Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2026-02-24 Regular
Mayor Robert E. Simison City Council Members: John Overton, President Anne Little Roberts, Vice President Brian Whitlock Liz Strader Doug Taylor Luke Cavener CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Tuesday, February 24, 2026 at 6:00 PM The City of Meridian is committed to providing equal access to all public meetings. If you need accommodation, an alternative format, or language assistance to fully participate, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at cityclerk@meridiancity.org 72 hours prior the scheduled meeting. Materials presented at public meetings are subject to disclosure pursuant to the Idaho Public Records Act. Public Meetings of the Meridian City Council are streamed live at https://meridiancity.org/live and can be joined virtually at https://bit.ly/meridianzoommeeting Minutes ROLL CALL ATTENDANCE PRESENT Councilman John Overton Councilwoman Anne Little Roberts Councilman Brian Whitlock Councilwoman Liz Strader Councilman Doug Taylor Councilman Luke Cavener Mayor Robert E. Simison PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE COMMUNITY INVOCATION ADOPTION OF AGENDA Adopted ANNOUNCEMENTS AND RECOGNITION PUBLIC FORUM PUBLIC HEARINGS \[Action Item\] Public Hearings will be conducted by the meeting chair following applicable federal, state, and local laws. Application Materials related to most public hearings are available at https://apps.meridiancity.org/phnotices 1. Public Hearing (continued from January 13, 2026) for Latitude Forty Three Subdivision (H-2024-0059), by Rodney Evans + Partners, LLC., located at 675, 715 and 955 S. Wells St. Continued to April 7, 2026 A. Request: Annexation of 17.27 acres of land with R-8 (13.78 acres), R-15 (2.42 acres) and C-N (1.07 acres) zoning districts. B. Request: Preliminary Plat to re-subdivide lots 7, 21 and 22, Magic View Subdivision, Amended into 79 residential lots, 1 commercial lot and 11 common/other lots on 15.97 acres of land in the R-8, R-15 and C-N zoning districts. Motion to continue to April 7, 2026 made by Councilman Overton, Seconded by Councilwoman Little Roberts. Voting Yea: Councilman Overton, Councilwoman Little Roberts, Councilman Whitlock, Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Taylor, Councilman Cavener 2. Public Hearing for Cielo Azul Condominium (SHP-2026-0001) by Marcel Lopez, located at 3512 and 3526 E. Louise Dr. Approved A. Request: Short Plat to condominiumize two (2) office buildings into eight (8) office units for individual ownership within the L-O zoning district. Motion to approve made by Councilman Overton, Seconded by Councilwoman Little Roberts. Voting Yea: Councilman Overton, Councilwoman Little Roberts, Councilman Whitlock, Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Cavener 3. Public Hearing for Farrington Heights Subdivision RZ, PP, MDA (H-2025-0016) by Studio H Architects, generally located at the NW corner of E. Pine Ave. and N. Adkins Ave. Approved 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 approve made by Councilwoman Little Roberts, Seconded by Councilman Whitlock. Voting Yea: Councilman Overton, Councilwoman Little Roberts, Councilman Whitlock, Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Taylor, Councilman Cavener ORDINANCES \[Action Item\] 4. Ordinance No. 26-2111: An ordinance (Apex Cadence – H-2024-0061) annexing land being a portion of Government Lot 1 and the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 6, Township 2 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as depicted in the map exhibit; rezoning 0.86 acres of such real property from RUT (Rural Urban Transition) to the R-15 (Medium-High Density Residential) zoning district; directing city staff to alter all applicable use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps and all official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance; providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Treasurer, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law; repealing conflicting ordinances; and providing an effective date. Approved Motion to approve made by Councilman Taylor, Seconded by Councilwoman Little Roberts. Voting Yea: Councilman Overton, Councilwoman Little Roberts, Councilman Whitlock, Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Taylor, Councilman Cavener 5. Ordinance No. 26-2112: An ordinance (Apex Cadence – H-2024-0061) de-annexing land located in a portion of the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter and the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 6, Township 2 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as depicted in the map exhibit; directing city staff to alter all applicable use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps and all official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance; providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Treasurer, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law; repealing conflicting ordinances; and providing an effective date. Approved Motion to approve made by Councilman Taylor, Seconded by Councilwoman Little Roberts. Voting Yea: Councilman Overton, Councilwoman Little Roberts, Councilman Whitlock, Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Taylor, Councilman Cavener 6. Ordinance No. 26-2113: An ordinance (Apex Cadence H-2024-0061) for rezone of land located in the east half of the northeast quarter of Section 6, Township 2 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as depicted in the map exhibit, rezoning 56.11 acres of land from the R-8 (Medium- Density Residential) zoning district to the R-15 (Medium High-Density) zoning district in the Meridian City Code; directing city staff to alter all applicable use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps and all applicable official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance; providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Treasurer, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law; and providing an effective date. Approved Motion to approve made by Councilman Taylor, Seconded by Councilwoman Little Roberts. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Little Roberts, Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Taylor, Councilman Cavener 7. Ordinance No. 26-2114: An ordinance (Hill’s Century Farms Townhomes H-2024- 0072) for rezone of land encompassing all of Lots 2-7 and a portion of Lot 10, Block 2 of Hill’s Century Farm Commercial Subdivision No. 1 (Book 115 of Plats, Pages 17131-17134, records of Ada County, Idaho) and all of Lots 12 and 13, Block 2 of Hill’s Century Farm Commercial Subdivision No. 2 (Book 124 of Plats, Pages 19913-19915, records of Ada County, Idaho) situated in a portion of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 33, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as depicted in the map exhibit, rezoning 5.45 acres of land from the C-N (Neighborhood Business) zoning district to the R-15 (Medium High-Density Residential) zoning district in the Meridian City Code; directing city staff to alter all applicable use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps and all applicable official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance; providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Treasurer, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law; and providing an effective date. Approved Motion to approve made by Councilman Taylor, Seconded by Councilwoman Little Roberts. Voting Yea: Councilman Overton, Councilwoman Little Roberts, Councilman Whitlock, Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Taylor, Councilman Cavener FUTURE MEETING TOPICS ADJOURNMENT 9:16 P.M. Meridian City Council February 24, 2026. A Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:00 p.m. Tuesday, February 24, 2026, by Mayor Robert Simison. Members Present: Robert Simison, Luke Cavener, Liz Strader, John Overton, Doug Taylor, Anne Little Roberts and Brian Whitlock. Other Present: Chris Johnson, Bill Nary, Sonya Allen, Nick Napoli, Mark Ford, Steve Taulbee and Dean Willis. ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE X Liz Strader X Brian Whitlock _X_Anne Little Roberts X John Overton _X_ Doug Taylor _X_Luke Cavener X Mayor Robert E. Simison Simison: Council, the meeting will come to order. For the record it is February 24th, 2026, at 6:00 p.m. We will begin tonight's regular City Council meeting with roll call attendance. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Simison: If you would all, please, rise and join us in the pledge. (Pledge of Allegiance recited.) COMMUNITY INVOCATION Simison: Okay. Up next is our community invocation and tonight that will be delivered by Jenifer Cavaness-Williams with the Baha'i Faith. If you would all, please, join us in this community invocation or take this as a moment of silence and reflection. Cavaness-Williams: Oh, God, we are weak, give us strength. We are poor, bestow upon us thine unlimited treasures. We are sick, grant us thy divine healing. We are powerless, give us thy heavenly power. Oh, Lord, make us useful in this world. Free us from the condition of self and desire. Oh, Lord, make us firm in thy love and cause us to be loving toward the whole of mankind. Confirm us in service to the world of humanity, so that we may become the servants of thy servants, that we may love all thy creatures and become compassionate to all thy people. Oh, Lord, thou art the Almighty, thou art the merciful, thou art the forgiver, thou art the omnipotent. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND RECOGNITION Meridian City Council February 24,2026 Page 2 of 59 Simison: Thank you very much. Council, anything under announcements and recognition -- recognition? Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Real quick. It's been a busy week in Meridian and I just wanted to take a quick moment to thank, recognize and appreciate the fine men and women of the Meridian Police Department and our many partner agencies. I don't know about you, Council, I -- I slept better last night knowing that our community is in a safer place and it's due to exceptional police work and exceptional partnership agencies. So, on behalf of myself and the Council I want to thank the Police Department for their great work this last week. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Simison: Okay. Seeing nothing else we will move on to our public forum. Madam Clerk -- oh, Mr. Overton. Overton: Sorry. We should approve the agenda. Simison: Yes, we should. Councilman Overton. Overton: Mr. Mayor, there are no changes to tonight's agenda. I move that we approve it as published. Little Roberts: Second. Simison: Motion and second to adopt the agenda. All in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and the agenda is agreed to. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. PUBLIC FORUM Simison: Next step is public forum. Madam Clerk, anyone signed up under public forum? Lomeli: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. No one has signed up. PUBLIC HEARINGS [Action Item] 1. Public Hearing (continued from January 13, 2026) for Latitude Forty Three Subdivision (H-2024-0059), by Rodney Evans + Partners, LLC., located at 675, 715 and 955 S. Wells St. Continued to April 7, 2026 Meridian City Council February 24,2026 Page 3 of 59 A. Request: Annexation of 17.27 acres of land with R-8 (13.78 acres), R-15 (2.42 acres) and C-N (1.07 acres) zoning districts. B. Request: Preliminary Plat to re-subdivide lots 7, 21 and 22, Magic View Subdivision, Amended into 79 residential lots, 1 commercial lot and 11 common/other lots on 15.97 acres of land in the R-8, R- 15 and C-N zoning districts. Simison: Okay. Then with that we will go on to our work for this evening. First item up is a public hearing continued from January 13th, 2026, for Latitude Forty Three, which is H-2024-0059. We will continue this public hearing with comments from staff. Allen: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. Since the last hearing revised elevations were submitted for the first phase of the development, which is the portion north of the Five Mile Creek. These were the elevations that were originally submitted with the application and the elevations that the Commission recommended approval of in their action. These are the proposed elevations that were submitted by the applicant. Several -- ten to be exact -- letters of testimony have been received since the last hearing for a total of 28 and those are included in the public record, as well as these elevations. The applicant also submitted proposed concepts for the future east-west collector street where it crosses this site that's been the topic of discussion with this application. And Caleb Hood is present to speak more to that here tonight if you have questions. That's all for staff. Thank you. Simison: Okay. Council, any questions for staff for follow up? Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Could you go through the elevations again? I just wanted a chance to look at that. Allen: Yeah. Again, these were the ones that were approved by the Commission. Strader: Okay. Allen: And these are the proposed elevations. Strader: Thanks. Simison: Council, any additional questions for staff? Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Meridian City Council February 24,2026 Page 4 of 59 Cavener: Sonya, apologies if I have -- if I have missed this. I know this is kind of an older staff where there is a long application. Allen: Uh-huh. Cavener: I didn't see anything anywhere about student generation, where students are set to go if this were to be approved. I know we didn't get a letter from West Ada, but know sometimes in our staff reports we include that information. I just need to know if have missed it or if we have that information. Allen: If you want to give me a moment I will take a look at that. I don't remember off the top of my head. It's been a while. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: What I might suggest -- and I think my point was -- I know we have got a lot of public testimony tonight. That would be something that I would like to get some clarification on maybe when we get towards the end of public testimony. Simison: Okay. All right. Any additional questions for staff at this time? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward. Semple: Good evening, Council. Ben Semple with Rodney Evans and Partners. 1450 West Bannock Street, Boise, Idaho. 83702. We are back. First I want to thank staff, as well as the -- the city in general. The consultant report that we received regarding the -- you know, we are here primarily to discuss about an east-west collector road that was kind of the topic of discussion. They really necessitated that deferral about ten months ago or so. I did provide a presentation. I'm not sure if you guys can pull that up. Maybe you have got it? I have a thumb drive also if that is easier. While Sonya is pulling that up, just to touch real quickly on this so to refresh everyone's memories. It's about 17.27 acres, located between Magic View and the freeway or Wells Circle and -- on the west side of Wells Street, just west of Eagle Road and the request is to annex the 17.27 acres and assign zoning designations of R-8, R-15 and C-N zoning to the subject parcels. That consists of about 13.78 acres of R-8 zoning, 2.42 acres of R-15 zoning and 1.07 acres of C-N zoning. The -- the -- the request is also for a subdivision. So, real quickly here -- here is the -- my presentation is open. Just the project site here. Just to get everybody oriented, Five Mile Creek kind of bisects the project. Phase one that you will hear us talk about is north of Five Mile Creek. Phase two is south of Five Mile Creek. The current zoning is RUT in Ada county. We are requesting that the annexation complies with the future land use of medium density residential, as well as the mixed-use neighborhood designation on the southern portion. The preliminary plat that we presented earlier -- or I guess towards the middle of last year has not been changed at this point. We still have 59 single family lots in the first phase. We have 20 single family lots in the second phase and the one -- approximately one acre Meridian City Council February 24,2026 Page 5 of 59 commercial site that would follow along Wells Circle. A phasing plan that we have here. And, then, this is the preliminary plat. I'm going to take a minute to talk about this a little bit more. Our open space of 2.96 acres -- that 2.28 acres is required, 15 percent of the overall development. We have 2.47 acres of qualified open space, which calculates out to 16.3 percent of the site of qualified amenities required for this development would be three points based on the one point per five acres of gross development area. We have 12 amenity points proposed. That consists of a picnic area, a tot lot playground, two sports courts and multi-use pathway. The amenities in phase one constitute four points. That's a picnic area, the tot lot playground, multi -- multi-use pathway and, then, the open space. The amenities for phase two would consist of some additional open space and the two sport courts. So, this gets us kind of the timing of these applications. So, we had submitted these applications kind of late 2024 and we are here middle of 2025 with a unanimous recommendation for approval from Planning and Zoning and at that point in time it was brought to our attention that there was some inconsistencies with long-term east-west collector location to get from Eagle Road over to Locust Grove. There is -- I know there is some other extents of that, but that's primarily what's impacting this project. At the time we requested to defer, so that that -- the consultant that was hired by the City of Meridian could do their study and determine what the best locations for an east-west collector were. They presented those alternatives to the Council. I'm going to go ahead and skip to that real quickly. So, this was a month long study. January 27th this Council reviewed those alternatives and selected either D or E as the preferred locations of that east-west collector. This is concept D. It's a little difficult to see here. If you can see my cursor here, D runs along Freeway Drive, kind of hooks north where Wells Street currently is and, then, followed Wells Circle and, then, led west through some county property. Concept E was very similar, other than it -- when it hit the western boundary where the county property is it -- it jogged south. This would be concept D. As overlaid you can see on the right side of this image is where concept D would follow Magic View Circle, kind of move north a little bit and, then, continue west towards the bottom of the screen here. You can see where concept E similarly follows Magic View and, then, jogs south. Yesterday we had some additional conversations with staff and we were presented a third option that follows a little bit further north. Our phase two can still accommodate that right of way. It will take a few additional moves with the pre-plat to land that right of way in the correct location. Effectively we are here saying that if Council prefers us to run it a little further north that works for us. This really only impacts phase two. As you can see here we could retain concept D or E. There is no real additional steps required on our end. A little bit of a tweak at the southwest corner of phase two. If there -- if the third option is selected we feel like with a revision to the preliminary plat we would -- we would want to come back to show you what that looks like. This is where that concept D -- or, sorry, I guess we will call it the new concept that we were provided yesterday -- generally falls. You can see that it kind of aligns with what we are calling Equator Drive that is part of the -- the proposed subdivision. That would be just to the left of this on screen. That being a collector there is some moves that would have to happen with the uses along the collector, some buffers for residential uses down there, but ultimately still really preserves about one-third commercial, two-thirds residential in phase two. As you can see in these slides -- and I will just jump back to these other ones. If you look at phase Meridian City Council February 24,2026 Page 6 of 59 one, which is north of Five Mile Creek, our entry into phase one would be here off of Wells Circle and all the traffic would go north into the subdivision of phase one. The alternatives for the east-west collector are down here on the south edge and even here we are still -- we actually still meet ACHD spacing requirements for offset from collector roadways. So, what I want to talk about is a little bit more of what we have gone through this process. After we have kind of adjusted -- or looked at adjusting the south phase two here we have determined that phase one really has no impact with the east- west collector. Again, can fully retain that right of way as was the Council's direction when we were deferred originally to find an ability to accommodate that east-west collector roadway through the site. Excuse me. And actually initially this is not the first adjustment that would come out of this project. All of the other adjustments that we have made were based on original neighbor comments and concerns. We have eliminated a direct vehicular connection to Magic View Drive, which is at the northwest corner of the project. Right here. We have converted that to a shared driveway that's bollarded so it could be an emergency connection only. That would allow for pedestrian, you know, connectivity, but we are not allowed direct vehicular connection. We did this to respond to the neighbors' concerns, really trying to push traffic over to Wells Street as far south as we can in phase one to try to encourage the traffic to either turn south and go to Freeway Drive to get to Eagle Road, they can turn left and go on Wells to get to Allen Street to Eagle Road. There will be traffic that turns left and goes through Woodbridge as currently happens right now. But we really feel like this responded to those -- kind of those concerns. One of the other things I do want to point out is when we came in at our pre-app for this project we had 90 residential lots proposed between both phases. When we went to our neighborhood meeting we had reduced that to 85 residential lots. When we went to our initial submittal, again based on some feedback from the city, as well as looking at neighbor concerns, we reduced that to 81 residential lots and through working with the city, some tweaks that we needed to make to where the right of way falls, some landscape buffering, that has been reduced to 79 residential lots. That is over both phases of -- of the project. Fifty-nine lots, again, would be in phase one north of the canal -- or the -- the Creek. Twenty, roughly, will be south. Additionally we made some changes to the lots along the western boundary of phase one, which directly abuts the Woodbridge Subdivision. We brought those into conformance to a one-to-one lot ratio. We have 15 lots on our side. We have -- there is 15 existing lots on the Woodbridge side. We also substantially tried to align those property lines in corners with those properties, while also being sensitive to the developer and -- and future build out, trying to keep our lot widths pretty standardized, so we didn't have a lot of different lot widths. Additionally, we have setbacks along the western side of phase one. That would be an R-8 zone. We are requesting a 12 foot setback, which is the R-8 standard. We have talked to the developer and the developer's builder and they are comfortable that a single story home would have a 12 foot setback -- rear setback. A two story home would have a 20 foot setback, which exceeds -- far exceeds the R-8 standard. I think, actually, it's in excess of the R-4 standard for a rear setback. We would like to retain -- and this is similar to the conversation we had before -- retain the option of providing a covered or uncovered patio space behind those two-story homes that could go to that 12 foot setback. Whether a one-story or two-story home we would not encroach into that 12 foot Meridian City Council February 24,2026 Page 7 of 59 setback. I would like to mention that in talking with the builder they have indicated that 60 percent of their lot sales their buyers are selecting single story homes. We anticipate that that would continue through this development as well. We are in agreement with all the staff report and conditions of approval. We feel confident that this will provide a high quality project to this area and that it has responded to the city's requests for the east- west collector location for future, which will help alleviate traffic concerns that the neighbors have that we have heard. We also wanted to make sure to just reiterate that this developer and their builder now will be working with the neighbors to make sure that the fences along that western property boundary are on the property line and in good condition. That is not something that was able to be addressed in the last approximately a year, because we were delayed. I will mention that this is a different builder. You will probably hear about that from neighbors tonight. I have seen that in the comment letters that were provided. When we were deferred the builder that was selected before that had committed to this project felt like they could hang around for a little bit. Unfortunately, that time frame got too long for them to feel comfortable with committing to closing on the property to be the builder. It happens. They have -- this developer selected another builder. I know that that builder is different than the ones that the neighbors have talked to. We feel like they are still going to build a very high quality home. These are very cohesive with this area, as well as most other areas in the City of Meridian. Again, single family homes. We are really comfortable that this project meets all of the UDC standards, all of the Comprehensive Plan future land use standards and really does set up the city for success in finding a way to create this east- west collector between Eagle Road and going as far as Locust Grove and I think even further west than that as well. So, I would stand for additional questions you might have. Council Member Cavener, I do not have an answer for you about the school, -- but because we -- as you stated we didn't get a letter from West Ada. Hethe Clark here with the development team he does have some information about that if you would like to hear that, too. Cavener: Great. Semple: Thank you. Simison: Councilman Cavener, would you like that to be your first question for the applicant? Cavener: Mr. Mayor, thank you. Hethe Clark, if you have got some information on schools I know our staff would probably appreciate that and I sure would as well. So, any insight to share I would be happy to hear it. Clark: Yep. Mr. Mayor, Council Member Cavener, Hethe Clark. 251 East Front Street in Boise. So, I thought that might come up. I have been around a minute. So, I -- I did just do a little research looking at the assigned school areas and relying on the West Ada website to do all this, because, obviously, there is not a letter to confirm it, but it appears that it's Centennial that's the high school. Current enrollment is at about 1,700. The prior high was about 2,100. Middle school is Lewis & Clark, just shy of 900 current Meridian City Council February 24,2026 Page 8 of 59 enrollment. Prior high of about 1,125. Elementary schools. Meridian. And that looks like that enrollments pretty stable at about 400 and, then, as -- as we have talked about in the past, you know, district wide you have got about a thousand fewer first graders than you have seniors. So, hopefully, that -- that's amount -- that's what I can give you now without specific direction from the -- from the school district. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener, Cavener: Hethe, thanks. That's one of the reasons why I asked the question. I did a little research myself this weekend and I certainly saw that Centennial popped up and it was a little bit of a head scratcher for me based on the location. So, I appreciate you sharing some of the information that you found as well. Clark: You bet. Simison: Council, other questions for the applicant? Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Talk to me a little bit about your open space and why you determined to put it there. Usually we do like open space to be kind of central to each phase and it was a little bit like it's not. So, I just want to understand that choice. Semple: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Strader, thank you for that question. So, I wanted to bring up the open space exhibit. I kind of skipped back past it pretty quickly, because wanted to talk about that -- the roadway. We have located the open space in the floodway area or floodplain area of Five Mile Creek, which basically restricts us from being able to develop single family or really any building within that space. What it does is it allows us to utilize the -- what is a -- a benefit or a -- an amenity for the overall city of open Five Mile Creek. The south -- or sorry. The north side of Five Mile Creek has a very low slope approach to that creek and so what that allows us to do is really get some nice picnic areas, that tot lot area, and incorporate some passive recreation. Additionally, the -- the multi-use pathway that is associated with the City of Meridian's pathway plan and ties into the pathway that comes through Woodbridge -- is located -- don't know -- can you guys see my cursor on this screen? Okay. It runs right along here, which is the north side of Five Mile Creek. It will stub here in case -- in the event that this parcel redevelops, but it does hook north and, then, ties into the Woodbridge pathway there. With that linear pathway and green space that's kind of already established in terms of a location. We have really felt that consolidating a larger area of open space here would better serve this community, specifically because the entry to this -- the -- specifically phase one will be a very landscaped, very kind of -- I won't say wild, but a very landscaped and developed open space area that will really kind of draw Meridian City Council February 24,2026 Page 9 of 59 all the residents into that. The additional open space on the south side stands alone for itself. We -- we have enough open space on the north side in phase one to more than accommodate the requirements of the UDC for open space and programming there. Our phase one again has four amenity points, which would be more than the entire development requires. We do have some additional landscape buffers and some other areas for some passive recreation and kind of pedestrian connectivity, but rather than segment that, knowing that with phase two we would also like those residents to be able to enjoy the open space area as well. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Just one more. If you could just confirm. Are you intending to build the east- west collector in phase two or are you flexible on that? Help me understand that. And with staff's third option, which I don't fully understand, so I would like to flush that out, but -- with them. But when are -- when are you proposing to do that? Semple: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Strader, at this point it would be built in phase two. know that there is some pretty substantial work to secure additional right of way for the extension of that, both to the east and west of our site, but we are ready to dedicate wherever that needs to fall. You know, we are -- we feel like if this third option we were presented yesterday is really where that collector needs to go, we are going to be back here talking about what that really looks like in terms of the final location and, ultimately, I -- if it falls along Magic View Circle, I will have to confirm with my client, but it makes a little easier to do that earlier. Currently that's set up as just a local roadway. It would take an expansion of that right of way -- redoing that roadway of Wells Circle that currently serves a couple commercial areas and some residential properties. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Maybe just some early feedback. With really contentious applications where we have real infrastructure issues usually I'm looking for developers to come with a solution to the problem and really contribute to the solution and so I -- I can tell you right now, just from my own perspective, that solving the problem in phase two already feels problematic to me. I'm going to chew on it during the meeting, but it's -- you know, I can think of some other examples where, you know, we have had like nonstarters on McMillan Road where the developer, for example, puts in a roundabout at their own cost or does something that really moves the needle in terms of the infrastructure and here -- I'm not really seeing that in your strategy. So, I just wanted to flag that for you so you have a chance to chew on that during the meeting. Thank you. Semple: I appreciate that. Meridian City Council February 24,2026 Page 10 of 59 Overton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: Ben, I think we are going to have a lot -- much longer talk this evening about that preferred roadway, but for all practical purposes I just want to make sure we put one part of it on the record as we go forward, just out of fairness to you and fairness to everyone else. The preferred roadway was what this City Council decided on as our future roadway to alleviate and reduce traffic through the Woodbridge Subdivision, with full knowledge that it would require complete rebuilds of the subdivision to the south of Woodbridge now. It's not something that we look forward to having happen in the next ten to 15 years. There is no current applications that would help us do that redevelopment at this point, but we as a city are tired of not protecting those roadways for the future and having developments come in and reduce our ability to fix a problem that we have had for 20 years. So, as we continue to talk about this I want to just tell you we are going to talk about it with staff a little bit more as we go through this hearing tonight. We just need to make sure that this isn't something that the applicant's offering up, we are -- we are basically requesting them as a city -- we have already sat down with ACHD and said this is where we want our preferred roadway to go. It makes the most sense for them, it makes the most sense for us for the future, we just don't know when that future is. Mr. Mayor, one quick follow up. Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: On a different note, a question I really need to have answered now is in your application, going all the way back to almost the beginning, you have a letter from ITD requesting that you provide a traffic impact analysis and I'm talking the date on that original letter is February 10th of 2024, 1 believe. So, it's over two years ago. The language requesting that TIA, Traffic Impact Analysis, appears in every single document that Planning has put forward on page two and page eight as we have gone through this process and gone through all of these other hearings. But we are sitting here tonight over two years after that was requested and I don't see that we have that analysis in hand. Semple: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Overton, you are correct, you don't have that in hand. When we were deferred, not knowing where or how an east-west collector may impact this development, it was hard for us to provide -- or to have a traffic impact analysis completed that would meet all the standards that ACHD, ITD, and the city are looking for to be able to fully determine that. We do have a scoping memo that's been approved. We do -- that -- the process is in process to get that traffic impact analysis. I -- I thought that the condition was -- had something to do with final plat for that traffic impact analysis regardless of when it is in process in order to inform us as to whether there are impacts. In nonformal discussions with ITD they indicated they can't really expand their right of way on Eagle Road. There really isn't a whole lot in terms of improvements, so that the -- the Eagle Road area that could be done currently, other than, you know, maybe some signalization, timing, some changes to that. We are fully Meridian City Council February 24,2026 Page 11 of 59 open to -- and anticipate some mitigation requirements from ITD to come out of that traffic impact analysis. I think that finding a -- finding out where exactly that collector goes now that we have that information, we feel very confident that our project right now as presented would retain both D and E preferred alignments for that east-west collector. We are ready to commit to dedicating that right of way for that east-west collector right now, you know, with this application. If this third option that we were presented yesterday by staff ends up being the new preferred location, if that's the way that the Council dictates that that -- where that road goes, Equator Drive, which you can see right here substantially aligns closely with that, kind of line that was drawn on the master street map, in which case we would just dedicate that as our collector right of way for future east-west. I think that that protects the city, because that would be enshrined in the development agreement that is entered into, even if that is a to be determined location that is something that the developer is willing to commit to, to really make sure that the city knows they are ready to dedicate the right of way for that. If it is Wells Circle that becomes that, I believe that those improvements could be done earlier than later, because it's already a partial road section, so it makes it a little bit easier to develop. For phase two if it had to move further north, the right of way would be dedicated with the plat and, then, when that construction came along that would be built as a collector roadway. At this time, even east of here, if it is that third option there really is a lot of work to find and negotiate with those private property owners to get that alignment to work. If it's Freeway Drive and Wells Circle, we really have no issue with finding that right of way at this point or really aligning it with what the city's vision is for that. Overton: Mr. Mayor, follow up? Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: I think you kind of got off my topic. Semple: Okay. Overton: Woodbridge Subdivision has been concerned about -- the foremost has been traffic. Semple: Uh-huh. Overton: When Idaho Transportation Department states that because State Highway 55 corridor is already congested and this project will increase the number of vehicle trips and they request a study, so that we can see what that study looks like for what that impacts going to be on Highway 55, it becomes very important to me that I have that study in hand before we try to make a decision, because what concerns me the most is if we are going to push that much more traffic towards 55, how much of it's going to turn and go back west through Woodbridge and I think that's what most of the folks in this room are concerned about is we don't have those pieces to look at tonight. Now, I understand that there was a concern over the driveway, but that was not an issue Meridian City Council February 24,2026 Page 12 of 59 for the first year and we still didn't see that that was supplied as part of this application. We didn't bring that forward. But now we are sitting two years late, it's overdue, we don't have it, I'm having a hard time making a decision in favor without having all the pieces in front of me that say what the impacts are going to be with this project. Semple: Okay. Mr. Mayor, Council Member Overton, I -- I appreciate that. I think that we were trying to figure out is this development going to change completely because of the consultant's study for an east-west collector? Was it going to run it through the middle of our phase one where we would have to fully adjust that and move stuff around, which at that point it had -- we started a TIA, Traffic Impact Analysis, at that point it would be invalid, because it wouldn't be responding to this design. I do know that they have provided us, as I stated, with some feedback that other than some minor changes to some timing of signals to try to move traffic out of those intersections at Eagle Road, State Highway 55 and Allen or where -- I think Freeway ties in as well, at this point the Highway 55 corridor there is not a lot that could be expanded there, regardless of what this project looked like. Now, that we have a little bit more understanding of where that east-west collector will go, I think that that traffic impact analysis can get completed pretty quickly. So, I would -- I will talk to my client after the Q&A here, see where we sit with that, see what I can provide for additional information during the rebuttal. Simison: And, Council, if I could -- I want to thank staff for maybe bringing up my comments essentially, but after our -- our joint meeting we looked at D a little closer and, really, the way the DLM comes, you come down Freeway, you take a hard right and, then, a hard left in order for that alignment to work. So, what we really looked at is say if we are really trying to move traffic through this area quickly you have to take away those turning movements. So, we -- I'm not -- we don't know if it would even work, but we haven't had time to analyze that if you were to realign and take the road behind one of the hotels and push it up through that direction, which is why that was brought up in this context. I think that from -- when this was originally continued we at least understand the difference between phase one and phase two of this project is -- we are likely not going to build a road in phase one, based upon the -- the comments that have happened. Phase two, if we stay with D or E, is not impacted, you know, because it is on the -- on that southern edge of the property through that. But, again, I think that there is a little bit more refinement on whether or not that road should be evaluated to be straightened or not to achieve the goal, because the more turns we have in it -- it's no different -- it would be like going down past -- right up down at the state patrol and you take that hard right and take that left again, that's not a very good thoroughfare if that's what you are trying to create and that's almost identical to what we have created that point on the D alignment if it were to remain the -- the choice. So, I just want to put that out there. That's why you are hearing about this. It's not as if, though, there is any decision points. It was just -- we should at least explore that opportunity if we are going to try to do this right long term. So, just want to put that out there for everybody. Council, additional questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you very much. Madam Clerk, do we have anyone signed up to provide testimony on the item tonight? Meridian City Council February 24,2026 Page 13 of 59 Lomeli: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yes. The first person is Robin McCulley. She's indicated that she's representing an HOA. Simison: Can you say your name and address and you will be recognized for ten minutes. McCulley: My name is -- good evening, Mayor, City Council. My name is Robin McCulley and I live at 728 South Woodhaven Avenue and I have been a resident of Woodhaven -- of Woodbridge for about 11 years now. While I support the growth in the -- of our community I do have several specific concerns that I want to address with you guys tonight. First, the issue of the fence on the west side. I spoke of this originally about nine months ago and I submitted a letter, as well as pictures to you of that fence directly behind my home and you addressed it with the homeowner -- or the owner of the property and asked him if he was willing to work with the residents and make sure that we came, you know, to agreements on that and he agreed that he would work with us. To date we have not heard anything from him and it's been over nine months at this point. But I noticed when he submitted just this last week the new information I was online and I looked at the survey, which is on page 37 on -- under department report update dated the 18th -- February 18th, it actually says on the report -- it says existing privacy fence to remain. This makes me question whether or not they were actually generally -- there were any genuine intentions to address any of our concerns. I'm also confused about whether a new fence can be legally constructed directly adjacent to our existing fence. I reached out to Planning and Zoning three times and I was told three different answers. So, that inconsistency alone -- we need clarification I think before moving forward with that. There are also matters of ownership of trees back there. That, again, the property line was not established in the survey and he brought that up. Also you guys mentioned that you thought that their addition with Pacific Lifestyle Homes presenting their homes would be a good fit for Woodbridge, saying in terms of size, quality and value they were very comparable to Woodbridge. They no longer are in this case with the new elevations that he is proposing. Previously they were in 500 and -- 500 to 600 thousand dollar range, estimated over 2,000 square feet. They are not at that price point anymore. We, as the residents of Woodbridge, were working with Pacific Lifestyle Home, the builder. We were having open discussions. As of last Wednesday he was unaware -- he thought he was waiting on traffic studies. He had not heard anything else from the owner. He did not receive anything until the next day from their lawyer saying he was no longer a part of this. So, that's confusing to us. Finally, the traffic impact. As you all know with the several projects that have already been approved on -- coming to Locust Grove area, ACHD has already estimated 5,000 cars a day coming to the area of Locust Grove. Adding Latitude Forty Three is only going to cause burden -- more burden and congestion that we are already seeing problems and puts our families and pedestrians, children at risk. We don't think our infrastructure is ready yet. It's under strain at this time and until we can clear some of that up we think adding more vehicles is just cause for possible serious consequences. I know that he just -- I just wanted to respond to him saying that he was waiting for the traffic study to see if it was going to run through phase one. Woodbridge aligns adjacently to phase one. I mean he -- he told you that it is platted out to match us. So, the only way that Meridian City Council February 24,2026 Page 14 of 59 that would have ever happened is if you were going to run another road through Woodbridge, which you have all told us that you were trying to wait, because you are trying to help us and -- and get that congestion out of there. We all think that we need to be proactive as all these things -- the ICOM, the State College, West Ada's new technical school has all been approved. It's coming. We know that it's coming, but we need to move that traffic and figure out a solid way to move that around Woodbridge instead of through Woodbridge to keep our families safe. Given this concern, the unresolved fencing issues, uncertainty about property rights, change in the scale of development, significant traffic impacts I respectfully ask you all to vote no to the Latitude Forty Three until some meaningful resolution -- resolutions and clear protections are in place for all of our affected homeowners and we have several residents here -- they don't like to speak, but they are here to back the HOA and our vote of no to Latitude Forty Three. Would the residents, please, stand up that are here to vote no. Thank you. Thank you. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Robin, thanks. I want to say I read all three of your e-mails over the past year and change, so I appreciate you kind of putting a face to the name. My one question really stems with how you ended your presentation tonight on behalf of your fellow residents, which is -- you touched on -- you would want the Council to vote no until there is meaningful resolution. What does meaningful resolution look like for the neighborhood? McCulley: I think we have to have real open -- not just ideas, but movement in that area for -- we have to have at least something on the ACHD's five year plan or sooner. We have all these other things moving in on Locust Grove, all these cars that we know are already coming and before we continue to add to it on the east side I think that we need to have real meaningful things in place and seeing it progress. At this point we have no progression. We have ideas. We have presentation. I don't know if you all have met with -- I think Mr. Overton said that you met with ACHD already to put your ideas in place, but to really have it on the five year plan it's going to happen, give us some hope that we will see some relief. That West Ada technical school with those high schoolers coming and going all day, they are going to cut through Woodbridge to get to the fast food areas. We know this and that's going to be all day long and our community is already under so much burden with the traffic as it is now, if we add 79 more homes with an unknown amount of cars to each home it's just going to be even more of a burden. Cavener: Mayor, can I follow up? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Meridian City Council February 24,2026 Page 15 of 59 Cavener: Robin, this process is really designed to be collaborative; right? And Council is trying to hear from everybody and I think you have a unique opportunity representing your HOA, you have got the applicant here and so what are -- I heard a lot of kind of like, okay, we -- we want to see some action from the highway district. Outside of that what are the specific things you are looking for from the -- from the applicant when you talk about meaningful resolution? What are those specific things that you are looking from the applicant to be able to provide for you? McCulley: From the applicant we have always been open to discussions with the potential builder and the applicant to speak with us about what they are trying to bring in behind us. We like to work with them, give them ideas, discuss what we know you all are looking for as well. I mean we know this area will be developed at some point and so we are -- we are not oblivious to that. We know that. But we also want them to work with us. This setting change in builder, it hasn't given any of the residents that the, quote, bait and switch, it feels very much like that to our residents, because we had worked with this builder this entire process, to then find out last week that it had completely changed builders. We have now changed elevations. It's like -- everybody was very surprised. We hardly had enough time to get all the information out to the residents. Cavener: Sure. Mr. Mayor, maybe one more. And -- and, Robin, I apologize, I'm not trying to go back up with you -- McCulley: Yeah. No. Go ahead. Cavener: -- we as the Council have an opportunity to impose conditions if the Council were to generate approval and part of the reason we take public testimony is we were trying to get some insight as to what those things are. My assumption is if the Council said, hey, applicant you have to adhere to the previous elevations that were presented, that wouldn't necessarily change that your neighborhood would be opposed to the application and so when you -- when you said you want meaningful resolution, I -- I apologize that I'm -- I'm really looking for specific things, which I -- I haven't really heard and so I guess I will give you one more opportunity. If there are specific things that the neighborhood has presented to the applicant that you believe need to be addressed by the applicant that they have refused to address, those are the things that I'm looking for. McCulley: Well, unfortunately, our HOA and the residents haven't had the opportunity to even meet and come up with these things, because all of -- this has just happened in a very -- the initial change was done three business days ago, only six days before this vote. So, it was -- we haven't had an opportunity to meet as a group out of the residents, we haven't had a chance to even discuss anything, so they have written letters, you know, talked to us as much as they can, we have put it on our website, that type of thing, but they really haven't had an opportunity to talk to the owner and that type of thing about the amenities for, you know, deciding to just go forward with phase one. Phase one doesn't -- I mean I heard that it meets the three points or four points that it is, but, honestly, the pickleball courts were in phase two. That was the biggest Meridian City Council February 24,2026 Page 16 of 59 amenity. That was what all these 79 houses, you know, something big that they could do. That is no longer. So, those types of things. Talk about amenities. Talking about elevation. Talking about just all that in general, like having -- having discussions when -- when originally they said they would work with Woodbridge and they wanted Woodbridge to be a part of it and they wanted us to, you know, have nice good discussions and, you know, work with them, which we completely have. We have been on board from the beginning with them and now six days ago, three business days ago everything changed. Like we will not be using this builder. We will not be using these elevations and so we were quickly trying to gather information and get it out to everyone. Cavener: Mr. Mayor. Simison: There will be -- not -- right here. Cavener: Mr. Mayor, just -- Robin, thanks. I know it's a very hard job, a very -- the job doesn't come with a lot of thanks and appreciation serving on your HOA board. Just on behalf of the Mayor and Council, thanks for serving on your HOA and appreciate you being here tonight. McCulley: Thank you. Thank you for listening. Thank you. Simison: Robin, you may -- you are probably not done yet, Robin. McCulley: Oh, I'm not done yet. Simison: I know I -- McCulley: Okay. Sorry. I'm not done yet. Just kidding. Simison: Council, other questions? I do have one question. McCulley: Yes. Simison: So -- so, you talked about the road a little bit. I'm not -- we are not ACHD, we don't get to decide when roads are built, but I don't think this road is going to be built at all unless it starts with development one piece of the property at a time. So, I guess my question is -- and on behalf of your association as best you can -- McCulley: Yes, sir. Simison: -- would you rather have the current road situation you have for the next 30 years or would you rather start the process piece by piece, knowing that it's going to maybe get incrementally worse before it gets better at the end? Because it's -- I don't see ACHD going in and doing eminent domain and purchasing up properties in this area, it's going to only happen over time as developers or others buy homes and Meridian City Council February 24,2026 Page 17 of 59 redevelop their properties with it -- where a road will eventually get extended through that area. That's my crystal ball for you. So, I'm going to ask you for what would you rather see on -- see happen. McCulley: Well, I would like to see that it's presented to ACHD as a problem that's been a problem for many many years and even though it may only be placed on the five year plan, that maybe it could be -- because it's -- it's grown so quickly and there has been so many issues and things have happened in that area, that they could put us closer to the top of the list than 30 years out. I -- the piece by piece -- I understand that ACHD does work more retroactively than proactively, but in our case we already know, because the projects have been approved on Locust Grove, the three -- there is several projects on Locust Grove, that it's coming. These -- these are coming and so we know this already. I just -- I think our community just doesn't want to add any more. Like what's the cutoff? At what point -- we are going to be so bogged down that getting out of -- onto Eagle Road, whether you are at the light by the -- at McDonald's or whether you are at the light at St. Luke's, is backing up so far now and it takes so very very long to get out and that's without these things being in effect yet. Those -- the ICOM and the West Ada, they are not there yet. Latitude Forty Three is not there yet and we already have substantial backup. So, I think -- I wish we all had a crystal ball. I know when stood up here in front of you ten years ago pregnant with my son talking about this very issue, I said, you know, the traffic then was bad and I just wish that we could figure out a way to take care of it and help the residents of Woodbridge and keep -- say no to these things that we can still say no to, since the ones that have already been said yes to we don't have any recourse for that. We can't -- we can't take those back, so -- but this one we still have the opportunity to say we have to figure some things out yet. We are not quite there yet and we need to get there before we can allow anything else to come and -- and I just -- I think all of the residents would say that. They would say, you know, we have had a child hit in our neighborhood. We have speeders. We have so much congestion and traffic that they are just looking for safety. Safety for our residents. Safety for our children, the pedestrians, everyone, and just adding more traffic -- 79 homes with potentially two drivers, it's just going to add so much more to that whole entire area. Not just -- you know, just for everyone's safety, so -- Simison: Okay. McCulley: Does that answer your question? Simison: Not exactly, but I will -- I will let you get off with that. There is no right or wrong answer, but it -- you know, it's just the reality of the situation that is there, that if you want another road to bypass, development is going to have to help bring it. Otherwise there probably won't be a road in the near future and we will have to look at what we have and make adjustments into this Woodbridge area if you want to do traffic mitigation on that. But that's for a separate conversation, not for this application. McCulley: Yes. I understand what you are saying and I think -- yes. Meridian City Council February 24,2026 Page 18 of 59 Simison: Okay. All right. McCulley: Thank you. Simison: Thank you. Okay. Madam Clerk, next on the list? Lomeli: Mr. Mayor, no one else has indicated they would wish to testify. Do you want me to go through names or -- Simison: Well, since we -- yeah, you -- everyone -- don't worry. We will just -- I just want to make sure that no one else has said they want to testify. Lomeli: Correct. Simison: Okay. Then just come on up one at a time and you will be recognized for three minutes. You can state your name and address. Don't worry, everyone will get their opportunity. Pieper: My name is Afton Pieper and I live on Bowstring, 2228 Bowstring. Sorry. So, I see it all. So, you wanted a proposed solution; right? There is just no way you can allow that volume of homes to be developed. So, if you want to allow something just don't allow that volume. That volume is huge. It is a huge, huge problem for not only our neighborhood, but like she was starting to indicate getting out onto Eagle, get -- either way it's a problem. Getting into our neighborhood from Allen Street off of Eagle, that's a problem. It's already backed up to where if you take a left on Franklin -- if you are on Franklin, take a left onto Eagle, that backs up into the intersection, because everybody is trying to get in that right lane to get onto the interstate, so we can't get into the right lane to get into our own neighborhood. That's just going to add more and more. So, not just a problem in our own neighborhood, you have got a problem with the hospital. You have got a problem with the entire intersection of Eagle and Franklin. have seen two car wrecks on Locust Grove turning into Woodbridge and the problem usually is people ride that middle lane because they say, oh, I have got to take a left all the way up there. So, they smash into someone else who is also trying to take a left. So, we already have real problems. Two kids have been hit, not one. Two. One kid, huge scar on the back of his -- on his back; right? He didn't tell anybody. He showed some neighbors, but he didn't -- he didn't say anything about it. He was hit on a scooter. Another kid he was on the sidewalk and got hit. He was not in the street. Sidewalk. So, if you have got kids getting pushed -- like this car, he was on the sidewalk waiting for his turn. They rode and won't -- go up -- went up on the sidewalk and knocked him off his scooter. Those are real problems. They are not just, you know, oh, well, that -- that kind of thing happens. No. We have homes, you know, horns honking every single day, people, you know, they are honking because we are not going fast enough, honking because we are not going in and out of our driveway fast enough, passing us on the left when we slow down to go into our driveway. That's happened so many times like I can't even count anymore. It's -- it's bad. So, beyond our Meridian City Council February 24,2026 Page 19 of 59 neighborhood, which I get it, you have got development, neighborhoods are kind of going to degrade with development, things are going to get nicer and we are going to get worser, because that's how it is, but are you okay with two kids being hit? Are you okay with extra car wrecks? Are you okay with actual backed up traffic into intersections for the -- not just Woodbridge, but the rest of the community. Eagle is -- I mean what -- what are you going to -- I know you have got this -- Simison: If you could wrap up, please. Pieper: Okay. STAR is coming. That's going to help maybe a little bit. But you can't allow that volume of homes. So, you asked what solution do you want to propose? I'm proposing you cannot allow that volume of homes. Maybe you can allow one acre lots there -- Simison: Thank you. Pieper: That's it. Simison: Thank you. Pieper: Can't allow more. Simison: Council, any questions? Okay. Thank you. Next. Rice: Good evening, Mayor Simison, City Council Members. My name is Karen Rice and I have been a resident of Woodbridge for 11 years. My address is 2324 East Bowstring Street. Over this time I have observed a consistent increase in traffic. You just heard from my neighbor. Last summer a car hit a child while he was on his scooter. The driver did not stop. Fortunately, a neighbor helped the child get home. Recently witnessed a speeding car pass a neighbor that was walking their dog and they speed past them before they could finish crossing the street almost hitting them. Two weeks ago my own son's basketball was hit by a speeding car and the driver did not stop to express concern, nor did they address the incident and it's very alarming to be in the house knowing that your children are on the street and you hear a very loud, right, a basketball popping under that pressure. It was a -- I was very fortunate that my children were fine, it was simply a basketball. These examples underscore the urgent need to prioritize our children's safety through responsible decisions. The current traffic situation in Woodridge is deeply concerning. We frequently experience near misses and fear a severe incident will occur. Our subdivision is already overwhelmed with traffic and I urge you to address these issues before we add more. With current approval -- the approved development, such as the West Ada CTE Center, ICOM expansion and ISU expansion, we anticipate a significant increase in traffic that we dread. The proposed Latitude Forty Three will further exasperate this problem. As an administrator in our school district I often say 90 percent of student issues start as adult issues and as educators we strive to support our students by removing obstacles and reducing adult issues that negatively impact students. I say this because the traffic Meridian City Council February 24,2026 Page 20 of 59 situation is an adult issue that is negatively affecting and impacting our children's safety. The Latitude Forty Three development is too dense and adds more traffic to an already overloaded situation and I know that we are addressing traffic and it's really about Latitude Forty Three, but it's really a -- it's really a together situation. I urge you to take responsibility and halt further development until current traffic situation is addressed, ensuring the safety and needs of existing residents take place and precedence over new developments. If a tragedy occurs the responsibility will lie with the adults that are making these decisions. Please support Woodbridge by finding solutions to our traffic issues before proceeding with new developments that will continue to -- to add to an already bad situation. I say this as a resident and an HOA board member. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? I'm -- I'm going to say something that is going to make me maybe the least popular person in the room and I'm going to -- I'm going to put it out there, just because we have a lot of people from Woodbridge here. If we put a bollard into Magic View Circle to stop all cut-through traffic, that it means also residents can't drive out to Eagle Road, would that be acceptable to people in this room? Rice: Yes. Yes. If -- if our subdivision was able to act like a cul-de-sac instead of a highway we would appreciate it. Because our streets are the equivalent of Overland and -- and Franklin, because people are too lazy -- adults aren't willing to make adult decisions for children to take an extra three to five minutes to get to Overland and to get to Franklin and I do believe that you would have the support of the community to make our subdivision act like a cul-de-sac. Simison: Okay. Thank you. Sorry, I didn't think I was going to get applause or a pause for the suggestion, but -- anyways, thank you. Rice: Thank you. Bode: Good -- good evening everyone. My name is Philip Bode. I live on Bowstring Street in Woodbridge community. I just moved here in November with my family. I have a two year old son and a one year old daughter. Since moving there I -- I know you guys heard a lot about what it is like with the traffic, et cetera. I live in the -- Bowstring has this long stretch of street and, then, two loops. The people speed up really bad on this straight away. They go about 40 miles an hour in a 25 and that's 2,000 -- 2,500 cars in the morning and 2,500 cars in the evening and it's -- some days I'm unable to exit my car. I'm unable to park. There is a lot of issues that come with that. But the safety for the children is the most important to me. What I wanted to answer is the question about solutions and -- and I think one of the biggest solutions is -- I used to live in Boise and there was an area that was the same way, it was a path to a school and what there was there was just speed bumps in the way and it was a 25, same as -- as this location and if there is enough speed bumps it slows down the traffic at least to a manageable speed, so kids don't get hit, because most cars are low to the ground and they will just scrape and most people that cut through, I -- I -- I think they will cut through every day. It's probably the same people or it's people of maps, that just follow Google Meridian City Council February 24,2026 Page 21 of 59 Maps because ways will direct them that way, because it's the shortest solution or shortest way to -- to get through there. So, I think an immediate solution that's very very easy and very very cheap is having developers pay for something like that before we move on. I mean that's a simple fix; right? At least we can, then, slow down the cars to see children maybe, because as you all know the faster you go to -- the -- you know, the slower you can react. So, if we can do stuff like that that would at least help. Just trying to come up with solutions, not with more problems, you know. I think -- that's all I have to say for today. Yeah. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Okay. Next. Seaman: Hello and thank you for the opportunity to talk. I'm Mike Seaman. I live at 544 Trunnel. I just moved into Woodbridge. I'm going to turn around and ask everyone just a quick question. Raise your hand if your home is the biggest asset that you own. So, if you have -- yeah. Like a retirement account that's got a million bucks in it maybe you are different, but -- so, when we talk about traffic, obviously, there is children's safety, all those concerns. My main concern is that the developer is now changing the scope of their homes and while traffic will also deteriorate the value of everyone's home, I think the most egregious thing that's happening right now is the developer is trying to shoehorn these smaller homes in. We had -- I was not part of the discussions. I just moved to Woodbridge. But if we had homes that are five and six hundred thousand dollars, 2,000 square feet, and now we have changed them to 12 and 14 hundred square foot homes and possibly a phase two that may or may not be built, my concern is I live in Woodbridge for the next few decades and my children start driving is that our home values aren't going to be protected. So, the safety for sure is important. But everyone in this room bought a home in Woodbridge or nearby probably, knowing that this is a great place to live and there is homes are built and more people are added to the road, my long term concern is the home values are just going to go down in Woodbridge and all over. Small impact on the tax base, but huge impact on everyone here in this room that has a home that they are counting on appreciation and kind of value holding. Any questions? Simison: Council, any questions? And, then, Luke, maybe to address that point -- the questions, like what can the developer do? Maybe to start with honoring the initial -- and not just elevation, but the initial plans for the home. Point of clarity, too, on the elevations. My understanding is the elevations are like the look of the home. I don't care about the look, but if we are talking about a 1,200 square foot home, instead of a 2,000 square foot home, that's a big difference in value. Thanks. Simison: Thank you. Spencer: Good evening, Mayor Simison, Council Members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Raymond Spencer. I live at 600 South Woodhaven in -- in the Woodbridge development. Most of the homes on my street back up to the proposed Latitude Forty Three development and what I take away from the presentation and some of the materials we have seen is that the developer is proposing to have a Meridian City Council February 24,2026 Page 22 of 59 minimum setback of the homes to our property line of 12 feet. So, if you look up at these ceiling squares and you count six of them that's 12 feet. That's not a lot of distance. And I think what we would like to have is some sort of a guarantee that the single -- single story homes backing up to our property would have a setback of maybe 20 feet. That's asking for four more of those squares, because on top of one another like that it creates -- it creates a -- it -- you know, a visual block. It -- it -- it becomes a little bit uncomfortable and I think that's probably the least the developer can do to give us a little bit more breathing room and, then, based on some of the other comments have heard tonight I do agree with the traffic issues, especially going toward Eagle Road, 55. You have got the Wells and Magic View intersection that forms that funny little jog and, you know, we are going to have some issues there as well and I -- I just wanted to ask you to think about -- think about the setbacks and think about also some of the issues that were brought up in terms of the -- the -- the -- the open space and where that might be located, because we are going to have some ugly fences along Magic View, minimal landscaping. I like to think of Meridian as a place that has greenery and beauty and all of the pieces coming together to create a greater whole and I'm not quite seeing it with this development. So, those are my comments and thank you for the time. Appreciate it. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Mr. Mayor. Mr. Spencer, thanks for being here and, again, you are one that has been following this project for a long time and I appreciate all the a-mails that you have sent. Spencer: Sure. Cavener: And in the one year a-mails I think that you sent about a year ago you identified some concern about a shift in builder and so can you give Council some flavor, to the best of your recollection, the history of different builders that have been assigned to this kind of project? And I think at one point in one of your a-mails you referenced kind of a bait and switch. I don't -- I don't quite come to that same conclusion, but I'm trying to get some of your insight as to the history of different builders being assigned to this project. Spencer: That's a great question and I may not be able to answer it -- Cavener: Okay. Spencer: -- completely, because I have only been a resident of Woodbridge for maybe a year and a half now and so I don't have experience proceeding that, but what I do know is that the builder that we had previously that we had really great open dialogues with and -- and the ability to converse and kind of see examples of their work, that led to a degree of comfort in our group that -- that, yes, there are responsible people looking out for our interests. The other -- the other thing that I can say is that with -- and a bait and switch maybe -- I mentioned that in my a-mails and it may not be fair. I don't -- Meridian City Council February 24,2026 Page 23 of 59 don't want to say that, but -- but what I did see in the elevations that I saw a dramatic shift from what was approved to something that is much different in my eye and I have worked in design and I have worked with developers a lot over my, you know, previous career, so I -- I do have some experience with these things and a bait and switch may may not be -- you know, I mean that may be a little extreme, but at the same time it's -- it's something to look at, because I have never seen a project that gets approved and, then, a week before a present -- or before a meeting like this the cards get shuffled around and you have got different images. I just don't see it and I have never seen it go through without some kind of extensive look back to understand how we got there. So, yeah, sure. Thank you very much. Simison: Thank you. George: My name is Kyle George. I live at 1713 East Pegram Street and I have lived in Woodbridge for 22 years, so I have seen a lot of changes from the time we first moved in to now. But I do have a concern with the traffic. I really believe we should have that study before any final decisions are made and especially in regards to -- there is only two ways in. I choose not to use the Eagle exit unless I have to and at certain times of day I won't even go there. I have to use Locust Grove and we would see -- we see a lot of excess traffic on Locust Grove due to development that's on that end of the subdivision due to the school, the medical school, the high school and the proposed development that's going to be new development there is going to increase that traffic flow as well. So, I'm hoping that that study could be done before any final decisions are made, because we are really impacted by the traffic on both ends. Simison: Council, any questions? George: Thank you. Simison: Thank you. Henderson: Good evening, Mayor and -- and City Council Members. My name is Deborah Henderson and I have lived in Woodbridge for about seven years. I live at 660 South Woodhaven Avenue. Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposal and provide our input. I think the biggest point that I want to make this evening is that I was -- I was disappointed to not hear a clear resolution from the proposal tonight. I think we can all agree that the traffic concerns and -- and having collaboration on a through street that would help solve all of these safety concerns that we have is a priority, but I did not hear a clear plan of action. In fact, I heard deprioritization of that issue from the applicant in terms of timing, having this be a part of phase two, as opposed of -- as opposed to phase one. That -- that's a really big issue I think for everyone here in this room. At this time we still do not have a completed traffic study or a defined plan addressing access and circulation impacts. I believe it's irresponsible to approve the annexation of over 17 acres without that information and Intel, given that this so significantly impacts safety, emergency access and, you know, all of the concerns that you have heard -- heard tonight. I think that the -- the current zoning is commercial Meridian City Council February 24,2026 Page 24 of 59 neighborhood zoning and that serves as an -- actually a really important buffer to these -- these functions that we have all been talking about between having single family homes and -- and future development and changing that designation to higher density residential without a clear action plan for infrastructure and traffic mitigation I think removes that buffer and introduces significant impacts without adequate preparation. Annexation is permanent. Approving this request before these concerns are fully resolved would be premature. So, for these reasons I respectfully ask Council to deny the annexation until we have a completed traffic study and we have a clear actionable transportation solution in place. Thank you. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Okay. Thank you. Fox: My name is Celeste Fox. I live at 582 South Woodhaven Avenue, backing up to this development. I just -- if you allow this tonight I would like to ask for some protection in the development agreement. When we worked with the builder who was presented to us at the neighborhood meeting August 2024, we asked him how -- what are the setbacks to our homes that are adjacent. He had the schematics and he showed us. They were 26 feet to 30 feet, because he builds toward the front of the property and have at home several of his schematics with these figures on them, so that -- on the north end where I live that property is higher than mine, so you have ten feet behind the house that's single story -- I'm single story. There would be at least four feet higher than that looking down on mine. Ten feet is nothing. That just is nothing. None of us on Woodbridge have ten feet backyards and we are asking -- I'm asking if in the development agreement you would at least, for the single stories, have at least 20. 1 mean we have really liked working with this builder, because he had concerns for our concerns. He showed consideration. He wanted -- he wanted people in his buildings to have good backyards. If you have tiny backyards and you are overlooking a neighbor that's not really a good neighborhood fit. So, I'm just asking for this protection. Thank you. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Okay. Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to come forward and provide testimony on this item or anybody online, you can use the raise your hand feature online. Seeing no one coming forward and no one raising their hand online would the applicant like to close? Clark: Members of the Council, Hethe Clark. 251 East Front Street. Ben's got more detailed notes and he is going to kind of go into the minutia, but as I was sitting there I -- I did want to raise one issue and make sure that we have the conversation about this, especially before we close public testimony and just kind of get everybody on the same page in terms of what the city's planning is for this, because I think it really drives a lot of the questioning and the -- and the question -- and the kind of discussion that we are going to have tonight. You know, I -- a lot of what we have heard from the public has to do with decisions that were made many years ago with regard to the configuration of Woodbridge, which, as you guys know, those first few phases are set up with it as a collector, the last few phases are not. So, it created some of these problems that we are talking about structurally. The comment has -- well, let me say that I -- I -- I don't Meridian City Council February 24,2026 Page 25 of 59 think that anything with regard to that changes regardless of this application going forward or not. That -- that isn't an existing situation. There has been a number of comments about the idea that we should stop development until there is a solution. Unfortunately, I agree with the Mayor that there is no solution without development, because this property is not going to be eminent domained by ACHD. I just don't see that possibility. So, we do have to work together as a public-private partnership to arrive at a solution to make this -- make this eventually work. So, that's a long prologue to say that I think it would be good for us to have a conversation initially about what solution it is that the city wants to see. We -- we came in to this week thinking it was dere and thinking that we were going to preserve that right of way and make sure that it was available or constructed for the city as soon as possible, so that it can be part of that solution. If we are going with the -- the new alternative, I think we should talk about that, because that will require a deferral to talk about a -- a new arrangement on the -- the phase two portion of the plat and to me that's the -- the key issue is to try to get understanding on that, so that we can, then, have a -- a meaningful conversation about what that partnership looks like to make sure that we are doing our part to make sure that there is an alternative traffic arrangement. So, does Council agree with that or do we want to -- to me I was hoping that maybe we hear a little bit more from Caleb, for example, about that, so that we can understand where -- where this third alternative is -- you know, what the incentives are and -- and, then, maybe we can guide our rebuttal testimony based on that. Overton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: I would like to hear from Caleb Hood on those discussions that he had with Mindy with ACHD. Hood: Mr. Mayor, if you and the Council are good with that I have got just a quick recap history of kind of what's gone on over the last four weeks. So, four weeks ago Kittelson & Associates, who we hired to evaluate -- further refine, if you will, what you see on the screen now is actually from our 2019 Comprehensive Plan. It's one of the three concepts that was developed at that time. So, Mr. Semple mentioned earlier that the -- the -- there was some inconsistencies with their project and the comp plan. I -- I don't know that I would say it that way. It wasn't fully developed from 2019. This has been on the books and we really haven't taken it to the next level -- level to refine and really identify where that roadway network could work and so we hired Kittelson last year and -- and they presented to you on the -- the 27th of last month. Two days later city staff and ACHD staff met to kind of -- they -- they watched it online as they do typically for a lot of our meetings and we talked through kind of next steps, primarily adding it to the master street map. As part of that conversation we talked about maybe not having the -- the way Alternative D was shown by the consultant and based on a lot of the conversation that the -- that the Council had during the presentation on the 27th about making it as direct as, you know, appetizing as possible to motorists to use, instead of cutting through Woodbridge, we said, hey, let's move that -- instead of using the circle -- Meridian City Council February 24,2026 Page 26 of 59 Wells Circle as the -- the collector, moving that up somewhere south of the Five Mile Creek and north of Wells Circle meeting that offset and that's what was communicated to the development team -- the same day actually. We met with them on -- on Thursday and had a meeting -- Hethe actually I think e-mailed us on Tuesday after the -- the 27th watching that meeting and wanted to just make sure we were hearing the same thing from Council and, yes, it is Alternative D. When we met with ACHD staff said the master street map isn't an engineering document, it's more like our comp plan. It's a guide; right? It doesn't say it has to be exactly right here, but it should paint the picture and the vision for what's needed for the -- the transportation network. So, when having those conversations with -- would you mind advancing the slides on. So, here is some of the original concepts from Kittelson and I'm going to just scroll past that one. So, here is what D looked like. I think you had some version of this in -- in your presentation as well, so I'm not going to linger here long, but this is what was explained to the applicant -- and I will apologize I didn't do a very good job, obviously, because we tried to say south of the Five Mile Creek, north of Circle Drive and -- but somewhere in there you guys can pick, because those dimensions for the lots -- we aren't designing the project for them, so somewhere in there we need a collector roadway. But this is, essentially, what would happen and go between -- north of the existing hotel there and -- and hook up with Allen -- with Freeway Drive to, then, get to Allen and up to the signal or if you are going southbound on Eagle Road. So, anyways, that's -- that was just shared yesterday. So, this is what I think is being referred to as sharing yesterday. This exhibit was just shared with the applicant team. But we have talked about it over the last couple of weeks trying to verbally and even in written explain what this Alternative D modified kind of look like and what we were gearing up to present to ACHD and their Commission next Wednesday. So, staff is prepared, been meeting with their staff even after two days after you heard the presentation and just fine tuning our presentation to go to the ACHD Commission, so -- but, again, this modification to Alternative D -- and Mayor I think did a great job of explaining -- was based on the feedback we heard given consultant and staff when Alternative D was presented to you all here four weeks ago. So, that is staff's preferred location, although, again, this isn't exact, so even the overlay that was shown earlier it could use that -- their local street in that location if that works better for them or even move south a little bit. I will share -- we did talk to Mindy Wallace this morning and I'm not sure if she is online. We are just trying to verify. But it didn't sound like she had logged in yet. But if it's a collector does need to be 330 feet offset from -- if it's a collector -- from a collector to a local street. Local streets only require 125 foot offset. So, that's why it need -- that offset is what we were trying to look forward to. There is a minimum. You can't just butt it right up to Wells Circle Drive. But this generally would be the location to make that as direct of a connection out to the central intersection -- the signalization at Locust Grove. So, hopefully, that kind of gets you up to speed on some of the conversations that have gone on over the last roughly month. Simison: So, Caleb, since you are answering questions, if -- if we were to make -- and I don't know the name of the street -- but emergency access only coming out, what does that process generally look like? Do you need to ask ACHD on that and -- yeah, I don't Meridian City Council February 24,2026 Page 27 of 59 -- I'm not going to ask you to handicap the likelihood of their decision, but what would that look like? Hood: Yeah. Mr. Mayor, I -- I can let you know that request or evaluation for the -- for that request was submitted to ACHD and they were and are looking at it. It was brought to our Transportation Commission actually here -- it was either last meeting or the meeting before and that is up -- largely up to ACHD. I don't bet too terribly often. I don't think the probability is very high, though, the likelihood of that actually being bollarded or dead end or emergency access only. Now, maybe if you had another road that could be bollarded, but as is now I would not -- I'm not thinking that's a very high likelihood of -- of -- of happening. Simison: And is there a specific reason to your knowledge? And I -- I look at it this way. I can tell you one place we have never got any complaints about traffic in the City of Meridian and that's from the -- the subdivisions coming off of Locust Grove that can't access Meridian Road through the Waltman property. I'm not going to say they like their drive around, but we don't get complaints and it's a much bigger issue, but they have several exit points onto Locust Grove. So, I didn't know what your thoughts would be on the reason why. Hood: And, Mr. Mayor, I appreciate the question to a degree, because I'm not a traffic engineer, so I can't give you the -- all the reasons why ACHD may or may not allow it to be bollarded or otherwise closed off to the public, but it is a public road, so a public street generally is accessible by the public and they don't -- I can't think of another case where they have actually closed off a public road with -- absent a vacation. So, if there were a vacation of a portion of that right of way and it's no longer public, accessibility there maybe. I will -- I will throw two more things in there. Why don't I think ACHD will probably support this. One is they are going to probably look to the fire department and go, okay, you are not -- you can still technically get through with bollard or a gate or something, but it is going to hamper their -- their access in -- into and through this area. So, that's one. The other one is we are going to send everybody out to Locust Grove and Franklin, Eagle, which are already congested and through those intersections, which are already a mess. So, if you are forcing everybody, including the Woodbridge neighbors, out to those intersections -- that's why people are cutting through, because it's not easy to get through Eagle and Franklin. Well, now if you have to go through Eagle and Franklin and you are pushing more -- even more people through, that would otherwise have an opportunity to get out to Eagle Road directly, you are just going to cause more delay at those intersections that are already failing. So, I just don't think they are going to -- I'm not -- I don't know for sure. That is a question for ACHD. But know they have been petitioned to look at that and we are still waiting to kind of see what that -- what that analysis looks like. But the Transportation Commission is tracking as well. Simison: Okay. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Meridian City Council February 24,2026 Page 28 of 59 Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I understand it would be unprecedented. It would be a big shift for them. I'm just brainstorming and away from this application, but I would think if the City Council wanted to send a letter that we would like an emergency measure put in place until such time that we can complete this concept, I would hope that they would be open to that, because that -- that wouldn't tie their hands down the road later to opening it once an alternative route has been established. It's just -- the situation is so acute and I think it's a very productive suggestion that neighbors I think would have to weigh in on it some more to some extent, but I don't -- I -- I -- I'm open to it personally. On this third -- guess this third option, it's really -- I guess the only difference here is some of the sharp turning movements. What would you suggest in terms of timing of phasing and so forth with this kind of a concept? I mean Hethe has mentioned he is open to a continuance to try to iron this out in further detail. I feel kind of uncomfortable that this work would happen in phase two, although I -- I don't know that, you know, having it earlier really accomplishes much if we can't get that segment completed and so I'm just curious kind of what your thoughts are around timing and, you know, it -- working through this. Hood: So, Mr. Mayor -- Mayor, Council Woman Strader, I guess it kind of depends on the question. I would like to see, you know, some resolution to this and they do get to set the stage for continuing further to the west to eventually make this condition. I will echo on the last couple of comments, though, on this. I mean this is going to be development driven. This -- this will not be -- we have -- we had -- that was part of our conversation. ACHD at least -- not right now. We could maybe add it to the letter if we are going to ask them to consider bollarding the Woodbridge Subdivision, including this in their programming as well, but it doesn't -- it's not impact fee eligible and it's -- and it's not even a collector right now, it's just a local street. So, they don't fund those. That is on the backs and shoulders of development as it occurs. So, it's not really eligible for their capital improvements plan. Strader: Okay. Hood: Unprecedented. So, not saying it could never happen, but the likelihood -- and it's -- that -- it's not -- not a very great candidate for something to use ACHD capital to move the needle on -- on that. So, the timing I think, yes, let's get a design and I think that's -- the applicant, you know, is here today to kind of get that feedback from you, is it, you know, using the existing right of way there -- it -- it can work. Like the Mayor said previously, though, that kink makes it awkward and not as, you know, attractive to use, again, for motorists. With some additional tweaking there, though, maybe it -- maybe it will function fine. That -- that is some of the analysis we don't know staff and some of the next steps that we were going to look at with ACHD and -- and potentially even additional consultants is how do we make this intersection function efficiently. We are not -- we are not with -- absent a government agency stepping in -- and I don't see that happening and going and condemning or working with to otherwise acquire or buy property and build the road, again, we are going to be relying on development to Meridian City Council February 24,2026 Page 29 of 59 happen and so the timing of it -- this is a piece of it. Getting the rest of it or the other additional pieces of it is going to take some time. Overton: Mr. Mayor, quick question. Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: Caleb, just to -- sometimes these maps are hard to look at -- Hood: Yeah. Overton: -- and understand. Just so we are clear with the folks in the audience, when we are looking at that red dotted line right where your cursor is that coming up on what would be south of Five Mile Creek -- Hood: Yeah. Overton: -- through the applicant's current project. It is T'ing with Wells. It is, then, going behind the hotel. It's -- it's in that corner and, then, the cutback is after that hotel before it hits Five Mile Creek the second time. Hood: Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Councilman Overton. That -- that -- that's a great way to describe it. So, this is -- this is basically the southern boundary of the applicant's site. This is the existing Wells Circle. So, Willamette Dental is right here. Here is the -- the applicant's project is right here. So, yes, it -- and, again, the applicant in their presentation had a line that kind of went through -- and, again, this isn't the exact location, but the way you describe it is great. Going north of the existing hotel. This -- again, this isn't designed exactly, we would need to figure this out with ACHD and engineer it. That Five Mile Creek actually comes in right about here. So, it's -- it's not a simple intersection by any means, but at least it makes that more of a direct connection up Freeway to Allen, gets you to the signal or out to Eagle Road more directly. Overton: Thank you. Simison: Any further questions for -- for Mr. Hood? No? All right. So, he's -- so, Hethe, so you got seven minutes left. Clark: I will go fast. Simison: Are you making a -- are you keeping going? Clark: I'm going to go for one second longer and, then, I'm going to hand it off to Ben, because I think maybe I can wrap up what we were just talking about here and maybe give it a little direction. So, the -- we are prepared to develop in accordance with option -- I will call it Option Thee, whatever is up -- what was on the screen. So, to just be clear, in contrast to what we had previously shown, that one does require a Meridian City Council February 24,2026 Page 30 of 59 reconfiguration of our Phase Two. So, that would mean that if it's the Council's direction to design according to that, then, we need a couple weeks to come back to you with a flipped Phase Two, so you can know what it is that you are approving. A couple of items along that line, too, just to kind of close that thought out. One is that we would be in support of Council Member Strader's suggestion about, A, trying to reach out to ACHD and tie the emergency access to the -- the creation of the -- of the new roadway. We think -- we designed our project so that you folks would go away from Woodbridge. You might recall that we have just emergency access on the north side and we put our main access all the way down on Wells to push that -- folks that way. So, we are -- we are more than comfortable with that. Also to Council Member Strader's comment about making sure that we are committed to make -- have the solution in place. One way have seen that happen is that we share -- we share your concern about not putting pavement down that leads to nowhere and is kind of a sunk cost in the short run, but have seen in certain development agreements where if there is notice from the city that says, hey, we have got that other piece and you give six months' notice that we have -- we are obligated to go make sure that that's dedicated and put in place. So, there are ways to deal with that even with the phasing, so -- and -- and we would be happy to include a condition along those lines in the development agreement to make sure that that commitment Is clear, because we do feel that way. So, I'm going to turn it over to Ben to finish out otherwise. Semple: Thanks, Hethe. Mr. Mayor, Members of Council, just real quickly I wanted to touch on some of the other items. The TIA status in particular. We did talk with ITD. just checked with our civil engineering consultant that's here. They talked to them this week. We can get that TIA. They said they -- ITD was -- basically had kind of put this on ice just like we had when we kind of got deferred, because of this whole collector issue. We can submit that to ITD this week, like tomorrow or by Friday, so that they can have that to start evaluating. Also because we didn't advance that any further is because we had put this on hold for ten months and we didn't even know if we had a project at this point. If we don't have a project we don't have traffic to evaluate. So, we are -- we are ready for that to happen. I did want to touch on something. The fence on the west side -- the survey shows that it does not follow perfectly the property line there. The project -- those -- that fence will be addressed when this project starts to get built. That builder or the developer, my client, will reach out to those homeowners at that point. We can't go fix a fence, again, if we don't have a project. My developers aren't going to go do an outlay to fix everyone's fences if they don't have a project that they are advancing. Pacific Lifestyle Homes and the developer had an agreement. They had some conversations a few weeks. That agreement didn't work anymore for either party and they both mutually terminated their agreement and so my client selected another builder, because they needed to have a builder, so that they could provide some conceptual elevations. It's our understanding that City Council doesn't review single family design. This is something that -- and you guys also don't dictate a builder on a project. Lots of projects get constructed full subdivision lots with, you know, maybe a couple builders on -- on the line. So, talking to the builder we just got confirmation these homes are an average of 2,000 square feet. They do have a smaller model at 14,178, but they have models at 26,002 square feet. The smaller homes average Meridian City Council February 24,2026 Page 31 of 59 400,000 starting, with up to 20 percent add-ons for additional improvements, finishes inside. The 2,000 to 2,600 square foot are going to start around 500,000 plus, with that same additional add-ons. So, these homes are very comparable to the previous home builder as well. I'm glad that we have some direction on this alignment. I think that actually are -- where we have what's called Equator Drive that you can see, it's just to the left of that right dashed line, with some minor adjustments we can make that work. We will dedicate that right of way that will fully accommodate a collector roadway in the future. That, as you heard Hethe say, that we are committed to that and my client is also committed to that. We will continue to work with ACHD. Again as Hethe stated, we would be in support of, you know, some working with a development agreement and ACHD to figure out how to protect the residents of Woodbridge until there is a larger collector roadway to facilitate more traffic. This is not a high density housing project. This is actually a lower density than what the designations of the comp plan would allow within the city's code. So, I appreciate that -- the comment that, you know, it's different than Woodbridge, but I -- I would not classify this as a high density residential project. want to also clarify setbacks. We are not proposing a ten foot rear setback. We never have proposed a ten foot rear setback. If the previous builder had certain models that worked for him -- that worked for them -- during our previous City Council hearing we did not commit to anything more than a 20 foot rear setback to the main body of the home, with the provision to go to 12 feet with a covered patio. That's in the record. That is in my notes. That was in my presentation from the last time as well. So, I just wanted to, again, commit -- we have talked to the builder. This will be put in the development agreement, 20 foot rear setback to any two-story home, but we would retain the -- the provision for a single story home to go to that 12 foot rear setback as is allowed in the R-8 zone. We feel like that will protect other homes on that side of Woodbridge -- on the Woodbridge side of the fence. There is a mixture of one and two- story homes on their side as well and they have setbacks --just measuring from Google Earth and, you know, some other aerial photos, between 15 and 20 feet to the back of their homes. Trying to look at other notes real quick. ACHD -- while ITD did request a TIA for the intersections and Eagle Road, ACHD did not request, nor did they require a TIS for this project. With that I would stand for additional questions. Simison: Thank you. Council, additional questions? Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Strader. Strader: A comment and, then, a question. We have not in the past spent a lot of time reviewing elevations of single family homes, but I take issue with the concept that we could not on an annexation. City councils have a lot more discretion on annexations and whether they are in the best interest of the city. I had an example in my district where elevations actually became extremely important and we ended up with a four story building where we were expecting a three story building. So, elevations are pretty important to me at this point and I will look at them anytime. So just to let you know about that. Trying to be productive, you know, would you like maybe a six month Meridian City Council February 24,2026 Page 32 of 59 continuance or something to try to carry the ball and see if you could get the Woodbridge neighborhood to vote or somehow get consensus on whether they would want emergency closure and bollards to their subdivision, work with ACHD -- and I think those of us on the Council that would support that concept could help support you in that, providing letters or whatever is needed to ACHD and try to see if you could come up with some sort of an arrangement like that. Is that the time frame that we are talking about? You are talking about getting ITD rolling on a TIA next week. This doesn't feel like this will be solved in the next few weeks to me. I think if you are able to -- I would love for you to try to see if we could get some kind of solution together in the next six months. But I just wanted your feedback on timing and kind of process from this point. If -- if I had to vote today I don't see a path here, but maybe with time and you working through this maybe there is a way to solve a lot of the issues together. So, I would just like your feedback on that. Semple: Yeah. Mr. Mayor, Council Member Strader, I'm not -- I -- I can't commit my client to a six month deferral at this point after ten months of deferrals so far. When we came to the initial City Council hearing with no knowledge of this issue of an east-west collector and ten months ago it was brought to our attention at this hearing. We have adjusted our plan. We have worked with staff. We have really tried hard to get to a point -- multiple deferrals to try to work through all of these issues. The TIA my understanding it was a recommendation from ITD to do a traffic impact analysis of the intersections on Highway 55 and how this could impact that. We are going to request that they advance that as quickly as possible, obviously, so we can get a solution. I do know the last time we were here at the full hearing we had a very robust conversation about how the first phase of this project, for one, didn't -- we didn't feel like it really got in the way of this east-west collector, felt like the majority of the Council kind of felt -- at least had made some comments about how they were almost there on the north half, if we could solve for this in the future. So, I think we have shown we are willing to commit time and effort to help the city to work in partnership, public and private, to solve this issue, because it is an issue. All that to say I'm going to need to get feedback from my client. I think that six months -- again, I can't commit them to that. I think that what Hethe has asked for is a two week deferral for us to work on the southern half of this. What I would request is to allow that to occur, so that we can work with ITD, see what kind of information we could get back and at least determine the time frame, so that we could come have a conversation and provide you with a realistic time frame to have an answer for that, because I could say, sure, we will give six months and what if we go six months and, then, still not solved. But if we got it solved in two weeks, then, we would be sitting for six months waiting. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Yeah. I -- I get where you are coming from. I just -- looking for some direction tonight. So, I think it -- I think that the choices are do you want an up or down vote on this tonight? Do you want a continuance and for how long? Or do you maybe want to Meridian City Council February 24,2026 Page 33 of 59 request a break until 8:00 o'clock or something so you could call your client and maybe get a better sense. Because we could -- I mean you could -- it's your right as the applicant, you can ask for an up or down vote tonight, but I -- my understanding is if that occurs -- and sometimes that can significantly delay future attempts. So, that -- that's kind of why I was asking that. And I don't -- I'm not saying six months is the answer, but just trying to get some direction from you on what you would like to do. Semple: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Strader, I don't have to wait until 8:00. My client's sitting in the audience here. So, if you can give me two minutes I can come back up with an answer for you. Simison: Well, why don't -- it is -- we have been up here for two hours. Why don't we take a break and we will continue at 8:00 o'clock with that answer and, Caleb, maybe give you -- I know ACHD's contact -- when do you think they might make a decision on the request from transportation -- I don't know if we can do any research on that in the next ten minutes. We will take a break. So recess until 8:00 o'clock. (Recess: 7:50 p.m. to 8:03 p.m.) Simison: All right. We are going to go ahead and come back. We -- just once looking for one more City Council Member. Oh, there she is. She's up here. Okay. Do understand that there may be a request? Semple: Mr. Mayor and City Council, yes. After conversing with my client we would like to request a six week deferral, primarily to -- for the reason -- the following reasons: We would like to get in touch with ACHD to further the conversation about the request that we have heard from the HOA, as well as what it sounds like the city may have already communicated to ACHD about some temporary bollarding emergency access and the -- the future collector location. We also did -- we were able to get our builder on the phone and they have committed to providing some updated elevations with some new materials, as well as we will be setting up a meeting with the HOA with that builder to work through some of the -- the questions and concerns that the neighbors have on this and that will allow us time to continue the conversation with ITD or -- around the TIA and we can work on the new pre-plat alignment that preserves the future collector right of way through phase two and also resolves what that does to our layout in terms of where our commercial is located, where our residential is located, to ensure that we meet all the UDC standards for buffering, for residentials along collectors. My initial take on it and just looking at this and in talking with staff a little bit as well is that most of our open space ends up being consolidated in the center of this full development surrounding Five Mile Creek with still that connected -- pedestrian connectivity north-south through that to allow unencumbered pedestrian activity to get to the commercial from the residential. With that I would stand for any additional questions if you have any. Simison: Thank you. Council, any additional questions for -- Overton: Mr. Mayor? Meridian City Council February 24,2026 Page 34 of 59 Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: So, Ben and Hethe -- and for everybody in the room, full disclosure for those that don't know, because I think there is still a couple people in the room that don't know. I have been a proud homeowner in Woodbridge for 24 years and I have stood up on the side that you are at tonight many many times arguing for Woodbridge, arguing on traffic. It's still very near and dear to my heart and it's a big concern. The reason we stopped ten months ago was because the only possible solution we have long term was not solidified. It was conceptualized and that was it. We could run a road through here. We can try to get traffic out of Woodbridge. And so we made a request. Council honored that request that we have a study done. That study is what came up with the preferred route through the south portion of this project, what's called phase two on the south side Five Mile Creek, where I think we are at now is -- and I appreciate Hethe and Ben for all your patience as we have gone through that, but where we are at now is -- think the Woodbridge residents had a certain comfortable position with the prior builder. They really need to meet with and get a level of comfort with the new builder and I think, unfortunately, bringing a new builder in at the end and changing the look of the houses -- that didn't work out so well for you and I think we need to do that differently and six weeks should be enough time for us to organize those type of meetings. I'm not going to promise I can support this in the end anyway, because it's a mess and living there 24 years I -- it was still dirt on phase two in Woodbridge and the way they built it to do traffic calming, it didn't quite work out that way. The traffic calming ended up being -- if you were in phase two of Woodbridge, basically I'm talking about the east side of the creek. All that traffic went in front of your houses, instead of how it was on phase one where everybody was in pods. Not our finest moment allowing the developer to do it. It was a council -- shoot, it was 2001 when the council approved that. But we are here today and we have been here for several years trying to mitigate and fix this with whatever thing we have possible in our toolbox. That's been my fight for, shoot, at least 15 of my 24 years in Woodbridge. So, when we try to find a solution to this I need everyone to understand -- and I appreciate the flexibility that the applicants are having going another six weeks. Let's see if we can make headway on not just the possibility of ACHD putting a bollard or gates up, but how that progress is going to go on that preferred route, because we still haven't gotten that finished on our end with ACHD and to see if you can reach that comfortable level again like you had with the previous developer with the HOA and the residents of Woodbridge, because it should be known as we have gone through projects over the years and we have had I think three or four -- we approved a couple of them. This group is not all about the word no. They are all about the word fair and they want to make sure that what's done is done fairly for them and in the best interest of everybody involved. So, I appreciate you coming back. I think six weeks is a good move and I would certainly support that move to come back. Simison: Thank you. Before I do a motion, Council, I mean we could put this on for next week, but if this Council wants to send a letter to ACHD on this regarding making a recommendation or making an urgency to evaluate the request that is apparently already with staff? Meridian City Council February 24,2026 Page 35 of 59 Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: I think it's -- I think it -- to me it's going to be -- it will be twofold. I think, yes, we should be sending a letter to ACHD, but I'm going to volun-tell our good HOA president Robin to also engage and ask this question amongst the residents. I -- I can totally appreciate everyone of you here -- as a quick -- hands went up quick, yeah, we -- we want some of this stuff blocked off. We work for everybody who lives in Meridian and I recognize there are probably people that are home that don't feel that same way and so it's important for us that we want to hear from those as well. We don't want to make a decision in a vacuum. So, Robin, I'm going to ask you to -- to reach out to your neighbors and, you know, ask them their thoughts on -- on blocking it off. I -- I know at one point there was a request about speed bumps. I would like to maybe request that that be -- provide that to us when you come back of what -- how you polled the neighbors and what the response is, so we can have that piece. I think that needs to run parallel while we are asking ACHD, because what I don't want to have happen is we come back and, then, we send a letter, then, we say, well, wait, wait, wait, what do the -- what do the rest of the neighbors think. I'm trying to make -- trying to run two paths at the same time, Mr. Mayor. Simison: Okay. I will figure out what that means for what our letter will state in our conversations after this evening, so -- okay. With that do I have a motion from anybody? Overton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: I would like to move that we continue H-2024-0059 until April 7th, 2026. Little Roberts: Second. Simison: Have a motion and a second to continue this item to April 7th. Is there discussion? Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Because -- I'm happy to speak to the motion. I'm going to support the motion. think there are some subsequent things that maybe need to happen in terms of communication to the highway district that doesn't necessarily need to be captured within this motion. So, maybe you and I and staff and council president can touch base afterwards, because I think there is some additional follow-up actions that we may want to inquire from the highway district as well. Meridian City Council February 24,2026 Page 36 of 59 Simison: Okay. And we will include Mr. Hood in that conversation after this meeting. Cavener: Thanks. Simison: Okay. Any further discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and the item is continued. We will see you all back hopefully with good resolutions, so -- MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. 2. Public Hearing for Cielo Azul Condominium (SHP-2026-0001) by Marcel Lopez, located at 3512 and 3526 E. Louise Dr. A. Request: Short Plat to condominiumize two (2) office buildings into eight (8) office units for individual ownership within the L-O zoning district. Simison: Okay. With that we will move on to Item 2, which is a public hearing for SHP- 2026-0001 and we will open this public hearing with staff comments. Napoli: Mayor, Members of the Council, give it a second real quick. Members of the Council, good evening. Next item -- item on the agenda is the short plat for Cielo Azul. The site consists of 1.1 acres of land, zoned L-O, located at 3512 East Louise Drive and 3526 East Louise Drive. So, the applicant requests a short plat to condominiumize two office buildings into eight separate office units for individual ownership. The proposed short plat depicts subdivision of airspace within these two office buildings. They are on two separate properties and are currently under construction. The proposed short plat aims to create the eight separate office condominium units for future ownership purposes and as stated the buildings are under construction and are in compliance with previous approvals. Staff is recommending approval with conditions of this one and has not received any written testimony and I will stand for any questions. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions for staff? Okay. Is the applicant here? Good evening. Lopez: Good evening. Simison: If you could state your name and address for the record and be recognized for ten minutes. Lopez: Yes, sir. Thank you. Marcel Lopez with Conger Group, 810 East Central Lane, Suite 120, Meridian. 83642. Thank you. Happy to be here tonight. Want to thank Nick for his help in getting us through this process. Yeah. So, Nick explained it pretty well. Super simple. Short plat for condo of the two buildings to create the eight suites for ownership, rather than having these commercial offices as an option, rather than paying for rent. They are currently under construction. Anticipated completion will be in April Meridian City Council February 24,2026 Page 37 of 59 this year. So, we are approaching that real quick here. But, yeah, super simple. Appreciate Nick's time and effort and ask for -- respectfully ask for your approval. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Taylor: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Taylor. Taylor: I just have a real quick question. I'm really -- really curious about the -- making these condominium style ownership. Is that -- how common is that in sort of this office space in the marketplace? Is it something that is a growing interest or is it something kind of new that you are trying out and just kind of really curious about that. Lopez: Sure. Mayor, Council Member Taylor, so this is our first endeavor into this condo -- office condo product. There has been a few in the last couple of years here in Meridian. There was a big one done on Ustick and I forget the cross-street, but that one looks like at least -- it sold actually pretty quick and most of those units are currently under ownership, so -- there is also ones that we are seeing happen in Nampa. Not so much in Caldwell. Boise is -- haven't seen much. There is a lot of -- condo -- older condo plats, more residential than commercial, but with the cost of land, the cost of construction, this is an alternative to leasing and really gives the small, medium business owners an opportunity to own, but, you know, helps distribute that cost, rather than buying -- you know, buying a building and -- at a higher expense. Simison: Any additional questions? Okay. Thank you very much. Lopez: Thank you. Simison: Madam Clerk, anyone signed up to provide testimony on this item? Lomeli: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yes, I have Mike Seaman. Might have been for the other -- Simison: Maybe. Okay. Is there anybody present who would like to provide testimony on this item, either in the room or online? If you are online use the raise your hand feature. Seeing no one raising their hand or coming forward, applicant, do you waive any final comments? Does the optical waive -- or would you like to make any final comments? Lopez: No. Thank you. We are just in -- in agreement with the staff report and appreciate your conservation. Simison: Okay. Thank you very much. Overton: Mr. Mayor? Meridian City Council February 24,2026 Page 38 of 59 Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: Seeing that there is no more public comments, I move we close the public hearing. Little Roberts: Second. Simison: Have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and the public hearing is closed. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. Overton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: I kind of like it when I see new products out there that we are not used to seeing all the time, because it may be they are responding to something that we don't even see happening in the community and -- and it's -- it's refreshing to see. I -- I get tired sometimes of seeing the same old thing over and over again. So, thank you. And with that I would like to -- after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony move to approve File No. SHP-2026-0001 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 24, 2026. Little Roberts: Second. Simison: Have a motion and a second to approve Item 2, which is SHP-2026-0001. Is there discussion? If not, clerk call the roll. Roll Call: Cavener, yea; Strader, yea; Overton, yea; Little Roberts, yea; Taylor, yea; Whitlock, yea. Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and the item is agreed to. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. 3. Public Hearing for Farrington Heights Subdivision RZ, PP, MDA (H- 2025-0016) by Studio H Architects, generally located at the NW corner of E. Pine Ave. and N. Adkins Ave. A. Request: Rezone of 2.9 acres of land from the R-4 to the R-15 zoning district. B. Request: Preliminary Plat on 4.68 acres of land consisting of 25 building lots and 6 common lots. Meridian City Council February 24,2026 Page 39 of 59 C. Request: Development Agreement Modification to terminate the existing development agreement and establish a new one. Simison: With that we will move on to Item 3, which is public hearing for Farrington Heights Subdivision, which is H-2025-0016. We will open this public hearing with staff comments. Napoli: Mayor, Members of the Council, next item on the agenda is the rezone, preliminary plat and development agreement modification for Farrington Heights. The applicant requests 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, leaving the remaining 1.78 acres as the R-4 zoning district. A preliminary plat consisting of 24 building lots -- and that will be 21 new buildable lots, with three existing ones that the three existing homes will remain on and seven common lots across that 4.68 acres of land and a development agreement modification to replace the current one with the new one. So, the subject properties were annexed in 2000 as a part of the Farrington Opel application and the zoning granted at that time was R-4 -- would be R-4 zoning district. With the annexation approval the properties were subject to a development agreement that restricts the properties to adding one additional home on the 4.68 acres. This -- this is the reason for the DA modification request tonight. In addition, this application was previously heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission on August 7th of 2025 and was recommended for denial. The City Council, then, heard that application later in September and remanded that application back to the Planning and Zoning Commission to address concerns from the neighbors. During the next Planning and Zoning Commission hearing on December 4th of 2025 the Commission asked the applicant to remove the open space to allow for larger building lots to accommodate some single story homes adjacent to the existing residential homes to the west. The applicant has revised their plan to lose an additional lot, provide larger lot sizes and single story homes adjacent to the western boundary. In addition, they have reoriented the local street at the northern boundary to eliminate single family homes that abut the single family homes to the north and at the January 5th hearing of 2026 the Commission did recommend approval to City Council of this application and as a result of that staff did amend our staff report several times and the most recent amendment to the staff report proposed a provision in the development agreement that restricts Lots 2 through 8 -- so, that would be this western boundary where my cursor is at. So, lots 2 through 8 will be restricted to single story dwellings and Commission did add a provision restricting building heights in the entire subdivision to a maximum of 35 feet, which would be consistent with the R-4 zoning district. R-4 -- the R-15 zoning district would allow them to go up to 40 feet. However, the Commission recommended restricting all heights to 35 feet. So, the surrounding landscape of this subdivision consists of single family detached homes to the north, east and west, while to the south is Pine Avenue. The average density for one mile radius is 6.1 acre -- 6.1 units per acre, which is higher than the 5.12 units per acre the applicant is proposing. Access to the property is proposed from North Adkins Avenue, a local roadway on the eastern portion of the site. This local street is a shared drive between the proposed subdivision and the existing subdivision to the east and north. The applicant is proposing three access points off of Meridian City Council February 24,2026 Page 40 of 59 North Adkins, with one being a common drive for access to 14, 15 and 16 of Block 1 and the other two being local street extensions. No open space or amenities are required to do the subdivision -- subdivision being under five acres in size and as mentioned earlier the Commission actually did direct the applicant to remove the open space and amenities to provide larger lots to accommodate single story homes. So, the main concern from the citizens regarding the proposed traffic at the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing where traffic, parking and building height allowances. The applicant revised their plat to make larger lot sizes, restrict -- wow. I apologize. To make larger lot sizes and restricts lots that abut the existing homes to the west to single story. However, some of the citizens did ask for clarification on building heights and wanted to see them below 26 feet in height. In addition, the citizens had concerns about overflow parking spilling onto the streets. However, most of the neighbors were appreciative of the major changes the applicant has made to address their major concerns throughout this process. I did want to touch on their updated elevations. So, they did provide some updated elevations for you tonight to show that single story and two-story product. So, the single story homes they did provide a few different elevations that will go in the development agreement for tonight and there is some additional two- story elevations as well for the properties that will be able to develop for two-story. So, the Commission is recommending approval of this application and we have not received any written testimony since the Commission hearing and I will stand for any questions that you have. Simison: Thank you, Nick. Council, any questions for staff? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward. Good evening. Durtschi: Good evening. Nick's getting my PowerPoint started. Mayor, Members of Council, hello and good evening again. My name is Sabrina Durtschi and I'm here on behalf of the applicant. My business address is 5179 South Bovin Avenue, Boise, Idaho 837 -- 83716 and this evening I am so excited to present to you our application for Farrington Heights Subdivision. So, Farrington Heights has been envisioned as a welcoming, modern and thoughtfully planned community that future residents are going to be proud to call home. In shaping the design and overall theme we layered in clean contemporary elements inspired by the craftsman architecture and modern farmhouse influence. Our goal is to create an in-fill project that feels both timeless and balanced, modern and fresh in character, yet warm and inviting and here is a view from our Adkins approach as you drive down the street for the new community. The site embraces a contemporary aesthetic and provides the opportunity to transform an underutilized parcel into a cohesive neighborhood oriented residential enclave. The homes are thoughtfully arranged to frame the internal street to create a strong sense of place and visual continuity and a blend of architectural styles with craftsman influences, introduces character and variation, while maintaining a unified, harmonious streetscape. Shown here is one of our primary entrances and 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. As Nick has gone over with Farrington Heights we are requesting a DA modification, a rezone and a preliminary plat. Highlighted in white are the three existing homes that are Meridian City Council February 24,2026 Page 41 of 59 part of our application and, then, we will have 21 new single family homes and seven common lots. Our gross density will be 5.12 units per acre, with our diverse residential lot sizes ranging from 2,951 square feet up to over 9,078 square feet. So, with this application a portion of the site will 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 the flexibility needs to meet the zoning standards that are often challenging within in-fill development. The R-15 rezone helps us address those complexities by allowing us to create a well-designed and functional, cohesive neighborhood. What -- with a reduced lot count and overall project vision. As the staff report states and Nick had mentioned, our density is at 5.12 units per acre, which is less than the one mile radius of the existing residences, which is at 6.1. So, we believe that the zoning request of R-15 directly supports the creation of a high quality in-fill community. So, to better understand how the site fits in within the broader area I think it's helpful just to quickly review the surrounding context. To the north we have multiple phases of Danbury Fair Subdivision, platted between 1994 and 1996. There is also an enclave parcel directly north to us that is still in the county. To the east we have Maws Edition No. 1 and 2 platted in 1993. To the south we have Pine Avenue that borders the site with industrial and commercial development located directly south, including the weed and pest control campus and to the west we have Danbury Fair Subdivision again and further west is the Avery Subdivision, which was platted back in 2019. So, the subject site is surrounded primarily by established residential neighborhoods that -- nearby subdivisions dating back into the 1990s through the most recent 2019, reflecting a pattern of continued residential growth for this area. So, over the last few months we have worked diligently with the neighbors -- property owners to shape a community that fits well with the surrounding subdivisions. We sincerely appreciate the input, the collaboration and support expressed by the neighbors, including their supportive comments within our last Planning and Zoning Commission hearing. Now, as Nick mentioned, we have made several revisions to our application, so I want to quickly walk you through the changes. The first hearing back in August here was our original application and this included 30 lots. During that hearing the Commission provided direction to revise the plan and incorporate usable open space into the site. The applicant went back to the drawing board. We provided the second revised layout. This layout reduced the lot count by five to 25, included open space. We provided some amenities as the zoning Commission requested. So on our December 4th hearing we were, then, redirected to remove the open space -- to incorporate the open space into the western lots to make them larger. So, after all these directions the applicant has finally made modifications within this third and, hopefully, last layout in which we received a unanimous recommendation of approval from Planning and Zoning Commission. So, what did we do? We relocated the northern road -- alignment of the road to create a stronger buffer between the project and the northern abutting properties. We removed previously proposed open space and redistributed that area into the western lots and, finally, we increased the lot sizes along the western edge to better accommodate single story and improve compatibility. With these significant changes the applicant is also committed to limiting the lots along the western boundary to single level homes in order to help alleviate neighboring concerns and provide an appropriate and sensitive transitioning to the surrounding properties. I share this Meridian City Council February 24,2026 Page 42 of 59 feedback to make a clear understanding of the history and the evolution of the project. It is evident that the applicant has made a strong effort to be responsive, to be good neighbors and to create community that thoughtfully balances the needs of future residents and the surrounding neighborhood. Now let's take a look at -- quickly at the elevations for the single level homes. They are a blend of modern farmhouse, craftsman inspired design, emphasizing strong front facing gables and clean lines and varied materials to create a visual interest in curb appeal. We felt these designs support a single level story that feels substantial, yet compatible with the surrounding homes, providing appropriate transition and a cohesive, attractive streetscape. Our two story homes continue that modern farmhouse, craftsman styled inspired architectural theme, offering a balanced blend of clean lines, layered roof forms and varied materials. The massing of the homes is carefully composed to provide the presence of two-story living, while remaining compatible with the surrounding development. Together we feel these designs contribute to a visually rich, yet harmonious neighborhood character that complements our overall vision for Farrington Heights. And to summarize, we truly feel that this is a well-designed, high quality community to offer a balanced blend of modern livability. Situated in the heart of Meridian, this enclave parcel is located near commercial and employment hubs and provides a well-rounded selection of mid-density housing options to meet for a growing population. The City of Meridian's Comprehensive Plan encourages in-fill that delivers of diversity of lot sizes, housing types and densities. Farrington Heights lies with vision by introducing a fresh, modern neighborhood character with an established area, offering new housing choices and a thoughtful range of densities and we truly feel it will be a positive addition to the surrounding neighborhood and a benefit to the City of Meridian as a whole. We agree with the staff report and we did receive unanimous approval from your Planning and Zoning Commission and with that I would like to thank you all for your time, your thoughtful consideration and respectfully request approval of our application this evening. Thank you so much. Simison: Thank you, Sabrina. Council, any questions for the applicant? Taylor: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Taylor. Taylor: Ms. Durtschi, thank you for your presentation. I have a question on the R-4 projects. I'm -- I'm looking at the map. I see some existing structures. Those are just being brought into the city, but there is an empty lot and stairway -- oh, yeah. Go back to the one -- number three when you brought -- yes. The third revision there. So, we are eliminating their driveways off of Pine; correct? Durtschi: Uh-huh. Taylor: And, then, giving them access with that stub road, what's the -- what is going to be built on the north side of -- and I can't read the number of the lot, but is that going to be a home? Because that's a much larger lot it looks like than a lot of your other ones Meridian City Council February 24,2026 Page 43 of 59 and on the map I'm looking at it looks like it's blank. So, can you just help me understand what you are -- what's going to go there? Durtschi: Absolutely. Mayor, Council Member Taylor. So, yes, that is another single family residential lot that will take access from the common drive and as you mentioned we are removing, per ACHD's direction, all access off of Pine for public safety reasons. So, that fourth lot will be a single family home. Simison: Council, any additional questions for the applicant? Durtschi: Thank you again so much. Simison: Thank you. Madam Clerk, do we have anyone signed up to provide testimony on this item? Lomeli: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yes. We have Raymond Spencer. Simison: If you would like to provide testimony, please, come forward at this time when your name is called. Okay. Lomeli: The other one. Rick Salladay. Simison: Good evening. State your name and address for the record and be recognized for three minutes. Salladay: Mayor and Council Members. Live at 992 North Stonehenge Way. I am directly behind this subdivision that's been planned. My biggest concern -- I have lived there 35 years. I was one of the first residents of the Danbury Fair Subdivision. The biggest concern with this is my height or my elevation sits about three or four feet below that field behind me. I'm probably one of the lowest lots on my side of the subdivision. have a three foot retaining wall holding back what used to be a drainage ditch for the farm there. On top of that three foot retaining wall I have a six foot fence. So, we are talking nine feet of elevation. I don't know if that's my feedback. Cavener: Do you want to -- perfect. Salladay: Behind my fence there -- sorry -- they have parked a couple trailers. Now, above that nine feet of a retaining wall and a fence I can see probably five, six feet behind me where they have parked a couple trailers five feet above me, the windows of those trailers. Both sides of my fence my neighbors have patios where they can walk up on their patios and my six foot fence hits them about there. So, my concern is these houses are directly behind me and now they have revised their -- their plan for the -- the housing, they took away the green space that was behind me -- they took away the green space that was behind my house to accommodate the road that was abutting the other properties to the north, but I don't object to that, I don't care how that gets built. My main concern is the elevation height behind me. If you put a house and whatever elevation -- you are saying 20, 30 feet they are saying, that's going to be like a three Meridian City Council February 24,2026 Page 44 of 59 story house behind me. It's not -- you know. And they are supposed to one level stories, but it's going to be two to three stories above me. That's my concern. I think they need to have some sort of -- either an eight foot fence behind me, some sort of a landscaping, something to help block that view, because I have -- I have experienced 35 years of open field. Like I said, I was the first one in that subdivision. I didn't put a fence up until three years ago when they parked a trailer behind me and I even left that open for two years, because I got along with the people, but at a certain point one trailer turned into two, two trailers turned into three, three trailers turned into four, now it's down to two again. But the point is, as you see, my elevation issues. That's my big point. Okay? So, that's all I have to say about that. Other than that that field is going to be developed no matter what I say. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? All right. Thank you. Salladay: Just somebody look at that elevation before they build -- or to require some sort of landscaping. That's all I ask. Simison: Thank you. Lomeli: Mr. Mayor, the next person is Stephanie John. Simison: Good evening. State your name and address for the record. John: Sure. My name is Stephanie John. 1111 North Adkins Avenue in Meridian. don't know why it's doing that. Okay. Okay. I will just keep going. I think I turned it off. No, maybe not. Okay. This plan has had many revisions. We have been before Planning and Zoning Committee and you guys a couple times. The development team -- oh, my gosh that is so -- Lomeli: Do you want to take the one on the right off and, then, try this left one for me. John: Let's see if that -- sorry about that. Sorry. Okay. We will restart. I already said my name. This project has had many revisions. I really appreciate the developer's time and communication. They really did listen to everything we have had to say and we really -- I really appreciate that. The number one concern I still have is height. They did go down to the R-4. I really appreciate that, given that they are going for the R-15 and their heights -- or elevations, as you call them, could be so much higher. The reason I'm so worried about it, as they pointed out, all the houses surrounding them, especially mine on the north property, still in Ada, are very small houses. I just didn't want it to look completely out of place. I think the pictures they show were great. I just don't want those. Is that better? Is it on? Okay. Anyways, I really was just worried about the heights. It seems like they are aware of that and they are going to be conscious of that. They have spoke to us about that even after the Planning and Zoning committee sent it through, which I do appreciate. I would like something maybe in writing. I know they are going to redo that development agreement, so maybe if we could put that in there, agreeing to the R-4. Maybe less height if possible. But they have given some, we have Meridian City Council February 24,2026 Page 45 of 59 given some, truly this is a community effort. I think that's something that should be said, given the last group that was before us had a lot of negative things to say and our group doesn't have a ton of negative things to say. They really did listen to us. They were really great members of the community. I can't stress that enough. And even though may not agree with everything, heights, I do appreciate that they listened to me and so just like I am now, I wanted to make sure that they knew that. I still am against that, but I do agree with what they have and I appreciate their time and your time and Planning and Zoning. A special thanks to Mr. Nick, who answered my millions and millions of questions. I really appreciated that. It gave me a clear understanding of what I needed to know and really how to help my community. So, I appreciate that. Any questions? Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Thank you. Lomeli: Mr. Mayor, the next person is Bob Flaten. Flaten: My name is Bob Flaten. I live at 1111 North Adkins Avenue. I have since 1991. Simison: If you can hold the microphone -- Flaten: Can you hear me at all? Simison: Yes. There we go. Flaten: So, again, Bob Flaten, 1111 North Adkins Avenue. We are the property just to the north of this development. Been there since like '91. Anyways, to kind of reiterate some of what she said, yeah, we did have a lot of bumps along the way just from the very beginning and I feel like the developer and his team have had an open ear to a lot of that. I'm very thankful to that. They are a lot more likable than I would have thought, to be completely frank with you. In an ideal world I would still see things different and have been open with them about it, too, because I don't want them to think I'm trying to backstab them or anything, but if we could have had a full single level kind of development that was an exact match to everything that is there, that's the ideal world. But as the misses has brought up, it's kind of a give and take thing. They have lost some, we have lost some. I think we have gotten to a pretty healthy point for the most part. Interestingly enough, I have been right here along with you guys for the last couple hours and hearing a lot of the community. I'm seeing a greater issue here than just like this development and this is all kind of before all of you guys, you -- you yourself are living kind of one of those issues, but it seems like Meridian as a whole is kind of trying to cram as many people in as possible in a lot of ways and I think the residents, not just, you know, ones that have been here long term, like myself, but ones that have just moved here from out of state, from other parts of the Treasure Valley and Idaho and in tune -- are all kind of getting the same kind of consensus here and that is wanting our own space. I mean no disrespect to anybody, but, you know, this -- people move to Meridian because of what it was, very respectful not because of probably where it's going. I think we are kind of getting to a breaking point there. So, again, speaking on a much broader spectrum, thank you all for listening, I'm getting concerned, Meridian City Council February 24,2026 Page 46 of 59 but, hopefully, you know, you guys being on the front line of that can ascertain kind of what's the most reasonable course of action and I wish you the very best with that. Circling all the way back to this, ideally, yeah, they are all single level, but, again, these people have done great things for us when I thought they would just give us a deaf ear the whole time. So, I'm very thankful for them in that regard. If you have any questions I'm more than willing to answer. I have kind of shot every shot that I can for where we are. In fact, I think I probably wrote -- I know for a fact I wrote to you, Mr. Mayor, and quite a few other people, quite frankly. But, again, that's kind of my spiel for now. Simison: I think you are not going to get off that easy. I think Councilman Cavener has got a question for you. Cavener: Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor. It's Bob; right? Flaten: Yes, sir, it is. Cavener: Thanks. You know, I, too, am a long-term Meridian resident. So, I -- I can appreciate kind of what -- particularly your part of Meridian looked like 25, 30 years ago versus how it's shifted and evolved. I grew up just right down the street from you. So, appreciate where you are at. I appreciate your correspondence and communication through this whole thing. You know, it's -- it's rare when we get -- I get a sense that you are not necessarily supportive of this application, but you are not necessarily coming into criticize or attack the applicant, which, again, I think that's also the Meridian way, we -- we may have differing of opinions, but we are trying to collaborate as best we can. feel -- and, again, I wasn't -- I don't attend the Planning and Zoning Commission meetings, so I just -- I read it or I watch it online, but I have read your e-mails. My -- my perception is the Planning and Zoning Commission and the applicant were very receptive to your feedback and you have seen a lot of iterations that have come as a result. So, I would never expect you to jump up and down say I'm so excited for this, but help me understand -- you have a magic wand, you are king for a day, what do you change about this application that's before us to get to a place that you would be supportive? What -- what is it not doing or what is it doing too much of? Flaten: I mean speaking just very much I have got the crystal ball in front of me, I guess there is two things. Number one, again, just overall density and I -- I understand that they are saying we have the correct density or even less density than already exists. But much like right across the road, the road -- the Woodbridge Subdivision, we are feeling that congestion. I mean we are only a mile to the north of that and there is a lot -- a lot of people and buildings that we are talking about putting in that same little area. There didn't used to be crosses at Locust Grove right there. There is multiple crosses now at Locust Grove and Pine and I fight every day to pray to God that we can keep our children safe and that they never become one -- or that I don't become one -- or that, quite frankly, nobody becomes one, because I think one is too many and I think just with all the people that we are trying to force in these situations -- or into these little areas we are going to create situations that -- kind of like looking back at the -- the vote of 2001 to originally start the Woodbridge Subdivision, we are kind of at the infancy stages of that Meridian City Council February 24,2026 Page 47 of 59 just as a whole in that area and I'm concerned that we could be creating just a monster for the residents of Meridian and, again, respectfully to all of its residents, nobody wants to move here to be in Tokyo. You move to Idaho because of the stories you have heard. And those stories weren't married in the last day or the last week, they have been made over decades from people that have lived here long term and have had family members move here and been told all these great things. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Thank you. And I'm -- you know, I -- I'm glad you have moved to your home. I missed the drive-in movie theater where you -- where your home now sits and so it's those hard things of like I want to hold on to what I had and you find those things that get whittled away and, then, you get to yourself ten, 15, 20, 30, 40 years later and saying, again, kind of where is the community they grew up, where -- where did it go. So, thank you for your diplomacy and -- and your candidness tonight. I appreciate your testimony. Appreciate you being here. Flaten: I just realized that maybe I didn't answer your question directly. Magic Wand. Cavener: Yeah. Flaten: The center becomes single story, because -- I know there is a couple residents -- the one that really just stands out in my mind, I think about him every night, is Jack Hart. Yeah. Or Jack Harp. Excuse me. He lives just right down the road from us. He is basically -- I guess I can't really tell from this, but point is he is directly across from what will be the two stories and I know that we didn't have a whole lot of neighbors band together on that side. I think a couple are moving. A couple are just, with respect, older, don't really want to mess with it just -- but I just -- the fair word really sticks with me. We are all about fair. That's the part that kind of keeps me up at night. Our issues have been addressed and addressed well and I think they have done a really kick butt job, quite frankly, but there are those neighbors that are still kind of left in the dark. So, magic wand, I make sure that they don't get left behind and we are all in the equal. That's it, but -- Cavener: Thank you. I appreciate it. Flaten: Absolutely. Thank you all. Lomeli: Mr. Mayor, the next person is Don Flaten. D.Flaten: Yes. So, I want to first address -- I do appreciate -- Simison: Can you state your name and address for the record, D.Flaten: Yes. Of course. Meridian City Council February 24,2026 Page 48 of 59 Simison: And put that a little closer up. D.Flaten: A bit closer? Simison: Yeah. D.Flaten: Don Flaten. 1111 North Adkins Avenue. Property bordering immediately north. I do appreciate the accommodation of the developer, their intelligence, experience. Within the context of this plan I see, you know, quite a bit of accommodation and thoughtful planning. However, at the outset all members of the City Council, everyone here, these are very misleading discussions of density. There are 21 homes on 2.9 acres. That's 7.3 per acre. Very simple math. They are averaging the existing lots and what may or may not be done with the vacant lots adjoining this. Immediately surrounding this are homes four to five per acre, all the way around. Everywhere. Casting a net that's a mile wide is absurd. That goes across Locust Grove and includes all the high density housing developed there. The condominium development north of Danbury, the very large homes, very tight separation that were approved and built on Pine Street, all of that's within there. Look at the immediate area. This is completely out of context with the immediate development. My objection is and always has been density. It is high density. Look, for example, at the two-story homes, ten contiguous homes, average lot size 3,200 square feet. Don't tell me this is low density. That's very high density housing. I don't see parking accommodation. That was brought up and -- and kind of dismissed in the planning. It's -- and traffic. We have Adkins Avenue, everything feeding to one -- one and we are very busy. There is no traffic light there. We may --ACHD may want one at some point, but don't be misled by the numbers and, Nick, you are accurate, it is -- or within a one mile radius it's lower density, but this is much much higher density than the surrounding neighborhood and a very different character. It's beautifully planned for what it is. It's just inappropriately placed. That having been said, if it is within the purview of the City Council, the flexibility, if you were to go ahead and improve the plan I object to it, but if you were to go to approve the plan as it's posited, I would very much encourage -- and this is extremely important given the discussion, objection to neighbors height, that there be prohibition placed on the development for elevated patios, people building out patios at the level of -- of their roof, for example, and proximity of structures, that those being forced for storage. They are often put right against the fence and they will loom over the neighbors, just as they see trailers parked against the back fence and obstructing view from neighbors right now. So, that's about all I had to say. It's just I think we are -- it's very misleading to -- to look at these numbers or talk about. This is a high density development. I object to the density. Simple as that. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Okay. Thank you. Lomeli: Mr. Mayor, we have Brian Turner. Turner: Hello. Brian Turner. 1345 East Shellbrook Drive. My property is one of the properties that are on the -- the north end of this development and I -- as mentioned by Meridian City Council February 24,2026 Page 49 of 59 previous individuals, I really appreciate the opportunity to give feedback. The initial plan was -- I think not a good fit for this area and as I have looked at the compromises, both on the applicant's side and a compromise on our desires as existing neighbors, I'm in support of this plan. I certainly -- there would be things that I -- out of my personal opinion I would like to see differently, but seeing the compromises made I'm in support of it. And that's all I have to say. If there is any questions. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Thank you. Lomeli: Mr. Mayor, no one else has signed up. Simison: Okay. Is there anybody else present that would like to provide testimony on this item? If you are online raise your hand or if you are in the audience if you would like to come forward. Good evening. Blanton: Good evening. My name is Karen Blanton. I live at 1418 East Sotheby Street in Danbury Fair and I -- I testified during the first meetings. I'm so absolutely grateful for the -- the development that they heard even us, the surrounding neighbors, to go ahead and make something that will be attractive in our community and give -- give space so that there is not going to be people right in front of everybody's home to make a really beautiful development in their community. Development is development and everything might not be perfect for everyone, but I have never -- I have developed property in Washington state and I have never seen anybody put forth so much effort in getting the collaboration from everybody to make it as nice as it could be. We do have the concerns still about getting out into Pine and Locust Grove, the extra traffic that goes out there. So, if you could do something like a traffic light or something to help get people in and out more safely, so that when you are making the turn to get them that would be fabulous. But I -- I have seen all of -- everybody working together on this and I'm so proud to be somebody who is living in Meridian, Idaho. Thank you for your cooperation and your love for the people that are here. That's all. Thank you. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to provide testimony on this item? Then would the applicant like to come forward to close? Lakey: Good evening, Mayor, Council Members. For the record Todd Lakey, Lakey Villegas Law. Address 141 East Carlton Avenue, Meridian, Idaho. And Sabrina and are -- are kind of tag teaming tonight. I think you saw a very different picture than you saw earlier and, then, frankly, you have seen in regards to this project in the past. If you look at your P&Z minutes, one of your P&Z commissioners commented they had never received so many positive comments in regard -- and we had a few more people at the P&Z hearing and I have been doing this for 30 years. I have never heard anyone call a project I worked on a kick butt design. So, I appreciate that positive and very honest feedback. It reflects the effort that my clients put into this project and I also appreciated folks describing this as a balance. It's always give and take; right? You give some, you -- you get some and just want to emphasize a couple of the things. The movement of the open space, that was at the request of P&Z and the vast majority of our neighbors. Meridian City Council February 24,2026 Page 50 of 59 They preferred those larger lots, those single story homes on that western boundary and that 35 foot height requirement, that was our proposal at P&Z, to make it not R-15, but consistent with the R-4 and, then, we are surrounded by R-8 and that 35 foot requirement really would be mostly applicable to those two-story homes that are tucked into the middle, that are not on that boundary. Commissioners, I would also -- or excuse me -- Council Members, also emphasize that your comp plan that talks about this being in-fill and in-fill is encouraged to be of a higher density than the surrounding properties, but we, again, listen to the neighbors our -- our density is 5.1 dwelling units per acre. Your larger area is 6.12 and the future land use map calls out for three to eight dwelling units per acre. So, we are well within that. We will comply with the ACHD requirements and also would add that these homes will have two car garages. So, you will have two car parking availability within the garages and, then, you will have the driveways that can accommodate an additional two cars. So, Council Members, I would again express appreciation on behalf of my clients for the opportunity they had to work with the neighbors and for the collaborative effort that -- that was. They appreciated that effort. think both sides benefited from it. You have a great product now before you because of that collaboration and we would ask for your approval. I'm happy to answer questions if you have them. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Little Roberts: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Little Roberts. Little Roberts: Mr. Mayor. Mr. Lakey, thank you for being here. Is my understanding the third revision is the final, because I thought that all green space was removed, but it looks like there is some buffer there and -- and do all three of those properties have an elevation issue that that green space will help buffer? Lakey: Mr. Mayor and Council Member Little Roberts, so it is that third revision where they have moved the road to the north and there is still a landscaped area that provides that additional buffer. So, you have got landscaped areas there with vegetation and trees and, then, you have got the road providing that additional separation. So, that is the design and that does help provide additional separation from elevations for the homes that will be built. Little Roberts: Great. Thank you. Lakey: Uh-huh. Whitlock: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Whitlock. Meridian City Council February 24,2026 Page 51 of 59 Whitlock: Mr. Lakey, thank you for all the work that's gone into this to go from no to bringing a proposal that, again, has been characterized as kick butt. I -- I think that that same -- those same accolades need to go to our Planning and Zoning Commission. They worked hard on this to get to a yes and I just want to express appreciation to you and your client for listening to those concerns and coming back with a -- a revision that -- that is much much better and -- and I just wanted to acknowledge our Planning and Zoning Commission and the work that went in. I want to thank the -- the neighbors as well for finding an open ear with you and in your client. That's always good when we have that kind of communication. So, I just wanted to express my appreciation to you for that. As I look at this revision three, again, the transition from the north seems to be addressed with a road and -- and a bit of green space there, even though you are getting to higher elevations and we heard concerns about those higher elevations on those homes. I think this reconfiguration moves those farther to the south and -- and helps address some of those concerns. Rick -- and I didn't get his last name written down, but there to the west where he has a retaining wall that's built and a fence on top of that and still some concerns about the elevation, I don't know if there is a way that his concerns can be addressed on that west side of the property. Do you have any -- any thoughts on that? Lakey: Mr. Mayor and Council Member Whitlock, before I talk about that I would like to acknowledge your -- I guess acknowledgement as well of the Planning and Zoning Commission and your staff. Both. We -- we appreciate very much the direction and the work that your staff put into it and the direction that we received from the Planning and Zoning Commission that helped redesign this project. I think the gentleman that lives to the west previously lived next to that green space that, again, the majority of folks wanted us to remove and utilize larger lots and single family homes. We do plan on putting in a new fence along that property boundary, but I think the main issue that we did to address that was to make sure that those were single family homes and, then, move the two-story homes further away, not just to the east, but to the north slightly from his property. So, again, we did our best to address the vast majority of concerns and it's not perfection for everybody, but I think it's a very well balanced plan that -- that meets the -- the vast majority of the concerns that were expressed. Simison: And I think maybe to piggyback on that, one of his comments was this seemed like in not wanting a deck that was up and I -- if it's single family there would, in theory, it's no deck access. Lakey: Mr. Mayor -- Simison: If I'm tracking single story that -- Lakey: Uh-huh. Yes. Single story so -- correct, there is not going to be any decks on those homes that are up above that elevation. Simison: Yeah. Okay. Council, any additional questions? Okay. Thank you. Meridian City Council February 24,2026 Page 52 of 59 Lakey: Thank you, Mayor. Council Members. Appreciate the opportunity to be with you tonight. Little Roberts: Mr. Mayor, I -- seeing no comments, move we close the public hearing. Overton: Second. Simison: Have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and the public hearing is closed. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. Taylor: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Taylor. Taylor: Just make a couple of comments. I think for an in-fill project this is a pretty good one that's been brought to us. These are always really difficult to sort of find a way to plug in something into a place, especially that's been so well established since the 1990s. You know, you have to consider things such as, you know, how do you -- what do you do with the property? Do you leave it there vacant? Do you put it to its highest best use? The owners of the property, how do they want to sell that and move on, develop it, et cetera. I was really pleased to hear how P&Z really worked through this with the -- the neighbors and the -- and the applicant. I think that's a really -- that's a great -- really great success story about how P&Z should work to help get projects ready for approval and work through a lot of the -- the details. So, very appreciative of that. I know we can't always make everything as perfect as we would like to see, but do think some of the accommodations are -- are well thought out. So, I'm -- I'm -- this is part of my district and I remember walking through there at one point looking at the property and actually wondering what was going to go there. So, I am -- as far as in-fill think this is a really great project. So, happy to support it tonight. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Just a comment. Just -- it's so rare to see like neighbors and an applicant work together so closely and I just really think that everybody demonstrated the Meridian way and like how to be great neighbors and just really appreciate that. It's so refreshing. You can see what a better project resulted from that. It's just super encouraging. Thank you. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Meridian City Council February 24,2026 Page 53 of 59 Cavener: I'm -- I'm always sympathetic to our neighbors who have had part of dirt that's been bare and empty next to them for -- for 30 years. You grow accustomed to that. You grow accustomed to that road that isn't going to go through and, then, it suddenly goes through and it brings traffic and as I mentioned earlier I have -- I have lived here my whole life. I used to be downtown Meridian's paperboy and that's -- your neighborhood was part of -- part of my route. So, I'm always -- I'm always sympathetic to that and I know that change -- specifically change what we feel is going to have a negative impact on our life, can -- can feel different than other change and so to Council Member Strader's point, I -- we see often -- I know you guys are here as kind of a one and done and we often see in these meetings where it's contentious, right, because it is your home and it's your community and everybody cares, everybody's trying to do the right thing, but it feels different and I think Council Member Taylor touched on in-fill is challenging. We as Council wrestle with what we call in-fill development on an ongoing basis and it's because of those challenges it impacts people who have lived here a long time. It feels different than, you know, maybe a hundred acre farm that's now going to be turned into a neighborhood or a commercial development and so to Council Member Strader's comments, I appreciate the collaborative effort. I know there are folks in this room and neighbors that may not like a possible decision the Council will take tonight, but I -- I really want to commend the -- the applicant and their team for really listening to the neighbors. You know, the term NIMBY gets thrown around a lot. We hear that as City Council Members and at -- at no point have I felt this would ever classify or quantify NIMBY conversation. Yet we see applicants from time to time to dismiss the feedback from neighbors is just NIMBY. They just don't want to see any development. And so want to commend the applicant team for being responsive to the feedback and I know this was a long journey to get here tonight. I remember when we remanded this back did not love this project at all and I think the great work from our -- our residents and a very receptive applicant that I'm in a space tonight where I will be supportive of this request. So, I appreciate the collaborative nature that brought us here this evening. Little Roberts: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Little Roberts. Little Roberts: I also think that it's been so impressive to watch the collaboration with this and getting to what is wonderful, in my opinion, in-fill project, because they are the most difficult I think to do and if we don't have any other comments I will go ahead and make a motion. Simison: Just one quick comment. If you -- you know, I -- I have given Sabrina a lot of comments, but I know it's not just Sabrina, it's got to -- it's got to be the property owner, it's going to be -- like I say, it's a whole team that comes together, but it does start with the -- the public facing person of this and so this is the last comment you are going to get from me in the month of February, Sabrina, but you -- you -- you -- you have -- you have taken a lot of projects and had to -- in a lot of different ways and there is just another great example of the work you do in our community. So, thank you. So, with that -- Meridian City Council February 24,2026 Page 54 of 59 Little Roberts: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Little Roberts. Little Roberts: After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File No. H-2025-0016 as presented by the staff in the staff report for the hearing date of February 24th, 2026. Taylor: Second. Simison: Have a motion and a second to approve Item 3, H-2025-0016. Is there discussion? If not clerk call the roll. Roll Call: Cavener, yea; Strader, yea; Overton, yea; Little Roberts, yea; Taylor, yea; Whitlock, yea. Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and the item is agreed to. Have a good night, everybody. Or stick around to hear some amazing ordinances. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. ORDINANCES [Action Item] 4. Ordinance No. 26-2111: An ordinance (Apex Cadence — H-2024-0061) annexing land being a portion of Government Lot 1 and the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 6, Township 2 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as depicted in the map exhibit; rezoning 0.86 acres of such real property from RUT (Rural Urban Transition) to the R-15 (Medium-High Density Residential) zoning district; directing city staff to alter all applicable use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps and all official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance; providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Treasurer, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law; repealing conflicting ordinances; and providing an effective date. Simison: With that we will move on to Item 4, which is Ordinance No. 26-2111. Ask the clerk to read this ordinance by title. Lomeli: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. An ordinance Apex Cadence, H-2024-0061, annexing land being a portion of Government Lot 1 in the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 6, Township 2 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, property from Rural Urban Transition to the R-15, Medium-High Density Residential zoning district; directing city staff to alter all applicable use and area maps, as well as the official zoning Meridian City Council February 24,2026 Page 55 of 59 maps and all official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance; providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Treasurer, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law; repealing conflicting ordinances; and providing an effective date. Simison: Thank you. Council, you may have heard that ordinance read by title. Is there anybody that would like it read in its entirety? If not, do I have a motion? Taylor: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Taylor. Taylor: I move that we approve Ordinance No. 26-2111. Little Roberts: Second. Simison: Have a motion and second to approve Ordinance No. 26-2111. Is there discussion? If not clerk call the roll. Roll Call: Cavener, yea; Strader, yea; Overton, yea; Little Roberts, yea; Taylor, yea; Whitlock, yea. Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and the item is agreed to. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. 5. Ordinance No. 26-2112: An ordinance (Apex Cadence — H-2024-0061) de-annexing land located in a portion of the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter and the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 6, Township 2 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as depicted in the map exhibit; directing city staff to alter all applicable use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps and all official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance; providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Treasurer, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law; repealing conflicting ordinances; and providing an effective date. Simison: Next up is Ordinance No. 26-2112. Ask the clerk to read this ordinance by title. Lomeli: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. An ordinance Apex Cadence, H-2024-0061, de- annexing land located in a portion of the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter and Meridian City Council February 24,2026 Page 56 of 59 the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 6, Township 2 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as depicted in the map exhibit; directing city staff to alter all applicable use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps and all official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance; providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Treasurer, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law; repealing conflicting ordinances; and providing an effective date. Simison: Thank you. Council, you have heard this ordinance spread by title. Is there anybody who would like it read in its entirety? Seeing none do have a motion? Taylor: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Taylor. Whitlock: I move that we approve Ordinance No. 26-2112. Little Roberts: Second. Simison: Have a motion and a second to approve Ordinance No. 26-2112. Is there any discussion? If not clerk call the roll. Roll Call: Cavener, yea; Strader, yea; Overton, yea; Little Roberts, yea; Taylor, yea; Whitlock, yea. Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and the item is agreed to. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. 6. Ordinance No. 26-2113: An ordinance (Apex Cadence H-2024-0061) for rezone of land located in the east half of the northeast quarter of Section 6, Township 2 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as depicted in the map exhibit, rezoning 56.11 acres of land from the R-8 (Medium-Density Residential) zoning district to the R-15 (Medium High-Density) zoning district in the Meridian City Code; directing city staff to alter all applicable use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps and all applicable official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance; providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Treasurer, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law; and providing an effective date. Meridian City Council February 24,2026 Page 57 of 59 Simison: Next up is Ordinance No. 26-2113. Ask the clerk to read this ordinance by title. Lomeli: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. An ordinance Apex Cadence, H-2024-0061, for rezone of land located in the east half of the northeast quarter of Section 6, Township 2 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as depicted in the map exhibit, rezoning 56.11 acres of land from the R-8 (Medium-Density Residential) zoning district to the R-15 (Medium High-Density) zoning district in the Meridian City Code; directing city staff to alter all applicable use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps and all applicable official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance; providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Treasurer, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law; and providing an effective date. Simison: Thank you. Council, you have heard this ordinance read by title. Is there anybody that would like it read in its entirely? If not, do I have a motion? Taylor: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Taylor. Taylor: I move that we approve Ordinance No. 26-2113. Little Roberts: Second. Simison: Have a motion and a second to approve Ordinance No. 26-2113. Is there discussion? If not, clerk call the roll. Roll Call- Cavener, yea; Strader, yea; Overton, yea; Little Roberts, yea; Taylor, yea; Whitlock, yea. Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and the item is agreed to. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. 7. Ordinance No. 26-2114: An ordinance (Hill's Century Farms Townhomes H-2024-0072) for rezone of land encompassing all of Lots 2-7 and a portion of Lot 10, Block 2 of Hill's Century Farm Commercial Subdivision No. 1 (Book 115 of Plats, Pages 17131- 17134, records of Ada County, Idaho) and all of Lots 12 and 13, Block 2 of Hill's Century Farm Commercial Subdivision No. 2 (Book 124 of Plats, Pages 19913-19915, records of Ada County, Idaho) situated in a portion of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 33, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as depicted in the map exhibit, rezoning 5.45 acres of land from the C-N (Neighborhood Business) zoning district Meridian City Council February 24,2026 Page 58 of 59 to the R-15 (Medium High-Density Residential) zoning district in the Meridian City Code; directing city staff to alter all applicable use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps and all applicable official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance; providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Treasurer, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law; and providing an effective date. Simison: Next item up is Ordinance No. 26-2114. Ask the clerk to read this ordinance by title. Lomeli: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. An ordinance Hills Century Town -- Farms -- Farms Townhome, H-2024-0072, for rezone of land encompassing all of Lots 2-7 and a portion of Lot 10, Block 2 of Hill's Century Farm Commercial Subdivision No. 1 (Book 115 of Plats, Pages 17131-17134, records of Ada County, Idaho, and all of Lots 12 and 13, Block 2 of Hill's Century Farm Commercial Subdivision No. 2 (Book 124 of Plats, Pages 19913-19915, records of Ada County, Idaho, situated in a portion of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 33, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as depicted in the map exhibit, rezoning 5.45 acres of land from the C-N (Neighborhood Business) zoning district to the R-15 (Medium High-Density Residential) zoning district in the Meridian City Code; directing city staff to alter all applicable use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps and all applicable official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance; providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Treasurer, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law; and providing an effective date. Simison: Thank you. Council, you have heard this ordinance read by title. Is there anybody that would like it read in its entirety? If not do I have a motion? Taylor: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Taylor. Taylor: I move that we approve Ordinance No. 26-2114. Little Roberts: Second. Simison: Have a motion and a second to approve ordinance No. 26-2114. Is there any discussion? If not clerk call the roll. Roll Call: Cavener, yea; Strader, yea; Overton, yea; Little Roberts, yea; Taylor, yea; Whitlock, yea. Meridian City Council February 24,2026 Page 59 of 59 Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and the item is agreed to. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. FUTURE MEETING TOPICS Simison: Council, anything under future meeting topics or do I have a motion to adjourn? Overton: Mr. Mayor, I move that we adjourn. Little Roberts: Second. Simison: Motion and second adjourn. All in favor signify by saying ayes. Those opposed nay? The ayes have it and we are adjourned. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:16 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) 3 / 10 1 26 MAYOR ROBERT SIMISON DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK E IDIAN;--- /hl R AGENDA ITEM Public Forum - Future Meeting Topics The Public are invited to sign up in advance of the meeting at www.meridiancity.org/forum to address elected officials regarding topics of general interest or concern of public matters. Comments specific to an active land use/development applications are not permitted during this time. By law, no decisions can be made on topics presented at the Public Forum. However, City Council may request the topic be added to a future meeting agenda for further discussion or action. The Mayor may also direct staff to provide followup assistance regarding the matter. CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC FORUM SIGN-IN SHEET Date: February 24, 2026 Please sign in below if you wish to address the Mayor and City Council and provide a brief description of your topic. Please observe the following rules of the Public Forum: • DO NOT: o Discuss active applications or proposals pending before Planning and Zoning or City Council o Complain about city staff, individuals,business or private matters • DO o When it is your turn to speak, state your name and address first o Observe a 3-minute time limit (you may be interrupted if your topic is deemed inappropriate for this forum) Name (please print) Brief Description of Discussion Topic C� E IDIAN Planning and Zoning Department Presentation and Outline Changes to Agenda: None Item #1: Latitude Forty Three Subdivision (H-2024-0059) Note: Since the last hearing, revised elevations were submitted for the first phase of development, which is the portion north of the Fivemile Creek. These elevations were not reviewed by the Commission in their recommendation of approval to City Council. The Applicant also submitted proposed concepts for the future east/west collector street where it crosses the site. Several (10) letters of testimony have been received since the last hearing for a total of (28), included in the public record. Application(s): Annexation & Zoning Preliminary Plat Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 15.97 acres of land, zoned RUT in Ada County, located at 675, 715 & 955 S. Wells St. History: In 2019, an annexation request was approved for the development of a senior living facility; however, the DA was never signed and consequently the property wasn’t annexed. In 2021, another annexation request with a preliminary plat & CUP for an assisted living facility was denied by Council due to it not being in the best interest of the City at that time. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Northern - MDR (13-acres) & Southern - MU-N (4.4-acres) Summary of Request: Annexation of 17.27-acres of land with R-8 (13.78-acres), R-15 (2.42-acres) and C-N (1.07-acres) zoning for the development of 79 SFR detached homes – 59 in the MDR & 20 in the MU-N designation – at gross densities consistent with the underlying FLUM designations (i.e. 4.5 in MDR & 6.06 in MU-N). A commercial building pad is proposed on the south end of the MU-N area for a mix of uses as desired. A preliminary plat is proposed to re-subdivide Lots 7, 21 & 22, Magic View Subdivision Amended into 79 residential lots, 1 commercial st lot & 11 common/other lots on 15.97-acres of land. A phasing plan was submitted depicting 2 phases of development – the 1 phase is north of the creek & the south phase is south of the creek. The proposed plat layout provides a good transition in lot sizes/widths to the Woodbridge residential development to the west with most lot lines aligning or only being slightly off-set. The Fivemile Creek bisects this site within a 100’ wide easement. Access is proposed via existing & proposed local public streets with an emergency only access via E. Magic View Dr. Two (2) stub streets are proposed to the west to be extended with future development. Three (3) common driveways are proposed off internal local streets. ITD has requested a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) due to the development size & anticipated impacts to SH-55; this is still in process. Residents in the abutting Woodbridge development to the west have expressed concern pertaining to the high volume of traffic currently passing through their neighborhood between S. Locust Grove Rd. & E. Magic View Dr. for access to S. Eagle Rd. and the impact the proposed development will have, which will exacerbate an already challenging situation. In an attempt to alleviate this, the Applicant is not proposing public access via E. Magic View Dr. To address the traffic cut-through situation in this area, the City hired a consultant to do a feasibility report for a collector street connection between Stratford and Touchmark – based on this report, the Applicant submitted proposed concepts for the future east/west collector street where it crosses the site. The bridge on Wells St. that provides vehicular access across the Fivemile Creek is scheduled in ACHD’s 5-year work plan to be replaced in 2029. The bridge is currently designed to match existing facilities, which do not include bicycle lanes or pedestrian facilities; however, the width of the bridge will accommodate these improvements in the future when adjacent properties redevelop & provide these facilities. ACHD will require a road trust from the developer for the cost of these improvements and include them in their project if this development goes forward. Staff had recommended a 5’ wide temporary asphalt pathway be provided alongside Wells St. where the bridge is located over the creek if there is adequate area; however, ACHD confirmed there is not enough room for a pathway. The Applicant is proposing landscaped street buffers along E. Magic View Dr. & S. Wells St.; a 10’ wide landscaped street buffer is required along local streets on the C-N zoned property. A segment of the City’s multi-use pathway system is proposed from S. Wells St. to the west along the north side of the Fivemile Creek stubbing to the west property line for future extension and to the NW for connection to the existing pathway in Woodbridge, in accord with the Pathways Master Plan. There are existing trees on the site that may require mitigation in accord with UDC standards. Fencing is typically not allowed to prevent access to natural waterways; in limited circumstances and in the interest of public safety, larger open water systems may require fencing. A cross-section of the Fivemile creek was submitted that depicts approximately a 3:1 slope on the north side of the creek and a 4’ tall retaining wall on the south side of the creek with an approximate 4:1 slope. Because the slope on the north side meets the slope requirements in the UDC for accessibility and maintenance of stormwater facilities of 3:1 or less, Staff recommends no fencing is installed on that side but does recommend 6’ tall wrought iron fencing is provided on the south side for public safety – Council should determine if this is appropriate. A portion of this site is located within the floodway along the creek. A floodplain permit is required before any grading in the floodplain begins & a floodplain permit is required for each building in the floodplain along with elevation certificates certifying lowest floor elevation is 2’ above base flood elevation. A minimum of 15% (or 2.28-acres) qualified open space exhibit is required to be provided with development; a total of 2.47-acres (or 16%) is proposed as shown on the open space exhibit. A minimum of (3) points of site amenities are required; a total of 12 points are proposed from the Quality of Life & Recreation Activity categories consisting of a picnic area, a tot lot & sports courts. Several conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed single-story & 2-story SFR detached homes for each of the lot sizes proposed. Since the last hearing, revised elevations have been submitted for the first phase of development, which is the portion north of the Fivemile Creek adjacent to Woodbridge Sub. These elevations were not reviewed by the Commission in their recommendation of approval to City Council. Conceptual elevations were not submitted for the commercial structure; compliance with the non-residential design standards in the ASM is required. Commission Recommendation: Approval of the project with the requirement of a DA per the provisions in the staff report. Summary of Commission public hearing: In favor: Ben Semple, Rodney Evans + Partners, LLC In opposition: None Commenting: Robin McCulley Written testimony: Ben Semple, Rodney Evans + Partners, LLC; Robin McCulley; Cassy Peck; Celeste Fox; Kathleen Lewis; Tanya Bader; Erin Russell; Raymond Spencer Key issue(s) of public testimony: The existing fence along Woodbridge’s east boundary (the site’s west boundary) is crooked and doesn’t lie on the property line in many places due to the location of existing trees & poor construction; request for details on what the plan is for fencing along the west boundary of the site – desire for vinyl fencing not to be an approved material in this area; The high volume of traffic going through Woodbridge subdivision between Locust Grove & Eagle Roads, which will worsen with more homes being developed in this area; long wait times at the intersection of Eagle/Allen at the traffic signal and safety concerns – request for this area to be rezoned for non-residential uses; Privacy issues with 2-story homes being built next to single-story homes. Request for the developer to provide details in writing of their planned building setbacks on lots next to Woodbridge to be included in the DA; Request for the developer to address what future builders can do to prevent drainage issues on abutting lots in Woodbridge due to the higher elevation of the subject property; Ms. McCulley expressed concern about a tree located along her rear property line and how it would be impacted by a new fence. Concern pertaining to the quality of homes built in this development if the current builder drops out – request for the opportunity for the City & the public to review any future changes to the elevations in the event the home builder and/or ownership changes to avoid a potential “bait & switch”. Key issue(s) of discussion by Commission: General consensus the proposed development will fit in well with the existing residential development to the west (i.e. Woodbridge); Recognition of the traffic issues in this area; Agreement with Staff’s recommendation pertaining to fencing along the Fivemile Creek. Commission change(s) to Staff recommendation: At Staff’s request, the Commission included new conditions requiring mitigation information to be included on the landscape plan for existing trees on the site that are being removed with development in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B- 10C.5, as applicable; and removal of the sidewalk along the west side of Longitude Dr. with provision of ROW to the west property line. Outstanding issue(s) for City Council: Council should determine if the fencing recommended by Staff along the Fivemile Creek is appropriate as set forth in UDC 11- 3A-6C. Written Testimony: The Applicant is in agreement with the Commission recommendation, which included approval to remove the sidewalk along the west side of S. Longitude Dr. so that a detached sidewalk may be constructed with a landscaped parkway when the abutting property develops in accord with the Comp Plan which desires tree-lined streets in MU-N designated areas. Several (10) letters of testimony have been received since the last hearing for a total of (28), included in the public record. Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2024-0059 to City Council, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 24, 2026: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2024-0059 to City Council, as presented during the hearing on February 24, 2026, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2024-0059 to the hearing date of _________ for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) Item #2: Cielo Azul Condominium (SHP-2026-0001) Application(s): Short Plat Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 1.18 acres of land, zoned L-O, located at 3512 E. Louise Drive and 3526 E. Louise Drive. History: N/A Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Mixed Use Community Summary of Request: Short Plat request to condominiumize two (2) office buildings into eight (8) separate office units for individual ownership within the L-O zoning district. The proposed short plat depicts subdivision of air space within two (2) separate office buildings that are currently under construction and located on separate properties near the southeast corner of Eagle Road and Franklin Road. The proposed short plat aims to create eight (8) separate office condominium units for future ownership purposes. All of the previously approved project elements remain with no anticipated changes; none are proposed with this application. The subject sites obtained CUP approval for each property (H-2024-0045 and H-2024-0046) and CZC and DES approval for each building in 2024 (Touchmark Office Buildings A and B A-2024-0090 & A-2024-0091) with all associated building permits being approved and currently under construction. Written Testimony: None Staff Recommendation: Approval w/conditions Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number SHP-2026-0001, as presented in the th staff report for the hearing date of February 24, 2026: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number SHP-2026-0001, as presented during the th hearing on February 24, 2026, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number SHP-2025-0005 to the hearing date of _____________ for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Item #3: Farrington Heights (H-2025-0016) Application(s): - Rezone - Preliminary Plat - Development Agreement Modification Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 4.68 acres of land, zoned R-4, generally located at the northwest corner of E. Pine Avenue and N. Adkins Avenue. 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. 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. th At the December 4 hearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission continued the application telling the applicant to eliminate the open space to accommodate larger lots. The applicant changed the plan to address Commissions comments. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Medium Density Residential (allows 3 to 8 units/acre) Summary of Request: The applicant requests a rezone of 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 24 building lots and 7 common lots, and a development agreement modification to terminate the old development agreement and establish a new one. The proposed is at a gross density of 5.12 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. The surrounding landscape consists of single-family detached homes to the north, east, and west, while to the south is Pine Avenue. The average density for a one-mile radius is 6.1 units per acre, which is higher than the 5.12 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 the UDC. The applicant is proposing to keep the three (3) existing homes on the property. One of the largest concerns of the neighboring residences was the transition from the existing single-story homes to the proposed two- story homes. To address this, the applicant has revised the preliminary plat to make the lots larger on the perimeter of the subdivision to accommodate single story structures. The applicant has indicated that Lots 2-8, Block 1 will be single story homes. In addition, the commission directed the applicant to eliminate the open space lot to accommodate larger lots and single-story homes and the subdivision is less than 5 acres in size making it not required per the UDC. As a result, the applicant is not proposing any substantial open space or amenities. 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 three (3) access points off N. Adkins Avenue with one being a common drive for access to Lots, 14, 15, and 16, Block 1 and the other two being local street extensions. The applicant submitted revised building elevations for the city council hearing to show the variation in the single story and two story homes that will be present in the subdivision. Commission Recommendation: Approval Summary of Commission Public Hearing: i. In favor: Sabrina Durtschi, Stephanie John, Maralee Turner, Brian Turner, Todd Lakey ii. In opposition: Don Flatten iii. Commenting: Brandon Ethridge, Jack Harp, Rick Salladay, Bob Flatten, Rick Bradley iv. Key Issue(s): The main concerns from the citizens regarding the proposed project are traffic, parking, and building height allowances. The applicant revised the plat to make larger lot sizes and restrict lots that abut existing homes to the west to single story homes. However, some of the citizens asked for more clarification on building heights and wanted to see them below 26 feet. In addition, the citizens had concerns about overflow parking spilling onto other streets. However, most of the neighbors were appreciative of the major changes the applicant made to address their main concerns. Key Issue(s) of Discussion by Commission: i. The Commission continued this project to allow for the applicant to make larger lots on the exterior to accommodate single story homes. The applicant addressed this and gained support from some of the neighbors as a result. However, commission still discussed building heights and parking. The commission ultimately determined the amount of parking was adequate and they restricted all homes to a maximum building height of 35 feet. Commission Change(s) to Staff Recommendation: i. The commission made one change to the staff report. The commission added a provision in the Development Agreement to restrict the maximum building height to 35 feet. Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: - Building heights of the proposed single and two (2) story homes within the development. - Considering traffic and parking concerns from the public comments received. Written Testimony since Commission Hearing: None Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2025-0016, as presented in the staff th report for the hearing date of February 24, 2026: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2025-0016, as presented during the th hearing on February 24, 2026, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2025-0016 to the hearing date of _____________ for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) h2 City Council Meeting, 2026 th February 24 FLUM Aerial MapZoning Map Phase 2Phase 1 Applicant’s ED D & E–Concepts Proposed My Meridian Specific Area Summary Concepts- Alternative Development Concept C, D, E & Other Opportunities– Alternative Concept D Central Drive Extension Applicant’s ED D & E–Concepts Proposed Zoning MapAerialFLUM PreviousCurrent a. The maximum building height for all dwellings shall not exceed 35 feet in height. f. 8, Block 1, shall be restricted to single story dwellings. -Lots 2e. driveways to the existing homes that will take access off the southern common drive.5. In addition, the applicant shall provide paved -2A-4 zoning district listed in UDC Table 11-RThe existing structures on Lots 15, 16, and 18 shall meet the dimensional standards for the d. requirement.story and existing structures are exempt from this -visible from the subject public street. Singleintegrated architectural elements to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines that are outs), bays, banding, porches, balconies, material types, or other -backs, pop-recesses, steparticulation through changes in two or more of the following: modulation (e.g. projections, rear and/or side of structures on these lots (i.e. Lots 15, 16, and 18, Block 1) should incorporate Homes on lots that abut W. Pine Avenue, an arterial street, will be highly visible; therefore, the c. at the time of the development.Any future development of the site must comply with the City of Meridian ordinances in effect b. included in Section VIII and the provisions contained herein.landscape plan, common open space/site amenity exhibit, and conceptual building elevations Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the preliminary plat, V IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing (continued from January 13, 2026) for Latitude Forty Three Subdivision (H-2024-0059), by Rodney Evans + Partners, LLC., located at 675, 715 and 955 S. Wells St. A. Request:Annexation of 17.27 acres of land with R-8 (13.78 acres), R-15 (2.42 acres) and C-N (1.07 acres)zoning districts. B. Request: Preliminary Plat to re-subdivide lots 7, 21 and 22, Magic View Subdivision, Amended into 79 residential lots, 1 commercial lot and 11 common/other lots on 15.97 acres of land in the R-8, R-15 and C-N zoning districts. PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: February 24, 2026 ITEM #1 PROJECT NAME: (continued from January 13, 2026) for Latitude Forty Three Subdivision (H-2024-0059), by Rodney Evans + Partners, LLC., located at 675, 715 and 955 S. Wells St. I wish to testify Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing (marl(X (please Print) HOA? if yes) 1 I Vovei C,� vet 4 5 E � U 6 w Cu-- 7 /901 � de g -7 o s wU��Jtvr l C A V VIE Jl�i�✓Z 1 Dl 1�� 11 I 12 13 14 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: February 24, 2026 ITEM #1 PROJECT NAME: Latitude Forty Three Subdivision (H-2024-0059), by Rodney Evans + Partners, I.I.C., located at 675, 715 and 955 S. Wells St. I wish to testify Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing (mark x (Please Print) HOA? if yes) 1 2 3 4 5 A/ 7 7 3 Z S,lws-S- g Al 9 C 10 Pvc 12 71 13 -- 14 Uk�G�r c c Zit vQvl� Z 0 6 � ny� I I 1 +` I I /Jo VI 0162-r o P �CD � � A �� Development Application Transmittal Link to Project Application: Latitude Forty Three Subdivision AZ, PP, PS H-2024- 0059 Hearin Date: March 6, 2025 Assigned Planner: Sonya Allen To view the City of Meridian Public Records Repository, Click Here The above "Link to Project Application" will provide you with any further information on the project. The City of Meridian is requesting comments and recommendations on the application referenced above. To review the application and project information please click on the application link above. The City of Meridian values transparency and makes a variety of information available to the public online through our public records repository. We request that you submit your comments or recommendations prior to the hearing date specified above. When responding, please reference the file number of the project. If responding by email, please send comments to comment(a)_meridiancity.org. For additional information associated with this application please contact the City of Meridian Planner identified above at 208-884-5533. Thank you, City Clerk's Office 33 E. Broadway Ave., Meridian, Idaho 83642 Phone: 208.888.44331 Email: cityclerk meridiancity.org Built for Business, Designed for Living All e-mail messages sent to or received by City of Meridian e-mail accounts are subject to the Idaho law, in regards to both release and retention, and may be released upon request, unless exempt from disclosure by law. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT C��fEPIDIAN*,, DEPARTMENT REPORT HEARING 2/24/26 Legend DATE: Continued from: 516125, 8112125, project Location 9116125, 1113126 Area of Impact �= City Limits CAnalysis TO: Mayor& City Council -' FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 c sallen@meridiancity.org .\ APPLICANT: Rodney Evans+Partners,LLC - - SUBJECT: H-2024-0059 e e , Latitude Forty Three Subdivision-AZ, _- PP `� WD �, .. LOCATION: 675, 715 and 955 S. Wells St., in the east 1/2 of Section 17,T.3N.,R.IE. I. PROJECT OVERVIEW A. Summary Annexation of 17.27-acres of land with R-8 (13.78-acres),R-15 (2.42-acres) and C-N(1.07-acres) zoning; and Preliminary Plat to re-subdivide Lots 7,21 and 22,Magic View Subdivision Amended into 79 residential lots, 1 commercial lot and 11 common/other lots on 15.97-acres of land in the R-8,R-15 and C-N zoning districts. Note:Since the original submittal, the plat was revised to include all public streets-private streets are no longer proposed; and the number of building lots were reduced from 81 residential lots, 1 commercial lot and 12 common/other lots to 79 residential lots, I commercial lot and 11 common lots. B. Issues/Waivers Per UDC 11-3A-6C.1, fencing along all natural waterways (i.e. Fivemile Creek) shall not prevent access to the waterway. In limited circumstances and in the interest of public safety, larger open water systems may require fencing as determined by the City Council,Director and/or Public Works Director. The Fivemile Creek bisects this site.A cross-section and photo of the creek is included below in Section VIIJ,which depicts the approximate existing and finished grade on both sides of the creek,the slope and a 4' tall retaining wall on the south side of the creek. The slope on the north side is approximately 3:1,which meets the accessibility and maintenance standards for stormwater facilities in UDC 11-313-11C.6 of a 3:1 slope or less-Staff recommends the north side remain open and not be fenced.The slope on the south side is approximately a 4:1 slope,which exceeds acceptable accessibility and maintenance standards-Staff recommends the south side is fenced with a 6' tall wrought iron fence for public safety in accord with UDC 11-3A-6C.3,unless the slope can be modified to 3:1 or less,in which case the creek should be accessible and not fenced. Council should consider Staffs recommendation and determine if it is appropriate. City of Meridian I Department Report C. Recommendation Staff: Approval with the provisions included below in Section IV. D. Decision Council: Pending II. COMMUNITY METRICS Table 1: Land Use Description Details Map Ref. Existing Land Use(s) Vacant/undeveloped land - Proposed Land Use(s) Single-family residential detached dwellings - Existing Zoning RUT in Ada County VII.A.2 Proposed Zoning R-8 (Medium Density Residential)(13.78-acres),R-15 (Medium High-Density Residential)(2.42-acres)and C-N (Neighborhood Business)(1.07-acres) Existing Future Land Use Map Medium Density Residential(MDR)&Mixed-Use VII.A.3 Designation Neighborhood(MU-N) Table 2: Process Facts Description Details Preapplication Meeting date 8/20/2024 PREAPP-2024-0128 Neighborhood Meeting 10/7/2024 Table 3: Community Metrics Agency/Element Description/Issue Reference Ada County Highway District • Comments Received Yes • Commission Action Required No • Access Access is proposed via E. Gentry Ln. and E.Wells Cir., local public streets;an emergency access only is proposed via E.Magic View Dr.through a common lot/driveway at the north end of the development.Public streets are proposed internally. • Traffic Level of Service Meets ACHD's planning thresholds Traffic Impact Study(Y/N) No(not required by ACHD) ITD Comments Received Yes—ITD requests a Traffic Impact Analysis(TIA)be provided as the development size and proximity to SH- _ 55 will impact the State Highway system. Meridian Fire No comments received Meridian Police No comments received Meridian Public Works Wastewater Sewer is available from Wells St.;located in the Five Mile sewer shed(see conditions) Meridian Public Works Water Water is available at site;each phase will need to be modeled to verify minimum fire flow pressure is maintained(see conditions). See City/Agency Comments and Conditions Section for all department/agency and the public record for comments received on this application. City of Meridian I Department Report III. STAFF ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code(UDC) A. General Overview Comprehensive Plan: Thirteen(13) acres of the subject property is designated on the Future Land Use Map(FLUM) in the Comprehensive Plan as Medium Density Residential(MDR) and the remaining 4.4-acres is designated Mixed Use—Neighborhood(MU-N). The MDR designation allows for dwelling units at gross densities of three(3)to eight(8)dwelling units per acre. The purpose of the MU-N designation is to allocate areas where neighborhood-serving uses and dwellings are seamlessly integrated into the urban fabric. The intent is to avoid predominantly single- use developments by incorporating a variety of uses.Land uses in these areas should be primarily residential, comprising between 30%and 60%of the development area with gross densities ranging from six(6)to 12 units per acre(of the residential area),with supporting non-residential services. Multiple residential product types are desired within a single-mixed use area(see pp. 3-20& 3-21 in the Comprehensive Plan for more info).Non-residential uses in these areas tend to be smaller scale and provide goods or services that people typically do not travel far for and need regularly. Employment opportunities for those living in the neighborhood are encouraged. Connectivity and access between the non-residential and residential land uses is critical in these areas. Tree-lined streets are also encouraged to be designed according to the conceptual MU-N plan depicted in Figure 3D in the Comprehensive Plan(see pp. 3-20 through 3-21 for more information on mixed use land uses and specifically MU-N uses in the Comprehensive Plan). A total of 79 single-family residential detached homes on the property—59 in MDR and 20 in MU-N— at an overall gross density of 4.85 dwelling units/acre in the residential areas of both designations. A gross density of 4.50 dwelling units/acre is proposed on the 13-acre MDR designated portion of the site and a gross density of 6.06 dwelling units/acre is proposed on the 3-acre residential portion of the MU- N designated area of the site,which is consistent with the density desired in the Comprehensive Plan for both designations. Residential uses are proposed over 75%of the MU-N designated portion of the site with narrow 30-foot wide building lots with an average lot size of 2,791 square feet. A commercial pad is proposed on the remaining 25%of the MU-N designated area. Only one housing type(i.e. single-family detached)is proposed in the MU-N area,which Staff supports due to the small size of the site. A street pattern grid is proposed with blocks below 600-feet in length as desired. Staff recommends tree-lined streets are provided along local streets within the MU-N designated area in accord with the Comprehensive Plan.Although the percentage of proposed residential uses is 15%higher than desired in the MU-N area, Staff feels it's appropriate for the site as Staff envisions the area to the east of Wells St. and along Magic View Dr. developing with a higher percentage of commercial uses,which should average out. Office uses exist to the south across E.Wells Cir. and an assisted living facility exists northeast of the site in the MU-N designated area.As only a small portion of the MU-N designated area has developed, Staff anticipates more of a variety of uses being provided in this area in the future when the remainder of the larger MU-N area develops or redevelops. Annexation&Zoning: Annexation of 17.27-acres of land is requested with R-8 (13.78-acres),R-15 (2.42-acres) and C-N (1.07-acres)zoning districts per the legal descriptions and exhibit maps included below in Section VII.C. The area proposed to be zoned R-8 is mostly located in the MDR designation with a small portion where the creek is located in the MU-N designation;the area proposed to be zoned R-15 and C-N is located entirely within the MU-N designation. City of Meridian I Department Report Preliminary Plat: A Preliminary Plat is proposed to re-subdivide Lots 7,21 and 22,Magic View Subdivision Amended into 79 residential lots, 1 commercial lot and 11 common/other lots on 15.97-acres of land in the R-8, R-15 and C-N zoning districts. The plat is proposed to develop in two(2)phases as shown on the preliminary plat in Section VII.D. The minimum lot size proposed in the R-8 district is 4,646 square feet(s.f.)with an average lot size of 5,629 s.f.;the minimum lot size in the R-15 district is 2,730 s.f. with an average lot size of 2,791 s.f. The C-N zoned lot is 29,634 s.f. The proposed plat layout provides a good transition in lot sizes/widths to Snorting Bull Subdivision No. 2 (aka Woodbridge)to the west with some lots only being slightly off-set; Staff recommends the Applicant consider revising the plat so that lot lines entirely align with adjacent lot lines as requested by abutting property owners. The proposed development is consistent with Comprehensive Plan Goal#3.07.01A which states, "Require all new development to create a site design compatible with surrounding uses through buffering, screening, transitional densities, and other best site design practices." Table 4: Proiect Overview Description Details History This property was included in Magic View Subdivision Amended plat as Lots 7,21 and 22.An annexation request was previously approved for this property in 2019, but the development agreement wasn't signed and consequently the property wasn't annexed(H-2019-0127 Andorra Senior Living).Another annexation request, which included a preliminary plat and a conditional use permit for an assisted living facility, was denied by Council in 2021 as it was deemed to not be in the best interest of the City [Wells Street Assisted Living/Andorra (H-2021-0024)J. Phasing Plan 2 phases Physical Features The Five Mile Creek crosses the southern portion of this property. Acreage 15.97-acres Lots 79 single-family residential building lots, 1 commercial lot and 11 common/other lots B. Site Development and Use Analysis 1. Existing Structures/Site Improvements (UDC 11-1): There are no existing structures on this site,all previous structures have been removed. There are existing trees on the site that may require mitigation in accord with the standards listed in UDC 1I- 3B-1 OC.S; the landscape plan should be revised to include mitigation information,as applicable. 2. Proposed Use Analysis (UDC 11-2): Single-family residential detached dwellings are listed as principal permitted uses in the R-8 and R- 15 zoning districts,per UDC Table 11-2A-2. An end-user has not yet been identified for the C-N zoned lot; allowed uses are listed in UDC Table 11-2B-3 for the C-N zoning district. 3. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): See UDC Tables 11-2A-6 and 11-2A-7 for dimensional standards of the R-8 and R-15 zoning districts, and UDC Table 11-213-3 for dimensional standards of the C-N zoning district. City of Meridian I Department Report C. Design Standards Analysis 1. Structure and Site Design Standards (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-19): Compliance with the structure and site design standards in UDC 11-3A-19 is required for the non- residential portion of the development. The pathway proposed through the common area in the residential area on the southern portion of the site should extend into the non-residential portion of the site and provide a pedestrian connection to the building entrance to promote pedestrian mobility within the mixed use development. The proposed commercial structure is required to comply with the non-residential design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual(ASM); the proposed single-family detached structures are exempt from design standards. In accord with the Comprehensive Plan,non-residential buildings should transition to and compliment adjacent residential buildings in mass and form; and transitions between different land uses should include highly connected open space. 2. Qualified Open Space &Amenities (Comp Plan, UDC 11-4-3-27): The proposed development is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan policies and goals: • Plan for safe, attractive, and well-maintained neighborhoods that have ample open space, and generous amenities that provide varied lifestyle choices(policy#2.02.00); and • Open space should be prioritized along natural or naturalized amenities (i.e. creeks and canals), integrated with pathways and pedestrian corridors, and located away from site features that may obscure visibility and attract dangerous or illegal behavior. (pg. 3-18) Compliance with the open space and site amenity standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3 and 11-3G-4 is required. A minimum of 15% (or 2.28-acres)qualified open space is required to be provided within the development based on 15.18-acres of land in the residential area. Open space is required to comply with the quality standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3A.2 and the qualified open space standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3B. The Applicant proposes a total of 2.47-acres(or 16%)qualified open space consisting of active and passive areas that include open grassy areas exceeding 5,000 square feet in area with a natural waterway(i.e.the Fivemile Creek) and linear open space as shown on the open space exhibit in Section VII.I. Amenities totaling a minimum of three(3)points are required to be provided based on 15.18-acres of residential development area. Site amenities totaling 12 points(pts.) are proposed from the Quality of Life and Recreation Activity categories as shown on the exhibit in Section VI1.1 as follows: • Quality of Life: picnic area on a site 5,000 s.f. or greater in size(2 points) Per UDC 11-3G-4C.5, a picnic area is required to include tables,benches, landscaping,and a structure for shade. • Recreation Activity Area: tot lot(1 point),two(2)paved pickleball sports courts(totaling 8 points),and approximately 700-feet of 10-foot wide multi-use pathway(under'/4 mile=0 points). Per UDC 11-3G-4D.3,the tot lot is required to have commercial grade play equipment scaled and designed for the use and safety of younger children; benches for seating shall be provided nearby. City of Meridian I Department Report Per UDC 11-3G-4D.5, sports courts are required to have markings and include benches for seating. i. The proposed common open space and site amenities meet and exceed UDC standards for such. ii. Landscaping is required to be provided in common open space areas in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-5B and maintained in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-5C. The first phase of development consists of the land north of the Fivemile Creek and will include the picnic,playground and multi-use pathway amenities;the second phase consists of the land south of the creek and will include the two(2)pickleball court amenities. 3. Landscaping (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3B): Attractive landscaping and pedestrian friendly design is proposed within the development in accord with Comprehensive Plan Policy#5.01.02G. Landscaping is required to be provided within the development in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B. i. Landscape buffers along streets A 10-foot wide street buffer is required along local streets(i.e. S.Wells St.,Wells Cir., and S. Longitude Dr.) on the C-N zoned lot(i.e. Lot 14,Block 5)per UDC Table 11-2B-3; landscaping is required to be installed within the buffer in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C with development of the subdivision. The landscape plan submitted with the final plat application should include landscaping and calculations that demonstrate compliance with these standards. An 8-foot-wide perimeter street buffer is proposed along E. Magic View Dr. and S. Wells St., local streets. Although street buffers aren't required along local streets in residential districts,a minimum setback of 10-feet is required for fences along streets.Therefore,the buffer should be widened as needed to provide a minimum 10-foot wide setback for the fence as measured from the property line in accord with UDC 11-3A-7C.3. All street buffers are required to be in a common lot or on a permanent dedicated buffer easement,maintained by the property owner,homeowner's association or business owner's association per UDC 11-3134C.2a and should be depicted on the plat. ii. Storm integration Stormwater integration is required in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-11 C. A Geotechnical Recommendation Report was submitted with this application and is included in the project file. iii. Pathway landscaping Landscaping is required along all pathways in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B- 12C.A 5' wide landscape strip is depicted on the landscape plan along both sides of the proposed multi-use pathway; a mix of trees, shrubs,lawn,and/or other vegetative ground cover should be provided within the landscape strips next to the pathway. A minimum of one(1)tree is required per 100 linear feet of pathway. Staff recommends the required trees are spread out more evenly for shade purposes at approximately one(1)every 100'. A calculations table should be included on the landscape plan submitted with the final plat application that demonstrates compliance with the aforementioned standards. City of Meridian I Department Report iv. Common open space Common open space areas are required to be landscaped in accord with the standards in UDC 11-3G-5B and maintained in accord with the standards in UDC 11-3G-5C. Calculations should be included on the landscape plan submitted with the final plat application that demonstrate compliance with these standards. 4. Parking (UDC 11-3C): Off-street parking is required to be provided for each dwelling unit based on the number of bedrooms per unit in accord with the standards for single-family detached dwellings in UDC Table 11-3C-6. On-street parking is available along both sides of internal public streets. Off-street vehicle parking is required to be provided for non-residential uses in accord with the standards in UDC 11-3C-6B.1. Bicycle parking is required per the standards in UDC 11-3C-6G. 5. Building Elevations (Comp Plan,Architectural Standards Manual): Several conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed single-story and 2-story single-family detached residential homes for each of the lot sizes proposed, included in Section VII.H below.A variety of materials are proposed including vertical and horizontal lap siding,board and batten siding, shake siding, smooth panel siding, and fenestration with masonry accents in a variety of colors and design elements/features with varying roof profiles and wall modulation that demonstrate the quality of development proposed. Single-family detached residential structures are exempt from the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual(ASM). Conceptual elevations were not submitted for the commercial structure on Lot 14,Block 5. The commercial structure is required to comply with the non-residential design standards in the ASM. Staff is of the opinion the proposed conceptual building elevations are in accord with Comprehensive Plan Policy#5.01.02L: "Support beautiful and high-quality development that reinforces neighborhood character and sustainability. 6. Fencing (UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): All fencing proposed on the site should comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-6 and 11- 3A-7. A variety of fencing types are proposed as shown on the landscape plan in Section VII.F below.All existing perimeter fencing will either be retained and protected or replaced;the developer will coordinate with all affected neighbors. Per UDC 11-3A-6C.1,fencing along all natural waterways shall not prevent access to the waterway.In limited circumstances and in the interest of public safety,larger open water systems may require fencing as determined by the City Council,Director and/or Public Works Director.A cross-section and photo of the creek is included below in Section VII.I, which depicts the approximate existing and finished grade on both sides of the creek, the slope and a 4' tall retaining wall on the south side of the creek.Approximately a 3:1 slope is shown on the north side of the creek.Because the slope on the north side meets the slope requirements in UDC 11-3B-11C.6 for accessibility and maintenance of stormwater facilities of 3:1 or less, Staff recommends this side remain open and not be fenced in accord with UDC 11-3A-6C.1 but recommends a 6'tall open vision wrought iron fence is installed along the south side of the creek for public safety since the slope in that area exceeds acceptable standards for accessibility unless the slope can be modified to be 3:1 or less—Council may determine otherwise. Fencing depicted along S.Hickory St.on Lots 6 and 7,Block 3 and Lots 5 and 6,Block 2 and along E.Magic View Dr. and S.Wells St.is required to be setback a minimum of 10' from the street side property line per UDC 11-3A-7C.3. The maximum fence height in the required front yard including the front and side yard property lines shall be 3-feet for a closed vision City of Meridian I Department Report fence and 4-feet for an open vision fence per UDC 11-3A-7C.2.The fencing plan and landscape plan should be revised accordingly to comply with UDC standards. Side yard fences that follow the side yard property line are only allowed where the side setback is five or greater per UDC 11-3A-7C.5.This restriction applies to the R-15 zoned lots if a 3' setback is proposed. 7. Parkways (UDC 11-3A-17): No parkways are proposed; however, Staff is recommending detached sidewalks with parkways for tree-lined streets are provided in the MU-N designated portion of the site in accord with the standards for such in UDC 11-3A-17. D. Transportation Analysis A Traffic Impact Study(TIS)was not submitted for this development as ACHD did not require one. Due to the development size and proximity to SH-55,impacts to the State Highway System are anticipated.The SH-55 corridor is already congested and this project will increase the number of vehicle trips.Therefore,the Idaho Transportation Department(ITD) has requested a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA)be submitted for this development and may make further comments upon review of the TIA.The developer is working on this request. Residents in Woodbridge Subdivision to the west have expressed concern pertaining to the high volume of traffic currently passing through their neighborhood between S.Locust Grove Rd. and E.Magic View Dr.via E.Woodbridge Dr.for access to S.Eagle Rd. and the negative impact the proposed development will have,which will exacerbate an already challenging situation. To alleviate this,the Applicant is not proposing public access via E. Magic View Dr. to discourage cut- through traffic. Capital Improvements Plan(CIP)/Integrated Five Year Work Plan(IFYWP): The bridge(#1224) over the Five Mile Creek on S. Wells Street is scheduled in the IFYWP to be replaced in 2029. The bridge is currently designed to match existing facilities,which do not include bicycle lanes or pedestrian walkways;however,the width of the bridge will accommodate these improvements in the future when adjacent properties redevelop and provide these facilities.ACHD will require a road trust from the developer for the cost of these improvements and include them in their project if this development goes forward. Condition of Area Roadways(Traffic Count is based on Vehicles per Hour(VPH): Roadway Frontage Functional PM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Classification Traffic Count Level of Service "Magic View Drive 712-feet Local so N-A Commercial "Wells Street 1,575-feet Local N/A N.A Commercial **Wells Circle 344-feet Local N/A NA Commercial **ACHD does not set level of service thresholds for local streets_ Access (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-3, UDC 11-3H-4): 1. Access is proposed for the site via existing and proposed local public streets. Access to the northern portion of the development is proposed via S.Wells St. from E. Gentry Ave., existing unopened right-of-way. An emergency only access is proposed via E. Magic View Dr. at the northern boundary of the site via a common driveway on Lot 22,Block 1. Access to the southern portion of the development is proposed via S.Wells St. and E. Wells Cir. Two (2) stub streets are proposed to the west to be extended with future development for access and interconnectivity with adjacent developments;no stub streets exist to this property. City of Meridian I Department Report Local street connectivity is proposed within the development in accord with Comprehensive Plan Policy#6.01.02B, "Reduce the number of existing access points onto arterial streets by using methods such as cross-access agreements, access management, and frontage/backage roads, and promoting local and collector street connectivity." 2. Multiuse Pathways (UDC 11-3A-5): Multi-use pathways are required to be provided with development in accord with the Pathways Master Plan.A 10' wide segment of the City's multi-use pathway system is proposed from S.Wells St. to the west along the north side of the Fivemile Creek and to the north and west property line for connection to the existing pathway in Woodbridge Subdivision, in accord with the Plan. A pathway stub is also provided to the property to the west(Parcel#R5443010202) for future extension. 3. Pathways (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-8): All pathways should be constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-8 and in accord with the site specific geotechnical report for light duty paving per UDC 11-313-12C.3. In the case where no geotechnical report is available pathways shall be built using two and one-half(2.5) inches of asphaltic concrete over four(4) inches of crushed aggregate base over ten(10)inches of structural subbase over compacted subgrade. Materials and methods shall conform to ISPWC standard specifications. Pathways are depicted on the landscape plan through the internal common areas for pedestrian access to amenities and the commercial pad on the south end of the site.A multi-use pathway is stubbed to the west boundary of this property from Woodbridge Subdivision. 4. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17): All sidewalks should be constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17. Five-foot wide attached sidewalks are proposed along all local streets within and adjacent to the development. As noted above, Staff recommends detached sidewalks with landscaped parkways are provided in the MU-N designated portion of the site in accord with the Comprehensive Plan. in the inter-im of the bridge being r-eplaeed aer-ess the Fivemile Creek, Staff r-eeemimeads a fninimum 5' wide temper-ary asphalt pathway is provided along Wells St. if there is adequate are alongside the existing read.ACHD confirmed there isn't adequate area for the pathway. 5. Subdivision Regulations (UDC 11-6): Compliance with the subdivision design and improvements standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3 is required. Common driveways: Three(3)common driveways are proposed,which are required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3D. Common driveways should be paved with a surface with the capability of supporting fire vehicles and equipment. A common driveway exhibit is included in Section VII.E below that depicts the setbacks,building envelope and orientation of the lots and structures. Block face: All of the proposed block faces comply with the required standards. The subject property should be subdivided prior to submittal of any building permit applications for the phase of development in which they are located. E. Services Analysis See Service Accessibility Report in Section VII.B below. 1. Waterways (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-6): All waterways, except natural waterways, are required to be piped unless used as a water amenity or linear open space, in which case they may be left open as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6. City of Meridian I Department Report The Fivemile Creek, a natural waterway,bisects this site within a 100' wide easement and should remain open and be protected during development. Building lots do not and should not encroach within the easement. A cross-section of the creek is included in Section VII.1 below that shows the approximate existing and finished grade on both sides of the creek, slope and a 4' tall retaining wall on the south side of the creek. A portion of this site is located within the floodway in zones X and AE.A floodplain permit is required before any grading in the floodplain begins.Floodplain permits are required for each building in the floodplain along with elevation certificates certifying lowest floor elevation is 2 feet above base flood elevation. 2. Pressurized Irrigation(UDC 11-3A-15): Underground pressurized irrigation water is required to be provided in each development as set forth in UDC 11-3A-15. 3. Storm Drainage (UDC 11-3A-18): An adequate storm drainage system is required in accord with the adopted standards, specifications and ordinances; design and construction shall follow Best Management Practice as adopted by the City per UDC 11-3A-18. 4. Utilities (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-21): All utilities for the proposed development are required to be installed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-21. Water service is available at the site and sewer service is available from S. Wells St. Each phase of the development will need to be modeled to verify minimum fire flow pressure is maintained. 5. Topography This property slopes down to the center from the north and the south ends of the site as shown on Sheet 3 of the plat. 6. Hazards Staff is unaware of any hazards that exist on this site other than the Fivemile Creek,which may present a danger to young children. IV. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. Meridian Planning Division 1. A new Development Agreement(DA) shall be required as a provision of the Annexation and Zoning application. Prior to approval of the annexation ordinance, a new DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian,the property owner at the time of annexation ordinance adoption, and the developer. A final plat application shall not be submitted until the annexation is finalized.The DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning Division within six(6)months of the date of City Council approval of the Findings of Fact,Conclusions of Law and Decision& Order for the annexation request. The new DA shall incorporate the following provisions: i. Future development of the subject property shall be generally consistent with the preliminary plat,phasing plan, landscape plan, open space and site amenity exhibit and conceptual building City of Meridian I Department Report elevations included below in Section VII,the conditions contained herein and the standards in the Unified Development Code(UDC). ii. The subject property shall be subdivided prior to submittal of any building permit applications for the phase of development in which they are located. iii. The pathway through the common area in the residential portion of the Mixed Use— Neighborhood(MU-N) designated portion of the site shall extend into the non-residential portion of the site and provide a pedestrian connection to the main building entrance to promote pedestrian mobility within the mixed-use development in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. iv. Tree-lined streets with detached sidewalks shall be provided in the MU-N designated portion of the development in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan for MU-N designated areas. v. Administrative design review shall be required for the commercial structure in accord with the non-residential design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual. The non-residential building shall transition to and compliment adjacent residential buildings in mass and form in accord with the Comprehensive Plan. Single-family detached structures are exempt from design standards. 2. The final plat shall include the following revisions: i. Graphically depict the 14-foot-wide public pedestrian easement for the multi-use pathway with the recorded instrument number of the easement. ii. Depict a 10-foot-wide street buffer along S.Wells St.,Wells Cir.,and S. Longitude Dr. on the C-N zoned lot(i.e. Lot 14,Block 5)per UDC Table 11-2B-3, in a common lot or on a permanent dedicated buffer easement,maintained by the property owner,homeowner's association or business owner's association per UDC 11-3B-7C.2a. iii. Depict detached sidewalks with parkways in the MU-N designated portion of the site in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17 and the Comprehensive Plan. iv. Perpetual ingress/egress shall be required for the common driveways either by a recorded easement or as a note on a recorded final plat as set forth in UDC 11-6C-3D. The easement or plat note shall include a requirement for maintenance of a paved surface capable of supporting fire vehicles and equipment. v. Widen the street buffer along E. Magic View Dr. and S. Wells St.to allow for a 10-foot wide minimum setback from the property line for perimeter fencing along streets in accord with UDC 11-3A-7C.3. vi. Remove the sidewalk along the west side of S. Longitude Dr. and provide right-of-way to the west property line. 3. The landscape plan shall include the following revisions: i. Depict tables,benches, landscaping, and a structure for shade for the picnic area amenity, in accord with UDC 11-3G-4C.5; include a detail for these items. ii. Depict commercial grade play equipment scaled and designed for the use and safety of younger children for the tot lot;benches for seating shall be provided nearby in accord with UDC I I- 3G-4D.3; include a detail for these items. City of Meridian I Department Report iii. Per UDC 11-3G-41).5, sports courts are required to have markings and include benches for seating; include a detail for these items. iv. The 5-foot-wide landscape strips along pathways shall include a mix of trees, shrubs, lawn, and/or other vegetative ground cover as set forth in UDC 11-313-12C;trees should be spaced out more evenly for shade purposes at approximately one(1) every 100 linear feet, additional trees beyond the minimum number may be provided. v. Depict landscaping within minimum 10-foot wide street buffers adjacent to local streets on Lot 14,Block 5 in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. vi. Fencing along S. Hickory St. on Lots 5 and 6,Block 2 and Lots 6 and 7, Block 3 shall be depicted a minimum of 10-feet from the street side property line per UDC 11-3A-7C.3. vii. The maximum fence height in the required front yard including the front and side yard property lines shall be 3-feet for a closed vision fence and 4-feet for an open vision fence per UDC 11- 3A-7C.2;revise accordingly. viii.Include a calculations table that demonstrates compliance with the standards for landscaping within street buffers (UDC 11-3B-7C), along pathways(UDC 11-3B-12C)and within common open space areas(UDC 11-3G-5B). ix. Depict detached sidewalks with parkways for tree lined streets in the MU-N designated portion of the site in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17 and the guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan. x. Widen the street buffer along E. Magic View Dr. and S. Wells St.to allow for a 10-foot wide minimum setback for perimeter fencing from the property line in accord with UDC 11-3A- 7C.3. xi. Remove the fencing depicted along the north side of the Fivemile Creek and depict 6-foot tall wrought iron fencing along the south side of the Fivemile Creek for public safety,unless otherwise modified by City Council. xii. Depict a minimum 5-foot wide temporary asphalt pathway along Wells St. if there is adequate area alongside the existing road.ACHD confirmed there is not adequate area for a pathway. xiii.Include mitigation information for existing trees on the site that are being removed with development in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-1OC.5, as applicable. xiv.Remove the sidewalk along the west side of S. Longitude Dr. and provide right-of-way to the west propei1y line. 4. The common driveways shall be constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3D and building setbacks shall be as shown on the common driveway exhibit in Section VILE. 5. All pathways shall be constructed in accord with the site-specific geotechnical report for light duty paving per UDC 11-313-12C.3. In the case where no geotechnical report is available pathways shall be built using two and one-half(2.5)inches of asphaltic concrete over four(4)inches of crushed aggregate base over ten(10) inches of structural subbase over compacted subgrade. Materials and methods shall conform to ISPWC standard specifications. 6. Submit a 14-foot-wide public pedestrian easement for the multi-use pathway on this site prior to submittal of the final plat for City Engineer signature. 7. Off-street parking shall be provided for all single-family residential dwellings in accord with the standards for such listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6. City of Meridian I Department Report 8. The Fivemile Creek shall remain open as a natural amenity and shall not be piped or otherwise covered in accord with UDC 11-3A-6 and shall be protected during development. 9. All waterways, except natural waterways (i.e.the Fivemile Creek), intersecting, crossing or lying within the area being development are required to be piped unless used as a water amenity or linear open space,in which case they may be left open as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6. If left open, fencing may be required in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-6C. 10. Wayfinding address signage shall be provided at the public street for homes accessed via common driveways(i.e. Lots 6-8 and 19-20 and 31-32,Block 1). 11. A floodplain permit is required before any grading in the floodplain begins. Floodplain permits are required for each building in the floodplain along with elevation certificates certifying lowest floor elevation is 2 feet above base flood elevation. 12. Side yard fences that follow the side yard property line are only allowed where the side setback is five or greater per UDC 11-3A-7C.5. This restriction applies to the R-15 zoned lots if a 3-foot side setback is proposed. 13. Approval of the preliminary plat shall become null and void if the applicant fails to obtain the city engineer's signature on the first phase final plat within two (2)years of City Council's approval of the preliminary plat; or a time extension may be requested as set forth in UDC 11-6B-7. Other Agency comments may be accessed in the project file in the public record. Copy and paste the following link into your browser https:llweblink.meridiancioy.orglWebLink/browse.aspx?id=367307&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity V. FINDINGS A. Annexation (UDC 11-5B-3E) Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full investigation and shall,at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; The Commission finds the proposed map amendment and development plan generally complies with provisions of the Comprehensive Plan pertaining to transition in density, residential densities and compatibility with adjacent uses. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; The Commission finds the proposed amendment to the R-8 and R-15 zoning districts is consistent with the purpose statement of the residential districts in that it contributes to the range of housing opportunities in this area consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; The Commission finds the proposed map amendment will not be materially detrimental to the public health and safety. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to, school districts; and The Commission finds the proposed map amendment will not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services, including the school district based on 2024-2025 student enrollment numbers. City of Meridian I Department Report 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. The Commission finds the proposed annexation with the recommended conditions of approval is in the best interest of the City. B. Preliminary Plat(UDC 11-613-6) In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat,or short plat,the decision- making body shall make the following findings: l. The plat is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and is consistent with this unified development code; The Commission finds the proposed plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with the UDC with the conditions contained herein. 2. Public services are available or can be made available ad are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; The Commission finds public services are available to the site and will be adequate to accommodate the proposed development. 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the city's capital improvement program; ACHD is planning to construct a new bridge across the Fivemile Creek in the CIP; no other improvements are planned. Other than that, the Commission finds there are no scheduled public improvements that affect development of this site. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; The Commission finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development. 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and The Commission finds the proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. The Commission finds the Fivemile Creek, which crosses this site, should be preserved and protected during development of this site. The Commission is unaware of any other such features that exist on this site but if any others exist, they shall be preserved. VI. ACTION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed AZ and PP requests with the requirement of a development agreement and the conditions of approval included above in Section IV. B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard these items on April 3,2025. At the public hearing,the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject AZ and PP requests. I. Summary of Commission public hearing_ a. In favor: Ben Semple,Rodney Evans+Partners,LLC b. In opposition:None C. Commenting: Robin McCulley d. Written testimony: Ben Semple,Rodney Evans+Partners,LLC; Robin McCulley Cassy Peck; Celeste Fox; Kathleen Lewis; Tanya Bader; Erin Russell; Ram Spencer e. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen City of Meridian I Department Report f. Other Staff commenting on application:None 2. Key issue(s) testimony a. The existing fence along Woodbridge's east boundary(the site's west boundary)is crooked and doesn't lie on the property line in many places due to the location of existing trees&poor construction;request for details on what the plan is for fencing along the west boundary of the site—desire for vinyl fencing not to be an approved material in this area; b. The high volume of traffic goingthrough hrough Woodbridge subdivision between Locust Grove&Eagle Roads,which will worsen with more homes beingdped in this area; long wait times at the intersection of Eagle/Allen at the traffic signal and safety concerns—request for this area to be rezoned for non-residential uses; c. Privacy issues with 2-story homes being built next to single-story homes, and question if 2-story homes will have windows facing adjacent rear yards; d. Request for the developer to provide details in writing of their planned building setbacks on lots next to Woodbridge to be included in the DA; e. Request for the developer to address what future builders can do to prevent drainage issues on abutting lots in Woodbridge due to the higher elevation of the subject property f. Ms. McCulley expressed concern about a tree located along her rear property line and how it would be impacted by a new fence. 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission: a. General consensus the proposed development will fit in well with the existing residential development to the west(i.e. Woodbridge); b. Recognition of the traffic issues in this area; c. Agreement with Staff s recommendation pertaining to fencing along the Fivemile Creek. 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. At Staff s request,the Commission included new conditions requiring mitigation information to be included on the landscape plan for existing trees on the site that are being removed with development in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B- 1 OC.5, as applicable; and removal of the sidewalk along the west side of Longitude Dr. with provision of ROW to the west property line. 5. Outstandingissue(s)ssue(s) for City Council: a. Council should determine if the fencing recommended by Staff along the Fivemile Creek is appropriate as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6C. C. The Meridian City Council heard these items on May 6,2025.At the public hearing,the Council moved to continue the subiect AZ and PP requests to a later hearing in order to allow additional time to obtain more information on the RFO timeline to consider options to address the transportation issues in this area. 1. Summary of the City Council public hearing a. In favor: Ben Semple,Rodney Evans+Partners,LLC;Ian Connair,Kimley-Horn b. In opposition:None C. Commenting: Robin McCulley, Treg Bernt, Tanya Bader,Janet McDougal d. Written testimony: Celeste Fox,Robin McCulley. Cassandra Peck,Raymond Spencer e. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen f. Other Staff commenting on application:None 2. Key issue(s)of public testimony: a. Requests the developer provide details of their planned building setbacks next to neighbors on Woodhaven St.that will be part of the DA;requests clarification about what the builders can do to prevent drainage issues on lots that abut homes in Woodbridge that are at a lower elevation; and concern pertaining to the erimeter fencing along the east boundary of Woodbridge. City of Meridian I Department Report b. Concern pertaining to the existing fence along the east boundary of Woodbridge—the developer hasn't vet discussed the matter with neighbors. c. Concern pertaining to the increase in traffic in an already congested area and lack of a fencing solution along the shared property line with Woodbridge: and concern pertaining to lack of privacy with 2-story homes abutting her single-story home. d. Concern pertaining to the proposed scale&building setback of homes along the west boundary of the site abutting homes in Woodbridge and lack of privacy—reauest for 20' setback for single-story homes& 30' for 2-story homes. Concern pertainjn t quality of homes built in this development if the current builder drops out—request for the opportunity for the City&the public to review any future changes to the elevations in the event the home builder and/or ownership changes to avoid a potential"bait& switch". e. Request for Council to consider if the proposed development is a good fit for this area. f. The need for more connectivity in this area. 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by City Council: a. Opinion Council doesn't have the right information before them to make a decision on this application at this time—the traffic issue in this area needs to be resolved before approving a development plan for this property. b. Discussion about continuing the project to a later hearing date in order to allow additional time to gather information in hopes of finding a path forward on the transportation issues in this area. One solution might be allowing the northern portion of the development abutting Woodbridge Subdivision to move forward with development. while delaying development of the southern portion until a solution to the traffic issue is identified in case revisions to that portion of the development plan are needed. 4. City Council change(s)to Commission recommendation: a. None City of Meridian I Department Report l� FRANKLiILU 111111ss���\\�11 \ 84® ■ " W r , - a -• • •• FRANKLIN �++ __ • ■■■■■ ■■■���► ■■■■■■■■n■■■■�,��� /�■■■■■■■��■��ii,����� W m „■■■i M■■■110011■4 ram:. :r■■nn..� p MEN -- 84 r OYERL--AND W �� -80 .. FRANKLIN ,t oil,■■toot. W �' ��■■■■ _ �r lllllll� . y� 1 rpo■ ■III IL I, III - r • � c 111 �■■ _ _�� �■■■l 84 —s. _ a 01/ERL-AND., ICJ■��n1 OEM ri ME ONE 11112 -• • •• FRANKL=IN -- slow 0 .:`s� �■■■■■■■■■■■■■ �� Ill `i ,�■ � � �C � 111�: +pr ��=mow*Rl :y: -- ■�:� :- �ell : �.♦ ,� ;li�'r= � ■ ■■■1 ■�■� NU ■, „�. ■■■■ „ OYERL--AND soon 0 ■ ■rLLa,' B. Service Accessibility Report PARCEL R5443010220 SERVICE ACCESSIBILITY overall Score: 26 121st Percentile Location Within 112 mile of City Limits YELLDW Extension Sewer Trunkshed mains < 500 ft.from parcel Floodplain Either not within the 100 yrfloodplain or > 2 acres Emergency Services Fire Response time 5-9 min. YE-LOW Emergency Services Police Meets response time goals most of the time Gf�N i� Pathways Within 1/4 mile of current pathways GREEN Transit Not within 114 of current or future transit route RED Ultimate configurafion(#of lanes in master streets Arterial Road Buildout Status GREEN plan) matches existing (#of lanes) School Walking Proximity Within 112 mile walking GREEN Either High School or College within 2 miles Oita School Drivability Middle or Elementary School within 1 mile driving GREEN (existing or future) Park Walkability No park within walking distance by park type RED Rgx;rtggwla1edun 02-ZI-2025 by MERIDUffSJs City of Meridian I Department Report C. Annexation Legal Description&Exhibit Map Ki[1ley> Horn October 10, 2024 Latitude Forty Three Annexations Description Lots 7,21 and 22 of the Amended Magic Yew Subdivision, filed in Book 52 of Plats at Pages 4445-4446,Ada County Records, being located in the East Half of Section 17,Township 3 North.Range 1 East, Boise Meridian,City of Meridian, Ada County.Idaho. heing more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Center Quarter of Section 1 T.Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian,from which the North Quarter Comer of said Section 17 bears North 00023'48"East. 2,657.09 feet;said Commencing Point being the S out hviest Corner of said Lot 22; Thence along the Lot Lines of said Lots T.21 and 22 the following nine(9) courses and distances; 1. North 00°23'48" East,a distance of 901.42 feet; 2. South 80°09'03"East,a distance of 409.00 feet; 3. North 09°50'57" East,a distance of 25.00 feet; 4. South 80°09'03"East,a distance of 312.19 feet; 5. South 16°49'09"West,a distance of 802.30 feet; 6. South 09°36'26"East,a distance of 324.91 feet; 7. North 89"15'33"West, a distance of 373,45 feet; 8. North 00101121" West, a distance of 773.67 feet; 9. North 89157150" West, a distance of 252.88 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING of this description. Containing 752,265 square feet or 17.27 acres of land, LAIC D D 0 � OEM: I/ City of Meridian Department Report NORTH QUARTER SEGTION 17, CP&F 1[4161984 LINE TABLE + NO. SEARING LENGTH i L1 N00'23+49'E 901-42' o-'�i• � ��� -� � ��r L2 380'09'03"E 409.00' 03 w 1 L3 N09'5057E 25-00r � wo L4 380'13nWE 312.19 b L5 S11Y49'NN1r 802.31F r a L11 309'38'2d"E B24.91' r + r L7 N89'15'33'44 373.45' I t L8 N00'01'21"W 773.07 { 1 � � F o L9 N89'57'50"1M1 252.8d' Ff+� a /�F u N I y L9 CENTER QUARTER EAST QUARTER s� SECTION 17, ii SECTION 17, CPBF 102DO9257 1 i CPBF 1111054175 v ti 1 4 9 s — -L7 — — iL LEGEND LAAD BOUNEARY LINE — — SECTION LINE NORTH 0 — — — RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE o QUARTER CORNER GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET 0 150 300 600 • D 4 PROJECT: T—LE '93'30D Kimle H rn LATITUDE 43 SCALE 1'=� 11W S FDAM UM 210'�r EXHIBIT rrB DATE: 4CdiCa2024 Bom loom WTm ANNEXATION SHEET: wld�li�-I.wear SHEET 2 OF 2 City of Meridian I Department Report I irnlepMorn October 14,24 LaMode Fort}+Tfivae R-8 Zone Das�ra on Lots 7,21 and 22 of the Amended Magir.View Subdivision,filed in Book 52 of Plats at Rages 44454445,Ada County Records,being kxated in the East Halt of 5er-tion 17_Townsh ip 3 North,Range 1 East,Boise Meridian,City of Meridian,Ada County,I daho,being mare particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Center quarter of Section 17,Township 3 North,Range 1 East,Boise Meridian,from which the North Guarter Cornier of said Section 17 bears North DO 2348"East, 2.657.0E feel;said Commencing Point being the Southwest Corner of said Lot 22; Thence along the Lot Linea of said Lots 7,21 and 22 the following seven M courses and distances: 1_ North 00'23'48" East,in d+slance of H1.42 feel; 2 South 80'09'03"Eastr a distance of 409.00 feet; a North 09"W'57" Earl,a dislanca of 25.00 feet; 4. South 8V09'03"East,a distance of 3 12.19 feet; 8_ South 16149109"YYaat,a dlStance of 802.30 Fret- & South 0VW26"Eastr a distance of 363.80 feet; 7_ North 99'15'4V Vkwla a distanrieflt 295-67 feet; Therme North 00°01r21"West,a distance of 320.03 feet to the Westerly Lot line of said Lot 21; Thence along said Lot line North 89°57'50"West,a distance of 252.88 feat to the POINT OF BEGINNING of this description, Containing 604,279 square feet or 13.76 acres of land_ City of Meridian I Department Report I imle )) Horn October 10,2024 Lambdb Fort+Fhrc c R-15 Zama Description A portion of Lot 21 of the Amended Magic 10ew Subrd ivision,filed in Soak 52 of Plats at Pages 4445-4145ti Ada County Records,being kw-Med in the East Half of 5er-tian 17_Township 3 North,Range 1 East,Boise Meridian, City of Meridian,Ada County,Idaho,being more Particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Center quarter of Ser-tion 17_Townsh ip 3 North,Range 1 East Base Meridian,from which the North Quarter Corner of said Section 17 bears North 00'2348"East, 2,65T.09 feet;Thence South 320.113 feet. and East 253_151 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence Sow h W 1 V44" East,a distance of 296.67 feet to the Easterly Lot line i�f said Lot V; Thence along salts Lot IIne South 49°3626"East,a diatanec 4f 3XV feet; Thermos North.89-1544"West,a distance of 351.60 lsct to the Wcsterly Lot line of said Lot 21- Thoh" a to ng-82ild Lot l i no NMh-00'U V 2 V West,a distance of 3Z5.03 feet to the PAINT OF BEGINNING of this descriRtiom Containing 1054356 square fast or 2_A2 acres of tan d. U, 9 CF City of Meridian Department Report I imley> orn Goober 10, M4 Lambj*Eft zom 00sc"Ptoorr A pardon of Lot 21 of the Ame n ded M agic View Subd ivision,filed in Book 5,2 of PI ats at Pages a."W 11 Ada County Records,being I ocated in the East Half of SeGtidn 17_Townsh ip 3 North,Range 1 East_Boise Meridian. Ci ty of Meridian,Ada County,I daho,being m ore particularly described as fellows: Commencing at the Center quarter of 5er-tion 17_Township 3 North,Range 1 East,Baise Meridian,from which the North Guarter C orner of said Section 17 bears North 40 23'48"Eaet, 2,657.09 feet;Thence South 645,22 feet,and East 253.14 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence Soul A9'15:44"East,a distance of 351.68 feet to the Easterly Lot line of said Lot 21; Thence along the Lot Lines of said Lot 21 the fallowing three 13)courses and d istanres: 1_ Thence South 09:36'2ti"East a distance of 130.75 Beet; 2_ Thsnco Nnrt[k 89"15'33"West, a distance of 373A5 feet; 3_ Thence North 40°41-21"West. a distance of 129.61 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING of this descripdnn_ Containing 46,531 square feet or 1.07 acres of land_ City of Meridian I Department Report NORTH CKYkRTER SECTION 17, CPSF 1441619" LINE TABLE w BGSRiG LIENGT}4 ,gig , v c p Li NCO'2 AFE 901.42' I '�^`w8R r L2 SW%Q 0� 4N.PA' inku } r L3 NU9'505TE 2IS-W ID f Ld SW'G$%-F 312.19 L5 S16149'C9'Ui' d02.3D' {j L7 W9 lE44 W 2%.BT w Lb NOD' 7110 320.03' $ +� L9 f'W57151M 252M RAZONE �1 o L14 SIIP'W'25 E =37 L11 S99'15WE 351.6&' L12 MOM71'W 32d.ff eENTcR OUhRTER i— y` — EAST CAJARTER L14 h189'in3ww 37l3 w SECTION 17. 4 SECTION 17, CPBE 102DEW57 qp 4 13 CPAF 1IOD641715 L15 140)QI i12VW 12L I' 1 1 � 1 h 1 L7 � 1 r R-15 ZDNr= ti L11 k I VI ZONE _ r L14—— LEGEND BOUNDARY UNIE SEC I ION LINE N�r11 { — — — NIGH I-OF-V4A4Y LANE 0 (AJAR I E:R CORNER GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET Nr'.q ' l PROJECT: TRLC. .�s Ilar 1 la0000 LATITUDE 43 SCIRM 1'-3W� { 1140 7S S�EEf 1f !r "Am 1 5J�#14 ZONES 9p�.Q1}I�t4r02 1�1ELT ~ rp SHEAF 4 QF 4 City of Meridian I Department Report A Preliminary Plat&Phasing Plan OWWWGIUM _ Y H YI 11.10 {� wi aoiswoens�auuao��ruutn a� i s6•"�R 6�9�kF6 � �. w c �m 4 c w W S NO E 0 a w w M, J a 0 > va ❑ z w ° LU m LL�� r -g'� �iIsaaaas... ❑ Jam , 33 "_' ❑ W HHOA 9m 1y€ea•a 6•.wip NUN 9 its tS�s$SS City of Meridian I Department Report lligg �\ / � -- \ ;� —— W AlVT, C) � - \\� � § / | �.; _�— K t \ } � |� Ou �\� ) � !( KimleyoHorn DETAILS v MERIDLAN.IDAHO City of Meridian Department Report tr. HIP ¢ 13 ❑ ot El T 4 i Fe i ❑ ❑ r # ° ❑ ❑ P El El ❑y„ ❑ ❑ ❑ ,:❑ ❑ El Ej El El OWWI ❑ _ F' I — I I — I❑ 0 •�❑ ❑ ,� r J 3 9 J n n n 9 9 9 9 9 12 S 2 m w S I Y — I -- o© ❑o°o ❑oo 8 a L4TMJDE FORTY Ti-IREESUMVISkOU l�y> Horn pp EXISTING CGNDITIONS MFRIDM IDARO m r. City of Meridian Department Report M U g T A! U�30 S. RE V 4r RS�4 7L bg - ----- ----- Its 31 r aj S. -------------- Jab----.A T-- N !v N) 'I Tl 11 R'3 E-1 7T MATGHLINE SEE GdEfTD5 F Ff LATffUDF-FO---E-...S.- Kimley*Horn PRELIMINARY PLAT MERIDIAN.5DAHO City of Meridian Department Report all .71 9k5 �i�ssg.g; R3af eS` f I 14 r' fir 1 _ WATCtUNE SEE SHEFFD1 rrr �g 4t ;'y�. f OR ��'�' '�— + ' x ��� �� , ••ter r U ECFEEEK ��.•, rr �! L w _w s a� 4 II v_a nl� �!S sled .,I n°a Ise e i R>F 5 E 101LkTdl dl L -� wox q9 !7 5�G ayy s o8°' I •-Q I' m I x x6' g � it8xw �. 1 I I 9� �qp gr. � tivl i 9 I q" --- ---- ----------- e II I E D I {V 3 - s � e � ae � seea �ae9ee:.83992it 2 92222 3 � �� Fs��� eeeeeeaaaaaaaaaiassss'essssegege � - � $ pp g pppt g Ryy 7 i e : g 4 B i 5!Z i B i 7 E■I!S A!Y V C 8 IF } 7 8 ! ;! s II ' J LA7FrUOE FORTY UiREE SUBDIVISION iml Horn s 4 Q ' x PRELIMINARY PLAT fff 'r/ hERIDLAR EAFIO City of Meridian Department Report Ir r rr I f r I r r ! -__ I I •_ ...-r .� rY I --- + ----- - r I + I•��6ENiRY AVE I � I 6 � II � __III V I � I V I I I EEg1ATOR OR {i - I G _p ax®� TM � L4TfTL1DE FORTY THREE5U9DNI51CN Kimley*Horn PHASING PLAN Q m MERIDIAN,IDAHO r City of Meridian Department Report E. Common Driveway Exhibit ---_—_---------------------� I I II — _S WELLSAr HOME 1IIti ''1 I Eu ', l I _�_g 1:� I�NTATlOWf HpM I ca J� p�- IR 5 - II I r �i � jam— " ' I � �A •I -- I ' II - _ I I I .- II I I s ry III 1� J I HaME I I rypME I,I �o� I FT I w I zli b� W�— l� N }o: I Y i I I NaiT1 �A • E E I -' .. :�5r'"'1--- og--,III vl I • LL ui E� Ll_--------� O � I City of Meridian Department Report F. Landscape Plan&Fencing Plan(dated: 3/12/2025) ON AL I —1--.7 a 0 ............ ............. OE MRTY TIR2E 311111IN2111" q o6 Kimley*Horn MFP1D1W,0DAKO 1-4 1 City of Meridian Department Report �,... 6 V,H'M. �- +HIP 9 I� 1 10;;�: + rgcfo_§ L ■tl!i 4 _ ! I ! .. I 1 + 1, _ 1 } - /71 - �- � fff N� :~ --- --- f + `1 y r r I + 1 �.. ::: .. .......-�.. JJ J J - ___ = = L.SENTRY IN. 9 WkTaflUNE SEE SA=R3 000001 a Q a a e s s a A s s e s a r a LATITUDEFOf"THREE SUBDIVISION Kimley*Horn B _ gay �weier r:�emr w.�+Rn r � LANCSCAREPLAN �RIow�L iovio City of Meridian Department Report ,a ;yX4 1 NIRTCFLJNE SEE SFEFf Q2 F F j�3�sa Q E 11♦I `�f 1 S , f I - - -- kF[ j I l I . C�AWtTMD&.�. R + fill I 9 7 I I I I I I - , I q I T 1 I I 1 I I I I. 1 I s 9 LATITUDE FORTY TFREESL18OIhASION lKimleylMorn LANDSCAPE PLAN .a.. � LfRiow:LOAFiO City of Meridian Department Report qq pp } E WGIC y,+Ew � � a : aP If n $ I L 1 r � jz jff Ir� i i P � a � 4 -- ,. City of Meridian Department Report G. Open Space& Site Amenity Exhibit ------------ - --------- T MF w M W jo 0 M L I "I h lip liq I Mgj TUIE FOR-1-1 TIRIE SUM Kimley*Horn OPEN SPACE PLAN MERIDAN,IDAHD City of Meridian Department Report H. Conceptual Building Elevations 24-foot-wide product for lots in Phase 2 (optional garage width does not apply): GENERAL NOTES y s.•a s 'g BOILDING ARFAG 0'�' xg:i 5 Y p fl ---- - Kc ®000 ®®®®®®® -- -- --- -- --  - � FRONT ELEVATION{"B"CMFTSNUN) me wn�a aaavnnAw ------------------- — oa h� LEFT ELEVATION{'B"CRAFTSMAN) A4 DO ----------- if i I ak w Szs s-= s Ri( F"ATON CB°CN*78" .��.... A4 91 City of Meridian Department Report GENERAL NOTES ialgl BUILDINGAREAS ------------------ ----- it =4 ............... V f�-- ---------------- 'lag ------------ FRONT ELEVATION ED"MODERN FARMHOUSE) A D 0 0 jE 0 —---------- m I LEFT ELEVATION("D"MODERN FARMHOUSE) till— --------- - ----- OPT —JE EAR ELEVATION C'U'MODERN FARMHOUSE) L A --------- -------------- ------------- U) oP ICI Z 50 z D 0 ---------------------------------------------------------- Om ------ ----- II II II ------ ----- - ----------------------- --------------------- T RIGHT ELEVATION('D'MODERN FARMHOUSE) City of Meridian Department Report GENERAL NOTES BUILDING AREAS n vENEEa wana nnH s OFT 1—RD—GE OPT 6-SHOP a- m., s a _ � s .....,p e.T..". FRONT ELEVATION("F PACIFIC NORTHWEST MODERN) A --- I a _I 0 v a - _ g �o sse I o 92 o> `rl LEFF ELEVATION I'F PACIFIC NORTHWEST MODERN) A420 roe�Ei w,.A...,N ---------------------— Z i ------------- 1 = 3 =pLEVATION("F PACIFIC NORTHWEST MODERN) 4 L A N N e W ENO u RIGHT ELEVATION("P'PACIFIC NORTHWEST MODERN) A421 City of Meridian Department Report GENERAL NOTES agaE� BUILDING AREAS i ® ------- 00 00 0000 �-�•- i FRONT ELEVATION•G•(SLEEK CONTEMPORARY) li L A ------------------ w w o ppr I I OPr I J Q a.•�.wo. �Z m II ^" ._—_.—__—..—_.—._—..—__—__—__—__ -r —• ------ -__—__—__— —..—_.—._—..—_.—._—._—_S mw LEFT ELEVATION"G"(SLEEK CONTEMPORARY) �•,� A4.40 or. 1 f fi S f REAR ELEVATION"G•(SLEEK CONTEMPORARY) = ¢ L �A w o N p �I Z,O o22 -------------- --------------------------------- II II RIGHF ELEVATION•G"{SLEEK CONTEMPORARY) •�'""� A4.41 City of Meridian Department Report GENERAL NOTES .w1 xEUV-rc.oe =x.., BUILDING AREAS 00 00 a FRONT ELEVATION"H"IMODERN) ESE A N W fn� .�.�...e W�--.�...W..."--- m O m g i O> II II II II --- - -- - ---- ----- -- - -- ---- � LEFT ELEVATION"H"(MODERN) $�if! "mrnwwre« � gy� ____snaucv:w i a P i f ------------- ___---=-=-=-------�. g 1 S REAR ELEVATION"H"(MODERN) L �A ------------- -— O 052 O At.4Ao...nm., - -iif tiNo II -- -- ------------------------------ --- -- -- i--- RIGHT ELEVATION"H^{MODERN) M~� A4 51 City of Meridian Department Report 35-foot-wide product for lots that are 45' or wider: I r E I�i inl na.o I City of Meridian Department Report e ilo �J—III��III�II II ���as Ell o rs GENERAL NOTES ~�9 .,gym. e��^��• - BUILDING AAEAS� ....,.. j -—_-_-_-_-_------------- ------------- �s.�. +_"— — _ R I EMELEVATION"D'(MODERN FARMHOUSES � - �X �. A sc ca.uNN OEra a N v W _ Z on D m 1 „ r O N� -_--_--_--_--_—_—_ LEFT FI EVATION-D-(MODERN FARMHOUSE) »� A4 3U les �W 1-0 @ �ue 'o_y OPT.1T SLIDER REAR ELEVATION"O"(MODERN FARMH(XJSE) d L X N N W Z� 0 0 =9 N n# OD r _—---— C_2___ -----___________-----____________________________________5--------------- RIGHT ELEVATION"D"(MODERN FARMHOUSE) w,v A4.31 City of Meridian Department Report GENERAL NGIES VENEWERR WRAP PLAN BUILDING AREAS MEE a - -------------- X� FROML ELEVATION"P'(PNW MODERN) Oo OPTIONAL&'OOOR J L-- J -a TT II1I s -------------- ---------------- !IR LEFT EL VATEION T"(PNW MODERN) LE A4.Sfl !m WWI It E,—IL --]Lk L TLE ws y01 ----------------- OPT 17 SLIDER REA'R EELEVATION"P(PNW MODERN) L nX - --------------------.-----------_--__ N W Z O �m# r _---.----_ ---------- ----------------------------------------------- III GHT ELEVATION"F"(MODERN PNW) A4.51 City of Meridian Department Report ((5 d i IIIH i a 4¢s$€y W W o A GENER/LNOTES �s -R BUILDING AREA. =f ------ ---------------------- - - V� I wa V of A L ---------------------- ------------_ FRONT ELEVATION"G"(SLEEK CONTEMPORARY) — w Zo oP ioue�a °°`t Q a r ________________ ________________________- - LEFFELEVATION"G"(SLEEK CONTEMPORARY( W A4.60 S 4,3 - Y Ws1 � r"or.eu,onoaru �i V O i OFF. 7 SLIDER SEAR ELEVATION"G"(SLEEK CONTEMPORARY) ®6 7 L X ------------------------ Z 0 0 0 so V 0 ik 06 m r r—--t--_-_-------_- - ----------- - -------- - - -5 RIGHT ELEVATION'+G"(SLEEK CONTEMPORARY) A4.61 City of Meridian Department Report j�. 1s ° W W¢ GENERAL NOTES ----—-------—— ___ BUILDING AREAScV 9 _--------_ _ILL �—t=-=- __- - L ` FRONT ELEVATION"H"(MODERN) e.��...." x I I .�W.w zqg Q 0 �; ESE -------------[ ____________________ L J LEFT ELEVATION"H"(MODERN) A4 70 )�a c1 °oll W><� l li w a H i 1 H w; W 0 1 OPT.12'SLIDER REAR ELEVATION-H-(MODERN) �3 x _ N Z C p F� J R —Z '2 O MNo ________________________________________________J` RIGHT ELEVATION'H'(MODERN) A4 11 City of Meridian Department Report 40-foot-wide product for lots 50' or wider: IF Yr �i Y M iM - - a-.� r�Ne�a Nares_ ■� SNOPOPi �caoGF OPTION :� Y!1■1!M■1. '- .lI �ili.3 y S� Li % -&�7 F�3 ---- na o --------- --m -T- s, o� ---------- It R&W ELEVATION A M.I City of Meridian Department Report GENERAL NOTES a €� BUILDINGAREAS� 3. a�W� a a- F FncnoECA ------ t �u • --�� —r==i IIFl o 0 0 0 H �I II C --- -- — - SHOP�OPTION GARAGE OPTION FRONT ELEV ATION'B" FROM ELEVATION B MCCORMICK OPT. € v 0 3 ; 0 — VENEER WRAP PLAN MOCORMICK OPT. E X ---.-.-.-.-.-- 1 ---- -_ --- �a� z� NmH I TT — —.—ree+..xx� N CO) — d Af - ------ --- LEFT ELEVATION"B"McCORMICK OPT_ -----------------� LEFT ELEVATION'B" A4 2 e �I �•f1. ia9�¢ LUn ro� �xt 0 Q� o; Et� = ---- - i OPT.WINDOW LAYOUTS OPT 9'SLID REAR EL EVATION'D' OFF 10'GARAGE �o w LTHIIIIINAL -o THESE WINDOWS ARE DELE-D WHEN oniownteooaoaMSR EDEO1Eo X�« S LU W� 7 n Otl N mH N N ___ _—_— �_ III IL II ti___ _ _ _ _— — ,A,,, tt___ _ _ _ _ _ _— _— _ _ _ _— _— _ -__ — ___i L_] L�—] RIGHT ELEVATION W WCORMICK OPT RIGHT ELEVATION"B" A4.3 City of Meridian I Department Report 1 GENERAL NOTES ."a BUILDING AREAS Fncnoecnics. .... I I V a g F_--_---- t- SHOP OPTION GARAGE OPTI ON F R O N T E L E V A T I O N'C' �DN pELEVATION C MCCORMICK OPT. Y Hv++ Xw•.w � •wnw J}�T F L VENEER WRAP PLAN 1 T1 ! Ll ------------------J---------------------------------------m=,; A 1-1 _ mom �I I j — �� j III III II a ---- -------J LF FT EL EVAT I ON'C' ate:..-.. A4 4 �°eg v.�. LU W = HO Wie �uF ME O -----_____ ._-------- u o_f =-___=----4 € OPT_10'GARAGE �1pp OPT WINDOW LAYOUT80PT 9'SLD REAR ELEVATION'C' L EN X _ ❑ Z V W O� NOtl No,- .................................................... RIGHT ELEVATION MCCORMICK OPT. RIGHT ELEVATION"C" A4.5 City of Meridian I Department Report GENERAL NOTES BUILDING AREAS ?all W Lux .w.w .v.. .wr.....ww wwaw.v. __I SHOP OPTION GARAGE OPTIONJ' i V F R O N T ELEVATION"D" 2 1 V�ENE�ER WRAP PLAN S Y L z'6 o> R j nSa Nmf j jl jll I ll I I I II�II — OanDON—DOOR J LEFT ELEVATION"D" aA4.6 €I laa0�g g�ell� ro� d 7 ••nno VU ❑❑ A I I k 7T-1 ❑ of ❑ �I W I a; e I A 3§ ---—_-- OPT_WINDOW LAYOUTS OPT 9'5LD -�---� OPT_id GARAGE REAR ELEVATION"D" " L WHEN �X T N HE OPTN)NAl ARE ROOM OR OPTIONAL BEDROOM 5IS SE—TED !rr J$ ❑ w U LLL__ O> 1�p iR NmH 14 ❑ II III z t---------------- ------------------ RI } GHT ELEVATION"D" �'rNp ]A41 City of Meridian Department Report 50-foot-wide product for lots 60' or wider: IIIETI F-7 ■ fi — - ---- — —y---- e --------- -- --- _ m e �` SI [S ------------- iras�. —---------- ------- o, City of Meridian Department Report -----.-'---- � aM rnZIrm kinv� �m =O' V v u HT no - W S j¢ a FRONT ELEVATION B ••�•: — __-__-- L_ ..� - F.X. W K 4a --:----_-s—e -- - --- -A d: �' �> ,m8 r---- ------------ ----------------------------- II opi I I I I I I H I I � ---------------------------------------------- LEFT _—__—_—_— ELEVATION A4.10 ------------------------..-mow. � au. � LU 0tt-:-:--:-:-:--:-__- mow; JF� __-__-__-__-__�-------------_ RREEA�R ELEVATION i a L x E 0 0 mF r�y OJ ate_ rl orr. OPT. I I I I ------------------ RIGHT ELEVATION A4.11 City of Meridian Department Report --------------- �oI - LU tb (D-i 1 6 V tl 00 0000 - - - - - - •� I r"�� �I I• ] a Ilr FRONT ELEVATION("D"MODERN FARMHOUSE) u--... W.�v x I��. •III "III' p=I o Lu Mop -------------------------------------------- �s Orr — H LEFT ELEVATION A4.30 a, W W I a o m - - m T N � �W d J'e3 V p 9 REAR ELEVATION a ' L X Wa 512 mr ----------------------------------------------------------------- RIGHT ELEVATION A4.31 City of Meridian Department Report 9 fill Ofli Ww5 •sr ul------------------ -- - _ Lwm � J _ � y III i N$' .w.ms._._.__ _�...w.•.� V O I o0 0000 .� 's FRONT ELEVATION("F'PACIFIC NORTHWEST MODERN) e tt� w 0 w wa I I HE LEFT ELEVATION W'� A4.50 � Llg e^ E 0 Wig N + GI yl d SNP __--_--- ---..�_.—_.-__-__-__-__—__—_ -------- _— i REAR ELEVATION d LULli L X Wi N w Ko s�eaomW K o� mr .am.s.�._..._. _O____ - PT OP5_ I I H RIGHT ELEVATION WN. A4.51 City of Meridian Department Report I. Fivemile Creek Cross-Section& Photo rim............................... g vo aoimoa a I: I' 5.. .:.:.:.:... .:. ,. I I m I m I-....n....III I • k:. ! .. _ ; � Il II :.!I L o , p-- ---- _ w-w • rn-n •.• M�.... 1 •r M.a...w• 5 r..... l JY am � l l ...................... _. I' iii I m •............... ........... a l; i. 3 10 --- 1 .:...: : ................... 31N Aa1H 13 . :.:: :.::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. C /A`R City of Meridian Department Report Mv X I �9t t $ -Ra' Y-•f e SSp•�IIj , yJ tNOE d7i�N C' r4tiLy{�C✓ y cS}{ S ��y\'Ta RYYY i +Yp �4� i.-•.y',���it�7`�3-�n i�a.:��bt _r'�'^lq�- ,� .y`. . -tl a — C i E IDIAN.;--- Agenda Item Applicant Presentation LATITUDE 43 SUBDIVISION Meridian, ID 83642675, 715, & 955 S. Wells St.Meridian, ID 83642675, 715, & 955 S. Wells St.CITY COUNCIL HEARING FEBRUARY 24, 20260059-2024-H-PP-AZLATITUDE 43 SUBDIVISIONCITY COUNCIL HEARING FEBRUARY 24, 20260059-2024-H-PP-AZ CURRENT ZONINGFUTURE LAND USE PRELIMINARY PLAT PHASING PLAN PRELIMINARY PLATPHASE 1 PRELIMINARY PLATPHASE 2 OPEN SPACE EXHIBIT LANDSCAPE PLAN FENCING PLAN CONCEPTUAL HOME ELEVATIONSSTORY-SINGLE CONCEPTUAL HOME ELEVATIONSSTORY-TWO EAST Our Preliminary Plat is Consistent with Both Concepts "D" and E"•Concepts "D" and "E"–On January 27, 2026, Council Reviewed and Identified Two Preferred Alternatives •Long Study-West Connectivity Through a Months-City Commissioned a Review of East•Our Preliminary Plat is Consistent with Both Concepts "D" and E"•Concepts "D" and "E"–On January 27, 2026, Council Reviewed and Identified Two Preferred Alternatives •Long Study-West Connectivity Through a Months-City Commissioned a Review of East•WEST CONNECTION AND SITE LAYOUT-EASTWEST CONNECTION AND SITE LAYOUT- EAST Move to Staff's Third Option = Continuance Required to Modify Phase 2 OnlyRetain Concept "D" or "E" = No Additional Steps Required (Plat Already Consistent):Options•The Applicant Will Accept Whatever Option Council Directs•Bisects Phase 2 But Can Be AccommodatedOn February 23, 2026, Staff Provided a Third Option•Move to Staff's Third Option = Continuance Required to Modify Phase 2 OnlyRetain Concept "D" or "E" = No Additional Steps Required (Plat Already Consistent):Options•The Applicant Will Accept Whatever Option Council Directs•Bisects Phase 2 But Can Be AccommodatedOn February 23, 2026, Staff Provided a Third Option•WEST CONNECTION AND SITE LAYOUT-EASTWEST CONNECTION AND SITE LAYOUT- NEIGHBOR CONCERNS AND COMMENTS runoff to the adjacent residential lots.as the project grading will be designed to prevent any ng,collection system will be installed, which should improve the conditions of nuisance water the neighbors have been experiencio drain to adjacent properties. With the development, a site and not allowed t-As required by the City, State, and Federal policies, all stormwater/drainage runoff must be contained on–Drainage ptual” designs for homes, with changes often likely.family home residential subdivisions are required to provide “conce-City of Meridian. This is not a “bait and switch”, as singlefamily product that fits well within the -quality single-highe aDue to that delay and lack of comfort, a different builder committed to the project as designed. The homes will continue to bmfortable maintaining their agreement with the developer. coDue to the length of delay due to the City’s process with the collector road connectivity study, the previous builder was not–Home Elevations 4 zone).-8 zone (maximum building height of 35’, which is the same in the R-meet the standards of the Rtheir choice for the lot they purchase. All homes will story homes along Woodhaven Ave.). Future home buyers will be able to select the home of -Subdivision (there is a mix of 1 and 2homes, as is the case with the adjacent Woodbridge story-level on the west side of Phase 1. Lots are set up to accommodate both 1 and 2-Homes will not be restricted to only single–Home heights ke.homes as they are built, which will protect privacy of the existing Woodbridge neighbors and future Latitude 43 residents alio. Landscaping will be installed in the rear yards of d tfor the homes along the west portion abutting Woodbridge Subdivision will be in the Development Agreement, and will be adheree adjacent Woodbridge Subdivision are 15’. Setback language thmodels, but would like to retain the option of building a covered patio up to the 12’ setback line. Required rear setbacks ofstory -h a 20’ setback to the main body of the home for 2witto the home, as allowed by the zone. The builder of the project has provided information and plans that they are comfortable tory homes on those lots will utilize a 12’ rear setback s-8 zoning area (Phase 1) that abuts the Woodbridge Subdivision will be 12’ minimum. Single-Rear setbacks within the proposed R–Setbacks additional topographic information to fully understand the property line/fencing discrepancy.ent issues will be resolved. The surveyor is gathering gnmmaterials and conditions, and the fence may not be on the lot line. The overall property has been surveyed, and any fence alicoordinated with affected neighbors, as there are a variety of beFencing within the development is proposed to be installed along all perimeter lot lines. The existing fence to the west will–Fencing ups.-intersections to reduce traffic backImpact Analysis and may require mitigation measures at nearby through traffic as much as is feasible. Additionally, ITD is requiring a Traffic -View Dr. to alleviate this and discourage cutoper has proposed only an emergency access to Magic through traffic on Magic View Dr. With that in mind, the devel-The biggest concern we heard from the neighbors was regarding cut–Traffic runoff to the adjacent residential lots.as the project grading will be designed to prevent any ng,collection system will be installed, which should improve the conditions of nuisance water the neighbors have been experiencio drain to adjacent properties. With the development, a site and not allowed t-As required by the City, State, and Federal policies, all stormwater/drainage runoff must be contained on–Drainage ptual” designs for homes, with changes often likely.family home residential subdivisions are required to provide “conce-City of Meridian. This is not a “bait and switch”, as singlefamily product that fits well within the -quality single-highe aDue to that delay and lack of comfort, a different builder committed to the project as designed. The homes will continue to bmfortable maintaining their agreement with the developer. coDue to the length of delay due to the City’s process with the collector road connectivity study, the previous builder was not–Home Elevations 4 zone).-8 zone (maximum building height of 35’, which is the same in the R-meet the standards of the Rtheir choice for the lot they purchase. All homes will story homes along Woodhaven Ave.). Future home buyers will be able to select the home of -Subdivision (there is a mix of 1 and 2homes, as is the case with the adjacent Woodbridge story-level on the west side of Phase 1. Lots are set up to accommodate both 1 and 2-Homes will not be restricted to only single–Home heights ke.homes as they are built, which will protect privacy of the existing Woodbridge neighbors and future Latitude 43 residents alio. Landscaping will be installed in the rear yards of d tfor the homes along the west portion abutting Woodbridge Subdivision will be in the Development Agreement, and will be adheree adjacent Woodbridge Subdivision are 15’. Setback language thmodels, but would like to retain the option of building a covered patio up to the 12’ setback line. Required rear setbacks ofstory -h a 20’ setback to the main body of the home for 2witto the home, as allowed by the zone. The builder of the project has provided information and plans that they are comfortable tory homes on those lots will utilize a 12’ rear setback s-8 zoning area (Phase 1) that abuts the Woodbridge Subdivision will be 12’ minimum. Single-Rear setbacks within the proposed R–Setbacks additional topographic information to fully understand the property line/fencing discrepancy.ent issues will be resolved. The surveyor is gathering gnmmaterials and conditions, and the fence may not be on the lot line. The overall property has been surveyed, and any fence alicoordinated with affected neighbors, as there are a variety of beFencing within the development is proposed to be installed along all perimeter lot lines. The existing fence to the west will–Fencing ups.-intersections to reduce traffic backImpact Analysis and may require mitigation measures at nearby through traffic as much as is feasible. Additionally, ITD is requiring a Traffic -View Dr. to alleviate this and discourage cutoper has proposed only an emergency access to Magic through traffic on Magic View Dr. With that in mind, the devel-The biggest concern we heard from the neighbors was regarding cut–Traffic NEIGHBOR CONCERNS AND COMMENTS IN AGREEMENT WITH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF 13. Agreed.-Condition 4Condition 3. Landscape Plan revisions will be completed and submitted with the future Final Plat application.Condition 2. Final Plat revisions will be incorporated prior to submittal.Condition 1. Development Agreement will be prepared and submitted to the City of Meridian per the staff report.13. Agreed.-Condition 4Condition 3. Landscape Plan revisions will be completed and submitted with the future Final Plat application.Condition 2. Final Plat revisions will be incorporated prior to submittal.Condition 1. Development Agreement will be prepared and submitted to the City of Meridian per the staff report.THE STAFF REPORT AND AGENCY COMMENTSIN AGREEMENT WITH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE STAFF REPORT AND AGENCY COMMENTS v IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Cielo Azul Condominium (SHP-2026-0001) by Marcel Lopez, located at 3512 and 3526 E. Louise Dr. A. Request:Short Plat to condominiumize two (2) office buildings into eight(8) office units for individual ownership within the L-0 zoning district. PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: February 24, 2026 ITEM #2 PROJECT NAME: Cielo Azul Condominium (SHP-2026-0001) by Marcel Lopez, located at 3512 and 3526 E. Louise Dr. wish to testify Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing (marl(x (Please Print) HOA? if yes) 2 ' 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 DEPARTMENT REPORT C� W IDIAN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING 2/24/2026 Legend -- t- DATE: Project Location TO: Mayor&City Council ::: Area of Impact �= City Limits FROM: Nick Napoli,Associate Planner Analysis 71 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: SHP-2026-0001 Cielo Azul Condominiums LOCATION: Project is located at 3512 E. Louise Drive and 3526 E. Louise Drive in the SE '/4 of - T the SE '/4 of Section 4, T.3N.,R.2E. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Short Plat request to condominiumize two(2) office buildings into eight(8) separate office units for individual ownership within the L-O zoning district. II. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Marcel Lopez, Conger Management Group—4824 W.Fairview Avenue,Boise ID, 83706 B. Owner: Same as Applicant C. Representative: Same as Applicant III. STAFF ANALYSIS The proposed short plat depicts subdivision of air space within two(2) separate office buildings that are currently under construction and located on separate properties near the southeast corner of Eagle Road and Franklin Road. The proposed short plat aims to create eight(8) separate office condominium units for future ownership purposes. According to the Applicant, all of the previously approved project elements are remaining with no anticipated changes; none are proposed with this application. The subject sites obtained CUP approval for each property(H-2024-0045 and H-2024-0046)and CZC and DES approval for each Page 1 building in 2024(Touchmark Office Buildings A and B A-2024-0090&A-2024-0091)with all associated building permits being approved and currently under construction. Staff has reviewed the proposed short plat for substantial compliance with the criteria set forth in UDC 11-6B-5A.2 and deems the short plat to be in compliance with said requirements. IV. DECISION Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed short plat with the conditions noted in Section VII of this report and in accord with the findings in Section VIII. V. EXHIBITS A. Short Plat(date: January 2"d,2026) a 41M AM MDOICHM i uiBciiRsd�iu iw uK' ue1iw awuev ai+4�s:i[wi '�� 1.]141e1tnll ulxu YJ3 Y4.x1[I111I1Ix,lYHl i i �■ asa rt W r eanoWL wsrn @ 1167� rnx;mad Asa-Waz ��®. �m esr�.n.vc�:.rm.saa iml:�,w�,9r�ffL Iri4%'.SLWR=�7F7a!_4.�1M Page 2 PUT isuM G aooe�nr . UMA AM CUNDOMPMM EE..H I ❑ 1 i 4—i WFnr PIRWA'NON Nuldll KUNATION :wuiJTII MINATION wctr rJRYxflu.NPW CffiA LEST.CO W�IA[ toOMZ—F U. f r ! 4 + ! f ] f � l I u � # '�v rmq S a .rvrso m u.om El LEE��E:�q AaW L +« v q S� rm `f'�•i e Ijlc} v� T S � 5 �v �S WAS�NGFCW,Y12 S� OYICTF,MAMV � q fhK �96.&1wP5 YY i fao!_xryars flG M4tM1V.` TilS.a1M Page 3 0 P.I_il'r.I.OXI'AS HOFMI RUWATIOH SOLMi kl.ISYM1 iom ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ I A I 1:1.1:'nSI 1C% I�tir1 mns w,urmrcr�w ms. nwtrr,�arar i iea{ raoa7 gee-eiw �w OW �5a.eeuE laor_.nrya.,s llG wwwsawrc MSZ waw+ Page 4 FIAT SHMNe t ...,t�v...... clew Asm.CMDOMNIUM r =TF a OWhSL ADOMAKEDEPEWr �K sue. u.q.wlmia.u 4 siHlIX.lr,4dlrnip'rc�.w.nixwnaiun.Iwv rtlSrd,YY]M1OTwf'.rr,mar '/p a-SFAIM k sotmr..srmrworc�mreraim�rniA'�or�+muwu1t u....k n...w�....rla..am.u.�.w wx�.c.x�a Mi�s�11YYt< ail wln n,�iwaie.�auoeor4 naun5air,umr,�rm ws�nxuwulYu m.�.mrtw.a.n4��Ll wwrmre,uw�e unutirs.wr. {�} f i,all�111E1! �7 S Wi1.57@/GRW AK OYCTf,II}91677 tm�xaa�a iS5Y5YSili7O[]ni4�1'eY wxLtw+. Page 5 PLAT 9flDxINQ ciei.a■WUL cmmonwiur �....................... 1167� BYCTf,ID 9A617 f318}296 sew 3rl�Y fAr R�»a-seas wwwsnwroonrs mH w B. Previously Approved Plans(A-2024-0090&0091) Page 6 SffEDATA A—) ' I LAMER DATA r � r r r .n,.n. rnaxn,aa I � •a..ms � Ybrl L 47 v o ww U� d L.� W p11p7� U �m m�.v..�w: Iilli car�oulr.0 r�IlTi rciunm rllG rc.,MG.,�,ul�ra.cart!![8110OX�TI[GPOr[ orMa.TGCT1AC TI.L mwraT Page 7 VI. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. Planning Division Site Specific Conditions: 1. Applicant shall comply with all previous conditions of approval associated with this development: AZ-05-022,CUP-05-050,H-2024-0045, H-2024-0046,A-2024-0090, and A- 2024-0091. 2. If the City Engineer's signature is not 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 11-6B-7. 3. Prior to submittal for the City Engineer's signature,obtain the signatures from the Ada County Highway District and the Central District Health Department. 4. The short plat prepared by Sawtooth Land Surveying,LLC,prepared January 2, 2026,by Jeff Beagley,included in Section VI.A shall be revised as follows: a. Note#6: Include recorded instrument number. 5. 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. Page 8 B. Public Works Wastewater • aistanmin Seiler SewAv b6Ac aiSiLr serri= • Sewer Shed • Evimtod Project Sec applimlian sewer[RLI's + WRRf Declining 6alarroe Proj5d ComsiisLaIt Yes withWW Lbnb!ff PlmVFamIbF PLm + �rrpactsJawroerrc + Sec Public WarksSitc SpmcNc C.ondhkmc Water • Distance to Warr WaLmAvailahlcaLSite Scryi+r:s + Prmzure2ane • Estimated Rrojc L Sec applicalion WaLer CRU's • Water$ralitf hale • Pmim-L Ca sisterm Yes with Maier Master Rlan • ImpactVC90ccirm Hone SfTfSSP[iC:II°I{;MNDFIrIONN: l- liacb braiding will be served wiLlr a single water meter.ladling+rf mdividL l=Ls rxsaLs to he adeLiesseLL in the I IOA C:C'&R- Z No perm xcnt strudu a shall he allowts]within a Cay utility easerrrert including LFeM deep trxNed �rtLh' 6Lmae.ir�xh encWncurex,carprrl�sJreLLx,bmWmgs.eLc- GENBRALCU dITIONS: 1- F;aulay sewer service Io Ibis deve]rhrnam l 3s svulable vLa ux lun.slun oFexisling mains allauenl Mr Lbe develrrfnrwa.Water servroe di Lh is sale is available via er6msion ufe.e:ting maim adps t Mr Lbe develrgp 1. 2- All impnitxmenLs re]atdl di public life,salel,y and healdr shall be carrTleLed Tnrw Lo mcuTKLmy oif die+anxl mes_Wtwm aplwmed by Lhe Vily Hn!pmeer.an wwnff troy Fxrsl a perfowmanue surely Rrr such imps.wmenls in mderwcbL•un CiLy Filgimm signature ain the fmal platastet froth in UDC 11 5C'in. 3- uprrn m Loiawin or the IarwLwcapmg and lwvw w mxTnelion by Plannmg 1lelNutment staff,the mpplx ry shall provwle a wnum aruFcale oFampletion m set f4mh in CDC 11 M I,lh. 4- A letter ofcredil m caxb surely in the=m L of l 10%wd]be Te4guued for all m,mngrlete ferrc n& Iambs apirj&armmmm,lwessuri� d arigaLwm,prior wsigniTuue on the Real pUL Page 9 5_ The C'ily of MeriLlian nnwres Lh LL IhL 1?rimer lo1SL with the City a perfwmatu.+e sure Ly in the arroMML of 125%awr the icial cbmxlRxtiLyn 4:L1%L For all irmornplele sewer,water 7n%NLnxLtue prior Li I inal jJA siglLllLLrr_This slaely will be amfi d by a line rlem Last esJimvhe 1NnvxLe-d by the owner La the C:ily. The applicant steal I be roquueLd In enter mtlt a aevelupirLenL'S'L=ty Agreement vith Ux C'ily of id[aidian.The swely can he To stud in the fun alf an mevorable leper ur4lmhL,caxll depel"L aw bond Applxanl must file an appkation for surety,Which cm he fourxL in the 0Nmnunity Oevelopmenl kToaabnent webwLe_Planner vmLaLl Iasi l']exelopnrernt 9nvice fLw mine mFamalim aLS87 2211_ li_ The City of Merillml requi es IhaL the uvnler p11SL Leo the City a wamLr Ly surely an Lhe arrmmml 41f ZO%of L6e Trial LLmxtr edmon cunt ku all awnphsed%ewer,jmd water mfrastriwlure Iirr a daraliLm oflwo yax.This.suely an Lwill he veHfrdl by liar ihern Final cast imaicmg pnnr xed by the ovrner W Ilre C iLy.The sLLL cy can he]ousted m the frnn irf an rrreaclLahle kl1Lr u1'uetht,cash dermi[ air bond. ApplicanL muSL File an appliczLrlm for surely, whxh cm he fLnLrAL on the ('4MMu Ay r)Lx+elnlwnenL Departnrnt welmae. Please cnnlacl IYm3 lluaellwplmenl Serowe ror more inlaornatwn al U?2211. 7. In the evena time an applka3u minor iwwner cannot cmu*Le nun life,Tim rsleLy and nLnr heallb impnnKroEarti Timor No{3ty Engiom ugmUM in lire foul DLit andhK pricn trl cwLvparcl',a KMty 29 e L may be approm9 as sd forth in lJDI'I 1 5C 3C:. IL_ It shall he the respLLnsrlouhLy iof the applianl ILo ere;o 1haL all deweloprnmi FcaUms Ltm Tly with Lhe Americans villa ll h%altikoe AU and Noe Far I lLwsmg AcL $_ AppliLant%hall be rexpLmsible for appik2amm and LL TlianCee with any SmLmm-Z1 Pamitung Thal may he required by the Arany('iwpsirf[ingneerS. 10. ❑nKlare shall Lcrwdinale=Fhvt lLCalrlee wwh the MrrNlaa.P4)xLCll6ee. ll. All gradiogoflhesnesFWlheperfnaanedmamfLurmocerwilhMOCII-1-44. 12.Ownpaclinm Lest results xhall be suhmemed Mt the MerNhmL 33uik&M eta.—t Pow all building pads receiving engirrened bmkFi11,where fulling vmvuld nil alkop fill rraatrrial. 13.The applxants design erL$irrer Jul]be rcpLoaible Fur rnNTK!Ltiun ul'all nTioicm all w &ainage faLilily wrlllirr iLhrs pnLject Lhal&P Two fall Linder the jLrn rdwtlun afan imgatirm district cr A{'rill. The Llesrgn eggpneer shall providecerdficallon LIML LhL fLLLlL1Mi haze heen mswlled in amvdamLe mLh Lhe appnwed de mgn plans.Thus c UFcaLNm wiLl be requinxl he lure a Lertifrcale ul'mcupa y ix esxued fun my xlrudL.lres wrlhin the pnrjecL lh_Al the ccirilAdmin oFlheproject.the applicant shall he resprwLvhk Tu submit recoTt1drLLwFn s per the City oFMerNlam Aulc['AD%hods 7& These reco i.dmwingx mret be muivedandapprameed prior Lo Lhe i> uanoe of a rerlifxauun of ooCCgrancy for any slrucln &vrlhin Noe pngecL 15. Street ligtw plan nNair L%are listed an wLtron 6 7 iof The rmprnvem L giarmlaich Few SbeCL [dghfing tbuFrJlwww.mnidiari6ty.orgipublrc a wUk pr'.W-272]. All simet Iigbft shall he imulkd al deuclrlpa%cxpCn-;L. Ham]dL%ign shall be su mcnFUcLI ax pail of Lhe deuelrlpawmt plan s 1 fur appnwral,wbiLb nnL%i inclu&the inxatim or my cxisiing stnoct lighLz Tbc a Lracimrs. work and mate,gals xhall Lunfono Lo the ]S7`W'{' and The City of Mmidsen Sngwplerrrerntal 9pecifiratkoim No the[9P W C'.C:cmtaci lbe C'ily irf Me r klian Tra7upL.t iLirn and Utility C'arr:dmaN w ad KEA 5500 Fewmfmmaucin on the l4ocalicmofetelingstiedlighling. 16.The apf iLm L shall pot%il3e�h(s)for all puhliL walen'sewer mama ouL%x a 41F puhliL ri ghL i of vay(imlunlr all vales services m3 h}yhan W. The eaxcmwml wxUlax shall be 20 feel wide An a single utility,nr Sl)feet wide fro twLr_The eamirowts shall nuL be Lktho[ed via ire plaL bul rather dcdimjcduwNidc thL plat procLKsm%&9 LhL CSLy ur Wrridian"sslmdmxL roroLx.The ewwwwn Lxhall he gF2phically depicled un the plat for mRF ce purpLtses_:LuFmot an exeeuled eaur M(Lan the f/1rm availahk fawn Public Wwkx} a]ehrd LksLtiphln prtepan!dbyam[dalanl_icansd3 rYofLximinal IaFKL'. L'unvym,whxh mast=63C the area ofLlrL ran La is(Fvut cd i'Xl31131T A)and an R 1�2"x 11-mup with karggs aoLL demraS(uhwtad IN[I]]3LT Ib)rQ rLwirw.3kLI1 L-Lh his rruxl lou sealeil,ug♦red m9 dated by a PnLfexsxwnl Land i�or.rill NOT RECORD. Add a rAite lt1 thL plaL reFerencmg Lhis&ocnneni- AI]easementsm the suhmilted reviewed~and apFmned prior tao upouire of the final plat by Lhe City Eogjmeer_ 17. Applicant shall he n5pLLnsrlwk for appikahkon aril.complianu with and NM]E_4 lennrlling LhaL may he requited by the Unvmosrnnrtal PmbmLiln Agency. 18.The City irf Meridian requires Thu Mmu ixed migaulm 5yshere he mppliet]by a yem murod soLnce of walrr(UDC 11 313 6.)_The appliLam sloluld be required lu uu my a tasting surface ur well waer Few Noe primary sor¢ce. IF a surface iw will source n nuL ax.ulalnk,a Single pninL awnrlicn hlwtlae cu em hrmy wafer xysL shall he required.IF smglc Twim Lun LNm rs Lrilmml-, Lire developer will he responsible fur the palmlent of&Kse%smenLK fix the tumrron area%prNw t11 develcipm L plan appnwal_ 19. All irrigaLiee ditches, Lanalx, Ialerakr,aw Lhaln'h etL'lmive 411 rLaLLnal waterwa}s. inler%edmg, mesoniw Lvymr,ady e=L and contiguous Lis the area he mg suhdixidled shall be add seaper LJFIC' 11 3A 6. In perfuming such work,Ilm applicant sha11 comply with Idalall{'ide 12 1207 mid any other aNikahk Law or regulaiwn. Page 10 VII. REQUIRED FINDINGS FROM THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE In consideration of a short plat,the decision-making body shall make the following findings: A. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with the Unified Development Code; The Comprehensive Plan designates the future land use of this property as Mixed-Use Community and the current zoning district of the site is L-O. Staff finds the proposed short plat complies with the Comprehensive Plan and is being developed in accord with UDC standards for the existing zoning district. B. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Staff finds that public services will be provided to this property and are adequate to serve the building sites currently under construction. C. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's capital improvements program; Staff finds that the development will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. All required utilities were provided with the development of the property at the developer's expense. D. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Staff finds that the development will not require major expenditures for providing supporting services as services are already being provided to the immediate area. E. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and Staff finds the proposed short plat to condominiumize the existing or approved structures will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare. F. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. Staff is not aware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features associated with short platting the structure on this site. Page 11 Development Application Transmittal Link to Project Application: Cielo Azul Condominium SHP-2026-0001 Hearing Date: February 24, 2026 Assigned Planner: Nick Napoli To view the City of Meridian Public Records Repository, Click Here The above "Link to Project Application" will provide you with any further information on the project. The City of Meridian is requesting comments and recommendations on the application referenced above. To review the application and project information please click on the application link above. The City of Meridian values transparency and makes a variety of information available to the public online through our public records repository. We request that you submit your comments or recommendations prior to the hearing date specified above. When responding, please reference the file number of the project. If responding by email, please send comments to comment(a)_meridiancity.org. For additional information associated with this application please contact the City of Meridian Planner identified above at 208-884-5533. Thank you, City Clerk's Office 33 E. Broadway Ave., Meridian, Idaho 83642 Phone: 208.888.44331Email: cityclerk(cD_meridiancity.org Built for Business, Designed for Living All e-mail messages sent to or received bV CitV of Meridian e-mail accounts are subject to the Idaho law, in regards to both release and retention, and maV be released upon request, unless exempt from disclosure by law. C i E IDIAN.;--- Agenda Item Applicant Presentation TOUCHMARK Short Plat Request(CIELO AZUL CONDOMINIUMS)CONDOS LOT 9 & 10, TOUCHMARK CENTER SUBDIVISION NO. 1 PRIOR APPROVALS Currently under construction, anticipated completion April 2026.•0046-2024-0045 & H-2024-CUP: H•B)Bldg0091 (-2024-A) & ABldg0090 (-2024-CZC/DES: A• TOUCHMARK CONDOS THANK YOU! W IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Farrington Heights Subdivision RZ, PP, MDA (H-2025-0016) by Studio H Architects, generally located at the NW corner of E. Pine Ave. and N. Adkins Ave. A. Request: Rezone of 2.9 acres of land from the R-4 to the R-15 zoning district. B. Request: Preliminary Plat on 4.68 acres of land consisting of 25 building lots and 6 common lots. C. Request: Development Agreement Modification to terminate the existing development agreement and establish a new one. PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET _ DATE-: February_24, 2026 ITEM #3 ",-"PRO -ECT�VAME: Farrington Heights SubdivisionRZ;..PP, MDA (H-2025-0016) by Stu � io H Architects, generally located at the NW corne of E. Pine Ave. and N. a� wish to testify Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing (mark X (Please Print) HOA? if yes) c�3 � 2 'yAO, br-;�j CGS..., p DfAoJ e>36,f2 A,,r) 3 '� � � 4 ����� /V o 5 �..._ -0 Y � �.� h K� 1 rL- 9 51 S Inks 10 �2k 12 J 1' Z �4, k , , 13 14 ✓ l.E, I\j °� � u� VA i Ala COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT C` fE IDIAN -- DEPARTMENT REPORT A"o HEARING 2/24/2026 Am Legend ARM DATE: (Remanded to Planning and Zoning Project Location ` m Commission on 9/16/2025) +.: Area of Impact City Limits TO: Mayor&City Council ®Analysis FROM: Nick Napoli,Associate Planner m '� 208-884-5533 nnapoli@meridiancity.org - APPLICANT: Sabrina Durtschi 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 t/4 of the NE t/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 24 building lots and 7 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 Commission continued the application at the December 4"hearing to remove the open space and make the lots bigger to provide a better transition. - 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 planning and zoning commission gave the applicant direction to remove the open space and make the lots larger so they can accommodate single story homes. - Since the previous hearing on December 4th,2025,the applicant has revised the concept plan to eliminate the open space and include larger lot sizes. The applicant has indicated that the homes on the western boundary of the site will all be single story which will City of Meridian I Department Report 1. Project Overview provide a better transition to the existing homes.In addition,the roadway was reconfigured to be adjacent to the existing homes on the north portion of the site. C. Recommendation Staff. Approval with a Development Agreement and Conditions. Commission: Approval with modifications to the department report. 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 1/22/2026 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+ 00 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-four(24)residential building lots and seven(7)commons lots at a gross density of 5.12 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 5.12 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 a part 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 these concerns by providing an adequate transition the neighboring residential. 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. During the previous hearing,the Planning and Zoning Commission asked the applicant to eliminate the open space and make the lots larger throughout the development to accommodate some single-story homes. Table 4:Proiect Overview Description Details History AZ-00-012;DA Inst# 101052483 Phasing Plan 2 Phases Residential Units 21 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: 5.12 Units/Acre Net: 6.66 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. During the previous Planning and Zoning hearing on December 4t1i,2025,the commission asked the applicant to remove the open space to allow for larger building lots to accommodate some City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis single-story homes. The applicant has revised their plan to lose an additional lot,provide larger lot sizes and single story homes adjacent to the western boundary. 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 (21 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 5.12 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 24 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 a total of six (6)buildable lots. 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-1 S 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 complement 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 24 single-family detached City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis dwellings at a gross density of 5.12 units per acre(see Section VII.G). This density aligns with the Medium Density Residential(MDR)Future Land Use Map(FLUM) designation. 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 hearing,the applicant eliminated the majority of the open space to increase the average lot size within the development to accommodate some single-story homes. 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 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 City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 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 18 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 18 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 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. Since the previous hearing,the applicant has revised the preliminary plat to make the lots larger on the perimeter of the subdivision to accommodate single story structures. The applicant has indicated that Lots 2-8,Block 1 will be single story homes. 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. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis E. Transportation Analysis 1. Access (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-3, UDC 11-3H-4): Goals 6.01.01H and 6.01.02B of the Comprehensive Plan stress the need to minimize the 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 three(3) access points off N.Adkins Avenue with one being a common drive for access to Lots, 14, 15, and 16, Block 1 and the other two being local street extensions. 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. 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. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis The applicantproposes two (2) common drives within the development. The common drive accessing Hardiman Street will serve two (2) homes, while the common drive accessing N. Adkins Avenue will serve three(3) homes. The common drive connecting to N.Adkins Avenue complies with the UDC requirements; however, the common drive connecting to Hardiman Street must be revised to depict Lot 8, Block I with the same building envelope as Lot 7,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 14, 15, and 16 will take access from the common drive connecting directly to N. Adkins Avenue. 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-1 S): 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 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. In addition,all buildable lots within Block 2 shall be revised to include a ten(10)-foot public utility,irrigation, and drainage easement along the rear lot lines. The applicant currently depicts a five(5)-foot easement; however,UDC 11-6C-3E grants the City Engineer discretion to require appropriate easement widths. This revision shall be made with the final plat submittal. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 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 Prior to the City Council hearing,the applicant shall revise the landscape plan, elevations, and common drive exhibits to reflect the most recent changes to the preliminary plat. A. Meridian Planning Division 1. A Development Agreement(DA)is required as a provision of rezone of this property. Prior to approval of the rezone ordinance, a DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian, the property owner(s) at the time of annexation ordinance adoption, and the developer. A final plat shall not be submitted until the DA and Ordinance is approved by City Council. 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 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. d. The existing structures on Lots 15, 16, and 18 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 2-8, Block 1, shall be restricted to single story dwellings. f. The maximum building height for all dwellings shall not exceed 35 feet in height. 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 2-8,Block 2, and Lots 2-8 & 10-12,Block 1. c. Graphically depict the five(5)foot wide public utility,drainage, and irrigation easements on the side of Lots 14, 15,16,18,Block 1. d. Modify note 15 to include language stating that all interior side lot lines for Lots 2-8, Block 2, and Lots 2-8 & 10-12,Block 1 contain a three(3) foot wide easement for public utilities,irrigation, and drainage. City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions e. Modify note 15 to include language stating that all side lot lines for Lots 14,15,16,18, Block 1 contain a five(5) foot wide easement for public utilities,irrigation, and drainage. f. Modify the rear easement for Lots 2-8,Block 2 to 10 feet in width. 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.S. The Applicant shall coordinate with the City Arborist(Kyle Yorita kyorita(&meridiancity.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. 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 11-6B-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 11-3B-5,UDC 11-3B-13 and UDC 11-3B-14. 12. Submit an updated common drive exhibit for the common drive off of Adkins Avenue showing the driveways and the setbacks for the existing homes that will remain on Lots 14, 15, and 16,Block 1. 13. Submit a revised common drive exhibit for the common drive off of Hardiman Street showing Lot 8,Block 1,with the same building envelope as Lot 7,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. 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 11-6B-7. City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions 17. Staff s failure to cite all relevant UDC requirements does not relieve the applicant from compliance. B. Meridian Public Works FK&FLAT 1EXIND OM W asticvraa�r * INsralld`10 57 501NUFANU&A SM som s Sowcr Shod ESlmatcE PnDjed son appkatlnn Scwf EFUYS WRAF 6cclnM 6ahnoc + Pno6ett r:...L b..+ 1Frs Wit wW Masao PGIyrF2dWVPLvr Impo¢sfmnn�rtrz Son 11bIr1L�I�Shr Spctlhc Corrdtiorts Water • Ells=anon to Wa4r Wa bur AWILAAl ASHE Sortors + f4r2v.ry 7!arlC Uzlmahatl Projtd Sec applrstion Wa[cr ERU's + Ylhsrcw ry Nona - Propcttcowi7item Yos with Wxcr7bsacr Ptah ' rnp m� Nhrm PLOUN:W43w -.W rAmmicmr A&Spat?R 4+Amd*mF aF Aopn-1F 1. Fgs.nrcr t3 ie —%c nwn loop. 2. Frylnrcr w.rrlry lrae Ls 3 weR cram.Ifa WAI li Lao d on the sne a nlua tic abardowd pee rtp.lmory t gwmr And proofal ibwu6nnitm mum tEe pru.,dcd w Jtc Cuy.Can Ni uleJ rtr Pruau nrbl un0awn. 3. Phlvnlu At F'aQmy-*m rLe nuucL h}dWL Imrrak and.nu scr,wes.Kemwnu should earend up u.Iliu LuJ nfma.VbyA vVwxm rr�r..ukl I IV ley&U IL �. "pti':..�:,.i uutu (Lrb��'huIIJ.rq�crpan4 LEwh e�epn le.alL;ferrc� mfllvr ,,n 4vuel=�,Lys poles~eltF w[e LuiLL wuhm Ot Dada,ermwr� 5_ 1-Mum w r..er ser rlatl pass drouyh uJnl mum v hn. 5. Fwun Lalfler is ofir willlinSirf the walerrlrcler. 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_L''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 I}. 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 Ly;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 luyuitaLarasaeLLnw err IhL`ramewar 3fE'dparrw 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 LIU{'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[711}.'rk-ycylgn 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 cooLtl4t 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 NNaar%Canrrftk� Date:]une 9",202S REVISED To JeNiCa Henle.SIUOr*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#OFTrenxporC2Ti 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%.vt-Fnw M Mr"AW^HR'�CIIT.Q-R4-;-PM FJ7WHA;hp FN7 '4SG-Mw',lp� MJ 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; The Commission finds 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; The Commission finds 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; The Commission finds 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 The Commission finds 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; The Commission finds 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; The Commission finds thatpublic 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, the Commission 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; The Commission finds 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 The Commission finds 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. The Commission finds 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: The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard these items on January 15th, 2026. At the public hearing,the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject rezone and preliminM plat requests. 1. Summary of Commission public hearing: a. In favor: Sabrina Durtschi, Stephanie John,Maralee Turner,Brian Turner, Todd LakeX b. In opposition: Don Flatten C. Commenting: Brandon Ethridge,Jack Harp, Rick Salladay,Bob Flatten,Rick Bradley d. Written testimony:None e. Staff presentinggpplication:Nick Napoli f Other Staff commenting on application: None 2. Key issue(s) public testimony a. The main concerns from the citizens regarding the proposed project are traffic,parking, and building height allowances. The applicant revised the plat to make larger lot sizes and restrict lots that abut existing homes to the west to singlery homes. However, some of the citizens asked for more clarification on building heights and wanted to see them below 26 feet. In addition,the citizens had concerns about overflow parkin pilling onto other streets. However,most of the neighbors were appreciative of the major changes gpplicant made to address their main concerns. 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission: a. The Commission continued this project to allow for the applicant to make larger lots on the exterior to accommodate single story homes. The applicant addressed this and gained support from some of the neighbors as a result. However, commission still discussed building heights and parking. The commission ultimately determined the amount of parking was adequate and they restricted all homes to a maximum building height of 35 feet. 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. The commission made one change to the staff report. The commission added a provision in the Development Agreement to restrict the maximum building height to 35 feet. 5. Outstanding issue(s)for City Council: a. -Building heights of the proposed single and two (2) story homes within the development. -Considering traffic and parking concerns from the public comments received. 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 B. Subject Site Photos Air r a Ir City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits a . City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 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 D. Landscape Plan(date: 2/6/2026) i u wo"a 51 ------------ -- :.Y -„� LL a� s ----------- City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits LANDSCAPE P£W IP.EIAENIB ---- ---______ pantas RPE PWY,1 1� ,. - ----i---•-----—---- I LnrvoscnvE _�...._..,.�... .. _ L——————————————————————————J ., ....... .............�..._.. _— -__ �T_CT.., t I L700 t R C PII rotas ---C It's I IDOO CD — s�— _ • ... .. I ......................................................... I V7 I Z iZ I LLIQ� --_ m_— __� • i sLxK p r s CDgmy m d 10 I LL aLa�K — _ -- — I ®fu-ti—Li— LANDSCAPE FLl01 City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 014 PLWTSCIEOLIE i I� - - - 1.. 1 o ---- ------3--r; ��I -----5----- ----9—— , ntas 1 pia.,•, HARDWAN ET -e — � ii I a a • I 10 11 i 12 'f i w p"a �. t --I •' i 051 ---- v_._. .._..._._ 1 L I [~J m1 0 a"- 0' 14 ------ ---------- -- - Wi�SCAPE L102 —1 sa—E I 14 � 7 ry I5 Plantas - --------- --------1� = _--------- - - == - 1 �. Vr___ f BL 1 l III j6Y I i cc cn I �J.-.-. ---- -- ___4___^__.--_-___---__ _ I I LL m._ L---------------------------------------------------- L103 City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits W* plantar 77 =0 D1REE PRaTECTON 2 Ti1EE YN SFn11 E%IS1NGSaL HOT I.IGa•lEa 3 sNlgR.uN.gOFlEo sal e z�fl z �1SlEEL LNlaSCePEEGCJHG T18CLa9Ep VISIGN FEWE SIC 11, TZ L4!ffiCAPE SO 11-IT" GE_S E LIS E. Preliminary Plat(date: 1/5/2026) Pamngonn Hcighxs Suhdivieinn PLift ary Plax • rir ! _ ! � l LE A.• ' � ` _�:1J i Famngwn .e e : _. PP-1 City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits MEL LOV. N, PP-2 74-0-WE TT ------- ---- -----IM L T----------- J ---------- ------ --------- i ----- ---- ---------- --- - ------------r Higb. --- -------- WF PP-3 City of Meridian Department Report V11. Exhibits F. Building Elevations d. 2/10/2026) F 1 City of Meridian ti J - ���f+�'f Y�•�-�r me'µ• �f i 1 ` ar of f Department10 P' i�a 3 ate_ P,. yi OL yr IN ,°'A':. � - `'?�C _,:G�f.. �--p +::!•'-l.. :�^.-.•�{''r"'. '^�F'� it. -`...- rw�1CF r t F Copyrlghl By Oeslgner UndUlhpii20d 1�fl0 Plahipi[pd City of MeridianDepartment Re 11Exhibits �_ �� � j��ti � .fir •' ��; .v, ALa... - City of Meridian - sc v +" r �1 � - r Department10 •s. 1.. DepartmentCity of Meridian po 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 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 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 Development Application Transmittal Link to Project Application: Farrington Heights Subdivision MDA, RZ, PP H-2025-0016 Hearin Date: August 7, 2025 Assigned Planner: Nick Napoli To view the City of Meridian Public Records Repository, Click Here The above "Link to Project Application" will provide you with any further information on the project. The City of Meridian is requesting comments and recommendations on the application referenced above. To review the application and project information please click on the application link above. The City of Meridian values transparency and makes a variety of information available to the public online through our public records repository. We request that you submit your comments or recommendations prior to the hearing date specified above. When responding, please reference the file number of the project. If responding by email, please send comments to comment(a)_meridiancity.org. For additional information associated with this application please contact the City of Meridian Planner identified above at 208-884-5533. Thank you, City Clerk's Office 33 E. Broadway Ave., Meridian, Idaho 83642 Phone: 208.888.44331 Email: cityclerk meridiancity.org Built for Business, Designed for Living All e-mail messages sent to or received by City of Meridian e-mail accounts are subject to the Idaho law, in regards to both release and retention, and may be released upon request, unless exempt from disclosure by law. C i E IDIAN.;--- Agenda Item Applicant Presentation February 24, 2026Meridian City Council 21 Maximum Lot Size 9,078 Average Residential Lot Size s.f4,000 Minimum Residential Lots Size 2,951 Gross Residential Density 5.12 units per acre Total Acreage 4.68 acres Existing Homes 3 Common Lots 7 Single Family Residential Lots Zoning Request Surrounding Control Campus Weed & Pest Fair No. 6 Danbury Fair No. 1 Danbury Fair No. 2 Danbury Fair No. 5 Danbury Fair No. 3 Danbury Avebury Sub Subdivision AdditionEast Side Subdivision Pine 43Keziah 2 -No. 1Addition Maws Fair No. 7 Danbury Development NEIGHBORHOOD COMMUNICATION Neighborhood Communication Neighborhood 3rd RevisionRevision nd 2 Communication Neighborhood Transition SingleElevationslevel- TwoElevationsHousing - Summary W IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Ordinance No. 26-2111: An ordinance (Apex Cadence— H-2024-0061) annexing land being a portion of Government Lot 1 and the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 6, Township 2 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as depicted in the map exhibit; rezoning 0.86 acres of such real property from RUT (Rural Urban Transition) to the R-15 (Medium-High Density Residential) zoning district; directing city staff to alter all applicable use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps and all official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance; providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Treasurer, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law; repealing conflicting ordinances; and providing an effective date. Ada County Recorder Trent Tripple 2026-012829 Boise,Idaho Pgs=6 cfowler 02/25/2026 08:06:46 AM CITY OF MERIDIAN IDAHO$0.00 Electronically Recorded CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 26-2111 BY THE CITY COUNCIL: CAVENER, LITTLE ROBERTS, OVERTON STRADER, TAYLOR, WHITLOCK AN ORDINANCE (APEX CADENCE — H-2024-0061) ANNEXING LAND BEING A PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1 AND THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 2 NORTH, RANGE I EAST,BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A"; REZONING 0.86 ACRES OF SUCH REAL PROPERTY FROM RUT (RURAL URBAN TRANSITION) TO THE R-15 (MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ZONING DISTRICT; DIRECTING CITY STAFF TO ALTER ALL APPLICABLE USE AND AREA MAPS AS WELL AS THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAPS AND ALL OFFICIAL MAPS DEPICTING THE BOUNDARIES AND THE ZONING DISTRICTS OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS ORDINANCE; PROVIDING THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE FILED WITH THE ADA COUNTY ASSESSOR, THE ADA COUNTY TREASURER,THE ADA COUNTY RECORDER,AND THE IDAHO STATE TAX COMMISSION, AS REQUIRED BY LAW; REPEALING CONFLICTING ORDINANCES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE WHEREAS, the City of Meridian received a written request from property owners SCS Investments LLC, SCSH Properties LLC and The David & Kristin Turnbull Family Trust Dated August 1, 2006 to annex and rezone the land described in the legal descriptions attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and the maps attached hereto as Exhibit `B" ("Subject Property"), which exhibits are incorporated herein by reference; WHEREAS,the Subject Property is contiguous to the corporate limits of the City of Meridian, Idaho; WHEREAS, the City of Meridian is authorized by Idaho Code section 50-222 to annex the Subject Property; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF IDAHO: SECTION 1. That the City Council of the City of Meridian hereby annexes the Subject Property. SECTION 2. That the City Council of the City of Meridian hereby rezones 0.86 acres of such real property from RUT (Rural Urban Transition) to the R-15 (Medium-High Density Residential) zoning district. ANNEXATION ORDINANCE—APEX CADENCE H-2024-0061 Page I SECTION 3. That City Staff is hereby directed to alter all applicable use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps and all official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance. SECTION 4. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a certified copy of this ordinance and its exhibits with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Treasurer, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, within ten (10) days following the effective date of this ordinance. SECTION 5. That all ordinances, resolutions, orders or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed. SECTION 6. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon publication, in accordance with law. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN,IDAHO,this 24th day of February, 2026. APPROVED BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this 24th day of February, 2026. MAYOR ROBERT E. SIMISON ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON, CITY CLERK STATE OF IDAHO, ) ) ss: County of Ada ) On this 24th day of February,2026,before me,the undersigned,a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared Robert E.Simison and Chris Johnson known to me to be the Mayor and City Clerk,respectively, of the City of Meridian,Idaho,and who executed the within instrument,and acknowledged to me that the City of Meridian executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. (SEAL) Notary Public Commission Expiration: 3-28-2028 ANNEXATION ORDINANCE—APEX CADENCE H-2024-0061 Page 2 i I CERTIFICATION OF SUMMARY: William L. M.Nary, City Attorney of the City of Meridian,Idaho, hereby certifies that the summary below is true and complete and upon its publication will provide adequate notice to the public. I f I William L. M.Nary, City Attorney SUMMARY OF CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 26-2111 An ordinance (Apex Cadence — H-2024-0061) annexing land being a portion of Government Lot 1 and the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 6,Township 2 North,Range 1 East,Boise Meridian,Ada County,Idaho,as depicted in the map exhibit;rezoning 0.86 acres of such real property from RUT (Rural Urban Transition) to the R-15 (Medium-High Density Residential) zoning district; directing city staff to alter all applicable use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps and all official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance; providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor,the Ada County Treasurer,the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law; repealing conflicting ordinances; and providing an effective date. A full text of this ordinance is available for inspection at City Hall, City of Meridian, 33 East Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho. This ordinance shall be effective as of the date of publication of this summary. [Publication to include map as set forth in Exhibit B.] ANNEXATION ORDINANCE—APEX CADENCE H-2024-0061 Page 3 EXHIBIT B NORTHWEST CORNER GOV'T LOT 1 FOUND 5/8" REBAR S74'59'05"E 54.46' N00'02'06"W S61'32'57"E 27.96' 1 14.87' N74'59'05"W I S32'08'38"E 44.02' N61'32'57"W 102.04' 104.61' 00 N32'08'38"W M 91.83' QQ N W M Z m � w w Cp., 6: O m 0 0' CENTERLINE OF THE POINT OF COMMENCEMENT S, `—� RAWSON CANAL SOUTHWEST CORNER GOV'T LOT 1 FOUND 5/8" REBAR 0 N05'26'52"W S05'26'S2"E X 106.26' 113.22' ct 0 u a DAVID& KRISTIN o TURNBULL FAMILY TRUST N APN: S14061130355 (PORTION) Lo M M ANNEXATION AREA: 0.86±AC N rn 1 LiCURRENT ZONING: RUT Ln o 3 w O a w ^ o c0 N N 0 O O O z N Z u O o 0 I N31'51'12"E m 92.01' W I N54'55'20"E 0 74.17' S31'51" 2"W X 102.63' a POINT OF BEGINNING N7825'55"E a 161.21' 6 , " o N00'02'06"W S54'55 20 W 27.56' 85.30' N S78'25'55"W 0 150 300 450 17234' , r ENGINEERING PlanScale: 1. = 150 'm 5725 NORTH DISCOVERY WAY - X BOISE,IDAHO 83713 EXHIBIT B i PHONE(208)639-6939 u kmengllp.com ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF MERIDIAN w DATE: SEPTEMBER 2025 s PROJECT: 24-108 SHEET: APEX CADENCE SUBDIVISION N 1 OF 1 GOV'T LOT 1, SE1/4 NE1/4 SEC. 6, T2N, R1E, BM, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO a ssr 3g2S). nsl o�s� e I a N� 7 �o m Or O N � O ITT Cyr rn� W f =m 3 0 0 N rn N _o 0 C y 0 c `I. g nj •1� 05'yL n18'2t555e yD, Z 55 y si '2 w Annexation 24-108 9/24/2025 Scale: 1 inch= 142 feet File: Tract 1:0.8591 Acres(37424 Sq.Feet),Closure:s62.5425e 0.01 ft.(1/383689),Perimeter-2828 ft. 01 n78.2555e 161.21 14 s18.5620e 293.97 02 n54.5520e 74.17 15 s05.2652e 113.22 03 n31.5112e 92.01 16 s10.2510w 390.2 04 n10.2510e 381.33 17 s31.5112w 102.63 05 n05.2652w 106.26 18 s54.5520w 85.3 06 n18.5620w 287.65 19 s78.2555w 172.34 07 n32.0838w 91.83 20 n00.0206w 27.56 08 n61.3257w 104.61 09 n74.5905w 44.02 10 n00.0206w 27.96 11 s74.5905e 54.46 12 s61.3257e 114.87 13 s32.0838e 102.04 kmEXHIBIT A E N G I N E E R I N G September 26, 2025 Project No.: 24-108 Apex Cadence Subdivision Exhibit A Legal Description for Annexation To the City of Meridian A parcel of land for annexation to the City of Meridian being a portion of Government Lot 1 and the Southeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 6, Township 2 North, Range 1 East, B.M., Ada County, Idaho being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at a 5/8-inch rebar marking the Southwest corner of said Government Lot 1, which bears S00*02'06"E a distance of 1,337.30 feet from a 5/8-inch rebar marking the Northwest corner of said Government Lot 1,thence following the westerly line of said Southeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4, S00002'06"E a distance of 598.75 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Thence leaving said westerly line, N78'25'55"E a distance of 161.21 feet; Thence N54'55'20"E a distance of 74.17 feet; Thence N31'51'12"E a distance of 92.01 feet; Thence N10'25'10"E a distance of 381.33 feet; Thence N05026'52"W a distance of 106.26 feet; Thence N18'56'20"W a distance of 287.65 feet; Thence N32*08'38"W a distance of 91.83 feet; Thence N61`32'57"W a distance of 104.61 feet; Thence N74'59'05"W a distance of 44.02 feet; Thence N00'02'06"W a distance of 27.96 feet to the centerline of the Rawson Canal; Thence following said centerline the following nine (9) courses: 1. S74`59'05"E a distance of 54.46 feet; 2. S61`32'57"E a distance of 114.87 feet; 3. 532008'38"E a distance of 102.04 feet; 4. S18056'20"E a distance of 293.97 feet; 5. S05026'52"E a distance of 113.22 feet; 6. S10°25'10"W a distance of 390.20 feet; 7. S31'51'12"W a distance of 102.63 feet; 8. S54055'20"W a distance of 85.30 feet; 9. S78°25'55"W a distance of 172.34 feet to the westerly line of said Southeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4; Thence leaving said centerline and following said westerly line, N00002'06"W a distance of 27.56 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. 5725 North Discovery way o 0oise, Idaho 83713 ® 208.639.6939• kmengllp.com Said parcel contains a total of 0.86 acres, more or less, and is subject to all existing easements and/or rights-of-way of record or implied. Attached hereto is Exhibit B and by this reference is made a part hereof. 5ti��1ST Sf,, 4, 4 tUAI 590 tu If OF N L. Bt►�'�'A a zu•7-o25 PAGE 2 W IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Ordinance No. 26-2112: An ordinance (Apex Cadence— H-2024-0061) de- annexing land located in a portion of the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter and the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 6, Township 2 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as depicted in the map exhibit; directing city staff to alter all applicable use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps and all official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance, providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Treasurer, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law; repealing conflicting ordinances; and providing an effective date. Ada County Recorder Trent Tripple 2026-012831 Boise,Idaho Pgs=5 dryalls 02/25/2026 08:07:24 AM CITY OF MERIDIAN IDAHO$0.00 Electronically Recorded CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 26-2112 BY THE CITY COUNCIL: CAVENER, LITTLE ROBERTS, OVERTON STRADER, TAYLOR, WHITLOCK AN ORDINANCE (APEX CADENCE — H-2024-0061) DE-ANNEXING LAND LOCATED IN A PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER AND THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 2 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, BOISE MERIDIAN, CITY OF MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY,IDAHO, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A"; DIRECTING CITY STAFF TO ALTER ALL APPLICABLE USE AND AREA MAPS AS WELL AS THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAPS AND ALL OFFICIAL MAPS DEPICTING THE BOUNDARIES AND THE ZONING DISTRICTS OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS ORDINANCE; PROVIDING THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE FILED WITH THE ADA COUNTY ASSESSOR, THE ADA COUNTY TREASURER,THE ADA COUNTY RECORDER,AND THE IDAHO STATE TAX COMMISSION, AS REQUIRED BY LAW; REPEALING CONFLICTING ORDINANCES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE WHEREAS, the City of Meridian is authorized by Idaho Code section 50-225 to alter its boundaries and exclude territory; WHEREAS, the Subject Property was inadvertently annexed into the City of Meridian and now requires de-annexation; WHEREAS, the City of Meridian received a written request from property owners SCS Investments LLC, SCSH Properties LLC and The David & Kristin Turnbull Family Trust Dated August 1, 2006 to de-annex the land described in the legal description attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and the map attached hereto as Exhibit `B" ("Subject Property"), which exhibits are incorporated herein by reference; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF IDAHO: SECTION 1. That the City Council of the City of Meridian hereby de-annexes the Subject Property. SECTION 2. That City Staff is hereby directed to alter all applicable use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps and all official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance. SECTION 3. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a certified copy of this ordinance and its exhibits with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Treasurer, the Ada County Recorder, ANNEXATION ORDINANCE—APEX CADENCE H-2024-0061 Page I and the Idaho State Tax Commission, within ten (10) days following the effective date of this ordinance. SECTION 4. That all ordinances, resolutions, orders or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed. SECTION 5. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon publication, in accordance with law. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN,IDAHO,this 24th day of February, 2026. APPROVED BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this 24th day of February, 2026. MAYOR ROBERT E. SIMISON ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON, CITY CLERK STATE OF IDAHO ) ) ss: County of Ada ) On this 24th day of February,2026,before me,the undersigned,a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared Robert E.Simison and Chris Johnson known to me to be the Mayor and City Clerk,respectively, of the City of Meridian,Idaho,and who executed the within instrument,and acknowledged to me that the City of Meridian executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. Notary Public Commission Expiration: 3-28-2028 ANNEXATION ORDINANCE—APEX CADENCE H-2024-0061 Page 2 CERTIFICATION OF SUMMARY: William L. M.Nary, City Attorney of the City of Meridian, Idaho,hereby certifies that the summary below is true and complete and upon its publication will provide adequate notice to the public. William L. M.Nary, City Attorney SUMMARY OF CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 26-2112 An ordinance (Apex Cadence—H-2024-0061) de-annexing land located in a portion of the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter and the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 6, Township 2 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as depicted in the map exhibit; directing city staff to alter all applicable use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps and all official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance;providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Treasurer, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law; repealing conflicting ordinances; and providing an effective date. A full text of this ordinance is available for inspection at City Hall, City of Meridian, 33 East Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho. This ordinance shall be effective as of the date of publication of this summary. [Publication to include map as set forth in Exhibit B.] ANNEXATION ORDINANCE—APEX CADENCE H-2024-0061 Page 3 EXHIBIT A km E N G I N E E R I N G September 26,2025 Project No.:24-108 Apex Cadence Subdivision Exhibit A Legal Description for De-Annexation From the City of Meridian A parcel of land for de-annexation from the City of Meridian being a portion of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 and the Northeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6,Township 2 North, Range 1 East, B.M., City of Meridian,Ada County, Idaho being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at an aluminum cap marking the East 1/4 corner of said Section 6,which bears S00°04'35"E a distance of 2,671.16 feet from an aluminum cap marking the Northeast corner of said Section 6,thence following the northerly line of said Northeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4, N89'22'50"W a distance of 1,304.25 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Thence leaving said northerly line,S00°42'27"E a distance of 601.03 feet; Thence N52°05'35"W a distance of 31.44 feet to the westerly line of said Northeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4; Thence following said westerly line, N00°02'10"W a distance of 581.86 feet to the Northwest corner of said Northeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4(Center-East 1/16 corner); Thence leaving the westerly line of said Northeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 and following the westerly line of said Southeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4, N00'02'06"W a distance of 660.87 feet; Thence leaving said westerly line,S87'34'26"E a distance of 13.49 feet; Thence S00`20'23"E a distance of 549.25 feet; Thence S00`43'55"E a distance of 111.26 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said parcel contains a total of 0.52 acres, more or less,and is subject to all existing easements and/or rights-of-way of record or implied. Attached hereto is Exhibit B and by this reference is made a part hereof. g ZST 4• a to12 WCJ of % . B!►Lt' R•Z6 •?.0ZS 5725 North Discovery Way • Boise, Idaho 83713 • 208.639.6939• kmenglip.com EXHIBIT B NORTHEAST CORNER SECTION 6 FOUND ALUMINUM CAP / E. LAKE HAZEL RD. 31 32 S87-34'26"E 6 5 13.49' in C� o "o DE-ANNEXATION CD 6 w TOTAL AREA: 0.52±AC 04 m N Ln O o �O N N o GARY R. MURGOITIO tUi o �' APN: S1406141870 � N m z CURRENT ZONING: R-8 POINT OF COMMENCEMENT S00143'55"E EAST 1/4 CORNER SECTION 6 CENTER-EAST 1/16 CORNER rl .26' FOUND ALUMINUM CAP >O N89'22'50"W 1304.25' (TIE) OINT OF BEGINNING g U a O '+ J x L&G MURGOITIO LLC vi CID aq o APN: S1406417700 (PORTION) CURRENT ZONING: R-4 00 o `n UD I o w vi 0 r- Cq N O � O z O O a Z N N w' z o i 9 0 200 400 600 ID 3 Plan Scale: 1" =200' 0 z 0 a ' z N52'05'35"W W I 31.44' 0 0 z z m m I b E N G I N E E R I N G m 5725 NORTH DISCOVERY WAY X BOISE,IDAH083713 EXHIBIT 6 i PHONE(208)639-6939 S krrcengllp.corn DE-ANNEXATION FROM THE CITY OF MERIDIAN S DATE: SEPTEMBER 2025 PROJECT: 24-108 SHEET: APEX CADENCE SUBDIVISION 1 OF 1 SE1/4 NE1/4, NE1/4 SE1/4, SEC. 6,T2N, R1E, BM, CITY OF MERIDIAN,ADA COUNTY, IDAHO a 0 a N O I N � W O W O s O .'a A N CJ O� CD O 0 O a O Ow A N W N V City of Meridian De-Annexation 24-108 9/24/2025 Scale: 1 inch= 145 feet I File: Tract 1:0.5200 Acres(22653 Sq.Feet),Closure:n00.0000e 0.00 ft.(1/999999), Perimeter=2549 ft. 01 s00.4227e 601.03 07 s00.4355e 111.26 02 n52.0535w 31.44 03 n00.0210w 581.86 04 n00.0206w 660.87 05 s87.3426e 13.49 O6 s00.2023e 549.25 W IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Ordinance No. 26-2113: An ordinance (Apex Cadence H-2024-0061) for rezone of land located in the east half of the northeast quarter of Section 6, Township 2 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as depicted in the map exhibit, rezoning 56.11 acres of land from the R-8 (Medium-Density Residential) zoning district to the R-15 (Medium High-Density) zoning district in the Meridian City Code, directing city staff to alter all applicable use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps and all applicable official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance; providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Treasurer, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law; and providing an effective date. Ada County Recorder Trent Tripple 2026-012843 Boise,Idaho Pgs=6 cfowler 02/25/2026 08:12:21 AM CITY OF MERIDIAN IDAHO$0.00 Electronically Recorded CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 26-2113 BY THE CITY COUNCIL: CAVENER, LITTLE ROBERTS, OVERTON, STRADER, TAYLOR,WHITLOCK AN ORDINANCE (APEX CADENCE H-2024-0061)FOR REZONE OF LAND LOCATED IN THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 2 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, BOISE MERIDIAN, CITY OF MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A," REZONING 56.11 ACRES OF LAND FROM THE R-8 (MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ZONING DISTRICT TO THE R-15 (MEDIUM HIGH-DENSITY) ZONING DISTRICT IN THE MERIDIAN CITY CODE; DIRECTING CITY STAFF TO ALTER ALL APPLICABLE USE AND AREA MAPS AS WELL AS THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAPS AND ALL APPLICABLE OFFICIAL MAPS DEPICTING THE BOUNDARIES AND THE ZONING DISTRICTS OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS ORDINANCE; PROVIDING THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE FILED WITH THE ADA COUNTY ASSESSOR, THE ADA COUNTY TREASURER, THE ADA COUNTY RECORDER, AND THE IDAHO STATE TAX COMMISSION, AS REQUIRED BY LAW; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF IDAHO: SECTION 1. That the property described in the Legal Description attached hereto as Exhibit "A," which is incorporated herein by reference, is within the corporate limits of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and that the City of Meridian has received a written request for rezoning by SCS Investments LLC, SCSHProperties LLC, and The David&Kristin Turnbull Family Trust Dated August 1, 2006,the owners of said property. SECTION 2. That the above-described real property is hereby rezoned from the R-8 (Medium- Density Residential) zoning district to the R-15 (Medium High-Density) zoning district. SECTION 3. That City Staff is hereby directed to alter all applicable use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps and all applicable official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance. SECTION 4. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a certified copy of this ordinance and its exhibits with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Treasurer, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission within ten (10) days following the effective date of this ordinance. SECTION 5. That all ordinances, resolutions, orders or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed. REZONE ORDINANCE-APEX CADENCE H-2024-0061 PAGE 1 SECTION 6.That this Ordinance, once passed, shall be in full force and effect upon publication, in accordance with law. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this day of February, 2026. APPROVED BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN,IDAHO, this day of February, 2026. MAYOR ROBERT E. SIMISON ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON, CITY CLERK STATE OF IDAHO, ) ) ss: County of Ada ) On this 24th day of February , 2026, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared ROBERT E. SIMISON and CHRIS JOHNSON known to me to be the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively,of the City of Meridian,Idaho,and who executed the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that the City of Meridian executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. (SEAL) Notary Public for Idaho My Commission Expires: 3-28-2028 REZONE ORDINANCE-APEX CADENCE H-2024-0061 PAGE 2 Type ext Iicre CERTIFICATION OF SUMMARY: William L. M.Nary, City Attorney of the City of Meridian, Idaho,hereby certifies that the summary below is true and complete and upon its publication will provide adequate notice to the public. William L. M.Nary, City Attorney SUMMARY OF CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 26-2113 An ordinance (Apex Cadence H-2024-0061) for rezone of land located in the east half of the northeast quarter of Section 6, Township 2 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as depicted in the map exhibit, rezoning 56.11 acres of land from the R-8 (Medium-Density Residential) zoning district to the R-15 (Medium High-Density) zoning district in the Meridian City Code; directing city staff to alter all applicable use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps and all applicable official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance;providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor,the Ada County Treasurer,the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law; and providing an effective date. A full text of this ordinance is available for inspection at City Hall, City of Meridian, 33 East Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho. This ordinance shall be effective as of the date of publication of this summary. [Publication to include map as set forth in Exhibit B.] REZONE ORDINANCE-APEX CADENCE H-2024-0061 PAGE 3 km E N G I N E E R I N G October 23,2024 Apex Cadence Subdivision Project No.24-108 Rezone to R-15 Legal Description Exhibit A A parcel of land situated in a portion of the East 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 6,Township 2 North, Range 1 East B.M.,City of Meridian,Ada County, Idaho and being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at an aluminum cap marking the northeast corner of Section 6 which bears S89°42'21"E a distance of 2,640.00 feet from a 5/8-inch rebar marking the North 1/4 corner of said Section 6,thence following the easterly line of the Northeast 1/4 of said Section 6,S00°04'35"E a distance of 746.02 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Thence following said easterly line,S00°04'35"E a distance of 1,925.14 feet to an aluminum cap marking the east 1/4 corner of said Section 6; Thence leaving said easterly line and following the southerly line of said East 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 6, N89'22'50"W a distance of 1,304.25 feet; Thence leaving said southerly line, N00°43'55"W a distance of 111.26 feet; Thence N00°20'23"W a distance of 549.25 feet; Thence N87°34'26"W a distance of 13.49 feet to the westerly line of said East 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 6; Thence following said westerly line, N00*02'06"W a distance of 66.73 feet to the westerly right-of-way line of the Rawson Canal; Thence leaving said westerly line and following said westerly right-of-way line the following nine (9) courses: 1. N78°25'55"E a distance of 161.21 feet; 2. N54°55'20"E a distance of 74.17 feet; 3. N31°51'12"E a distance of 92.01 feet; 4. N10`25'10"E a distance of 381.33 feet; 5. N05"26'52"W a distance of 106.26 feet; 6. N18"56'20"W a distance of 287.65 feet; 7. N32"08'38"W a distance of 91.83 feet; 8. N61'32'57"W a distance of 104.61 feet; 9. N74*59'05"W a distance of 44.02 feet; Thence leaving said westerly right-of-way line, N00`02'06"W a distance of 396.78 feet; Thence S89'42'20"E a distance of 796.96 feet; Thence S00°04'35"E a distance of 252.00 feet; 5725 North Discovery Way o Boise,Idaho 83713 • 208.639.6939 9 kmengllp.com Thence S89'42'20"E a distance of 473.40 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said parcel contains a total of 56.11 acres, more or less. 0 Attached hereto is Exhibit B and by this reference is made a part hereof. u, 12459 0to a � OF N L. B�►�'1' to.2--s- PAGE 12 P:\24-108\SURVEY\CAD\EXHIBITS\24-108 R-15 REZONE APEX CADENCE.DWG,AARON BALLARD,10/23/2024,ESTUD10907.PC3,--- n rn I � O M V)Z Ln W N n M m 0� I I m n Z�0 to n n = rn\= j mI �o � �;0 WI nm v _ N ZZLO Omq O J Cr O] Z O p � � O _r+i —N00'02'06"Wco — Z `� 396.78' .to > w Ui Z -P :I M Z v (n N Cn � 0 -;- 0 to L4 m 0 <,3 �Z 00to 00 IV N p N N 10'25' M O I O 0 V1 N m cn o L!o Zrn w 81.33' cn EA 0) Ca N m Q1 D CD o � w DO N z n M O O cvo D po c) fD to Z z o (A CD 0(D o � D rn m -I D rt -h O " O O m O0 p N cn N L8 m v W 0) CD �' SEC i m-0 m Nam I N L�r1 Ln p + zZ P N oKm C) ZO O Zorn Lm === » WS00'04'35"E 1925.14' S00'04'35"E �' S Locust Grove Rd = -74 Ln rw m D IJ Apex Southeast Apex Southeast Subdivision No. 1 -� z Subdivision No.2 z o rn D mim v _TFT, m r O OOro v m ()1 -rp (A IV m Z Cl) O N [n �' p oo m m C7 O D t�0 N 00 OI 0 " > Z m (n N v CD N N O 0rr! Ll D O Z m _ v N 0 co cD (n N P 1 O D p IV CAQNi - n m O O m p 1 Z m Exhibit B - Rezone to R-15 'O lNft ^' m` .. °�Z ►� Z 3 m 9� Apex Cadence Subdivision m� �n 7 r >=D O G9 O =n < T7 W�0 9 s A Portion of the East 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 6, n Z o N Township 2 North, Range 1 East, B.M., City of Meridian,Ada County, ID m a 796.96 s89042'20"e w= � �IJ c 473.40 m c s89°42'20"e !s �i �o 6" h � oy" O C O N A 1.J W .+ / tr ? J a 6, O � O � O W t4 to w �W n89°22'50"w 1304.25 Title: Rezone to R-15 Date: 10-23-2024 Scale: 1 inch=400 feet File: Tract 1: 56.109 Acres: 2444119 Sq Feet:Closure=s50.3427e 0.01 Feet: Precision=1/644916: Perimeter=7232 Feet 001=s00.0435e 1925.14 008=n54.5520e 74.17 015=n74.5905w 44.02 002=n89.2250w 1304.25 009=n31.5112e 92.01 016=n00.0206w 396.78 003=n00.4355w 111.26 010=n10.2510e 381.33 0 1 7=s89.4220e 796.96 004=n00.2023w 549.25 011=n05.2652w 106.26 018=s00.0435e 252.00 005=n87.3426w 13.49 012=n18.5620w 287.65 019=s89.4220e 473.40 006=n00.0206w 66.73 013=n32.0838w 91.83 007=n78.2555e 161.21 014=n61.3257w 104.61 W IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Ordinance No. 26-2114: An ordinance (Hill's Century Farms Townhomes H- 2024-0072) for rezone of land encompassing all of Lots 2-7 and a portion of Lot 10, Block 2 of Hill's Century Farm Commercial Subdivision No. 1 (Book 115 of Plats, Pages 17131-17134, records of Ada County, Idaho) and all of Lots 12 and 13, Block 2 of Hill's Century Farm Commercial Subdivision No. 2 (Book 124 of Plats, Pages 19913-19915, records of Ada County, Idaho) situated in a portion of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 33, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as depicted in the map exhibit, rezoning 5.45 acres of land from the C-N (Neighborhood Business) zoning district to the R-15 (Medium High-Density Residential) zoning district in the Meridian City Code; directing city staff to alter all applicable use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps and all applicable official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance; providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Treasurer, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law; and providing an effective date. Ada County Recorder Trent Tripple 2026-012846 Boise,Idaho Pgs=7 vbailey 02/25/2026 08:16:37 AM CITY OF MERIDIAN IDAHO$0.00 Electronically Recorded CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 26-2114 BY THE CITY COUNCIL: CAVENER, LITTLE ROBERTS, OVERTON, STRADER, TAYLOR,WHITLOCK AN ORDINANCE (HILL'S CENTURY FARMS TOWNHOMES H-2024-0072) FOR REZONE OF LAND ENCOMPASSING ALL OF LOTS 2-7 AND A PORTION OF LOT 10, BLOCK 2 OF HILL'S CENTURY FARM COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISION NO. 1 (BOOK 115 OF PLATS, PAGES 17131-17134, RECORDS OF ADA COUNTY, IDAHO) AND ALL OF LOTS 12 AND 13,BLOCK 2 OF HILL'S CENTURY FARM COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISION NO.2 (BOOK 124 OF PLATS,PAGES 19913-19915,RECORDS OF ADA COUNTY,IDAHO) SITUATED IN A PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 33, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH,RANGE 1 EAST,BOISE MERIDIAN, CITY OF MERIDIAN,ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A," REZONING 5.45 ACRES OF LAND FROM THE C-N (NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS) ZONING DISTRICT TO THE R-15 (MEDIUM HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ZONING DISTRICT IN THE MERIDIAN CITY CODE; DIRECTING CITY STAFF TO ALTER ALL APPLICABLE USE AND AREA MAPS AS WELL AS THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAPS AND ALL APPLICABLE OFFICIAL MAPS DEPICTING THE BOUNDARIES AND THE ZONING DISTRICTS OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS ORDINANCE; PROVIDING THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE FILED WITH THE ADA COUNTY ASSESSOR, THE ADA COUNTY TREASURER, THE ADA COUNTY RECORDER, AND THE IDAHO STATE TAX COMMISSION,AS REQUIRED BY LAW;AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF IDAHO: SECTION 1. That the property described in the Legal Description attached hereto as Exhibit "A," which is incorporated herein by reference, is within the corporate limits of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and that the City of Meridian has received a written request for rezoning by Brighton Land Holdings LLC, DWT Investments LLC, and Watson Land Holdings LLC, the owners of said property. SECTION 2. That the above-described real property is hereby rezoned from the C-N (Neighborhood Business)zoning district to the R-1 5 (Medium High-Density Residential)zoning district. SECTION 3. That City Staff is hereby directed to alter all applicable use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps and all applicable official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance. SECTION 4. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a certified copy of this ordinance and its exhibits with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Treasurer, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission within ten (10) days following the effective date of this ordinance. REZONE ORDINANCE-KILL'S CENTURY FARMS TOWNHOMEs H-2024-0072 PAGE 1 SECTION 5. That all ordinances, resolutions, orders or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed. SECTION 6.That this Ordinance, once passed, shall be in full force and effect upon publication, in accordance with law. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this 24th day of February, 2026. APPROVED BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this 24th day of February, 2026. MAYOR ROBERT E. SIMISON ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON, CITY CLERK STATE OF IDAHO, ) ) ss: County of Ada ) On this 24th day of February, 2026,before me,the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State,personally appeared ROBERT E.SIMISON and CHRIS JOHNSON known to me to be the Mayor and City Clerk,respectively,of the City of Meridian,Idaho,and who executed the within instrument,and acknowledged to me that the City of Meridian executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. (SEAL) Notary Public for Idaho My Commission Expires: 3-28-2028 REZONE ORDINANCE—HILL'S CENTURY FARMS TOWNHOMEs H-2024-0072 PAGE 2 i i CERTIFICATION OF SUMMARY: William L. M.Nary, City Attorney of the City of Meridian,Idaho,hereby certifies that the summary below is true and complete and upon its publication will provide adequate notice to the public. William L. M.Nary, City Attorney i SUMMARY OF CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 26-2114 An ordinance (Hill's Century Farms Townhomes H-2024-0072) for rezone of land encompassing all of Lots 2-7 and a portion of Lot 10, Block 2 of Hill's Century Farm Commercial Subdivision No. 1 (Book 115 of Plats, Pages 17131-17134, records of Ada County, Idaho) and all of Lots 12 and 13, Block 2 of Hill's Century Farm Commercial Subdivision No. 2 (Book 124 of Plats, Pages 19913-19915, records of Ada County, Idaho) situated in a portion of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 33, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as depicted in the map exhibit, rezoning 5.45 acres of land from the C-N (Neighborhood Business) zoning district to the R-15 (Medium High-Density Residential) zoning district in the Meridian City Code; directing city staff to alter all applicable use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps and all applicable official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance;providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Treasurer, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law; and providing an effective date. A full text of this ordinance is available for inspection at City Hall, City of Meridian, 33 East Broadway Avenue,Meridian,Idaho. This ordinance shall be effective as of the date of publication of this summary. [Publication to include map as set forth in Exhibit B.] REZONE ORDINANCE—HILL'S CENTURY FARMS TOWNHOMEs H-2024-0072 PAGE 3 kmEXHIBIT A E N G I N E E R I N G November 27,2024 Project No.24-080 Rezone to R-15 Legal Description Exhibit A All of Lots 2-7 and a portion of Lot 10, Block 2 of Hill's Century Farm Commercial Subdivision No. 1(Book 115 of Plats, Pages 17131-17134, Records of Ada County,Idaho)and all of Lots 12 and 13,Block 2 of Hill's Century Farm Commercial Subdivision No.2(Book 124 of Plats, Pages 19913-19915, Records of Ada County, Idaho), situated in portion of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 33,Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian,City of Meridian,Ada County, Idaho and being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at an aluminum cap marking the North 1/4 corner of said Section 33,which bears S89°15'22"E a distance of 2,660.62 feet from a brass cap marking the Northwest corner of said Section 33; Thence following the northerly line of said Northeast 1/4 of Section 33, N89'15'22"W a distance of 783.43 feet to the northeast corner of said Hill's Century Farm Commercial Subdivision No.2; Thence leaving said northerly line and following the subdivision boundary of said Hill's Century Farm Commercial Subdivision No.2,S00°44'38"W a distance of 193.58 feet to a brass plug marking the southeast corner of Lot 11, Block 2 of said Hill's Century Farm Commercial Subdivision No.2 and being the POINT OF BEGINNING. Thence following said subdivision boundary,S00°44'38"W a distance of 23.42 feet to a 1/2-inch rebar being the southwest corner of Parcel A per Record of Survey No. 11689(records of Ada County, Idaho); Thence leaving said subdivision boundary and following the southerly line of said Parcel A,S89°15'22"E a distance of 165.00 feet to a 1/2-inch rebar marking the southeast corner of said Parcel A(also being the northwest corner of Parcel E per said Record of Survey No. 11689); Thence leaving said southerly line and following the westerly line of said Parcel E,S00°44'38"W a distance of 140.00 feet to a 1/2-inch rebar marking the southwest corner of said Parcel E; Thence leaving said westerly line and following the southerly line of said Parcel E,S89°15'22"E a distance of 130.00 feet to a 1/2-inch rebar marking the southeast corner of said Parcel E(also being the southwest corner of Parcel F per said Record of Survey No. 11689); Thence leaving the southerly line of said Parcel E and following the southerly line of said Parcel F,S89°15'22"E a distance of 134.90 feet to a 1/2-inch rebar marking the southeast corner of said Parcel F and being on the lot boundary of Lot 9, Block 2 of said Hill's Century Farm Commercial Subdivision No. 1; Thence leaving said southerly line and following said lot boundary the following three(3)courses: 1. S00'25'18"W a distance of 17.00 feet to a 1/2-inch rebar; 2. S89°46'03"E a distance of 103.75 feet to a brass plug; 3. S54°05'29"E a distance of 56.58 feet to a 1/2-inch rebar marking the northwest corner of Lot 8,Block 2 of said Hill's Century Farm Commercial Subdivision No.1; Thence leaving said lot boundary and following the westerly lines of said Lot 8, Block 2 and Lot 1, Block 2 of said Hill's Century Farm Commercial Subdivision No.1,S00°44'38"W a distance of 301.51 feet to the centerline of E. Hill Park Street; Thence leaving said westerly lines and following said centerline, N89°46'03"W a distance of 474.29 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar on the subdivision boundary of said Hill's Century Farm Commercial Subdivision No. 1; Thence following said subdivision boundary the following six(6)courses: 1. N00'13'57"E a distance of 31.50 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar; 2. S89°46'03"E a distance of 16.60 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar; 5725 North Discovery Way • Boise, Idaho 83713 • 208.639.6939• kmengllp.com 3. N67'16'19"E a distance of 13.96 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar; 4. N00°44'38"E a distance of 297.56 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar; 5. N89°46'03"W a distance of 134.85 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar; 6. N00°44'38"E a distance of 34.26 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar marking the southeast corner of said Hill's Century Farm Commercial Subdivision No.2; Thence leaving said subdivision boundary of Hill's Century Farm Commercial Subdivision No. 1 and following the southerly line of said Hill's Century Farm Commercial Subdivision No.2, N89°15'22"W a distance of372.63 feet to the centerline of S.Tavistock Ave.; Thence leaving said southerly line and following said centerline the following three(3)courses: 1. 35.65 feet along the arc of a curve to the left,said curve having a radius of 300.00 feet,a delta angle of 06°48'32",a chord bearing of NO3°33'52"W and a chord distance of 35.63 feet; 2. N06°58'08"W a distance of 103.17 feet; 3. 12.31 feet along the arc of a curve to the right,said curve having a radius of 300.00 feet,a delta angle of 02°21'05",a chord bearing of N05°47'35"W and a chord distance of 12.31 feet; Thence leaving said centerline and following the northerly line of said Lot 13, Block 2 of said Hill's Century Farm Commercial Subdivision No.2,589'15'22"E a distance of 220.56 feet to a 1/2-inch rebar marking the northeast corner of said Lot 13, Block 2(also being the northwest corner of said Lot 12, Block 2 of Hill's Century Farm Commercial Subdivision No.2); Thence leaving said northerly line of said Lot 13, Block 2 and following the northerly line of said Lot 12,Block 2, 589'15'22"E a distance of 170.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said parcel contains 5.451 acres, more or less,and is subject to all existing easements and/or rights-of-way of record or implied. a CA 12459 0 Va � r V a� of 1�� SON L. 13bV'Ati PAGE 2 EXHIBIT B POINT OF COMMENCEMENT FOUND ALUMINUM CAP Block 2 NORTH 1/4 CORNER SECTION 33 w FOUND ALUMINUM CAP NORTHWEST CORNER SECTION 33 Hill's Century Farm PER CP&F No. 2022-071833 N PER CP&F No. 2022-009892 Commercial E. Amity Rd. 29 28 Subdivision No. 2 BASIS OF BEARING 28 _ _ _ _ S89'15'22"E 2660.62' 32 33 1877.20' w 783.42' — — 33 in Record of Survey No. 11689 Q 14 11 0 00 Portions of Hill's Century Farm Block 2 Hill's Century N rn Commercial Subdivision No. 1 Hill's Century N Farm North L18 L19 ®J Parcel A Parcel B Parcel C Farm Commercial Subdivision No. 1 r C2 POINT OF L2 Subdivision No. vi J BEGINNING p C1 13 12 Parcel D Parcel E Parcel F 9 L16 0� L14 o o L4 J L6 O Amended Plat of Q Rezone Area:4.999±AC APN: Hill's Century R3636080110 8 Farm North N R3636080240 R3636090040 Subdivision No. 2 '> R3636090060 Parcel G 00 Current Zoning:C-N -I U/ Proposed Zoning:R-15 L12 1 L11 a 0 Unplatted L10 L9 E. Hill Park St. m 4 Lot 1, Block 1 Healthy Living o Healthy Living Subdivision Condominiums No. 2 s w a N O N N '-1 Q C] O Q Q � n' C Z 0 150 300 450 1CM 0 Plan Scale: 1" = 150' N E N G I N E E R I N G 5725 NORTH DISCOVERY WAY = BOISE,IDAHO83713 o PHONE(208)639-6939 Exhibit B - Rezone to R-15 kmengllp.com DATE: November 2024 PROJECT: 24-080 All of Lots 2-7 and a portion of Lot 10,Block 2 of Hill's Century Farm Commercial Subdivision No.1 0 and all of Lots 12 and 13,Block 2 of Hill's Century Farm Commercial Subdivision No.2,situated in SHEET: 1 OF 2 portion of NE 1/4 of NW 1/4 of Section 33,T3N.,R1E.,B.M.,City of Meridian,Ada County,Idaho I CURVE TABLE LINE TABLE CURVE RADIUS LENGTH DELTA CHORD BRG CHORD LINE BEARING DISTANCE C1 300.00' 35.65' 6'48'32" NO3'33'52"W 35.63' L1 S00'44'38"W 23.42 C2 300.00' 12.31' 2'21'05" N05'47'35"W 12.31' L2 S89'15'22"E 165.00 L3 S00'44'38"W 140.00 L4 S89'15'22"E 264.90 L5 S00'25'18"W 17.00 L6 I S89'46'03"E 103.75 L7 S54'05'29"E 56.58 L8 S00'44'38"W 301.51 L9 N89'46'03"W 474.29 L10 N00'13'57"E 31.50 L11 S89'46'03"E 16.60 L12 N67'16'19"E 13.96 X C L13 N00'44'38"E 297.56 m r, L14 N89'46'03"W 134.85 0 0 L15 N00'44'38"E 34.26 D w L16 N89'15'22"W 372.63 N L17 N06'58'08"W 103.17 N 0 L18 S89'15'22"E 220.56 g L19 S89'15'22"E 170.00 a n z 0 a a c� 3 0 z 0 N O W O lam N E N G I N E E R I N G m 5725 NORTH DISCOVERY WAY = BOISE,IDAHO83713 o PHONE(208)639-6939 Exhibit B - Rezone to R-15 a kmengllp.com u DATE: October 2024 PROJECT: 24-080 All of Lots 2-7 and a portion of Lot 10,Block 2 of Hill's Century Farm Commercial Subdivision No.1,),a portion of 0 SHEET: Lots 11 and 14 and all of Lots 12 and 13,Block 2 of Hill's Century Farm Commercial Subdivision No.2,situated in 2 OF 2 portion of NE 1/4 of NW 1/4 of Section 33,T3N.,R1E.,B.M.,City of Meridian,Ada County,Idaho a 220.56 170.00 v s89°15'22"e s89°15'22"e - 165.00 rn s89°15'22"e 3 W M 0 M o -- o o ^ n89°IS'22"w 372.2 130.00 134.90 n89°46'03"w s89°15'22"e s89°15'22"e ° 103.75 134.85 s89°46'03"e a °O � M , 3 rn N ° oo _ p o O O � O n89°46'03"w 474.29 Title: Date: 11-27-2024 Scale: 1 inch= 150 feet File: Tract 1: 5.451 Acres: 237456 Sq Feet:Closure=n74.5548w 0.01 Feet: Precision=1/337790: Perimeter=2990 Feet 001=s00.4438w 23.42 009=s00.4438w 301.51 017=n89.1522w 372.63 002=s89.1522e 165.00 010=n89.4603w 474.29 °sn o3.3352w b 35 634832 003=s00.4438w 140.00 011=n00.1357e 31.50 019=n06.5808w 103.17 004=s89.1522e 130.00 012=s89.4603e 16.60 s�os47 5w C de�2312105 005=s89.1522e 134.90 013=n67.1619e 13.96 021=s89.1522e 220.56 006=s00.2518w 17.00 014=n00.4438e 297.56 022=s89.1522e 170.00 007=s89.4603e 103.75 015=n89.4603w 134.85 008=s54.0529e 56.58 016=n00.4438e 34.26