HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-07-17
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho
Thursday, July 17, 2025 at 6:00 PM
MINUTES
ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE
PRESENT
Commissioner Brian Garrett
Commissioner Jessica Perreault
Commissioner Sam Rust
Commissioner Matthew Stoll
Commissioner Jared Smith
Chairperson Maria Lorcher
ABSENT
Commissioner Matthew Sandoval
ADOPTION OF AGENDA Adopted
CONSENT AGENDA \[Action Item\] Approved
Motion to approve made by Commissioner Rust, Seconded by Commissioner Smith.
Voting Yea: Commissioner Garrett, Commissioner Perreault, Commissioner Rust,
Commissioner Stoll, Commissioner Smith, Chairperson Lorcher
1. Approve Minutes of the June 26, 2025 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
2. Approve Minutes of the July 10, 2025 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
3. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Uplift Gym by Erik Hagen, located at at
3410 W. Nelis Dr.
ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA \[Action Item\]
ACTION ITEMS
4. Public Hearing for Touchmark (H-2025-0012) by The Land Group, generally
located on the south side of E. Franklin Rd. and the north side of I-84, midway
between S. Eagle Rd. and S. Cloverdale Rd. Recommend Approval to City Council
Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2025-0012
A. Request: Modified Development Agreement to update the conceptual
development plan for the overall site, which consists of approximately 121.50
acres of land to consolidate the existing agreements (AZ-99-021 Touchmark
(recorded in 2001, Inst. #101048096); April 2001 Addendum (Inst. #
101048097); May 2003 Addendum (Inst. #103137119); AZ-02-018 (Bair
Property AZ-02-018, Inst. #102143308); MI-07-006 (Meadowlake Village
North 3rd Addendum, Inst. #108022885) into one new agreement that
replaces all previous agreements.
B. Request: Rezone of 63.34 acres of land from the L-O to the C-C (55.17 acres)
and C-G (8.17 acres) zoning districts.
C. Planned Unit Development Modification (Meadowlake Village CUP-03-005)
to update the concept/use plan and include 4.6 acres of additional land, a
deviation to the maximum building height allowed in the C-C district from
50ft. to 64ft. for the hotel and inclusion of 2 and 3 story townhome dwellings.
Motion to recommend approval to City Council made by Chairperson Lorcher, Seconded by
Commissioner Rust.
Voting Yea: Commissioner Garrett, Commissioner Perreault, Commissioner Rust,
Commissioner Stoll, Commissioner Smith, Chairperson Lorcher
5. Public Hearing for Gramercy Townhomes (H-2025-0019) by Elton Development
Company, located at 1873, 1925 and 2069 Wells Ave. Recommend Approval to
City Council
Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2025-0019
A. Request: Rezone of 6.98 acres of land from the C-G zone to the TN-R zone.
B. Request: Preliminary Plat for 82 buildable lots and 8 common lots.
C. Request: Development Agreement Modification to establish a new concept
plan and remove the age restriction on the property.
Motion to recommend approval to City Council made by Commissioner Rust, Seconded by
Commissioner Stoll.
Voting Yea: Commissioner Garrett, Commissioner Perreault, Commissioner Rust,
Commissioner Stoll, Commissioner Smith, Chairperson Lorcher
ADJOURNMENT 8:02 PM
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To view upcoming Public Hearing Notices, visit https://apps.meridiancity.org/phnotices
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 10, 2025.
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of July 17, 2025, was called
to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Maria Lorcher.
Members Present: Commissioner Maria Lorcher, Commissioner Jared Smith,
Commissioner Brian Garrett, Commissioner Jessica Perreault, Commissioner Sam Rust
and Commissioner Matthew Stoll.
Members Absent: Commissioner Matthew Sandoval.
Others Present: Tina Lomeli, Kurt Starman, Sonya Allen, Garrett White, Jamie Leslie,
Steve Taulbee and Dean Willis.
ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE
_X Brian Garrett X Matthew Stoll
Matthew Sandoval X Jessica Perrault
_X Sam Rust X Jared Smith
X Maria Lorcher - Chairman
Lorcher: Good evening. Welcome to Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for
July 17th, 2025. At this time I would like to call the meeting to order. The
Commissioners who are present for this evening are here at City Hall and currently we
do not have any commissioners on Zoom. We also have staff from the city attorney and
the city clerk's office, as well as the city's planning department. If you are joining us on
Zoom this evening we can see that you are here. You may observe the meeting,
however, the ability to be seen on screen and talk will be muted. During the public
testimony portion of the meeting you will be unmuted and, then, be able to comment.
Please note that we cannot take questions until the public testimony portion of the
meeting. If you have a process question during the meeting please e-mail
cityclerk@meridiancity.org and they will reply as quickly as possible. If you simply want
to watch the meeting we encourage you to watch the streaming on the city's YouTube
channel. You can access it at meridiancity.org/live. With that let us begin with roll call.
Madam Clerk.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Lorcher: The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. There are no
changes tonight to tonight's agenda. May I get a motion to adopt tonight's agenda?
Smith: So moved.
Perreault: Second.
F
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
July 17,2025
Page 2 of 36
Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to adopt tonight's agenda. All those in favor
say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT.
CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item]
1. Approve Minutes of the June 26, 2025 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting
2. Approve Minutes of the July 10, 2025 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting
3. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Uplift Gym by Erik Hagen,
located at at 3410 W. Nelis Dr.
Lorcher: The next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda, which include to approve
the minutes of the June 26th Planning and Zoning meeting, approve the meeting
minutes of the July 10th Planning and Zoning meeting and Findings of Facts,
Conclusions of Law for Uplift Gym. Could I get a motion to accept the Consent Agenda
as presented?
Rust: So moved.
Smith: Second.
Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda. All those in
favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT.
ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item]
Lorcher: At this time I would briefly like to explain the public hearing process. We will
open each item individually and begin with the staff report. Staff will report their findings
on how the item adheres to our Comprehensive Plan and our Unified Development
Code. After staff has made their presentation the applicant will come forward to present
their case and respond to staff's comments and they will have 15 minutes to do so.
After the applicant is finished we will open the floor to public testimony. Each person
will be called only once during the public testimony portion. The clerk will call the
names individually of those who have signed up in advance or if you are in Chambers
you may come to the microphone or be unmuted on Zoom. Please state your name
and address for the record. You will have three minutes to address the Commission. If
you have previously sent pictures or a presentation for the meeting it will be displayed
on the screen and our clerk will help you with the presentation. If you have established
you are speaking on behalf of like a larger group, like an HOA, where others from the
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
July 17,2025
Page 3 of 36
group will allow you to speak on their behalf, you will have up to ten minutes. After all
those who have signed up in advance have spoken we will invite any others who wish to
testify. If you wish to speak on a topic you may come forward in Chambers or if on
Zoom you may hit the raised hand button or if you are only listening on the telephone
please press star nine and wait for your name to be called. If you are listening on
multiple devices, such as a computer and a phone, please -- please be sure to mute
those extra devices, so we don't experience feedback and we can hear you clearly.
When you are finished if the Commission doesn't have questions for you you will return
to your seat in chambers or be muted on Zoom and no longer have the ability to speak
and, please, remember we will not call on you a second time. After all the testimony
has been heard the applicant will be given another ten minutes to come back and
respond. When the applicant has finished responding to the questions and concerns
we will close the public hearing and the Commissioners will have an opportunity to
discuss and hopefully make either final decisions or recommendations to City Council
as needed.
ACTION ITEMS
4. Public Hearing for Touchmark (H-2025-0012) by The Land Group,
generally located on the south side of E. Franklin Rd. and the north
side of 1-84, midway between S. Eagle Rd. and S. Cloverdale Rd.
A. Request: Modified Development Agreement to update the
conceptual development plan for the overall site, which consists of
approximately 121.50 acres of land to consolidate the existing
agreements (AZ-99-021 Touchmark (recorded in 2001, Inst.
#101048096); April 2001 Addendum (Inst. # 101048097); May 2003
Addendum (Inst. #103137119); AZ-02-018 (Bair Property AZ-02-
018, Inst. #102143308); MI-07-006 (Meadowlake Village North 3rd
Addendum, Inst. #108022885) into one new agreement that
replaces all previous agreements.
B. Request: Rezone of 63.34 acres of land from the L-O to the C-C
(55.17 acres) and C-G (8.17 acres) zoning districts.
C. Planned Unit Development Modification (Meadowlake Village CUP-
03-005) to update the concept/use plan and include 4.6 acres of
additional land, a deviation to the maximum building height allowed
in the C-C district from 50ft. to 64ft. for the hotel and inclusion of 2
and 3 story townhome dwellings.
Lorcher: With that we will start with item -- Item No. 3 on the agenda for H-2025-0012
for a modified development agreement, rezone and a planned unit development
modification for Touchmark and Meadow Lake Village and we will begin with the staff
report.
F
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
July 17,2025
Page 4 of 36
Allen: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. The development
agreement modification does not require action from the Commission tonight. That is
only a City Council decision on that. Modification of the existing planned unit
development and rezone. This site consists of 121.5 acres of land. It's zoned L-O,
limited office. It's generally located on the south side of East Franklin Road on the --
and the north side of 1-84, midway between South Eagle Road and South Cloverdale
Road. I will go through a little history on this property and the approvals. The majority
of this property was annexed back in 2000 with a development agreement and a
conditional use permit for a conceptual planned unit development. A smaller 4.6 acre
portion of property was later annexed and included in an amended development
agreement and conceptual development plan. The original conceptual PUD was
approved for a continuing care retirement community comprised of 250 to 300 units of
independent and assisted living, 450 units of residential, including single family, duplex
townhomes and multi-family. A community senior health and fitness center. Medical
office parks. Commercial and retail businesses. Since that time approximately 428
residential units have been built in the retirement community, along with the senior
health and fitness center and many amenities, including open green space and walking
trails, a community garden, coffee shop and bistro, salon and barber shop, a library,
theater, dining venues, pickleball courts and other on-site amenities. In 2003 the
development agreement and planned unit development were amended to allow the
development of 318 residential units and approximately 600,000 square feet of
commercial and office space on a larger 138 acre area with reduced building setbacks
in the L-O zoning district. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation is
mixed use community. A modification to the development agreement is proposed to
update the conceptual development plan for the overall site, which consists of
approximately 121.5 acres of land and consolidate the existing development
agreements into one new agreement that replaces all previous versions. A rezone of
55.17 acres of land to the C-C zoning district and 8.17 acres to the C-G district is
proposed from the L-O zoning district to the undeveloped -- excuse me -- for the
undeveloped portion of the site, included in the master plan to accommodate the
proposed uses. So, everything that they are proposing is C-C and, then, just that parcel
in their piece up in the upper northeast corner is C-G. The proposed project consists of
-- let me back up for just a minute. I didn't have my slide on when I was talking about
the original existing concept plan that's approved for this property and that is in your
staff report as well if you want to look at it a little closer. This plan is proposed to be
replaced with a new plan and that's this plan right here. The proposed project consists
of 121.5 acres of land within a larger mixed use community designated area, totaling
approximately 164 acres and includes a mix of uses consisting of commercial, office,
light industry and a variety of residential housing types as shown on this bubble plan
here before you and that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for mixed use
community designation. A couple of areas on the concept plan. The ones -- the two
with the star symbols are shown with two possible uses, the medical office and
townhomes along the southwest boundary of the site and the community -- commercial
and multi-family along the north side of the site along Franklin Road. If the demand for
office space doesn't come to fruition the applicant proposes an alternate use of
townhomes, 50 to 55 units in that area. Commercial uses similar to the commercial
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
July 17,2025
Page 5 of 36
proposed to the west along Franklin Road is proposed on the other area with the
flexibility for multi-family residential. The number of units and density is not specified on
the plan, but the applicant states the area could support 115 to 140 units, using the
same density as the other multi-family area. The multi-family use would be at a larger
scale than the townhomes and an increase in density. Staff does not recommend
approval of the optional residential uses, because residential uses, as the comp plan
allows for up to 65 percent of the development area to be comprised of residential uses
with the provision of transit, which the applicant is providing, which does exist and the
applicant is proposing approximately 68 percent, not including the optional multi-family
and townhome style units. Additionally, the commercial uses are desired in the mixed
use community diagram and the comp plan along arterial streets transitioning to lesser
intense uses. Therefore, staff recommends the concept plan is revised to only reflect
commercial uses on those portions of the property prior to the City Council hearing. A
modification to the existing planned unit development for Meadow Lake Village, CUP-
03-005, is proposed to update the concept plan and includes a request for deviation to
the maximum building height allowed in the C-C district from 50 feet to 64 feet for the
hotel measured to the highest point of the structure and inclusion of the townhome
dwellings as a permitted use in the C-C district. Staff is amenable to the building height
increase as proposed. However, is not in support of the request for townhomes to
develop in the C-C district, because townhomes, where each unit is on its own property,
are a prohibited use in the C-C district and, therefore, aren't allowed through the
planned unit development. This would require rezone to a residential or a traditional
neighborhood zoning district in which the use is allowed. Because the applicant isn't
proposing to subdivide the property, the use is considered multi-family residential, as all
of the units are on one property and is allowed in the C-C district. The new
development plan includes approximately 114,000 square feet of medical office space,
approximately 300 to 400 non-age restricted market rate multi-family units, both
apartments and townhomes, with the possibility of 165 to 195 additional units through
the alternate uses proposed. Twenty to 25 single family attached units, also known as
villas, three single family detached units, also known as cottages on the plan; 75,546
square feet of self-storage, i.e., light industry; 45,000 square feet of general office
space; 45,000 square feet of commercial retail space and an approximate 126 room
hotel. Conceptual building elevations for the proposed structure as -- are as shown
there on the sides of that plan. A pedestrian pathway plan was submitted as shown
there. The green lines represent ten foot wide pathways. The blue five foot proposed
sidewalks and the pink five foot wide existing sidewalks. A phasing plan is proposed as
shown, which depicts four phases of development. It's anticipated to be completed
between 2030 and 2040. Phase one is the villas and cottages, which is two to five
years. Phase two is the apartments and townhomes, which is three to ten years.
Phase three is the commercial, self-storage, additional multi-family and hotel along
Franklin Road, which is three to 15 years. And phase four is the medical office and
daycare, post-acute care and townhomes, four to 15 years. Staff recommends a
subdivision application is submitted for each phase of development and recorded in
order to have a legal parcel for development purposes. The existing community is
proposed to remain unchanged, except for the small golf course and that is this pink
area right here around their water feature here, which at some point in the future may
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
July 17,2025
Page 6 of 36
redevelop with villas and that's the single family attached units. The open space
amenities are also evolving and as the golf course is redeveloped the required open
space amenities will be reprogrammed in other areas of the project. Before changes
can be approved to this area the applicant must demonstrate compliance with the terms
of the previously approved PUD in regard to site amenities with removal of the golf
course. Per the city code in effect at that time at least ten percent of the gross area of
the PUD was required as open space, exclusive of required street buffers and buffers
between incompatible land uses. The development area consists of 61.5 acres of land.
Therefore, a minimum of 6.15 acres of qualified open space is required to be provided.
An exhibit should be submitted showing the existing qualified open space without the
golf course area prior to the City Council hearing. No written testimony has been
received from the public. The applicant did submit a response to the staff report and
they will go through that in their presentation. Staff is recommending approval per the
recommendation in the staff report and I would just like to make a note that with
development agreements and planned unit developments, the decision making body is
able to place additional conditions on development applications that may not typically be
required in the UDC in an effort to provide exemplary site development in accord with
the purpose statement of the planned unit development. Staff will stand for any
questions. The applicant is here to present.
Lorcher: Would the applicant like to come forward? Hi.
Thompson: Hi, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. My name is Tamara
Thompson. I'm with The Land Group. Our offices are at 462 East Shore Drive in Eagle.
With me tonight I have Kendra Lackey and Ryan Benson from Touchmark and Gary
Sorensen from Pivot North. So, we have our full team here to answer any of your
questions and I do have a presentation. I will try not to be redundant with -- with
Sonya's presentation. She was -- she was very thorough. But just to give you a brief
overview, the development site is located on the south side of Franklin and east of
Touchmark. The -- the west side is the Ridenbaugh Canal and we are just north of
Interstate 84. North of Franklin Road are industrial uses that are zoned I-L and west is
medical office, which includes St. Luke's. Those are all zoned L-O. Currently the site is
zoned L-O and in order to align better with what the uses are the staff has
recommended that we do that rezone, although the -- the proposal that we have before
you is not much different than -- than what is currently approved in our PUD. Again we
are in the MUC future land use map designation. Here is that zone -- or zoomed in and
the reason I wanted to show this is just to show how close we are to the city of Boise.
City of Boise is just right on the other side of the Ridenbaugh Canal. That is that
dashed line there. With industrial across on the north side of Franklin. Just to give --
I'm sure you have all driven this area, but just to give a little overview of what it looks
like, the -- the top photo is looking west along Franklin that has the industrial properties
there to the right and the bottom is looking east along Franklin Road. The properties
were developed in 2003 and at that time Touchmark did all of the public roads to their
facility to and through the facility, and did all of the beautiful fountains and water
features, all the landscaping and I just have some pictures of-- of all of that and you can
tell on this bottom left one all of the sidewalks, even back in 2003, were the detached
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
July 17,2025
Page 7 of 36
sidewalks, which weren't -- weren't common back then. And, then, I will point out also
that all of the utilities were stubbed at that time as well. As Sonya mentioned, this was
the -- the concept plan with the development agreement. So, Touchmark has owned
this property since the late 1990s and it opened its first phase of the retirement
community, which was Touchmark at Meadow Lake Village in 2003. Touchmark has
been a member of the Meridian community for over 20 years, collaborating with local
businesses, nonprofits, schools and government organizations to provide employment
and volunteer opportunities, as well as provide much needed service for elderly
residents of the Boise and Meridian areas who moved to the Touchmark at Meadow
Lake Village. The properties were annexed and zoned L-O with a PUD and a
development agreement in 2001 and, then, there were multiple development agreement
modifications after that. The development agreement states the construction and
development of a continuing care retirement community comprised of 250 to 300 units
of independent and assisted living, 450 units of residential, including single family
duplexes, multi-family, townhomes, medical office parks, commercial and retail
businesses and community and senior health and fitness center. Our proposal today is
not much different than that. We are just going to define it a little bit better, since what
was defined back then it -- it lists all those, but it doesn't really define well the exact
acreage or the exact square footage of those types of -- of -- of uses. Again, there is
the development agreement and three subsequent addendums to that development
agreement. The most recent development agreement was recorded in 2008. As you
can see on this aerial, approximately 62.8 acres of the 121.5 total acres or 52 percent of
the original master plan has been constructed and is operating as Meadow Lake
Village, a Touchmark community. Since that time approximately 428 residential units
have been built and much of the -- all of the public roads have been built and the utility
infrastructure and landscaping along those public roads. Sonya mentioned all of the
amenities that have been -- that go along with it as far as the green space and walking
trails. You can see there is a pond and numerous water features for the residents. The
pond and center community area is planned to be part of the entire community, not just
for the senior housing. Currently there are over 12 acres of qualified open space and
part of that then -- which is over 20 percent of the existing community that part of that
will be for -- for everybody and, then, we will be adding even more for -- for -- for the
new development. Here is some photos of just some of the existing. All right. Now, to
the Touchmark mixed use development. This includes approximately 114,000 square
feet of medical office, 500 non-age restricted market rate multi-family units. These will
be both in the form of apartments and townhomes. As Sonya mentioned, they won't be
fee simple townhomes, they will be townhome style, but they will be designated multi-
family, because they will all be on one lot, but they will look like townhomes. There will
be age restricted villas and cottages. So, there is 24 of those, which will be -- I don't
know if I can point on this thing. Don't know how to do that. So, it's -- it's -- if I just point
to it does it do it? Yeah. Right in that area around -- around the -- the pond area. Forty-
five thousand square feet of general office and 45,000 square feet of commercial retail
space. A hundred and twenty-six room hotel. And the development is planned to be
phased over the next five to 15 years. We -- we have included concept plans and
concept elevations and with those we have -- we have added that the city's design
standards are what are to be met. So, those will be -- will go through the city's CZC and
10 1
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
July 17,2025
Page 8 of 36
design review process. Throughout the project additional pedestrian sidewalks and
multi-use pathways will be utilized to create a better network to ensure safety and
efficient mobility through the site and as intended with the original master plan a multi-
generational project where residents of the existing Touchmark retirement community
can maintain a sense of security, while benefiting from the adjacent diverse uses is
intentional. Future occupants of the multi-family and townhomes, as well as users of
the future commercial and retail, will benefit from generous new connectivity and green
space throughout the interior of the master plan, as well as from the existing pedestrian
infrastructure along Franklin Road and Touchmark Way. Extensive pathways will be
accompanied by recreational areas for children and adults to enjoy daytime leisure
activities, such as playgrounds, open spaces, dog park areas and functional spaces,
that promote general health and wellness. The existing monument sign and fountain at
the entrance, that fountain amenity will -- that exists will be maintained and remain and,
then, at least one amenity per amenity category within the Meridian City Code is
proposed. So, that will continue through the CZC process and that's something that we
provided in our application with -- with the PUD. And, then, the -- with each of the areas
-- or each of the zones we provided a sub area with dimensional standards for that -- for
each of that sub area. Accesses to the project -- most of those are already existing.
There is only one new access to Franklin here that aligns with Truckee Avenue to the
north. An updated traffic study was required and it was conducted by Kittelson and
Associates and both -- both ITD and ACHD have comment on -- commented on that
and the -- there are no new conditions that are required. The Touchmark development
can be development -- developed with minimal impacts to the surrounding roadway
system. We do have a couple of requested revisions. We have reviewed the staff
report and agree with staffs recommended conditions with the following revisions.
There is a reference to wrought iron fence. We would like to replace that with metal
picket fence to make that just a little -- instead of wrought iron, a lot of times those are
metal picket or full privacy to match the existing. What we are showing here is what the
existing fence is around the perimeter of the existing development. So, we are asking
to stay consistent with that. And I'm sorry if you want that number I can give that to you.
That is condition A.1.ii. And, then, condition -- conditional use permit and the planned
unit development modification I, the drive private street from Truckee, there is a
condition to have an internal drive that connects to the east to that existing drive and let
me go back here. That would be to -- from that Truckee one here to this existing drive
at that location and there -- that may not be possible and let me just give you a few
items here. So, what I have here on the right-hand side is the topography of that area
and there -- there is an existing ditch that runs at the top of the grade. So, on the
bottom there is a 27 foot grade difference from that approach to the top of that hill and,
then, there is a ditch that runs across there, which is a gravity irrigation ditch and -- and,
then, the -- the top left is an aerial of that. So, all the engineering hasn't been done for
this area yet, but in maintaining flows for that ditch and having to address 27 feet of fall
from the top of that down to that existing access, it may not be possible to have a street
access at that location, which is why we didn't put one initially and, then, I just wanted to
show -- so, this is that access and you can see that for this one -- can I -- can I finish,
please? Okay. Just coming in initially they had to put retaining walls immediately once
-- at this one. So, this -- what we would like to do is be mindful of that request and work
11
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
July 17,2025
Page 9 of 36
with staff during the CZC process and that if it's possible we will -- we will make that
connection, but -- but not have that as -- as a requirement. And, then, lastly, our plan as
proposed is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and we respectfully request the
ability for up to 65 percent of the land to be allowed as residential uses. When I did the
math at that -- what -- what Sonya mentioned as the 68 percent, I incorrectly did that
with the rezone, which those go to the center line of the roads, but if I just use the land
area -- so, the way that that goes is right now with the -- with the layout the commercial
uses are 41 percent of the -- of the master plan. The residential is 36 percent and the
areas that we have laid out as the flex areas comprise 21 percent. So, if a hundred
percent of that flex area were to go to the commercial side, then, that would be 62
percent to the -- to the commercial. If a hundred percent of that flex area were to go
residential, it would be 58 percent. We are not asking for more units, we are -- we are
sticking at that -- at the 524 units, we are just asking for more flexibility on that land
area. It's been 20 plus years that they have had that frontage as -- as commercial and
should they need it they -- they just want that flexibility to extend in those two areas.
Lorcher: Thank you very much. Commissioners, do we have questions for Tamara?
Perreault: Madam Chair?
Lorcher: Commissioner Perreault.
Perreault: Good to see you.
Thompson: Good to see you.
Perreault: Yes, I do have some questions for you. So, am I to understand correctly that
the only age restricted residential units will be the cottages and, then, some of the
townhomes?
Thompson: Madam Chair and Chair -- or Council -- Commissioner --
Perreault: Commissioner.
Thompson: Commissioner Perreault, the -- a hundred percent of the current community
is age restricted, 55 and older, and 24 of the new units that's adjacent to that would be
age restricted. The -- the new ones will not be. That is correct. Because it has always
been the plan for it to be multi-generational.
Perreault: Madam Chair?
Lorcher: Commissioner Perreault.
Perreault: Is there a market need for the additional age restricted or are you not seeing
that often?
F12
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
July 17,2025
Page 10 of 36
Thompson: I would need my -- my client to answer that question, but I'm guessing if-- if
they are not going that direction, then, there wouldn't be.
Perreault: Okay. And, then, I just want to get clarification. So, the way I read the staff
report is that the limitation on the 65 percent residential for the development area I was
under the impression that was for the entire original project, like the master plan, and
you have calculated it as just this area that is being rezoned. So, did I misunderstand
that? Would you like to answer that?
Thompson: That's true. I am calculating on the -- on the new area and I can give a little
bit more history on that, too. Is that -- and -- and a few years ago we did this on other
projects in the -- in the vicinity and in the mixed use community area most of those
developments, especially south of 1-84, do not get developed with 20 percent or even 50
percent residential uses and so if you blend the entire mixed use community area it
doesn't -- it doesn't even get to ten percent in the audit that we did a couple years ago
for -- for a different project south of the freeway. But on this one we were just looking at
the new development area.
Perreault: So, if I'm understanding you correctly, you are saying that the 164 acres
within the full MUC designated area has much smaller percentage of residential? If you
looked at the entire picture that MUC designation, you are saying that it doesn't come
close to the 65 percent?
Thompson: And -- and if we looked at the MUC area within just this quadrant even
south of the freeway we wouldn't even come close to that.
Perreault: Okay. I think that's all the questions I have for you for now. Thank you.
Thompson: Thank you.
Lorcher: Commissioners, any other questions before we take public testimony? I did
have a question in regard to some of the last slides where the city asked you to have
some connectivity and you said that there were some topical restrictions based on the
way the topography works. The drainage ditch that goes, you know, south to north that
draining down, is that run by Nampa-Meridian -- or the irrigation district or is that just
part of that parcel, because it used to be a farm?
Thompson: Madam Chair, it does -- it is run by the irrigation district. It -- its headgate is
on the Ridenbaugh and it -- it goes through the property, but it does serve downstream
as well. It's not just for this property. So, we do need to maintain it and so, you know,
we can't drop it too much, maybe we can drop it a little bit. Like I said, the -- the -- the
engineering and all that for this -- for it hasn't happened, but one -- when you are
looking at 27 feet of grade change and needing to maintain flows, it -- it -- it's going to
be difficult at best. So, I would like to have it as a please look at, but not a hard and fast
requirement.
13
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
July 17,2025
Page 11 of 36
Lorcher: And did they say they wanted it tiled once it gets development or that -- or did
they want it open?
Thompson: They haven't said, but typically we can tile that size.
Lorcher: So, if you tiled that size would it be a challenge to, then, put a road on top of it,
at least the portion that it cuts across, because you are a diagonal and the cross-street
would go in perpendicular?
Thompson: I don't think it would be as much of a problem with putting a road on top of
it, it's just however those flows are going to be.
Lorcher: Right.
Thompson: Yeah.
Lorcher: And, then, finally, cross-access to the eastern property, which is the city of
Boise. So, is the city of Boise requiring connectivity, like typically Meridian asks for
connectivity between, you know, parcels and subdivisions, so that there is always an
escape route?
Thompson: So, I looked at the plat for that property. That's an industrial plat that's in
the city of Boise and I -- ACHD constructed those access points prior to that
development when they did the improvements along Franklin years ago and -- but the --
the plat for that industrial property does look like it has a -- an easement around it that
goes back at least a little bit. So, it doesn't go all the way back, but it goes back enough
for just a little bit of -- for the shared access, so that we can at least get to the access
point and it does split the property line, so half of that access is already on our property,
but it does have a little bit of an easement around it on both sides, so they are using it
on our property currently and we can get to it to get to theirs. But it doesn't go like all
the way back to have like a big road coming in if-- if that's what you are asking. Yeah.
Lorcher: Okay. Any other questions before we open public testimony? Okay. Thank
you very much.
Thompson: Thank you.
Lorcher: Oh. Wait. Commissioner Perreault.
Perreault: I found a few more. So, if we are understanding the phasing plan correctly,
you could -- you could have all four phases going at the same time. I mean the first
three years you could potentially have all different types of construction going on. Have
you -- do you have or have you thought through how that will work with -- just with that
entrance -- or with the entrance that comes off of Franklin Road and the entrance to
Touchmark, how will that flow if you have construction going on in all different areas?
14
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
July 17,2025
Page 12 of 36
Thompson: We will need to -- we will definitely need to work through that with -- with
what becomes fruition first. I don't know that all four would happen at the same time.
We just kept that flexibility that -- that any one of those could go first.
Perreault: Okay. And are the calculate -- the square footage calculations that you used
for the office and retail, does that include those areas that you want to keep flexible or
does it not?
Thompson: Let me find it. So, in my calculation I have the commercial, hotel, light
industry and medical office the ones that are solid colors on the concept plan. Those
come out to 41 percent and, then, if I take the villas, cottages, townhomes and multi-
families, the ones that are solid colors, those come out to 36 percent and, then, if I take
the medical office slash townhomes, the one that has the striped color and the
commercial, multi-family striped color, that's 21 percent.
Perreault: Okay. So, where it says there is potentially 45,000 square foot of
commercial retail space, this -- is that counting that area as commercial or is it counting
that area as multi-family -- I mean is it included or not?
Thompson: I was -- I did my calculation off of the land area on the concept plan.
Perreault: To calculate square footage of the commercial.
Thompson: To calculate the -- the -- because that's what the 65 percent is is land area.
So, I was doing land area.
Perreault: Okay. I'm just referring to what was in our presentation tonight, so --
Thompson: Yeah. I -- we may be talking apples and oranges, because I was looking at
the land area, because -- because that's what the -- the comp plan talks about, land
area of up to 65 percent if you are in proximity of a transit -- of transit.
Perreault: Thank you.
Lorcher: Okay. Thank you very much.
Thompson: Thank you.
Lorcher: Madam Clerk, do we have anybody that signed up to testify?
Lomeli: Thank you, Madam Chair. No one has signed up. You can come forward.
Lorcher: Yeah, you can come forward. If you can state your name and address for the
record that would be great.
Cruise: Okay. Thank you. I apologize, I did not know I needed to sign up.
F15]
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
July 17,2025
Page 13 of 36
Lorcher: No. That's fine. That's why we have big Chambers here, so there is plenty of
room for people to come.
Cruise: My name is Sandra Cruise. C-r-u-i-s-e. My address is 210 South Winthrop
Place, Boise. 83709. 1 live in Edgeview Estates, which is the subdivision on the east
side of the Ridenbaugh Canal and my house is -- my property is adjacent to the
development. We live right on the canal and so I have several questions or issues that I
wanted to make sure were in your -- under your consideration and I don't even know if I
have a voice in this, because I don't live in Meridian, but, first of all, there is a tree -- I
live right where -- where the Ridenbaugh wraps around my subdivision. I would be
most adjacent to commercial light industry there where you were just talking about how
there is a 27 percent gradient. There is a very large very old black locust tree. I believe
it's black locust tree that's home to many raptors and other birds and many animals. It's
habitat for red tails, kestrels -- we have got Coopers now in the neighborhood -- Cooper
hawks also. I would hate to see -- see us lose that tree. I would hate to see the birds
lose that tree. They are losing their feeding grounds with this development, but they --
they have managed to hang on all of these years -- for 25 years as their -- their land,
their opportunity for hunting has decreased they have managed to stay in the area and I
would hate to lose them and see them go. At the very very least I would be -- if you -- if
that tree is taken down that it be taken down not in a nesting season. Oh. And there is
owls, too, there sometimes. So, just be -- be mindful that raptors live in that tree and
other trees. Number two, the development to the east, the light industrial development
to the south side of Franklin Road, when that went in the Ridenbaugh Canal was paved,
because it's up above all of that, and I wonder if the Ridenbaugh will need to be paved
for that -- I would call it the yellow commercial slash light industry piece that -- that
eastern most piece will it need to be paved also. So, that is a question I do not have --
do not expect you all to have an answer for that, but that's a Nampa-Meridian Irrigation
question that I would hope would be addressed.
Lorcher: Is it your preference to have it open or closed?
Cruise: It's my preference that the Nampa Irrigation District is mindful of it and that --
the reason they paved it is -- they paved the part that was getting developed below is
because what if the -- what if the canal is breached --
Lorcher: Right.
Cruise: -- everything below it would be flooded.
Lorcher: Okay.
Cruise: So, that's -- you know, of course I would rather the Ridenbaugh Canal -- it's not
paved over, it's just the sides are paved.
Lorcher: Got you.
F16]
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
July 17,2025
Page 14 of 36
Cruise: Yeah. It's -- so it's reinforced.
Lorcher: Got you.
Cruise: And, then, of course, we are -- we are used to our unrestricted view and I know
progress happens and people lose their views, but we would hate to have three story
housing just staring into our backyard, even though it is across the canal and I would
hope that there would be some consideration for easements from one story to two story
to three story, because there is a residential area around us. We are -- I know that
there is not many houses that would be affected by this multi-family three story
development, but there are some of us and we were expecting over the years that
Touchmark would continue to develop one story housing, which is what we were told 20
some years ago, that it would be senior development one story. Well, the central part --
the central buildings are tall, but that we could expect one story building.
Lorcher: Okay.
Cruise: That's what we were told.
Lorcher: All right.
Cruise: Whether that's what they thought I can't speak to that.
Lorcher: All right. Well --
Cruise: Those are my issues.
Lorcher: Okay.
Cruise: Thank you very much.
Lorcher: Thank you for your time. Anybody else in Chambers that would like to speak
as part of the public testimony? And is there anybody online?
Lomeli: Madam Chair, there is one person attending online. They have not raised their
hand.
Lorcher: Okay. Tamara, would you like to come back and respond?
Thompson: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, Tamara Thompson again. So,
I wrote down three items. If you will let me know if there was something that I -- that I
missed here. So, the questions are the black locust tree. I think I know which one that
is. I believe it to be the one where the headgate is for that canal -- or that ditch that we
were just talking about. So, I do not know on that one currently, but if we can retain it
we always like to retain trees. We are -- first and foremost The Land Group is
landscape architects, so we retrain -- retain trees where -- where we can. So -- so we
F17]
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
July 17,2025
Page 15 of 36
would like to do that. It is on the perimeter of the project. So, we are hoping that we
can. As far as the Ridenbaugh and paving the sides and those types of things, we will
not have anything to do with -- with the Ridenbaugh. The Ridenbaugh -- we will go up
to right at their easement line and, then, we won't have anything to do with it past that.
So, I don't have an answer for that. That will be the irrigation district. And, then, as far
as the two story, three story housing, we can definitely take a look at that. We have --
we were doing that stair step with the -- with the townhouses and, then, to the multi-
family and so there is just a small little area right in -- right in this -- right there that we
can -- we can look at that, too. It's probably going to be frankly parking garages there
first and then -- and, then, get to the -- get to the units. So, the -- the apartments will
probably be back a little ways.
Lorcher: Okay.
Thompson: So, did I answer everything? I think I got it.
Lorcher: I believe so. I believe so. I mean, you know, it's impossible to guarantee any
unrestricted view, but being conscious of the people who always live there is always a
nice consideration.
Thompson: It is.
Lorcher: I do have a few questions for you in regard to the golf course. So, you are
suggesting of eliminating the golf course and turning those into villas.
Thompson: So, the way that it's colored in it looks like all of it goes. It's just going to be
reprogrammed. There will be some open space around that. There is -- there is --
there is a small number of villas that go in there. There is 20 villas that go in there. So,
there will be a considerable amount of open space that -- that retains. What's -- what's
left there is going to be around six acres with the current pond and what's over on the --
on the west side as well and, then, there -- they will -- typically their -- their programming
and what they have has some sort of putting green or pitching green -- you know,
pitching area, those types of things. So, it's -- it likely won't a hundred percent go away,
but it's just going to be reprogrammed.
Lorcher: And does that satisfy -- because I don't know the exact wording, so, Sonya,
you might have to help me with this, but does that satisfy the original PUD of open
space that was required if the golf course is amended?
Allen: Madam Chair, I don't have those calcs from the applicant. She said she did
some preliminary calcs and it appears to comply with those standards, but I would like
to see an exhibit showing exactly what areas are being counted in order to determine
that.
Lorcher: Okay. So, before Council you will have to have --
18
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
July 17,2025
Page 16 of 36
Thompson: Yeah. So -- and I'm sorry I did not -- I didn't bring that, but we do -- we did
do some calculations and there is 12 acres. So, there is pickleball courts as part of this
-- of what's -- so, what's constructed currently is around 12 acres of qualified open
space. So, there is pickleball courts. There is pathways that go to benches and
gazebos. There is -- there is little waterfall areas with seating areas. There is the pond.
There is -- there is all kinds of different areas. There is a dog park area and, then, that
-- there is the golf course area. So, with eliminating the golf course area we are still well
over what was required for the original PUD. Like almost double what was required.
Lorcher: Okay. One final question from me. When you had your neighborhood
meeting with the community people bought in this community based on senior living and
the amenities, possibly even the golf course, you know, being part of it. What has been
the response from the community for your adjustments to the open space and, then, the
flex space of turning some of that into villas and that type of thing, what kind of
response -- I mean the fact that nobody is here complaining leads me to believe that it --
it's not a huge concern, but it is a difference to what they were committed to when they
purchased in that community.
Thompson: I would like my client to answer that question, because they have been
working more closely with their tenants, if-- if that's fine.
Lorcher: Hi. If you could just state your name and address for the record that would be
great.
Benson: Sure. Ryan Benson. Touchmark. Our address is 5150 Southwest Griffith
Drive in Beaverton, Oregon. 97005.
Lorcher: Okay.
Benson: Thank you all for your time this evening. I personally hosted a town hall with
our residents a few months ago. It was very well attended. We had 50, 60 people
there. We went through this entire master plan and we received plenty of comments.
We have incorporated all that into our programming. Our executive director at this
community, who couldn't be here tonight, we have -- we have registered all of their --
their questions and, to be honest, the golf course is pretty lightly used as is. So, our
intent is to reprogram into a more activated space that's going to be used on a day-to-
day basis and benefit everybody in the community. So, we are actively engaged with all
the residents on this project.
Lorcher: Okay. So, nobody feels like you are taking away anything in particular,
especially because if -- with the golf course, if it is being limited attended, but you put
something else in there so the community can use it more on a daily basis that could be
a benefit to your group.
Benson: Right. Our -- our operations team will probably go through a really thorough
process with them to kind of talk through, you know, what -- what more can we do as we
19 1
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
July 17,2025
Page 17 of 36
start to program out the villas and what that looks like, so I don't have an answer as to
like what it will become --
Lorcher: Right.
Benson: -- but we will be factoring in all of their -- their comments and their thoughts
into that.
Lorcher: And what did the community say when you were going to invite families that
are not age restricted into your community?
Benson: I think it was -- it was mixed. I think some people were excited. They liked the
idea of having more activity around, you know, a mix of uses is fun and engaging and
there were some concerns with safety and security. So, we received mixed reviews and
we intend to be very thoughtful in addressing their concerns. But overall I would say it
was mixed.
Lorcher: Okay. All right. Any questions for Touchmark?
Garrett: Yeah. I'm sorry, what is the demographics of the hotel? What are you looking
for -- I mean it seems to be off the beaten track.
Benson: You know, we haven't programmed what exactly that hotel will look like, but I
do think that users might be visitors of family members. They could be people using the
hospital services nearby. We haven't exactly programmed what the hotel will look like.
Garrett: Well, that's what I assumed.
Benson: Yeah. Maybe those two would be primary users.
Garrett: Yeah. Okay. Just a question.
Benson: Thank you.
Lorcher: Any other questions for Touchmark while he is up? Okay. Thank you very
much.
Benson: Thank you, everyone.
Allen: Madam Chair, may I clarify an item that was discussed?
Lorcher: Yes.
Allen: So, the percentage of residential versus commercial uses in the Comprehensive
Plan for mixed use designated areas, that is based on the overall larger designated
area. It's not on a project specific area. So, that's where staff got our calculations and
F20]
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
July 17,2025
Page 18 of 36
what the original calcs were based on. So, anyway, just wanted to clarify and explain
that. Thank you.
Lorcher: Okay. Thank you. Tamara, did you have any other final thoughts before we
close the public hearing?
Thompson: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, I think I got through
everything. The Touchmark mixed use, I think they have been an excellent neighbor in
-- in Meridian. They have -- they have shown -- you know, what they currently have
constructed is very very high quality and that's what they want to bring to the community
and -- and providing an additional service to -- and -- and something that complements
the adjacent residential commercial and office uses and this project will provide a
vibrant, livable development with a variety of housing options. This fits every single --
checks every box on the mixed use community with all the multiple uses that are being
provided for and the commercial component will provide easily accessible and
convenient services for residents in the general vicinity. The development agreement
modification, the PUD modification and the rezone request comply with the applicable
provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and tonight we request your recommendation for
approval with those three modifications that I walked you through. We thank you for
your time.
Lorcher: All right. Thank you very much.
Perreault: Madam Chair, may I ask a couple more questions?
Lorcher: Commissioner Perreault.
Perreault: Thank you. I wanted clarification on the townhouse areas. We had
discussion about there being townhome style units, but they are not actually
townhomes. Is that just in the multi-family section or would that be in the section that's
labeled townhomes?
Thompson: Madam Chair, Commissioner Perreault, that is the areas that are called
townhomes. So, those will look like townhomes, they just won't be platted where they
can be sold fee simple.
Perreault: So -- so, that's the area where there is the request to raise the height to 64
feet?
Thompson: No. The height request is just for the hotel.
Perreault: Oh. Okay. That's not -- that's not what it stated I believe in the staff report.
So -- okay. So, the areas that are light blue that are townhomes --
Thompson: Let me make sure I have that correct. I have -- I have that. So, the
townhomes -- the -- the asterisk for the townhomes is -- so, we were trying -- we just
F21
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
July 17,2025
Page 19 of 36
wanted to make sure that townhomes were approved and -- and they are, but they --
they are designated as multi-family, but they are going to look like townhomes, so -- but
-- because they are all on one lot. So, that's what that asterisk is for. But the height --
the building height is just for the hotel, just for the salmon pink -- dark pink color.
Perreault: Okay. Thank you for clarifying that. The staff report says that there is a
request for a deviation to the maximum building height allowed in the C-C district from
50 to 64 feet for the hotel and inclusion of townhome dwellings as permitted use in the
C-C district.
Thompson: Yeah.
Perreault: And inclusion of the townhomes --
Thompson: That's separate. We are not talking about -- those are separate. What we
have for the height of the townhomes is -- 35 feet is proposed, which fits within the
height of that zone.
Perreault: Okay. One more question. So, with the -- when you come in for -- I don't
know what the requirement will be in the PUD when you do the multi-family, if you have
to come in and have a hearing like you do with a CUP. I don't think you have to. It
sounds like it can just go straight to the zoning compliance process; is that right? So,
can you chat with us a little bit about -- and so say that the villas come in and we take
some of the open space away from that central area, what is -- what is that multi-family
open space going to look like? Is it going to be another smaller version of -- of that
where you have got the -- you know, a dog park or you have got seating areas, plaza
areas? And it sounds like we are not going to have a whole lot of say in that right now
and that's okay, but I just want to make sure that, you know, those open areas are being
replaced.
Thompson: They are. So, you -- through the CZC and the DR process -- so, there is a
-- I want to say it's a pretty rigorous checklist of -- through the design review where we
have a point system for open space and we have -- we have outlined where we are
going to have points in every single category for the multi-family and so we are going to
have clubhouses and we are going to have a pool and we are -- you know. So, we
have outlined what -- what those are going to be and we have given an example in our
application of what all those points could be -- will likely be, but we have also committed
to having points in each category that will meet or exceed the minimum requirements.
Lorcher: My only other comment is the use of the word townhomes during this entire
conversation has been very confusing --
Thompson: It has been.
Lorcher: -- because the city has a very solid definition of what a townhome is and what
that looks like on being a single unit, whether it's for purchase or rent, whereas multi-
22
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
July 17,2025
Page 20 of 36
family is one big parcel divided up into other things. So, I don't know if you and the
planning department can come up with another word other than townhomes, because I
have been trying to wrap my head around it during this meeting and you are going to
have the same challenges when you go to Council.
Thompson: Yeah. I agree.
Lorcher: So, between now and then where it says townhomes that should be labeled
something else. Villas. Cottages. Whatever comes up to be multi-family, but not under
the definition of townhomes. Because every time you talked about townhomes I'm like,
okay, this is not where it's supposed to be and it's not working, but you are telling me,
well, it's like a townhome, but it's not a townhome. So, if you can adjust that for Council
that would be great.
Thompson: Yeah. That's -- that's -- that's fabulous feedback. Thank you. We will -- we
will try to make up a word.
Lorcher: Yes. Come up with something clever. I'm sure we will find something. All
right. With that thank you very much. I appreciate your patience. May I have a motion
to close the public hearing?
Smith: So moved.
Rust: Second.
Garrett: Second.
Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for Touchmark and
Meadow Lake Village. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Perreault: Madam Chair?
Lorcher: Commissioner Perreault.
Perreault: Would it be possible for staff to maybe address any of the things that came
up during the hearing that -- it seemed like what I was reading was maybe a little
different than what they were presenting and if there is anything that you want to clarify
with us?
Allen: Madam Chair, Commissioner Perreault, I can't think of anything other than the
percentage of residential that I already clarified in the MUC designated area in the --
you know, the -- in response to the -- Madam Chair's comment, I think townhome style
multi-family would be appropriate on the concept plan, as well as -- you know, villas and
cottages are something that the city code doesn't recognize either, so -- and as long as
F23]
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
July 17,2025
Page 21 of 36
those units aren't being platted on individual lots, which I understand they aren't, then,
that would also be multi-family and like the villas would be single family attached style
multi-family and the cottages single family detached style multi-family. Other than that if
-- unless -- unless you are thinking of something I'm not thinking of that needs clarified,
Commissioner Perreault. I can't think of anything else.
Perreault: Well, the only other question I had was in the presentation this evening about
the 45,000 square foot of office and 45,000 square foot of retail space, it sounded like
the applicant didn't provide those numbers and I'm trying to understand if that's the total
proposed -- I realize that might not be what it ends up to be, but if that's kind of the total
proposed idea with the concept --
Allen: I believe there was a total of 114,000 square feet of medical office.
Perreault: That was for medical office.
Allen: And, then, 75,546 square feet of self-storage, 45,000 office space and 45,000
commercial retail space. Is there --
Perreault: Yes. The question I was trying to have answered is are the -- the bubbles
that show a commercial there in the northwest and potentially commercial light industry
in the northeast, is that enough space to build 45,000 square feet or would the applicant
need to use the commercial multi-family flex space? I guess that's what I'm trying to
understand is when they came up with this calculation of 45,000 square feet commercial
retail, is that just supposed to fit in that northeast corner that's purple? Is that spread
out over the whole --
Allen: The purple --
Perreault: -- development?
Allen: Each of those colors in each of those areas on the concept plan -- you can't see
it, because the prints too small on the screen, but there are notes on each color coded
thing saying how many square feet, approximately, is proposed.
Perreault: Okay.
Allen: And I assume that's a multi-family -- or a multi-story, excuse me, square footage.
But it is a concept at this time, but that's what they have guesstimated to fit on those
areas.
Lorcher: Any comments about this development?
Rust: Madam Chair?
F24]
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
July 17,2025
Page 22 of 36
Lorcher: Commissioner Rust.
Rust: Yeah. I appreciate the effort that's gone into this. I think Touchmark has been
aware of them as the business for a number of years. This has been a long-term
development. I mean the history -- it's not often we get a history that starts in the '90s
and I think there is, obviously, a lot of thought and care that has gone into the
development of the existing development. The fact that they had a really well attended
town hall as part of their community and we didn't see anybody from that town hall here
tonight, I think just speaks to the overall level of care that's gone into this. This is not a
development that they are looking to slam things together in the next three or four
years. This is going to be phased. This is going to be thoughtful. I'm inclined to give
deference to Touchmark and give them wide latitude to fill this out as they see fit. This
is they have been good stewards of this property for 25 years now and so I would be
inclined to recommend approval to the Council and grant them the three conditions that
they are asking for. The wrought iron fence. Let's look at that side connection, but not
necessarily require that and, then, give them the flexibility that they are asking for on the
commercial slash multi-family piece. I think that they have, again, been good stewards.
They are the kind of people that we want to partner with as the city and I want to give
them as much latitude as we can.
Lorcher: Okay. Thank you. Any other comments? I like the idea that there is a hotel.
My -- my -- my mom lives in an adult -- or a senior community back in Illinois and she
doesn't let me stay with her, so -- but, then, she is like but I want you close by, but there
is nothing there. So having a hotel close by is -- would be a benefit to your community I
would think and, plus, the proximity of the hotel -- you know -- excuse me. The hospital
would also benefit from that as well. The only thing that kind of threw me off today was
the labeling and I'm sure we will come up with some good terms before Council. You
know, the market has changed quite a bit since 1995 or '3 or whenever you kind of
started this and my only concern is that, though, the people who already live there -- I
would hate to see them purchase a property and committed to one thing and it turns into
something else with the understanding that things do evolve. So, like if the golf course
isn't working and maybe only ten percent of your community uses it, but, then, you
change it to something else and, then, now 80 percent of your community can use it.
So, I totally get that part as well. Because this is over the next 15 years and it's not
going to be all done tomorrow, I'm inclined to approve it as well, with those conditions,
so that as -- over the next 15 years as things change and as the market deems
necessary they have the flexibility to be able to serve our community.
Smith: Madam Chair?
Lorcher: Commissioner Smith.
Smith: I think I generally direction on -- on that direction -- or that's where I'm heading.
There are two kind of things that I'm a little bit not -- you know, not the biggest fan of. I
think there is -- we are leaving a bit of an open question on that connection -- on that --
that eastern side that I don't love kind of leaving unanswered. I'm okay granting
F25]
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
July 17,2025
Page 23 of 36
deference. It seems like this is, again, a longer term period -- you know, longer term
development, but there is just some unease that gives me. The only other thing is --
that I recall from -- kind of -- is that -- a question for staff I guess, just having seen the
image of the proposed fencing. Along the canal there needs -- does there not need to
be like an open view for that fencing or is that -- is -- would you say that that -- what's
pictured is adequate in this open view, since there are kind of slats? It doesn't -- it
seems kind of obstructed to me.
Allen: Madam Chair, if I could respond. So, our code requires either open vision or --
typically open vision along waterways and that's for -- so, that the irrigation district can
maintain their -- their ditches and their easement areas and burn -- burn weeds if
necessary and vinyl fences are kind of frowned on along there. I wasn't aware that
there was existing vinyl fence along there and I'm not sure that the city ever approved
that fencing. Anyway, that's the reason for the requirement for wrought iron. I'm not
sure what the metal picket fencing is that the applicant is possibly -- one of the two
options they proposed to me that would be the same, but I haven't seen a picture of
that, so I'm unsure.
Smith: So, Madam Chair, I guess what I would say is an addendum to maybe that is
that just ensuring that whatever goes there along the canal might be -- is open vision in
compliance with code is my only maybe sticking point. But beyond that I think I'm -- I'm
in agreement with everything. Yeah.
Allen: Madam Chair. And just to add a little bit to that, if-- if that's the motion you make
that would allow the possibility of chain link fencing along there. So, typically we don't
allow that. More for esthetic reasons than anything, but, anyway, just wanted to clarify.
Thank you.
Lorcher: Does the irrigation allow -- district. Thank you. Allow chain link fence?
Allen: As far as I know, yes.
Lorcher: Okay. So, maybe where it ensures that the fencing complies with city code,
whatever that happens to be?
Smith: Yeah. Madam Chair, I would be supportive of that.
Lorcher: Okay. Any other comments from Commissioners in regard to this or I will take
a motion.
Perreault: Madam Chair?
Lorcher: Commissioner Perreault.
Perreault: So, I agree with -- with the open -- or that the fencing that city code and
keeping that wrought iron. With the townhomes versus the multi-family, I kind of got the
F26]
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
July 17,2025
Page 24 of 36
feeling -- and I apologize if this is incorrect -- that the townhomes were just kind of
apartments, but the outside looked different and so I don't know if that actually is the
case or really is a home that has multiple levels and it's just attached. I -- if -- if it is
apartment style, but just has an exterior that looks different, I would encourage the
applicant to maybe reconsider that, because I'm pretty sure that Council will -- will want
to have that conversation. I just -- I think it would be good for the applicant to be really
specific and distinct about the difference between the townhomes and the multi-family,
how they are going to look, how that -- how they are going to be lived in and how they
really are going to be distinctive from each other and, then, act as that buffer. For me
that wasn't as clear maybe as it could have been. I realize we are just doing a concept
plan here, but, you know, it is important, because you -- we are defining specific things
that are going in those bubbles. I'm also sad to hear the golf course may -- or part of
the golf course may go away, but I understand, as the chairwoman said, that if that's not
an efficient use of that space for the residents, then, I understand wanting to make the
change. What I would like to see is whatever acreage that is turned into villas, that that
-- an equivalent amount of that be created in the new -- the new areas and I don't mean
whether it meets the 15 percent qualified open space, I mean an actual acre-for-acre
replacement. I would like to really see that. I think that that would be honoring to the
existing residents that had that expectation of a certain amount of space to use, so I
assume that is a condition we can request and, then, I would like to say -- I would like to
see a follow up on the concern over the old tree. I would recommend that the applicant
have some sort of response for City Council on that. Hesitant to put a condition on it,
but never -- never try to put a condition on the -- had a few applications that have
requested a tree to remain, but I agree with -- with the neighbor that that's a really
important piece of nature for our -- for our ecosystem really. So, yeah, those are all the
things I wanted to mention. Thank you.
Lorcher: Okay. Any other comments?
Stoll: Madam Chair, if I may?
Lorcher: Commissioner Stoll.
Stoll: I have watched this development sadly for many years and I remember thinking
that I was way too young and now I'm --
Lorcher: Right there, uh?
Stoll: I'm at that age and looking at my own mother in law's place down in Arizona, we
are seeing a transition where it is getting young -- it's no longer 55 plus, they are going
down to 40 plus with the market and in some cases it's causing a reinvigoration of the
communities and a greater dynamic with the folks that are living there. Following up on
your comment regarding the hotel, my mother in law probably would not be appreciative
of the hotel. I would have been appreciative of the hotel --
Lorcher: Right.
27
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
July 17,2025
Page 25 of 36
Stoll: -- many times, but overall I support what the applicant has submitted and I think
there is some aspects of it that I really do like. I caution them to make sure that they
preserve the open space and maximize that and the opportunities for the residents.
The one that I was surprised was the comments from ACHD and ITD regarding the
traffic impact. Franklin and Eagle Road are congested roadways in that area and that
they felt that there was -- in one case with ITD there was no comments provided and
with ACHD they said it was added level of service E and that -- that was acceptable and
that there would be negligible impacts regarding the development. We have a lot of
units that are going to be going in here. It's going to have an impact and something that
our community is going to need the leadership from the transportation agencies on
providing input to the land use agencies on the traffic impacts. But based on the
comments that we have today I'm inclined to recommend to Council approval with the
conditions that staff have laid out. I -- I'm okay with saying -- allowing the condition that
they can work out the 27 foot drop on potential connection. I have concerns regarding
wrought iron fence versus not wrought iron fence. I think we need to make sure that --
we only have this opportunity to put in the type of treatments that we want and what was
put in or -- and approved or not approved 27 some odd years ago doesn't necessarily
have to dictate what we have now.
Lorcher: Right.
Stoll: So, that --
Lorcher: Okay. Any comments? Are you good? Oh, you already commented. Okay.
All right. Let me give this a go. After considering all staff, applicant and public
testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council for File No. H-2025-0012 as
presented in the staff report to include ensuring the fence complies with city code. The
flex space to be -- or the -- yeah. The flex space for commercial and residential be fluid.
Define the word townhome as multi-family residential and include an exhibit for open
space without the golf course. Did I forget anything?
Perreault: Madam Chair?
Lorcher: The road connection?
Pearreault: Could you just clarify -- staff have recommended that the flex space not be
flex space. Are you saying that we are recommending that it's -- that it is?
Lorcher: Because this is, in my opinion, a five to 15 year build out, that the market may
deem that residential ten years from now might be more advantageous to our
community than the commercial. So, I'm recommending that -- that the flex space be
open to either. But that's my motion. And, then, we wanted to add work with the
irrigation district for a connective -- was it a connective street? Do you remember?
Smith: Madam Chair, regarding the -- like that cross-connection --
F28]
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
July 17,2025
Page 26 of 36
Lorcher: Yeah.
Smith: -- I mean I think the applicant was asking for just the ability to continue working
with staff. I guess I think what I would like to -- what I would like to have more in terms
of what we can require is maybe something more fleshed out before it gets to Council
specifically. I'm not trying to lock them into anything, but I would like maybe Council to
be able to discuss the different possibilities more specifically than kicking it down the
road.
Lorcher: Okay. One second. Okay. I'm going to try this again, because I have my
notes. All right. The modifications include the -- ensure the fence complies with city
code. That the commercial space be recommended, but be flexible to residential for
long-term future growth. Define townhomes as multi-family residential. Include an
exhibit for open space without the golf course and work with the irrigation district and
the city for connectivity to the east boundary.
Allen: Madam Chair, may I clarify if your motion included any changes to the applicant's
request for the office use in the southwest corner of the site to be allowed to possibly
develop with townhome uses?
Lorcher: I did say the commercial to be flexible for commercial or residential.
Allen: Okay.
Lorcher: Does that -- does that cover that?
Allen: There is commercial, as well as the office. There is commercial along Franklin --
Lorcher: Right.
Allen: -- and, then, the office was along the west boundary of the site. So, you meant
for both -- both of those areas?
Lorcher: I did.
Allen: Thank you.
Lorcher: Okay. Do I have a second?
Rust: Second.
Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to approve File No. H-2025-0012 with the
modifications listed. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank
you very much.
MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT.
F29]
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
July 17,2025
Page 27 of 36
Lorcher: Took us a minute to get there, but we got there. Okay. There was a lot going
on. All right. We have another one this evening for H-2025-0019 for Gramercy
Townhomes for a rezone, preliminary plat, and DA modification and, Bill, if you can give
us less than five minutes for a little break we will go ahead and get -- and that way you
can get it loaded up.
Parsons: That would be fine. Thank you.
(Recess: 7:28 p.m. to 7:34 p.m.)
5. Public Hearing for Gramercy Townhomes (H-2025-0019) by Elton
Development Company, located at 1873, 1925 and 2069 Wells Ave.
A. Request: Rezone of 6.98 acres of land from the C-G zone to the
TN-R zone.
B. Request: Preliminary Plat for 82 buildable lots and 8 common lots.
C. Request: Development Agreement Modification to establish a new
concept plan and remove the age restriction on the property.
Lorcher: Okay. Let's carry on for Gramercy and we will begin with the staff report.
Thanks, Bill.
Parsons: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. So, last project
before you this evening is the Gramercy Townhome project. The site consists of 6.98
acres of land, currently zoned C-G in the city. This -- this project has a lot of history as
well. This started in 2006 and, then, with this particular property that we are discussing
this evening was actually approved by this body in 2021 for an age restricted 164 multi-
family development. So, the applicant is here this evening to discuss modifying the
development agreement, rezoning the property and platting it to build a townhome
development. So, not going to confuse you with this presentation, this is a true
townhome development.
Lorcher: Okay. Thank you.
Parsons: What they say that -- what we are calling townhomes are actually townhomes.
It meets --
Lorcher: All right. Very good.
Parsons: -- the definition. So, you can see on the future land map that's before you this
evening this area is also part of a larger mixed use regional area. I think Nick did a
good job putting some analysis in there. So, typically, when we are looking at mixed
use developments, as Sonya mentioned in her last presentation, we are looking for a
mix of uses. Well, you can see here everything around Eagle Road and Overland is
F30]
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
July 17,2025
Page 28 of 36
mixed use regional. So, we took a broader lens in looking at this and we said, okay,
let's do some comparison here. So, we know there is a mix of employment, mix of
retail, mix of residential units in the area. So, essentially, although this project is coming
in with a townhome -- as a townhome project, when you look at the greater good -- the
greater area it has all of those things that are envisioned with the -- by the
Comprehensive Plan, so, therefore, this development in itself is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. The other items that we look at in mixed use regional areas is
density. So, in a mixed use regional designated area we are looking between 60 and
40 dwelling units to the acre. What's unique about this project this evening is the
applicant is actually rezoning from a commercial district to a Traditional Neighborhood
Residential district, which is called TN-R is the acronym and, then, in that particular
zoning district we want two different residential types -- product types in there. So,
either a townhome, single family attached, single family detached. But, again, in our
staff report we made it clear to both the Commission and Council that there is other
residential happening in the area and as part of the Gramercy project, so although this
may have one style of residential, overall the rezone and what's developed in the area
and the mixed use regional area is still consistent and, therefore, we are recommending
the TN-R zone with the one residential use that's proposed before you this evening.
See if this thing will advance for me here. Here we go. Here is the property highlighted
as well. You can see it's adjacent to Mountain View High School on the west and, then,
also to the south what makes this a great amenity or neighborhood for the city is the fact
that it's in close proximity to a city park directly to the south and, then, the applicant will
be tying the development into the existing ten foot multi-use pathway that you see. That
red dashed line is the multi-use pathway that's built within that development, allowing
residents who live here to walk to that -- that amenity that's currently constructed. Here,
again, is the rezone boundary. Again, rezoning from C-G to TN-R. This is the proposed
site plan slash plat and we are looking at 82 residential lots and eight common lots on --
on approximately seven acres. The other unique thing about TN-R residential zoning
standards is we like to have alley-loaded product is the primary push in that particular
zoning district. It's a dimension -- part of the dimensional standards, where it's -- the
preference is alley loaded, which this is. The applicant's also providing parkways in
front of the units, which is also consistent with that requested zoning district and they
are also providing traffic calming through bulb outs in front of the units along some of
the commercial drive aisles and that will also allow for additional guest parking or
parking for the development and, then, you can see here in the central MEW, that's
within the middle of the development, there is also overflow parking. So, the applicant
is providing additional 46 parking spaces on this site to allow -- account for guest
parking or overflow parking. It's not required by code, but the applicant's done that
based on staff's recommendation. As the applicant moves through the final platting
process they will have to -- currently everything that provides access to these lots is a
commercial drive aisle or will be, but as part of the final plat process staff has
recommended that they plat these -- or apply for a private street application, so that we
can name them so we can address the units appropriately. The applicant will also have
to work with the adjacent property owners to the east, because there are existing drive
aisles that are stubbed to this property. The recorded Gramercy plat does grant cross-
access to this development. However, it's an easement and not a public -- a private
F31
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
July 17,2025
Page 29 of 36
street. So, the applicant will have to work with those potential business owners on
naming one of those commercial drive aisles, so that they have -- the private street
does touch a public street. So, that's something that will -- again, we will be looking for
at the time of final -- final platting. Because the applicant is rezoning to a commercial
district and it is -- townhomes are considered single family, they are required to provide
open space -- 15 percent open space and to be exact in the plat before you is 18.8
percent. So, they are actually providing more than what the code requires. They are
also providing the required amenities with the central parkway -- walkways that you see
through the central part of the development and there is also a dog area. So, waste
stations, which counts as amenities for the subdivision. So, they are meeting the point
requirements for amenities and they are also meeting the -- exceeding the open space
requirements of the code. Here is the landscape plan, just kind of highlighting what's
qualified and being counted towards that required 18 percent per city code. One thing
that the applicant will be working with the city on is typically when we have these micro
path lots or these walkways between units we typically see those in common lots. In
this particular case the applicant does have some site constraints that they need some
flexibility on how to make their units fit on some of the lots and, therefore, they are --
some of the micro path areas will be basically easements on the plat -- on the lots
versus a common lot, which is allowed by city code. So, just something different that
we don't see, but they have been conditioned to provide those easements on the plat,
so that anyone reviewing plans for this development will know that the units cannot
encroach within those pedestrian easements that they will be depicting on the plat. So,
the plat may not show the 15 foot wide -- it will show the easement, but the landscape
plan does show the 15 foot landscape buffer and landscaping required per code. And,
then, because this development is part of the Gramercy development a lot of the
architectural style in that development does have brick on it and so the applicant's --
when we have met with the applicant during our pre-application meetings and working
on their design of the townhome units, we have encouraged them to incorporate some
brick on the dwelling unit, so it does blend in with the rest of the Gramercy development
and you can see they have added that wainscoting on the ground -- ground floor here.
So, again, I -- overall staff is supportive of the rezone of the plat and the MDA, the
development agreement modification. Before I came to the hearing I had a chance to
look at the public record. It looks like we did get public comment from one of the
adjacent neighbors and she had concerns with the traffic. A little misunderstanding on
the density. Just wanted to provide some clarification on the record. This particular
development is actually less dense than the previous one. So, we are actually 164
going down to 82, so we are actually providing less dwelling units. Where it could get
confusing for residents and for maybe even you and Council as we go forward, is
typically in a TN-R zone there is -- the density is based off a net density and not gross
density and really the difference there is we take out the open space in the roads and
that's how we are left with net. So, this particular development, if you look at it on
paper, is it at 19 dwelling units net density, but it's approximately 12 dwelling units to the
acre if you were looking at the gross. So, again, meets the TN-R zone that they are
requesting, complies with the comp plan and it's less dense than what was previously
approved. So, anyways, the resident also brought up concerns with utilities, parks,
schools, police -- all the typical conversations you have had in the past with other
32
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
July 17,2025
Page 30 of 36
residents. So, again, this is what was originally envisioned for Gramercy. It was a
mixed use development. They are just contributing and reducing the density. So,
again, staff is recommend -- recommending approval of this project and I will stand for
any questions you may have.
Lorcher: Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward? Hi.
Chidester: Hi. Mike Chidester. 2541 East Gala Street here in Meridian. 83642. Good
to be with you tonight. Do you have the presentation? Thank you. Appreciate the
chance to be with you. I'm with -- Mike Chidester with Elton Development. We are a
local -- local development company. We specialize in -- in senior living. There is a lot
of our work, which explains a previous application for this -- this site. Also do
townhomes, some large lot subdivisions, multi-family. I will try and be brief tonight. I do
want to give just a brief history of this site to give you an idea of kind of what's
happened on -- on this site over the years. Principals of our property -- or our company
have been working on this since 2014. Initially -- and in that time in 2014 and '15 this is
actually a potential site for the new south Meridian YMCA and having senior housing be
one of the things that our principals work on, we were looking at potentially with the
YMCA and St. Luke's partnering for a facility here, we were looking at doing potentially
a facility where we could mix generations and have a senior housing facility adjacent to
the Y. As you know in 2018 the Y opened at -- at the current location and so between
2016 and '19 there really wasn't much development there. One parcel was owned by
Luke's, one by the Y and one by a charter school. In 2020 we started looking at this as
a potential location for a 55 plus apartment complex. We went through the work to do it.
We hit -- but, unfortunately, a number of things made it so that project just wasn't
feasible. A lot of the difficulties of cost inflation, et cetera, and, then, just some market
dynamics and so we -- we worked on that, but -- but really pulled back from that project.
But over the years I just want to say that since then we have -- we have looked at
concepts of -- the images here you have of 55 plus apartments, we have looked at flex
industrial, we have looked at office, we have looked at destination resident. A lot of
retail. A lot of different things at this site and it's just been -- the biggest challenge for
these parcels in particular is shown here. That red line is a principal arterial, Overland
Road, good for traffic and visibility. The blue line is Wells, which, again, is a collector.
And these parcels are just off the beaten path enough that with every concept we talk to
visibility is the first thing that comes up and, you know, access is okay, but visibility is
very difficult and it just doesn't work for a number of things. That doesn't look too far on
that image, but the closest point between Wells and our property is 220 feet. So, it's
just a challenge that way. So, that's why we have -- you know, the concern always
when I come before this board is -- these are commercial. We are changing it to
residential. Is that -- is that an issue. That just gives -- I wanted to give you a little
context of the efforts that have been made to look at this in the C-G zoning. High level
view. You seem to get into the site plan a little bit more, Bill's done a good job of
naming it, but I -- one of the challenges of developing this was we have all these access
points -- existing roads that we had to tie into and so it took a little bit of work around
and I credit staff, actually, for helping us get this to the best place we can. We had a
meeting with Bill and Nick and they made some recommendations and, ultimately, what
F33]
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
July 17,2025
Page 31 of 36
we came to was we were trying to do what's -- what's wanted in the TN-R zone, which is
the alley load. With the exception of that center area we -- we realized we had room to
do something larger and so, really, the -- the soul of this project I think is that large
common area there. To give you an idea it's -- it's about 300 feet long. It's essentially
the exact -- within a few feet the same length as the -- the plaza out in front of this
building. A little bit -- not quite as wide, but -- so, it will be a great thing. Dog park.
Great amenity. It's the perfect size for the neighborhood Thanksgiving Day turkey bowl.
So, we think that's a -- that's a great amenity that we worked hard to have. On-street
parking was another thing that we made an effort to have, simply because we all know
when places are under parked. We meet the code of four -- four stalls per unit, but that
additional on-street parking we think will be good. The red line you see in here, as Bill
mentioned, is the connection to the multi-use pathway. And, again, we have some --
knowing we all love our animals, we have some amenities there and I would simply say
at the bottom right corner you will see a connection to Gordon Harris Park. That's -- you
don't notice it, but if you pull back a little bit it's about a five minute walk to an 11 acre
park, which I think will be a huge amenity and even the ball fields being adjacent to this
property gave a really nice open feel for this. So, we felt it was -- there is some things
that will be nice for residents who want to live here. These are for sale townhomes as
we said. These are the real thing. Three and four bedroom units. Three story
designed. Bill had mentioned this -- we have worked hard to get this design to fit
Gramercy with the exception -- I will say we have not gone to the minutia of dialing the
colors perfectly. This doesn't -- this green doesn't work perfectly within -- within
Gramercy. We will be working to do that. We work closely with Greg Johnson and
Taylor Merrill, who are the folks who would have to approve the design within Gramercy
and if -- if you want an idea of really what we are trying to do, this is a project that our
principals completed in Garden City called Parkway Station. The design is -- is not
exactly the same, but about probably 90 percent on the exterior. So, that will give you
an idea of the type of project that we are -- that we are trying to do and with that I will
stand for questions. Well, actually, I do want to -- I should mention I -- Hethe Clark,
sorry, with Clark Wardle here and I think he wants to -- I'm going to have him -- I'm
going to ask him to come up and speak to some of the technicalities.
Clark: Hi, everybody. Hethe Clark. 251 East Front Street. Commissioner Garrett
looked bored, so I thought I would come tap dance for a second. I did want to just
emphasize one of the points that Bill made there and just because -- again, because I
know how concerned folks can be about pulling back from a C-G zone. So, I just
wanted to emphasize the -- a couple of things. First on the comp plan, Bill knows that
one of my favorite parts of the comp plan is that we only look at these mixed use
regional areas between the lines of the arterials. I think that's not the greatest policy,
but in this case that's what it is and so looking at that what you can see on the left side
here is the area that we are talking about. I decided to pull out a little bit, so you can
see both sides of Eagle Road and you can see that there is a really nice mix of uses
that's already there and the staff did the calculation for the area that's bounded on the
north by Overland and on the east by Eagle and with this project in the residential it gets
to about 25 percent. So, you are very much within that ten to 30 percent that the -- the
mixed use regional area calls for. And, then, just on the TN-R -- and I'm not sure where
F34]
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
July 17,2025
Page 32 of 36
the red stuff is. It's -- I'm just I guess trying to have a party up here throwing -- throwing
confetti. We did do the TN-R after conversations with staff. We felt like that was the
most appropriate thing. The things that I would add to what Bill said is that there is
existing TN-R in that location and so this adds a little bit more buffer, so you go from
C-G to TN-R to R-15, so we thought that that was great. And, then, again, the
emphasis on the alley load. They have done the alley load on them -- on the -- those
two blocks. Alley load, as you guys know and as you have heard me talk about before,
is complicated and a little bit hard and -- and so I think the effort that went into putting
the alley load in here should be commended, because it really is an effort to try to make
sure that we are doing it the way that the city would like to with the planning. And so
with that I just would emphasize, as we wrap up, that we are in agreement with all the
conditions of the staff report. I think it's a -- it's a good thing that, you know, we had
these initial conversations with staff, we reoriented one of the blocks and when we got
to the right design, the conditions just kind of fell into place and so we are happy about
all that. So, we are happy to answer any other questions and not prolong the matter,
so --
Lorcher: Commissioners, do we have any questions for Hethe at this time?
Perreault: Madam Chair?
Lorcher: Commissioner Perreault.
Perreault: True to form I have several. I don't love the statistic that shows that 52
percent of the site is paved area. Don't love that. But I understand what -- I understand
why it's happening with the private streets. But when I saw that I was like, oh, wow.
Okay. So, my questions -- maybe more suggestions -- are one of the things we
consistently see with the narrow private streets and, then, you have the narrow alley,
are challenges with trash cans on trash day and then -- and, then, parking larger
vehicles, like a furniture delivery truck, Norco trucks and so I think that the extra parking
that you have put is fantastic. Love seeing that -- all that guest parking. Would it be
possible to put a space on -- on each private street that's like a bigger parking space for
like a larger truck or a cargo truck where some of those delivery trucks can drop off at
there? I mean I live in a small neighborhood and every day there is, you know, Amazon
and, you know, big delivery trucks and so I see them constantly and that's one of the
challenges we see with these type of developments. So, would really like to see that
happen and, then, the other question I have is about market demand. So, I can see
how this would be a really good development in Garden City, but there is -- I don't know
if you are familiar with another three story unit -- or three story unit development off of
Ten Mile and Franklin called the Entrada Farms. That's a rental community. It's not --
it's not for sale, but they had a real struggle getting those rented because of the three
stories. So, can you tell us how -- what you have run into and whether you see that this
will be a successful project in terms of--
Clark: Well, maybe I will take the first two and, then, I will --
F35]
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
July 17,2025
Page 33 of 36
Perreault: -- getting that sold.
Clark: -- Mike take the third one. So, the first one on the paved area that is inherent
with the idea of the TN-R's promotion of alley load. So, alley loads do include more
paved area. One of your challenges with alley load is you get the heat areas in the
back. So, one of the things that we have done is we have worked with staff and we are
going to do some alternative compliance on this, is to add some -- some space that we
are going to shrink a couple of those parking spaces -- or the drive aisle spaces back
there and add a little more landscaping to try to break that up a little bit. Second item on
the parking -- I think you will find that with alley load on the front most of those deliveries
come in through the front and so that issue is not quite as big of a concern as you might
in some other traditional -- see in some traditional product, but we are more than happy
to look at that through the -- with the direction of the Council and, then, I will turn it over
to Mike on the market.
Chidester: Yeah. It's -- it's a good -- it's a good question. When we looked at doing
townhomes here one of the challenges, here again as I mentioned, was the existing
streets and so we had to look at what we could fit within -- within those parameters. A
two story townhome requires usually a deeper, you know, a deeper lot and so that was
one of the things that challenged -- that challenged us. There will be buyers who are
not interested. It's probably someone who wants to be more central valley, maybe
younger families, maybe more single. So, we -- we have looked hard at who our target
market is and there will be some folks that I think will say, yeah, that's -- that's not for
us, because -- because of that. We have done some things like modifying the plan that
you saw there in -- in Garden City to allow three bedrooms on the top unit, as opposed
to two, so you could have a family with parents and a couple of kids in there. So, we
have tried to do some things to adapt for folks who might, you know, be more
concerned about that or having that first floor bedroom that isn't really as usable. So,
we have tried to do some things to adapt to that. You are not -- you are not wrong,
there will be people that won't like that as much. You have -- in Pine you have some
two story things, but we feel comfortable in the long-term success; right? So, it's a good
question.
Perreault: Madam Chair?
Lorcher: Commissioner Perreault.
Perreault: In that regard I just want to say I really appreciate seeing the three and four
bedroom options, because they are very hard to find with attached housing and there is
a big need for it, so --
Chidester: Good. That's good to hear.
Lorcher: Any other questions for the applicant? Thank you. Madam Clerk, do we have
anybody signed up to testify?
F36]
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
July 17,2025
Page 34 of 36
Lomeli: Thank you, Madam Chair. No one has signed up.
Lorcher: Anybody in Chambers? Mike or Hethe, do you have anything else you would
like to add before we close the public hearing? Okay. May I get a motion to close the
public hearing, please?
Smith: So moved.
Garrett: Second.
Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for Gramercy. All
those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Lorcher: I know that the city has expressed before that we don't necessarily like to go
from commercial back to residential, but your comments of the lack of visibility where
this is kind of tucked into both residential and a commercial little neighborhood, it does
make sense in this particular case, which is why we do each application individually.
So, I appreciate that. I have gotten lost back here quite a bit on the weekends and it's
actually a nice little spot, because it's a little bit hidden off, it's -- it's near Overland, but
it's not quite on Overland. As long as you disclose to your -- your buyers that there will
be baseball and band practice over at Rocky Mountain High School and that they
should not complain about it, because they are moving in there we will be fine. I -- there
was this one article about some family wanting to sue the city of Boise because the
pickleball courts were too loud. But you kind of should have known that before you
moved in. But I digress. Anyway, I think this is good. Since you are in a New York
state of mind here, a couple suggestions for your private streets. You can do Central
Park Drive. You can do Manhattan Drive or -- so get a whole New York vibe thing going
over there, too. But this looks great. It's a great little in-fill. It's a nice little spot in -- in
this kind of area and even though it's three stories I think they will be -- there will be a
good market for it. Any other comments as far as this application is concerned?
Smith: Madam Chair?
Lorcher: Commissioner Smith.
Smith: The only thing I have to say -- and I understand why TN-R and why kind of this
density was aimed for is -- one thing as -- I guess as a generality is when I look at how
close this is to points of interest and to the freeway, thinking of transit-oriented
development, part of me almost wishes this were a little bit more dense, which might not
be something that -- you know, that might be an evil sentence to utter in some circles,
but I understand this. I think it's -- anytime I hear Hethe Clark say we are in condition --
or in agreement with all the conditions of the staff report it's a good day. So, I fully
support this. You know, I think these kinds of areas -- I mean I would like to see a
conversation start to be for how can we increase density in these strategic areas that
F37]
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
July 17,2025
Page 35 of 36
are closer to the really high volume corridors, but as far as the constraints they are
dealing with here I think this is a great development.
Lorcher: Any other comments? A motion?
Perreault: Madam Chair?
Lorcher: Commissioner Perreault.
Perreault: I think this is also a very fitting development for this location. A lot of the
acreage in this whole Gramercy area has sat surprisingly -- I remember when it was
originally developed and I worked in private finance, so yes -- and I appreciate -- I
wanted to say I appreciate the large open space. It's not a requirement. But if there
were more -- more opportunities for activity -- I know there is a dog park, maybe there
could be something added that is a little more active feature, but, again, can't require
that, so -- but thank you for putting so much thought into this and trying to answer our
questions before we have them. Hethe has come to attempt to do that every time and I
appreciate it.
Rust: Madam Chair?
Lorcher: Commissioner Rust, yes.
Rust: After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend
approval of File No. H-2025-0019 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of
July 17th, 2025.
Garrett: Second.
Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to approve Gramercy Townhomes. All those in
favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Lorcher: I will take one more motion.
Stoll: Move to adjourn.
Rust: Second.
Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Any
opposed? Motion carries. Thank you, gentlemen, very much. Have a good night.
MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT P.M.
F38]
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
July 17,2025
Page 36 of 36
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS. )
APPROVED
8 7 25
MARIA LORCHER - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED
ATTEST:
CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK
F39
E IDIAN
'aAHO
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: Approve Minutes of the June 26, 2025 Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting
3
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
June 26,2025
Page 68 of 68
Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Any
opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:13 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS. )
APPROVED
7 I 17 125
MARIA LORCHER - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED
ATTEST:
CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK
F71
E IDIAN
'aAHO
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: Approve Minutes of the July 10, 2025 Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting
F72
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
July 10,2025
Page 7 of 7
Rust: Second.
Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to approve the facts findings, conclusions of
law for The Habit Burger with these Commissioner modifications. All those in favor say
aye. Any opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Lorcher: I will take one more motion.
Rust: Madam Chair, I --
Lorcher: Commissioner Rust.
Rust: I move that we adjourn.
Garrett: Second.
Stoll: Second.
Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded that we adjourn. All those in favor say aye.
Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much.
MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:18 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED
7 I 17 I25
MARIA LORCHER - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED
ATTEST:
CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK
79
E IDIAN
'aAHO
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Uplift Gym by Erik Hagen, located at
at 3410 W. Nelis Dr.
F80
CITY OF MERIDIAN wl IDIAN;=--
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
AND � DAHO
DECISION& ORDER
In the Matter of the Request for a conditional use permit is requested to operate an indoor
recreation facility(indoor gym)for Suite 100(13,043 square foot space)in an existing 37,020 square
foot industrial building,and extend the hours of operation to 24 hours a day,7 days a week on 2.49
acres of land for Uplifted Gym,Located at 3410 W.Nelis Drive in the I-L Zoning District,by Erik
Hagen.
Case No(s).H-2025-0023
For the Planning& Zoning Commission Hearing Date of: July loth, 2025 (Findings on July 17th,
2025)
A. Findings of Fact
1. Hearing Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 10',2025,incorporated by
reference)
2. Process Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 10', 2025,incorporated by
reference)
3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 10', 2025,
incorporated by reference)
4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code(see attached Staff Report for the hearing
date of July 17t'',2025, incorporated by reference)
B. Conclusions of Law
1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the"Local Land Use
Planning Act of 1975,"codified at Chapter 65, Title 67,Idaho Code(I.C. §67-6503).
2. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission takes judicial notice of its Unified Development
Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of
Meridian has,by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan
of the City of Meridian,which was adopted April 19,2011,Resolution No. 11-784 and Maps.
3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 11-5A.
4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s)received from the governmental
subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction.
5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose
expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed.
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER
CASE NO(S). H-2025-0023
Page 1 F81
6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this decision,which shall be
signed by the Chairman of the Commission and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk
upon the applicant,the Planning Department,the Public Works Department and any affected
party requesting notice.
7. That this approval is subject to the conditions of approval in the attached staff report for the
hearing date of July 1 Ott', 2025, incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be
reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the
application.
C. Decision and Order
Pursuant to the Planning &Zoning Commission's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 11-
5A and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby
ordered that:
1. The applicant's request for a conditional use permit is hereby approved in accord with the
conditions of approval in the staff report for the hearing date of July 10', 2025, attached as
Exhibit A.
D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits
Notice of Two(2)Year Conditional Use Permit Duration
Please take notice that the conditional use permit,when granted, shall be valid for a maximum
period of two(2)years unless otherwise approved by the City in accord with UDC 11-5B-6F.1.
During this time,the applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the
conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval,and
acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or
in the ground. For conditional use permits that also require platting,the final plat must be
signed by the City Engineer within this two(2)year period in accord with UDC 11-5B-6F.2.
Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord
with 11-513-6.F.1,the Director may authorize a single extension of the time to commence the
use not to exceed one(1)two (2)year period.Additional time extensions up to two (2)years as
determined and approved by the Commission may be granted. With all extensions,the Director
or Commission may require the conditional use comply with the current provisions of Meridian
City Code Title 11.
E. Judicial Review
Pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-652 1(1)(d),if this final decision concerns a matter enumerated in Idaho
Code § 67-6521(1)(a), an affected person aggrieved by this final decision may,within twenty-eight
(28)days after all remedies have been exhausted,including requesting reconsideration of this final
decision as provided by Meridian City Code § 1-7-10, seek judicial review of this final decision as
provided by chapter 52,title 67, Idaho Code. This notice is provided as a courtesy; the City of
Meridian does not admit by this notice that this decision is subject to judicial review under LLUPA.
F. Notice of Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER
CASE NO(S). H-2025-0023
Page 2 82
Pursuant to Idaho Code §§ 67-6521(1)(d) and 67-8003, an owner of private property that is the
subject of a final decision may submit a written request with the Meridian City Clerk for a regulatory
takings analysis.
G. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of July 10', 2025.
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER
CASE NO(S). H-2025-0023
Page 3 83
By action of the Planning&Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the 17th day of
July ,2025.
COMMISSIONER MARIA LORCHER, CHAIRMAN VOTED
COMMISSIONER JARED SMITH,VICE CHAIRMAN VOTED
COMMISSIONER BRIAN GARRETT VOTED
COMMISSIONER JESSICA PERREAULT VOTED
COMMISSIONER MATHEW STOLL VOTED
COMMISSIONER MATTHEW SANDOVAL VOTED
COMMISSIONER SAM RUST VOTED
Maria Lorcher, Chairman 7-17-2025
Attest:
Chris Johnson, City Clerk 7-17-2025
Copy served upon the Applicant, the Planning and Development Services divisions of the Community
Development Department,the Public Works Department and the City Attorney.
By: Dated: 7-17-2025
City Clerk's Office
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER
CASE NO(S). H-2025-0023
Page 4 84
Exhibit A
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT C��fEPIDIAN;,�-,-`
DEPARTMENT REPORT I D A H O
HEARING 7/10/2025 Legend
DATE: Project location
TO: Planning&Zoning Commission Area of impact 'A
�= City Limits
FROM: Nick Napoli,Associate Planner O Analysis
208-884-5533 --
nnapoli@meridiancity.org117
APPLICANT: Erik Hagen
SUBJECT: H-2025-0023
Uplifted Gym a
LOCATION: Located at 3410 W.Nelis Drive in
Section 34,TAN.,R.1W. irJo
jog
,SRI
I. PROJECT OVERVIEW
A. Summary
Conditional Use Permit(CUP)is requested to operate an indoor recreation facility(indoor gym)
for Suite 100(13,043 square foot space) in an existing 37,020 square foot industrial building, and
extend the hours of operation to 24 hours a day, 7 days a week on 2.49 acres of land in the I-L
zoning district.
B. Issues/Waivers
The Planning and Zoning Commission should carefully consider whether the continued
expansion of commercial businesses into industrial-zoned areas is appropriate.
C. Recommendation
Staff: Approval with conditions.
Decision
Commission: Approved as presented in the staff report.
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER
CASE NO(S). H-2025-0023
Page 5 85
COMMUNITY METRICS
Table 1: Land Use
Description Details Map Ref.
Existing Land Use(s) Industrial -
Proposed Land Use(s) Commercial -
Existing Zoning I-L(Light Industrial)
Adopted FLUM Designation Mixed Use Non-Residential
Table 2: Process Facts
Description Details
Preapplication Meeting date 3A/2025
Neighborhood Meeting 3/26/2025
Site posting date 6/27/2025
Table 3: Community Metrics
Agency/Element Description/Issue Reference
Ada County Highway District
Comments Received No -
Commission Action Required No -
Access W.Nelis Drive: Local Street -
Meridian Public Works Wastewater
Distance to Mainline Existing on Site
Impacts or Concerns No
Meridian Public Works Water
Distance to Mainline Existing on Site
Impacts or Concerns No
Note: See section 0. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS& CONDITIONS for comments received, or see
the public record.
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER
CASE NO(S). H-2025-0023
Page 6 86
STAFF ANALYSIS
Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code(UDC)
General Overview/History
The purpose of the MU-NR designation is to designate areas where new residential dwellings will
not be permitted, as residential uses are not compatible with the planned and/or existing uses in
these areas. For example,MU-NR areas are used near the City's Wastewater Resource Recovery
Facility and where there are heavy industrial or other hazardous operations that need to be
buffered from residential.
The Applicant proposes to develop the site with an indoor recreation facility(i.e. an indoor gym)
within a portion of an existing industrial building. The building was approved under an
administrative application(A-2021-0083). This property is part of the larger McNelis Subdivision
that was annexed in 2004 with a Development Agreement(DA) and a preliminary plat; a final
plat was later approved and recorded that included this property as Lot 4,Block 2,McNelis
Subdivision. The DA was later amended in 2011.
Although indoor recreation facilities are not standard uses within industrial zones,they may be
considered through a Conditional Use Permit. As such,the Planning and Zoning Commission
should evaluate whether continued expansion of commercial uses within industrial areas remains
appropriate.
In the surrounding area,there is a church, flex space,other warehousing uses, employment,
and vehicle repair uses. With the addition of the proposed indoor gym next to existing
industrial and commercial users, Staff believes the proposed indoor recreation facility should
complement other uses in the surrounding area and provide opportunities for residents to
recreate. However, staff have concerns that the continued expansion of commercial businesses
into industrial spaces could lead to impacts on employment in the city.
In addition,the applicant has indicated that the proposed hours of operation are intended to be
twenty-four(24)hours a day, seven(7) days a week. The development agreement requires the
hours of operation to be restricted to seven(7)am to ten(10)pm unless otherwise approved
with a conditional use permit. Due to this,the applicant is also requesting that the hours of
operation be extended to allow for operation twenty-four(24)hours a day, seven(7) days a
week.
It is also important to note that this building was constructed to Industrial parking standards.
The applicant has indicated his gym has about 220 members with roughly fifteen(15)
members at any one time. This has raised some concerns with staff, as parking may be an issue
if not addressed. To address this,the applicant has received approval from the neighboring
church to use up to twenty-five(25)parking spaces. While this helps provide parking, it does
not provide a clear path for residents to get to the business. Staff is recommending a pedestrian
connection be installed to allow gym users to get from the church site to the gym.
Additionally, after conversations with the applicant,revisions were made to add an additional
thirteen(13)parking stalls on the west and southwest portions of the site to better
accommodate the use that is proposed. The combination of this parking on site and off site
(Church Parking)will provide adequate parking in the event that the gym grows.
Therefore, Staff finds the proposed use should be an appropriate use in the MU-NR FLUM
designation for the reasons noted above.
"Plan for an appropriate mix of land uses that ensures connectivity,livability, and
economic vitality."(3.06.02)
The proposed use will contribute to the mix of uses in this area and should add to the
livability and economic vitality of the community.
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER
CASE NO(S). H-2025-0023 ■
Page 7
Monitor and adjust the amount and mix of industrial, commercial, and office areas needed
to meet the employment needs of the City."(3.06.0113)
The proposed use will contribute to the mix of uses in this area; however, the desire for
industrial and employment uses is diminished.
"Encourage and support mixed-use areas that provide the benefits of being able to live,
shop, dine,play, and work in close proximity,thereby reducing vehicle trips, and
enhancing overall livability and sustainability."(3.06.02B)
The subject mixed-use area currently contains office, church,flex space, warehousing, and
vehicle repair. The proposed use will provide another recreational opportunity in close
proximity to residential neighbors to the south and east, thereby reducing vehicle trips and
enhancing the livability of the area.
"Preserve the industrial base within designated industrial land use areas by discouraging
non-industrial uses and focusing on light manufacturing, distribution, flex-space, and base-
employment."(3.07.01 D)
The proposed use is a non-industrial use requesting a CUP to occupy an industrial land
use area approved for industrial space. Staff have some concerns about approving
another commercial use for an indoor recreation facility(indoor gym) within the vicinity
proposed for industrial uses. If approved, this would be the first such use in this building
but one of many in the city.
"Provide,partner, and preserve public and private indoor and outdoor recreation amenities
for a diverse range of physical activities."(5.01.01C)
The proposed indoor recreation facility offers opportunities for recreation through a
personal training gym to the public and will contribute to the range of physical activities
offered in the City.
Table 4: Proiect Overview
Description Details
History AZ-04-004,PP-04-004(McNelis Subdivision Ord.#04-1090,DA Inst.
#104093293);FP-05-047;TE-05-003 (I-yeartime extension on the PP);
CPAM-10-002;MDA-11-002(Addendum to McNelis Subdivision DA,
Inst.#112054621);A-2021-0083.
Acreage 2.49 acres
Site Development and Use Analysis
Proposed Use Analysis (UDC 11-2):
The proposed use of an indoor recreation facility(indoor gym)is a conditional use in the I-L
zoning. The I-L zoning and FLUM designation is meant to provide opportunities for low-
impact business areas which typically includes professional offices,research and
development, etc. This use adheres to Policy 3.07.02B,which promotes a mix of land uses
that ensures connectivity, livability, and economic vitality. While industrial uses are intended
in the area, an indoor recreation facility can be approved through a conditional use permit.
The applicant has indicated that the gym has approximately 220 members,with about fifteen
(15)members in the gym at any given time. This raises some concerns for staff as a gym with
this many members may create parking issues. However,with the shared parking and
additional onsite parking being installed, staff believe the proposed use can work effectively
on the site. There will also be no outdoor activity from the gym. In addition,the applicant has
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER
CASE NO(S). H-2025-0023
Page 8 F881
indicated that the proposed hours of operation are intended to be twenty-four(24)hours a
day, seven(7)days a week. The development agreement requires the hours of operation to be
restricted to seven(7)am to ten(10)pm unless otherwise approved with a conditional use
permit. Due to this,the applicant is also requesting the hours of operation be extended to
allow for operation twenty-four(24)hours a day, seven(7)days a week.
Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2):
The proposal meets the dimensional standards for setbacks, landscape buffers,landscape
requirements and maximum building height.
Specific Use Standards (UDC 11-4-3):
A. General standards.
1.All outdoor recreation areas and structures that are not fully enclosed shall maintain a
minimum setback of one hundred(100)feet from any abutting residential districts. The
playing areas of golf courses, including golf tees, fairways, and greens, are an exception to
this standard.No outdoor recreation areas are proposed; all activities will take place within
the building.
2.No outdoor event or activity center shall be located within fifty(50)feet of any property
line and shall operate only between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m.No outdoor events
or activities are proposed.
3.Accessory uses including,but not limited to,retail, equipment rental,restaurant and
drinking establishments,may be allowed if designed to serve patrons of the use only.Noted.
4.Outdoor speaker systems shall comply with section 11-3A-13, "outdoor speaker systems",
of this title.No outdoor speakers are proposed.
B.Additional standards for swimming pools.Any outdoor swimming pool shall be completely
enclosed within a six-foot nonscalable fence that meets the requirements of the building code
in accord with title 10,chapter 1, of this Code.Not applicable.
C.Additional standards for outdoor stage or musical venue. Any use with a capacity of one
hundred(100) seats or more or within one thousand(1,000)feet of a residence or a residential
district shall be subject to approval of a conditional use permit.No outdoor stage or musical
venue is proposed.
D.[Outdoor lighting.] Outdoor lighting, including lighted fields, designed for the site shall
comply with Section 11-3A-11, "outdoor lighting," of this title. These standards may be
modified through the approval of a conditional use permit.Noted.
Design Standards Analysis
Landscaping (UDC 11-3B):
Landscape buffers along streets
The site has already been approved under permit A-2021-0083 and no additional
landscaping improvements will be required.
Parking lot landscaping
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER
CASE NO(S). H-2025-0023
Page 9 89
The site was previously approved under Permit A-2021-0083. However,with the
proposed addition of thirteen(13)parking spaces,the applicant is required to submit a
Certificate of Zoning Compliance application.
Staff has reviewed the site and notes that, should the gym vacate the premises in the
future,the space could potentially be converted back to industrial use. In such a scenario,
parking lot landscaping on the western portion of the site may hinder truck access and
circulation.
As a result, staff recommends that the applicant seek alternative compliance for the
parking lot landscaping requirement and relocate the required trees to other suitable areas
on the site.
Landscape buffers to adjoining uses
The site has already been approved under permit A-2021-0083 and no additional
landscape buffer improvements will be required.
Tree preservation
The site has already been approved under permit A-2021-0083 and no additional tree
preservation improvements will be required.
Parking (UDC 11-3C):
Nonresidential parking analysis
A minimum of one(1) off-street parking space is required per 2,000 square feet of gross
floor area for industrial buildings.Based on the 37,057-square-foot multi-tenant building,
19 parking spaces are required. The site currently provides 25 spaces,exceeding the UDC
requirements for the I-L zoning district.
However,the proposed use,an indoor recreation facility, is considered a commercial use,
which requires one (1)off-street parking space per 500 square feet of gross floor area. In
response to staff s request,the applicant has proposed thirteen(13) additional on-site
parking stalls, increasing the total to thirty-eight(38).Additionally,the applicant has
secured an agreement with the adjacent church to utilize up to twenty-five(25)of their
parking spaces. This results in a total of sixty-three(63)available parking spaces.
While the entire building is 37,057 square feet,the proposed tenant space is 13,043
square feet. Staff believes that the combination of on-site parking and the shared parking
agreement will provide sufficient parking for the proposed gym use while continuing to
accommodate the existing industrial tenants.
The applicant shall provide a recorded copy of the shared parking agreement and depict
the additional parking spaces with the certificate of zoning compliance.
Bicycle parking analysis
A minimum of one(1)bicycle parking space must be provided for every 25 vehicle
spaces or portion thereof per UDC 11-3C-6G;bicycle parking facilities are required to
comply with the location and design standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C. Bicycle parking
is depicted on the plans submitted with this application that meet the requirements.
Building Elevations (Comp Plan, Architectural Standards Manual):
The approved building elevations and perspectives were submitted for the industrial building
as shown in Section IX.D.As stated throughout this report, these elevations have already
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER
CASE NO(S). H-2025-0023
Page10 Fol
been approved through the administrative process and the building is already existing. The
submitted elevations are for supplementary purposes only.
Transportation Analysis
Access (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-3, UDC 11-3H-4):
One(1)driveway access is depicted and approved on the overall site plan via W.Nelis Drive
(local street).ACHD and the City has approved the location of the access driveway with
administrative approval for the overall industrial building(A-2021-0083).
Multiuse Pathways (UDC 11-3A-5):
The multi-use pathway along Five Mile Creek has already been constructed with the
administrative approval for the overall site(A-2021-0083)
Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17):
There are existing 5-foot wide attached sidewalks along W.Nelis Drive that meet UDC
standards. Any damaged curb, gutter, or sidewalk is required to be replaced.
In addition,due to the cross-parking agreement with the church, staff is recommending a
pedestrian connection from the church parking lot to the gym entrance to promote pedestrian
connectivity.
Services Analysis
Pressurized Irrigation(UDC 11-3A-15):
Underground pressurized irrigation water is required to be provided as set forth in UDC 11-
3A-15.
Storm Drainage (UDC 11-3A-18):
Storm drainage is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-18.
Utilities (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-21):
Both the Plan and the UDC establish policy and regulations for extending and connecting to
City utilities. Goal 3.03.03G of the Plan mandates urban infrastructure be provided for all
new developments,including curb and gutter, sidewalks,water and sewer utilities.All
utilities for the proposed development are required to be installed in accord with the standards
listed in UDC 11-3A-21.
CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS
Meridian Planning Division
The applicant shall comply with the site plan,landscape plan, and building elevations approved
with A-2021-0083,including the modifications listed below.
The applicant shall submit a certificate of zoning compliance application with the following
revisions:
- Provide an additional thirteen(13)parking spaces on the west portion of the site as
indicated on the concept plan.
- Apply for alternative compliance to the parking lot landscaping standards with the
submittal of the certificate of zoning compliance application.
- Submit a copy of the recorded shared parking agreement with the church.
- Provide a pedestrian connection for the members who park in the church parking lot to
the gym entrance.
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER
CASE NO(S). H-2025-0023
Page 11 F91
The proposed project shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-2 for Art,
Entertainment, or Indoor Recreation Facility.
• Accessory uses including,but not limited to,retail,equipment rental,restaurant,
and drinking establishments may be allowed if designed to serve patrons of the
use only, and not the general public.
• All outdoor recreation areas and structures that are not fully enclosed shall
maintain a minimum setback of one hundred feet(100')from any abutting
residential districts. The playing areas of golf courses,including golf tees,
fairways, and greens,are an exception to this standard. (Ord. 07-1325,7-10-
2007).
• No outdoor event or activity center shall be located within fifty feet(50') of any
property line and shall operate only between the hours of six o'clock(6:00)A.M.
and eleven o'clock(11:00)P.M.
• Accessory uses including,but not limited to,retail,equipment rental,restaurant,
and drinking establishments may be allowed if designed to serve patrons of the
use only.
• Outdoor speaker systems shall comply with section 11-3A-13, "Outdoor Speaker
Systems",of this title.
The conditional use permit is valid for a maximum period of two (2)years unless otherwise
approved by the City. During this time,the Applicant shall commence the use as permitted in
accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of
approval,and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or
structures on or in the ground as set forth in UDC 11-513-6 A time extension may be
requested asset forth in UDC 11-513-6F.
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER
CASE NO(S). H-2025-0023
Page 12 92
Meridian Public Works
wmto ater
- Di!;urlxtoSml!r Avoib61ewtSne
si ,
+ Sarer Shed
CstinTated Propel Sreappli ofim
wirer ERlrs
* WF(FLF Declining
flalanac
* PTopctConsistcnt Yes
with WW Master
FlaryrFaulity Pda
. Impod�frnrlQms +
See FuNK%VoFksSim Specffir Canciiibms
11fa�r
+ ffitanl toMratu %WaterArablrkatSite
SeVira
* Pregrezvle
Estimated Pmpd Seeapplkz6m
WatcrLRLrs
waterClualily Ilonc
* PraprtConsistcnt Yes
with Water iAmAer
Plan
lK-
N ON-PLAT CONDI 1014E
F11sur..Vhwu I1QnRTmFNT
Site 9pai6c Carld6mii.■F Apprartl
1. Acy cbmgc%Lo Public wsler inirssmcLum mast be appm%ad by Pulllk works,Lbis ind Ldes
hydranic ar Ox aha Wiecii leaL of waler mains.
2. No pcmiwkcnL Arudj L".�Uccx,13mhcy,bui 1clur i,cullwirix.Um l Tu LL74arli."5Yd1I ronL7m.
mfilb-An4m irLnhLa,hgbL pupa,LLL-)Lif be haulLwrthm the rt11131.y xLz L
C�ralCrr&br rfA"MFKL
I. hppliraniAallrnxdingewawrandsrwer main simmdmltiggwiLhLbePublicWnrlts
FkpatrrrmL
2. Per Mrridim City Cade{MCC.1.3112 appik"L shall be respansibk Lo ioslall.sewer and wa
vivnsinamdHrmughLhisdavelapmrrLt. Applkart way beel.iphtcfar3M[mbiimmant
agnsmrnt fire infra&tiu �cnhaoomlool pQ MC['S&5-
3. The applbmrd shall prayide as cinmt[s]for all.public waicr's war mains ns We ofprblie riglLL of
way{includc all wabirwvkxswilbydinenu7. Scvkvcr.-watcrCWznKmL varies&rANAingansewer
d�th.fcwcr 0 2U D deep Tequilc a SO ft�smLco4 20 25 iL s d0 ft�smlcoi~amd 25.18 n s 45 ft
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER
CASE NO(S). H-2025-0023
Page 13 93
casement. Rnsumno-permanent slrtrrturs(veer,bushes,biIdirkps,cwpau.cashrrceplade
walls,fences,iafiLtra Linn Lenches,Ligbl.poles,ew.)are huiRwiLluin Ibe uLiLiLy ease L. SulimiI
an cooeuled o nnenL{car Lbe Frim available hmn Public WD&M,a Iogal desagrioo paepwc3 by
an Idaho L.kcnscd PmFosinoal].vrdSurvcycw,wbichmwc irxludc the mmaafthe cwmrcrr
(m rked l iXI[MIT A)and an ItIa's 1 I—nW with bearbigs mid tlis larioa(marked V f I ILRIT I1)
forrcriew.lAN3i cxhibiLs musLbeaeald sigmad.ard dwodby a 14ofesskmal L mdSuveym.❑Q
NOT RL.`ORd.
4. The Cily of Meridim rcquires that prarA rcted irijALioa sysbcros he suplibod by a ycar rnuod
source oFcrabw(I rDC.I.1311 4)_The aplAicam dould tie required to use any existing surname ar
well water for the primary source IFa sraiaoe or well sconce is mot availalik a single pnimL
camrieclinn Lo Lhe cdiruary water system shall he inquired.If a single poioL conncctim is ulilia&t
the dei+cloper wLIL he respnwLble for Ihcpayment ofassessmcnrs for Lhecnmmo-n arcasprirx Ln
prkw to rccciving dcvcloprnenL Ttlam apprewal.
5. Amy suv ures IFW arc alinw+ed La ro aim shall be subject Lo evalua&m and posslile rm Snmerrt
oFsneeL addressing to he im complianoewilh MCC.
16. All irrigation ditches,caair41aoerak,ardiains,exchuive of narural waLerways,inibmuKliig,
crmssimg nr laying adjp=L and rn Ligv m dw area being subdivided shall be addressed per
11TIC I L 3A 6. In perFnrmiog such wod,Lhc applbc L shall comply with Idxl a Code 42 12N
and any nrher applicable law or regida"n.
?. Amy wells Lhal will dil cnmioue Ln be used must be Twoperly ahandnned aDmrdmg to Idaho Well
CsraslrurLinn Stwh3aads Rules admioiskred by Lhe IdaboDopaitmernr of Wader �- The
lkvclogo's lrmgfte rstloll per kka sstaLrmtent zddreKsimg whctbeT there me my existing wells in
laic dct+clopnK:nL,and it sn,bnw Lhey will onetime m he used,or provide nomrd of l3rcir
abandatirrtenL.
$. Amy cxislingseplic s}somas wiLbin this project shall he remmnd fr=m rvicepc�r{'iry fkd'mance
Soc nn9 1 4wJ9 4 K Csxtiars Cemml 6istria Ilealth for abacdmrnent pmuda and
isspa7Lnns(2M)375 521L.
9. All impravemmis related to public Life,safety amd b miLli du1L be completed puitr to oongma y
Drthe mr+ounces.
10.Appl icmr shall he rmp irod to pay Poo is Works develjmrmaril plan review,and earninwLian
osspo.ctiw fees,as ddcrmimad diving Hic plan inview prnccss,prior to the ismar►m of a plan
appmval tidier.
I I.It.shall lie Lbe respnnsihiGLy ofthe applicant tD eseum Lhal all desrleganerut fearures asmpLy wiLb
the Americus with ImabiLiLim Act and Lhe Fair J Imrsimg Aa.
12.Applicant sbmlL he respnceible foaapplicaLion andenmplianoewi0n any SaAino 4W Permihlhng
that=y he required by Lhc Army Corps nF Imeinoers.
11.fki+ leper shall.cacrdinare maiLhnx Iccatinns with the Mcridiam Preset Office.
J 4.C,ntnpaction rcsL resuhs shall he submitted Lo We Meridian Building Dcpartoioit Fr all buildoig
psis mceivine crkgirom,-,d baclLFRI,where FnMimgwraldsit alopfill.material.
15.Thedcsigncrggin shall be required Ln=tiFy dial the streetcernLedinecl�valiorrsaresala
minimum of 3 fceL abav Lbe KEhcst established peak gFnundwator clevuticn. ThiskhD�me
tlnaL the bnLlom cicvelinn afncc crawl spras ofhrimcs is Akarst I Fiat above.
I I$.The alnplicanic des ipp engineer shall be mKroonslde finr impoclirm of all irrigaikm m dW
drdhL gle facilLtywirhim this pmjeeLthx do-WLfall under the juriidi kannf m irrigation district
w ACLII).The design erngincer shall provide oertificaiinn that Lhe faciLiLies have been iristalkd m
amnrdanoe with the apprDved dmLgn plane.This rertifrcalirm wHL be re4tired beFre a certificalr
oFoccuparuy is issued For my sbsrrlrsret wilhio Ibeprojocl
17.At the onmuplvLkm oflhe projecL,Lhe applicant shall be resporcalile Lo submit reonrd drxwioV per
the City of Me idran AutoVAa s6-mimAx. Thew record drawings must he received and appmved
prior W The knmce of a cartifwa ian ofnccupancy fnr any strurbnm widlio Lbe projocL
J9.Astiml light plan will mend Ln be included in 0w civilcnridnxlim planes.Stre Ligkplan
r glmiry muLs arc Liswd in section 6 5 of Lbe Lrrapmsr mein Slamdards for Strad Ligbliug_A copy
Dl`dr sLamdar,kr be Fnurdar help:ri�w.rneridianciLy.nrgrpuhLic Ax rks.aspc?id 272.
J 9.The Cily of Meridim requires that We fmmcr post Lo Ihrc CiLy a parrorsmum-smay in Lhe amonml
or 125%oFthc total cons ruction rosL far all iornmpkv sewer,watts and rassc Lriftwutrltre
puiwm final.pLik signaLrc_This surety will be verifucdhya Line iLam cmLextinu eTp idodby
the owner Ln dye Cky.The x Ly can lie pnsmd im the torn ofan irtetncable LQLcr of credi,cash
d{rrnsiLnrbnrd.Applicant ny=file anapplicatioo frsrsurcLy,whicbcm be frxrdon Lhe
Community DomlopmmL L3epaLi31e13Lwchsile. Please comae Imadl}evcicpmrnL Sen-ice fin
more infomatiom at$47 221 I_
20.The Cily of Meridim requires tl a Lbe owner posL Lo Lbc CiLy a warrurdy surcry in duc amnrmrL of
M%of ik toud croslnwtion cast for all enm*Led sewer,wafer and reuse iofr anxtnrc for
duration n f twn yeas.This mmLy will.he verified by a line ieem ansL estimal.e prnsidod by Lhe
ownerw the City.The sureLy can lie posood in the form oFan irrevocable Lawrofcredk,cash
d pmiL or bnrd.Applicant must file an applicatirm Fir mrvLy,which cm be found on Lhe
Cmmmunily DeveleTmmL L7cparbwal.welbsite_ Please comet ImmdDcvclgnmmt Sarin for
inns information 2037 221 I_
FINDINGS
Conditional Use(UDC 11-513-6E)
The commission shall base its determination on the conditional use permit request upon the
following:
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER
CASE NO(S). H-2025-0023
Page 14 94
That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and
development regulations in the district in which the use is located.
The Commission finds the design, construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed
use with the conditions imposed, should be compatible with other uses in the general vicinity
but may moderately change the character of the area due to the limited I-L zoning within the
City.
That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian comprehensive plan and in accord
with the requirements of this title.
The Commission finds the proposed use will be harmonious with the Comprehensive Plan in
that it will provide an indoor recreation use which will contribute to the mix of uses desired
in the MU-NR Comprehensive designation as desired.
That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in
the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity
and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area.
The Commission finds the design, construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed
use with the conditions imposed, should be compatible with other uses in the general vicinity
but may moderately change the character of the area due to the limited I-L zoning within the
City.
That the proposed use,if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed,will not
adversely affect other property in the vicinity.
The Commission finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this
report, the proposed use will not adversely affect other property in the area.
That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as
highways, streets, schools,parks,police and fire protection, drainage structures,refuse
disposal,water, and sewer.
The Commission finds the proposed use will be served by essential public facilities and
services as required.
That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services
and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community.
The Commission finds the proposed use will not create additional costs for public facilities
and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community.
That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes,materials, equipment and
conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons,property or the general
welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic,noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors.
The Commission finds the proposed use will not be detrimental to any persons,property or
the general welfare by the reasons noted above.
That the proposed use will not result in the destruction,loss or damage of a natural, scenic or
historic feature considered to be of major importance.
The Commission finds the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of
any such features.
Additional findings for the alteration or extension of a nonconfonning use:
Not Applicable.
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER
CASE NO(S). H-2025-0023
Page 15 F951
That the proposed nonconforming use does not encourage or set a precedent for additional
nonconforming uses within the area; and,
Not Applicable.
That the proposed nonconforming use is developed to a similar or greater level of conformity
with the development standards as set forth in this title as compared to the level of
development of the surrounding properties.
Not Applicable.
ACTION
A. Staff:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed Conditional Use Permit per the provisions included
in Section IV in accord with the Findings in Section V.
Commission:
The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard this item on July 10',2025. At the public
hearing.the Commission moved to approve the subject conditional use permit request.
1. Summary of the Commission public hearin&
a. In favor: Trevor Summers
b. In opposition:None
c. Commenting:None
d. Written testimony:None
e. Staff presenting application:Nick Napoli
f. Other Staff commenting on application:None
2. Key issue(s)of public testimony:
a. None
3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission.
a. None:No discussion on this application.
4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation:
a. None
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER
CASE NO(S). H-2025-0023
Page 16 96
EXHIBITS
Project Area Maps
(link to Project Overview)
Aerial
Legend �
Project Locationx
,.: Area of Impact
OAnalysis ,��•�
111-i
� .� low
qr
jai V"T
AIR
is
e'i•��a 7a �
i
Aw
-go
Vl �
y �
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER
CASE NO(S). H-2025-0023
Page17 97
=rll# IfAffA►
- - --=�Irk..� �if u ■��■ii■� •
- ► � rr for �� r■ G
[ g♦ !iil_,o Sri 1IEA
�■tl#Irnryt
So
lon� � � irn� mlrry�+�y /j�liii jt�� ■.
I/� ••n vl► •ii ■Itt►� ■
1rf � 1# . lllfq, y��•w
V • • �FiH4
■ �eql n
.rat . ■
r:wli'I' a Z mil► � ?� �� y /
"it J 11.1 lrrrrlrrM� ♦r y � �■
ru`t:■ e� � uu r �, � r� ��� � <�1�1�11�
l■■ �In,,..���-�I ■■■■■■■r.-......■
■�r rr �■ ■r11� IIpIOJ•■■■l■rlr■arrr r[ ee• n a■�rrrati :I am■ ■l► ■��■ l .ia nri, i:::::11� ■■
� }�r[ .�essro`.� 1�■r r � �C 1 r■r�\��l•* .' i f_ loll iw 11 � �■■o. �■
r ■[llq ,rrr,, �■l■ i�■■■ \�'n■ _� lIr}��■■... ■■■
■l a ll l[• • ♦ ` r rr �ll •1■f\ \�1[■ r.�#!j 111 i■ r. ,i
asr .. ♦ rr - Nrr■n■iff �r. Q'w:r I•♦tir■■:■nu■■■ ::
r■■■■ r.�► ■[ ■k. .alrr■.�it/� ■ �■■ 1�� rrrrr■ r..■
..... ♦ jr i 1 ,. ♦ a1r arrr■■■■a■ ■..
■■■■. � ■ _► ■ rrt�►1MINI rr■rrrrrlw►i■l!�■r ,AI/ ♦ �� ■
■■.■� w -, alnn■lk._ n1 pl srru�- ■n 1i■r�r■■■aal■�.■
.■.:: �{ r r ■lrlrirllll■r_ �►■rrr$'= A[ r![[O w *� ♦, QT[1 r
��r�: �♦� *•� � �
r ' ' a loin anu� �y� � yrs� ♦r
r ♦ r s■■[r- ,"■r�► ' ■■-. t i.Ra♦♦ w,■■lsnsrsrsrs■l1l■fr ♦w ■i�w:r i�ie:R as
o■■■rrr_urrur■: -♦♦♦ �♦am[ ���..I.f.r.am�+s♦a
Moo
�►
S-
1
—INN
e - f1#� pinmorass
t■/
- - 11 ■- IIII 1111''�I r1A 1 r_'
01
mom
rt �
r�' Z ■ii ■- � s
1 Its :riiii ■ i L�f111t �f
Ills
�ac Y ♦alr � ♦ rr �,
us ■ J l ilrrrr#rrls /1♦�
111 (� � i lr;��R;;■i �\ , �1 �
• - 1.1[[1■ L qta
r ..= USTICK s e unD [ r- i /E� .■� wlr nr� ,I[■rRl. ■■r■.. ■lf
rrirrl ■ urrruul ■■ rrla ■■ ' ■rrr■■■
■l•1 a1 nnrr a ■■■■■��■ a■ ■■ ■ 111� ■ a nrr■ra an ■
.�.-, . :r .� 7■l► ■ ■■:�::■ is as■ •■■.�r�♦ ■a■
■ NINE 1 1..r 1■■■r�\� its N. ■■ri w ■1 ...w■. r
}r■ l[a1�1 irr '= �rrrE ' r •■r 1f�lrrr _r 1 lllr■.....� ii■
ll • ♦ rrr` ■; Irr■ I�i l � � r[r i.-•♦ .■ .r ir■■
rah 1!f■R ♦ 4 avrio. No !lw ll■•■. �::�R tiiiii=:rr■■■■a ■■
r■l ii �� ,hu r1 'CIr i i��i:i�i�� LL �� ���ai■ !i iw ♦ w C■nr■nr► r::i
i:::: fir•`� r��w� lr■ Ark■.a■.■s■.� ►r*w. r>R ■■■■Itbask.■look., doA�r���♦f ♦ - • ■i■■■■■a■■■■�r/■•■
p _ ■■nruih■
• ia� row fir ors}lsirllllr4 --.--- :��j♦�♦ - ♦ ♦i
• 1 11
m
Planned Development Map
+�w1�1Li�17 W1J11y
Legend
�l Project Location � t �
Area of Impact
City Limits
Planned Parcels —
OAnalysis
LEO
i
HEM
- O
i
r '
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER
CASE NO(S). H-2025-0023
Page19 F991
Service Accessibility Report
Overall Score: 24 1 5th Percentile
Description
■ ■
Location In City Limits GREEN
Extension Sewer Trunkshed mains -< 500 ft.from parcel GREEN
Floodplain Either not within the 100 yr flaodplain or > 2 acres GREEN
Emergency Services Fire Response time > 9 min. RED
Emergency Services Police Meets response time goals some of the time YELLOW
Pathways Within 1/4 mile of current pathways GREEN
Transit Not within 1/4 of current or future transit route RED
Ultimate configuration (#of lanes in masle� =t-'e,t.
Arterial Road Buildout Status GREEN
plan) matches existing (# of lanes)
School Walking Proximity Within 1/2 mile walking GREEN
Either a High School ❑r College within 2 miles OR a
Schaal Drivability Middle or Elementary School within 1 mile driving GREEN
(existing or future)
Either a Regional Park within 1 mile OR a Camirun u.-
Parklalkability Park within 1/2 mile OR a Neighborhood Park with' GREEN
114 mile walking
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER
CASE NO(S). H-2025-0023
Page 20 11001
Site Plan (date: 5/l/2025)
-� A U" 0 Nelis Gym TI
r ---_- -- -- --1
-- -_ Trevor Summers
34 V)W Ner Dc Meridian.ID 0698
' [ £ g fiayevjpilrevl�gmail.vom,206.877_I341
Conditlonal Use App
5/1/2025
.__._______________ten Yor1v"_ /v •�•• •�
�� •� \�,, e✓N �� ' - - — wYdBmahelW 6uBd.0 G.J.5unmary xi
~,•`•. 4 _ 4 2.��,�:. / �9•j 1 dr.^ ����v.:.":.�.'..'
Js
y
Gt0
cover.Si[a Plan.
Busting Sila Plan 8 Code Da�
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER
CASE NO(S). H-2025-0023
Page 21 11011
Landscape Plan(date: 5/21/2025)
7-- f.—M trknurieyd.fue
_ Nelis Gym TI
Trevor Summers
--�--�-�--� G f aamwN�na, ,,ma�aae
i o-�..anur.i�y,�,.tizaa.an.7ssa
:-----T� — Conditional Use App
512112025
v..,tr pa.
h
P-j-Au--
79:9 Cad.nwmaq ;
I
JJ _
—'G1-0
E-1—sile amn RN � &Ccdr 6ax
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER
CASE NO(S). H-2025-0023
Page 22 [102]
Building Elevations (date: 2/10/2021)
WFST ELEVATRYN
f TT T T T
eeq
CL
NORTH ELFVA770N
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER
CASE NO(S). H-2025-0023
Page 23 [103]
............ ...............
r
Nil L
EAST El"ATMN
z
SOUTH ELEVATION
• h-3-I
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER
CASE NO(S). H-2025-0023
Page 24 [104]
E K IDIAN:---
iuAn
Planning and Zoning Presentations and outline
Changes to Agenda: None
Item #4: Touchmark – MDA, PUD, RZ (H-2025-0012)
Application(s):
Development Agreement Modification (doesn’t require Commission action, only Council)
Modification to the existing Planned Unit Development
Rezone
Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 121.5 acres of land, zoned L-O, generally located on the south
side of E. Franklin Rd. and the north side of I-84, midway between S. Eagle Rd. & S. Cloverdale Rd.
History: The majority of this property was annexed in 2000 with a DA and a CUP for a conceptual PUD – a smaller 4.6 acre portion of
property was later annexed and included in an amended DA and concept development plan. The original conceptual PUD was
approved for a continuing care retirement community comprised of 250-300 units of independent and assisted living, 450 units of
residential, including single-family, duplex, townhomes and multi-family, a community senior health and fitness center, medical office
parks, commercial and retail businesses. Since that time, approximately 428 residential units have been built in the retirement
community along with a senior health and fitness center and many amenities including open green space and walking trails, a
community garden, coffee shop and bistro, salon and barbershop, a library, theatre, dining venues, pickleball courts and other on-site
amenities.
In 2003, the DA & PUD were amended to allow the development of 318 residential units and approximately 600,000 s.f. of
commercial/office space on 138 acres of land with reduced building setbacks in the L-O district.
Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MU-C
Summary of Request: A modification to the DA is proposed to update the conceptual development plan for the overall site, which
consists of approximately 121.5-acres of land, and consolidate the existing agreements into one (1) new agreement that replaces all
previous agreements.
A rezone of 55.17 acres to the C-C district and 8.17 acres to the C-G district is proposed from the L-O district for the undeveloped
portion of the site included in the master plan to accommodate the proposed uses. The reason for the rezone is that because the
concept plan is proposed to be revised, it must comply with current UDC provisions, which prohibit retail, hotel, self-service storage,
light industry & multi-family residential uses in the L-O district. The previously developed areas of the site will remain L-O as allowed
with the previous PUD through City Code in effect at that time.
The proposed project consists of 121.5 acres of land within a larger MU-C designated area totaling approximately 164 acres and
includes a mix of uses consisting of commercial, office, light industry and a variety of residential housing types as shown on the
“bubble” plan consistent with the Plan. A couple areas on the concept plan (w/star symbol) are shown with two (2) possible uses – the
medical office/townhomes along the southwest boundary of the site and the commercial/multi-family along the north side of the site
along Franklin Rd. If the demand for office space doesn’t come to fruition, the Applicant proposes an alternate use of townhomes (50-
55 units) in that area. Commercial use similar to the commercial proposed to the west along Franklin is proposed on the other area with
the flexibility for MFR (number of units/density is not specified but the Applicant states the area could support 115-140 units using the
same density as the other multi-family area) – the multi-family use would be at a larger scale than the townhomes and an increase in
density. Staff does not recommend approval of the optional residential uses because residential uses as the Comp Plan allows
for up to 65% of the development area to be comprised of residential uses with the provision of transit and the Applicant is
proposing approximately 68%, not including the optional multi-family & townhome style units. Additionally, commercial uses
are desired in the MU-C diagram in the Comp Plan along arterial streets transitioning to lesser intense uses. Therefore, Staff
recommends the concept plan is revised to only reflect commercial uses on those portions of the property.
A modification to the existing PUD (Meadowlake Village CUP-03-005) is proposed to update the conceptual development plan and
includes a request for deviation to the maximum building height allowed in the C-C district from 50-feet to 64-feet for the hotel
(measured to the highest point of the structure), and inclusion of townhome dwellings as a permitted use in the C-C district. Staff is
amenable to the building height increase as proposed; however, is not in support of the request for townhomes to develop in the C-C
district because townhomes (where each unit is on its own property) are a prohibited use in the C-C district and therefore, aren’t
allowed through the PUD. This would require a rezone to a residential or traditional neighborhood zoning district in which the use is
allowed. Because the Applicant isn’t proposing to subdivide the property, the use is considered MFR and is allowed in the C-C district.
The new development plan includes approximately 114,000 sq. ft. of medical office space, approximately 300-400 non-age restricted
market rate multi-family units (both apartments and townhouses) with a possibility of 165-195 additional units through the alternate
uses proposed, 20-25 single-family attached units (aka villas), three (3) single-family detached units (aka cottages), 75,546 sq. ft. of
self-storage (i.e. light industry), 45,000 sq. ft. of general office space, 45,000 sq. ft. of commercial retail space and an approximate 126-
room hotel. Conceptual building elevations for the proposed structures are as shown. A pedestrian pathway plan was submitted as
shown – the green lines represent 10’ wide pathways, the blue 5’ proposed sidewalks and the pink 5’ wide existing sidewalks.
A phasing plan is proposed as shown, which depicts (4) phases of development, is anticipated to be completed between 2030 and
2040. Phase 1 is the villas and cottages (2-5 years), Phase 2 is the apartments and townhomes (3-10 years), Phase 3 is the
commercial, self-storage, additional multi-family and hotel along Franklin Rd. (3-15 years), and Phase 4 is medical office, daycare,
post-acute care and townhomes (4-15 years). Staff recommends a subdivision application is submitted for each phase of development
and recorded in order to have a legal parcel for development purposes.
The existing community is proposed to remain unchanged except for the small golf course, which at some point in the future may
redevelop with villas (i.e. duplexes). The open space amenities are also evolving and as the golf course is redeveloped, the required
open space amenities will be reprogrammed in other areas of the project. Before changes can be approved to this area, the
Applicant must demonstrate compliance with the terms of the previously approved PUD in regard to site amenities with
removal of the golf course. Per the City code in effect at that time, at least 10% of the gross area of the PUD was required as open
space, exclusive of required street buffers and buffers between incompatible land uses. The developed area consists of 61.50 acres of
land, therefore, a minimum of 6.15 acres of qualified open space is required to be provided. An exhibit should be submitted
showing the existing qualified open space without the golf course area prior to the City Council hearing.
Written Testimony: No public comments were received. The Applicant submitted a response to the staff report.
Staff Recommendation: Approval per the recommendation in the staff report
(Note: With DA’s and PUD’s, the decision-making body is able to place additional conditions on development applications that may not
typically be required in the UDC in an effort to provide exemplary site development in accord with the purpose statement of the PUD.)
Possible Motions:
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H-
2025-0012, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of July 17, 2025, with the following modifications: (Add any
proposed modifications to conditions)
Denial
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number H-2025-
0012, as presented during the hearing on July 17, 2025, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial)
Continuance
I move to continue File Number H-2025-0012 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following
reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance)
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Item #5: Gramercy Townhomes (H-2025-0019)
Application(s):
Rezone
Preliminary Plat
Development Agreement Modification
Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 6.98 acres of land, zoned C-G, located at 1873, 1925, and 2069
Wells Avenue.
History: In 2021, the subject properties were approved for a multi-family development consisting of 164 age-restricted units on 5.24
acres of land.
Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Mixed Use Regional
Summary of Request: Rezone of 6.98 acres of land from the C-G zone to the TN-R zone, a preliminary plat for 82 buildable lots and 8
common lots, and a development agreement modification to establish a new concept plan and remove the age restriction on the
property.
The subject properties fall within the Mixed-Use Regional (MU-R) Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designation. The intent of the MU-R
designation is to provide a mix of employment, retail, and residential dwellings and public uses near major arterial intersections. The
MU-R designation should make up between 10% and 30% of the total development area, with gross residential densities ranging from
6 to 40 units per acre. The MU-R area, located at the southwest corner of Eagle Road and Overland Road, encompasses
approximately 165.2 acres. Of that total, roughly 41.5 acres are designated for residential use, including the proposed development,
accounting for 25.1% of the MU-R area in this quadrant, which aligns with the Comprehensive Plan's vision and density targets.
The proposed development plan depicts eighty-two (82) townhomes with the Traditional Neighborhood Zoning (TN-R) as the single use
for the subject properties. While the TN-R zoning requires two different types of housing, staff finds that the surrounding garden-style
apartments, single-family detached, and townhomes provide the mix of units desired in the area. The proposed townhomes range in
size from 1,650 s.f. and 1,750 s.f. with three (3) and four (4) bedroom units. Net density for the development exceeds the minimum net
density of 6 dwelling units per the Tn-R standards.
In addition to the townhomes, the development plan depicts a 0.60-acre common open space with parkways, on-street parking, and
alleys. The applicant has provided an internal pathway to connect with the ten (10) foot multi-use pathway on the southern boundary to
help residents connect with Mountain View High School and Gordon Harris Park to the south.
The project exceeds open space requirements, providing 1.31 acres (18.8% of the site) against a 15% minimum. Amenities include a
large central open space and a dog waste station, totaling 3.5 amenity points, well above the required 1. Each townhome includes four
parking spaces, and 46 guest spaces are also provided throughout the community.
Access is proposed via three (3) drive aisle connections: one to the north connecting to an existing drive aisle and commercial
property, and two to the east to connect to S. Wells Avenue. These drive aisles are currently not named and are considered
commercial drive aisles. However, the applicant is proposing to add six private streets in the development that require a minimum of
one connection to a public street. Staff has discussed this with the applicant and determined the southern connection on the eastern
boundary would be best as it aligns with Blue Horizon on the east side of S. Wells Avenue. This will take coordination with the
neighboring property owners to name the existing private drive aisle.
The applicant has indicated that the buildout timeline for the development depends on demand; however, they anticipate developing
the project in five (5) phases, with the first phase consisting of the large open space, amenities, and roads.
Staff Recommendation: Approval with a development agreement and conditions.
Written Testimony: Emily Prumers – Concerns regarding traffic and congestion becoming worse, specifically at the Overland and
Eagle intersection and being in close proximity to the Goddard School (daycare center); incompatible density in area (gross density of
11.74 units/acre); deviation from the previously approved concept plan for 164 age-restricted apartments; Strain on public services ie.
Utilities, parks, schools, fire/police; No transition from commercial uses.
Possible Motions:
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval of File Number H-2025-0019, as
presented in the staff report for the hearing date of July 17, 2025: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions)
Denial
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2025-0019, as presented during the
hearing on July 17, 2025, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial)
Continuance
I move to continue File Number H-2025-0019 to the hearing date of ____ for the following reason(s): (You should state specific
reason(s) for continuance.)
h2
Planning and Zoning July 17, 2025Commission Meeting
Slide 1
h2 Agenda Item Numbers/Order:
hoodc, 12/19/2006
Zoning MapAerialFLUM
Zoning MapAerialFLUM
W IDIAN�
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Touchmark (H-2025-0012) by The Land Group, generally
located on the south side of E. Franklin Rd. and the north side of 1-84, midway between S. Eagle
Rd. and S. Cloverdale Rd.
Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2025-0012
A. Request: Modified Development Agreement to update the conceptual development plan for
the overall site, which consists of approximately 121.50 acres of land to consolidate the existing
agreements (AZ-99-021 Touchmark (recorded in 2001, Inst. #101048096); April 2001 Addendum
(Inst. # 101048097); May 2003 Addendum (Inst. #103137119); AZ-02-018 (Bair Property AZ-02-
018, Inst. #102143308); MI-07-006 (Meadowlake Village North 3rd Addendum, Inst.
#108022885) into one new agreement that replaces all previous agreements.
B. Request: Rezone of 63.34 acres of land from the L-0 to the C-C (55.17 acres) and C-G (8.17
acres) zoning districts.
C. Planned Unit Development Modification (Meadowlake Village CUP-03-005) to update the
concept/use plan and include 4.6 acres of additional land, a deviation to the maximum building
height allowed in the C-C district from 50ft. to 64ft. for the hotel and inclusion of 2 and 3 story
townhome dwellings.
105
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET
DATE: July 17, 2025 ITEM
PROJECT NAME: Touchmark H-2025-0012
wish to
testify Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing
(marl(x (Please Print) HOA?
if yes)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT C��fEPIDIAN*,,--,
DEPARTMENT REPORT
HEARING 7/17/2025 Legend
DATE: Project Location
TO: Planning&Zoning Commission Area of Impact
�= City Limits
FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner m ,
1
208-884-5533
sallen@meridiancity.org _ -" p
APPLICANT: The Land Group
SUBJECT: H-2025-0012 _
Touchmark—MDA,PUD,RZ01
LEMUR
�
LOCATION: Generally located on the south side of E.Franklin Rd. and the north side of I-84, I
0., , ® ®
midway between S. Eagle Rd. and S. @ ,
Cloverdale Rd.,in the north 1/2 of
Section 16,T.3N.,R.IE. (Parcels:
S1116120662, S1116121055,
S1116131260, S1116131400,
S1116212561, S1116244261,
R8509130020, S1116244270,
S1116244710).
I. PROJECT OVERVIEW
A. Summary
The Applicant has submitted the following development applications for the subject property:
• Development agreement modification(MDA)to update the conceptual development plan
for the overall site,which consists of approximately 121.5-acres of land, and consolidate
the existing agreements [AZ-99-021 Touchmark(recorded in 2001 Inst.#101048096);
April 2001 Addendum(Inst. #101048097);May 2003 Addendum(Inst. #103137119);
AZ-02-018 (Bair property AZ-02-018 Inst. 102143308);MI-07-006 (Meadowlake
Village North 3rd Addendum Inst.#108022885)] into one (1)new agreement that
replaces all previous agreements;
• Rezone(RZ) of 63.34-acres of land from the L-O to the C-C(55.17-acres)and C-G
(8.17-acres)zoning districts; and
• Modification to the existing Planned Unit Development(PUD) (Meadowlake Village
CUP-03-005)to update the concept/use plan and include 4.6-acres of additional land, a
deviation to the maximum building height allowed in the C-C district from 50-feet to 64-
feet for the hotel, and inclusion of townhome dwellings as a permitted use in the C-C
district.
City of Meridian I Department Report 1. Project Overview
106
B. Issues/Waivers
As part of the PUD,the Applicant requests a deviation to the maximum building height allowed
in the C-C district from 50-feet to 64-feet for the hotel(measured to the highest point of the
structure); and allowance for townhome dwellings to develop in the C-C district.
In regard to the request for townhouse dwellings to develop in the C-C district,townhouse
dwellings are defined in UDC 11-1A-1 as, "A structure containing three(3)or more dwelling
units attached by common walls where each dwelling unit is located on a separate property."
Townhouse dwellings are a prohibited use in the C-C district and therefore, aren't allowed
through the PUD per UDC 11-7-4A.2. If the property is proposed to be subdivided in the future
so that each unit is on a separate property, a rezone would be required to a residential or
traditional neighborhood zoning district in which the use is allowed. The proposed townhouse
style units are considered multi-family residential because there are multiple units on a single
property and therefore, are allowed in the C-C district.
C. Recommendation
Staff. Approval
Commission: Pending
D. Decision
City Council: Pending
I1. COMMUNITY METRICS
Table 1:Land Use
Description Details Map Ref.
Existing Land Use(s) Residential(single-family detached, -
Proposed Land Use(s) Commercial,multi-family residential[apartments and -
townhome,single-family detached(aka cottages)and
attached(aka villas)style units all on one property],
commercial/light industry,hotel,medical office
Existing Zoning L-O(Limited Office) VII.A.2
Proposed Zoning C-C(Community Business)(55.17 acres)&C-G(General
Retail&Service Commercial)(8.17 acres)
Adopted FLUM Designation MU-C(Mixed Use—Community) VII.A.3
Table 2: Process Facts
Description Details
Preapplication Meeting date 2/18/2025 (PREAPP-2024-0119)
Neighborhood Meeting 2/26/2025
Site posting date 7/2/2025
Table 3: Community Metrics
Agency/Element Description/Issue Reference
Ada County Highway District Error!
Reference
source not
found.
• Comments Received Yes -
• Commission Action Required No -
• Access E.Franklin Rd.,an arterial street and S.Touchmark Way,a -
collector street.No access is proposed via Louise Dr.,a
collector street
City of Meridian I Department Report 11. Community Metrics
107
• Traffic Level of Service(LOS) The SH-55/Eagle intersection and other lane groups don't -
meet ACHD's LOS planning thresholds per the TIS but
area roadways do(no improvements are planned in the
future)
ITD Comments Received ITD reviewed the TIS and has no comments or Error!
requirements for this development Reference
source not
found.
Meridian Fire No comments were received Error!
Reference
source not
ME MI found.
• Distance to Station Fire Station#1 —less than 2 miles away
• Response Time The service accessibility report states response time is more
than 9 minutes(due to traffic delays,not the proximity of
the station),which isn't acceptable
Meridian Police No comments were received Error!
Reference
source not
found.
• Response time The service accessibility report states it meets response
time goals most of the time
Meridian Public Works Wastewater See Agency Comments folder in the public record Error!
Reference
source not
found.
• Distance to Mainline Available
Meridian Public Works Water Error!
Reference
source not
found.
• Distance to Mainline On-site '
School District(s) No comments were submitted Error!
Reference
source not
found.
Note: See section IV. City/Agency Comments&Conditions for comments received.
City of Meridian I Department Report 11. Community Metrics
108
Figure 1: One-Mile Radius Existing Condition Metrics
Reference Parcel:S1116120662 Uate Retrieved:2025 1 718
Parcel Count Parcel Acreage I nfill Indicator:
412 Surrounding Area
_ 255
21% Not city
655 ® City Limits
974,2 ❑
Not city
Household Change Household&Population Growth
r Households
C3 2020
Population Change:25.69a
Population ■Growth
(Household and Population Change
since 2010 Decennial) 3,000 10,000
Use Types Residential Addresses All Addresses
■ Single-family
53%
rl Multi-family ¢7% 33%
® Commercial
Preliminary Plats(last S-years) Conditional Use Permit(last S-years)
Pro posed Proposed
Pending Pending
Approved Approved W.
0 500 1000 15W 0 200 400 N
■ Single-family ® Multr-family
>> For Projects with Residential Units <<
2.00 500
Single-family -jr
Residential c 150
Parcel Diversity
a 0.77
0 Parcel Count ;n 0.50 '
«. a 0.21 is a
■Average Acres ° 0.00 0
R-2 R-4 RIB R-15
Average Single-family Density by Zoning Average
15.00
` 12.66 Residential Net Density
10.00
c 5.00 — 4.a1 0s.s3
i 5■0i
1.29
0.00 Dwelling Units 1 Acre
R-2 R-4 R-8 R-15
Notes: See VIII.Additional Notes&Details for Staff Report Maps,Tables,and Charts.
City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics
1 09
Figure 2: ACHD Summary Metrics
ACHD Planned Improvements
1. Capital Improvements Plan (CIP)l Five Year Plan (FYP):
There are no roadways, bridges or intersections in the general vicinity of the project that are in
the Five Year Plan(FYP)or the District's Capital Improvement Plan (CIP).
Level of Service Planning Thresholds
1. Condition of Area Roadways
Traffic Count is based on Vehicles per hour(VPH)
Roadway Frontage Functional PM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Classification Traffic Count Level of Service
Franklin Road 2,250-feet Principal Arterial 774 Better than "E°
Touchmark Way
(Louise Drive to 651-feet Collector 233 Better than °D"
Franklin Road
*Acceptable level of service for a five-lane principal arterial is"E"(1,780 VPH).
x Acceptable level of service for a two-lane collector is"D"(425 VPH).
*Acceptable level of service for a three-lane collector is"D"(530 VPH).
Notes: See VIII.Additional Notes&Details for Staff Report Maps,Tables,and Charts.
Figure 3: Service Impact Summary
pact Too
Ready
Marginal
Caution
,NA-
Notes: See VIII.Additional Notes&Details for Staff Report Maps,Tables,and Charts.
III. STAFF ANALYSIS
Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code(UDC)
A. General Overview
The subject property is designated Mixed Use—Community(MU-C) on the Future Land Use
Map in the Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of this designation is to allocate areas where
community-serving uses and dwellings are seamlessly integrated into the urban fabric. The intent
is to integrate a variety of uses, including residential,and to avoid mainly single-use and strip
commercial type buildings.
Non-residential buildings in these areas tend to be larger than in Mixed Use Neighborhood(MU-
N) areas,but not as large as in Mixed Use Regional(MU-R)areas. Goods and services in these
areas tend to be of the variety that people will mainly travel by car to but also walk or bike to(up
City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis
1 10
to three or four miles). Employment opportunities for those living in and around the
neighborhood are encouraged. Developments are encouraged to be designed according to the
conceptual MU-C plan depicted in Figure 3E in the Plan.
In reviewing development applications,the City will consider the following items in MU-C areas:
(staffs analysis in italics)
• Development must comply with the Functional Integration principles for development in all
Mixed-Use areas.A variety of residential and non-residential uses are proposed with
pedestrian connectivity throughout the development, which should reduce vehicle trips for
nearby residents and/or visitors.
At least three different land uses (i.e. commercial, office, residential) are proposed on the
master plan in the MU-C designated area as required. Because high-density residential
apartments are proposed in the multi family area on the concept plan, commensurate levels
of employment or other non-residential elements supporting residents and reducing local
vehicle trips should be provided in areas planned for commercial and office uses.
Neighborhood activity areas are provided in the existing retirement community.
Community-serving facilities such as medical offices are planned within the development
and St. Luke's hospital and other medical offices and clinics are located nearby to the west,
which should reduce extraordinary service and transportation network impacts.
Supportive and proportional outdoor public and/or quasi public spaces and places
including,but not limited to,parks,plazas, outdoor gathering areas and linear open
space are expected and should be provided in accord with the MU-C guidelines as noted
below. These areas may be located in spaces between residential and non-residential uses
to provide both integration and transition between uses. Outdoor seating areas at
restaurants are not considered supportive public spaces unless integrated into shared open
space, natural amenities, and interconnected with cohesive pathway elements. These areas
should be designed in accord with the Holistic Design principles included in the
Comprehensive Plan (see pg. 3-18 and 3-19 for more information).
Staff recommends a provision of the DA that requires future development applications to
demonstrate consistency with the Functional integration principles described in the
Integration of Uses and Holistic Design sub-sections of the Comprehensive Plan (pp. 3-
16 thru 3-19).
• Residential uses are expected to comprise between 20% and 50%of the development area,
with gross densities ranging from 6 to 15 units/acre(of the residential area). The Applicant
states residential uses are proposed to comprise approximately 68%of the overall site,
including the built-out area, with a density of 11.5 units/acre, which exceeds the maximum
development area desired for residential uses, even with the additional 15%allowed with
the provision of transit. This calculation does not include the two (2) areas where the
Applicant would like the flexibility to develop residential instead of medical office and
commercial uses. For this reason,Staff recommends those areas develop with
commercial and medical office uses and that the residential option be removed from the
concept plan.
• Supportive and proportional public and/or quasi-public spaces and places should
comprise a minimum of 5% of the development area are required. The Applicant states
public and/or public spaces and places will comprise a minimum of 5%of the development
area and will consist of pedestrian walkways, recreational areas for children and adults to
enjoy daytime leisure activities such as playgrounds, open green space, dog areas and
functional spaces that promote general health and wellness. Future development
City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis
■
applications shall demonstrate compliance with this requirement by providing spaces and
places consistent with the Functional Integration principles in the Comprehensive Plan.
• Where the development site has transit available or stops are planned, an additional 15% of
the site may be dedicated to residential uses.Alternatively,this bonus may be applied
where the development an identified employment area, and where last-mile transportation
features are incorporated into the site including thoughtfully located and integrated ride
share parking, commensurate with potential trip capture. Other innovations to reduce traffic
and/or parking impacts and capture local trips may be considered. Transit is available to
this site and is within one(1) mile of a future identified transit facility. Therefore, an
additional 15%of the site may be dedicated to residential uses.
• Sample uses appropriate in MU-C areas include: All MU-N categories, community scale
grocers,clothing stores, garden centers,hardware stores,restaurants,banks, drive-thru
facilities,auto service station,retail shops, and other appropriate community-serving uses.
Sample zoning includes: R-15,R-40, TN-R,TN-C, C-C, and L-O.
The proposed project consists of 121.5 acres of land within a larger MU-C designated area
totaling approximately 164 acres and includes a mix of uses consisting of commercial,office,
light industry and a variety of residential housing types as shown on the"bubble"plan below in
Section VILE consistent with the Plan. A couple areas on the concept plan are shown with two
(2)possible uses—the medical office/townhomes along the southwest boundary of the site and
the commercial/multi-family along the north side of the site along Franklin Rd. If the demand for
office space doesn't come to fruition,the Applicant proposes an alternate use of townhomes (50-
55 units)in that area. Commercial use similar to the commercial proposed to the west along
Franklin is proposed on the other area with the flexibility for multi-family residential(number of
units/density is not specified but the Applicant states the area could support 115-140 units using
the same density as the other multi-family area)—the multi-family use would be at a larger scale
than the townhomes and an increase in density. Because more intense commercial uses are
desired along arterial streets in the MU-C diagram in the Comprehensive Plan transitioning
to lesser intense uses and because the percentage of residential uses exceeds that desired in
the Plan for MU-C designated areas, Staff recommends the concept plan is revised to only
reflect commercial use on that portion of the property.
A rezone of 55.17 acres to the C-C district and 8.17 acres to the C-G district from the L-O district
is proposed for the undeveloped portion of the site included in the master plan to accommodate
the proposed uses. Because the concept plan is proposed to be revised, it must comply with
current UDC provisions,which prohibit retail,hotel, self-service storage,light industry or multi-
family residential uses in the L-O district. The previously developed areas of the site will remain
L-O.
A modification to the existing Planned Unit Development(Meadowlake Village CUP-03-005)is
also proposed to update the concept/use plan and include 4.6-acres of additional land, a deviation
to the maximum building height allowed in the C-C district from 50-feet to 64-feet for the hotel
(measured to the highest point of the structure), and inclusion of townhome dwellings as a
permitted use in the C-C district.
In regard to the request for townhouse dwellings to develop in the C-C district,townhouse
dwellings are a prohibited use in the C-C district and therefore, aren't allowed through the
PUD. This would require a rezone to a residential or traditional neighborhood zoning
district in which the use is allowed as set forth in UDC 11-7-4A.2,which states, "Allowed
uses.Applicant may request that specific conditional or accessory use(s) allowed in the
district be allowed as principal permitted use(s)."Note: Townhouse style units may develop in
the C-C district where individual units are not on individual lots as they are then considered a
multi-family residential use.
City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis
112
The existing community is proposed to remain unchanged except for the small golf course,which
at some point in the future may redevelop with villas(i.e. duplexes). The open space amenities
are also evolving and as the golf course is redeveloped,the required open space amenities will be
reprogrammed in other areas of the project. Before changes can be approved to this area,the
Applicant must demonstrate compliance with the terms of the previously approved PUD in
regard to site amenities with removal of the golf course.Per the code in effect at that time
(12-6-7E.5), at least 10% of the gross area of the PUD was required as open space,exclusive
of required street buffers and buffers between incompatible land uses. The developed area
consists of 61.50 acres of land,therefore,a minimum of 6.15 acres of qualified open space is
required to be provided.An exhibit should be submitted showing the existing qualified open
space without the golf course area.
The new development plan includes approximately 114,000 sq. ft. of medical office space,
approximately 300-400 non-age restricted market rate multi-family units(both apartments and
townhouses)with a possibility of 165-195 additional units through the alternate uses proposed,
20-25 single-family attached units(aka villas),three(3) single-family detached units(aka
cottages), 75,546 sq. ft. of self-storage(i.e. light industry),45,000 sq. ft. of general office space,
45,000 sq. ft. of commercial retail space and an approximate 126-room hotel.
A phasing plan, included below in Section VII.H,which depicts four(4)phases of development,
is anticipated to be completed between 2030 and 2040.Phase 1 is the villas and cottages(2-5
years),Phase 2 is the apartments and townhomes(3-10 years),Phase 3 is the commercial, self-
storage,additional multi-family and hotel along Franklin Rd. (3-15 years), and Phase 4 is medical
office, daycare,post-acute care and townhomes (4-15 years). Staff recommends a subdivision
application is submitted for each phase of development and recorded in order to have a
legal parcel for development purposes.
Table 4: Proiect Overview
Description Details
History CPA-99-004/AZ-99-021/CUP-99/039(Touchmark,Ord.#01-917,DA
Inst.#101048096,April 2001 Addendum(Inst.#101048097); "May 2003
Addendum"(Inst.#103137119);AZ-02-018(Bair property,Ord.#02-983,
DA Inst. 102143308); CUP-03-005 (Meadowlake Village PUD);AZ-05-
022;PP-07-009/CUP-07-008/MI-07-006(Meadowlake Village North 3rd
Addendum Inst.#108022885);H-2016-0058(modified CUP-99-039 to
remove the alley depicted for access to 7 of the SFR homes);FP-04-025
Phasing Plan 4 phases from 4-15 years
Residential Units 524 units(as stated by Applicant;however,concept plan depicts 300-400
with a possibility of an additional 165-195 through alternate plan)
Open Space 486,842 sq.ft. (or 11.18 acres)(see open space exhibit for more info)
Amenities Clubhouse,water feature(fountain),existing dog park,playground,multi-
use pathways(3,700 ft.),bicycle storage
Physical Features The Ridenbaugh Canal runs along the east boundary of the site
Acreage 121.5 acres(DA boundary)
Density 13.5 units/acre based on 524 units on 38.7 acres of land
B. History
In 1999, an amendment to the Future Land Use Map(FLUM) in the Comprehensive Plan was
approved from single-family residential to Mixed/Planned Use Development(CPA-99-004). This
property was also included in two(2)different annexation and zoning applications,the first in
2000 (AZ-99-021 Touchmark) and the second in 2002(A7--02-018 Bair property)with L-O
(Limited Office)zoning—Development agreements(DA's)were required as a provision of
annexation with both applications(Touchmark Inst. #101048096;April 2001 Addendum-Inst.
#101048097; May 2003 Addendum Inst.#103137119 and Bair property Inst. 102143308). A
City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis
113
third Addendum to the Touchmark DA was approved in 2008,which included a new conceptual
development plan(MI-07-006 Meadowlake Village North Inst. #108022885)].
A conditional use permit(CUP-99-039)for a conceptual planned unit development(PUD)in the
L-O zoning district was approved with annexation of the property in 2001. It included Phase 1 but
required future phases to obtain separate CUP approval for each phase. The PUD was for a
continuing care retirement community comprised of 250-300 units of independent and assisted
living,450 units of residential including single-family, duplex,townhomes and multi-family, a
community senior health and fitness center,medical office parks, commercial and retail
businesses. Since that time,approximately 428 residential units have been built in the retirement
community along with a senior health and fitness center and many amenities including open
green space and walking trails,a community garden, coffee shop and bistro, salon and
barbershop, a library,theatre, dining venues,pickleball courts and other on-site amenities. This
plan didn't include the 4.6-acre Bair property located at 3975 E.Franklin Rd. that was later
annexed in 2002.
In 2003, a conditional use permit(CUP-03-005)was approved for revisions to the previously
approved conceptual planned unit development(i.e. CUP-99-039)to include the Bair property,
consisting of 318 residential units and approximately 600,000 sq. ft. of commercial/office
buildings on 138 acres of land with reduced building setbacks in the L-O district. The approved
conceptual development plan is included below in Section VII.E.
In 2007, a preliminary plat(PP-07-009)was approved for 52 single-family residential lots,two
(2)office/commercial lots and 10 common lots. A CUP(CUP-07-008)was also approved to
modify the conceptual planned development for the Touchmark Living Centers/Meadowlake
Village development and an amendment to the DA(MI-07-006)was approved to amend the
construction requirements for Phase III of the development.
C. Site Development and Use Analysis
1. Existing Structures/Site Improvements (UDC 11-1):
Approximately half of the site has already been developed as part of the Touchmark at
Meadow Lake Village development.
There is an existing driveway from the site onto Franklin Rd. east of Touchmark Way before
the proposed access in alignment with Truckee Ave. on the north side of Franklin that is
required to be removed with development.
2. Proposed Use Analysis (UDC 11-2):
The proposed development,which will provide of mix of residential housing types (i.e.
apartments, attached and detached units, and townhome units), commercial,office and light
industry uses,provides a mix of uses as desired in Mixed Use designations. Further,the mix
of uses is consistent with those desired in MU-C designated areas.
3. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2):
Compliance with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2B-3 for the
C-C and C-G zoning districts is required, as applicable,unless otherwise approved with the
PUD(see below).
4. Planned Unit Developments (UDC 11-7):
A modification to the existing Planned Unit Development(Meadowlake Village CUP-03-
005)is proposed to update the concept/use plan and include 4.6-acres of additional land area.
and inclusion of 2 and 3 story townhome dwellings.Note: The Applicant is not proposing to
subdivide the property, therefore, townhomes are not proposed or allowed—townhome style
units, which are considered multi family, are allowed through the PUD.
City of Meridian I Department Report 111. Staff Analysis
■
The purpose of the PUD requirements is to provide an opportunity for exemplary site
development that meets the following objectives:
• Preserves natural, scenic and historic features of major importance;
Staff is unaware of any natural, scenic and historic features that need to be preserved.
• Allows for innovative design that creates visually pleasing and cohesive patterns of
development(including,but not limited to,residential development at densities greater
than eight(8)units per acre where design guidelines are in place for development and
where garage doors are generally not fronting the street); and
The 6.56 acres proposed to develop with 50-100 townhome style units would result in a
gross density between 8 and 15 units/acre. The 9.45 acres proposed to develop with 250
to 300 multi-family apartments would result in a gross density between 26 and 32 units
per acre. The 0.63 acres proposed to develop with three(3) single-family detached style
units(aka cottages)would result in a gross density of 5 units per acre. The 4.78 acres
proposed to develop with 20 to 25 single-family-attached style units(aka villas)would
result in a gross density of 4 to 5 units per acre. Overall,the 21.42 acres proposed to
develop with 323 to 428 residential units would result in a gross density of 15 to 20 units
per acre.Density calc's are rounded to the nearest whole number.
If the 8.16 acres planned to develop with medical offices develops instead with 50 to 55
townhome units, it would result in a gross density of 6 to 7 units per acre. There is no unit
count listed if the 4.32 acre commercial property develops instead with multi-family
apartments.
The multi-family apartment and townhome-style residential portions of the development
will exceed 8 units per acre. Rather than proposing design guidelines for the
development,the Applicant states future structures will comply with the design standards
in the City's Architectural Standards Manual and that garage doors will generally not
front a street.
• Creates functionally integrated development that allows for a more efficient and cost-
effective provision of public services.
The proposed pedestrian pathway plan and vehicular connectivity shown on the concept
plan should assist in creating functionally integrated development as required.
It is not the intent that the PUD process be used solely for the purposes of deviation from the
dimensional standards in the district.
Per UDC 11-7-4,the Council may approved planned unit developments,upon
recommendation by the Commission, in accord with the following standards:
➢ General Use Standards:
i. Deviations from underlying district requirements—Deviations from the development
standards and/or area requirements of the district may be approved through a PUD.
The Applicant requests approval of a deviation to the maximum building height
allowed of 50 feet in the C-C district to allow a maximum height of 64 feet for the
hotel,measured to the highest point of the structure.
ii. Allowed uses—Applicant may request that specific conditional or accessory use(s)
allowed in the district be allowed as principal permitted use(s).
The Applicant requests the following uses be allowed in C-C and/or C-G districts, as
applicable,as principal permitted use(s) so long as the use is located generally on the
City of Meridian Department Report III. Staff Analysis
115
project where shown on the concept plan and complies with the specific use
standards in the UDC:
• Multi-family development [includes single-family detached(aka cottages) and
attached units(aka villas), and townhome style units]—compliance with the specific
use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-27—Multi family development is required.
• Townhouse dwellings (i.e. 3 or more attached units)—these are considered
multi family as they're on one property—such dwellings on individual properties are
not allowed.
• Single-family detached dwellings(aka cottages)—these are considered multi-
family as they're on one property—such dwellings on individual properties are not
allowed.
• Single-family attached dwellings(i.e. 2-attached units—aka villas)—these are
considered multi family as they're on one property—such dwellings on individual
properties are not allowed.
• Hotel—compliance with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-23—
Hotel or motel is required.
• Daycare center—compliance with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-
3-9—Daycare facility is required.
• Live/work residential project—compliance with the specific use standards listed
in UDC 11-4-3-50—Live/work residential project is required.
• Light industry(only allowed in C-G zone)—compliance with the specific use
standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-34—Industry, light and heavy is required.
• Self-service storage facility(only allowed in C-G zone)—compliance with the
specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-34—Storage facility, self-service is
required.
• Warehouse(only allowed in C-G zone)—compliance with the specific use
standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-42— Warehouse is required.
iii. Interconnected uses—The uses within the planned unit development are
interconnected through a system of roadways and/or pathways as appropriate. Private
streets and service driveways may be permitted,if designed and constructed to the
transportation authority standards and in accord with UDC 11-3F Private Street
Requirements.
A pathway plan is proposed, included below in Section VII.G,that depicts 10' wide
multi-use pathways through the site, existing sidewalks and 5' wide proposed
sidewalks along streets and drives for pedestrian connectivity within the site and to
adjacent properties. Private drives are proposed internally within the site for
vehicular access and interconnectivity.
iv. Building clusters—Buildings shall be clustered to preserve scenic or environmentally
sensitive areas in the natural state, or to consolidate small open spaces into larger,
more usable areas for common use and enjoyment.
A"bubble"plan was submitted for the concept plan,which doesn't depict building
locations. Staff recommends buildings are arranged to comply with this standard as a
condition of the PUD.
➢ Private Open Space: In addition to the common open space and site amenity requirements
set forth in Chapter 3, a minimum of 80 square feet of private,usable open space shall be
provided for each residential unit. This requirement can be satisfied through porches,
patios, decks, and enclosed yards. Landscaping entryway and other accessways do not
count toward this requirement.A site amenity plan is proposed, included below in
Section VII.I, which includes amenity information for the multi family development
City of Meridian I Department Report 111. Staff Analysis
116
but not for the townhome, cottage or villa portions of the development—site amenities
and open space will be required with development of those areas based on the total
area(i.e. 4.02+Z54+0.63+4.78=11.97 acres) at a minimum of 15% open space and
one(1)site amenity point for each 5 acres of gross land area being developed.
Future residential development should comply with this standard as a condition of the
PUD.
➢ Residential Use Standards:
i. Multi-family—Notwithstanding the provisions of UDC 11-2,multi-family dwellings
may be an allowed use when approved through a planned unit development.
As noted above,the Applicant requests multi-family development be a principal
permitted use in the C-C district with the PUD.
ii. Housing types—A variety of housing types shall be included within a single planned
development, including attached units(townhouses,duplexes),detached units(patio
homes), single-family and multi-family units,regardless of the district classification
of the stie,provided that the overall density limit of the district is maintained.
A variety of housing types is proposed consisting of single-family detached and
attached,townhomes and multi-family apartments.
iii. Density bonus—A residential density bonus may be given for dedications of land for
public use such as school,park,fire station or recreational facility provided to the
public entity by donation or at a cost less than, or equal to,the applicant's
predevelopment cost for that land.
No such dedications of land are proposed.
➢ Infill Planned Developments -Properties of five(5) acres or less within the City of
Meridian,that are located in areas already substantially developed(at least eighty(80)
percent of the land area within three hundred(300) feet of the boundaries of the parcel).
Upon recommendation of the commission,the council may approve exceptions to other
sections of this chapter as an incentive for infill development as follows:
• The decision-making body may allow up to a twenty-five(25)percent increase in the
density permitted for the district in which the site is located.
• The decision-making body may also waive one(1)or more of the amenity
requirements set forth in this section depending on the size and scale of the planned
development.
The subject property is over 5 acres in size;thus,this is not applicable.
➢ Approval: Conditions—In approving the planned development,the Council may
prescribe appropriate conditions, additional conditions,bonds, and safeguards in
conformity with this title that:
1. Minimize adverse impact of the use on other property.
2. Control the sequence and timing of the use.
3. Control the duration of the use.
4. Assure that the use and the property in which the use is located is maintained
properly.
5. Designate the exact location and nature of the use and the property development.
6. Require the provision for on-site or off-site public facilities or services.
7. Require more restrictive standards than those generally required in this title.
City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis
■
8. Require mitigation of adverse impacts of the proposed development upon service
delivery by any political subdivision, including school districts,which provides
services within the city.
5. Specific Use Standards (UDC 11-4-3):
Compliance with the specific use standards for the following uses is required:
• Multi-family development(UDC 11-4-3-27)
• Light industry(UDC 11-4-3-25)
• Hotel(UDC 11-4-3-23)
• Live/work residential project(UDC 11-4-3-50)
• Self-service storage facility(UDC 11-4-3-34)
• Daycare center(UDC 11-4-3-9)
• Warehouse(UDC 11-4-3-42)
D. Design Standards Analysis
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.
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.
2. Qualified Open Space &Amenities (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3G):
Compliance with the qualified open space and site amenity standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-
27C,D is required for the multi-family portion(s)of the development.
3. Landscaping (UDC 11-3B):
➢ Landscape buffers along streets
A minimum 35' wide street buffer is required to be provided with development along E.
Franklin Rd., an arterial street and entryway corridor; a 20-foot wide street buffer is
required along S. Touchmark Way and E. Louise Dr.,both collector streets,landscaped in
accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-313-7C.
➢ Parking lot landscaping
Parking lot landscaping is required to be provided with development per the standards
listed in UDC 11-313-8C.
➢ Landscape buffers to adjoining uses
A 25' wide landscape buffer is required to be provided on C-C and C-G zoned property
with development adjacent to residential uses per UDC Table 11-2B-3 with landscaping
in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-9C.
➢ Tree preservation
Tree mitigation is required for all existing trees 4"caliper or greater that are removed
from the site with equal replacement of the total calipers lost on site up to an amount of
100%replacement as set forth in UDC 11-313-1OC.5.
➢ Storm integration
Stormwater integration is required in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-313-
11 C.
City of Meridian I Department Report 111. Staff Analysis
118
➢ Pathway landscaping
Landscaping is required along all pathways with development in accord with the
standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C.
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, single-family
attached,townhouse and multi-family dwellings in UDC Table 11-3C-6.
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 1I-
3C-6G.
5. Building Elevations (Comp Plan,Architectural Standards Manual):
Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the commercial,light industry,hotel,
medical offices,multi-family and townhome, single-family detached(aka cottages)and
single-family detached(aka villas) style multi-family, included below in Section VII.F.
The Applicant's narrative states commercial buildings are proposed to generally front
Franklin Rd. and be at a scale compatible with adjacent development;the commercial/light
industry will be at a scale and height sensitive to the existing residential homes to the south.
Modulation and variation in materials will help define different tenant spaces. Glazing will be
provided at grade to activate the street front and high-quality materials will be utilized. The
building's massing and materials will be designed to comply with the UDC and Architectural
Standards Manual(ASM).
The townhomes are proposed to be 2-and 3-stories in height with 3-stories along Touchmark
Way,while the cottages and villas will be 1-story in height. The multi-family structures will
transition from the townhomes to 3-stories in height.
Final design of all structures is required to comply with the design standards in the ASM.
6. Fencing (UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7):
Any fencing constructed within this development should comply with the standards listed in
DUC 11-3A-6C and 11-3A-7, as applicable.
7. Parkways (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-17):
Parkways should comply with the standards for such in UDC 11-3A-17E. The minimum
width of parkways planted with Class 11 trees is 8'; class 11 trees are preferred parkway trees
(see UDC 11-3A-17E for more information). 79,932.6
E. Transportation Analysis
The proposed development is located in close proximity to the Eagle Rd. interchange and I-84, St.
Luke's hospital and medical offices,and The Village at Meridian shopping center, and is
consistent with Comprehensive Plan Policy#2.02.01E,Encourage the development of high
quality, dense residential and mixed-use areas near in and around Downtown, near employment,
large shopping centers,public open spaces and parks, and along major transportation corridors,
as shown on the Future Land Use Map.
Public transit is available to this site and is within one(1)mile of an identified future transit
facility.Area roadways meet ACHD's Level of Service (LOS)planning thresholds; there are no
planned improvements for this area—Franklin Rd. is fully improved with 5-travel lanes, curb,
gutter and 7' wide attached sidewalk abutting the site; Touchmark Way is fully improved with 2-
travel lanes(3-lanes at the intersection with Franklin Rd. with a 9' wide parkway), curb,gutter, a
7' wide parkway and detached 5' wide sidewalk; and Louise Dr. is fully improved with 2-travel
City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis
119 1
lanes, curb, gutter and 7' wide attached sidewalk.No new public streets are proposed. A new
access to Franklin Rd. is proposed in alignment with N. Truckee Ave.to the north,which has
been approved by ACHD.
An updated Traffic Impact Study(TIS)was submitted for the updated concept development plan.
Based on ACHD's review of the TIS,the following is required at the Franklin Rd/Truckee Ave.
intersection: construct a curb return type private road/drive aisle onto Franklin Rd. located in
alignment with Truckee Ave. on the north side of Franklin Rd. across from the site;restrict the
driveway to right-in/right-out only while continuing to allow full movements to and from Truckee
Ave.; and construct a dedicated eastbound right-turn lane on Franklin Rd. at the intersection with
the proposed private road/drive aisle. The drive access nearest Franklin Rd. on Touchmark Way
is required to be restricted to right-in/right-out only due to the existing center median;the other
two (2)accesses via Touchmark at the roundabouts are allowed as proposed. Other than the
accesses specifically approved with this application, direct lot access is prohibited via Franklin
Rd., Touchmark Way and Louise Dr.
1. Access (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-3, UDC 11-3H-4):
The concept plan depicts one(1)new driveway access via E. Franklin Rd.,which ACHD is
requiring be a right-in/right-out, and driveway access via S. Touchmark Way, a collector
street. Either public or private named streets should be provided within the
development for addressing purposes.The Applicant should coordinate with an
addressing technician and the Fire Dept. on which streets should be constructed as
private streets and named if public streets aren't provided.
Staff recommends a drive/private street is provided from the north/south drive in
alignment with Truckee Ave. on the north side of Franklin to the Commercial/Light
Industry designated property at the northeast corner of the site for a functional
integration of uses as desired in mixed use designated areas.A cross-access
ingress/egress easement should be granted to the abutting property to the east(Parcel
#R5262140050)for egress from the site to Franklin Rd. If an easement doesn't already
exist to this property from the abutting parcel to the subject property,a reciprocal
agreement should be recorded if possible.
2. Multiuse Pathways (UDC 11-3A-5):
A pathway plan was submitted that depicts 10' wide multi-use pathways for pedestrian and
bicycle access and connectivity within the development, included below in Section VII.G.
3. Pathways (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-8):
A pathway plan was submitted that depicts a 5' wide existing and proposed sidewalks for
pedestrian access and connectivity within the development, included below in Section VII.G.
4. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17):
A 7' wide attached sidewalk exists along Franklin Rd., an arterial street; a 5' wide detached
sidewalk exists along S. Touchmark Way, a collector street; and a 5' wide attached sidewalk
exists along E. Louise Dr., a collector street. Minimum 5' wide detached sidewalks are
required to be constructed along collector and arterial streets per UDC 11-3A-17;however,
because the existing sidewalks are in good condition and there is a significant grade
difference along Franklin, Staff does not recommend those sidewalks are reconstructed as
detached walkways. Five-foot wide attached(or detached) sidewalks are required along local
and private streets as set forth in UDC 11-3A-17 and 11-3F-4B as proposed on the concept
plan.
City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis
120
5. Private Streets (UDC 11-3F-4):
If public streets are not provided internally within the site,private streets should be
provided for addressing purposes and should be constructed in accord with the
standards listed in UDC 11-3F-4.The developer should coordinate with an addressing
technician to determine which drives should be named and constructed as private
streets and submit an application for private street approval.
F. Services Analysis
The subject property was annexed into the City many years ago but has only partially developed
and demonstrates consistency with Comprehensive Plan Policy#2.02.02,Maximize public
services by prioritizing infill development of vacant and underdeveloped parcels within the City
over parcels on the fringe.
1. Waterways (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-6):
The Ridenbaugh Canal, a large open waterway,runs along the eastern boundary of the
development. A maintenance road exists along the west side of the canal. A wrought iron
fence exists between the existing residential development and the maintenance road and
canal. A minimum 6-foot tall wrought iron fence should be constructed with
development on the undeveloped portion adjacent to the canal for public safety.
This site is not within the floodplain.
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.
Public utilities are available and immediately adjacent with capacity to serve the project.
Water service and sanitary sewer service will be provided via extensions of main lines in
Touchmark and Franklin Rd.
IV. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS
A. Meridian Planning Division
Development Agreement Modification/Rezone
1. A new DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian,the property owner(s), and the
developer. The subject property identified in the legal description in Section VII.0 shall no
longer be subject to any previous agreements. The DA shall be signed by the property owner
and returned to the Planning Division within six(6)months of the date of City Council
approval of the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decision&Order for the subject
application. The DA shall,at minimum, incorporate the following provisions:
i. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the conceptual
development plan and building elevations,pedestrian plan,phasing plan and amenity
plan submitted with this application and the provisions contained herein.
City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions
121
ii. A minimum 6-foot tall wrought iron fence shall be constructed with development on the
undeveloped portion of the site along the eastern boundary of the site adjacent to the
Ridenbaugh Canal for public safety in accord with UDC 11-3A-6C.
iii. Pedestrian pathways and walkways are required to be provided with development in
accord with the Pedestrian Pathway Plan included in Section VII.G.
iv. All future structures constructed on this site shall comply with the design standards in the
Architectural Standards Manual and the holistic design principles included in the
Comprehensive Plan for Mixed Use designated areas(see pp. 3-18 and 3-19). Garage
doors for single-family detached and townhome style units shall generally not front the
street in accord with UDC 11-7-1A.2.
v. Other than the accesses specifically approved with this application by the City and Ada
County Highway District(ACHD), direct lot is prohibited to Franklin Rd.,Touchmark
Way and Louise Dr.
vi. Supportive and proportional public and/or quasi-public spaces and places shall be
provided that comprise a minimum of 5%of the development area and shall be integrated
within the residential and commercial/office portions of the development in accord with
the Comprehensive Plan principles for Functional Integration in Mixed Use designated
areas. Future development applications shall demonstrate compliance with this
requirement.
vii. Future development applications shall demonstrate consistency with the Functional
Integration principles described in the Integration of Uses and Holistic Design sub-
sections of the Comprehensive Plan(pp. 3-16 thru 3-19).
viii.A subdivision application shall submitted for each phase of development and recorded
prior to submittal of a Certificate of Zoning Compliance for development within that
phase.
Conditional Use Permit/Planned Unit Development Modification
The concept plan shall be revised prior to the Council hearing as follows:
i. Depict a drive/private street from the north/south drive in alignment with Truckee
Ave. on the north side of Franklin to the Commercial/Light Industry designated
property at the northeast corner of the site.
ii. In the two (2) areas where residential(i.e.multi-family and townhomes)is depicted
as an alternate development option,remove residential and only depict commercial
and medical office in those areas.
iii. Before villas can be approved to replace the small golf course in the existing
development area,the Applicant must demonstrate compliance with the terms of the
previously approved PUD in regard to open space with removal of the golf course.
The original PUD required a minimum of 10%of the gross land area of the PUD to be
qualified open space, exclusive of required street buffers and incompatible land uses.
City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions
122
2. A deviation to the maximum building height allowed in the C-C district is allowed for the
hotel use from 50-feet to 64-feet,measured to the highest point of the structure.
3. The following uses shall be deemed principal permitted uses through the PUD so long as the
use is located generally on the project where shown on the concept plan and complies with
the specific use standards for such in the UDC, as applicable:
• Multi-family development(includes apartments and single-family detached, single-
family attached and townhome style units)—comply with the specific use standards
listed in UDC 11-4-3-27.Note:If the land where single-family detached/attached
and/or townhome units is subdivided in the future so that units are on individual lots,
a rezone is required to a zone in which the use is allowed.
• Hotel—comply with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-23
• Daycare center—comply with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-9
• Live/work residential project—comply with the specific use standards listed in UDC
11-4-3-50
• Light industry(in C-G zone only)—comply with the specific use standards listed in
UDC 11-4-3-25
• Self-service storage facility(in C-G zone only)—comply with the specific use
standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-34
• Warehouse(in C-G zone only)—comply with the specific use standards listed in
UDC 11-4-3-42
4. Either public or private named streets shall be provided within the development for
addressing purposes. The developer shall coordinate with an addressing technician and the
Fire Dept.to determine which streets should be named if public streets are not proposed.All
private streets require a separate private street application to be submitted that demonstrates
compliance with the standards listed in UDC 11-3F-4.
5. Buildings shall be clustered to preserve scenic or environmentally sensitive areas in the
natural state, or to consolidate small open spaces into larger,more usable areas for common
use and enjoyment as set forth in UDC 11-7-4A.4.
6. In addition to the common open space and site amenity requirements set forth in UDC 11-3, a
minimum of 80 square feet of private,usable open space shall be provided for each
residential unit as set forth in UDC 11-7-413. This requirement can be satisfied through
porches,patios, decks, and enclosed yards. Landscaping entryway and other accessways do
not count toward this requirement.
7. Submit a recorded cross-access ingress/egress easement to the abutting property to the east
(Parcel#R5262140050) for egress from the site via the existing driveway to Franklin Rd. If
an easement doesn't already exist to this property from the abutting parcel, a reciprocal
agreement should be recorded if possible.
8. Open space and site amenities shall be provided for the townhome,cottage and villa portions
of the development in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3 and 11-3G-4 based
on the total gross land area of those uses(i.e. 11.97 acres). A minimum 15%common open
space shall be provided along with a minimum of one(1)point of site amenity for each five
(5) acres of gross land area being developed.
9. The conditional use permit for the planned unit development is valid for a maximum period
of two(2)years unless otherwise approved by the City.During this time,the Applicant shall
commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the
requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, and acquire building permits and
City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions
123
commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground as set forth in
UDC 11-5B-6.A time extension may be requested as set forth in UDC 11-5B-6F.
Other Agency comments may be accessed in the project file in the public record. Copy and paste
the following link into your browser:
hggs://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=398918&dbid=0&repo=Meridian Cit
X
V. FINDINGS
A. Rezone(UDC 11-5B-3E)
Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full investigation and shall,
at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the
council shall make the following findings:
1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan;
Stafffinds the proposed map amendment to the C-C and C-G zoning districts and conceptual
development plan complies with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district,
specifically the purpose statement;
Stafffinds the proposed map amendment and development plan complies with the regulations
outlined for the proposed districts as the C-C district allows a larger scale and broader mix
of retail, office and service uses with access to arterials or non-residential collectors; and the
C-G district is the largest scale and broadest mix of retail, office, service and light industrial
uses in close proximity to interstate(i.e. I-84) and arterial intersections (i.e. Eagle/Franklin
Rd.), which supports the proposed development plan. Further, Stafffinds the proposed map
amendment and development plan complies with the purpose of the commercial districts in
that it provides for the retail and service needs of the community in accord with the
Comprehensive Plan.
3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and
welfare;
Stafffinds the proposed map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public
health, safety and welfare.
4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by
any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited
to, school districts; and
Stafffinds the proposed map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the
delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the City
including but not limited to school districts.
5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city.
Stafffinds the proposed rezone is in the best interest of the City as it will result in the
development of more commercial services, office and residential opportunities in close
proximity to I-84, the hospital and entryway corridors (Eagle&Franklin Rd.) into the City.
B. Planned Unit Development(UDC 11-7-5)
Upon recommendation from the Commission,the Council shall make a full investigation and
shall, at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant a planned development
request,the Council shall make the following findings:
City of Meridian I Department Report V. Findings
124
1. The planned unit development demonstrates exceptional high quality in site design through
the provision of cohesive, continuous,visually related and functionally linked patterns of
development, street and pathway layout,and building design.
Stafffinds the proposed planned unit development demonstrates high quality in site design
through the provision of continuous pedestrian pathways and streets and drives for
pedestrian and vehicular connectivity throughout the development. Future development and
building design should demonstrate an exceptional high quality of architectural design.
2. The planned unit development preserves the significant natural, scenic and/or historic
features.
Staff is unaware of any significant natural, scenic and/or historic features that need to be
preserved with development.
3. The arrangement of uses and/or structures in the development does not cause damage,hazard,
or nuisance to persons or property in the vicinity.
Staff is of the opinion the proposed conceptual development plan and uses proposed will not
cause damage, hazard, or nuisance to persons or property in the vicinity. The proposed
concept plan, with Staffs recommended changes, demonstrates a good transition in uses
from lower density residential uses to higher density residential uses, office and commercial
uses.
4. The internal street,bike and pedestrian circulation system is designed for the efficient and
safe flow of vehicles,bicyclists and pedestrians without having a disruptive influence upon
the activities and functions contained within the development,nor place an undue burden
upon existing transportation and other public services in the surrounding area.
Stafffinds the internal street and pedestrian circulation system, which includes a 10'wide
multi-use pathway, which can be used for bikes, is designed for the efficient and safe flow of
vehicles, bicyclists and pedestrians without having a disruptive influence upon the activities
and functions within the development, nor place an undue burden upon existing
transportation and other public services in the surrounding area.
5. Community facilities, such as a park,recreational, and dedicated open space areas are
functionally related and accessible to all dwelling units via pedestrian and/or bicycle
pathways.
Stafffinds the central common open space area with a pond provides a dedicated open space
area that's accessible to all residents via pedestrian and/or bicycle pathways.
6. The proposal complies with the density and use standards requirements in accord with
chapter 2, "District Regulations", of this title.
Stafffinds the proposed residential portion of the development will comply with the density
and use standards requirements in UDC 11-7-4.
7. The amenities provided are appropriate in number and scale to the proposed development.
Stafffinds the proposed amenity plan for the multi family development(i.e. apartment units),
included in Section VII.I, in addition to the amenities required to be provided in the other
multi family portions of the development(i.e. single-family detached, single-family attached
and townhome style units)per the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3 and 11-3G-4 will be
appropriate for the proposed development.
8. The planned unit development is in conformance with the comprehensive plan.
Stafffinds the proposed planned unit development will be in conformance with the
comprehensive Plan with the provisions included in Section IV above.
City of Meridian I Department Report V. Findings
125
VI. ACTION
A. Staff:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed MDA,PUD and RZ applications with the provisions
noted above in Section IV.
B. Commission:
Pending
C. City Council:
Pending
City of Meridian I Department Report VI. Action
126
' � r
- • . . L•'� i ,�.. ®:J' � -, �A... a ,�}:' 1 ��. ' `L,J. ill -
�� _-_- 1� � w,ws 4 _ • II
- - - - FRANKLIN ;.
84
^r
m.
Or
1•- pOVERLA v rr f_
- PRANKL-IN 7 rl ■
MEN in
�"I' ,IltL1111/Illl.un�i+��nu►r►l■
■rri uu� ��a+a �-..Giir�1,�+�r� ■+rr++++y �
• I �era �� ►�y��iiiiiiue.w�:1=7a=r::::,�L♦♦♦♦Q+R r++��
Ilnr■ ��%/1111111111►�'�r���imu■■ar.a►+�IY�►I�♦1..
■ 84 -" �- ► ter. 1 i�■■�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
•� """- "' 'Illlilll
s r���■�'���� ■Illllinlllul�■111lllllll�rlir'\�������
� '�`ti,! Wool �����►�
�� ��'p�.�y{] � � ��ullni ��Illl■ III �Illiiil�r���r����!.
�� IIiL1Li,��• ��■ � III�I��1 IFrnrr�Ij��I�
OVERLAND ■ll♦ .■II■ 1�1�1�.-� �iy ��t��■iiu�i�
_Y_ Y � �fl■1_ ■,I���,�111
FRANKL-INN Now-
War �rrir��� ,,,,;� rrin�l.■■■■ � Illm.lul■ �
r�ri/ Gli��+uu,.■�pia++
PRoil
iiirNl4i �-11ti� l�,,rf•,ur►/i�:�I■I�IJ
. - • �i�r•■■■►t►i bpi�i� �-r�'�+qi i
_ +����*►�+ aa�,� i%��■■aria,::� ■■■�+�+r1♦�► ��.
:='-� ■=1 '���' w►+r � ��i�♦iiiiii�'::C `."r►+�i♦� aye
�r qnu nrr.�■w
■m►
:-a ly r. unr► .,■ .�:r■-��� V♦ip•��
� � I ii�■■I�� ►�s♦G■�Il��,�i+i�::....i. ♦♦♦♦♦ ♦If�11r r1
rn' l�llrlr■ �►%IIIIIIf1111►■r■a�!��r/1,■■ani�a�Iar�ath,
84 '� ��qP�"��„ �IIIIIIIIII:.�� RI�I■IIIIIIIIIIIIII
ti r•r■rr� ,11� .■■■■■
r "
■■_� ......♦ ....... ■_III.:.: Illlilll
+a♦ir• 1//m+
■���■f'��r�� Jlrlli illlliii►■III�IIIIIIPi���■■■■rl■
■,�111 :1��rry r ■►t■rr��
i■�■r:1n1, r Qli■�111 Illl�r/rn...+rs m 7:r
OYERL-AND i■ ���•����r•��■�ti■■iuri�
�Ilr■M■r :�� �■�■MEN ■!
so- oil
FRANKL-IN -1 10
7 rl ■
� � � ` �. � rII11�1--::++IIP1��1�•+�giiii�iiin
■■■� IM I j ■ ■■ r 4 �n�' d`�+�ri w•�%ism+s�l�hl
■■■■■■■■Ali��f1 r` ■ ■■■ar�i `�, will
gill
, , +.+ ♦.
a�e�771.�r•_ -\+ �.*i����:i Iliir�l,�ra'� ■"�•�i�++ �
arr
,•��-� � p+ � I �� q urn••■ �■■��+b♦•
�__ *agar+l+�� ►♦♦i ♦f,ur�.'C ■.i '♦♦i♦ a��
ram:-r niris�' 1■ L� I ■ ■ =..rrnnrZ+rna■ :■ar +•���+
tr �i G unr► .,■Cam.':�� G:r'r� gfiff��
rli`� ,,.�-■■ °.y.w , i�'j'i♦4rrrr ae.�: -• _ .. 111�♦Ilrfff r�
�.. ■rlr■ ►%IIIIIIIIIII►■n,�i�nur.■■rl��'�I11�i�tl�.
■
84 ... 1 i�r■+IIIIIIIIIIIII■f1111
■ it=, . ■1,y�I��it■
rn �l�II���I� ••� ......� 'IIIIIIIIIII:=I���°IIIIIIII
au�IHm/y*� rrn111�11111111J■Illlllllll �
r — ����/� ■■■■■�fll ■I 111111111111►■Illlllllll�r■�\�■■����
rnmi ■ �`�ry �i�t1+r►�
� r�■ um,� r1 tfll■ 11 1�Ip�il
u�=■raj+rr��
- ��� -i I,��1�1,�'�.■■■ 1��'—�.F'ir��i���rt���■eft it
OEM
0■
.■■■ ■ ` OYERL--AND '- �' �■■fl■ UNION;.■I ������ �!
5. Map Notes
Recent Area Preliminary Plats: H-2018-0126 H-2021-0075 H-2016-0112 H-2017-0104 H-
2021-0103
Recent Area Conditional Use Permits: H-2020-0123 H-2021-0012 H-2021-0033 H-2021-
0075 H-2023-0002 H-2017-0011 H-2024-0013 H-2024-0045 H-2024-0046 H-2025-0001
City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits
129
B. Service Accessibility Report
PARCEL SIIIG131260 SERVICE ACCESSIBILITY
Overall Score: 27 122nd Percentile
Location In City Limits REEK
Extension Sewer Trunkshed mains < 500 ft.from par-cel GREEN
Floodplain Either not within the 100 yr floodplain or > , :r-es GREEN
Emergency Servi-ces Fire Response time > g rein, FLED
Emergency Servi-ces Police Meets response time goals most of the time GREEN
Pathways Not within 114 mile of current or future pathways khRED
Transit ffithin 1/4 mile of future transit route YE_L0W
Arterial Road Buildout Status Ultimate configuration(#of lanes in master streets GREEN
plan) matches existing #of lanes)
School Walking Proximity Within 112 mile walking GREEN
Either-a High School or College within 2 miles G=,
School Drivability Middle or Elementary School within 1 mile driuinc GREEN
(existing or future)
Park lhlalkability No park within walking distance by park type I FLED
Report gerera Ed on 07-03-2025 hyMEFdD Msalkn
City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits
130
C. Development Agreement Legal Description&Exhibit Map
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
TH E
LAND Page 1 OF 3
GROUP
February 13, 2025
Project Nn._121001
DEVE LOPM ENT AG RE EM ENT MODIFICATION
TOUCKMARK of the TREASURE VALLEY,LLC
An area of land located in the North One Half of Section 16,Township 3 North,Range 1 Eask,Raise
Meridian,City of Meridian,Ada County,Idaho,being more particularly described as follows!
COMMENCING at the Nnrth One Quarter came rof said Section 16, (from which point the Northeast
corner of said Section 16 bears South 89`21'00"East,2702.67 feet distant);thence on narth-south mid-
sertian line of said Section 15,South 00'04'42" Eastr 40.00 feetr to a paint on the southern right of way
line of East Franklin Road AND the POINT OF BEGINNING:
Thence on said southern right of way liner South 89'21'00'East,1351..22 feet;
Thence leaving said southern right of way line, South00'01'49"Wesl;,519.08 feet;
Thence on the hnundary line of Edgeview Estates Nn_1 and No.2 Subdivisions,as shown in Book
63,Page 6399 AND Raak 65,Page 6702, respectively,records of Ada County, North 82'09'19'
West,7.63 feet;
Thence North 79'24'56'West,445.48 feet;
Thence South 80`51.'07"West,116.19 feet;
Thence South 25'43'56"West,195.09 feet;
Thence South 22'31'19"East;, 150.00 feet;
Thence South 33'09'18"Easl;, 620.00 feet;
Thence South 30'42'44"Easy,493_DO feet;
Thence South 00'01'44"West,451.50 feet;
Thence South 14°00'20"West,426.52 feet;
Thence Narth 89'15'24'West,34.37 feet,
Thence South 13°54'17"West,21.40 feet,to a point on the northern right of way line
Interstate 1-84;
Thence on said northern right of way line, North 89'34'54'r W est,530.52 feet;
Thence leaving said northern right of way line,North 00'11'26"West,23.85 feet
Thence North 89'15'24'West,673.14 feet,to the CenterOne Quarter turner of said Sertiun
16;
Thence Narth 89'15'16'West,625.38 feet;
Thence Nnrth 85'36'11'West,25.58 feet,to the southeasterly corner of St. Luke's Regianat
Medical Center property,
Thence cantinuirg on said St.Luke's property,North 00 0S'113"East, 102435 feet;
Thence Narth 44'45'45"West,4M.37feet,
Thence Nnrth 99'17'59'West,152.37feet;
Thence Narth 00'09'19' East,377.27 feet;
Thence North 89°51'41"West,214.00 feet;
Thence Nnrth 00'09'19' East,14D_55 feet;
482 East Shore Drive. Sulle 100,Eagle, Idaho UN16 209.934.4041 Ihrlandgroupinc.00m
City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits
131
February 13, 2025
Page 2
Thence North 5V 07' 05"Westr 70.50 feet,to a paint on the southerly right of way line of East
Louise drive;
Thence on said southerly right of way line and the right of ways for 5auth Touchmark Way,
North 38'52' 55' East,69.44 feet to a point of curvature,
Thence 95,89 feet an the arc of a curve to the right, having a radius of 96.00 feet;,a central angle
of 51'15'33%and whose chard bears North 64'34'37" East,83.05 feet;
Thence South 89`51'41,r East, a distance of 22.84 feet to a point of curvature;
Thence 150.77 feet on the arc of a curvetathe rightr having a radius of 165.00 feet,a central
angle of 5"06'56"r and whose chard bears South 51'48'47"Eastr 145.82 feet to a point of
non-tangent compound curvature;
Thence 365.24 feet on the arc of a curve to the left,having a radius of-129.00 feet,a central
angle of 63'36'24"r and whose chard bears 5auth 58'03'30"Eastr 346.77 feet;
Thence South 89'51'41" East, 141.15 feet to a point of curvature;
Thence 176.51 feet on the arc of a curve tathe rightr having a radius of 271.00 feet,a central
angle of 37°19'09"rand whose chard bears 5auth 71'12'08"Eastr 173.41 feet;
Thence South 52'32'34" East 20.37 feet to a paint of curvature;
Thence 87.83 feet an the arc of a curve to the rightr having a radius of 79.00 feet a central angle
of 63'42'12",and whose chord bears South 20'41'30" East,83.38 feet;
Thence South 52'32'34" East, a distance of 51.1-1feet to a point of curvature;
Thence 61.41 feet an the arc of a curve to the rightr having a radius of 64.00 feed,a central angle
of 54'58'33",and whose chard bears South 88'96'46" Eastr 59.08 feet;
Thence North 37°27'43" East,29.16 feet;
Thence North 52°-12' 34"Westr 3.00 feet to a point of curvature;
Thence 29,85 feet on the arc of a curve to the rightr having a radius of 5.50 feet, a central angle
of 179° 59'59",and whose chord bears North 37`27'26" Eastr 19.'00 feet;
Thence South 52'32'AV Easy, 1.00 feet;
Thence North 37°27' 26' East,a distance of 2S.76 feet to a point of curvature;
Thence 61.70 feet an the arc of a curve to the rightr having a radius of 57.50 feed,a central angle
of 61'28'42",and whose chard bears North 16'1.8'59" West,58.78 feet;
Thence North 52°-12' 14"Westr a distance of 50.96 feet to a paint of curvature;
Thence 92.29 feet an the arc of a curve to the rightr having a radius of 68.00 feed,a central angle
of 69'20'11'r,and whose chard bears North 97'12'SY West,77.36 feet;
Thence North 52°-12' 34"Westr 28.37 feet to a point of curvature;
Thence 214.29 feet on the arc of a curve to the left,having a radius of 329,00 feet, a central
angle of 37'19'07'rr and whose chard bears North 71'12'07"West,210.52 feet;
Thence North 89°51'41'Westr 141.19 feet to a point of curvature;
Thence 313.93 feet on the arc of a curvetathe right,hawing a radius of 271_00 feet,a central
angle of 66'2 2'21"r and whose chard bears North 56'40'31"West,296.67 feet to a paint of
non-tangent rompnund curvature;
Thence 6235 feet an the arc of a curve to the rightr having a radius of 37.50 feet;,a central angle
of 95'15'31'r,and whose chord bears North 24,Dg'08'r East,55.41 feet;
Thence North 00°09' 15" East,a distance of 2 5.3 1 feet to a point of curvature;
Thence 7.46 feet on the arc of a curve to the left,having a radius of M.16 feet, a central angle of
04'44'32"r and whose chard bears 5auth 90'04'09"West,7.46 feet to a poi nt of non-tangent
cDmpound curvature;
Or
Site Planning•Landscape ArdAtetture.Civil EnginmMng.Surveying
462 E.Shore Drive,Suite 100.Eagle,Idaho 83616.P 208.939_AC41+wwwAfielandgmupirlt.com
City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits
132
February 13,2025
Page 3
Thence 4.20 feet on the arc of a curve to the right,having a radius of 2.50 feet, a central angle of
96'08'48", and whose chord bears North 54' 12'08" West, 3.72 feet;
Thence North 03'53'11"West, 14.26 feet;
Thence South 74'42'50"East, 11.78 feet;
Thence North 00'09'19" East,a distance of 29.11 feet to a point of curvature;
Thence 69.50 feet on the arc of a curve to the right, having a radius of 50.00 feet, a central angle
of 79'38' 35",and whose chord bears North 24'58' 17" West,54.04 feet to a point of non-
tangent compound curvature;
Thence 118.34 feet on the arc of a curve to the right, having a radius of 261.50 feet,a central
angle of 25'55'41",and whose chord bears North 27'48'57"East,117.33 feet to a point of
non-tangent compound curvature;
Thence 311.04 feet on the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 438.50 feet,a central
angle of 40'38' 29",and whose chord bears North 20' 27 32"East,304.56 feet,-
Thence North 00'08'19" East,68.71 feet;
Thence North 45'23'55" East,46.14 feet,to a point on the southern right of way line of East
Franklin Road;
Thence on said southern right of way line,South 89'20'28" East,875.35 feet,to a point on the
north-south mid-section line of said Section 16;
Thence on said mid-section line, North 00'04'42"West,20.00 feet to the POINT OF
BEGINNING.
The above-described area of land contains 121.40 Acres,more or less.
PREPARED BY: $4 y�G1ENS
The Land Group, Inc. r
Michael Femenia,PL5 0
a 1a
E'afko
f.s.
City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits
133
o� A9E8 WPP1'�PW4 �
W Z� Gw:V �
~�� all AOFA aanseaal 04110 IIaeaayanol
uoileail!PoW VU iof
a
� I
ie � I • Q` �
I
1 `
I I
I
F fw
1
III` 6g
I
\ �a
9
L ,a
d y9
= y
CL
� Naaa � � a392a � � a � � a � 2
aD F� 3 � � 9 ° 9Raa9eag3 :
o
v
� � � � m : meQeae � ee ee
0
City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits
Fl 34
D. Rezone Legal Descriptions & Exhibit Maps
LEGAL DESCRIFMON
M OF -m
0=1f .
LAND Pagel❑F2
= GROUP
April4,2025
Project No.:123003
RE-ZONE"CC"
TOUCKMARK of the TREASURE VALLEY,LLC
An area of land located in the North One Half of Section 16,Township 3 North,Range 1 East Boise
Meridian,City of Meridian,Ada County,Idaho,being more particularly described as follows:
COMMENCING at the Northwest corner of said Section 16,thence on the north section line of said
Section 16,South 89'20'28"East,1759.97 feet,to the POINT OF BEGINNING:
Thence continuing on said north section line,South 89'20'28"East,946.40 feet,to the North one
quarter corner of said Section 16;
Thence South 89'21'OC'East,629.91 feet,(from which point the Northeast corner of said Section
16 bears south 89'21'00'East 2C72.75 feet drstant);
Thence leaving said north section line,South 00°38'34"West,333.28 feet,
Thence south 43°44'39'East,232.38 feet,to a point on the boundary Irne of Parcel"B"as same
is shown on Record of Survey No_10611,Recorded in Instrument No_2015-079903,Ada County
Records,
Thence continuing on said Parcel"B"boundary,South 25'43'56'West,195.C9 feet
Thence South 22'31'18'East,350.00 feet;
Thence North 89'51'46"West,331.54 feet,
Thence South 00°08'36"West,13.49 feet,
Thence South 77'29'43'West,432.91 feet,
Thence South 00'04'42'East,6.42 feet,
Thence South 88'27'15'West,36.75 feet,to a point of curvature;
Thence leaving said Parcel"B"boundary line,296.36 fleet on the arc of a curve to the left,having a
radius of 495.35 feet,a central angle of 33'C7'23',and whose chord b ea rs South 50'18'42"
West 28239 feet,
Thence south 37"27'26'West,32.50 feet;
Thence south 52"32'34"East,138.37 feet,
Thence 291.49 feet on the arc of curve to the left,having a radius of 200.00 feet,a central angle
of 83'30'24",and whose chard bears South W 17'53"East,266.37 feet;
Thence South 45'08'19"West,183.25 feet to a point of curvature on the boundary line of Parcel
"D"as same is shown on Record of Survey No.9213,Recorded in Instrument No.112048170,Ada
County Records,
Thence continuing on said Parcel"D"boundary line,175.54 feet on the arc of a curve to the left,
having a radius of 223.50 feet,a central angle of 45'00'01",and whose chord bears South 22'39'
19"West,171.06 feet,
Thence South 00'08'19"West,198.89 feet to a point of curvature;
Thence 135.47 feet on the arc of a curve to the left,having a radius of 203.54 feet.a central angle
of W 08'27",and whose chord bears South 18'55'53"East,132.98 feet,to a point common with
4t2 El%t Sn4r4❑nv$.SU114 100,Eagle,IdMnO 53516 2Qa.93g.4U41 Inal and groUpinC.Com
City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits
135
April 4,2025
Page 2
the Northwesterly corner of Parcel shown on Record of Survey No_10690,Recorded in Instrument
No_2016-103452,Ada County Records;
Thence on the west boundary line of said Parcel,South 23' 18'42"West,222.57 feet;
Thence South 41'59' 14"West,86.19 feet,to a paint common with the Northeast comer of Parcel
shown on Record of Survey No_10257,Recorded in Instrument No_2015-089469,Ada County
Records,
Thence on the north boundary line of said Parcel, North 89*50'45"West;,209.10 feet,to a paint
on aforementioned westerly boundary line of said Parcel"O";
Thence on said westerly boundary line, North 00*08'19"East,749.70 feet,to the southeasterly
corner of Lot 2, Block 1 of Touchmark Living Center Subdivision No_1,Recorded in Instrument No_
104093301,Ada County Records;
Thence on the boundary line of said Lot 2, North 44'45'45"West,430.37 feet,-
Th e nce North 890 17'59"West, 152.37 feet;
Thence North 000 08' 19" East,377.27 feet;
Th a nce N o rth,890 51'41"West;,214.00 fe et;
Thence North 00'08'19" East,140.55 feet,
Thence North 510 07'05"West;,99.50 feet,to a point on the centerline of East Louise drive;
Thence on said centerline,North 39'52'55" Easl;,69.44 feet to a point of curvature;
Thence 111.83 feet on the arc of a curve to the right,having radius of 125.00 feet,a central
angle of 51'15'33",and whose chord bears North 640 30'38"East, 108.14 feet;
Thence South 89'51'41" East,133.66 feet,to a point of curvature in the centerline of South
Touchmark Way;
Thence on said centerline,240.24 feet on the arc of a curve to the right,having a radius of 300.00
feet,a central angle of45'52'54",and whose chord bears North 17'50'20' Fast 233.87 feet to a
point of non-tangent compound curvature;
Thence 283.73 feet on the arc of a curve to the left,having a radius of 400.00 feetr a central angle
of 40'38'27",and whose chord bears North 20'27'33"East,277.92 feet;
Th a nce N orth 00'08'19" East,161.84 feet,to the POINT OF BEGINNING-
The above-described area of land contains 55.17 Acres, more or less-
Ni.LAN
PREPARED BY:
The Land Group,Inc.
Michael Femenia,PLS
cr�,��rl2oz5
Site Planning a Landscape Architecture■Civil Engineering■Surveying
462 E.Shore Driver Su ite'Do■Eagle,Idaho 93616+P 208.939.4441+www.thelandgroupinr.com
City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits
136
d d9E8 eyEyl'uerMN �S
ee vm„�ru�i a a
S
311 Raper ainseaq ayl jo)Iaewyanol S
auozaU ,° {I{
J
J
T
61
r �
i f s
i 47 m_
L 9
I I H t = -:9
hi
�owrwx ,
C1
3
1
$jl
,1
p1 i
— —
a$ ! a,. .
—
II
I �
s o o a e a e o M
N
City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits
Fl 37
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
TH E
LAND Page 10F2
GROUP
November 11,2024
Project Nm: 123003
RE-ZONE"`CG"
TO U C KM ARK of the TREASU RE VALLEY, LLC
An area of land located in the Northwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of Section 16,township 3
North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, City of Mleridian,Ada County, Idahor being more particularly
desc ribed a s faI I aws;
COMMENCING at the North One Quarter carver of said Section 16,thence an the north section line of
said Section 15, South 89'21' 00" East,629,91 feet,to the POINT OF BEGINNING:
Thence continuing on said north section line, South 89'21'00" East,72138 feet,to the East One
Sixteenth comer of said Section 16, (from which point the Northeast corner of said Section 16
bears South 99'21'00"East, 1351.37 feet;
thence leaving said north section line,South 00°01'49"West,558.09 feet,on the easterly
boundary line of Parcel"B"as same is shown on Record of Survey No_ 10611,Recorded in
Instrument No.2016-079903,Ada County Records;
Thence continuing on said boundary of Rerord of Survey#10611,North 82'09 19"West,7.63
feet;
thence North 79'24'56"West 449.48 feet;
Thence South 80'51'07"West, 116.19 feet;
Thence leaving said Parcel "8,boundary, North 43'44'39"',Vest, 212.39 fEet;
thence North 00'38'34" East,131.29 fEet,to the POINT OF REGINNINIG.
the above-described area of land contains S.17 Acres,more or less,
I'L LA
PREPARED BY-. +S'
The Land Group,Inc. L
Michael Femenia,PLS
C2 L
y OE 10
4tL$
11I111202+
492 Law Shore Onwr, Suns 100. Eagle, Idaho 43619 H5.839.4o41i chrlandgroupinc.dam
City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits
138
Rezone rrCGrr ��.
Touchmark of the Treasure Valley LLCM
Situate in N 1.2 of Section 16 per.
Township 3 North,Range 1 East,Boise Meridian
City Of Meridian.Ada CauntY,Idaho qp� �
2024
4S
11/11 2QM+
—889.2i'00'E Eotat Fra-nklln Road 169°21^00I�
629.91' a, 889'2f'00'E 721.m. 1351.37'
cv -- -- -- —,—�
F'O6 ru w><—
SEC 16 NE SEC COR
4 SEC 16
92
IQ REZONE AREA TG" I
1
B.17 Acres± m
N42'44'39'W 232.W' QP
SSO°51'07�5' 116.19'
NAMPA�ME0014N�
N °24 449.4
fR+1"r+ON
f �157fi�G'7�
f ` E➢GEVIE44 ESTATES `
} �
No-1 SUE QIVISION L1
Line Table
LINE BEARING LEPJSTH
L1 NB2"091W -�:7
8
8
0 200' 400'
t Exhibbit "B"
s
a Horizontal Scale:1'=20D PNed No.:1230M
y Data OF Imam:Nm embl 1,2024
THE Re-zone "CG"
f LAND Touchmark of the Treasure Valley, LLC r
�H -GRQUP City of Il�lerdian
Ail
City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits
F139]
1
r 1J �'.`",' ,,�y -v• 1�-,''fir �n '�j���• -�''�G
., Wilt�It1 �
!1 Ix Ar
Y
r r Y . �•�. �� 1 J � -w' ram• � -
JvJ
•� fie., � ��Y fir' '�.��t v` � R :d � '
r
+► - K 1 . xm,
+,
L op
�l.i���'+KCy i� ?A + �Lll� �� ■
r
■ i
F. Proposed Conceptual Development Plan& Conceptual Building Elevations to Replace
Existing Plan(dated: 10/23/2024)
Ak a ernM•••APRsA AR eae nNN ii� ••n H s�3� 2Y ...e PH s��Q 3 ....N N iM
■
f
4 i
h •re! i•"• s T a
• b O H
ag p • i5
x
y` aa pp {4
j gqYppp gFyi �'J{yK f ag 8 .2] y yp pS q
•A"�4,
�u aeeN�H.•HAR�•- �i eaaN u•N''sP- `� aee•4•A t��- � a ^^-HA �q- aaa ^^-HA P-
hip 5 a 9 4 � a9s
City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits
141
� e
ANN
e
, a «. . . _ . ---�- .
§
� ■ � .
' ZOO
\ eg
-
; ,
$
f§§ . l.
#
2)
�§ <
§® �2
&f f
In
10
-E -
: 3.
M.
: � \ . . � . \� ,
.
IN
-
-
ju
02
City of Meridian Department Reprt V t Exhibits
Fl 42
G. Proposed Pedestrian Pathway Plan
r
r u �
�l
l
' - C
l r.-
IL
41
r . .
�•- ■• i
■ ■■ "`�
■ N ,Y k_�• J
W yyii
a�
III( i
�g
z rr...
■
City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits
143
H. Proposed Phasing Pa (dated: 7/10/202 q
� _ \� � �■ � \
~. \.
� e
� $
2 ---- ---- - _
/ �
n E / ^
Q ®^
f
® 2E
on 2
w = o E
@ '0 E - ]v 9 m
« 0)
x \ 0 -0 3 ~ ± \
IL n U o § 2 q
_ o
CD \ \ « 2 \ -
\ 2 \
�!
_ N /
LU 2 §
z u Q ® ,�
0- m 0� 06
03
� � `- - - - - - - - - �
� 6 0
\ /
2 )) « / G g
e ±
< � 2
�
�
Av4
. -
y
City of Meridian Department Reprt V t Exhibits
F144]
I. Proposed Site Amenity Plan (dated: 4/17/2025)
OHdlM Haeiugan�l i
HI asp-paxiw r�aewgan0l 1 1� a
f !
M IN, iii d4 :� H
` . ' tF
--- - -- - --- - -- - - --
-r I
i
_ _ _ -
0
I
City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits
145
dllQa9�� .N®���
M
ONVI lae11manpl
3Hi asp-Paxiw pomg3n01 1
Ai
. � i l. l�Y! ! k i y!. o � t I � �• � I�i � �
!a I€ .� .� € �yi 1 all; ll �i 1 I �Itl•d��l ii ii1 'a I €
i . gl E•
i 3 i$ :
• � = t A
N
jila
i lil
!g
t���
liii1pF1 � $ €g13i
E e4ys 1 1 I t yyyq a ge ! _ !! ei fq
�p�p1e� �•
y # �Se��e9 2i
1s114.1111PI .y: 1 1 111+
1
r�
011
c +j
R
� k
V
dl
City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits
146
VIII. ADDITIONAL NOTES & DETAILS FOR STAFF REPORT MAPS,TABLES,AND CHARTS
(link to Community Metrics)
A. One-Mile Radius Existing Condition Notes
This data is automatically derived from enterprise application and GIS databases, and exported
dynamically. Date retrieved notes generally reflect data acquired or processed within the last 30-
days.Analysis is based on a one-mile radius from the centroid of the identified parcel. Parcel
based data excludes certain properties and represents land as it exists now. Properties considered
are only those with a total assessed value greater than 0(i.e. excludes most HOA area,transitional
development, government, and quasi government facilities). The following values also constrain
included property acreage to reduce outliers and non-conforming instances from distorting
averages: R-2<5.0; R-4<2.0; R-8< 1.0; R-15 <0.5; R-40<0.25.
Conditional Use Permits and Preliminary plat data likely include duplicate project submittals as
they may be for the same project, approved at different times through multiple application types.
Consider each independently or review prior application approvals. Some approved entitlements,
and particularly older ones,may be constructed.
Decennial population counts and household counts are based on the most recent Decennial
Census. Current population and current household values are COMPASS estimates,usually for
the year previous, and are based on traffic analysis zone boundaries(TAZ's).
B. Mixed Use Analysis Notes
This data is derived from enterprise application and GIS databases, and exported dynamically.
Data considered for analysis are only those areas overlapping the overall Mixed Use boundary
area. Mixed Use areas across arterial roadways are distinct, separate, and not considered as they
do not meet the mixed use principles in the Comprehensive Plan(e.g.pedestrian safety,
transportation efficiency, etc.). Mixed Use parcel areas may be greater or smaller than the future
land use area designation boundary due parcel size,configuration,right-of-way, and other factors.
Conditional Use Permits and Preliminary plat data likely include duplicate project submittals as
they may be for the same project, approved at different times through multiple application types.
Consider each independently or review prior application approvals.
C. Service Assessment Notes
This data represents existing conditions derived from our enterprise application and GIS database,
exported through dynamic reporting. The system references the most recent available data from
various sources, including sewer main lines, sewer trunksheds, floodplain, fire service areas and
response times,police crime reporting,pathway information,existing and planned transit,
roadway improvements, school and park proximity, and other resources.
The tool provides context for project review,using multiple indicators consistently. Data from
similar topics may vary based on different levels of review.
The overall score is based on weighted criteria(not a ranked order), and the percentile score
compares the parcel to others in the city(higher is better). This tool was developed as a City
Council priority and outcome of the 2019 Comprehensive Plan. Scores,whether high or low, are
just one data point and should not be the sole basis for decisions.
D. ACHD Roadway Infographic Notes
The Ada County Highway District utilizes a number of planning and analysis tools to understand
existing and future roadway conditions.
• Existing Level of service(LOS).LOS indicator is a common metric to consider a
driver's experience with a letter ranking from A to F.Letter A represents free flow
conditions, and on the other end Level F represents forced flow with stop and go
City of Meridian I Department Report VIII. Additional Notes&Details for Staff Report
Maps, Tables, and Charts
147
conditions. These conditions usually represent peak hour driver experience. ACHD
considers Level D, stable flow,to be acceptable. The LOS does not represent conditions
for bikes or pedestrians, nor indicate whether improvements: are possible; if there are
acceptable tradeoffs; or if there is a reasonable cost-benefit.
• Integrated Five Year Work Plan (IFYWP).The IFYWP marker(yes/no) indicates
whether the specified roadway is listed in the next 5-years. This work may vary, from
concept design to construction.
• Capital Improvement Plan(CIP).The CIP marker(yes/no)indicates whether the
specified roadway is programmed for improvement in the next 20-years.
City of Meridian I Department Report VIII. Additional Notes&Details for Staff Report
Maps, Tables, and Charts
148
E IDIAN;---
Applicant Presentation
TOUCHMARK PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
Requested Revisions: full privacy to match existing fence”. A.1.ii. request wrought iron fence reference be replaced with “metal picket fence or
Requested Revisions: but should not be a requirement as this may be engineeringly infeasible. and a severe grade difference of approximately 27’. Internal drives will be provided if
possible and likely not achievable as there is an existing gravity ditch where flows will need to be maintainedA drive/private street from Truckee Ave to the light industry designated
property is difficult i.Conditional Use Permit/ Planned Unit Development Modification
Requested Revisions: We are not requesting more units over 524. Just the flexibility to address market conditions. equest the flexibility of up to 65% of the land area to be allowed
as residential uses. rii. Our plan, as proposed, is consistent with the comprehensive plan; we respectfully o Conditional Use Permit/ Planned Unit Development Modification
THANK YOU
V IDIAN�
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Gramercy Townhomes (H-2025-0019) by Elton
Development Company, located at 1873, 1925 and 2069 Wells Ave.
Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2025-0019
A. Request: Rezone of 6.98 acres of land from the C-G zone to the TN-R zone.
B. Request: Preliminary Plat for 82 buildable lots and 8 common lots.
C. Request: Development Agreement Modification to establish a new concept plan and remove
the age restriction on the property.
149
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET
DATE: July 17, 2025 ITEM
PROJECT NAME: Gramercy Townhomes H-2025-0019
wish to
testify Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing
(f yes) (Please Print) HOA.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT C��fEPIDIAN*,,--,
DEPARTMENT REPORT
HEARING 7/17/2025 Legends®
DATE: -
Project Location �'•J'� �'
TO: Planning&Zoning Commission Area of Impact
�= City Limits
FROM: Nick Napoli,Associate Planner O Analysis @. ;
s
208-884-5533
--r T m
nnapoli@meridiancity.org
APPLICANT: Mike Chidester
SUBJECT: H-2025-0019 ,
Gramercy TownhomesvT
� i
-
LOCATION: Located at 1873, 1925, and 2069 Wells � '��.
Avenue in the NE '/4 of Section 20, -
T.3N.,R1E.
I. PROJECT OVERVIEW
A. Summary
Rezone of 6.98 acres of land from the C-G zone to the TN-R zone, a preliminary plat for 82
buildable lots and 8 common lots, and a development agreement modification to establish a new
concept plan and remove the age restriction on the property.
B. Recommendation
Staff. Approval with a development agreement and conditions.
Commission: Pending
C. Decision
Council: Pending
City of Meridian I Department Report I. Project Overview
150
I1. COMMUNITY METRICS
Table 1: Land Use
Description Details Map Ref.
Existing Land Use(s) Vacant -
Proposed Land Use(s) Residential -
Existing Zoning C-G(General Retail and Service Commercial District) VII.A.2
Proposed Zoning TN-R(Traditional Neighborhood District)
Adopted FLUM Designation MU-R(Mixed Use Regional) VII.A.3
Table 2: Process Facts
Description Details
Preapplication Meeting date 11/19/2024
Neighborhood Meeting 2/18/2025
Site posting date 7/7/2025
Table 3: Community Metrics
Agency/Element Description/Issue Reference
Ada County Highway District IV.D
• Comments Received Yes -
• Commission Action Required No -
• Access Private streets are proposed for the development. -
ITD Comments Received Yes;No comment
Meridian Public Works Wastewater IV.B
• Distance to Mainline Available at Site
• Impacts or Concerns Yes, See Public Works Site Specific Conditions
Meridian Public Works Water IV.B
• Distance to Mainline Available at Site
• Impacts or Concerns Yes, See Public Works Site Specific Conditions
School District(s) West Ada School District IV.0
• Capacity of Schools Pepper Ridge Elementary:Architectural 675,Program 575 -
Lewis and Clark Middle: 1000
Mountain View High: 2175
• Number of Students Enrolled Pepper Ridge Elementary:471 -
Lewis and Clark Middle: 899
Mountain View High: 2479
Note: See section IV. City/Agency Comments&Conditions for comments received, or see the public
record.
City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics
151
Figure l: One-Mile Radius Existing Condition Metrics
Reference Parcel:R3238520110 Date Retrieved:2025/5/5
Parcel Count Parcel Acreage Infiii Indicator:
441 Surrounding Area
313 0
'� 7 �p Notcty
® City Limits
2,894 1,512. ■ Not City
Household Household& Population Growth
■
Households 02020
Population Change:15.2°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
31% 25% 0%
® Multi-family
69 55
® Commercial
Notes: See Error! Reference source not found..Error! Reference source not found..
Figure 2: Service Impact Summary
ImpactService . .
Ready
Marginal
Caution
2q, e��t �o°a Fite o��L2 s�aAy a�y\� ���°�
0 fro"
Q-°
Notes: See Error! Reference source not found..Error!Reference source not found..
City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics
152
III. STAFF ANALYSIS
Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code(UDC)
A. General Overview
The subject properties fall within the Mixed-Use Regional(MU-R)Future Land Use Map
(FLUM) designation. The intent of the MU-R designation is to provide a mix of employment,
retail,and residential dwellings and public uses near major arterial intersections. By integrating a
variety of uses together,the goal is to avoid predominantly single-use developments such as a
regional retail center with only restaurants and other commercial uses. Development should be
anchored by uses that have a regional draw with appropriate supporting uses. This designation
supports a diverse and integrated community where residents can live,work,and shop without
needing to travel far.
According to the Comprehensive Plan,the MU-R designation should make up between 10%and
30%of the total development area,with gross residential densities ranging from 6 to 40 units per
acre. The MU-R area, located at the southwest corner of Eagle Road and Overland Road,
encompasses approximately 165.2 acres. Of that total,roughly 41.5 acres are designated for
residential use,including the proposed development, accounting for 25.1%of the MU-R area in
this quadrant,which aligns with the Comprehensive Plan's vision and density targets.
The proposed development plan depicts eighty-two (82)townhomes with the Traditional
Neighborhood Zoning(TN-R)as the single use for the subject properties. While the TN-R zoning
requires two different types of housing, staff finds that the surrounding garden-style apartments,
single-family detached, and townhomes provide the mix of units desired in the area. The
proposed townhomes range in size from 1,650 s.£ and 1,750 s.£with three (3)and four(4)
bedroom units. In addition,TN-R zoning requires detached sidewalks with parkways. While the
applicant has provided detached sidewalks along the front of each unit,the sidewalks running
north—south are attached. Staff has determined that the combination of detached sidewalks with
parkways and on-street parking in front of the units meets the intent of the TN-R zoning.
Furthermore,the attached north—south sidewalks are appropriate due to site constraints and are
expected to enhance pedestrian connectivity within the development.
The private streets provide accurate and easy to find address points that will be beneficial for
Fire,EMS,and Police. In addition to the townhomes,the development plan depicts a 0.60-acre
common open space with parkways, on-street parking,and alleys. The applicant has provided an
internal pathway to connect with the ten(10)foot multi-use pathway on the southern boundary to
help residents connect with Mountain View High School and Gordon Harris Park to the south.
The applicant has indicated that the buildout timeline for the development depends on demand;
however,they anticipate developing the project in five(5)phases,with the first phase consisting
of the large open space, amenities, and roads.
West Ada School District has indicated that the development is expected to generate
approximately nineteen(19) school-aged children across all grade levels. Pepper Ridge
Elementary and Lewis and Clark Middle School both have adequate capacity to account for the
addition of school-aged children from the development. However,Mountain View High School is
over capacity with 2479 students enrolled and a capacity of 2175 students.
Overall,the proposed townhome development is an allowed use within the MU-R designation
and contributes to the area's intended mix of residential and commercial activity.Beyond the
project boundaries, staff also considered surrounding uses and finds that the site's proximity to
commercial/employment areas, a child care facility/charter school, and regional pedestrian
infrastructure supports the MU-R designation's broader land use goals.
• "Encourage a variety of housing types that meet the needs, preferences, and financial
capabilities of Meridian's present and future residents."(2.01.02D)
City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis
153
The proposed for-sale townhomes will provide additional housing options in the area that will
blend in with the surrounding developments. This will provide a townhome product to the area
which is in close proximity to Mountain View High School and Gordon Harris Park.
• "Permit new development only where it can be adequately served by critical public facilities
and urban services at the time of final approval, and in accord with any adopted levels of
service for public facilities and services."(3.03.03F)
City water and sewer services are available and can be extended by the developer with
development in accord with UDC 11-3A-21.
• "Maximize public services by prioritizing infill development of vacant and underdeveloped
parcels within the City over parcels on the fringe."(2.02.02)
The subject site is already annexed and in a widely developed area. However, the subject
sites are undeveloped and have been vacant for more than a decade as commercial only
properties. It is one of the last areas of the Gramercy development to be developed and the
Applicant believes constructing high-end townhomes will provide needed housing and
stimulate the neighboring commercial businesses.
• "Avoid the concentration of any one housing type or lot size in any geographical area;
provide for diverse housing types throughout the City."(2.01.01 G)
Traditional three-story, garden-style apartments are currently under construction throughout
the City, which makes the proposed three-story townhome concept desired in this area..
Table 4: Proiect Overview
Description Details
History H-2021-0023;H-2021-0022;A-2019-0200;A-2021-0238;TED-2023-
0006
Phasing Plan 5 Phases(Depending on Demand)
Residential Units 82 Single Family Attached Units
Open Space 1.31 Acres; 18.8%
Amenities Dog Waste Station(.05)and Open Space Commons(3)
Acreage 6.98 acres
Lots 82 Building Lots and 8 Common Lots
Density Gross Density: 11.74 units/acre
Net Density: 19.04 units/acre
B. History/Development Agreement Modification
In 2021,the subject properties were approved for a multi-family development consisting of 164
age-restricted units on 5.24 acres of land. The applicant then filed for a time extension in 2023 to
extend the CUP,however,the applicant did not move forward with the project as the market
changed, and demand was no longer there for age restricted units. Currently,the development
agreement from this application governs the site. The existing development agreement restricts
the site to the previous concept plan and age restricted units. The applicant is requesting an
addendum to the existing DA to remove the age restriction and amend the concept plan in favor
of the proposed townhome development.
The new development proposes 82 townhomes,which is approximately half of the units proposed
in the previous application. The applicant is not proposing an age restriction for the new
development and will be constructing it in five(5)phases.Additionally,the applicant has
proposed open space exceeding the 15%required by the UDC and amenities meeting the UDC
City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis
154
requirements. Staff is supportive of this change to the concept plan and development agreement
as it provides another housing type to the area.
C. Site Development and Use Analysis
1. Existing Structures/Site Improvements (UDC 11-1):
The subject properties are annexed into the city with the C-G zoning and have utilities
stubbed to the site. The site currently sits vacant.
2. Proposed Use Analysis (UDC 11-2):
The applicant is seeking a rezone and proposing eighty-two(82)townhomes,which are listed
as a principally permitted use in the UDC Table 11-2D-2 for the TN-R zoning district.As
mentioned above,the TN-R zoning requires a minimum of two(2)housing types. Since the
subject development lies within the MU-R FLUM designation, staff finds that the
surrounding mix of housing types(multifamily, single-family detached,townhomes)provides
the mix of housing the city envisioned for this area. In addition to this,the design of the
development varies from those of the neighboring uses as the development is anchored by a
0.60-acre common open space with on-street parking and parkways. Staff finds the proposed
subdivision to be in compliance with the TN-R zoning district and FLUM.
Comprehensive Plan policy 2.01.01 C encourages the applicants to maintain a range of
residential land use designations that allow diverse lot sizes, housing types, and densities.
The larger MU-R area provides different housing types, lot sizes, and densities in close
proximity to commercial, employment, schools, and parks.
Comprehensive Plan policy 2.01.01 G states development should avoid the concentration of
any one housing type or lot size in any geographical area;provide for diverse housing types
throughout the City.
The larger MU-R area has a mix of different housing types in the form of single-family
detached, single-family attached, and garden-style apartments(multifamily).
Comprehensive Plan policy 2.06.02D encourages a diversity of housing, recreation, and
mobility options to attract and sustain the local workforce.
The proposed subdivision provides a unique design that provides the traditional neighborhood
feel that the TN-R zoning district calls for. With the neighboring commercial, schools,and
regional parks in close proximity, it will allow future residents to live,work, and play in the
immediate area.
3. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2):
The preliminary plat and future development are required to comply with the dimensional
standards listed in UDC Table 11-2D-6 for the TN-R zoning district.
All proposed lots and public streets appear to meet UDC dimensional standards per the
submitted preliminary plat. This includes lot sizes ranging from approximately 1,461 to 1935
square feet. The subdivision is proposed to develop in five (5)phases with the central open
space being developed with phase one (1) as depicted in Exhibit VII. Development of the
subdivision is required to comply with the subdivision design and improvement standards
listed in UDC 11-6C-3.
D. Design Standards Analysis
1. Qualified Open Space &Amenities (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3G):
Based on the standards in UDC Table 11-3G-3, a minimum of 15% (or 1.05 acres)of
qualified open space is required to be provided within the development.An open space
City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis
155
exhibit was submitted as shown in Section VII.G,which depicts 18.8% (or 1.31 acres)of
open space that meets the required quality and qualified open space standards. In addition to
the open space provided in the development,the subject development is within approximately
850 feet of Gordon Harris Park and directly abuts Mountain View High School's ball fields.
All common open space areas are required to be landscaped with one deciduous shade tree
for every 5,000 square feet of area and include a variety of trees, shrubs, lawn or other
vegetative groundcover per UDC 11-3G-5B.3.
Based on the standards in UDC 11-3G-4A, a minimum of one(1)amenity point is required to
be provided. The amenities proposed are a dog waste station and open space commons as the
central open space exceeds 20,000 square feet. The applicant's amenity points total is 3.5
exceeding the UDC requirements. In addition to the amenities proposed,the subject
development abuts Mountain View High School's ball fields and is approximately 850 feet
from Gordon Harris Park.
2. Landscaping (UDC 11-3B):
i. Landscape buffers along streets
UDC Table 11-2D-6 requires eight(8) foot parkways with class II trees along local
streets for the TN-R zoning district. The applicant is proposing private streets built to
local street standards with eight(8)-foot parkways and class II trees in compliance with
the UDC standards.
ii. Parking lot landscaping
The landscaping for parking on Lot 2,Block 1, abutting the central open space shall meet
the standards listed in UDC 11-313-8. This includes a planter island with a minimum
square footage of fifty(50)and a minimum of five (5)feet wide. In addition, a tree is
required at each end of the parking rows inside a planter island.Alternative Compliance
can be applied for to relocate these trees. The applicant shall either revise the plan to
incorporate planter islands with trees or apply for alternative compliance to relocate
these trees, this shall be done with the final plat application.
iii. 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.
iv. Storm integration
Per UDC 11-313-11,the applicant shall meet the intent to improve water quality and
provide a natural, effective form of flood and water pollution control through the
integration of vegetated,well designed stormwater filtration swales and other green
stormwater facilities into required landscape areas,where topography and hydrologic
features allow if part of the development.
v. Pathway landscaping
Pathway landscaping shall comply with the requirements outlined in UDC 11-313-12. The
applicant must provide a landscape strip at least five(5) feet wide along both sides of the
City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis
156
pathway. To enhance design flexibility,variations in the strip's width are encouraged to
allow trees to be planted farther from the pathway,reducing the risk of root damage.
However,the landscape strip must maintain a minimum width of two(2)feet to ensure
proper pathway maintenance. The strips shall be landscaped with a combination of trees,
shrubs, lawn, and/or other vegetative ground cover.
The applicant is not proposing a multi-use pathway; however, they are proposing a
central micro pathway to connect with the existing multi-use pathway on the south
boundary of the site. It appears the applicant has provided five (5)feet of landscaping on
both sides of the pathway.
3. 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.
The townhomes consist of three(3)and four(4)bedroom units that require four(4)
parking spaces to be incompliance with UDC Table 11-3C-6.
The applicant has indicated each townhome has four(4)parking spaces,two(2)inside a
garage and two(2) on the parking pad. In addition to the 328 parking spaces for the
townhomes,the applicant has provided forty-six(46)parking spaces along the streets and
near the common space for guests.
The applicant is requesting to reduce the parking pad width to eighteen(18)feet for all
parking spaces outside of the garage for the townhomes. The reason for the reduction is
to provide a break in the concrete plane in the form of planters as depicted on the site
plan. Additional overflow parking is being provided throughout the development to offset
the width of the parking pad. This was at the request of city staff. The applicant shall
apply for an alternative compliance application to request this reduction with the
submittal of the design review application.
ii. Bicycle parking analysis
The UDC does not require bicycle parking in single-family attached, detached, and
townhomes developments.However,the applicant is proposing five(5)bicycle parking
spaces at the eastern end of the central common open space.
4. Building Elevations (Comp Plan,Architectural Standards Manual):
Goal 5.01.02D of the Comprehensive Plan highlights the need for effective building design
and landscaping to buffer, screen,beautify,and integrate commercial,multifamily,and
parking areas with existing neighborhoods. In response,the applicant has submitted a
conceptual elevation package. The materials included in the elevations are brick,board and
batten, fiber cement,vinyl windows, standing seam metal roofs,and asphalt shingles. The
applicant has provided varied setbacks to provide different unit profiles on the attached units
and has incorporated architectural elements such as gable roofs,pedestrian-scale lighting, and
awnings.
The buildings are proposed to be approximately thirty-nine(39) feet in height with variations
in unit counts, such as a five-plex, six-plex, seven-plex, and eight-plex.
The townhomes require design review approval and are subject to the traditional
neighborhood design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual. This shall be
submitted prior to submitting for a building permit.
City of Meridian I Department Report 111. Staff Analysis
157
5. Fencing (UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7):
All fencing constructed on the site is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-
3A-7.
No fencing appears to be proposed; any future fencing shall comply with UDC 11-3A-7.
Alternative compliance shall be submitted for the standards listed in 11-3A-7 for fencing
along pathways and common open space. These standards require fencing to distinguish
common space from private property. The applicant shall submit this prior to approval of the
final plat.
6. Parkways (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-17):
Per Comp Plan policy 3.07.01C appropriate landscaping,buffers, and noise mitigation with
new development along transportation corridors(setback,vegetation,low walls,berms, etc.)
is required.
Per the UDC the minimum width of parkways planted with Class II trees shall be eight(8)
feet. The width can be measured from the back of curb where there is no likely expansion of
the street section within the right-of-way;the parkway width shall exclude the width of the
sidewalk. Class 11 trees are the preferred parkway trees.
The applicant is proposing parkways along Traverse Lane, Ainsley Lane, Blazer Lane, and
Foresight Lane that appears to be in compliance with this standard. The applicant shall
comply with the standards for UDC 11-3A-17 with submittal of the final plat.
E. Transportation Analysis
1. Access (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-3, UDC 11-311--4):
Access is proposed via three (3) drive aisle connections: one to the north connecting to an
existing drive aisle and commercial property, and two to the east to connect to S.Wells
Avenue. These drive aisles are currently not named and are considered commercial drive
aisles. However,the applicant is proposing to add six private streets in the development that
require a minimum of one connection to a public street. Staff has discussed this with the
applicant and determined the southern connection on the eastern boundary would be best as it
aligns with Blue Horizon on the east side of S.Wells Avenue. This will take coordination
with the neighboring property owners to name the existing private drive aisle.
The intersection of Blazer Lane and the planned extension of E. Blue Horizon Drive is offset
due to site constraints. However,after discussions with the applicant and ACHD, it was
determined that the offset is not a concern, as the general alignment remains consistent and
the intersection is expected to experience low traffic volumes.
In addition,the applicant shall provide traffic calming along Stadia Lane and Starfish Lane in
the form of bulb-outs, speed bumps, or other approved methods to reduce vehicle speeds and
enhance pedestrian safety(see private street analysis below).
2. Multiuse Pathways and Pathways (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-8, UDC 11-3A-5):
Comprehensive Plan policy 4.04.01A ensures that new development and subdivisions
connect to the pathway system. The subject site does not have a multi-use pathway that runs
on the property,however,there is an existing ten(10)foot multi-use pathway on the southern
boundary that connects to Mountain View High School and Gordon Harris Park. The
applicant has proposed an internal pathway system that connects to the 10-foot multi-use
pathway and to the property to the north.
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. The TN-R zoning requires detached sidewalks with parkways. While
City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis
158
the applicant has provided detached sidewalks along the front of each unit, the sidewalks
running north south are attached. Staff has determined that the combination of detached
sidewalks with parkways and on-street parking in front of the units meets the intent of the TN-
R zoning. Furthermore, the attached north—south sidewalks are appropriate due to site
constraints and are expected to enhance pedestrian connectivity within the development.
4. Private Streets (UDC I1-3F-4):
Six(6)private streets are depicted on the plat as Stadia Lane, Traverse Lane,Ainsley Lane,
Starfish Lane,Foresight Lane,Blazer Lane. The purpose statement for private streets in UDC
11-3F-1, states it's not the intent to approve private streets for single-family developments
other than those that create a common mew through the site design or that propose a limited
gated residential development. A mew is proposed on the central portion of the development;
the development is not proposed to be gated.
A private street application must be submitted for approval of the proposed private
street that complies with the standards listed in UDC 11-3F-4 and may be submitted
with the final plat application.Approval from the transportation authority(i.e.ACHD)
and the Fire Dept.is required.Approval of the street name is also required from the
Ada County Street Name Committee.
5. Subdivision Regulations (UDC 11-6):
i. 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. Pressurized Irrigation(UDC 11-3A-I 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.
2. Storm Drainage (UDC 11-3A-18):
An adequate storm drainage system is required in all developments by the City's adopted
standards, specifications, and ordinances. Design and construction shall follow best
management practices as adopted by the City as outlined in UDC 11-3A-18.
3. Utilities (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-21):
Ensure development is connected to City of Meridian water and sanitary sewer systems and
the extension to and through said developments are constructed in conformance with the City
of Meridian Water and Sewer System Master Plans in effect at the time of development. All
utilities are available to the site. Water main, fire hydrant and water service require a twenty-
foot(20)wide easement that extends ten(10)feet past the end of main,hydrant, or water
meter.No permanent structures,including trees are allowed inside the easement.
Comprehensive Plan policy 3.03.03G require urban infrastructure be provided for all new
developments,including curb and gutter, sidewalks,water and sewer utilities.
City of Meridian I Department Report I1I. Staff Analysis
159
IV. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS
A. Meridian Planning Division
1. The amended DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning
Division within six(6)months of the City Council granting the modification. The addendum
shall, at a minimum, incorporate the following provisions:
The applicant shall comply with the provisions in the existing development agreement
(Instrument#2022-001214)with the addition/modification of the following provisions.
a. Modify provision#13 to state: "Future development of this site shall be
generally consistent with the preliminaryplat,landscape plan,phasing plan,
open space and amenities, and the conceptual building elevations for the single-
family attached dwellings included in Section VII and the provisions contained
herein."
b. Add a provision stating: "Any future development of the site must comply with
the City of Meridian ordinances in effect at the time of the development."
c. Modify Provision#15: "Applicant shall connect to the regional pathway system
along the southern property boundary and the business on the northern property
boundary by constructing at least one(1)pedestrian crosswalk across the drive
aisle with either stamped concrete,brick pavers, or similar material to clearly
delineate the pedestrian connection to the pathway system and businesses.
d. Remove provision#14: "The multi family units• it-hi, this eet shall be
" r-eso
years
r-the ApplieavA's proposal."
e. Remove provision#16: "
paf4iing areas a-ad utility installa4ions by the subjeet property and Par-eel
R323851 l 240 A,.,,,p do e d ,,,,,.eept plan f f Pa-eel R32395111240 may be
r-equir-ed when it develops if stieh proposal is ineensistei#with the existing
£ Remove provision#17: "Prior to Cei4 fie to of Zoning ComNlianee " "'
Property T2,,,,,.,,da-y A djusrm epA shall be obtained by the A,.plie=t to
r-eeentipr-e the lots eonsistent with the proposed site pla-, "
2. The final plat/landscape plan shall include the following revisions:
a. Depict the required street buffers on a common lot or on a permanent
dedicated buffer easement,maintained by the property owner or
homeowner's association as set forth in UDC 11-313-7C.2a.
b. Provide parking lot landscaping in accordance with UDC 11-313-8 or apply
for alternative compliance to relocate the trees to a different location.
c. Add a plat note and graphically depict the easements encumbering the
buildable lots along the alleys and private street frontage.
City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions
160
d. Add a plat note stating"This plat is subject to the terms and conditions of
the development agreement recorded on(add date)as instrument number
(add instrument number).
e. Depict any proposed fencing and provide a fencing exhibit.
f. Provide a landscape strip at least five(5) feet wide along both sides of the
internal micro-pathways in compliance with UDC 11-3A-8 and 11-313-12.
g. Implement traffic calming measures along Stadia Lane and Starfish Lane,
such as bulb-outs, speed bumps, or other approved methods,to reduce
vehicle speeds and enhance pedestrian safety.
h. The applicant shall connect to the regional pathway system along the
southern property boundary and the business on the northern property
boundary by constructing at least one(1)pedestrian crosswalk across the
drive aisle with either stamped concrete,brick pavers, or similar material to
clearly delineate the pedestrian connection to the pathway system and
businesses.
3. Stormwater integration shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-313-11C.
4. All townhome units shall comply with the design standards in the Architectural Standards
Manual.A design review application shall be submitted for approval of the proposed
structures prior to submittal of building permit applications.
5. Submit an alternative compliance application for the reduced parking pad width from twenty
(20)feet to eighteen(18) feet concurrent with a design review application.
6. Submit an alternative compliance application to allow for no fencing around the common lots
and micro-paths concurrent with the design review application.
7. Depict the fifteen(15)foot easements required along the micro-pathways running through the
site on the final plat.
8. The proposed plat and subsequent development are required to comply with the dimensional
standards listed in UDC Table 11-2D-6 for the TN-R zoning district.
9. The applicant shall comply with the open space exhibit approved as part of this plat
application that depicts 18.8%(or 1.3 acres) of qualified open space and the required amenity
points as proposed(3.5 points).
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 final plat shall substantially comply with the approved preliminary plat as set forth in
UDC 11-613-3C.
City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions
161
12. The preliminary plat shall become null and void if the Applicant fails to obtain the City
Engineer's signature on the final plat within two(2)years of the approval of the preliminary
plat as set forth in UDC 11-6B-7A; or obtain approval of a time extension as set forth in UDC
11-6B-7C.
13. The Applicant shall comply with all ACHD's conditions of approval.
14. The Applicant shall record the plat prior to submitting a building permit.
15. The Applicant shall have a maximum of two(2)years to obtain City Engineer's signature on
a final plat in accord with UDC 11-613-7.
16. Staff s failure to cite all relevant UDC requirements does not relieve the applicant from
compliance.
17. A private street application shall be submitted concurrently with the final plat application for
approval of the private street. Compliance with the standards listed in UDC 11-317-4 is
required.
B. Meridian Public Works
PRE-PLAT CONDITIONS
�'a�Se+are'
• VW;I xr to*wrr Awa"ble at eite
5rv-'m'-f-4
• y-r�{r3hrd
EsUmmed Prom Sd�e bpplwaun
5Wwq FRU'%
• 1YRftFf]e[bn:ryl
IW4ntr
• f'MjM C stefrt Yts
with ww M•stw
Pian FXJl Plan
Imp�ttsfabllmrnx Florr�6arfurvtteai
5Aq Pol7i9t 11W+'ks �#07Gfic[I�i#ipfq
water .
• thi"rice to Water A4arahle at&*site.
5eraxes
• Presslrr�die
• rvi ruled FNOjff We appl"On
Water ERU,%
• Wite+rtllutlay I Nq.
cbr*mmt
• Najw{omweni Yes
*th wilder Mesta+
Rldrq
• Lvwct%Xw"rr4 $to Pm 1eWwksSlntSpedFirCOW%ns
Pu iur W ons DEPAxn41 L%r
KWlfiW['011"O f ad hpryrasall
I F wA Fha*or 6g dekrlopmon will and m 64 nwdekd la o-r fy mi nhk-n fl rc flaw q
mainninod,
2. ► utr unduwa-P to pmlLel hWim t.'W awff—mi%NAt Irye ulfMtiep cenkwrd.
3. Wacu ma s.tm hr'dramis.nn$was r wnwu"ime i Nr eawmgnl with the Ills MMCTed.Cohr
rat wig 4arxInmi nsmdb lit'paw ilk dead and muon hydmhl.of wwaf a rm.W oaf}Nis
ftquind.
d_ toemm o4 iro skown on Lhe C'Y411 artd faltdw-I
P4 plafls d6 fldl nt11[h.tinswt 11W tllaj e7alth
on foal plat an41hatillm area cmffi 6s wifhtrco and wqumd sasamem.
City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions
162
5- Ensure no permanent structures(trees,bushes,buildings,carports,trash receptacle walls,icnccs,
inrltraticm tmnchcs,light poles,etc-)are built within the utility easetent.Applicant sillI
reypOn:5ible fqr raining all lsrtdvsping rt4uiremenLs and should a xmlinalc with their plannor if
there ale any questions.
6- Ensure no sewer services pass dhrough infttiration trr11C11es-
7- SLrectlighis will be required for the devvlopmem of Lhis property,
- Teoos an not allowed withim the required easement-Ensure that no irees will be widh tk hydrawL
or water meter easeme rLq-
9- Wstor meter;LhaL must be in drivew4y6 need to have Lraf tic raW]ids and meter lx5xes.Provide
conerrtc joints 2'from the m,Cleron all sides similar to the Tolled edges ofsidcwalk panels to
make it easier to nrnove and repair concrete in the future.
10- if a well is located on the si to it must be abandoned per Tegulawry rcyuiremenis and proof of
abandonmoni must be provided to the City-
1 1- If Liam arc any exi-aint-hlrnv-off uatvrs that will hr removrd,callous xmc)val-
C:cacral Canditiuns o1 Apprnwat
I. Applicant shall coordmaie water and wweT main size and routing with the Public Work s
a,panineni,and execute standard farms of easements for any mains that are requited is provide
service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet. i f cover
from top of pipe to Sub-pidr is Ins shun three kL i than ultorrate materials gall be used in
con forntaaccofCity ofh+lcridian Public Works DcpartmmtsStand"Specifications.
2, Per Meridian City Code(MCC).the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and waigr
mains to and through this developmcnL. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursemein
agreement for infrasiructure eahancemeni per MCC 9.6-5.
3. The appl ieant shall provide eAsement(s)for ftl l public wftWrlsewer mains oumid,e of pu0t:Tight of
way(include all wrist-r services t5nd hydrants)- The ca_n=ent widths shal l b.,20-Feick wide fw a
singlc utility,or Wfcct wide for two. The casxmcnLs shall not be dedicated via the plat,but
rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian`s standard forms-The
casement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purpascs. Submit an executed
easement(on like form available From Public Works),a legal description prepared by atti Idaho
Lico!t tic professional Lt]nd Surveyor,which must include the area of dte rasememt(marked
E HiDIT A)and an 1 i"reap with bearings and distances(marked E 141BIT a)for
review,both cxhibils must be sealed,signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor.DO
NOT RECORD- Add a note to the plat referencing this domimcni. All ememenis must be
submitted,feviewed,and approved prior to developmeni pram approval.
4- The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation,systems be supplied by a year-round
yourre of water(TJDC 1 1-313-6).ne npptieant sbould be rnquired to use o-my exiSiing Surface or
well water for the primary source. If a surfaec or well souTxc is not available,a singlc-point
connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If u singlespoint oonncction is utilir.ed.
the developer will be responsible for the payment ofaswssinenis for the cotntnon areas prior Lo
prior to receiving development plan approval.
S- A]l rxisting wulcrures LhaL arc required to bu mmoved shatl be prior to 6gdftture em the Final plul
by the City Engingmm Any 4iruciuwN'that are slluwe4 tQ remain shall be sukject to Cvaluution and
possible reassignment ofslrcet addressing to be in compliance with MCC.
6- Al I irrigation ditches-curial s,laterals,or drains,exclusive of natural waterways,intersecting,
craassing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided slfall be addresstkd par
UDC 11-3A-6- In performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idalko Code 42-]207
and rosy 011kCr applicable law Of regutAtion-
City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions
F163]
7_ Any weals that wiI I not continue to be used must be properly abandoned according ho Idaho Well
C'onsirtnetion Standards Rules administered by the Idaho Department of Wawr Resouroas, Tht
Do-eloprr's Engintvr sbull provide 4 St$Lemt-ni addrmLging whether there are any existing wells in
the dc"kgmcnt,and if so,how they will continue to be used.OF prMide record of their
abandonment-
8- Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinan
Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 S. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and
insp-�ctions(208)375-5211.
9_ StWt Signs art to be in plate,sanitary 5ewcr fund water System shall br approved and artiv=d.
matt base appmYcd by the Ada Cotmty Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision
steal l be recorded,prior to applying far building permits_
10_ A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of I IOy will be rctluired for all uncomplelod
fencin-,]andscapin$,amen€ties,etc_,prior io signattree on the final plat.
11_ A]1 impMvrererntS related to public lifr,sazfrty and health shell he completed prior to oar r—cy
of the strur'lwm%Anccw approved by the City Digioccr,an owner m ay post a pCrfWManec surety
for such improvemcuts in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as Sel forth in
UDC I1-5C-313_
12_ Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review,and construction
inspection fees,as determ€ned durEn the plan review process,prior to the issttamee of a plan
approval letter.
D, It shall be the responsibility ofthc applicant to ensure that all development fcatum wpnply with
the Arncricans with Disabilities Act xnd the Fair Housing Act.
14_ Applicant shall be responsible for application and comp)iance with any Section"herhniWnit
that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers_
15_ Devoloprr shall coordinaw mailtwx lormtit ms with the Meridian Pcxst Office_
16_ Compactirm lest rrsults shall be submi"to thr Meridian Building Drpmiment For all building
pads rcr'civing cngiuccrcd b,'tcicfil1,whe c footing would sit atop fill material,
17_ The design engineer slial l be required to cent fy that the street ocnterl ine elevations are act a
minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevalion_ This is to ensure
thal the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of horn es is at least I-foot above_
18_ The appl irants design enginver shall ho responsible for inspection of al l irrigation andior
drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdicticm of an irrigation distract
or ACHI).Ric&sign cnginccr shall provide ccrufication that the facilities h tvc been irnstallcd in
accordance wilh the approved design plans.This certification will be required before a certificate
of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project.
19_ At the completion of the project,the applicant shall be responsible io submit retard drawings per
hhe City of Meridian AutpCAD standards. Thrsc mcord drawings must be rL!crivt!d,rod:ipprL1vud
prior w the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any sttuetures within the pmlcct,
20, A strccl light plan will need ua be included in the giviI sonstruciion plans.$trset light plan
requirements are listed in section#-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting.A copy
of the standards can be found ai htiol7ww.w_meridiatttity_or rttiublic works.aspOide272,
21_ The City of Meridian Foguires that thr owner past to the C ty a performance surely in thi amount
of 125%of the town ccrostructipn east for all incomplrir sewer,water and rouse irhfrastruct urc
prior to final plat signature.This surety will be verified by u line item cast cstirnaic provided by
the owner to the City.The surety=be posted in the fonn of an irrevocable letter of cwd i 1.cash
deposit or bond.Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on IN
Community Development Departm on i website. please contact Land Development Sen-ic( for
more information at 8$7-221 1.
22_ Thr City of Meridian eloyuircs that the owner prxst ho the City a wan-nty surrty in the amount of
215%of the total const uctian cost for all eohrhpl cted sewer,wutCr and rcusc infrastructure for
duration of two years_This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the
owner to the City_The surety tan be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit,cosh
deposit or bond.Applicannt must File an application for surety,which can be found on the
Caffi hunily De~vrlopmcnt Drpwtmeni wrhsite. Please contact Land DrrelopmolSetvict! for
more inForrnation at P7-2211,
City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions
164
C. West Ada School District(WASD) or Other District/School
MEMORANDUM: SCHOOL IMPACM CifER,1DIAN�.-
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
June 18,2025
TO; Nick Napoli,Associate Planner
CC: Bill Parson,Current Planning Supervisor
FROM; Hether Hill,Long Range Associate Coordination Planner
RE: H-2025-0019:Gramercy Townhomes MDA, PP R2
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ON SCHOOLS
The proposed residential development application is located at 1873,1925 and 2069 Wells
Avenue, Meridian,This section of the memo looks at cumulative Impacts over a broad area and
provides entitlement data in areas affected by the subject application,The following
information is intended as a referen re,rather than a decisive tool,and serves to forecast the
number of school-aged children,enrolled in both public and private schools,using city-wide
census data_To date and w thin the last five years,there have 387 entitled units(232 single.
family and 655 multi-family)approved within a 1-mile radius of the project location resuItIng In
approximately 530 school-aged children,
Forecasted Students Erased on Entitlements
goo �
500
qw
300
ra
Elemenury+ Middle High Total
■Total skKk4As ■ftMl€ ■wlvate
Note_Tots+#units der+ved from enterprise Cato far pre;imOnary pats and unrelated Wadi tionai
use permits in the Last 5-years. This data reftects approved projects only and excludes pending
oppilicotions, including the subject application.American Community Serrvey 5-year data is used
to determine persons perhausehold oad enrolment by grodes forpUNIC arrd private schools_
City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions
165
WEST A D A SCH00L DISTRICT-STUDENT G EN E RATION RATES
West Ada School District(WASD)uses a Student Generation Rate(SA3R)to determine what
Im pact fut,jre development,ulII have on enrollments_Using WASU.%SGR,the following IS Clty
stafPS assessment;The SG for Pepper Ridge Elementary School i50.22 for single`famlly and
0.12 for multi-family. Based on the submitted application materials,the proposed project will
contain 92 single family units and 0 multi-famiIV units resulting in approximately 19 school-
aged children across all grade levels,The proposed project Is within the follow Ing school
boundaries,currently,and approval-of the project may affect enrollments at these schools;
Srhuul AttencWnce Areas 24-ZV Enrullrnerd Architectural Program
CapaEhy capaEdy
Pepper Ridge Elementary School 471 675 515
Lewis and Clark Midd le School 999 1000 -
Mountaln+flew High Schaal 2479 2175
Bate.Student Generation Rates-ore cakWated in reference to the designoted elementary sehacd
within the subject property's assodoted schml attendance area. Thk information is Mriprrded as
o reference, ratber than a decisive tool.
City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions
F166]
D. Ada County Highway District(ACHD)
Standard C*ndW*ns of Appruval
f, ,All proposed irrigation facllldes shall be located outside of the ACHD right-of-My (Irtcluding elk
easements). Any existing irrigation facilities shall be relocated outside of the ACHD right-of-way
{including all easements).
2. Prlvate Utilities including sewer or water systerns are peohlblted from be6g Iocaled within the
ACHD right-of-way,
3. In accordance with district policy, 7203.3, the applicant may be required to update any existing
non-compliant pedestrian improvernenta abutting the site to most current Public Rlghl-of-Way
Accessibilily Guidelines (PROWAG) requtremenls_ ThQ en ins r sho i
documentation of compliance to District Development Review staff for review.
4. Riapiace any existing damaged curb,gutter,and sidewalk and any that may be damaged during
the coristnuction of the proposed development_ Contact Consbipcti❑n Services at 2-D8-387-6280
(with file number)for details,
5. A license agreement and compliance with the Districd's Tree Planter pDliry is required for all
landscaping proposed within ACHD right-of-way or easement areas_
6. All utility relocation costs associated wkth Improving street fronlages abutling the rile shall be
borne by the developer.
7. It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify @U axisting utilities within the right-of-way. The
applicant at no cost tin ACHD shall repair existing utilities damaged'by th9 applicant_ The applicant
shall be required to call DIGLINE (1-811-342-1585) al least two full business days prior to
brew king ground within ACHD right-of-way, The applicani shall contact ACHD Tragm Operailcna
387.6190 in the event any ACHD conduits(spare or filled)are compromised during any pham of
construction.
8. Utility street outs in pavement less than Five years old are not alWwod unless approved In writing
by the Distriol. Contact the District's Utility Coordinator at 208-387-6258(with file numbers) for
details,
9. All design and construction shall be in amxordanc4 with the ,ACHD Policy Manual, 15PVVC
Standards and approved supptaments, Conslruclion 5orvioes procedures and all applicable
ACHD Standards unless speciflcally waived herein. An engineer registered In the State of Idaho
shall prepare and Certify all improvement plans.
10_ Construction, use and property development shall be in conformance with all applicable
requirements of ACHD prior to District approval for occupancy.
11. No change in the terms and conditions or this approval shah be valid unless they are in writing
and signed by the applicant or the applicant's authorized representative and an authorized
representative of.ACHa. the burden shall be upon the applicant to obtain written confirmation of
any change f Drn ACHD.
12. If the site plan or use should change in the future,ACHE)Planning Review will:review the bite plan
and may require additional improvements to the transportation system at that time. Any charige
in the planned use of the property, which is the sub)ect of this applicationr shall require the
applicant to comply with ACHD Policy and Standard Coalitions of Approval in place at Thal time
unless a walverNariance of the requirements or ciher legal relief is granled Dy the ACHE]
Commission,
V. FINDINGS
A. Rezone(UDC 11-511-3E)
Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full investigation and shall,
at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the
council shall make the following findings:
1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan;
Stafffinds the map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive
Plan in regard to the MU-R future land use map designation for the site.
City of Meridian I Department Report V. Findings
167
2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district,
specifically the purpose statement;
Stafffinds that the proposed map amendment and subsequent development will contribute to
the range of housing opportunities available in the City.
3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and
welfare;
Stafffinds the proposed zoning amendment will not be materially detrimental to the public
health, safety, or welfare.
4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by
any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited
to, school districts; and
Stafffinds that the proposed amendment will not result in any adverse impact upon the
delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services to this site.
5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city.
This is not applicable due to this application being a rezone.
B. Preliminary Plat and Short Plat(UDC-613-6)
In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat,or short plat,the
decision-making body shall make the following findings:
1. The plat is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and is consistent with this unified
development code;
Stafffinds the proposed plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and Unified
Development Code.
2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the
proposed development;
Stafffinds that public services are available and can be extended into the site to
accommodate the proposed development.
3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the city's
capital improvement program;
City water and sewer and other utilities will be extended by the developer at their own cost,
therefore, staff find the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement
funds.
4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development;
Stafffinds there is financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development.
5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and
Stafffinds the proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or
general welfare.
6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features.
Stafffinds there are no natural, scenic, or historic features that need to be preserved with
development of this property.
City of Meridian I Department Report V. Findings
168
VI. ACTION
A. Staff:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed modification to the Development Agreement,
Rezone,and Preliminary Plat with the modified provision listed in Section IV.
B. Commission:
Pending
C. City Council:
Pending
City of Meridian I Department Report VI. Action
169
C
�84
OYE_RLANlop
Aua
Vo,
.
��� i .,� ■■fI♦ __ }. �/ dam.- .a
i a
84 —
J-
01/ERL--AND
yy +pma
�f 1 i as Q !■i�i i... �- • _.
f.��i:lama ri arrlid
8RR T lid l�J
•►pG
1 ma i
f ♦s + uun n ♦�:.:.
♦ � Rio � a
A • uu! �w
MEN man � �nu■■■
n
/rar�i Sonor nnnl� Ir` ■■■■■r P --ua+■u■■
��t� ►•J�aq L■� ■ra#rruR Z-_ ..r.ru/■/■1/i
:r� . �■�I '�11 r■t�{11lIIlIpllQpilft /� -- .,. ■unam ■ :-
_ a s NIa r r1 r �,w �m �1 � ��14■4a rtlana/ '� • Ilhipri3j� �e■r,aaaa
�r .rare Tarr 1� ♦*nrnall■aanr ,4 = w�l, 1/t_Ina _ '
�q+ *�L♦� ■ na�r� IiiII1 • s■nnr! == °"'"' - r■aaa , �.
#t#►♦ �
++ lra. 11a ♦R R� a a =inuu loci w'��� �s■s a o s
. �r�.� � ■!!!!n a �RRw�y_ ♦ ♦ ' ■o. s a O Illlxwn� iinR C��� �['Rf �s rr�
rrr w �■■ n!m■_ ,na _ a�+'r i^ii aC r ■, ■aa a.
un uuwq- rr
►. •nj , � �__ --_ •err. , Ili - R r
ru■r. ♦ C!�r+i.�. •�' �'���_-�lni a iiiii ;�� '4�.atr:�!liiliirlrl ���ii�������.��. •�■itnur�ra�.'.� rarr '
rw �I� t ar nn#a III _ _ .� �* ♦�l. •' _ .�
a aaa/� ��■aa■■uus■.a r.��r.a#IIn � .�� ..•+
i�:snu ■nni.plry +$ s�s Pnnurr s►� ♦ a ++■■nlana�1111 r • . ■
ra�►�! as arr■ 11 w aarla rrral+ one,.,
!! ��:::aaalllllt loll :"ar�,►a�ran
irM h11� •�♦ .■■■�w��ii �a R. ann �n�j •r.al���.�n n.n ■u �m Illli
�I ► s -• ■r -r n_. I#a# =a■i■■��u'as r 1 --w.ram ll1a� �
1 -
ionnl��trn11L �1 �1..■C' �
J
LU
n.■mamma
O VERLAND
■■■OO■.np�'�
�- ■I�u■f>tME
--wnor:i me
w •■
�1��rl� ■o. Ii a r� Au.....r.
�� �*� ♦� 1LLNi = uun.1
III. +'-.�♦ Q ♦ �juu.m..■ � �, � _- '�.L�rr,►9Y
♦�� ♦ �j� ♦+♦�'i♦�iiiiiiiii� _
♦ f♦ ♦ ♦♦ �uu■L.= r� an■■■■■ �111
�J ■■■■A Y i li'irr.rrr■■■111
!� w� .ti err +�. .,■..■ �awnr�llroile4uir /
♦j�.i ♦\♦. +♦r■r ♦� •�al�`�O�iiiiiiilliieiii��' �ii"" n■nr _♦�.■.r■■u■r�■ •"
LL ♦♦ AR ♦ -- +i��■
,�,� . lily 1♦A � ■r. 111'• �`\\� \a• ... - �S. �� =IIIIIII 111■p...: wr■■r��r.■
r,♦♦7 11 ♦F♦��_ ♦♦♦�♦♦+�1 � ■����.�� Igp�lwul Ihi11�+����i��\+�-ii�
Boom
HE
12
p +�.Ss - -- - 1r�i.Mind►�1 �• rrr■nlr■ �1MEN
��
7q# .I w\�■ - . / - ♦ ■111111.1 �as h�.�♦��
AN, woo
to■1 ♦ �.���■rL.....wllll r +. ..aN
�#ra■r - • - • �■.'un.rl.r 1111 ■..'.'•■'�r 1
_ INN
Ills:
mill` _
4.r.�__a...r....■.r�.. ;N ■■■■■n� �� OYE84
RL--AND
1+i■as�Iin■��■sna��iu � 'y S�;i�►': ���I■� Ii � _I mnwunul
t�w ww�� ■ur■w ■■ >a � � .w=lmnwnn3n IIIIIIiIIHI
- •••- �:••l. •� ���■��■�-,■ ti� i Illtlllllllllli-
fi~�"-■I�nr-:iiiii�:lr � "`"'l'� ■�l6mrtumll �IlNlllhi
r f��i�..s■■�i..■� r tall
■w ■■■. ■■I. ■■ ■E�■::::iiiiW:
INN■ ► ♦ ,Aiiis:::rn C ■� 1'� � r�
� AlY
♦ • uum: arum ".�■ _r.� Il*
f �♦ �L..1■a ;upur y Nil
�. 4�'► ♦ �uon :.■■■-■■;F iiiiiii�iiiiiiii r ■■ � ■■
r� ■umEMmnu 1��e♦e J_laab nn■n■�I�h1; ■ 1■. ■� -_-uI ■nwn
■■■■■ ■.U* Jam' .N� ■r■ ■n■� - _ �1 I■'���■� a.r�.r1111P11
n� : fir" ■r11►♦♦ {1.1In1
� ♦w.■■� 111111111fr � �■Af■ � nr■uq ■"- �.-.I oo� .. r ♦ • �
r.► 4n. rl.u■rL ■urr■■ r, l
,I A� ��♦ L. r�arr ■1�►♦ AI' ♦*nwr11■L#nr ,.�� =' ta' -��S�iii ii�
� ■js .� � LL��nq■� � r r■ � _nlnn ��11�Iru al ■.�, :i,
�,� Il■� 1i..�q m. 11 \`�;.#. a*/fir 7 =liuui�...L =■■s��o■+
TL:...LIB i �I ■■r� \■ �- ���� f �■ Y
� � �q ♦ + ♦f �- _ • ii.... - 8,�171111111111i ulll ■1, o
\..�*�i �n mnn�.-- � A r■■ _ �tea•■■■■��1 vnw Illmlrl�--- w � M ,■■,i''
rw�.+s ♦• Syr I.--___=__ ■.n■■�'3�I+� v� ��i`s:�finrfl Hall Illm/�■ r�rY�nnu�y�?i,, ee:��!"_
■un ►a►�,, ��r Q'i:■:i■li III io�\uuln■na I s �� •♦{e r 111111.■ W�•Icl':r �•.
R'■ n'� . ���♦�rlllllllli 1*.-r rn■nu■. �tt\�\1'�:�i�•.L.111��J1 ,C it ifii►?y
..■■.■ 1�. ..nn■Y■Illl y f rr�Innu■r■r�r ♦ ♦♦ -w:::nnu■■IIIVr iih'�1-.i ::ii ter? ql
11u�►4[.p ti/I�♦ r■a.rn 1!: + r��ar�iiipi�LLI fh� ��r'-.nr.rrrr I�ar _,1�.��1..-s��r r�■_
1aLirwLa p � � •r■.„■ � -� 1�■ #r#r r■.n�r� d 0 ntiR,.■.... ■■s ■I- 1-�11H�
/1 ,E.■ -• j■�I■■ �. n"--._#r#### 1�l-�i■■gnu■ �� �Q ��r A„;u.._ N �
B. Service Accessibility Report
Overall Score: 35 68th Percentile
Description
. e.
Lc.-ation In City Limits GREE
Extension Sewer Trunkshed mains � 500 ft.from parcel GREEN
Floodplain Either not within the 100 yrfloodplain or > 2 ati--e£ GREEN
Emergency Services Fire Response time 5-9 min. YELLOW
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 masts =t-eet-- GREEN
plan) matches existing (* of lanes)
School Walking Proximity Within 1/2 mile walking GREEN
Either a High School or College within 2 miles OR a
School Drivability Middle or Elementary School within 1 mile driving GREEN
(existing or future)
Either a Regional Park within 1 mile OR a
ParkWalkability Park within 1/2 mile OR Neighborhood Park .:i GREEN
1/4 mile walking
City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits
172
C. Site Plan(date: 5/28/2025)
I L
I ,
ME
OD
ZME
� I -
_ FF
IS
� 11111}I11 - 11 1
P1-1
City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits
173
D. Landscape Plan(date: 5/28/2025)
LANDSCAPE NOTES: _-_ _ 4
i� CRAi1ERCY TOLYHHOMES
RSAl,-N-IOAHO l I
sfiCH LGLG
ate'
1 NOT A
1 PART 1 ....
_ ......'__.....�mm ry__�_..._ � i� � i.. �•, ; 41V ICIN�TY
O e=
r.ox•
__ _ -._.... i r $F{E L1,2 f• LANDSCAPING INFORMATION ��
IMGATION NOTES:
•,z
d
DISCLAIMER: k k
QM'LDPER•F_NGNEER ■ — `_NOTA
`
91RYEYCYi LANOSCAPF /J'10VERALL r•, � J
ARCHITECT LANDSCAPE PLAN
LANDSCAPE SET SHEET INDEX
SHEETS L 1.1-WaDETwnED uw$a q S. 2
S4 a u-OPEN SPADE AND AWNMEg PUN. L1.0
$MEET L2 1-LPIK SCePF MOTES AND oE�mts
LANDSCAPE LEGEN❑ .�
. MOT A PART .. •.M-__—_- rf{J'.,�,T:-e. ...... «e..- I�
�?-!-�0'
^� I PLANT SCHEDULE
- 1 =
UrrA
.. PART ❑`-`
_ _
- ------ ---- --- ----- - --- ---- ----
..--r....«_ it ..,.._ ...
9
41
.t I 1 ti{!! i .r' I C .r.. Z . d
=.' .. .. LVITCHL�-86EL1� _� -.w�.` • ••." k.
4
TT71'�7T�['IIICT" CALLOUT LEGEND
(11LRNaS1', E PLAN Z [il Y. •.-p. O x....,.......,,.-~ •
CD
d
r --F r A . II'- M 0
City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits
174
1 1 LANCS&PE LEGEND ••• I
NOT A
•TCHLINE-5EE L7 7 • l PN2i �� qc••_ .. y.w ,��5.---.f
• - TCHLINE-SEEU22 • .. _ ::�5'm-.=
- PLANT SCHEDULE ■'�
0- -
o`
..�..�..�..�..� .gC141Nf-SEE U2 .�..
.�..� ..� _
••�- ALAiCHLiNE-SFE L1,9 • � a ••� � •--
��LANWCAPE PLAN CALLOW LEGEND
d
FL1.2
6
f
_
LANDSCAPE LEGEND
Ef
..�..�..�..�..�.. AWlCHUNE-SEEiL2 .�..�..�..� .�..�. ..�.w.... �I
TCHLJNE•SEE L73 •• � — .::�m'«"'^R »�..�.. "- «• L
PLAh1TSGHEDULE
• W
I f�l I ;� ICI •ICI ,� - � _ — �: :.,:��� oYa--
_ RIM
Zia
---__--------------------------------------------------- _ . .._
s —I o- -
b
—
----------------------------------------------------------------------
W f .... : y
iNOTA PART�� ._• - -._ - -- _ - -- CA LL OUT LEGEND P am
A DSCAPE PLAN
d
LI.3 #
City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits
F 75
E. Qualified Open Space Exhibit(date: 5/27/2025)
OPEN SPACE AND AMZNMES PLAN - - - - -- --
AMENITYLEOEND DEVELOPMENT FEATURES �F
OPEN SPACE LEGEND�.
LL2.Oji
City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits
Fl 76
F. Preliminary Plat(date: 5/28/2025)
PRnAMMAY PLAT SHOWANr
GRAMERCY TONWHOMES
Wir
------------- ...... ....... wwffymM
-ak
9D
-low
F
FEW?
AM IN 3;
ML
Pi-O
City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits
177]
G. Building Elevations(date: 5/28/2025)
'i1Y5 .ate Ip
rl FRONT ELEVATION-&PLEX
.+ �
F
IUY 7076
S REAR ELEVATION•6-PLEX
o scow:ucr.��uu
_ P
C ySIOE ELEVATION•fi FLEX w E� g`
City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits
178
H. Rezone Legal Description&Exhibit Map
lum
7:F.GIH{4tIH4
April 2,3On
'PraFnrl rm:24-194
EeWhlt A
LDFI DesrrFptkan WARmone EnTWlS
A parml of Land bring all of Lot 1,Bark 3 urGramercy Subdivision ka 1{L3eok 99,Pages 32819-31622.
rmwdn of Ada County,Idaho}and all of f ranercy Suhdiui&:iw Nu.T_I&mk 100.Pager T 2961-12.952.
records of Ada County,Idaho}and furrrmr uivaied in a pinion e F the Nomheast 114 or Section N.
Township i Nnrtl�,Rarge 1 East,B.M.,Coy of Mcrldian,Ada County,Idaho being nwne partlrulaii♦
dR=bgd as Wows:
romirinncing atthp mvm'3/4 mrnpr nF42d sectirtn Mwhich boars NOC 24'04'E a distance of 2,6i5.55
fW from the rwnter 114 mrmr of ald Sor[ion 20,thence following the westrvly line of said Nonpeeil
114,SW'24'h4'W a distance of r4X.00few Co a 1f2-larch rehar marking Oc ncrriiwes[ua•ner of said Lilt
1,1 3 and hplrg the POrr[r OF BE-MNNING.
Yhpncp 1aawnng fard woovi ly Line ann FnlumniE tho northerly line of said I-W 1,Stock 9,599'35WE a
distance of J"JM feet top 1lp-mr;h rehar madungthe ngriieasi aonneraf said Lai 1,Omck 3;
1h,gnna laauing;aid noathudy Imo-and following llrecastwly line of said Lot A,9kxk3,S4U'13'S8"E a
distanpn of n7jgq F4Wtna➢f2-ipich reha r marking the sourhoast corner ZTf said Lot 1,9kxk 3 arebplrqg
on the nnrthpnlyrhno pfsaid Gmnwnry Suhdrridon No_2;
Fhcnee lea-Ang said wasierlq tine and following said rroritrerly line,599'3S'56"F a dislancrof 90.33feet
to a IJB ir6 reharma:rkvtg the northeast mrncrof said Gra rcy5uhdkvi ib W..2;
Therroe Ienring said narumr line and iollcwvig the ea5Ler2y Jine or Said GrBenercy SubdioSbh Ntr.7,.
5WIrS9'6 a distance of 501.;5 Feet to a Sf$inch rebur marking Lhe viu[hek9 cbrmr br upi Gramercy
Subdivision NO-2;
Them leaving said eastorly line and N A"ing the sovlhuly line of sa id Gramercy SvbeFai 3n fW.2,
PtO'3$'$V W a 4%tancr of 42p.W FRgt to a S02 inch rehar marling the sAuth vest corner of Saki
Gramerpy$ybdrarsipn no.7 end arw heinS on$ad wnsterifruseofthe korlhmst ifa;
Thenpe tpasrrng Said SpUtheTbi Imp pnd'pllpwing thcwpgtuk Gnc of sad Grarrrrry Subdivision Na 2
�adso be-jigsaad westa0v lirw ofthc N4rthewst 1�41,+JQWZ WF ji distance of 50732 feet Ara S4 inch
rebar marling the rbr Vi eat corner 0 said 4rnrnercy SVbdi-fi4n Hv.2(aka toeing thr southwest
carrier¢f said Lot 1,gapck 3 of c+ra--cf€y5u4droiwn No.1I.
Thence Ieawna the vr"eriv line of saici Gfamcr4;y$Ubdivbkw No.T and fo114vingOmvwrsterly lino of
said Lot 1,BWh 3(also treinP said weskerlp Into of the Northeast 1141.NW CF a distance of 257.00
feet co thi mwr CW REGINWING,
Sa,W parcel contains a total of fi.993 acres,rnore or less. r '
Attaolted Ilcraro is FrlrrLi[R arm by ibis refererxe 15 made a pa t hemO
124 9'n 03
5721 Hank 6lsmumFy Way•BaLse,Idaho 03753•298.639.6939 tmenffIp.cori
City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits
179
.. erfand Rd.
POEw1 OF :OuheNCI-'VENT
43RTH 1J4 C4;+E!R
SECfM 2P 5a" 30D' -13v
I
rt Plan Scala:S"=SSff
Lit i.Blurk 3 LQL3,9101d305
r
C+.
LmF �S
ses'3o'S51: �34.9a' �.�u
Pn T OF ?
BE61E+H�sti[ '
0
h
� Loe 1,&Ibck 3 �
rn
w lot 4.Bkxk 9
Ed
S�0`35'78'E
4Ea 33`
yr
to Parcel A,R06 No.13%7
ae,o
z Intermountain Pacific,ULC
m AfN:P32385l0240,
g $ R3238526110&RM9524210
WE 5,efock 3
P, tone:Chi n
`" $ Proposed Zone:TN-F o
o " Area;$,3B3i AC ""
P n
IA7�,Block 3
Pa[x.l B,RpS 1+0.1i 9�+7
r. N69'33'3E�7r C�7.o4' E �a011♦Sd01Cf�St
Lot 9,@lock 3 �
krn I
WrT COtaHE
SECTIoU Wn �a
E M 6 I H E E I I H G
�rri w7.r,
Exhibit 8
ncu.7[[I�}aky
Rex aye From C-6 W TH-R
SHEET: AIFadL0t1,Falk3aFSramsrry5ub,Nue L&axvr4rmr�ffcw5ub.No.2
1 OF 1 LAtualod kn 1Ai NE 1/4 uT Secdrn 20,T3N.R1E,Bm,GRy of wleridlw,ada CDU",baho
City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits
Fl 80
E IDIAN;---
Applicant Presentation
GRAMERCY 5.20217.70Meridian Planning and Zoning DA ModificationRezonePreliminary Plat TOWNHOMES
Gramercy Townhomes ELTON DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPER INTRODUCTIONGRAMERCY TOWNHOMES | 2 5.20217.7| 0Meridian Planning and Zoning |
Gramercy Townhomes SITE DEVELOPMENT HISTORY and other conceptsmedical office, flex industrial, destination retail, Conceptual exercises with office, –2024 -2023Elton Development; concept
killed by cost inflation55+ apartment predevelopment by –2022 -2020owned by St. Luke’s, the Y, & Charter SchoolNo active development; parcels –2019 -2016New YMCA/St. Luke’s, adjacent
to –2015 -2014 SITE HISTORYGRAMERCY TOWNHOMES | 3 5.20217.7| 0Meridian Planning and Zoning |
Gramercy Townhomes SITE VEHICULAR ACCESS SITE ACCESSGRAMERCY TOWNHOMES | 4 5.20217.7| 0Meridian Planning and Zoning |
Gramercy Townhomes SITE DESIGN SITE DESIGNGRAMERCY TOWNHOMES | 5 5.20217.7| 0Meridian Planning and Zoning |
Gramercy Townhomes SITE DESIGN SITE DESIGNGRAMERCY TOWNHOMES | 6 5.20217.7| 0Meridian Planning and Zoning |
Gramercy Townhomes *Material colors not finalized Bedrooms/Laundry–Third Floor –Second Floor Garage/Bedroom/Bathroom–First Floor Three story design•Bedroom Models-and Four-Three•sale
homes-For•TOWNHOME DESIGN TOWNHOME DESIGNGRAMERCY TOWNHOMES | 7 5.20217.7| 0Meridian Planning and Zoning |
Gramercy Townhomes Garden City, ID Parkway Station Townhomes TOWNHOME DESIGN TOWNHOME DESIGNGRAMERCY TOWNHOMES | 8 5.20217.7| 0Meridian Planning and Zoning |
Gramercy Townhomes COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMPREHENSIVE PLANNINGGRAMERCY TOWNHOMES | 9 5.20217.7| 0Meridian Planning and Zoning |
Gramercy Townhomes o 15-G and R-existing CAdds to buffer between o Already exists on south o Density is appropriate o Emphasizes alley load o R-TN•G uses-and access for CInadequate visibility
•ZONINGGRAMERCY TOWNHOMES | 10 5.20217.7| 0Meridian Planning and Zoning |
Gramercy Townhomes TRAFFIC IMPACTS TRAFFIC IMPACTSGRAMERCY TOWNHOMES | 5.20217.7| 0Meridian Planning and Zoning |
Gramercy Townhomes PHASING PLAN PHASING PLANGRAMERCY TOWNHOMES | 5.20217.7| 0Meridian Planning and Zoning |
Gramercy Townhomes PLAN UPDATES PLAN UPDATESGRAMERCY TOWNHOMES | 5.20217.7| 0Meridian Planning and Zoning |
Gramercy Townhomes PLAN UPDATES PLAN UPDATESGRAMERCY TOWNHOMES | 5.20217.7| 0Meridian Planning and Zoning |
Development Agreement Modification Hearing VICINITYNEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT | 6 1.20225.5| 0Meridian City Council|