Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-12-04 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Thursday, December 04, 2025 at 6:00 PM MINUTES ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE PRESENT Commissioner Brian Garrett Commissioner Jessica Perreault Commissioner Sam Rust Commissioner Matthew Stoll Commissioner Jared Smith Chairperson Maria Lorcher ABSENT Commissioner Matthew Sandoval ADOPTION OF AGENDA Adopted CONSENT AGENDA \[Action Item\] Approved Motion to approve made by Commissioner Stoll, Seconded by Commissioner Rust. Voting Yea: Commissioner Garrett, Commissioner Perreault, Commissioner Rust, Commissioner Stoll, Commissioner Smith, Chairperson Lorcher 1. Approve Minutes of the November 20, 2025 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA \[Action Item\] ACTION ITEMS 2. Public Hearing continued from September 18, 2025 for Lofty Creek Park (Live/Work) (H-2025-0020) by The Corners Office Design, generally located at the NW Corner of S. Eagle Rd. and I-84 Vacated Application Withdrawn A. Request: Rezone of 6.34 acres of land from the L-O zoning to the C-C and C- G zoning districts. B. Request: Short Plat to subdivide the property into two lots to allow for the phasing development. C. Request: Modified Development Agreement to remove multi-family as an allowed use and allow for live-work residential units, offices and hotels on the property. Motion to withdraw and vacate made by Chairperson Lorcher, Seconded by Commissioner Perreault. Voting Yea: Commissioner Garrett, Commissioner Perreault, Commissioner Rust, Commissioner Stoll, Commissioner Smith, Chairperson Lorcher 3. Public Hearing continued from November 6, 2025 for Farrington Heights Subdivision RZ, PP, MDA (H-2025-0016) by Studio H Architects, generally located at the NW corner of E. Pine Ave. and N. Adkins Ave. Continued to January 15, 2026 Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2025-0016 A. Request: Rezone of 2.9 acres of land from the R-4 to the R-15 zoning district. B. Request: Preliminary Plat on 4.68 acres of land consisting of 25 building lots and 6 common lots. C. Request: Development Agreement Modification to terminate the existing development agreement and establish a new one. Motion to continue to January 15, 2026 made by Commissioner Stoll, Seconded by Commissioner Smith. Voting Yea: Commissioner Garrett, Commissioner Perreault, Commissioner Rust, Commissioner Stoll, Commissioner Smith, Chairperson Lorcher 4. Public Hearing continued from November 20, 2025 for 3780 Overland (H-2025- 0038) by Jesus Madrigal, located at 3780 E. Overland Rd. Recommend Approval to Council Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2025-0038 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 recommend approval to City Council made by Commissioner Rust, Seconded by Commissioner Stoll. Voting Yea: Commissioner Garrett, Commissioner Perreault, Commissioner Rust, Commissioner Stoll, Commissioner Smith, Chairperson Lorcher ADJOURNMENT 7:58 P.M. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To view upcoming Public Hearing Notices, visit https://apps.meridiancity.org/phnotices --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting December 4, 2025. Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of December 4, 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 Jessica Perreault, Commissioner Sam Rust and Commissioner Matthew Stoll. Members Absent: Commissioner Matthew Sandoval. Others Present: Tina Lomeli, Kurt Starman, Bill Parsons, Nick Napoli and Dean Willis. ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE _X Brian Garrett X Jessica Perrault Matthew Sandoval X Matthew Stoll _X Sam Rust X Jared Smith X Maria Lorcher - Chairman Lorcher: Good evening. Welcome to Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for December 4th, 2025. At this time I would like to call the meeting to order. The Commissioners who are present for this evening's meeting are at City Hall and I don't think we have anybody on Zoom. We also have staff from the city attorneys and the city's 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 a process question during the meeting, please, e-mail cityclerk@ meridiancity.org and they will reply as quickly as possible. If you simply want to watch the meeting we encourage you to watch this streaming on the city's YouTube channel. You can access it at meridiancity.org/live. With that let's begin with roll call. Madam Clerk. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Lorcher: The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. There are no changes in tonight's agenda. Please note that Item No. 2, Lofty Creek Park, has withdrawn their application, so if there is anyone here tonight to testify for this application we will not be taking public testimony this evening. Could I get a motion to adopt tonight's agenda? Smith: So moved. Rust: Second. F Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission December 4,2025 Page 2 of 38 Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to adopt the 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 20, 2025 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Lorcher: The next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda, which include to approve minutes from the November 12th Planning and Zoning meeting. Could I get a motion to accept the Consent Agenda as presented? Stoll: Move to approve as presented. Rust: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to accept 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] ACTION ITEMS 2. Public Hearing continued from September 18, 2025 for Lofty Creek Park (Live/Work) (H-2025-0020) by The Corners Office Design, generally located at the NW Corner of S. Eagle Rd. and 1-84 A. Request: Rezone of 6.34 acres of land from the L-O zoning to the C-C and C-G zoning districts. B. Request: Short Plat to subdivide the property into two lots to allow for the phasing development. C. Request: Modified Development Agreement to remove multi-family as an allowed use Lorcher: Item No. 2 on the agenda -- I am going to motion that the Commission accept the withdrawal of the application of Lofty Creek Park Live-Work, application number H- 2025-0020 and that the public hearing be vacated. Perreault: Second. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission December 4,2025 Page 3 of 38 Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to vacate Lofty Creek Park Live and Work. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. 3. Public Hearing continued from November 6, 2025 for Farrington Heights Subdivision RZ, PP, MDA (H-2025-0016) by Studio H Architects, generally located at the NW corner of E. Pine Ave. and N. Adkins Ave. A. Request: Rezone of 2.9 acres of land from the R-4 to the R-15 zoning district. B. Request: Preliminary Plat on 4.68 acres of land consisting of 25 building lots and 6 common lots. C. Request: Development Agreement Modification to terminate the existing development agreement and establish a new one. Lorcher: Item No. 3 on the agenda is item number H-2025-0016 for Farrington Heights Subdivision at Pine and Adkins for a rezone, preliminary plat and development agreement modification. Starman: Madam Chair, just for the record and for the Commissioners' benefit -- so this is a project that the Commission has considered before. You had a public hearing. You deliberated and you reached a decision, which you forwarded to the City Council. When it went to the City Council it was remanded back to this Commission for -- and the applicant also has made some -- some significant or substantive changes to the application. That's why I wanted to mention that to the extent any of the Commissioners did not participate in the -- in the previous hearing that took place on this some months ago, that's perfectly fine, because this is considered to be a brand new hearing. It's, really, essentially a new application that's been revised. It's been published as a new hearing and we will have a new record for this part of the process. So, whether you participated previously or not is -- is not relevant tonight. You are welcome to participate in these proceedings tonight. Lorcher: So, before we go further I -- my notes got kind of jumbled here, but I would like to explain the public hearing process for those of you in Chambers and on Zoom. Staff will begin their report with findings on how the item adheres to our Comprehensive Plan and our Unified Development Code. After staff has made their presentation the applicant will come forward to present their case and staff's comment and they will have 15 minutes to do so. After the applicant has finished we will open the floor to public testimony. Each person will only be called once during public testimony. The clerks will call the names individually of those who have signed up on our website or if in Chambers you may come to the microphone or if on Zoom you will be unmuted. Please state your name and address for the record and you will have three minutes to address F Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission December 4,2025 Page 4 of 38 the Commission. If you have previously sent pictures or a presentation to 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 on that group will allow you to speak on their behalf you will be given up to ten -- you will be given ten minutes. After all those who have signed up in advance we will invite any others that wish to testify. If you wish to speak on the topic you may come forward in Chambers or if on Zoom you can raise the hand button and if you are on the 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. When you are finished if the Commission does not have any questions for you you will return to your seat in Chambers or be muted on Zoom and no longer have the ability to speak. And please remember we will not call on you a second time. After all the 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 concern we will close the public hearing and the Commissioners will have an opportunity to discuss and hopefully make final recommendations or recommendations to City Council as needed. Lorcher: So, with that we will start with the staff report for Farrington Heights Subdivision. Napoli: Good evening, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. Next item on the agenda is the rezone, preliminary plat and development agreement modification for Farrington Heights. So, the applicant is request -- is requesting a rezone of 2.9 acres of the 4.68 acres of land from the R-4 zoning district to the R-15 zoning district and leave the remaining 1.78 acres as the R-4 zoning district, a preliminary plat consisting of 25 building lots and eight common lots and a new development agreement to replace the current development agreement. The site is generally located at the northwest corner of Pine Avenue and Adkins Avenue. As shown on the screen the existing zoning is R-4 and the FLUM designation is medium density residential. So, the subject properties were annexed in 2000 as a part of the Farrington Opal application. The zoning granted at the time -- at the time of annexation was the R-4 zoning district. With the annexation approval the properties were subject to a development agreement that restricted the property to adding one additional home on the 4.68 acres of land. The existing DA that is proposed would replace the new DA if approved. In addition, this application was also previously heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission on August 7th of 2025 and was recommended for denial to City Council. Since the hearing the applicant was remanded back to the Planning and Zoning Commission by City Council and the reasons for denial in front of -- the reasons for the previous denial by the Planning and Zoning Commission were due to a lack of open space, a lack of transition between the proposed two story homes and the existing single story homes and the zoning change from R-4 to R-15 being too abrupt. The proposed -- the proposed subdivision this time around is at a gross density of 5.348 units per acre, which is consistent with the medium density designation -- FLUM designation of three to eight units per acre. The surrounding landscape -- this is the current and the previous, just so you guys can get a little look. They did lose five lots on the outer boundary of the site. So, they went down Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission December 4,2025 Page 5 of 38 from 33 building lots or -- yes -- 33 building -- or 30 building lots, I apologize, to 25 building lots, including keeping the three existing homes that are on the southern portion of the site. So, the surrounding landscape consists of single family detached homes to the north, east and west, while to the south is Pine Avenue -- Pine Avenue. The average density for one mile radius is 6.1 units per acre, which is higher than the 5.34 units per acre the applicant is proposing. Single -- single family detached dwellings are listed as a principally permitted use in the R-15 and R-4 zoning districts. The applicant is proposing to keep the three existing homes on the southern portion, as I previously mentioned, and one of the largest concerns of the -- the neighboring residents was the transition from existing single story homes to the proposed two story homes. The applicant has indicated they do not believe single story homes will be financially feasible due to the proposed lot sizes and the applicant has also indicated that the individual -- individual builders will make the final decision on whether homes will be one or two stories. This did raise some concerns with staff and as a -- as a result of this they did -- we did have some conversations with the applicant and did encourage them to talk with the neighbors to get them in contact with some of the neighbors to have another meeting prior to this meeting. I think the applicant will go over some of how that went. But as a -- as a result of that staff is recommending the building heights don't exceed 28 feet, which typically in the R-15 and R-4 and R-8 zoning districts would be 35 feet and that windows be placed on the rear facades oriented to promote privacy for the existing residents and I think the applicant will cover kind of their proposal for those windows on that rear facade. But, however, staff is asking the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council to carefully determine whether the changes are adequate transition to the existing homes. Lorcher: Would the applicant like to come forward? Napoli: Hold on, Maria. Almost done. Lorcher: Oh. I thought you were done. Napoli: So, since the previous hearing the applicant did revise their common open space, because that was a reason for denial. Let's see if I can get this to work again. There we go. So, they did increase the amount of open space to 10.9 percent of the development, with 7.5 percent of it being designated as usable open space. In addition to this they are proposing a play area and picnic area in Lot 14, Block 1, right on my cursor. So, open space is not a requirement for this property, because it is below five acres. So, it's not a UDC requirement. However, staff wanted to see some open space here with this application and the original application due to there really not being a regional park or neighborhood park in the area. So, having a place for people to recreate, especially with the lot sizes was important. Access to the property is proposed off of North Adkins Avenue -- Avenue, a local roadway on the eastern portion of the site. This local road is a shared drive between the proposed subdivision and existing subdivision to the east and north. The applicant is proposing two accesses off North Adkins with a common drive accessing three properties on the southern portion of the site and three properties on the north -- northern portion of the site. The proposed Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission December 4,2025 Page 6 of 38 design includes variations of one and two-story homes. Through their elevations they have one and two story homes, each featuring a two car garage. These elevations showcase a range of architectural styles, design elements, including lap siding, neutral color accents, brick and stone veneer, varying roof profiles and different home styles. Review confirms that these elevations do adhere to the city's Architectural Standards Manual. Staff is recommending approval with the new development agreement of this application and we have received written testimony from Don Flaten, Stephanie John, Rick Bradley, Bob Flaten, Maralee Turner, Shawn Freeman and Brian Turner. The neighbors providing testimony have concerns with increased traffic in the area, the transition from the proposed development to the existing homes, primarily the two story to the single story. The density being too high. And increases in crime, littering, loitering and noise and I will stand for any questions at this time. Lorcher: Would the applicant like to come forward? Durtschi: Can I use the arrows here to -- okay. Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, hello and good evening. For the record my name is Sabrina Durtschi and I am here on behalf of the applicant. My business address is 5179 South Boven Avenue, Boise, Idaho. 83716. And this evening I am so excited to present to you Farrington Heights Subdivision. So, first, on August 7th this year the application was previously before you for your consideration. During the hearing the Commission expressed several key concerns specifically related to the transition with the surrounding neighborhood, the lack of usable open space and the zoning transition. Following the meeting the applicant team went back to thoughtfully re-evaluate the plan to directly address the feedback you provided. On the slide you will see the original layout, which Nick had mentioned included 30 lots and alongside the other side is the revised plan, which now reduces the perimeter lots to five, bringing our grand total to 25 lots. This reduction allowed us not only to soften the projects interface with the surrounding neighbors, but also to expand and enhance the usable open space, which I will highlight in more detail shortly. We feel these revisions directly respond to and effectively mitigate the concerns raised during the August hearing, particularly regarding neighborhood transition and overall quality of space within the subdivision. So, with the updated layout we are requesting a portion of the site to be rezoned, a preliminary plat and a development agreement modification. The changes show 22 new single family homes, eight common lots and three existing homes that are highlighted in white. Our gross density will be 5.34 units per acre and our residential lot sizes will be ranging from a little bit over 3,000 square feet to 9,570. So, with these changes I would now like to introduce you to Farrington Heights. Farrington Heights has been envisioned as a welcoming, modern and thoughtfully planned community that future residents will be proud to call home. In shaping and designing the overall theme we layered in clean contemporary elements inspired by the proposed home elevations. Our goal was to create an in-fill project that feels both timeless and balanced, modern in character and warm and inviting. The site design emphasizes a contemporary aesthetic with a strong emphasis on community interaction and outdoor living. These features work together to create a family friendly environment that supports everyday livability, while still providing moments of shared connection and comfort. So, let me show you our front entrance. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission December 4,2025 Page 7 of 38 This is our primary entrance on -- you can see the monumentation for Farrington Heights. This concept reinforces the modern identity of the neighborhood and establishes a clear, attractive arrival experience as people enter and recognize the community. With this application we are requesting a portion of the site to be rezoned to R-15. This request is not being made to increase the overall density of the project. Instead, the purpose of the R-15 designation is to provide a little flexibility, which is needed to meet the zoning standards that is often challenging within in-fill environments. As many of you noted during the previous hearing for this application in- fill development can be very complex and the R-15 zone helps us address those complexities by allowing us to create a well-designed, functional and cohesive neighborhood while maintaining the reduced lock count and overall project vision. We believe this request of the R-15 directly supports the creation of a high quality in-fill community. So, to better understand how the site fits into the broader area let's look at the surrounding context in more detail. To the north we have phases four through seven of Danbury Fair Subdivision. These lots were plotted back in 1994 through 1996 and, then, we have an enclaved county parcel directly north of -- north of the site. To the east we have Maas Edition number one and two. That was platted back in 1993. And to the south we have Pine Avenue. Then directly south of Pine is the industrial commercial area that includes the weed and pest control campus and to the west we have phases one and three of Danbury, platted in '92 and '93 and, then, west of that is Avery Subdivision, which was recently platted in 2019. So, what I'm trying to highlight here is nearly all of the sub -- surrounding subdivisions were built in the early to mid 1990s, meaning this parcel has been -- remained open, undeveloped field for approximately 30 years. So, because this land has been vacant for so long the surrounding homes have never had abutting neighbors and, naturally, this creates a more challenging transition for the existing neighborhood, as residents are adjusting to the idea of development occurring next to them for the -- for the first time since their homes have been built. We recognize this and want to be sensitive to those impacts. So, on the next slides I'm going to outline specific mitigation measures we have incorporated to create a respectful, well-designed transition that considers the neighbors' long standing expectations and character for the area. First I would like to note before I start, when I be -- when I decide -- when I took over the project in the end of October I immediately reached out to Nick, to the city, because I know he had been in correspondence with the neighbors and during our meeting I was like, Nick, can I have the neighbors' numbers and he was like, you know, I would prefer if I give them your information, since that's their personal information, which I completely understood. And so Nick had my information and was communicating, but the only neighbor that did reach out to me was Stephanie John and I conducted an on-site meeting with Stephanie and her family on November 11th and they live directly north at 1111 North Adkins and they are the county parcel that has been referenced in the staff report. So, we reviewed the placement and you can see where that arrow's at. That's really their front living area and their front door. It's a little deceiving, because you think it would be off of Adkins, but as Stephanie explained we had conversations and so we went -- I went back to the applicant and we discussed and we made that lot a little wider, so that it could accommodate a single family single level and so we are happy to make this change and happy to have it included as a condition of approval that restricts Lot 2, Block 1, as a Flo Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission December 4,2025 Page 8 of 38 single level. So, we are in full agreement with the staff report's recommendations to limit the height of the two-story buildings to 28 feet and, additionally, we will incorporate transom windows on the rear elevations of the second floor that are adjacent to the existing homes and you can kind of see these pictures where the windows are high enough people can't see out. So, it protects their privacy, but it also allows light into the buildings, so it's not dark for the homes. We feel that it's also important to note that the two-story homes are already permitted in all of your residential zones and we are not asking for any exceptions, any variances. So, we feel that with the window placement, if we do have two stories at those locations, provides the standards for privacy that the neighbors are wanting and we are also willing to commit to one additional tree in each of the lots' backyards for future mitigation for the neighbors as well and we have -- I have updated the landscape plan to reflect those changes. So, during our previous hearing I'm not sure which commissioner it was, but someone requested that we do some side profile visuals for you to see. So, unfortunately, we did not have those at the time, but we have selected a few homes and I have some for you to review this evening. So, first we are looking at 1054 North Stonehenge. This is a corner lot and the proposed home will abut the existing home kind of at an angle. There is a total of 29.6 feet from the edge of the house to the back of the property line, with a -- with a rear setback of R-15 at 12 feet on our side. This will be a total of 41.6 feet between buildings. Just next door to that last house is 1042 North Stonehenge, the -- the home adjacent to the corner lot, and it has a total of 27.2 feet separation. We also have an existing tree that's buffering along the property line that we are going to try to keep to help with privacy mitigation and this will make the separation a total of 39.2 feet between buildings and the last home we are looking at is 1018 North Stonehenge. This home has a much deeper backyard with a total of 53 feet to the back of their fence line. This will give us a total of 65 feet in total between buildings and we feel that the proposed window placement, the overall separation between the buildings provides sufficient mitigation to ensure privacy for the adjacent neighbors. Next let's talk about open space. So, based on comments during our last hearing we understood that the open space was very important. After reworking the layout and expanding the open space we have been able to design a total of .51 acres at 11 percent and this slide shows the landscaped areas all highlighted in green. For our qualified open space our community is at 0.35 acres at 7.5 percent and would include two amenities for our community. Pathway connectivity and walkability is also a priority within our community. Blue will depict all of our community sidewalks. Orange depicts our pathways that connect from the sidewalk to our amenity area and pink illustrates our ten foot multi-use pathway that provides connection along East Pine Avenue. So, we have some newer elevations that we are planning to showcase for Farrington. These conceptual elevations are modern in architectural character. The homes feature clean roof lines, a mix of contemporary gables and shed roofs and a blend of warm wood toned siding with crisp contrasting accents. Window placement provides abundant natural light, while the overall design reflects a fresh modern aesthetic. And for the amenities our community's main amenity area for Farrington is designed to create a welcoming and functional outdoor environment. The central open space features a modern shaded pavilion with seating, a natural play area with logs and boulders, and thoughtfully landscaped edges that blend privacy and visual interest. Expansive lawn areas provide flexible space for F-11 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission December 4,2025 Page 9 of 38 recreation, gatherings and everyday outdoor enjoyment, enhancing the neighborhood's overall livability. One of the items that the Commissioners emphasized during our August hearing was the importance of locating the play area away from the road and taking that into consideration we intentionally positioned the tot lot and picnic area in this interior corner of the site to provide additional separation and a safer area for children and families. We feel the amenities being tucked away offer protection and privacy for the future residents to be able to gather and enjoy. Okay. So, to quickly summarize, we feel that Farrington Heights is a well-designed, high quality community designed to offer a balanced blend of modern livability. Situated in the heart of Meridian this enclave parcel is located near major commercial and employment hubs and provides a well-rounded selection of mid density housing options to meet the standards of the growing population. The City of Meridian's Comprehensive Plan encourages in- fill development that delivers a diversity of lot sizes, housing types and densities. Farrington Heights aligns with this vision by introducing a fresh, modern neighborhood character within an established area, offering new housing choices and a thoughtful range of densities that enhance the surrounding community. With that I would like to extend my thanks to Nick for his guidance, help and support. Thanks, Nick. And we are in full agreement with the staff report's findings. And with that I will thank you for your time, your thoughtful consideration and the opportunity to re-present our project to you this evening and respectfully request a recommendation of approval this evening from you all. Thank you so much. Lorcher: Before you walk off, do -- Durtschi: Yes. Lorcher: -- Commissioners do we have any questions? Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: One question on that restriction on Lot 2, Block 1. Is that already in the staff report or is that something that we would need to add to keep that single story? Napoli: That would be something that would be new. That's correct. Lorcher: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: Madam Chair, thank you. The pictures of the elevations that were provided, I just wanted to understand what the side setbacks are. Durtschi: Uh-huh. Perreault: They look very close together, so -- 12 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission December 4,2025 Page 10 of 38 Durtschi: Yes. Madam Chair, Commissioner Perreault, they are -- with the R-15 that's that kind of flexibility we are needing for the in-fill. It's three feet in between the buildings for each side. So, a total of six. Yes. Lorcher: Is that for all -- all of them or just the ones in the middle? Durtschi: No. I believe that -- that's the zoning standard for all -- that will be in the R- 15, Madam Chair. Lorcher: Got you. Okay. Any other questions before we take public comment? Durtschi: Thank you. Lorcher: Okay. Thank you very much. Madam Clerk, do we have people to testify? Lomeli: Thank you, Madam Chair. We have Stephanie John. And there are some photos that she would like to share as well. Lorcher: Okay. If you can state your name and address for the record. John: My name is Stephanie John. My address is 1111 North Adkins Avenue, Meridian. Lorcher: Okay. John: All right. So, I live on the -- what is that -- that north border. My whole -- my property is a rectangle, which makes my -- one of my longest lengths across the shared border. They currently want five different homes. One of them they did say -- they just newly said that would be, what, single story. The other four would be two-story, 26 feet. Well, actually, 28 feet. We thought it was 26. So, that's inaccurate. We -- if you look at it and look how those houses would sit, we would have no privacy at all. Just like Ms. Durtschi pointed out, that is the front of our home that faces the field and that's my driveway. That's how the home is. Sorry. So, there is no privacy. You walk out and four people can look -- well -- yeah, four, because that one is single and I will concede to that. But there is a no privacy. Plus we need that sunlight. Our home was built in 1909, which makes that south sun -- winter sun vital for us, not only are those all our main living spaces, it would increase our power -- our -- our heating bill significantly. Plus it would leave us a shadow. I'm worried about snow being stuck in that driveway space or having nowhere to go or melt and no sun on it. I'm worried about darkness in the winter. It's a very big deal. I'm worried about the traffic. The newly approved Pine 43. 1 have another picture that showed the intersections. We share two intersections with Pine 43, one at Pine and Locust Grove and one at Shellbrook and Locust. On our side it's called Shellbrook, on Pine 43 side it's called State. I did send a picture with them circled. That's a big deal getting in and out of those, especially during high traffic times is -- is a problem. Adding more to that just keeps adding more to the problem. Now, I know that in-fill is hard. I get that. It's so hard. Pine 43 that was an in-fill. I think F13] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission December 4,2025 Page 11 of 38 that was a great use. Unfortunately, when you are 360 surrounded by existing already built homes that -- sorry, that's where your property is. They have owned this for a long time. They annex. They could have sold and maybe got this earlier, but they are doing it now. The residents in our homes have been there for an average of 17 and a half years. That means these -- these homes are homes that people are taking and living in and raising their children in. Those are the types of homes I want them to build. I'm not saying two-story homes aren't like that, but they don't fit the aesthetic. They are invading our space. They are taking our sunlight. She mentioned that she wants this community to have everyday livability, but she is not looking at the rest of us. That's not okay. I'm not okay with that. They need to address that. That buffer between what is existing and what they are going for is so abrupt. It's abrupt on us. We are R-1. Lorcher: If you can just finish up. John: We are R-1 making us an extreme abrupt and that one lot being changed does not really help. Lorcher: Okay. John: Thank you so much. Lorcher: Thank you very much. Lomeli: Madam Chair, we have Donald Flaten. He has some photos as well. Flaten: I, too, had the understanding that the maximum roof height would be 26. It's actually 28. 1 think it best to just kind of read the summary of my comments, which I submitted. Lorcher: So, before you start -- Flaten: Yeah. Lorcher: We will need your name and address for the record and you did have pictures? Flaten: I do. Yes. Lorcher: So, if you can give that to -- we will just wait a moment and we will get that up and we can do it all at the same time. Okay? Flaten: Don Flaten. 1111 North Adkins in Meridian. Lorcher: Okay. F14] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission December 4,2025 Page 12 of 38 Flaten: Let me know, Nick, when -- I think I see them when they come up here. Okay. And I will comment on this a little just later. I will just read this quickly. As proposed Farrington Heights development will seriously degrade the livability of 1111 North Adkins, our family residence, and that of surrounding established neighborhoods and I would point out on the introduction we referred to a radius of a mile in density. We should really look at that radius from Locust Grove west, because that's where the homes are that are relevant. It's very high density east of that. We had neighbors immediately to the north for over 30 years, boarding the proposed multi-story residences. Tall buildings with minimal setbacks on your property line would cast a sun shadow on the south of our home, including the living, dining and family rooms. They are all south facing, precluding solar heating and direct sunlight during the winter months and virtually eliminating privacy throughout the year. The dramatic increase in residential density would irreversibly increase noise and traffic levels in the immediate neighborhood. Before going forward I will make observations here. This is an illustration based on a proposed 26 foot height. It's actually 28. So, this illustration you see of a two story structure is 1.57 times the height of our structure. It would actually be 1.7. The density -- even if one of those is a one story, we have got them stacked up with six feet between homes, three to four homes bordering our lot. So, instead of having Opus, we are going to be looking -- this is roughly 12 feet high, about the distance to that wall. If I step back here -- you can hear me, can't you? Lorcher: No. If you can repeat it into the microphone that would be great. Flaten: Yeah. But, anyway, if we have the next picture, please. I know we have limited time. Lorcher: We will add time to it for -- Flaten: Oh. Thank you. Yeah. So, we could -- Lorcher: So don't worry, you will have plenty -- Flaten: I just have --just to get a -- I did a sun shadow picture from roughly a different -- this is just a perspective -- here to insist on a two story development. If we reverse the position of the road it would give us -- the north side is at the bottom of this. We would have the road as a buffer, in addition to the setback, so we wouldn't be looking that close. But we are -- obviously, one story is what is appropriate for the neighborhood if we were to go for -- if they are insisting on two story, simply move the road so the homes bordering us would be on the south end, they would have more space, they would be looking on an open field and we would have a border that would also include that rec area, which the public can't enjoy, only the people moving there. So, it looked real pretty in the illustration. We are going to be looking at a wall of stucco. They are going to be looking at -- at this. So, I think there is one more illustration just to give you an idea. These are 26 or 28 foot height for a distance of 40 feet. It's just an illustration from March showing you that's what the sun shadow is and that's about the same setback, six feet -- six feet between buildings and they are all two-story. So, that's mid- 15 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission December 4,2025 Page 13 of 38 afternoon in March and that's taken from about 35 feet away from -- it actually -- it's over 40 feet to the two-story structure and you still see it occluded. So, my observation, in summary, because of time. Of course single story detached homes would instead be consistent with the surrounding neighborhoods. If the city were to insist on multi-story residents, however, I strongly recommend the position of the structures currently proposed to be reversed 180 degrees. Lorcher: Did you get a chance to express your concerns about the switching of the road to the developer? Flaten: No. Lorcher: Or are you just bringing that -- Flaten: My only comment is right here. Lorcher: Right here. Flaten: In fact, we just heard today for the first time that there might be a -- one of -- pardon me -- one of the structures would be one story bordering it it looks like, but the others are still on the same density. We have no information. All I have is an illustration from February that didn't match the original plan. So, we are seeing these things for the first time. Lorcher: Okay. Flaten: But as originally proposed we are looking at a wall of structures six feet in between for the entire south border of our property up to 28 feet high. Lorcher: Okay. Thank you very much. Flaten: Okay. Thank you. Lomeli: Madam Chair, the next person that signed up is Rick Bradley. Lorcher: Good evening. Thanks for being here. If you can state your name and address for the record. Bradley: My name is Rick Bradley. I'm at 1321 East Shellbrook Drive, Meridian, Idaho. 83642. My property -- my rear property line borders the development property. I'm -- my backyard is located in the northwest corner of this development and that's particularly the one that has the shared driveway. I know the lady was talking about the rear of the houses having transoms, but that does absolutely nothing for my privacy with the side of that house facing my rear property. Privacy issues are a big concern for every resident. It's a lot different moving into a subdivision that's established with no privacy, as opposed to having that privacy taken from you forcefully, which is kind of F16] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission December 4,2025 Page 14 of 38 what the situation that's happening here. Setbacks. Three feet side setbacks. You guys are seriously considering that here as a city, because -- I mean everything will have to be fire treated the way it's built, that's going to be way more expensive for the builders to build homes that way. Every resident around them has got at least eight feet on the side. I mean we are almost three times as much side setback as what they are proposing. This is Meridian. This is a city for families to raise families to grow and love each other. It's not to stack people on top of each other. And that's I think what Meridian has lost over the last ten years. Resources in the community are going to be limited as well. I have already noticed since the development of Pine 43 that my water pressure has gone down some and just adding more to that is going to tax I think the limited resources we have. Also road access on Adkins is not adequate for more traffic. I don't know if you guys have ever been to that intersection yourselves, but during -- anytime during the day or evening there is trucks, trailers, stuff parked on the side of the road. It is literally a one lane road getting in and out of there most times. So, affordability, are we just trying to build more 650,000 dollar homes in this city or are we actually really concerned about affordability for families. It's a lot more expensive to build a fire-rated two-story house than it is a single story for a family. The other big issue that we are discussing is there is no access to a park. Well, instead of establishing just a little community park that they never get used. I don't know if you have them in your neighborhoods. We have them in ours. They are not really used. Why don't we make these lots slightly larger, build a little bit smaller homes on them that are single story and actually create a yard for the family. That way you don't need a community center. You can have your own backyard to play with your friends or your children's friends can play. Actually have a front yard. The pictures that she showed, they got like a, what, a six-by-four piece of lawn in the front yard. That is not a yard; right? Are we building apartments or are we building houses for families and -- and there -- the beginning opening speech that she had was she wanted to create a timeless community for Meridian. Well, modern architecture is not timeless, okay? That single slope is quickly fading and nobody's going to -- nobody's purchasing homes like that anymore. I apologize for going over, but there is lots of things that need to be addressed here carefully. I would -- I would hope you guys would consider that. Thank you. Lorcher: Thank you. Lomeli: Madam Chair, the next person is Brian Turner. Lorcher: Good evening. Turner: Good evening. And I do have some pictures I wanted to share. And while we are waiting, Brian Turner, 1345 East Shellbrook Drive and also a comment up front. The communication for us to reach out to the applicant -- we missed it. We would have certainly and gladly reached out and expressed some concerns and that's something this process has lacked is someone to talk to about it. All right. And I clearly state up front -- I will get to this -- what this picture is in just a moment. I would welcome one story homes. The comments about -- we are used to the -- the space. I'm okay -- I 17 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission December 4,2025 Page 15 of 38 would -- I would welcome one story homes in this -- this plot. My biggest concern, even with the new plan is the two stories. This picture right here shows Avery -- or Avery Subdivision that is just west of this development. Literally a block. And you can see clearly that there is a buffer between these large very tall two-story homes in the rest of the subdivision and, unfortunately, the remote west end side -- side of that, this house is, like was mentioned, three feet from the fence line and this is what my backyard is going to become, a great big wall of a house next to a house that takes my privacy away. Now, they said the windows would be positioned so to afford privacy, but for some reason I lack trust in that statement. These -- so, yeah, this is my concern. This is what I will be looking at. This is why I am here. Another thing is this is a picture that shows -- I'm standing on Adkins Road looking directly west across from the -- across the site and what you -- what will you notice here is what you cannot see and that is the side of the homes that are straight across. The line of sight drawings that were shown earlier do not show the elevation change. So, these homes are a good four, five, six feet lower in elevation than this -- this property. So, you build 28 feet higher and they are going to be staring over the top of those homes and I just don't see how that fits -- two-story homes fit into this plot of land for -- that's one of the main reasons. And so I see two-story homes here is -- is either greed is driving this or there is a lack of foresight and it's going to anger their neighbors for years to come and I think there is a better solution for this plot of land that would -- that would be agreeable. Lorcher: Okay. Thank you very much. Lomeli: Madam Chair, the next person is Maralee Turner. M.Turner: I also have pictures and I will wait until they are up. While we are waiting my name is Maralee Turner, 1345 East Shellbrook Drive, Meridian, Idaho. 83642. Okay. My home borders the proposed subdivision of Farrington Heights. I'm not opposed to land development if it is approached respectfully and thoughtfully. I propose that a respectful compromise should be reached before this development is allowed to proceed and for your information I was never given the contact information for Sabrina and had I been I certainly would have reached out and given my concerns. I propose that a respectful compromise should be reached before this development is allowed to proceed. That the developers have had to postpone and restructure over the course of several months indicates that that's -- that this development is still far from reaching a beneficial conclusion for all of its bordering neighbors. Currently the developer is partitioning for higher density and taller homes than is prudent for the inadequate space. I am opposed to the rezoning of the small plot from the R-4 to the R-15 zoning district, which is much too dense for this location. The surrounding properties are all zoned for lower density than the proposed subdivision. The developers are also expecting and planning for two-story homes, which will be detrimental to all neighbors on all sides, with the exception of the homeowners who are selling the property as the developers are proposing ample green space to purposely offset the impact for them and them only. While the developers may indicate with photos and words that one story homes are being considered, there is no plan for single level homes, except for that one bordering our neighborhood, which has been a concern for months now. In fact, 18 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission December 4,2025 Page 16 of 38 according to Matthew Parks, which you can see from your records and I quote: The proposed lots will accommodate second story residences in order to make financial sense. I disagree wholeheartedly. By rezoning this land and approving the current plan the developers will be enabled to build several new dwellings with taller and denser homes than -- than virtually all of its bordering sites in all direction. A height restriction of 20 feet is reasonable for this insufficient space. A height restriction of 28 feet, which Meridian city is considering, would be appalling to us as neighbors. Our homes have existed for nearly 30 years and we value our way of life. Development such as this will impact many families adversely every single day for decades. Please plan for buffers or green spaces on all sides of the development, which I'm showing a picture of a buffer road, which may mean putting the access road along the outskirts of the development and planning for green spaces bordering the road. I will wait for picture number two. Two story homes looming over our backyards will negatively impact our ability to even remotely spend time in our yards. This is understandably very distressing to us. We would have two homes in our backyard like this. Another concern is traffic issues. If you can get to picture number three, please. Even if the developers are required to widen Adkins, the intersection of Pine and Adkins will remain dangerous. The existing building located at Pine and Adkins intersection will not be removed and this poses a danger as the intersection will remain narrow despite the required marginal widening. Please do not be neglectful, disrespectful and careless. I hope that the developers, city planners and architects can be resourceful and prudent as they look for beneficial solutions. Thank you. Lorcher: Thank you. Lomeli: Madam Chair, we have Patty Jeffs. Lorcher: Good evening. Jeffs: Hi. I'm Patty Jeffs and I live at 1416 East Shellbrook Drive. I'm down on the corner. Two stories is not going to bother me at all. My house isn't that close. However, my friend and I go walking every morning and we have been by the places that they just showed you the picture of and, honestly, that looks over Pine and there is a canal. It doesn't bother anybody. And they put in a nice parking space so overflow of parking can park there. There is no parking space here. We go walking by other condos and things across Locust Grove and the streets are lined with extra cars and I just know that's going to happen here. There is no place for them to park extra cars, except in the streets and this is already a small street. We already have trouble with traffic. We talked to one person over in the other subdivision across Locust Grove and he says, oh, no, this is mostly rentals and there were four young guys -- nice guys and you go around to the back and there is a double car garage. Two of them can park there, but there is four people renting that house. They have got two more that have to go out in the street. My fear is this is going to be rental housing is so high, not family, and we are going to have cars everywhere in the streets. Thank you. Lorcher: Thank you. 19 1 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission December 4,2025 Page 17 of 38 Lomeli: Madam Chair, the next person is Cynthia Johnson. Johnson: Yeah. I live at 1050 North Adkins, which is right across the street from one of the roads that comes out of the development and my concern mostly is parking, because the houses themselves are so close together that there is no street parking in the development at all for them. They have to use only their driveway parking and I'm also concerned that the street's not very wide, so that I might lose my parking in front of my house and I have three vehicles, so we can -- one in the garage and two would have to shuffle out cars. So, I really don't want to lose my street parking and so that's one of my main concerns would be that. Lorcher: Okay. Thank you very much. Lomeli: Madam Chair, the next person is Robert Flaten. Flaten: Hello, all. My name is Robert Flaten. I live at 1111 Adkins Avenue now. I have been there since I was about eight. So, been there for a while. In all honesty I'm not as well-spoken as these guys. Forgive me. I had a little thing wrote out and I'm kind of just lost, especially after listening to everything that -- with all due respect to the planner or whatever she is -- said -- I will admit her example seemed pretty nice. They look great, but they leave out a lot of what there is that you are not seeing and I don't think that's by accident. I saw her use examples of 45 feet, 60 feet. Where is our example? Because we are looking at about 25 to 30 feet. They -- they very obviously didn't use the corner that we are discussing as being such a problem. That's by design. They are trying to not show you. Again, with all the respect I believe Planning and Zoning, a big portion of why you are here, is to hear the community, to work with them to try and be fair, so that people don't get steamrolled. We are here. There is more of us. Again respectfully, please, don't ignore us. I understand that the people that are going to possibly move here matter. We also matter. We should be equals on all of this. We are not asking to not have people there. We love our neighbors. We get along with all of them. We want the neighbors. But we don't want to be swept aside so that somebody else can make more money. With even that particular involvement, you think about people that go buy homes that move here, a big part of what draws money, you go up into the foothills, it's a view. You are dismantling my home if this is allowed. There is no view. You are going to walk outside and see a wall. I don't believe my kids are safe in the driveway anymore without people sitting there watching down on them. There is all sorts of issues when it comes to parking, when it comes to security. Survivability of our home and everyone else's is very much in jeopardy here. I wish I could somehow illustrate that, but, unfortunately, three minutes really isn't going to put that in an accurate sense for all of you. I thank you very much for allowing me to come here, but I could go on a very long time about this. I understand it's very persuasive, again, to see everything that she put up, but it's just not encapsulating what it is that we have all been fighting here for months. I -- I mean this is so stressful for all of us to be up against this and we, quite frankly, don't -- again respectfully don't want to keep doing this to you nor us. People have a right to develop, but I would love to believe that there is an option somehow out there that can please all of us, not just a few, because those people are 20 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission December 4,2025 Page 18 of 38 going to come in, they are going to build, they are going to leave. We are the people that are left there forever. We were there before. I would like to think we can be there in the long run, but, quite frankly, this just seems like the stepping stone to running people out of their homes, because anybody reasonable knows that. The person that came over there -- I'm sorry I forgot your name -- she herself explained to me that developments moved into her place right next to her, too close, and she wasn't comfortable with it. She herself did not like it. I can prove that statement was made. She knows what we are up against, but it's being minimized to you so that it can get pushed through. I don't know what to say. Please don't ignore us. We are the community and we are asking that this does not happen. I hope you understand our concerns. I can't ask you to agree with them, but maybe just try to put yourself in our shoes for just a moment. All the things you hold dear in your homes we hold dear also. Please help us. Thank you very much. Lorcher: Thank you. Lomeli: Madam Chair, the next person is Cecile Brock. Brock: Madam Chair, Commissioners, my name is Cecile Brock. I'm the owner of the current property that we are all discussing so -- so heatedly. Lorcher: Can you list the address for the record, please. Brock: 1100 East Pine Avenue. Lorcher: Okay. Brock: Meridian. I understand that this is problematic for neighborhoods anytime people come in and try to develop. Unfortunately it's part of life. I have -- my family's owned this property since the '40s. We had our own little commune there for a long time and we had five generations sitting on that property. I'm currently the third generation owner. This is my family legacy. If you notice all the names of the streets and everything are related to my -- it's my family, which I -- is neither here nor there I guess, but I have been watching and working with the developers and this is a beautiful project. The pictures and the thought that has gone into this has been very well thought out and they have talked and talked and I don't think I have ever heard of as many meetings as these guys have had as there has been a sign up for like a year. I just hope that you will look at the actual plan and not -- there is so many heated -- everybody's so excited about this whole thing. I don't think it -- I don't think it would -- I don't think it would matter what we did. They don't want to do it. So, I just hope that you guys will take into consideration that these planners have worked very hard. From the very beginning we have been completely in compliance. They keep making concessions. They keep changing, trying to make the community happy. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that's ever going to happen. I appreciate your time for listening to me ramble. Thank you. F21 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission December 4,2025 Page 19 of 38 Lorcher: Thank you. Lomeli: Madam Chair, we have Rick Salladay. Salladay: Good evening. Rick Salladay. 992 North Stonehenge Way. Madam Commissioner and all the Commissioners, thank you for hearing us. I think you heard enough complaints about all the concerns we have. The height is the main concern. You saw from the one picture the guy shot from across the field, you can see our roofs. I can stand in my backyard, I have a three foot wall -- retaining wall. On top of that retaining wall I have a six foot fence. Behind that six foot fence is Cecile Brocks. Friends or neighbors or family have parked a trailer. It's fine. They are perfect people. We get along fine. But I see that trailer four feet above my fence. Now, you think a trailer -- the mobile -- mobile home, it's something you pull behind a vehicle, four foot over my fence. You put a house there. Think about that now, people. That is not going to be four feet above my fence, that is going to be -- whatever window she is talking about, doesn't matter, I'm still going to see their windows, their wall, their house. I realize this property needs to be developed. It's going to be developed one way or the other. But we got to have concerns. Just like the other gentleman said, we want single story homes where people will move. This Pine 43 or whatever it is they built on -- right off a Pine, they insisted that it have certain levels of heights. They wanted to face Pine and be all fancy and cool. They drug in probably about 20 truckloads of dirt and raised that elevation up to what these people have been showing you to the surrounding homes. It's ridiculous. All -- I think we all ask here put single story homes around the surrounding edges. You build your two stories on the inside. On Adkins Lane -- I'm sorry people on Adkins Lane, but put a two-story there. They have got a buffer of the front yard and a street. But this is a money grab the way it is being planned. They are trying to push in more than they can really fit in there and that's what's being developed all across Meridian. If you guys don't see it I don't understand it, but they are pushing more and more in. Right across the street on Locust Grove, all those apartments, three stories high. That's great. That's on the other side. There is a whole bunch of apartments. We were abutting a 35 year old subdivision and I -- I'm not bragging, but I was the first resident in that subdivision before Stonehenge went all the way through. It doesn't bother me. I know we are going to get -- we are going to get developed. I have known that for 35 years and I respect Mrs. Brock's right to do that, but on the same note respect our right for a lower elevation. If you want two stories dig down, put a basement. There is your two stories. Probably cheaper right now than lumber. Anyhow, that's my concern right now, folks. Please consider that elevation issue. I know you guys already considered it and denied. My concern is that the City Council will approve it after you have denied. That's what happened at Pine 43. Thank you. Lorcher: Thank you. Lomeli: Madam Chair, no one else has signed up. Lorcher: Is there anybody else on Zoom this evening? 22 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission December 4,2025 Page 20 of 38 Lomeli: Madam Chair, there is one person. They do not have their hand raised. Lorcher: Is there anybody else in Chambers that would like to make a public comment? Would the applicant like to come forward and address some of the concerns? Durtschi: For the record again Sabrina Durtschi. First we would sincerely like to thank you for rehearing our case this evening. Our intent has been to clearly show the substantial improvements we made in response to your direction, specifically regarding density, neighborhood transition and overall usable space and we hope that these adjustments were evident during my presentation. As you all know in-fill development is inherently challenging. It is, however, a priority of the Mayor and the city's long-term planning goals, because it represents smart growth, utilizing existing infrastructure, streets, utilities, rather than stretching services outward to the fringe, in-fill strengthens neighborhoods by reinvesting areas that already have the bones to support the development. But with in-fill also comes change and challenges and that can be difficult, especially for long established neighbors who have lived next to an open field for a long time. One thing has been clear, meaningful compromise is necessary and we believe that the mitigation measures we have incorporated reflect that compromise and generally respond to the primary concern of privacy. A few things as far as traffic. We are under the threshold for doing a traffic impact study, but we are making improvements along Pine and Adkins and, then, we are going to be removing the main access ingress-egress points on to Pine. We will be making that a safer arterial road with less direct access onto it. As far as sun exposure, I'm not a meteorologist or a specialist in this, but when you have smaller footprints -- and the two stories would have a smaller footprint than a single story, I think that that would provide -- provide greater separation, larger backyards, greater depth in between the buildings. My engineer is here, we might have to bring him up if we have some more technical questions that I can't answer, but the grading -- he said there is a two percent grade difference, but our intent, of course, isn't to grade the site super high and bring fill in so the buildings are high. I think -- and he can maybe speak on it a little bit more, but that is not our intent. Our intent is to minimize the amount of fill that's on the site and to keep everything as level as the site is currently. As far as parking, we are meeting the parking standards. We have a driveway, two car garages that meet -- as far as I'm concerned -- I can look at the written -- that meet the parking requirements for the zoning code and he might want to elaborate on that a little bit more and to mention I am very empathetic and understanding of the neighbors and, yes, I did have a development built close to my house, but they were three story. I begged Council for two story, which didn't happen, and so that's much more intrusive than a two story product. So, to kind of reiterate our commitments that are before you this evening is that we did reduce the density and the number of lots by five on the perimeter of the site plan. We are in full agreement with limiting the two-story homes to a maximum height of 28 feet and that was a number that staff had provided and we are happy to meet that. The windows -- I feel like that is kind of a good compromise. Again, we are kind of like having to find ways to make things work and that the windows in the rear elevations of the two stories abutting the existing homes to the north and west, we are happy to have that as a condition of approval. Again, planting one additional tree in each of the rear yards to provide enhanced long- 23 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission December 4,2025 Page 21 of 38 term screening and be happy if that needs to be added as a condition and as we stated restricting that to Lot 2, Block 1, to a single story home as requested by Stephanie John at 1111 Adkins. We feel these measures represent meaningful good faith steps to ensure the project not only fits, but fits responsibly within the context of the neighborhood and we truly feel that this is a net good for the overall community for the City of Meridian. I'm happy to stand for any questions if there is anything I missed, if we need to have our engineer get up here, maybe discuss grading a little bit further, I would be happy with that. So, thank you. Lorcher: Yeah. I have a question. Durtschi: Yes. Lorcher: There was a question of-- are these going to be home ownership or rentals? Durtschi: No. These are all going to be home ownership. Lorcher: Okay. Perreault: Madam Chair? Lorcher: And what -- and what type of price point? I understand that the ones in the middle are -- are a smaller footprint than the ones on the perimeter, but what kind of price point are you looking for -- for these units? Durtschi: Yes. I'm kind of looking -- I think they are around the -- Lorcher: We are not going to make you hold to it, but -- Durtschi: Yes. I think they are around the 500, 600 range and I could be mistaken, but -- Brandon is that -- around the fives? Yes. Lorcher: Commissioners, do we have questions for the applicant? Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: I know there was some discussion about the kind of side profile of this northwest property. This is more than -- yeah, the -- the one that backs up -- both backs up to a property and the side backed up to an additional property. Is the intention to also have transom windows on that northern edge or just to the side of the home as well or would that second story have full windows? Durtschi: I think -- Madam Chair, let me -- let me get to the right slide. Here it is, Chairman Smith. I think we would be happy to be conditioned on the window placement 24 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission December 4,2025 Page 22 of 38 and that is one of the larger lots, so I think the potential for it to be a single story, there is potential there as well. So, I don't want to make any commitments, but I think those are the few larger lots that can accommodate a single story and would be happy to condition the extra window placement if needed. Lorcher: Commissioners, any other questions? Durtschi: Thank you. Perreault: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: So, the neighbors have all referenced that they have received limited communication or no communication regarding the changes that -- that you have proposed this evening. I realize that some of those changes were very recent and maybe there wasn't time and, then, you had stated that staff had given the neighbors your contact information. So, I assume you were just waiting for communication from the neighborhood. Did -- did staff cc you on that communication to the neighbors? Durtschi: Madam Chair, Commissioner Perreault, no. And I know that this is just one step. We also have City Council and all the neighbors here are more than what -- I'm more than happy to meet with them in between that time. Nick has my information that they can reach out, but I did communicate with Stephanie when we updated the layout. Originally the -- so, Stephanie is the one that lives to the north, the 1111 Adkins, and we originally had the house situated so that took access of Adkins instead of interior and she is like, Sabrina, I don't like that. Can you move the house, rotate it so that the -- it's all rear? And I said absolutely. And so I sent her the update. I don't have the e-mail, but it was -- I think it was before Thanksgiving telling her that we have expanded the lot. We are committing to a single story at this location. So, it was communicated and I -- I'm assuming she got it, because she responded, so -- so, I'm happy to communicate as much as I -- if-- if what -- as much as the neighbors need, so -- Perreault: Thank you. I -- I just wanted to -- it's not -- I'm not placing blame anywhere, I just wanted to see if we could get to the bottom of why some of the neighbors might not have received communication regarding this specific meeting and I -- I know it's a challenging thing to help one of the neighbors and, then, maybe other neighbors come and say, hey, well, can you do the same for my property. So, can you just -- just for everyone's sake can you kind of go through your process of consideration in terms of -- if we do single story, you know, did you -- did you look at that? What was that process like for you and the decision making? Because I know in these situations there is -- there is kind of a lot of assumptions made about the intentions involved with development. I just -- I want to understand all the things that you have done to -- or considered doing to meet the neighbors' concerns. F25] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission December 4,2025 Page 23 of 38 Durtschi: Sure. Madam Chair, Commissioner Perreault, so, again, I kind of got brought in at the midpoint in October and the developer is -- the applicant is here and he can maybe speak upon all the changes, but the number of layouts, revisions, thoughts, meetings has been exhausted. We have looked at multiple options, repositioning things and we feel that this truly is the best layout. We worked -- looked at the footprints and we are not saying that they are all going to be two-story, but it really is challenging for the -- for the lot size for the square footage if we need it for three bedroom units and so I think that that's why they want to keep the option of the two story, just in case that they -- if they want to do something a little larger, have a little more square footage, that they are able to. And, again, two stories are allowed within your zoning code. We are not asking for excessive amount, three story, four story, I mean it is -- it's kind of a -- it's -- two stories are a standard. So, I -- I do want to let you know that they have looked at this very extensively and we feel like this is the best layout and -- for lot sizes that we have and, again, they have reduced their lot count by five and I believe prior to submitting they lost several lots there, too. So, they have made some big changes and, again, I don't do the financials, I don't know what numbers they need. Obviously, it has to pencil and work. So, I think that they are at that point where they can't make any more revisions. Lorcher: Okay. Thank you very much. Durtschi: Yeah. Thank you all. I really appreciate your time. Lorcher: Can I -- may I get a motion to close the public hearing? Smith: So moved. Rust: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and second to close the public hearing on Farrington Heights Subdivision. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. Lorcher: I guess I can start on this one. I appreciate that the developer has made some changes to this to be able to accommodate this space. It's always hard to do in- fill. Like we have already talked about this. For 30 years everybody's used to having some open space, but that open space, that farmland, you know, does not belong to the neighborhood, it belongs to the homeowner, and that homeowner has a right to be able to sell their home or parts of their land and a developer has the right to be able to build. The transom windows, the additional trees, are all very generous options to be able to add to the privacy within this -- within this subdivision, but I don't feel that the modern look compared to the existing houses -- it -- it fits. It's like taking a -- an old -- an old Victorian house and, you know, putting something -- you know, something super modern and glassy right next to it. It just -- it doesn't fit the aesthetic of the neighborhood in my opinion. But I'm not buying there either and maybe somebody else 26 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission December 4,2025 Page 24 of 38 would like it. I sympathize with the homeowners from the one story to two story and I would encourage the developer to find a way to make the one stories work. I'm not in favor of this for that very reason. I cannot ignore the people who have come forward today. Not only today, but probably to City Council before and are back, you know, again, that -- it is going to get developed. So, something is going to get there. So, be careful what you wish for, because they may change it again and it might get worse. Everything the developer has suggested is within our code. They can put two stories. They can make the streets. The density is allowed. All of those things are on paper and are able to do that, but just because you can doesn't mean you should. So, you know, I appreciate all the -- the changes that the developer has made to do this, but for this particular parcel of land within this established community, even though the density is similar to the -- to the neighborhoods around it, I don't feel like I -- I can support this at this time. Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: I -- I kind of empathize with a lot of your thinking. I -- I do think I -- I have -- I could fall on the opposite side if a couple things happen and I don't know that we are talking about respectable compromise and I don't think that the community -- what -- what I'm envisioning out to the community would necessarily be overjoyed at and I don't think the developer would be overjoyed at. I think that's what compromise looks like. Lorcher: Uh-huh. Smith: I think I'm at a position where I'm not -- I don't think we are -- personally if it meets the design standards I don't personally think that I'm in a position to judge the aesthetics of a home, for example. I have -- I have always kind of been irked a little bit about character kind of considerations and -- and things like that that are inherently subjective and so I'm going to avoid that. I -- I think a lot of the conditions that the applicant has suggested tonight of, you know, Block 2, Block 1, being conditioned to be single story, limiting the windows to be transom windows, planting additional trees, et cetera, I think all valuable. I think the only thing that is pulling me back is the potential for a series of two-story buildings. I would have no problem if there were a two-story and, then, a single story -- two two stories and a single story and some variance to allow for some -- just some additional kind of feeling of openness on these neighboring properties. So, the two areas that I'm specifically looking at are these two -- if we could pull up a map. I'm looking at -- realistic looking at my own screen with the plat map. I don't know what actual lots they are, but the -- kind of on the -- the western half -- or the western portion, these four northernmost lots and I think conditioning -- I think something like conditioning that -- that northwest lot and the -- I guess if that's number one -- and I'm counting southward -- that lot -- that first lot and the Lot 3 where there is these two houses that each have two homes next to them, those are the two that I'm really like -- if we can get these to ensure that there is one story here I think that could put me over the edge. F27] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission December 4,2025 Page 25 of 38 Lorcher: Okay. Smith: So, I think that's kind of where -- where I'm at and I'm not trying to -- I don't want to get too deep into the weeds of is it four, three -- I just think that this kind of section of there being four rooms against two and the potential for them all being two stories kind of -- that's what really kind of gets me a little bit just on the other side of -- of maybe not loving this. So, I mean I would love to hear -- again, I don't want to get too deep into the weeds. I know I have already kind of maybe dipped my toes there, but I would love to hear other Commissioners of -- of maybe recommending something like that, giving the applicant an opportunity to -- you know, maybe they lose one more lot. I don't know if that's feasible or they play with the lot sizes or things like that, but just ensuring that there is some -- ensuring some breakup in -- in that story I think would be beneficial. Lorcher: Okay. Thank you. Rust: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Rust. Rust: I'm not a -- I'm not an architect and I don't want to pretend to be one either. I commiserate with Commissioner Smith. I'm a little bit torn on this one. I do appreciate the lengths to which the developer has gone to provide us elevations and I feel like this presentation was one of the best we have had, particularly for a controversial in-fill project. There is very few questions from the Commission. I really appreciate that. I have the plat pulled up here in front of me. I would, quite frankly, like my druthers, I would rather see no open space, bigger lots and height restrictions. But that's -- you know, I'm -- that -- I'm sitting on this side where I just am judging what is brought before us. Lorcher: Right. Rust: I like the reduction in density. I appreciate the fact that we went from -- I believe in the old proposal there was five lots that abutted 1111 Adkins and now we are at three and one of them is going to be a single family home that they are offering to make single -- a single story and that directly matches the residence at 1111. So, I do appreciate that. I think my biggest concern is probably that northwest lot. Having lived in neighborhoods where there was very minimal space between homes and there was two stories, I -- I can commiserate with the lack of privacy. Having that on two sides, that's just not ideal. I also would point out, though, that there are two-story dwellings in the subdivision, one of them right in the -- the cul-de-sac directly to the west. So, it's -- it's not something that's not been done before. It's -- in this area there is going to be probably others that pop their tops and -- and go up to gain more square footage. So, I -- again, if I could have my druthers I would probably just condition that northwest lot to be single story. It was already alluded that they might be willing to do that. I -- that would probably be where I shake out and I'm -- my comments on the open space are probably more for future development. I just -- I would rather see open space in the F28] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission December 4,2025 Page 26 of 38 smaller sub five acre parcels go more into lot sizes than I would into these small cut out parks that are going to be a -- a cost to the HOA, probably not going to be utilized and -- and they check boxes and they score amenities points, but it's not really necessary and not driving the value that -- that maybe we think they do. Lorcher: Got you. Thank you. Stoll: I thought Commissioner Perreault was going to go, but I guess I will go. I -- I recall the -- the last hearing we had on it when we denied it and several of the issues that we identified have been addressed towards -- there was a valiant effort to address them. I'm still bothered by the conflict amongst the existing neighborhood versus this development, particularly regarding the two stories. I understand that it's allowed to have two stories versus mandating that there is a one story, but I also saw the value of discussion between existing homeowners and some reasonableness to -- by the developer to adjust the plans to try to address the concerns. What I would like to see is that -- that same discussion occur with the other property owners that are abutting the proposed lots to see if there is some sort of compromise that can be had that will at least get us towards some sort of harmony amongst the existing residents and the new residents that are going to be buying those properties. So, I'm not sure what the formal recommendation is on this, whether it's just a continuance to allow for a discussion amongst the existing neighborhood and the developer, if that's allowable or not. Lorcher: Are you suggesting a continuance? Stoll: Kurt, I want to check whether that's something that's allowable. Starman: Madam Chair and Commissioner Stoll, obviously, you have to reopen the public hearing, but, yeah, that -- if there are questions or issues you think you need -- you need additional information as -- to make your decision and you would like to see, you know, additional dialogue or additional information that comes between discussions between the developer and the neighbors that testified or others that weren't able to be here tonight, I think that's -- that's fine. It should be, you know, not just to continue the not just to continue the debate, but to get some concrete information. So, I think it's you know, the purpose of the continuance would be get information you need to make a decision as to a recommendation to the City Council. So, I think -- I would encourage you to be as specific as possible. We are going to continue it for X number of weeks and we are looking for, in particular, more information about X, Y and Z. Stoll: Okay. Thanks. Lorcher: Sabrina did say that the developer was -- had made as many changes as they were probably going to make. I mean -- so, I mean we can reopen that and address it. I don't -- I don't think that continuing it is going to really make any changes, but I will entertain that with the other Commissioners if you think it might be worthwhile. Perreault: Madam Chair? F29] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission December 4,2025 Page 27 of 38 Lorcher: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: I agree on the continuance. I think that the developer has probably done kind of the most changes that they are going to be willing to. I have a question for staff. While I'm sharing my thoughts, is it possible to look at the plat more closely and identify which lots have more than say 4,500 square feet -- 4,500, 5,000 square feet and we can discuss limiting the stories on the lots that could accommodate that and -- and -- and, then, see if we can potentially address -- address some of those concerns of the two neighboring lots there on the west side that have two backyards abutting up against them. I wanted to just say a couple things very quickly to the audience. It's always a desire of mine to make sure that -- that our residents understand what our role is in this process more specifically. So, we realize that most of you have never come to anything like this. Probably never even crossed your mind. And there is a -- there is a belief, perhaps, that the city has more control over specific decisions in this process than we do. So, the -- this property is already annexed into the City of Meridian. So, if a property is not annexed the -- the city decision makers have a lot more leeway in requirements that they can make on the applicant. But that's not the case here and so what we primarily have to look at is is the applicant meeting the current Uniform Development Code and the Comprehensive Plan and those things like that and so our decisions that come into play really don't have to do with our personal preferences. I -- I can completely relate, because I have a two-story home right in my very small backyard. At first I was concerned about the privacy, but I have just adjusted to it and -- and that doesn't mean I don't understand where everyone is coming from, but it's -- it's something that all over the City of Meridian we have two-story homes up against single story homes. So, that can be a factor in our decision making, but it also isn't something that we can -- we just have to be careful if we are denying it only for that reason, because the applicant would have the ability to do that. However, we -- you know, we are going to -- we are going to take the whole big picture, but we -- we just have a -- a real specific balance that we have to strike as to why we approve or deny a property, not just based on kind of fears or -- or, you know, preferences on our part and that doesn't mean we are not taking all of your concerns into account, I just want to set the -- the tone for what this decision process is like for the Commission. So, that being said, I agree with a couple of my fellow Commissioners regarding the possibility of limiting the homes to single story if the lots will accommodate. I realize we can't make that decision for the developer and say, hey, 4,500 square feet is enough to do a single story for that builder. But we could ask -- I suppose we could open up the -- the public hearing again and ask. Did you happen to find that information? Napoli: Madam Chair, Commissioner Perreault, yes. So, there is really only two lots. It's going to be a Lot 2, Block 1, and Lot 7, Block 1. They are roughly about 4,700 square feet both of them. So, the rest of them on the outskirts of the -- the property are 3,500 square feet to 4,000 square feet. So, none of them are in that 4,500 -- above that, besides Lot 2 and Lot 7 of Block 1. Perreault: Madam Chair, may I ask staff another question? Thank you. What are the depths of the two lots? I can't see on here what the lot numbers are. But what are the F30] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission December 4,2025 Page 28 of 38 depths of the lots? The one that's off the common drive and the one to the south of that or -- yeah. Are those deep enough to do a single story that's long and skinny essentially? Napoli: Madam Chair, Commissioner Perreault, so the -- Lot 7 on -- where it touches the common drive is 75 feet and on the north boundary it's 95 feet and, then, Lot 8 below it is the 75 feet and on the south boundary of that lot it's the 84 feet. A matter of single story versus two story. It -- could you build a single story here? Yes. Definitely could. It's -- ultimately they have indicated to us, that's -- two story is their preference for financial reasons. We see -- we have seen single story homes on smaller lots that typically cater to older demographics, but at the end of the day we are not here to design -- or I'm not when they come in with their application to tell them what they -- what home to build on the lot as far as square footage and one, two story. Correct. Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: I think kind of where I'm at -- and I would be curious to hear the other Commissioners' thoughts -- is I think these two properties that are kind of the -- maybe the easier choices of conditioning to be one story -- I mean I think those seem like easy candidates. I would -- I would like to maybe condition of saying one additional home on that western boundary, let the developer figure out where it is, but ensuring that at least one of those is single story to, again, ensure some break up. I would like to see it about halfway down if I could -- you know, again, if I could wave my magic wand. But I think where I'm at is for single story is a Lot 2, Block 1, this most northern -- this northern west most parcel and at least one other of these properties in the R-15 zone on the western boundary. I'm curious if that seems like that might be amicable without getting too into the engineering what to build where, while still kind of ensuring some -- some break up. I'm curious to hear their thoughts. Garrett: Yeah. Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Garrett. Garrett: I don't -- in the time that I have been on the Commission I haven't seen an in- fill, be it commercial or residential, that hasn't been a problem. I mean, I don't know, it -- it -- it seems that everyone has an opinion on an in-fill and -- good or bad and I think the developer -- I -- I'm with Commissioner Rust, I would like to see the open area cut down, because what's the point of that? I mean it really doesn't solve anything and give everybody a little bigger lot and I think if they are meeting the height standards I think it's okay. I mean it meets -- it's within the building codes and it's in what's been approved and I'm -- I'm sorry, you know, I know that there was a lot of concerns over two story versus one story, but in the -- in the sense that it's been undeveloped for this period of time now is the time. F31 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission December 4,2025 Page 29 of 38 Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: I think -- I think it might just be time. I will make a motion and if it fails no offense will be taken. I will just look forward to the -- the next best option. Lorcher: Okay. Smith: So, after considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File No. H-2025-0038 as presented in the staff report with the following modifications: To require that single story homes be built -- or that single story usage be limited to Lot 2, Block 1, east northernmost lot -- northwestern most lot and, then, one additional lot on the western boundary of the R-15 zone. That an additional tree be planted in the backyard of each -- each property in the R-15 zone that board -- is bordering an existing -- or that backs up to an existing property and, then, to limit all second story windows on all properties, which would board -- in the R-15 zone which would border neighbors' yards to be transom windows only to protect privacy. Lorcher: I need you to make one adjustment on that. The application is 0016. Smith: I'm looking at the wrong one. Sorry. That would be for H -- wow -- 2025 -- Lorcher: Dash 0016. Smith: -- dash 0016. Lorcher: Okay. Smith: Thank you. Lorcher: Do I have a second to Commissioner Smith? Parsons: One more clarification. I think it's important to note that this is R-15 and R-4 zoning. I think it's your intention that it only apply to those -- the R-15 zoned portion of the development and not the R-4. Smith: Correct. Those are only applied to the second story limitations, the additional tree, et cetera, to the -- the R-15 zoning on the northern -- okay. Lorcher: So, can you summarize -- Smith: I can summarize. Yeah. So, for applying for the R-15 zoning I would move to approve with single story on Lot 2, Block 1, which is the one that backs up to 1111, this northern west most lot, which is in that top left corner on the map and, then, at least one F32 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission December 4,2025 Page 30 of 38 additional lot on this western boundary of the R-15 lot, to require the applicant plant an additional tree in the backyard of each of these bordering properties in R-15 as they said they would be willing to do and accept the condition and, then, similarly as they said they would be willing to accept as a condition to limit that all second story windows on any of these R-15 bordering properties be limited to only be transom windows. Lorcher: Do I have a second? Smith: I guess it fails. Lorcher: I guess it does not have a second, so the motion fails. Rust: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Rust. Rust: I will make a motion. I move that we approve Farrington Heights, File No. H- 2025-0016, with the following conditions: That we restrict Lots 1 and 7, 1 believe, to single story and the additional tree and the transom windows in the R-15 -- all for the R- 15 portion. Smith: I will second that. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to approve Farrington Heights Subdivision. All those in favor say aye. (Smith-Rust-Perreault-aye). Lorcher: Those not in favor? (Lorcher-Stoll-Garrett-nay). Lorcher: Are we tied again? Smith: We are tied again. Rock. Paper. Scissors. Sorry. Kurt? Starman: Yes. The motion fails. So, three-three does not -- is not a majority, so that motion fails as well. You can entertain a new motion or as we had to do recently for a different application, you could reopen the public hearing and continue until you have a tie breaking vote. Stoll: Madam Chair, if I can just throw out some thoughts. Lorcher: Commissioner Stoll. F33] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission December 4,2025 Page 31 of 38 Stoll: I really like Commissioner Rust's thoughts as far as allowing the developer to explore what they could do with the lot size and whether they could financially make it work out to single story without the green space that's being required in the in-fill development. Lorcher: So, with that in mind why don't we reopen the public hearing, so that we can approach the developer for a continuance to work on that open space. Can I get a motion to open -- reopen the public hearing? Smith: So moved. Stoll: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to reopen the public hearing to approach the developer about continuance of adjusting the plat. Will you come up to the microphones, please? Smith: Do we need to vote? Lorcher: Oh, did we not vote? It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Okay. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. Lorcher: I'm all flustered. We don't have ties very often. Durtschi: No. No problem. Lorcher: Thank you for -- Durtschi: Yes. Lorcher: -- being amenable and your patience. Durtschi: Yes. Lorcher: So, as a Commission we are a little bit torn -- Durtschi: I see that. Lorcher: -- on the application and it has been suggested that the open space may be potentially adjusted to offer more lot sizes and to really hone in on the potential of single stories with respect to the -- to the existing neighborhood. Is that something you would consider? F34] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission December 4,2025 Page 32 of 38 Durtschi: Madam Chair, I think -- we didn't even know that was an option since the last time we were directed to bring more open space, so we would be happy to go back, reevaluate, taking that open space out and making those lots larger, if that's the direction of all the Commissioners, yes. Lorcher: Okay. So, with that in mind -- Perreault: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: So, I want to ask a clarifying question. Are we just referring to the lots that are on the perimeter of the development and not the lots internally? Because there is no open space in that section, so -- or are we talking about a -- a revamp of the entire design? Lorcher: Well, I mean because it's under five acres open space is not officially required, correct, Nick? Napoli: Madam Chair, that is correct. Under five acres open space and amenities are not required by code. That is correct. Lorcher: So, should we give the leeway to the developer to look at the entire plat or you just want -- interested in just the perimeter? Perreault: Madam Chair, that was -- that was my question to the Commissioners is do we need to give them direction or share our thoughts on that? I -- I assume -- I would prefer that they have the option, obviously, to completely redesigned it if they would like. I just wanted to give clarification to them on what it is we are requesting of them. Smith: Madam -- Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: If I may. Also to -- to throw another wrinkle in here. I don't know that I would personally be comfortable if we remove the open space without reworking that interior buffer, because, again, there is -- there is no real significant open space for those lots. So, I -- I would almost -- for my personal support I -- I would kind of require the whole thing to be reworked if we are removing that open space. Lorcher: I think we leave it to the discretion of the developer to be able to present something that -- you know, that -- that works for them. Commissioner Rust. Rust: Yeah. Madam Chair, I -- I think what we have heard from the community is that they are open to development. They understand that this is going to be developed -- 35 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission December 4,2025 Page 33 of 38 Lorcher: Right. Rust: -- and the consistent item that I have heard is we don't want two stories. Lorcher: Right. Rust: So, I would theoretically be in favor of even increasing density by a couple of lots if it meant that we could only get single story. If they would go to single story. I think that that could be an effective compromise. But I -- I think we are seeing the -- the problem with trying to legislate from here what exactly can and can't happen. Lorcher: Right. Rust: So, I'm just trying to give my perspective. I would love to not really fetter them in any way and give you as the developer a chance to go back to the drawing board, look at it again, know that the community really doesn't want two stories and -- and see what you come back with, knowing the -- the business case that you have to make and -- and the performance you have to hit. Lorcher: Yeah. I mean everybody knows it's going to be developed. So, that's a given. The density that you were suggesting, whether it was the 30 homes or the 25 homes, fits into the -- the neighboring communities around it. Like Commissioner Rust said, I think the overall is is that there has been a -- because they -- the majority of them are single -- single story homes that it's intrusive. Garrett: Yeah. Lorcher: Commissioner Garrett. Garrett: Yeah. The -- the need for this open space is -- I just don't see it in that small an area. Lorcher: Right. Garrett: And if they can increase the lot size and increase the density, that's a win-win. So, I think that -- but that's -- that's between the developer and -- and whomever. Lorcher: Right. Garrett: That's certainly not our purview to dictate that. Lorcher: And I think additionally that had been a comment that staff had made, because there is no regional park in this area. So, if it is catering to small families now you don't have a space for them to go that with -- within their community. But legally or based on our code you don't have to either, so -- but if they have bigger backyards, like one of the residents said, that maybe that open space isn't as necessary. 36 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission December 4,2025 Page 34 of 38 Understanding today is December 4th, what timeline do you think you would need -- we will not have a meeting on January 1 st. Durtschi: Okay. Lorcher: So, our next meeting is the 18th and -- the 16th. No. That's City Council. So, Thursday, the 18th, is our next Planning and Zoning meeting. We won't have one the 1st, that's the first Thursday of January. Madam Clerk, what is the next date in January? Is that the -- Lomeli: Madam Chair, it's January 15th. Lorcher: 15th. So, with that in mind, knowing that you have December 18th or January 15th, do you have a preference or do you need more time? Durtschi: I think the sooner one would be fine. Absolutely. Just real quick, just for clarification, so that we don't have to table it again and -- again. But can the roads be reworked? Are you guys wanting the roads in the same position? We -- it's free -- we are free to make any changes? Bill? Nick? Napoli: Madam Chair -- Lorcher: Nick's having heartburn right now. Durtschi: I know. I think -- Napoli: -- Members of the Commission, you know, the 18th is two weeks out from today, so we will be sitting here today in two weeks. I know we already have three things on the agenda. Some of them are pretty large projects and I want to be sensitive to the applicant, but if they get me revised drawings, you know, a few days before, which probably is realistic, because you got next week -- they are probably going to be working hard all next week, over the weekend, and I might get it the week of the hearing, yeah, it's pretty tough on -- on staff's end. You know, if that's your guys' purview we will make it happen. But I think January 15th is definitely preferred. It gives us time and if we need to do a special meeting in January -- I know there has been conversations at the staff -- I would be more than happy to -- January 8th could even be a date where if we need to do it I would be happy to be there on that day as well, so -- and I -- I would like to hear from the applicant, too, on what they think on that and -- you know. Durtschi: And we are going to be sensitive to like your schedule and if you already have a full -- but, obviously, we have been -- we have been working and delayed and we were August and now it's December, so, obviously, sooner the better, but we do -- I mean if you did have a special hearing that would give us a little more extra time, because I really want the next time we are in front of you guys to be like this is what we want, so -- 37 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission December 4,2025 Page 35 of 38 Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: I also -- I -- I think part of the conversation was -- well, maybe not the applicant's fault or shortfall there, there maybe was some -- some opportunity for more engagement with the community. So, I think that later date would give some extra time for -- not saying that they -- we are going to reach agreement on everything, but seeing if we can fine tune some stuff to -- to get the community's approval. Lorcher: Commissioner Stoll. Stoll: Madam Chair, yeah, I would like to see some meaningful dialogue with the community, the existing neighborhood. That will make me feel much more at ease than -- saw the benefit of having the discussion with one homeowner. The other thing is -- I'm not sure you are going to have quorum -- Lorcher: On the 8th either. Right. Stoll: So, I think January 15th is probably your best. I think that's the date. Yeah. That's probably your best bet to allow everybody reasonable amount of time. I know it's frustrating from a developer standpoint, but -- Lorcher: We want you to succeed. Durtschi: Yeah. No. And I appreciate that. Lorcher: And if it's rushed again, then, we are going to be right back where we are -- Durtschi: Sure. Lorcher: -- at the same point in time. So -- so, we need to motion to close the public hearing and then motion for the 15th? Is that where we are at? Or just continue? Where am I at, Kurt? Starman: Keep -- keep the hearing open and you would ask for a motion to continue the hearing until January 15th. Stoll: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Stoll. Stoll: I move that we continue the public hearing for File No. H-2025-0016, Farrington Heights, until January 15th for the reasons -- to allow the developer to look at a revised plan to bring back to the Commission and to have meaningful dialogue with the F38] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission December 4,2025 Page 36 of 38 surrounding landowners to see if there is the opportunity for it to bring some sort of harmony and agreement -- compromise on the proposal that will be presented to us. Lorcher: Do I have a second? Smith: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to continue Farrington Heights. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. Lorcher: Yes. We will take a five minute break and, then, we will have our next application. (Recess: 7:48 p.m. to 7:53 p.m.) 4. Public Hearing continued from November 20, 2025 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: All right. The next item on the agenda is Item H-2025-0038, 3780 Overland Road, for annexation of .91 parcel of land and we will begin with the staff report. Napoli: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, next item on the agenda is the annexation for 3780 East Overland Road. So, actually, on the screen the existing zoning is R-1 in Ada county and the FLUM designation is mixed use regional. This applicant actually has a hook-up agreement with the city. Their well was failing, they are in the county, and they need to hook up to city water and sewer as an emergency hookup and as a provision of that they needed to annex into the city. So, as a result -- zoning obviously the appropriate zone in a mixed-use regional. However we are in the R-2 zoning, obviously, would not be the appropriate zone in a mixed use regional. However, we ought to give them an R-2 zone as a placeholder zoning until that property does redevelop. So, you know, really, we haven't received any written testimony on this one. They do run a home occupation business. It's actually an alteration business out of it right now and one of my DA provisions is that they acquire a home occupation as an accessory use permit here with the city or cease the -- the home occupation if it doesn't meet our standards and they are aware of that. I haven't received any written testimony, as I mentioned, and we are recommending approval with that development agreement. So, essentially, the property will be R-2 and they will have to come in with a development agreement application at the time that it does redevelop and it will likely be F39] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission December 4,2025 Page 37 of 38 with some of the neighboring properties at the time of redevelopment. So, this is more of annexing them, so they can hookup -- emergency hookup into city services. Lorcher: So, I don't see anybody in Chambers, so I take it there is no particular applicant here. You are just -- you are -- you are going to plead their case? Napoli: Madam Chair, the applicant -- he did indicate he would be online. It sounds like there was -- he probably was online. He might have tuned off over the last -- last public hearing, so, you know, I don't think he would have much to say. They are just looking for an approval. They already have the hookup in process to get hooked up to city water, because that well was failing, so -- yes, hopefully they will be here at the Council hearing. Lorcher: Again I think this is a first where we haven't had an applicant in Chambers. So, we closed the public hearing, since there is no one here to speak. Starman: So, Madam Chair, that's -- if the applicant is not here to speak, that's -- that's fine. I think we will have the same answer, but I guess I just -- for the record I guess you invite the public to -- I'm not sure if there is anybody on Zoom or not, probably not, but -- Lorcher: No. Starman: -- if there is anybody in the public that would like to testify that would be fair game as well and, absent that, you can entertain a motion to close the public hearing. Lorcher: All right. Perreault: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: I have a question for staff. Lorcher: Sure. Perreault: I thought I read in the staff report that there was a recommendation that the applicant put together a concept plan and so I -- I'm hoping that's not the case, because that would seem a bit excessive to me considering it's going to redevelop all in a much larger swath. Napoli: Madam Chair, Commissioner Perreault, I need to go back and reread it. I apologize if I read it -- or wrote it incorrectly, but, no, at the time of redevelopment is when we will receive that concept plan. So, I apologize if that was unclear in the staff report. F40] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission December 4,2025 Page 38 of 38 Lorcher: All right. May I have a motion to close the public hearing? Rust: So moved. Stoll: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on 3780 East Overland. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. Lorcher: Do we have any conversation? Possibly a motion? Rust: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Rust. Rust: After hearing all public testimony I recommend that we approve File No. H-2025- 0038 for approval as set forth in the staff report. Stoll: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to approve 3780 East Overland. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. Lorcher: I will take one more motion. Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Oh, we get stereo. 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. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:58 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS. ) APPROVED 12 1 18 1 25 MARIA LORCHER - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK F41 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Approve Minutes of the November 20, 2025 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting 3 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 K IDIAN:--- iuAn Planning and Zoning Presentations and outline h2 Planning and Zoning , 2025 th December 4Commission Meeting Zoning MapAerialFLUM PreviousCurrent Zoning MapAerialFLUM V IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing continued from September 18, 2025 for Lofty Creek Park (Live/Work) (H-2025-0020) by The Corners Office Design, generally located at the NW Corner of S. Eagle Rd. and 1-84 Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2025-0020 A. Request: Rezone of 6.34 acres of land from the L-O zoning to the C-C and C-G zoning districts. B. Request: Short Plat to subdivide the property into two lots to allow for the phasing development. C. Request: Modified Development Agreement to remove multi-family as an allowed use and allow for live-work residential units, offices and hotels on the property. 48 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT C��fEPIDIAN*,,--, DEPARTMENT REPORT HEARING 12/4/2025 Legend DATE: Project Location TO: Planning&Zoning Commission +-: Area of impact Analysis FROM: Nick Napoli,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 z. nnapoli@meridiancity.org •t APPLICANT: Brandon Sheltrown m SUBJECT: H-2025-0020 - Lofty Creek Park LOCATION: Generally located at the NW corner of S. Eagle Road and I-84 in the NE 1/4 of ` Section 17,T.3N.,R.IE. I. PROJECT OVERVIEW A. Summary Rezone of 6.34 acres from the L-O zoning to the C-C and C-G zoning districts, a short plat to subdivide the property into two lots to allow for the phasing of the development, and a development agreement modification to remove multifamily as an allowed use and allow for live work residential units, office, and hotels on the property. B. Issues/Waivers - Staff is recommending a change to the site plan to shift the access from the south portion of the site to the north portion of the site along S.Wells Avenue.This is primarily due to the offset of the property across S.Wells Street. C. Recommendation Staff: Approval with the conditions listed in Section IV. Commission: Pending D. Decision Council: Pending City of Meridian I Department Report 1. Project Overview ■ I1. COMMUNITY METRICS Table 1: Land Use Description Details Map Ref. Existing Land Use(s) Vacant - Proposed Land Use(s) Live/Work - Existing Zoning L-O(Limited Office) VII.A.2 Proposed Zoning C-C(Community Business District) Adopted FLUM Designation MU-C(Mixed Use Community) VII.A.3 Table 2: Process Facts Description Details Preapplication Meeting date 10/15/2024 Neighborhood Meeting 1/21/2025 Site posting date 11/21/2025 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 S.Wells Street(Local Street) - • Traffic Level of Service N/A - ITD Comments Received Yes:Memo Error! Reference source not found. Meridian Public Works Wastewater IV.B • Distance to Mainline Available at the Site • Impacts or Concerns See Public Works Site Specific Conditions Meridian Public Works Water • Distance to Mainline Available at the Site • Impacts or Concerns None 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 ■ Figure 1: One-Mile Radius Existing Condition Metrics Reference Parcel:R5443010239 Date Retrieved:2025/4/21 Parcel Count Parcel Acreage Infiii Indicator: 210 Surrounding Area 304 O '� 6 ,p Not city 0 ® City Limits 1,308 1,593. ■ Not City 0 Household Household& Population Growth Households 02020 Population Change:15.2°I° Population ■Growth (Household and Population Change since 2010 Decennial) 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 Use Types Residential Addresses All Addresses ■ Single-family 71% 40% Multi-family 2 4395 1796 ® Commercial 2.00 500 Single-family 3 Residential 01 1.50 Parcel Diversity a 1.00 U 0Parcel Count 0.50 L m *' 0.18 10-15 0.12Average Acres 0.000 R-2 R-4 R-8 R-15 Average Single-family Density by Zoning Average 10.00 m �8.61 Residential NetDensity 0 6.68 � 5.00 0 5.67 _ 5,87 0.00 0.91 Dwelling Units 1 Acre R-2 R-4 R-8 R-15 Notes: See Error! Reference source not found..Error!Reference source not found.. Notes: See Error! Reference source not found..Error!Reference source not found.. City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics ■ Figure 2: Service Impact Summary impactService ■ ■ Ready Marginal Caution Odd Notes: See Error! Reference source not found..Error!Reference source not found.. City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics ■ III. STAFF ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code(UDC) A. General Overview The subject property is within the Mixed Use Neighborhood(MU-N) designation on the Future Land Use Map(FLUM). The purpose of the MU-N designation is to allocate areas where neighborhood-serving uses and dwellings are seamlessly integrated into the urban fabric. The intent is to avoid predominantly single-use developments by incorporating a variety of uses. Land uses in these areas should be primarily residential, comprising between 30%and 60%of the development area with gross densities ranging from six(6)to 12 units per acre(of the residential area),with supporting non- residential services. Multiple residential product types are desired within a single-mixed use area (see pp. 3-20&3-21 in the Comprehensive Plan for more info).Non-residential uses in these areas tend to be smaller scale and provide goods or services that people typically do not travel far for and need regularly. Employment opportunities for those living in the neighborhood are encouraged. Connectivity and access between the non-residential and residential land uses is critical in these areas. Tree-lined streets are also encouraged to be designed according to the conceptual MU-N plan depicted in Figure 3D in the Comprehensive Plan(see pp. 3-20 through 3- 21 for more information on mixed-use land uses and specifically MU-N uses in the Comprehensive Plan). The applicant is proposing fifteen(15)live/work residential units with phase one(1) and twenty- seven(27)total live/work units across both phases. These units range in size from 2,346 to 2,690 square feet,with the non-residential on the first floor(1,209 square feet),the main living area on the second floor(1,209 square feet),and a rooftop patio(272 square feet). In addition,the applicant is proposing an approximately 150,000 square foot hotel on the eastern portion of phase two (2). The proposed density of the live/work residential project units is 4.5 units per acre, which is less than the six(6)units per acre minimum desired in the MU-N FLUM designation. Due to the hybrid nature of this use and it being one of the first in the city limits,the applicant believes that the live/work residential is providing both housing and business opportunities within each unit that meet the desired residential and employment opportunities in the MU-N designation.Additionally,the live/work residential project is providing a mix of housing types in the area that is desired in the MU-N designation,and a significant part of the site is encumbered by the floodway which can create challenges in meeting the density requirement. The applicant is also proposing to remove multi-family as permitted use on the site to lessen the density and contribute to employment in the area. The proposed hotel on the eastern portion of the site incorporates a mix of uses within the area and avoids a high-density housing option that many of the neighbors are concerned about in the area.While this proposed development does not account for the housing density desired in the area,the neighboring in-progress subdivision to the west(Latitude Forty-Three Subdivision)was 15%over the desired residential in the MU-N area,which may balance out the residential and commercial uses desired. The subject property is bordered by hotels to the east,residential areas in Ada County to the north and south, and the neighboring in-progress Latitude Forty-Three Subdivision to the west. The applicant has indicated a potential sale or land swap with the southern neighbor for the area south of Five Mile Creek,though no agreement is currently in place. This portion of the property lies almost entirely within the floodway,making development challenging.As such,it can remain undeveloped as a part of the natural waterway but shall be maintained. In addition,staff is recommending this portion of the site be platted as a third lot in the subdivision and is designated as non-buildable to allow for easier sale/transfer of the property in the future. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ Rezone: Rezone of 6.34 acres of land is requested with the C-C(6.26 acres) and C-G(0.08 acres)zoning districts per the legal descriptions and exhibit maps included in Section VII. Due to a property boundary adjustment the existing L-O zoning extends across the eastern property line into another parcel that is zoned C-G. To help clean up the zoning the applicant will be rezoning .08 acres from the L-O district to the C-G district. The properties are under common ownership. The future Hotel property currently abuts a residential use in the county which would require a Conditional Use Permit with phase two(2)of the development. C-C and C-G zones are allowed in the MU-N FLUM designation. Development Agreement Modification: The Development Agreement that currently governs the site restricts the property to be developed as either multifamily or office. The applicant is requesting a change to this to allow for a live/work residential project, a hotel, and offices to be developed on the property. This will also remove multifamily as an allowed use on the property,which is no longer allowed in the UDC. Short Plat: Subdivide the parcel into two(2)parcels(1.65 acres and 4.61 acres)to allow for the development to be separated into two(2)phases. "Encourage and support mixed-use areas that provide the benefits of being able to live, shop, dine,play, and work in close proximity,thereby reducing vehicle trips, and enhancing overall livability and sustainability."(3.06.02B) The subject Mixed-Use Neighborhood currently contains offices, single-family detached homes, hotels, and Ada County undeveloped land. The proposed live/work residential units provide an opportunity for residents to live and work at the same location, which would reduce vehicle trips in the surrounding areas. This increases the variety of uses in the area. "Maintain a range of residential land use designations that allow diverse lot sizes,housing types, and densities."(2.01.01 C) As mentioned above, the proposed liv/work units are some of the first in the city and would provide a unique product to allow residents to live and work at the same location. While the proposed live/work does not meet the density the city has envisioned in this location, the variety that this product will provide is what the comprehensive plan has envisioned for the area. "Protect and enhance existing waterways,groundwater,wetlands,wildlife habitat,air, soils, and other natural resources."(4.05.01 C) The subject property abuts Five Mile Creek which is considered a natural waterway. Natural waterways shall be kept as a natural amenity for development, which is why staff is allowing the southern portion of Five Mile Creek to remain unimproved. However, the area still does need to be maintained. "Support economic opportunities for a community with diverse income levels."(2.06.02) The subject development provides an opportunity for residents to live and work in the same building which promotes economic opportunities for entrepreneurship and housing under a single use. "Make Meridian the premier place to create, attract, and retain high-quality businesses and a talented workforce."(2.08.02B) By introducing a live-workproduct into the community, it allows businesses to move or be created in Meridian. While they are not large employment generating uses, they are important uses for service industry that may positively impact the surrounding residents. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ Table 4: Project Overview Description Details History AZ-04-029;DA Inst# 106073890;PBA-2021-0010 Phasing Plan Two(2) Residential Units 15 Live/Work Residential Units Physical Features Five Mile Creek Acreage 6.34 Acres Lots Two(2)Lots Density 9 Units/Acre(Phase 1) 4.5 Units/Acre(Both Phases) B. History The subject property was included in an approved annexation of 8.58 acres in 2004(AZ-04-029), which established C-G and L-O zoning designations. As part of the annexation,the property became subject to a development agreement that outlined specific parameters for future development of the L-O zoned portion(this property).Under that agreement, development was limited to either multifamily residential or office center uses. In 2022,the applicant submitted a development proposal for the property,which was subsequently withdrawn. Since then, staff has worked closely with the applicant over the past year to refine their proposal. These efforts have focused on identifying a suitable modification to the existing development agreement, one that aligns with the applicant's vision while also introducing new development options that will benefit the city's residents. C. Site Development and Use Analysis 1. Proposed Use Analysis (UDC 11-2): The proposed use of the property is live/work residential project and a hotel. A live/work residential project is designed to incorporate both residential and nonresidential uses within the same unit. The applicant is proposing a total of twenty-seven(27)units across both phases. In addition,the applicant is proposing a hotel with phase two (2)of the development on the eastern portion of the site. The live/work residential projects and hotel are permitted uses in the C-C zoning district,per UDC Table 11-2B-2. 2. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): The applicant shall comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-213-3.It appears the applicant's proposed plans comply with the dimensional standards; however, this will be further evaluated with the submittal of the Certificate of Zoning Compliance. 3. Specific Use Standards (UDC 11-4-3): Live/Work Residential Project(UDC 11-4-3-50) A. A live/work structure shall not exceed three thousand(3,000)square feet. The planning department coordinated with the building department to confirm that each unit cannot exceed 3,000 square feet, and not the entire 5 plex. These units will be condo- platted to make each available for sale, which makes them a separate structure. B. The nonresidential area shall be limited to the first floor only and not exceed fifty(50) percent of the gross floor area of the structure. The nonresidential portion of each unit is less than fifty(50)percent of the gross floor area of the structure. C. The nonresidential area shall be used by the occupant of the dwelling.No more than five (5) employees shall occupy the area at any one time. The applicant understands this standard and will be required to comply. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ D. Parking standards shall comply with the vertically integrated residential project standards. The applicant has provided parking calculations for phase one(l) that meet the requirements. 58 parking spaces are required, and 64 spaces are being provided. The parking for phase two (2) will be confirmed with the submittal of the certificate of zoning compliance. E. The allowed nonresidential uses in a live/work project include: Arts,entertainment or recreational facility artist studio, and personal or professional service,retail; other uses may be considered through a conditional use permit. Understood. The applicant shall comply with this standard. Hotel or Motel(UDC 11-4-3-23) A. Accessory uses including,but not limited to,restaurants,retail, drinking establishments, and personal services,may be allowed if such uses are completely within the hotel or motel structure. A drinking establishment shall require separate or concurrent approval subject to the regulations of section 11-4-3-10 of this chapter. The applicant will be required to abide by this when the hotel develops in phase two (2). B. A conditional use permit shall be required for any hotel or motel use that adjoins a residential district or an existing residence. The subject site for the hotel currently abuts a residential district or existing residence which would require a conditional use permit prior to submitting for a certificate of zoning compliance and design review application. D. Design Standards Analysis 1. Structure and Site Design Standards (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-19): Compliance with the structure and site design standards in UDC I I-3A-19 is required for the non-residential portion of the development. The pathway proposed along Nine Mile Creek shall be fully extended with phase one(1)and provide a pedestrian connection to the future hotel to promote pedestrian mobility within the mixed-use development.Additionally,the applicant shall provide a pedestrian connection from the ten(10)foot multi-use pathway to the live/work units on the west portion of the site that is delineated from the drive aisle through bricks,pavers, or stamped concrete. The proposed commercial structure and attached live/work units are required to comply with the Architectural Standards Manual(ASM). In addition,due to results from a traffic study being conducted by the city, staff is recommending the entrance for the development be shifted from the southern boundary to the northern boundary along Wells Street. This will allow for an adequate offset to where a future collector road could be placed. 2. Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): i. Landscape buffers along streets A ten(10)foot wide street buffer is required along S.Well Street, a local street. The landscaping within this buffer is required to be installed per UDC 11-313. The proposed landscape plan appears to meet this requirement. However, staff is requiring vegetation calculations to be submitted with the certificate ofzoning compliance application. ii. Parking lot landscaping Landscaping is required to be provided along all parking areas per the standards listed in UDC 11-313-8. The proposed landscape plan appears to meet the minimum requirements. The applicant shall provide vegetation coverage calculations with the submittal of the certificate of zoning compliance submittal. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ iii. Landscape buffers to adjoining uses Landscaping is required to meet the standards of UDC 11-3B-9. The landscape plan meets the minimum requirements. iv. Tree preservation Mitigation shall be required for all existing trees four-inch caliper or greater that are removed from the site with equal replacement of the total calipers lost on site up to an amount of one hundred(100)percent replacement(Example: Two(2)ten-inch caliper trees removed may be mitigated with four 5-inch caliper trees, five(5)four-inch caliper trees, or seven(7)three-inch caliper trees). Deciduous specimen trees four-inch caliper or greater may count double towards total calipers lost,when planted at entryways,within common open space, and when used as focal elements in landscape design. If trees are proposed to be removed, the applicant shall provide mitigation calculations with submittal of the certificate of zoning compliance application. v. Storm integration Storm drainage is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-18. vi. Pathway landscaping Landscaping is required to be provided along all pathways per the standards listed in UDC 11-313-12C. The applicant does not meet the pathway landscaping requirements and shall revise their site and landscape plan to reflect compliance with these standards. A minimum of ten (10)feet of landscaping is required along pathways with no less than two (2)feet on any one side. Staff will require this with the submittal of the certificate of zoning compliance application. 3. Parking (UDC 11-3C): i. Residential parking analysis Live/work residential projects are required to follow the parking standards for vertically integrated residential projects. The applicant has indicated each Live/Work unit is a two (2) bedroom unit which requires 1.5 parking spaces. In addition to this, the commercial space requires one(1)space every 500 square feet of gross floor area. The applicant has provided 64 parking spaces when 58 are required to meet the parking standards for both the residential and commercial components of the development. ii. Bicycle parking analysis UDC 11-3C mandates one(1)bicycle parking space shall be provided for every twenty- five(25)proposed vehicle parking spaces or portion thereof, except for single-family residences,two-family duplexes,and townhouses. The applicant did not propose and bicycle parking with this application but shall revise the site and landscape plans to show compliance with this standard. 4. Building Elevations (Comp Plan,Architectural Standards Manual): Goal 2.02.02F of the Comprehensive Plan highlights the importance of new development within and in close proximity to existing residential neighborhoods is cohesive and complementary in design and construction. In response,the developer has submitted elevations consisting of fiber cement lap siding, stucco, fiber cement board and batten siding, and cultured stone veneer. Staff has discussed the design with the applicant as the intent of a Live/Work structure is to have the appearance of a residential building. The applicant has made some changes; however, staff recommends including materials from the recently approved Latitude 43 City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ Subdivision to help integrate the two developments. The materials include shake siding, vertical and horizontal lap siding, and board and batten siding.While the applicant is attempting to match some of these with the current design,the materials are primarily one material, fiber cement. This leaves a more commercial appearance that is not desired for the live/work residential projects. Final design shall comply with the residential standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. The applicant shall submit a certificate of zoning compliance and design review application. 5. Fencing (UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): Fencing shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-6 and 11-3A-7. The applicant is not proposing any fencing at this time, but any future fencing shall comply with the UDC standards. 6. Parkways(UDC 11-3A-17): No Parkways are proposed; however, Staff is recommending detached sidewalks with parkways for tree-lined streets as mentioned in the MU-N FLUM designation. The landscaping shall be in compliance with UDC 11-3A-17. E. Transportation Analysis 1. Access (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-3, UDC 11-3H-4): Access is proposed for the site via S.Wells Street, a local street. This includes a single curb cut access,that will eventually connect to an existing private drive aisle to the east, once phase two has been completed. The applicant is providing a hammerhead for a fire truck turnaround until phase two has been completed. Local street connectivity is proposed within the development in accord with Comprehensive Plan Policy#6.01.02B, "Reduce the number of existing access points onto arterial streets by using methods such as cross-access agreements,access management, and frontage/backage roads,and promoting local and collector street connectivity." The city is currently in the process of conducting an RFQ to look at the traffic along E. Magic View Drive and E.Woodbridge Drive. This study has not been completed yet; however,it will analyze the best orientation for future roadways through the immediate area between Eagle Road and Locust Grove. As a result of some of the preliminary findings from this study, staff recommends the primary entrance off of Wells Street be shifted to the northern boundary of the site to allow for adequate offset. In addition,cross-access was not addressed on the short plat but shall be included with the final plat application through a plat note. 2. Multiuse Pathways and Pathways (UDC 11-3A-5, Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-8): Multi-use pathways are required to be provided with development in accord with the Pathways Master Plan. A 10' wide segment of the City's multi-use pathway system is proposed along Fivemile Creek that will stub to the Latitude 43 Subdivision(R5443010210) and Ada County property to the south(Parcel#R5443010160). This multi-use pathway shall be placed in a 14-foot wide public pedestrian easement prior to submittal for the final plat signature for the City Engineer signature. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ Staff is recommending the entirety of the ten(10) foot multi-use pathway be installed with phase one(1)of the development to promote better pedestrian connectivity in the area. 3. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17): All sidewalks should be constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17. Five-foot wide attached sidewalks are proposed along all local streets within and adjacent to the development.As noted above, Staff recommends detached sidewalks with landscaped parkways are provided in the MU-N designated portion of the site in accord with the Comprehensive Plan. F. Services Analysis 1. Waterways (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-6): UDC 11-3A-6 requires natural waterways intersecting, crossing,or lying within the area being developed to remain as a natural amenity and shall not be piped or tiled. The subject site is intersected by Five Mile Creek. The applicant is proposing to leave the creek open as it is a natural waterway and use it as a natural waterway that the ten(10)foot multi-use pathway will run along. In addition,the applicant is proposing to leave the south side of Five Mile Creek as a natural area until phase two(2)commences or the land is swapped or sold. This is primarily due to almost the entire portion being inside the floodway which possess significant challenges for redevelopment. However, as a result of this, staff is recommending the area south of Five Mile Creek be designated as Lot 3 within the subdivision and is designated as a non-buildable lot. This way, it can remain in its natural state but can be sold in the future if someone chooses to buy it. 2. Pressurized Irrigation(UDC 11-3A-15): An underground pressurized irrigation system is required to be installed to provide irrigation 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 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 111. Staff Analysis ■ IV. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. Meridian Planning Division 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 modification. The addendum shall,at a minimum, incorporate the following provisions: A. The applicant shall comply with the provisions in the existing development agreement (Instrument# 106073890)with the addition/modification of the following provisions. • Replace Provision#4.1.2 with: "The primary uses on the property zoned C-C shall be live/work residential, offices, and/or a hotel." • Add Provision#5.1: Future development of the subject site shall be substantially consistent with the revised concept plan included in Section VI and the provisions contained herein. • Add Provision#5.2: The subject property shall be subdivided through a short plat submittal prior to issuance of any building permit applications for the first phase of development in which they are located. • Add Provision#5.3: Tree-lined streets with detached sidewalks shall be provided in the MU-N designated portion of the development in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan for MU-N designated areas. • Add Provision#5.4: Construct the entirety of the ten(10) foot multi-use pathway with phase one of the development. • Add Provision#5.5: Any future development of the site must comply with the City of Meridian ordinances in effect at the time of the development. • Add Provision#5.6: With the final plat application,the applicant shall designate the property south of Five Mile Creek as a third lot in the subdivision that is designated as a non-buildable lot. . • Add Provision#5.7: Prior to certificate of occupancy for any of the Live Work buildings, the applicant shall submit a short plat application to condo the units. B. The Final Plat/Landscape Plan shall include the following revisions: • Graphically depict the 14-foot-wide public pedestrian easement for the multi-use pathway with the recorded instrument number of the easement. • Construct a detached sidewalk with and 8-foot wide parkway adajcnet to S. Wells Street.in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17 and UDC 11-3B-7C. • The 5-foot-wide landscape strips along pathways shall include a mix of trees, shrubs, lawn, and/or other vegetative ground cover as set forth in UDC 11-313-12C; trees should be spaced out more evenly for shade purposes at approximately one (1) every 100 linear feet, additional trees beyond the minimum number may be provided. • Include a calculations table that demonstrates compliance with the standards for landscaping within street buffers(UDC 11-313-7C), along pathways(UDC 11-313- 12C) and within common open space areas(UDC 11-3G-5B). • Provide a pedestrian connection from the 10-foot multi-use pathway along Five Mile Creek to the live/work units on the west side of the private drive aisle that is delineated through bricks,pavers, or stamped/scored concrete. • Provide bicycle parking for each building as required in UDC 11-3C-5. • Provide pathway landscaping in compliance with UDC 11-3B-12. • Add a plat note referencing cross-access between the separate lots in the subdivision. City of Meridian Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions ■ Create a third lot in the subdivision for the property south of Five Mile creek. C. Submit a 14-foot-wide public pedestrian easement for the multi-use pathway on this site prior to submittal of the final plat for City Engineer signature. D. Off-street parking shall be provided for all live/work units in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6. E. The Five Mile Creek shall remain open as a natural amenity and shall not be piped or otherwise covered in accord with UDC 11-3A-6 and shall be protected during development. F. All waterways, except natural waterways(i.e.the Five Mile Creek), intersecting,crossing, or lying within the area being developed 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. G. All live/work units shall comply with the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application shall be submitted for approval of the proposed structures prior to submittal of building permit applications. H. The proposed hotel with phase two (2) shall submit a conditional use permit if it adjacent to an existing residences prior to submitting a certificate of zoning compliance application. I. 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 11-3B-5,UDC 11-3B-13 and UDC 11-3B-14. J. The Applicant shall comply with all ACHD's conditions of approval. K. If the City Engineer's signature has not been obtained within two(2)years of the City Council's approval of the short plat,the short plat shall become null and void unless a time extension is obtained,per UDC 11-613-7. L. Staff's failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or conditions from the previous approvals noted above does not relieve the Applicant of responsibility for compliance. City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions ■ B. Meridian Public Works wastewater + Uie"nce to Sewer Awaawme al Site Ser db s Fewer Shed EstJrnaled Project See-WOIc LkA Sevier ERUVs * WRWr declining Balance i Project[onsi&(en1 Yes with MM Mauer PUnjF;W&Ly Plan IrrpacWLcncerns • See Pubir Works SKe SpK#w Candotlans MAIM i GLstance to water lrdater hvallahle at FAIL' sffA4es + PressureZ13M Estlrraated Project See appilcatlon Water ERWS r waw QOditw Nolte n0jectrrrwMAW Yes with wa m uwAer Mn s dS. OriL5LY1K plum- NON-PLATCON DI1'ION5 PUEr.K:WORKS 1Wr&Kimr..rrr 5ile 5petLU Codd1 oim Of Approval 1. Ira WcLI in luvauLI un LIrL YILc IL nwNE hL_ahamdurkxl M-r nryuLammy n-Nmr immnu and Firm&uf ahandunmuu lmu L he prnvKLLr1 W dew OLy_ 2_ D urc no scwcl services pass through infiltration IrcnchvL 3. PnwK1c 2fJ']47nLML%fsir main,hydr L Intl rats and w bu sL� iLo.LLa Mlrnu-J L ld eKtEnd uP W Lllc L71d uFnoin2hyd=3Uwa1Lr Incicr aril IIr k -Wnd iL 4_ No permammt Fuvctuws(bmcfl,budmfi,buildings,cwpori%trash moq►tacic waLLs,fences, inf l.tra2ion trcnchcs,Iij&pale etc.)to be built within the utility casanalt 5_ Water mcLcm arc rcLquircd to be outside of Mivc arcs,place mffbm i n Landsmpc arcs Gemeal Coddk6ffi of Approval 1. ApphrnLl shall L4K1rd3n2LL.c waLL-r wW scwL7 main Sri and iumun wi7h The PILhLir Works 1lcpa UU nL. City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions ■ 2. PLT M-cridiyu City Cb&(Lr1W),OLc applilanL shaL1 hL Fugm LnsiML:ul imuall,Lwcr and walLT mains lu anLl llmlogll Ihi3 JLrcLoprrrcnL. hpp6LmLl lnay hL L6gihil fur a reimhurNLnaTJ ngru wmu For 3nfr&dmLlun_cnhanmmmLl pc-r JACC R fL 5_ 3. ]he arplJr KdML%hall pruvi&L'a mir Lml(%)1i7r all public walcrt%LwLT moku oasid1"ur public rrghL of way(includL aLl wa[cr3 ii:cs and hyz"iu). LkWMIXMIL F N IMIIL-ILL 4a KN dLpLTldmg url%c'wLT 4k-PdL.ScwLT il 20 fL dnc3r rtlqure a 311 11 rs cuanll,20 25 fl a 40 fl vimabuiL,and 25 3U FL&4 5 It C33MOLML 1 n%Wt:7ul licrumrurL sixiiin•ums(unni,bu%Iles,hwll up,LnrpwL3.Ird:ih nixarlaLlc wajbr fen K,Mf1ILraliun 1rL 6i:Y,Ii6ht polL�,aL )a IPLilL withm lhL uldrLy ClL IMDL Sulenil an cx,ucu"u2scrr�Tni{um LhL fann arailahlu Gmro Public Wnrk%)�a Lcgal dna7rip[¢In prcparal by all Ld1 6o I,Lccirm=d Frok-Nxiunal L�rKL 4urYLyur,which nLudl 3171LArIL LbL a of dh wL MILILI (lLorlcLJ HX k LIL TL'A)a iLL an 81 r"x I l"Burp Willi I7La1 ill gs and di dw ilma(lmlrf Lxl EXI L IHJT Fl) fur 7LYicw_Hub Lxhlhil%nLu31 bL Ncukd,signul.and LLaLcd by a IL.,Fi:.iLMAI L AMLL SurvLyur_IX) NUF RI-I'OK]_ 4. ThL laity of McTxlian ru4urrcx Ihu prualLrimLL ongaLillo syAmnx bL supp6ud by a}car ruumL lWlrmi'c of walLx(LJLJI'11 3 H 6).Tlw alrph=l sluwM 6L n:yuin;d w u any LLLrilog%Lufk:c ur wclL WUJLT furthrTmilnarymnimu. 0211 N4UfUVL ur WCILMIKMVL is nu[availahlL,&single puml + cuonclYmm Lo Lhc mulinary walLT%y3lmri Nball bu 7L'r�ui7lli Ira%Im�IL'rm iml LwnmlxIiLm B LIOLUA- Lhc dLvduper will bl ri:�purnl6Lc&r L6L paymcTrl of a rriicTrL%&rr LhC cr MmL aruL%prior w Tnxmr[o reuclring dLrulrlprnunL plan apprLrral. S. Any xlrucLr [Jr,L arc alluwcd lu mmain shall bL 3u6j Lmt to cv2dImLicln wLdT icmWL ri: x gmnLT1[ of 3ulx_'L aL and sing ui Jti in mrnrplm L1 with hil7L_ 5. ALI ir�un di Lrlwy,LanallL JaILTaL,%,ur dhauu,r.«Imsive ufnaLTmal waLcrwayh mLLTvudng, cxrus%4 in Layi115 adjacLml aul cunLiViium Lu the& tieing subdivmlcd NhA be adLLMSsW per UDC 11 3A 6_ In pi:67rrmrig slxh WKIFk,dre applkarLl shall mirrply with Jdalhu CuLk 42 1207 and any ulbLT applivablc Jaw in n:ri.Lhd L1<. 7. Any wclls dulL will nul minbnuL u7L u'l LiLTJ 1nusL bL lir4gx7ly abaLxluiwd aLC rdi7Lg LI2a hi w Wdl CuozLnlLLicLn SLandamis H u]cz mbnmizLcnvL by LIIL]dahu L]kpadrni LL of WaILT RcmxrcuN. LIIL DLTrr1i.gxi's t=H'iiigirwv N61I pwvidr a suL[cTiimnL ad&Laleid%w1wUicT 16nu me my cxisling wclls ill ULc dLvLlupmknu,andifsrl,how LbLy w31L ulolinuuw bL L d,or pruvKk'murd of Uhrir ahanduomemL H. Anycxlstimg%cp6r sysL ec wldLio Lbis>mnrjML xhaLl hL LYm%31r7:d Num 3ervLLLc pLT lily lhd3n=Lx: SmLium 9 1 4 and 4 4 K. CumLaait'cmbal IJ Arin licaldL ftir3harIAM1l1L•n[prl:ICMLu7L4 ant in3lrn.'L=(24H)373 3211. 4. ALI huproycrrLULLN TLLa[ud W pubbu Lift,3akly and ILLaLLh 3ball bLLumlPILYL'dF iurtuonxKrPmxy of the 3lmi:Lur� 10. AT7p13LWLL 3ball be TLx{uFrW Lu pay Public"Warl.%dLv L"]upm Lml plan TCYicw,and LYrn%lru:di:in I7L3FK;L7L1r1 fLti%,as dLLcnninLd dunn,g 111L pLan n7r7Llr 7rUL•mm,Tm{r to die u mmm clfa plan apprruval 1LLLl7_ L. IL shall 6c LhL ruspurn3hi13[yof LhL ap7plkmLLll7 L=Nun:dLaL all dL'v LAupruLTu fcid LN mgnpLy with dw.4rr 7xwLs with JhlahilLLiL�ACE and 11hu Fmr IiLwLsmg ALL 12. AlrpliL-ma 3ball 11L ri:.purrmblc fir apphi:iLImm aul cciugrlm with any LkL uun 404 PLTrnil[ing ULaL TffW 6L rcyuiF4A by LbL Axmy Corp of tingrriumi- 19. IkvaupeTshall ouL"E01LL7naiI6M Lo 6u wlLh dh McnLlian PrML OIYILL. 14.Cumgraci. wm hmuLsulu shall bL 3rLbroimA w Lhc Wiridua Building fikparLmimil I47r all lwdd7ng pA&raLearingcTrbioLxZTLd backFill,whcT fuLLLing wuuL41 Nil aulp fill nrabmal. 15.l 6L dL�,gm Lmgmccr%lnl L1 11L RYLu3r LY1 Lu cLTLfy LhAL Lhc Am:cL i'LTIL7liTK LIL'4a LILIR%arc YLl a m3L1i1uum of 3 fcd ahrlrr ULc Ill glLLYL c%labll%I"pLvk gnlLmdwaET LAL-va iLln. J bi%3%ILl L urr LJaL dir buLlurn cILYaLion oC LhL crawl 3F aL %of 1r<Irllc'%3%al IL19l l 1` uL abuw- 16.'Thc appJrcuriu dLNlgncoginLcT shall bLTcspvaubLc for implx"LILm ufaLI irrigalium andlor dra maW Fa ilily wi[hin lhu pmjcLi Lbal du nu[fall 1mdLr dw Jurisirc4wL of=irrig m diaria orAl'1111.'11w dusrgncogizim7 3ha11 pnlridc LCT[ifii:�Liun LhdLthe Ea-i ilic'N bare 6LM im[Alcd m a-CXIFIXL -V wilb LhL"appru Xl dL�rb'1L pIm I' Tbi3 i'LTLGLalrcm wi 11 bl TLximnixl hL&rrr2 L7Cr1i Flca[c of LLLLupwxy LN uomL:Ll fur any slirwwn:3 wilhm lhL pruAAL 17. AL Lk LNmrrplcuuo of Lhe pruit ,LhL appl iLmrl s1Lall he nmpL7lnsibk tiI su6m3[n Md drawings pLT dic Cily of Nl LTlllldrL AuL]l'hl)swidwdL 'Ilw- =rnLunl drawings LTrLLNE bL ruXlvLd and appruvw TnlLn[o Lk mmiawi v of a c•LT1l GLalmmi of LILYmparicy fur amy%Ln3LILr Lei w3diin 11hr Tm7JLcL. If. A Nui:l-L 6ghLpLan will nLxxl ur 6L il1LluLiLd 3171 Lk civil LTun%uT 6110 plan%.Huixa bghlpLmL r LYlulrumnu=II31L'd in mcLicIn(1 3 of LhL hnprovcirric ML StarLdanE&u Slrccl lAghlrrng.A cupy Of LbL 3lmlfjAMN can hL fiLmd al ILILp::lwww.iiwrrdia iLy.orb'pu6]K_wurk%.e Npx'?KI-212. 19.line laity of McTldian Turprrcz lbw LhL ownLT paNl Lo U1r Lily a Tpufcrnn imu%urc[y in Lhc miumml or 125%of Lhs knnl cLmximrikm Lml fur all im-mnpLLLc zewEr,wliLcr and nmw infi LNLnlLLum pr;wI&Gml p&u%rpoaL .'111i%%uruy WILT bL vLTirim i 6ya limL ibun LTINL LylilndwPrruridud 17y Lhc awmLT up Lhe l'i[y.'11K:%u]L'[y LWL bL'IxiNL4A m LhL farm of an InLwxabk ILULr of mujIl,L"a74h JLpuxil SIC 6"WJ.Appb=L 1n"L frlL mL app6Lv13 n fur s Ly,Which can b<fLIULd on Lhc irinnnuni Ly LJLvckFjN LnL IJLparurlLnL wL1a 3Lc. Plim%c nmi:LL LmW 13Lvr]upimmu'.icrrrcr fur min_mf n-unLicln aL W1 2211. 24.ThL lily of McTrdian ruquiimN Lhdl LhL ownLT pu%l ur Lhe lily a warren Ly mrcly in 111r alrrllrm[u f 21I} uflllG 1APW cimNLruLYIILn i'u%L fur all LmFip[c Lcd%Llr L7,w21LTa1Xl MWL LTLf77NLTnLWFC NPF dim,u..,of I"ycm Thu%LrcLy wi 1]bL wnfKd try a Imrc iLcw cui%L c%LirrLaLL provK"by L6L uwx 7 to tl1L i iLy_ThU NLlri'Ly can 1W puNLLYL Ill.UIL fclrm ufam rrrcvucahLL kLLLT of LT Aiii.,rash dgmj iil uC h md-App6L:anLL 1nusL fnlL mL appk-auun fur MrLiy,Which L�bff fumJ on Lhc 'U r rluoily UL-vc6prrco[IJL11WL3 LnL wL1a 3Lc. Plim%c LLmurl L wA Mvdupnr L&$erl im for min:mfumoLiim al WF 2211. Click or tap here to enter text. City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions ■ C. Meridian Park's Department cAfERQ�y Park%urid IlRerreutiun Reviewer: Kim Warrein/PatltwaysPirojectManager PlannerAsilerw& Iicknapoll "ed Nawee= b3fty Greek Park uve-Work Rle wac I+20x9,W2Ci-KW L x2 Drlle_ s23-21Iz5 The"iew:Ig will be requlred for dcirelaprnerx of the proposed project: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL-PATHWAYS ]. The project developer shall design and construct rnuba-uw pathways consistent with the location and sp�rs set loft In the Merldlan Pathways Master Plan Map and buster Pathways Plan Dhatrment chapter 31. Any propwwedadffizurtients to pathway alignment shar be coordinated through the Pathways Project Uan tger. Z. Ptior to final project approval the applicant spar debcate a pubic amass easeiremmit for a midtkM padWay aSOM the nut-I%side of the Fivmiilt:Creek,46nrlecGng from well.&Ave-to existing pathway e&W&-olnlaw�i of this parcel. The City urILIt:11LJ r_S tlwL I CIJ Jt:41 II dr J5L1 VLwre,dirt no padrway.will be-c r uLted With the tun%mcdppllcatlan. EasLTI ,a roFtt,e p.ILIIrr.r;It-IlLIIIed with this project phase shall be dedicated as part of this project ap"aL Easervents.iliac be minwmm of 1d'wide 11cr pJrtlwaf+7'shoulder earth sldej- . locateduutsldeof IrngaaandistlicEeasemelit&U IrrlgatJon district Use standard cuy bwVkdr fir pubbc uamo etrsernevtf. sabtwf aH easements onrioe through Gwerl s Aoy!ss PmtmL 3- Steps to pathway= Locate steps far eNw h from pathway so drat handrail exmrsrorl at top does not protrude lntnthepathwayfsli'wide ele (route-&-#ravel. PmMearamp for ADA-0 mprantarrtsskcthe pathway In a future phase,att7%e]rile LIIL-pJLYlway is built. 4- Construct multl-use pathways per pamig sec+uorl based on e5JsWg site condltlons as recon endM by project oMl engineer if,acuxd wAth uac 11-3A-3 and Prior to final approval the applkarrt's erl neershallprovide%witendocumentation(sta►need plans depctirgrecorvmendedpavingseak)nithat the pathway uV nent was cwsiucted per the recommended spec flcatlans. 5- The uoreir(or tepFeumanve asr mi mionl of the property,affected bR each public ax ass easement shall have an ongoirgabl4Wion tomaintaln the mult�lme pathway. 5- g high open*spmfeinciing shall be installed betweenpathways and pArej water lrrlgatlancanaksandU..?raks as detailed In thehiendlan Pathways Master FlarL Chapter3,page3-5. lul other fence detalls per uoC 11- 3A-7- 1. PrU t'LS 1-IM'ILIA L-1 LfIell Lit'1 t"v;t:riAi IL-I JI LibUirll nlg license agreement and ad*f perm Lssiorosl a5 r6qulred 4r LuriSLI VLSIr%mLI,it II rIUJJ4:r LI LSr I_l_.f]L'I I iv tS_ 8- Mould any dLscrepancy exist between these oandltlons of approval and the requlrements of the Irrkptlan dlstrlc*the developer shall wtxk wlth Pathways Pfojea Manager to advere a pathway design that meets Retl.ai07.xS City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions ■ D. Irrigation Districts 1. Nampa&Meridian Irrigation District Nampa & Meridlian Irrigation District I id9}rM INY..I%. 'Ih lkdnrR nerd my a'ITH,r:l2A5 wdPr 4 r1 LASM51-%i9i -um:I311gY 46&W AU"C 2k MIS Vai Cle&'%(Mfke Ciri of MI�i1ll� 33 L Hrundwiry Avemic-%1IIc!01 klo don,Oil SIS47•.61 r+ RR: H-:II2S-o62sf 29j11 W F"vwa}Dr,Left Cpftk FmA Il hwlWar41 Tu W4aaq q Nu.L'arrrvM YarLpq A%rbrAtm lliAymiaK OWWAA I N IALL?)segoAm*a 014d Lalud L'wt LIMhg ApphL=wo lu ret ww prier 18 fln d plaigta Mll prievwe Iowa lw ud uaCC xjj}+InIpt ka Jlr•-1erlW 'Ihr niw&khY vowui.ni For IN 5-iz M1IF lWa1n 9 Lbk kPOMW a■IelnimrnL of Nr 1101dred lud i I Wr F le",Ilk fea f51TI cute�1& 11&Obb"WO RM 6c p Gift-Ud. hj15 941cF wk'm9Sr wllh4ur■Aped Lxeo AV7�gql mAW SPPrww PLO wwo vPw1 rwrM S w I1h rt'rplahk. All Iarn16LOJ=6e d*www mmo hS_tT%Lnq:M w". 1F m% ir*I-ndfi o&arhrge Inn rn dx "e-n MID mim rc* w draiiwge plain.17ierol[pw must comply 5.itll Idabo Ca$31.3W Flea c feel b"in 9JWW1 rr ru FR OW infL%Nahr1-+11 Slnoaalp, AwL ll'IMu&Wlomedw %krid'un Irr4potian 11366 ee PH?Pal U: O11L•e;l& i•1'Dardl �.Walk AppkmW City of Meridian Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions ■ E. Ada County Highway District(ACHD) llz+etop aiw So%i,w.%tkgur im,wr ACRID 11[o)DC1 rls; Ctvok Vlaw P&W MEA2241471 N•7O32-CM This Is are arH'tPgailael And rezone. la G-G 2OWV w1h a pmFuman$I toe perfrxt applltellon Ire W53MO roF am doraio .nonl of?a nrulni-Lamlly w1I[s an 2.85 iarbs o1 a 16 63 acre 1WW LOW Ag*rlty, Cry W Meftarl 5ft addn*s; 2920 E.f=ft"Urnm. 1954310101713-R5443010160 orb j a ~ Staff Apprwal- August 10.2022 Appiw-ani: HLE,Jne. Oaro"E.r 101 S.Park Aµeriva,#210 IOLra Falls.MOO$.3,402 Owns* FtftlOa alopars-f1+lrrdlan Den F�nc* P.U.emm1401 I*WQ Falls,1dshe O SUITCOrtla{t- Rnrlala$N&Fymgan Phone:387-6171 C.-mail rharnilW+LmodId dshOOM x A. Flnrdinas of Faanct 1- V*%c;rlptrun iO+kpptW~; TN 4ppima 14 re9ppOnG oppY-04+min&Mh1p3jP6pn and lot—Oar 1035 aces from♦ UT to C-G zanirg4 a ra®nirlg of G acres from L-0 to C-G and a candi vial use piwrll to aaaw For Iht davNaF+rlird of 29 ffkAl4wlly weft t&mwO r0 Ol 5"lox d&%dothanlurns end 4 duplex cDndominian huildalga on 2.8+5 acres of a 16.53 acre sae.This applrcatlon is the 2; Ohoo of the Creek View ayr4 d.Rho sits Ourkw la d 16 53 bull Ir Wk the 11,PhaLd being trke Nallday inn Expnm.which N currengll ureW owKtr„dbn There rs an ewstng Pkmm. ar ch& prap4d9G ru rvTLmin on sm IXIIla plraes elre srmil pMS+< Thu applK:&nCW fiW**Koftil a OWMW wO t158 Clly 6f Wfldrarl 5 rulwd W4 W&M&P ar+d e+d—p000 prrr*h"�*Nii"th4 4w n#C +rml 2 D69crio*' d*f"aCont$w�undinG Am*-. Crlre,etlnrr Land LhW I Zwing hir,"M Rur blJr[ter Tfhr rl6yn(Ada Gcrinlyry 4'(r►Til S51YI, erafal ICU 4;-Q Sauer Cammer€aWw eneral C-0 F:r5s1 tammercral�:pnerel �irG . 1 CAak V4rn PWW 111aJt27-91OW N-N2Z4 dot V. FINDINGS A. Annexation and/or Rezone(UDC 11-511-3E) Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Staff finds the map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan in regard to the MU-C future land use map designation for the site. City of Meridian I Department Report V. Findings ■ 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 and employment 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. Short Plat(UDC-6B-6) In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat,or short plat,the decision-making body shall make the following findings: 1. The plat is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and is consistent with this unified development code; Stafffinds the proposed plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code. 2. Public services are available or can be made available ad 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. City of Meridian I Department Report V. Findings ■ VI. ACTION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed modification to the Development Agreement, Rezone, and Short Plat with the modified provision listed in Section IV. B. Commission: Pending C. City Council: Pending City of Meridian I Department Report VI. Action ■ l 7 c FRANKL-INfA i ■ •lip -ix Es .. 84 1 � a ■�■■•r1= FRANKL-INN i■ ■■so 1 ONE 84 . ��► ■ ■■ 1 y a�� ■. 1 I i /"1. • "1 1 1 - 1 ptNE I W LU FRANKL-INN - r - � Iu _. ti_rrlr. O Ipp�r e — • f OYE RL--AN D '►- ?_. r- •. . .. IIII��I� W� ,� tf■1'�'i1111:� - . -. •. - ii Illl�a • - �!E —=W �� -�l ' r■-,may ui will �• ■■■■ ■■■■■■■ �� � Y.II ti• !fmom {' ��■■■■■■■■ uf1111 ■ i ./Y Ill�: V•• = - �■ Ill�j � .��91111111III Ij =.111 /y r 1 1 ONEon I MEN OYERL-AND , _ ��■��—. s�� ��� ����II��_� I�III ♦ i■••���ii■:i.u. `7: C IL�� � � � � —� lnnmunnullmupWn ��■��grwr: .: �7�■•�.�. 1 ■r_n nwmim nnomnr ilnumnm 7 i ■nu■• B. Service Accessibility Report Description Location In City Limits GREEN Extension Sewer Trunkshed mains � 500 ft.from parcel GREEN Floodplain Either not within the 100 yr floodplain or > 2 acres GREEN Emergency Services Fire Response time 5-9 min. YELLOW Emergency Services Police Meets response time goals most c- :ie tir-e 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 streets GREEN plan) matches existing of lanes) School Walking Proximity Within 1/2 mile walking GREEN Either a High School or College within 2 miles QR a School Drivability Middle or Elementary School within 1 mile driving GREEN (existing or future) Park Walkability No park within walking distance by park type RED City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ C. Site Plan (date: 7/25/2025) z-Fi--E zv -,-.Tt, 7-w- rL Sit m LL, UJO LL. 4 :�7j 14% CILLiz L: ---------------------------- F iT�- A�i Al 00 City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits A Landscape Plan (date: 7/25/2025) W . Aw City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits E. Short Plat(date: 7/25/2025) FINAL PLAT z LOFTY CREEL{PARK LGCATED IN T11E S4lf1114 MLF-Or P41Z NDRT1 CAST 4UAR7ER Of- SECTION 17,T-7 N..R 1 C.B.M.ADA CCKWTY,IDM40 Ia,o r LEGEND i 1�1v1 1 S I •y y 4 l a t .allr'JL•J'F4C&�DILL L � I i 1�v +} •'• �4 r��ir.r aI u� IY V4i Y�C T/iC =Tl�If LFilyQi IY1yQi _ =TIYIG City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ F. Building Elevations(Not Approved) (date: 4/15/2025) EIIH�[F#6IB6E� n- — J •— SC� W ?EHFfn TICK •� •—� HE V&TICH W: �E HEYAT%MI Ellfiif EFEYATgN _ City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ G. Rezone Description &Exhibit Map AdH�- - LAND SURVEYING 1D SCANNING I DESIGN uUr14EYING C141L AND STRUCTU L ENGINEERING I MATERIALS TESTING rllerF12%113I1A1.hNI:Ih'Y.Yiltn do Is►W NUMV EY11N:i 101 n f rile Art-4714 M IN-imtk6d$L Idsha Pam 1lah■031r2 ELda"c lYf=11 k3#4JUL1 t 7'l&1777 1141120111143 P'a1oe1 1 Pert of Lot 23 Bfork 1 of Amendm Megir.View SuhdlYlsion located In the SV2 of the NE Y.of Sedlon 1 T I ewnaW 3 North Nanga 1 Lem B.M-Ada Count',Idaho deaenbed as: Comirren ing at ine Norneast G rner of sale rt 1?;ThGnD3.S 00'22'28"E along the Norm-Sown center sedian line.2548.134 test;Thelnm 5 09'39'37 W 736.44 Net to the Easterly line of Felton Greeds SuOdi%ftlon.ThOr.bh,N 06"20'45'W Aloa�g gAid E03tGrly liAe 36.97 11e0110 R*Sta,LJM*ly lie*of Lot 10of Rlock 7 of[he Amenuau Magee View Suhdwiamn,T hence,N 84140'tx1'W slang Bald Sowherty line,4d2-49 feet 10 a point on the SMMrly Yee of Lot 9 of BlodE 1 of Me Arnended Magee View rt rvwon to1W Ford of Beginning;Tllcnco.5 28'02 45'E m3.rb feel along the karat Ine of a Parcel as descnbed n rY9trUrrienl No. 2D 2M f 171;Thl nmM N"m 1 p'1-O'4V 31.09 feet to he lYmMenlyr Ine of Lot 16 of fiinck 1 of the Amended Magic view Suhdi riaidn;Thence,N 8W 54'34'Nt along said Narlhst line,807.10 feel,to a point on the centerline of&xFth Wei SbmLA and s non4alganl curve to Em nghk Thane along aald oentwbw the fowwng two t2)courses;(1) Ihence marig acid Curve to the f0i [4u+Yo Vati=Pbltd;20'44'56',Radius; 139.do feet,cnara deamg N o2-50'11-E 64.7$leet],12}Thence,N 14�°ag'44"E 397.01 feet;Tnenoe S 72` 04'S3"Ealong Me South Ines of Lots and 9 of Said Ainimded magic Vnaw Subdivision.72f.83 feel; Thmoa.972'48'46"E olong sold Soulherly line 12T.M leel;Thence 5114"4g 01"E.3.44 legit 0kng twC SoWredy line of Lot IDof eard Amended Magic View Suhdwieion to Ilse Fonl of 6egwang- LAND SURVEYING 1 90 SCANNING I DESIGN SURVEYING CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINIPERING I MATERIALS TESTING MGFF-WOtiAt.6NGM99M#1ALND9URVEVOR9 IQ S f arL Ave-91214 S"W-Jdkw 9t I&M Fallry Iiab*llM2 BbKkRol,ld]LbD am I 120dl i2d 0212 (M)795 2977 Rezone Parcel 1 Part of Lot 23 Block 1 of Amended Magid View Subdivision healed in the S112 of the NE'•!of Saldbn 17 Township 3 NoM Range 1 East B-M.Ada County,Idahadesr hod as: Commencing al the Ncrthea oxner of said Sedion 17;Thence,S 00'22'28'E along the North-South center section Iim,25-18,8 4 feat;Thence.S W'39 39'W 73C.44 feet Ic the Esslarly line of Fallnn Greens Subdivision;Thence,M OD"217 46'W along said Easterly line 36.97 feet bo the►Southery line of Lot 10 of Block 1 of the Arnande+d Magic View Subdivision;Thence,N&1'Off D1'W along said Southerly line,442.48 feet to a point on the Southerly lire of Lot 9 of Block 1 of the Amended Magic View Subdivision to the Paint of Beg inning;Thence,S 29"02'45'E 113.87 feel along the East line of a Parcel as described in Instrument No. 2022067111 and Ic the Point of Bag inning;Thence 5 27' 13'59'E 90.58 feet along the West like d Lot 2 of Block 1 of said Fal4on Greens Subdivision;Thane,N 89- 1 G 1(r W 83.72 feet ID the East line-of a Parcel as described i1 Irmhuni ril No.21]22,357111 ;Thence,N 28- 0Z 45"WE9.88 feet In the Point of Beginning; City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ BONE SURVEY . | LOCATED IN THEE UTH�J OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF § SECTION1 I3 R_1E-B.k ADAC N�Ego , 139 � --� _�� _2� • ��� ti r�-�— _ � � 2 . � - � � � n .� City of Meridian Department Reprt V11. Exhibits � W IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing continued from November 6, 2025 for Farrington Heights Subdivision RZ, PP, MDA (H-2025-0016) by Studio H Architects, generally located at the NW corner of E. Pine Ave. and N. Adkins Ave. Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2025-0016 A. Request: Rezone of 2.9 acres of land from the R-4 to the R-15 zoning district. B. Request: Preliminary Plat on 4.68 acres of land consisting of 25 building lots and 6 common lots. C. Request: Development Agreement Modification to terminate the existing development agreement and establish a new one. 78 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE : December 4, 2025 ITEM # 3 PROJECT NAME : Farrington Heights Subdivision RZ, PP, MDA ( W2025 - 0016 ) I wish to testify Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing ( mark X ( Please Print ) HOA ? if yes ) 1 l 215AEuZRxil < D /Jo �G l� deP D I Aae ID J% Z t 2 13 ' 5 ,6 5kd l boo o l( Ae, 3 �/14A � ��� � 5he1/hr� o ,� ru lee A r r T eK 4 //' / Z//` -/ / / J 5 A A/ 6 o G uc rv<;t. SA/� T) Re. V<� 7 © lilt N &Orl` f'1iSAv 8 ��e ✓' �' I 10 11 �„ ge12 AC / 'JG / 2� j 6 Do � v 111VZ- 13 14 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT C` fE IDIAN -- DEPARTMENT REPORT A"o HEARING 12/4/2025 Am Legend ARM DATE: (Remanded to Planning and Zoning Project Location ` m Commission on 9/16/2025) +.: Area of Impact City Limits TO: Planning&Zoning Commission ®Analysis FROM: Nick Napoli,Associate Planner m 208-884-5533 nnapoli@meridiancity.org - APPLICANT: Jessica Heggie `-i� 1 - � SUBJECT: H-2025-0016 _�� Farrington Heights Subdivision RZ,PP, MDA = _ LOCATION: Generally located at the northwest corner of E. Pine Avenue and N.Adkins Avenue in the SE corner of the SE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 7,T.2N.,R2W. I. PROJECT OVERVIEW A. Summary Rezone 2.9 acres of land from the R-4 to the R-15 zoning district and a Preliminary Plat on 4.68 acres of land, consisting of 25 building lots and 8 common lots, and a development agreement modification to terminate the old development agreement and establish a new one. B. Issues/Waivers - This application was previously recommended for denial by the Planning and Zoning Commission and has since been remanded by the City Council to allow for changes to address the concerns of the neighbors and the Planning and Zoning Commission. The previous reasons for denial were a lack of open space,the 2-story transition to the existing single-story homes, and the change in zoning from R-4 to R-15 being too abrupt. - The development does not require open space due to the subdivision being under five(5) acres in size,however,there is no regional park in the area for residents to recreate at. Since the previous hearing,the applicant has provided additional open space and is proposing a dog park and picnic area in Lot 14,Block 1. - The applicant has indicated that the builders will determine which homes will be I or 2 stories; however,due to lot sizes,the applicant believes single story homes will not be financially feasible. This is a primary concern from the neighbors. - The applicant requested the project be continued from the November 6`h hearing to the December 4'hearing to allow for additional time to collaborate with the neighbors. City of Meridian I Department Report 1. Project Overview ■ C. Recommendation Staff: Approval with a Development Agreement and Conditions Commission: Pending D. Decision Council: Pending City of Meridian I Department Report I. Project Overview ■ I1. COMMUNITY METRICS Table 1: Land Use Description Details Map Ref. Existing Land Use(s) Residential - Proposed Land Use(s) Residential - Existing Zoning R-4 VII.A.2 Proposed Zoning R-15 Adopted FLUM Designation Medium Density Residential VII.A.3 Proposed FLUM Designation Medium Density Residential Table 2: Process Facts Description Details Preapplication Meeting date 12/10/2024 Neighborhood Meeting 2/10/2025 Site posting date 10/23/2025 Table 3: Community Metrics Agency/Element Description/Issue Reference Ada County Highway District iV.0 • Comments Received Yes - • Commission Action Required No - • Access Adkins Avenue: Local Street - • Traffic Level of Service ACHD does not have traffic counts available for Pine and - Adkins ITD Comments Received Yes - Meridian Public Works Wastewater IV.B • Distance to Mainline Sewer Available at Site • Impacts or Concerns See Public Works Site Specific Conditions Meridian Public Works Water IV.B • Distance to Mainline Water Available at Site • Impacts or Concerns No School District(s) No Comments - 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 ■ Figure l: One-Mile Radius Existing Condition Metrics Reference Parcel:R2039261221 Date Retrieved:2025/4/3 Parcel Count Parcel Acreage Infiii Indicator: 1,223 Surrounding Area 154 8% Not City ® City Limits 1,669. 2,572 4 ■ Not City Household Household& Population Growth Households 02020 Population Change:16.8°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 43% 3396 2396 Multi-family 57 ® Commercial 2.00 2,000 Single-family y Residential 1.50 1,500 41 Parcel Diversity a 1.00 1,000 U ;, 0.82 0Parcel Count (.n 0.50 500 L a.1a a Average Acres 0.00 0 R-2 R-4 3 R-15 Average Single-family Density by Zoning Average 15.00 dResidential Net Density 10.00 E)9.68 p 5.00 05.33 1�5.53 GO10 0.00 M 1.23 Dwelling Units 1 Acre R-2 R-4 R-8 R-15 City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics ■ Figure 2:ACHD Summary Metrics Level of Service Planning Thresholds 1. Condition of Area Roadways 1 raffic Count is based on Vehicles per hour(VPH} Roadway Frontage Functional PM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Classification Traffic Count Level of Service ` Pine Avenue 314-feet Minor Arterial NIA NIA ` Adkins Avenue 648-feet Local NIA NIA ` Acceptable level of service for a three-lane minor arterial is "E" (7 0 VPH)_ " ACHD noes not set level of service thresholds for local streets. Figure 3: Service Impact Summary ImpactService . ■ Ready Marginal Caution �aN+ °0� O� fir° Qa Q- City of Meridian Department Report II. Community Metrics ■ III. STAFF ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code(UDC) A. General Overview This property is designated Medium Density Residential on the City's Future Land Use Map (FLUM)contained in the Comprehensive Plan. The medium-density residential designation allows for dwelling units at gross densities of three(3)to eight(8)dwelling units per acre. Density bonuses may be considered with the provision of additional public amenities such as a park, school,or land dedicated for public services. The applicant proposes to rezone 2.9 acres of the 4.68 acres of land from the R-4 zoning district to the R-15 zoning district and leave the remaining 1.78 acres as the R-4 zoning district. A preliminary plat and conceptual building elevations were submitted showing how the property is proposed to be subdivided and developed with twenty-five(25)residential building lots and eight (8)commons lots at a gross density of 5.34 units per acre. The proposed use and density are consistent with the Medium Density Residential(MDR)FLUM designation of three(3)to eight (8)units per acre. Additionally,the applicant is proposing a development agreement modification to terminate the existing development agreement(DA)and create a new one. The R-15 zoning designation,which allows for reduced lot sizes down to 2,000 square feet, provides flexibility for developers to support a diversity and variety of housing types. This can create a dynamic,multi-generational community where residents can transition through different stages of life(known as aging in place)while remaining in the same neighborhood. This type of zoning in conjunction with other designations, should be used to support a diverse housing mix that supports long-term residency and continuity within the community,promoting stability and a sense of place for residents throughout different stages of life. The surrounding landscape consists of single-family detached homes to the east,west,and north, while to the south is Pine Avenue. It is important to note that the majority of the surrounding homes are single-story. The average density for a one-mile radius is 6.1 units per acre,which is higher than the 5.34 units per acre the applicant is proposing. Single-family detached dwellings are listed as a principally permitted use in the R-15 zoning district per UDC Table 11-2A-2. The applicant is proposing to keep the three(3) existing homes on the property and will configure new lot lines around the existing homes that conform to the dimensional standards. Since the previous hearing,the applicant has submitted a phasing plan indicating they would like to north portion to be apart of Phase one(1)and the southern portion as Phase two(2). Future development is subject to the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-7 for the R-15 zoning district. The property is already annexed with the R-4 zoning. The City may require a development agreement(DA)in conjunction with an annexation pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-651IA. If this property is annexed, Staff recommends a DA is required with the provisions discussed herein and included in Section IV. Overall,the proposed infill development is an allowed use within the Medium Density Residential designation and contributes to the area's intended mix of residential housing types. Therefore, staff is supportive of the proposed development with the conditions and DA provisions listed in Section IV. 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. Staff encouraged the applicant to converse with the neighbor early on in the process, and after their neighborhood meeting,the applicant indicated the neighbors had minimal concerns. However, at the first hearing in front of the Planning and Zoning Commission,the neighbors had City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ several concerns that were not addressed by the applicant.With the resubmittal,the applicant has addressed some of these concerns but the transition from two-story to existing one-story homes persists. The Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council shall evaluate if further restrictions are necessary to provide an adequate transition. Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.02.OID:Require pedestrian access in all new development to link subdivisions together and promote neighborhood connectivity. The applicant will be extending the sidewalk along the west side of N. Adkins Avenue to connect with the northern subdivision,which will improve the walkability in the neighborhood. However, there is still an Ada County parcel that will leave a gap in the sidewalk. Once the Ada County parcel annexes into the city,the sidewalk will be completed along the west side of Adkins. Comprehensive Plan Policy 6.01.02B:Reduce the number of existing access points onto arterial streets by using methods such as cross-access agreements, access management, and frontage/backage roads, and promoting local and collector street connectivity. The applicant will be eliminating three access points to E. Pine Avenue,which will decrease the number of curb cuts on an increasingly busier arterial roadway. Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.02.00:Plan for safe, attractive, and well-maintained neighborhoods that have ample open space, and generous amenities that provide varied lifestyle choices. Open space and amenities are not required by the UDC since the development is five (5)acres or less. However, staff has concerns with the lack of opportunities for outdoor recreation for residents in this area, as there is no regional park nearby. Since the previous application,the applicant has increased the amount of open space and is proposing a dog park and picnic area in Lot 14, Block 1. Table 4: Pro aect Overview Description Details History AZ-00-012;DA Inst# 101052483 Phasing Plan 2 Phases Residential Units 27 new single-family detached 3 existing single-family detached Open Space None;The development is less than 5 acres Amenities None;The development is less than 5 acres Acreage 4.68 acres Lots 30 Buildable Lots and 3 Common Lots Density Gross: 5.77 Units/Acre Net: 7.61 Units/Acre B. History The subject properties were annexed in 2000 as a part of Farrington, Opal application(AZ-00- 012). The zoning granted at the time of annexation was the R-4 zoning district. With the annexation approval,the properties were subject to a DA that restrict the property to adding one (1) additional home on the 4.68 acres. The existing DA will be replaced with a new DA to update the concept plan and provisions to improvements relevant to the current proposal. This application was previously heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission on 8/7/25 and was recommended for denial. Since the hearing,the applicant was remanded by the City Council back to the Planning and Zoning Commission to address the concerns of the neighbors and commission. The reason for denial was due to a lack of open space,a lack of transition between the proposed two (2) story homes and existing single-story homes,and the zoning change from R- 4 to R-15 being too abrupt. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ C. Site Development and Use Analysis 1. Existing Structures/Site Improvements (UDC 11-1): The subject site contains three(3) existing homes that will remain with the formation of the subdivision. These homes will be included in southern portion of the development and shall conform to the dimensional standards listed UDC Tables 11-2A-5 and 11-2A-7. 2. Proposed Use Analysis (UDC 11-2): The applicant is proposing single-family detached homes (22 new and 3 existing),which are listed as a principal permitted use in UDC Table 11-2A-2 for the R-15 and R-4 zoning districts. In addition to this,the proposed gross density of the subdivision is 5.34 units per acre,which is less than the one-mile radius average density of 6.1 units per acre. 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. 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. Comprehensive Plan policy 2.06.02D encourages a diversity of housing, recreation, and mobility options to attract and sustain the local workforce. The applicant is proposing a total of 25 detached single-family homes,which is consistent with what has been approved in the surrounding subdivisions. However,the lot sizes in this development are smaller than the neighboring subdivisions but have increased since the previous application. As a result of the increased lot sizes,the applicant has lost 5 buildable lots. In addition,the proposed development is anticipated to develop with two (2)story homes while the surrounding area is all single-story homes. 3. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): The proposed plat and subsequent development are required to comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Tables 11-2A-5 and 11-2A-7 for the R-4 and R-15 zoning districts. The proposed plat complies with the dimensional standards of the R-4 and R-15 zoning districts. D. Design Standards Analysis 1. Site Design Standards (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-19): Goals 2.01.02D, 2.01.01 G,and 2.02.02C of the Comprehensive Plan emphasize the importance of offering diverse housing types throughout Meridian to accommodate the needs, preferences, and financial capacities of current and future residents. These goals also support infill development that complements existing neighborhoods. The subject site is adjacent to established R-8 subdivisions(Danbury Fair Subdivision Nos. 1 and 7, and Maws Add No. 3)to the east,north, and west. The applicant submitted a preliminary plat and conceptual building elevations proposing 25 single-family detached dwellings at a gross density of 5.34 units per acre(see Section VII.G). This density aligns with the Medium Density Residential(MDR)Future Land Use Map(FLUM) designation. Although the proposed subdivision does not provide a one-to-one lot size transition with the adjacent neighborhoods,the applicant has increased the lot sizes since the previous proposal, resulting in the reduction of five(5)buildable lots. However, concerns still persist that the proposed changes did not address the transition to the existing single-family homes, as the applicant has indicated the new homes are likely going to be two (2) stories. The Planning City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ and Zoning Commission and City Council shall carefully determine whether the changes are an adequate transition to the existing homes. A county enclave parcel remains to the north along N.Adkins Avenue,which will result in a persistent gap in the sidewalk network. The property is contiguous to annexed City land to the north and lies within the City's Area of City Impact.A legal description and exhibit map of the proposed R-4 and R-15 rezone areas are included in Section VII. Pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6511A,the City may require a development agreement(DA)with annexation. Staff recommends that a DA be required, incorporating the provisions outlined herein and in Section IV. 2. Qualified Open Space &Amenities (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3G): UDC Section 11-3G-2 requires common open space and amenities for developments that are five(5) acres or larger. The proposed development,at 4.68 acres,falls below this threshold and is therefore not subject to the open space and amenity requirements outlined in the code. However, staff have engaged in multiple discussions with the applicant regarding the value of including open space and amenities, especially given the absence of a regional park in the surrounding area.While not a code requirement, staff are concerned about the lack of recreational space or amenities for future residents. Since the previous application,the applicant has revised the amount of open space in the development to increase the open space to 11.4%of the development. However, staff did not receive an open space exhibit,and it appears some of the open spaces being included in the calculation do not meet the standards to be counted towards qualified open space. In addition,the applicant is proposing a dog park and picnic area in Lot 14,Block 1. Comprehensive Plan Goal 2.02.00 emphasizes the importance of planning for safe, attractive, and well-maintained neighborhoods that offer ample open space and diverse amenities to support a variety of lifestyles. Given the absence of a regional park in the area, staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council thoughtfully consider whether the revised open space and amenities are sufficient. 3. Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): i. Landscape buffers along streets UDC 11-2A-7 requires a twenty-five(25) foot wide landscape buffer along E. Pine Avenue, an arterial roadway. A landscape buffer is not required along N. Adkins Avenue, a local street;however, a 10-foot setback to the living space is required from the back of the sidewalk. The applicant has provided a twenty-five(25)foot wide landscape buffer along E. Pine Avenue and is required to comply with the dimensional standards for the R-4 and R-15 districts. With the submittal of the final plat, the applicant shall provide vegetation coverage calculations. ii. Tree preservation Mitigation shall be required for all existing trees four-inch caliper or greater that are removed from the site with equal replacement of the total calipers lost on site up to an amount of one hundred(100)percent replacement(Example: Two(2)ten-inch caliper City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ trees removed may be mitigated with four 5-inch caliper trees, five(5)four-inch caliper trees, or seven(7)three-inch caliper trees). Deciduous specimen trees four-inch caliper or greater may count double towards total calipers lost,when planted at entryways,within common open space, and when used as focal elements in landscape design. The applicant shall provide mitigation calculations with submittal of the final plat if any trees are being removed from the property. iii. Storm integration Per UDC 11-3B-11,the applicant shall meet the intent to improve water quality and provide a natural, effective form of flood and water pollution control through the integration of vegetated,well designed stormwater filtration swales and other green stormwater facilities into required landscape areas,where topography and hydrologic features allow if part of the development. iv. Pathway landscaping No new pathway is being proposed as the existing attached ten(10)foot multi-use along E. Pine Avenue is going to remain. 4. Parking (UDC 11-3C): i. Residential parking analysis Off-street parking is required to be provided for each home based on the total number of bedrooms per unit as set forth in UDC Table 11-3C-6. On-street parking is also available on portions of the proposed streets. Lot 20 will be taking access off Adkins Avenue. The applicant has submitted an exhibit showing the garage and street setback to the property in compliance with the standards. Lot 20 has an existing home that shall have the required twenty(20)foot garage setback and fifteen (15)foot living setback. 5. 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 two(2) conceptual building elevations that illustrate the appearance of future homes in the development(see Section VII). The proposed designs include variations of one and two-story homes, each featuring a two- car garage. The elevations showcase a range of architectural styles and design elements, including lap siding,neutral color accents,brick and stone veneer,varied roof profiles,and different home styles. Staff review confirms that these elevations adhere to the city's architectural standards and comply with the required design criteria. One of the largest concerns of the neighboring residences was the transition from the existing single-story homes to the proposed two-story homes. The applicant has indicated that they do not believe single-story homes will be financially feasible due to the proposed lot sizes.Ultimately,the applicant has indicated that the individual builders will make the final decision on whether the homes will be one(1)or two(2) stories.This raises some concerns among staff, as this provides some uncertainty about the transition to the existing single-story homes that appear to be approximately twenty (20)feet in height.As a result,staff is recommending building heights not to exceed 28 feet in height and windows placed on the rear faVade are oriented to promote privacy for the existing residences. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ Homes on lots that abut W.Pine Avenue, an arterial street,- will be highly visible;therefore, the rear and/or side of structures on these lots (i.e. Lots 15, 16, and 18,Block 1 ) 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 street. Single-story and existing structures are exempt from this requirement. 6. Fencing (UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. According to the submitted landscape plans,the applicant is proposing two types of fencing throughout the site, six(6) foot solid vinyl fencing and a four(4) foot wrought iron semi-privacy fencing. In addition,the applicant shall indicate the fencing location on the residential lots with the submittal of the building permits. These will be required to comply with UDC 11-3A-7. E. Transportation Analysis 1. Access (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-3, UDC 11-3H-4): Goals 6.01.01H and 6.01.0213 of the Comprehensive Plan stress the need to minimize the 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 property is proposed from N. Adkins Avenue,a local roadway on the eastern portion of the site. This local road is a shared drive between the proposed subdivision and the existing subdivision to the east and north. The applicant is proposing two(2) access points off N. Adkins Avenue with a common drive accessing the three(3)properties on the southern portion of the site and a common drive accessing three (3)properties on the northern portion of the site. 2. Multiuse Pathways and 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. UDC 11-3G-5 emphasizes the importance of common open space and amenities being located in areas that maximize pedestrian and bicycle connectivity. Multi-use pathways shall be constructed in accord with the city's comprehensive plan,the Meridian Pathways Master Plan,the Ada County Highway District Master Street Map and Roadways to Bikeways Master Plan. The standards along Arterial roadways are to provide a detached ten(10) foot wide sidewalks (multiuse pathway),however, in conversation with the parks department, it was determined the existing ten(10) foot attached multi-use pathway will be sufficient due to it being relatively new. The applicant is in compliance with this, as the ten(10)foot sidewalk already exists along E. Pine Avenue. 3. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17): All sidewalks constructed as part of this proposal are required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17. A sidewalk connection along the west side of N. Adkins Avenue is required to be installed to connect the existing subdivision to the multi-use pathway along E. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ Pine Avenue. The applicant is depicting the sidewalk on the landscape plan in compliance with this standard. The applicant shall provide a street section exhibit with the submittal of the final plat reflecting compliance with these standards. With the construction of the sidewalk along the western side of Adkins,the sidewalk will extend to the north and stub at the lone remaining Ada County parcel. The sidewalk will be completed when the Ada County parcel annexes in the future. 4. Subdivision Regulations (UDC 11-6): i. Dead end streets The proposed subdivision does not contain a dead end street other than the two(2) common drives as discussed below. ii. 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 unless alternative compliance is applied for. The applicant is proposing two (2) common drives in the development in which the northern one services three (3) homes and the southern one services three (3) homes. The southern common drive is in compliance with the UDC; however, the northern common drive shall be revised to show Lot 7, Block 1, with the same building envelope as Lot 8, Block 1. In addition, it is important to note that the applicant still needs to comply with the parking requirements for driveways off of common drives. If the house exceeds two (2) bedrooms, the applicant will be required to have a twenty-by-twenty(20 x 20)foot parking pad. The applicant worked with staff to modify the common drives to provide the five (5)feet of landscaping required in the UDC 11-6. Additionally, the applicant has provided details into where the curb cuts for Lots 15, 16, and 20 will taking access from on the southern common drive. iii. Block face UDC 11-6C-3-regulates block lengths for residential subdivisions. The intent of this section of code is to ensure block lengths do not exceed 750 ft, although there is the allowance of an increase in block length to 1,000 feet if a pedestrian connection is provided. In no case shall a block face exceed one thousand two hundred(1,200)feet, unless waived by the City Council. The applicant is compliance with the block length requirements in the UDC. F. Services Analysis 1. Waterways (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-6): The existing irrigation ditches on the property shall be piped or tiled in accordance with UDC 11-3A-6. 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 the best City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ 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 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 to be provided for all new developments,including curb and gutter, sidewalks,water and sewer utilities. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ IV. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. Meridian Planning Division I. 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. Currently, a fee of$303.00 shall be paid by the Applicant to the Planning Division prior to commencement of the DA. The DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning Division within six(6)months of the City Council granting the annexation. The DA shall, at minimum,incorporate the following provisions 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. c. Homes on lots that abut W. Pine Avenue,an arterial street,-will be highly visible; therefore,the rear and/or side of structures on these lots(i.e. Lots 20,21, and 23,Block 1) 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 street. Single-story and existing structures are exempt from this requirement. d. The existing structures on Lots 15, 16, and 20 shall meet the dimensional standards for the R-4 zoning district listed in UDC Table 11-2A-5. In addition,the applicant shall provide paved driveways to the existing homes that will take access off the southern common drive. e. Lots 2-5,Block 1,and Lots 7-13,Block 1 shall be restricted to building heights of 28 feet measured to the peak of the roof,and windows placed on the rear fagade are oriented to promote privacy for the existing residences. 2. The final plat shall include the following revisions: a. Add a plat note stating"direct lot access to E. Pine Avenue is prohibited." b. Graphically depict the three(3) foot wide public utility,drainage, and irrigation easements on the sides of Lots 1-10,Block 2, and Lots 2-5 &7-13,Block I c. Graphically depict the five(5)foot wide public utility,drainage, and irrigation easements on the side of Lots 15,16,18,20,Block 1. d. Modify note 15 to include language stating that all interior side lot lines for Lots 1-10, Block 2,and Lots 2-5 & 7-13,Block I contain a three(3)foot wide easement for public utilities,irrigation, and drainage. e. Modify note 15 to include language stating that all side lot lines for Lots 15,16,18,20, Block 1 contain a five(5) foot wide easement for public utilities,irrigation, and drainage. f. Submit a street section showing the five(5) foot sidewalk along N.Adkins Ave. City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions ■ g. Submit an exhibit showing Lots 15, 16, and 18 conform to the R-4 dimensional standards. If they do not,lot lines may need to be adjusted or structures may need to be removed. h. Provide an amenity detail with the submittal of the final plat. 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 kyoritaAmeridiancity.org)to determine mitigation requirements prior to removal of existing trees from the site. b. Provide details on the ground coverage material that will be used along Pine Avenue. c. Provide an amenity detail with the submittal of the final plat. 4. The proposed plat and subsequent development are required to comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-5 and 11-2A-7 for the R-4 and R-15 zoning districts. 5. Prior to the City Engineer's signature on the final plat, all existing structures that do not conform to the setbacks of the R-4 zoning district shall be removed. 6. Comply with all subdivision design and improvement standards as set forth in UDC 11-6C-3, including but not limited to cul-de-sacs, alleys,driveways,common driveways,easements, blocks, street buffers, and mailbox placement. 7. 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. 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 11-613-7. 9. The final plat shall substantially comply with the approved preliminary plat as set forth in UDC 11-613-3C. 10. Comply with all subdivision design and improvement standards as set forth in UDC 11-6C-3, including but not limited to cul-de-sacs, alleys,driveways,common driveways, easements, blocks, street buffers, and mailbox placement. 11. 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. 12. Submit an updated common drive exhibit for the southern common drive showing the driveways and the setbacks for the existing homes that will remain on Lots 15, 16,and 20, Block 1. 13. Submit a revised common drive exhibit for the northern common drive showing Lot 7,Block 1,with the same building envelope as Lot 8,Block 1. 14. The applicant shall either construct the landscape buffer along and close the access points or post surety for the improvements along W. Pine Avenue with Phase one(1)of the development. 15. The Applicant shall comply with all ACHD conditions of approval. City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions ■ 16. The Applicant shall have a maximum of two(2)years to obtain City Engineer's signature on a final plat in accord with UDC 11-613-7. 17. Staff s failure to cite all relevant UDC requirements does not relieve the applicant from compliance. B. Meridian Public Works MM-PLAT CXYNMr170NR W amwater * [I QarLLr.—s L Sr ffiwi2 tatsw Sar tocr Scwcr 511Ctl EQlmated Projnd See applrstiort Severs Mrs WRAF De InM Mal3rax + Froj2ct r,..si b,m Ycs wft WW Mam r lGrVFadUN P Wr • Imp�oolLertLs riot FMklW rft Sam 5pw k Corm 1F4�r • DtrLQto VlWtr W2tEr*Wlbble2t SLtc 5" s + FY..co.rv�rLt + LW wted P relad SM aFplollon WatcrFR1Y5 + WAvr$uip NNW PrOiLd EcyrJstent yt% wttt Wutr Mbm r PGn JMPXtytNhM4Tk5 F6rnt rLNIJ'91Uin 113 k rMKmr milt Solana t;rsdlirA&OF A0pr VA 1. FA0tmett Hall tern Lt S[wK[nuun loop. F. FAimtet m Ltrlry IrLFrre Ls i weR aaNt IFa Well IL L&Lu l an the mLe rL mua to al wWonld pang.LcdoryragwrtrLLtartandprwfal'aNndinnlemmwLttpno ...LOLLfeCuy_{mMLctd rrrh�l imppLon. }. Pa,ide 20r Past,,:,Itr nwrs,h}dPWL Ia ff"and.aver s wa.F'"�srwruld er Lexl LIP to cworm—i.,tiLaraN rrrc and ID'""AIL 4. Hn ptrmu..oi SL u_L_:— J--,U, 1 ,hu ULO3t C"rl;vaza gflt AKLor InrdL.L,ii nullL.:n>.I..n:Tell ,ulL..l Lh Ift TuilL wrLlln yK LLIIILy C2:;enLtaL 5_ Kmuru 1xI—hug,wu 1—L.—eJ1111i11uoL1111 Lf'—t0 .. 5. hwure LhaL throeN trn fern:willLin F of the wafer rneLer.. City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions ■ Geori it i:ou3lious A Appifo"l 1. Ajjd.L..L>I.a11-L ow.alcir xrx er nwn lLat and rt>+Lxt g.Lih Vrt Public Work Iliaisr4xvuL and cx Lx utx xLar,iad rarim ofraLea'en La far rl,nulns ila aro rail.Ircd La Provide serv�uc uu .&ara publw hluiil wh raver aver xev,cs maims LS thne fitL,L<Ko.rr rianl Lop of prpt Lo su&V dd_LS Las Ulan Lhrec lar LLm aluffum m L:r LLLI shAl br uLed LL lcWwwwiiL-of(:Liy al Mfn3a,1 Fublk Wairlr Llr(AmemS SUlldifd."inco 2. Per MuWidr th,[-adc 1 KRX:],Lill 1IM111 ud dull he n!SfHAUJ9,La-Mani Al-if rid w9kif aL..La io sad Ltfhu gh Lb1&-q,K•ui_u L.Appl,arLima,be diSiNe for a reir&ufflrrl iep mro rtr Lnfto rucwro per M[:r=i-&-S_ 3. ThtdWl.c LgWlProvide c,LserLtchLlxF roe Wpilrc,tar:Us&.0 rkoLar .ay{th_Lu3_dill waror xervrri a id iy2rW}the easemtnL w.&hr.xba11 be m-lkt ..k fora swell uldtlr,w 304cn.LEr For Era The rratbacms sJnall rob 6c dedv:llxd,L&du pUL,br ralh[r dndlw,ai rttllsidc the pflt pinam usk*he i:LR'ed Morwim's shrdard fmuic..The ealeYr_id shall hu rvJSp LiCSILy�'I•-.,an IYC Fiji lie frter86:C�wY1S.tiuhnld all tuwdeti erde .L(o..Ll,u lufm Av L,ble Imm PWAilc Wadi),i legal dlx rgpuaa pftpQ td by m Idaho L.Kcraod Prultsa ad Land Hurve,or,.iLN LLad IohWL-Lhu uca ol'Vrtt ntea Intarhed F.xiia 3rl'A)jail un K7:1-a L L-n V wd1b hemp and disl.-u {nwkei I,LI L1111T F9 Gr rovtc�.FkAh c,:l�d,nc nil be seaLk xlgned red Aoei by a F-ILsaclonLL 13nd tiur,.•foe.LA) MITT RF:{YJR 11. Jidda rlmc L4 dic plm rareftwi%lbJs dacullmil..ALI Odtmx'n LS MULZ U subml"rt-w-L iW approvr:d prlarmdtitkpavMpLLi wiluut9l. 4. 'I7rt L-nyarMtrtdtaireq.ues Lhrprezurldi urlgium syxLeaniti sugilued by i,c9lfauled source a I'wjorr�13[}[:113FS�,k 71Le apP It ail xha.ld br eequtJ W u use any es.tatn g sue rScror .ell�aLee ear 11r prinury source. If i xmaee at wK{I iLarf*a i.]1 a,illlbk.a sln&-poi d a,eadxrr La the Lulteary.00ci sYsWft.shall ht"uved.11 r uuLu&d. the■eu,eliprrrd1hu:utlxu.sihlu Iw Lltu 1uy,,,oaarasaeLLnro err LbcraeLLxoi oralparrw Filar W eletivihK d.,rululiuiuhl nIaA alilli-Al. 3. A'lle"nUg 1Lfu%-wmlllr.uc 1 uyuiNd LL hL shall be pnar Lie smrlwdr as Me FLruL plu by Lltr C rL,F:uruimi. ,illy u n„q„rL�dua we.LLu.ed La rmlaln itW I be sm1p!CLLa e.a lliamif.,Leal FPOMIhlc rcra.,x,,,,k„L t.l v ica a6Voa,t w bL Ln eo"ludec rLih k K:[-. d. All vet aw.i wiLcrrayr,vLmrxnhLnp, t Ovag or Iir bc.ne.iut.Wv.dlod irJ114e9SlrelrfdpH Lfl3f_11-3AA 3..1-G S.uch,.ate Lbe applicant rltall r amply with kl.W>[lir�42-1207 old knv iidm qT-Ii ahIc law iif Jqulra,an. 7. AA-lb L'ul will h,LioliLtlut Lo WLe"niva Ee prycrlyabr.JorKdrroontugm ldria Well C"Laiucl,on Si.udu ds E LLri almiltt3LLYL-0 by the Idaho Lkj)ll 1.of Wmrr Rriour[eL.The Lhatel*Wj Flu}:.cu:A.all provldc A eU,c1Y-..L addresslrlg xhtlhtr tll2rt llet any bt.aing.eWL LL the ir481cf .IL,.ud d act,her Mey wILL c�u he used,ar pro,L&rowed"Lbe.r abardonnKrtn K. ,Say cvlsaag xpL,c sysLcnls.wlthr iu proleti Llull be[er..,vcd G.OS xervlfY per[-ry LLrnu.nrr.. tcuoli SLI-4And'l9 H. L-orusn CbkW dLGelci Hk*M F&QufhdaLmomprLlcb3ucsrid in.R L'LfrG(2DH)37.i2I I. 9. Sami sLW art m Be In place,l761N[�sr.er wO�alcr Lyf weal fbalL be jprKovrd mid Acb,alet♦l, mod hale llAW,td by LRL-Adl{V wWy H#b iy UkwKL and Lilt Filial Flu 3or iha suhd„v.Kr "I be[ecwdk!d,prior ru appl,mg for dmlmg ptmlLx. 30.A kl arcrodt[w cosh suety m ac i loum of I IC%will.1,rrgweel Ifr ALI. OFILpleLcd rmtLo&Uad n� an18r111eL,e .,pflar w xlffr Wu ith Ur Ruud pIr< 33.A31 uMx& -aLcn u etllttdto public lue,safety aW health shall bt aarllpLabil pn&r w onupawy arils mua,res.W heir oWo*fd by Llhr[-Sy higlrKcr.an a.srr rftaf poa a pHfowarlcEr sumy rise La,L#ufpravenww m wda to ahwn f:uy Hri. cii iLgisaurc on the risL pLu ix se[I"m LILX.'11-51--313. 12.Ap1pl1 cAnL shall he roquuad Lo pay P uh Iic W ae Ls dcvt Iopnitm p Ma rtvk..and corttarudwri 1nr{tlw1vn few m drmmirrd B,ruLg Lhc p1m revrtx pruati prior m LFr rxuantm ora plan ippeo,A knee. 11.I[hall br Lhc ro NnslGLrty ardc applicanL w crrurc dtaa all dr.clapnttm Iti-n,ucs Konply.uh 1ht,lLrerttara rah UarbdlLLtf A[L altd Lhc Fa,r Housing Act 14.Appllconi. hJWI he res nsiblc lar appLKanal artdtompi wnh any Li cl 404 rernll Lltng the nu,be rcquvrd bf Lhc Amly CwlK ad FnX.ltccrx. 15.I. vtk1w shtLLl c000dlnttle awlhan L iLora wrdi Nc Mtftduh Pact ilmr1cc. 14.Cangw LLr wa scsulu.shall be submiard LL the kr uLdLan kLuld,Lg Ilepinownt.for AL budding FLbk Cw tivlllg engLh crcti brcalLll,rI�rr ivawlg would ill.atop rill-..-.-. 17.Tbr deLLErt engttK.r shall be rmluvtd m ee„Ry iltro the xv ccnafrLm e4-.uroas aro stL a minm al3-rr jba,c 11rt hLbL csubllshod peal grouWwatrr ticv n.'Ilrr Is w craurc wm the dourm elevamm a1'Vtr crcr I Ara ul hont Is ro It I-15, jba,c. I K.Tht appIlcontr.dtLlgn bilge rshall be rcspora.blc Itr uLjt3rttan ara11 tfr.rA..n AfW& driul.W ExiLry.rNh lh Li pmfWL dkiLL do,cot TO urnier Lht jwi*dlanin rit an ifny3aa,a,l dL.9riL -or A[-HL).'rbr dnlgn enguetr shall.provrie oaul LtLLIan ehr Lhr ULikilc7,Lave hceo te:ulk-d LL k'oedmce dbLht apprb.cd der pl. T1us bmuflta ah..11 bt fe.luvc-0".Pr,.a cm.kcmt crm uparrl,a Mufti for jay suual wnhaLhc pnr� 39.AL the campinLOLL orVrt proJei4 Lhr applKara shall ht reapomible w submlL rc:ord dlar BV pY the CIL,or hi,xLdLari AmbAA11 zwidl'd' These rrierd dn.rSs a.tmbt roc. load apProvea Pr"m Lht�e Ora t nawaLL Mf cupWLL`y lie jay Ar-'i•• wuhtn the pru.j0.L 2a.A arty ligh plan.1IL ribbed w be Included m 13c cl.11 odl%rwmLofL plan.L lad I.Fhi plan requirear=nu arc ILard m satuan 64 aR Lhe I12WOv YrnL tivmdsr,;Rw%mott I-qlLiryg.A.copy orLlenaatl3rdiian he laund r hnP.ilxrw.IllehdwLciLy.orgPuhlte_rorlx.r i!ul NZ. 73.The['dy allertdlna lnhju Lbm Uro u.mr poa 1 the Cny a pLrra it c sum,m L1r arn,.rt ar 125%arLbr Loral eoodl4t coo for aLLt onLplcu xrxer,wj zU ray,xc Infi*d� pnarmfLnWFlaslgnawe.'rLL Luray wdIbib,f I1WbyaLiwLLmI oral eWntaePeevededby ima.rte,rm did[-Ly.'rre ra,etty,.a.be p&mL d I n im hint arse an-&o Ae Iddl a areslu4 rash deptrt.Larboi"I Lamm rNfi lit an;4WKaoLortGarsorely,.bib can btR.0 onLht 1:onlLwuuiy 13C dxfem Llepl[lnlem.etear. Pkase ee Did.L lard Lk Vdiciphien L Ktrvlce bar meet Lnirr+^ +u"7,7311. 22.'17rt city o rMerid Ina rtrf.Irci Lha Ute a.tmr poa in We:Ley a irn■6y r L)mIht jrr rL or XI%of dh caul ranxlnci.h race la[AI Kaupbe ds ltr.Wa ar.l I mfri au n.....err durmLKt ad .yt .'lls.>.wny.IIL be v nflbya lie aim raa�provided b?We a.a mUtc Cay.Tltc:._:Lev.or,ltr paw_-0 uI Lht rLenl orm rrrtoeble la Tara lti Kash dipuClar bmid.Allilli-L a:ter l d:y i a:t::i.aiiwl Nor' tly,.bL'h can ht lound as Lht Canlmuiuly l3ewl--ill_al. rt1-7- Pkaae CfruaLL Lard 1XVt1opaenL%eerier ear nK,reulforaLuw:iuNX7 2=11. City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions ■ C. Ada County Highway District(ACHD) OMIL V"prwdwr MM iardrr onw CunfYwar" 11 ACHD -4- ItRatrkZ NErowt Canrrftk� Date:]une 9",202S REVISED To JeNiCa"eagle.S[UOh*H ArMltea5 Staff Contact:watt Pak Planner Project Deseriptiare Farrington Heights TnpGeneradon: This dLrelopnrentrsestrmated W Werate340 vehldB[nps per dot . A vONI-16 t►iPO�r how in ilia PM Ptak Nour_bawd Orr She ln!Hitut#OFTrerdP rC2Ti t Engineers Trip Generation Manual,W"edition. Tiraffir.Impact Study NU required Do area roadways meet Th re, the rutura with plar-ni NO Connecting you to Mom- Ada 4PMq Wigh-py Dq%.rt-F4QQ N Mr"AW.WW .Q-R4-;-PMZFJ�WHA;hp.FNri}'}yG-Mw',lp� M1 V. FINDINGS A. Rezone(UDC 11-511-3E) Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Stafffinds the map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan in regard to the Medium Density Residential future land use map designation for the site. City of Meridian I Department Report V. Findings ■ 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 with compliance of the proposed DA and conditions listed in Section IV. 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 11-6B-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 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 with compliance of the proposed DA and conditions listed in Section IV. 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. City of Meridian I Department Report V. Findings ■ 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 ■ ' � 1 LLJ _CHEY -F � { FAIRVIEW wpm OW Fl I 1-4 :ZZ '4 �•..nrM 1 l•�� _ T ■! ;PINE 1 r, On i r sJim - —-:� �.�-�'�'.'`�E l!r � � # 711: r�l■ hk �—+ILaIFra ci r' ( . dR �L■. `� .,a■■alp �s I •�� RA}}--�N KLI NFX .■ , - �.♦!r� nnYlrrlrr!!!����rrrr - eC:� ��i■ 1p��r ��:i •R•��ring r•••!urrrrr W + rn u�ln■ulliil11 n �1 71r���_ � O, �■r w!!!1 G ME 'g gnnll H CHERRY' FAIRVIEW U O Isis Am � �• nnn �ii� �� r! � r�r ! !!W oil�� !r it - • ►- ■rub rs� PINE • INIt .�,` El Z • - FRANKL-IN - i ♦n� 1 r��•.■ram �■■■gyp-'� n■unn.■■mti-..nup.■■MI■.♦ ■ � -:��■■.� ■111�- i� \�•♦w...ri-..-i iw;--mil►♦���♦♦.�%: Neill AN*I.i---►�AnrLfl�l�ll �a■■■■■■..... !!1. ' • - • • • • r - 1 w�tlil!„1♦'•raid► CHERRY - FA`IRVIEW ° •t/�•y .Est � I:.�I/P+1 r■.r � � -_� Z. ■i i - MEIN Iloilo Miami ■ O + nlnnr 11-Air 11, i_ PINE ,Y -i4W1 L' --aiIIIIl,.n:-7:! Z li -n 111!!ql ON 116111 l � o -- `W z �' Ir e e FRANKL-IN ■ n11■ ■■Illlli■■■I LIN AN Al y �rm- ■ ■..... ra ■■ l i■ :o rr..N.i umn W mr. �. � ���a m■■In■1■ yl'1'�♦tilt■■o■■.Minna■a:a:.u:a:: +J n mw■rl1e......n.•�► .■■. _ • �.nnunnrnl, !nminn■� �w■MEOr.alllrlllD mun!umm�nm �w.111111.^ `'p r■■ 11 l, ----- •• . •• • �/ i�_ _■r�; � ♦ Mryl11a �n■mmuwunIF Ivor ■■� €'❑1 e-= per■ ■� �1NAME ,G Ly 11�;1 i• Z iw■:mow 4!� �•x i I�lii■■s =iui'm y -. ■ ftlil�■..■■n■ !_ = r ��itnnn/.�lilmnn»i�!iIfllpvi :.i A♦llq��■1.111 fhyr :■��:�Innn\ 1N � ■��iI- Ir ����a�� H�" � � i ♦ 111�� IINi- r�'•' ��-'� 0 _�r GI■ ■ ►/gyp��:- ..1 qr iiur � ��I nmi ■ iiii ii l��w.t r c !rr 'Jr rr � auu.�!-..... 1 li/1�■+w1#� r,y � _ n .■�I mr.nlll■^�..■/11•+.11 ri,r,rr nunn4 SEEM . ■ W ■_ III ■Ilt IIIL/ El .. r + �Lrr MMv■■ 1...Among ..1� PINE- ' i,r r�llill ,IY ■�� ■���]� J.� 11�■■linAM I IIII■�11111 ,■■-:I .!.„111 1.NewAM 1.11:!Y1■111:1:F= �� � ��■ !11■ .�■■IIII■���� � a ...=_IIII"Ili � �H■■�� �l I� ■ F ►aNKL-IN ,, ■-11■1■ ■■II■■I111MM 1� :• •� ■�..rid;���:::�: ■11111111■■■% � r 11 B. Subject Site Photos Air r a Ir City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits Fl—ol a . City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits Fl 02 C. Service Accessibility Report Overall Score: 37 83rd Percentile Criteria Description ■ ■ Location In City Limits GREEN Extension Sewer Trunkshed mains < 500 ft. fray-. pr GREEN Floodplain Either not within the 100 yrfloodplain or , % a. es GREEN Emergency Services Fire Response time < 5 min. GREEN Emergency Services Police Meets response time goals most of the time GREEN Pathways Within 1/4 mile of current pathways GREEN Transit Within 1/4 mile of current transit route GREEN Arterial Road Buildout Status Ultimate configuration (#of lanes in master streets EEN plan) matches existing ( of lanes} 6 School Walking Proximity Within 1/2 mile walking GREEN Either a High School or College within 2 miles 0:. a Schaal Drivability Middle or Elementary School within 1 mile Jr-,inr: GREEN (existing or future) Park Walkability No park within walking distance by park type RED City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits 103 D. Landscape Plan and Open Space(date: 11/24/2025) ME- f LD z LU C>2 ~mom ---—-----—--- WWWWM-- 41, pigntas MUd C>2 Z -J L151 City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 104] E. Preliminary Plat(date: 11/19/2025) F--g—11.1e-S..bdft—.P-�PL. .FI Xr. L-7--j 77 City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 105] -------- ----------- ---------- ----------- ------ ------- ------------ -------- 4t =a— P-3 City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 106] F. Building Elevations (date: 9/22/2025) WTI 6 5 2 enuF r A, �r. MORE ■RN■ soon NONE d■■O■ NET t sr� City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 107 i � .W ■n ALJr- -- d r q City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits Fl 08 Li --.• rr� ■f 4- Elm ■■ OL - -91:7. w I. .� City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits F-log] 1� .'legs DepartmentCity of Meridian 10 F - t3`'��rL. d i�i;:°+0+' Ry(;i'i_ is.� ., fi' ` .,:y l.,,y'~• �,�•'?�,.3�]. .:t�� .. :'-,.: } �ice'..+ i��,.:', ti7+. •yb��'4�,'•. .ka. -Y�:R :ii'�°F=p��� r .h•�3',�1•'" .;ii.. .,y�;; :��A� •.�, Y.-�L'1, ^:`itiy'. '..�: .. .., �•��?�!�• �' �i .d`i..'a:,'r. L 1' �•� :r.] > >i::::: �:k�. ..OFF°.�.-.•��..��..,�-'�•�"4.`.• City of MeridianDepartment Re 11Exhibits G. Rezone Legal Description&Exhibit Map iSG IDAHO 9939 w rmgroid 51 SURVEY Boise,ID E3704 Phone;;7081 W-057C CROUP Fax; 1`10tii @94-5399 Exhihil"A" R-15 Rezone Deecripunn FOr 1100. 11:30$ 1180 J:ai}f Pi ne Avenue City of Wrida0n, Idgi.ha Tttie fonowina Dasi;At 1n a Parcel Misnd being Pori no a 1100.1130 and i1-80 Eats Pine Avenue in the filly of Meridian Jdatio,ficwnry Tex Parrcet hJo'9 R203S41213. R2039261?1 r a R2039261302lying n 1he Southeast 114 oFft flortJweabt 114 of Section 7. f owns-ilp 3 North.Range 1 Ep#i-&N"Mvgkan CAY bf MerdUn.A410 County.Idaho and haing more PartiD"riy Oewbad as tollwlrg MMMIEMCING S:Ohs Sout"a%j Corr K 4I 1he Soutl*am 114 gl the Northeaul 114{E.9et 19 Comer)of Section 7,Towna w 2 Nkywi.Range 2 Wme,Boise Mendian;From WrKh,1he SoUffii Mt Corrmar of the Northoasi 114(Cenbfrr'1f4 C[r rwe of%aid Secdion 7 beers,South 39'07iCA'Waal 2.6A 7 51 feet; Mance 20og the Southerly 9ounal y Llne Crf iho Swlhaasl 114 of the Nlorlhaest 114 a sad Section 7,South 69"07114' Weat,574 37 feet In 1ha Cenla4ne I rdefm0p5n M FJnr1h Alkied Avg, ThenpC leaving aar5 Fvmherq Eaundary Lne,and along the Centerline of North Atkins Avenue,N*-Ih 00'02'01`f 061.a7 72"I#Lhc POPNT OF aEG1NNING; ThWe leaving wid Genb ins,Narih B9.5T210 West,334 551eet 10 iha VMsperiy Boundary Line of County Tex Per+,41 Nos R2939241213. Thence along b ie Woslariy Boundary LWK-9 of County Tax Parcel No's P-W39�61213 h RP639M 1211 North 01)'02'59'E ast.3715 04 feet to the NDrvwned Corner of County'f ax Parcel No RN2.W91�1 t. Thence 1esvwrrg said Westerly l3owidary Lines,and along the Nortrerly Boundary Lrnp of C"Jy TAX ParCal No R2,03925121 1,and bs Pralaa-petlon,North B9 21'51'East, 324.47 Faet to the Cat"Mne of Pdarth ALklnb Avenue. Thong Ie&ving mM Horttwrly Bouwiay Line,and rta Prolongaticn,and along the Cantarllne of NiiM AM"Av*nU@ S4ulh 000201 Waal,379.1#7 fW Jb tree P01wr or BEGIWf+ wi. Thu above described Parcel of Land Canrairea 2.90 acres,rrrere nr less. 9f t18251 pi V 7h i 40F1 City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits 112 Ri7M+ BWntl4ry Lin, 4 Fownp 61uee CQ 5ccle: 1 .104' ferlrg 6eel9natlon lFle Q Fc,lnd Numinum rDp Riuht-o'-$vp Line 95 :0 dC 201: 1 Coltuated Bahr _ — .—. — _ LHIPo O Li" of Reoard DRAW L3. HLinbe- !_-_-- &e UGC. .ire I Bmc I 7 C?ter r- +nyxl rtl Nd.l 111Y W. ACTI J V�uu.t 7--J_ __Ll-- -- ----- y --- I �1.1f E FYri �.r�.. rtr��l Ns/I�t9ie13Z1 - � 1•'I I ..—4 rr� F i A Pain L or i dano fF-e3 L4rq:lrlle.� kr I � L H99'57'7"N 334.55'�li �-15 1 . i id IE a i I S 1 1 I �Y' Ix --�J— - "� �'- - g F V .154.68 E. Plnr kn Yrl9'07'd41E ov 6Y 04411P ei 9m"D r 5��q{.r'�b 1/dL�fl�4 tixti l t I t ra 18 M raM10 {". SURVEYuFSoYEV T ioxia R-15 RR2Dn3 for Srom No. �. 1100. 1130 A 1180 Pine E- Avenue 1 GROUP, LLC I—qd a h Ih4$t 1/4 yC 1/•or 5wLk T. Dft Ovid 7.31,ll.,e.,ey1.,ak nF LWdW. AO*GaryIy6 bn•c City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits 113 IDAHO v4a4 W EnWatd St SURYF-Y ID 3741 GROUP w,wr+={7a3r sat5-T1,i?a Fax: (MB)NW-5394 Exhibit"A„ R-4 RstolMe t"crlptlon Far 1100,1130$i180 Eaat Pine Avenue Ckly of M ddilaN Idaho ne follamr.0 Descrt.es a Rnrcel CA Lz rJ k.wnqi PD4EK3rh of 11W.1130 W4 114W EJW Pine Ave-me m the City of ftferidien,Idaho,County Tex Pmed No's R20Y4 012t3, R2nWBUTI d,R203$261302I"kft the uuRva t 114 of Ih9 Norlhiliiaii 1+4 of Section 7,Tvw-ship 3 Ncrlh-Range 1 Emil Btwae Mensian.city of Menrpw.Apo Counly.IcUlle&XII I}"more Paftdady described as Follows COMMENCING at the SmAheast Comer of the Soudmw 114 of the No:Jieadt 114(Ewa I F4 Conner)of$gdron 7.Tarvrneh-p 2 NrAh-Range 2 4Ye:sl.Base Meridian;From which,the Southwasi Cccner of the Wruww 114(Center 1.14 Comer}of said Se"7 teWb SWtlt 9E"0?'64'4'Vest,2 647 61 foot;Thence alarrg the S.autheriy BoLvvdery Lrre d Iha 5outheasl 114 or the t+IpAl ast 114 if 6#gd, loon 7,South KPOTW West,1974.37 feet ka the Centerline Inteesechan M Nar1h Aikms Abeaua the POINT OF eIl9GINNING: Th4hce C-onrinwirg along**Souttwtp Boundary Line of the S IAhe-WA 104 oilhe hlvrtheast 114 of said Serslierr 7.S4u,.h 99107'04'V"t.334 BS few 10 the Prolo+.3a6on of the Wesleriy teary Line of Courity Tah Parcel No R2039261213' Tncnw heaving mid So,rherty Bounaary Line,arrd a"wtln the Westarly 9oundary Line or Coumy Tar Pamal No's R2039261213.and'ua Proaorgetion,Nnr7h d0102159-East.262 b3 feet; Tmn=heaving said Wesln6y Boundary Lane.and rts Protongaliac,South 89 57'21'Eam 334.SS fee110Irk C#nIkirErm cif Nadh Alkins Avenue. Thim-ce along the ventedine of North A4Ans.Averrl--,$quth W0QZV1'Waal 287 72 foal 10 Us$POINT OF OEGINNING. rfhr ihioVs D"Eeiged 113arr,01 of Land Contains 2 31 aerea,more or Ines. 78;.L4,04 ifJL ,%� �#4F City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits 114 E IDIAN;--- Applicant Presentation December 4, 2025Meridian Planning and Zoning Changes to Plans Revised Application Original Application 22 Maximum Lot Size 9,570 Average Residential Lot Size s.f4,000 Minimum Residential Lots Size 3,086 Gross Residential Density 5.34 units per acre Common/Open Space Area 0.47 acres Total Acreage 4.68 acres Existing Homes 3 Common Lots 8 Single Family Residential Lots ENTRANCE Zoning Request Subject DevelopmentIndustrial Railside Park SubdivisionNOLA SubdivisionPine 43 No. 3Danbury Fair Avery SubdivisionDanbury Addition No.2Maws Addition No.1Maws SubdivisionNo. 7 Danbury Fair CampusControl Pest Weed & DevelopmentsSurrounding Site Neighborhood Transition houseFront of Neighborhood Transition Neighborhood 1054 Transition Neighborhood 1042 Transition 1018 Open Space 7.5%–0.35 acres –Qualified Open Space 10.9%–0.51 acres –Open Space Pedestrian System MAIN AMENITY AREA MAIN AMENITY AREA MAIN AMENITY AREA Summary Truegridaccess to the homeowner when needed.underneath it. The appearance would be no driveway but irrigated like a normal lawn but with the geogrid system drivable surface over grass. The area is sodded and is a permeable grass solution that allows a C E IDIAN�-- Public Presentation(s) we »§ x A rX[mGGy26 %« � § f kel 17 Lik . . . � � . . - 10:321 lellbrook Dr r! 1 !• r—M Weather D MAN 1 �'1FLRTEN DONALD f'r2 0.FVOCRRL CABLE RUST aI te/3014 1 I ®Sat 20 Hunt Map Layers 0 s Offline Maps My Content Tools Trail Cameras Tracker 10:321 lellbrook Dr r! 1 !• r—M Weather D MAN 1 �'1FLRTEN DONALD f'r2 0.FVOCRRL CABLE RUST aI te/3014 1 I ®Sat 20 Hunt Map Layers 0 s Offline Maps My Content Tools Trail Cameras Tracker 46 Ell plp�, pop V O BQt / • +Y- u = 4 opol 444 E pop , o j ' 0 pp F- F no � . one 4 14 it rr��i� pillar IF So WfIlHi *n a Wx @ *•e �> c 1 4 iR ob Aw � _ j PP '7 • �� � + �-- P VI C po, t' i�. " r a:1 is A t � t 9 out Off line Maps My Content Tools Troll Cameros Tricker a g Proposed Farrington Heights buildings profile comparison � � IS r • • pts «. i I i Ai 00 I i ® I � rN�oJa I F — 4k - r ry. u nwiatz J ® Llnweza -NOJRRM e r . — F — . �} s1 s Evuv xs vi „ L ia.o L w e ,� \ �[ eu.r j iz rim eX J i w Bet w U wN wvvm 'xw mx ` ezertou w°°°v'eav i ® F.BEI WRESE'NX \ \ B a m u.R i2 rld,f Y — _ — 7 - I— — Lmbw,eSE 'X,XJ Ar YPE2.E— �2dP£,E 9 W Y 82d,t i R u 12 EME 12 EME- - I " Mee_ L Jmw,eSE J �f -'SE.en rxirnz_ . r� II 8 8 = A 'y i ec.E A 4uce ,ELj g as xa.f " L —uwc_em next Qu8 acw— LI N70 WCOVIOUJ8J 4 s ® 8 . i B a . 8 A I I i2 S02,C P: iZS02.E F " it I u — — — LLi 02a,E Si E81 SPESz'Pox- 12 A L -ew 8 uL J ^ I wl Cr a - . az axe= _j L _ vxce,c / nre `` az os2,f t, I Meeting Dec 4, 2025 6pm To Meridian City Planning, and to those a?ected: As proposed, the Farrington Heights development on North Adkins Avenue will seriously degrade the livability of 1111 North Adkins, our family residence, and that of the surrounding established neighborhoods. We have been the neighbors immediately to the North for over 30 years, bordering the proposed multi-story residences. Tall buildings with minimal setbacks so near our property line would cast a sun shadow on the South wall of our home, including the living, dining, and family rooms of our home, occluding solar heating and direct sunlight during winter months, and virtually eliminating our privacy throughout the entire year. The dramatic increase in residential density would irreversibly increase noise and tra?ic levels in the immediate neighborhood. Of course, single story detached homes would instead be consistent with the surrounding neighborhoods. If the City were to insist on multi-story residences, however, I strongly recommend that the position of the new structures currently proposed along the North border be transferred to the South side of this development, moving the interior access road which runs through the development to the north side. That new road would then border 1111 N. Adkins Ave. The north side of this road could provide a bu?er, better separating our home from those new multi-story properties, and our living space might not be in direct elevated view of rooms of those new residences. Those re-positioned new residences, if placed at the south end of the development, would also be less crowded themselves. As proposed, the primary negative impact of this development falls on our adjacent family home! Don Flaten Property owner, 1111 N Adkins Ave. ----------------------- Photo attachments W IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing continued from November 20, 2025 for 3780 Overland (H- 2025-0038) by Jesus Madrigal, located at 3780 E. Overland Rd. Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2025-0038 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. 115 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE : DecM # 4 PROD & NAME : 3780 Overland ( W2025 = 0038 ) wish to testify Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing ( mark X ( Please Print ) HOA ? if yes ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT C��fEPIDIAN*,,--, DEPARTMENT REPORT HEARING 1"� (Continued to 12/4/2025) Legend DATE: r - - ® Project Location TO: Planning&Zoning Commission Area of impact = City Limits , FROM: Nick Napoli,Associate Planner O Analysis _ - 208-884-5533 nnapoli@meridiancity.org 77 APPLICANT: Jesus Madrigal ? SUBJECT: H-2025-0038 3780 E. Overland Road _ LOCATION: 3780 E. Overland Road Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 16, Township 3N,Range lE I. PROJECT OVERVIEW A. Summary Annexation of 0.91 acres of land with an 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. B. Recommendation Staff: Approval with a Development Agreement. Commission: Pending C. Decision Council: Pending City of Meridian I Department Report 1. Project Overview 116 I1. COMMUNITY METRICS Table 1: Land Use Description Details Map Ref. Existing Land Use(s) Residential in Ada County - Proposed Land Use(s) Residential in the City of Meridian - Existing Zoning R-1 in Ada County VII.A.2 Proposed Zoning R-2 in the City of Meridian Adopted FLUM Designation Mixed Use Regional(MU-R) VII.A.3 Table 2: Process Facts Description Details Preapplication Meeting date 5/6/2025 Neighborhood Meeting 6/2/2025 Site posting date 11/18/2025 Table 3: Community Metrics Agency/Element Description/Issue Reference Ada County Highway District Error! Reference source not found. • Comments Received No - ITD Comments Received No Error! Reference source not found. Meridian Public Works Wastewater IV.13 • Distance to Mainline Available at Site • Impacts or Concerns See Public Works Site Specific Conditions Meridian Public Works Water IV.13 • Distance to Mainline Available at Site • Impacts or Concerns None Note: See section IV. City/Agency Comments&Conditions for comments received or see the public record. City of Meridian I Department Report 117 III. STAFF ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code(UDC) A. General Overview This property is designated as Mixed Use Regional(MU-R)on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) contained in the Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of this designation is to provide a mix of employment,retail, and residential dwellings and public uses near major arterial intersections. The intent is to integrate a variety of uses together, including residential, and to avoid predominantly single-use developments such as a regional retail center with only restaurants and other commercial uses. Developments should be anchored by uses that have a regional draw with the appropriate supporting uses. For example, an employment center should have supporting retail uses; a retail center should have supporting residential uses as well as supportive neighborhood and community services. The standards for the MU-R designation provide an incentive for larger public and quasi-public uses where they provide a meaningful and appropriate mix to the development. The developments are encouraged to be designed consistent with the conceptual MU-R plan depicted. Due to the presence of an existing home on this property with the intention to maintain its residential use, an R-2 zoning district is requested as a"placeholder"zoning district until the property redevelops in the future. Opting for a zoning district within the Mixed-Use Regional(MU-R) designation would create a non-conforming use. For example, a single-family residential dwelling on an acre is not a permitted use in a commercial zoning district and it fails to meet density requirements for an R-15 or R-40 zoning district,which is not preferred. Prior to re-development,a rezone should be requested and development proposed consistent with the Commercial FLUM designation. • Encourage diverse housing options suitable for various income levels,household sizes, and lifestyle preferences. (2.01.01) The Plan aims to integrate mixed-use by incorporating a variety of uses, including residential. Residential uses should comprise a minimum of 10%of the development area, with gross densities ranging from 6 to 40 unitslacre. The current application seeks annexation of the property into the City to comply with the terms outlined in the consent to annex agreement, particularly due to the existing home already connected to City utilities. Specifics regarding the housing types and density will be addressed with future development. • "Permit new development only where it can be adequately served by critical public facilities and urban services at the time of final approval, and in accord with any adopted levels of service for public facilities and services."(3.03.03F) City water and sewer service is available and the existing home is already connected to City utilities in accordance with UDC 11-3A-21. • "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." (2.02.02C) The proposed development will not likely impact the existing abutting developments to the east, City of Meridian I Department Report 118 west, and north, as they are all residential uses currently zoned RI in Ada County. • "Eliminate existing private treatment and septic systems on properties annexed into the City and instead connect users to the City wastewater system; discourage the prolonged use of private treatment septic systems for enclave properties." The existing home has already abandoned the existing septic system and is connected to the City wastewater system. Table 4: Proiect Overview Description Details History N/A Acreage 0.91 acres B. Site Development and Use Analysis 1. Existing Structures/Site Improvements (UDC 11-1): The applicant is not proposing a change to the site. The applicant is requesting annexation due to his well failing and needing to hook up to city services. 2. Proposed Use Analysis (UDC 11-2): The Applicant proposes to annex a 0.91-acre parcel,including the adjacent right-of-way to the section line of E. Overland Road with an R-2(Low-Density Residential)zoning district. A legal description and exhibit map for the annexation area is included in Section VIII.A. This property is within the City's Area of City Impact boundary. The reason for annexation is the water table for the existing well on the single-family residential property is currently failing, and the Applicant had to hook-up to City water and sewer service.No new development or redevelopment of the property is proposed at this time and the use will remain residential for the foreseeable future. The Applicant entered into an agreement with the City for extension of domestic water and sewer service outside Meridian city limits for the subject property(Inst. #2023-037612). This agreement allowed the property to hook up to City water and sanitary sewer service with disconnection from the private well and septic system.A provision of the agreement requires the property owner to apply for annexation of the property into the City as proposed with this application. In addition,the applicant currently runs an alteration business out of the property. To continue this business,once annexed,the applicant shall be required to comply with the Home Occupation as an Accessory Use standards and apply for a home occupation permit. The City may require a development agreement(DA)in conjunction with an annexation pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-6511A. To ensure future development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the land use desired for this property, Staff recommends a Development Agreement as a provision of annexation pursuant to Idaho Code Section 67-6511A,which requires the property to be rezoned and the agreement modified to include a conceptual development plan prior to any change in use and/or development of the property. 3. Dimensional Standards (UDC I1-2): The proposed existing house appears to comply with the dimensional standards of the district. City of Meridian I Department Report 119 1 C. Design Standards Analysis 1. Parking (UDC 11-3C): i. Residential parking analysis 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. The existing home does not meet the required number of off-street parking spaces per UDC Table 11-3C-6 for a three(3)bedroom home; four(4)parking spaces are required, at least 2 in an enclosed garage,other spaces may be enclosed or a minimum 10-foot by 20-foot parking pad. The existing home does not have an enclosed two-car garage; however,there is an existing 30- foot by 20-foot driveway. The existing home is indicated to have three(3)bedrooms which requires a 20' by 20' garage and parking pad. The applicant is in compliance with these standards. 2. Fencing (UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. The Applicant is not proposing fencing with this application. D. Transportation Analysis 1. Access (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-3, UDC 11-3H-4): Access to this property is currently from E. Overland Road. With future redevelopment of the property, access via E. Overland Road and interconnectivity with adjacent properties will be evaluated in accordance with the provisions listed in UDC 11-3A-3. 2. Multiuse Pathways (UDC 11-3A-5): The Meridian Pathways Master Plan Map indicates a planned pathway on the north side of the Five Mile Creek to be constructed by the City in the future. The Applicant should submit a dedicated easement for the pathway to the City. Easements shall be a minimum of 14' wide(10'wide pathway+2' shoulder on each side). 3. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17): Overland Road is improved with an existing 7-foot wide attached concrete sidewalk abutting the site in accordance with UDC standards. Staff is not recommending that this sidewalk be replaced with and 7-foot detached sidewalk. E. Services Analysis 1. Waterways (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-6): Goal 4.05.01D and Goal 6.01.04B of the Comprehensive Plan emphasize the importance of improving and protecting creeks and other natural waterways throughout commercial, industrial and residential areas. Develop and implement agreements with irrigation districts and the Union Pacific Railroad to allow for bike/pedestrian pathways. The Five Mile Creek runs through the site and is proposed to be preserved as a natural amenity in accordance with UDC 11-3A-6. The applicant is not proposing to redevelop the property at this time,however, when the property does redevelop,Five Mile Creek shall remain open and beautified as an amenity. 2. Utilities (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-21): Connection to City water and sewer services is required in accordance with UDC 11-3A-21. The Applicant entered into an agreement with the City for extension of domestic water and sewer service outside Meridian city limits for the subject property(Inst.#2025- 067604). The Applicant is currently connected to City utilities. City of Meridian I Department Report 120 IV. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. Meridian Planning Division 1. A Development Agreement(DA)is required as a provision of annexation of this property. Prior to approval of the annexation ordinance, a DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian,the property owner(s) at the time of annexation ordinance adoption, and the developer. Currently, a fee of$303.00 shall be paid by the Applicant to the Planning Division prior to commencement of the DA. The DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning Division within six(6)months of the City Council granting the annexation. The DA shall, at minimum,incorporate the following provisions IF City Council determines annexation is in the best interest of the City: a. Prior to any change in use or redevelopment of the subject property, a rezone to a commercial and/or a higher density residential zoning district and a modification to this agreement shall be requested to include a conceptual development plan consistent with the Mixed-Use Regional Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designation and guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan. b. Future development of this site shall be consistent with the applicable standards in the city of Meridian's Unified Development Code. c. The applicant shall comply with the specific use standards in UDC 11-4-3-21: Home Occupation Accessory Use and apply for a permit to continue running the alteration business out of the residence. d. The Applicant shall submit a dedicated easement for the future pathway along the north side of the Five Mile Creek for the length of the property to the City. Easements shall be a minimum of 14' wide(10'wide pathway+2' shoulder on each side). City of Meridian I Department Report 121 B. Meridian Public Works w a�trxikr* s psumce to SeY51E'r Available at�,I• Strvkf+t s 5ewer5hed fallmaled prolea Sm applirAame 5[vrer FRIJ'€ 4vllfl{Otclin.ng RlIAr15aL Project Cdcm befTf Yes wth WW Master PLiOnAiK114ty Plan • Imwts,+conC&n€ + • 3te Putil.t lMarkF 3�kr Cgirdil ia+li water D,,Uewe ld watel Wattr Axakhbia at mit Sorvlm unc mui q mg SRrVKV1, • �rssurt2Ene • e llmmed NcoW S"#PPIi[S[If+tt Water ERU's • Wmtm Qualmr florae Projrrl€Oq%i%1* l Ye€ w-lh Water WtElr PW • Cdxenx None- NON-PLAT CONDITIONS Pl al.l[4►'r>•II;s11FpkR73L7F�T Sti IE gRariCr CONC11ticn II kPPrasnl I Vp ch.anrC9 19➢uhlic u ai¢r LniiWIry ftFn S"m in T►tiord Ain cfimNcs mil be apprlwcd by public xx ki Thn imr ludo h�dmlrl%or the almmdor m l of warcr mains Gmrml Canditiw s of Approval I JLpph L�t%bWL xirzbmwwader will a�mwm!si=md wwmg wndh the Public Wk k% ❑VWL114,BL 2 Pr Meri*ma(-rty("md4 PhIC(-k Lhc{Iplt=l dlall br Tcgpwslgle In m!5Ldil IL•wer mid water ell hli€is and LlYhli o this ilk-ve i mcltL APFIIcanL rrap be th pkle Fm a rricu burieE►ral agreti'mr'nt 6RT mfiashrKhAm 4nhmc mxnl Pgr M(C L<dt5 4 Ihr 2pp11ZJAL s1 L11 Pm idr ee€rmelMl%)for utl publlrwmtx.imer maim oulaidrof pubhe mina of wov 1includr a11, itir senicesand byllre ). Sawcewala c"mcm writs Liepending as mwa dcplr! Sr-cr M!")iLd pregclue a 31t Ii cmdHieml,2%2S Mn Sit h cbrmrlll.and 2}-]rl 11 143 R eaacrnent. Ensure no prnntncnl ginenulrs Itilm.bo ks.buildings_carparss.wash tceeptallle x all L.Iencca,infihhruM Iftmch s.lishi poke.cic.l mr bualt willuiL Lhe iniky cs -Viol. SuEeti City of Meridian Department Report 122 >n r4eet11n7 4a,e11,ed1 44h4 Lh%t f1.ml e,jRI:R k rmm Publw A 44%1..*I;yal Lgvr 111 itil.^3LAN6 ley ,la U.1w LL.i;.J Laad&gh.:�:which m til i0th k me birch of IBv aaacrlaeol. k 1411ki2d TXI'Mtl P 41 Ad AR%1'; k I I"Pkup aide buumn#.PW thLwicv1 In wked EXHIBIT B) forT ivw HVh 4aJrhlt5 MILSL:be 9cJAC{I,96npd and doted by a PMF MiMLal Ind!�am-k:+ r 00 NUI FLI-COIt13 d Thrc City of MCrldiap r4gmr.,, -:1I ra43stnm4d rngrimn Mtcmy 44 gipri"d h5-aycar.mk1F1d ,LSLme*f-dlri I1'r}1 'I �I 5: Ilan ap WdhL rhrtuld Ne leyL.11ed 9U,hae adv rn13WIF s11112W12 to -01-merfar N,I,: --.1- ;. IN sur(Nv or-cM saumq is mA pailalie.a SIrIgk-poive euI1rKC9IcA Ld Lh:L-_I;-1!-.11 :t:Ict 1 &pWhl Lewd I Lc nglalrrJ I f a ilegle-palm eolli cuion is ulLllaod, Ibc dat OgXr a Hi hr F1Z.q lcibk far dhe lu4 mom ofwnewrtrrlls for 111C rnmmm nms pr,ar be pnaw lu f=l%1rL dcw 1opn1c11i pI M appm%al 5 LLm ttroohhrcc kill m nOk,r rd lv rermni a!Anil ILc sA ifw W a+idwl kw and pc,sslrlc reossipmcmL of iL L aridl cs ul�iu bL in eudpllbnee m rLh MCC. +1 ALI nnNmmm diixhc".%miWL.Psim{.or Ukin4.C%i'IaN4e 4f Ital YTA1#iairmay%.inlencelireo. a iS.Lrq in la}roe art:KL!ril Lod nY=x LLciusto Lbic area tring Auhdiwikd Sbad 6r2ddaTi6ud per VW II-'A-r- ilyINrlkl ,DpwelllrL,6.eh4eaplicaru.► Ik:c,lnplyr.ithhlnhhcc&4 -017 and my urhL7 aP11Limbic Iamr IX MELAaliun. 7 AINY xcil-srhel slit MIL e1+Ieihw 1111K uud MILrL1 be lr.LPvI`ty ah klnned aaealydlwy.la rddlir.Wdl ('{Iaelrucllum Semadarjis k de%a&nimWL-rnd h}•111e Ldahm Depallmeni of Lk a1La k.!mniccx rllxllpl th,,Ik, I1v4r.Ihkpirr.4"twoi�cI,.hjb,cLd h.111grv„rsl;u+144rMsenl4ddl"mi,ln whrlkr jknr arc Wn 7L,Csiny?iLCl15 a1 lhC di vi;LWmiptl-pW if sn.lww thr+'SVILL ppet3mg 7o be t1L+,od 151 pM%I&e4itHd of dhL:Lr abLmrA men! H wul1%:iry w Lx ab1a"Ihed Ilic projret aan4-1r L ;1WIT rVprC-Wn1Wi%4 m11si Cnnlarr She II1VL'R{irnyndv:lLcr Fl mlc*lipn 1;ci;dwI Ihamrs Sli1mer. Hi diogcuJug1s4'ux-`L174021 HflvPL am„od is JnIIr w dlc`-OnLraIAN1Q 1 an%kAm4g re[I ten cm ifil+shtlw"chalihe"It is Lem ihm ItfL&NPI Plvwfofwrnlnwlics6m-AF,hal7 T 1111 LUL hL swbCLIIWJ a,dlr C 11}'pnul w,vly-.i rA he111F&Kw uC brCl}I rhus.r i Lhc brill I'ullurc LC cornmimicuc u WP IFYWR may".ih in nAdilrowl m ork and%x%Knw w de[plmlgL5,vi11 s IN x411 S. AIt]fsi!nLXLL SgKk%ti i1LkiL,xLlhoIL Lbw VnKur ah:l�1 be fLnkwcA fl Lmu h hcc L pd C Ih 01dowarr dCi'1ion�I-14 and w 4 K CviklmI Ceraral I11-qcrrcc Hrallll doh nbrldnmmrrn pmcal arc-L and LosplxLiom f2tni137S'J�3h- w All Mphin Orwala Mh d w public i1fc.iakly Mid Iwallll WmI I be cttiapl414d 1nriL,r la,eccLPwv.Ly of 16e xlruhctu x III AI+I>r1441Io1410 h4 ITRJUTW 40 W.'NdbIRC WWI$4I4L4'61pr•.Lcn1 PW Is Iv1A algid crmar"Wiii 1nqw5cLiETn Iav;.ail dllcrrnmKd drying 1hi;plan Trwi—m j)rp v;N.1pFigq 14 the ewwhn: Df a pLn aPGmu1 k1Ltr L}�'" h*41 h.1aIC mptmnbilityofibc aTT4ica,It tDms=Ihm all dpcolrg4rt onGO4$rrnrrplry ih lho Aneroun-h ti6 IA%ablll uci Ael"L%c hmr IIL minig Acl. 1: Appliccala shall he mpl nOble for nrnlicmiort wA c,,mplimue%idl sat'5ccticr%4"Ftirmitting lhal mak Lk 1ry,11rcd th}the Army Lorps of fngrlecm. 13 DetsloPTr=ra.,-';—Aiunlc mnill ch ilnroticni whh dw Mh+idian Pose OfTim 14.C'arhpaeu, 1 1. '.s s1Lr11 bcsuLft led a,111r MertdLmh Building I.r[WIDLILnL KA uI bL■Idlnp pads wv- 1 1 r.-i'1ni;LMI.ulicre flh,tlrtp slouM 141 nuv file nntanal. 15. lltt dnap.I: :, 1 .c rot1LIL1[Q LO UFLI N L1131 ec S=L CCMLdu!FL rk%31PIM St M A in irlmnllm" <-:eO:• w Itlyhcsl c saaNl-qhcd pcaE gmu nd,kaler elc+nl.w1. 71aa K 1u msarc Lb*LLL bA urm eiLla.1.'1 :dwclaml spae-1ca trl buroaL 1S an LC.ir1 I-11aaL abosc. 16.The isansld4eipn enp:14cf slknll Iti r4Lp%inubk Ra iltifKoim ofall inewaliaa MAW dFdRTgL f]c�lil�ih-lWIL11M thi,pwyLLL Ik31&3 mA fall Lander Ibe 3unvJlrmrm Ld ao 111i1IUi d 61L.riO or AC'HD I nL 9La1Icn v"meLy ihnll pn,%ode Lrrlrf,tl mit that the Yur11111ci hrwr"illi"1ad M m-Qmdaner wikL lh1 appm,�d dtz-,ign pleura Ihi. aaXd1C4o6on mLl t,e n4I1,L14d begvm a LLnnili,:aic aftrrurxarrk I.1lalurd Imo anv-Ar;irturLw+<1tll,n lhLl labjert 17 AL dr:OLN"l41nm 1nf AL:TwikL;:I llle appWiplt•►rdl lie a-L;,lnwNe IU wlxalt Ilm J LM'a LV�k M LI1L,C iiv O(Mi-Y1ibad AumCAI1 a1"adlin i. I ILL t r.:4 n &e wiov%CaLbe he RLLn ed 2ed'Vpiu%Ld PMbI w tW iiiwaiwc of n excel fiealle4 itf LL4K,II+ahC} for an! strk,Lgwlv4 Oridun 11w Faax,rrl IN.Asa l IrS11LpLm ml oped ggbe Lndudo m I%C Mill 4;4 - rVLlenn TW=a .$tree hghe pia. rrgaucmralta Wt I I,Lrd In 1Ct11d1i h-5 ul'111r 11h 16Wr1r,L1)1*ILLndUd%I%fnr ism l I.rglltn A A aopr afibc slaadirds[nn be frwmd m S :- -Tmkui1A wiaimblK nxglt usmi.'idn' . I u the C'tLy of h1clL,ilaa rL!qurvs LhdL Lhc uvller Iaft La,&4.Ia d P01bt Root Suirt4 Ir eht anaxLel of 1:i%of the 1olal cari.Rnown mci faT al I irleornl lcw$ K.wnicr xrW%nisr rnfiaslrucl m FITIM W II&W PW iltf k ft I111,SL110.4 YL414 t!L',rrl lim 15n f I Ilk ilL'rh 441%L r,Ll MAL j,re.rtbed 114 the w"LY w 11w Cit} Tlhc suFci6 can W pgsi4d in ihr km of in iTrel ccubk lcrlcr orcred'n-cmO deposit of bwd.Appbeam IILIui fl3c b apowmlrLrrl far suicr}:mbich 4=be fmused ao the Comml.mNy N%clopmlclm Dcpwmcffit wel"icr Plow ommact Und[k%ciorw wt Service for Mwe lnfrrrn hL,m a1 E687-*'11. lU The Cilg of M4ri.d im reyurV6 JUIL I&oxMr Pale Lis Ilk C.IY;&%h urmly lwci+ in elic smoval ilf 2L1.W Of L62 WW 01 UILICI.11 oar!Liw LLIL uwmplded WWO w81LT said muie LnFm iriu-r.11,:jm durmr,m P(ilwoygom 7111ii mwm alp by wriG,J 1)5 L ILIW ilers cow 4itirpxv llf vww b}the awurl LLl Lhe CAy.7br mcLy cm lay pLrnrled,rk 16e kmm cd am iFic%*cAIL?LdLer of CFC&k mh drpmie df hued Appli w tlIL24 Mr in jMQI4:HIwa fax lY1L'rL't4:mhieh cra.lk b1 fLMAId set A( (`Oman!map Dncl�kml Dupmilmmt x�chaitL Ply -candaLe LMIA LILT dol !.Srcl,-im 6 W mwe InfLlw IFA a 010,2211 City of Meridian I Department Report 123 V. FINDINGS A. Annexation(UDC 11-5B-3E) Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Stafffinds annexation of the subject property with an R-2 zoning district and requirement for the property to redevelop in the future consistent with the Mixed-Use Regional future land use map designation in the Comprehensive Plan is appropriate for this property(see Section IV for more information). 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Stafffinds the proposed map amendment to the R-2 zoning district is consistent with the purpose statementfor the residential districts in UDC 11-2B-1, in that it will contribute to the range of housing opportunities available in the City 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 detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare as the proposed residential use should be compatible with adjacent single-family residential homes/uses in the area. 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 zoning amendment will not result in any adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing services to this site. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. Stafffinds the proposed annexation is in the best interest of the City. VI. ACTION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed annexation with the requirement of a Development Agreement per the provisions in Section IX in accord with the Findings in Section X. B. Commission: Pending C. City Council: Pending City of Meridian I Department Report 124 . 1 NJ 84 Asl . l - OVERLAND _ •� �■ ■ e!� - -o-! p r� "�.;.aw 4 �+' � A lip At LU LLJ ME [�O i■■■ �11 OYERL-AND L3.-HL, i! =inuvcni°n IIIIIIIIIkiP . Ci.ii�no Ilrr. NO .. J uum•� ■RRR■R■R .'- 7■■■■■Y� ® .. ANNE .��::"lib` �� n••ut1■lels- J «*iianiil I�iiiailRiii*+FQ iu��n� nr■ IIIII • ,t�Min■pu * ♦ ♦ �i�:�:lunlul att�q LLJ = 7:l r���r tun■ � +1� ♦••,■■■lllTll�r�ir� ' s finu�il= �: ■�� V 1 • - IIIIIN�. — IN W 'III -n- OYERL-AND � • - nn}}5;111lI �l EIl.■n■■•:: W unur w due ■■■■■■ ■■a■■+■ on■■•■ r�•u■REuinua�liiw�► O � a.. ♦ 4.■,■■ „■n■a.tt � �IIPR ryrr �■• EIEEE tl� f+u,,,■■��■nn,jntt� n wnl� ilEl■. aH >♦1■■11111 y��,�■■■4■■n Kit 3 rrri e��r'� ^ J h•.un � ♦ � fr■ra■rr■ slr��� =f°uul ll,il=�•�: � V 111111 ■ � ■ IS _ r — ��� � YERL--AND �� • �� b��i .�::.oil LU ��•��� % � Al11A11111111111 p � � ii j O M e 1111111 IIIIIi1E� � - w . ua■u■rt :::I::I:I::.I:::: ■nm {� ■ 1 �II�t�'.��mnmr�■ , •n nn 11 J �11�■11. .r:Imulu.nlTt++.,w►■■EI► .- nERE0EE1REoiEi�l .�11yy ■�� � anon j •� ■■a �.■4.■■ ,L■4 artt V 1171 ,, IEIEEE • q��� a„n� memo nft* a = u,l err i1�I.T,t !IRiEMOM.. a�:•■u.Ull ,� ��♦�:�.ivaii�a.r W '=wo= ■■ n lay n J 11111 LIS! B. Subject Site Photos s, JAL, �.. . ' Av City of MeridianDepartment Re 11 C. Service Accessibility Report PARCEL R462 24 5 5 SERVICE ACCESSIBILITY overall Score: 27 123rd Percentile Location Within 1/2 mile of City Limits YELLOW or Extension Sewer Trunkshed mains < 500 ft.from parcel GREEN Floodplain Within 1D0 yrfloodplain & < 2 acres RED Emergency Services Fire Response time < 5 min. GREEN Emergency Services Police Meets response time goals most of tl is e GREEN Pathways 1+lfrthin 1/4 mile of current pathways GREEN Transit Widhin 1/4 mile of current transit route GREEN Arterial Road Buildout Status Ultimate configuration of lanes in mast r GREEN plan) matches existing #of lanes) School Walking Proximity From 1/2 to 1 mile walking YE__OL', Either a High School or College within 2 miles OR a School Drivability Middle or Elementary School within 1 mile driving REEK (existing or future) Park alkability No park within walking distance by park type City of Meridian I Department Report 128 D. Annexation Legal Description& Exhibit Map PWsaicnal Englnoan,uvpd Survaym and Plwmrs 92i 3"St Sb Nampa,Id g3M1 ¢rnm&&mIA�a m—n;irlwmoMi—W FOR: 1k,6Ua m1drieol JOB NO!AU0225 PATE: 5eplanbet 06.2025 ANNEXAT104 DESCRI-PTION T119af=aaliunbt•ingall of Lnt 5 black 2 pfJcwO SubdivisionTmrrded in Bonk 34 as Page 205b inthn Adn C wnsy aocosdcr's OfFac erLLL Lhr w1jHerN right of w* of> th+eHenJ Rd.in the SEI,4 SW U4 of Section 16,Tawsulrip 3 Narrh,Rwrlyc 1 East,SniscMeridieL AdnCouety Tdelw,rtlotm parlieulmiy &%Mhc,i ax follows: Cumtnrr b.,q at Ihit iatuhwgv ami=of the SE1?4 5W1r4. Thence S gir 39'4b"E.,SS0.05 fieeL along Lhr sm uth Isuundory of the%F.114 SW I A io She POINT OF BEGIN1 I I KG of said wKwxalsnn; 'Ilhmca N 00'20'ZW-E.,40.04 fact along'ho+vast howidory czocnsion orLot 5 to tbo Pouthwcas comer of L K i; Thtnv,c N 00'ZW 29"E.-399-991�-d nloog Vc:d buuodwy Gf Lot 5 UP Lhe nlxthwe a MmtY of i eL S; Thmee S 8'1"'N'29"E.IM.I 0 fML ulnn4 Lhe nLwLb huundoryaf l-at S to the norlhcast corner of Lot S; Thence S W 20'29"W„399.0 foci algrtg east I Opndaf}•r f I,nt�tp$e WUL1leust L"{W=of Lot 5; Thence S OW-160'2W'W-40.00 fed LOuckg dv cau buLodory cx[rmiue Of Lot 5 4o n point w the mouth "Nnduy of the SETl1 S W 1 r4; Th=te N Vr 3T 46"W..103LDD fed along the;ouch Louwlary of the SE 114 SWU4 to the POF.N r of HEGINNI Fly of said MAnCARUML. TSis llaruel amwxxion suntans I DI aria,murc elf tem. SUIUECT TO-All 1wLiFUng righta of wky am c sz caLs of mcurd ur implia3 appmdng on the abovc- downhed parcel of land. �ac3n r36 pnAwPwwrErpnwv,Lod BurpvssrdPLrnn" aPA&I.r L City of Meridian I Department Report Fl 29 g\ 2 � � k � 2k AT _AkC ._.� � | . � " �--�-----------—---—�.� m§ �- � �k -- —--— -�a7 � §&lb k � � _.,._,----• •—•• •—•-- �k I I. �I ----- �..--.�- --- -- � ! � � $ � �---�---—--._-----.-—.--� City of Meridian Department Reprt F130]