approve Cherry Blossom East. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. 5. Public Hearing continued from October 2, 2025 for Apex Cadence (H- 2024-0061) by Brighton Corporation, generally located south of E. Lake Hazel Rd. and west of S. Locust Grove Rd., including 6575 S. Locust Grove Rd. A. Request: Modification to the existing Development Agreement (Inst. #2020-178120) to replace it with a new agreement for the subject property and to include specific design requirements. 26 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 6,2025 Page 23 of 59 B. Request: Annexation of 0.86 acres of land with an R-15 zoning district. C. Request: De-Annexation of 0.52 acres of land from the City to Ada County. D. Request: Rezone of 56.11 acres of land from the R-8 to the R-15 zoning district. E. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 228 single-family residential building lots, 41 common lots and 16 other lots on 51.50 acres of land in the proposed R-15 zoning district with private streets in the gated portion of the development. F. Request: Planned Unit Development with a request for deviations to certain street, side, and rear yard building setbacks and to allow more than 100 dwelling units in a gated community. Lorcher: This will go in front of City Council, so those of you who have additional comments will be able to comment again. The next item on the agenda is H-2024-0061 for Apex Cadence Subdivision near Lake Hazel and Locust Grove -- Grove, for a modification to the development agreement, an annexation, a rezone, a preliminary plat and a planned unit development and we will start with the staff report. Allen: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. You already went through the list of applications, so I won't go through that again. This site consists of 51.5 acres of land. It's zoned R-8 and located at 6575 South Locust Grove Road, south of East Lake Hazel Road, on the west side of South Locust Grove Road. I will go through a little history on this property. It was originally annexed with the development agreement as part of the larger south Meridian annexation in 2015 and assigned a placeholder zoning district of R-4. The development agreement requires a modification of the agreement prior to the -- to development of the mixed use community designated area to include a conceptual development plan that demonstrates consistency with the general guidelines for mixed use developments and specifically the mixed use community designation. The development agreement was amended in 2020 and the property was rezoned to R-8, but a development plan was not submitted at that time for this portion of the property. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation for the property is medium density residential, which is 40.5 acres of the site and that is the lighter area here -- yellow area right here and the brown area is designated mixed use community and that is 10.9 acres. The applicant is requesting a modification to the existing development agreement to include a conceptual development plan for the subject property as required. The new development agreement will pertain only to the subject property and not the larger Apex development. The proposed concept plan on the right there depicts a mix of single family residential detached and attached homes on the portion of the site proposed to be included in the preliminary plat and future collector streets and future land use map designations on the property to the north that F27] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 6,2025 Page 24 of 59 is outside the boundary of the plat. The medium density residential designation calls for a gross density of three to eight dwelling units per acre. The proposed density is 4.1 units per acre. In the MUC designation residential uses are expected to comprise between 20 percent and 50 percent of the development area at gross densities ranging from six to 15 units per acre. Approximately 50 percent of the overall MUC designated area is proposed to develop with residential uses at a gross density of six units per acre as desired in the Comprehensive Plan. The concept locations of the collector street on the property to the north of the proposed subdivision do not align with the master street map. Therefore, staff recommends the concept plan is revised prior to the Council hearing to include at least half of the north-south collector street on the subject property, rather than on the property to the west in alignment with South Apex Avenue on the north side of Lake Hazel and the east-west collector street should stub to Murgoitio property to the east in alignment with East Tower Street on the east side of Locust Grove and that -- this right here is the Murgoitio property that I was referring to. So, half of the collector street should run down here and, then, the east-west street should stub to the Murgoitio property and align with Tower on the east side here. Although the residential density is consistent with that desired in the Comprehensive Plan for the MUC designation, the proposed development is not consistent with other MUC design elements that pertain to integration of uses and vehicular interconnectivity between developments due to the orientation of their proposed development in relation to the future nonresidential uses to the north. Basically the backs of the residential homes are facing the future commercial area and the gated development, which restricts access and hinders integration of uses as desired in mixed use designated areas. The Commission and Council should determine if the proposed development plan should be modified to be more consistent with the general mixed use and MUC development guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan as required by the development agreement. A rezone of 56.11 acres of land from the R-8 to the R-15 zoning district is proposed for the area proposed to be platted, as well as for the future development area to the north and that is this little section that's outside of the subdivision area. Annexation of .86 of an acre of land with an R-15 zoning district for a strip of land located along the west boundary of the property adjacent to the Rawson Canal that was inadvertently left out of the original annexation boundary that is part of the subject parcel and de-annexation of a strip of land consisting of .52 of an acre from the city to Ada county located along the west boundary of the site on the north and south sides of Roberto Street is requested that was inadvertently included in the original annexation. This area was previously included in a record of survey to adjust the property line between the two properties and the abutting property to the west, the Bruno property, but was never recorded, so it's still part of the original parcels. Before a new property boundary adjustment record of survey can be approved and recorded between the properties to rectify the issue, the property needs to be in the county and zoned accordingly. A preliminary plat is proposed consisting of 228 single family residential building lots, 41 common lots and 16 other lots on 51.5 acres of land in the proposed R-15 district and is proposed to develop in five phases as shown on the phasing plan there in the middle. The overall gross density is 4.43 units per acre. Based on 51.5 acres of development area, a minimum of 15 percent or 7.73 acres of qualified open space is required to be provided. A total of 9.75 acres or 19 percent is proposed consisting of several open grassy areas F28] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 6,2025 Page 25 of 59 exceeding 5,000 square feet in area, linear open space, 50 percent of the street buffer along Locust Grove Road, an arterial street, and one hundred percent of the street buffer along Via Roberto Street, a collector street. A protective buffer dedicated for active access along the Rawson Canal and parkways along local residential streets as shown on the open space exhibit before you, which exceeds UDC standards. A minimum of ten site amenity points are required to be provided. Site amenities totaling 22 points are proposed consisting of a clubhouse greater than 5,000 square feet in size, paved sports courts, multi-use pathways and a pedestrian circulation system aligned with linear open space, which exceeds UDC standards. A planned unit development is proposed for a mostly gated residential development consisting of a mix of single family residential attached and detached homes, front loaded and alley loaded, with a variety of lot sizes, setbacks and home designs. Except for the 16 homes at the southwest corner of the development, which have public street access, the other 212 homes are within a gated community accessed via private streets, with alleys and common driveways off of the private streets. The gated portion of the development will be restricted to residents 55 years of age and older. The average residential lot size in the gated portion of the development is 4,665 square feet. The average residential lot size in the non-gated portion of the development is 7,233 square feet. The planned unit development includes requests for deviations from certain UDC standards as follows: The UDC restricts gated developments to no more than one hundred dwelling units. A greater number of units may be approved with a planned unit development. A total of 212 units are proposed and a reduction in the local street setback to living area from ten feet to five feet is proposed for alley loaded units and those are what they are referring to as the Carriage Lane and those are the orange lots right there. Several conceptual building elevations were submitted as shown for single story and two-story detached and attached single family homes. A variety of materials are proposed, including vertical and horizontal lap siding, board and batten siding, fenestration with stone and brick veneer accents in a variety of colors and design elements and features, with varying roof profiles and wall modulation that demonstrates the high quality of development proposed. The applicant is requesting the following approvals from City Council. Approval of a private street, i.e., East Bingley Lane. Connection to an arterial street, Locust Grove Road. The UDC prohibits private street connections to an arterial street, unless otherwise allowed by the decision making body as part of a concurrent hearing level application and approved by the transportation authority and approval to exceed the maximum block face standards in the UDC of one thousand feet with a pedestrian connection and that is for Block 1 and that -- that is the -- Block 1 is the pink lot right here along the edge of the Rawson Canal. Written testimony has been received from the applicant in response to the staff report, which is included in the public record and from Joann Tima, Holly Myers and Shawn Freeman, all are against the proposed rezone from R-8 to R-15 due to the increase in housing density and associated impacts and those letters are included in the public record if you want more information on those. Staff is recommending approval with the conditions in the staff report. Staff will stand for any questions. F29] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 6,2025 Page 26 of 59 Lorcher: Would the applicant like to come forward? Before you get started, Commissioner Perreault does need to leave, but we still have quorum, so you are still good to go. McNutt: Okay. Thank you. All right. I'm Amanda McNutt, 2929 West Navigator Drive. This is Apex Cadence. Obviously, there is a lot of associated things going on with this one, but, essentially, it's a preliminary plat and PUD. I just want to kind of highlight some of the things that have happened at Pinnacle, kind of where we are at with this development as a whole. So, the amphitheater opened this summer. If you haven't had a chance to be out there it's pretty cool. Meridian library is open and active as well. This is essentially an extension of that development, but it will be serving primarily our 55 and older community, with the exception of those 16 lots. Again, it does include a mix of single family detached, attached and carriage lane or otherwise referred to as alley loaded homes and, then, there are 16 conventional single family homes. Those 16 homes are the non-age restricted homes. There is some future development to the north. That small area there is rezone only and, then, on the north end of that will come in with a future development completely. You know, Sonya already mentioned this, but no future land use map amendment is requested for this. We feel like we comply with the densities in the future land use map. We are asking for a rezone from R-8 to R-15. That's primarily due to just less complicated setback restrictions. Technically with a PUD we could just ask for a bunch of setback changes, but it's just a little bit less complicated to do it this way. A small portion of the lot was, as Sonya mentioned, included with an original annexation or should have been included with the original annexation that wasn't and, then, there was a small piece that was included that shouldn't have been. This particular piece, I do want to mention, there is multiple actions that need to take place and this comes down to a condition as written in the staff report that we don't fully agree with. Essentially, the first action is to de-annex from Meridian. The next action is that the county will rezone the parcel and that is something we have no control over and, then, finally, the owner or the rightful owner of that piece will, then, incorporate that sliver into their existing parcel, which we also don't have control over. So, while we understand that at some point this needs to be completed, we just have no control over when it gets done and so we will get that -- we will get to the condition later on, but I just kind of wanted to bring that up. This is a graphic just showing the only setback that we are asking for a change on is the local five foot front setback. Again, if we were to stay R-8 there would just be a lot of other asks for those. It's just a little cleaner to do it this way. I think our amenity points -- Sonya said 24 and I believe that is because our multi-use pathway -- she wasn't counting it, but we realized we needed a ten foot pathway and, then, a ten foot strip between the open ditch to have that counted, which we are able to do, it's just we need to update our plan to actually show that that's going to be done that way. So, we plan to update that prior to City Council, but we looked at it and we know that can fit and we know that that can work. So, we should have 28 points at the end of the day. Just an example of some of the amenities that we plan here. It's very very similar to our other Cadence communities, which have been active for several years now, but we will have a bocce ball court, a pickle ball court and, then, obviously, the clubhouse and pool. These do have an indoor pool for those residents. And, then, we will have three gated accesses. That's more F30] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 6,2025 Page 27 of 59 access points than we have done traditionally in our other Cadence communities, but we felt like this did need some more accesses due to the number of lots that will be in here, which is 212. Again, we will be asking for a variance on this one to allow a private street off of the arterial we have somewhere between 190 and 200 feet of stacking there. So, we feel like we have more than adequate stacking off of Locust Grove. There is also a turnaround there. ACHD has approved that layout and didn't seem to have any concerns or they had no comment on it. The other -- Lorcher: Before you go forward -- so, you are saying that the private access street has been approved by ACHD? McNutt: Yeah. They have already reviewed it and they didn't have any comment on it. Lorcher: Okay. McNutt: It's private, so they don't approve private streets, but they had no issue with that connection to Locust Grove. Lorcher: Okay. Go ahead. McNutt: And, then, we will ask for a block length waiver as well. It's mostly due to the Rawson Canal being just the shape that it is and it's kind of awkward on that side of the lot. We will do some traffic calming through there, although the traffic in this particular development is probably not going to be very much. But we will still have some traffic calming measures in there as highlighted in blue. Again, this is a little bit more updated than what Sonya showed, just because after we were looking at it we realized, oh, yeah, we needed to make a couple of changes to these. So, we will have a ten foot pathway that is a multi-use pathway on the west side of the development with connections through to the main development. We will have a ten foot sidewalk along Via Roberto and along South Locust Grove and, then, we will have a multitude of micro paths throughout the development, as well as detached sidewalks which are everywhere else that's not highlighted. Again we will have some conventional homes. These are shown in blue on the west side. These are, you know, traditional detached like you would normally think of as a regular home. These are some of our paired Cadence. It's a little hard to see, but you -- you can tell that they are actually a paired product. We do try to do a variety of colors and different finishes and stuff, so when you are driving past them they don't necessarily look paired and here are Carriage Lane product or otherwise known as an alley loaded lot. These are the ones that are shown in orange there. These are very very popular product and something that we have done a lot of in our Cadence communities. Just talking briefly about some agency comments that were received. West Ada School District stated that about 112 students would be added to the district with this development, but I don't know that they understood that this is primarily a 55 and over community. So, with that 16 count maybe seven or eight students based off of how they do their calculations. Boise Board of Control has control over the Rawson Court -- sorry -- Rawson Canal. They just said no landscaping would be allowed within their easement, which is typical and we understand that. ITD had, F31 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 6,2025 Page 28 of 59 you know, no comment really. There is nothing in ITD over here and, then, ACHD, all of the -- all of the roadways are operating at an acceptable level. We did have quite a bit of community feedback as well, including the public testimony you have now and through our neighborhood meetings. There was some concerns about the increase in density. For this future land use map area we are allowed to develop up to eight units an acre and we are well below that. So, I think whether this was the development that happened or another, it's kind of -- kind of be a wash if it's this or something else. Someone had said that with an increase in density there is an increase in absentee ownership, which we were just not able to find any research to support. There were concerns about traffic. I think for this particular community it is gated. It's age restricted and, frankly, these don't develop a ton of traffic. There was a concern about decreased property values. Our other Cadence communities have been seeing a very healthy and steady increase in their value as well as the adjacent properties to those projects. So, I have no concerns about property values with this development. There was a concern that rezoning would allow commercial or multi-family and that is true, we are going to be required to add some commercial in the north part of this due to the Comprehensive Plan. So, I -- I understand the concern, but at the same time that is what the city will require us to do. And, then, there was a desire to keep a quiet lifestyle with better walking paths and big yards and, you know, I think we are providing a lot of walking paths and opportunities. This isn't going to be closed off to pedestrians, so it is able to be used by everybody. There are several conditions that we didn't fully agree with. Again, the first portion of that is we have a small piece of property called the Murgoitio piece -- or that's what Sonya referred to it as -- that they would like us to include as part of the future development application. We don't own that property and it doesn't seem like we should be forced to incorporate it into a design when we don't have that property in our control. We could design certainly access to that and make sure that something can function later on, but we cannot include that in a future application, because we don't control the property. This goes for the -- the ability to get permit applications prior to subdivision. We would like the ability to get permits for our community amenities ahead of the final plat. This helps us to actually have those amenities open and available when residents move in and they are occupying, so it just kind of helps with the timing of things. And, then, with that de-annexation it was requested that we have that completed prior to the first final plat application being submitted and we feel that that is a little bit unfair, because we don't have control of that and so we thought -- I said phase six here, but it will actually be phase five -- prior to the signature of phase five of final plat that we would need to have that completed. That is the phase that it actually is against. So, it just seems fair that that's the phase that it would be tied to. And, then, there are two pathway comments. The sidewalk on Locust Grove and Via Roberto and the pathway along the Rawson, staff asked that we complete those in entirety with the first phase of development, which we would understand if it were going anywhere. However, these basically will serve this development and we would rather complete those at the time of construction of the adjacent phase, rather than complete a bunch of stuff that isn't going to be used and also may need to be re-engineered as we are grading through the entire development. Other than that we do concur with staff's recommendation for approval with those requested modifications and I will stand for any questions. F32] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 6,2025 Page 29 of 59 Lorcher: In regard to the West Ada comment and you mentioned that the majority of this application is for 55 and older, are children under the age of 18 allowed to live in the 55 and under -- under, because there is parents that have old -- you know, I'm an older parent, so I was 55 and still had school age children and grandparents sometimes take care of-- or raise their own -- their own grandchildren. McNutt: Yeah. It's 19 and over. Lorcher: So, if I'm a 55 year old and I have a 14 year old, I will be discouraged to buy this product? McNutt: Yes. Lorcher: Okay. Any questions for the applicant? Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: Yeah. So, one thing that stood out to me was the over double amount of what is allowed in the UDC of homes in a gated community and I'm curious as to how we got -- kind of got here. If you could speak to the process, the decision to make this a gated community -- decision to make it a gated community at this density as well as how that might be influenced or buy or influence any of the mixed use discussions -- McNutt: Yeah. Smith: -- with the neighboring property. McNutt: So, I think the development as a whole, meaning Pinnacle as a whole, is what drove this to be the density that it's at and the number of units that it's at. We have a lot of single family residential homes that are targeted toward families already in Pinnacle and we didn't have anything yet that was dedicated for 55 and older. These have also been extremely successful in other areas and we have already heard from existing residents that they would like to be able to live near where their grandchildren and their children live. So, we felt like there is a demand for this type of development out there and -- a relatively high demand. I will go ahead and show some -- some of our other developments. So, relatively speaking we are not that much higher density than some of our other Cadence products. So, this is Paramount. There is 192 dwellings with two entry gates. Bainbridge had 165 with two entry gates. This -- Century Farm was our smallest, 124 dwellings and, then, this is our proposed. So, realistically it's not that much different than our other Cadence products. But, again, I do feel like there is still a higher demand out here, because there is already so many single family that people are wanting to be near -- near their family. I don't know if I answered that question fully. Did I miss something? 33 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 6,2025 Page 30 of 59 Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: I think one of the things I'm specifically curious about is the gated component, not necessarily the age restriction, which I can understand, but specifically the gated component and, then, also these other examples. I don't know if you can speak to whether they are in mixed use, but that's kind of the other component of -- if you have residential gated next to mixed use you just kind of -- you don't really have -- you have residential gated next to commercial. You don't really have a mixed use there. You just have residential next to commercial. So, I'm curious as to how that kind of came about in this specific context. McNutt: So, gated -- it's typical of our 55 and over to be gated. That's what we like to design, because it's what people want. We hear all the time actually -- we want our sidewalks to also be gated and we want those to be locked. We don't want people to be able to walk through here. We don't do that, but there is a sense of security and there is a sense of, yeah, that they feel like nothing bad can happen if their community is gated. I don't necessarily agree with that, but there is a sense that that's the case. As far as the mixed use development, I can see vehicularly why there may seem like there is not a mix of use if you are gating it. However, the -- the sidewalks and pathways are open and, you know, the mix of uses can be pedestrian friendly as well. The other part of that is that mixed use area is -- is serving a much larger portion of the area. So, it's kind of this black circle here. This whole area is the mixed use area. Lots of people are going to be using this. Lots of pedestrian activity is going to be here. Again that is where the amphitheater is. That's where the library is. There is going to be some other small commercial uses out here and most likely an elementary school as well in addition to the charter. So, I think there is going to be a lot of pedestrian activity out here. I think those uses can mix really well and, frankly, it's not necessarily about how convenient it is for a car to get someplace, but how convenient it is for a person to get someplace. Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: I think looking at this image though -- and I -- correct me if I'm wrong -- this whole project that's kind of in this area is this -- is this -- this is part of the same development. It kind of speaks to my issue that I'm having, though, is if I were to zone the four corners of this intersection to be commercial and everything else residential, it almost feels like there wouldn't be a difference versus zoning this whole area as mixed use. All the -- it appears as though all the commercial is getting funneled into these -- these intersections and all the non-residential intersections specifically just as close as possible, rather than being integrated into the projects next to them and I think that is what's giving me pause of speaking specifically to the integration. Not saying it needs to be marbled like a stake, like where there is -- it's dotted everywhere, but there is -- it seems like there is no -- and maybe this isn't a question and maybe I'm pontificating too F34] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 6,2025 Page 31 of 59 early, but I guess I don't know if you are able to speak to in the planning and envisioning of this whole development why is it that we kind of push everything toward the intersection as if it was just commercial development next to residential? McNutt: That's a fair question and I think it is market driven. Businesses don't want to be on something that's not a corner and businesses fail when they are not on a corner, because they don't have the visibility to maintain viability. Whether or not we like it or not, if there is a commercial piece that's in the center of a subdivision no one knows it's there except the subdivision and even in this case 212 houses is not enough to sustain even a -- like small coffee shop. It's just frankly not enough traffic for them and we -- we do see this. We sell those lots and we market those lots, you know, we don't sell these out to somebody else. We are doing that and it -- it would be extremely difficult for us to get something like that. So, that's why they are kind of pushed to the corners. Smith: Thank you. Lorcher: Thank you very much. McNutt: Thank you. Lorcher: Madam Clerk, do we have anybody signed up to testify? Lomeli: Thank you, Madam Chair. No one has signed up. Lorcher: Is there anybody in Chambers that would like to testify? Lomeli: Madam Chair, I apologize. I do have one person online raising their hand. Lorcher: Oh. All right. Hi. If you can state your name and address for the record that would be great. Edwards: Sure. Hello. My name is Julie Edwards and I am at 1310 East Mary Lane and I just wanted to say I have -- I have looked over the documents submitted and I do think that an over 55 community is a great idea, mostly because it wouldn't impact the schools as much or at -- maybe at all. The part that I am opposed to is the density and, you know, the future land use map or comprehensive map shows that area they want to rezone as medium density and so if they change it to R-15 that's raising the density on the -- you know, the potential density, whereas just to the south of it is low density. So, there is really no transition there going from medium, you know, high, medium high, and going down to the low density, so just something to look at there. And, then, I just feel like time and time again that this developer asks for numerous special accommodations and I feel like this is not different. If the city code states that a gated development is restricted to a hundred homes that's what should be approved. Otherwise, the codes mean nothing and maybe a reasonable request would be an addition of ten units, but by asking to more than double the amount to 212 units within that gated community I think is ridiculous and, then, they wouldn't have to ask for, you know, changes in setbacks 35 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 6,2025 Page 32 of 59 and using the awful common driveways and -- I can't remember what the other thing was called where you have the stretch of road that's divided by an intersecting road, but if you had more space within there, then, you wouldn't have to have all these other restrictions. So, I just think they should follow the codes while they are drawing up their plans. To me it looks like tightly packed sardine homes, which is not what we want in south Meridian. For instance, in one of the images, the overview, there are homes along just to the -- let's say west of the clubhouse and those people, you know, eventually they will probably pay -- I don't know what these will go for -- half a million dollars or something -- four hundred thousand dollars and they don't even have a place where people can come pull up to the front of their house, because you would have to walk through the clubhouse lawn or the bocce ball lawn to get to their front door, because it's alley loaded and, then, just, lastly, the woman who just spoke mentioned an elementary school. Now, is that the same elementary school that was supposed to be built or potentially to be built on the north side of Lake Hazel or is this a totally different elementary school altogether? That's all. Lorcher: Thank you. Edwards: Thank you. Appreciate it. Lorcher: Madam Clerk? Lomeli: Thank you, Madam Chair. I don't believe anybody else is online, unless someone in Chambers would like to speak? Lorcher: Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward? Wardle: Madam Chair, Commission Members, Mike Wardle, director of planning for Brighton, 2929 West Navigator in Meridian and I'm here because I'm the creator of the project originally. Put it together in 2020 when it was approved and some of the concerns and questions you have are legitimate, but this whole project is in -- is a significant context issue. I just want to cover first some of the comments that Ms. Edwards just made and Julie's participated in all of our hearings and she's been a participant in our neighborhood meetings and so forth, so we have a long opportunity to communicate. When we talk about 212, it's not much more than the 192, which were first approved in our Paramount project. Certainly it's a few more than we have in Bainbridge at 165. It's definitely more than the 124 in our Century Farm project. Not all of these units face the streets, as Ms. Edwards also noted. However, all of the units that have -- I will call them new access or open space access, every project that we have done, including our Bainbridge specifically, if you would go back to Bainbridge for just a moment, we have the same situation there in the center of that project. There is a -- clubhouse is right there in the front with units that face toward it and those units went very very well. All of the streets actually have on-street parking. It's only on one side. You have garages and so forth at the back, but we have a lot of parking in these projects and there is on-street parking provided specifically around the community center that's also accessible for the folks that live in adjacent areas to that. So, back to F36] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 6,2025 Page 33 of 59 some of your comments, Mr. Smith, about the original context. It's -- Amanda noted that we have done some significant facility improvements out there. We have a -- the amphitheater, which is part of what we call the SoMe community or South Meridian and when it was approved by the City Council in 2020 it was noted that that corner area would be a community center, basically a town center. We also -- we already have -- and it's not shown on here, but we have a Gem Prep Charter School that was opened within a year of the time we started the project. So, a lot of elements that are not just commercial, but they are part of the community fabric. So, we don't believe that the 212 is extraordinary. We have included, then, a third access where the two for all of the others has been very very adequate. The other thing that I would note that about 60 percent of our demographic are single occupancy. We have a lot of single individuals, retired widowed -- widowered that live in our gated communities and they like the security that Amanda has talked about. So, this is not just something that we have tossed into the mix. We are giving a lot more diversity and opportunity for people to live in a different type of lifestyle within that South Meridian SoMe center and as also noted by Amanda, the commercial that's just immediately to the north on the southeast corner -- or southwest corner, excuse me, of Lake Hazel and Locust Grove will be accessible to these folks. Yes, there will be a gate there, but they will have access to -- as Sonya noted the collectors that have to be constructed in that next or future phase. So, this is not just isolated or separated or totally distinct, it's part of a broader community and you have -- if you have been out there you have noted that we have a lot of alley loaded products, smaller lot components to the northwest of that Lake Hazel, Locust Grove intersection. We believe that the request is compliant with not only the Comprehensive Plan, but also the original concept of the project. So, I would just like to provide to you the same items that Amanda noted and that Sonya did as well, the changes that we proposed to the condition, so you have got a hard copy. To restate what Amanda said that we concur with staffs recommendation for approval with just these modifications and the one, of course, is that we can't control what Murgoitio chooses to do, but we certainly can provide in the future development application the necessary and required access points to their property if and when they decide to do something different. I don't think it's really out of the question, because in all of our projects before we have started our amenities in advance of the residential components, simply so that they have something to go to when they move in. That would be the second item, A-1 E-20 relative to those annexation and de-annexation parcels once we have included those in the application. Dealing with that de-annexation parcel is simply out of our control and it will happen, but -- so we are looking simply for signature on the final plat, rather than submittal of the first final plat, because that could be a long time and that would be, again, out of our control. On the second page, the pathways and sidewalks, we, again, propose that those be constructed at the time of the adjacent development. If we go out in advance, for instance, along the highway or along the -- the collector on the south Via Roberto or Locust Grove and you build those facilities in advance of the adjacent development, it becomes a problem of integrating those and making sure that everything happened originally fits. So, these are not major items, but we do request your approval of them. I would answer your questions as well. 37 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 6,2025 Page 34 of 59 Lorcher: I did have one. In regard to the multi-pathway that the city is requesting that you do in phase one and Amanda mentioned it kind of goes to nowhere, your development needs to -- somebody needs to connect to it eventually, even if you are the first one to do it, so the way this is set up here is it designed so that -- and the next developer, whether it's you or someone else, has the ability to do that? Wardle: Madam Chair, yes. When the project is completed all of these connections will be there for that future connection to whoever develops adjacent to us, yes. Lorcher: The only thing that kind of stood out to me as a red flag are the parcels on the furthest northern that -- that will abut the Murgoitio parcel and the future commercial. The commercial -- their backyards are going to face whatever that commercial is going to be. Is there going to be a road between that and the commercial or is somebody's -- is somebody's loading dock going to be like right there -- Wardle: No. We are going to get to -- if you note on this -- unfortunately, the little tag rezone only kind of covers over that collector -- or connection that Sonya noted Tower Drive -- Lorcher: Uh-huh. Wardle: -- so, that like the -- when we deal with the -- that future development phase may be extended to the back of the Murgoitio property, but it would be -- there would be a landscape buffer along there just as it would be along either Locust Grove or Via Roberto in the south regardless. It would be the same. Lorcher: Right. And, then, before City Council will you consider adjusting this presentation to have it stubbed in, knowing that you don't own that parcel, but for future land use type of thing for connectivity? Wardle: We will. We will -- and we will communicate with staff on these issues just to make sure that we are all on the same page. Lorcher: Okay. That's the only questions I had. Commissioners? All right. Thank you very much. Wardle: Thank you. Lorcher: May I get a motion to close the public hearing, please? Rust: So moved. Smith: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for Cadence with Apex. All those in favor say. Any opposed? Motion carries. 38 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 6,2025 Page 35 of 59 MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Mr. Smith. Smith: Yeah. I have some thoughts on this. I -- I want to say at the top is I understand the larger context of the larger project. Where I disagree and where I kind of sit opposed to this is I don't think you get to claim the larger context of the community while walling yourself off from it and I understand there is some -- there is pedestrian connectivity, et cetera, but the idea that we are creating this thing that's interconnected with the community while having perhaps the most explicit imagery of separating yourself from that community, I don't think those two work together and so I'm not -- I'm not opposed to this area being gated or to it maybe having less integration between the residential and non-residential or it being R-15, I'm opposed to all three at the same time and I think that there is an issue here of not really aligning with what the purpose of a mixed development -- a mixed use development is and the kind of live-work-play approach that is prevalent throughout the code and throughout the city's kind of, you know, planning documents. I think this is just -- I think for maybe too long we have accepted and given the mouse a cookie on this development can be -- kind of have the residential and the non-residential separate, because of this reason and that development have that reason, et cetera, and I think we are at the point where the -- it's -- it's getting to be too much that we are building on top of this structure of we have to understand the broader context around it. I don't think that's the case here. I think we have kind of gone a bridge too far here and I think this -- I understand, I'm not asking necessarily for us to only approve things where there is a store in the center of a residential development, but I have seen plenty of mixed use developments that integrate their uses much better and I guess all I'm asking for is either reworking this to better suit the context of the community or being more creative in how we do this, because I don't think as it is this meets the -- this rises to the spirit of what a mixed use development is. So, for those reasons I'm opposed to it. If the rest of the Commission disagrees with me and is supportive I think the one condition of approval that I think is -- I think to what you were kind of intimating is 2B and 2C, I think those connected -- those connections need to be established earlier, sooner rather than later. That's my only ask if the rest of the Commission disagrees with my opposition. Lorcher: Commissioner Rust, I'm interested in hearing your opinion, since you live in this area. Rust: Yeah. I think just digesting all of this, but we have got a -- roughly a 51 acre parcel and 40 acres of it is listed as MDR, which is medium density residential. So, only ten acres of this is falling into the MUC and I think the -- most of that is being shown actually as mixed use. So, I -- I think I understand where you are coming from, Commissioner Smith. I disagree and I particularly disagree because of this area. This is south Meridian, Lake Hazel and Locust Grove, it's a growing area and Highway 69, Meridian Road there is -- there is going to be a lot more commercial up and down that F39] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 6,2025 Page 36 of 59 corridor, but I think kind of that live-work-play -- that sounds good and I think of other past applications that were more off of Pine and central to the City of Meridian, but this area is heavily residential. You have got Discovery Park that's right there. This area also has pretty heavy load on the school districts and so the fact that this is 55 plus, it's near a lot of housing that's going in, I -- I think that it will be really well received by the community. There is going to be a lot of grandparents that live in this area or would want to live in this area close to their -- their kids and their grandkids. So, I'm in favor of this. I'm in favor of the conditions that they have put forward. I'm probably ambivalent on the connections. I understand why they are asking for that, it would make construction a little easier, but I also think that you can anticipate your elevations and just grade it out as you go and do the entire thing at once, so I would probably ask for it, too, if I were putting this project together, but I -- I don't know that we have to go one way or another. I do resonate with the first three on the first page of the handout that they gave us. I think those are all fair requests. So, in general I think this is a well designed project. I am in favor of it Lorcher: Okay. Sandoval: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Sandoval. Sandoval: Yeah. I just don't think that this aligns with mixed use. I'm -- I'm in alignment with you here, Jared, and the transitions just aren't there between the commercial. So, lack of integration, transitions, you know, those are a huge issue. I don't think I can be in favor of this as presented. Lorcher: Okay. Thank you. Usually live, work and play is an important component of connectivity in the City of Meridian, but if this is 55 and over it's more of like live and play and less work; right? The connectivity to the commercial -- maybe I'm not seeing it, but it really doesn't bother me. You know, at the -- the people who live there want a home to live in with not much to take care of. They want access to stores that are convenient, services that are convenient, which this does. I do like the connectivity that Meridian offers. So, you know, gated communities aren't my favorite, because now we are all turning around and -- and we can't kind of work our way through different places to be able to get to point A and to point B. I do agree with the applicant that the items that without -- without their control Ada county, the Murgoitio property, they shouldn't be responsible for their timeline. I do agree that the amenities should be built, but I also believe that the pathway should be built as well. I live in the Highway 16 impact area. I have a sidewalk in front of my house that goes nowhere right now and we see anywhere between five and ten people just walking that strip every day, because it's there. So, I probably would not hold this -- I would not hold this up to City Council based on what we have. Based on our last application I never do like your common driveways. It feels like you are kind of really pushing people in where there should be a little bit more space and based on the last application for Cherry Blossom we can see that private driveways now cause a lot of problems, because they are just not there. F40] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 6,2025 Page 37 of 59 But, again, I'm not going to hold this up to City Council because of that, because if somebody doesn't like it they don't have to buy it; right? So, that's kind of how that goes. So -- Allen: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner -- Sonya. Yes. Excuse me. Allen: When you are done talking I -- Lorcher: I am done. Allen: I just wanted to make a note real quick. The reason for some of staff's recommendations on requiring the subdivision of the property A-1-C, A-1-E, 2-0 is because the -- the property isn't a legal parcel for development purposes, that A -- A-1- C is a requirement out of the existing development agreement with the Murgoitio property. If they can establish that the Murgoitio property was -- is an original parcel of record, then, that would be fine. They don't have to include it. But that's -- that's the reason for it and it is an existing DA provision right now. So, I just wanted you to be aware of that if you do choose to change those provisions, that's -- just wanted to explain the reasoning for those. Lorcher: Got you. And A-1-E and 2.0? Allen: Yes. They -- so, let me explain further. The preliminary plat boundary as it's proposed excludes the portion of the property that has been transferred already to the Brunos to the west and that's that de-annexation area. But it hasn't been legally transferred, so -- Lorcher: Right. Allen: -- technically the city really shouldn't be acting on a preliminary plat that doesn't include the legal boundary of the property and it probably really should be held up until that boundary is done, but the problem is is it's that chicken and the egg thing -- Lorcher: Right. Allen: -- we can't -- can't de-annex the property, you know, it's -- it's that phase. So, anyway, just wanted to explain that. Lorcher: Have we had as a city good luck work -- working with Ada county to be able to annex and de-annex in a timely fashion? Allen: Well, we are de-annexing and, then, they will assign a zoning district compatible in the county once it's de-annexed, but that -- those property owners have to complete that property boundary adjustment and record that record of survey. I mean F41 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 6,2025 Page 38 of 59 Lorcher: Oh. Okay. Allen: -- that's the biggest thing. And that's up to them timing wise to do. Lorcher: Right. Allen: So -- Lorcher: That's a tough one. Okay. Rust: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Rust. Rust: Give this a stab. After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File No. H-2024-0061 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 6th, with the following modifications: That we would grant the applicant's request to change on point A-1-C, A-1-E and 2-0. Lorcher: Before I say anything, I'm -- the thing that's holding me up is -- as Sonya mentioned, nobody has control over the homeowners in Ada county and what they are going to do for the annexation and the de-annexation and, basically, if they start, then, they are building on land that they don't own and vice-versa; right? Because it's annexed or not annexed; is that correct? Rust: Madam Chair, I believe that we were just moving it out and allowing them to start construction on phases one through four, which aren't affected by this and they are asking that they just have to get that issue resolved before they start phase five, which is the 16 single family homes that borders that parcel and I'm willing to grant them that leeway. Lorcher: Kurt, can he adjust his motion to include what he just said? Rust: It is included. That's what they are asking for. Yeah. Starman: Madam Chair, actually, just -- I will use the opportunity to interject real quick. So, I agree with Commissioner Rust's comment. I think it was implicit in his motion by referencing this, the applicant's request. I would say just as -- you know, as the chair you have a lot of discretion how you would like to run the meeting, but I will say that there is a motion on the table, but no second yet, so you probably ought to refrain from anymore deliberation to get a second, otherwise, the motion dies. Lorcher: Okay. I just need a clarification on what the motion was. So, I will second your motion to include A.1-C, A.1-E and 2.0. 1 just seconded. So, it's been moved and seconded to approve Apex Cadence Subdivision. All those in favor say aye. And those not in favor? F42 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 6,2025 Page 39 of 59 Smith: Nay. Sandoval: Nay. MOTION FAILED: TWO AYES. TWO NAY. THREE ABSENT. Lorcher: All right. Kurt. Allen: Madam Chair, can I ask for a clarification on the motion, please. Lorcher: Sure. Allen: Did -- is -- does the motion include the applicant's request for the changes to A- 1-C, E, and 2-0, even though the parcels are not illegal parcels for development purposes? Rust: That's correct. Allen: Okay. Starman: The motion, Madam Chair, so the vote was two-two, that -- so, that motion fails, so you can solicit or ask for another motion if you like or we can talk about other approaches. Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: Yes, I will talk to the elephant in the room and ask Kurt if a motion to recommend denial were to fail two-two what would the reasonable set of next steps be if we can't pass a motion tonight? Starman: So, Madam Chair and Commissioner Smith, I think I would encourage you to actually exhaust those options first. I probably would encourage you to make that motion if that's your inclination. But to answer your question, I will try to answer it directly as well. I think you have at least a couple choices at that point in time. One is you can reopen the public hearing and continue it and wait until you get some other commissioners present. They would have to review this record and the minutes from tonight and, then, be prepared to vote, but you can -- you can table it so to speak until you have a tie breaker. That would probably be my recommendation. The second possibility would be -- I -- I haven't seen us do this in recent memory, but potentially you could entertain a whole different motion, which would be to forward it to the Council without a recommendation and note that you were split two-two and that you are not prepared to make a recommendation. That might be an option as well. I don't know if, Mr. Parsons, you ever encounter something like that before? Any other bright ideas? F43 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 6,2025 Page 40 of 59 Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, I have not heard that one, Kurt. So, I would prefer the first option, go through it and, then, see where we land on a potential continuance to get more -- Smith: Madam Chair, I guess with that being said, I would like to make a motion. After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council for File No. H-2024-0061 as presented during the hearing November 6, 2025, for the following reasons: The confluence of the increased density, the gated nature of the community and the lack of integration of uses is out of line with the spirit of the UDC and the Comprehensive Plan, as well as the number of required changes, conditions or alternative compliances render it untenable. Lorcher: Do I have a second? Sandoval: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to deny Apex Cadence for the aforementioned reasons. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed. Rust: Nay. Lorcher: Nay. MOTION FAILED: TWO AYES. TWO NAYS. THREE ABSENT. Lorcher: So, at this point I think we should reopen the public hearing to have a continuance so we can have some more Commissioners here and revisit this again. May I have a motion to reopen the public hearing for Apex Cadence Subdivision? Smith: So moved. Rust: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to reopen Apex Cadence to establish a continuance. All those in favor say aye. Smith: Madam Chair, do we have a date I guess is the -- Lorcher: Well, we will check with the city clerk in a moment. Smith: Sorry. We are still reopening. Yes. Aye. Apologize. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Lorcher: Okay. So, we are all in favor to reopen the public hearing. We are officially open. Madam Clerk, do we have a date that we can reopen this public hearing, please. F44 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 6,2025 Page 41 of 59 Lomeli: Thank you, Madam Chair. The next -- Lorcher: Or continuance I should say. Lomeli: The next Planning and Zoning date is November 20th. We already have four hearings on that evening. After that would be December 4th. The challenge we have is that we cannot guarantee as many -- or more Commissioners on either, but November 20th or December 4th. Do you have a preference? May I get a motion to continue application H-2024-0061 to November 24th. Smith: So moved. Rust: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to continue Apex Cadence for November 24th. All those in favor say aye. Sorry. 20th. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Lorcher: Do I need to close the public hearing? I'm done. Okay. All right. That takes care of that one. Do we need a small break before we do the last one or are we ready to go? Rust: I'm good to go. Lorcher: You're good to go. Smith: Madam Chair, I'm good to go. 6. Public Hearing continued from October 2, 2025 for St. George (H- 2025-0004) by Shaun Wardle and Jason St. George, located at 3870 E. Overland Rd. and 1545 S. Topaz Ave. A. Request: Annexation of 2.0 acres with the R-15 zoning district to construct nineteen (19) multi-family units, 7,987 Sq. ft. of commercial space and four (4) vertically integrated residential units. B. Request: Two Conditional Use Permits, one for the multi-family residential and one for the vertically integrated residential project in the R-15 zoning district. Lorcher: All right. We are going to keep on going. All right. Last item on the agenda is H-2025-0004 for annexation and two conditional use permits for St. George located at Overland Road and Topaz Avenue. We will start with the staff report. F45] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 6,2025 Page 42 of 59 Napoli: Good evening, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. The next item on the agenda is the annexation and conditional use permits for St. George. So, the applicant is -- requests annexation of two acres of land with the R-15 zoning district to construct 19 multi-family units and one vertically integrated residential building consisting of 7,987 square feet of commercial space and four residential units. Both uses require a conditional use permit in the proposed R-15 zoning district. The site is located at 3850 East Overland Road and 1545 South Topaz Avenue. As shown on the screen the existing zoning is R-1 on both properties and the FLUM designation is mixed use regional. There is the annexation exhibit. So, the mixed use regional designation is intended to encourage a balanced blend of employment opportunities, retail, residential dwellings and public uses, particularly -- particularly in areas near major intersections. This designation supports a diverse and integrated community where friends can work, live and shop without needing to travel far. An important component of the MUR designation is to avoid predominantly single use developments. So, the site -- let's see. Out of order. There we go. So, the site is currently surrounded by R-1 residential properties to the north and the west, with an annexed residential property to the east -- or I should say to the west. I apologize. And a mixed use commercial multi-family in the surrounding area. Additionally commercial space is located at the north end of Silverstone Way, including a Top Golf facility, commercial office, restaurants and Eagle View Apartments, comprising of 396 units. To the south across Overland Road are the Silverstone Apartments, consisting of 112 residential units and the Movado Village Apartments, consisting of 60 residential units. The property across the street on South Topaz Avenue was recently approved as a multi-tenant building with a restaurant located within that building in the C-G zoning district. So, the concept plan -- go with this one. Concept plan -- the concept plan depicts -- depicts 19 multi-family residential units, four vertically integrated residential units and 7,987 square feet of commercial space across two acres of land. So, the vertically integrated building is proposed fronting on Overland Road. The applicant states that the development is providing a mix of housing types, promoting connectivity and encouraging walkability and efficiency throughout the vertically -- through the vertically integrated uses. In addition the applicant has provided 8,330 square feet of open space and amenities in the form of a barbecue grill, pet waste station and bike repair station. So, staff has concerns regarding the location, the functionality of the proposed open space. The proximity of Five Mile Creek and the northernmost drive aisle creates conflict -- potential conflicts that could limit residents' ability to effectively use this area. The specific use standards for multi-family development emphasizes that open space should be integrated as a central design element, rather than designated only after the other components have been planned. Based on the current layout staff finds the proposed open space does not meet this intent. Additionally, the site plan indicates a proposed pedestrian bridge crossing Five Mile Creek. If this feature is not permitted by Nampa Meridian Irrigation District, the usability and connectivity of the open space would be further reduced. Furthermore, the nearest park, Gordon Harris Park, is located just over a mile away and would require residents to cross a major arterial -- arterial road to access it south of Overland. So, the Public Works Department has also raised concerns about the site being able to move forward with the next steps in the process, as are several issues with landscaping, separation and easement issues. When easements encumber a F46] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 6,2025 Page 43 of 59 large portion of the site it affects the type of landscaping that can be planted, which impacts the quality of life for residents and meeting UDC requirements. The applicant has provided parking that meets the minimum standards for the UDC, but any overflow parking will likely be pushed on to Topaz Avenue. A one full access is proposed on the south portion of the site via South Topaz Avenue. Additionally, a one way access is proposed on the north portion of the site for the multi-family residents use. According to ACHD staff report the applicant would construct Topaz as a half collector roadway with a five foot sidewalk and eight foot parkway. In addition, ACHD is asking the applicant to dedicate a total of 62 feet from the center line of Overland Road on their frontage. The applicant has provided a stub street for a cross-access drive with an easement to the property to the west, as this property is anticipated to use this access in the future when it redevelops. Staff is recommending denial of this application due to the applicant not complying with the following. Non-compliant landscape buffers along street frontages along Overland. Open space does not meet the specific use standards for multi-family developments. Concerns with the functionality of the open space and whether the proposed pedestrian bridge will be allowed by the irrigation district. Requesting alternative compliance to accommodate drive aisles. Not meeting the private usable open space requirement. Not -- not complying with the separational requirements for infiltration trenches and curbing. And in addition the Comprehensive Plan elements, such as holistic design and functional integration are not fully incorporated throughout the site. I would like to note that after receiving the staff report the applicant did reach out this week saying that they do have revised plans meeting the private usable open space on the balconies up the 80 square feet. Currently the -- the plans that I saw before I wrote my staff report were 68 square feet, but they did revise that. So, I just want to put down on the record. Lorcher: Thank you. Napoli: So, no written testimony has been received on this application and I will stand for any questions at this time. Lorcher: Would the applicant like to come forward? Hi. If you can state your name and address for the record that would be great. S.Wardle: Thank you. Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, Shaun Wardle. 2239 East Griner Street. Here on behalf of the applicant Jason and Jackie St. George, who both grew up in -- in Idaho. In fact, Jason and I went to elementary school right across Meridian Road here. So, they are Idaho real estate investors and they currently reside in Donnelly, but they are actually going to be residing in one of these vertically integrated units above the commercial and I mention that for two reasons. One of those is the new code doesn't require the owners to actually occupy that, but -- but they are going to take advantage of it and, secondly, we are not proposing an on-site management area, but the owners will be there. So, appreciate staffs review of the -- of the application. We have got two acres on the corner of Overland and Topaz. We have got a couple of site constraints that have been pretty significant. The first of which is Five Mile Creek, which affects not only our property, but -- but a lot of the property in F47 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 6,2025 Page 44 of 59 that area. And, then, the second is we are not allowed access to Overland, which we currently have on one of the properties, but ACHD is not allowing that access based on their -- their criteria. So, our Comprehensive Plan designation is mixed use community. We feel that we are meeting that goal by integrating neighborhood with housing, employment and services, that we have got an efficient in-fill utilizing existing infrastructure and that we are also diversifying housing and business opportunities within -- within this area. So, our application is seeking zoning of R-15 and, then, the conditional use permit, 8,000 square foot of commercial building with four integrated units there. We are also seeking conditional use permit for 19 multi-family residential units. In the commercial area we are anticipating a lot of private services, professional office, consumer services, physical therapists, insurance, wealth management. We feel that -- that that would be a good mix, as well as neighboring properties that -- that we have in the area. Is my site plan -- oh, there we go. Lorcher: Try the arrows. S.Wardle: Sorry. I'm getting technical difficulty here. Our proposed site amenities are a pedestrian pathway along Five Mile Creek, an outdoor barbecue area, bike repair station and, then, one of the -- one of the things that the owners would like to do is -- is they are allowing each unit to have a garage and they are -- they feel that that's an amenity for the site. They are going to have electric charging stations within those garages and they feel that that will help the project, both in leasing as well as in value. On the screen here we have got -- we have got our buildings proposed, Building A, and I appreciate Nick mentioned we are going to comply with the -- with the private -- private living space requirements there. Here is our Building B, C and, then, our vertically integrated with the floor plans there. Just to point out a couple of areas -- couple of -- we have got Eagle View Landing here, the Top Golf Center, some large multi-family. Well, we feel that our impact here on the neighborhood is -- is certainly much -- much less dense than some of our neighbors to the north and even our neighbors here to the -- to the south, but we feel it offers an additional option for housing and as well as an additional option for people to be able to live and work and, then, along the Overland frontage we are familiar with Silverstone. We have got some new multi-family stations there and some professional medical office. In addition to that we have had our engineering team take a look at what -- what could happen with integration. I know that as part of another application the restaurant to the east of us, the question for the Commission was what does an overall site plan look like? What could happen in here? And even though we don't control these parcels we have put together our project and we are -- as noted providing access to the west for this property. They won't be allowed access to Overland either and so we will have that connectivity through here. We wanted to keep that up towards the commercial area, so that any traffic that flowed through would -- was not impacting our multi-family development there. Lorcher: Before you go on what am I looking at here? Yours is to the right? F48] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 6,2025 Page 45 of 59 S.Wardle: Yes. So, we are -- we are -- Topaz to the very west, Overland to the south and so you will see our development notated here and, then, again, this is a -- a schematic -- Lorcher: For them? S.Wardle: Sorry. Lorcher: Okay. S.Wardle: We are right here. Lorcher: So, that's your commercial and your commercial of 8,000 commercial, you are -- you are saying it's going to be subdivided into smaller businesses, not one big thing. S.Wardle: So -- so, the -- we don't control the properties to the west here. We -- Lorcher: No. I'm talking about yours. S.Wardle: Yes. Yes. So, the 8,000 square foot we are anticipating 1,500 square foot bays. We think that Farmers Insurance, Edward Jones agents, people like that. Physical therapists. Those are the types of services that we will be marketing to. Lorcher: Got you. S.Wardle: I'm going to turn it over to my design professionals for just a minute to answer some technical questions. I know that staff had some -- some specific questions. So, I'm going to introduce our project architect Jim Escobar. Lorcher: Okay. Escobar: Madam Chair, Commissioners. Lorcher: If you can just state your address. Escobar: Yes. 127 -- P.O. Box 1277 in Eagle, Idaho. Lorcher: Thank you. Escobar: I don't really have much to address, other than we do have the private usable open space and with a lot of the -- the items that are identified on this list I think they are all items that could be conditions of approval or amended to it that -- I don't know that we oppose much of what's happening on -- on their staff report. So, I just would -- would like to recommend that you consider -- staff's recommending denial, but we feel like there is all sorts of things in here that we comply with and would -- would happily satisfy -- or maybe or even misunderstandings. So, I -- I -- I don't know that I really F49] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 6,2025 Page 46 of 59 have anything else to speak to, because most of the items are site development related items. So, invite the civil engineer up. Lorcher: Okay. Come on up. If you can state your name and address for the record that would be great. Christensen: Jesse Christensen. 5700 East Franklin Avenue, Nampa. Working as the site engineer. Thank you, Madam Chair and Commissioners, for having us out here today. I'm here to talk about some of the site specific conditions that are listed in the staff report and go over what we can do or address during design review to adjust them. So, the water main was listed as too close to the curb and gutter on the west side of the property. It's actually the north side of the property. And it is. It's about two and a half feet from the curb. It can be moved. There is plenty of room in the street to move it. That would mean it's less than 25 feet from the storm water basin, but there is also room to move the storm water basin as well or if there was no room there are other engineering ways to get DEQ approval on that. A curtain between the two to -- to make sure that separation is -- is contained. So, that -- that's just one of the things listed on there. We don't have fire hydrants on our site plan right now. It's listed as a -- as a concern. You know, we did talk to Fire and we worked with Fire to create a pass through for the two buildings on the east side. So, you know, Fire has not been ignored. There is plenty of flow through the subdivision. There is plenty of flow in the area. Fire hydrants can be added -- added to there. There is a concern about the easement between the two buildings. I'm going to move the mouse around so you can see. Maybe I'm going to move the mouse around. So, there is a -- we have -- right now we have listed a sewer line through that area there in the center, which will mean that you can't landscape it. There is an easement through there. But, realistically, the -- you know, the -- the final sewer design coming out of the buildings is not complete, so the sewer -- the sewer main can change. We can make that connection to the south, therefore, just negating that access point and needing that easement through there for sewer, so that can come back as landscape. These are all -- you know, everything that's listed engineering wise can be adjusted in design review with the city. So, I don't think there is anything outstanding that -- that doesn't work. You know, we were gifted a great corner up there to put something that's going to be separated by a stream if we can get the bridge approved there as future development around this continues to develop. There is room to make that -- that open space bigger for everybody. You know, everybody has got a kind of central location for this open space of this commercial, live -- commercially integrated, you know, live-work-play stuff. So, I don't think it's a hindrance to have it up there. I think it works. We brought in early on this -- there is this floodway on Five Mile Creek. We brought in a floodplain engineer to meet with the city's floodplain administrator and talk through what we can do to make that work. We don't have any of our structures right now within that floodway, but the open space area kind of is covered there. We are working to remodel lots of portions of this through some other development, too, to try to get this floodway under control, because right now some of it's a little old. I can't really talk too much about floodway. I'm not a floodway engineer, but, you know, we are working on that as well. So, we are not -- we are not ignoring the challenges of the site, we are trying to work with what we have F50] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 6,2025 Page 47 of 59 here. The reduced -- there is a reduced setback listed for water wise planting on the front along Overland and, you know, really, the problem -- and I think the landscape architect has addressed it. He can make the change. He had six percent too much of the water wise grass in there. We needed 50 percent. He added about 56 percent. So, we can reduce that and make that work. So, I don't think -- a lot of these concerns are things that, you know, once we have approval can be worked through during design review. It's not -- they are easy fixes to make and they are not huge challenges as I kind of see it written here. So, I can stand for questions. I can bring Shaun back up to finish his presentation. Lorcher: I do have a couple questions. Christensen: Yes. Lorcher: Do you have approval from the irrigation company to allow a bridge to go over the canal? Christensen: We do not have approval from the irrigation company for the bridge yet. It seems premature to do final design on stuff like that when we don't even know if we are going to have an annexation. You know, if we -- if we lose this annexation the bridge doesn't matter anymore. So, final design on some of this stuff, without annexation and approvals, is kind of difficult to get. Lorcher: Okay. And, then, working with ACHD with the storm water basin will -- are they amiable? Have you talked to them at all about amiable about moving things around? Christensen: Our storm water basins all on site. So, all of our storm water is -- Lorcher: So, your storm water basin is not -- Christensen: Our storm water -- yeah. We don't have any ACHD storm water to take care of. Everything's already got its inlets and -- and basins. Lorcher: Okay. I guess my biggest question to you is, you know, all of these things -- why weren't these addressed during planning with the city planners? Christensen: Some of these comments -- you know, we did address a lot of comments with the city planners and we went back and forth and we had several meetings with the planners. These last few items that are noted here were noted as just notations on their -- on their notes, on their responses to us. They weren't as -- responded as we need to fix this right now. You know, the fire hydrants were listed as just not on here. There were water meters that were listed as the water meter location. They are just listed as comments for now. They weren't listed as fix this before we go to -- to the hearing. Lorcher: Okay. 51 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 6,2025 Page 48 of 59 Christensen: Yeah. Lorcher: You would like to finish up on your comments? S.Wardle: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. Just a clarification. We have talked to Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District. They are allowing the bridge. We have to get an easement and go through that process as well as with the Parks Department for the pathway and so -- that is in the works. Just to address a couple final issues -- and Jesse talked a little bit about -- we are going to -- we are going to meet the -- the water conservation section of the landscape. Talked to the landscape architect. He can make those changes. And, then, just the -- the last real issue is our -- our alternative compliance of five foot versus two foot on the western edge and -- and, frankly, that was a -- you know, when -- in talking with staff it was a -- sort of a standard procedure that we would ask for approval on this particular site plan and, then, they would approve that at a staff level review of the alternative compliance and so with that I would stand for any questions. Lorcher: Commissioners, do we have any questions? Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: I think one thing that we didn't really talk about that I think is maybe the biggest issue is just the open space integration function, et cetera. Can you speak to that at all? It seems like that's a concern that staff rose -- that raised about the lack of like central open space or integrated use open space, rather it being kind of just set on the border and not contemplated -- not appearing to be contemplated as part of the design, but an afterthought. S.Wardle: If I might address that. So -- and I think we might have a little bit of a miscommunication with the staff, but my landscape architect is telling me there were at 23 percent open space and that the minimum requirement is 15 percent and so, again, we attempted to over comply with that particular issue. If -- I have talked with our engineer. We could potentially add some central open space where we have got some bollard -- bollards as well as moving some of the sewer lines where we couldn't have landscape before. There is a way that we can work around that. We didn't -- I didn't hear what the specific issue was from staff prior to the staff report. Lorcher: Yeah. I think before you go to City Council the open space is going to be an issue and if the sewer line doesn't -- that runs through the two buildings is something that you can't do any landscaping with, whereas the buildings are either facing them or can enjoy that open space, it seems like it should be someplace else. So, the -- this graphic's pretty good. The other two were very hard to read, so that might be something before you do City Council as well. Any other comments? Okay. Thank you very much. F52 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 6,2025 Page 49 of 59 S.Wardle: Thank you. Lorcher: Madam Clerk, do we have anybody to testify -- signed up to testify? Lomeli: Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes. First person is Anita Gallagher. Gallagher. Lorcher: Hi. Thanks for coming. If you can state your name and address for the record that would be great. Gallagher: Anita Gallagher. 3825 Onyx Street, Meridian, Idaho. Lorcher: Okay. Gallagher: I do not agree with what they have here proposed at all. I live about a half an acre way. Number one, the parking -- their overflow is going to go onto Topaz. There is already kids living in the neighborhood that the people are going to be driving around -- it's a U-shaped neighborhood. They are going to be driving around our neighborhood to get out probably over on Jade, instead of Topaz. The kids right now have to walk around, because there is a handicapped kid, so that just means more kids are going to be walking. There is no sidewalks. We are county, you know, so it's very -- very dangerous. I think it's too many units. Shouldn't be -- I don't think it should be two stories. I like to go out in my backyard, look up at the stars. Lighting that they are going to have is going to ruin my -- my view. When they had the neighborhood meeting the owner stated they are only going to be renting to business people to live there. Nobody -- they don't think they will have kids and all that type stuff. So, they are -- they are saying they are going to be very picky on who they rent to, which they can't be. That's illegal. That's pretty much most of my -- Lorcher: Thank you very much. Madam Clerk. Lomeli: Thank you, Madam Chair. The next person is Robert Taylor. Lorcher: Okay. If you can state your -- Taylor: Robert Taylor. Can you hear me okay? Lorcher: Yeah. R.Taylor: Robert Taylor. 3840 East Overland Road. Lorcher: Okay. Thank you. R.Taylor: So, I'm right next to this. Lorcher: East or west? 53 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 6,2025 Page 50 of 59 R.Taylor: East -- west. Lorcher: West. Okay. R.Taylor: Right. Yeah. Right there. We have got a skinny acre. This will run right down my backyard. Lorcher: Okay. R.Taylor: My paradise. My sanctuary. Lorcher: Uh-huh. R.Taylor: Anyway, I had like a five minute speech, but I have trimmed it down, so I can get the three minutes in. Lorcher: Thank you. R.Taylor: But it's already a hassle getting in and out of my property, especially during peak driving hours. I encourage all of you to come see for yourself, Monday through Friday, from 4:00 to 6:00. You will experience two lanes of bottleneck cars on Overland right in front of this proposed development. I can't imagine the frustration folks will have trying to enter and exit off of Topaz, because they won't be able to enter and exit off Overland obviously if this development is approved. So, the center turn lane, which also feeds cars to all the businesses at Silverstone, will soon turn into a -- just a mess. If you step back and were only to consider the current road system, with just a center turn lane and no traffic light at Topaz, this proposed development fails on all accounts. With a new restaurant coming on the other corner across the street from this development, coupled with all the new and future development near Top Golf, this small stretch of Overland Road from beyond Topaz to Eagle Road is going to be a nightmare and it's only going to get worse and more dangerous. Back in 2007 all of the property owners on the frontage of Overland were part of a proposed multi-million dollar development, a package deal of around 23 properties in the valley. Because of the banking crisis this deal fell through. At that time all of us living on the frontage were in agreement to sell our properties and the surrounding neighbors were okay with this. This current moment, however, only encompasses two out of the seven properties and we are not all in agreement. In fact, at the required neighborhood meeting put on by the development team several months back, it was standing room only and I don't recall anyone saying anything positive about this development and we are all pretty much against it. I feel another business only development along this Overland frontage would be more prudent and beneficial to the area and I think the surrounding neighbors again would be okay with this versus the current piecemeal proposal. Not sure how this works, but perhaps changing the zoning to encourage investors to develop business only structures would be a good start. We all have had neighbors -- Lorcher: Go on. 54 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 6,2025 Page 51 of 59 R.Taylor: You know, when -- when we get home -- we can hear when they get home. We can hear when they leave. We hear their car doors or revving engines. The dogs barking. Deal with occasional loud party or celebration. You deal with these sounds and annoyances. Please put yourself in my shoes going to -- going from having one neighbor to having 23, not to mention two commercial businesses next door. That is a lot of neighbors that are now two stories tall with a bird's eye view into your backyard. We have a beautiful seven year old daughter who just got to swim in her first big girl pool this summer. She had privacy. We have privacy. In conclusion, consider the impact not only to me and my family, but to the folks in this neighborhood. Think about the safety concerns and difficulty to everyone that will need to enter and exit off of Overland Road. Our only sanctuary is our backyard. Besides the roar of the freeway we are at least -- we at least have privacy and a buffer from the noise and eyeballs from Overland Road. If approved the privacy and peace me and my family have will be gone. Don't take that away from us. Please vote no on this proposal. Lorcher: Thank you. Taylor: Thank you. Lorcher: Madam Clerk. Lomeli: Madam Chair, I have Sherry Manning. Debbie Fulton. Lorcher: No? You are good? Lomeli: Jason Massey. Lorcher: You are good? Lomeli: And Lynette -- I don't know how to pronounce that. I apologize. Lorcher: You can tell us when you get up here. Adsitt: Good evening, Madam Chair and Chairman -- or chair people. My name is Lynette Adsitt. I live at 1360 South Topaz, which is just north and kitty corner to this place. Lorcher: Uh-huh. Adsitt: So, I would definitely see this place from my place. I'm -- I'm not happy with this proposal. I understand we live in an area that's going to be developed. We all understand that. As homeowners all our neighbors, you know, we are disheartened by it, because we have a little -- little wonderful rural community back here. I have a show horse. I ride my horse on my property. Trying to get my horse trailer in and out on Topaz to Overland is a nightmare right now. If they add traffic going through there, F55] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 6,2025 Page 52 of 59 especially if they park there, trying to get my big horse trailer through there is going to be a nightmare. I also reached out to ACHD -- sorry, I'm a little nervous. Lorcher: It's okay. Adsitt: And in January -- and I asked them to address this traffic problem, because I almost got in a wreck getting out onto Overland turning east -- you just can't, because cars are going into Silverstone. So, I asked them what -- what can be done and he said -- let me get to it here. He said -- because I asked him about the traffic from Topaz to Eagle Road and he said on this 2,000 foot segment of Overload -- Overland Road, 67 crashes were reported east of Overland Road in the intersection to Topaz Avenue intersection in a five year span, which, unfortunately, is greater frequency that monthly. Additionally 25 of those 67 crashes occur during Ada county -- Ada county's typical peak travel period between 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. It's proven that the traffic is horrible. Why add more headache to it? More traffic? A figure of 46 cars. That's two cars per residence, plus that doesn't include for the commercial property will be coming out onto Topaz Avenue. There is no room. So, I, please, ask that you consider the people that live in this area, the people that have family in this area, that have raised a horse, have -- have a rural life. We enjoy a really rural life and we just ask that you consider that when you look at this monstrosity that's coming into our neighborhood. Lorcher: Did ACHD have any comments as far as if they were going to do anything or they felt that was within their acceptable usage levels? Adsitt: They said that -- and I don't know that they knew it was coming out onto Topaz, because they said they hadn't seen it yet. This was back in January. Lorcher: Uh-huh. Adsitt: They said that according to our policy a development may start to be considered for a traffic impact study if the development generates a hundred new external peak hour trips beyond the extent -- existing land use or a ten percent contribution to the major street roadway traffic. He said Overland in this case. So, I don't know if he was considering that they were going out onto Topaz -- Lorcher: Right. Adsitt: -- which you can only turn right onto Topaz. You can't even turn left. I -- during the winter from November to February I am hauling my horse out that -- that road three nights a week to go right in an arena from -- I'm out there from 5:00 to 6:00. That's usually my time that I'm heading out to get on to that and it's a nightmare to get out. ACHD did put in no blocking the -- the intersection. They did put signs up -- Lorcher: Okay. F56] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 6,2025 Page 53 of 59 Adsitt: -- which is wonderful and people sometimes adhere to that. But, again, you cannot turn left coming out of Topaz. There is no -- with my horse trailer I wouldn't even dream of doing that. Lorcher: Right. Adsitt: It's just not safe. And I think this is too -- too much population for our little area. Lorcher: Okay. Thank you very much. Adsitt: Thank you. Lomeli: Madam Chair, no one else has signed up. Lorcher: Would anybody else like to comment on this? Come on up. Holyoke: Good evening. My name is Lyman Holyoke. My address is 1275 Jade Avenue. So, like the others I'm up around the corner in the rural side of the U-shape. At first glance I -- I was okay with this. I'm like -- I'm kind of intrigued, you know, like okay, multi-family. All right. And that's all around us. I see the vertically integrated. I love that, because in my mind I would like to do something like that on my property on the backside, but, then, I'm like, yeah, but I'm okay with this, because it's not my property. But that's beside the point. We have raised the issue of traffic and that is a huge issue. City of Meridian did a huge disservice to our neighborhood by approving that huge traffic nightmare back going to Top Golf off Silverstone. This morning I noted that when I was coming back from dropping my kids off at school I barely got across Eagle Road and I was -- we weren't even -- the road is trapped -- the road is blocked. You couldn't even -- they couldn't even get to the turn lane to turn into their business. So, that -- we are not even talking about this -- this development itself. You know, when I was looking at the applicant's paperwork they -- I looked for the ACHD comments. They didn't even mention that there is a plan to widen Overland Road to three lanes each way with a turn lane. I think that goes at least to Jade, maybe to Topaz, but it's basically to turn our neighborhoods into a right-hand turn only situation. I -- I think there needs to be greater integration with our neighborhoods before you consider anything -- the traffic's -- basically in my mind put a stop to all of this. But, otherwise, I do like seeing the businesses up on Overland. I think that's a great idea, especially the vertical integration. I love that idea. But, yeah, I think -- I think there needs to be greater consultation with ACHD before their -- for their decision on this. Thanks. Lorcher: Thanks. Anybody else in Chambers? Madam Clerk, do we have anybody online? Lomeli: Madam Chair, no. Lorcher: Would the applicant like to come back and give some comments based on public testimony, please. 57 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 6,2025 Page 54 of 59 S.Wardle: Thank you, Madam Chair, Commissioners. Appreciate comments from the neighbors. We heard a lot about backyards today and I understand that and I can sympathize. I grew up in a Meridian with a population of 2,000 people. So, we understand growth and development. We understand that -- that the large lot rural culture and subdivision that used to be at Eagle and Overland, that there are still some people that are there, that are -- that purchased those properties. However, many of those are being redeveloped and -- and our -- our applicant has put together two parcels. We are not bringing you one acre, we put two acres on the corner together with what we feel is not just an economically viable project, but one that meets the -- the -- the need -- the needs and the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and so we didn't hear a lot of talk about density. We didn't hear talk about uses and commercial and so one of the things that I would -- I would ask of you is this. If you feel that this application has some technical issues in terms of open space or engineering or things, we can work those out either with a continuation or a condition. We are happy to do that. I have got the design professionals that have committed to me to make that happen and so if you have any issues with that we can find a way to work through it. If you have an issue with us not meeting the Comprehensive Plan or some other type of issue, then, I would like to have that discussion today, but, otherwise, we appreciate your time and would ask for approval. Lorcher: Okay. Thank you very much. Can I get a motion to close the public hearing? Rust: So moved. Smith: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Rust: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Rust. Rust: I -- this is not the first application in this area that I have sat here for. I'm starting to recognize this. In fact, I think my only no vote as a Commissioner was for something right on this Overland stretch. Everybody recognizes, even a lot of public testimony, that this is a changing area. It's unfortunate, but it is happening. I appreciate the fact that this seems to be a local investor, somebody who is trying to make the community better. They want to live in this area. I think you can tell in the design elements that there is -- I do like the design just generally speaking. It seems to be attractive. I appreciate that there is two acres here. This is a longer list than we normally see and I -- I appreciate the fact that there is a lot of what I would view is more minutia, but there is a lot of minutia here that needs to be worked through. I read through the applicant's response. It seems like at least half of the items noted in the staff report can be fixed F58] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 6,2025 Page 55 of 59 and so kind of at the beginning of the staff report they contend that proposed development cannot be supported by staff because the site isn't large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional development regulations in the district. It seems to me that the applicant is contending that they can fit ii and so if that's the issue I would be in favor of a continuance to give them a chance to go and do the work and come back with a more developed proposal. I think that would -- we would be doing our job as Commissioners in kind of that gatekeeper in front of City Council. So, I'm not in favor of pushing this forward. I would be open to a continuance. I think some of this is just going to come down to a beauty in the eyes of the beholder for us on the Commission. I really fail to see how a regional park is ever going to go into this area, just with the -- the fact that the lots are so small, the cost of land is going to be so high, that ship has probably already sailed. This isn't south Meridian. This last one that we were looking at where you can get 60 acres from a farmer, these -- this is going to be small assemblages and that's going to make function -- functional integration much more challenging as this area changes. Somebody has to go first and if we turn this down, do we -- do we want as a city just only commercial businesses on those frontage lot? There is seven two acre -- one acre lots there. Is that what we want? I think that's what some people in the community want. I'm not sure that that's best. I like the mixed use component. I'm kind of curious to hear Commissioner Smith after the last one. This might be hitting you a little bit closer to the heart at least on that issue. Yeah. So, I will conclude here. I guess I would be in favor of a continuance personally. I would like to hear from the rest of the Commission on the application as a whole. I don't view these technical issues as a reason for denial. It seems to me that this application was maybe a little bit rushed, maybe there was a little bit of disconnect between staff and applicant and the applicant certainly has made it clear they are willing to go back and rectify those -- those technical issues. Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: Madam Chair. Yeah. I'm -- to be candid I'm a little frustrated, because on one hand this is everything that I'm asking for a mixed use development to be. On the other hand, as Commissioner Rust said, there are a lot of issues here and in terms of being rushed, I mean I do want to note this is 2025-0004. That's the item. So, it's been in the pipeline for a minute; right? For reference the other one that we just -- some of the others that we heard tonight were 0061 -- or sorry. That's a 2024 number. 0030 1 think. And so there -- there has been time on this and I think where I'm a little -- I will step back from frustrated, because I don't want to be unkind. I'm a little concerned is it almost feels like the Commission and/or Council are being treated as part of the ideation process, rather than deliberative bodies and for that reason I -- it seems like a lot of the work that has -- has -- should have been done by now has not been done and I know with a lot of things when we face developers and developers come to us and we say, hey, why isn't this this way and, you know, it's because if we did this and this other thing would be out of compliance and et cetera. There are a lot of moving parts here and I fear that if we say, hey, you know, all this can be reviewed in design and I'm not saying anyone's saying to approve this tonight, but if we can fix this in design we can do all this other stuff, well, what about when you change the easement for sewage, what F59] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 6,2025 Page 56 of 59 problems might that create and how are you going to address those? How are those going to be in compliance? I don't love -- even if NMID grants access I don't love that bridge over an unpiped NMID easement being kind of counted as this -- this open space. I don't really -- really understand it necessarily. There are a lot of issues here. I am tempted to want to vote to deny. I do know the applicant and the team are professionals and have come before this body many times and so I do tend to give some credence to if they say they can figure it out I will give them a shot. I'm happy to give them a shot at figuring it out. That being said, I do -- I do worry that there are some larger issues here than are solvable with a simple maybe two week continuance or something like that. So, to that end I'm happy to do a continuance. I would prefer if there may be a longer continuance, because it seems like there are more than just some quick issues to sort out. I do want to speak to the larger issue of development in this area. This area is currently zoned R-1 and in the FLUM -- in the future land use map it's -- I mean it's -- it's mixed use regional, which depending on the development is entitled to up to 40 residential units an acre. So, I want to be very clear there is density coming to this area. There is development coming to this area. And so some of the things -- like view sheds and light pollution and things like that, they are regrettable parts of development, but this is kind of within it's -- it's on a major transit corridor. We need to be encouraging density in these areas. I mean that's where density is best. I just think there is too many issues right now with this for me to support a short continuance and I would prefer a long continuance. I don't know what that looks like. I don't know if staff has any guidelines for maybe how long they think this might take to continue if it's possible with a continuance. I think there is a lot of questions there that -- that's kind of where I'm at and a little bit word vomiting, I'm thinking -- I think speaking as I'm thinking, but it's just -- I'm a little frustrated. Lorcher: Okay. Commissioner Sandoval, do you have any comments? Sandoval: Yeah, Madam Chair. I agree. I think there is just too many issues as presented to go on -- now an outright rejection or recommendation to reject -- I don't know that I'm necessarily in favor of that either, given that the applicant seems very willing to work out these details. So, I'm absolutely in favor of a continuance here. Lorcher: Okay. Kurt, do we make a motion or reopen the public hearing at this point? Starman: So, two thoughts. I think you can reopen the public hearing and discuss a continuance to a date certain and, then, that would also be an opportunity, once you reopen the hearing, you could ask the applicant if they have thoughts on a reasonable timeline and you can factor them to your deliberations. Lorcher: Okay. So, in that case I motion to open the -- reopen the public hearing for H- 2025-0004 for the St. George. Rust: Second. F60] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 6,2025 Page 57 of 59 Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to reopen the public hearing for St. George. Would the applicant come forward, please. Smith: After second we need to vote. Lorcher: Oh. Hold on. You can stand there. It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? All right. Now we are good. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Lorcher: Okay. Continuance. So, you mentioned that you were -- you were open to that and the Commission is as well. So, what kind of time frame do you think you and your team would like to look at in order to come up with some -- address some of the issues in the staff report? S.Wardle: Sure. Thank you, Madam Chair. I guess the question would be how -- how soon can we get in to staff to discuss this? We are going to need probably 30 days on the design team -- Lorcher: Okay. The challenge is it's November 6th and we have got the holidays coming in and not to say that we are not going to be here. I do know -- I do believe the first of the month of January is a holiday, so there most likely will not be a hearing that day. So, do you want to go into January or do you still think you want to be in December? S.Wardle: We would like December. I don't know what your schedule looks like for the -- for the Commission. Lorcher: So, the two dates in December are the 4th and the 18th and we need to check with the clerk to see what the docket looks like currently. Lomeli: Madam Chair, we currently will have two scheduled for December 4th, so that would -- this hearing would put it at three. Lorcher: And for December 18th? Lomeli: There is nothing scheduled yet for the 18th. Lorcher: So, the choice is yours. The 18th gives you a little bit more wiggle room. The 4th would be 30 days from -- give -- you know, just less than the 30 days. S.Wardle: 4th, please. Napoli: Madam Chair, if I can interject. I think the 4th is probably not going to be the best. I would say for staff's perspective, you know, we have gone back and forth on this application over nine months, six revisions, cycles, a lot of this was asked for, you know, F61 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 6,2025 Page 58 of 59 1 would say the 18th would be at the earliest. I know the workload that my colleagues have and that I have. I have 13 other applications in the queue. Then we keep getting more. I know there is going to be some scheduled on the 4th additional, some more on the 18th and, quite frankly, I don't know how quickly -- if they need 30 days to turn around on the design team that means I need at least ten days to probably review it. I need to probably change some things in my staff report -- at least write a memo to you guys. I would say at the earliest January 18th, but probably -- or December 18th, but I think January 15th would probably be more appropriate. Lorcher: So, we -- because of staff's workload would you consider December 18? S.Wardle: Yes. Lorcher: And if you get to that point where things aren't meshing, then, we will have to extend that out, you know, further and you can work through that with staff. S.Wardle: We will do that at staff's discretion. Lorcher: Okay. Where am I at? Smith: Madam Chair, just to clarify that -- that -- Lorcher: December 18th. Smith: But to clarify with saying push that out, do you mean continuance prior to the hearing? We would -- you intend on hearing that and, then, continuing further, because I know that has different implications for what staff would plan for. Lorcher: I would say at this point we would have -- have it on the 18th and if staff and the applicant aren't ready -- Smith: Okay. Lorcher: -- we can push it out again. Correct? Smith: Yeah. I just wanted to confirm that was the plan and we weren't intending on actually guaranteeing hearing on the 18th if staff wasn't -- Lorcher: Correct. Smith: -- ready. Okay. Lorcher: Correct. Okay. With that in mind -- thank you very much. S.Wardle: Thank you. 62 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 6,2025 Page 59 of 59 Lorcher: We are good. May I get a motion to close the public hearing? Rust: So moved. Smith: Madam Chair, we need to leave it open. Lorcher: We are not doing that? What are we doing? Starman: So, if you take -- if you would entertain a motion to continue -- continue the hearing to December 18th that would be my -- Lorcher: All right. Let's try this again. I motion to continue application 2025-0004 for the St. George for the date of December 18th. Rust: Second. It's been moved and seconded to continue the St. George to December 18. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Lorcher: Okay. We are good. Then with that in mind, I will take one more motion. Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: Move to adjourn. Rust: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:07 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS. ) APPROVED 11 I20 I2025 MARIA LORCHER - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK F63 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Approve Minutes of the October 16, 2025 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting 4 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 16,2025 Page 42 of 42 Lorcher: Okay. Considering all staff, applicant and public testimony I move to recommend File No. H-2025-0045 as presented during the hearing of October 16th, with the request to change plan -- program to plan to conform to other documents published. Stoll: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to approve the text amendment. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Lorcher: I will take one more motion. Stoll: Move to adjourn. Smith: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much, everyone. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:00 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS. ) APPROVED 11 106 12025 MARIA LORCHER - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK F46 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Ada County Sheriff's Office Training Center by Ada County Sheriff's Office/Training Center, located at 2568 E. Lenark St. F47 CITY OF MERIDIAN V IDIAN;_-- FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ! DAHO DECISION& ORDER In the Matter of the Request for a Conditional Use Permit(CUP) is requested to operate a quasi-public (Ada County Sheriffs Office/Training Center) in three (3) existing industrial tenant spaces on 11.13 acres of land for the Ada County Sheriffs Office/Training Center, Located at 2568 E.Lanark Street in the I-L Zoning District,by Ada County Sheriffs Office. Case No(s).H-2025-0043 For the Planning& Zoning Commission Hearing Date of. October 16t'',2025(Findings on November 6t",2025) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of October 16t'',2025, incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of October 16t'', 2025, incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of October 16', 2025, incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of October 16',2025,incorporated by reference) B. Conclusions of Law 1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the"Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975,"codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code(I.C. §67-6503). 2. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified at Title I 1 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has,by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian,which was adopted April 19,2011,Resolution No. 11-784 and Maps. 3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 11-5A. 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s)received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed. 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this decision,which shall be signed by the Chairman of the Commission and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2025-0043 Page 1 48 upon the applicant,the Planning Department,the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. 7. That this approval is subject to the conditions of approval in the attached staff report for the hearing date of October 16tt',2025, incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application. C. Decision and Order Pursuant to the Planning &Zoning Commission's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 11- 5A and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that: 1. The applicant's request for a Conditional Use Permit is hereby approved in accord with the conditions of approval in the staff report for the hearing date of October 16th, 2025, attached as Exhibit A. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits Notice of Two(2)Year Conditional Use Permit Duration Please take notice that the conditional use permit,when granted, shall be valid for a maximum period of two(2)years unless otherwise approved by the City in accord with UDC 11-513-6F.1. During this time,the applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval,and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground. For conditional use permits that also require platting,the final plat must be signed by the City Engineer within this two(2)year period in accord with UDC 11-5B-6F.2. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11-5B-6.F.1,the Director may authorize a single extension of the time to commence the use not to exceed one(1)two (2)year period.Additional time extensions up to two (2)years as determined and approved by the Commission may be granted. With all extensions,the Director or Commission may require the conditional use comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code Title 11. E. Judicial Review Pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-652 1(1)(d), if this final decision concerns a matter enumerated in Idaho Code § 67-652 1(1)(a), an affected person aggrieved by this final decision may,within twenty-eight (28)days after all remedies have been exhausted,including requesting reconsideration of this final decision as provided by Meridian City Code § 1-7-10, seek judicial review of this final decision as provided by chapter 52,title 67, Idaho Code. This notice is provided as a courtesy; the City of Meridian does not admit by this notice that this decision is subject to judicial review under LLUPA. F. Notice of Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis Pursuant to Idaho Code §§ 67-6521(1)(d) and 67-8003, an owner of private property that is the subject of a final decision may submit a written request with the Meridian City Clerk for a regulatory takings analysis. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2025-0043 Page 2 49 G. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of October 16t1i,2025. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2025-0043 Page 3 Fol 6th By action of the Planning&Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the day of November ,2025. COMMISSIONER MARIA LORCHER, CHAIRMAN VOTED COMMISSIONER JARED SMITH,VICE CHAIRMAN VOTED COMMISSIONER BRIAN GARRETT VOTED COMMISSIONER JESSICA PERREAULT VOTED COMMISSIONER MATHEW STOLL VOTED COMMISSIONER MATTHEW SANDOVAL VOTED COMMISSIONER SAM RUST VOTED Maria Lorcher, Chairman 11-6-2025 Attest: Chris Johnson, City Clerk 11-6-2025 Copy served upon the Applicant, the Planning and Development Services divisions of the Community Development Department,the Public Works Department and the City Attorney. 11-6-2025 By: Dated: City Clerk's Office CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2025-0043 Page 4 F51 Exhibit A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT C��fEPIDIAN;,�-,-` DEPARTMENT REPORT I D A H O HEARING 10/16/2025 legend DATE: Project location TO: Planning&Zoning Commission Area of Impact = City Limits FROM: Nick Napoli,Associate Planner 0 Analysis 208-884-5533 nnapoli@meridiancity.org APPLICANT: Mathew Navest SUBJECT: H-2025-0043 y- - Ada Count Sheriff's Office Training g Center ---W-, T---- LOCATION: Located at 2568 E. Lanark Street in the -_-- SW 1/4 of Section 9,T.3N.,R.IE. ; I. PROJECT OVERVIEW A. Summary Conditional Use Permit(CUP) is requested to operate a quasi-public (Ada County Sheriff's Office/Training Center) in three (3) existing industrial tenant spaces on 11.13 acres of land in the I-L zoning district. B. Recommendation Staff. Approval with conditions C. Decision Commission: Approved as presented in the staff report. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2025-0043 Page 5 52 II. COMMUNITY METRICS Table 1: Land Use Description Details Map Ref. Existing Land Use(s) Industrial - Proposed Land Use(s) Quasi-Public(Ada County Sheriff's Office/Training) - Existing Zoning I-L(Light Industrial) VII.A.2 Adopted FLUM Designation General Industrial VILA.3 Table 2: Process Facts Description Details Preapplication Meeting date 7/29/2025 Neighborhood Meeting 9/2/2025 Site posting date 10/6/2025 Table 3: Community Metrics Agency/Element Description/Issue Reference Ada County Highway District • Comments Received Yes; Staff Report - • Commission Action Required No - • Access Lanark Street;Collector Road - ITD Comments Received Yes;No comment Meridian Public Works Wastewater • Distance to Mainline Existing at site • Impacts or Concerns None Meridian Public Works Water • Distance to Mainline Existing at site • Impacts or Concerns None Note: See section IV. City/Agency Comments & Conditions for comments received or see the public record. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2025-0043 Page 6 53 Figure 1: Service Impact Summary ImpactService • • Ready Q O O O O O O O O Marginal Caution 0 4- 0Q1 °aa 5r o Qa CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2025-0043 Page 7 54 III. STAFF ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code(UDC) A. General Overview This property is designated Industrial on the Future Land Use Map(FLUM). The purpose of the Industrial designation is to allow a range of uses that support industrial and commercial activities. Industrial uses may include warehouses, storage units,light manufacturing, flex, and incidental retail and office uses. In some cases,uses may include processing, manufacturing,warehouses, storage units, and industrial support activities. The applicant proposes to occupy three(3)tenant spaces of an existing industrial building for a quasi-public use. The Ada County Sheriff's office intends to use the space for offices,training space, and a gym. The narrative indicates that the addition of this space would allow for additional training to keep up with the demand needed for new recruits and continue training. Comprehensive Plan Goals: "Plan for an appropriate mix of land uses that ensures connectivity, livability, and economic vitality." (3.06.02) The proposed use will contribute to the mix of uses in this area and should add to the livability and economic vitality of the community. In addition, it will provide additional emergency services close to State Highway SS. "Monitor and adjust the amount and mix of industrial, commercial, and office areas needed to meet the employment needs of the City."(3.06.01B) The proposed use will contribute to the mix of uses in this area; however, the desire for industrial uses will be diminished. While the nature of the use is not industrial, the Ada County Sheriff's Office will be employing more of their employees at this location, which generates employment. "Preserve the industrial base within designated industrial land use areas by discouraging non- industrial uses and focusing on light manufacturing, distribution,flex-space, and base- employment."(3.07.01 D) The proposed use is a non-industrial use requesting a CUP to occupy an industrial land use area approved for industrial users. However, due to the nature of the proposed use, staff are supportive of allowing the quasi public use near a major corridor in State Highway 55. Table 4: Project Overview Description Details History CZC-05-032,CZC-06-134 Acreage 11.13 Acres B. History The subject property contains a multi-tenant industrial building that was constructed in 2006. Since its construction,the subject tenant spaces have changed several times to different industrial users. The applicant is now proposing a quasi-public use which requires a conditional use permit in the I-L zoning district. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2025-0043 Page 8 55 C. Site Development and Use Analysis 1. Proposed Use Analysis (UDC 11-2): The proposed quasi-public use is a conditional use in the I-L zoning. The I-L zoning and FLUM designation is meant to provide opportunities for business and employment,which typically includes light manufacturing,research and development,warehousing, and distribution. This use adheres to Policy 3.07.02B,which promotes a mix of land uses that ensures connectivity,livability, and economic vitality. While there are not any other quasi- public users in the area,the addition of a new Ada County Sheriff's office and training facility will allow for better services to residents in the city and in the county. Additionally, the proposed use will allow the Ada County Sheriff's Office to keep up with demand for new recruit training and further advancement of training for existing officers. 2. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): The proposal meets the dimensional standards in the I-L for setbacks, landscape buffers, landscape requirements and maximum building height. However,the site plan needs to be modified to allow for a 25-foot drive aisle on the southern portion of the parking being added. This should be revised with the submittal of the certificate of zoning compliance application. 3. Specific Use Standards (UDC 11-4-3): A. Public recreation and community centers. The use shall meet the standards in accord with section 11-4-3-2, "arts, entertainment or recreation facility, indoors and outdoors",of this chapter. The applicant is not proposing a public recreation or a community center with this application. B. Public or quasi-public office. The use shall meet the standards for office use in accord with the district in which the use is located. The applicant is in compliance with this standard. D. Design Standards Analysis 1. Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): The site has already been approved under permit CZC-06-134 and no additional improvements will be required. In addition,staff is not requiring parking lot landscaping to be installed with this application as UDC 11-313-8 allows loading areas in the I-L zoning to be exempt from this standard. This will allow future user to remove the parking if they deem necessary. The applicant shall apply for alternative compliance with their certificate of zoning compliance application. 2. Parking (UDC 11-3C): i. Nonresidential parking analysis A minimum of one(1) off-street parking space is required per 2,000 square feet(s.f.) of gross floor area. The applicant is proposing to exceed the parking requirements by adding 77 new parking stalls on the rear of the property. However,the drive aisle dimensions on the proposed new parking do not meet the requirements in the UDC. The applicant will be required to revise this and bring it into conformance with UDC 11-3C-6. In addition, staff is not requiring parking lot landscaping to be installed with this application as UDC 11-313-8 allows loading areas in the I-L zoning to be exempt from this standard. This will allow future user to remove the parking if they deem necessary. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2025-0043 Page 9 56 ii. Bicycle parking analysis A minimum of one(1)bicycle parking space must be provided for every 25 vehicle spaces or portion thereof per UDC 11-3C-6G; bicycle parking facilities are required to comply with the location and design standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C. Bicycle parking is not depicted on the plans and shall be shown with the submittal of the certificate of zoning compliance. 3. Building Elevations (Comp Plan, Architectural Standards Manual): The approved building elevations and perspectives were submitted for the industrial building as shown in Section VII.As stated throughout this report, these elevations have already been approved through the administrative process and the building is already existing. The submitted elevations are for supplementary purposes only. 4. Fencing (UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): No additional fencing is being proposed with this application. E. Transportation Analysis 1. Access (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-3, UDC 11-3H-4): Access is existing off E. Lanark Street, an industrial collector. There are currently six(6)curb cuts that lead to access to different parts of the building. The applicant is not proposing to change any of these access points. These access points were approved with CZC-06-134. 2. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17): There is existing 5-foot-wide attached sidewalks along E. Lanark Street Avenue that meet UDC standards.Any damaged curb, gutter, or sidewalk is required to be replaced. F. Services Analysis 1. Pressurized Irrigation(UDC 11-3A-15): Underground pressurized irrigation water is required to be provided as set forth in UDC 11- 3A-15. 2. Storm Drainage (UDC 11-3A-18): Storm drainage is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-18. 3. Utilities (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-21): Both the Plan and the UDC establish policy and regulations for extending and connecting to City utilities. Goal 3.03.03G of the Plan mandates urban infrastructure be provided for all new developments,including curb and gutter, sidewalks,water and sewer utilities.All utilities for the proposed development are required to be installed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-21. IV. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. Meridian Planning Division 1. The applicant shall comply with the site plan,landscape plan, and building elevations approved with CZC-05-032, including the modifications listed below. 2. The proposed project shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-30,Public or Quasi-Public Use. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2025-0043 Page10 57 3. The site plan shall be revised to provide a 25-foot-wide drive aisle along the southern portion of the proposed parking area. This revision shall be included with the submittal of the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. 4. The applicant shall apply for a certificate of zoning compliance and alternative compliance applications prior to submitting for a building permit for the site modifications. 5. The conditional use permit is valid for a maximum period of two (2)years unless otherwise approved by the City. During this time,the Applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval,and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground as set forth in UDC 11-5B-6 A time extension may be requested as set forth in UDC 11-5B-6F. 6. Prior to occupying the space,the applicant shall obtain either a tenant improvement or certificate of occupancy fast track approval from the Building Division. V. FINDINGS A. Conditional Use(UDC 11-5B-6E) The commission shall base its determination on the conditional use permit request upon the following: 1. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. The site meets all the dimensional and development regulations of the I-L zoning district for the proposed use. Therefore, the Commission finds the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use. 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian comprehensive plan and in accord with the requirements of this title. The Commission finds the proposed use will be harmonious with the Comprehensive Plan in that it will provide additional emergency services, employment, training opportunities near State Highway 55, which will contribute to the mix of uses desired in the MU-NR Comprehensive designation as desired. 3. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. The Commission finds the design, construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed use with the conditions imposed, should be compatible with other uses in the general vicinity but may moderately change the character of the area due to the limited I-L zoning within the City. 4. That the proposed use,if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed,will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. The Commission finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the proposed use will not adversely affect other property in the area. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2025-0043 Page I I F581 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools,parks,police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal,water,and sewer. The Commission finds the proposed use will be served by essential public facilities and services as required. 6. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. The Commission finds the proposed use will not create additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. 7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes,materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic,noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. The Commission finds the proposed use will not be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by the reasons noted above. 8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction,loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. The Commission finds the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any such features. 9. Additional findings for the alteration or extension of a nonconforming use: Not Applicable. 10. That the proposed nonconforming use does not encourage or set a precedent for additional nonconforming uses within the area; and, Not Applicable. 11. That the proposed nonconforming use is developed to a similar or greater level of conformity with the development standards as set forth in this title as compared to the level of development of the surrounding properties. Not Applicable. VI. ACTION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed Conditional Use Permit per the provisions included in Section IV in accord with the Findings in Section V. B. Commission: The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard this item on October 16t1'.2025. At the public hearing.the Commission moved to approve the subject conditional use permit request. 1. Summary of the Commission public hearing: a. In favor: Mathew Navest b. In opposition: None C. Commenting: Mathew Navest d. Written testimony:None e. Staff presenting application: Nick Napoli f. Other Staff commenting on application:None 2. Key issue(s)of public testimony: CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2025-0043 Page 12 F591 a. None 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission. a. There were no issues with the discussion from Commission: However.they did ask questions about the type of training that will be occurring on the site. This resulted in no further questions or concerns. 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. None CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2025-0043 Page 13 60 VII. EXHIBITS A. Project f Overview)(link to Project Aerial1. Legend "ur ■ Project Location Area of Impact =a _ T� e 0 Analysis 1►Q4 r � �'� r, _ CITY OF OF • • OF • ORDER CASE • H-2025-0043 2. Map ! • W LegendJ LocationC-C RUT Project 40 Area of ImpactW Ac • Analysis il,�!�r► �•.. :-ter '®'�'i`� ITF n PINE ' 'lll 1!■ ■V FRANKL-IN 18 RUT 0 7-77 3. Future ■■■■ , ■■■ 1111`` ,,•�,`�• �71J IIIIIlw +`i 4fIlC �f�1� ■■■I�il I — $4 1 Use Project Lo �as uulxrra: sidential • �Ili`7 r+�f 1 i i• Area of •• •. AnalysisYI1 ) a^ flrl a • - L1�JgI�1J,j p177 _alf7lfr� ♦ y�tr,•, } :�u^��ii►z► r 1iw$�lelllE 'rl l���l' �/illlli 11it1 ►iwu1ii71111u i! ryllll PINE �� In Low i FRANKL=IN Density1► Residenticii �; Illlllll�n l` CITY OF 1 inn n una■Illlnn= �� ��ff11■.i w� 4r♦ �� wi1111ii �■■■s,.` IIJ 8� MERIDIAN1 ' 1 11' 4. Planned Development Map Legend © Project Location Area of Impact T=' City Limits Planned Parcels OAnalysis ¢ ,i ti aim 1 ' LL�91 t 1 � I i i i 1 1 V I- I CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2025-0043 Page16 63 B. Subject Site Photos Y R 3� CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2025-0043 Page 17 64 C. Service Accessibility Report 10werall Sore: 31 193rd PermnWe Location In City Limits GREEN Extension Sewer Trunkshed mains < 500 ft.from parcel GREEN Floodplain Either not within the 100 ,-fo-:�a-a-- -r y 2 acres GREEN Emergency Services Fire Response time > 9 min. RED Emergency Services Police Meets response time goals most of the time GREEN Pathways Within 114 mile of current Pathways GREEN Transit Within 114 mile of future transit route "E-A44 Arterial Road Buildout Status Ultimate€onfigLrration(#of lanes in ma=-v: s=•vv=s GREEN plan) matches existing (#of lanes) S€hooI Walking Proximity Within 112 mile walking GREEN Either a H igh School or College within 2 miles OR a S€hooI Drivability Middle or Elementary School within 1 mile driving GREEN (existing or future) Either-a Regional Park within 1 mile OR a Community Parr Walkability Park within 112 mile OR a Neighborhood Park withi- GREEN 114 mile walking CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2025-0043 Page 18 65 D. Site Plan (date: 9/4/2025) Al MERIDIAN BUSINESS CENTER 4 k 1 � I Illlli'iil mn ni OVERALL SHE PLAN CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2025-0043 Page 19 66 E. Landscape Plan(date: 9/4/2025) r.w• --inn .-- - _ _ fl mr— t 5 I - I - � I s r ll I� I _ ll � i l WEST ADDITION LANDSCAPE PLAN SEE SHEET L-1 FOR PLANT 111113113MIILA =7 LALNDSCAPE DETAUA.&NOT= I CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2025-0043 Page 20 67 H 91 7 F77 I&�1�1 17 s L �PUL-J'k'f V� LANDZQAPF PLAN CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2025-0043 Page 21 F 68] F. Building Elevations mm lo V4ZV FMF-NOUTH BSlRTCN g.�rxigu [xe7 R"ATM m TY PUd4 -- - a. - - jL - a WE9i HIRF-IIORIH 6FYk1N1N CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2025-0043 Page 22 69 ar, r,-nW AMrrEN-Harm arena 6EVATICH kj ,�. -� E �T AOpMN-ERar N7evt F1Elrpiil �� — 6 k p ° iI hil �,,vrar�a,nH-,vrar e�rvron a.ev�,ror� ��-61� CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2025-0043 Page 23 70 E K IDIAN:--- iuAn Planning and Zoning Presentations and outline h2 Planning and Zoning , 2025 th November 6Commission Meeting Slide 1 h2 Agenda Item Numbers/Order: hoodc, 12/19/2006 Zoning MapAerialFLUM Zoning MapAerialFLUM RezoneAnnexation-DeAnnexation Zoning MapAerialFLUM -strategies to reduce the opportunities of fear and incidence of crime and improve the quality of life.E. These regulations are intended to assist in the implementation of CPTED (crime prevention through environmental design) maintenance, such as large expanses of lawn or turf.conserving landscape designs and low water use plant materials and to discourage landscaping that requires high water use forter watreated potable water is expensive and less desirable for landscaping. These regulations are intended to encourage the use oft highly D. The City recognizes that surface irrigation water is not available everywhere, that seasonal availability fluctuates, and surroundings.ractive manner they prefer and the rights of City residents to live, work, shop, and recreate in pleasant, healthy, sustainable, and ty in a C. The intent of these regulations is to achieve a balance between the right of individuals to develop and maintain their proreduce air, water and noise pollution.of commercial areas, increases property values, improves the compatibility of adjacent uses, screens undesirable views, and ction time, high quality landscaping improves the livability of residential neighborhoods, enhances the appearance and customer atte B. The City of Meridian recognizes that landscaping can be a significant expense to business people and residents. At the sampreserve the quality of life, and enhance the aesthetic quality, economic viability, and environmental health of the City.ility, A. The regulations of this article are intended to promote landscaping in the City of Meridian that will improve community li1): --Landscaping (11-this standard.t (4)Support a range of leisure and play activities and uses. Irregular shaped, disconnected or isolated open spaces shall not (3)Comply with Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CTED) standards; and(2) High visibility;(1) Direct pedestrian access;have been designed. Open space areas that has been given priority in the development design have:t has been integrated into the development as a priority and not for the use of land after all other elements of the developmen“The development plan shall demonstrate that the open space 27): -3-4-Family Development (UDC11-Open Space for a Multi -and inadequate separation between utilities and infiltration trenches.ch unit, eawhether the proposed pedestrian bridge will be allowed by the irrigation district, insufficient usable private open space forfamily developments, concerns with the proposed open space being functional and -not meet the specific use standards for multidoes lack of functional integration with adjacent properties, noncompliant landscape buffers along street frontages, open space thments, a determination is based on several factors, including the applicant’s request for alternative compliance with drive aisle requThis Staff finds the site is not large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional standards of the distri district in which the use is located.proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the Conditional Use Permit #1: That the site is large enough to accommodate the -integration are not fully incorporated throughout the site. onal requirements from infiltration trenches and curbing. In addition, comprehensive plan elements such as holistic design and funcompliance to accommodate drive aisles, does not meet the private usable open space requirement, does not comply with separative family developments, is requesting alternat-development. The applicant does not comply with the specific use standards for multiposed Staff finds the annexation is not in the best interest of the city due to the site not being large enough to accommodate the Annexation #5: The annexation (as applicable) is in the best interest of the city. w IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing continued from September 18, 2025 for Cherry Blossom East Subdivision (H-2025-0030) by Breckon Land Design, located at 523 W. Cedarbug Dr. and the 0.67 acre property to the east, located in the NE 1/4 of Section 12, T.3N., R.1W. Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2025-0030 A. Request: Combined Preliminary and Final Plat consisting of three (3) building lots and one (1) common lot on 0.79 acres of land in the R-8 zoning district. 71 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE : November 6, 2025 ITEM # 4 PROJECT NAME : Cherry Blossom East Subdivision ( W2025 = 0030 ) I wish to testify Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing ( mark X ( Please Print ) HOA ? if yes ) L lore S' W � G1� 2 / / � / g c So lest er , ctleo � / �) 3 / d /✓ JP4 4 5 13 � 6 6l I emejo 7 Ober l v (0 A( t,4 8 l l 1zz17 Nw q T4 �UPD �I4\ IdS a/d 44 v ire tgre t ► � ., 9 10 11 12 13 14 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT C��fEPIDIAN*,,--, DEPARTMENT REPORT HEARING 11/6/2025 Legend �F DATE: Continued from:August 21 and Project Location September 18, 2025 "' Area of Impact1�E �= City Limits TO: Planning&Zoning Commission O Analysis FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner _ r 208-884-5533 LJ! m sallen@meridianca,ty.org �f APPLICANT: Gregg Davis,Breckon Land DesignFET E SUBJECT: H-2025-0030 qM k Cherry Blossom East Subdivision — g - r - �;�['�� LOCATION: 523 W. Cedarbur Dr. and the 0.67-acre - '� � property to the east, located in the NE 1/4 --- - of Section 12,T.3N.,RAW. (Parcel #R1386850820&#S1212120695) I. PROJECT OVERVIEW A. Summary A combined preliminary and final plat is proposed consisting of three(3)building lots and one (1)common lot on 0.79 acres of land in the R-8 zoning district. B. Issues None C. Recommendation Staff. Approval D. Decision Commission: Pending City Council: Pending City of Meridian I Department Report 1. Project Overview ■ I1. COMMUNITY METRICS Table 1: Land Use Description Details Map Ref. Existing Land Use(s) Vacant/undeveloped - Proposed Land Use(s) Single-family residential - Existing Zoning R-8(Medium-density residential) VII.A.2 Adopted FLUM Designation Medium Density Residential(MDR) VII.A.3 Table 2: Process Facts Description Details Preapplication Meeting date 1/23/2024 Neighborhood Meeting 2/25/2025 Site posting date 8/l/2025 Table 3: Community Metrics Agency/Element Description/Issue Reference Ada County Highway District • Comments Received Yes - • Commission Action Required No - • Access N.W.4'St.via a common driveway across an abutting - property outside of the plat. • Traffic Level of Service There are no current traffic counts for N.W.4t'St. - ITD Comments Received Yes(no concerns or comments) Meridian Fire Common driveway access is approved as proposed Meridian Police No comments were received Meridian Public Works Wastewater • Distance to Mainline Available at east boundary of site • Impacts or Concerns See Public Works conditions Meridian Public Works Water • Distance to Mainline Water is approximately 160' east of the site in NW 41b St. • Impacts or Concerns Ensure no trees are located within 10' of the water meter. Note: See section IV. City/Agency Comments&Conditions for comments received. III. STAFF ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code(UDC) A. General Overview The subject property is designated Medium Density Residential(MDR) on the Future Land Use Map(FLUM)in the Comprehensive Plan. The MDR designation allows for residential dwelling units at gross densities of three(3)to eight(8) dwelling units per acre. The gross density of the proposed development is 3.8 units per acre,which is at the low end of the desired density range, and complies with the Plan. The R-8 zoning of the property allows single-family detached dwellings as a principal permitted use in the district. The proposed development substantially complies with the previously approved preliminary plat, landscape plan and conceptual building elevations included in the development agreement as required. City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics ■ Table 4: Pro*ect Overview Description Details History H-2018-0018(Cherry Blossom Subdivision RZ,PP—DA Inst.#2018- 117003;TED-2020-0003—the preliminary plat expired);H-2019-0064 (FP for Cherry Blossom Sub. 1) Phasing Plan 1 Residential Units 3 single-family residential detached units Open Space/Site Amenities None is required;however,this development will be allowed to use the open space&site amenities in Cherry Blossom Subdivision to the west. Physical Features The Hunter Lateral bisects the western portion of this site. Acreage 0.79 acres Lots 3 buildable lots/l common/other lot for a common driveway Density 3.8 units/acre(gross);4.9 units/acre(net) B. History In 2018,this property was included in a rezone and preliminary plat application for Cherry Blossom Subdivision,which included the adjacent 9.81 acres of land to the west.A development agreement was approved as a provision of the rezone,which governs future development of the overall property. In 2019, a final plat was approved for Phase 1 of the subdivision,which included Lot 14,Block 2, that is part of this application. The remainder of the subject property was not included in the final plat because there were concerns with the legitimacy of the access easement across the Fusselman property from N.W. 4th St., specifically pertaining to the increased number of homes the access would serve. This property was intended to be included in a subsequent phase final plat;however, a final plat was not submitted and the preliminary plat has since expired. C. Site Development and Use Analysis 1. Existing Structures/Site Improvements (UDC 11-1): There are no existing structures or site improvements on the subject property. 2. Proposed Use Analysis (UDC 11-2): Three(3)new single-family residential detached dwellings are proposed. 3. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): Compliance with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-6 for the R-8 district is required. D. Design Standards Analysis 1. Structure and Site Design Standards (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-19): The proposed single-family detached dwellings are exempt from design standards. 2. Qualified Open Space &Amenities (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3G): Because the proposed development is below 5 acres in size,the minimum common open space and site amenity standards in the UDC do not apply. The Applicant's narrative states the new subdivision will be a part of the Cherry Blossom Place subdivision homeowner's association(HOA)to the west and will have access to the existing amenities, including a tot lot, gazebo, fire pit and grilling area. While a nice benefit for residents,there is no direct vehicular or pedestrian connectivity between the subdivisions. Residents will have to use streets and walkways outside the subdivision to access the common areas and amenities. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ Some letters of testimony have been received from residents in Cherry Blossom Place to the west objecting to this development being part of their HOA due to there not being any physical connection between the two(2) subdivisions and the burden it would place on residents of Cherry Blossom Place to have to contribute to maintenance costs of the lengthy common driveway that provides access to the lots on this property. While it makes some sense for it to be included because the overall development is governed by the same development agreement, it is a civil matter between the developer and the residents whether this property is included in the HOA. The Applicant's revised narrative states the developer is no longer proposingthe e subject development be included in the existing Carry Blossom Place HOA,nor will it share their site amenities or common open space—a new HOA will be created for the proposed development. 3. Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): No landscaping is required with the proposed development. 4. Parking (UDC 11-3C): Off-street vehicle parking is required to be provided for residential uses based on the number of bedrooms per unit(see UDC Table 11-3C-6 for more information). 5. Building Elevations (Comp Plan,Architectural Standards Manual): Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed single-family detached homes but were not included in this report because the existing development agreement, which governs future development of this property,requires future development to substantially comply with the conceptual elevations included in the agreement. Further,the DA requires all homes to be restricted to a single-story in height. 6. Fencing (UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): A 6-foot-tall closed vision fence is proposed along the east and west boundaries of the site where there is no existing fence. The Applicant's revised narrative states a 6' tall closed vision fence is proposed around the common lot with the pump station(i.e. Lot 1). A 4 feet tall open vision fenee is proposed along the southem boundar-y of the site to separate the existing 11 foot wide paved een:ffnen d4veway on the abu#iag two(2)pr-epet4ies to the sou414 fFom the driveway on the subjeet property. Staff r-eeoffffneads feneing is not provided iff that area to allow fner-e r-eem for-eraefgeney vehiele Faa-netwer-ability if needed on the abutting p pei4ies t the south with. „1.st.,,,d -a dt4yo..ay width-.- proposedF2nCing is n0 ZOn�.,er in this area. Note:Staff had encouraged the Applicant to work with the neighbors to the south on an alternate driveway design that would involve a cross-access ingress/egress easement between the properties and widening of the existing sub-standard driveway to the standard for emergency and waste disposal access to only have one driveway that would accommodate access for the two (2) existing lots as well as the three(3)proposed lots; however, the property owner(s) to the south were not interested in a shared access driveway. E. Transportation Analysis The following information on planned improvements in the area and level of service planning thresholds is from the ACHD report: ACHD Planned Improvements 1. Capital Improvements Plan (CIP)I Five Year Plan (FYP): 4' Street is scheduled in the FYP for a pavement and pedestrian improvement project from its northern terminus to W Broadway Avenue in 2025. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ Level of Service Planning Thresholds 1. Condition of Area Roadways Traffic Count is based on Vehicles per hour(VPH) Roadway Frontage Functional Classification 41h Street None Local Parkshire Way None Local 1. Access (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-3, UDC 11-3H-4): Access is proposed for the subject property via a eemme driveway within an existing 20- foot-wide perpetual access easement(Inst. #2022-004508) from N.W. 4' Street across the southern portion of the Fusselman property directly to the east at 1303 N.W. 4th St. to the subject property. A common driveway is proposed on the subject property from the existing access easement for access to the proposed lots with a turnaround for emergency and waste disposal vehicles. The final plat depicts a street name(i.e.W. Camellia Ave.)for the common driveway, which needs to be removed as common driveways cannot be named,nor was a private street application submitted with the subject application. There is an existing 30-foot-wide right-of-way(ROW) easement(Inst. #329628 and #379115)recorded along the southern boundary of the subdivision as depicted on the final plat and described in plat note#12. The Applicant's surveyor states the note is incorrect,that it's not ROW, and is an access easement that was determined to not be adequate to serve the proposed development. If encroachments are proposed within the easement area or if the easement is desired to be removed,the easement(s)should be relinquished. Note:Staff has confirmed via legal descriptions and GIS mapping that the access easement for the subject property is separate from the access easement for the parcel to the south at 1251 N.W. 4th St. (Williams'property—parcel#51212131250). The servient estate associated with the Williams'access easement is Parcel#51212131210 directly to the east of their property; the servient estate associated with the Applicant's easement is Parcel #51212120690 directly to the east of the subject property. The adjacent parcel to the south at 1247 N.W. 4th St. (owned by Hanson's) has a 30,foot-wide in rL ess-egress easement alongthe northern boundary of the property that provides access to 1251 N.W. 4th St. (Williams' property) as depicted on Record of Survey#4640; therefore, the existing sub-standard driveway on those properties could be widened to the south within the existing easement if needed. 2. Multiuse Pathways (UDC I1-3A-5): There are no pathways depicted in the Pathways Master Plan on this site. 3. Pathways (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-8): No pathways are proposed or required with the proposed development. 4. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17): No sidewalks are proposed or required with the proposed development. 5. Subdivision Regulations (UDC 11-6): Common driveways(UDC 11-6C-3D): As noted above, a common driveway is proposed for access to the three(3)proposed lots from an existing driveway via N.W. 4'St. that also provides access to the abutting property to the east at 1303 N.W. 4m Street as shown on the exhibit in Section VII.F below.A 20-foot- City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ wide perpetual access easement exists to the subject property over that property from N.W. 41 Street. Compliance with the standards in UDC 11-6C-3D for common driveways is required. The width of the existing driveway on the Fusselman property and the proposed common driveway on the subject prope . is slightly constrained due to the location of a power pole and retaining wall on the Fusselman property and a power pole on the subject property, as shown on the common driveway exhibit below in Section VII.F. Because these constraints are existing conditions,the Fire Dept. and Planning Division have approved the reduced driveway width only in those areas. The width of the driveway should be 20' in all other areas in accord with UDC 11-6C-3D. drainage at the back edge(s) of the driveway;the common di-iveway exhibit shetild be revised aeeer-diagly prior-to the City Council hear-ing to refleet a 20 foot wide flat driving stwface o aeeomfnedat . The proposed driveway is 370 feet long,which exceeds the desired length standard of 150 feet or less. Driveway lengths exceeding this standard may be allowed if approved by the Meridian City Fire Department—Fire Dept. has granted approval of the proposed driveway length. The driveway is required to be paved with a surface capable of supporting fire vehicles and equipment—plat note#78 should be amended to require maintenance of such for that purpose; the ingress/egress easement is also required to be perpetual and should be included in plat note#78 as such. The developer has stated maintenance of the common driveway will be the responsibility of the three(3)lots that take access from the driveway. The off-site driveway via N.W.41h St.providing access to the common driveway across the adjacent property to the east is currently gravel and is required to be paved with a surface capable of supporting fire vehicles and equipment if consent can be obtained from that property owner.The existing access easement between the two(2)properties states the Applicant is solely responsible for maintenance of the driveway,including the repair and replacement of pavement material and snow removal and grants access to commercial vehicles,which seems to anticipate the driveway will be paved. If consent cannot be obtained,the developer shall obtain approval from the Fire Dept.for access to the proposed subdivision prior to development. Directional signage should be provided at N.W.4"Street for emergency wayfinding purposes for the proposed lots. Permission and/or a license agreement should be obtained from ACHD if the sign is placed within the right-of-way. The proposed development is consistent with Comprehensive Plan policy#3.03.04B, "Ensure existing county enclaves provide necessary urban-level transportation and utility infrastructure as part of the annexation process." F. Services Analysis The proposed development is consistent with Comprehensive Plan policy#2.02.02,Maximize public services by prioritizing infill development of vacant and underdeveloped parcels within the City over parcels on the fringe. 1. Waterways (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-6): The Hunter Lateral bisects the western portion of this site and lies along the east side of existing Lot 14,Block 2, Cherry Blossom Place Subdivision No. 1. The lateral is proposed to be relocated and piped around the perimeter of the west lot(i.e. Lot 4-2)in accord with UDC I I-3A-6B.3;the easement for such is depicted on the plat and described in plat note#10. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ The subject property is not within the flood plain. 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. The irrigation pump for Cherry Blossom Place subdivision to the west is located along the southern boundary of Lot 1 in the proposed subdivision. The Applicant proposes to utilize the existing irrigation system to provide irrigation to the proposed development.An agreement between the two HOA's will be created to utilize and share costs in maintenance of the existing pressure irrigation system. Staff recommends the pump is placed in a common lot solely dedicated to the pump station and owned by the entity that owns and maintains the pressurized irrigation system in accord with UDC 11-3B-6E.The Applicant's narrative states the Cherry Blossom Place HOA will continue to own and operate the irrigation system. Stag r-eeemmeads the developer-obtain netar-ized wr-44ea appr-eval ffem the Cheffy Blossom Plaee Homeowner-'s Asseeiation for-the s4jeet development to use their-pump and COMM A letter of testimony was submitted from a neighbor in Cherry Blossom Place subdivision requesting an independent irrigation assessment be completed prior to approval as their irrigation pump is already struggling to keep up with the existing lots and common areas in that subdivision without the two(2) additional homes that are still being built and without adding the three(3)in this subdivision. Based on this information, Staff recommends a qualified consultant with the requisite expertise review the plans for the existing system to determine if it was built per the plan and if it's adequate to serve the existing homes plus the two(2)under construction and the three(3)in this development and submit their findings to the Planning Division; system.own the Without such approval,the subject development should provide a separate pump station.NMID has confirmed to Staff that they do not own the irri a tion system and were not involved in any way with it—it is a private user system owned by the HOA.A letter was submitted from Precision Pumping Systems who confirmed the pump station was built as designed(80 gpm (k 100 PSI) but couldn't confirm how many properties this output performance would accommodate. The letter noted the issues could be due to a source problem (delivea from canal) or perhaps the pump vault is too shallow—they didn't have the measurements to verify. The Applicant's representative states they will design the weir to ensure that the appropriate water rights are being delivered to the pump station with the proposed development. Staff recommends this is included as a condition of approval. 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. The Applicant's engineer should ensure drainage from the proposed development is retained on-site. Specifically,the Applicant shall address how drainage from the common driveway will be handled since it will abut the neighboring driveway to the south. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ 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. There is an existing 20-foot-wide sanitary sewer easement(Inst. #394632) along the east boundary of the subject property that contains an abandoned sewer main line;this easement can be relinquished if desired so as not to encumber the lot. There is another existing 20-foot-wide sanitary sewer easement(Inst. #111001639)recorded along the southern boundary of the abutting Fusselman property to the east that stubs to the subject property's east property line,which contains a sewer line that will provide service to the proposed development. Water service is available for extension from N.W. 41" Street; however,an easement for the extension of service does not exist to this property. ^ rew 30 feet wide ease net4;s neede aer-oss the Fusselman property(1303 N.W. 4'St.) in order-to extend water servine,frnm 4 > > on the nor-them !0 feet of the existing 20 feet wide sewer-easemen4 is needed in order-to pr-ON4de a 10 foot separation between a4er-a-a sewer-lines,Water service lines are proposed to be extended from the existing main line in N.W.4" St.to the proposed lots.Additionally, a fire service line will connect to the existing main line in N.W.4' St.to provide sprinklered fire protection to Lot 2,which is furthest from the existing hydrant on N.W.4'St. P41ie War-ks' Department to deteiTnine other-possible eptieos to provide water sei-7viee to the Altemafi"Iy, if an easement eannot be obtained,the developer-shall eeer-dinate with the IV. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. Meridian Planning Division 1. Future development shall comply with the provisions in the existing development agreement for Cherry Blossom Subdivision recorded as Inst. #2018-117003. 2. The final plat shall be revised as follows: i. Note#-78: Include a note requiring maintenance of a paved surface capable of supporting fire vehicles and equipment on Lot 4 in accord with UDC 11-6C-3D.8. Also, include the ingress/egress access easement on Lot 4 is perpetual. Include that Lot 4 will be owned by the Homeowner's Association and the common driveway on Lot 4 shall be maintained by the owners of Lots 2,3 and 5. Fusse . an) at 1303 N.W. ^fit St., depiet a new 30 feet wide eembined sewer-and wate i r9 � N���t"ct for-ex4e s;,,r ''cirs'cxix'cixr-cciv�3�ch�5•vuch@�3�vu�aa 3�'�9�chP p P�•�+ 1�� of wac@f ser-viee from 41 C't 011., 20 feet wide..me-easement,,,, fe fr-of, the existing sewer-line, on the nei4hem 10 feet of the existing 20 feet wide sewer-easement shall be provided in order-to provide a 10 feet sepafa&)a between watef and live-r-1-ines. The feeer-ded iastnimefA fmmber-of the easement shall be ineltided as a note on the plat. Altematively> if an easement eannot be obtained, the developer-sha4l eeer-dina4e with the P4he Works' Depaftmea4 to detefmiae other-possible options to provide wa4er-sefviee the site. iii. Remove the private street name(i.e. W. Camellia Ave.) from the plat as common driveways cannot be named. City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions ■ iv. Remove any existing easements that have been relinquished and include a note(s)with the recorded instrument number of the relinquishment(s). v. The irrigatieft„um„ depietea on Lot 1 on which the irrigation pump is located that serves Cherry Blossom Place subdivision and the proposed Cherry Blossom East subdivision shall be depietoa in a eemmen solely dediea4ed to the pump station a-ad owned by the entity that owns and maintains the pressurized irrigation system in accord with UDC 11- 3B-6E. vi. Modify note#1 as follows: ". . . a ten(10) foot wide permanent public utilities and property drainage easement in hereby designated along all lot lines common to awe sweet the common driveway. . ." vii. Water service lines shall be depicted from the existing main line in N.W. 41h St. to the proposed building lots.A fire service line shall be provided from the existing main line to Lot 2,the furthest lot to the west, for an automatic fire sprinkler system as an alternative to providing another fire hydrant within the required distance to service this lot. The revised final plat shall be submitted with the final plat for City Engineer signature. 3. The landscape plan shall be revised as follows: dr-i�ve The fencing has been removed. ii. Ensure no trees are located within 10-feet of the water meter; revise plan accordingly. 4. Directional signage shall be provided at N.W. 4th Street for emergency wayfinding purposes for the proposed lots. If placed on private property or in the right-of-way permission shall be obtained from the property owner and/or a license agreement,—shall be obtained from Ada County Highway District and submitted with the final plat application. 5. All homes shall be restricted to a single-story in height as set forth in the development agreement and shall generally comply with the elevations included in the agreement as shown in Section VILH below. 6. If encroachments are proposed in the 30-foot-wide right-of-way(ROW) easement(Inst. #379115 and#329628)depicted on the final plat across the southern boundary of the subdivision and described in plat note#12 or if the easement is desired to be removed,the easement shall be relinquished. Proof of such relinquishment shall be submitted with the final plat for City engineer signature if the easement is removed from the plat. 7. The existing 20-foot-wide sanitary sewer easement(Inst. #394632)along the east boundary of the subject property that contains an abandoned sewer main line may be relinquished if desired so as not to encumber the lot. Proof of such relinquishment shall be submitted with the final plat for City Engineer signature if the easement is removed from the plat. 8. The Hunter Lateral shall be piped around the perimeter of the west lot(i.e. Lot 4 2) in the subdivision as proposed accord with UDC 11-3A-6B.3. All other irrigation ditches, laterals, sloughs or canals, intersecting, crossing or lying within the area beingdeveloped,eveloped, shall also be piped, or otherwise covered. 9. Signage shall be installed that prohibits parking in the fire turnaround area on the common driveway in Lot 4. City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions ■ 10. The Applicant's engineer shall ensure drainage from the proposed development is retained on-site. Specifically,the Applicant shall address how drainage from the common driveway will be handled since it will abut the neighboring driveway to the south. 11. In accord with the recorded access easement(Inst. #2022-004508)and UDC 11-6C-3D.4,the developer shall pave the existing driveway via N.W.4th St. on the adjacent property to the east at 1303 N.W. 4th St. with a surface capable of supporting fire vehicles and equipment if consent can be obtained from that property owner.Notarized written consent shall be submitted with the final plat application. If consent cannot be obtained,the developer shall obtain approval from the Fire Dept. for access to the proposed subdivision prior to development. 12. A qualified eonsultant with requisite e*perienee shall review the irrigation system plans to ensure it is adequate to serve the e*isting Cherry Blossom Place development as well as the proposed Cheffy Blossom East development a-ad submit their-findings to the A Division; or-, an approval letter-shall be submi4ed fFom Nampa Mer-idian lfFiga4km 11 List—vie-4 (NNUP) f they own the system.Without st+eh approval,the subjeet development shall pr-ovi The developer shall modify the water supply into the existing pump station to ensure full water rights are received for supplying all lots in Cherry Blossom Place and Cherry Blossom East subdivisions with adequate irrigation. 13. if the existing inigation system for-Cheffy Blossom Plaee is deteffflined by the qualified eensultant to be adequate to also seiwe the proposed stibdivision,wfitten notarized eansent proposed development to tise their-if+igatien ptHnp and eenneet to their-presstifized irFigati syste +.An agreement shall be required between the two homeowner's associations(i.e. Cherry Blossom Place and Cherry Blossom East)to utilize and share costs in maintenance of the existing pressureirrigation system that will serve both developments. Proof of such agreement shall be submitted to the Planning Division with the application for final plat signature. 14. Staff s failure to cite all relevant UDC requirements does not relieve the applicant from compliance. 15. The combined preliminary/final plat approval shall become null and void if the applicant fails to either: 1)obtain the City Engineer's signature on a final plat within two years of the date of the approved findings; or obtain approval of a time extension as set forth in UDC 11-6B-7. 16. An automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed for the dwelling on Lot 2,the furthest lot to the west,in accordance with the applicable NFPA 13 standard. Plans for the design of the fire sprinkler system are required to be submitted to the Fire Dept. for review and approval. Installation inspections of the sprinkler system will be carried out by the Fire Dept. See the Agency Comments folder contained in the project file in the public record for other City Department and Agency comments and conditions: (copy the link into a separate browser) https://weblink.meridiancituor.e/WebLinkIBrowse.aspx?id=404889&dbid=0&repo MeridianCi tv V. FINDINGS A. Combined Preliminary and Final Plat(UDC-6B-6) In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat, the decision-making body shall make the following findings: City of Meridian I Department Report V. Findings ■ 1. The plat is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and is consistent with this unified development code; Stafffinds the proposed plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and will be consistent with the UDC if the Applicant complies with the above-noted conditions. 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Stafffinds that sewer service exists to the site and water service can be made available to the site. Public services 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 proposed plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's CIP. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Stafffinds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development. 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and Stafffinds the proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. Staff is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that need to be preserved with this development. V1. ACTION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed combined preliminary and final plat with the conditions included above in Section IV. B. Commission: The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard this item on August 21,2025.At the public hearing,the Commission moved to continue the subject PFP request to a later hearing date. 1. Summary of Commission public hearing_ a. In favor: Jon Breckon, Breckon Land Design,Applicant's Representative b. In opposition: None C. Commenting: Marjie Williams,Janet Reese,Dennis Gil,Justin Williams d. Written testimony: Gary&Janet Columba Janet&Doug Reese;Katelin Bartles, attorney representing the Williams's family, Dennis Gil,Margie Williams, Kimberly&Daniel Laukala e. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen f. Other Staff commenting on application:None 2. Key issue(s) testimony a. Concern about traffic safety, irrigation tie-ins with the existing Cherry Blossom Place development and inclusion of the subject property in the Cherry Blossom Place HOA. b. Concern pertaining to the location of the access easement for the driveway and possible encroachment on the properties to the south and provision of a fence between the properties that would prohibit Fire Dept. access to the properties to the south—these issues have been resolved,a fence is not being allowed and the access easements have been verified to not conflict. City of Meridian I Department Report VI. Action ■ c. Request for an independent irrigation assessment to be conducted due to concern pertaining to the existing irrigation pump already struggling to o keep up with the homes and common area in Cherry Blossom Place without two(2) additional homes in that development,which are yet be constructed, and the three (3)additional homes in this development. d. Request for an access road to be added to provide a connection between Cherry Blossom Place and the proposed development due to concern that the irrigation. pump that provides irrigation for Cherry Blossom Place is located on a building lot in the proposed subdivision that won't be accessible to residents since there is no direct access between the subdivisions. e. Opposition to the proposed development being included in the existing Cherry Blossom Place HOA due to there being no physical connection between developments,maintenance costs associated with the lengthy access driveway from N.W. 4'St.to serve the proposed homes and delay the proposed development would have on residents taking over management of the HOA,which has been unsatisfactorily handled by the developer to date. f. Concern pertaining to emergency and trash service access to existing residences on the abutting properties to the south being impacted by proposed development. 3. Ke, ids)of discussion by Commission: a. 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. None 5. Outstandin issue(s) for City Council: a. None C. City Council: Pending City of Meridian I Department Report VI. Action ■ ' 1 1 - v � LLI • - - - IF CHERRY - FAIRVIEW` r � .Jia , I••I ��� 1=} e ti, 1� � 'PINE �1f' �.II. ` L 1•��1t--'�':a 1� £ ITT inn■■wlalla■a■■ — 11lr11f1r/IInEEEE11 Iu "i..:...�_.:-- E111.■. �nui■.Lenl! '•' • ■■■■■nmu .���'�����w �G nnnuq�� � mwm nun n ➢:::: ::iliili�j= ��t� �f r r� n11 1 nnnun inn 1 • 1 �■�►f u1 noun!_:■■■ ■■::::■ir ■■anon e= 1-==�.■►►■i rig ►h 1�1:�:__ 0 1 �4:►.0 udi ►:1■■ our►��y1■annnr 111 ■ii:■��IIIIr4,���,p ►.■',a7 llin ■.Aj■ar!!\�,`■j�+fllrinw■ • � �1n1 1■■iiri■■■■a! 1/'J�Illllllllli, •_.�■.nu nnnaa■■T.. -�•■rat !umnlunnu�rinnununu,r • � wnn_ 11111n111a��■■ • �1�1i■■\��� i � 11 r r ��1111110 w �� ��■■i:: noon�� :,a��! /■.� -- !s i!�� tin.. p nn1 In ny �► ■►.u■■■■■iau n EI■ na i�•■ wr ■A1 a�❑.•�111IIICHERRY + .� _ FA•IRV'IEW i Q p 4►'Li Co::.111i�L -:ullq�n j:�'��i ani.■�= � 1 ,. �a�.�-�. nn■■■llro: �anuu■__r 1 �irtil=��� �� !■poi u➢iiii i ��1Erll/ram: ■■a■nrrW 11�f�-=' 1 ji`I !■.n•y3.�>•....�� _ I �g`����.r •Igawn�■nnauo■ !1m■E`::1 11 �♦ ♦�4�*r p ,� l r �j��Aiu1r■ ■/nnni '�Im i 1 ► ♦ .. n[I1n■� � O 1 I'r-1 • p/�s; /ili■nlr� i//1■// Z _ ♦�=Mrf1�•/[uu■7 p @_ Ill1-'�■:.■[xn i w r ♦I 1ui11tlr • •11 ^=■/r/IEaI■■■�n� ■ ,=�■q[b MEN .7 �® 1 i� l�11O 11111 nnm..■n o r11 r Innnw l� ■ � u■y ■ ■::�p nn riio.� �e■�uo rr.�an■1\�i�a■w•••••' p ICI� tly=■a yll�//an ■■■■■r�w !!aL■■nn��//.///:.O� 1� a fE- w \ Jn lulu/ ///IEEIff �fffllflfi' Eun111l11 A■■= r 111■■. ■■■ f111 nn p�Q n!■wl■aa■■a■ /ff■ ■� ■f■ an �IS.unlnn■n. V� ■EEIn i n/��N■�■a■lano 1 ■■. ■inlf 1._:nnwru� �1 PIINE nuniu■r� n _ m� N - f��■• u 11111111■.�■11:1:i�Enl II�.Z HUII IIL1 I. ■ E =mm � -iA� A 1 - - /11111■I rnmi■■!i■ _ � nun r■.m n7u■nu■�r..... _ �r uuu■u unAln■n im 1 n[■1 r::y.■r..�:.IAlllgl�C a*f� ��a• IIIIn�.■■■L :r ri�� r�un11n-- : '•r•. +�rrr O - ��■.nu■r►♦1 ' • - • • ■n[�, ■rra/jl�p► r;I lip iii��11■ ♦�Ija - 1. 1♦ - � rl rrrr��i.��18 � �r■a♦I r r,� • ■■ 1 - - • - • •rprr•Irii�il7lii�T r r:i;::,:Io ININ 11 1 " I, 1111111111E MIN III r - illllni: r=„w■.:r nE�n�uiii -F■ ..V•'j.♦ - •- • - `sue ii;��� Issis 1 ny �,ln.�. :�■■■♦�/ ■PENNON.■■:iva i CQ MIN HERR oil Y ���, F41RVYEW i ...Ir MIN:■i He: -:luny 71 ����t . - • �Q Vinm■�ON■ON+ �nnnnp r 1 ry�ti IF-Ea■n ap11•nn■,�■ Er[■ONONWn�re::1 � \ � ._-. ■ 1•■..+ ♦♦rj�i■u■n y nN MEON■.amill nnn[: I 1� �♦ .3w .-, �drl ... ♦6. r 'in#IdZ111111111 i111 'ii�=11 '11�I'��■iy.��nui NN a7/ OIIM M!■l .. 1■fie ♦ .InmU1► spy .■NN■mi.■■■.��i� fNvO� r�: • y♦:p0!'�hrnm J .. .+.n■n■■..w!■■■ � �. sn. ■a% ...:■Ili Win- i■ioi:. .■.■.■a o:A .■a -n--i rrr f1I/ r■■_#■::S.n.. C ' ar INN! 4u a}/lour..►■nuns\: .nmu rn r■■nr■■ MMO■■IIII ■ ...... :■1■nun �■■um.IIA�� _�. ■■■■.In 'Mill '•♦9�i♦�i♦�i♦•r�q�?� ., ■■...". ■ .. :Iiili Ili :I _.� ♦♦♦��i'♦i�iyi�..=:: `"='_ "11ui 1 nC nm m1 1 r '♦'.•..L.[:��: _ nlu,..�rrin a: Z Ir�lu nm �7A1i..........lt�• 2011 i ■nPi1l.n►a Ill.nni■iiiiiii■iil ■i■■1#Ilr t�:�1■n■■■. ■■..n ■. _•- ..:•■■■ �� .f//I7...rZ"'""`.�_ .uuuuw nnui nny ■■■n111.r.■in■.■_r 'f! 41.�!■r ! 7 0' a ■111111 n11111■■1.■■■� ■■+.nn='nlnnq=- C�ft 1+♦i!fi�#1•iSf a'1 nnn uuu+lly�o.�. ....■.•�� -_ � .►#•� • ►per I�i� _ nw::.:�.■Nun. ■■���■■lull Ili a ra r1 11 f1.` - - • ■■r`a 11p ani4.- :r is a�■I 4 Illj/ r 01 _ _//11111111 n■■ ♦♦.■11■A■■■ .uu'.■.■.■. r#•i f ♦�. 1#1 ���.. ,n11.■■v� n■ 1♦ rill[ra+r+1.iP■■ • �•i 'I FII •- ■ �.o r •. . .. rr, �' .>rr���..nnErr+• n■■ 1r 9 rpu=_•1.. ♦ -a.■■qA• j� ■IEEE r f1.■■■■■■ ��.■.■��� �� 11n�'� ■ rr A✓; ■■ • ,•■■■q11...:�:au[u♦a•:rIs■■■n■■ ► .o■� ♦ 1\mail■■. . 11, I nnnn ■■■�kl�rm��Iuu■■■■tea••_- - --•q■Ir■1i Wr I u►\�uu�. hIm 1 ruuum.mo■.::r.:u:x:u:: 111111:_�f1..�"�.�■u■ . ��r��lumnun111, In1A1A.. • • -• '• nuuu■wp u: .•■�w�� �s �a�nu■�= �■noun :mull •1.nm�■:a w� �� � CH E. IN 10- _ ► : � . ■■■■ IIIII+=n ,�. . 111[■ � ��• 1"•� •IIIII! 4Q1 r♦A[■■■■ 11�:-1' 1 ��i�j\irk �� �i 1.�a711■NN ♦♦ In.■n� Ill ■Jm�■r 1 li"'♦'C�.1:...... ::: � ..�= 1 1 tea.. ___ANON.#■■ � l01��.I 9 f��♦�'. ■I.u.n•=.._�� 14. r w A■i■#■■ _ ■■ ♦♦~ •}1�•¢nnn:.__ �-- i_�■�iq i■uurr Poi '� 1111 GIII ■ Ilii r1.■#. IF:.',���it =� r ■► s*i•nlmlu sill] tr 1.IHl ...■n■n.rr■■■ /1N . ::::n.�..J �'s:fr .1♦�pnr►- J �.. _:■uuurrE�■i CR r f rlr: ....I II I m 5- o�iayl.:•■ -■ul :•` oosw.. :■■■Eli :inuunn._C IM. n���a► %1v ♦r w►"/r :::■111 _ ■i■.■:: :u■iNN.:IA r■Ilrtl��p.........�C IPA# 111#1 Ir' 1■y�fl■ .IlC�I-IC r ``I ■uo : :■uluuu■■#A MAN IN ■\O j IIIII I■-��r O Irl•■. pn1aW�9 Mmi.nni ■1111111.9 :n■.11u1.■■■. : .■nn A. all ■a■I#In ■.■: :loon r��IS oil r 1 ■fii UI�: ������� '��'�'r�i■1 u a� ■■ uuxnE 1 /III: '1■■�.10 1►�I i v11m PION E Einlr�I■1_='.ulninnl�N n■I 1 I: .1 Ir .u:inm nml�NN �':�NI 11=. 1#In rulNNlli_r'Nrlr�gllln 111! ME:111:IRIS 1:1�11111 1 �� �u u11111�tlnu.IL.n 1 ■:111A1 milli NNIIPIII �h" O ■,,�. . oil ■n 11 up10.■111111 n�C:: p um m,!■w I I♦♦ ill■InsIi11111111M:�1#11:1:# IIIIu lllll;116 .�I� i -I NO Ii iHill ill= B. Service Accessibility Report PARCEL S1212120 95 SERVICE ACCESSIBILITY Overall Score: 28 28th Percentile Description Location In City Limits PREEN Extension Sewer Trunkshed mains < 500 ft. from parce GREEN Floodplain Either not within the 100 SFr floodrlain or , 2 acres GREEN Emergency Services Fire Response time > 9 min. RED Emergency Services Police Meets response time goals most c,_ :�� til--e 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 I GREEN plan) matches existing (-# of lanes) 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) Park Walkability No park within walking distance by park type RED Reportgenerabed on 08-11-2C25 by MERIDIAMsalle- City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ C. Preliminary Plat(date: 5/7/'25 84412 M 10/31/2025)-REVISED IVId Adb'NINMUd id-Id AddNINI-13ad Zb989 (II NVIOlU3wCL IS HIV MN f� 1SV3 WOSSO Add3H0 a' S - } I N- f � I s, � LU W w tl LU I I d I I J � 6 I'•. fi I f r QW a l.,.L Lj li ill. T o CO N � aQ w >ram w J , i iI it 2 1 ❑3 J [ 1 LO LL CC p G = N ❑ J g I II ! 8g _Lu r— ________r_ Z � d y �: N �� � m!I I ' w (if LU cr LU 8 Hill HIM HIM Cc EL z z t I r 3 I I I I I Ir II p J r'N Ek City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ D. Landscape Plan(date: 5/7/2025 821/7025 10/31/2025) NV 3dd)SGNV 11 Zb9£8 01 'NNIGIU3W �;kl 1S Hlb MN 1Sd3 WOSSO-10 AHH3HO ills a J n m W �F € a - - so 13 3W�SHII—irMIN—t—5 so $ m s a - - - LU Z t ` F a 9 W �" k k s �' �� R Wg j QJW as 3 & m� sa w rSr a $ 1--- 5� 5 ! 8 8y g 00 It §❑WCaC 5 3m Y.o,Eo lI�`�`1y$'ad�E ��I,Y gwA=AYA�sEz�p�L � €°gl;�.a��� a�"a ¢Wa�O gl�a ;m- _ 9 3g,P FyR>F��Y '5•_�" ■II- -r CC aF- =ge j 6 = Ea w wa 3' � Impmn i a � "g � . "'$ LL€9w O Cg As 0 € F Q Ir . a & —$ € P 5 --r i- CO Z �:3 CL i A$ °_. Ni BoN MI Za Hi� z-im POmW °sus q �B � qY 1 '� 1't Y F RS - m 4 __ w€Q e=� gHIM a s �� Qa s mo I T z City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ H S¥i3 O 3d ONV g i !) zee G %wOU3a � /" ! , §7 � IS Hi# ¥N — � Q&K � 2 1 b NOS O S A Bay - � ` � � ° ( ` \ ±i / � lip ; 0 \ ! /` ( lipg w0o( �yz y j _) (£° E\§ . LU( (^ %§ ( IL_ a m , City of Meridian Department Reprt V t Exhibits � E. Final Plat(date: 12/13/2025 s/b 12/13/2024 8'71/2025 11/2/2025) N IxtEa ti - P! 4 I 4�OL 5 O •,� m J -0 4 m p J J fit+ 0> `Z7 � �s• 3 I �kyy� i I� � G E 4 T ram, �Z � 4 !CL•�•u] or�i FA+L.L O 47 .s 1�98FLYL.GOG m ••`�'.]U p) L! vORdd O it 16 n �I .ii+er 1srr- — Q o _---`------- & l s1 Boo ■ • , 0Q n S'- 8 AnL• OI 8 Y r N N pol�IPIrN'N `a An4 $� €ce 5 RP 2 o i- i R ^i•a in r -tt+t ai.zLxza�--, �a�b��rega s iaJ I I. � 6�4capL •�8 7ga — 5 Ni I r z' s g S J-ph L e� �gGe`�. � ?X t ��(d•�11 A44� yi� .S ■���8� �S�a �FS �� 6m 3 '1 AOL � 5i d� � Lj � SE S�fi _-8 _�•s a J �. -------------L----I I [o•I•MI SsElfi $ z: a fill W;J�gi 4yyiippy$y$2 OIL �y I rL Pd PP& 88 it a1 [i Li 10jil,J) 11 1S' y8e € a` a YYE!$ill N i iI31 1 s5! g� d b l S W. City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ F. Common Driveway Exhibit(date: 5"rte '�5 Q'" -REVISED 1191HX3 3AIHCI NOW WOO e °`I Zti9£8 al 'NVIGIH3W " gam e4 � i t IS Hit, MN s w s X &E 1SVd] W0SSO-13 Add3HOLd w ` LLI 3 133H1S Hill MN 4 ❑ Z z01 a� L J - � , p m 1 J l l F = I i I 0 J X I I I Q w I ' -------------- F'I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IW I I aim 9 I I nvar�p¢ z 0 II1 M I 18 1 1 III r L 3 I I e I I I I I I II I I II I I s azal S I I I I I ilxew I I I I I I� era I i it I I---- ---- --a F 8 I I I X� I I I W I + 1 w 9 I ❑ 1 I3opu J� 1 ��,re �. 1U I I I I j I I I + US City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ G. Photos of Access Driveway EL Existin • Driveways • 1" photo • ••• maps ••" 't show power pole&retaining wall shown 1" • Fusselman Property—Existing power pole&retaining wall City i ►t x of MeridianDepartment R"1• Exhibits E IDIAN;--- Applicant Presentation Cherry Blossom East IDAHO, MERIDIAN Subdivision H 8 zoning district-the RPreliminary Plat consisting of 3 building lots and 2 common lots on 0.79 acres in Combined Preliminary / Final Plat (PFP)0030 Cherry Blossom East Subdivision-2025- Planning and Zoning Hearing up Items-Follow provide clarity to neighbors’ concerns The Commission moved to continue the request to a later hearing date to address or St. No easement is needed for service lines.th extended from the water main in NW 4the dwelling on lot 2 (furthest buildable lot from hydrant) and water service lines to lots 3 & 5 will be Water main extension is not needed with no new hydrant. A fire service line will be extended to Solution: St is sprinklered th not needed if houses >400’ from the existing hydrant on NW 4Meeting with developer, planning, city lawyer, public works, and fire to determine that a new hydrant is Existing access easement was determined to NOT cover utility extensionsEasement for Water Main ExtensionAugust 21, 2025– Public Utilities Water ServiceProposed 1” 4” Fire ServiceWater MainExisting Water Service2x Proposed 1” St)th NW 4(furthest lot from fire hydrant on 4” fire service to sprinkler lot 2 meter on west property line for lot 2Connect service line to existing 5St for lots 3 & th water main in NW 4Connect service lines to existing WATER INFRASTRUCTURE existing pressure irrigation system that will serve both developmentsBlossom Place HOA and Cherry Blossom East HOA to utilize and share costs in maintenance of the Sharing Agreement has been drafted between the Cherry -A Letter of Consent and CostSolution: and connect to their pressurized irrigation systemHomeowner’s Association for the proposed development to use their irrigation pump Request for a written notarized consent to be submitted from the Cherry Blossom Place delivered to the pump stationThe weir for the pump water supply was redesigned to ensure that the full water rights are being the additional three (3) Cherry Blossom East lotsIrrigation capacity calculations were verified to be sufficient for the 44 Cherry Blossom Place lots plus 80gpm @ 100 PSIcity stating that the pump station was built as designed and can effectively produce the required Steven Laidlaw of Precision Pumping Systems performed a site evaluation and provided a letter to the Solution:serve the existing homes plus the three (3) in this developmentfor the existing irrigation system to determine if it was built per plan and adequate to Staff request for a qualified consultant with the requisite expertise to review the plans conflict, and keep improvements within the 20’ wide access easement across the property to the east2’ mountable curb) east of onsite power pole to maintain site drainage control, address power pole Approval granted from planning and fire to reduce overall width to 20’ (18’ asphalt driving surface with turnaround west of the onsite power poleProposed common driveway has 20’ wide asphalt driving surface with 2’ mountable curb, with approved Meridian Fire Department requires 20’ wide driving surface with approved turnaroundSolution: are being metRequest for a Common Drive Exhibit to show how the Emergency Access Requirements path and turnaround through the siteTurn to show truck -development site plans were created with Auto-development and Post-PreSolution: existing conditions as well as after improvementsRequest to provide clarity regarding fire and garbage truck access to the site with Pre driveway standard common -due to subproject property for turnaround existing homes requires utilizing Fire and garbage truck access to Access Emergency Development - Emergency new and existing homesaccess & turnaround provided to Paved fire truck and garbage truck ImprovementAccess September 10 Neighborhood Meeting responsible for the maintenance of the proposed common drivewayCherry Blossom Place, will not have access to amenities in Cherry Blossom Place, and will be solely Restated from the hearing that Cherry Blossom East will have its own HOA, separate from Solution: be responsible for maintenance of the proposed common drivewaywant them to have access to Cherry Blossom Place amenities, and don’t want to Neighbors don’t want new lots to be a part of Cherry Blossom Place HOA, don’t adequateDeveloper wants to maintain three (3) buildable lots and feels access provided is Solution: Cherry Blossom East point of accessHOA access from the north to walk to the pump station rather than drive to Request to convert lot 2 (buildable) into a park to allow Cherry Blossom Place up Items-Follow Developer agrees to split cost with neighbors to the north if a new fence is desiredSolution: Request for new 6’ cedar fence on the north property line of Cherry Blossom EastCity Arborist Kyle YoritaCherry Blossom Place boundary line, and all trees onsite will be removed with no mitigation required per We are working with Idaho Power to relocate the power pole and guy wires to be south of the Solution: vehicle access to the pump stationNeighbors asking about the existing trees and power pole guy wires that could block Developer agrees to turn over HOA with approval of Cherry Blossom EastSolution: can address landscape maintenance as they see fitNeighbors want Cherry Blossom Place HOA turned over to the neighborhood so they October 8 Neighborhood Meeting intentionsto the President of the HOA confirming his th Developer provided the below letter on October 16Solution: Blossom East approval by the City of MeridianBlossom Place HOA would be turned over to the neighborhood at the time of Cherry Neighbors expressed that they would like written confirmation that the existing Cherry up Items-Follow Cherry Blossom East where the power box is locatedThe common lot containing the irrigation pump, lot 1, extends to the west boundary line of Solution: maintenanceAccess is needed to the Irrigation Pump power box to Cherry Blossom Place HOA for as the legal description in Exhibit B defines the property to be accessedGrantor, Carolee Fusselman. Deputy City Attorney, Kurt Starman, stated that the agreement is still valid Developer attempted to correct the language but was unable to obtain the signature of the Solution: Cherry Blossom Subdivision’, which is not accurate and should be updated004508, references ‘lots 16, 17 and 19 of the -#2022Access Easement Agreement, resubmitted to the cityAlso being a requirement of City of Meridian, the project narrative was updated and Solution: since initial submittalNeighbors requested that the narrative submitted to the city be updated with changes Thank You! Site Location PROJECT SITEPROJECT SITE SiteProject South of W Cherry Ln Future Land Density Residential zoneProperty resides in Medium Use Map Zoning Map 4 zoning to the south and east-RDensity Residential8 Medium -Property is zoned R Schools MERIDIAN ELEMENTARYMERIDIAN MIDDLE SCHOOLMERIDIAN HIGH SCHOOL Project Site 0.7 miles–Meridian Elementary School 0.6 miles–Meridian Middle School 1.2 miles–Meridian High School Emergency DEPARTMENTMERIDIAN POLICE DEPARTMENTMERIDIAN FIRE Project Site 2.2 miles–Meridian Police Department 0.9 miles–Meridian Fire Department Services Proposed Site Cherry Blossom Place0.19 AC), consistent with -(0.178,372 SF -Lot size from 7,235 family residential lots-3 single0.79 AC site Plan Public Utilities gravity mainExisting gravity mainProposed 8” 8” sewer main within the sitedriveway at property lineConnect to existing main in SEWER INFRASTRUCTURE Irrigation Proposed PI LineExisting PI LineStationExisting Pump all common & residential lotsProvide pressure irrigation stubs to Blossom Place Subdivisionstation, to be shared with Cherry Connect to existing irrigation pump Improvements Common Driveway ElevationMatch Existing rolled curb and gutter onsiteProposed 20’ asphalt driveway with (south)Existing 11’ concrete driveway offsite Improvements Elevations Elevations Elevations W IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing continued from October 2, 2025 for Apex Cadence (H-2024- 0061) by Brighton Corporation, generally located south of E. Lake Hazel Rd. and west of S. Locust Grove Rd., including 6575 S. Locust Grove Rd. Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2024-0061 A. Request: Modification to the existing Development Agreement (Inst. 42020-178120) to replace it with a new agreement for the subject property and to include specific design requirements. B. Request: Annexation of 0.86 acres of land with an R-15 zoning district. C. Request: De-Annexation of 0.52 acres of land from the City to Ada County. D. Request: Rezone of 56.11 acres of land from the R-8 to the R-15 zoning district. E. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 228 single-family residential building lots, 41 common lots and 16 other lots on 51.50 acres of land in the proposed R-15 zoning district with private streets in the gated portion of the development. F. Request: Planned Unit Development with a request for deviations to certain street, side, and rear yard building setbacks and to allow more than 100 dwelling units in a gated community. 93 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE : November 6, 2025 ITEM # 5 PROJECT NAME : Apex Cadence ( H - 2024 = 0061 ) I wish to testify Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing ( mark X ( Please Print ) HOA ? if yes ) 1 ' , � �1da �ll1� JVy e Z°Iz�l w Nq � � qter ('af l i co �� � 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT C��fEPIDIAN*,­, DEPARTMENT REPORT HEARING 11/6/2025 - DATE: Vacated from 312012025 agenda; continued from 1012125 TO: Planning&Zoning Commission FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 - �@ , t__ I 7 sallen@meridiancity.org -i - APPLICANT: Brighton Corporation SUBJECT: H-2024-0061 Legend �. Project Location Apex Cadence(aka Pinnacle)—ALT, ;:: Area of Impact MDA,PUD,PP,RZ,PS City Limits e `` ©Analysis LOCATION: 6575 S. Locust Grove Rd.,in the NE 1/4 of Section 6,T.2N.,R.IE. (Parcel #S1406110355 &a portion of #S1406110016) I. PROJECT OVERVIEW A. Summary The Applicant has submitted the following applications: • Modification to the existing development agreement(Inst. #2020-178120)to replace it with a new agreement for the subject property and to include specific design requirements; • Annexation of 0.86 acres of land with an R-15 zoning district; • De-annexation of 0.52 acres of land from the City to Ada County; • Rezone of 56.11-acres of land from the R-8 to the R-15 zoning district; • Preliminary Plat consisting of 228 single-family residential building lots,41 common lots and 16 other lots on 51.5-acres of land in the proposed R-15 district with private streets in the gated portion of the development; and • Planned Unit Development with a request for deviation to certain building setbacks and to allow more than 100 dwelling units in a gated community. B. Issues/Waivers The Applicant requests the following approvals from City Council: • Approval of a private street(i.e. E. Bingley Ln.)connection to an arterial street(i.e. S. Locust Grove Rd.). UDC 11-3F-4B.2 prohibits private street connections to an arterial street, unless otherwise allowed by the decision-making body as part of a concurrent hearing level application and approved by the transportation authority. City of Meridian I Department Report 1. Project Overview ■ • Approval to exceed the maximum block face standard in UDC 11-6C-3F of 1,000 with a pedestrian connection for Block 1,a portion of which lies along the Rawson Canal. C. Recommendation Staff. Approval per the conditions noted in Section IV below. Commission: Pending D. Decision Council: Pending I1. COMMUNITY METRICS Table 1:Land Use Description Details Map Ref. Existing Land Use(s) Agricultural - Proposed Land Use(s) Single-family residential detached&attached dwellings - Existing Zoning R-8 (Medium-density residential) VII.A.2 Proposed Zoning R-15 (Medium high-density residential) Adopted FLUM Designation Medium Density Residential(MDR);Medium-High VII.A.3 Density Residential(MHDR);Mixed-Use Community (MU-C) Table 2: Process Facts Description Details Preapplication Meeting date 9/23/2024 Neighborhood Meeting 9/6/2024 Site posting date 3/4/2024 Table 3: Community Metrics Agency/ Description/Issue Reference Element Ada County Error! Highway District Reference source not found. • Comments Yes - Received • Commission No - Action Required • Access S.Locust Grove Rd.and E.Via Roberto St. - • Traffic Better than"E" - Level of Service TIS Required No ITD Comments Yes Error! Received Reference source not _ found. Meridian Public Error! Works Reference Wastewater source City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics ■ not found. • Distance to Available at site Mainline • Impacts or See Public Works' site-specific conditions Concerns Meridian Public Error! Works Water Reference source not found. • Distance to Available at site Mainline • Impacts or Each phase of development will need to be modeled to verify minimum fire flow Concerns pressure is maintained. See Public Works' site specific conditions. School See comments in the public record Error! District(s) Reference source not found. Capacity& School Boundary Areas 24-25'Enrollment Architectural Program - Number of Capacity Capacity Students Mary McPherson Elementary 495 675 550 Enrolled Victory Middle 1075 1000 Mountain View High 2475 2175 - Note: See section IV. City/Agency Comments & Conditions for comments received. City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics ■ Figure 1: One-Mile Radius Existing Condition Metrics Reference parcel:S1406210355 date Retrieved:2025 f 3 f 13 Parcel Count Parcel Acreage In#ill Indicator; t 297 912 Surrounding Area 40% Not city 950 ® City Limits ■ Not City Household Chninge Household&Population Growth Households 02020 Population Change:93.2°#a Population 71172333772, ■Growth (Household and Population Change since 2010 Decennial) 1,000 2,000 3,000 Use Types Residential Addresses All Addresses Single-family 296� ® Multi-fami 09�ly 100% S ® Commercial 0 Preliminary Plats(last 5-years) Conditional Use Permit[last 5-years] Proposed Proposed Pending Pending Approved Approved 4 0.5 1 0 0.5 1 ■ Single-family ® Multi-family z-4o s00 Single-family Residential 1-50 c q � a Parcel Diversity w 1.00 13 Parcel Cou Fit w 4-50 , 0'65 0,5� 4 *AverageAcres 4.40 0 R-2 R-4 R-15 Average Single-family Density by Zoning Average 10.00Residential Net y � Density 6.55 5-00 � �03* 1.54 0 1.93 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. City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics ■ Figure 2:ACHD Summary Metrics 1. Capital Improvements Plan (CIP)1 Integrated Five Year Work Plan (IFYWP): • Amity Road is scheduled in the IFYVVP to be widened to planes from SH-69(Meridian Road) to Locust Grove Road with a design year and construction year yet to be determined. • The intersection of Amity Road and Locust Grove Road is scheduled in the IFYWP to be constructed as a multi-lane roundabout with 2-lanes on the north leg,2-lanes on the south, 4- lane5 east, and 4-lanes on the west leg with a design year of 2023-2OZ4, a right-of-way year of 2029-2030,and a construction year yet to be determined. • Amity Road is listed in the C I P to be widened to 5-lanes from Locust Grove Road to Eagle Road between 2031 and 2035. Locust Grove Road is listed in the GIP to be widened to 3-lanes from Amity Road to Victory Road between 203E 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, !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 Classlflcation Traffic Count Level of Service Locust Grove Road 1,924-feet Minor Arterial 284 Better than"E' Lake Hazel Road 0-feet Minor Arterial 167 Better than"E" "Acceptable level of service for a two-lane minor arterial is"ET(575 VPH) Acceptable level of service for a three-lane minor arterial is"E"(720 VPH). *Acceptable level of service for a five-lane minor arterial is"E"(1,540 VPH). 2. Average Daily Traffic Count(VDT) Average daily traffic counts are based an ACHD's most current traffic counts. • The average daily traffic count for Locust Grove Road south of Lake Hazel Road was 3,152 on June 6,2024. • The average daily traffic count for Lake Hazel Road east of SH-69 was 3,747 on June 12, 2018. Updated traffic counts for Lake Hazel Road are not available due to roadway construction in the vicinity of the site. Notes: See VIII.Additional Notes&Details for Staff Report Maps,Tables,and Charts. Figure 3: Service Impact Summary ImpactService . . Ready - - Marginal ■ Caution qo Notes: See VIII.Additional Notes&Details for Staff Report Maps,Tables,and Charts. III. STAFF ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code(UDC) City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ A. General Overview Development Agreement Modification: A modification to the existing Development Agreement (DA) (Inst. #2020-178120)is proposed to replace it with a new agreement for the subject property and to include specific design requirements.A legal description for the boundary of the new DA is included in Section VII.E below. The conceptual development plan included in the existing DA and shown below in Section VII.C, did not include a development plan for this portion of the property—this area was depicted as "future development". The DA requires a modification to the agreement prior to development of the Mixed Use—Community(MU-C)designated areas to include a conceptual development plan that demonstrates consistency with the general guidelines for Mixed Use developments and specifically the MU-C designation. A concept development plan is proposed for the subject property,included below in Section VII.D,that demonstrates how the subject property is proposed to develop with a mix of single- family residential detached and attached homes and collector streets. Approximately 40.5-acres of the property is designated Medium Density Residential(MDR)with the 10.9-acres at the northeast corner designated MU-C on the Future Land Use Map(FLUM) contained in the Comprehensive Plan. The MDR designation allows residential development at a gross density of 3 to 8 dwelling units per acre. The MU-C designation allows a mix of community-serving uses and dwellings that are integrated within the overall area. Residential uses are expected to comprise between 20% and 50%of the development area with gross densities ranging from 6 to 15 units per acre of the residential area. Supportive and proportional public and/or quasi-public spaces and places should comprise a minimum of 5%of the development area. The gross density of the residential area within the MU-C designated area is approximately 6 units per acre and the residential area within the MDR designated area is approximately 4.1 units per acre,which is consistent with the desired density in both designations;no community-serving uses are proposed on the subject property. There is approximately 130 acres of MU-C designated land centered at the Locust Grove/Lake Hazel intersection area. The northwest, southwest and southeast corners comprising about 97.5 acres of the area, are either developed or have planned future uses. Of that area, about 46.8 acres will be non-residential uses and includes an existing school—it is unknown how the 2.6 acre site shown as"NAP"on the map below will develop but commercial is likely—if it develops with commercial uses, a total of 49.4 acres of non-residential uses will be provided within these areas, which is about 50%of the MU-C designated land area. This leaves about 33 acres on the northeast corner yet to develop,which is zoned C-C and R-15 and will likely develop with a mix of residential and commercial uses. City of Meridian I Department Report 111. Staff Analysis ■ j J ' i:. Mixed Ut Community. Mi. FLUM Designated Area �71 4 �. 1 _ RVF4Ft OEVELOMMI cur - Existing and I Nam" proposed TATION I i i commercial e r -il The following provisions contained in the DA are applicable to this site: (Staff's comments in italics) • Future preliminary plats shall include collector streets consistent with those shown on the Master Street Map(MSM),as required by Ada County Highway District; Future collector streets are designated on the MSM adjacent to the northern boundary of the proposed preliminary plat along the west side of the rezone area in alignment with S. Apex Ave. to the north and E. Tower St. to the east and should be included in a future subdivision of the property to the north as a provision of the new DA. The conceptual developmentplan submitted with this application, included below in Section VII.C, depicts the collector streets;however, the north/south collector street along the west boundary should be located on the property to the north instead of on the adjacent property to the west and should align with S.Apex Ave. on the north side of E. Lake Hazel Rd.;and the east/west collector street should stub to the Murgoitio property in alignment with E. Tower St. on the east side of S. Locust Grove Rd. Staff recommends the concept plan is revised accordingly prior to the City Council hearing. • Prior to development of the Mixed Use—Community(MU-C)designated areas shown on the Master Plan as"future development,"the Development Agreement shall be amended to include a conceptual development plan that demonstrates consistency with the general guidelines for Mixed Use developments and specifically the MU-C designation(see pgs. 3-13 and 3-15 thru 3-16). As noted above, a mix of single family residential uses, detached and attached units with some alley-loaded units, are proposed in the northern MU-C designated portion of this site with a gross density of 6 units/acre, which is consistent with the desired density of 6 City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 1 00 to 15 units per acre. However, the proposed development isn't consistent with other design elements of the MU-C designation that pertain to integration of uses and vehicular interconnectivity between developments due to the orientation of the proposed development in relation to the future non-residential uses to the north and the gated development, which restricts access and hinders integration of uses as desired in MU-C designated areas. The City Council should determine if the proposed developmentplan should be modified to be more consistent with the general mixed use and MU-C development guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan as required by the DA. • The rear and/or side of structures on lots that face E. Lake Hazel Rd. and S. Locust Grove Road, arterial streets, and S. Vertex Way,E. Tower St.,E. Crescendo St., S. Apex Ave. and E. Via Roberto St., collector streets, 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 that are visible from the subject public street. Single-story structures are exempt from this requirement; This provision should be carried over to the new DA for homes on lots that face S. Locust Grove Rd. and E. Via Roberto St. • All future development, except for single-family detached dwellings, is required to comply with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual; This provision should be carried over to the new DA. • The Murgoitio property(Parcel#S 1406110110)located southwest of the E. Lake Hazel/S. Locust Grove Road intersection shall be included in a future subdivision of the surrounding property(Parcel#S 1406110350 or#S 1406110015) in order to establish a legal division of land. Or,if a parcel division was approved by Ada County for the current configuration of the property,proof of such shall be submitted to the Planning Division with a future subdivision application for the surrounding property. The property configuration in this area has changed since the previous development application and the parcel numbers are no longer the same except for Parcel #51406110110. Staff recommends a new DA provision is added for the northern rezone portion of the property not included in the subject plat(Parcel#S1406110016), to be included in a subsequent plat that includes the Murgoitio parcel(#S1406110110) to establish a legal division of land for development purposes. • Multi-use pathways shall be provided with development as required by the Park's Department in accord with the Pathways Master Plan. The proposed development includes multi-use pathway as required by the Park's Dept. in accord with the Pathways Master Plan. Rezone: A rezone of 56.11-acres of land is proposed from the R-8 to the R-15 zoning district for the development of a mix of single-family detached and attached(aka paired) dwellings. Annexation: A narrow strip of land approximately 25 feet in width consisting of 0.86 acres exists along the west side of the Rawson Canal along the west boundary of the property that was inadvertently not included in the original annexation legal description. Because this area is part of the legal parcel, it needs to be annexed. Therefore, annexation is requested with R-15 zoning consistent with the proposed rezone of the rest of the parcel. De-Annexation: There is a narrow strip of land to the south of the Rawson Canal along the west boundary of the site and the adjacent property to the south(S 1406417700 Murgoitio)that was inadvertently included in the original annexation. This area was previously included in a Record City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 1 01 of Survey(ROS)to adjust the property line between the two properties and the abutting property to the west(S 1406131700 Bruno)but was never recorded so it's still part of the original parcels. Before a new property boundary adjustment/ROS can be approved and recorded between the properties to rectify the issue,the property needs to be in the County. Therefore,de-annexation of 0.52 acres of land from the City to Ada County is proposed. Per the County,once the City records the ordinance to de-annex the property,the County will initiate a rezone application,with the County as the Applicant,to apply an equivalent County zoning designation(see ACC 8-1-6). This will follow the standard process—Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation followed by a Board of County Commissioners decision—which typically takes 2-3 months. Preliminary Plat: A preliminary plat is proposed consisting of 228 building lots for single- family residential dwellings,41 common lots and 16 other lots on 51.5-acres of land in the proposed R-15 district with private streets in the gated portion of the development. The plat is proposed to develop in five(5)phases as shown on the phasing plan below in SectionVII.G. The minimum residential lot size in the gated portion of the development(i.e. "Cadence")is 3,738 square feet(s.f.)with an average lot size of 4,665 s.f.; the gross density is 4.60 units/acre with a net density of 9.34 units/acre. The minimum residential lot size in the non-gated portion of the development,which consists of 16 homes, is 6,600 s.f. with an average lot size of 7,233 s.f.; the gross density is 2.78 units/acre with a net density of 5.65 units/acre. The overall gross density is 4.43 units/acre with a net density of 8.99 units/acre.Where attached dwellings are proposed to span over the shared property line,zero setbacks should be depicted on the plat. To ensure the property included in the preliminary plat is a legal parcel for development, Staff recommends a condition of approval is included that requires the property boundary adjustment referenced above under"De-Annexation"to be approved by the County and the ROS recorded prior to submittal of the first phase final plat application for the development; proof of such should be submitted to the Planning Division. Planned Unit Development(PUD): A PUD is proposed for a(mostly)gated residential development consisting of a mix of single-family attached(aka"Paired Cadence")and detached ("Carriage Lane"and"Conventional")homes,front-loaded and alley-loaded,with a variety of lot sizes, setbacks and home designs at an overall net density of 9.34 units/acre. Except for the 16 homes at the southwest corner of the development,which have public street access, the other 212 homes are accessed via private streets with alleys and common driveways off the private streets. The gated portion of the development will be restricted to residents 55 years of age and older. The clubhouse and sports courts will be tailored to the residents of the community. The PUD includes requests for deviations from certain UDC standards,as follows: • The UDC(11-3F-4A.4b)restricts gated developments to no more than 100 dwelling units; a greater number of units may be approved with a PUD.A total of 212 dwelling units are proposed; and • A reduction in the(local) street setback to living area from 10-feet to 5-feet is proposed for alley-loaded(aka Carriage Lane)units. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 102 Home Type Street Setback to Street Interior Rear Living Area Setback to Side Garage Carriage Lane,Alley Loaded Alley-5 ft 5 ft 3 it Alley—N/A,see (Age Restricted)** Local-5 ft(10 ft) street setback Paired Cadence, Front Loaded 10 ft 20 ft 3 ft 12 ft (Age Restricted)` Conventional,Front Loaded 10 ft 20 ft 3 ft 12 ft (NOT Age Restricted NEW *Proposed Setback(Standard Setback in the R-15 Zone) **"Carriage Lane"is Brighton's term for"alley loaded"homes. `"Paired Cadence"is Brighton's term far"duplex"style,age restricted,homes."Street Setback"shall only refer to a setback directly adjacent to right-of-way.When a common lot is adjacent to a lot"Interior Side"setback shall be used to determine the setback. I tell i i i 1� V Table 4: Proiect Overview Description Details History ROS#3952(1997—Parcel#S1406110355 was created by this ROS for a one-time division of land in Ada County—property status report#97054- ZCA);H-2015-0019(South Meridian AZ—Brighton Investments,LLC— DA Inst.#2016-007072);H-2020-0066(DA Inst.#2020-178120 Apex— this DA replaced the previous DA) Phasing Plan 5 phases Residential Units 228 single-family home Open Space 9.75-acres(or 18.94%) Amenities Bocce ball and pickleball courts,clubhouse Physical Features The Rawson Canal runs along the west boundary of site and the Watkins Drain bisects the site north/south Acreage .__i 56.11-acres(RZ); 51.5-acres(PP) Lots 228 single-family residential building lots,41 common lots& 16 other lots City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 103 Description Details Density 2.78 units/acre(gross); 5.65-acres(net) B. History This property was originally annexed with a Development Agreement(DA)(Inst. #2016-007072) as part of the larger South Meridian annexation in 2015 and assigned a"placeholder"zoning district of R-4.Any future development required an amendment to the DA to approve a proposed development plan. The DA was amended in 2020(Inst.#2020-178120—Apex H-2020-0066) and the property was rezoned to R-8 but a development plan was not submitted at that time for this portion of the overall property. C. Site Development and Use Analysis 1. Existing Structures/Site Improvements (UDC 11-1): None 2. Proposed Use Analysis (UDC 11-2): Single-family detached and attached dwellings are listed as principal permitted uses in the R- 15 zoning district in UDC Table 11-2A-2. 3. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): See UDC Table 11-2A-7. As noted above, a reduction in the street setback to living area from 10-feet to 5-feet is proposed with the PUD from the local(private) street for single- family detached alley-loaded(aka Carriage Lane)units. Zero (0) setbacks should be depicted on the final plat on lot lines where attached units are proposed. 4. Planned Unit Developments (UDC 11-7): As set forth in UDC 11-7-1,the purpose of the PUD requirements is to provide an opportunity for exemplary site development that meets the following objectives: 1. Preserves natural, scenic and historic features of major importance; 2. Allows for innovative design that creates visually pleasing and cohesive patterns of development(including,but not limited to,residential development at densities greater than eight(8)units per acre where design guidelines are in place for development and where garage doors are generally not fronting the street); and 3. Creates functionally integrated development that allows for a more efficient and cost- effective provision of public services. Staff is unaware of any natural, scenic or historic features of major importance that may exist on this site. The proposed development generally allows for innovative design that creates visually pleasing and cohesive patterns of development—garage doors don't front the street on interior lots where alley-loaded(Carriage Lane)units are proposed—the remainder of the development does have garage doors fronting the street. Pathway connectivity is proposed within the development and to adjacent properties;however,vehicular connectivity is not proposed with the future mixed-use area to the north or the conventional homes proposed at the southwest corner of the development as the 55+portion of the development(i.e. Carriage Lane and Paired Cadence)is proposed to be gated off.Because the development is proposed to be gated,the rear of structures are oriented toward the MU-C area, and there is no vehicular interconnectivity, it is not functionally integrated with the MU-C designated area to the north as desired. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 104 As set forth in UDC 11-7-4,the Council may approve PUD's upon recommendation by the Commission, in accord with the standards for general use,private open space,residential use and infill planned developments, as follows: General use standards: • Deviations from underlying district requirements: Deviations from the development standards and/or area requirements of the district in accord with UDC 11-2, "district regulations",may be approved. The following deviations are proposed: o A reduction in the street setback to living area from 10-feet to 5-feet for alley-loaded(Carriage Lane)units from the local(private) street is requested. o Allowance for 212 dwelling units in a gated development,which is otherwise restricted to 100 dwelling units per UDC 11-3F-4A.4b but a greater number may be approved with a PUD; and • Allowed uses: Applicant may request that specific conditional or accessory use(s) allowed in the district be allowed as principal permitted use(s). No such uses are requested as principal permitted uses. • Interconnected uses: The uses within the planned unit development are required to be interconnected through a system of roadways and/or pathways as appropriate. The proposed residential uses within the gated portion of the development are interconnected through a system of private streets and pathways. Pathways are proposed for interconnectivity to the conventional homes outside the gated development at the southwest corner of the site and to the future development area to the north; however,vehicular interconnectivity isn't proposed with those areas. • Building clusters: Buildings shall be clustered to preserve scenic or environmentally sensitive areas in the natural state, or to consolidate small open spaces into larger,more usable areas for common use and enjoyment. A large central common open space area is provided with amenities and pathways throughout the development connecting to segments of the City's multi-use pathway system. Several smaller common areas are also proposed. Private open space: In addition to the common open space and site amenity requirements as set forth in chapter 3, "regulations applying to all districts",of this title, a minimum of 80 square feet of private,usable open space shall be provided for each residential unit. This requirement can be satisfied through porches,patios,decks, and enclosed yards. Landscaping, entryway and other accessways do not count toward this requirement. Compliance with this standard is required. Residential use standards: • Multi-family:No multi-family uses are proposed. • Housing types: A variety of housing types shall be included within a single planned development,including attached units (townhouses,duplexes),detached units(patio homes), single-family and multi-family units,regardless of the district classification of the site,provided that the overall density limit of the district is maintained. City of Meridian I Department Report 111. Staff Analysis 105 A mix of housing types are proposed consisting of single-family detached and attached units with alley and front-loaded and single-story and 2-story options. • Density bonus:Not applicable Infill planned developments: Not applicable In approving the PUD,the Council may prescribe appropriate conditions, additional conditions,bonds,and safeguards in conformity with the UDC that: 1. Minimize adverse impact of the use on other property. 2. Control the sequence and timing of the use. 3. Control the duration of the use. 4. Assure that the use and the property in which the use is located is maintained properly. 5. Designate the exact location and nature of the use and the property development. 6. Require the provision for on-site or off-site public facilities or services. 7. Require more restrictive standards than those generally required in this title. 8. Require mitigation of adverse impacts of the proposed development upon service delivery by any political subdivision, including school districts,which provides services within the city. The Commission and Council should determine if the proposed development plan meets the objectives of the PUD noted above or if changes should be required to the plan to more closely align with the objectives and standards as well as with the development guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan for mixed use and MU-C development areas.A possible re-design for the northeast corner of the development area (i.e. MU-C designated area)might include public streets with a public access off S. Locust Grove Rd. and to the north for future interconnectivity with an internal local street connection to the gated portion of the development; and reorientation of the residential lots to be more integrated with the future commercial uses in the MU-C area to the north. D. Design Standards Analysis 1. Structure and Site Design Standards (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-19): The proposed single-family attached dwellings are required to comply with the residential design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. Single-family detached dwellings are exempt from these standards. 2. Qualified Open Space &Amenities (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3G): 51.5 Based on 51.5-acres of land in the preliminary plat, a minimum of 15% (or 7.73-acres) qualified open space is required to be provided with development that meets the quality standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3A.2 and the standards for qualified open space listed in UDC 11-3G-3B. The Applicant proposes a total of 9.75-acres(or 18.94%) qualified open space consisting of several open grassy areas exceeding 5,000 square feet in area; linear open space; 50%of the street buffer along S. Locust Grove Rd., an arterial street; 100%of the street buffer along E. Via Roberto St.,a collector street; a protective buffer dedicated for active access along the Rawson Canal; and parkways along local residential streets as shown on the open space exhibit in Section VII L When counting buffers along collector and arterial streets,the buffers are required to comply with the enhanced buffer requirements in UDC 11-3G-3B.3.Parkways along local City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 106 residential streets are required to meet the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3B.4 when counted toward open space; calculations should be included on the landscape plan for the required number of trees within parkways.Protective buffers along open waterways are required to be a minimum of 10-feet between the pathway and the waterway; in order to count this area as qualified open space,the area between the pathway and waterway needs to be widened to 10-feet.If any stormwater detention facilities are proposed,they're required to comply with the standards in UDC 11-3G-3B.5 when counted toward open space. A minimum of 10 amenity points are required to be provided based on the area of the development(i.e. 51.5-acres). Site amenities totaling 22 points(pts.)are proposed from the Qualify of Life and Recreation Activity categories as shown on the exhibit in Section VII.J as follows: • Quality of Life: Clubhouse greater than 5,000 square feet in size(6 pts.) • Recreation Activity Area: o Sports courts,paved—(2)pickleball courts(4 pts. each); sports courts,unpaved— (2)bocce ball courts(2 pts. each); multi-use pathways—2,165-feet 1,560 Per UDC 11-3G-4D.5,the sports courts are required to include benches for seating. o Multi-use pathways: A 1,560+/-foot long section of the multi-use pathway is proposed along the Rawson Canal(2 pts.)Note:Multi-use pathways are required to be a minimum of 10 feet in width per UDC 11-3A-8—the pathway along the Rawson Canal should be widened from 8 to 10 feet;the micro path connections to the multi-use pathway don't qualify. o Pedestrian circulation system aligned with a linear open space: A total of 2,594+/-linear feet of pathways are proposed within the development(2 pts.) The proposed common open space and site amenities meet and exceed UDC standards for such. Landscaping is required to be provided in common open space areas in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-513 and maintained in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-5C. The proposed development is consistent with Comprehensive Plan Policy#2.02.00,which states,Plan for safe, attractive, and well-maintained neighborhoods that have ample open space, and generous amenities that provide varied lifestyle choices. 3. Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): Landscape buffers along streets A 25-foot wide street buffer is required along S. Locust Grove Rd.. an arterial street, and a 20-foot wide street buffer is required along E. Via Roberto St., a collector street, landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C and the enhanced buffer requirements required for qualified open space listed in UDC 11-3G-3B.3. Street buffers are proposed in excess of the minimum width standards that include 3-foot tall berms. Landscaping is required within parkways in accord with the standards in UDC 11-3A- 17E, 11-3B-7C and 11-3G-3B.4. The landscape plan submitted with the final plat application(s) should comply with the aforementioned standards. Tree preservation City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 107 There are a few existing trees on the property along the Rawson Canal;include mitigation calculations on the landscape plan in accord with the standards in UDC 11-3B-1OC.5, as applicable. Storm integration Stormwater integration is required in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B- 11 C. A Geotechnical Investigation report was submitted with this application and is included in the project file. Pathway landscaping Landscaping is required within minimum 5-foot-wide landscape strips along each side of all pathways in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-313-12C. A minimum of one (1)tree is required per 100 linear feet of pathway with shrubs, lawn or other vetitive groundcover along pathways; shrubs should be included in the planter strips/common areas along with vegetative groundcover. 4. Parking (UDC 11-3C): Off-street parking is required to be provided for each dwelling based on the number of bedrooms per unit in accord with the standards for single-family detached and attached dwellings in UDC Table 11-3C-6. 5. Building Elevations (Comp Plan,Architectural Standards Manual): Several conceptual building elevations were submitted for single-story and 2-story detached and attached(aka paired) single-family residential homes, included in Section VIIX below. A variety of materials are proposed including vertical and horizontal lap siding,board and batten siding,fenestration with stone/brick veneer accents in a variety of colors and design elements/features with varying roof profiles and wall modulation that demonstrate the high quality of development proposed. Because the rear and/or sides of homes facing S. Locust Grove Rd. and E. Via Roberto St. will be highly visible,those elevations should 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 the subject public streets; single-story homes are exempt from this requirement. All single-family attached structures are subject to the residential design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual(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 should comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7A. The landscape plan depicts a mix of 6-foot tall cedar fence and 5-foot tall clear vision metal fence. The developer is responsible for constructing fences abutting pathways and common open space lots to distinguish common from private areas; fencing should be depicted on the landscape plan accordingly. 7. Parkways (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-17): Parkways shall be constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17E. Eight- foot-wide parkways are proposed as required. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 108 E. Transportation Analysis A Traffic Impact Study(TIS)was not required by ACHD for this development. Per the ACHD report,this development is estimated to generate 1,065 vehicle trips per day, 79 vehicle trips per hour in the PM peak hour. The proposed development meets ACHD policies and level of service planning thresholds. Public transit is not available to this site. The following are ACHD's Planned Improvements for the area: Capital Improvements Plan{GIP)l Integrated Five Year Work Plan (IFYWP): Arnity Road is scheduled in the IFYWP to be widened to 5-lanes from SH-69(Meridian Road) to Locust Grove Road with a design year and construction year yet to be determined. • The intersection of Amity Road and Locust Grove Road is scheduled in the IFYP to be constructed as a multi-lane roundabout with 2-lanes on the north leg, 2-lanes on the south,4- lanes east, and 4-lanes on the west leg with a design year of 2023-2024, a right-of-way year of 2029-2D30,and a construction year yet to be determined. • Amity Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to 5-lanes from Locust Grave Road to Eagle Road between 2031 and 2035. • 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. ACHD is requiring Via Roberto St. to be redesigned to include the use of passive design elements (traffic calming). 1. Access (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-3, UDC 11-3H-4): One private street access is proposed via S. Locust Grove Rd., an arterial street; and one private street and one public street access is proposed via E. Via Roberto St., a collector street. A gated stub street is proposed to the north,which will connect to a future collector street.A public stub street is proposed to the west in the un-gated portion of the development for future extension and interconnectivity. Future collector streets are depicted on ACHD's Master Street Map on the property to the north of the proposed subdivision. The concept plan included in the Applicant's narrative and phasing plan doesn't accurately depict the location of the extension of S. Apex Ave. from E. Lake Hazel Rd. on the property to the north and doesn't depict the extension of the collector to the east in alignment with E. Tower St. and therefore,isn't approved. Staff recommends as a provision of the development agreement that these collector streets,or a portion thereof as applicable, are included in a future subdivision of the property to the north. Said collector streets should align with S.Apex Ave. on the north side of E.Lake Hazel Rd. and E. Tower St.on the east side of S.Locust Grove Rd. The concept plan should be revised accordingly prior to the City Council hearing. 2. Multiuse Pathways (UDC 11-3A-5): A pedestrian connectivity plan is included below in Section VII.O showing proposed pathways within the development. A minimum 10-foot-wide multi-use pathway is required along the Rawson Canal and E.Via Roberto Ln. in accord with the Pathways Master Plan. The proposed 8-foot-wide pathway along the canal should be widened to 10-feet and Staff recommends it be constructed in its entirety with the second phase of development—the phasing plan should be revised accordingly prior to the City Council hearing. Staff recommends the pathway is extended to the north boundary through the common area for pedestrian City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 1 09 interconnectivity with the future mixed-use development. The pathway should be designed and constructed consistent with the guidelines contained in Chapter 3 of the Pathways Master Plan. A revised pedestrian connectivity plan should be submitted prior to the City Council hearing that incorporates these changes. A 14-foot-wide public use easement is required for the multi-use pathway along the Rawson Canal on Lots 88 and 276,Block 1 outside of the irrigation easement unless permission is specifically obtained from the governing irrigation district; include the recorded instrument number of the easement on the plat.If the pathway along E.Via Roberto St.isn't located entirely within the right-of-way,a public use easement will also be required for that pathway. 3. Pathways (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-8): Internal pathways are proposed through common open space areas as depicted on the landscape plan. The pathways should comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-8. 4. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17): Sidewalks are required with development in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A- 17. Detached 5-foot-wide sidewalks are proposed along all internal private and public streets. A 10-foot-wide detached sidewalk is proposed along E. Via Roberto St.; a 10-foot-wide detached sidewalk should also be provided along S.Locust Grove Rd. as requested by the Parks' Dept.—the landscape plan and pedestrian connectivity plan should be revised accordingly.Additionally,for pedestrian safety and safe access to schools, Staff recommends the sidewalks along Locust Grove and Via Roberts are constructed in their entirety with the first phase of development; the phasing plan should be revised accordingly prior to the City Council hearing. 5. Private Streets (UDC 11-3F-4): Private streets serving single-family developments may be permitted at the discretion of the decision-making body in cases where the project qualifies as a planned unit development and where compliance with public safety and access requirements can be demonstrated. Private streets are required to comply with the standards in UDC 11-3F-4. Private streets are proposed for access to the single-family dwellings(i.e. Carriage Lane and Paired Cadence) in the gated portion of the development. The UDC(11-3F-4B.4b)restricts gated developments to no more than 100 dwelling units; a greater number of units may be approved with a PUD. As allowed with a PUD,the Applicant requests a total of 212 dwelling units are allowed within the gated portion of the development. The proposed gates shall not prohibit pedestrian and bicycle access to and through the development. Access to the gates are required to be provided for emergency vehicles as determined and approved by the Fire Dept. and Public Works Dept. To allow sufficient vehicle stacking and turn-around distance,the gate shall be located a minimum of fifty(50) feet back from the ultimate edge of right-of-way to the connecting public street and include a dedicated paved vehicle turnaround area. There is 190-feet between the entrance and the gate,which will allow approximately 10 cars to stack,based on 19' for each car, if needed without impacting Locust Grove Rd. The private streets should be constructed on a single platted lot that provides access to all properties served by such private streets. Private streets are required to connect to a local or collector street; connection to an arterial street is prohibited unless otherwise allowed by the decision-making body as part of a concurrent hearing level application and approved by the transportation authority. Two(2) of the proposed private street connections are to collector streets(E.Via Roberto St. & future street to the north) and one(1) is to an arterial street(i.e. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 1 10 S. Locust Grove Rd.). ACHD is in support of the connection to Locust Grove if approved by the City. Approval from City Council is needed for the private street connection(E. Bingley Ln.)to an arterial street(S.Locust Grove Rd.). All private streets will have parking on one(1) side of the street. The Fire Marshall has determined the proposed private streets have sufficient maneuvering area for emergency vehicles. UDC 11-3F-4B.7 states, "The overall street network within the surrounding area shall allow for properties to connect at regular intervals in order to promote connected neighborhoods and traffic flow within the mile section."The proposed private streets prohibit neighborhood connectivity,especially within the mixed use designated area. Private streets are required to be constructed in accord with the roadway and storm drainage standards of the transportation authority or as approved by the City of Meridian based on plans submitted by a certified engineer. Twenty-six(26+) foot wide private streets are proposed,which comply with the street width standard. All drive aisles are required to be posted as fire lanes with no parking allowed; the curb is also required to be painted red,unless parking is allowed on one or both sides of the street per UDC 11-3174C.2. Upon review and approval by the Director subject to any applicable conditions of approval and the regulations of Chapter 5,the applicant shall have two(2)years to complete the tasks listed in UDC 11-3F-3B.Proof of such shall be submitted to the Planning division within that time period. 6. Subdivision Regulations (UDC 11-6): Common driveways Common driveways are required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3D. Six(6) common driveways are proposed off private streets within the development. The UDC(11-317-413.6)doesn't allow common driveways off a private street unless the street section allows for parking on at least one side of the street or the development has designated adequate guest parking dispersed throughout, as determined by the Director. All street sections allow parking on one side of the street. A total of 34 parking spaces are provided around the central common area where the clubhouse is located that could be used for guest parking,which the Director has determined is adequate. UDC 11-6C-3D.1 states that in no case shall more than three(3) dwelling units be located on one(1) side of the common driveway. There are four(4)lots proposed on one side of the driveway on Lots 260-263.One of these lots should be removed to comply with the standard. Common driveway exhibits are included below in Section VII.H. Staff recommends the following revisions to the exhibits prior to the City Council hearing: • A 20-foot wide area shall be depicted on the lots at the end of the common driveways across the front of the lots for a turnaround area with a 20-foot setback from that area to the face of garage and 10-foot setback to living area; • The exhibit showing Lot 24,Block 1 shall depict a minimum 12-foot rear setback across the entire width of the lot; and • The note stating an adjacent lot owner is responsible for installing and maintaining landscape and irrigation in the common areas adjacent to the common driveway shall be removed—the developer is responsible for City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ installation of the landscaping and the HOA is responsible for maintaining it. • Include the small triangle areas between the common driveways and adjacent building lots in the adjacent building lots; revise the plat accordingly.Provide a 28-foot inside and 48-foot outside turning radius in accord with UDC 11-6C-3D.6. A note should be included on the final plat that grants a perpetual ingress/egress easement over lots where common driveways are proposed for access to the lots served by the common driveways.The note should include a requirement for maintenance of a paved surface capable of supporting fire vehicles and equipment in accord with UDC 11-6C-3D.8. Alleys Alleys are required to comply with the standards in UDC 11-6C-3B.5. The proposed 20- foot-wide alley street sections depicted on the plat comply with these standards. A turning radius exhibit was submitted that demonstrates the entrance to the alleys from the private streets provide a minimum 28-foot inside and 48-foot outside turning radius as required by the Fire Dept.Wayfinding address signage should be provided at the private street for homes accessed via alleys that don't have frontage on a named street(i.e.Lots 96,97,99-103,Block 1 and Lots 224-231,Block 1). Block face Block faces are limited to 750 feet in length in residential districts; if a pedestrian connection is provided,the block face can extend up to 1,000 feet in length. Council may approve a block face up to 1,200 feet in length where block design is constrained by certain site conditions that include a large waterway and/or a large irrigation facility. In no case shall a block face exceed 1,200 feet unless waived by City Council.Where appropriate and as set forth in UDC 11-6C-3F.3,traffic calming may be required for blocks in excess of 1,000 feet. Approximately 1,070 feet of the 1,500 foot face of Block 1 abuts the Rawson Canal, the remainder abuts another block south of the canal. City Council approval of the block face is required; otherwise,the block face should be revised to comply with the standard. The other block faces within the development comply with the block face standards. If Council approves the proposed block face, Staff recommends Council require passive design elements (not speed humps,valley gutters, stop signs or cross drains)to slow traffic for safety purposes. F. 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. The Rawson Canal lies along the west boundary of the site within an 80-foot wide U.S. Bureau of Reclamation easement,40-feet each side of centerline,per the Boise Project Board of Control's letter and as depicted on the plat. The canal is proposed to remain open as linear open space with a segment of the multi-use pathway system alongside. The Boise Project Board of Control is contracted to operate and maintain this canal and prohibits encroachments of any kind within the easement, including landscaping,pathways,fencing, etc.,only gravel is allowed. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 112 The Watkins Drain bisects this site north/south and is being relocated along the Rawson Canal and will either be piped or remain open per the preliminary engineering plans; the easement should be depicted on the plat. 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 and sewer service is available at the site. The project is consistent with the Water and Wastewater Master Plan/Facility Plan. Each phase of development will need to be modeled to verify minimum fire flow pressure is maintained. See Public Works comments/conditions for more information. IV. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. Meridian Planning Division 1. Annexation/Rezone: A new Development Agreement(DA) shall be required as a provision of the MDA and RZ applications. The previous DA [i.e. Apex-Inst. #2020-178120)] shall no longer be in effect for the subject property. Prior to approval of the de-annexation, annexation and rezone ordinances, a new DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian,the property owner(s) at the time of ordinance adoption, and the developer. A final plat application shall not be submitted until the de- annexation,annexation and rezone applications are 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 these requests. The new DA shall incorporate the following provisions: a. Future development of the subject property shall be generally consistent with the preliminary plat,phasing plan, landscape plan, open space exhibit, site amenity exhibit and conceptual building elevations included below in Section VII,the conditions contained herein and the standards in the Unified Development Code(UDC). b. The rear and/or side of structures on lots that face S. Locust Grove Road, an arterial street, and E.Via Roberto St., a collector street, 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 that are visible from the subject public street. Single-story structures are exempt from this requirement. c. The northern portion of the subject property to be rezoned(Parcel#S1406110016) shall be incorporated into a subsequent plat that includes the adjacent Murgoitio parcel(Parcel #S 1406110110)located directly to the east,prior to submittal of any building permit application,to establish a legal division of land for development purposes. City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions 113 d. Future collector streets are depicted on ACHD's Master Street Map on the property to the north of the proposed subdivision that's included in the rezone and shall be included in a future subdivision. Said collector streets shall align with S. Apex Ave. on the north side of E. Lake Hazel Rd. and E. Tower St. on the east side of S. Locust Grove Rd. e. The subject property shall be subdivided prior to submittal of any building permit applications for the development. f. Administrative design review shall be required for all single-family attached structures in accord with the residential design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual. Single-family detached structures are exempt from these standards. 2. Preliminary Plat: a. The final plat shall include the following revisions: i. Depict a 14-foot wide public use easement for the multi-use pathway along the Rawson Canal on Lots 88 and 276,Block 1 outside of the irrigation easement unless permission is specifically obtained from the governing irrigation district; include the recorded instrument number of the easement on the plat. ii. If the multi-use pathway/sidewalk along E. Via Roberto St. and S. Locust Grove Rd. isn't located entirely within the right-of-way,public use easement(s) shall be submitted to the City and depicted on the plat. iii. Revise the face of Block I to comply with the block face standards listed in UDC 1I- 6C-3F for the residential district if City Council does not approve a waiver to the standards as requested. iv. Include a note that grants a perpetual ingress/egress easement over common driveway lots for access to the lots served by the common driveways. The note shall include a requirement for maintenance of a paved surface capable of supporting fire vehicles and equipment in accord with UDC 11-6C-3D.8. v. Include the small triangle areas depicted on the landscape plan and common driveway exhibits between the common driveways and adjacent building lots in the adjacent building lots. Ensure the driveways provide a 28-foot inside and 48-foot outside turning radius in accord with UDC 11-6C-3D.6. vi. Remove one(1)of the building lots within the area of Lots 260-263,Block 1 to comply with UDC I I-6C-3D.1,which allows a maximum of three(3) dwelling units to be located one(1) side of the common driveway. vii. Widen the protective buffer between the multi-use pathway and the Rawson Canal/Watkins Drain to a minimum of 10-feet in order for this area(i.e. Lots 88 and 276,Block 1 to be counted toward qualified open space in accord with UDC 11-3G- 3B.lc. viii.Depict a minimum 10-foot-wide multi-use pathway along the Rawson Canal, including along the cul-de-sac to the west boundary of the site alongside E. Adler Hof St.,in Lots 88 and 276,Block 1 in accord with UDC 11-3A-8G and the Pathways Master Plan. ix. Depict an 80-foot-wide U.S. Bureau of Reclamation easement(40-feet each side of centerline)for the Rawson Canal per the Boise Project Board of Control's letter. x. Depict the easement for the Watkins Drain. xi. Depict zero(0)setbacks on lot lines where attached units are proposed to span over the shared property line. City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions ■ xii. Depict private streets on a single platted lot that provides access to all properties served by such private streets. b. The landscape plan shall include the following revisions: i. Depict enhanced landscaping within the street buffers along S. Locust Grove Rd., an arterial street, and E. Via Roberto St., a collector street, in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. and 11-3G-3B.3. ii. Include calculations for the required number of trees within the parkways along internal private streets that demonstrate compliance with the standards in UDC 1I- 3A-17E, 11-3B-7C and UDC 11-3G-3B.4. iii. Depict benches for seating by the sports courts(i.e.bocce ball and pickleball)in accord with UDC 11-3G-4D.5. iv. Depict a minimum 10-foot-wide multi-use pathway along the Rawson Canal, including along the cul-de-sac to the west boundary of the site alongside E. Adler Hof St., in Lots 88 and 276,Block 1 in accord with UDC 11-3A-8G and the Pathways Master Plan. v. Depict a 10-foot-wide detached sidewalk/pathway within the street buffer along S. Locust Grove Rd. vi. Include the small triangle areas depicted on the landscape plan and common driveway exhibits between the common driveways and adjacent building lots in the adjacent building lots. vii. Remove one(1)of the building lots within the area of Lots 260-263,Block 1 to comply with UDC 11-6C-3D.1,which allows a maximum of three(3) dwelling units to be located one(1) side of the common driveway. viii.Widen the protective buffer between the multi-use pathway and the Rawson Canal/Watkins Drain to a minimum of 10-feet in order for this area(i.e. Lots 88 and 276,Block 1)to be counted toward qualified open space in accord with UDC 11-3G- 3B.lc. ix. Include tree mitigation calculations on the landscape plan in accord with the standards in UDC 11-313-1OC.5, as applicable. x. Depict a mix of trees, shrubs and vegetative groundcover along all pathways in accord with the standards in UDC 11-313-12C. xi. Depict fencing abutting pathways and common open space lots to distinguish common from private areas as set forth in UDC 11-3A-7A.7. xii. Extend the 10-foot-wide multi-use pathway along the Rawson Canal through the common area to the north boundary for future connection to the sidewalk/pathway along the collector street to the north for pedestrian interconnectivity with the future mixed-use development. c. Off-street parking is required to be provided for all single-family residential units in accord with the standards for such listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6. d. All waterways, except natural waterways,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. e. Submit a public pedestrian easement for the multi-use pathway along the Rawson Canal on Lots 88 and 276,Block 1 and along E.Via Roberto St. if the pathway isn't located City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions 115 entirely within the right-of-way. The easement along the canal shall be located outside of the irrigation easement unless permission is specifically obtained from the governing irrigation district. f the pathway f. Wayfinding address signage shall be provided at the private street for homes accessed via alleys that don't have frontage on a named street(i.e.Lots 96, 97, 99-103 and 224-231, Block 1). g. The common driveways shall be constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3D and the revised common driveway exhibits in Section VILH. h. Wayfinding address signage shall be provided at the private street for homes accessed via common driveways that don't have frontage on a named street. i. Access to the gated entries shall be provided for emergency vehicles as determined and approved by the Fire Dept. and Public Works Dept. in accord with UDC 11-3F-4A.4d. j. Private streets shall be constructed in accord with the roadway and storm drainage standards of the transportation authority or as approved by the City of Meridian based on plans submitted by a certified engineer per UDC 11-3F-4C.2a. k. All private street drive aisles shall be posted as fire lanes with no parking allowed. In addition,the curb shall be painted red unless parking is allowed on one or both sides of the street,per UDC 11-3174C.2d. 1. All private streets shall be designed to allow parking on at least one(1) side of the street to accommodate common driveways off a private street as set forth in UDC 11-3F-4B.6. m. The proposed gates within the gated portion of the development shall not prohibit pedestrian and bicycle access to and through the development as set forth in UDC 11-3F- 413.4c. n. To allow sufficient vehicle stacking and turn-around distance,the gates shall be located a minimum of 50 feet back from the ultimate edge of right-of-way to the connecting public street and include a dedicated paved vehicle turnaround area as set forth in UDC 11-3F- 4B.4e. o. Prior to submittal of the first final plat application,the property boundary adjustment between Parcel#S 1406131700, S 1406427800, S 1406417700 and S 1406110355 shall be finalized. The Applicant shall submit proof of such in the form of an approval letter from Ada County and a recorded Record of Survey. p. The 10-foot-wide detached sidewalks along S. Locust Grove Rd. and E.Via Roberto St. shall be constructed in their entirety with the first phase of development. q. The 10-foot wide multi-use pathway along the Rawson Canal shall be constructed in its entirety with the second phase of development. r. The Applicant/Owner shall have two(2)years to complete the tasks listed in UDC 11-3F- 3B for approval of the private streets;proof of such shall be submitted to the Planning Division. s. Compliance with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-7 for the R-15 district is required except for any deviations approved with the PUD as noted below in Section 3. t. 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. City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions 116 3. Planned Unit Development(PUD): a. The following deviations from UDC standards are allowed though the PUD: i. The gated portion of the residential development is allowed to have up to 212 dwelling units. ii. The minimum street setback to living area for alley-loaded(i.e. Carriage Lane) dwelling units from a local(private) street is reduced from 10 feet to 5 feet. b. A minimum of 80 square feet of private,usable open space shall be provided for each residential unit as set forth in UDC 11-7-413. This requirement can be satisfied through porches,patios, decks, and enclosed yards. Landscaping, entryway and other accessways do not count toward this requirement. c. The conditional use permit for the planned unit development is valid for a maximum period of two(2)years unless otherwise approved by the City. During this time,the Applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground as set forth in UDC 11-5B-6.A time extension may be requested as set forth in UDC 11-513-617. Other Agency comments maybe accessed in the project file in the public record. Copy and paste the following link into your browser: https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/browse.aspx?id=376223&dbid=0&repo=Meridian City V. FINDINGS A. Rezone(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; Staff finds the proposed map amendment and development plan complies with provisions of the Comprehensive Plan pertaining to density, land use,pedestrian connectivity and compatibility with adjacent uses. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Staff finds the proposed amendment to the R-15 district is consistent with the purpose statement of the residential districts in that a range of housing opportunities are proposed consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; Staff finds the proposed map amendment should not be materially detrimental to the public health and safety but recommends the Commission and Council rely on public testimony to determine this finding. 3. 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 City of Meridian I Department Report V. Findings ■ Stafffinds the proposed map amendment should not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services; however, because student enrollment at area schools will increase with this development, services by the school district may be impacted by the proposed map amendment. 4. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. This finding is not applicable as the proposed request is for a rezone, not annexation. B. Annexation and Zoning(UDC 11-5B-3E) Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Stafffinds the proposed map amendment and development plan complies with provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Stafffinds the proposed amendment to the R-15 district is consistent with the purpose statement of the residential districts in that a range of housing opportunities are proposed consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; Stafffinds the proposed map amendment should not be materially detrimental to the public health and safety but recommends the Commission and Council rely on public testimony to determine this finding. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to, school districts; and Stafffinds the proposed map amendment should not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services; however, because student enrollment at area schools will increase with this development, services by the school district may be impacted by the proposed map amendment. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. Stafffinds the proposed annexation is in the best interest of the City as it cleans up the zoning boundary to be consistent with the parcel boundary. C. De-Annexation(UDC 11-5B-3E) Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Stafffinds the proposed de-annexation of land to be included in a property boundary adjustment with the adjacent County land complies with applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan. City of Meridian I Department Report V. Findings 118 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Stafffinds this finding is not applicable as the proposed map amendment will result in a County zoning designation once the property is de-annexed; therefore, the regulations of the district will no longer apply. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; Stafffinds the proposed map amendment should not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to, school districts; and Stafffinds the proposed map amendment should not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the City as the property will be in the County once it's de-annexed. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. This finding is not applicable as the proposed request is for de-annexation. D. Preliminary Plat(UDC-6B-6) In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat,or short plat,the decision-making body shall make the following findings: 1. The plat is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and is consistent with this unified development code; Stafffinds the proposed plat is generally in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with the applicable standards in the UDC. 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Stafffinds public services are available to the site and will be adequate to accommodate the proposed development. 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the city's capital improvement program; Stafffinds 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; Stafffinds there is public financial capability ofsupporting services for the proposed development. 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and Stafffinds the proposed development should not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare but recommends the Commission and Council rely on public testimony to determine this finding. City of Meridian I Department Report V. Findings 119 1 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. E. Planned Unit Development(UDC 11-7-5) Upon recommendation from the Commission,the Council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant a planned development request,the Council shall make the following findings: 1. The planned unit development demonstrates exceptional high quality in site design through the provision of cohesive, continuous,visually related and functionally linked patterns of development, street and pathway layout,and building design. Stafffinds the proposed planned unit development demonstrates a high quality ofsite design through the provision of cohesive, continuous, visually related and functionally linked patterns of development, street and pathway layout and building design. 2. The planned unit development preserves the significant natural, scenic and/or historic features. Staff is unaware of any significant natural, scenic and/or historic features that need to be preserved with development. 3. The arrangement of uses and/or structures in the development does not cause damage,hazard, or nuisance to persons or property in the vicinity. Stafffinds the arrangement of uses and/or structures in the development does not cause damage, hazard or nuisance to persons or property in the vicinity. 4. The internal street,bike and pedestrian circulation system is designed for the efficient and safe flow of vehicles,bicyclists and pedestrians without having a disruptive influence upon the activities and functions contained within the development,nor place an undue burden upon existing transportation and other public services in the surrounding area. Stafffinds the internal street and pedestrian circulation system, which includes 10'wide multi-use pathways, is designed for the efficient and safe flow of vehicles, bicyclists and pedestrians without having a disruptive influence upon the activities and functions within the development, nor place an undue burden upon existing transportation and other public services in the surrounding area. 5. Community facilities, such as a park,recreational, and dedicated open space areas are functionally related and accessible to all dwelling units via pedestrian and/or bicycle pathways. Stafffinds the central common open space area and amenities as well as other open space areas within the development are accessible to all residents via pedestrian and/or bicyle pathways. 6. The proposal complies with the density and use standards requirements in accord with chapter 2, "District Regulations", of this title. Stafffinds the proposed residential development complies with the density and use standard requirements in UDC 11-7-4. 7. The amenities provided are appropriate in number and scale to the proposed development. Stafffinds the proposed amenity plan for the development is appropriate in number and scale to the proposed development and far exceeds the minimum standards. City of Meridian I Department Report V. Findings 120 8. The planned unit development is in conformance with the comprehensive plan. Staff finds the proposed planned unit development is in conformance with the comprehensive Plan with the provisions included in Section IV above. VI. ACTION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed applications with the conditions included above in Section IV,per the Findings in Section V if City Council finds the proposed development plan in conformance with the PUD standards and the development guidelines in the Comprhensive Plan for mixed use areas and specifically,the MU-C designation. B. Commission: Pending C. City Council: Pending City of Meridian I Department Report VI. Action 121 ' � 1 �, �Punlnnn �; 9, lAllllllllll � � ' • ial'minn rum wnnllr , — ye ` unAEl 1 nnlmu- p II�IEIA111111 411 � I• IAHPA KE-HAZEL t Lu ! a .A 3 COLUMBIA - - • Its 1 /I�IAG�A y2fleEQf.P.9 oil i���ror��roy 11111111,E= °u —• • •• III!! 111111111111 i�----_ ■.� p'' �� unuunll___==�1�IIftlH111� - 5, - - LAKE HAZEL �� . �►.►, �111111 a ----- — IF NNE COLUMBIA 1 1 • • ■-� ��l`�'WiIN ll �_■B� ► .• IIIIIIIILIEI 111111111111� C • -' . m't"'''- �mmm�-=�_=® �Alll�lllllll u.�=_�i.11lll� - ''Inllllll rlplll �!��� !ll!!11111l11111l�r._ �j1Y�' • inl�•' mlu1==l,+i�1Y�:unuuun n�� parj Q ■ '� llrb]Ur �Illlllllnl�__�+� �Iy � — ...I_-r phi V!, I LAKE=WA�EL+Illlll� ■ I• --- -�:.+•.,, �Illy ■ N.A., lull= L'111111 IIIIIII� ; � C IIIIIIi!IIIII� � � =Ik111= lllll� Q I■ 1�3f°l o W� 1111111111�{ IIII��I . -� �- Me. lum Density Residential WON fill ■ ■�� - COLUM , - I®1 ■ 'f_�p��0��, ',O p� Qom un i�� �,� ♦ ���jy�ii!�iuxl 111���"' uuul�nnli�u ygiu IP=I �■ ♦AI■\111 /inA—.nw nmllnln 1111111111 � �� --���sinc: r.uoo.u�r 1111111111,a uu €IIIIIIII iH1111nn11llllllllpllll= _elm" ullllll�-■.� -m I j 111111111111��----terr• mTol- I mllnlE nm I= _� .�1■1■�IIIIAII�I_— ��I�I�� unml nnm°_—: niilnnl nrl•• _-_st� 11 nn�:_ - �—n nunln-■�� uu_Illlt•1==�Ilnnmumun, Irnr+rrf. Imo°u�luuull =�a:�IIIj��I • -• �• ?fl IIIIII III���-----�� __=11111FI14,�11111�= ,���//iJ[ �hflllllllll ' =noon slnT=: � - ' . ��1 • . � llnnnnu:mm�u1n01. IEil3fil� allmn nnnll� - �o - --- � - �*�■��111111\� ilinll IlGllnl,q_�=--=== �:y`��•-11�'�I ■1 �■11111�� J_ _C � 1111. IIIIII.IIIIIII� ��I � -h 1' 1111 =Ent��Illllr .i���►���• �� �� I��-=__=_,_Ilnll�-ml- �A � y��•�-iftiil�111H W=I ,IIII,I1= -I C p_ hqd!IIIIIIIr1111 1� =1EII'11111nF111 I I- __= G, Alklnklkll n ,,I ■ _ -L�IIIIIIO 1111111111 -= aGri\I11111I111.. I.I mnninun nlnunlinalglnrl =lunllnm -1111111111 111111111'I Ilr[`+' I- ���rq"� •rr� .Imnninnnnimm�- -tuna- I= .nllnllnm nnnm- -IIIIIIIIIIIII�IIIIIIIIY _�� a Ilnngl!I 2 =moon IIIIII HUH�I IIIIII a F.�ulonnll�`d� ■ JNONE ■ B. Service Accessibility Report PARCEL S1406110355 SERVICE ACCESSIBILITY Overall Score: 22 12nd Percentile Description Location In City Limits GREEN Extension Sewer Trunkshed mains < 540 ft.from parcel GREEN Floodplain Either not within the 100 yrfloociplain or > 2 acres GREEN Emergency Semites Fire Response time < 5 min. GREEN Emergency Services Police Not enough data to report average response time RED Pathways W thin 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 plan School Walking Proximity Not within 1 mile walking 7RED School Drivability Not within 2 miles driving of existing or future sc--cc RED Either a Regional Park within 1 mile OR a Commun ParkWalkability Parkwithin 1/2 mile OR a Neighborhood Park di*`3' GREEN 1/4 mile walking Report generated on 11-03-2025 by MERIDIAWallen City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits 124 C. Existing Conceptual Development Plan Included in Development Agreement + Ir r r r r x r i I .. Q A _-_______....��--,. - }I AREA EXCLUDED BY AUGUST 11,2020 CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL; SUBIECTTO FUTURE APPLCATIONS. m a '\ _ oF�fiPwEM I NPiR: I - LrrJ �I I HJWFIE I L _ I r I 0 I I GEALMN@h7 rykP i I 1 I ;' � I y I xx I . I 1 I + I 7 F�TuigE L � CEYIl.CPI.CH- 'I - If I Jk_ ;I ..————— „moo—____— to i � c CONCEMAL,IIJEUECTTO CHANGE L AUGUST 18,2020 City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits 125 D. Proposed Conceptual Development Plan—NOT APPROVED lowwwwwom ` Rezone from fUTUFt€ ��i M- iiaH ryrTURE Mtx d• R-8 to R-15 \I}I�NStTY R. 5SIQENT]AL E 4 C f - R- m Age Restricted, r, Gated Residential i Conventional 0 � Residential 0 Future 0 Development Approximate M U-C Designation Area T i, Lr .l City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 126 E. Legal Description for Property Subject to Development Agreement kip January23,2025 Apex Cadence Subdivision Pvoiett No.24-1.08 Dewalopmerrt Agne:ement Legal Dg9tripti4n Ead•libit A A parcel bf ila nd Situated in a portion of t he East 112 of the Northeast 1f4 of Seetia n 6,Township 2 North,Range 1 East B-M.,Gty of Meridian,+kda County,Idaho and being mare particularly described as follows- Commencing at an aiurninum flap marking the northeast comer of Sectlon 6 which bears 539'42'21"E a dlstan€e of 2,W.00 feet from a 5f8•Inch rebae rna rking the North 1/4 corner of said Sectlon 6•thence followl rig the easterly Ilne of the Nbetheast 114 of said Settion 6.5w0arIS"E a dlstances of 246112 feet; Thence Ie2viilg Said emsterly line,Nn 42'2a"W a di$tanci�of 38.50 feet to the POINT OF 9CEiINlYING. The nu 5 -(14'35"E a distance of 1,862.42 feet; Thence N99'22'WW a distance of 1,266.46 feet; The nee NOW435VW a distan€e of 49.74 feet; Thence N00°20'23"W a distance of 549.25 feet; Therlt.e N87'34`26"W a distance of 13.49 feet to t#re westerly line of so Id Bast 1/2 of the Northeast 1J4 of Section 6; Thence following said west-arly tlne,N00'02'06"W a dlstanca of 66-71#eel to the weste rly right•af-way Iirke of the kamorr canat; Thence Ienving said westerly line and falfnwi"said westerly right-of-way dine the following ninE�9) cou rses'. 1- N7r25'55"E a distance of 115L22 feet; 2. NW5570"E a distance of 74,17 feet; 3. N31'51'12"E a 1stanoe of92.01 feet; 4. NIW25'1f1"E a distance of 361.33 feet; S. NOS'26'S2"W a dlst nee-of 106-16 feet; 6. 1`118`SI-s'2WW a distance of 2$7.65 f2det; 7. N3Z'08'38"W a distance of 91-83 feet; S, N61'32'57'W a distance of 104.61 feet; 9. 074�59'05"W a distance of 44,02 feet; Thence leaving sa Id westerly right-of-way line,NOO'42'06"W a distance of 396.78 feet; Thence 589'42'2Cr E a distance of 796-46 feet; Therrt2 S00'0415"E a dl!Wanoe bf 252A0 feet; Th-enoe 589`42'2WEa distance pf434.90 Net to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said parcel contains a total of 52.59 acres,more or less, qC+ f T ' Attached hereto is Exhlhdtlsarrd by this reference is made a parthenecf. � 1 , � 5725 North Dlscoweryway•mise,Idaho 83713-205.634.6939• kmengl 1p.rom City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits 127 I�ASIS OF BEARING � 31 — 9.42'21'E 264p-44' E Lake Hazel Rd 31 32 T_3r#.. R.i E 6 1370.00' — — 6 5 — ,p e POWT OF OOMMENCEt EWr ae ALUMINUM 114QRTij n1/4 CO3JNM WE CORNER SECTION 6 589'4 2 fo 0'E 79&,96' N435.42'20-W L9 9 � o 36.56" (TIE} v°o S 0 200 400 800 ' + 2° ° 5&9`42'20"E te * a _ fll m L9 434.90' LA SCALE' 1"=400' m gyp ' m PDIkr OF w 1° x ¢ BEGNwINR w w is } m � m I a in LINE TABLEE < 3 LINE BEARING DISTANCE o 14 `� ra L1 N&7'34'26'W T3.49 a c a - DA Area,. 52.59±AC, U W02.iMmw 86.73 # A l5wtIon of 51406110018 ' I b and all of 514 M11D350 L3 N78r25'55E 151_21 — ry l4 NSb'$5'20"E 74,17 W— p DATE 1ih�i£f 2% L4 Current Zoning,R-4 � �—_ y� LS N31'51'12'E 92A1 M 1-3 I5roposied2wing:P-25 , — L8 NS'�U'5Y� 10Ei.26 SHEET: — 's 1 OF 1 W +— , L7 NMLN'38'W U 3 0[ L1 c L8 H61'32'57)N 104_61 �ab *Z�z I 140920'23-W L9 N7+4'59'06'iN 44_02 j mF 549,25' L10 S6'04'36"E !M2-UO C N64.43'55 W 40.74' ALUMINUM GIP I YI:INf1R5 .'.:IR 4Sr£RS PUlIR[R5 N139.22'S0'44 1255,46' E 1/4 WRINIER SECTION & 57 NDUH MOM-WAY GEKFA 006E,IOVrF3a3713 N99.22'M'w 1322.00' City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits 128 F. Rezone Legal Description& Exhibit Map E N G 1 N E E R 1 N G October 23,2024 Apex Cadence Subdivision Project No.Z4-JCS Rezone to R-15 Legal Description Exhibit A A parcel of land situated in a pardon of the East 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 6,Township 2 North,Range 1 East 6,M.,Clty of Merl dian,Ada County,Idaho and being more particularly described as IaRows; Cornrnencing at an aluminum cap marking the northeast corner of Section 6 which bears S89'42'2rE a distance of 2,640.0p feet from a 5f8-inch rebar marking the North 1/4 corner of said Section 6,thence following the easterly line of the Northeast IA of said 5ectivn 6,500°04'35"1 a distance of 746.02 feet to the POINT OF MGM ING, Thence following said easterly line,500°04'35"E a distance of 1,925.14 feet to an aluminum cap marking the east 1/4 corner of said Section 6,- Thence leaving said easterly Ilne and following the southerly line of said East 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 6,N89°22'50"w a distance of 1,304.25feet; Thence leaving said southerly line,N00'43'57W a distance of 111,26 feet; Thence NOO°20'23"W a distance of 549.25 feet; Thence N87°34'2VW a distance of 13.49 feet to the westerly line of 5a'id fa5t 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 6; Thence following said westerly line,N00'02'06"W a distance of 6671 feet to the westerly right-of-way line of the Rawson Canal; Thence leaving Said westerly life and following-said westerly right-of-way line the following nine(9) courses, 1. N78425'55"E a distance of 161.21 feet; 2. N54'55'20"E a distance of 74.17 feet, 3. N3I'S1'12"E a distance of92.01 feet; 4. N10'25'10"E a distance of 381,33 feet; 5_ N05°26'52"W a distance of 106.26 feet; 6, N18'56'20"W a distance of 287.65 feet; 7, N32°08,38"W a distance of 91.93 feet; S. N61°32'57"W a distance of 104.61 feet 2. 11%1174°59'05"lh1 a distance of 44.02 feet; Thence leaving said westerly right-M-way Iine,N00°02'06"W a distance of 396.78 feet; Thence 589°42'20'E a distance of 796.96 feet; Thence 500'04'35"E a distance of 252.00 fret,- 5 7 2 9 North Discovery Way•Solse,Idaho 53713•208.63SX939*k rnenglIP.corn City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits 129 The-nce$89'42'20'E a di5tanw of 473,40 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. � a4 Said parcel contains a total of 55,11 acres, mare or less. ,t} � 4 Attached hereto is Exhibit and by this refe rence is made a part hereof. a. �12459 � Of, ►Z. yb tv • 3' ` PAGE 12 City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits F130] BASrs OF BEARING � 31 _ 9'42'21`E 2640.00' E Lake HaxelEd 3 6I 1370.Oa' 6 f 5/0-4NICk RERAR POINT OF pgMMCNCE�AENT � LLL ALUMINUM CAPNORTH � E ON1 f6a C6RaER RE CORNER SEC-DON 6 C4 n as 2 ' S89'42'2C"E 796,95' +' a a � 0y o S - — 0 240 400 S00 V7 z° o � 1M'42'20"E a 3 d7 t $ L7 473,4U" #�, SCALE; 1"=400' w r: a t7 PC4NT OF .s ern. S 41 W a o LU < Y 4 O Z LINE TABLE � a Rezone Area: 56.11i AC, :� a LIN5 B5ARJNG 111STANCE � A Portion of 514()611oo16 L b and all of S1406110350 O7 L1 N75'25'55"E 161.21 ra L2 N54-55'20"E 74.17 W p in p EMYE: Ocwb6 202A L2 u Current 2oninR'R-4 c L3 N32'51'WL 92.01 PRaFECT. 24•1" Pro posed Zan R-15 �1 P — L4 N5'26'52-w 106.26 SHEET-. N00"02'013-W ` — I OF 1 66.73' � y,T y� L5 N32'06'3a"W 91.83 N87.3W25"W i L6 N61'32'57-10 104.61 N00120'23,W L7 N7459'03"W 44.02 54-9.25' k L8 WD4'35"E 252.00 1/2—INCH RERAR E �`— N00'43'55 W ALUMINUM CAP C—E 1/16 CORNER EHfi+NEEIIS.SURVlYOki.W+nwFRS SECTIONS 1 1 1.26' r E 1/4 CORNER SECTION 5 5225 NQ"VD*%'eM WAY _ N89'22'54'W 1304,.25' 6 5 8° 06 13 �uoroE 170i1 e� 17.73' City of Meridian I Department Report 131 G. Preliminary Plat(dated: 10/9/24)& Phasing Plan �1?l�xlilil Wei€j�f .a � �s 9�Sf fee9' lidE £has mop � . ® QD 73 A ❑ ixi''� MLM Z ova s, •(� Br,A 00 pjC 3 R x ••�• e IumrOnraornma ® 0 J ® S ID To p oarnnavr - I I g I I F N" vy City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 132 ge a g F @@ Y�--- - --- I� . -------- - II 1 s L Flo is - IK IW I--- i �ga L � I i III � V S I r•.�. : � 1 � 1�111 i- I 1 ffI I I i I 1 ` � I I L #_ I _ I 3t City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits Fl 33 NOLDMISN 001 O N-"VN I W II]Hd gee 9 O g € Ell 511, $ j S w °gg 384 la 3 jig � �l j I I �i 'mvrn�ssmms �_________ ------- _ P11 ot ci 1GA A 1oN 3 du Ioi _ 4 = W �^ -,sq,M+x ar ,aott .row an loot. YNw eor sYw e>r sYw e++. M © •' � �• ag o �fI � I-• (DI >3r! '•lam gQ=§c'go&Icy g 71 I I a�loi ® 1011;�40:IaIlmR)©3'I01!lTk � c! I: _ _z::!; �>frela1Oi IMP"NA 9 1�1P1 cme. ..� ,F �•••• JIB B [�'P �._ � ®P ! e y�q�s• .• m!le'i 9 �g [9a-:.;=g C9 I` CS ;4� pz Irk Y,I x - 3 + A - ` c' I �, � •��2 I©� ! � 7� � • a "ter-'��,. �� � � .I � j _-, _::' :':-} - a- �..•- a� o; o cry aI* lei 3 i 9 or ��'s, 9 $ d-0 ay•-•- ,•fit-•- •.:.'� �''� Q V'A P 'w f)PI €_ ci gg! ®i 1 mi sad •• �3 w+ ,wr err •' I -.�-.'• • Aoes Prr Pn wM eru e*o � �': '• .' s� �'� Ds '� C; 2 'i a6 9 Qc § 4"s 05 v 0 R 1 - I + � I 1 � 1 5 City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 134 Sf �Ir CMG . .. . .. .. . .. ... PO lei�6 1m;VD jap lei (m� ON JoR W 'a;IM etlei W,10 Ic,�q'jc'i ml I a"t,-T! 3W (Da - e� - - - -- - -- -- . .. . .. .. .... . .. .. . .. . .. . .. ... .. .. ------------------------ City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits 135] Tr lip E k � e m—W p WWi p OV ]lll— a s e G � Z yy U W 5 ,j y �� gg co 2 Q M m V 0 E W it o 0 a ;{a 1R o '1 w � w w w w City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits Fl 36 PHASING Apex Cadence is proposed to be completed in five (5) phases as depicted below. Phasing is designed to be flexible and is subject to change. Future Rezone � Orly :. I 4 �k ~3 Phase J Phase 4 Prae Phase 1 City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits F137] H. Common Driveway Exhibits—NOT APPROVED � N SYS1O1 THDOls = O lI9IHX3 3AIUa NOWW0D 1V1d ANVNIWIlUd a' �w ai'NVIONW4 - � a NOISIAlasns3DN3oVDX3dV z�$ �3?�f �� s Yf, Yo- N,l, •an 3noa�is,1�o1•s d3 A d3 tl3 d3 d3 3 d3� d3� d3 3 d3� 03 93 93 5d —'✓3 03 Tea m w m is w a -- is �� is a id —i• a — —r ———— 510E o ��---- �❑ ti 'I 12 h o o Qa�w x �acE� !:s ?Noow s is 6 'Fm� 510E �N �.., uj a�o# I s I's I $sor+ ai F — � SDE- - � � z ' K iorq z 21) ❑ I z x t 2' O ac a � �SIOE L& u6 I-.s S3z I dl� _ _ _ l=l r � sioe —F � 1al I I h I I I � �• I. I 12' L All { 510E All 1 -10• I s N 'NI 1S3N 1131ONVA4'S PRESSURIZED , IRRIGATION EASEMENT TO F 510E BE DETERMINED ' WITH THE 4 FINAL PLAT 12, O - OZ w J 2m Fw axe Z mw� wed N5z 'NIAVf NIV.LNn0W'S mad �nzo m� Fo❑ �a ce 9wz z�s � wun o �Op ina ~ II i ¢OW O Q Zµ J¢ m0. City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits Fl 38 0 N LZ-£Z sldl S A0C318 z 0 1181HX33RRICINDWW03IVIdAUVNIWIl3Ud w jig w pe °• `F'w al'NVIORI3V4 a =o :6_ NOI SIN asns UN30tl�X3dtl z� a�a a F °3 3 M S !!HIl1 •aa 3AOdDismo •s 93 �3 'J] •�3 `J3 `J3 '�3 S i --- — ----------------------------� —Id y Id a Id Id id Id Id p F. SIDE pw— N a CSapw O "+ 12' 1 rc m GARAGE f m 1 a FLiQNT w I — — — —510E — � —wJ I I mw� Z II ma^ ' O>: 20' 12. SIDE y� / SIDE f s e + N 12' 'N11H911i I 1 ' '• h N'V3113d'S L — — SIDE C � SIDE 1 a 1 I c + I s , N 12. a 1 `: wWO n �iW Y 1 I! z w 1V1d 20, -1 M11 I+ n a v'z 3FILL H11M G3NIWa3130 CV x w a cs w w 39 0.1 1431135V3 M# z m z o n NDLLV018al AIIRt�O V a a z J z owa 5� n0j m Na — Fpo owz io 2zo ou osin City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits Fl 39 U-SL S101 T A"is = AsIHX3 3AIa0 NOW WOD IVId AUVNIWI13Ud m OI'NVIOIa3W : w NOIS'IAIasns 33N3OV3 X3dtlYe s S nm a xw ¢ ��n awzw 4 � msw tat^ _ � �Nw zz 52.9 z aa�l �a w Z�O CmxOJ rv�• oN�¢ m cwanY IRRlcnn �w F-wm EASEMENT TO BE DETERMINED WITH F F a THE FINAL PLAT s I ' -- n N V0113d'S COMMONS I� �s T loE� s r I UWWE '° + n �• 11 I FROND —FRONT] CARAG� v W a n 0 � I mom? I I �oJ IlI mm,o 2 I za N REAR L REARJ L READ RENiJ I s I .•.7.� V a -- --- --- --- ---- -- ---_j m=_ Ia la a Id Id Id la N la n w r r ..I0• x o W z a a PRESsuRIZED n# o� IRRIGATION LASEWENT U) w�^w� TO BE DETERMINED O w z WNH THE FINAL PLAT O II Z N 2 o w J w O x C] 2 a�or 5� [w izu 4ma•"mvw'xormm wAww �v.^suw wicc�awoxonrcu»mxUrMwnon�rrclswiccnw7ua�cowYun+¢I+ City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits Fl 40 N n LVI-£trl510111IOO18 = 1181HX3 3RRI0 NOWWOO IVId AUVNIWI13Ud T LU 01`Md1OR1M #g a o W = NOI SIN asns 33N3OV3 X3dtl 'old 3AMD-ismovs � dffd3 � d3 d3�d= d3 d3 d3 d3 Id Id Id Id N Id Id N Id —— ——————— -- �- r wo SIOE wBa N � Is owl � s o�w�o�? 7E v^ v{�o : 12' 1 sI my Fg u L — —SIDE woo a� zi a �N* '2 .pw 10' n I 1 2 �` 12 I I a SIDE SIDE a 20, L"r J o00555 s 'Nl 1S3N N3111M M'S SIDE } 12• PRE551JRIZEO g0' IRRIGATION SIDE EASEMENT TO BE DETERMINED WITH THE N5N d-3 Id Id a Id a Id , FINAL PLAT uS ¢ rti —_N oo ---- — -------- Y wax w (� Q a Nxo m w rr a 'Nl Atli NI tl1Nn OW'S z a yd❑ epyj �2 pq� zi aoOa p II aW,O mod .108 City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits Fl 41 Z91'9si slat i)DOIS = A * 7 1191HX3 3ARI0 N0W W0D laid AUVNIWIl3Ud LU 4 N01S1Aiasns UN3av3 X3dtl S MOB& g d3 d3 d3 d d3 d3 d3 d3 d3 �3 93 M `.13 `!3 ti3 M 03 T3— I b I I 1 sL— ------- ------ —. Id Id Id Id Id H Id Id s 1 SIDE j 20' m GARAGE d x s � ❑x wm amp JFRONT SIDE o SIDE 1Ng a I s 20' 1p �o I� of u s I¢ SIDE— - TIT SIDE 20' 0' s d 'L SIDE I I T SIDE 1 I I�20' Q o E. wR — Di — o SIDE o a rl z uiaa Y el 0 a O ww µ 1 1 Y GRAAVTYNT IRRIG KIN 4 x an d BE DETERMINED WITH w O ¢? THE FINAL PLAT z� o`no lri ar4i w Ln Ja m0 S N r W- a O II ip Oi J oza ❑ z ao x os� City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 142 0 1Nq v9Z-6sz slat i N3018 w 1181HX3 3AIaO NOW WOD ltlld AHVN IVY Il3ad w o OI`NVIOIa3W NOISIMasns3:)N30tl:)x3dtl s ua a 9w 2= 4 �aa~ ennd NUS Gqy r9N� wo x mg wzg' w �oNo� oz� PRESSURIZED IRRIGATION AND GRAVTY IRRIGATION EASEgEFIF TO BE N w w� 1 DETERMINED WITH 1E j I FINAL Puff m amrma F go€ II1 O �o m I 1 r SIDE nJ y a 1 12 10• �. .._ 1 3x !s SIDE �1 a S.OWLSUMMIT LN. - r T SIDE LEI� — � - - - - I m r SIDE 1 2' 10' s ono —SIDE I I I •• �I s r —T 51DE— — Z y �� 1 z0 �a' ma��e i J 1 12 � 1G' �� : :i ` m —SIDE ALY1 1 I 1 1F DE w_�_ rl SIDE — — Id W—m- 25 F ~/��' . J•'/ / Ill; GRAVITY IRRIGATION e a EASEMENT TO BE DETERMINED WfFH e ~ II THE FINAL PLAT iy=�w J rc � City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 143 I. Landscape Plan& Fencing Plan(dated: October 2024) Tc� .....«..... :aa1a� ���e � o ��-� w F a m � �e sR afia� � �m �'��; dp* 'h'•� S 4 3 s �a's E' j g 2n�RN w � $��� @$ as AsaQx u aaaaaaaaaa : xxxxxxssax•ax a a a gp MR RE - ac Ye xJ ' g�€8 e N ` paw H i _ H€ ° aB 1 3 1 1 £ 3 9 9 3 ___ a tg IIoC 000�O � QOI�0I rl N III o m m o 19,F In%�- ® - � P 49 Z_ City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 144 �g ` z 9 t 9 -€a F aag�s€ o g qge ❑g �^E"s§v. _e"a ri Via:` '-�a-�s yga Q_ 'ill $ate 0g N Z g 4 G`<mw �A4au;a3ggg=, � o �eg'� n, s-in §" "� 0 5 xe eae"'& ' �-a55@ 33 33 $$$x. 89a �� a. x p€ 3�P� w—a ; Sqy �id �3 � 3� 2�h�"� �.� � Y' bFb �€� � R axs € Ns:wW�5'c- 3 `€a Es4S'e 3a��4-ae�'s$=������$� E :€°=Ea aeas`��� ";a �2 � 1 II'� C ® P ® _ 6 ® ® ® ® ® T ® ® a ® ® ® a e a ® ® ® ® ® ® 2 ® P ® ® (v ; % IN ------------- ---------- City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits Fl 45 a g 0 Am t a9@ba55E7 84 �W� .021i go z R ij 'I MU N H 2 s. 'U jil-gh, din ON @'A 8�,, 09 ...... ...... V_� 0 QD �v t T I T 7P Id (P (E) 0 T av T ID O O O ®` 7e ,D City of Meridian Department Report V11. Exhibits 146] Tm € � ON a z o �� i i p E8Vdd 3 Y� d,N -m O g Ln n �� d63� it MIN �o � E z z'� 5 ygc 2 _�i B IIIII ...aaa���f�a� � � EB��W s�n g � ei" � � Z �„' o-9 � 3 �q WON s € ilApuw y € tlaF�sa o e aFrn y 3 S O O (Pit O © qD all ID @ ® S @ 3 3 3 RT .pJ ® ® T ® A 1G"IIQIpp@@ 'W' •p@C: @ ® a nw,,.r IT City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 147 J. Qualified Open Space Exhibit& Site Amenity Exhibits(dated: October 2024) �—�----- .... \�� j d, kEi § ()\ ) . ! � !| | � � r � ; ■ , ; | • ` 13 ! | | ) ) | ■ ; ; : t; , � ■ !| | | � | �� ! - ; | ! ■ � | ||■ -�-�---�—----------------����� ----. .. . ! f | e « ! ! a m + le,m!l,m+m ,»e,a»,!+ OD {!!\!e!!}\. %§( . § � »»«/mmmm,*mmmmm, } � ` | / | lm,(ID.+all«,« D \!! l+,f,e,+ ID ! f ` e ` \ | } | --- - / , - ; eee & ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! m z i \ , ( ,s a a s » s|e • )© City of Meridian Department Reprt V t Exhibits ,# BOCCE BALL COURTS REFERENCE PHOTO 1 - PICKLEBALL COURTS REFERENCE PHOTO COURTS did . t 2CLUBH f h • ' � 1 700 5F h _i� Ifl sae- ;;�,,�. Fa�!!a!!!al!!!!!!!!� K. Conceptual Building Elevations ELEVATIONS The homes along Locust Grove Road will incorporate articulation in design to provide visual variety. Typical elevations are shown below. Conventionaf Single Famify(typical to the non-age restricted homes) .I City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 150 Carriage Lane Single Family Detached(typical to Cadence) r :w Single Family Paired(typical to Cadence) I � NEI City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 151 L. Deviations from the R-15 Dimensional Standards Proposed with the PUD Home Type Street Setback to Street Interior Rear Living Area Setback to Side Garage Carriage Lane, Alley Loaded Alley-5 ft 5 ft 3 ft Alley—N/A, see (Age Restricted)** Local - 5 ft{1 )ft) street setback Paired Cadence, Front Loaded 10 ft 20 ft 3 ft 12 ft (Age Restricted)*** Conventional, Front Loaded 10 ft 20 ft 3 ft 12 ft NOT Age Restricted) *Proposed Setback(Standard Setback in the R-15 Zone) ** "Carriage Lane"is Brighton's term for"alley loaded"homes. ***"Paired Cadence"is Brighton's term far'duplex"style,age restricted,homes. "Street Setback"shall only refer to a setback directly adjacentto right-of-way.When a common lot is adjacent to a lot"Interior Side"setback shall be used to determine the setback. al I TRF1 UHNT LNJ TJ •I ' 1: I r AGF RUMI UO� ! D RSIE)ENfUL 1,� kss i 1 I f _ .lVO�FA N6P }f 3 L I i�M E.6RA H�CRANELN. F.V%FIOXMT'nT City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 152 M. Annexation Legal Description& Exhibit Map km ENGINE ERIN G September 26,2025 Project No_:24-168 Apex Cadence Subdivision Exhibit A Legal Deserip#ion for Annexation To the City of Meridian A parcel of land for arinexation to the City of Meridian being a portion of Government Lot 1 and the Southeast 1f4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 5,Township 2 North, Range 1 East, B.M.,Ada County, Idaho being more particularly described as follows: Corpmeneing at a 5f 8-inch re bar marking the Southwest comer of said Government Lot 1, which bears 500"02'06"E a distance of 1,337.30 feet from a 518-inch rebar marking the Northwest corner of said Government Lot 1,thence fallowing the westerly line of said Southeast 1f 4 of the Northeast 1f 4,SOW02'06"'E a distance of 598.75 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Thence leaving said westerly line,N78"25'55"E a distance of 161.21feet; Thence N54'55'20"E a distance of 74.17 feet; Thence N31"51'12"E a distance of 92.01 feet; Thence N10'25'10"E a distance of 381.33 feet; Thence N05'2652"W a distance of 106.26 feet; Then ce'N18'56'20"W a distance of 287.55 feet; Thence N32'08'38"W a distance of 91.83 feet; Thence N51'32'57"W a distance of 104.61 feet.- Thence N74`59'05'W a distance of 44.02 feet; Thence N00'02'WW a distance of 27.96 feet to the centerline of the Rawson Canal; Thence following said centerline the following nine(9)courses: 1. 574'59'05"E a distance of 54.46 feet; 2. S61"32'57"E a distance of 114.87 feet; 3 532*06'38"E a distance of 102.04 feet; 4. 5.18"56'2D"E a distance of 293.97 feet; 5. 505'26'52"E a distance of 113.22 feet; 6. S10'75'1WW a distance of 390.20feet; 7_ 531*51'12"W a distance of 102.63 feet; 8. S54a55'2V'W a distance of 85.30feet; 9_ 578`25'55'W a distance of 172.34 feet to the westerly line of said Southeast 1f4 of the Northeast 114; Thence leaving said centerline and following said westerly liner N09'02'06"W a distance of 27.56 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. 5725 North 01s[awary way• Balss,Idaho 83711 G 208.639.6939+ ke HAIIPramn City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits 153 Said parcel contaiins a total of 0.86 acres, more or less,and is subject to all existing easements and/o r rights-of-way of record or irnpH ed- Attached hereto is Exhibit Band by this reference is made apart hereof. QI- uo a Dd or PAGE City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 154 NORTHWEST CORNER OMfT LOT 1 FOUND 5J8- REBAR S74'59'05"f: 54.46' N40'02'p6'1V S61'32'57'E 27-96' 1 14.87' I M74'59'05"W 532"08'38% 44.02' N61'32'57W 102,04' 104.61' V ri N32'08'38"W rw 91,63' r3 CIENTERLINE OF THE -s 's PAWSON CANAL POINT OF COMMENCEMENT SOLTHWEST CORNER GOV'T LOT 1 FOUND 5f 8" REM 4 f+105'26'52�N ^JO'5`2;6'S2�E n 113,22' 1 DI3,26' DAVID& KRISTIN 3 TUR N BULL FAM I LY TR UST 3 I E� APN;S14061130355 (PORTION) c ANNEKAT1OM AREA:0.86±AC CURRENT ZONING. RUT 0 r t O f W3 on L z v G;, N31'51'12'E - 92-01 P I N54 55'20"E z 74.17' S31'51'12V 5 102.63' POINT OF BEGINNING ,, N7925'55"E 161.21' N00'02'deu S54'55'20"W 27-Sfi 85-30' S78'25'55'W 0 150 30D a50 n E N G I N E E R I N G — 172,34' plan Scale: V= 156' p S775 RE RFH OISCOVERT WAY = 96LSE,IQAHD E3M rFlos,E�3ua�639 a93s E H I BIT D bnen¢Ilv.son AN NE?ATIE�N TO THE CITY OF MERIDIAN DATE: SEP'TEMUR Z025 IWIE T: 11-118 SHEET: APEX CADENCE SUBDIVISION 1 OF 1 G VT LOT 1, SE1/4 NE1/4 SEC, G, T2 N, R1 E, BM, ADA COUNTY, 1DAH0 City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits 155 N. De-Annexation Legal Description&Exhibit Map I= ENGINEIItING Septeminer 26,2W5 Project No_:24-108 Apex Cadence Subdivision Exhibit A Legal Description for Do-Annexation From the City of Meridian A parcel of land for de-annexation from the City of Meridian being a portion of the Southeast 114 of the Northeast 1/4 and the Northeast 114 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6,Township 2 North,Range 1 East, B.M„City of Meridian,Ada County,Idaho being more particularly described as follows, Commencing at an aluminum cap marking the East 114 corner pf said Section 6,which beam 500°04'35"E a distance of 2,671.16 feet from an alum!num cap marking the Northeast corner of said Section.6,thence following the northerly line of said Northeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4,N89'22'50"W a distance of 1,304.25 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. The nee leaving said northerly line,S00'42'27"E a distance of 601.03 feet; The nee N52'05'35'W a distance of 31.44 fleet to the westerly line of said Northeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1f4; Thence following said westerly line,N00'02'10"W a distance of 581-86 feet to the Northwest corner of said Northeast 114 of the Southeast 1/4(Center-East IJIG cornea; Thence leaving the westerly line of said Northeast 114 of the Southeast 1/4 and following the westerly line of said Southeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4,N0702'06"W a distance of 660.87 fee#, Thence leaving saidwesterly line,587"34'26"E a distance of 13.49feet; Thence SOV2023"E a distance of 549.25 feet; Thence 500'43'55"E a distance of 111.26 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said parcel contains a total of 0,52 1cres,mare ar less,and is sub*ct to all existing easements and/or rights-of-way of record or implied_ Attached hereto Is Exhibit B and by this referenw is made a part hereot. ii rr�� ,a L 2 0 ION 0 g � L. a .24. 5725 North Diiooywy Way u DoIw, Idatio a 37 13:706,09.69�3■kmengilF.com City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits 156 NORTHEAST CORNED SECTION 6 I FOUND ALUMINUM CAP E. LAKE HAZEL R€7. 31 32 587'34'26"E 5 5 13-49' LO oE-ANNEXATION 70TA1 AREA: 0.52±ACLk- m o � GARY R. MU ROD ITI0 in ' APN-51406141570 CURRENT ZONING: R-P I POINT OF COMMENCEMENT r,,29APIN; 5-E EAST 1/4 CORNER SECTION 6 CENTER-EAST 1 f i 6 CORNER FOUND ALUMINUM CAP NB9'22'50'W 1304.25' (TIE) F ElEGINNING G7 J M U RGGITIO LLC vi ao 140641770D(PORTION) ENrotvlNc: � I CIA n � I N 0 200 400 600 Plan Scate: 1" =200' a E N52'05'35"W a � I � I E N G f N E E R I N C 5725 N4RrK OGCUVERY WAY = BaSE.IDAHO 23713 EXHIBIT I�PHEIHEJ2BS]E33 +439 Bmenghp.c m DE-ANNEXATION FROM THE CITY OF MERIDIAN DATE: iEFTETYMER 2D2'S s FNCYIEC-f: I4-700 APEX SHEFF. CADENCE l.1BDI I ION 1 OF SE1J4 NE1/4, NE1/4 5E1/4,SEC. 6,72N, RLE,13M,CITY OF MERIDIAN,ADA COUNTY, IDAH0 City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits Fl 57 1 1 1 ! _ Y _ pool II 1 }IP 1 T . 01110 -MhM =. lull w r. f �f�I 1 ! 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. City of Meridian I Department Report VIIl. Additional Notes&Details for Staff Report Maps, Tables, and Charts 159 • Existing Level of service(LOS).LOS indicator is a common metric to consider a driver's experience with a letter ranking from A to F.Letter A represents free flow conditions, and on the other end Level F represents forced flow with stop and go conditions. These conditions usually represent peak hour driver experience. ACHD considers Level D, stable flow,to be acceptable. The LOS does not represent conditions for bikes or pedestrians, nor indicate whether improvements: are possible; if there are acceptable tradeoffs; or if there is a reasonable cost-benefit. • Integrated Five Year Work Plan(IFYWP).The IFYWP marker(yes/no) indicates whether the specified roadway is listed in the next 5-years. This work may vary, from concept design to construction. • Capital Improvement Plan(CIP).The CIP marker(yes/no)indicates whether the specified roadway is programmed for improvement in the next 20-years. City of Meridian I Department Report VIII. Additional Notes&Details for Staff Report Maps, Tables, and Charts 160 E IDIAN;--- Applicant Presentation 1 3 D N Ul a4 D N N D n0 c ° O O + O r+ n oo — v, � —� — 73 r+ °' C7 o r+ C -a O r+ c g �, x (D 0. � r+ o rn < (D o 3 � �, o _ r+ r* v D 3 o O r, o -�, v :3Onq rD r+ ° o (D .< r+ (D r+ o Q o o N 3 N 3 °0.0 0 o o — O zy rn to (D �, w D — w rf (D O v, O c — � Q � . c r+ n ' � r+ nU 6 zT ZT r+ CD. rt (D (D rt p `� D Q Q K O '0 O 0 �^ Oh 61 (D �, n l r+ r�r O p (D O O p O . D1 N Q 3 r+ r+ (D 00 N O (D 3 O � ° Q "o cn C O O ° (D �O O C (gyp ram+ (D -+, O � N 3 rrt-h O O (D c Q cn (D O n 0) O� r+ 0 n1 Q (D O C) JO o � O 'n (D p n (D 3 O 3 r+ o D D D Lon �' O CD :k (D Q Q Q (D O- c — N cn Qn) 0) (D Q � cn n v Z ' Z O 0 o o �P N � 0q OIQ C (D .� � � -O (D 0 '�ET 0 0 �h r+ 3 F 3 � o rD � . D n v O r+ N Q (Dor rt 0� O — � WWI(D � r+ QCY (D r�•i• rn-F � O rD p fi :3n v � N Oy r O O mml O n0 O (D N o • (D n 'o QlzT D. O fD Omh o - Q � ram+ O • fD Q C (D ZT O O !D G (U O O r�r (D p rf O o • OJ Q- r+ � N N N 3 �Q IV (D w (D O O • • ` L4n Z3 r=+ — (D C — (D m (D M O r-r 70 M O ( O O O (D O Q rr � Q Q . r+ n (D 3 (D � � (D rD o 3 h :5 v (D � rt Q - (D = n ' C o (D v O CL Ln n Q Q � m O o (,n ' n n n O 0 r + C rt N D O O (D zT 0) ' O n �°„ (rq � rt r+ p q 0rmtmZT N r+ cn (D O X zT (n n O 70 rN_r O rn rNr to C'4 (D cn Qq n CD ni r+ 0 X (D �_ N c ° r�r Q Q- (D C pu N N n n .-C7 Uq (D N -s :3 lu _ (D r{ D zT� (D z Q to (D w D cu m O p � Q N N E G Q N O fD (D ' 70 Q n �a t C mm, . cn O O n rft O CD O (D � zQL C O (D r�-t n rt n r+ L Ln N aj O_ 3 fl- rt C • N (D (D n ° Q- n ° O • (D n cz r-t Ln (rD fD C n rnt n (nD 3 (D • 70 r+ zT 3 Ln (D 73 rt (D O • N N V IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing continued from October 2, 2025 for St. George (H-2025-0004) by Shaun Wardle and Jason St. George, located at 3870 E. Overland Rd. and 1545 S. Topaz Ave. Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2025-0004 A. Request: Annexation of 2.0 acres with the R-15 zoning district to construct nineteen (19) multi-family units, 7,987 Sq. ft. of commercial space and four (4) vertically integrated residential units. B. Request: Two Conditional Use Permits, one for the multi-family residential and one for the vertically integrated residential project in the R-15 zoning district. 161 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE : November 6v 2025 ITEM # 6 PROJECT NAME : St . George ( W2025 - 0004 ) I wish to testify Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing ( mark X ( Please Print ) HOA ? if yes ) kneo j2j 036 3 Sh ev, ( Uow VI � 09 5 c 5F H� v 6 �- w r w lwv 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT C��fEPIDIAN*,­, DEPARTMENT REPORT HEARING 11/06/2025-(Continued from Legend -- DATE: 10/02/2025) 1.7 Project Location TO: Planning&Zoning Commission -:Area of Impact �f }= City Limits FROM: Nick Napoli,Associate Planner O Analysis 208-884-5533 -- ' Nnapoli@meridiancity.org APPLICANT: Jason St. George e e i r SUBJECT: H-2025-0004 St. George — LOCATION: Located at 3870 E. Overland Road and 1545 S. Topaz Avenue in the SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 16 T.3n. R.IE. - - I. PROJECT OVERVIEW A. Summary Annexation of 2.0 acres with the R-15 zoning district to construct nineteen(19)multifamily units, and one vertically integrated residential building consisting of 7,987 square feet of commercial space, and four(4)residential units. Both uses required a conditional use permit in a proposed R- 15 zoning district. B. Issues/Waivers NOTE: Staff supports the proposed mix of uses on the site, however the proposed development cannot be supported by staff because the site isn't large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district, as follows: - The multifamily buildings do not meet the 80 square feet of private usable open space for the residences to use in the multi-family portion of the property. Currently,they are proposing 68 square feet,below the requirement in the UDC. - Water main placement on the west side does not meet the required 4' setback from the curb; inadequate separation from the infiltration trench; fire hydrants not shown, raising easement and spacing concerns; easement area limits the ability to meet landscaping and tree requirements. - Proposed balconies/porches may encroach into 20' sewer easement; landscaping within the easement is not allowed,preventing compliance with UDC 11-3B-12. - The open space proposed for the development does not meet the standards of the Multi- Family Specific Use Standards. - The landscape buffer along Overland Road does not meet the water conserving design standards,which then does not justify the 50% reduction in the landscape buffer. City of Meridian I Department Report 1. Project Overview 162 - The application lacks critical comprehensive plan elements such as functional integration, a regional park to support recreational needs,and future integration with neighboring properties. Multiple alternative compliance requests will be necessary to accommodate the project on the site. The first involves reducing the required landscaping adjacent to the drive aisle from five(5)feet to two(2)feet,and the second involves decreasing the private usable open space requirement. C. Recommendation Staff. Denial Commission: Pending D. Decision Council: Pending City of Meridian I Department Report I. Project Overview 163 I1. COMMUNITY METRICS Table 1: Land Use Description Details Map Ref. Existing Land Use(s) Residential(Single Family) - Proposed Land Use(s) Residential(Multifamily)and Commercial - Existing Zoning R1 in Ada County VII.A.2 Proposed Zoning R-15 (Medium to High Density Residential) Adopted FLUM Designation Mixed Use Regional VII.A.3 Proposed FLUM Designation Mixed Use Regional Table 2: Process Facts Description Details Preapplication Meeting date 1/7/2025 Neighborhood Meeting 1/7/2025 Site posting date 10/17/2025 Table 3: Community Metrics Agency/Element Description/Issue Reference Ada County Highway District IV.D • Comments Received Yes; Staff Report - • Commission Action Required No - • Access Arterial: Overland Road - Local: Topaz Avenue • Traffic Level of Service Overland Road: Better than`E" ITD Comments Received Yes:No comment Meridian Fire • Response Time 5 Minutes or less Meridian Public Works Wastewater 1 • Distance to Mainline Available at the site • Impacts or Concerns Yes,the landscaping within the sewer easement does not permit trees or larger plants.In addition,no permanent structure can overhang into the easement. Meridian Public Works Water - • Distance to Mainline Available at the site • Impacts or Concerns Yes,the water main on the west portion of the site does not meet the requirement for the 4' off the lip of the curb. Water main separation from the infiltration trench is still an issue that is critical to the development's functioning. School District(s) No Comment - Note: See section IV. City/Agency Comments& Conditions for comments received or see the public record. City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics 164 Figure 1: One-Mile Radius Existing Condition Metrics Reference Parcel:R4626240450 Date Retrieved:2025/3/3 Parcel Count Parcel Acreage Infill Indicator: Surrounding Area Alatik 86 241 111% Not City 0 ® City Limits 1,908 1,121. ■ Not City Household Household& Population Growth ■ Households 02020 Population Change:9.6°Ia Population ■Growth (Household and Population Change since 2010 Decennial) 5,000 10,000 15,000 Use Types Residential Addresses All Addresses ■ Single-family 44% 32% 27% Multi-family 5696 41% ® Commercial 4 Figure 2: ACHD Summary Metrics Level of Service Planning Thresholds 1. Condition of Area Roadways Traffic Count is based an Vehicles per hour ,:VP-I1 Roadway Frontage Functional PM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Classification Traffic Count Level of Service Overland Road 208-feet Principal Arter,al 927 Betterthen "E" Topaz Avenue 162-feet Collector NIA WA ' Acceptable level of service for a five-lane principal arterial is 'E" (1,780 VPH)_ ' Acceptable level of service for a two-lane ccIIector is 'D" (425 V PH)_ Figure 3: Service Impact Summary City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics F165] ImpactService . . Ready Marginal a Caution — 01, °°, a� �t- City of Meridian Department Report II. Community Metrics F166] IH. STAFF ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code(UDC) A. General Overview The Future Land Use Map(FLUM)designates the area proposed to be annexed as "Mixed-Use Regional,"which is intended to encourage a balanced blend of employment opportunities,retail, residential dwellings, and public uses,particularly in areas near major arterial intersections. This designation supports a diverse and integrated community where residents can live,work, and shop without needing to travel far. An important component of the MU-R designation is to avoid predominantly single-use developments. The site is currently surrounded by R1 residential county properties to the north and west,with an annexed resident to the east, and a mix of commercial and multifamily in the surrounding area. Additionally, commercial space is located at the north end of S. Silverstone Way,including a Top Golf facility, commercial office,restaurants, and Eagle View Apartments comprising 396 units. To the south,directly across Overland Road are Silverstone Apartments, consisting of 112 residential units, and Movado Village Apartments, consisting of 60 residential units. Furthermore, the property on the northeast corner of S. Topaz Avenue and Overland Road is a recently approved multi-tenant building with a restaurant located in the C-G zoning district. The project should reflect positive integration with surrounding properties by offering a balanced mix of residential,commercial, and recreational spaces that support the region's broader development vision. The purpose of the MU-R zoning is to foster community and improve the area's overall functionality The applicant is proposing nineteen(19)Multi-Family Residential Units, four(4)vertically integrated residential units, and 7,987 square feet of commercial space across two(2)acres of land. The vertically integrated building is proposed fronting on Overland Road and has four(4) residential units above 7,987 square feet of commercial space. The applicant states that the development is providing a mix of housing types,promoting connectivity, and encouraging walkability and efficiency through vertically integrated uses. In addition,the applicant has provided 8,330 square feet of open space and amenities in the form of a barbecue grill with a picnic area,pet waste station, and bike repair station. While the proposed project offers a mix of uses consistent with the MU-R FLUM designation, staff has several concerns. These include insufficient parking, limited functional integration, and the absence of a regional park to support recreational needs. There are also concerns about future integration with neighboring properties and the lack of adequate connectivity,conflicting with the MU-R's goal of fostering a walkable community where residents can live,work, and shop without heavy reliance on driving. The MU-R and Mixed-Use Integration Standards in the Comprehensive Plan discuss having a larger concept plan for the surrounding area,which staff has asked for but has not received from the applicant.While we understand the applicant owns only the two(2)parcels included in this application, it is important to show how this development can integrate with future development. This design element is critical to showing meaningful functional integration. Furthermore,there are approximately 560 multi-family units already within the vicinity of this proposed project.A proposed multi-family and vertically integrated residential project was proposed to the east along Overland Road(Rolling Hills) and was denied by the City Council. Table 4: Project Overview Description Details History N/A City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 167 Description Details Phasing Plan The applicant has indicated that the entirety of the site improvements will be completed with the Vertically Integrated building,and the multifamily will come after the VI building. Residential Units 23 total units: 19 Multi-Family and 4 Vertically Integrated Open Space The development is less than five(5)acres,but still needs to provide open space due to the multi-family standards.The applicant is proposing 8,330 square feet of open space when 5950 is required. However,the open space south of Five Mile Creek does not exceed twenty feet in width,which does not allow for it to be counted. Amenities The applicant is proposing a barbecue grill with a patio area,a pet waste station,and a bike repair station. Physical Features The north portion of the site is encumbered by Five Mile Creek.The applicant will be required to meet the requirements for the floodplain. Acreage 2.0 Acres Lots 1 lot Density 12 units an acre B. Site Development and Use Analysis 1. Existing Structures/Site Improvements (UDC 11-1): The current use of the property is residential with several existing buildings on the property. The property consists of two homes and two outbuildings. All structures will be removed, and the existing well and septic system will be abandoned as required. 2. Proposed Use Analysis (UDC 11-2): The proposed uses of Multi-Family residential and Vertically Integrated Residential Projects are conditional uses in the R-15 zoning district. 3. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): The proposal does not meet all of the dimensional standard requirements for the R-15 zoning district. The applicant has worked with staff on several rounds of revisions to try and make the site meet all of the dimensional standards. To meet the drive aisle requirements,the applicant is requesting alternative compliance to reduce the western landscaping adjacent to the 25-foot drive aisle from five(5)feet to two (2)feet. However, issues persist with landscaping inside of easements. In communication with the Public Works Department,it was determined that a significant amount of proposed landscaping will need to be removed due to easements encumbering the site. Staff is concerned with this as the proposed development will not meet the landscaping requirements in UDC 11-313 due to inadequate room on the site. Staff has discussed losing units on the site to make adequate room for both the easements, separation, and required landscaping. However,the applicant did not indicate whether they would be supportive of losing units to better accommodate the site. In addition,the applicant is proposing water conserving design along Overland Road to reduce the street landscape buffer by 50%; however,the applicant is not in compliance with the water conserving design standards which makes it ineligible for the buffer reduction. 4. Specific Use Standards (UDC 11-4-3): Multi-Family Development: 11-4-3-27: Site design. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 168 1. Residential buildings shall provide a minimum setback of ten (10) feet unless a greater setback is otherwise required by this title and/or title 10 of this Code.Building setbacks shall take into account windows, entrances, porches, and patios, and how they impact adjacent properties. The residential building complies with the minimum setback requirement of 10 feet. 2. All on-site service areas, outdoor storage areas,waste storage, disposal facilities, and transformer and utility vaults shall be located in an area not visible from a public street or shall be fully screened from view from a public street. The site plan depicts screened trash enclosures not visible from a public street;all proposed transformer/utility vaults and other service areas shall comply with this requirement. 3. A minimum of eighty(80)square feet of private,usable open space shall be provided for each unit. This requirement can be satisfied through porches,patios, decks, and/or enclosed yards. Landscaping,entryway, and other accessways shall not count toward this requirement. In circumstances where strict adherence to such standards would create an inconsistency with the purpose statements of this section,the Director may consider an alternative design proposal through the alternative compliance provisions as outlined in section 11-513-5 of this title. The floor plan depicts 68 square foot patios or decks for each unit that does not comply with this standard. Staff is not supportive of reducing the private usable open space for this project. 4. For this section, vehicular circulation areas, parking areas, and private usable open space shall not be considered common open space. None of these areas were used in the open space calculation. 5. No recreational vehicles, snowmobiles,boats, or other personal recreation vehicles shall be stored on the site unless provided for in a separate, designated and screened area. The Applicant shall adhere to this standard. 5. The parking shall meet the requirements outlined in chapter 3, "regulations applying to all districts", of this title. Based on the number of bedrooms per unit, a minimum of 43 off-street parking spaces are required for the multi family residential portion of the site, which includes two (2)guest parking spaces, 38 spaces covered by carports or garages; a minimum of three (3) bicycle parking spaces are required. According to the application narrative, a total of 43 spaces are proposed, with 38 of those in a garage. In addition, if overflow parking is ever needed, it would push residents and commercial customers to park on Topaz Avenue. 7. Developments with twenty(20)units or more shall provide the following: a. A property management office.Not applicable as the development is 19 units. b. A maintenance storage area.Not applicable as the development is 19 units. C. A central mailbox location, including provisions for parcel mail, that provides safe pedestrian and/or vehicular access. Located in the open space on the north side of the development. d. A directory and map of the development at an entrance or convenient location for those entering the development.Not applicable as the development is 19 units. City of Meridian I Department Report 111. Staff Analysis 169 The development consists of 19 multi family units and does not exceed the 20 units required for compliance with these standards. Common open space design requirements. 1. The total baseline land area of all qualified common open spaces shall equal or exceed ten (10)percent of the gross land area for multi-family developments of five (5) acres or more. This site is below S acres in size; therefore, this is not required. However, see number five (S) below for additional open space requirements, as each unit is required to have a specific amount of open space. 2. All common open spaces shall meet the following standards: a. The development plan shall demonstrate that the open space has been integrated into the development as a priority and not for land use after all other development elements have been designed.Open space areas that have been given priority in the development design have: (1) Direct pedestrian access; (2) High visibility; (3) Comply with Crime Prevention through Environmental Design(CTED) standards; and (4) Support a range of leisure and play activities and uses. b. Open space shall be accessible and well-connected throughout the development. This quality can be shown with open spaces that are centrally located within the development, accessible by pathway and visually accessible along collector streets or as a terminal view from a street. c. The open space promotes the health and well-being of its residents. Open space shall support active and passive uses for recreation, social gathering, and relaxation to serve the development. Staff encouraged the applicant to provide as much open space as possible due to the lack of a regional park in the area. The applicant does not meet the standards listed above, as the primary common open space along Five Mile Creek is not functionally integrated in the design and is not the priority in the design of the development. The common open space does not provide adequate space for a range of leisure and play activities without conflicts with either drive aisles or Five Mile Creek. In addition, the bridge across Five Mile Creek may or may not be approved by the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District, which is crucial to the open space proposed. As a result, the applicant does not meet the purpose statement for the open space due to the functionality of the open space not being a priority which is one of the reasons staff is recommending denial of the project. 3. Alternative compliance is available for the standards listed in subsections (C)l and (C)2 above, if a project has a unique targeted demographic; utilizes other place-making design elements in Old-Town or mixed-use future land use designations with collectively integrated and shared open space areas. 4. All multi-family projects over twenty(20)units shall provide at least one(1)common grassy area integrated into the site design allowing for general activities by all ages. This area may be included in the minimum required open space total. Projects that provide safe access to adjacent public parks or parks under a common HOA,without crossing an arterial roadway, are exempt from this standard. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 170 a. Minimum size of the common grassy area shall be at least five thousand(5,000)square feet in area. This area shall increase proportionately as the number of units increase and shall be commensurate to the size of the multi-family development as determined by the decision-making body. Where this area cannot be increased due to site constraints, it may be included elsewhere in the development. b. Alternative compliance is available for these standards if a project has a unique targeted demographic; utilizes other place-making design elements in Old-Town or mixed-use future land-use designations with collectively integrated and shared open space areas. The submitted plans do not depict a common grassy area of at least five thousand (5,000) square feet, as the development is 19 units and is not required to meet this standard.However, there is no regional park in the area, which raises some concern from staff. 5. In addition to the baseline open space requirement,a minimum area of outdoor common open space shall be provided as follows: a. One hundred fifty(150)square feet for each unit containing five hundred(500)or fewer square feet of living area. None of the units are below 500 square feet (sf.) of living area. b. Two hundred fifty (250) square feet for each unit containing more than five hundred (500)square feet and up to one thousand two hundred(1,200)square feet of living area. 21 units are between 500 and 1,200 s.f.; therefore, a total of 0.12 acres (5,250 square feet) of common open space is required. c. Three hundred fifty(350) square feet for each unit containing more than one thousand two hundred(1,200)square feet of living area. Two (2) of the units are above 1,200 sf. of living area; therefore, a total of.02 acres (700 square feet) of common open space is required. A total of 8,330 square feet is proposed, which exceeds the minimum standards. However, the proposed open space does not meet the standards listed above in section two (2) of the open space requirements. The open space does not integrate with the development to promote leisure and play activities without conflicting with drive aisles and Five Mile Creek. Open space areas consist of half of the street buffer along Overland Road, an arterial street, and linear open space along Five Mile Creek on the north portion of the site.In order to count the buffer along the arterial street, it has to meet the enhanced buffer requirements in UDC 11-4-3-27C.9 and 11-3B-7C.3f. 6. Common open space shall be not less than four hundred (400) square feet in area, and shall have a minimum length and width dimension of twenty(20) feet. The common open space areas depicted for the development do not meet this requirement. The open space depicted on the south portion of Five Mile Creek does not exceed twenty(20) feet in width. 7. In phased developments, common open space shall be provided in each phase of the development consistent with the requirements for the size and number of dwelling units. Not applicable; the development will be completed in a single phase. 8. Unless otherwise approved through the conditional use process, common open space areas shall not be adjacent to a collector or arterial streets unless separated from the street by a berm or constructed barrier at least four(4)feet in height,with breaks in the berm or barrier to allow for pedestrian access. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 171 9. Buffer(s): One hundred(100)percent of the landscape buffer along collector streets and fifty (50) percent of the landscape buffer along arterial streets that meet the enhanced buffer requirements below may count towards the required baseline open space. a. Enhanced landscaping asset forth in Article 11-3B,Landscaping Requirements; b. Multi-use pathways; c. Enhanced amenities with social interaction characteristics; d. Enhanced context with the surroundings. The buffer shall comply with the enhanced buffer requirements as noted, except for a multi-use pathway, which is not required because there is an existing sidewalk along Overland. Site development amenities. 1. All multifamily developments shall provide for quality of life, open space, and recreation amenities to meet the particular needs of the residents as follows: a. Quality of life. (1) Clubhouse. (2) Fitness facilities. (3) Enclosed bike storage. (4) Public art such as a statue. (5) Dog park with a waste station. (6) Commercial outdoor kitchen. (7) Fitness course. (8) Enclosed storage b. Open space. (1) Community garden. (2) Ponds or water features. (3) Plaza. (4) Picnic area including tables,benches, landscaping,and a structure for shade. c. Recreation. (1) Pool. (2) Walking trails. (3) Children's play structures. (4) Sports courts. d. Multi-modal amenity standards. (1) Bicycle repair station. (2) Park and ride lot. (3) Sheltered transit stop. (4) Charging stations for electric vehicles. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 172 2. The number of amenities shall depend on the size of the multifamily development as follows: a. For multifamily developments with less than twenty(20)units,two(2)amenities shall be provided from two(2)separate categories. b. For multifamily development between twenty (20) and seventy-five (75) units, three (3) amenities shall be provided,with one(1)from each category. c. For multifamily development with seventy-five (75) units or more, four(4) amenities shall be provided,with at least one(1)from each category. d. For multifamily developments with more than one hundred (100) units, the decision- making body shall require additional amenities commensurate to the size of the proposed development. 3. The decision-making body shall be authorized to consider other improvements in addition to those provided under this subsection (D), provided that these improvements provide a similar level of amenity. The Applicant proposes the following amenities exceeding the requirement for two (2) amenity points on the site: Open Space: Barbeque with patio area,pet waste station, and a regional pathway that will extend in the future. Multi-modal:Bicycle repair station Landscaping requirements. 1. Development shall meet the minimum landscaping requirements by chapter 3, "regulations applying to all districts", of this title. 2. All street-facing elevations shall have landscaping along their foundation. The foundation landscaping shall meet the following minimum standards: a. The landscaped area shall be at least three(3)feet wide. b. For every three (3) linear feet of foundation, an evergreen shrub having a minimum mature height of twenty-four(24)inches shall be planted. c. Ground cover plants shall be planted in the remainder of the landscaped area. The landscape plan depicts landscape areas at least 3' wide and evergreen shrubs every three (3) linear feet and ground cover plants in the remainder of the landscaped area. This is only required for the building that fronts on Topaz. Maintenance and ownership responsibilities. All multifamily developments shall record legally binding documents that state the maintenance and ownership responsibilities for the management of the development,including,but not limited to, structures, parking, common areas, and other development features. The applicant shall comply with this requirement and provide said document prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the development. Police access under exigent circumstances. Multifamily developments with units that take access via secured common corridors shall install and maintain a keyless entry system, or suitable alternative, to provide police access to the common corridors under exigent circumstances. The keyless entry system or alternative shall be subject to review and approval by the Meridian Police Department. 11-4-3-41: Vertically Integrated Residential Project City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 173 1. A vertically integrated residential project shall be a structure that contains at least two (2) stories. The applicant complies with this standard. 2. A minimum of twenty-five(25)percent of the gross floor area of a vertically integrated project shall be residential dwelling units; outdoor patio space on the same floor as a residential unit may count towards this requirement. The applicant is in compliance with this standard. The entire second story is for residential use. 3. A minimum of ten(10)percent of the gross floor area of a vertically integrated project shall be used for nonresidential uses as specified in subsection E below. The applicant is in compliance with this standard. The entire first floor is for non-residential uses. 4. The minimum building footprint for a detached vertically integrated residential project shall be two thousand four hundred(2,400) square feet. The building footprint for the vertically integrated building is 8,217 square feet, exceeding this requirement. 5. The allowed nonresidential uses in a vertically integrated project include: arts, entertainment or recreation facility; artist studio; civic, social or fraternal organizations; daycare facility; drinking establishment; education institution; financial institution; healthcare or social assistance; industry, craftsman; laundromat; nursing or residential care facility;personal or professional service; public or quasi-public use; restaurant; retail; or other uses that may be considered through the conditional use permit process. The applicant acknowledges this and will be required to comply with the approved uses. However, staff has concerns regarding the adequacy of parking for certain potential tenants. Specifically, if a restaurant were to occupy the space, it could create significant parking demand. While the applicant exceeds the minimum commercial parking requirement by four (4) spaces, this surplus is insufficient to support the intensity of a restaurant use. 6.None of the required parking shall be located in the front of the structure. The parking is located behind the building. 7. A minimum of fifty(50) square feet of private,usable open space shall be provided for each residential dwelling unit. This requirement can be satisfied through porches,patios, decks, and/or enclosed yards. Landscaping, entryway and other accessways shall not count toward this requirement. The Director may consider an alternative design proposal through the alternative compliance provisions as set forth in Section 11-5B-5 of this title. The applicant is in compliance with this standard. C. Design Standards Analysis 1. Structure and Site Design Standards (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-19): The proposed concept plan adheres to these standards: At least forty(40)percent of the buildable frontage is occupied by building facades and/or public space; only one drive aisle, with parking on one or both sides, is permitted between the building facades and adjacent streets; and a continuous pedestrian walkway, at least five(5) feet wide,is provided from the perimeter sidewalk to the main building entrances for nonresidential uses. 2. Qualified Open Space &Amenities (Comp Plan 2.02.00, Comp Plan 2.02.0IB, UDC 11-3G): Per UDC 11-3G-3, qualified open space is defined as active or passive open spaces. Any open space that is active or passive in its intended use, and accessible by all residents of the development, including,but not limited to: Open grassy area of at least five thousand(5,000) City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 174 square feet in area; Community garden(s); natural waterways, open ditches, and laterals, protective buffers a minimum of ten(10) feet in width dedicated for active access along these natural open spaces count toward meeting the open space minimum requirements; plaza with a minimum dimension of twenty(20)feet in all directions and including hardscape, seating, lighting in conformance with the standards set forth in section 11-3A-11 and landscaping in conformance with the requirements set forth in Article 11-3B,Landscaping Requirements; or linear open space area that is at least twenty(20)feet and up to fifty(50)feet in width,has an access at each end, and is improved and landscaped as set forth in Article 11-3B, Landscaping Requirements. Since this development is less than five (5) acres in size, it does not need to meet the 15% open space typically required in the R-15 zone. However, since it is a multifamily development, the following standards apply: a. One hundred fifty(150)square feet for each unit containing five hundred(500) or less square feet of living area. b. Two hundred fifty(250)square feet for each unit containing more than five hundred(500) square feet and up to one thousand two hundred(1,200)square feet of living area. c. Three hundred fifty(350)square feet for each unit containing more than one thousand two hundred(1,200)square feet of living area. The proposed project includes 8,330 square feet of qualified open space, 2,480 square feet more than the minimum requirement. However, the location of the common open spaces raises concerns about their functionality. The primary common area is situated along the northernmost drive aisle and adjacent to Five Mile Creek, offering limited usable space for resident recreation. Additionally, the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District has not yet confirmed whether a pedestrian bridge may cross the creek; if not permitted, the majority of this open space would become inaccessible and effectively unusable. The applicant is proposing a bike repair station and a barbecue with a picnic area on a site less than 5,000 square feet, a pet waste station, and a regional pathway that will be extended in the future for a total of three and a half(3.5)points, which exceeds the two (2) amenity points required in the UDC. The Comprehensive Plan calls for developments to create safe, attractive, and well- maintained neighborhoods with ample open space and a range of amenities that support diverse lifestyle choices. Reducing or omitting these elements, regardless of the parcel's shape or intended demographic, undermines the Plan's core principles and standards. It's important to recognize that proximity to parks and sports complexes doesn't fully address the need for accessible and usable open space within a neighborhood. The closest park is Gordon Harris Park, which is a little over a mile away. In addition, the residents would still face the challenge of crossing major arterial roads to reach these amenities. Pedestrian and bicycle crossing of these major roadways adversely affects signal performance and signal timing, and is one of the stated reasons for mixed-use area analysis to not include areas bisected by major roadways. This can be a significant barrier,particularly for families with young children, elderly residents, or those without convenient transportation options. Staff has concerns with the location and functionality of the open space, as Five Mile Creek and the northernmost drive aisle create conflicts for residents to use the open space. Additionally, the plan indicates that a pedestrian bridge is proposed across the Five Mile Creep If this isn't allowed by NMID, it further impacts the viability of usable open space on the site. The Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council should carefully consider whether the amount and location of the open space is appropriate and whether units should be lost to incorporate more. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 175 3. Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): i. Landscape buffers along streets A thirty-five(35) foot wide street buffer is required along Overland Road, an entry way corridor. However,the applicant is proposing a water conserving design which allows for a 50%reduction in the width so the applicant is proposing an eighteen(18)foot wide buffer. The landscaping within this buffer is required to be installed per UDC 11-313. The proposed landscape plan does not meet this requirement. The water conserving design standards have not been met, which then does not justify the 50%reduction in the landscape buffer along Overland Road. Without the reduction in the buffer, the applicant does not meet the standards in the UDC. ii. Parking lot landscaping Landscaping is required to be provided along all parking areas per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8. The proposed landscape plan does not meet the minimum requirements. Several planter islands and landscaping areas are missing trees or other vegetation due to easements. The Public Works Department expressed concerns regarding proposed landscaping and easement locations as there is also proposed landscaping If approved, the applicant shall provide vegetation coverage calculations with the submittal of the certificate ofzoning compliance submittal and shall provide a tree in each planter island. If a tree cannot be placed in a planter island due to an easement, relocation of the tree elsewhere on site will be required. iii. Landscape buffers to adjoining uses Landscaping is required to meet the standards of UDC 11-3B-9. The landscape plan does not meet the minimum requirements for the zoning being requested. The applicant cannot place trees in the landscaping on the west portion of the site due to a proposed reduction from five (5)feet in width to two (2)feet in width. iv. Tree preservation 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, the applicant shall provide mitigation calculations with submittal of the certificate of zoning compliance application. v. Storm integration An adequate storm drainage system is required in all developments in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. Design and construction shall follow best management practice as adopted by the City as set forth in UDC 11-3A-18. vi. Pathway landscaping Landscaping is required to be provided along all pathways per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C. The applicant does not meet the pathway landscaping requirements and shall revise their site and landscape plan to reflect compliance with these standards. A minimum of ten (10)feet of landscaping is required along pathways with no less than two (2)feet on any one side. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 176 4. Parking (UDC 11-3C): i. Residential parking analysis Based on the number of bedrooms per unit, a minimum of 49 off-street parking spaces are required for the residential portions of the site,which includes two(2)guest parking spaces,with 38 of those covered in a carport or garage. The applicant meets the minimum requirements for parking. ii. Nonresidential parking analysis For the non-residential portion of the site, sixteen(16)parking spaces are required for the parking ratio of one space per 500 square feet of gross floor area. While the applicant exceed the parking ratio by four(4)spaces,restaurants will not be an allowed use as they necessitate one space every 250 square feet which cannot be achieved. In addition, any overflow parking will be pushed onto Topaz Avenue. iii. Bicycle parking analysis UDC 11-3C mandates 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. The applicant did not propose bicycle parking with this application. 5. Building Elevations (Comp Plan,Architectural Standards Manual): Goals 5.01.02D and 5.01.02A of the Comprehensive Plan emphasize the importance of building design and landscaping in buffering, screening,beautifying, and integrating commercial,multifamily, and parking areas with existing neighborhoods. The schematic renderings for the proposed two-story structures,detailed in Section V.11,reveal a design utilizing lap siding, asphalt shingles, and iron railings in a neutral color scheme. The final design of all buildings must comply with the standards outlined in the Architectural Standards Manual. 6. Fencing (UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. The applicant is proposing two (2) types offencing.An open vision fencing along Five Mile Creek and a closed vision fence along the western boundary. Both of which meet the standards in UDC 11-3A-7. 7. Parkways (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-17): 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 II trees are the preferred parkway trees. The plans submitted appear to be in compliance with this standard. Goal 6.01.01J of the Comprehensive Plan emphasizes the importance of ensuring and encouraging new development to include buffered sidewalks, a sidewalk separated from the motor vehicle lane by a planter strip, especially on collector and arterial roadways. D. Transportation Analysis 1. Access (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-3, UDC 11-3H-4): Goals 6.01.01H and 6.01.02B of the Comprehensive Plan emphasize reducing the number of access points onto arterial streets through methods such as cross-access agreements, access management, and frontage or backage roads. These goals also stress the importance of City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 177 enhancing local and collector street connectivity and incorporating pedestrian access connectors to link subdivisions and promote neighborhood connectivity within the community pathway system. One full access is proposed on the south portion of the site via S. Topaz Avenue(currently a local street but will be a future collector). Additionally,a one-way access is proposed on the north portion of the site for the multifamily residents to use. According to ACHD's staff report,the applicant should construct Topaz Avenue as a'/2 collector roadway with a five(5) foot detached sidewalk and eight(8) foot parkway. In addition,ACHD is asking for the applicant to dedicate a total of 62 feet from the centerline of Overland Road. The applicant is also stubbing a cross-access drive with an easement to the property to the west, as this property is anticipated to use this access in the future when it redevelops. 2. Multiuse Pathways/Pathways (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-8, UDC 11-3A-5): The applicant is proposing to construct a ten(10)foot multi-use pathway along Five Mile Creek and leave the existing attached seven(7)foot pathway along Overland Road. These pathways are consistent with the pathways master plan,however,the applicant shall provide adequate landscaping on both sides of the ten(10) foot multi-use pathway along Five Mile Creek. Currently,the applicant does not meet the standards of landscaping along a pathway. A total of ten(10)feet of landscaping with no less than two(2)feet on one side of the pathway shall be required if the application is approved. In addition,the applicant shall revise the plan to show a fourteen(14)foot easement for the multi-use pathway. It is important to note that if Nampa Meridian Irrigation District does not allow for the pedestrian bridge across Five Mile Creek,the ten(10)foot multi-use pathway will be inaccessible. 3. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17): All sidewalks around buildings and serving public streets shall be a minimum of five(5) feet in width, except if detached sidewalks are provided on local public streets in residential subdivisions,the minimum sidewalk width may be reduced to four(4)feet. The Applicant has provided a pedestrian connection to each location throughout the site in compliance with this standard. However,there is not a clear pathway to the open space on the northwest portion of the site. E. Services Analysis 1. Waterways (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-6): Goal 4.05.01D and Goal 6.01.0413 of the Comprehensive Plan emphasize the importance of improving and protecting creeks and other natural waterways throughout commercial, industrial and residential areas. Develop and implement agreements with irrigation districts and the Union Pacific Railroad to allow for bike/pedestrian pathways. The Five Mile Creek runs along the northwest boundary of the site and is proposed to be preserved as a natural amenity in accordance with UDC 11-3A-6. The Applicant prioritizes the preservation of the existing creek by incorporating the creek into the site design as a natural amenity. The Applicant is proposing to protect and enhance Five Mile Creek by adding planters with trees and shrubs on both sides of the creek.Additionally,the multi-use pathway is proposed to run parallel to the Creek,along with a bridge running across the creek to allow for residential access.Nampa Meridian Irrigation District has not confirmed whether they will allow the pedestrian bridge across the easement. The Applicant shall coordinate with Nampa Meridian City of Meridian I Department Report 11I. Staff Analysis 178 Irrigation District(NMID)to ensure that the development adheres to best practices for waterway protection. 2. Pressurized Irrigation(UDC 11-3A-15): Underground pressurized irrigation water is required to be provided with this development as set forth in UDC 11-3A-15. 3. Storm Drainage (UDC 11-3A-18): An adequate storm drainage system is required in all developments in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. Design and construction shall follow best management practices adopted by the City as set forth in UDC 11-3A-18. The public works water division has concerns with the water main separation from the infiltration trench. 4. Utilities (Comp Plan, 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. In addition,the Public Works Department has raised concerns about the site being able to move forward with the next steps in the process,as there are issues with several landscaping,separation, and easement issues. Comprehensive Plan policy 3.03.03G require 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 No conditions of approval, as City staff is recommending denial of the application. City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions 179 B. Meridian Police Department The Meridian Police Department is equipped to service this development if approved, as it already provides coverage for this geographic area. For any climate controLLed multi-family developments,the Meridian Police Department requires police access into each building's entry point using a multi-technology keypad par UDC 1 1-4-3- 7 .This will.al.l.ow poLlce access, it there is an emergency, into the bulldi ng if someone isn't able tc come to the door to allow poLlce entrance. Otherwise, poLlce would have to breach the door to gain access which isn't ideal for anyone and delays our response.This does not appty to Garden Style multi-family developments. In addition, if the deveLopment has vertically integrated buildings incorporated i nto this development.the Meridian Police Department request these buildings also be designed to have the same multi-technology keypads.Note that this is not requi red by code for vertically integrated build ings but would greatly assist law enforcement In emergencies.Knowing this is a vertically integrated project,the police would like to request multi-technology keypads for access into the develop mant for amergency calls for sorvice_ Police will work with the applicant on placement of these keypads if needed. Police w3LL have their own access code(same for each build ing)to use in an emergency and will have to be coordinated with the supervisor of Meridian PD Code Enforcement. ALL tonhomes and or multi-family u nits shall be clearly marked with add resses and u nit numbers visible day or night for emergency response.The applicant shall place a way-finding map at each entrance that Is visible day or night.All qualified open space provided in the development, to include aLL amenities, must be in an open area to allow for natural observation opportunities. Pathways and landscaping should not create hiding spots or blind spots that would promote cri mirfal opportunities.The Meridian Police Department will support all Cummu pity Development Staff recommendations,Traffic Impact Studies from ITD and ACHDto improve access,roadways, intersections, pathways and sidewalks before the project is fully completed, City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions 180 C. Meridian Park's Department C�WE IDIAN Parks nncl Reerqafiun RevIewer, Kim Warren I Pathways Project Manager Planmr Assigm& Nlek Napoll Project Name, St.George File Nc.1-1•2425.0004—A7,CUP Gate: 5.16.2025 In addition to the pathway oondltiion s Issued 3.19.2025,the followl ng wlll be required for the pedestrian bridge: PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE+ACCESS REQUIREMENTS 1, Verify that the pathway edge adiacent to the north bank of the Fivemile Drain is setback far enough to be stable. Sorne setback frern the bank 3min 2'shoulder)is necessary to alkyw for thorough compaction of base material and paving. Submit a grading plan or version of the site plan that that shows the relationship of the pathway and bridge improvements to existing and proposed grades. 2. The pedestrian bridge design will need to be approved W Nampa and Meridian Irrigatlon DisltiiCt and Meridian City prior to construction. Verify that N M I D will allow this bridge crossing,as the proposed open space will not funoon as a connected amenity without the pedestrian bridge, 3. As it is shown on the plan,the proposed pathway will also need to serve as a NMI malntenarnoe road- Sometimes the irrigation distriok wil I permit shared access along drains, obtain NMID approval to share this arrows before finalizing plans- 4. The pedestrian bridge musk be owned arkd maintained by the project developer/subsequent HOA, S. The bridge will require a building permit,with inspection of G4nrrete abutments and installation. 6. A pedestrian ramp/curb rut wil I be needed along the north driveway to provide ADA access to the bridge crossing. Add itional ramps wil I be needed on site to provide accessible routes from each building t4 the open Spare amenity. Depict rdrnps an site grading plan. 7_ Show a"eSSible pedestrian routes from the buildingr,to the pathway_Parallel parking on the north side of Building B appears to block pedestrian access t4 Pathway and open Space amenity. City of Meridian Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions 181 RgWewer: Kim Warren/Pathways Project Manager Plarww Asslgned: Nick Napoll Project Name: St.George File No:H-2025,000+--A8,CUP date: 319.2025 The Following will be required for development of the proposed project; CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL-PATHWAYS 1. The project developer shall design and construct mold-use pathways conslst,ent with the location and speclflcatlons set forth In the Merldlan Pathways Master Plan Map and Master Pathways Plan Document Chapter 3). Any proposed adjustments to pathway alignment shall be coordinated through the Pathways Project Manager. lnlemahv Pathways Map 2. Prior to final approval the applicant shall dedicate a public access easement for a multi-use pathway along the north side of the Fivemile Creek- Pathway segment shall be constructed at the same time as the brldv crossing and general improvements to the carnmon open area acrass the Fivemi le Creek. Easements shall be a minimum of 14'wide 110'pathway+2' shoulder each side). All pathways shall be located autsideofirrigation district easements unless permission ir,specifically obtained frvm the governing irrigation district Pathway alignment 5ha11 rw#be impeded/encrpached upan by bridge abutrnents, Easement need only be dedicated for m u Iti-use pathways that lie outside the public ROW. We standard Cry remote for,public access easement. Srlbiatlt�11 ecsermnfs orhriirr NlrpuRfr CiflrrrM's Acmes Portal. 3. Construrt multi-use pathways per paving section based on existing site condltlons as roC4mmended by project dw11 enginetxr in accord with UDC 11-3A-9 and 11-�&12- Prior to final approval the applicant's engineer shall preside written documentation that the pathway segment was constructed per the recommended specifications. 4. The owner{or representative association]of the property affected by each Public acc-ess easement shall have an ongoing obligation to maintain the muKuse path aay. S. 6!high open vlsJon fencing shall be installed between pathways and I Ilve)water Irrigation canals and laterals as daalled In the Meridlan Pathways Master Plan.Chapter 3,page 1.5. All other fence details per UDC 11- 3A•7, As noted in review notes,the Fivemile Creek is not live Water. Fencing,if Installed,shall allow for maintenance access to one side of the creek by Nampa and Meridian Irrigation District, G. Project developer shall be responsible for obtaining license agreement and other permission(O as required for constructing within irrigation district easements. 7. Should any discrepancy exist between these conditions of approval and the requirements of the Irrigatlon district the developer sh�a11 work with Pathways Project Manager to achieve a pathway design that meets both City and irrigation district objectives.City req uirements as stated shall not Inor are they intended to) override those of the i rrigation district having jurisdktiah over the project area. City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions 182 fence fence tsy, maintenance road 4 2' .1 M i4= r i — F4ur43,d_ Shorad-Uw Pa+hway along LcdoraI or Canal fence i feMe maintenance road EM wa r�es< Fiigur*3-5. Sh0t.d-U34 Pathway eiIong LaWFUI or CatAl 4lher Watorwayrs Figure 3-6 illustrates a typical:shared-else pathway design that rs apprupnate far pathways along other designated waterways such as drainages and ditches_This patway is derDgned to accommodate the same type of non-motorized traffic as a canal pad way-The design foi this type of waterway pathway(a ditch, drainage, creel.etc)is dWerent from the canal and lateral pathway design based on the Vol Ume of water being transported,the destirown of the water,and a reduced need for access to the corridor by the irrigation districts_ City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions 183 f roc Figur4 3.6. $hared-Uze Pgihway alano Other Dwigna+sd Wcdunv4ya IRes3dertFlal Pathway Figure 3-7 illustrates a Wical stored-L6e pathway design that is appropriate for pathways thuough new residential developments where there is no feasible natural featrare(such as a canap to locate the pathway.The pathway is designed to accommodate two-way bicycle and pedestrian traffic.The pathway istypically locatedwithin the road right-of-wayand"allels the foacWayt"ugh the residental development, It is located on one side of the road and separated by a planting buffer 6,3 feet w1de.The pathway is pawed(asphalt or concrete)to ateet ADA requirement's, L Figare3-7. Sho red-U*o Patl way through Residential Developments in Road Right-Q#-Way Treasure Valley Rall-with-Trail Pathway Figure 3-8 illustrates a typical shared-arse pathway design for a rail-with-trawl pathway through Meridiarn. As noted earlier, rail service includes two to three trains daily that travel 2&25 mph through the citywlth active spur lines as well_The railway generahy has a 240-fant easement_This pathway is designed to City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions 184 D. Ada County Highway District(ACHD) CHD cod, •wrlc Pmwdpm P6d"~g.vI -Piv*d r Fine Ldnrhn+p#tmlIryWeyw CS iic✓�rwr}y CunrY+utyw e � ftui 1Nftm%Cwnrti Wi DM: ADN 9,21025 70� lawn St Gea .via email Staff Contact:KaraLeigh Troyer,planner NajmtDestrlotlorti 5LGeorgO Trip Cerwal 1m This deve4opment isesz—aled To generate%4vehilcre trios per day. 13 w*nicle gips per hour in tw Pt.+ova k fwu r.bawd orr t rw 1nK1tUtr W TrxtrspartgtiW Engineers TrlpG*mrauan Manual TP"@dttlM Comments: 'Overland Poad has an LTS 4 for cyclists and Topaz Avenue has an LTS I Conn-e cti ng}you [o more ;d!{W�}'W i�r4Y PRknSI-S-0 W F.MIRLSr�+4T 9yrr.ID-b571F-PN rQr�bigp F K F+��F7rJ-ww'.rd��dKvwg V. FINDINGS A. Annexation and/or Rezone(UDC 11-511-3E) Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Stafffinds the applicants proposal to annex two (2.0) acres of land with the R-1 S zoning district for the development of 19 multi family units, 4 vertically integrated residential units, City of Meridian I Department Report V. Findings 185 and 7,987 square feet of commercial space is consistent with the Mixed-Use Regional FLUM designation for this property. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Stafffinds the proposed map amendment to R-15 and conceptual development plan generally complies with the R-15 purpose statement as it is contributing to a variety of residential units into the area with a commercial component that is consistent with the comprehensive plan. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; Stafffinds the proposed map amendment will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to, school districts; and Stafffinds City services are available to be provided to this development. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of the city. Stafffinds the annexation is not in the best interest of the city due to the site not being large enough to accommodate the proposed development. The applicant does not comply with the specific use standards for multi family developments, is requesting alternative compliance to accommodate drive aisles, does not meet the private usable open space requirement, does not comply with separation requirements from infiltration trenches and curbing. In addition, comprehensive plan elements such as holistic design and functional integration are not fully incorporated throughout the site. B. Conditional Use(UDC 11-5B-6E) The commission shall base its determination on the conditional use permit request upon the following: 1. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. Stafffinds the site is not large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional standards of the district. This determination is based on several factors, including the applicant's request for alternative compliance with drive aisle requirements, a lack offunctional integration with adjacent properties, noncompliant landscape buffers along street frontages, open space that does not meet the specific use standards for multi family developments, concerns with the proposed open space being functional and whether the proposed pedestrian bridge will be allowed by the irrigation district, insufficient usable private open space for each unit, and inadequate separation between utilities and infiltration trenches. 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian comprehensive plan and in accord with the requirements of this title. Stafffinds the proposed uses will be harmonious with the Meridian comprehensive plan. City of Meridian I Department Report V. Findings 186 3. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. Stafffinds the design, construction, operation and maintenance will not be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood as the area currently stands. However, with redevelopment of the Ada County Subdivision, the proposed development will be compatible. 4. That the proposed use,if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed,will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. Staff is recommending denial of this application and will need to create conditions of approval if approved by City Council. 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools,parks,police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal,water,and sewer. Stafffinds the proposed use can be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, however, as previously mentioned, staff has concerns with being able to accommodate all of the easements for water and sewer while meeting landscaping requirements. 6. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. Stafffinds the proposed uses will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. 7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes,materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic,noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. Stafffinds the proposed uses will not involve activity or processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any person,property, or the general welfare. In addition, ACHD indicated Overland Road has capacity to service this development. 8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction,loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. Stafffinds the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss, or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature. The applicant is proposing to leave Five Mile Creek open as a natural waterway. 9. Additional findings for the alteration or extension of a nonconforming use: Not Applicable. 10. That the proposed nonconforming use does not encourage or set a precedent for additional nonconforming uses within the area; and, Not Applicable. 11. That the proposed nonconforming use is developed to a similar or greater level of conformity with the development standards as set forth in this title as compared to the level of development of the surrounding properties. Not Applicable. City of Meridian I Department Report V. Findings 187 VI. ACTION A. Staff: Staff recommends denial of the proposed Annexation and Conditional Use Permits as discussed above in Section III,per the Findings in Section V. B. Commission: Pending C. City Council: Pending City of Meridian I Department Report VI. Action 188 -. . .. J R Irk ,6"0.- OVERLAND �� " ,WIN � u f g= - 3DRG LULU OG �i 'r - _ a •� � �� W • 84 1 6 OYERL—AN D� —� LU spi • a �UC1 Alf! Mason...M�gz W � i`7.n�■!ll!■l•lllQlli!•••II4 1 ■■ltl.i..R �� ���1�\ •�Ml.l.lR11lffR!l�Rr*� n • I t•F �n114r ■ V iu - 1 a • w I OYERL--AND - - =1111 �!, ■ ���anr�nritiin■li��Ill - ,nnn. O ♦,fua frfgf ■■f■!f ra •■n■.■1_j�. ■� �►�� NOT ��+� WHOM,- _nnln ry+�+lpIP.. MUM llllllllllllllll ����■■ f ♦ r=_11111 lol a IIIIIN �tl�I�lE�l�1�11131i.n All a IN i�■ i =II101- �� .'1i 111 i -�nulu 1■Ilm�- W I\� --i - ■� C �r J ♦ ��rrrfn! ■■■!!lnaaa r.'Q •+ Q;fl%` �puuul urin�■ra+�rFW =_nwu ++In■r �` ru• life+++q����R►��t�:iiiii!n i■r■� S= -=:■■♦:V �� V ..fir.. �_ � i_G�.�Y �'• - 'r'• �� .._ of MeridianDepartment Re 11Exhibits Fl 9-1 1 _ 1 City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits Fl 92 C. Service Accessibility Report 10verall Score: 27 24th Percentile Location Within 112 mile of City Limits vEL OW Extension Sewer Trunkshed mains < 500 ft.from parcel GREEN Floodplain Within 100 yr floodplain & < 2 acres RED Emergency Services Fire Response time < 5 min. GREEN Emergency Services Police Meets response time goals most of the time GREEN Pathways Within 114 mile of current pathways GREEN Transit Within 114 mile of current transit route GREEN Arterial Road Buildout Status Ultimate configuration(#of lanes in master streets GREEN plan) matches existing #of lanes) School Walking Proximity From 112 bD 1 mile walking Either a High School or College within 2 miles OR a School Drivability Middle or El ementa ry School within 1 mile driving GREEN (existing or future) Park Walkability No park within walking distance by park type RED City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits 193 D. Site Plan(date: 7/30/2025) COYFRAGE MEA CY.pLAl1ON �� __ S � ; f• ���p �� �saamrm�wm�oNwo*a ow�rm S e�oG A• � _ .� 1 11/ ��i 9eLOGBQ. ��� � vuw�ewnrroma.o,.s •��` - = mRi�n-i�r rce euo.nwc rr.x • __ F ewnmiwR�Mw`Wm.r�cm.mo sr5r &F OVERALL q�N4 snVr rcrm a A 5�,9 City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 194 E. Landscape Plan(date: 6/2/2025) — � 'sr'��l iyY4 �QJM g. W}O W _...� ■rwr�a�ovat�- J1 City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 195 F. Qualified Open Space Exhibit(date: 6/2/2025) ' la �•L' ..' Ij q � .—.ago — _ � iu It j � I City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits Fl 96 G. Building Elevations(date: 1/9/2025) 2 4 Pin son& . 0 � 4¢ A -- �F.QsA'--- JJ � fkTp"3P VEA'S AA21$ 11 S 4 a s 1 � -- J �. - �� ex�xlaa .9 F. -�. �: VFwS City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 197 2 Q ,mmm 4 ;i. I WWI? ,��I �rii kEM'S AC212 z e i I v S R JY VV U � U.. t n n 9 - 'lei 2D VIEWS 4 �n vm,.w�.r�� AD212 H. Annexation Legal Description&Exhibit Map City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits 198 E IDIAN;--- Applicant Presentation The St. George Mixed .2025 th November 6Commission Hearing Planning and Zoning •0004-2025-Application H•Use Project Site Plan Landscape Plan Proposed Amenities Building A Building B Building C Building DIntegratedVertically Eagle View Landing Overland Frontage Potential Area Redevelopment Patio Dimension Plan Snip CIRVETABLE FlC}C►P,pIf{Tr EG rf' �AC 1�, •*/. NG[JiP,BEM L CLrtrt .1b.A 0jLTk L.W.TH r+NGEW W.WW4r• I OWM i�r 075W 6'9Cffir 67JW 19M !r"WE ErfIA 2unu 9Q SDW 8171' ;a3& a&!7Wm'w ;o C9 IDWW SWIT flow 4460 5i lVi:yE 90.eT L.rCF 0 ' �+�f I 2R7KN[DR*DWI UF96 NOTED z a7.0m&qA ler ii � PFS>}� 4Q ac I 1 J J.2 NI C4Fc M 7nLkatrt+s`oFxo 6P1.51'93. 17 FLSIFi61:YR1PRA9'ATE6 rc%Am sw nEmAR AB%oTm C 'E ANKH „57 r'OINT Of 11OGT444n 150.CEN[R LJFfi � I — — d4LXi1+1,T LIhE Fibl} ��r•T t4F SkxV I HF. 46 ac. I 71E JNC PLC 12M rlfllll:lull.mill +7 1.9 L OYt�rli RO Rd R I;�C+7fl ]try E�MSS !6 Swmc Cot ik7'7L17'E 266289 JGJM 0 AWAAWW bWLAV FM HtlCID EN04MMF 9 BASIS QT OCARINA ALL e•L43TO I AND 7 ok4bs 2.OF Tl#,ffflk x8Ghd16FJ 6L7{'rL Sd,P.4.^.E td y2-26'8?EIENO A THE SDUTH LIFE 4OF THE 9OLITHME7 W OF ElE0-11ON H,TOWNSHP.I PORIDM OF THE MULHEMT 7r4 OF TH86bUMMICT r46AIIKA%1fE I Wt.RNM hEMIAn WEN AS kUTH W' 'I20 EMT 1N.4r',RCr1pN 1t.TWn4�7NdIChIi.IE4F�KT �fl Y.{�IrR'.IA1T Am mAYMt€sHtWft%NOmuut"hyrm TO 012=%YET CAR.T.iN.-ALA OOLFITV IDW-B Skl Oct Yl. t I El I-n133.WED TOPAZZ.DWLAr,vyp w r. City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits Fl-991