Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-11-20 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Thursday, November 20, 2025 at 6:00 PM MINUTES ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE PRESENT Commissioner Brian Garrett Commissioner Sam Rust (Remote until 7:36 P.M) Commissioner Matthew Sandoval (Remote) Commissioner Matthew Stoll Commissioner Jared Smith Chairperson Maria Lorcher ABSENT Commissioner Jessica Perreault ADOPTION OF AGENDA Adopted CONSENT AGENDA \[Action Item\] Approved Motion to approve made by Commissioner Smith, Seconded by Commissioner Stoll. Voting Yea: Commissioner Garrett, Commissioner Rust, Commissioner Sandoval, Commissioner Stoll, Commissioner Smith, Chairperson Lorcher 1. Approve Minutes of the November 6, 2025 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA \[Action Item\] ACTION ITEMS 2. Public Hearing for 3780 Overland (H-2025-0038) by Jesus Madrigal, located at th 3780 E. Overland Rd. Continued to December 4, 2025 Application Requires Continuance A. Request: Annexation of 0.91 acres of land with the R-2 zoning district for the purpose of complying with the terms outlined in the consent to annex agreement for the existing home that is already connected to City utilities. Motion to continue to December 4th, 2025 made by Commissioner Smith, Seconded by Commissioner Stoll. Voting Yea: Commissioner Garrett, Commissioner Rust, Commissioner Sandoval, Commissioner Stoll, Commissioner Smith, Chairperson Lorcher 3. Public Hearing continued from October 16, 2025 for Borough Village (H-2025- 0037) by Engineering Solutions, LLP., located at 1250 E. Everest St. Recommend Approval to City Council Application Materials https://bit.ly/H-2025-0037 A. Request: Modified Development Agreement to the existing development agreement (Inst. #105152707 Westborough Square) to update the use (from office to residential) and development plan for the site and enter into a new agreement for the subject property. B. Request: Rezone of 3.04 acres of land from the L-O to the R-15 zoning district C. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of three (3) buildable lots and three (3) common/other lots on 2.81 acres of land. D. Request: Planned Unit Modification to the approved PUD (CUP-05-027) to update the development plan for the site from six (6) office buildings to 18 multi-family residential dwelling units and two (2) single-family residential dwelling units. E. Request: Director Approval of alternative compliance to UDC 11-3B-7C.1c to not provide street buffer landscaping along E. Chinden Blvd., adjacent to the site due to the location of the 10-foot wall constructed by ITD with the roadway expansion. Motion to recommend approval to City Council made by Commissioner Smith, Seconded by Commissioner Stoll. Voting Yea: Commissioner Garrett, Commissioner Rust, Commissioner Sandoval, Commissioner Stoll, Commissioner Smith, Chairperson Lorcher 4. Public Hearing continued from November 6, 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. Recommend Approval to City Council 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 recommend approval to City Council made by Chairperson Lorcher, Seconded by Commissioner Stoll. Voting Yea: Commissioner Garrett, Commissioner Rust Voting Nay: Commissioner Sandoval, Commissioner Smith 5. Public Hearing for Apex Zenith (H-2025-0041) by Brighton Corporation, generally located at the southeast corner of Meridian Rd. and Lake Hazel Rd., in a portion of Lot 4 Section 6, T.2N., R.1E. Recommend Approval to City Council Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2025-0041 A. Request: Preliminary Plat to subdivide two (2) existing parcels into seven (7) buildable lots across 11.549 acres of land in the C-G zoning district. B. Request: Private Street application that is naming the drive aisles. Motion to recommend approval to City Council made by Commissioner Stoll, Seconded by Commissioner Smith. Voting Yea: Commissioner Garrett, Commissioner Sandoval, Commissioner Stoll, Commissioner Smith, Chairperson Lorcher 6. Public Hearing for Hill's Century Farm Townhomes (H-2024-0072) by Brighton Corporation, generally located at the corner of S. Tavistock Ave. and E. Hill Park Street with the inclusion of the following parcels: R3636090060, R3636090040, R363080240, S1133212576 and R3636080110. Recommend Approval to City Council Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2024-0072 A. Request: Rezone of 5.45 acres of land from the C-N zoning district to the R- 15 zoning district. B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 70 homes and 18 common lots spanning across 9.126 acres. C. Request: Development Agreement Modification to supersede the existing development agreement. Motion to recommend approval to City Council made by Commissioner Stoll, Seconded by Commissioner Sandoval. Voting Yea: Commissioner Garrett, Commissioner Sandoval, Commissioner Stoll, Commissioner Smith Voting Nay: Chairperson Lorcher ADJOURNMENT 8:25 PM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To view upcoming Public Hearing Notices, visit https://apps.meridiancity.org/phnotices --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting November 20, 2025. Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of November 20, 2025, was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Maria Lorcher. Members Present: Commissioner Maria Lorcher, Commissioner Jared Smith, Commissioner Brian Garrett, Commissioner Matthew Sandoval, Commissioner Sam Rust and Commissioner Matthew Stoll. Members Absent: Commissioner Jessica Perreault. Others Present: Tina Lomeli, Kurt Starman, Bill Parsons, Sonya Allen, Nick Napoli and Dean Willis. ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE _X Brian Garrett Jessica Perrault _X Matthew Sandoval X 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 20th, 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. 2, 3780 Overland, 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? Stoll: So moved. Smith: Second. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 20,2025 Page 2 of 44 Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to adopt tonight's agenda. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] 1. Approve Minutes of the November 6, 2025 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Lorcher: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda, which includes to approve the minutes of the November 6th meeting. Could I get a motion to accept the Consent Agenda as presented? Smith: So moved. Stoll: 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: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] Lorcher: At this time I would like to briefly explain the public hearing process. We will open each item individually and begin with the staff report. Staff will report their findings 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 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 anybody else in Chambers or on Zoom to testify. If you wish to speak on a topic you may come forward in Chambers or if on Zoom press the -- press the raise hand button in the Zoom app and if you are only listening on a telephone please press star nine and wait for your name to be called. If you are listening on multiple devices, such as a computer and a phone, please, be sure to mute those extra devices so we don't experience feedback and we can hear you clearly. When you are finished if the Commission does not have F Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 20,2025 Page 3 of 44 questions for you you will return to your seat in Chambers or be muted on Zoom and no longer have the ability to speak. And, remember, we will not call on you a second time. After all testimony has been heard the applicant will be given another ten minutes to come back and respond. When the applicant has finished responding to questions and concerns we will close the public hearing and the Commissioners will have the opportunity to discuss and hopefully make final decisions or recommendations to City Council as needed. 2. Public Hearing for 3780 Overland (H-2025-0038) by Jesus Madrigal, located at 3780 E. Overland Rd. A. Request: Annexation of 0.91 acres of land with the R-2 zoning district for the purpose of complying with the terms outlined in the consent to annex agreement for the existing home that is already connected to City utilities. Lorcher: The first item on the agenda is Item No. 2, H-2025-0038, for 3780 Overland. We are opening it for the purpose of continuance. Madam Clerk, do we have a date in mind for a continuance for this application? Lomeli: Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes. We have December 4th. Lorcher: Can I get a motion to approve the continuance for December 4th? Smith: So moved. Stoll: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded -- second to approve file H-2025-0038, 3780 Overland, for continuance. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. ACTION ITEMS 3. Public Hearing continued from October 16, 2025 for Borough Village (H-2025-0037) by Engineering Solutions, LLP., located at 1250 E. Everest St. A. Request: Modified Development Agreement to the existing development agreement (Inst. #105152707 Westborough Square) to update the use (from office to residential) and development plan for the site and enter into a new agreement for the subject property. B. Request: Rezone of 3.04 acres of land from the L-O to the R-15 zoning district F Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 20,2025 Page 4 of 44 C. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of three (3) buildable lots and three (3) common/other lots on 2.81 acres of land. D. Request: Planned Unit Modification to the approved PUD (CUP-05-027) to update the development plan for the site from six (6) office buildings to 18 multi-family residential dwelling units and two (2) single-family residential dwelling units. E. Request: Director Approval of alternative compliance to UDC 11-3B-7C.1c to not provide street buffer landscaping along E. Chinden Blvd., adjacent to the site due to the location of the 10-foot wall constructed by ITD with the roadway expansion. Lorcher: Item 3 on the agenda is H-2025-0037 is to continue Borough Village Subdivision at 1250 East Everest Street from the October 16th Planning and Zoning meeting for modified development agreement, rezone, preliminary plat and a planned unit modification. We will begin with the staff report. Allen: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. This site consists of approximately three acres of land. It's zoned L-O, limited office, and it's located at 1250 East Everest Street. This property was originally platted in Ada county back in 2003 and later annexed into the city in 2005 with an L-L zoning district as part of a larger development area. A development agreement was required as a provision of annexation for the overall annexation area. A planned unit development was also approved for the development of six professional office buildings on the subject property and ten multi-family residential buildings with 40 dwelling units on the adjacent property to the east. The multi-family residential portion of the development was constructed, but only the site improvements associated with the office portion of the development were constructed, consisting of sewer and water main lines, pressure irrigation, asphalt drives and parking areas, street buffer and parking lot landscaping. Further development was delayed due to the bank foreclosing on the property during the recession in 2008. Before you here are some photos of the site and the improvements that exist on the property that I mentioned. In 2015 applications were submitted for a rezone to R-15 and a modification to the planned unit development to change the use and site layout from office to multi-family residential for the development of 34 townhome style units at a gross density of 12.55 units per acre, which was denied by Council due to the opinion the R-15 zone was not in the best interest of the city at that time. Reasons cited were that the density of the development proposed with the planned development was too high and the entitled office uses would access the multi-family residential use approved in phase one. Other relevant testimony included preference for uses allowed in the L-O district, such as professional office uses, a daycare facility and/or a fitness facility, rather than more multi-family residential units in this area. In 2016 a short plat application was submitted and approved for the subject property and the adjacent property to the east, which included the eastern portion of the vacated right of way from Jericho Road, which was vacated by ACHD after ITD decided to eliminate the collector street connection to Chinden Boulevard and that was right along the west boundary of this property here. A F Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 20,2025 Page 5 of 44 35 foot wide landscape street buffer with irrigation, a ten foot wide multi-use pathway and a ten foot tall berm and wall was constructed along Chinden Boulevard, State Highway 20-26 with the subdivision improvements as required by the development agreement, but was later removed by the Idaho Transportation Department with the road widening project. ITD acquired an additional ten feet of right of way from the subject property and installed a ten foot tall concrete wall for buffering, along with decorative rock on the south side of Chinden Boulevard in this area. Utilities were installed, which included a large transformer, underground power, and a natural gas line between the back of sidewalk and the wall. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation for this property is mixed use community. Integrated community serving employment and residential uses are desired in this designation. Residential uses are expected to comprise between 20 percent and 50 percent of the overall MUC development area, with gross densities ranging from six to 15 units per acre of the residential area. The applicant is proposing a modification to the existing development agreement and planned unit development for Westborough Square to update the use from office to residential and concept development plan from six office buildings to 18 multi-family residential units in single family residential attached style structures and two single family residential dwelling units for the site and a new development agreement for the subject property. A variety of community serving uses exist in the overall mixed use community designated area and residential uses comprise less than 50 percent of the development area as desired. A rezone of 3.04 acres of land is proposed from the L-O to the R-15 zoning district. Reasons cited in the applicant's narrative supporting the proposed rezone and change of use include the lack of a collector street, which is Jericho Road, access to Chinden Boulevard, State Highway 20-26. The nearest access is circuitous via North Saguaro Hills Avenue to Everest Street to the west, over one thousand feet to the west and north and lack of visibility from the highway with ITD's construction of a ten foot tall wall between the property and the highway, which created an isolated office zone parcel without potential for development. The property has sat vacant and underutilized since 2008. A preliminary plat is proposed as shown to develop in one phase, consisting of three buildable lots containing one multi-family residential building lot and two single family residential building lots and three common and other lots, consisting of an access drive, a parking lot and a common lot on 2.81 acres of land. The single family lots range in size from 4,176 square feet to 4,228 square feet, with an average lot size of 4,202 square feet. The multi-family lot will contain nine structures, with 18 single family residential attached style dwellings. The gross density is 6.58 units per acre, which is consistent with the density desired in the mixed use community designated area. It's actually at the low range of what's desired in that area of six to 15 units per acre. No deviations are proposed to UDC standards with the modification to the planned unit development. Multi-family residential developments are allowed as principal permitted uses through the PUD. If the amendment to the PUD is approved a conditional use permit would not be required. Private usable open space consisting of patios are proposed for each unit in excess of the 80 square foot minimum requirement. A minimum of 4,500 square feet or a tenth of an acre of common open space is required for the development. The applicant is providing open space exceeding the standard by more than double the amount. A minimum of two site amenities are required from two separate categories. A sports Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 20,2025 Page 6 of 44 court, horseshoe pit is proposed from the recreation category. A fenced dog park with a waste station is proposed from the quality of life category and a picnic area with a shade structure is proposed from the open space category, exceeding UDC standards. Off- street parking is proposed in excess of the minimum standard. Fifty-one spaces are provided over the required amount, with another 16 spaces provided in an overflow parking lot along the southern boundary of the site for use by guests and residents of Borough Subdivision, the multi-family development to the east, to alleviate existing parking issues in this area. A 35 foot wide street buffer is required along Chinden Boulevard, an entryway corridor, with noise abatement for residential uses adjoining a state highway. As previously noted, ITD removed the previously installed buffer wall and irrigation with the road widening project and constructed a ten foot tall concrete wall at the back edge of the ten foot wide sidewalk along Chinden, leaving little area for a landscape buffer and no irrigation to the north side of the wall. Alternative compliance was requested and approved by the director to the street buffer standards in the UDC due to existing conflicts with utilities, which prevent installation of irrigation facilities under the footings of the wall. There is no break in the wall, so maintenance of the limited area of landscaping on the north side of the wall would have to take place from Chinden, which the applicant felt would be hazardous. The subject property is also considerably lower than Chinden, with a significant slope into the property from the ten foot tall wall -- excuse me -- and a three foot tall retaining wall. As alternative compliance the developer is required to install nine trees north of the retaining wall, with shrubs, decorative boulders and rock mulch and four additional trees on the south of the retaining wall as proposed. As noted additional common open space and amenities are provided above and beyond the minimum standards, with a landscaped area behind the proposed units connecting to a pocket park with a picnic shelter and trees as an alternative means of compliance, which provides an equal or superior means for meeting the requirement. Conceptual building elevations were submitted as shown for the proposed single story homes in the development. No two stories are proposed. Written testimony has been received from Becky McKay, the applicant's representative. She is in agreement with the staff report recommendation. Public testimony has been received from Melissa Chandler, Melinda and Ray Akhbari, Ginne Hostvedt and John Elliott. Just a summary of those concerns were for children and pedestrians with the increased traffic. Inadequate parking. Increased traffic volume on surrounding roads. Increase in noise in the quiet neighborhood. Incompatibility with surrounding land uses and strain on city services and infrastructure. The entirety of those letters are included in the public record. I'm sure you have seen those before the hearing tonight. Staff is recommending approval with the conditions in the staff report, as staff finds the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff will stand for any questions. Lorcher: Would the applicant like to come forward? McKay: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. I'm Becky McKay with Engineering Solutions. Business address 1029 North Rosario in Meridian. I'm representing the applicant on this particular project. Sonya, are you keying me up? My screen is blank. Is it me or -- there we go. Thank you very much. I guess it just -- just takes a special touch, which I don't have when it comes to technology. So, as -- as Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 20,2025 Page 7 of 44 Sonya indicated, this property adjoins State Highway 20-26 right here at this location. We have Locust Grove just to the east and, then, the means of access is the Saguaro Way collector -- oops -- that comes down through here. This kind of gives you an aerial look of what adjoins us. You can see that the parking lot is all improved. All the parking islands have trees. The common drive comes through. There is sewer, water, pressure irrigation, storm drainage, everything -- all infrastructure was installed many many years ago back in 2008. To the west of us is Hightower Subdivision. These are on individual lots, but they are attached product. These lot sizes are 3,200 square feet and, then, they are larger when you get to the kind of pie shaped lots. To the east of us we have what was part of the Westborough development. These are four-plex three-plex and the way they were built they had parallel parking, regular parking and, then, they had parking garages and what has been told to me is the garages are so small that you can -- if you park a car in there you can barely get the doors open. So, what transpired is, then, these people started parking over here in this vacant parking lot that is the project before you this evening. Not only did they park their cars, they parked their boats, they parked their beat up motor homes, they parked junk cars -- everything. So, it became a very -- a big nuisance. The city informed my client we need you to sign it, that this is private property, no parking. Well, then, what transpired was due to the lack of parking in this eastern portion, then people started parking along here and along Jericho and along Everest. So, it just kind of snowballed. So, part of our application is we want to allocate this southern parking lot here, which has 16 existing spaces for their overflow parking, so they don't park on the public right of way. They don't obstruct the bus stop that is at Jericho and Everest. This is -- it's kind of a unique project, because it's something that they -- obviously in 2005 made sense and Jericho Street was in existence and it was designated as a collector roadway along our western boundary, connected to Chinden and I did Jericho Subdivision just to the southwest and -- and this was called a neighborhood center and so they wanted a variety of uses under the comp plan. They wanted, you know, a mixture of office, maybe some neighborhood commercial. They wanted a mixture of, you know, some lower density multi-family, alley load, single family, so we worked when I did Jericho Subdivision with the residents along the east side of Jericho, just south of this project, because they came in under the county and they were more estate lots and so we needed to be compatible with them. So, we ended up having larger lots. Is that me? Lorcher: No. You're good. McKay: Okay. So, we ended up having larger lots front on Jericho Street as a transition to the alley load and the more, you know, urban type development they wanted in the neighborhood center. Over time they eliminated that neighborhood center, because when Jericho was determined by ITD that it was a hazard to have Jericho intersecting as a collector at this location with 20-26, ACHD and ITD eliminated Jericho and vacated it all the way down to this location. So, here we had an office park with all the utilities, no buildings, that had no direct access or any visibility to Chinden. So, kind of to give you the history -- I will zip through this, because Sonya kind of -- kind of indicated. This property started its development history in 2003. 2005 -- so, 20 years ago it was -- it was a mixed use development, with 40 multi-family units on the east, six 10 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 20,2025 Page 8 of 44 office lots. They annexed it. They had L-O, R-15. Infrastructure was installed in '07. Then the recession hit. The project goes back to the bank. My client purchased it from the bank and, then, in '08 ITD and ACHD decided we are going to tear out Jericho Street and vacate the right of way. So, then, my client hired a consultant to come in and -- ten years ago in 2015 and they were wanting to convert those office areas to 34 townhomes. They were all two story, a density of 12.55 dwelling units per acre. The Council looked at that and said, you know, we just don't feel that that's compatible with the single story duets that are to the west and the low density residential that was done in the county to the south and they denied it. So, this -- this is what is intact right now, this Westborough Square and you can see that they had six office buildings that was 22,000 square feet of office and, then, they had the 40 units over here to the east. So, we came in and we looked at it, we met with the neighbors. I met individually with the neighbor to the south, since they have a large estate lot, a tennis court, and I said, you know, what would you like to see and they said, well, we definitely don't want anything. that's two story. We would like to see the density come down from what was proposed in 2015. So, in my plan I have two single story, single family dwellings on individual lots that back up and that's their driveway and, then, we went through and came up with a duet plan for like seniors. So, these are like 772 square feet, one bedroom, one bath, because there is a big need right now for senior rental housing. You know, a lot of seniors will lose a spouse, they -- they -- all their -- all of their wealth is in their house, they sell their home and want to move into something that's easy for -- you know, they don't have to maintain and this is all common area around them. This is the plat. So, the plat basically encompasses the two single family lots, which could be sold. The parking lot, which will be allowed to be used for the overflow for the Westborough multi- family and, then, we have the access drive and the -- the one lot with -- that -- that will have the 18 duets. We incorporated the -- the vacated right of way. My client -- I don't know if he purchased it or if -- if Hightower gave it to him, they didn't want their -- their vacated right of way, so we have incorporated that vacated right of way into the project. It's not wanting to go. Come on you little -- dang it. Gets excited. So, as far as the amenities, this is, obviously, a smaller project. We came up with a horseshoe pit, a pocket park with a picnic shelter, trees around it. A fenced dog park with benches. Waste station. I read the letters of opposition. They -- they indicated that we don't have adequate parking. There are 78 parking spaces that are existing and six ADA spaces. The requirement for my 18 duets is 36. So, we are horribly over parked, but there is really nothing I can do about that. Like I said, we are allowing the 16 spaces to the south to be overflow parking. This is what the two single family dwellings will look like. They will be what we call the Harlow and we have like a farmhouse or a modern -- probably they will lean towards the modern, since our duets are more modern style, so that it is cohesive in design, color, schemes, et cetera. This is -- these are the duets. So, we will have duets. We will have to go in and that parking is open parking, because it was intended for office, so we will have to put in parking structures, because 50 percent of our required parking has to be parking structures. So, these would be the single story duets. This -- you can see this is on the Hightower side, so you can see that Hightower has a site obscuring fence and, then, that's the ten foot wall and the berm that was installed by ITD with the Chinden expansion. All of these projects had very nice landscaping and fencing along that Chinden Boulevard corridor. ITD came in, F-11 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 20,2025 Page 9 of 44 they bought right of way and their plan was -- we are going to build this ten foot concrete wall. We are going to put a three foot retaining wall on the other side, because we are lower and, then, they put in that pea gravel. So, we had to apply for what we call an alternative compliance, because the code stipulates if you adjoin a state highway you need to landscape 35 feet. Well, there is no -- it's not possible. They have -- they have -- they have cut off our irrigation. There is utilities there. It's just not viable any longer. So, we had to mitigate for that as far as adding additional landscaping internally that will, then, benefit the development itself. This is the north boundary of this property. You can see the parking lot. You can see the three foot retaining wall, then, the ten foot and, then, the berm. So, we are going to go in there, we are going to plant trees, we are going to plant shrubs, we are going to have some -- a mixture of xeriscape and, then, also turf and trees. This is the colored landscape plan. So, you can see that we have a grassy area here. We wanted to do a horseshoe pit. Then here we have what we call a pocket park with a picnic shelter and trees and, then, we have a little fenced-in dog park here with benches and a waste -- a waste station. This area that you see to the west right here was intended to be the collector buffer for Hightower to Jericho, but when -- they never installed any landscaping and they just installed a six foot vinyl fence there. I did talk with the Hightower HOA representative. We talked about maybe doing something together utilizing all of that space and at first I got positive feedback and, then, I was told are these -- are duets going to be sold? And I said, no, they will be rentals to like seniors. Then they said if they are rentals we don't want to have anything to do with it. So, I said, okay, okay, we are on our own. I get it. Oops. So, as far as the density that was denied, I think Sonya indicated it was like 12.55 dwelling units per acre. You know, we are significantly less than that. I think our gross density is like around seven. The R -- where it's R-15 to the west of us, the vacated right of way is R- 15, that's why the legal description for the rezone is not the same as the legal description for the preliminary plat. When you are coming in to try to retrofit a project it's always the hardest thing to do. We have a lot of sewer and water easements. We have storm drain easements. We have irrigation easements. All of these buildings are outside those easements. But what it did do is it allowed us to kind of modulate the buildings so they are not all in alignment and, like I indicated, we are trying to create a nice senior development that is affordable that, obviously, is in a good location with access to existing commercial, et cetera. I would ask that the Commission support this. This project's been underutilized, under taxed for 20 years. Lorcher: Thank you very much. A couple questions. McKay: Yes, ma'am. Lorcher: So, since -- did you say the subdivision to your west is Hillside? Is that correct? McKay: No. Hightower. Lorcher: Hightower. Sorry. Heard an H. So, since they no longer wish to participate in sharing landscaping, what were you kind of thinking between you and that vinyl fence? 12 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 20,2025 Page 10 of 44 McKay: That's -- I can't -- I can't do anything. It's their -- it's a common lot that their HOA owns. Lorcher: Oh, they own it. McKay: It's just dirt. It's just dirt. It's probably going to stay dirt. So, let me see -- I have a picture. So, right now -- oh, there it is. So, right now it's just unimproved. So, you can see their fence right here and, then, that dirt area is on the other side. It's their property. I -- I can't -- I can't control it. Lorcher: And so you said these are going to be rentals and are they -- they are going to be age specific? You are only going to allow seniors. McKay: We want to market it to 55 and older, because they are only one bedroom, one bath and they are 700 -- I think they are 772 square feet I think is what it is -- 772 square feet. So, they are not -- they are not designed for families. No. Lorcher: Not to make you commit, but what kind of price point were you looking at? McKay: I don't -- I don't know. It's hard to say. We have to go in and any services that we are not going to utilize we have to remove them from the main and, then, we have to go in and patch up and, then, put in new services. We share a pressurized irrigation system with Hightower, which -- so, we don't have to put in a new pressure irrigation system. Our intent is by retrofitting this that we can make it affordable. That is our intent. Versus tearing everything out and starting from scratch. Lorcher: Right. One last question from me. The multi-family to the east where you are offering the overflow parking -- McKay: Yes. Lorcher: -- does that belong to the -- your developer as well or is that a completely different company that -- McKay: I -- Madam -- Madam Chairman, I did ask that question and he indicated that he had sold it, but he agreed to allow them to -- and I don't know if we are going to deed them that lot, so that they -- they own it and are responsible for it, you know, from a liability perspective. What if somebody slips on the ice and breaks -- breaks an arm. But it will be made available to them for their overflow parking, so we can stop this on- street parking. Lorcher: Commissioners, do we have any other questions for Becky? Stoll: I do actually -- follow-up question. Lorcher: Commissioner Stoll. F13] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 20,2025 Page 11 of 44 Stoll: Follow-up question on what you are asking. So, just clarification. You said he sold it. Your client sold it to somebody or -- McKay: Yes. That's what he indicated to me. Stoll: Sold it to the Westborough development or -- McKay: He sold it to some other -- I don't know -- developer that owns rentals, because they are -- I believe those are rentals. Stoll: Right. So, I'm just trying to figure out if the parking lot was sold to -- McKay: No. The parking lot we still own. Stoll: Okay. I'm sorry. McKay: Yes, sir. I'm just saying I'm not sure what his long range plan is, if he ends up deeding that parking lot to that owner, so they own it in fee simple or we just give them an easement and the right to utilize it for overflow. It doesn't do us any good, because it's -- it's separated from our duets, it's next to the single family and we are over parked as it is. Stoll: Okay. And I appreciate that clarification. So, my main question -- I drove out there early this afternoon just to check it out and so there is two cars that were parked in the common driveway going into Westborough. They weren't parked in the parking lot area. That's a very narrow common driveway that you have there. Is there any plans to widen that or is that going to be just left as is? McKay: It will remain as is. It meets standards. It has sidewalks. I would like to sign it no parking so then -- and, then, obviously, sign that overflow parking for Hightower -- or not Hightower, but Westborough Subdivision and direct those people into there. Stoll: So, what is the planned enforcement mechanism? And maybe that's something for the city. I don't know. Is that something that's going to be handled by your client as far as the parking and -- or is that something that's left to the city? McKay: You -- this body could, obviously, include a condition of approval that we install no parking signs there along that private drive, so -- because of the width and because of now we are providing overflow parking, because it's been signed that private property no parking in those parking lots, because it became such a nuisance. So, I would like to rectify that and, obviously, help this neighborhood with their parking issue. Lorcher: With the multi-family like that will hire a private company to either patrol or put towing signs up? McKay: Yes. F14] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 20,2025 Page 12 of 44 Lorcher: So, that -- Stoll: Is that your plan? That's what I was trying to get at. Is that -- McKay: Yes. We -- they can put no parking and, then, if they put a towing company -- if they list the towing company and a phone number, then, they can have those cars towed. Stoll: So, that's your -- that's your client's plan? McKay: If -- if the Commission thinks that is the most prudent way to go we would prefer that -- that not -- there be no parking there, too. Yes, sir. Stoll: Okay. Thank you. Lorcher: All right. Thank you very much. McKay: Thank you. Lorcher: Madam Clerk, do we have anybody signed up to testify? Lomeli: Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, we have Drew Robert and he indicated he is representing an HOA. Lorcher: Okay. Hi, if you can state your name and address for the record that would be great. Robert: Hi, there. Drew Robert. Located at 6040 North Jericho Road. So, we are south of that. And, then, I'm representing the subdivision that's south, so that Westborough Subdivision that's just south of them on the right side of Jericho. Lorcher: Okay. And is that single family homes? Are you part of a duet or multi-family? Robert: Single handed homes to the estates properties that they are mentioning that on the right side. Lorcher: Yes. Robert: So, I'm here in opposition of the proposed plan. So, to your point, you were there earlier today, I think a lot of the concerns -- a lot of it's around traffic. So, with getting heavy conditions already there, having a lot of challenges with traffic as they were talking about more of traffic flow, I think ability to actually turn onto Chinden is very challenging. So, again, today most of that has to funnel south through Jericho and, then, through outlying streets. So, I think we are seeing adding more congestion to that is going to continue to escalate that issue that we have today. So, that's a common concern that we have. I think if we were to get into -- they know parking. Today there is F15] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 20,2025 Page 13 of 44 over 20 cars that continue to park down that road. So, even with that parking to be provided if they had no parking is going to outflow somewhere within the division for people to, then, get back to their apartments. So, we see that as a concern if they don't have enough parking to begin with there. They were sitting on -- again, like the R-15 where I think when you look around for the current situation of what we have, most of it, again, is single family homes. So, I think having more high density there really doesn't flow into the rest of the neighborhoods, some of the focus that they have from that perspective. I think last time we had was more on -- again there is -- going back to earlier precedence where for this particular case, again, it was denied at that point in time. It's not easy to access. It's really hard to get into that area. So, again, adding more and more into that again kind of falls into what was that first -- or easier -- earlier precedence that you all had kind of recommended for that point. So, that was kind of a lot of our notes from our neighborhood. Any questions? Lorcher: No. I think we are good. Thank you very much. Robert: Thank you. Lorcher: Madam Clerk? Lomeli: Madam Chair, the next person that signed up was Forrest Spencer. Lorcher: Hi. If you can state your name for the record that would be great. Spencer: My name is Forrest Spencer. I live at 1288 East Everest Street, Apartment H101, one of those renters to the east. I just want to express I do not support this proposed housing project at the end of our street. This location is a dead end, which already limits residents, visitors and emergency vehicles. Adding more units would only increase traffic and the road is not designed to handle that kind of volume. Also for safety for pedestrians who walk pets, like me and my wife, children, et cetera, the in- and-out congestion could delay emergency vehicle response times. I'm not opposed to growth. In fact, I heard her talking about tons of growth out in Star, but not the best location at the current time. I believe a light at that Chinden and Sagarra Hills before more growth in that area, a lot of near miss collisions I have seen. I Door Dash for a living, so I use the roads all day every day with people trying to turn west onto Chinden. I think to ensure safety in that area I ask the board to respectfully reconsider this project and explore alternatives to not put added pressure on a dead end and the overall safety for the area. Thank you for your time and consideration. Lorcher: Thank you very much. Lomeli: Madam Chair, the next person is Jack Harris. Lorcher: Good evening. F16] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 20,2025 Page 14 of 44 Harris: Good evening. My name is Jack Harris. I live at 6274 North Maximus Place, which backs up to Jericho and looks at this property kitty corner. I have lived there for four years. Contrary to the opinions I have just heard I actually support this project for a number of reasons. One, first of all, I am tired of looking at weed fields and dirt. It blows across there in the hot dry summer. I'm tired of all the cars that park along the street because of the lack of parking in that Westborough division. It wasn't always that way. Something changed and all of a sudden all the people started parking on the street and lately it hasn't been as bad. But I also support the idea of the affordable housing. That is an issue. And I don't really understand the issue of the traffic. I live there. I sit out front a lot. I sit out back a lot. There really isn't that much traffic along there. I know that a lot of people have to go in and out Commander, but that's a function of many neighborhoods that are using that egress. It's not just this little area over here. I do completely agree that ever since Chinden was widened out to five lanes there is a huge access to Chinden problem during certain times of the day when it's just bumper to bumper traffic and because of the number of seniors that do live in that area, having a traffic light installed there would help that problem greatly. I understand that the -- the Department of Transportation has expressed opposition to that because of the traffic light a half a mile to the east and a half a mile to the west, but it is an access problem. I am concerned. But I don't believe that a few more residents are going to make that huge of a difference to that particular issue. So, anything that we can do to get that property developed and cleaned up for the benefit of the entire neighborhood would be beneficial. I'm here representing myself as a resident, but I will admit I am on the board of the HOA for Hightower. I'm not really here doing that, but I do want to make one clarification about that strip of land that is adjacent. The only discussion that I remember having about that land is there was a proposal that we would join that land with this project to put a sports court in there and the greatest objection was having a pickleball court immediately behind that six foot fence by those units that are there. There was not interest in having a noisy pickleball court right in the backyard and that was really the issue. If there were other plausible ways to use that space and turn it into a green space I don't believe there would be an objection to that. It was mostly about the idea of a sports court right there and they have removed that from their -- their project. Thank you. Lorcher: Thank you. Lomeli: Madam Chair, the next person is Tyler Rountree. Rountree: May I approach and hand you these handouts to be distributed? Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, my name is Tyler Rountree. I reside at 1098 East Pasacana. Inasmuch as I hate to admit this, I have been there since '07 and have been actively involved in a couple segments and iterations of this project. In front of you I have a packet, which is kind of representational of the PowerPoint. I'm also at a point now where it's a little harder for me to see, so I thought it might be easier to have something right in front of you. The proposed on the layout there talks about the existing apartment complex that's to the east and I have got a couple of pictures as it relates to the parking. So, a couple of snapshots on the parking on the approach street. F17] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 20,2025 Page 15 of 44 That one was October 1st. You can kind of see what's been talked about. This is basically just from the other end of the street looking back and if you look kind of down into this picture you can see where the proposed 16 space adjacent parking lot is and there is another picture that was taken the 4th of October. So, there is considerable overflow from the apartment complex that's existing, because there is nowhere to park. Unfortunately, even though there are requirements that you guys have to adhere to when an apartment complex comes in, if you put a two bedroom apartment that doesn't mean you are going to get a car or two cars. Typically what I see is -- because of affordability problems you are going to get four or five or six cars and that's kind of what happens in some of these areas and there really isn't anywhere in that development to park. Here is a poll from code enforcement for parking violations. There is 50 right there in front of you that they had to go out and deal with. I have also attached in your packet the public records request, the letter back from PD, and something that's a little easier to see than what was in the PowerPoint. As you can see they have proposed two dwellings to the south of that, which is right along that corridor that I showed you that the parking that is existing is a problem. As far as the landscape piece goes, this -- this area that was donated however somebody wants to look at it, has been presented to -- to landscape all the way over to the outer dashed line, which is the fence and here is a picture -- I believe this is kind of what we were talking about earlier of the dirt that goes all the way back. Ultimately for me and looking at the projects that have been presented, I think we are so close in making something better happen. My ask would be that the landscape be revisited. We push something with green grass -- the picnic structures all the way back to the retaining wall, something farther back there, so we don't end up with what's proposed. The weeds are going to get into that. It's going to be a maintenance piece. If these are going to be rental units my assumption is they are going to have an HOA that is going to handle some of the maintenance that goes on in this area. So, I would like to see that we are. Lastly, wrapping up, this is being presented as a concept. So, what's important to me is as it's presented there are some pieces of improvement. The single stories that they presented, the single bedroom residential units I think is totally fine, but I want to make sure that we stay within the concept, so we are not back here looking at two story units, density increased, those are my concerns. Lorcher: Thank you very much. Rountree: No questions? Lorcher: Think we are good. Thank you for the packet. Lomeli: Madam Chair, no one else has signed up. Lorcher: Is there anybody else in Chambers or on Zoom that would like to speak on this subject? Becky, would you like to come back up and address some of the concerns? McKay: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. Becky McKay. So, obviously, as I indicated to you and as you can see from the photographs, parking has Fl-81 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 20,2025 Page 16 of 44 been an absolute nuisance in this area. We have 76 spaces. We have one bedroom, one bath, which means you are going to have at the most two cars if you had a husband and wife or if you had a single one car. So, technically, we need 36 spaces. So, we have in excess of 42 spaces. That will not be utilized by our residents. We are allocating the 16 on the south, but we could allocate some additional spaces in the northern area if need be. As far as the traffic is concerned, I did calculate the traffic with the 22,000 square foot of office -- office generates 17.7 vehicle trips per day per thousand square feet. So, if this were to build out as office, which I don't believe it will, because there is no visibility. It's a very circuitous way to get to it. Nobody would know you were even there. It would generate 389 new trips per day in this area. With the 20 dwelling units that I'm proposing we generate 140 trips total. That's at build out. That is only 36 percent of what it is already entitled to right now. That's basically a reduction of 64 percent in traffic based on the use and that number of trips would probably be lower, because seniors -- I calculated ten trips per day for the two single family dwellings, 6.57 trips per day for the duets. But senior housing is -- some of it's even below four. Seniors just don't drive as much as families and single families. The question arose about the drive aisle safety. That common drive is 28 feet in width. It does dead end, but we are, obviously, on the end that adjoins Everest and Jericho on the western end. It transitions down to 25 feet as it goes into that multi-family area. By having a low traffic generator, by signing that no parking, by opening up parking overflow areas for the existing multi-family, I think that is going to alleviate a lot of the problems and the concerns. This definitely is not high density residential at 7.12 dwelling units per acre -- I mean R-15 allows you to have 15. I'm at 7.12 and when I met with staff I said, you know, we have wrecked our brains trying to come up with the lowest traffic generator, the least impact, the best fit and this was it and at my pre-app with the staff they said, you know, we can't think of-- I said if you have got a better idea I'm open, but they said, you know, this -- I think this is it. You have hit on the right use. This property has been underutilized, under taxed for so many years and we need -- I mean instead of going out into the green field, we need to -- these in-fill projects to add some housing, added at affordable rates, added where we have existing utilities, existing commercial, medical, fire, et cetera. Police protection. So, you know, it kind of checks all those boxes as -- as a good project in a good area and -- and Jack made a good comment. Yeah, there has been weeds out there. There has been kids partying out there. Dumping trash. People dumping couches. I mean -- because there is nobody there and it becomes an attractive nuisance and until we get homes and people there that stops. Mr. Rountree talked about the -- the parking issues and, like I said, I have already addressed those. He is concerned about, you know, is this a switch and bait deal? No. The staff is going to be writing up a new development agreement solely for the project that's before you. Limiting us to single story. Limiting us to 20 dwelling units. Requiring that we allocate the overflow parking. If you guys see fit that we put no parking signs, I think that's a great idea. Maintenance would be under a maintenance company, because those would be rentals. A lot of elderly people they don't have the physical capability to maintain. That's why a management company would come in and mow all of that area at once. As far as the strip there, I dealt with Terry Easley at the Hightower -- she's a member of the board. We did talk about doing a pickleball. She said, no, I don't want a pickleball. So, we bagged the pickleball. And, then, she said, F-19 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 20,2025 Page 17 of 44 well, you know, if we could come up with some uses, then, you know, maybe you guys install it and we share the maintenance cost and I said that would be great. I would love to do that. And, then, she said are these going to be owner occupied. I said, well, the two single family dwellings could be, but, no, the -- the senior part would be rentals and she said, oh, if that's rentals, then, we are not interested and she sent me an e-mail to that effect and that was end of story. So, I mean the burden would be on their part. You know, if they want to put in grass I think it would be -- it would look lovely. Their 20 foot wide dirt strip doesn't make a lot of sense to me and I'm not sure why they didn't meet their conditions of approval, because they were conditioned to install a landscape buffer there at Jericho and it never happened. So, I'm not sure -- I mean they are basically not in compliance with their conditions of approval. Because I did Jericho Subdivision south of them. I had the same condition. We put in our landscape buffer accordingly. I think we got a good project. I think we have met the neighbors in the middle. They have seen some -- some options that, obviously, were not a good fit density wise, height wise, but right now I think this is a darn good project and I ask that you support it. Thank you. Lorcher: Any questions for Becky? All right. Thank you very much. McKay: Thank you. Lorcher: Can I get a motion to close the public hearing? Smith: So moved. Stoll: 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: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. Lorcher: Well, I think the bad behavior of the multi-family should not inhibit this developer to put in some single family residences, especially for seniors. With respect to Mr. Robert with the HOA and Mr. Spencer, who is in the duets to the east of -- I think you said to the east of that, it sounds to me like a lot of the people who are in your area right now are taking advantage of open space that doesn't belong to them and, you know, multi-family or groups, you know, should have a parking agreement and I will tell you right now, since I used to own a tow truck company, if you are towed off because of bad parking it's going to cost you at least 300 dollars to get your car back and that's just a start. So, usually, it's kind of a one and done and they stop doing it. So, you know, I know change is hard, but with less than 20 units with, you know, less than 20 parking spaces going to be utilized for these seniors, one bedroom, one bath, and, you know, extra overflow, which that developer does not have to do at all, I think it's actually a good fit and especially since ITD took away the land and took away the connectivity. 20 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 20,2025 Page 18 of 44 So, a business wouldn't make sense here, because they would have to go through your neighborhood to get there anyway. So, I'm in support of this project. Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: I likewise am in support of this. I would like to see some signage along the common drive to the effect of not allowing or disallowing parking on the common drive and I know we can't hold the applicant to what another HOA decides to do. It would -- maybe recommend it before Council, you know, seeking to address that and seek progress there. At the end of the day, though, I think that's -- they can't -- we can't force them to build -- to put something on someone else's property. So, I mean I would like to see just some landscaping or green space in that area in that strip just to, you know, ensure that we are doing a complete project. So, I would -- I don't think there is anything we can condition on that. I just want to kind of voice that and that encourage -- encouragement to I guess both the applicant and the HOA. But, yeah, I think with the condition to sign no parking, whether the Commission wants to append the towing or not I will leave that to the applicant's enforcement decisions. I think that's what it would take for me to approve. Stoll: Madam Chair, I struggle with this one in the sense of -- we really can't do anything regarding the commercial development. It's -- that opportunity is lost. It's unfortunate, but it's the nature of a major arterial like Chinden Boulevard and what ITD is trying to do. The key concern for me is on the parking and that's so constrained with that narrow shared driveway. I could support the project if we do have that signage and also some sort of enforcement mechanism that's there, because you can have the signage, but if they know nobody is going to enforce it, nothing's going to -- nothing's going to change. Lorcher: Right. The challenge I have, though, is that the parking that they are suggesting is not for the seniors, it's for the multi-family next door and they have no -- Becky said that that developer sold it to another company. So, there is really no enforcement for this particular developer to do it. It would have to be the -- it would have to be their organization having the sign of saying, you know, no parking or you are limited from certain hours or that type of thing and if they take advantage of it that's when you put a tow company in and a private security company. I will tell you they typically only get paid when a vehicle is towed. It usually doesn't cost money to have that signage. Maybe 15, 20 bucks to put the sign up, but there is no like financial contract there. Does that make sense? So, it's hard because the bad behavior is not coming from what is going to be these 20 tenants, it's the multi-family that is spreading out. Stoll: Yeah. I'm just talking about the signage on the roadway, not -- Lorcher: Right. Got you. F21 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 20,2025 Page 19 of 44 Garrett: Yeah. Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Garrett. Garrett: Yeah. I'm in -- I'm in favor of this. This is a tough in-fill project. It might have been a commercial, but that train left the station. Now, it's for retired -- since I'm retired I probably drive ten percent of the time I used to. So, I don't see traffic being a major consideration. Parking I think you are just going to have to leave it to the people that are there to solve it and based on -- I think they -- they have made the efforts and now it's just -- what happens now is -- they have to decide on. Lorcher: Okay. Commissioner Rust, Commissioner Sandoval, do you want to add anything or I will take a motion. No? Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: After hearing -- after considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File No. H-2025-0037 as presented in the staff report with a modification to require signage and enforcement of no parking along the common driveway. Stoll: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to approve File No. H -- what number are we on again? I'm sorry. H-2025-0037 with the following modification -- with the modifications that Commissioner Smith indicated. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. 4. Public Hearing continued from November 6, 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. 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. F22 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 20,2025 Page 20 of 44 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: Give me a moment to get my notes together here. All right. The next item on the agenda is to continue H-2024-0061, Apex Cadence from the November 6th Planning and Zoning meeting. We are not going to revisit everything, but we will have an amended staff report just to get everybody up to speed. Allen: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission -- Starman: Sonya, before we do that, Madam Chair, with your indulgence we have two Commissioners here this evening that did not participate in the first and just like for the -- I know that they have told me individually that they have reviewed the record, including the video, but if I can just have both them affirm that they have reviewed the record and are prepared to participate in tonight's deliberations. Garrett: I -- Stoll: I -- go ahead. Garrett: I have reviewed and I feel comfortable. Stoll: I have watched the video. I have reviewed the packet. I am comfortable moving forward. Lorcher: Okay. We also have Commissioner Sandoval and Commissioner Rust online. Did -- we are both -- I can't remember what happened two weeks ago. Were you both present for the meeting? Sandoval: Madam Chair, yes. Lorcher: Okay. Rust: Madam Chair, I was present as well. Lorcher: Okay. All right. Just make sure we are all on the same page. Okay. Sonya. 23 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 20,2025 Page 21 of 44 Allen: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. Again, this project was continued to tonight's meeting from November 6th due to there not being enough commissioners present to break a tie vote. The applicant submitted a response to the staff report requesting some changes to conditions. Staff has provided a response to the applicant's request that's included in the public record and you also have a hard copy before you tonight. I'm happy to answer any questions that you might have on that or clarifications. Lorcher: Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward to give any additional comments? McNutt: Good evening. Amanda McNutt. 2921 -- sorry. 2929 West Navigator. Just getting joined in so I can share. So, hopefully, you all had a chance to read my response that I sent. So, I'm not going to beat you over the head too much with this. My presentation doesn't want to work for some reason. But, essentially, I went back through the comp plan and did some analysis to see how we did or did not comply with the Comprehensive Plan and as I went through that I feel that we are very in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan for that mixed use residential area -- or, sorry, the medium density residential area. Obviously we talked about this last time. We are in compliance with 4.6 units per acre. As far as mixed use, I kind of pulled out some quotes from the comp plan and -- and how we were meeting those. So, one of those is, you know, a combination of compatible land uses, which I feel we do meet and this would provide another living option for that area. We need between 20 and 50 percent of the development area to be residential in this designation. We have a lot of the area that is existing C-C zone. With that we are about 50-50. So, we are in compliance in that respect as well. One thing that did come up last time was, you know, how are we connecting vehicularly. With the Rawson Canal it does limit the connections that can happen in the long run here. The one connection that will eventually happen is Via Roberto, which will have some kind of a bridge over the canal. But, essentially, everything is going to filter down and be a collector street through there. Oh, is my presentation not showing at all for you guys? Oh, I'm sorry. I do have a presentation. Starman: Madam Chair, as Ms. McNutt is working on her presentation, I want to just -- just curious how we are going to do this tonight. So, you know, if we were simply going to -- we had a tie last time, we are suddenly going to have some clarifying questions and, then, call for the vote, I think that's sort of one path. If we are going down a different path, we are allowing the applicant to kind of revisit topics and kind of reframe, which is fine and that's the chair's prerogative, but with that I think I would recommend that you allow public testimony if there is additional public testimony tonight, since we are kind of reopening some issues that were previously already testified to. So, that would be my recommendation. Lorcher: Okay. Yeah. I was hoping you could just -- if you had anything else to add, but keep going, we will -- McNutt: Okay. F24] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 20,2025 Page 22 of 44 Lorcher: -- we will take public testimony. We are fine. McNutt: So, I apologize, I didn't realize this wasn't showing. But this is kind of a graphic that shows that 50-50 mix here and, then, this is the -- the street connections through here. So, the Rawson Canal kind of breaks this area up quite a bit and, then, everything's going to be filtering to the future collect -- collector roads and, then, out to the arterials. In my opinion there is not going to be much traffic that can go through Cadence and so those gates, again, in my opinion don't substantially affect the traffic in this location from getting to the mixed use center. Additionally, we do have quite a bit of open space, our ten foot sidewalks, pathways and micro paths that connect through here. One thing I wanted to show was kind of a bigger graphic of the area in -- in whole. There are ten foot sidewalks throughout the entire area that connect everything back to this center. So, not only is Cadence open to the public for pedestrian activity, but the rest of the area is as well and everything can filter through for pedestrian access to that point. One thing that I found was very interesting in the Comprehensive Plan is that it specifically calls out primary access as pedestrian access. So, it's this kind of blue arrow that goes north to south in this graphic is specifically calling out the pedestrian access. I feel that we do meet that designation that we are providing those pedestrian access points. The secondary access is also fully a pedestrian access. It actually does not talk about the vehicular access in this graphic, other than there are streets there. I kind of put a side by side to just show the commercial is in the corner just like it is in the graphic. The multi-family or medium density -- medium high density is kind of abutting that and, then, the single family is outside of that. So, when I look at the graphic I feel like I don't know how we can comply any more than we do. I'm -- I'm not going to go over these again, because they haven't changed, but I still do believe that we should be able to change some of these conditions as written, specifically the sidewalk and the multi-pathway. I know that that was a question last time. But, again, it just -- it makes more sense to do it as it progresses through the project, rather than all at once in the beginning. But I will stand for any questions. Lorcher: Commissioners, do we have questions? Stoll: Madam Chair, if I may. Lorcher: Commissioner Stoll. Stoll: Ms. McNutt, just a question regarding the gated communities. When I have checked out some other ones around the area that are 55 plus, in addition to the Cadence property that's near Costco, Chinden Boulevard, it didn't seem like the gates were closed, that they were open for people to drive into. Is there timing that like certain times of the day that the gates are down or is it just -- McNutt: I don't know the answer to that question. This is Jon Wardle. I will let him answer. F25] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 20,2025 Page 23 of 44 Wardle: For the record Jon Wardle. 2929 West Navigator. Generally the gates are closed. There may be times when they are open, but the residents typically, once the community has been built out and sold out, they -- they do keep their gates closed. So, if you drove by and they were open that's probably more of an anomaly than the standard. Stoll: Okay. Lorcher: I think some of the -- the response that you had given to Sonya for the items that had come through were -- were some of the things that we had concerns with. For example, A-1-C with Murgoitio property -- McNutt: Uh-huh. Lorcher: -- understanding that, you know, you don't own that, but if you were -- the way it is right now there is -- nothing can happen with it. So, I think there is some concerns from the city's perspective that that needs to be kind of cleaned up. McNutt: Yeah. So, this graphic here does show that we can extend a roadway through. We haven't had our engineers fully vet that out or complete those changes, but looking at it and -- and working with the site a little bit, that's doable and something that we are -- we are able to confirm we can do. Lorcher: To do that in time for City Council? McNutt: Yes. Stoll: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Stoll. Stoll: Sorry, this question just follows up on your question, but I -- I'm a little confused on -- is the Murgoitio property -- is it part of your plan or you guys have no agreement with the family to develop it? They may develop it at a later time and bring that to us for a proposal? So, the -- I think the only issue is whether it's stubbed and there is access provided at some point in time if they develop it. Lorcher: Sonya, do you want to comment on that? Allen: So, we want to plan for future development of that property, so we want the collector street to align with the collector street on the east side of the road. The whole issue with staff's condition that it be in the -- in the development agreement -- in the existing development agreement, that it be included in a future subdivision, is that if we don't it's going to create a parcel -- the Murgoitio parcel will not be a legal parcel for development purposes, meaning they can't get a building permit. If -- if they sell the property and somebody wants to redevelop or if the Murgoitios want to build a shed on 26 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 20,2025 Page 24 of 44 their property, for instance, they wouldn't be able to get a building permit. We asked the applicant quite some time ago to submit documentation if they felt that it was -- that was not accurate and we haven't seen any documentation. I'm not sure if they researched that or not. Stoll: But the primary issue is whether they stub the road to the property lines. You are not asking them to incorporate the actual property into their plans are you? Allen: Not the current plans, no. We are asking with future subdivision of the property to the north that that property be included in a subdivision. Stoll: Okay. Allen: So, it -- the applicant is contesting that provision in the proposed development agreement. So, two different issues. Staff has asked for that connectivity with the collector street to that property and, then, also that it be included in a future subdivision with the property to the north. The rezone area that's part of this application on the north end is not part of the proposed subdivision. So, when that property comes in with the subdivision we wanted all of that area to come in, including the Murgoitio parcel. Does that make sense? Stoll: Just trying to figure out how they do that if they don't own it. I'm struggling with that same -- that concept. Allen: I believe -- did -- did Brighton purchase -- I -- a question maybe for the Commission, for the applicant is I believe Brighton purchased this property from the Murgoitios and -- I'm not sure when the part -- if that -- that's when the parcel got created or if it was before that. McNutt: And, Madam Commissioner, I -- I'm not sure when the timing of that was either, but we don't own it now and -- and don't control it. Lorcher: Okay. So, does anybody have any other questions? Okay. Thank you very much. McNutt: Thank you. Lorcher: Madam Clerk, is there anybody here to testify on Apex Cadance? Lomeli: Madam Chair, no one has signed up. Lorcher: Is there anybody on Zoom? Lomeli: Yes. There is one person raising their hand. F27] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 20,2025 Page 25 of 44 Lorcher: Julie, if you can state your name and address for the record you can go ahead and start. Edwards: Sure. My name is Julie Edwards. Address is 1310 East Mary Lane in Meridian. And so I mentioned this at the last meeting and my issue that I would love to hear somebody talk about is the quantity of homes, because if the city code states that the gated communities are restricted to a hundred homes, how is it possible that they are asking for more than double in that area? And that's -- and why that would be approved? That's really all -- the only question I have. Lorcher: Would the applicant like to come back up and make final comments before we close the public hearing? McNutt: Thank you. Amanda McNutt, 2929. So, yeah, to Julie's question, we talked about that last time for those who weren't here. It's not substantially more than what we have done and it is another gate that we would be providing for this property that we did not provide in other developments that are very similar to this. No one who lives in these developments I think is feeling the struggle of only having two gates, so having a third gate and overall only I think 20 or so more homes, I don't feel like that's going to be a problem for them. Lorcher: Okay. McNutt: Thank you. Lorcher: Can I get a motion to close the public hearing, please? Smith: So moved. Stoll: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on Apex Cadence. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. Lorcher: So, last time we were here two weeks ago we were tied for -- for you, Brian, and Matt. Half of us liked it and half of us thought it needs some improvement. So, we thought we would have a few more Commissioners here to have some insights, so that we can make a recommendation to City Council. So, I was one of the ones who said it should go forward. I do have some concerns about the timing of amenities. You know, the city would really like to see a lot of those done in phase one. The developer is proposing as those phases come on board, but I wasn't going to hold that up as a condition of approval to pass it on to City Council. That was my opinion. And I also understand that there was some swapping of Ada county land and City of Meridian land and those are items that are out of the developer's control, because it's in the county's F28] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 20,2025 Page 26 of 44 hands to be able to get that paperwork done and it's in the city's hands to do that and it could happen quickly and it may take a long time and so to hold up a project for something that they can control, including the Murgoitio property I didn't think was -- was fair, that they should be able to continue to work with the city to be able to develop the subdivision. So, I was in favor of the project and I would like to hear from anyone else and, then, we can take a vote. Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: Yeah. Before I -- I worry this might sound too critical, so I want to -- I want to say two things. First off, I will waive the IMBY flag night and day. I think it's important that we build more housing in Meridian. And, two, I think Brighton tends to build very nice homes and decent communities. That being said I -- this -- again, to me, this isn't mixed use. I know there are some -- some definitions or some mentions that were brought up and I have actually -- my wife can complain about how much of a nerd I am. I actually spent some time in the Comprehensive Plan, especially about mixed use, because I'm a big fan and some other things that kind of pop out to me are sentences that say mixed use areas tend to have higher floor area ratios, integral shared open space and interconnected vehicular and pedestrian networks. Further down it says residential and nonresidential areas feel cohesive as one neighborhood even when developed across multiple properties, over multiple years or by different developers. And, lastly, specific to mixed use community one sentence says the intent is to integrate a variety of uses, including residential and to avoid mainly single use and strip commercial type buildings. I think this development -- and, again, we don't know exactly what type of commercial is going in here, but I think this development kind of fails on all three of those issues. I think the gating of the community -- I think when you get a community, even if it is accessible by some pedestrians, I think that fundamentally limits the integrated nature that the mixed use community and the mixed use development comprehensive plan is trying to promote of interconnection and invited interconnection between the two by vehicle and pedestrian. I think those uses are supposed to be integrated and the Comprehensive Plan seems to me and to my eyes very clear on that and I think this fails on those merits. I understand there is a broader project that has some community features. Has a library and those things are commendable, but I think that where this project as proposed -- or this specific application kind of cuts this portion of the development off fundamentally from some of those amenities and from some of that -- that nature. So, for that reason I'm in opposition. I think additionally the -- regarding the Murgoitio property and regarding some of these other things I think while -- I appreciate the desire to be fair, I think ultimately the priority should be given to what is in the best interest of the city and its residents and I think that this has the risk of creating an issue where, you know, this property doesn't get developed, which is not in the best interest of the city and while it might not be inherently fair to -- to one's maybe morals or to one's, you know, personal beliefs, I think it is in the best interest of the city of ensuring that we don't accidentally cut off development in this area and so to that end I -- you know, I -- I appreciate the developer for trying and for putting in a good effort on F29] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 20,2025 Page 27 of 44 this, I just don't think that this is what benefits the city under the Comprehensive Plan and under the spirit of the direction that the comprehensive plan lays out. Lorcher: So, that's where we stand. Sam, are you still here? I think he left. Rust: Madam Chair, I'm here. Lorcher: Oh, you are there. Did you have any comments in regard to this application? Rust: Yeah. I will summarize briefly. I think that this is a good application. I take the -- the mixed use probably quite a bit more liberally than Commissioner Smith does. I like the -- the similar communities that Brighton has done and I don't think that a true mixed use, the way that Commissioner Smith may define it, is probably in the best interest of that area. It's on the outer lying edge. And so for all those reasons I'm in favor of this project. Lorcher: Thank you. Commissioner Sandoval. Sandoval: Madam Chair, so, again, I don't want to sound critical either, but in looking at this in depth and reviewing it initially and, then, coming back to it, again, I truly feel like it does fall short on integration, mix of uses, connectivity, the public realm elements that are really central to this designation. Here the homes are positioned with their backs and side towards the collector roadway that separates the site from the commercial and medium high residential should that get developed in that way suggested. Instead it -- it should create, you know, that seamless, walkable transition between those uses. That's my interpretation. With the current layout that turns those out and the gated elements, you know, creates a pretty hard divide. Yeah. And for that the integration just isn't there. The shared circulation and blended residential and community environment I feel like it falls short on this. Lorcher: Okay. Thank you very much. So -- so we were tied, so two and two. So, we were the four there. So, do you want to make a motion or do you want me to? Smith: Well, I mean -- Lorcher: Or would you like to -- Smith: -- I would like to hear maybe if they are open -- Stoll: I just would like to point out we have six people now. But I like the development and I tend to be a little bit more flexible regarding the mixed use development interpretation. In terms of the gated community, it doesn't bother me. My mother-in-law has a gated community. It works fine. It's just the various phases when you have gates they tend to bicker -- anyway. But from a code standpoint my understanding is that the code -- Meridian code allows for it up to 120 some odd people or residences and anything exceeding that is subject to approval by the Council. So, it's not prohibited. F30] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 20,2025 Page 28 of 44 It's allowed if it's approved by the Council and so if we make the recommendation to approve it and the Council decides to approve it, then, it's okay. I personally think having the limitation to whatever hundred and some odd is too limiting for the types of developments they are going to want. So, I'm in favor of the proposal. I do have a -- I share the concern regarding the Murgoitio property and trying to tie that in. I'm still struggling on whether I am understanding that we are just talking about where they have their house, that small property. If we are just talking about making sure that stubs off there, then, just say that. I don't think we should limit them and tie it into their development agreement for Brighton, so -- and turn it over to you. Garrett: Yeah. I actually live less than a mile from this and I'm -- I'm in favor of it. I have seen the other development, I have seen the -- what's gone on with the library. I moved in there when it was open fields, so I'm happy to see the growth and I'm happy with the development and everything that's laid out here and what you have done to date in the surrounding area. So, I have no problems. Smith: Madam Chair, it sounds like you are the one making the motion right now. Lorcher: All right. Considering all staff and applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend to City Council File No. H-2025-0061 for Apex Cadence on the hearing date of November 20th with the following modifications: That the developer continues to work with the city on the timing of the phasing of the amenities. That there is good faith to be able to work with the county and the city to get all permitting correct and -- wait. One more note here. And to provide an updated plat for City Council in regard to the stub street for the Murgoitio property to be incorporated at a later date, if at all. Stoll: Is that it? Lorcher: That's it. Stoll: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to approve Apex Cadence. All those in favor say aye. And those opposed? Smith: Nay. Sandoval: Nay. Lorcher: So, we have four ayes and two nays. Motion -- motion passes. Allen: Madam Chair, may I ask for clarification of the motion, please. Lorcher: Sure. F31 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 20,2025 Page 29 of 44 Allen: Are you actually asking for any changes to the staff recommendation? And, if so, can you please state which conditions and what exact changes you are asking for? Lorcher: I didn't ask any -- for thing specific. I did ask that the developer work with staff on the timing of the phases for the amenities. That the developer works with goodwill with the county and the city for all proper permitting. And that the streets align with the Murgoitio property before City Council. Allen: Yeah. I heard your motion, but I just -- I don't know if that's -- if you are actually making changes to the conditions or not. I'm hearing you aren't. Lorcher: No. Allen: Okay. Thank you. Lorcher: Okay. All right. We good, Kurt? All right. Motion passes. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO NAYS. ONE ABSENT. Lorcher: The next one on the -- on the agenda is -- I'm out of sorts here. Number five. Rust: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Rust. Rust: I am going to have to depart, but just wanted to let you know. 5. Public Hearing for Apex Zenith (H-2025-0041) by Brighton Corporation, generally located at the southeast corner of Meridian Rd. and Lake Hazel Rd., in a portion of Lot 4 Section 6, T.2N., R.1 E. A. Request: Preliminary Plat to subdivide two (2) existing parcels into seven (7) buildable lots across 11.549 acres of land in the C-G zoning district. B. Request: Private Street application that is naming the drive aisles. Lorcher: Okay. Thank you very much. Do we need a break or can we carry on? Everybody good. All right. So, we are going to go with Item No. 5 H-2025-0041 for Apex Zenith at Meridian and Lake Hazel Road and we will start with the staff report. Napoli: Good evening, Madam Chair and Members of the Commission. Next item on the agenda is the preliminary plat for Apex Zenith Subdivision. The applicant requests the preliminary -- preliminary plat to subdivide two existing parcels into seven buildable F32 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 20,2025 Page 30 of 44 lots across 11.065 acres of land in the C-G zoning district. The plat excludes the parcels containing the Costco site and the larger development, including commercial and residential to the south as a part of phase two. I show on the screen the existing -- the existing zoning is C-G and the FLUM designation is mixed use regional and medium to high density residential. So, the subject -- the subject parcels were annexed in 2015 with the South Meridian annexation. These properties were given the placeholder zoning of R-4 until future development and last year in 2024 the property was rezoned to C-G -- the C-G zoning district as a part of the larger mixed use project called Apex Zenith. After the rezone application last year and the Apex -- the larger Apex Zenith project, the applicant did submit a property boundary adjustment to reconfigure the properties to allow for legal parcels for development, which is this is the reason why the Costco site is not included in this subdivision. As a part of the larger project the north- south collector known as South Optimum Avenue and the east-west collector is known as East Spire and Aristocrat are required to be constructed prior to first occupancy within the larger development. In addition to this within the preliminary plat the two private streets that are proposed in the form of East Tower Lane and South Momentum Lane are also required to be constructed. To add, the applicant has entered into a STARS agreement with ITD for improvements to Meridian Road, which include deceleration lanes, the proposed access off Meridian Road. You can see that a little bit on this exhibit. While not directly related to the preliminary plat, it will have impact on the access point that was previously approved by Council. These two access points for the private streets would typically require Council waiver. However, Council already granted those waivers with the previous application. The applicant will be providing five foot sidewalk on both sides of the proposed private streets that connect to the ten foot multi-use pathways along Meridian Road, Lake Hazel Road and Optimum Avenue and staff is recommending approval with conditions and has not received any public testimony, but did receive a letter from the applicant in agreement with the staff report and I will stand for any questions. Lorcher: Would the applicant like to come forward? McNutt: You will see a lot of me tonight. Amanda McNutt. 2929 West Navigator. This time I will remember to share. All right. So, this is, essentially, Phase 1-A of Apex Zenith. We will be coming out with phase two in hopefully short order. But, essentially, this is 11 acres of property on the southwest corner of Meridian and Lake Hazel Roads. We did the rezone. We have done the development agreement, property boundary adjustment and we have submitted and gotten approval for our roadway and utility construction plans and now roadways are in construction. Those are in progress as we speak. The STAR agreement with ITD is also in place and the design guidelines, which will kind of oversee the design of this entire area and make it cohesive -- if you know the Ten Mile interchange area we did something similar with that and we are planning kind of a similar situation for these buildings here. That's -- that's in progress as well. Other things -- just kind of to note in the area, we are a little bit west of some of our main improvements that you have seen over the last couple of years, but this is going to be kind of the commercial center that serves that residential area. Again, there are seven lots here. They are commercial, so we are not needing any kind of amenities or F33] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 20,2025 Page 31 of 44 anything like that. It is a mixed use regional center and we are not proposing any changes to the future land use map. It is currently zoned C-G and no zoning changes are proposed with this either. Nick did talk about this already. We have the private streets with this application, but they are actually, again, already under construction. The blue street will be a public street with ten foot detached pathways on each side and the orange is also public with sidewalks and pathways. That's scheduled to be done in about August and, then, we have a couple of signal locations as well. We don't control when the signals go up, but we have been told estimated completion of October of next year. Again, we do concur with the staff report, so hopefully this is a little one. Lorcher: All right. Thank you very much. McNutt: Thank you. Lorcher: Madam Clerk, do we have anyone to testify on this application? Lomeli: Thank you, Madam Chair. No one has signed up. Lorcher: That's Amanda. Her hand is up. Did you want to -- are you good? Any other comments before we close the public hearing? Is there anybody on Zoom? I guess I should ask that before we -- okay. Can I get a motion to close the public hearing, please? Stoll: Move to close the public hearing. Smith: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for Apex Zenith. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Lorcher: This is pretty straightforward. I mean it definitely goes into the bigger plan that they are doing with Pinnacle and Costco. You know, the -- they are providing all the landscaping and the infrastructure and to add some more small businesses where we can add more commercial for this area is a positive thing. Stoll: I concur. Ready to make the motion if-- Lorcher: You want to make it? Stoll: Sure. Lorcher: Okay. F34] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 20,2025 Page 32 of 44 Stoll: After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File No. H-2025-0041 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 20th, 2025. Smith: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to approve -- or recommend Apex Zenith to City Council. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. 6. Public Hearing for Hill's Century Farm Townhomes (H-2024-0072) by Brighton Corporation, generally located at the corner of S. Tavistock Ave. and E. Hill Park Street with the inclusion of the following parcels: R3636090060, R3636090040, R363080240, S1133212576 and R3636080110. A. Request: Rezone of 5.45 acres of land from the C-N zoning district to the R-15 zoning district. B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 70 homes and 18 common lots spanning across 9.126 acres. C. Request: Development Agreement Lorcher: All right. The next item on the agenda is H-2024-0072 for Hills Century Farm Townhomes and we will start with the staff report. Napoli: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, the next item agenda is the preliminary plat, development agreement modification and a rezone for Hill Century Farm Townhomes. The applicant requests a rezone of 5.45 acres from the C-N zoning district to the R-15 zoning district, a preliminary plat consisting of 70 homes, 18 common lots spanning across 9.1 acres and a new development agreement to supersede the existing development agreement. As shown on the screen the existing zoning is C-N and R-15 and the FLUM designation is mixed use neighborhood. This broader mixed use neighborhood designation was established through a Comprehensive Plan map amendment in 2015 allowing for a diverse mix of uses. The existing C-N zoning was originally part of the concept plan that envisioned three commercial pad sites -- and this is that original concept plan -- broader concept plan. Three commercial pad sites on the north, which would be these three indicated where my cursor is at on the north side of the proposed development and 76 units of assisted living on the east side, which would be the other C-N portion that's under consideration for rezone tonight. The R-15 portion was envisioned to be independent living. In addition, the mixed use neighborhood designation requires residential uses between 30 and 60 percent of the overall larger area which, this is the larger mixed use neighborhood area here in the grayish brown. F35 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 20,2025 Page 33 of 44 The applicant provided a calculation showing the residential percentages would be -- would be brought to 59.2 percent. So, on the higher end, but still within the 30 to 60 percent with this proposed development. Staff confirmed these calculations and concurs it meets the percentage requirements for the mixed use neighborhood designation. In addition, the subject development is proposed to be 7.8 dwelling units per acre, which is within the six to 12 units per acre desired in the mixed use neighborhood designation. The applicant cites a change in market demand as the -- as a basic -- as a basis for the requested rezoning and development agreement modification. While the staff is generally supportive of the overall concept plan, there are concerns regarding the continued reduction of commercial pad sites in south Meridian where neighborhood serving uses and opportunities are already limited currently. It should also be noted that much of the property proposed for rezone was previously approved with a concept plan for assisted living as I previously showed on the last slide. A residential use within a commercial zone. So, staff is asking the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council to carefully consider whether rezoning commercial pad sites is appropriate in this instance. In addition, according to the student generation rates, the development will create 43 school age children. Currently three schools -- the three -- the three schools in West Ada School District that will serve this development are Hillsdale Elementary School, Lake Hazel Middle School and Mountain View High School. Both Hillsdale Elementary and Mountain View High Schools are over capacity for the 24-25 enrollment data that we had. Staff asks that the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council carefully consider whether this rezone and development is appropriate considering the capacity of the nearby schools. A total of 1.76 acres or 19.3 percent of open space is proposed, consisting of linear open space, parkways and shared open space greater than 5,000 square feet. In addition, Hillsdale Park is directly south across East Hill Park Street, which this does exceed the UDC requirements of 15 percent open space. In addition, the applicant is proposing a picnic area site greater than 5,000 square feet for a total of two points, meeting the UDC requirements for amenity points. So, access is proposed off of South Tavistock Avenue and East Hill Park Street, both local streets. These connections are made through five proposed private street -- streets, which meet the UDC requirements. So, there is a private street application that's running concurrently with this, but that is at the administrative level. In addition, the applicant is proposing to complete the extension of East Hill Park Street from South Tavistock. So, this portion right here, if you can see the black hashed line, currently is not constructed. With this development the applicant will be completing that. So, East Hill Park Street will connect Tavistock with Hillsdale Avenue, which is a collector roadway. According to ACHD's staff report 502 vehicle trips per day are expected to be generated by this development, which was deemed under the acceptable level of service to accommodate these additional trips. ACHD also noted that traffic impact study was not required for this development due to being below the threshold to trigger that requirement. The applicant has submitted conceptual building elevations that include a variety of materials, including stone, brick veneer, EIFS, board and bat, and metal accents. Staff is recommending approval with conditions and a new development agreement and has received written testimony from three citizens with concerns regarding school capacities, traffic and safety, parking ratios, utility capacities, the density of the proposed development and consistency with 36 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 20,2025 Page 34 of 44 the Comprehensive Plan. As noted above or previously Hillsdale Elementary and Mountain View High Schools currently are over capacity according to West Ada School District. In this case we got our long range planning staff generated using West Ada's data and the citizens described, you know, the traffic in the area as gridlocked at peak hours of the day and with unsafe -- with safety concerns due to some reckless maneuvers that cause, you know, that people do when streets are busy and there is cut-through traffic, so -- in addition the citizens were concerned with the data used by ACHD as it dates back to 2019. Staff has talked with ACHD. This is obviously from 2024 is when this application was submitted. It was put on hold for a little bit. The applicant requested to be put on hold and we -- I have talked with ACHD I didn't get necessarily a clear answer from them on the 2019 data, so I can't speak directly to that. I know that will be something that will come up in the public testimony that you guys have probably seen, but that will be something that we will make sure we get sorted out before City Council if they do have more up to date data and I will stand for any questions at this time. Lorcher: Thanks. Would the applicant like to come forward? McNutt: Thank you. Amanda McNutt, 2929 West Navigator. All right. So, this is Hill Century Town -- Hill Century Farm Townhomes. We are requesting a pre-plat, rezone and a DA mod. Generally speaking it is near Amity and Eagle Road. The current zoning is C-N and R-15 and we are requesting to rezone the entire thing to R-15 and the future land use designation as mentioned is the mixed use neighborhood. Couple things that I wanted to show here is in this case we, again, very much align with what the mixed use designation shows. The streets are connected directly to the commercial drive aisles and sidewalks are provided throughout. We do align with the comp plan be -- being between 30 and 60 percent of the residential area here where -- I think Nick said 59, but what we had calculated was 57. Either way we are in compliance. This was how we got to that calculation. So, ours might have just been a little bit different. I also wanted to just mention that between when this was originally put through and now the YMCA and Hill Center -- or sorry. Hillsdale Park were also in the MUN and now they are not. So, we actually would be well under the required residential if those were still in there. But, basically, the city did a mass update and that got changed over to civic, which makes sense, because it is, but, again, that was kind of the plan from the beginning was that those were under the same designation and now those have switched over. You know, something that we have heard a lot of is that there is not enough commercial or diversity in commercial in this area. The MUN designation says mostly single family, alley loaded townhouses and small scale multi-family is kind of the primary uses for that designation, but some other designated uses are grocery stores, which there is one, a drugstore, which is also there within the grocery. Coffee, which is in the grocery store as well. A sandwich shop is there, along with a couple of other uses. A dry cleaner. A salon daycare. Professional office, schools, parks and public uses. So, I do feel like in this quarter mile or half mile radius here there -- there are a lot of uses that are commercial already and while I understand that there is always a desire for more commercial closer, so you can walk to it and things like that, the MUN designation is actually not meant for higher intensity uses. It is primarily a F37] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 20,2025 Page 35 of 44 neighborhood residential area with small supporting commercial uses. We are proposing 64 attached carriage -- carriage lane homes or alley loaded homes and four detached. Again, we are going to be directly adjacent to commercial serving uses that can be walked to and directly adjacent to Hillsdale Park and the YMCA. I won't cover that again, but we will be served by Hillsdale Elementary School, Lake Hazel Middle School and Mountain View High School. Brighton is working actively with the West Ada School District to provide another school in south Meridian to serve this in other areas. And one thing that I don't think was necessarily covered in the data that was presented is that over the last ten years enrollment in this area has actually not significantly changed. There is about 59 more students over the course of several schools than there were ten years ago. There have been ebbs and flows certainly and Hillsdale is over capacity and there is no denying that, but West Ada School District is in the process of doing boundary adjustments in the north half -- half of the city and, then, they are going to start doing that in the south half of the city as well. While there is stress and pressure right now, that's not going to happen forever and overall the student capacity really hasn't shifted that much over the course of ten years. The other thing I want to mention -- and I don't know if all Commissioners and the public are aware of it, but Brighton is extremely committed to the education and well-being of students. As part of that commitment we have donated the land and completed off-site infrastructure for the construction of Hillsdale Element -- Elementary School, as well as the Gem Prep. We are actively working with West Ada to ready an additional school site to serve south Meridian and we are also actively working with another charter school that serves 6th through 12th graders in south Meridian. As far as connectivity, we did ask for private streets in this development, primarily because ACHD requested that we do private streets. Basically they connect to commercial drive aisles and we -- we couldn't do public streets here because of that. You may hear some testimony from people who don't like the fact that people are working on the street. There is nothing we can do about that there. There is some public streets there where parking is permitted and so that is just permitted. There will be some places where it's not permitted and they will be marked as such. So, I kind of just put that together as far as where you could park and where you couldn't park. Essentially there is -- there is just those changes there. Also each home here is going to have a total of four parking spaces. They will have two garage spaces and two parking pad spaces off the alley. As far as amenities, it is a small site. We are providing a picnic shelter with some landscaping and we will have detached sidewalks with trees throughout. Nick already provided these, but just wanted to show some renderings. The top right picture there is actually a picture from another development that we have done, just to give you an idea of how these actually build out. In conclusion, we do concur with the staffs recommendations and I will stand for any questions. Lorcher: Do we have any questions for Amanda? Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. F38] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 20,2025 Page 36 of 44 Smith: I'm curious why this wasn't age restricted. Is there -- was there any consideration for age restricting? There is proximity -- proximity to an age restricted area, impact on schools, the existing kind of-- or the original plan. McNutt: I don't know why we didn't consider age restricted specifically. If I'm honest I think that probably older folks will end up here, but they are two story. So, I think that's going to limit some of the older population. I think it comes down to what's needed there, to be honest. What people are looking for. Cadence is already active there on the east side and there actually is an assisted living home across the street off Amity, so directly across from this development there is already an assisted living facility as well. So, I think we probably have enough here. I'm -- you know, you might be able to add some more and have it successful, but I'm not sure. Smith: Thank you. And, then, I do have a question for staff, Madam Chair. So, there was some discussion about some of that mixed use neighborhood land being redesignated as civic. Was -- just trying to understand staff's intent during that. Was that -- was the intent of staff -- did we account for the change in ratios, if you will, of residential, et cetera? Do we say, hey, we are -- this is going to no longer count in that mixed use neighborhood and they should still account for elsewhere or does the proximity to that -- that civic -- was that contemplated as maybe counting toward the intentions in the design of the mixed use neighborhood? Hopefully that made sense. Napoli: Madam Chair, Commissioner Smith, no, it is -- it makes sense. So, predates me a little bit, but I did have some conversations with the team -- and, Bill, feel free to jump in if you -- I'm going down the wrong path, but -- so, yes, it was included as a mixed use neighborhood as Amanda mentioned. I can even go back to that slide and it might be easy to show kind of a change. As far as with this I calculated and looked at this project not including that civic use in the mixed use neighborhood designation. Obviously, the YMCA, the school there, that is what -- some of the elements you definitely want to see in a mixed use neighborhood with the integration and all of that. Yes. So, when this project was first done back in 2015 this is how it looked. Correct. It was the original mixed use. They included that civic section of the development. But as you can see when the civic area was -- or when the civic area was -- when it was turned into civic I should say, actually on the west side further east I should say we actually expanded the mixed use neighborhood a little bit over there as well, which was a previous development that was approved that is a mixture of commercial and I believe townhomes as well. So, for Commissioner Smith I guess I would say for this purpose when we looked at it I did not include that civic section as part of the mixed use neighborhood. I think when the original concept plan did come in it was definitely contemplated in that mixed use neighborhood and those are elements that we did want to see, but it ultimately was designated as civic and it was not included in any of the calculations for this development. Smith: Thank you. Lorcher: Okay. Thank you very much. F39] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 20,2025 Page 37 of 44 McNutt: Thank you. Lorcher: Madam Clerk, do we have anyone to testify? Lomeli: Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, we have James Phillips. Lorcher: Hi. Thanks for being here. If you can state your name and address for the record that would be great. Phillips: James Phillips. 4140 East Rockhampton Street. I live in the neighborhood across the street in Hillsdale -- Hillsdale Creek. I'm here tonight to oppose the request to rezone the last acres of that C-N neighborhood commercial to R-15. Looking at this first shout out to the staff, did a good job of weighing -- laying out what you guys have. Looking at public comments, the messages from residents are overwhelmingly -- overwhelmingly consistent. This rezone removes the final neighborhood serving commercial parcel and pushes the mixed use residential share to the maximum allowed. I know the little debate between the original plan versus updated plan on civic. If you look at what mixed use residential were back in 2015, if we are bringing that up, it's out of compliance. It's above. So, just FYI if you are trying to -- that felt a little disingenuous, but -- okay. While that may technically fall in the mixed use range in practice it eliminates the function -- functional balance. This designation was created to protect -- commercial uses are most viable where schools, families, activity naturally cluster. Here we have the YMCA, Hillsdale Elementary, sports fields, density around the neighborhood, all which create exactly the environment where neighborhood commercial succeeds. Removing this final parcel foreclose -- forecloses future walkable services permanently and undermines the long term mixed use vision for the area. It's also important to note that I was here three years ago talking about making sure we had -- advocating for more commercial in the mixed use across the street. At the time the applicant justified higher density instead of in lieu of commercial because of the -- Brighton's commercial across the street. Ultimately, P&Z did approve that plan. Obviously, now to go back and change the zoning will break that public trust of -- of that expectation that there would be more commercial to help provide that more mixed use expectation there in the area. Second, the traffic evaluation relies entirely on that 2019 counts -- six years old data. Since, then, there is -- every year there has been more and more residential build out. Really need to have an updated study done to inform -- to have more informed decisions. Third, converting mixed use commercial to R-15 residential significantly increases peak water system demands, fire flow needs and localized pressure issues. Dense housing produces much higher morning and evening peaks than neighborhood commercial and that raises a critical question around if water infrastructure -- the cost, who is going to pay for that? Can we get growth pay for growth, please? Or will utility and taxpayers pay for it? Finally, nearly every public comment raise concerns about the school overcrowding. Hillsdale Elementary is already using portables and Mountain View High School is at capacity with traveling teachers. Adding additional density units will exasperate that. In summary, residents here are not opposed to growth, we are opposing imbalanced growth that removes the last commercial opportunity in mixed use, relies on outdated traffic data, increases F40] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 20,2025 Page 38 of 44 water infrastructure strain, worsens school overcrowding, undermines Comprehensive Plan. I respectfully ask the Commission to deny the rezoning and retain the C-N zoning as originally planned to complete the mixed use vision and in using analogy of Commissioner Garrett, please, don't let this commercial train prematurely leave the station. Thanks. Lorcher: Okay. Thank you very much. Phillips: Any questions? Lorcher: No. We are good. Lomeli: Madam Chair, we have Chris Johnson. Lorcher: Good evening. Johnson: Good evening. Chris Johnson. 4069 East Tenant Drive, Meridian. I will be brief. I know you guys have been here for a while and really appreciate you give me an opportunity to testify. I don't have a problem with growth at all. I don't have a problem with the develop -- any development occurring in on this property. My concern is really with the rezoning. So, it was zoned commercial for a reason. There are -- there is a grocery store nearby and a few other amenities, but it's pretty sparse in that area down there. We don't have a lot of restaurants and things like that. You have to drive quite a ways -- all the way up north on Eagle near The Village to find a significant amount of restaurants that kind of thing and I am really concerned about the school overcrowding issue. I think that's something that you really need to take under serious consideration here. Otherwise, you know, I think -- I like Brighton a lot. I have no problem at all with Brighton. We almost purchased a Brighton home in Century Farm, but I just feel like this is just a little too much density, especially when the CBH property was approved a couple of years back, the whole thought was, hey, we can have more density here with homes, but there will be a commercial to balance that across the street and now we are taking that opportunity away. So, thank you. Lorcher: Thank you very much. Good evening. If you can state your name and address for the record. Harris: Alan Harris. 4066 East Tenant Drive. Thank you for having us here. My main concern is Centerville isn't even built out yet by CBH and, you know, we went through this three years ago, as James said, and with the school and the traffic it's just crazy right now. Absolutely nuts. The YMCA every hour there is usually a shift change of people coming back and forth and it's just a cluster. Trying to get the kids to stay on the sidewalk, they have put stop signs now at the -- about a year or so ago by the school, which did help out immensely with cars, but there, again, is still not marked properly I don't think and people just run them anyway. But to build out more residential right now to get -- to get honest figures with traffic and school -- I believe it was said that 43 new students or something through the homes that would be built. I don't see seniors buying 41 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 20,2025 Page 39 of 44 two story homes as they said, so it's going to be mostly family homes and you are going to have a lot more children at that point. There, again, as it's already been said with the lack of commercial property and restaurants and things and what they are -- at least within walking distance from the communities there. So, these guys have pretty much giving you the figures they have got, but I just wanted to voice my opinion. Lorcher: Very good. Thank you very much. Lomeli: Madam Chair, no one else has signed up and no one online is raising their hand. Lorcher: Amanda, would you like to come back up and have some closing comments. McNutt: Yes. Thank you. So, coming in I basically knew what people's concerns were going to be as there was a lot of public testimony, which is kind of appreciated, honestly, because it helps us to understand what people in the area want. Again, I do feel like there is quite a bit of commercial out here. This is the -- one of the lower intensity mixed use areas. It, again, isn't really meant for high intensity uses. So, as you move up in those mixed use types you will see restaurants and higher intensity uses listed. In this particular case they are not listed, because they are not intended to be those types of services. Frankly, there is probably not going to be people who want to put their businesses there either. Although, there are a lot of people out here, you need a very high amount of traffic to sustain businesses like that. The types of uses that are there, the salon, bank, things like that -- I'm actually surprised the Albertsons is doing so well, but I think it's because people are traveling to that one, rather than it's just Hill Century Farm going to that one. I think it's a much wider net that's kind of being cast for that particular use. The other thing I wanted to talk about is this was -- this was kind of just talking about, you know, it -- we are at the max end of the residential right now, but if we were to kind of talk about what we had planned in the beginning we are not at the max residential if you include the civic area. But either way we are in compliance with the comp plan. It was just, you know, with Hillsdale Park and the YMCA originally we had kind of planned on those being in the mixed use area and, then, they -- they got taken out. The other thing I wanted to mention -- and it was talked about heavily in the public testimony -- was that the CBH development was allowed to happen because we would be providing commercial for them. I think it's been pretty obvious and evident that it's not expected that we provide everything for everybody, although we kind of do. And, then, lastly, ACHD did recommend approval of this. You know, I -- I think that they are probably looking at more than just our TIS, because there has been several TISes in this area over the course of the last five years. So, I imagine they are not just looking at this under one scope and only looking at what we provided, but they are looking at a much grander scale as they have a ton of data to support different things and, again, to the school overcrowding, I think as soon as those boundaries are redrawn it's -- it's going to help a lot in south Meridian and, again, I do understand that that's needed. Lorcher: Does your project -- is it on Amity Road or is it in a little bit? F42 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 20,2025 Page 40 of 44 McNutt: It is slightly in. Let me see if I can find a better -- so, here is Amity Road up here. So, we are -- we are down just a little ways from that. There is still some commercial pads up there. Lorcher: Okay. So -- and do you -- are you the developer of those commercial pads as well? McNutt: Yes. Lorcher: Okay. So, if I was a business I would not have any street view from Amity, because the businesses are in front of it; is that correct? McNutt: So, you are saying if-- if this were to develop commercially would you -- Lorcher: Correct. McNutt: -- have -- yeah, you would not have a view from Amity. Lorcher: So, the only place that I would have to market my business -- I don't -- I can't read that street that goes north-south, but -- McNutt: Tavistock. Lorcher: Tavistar. So, I would have to know that that was there for this to be more commercial -- McNutt: Yes. Lorcher: -- as these pads are really blocking everything that's there; is that correct? McNutt: Yes. Lorcher: Okay. Any questions for Amanda? Okay. McNutt: All right. Thank you. Lorcher: Thank you. Can I get a motion to close the public hearing? Smith: So moved. Stoll: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for Hill Century Farm Townhouse. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. F43] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 20,2025 Page 41 of 44 Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: Yeah. I am torn here. South Meridian has an increasingly shrinking amount of mixed use, an increasingly shrinking amount of commercial opportunities. This application on its own I think doesn't significantly, you know, accelerate that in a super meaningful manner, but -- but I think part of the issue and part of the concern I have broadly when it comes to mixed use is this sort of salami slicing that's happening. I don't think it's malicious or intentional at all, but I think a lot of the time what we see is a project that on its own kind of makes sense to reduce some of the commercial and over here there is a project that kind of makes sense to reduce the commercial a little bit and over time you end up with south Meridian that has very limited commercial to the point where, honestly, if I'm looking at that low desert -- low density residential on the southwest corner I'm thinking, hey, do we try to reclassify that as -- as mixed use commercial or something in the FLUM and what other areas that we can -- or mixed use community. Yeah. What other areas can we provide more -- more commercial opportunity and more mixed use opportunities down here. So, I do have issues with that larger conversation and that is the main cause of my concern. I think that is a larger conversation that needs to happen possibly at a potential upcoming meeting with the City Council. But for this application I think I'm supportive. I would love to hear what the rest of the Commission says on that. Lorcher: Okay. Sandoval: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Sandoval. Sandoval: Yeah. This actually makes quite a bit of sense to me for a couple reasons, primarily that integration that I was so adamant about earlier, it really seems to be here. We have commercial, we have the civic to the south; right? I feel like it's really well integrated and there is no major barriers; right? So, you could walk from your house down to the school or down to some commercial spots and it just seems to make a lot of sense to me. I'm not really opposed to this at all. In fact, I think it's a good development. Lorcher: Okay. Thank you. I am going to give a different opinion to actually address one of the concerns from Mr. Phillips. One of the things that we like about this process is that every application is evaluated by itself or at least we try to at the time. So, if you were here three years ago and we had talked about a commercial corridor to be applicable at that point in time. The world around it has changed, including the schools, including the roads, including the accessibility and so to be held accountable for something that maybe we said three years ago and the world has changed around that is just very hard to do, because south Meridian has continued to evolve and change. But with that in mind you have -- Brighton has a wonderful opportunity here, because F44] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 20,2025 Page 42 of 44 you have the YMCA, you have the school and you have a park and you are building these skinny two story houses with incredible density into a space that in my opinion would be more suited for single family homes with families to take advantage of the YMCA, the school and the park. The West Ada School District is currently doing boundary changes in the north with Star Elementary, Pleasant View, Eagle, Ponderosa, Hunter, Meridian and Chaparral. They don't currently have any plans for the south and -- and if you do -- are able to work with the West Ada School District to bring another elementary school it takes about three years for all that to happen. So, we are looking at closer to 2029 before any relief would come to these schools and I understand that parents are doing other things with students to keep the numbers kind of flat. There is more homeschooling. There is more online schools. There is charter schools. There is other things. The fact that there is commercial on Amity and if I was a restaurant, if I was a retail center, I can't market my product because you can't see me, because I'm not on the main road. So, in this particular case I don't have a problem with it no longer being commercial, because it's not visible, but I do have a problem with your density. I know it fits and I know you hit the numbers that you have to, but you put a lot of strain on this particular corner by filling that density at the highest level you possibly could. With that -- and considering that there were so many comments coming in I can't ignore the community speaking about such things. I am not in favor of this project the way it stands, because of the density and that there should be more of an opportunity for more single family homes, maybe, and wider parcels. I know maybe the market doesn't bear that right now, so that becomes difficult to kind of manage at the same time. But I'm not comfortable with this design of this project based on this density. Like to make any comments or -- we can make a motion. Garrett: Yeah. I will comment. I happen to be a member that Y, so I go by there on a fairly frequent basis and I don't have any opposition to this application as it's -- I, too, don't see commercial going in there given the location and that it's not on Amity and I just kept wondering when something was going to be developed there as I drove by it. But I think that -- is the density a factor of cost and affordability or are you looking at density for other reasons? Lorcher: He can't answer the question without public testimony, so it's rhetorical at this point. Garrett: Yeah. Well, that's my only concern is there are plenty of single family detached homes in the area -- Lorcher: Yeah. Garrett: -- and now is it -- because we hear everywhere affordability, affordability. Lorcher: Right. Garrett: So, it's easier to build these and make them affordable than putting something on a quarter acre lot. F45] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 20,2025 Page 43 of 44 Lorcher: Okay. Thank you very much. Would you like to make a comment or a motion? Stoll: I did not have any preconceived notion as far as a decision and I'm still struggling with it. The commercial doesn't work as you pointed out, because of how it's set up. It makes sense as far as putting a different product type in the area from my viewpoint. Schools are -- from what we have heard from the testimony -- are struggling with the capacity. The problem is I didn't see any testimony -- any comment provided by West Ada regarding this project to us when I looked through the packet. I may have missed something, but I did not see -- Lorcher: Nick -- Nick can comment on that. Napoli: Madam Chair, Commissioner Stoll, so correct. This is actually below West Ada's threshold for what they typically provide a letter to us, which is why we -- we have their data, we generate our own numbers and we -- there is a report in there. It would just be under -- it wouldn't be called the West Ada School District, it would be under long range planning staff here with the City of Meridian that would have generated that. Stoll: Yep. I was just looking for West Ada's comments, but -- I mean it's a similar issue with ACHD that they don't provide comments on -- as far as the traffic analysis being required for a certain threshold. There is updated data out there. Just need to know the right people to talk to. So, I am ready to make a motion. Lorcher: Okay. Stoll: Five hundred and two additional vehicle trips. It's -- once we get the improvements completed there is going to be ongoing construction that's going to cause problem. It's going to make it less than enjoyable, but you won't have cars going through your development once Eagle and Lake Hazel is done. Lorcher: Okay. Stoll: So, with that said, after considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File No. H-2024-0072 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 20th, 2025. Sandoval: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved in seconded to approve Hill Century Farmhouse -- Farm Townhouses. All those in favor say aye. And those nay, which is me. Nay. Motion passes. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE NAY. TWO ABSENT. Lorcher: Bill would like to address the Commission. F46] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 20,2025 Page 44 of 44 Parsons: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. I just had a -- trying to take a tally from the Commission this evening. Caleb and I are trying to coordinate on a joint meeting between the Commission and City Council and we are targeting December 16th. So, if you guys wouldn't mind looking at your calendars and, then, reaching back out -- you don't have to have an answer tonight, but certainly reach out to either me, Caleb, or even Kurt. He is part of that as well. But any of us can help -- help you with that or at least make sure that you can be part of that and, then, we can go ahead and work with our City Council president and get you on the agenda on the 16th. Lorcher: Could we -- not to give Tina extra work, but can you send an e-mail out to the Commission and just have everybody confirm that they are available, so that you can make a good decision? Lomeli: Madam Chair, yes. Lorcher: Okay. Parsons: Thank you. Lorcher: All right. I will take one more motion. Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: Move to adjourn. Stoll: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and second to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Happy Thanksgiving, everyone. See you next time. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:25 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS. ) APPROVED 12 104 125 MARIA LORCHER - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK F47 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Approve Minutes of the November 6, 2025 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting 4 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 K IDIAN:--- iuAn Planning and Zoning Presentations and outline h2 Planning & Zoning Commission , 2025 th November 20Meeting Zoning MapAerialFLUM Chinden Blvd. Zoning MapAerialFLUM RezoneAnnexation-DeAnnexation Zoning MapAerialFLUM Zoning MapAerialFLUM Changes to Agenda: Item #2: 3780 Overland (H-2025-0038) - requires a continuance due to inadequate site posting. The applicant requests to be th continued to the December 4 hearing date. Item #3: Borough Village (H-2025-0037) Application(s):  Development Agreement Modification  Planned Unit Development Modification  Rezone  Preliminary Plat Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of approximately 3 acres of land, zoned L-O, located at 1250 E. Everest St. History: This property was originally platted in Ada County in 2003 and later annexed into the City in 2005 with L-O zoning as part of a larger development area. A DA was required as a provision of annexation for the overall annexation area. A PUD was also approved for the development of (6) professional office buildings on the subject property & 10 MFR buildings with 40 dwelling units on the adjacent property to the east. The MFR portion of the development was constructed but only the site improvements associated with the office portion of the development were constructed, consisting of sewer & water main lines, PI, asphalt drives/parking areas, street buffer & parking lot landscaping – further development was delayed due to the bank foreclosing on the property during the recession in 2008. In 2015, applications were submitted for a rezone to R-15 & a modification to the PUD to change the use and site layout from office to MFR for the development of 34 townhome style units at a gross density of 12.55 units/acre, which were denied by Council due to their opinion the R-15 zone was not in the best interest of the City at that time. Reasons cited were that the density of the development proposed with the PD was too high and the entitled office uses would off-set the MFR use approved in Phase 1. Other relevant testimony included preference for uses allowed in the L-O district such as professional office uses, a daycare facility and/or fitness facility, rather than more MFR units in this area. In 2016, a short plat application was submitted & approved for the subject property and adjacent property to the east, which included the eastern portion of the vacated ROW from Jericho Rd., which was vacated by ACHD after ITD decided to eliminate the collector street connection to Chinden Blvd. A 35’ wide landscaped street buffer with irrigation, a 10’ wide multi-use pathway and 10’ tall berm and wall was constructed along Chinden Blvd/SH-20/26 with the subdivision improvements as required by the DA but was later removed by ITD with the road widening project. ITD acquired an additional 10 feet of right-of-way from the subject property and installed a 10-foot-tall concrete wall for buffering along with decorative rock on the south side of Chinden Blvd. in this area. Utilities were installed, which included a large transformer, underground power and a natural gas line between the back of sidewalk and the wall. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MU-C (Mixed Use – Community) – Integrated community-serving, employment & residential uses are desired in this designation. Residential uses are expected to comprise between 20% and 50% of the overall MU-C development area with gross densities ranging from 6 to 15 units/acre of the residential area. Summary of Request: The Applicant proposes a modification to the existing DA & PUD for Westborough Square to update the use (from office to residential) & concept development plan \[from 6 office buildings to (18) MFR units in SFR attached-style structures and (2) SFR dwelling units\] for the site and a new DA for the subject property. A variety of community-serving uses exist in the overall MU-C designated area & residential uses comprise less than 50% of the area. A rezone of 3.04 acres of land is proposed from the L-O to the R-15 zoning district. Reasons cited in the Applicant’s narrative supporting the proposed rezone and change of use include the lack of collector street (Jericho Rd.) access to Chinden Blvd/SH-20/26 (the nearest access is circuitous via N. Saguaro Hills Ave. to Everest St., over 1,000+’ to the west and north) and lack of visibility from the highway with ITD’s construction of a 10’ tall wall between the property and the highway, which created an isolated office zoned parcel without potential for development. The property has sat vacant and underutilized since 2008. A Preliminary Plat is proposed to develop in one phase consisting of (3) buildable lots consisting of one MFR building lot and (2) SFR building lots & (3) common/other lots consisting of an access drive, a parking lot and a common lot on 2.81 acres of land. The single- family lots range in size from 4,176 to 4,228 square feet (sq. ft.) with an average lot size of 4,202 sq. ft. The multi-family lot will contain (9) structures with 18 SFR attached style dwellings. The gross density is 6.58 dwelling units per acre is proposed consistent with the density desired in MU-C designated areas. No deviations are proposed to UDC standards with the modification to the PUD. MFR developments are allowed as a principal permitted use through the PUD if the amendment to the PUD is approved, a CUP would not be required. Private usable open space consisting of patios is proposed for each unit in excess of the 80 s.f. minimum requirement. A minimum of 4,500 s.f. (or 0.10 acre) of common open space is required for the development, the Applicant is providing open space exceeding the standard by more than double the amount. A minimum of (2) amenities are required from (2) separate categories – A sports court (horseshoe pit) is proposed from the recreation category, a fenced dog park with a waste station is proposed from the Quality of Life category, and a picnic area with a shade structure is proposed from the Open Sapce category, exceeding UDC standards. Off-street parking is proposed in excess of the minimum standard – 51 spaces are provided over the required amount with another 16 spaces provided in an overflow parking lot along the southern boundary of the site for use by guests & residents of Borough Subdivision, the MFR development to the east, to alleviate existing parking issues in this area. A 35’ wide street buffer is required along Chinden Blvd., an entryway corridor, with noise abatement for residential uses adjoining a state highway. As previously noted, ITD removed the previously installed buffer, wall and irrigation with the road widening project and constructed a 10’ tall concrete wall at the back edge of the 10’ sidewalk along Chinden, leaving little area for a landscape buffer and no irrigation to the north side of the wall. Alternative Compliance was requested and approved by the Director to the street buffer standards in UDC 11-3B-7C.1c due to existing conflicts with utilities, which prevent installation of irrigation facilities under the footings of the wall. There is no break in the wall so maintenance of the limited area of landscaping on the north side of the wall would have to take place from Chinden which the Applicant felt would be hazardous. The subject property is also considerably lower than Chinden with a significant slope into the property from the 10’ tall wall and a 3’ tall retaining wall. As alternative compliance, the developer is required to install (9) trees north of the retaining wall with shrubs, decorative boulders and rock mulch and (4) additional trees on the south of the retaining wall, as proposed. As noted, additional common open space & amenities are provided above and beyond the minimum standards with a landscaped area behind the proposed units connecting to a pocket park area with a picnic shelter and trees as an alternative means of compliance, which provides an equal or superior means for meeting the requirement. Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed single-story homes as shown. Written Testimony: Becky McKay, Applicant’s Representative – In agreement with staff report recommendation; Melissa Chandler, Melinda & Ray Akhbari, Ginne Hostvedt & John Elliott – Safety concerns for children & pedestrians with the increased traffic, inadequate parking, increased traffic volume on surrounding roads, increase in noise in the quiet neighborhood, incompatibility with surrounding land uses, and strain on City services & infrastructure. Staff Recommendation: Approval – Staff finds the proposal consistent with the Comp Plan. Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H- 2025-0037, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 20, 2025, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number H-2025- 0037, as presented during the hearing on November 20, 2025, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2025-0037 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item #4: Apex Cadence (H-2024-0061) th This project was continued to tonight’s meeting from Nov. 6 due to there not being enough Commissioners present to break a tie vote. The Applicant submitted a response to the Staff report requesting some changes to conditions – Staff provided a response to the Applicant’s request that’s included in the public record. Application(s):  Development Agreement Modification  Annexation  De-Annexation  Rezone  Preliminary Plat  Planned Unit Development Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 51.5 acres of land, zoned R-8, located at 6575 S. Locust Grove Rd., south of E. Lake Hazel Rd., on the west side of S. Locust Grove Rd. History: This property was originally annexed with a DA as part of the larger South Meridian annexation in 2015 & assigned a “placeholder” zoning district of R-4. The DA requires a modification to the agreement prior to development of the MU-C designated areas to include a conceptual development plan that demonstrates consistency with the general guidelines for Mixed Use developments & specifically the MU-C designation. The DA was amended in 2020 & the property was rezoned to R-8 but a development plan was not submitted at that time for this portion of the property. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MDR (40.5 acres) & MU-C (10.9 acres) Summary of Request: The Applicant requests a modification to the existing DA to include a conceptual development plan for the subject property, as required. The new DA will pertain only to the subject property and not the larger Apex development. The proposed concept plan depicts a mix of SFR detached & attached homes on the portion of the site proposed to be included in the preliminary plat; and future collector streets & FLUM designations on the property to the north that is outside the boundary of the plat. The MDR designation calls for a gross density of 3 to 8 units/acre – the proposed density is 4.1 units/acre. In the MU-C designation, residential uses are expected to comprise between 20% and 50% of the development area at gross densities ranging from 6 to 15 units/acre. Approximately 50% of the overall MU-C area is proposed to develop with residential uses at a gross density of 6 units/acre as desired. The concept locations of the collector street on the property to the north of the proposed subdivision do not align with the MSM; therefore, Staff recommends the concept plan is revised prior to the Council hearing to include at least ½ of the north/south collector street on the subject property, rather than the property to the west, in alignment with S. Apex Ave. on the north side of Lake Hazel; and the east/west collector street should stub to the Murgoitio property to the east in alignment with E. Tower St. on the east side of Locust Grove. Although the residential density is consistent with that desired in the Comp Plan for the MU-C designation, the proposed development isn’t consistent with other MU-C design elements 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 mixed use designated areas. The Commission & City Council should determine if the proposed development plan 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. 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. Annexation of 0.86 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. De-annexation of a strip of land consisting of 0.52 of an acre from the City to Ada County located along the west boundary of the site on the north & south sides of Via Roberto St. is requested that was inadvertently included in the original annexation. This area was previously included in a ROS to adjust the property line between the two properties and the abutting property to the west (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. 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 5 phases as shown. The overall gross density is 4.43 units/acre. Based on 51.5 acre of development area, a minimum of 15% (or 7.73 acres) of qualified open space is required to be provided – a total of 9.75 acres (or 19%) is proposed consisting of several open grassy areas exceeding 5,000 s.f. 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, which exceeds UDC standards. A minimum of 10 site amenity points are required to be provided – site amenities totaling 22 points are proposed consisting of a clubhouse greater than 5,000 s.f. in size, paved sports courts, multi-use pathways and a pedestrian circulation system aligned with linear open space, which exceeds UDC standards. A PUD is proposed for a (mostly) gated residential development consisting of a mix of SFR attached & detached homes, front-loaded and alley-loaded, with a variety of lot sizes, setbacks and home designs. Except for the 16 homes at the SWC 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 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 s.f.; the average residential lot size in the non- gated portion of the development is 7,233 s.f. 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. Several conceptual building elevations were submitted for single-story & 2-story detached and attached SFR homes as shown. 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. The Applicant is requesting 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. • 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. Written Testimony:  Applicant – Response to the staff report, included in the public record  Joann Tima, Holly Myers & Shawn Freeman – All are against the proposed rezone from R-8 to R-15 due to the increase in housing density and associated impacts, included in the public record  Response from Staff to the Applicant’s response to the staff report Staff Recommendation: Approval Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H- 2024-0061, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 20, 2025, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number H-2024- 0061, as presented during the hearing on November 20, 2025, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2024-0061 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item #5: Apex Zenith (H-2025-0041) Application(s):  Preliminary Plat Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 11.065 acres of land, zoned C-G, located at the southeast corner of Meridian Road and Lake Hazel Road. History: The two parcels fronting S. Meridian Road (S1406223014 and S1406223153) were annexed in 2015 with the South Meridian Annexation. These properties were given the placeholder zoning of R-4 until future development. In 2024, the property was rezoned to the C-G zoning district as a part of the larger Apex Zenith project. After the annexation the applicant submitted a property boundary adjustment to reconfigure the properties to allow for legal parcel for development. This is the reason why Costco is not included within this subdivision. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Mixed Use Regional Summary of Request: The applicant is proposing a Preliminary plat to subdivide two (2) existing parcels into seven (7) buildable lots and two private streets. The subject properties fall within the larger Apex Zenith project and are designated as Mixed-Use Regional on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The MU-R designation 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 applicant is proposing a preliminary plat consisting of seven (7) buildable lots across 11.065 acres of land. The plat excludes the additional approximately 140 acres of land as a separate plat will be required with phase two (2) of the larger development. Staff recommends the subject properties be subdivided prior to the issuance of any building permits within the subdivision. However, this subdivision is part of the first phase of the Apex Zenith project, which restricts phase one (1) to three (3) building permits prior to a more in-depth concept plan is provided. Currently, Costco will be using two (2) of the three (3) building permits, and it was previously stated that a regional employment user would be the third building permit on the west side of Prevail Avenue. For this reason, staff is recommending the subdivision be recorded and Phase two (2) of Apex Zenith be approved prior to any building permits being issued within the subdivision. The applicant has indicated the subdivision is proposed to be completed in a single phase with buildings being constructed at a later date when users are found. Each user will be evaluated when they submit for a certificate of zoning compliance application. The property is allowed to have all the uses listed in UDC 11-2B-2. As a part of the larger project, the north-south collector at the collector, known as S. Optimum Avenue, the east west collectors, known as E. Spire Street and Aristocrat Drive are required to be constructed prior the first occupancy in the development. In addition, with this application the applicant is proposing 2 private streets known as E. Tower Lane and S. Momentum Lane that are also required to be constructed. In addition, the applicant has entered into a STARS agreement with ITD for improvements to Meridian Road which includes deceleration lanes to the proposed accesses off Meridian Road. Regarding access, the applicant had two previously approved access points approved through City Council Waivers that are now known as the private streets proposed within the subdivision Written Testimony: None Staff Recommendation: Approval with conditions. Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H- th 2025-0041, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 20, 2025, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number H-2025- th 0041, as presented during the hearing on November 20, 2025, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2025-0041 to the hearing date of _____ for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item #6: Hill’s Century Farm Townhomes (H-2024-0072) Application(s):  Preliminary Plat  Rezone  Development Agreement Modification Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 9.1 acres of land, zoned R-15 and C-N, located at the NE corner of S. Tavistock Avenue and E. Hill Park Street. History: In 2015 the subject sites were included in a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, Annexation, and Rezone. The CPAM changed the FLUM designation of approximately 87.01 acres of land from Low Density Residential to Mixed Use Neighborhood. Additionally, the applicant requested annexation of 78.62 acres of land with the R-8 and C-N zoning with a rezone of 8.39 acres of land from R-8 to the C-N zoning district. The primary driver behind the change from LDR to MU-N FLUM designation was for the incorporation of neighborhood serving use in close proximity to residential and assisted living. In addition, in 2019 the applicant applied for a modification to the conditional use permit for the assisted living shown in the original concept plan. This changes the location of the assisted living to the interior of the commercial area and within the subject properties proposed to be rezoned. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Mixed Use Neighborhood Summary of Request: The MU-N designation is intended to allocate areas where neighborhood serving uses and dwellings seamlessly integrate into the urban fabric. The intent is to avoid predominantly single-use developments by incorporating a variety of uses. The applicant requests to rezone 5.45 acres of land from C-N to R-15, a preliminary plat for 70 building lots and 18 common lots, and a development agreement modification. The subject development is proposed to be 7.8 dwelling units per acre which is within the 6 to 12 units per acre desired in the MU-N designation. The applicant’s narrative states that by rezoning the property to R-15, the FLUM designation will not be impacted as residential uses are allowed in the MU-N designation. The applicant also states that the proposed single-family attached units will complement nearby commercial and civic uses, including medical offices, retail, storage facilities, Hillsdale Elementary School, the YMCA, and Hillsdale Park. The project falls within the MU-N designation’s intended mix of 30% to 60% residential uses. The calculations provided by the applicant bring the area to 59.2% residential which is compliance with the parameters of the comprehensive plan. Additionally, detached and attached single family homes are a permitted use in the R-15 zoning district per UDC Table 11-2A-2. This broader MU-N designation was established through a Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPAM) in 2015, allowing for a diverse mix of uses. The existing C-N zoning was originally part of a concept plan that envisioned three (3) commercial pad sites on the north side of the property, and a seventy-six (76) unit assisted living facility on the east side. While the R-15 portion was envisioned to be independent living. The applicant cites changing market demand as the basis for the requested rezoning and land use amendment. While staff is generally supportive of the overall concept plan, there are concerns regarding the continued reduction of commercial pad sites in south Meridian, where neighborhood-serving commercial opportunities are already limited. It should also be noted that much of the property proposed for rezoning was previously approved for an assisted living facility, a residential use within a commercial zone. The Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council should carefully consider whether rezoning the commercial pad sites is appropriate. In addition, according to the student generation rates, the development will create forty-three (43) school aged children. Currently, the three schools that will service this area are Hillsdale Elementary School, Lake Hazel Middle School, and Mountain View High School. Both Hillsdale Elementary and Mountain View High are over capacity for the 24-25’ enrollment. A total of 1.76-acres (19.3%) of open space is proposed consisting of linear open space, parkways, and a shared open space greater than 5,000 square feet. In addition, Hillsdale park is directly south across E. Hill Park Street. Staff is recommending a pedestrian connection through Lot 87, Block 1 to provide better connectivity to the commercial to the north. Based on 9.1-acres, a minimum of two (2) points of site amenities are required. The applicant is proposing a picnic area on site that is greater than 5,000 square feet for a total of two (2) points, meeting the UDC requirements. Additionally, the applicant is providing pedestrian connection to Hillsdale Park to the south. Access to the proposed subdivision is off of S. Tavistock and E. Hill Park Street, both local streets. The applicant has made four (4) connection points to these local streets through three (3) private streets and one (1) alley. The applicant has submitted a private street application to run concurrently with this application to allow for the construction of five (5) private streets. Please see section E4 below for analysis on the private street standards. The applicant is proposing five (5) private streets in the form of Woodmurra Lane, Newbridge Lane, Kalinga Lane, Boswell Lane, and Stockenham Lane with this application. These private streets are depicted on the plat and have an sixty (60) foot and fifty-four (54) foot easements that spans across the full street section including thirty-three (33) and twenty-seven (27) foot street width, eight (8) foot parkways, and five (5) foot sidewalks on both sides. Written Testimony: We received written testimony from 30 citizens with concerns regarding school capacities, traffic and safety, inadequate parking, utility capacities, density, and inconsistency with the comprehensive plan. As noted above Hillsdale Elementary and Mountain View High schools are over capacity. The citizens described the traffic as gridlock with people doing reckless maneuvers that cause safety concerns. In addition, the citizens were concerned with the data used by ACHD which dates back to 2019. Staff Recommendation: Approval with the requirement for a development agreement and conditions. Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H- th 2024-0072, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 20, 2025, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number H-2024- th 0072, as presented during the hearing on November 20, 2025, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2024-0072 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) w IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing continued from October 16, 2025 for Borough Village (H- 2025-0037) by Engineering Solutions, LLP., located at 1250 E. Everest St. Application Materials https:Hbit.ly/H-2025-0037 A. Request: Modified Development Agreement to the existing development agreement (Inst. #105152707 Westborough Square) to update the use (from office to residential) and development plan for the site and enter into a new agreement for the subject property. B. Request: Rezone of 3.04 acres of land from the L-0 to the R-15 zoning district C. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of three (3) buildable lots and three (3) common/other lots on 2.81 acres of land. D. Request: Planned Unit Modification to the approved PUD (CUP-05-027) to update the development plan for the site from six (6) office buildings to 18 multi-family residential dwelling units and two (2) single-family residential dwelling units. E. Request: Director Approval of alternative compliance to UDC 11-3B-7C.1c to not provide street buffer landscaping along E. Chinden Blvd., adjacent to the site due to the location of the 10-foot wall constructed by ITD with the roadway expansion. 64 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: November 20, 2025 ITEM # 3 PROJECT NAME: Borough Village (H-2025-0037) I wish to testify Representing Your Full Name Your Full Address (mark X HOA? (Please Print) if yes) c) 2 2- A)• K(N('M V 10er)A� xv, h Pj 6) Or q (�x 3 -'xi (V(tq P1 -��J cc� I (Zi r r i V1, &43 �a 4 5 0 N ce y(-W (+ 1(t) 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT C��fEPIDIAN*,­, DEPARTMENT REPORT HEARING 11/20/2025 Legend DATE: Continued from: 1011612025 Project evocation 0 Area of Impact TO: Planning&Zoning Commission City Limits FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner O Analysis 208-884-5533 mT, sallen@meridiancity.org B _ - r - ; APPLICANT: Engineering Solutions " SUBJECT: H-2025-0037; A-2025-0109 m Borough Village—MDA,PUD,PP,RZ, ALT LOCATION: 1250 E. Everest St. and the abutting parcel to the west in the northeast 1/4.of Section 30,TAN.,R.IE. (Parcel #S0530120610&#R1029680110) I. PROJECT OVERVIEW A. Summary The Applicant has submitted the following development applications: • Modification to the existing Development Agreement(Inst. #105152707 Westborough Square)to update the use(from office to residential)and development plan for the site and enter into a new agreement for the subject property; • Rezone of 3.04 acres of land from the L-O(Limited Office)to the R-15 (Medium High- Density Residential)zoning district; • Preliminary Plat consisting of three(3)buildable lots and three(3)common/other lots on 2.81 acres of land; • Modification to the approved Planned Unit Development(CUP-05-027)to update the development plan for the site from six(6) office buildings to 18 multi-family residential dwelling units and two(2)single-family residential dwelling units; and, • Alternative Compliance to the landscape standards in UDC 11-3B-7C.Ic for the street buffer along Chinden Blvd. B. Issues/Waivers The Applicant requests Director approval of Alternative Compliance to the landscape standards in UDC 11-3B-7C.Ic for the street buffer along Chinden Blvd./SH-20/26(see Section III.D.3 below for more information). City of Meridian I Department Report 1. Project Overview ■ C. Recommendation Staff: Staff recommends approval of the request for modification to the Development Agreement and Planned Development,Rezone and Preliminary Plat. The Director approved the request for alternative compliance. Commission: Pending D. Decision Council: Pending I1. COMMUNITY METRICS Table 1: Land Use Description Details Map Ref, Existing Land Use(s) Vacant/undeveloped - Proposed Land Use(s) Multi-family development - Existing Zoning L-O(Limited Office) VII.A.2 Proposed Zoning R-15 (Medium High-Density Residential) Adopted FLUM Designation MU-C(Mixed Use—Community) VII.A.3 Proposed FLUM Designation No change proposed Table 2: Process Facts Description Details Preapplication Meeting date 6/23/2025 Neighborhood Meeting 3/26/2025 Site posting date 10/3/2025 Table 3: Community Metrics Agency/Element Description/Issue Ada County Highway District • Comments Received Yes—no improvements are required to adjacent streets. • Commission Action Required No • Access N.Jericho Rd. (local street) ITD Comments Received Yes—no comments Meridian Fire No comments received Meridian Police No comments received Meridian Public Works Wastewater • Distance to Mainline Available at site • Impacts or Concerns See specific conditions Meridian Public Works Water • Distance to Mainline Available at site • Impacts or Concerns Ensure no trees are located within 10' of the water meter School District(s) No comments received 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:R1Ca96®11 O Date Retrieved:2025/10 16 Parcel Count Parcel Acreage In#ill Indicator: 775 Surrounding Area 162 1 % Not City ® City Limits 698.5 1,827 Not City Household Change Household&Population Growth Households f32020 Population Change:3A% Population ■Growth (Household and Population Change since 2010 decennial) 10,000 20,400 30,000 Use Types Residential Addresses All Addresses ■ Single-family ® Multi-family ® Commercial Preliminary Plats(last.5-years) Conditional Use Permit{last 5-years) Proposed Proposed Pending Pending Approved Approved 0 101) 200 304 0 G.5 1 ■ Single-family ® Multi-family >> For Projects with Residential Units << 2-00 1,500 5ing$e-famiiy 4 Residential # 1-54 1,044 Parcel Diversity "' 1-00 0.82 0 Parcel Count v 4-50 m 544 ■Average Acres 4-00 17Fdh 09 4 a R-2 — R�8 R-15 Average Single-family Density by Zoning Average 15-00 q' . 10.81 D' 1000 4.77� 5-44 ��.02 �5.8§ • 1. 4-00 22 Dwelling Units I 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: Service Impact Summary SerWce ImpactTools Ready Marginal Caution c CP Notes: See VIIL Additional Notes&Details for Staff Report Maps,Tables,and Charts. III. STAFF ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code (UDC) A. History This property was originally platted in Ada County in 2003 as part of Lot 6,Block 1, Westborough Subdivision and later annexed into the City in 2005 with L-O zoning as part of a larger development area totaling approximately 29 acres. A Development Agreement(DA)was required as a provision of annexation for the overall annexation area. The DA requires either a Conditional Use Permit(CUP)or a Planned Development(PD) application to be submitted to the City prior to future development on the site and construction of a 10' tall berm/fence or berm/wall combination along Chinden Blvd. In accord with the DA, a CUP was approved with annexation of the property for a PD,which consists of six(6)professional office buildings on the subject property site in the L-O district& 10 multi-family residential buildings on the adjacent property to the east in the R-15 zoning district containing a total of 40 dwelling units. The PD allowed for multiple buildings on a single- lot and a waiver of the street frontage requirement in the R-15 district on the abutting multi- family development to the east,which was constructed with Phase 1. The office buildings in Phase 2 on the subject property were never constructed but sewer and water main lines,pressure irrigation, asphalt drives and parking areas, and street buffer and parking lot landscaping was installed. Further development of this site was delayed due to the bank foreclosing on the property during the recession in 2008. A preliminary plat was approved with the annexation and PD in 2005,which consisted of a total of seven(7)building lots and one(1)common/other lot on 5.39 acres of land,which included the subject property and the abutting property to the east. A final plat was approved in 2005,which included six(6)buildable lots for office uses on the subject property and one(1)multi-family residential building lot on the abutting property to the east on 5.4 acres of land in the R-15 and L-O zoning districts. However,the plat was never recorded and expired. In 2008,the Idaho Transportation Department(ITD) decided to eliminate the collector street(N. Jericho Rd.) connection to Chinden Blvd./SH-20/26, located along the west boundary of this site, and ACHD vacated the right-of-way(ROW). In 2015, an application was submitted for a rezone from L-O to R-15 and modification to the existing CUP/PD to change the use and site layout for the subject property from office to multi- City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ family residential for the development of 34 townhome-style units at a gross density of 12.55 units per acre. This rezone application(and consequently the PD application)was denied by City Council due to their opinion the R-15 zone was not in the best interest of the City at that time. Reasons cited were that the density of the development proposed with the PD was too high and the entitled office uses would off-set the multi-family use approved in Phase 1. Other relevant testimony included preference for uses allowed in the L-O district such as professional office uses, a daycare facility and/or fitness facility,rather than more multi-family residential units in this area. In 2016, a short plat application was submitted consisting of two (2)building lots on 5.57 acres of land in the R-15 and L-O zoning districts,which included the subject property as Lot 1,Block 1, Borough Subdivision,the abutting property to the east and the eastern portion of the vacated right-of-way(ROW) from N. Jericho Rd. along the west boundary of the subject property. A 35' wide landscaped street buffer with irrigation, a 10' wide multi-use pathway and 10' tall berm and wall was constructed along Chinden Blvd/SH-20/26 with the subdivision improvements as required by the DA but was later removed by ITD with the road widening project. ITD acquired an additional 10 feet of right-of-way from the subject property and installed a 10-foot- tall concrete wall for buffering along with decorative rock on the south side of Chinden Blvd. in this area.Utilities were installed,which included a large transformer,underground power and a natural gas line between the back of sidewalk and the wall. B. General Overview The subject property is designated Mixed Use—Community(MU-C) on the Future Land Use Map(FLUM)included in the Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of this designation is to allocate areas where community-serving uses and dwellings are seamlessly integrated into the urban fabric. Goods and services in these areas tend to be of the variety that people will mainly travel by car to,but also walk or bike to (up to three or four miles). Employment opportunities for those living in and around the neighborhood are encouraged.Residential uses are expected to comprise between 20%and 50%of the overall MU-C 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.Note: This property previously had a Neighborhood Center(N.C.) overlay designation, which was removed in 2019 along with other N.0 designations on the FL UM. The overall MU-C designated area,which lies mostly along the south side of Chinden Blvd./SH- 20/26,between N. Long Lake Way to a'/4 mile east of N. Locust Grove Rd., includes approximately 300 acres. A variety of uses exist in this area including churches, schools,retail stores,a storage facility,veterinary hospital, coffee shop/restaurant, indoor recreation and residential [single-family detached and multi-family(single-family attached style dwellings on one lot)] uses. Residential uses comprise less than 50%of the overall MU-C area. The site consists of a total of 2.81 acres of land, currently zoned L-O and R-15. The L-O zoned portion consists of 2.64 acres and is entitled to develop with six(6)office buildings through the previously approved PD. The R-15 zoned portion consists of 0.17 acres of land along the west boundary of the site,which is vacated right-of-way(ROW) from N. Jericho Rd. A modification to the DA is proposed to change the approved use of the property from office to residential,update the development plan for the site and enter into a new agreement only applicable to the subject property(see legal description and exhibit map below in Section VII.L for property subject to new DA). The original DA will remain in effect for the rest of the properties included in the agreement. The modification includes removal of the requirement for a berm and a fence/wall to be constructed along Chinden Blvd./SH-20/26 due to ITD's road widening project,which removed the previously constructed berm and wall and constructed a 10' tall concrete wall immediately adjacent to the sidewalk. The proposed residential uses for rent City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ and sale will contribute to the variety of uses and specifically the variety of residential housing types in this area as desired in the MU-C designation. A rezone from the L-O to the R-15 district is proposed per the legal description and exhibit map included below in Section VIIX, along with an amendment to the PD to change the approved use and development plan from office,as shown below in Section VII.C,to residential. The proposed development consists of 18 multi-family residential dwelling units to be constructed as single- family-attached style homes, and two(2) single-family residential detached dwelling units at a gross density of 6.4 units per acre consistent with that desired in the MU-C designation, as shown below in Section VILE. The multi-family use is proposed to be an allowed use through the PD in accord with UDC 11-74C.1.Note:Although the multi family development consists of single- family attached style units, the use is considered "multi-family"because all units are on one (1) property,per UDC I]-]A-2 Figure 2. A preliminary plat is proposed to re-subdivide Lot 1,Block 1, Borough Subdivision and includes the vacated ROW of N. Jericho Rd. along the west boundary of Lot 1. The plat consists of three (3)buildable lots consisting of one(1)multi-family building lot and two(2) single-family building lots; and three(3)common/other lots consisting of an access drive,a parking lot and a common lot,on 2.81 acres of land as shown below in Section VII.G. The single-family lots range in size from 4,176 to 4,228 square feet(sq. ft.)with an average lot size of 4,202 sq. ft. The multi- family lot will contain nine(9) structures with 18 single-family-attached style dwellings. The gross density is 6.58 dwelling units per acre with a net density of 8.70 dwelling units per acre. Alternative Compliance is requested to the street buffer standards in UDC 11-3B-7C.lc due to existing conflicts with utilities,which prevent installation of irrigation facilities under the footings of the wall. There is no break in the wall so maintenance of the limited area of landscaping on the north side of the wall would have to take place from Chinden which the Applicant feels would be hazardous. The subject property is also considerably lower than Chinden with a significant slope into the property from the 10-foot-tall wall and a 3-foot-tall retaining wall. As alternative compliance,the developer is proposing to install nine (9)trees north of the retaining wall with shrubs, decorative boulders and rock mulch. South of the retaining wall, four(4)additional trees are proposed. The Applicant proposes to install a fenced dog park with benches and a waste station along the west side of the property and a grassy area with a horseshoe pit and benches along the east side of the property with a landscaped area behind the proposed units connecting to a pocket park area with a picnic shelter and trees,which exceeds UDC standards for common open space and amenities. Reasons cited in the Applicant's narrative supporting the proposed rezone and change of use include the lack of collector street(Jericho Rd.) access to Chinden Blvd/SH-20/26(the nearest access is circuitous via N. Saguaro Hills Ave.to Everest St., over 1,000+' to the west and north) and lack of visibility from the highway with ITD's construction of a 10' tall wall between the property and the highway,which created an isolated office zoned parcel without potential for development. The property has sat vacant and underutilized since 2008. Table 4: Proiect Overview Description Details History AZ-05-018(Annexation—Ord.#07-1186B,DA Inst.#105152707),CUP- 05-027(Planned Development),PP-05-020(Preliminary Plat)— Westborough Square Subdivision;FP-05-075 (Final Plat—Westborough Square Subdivision)-expired;H-2015-0036(Rezone&modification to PD)—Westborough Square—denied;H-2016-0135 (Short Plat—Borough Subdivision) Phasing Plan Not proposed to be phased Residential Units i 18 Open Space 7,222 sq. ft.(or 0.17 acres) City of Meridian Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ Description Details Amenities Sports court(horseshoe pit) Physical Features The elevation of this site is approximately 5' lower than the adjacent state highway Acreage 2.81 acres Lots 3 buildable lots&3 common/other lots Density 6.4 units/acre(gross) Figure 4: Mixed Use Analysis by Land Use Area Designation area: P,Iixed use Regional Datm Re~trio d:2WA 426 Land Use Area by Zoning Add ress Type Split Mixed Use Area Districts ao% 50.096 iao-a% 100 p C_- Zoning Variety Acres An nexed 0.0% MO% 100.0% ® Residentiar _ Address-Zoning M ix ~ ONIMENE= Non-residential 0.09� 50.0% 11M.096 Address Use Types R esi d enti a I Add resses All Addresses ■ Single-family ❑ 303 Multi-fa m ifw '4 19 �i 114 ® Commercial Commercial Split Residen ial Unit Types Uses Ranked by Size 13 20 44 Ha me Senior care now-loaded ■ The Point at Mend is n Office,Small Alley ■ Public Storage Attached ME�g Middle ■ The Eye r sslacaates Mini Storage ■medical clinic Garden Apts. Leasable Office iokhriie - ■ Sbone Creek Dental Notes: See VIII.Additional Notes&Details for Staff Report Maps,Tables,and Charts. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ C. Site Development and Use Analysis The proposed development is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan policy, Encourage diverse housing options suitable for various income levels, household sizes, and lifestyle preferences. (2.01.01) 1. Existing Structures/Site Improvements (UDC 11-1): There are no existing structures on the subject property. Water and sewer main lines exist on the site that were installed for the previously approved development as well as paved driveways, sidewalks,parking areas with landscaped planter islands and a pad for trash enclosures. 2. Proposed Use Analysis (UDC 11-2): Multi-family residential developments are listed as a conditional use and single-family detached dwellings are a principal permitted use in the R-15 district per UDC Table 11-2A-2. However,multi-family dwellings may be an allowed use when approved through a planned unit development such as this,per UDC 11-74C.1. 3. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): Compliance with the dimensional standards for the proposed R-15 district in UDC Table 11- 2A-7 is required. 4. Planned Unit Developments (PUD) (UDC 11-7): Per UDC 11-7-1: A. 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. Per UDC 11-7-4,the Council may approve PUD's upon recommendation by the Commission, in accord with the following standards: A. General use standards: 1. Deviations from underlying district requirements: No deviations are proposed. 2. Allowed uses: Multi-family developments typically require a conditional use permit in the R-15 district but the Applicant may request the use be allowed as a principal permitted use through the PUD; single-family dwellings are allowed as a principal permitted use in the R-15 district. 3. Interconnected uses: The proposed development is connected via a driveway and pedestrian walkway to the multi-family development to the east. 4. Building clusters: The proposed buildings appear to be clustered as close as possible. Compliance with the setback requirements of the R-15 district and the building code separation requirements is required. B. Private open space: A minimum of 80 sq. ft. of private usable open space is required per unit—the floor plans included below in Section VII.I depict patios over 80 sq. ft. for each unit. C. Residential use standards: 1. Multi-family: Multi-family dwellings may be an allowed use when approved through a PUD. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ 2. Housing types: A variety of housing types are proposed in the planned development consisting of multi-family(single-family attached style) and single-family detached dwelling units, as required. 3. Density bonus:Not applicable D. Infill planned developments: No exceptions are requested. E. Approval: In approving the PD,the Council may prescribe appropriate conditions, additional conditions,bonds, and safeguards in conformity with the UDC that: (Staff comments in italics) 1. Minimize adverse impact of the use on other property.All homes in the development will be a single-story in height per the elevations included below in Section VII.I. Single-family attached homes are proposed next to the same to the west and single- family detached structures are proposed next to the same to the south. Only two (2) homes are proposed with retention of the existing parking lot adjacent to the existing single-story detached home on the 1-acre property to the south as a transition. Two- story townhome style multi family structures exist on the abutting property to the east. 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.Per UDC 11-4-3-27F, all multi family developments are required to 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. 5. Designate the exact location and nature of the use and the property development. See the conceptual development plan included below in Section VILE. 6. Require the provision for on-site or off-site public facilities or services. 7. Require more restrictive standards than those generally required in the UDC. 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. 5. Specific Use Standards (UDC 11-4-3): Compliance with the following specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-27 for multi- family developments is required: (Staff analysis in italics) B. Site Design: 1. Residential buildings shall provide a minimum setback of ten feet(10')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 site plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance(CZC)application should demonstrate compliance with this standard. Setbacks and building separation shall also comply with the applicable building code in effect at the time of application for building permits. 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 submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance(CZC) application should demonstrate compliance with this standard. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ 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 access ways shall not count toward this requirement. In circumstances where strict adherence to such standard would create inconsistency with the purpose statements of this section,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 floor plans submitted with this application, included below in Section VII.I, depict patios in excess of 80 sq.ft.for each unit. 4. For the purposes of this section,vehicular circulation areas,parking areas, and private usable open space shall not be considered common open space. These areas were not included in the common open space calculations for the site. 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 comply with this requirement. 6. The parking shall meet the requirements set forth in chapter 3, "Regulations Applying to All Districts",of this title.Based on (18) 1-bedroom units, a minimum of 27 vehicle parking spaces are required with at least 18 of those in a covered carport or garage. The concept plan depicts a total of 78 spaces with 18 of those covered spaces, which exceeds the minimum standard. An additional 16 spaces are provided in an overflow parking lot along the southern boundary of the site for use by guests and residents of Borough Subdivision, the multi family development to the east, to alleviate existing parking issues in this area (i.e.parking on this site and along Jericho Rd. and Everest St.) A minimum of one(1) bicycle parking space is required for every 25 proposed vehicle parking spaces or portion thereof. Based on a total of 94 spaces, a minimum offour(4) bicycle parking spaces are required to be provided. Three(3) concrete pads with bike racks capable of holding four(4) bicycles each for a total of 12 bicycles is proposed, exceeding the minimum standard. 7. Developments with twenty(20)units or more shall provide the following: Not applicable a. A property management office. b. A maintenance storage area. c. A central mailbox location, including provisions for parcel mail,that provide safe pedestrian and/or vehicular access. d. A directory and map of the development at an entrance or convenient location for those entering the development. (Ord. 18-1773,4-24-2018)Although not required, Staff recommends this is provided for visitors as well as emergency responders. C. 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.Not applicable 2. All common open spaces shall meet the following standards: City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ 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 finds the proposed open space areas within the multi family development comply with these standards. 3. Alternative compliance is available for the standards listed in subsections(C)1 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.Not applicable 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. 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 less square feet of living area.Not applicable 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.All multi family units are approximately 722 square feet; therefore, a minimum of 4,500 square feet(or 0.10-acres) of outdoor common City of Meridian I Department Report 111. Staff Analysis ■ open space should be provided; a total of 7,222 sq.ft. is proposed, which exceeds the standard. c. Three hundred fifty(350) square feet for each unit containing more than one thousand two hundred(1,200) square feet of living area.Not applicable 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 feet(20'). The common open space areas depicted on the open space exhibit in Section VHT F meet this requirement. 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 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 8. Unless otherwise approved through the conditional use process, common open space areas shall not be adjacent to collector or arterial streets unless separated from the street by a berm or constructed barrier at least four feet(4')in height,with breaks in the berm or barrier to allow for pedestrian access. (Ord. 09-1394, 3-3-2009, off. retroactive to 2-4-2009)Not applicable 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.Not applicable a. Enhanced landscaping asset forth in Article 11-313,Landscaping Requirements; b. Multi-use pathways; c. Enhanced amenities with social interaction characteristics; d. Enhanced context with the surroundings. D. Site Development Amenities: 1. All multi-family 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. City of Meridian Department Report 111. Staff Analysis ■ 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. 2. The number of amenities shall depend on the size of multi-family development as follows: a. For multi-family developments with less than twenty(20)units,two(2) amenities shall be provided from two(2) separate categories. b. For multi-family development between twenty(20) and seventy-five(75)units, three (3)amenities shall be provided,with one from each category. c. For multi-family development with seventy-five(75)units or more, four(4) amenities shall be provided,with at least one from each category. d. For multi-family 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. A total of 18 units are proposed; therefore, a total of two (2) amenities are required from two (2)separate categories. A sports court(i.e. horseshoe pit) is proposed from the Recreation category; a dog park with a waste station is proposed from the Quality of Life category; and a picnic area with a shade structures is proposed from the Open Space category, exceeding UDC standards. E. Landscaping Requirements: 1. Development shall meet the minimum landscaping requirements in accord with 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: Not applicable a. The landscaped area shall be at least three feet(3')wide. b. For every three(3)linear feet of foundation, an evergreen shrub having a minimum mature height of twenty-four inches(24") shall be planted. c. Ground cover plants shall be planted in the remainder of the landscaped area. F. Maintenance and Ownership Responsibilities: All multi-family 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. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ G. 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.Not applicable D. Design Standards Analysis The proposed development is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan policy, Encourage compatible uses and site design to minimize conflicts and maximize use of land. (3.07.00) 1. Structure and Site Design Standards (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-19): The multi-family residential structures are required to be designed in accord with the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual; single-family detached dwellings are exempt from these standards. Color conceptual building elevations with floor plans were submitted that demonstrate the quality and building materials of the proposed dwellings, shown below in Section VII.I. 2. Qualified Open Space &Amenities (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3G): Because the portion of the development where single-family detached dwellings are proposed is less than 5 acres in size,the open space and site amenity standards in UDC 11-3G-3,4 are not applicable.Note: The multi family portion of the development is required to comply with the common open space and site amenity standards in UDC 11-4-3-27C, D. 3. Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): i. Landscape buffers along streets A 35-foot wide street buffer is required along E. Chinden Blvd., an entryway corridor, with landscaping per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C.Noise abatement is also required for residential uses adjoining state highways per the standards in UDC 11-3H- 4D. As noted above, a buffer and wall meeting these requirements was constructed with the subdivision improvements associated with Borough Subdivision but was later removed with the road widening project,which took an additional 10' of ROW. ITD constructed a 13'+/-wide gravel parkway with a detached 10' wide paved pathway and a 10' tall concrete wall at the back edge of the pathway within the required street buffer area;the remaining 12'+/-of the required 35' wide street buffer is behind the wall on the subject property(see site photo below in Section VII.J). Alternative Compliance is requested to the street buffer landscape standards in UDC 11- 3B-7C.1c,which require a minimum of one(1)tree per 35 linear feet and shrubs,lawn or other vegetative groundcover with additional landscape design features along entryway corridors(i.e. Chinden Blvd.)as noted in UDC 11-3B-7C.3f. Due to existing conflicts with utilities,which prevent installation of irrigation facilities under the footings of the wall,no landscaping is proposed on the north side of the wall along Chinden Blvd.Additionally,there is no break in the wall so maintenance of the limited area of landscaping on the north side of the wall would have to take place from Chinden which the Applicant feels would be hazardous. The subject property is also considerably lower than Chinden with a significant slope into the property from the 10- foot-tall wall and a 3-foot-tall retaining wall. As alternative compliance,the developer is proposing to install nine(9)trees north of the retaining wall behind the 10-foot tall wall with retaining decorative boulders, shrubs/ornamental grasses/perennials and rock mulch. South of the retaining wall,four City of Meridian I Department Report 11I. Staff Analysis ■ (4)additional trees are proposed,which exceed the minimum standard of 10 trees.No trees or vegetative groundcover is proposed north of the wall due to lack of irrigation. The Applicant proposes installing a fenced dog park with benches and a waste station along the west side of the property and a grassy area with a horseshoe pit and benches along the east side of the property with a landscaped area behind the proposed units connecting to a pocket park area with a picnic shelter and trees in addition to the minimum required common open space and amenities. Staff recommends vegetation within the buffer area have at least 70% coverage at maturity with mulch used under and around the plants in accord with UDC 11-3B-5N. The Director finds the proposed alternative means of compliance provides an equal means for meeting the requirements that will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or impair the intended uses and character of surrounding properties in accord with the Findings in UDC 11-5B-5E. ii. Parking lot landscaping Parking lot landscaping is required in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8C. iii. Landscape buffers to adjoining uses A buffer to adjoining uses is not required in the R-15 district. iv. Tree preservation There are some existing trees on the site along the driveway and in planter islands in the parking area that should be protected during construction. v. Storm integration Compliance with the stormwater integration standards listed in UDC 11-3B-11C is required. vi. Pathway landscaping There are no pathways required or proposed on the site except for the existing multi-use pathway along Chinden Blvd./SH-20/26 and there isn't room for landscaping next to the pathway due to the borrow pit and wall constructed by ITD on either side of the pathway. 4. Parking (UDC 11-3C): Off-street parking is required in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 for the single-family dwellings proposed on Lots 4 and 5,Block 1 based on the number of bedrooms per unit.Note:Analysis on compliance with off-street parking standards for the multi family development is included above in Section C. i. Residential parking analysis There are three(3)bedrooms per unit;therefore, a minimum of four(4) spaces are required for each unit with at least two (2) of those in an enclosed garage—2-car garages are proposed for each unit with a parking pad for two(2)vehicles in front of the garage in accord with this standard. ii. Nonresidential parking analysis Not applicable iii. Bicycle parking analysis Not applicable 5. Building Elevations (Comp Plan, Architectural Standards Manual): Conceptual building elevations and floor plans are included below in Section VII.I. All homes in this development are proposed to be a single-story in height. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ 6. Fencing (UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): A 6' tall vinyl privacy fence exists along the project's west boundary. A 3' tall retaining wall and 10' tall concrete wall exist along the northern boundary of the site as shown on the concept plan. 7. Parkways (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-17): No parkways are proposed. E. Transportation Analysis 1. Access (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-3, UDC 11-3H-4): Access is proposed via an existing 28' wide drive off Jericho Rd.to the east in alignment with Everest St. that lies within a 41' wide access easement on Lot 2,Block 1. Direct access via W. Chinden Blvd./SH-20/26 is prohibited. The existing access drive and easement was approved with Borough Subdivision and provides access to the subject property and the abutting multi-family development to the east. A plat note should be included that grants perpetual ingress/egress access to Lot 1,3,4 and 5,Block 1 Borough Village Subdivision and Lot 2,Block 1,Borough Subdivision and requires maintenance of a paved surface capable of supporting fire vehicles and equipment in accord with UDC 11-6C-3D.8. 2. Multiuse Pathways (UDC 11-3A-5): There is an existing 10' wide detached multi-use pathway/sidewalk along W. Chinden Blvd./SH-20/26 in a public use easement(Inst. #2017-113748);no other pathways are planned for this site. 3. Pathways (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-8): The pathway and associated easement along W. Chinden Blvd./SH-20/26 exists;therefore, the standards in UDC 11-3A-8 do not apply. 4. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17): There are existing 5' wide sidewalks on this site along N. Jericho Rd. and within the site; no new sidewalks are required. There is an existing 8' wide ACHD sidewalk easement(Inst. #103137057)depicted on the plat along the west boundary of the site adjacent to the vacated ROW for Jericho Rd. that could be vacated if desired. 5. Private Streets (UDC 11-3F-4): Private streets are not proposed. 6. Subdivision Regulations (UDC 11-6): i. Dead end streets Not applicable as no streets are proposed and a Fire Dept. approved turnaround exists on the site. ii. Common driveways Not applicable iii. Block face The proposed plat complies with the maximum block face standards. F. Services Analysis The subject property was annexed into the City many years ago but was only partially developed and demonstrates consistency with Comprehensive Plan Policy#2.02.02,Maximize public City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ 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): There are no waterways that cross this site. 2. Pressurized Irrigation(UDC 11-3A-15): The Karnes Lateral provides irrigation water in this area and is under the jurisdiction of Settler's Irrigation District. The Borough and Hightower Subdivisions share a pressure irrigation pump station located east of the subject property. Pressurized irrigation systems are required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-15. 3. Storm Drainage (UDC 11-3A-18): Per UDC 11-3A-18, an adequate storm drainage system shall be 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. Stormwater drainage facilities were constructed with the previous Borough Subdivision. An existing ACHD storm drainage facility and easement encumber the site and are delineated on the plat. 4. Utilities (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-21): Domestic water and sewer service will be provided by the City. An 8"water main line and sewer line exist in an easement(Inst. #2017-113207)in the access drive and within the drive aisle of the parking lot. The Applicant's engineer will coordinate with Public Works to abandon some of these services and install additional services for the proposed structures. The utility plan depicts the existing improvements on the property and modifications to the sewer and water service to serve the proposed development. Per UDC 11-3A-21, all utilities and street lights shall be installed in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. Adequate fire protection shall be required in accord with the appropriate fire district standards. IV. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. Meridian Planning Division Development Agreement Modification/Rezone 1. A new DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian,the property owner(s), and the developer. The subject property identified in the legal description in Section VII.L shall no longer be subject to any previous agreements(i.e. Inst. #105152707—Westborough Square AZ-05-018). The DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning Division within six(6)months of the date of City Council approval of the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decision& Order for the subject application. The DA shall,at minimum,incorporate the following provisions: i. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the conceptual development plan and building elevations,preliminary plat, common open space and amenity exhibits submitted with this application and the provisions contained herein. Preliminary Plat: 1. Include a note on the plat stating the access easement on Lot 2,Block 1 grants perpetual ingress/egress to Lots 1, 3,4 and 5,Block 1,Borough Village Subdivision and Lot 2,Block 1,Borough Subdivision to the east. The note shall include a requirement for maintenance of a City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions ■ paved surface capable of supporting fire vehicles and equipment in accord with UDC 11-6C- 3D.8. 2. The street buffer area shall have vegetation with at least 70%coverage at maturity with mulch used under and around the plants in accord with UDC 11-3B-5N. 3. Staff s failure to cite all relevant UDC requirements does not relieve the applicant from compliance. 4. The preliminary 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. Planned Unit Development: 5. The multi-family development is allowed as a principal permitted use in the R-15 district through the planned unit development as allowed by UDC 11-7-4 and does not require approval of a conditional use permit. 6. Compliance with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-27 shall be required for the multi-family development. 7. Compliance with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-7 for the R-15 district shall be required. 8. All multi-family residential structures shall comply with the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual. Single-family detached structures are exempt from these standards. 9. All multi-family residential buildings shall provide a minimum setback of ten feet(10') unless a greater setback is otherwise required by this title and/or title 10 of this Code per UDC 11-4-3-27B.1. Building setbacks shall take into account windows, entrances,porches and patios, and how they impact adjacent properties. Building setbacks and building separation shall also comply with the applicable building codes in effect at the time of application for building permits. 10. Provide a directory and map of the development at an entrance or convenient location for those entering the development for visitors as well as emergency responders. Depict the location of the directory and map on the site plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. 11. All multi-family 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 per UDC 11-4-3-27F.A copy of the recorded document shall be submitted prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy within the development. 12. Parking lot landscaping is required in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-313-8C and shall be depicted on the landscape plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions ■ 13. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application shall be submitted for the multi-family development and approved by the Planning Division prior to submittal of application(s)for building permits. B. Meridian Public Works https://weblink.meridianciV.org/WebLinkIDocView.g,v x?id=413399&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC C. Idaho Department of Environmental Quality(DEQ) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=414330&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC D. Ada County Highway District(ACHD) https://weblink.meridiancity.orzlWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=416860&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty E. Idaho Transportation Department(ITD) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=413734&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty V. FINDINGS A. Rezone(UDC 11-513-3E) 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 a 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 to the R-15 zoning district and conceptual development plan complies with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan in that it's consistent with the uses and density desired in the MU-C designated area. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Stafffinds the proposed map amendment and development plan complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district as the R-15 district in that it provides for a range of housing opportunities 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 shall 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 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. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. This finding is not applicable as the request is for a rezone, not annexation. City of Meridian I Department Report V. Findings ■ B. 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 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 public services are available and are 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. C. 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 modification to the planned unit development demonstrates a high quality through the provision of cohesive, continuous, visually related and functionally linked patterns of development 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. Staff is of the opinion the proposed modification to the previously approved conceptual development plan and uses will not cause damage, hazard, or nuisance to persons or property in the vicinity. The proposed concept plan demonstrates a good transition in uses to adjacent residential uses. City of Meridian I Department Report V. Findings ■ 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 existing internal driveways and pedestrian circulation are 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. The additional overflow parking will assist in mitigation of the existing parking burden that has negatively affected adjacent properties in the 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 proposed dedicated open space areas and amenities are functionally related and easily accessible to all dwelling units via the means noted. 6. The proposal complies with the density and use standards requirements in accord with chapter 2, "District Regulations", of this title. Stafffinds the proposed development complies with the density and use standard requirements in UDC 11-2A-7 for the R-15 district and with the MU-C designation in the Comprehensive Plan. 7. The amenities provided are appropriate in number and scale to the proposed development. Stafffinds the proposed amenity plan for the multi family development consisting of a sports court(i.e. horseshoe pit) and the provision of one (1) additional amenity will be appropriate in number and scale to the proposed development. 8. The planned unit development is in conformance with the comprehensive plan. Stafffinds the proposed amendment to the planned unit development is in conformance with the comprehensive Plan. D. Alternative Compliance(UDC 11-513-5E) In order to grant approval for an alternative compliance application,the Director shall determine the following: l. Strict adherence or application of the requirements are not feasible; or The Director finds it's not feasible for the Applicant to fully comply with the street buffer landscape standards in UDC 11-3B-7C due to ITD's improvements, which include a 10 foot- tall wall within the buffer area. 2. The alternative compliance provides an equal or superior means for meeting the requirements; and The Director finds the proposed alternative compliance provides an equal means for meeting the requirements. 3. The alternative means will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or impair the intended uses and character of surrounding properties. The Director finds the proposed alternative means of compliance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or impair the intended uses and character of surrounding properties. City of Meridian I Department Report V. Findings ■ VI. ACTION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed development agreement modification,PUD modification,preliminary plat and rezone applications in accord with the Findings in Section V. The Director approved the alternative compliance request in accord with the Findings in Section V. B. Commission: Pending C. City Council: Pending City of Meridian I Department Report VI. Action ■ ' 1 1 ,�.' Via.I �wl .t �y•� . � - - �! _,•� -. _ e, ix CHINDEInd N` r Z1Pf�� ►♦ • -,� - �. ��i+lrinrl+rl n*gin■=.�.'".ns 1111.r.• •- -•�f�l llt�i ����/'�1■■�w�.■11■aA� ��`�`I�♦/��/ . ',.,��i`� ■���fill lii �_�■�. �■�M■�■■■��� 11���■■1 � •.,♦'�•��� .•� -- CHINDEN= euulA ■ip7q_p1► ■n■ SV�f■ I - � = wunl■f Illril� '��-.�=■mm�a■_�. ���is�1/ r = � `e'1lle ululnxuu= n■■uu��ulna e. .� W �iiA�il 1 ��moon ��� �1 ♦i4 � �■e.+e III ■ � :, �'��.■` . ��■ _ 1 a■ ■dlr S .�:�� :� nn119n■ 11■�==uual_=t �� � ■■■�■ � �..�■o r ri1i���flOr ■■ Z 1 1!:'e - ' Ira■■ 1��. ■it li1l so���f IIi n�P■1 1 �� ��f■f — r N, ■ �A r■ a ��I=:. is 1 111111■1 ■I � 1*f� �.urn • 1 11�j�+r�= 41 li F!y ■��.r, rr�■lrrr■rr�■� 1♦�fl IIII�Ii IR�m ��■�iiiii!r♦�■■ ��► R1N. 1 �� ■.■rur■ p♦ r■ 1 ,Illlllillls Sr��*�� ■■:in ♦Pi ♦• �. Q unnlw�■ ■ ■ 2. a `r�G olrs■• � I H nulrr:::�' ::� ■�■ nul IIIIIIIIAII�� �■�s'I=Irurtl'*`f In ♦I /q � . m_ �. ■.�p■■,: mnnnnnom■t(/} �1♦■a>•fnlnurs ■■ ." Nja>.�11 n■�IIIIn n■►� ., ���.,� \{ � grin ♦ ♦ Inn=:■ ■■nu. rrwn�■: .. ■■lu■�` .`:1 IIm � IN mni- :' rns►. nn�■��non rir■�V ���■•■fnurppnin:=:: ■111111►�� rrr111 OOnor.. Ili%iunrr�urmu �l 1�%/Iun�1:n�uur:ullmnlri... O r• 11 ►fs p nir� us. C ��■o■ ■■■■■■■�■■�I� ►�►�.nr■■rrs "ri. � �i i ii■ [{� J=�*■�i��■■Y/i 111Jf1■■, sir �■ii1 i • 4� ����■■ ■■■■ r r�_� �ai i�■ ■11r11■111q�■■IS i.�i�1%�.■■■■f �■ w■,■■■■� A111119I, t � rr■ ■l��Y�r rI yri♦ If■1■r%n■r■�. ° °i f o f not nnrl►� �C C=L_.....�. � _ �u moo °i.�...7■aun auu■ oG _ rr. I�orr■r� r� r� •+1.:n .°°♦��.'■m'■■■uu■ o ._■a �:CGar■.\ uo■� ■ .r r.� r��.J �� � ♦ Ir. o�i ♦ �G i ■ii�:l��I ■■■�ii.■�b i:::iil■lii��a�♦i ♦innl\7--...�. \° sad �� .. n■ r -' ■!■■..■1�J- s■■r■■lm for■ ■nmur►F •pinut■■� ui�liil,■i17i f�. .���� � 1 i ��tlll 4•r■rrr 1■■■r%' RYil�rrl� �11■Iflr■r■rLar■urrr' I�°I fjlrlll�. • /1 •�!riraa lR�r.� •C -. .. :,�� , L■■■■�I�r■�■/ �■■ �� '`�'s�iriei�+aal1� '4�'Ry =='- mil J�%� ! �:':r.:���11���;. •��•,��` �■�r ..1� ---- CHINDEN' �II �I 1► w. .,-RG� •� • _ ■'-'■- _ p non■• ■�: ■ �►f-�' um unnnmw_ l ■■uulwu- .���`- riI►�aid 11 *�i►11 11111- � ■■��r� -�.��► 1 si��tl111 - '���w+r �� nElrlllnxr� ■■P?�-' riw. U■Iai Ullr -�~p♦~:■ IIIIiP'==■,� iVo m �l161R11 11.► �NNj��fry ■ :rrri♦ N��: Z .■a nq■nluua ISBN - an !r■I► •� ♦ a I♦ -�_� / 1 ■1111111■ y�,111111 ■a 1��p� rrr r1Jl Q r nT^.:` ■::nm!■.■. ��IIIIIII � �� ::wi is 3 �j ii< ♦�♦�i- 1"1 Eol nnml►:•.. ■ ■ ::'C�:■IIIIIIIII n!r .!! ♦♦♦ ♦♦ � 1 unu�1..r ::r r..■G N.1 `.■. lrr,i it■.. � \r ♦ `♦/ Q ■■.. w■ � ' uu7�IIIIIIIII � ■ lrl ■ •_^^r �! �'♦'♦♦♦���i ►►fir � nn w�.■����. . i iii:■'::nn1�omll � ���■ ini+�� ' •''� :Il'i�: '►i♦i`♦♦ J�rJir np mm .�■■ Aur 1 ='iinu ►i�Ji►�►*♦�♦♦ii♦ 1>r� W 'i .. lriiil�■'� ■nn � ■. , rn11u lin.%::��1: ��< ►♦i♦iyi�gr••r ■n ■ m n�n rNo. ■n�nrnl■:u■1■■rr... r. ran III W ♦►it ! .)■�i■a V ' - s - • as .•�•ii■ni�!.u"S•:�:: e - • - • ter.Aml um was rrnnull ' ►i►fi,unu�r►Indi,'■illu■ n � uur�i�run�r � err morn nuun■■r' ♦rur own Him i ME �NI •1`�nra. nr��r� +: �r��FI11pr1s>■� rra/• �j•N � Z1lI ••• • ' JI Ir � ■�■tw■■/IIIIIII■. �j �1��� , _�■.���i-■1 ■■�■ � �� ►II■■ire\�■I■.■ .�� ♦ L— —.� ��M■��� _�r _Geis /1��1�■ �CHIND,EN �_--2_�iiiliifinunl■q �III� w� rr r.rR 11111111 Illillllllli�+J _ 1 =.1�■��- �•� ■ _=e lii�1�=�= IYllllnl■'-�-� 111■11r1i■-_-� �•-�a Ii it i Gt�,Imidn s=Innn=-1{n= ■■Ir :nmm� - ► i1Jf fA■p1 11111lIIFr�II � ■■■--�-num- -■� 11111 � C��..� 1 ai Iry H11r " :��+i ---.'�I'c:-inn.■EI{rn■� IIe s■_'-wins=;;�=: ■n■■■ ' ■-■:. n■Jai rlllr, ...�I�����..I i i.� all A■- V■■ununm nuuumi:� ■ i�7e7� — ul.N ♦ IIJ��frnr G :Grp •i1'wq�: � __ .,lal-3 1I■n!lrui alvarll• 1111111■1�■Mi �� ■r•4 •�'��► r� •�►furl r -■e,■Lz' t��� r�nlu!■�w��• ^fl 11111■�IIIrI� ��� nn!r►�■■Il,if GIB\� �R���pi�-1►1►►I��Q'iun n� mur..-. fi�•II 1111111■IP�n� ■r o!• �■■■ 1 •i ♦ � •c i-i,■muin nnml► ■u:.■��- 1 1 lrs,••:■- �♦ ♦ ►pq•7liiul-= �nnnnnlr •■!■■.urll� IIIIIIIIIIIIdW A• : pf'�1'.::. a� yr •♦♦�♦►JIf►J yl AII�?�s��• ■1■_ i is is Im11�r1111llnUrr� �■ nll�'i■■: N r ►i,♦4i♦♦�ii�r►UyJ�A•p�=���r�_ i■- nri�.:'. !1:mlll u�r`.. , �f�■u non r ��iin'ili ►i O rur rw:- rin■ 4 ry•♦ ♦♦ Ira �, -_mm9--:. ■-:�/n■1 rn■r .r�+ ■ n■r-.:� 11 p♦ ►'��`♦♦f♦ p-_—._—Winne i�r„�- m1, Ea�!_cn C�nnuu ;air■u �dr� Ii-�Irmii rii�illiiil�fim _•11111 ��- aw w■ • Illlllrl, + �A� 1■an Cwrnrrr-I• � - ..�I � I A■�■11111 1111 ��I�� _ ■■ell■!11 .�\=Cuuq�p iuun ♦ �i�g ?-r___p 11111 ;i6 ♦♦ _ ■■■► I Im {GIIIII a •� ♦ .q!!.■ ♦ICY.. ♦♦I ��4♦�♦i ��� �- g � 1 mw s .A A�� per-. •-. ♦ ma-wun � r � �=� -_ I y\p�Ilni►f 1!!! = ��Va it ii i.�r►*i ili�1■�: iU■in;:��.-��A-1 ■D��r��yi rf nil -�%�'♦i♦♦ :�.��1■■. mn!! E■■h, ♦ r n■ ►Aunup�m�r--ui cs=L7[iCn if■■n ■lllnl ♦ ran■■11,.■llim �:■r■ �fiu► � RmLJ� kl m■rn■uuua■■ •tllr f o hfiOr�ON d* h l I .a South side of Access Drive: A AL EF way F ^c3 i_ s iot�3�S:Yt_ d Looking southwest City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ C. Service Accessibility Report PARCEL R1029680110 SERVICE ACCESSIBILITY Overall Score: 27 49th Percentile Description Location In City Limits GREE 9r Extension Sewer Trunkshed mains < 500 ft. from parcel GREEN Floodplain Either not within the 100 yrfloodplain or > 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 1/4 mile of current pathways GREEN Transit Within 1/4 mile of future transit route YELLOW Arterial Road Buildout Status Ultimate configuration (#of lanes in master street= YELLOW plan) > existing (# of lanes) & road IS in 5 yr work i,lar School Walking Proximity Within 1/2 mile walking GREEN Either a High School or College within 2 miles OR a School Drivability Middle or Elementary School within 1 mile dri•:inc; GREEN (existing or future) Park Walkability No park within walking distance by park type RED Report generated on M-06-2025 by MERIDIAN\sallen City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ D. Existing Conceptual Development Plan Approved with Planned Unit Development CkArjg LIe,puaw f F E LU KI _ Lll-1 Ir JL _Y T { - a rr i' OF City of Meridian i Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ E. Proposed Conceptual Development Plan(dated: 8/27/25) c�aiu�`sd ws�x ou ne�Ib mli°nwu�ie�eiliv u = o J 3J r � Ln eo xourc vex Harew,-,tom o I a o -'SN0►111mq and AHVNIw113dd �" " w NOI3IAIaH[ls g WCE aaoD3a�0 sd3NMD d3d01]A]U 13VIN00 i a3NNT6 9N1833IN160 :T9vTIIA 19f)W IO$ 02 - 99MQ £� is - s 2 - At p I f1L51 Xf9L90d5 � _._ m ;,�}. - ❑ �1�? 9" �-I � ��i �I IE�JI � � ICI° ° . 10 " ! � j I � 1 I fu e ❑ API. 1 1 ❑ a `a 19 ' a w _ r a'Icl v§s6 aN C960E�Iwl'ONAVM vraldnaer'x AMf-3'I-ll191a®LYJpA Y }IIIIII III ' ------------ -_ ��- ------ -- --�--- L Jh!il f4'YLi 3,55,6Z4x� --� L�li li �I If I II II IV -NAAr.t3mCii.l I_11 I II I I City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ F. Common Open Space& Site Amenity Exhibit E.CHINDEN BLVD.(HWY.20126) N I � � ❑ L o ❑ J , --- w ❑ HI BOROUGH I SUBDIVISION 4851sf 2371sf L _ r E.EVEREST STREET _ COMMON oRry C 0 Il II L WESTBOROUGH SUBDIVISION 4851sf 2371 sf 7222/18 = 401.29f OPEN GRASS AREA EXHIBIT BOROUGH VILLAGE SUBDIVISION 1" — BO' A RESUBDIVISION OF A PORTION OF LOT 1, BLOCK 1 OF BOROUGH SUBDIVISION, NE 1/4 OF SECTION 30, T.4N., RAF., B.F., MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHC P-E 1 !W ' ex LA rx� m — HOR55E55HOE FIT City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ G. Preliminary Plat(date: Q"� 11/10/25) "'I N;°•, .y^3.^ , -I tl.. "SN�1lA7US' °sir d Aau�lvrin�a ` =" LU Nv181AlQ (Ia0034dasdauu,o �63aoi3n3o 10vwoOhENnnnd U1Y!l13N16H4 3svTIinHan0HouoH •+ s Y J SY'JJJ 8 � �s5� �e����s�� � a�'��3 a•3 6W�k � '� Y� ��' S i =s a� _ SIZSI lc ''[.._ -y`------ =-�ti cl�o�roY'�'����M'�•:� f 'r. r� �. 7ri�rq� �� I RE i , , , , , I' i = Jlk Ic r c , I i 4 I —67 ...�i- I-.; sly n �•I .rrr.-,� "� ;� ; , I - ; , , �I , i - - x tl ) e P6� � I r z _ s , , , , I I 1 � )y I. r _ 4 : _I 1. a❑7 ' r f f g u u H r� - - __ ......_.... ,-M 3,5s.vffl '- s�our� W lu ups�rai� City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ ecu�i mo�•"i�� ]`..�,��o.w's ci�a:..u N.'i', %�.3i nw`arsr�mpi�re � �_!4 Y � ' Nn°•,.'rea•U.3:P°" .,,,; x +•nxn a.as .sa.. 'r.S�Q�ln7Qsa. n cn NV1 d 311 SON119 X3 (Ia0W8d08EIHMO 'V ld IIA30 ICNNCO/d3NWd 3 9NIHMNIAU 3!)VTIl HjnQgpg a W '. y I I �A i = r \} "lee, _ qF ... l + W v f 1 4 5Y e 3 ----------- r2 e C� .ir.0 �ss.ezce+ ne.�a3 wnc_oi .n ews�ro a�oua. City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ H. Landscape Plan(dated: 9/2/25 10/24/25) x k NV�d 3dVOSOV d111r1d Aa dNIWll3ad w , i a e tiA oHVa!'NVKX9VY 3�d��1A Honoaoe } - - - o { n€ H e r ►I a rV'9 _ .. lu 3351 == Effl, � w N. , 1z Al ............. - ................. - $ V _ �.. I Ll • t _ E I a a�FE City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ g �4 NH�d @dVWV�lifld A61dN�VFl3�fd oHaai'nr UUah F sx 7 F J =a .... W a E 2od��1A Honoaos =x �R a 5�ak jell :R1111 VIP i "N pp yxj a � °� - pp C 3�@p� @S � �� jNA 0 � L p goo ]LI e � � 41 �j I 01 HIM 1% 4 � I T a ------------- � I I City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ I. Building Elevations BOROUGH VILLAGE a a FRONT l rid&, - �� mmm ?IGHT BACK LEFT • • • • 0 • BODY,ADJ.TRIM B&B,ADJ.TRIM FASCIA,SOFFIT, DOORS ROOFING STONE Tornado Wind Black Licorice COLUMNS Billowing Smoke Black Asphalt Black Forest RD 0584 RD 0529 Silent Sea RD 0583 Profit Alpine RD 0515 Ledgestone CBH HOMES 0 0 � N 00 0 ® ® m 00 00 City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ THE HARLQW 1364 cBH I;ien—auc 3 l 12 P 12-3 6� GRILL 10,X 10, m EAT VLTD CLG (1g aM LIVE 10,X9' El F!11 FARMHOUSE MODERN 13'X13' VLTD CLG u'x1a' --- COOK B •. = VLTD aG ♦p 0 IVX11' _— 3 %E . PLAS �� J lip O SLEEP 2 W aG iTX9' BUNGALOW COTTAGE OPT.PARK 3 CAR GREET e'LLG SH O PARK el 2 CAR 2 SLEEP 3 - ..........,, ee 1111i 10'X 9' TV oo❑ ❑❑Col Q MAIN LEVEL NOTE:FURNACE CRAFTSMAN TRADETJONAL INSTALLED IN ATTIC 'Floor plan Fryers are for Illustrative purposes only.We're always working to make our LBH floor plans even better,Hoar plans are suhfecl to change and awllable sped homes may have variations that are chferent than the floor plans and options shown on till flyer.Lommonophons are shewn as red dots and mayaotbe included In the available spa home.Community specific requirements ands elevations styles may cause elevation details,masonry,and window placement variations. Roam dimensions and ceiling heights are approsimated based on main roam-defining wefts. Buyerand huyer'sagent to verify all room dimensdons and avallable spec home specific floor plan detellsand options.See a LBH Sales SpecialEstfor details.Marketed by LBH Salesaad Marketing,Inc.RCE-g23. Updaled11.79.24 Ill City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits 1 00 Chinden Blvd.Photo .�� �«� PET HOSPITAL ZCA City 1 � *�°� ��y� ice.•�4 _ _ 4 �.rYa of MeridianDepartment Re 11Exhibits F1-ol I K. Rezone Legal Description&Exhibit Map Legal Description Borough Village Subdivision -- I -15 Rezone A parcel being located in the NE 1/4 of Section 30, Township 4 North, Ranee 1 East. Boise Meridian, City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, and more particularly described as follows: Commending at a Braisa Cep mon urn ent marking the northwest corner of said NE '/4, from which a Brass Cap monument marking the northeast corner of said Section 30 bears S 8905142" E a distance of 26 34.00 feet. Thane along the northerly boundary of said NE ' S 88°51'42' E a distance of 1292.00 feat to the POINT OF BECINNIN ; Thence continuing along said northerly boundary,also being the northerly boundary of the City of Meridian City Limits S 89d51'42° E a distance of 27.00 feet to a paint; Thence leaving said northerly boundary of said NE Y4 and continuing along said City Limits S Q`29'55'W a distance of 40-00 feet to a point; Thence continuing along said City Limits S 89651'42" E a distance of 295.44 feet to a point; Thence leaving said City Limits and along a line being the easterly boundary of Lot 1, Block 1 of Borough Subdivision as shown in Book 112 of Plats on Pages 16440 through 16442, records of Ada County, Idaho, aid the extension thereof, S 0°08-25°W a-distance of 192.13 feet to an angle point; There continuing along the easterly boundary of said Lot 1, Block 1 the following described Courses: Thence S 22°47'49" W a distance of 110.95 fee#to a point; Thence N 89130'04" W a distance of 11.71 feat to 2 paint. Thence S 0°29'56"VVa distance of 143.49feetto a point marking the southeasterly corner of said Lot 1, Blgck 1; Thence along the sarrtherly boundary of said Lot 1, Block 1 and the extension thereof N W30'04" W a distance of 269.83 feet to a point on the centerline of N. ,Jericho Road. Thence along said centerline and the westerly boundary of Said Lot 1, Block 1 N W29'55" E a distance of 476.24 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, This parcel contains 3.04 acres and is Subject#0 any easements c, T existing or in use. _ Clinton W. Hansen, RLS Land Solutions, PC p c June21, 2026 ' 0�7 4 VV , P Boraugn Village—R•15Re+�zom land 3uM�lW and Cone 4 dab No 25.45 pNe� 1 of 1 City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits 102 BOROUGH VILLAGE - R-15 REZONE - EXHIBIT LOCATED IN THE NE ]* OF SECTION 30, T4N, RlE BM. CITY Ar MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO BASIS 7e _G T_ � BL� a 3 109�Byk 2k+ _ _ . . _q � 2U a POINT �± e BEGINNING moLANcFrY LIMITS I % k PROPOGEDBOROUG m7 E REZONE / m / AKA -a &M ARKS % LINE TABLE ® \ LINE LERGTH BSA # kLl J» S139-51E / U m« g s% L . 9 e mw na-X04_W \ \ � LO LO %ST & � $ � Lind d olut@ons E � & ^ �suR"frgend�k]A§ o ¥¥ , M4 W. _ . 12K m,_ p,_mr� City of Meridian Department Reprt V11. Exhibits Fl 03 L. Legal Description&Exhibit Map for Property Subject to New Development Agreement Legal Description Borough Villaae Subdivision A parcel being a resubdivksion of a portion of Lot 1, Block 1 of Borough Subdivision as shown in Book 112 of Plats on Pages 16440 through 18442, records of Ada County, Idahe, located in the NE '. of Section 30, Township 4 North, Rartge 1 East, Boise Meridian, City of Meridian,Ada County, Idaho, and more particularly described as follows, Commencing at a Brass Cap monument mark ing the northwest comef of said NE ' , from which a Brass Cap monument marking the northeast corner of said Section 30 bears 89°51'4 " E a distance of 2634.00 feet; Thence along the northerly boundary of said NE '/4 89'51'42" E a distance of 1292.00 feet to a point; Thebnce leaving said northerly boundary S 0°2-9'55"W a distance of 70-00 feet to a point on the southerly right-of-way of E. Chiriden Blvd, and the POINT OF BEGINNING Thence continuing along said right-of-way S 0°29'55" W a distance of 10.00 feet to a point; Thence continuing along said right-of-way S 89°51'42 E a distance of 322.69 feet to a point on the easterly boundary of said Lot 1, Block 1 of Borough Subdivision; Thence along said easterly boundary the following described ccurses, Thence S 0°08' 5" IN a distance of 152.13 feet to a point; Thence S 22°47'49" W a distance of 110-95 feet to a point; Thence N 89°30°04" W a distance of 11.71 feet to a point; Thence S 0°29'56"W a distance of 14 3.4 9 feet to a point marking the southeasterly corner of said trot 1, a lock I; Thence along the southerly boundary of said Lot 1, Block 1 N 89'30'04* VV a distance 04 242.83 feet to a point marking the southwest career of said Lot 1, Block 1. Thence along the westerly boundary of said Lot 1, Block 1 N 0629'56" E a distance of 181-90 feet to a point; Thence continuing along said westerly boundary and the extension thereof N 89u46'37" VV a distance of 54.00 feet to a point on the westerly horfndary of the vacated N. Jericho Road Lan of ljltions aarnuga wage Sub 25-on Job M. 35-�5 �__ ��am.� ow �Weo page 7 of 2 City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits 104 Thence along 3aid westerly boundary N 5 E a distance 274 43 feet to a Pb% on the wdherl rig h# d-ay of E. C End en 8 lvd-I- Thence along said 2 £yl right-of-way S 87514 Ea distance m . feet to he POINT OF BEGINNING. This p3i�e| *aMs2$! acres. more or @ m. Clinton W. Hansen. PLS AfkLEA N Land Solutions, PC ° !e« REVISED: Augl 27, 2025 o � ] �zs� 2 o� * D§ a ¥5 &m#w�S_ m dSolu n tJon ,«m �-4� Page 2y2 City of Meridian Department Reprt V11. Exhibits 1S BOROUGH VILLAGE SUBDIVISION - EXHIBIT A RESUBDIVISION OFAPORTION OF LOT 1, BLOCK 1OFBOROUGH SUBS 2S|ON, BEINQLOCATEDINTHE NE1M OFSECTION 30, T4N, RIR B8, CITY OF MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO p hg « Em@ ENS g� @ . & SM"E , JB «# ,a - - - - - - $ 13i& z '342- » a _ > PUNT m�-�#7 � S @ = 2gm'7 »zey % q @ ® mCPaS BOROUGH / A»E SUBDVISIm / 8 AREA = ze ACRES kLINE TABLE ¥ \ u£ 2<e "A \ 2 eA k 5sw 7 j § m& qq' ■ L . d 2 ¥ �� W - k a J& �9'E } R � LLJ 2 � � 2� / \ ) Nm'' I83 - — Q `LA Ae&f � sT'- � o � ° Z £ � foils | @ Land Survong and C2m g i 59 10n 20 �Q or §¥ ». e � W. ��� ID WA2m� City of Mell*pI Department Report Vttxƒi! Fl 06 VIII. ADDITIONAL NOTES & DETAILS FOR STAFF REPORT MAPS,TABLES,AND CHARTS (link to Community Metrics) A. One-Mile Radius Existing Condition Notes This data is automatically derived from enterprise application and GIS databases, and exported dynamically. Date retrieved notes generally reflect data acquired or processed within the last 30- days.Analysis is based on a one-mile radius from the centroid of the identified parcel. Parcel based data excludes certain properties and represents land as it exists now. Properties considered are only those with a total assessed value greater than 0(i.e. excludes most HOA area,transitional development, government, and quasi government facilities). The following values also constrain included property acreage to reduce outliers and non-conforming instances from distorting averages: R-2<5.0; R-4<2.0; R-8< 1.0; R-15 <0.5; R-40<0.25. Conditional Use Permits and Preliminary plat data likely include duplicate project submittals as they may be for the same project, approved at different times through multiple application types. Consider each independently or review prior application approvals. Some approved entitlements, and particularly older ones,may be constructed. Decennial population counts and household counts are based on the most recent Decennial Census. Current population and current household values are COMPASS estimates,usually for the year previous, and are based on traffic analysis zone boundaries(TAZ's). B. Mixed Use Analysis Notes This data is derived from enterprise application and GIS databases, and exported dynamically. Data considered for analysis are only those areas overlapping the overall Mixed Use boundary area. Mixed Use areas across arterial roadways are distinct, separate, and not considered as they do not meet the mixed use principles in the Comprehensive Plan(e.g.pedestrian safety, transportation efficiency, etc.). Mixed Use parcel areas may be greater or smaller than the future land use area designation boundary due parcel size,configuration,right-of-way, and other factors. Conditional Use Permits and Preliminary plat data likely include duplicate project submittals as they may be for the same project, approved at different times through multiple application types. Consider each independently or review prior application approvals. C. Service Assessment Notes This data represents existing conditions derived from our enterprise application and GIS database, exported through dynamic reporting. The system references the most recent available data from various sources, including sewer main lines, sewer trunksheds, floodplain, fire service areas and response times,police crime reporting,pathway information,existing and planned transit, roadway improvements, school and park proximity, and other resources. The tool provides context for project review,using multiple indicators consistently. Data from similar topics may vary based on different levels of review. The overall score is based on weighted criteria(not a ranked order), and the percentile score compares the parcel to others in the city(higher is better). This tool was developed as a City Council priority and outcome of the 2019 Comprehensive Plan. Scores,whether high or low, are just one data point and should not be the sole basis for decisions. City of Meridian I Department Report VIII. Additional Notes&Details for Staff Report Maps, Tables, and Charts 107 C E IDIAN�-- Public Presentation(s) Wild 3dVOSONV'11V1d AH`d irmaud,le gg c n � O N' U lit W Q� ! ! ui - ! Y 2 z 3 GG tud; J isdill 1.3 :: did �o Goon v uzz it lip I Id lot s lit €€ i gg jAAAO64f? ° F8 � 09 . ��'il i9� 6p atill, - - - - � J / Pic Id 4 did did Id f Lqj lit : v F . II lip _ € ' t , pij II did fill fill 00 did l ` =:fF aa ,� 8 s '? ` l , sr ill ism IF LF Xf ' do le.s; wo NN , + _..4 .{41 a , tt i tt - � 49�A � n � , � : ., yy ` do noY e � w to .16 pp 4q� All oo ' f + i 3^ it • t 041 �< IF t i Am a All MIR All Y. I Prr t � < f v lk mom r Lm wh CIA Am Im e IF »Y %M t r , 1 , , Y; . =1 Imll 41 Ol FL OIL 1' Am mom � v IF '11� ' 4Y �" � om •.4� ! Am A t . • � , ' �o ' 41f ' , AA I - •� i [ yy t lY ,r, 10 . Gtif iIc lk CI Ix oomr 44 IN ire e ' + .• , i l ` r[ t IUPI ®� lo r L Id tt of . r: rvky w)� r 1 ► } 1`' i ` . . . - + jam. . . . .. - ® AN, r IF Sv � 1s,9 I Ij sIt API, 1. It +- or I Ei 'J19 ! i[ No % w fi oFor- _I - t s . �� 0000a0000a0G0000a sz000 - - - 0 0 3 0 3 5 5 5 5 5 zxrrxx 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 s o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 g g 55 5 5 g > > g g 4 4 ''aa 'a'a §a o � ggggggg � � � g � � ggggg � � � � g � � � ggggg � g � � � � o 0 0 o 0 3 a g�g o 0 0 0 0 o z' x d a 0 _ 0 a 0 a _ a a 0 a d o 0 _ _ 0 0 0 0 s 0 _ o w m 0 0 0 0 0 0 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ w F F n F n F F n n F F n n n n n n n n F F F n 9 9 p n n n n n n n n n rz n n n n n F n n n n n n n n 3 w 0 0 Y Y g gg 0 8 J w w a w m F z z 0 0 0 0 w '0 6K kt-0 t W a g € € € Q € € N! P 34 k P P a a a 8 3 w z z z z z z z z z z z i 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 z s s o e F z v + r i,r V4 1 4' i R ! 41 Af iw ga' t + y w 1d •� it-::'wN � .aflg3lf 1 ! Ir 17 t �f � if iar�l tM OD r 1, ' L IIxM 1 1 1 c 4f t% w S Iko * 11 a a a a a a z 0" 00D r 01070777 u II l MOM � . .QqJL me 49 LU n LL a c: I IIt 79 C C'. I LO 11 MissVIA ri 11 � x It Ic k \ It sof 7 ; of 3 i fit, if `L� k ; ? � itI MI 44 msm a t ."� II To fed 7 ' 3 ( yc go r q fq I TA i� 1If t i rlie t r f �- ' ' �-� ?� if ' ,�.,'•. k 1:. r I t 4,Ilk: 4 a f.oll go a , let u cc igo s r' I t lri:Ilk go ot l i._ . 41of gg + t S s. + ' `4. k . Ij A A. 011 go v 1 lej F so it Y l tOf 4 1 Alto: it of of of feet go, 41 � IF ✓i s ' �, 4 5 P rp de of rto �TJ -,r JIM IN ( ,, i _ _ •� � �- �""i ►.et v�'� � � � � � it IC lilt IM I ! . � 444 44 ti �AN, I II I .. . Ott , 1 1 � � I otoLIP It III 4 .. NO titmi,w %4 INS it 1 r "0 Not wsa tl I' LV . ` ` , I) Ilr II } r •" 1 Y Y3 III 4 # IhQi) �1Y 1h 8 Nil } { II � AY1�•A' I U11031VJ OrMNIONNINIII II L III rt �+ pz f6 r ''Al �' r . y - ' vq r f3 ' � `Jhk ,pT,:r a a� , 1t It 3 It JI :3 i i to Ci4141 .a, Q) a ` a aT,ge r S fi4 i 1 a, 00, QJ rA k3r Q s✓ At�SA IV j 3 O 41 e1 ? .LAI t N O j3 1 1 tI tp I rIi 1 141 It T I- K + [ t t Vl A it # e� ' 'tE L , a—' r Af MERIDIAN POLICE DEPARTMENT 1401 E . Watertower • Meridian ID 83642 � Phone (208 ) 88 & 6678 • Fax (208 ) 846 - 7366 ut , 6w . September 13 , 2024 Tyler Rountree 1098 E Pasacana Dr Meridian , ID 83646 Re : REQUEST FOR PUBLIC RECORD / Code Violations Parking Dear Tyler : Your completed .public records request has been Please be mindful that law enforcement p q records often contain graphic or disturbing content . As provided in Idaho Code § 74- 103 (4) , an attorney for the Meridian Police Department has reviewed the request or the Public Records Staff has had an opportunity to consult with an attorney regarding the request . All record responses may be appealed by filing a petition in conformance with the provisions of the Idaho Code Title 74 , Chapter 1 . Your petition must be filed in the Fourth Judicial District Court of Idaho within one hundred and eighty ( 180) calendar days of the mailing of this notice . If you are the defendant in the matter related to your requested record , you may request an unredacted copy of the same information from the prosecuting agency . If your request was denied based on the current status of the case (e . g , still under investigation or in screening with the prosecutor' s office) , the record may be available at a later time . You will need to submit a new public records request . Information regarding screening status may be obtained from the prosecuting agency . Sincerely , Kelly Herb Meridian Records Custodian MERIDIAN POLICE DEPARTMENT - 1401 E . Watertower • Meridian, ID 83642 fir Phone (208 ) 888 - 6678 • Fax (208 ) 846 - 7366 f Your request for records pursuant to the Idaho Public Records Act is enclosed or has been DENIED OR PARTIALLY DENIED for the following reasons . • Total number of pages denied in their entirety ❑ 1 . Based on the search criteria you provided , no responsive Meridian Police Department record has been found . ❑ 2 . Your inquiry fails to provide sufficiently specific information to allow the Meridian Police Department to complete a search for the records requested . Please submit a new request and provide additional information such as dates , times , location , types of incidents , and/or specific names and dates of birth . ❑ 3 . This case is still under investigation by the Meridian Police Department and/or in screening with the Boise City Prosecutor' s Office/Ada County Prosecutor' s Office, and disclosure of said record at this time would interfere with enforcement proceedings . Idaho Code §74- 124 ( 1 ) (a) . Questions regarding screening should be directed to the prosecutor's office . Reference DR # i ❑ 4 . The record contains motor vehicle and driver record information . Idaho Code §74 - 106 ( 15) , applying Idaho Code §49-203 ( 5 ) , (6) . ❑ 5 . This record pertains to an active criminal court case/civil case and production of this information at this time would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or impartial adjudication . Idaho Code §74 - 124 ( 1 ) ( b ) . ❑ 6 . The record contains medical records or medical/mental health information . Idaho Code §74 - 106 ( 13 ) , as applied by Idaho Code §66-348 . Medical records may be requested from . ❑ 7 . The record contains personal information and production of this information would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy . Idaho Code § 74 - 124( 1 ) (c) . ❑ 8 . The record contains instructions or statements which permit the functioning of a computer system in a manner designed to provide storage , retrieval and manipulation of data from the computer system , and any associated documentation and source material that explain how to operate the computer program . Idaho Code §74- 107 ( 15) . ❑ 9 . The record contains criminal history information . Idaho Code §74A04 ( 1 ) (applying 28 CFR 20 . 33 ) and/or Idaho State Code §74A 05 ( 12 ) . ❑ 10 . The record contains uncharged allegations of criminal activity . This is an investigatory record as defined by the Idaho Public Records Act. Since the subject of this record has not been charged with a public offense , release of this investigative record would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy . Similarly , should any new evidence be obtained , this investigation would continue and the release at this juncture would interfere with subsequent enforcement proceedings and/or deprive any suspect of a fair trial or impartial adjudication of this matter. As such , they are exempt from disclosure under Sections §74 - 105( 1 ) and §74 - 124 ( 1 ) (a) -(c) , Idaho Code . NJ'ER,1D1ANe- MERIDIAN POLICE DEPARTMENT 1401 E . Watertower • Meridian, ID 83642 Phone (208 ) 88 & 6678 Fax (208 ) 8461111, 7366 ❑ 11 . The record contains investigative techniques and procedures . Idaho Code §74 - 124( 1 ) (e) . ❑ 12 . The record contains information that would endanger the life or physical safety of law enforcement personnel . Idaho Code § 74- 124 ( 1 ) (f) . ❑ 13 . The record discloses the identity of a reporting party relating to the investigation of child abuse , neglect , or abandonment. Idaho Code §74 - 124 ( 1 ) (g ) . ❑ 14 . The record contains personnel information relating to a public employee or applicant including , but not limited to , information regarding sex , race , marital status , birth date , home address and telephone number, applications , testing and scoring materials , grievances , correspondence , and performance evaluations . Idaho Code §74- 106 ( 1 ) . ❑ 15 . Public records may not be disclosed for use as a mailing list or a telephone number list . Y 9 p Idaho Code §74- 120 ( 1 ) . ❑ 16 . The record contains documents prepared by the Department of Health and Welfare pursuant to its statutory responsibilities . Idaho Code §74- 105 (7 ) , ❑ 17 . The request pertains to an active federal , civil , or administrative proceeding , and the Public Records Act is not available to supplement , augment , substitute , or supplant discovery procedures . Code §74 - 115 (3 ) . ❑ 18 . The record you have requested is enclosed as you are an evaluator listed on the Idaho Supreme Court Roster of Domestic Assault and Battery Evaluators , are conducting an evaluation and/or treatment and counseling of the defendant per Idaho Code § 18-918 (7) , and are authorized by Idaho Criminal Rule 33 . 3and Idaho Court Administrative Rule 75 to obtain the record without redactions . By accepting this release , you agree that you will maintain the records as confidential per Idaho Court 20 . 33 and/or Idaho Code § 74- 105 ( 12 ) , C!�VE P,1DIAN � incident# ComplaintDate Address RD MethodOfComplaint 280146 9/28/2021 E EVEREST ST 715 PHONE 280144 9/28/2021 E EVEREST ST 715 PHONE 368140 10/ 16/2023 E EVEREST ST / N MORPHEUS AVE 715 ONLINE FORM 284522 11 /5/2021 E EVEREST ST / N MORPHEUS AVE 715 IN PERSON 344118 4/6/2023 N MORPHEUS AVE 715 ONLINE FORM 260778 4/ 19/2021 W EVEREST ST 713 PHONE 218392 1 /7/2020 N MORPHEUS AVE 715 ONLINE FORM 252020 1 /28/2021 E EVEREST ST 715 PHONE 275829 8/ 17/2021 E EVEREST ST 715 IN PERSON 311035 6/24/2022 E EVEREST / N JERICHO RD 715 PHONE 311034 6/24/2022 E EVEREST / N JERICHO RD 715 PHONE 304431 4/ 19/2022 E EVEREST ST / N JERICHO RD 715 ONLINE FORM 303898 4/ 13/2022 E EVEREST ST / N MAXIMUS PL 715 PHONE 371967 11 /29/2023 E EVEREST ST / N MORPHEUS AVE 715 PHONE 294492 1 /31 /2022 E EVEREST ST / N MORPHEUS AVE 715 ONLINE FORM 284125 11 /2/2021 E EVEREST ST / N MORPHEUS AVE 715 ONLINE FORM 284124 11 /2/2021 E EVEREST ST / N MORPHEUS AVE 715 279708 9/22/2021 E EVEREST ST / N SAGUARO HILLS AVE 715 IN PERSON 279707 9/22/2021 E EVEREST ST / N SAGUARO HILLS AVE 715 IN PERSON 231577 6/30/2020 E EVEREST ST 715 PHONE 218438 1 /2/2020 E PASACANA ST / N JERICHO RD 715 ONLINE FORM 337196 2/8/2023 N JERICHO AVE / E EVEREST ST 715 SELF- INITIATED 364868 9/21 /2023 N JERICHO RD 715 ONLINE FORM 362757 9/10/2023 N JERICHO RD 732 ONLINE FORM 339442 2/22/2023 N JERICHO RD 732 PHONE 317756 8/ 16/2022 N JERICHO RD 732 ONLINE FORM 304533 4/20/2022 N JERICHO RD / E EVEREST ST 715 IN PERSON 266747 5/29/2021 N JERICHO RD / E EVEREST ST 715 ONLINE FORM 344195 4/7/2023 N MAXIMUS / E EVEREST ST 715 SELF- INITIATED 344194 4/7/2023 N MORPHEUS / E KLAMATH LN 715 SELF- INITIATED 238920 9/6/2020 N MORPHEUS AVE 715 ONLINE FORM 232071 7/2/2020 N MORPHEUS AVE 715 ONLINE FORM 369591 11 /2/2023 N MORPHEUS AVE 715 ONLINE FORM 312130 7/7/2022 N MORPHEUS AVE / E LOCKHART LN 715 ONLINE FORM 401455 9/2/2024 N SAGUARO HILLS AVE / E EVEREST ST 715 ONLINE FORM 387806 4/22/2024 N SILVER SPRUCE AVE / W EVEREST ST 713 PHONE 343270 3/28/2023 W EVEREST ST 713 ONLINE FORM 262092 4/22/2021 W EVEREST ST 713 IN PERSON 284974 11 /9/2021 W EVEREST ST 712 IN PERSON 284975 11 /9/2021 W EVEREST ST 712 IN PERSON 284972 11 /9/2021 W EVEREST ST 712 IN PERSON 284971 11 /9/2021 W EVEREST ST 712 IN PERSON 284977 11 /9/2021 W EVEREST ST 712 IN PERSON 284968 11 /9/2021 W EVEREST ST 712 IN PERSON 343379 3/28/2023 W EVEREST ST 713 SELF- INITIATED 279711 9/22/2021 E EVEREST ST / N MORPHEUS AVE 715 IN PERSON 324184 10/11 /2022 N JERICHO RD / E EVEREST ST 715 DISPATCH 344190 4/7/2023 N MORPHEUS / E KLAMATH LN 715 SELF- INITIATED 337193 2/8/2023 N MORPHEUS AVE / E EVEREST ST 715 SELF- INITIATED 218857 1 / 13/2020 N MORPHEUS AVE 715 ONLINE FORM W IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing continued from November 6, 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. 108 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 Flo-91 • 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 1 10 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 112 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 113 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 115 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 116 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 ■ 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 it 12 ft (Age Restricted)` Conventional,Front Loaded 10 ft 20 ft 3 it 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 118 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 119 1 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 120 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 121 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 122 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 123 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 Grove 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 124 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 125 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 Department Report III. Staff Analysis 126 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 127 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 128 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 129 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 130 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 131 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 132 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 133 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 134 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 135 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 136 ' � 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 139 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 18,2024 City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits 140 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 141 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 142 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 , — LB 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 143 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,W0'04'35"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°26'57"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 144 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 F145] 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 146 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 147 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 48 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 149 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 150 I 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 5-1 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 152 H. Common Driveway Exhibits—NOT APPROVED � N SYS101 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 53 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 54 U-SL S101 T A"is = AsIHX3 3AIa0 NOW WOD IVId AUVNIWI13Ud m OI'NVIOIa3W � � a : 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 Il1 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 55 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 o5 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 56 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 157 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 158 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 159 �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 60 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 ...... ...... �A TA V_� 0 QD �v t I T 7P Id (P (E) 0 T av T ID O O O ®` 7e ,D City of Meridian Department Report V11. Exhibits 161 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 162 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 ,S 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 165 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 166 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 167 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 168 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 169 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 170 N. De-Annexation Legal Description&Exhibit Map I= E N G I N E E It I N G 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 171 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 F172] 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 174 • 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 175 W IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Apex Zenith (H-2025-0041) by Brighton Corporation, generally located at the southeast corner of Meridian Rd. and Lake Hazel Rd., in a portion of Lot 4 Section 6, T.2N., R.1E. Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2025-0041 A. Request: Preliminary Plat to subdivide two (2) existing parcels into seven (7) buildable lots across 11.549 acres of land in the C-G zoning district. B. Request: Private Street application that is naming the drive aisles. 176 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: November 20, 2025 ITEM # 5 PROJECT NAME: Apex Zenith (H-2025-0041) I wish to testify Representing Your Full Name Your Full Address (mark X HOA? (Please Print) if yes) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT C��fEPIDIAN*,,--, DEPARTMENT REPORT HEARING 11/20/2025 Legend DATE: Project Location _ TO: Planning&Zoning Commission 1::Area of impact W= City Limits FROM: Nick Napoli,Associate Planner O Analysis �- 208-884-5533 - nnapoli@meridiancity.org -----_=__ APPLICANT: Amanda McNutt SUBJECT: H-2025-0041 ' Apex Zenith I LOCATION: Located at the southeast corner of -� ( I Meridian Road and Lake Hazel Road in a — portion of Lot 4 of Section 6, T.2N., R.1E. 1 PROJECT OVERVIEW A. Summary Preliminary plat to subdivide two(2)existing parcels into seven(7)buildable lots across 11.065 acres of land in the C-G zoning district. B. Waivers/Issues Since both E.Tower Lane and S.Momentum Lane are connecting to arterial streets (Meridian Road and Lake Hazel Road),these access point would typically require a City Council waiver per UDC 11-3F-4-2B2. However,these connections were previously approved with the annexation and rezone application(H-2024-0052)so another council waiver is not required. C. Recommendation Staff. Approval with conditions. Commission: Pending D. Decision Council: Pending City of Meridian I Department Report 1. Project Overview 177 COMMUNITY METRICS Table 1: Land Use Description Details Map Ref. Existing Land Use(s) Vacant - Proposed Land Use(s) Commercial - Existing Zoning C-G zoning VII.A.2 II. proposed Zoning C-G zoning Adopted FLUM Designation Mixed Use Regional VII.A.3 Table 2: Process Facts Description Details Preapplication Meeting date 6/10/2025 Neighborhood Meeting 8/14/2025 Site posting date 11/4/2025 Table 3: Community Metrics Agency/Element Description/Issue Reference Ada County Highway District IV.E • Comments Received Yes; Staff Report - • Commission Action Required No - • Access Arterial Streets: E.Lake Hazel and S.Meridian Road - Collector Streets: S.Prevail Avenue • Traffic Level of Service Lake Hazel Road:Better than"E" - ITD Comments Received Yes;The applicant is finalizing the STARS agreement with ITD. Meridian Public Works Wastewater IV.B • Distance to Mainline Available at Site • Impacts or Concerns See Public Works Site Specific Conditions Meridian Public Works Water IV.B • Distance to Mainline Available at Site • Impacts or Concerns See Public Works Site Specific Conditions 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 178 Figure 1: One-Mile Radius Existing Condition Metrics ReFerence Parcel: 51406223014 Date Retrieved: 202411018 Parcel Count Parcel Acreage Infill Indicator: 220 5Fr1 Surrounding Area % of city � I City Limits Not City He usehold Change Household & Population Growth • • # Household= ■2020 Population Chance: 88.2% Population NGrowtl, (Household and Population Change since203-0 Decennial) Figure 2:ACHD Summary Metrics 0 E. Lake Hazel Road Existing Lanes © Planned Lanes Existing Level of Service Notable ACHD Comments V/ Q {Primary roadway impact} Programmed IFYP Programmed CIP 0 S. Meridian Rd Existing Lanes © Planned Lanes m Existing Level of Service Notable r Comments V/ Q (Primary roadway impact Programmed IFYP Programmed CIP *E.Lake Hazel Road has been widened by the applicant to S lanes from S.Meridian Road to S.Apex Avenue. The level of service listed above is for the existing 2-lane road Traffic counts are from June 2018. City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics 179 Figure 3: Service Impact Summary ImpactService • • Ready O O O O Marginal O O Caution O O O O O �ooa a o\``e �aAy a� oQ' oo� 0\0 a� hr h`,co Qa �o City of Meridian Department Report II. Community Metrics 180 STAFF ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code(UDC) A. General Overview The subject properties fall within the larger Apex Zenith project and are designated as Mixed-Use Regional on the Future Land Use Map(FLUM). ui. The MU-R designation 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 applicant is proposing a preliminary plat consisting of seven(7)buildable lots across 11.065 acres of land. The plat excludes the additional approximately 140 acres of land as a separate plat will be required with phase two(2) of the larger development. Staff recommends the subject properties be subdivided prior to the issuance of any building permits within the subdivision. However,this subdivision is part of the first phase of the Apex Zenith project,which restricts phase one(1)to three(3)building permits prior to a more in-depth concept plan is provided. Currently, Costco will be using two(2)of the three(3)building permits, and it was previously stated that a regional employment user would be the third building permit on the west side of Prevail Avenue. For this reason, staff is recommending the subdivision be recorded and Phase two (2)of Apex Zenith be approved prior to any building permits being issued within the subdivision. The applicant has indicated the subdivision is proposed to be completed in a single phase with buildings being constructed at a later date when users are found. Each user will be evaluated when they submit for a certificate of zoning compliance application. The property is allowed to have all the uses listed in UDC 11-213-2. Table 4: Pro*ect Overview Description Details History H-2015-0019 AZ;DA Inst#2016-007072;H-2024-0052;DA Inst#2025- 010344 Phasing Plan One(1)Phase Acreage 11.065 acres Lots Seven(7)Buildable lots B. History The two parcels fronting S.Meridian Road(S 1406223014 and S 1406223153)were annexed in 2015 with the South Meridian Annexation. These properties were given the placeholder zoning of R-4 until future development. In 2024,the property was rezoned to the C-G zoning district as a part of the larger Apex Zenith project. After the annexation the applicant submitted a property boundary adjustment to reconfigure the properties to allow for legal parcel for development. This is the reason why Costco is not included within this subdivision. C. Site Development and Use Analysis 1. Existing Structures/Site Improvements (UDC 11-1): The site currently has no existing structures. The applicant shall be required to hook up to city utilities with the construction of the new buildings. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 181 2. Proposed Use Analysis (UDC 11-2): The subject properties were rezoned with the C-G zoning designation,which allows for a variety of uses. The narrative discusses the subdivision being consistent with commercial users that include large retail, office uses, and other supporting commercial. Currently,the existing Development Agreement limits certain uses, specifically restricting retail uses to a maximum of 50%of the C-G zoning district. In addition,the DA requires a minimum of 20% non-retail commercial uses within the C-G portion of the property. These restrictions aim to align with the comprehensive plan to provide a mix of commercial uses that include retail, employment, and neighborhood-serving uses. The property will remain subject to the same Development Agreement provisions,along with the restrictions in UDC 11-2B-2. 3. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): The C-G zoning district requires a thirty-five(35)foot landscape buffer along entryway corridors,a twenty-five(25) foot landscape buffer along arterial roads,a twenty(20) foot landscape buffer along collector roads, a ten(10) foot landscape buffer along local streets and allows a height up to sixty-five(65) feet. The applicant has not provided any building footprints; however,the submitted plans meet the requirements of the C-G zone.Any future development shall comply with the C-G dimensional standards listed in UDC 11-2B-3. D. Design Standards Analysis 1. Structure and Site Design Standards (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-19): The subject subdivision does not show a concept plan for placement of the buildings; however,the development agreement requires a minimum of 40%of the buildable frontage to be occupied by building facades or public space. This will be evaluated with the certificate of zoning compliance submittals. The applicant will be required to frame buildings along the arterial and state highway corridors to meet this provision. 2. Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): i. Landscape buffers along streets A thirty-five(35) foot wide landscape buffer is required along all entryway corridors (Meridian Road), a twenty-five(25) foot wide landscape buffer is required along all arterial roadways(Lake Hazel Road), a ten(10) foot landscape buffer is required along all local streets(Tower Lane and Momentum Lane). These landscape buffers are depicted on the landscape plan and comply with the standards for the C-G zoning district. However,the preliminary plat shows a significant portion of the landscaping is proposed to be inside of the right of way. The applicant shall provide a license agreement with the transportation authority to certify the entire landscape buffer will meet UDC requirements. The buffers shall be outside of the proposed deceleration lanes and start at the back of the curb. Additional landscaping on each lot will be addressed with future certificate of zoning compliance applications. These landscape buffers and the private streets (Tower Lane and Momentum Lane)have not been installed yet. These will be required as part of the subdivision improvements. The applicant is proposing the subdivision to be completed in a single phase. The applicant shall comply with the vegetation coverage calculations with the final plat to ensure they are meeting the 70%vegetation coverage at maturity with no more than 65%of this coverage coming from lawn or other grasses. These buffers shall be landscaped per the standards in UDC 11-3B-7C. In addition,the development agreement requires the landscape buffer included in this subdivision to be completed prior any building occupancy within the larger Apex Zenith development, including Costco. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 182 ii. Parking lot landscaping Landscaping is required to be provided along all parking areas per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8. The requirements include five(5) foot perimeter adjacent to streets and islands of at least 50 sq. ft.per every twelve(12)parking spaces. Any parking that does not abut seven(7) feet of overhang shall have parking blocks. These requirements will be analyzed with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance. iii. Landscape buffers to adjoining uses Landscaping is required to be provided along abutting uses. These requirements will be analyzed with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. iv. Tree preservation A Tree Mitigation Plan should be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance detailing all existing trees and methods of mitigation outlined by the City Arborist before any trees are to be removed as set forth in UDC 11-3B-1OC.5. v. Storm integration Storm drainage is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-18. Drainage swales shall not be within the landscape buffers along Meridian Road and Lake Hazel Road. 3. Parking (UDC 11-3C): i. Nonresidential parking analysis UDC 11-3C-6B requires one space for every five hundred(500)sq. ft. of gross floor area in commercial districts. However,if restaurants are proposed one(1)space for every two hundred and fifty(250) sq. ft of gross floor area is required. These parking standards will be analyzed with the submittal of the certificate of zoning compliance applications. 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. This will be reviewed with the submittal of the certificate of zoning compliance applications. 4. Building Elevations (Comp Plan,Architectural Standards Manual): Building elevations were submitted with this application but are high level and not specified for any single building. The proposed elevations include a mix of materials,pedestrian scale elements such as lighting and awnings, and glazing along the storefronts. In addition,the development agreement that governs the site requires development to be consistent with the Meridian Architectural Standards Manual. Staff will evaluate the building elevations for consistency with the ASM and DA with the submittal of the certificate of zoning compliance and design review applications. 5. Fencing (UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): Fencing is not depicted on the concept or landscape plan. Any future fencing shall be in compliance with UDC 11-3A-7 and 11-3A-6. 6. Parkways (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-17): UDC 11-3A-17 requires parkways of a minimum width of 8 feet. The applicant has indicated in their narrative that the parkways are 8 feet in width,however it is not dimensioned on the landscape plan. These parkways are provided along the private streets within the development alongside the five(5)foot sidewalks. The parkways shall be dimensioned and a minimum of 8 feet in width in the final plat application. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 183 E. Transportation Analysis 1. Access (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-3, UDC 11-3H-4): Access is proposed via E. Tower Lane(private street)off E. Lake Hazel Road in the form of a right-in right-out, S. Momentum Lane(private street) off S.Meridian Road in the form of a right-in right-out out and S. Prevail Avenue in the form of a full access. The applicant is applying for a private street application for E. Tower Lane and S. Momentum Lane to allow for the commercial drive aisles to be named. This will allow for better wayfinding of address points for residents and emergency services. With the larger Apex Zenith development(H-2024-0052),the development agreement requires the entirety of Aristocrat Drive and Prevail Avenue(both collector roads)to be constructed prior to the first certificate of occupancy. These roads will be constructed along with E. Tower Lane and S.Momentum Lane prior to the certificate of occupancy for the subdivision or Costco. A traffic study was completed with H-2024-0052,which contemplated approximately 98 acres of commercial uses,which include the portion of the subdivision that is currently proposed. Direct lot access to S. Meridian Road and E. Lake Hazel Road is prohibited except for E. Tower Lane and S. Momentum Lane. The applicant is depicting a second access along E. Tower Lane(private street)to Lot 4, Block 1;however, staff is recommending a shared access on the property line with the Costco Fuel Station(Parcel# S 1406223040). The site plan on the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application(A-2025-0078)for Costco depicted an access point on the shared property line. In addition,the applicant has recorded a singed STARS agreement with the Idaho Transportation Department(ITD)which has highlighted improvements to Meridian Road including deceleration lanes at their access points. These improvements are anticipated to be completed prior to certificate of occupancy for the Costco project. 2. Multiuse Pathways,Pathways, and Sidewalks (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-5, UDC 11-3A-8, UDC 11-3A-17): The preliminary plat proposes an extension of the ten(10) foot multi-use pathway along S. Meridian Road and E. Lake Hazel Road. In addition,the applicant is proposing five (5)foot sidewalks along the private streets on the interior of the subdivision to promote pedestrian connectivity. However,the pedestrian connections from the multi-use pathway to the front entrances of each building have not been depicted. The pedestrian connections shall be depicted with the submittal of the certificate of zoning compliance and design review applications for each site. 3. Private Streets (UDC 11-3F-4): The applicant is proposing two(2)private streets in the form of E. Tower Lane and S. Momentum Lane with this application. These private streets are depicted on the plat and have an eighty-six(86) foot easement that spans across the full street section including forty(40) foot street width, eight(8) foot parkways, five(5)foot sidewalks on both sides, and ten(10) feet of landscaping on the back of the sidewalk. Since the plat is located within the MU-R FLUM designation,it is critical to have connectivity for pedestrians that are integrated with vehicular access points. The applicant has provided five (5)foot sidewalks on both sides of the private streets which will connect with City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 184 ten(10)foot multi-use pathways along Meridian Road,Lake Hazel Road, and Prevail Avenue. This will help promote the connectivity and walkability that is envisioned in the MU-R principles. No residential units are proposed directly off of these private streets as this section of the larger Apex Zenith project is designated for commercial uses. The applicant is showing two(2)access points to E. Tower Lane for Lot 4,Block 1 and the off-site property for the Costco Fuel Station. Staff is recommending these be consolidated into a single access point off of the private street due to limiting conflict points. The approved Costco CZC depicted a shared access point that was on the property line between proposed Lot 4,Block 1 and the Costco Fuel Facility. Since both E.Tower Lane and S.Momentum Lane are connecting to arterial streets (Meridian Road and Lake Hazel Road),these access point would typically require City Council waivers per UDC 11-3F-4-2132. However,these connections were previously approved with the annexation and rezone application(H-2024-0052)so another council waiver is not required. F. Services Analysis 1. Waterways (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-6): There is an existing irrigation ditch that runs through the property connecting to the east and west. The applicant is proposing to pipe this ditch and protect the existing irrigation boxes. 2. Pressurized Irrigation(UDC 11-3A-15): An underground pressurized irrigation system is required to be installed to provide irrigation to each lot in the subdivision in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-15. 3. Storm Drainage (UDC 11-3A-18): An adequate storm drainage system is required in all developments by the City's adopted standards, specifications, and ordinances. Design and construction shall follow best management practices as adopted by the City as outlined in UDC 11-3A-18. Storm drainage will be proposed with a future Certificate of Zoning Compliance application and shall be constructed to City and ACHD design criteria. 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 IV. utilities are available to the site. Water main, fire hydrant and water service require a twenty- foot(20)wide easement that extends ten(10)feet past the end of main,hydrant, or water meter.No permanent structures, including trees are allowed inside the easement. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. Meridian Planning Division 1. Future development of this site shall comply with the previous conditions of approval and terms of H-2015-0019 AZ; H-2024-0052 AZ,RZ;DA Inst#2025-010344 and the conditions contained herein. 2. Future development of the proposed lots is required to comply with the dimensional standards C-G zoning districts in UDC Table 11-2B-3, as applicable. The 35-foot wide entryway corridor street buffer,25-foot-wide arterial street buffer,20-foot wide collector street, and 10- City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions 185 foot landscape buffers along the private streets. Buffers may be placed in an easement rather than a common lot in accord with UDC 11-3B-7C.2a. 3. The final plat and landscape plan shall be revised as follows: a. Provide the license agreement from ACHD and ITD for landscaping within the transportation authority's right of way. b. Add a plat note or reference the CCR instrument number for cross-access and maintenance of the private streets. c. Depict landscaping within required street buffers in accord with standards listed in UDC 11-313-7C,_all required landscape buffers along streets shall be designed and planted with a variety of trees, shrubs, lawn, or other vegetative ground cover. Plant materials in conjunction with site design shall elicit design principles including rhythm, repetition,balance, and focal elements. d. Revise the plat and landscape plans to include the dimensions of the pathways. e. Depict landscaping along all pathways per the standards in UDC 11-3B-12C. A 5' wide landscape strip is required on both sides of the pathway planted with a mix of trees, shrubs, lawn and/or other vegetative ground cover. 4. Comply with all ACHD's staff report conditions of approval. 5. Use a shared access point between the Costco Fuel Station and Lot 4,Block 1 off E. Tower Lane as depicted on the CZC for Costco A-2025-0078. 6. The subject properties shall be subdivided and phase two(2) of the Apex Zenith project shall be approved prior to the issuance of any building permits within the subdivision. 7. Provide a detailed maintenance agreement for the private streets and how the Costco property will work with the subdivision for maintenance of those roads with the Final Plat application. 8. Each lot within the subdivision shall submit a certificate of zoning compliance and design review application prior to submittal of a building permit. 9. Depict bike racks and pedestrian connections on the plans submitted with the future CZC and Design Review application in accordance with UDC 11-3C-5C. 10. Comply with all of the private street standards listed in UDC 11-317. 11. Upon completion of the landscape installation, a written Certificate of Completion shall be submitted to the Planning Division verifying all landscape improvements are in substantial compliance with the approved landscape plan as set forth in UDC 11-3B-14. 12. The preliminary 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 2)obtain approval of a time extension as set forth in UDC I I- 6 B-7. 13. Staff s failure to cite all relevant UDC requirements does not relieve the applicant from compliance. City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions 186 B. Meridian Public Works s I11SumcetoSebyef &evmr main i&Wly-been amwtrurwd.fKwew,oconHi5requirrv' SeNW&L thmah Dwom*ffwntl t+lhor wour t*Nsrlh w We Ent. s 5ewrefshed IS11rna1Led pffoom See Bpp1K.MDn 5egw FRLA'i 41r11HF Qq rliirng lwanw prdjMdCerei%WTf vas with VM Master KwIFiKI10 PWn • See PLPW.t Vbwk€34F cilic condil imi water a 1laxanee ld water %Walrr main Kmparllq been corntracted,hewdever Iaop,ng m required $*rpm Uwa%h Development€epther Fhroudh the Noflh of the Fast. e Eallmmud p ood See applrtatibn Water ERU's • Mlrgwcwl" Nano i Pe0jett COm+Stlrr1 YP.'F snlh water Uatur w�L QslCanwrd please weCondolons NON-I'LAT CONDITION$ F1 MAc WnRK'IMMOT-W1T She gperifr C'oed beck id ApproraA I PTlrwl xAl naglunr k Mng of dw%aWr Minn.This can ath4Y come Rom Hre cast or a svwmd cnr r ciim Lcr Lake 1larrl Rd harlfl oF1k kW 2_ 12'main shavld Fun pu Akl to 5 Mkwidim Rd dwoLkA Me dev6opmml to men to and Ihn>w1g11 erquimmmLi The Ulky wil spCk OPODAMlli4`s to pros ide siubb or ai ka►i gmUrsCLLIs Lo HCridiw Road w elbw Aropmics west afMtewidim Rd to dewlap. ]. 12'Muln A€u lrquind a1mg Lhe i i!mi k wdakce rorm SSrridias Rd lo the Eust 4_ PxAidc loamd-rroath Wartrard SmermaLiiksw Lk g&wdh 2W Lam when rt evww S. $uPencrr Lo sorry irtlwir L.a xrlL u 11a.Lru sell is kicelcd m Lhc tiro it Maki 6c ebarl&L L1 per regralawiN nxloiumentr aed prwf ofahandenromi rimm art pnuiidcd w thLtCb.%. l'Li1w%:A a IIL acid W 15%lrnisid%ti4 AN RYIC%. 6_ IP a Wd I is Ine wd ad L1w siLt it om be akmdwtd p.r reFdawry+rog6rcm m and pmofor abmWL)ihnhm4 1nwc1 hK pro%Ld6A 14 Ow City 1. Friwary nn.Lrwcr sumcus lug thimoO infiliinmm IreLLK6eiL City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions 187 21 Iran 46 w Ewmoiui fir mLr m.l)*mL IZ[rrdk and Nmff nentcas Ewc am dw dd axramd up m-Lhe cad Of aLsi&hkd=UVLso L'1 mCLJ and 1d bLxU1Ld iL 5 `lu Prt1MOens stfUcluL +(#M4,bigilrL.blliidlhp,Cptpnrn.trallh I0reptaLtk WAIN.reuaea iofilumden ftnK 3Ci-light pants,ew.)la be baih vrilhnL the wi lin casment. CJracnmtCamdiii msofApprevml I AppiLCLvLI shalkCGainibLfow woUt and LL-wc1 ilLaim&iacjmO wuLme with 1hr puW1c 1lratks Aet 14'1id1a1L t,LLV COLIg k%K'L'k LILc 300Lrrl AdI br Jm4—islhkr L—Ladl s4fset am1 whiff rdniit Lfi iirL IhhavL[hlhlsL LlkscilOpYllrm[ Applieml tL1ap hrtliLoiNl2 Gnn a rcimbvnf�.ytLrrl[ 3grtaCml4;L WK Lnfr WFM1 LUV.,mkxiOM Col per wa'4 h 64F 1 Tkr WOPLML 41411 praridc L:,LMmL ML,l far ail(ftWtc*uo-1L*rt nanny ommidrof public 6Rbi4.F wuv rLn�L1��pl�#Sr sem 1¢�`!.aad hYdrmrs}, �L'P+C'r��Ce1PP44's4 Vann depe�ra�4�P:w� dgah.wumul4L 24)B dnp rrf urn a W n gmKrmol.NL25 IL 4 up n mwmp&L obd 2{•311 11 a 43 0 cwk�wflL kslswe no p.'rnrma.t mRidures 111sn,bu lL .Wid ndr,qrporks.hash fe4optu3e moll,,F L1 s,imriw mlon vm d",11ghi poks,rk.l wk khah'wiewiu me kiubLy vasemc.L ialSIh11 in ewculcd a mrmemran nhe FJIm nmileble from PuNk wadsL alegnl desenpdonpncpwad b4 am ta14ILb L1 OWLI It1of¢L11,0elb[I.d11d Skis eyat,wbjp.mLmt Inckk&dw apr:ur Lhc V*KihciL Immked E XHUMT A r and an itl 2-1v 11"map wish bcum4s iLrW&%wcm Lrnmrked EXHIBIT B F F31t t'4 L-pw.11dlh exlLrhkh FILUM hC LC'✓ied,sigVill dod doled by i PhDSMiouai I�}ILLfY"Dt.W Nor RECORD. a. Me L'LL}of MrrLLL1a■tugimac.Ihu P"Nwt&11 LLngmam sxsLCHEL br sahap6rd by a ycu.rouod liLlif'r Oftlr2Ler ll;ILC I L-30fi3 T1Lt applleanL should be ttqulrod[p u&c m'CkLSI1ap surfue ar wall wo1Ct tut the pmmuh•UnLem. 11.L Lmfa4e im w¢M wswt4 is WA y.ailahlu,a slagrpwat eamYCcdca DG dirt culrnar4*aLm oymem WMI I lie req i►ad If a trmµlc-palm goivrw'a rob i9 sallila%l- Lhg dn'eiopl6r+Lz11 Ire zuKpmgLLLit fur Ihu pay mL9r of azzoalm4rrs fur thu raQLlomL aram p sm w ptrht in rrrrin•ihp deticlep"rrl7 plLtn appin,•al S krry 7kR1dwcb ibal arc Jkwecd w rerontn*n1J be s*co 6044-ALuWffl Mill pcls-11AC faassagnM=L af,mrl mddrrvLm j b hC in wL"p4wgwP x Pih MCC-. ifil. All amVmwn d1L1r hc&cffn*.h9ff ls.or drains.ess1usrveoFrLaw-n1 warerwms.3rkiergectin - rnm"of la4L APiecm daj o&Lwp4m&Io Lhe alri bi;in,suhdl rkaled"I k addrewg4 ppr VDC I I-3A-6, In pwr omngsash;ark.d3c mW1iurti shO c—plt with IdabiC+#42-5M Irnd try ahcr gO1C.1wu law at rrerrlali m �- Atkywdls[hai%ill nor c4xiiinwio Oar uwd must be proper, I. _d m*arding LeMeM WdP CaeYhxLman Mmida&RuL%aLbni un4hLd by Ibr Laabal❑<:, .� ..t bL'aLLr ResosuteL TUC Pi:%-loptr'3 ErtgiiLm-shall pro+'ILL afLff=cnr>tddFniinr xl •:reach aM crasUng atillsin Ike devdlopdnLuL umd 1f L huw tluey wLll a kimiLL W be used.41 Je eouald of Lheir R. Au}"i inig 9cflfJCitiYL1LS2&wif61rLlha pwfta sh-Al be rkwovei2:1-.::,kn ILL!pu['1h lhdamance S.NLKm 41,14 wd 9 41 k ConLia fkowal UANirr JlmhlF 5�w iban&—miah1 iKiordums aw my4w Likfnf i"I.}7a,i21 r 4 ALI napn...arnraLM idaud w pA-v IA.wifrl.'aLd 1wall1l LItall lk L'LnLrpIvwd pf,rrio 17crL wio aftke SMKPPres In aLpplw=i Lnalrhe h p+ .A gultcd w Iniiblit 1asU£4Pkfpwfii TJLwi trrlrw-and£ohnlr riiimi insMLim kcs-as drR rminc'd&.ring,LILe glare Jtwi"proorss.prior as ihr i%ume of a plan v9tm•ol klecr 11.Ti shall be drc rrspw abiAilp ofilm sWicmi to rnner An all do elopmcmi teaawts oomo9 will 1hC&M9riCM;1 wiklLrhapI?tliI?eL Acl rrld Ow r#it HouLiup Au 12.Applioml sllallbe rrspousibl4 FJrapplicarion Ed compliance uadl m.w Seuionaly}krmwinµ thnl Tway be rcimbW by Lbo Amv Carp afFrLp.ails 13.♦7LNCIOPU AEI oLxxiinsLcrusJhox kicaLou-A ah LhL Mc dim PloaOffite. City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions 188 14 rommaidw k.u KWAM "I Ix,I,MPIled 14,INC h'1L4teltrrrl 111riwwls U}-I rllvrsl Rid ilk bIL+L41111Lr pads rmocysing�o wn&-d baLL611,a b k lIILUrmi[mould al:,Lap d 11 mu real. I 71Le 71Lw Llrrcl -Vl minmrurn pi`3-f 1#,os4,h��h,yfICSI r#��hllahaL# glgmldw•b�r rl�t,•aL,nn Th,g Li W MIwTe ALHI,ha bMhIHA r dVffl Wh Ot Illy arRM•j%un ul fIl,Ihm IF ae Icarl 1-{im1 alnrc 16 The 4Wmanw dusLym cnprnaer th;dl be rcHWrm Ou fur hTwpa l"of all in-Ratm and in dMMftp f=kI il}-A Ord Ihr.III .' u d0 Yal,7 1 1 lLM1L'r 111r 7laltsLl,ruwl ad W'1,rri uk,u L1„vlcl or AC HD.The deciFm enp:-I. -rr,•.'Ae rmFficwo„d1a1 4fic Nnkiiirs fines brrn Ins l led m IC w 54IIf1 Ihr ippu". I r 114ph cc17Lfle,moll x41 hr n'yolr><d beLm a wu rik:a;[ ofoceupaa'wiijRiwdfoxan4 :L4 dinteplojrrr 17.AL rJlc cvLaapinwxs of Lf c pwy x�,Isr aNpl ult shaCl L,r rLrpt,us,Nr Iu„Lhro1e rrcorlE Lk1w.n_s Ncr fhe fiiv ofMcridiop Ai*CAD mnndxdF. T tL 4 rrPwd draw'irv%-1 he reccr,ed Fnd On—cd plisse Lo the i:m6w c of a am18=lao of Lxcupan%!y fix an}urmiul n w,LLu dre pru;n L IR A baker I,I j/r. fweei I,gIII p1w re ilLL[Crrl®Lt a1C LI%I[le In iC L'IrII�fr-5 it I I))[frnppr4'�rlYl Ib]r1Y fa}r ohs Cl f..111 114�14 G6� o11h1r.Irwtard{L:unlvr4+wLa111611r uuwnLl+ridi;rnci�'rrlY�l+v!'IIr_�u14�u!�.w.'.1�1��F.� I Y. 111ke CLLy mr M e"iam mywres Thal.Lh,,ov, suit W AL(rLy a ku"m 111r arok,m Of 129%04 the isrlal L'uLS f)1 211 gIKArnPkW x vl,+'IIIa7 110 MIMC ffin irthlClluIN prwr in fmal pfd si L'iLalkim TlmLi sumly Yno he 5rn Ged by a I,Lsr 11L'Lm Lcm EsLImy4 pemvil rd kry Ow a*r Ltr io Ibt C',L} Mw sdwit Lsan bLL pLwALrd in At Ak m of m IHn ocuW lour e1'enadla.L:anb d4pop1 or band APPbcan,must FN m appllcmwm for sLucu.wtuch can be dpurd on the Cotrr1II IIm14 1ye'4eIoprfwm 1h'paviruces w-dm11P Plum Comm CMJ Do4xioprnenL SCR ict br mare h&WM n 41l,o� M AK7•7v 11 211 11Lr CRY OfN1r1411 UN[rymrrs LhdL Llrc U'AWf pdeL rm Lhlt Ckv it*Nii ILv s"I.v IN 11W.11L,&MI.of .M*of Ibe bDW GYr[Ir1rumion ilYm fM i11{4Ynp''d7Cd 4€WLY-wafer and wmt infu5inlrlurr for durLlwa Of vwu mars ll'n�€uttep a,li be,cri l imLl b3 t ILnc malt Bose csLlroa[e�I( k-1dza by at th uw w Io die Cila.The war'rry vm br wmird b Aw foem axi iuce canlc Iraer Pr eWic.;ash 41 L'[001+A bwd.Appbc ml.llkueI rl]r ad ajlpd LiaLkM Poe YLNIrlf,utuCb tialL N 6D=d Um IGL! C'"lnlllnIj4 rksalupnLClLI Dewme-is web c PleaLe carxars 1 and fk,43or ent kwica rm niu In1fmn La =ki147- 5f1- City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions 189 C. Meridian Park's Department �ENDIp- lykrks and Rerfi'Klinn ReWswer: Mrin Warren/pathways Project Manager Planner AaQlrid: Ulck Napoll project Name: Apex-Zenith Rle No:+ n25.004f—PP Date: 9-9,2025 The following will be required for development of the proposed project; CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL-PATHWAYS 1. The project deve"r sheil design and construct m-uld-use pathways aansIstent wlth the location and specifications set forth iri the Merldlan Pathways Master Plan Map and Master Pathways Plan aorument Chapter 3}, Any proposed adjustments to pathway allgnment shall be coordinated through the Pathways Project Manager. 2. Priortofinalplatapprowal the applicarit5halldedicatea public acoesseesementforW wide detathe'dmufti- use pathways (concrete sidlewalksj along E. Lake Hazel Rd., 5. Meridian Rd, and the mid-mlla tallertof roadway and roundahout at the east edge cf the project. Eawments shall be a minimum of 14'wide(1(lF pathway#V shoulder each side)- Easement need only be dedicated for m u Iri-use pa thways that Iw { . 11? the public ROW. Use-gandord City rempkae for pubJic access ev5effwrrr. Subaru old easerrnents online through cftuT 's A+xess Porto, 3, Construct multi-use pathways per paving section based on existiing site conditions as recommended by project civil engineer in accord with UDC 11-3A,g and 11-3B-12. Prior to Areal approval the appli€arrt's engineer shall provide written documentation�starnped plarks depicting recommended pawiri19secti0n)brat the Pathway segment was constructed per the recommended specifications, 4. The owner(or representative amoclation)of the property affected by-each p„btic access easement shall have an ongoing oblIWon to madntaln the multi-use pathway- s. Project devetoper 5halt be rasp Km ible for pbtaining Iiren5*agreement and ether permi5sim(o as required fpr rrpnytrwirigwi;hin qr prrgzs irrigatipn district ea5emerd�5. City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions F-19ol D. Boise Project Board of Control(Irrigation District) RICHARD WRGrDf ID OPERhTNOA EMC1'FM WR cntrawn rrnEacanc 1301SK PROJECT BOARD OF CONTROL, '�q��?MDNU5 GAM SHEiRROH V GE vnh h Cx--FF K�Ap f0%EALYEC49EU13 PECL WATIC"PR=LiCT4 ROaERT 0.CARTER 2405O ERUHD ROAD VW L_l LL4w en IWLUNRWI71" +i++IP7�,Wrle4WF4tir'r�IS7 118r3E KIMA O�TfIC7 THOMAS Ftff"AU R Ztm Ur l Aw5rANT PR{l4{.T kVhN rJR NEWYOW9r NG11 9153 Mope VINME1 APR1eL 43ARONER YL±MGrARY-1 HU.9- LH MA"SUE CHASE rEL 1yeW1 WWI ACjI�'rh4T$EvRF-A R7• /-, F/t1f,ti701}6 UJF IRFAT.iIRF9 21 Octobcr 202S City Clerk's Office LL V UL LL IIrJLL 33 G Broadway Avenue Meridian ID, 33642 RE. Apex 74rIit17 PP H-2M-0441 � �� � E Lake Haul and South Meridian Rd. Meridian Tiokse-Kura Irrigation District BK-146 OCT 2 � 20 Rawson Canal 259+-90 Sec_06,T2M,RIE,BM. CITY OF fq C.ITYCLERKS OFFICE Nick Napoli: There m-c no Boise Project or 8-oise-Kui1a Irrigation District facilities locatcd on tho rflw,vc- mentioned property,however it does in fact pcfssess a Valid woker tight. Per lduho Statutes,TiOe 42,lxal hrig3tiorldraknag.0 Oiwhcs that crom this pmperty,t3}servi-nciWlb 31s pnppertio-% must remain unobstructed and protected by an appropriabo Ca Mrnt by the Igndrx4 r, developer and Landaxvnerfdeveloper must do their due diligence to contact all owam of neighboruLg properties on this matter Storm D-ainape andlar Street Runoff must be retained on site. NO DISCHARGE into the iivc inigation system.i�VaoitWd— Whereas this properiy lir'.s within rho BoETa-Kuna frriganun Dislrici if is impvrlaul tharf rerweserrlariver of1hFs denLiopnwnt conrewl their o 1.i Ue s2002 alas ible to discuss the aang rre .syslem n-igr.frl arty wrrrk_ If a plfcable, the irrigallon syslym will ravelo_. &YAAL Wee&c sper~i�ealrom as se!by the Dktr�i't I f'roJ�cr. ritlerr GorrlirrrrGrtioh kpm Cite 601se-Kyna Innt arlion District and the C'ily ofMer�diurr is 1vq.gr ax in who wiii awn and vperare fhe irr[Q4rlr���2.t us�em. If the dislrief is ltr epos and raje ibis wessltri ed 6Mtffj2dPn systenz. Boise Preiecf x2rd C'onfrai will j aprire a srl ofiglans be serpr to.Jf►# Wortey,CM Surver C'oltsrdmorts. fr&- at I��U Wato rower.4rreer.hferirftrrn,7rfako 836 -913 fir k4 gvic u,Cr)rr:rrrvnis aml frppry 'Phis development is subjact to idaho Code 31-3805,in accordance,this office ks requesting a Ml- siza hard copy of the Irrigation and drai nagc plans. City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions 191 1 E. Ada County Highway District(ACHD) Miranda Gold,Rrosidcnl IC9rxt Galdkharpa�amrrroporwr AF ACHDDaw WKinriev.[Gmrt 50-r o Artricia Nil=rk C0PHmikbkWY61 September 22,2025 To: Amanda McNutt,via email Brighton Corporation 2929 W Navlgalor Drive, Sulte 400 McMdiian, ID 83642 Subject: MPP25-0023! H-2025.0041 Southeast Comer of Lake Hazel Road and Meridian Road Apex Zenith Phase 1 This is a staff level approval via preliminary plat for Apex Zenith Phase 1. On August 25,2025,the Ada County Highway District reviewed and approved this site as part of MER28.00801A-2025-0078 Oostco al Meridian for a new warehwse, fuel facility, and distribution center an 23.6-acres. The site-spe&k cpnditionr.of appnpwal Aw apply to MPP25-0023lH-2025--0041 Apex Zenith Phase 1 for the devel€pmenl of 7 cornrnercial lets. The applicant will be required to pay all appliDable platting and review fees prior to fiinal approval If you have any questions, please conlact me at{208)387-6391_ Sincerely, KarsLeigh Troyer Planner Development Services cc: City of fulerldlan(Nick Napoli),via emall City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions 192 F. Idaho Transportation Department(ITD) Charlene Way From: Kendra Conder<Kendra.Conder@itdJdaho.gov-, Sent; Monday,October 2a, 2025 8.59 AM To: Clerks Comment Subject: Apex Zenith PP H-2025-0041 External Sender-Please use caution with links or attachments. Good morning, ITD has reviewed the application transmittal for H-2025-0041 and does not have any comments.The Department is workingwith the applicantto finalize a STAR agreement,which will facilitate transportation improvements for thissite. Thankyou, Kendra Conder District 3 1 Development Services Coordinator Idaho Transportation Department Office:208-334-8377 Colt:208.972-3190 V. FINDINGS A. Preliminary Plat and Short Plat(UDC-6B-6) In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat,the decision-making body shall make the following findings: 1. The plat is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and is consistent with this unified development code; Staff finds 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 ad are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Stafffinds public services are currently being extended and will be available to serve 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; Staff finds 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; Staff finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development. City of Meridian I Department Report V. Findings 193 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and Staff finds the proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. Staff is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that need to be preserved with this development. B. Private Streets In consideration of the private street application the decision-making body shall make the following findings: 1. The design of the private street meets the requirements of this Article; Stafffinds the design of the private street meets the requirements listed in Article A of the private street code. 2. Granting approval of the private street would not cause damage,hazard, or nuisance,or other detriment to persons,property, or uses in the vicinity; Staff finds the proposed private streets will not cause damage, hazard, or nuisance, or other detriment to persons,property, or uses in the vicinity. 3. The use and location of the private street shall not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and/or the Regional Transportation Plan; and The proposed access points to arterial roadways were previously approved by City Council with the Apex Zenith application (H-2024-0052). Due to the previous approval, staff finds the private streets do not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and the Regional Transportation Plan. 4. The proposed residential development(if applicable)is a mew or a gated development community,promotes infill, or is a planned unit development. Not applicable. The proposed development is not residential. vi. ACTION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed preliminary plat with the conditions listed above in Section V. B. Commission: Pending C. City Council: Pending City of Meridian I Department Report VI. Action 194 EXHIBITS A. Project Area Maps (link to Project Overview) 1. Aerial Vll. Legend �a Project Location m ;,';Area of Impact ,o OAnalysis -/ I iAal f , gp IC' ....: •,.yam ., �` . 2. Zoning Map Legend Project Location ;;;Area of Impact _ R1 r ® Analysis R-4 TN-R R-2 R's r RUT ' R-4 R-2#R-•12- = R-8 i R-15 C-C r R;6 r RR C-G N RUT R-4 City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 195 3. Future Land Use Legend Project Location �� Area of Impact O Analysis ®® Medium Density Resid n ial High— Density Residential MU-RG 1 - 1 MU-C 1 1 ,Med-High Density Residential Low Density Residential 4. Planned Development Map Legend I� Project Location0 Area of Impact . m City Limits Planned Parcels OAnalysis 1 Ed Y[ - Nil I �n �F 1 - ' ® -17 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 l l 1 t ]1] 1 1 � I hL { 1 I y 1 I , 1 1 I ---------- City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 196 B. Subject Site Photos Al i . — .. .� .... -: r.1:art\ - '•`.�'rrr. City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits Fl 97 C. Service Accessibility Report PARCEL 51406223020 SERVICE ACCESSIBILITY overall Score: 19 16th Percentile Description r i Location In City Limits GREEN Extension Sewer Trunkshed mains < 50Dff,from parcel GREEN Floodplain Either not within the 1 DO yr floodp'e� ' _ _ °_ - GREEN Emergency Services Fire Response time < 5 min. GREEN Emergency Services Police Not enough data to report average rc-_r=r__ - 'r v RED Pathways Within 1/4 mile of future pathways -E--o'N Transit Not within 1/4 of current or future transit route RED J Arterial Road Buildout Status Ultirnate 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 School Drivability Not within 2 miles driving of existing or future school RED Park Walkability No park within walking distance by park type RED City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits 198 D. Landscape Plan (date: 8/27/2025) ZENrTH SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PUTT MERIDVW,IDAHO AI li:RYY^ I _ 7- �ifiWYrrr Pr r� r� ® J SO r w _ OEM m LANDSCAPE COVER R� E .,-��.e IEHRH 5l1B[NNSIOM Y,,,y` MERI[Wy IB wPN10_- ----.-- —`�'- ip i yE�� �m._ MIN - =e •xv_•-,��=.tea:s.e:sra � .I:•. •�-�:���r�x Via. 1pL' i '>�iYS'SLSSLdS'yi6'�lrwr I IERRH SIIBENNSIOR . Ion - � IP120 City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 199 1 I M-Eg--- VZO ----- ' I p _= I� ZENITH WBENYISgM y y� -I MEWEU ID 11V1�5CRPE PU4N IPLiO City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 200 E. Preliminary Plat(date: 9/18/2025) ZENITH SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT A PARCEL OF LAND BEING A PORTION OF tOTA OF SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 2 NORTH,RANGE 1 EAST,(WISE MERIDIAN,CITY OF ME RIOIAN, ADA COUNTY,IDAHO I� 4L ----- II I I I I ' I I -- I I, _----- I iEHfRl5�9LIY➢SIDM �- g MElWIAH,ID lit m MATCH LINE SEE BELOW RIGHTr �S ------ - J;_.—z.. ---—-------- [I - + f i I rImamo ;I I o MATCH LINE- SEE ABOVE LEFT C P�/V4�J�S.'�7i1Lf�'i@,7R�.�,.�-• ZEHfR15�901V610H M 1� EPIDIfW.10 ■L.■z � PP7A g City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 201 F. Conceptual Building Elevations iw A 1 City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 202 G. Street Section Exhibit s - o 2 0 N w Y mewK C m'1x-u se'p.rec C Y R O r n,ennr..ma.ery om.cx[,IYI rt re wbs n vr-r.w wsm s� � mP•�'oaf sw w r r.n rrt-nw xw,es wr.cro wwres PRIVATE STREET SECTION A S. MOMENTUM LN., E.TOWER LN. SCALP NM km g EXLO F 9 City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 203 W IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Hill's Century Farm Townhomes (H-2024-0072) by Brighton Corporation, generally located at the corner of S. Tavistock Ave. and E. Hill Park Street with the inclusion of the following parcels: R3636090060, R3636090040, R363080240, S1133212576and R3636080110. Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2024-0072 A. Request: Rezone of 5.45 acres of land from the C-N zoning district to the R-15 zoning district. B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 70 homes and 18 common lots spanning across 9.126 acres. C. Request: Development Agreement Modification to supersede the existing development agreement. 204 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: November 20, 2025 ITEM # 6 PROJECT NAME:, Hill's Century Farm Townhomes (H-2024-0072) I wish to testify Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing (mark X (Please Print) HOA? if yes) 1 2 3 1 ) 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT C��fEPIDIAN*,,--, DEPARTMENT REPORT o a H o HEARING 11/20/2025 Legend DATE: Project Location ,. TO: Planning&Zoning Commission ,.. @ ;,�;Area of Impact �.= City Limits FROM: Nick Napoli,Associate Planner O Analysis 208-884-5533 nnapoli@meridiancity.org r7 APPLICANT: Eli Benski SUBJECT: H-2024-0072 � f Hill's Century Farms Townhomes g, LOCATION: Generally located at the corner of S. Tavistock Avenue and E. Hill Park Street ' with the inclusion of the following parcels: R3636090060,R3636090040, Alp � R3636080240, S1133212576, R3636080110. I. PROJECT OVERVIEW A. Summary The applicant requests a rezone of 5.45 acres from the C-N zone to the R-15 zone, a preliminary plat consisting of 70 homes and 18 common lots spanning across 9.1 acres, and a new development agreement to supersede the existing development agreement. B. Issues/Waivers - The subject development will be served by Hillsdale Elementary School,Lake Hazel Middle School,and Mountain View High School. Hillsdale Elementary and Mountain View High are both over capacity. C. Recommendation Staff: Approval with a new DA and conditions. Commission: Pending D. Decision Council: Pending City of Meridian I Department Report 1. Project Overview 205 I1. COMMUNITY METRICS Table 1: Land Use Description Details Map Ref. Existing Land Use(s) Vacant - Proposed Land Use(s) Commercial and Residential - Existing Zoning C-N and R-15 VII.A.2 Proposed Zoning R-15 Adopted FLUM Designation MU-N VII.A.3 Proposed FLUM Designation MU-N Table 2: Process Facts Description Details Preapplication Meeting date 8/27/2024 Neighborhood Meeting 10/22/2024 Site posting date 11/7/2025 Table 3: Community Metrics Agency/Element Description/Issue Reference Ada County Highway District • Comments Received Yes - • Commission Action Required No - • Access S.Tavistock Avenue and Hill Park Street;Local Streets - • Traffic Level of Service Amity Road:Better than"E" - ITD Comments Received No Meridian Public Works Wastewater IV.B • Distance to Mainline Available at site • Impacts or Concerns Yes; See PW's Site Specific Conditions. J Meridian Public Works Water IV.B • Distance to Mainline Available at site r • Impacts or Concerns no School District(s) West Ada School District IV.D • Capacity of Schools Hillsdale Elementary School(Architectural/Program):700 - /675 Lake Hazel Middle School: 1000 Mountain View High School:2175 • Number of Students Enrolled Hillsdale Elementary School:768 - Lake Hazel Middle School:987 Mountain View High School:2479 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 206 Figure l: One-Mile Radius Existing Condition Metrics Reference Parcel:R3636080240 Date Retrieved:2025/1/27 Parcel Count Parcel Acreage Infiii Indicator: 1,692 508 Surrounding Area 35% ►vot city 4D 49 ® City Limits 2,104 941.3 ■ Not City Household Change Household& Population Growth Households 02020 Population Change:19.5°I° Population ■Growth (Household and Population Change since 2010 Decennial) 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 Use Types Residential Addresses All Addresses ■ Single-family Multi-family is 0% 2%% is ® Commercial Preliminary Plats (last 5-years) Conditional Use Permit(last 5-years) Proposed I I Proposed Pending Pending Approved Approved 0 500 1000 1500 2000 0 0.5 1 ■ Single-family ® Multi-family Figure 2:ACHD Summary Metrics 0 Amity Road Existing Lanes © Planned Lanes Existing Level . Comments a Programmed IFYP © Programmed CIP E City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics 207 Figure 3: Service Impact Summary impactService ■ ■ Ready Marginal Caution Odd Qa City of Meridian Department Report II. Community Metrics 208 I11. STAFF ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code(UDC) A. General Overview The subject properties are designated as Mixed-Use Neighborhood(MU-N)on the Future Land Use Map(FLUM). The MU-N designation is intended to allocate areas where neighborhood serving uses and dwellings seamlessly integrate into the urban fabric. The intent is to avoid predominantly single- use developments by incorporating a variety of uses. The applicant requests to rezone 5.45 acres of land from C-N to R-15, a preliminary plat for 70 building lots and 18 common lots, and a development agreement modification. The applicant's narrative states that by rezoning the property to R-15,the FLUM designation will not be impacted as residential uses are allowed in the MU-N designation. The applicant also states that the proposed single-family attached units will complement nearby commercial and civic uses, including medical offices,retail, storage facilities,Hillsdale Elementary School,the YMCA,and Hillsdale Park. The project falls within the MU-N designation's intended mix of 30%to 60%residential uses. This broader MU-N designation was established through a Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPAM)in 2015, allowing for a diverse mix of uses. The existing C-N zoning was originally part of a concept plan that envisioned three(3) commercial pad sites on the north side of the property, and a seventy-six(76)unit assisted living facility on the east side. While the R-15 portion was envisioned to be independent living. The applicant cites changing market demand as the basis for the requested rezoning and land use amendment. While staff is generally supportive of the overall concept plan,there are concerns regarding the continued reduction of commercial pad sites in south Meridian,where neighborhood-serving commercial opportunities are already limited. It should also be noted that much of the property proposed for rezoning was previously approved for an assisted living facility,a residential use within a commercial zone. The Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council should carefully consider whether rezoning the commercial pad sites is appropriate. In addition,according to the student generation rates,the development will create forty- three(43) school aged children. Currently,the three schools that will service this area are Hillsdale Elementary School,Lake Hazel Middle School,and Mountain View High School. Both Hillsdale Elementary and Mountain View High are over capacity for the 24-25' enrollment. Comprehensive Plan policy 2.01.01 C encourages the applicants to maintain a range of residential land use designations that allow diverse lot sizes, housing types, and densities. The immediate area consists primarily of single-family detached homes. By introducing single- family attached homes,the applicant is helping diversify the housing type in this area of south Meridian. It is also important to note that the subject properties were contemplated as primarily independent senior living and assisted living which are residential uses allowed in commercial zones. Comprehensive Plan policy 2.01.01 G states development should avoid the concentration of any one housing type or lot size in any geographical area;provide for diverse housing types throughout the City. The applicant is proposing the addition of four(4) single family detached homes and sixty-six (66) single family-attached homes which will diversify the housing types in the immediate area. Comprehensive Plan policy 2.06.02D encourages a diversity of housing, recreation, and mobility options to attract and sustain the local workforce. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 209 With the location of the proposed subdivision,the applicant is providing a mix of housing types in the area that is in close proximity to neighborhood serving uses, a regional park,the YMCA, and Hillsdale Elementary School. This will allow for opportunities to live,work,and play in the general vicinity. Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.02.02C: Support infill development that does not negatively impact the abutting, existing development. Infill projects in Downtown should develop at higher densities, irrespective of existing development. This project is considered infill as it is one of the last pad sites to redevelop in the Hill Century Farm Development. Completing the subdivision will allow for better connectivity in the area for both pedestrians and vehicles. Table 4: Proiect Overview Description Details History CPAM-15-001,AZ-15-004,RZ-15-007,MDA-15-007,PBA-15-012,FP- 15-023,FP-15-005,H-2019-0134,A-2019-0225. Phasing Plan 1 Phase Residential Units 66 Attached Single-Family Homes and 4 Single-Family Detached Homes Open Space 1.76 acres or 19.3% Amenities Picnic Shelter,Pathway Extension Acreage 9.1 acres Lots 70 Buildable and 18 Common Density Gross: 7.8 du/ac;Net: 14.9 du/ac B. History In 2015 the subject sites were included in a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment,Annexation, and Rezone. The CPAM changed the FLUM designation of approximately 87.01 acres of land from Low Density Residential to Mixed Use Neighborhood. Additionally,the applicant requested annexation of 78.62 acres of land with the R-8 and C-N zoning with a rezone of 8.39 acres of land from R-8 to the C-N zoning district. The primary driver behind the change from LDR to MU-N FLUM designation was for the incorporation of neighborhood serving use in close proximity to residential and assisted living. In addition, in 2019 the applicant applied for a modification to the conditional use permit for the assisted living shown in the original concept plan. This changes the location of the assisted living to the interior of the commercial area and within the subject properties proposed to be rezoned. C. Site Development and Use Analysis 1. Proposed Use Analysis (UDC 11-2): The applicant seeks to rezone 5.45 acres of land to the R-15 zoning district and create a preliminary plat across the 9.1-acre site to consist of 70 buildable lots. The proposed single family attached and detached homes are intended to provide a mix of housing opportunities within the Mixed-Use Neighborhood designation. The applicant's narrative states the rezone of 5.45 acres to R-15 will continue to be consistent with the 30-60% of residential uses allowed in the MU-N FLUM designation. The calculations provided by the applicant bring the area to 59.2% residential which is compliance with the parameters of the comprehensive plan.Additionally,detached and attached single family homes are a permitted use in the R-15 zoning district per UDC Table 11-2A-2. 2. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): The applicant is proposing single-family attached homes (66)and single-family detached homes (4),which are listed as a principal permitted use in UDC Table 11-2A-2 for the R-15 zoning district. Any future development shall comply with the dimensional standards for the R-15 district listed in UDC Table 11-2A-7. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 210 D. Design Standards Analysis 1. Qualified Open Space &Amenities (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3G): A minimum of 15% qualified open space is required to be provided in the R-15 district. Based on the eastern 9.1-acre portion of the site proposed to develop at this time, a minimum of 1.37-acres of common open space is required that meets the minimum quality standards in UDC 11-3G-3A.2 and qualified open space standards in UDC 11-3G-3B. A total of 1.76-acres (19.3%)is proposed consisting of linear open space,parkways, and a shared open space greater than 5,000 square feet. In addition,Hillsdale park is directly south across E. Hill Park Street. Staff is recommending a pedestrian connection through Lot 87, Block 1 to provide better connectivity to the commercial to the north. Based on 9.1-acres,a minimum of two(2)points of site amenities are required. The applicant is proposing a picnic area on site that is greater than 5,000 square feet for a total of two(2) points,meeting the UDC requirements. Additionally,the applicant is providing pedestrian connection to Hillsdale Park to the south. 2. Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): i. Landscape buffers along streets The proposed development will abut several local streets including E. Hill Park Street and S. Tavistock Avenue.Each of these streets require a ten(10) foot landscape buffer. The proposed landscape plan meets the UDC requirements for the landscape buffer widths. Vegetation coverage will be confirmed with the final plat. In addition,the applicant is proposing five(5)private streets(Woodmurra Lane, Newbridge Lane,Kalinga Lane,Boswell Lane, and Stockenham Lane)which will all have eight(8)foot parkways and sidewalks that are included inside the private street common lot. ii. Tree preservation The applicant submitted a tree mitigation plan proposing the relocation of eleven(11) existing trees and the removal of six(6) existing trees. The applicant shall submit this mitigation plan to the City Arborist before any trees are removed as set forth in UDC I I- 3B-1 OC.5. The arborist will determine if the two(2)trees proposed to be removed that are four(4)caliper inches shall be mitigated for or not. The applicant shall submit a letter from the city arborist with the final plat application confirming the mitigation plan is approved. iii. Storm integration Per UDC 11-313-11,the applicant shall meet the intent to improve water quality and provide a natural, effective form of flood and water pollution control through the integration of vegetated,well designed stormwater filtration swales and other green stormwater facilities into required landscape areas,where topography and hydrologic features allow if part of the development. iv. Pathway landscaping Pathway landscaping shall comply with the requirements outlined in UDC 11-313-12. The applicant must provide a landscape strip at least five(5) feet wide along both sides of the pathway. To enhance design flexibility,variations in the strip's width are encouraged to allow trees to be planted farther from the pathway,reducing the risk of root damage. However,the landscape strip must maintain a minimum width of two(2)feet to ensure City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ proper pathway maintenance. The strips shall be landscaped with a combination of trees, shrubs, lawn, and/or other vegetative ground cover. 3. Parking (UDC 11-3C): i. Residential parking analysis Off-street parking is required per the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6;the number of parking spaces is based on the number of bedrooms per unit. The applicant shall comply with these standards. Each single-family residence will be evaluated at the time of building permit submittal. ii. Bicycle parking analysis The UDC does not require bicycle parking in single-family attached, detached, and townhomes developments. 4. Building Elevations (Comp Plan, Architectural Standards Manual): Goal 5.01.02D of the Comprehensive Plan highlights the need for effective building design and landscaping to buffer, screen,beautify,and integrate commercial,multifamily,and parking areas with existing neighborhoods. In response,the developer has submitted a conceptual elevation package. The materials included in the elevations are board and batten, brick,asphalt shingles,metal roofing, stucco, and stone. The single-family attached units require design review approval and are subject to the residential design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual. Additionally,the DA requires development to incorporate high quality architectural design and materials and thoughtful site design to ensure quality of place consistent with the Comprehensive Plan(see pg. 3-10). 5. Fencing (UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): No fencing is depicted on the landscape plan. The UDC(11-3A-7A.7)requires the developer to construct fences abutting pathways and common open space lots to distinguish common from private areas; if fencing is proposed,it should be depicted on a revised landscape plan along with a detail of the fencing type proposed or alternative compliance may be requested to the standard. 6. Parkways (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-17): Per Comp Plan policy 3.07.01C appropriate landscaping,buffers, and noise mitigation with new development along transportation corridors(setback,vegetation,low walls,berms, etc.) is required. Per the UDC the minimum width of parkways planted with Class II trees shall be eight(8) feet. The width can be measured from the back of curb where there is no likely expansion of the street section within the right-of-way; the parkway width shall exclude the width of the sidewalk. Class II trees are the preferred parkway trees. The applicant is proposing parkways along Woodmurra Lane, Newbridge Lane, Kalinga Lane, Boswell Lane, and Stockenham Lane that appear to be in compliance with this standard. The applicant shall comply with the standards for UDC 11-3A-17 with submittal of the final plat. E. 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 stress the need to minimize the City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 212 number of direct access points onto arterial streets. This can be achieved through cross-access agreements, access management, frontage and backage roads,and enhancing connectivity through local and collector streets. Additionally,these goals highlight the importance of incorporating pedestrian access connectors in new developments to link subdivisions and support neighborhood connectivity within a community pathway system. Access to the proposed subdivision is off of S. Tavistock and E. Hill Park Street,both local streets. The applicant has made four(4)connection points to these local streets through three (3)private streets and one(1) alley. The applicant has submitted a private street application to run concurrently with this application to allow for the construction of five(5)private streets. Please see section E4 below for analysis on the private street standards. In addition,the applicant is completing the extension of E. Hill Park Street from S. Tavistock Avenue to S. Hillsdale Avenue, a collector street,which will improve circulation in the area from the existing subdivisions to the east and west. 2. Multiuse Pathways,Pathways (UDC 11-3A-5, Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-8): Comprehensive Plan policy 4.04.01A ensures that new development and subdivisions connect to the pathway system. The subject site does not have a multi-use pathway that runs on the property,however,there is an existing ten(10)foot multi-use pathway on the southern boundary that connects to Hillsdale Park. The applicant has proposed an internal pathway/sidewalk system that connects to the 10-foot multi-use pathway on the south and to the properties to the north. In addition, staff is recommending a north-south pedestrian connection through Lot 87, Block 1 to better connect the commercial with the residential. 3. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17): Detached sidewalks are proposed adjacent to public and private streets in accord with UDC 11-3A-17. The applicant is proposing sidewalks on both sides of each private street that connect to the existing sidewalk connections in the larger development. 4. Private Streets (UDC 11-3F-4): The applicant is proposing five(5)private streets in the form of Woodmurra Lane, Newbridge Lane,Kalinga Lane,Boswell Lane, and Stockenham Lane with this application. These private streets are depicted on the plat and have an sixty(60) foot and fifty-four(54) foot easements that spans across the full street section including thirty-three(33) and twenty- seven(27) foot street width, eight(8) foot parkways,and five(5)foot sidewalks on both sides. Since this plat is located within the MU-N FLUM designation,it is critical to have connectivity for pedestrians that are integrated with vehicular access points and streets. The applicant has provided five(5)foot sidewalks on both sides of the private streets which will connect with ten(10)foot multi-use pathway along S. Hillsdale Avenue and a five(5)foot sidewalk along S. Tavistock Avenue. In addition,the applicant has provided street crossings to connect with Hillsdale Park to the south of the proposed development. This will help promote the connectivity and walkability that is envisioned in the MU-N principles. Since this is an infill project,the applicant is in compliance with the private street standards and shall comply with ACHD's structural standards for the proposed streets. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 213 5. Subdivision Regulations (UDC 11-6): i. Common driveways Per UDC 11-6C-3D, common driveways shall serve a maximum of four(4) dwelling units. In no case shall more than three(3)dwelling units be located on one(1) side of the driveway. The applicant is not proposing any common drives with this application. ii. Block face UDC 11-6C-3-regulates block lengths for residential subdivisions. Staff has reviewed the submitted plat for conformance with these regulations. The intent of this section of code is to ensure block lengths do not exceed 750 ft, although there is the allowance of an increase in block length to 1,000 feet if a pedestrian connection is provided. In no case shall a block face exceed one thousand two hundred(1,200)feet,unless waived by the City Council. iii. Alley The applicant is proposing alley loaded units. The alleys are twenty(20) feet in width, which meets the requirements listed in UDC 11-6C-3B.5. However,alleys should design where the entire length is visible from a public street, currently the applicant does not meet this requirement. As a result, staff is recommending the removal of Lot 13,Block 1 and replacing it with a micro path common lot to allow for the full length of the alley to be visible. F. Services Analysis 1. Waterways (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-6): The proposed development has a private gravity irrigation line that runs through the west and southern boundaries of the site. These gravity lines will be piped and encumbered within the ten(10)foot public utility, irrigation and drainage easement. 2. Pressurized Irrigation(UDC I1-3A-15): An underground pressurized irrigation system is required to be installed to provide irrigation to each lot in the subdivision in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-15. 3. Storm Drainage (UDC 11-3A-18): An adequate storm drainage system is required in all developments by the City's adopted standards, specifications, and ordinances. Design and construction shall follow best management practices as adopted by the City as outlined in UDC 11-3A-18. Storm drainage will be proposed with a future final plat. 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. Comprehensive Plan policy 3.03.03G require urban infrastructure be provided for all new developments,including curb and gutter, sidewalks,water and sewer utilities. City of Meridian I Department Report 11I. Staff Analysis ■ IV. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. Meridian Planning Division 1. A Development Agreement(DA)is required as a provision of rezone of this property. Prior to approval of the rezone ordinance, a DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian, the property owner(s) at the time of annexation ordinance adoption, and the developer. A final plat shall not be submitted until the DA and Ordinance is approved by City Council. The DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning Division within six(6)months of the City Council granting the rezone. The DA shall, at a minimum, incorporate the following provisions IF City Council determines rezone is in the best interest of the City: a. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the preliminary plat, landscape plan, common open space/site amenity exhibit, and conceptual building elevations included in Section VIII and the provisions contained herein. b. Any future development of the site must comply with the City of Meridian ordinances in effect at the time of the development. 2. The final plat shall include the following revisions: a. Graphically depict the three(3) foot wide public utility,drainage, and irrigation easements on the sides of Lots 1-14,Block 1; Lots 17-27,Block 1;Lots 30-41,Block 1; Lots 45-56,Block 1; Lots 59-65,Block 1; Lots 67-76,Block 1;Lots, 80-84,Block 1. b. Graphically depict and add a plat note for the public utility, irrigation, and drainage easement on the front and rear of each lot. c. Add a plat note stating the location and placement of the three(3) foot wide easement for public utilities,irrigation, and drainage on Lots 1-14,Block 1; Lots 17-27,Block 1; Lots 30-41,Block 1; Lots 45-56,Block 1; Lots 59-65,Block 1; Lots 67-76,Block 1; Lots, 80- 84,Block 1. d. Provide a north/south pedestrian connection through the central open space to allow for better pedestrian connectivity between the residential and commercial. e. Remove Lot 13, Block 1 and replace it with a micro path common lot to allow for the full length of the alley to be visible to meet UDC 11-6C-3B.5. f. Add a plat note providing the CCR instrument number for the maintenance agreement for the private streets. 3. The landscape plan submitted with the final plat shall include the following revisions: a. Include mitigation calculations on the plan for existing trees that are proposed to be removed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-IOC.5. The Applicant shall coordinate with the City Arborist(Kyle Yorita Ayorita(kmeridiand0 org)to determine mitigation requirements prior to removal of existing trees from the site. b. Provide an amenity detail with the submittal of the final plat. c. Remove Lot 13,Block 1 and replace it with a micro path common lot to allow for the full length of the alley to be visible to meet UDC 11-6C-3B.5. 4. The proposed plat and subsequent development are required to comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table I I-2A-7 for the R-15 zoning district. 5. Comply with all subdivision design and improvement standards as set forth in UDC I I-6C-3, including but not limited to cul-de-sacs, alleys,driveways,common driveways,easements, blocks, street buffers, and mailbox placement. City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions 215 6. Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 for single-family dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. 7. Depicted fencing on a revised landscape plan along with a detail of the fencing type proposed or apply for alternative compliance in accordance with 11-3A-7. 8. The preliminary 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. 9. The final plat shall substantially comply with the approved preliminary plat as set forth in UDC 11-6B-3C. 10. The applicant and/or assigns shall have the continuing obligation to provide irrigation that meets the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3B-6 and to install and maintain all landscaping as set forth in UDC 11-313-5,UDC 11-3B-13 and UDC 11-3B-14. 11. Comply with all of the private street standards listed in UDC 11-3F. 12. The Applicant shall comply with all ACHD conditions of approval. 13. The Applicant shall have a maximum of two(2)years to obtain City Engineer's signature on a final plat in accord with UDC 11-6B-7. 14. Staff s failure to cite all relevant UDC requirements does not relieve the applicant from compliance. City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions 216 B. Meridian Public Works PRI-PLAT CONDI IONS ww5lewaW r.:._L,S�ko$C�►'ir 5ewefAYaNaleatOL- S�M�ALo4 �f,11+er�tlyd • [summed Pm" See spplwr uon $wmv FRU's • wRAFbeElimny E 4nti • PMJRLd COnPSterrk Yes wnhvrw mastw PLMfFMj1itvnM Impattrtamruxrnx Soo PuWc 1Mwkx Sit4 Spwcifrc CwWitipmx Warner _ • ¢�xtaLrce ea Waicr Wstrr krsdable aiS�tt 5#ryGL� PrtISLrl�tr� + PAimnedFNOJKt '.Mapp1WA4;n Viz*T ERU'ti • w ted"Irty N4" • FMjL3QCQnSJSterrk Yes wth waker hnsW FUdl kapjcWCarKcnr* Noft- rt N1.14 %VngAirllFPj%WT.MF,.7 $ilr Spmi Fir{'ooditimm at kpprevni I. Eucirwertovcnbifthtrx ism adlaasike.IFaWeLlishmairdeoIhcsiteiimLmhatabwdkmcd Nr atgulmacy Lkgwrgenc-mu,Pad prWirrsbPndonrwLl mull Ue pm%id4d La IN City Unn N Wad for PrcssLrized iniga n. 2, F.uch phaur of ilk,L4-L gUq=um will acj3d to hC W xxrify mimrnkLm frrk ffim prCxLmuv u en 1imuki'm'cad %�NVF �y WPLrr loam rgquiSV 3u4 EaW'roKnL. d. Existirkg w ftW maim dXN 7dL Ivru sa L- m=1 draT it From 3 S Id the ww%of Ibc pLgronLA mam to Ck On to Ok 1-x fuek Ilrr7nh of L•.Kekietp[in Prnx id4 31k OL rr 71Lr%L.Ajo rllJll■ S_ No tt%.Lien 4w IP06Lpolea$*PId Lx%<ihim 9 nfrhe hrdrmfttrvaiL.Tmrlm mFudln Lif ie I&I Xv 01 11kv TAOCRW 14k nUl k Ark%unucsd inner main subs shall Lx aLurdgmed Ft*City of?Amjdi m 573rwieuds 4_ 1'ILxurs no st x[L]L N Wei PUI dWLt9h LrAhratrerL Lhft:l" City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions ■ Gq� Crdid+•+9FAppri.-ml I. Appllewi sfialk cvardlnalt a aler and wwcr man siac and mullag wub ilu Public Wrorks JJCWLrngwt,rind CxmllC lkmrdWd dorm F ar Ca mt!mts for My Mjdpp*W MR"Loro Lo I9D4 idl• ser{xe omesidtof a public FLA[-af--xay- Minimum eovcr&�ustwcr maim kIkk'L fcer.if4v xx "wP of Pe Pr Im KI:16y3Ak!is k{'`n Apm IIrRti&N I IIIaaL Ph4nadq Iifk7d6k1Apl]N med ur c,anfarrnsJn'c'' dc of Cim of P-kddim Pubik Works�'`�Ik"�pamnmly Saandmni Spc ifiuldow, p5'I M%!Fi�F FLY d I%K k IIIC npIFI F#mrt JOL 6e ry.'Fp•Xrrlhla LnM"I MUMOPF r9Fl x'#1er minis L'.r aid I`NvONlIkk&%k4 MkI1I- Appkiewl may bxclligiEle Fora mcimbum¢mmi agnWMi;ML WI mfru6uuCLiav 4vLhmCmb7n]per lad['{'5r6-4 FJ rhr aVplrraart%hall pmuidr cowmen![%)fit oll}•chlic waLrr xowxt ma m mmxidr mf pu6lic Fiµlll of wat imOadv jd1 wnler r,:J{I{`4>od hydrmu,}. Ih�vt. nYmii WWON JIa]I Lt 291-1�4L%lik rrsr A wlnyk ulllpty.nr 3I7.Frr1 wide kw lnv 'Ihc rascmI mu 4IFuI1 rxrl be dDdbi;Lld%it Lbr*I.NA rsihtr dMbmt!ouL+xk Ih'r plat ppinms using Lke City orlltndlan's Hwxdard fbnns.The epalCmgmL drp11 Lt graph ipllly d+'RFcLcd on LhC pill ruF rrfC119111N pUgXv Wl %WIL nn vtizviud al-asmaemtiap ihr form atia`lmble hum PLdk 11L'pkrr a IqW kwnprlom pmparni b}an Idaho I.K47i Cd Priff mipryl[.nil!5Wvcyut-w•hF1'1'I 1mrmL lw[u*the mra mF the r cWOMl I reark,rd 1XfflRrrAI and am RU!'a I I'mapwiihb mriMsmd duLvievs 4rawked!EXHIBIT Bl for r4yww Do&€LMI;i19L Mom XCWdCd•mlg*4 Od4mjS d by a PFvFcuKKLll L.artd SurrsMne DO Nor RECORD. Aid a we so 6te pbL referemeLrlg iris dwixr i. MI esmir ors must be miiin Ftivd.evvw' ed.wrd PPP%xr%I pkwjo k%CIOpocnl PAL rlpprmSa]. i. TtrtCiLy ofMrli m tn:gthnihml pm9wixd irigwwrl s4sltrurs be sapplied br a vex-ircmi ld vowvv kveolei RAW I L*39-61.the npplicaOL ibould hC Flquned Lu uac any rSLUi7re LUFfMv a WOM*aratAht 16e htirhIM SkIAO. If l xU&CL ee WCO ymmeL Is&M a4ad3hle-a%ihFk-pornC wrMrt4tine ar I*e41hnarrjr warm rY wrq OW I he vgwred Ff n—Slv-pnrrd wpr Nki%+vs willmd. Cho do elPp,C a FII he n:kp 7L ibic for the Ii2ymcm Stf MmvOtcnu fLTt Lh L-OItIrI M aft-us p1imr W ppm lu re£tiviq de%elopmvil p w apprrn A S All gFrla#ritmOLIr%*Thar arl'mgrnwd prbe rlrmovmd FhnR he pnatrlm ripoalursnn 4r final pla. h1'1heCih'linprlerr lym s[nxlurrr Ihatare�bwwd lu ratm;un shall bu sables+W etialurPFurl 1t■Id pmprlbl�s"muli-nirimi of ctr i mldrmi ng tin br an om Tkoi-i.rcC XI A I&V 6. All m4pmum dlnhe,.cnnlls.lmwra&or drains.culupveof mwml aamcmi.vs.Irtler;mLing. Itrprdrlp A In%I"ad;wizna and ran[ilIanWrta Lh[Or'i tchd wuhdlrlbcd AbjI hx addrw-LoW pcI UDC I I-'JAB. In performilig Itch+ u&d3c Spl iCML shall emply wi[h kdolao Cote 42-12a17 Uqd tpy q3¢r app Licat l4 Ixr or grpAaLlpn 1 Any udls Thai w ilk WE C6hLinbt Lo bt uae1 m Lrar he rlk.'i LIIY abandowd aomordtrg w Mahla V4dk Coddlupnd Simldmi1q Rulaw m&I.Ime Lehrvd by Me Idatw LlepaAadenl of Wab r RcKwkc & IIDWR).The W,lopey.Owmcr,ofpmjecr Enrilenl hall pmaedtiswm menl addw ming whpicrRlere rir peti Cxis7Fr5p r1Ll�nl6rdar5CLo(rlacnl,aor{ff rf Lmw-tire}will pommnuRto Lae tlmrd_ar pro:ide ttcond of d eFr Sb0I1doF11YciLI 11 A-LI l�aI L to br abwkit &die plajetr OwLftr eN thb n Flmpromeniai vi;mmwl cnnlart tibc IDWR{iFT1 OL at4 r RuICRI.Im!L'k!S n I Amin%Linwr. Hy&owolog.w:fHi-:K7.�y7�1r9f.FllPoF.any wuk isdLmr In accmnniixxamn an"wiii gwill 16 L-;en if;I vs bclltytd that the will Is leis rhvl I A Ft lkgj.PFWOl`CiVnrlllflt 5WM unh Inn R MI. '-•n lMrill tin the Orly pnat-in arny wuA heinr dmw;*Amummrfxwd the wcA Fmlaw wt a li- II ;A 1'Is IOW R 91114 tnsuli 111 MNIIWrlrl L%Vf k EW cxprnse ra dteammltarom the well 8 11' •..•Idu*I`I,piwcct,ha11 be T{'nwvgd dRFm wnwc jw 0tv(]rdlmnrrce -ISIxL Cenwal Dia[neC I l algh far Ilbmdorllrteml procadur"Ind Y- Sat:.}I_ plax.samuae}Vlhl!rasd vrnterspsrcrn shs13 be aWWd astd aed%314L mod L.., Ihv,Ida touliiiry Mown rligmel mLd ihr Floral PA For ibir Ipb %irion Shrill he,..vl[: .pi-i Lu mpphla6 RK buddift pCImFL9. City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions 218 I u.A IL.m nfrtrrd`L,Ir rash MVIX en the INVIP ML 4f I IaN w1111 br trgflWd rN all WN1aMF L:k'd krlciog.LmK6cV iog.ammki&L em,prior to Q*anrr an 9hL!goal*L I 1 ALI imph.L vrnLAP,ialcu%d Ro putt hk_mfdy and heallh shall 1'a CI+nLpleud Twgw 16%o tllmieir vfoF 5-ctprM '%hqr iQQ4 k)W 41 ft CFry km&uWCF.P{,--;r rnaF poa a p'rAy—ue*urpty lar m7h ioillwN mccitt irk ardctiot6 ln{`uy fzvi= "pinuir mrt Lhd Awl pad a,xL fanlL le W)c 1 I-KC1311 12 Appkwi•nalr1e rrqulkJ io p y Nblie Wadi.dere6pmwHl rAw n,It*.dud4uhimci" uLslLLxlion kmk as dkscrrnrard dwirp the plan mview prcaxss.prior io Lhe inum a 4YF u plat app"Id kutr. 13.Ii shall be she mprmwbiliq ofllrc jpplicart tp mirm Ihm all&n cluponcm frnnrccs COMPIr wit Lk AnkcrrtLum wlLh Uks&Liliraco-Ael and L4:Fa1r Hu,malL6 AC11. 14 �kpp!16;sm Mall b4 mmncihle QgFnNS lcilnn and compliwcewiLh 4my Sedipn4rl4 Psrinnkinp LhLhL;Ull}be rcqui:N-d by dfi Arm;f orFo a!LILeMLLLS 15.ile+rinpa Adl cx v um:nFgrINix LxxiLmii utih Ow xfmdim Pom OfrKr. I k CucupL cbm LLA mwtx zh it I Ix ubmWeil Lu i6c M rIO�UM Bui6dog ikpntmcoL"At bmkline pndLNV6!1%ill 0 enyimewd fillslfL1.uhrrc L1LI;Iay utwill eF ulop h11 MJLel,,rt 17. 1he aL ga vqP a*a :r sh411 br Rv1nu 16 Id RiLI A Lhal the%Uw L I`.LML'F11n-el[5 al. a Am f L i m Intt aam of ll-kut stuwd ik-Ih,LrhL--i nwNnlud rw.*knaonrlwm:r rLtl�.ulum nib o w I!Mift Lu L l LhK boffins a vzUOm Or L6E cruNI sr]Y N cil lhvm \i�al leas!I-FPOL:lm'v. Ix 11lr ippli4mce 4kdij 4!iPgvnea,hldl la ndpaln..Ne for Ln pcow-n dalI it gmmn andar drilmnq fa[ilitS aiOrn ibN5 pnrpeu 11La1 lW npi fbN ua14f 1bc w3!gi,1;wq{(Rn imRalL4ndistria or Ak'l 11) Md 4khism eudlneo shnl I t,hst wR L'raiFfjS'*IL1I%brit the 1 W 111nc#hdLr bcrn Ihmadd M a Dwedmce wish ihr apprvsod deslpF Plan; Th1 F{CriFFcrr-'I n%,I I fir nrqumd I1 Wm a crni5uK 8f OLLupaarp u LsOxd%f an\'SIMIL LOCi i AILIP IILr ML'L I 19.At Ow cnmpleiron ofdreVmicci-ih��eaT�p�p�lkanS dra11 Ile n ihON;!to mibr.Lk record drsu mpWw LkUtiv of i4�efkbaB ALoaCAD ganAu&. Airs rraord draswAmES nlusl be recnred and agvoxxd prior to Lhe isslldmec or a califlogion of moipsn4y for uny ;arlx;urrs w iihin The pTu*l 20.A UMLLL Lchl.IAW-All Amd U2 Im FILtIWJL'd B1 L`[6%A•xWMLUUcLFLLFI pLa1se.-'Sited hg us hl pl ngWIFernteLL rR lined in i x�1;m F;-f of lkc Irilryave cm Siandands for,Nvi i.Lylhtimv A of the sla.duds Lao trc fo,md H dLua�+laxwLiomdlaeekiw,dLrrc'LvLblit.,�11,onuvL'id-_'7� 21.Thvfii4l'O1 Malkllmw regL4M&dL 6'1e%IW-Mr pau W Ike Cray sperO Milike-091Y is d14 araaLrrtl cf 115%d the int]cwb*hwKn vk Fa 9w A irh mmpip4 srwzr,wnLa mud F sc m*wFu Lom peiof io faoi pksi MilLiluuurie.lhro rLlm4 tiryq br+rri FaLLaI Icy ri I iar iiLYF!<iH9 rnLirLaiu pwxi8rd bX lIs¢orFnKr Ilo Lre C'irr 111e sr�±c�F Lie poeelod Fn 11sL!lor,u nF p d ir,erp�plalG!slits L1fLnxi�car pdsn Fx ksrd Appk=inur Ills dN dpp11C11Irdn isx hmae r .gAimhpn ba FPLPW srn Lhd y-e }QFIYII Orally F C%VILPPocM I3epia•hneo4+ to P1ggg aXniao J.Tj ac TkTF,rrw<$ -jpr fix muff Infammwn m 07.2211. 22.Thic-ILI ofMrddim,regwres Amt tkrtmorirfpw wik C-"awnrRaly sacly iri theammmi.vr I'Mof Lre wW ew14vue1rnrl cost rkra1L ompkied:ewes_'Fnlci and scuba mfrm4ftrarre iar dwa rin Ol-iari`y%!rRm Ttn+Lurery ON fir+eaifkd by a liar ilrrd co€i wimm ynyv W by ihs ewwr ud Lk--C1iy.Tlic wkty ens he pooled irk de r6m nfm iuu.u:ablc Low of erMit.cmh depmil("Maki Appkanl niusr file an dpofCrliiW N soma.u h ich saP be Lrlumd an the Comm Lamy LhcrtlupeLtw L)LpuFLalcaL Wrhaiic. Plcax conuct Und D0,11aprotoL SL PJ=car mrlrc inf AL11;11;fm al 1:S7-',I t City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions 219 C. Irrigation Districts 1. Boise Project Board of Control �W W Wmmna gar a�no.+uric.►s w� Lk)is! PX"lEV 1' B0ARD OF CO.WROL +�r•+•d„arm.nn ow s.rnc,a Iwou,uoai,�.� ��[IIT n f'itT ER ii UOL.-��Ih -. ,-w.ia �LiY11F0f ii �NIwN�R�G� ,MIOK16 i0fepLC.11 #SGHILE�Rfi FI M,�16p["a�F• �IT�9l�9�,lI[T NrnR YAM fl rtR-�anrf itilaT+�FiRI/t[� MAW*W 0 76 IiW Jr-I.F� vY WrMR 25OL M fl,'i a4 17 ONDbar 2025 City 1=1grk'x DFF-m 33 E BVOd4WAY AMM Suiec E4Z Nwdlm 11),&164 RL IGII Camury Fmm T-u%vnlrelrnc% Thr-J%rxk#4C od E F l ill Paull MbA,FP,RI 11-211 A41073 New'eaAIrriprrlrumlllgnci NY-329-I}Uta5 MI-0SI,001-17,S77-dW-(W Cirnismahun I aural I IN-00 r,.33-T3*i.R I L OM- Nick NWI a_Flamer. Tlkru mu ix, Plow Non or Ncw Yak lrriludim THM69 raalitkm loc-A d on Ow *kivc- mmiurwd prupumws,bow"Ihey An Iir fact passam4L.wlld wafer right l"er Ideba Sbffi r, Title 42, k%cd1 3n6Eae:,n+draituP 40*1 OM(hW 1hi: JWPeM,to semc nciLhbcrr 4 prupcn1m nudt retrain unulklmled and pm1rc wl tj ain apprnprinft aomeni hg the inmle wnec,dc%vlWa:r rand cmirx-orr. [.wrinu rcT+*Ydoper mslxt d,l lheir Jut diliVUL5t k, L�.�i all nuncr%aF meigl6oriM proptvdco cm this OULLa. Ir ywr ha*c my further Llwa+ljWW Of U3MMo1at3L CUK041ii0a lii, Jft9t9t,plr-W rlo MA hebftnu In orarw t up it 001)344-11 a 1- r , 11omnL R.11thd yr Aawatm PrTiml Mui%m loft M L evo Kan?ca Wumunaocr,Div;2 0?K $7eRrq I lmmon Scl:.tetaty-rv*oLm.N Yll} FRV City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions 220 D. West Ada School District(WASD) or Other District/School MEMORAAIDUM:SCHOOL IMPACTS �fHPMIAN,, ♦_OMhMJ MD1WLORMrPiTDFP-NRTMENr 0"ober 22,2075 To! Rick Napck Amcaft Planrw CC: UP Parson,Current Plammnj Supervisor FROM: Bran McClure.L"•ra V Ptanr*q kwel1^soT RL H-U24 PD72=FIYI's[ennrry Farm towtdsorr4s CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ON 5CH00L.S 11w proposed res.drntrol eevrlvom-nt Bwl"Ioa Is generally loutm ai MODE HIM Park st Taws section-of the enema looks ar wrnaUtlwe lrnWs wer abroad area and prcmdrs 4miltlemem dau In ate5as Affeced by the suhjecT appllfatw}n.The Fallowing Infprmarran as intendvd asa reterePSe,rather than a decisim tvV,andserYestofurecasi the rtumber of mthaol-aged Ehildren,enrdled m both public and Private sciroafs,using dtv-wide cefisus data_ to dNa and wIdM tho tom Hw"am 1f►ete hAwL been 976 enthk4 m1tr 1160 unlit damlFq and 16 hwhI-family);pprodtd WIthwt a 1•mUtt taglks of ttse proj"t k Kajk# n reWNing In a�pro.dna,efy#;S sawtlWl W thklmrc farecaAed 5tW*nis Based on E nSitleownis Inn S � r Ekw FWVV MkWW "w TOW ■Tadllw�tlerrb .r�wWlr t�nrr� rYPt[.� Tofd L nits�lrr+r'd frPn JrrrFip4pn S�rJI+'A^![i�P for prlrr:n,narK Pralx Cn�rCJ'r-wll:�+�#�hanni lr�S ufi�nit}ayM�ir+e�v+f S s�'F T►+i5 44f0 rk�r'�Th i7�]p�'4V!'�Crpr!ttF PniF'Ortr fh r4gr.pfr�,riQ oMbiwwAf,ociLhmng the swo saapWa yf.Arfitwum Cofkmuni7gSw y5-pay domIs sa!ra de7xrmrM Pr'+s yrr he rE'dd dnd revorfmrne ty prrm'rr for Mk'k mad xm*vre IC�r wh. f City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions F221] fXMBfTA CHEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT-STUDENT GENERATION RATES west Ada 3.€hooi Lliktelct(w,xsb)uses a 5tudfint 6,vnpration"ate SSGpI to dotermirw what irnpaot future development will have an enrollments.using wASUs SSR,the following is City staff'saeiessmanr:The SGR iar Hlllsdale Elementwy SLMol r6 Q.6}ar undle famiy ane 0.2 for multi-tamitY.Barad an the sutmmitted apliAwicin materials,the proposed pvject w71 contain 71 singlr family unks and*mtiltl-family units resOft in imuxlcrm"y 43 school-m�ed children arross all grade levels Please noes that the suhkrt erole€t area has some eretna„s residle*pl enwemenu WNW are not Induded In cumulativeforecsst reoartloxl The pnwased project is within 0a latlarrrng jchoal Dnt,ndartes,tweremly,and appr&dal of the proreet map rtfcct pn rpllments at these sdwGls' 5000111 AttrrsdwKe Ann 2445'enroa>R@Rt Ardwectw411 "WWR capa€ltr Capacity Wid"E4mfntiry30ioW 766 70D 675 L&%k Hazel MaM S[haal 9S7 tOk7 - W4wnulnvmhvr girSrlWd 2479 21.7% Notes, r Student Lerner aGan Jtares are-eare Wore d"r�efertnce to lkie dcsjpi re .eui, --Y—�w.!.q•!t the iuf+MctPoprWiorsauoledsrbuororondiamceww. rhu irownwitponxinr"dedusorvfrmtice, rnata tkm a decrvw#Gal r jl ywrr coo be buitr An phmer and fait mwarts nor w rdtorr e ArdWr4!etsvofCtpariry-rhewpoarrrjtWM.,.trYinOwrirrwikjcho&Jsdesiprreddned-0tlthe Atrrriee,eJgenteW edtKa[aditd di!jn Wrht ur rfx GtN011P. City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions 222 E. Ada County Highway District(ACHD) IWMIL ACHDWne{,eM�ha'pr,CnniNWrwhrr / LS"W-Vj Cunmatlaar - 1t Ositrlca NRSWfn ConmlctlDfW Date:lanuary 29,2025 To Eli&9rtSkl,flrlglMon Co+p. 5Aaff Contact:Sarn Standal,Amirctant Traffic Engineer Project Descriptiatti Hilts Century Farms T11p GOCAvatlon Tbn detreftMent R ASUrr}ated to$e41Brwe V-hrCl9 MPS per day, 41 vehicle lyips pot rMOX in trio PM poak hour-based on too I rrttitum of Transpo.tat eat Eng ineer5 Trip GL-rwrabun Manual,TP editiom- Area Poads wil men NO he futura with 1 Ccimments: cof}fml ctingyou to mofe Ada Ferry nigh"ramlr.T-3Tt5IWinx Scram-Cvdan CAy.ir]-B3Tk-Ph 7M X17-OW-FX 34F'WD dwww&&4KWK+Y4 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 map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan in regard to the Mixed-Use Neighbor future land use map designation for the site. City of Meridian I Department Report V. Findings 223 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Stafffinds that the proposed map amendment and subsequent development will contribute to the range of housing opportunities available in the City. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; Stafffinds the proposed zoning amendment will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, or 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 that the proposed amendment will not result in any adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services to this site. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. This is not applicable due to this application being a rezone. B. Preliminary Plat and Short Plat(UDC-613-6) In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat,or short plat,the decision-making body shall make the following findings: 1. The plat is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and is consistent with this unified development code; Stafffinds the proposed plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code. 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Stafffinds that public services are available and can be extended into the site to accommodate the proposed development. 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the city's capital improvement program; City water and sewer and other utilities will be extended by the developer at their own cost, therefore, staff find the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Stafffinds there is 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. Stafffinds there are no natural, scenic, or historic features that need to be preserved with development of this property. C. Private Streets In consideration of the private street application the decision-making body shall make the following findings: City of Meridian I Department Report V. Findings 224 l. The design of the private street meets the requirements of this Article; Stafffinds the design of the private street meets the requirements listed in Article A of the private street code. 2. Granting approval of the private street would not cause damage,hazard, or nuisance,or other detriment to persons,property, or uses in the vicinity; Stafffinds the proposed private streets will not cause damage, hazard, or nuisance, or other detriment to persons,property, or uses in the vicinity. 3. The use and location of the private street shall not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and/or the Regional Transportation Plan; and Stafffinds the location of the private streets does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and Regional Transportation Plan. The proposed development will be finishing the construction of E. Hill Park Street(local street) which will help finish the transportation plan in this area. 4. The proposed residential development(if applicable)is a mew or a gated development community,promotes infill, or is a planned unit development. Stafffinds the proposed residential development promotes infill by developing some of the last empty sites in the general vicinity of the development. In addition, the proposed development will provide better vehicular connectivity. VI. ACTION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed modification to the Development Agreement, Rezone, and Preliminary Plat with the conditions of approval listed in Section IV. B. Commission: Pending C. City Council: Pending City of Meridian I Department Report VI. Action 225 � 1 AA MAN , 4 J A. k ' � �i;• 1.� 1171 I � R � i .. f� -SuLST-• d Y fb RY I cy }:. I \ .•, .,�: ill ;�; ,G. ,h', {�' �, AN 1�1 I!Illillll w■■ rj�, 11111 hull 11w dIII ig—__pll 1111 S ■ >• 11I11 1 IIIl1 Ilkl 11111 —_ am: ..AN list 111f 111� ! ■ • IIIIF i11111 13^=if 01,w111/.ANNE Iirlll . . .. 11ur m1d111 illllillll, -o= Illl�j - fh. „�IIV � - fl �. IIt111111111 w ■r . • �-W�S�— 1111111i1111 r -. 1�_Ir�� 111111 i``j 1111 111111 IIIIIIIIIItIL t• rr■■■ 1 Ilflrrl1rQ1111{ ANMIR �r C■m111E I111r f fu.w _ 9 LI■III■p� ♦ 1/ 111111 __uu ANN iiiii==_ Ili a1 a`11 1 111=■,�' =-_— w ANN ANN ANN IIII V 11 Mir �lil Ia1 : ,�It��r,AMITY -•` ■■■■�■�■1 � r— '�Rll �� r���illlllllll 2s�1l/�� t� ptlik�9ii�' �r�.�_�IIHIIIIl111� �UCJ r'_ �.wr,1111111� IN _r i1111111■� .. ■IIIIIIIIIIIIIIq 1111 IIr11 �71111���IIIIIIIIIf ANN�p■y/ \ Arun_II■o 11 i�lllllq �� 1�1a��1�illil�i�.:��i��� C��■■ANN 'ill •:� `� � 1■F 4 � ■ ��w.r� rr \t1�� . ON ►t I ♦ ♦ r rr. l rw w � � �tea_ ■ 11 11 1, � r�.�� �/1/ w ♦ ■11 � rn11 rlt`:=�t�lm ,,r..__ ••�'���:��0�4�; mut►��i I����Illi.`• 1 :l 1'r 111 �■� ■1 1��/ G Inl -:1: �1111 11,-.t ��Illlllr=1{� �■ �111111 ..r: . 111111111 C Q�.w 1111111/r �� Ir III�IIli11 rw T IN•,����•�:i���Irrt "" ��Illllllt ■��11111 IIIAA111lI ��w+ ~ w I Illrll IIIIIIIIII �-'w��' 3. Future Land Use Legend Medium pensir Project Location _ Residential Area of Impact �o 0 Analysis ® ® MU-C } L MU=r4 r CIYR �iOW.0 nnnsi Resldentlal� 4. Planned Development Map Legend Mlug i■ Project Location ;. � ,s Area of Impact T==' City Limits rE o ���,1P Planned Parcels - 'OAnalysis 1 n 1 � J T City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits F227] B. Subject Site Photos iwr�7- Ah - - � �-•bias,.�;-•� _ IS •y .MC r A Y� r-• _ ...�. ti �.: ..d-�� ic�l. . i e.a-/`:e.�' .1 .. �-l._, ��a!�11.�.r JI�... � Y�y..�:'1F r,.�•a...l City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 228 C. Service Accessibility Report PARCEL 51133212576 SERVICE ACCESSIBILITY Overall Scare: 30 139th Percentile Location In City Limits Extension Sewer Trunkshed mains < 500 f .from parcel GREEN Floodplain Either not within the 1 DO yr floodplain or> 2 acres GREEN L Emergency Services Fire Response time 5-9 min. YELLOW Emergency Services police 44eets response time gaals some of the time YELLOW Pathways Within 114 mile of current pathways GREEN Transit Not within 114 of current or future transit route RED Arterial Road Buildout Status Ultimate configuration(#of lanes in master streets GREEN plan) matches existing (#of lanes) School Walking Proximity Within 112 mile walking GREEN Either a High School or College within 2 miles OR a School Drivability Middle or Elementa ry Schoo I within 1 mile driving GREEN (existing or future) Either Regional Park within 1 mile OR a Community Park Walkability Park within 112 mile OR a Neighborhood Park within GREEN 114 mile walking City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits 229 D. Original Concept Plan AMITY R ! 'I FHLL+S CENTURY FARM BETA SELFSERYICE 5T0#tAGE IIJPR04E551QO L _� � � C4MINERCl/kL Su801V1514N � DFFI E qr VERANDA+ LIVING . ESTATE LOTS JF' Hillsdale q 4 -111I t CIty Park I I � �� WO .KILL'S GFNTURY M SUBS ISION 7 � ,:`. # � I' A LA HmLps CENTmT FARM NoRTH ` l ' r Gc[ober K.2019 CONCEPTUAL-WI PECT T4 CHANGE h FOR City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits 230 E. Site Plan(date: 9/18/2025) LL J L. ten, i .. r .' I -- inismmiar rnnu r �ruuuw K+.� C+r �•• � , � N�0.4£M9l -:- BRIGHTON CONCEPTLAI,SUBJECTTCt CHANGE City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 231 I ■ m......r�®�eoo �1=0� 1k=n 6 7 I 000��o�o�o l� sMill000�©oo kN ME :�i�l �i .•y ma�oaa�ooco �� 1� II nano w s.�3dehx �xi�� ro ti y + ' i� .ski ti ��'��iIF.A�SiYvfi a1�111.T��•'�S! II IQ I p tomIla ------------- pm I 1' 1 1 ' 1' UIHDGbVPE PLAN ___ - _.., 1 � EXISrnNG TREE INVENTORYAND MITIGATION PIAN ��_mMyW-_ - 4'S[fNfIMYfAAM IbwN �•';.'�.,�Ian L A��Ip4�xelO /. WA. City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 233 G. Preliminary Plat(date: 9/18/2025) PRELIMINARY PLAT SHOWING HILL'S CENTURY FARM TOWNHOMES SUBDIVISION u.a H—.u. ,ownwwa_TH,x. E 1 mn,ar,orco.�..uuw,�muwn,wow IT -- --- -- - ---- ------ -n-- - - -- -- LES.- ...A WE- -'aka REE -=__ --- =_--__� =_ -,� _ f , -' _ g� Irk----- ------�Ff- ` - - wat— i 1 r 9-4 �.. •� _:_� _—_T_—_—_—_—_�_ JAI_—_—___—_—_—_—_—_ ~moo City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 234 STREET SECTION A(PRIVATE ALLEY) — STREET SECTION 6IPRIVRTEI �^ r S�s•7 —� r ------------- STREET SECTION C(PRNRTE� —�-- �a STREET SECTION❑IPRNATEI �i — STREET SECIMII E(PU" ; -f- = u=Q Z:lm low _� FEET SECTION F IPRNATEI ~aPiz Y 8 City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 235