Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-08-07 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Thursday, August 07, 2025 at 6:00 PM MINUTES ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE PRESENT Commissioner Brian Garrett Commissioner Matthew Sandoval Commissioner Matthew Stoll Commissioner Jared Smith Chairperson Maria Lorcher ABSENT Commissioner Jessica Perreault Commissioner Sam Rust ADOPTION OF AGENDA Adopted CONSENT AGENDA \[Action Item\] Approved Motion to approve made by Commissioner Stoll, Seconded by Commissioner Garrett. Voting Yea: Commissioner Garrett, Commissioner Sandoval, Commissioner Stoll, Commissioner Smith, Chairperson Lorcher 1. Approve Minutes of the July 17, 2025 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA \[Action Item\] ACTION ITEMS 2. Public Hearing for CapEd at Ten Mile (H-2025-0026) by Megan West, Slichter Ugrin Architecture, located at 657 S. Vanguard Way Continued to August 21, 2025 Application Requires Continuance A. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a detached two-lane drive-through for two self-service automated teller (ATM) kiosks within 300 feet of another drive-through on 1.489 acres of land zoned C-G. Motion to continue to August 21, 2025 made by Commissioner Garrett, Seconded by Commissioner Stoll. Voting Yea: Commissioner Garrett, Commissioner Sandoval, Commissioner Stoll, Commissioner Smith, Chairperson Lorcher 3. Public Hearing for Ten Mile Flex (H-2025-0027) by Jeff Hatch, located at 4255 N. Ten Mile Rd. Continued to August 21, 2025 Application Requires Continuance A. Request: Annexation of 5.55 acres of land for the construction of approximately 15,900 sq.ft. of flex space and 70,250 sq.ft. of self-service storage (storage condos) in the I-L zoning district. Motion to continue to August 21, 2025 made by Commissioner Garrett, Seconded by Commissioner Stoll. Voting Yea: Commissioner Garrett, Commissioner Sandoval, Commissioner Stoll, Commissioner Smith, Chairperson Lorcher 4. Public Hearing for Farrington Heights Subdivision RZ, PP, MDA (H-2025-0016) by Studio H Architects, generally located at the NW corner of E. Pine Ave. and N. Adkins Ave. Recommend Denial to City Council Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2025-0016 A. Request: Rezone of 4.68 acres of land from the R-4 to the R-15 zoning district. B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 4.68 acres of land from the R4 to the R-15 zoning district, consisting of 30 building lots and 7 common lots. C. Request: Development Agreement Modification to terminate the existing development agreement and establish a new one. Motion to recommend denial to Council made by Chairperson Lorcher, Seconded by Commissioner Sandoval. Voting Yea: Commissioner Sandoval, Commissioner Stoll, Chairperson Lorcher Voting Nay: Commissioner Garrett, Commissioner Smith DEPARTMENT REPORTS \[Action Item\] 5. Adoption of Proposed Bylaws for the Planning and Zoning Commission Continued to August 21, 2025 ADJOURNMENT 7:20 PM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To view upcoming Public Hearing Notices, visit https://apps.meridiancity.org/phnotices --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 7, 2025. Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of August 7, 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 and Commissioner Matthew Sandoval and Commissioner Matthew Stoll. Members Absent: Commissioner Jessica Perreault and Commissioner Sam Rust. Others Present: Tina Lomeli, Kurt Starman, Nick Napoli and Dean Willis. ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE _X Brian Garrett Jessica Perrault X Matthew Sandoval X Matthew Stoll Sam Rust X Jared Smith X Maria Lorcher - Chairman Lorcher: Good evening. Welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for August 7th, 2025. At this time I would like to call the meeting to order. The Commissioners who are present for tonight's meeting are at City Hall and on Zoom. We also have staff from the City Attorney's and the City Clerk's office as well as the City Planning Department. If you are joining us on Zoom this evening we can see that you are here. However -- and you may observe the meeting. However, your ability to be seen on screen and talk will be muted. During the public testimony portion of the meeting you will be unmuted and, then, be able to comment. Please note 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 this streaming on the City's YouTube channel. You can access it at meridiancity.org/live. With that we will begin with roll call. Madam Clerk. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Lorcher: The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. There are no changes in tonight's agenda. Please note that Item No. 2, CapEd at Ten Mile and Item No. 3, Ten Mile Flex Space have both requested a continuance. So, if there is anybody here to testify on these applications we will not be taking public testimony this evening. Could I get a motion to adopt tonight's agenda? Garrett: Move to approve. Stoll: Second. F Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission August 7,2025 Page 2 of 27 Lorcher: It's been moved and a second to approve tonight's agenda. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] 1. Approve Minutes of the July 17, 2025 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Lorcher: The next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and we are going to approve the meetings of -- the minutes of the July 17th Planning and Zoning meeting. Could I get a motion to accept the Consent Agenda as presented? Stoll: Madam Chair, I move to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Garrett: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] Lorcher: At this time I would 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. They will have 15 minutes to do so. After the applicant has finished we will open the floor to public testimony. Each person will be called only once during public testimony. The clerk will call out the names individually of those who have signed up on our website in advance to testify. You may come to the microphones in Chambers or you will be unmuted on Zoom. Please state your name and address for the record and you will have three minutes to address the Commission. If you have previously sent pictures or a presentation for the meeting it will be displayed on the screen and our clerk will run the presentation. If you have established you are speaking on behalf of a larger group, like an HOA, where others from that group will allow you to speak on their behalf we will -- you will have up to ten minutes. After all those who have signed up in advance who have spoken we invite any others who would like to participate. If you wish to speak on a topic you may come forward in Chambers or if on Zoom you may press the raise hand button and if you are listening on a telephone you may press star nine and wait for your name to be called. If you are listening on multiple devices, such as a computer and a telephone, please, make sure to mute those extra devices, so we don't experience feedback and we can hear you clearly. When you are finished if the Commission does not have questions for you you Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission August 7,2025 Page 3 of 27 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 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 the opportunity to discuss and hopefully make final decisions or recommended to City Council as needed. So, we have two items that are going to be continued and we are going to call on each one of them individually, so that we can get a future date. ACTION ITEMS 2. Public Hearing for CapEd at Ten Mile (H-2025-0026) by Megan West, Slichter Ugrin Architecture, located at 657 S. Vanguard Way A. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a detached two-lane drive- through for two self-service automated teller (ATM) kiosks within 300 feet of another drive-through on 1.489 acres of land zoned C- G. Lorcher: So, Item No. 2 on the agenda is H-2025-0026 for CapEd at Ten Mile. They have requested a continuance. Madam Clerk, do we have a date in mind for this application? Lomeli: Thank you, Madam Chair. We have August 21 st. Lorcher: Can I -- may I get a motion to continue the application for CapEd at Ten Mile for August 1 st? Garrett: So moved. Stoll: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to continue CapEd at Ten Mile on August 21 st. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. 3. Public Hearing for Ten Mile Flex (H-2025-0027) by Jeff Hatch, located at 4255 N. Ten Mile Rd. A. Request: Annexation of 5.55 acres of land for the construction of approximately 15,900 sq.ft. of flex space and Lorcher: Item No. 3 is also a continuance for Ten Mile Flex. Madam Clerk, do we have a suggested date for that application? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission August 7,2025 Page 4 of 27 Lomeli: Thank you, Madam Chair. The same date for that one, August 21 st. Lorcher: August 21 st. May I get a motion to continue Ten Mile Flex for August 21 st? Garrett: So moved. Stoll: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to continue Ten Mile Flex for August 21 st. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. 4. Public Hearing for Farrington Heights Subdivision RZ, PP, MDA (H- 2025-0016) by Studio H Architects, generally located at the NW corner of E. Pine Ave. and N. Adkins Ave. A. Request: Rezone of 4.68 acres of land from the R-4 to the R-15 zoning district. B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 4.68 acres of land from the R4 to the R-15 zoning district, consisting of 30 building lots and 7 common lots. C. Request: Development Agreement Modification to terminate the existing development agreement and establish a new one. Lorcher: All right. Now to the good stuff. We actually have an application. Item No. 4 on the agenda is H-2025-0016 for rezone, preliminary plat and a DA modification for the Farrington Heights Subdivision at Pine and Adkins and we will begin with the staff report. Nick. Napoli: Sorry about that. Good evening, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. The next item on the agenda is the rezone, preliminary plat and development agreement modification for Farrington Heights and I don't want to -- before I start my presentation I did want to on the record make a clarification in the site posting. On the site that was posted at -- the sign that was posted at the site said medium density residential, which is correct, that is the FLUM designation. However, the R-15 zoning district is the medium high density designation. Lorcher: So noted. Napoli: So, the applicant is requesting a rezone from R-4 to R-15 zoning district, a preliminary plat consisting of 30 build -- 30 building lots and seven common lots on 4.68 acres of land and development agreement modification to replace the current development agreement with a new one. The site is generally located at the northwest Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission August 7,2025 Page 5 of 27 corner of Pine Avenue and Adkins Avenue. I show on the screen the existing zoning is R-4 and the FLUM designation is medium density residential. There is the rezone exhibit. The subject properties were annexed in 2000 as part of the Farrington Opal application. The zoning granted at that time -- at the time of annexation was the R-4 zoning district. With the annexation approval the properties were subject to a development agreement that restrict the property to adding one additional home on the 4.68 acres. The existing DA will be replaced with a new DA to update the concept plan and provisions for the improvements relevant to the current proposal. The proposed subdivision is a gross density of 5.77 units per acre. That proposed use and density are consistent with the medium density residential FLUM designation of three to eight units per acre. The surrounding landscape consists of single family detached homes to the north, east and west, while the south is Pine Avenue. The average density for a one mile radius is 6.1 units per acre, which is higher than the 5.77 units per acre the applicant is proposing. Single family detached dwellings are listed as a principally permitted use in the R-15 zoning district per the UDC and the applicant is proposing to keep the three existing homes on the property in addition to this. The applicant is proposing to complete the subdivision in a single phase. However, due to the size of Lots 20, 21, 22 and 23, staff recommends the southern portion of the site retain the R-4 zoning district, as this is the more appropriate for the existing lot sizes and if Commission recommends this to Council, the applicant shall submit a revised legal description and exhibit for the rezone prior to the City Council hearing. Staff discussed providing a one-to-one transition with the applicant to provide a better transition to the existing homes and now applicant ultimately lost three building lots as a result, but the transition remained the same on the north portion of the site. In addition, staff encourage the applicant to converse with the neighbors early on in the process and after their neighborhood meeting the applicant indicated the neighbors had minimal concerns. With the knowledge of this staff is supportive of the in-fill development, but still has concerns with the lack of regional parks in the area for residents to access and use. The proposed development of 4.68 acres falls below the threshold as there is -- and is, therefore, not subject to open space and amenity requirements outlined in the UDC as five acres is the threshold. However, staff has engaged in multiple discussions with the applicant regarding the value of including open space and amenities especially given the absence of a regional park in the surrounding area. While not -- not required by code, staff is concerned about the lack of recreational space and amenities for future residents. Therefore, staff is recommending one amenity in the form of a picnic area be included in Lot 19, Block 1, and, then, access to the property is proposed from North Adkins Avenue, a local roadway on the eastern portion of the site. This local road is shared between the proposed subdivision and the existing subdivision to the east and north. The applicant is proposing two access points off of North Adkins Avenue, with a common drive accessing three properties on the southern portion and a common drive on the northern portion accessing three more properties. The proposed design -- the proposed design includes variations of two-story homes each featuring a two car garage. The elevations showcase a range of architectural styles, designs, elements, including lap siding, neutral color accents, brick and stone veneer, varied roof profiles and different home styles. Review confirms that these elevations adhere to the city's architectural standards and comply -- comply with our required design criteria. Staff is Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission August 7,2025 Page 6 of 27 recommending approval with the conditions and a new development agreement and we have received written testimony from Don Flaten with concerns about building heights, privacy and transitions to the existing single family home -- homes and I will stand for questions at this time. Lorcher: Would the applicant like to come forward? Hi. Heggie: Good evening. My name is Jessica Heggie with Studio H Architects, 1335 North Main Street, Meridian, Idaho. 83642. And I believe, Nick, are you going to -- perfect. Thank you very much. Thank you, Nick. I don't have a whole bunch to add to what Nick just presented, but just a couple items, just on the open space for one. Yes, our property is underneath the five acres, so we don't have it -- necessarily dedicated open space per City of Meridian requirements per the zoning code. However, we do have landscaped areas and open space as in the fact that there won't be building areas. So, on the exhibit that Nick is showing now on the right-hand side is our colored landscape plan. In the center of the subdivision buffering between what Nick is asking for R-4 and, then, the R-15 northern portion, we have a landscaped buffer area. There is a drainage area in that and as well as fully landscaped. In addition to that we are -- have -- we have a very large landscape buffer down along Pine, so that we do not have a dedicated open space area. We do have areas that are heavily landscaped and open with outbuildings. I don't think we have issues with the request for a picnic area on Lot 19. Lorcher: Which one is Lot 19? Heggie: Nick, is it the east side -- Napoli: Madam Chair, so, yes, you know, staff was open -- this is technically a Lot 19, smaller lot. Staff is open to a different location for it -- if the applicant's amenable to that. We just put it in a location that we thought would provide a little bit more space. Heggie: I don't -- I don't think we would have any issues with any of those. We do have drainage in 19 and 18 -- sorry, I can't read the numbers. I believe the 18 -- the largest to the -- the west of 19. However, we don't have any drainage in the green area north of the east parcel. So, that will be an opportunity we could add a small picnic area and not conflict with any of the drainage area and, then, on the next slide just wanted to reiterate the architectural look that we are proposing for the subdivision. There is a couple builders that are lined up for this build out and so, like Nick said, lots of material. They meet City of Meridian requirements and all in all these are nice homes, single family homes detached. That is all I have to add. If you guys have any questions I'm happy to answer. Lorcher: What's the average square footage of the houses that you are proposing for this area? Flo Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission August 7,2025 Page 7 of 27 Heggie: We are not the builders. I can't exactly say, but I would assume they would be 2,000, 2,500 square feet roundabout with a two car garage and a full driveway. Lorcher: And everybody has a small backyard? Heggie: Yes. Lorcher: And I think one of the comments that were made would you -- would the builders be amenable to possibly doing some single family homes where it abuts up to the backyard of another home in another subdivision? Heggie: Can you explain what you mean? Lorcher: So, if you go back to the slide behind -- behind it, Nick. The properties to the west -- those backyards back up to other people's backyards; is that correct? Heggie: That's correct. Lorcher: So, one of the written testimony came in -- wondering if single family home -- single story homes -- maybe I said it wrong -- would be an option for when it's a one-to- one ratio? Heggie: I don't think the -- the size of the lots would be conducive to a single family home. There just wouldn't be enough square footage for them to be able to sell them, just from the price of land in -- in -- in the city. I think they are going to need to get two stories of square footage to make a home even pencil. It's going to be -- if you did a single story home on these, not only would they be forced to push the single story all the way to the back setback, which would only be -- which would be really really close to the backyards of these properties, you would end up with just mostly a garage and a shotgun style house. So, it really wouldn't be a high end type of finish if we were restricted to a single story home. Lorcher: All right. Commissioners, any other questions for the applicant at this time? No? All right. Thank you -- Commissioner Stoll. Stoll: So, can you explain to me the outreach process that you went through with the neighborhood? Heggie: Yeah. We -- we did our neighborhood meeting with -- we held a neighborhood meeting. I think we had probably 15'ish neighbors come around. The questions were really about traffic on -- on Adkins. We did explain to them that we are widening Adkins and we are improving it per ACHD requirements. So, there is going to be additional asphalt. There is going to be full, curb, gutter and sidewalks. That was a plus. Obviously, traffic is always a concern when you bring in additional people. They did bring a concern of adding some form of traffic mitigation, which I did indicate that we would have to discuss with ACHD whether or not that would be --just some way to slow F-11 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission August 7,2025 Page 8 of 27 traffic down -- not necessarily based on the subdivision, but at the current ones that they have with people speeding down Adkins towards Pine. So, that was one issue. The additional issue is just nobody wants development. Nobody wants it in their backyard. They just don't want to see the land developed. So, that was -- that was the major one and it's pretty consistent with all the projects that we work on. Stoll: As you heard the chair ask the question about whether you can go with a single level place -- and I understand that doesn't pencil out -- are there other treatments that you can recommend to try to mitigate the transition from R-4 to R-15? Heggie: Yeah. I think there is a couple different ones. First grading, making sure that the -- the grading is similar. There has been some subdivisions in the Meridian area where the grading is substantial and one -- one neighbor is higher than the other one and so it gives a very easy direct view into the backyard. These ones won't have that necessarily. So, that would be one area. And, then, of course, landscaping is always the big one to help with -- with privacy. We foresee those -- these homes having covered patios. They are going to have kids. These are single family homes. So, I think it's going to be on both sides. Everyone wants their own privacy in their backyards. Lorcher: Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Heggie: Thank you. Lorcher: Madam Clerk, do we have anyone signed up to testify? Lomeli: Thank you, Madam Chair. The first person is Stephanie John. She has a picture that I will share as well. Lorcher: Hi. If you can just state your name and address for the record that would be great. John: Sure. Stephanie John at 1111 North Adkins Avenue. Can I go -- Lorcher: Yep. Go ahead. Thank you. John: So, I'm at the north end of the subdivision, which -- this is my property and they are trying to put five -- five houses backing up to it. We are the ones with the concerns about the privacy and the single -- or the double house dwellings. Five backyards looking into it. If you look that's my driveway and my front door is facing the field and I know that's hard to overcome on developer's end, but that's my existing house. That's where we park, that's where my kids come in and out of the front door. There would be no -- everyone looking down on them. In the back there is a detached garage further back that sits right on the property line. We would have no reprieve. We would have no privacy. Nowhere for my kids -- I have three daughters. Where do I send them to play basketball without somebody staring down at them? I'm very concerned about that. I'm 12 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission August 7,2025 Page 9 of 27 so concerned about the traffic. They are showing it coming off of Adkins. Well, I take them to school going down Pine. Pine is already a disaster. I'm turning right going down to Barbara Morgan and we have a dispatch center there and police cars coming out. We have Ada County -- our Ada County paramedics coming in and out, which they need to get to people. Across from us is commercial and they have trucks backing in and out. So, I'm concerned about that. The intersection at Pine and Locust Grove is a disaster. Trying to get in and out of there is not easy. I'm very concerned about that. The same with -- if they go through the subdivision at Shellbrook and Pine -- at Pine. That's -- something needs to happen there. There is a lot of traffic. I'm also very worried about the diminished value of my property. I mean we are -- we have a lot there, but where our house sits and how they want to come in it really leaves us nowhere to go. We can't move our house back on the lot. It just is what it is. We are an existing house and so we kind of just have to work with it. I'm worried that the fire trucks, the public services won't have enough time or access to these areas, including our homes on these. Another fire -- we have one across from us. Is that enough? I'm also worried about the grade. Are they sure they can grade it enough that people can't look down on me? Five different homes is a lot to look down on -- on us. I'm also worried about the light. That's the south wall for me and so that sunlight in directly it helps with heating. That's all my main living areas. That's my living room, my kitchen, my formal dining room, all of those face that -- that field and so having houses back right up to us is a big problem. Zoning and Planning Commission, they serve the people that they are here for. You guys have a chance and could guarantee -- to guarantee light, air and privacy for all of us, not just me as an existing resident, but for the residents that you are going to be building fort. I ask you to keep that in mind. Thank you. Lorcher: All right. Thank you. Madam Clerk? Lomeli: Madam Chair, the next person is Bob Flaten. Flaten: Hello all of you. First off I would like to say thank you very much for giving me time out of your day. I would second off like to apologize that I'm not better prepared because this is incredibly important to me, but -- Lorcher: If you could state your name and address for the record that would be -- Flaten: 1111 North Adkins Lane. I have lived in that house basically since I was five. My name is Bob Flaten and this is our home. It has been for many years since before really anyone in this room has actually been there. I have been walking down to what was the old existing home to meet with Opal Farrington. She used to always give me candy. Long story made short, this is a place we have been for a long time and I had hoped would be a safe environment for my children, my three daughters. I have a lot of concerns about this. Not -- three minutes is definitely not going to serve me right with all of this, but I guess my main ones for them would be security and equality. I look at the houses that are there right now. Yes, they are single family dwellings, but if you stand in my driveway you will literally see one and only one two-story house and from all F13] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission August 7,2025 Page 10 of 27 angles. This is not equal. That means all the people that come in now have a way to look down. With all due respect that very much diminishes our security, our way of life, every bit of the usability of our property. We don't have places -- we won't have a place for the garden now. There is a lot of different things that are going to be affected by this that I don't think need to be as a result of the density. I understand that people have a right to move. It's very literal to my job. I'm a mover. I welcome them every day from all over the country. But I see issues with density in places that I move. I see people fighting and bickering over the silliest of things, because they are too close because people don't want to go out and rub elbows, they just want to be able to go in their yard and maybe a little casual wave to a neighbor that they get along with, but they don't want to be fighting with speeders out in front of their house, which that they actually did touch on that. That is an enormous problem. I have called ACHD a couple times. They ran the little strips out there to check speed. They admitted it. The police have been out there and checked, wrote many tickets. It's already a problem. It's certainly not going to get better with more people. I also don't believe crime is going to go down. I think our property values will. I think that's a pretty big issue. I think we have a right to hopefully be able to somewhat protect that. The applicant or whatever we refer to them, he stated that she said there were no concerns. Well, there were many concerns. I was there and I -- with respect to her and everybody else, I feel very much like David and Goliath here. I don't feel like I have a chance. I don't feel like my family has a chance. I think the money wins and I'm trying to understand and just navigate this as reasonably as possible considering our -- where we are in this process. Again, I wish that I could touch on a lot of things, but I guess, really, the last thing and it's kind of off kilter, but I think of Thomas Jefferson the first time he was trying to write the Declaration of Independence he spoke of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness being inalienable rights. Every one of those is being attacked at our home. I get that maybe people don't feel like that that come there, but we don't get to have our lives to way -- I don't have the liberty to let my daughters roam free in our driveway anymore for fear of people looking down on them, somebody stealing them, a random dog running up and attacking them, all things that happen in higher density places and I don't feel -- I don't feel like their happiness is protected as a result of all of these things and, again, I know we are just trying to survive like everybody else, but I'm all for people being able to have homes, but I don't feel that this is right for that area. I feel it's right for some people in certain areas, but I don't think this is the right match up for us and I haven't met one personl that feels differently. Thank you so much. Lorcher: Thank you for coming. Madam Clerk, do we have anyone else to testify? Lomeli: Yes, Madam Chair. The next person is Karen Blanton. Sorry. Lorcher: Hi. If you can state your name and address for the record that would be great. Blanton: Madam Chair, it's Karen Blanton. 1418 East Sothesby Street, Meridian, Idaho. 83642. So, I live on the street north of the development -- the proposed development. The only reason why I was able to come to the meeting that they had outside on the property was because my neighbor across the street got the notice F14] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission August 7,2025 Page 11 of 27 because of living within 500 feet. So, the people in that community area, in Danbury Fair, I wasn't given a notice about the development at all. I'm really in agreement with the people that have testified so far. My concern really is extensively for the children of that block. The home that I live in right now -- it was broken into last night with just the kind of development that we have there -- normal situation with people coming in from out of state. I grew up in Chicago. I know what high density does. To go ahead and have dwellings that are good enough to house children with no real space for them to be playing actively, they go roaming around the community and if they find an open gate, an open door, an open window, something that seems available or vulnerable they have a tendency to think that they can accommodate themselves to take whatever they want to do -- whatever they want to do. I'm very much in agreement. I watch the children playing down Adkins and it's -- it's like a Norman Rockwell kind of community that's going to change tremendously. The lives of people are going to be so impacted. I love their home that they are talking about. It's -- it's the most beautiful, pristine -- it reminds me of why I came out west from Chicago and now we are going to be bringing in developments that's going to make it more like Chicago. So, with my home being broken into with just the amount of people that we have there, adding this many more houses, with that many more cars -- also my neighbor is elderly and trying to get out onto Locust Grove is a nightmare. People don't want to merge when you are coming into Danbury Fair if you are going north, the people across the street from Locust Grove going into that development have to meet at the exact same Meridian in order to get their developments. There is no lights or anything to help that traffic. So we travel down Adkins to get out on Pine, so we can get the light and I almost had an accident with somebody today. There is not enough space to be turning in and out, just with the amount of traffic that we have. To add something that's going to have that many more two car garages with the residents maybe owning two cars and other family or friends coming to visit, it's not only going to change the environment and the value of the property and the feel of why people wanted to move there, but it's going to be putting a lot of people at risk and a lot of children at risk. So, I hope you take that into consideration to keep the density as it is and not increase it. Thank you. Lorcher: Thank you. Lomeli: Madam Chair, the next person is Dave Barnes. Lorcher: Okay. Thank you. Lomeli: I have a Brian Turner. Turner: My name is Brian Turner and I live at 1345 East Shellbrook Drive just west of the first two speakers. Lorcher: Okay. Turner: I would like to state up -- state up front that I welcome the development of this land, but -- that's being considered for the Farrington Heights, but I do have one strong F15] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission August 7,2025 Page 12 of 27 disagreement that's already been touched on and that is to have the two-story homes. If you look at this land it is naturally elevated, so they have to grade significantly to make it even reasonable. It's out of place to -- with the existing homes and it would take away the privacy of all of our backyards. A wonderful example of my disagreement is the Avebury development that is off the Pine just north -- or just south of Danbury Subdivision. These two-story homes look completely out of place with the Danbury -- Danbury Homes and on the west end that home -- it just looms over the backyards. It's like arm's length from the backyard or the fence and I have lived in Danbury since 2001 and I have talked in -- I haven't talked to anyone that is happy with the Avebury Subdivision and this is going to be larger and just as -- built similarly as it's been explained. I know they are single -- there is options for single level homes. The first example is the Locust Grove Place duplexes that are on the east side of Danbury off of Locust Grove Road. They are single level and blended well with Danbury Subdivision. And also a second example very recent is the Fire Prairie Subdivision that is north of Ustick off of Locust Grove directly behind Fire Station No. 3. They are all single level homes. So, saying that there is -- it's not cost effective I don't believe that and those homes look really nice and I would be happy with a home like that in my backyard. To whoever -- to whoever has the power -- the decision to whether or not to build two story homes, the seller, the architect, developer, the city, I frankly don't know, because I don't know the process. Whoever it is please please please do not build two story homes due to greed and lack of foresight. Two story homes will anger all the neighbors for decades to come and will look completely out of place on this plot of land. Thank you. Lorcher: Thank you for testifying. Lomeli: Madam Chair, the next person is Marilee Turner. M.Turner: Hello. My name is Marilee Turner. I reside at 1345 East Shellbrook Drive, Meridian, Idaho. 83642. 1 also reside west of the first two speakers and while I am not opposed to the development of the land being considered for the Farrington Heights Subdivision, I am more than minimally opposed to the rezoning of the 4.68 acres of land from the R-4 to the R-15 zoning district. By rezoning the land the development -- the developers will be able to build approximately 30 buildings, a much much denser development than all its bordering sides in all directions. Not only will the development be denser, but the buildings will be two stories, while all the homes surrounding the development with the exception of one will be two stories. While our neighborhood isn't upscale, our homes have existed for nearly 30 years and we value -- very much value our way of life. A development such as this will impact families adversely for decades. I implore you not to build as closely and as densely as legally allowed. Please allow for landscape buffers on all sides of the development, which may mean putting the access road around the perimeter and planning for green spaces bordering the road. Thirty two story homes looming over our backyards will negatively impact our ability to enjoy our yards and spend time in our yards. And I echo the concern about lighting. That is a huge concern. I plead for you to consider single story homes on this property. It is doubtful that anyone would welcome the proposed scenario as an adjacent subdivision to your own property and we would very much appreciate respect for our way of life F16] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission August 7,2025 Page 13 of 27 also. Secondly, I'm concerned that the development will bring on average about 50 to 60 more vehicles coming and going at least twice daily in and out of our neighborhood. Also it will increase delivery traffic as well. The street bordering the planned development is Adkins and Adkins is so narrow it might be considered a one way street. The intersection at Pine and Adkins is already dangerous as has been spoken and other -- the only other convenient intersection that drivers might use to exit or enter the proposed subdivision is located at Locust Grove and Shellbrook. That intersection, due to the completed development directly across the street and upcoming planned development, is extremely dangerous and will become even more precarious. Due to the development of the Avebury neighborhood I believe a very many turn lanes added to the Pine and Stonehenge intersection. However, this -- this entrance will not be convenient for any of the residents and it is very dangerous. Beginning at Locust Grove, Pine, as you are aware, is only a one lane road and Pine is extremely busy at nearly any* -- Lorcher: You can finish. M.Turner: Okay. At nearly anytime of day, both morning, midday and evening, these intersections make exiting and entering our neighborhood very difficult. I can't imagine what a denser development will bring. I hope that anyone with decision making powers will be wise and look with foresight into the future. Please. Lorcher: Thank you. Lomeli: Madam Chair, the next person is Jack Harp. Harp: I'm working on it. Lorcher: Okay. Mr. Harp, if you can say your address for the record that would be great. Harp: Jack Harp. 1038 North Adkins. Lorcher: Thank you. Harp: In Meridian. Lorcher: Okay. Harp: This little lady that just talked hit the nail on the head. My concern is after living there for 23 years now, seen a lot come and go. The infrastructure alone would be a project. It would be an awful big project, not just the houses, but, like she said, the road, the intersections, et cetera. I don't think the Ada County Highway District is going to do that. But, yeah, two-story homes that close together will be like those ones they just built over here on Pine, what, 15 feet apart, two stories high. No. If you are going to do something there at least one story and not so gosh darn many. The going rate for F17] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission August 7,2025 Page 14 of 27 rent now it will take three or four people just to rent one of those and that brings up an awful lot of people in such a small area. So, yeah, I can see someone making some money, which is what this is all about, but, there again, that infrastructure alone -- it would just be like playing when you get down here to Main Street. Nice wide street. Boom, you are in a bottleneck and it's already getting bad around Locust Grove and Pine. All the wrecks -- it's just not a good idea to do that. Ideally would be a senior -- well, not so much senior citizen, but like what they got behind St. Luke's. Single story. Probably older people, but you build this the young ones will come and they have no idea what blood, sweat and tears are to own a home. So, all heck will break loose. It might take a year or two, but it will come. Thank you. Lorcher: Thank you for testifying. Harp: Uh? Lorcher: Thank you. Lomeli: Madam Chair, no one else has signed up. Lorcher: If you would like to come up in Chambers. Salladay: My name is Rick Salladay. I'm at 992 North Stonehenge Way. My property backs right up to the existing development. Lorcher: Okay. Salladay: I can tell you I have -- I'm one of the first ones in that end of the subdivision. The road was not even all the way through on Stonehenge when I moved there 33 years ago. I also knew the -- the owners of the original property out there. She came to me and said she lived on a hill. That explains the elevation issue. I had to look for a long time where this hill was what she was talking about before it was explained to me. It was right behind me. So, there is -- there is about a three four foot elevation from my house to that field. So, to build a two-story, it would be ungodly. It's going to put it way too high. You want to grade that down two, three, four feet fine, I would suggest basements. Once you spend that extra money you are going to be making all these houses dig down and put a basement. There is your two-story house. And we could put a level on this. Traffic. God help you on Adkins, because I live on Stonehenge. This Avebury, two story houses they built, they didn't grade down, they built up. This is what I would expect these guys to do, too. They will go in there and they will tear up the topsoil and they will put in their foundations, which is going to raise it up. Tear out all that good soil and they will bring back in gravel and crap and pour it back in there. Adkins Lane, you are going to see tons of traffic. That little Avebury Subdivision, I didn't know the name of the subdivision. They put in the two-story places. They are all -- most of them are renters. They don't own those places. Those places were over 250,000 -- almost 300,000 or more. How much are you guys going to make? On 35 houses. Let's not be a money grabber. Let's be reasonable. Let's think about what you 18 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission August 7,2025 Page 15 of 27 are putting in there and I see what's moving here. I welcome people coming to this state. A lot of people from the state left in the '80s and the '90s and they are coming back. They are coming back from California and everywhere else, but they are bringing all that shit and toys with them. Excuse my language. I'm sorry. But I have got one that just moved in the subdivision right in the -- right in the cul-de-sac. He has got every toy imaginable. Up and down the street on his motorcycle, up and down the street in this big old loud diesel truck. These Avebury people ripping through on their motorcycles and their little go kart or the little zoom zoom cars and their loud music. God help me. I never thought I would ever say that. I'm a kid from the 70s and the '80s. I blasted my music. Here I am. But my music did not rattle the windows. Anyhow, that's what I got to say about this subdivision. I welcome the subdivision. I knew it was going to come. I have been there 33 years. I knew Kurt. I spoke to Kurt when he owned the property right behind me. When they were building that big white house they came and asked me how far back should we go? I said go back this way. Go -- go to toward Pine. Please. And they did. Now I know I have no choice. I know it's going to be developed, but let's be reasonable, folks. Let's put in less houses. Think about your motivation# and that's all I got to say. Lorcher: Thank you for testifying. Anybody else in chambers that would like to speak? Madam Clerk, do we have anybody on Zoom? Lomeli: Madam Chair, no one is on Zoom. Lorcher: Would the applicant like to come forward and address some of the concerns of the neighbors? Heggie: Thank you. Do you need my name again? Lorcher: No. Heggie: Okay. Thank you very much. Well, I am a resident of Meridian. Lived in Ada county, so I fully understand and I'm a native of Meridian, so I have seen the growth and I completely understand the neighbors' concerns. I do want a couple -- address a couple of things. There are 30 building lots in this property. However, there are three existing homes and some of these parcels are larger. So, we are stereotyping the whole subdivision as -- as if it's a development that is I believe a quarter of a mile to the west and it is not the same. So, that's not entirely fair, nor accurate. Another issue that I have is labeling the new residents as vagrants and thieves. That's not fair. We are -- we are looking at these homes being in the high 500, 600 thousand and they are for sale. They are not rental homes. Granted someone could buy them and rent them out and we can't control that, but that is not the intent of the development. We were looking to convert three existing homes and their parcels and create homes that are starter homes and that is what starter home is in Meridian, Idaho, is a half a million dollar house and so those are going to bring in the younger demographics. Those with kids that do take care of their homes. They have their kids in their backyards or in -- in the subdivision teaching them how to ride their bike. These aren't vagrants. Aren't people F-19 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission August 7,2025 Page 16 of 27 that are living and going to steal your kids and your bicycles. These are just hard working people that want to have a home and they want to live in this amazing city in particular right outside of downtown Meridian, which is growing and vibrant and we want these people in downtown Meridian. My office is down here. It's got so much room for growth. There is so many areas that are very dilapidated. They are old and they are coming up and we have got in-fill properties right by us and they are duplexes, they are single family homes, they are five feet from the property line. It is what it is and the people have moved in and they are great. They have a single family home they have a brand new house and their kids are out back playing in the yard. Our office is next door. It's Old Town. You know, we are -- we are a mix of uses. This isn't Old Town, but it's right next door. So, I think the use is appropriate and we want to see a mix of density residential commercial in these areas and watch this area develop and grow into an amazing downtown, which it can be. I know there is traffic issues and I do feel for the residents. I don't think it's entirely applicable to our development. We are only talking about a few new homes. However, I think it definitely needs to be something addressed between the City of Meridian police and ACHD and we, obviously, are going to do everything that ACHD requires of us, none of which is any -- anything at the intersection of Adkins and Pine. However, it was talked about with Adkins being very narrow. However, Adkins with our improvements of the additional asphalt will be the full width required by ACHD and it is the full width that they are going to require in the future. So, unfortunately, that is -- is where it is at. And, then, I guess the last item I wanted to talk about is the elevation change. So, that is, obviously, something that will be addressed as we are moving forward in the process. Our civil engineer, unfortunately, is not here tonight, but he is working through those items and I do not see it as an issue in the future. Lorcher: Commissioners, do we have any questions for the applicant? Garrett: No. Lorcher: All right. Thank you very much. Stoll: Actually -- Lorcher: Oh. Okay. Sorry. I looked over at you and didn't acknowledge. Okay. Commissioner Stoll, what would you like to ask the applicant? Stoll: So, there is discussion about grading existing property to lower it down. You don't have your engineer here to answer this question, but one of the concerns I have is if you grade it what's going on with the surface water drainage? Heggie: So, one of the -- one of the major items that I know as an architect, not necessarily as a civil engineer, is we can't drain onto other people's properties. So, no matter what we are going to have to address the grading change between the properties and we have to keep all storm water on our own property. So, there won't be 20 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission August 7,2025 Page 17 of 27 a grade change down to their property, we will keep all of the water, storm water on site. So, that will be -- that will be addressed kind of as we are moving forward. Stoll: Okay. Lorcher: Did that answer your question? Stoll: At this stage, yeah. Lorcher: Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Heggie: Thank you. Lorcher: May I get a motion to close the public hearing? Oh, wait. Jared and Matt, did you have any questions for the applicant? I'm sorry. Before you left -- Sandoval: Madam Chair, I do. Lorcher: Oh, can you come back up again, Jessica? Sorry. I forgot about our Zoomers. Go ahead. Sandoval: Yes. Yeah. So, in historic applications we have seen some line of sight visuals provided as far as what that height difference is going to look like. Did you guys have any of those prepared or available that we can look at and interpret? Heggie: No, we -- we have not. That's really not been discussed at this point. It would be something we can definitely look at. It's going to vary, obviously, greatly there. The houses are various distances from the property lines, whether to the west or to the north. So, like I said, we haven't looked at it specifically, but the -- the houses are pretty far back. We don't see any issues with lighting, all of that stuff. There is no views to be taken. It's already -- it's already got houses all the way around it. The houses aren't going to be huge. I mean we are talking 20 feet total to the peak standard. So, we are not putting some three story townhome next to all these homes. It's not -- it's not going to be as intrusive as I think the neighbors are fearing. Sandoval: Okay. I think the average two-story house is closer to 28 feet to the peak, but, yeah, typically we have just seen some kind of average; right? It could be from -- whatever the median setback is to the height of that second story window into the backyards of the adjacent properties. So, you do not have that prepared; is that accurate? Heggie: No. Sandoval: Okay. Thank you. Lorcher: Okay. F21 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission August 7,2025 Page 18 of 27 Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: I have one question and I'm still trying to figure out where I'm -- I'm at on this northern abutting property. I am just -- I'm just curious and I don't know how to phrase this, but I'm -- I -- I -- I kind of get it. Five -- five homes abutting to one is -- is -- I know there is no way to fully get around it. There is going to be a couple or a few homes there. I'm just curious if there has been any discussion on ways to limit -- you know, I'm -- I know this is -- this in-fill. There is not going to be a way to do any one-to-one transition space, but has there been any discussion on ways that that could possibly limit -- be limited in terms of transition space down from five? Heggie: Our strategy when we were looking at these was trying to keep the backyards to the backyard, so that the houses between them were as far away from each other as possible. That was our -- our strategy to mitigate it, just from the nature of the shape of the land and, then, having to have the -- those southern parcels that are a little bit larger and we have the existing homes to work around. The northern subdivision portion, the smaller lots, the -- the nature of the land kind of required that horseshoe shape and that's what (ended to how the property -- how we are proposing it be subdivided, but, like I said, we did try and get as many backyards to backyards and -- I believe all of them are backyard to backyard and, then, the remaining part -- parcels in the center are just into each other. So, they are only going to be looking at themselves. Smith: Thank you very much. Lorcher: Okay. This time I think it's for real. Thank you. Heggie: Thank you. Lorcher: Can I get a motion to close the public hearing? Garrett: So moved. Stoll: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for Item No. H- 2025-0016, Farming -- Farrington Heights. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Lorcher: I'm a little torn on this one. Everybody has a right to sell their property and everybody has a right to buy their property and when you are walking into an in-fill situation it's always a square peg into a round hole. You have all been used to having open land around your properties for a very long time, but it's not yours. It belongs to 22 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission August 7,2025 Page 19 of 27 someone else and now it belongs to a developer and, you know, if that's where your -- your kids were playing that's great, but, you know, technically it belongs to someone else and they have a right to be able to develop and create it. We, as a governing body, look and see if it adheres to our future land use map, our development codes -- our Unified Development Codes and all of those kind of structural things. The density in this area is consistent with what the applicant is suggesting, but also understanding that you need to take a look at the whole picture and not just the parcel that is involved, because it is in-fill. I'm not comfortable with the two stories. I'm comfortable with the density, because it fits based on the current neighborhoods that surround it, but I agree that the two stories, especially on the west side and the north side to the single family home, would be cumbersome. City Council ultimately makes the decision on this, so we will have to see what they have to say. I appreciate the R-4 on the southern portion of it. I don't -- I know that the open space is not required, but I just don't think there is enough to create a buffer for the families that are east-west and north of this. So, at this point I think I would probably say no. Garrett: You know, I'm looking at this and the other in-fill project we have had over the past couple of years. It's always a difficult situation trying to deal with in-fill. Now, in this case I happen to be in support of this application, because I -- I go by this site almost daily and I see the -- the issues and it is in-fill and you have got to try and build what will sell in a market to provide that type of housing for those people who want to buy homes and, you know, that not necessarily do they want big yards or -- or larger house or a larger situation and this fits their needs and so I'm -- I'm in support of it and I -- I understand it's in-fill and there is some current concerns with people who have lived there for a number of years and this is, obviously, going to be a change of lifestyle for some and, you know, for that I'm sorry, but these are the things that happen with in-fill projects and we have had a number of people who have come forward to -- with concerns, but there is just no way to get around an in-fill situation. Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: Yeah. I -- I -- I -- I'm a little torn, but I think I tend to fall closer to Commissioner Garrett. You know, if -- if you could, you know, pull up and you flip the sides and -- and flip the north and south of the properties, I think I'm -- I'm probably -- it's probably the easiest yes I have seen, you know. I -- I think having -- I think there is some issues created by the desire to retain those existing homes as part of the plan. That forces some of the density north and I understand, then, that's the developer's decision. I -- I think that creates some issues and I don't love everything about this, but I understand their reasoning. I understand the desire to kind of keep some of the variants and same thing with the five to one transition. While I don't love it I understand the desire to keep the actual housing buildings away from each other as much as possible. I -- I -- I -- I think I'm -- I'm inclined to support this and what -- one -- what's -- what the -- the thing that I think is -- is pushing me over the edge into support is kind of the -- the wise words of our former chairman Andy Seal. In-fill is always hard and, you know, if -- especially F23] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission August 7,2025 Page 20 of 27 with an in-fill project like this I think this is a naturally difficult plot of land to develop and I can see possible ways that a future project could be so much worse and I'm not -- not to say that this project is bad, but I think that, you know, while we have some concerns of this project I think there is a -- there are ways that can come to mind that are compliant with code that a project would be -- you have a lot more concerns for me, so -- and given the -- the density that -- yeah, they -- they would be afforded and things like that. And so I think I'm -- I'm inclined to support this. I do have concerns. I do wish -- you know, I -- I don't love the two story, but I understand the desire to use two story to keep the houses away from the other backyards of the neighbors as much as possible. I get that. And I personally -- you know, I -- I personally live in a -- in a place where my -- my house is one story and I have multiple two-story houses within, you know, a hundred feet of me -- or a hundred yards of me and it doesn't bother me. I understand there are people that it does bother, but I -- I do -- I do think that this is a net good for the community. Lorcher: Thank you. Stoll: Madam Chair, if I may? Lorcher: Commissioner Stoll. Stoll: I'm also torn on how to vote on this particular project. There is aspects of it that I do like. There is aspects of it that I don't like. I would caution everyone on making generalizations regarding density, that it all fits within a particular box or not. It doesn't -- density does not necessarily equate to high crime and degradation of property values and often cases it increases -- depending on the type of density that's put into place they actually can increase your property values. Many of the problems that were discussed earlier regarding traffic -- I drove Pine for 23 years and down Locust Grove to Pine for 23 years. It has its problems. It has certainly changed, but the problems as far as the accidents that have occurred are design issues and the -- where the location of the property fences are to the northeast -- northwest and driving speed and I say that based upon somebody that's been pulled over on that particular segment, but from a traffic standpoint the capacity is there to absorb 33 units on Pine and on Locust Grove and it's -- in itself it's not going to cause the issues. But I do have problem -- a problem with the transition from R-4 to R-15. It just doesn't -- especially two stories and the surrounding homes are one story. It just doesn't fit within that community. With that said, though, if you look at the mile radius, the density is occurring and I have heard from testimony that there is problems with some that have been approved and it doesn't necessarily equate that that's going to mean that there is going to be problems at this location. Growth is a challenge for us all as our Idaho way of life is changing and these particular properties that we have been used to for many years being open space, being developed and changing for us is frustrating. My own personal example -- I remember when we bought our property and we were living there and none of the houses were built yet and my wife loved to send out her dog to run on the various properties and, then, as the houses started building up she was getting frustrated with -- it's like what did you expect from development? It's going to -- it's going to happen. So, F24] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission August 7,2025 Page 21 of 27 I'm still not sure how I'm going to end up voting. I look forward to hearing -- I guess that's it. Lorcher: Well, we will see if Commissioner Sandoval has any comments. Would you like to chime in on this or are you good? Sandoval: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Sandoval. Sandoval: Yeah. I -- I will chime in. Lorcher: All right. Sandoval: So, I had a lot of reservations initially and I still do have some, especially that there is -- those site maps and projections as far as line of sight and the screening provided, you know, that's a big concern of mine going from surrounding one story homes to two-story. The biggest hang up I have on this, however, is the open space and although it's not a requirement it's just under the threshold of five acres, it just doesn't make sense to me; right? And having a picnic table right next to the road equally doesn't make sense. I mean I understand there is other issues with drainage swales and placement of that, but there is just not enough open space in this project and while not a requirement I think we really need to consider that and when you look at the map and the surrounding areas, yeah, there may not be a lot of open space present in adjacent properties, but that's more of a reason why we should at least ask for it in this project. So, all in all with everything considered, especially with the open space, I would not be in favor of supporting this. Lorcher: Okay. Thank you very much. With that in mind, after considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial of File No. H-2025-0016 as presented during the hearing of August 7th, 2025, for the following reasons: The lack of buffer between the surrounding subdivisions for a one-to-one basis based on two story. The density going from R-4 to R-15 not being a smooth transition and I think I'm going to call it at that. So, the transition and the buffering and -- of the two story. Do I have a second? Sandoval: Madam Chair, I'm not sure the procedural terms, but may I add on that motion to include the concerns with open space throughout the neighborhood. Lorcher: Well, they are legally not required to have it, but you want -- you want me to put that part of the motion? Sandoval: Well, I certainly think it should be a consideration, yes. Lorcher: Okay. So, the buffer between -- okay. Let me try it one more time. One second. F25] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission August 7,2025 Page 22 of 27 Starman: Madam Chair, as you are making your notes there it might be helpful -- I'm kind of reluctant to jump in, but I do want to make one observation in terms of -- in relation to open space, for example, and what the city's code required or doesn't require. I just want to remind the -- the Commission and I would say the same thing to the City Council, but this is a property that's a little bit different in the sense that we have -- we have an existing development agreement and existing zoning and they are asking for an amendment to a development agreement and a change to zoning that would change from the DA. So, this is a situation where the city does have more flexibility, because a development agreement, essentially, is a contract and both parties have to be amenable to amending the contract and so this is not like a blank slate, we have an existing development agreement in place and so I will just offer that as some additional information for your consideration. Lorcher: Okay. Let me try this again. After considering all staff and applicant and public testimony I move to deny File H-2025-0016 for the following reasons: The buffer between the existing house, which the applicant is proposing two story, to consider the position of the open space and the changing of zoning being too abrupt from R-4 to R- 15. Sandoval: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to deny File H-2025-0016. All those in favor say aye. All those against. Garrett: Nay. Smith: Nay. Lorcher: So, we have a three to two, so the motion passes. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO NAYS. TWO ABSENT. Lorcher: That application is done, so you may stay if you would like or if you don't have anything else you may go. DEPARTMENT REPORTS [Action Item] 5. Adoption of Proposed Bylaws for the Planning and Zoning Commission Lorcher: We do have Kurt to discuss some bylaws for the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission. Starman: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. The City Council recently in the last -- earlier this calendar year made some -- some amendments to the Meridian City Code as it pertains to commissions and to committees. One of those F26] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission August 7,2025 Page 23 of 27 changes now requires each commission and committee to adopt bylaws. Up to this point the Planning and Zoning Commission has not adopted bylaws. So, that's the topic before you today. I will pause for a second. Lorcher: Thank you for coming. Can you go outside, so we can finish our meeting? Thank you. Starman: So, that's the purpose of our discussion this evening is that we now have an ordinance that requires the Commission to adopt bylaws. To help to try to facilitate that the city attorney's office sort of crafted some -- sort of a template that most commissions and commission -- committees could use and, then, we have kind of modified that a bit to satisfy specific needs. The purpose of the bylaws really is to supplement what's in the code. So, just as a reminder in the Meridian City Code there is already some detail in there in terms of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Qualifications to commissioners. How you are appointed. How vacancies are filled. Your duties. Your purpose. All that. And when you -- when do you meet? All that is in the existing Meridian City Code. The purpose of the bylaws would be to supplement that information and, really, if you had an opportunity to -- to scroll through the material it's fairly kind of some -- some basic -- information to basically run your meeting efficiently and to provide some kind of rules and parameters. I will just kind of summarize those very quickly. I know you had to -- you had them in your packet and I won't go into great -- I'm not going to read them and won't go into great detail, but, you know, essentially, talks about that the Commission will have officers, meaning the chair and vice-chair, as you do today and you have for many years. It talks about the -- the election of a chairperson and vice-chair each year. That's been your practice and also in the Meridian City Code for some time. So, that's not a deviation from what you have done historically and, then, it talks about whether there are vacancies for the officers. That's not a vacancy of a commissioner. So, when a commissioner vacancy occurs the Mayor makes an appointment subject to confirmation by the City Council. This is referring to when you -- when your officer positions become vacant. A chair position or vice-chair position. Article 3 talks about your meetings. How notices are provided. That really just codifies what you do today and what staff does today relative to noticing for meetings. What constitutes a quorum. That essentially codifies what you do today and what a quorum -- how a quorum is defined today. There is no deviation from your historical practices. How meetings are conducted and how agendas are structured, again, follows very closely what you have done historically as well. It talks about when -- this is kind of a rare thing, but every now and again we will have a request or maybe there is a request on the part of a commissioner or the Commission as a whole to have a special presentation or someone wants to make a presentation to the committee or Commission. Last one I recall was maybe within the past six months or so a member -- I think of our Arts Commission wanted to make a presentation. That would be an example. This basically says that's at the chair's discretion you can set some rules and parameters for timing to run an efficient meeting, but really nothing -- nothing really out of the normal from what you have done historically, although that's kind of a rare situation. It talks about minutes, which really, again, just codifies current practice where the clerk's office prepares minutes. They are provided to you timely. They are, you F27] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission August 7,2025 Page 24 of 27 know, reviewed and approved by you as they are today. It talks about Commissioners are entitled to one vote and clarifies as we have had this discussion with Commissioner Lorcher and others overtime about whether the chair -- I think there is some confusion sometimes about this whether the chair can make a motion or whether the chair can vote. I think that confusion kind of stems from -- in the case of the Mayor and the City Council, that's a little different situation where the Mayor is not a member of the City Council. The Mayor is directly elected. The Council is the City Council. So, the Mayor chairs the meeting, but the Mayor is not a member of the Council and only cast a vote when there is a tie. That differs from the Planning and Zoning Commission where you all are members of the Commission, including Chairperson Lorcher and you are entitled to vote and you are entitled to make motions and, you know, fully participate as any other commissioner would participate. That just simply codifies that and makes that more clear on a going forward basis. So, there is nothing quite really earth shaking here, but the idea we have to comply now with the revised Meridian City Code. I think this is pretty straightforward. If the Commission is inclined to adopt the bylaws tonight or on a going forward basis ultimately they are subject to City Council review and approval before they become final, but I'm happy to answer any questions you might have about the bylaws. If there are no questions or if you feel comfortable with them, my request would be that you -- I would ask for a motion and a vote to approve the bylaws. If you feel like you need some more time there is no time sensitivity to it. If you want to think about it for a few weeks or you have some questions you want me to come back later that's okay, too. But if you think it makes sense I would recommend that you act on them tonight and approve the bylaws. Happy to answer any questions you might have. Lorcher: Commissioners, everybody had a chance to review the document -- the bylaws? Can I get a yes or no? Commissioner Sandoval? Commissioner Sandoval, you have not had a chance to look at them? Sandoval: I have not. Could we table this until the next scheduled meeting? Lorcher: Commissioner Stoll, you said you did look at them? Stoll: I -- I did look at them. I had one question. Lorcher: Okay. Hold on to that for a second. Commissioner Garrett, did you have a chance to review them? Garrett: Yes. Lorcher: All right. And how about Commissioner Smith? Smith: Yes, I have. Lorcher: Commissioner Stoll, would you like to give your question? F28] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission August 7,2025 Page 25 of 27 Stoll: Madam Chair, Kurt, I would just like to say, number one, well written and the only question I had was is it in city code somewhere about the annual -- there's a reference to the annual meeting where we have the election of the chair and the vice-chair. Is that in city code that the annual meeting will occur on this date or -- Starman: Thank you, Madam Chair. Commissioner Stoll, my recollection -- I might be able to find it if I take a moment. My recollection it does talk about a reorganization at the beginning of the calendar year. It doesn't specify a particular date, like January 1 st, but it does talk about your first meeting in January, if my memory serves me correctly. Stoll: In the city code? Starman: Yes. Stoll: Okay. And let me -- as you ponder whether you want to continue the item for a little bit, I will -- I will see if I can make -- I will see if I can confirm that real quick for you. Stoll: That's the only issue I had as far as -- that needed to be clarified or not. Otherwise I'm fine with the -- Starman: I think I will just add just for clarity is that we -- and we have had this situation before, so just because you reorganize and select a chair and vice-chair each year doesn't mean you have to make a change. You can have the same chair go for two years or three years or longer for that matter. Same for vice-chair. So, there is no requirement that you -- you or any other commission or committee make a change. It says that you -- you sort of have to ask that question again each year and make a decision. Lorcher: I don't remember doing that after the first of the year, but it doesn't mean it didn't happen. I mean, you know, I -- I'm sure I said, yes, I'm in for another year, but -- and I'm sure Jared said the same thing, so -- but, Jared, do you remember that happening? Smith: Not entirely, Madam Chair, but I think -- I think it might have been -- I'm trying to remember when Andy left and if that might have had something to do at the time. Lorcher: That's possible as well, because he -- he -- I don't -- was it -- was it 2025 or 2024? 1 guess he left in the spring of'25. 1 don't know. Starman: Madam Chair, I will say that I don't recall off the top of my head, but if it's of interest to the Commission we could go back to the minutes and confirm or not, but I will -- I will say I did find that the code sections I will just read that very quickly. So, whether we did or not is a different story, but I will confirm that the code requires us to do so. So, if we didn't shame on us, but the -- the -- the current language basically says at the first meeting of each calendar year each statutory commission, which includes Planning and Zoning, shall elect a chair and vice-chair. F29] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission August 7,2025 Page 26 of 27 Lorcher: I will say that Commissioner Seal stepped down in 2024, because he knew he was moving. So, I have been chair longer than just January of '25. Does that makes sense? So, he was a commissioner and he left in the spring, because he moved to Eagle. But he stepped down as commissioner last spring -- last summer -- last fall, something like that. So, I have been -- that was his choice, so -- the only reason I'm hesitant to vote on it tonight is Commissioner Perreault and Commissioner Rust are not here and they have not indicated one way or another if they had any questions or concerns and the fact that Commissioner Sandoval did not have a chance to review it. So, I think when we meet for the next time to vote on it at the next meeting and when Tina sends out the notes for the meeting to request that everybody be ready to vote on the bylaw minutes and that way nobody -- none of the Commissioners feel like they are excluded. Does that make sense? Starman: It does, Madam -- Madam Chair. It makes sense and, like I said, there is no particular time sensitivity, so that's perfectly fine to put on the agenda again in two weeks for -- potentially for final action. That's perfectly fine. Lorcher: Yes. So, when we send out the applications for the August 21 st meeting, Tina, if you can add an extra line saying that we will be voting on the bylaws and that if they are not in attendance they -- they either choose to defer their vote because they are not in attendance or if they have any other questions that maybe they can e-mail you directly. Is that fair? Starman: Madam Chair, that would be fine. If any of the Commissioners, including those in attendance tonight, have questions, you know, individual, I'm happy to -- to answer any questions that may come up in the interim. So that sounds fine. Lorcher: Okay. And, Commissioner Sandoval, you can find the document at the bottom of the agenda that was sent to you in your e-mail. It's -- at bottom it has a hyperlink that you can look at. Sandoval: Thank you, Madam Chair. I must have missed it. Lorcher: Yeah. Yeah. It's kind of hidden at the bottom. Okay. Thank you very much. Before we adjourn -- or ask for the one more motion, for the next meeting Jared will be chairing. I will be a commissioner online. I can't make it in person, but it's too complicated to chair when I'm not physically in the building. So, Commissioner Smith, you are good to take care of this by law portion of it; correct? Smith: Madam Chair, yes. And, then, for the August 4th, 5th meeting -- the first meeting in August I most likely also -- September. Gosh. I did that twice. Okay. The first meeting in September I will also most likely not be here. I haven't finalized my plan, but that's a travel day for me, but I will know by the next meeting for sure and Jared will manage that one as well. With that in mind can I get one more motion, please. Stoll: Move to adjourn. F30] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission August 7,2025 Page 27 of 27 Garrett: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much. See you in two. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:20 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS. ) APPROVED 8 I 21 125 MARIA LORCHER - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK F31 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Approve Minutes of the July 17, 2025 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting 3 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 K IDIAN:--- iuAn Planning and Zoning Presentations and outline Changes to Agenda: Items #2 & 3 require a continuance due to site posting errors. Item #4: Farrington Height Subdivision (H-2025-0016) Application(s):  Rezone, Preliminary Plat, and Development Agreement Modification. Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 4.68 acres of land, zoned R-4, generally located at the northwest corner of E. Pine Avenue and N. Adkins Avenue. History: The subject properties were annexed in 2000 as a part of Farrington, Opal application (AZ-00-012). The zoning granted at the time of annexation was the R-4 zoning district. With the annexation approval, the properties were subject to a DA that restrict the property to adding one additional home on the 4.68 acres. The existing DA will be replaced with a new DA to update the concept plan and provisions to improvements relevant to the current proposal. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Medium Density Residential Summary of Request: Rezone from the R-4 to the R-15 zoning district; Preliminary Plat consisting of 30 building lots and 7 common lots on 4.68 acres of land, and a development agreement modification to replace the current development agreement with a new one. The proposed subdivision is at a gross density of 5.77 units per acre. The proposed use and density are consistent with the Medium Density Residential (MDR) FLUM designation of three (3) to eight (8) units per acre. The R-15 zoning designation, which allows for reduced lot sizes down to 2,000 square feet, provides flexibility for developers to support a diversity and variety of housing types. This can create a dynamic, multi-generational community where residents can transition through different stages of life (known as aging in place) while remaining in the same neighborhood. This type of zoning in conjunction with other designations, should be used to support a diverse housing mix that supports long-term residency and continuity within the community, promoting stability and a sense of place for residents throughout different stages of life. The surrounding landscape consists of single-family detached homes to the east, west, and north, while to the south is Pine Avenue. The average density for a one-mile radius is 6.1 units per acre, which is higher than the 5.77 units per acre the applicant is proposing. Single-family detached dwellings are listed as a principally permitted use in the R-15 zoning district per UDC Table 11-2A-2. The applicant is proposing to keep the three (3) existing homes on the property and will configure new lot lines around the existing homes that conform to the dimensional standards. In addition to this, the applicant is proposing to complete the subdivision in a single phase. However, due to the size of Lots 20, 21, 22, and 23, staff recommends that the southern portion of the site retain the R-4 zoning designation, as it is more appropriate for the existing lot sizes. The applicant shall submit a revised legal description and exhibit for the rezone prior to the City Council hearing. Staff encouraged the applicant to converse with the neighbor early on in the process, and after their neighborhood meeting, the applicant indicated the neighbors had minimal concerns. With this knowledge, staff is supportive of the infill development but still have concerns with the lack of regional parks in the area for residents to access and use. The proposed development, at 4.68 acres, falls below this threshold and is therefore not subject to the open space and amenity requirements outlined in the code. However, staff have engaged in multiple discussions with the applicant regarding the value of including open space and amenities, especially given the absence of a regional park in the surrounding area. While not a code requirement, staff are concerned about the lack of recreational space or amenities for future residents. Therefore, staff is recommending one (1) amenity in the form of a picnic area in Lot 19, Block 1. Access to the property is proposed from N. Adkins Avenue, a local roadway on the eastern portion of the site. This local road is a shared drive between the proposed subdivision and the existing subdivision to the east and north. The applicant is proposing two (2) access points off N. Adkins Avenue with a common drive accessing the three (3) properties on the southern portion of the site and a common drive accessing three (3) properties on the northern portion of the site. The proposed designs include variations of two-story homes, each featuring a two-car garage. The elevations showcase a range of architectural styles and design elements, including lap siding, neutral color accents, brick and stone veneer, varied roof profiles, and different home styles. Review confirms that these elevations adhere to the city’s architectural standards and comply with the required design criteria. Staff Recommendation: Approval with a development agreement and conditions. Written Testimony: Don Flaten – Concerns about building height affecting privacy adjacent to the existing single-family detached homes. He requests that all homes bordering existing single-family homes be restricted to one story in height. Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval of File Number H-2025-0016, as th presented in the staff report for the hearing date of August 7, 2025: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial of File Number H-2025-0016, as presented th during the hearing on August 7, 2025, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2025-0016 to the hearing date of _____ for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) h2 Planning and Zoning August 7, 2025Meeting Slide 1 h2 Agenda Item Numbers/Order: hoodc, 12/19/2006 Zoning MapAerialFLUM W IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Farrington Heights Subdivision RZ, PP, MDA (H-2025-0016) by Studio H Architects, generally located at the NW corner of E. Pine Ave. and N. Adkins Ave. Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2025-0016 A. Request: Rezone of 4.68 acres of land from the R-4 to the R-15 zoning district. B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 4.68 acres of land from the R4 to the R-15 zoning district, consisting of 30 building lots and 7 common lots. C. Request: Development Agreement Modification to terminate the existing development agreement and establish a new one. F40 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET i i i DATE: August 7, 2025 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 4 PROJECT NAME: Farrington Heights Subdivision (H-2025-0016) Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify (Please Print) HOA? (mark X if yes) If yes, please provide HOA name E'/�cf�,c�o 42 y Vle,r;d.tav, 10 , �r' 0(V? 1 Gc -A -e 5 � 6 ���u JO klv-L, l CIl Nih� , 7 4 Y d 9 10 11 12 13 14 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT C` fE IDIAN -- DEPARTMENT REPORT A"o HEARING 8/7/2025 Legend DATE: � 0 Project Location r- TO: Planning&Zoning Commission =: Area of impact �= City Limits FROM: Nick Napoli,Associate Planner Analysis -- ___--_ 208-884-5533 m nnapoli@meridiancity.org APPLICANT: Jessica Heggie - SUBJECT: H-2025-0016 1 Farrington Heights Subdivision RZ,PP, - MDA LOCATION: Generally located at the northwest corner -=1 __ .__f-, of E. Pine Avenue and N.Adkins Avenue in the SE corner of the SE '/4 of the NE '/4 of Section 7,T.2N.,R2W. I. PROJECT OVERVIEW A. Summary Rezone from the R-4 to the R-15 zoning district; Preliminary Plat consisting of 30 building lots and 7 common lots on 4.68 acres of land, and a development agreement modification to replace the current development agreement with a new one. B. Issues/Waivers The development does not require open space due to the subdivision being under five(5)acres in size and there is no regional park in the area for residents to recreate at. Staff has discussed this concern with the applicant and has suggested larger lots or incorporating some open space,but the applicant has chosen to move forward. Given the proposed density of the subdivision, staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council thoughtfully consider whether a project of this scale and intensity is appropriate in the absence of any dedicated open space or community amenities. C. Recommendation Staff: Approval with a Development Agreement and Conditions Commission: Pending D. Decision Council: Pending City of Meridian I Department Report 1. Project Overview ■ I1. COMMUNITY METRICS Table 1: Land Use Description Details Map Ref. Existing Land Use(s) Residential - Proposed Land Use(s) Residential - Existing Zoning R-4 VII.A.2 Proposed Zoning R-15 Adopted FLUM Designation Medium Density Residential VII.A.3 Proposed FLUM Designation Medium Density Residential Table 2: Process Facts Description Details Preapplication Meeting date 12/10/2024 Neighborhood Meeting 2/10/2025 Site posting date 7/23/2025 Table 3: Community Metrics Agency/Element Description/Issue Reference Ada County Highway District iV.0 • Comments Received Yes - • Commission Action Required No - • Access Adkins Avenue: Local Street - • Traffic Level of Service ACHD does not have traffic counts available for Pine and - Adkins ITD Comments Received Yes - Meridian Public Works Wastewater IV.B • Distance to Mainline Sewer Available at Site • Impacts or Concerns See Public Works Site Specific Conditions Meridian Public Works Water IV.B • Distance to Mainline Water Available at Site • Impacts or Concerns No School District(s) No Comments - Note: See section IV. City/Agency Comments&Conditions for comments received or see the public record. City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics ■ Figure l: One-Mile Radius Existing Condition Metrics Reference Parcel:R2039261221 Date Retrieved:2025/4/3 Parcel Count Parcel Acreage Infiii Indicator: 1,223 Surrounding Area 154 8% Not City ® City Limits 1,669. 2,572 4 ■ Not City Household Household& Population Growth Households 02020 Population Change:16.8°I° Population ■Growth (Household and Population Change since 2010 Decennial) 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 Use Types Residential Addresses All Addresses ■ Single-family 43% 3396 2396 Multi-family 57 ® Commercial 2.00 2,000 Single-family y Residential 1.50 1,500 41 Parcel Diversity a 1.00 1,000 U ;, 0.82 0Parcel Count (.n 0.50 500 L a.1a a Average Acres 0.00 0 R-2 R-4 3 R-15 Average Single-family Density by Zoning Average 15.00 dResidential Net Density 10.00 E)9.68 p 5.00 05.33 �5.53 GO10 0.00 M 1.23 Dwelling Units 1 Acre R-2 R-4 R-8 R-15 Notes: See Error! Reference source not found..Error!Reference source not found.. City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics ■ Figure 2:ACHD Summary Metrics Level of Service Planning Thresholds 1. Condition of Area Roadways 1 raffic Count is based on Vehicles per hour(VPH} Roadway Frontage Functional PM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Classification Traffic Count Level of Service ` Pine Avenue 314-feet Minor Arterial NIA NIA ` Adkins Avenue 648-feet Local NIA NIA ` Acceptable level of service for a three-lane minor arterial is "E" (7 0 VPH)_ " ACHD does not set level of service thresholds for local streets, Notes: See Error! Reference source not found..Error! Reference source not found.. Figure 3: Service Impact Summary ImpactService . . Ready Margin Caution Qy�o�ye \�e �,���- Qa�aa a� 5ro �roo IR Q- Notes: See Error! Reference source not found..Error!Reference source not found.. City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics ■ III. STAFF ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code(UDC) A. General Overview This property is designated Medium Density Residential on the City's Future Land Use Map (FLUM)contained in the Comprehensive Plan. The medium-density residential designation allows for dwelling units at gross densities of three(3)to eight(8)dwelling units per acre. Density bonuses may be considered with the provision of additional public amenities such as a park, school,or land dedicated for public services. The applicant proposes to rezone 4.68 acres of land from the R-4 zoning district to the R-15 zoning district. A preliminary plat and conceptual building elevations were submitted showing how the property is proposed to be subdivided and developed with thirty(30)residential building lots and seven(7)commons lots at a gross density of 5.77 units per acre. The proposed use and density are consistent with the Medium Density Residential(MDR)FLUM designation of three (3)to eight(8)units per acre. Additionally,the applicant is proposing a development agreement modification to terminate the existing development agreement(DA)and create a new one. The R-15 zoning designation,which allows for reduced lot sizes down to 2,000 square feet, provides flexibility for developers to support a diversity and variety of housing types. This can create a dynamic,multi-generational community where residents can transition through different stages of life(known as aging in place)while remaining in the same neighborhood. This type of zoning in conjunction with other designations, should be used to support a diverse housing mix that supports long-term residency and continuity within the community,promoting stability and a sense of place for residents throughout different stages of life. The surrounding landscape consists of single-family detached homes to the east,west,and north, while to the south is Pine Avenue. The average density for a one-mile radius is 6.1 units per acre, which is higher than the 5.77 units per acre the applicant is proposing. Single-family detached dwellings are listed as a principally permitted use in the R-15 zoning district per UDC Table 11- 2A-2. The applicant is proposing to keep the three(3) existing homes on the property and will configure new lot lines around the existing homes that conform to the dimensional standards. In addition to this,the applicant is proposing to complete the subdivision in a single phase. Future development is subject to the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-7 for the R-15 zoning district. The property is already annexed with the R-4 zoning. The City may require a development agreement(DA)in conjunction with an annexation pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-651IA. If this property is annexed, Staff recommends a DA is required with the provisions discussed herein and included in Section IV. Overall,the proposed infill development is an allowed use within the Medium Density Residential designation and contributes to the area's intended mix of residential housing types. Therefore, staff is supportive of the proposed development with the conditions and DA listed in Section IV. Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.02.02C: Support infill development that does not negatively impact the abutting, existing development. Infill projects in Downtown should develop at higher densities, irrespective of existing development. Staff encouraged the applicant to converse with the neighbor early on in the process, and after their neighborhood meeting,the applicant indicated the neighbors had minimal concerns. With this knowledge, staff is supportive of the infill development but still have concerns with the lack of regional parks in the area for residents to access and use. Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.02.OID:Require pedestrian access in all new development to link subdivisions together and promote neighborhood connectivity. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ The applicant will be extending the sidewalk along the west side of N. Adkins Avenue to connect with the northern subdivision,which will improve the walkability in the neighborhood. However, there is still an Ada County parcel that will leave a gap in the sidewalk. Once the Ada County parcel annexes into the city,the sidewalk will be completed along the west side of Adkins. Comprehensive Plan Policy 6.01.02B:Reduce the number of existing access points onto arterial streets by using methods such as cross-access agreements, access management, and frontage/backage roads, and promoting local and collector street connectivity. The applicant will be eliminating three access points to E. Pine Avenue,which will decrease the number of curb cuts on an increasingly busier arterial roadway. The only access that will remain on E. Pine Avenue is the emergency access for the fire department. Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.02.00:Plan for safe, attractive, and well-maintained neighborhoods that have ample open space, and generous amenities that provide varied lifestyle choices. Open space and amenities are not required by the UDC since the development is five (5)acres or less. However, staff has concerns with the lack of opportunities for outdoor recreation for residents in this area as there is no regional park nearby. Staff would like the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council to carefully consider if open space and amenities shall be incorporated into the design of the infill project. Table 4: Proiect Overview Description Details History AZ-00-012;DA Inst# 101052483 Phasing Plan 1 Phase Residential Units 27 new single-family detached 3 existing single-family detached Open Space None;The development is less than 5 acres Amenities None;The development is less than 5 acres Acreage 4.68 acres Lots 30 Buildable Lots and 3 Common Lots Density Gross: 5.77 Units/Acre Net: 7.61 Units/Acre B. History The subject properties were annexed in 2000 as a part of Farrington, Opal application(AZ-00- 012). The zoning granted at the time of annexation was the R-4 zoning district. With the annexation approval,the properties were subject to a DA that restrict the property to adding one additional home on the 4.68 acres. The existing DA will be replaced with a new DA to update the concept plan and provisions to improvements relevant to the current proposal. C. Site Development and Use Analysis 1. Existing Structures/Site Improvements (UDC 11-1): The subject site contains three(3) existing homes that will be remaining with the formation of the subdivision. These homes will be included in southern portion of the development and shall conform to the dimensional standards listed UDC Tables 11-2A-5 and 11-2A-7. 2. Proposed Use Analysis (UDC 11-2): The applicant is proposing single-family detached homes (27 new and 3 existing),which are listed as a principal permitted use in UDC Table 11-2A-2 for the R-15 zoning district. In addition to this,the proposed gross density of the subdivision is 5.77 units per acre,which is less than the one-mile radius average density of 6.1 units per acre. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ However, due to the size of Lots 20,21, 22, and 23, staff recommends that the southern portion of the site retain the R-4 zoning designation, as it is more appropriate for the existing lot sizes. The applicant shall submit a revised legal description and exhibit for the rezone prior to the City Council hearing. Comprehensive Plan policy 2.01.01 C encourages the applicants to maintain a range of residential land use designations that allow diverse lot sizes, housing types, and densities. Comprehensive Plan policy 2.01.01 G states development should avoid the concentration of any one housing type or lot size in any geographical area;provide for diverse housing types throughout the City. Comprehensive Plan policy 2.06.02D encourages a diversity of housing, recreation, and mobility options to attract and sustain the local workforce. The applicant is proposing a total of 30 detached single-family homes,which is consistent with what has been approved in the surrounding subdivisions. However,the lot sizes in this development are smaller than the neighboring subdivisions. There is approximately a two to one(2:1)transition to the adjacent subdivisions,which provides a smaller housing product into the area. As noted above,the neighbors were supportive of the proposed transition. 3. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): The proposed plat and subsequent development are required to comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-7 for the R-15 zoning district. The proposed plat complies with the dimensional standards of the R-15 zoning district. If the southern portion of the site remains zoned R-4, the subdivision also appears to meet the dimensional requirements for that district. However, the applicant must verify that Lots 21 and 23, Block 1, meet the required garage and living space setbacks, given that Adkins Avenue will be improved with curb, gutter, and sidewalk, and the lot lines are being adjusted. An exhibit demonstrating compliance with these setback standards must be submitted with the final plat application/. D. Design Standards Analysis 1. Site Design Standards (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-19): Goals 2.01.02D,2.01.01 G,and 2.02.02C of the Comprehensive Plan emphasize the importance of offering diverse housing types throughout Meridian to accommodate the needs, preferences, and financial capacities of current and future residents. These goals also support infill development that complements existing neighborhoods. The subject site is adjacent to established R-8 subdivisions—Danbury Fair Subdivision Nos. 1 and 7,and Maws Add No. 3—to the east,north, and west. The applicant submitted a preliminary plat and conceptual building elevations proposing 30 single-family detached dwellings at a gross density of 5.77 units per acre(see Section VII.G). This density aligns with the Medium Density Residential(MDR)Future Land Use Map(FLUM) designation. Although the proposed subdivision does not provide a one-to-one lot size transition with the adjacent neighborhoods,the inclusion of various lot sizes will help diversify the housing stock in the area and citywide. A county enclave parcel remains to the north along N.Adkins Avenue,which will result in a persistent gap in the sidewalk network. The property is contiguous to annexed City land to the north and lies within the City's Area of City Impact.A legal description and exhibit map of the proposed R-15 rezone area are included in Section VII. Pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6511A,the City may require a City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ development agreement(DA)with annexation. Staff recommends that a DA be required, incorporating the provisions outlined herein and in Section IV. 2. Qualified Open Space &Amenities (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3G): UDC Section 11-3G-2 requires common open space and amenities for developments that are five(5) acres or larger. The proposed development, at 4.68 acres,falls below this threshold and is therefore not subject to the open space and amenity requirements outlined in the code. However, staff have engaged in multiple discussions with the applicant regarding the value of including open space and amenities, especially given the absence of a regional park in the surrounding area. While not a code requirement, staff are concerned about the lack of recreational space or amenities for future residents. Therefore, staff is recommending one(1)amenity in the form of a picnic area in Lot 19, Block 1. Additionally, Comprehensive Plan Goal 2.02.00 emphasizes the importance of planning for safe, attractive, and well-maintained neighborhoods that offer ample open space and diverse amenities to support a variety of lifestyles. Given the proposed density of the subdivision,staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council thoughtfully consider whether a project of this scale and intensity is appropriate in the absence of any dedicated open space or community amenities. 3. Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): i. Landscape buffers along streets UDC 11-2A-7 requires a twenty-five(25) foot wide landscape buffer along E. Pine Avenue, an arterial roadway. A landscape buffer is not required along N. Adkins Avenue, a local street;however, a 10-foot setback to the living space is required from the back of the sidewalk. The applicant has provided a twenty-five(25)foot wide landscape buffer along E. Pine Avenue and is required to comply with the dimensional standards for the R-15 district. With the submittal of the final plat, the applicant shall provide vegetation coverage calculations. ii. Tree preservation Mitigation shall be required for all existing trees four-inch caliper or greater that are removed from the site with equal replacement of the total calipers lost on site up to an amount of one hundred(100)percent replacement(Example: Two(2)ten-inch caliper trees removed may be mitigated with four 5-inch caliper trees, five(5)four-inch caliper trees, or seven(7)three-inch caliper trees). Deciduous specimen trees four-inch caliper or greater may count double towards total calipers lost,when planted at entryways,within common open space, and when used as focal elements in landscape design. The applicant shall provide mitigation calculations with submittal of the final plat if any trees are being removed from the property. iii. Storm integration Per UDC 11-3B-11,the applicant shall meet the intent to improve water quality and provide a natural, effective form of flood and water pollution control through the integration of vegetated,well designed stormwater filtration swales and other green City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ stormwater facilities into required landscape areas,where topography and hydrologic features allow if part of the development. iv. Pathway landscaping No new pathway is being proposed as the existing attached ten(10)foot multi-use along E. Pine Avenue is going to remain. 4. Parking (UDC 11-3C): i. Residential parking analysis Off-street parking is required to be provided for each home based on the total number of bedrooms per unit as set forth in UDC Table 11-3C-6. On-street parking is also available on portions of the proposed streets. Lot 23 will be taking access off Adkins Avenue. The applicant shall submit an exhibit showing the garage and street setback to the property in compliance with the standards. Lot 23 has an existing home that shall have the necessary twenty(20)foot garage setback and fifteen (15)foot living setback. 5. Building Elevations (Comp Plan, Architectural Standards Manual): Goal 5.01.02D of the Comprehensive Plan highlights the need for effective building design and landscaping to buffer, screen,beautify,and integrate commercial,multifamily,and parking areas with existing neighborhoods. In response,the developer has submitted two(2) conceptual building elevations that illustrate the appearance of future homes in the development(see Section VII). The proposed designs include variations of two-story homes, each featuring a two-car garage. The elevations showcase a range of architectural styles and design elements, including lap siding,neutral color accents,brick and stone veneer,varied roof profiles, and different home styles. Staff review confirms that these elevations adhere to the city's architectural standards and comply with the required design criteria. Homes on lots that abut W.Pine Avenue, an arterial street,-will be highly visible;therefore, the rear and/or side of structures on these lots (i.e. Lots 20,21, and 23,Block 1 ) should incorporate articulation through changes in two or more of the following: modulation(e.g. projections,recesses, step-backs,pop-outs),bays,banding,porches,balconies,material types, or other integrated architectural elements to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines that are visible from the subject public street. Single-story and existing structures are exempt from this requirement. 6. Fencing (UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. According to the submitted landscape plans,the applicant is proposing two types of fencing throughout the site, six(6) foot solid vinyl fencing and a four(4) foot wrought iron semi-privacy fencing. In addition,the applicant shall indicate the fencing location on the residential lots with the submittal of the building permits. These will be required to comply with UDC 11-3A-7. E. Transportation Analysis 1. Access (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-3, UDC 11-3H-4): Goals 6.01.01H and 6.01.02B of the Comprehensive Plan stress the need to minimize the number of direct access points onto arterial streets. This can be achieved through cross-access agreements, access management, frontage and backage roads,and enhancing connectivity City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ through local and collector streets. Additionally,these goals highlight the importance of incorporating pedestrian access connectors in new developments to link subdivisions and support neighborhood connectivity within a community pathway system. Access to the property is proposed from N. Adkins Avenue,a local roadway on the eastern portion of the site. This local road is a shared drive between the proposed subdivision and the existing subdivision to the east and north. The applicant is proposing two(2) access points off N. Adkins Avenue with a common drive accessing the three(3)properties on the southern portion of the site and a common drive accessing three (3)properties on the northern portion of the site. 2. Multiuse Pathways and Pathways (UDC 11-3A-5, Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-8): Comprehensive Plan policy 4.04.01A ensures that new development and subdivisions connect to the pathway system. UDC 11-3G-5 emphasizes the importance of common open space and amenities being located in areas that maximize pedestrian and bicycle connectivity. Multi-use pathways shall be constructed in accord with the city's comprehensive plan,the Meridian Pathways Master Plan,the Ada County Highway District Master Street Map and Roadways to Bikeways Master Plan. The standards along Arterial roadways are to provide a detached ten(10) foot wide sidewalks (multiuse pathway),however, in conversation with the parks department, it was determined the existing ten(10) foot attached multi-use pathway will be sufficient due to it being relatively new. The applicant is in compliance with this, as the ten(10)foot sidewalk already exists along E. Pine Avenue. 3. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17): All sidewalks constructed as part of this proposal are required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17.A sidewalk connection along the west side of N. Adkins Avenue is required to be installed to connect the existing subdivision to the multi-use pathway along E. Pine Avenue. The applicant is depicting the sidewalk on the landscape plan in compliance with this standard. The applicant shall provide a street section exhibit with the submittal of the final plat reflecting compliance with these standards. With the construction of the sidewalk along the western side of Adkins,the sidewalk will extend to the north and stub at the lone remaining Ada County parcel. The sidewalk will be completed when the Ada County parcel annexes in the future. 4. Subdivision Regulations (UDC 11-6): i. Dead end streets The proposed subdivision does not contain a dead end street other than the two(2) common drives as discussed below. ii. Common driveways Per UDC 11-6C-3D, common driveways shall serve a maximum of four(4) dwelling units. In no case shall more than three(3)dwelling units be located on one(1) side of the driveway unless alternative compliance is applied for. The applicant is proposing two (2) common drives in the development in which the northern one services three (3) homes and the southern one services three (3) homes. Both appear to be in compliance with the UDC 11-6C-3D. The applicant worked with staff to modify the common drives to provide the five (5)feet of landscaping required in the UDC 11-6.Additionally, the applicant has provided City of Meridian I Department Report 11I. Staff Analysis ■ details into where the curb cuts for Lots 20, 21, and 22 will taking access from on the southern common drive. iii. Block face UDC 11-6C-3-regulates block lengths for residential subdivisions. The intent of this section of code is to ensure block lengths do not exceed 750 ft, although there is the allowance of an increase in block length to 1,000 feet if a pedestrian connection is provided. In no case shall a block face exceed one thousand two hundred(1,200)feet, unless waived by the City Council. The applicant is compliance with the block length requirements in the UDC. F. Services Analysis 1. Waterways (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-6): The existing irrigation ditches on the property shall be piped or tiled in accordance with UDC 11-3A-6. 2. Pressurized Irrigation(UDC 11-3A-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. 3. Storm Drainage (UDC 11-3A-18): An adequate storm drainage system is required in all developments by the City's adopted standards, specifications, and ordinances. Design and construction shall follow the best management practices as adopted by the City as outlined in UDC 11-3A-18. Storm drainage will be proposed with a future Certificate of Zoning Compliance application and shall be constructed to City and ACHD design criteria. 4. Utilities (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-21): Ensure development is connected to City of Meridian water and sanitary sewer systems and the extension to and through said developments are constructed in conformance with the City of Meridian Water and Sewer System Master Plans in effect at the time of development. All utilities are available to the site. Water main, fire hydrant and water service require a twenty- foot(20)wide easement that extends ten(10)feet past the end of main,hydrant, or water meter.No permanent structures, including trees, are allowed inside the easement. Comprehensive Plan policy 3.03.03G require urban infrastructure to be provided for all new developments,including curb and gutter, sidewalks,water and sewer utilities. IV. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. Meridian Planning Division 1. A Development Agreement(DA)is required as a provision of rezone of this property. Prior to approval of the rezone ordinance, a DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian, the property owner(s) at the time of annexation ordinance adoption, and the developer. A final plat shall not be submitted until the DA and Ordinance is approved by City Council. Currently, a fee of$303.00 shall be paid by the Applicant to the Planning Division prior to commencement of the DA. The DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning Division within six(6)months of the City Council granting the annexation. The DA shall, at minimum,incorporate the following provisions IF City Council determines rezone is in the best interest of the City: Prior to City Council,The Applicant Shall Provide the Following: City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions ■ The southern portion of the site,consisting of Lots 20,21,22,23, and 24 shall be zoned R-4 instead of R-15,as these lots are significantly larger than the ones on the north portion of the site.A revised rezone legal description and exhibit shall be submitted prior to the City Council Hearing. a. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the preliminary plat, landscape plan, common open space/site amenity exhibit, and conceptual building elevations included in Section VIII and the provisions contained herein. b. Any future development of the site must comply with the City of Meridian ordinances in effect at the time of the development. c. The southern portion of the site, consisting of Lots 20,21, 22, 23, and 24 shall be zoned R-4 instead of R-15, as these lots are significantly larger than the ones on the north portion of the site. A revised rezone legal description and exhibit shall be submitted prior to the City Council Hearing. d. Homes on lots that abut W. Pine Avenue,an arterial street,-will be highly visible; therefore,the rear and/or side of structures on these lots(i.e. Lots 20,21, and 23,Block 1) should incorporate articulation through changes in two or more of the following: modulation(e.g. projections,recesses, step-backs,pop-outs),bays,banding,porches, balconies,material types,or other integrated architectural elements to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines that are visible from the subject public street. Single-story and existing structures are exempt from this requirement. e. The existing structures on Lots 20,21, and 23 shall meet the dimensional standards for the R-4 zoning district listed in UDC Table 11-2A-5. In addition,the applicant shall provide paved driveways to the existing homes that will take access off the southern common drive. 2. The final plat shall include the following revisions: a. Add a plat note stating"direct lot access to E. Pine Avenue is prohibited." b. Graphically depict the three(3) foot wide public utility,drainage, and irrigation easements on the sides of Lots 1-10,Block 2, and Lots 1-6 & 8-17,Block 1 c. Graphically depict the five(5)foot wide public utility,drainage, and irrigation easements on the side of Lots 20-23,Block 1. d. Modify note 14 to include language stating that all side lot lines for Lots 1-10,Block 2, and Lots 1-6 & 8-17,Block 1 contain a three(3) foot wide easement for public utilities, irrigation, and drainage. e. Modify note 14 to include language stating that all side lot lines for Lots 20-23,Block 1 contain a five(5)foot wide easement for public utilities, irrigation,and drainage. f. Submit a street section showing the five(5) foot sidewalk along N.Adkins Ave. g. Submit an exhibit showing Lots 20,21, and 23 conform to the R-4 dimensional standards. If they do not, lot lines may need to be adjusted or structures may need to be removed. h. Provide an amenity in the form of a picnic area in Lot 19,Block 1. 3. The landscape plan submitted with the final plat shall include the following revisions: a. Include mitigation calculations on the plan for existing trees that are proposed to be removed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-I005. The Applicant shall City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions ■ coordinate with the City Arborist(Kyle Yorita kyorita(c-r�,meridiancity.org to determine mitigation requirements prior to removal of existing trees from the site. b. Provide details on the ground coverage material that will be used along Pine Avenue. 4. The proposed plat and subsequent development are required to comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-5 and 11-2A-7 for the R-4 and R-15 zoning districts. 5. Prior to the City Engineer's signature on the final plat, all existing structures that do not conform to the setbacks of the R-4 zoning district shall be removed. 6. Comply with all subdivision design and improvement standards as set forth in UDC 11-6C-3, including but not limited to cul-de-sacs, alleys,driveways, common driveways,easements, blocks, street buffers, and mailbox placement. 7. Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 for single-family dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. 8. The preliminary plat approval shall become null and void if the applicant fails to either: 1) obtain the City Engineer's signature on a final plat within two years of the date of the approved findings; or obtain approval of a time extension as set forth in UDC 11-6B-7. 9. The final plat shall substantially comply with the approved preliminary plat as set forth in UDC 11-613-3C. 10. Comply with all subdivision design and improvement standards as set forth in UDC 11-6C-3, including but not limited to cul-de-sacs, alleys,driveways, common driveways,easements, blocks, street buffers, and mailbox placement. 11. The applicant and/or assigns shall have the continuing obligation to provide irrigation that meets the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3B-6 and to install and maintain all landscaping as set forth in UDC 11-3B-5,UDC 11-3B-13 and UDC 11-3B-14. 12. Submit an updated common drive exhibit for the southern common drive showing the driveways and the setbacks for the existing homes that will remain on Lots 20, 21,and 23, Block 1. 13. The Applicant shall comply with all ACHD conditions of approval. 14. The Applicant shall have a maximum of two(2)years to obtain City Engineer's signature on a final plat in accord with UDC 11-6B-7. 15. Staff's failure to cite all relevant UDC requirements does not relieve the applicant from compliance. City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions ■ B. Meridian Public Works rRE-FLAT OUNDFMNS W astowater * IN to Sawa ewwM Llil at sc 5e 01:5 Sewer Shod Ezlmated Plryoet Sac app maDn Sew"ERLFS - WRAF 6cclnM 6ahnoc PrcdLtrt r:+KkstL4 t yes Wit WW Naswr MrkjFatllltf F tw - Imlrarssfoann�sTsc SM FUI:1Ir1Wr13 Slit&Pod&Corrdlbans Water • Ells=ante mWater W2tEF*Mrhle at Sttc Serlors + FYcauC Zdrle • Estlm and Proled Sac appleation Water ERU's + YI21icrQralry None Propect CoressaM Yes wlth Wier kdsur Pbn YnparlXfmnocros None F'L�IJI:R'uuxw W1kILTal Krrr NYIt Spetirg 4,Additliw4 aF A"/ YJF 1. I �nrcr...�.etra,.c Stx•er nwn Iwp. _. FBVnaer w. iry irdkr eA eI1 want.Ifl Well z lotaord on iM me n nium be abwdorrti per rt-VIOLA)re,gwrm zu peareal cbgneonniem mws tst pro.drd is dst[:vy.[-an be wei rrriFf—rvsal unppdwn. 3. PDowidu 19 FA2nwm W nusM h}drim Inlusk wd.uu ernad.I-Aumpt us should dome Lip ui IIic and orsuurrtadrara? az er vKrcr arrd LIF Flyond IL A. Ncn sznin tsjmee ,beAs,hwldag ewpons,aaah etatpaalt.blLi.fend Inl!dvr ..n utr tei r.h, t .j w Fe tuilL w.sh.n the d.Ilup car rsum 5. Fim.m no sewrr serrrc pu LLia p mnlugu vcv_trtx. 5. HeNunLhrlffia ismofin willsinSuF the w:derrneler. City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions ■ Geori it i:ou3lious A Appifo"l 1. Ajjd.L..L>I.a11-L ow.alcir xrx er nwn lLat and rt>+Lxt g.Lih Vrt Public Work Iliaisr4xvuL and cx Lx utx xLar,iad rarim ofraLea'en La far rl,nulns ila aro rail.Ircd La Provide serv�uc uu .&ara publw hluiil wh raver aver xev,cs maims LS thne fitL,L<Ko.rr rianl Lop of prpt Lo su&V dd_LS Las Ulan Lhrec lar LLm aluffum m L:r LLLI shAl br uLed LL lcWwwwiiL-of(:Liy al Mfn3a,1 Fublk Wairlr Llr(AmemS SUlldifd."inco 2. Per MuWidr th,[-adc 1 KRX:],Lill 1IM111 ud dull he n!SfHAUJ9,La-Mani Al-if rid w9kif aL..La io sad Ltfhu gh Lb1&-q,K•ui_u L.Appl,arLima,be diSiNe for a reir&ufflrrl iep mro rtr Lnfto rucwro per M[:r=i-&-S_ 3. ThtdWl.c LgWlProvide c,LserLtchLlxF roe Wpilrc,tar:Us&.0 rkoLar .ay{th_Lu3_dill waror xervrri a id iy2rW}the easemtnL w.&hr.xba11 be m-lkt ..k fora swell uldtlr,w 304cn.LEr For Era The rratbacms sJnall rob 6c dedv:llxd,L&du pUL,br ralh[r dndlw,ai rttllsidc the pflt pinam usk*he i:LR'ed Morwim's shrdard fmuic..The ealeYr_id shall hu rvJSp LiCSILy�'I•-.,an IYC Fiji lie frter86:C�wY1S.tiuhnld all tuwdeti erde .L(o..Ll,u lufm Av L,ble Imm PWAilc Wadi),i legal dlx rgpuaa pftpQ td by m Idaho L.Kcraod Prultsa ad Land Hurve,or,.iLN LLad IohWL-Lhu uca ol'Vrtt ntea Intarhed F.xiia 3rl'A)jail un K7:1-a L L-n V wd1b hemp and disl.-u {nwkei I,LI L1111T F9 Gr rovtc�.FkAh c,:l�d,nc nil be seaLk xlgned red Aoei by a F-ILsaclonLL 13nd tiur,.•foe.LA) MITT RF:{YJR 11. Jidda rlmc L4 dic plm rareftwi%lbJs dacullmil..ALI Odtmx'n LS MULZ U subml"rt-w-L iW approvr:d prlarmdtitkpavMpLLi wiluut9l. 4. 'I7rt L-nyarMtrtdtaireq.ues Lhrprezurldi urlgium syxLeaniti sugilued by i,c9lfauled source a I'wjorr�13[}[:113FS�,k 71Le apP It ail xha.ld br eequtJ W u use any es.tatn g sue rScror .ell�aLee ear 11r prinury source. If i xmaee at wK{I iLarf*a i.]1 a,illlbk.a sln&-poi d a,eadxrr La the Lulteary.00ci sYsWft.shall ht"uved.11 r uuLu&d. the■eu,eliprrrd1hu:utlxu.sihlu Iw Lltu 1uy,,,oaarasaeLLnro err LbcraeLLxoi oralparrw Filar W eletivihK d.,rululiuiuhl nIaA alilli-Al. 3. A'lle"nUg 1Lfu%-wmlllr.uc 1 uyuiNd LL hL shall be pnar Lie smrlwdr as Me FLruL plu by Lltr C rL,F:uruimi. ,illy u n„q„rL�dua we.LLu.ed La rmlaln itW I be sm1p!CLLa e.a lliamif.,Leal FPOMIhlc rcra.,x,,,,k„L t.l v ica a6Voa,t w bL Ln eo"ludec rLih k K:[-. d. All vet aw.i wiLcrrayr,vLmrxnhLnp, t Ovag or Iir bc.ne.iut.Wv.dlod irJ114e9SlrelrfdpH Lfl3f_11-3AA 3..1-G S.uch,.ate Lbe applicant rltall r amply with kl.W>[lir�42-1207 old knv iidm qT-Ii ahIc law iif Jqulra,an. 7. AA-lb L'ul will h,LioliLtlut Lo WLe"niva Ee prycrlyabr.JorKdrroontugm ldria Well C"Laiucl,on Si.udu ds E LLri almiltt3LLYL-0 by the Idaho Lkj)ll 1.of Wmrr Rriour[eL.The Lhatel*Wj Flu}:.cu:A.all provldc A eU,c1Y-..L addresslrlg xhtlhtr tll2rt llet any bt.aing.eWL LL the ir481cf .IL,.ud d act,her Mey wILL c�u he used,ar pro,L&rowed"Lbe.r abardonnKrtn K. ,Say cvlsaag xpL,c sysLcnls.wlthr iu proleti Llull be[er..,vcd G.OS xervlfY per[-ry LLrnu.nrr.. tcuoli SLI-4And'l9 H. L-orusn CbkW dLGelci Hk*M F&QufhdaLmomprLlcb3ucsrid in.R L'LfrG(2DH)37.i2I I. 9. Sami sLW art m Be In place,l761N[�sr.er wO�alcr Lyf weal fbalL be jprKovrd mid Acb,alet♦l, mod hale llAW,td by LRL-Adl{V wWy H#b iy UkwKL and Lilt Filial Flu 3or iha suhd„v.Kr "I be[ecwdk!d,prior ru appl,mg for dmlmg ptmlLx. 30.A kl arcrodt[w cosh suety m ac i loum of I IC%will.1,rrgweel Ifr ALI. OFILpleLcd rmtLo&Uad n� an18r111eL,e .,pflar w xlffr Wu ith Ur Ruud pIr< 33.A31 uMx& -aLcn u etllttdto public lue,safety aW health shall bt aarllpLabil pn&r w onupawy arils mua,res.W heir oWo*fd by Llhr[-Sy higlrKcr.an a.srr rftaf poa a pHfowarlcEr sumy rise La,L#ufpravenww m wda to ahwn f:uy Hri. cii iLgisaurc on the risL pLu ix se[I"m LILX.'11-51--313. 12.Ap1pl1 cAnL shall he roquuad Lo pay P uh Iic W ae Ls dcvt Iopnitm p Ma rtvk..and corttarudwri 1nr{tlw1vn few m drmmirrd B,ruLg Lhc p1m revrtx pruati prior m LFr rxuantm ora plan ippeo,A knee. 11.I[hall br Lhc ro NnslGLrty ardc applicanL w crrurc dtaa all dr.clapnttm Iti-n,ucs Konply.uh 1ht,lLrerttara rah UarbdlLLtf A[L altd Lhc Fa,r Housing Act 14.Appllconi. hJWI he res nsiblc lar appLKanal artdtompi wnh any Li cl 404 rernll Lltng the nu,be rcquvrd bf Lhc Amly CwlK ad FnX.ltccrx. 15.I. vtk1w shtLLl c000dlnttle awlhan L iLora wrdi Nc Mtftduh Pact ilmr1cc. 14.Cangw LLr wa scsulu.shall be submiard LL the kr uLdLan kLuld,Lg Ilepinownt.for AL budding FLbk Cw tivlllg engLh crcti brcalLll,rI�rr ivawlg would ill.atop rill-..-.-. 17.Tbr deLLErt engttK.r shall be rmluvtd m ee„Ry iltro the xv ccnafrLm e4-.uroas aro stL a minm al3-rr jba,c 11rt hLbL csubllshod peal grouWwatrr ticv n.'Ilrr Is w craurc wm the dourm elevamm a1'Vtr crcr I Ara ul hont Is ro It I-15, jba,c. I K.Tht appIlcontr.dtLlgn bilge rshall be rcspora.blc Itr uLjt3rttan ara11 tfr.rA..n AfW& driul.W ExiLry.rNh lh Li pmfWL dkiLL do,cot TO urnier Lht jwi*dlanin rit an ifny3aa,a,l dL.9riL -or A[-HL).'rbr dnlgn enguetr shall.provrie oaul LtLLIan ehr Lhr ULikilc7,Lave hceo te:ulk-d LL k'oedmce dbLht apprb.cd der pl. T1us bmuflta ah..11 bt fe.luvc-0".Pr,.a cm.kcmt crm uparrl,a Mufti for jay suual wnhaLhc pnr� 39.AL the campinLOLL orVrt proJei4 Lhr applKara shall ht reapomible w submlL rc:ord dlar BV pY the CIL,or hi,xLdLari AmbAA11 zwidl'd' These rrierd dn.rSs a.tmbt roc. load apProvea Pr"m Lht�e Ora t nawaLL Mf cupWLL`y lie jay Ar-'i•• wuhtn the pru.j0.L 2a.A arty ligh plan.1IL ribbed w be Included m 13c cl.11 odl%rwmLofL plan.L lad I.Fhi plan requirear=nu arc ILard m satuan 64 aR Lhe I12WOv YrnL tivmdsr,;Rw%mott I-qlLiryg.A.copy orLlenaatl3rdiian he laund r hnP.ilxrw.IllehdwLciLy.orgPuhlte_rorlx.r i!ul NZ. 73.The['dy allertdlna lnhju Lbm Uro u.mr poa 1 the Cny a pLrra it c sum,m L1r arn,.rt ar 125%arLbr Loral eoodl4t coo for aLLt onLplcu xrxer,wj zU ray,xc Infi*d� pnarmfLnWFlaslgnawe.'rLL Luray wdIbib,f I1WbyaLiwLLmI oral eWntaePeevededby ima.rte,rm did[-Ly.'rre ra,etty,.a.be p&mL d I n im hint arse an-&o Ae Iddl a areslu4 rash deptrt.Larboi"I Lamm rNfi lit an;4WKaoLortGarsorely,.bib can btR.0 onLht 1:onlLwuuiy 13C dxfem Llepl[lnlem.etear. Pkase ee Did.L lard Lk Vdiciphien L Ktrvlce bar meet Lnirr+^ +u"7,7311. 22.'17rt city o rMerid Ina rtrf.Irci Lha Ute a.tmr poa in We:Ley a irn■6y r L)mIht jrr rL or XI%of dh caul ranxlnci.h race la[AI Kaupbe ds ltr.Wa ar.l I mfri au n.....err durmLKt ad .yt .'lls.>.wny.IIL be v nflbya lie aim raa�provided b?We a.a mUtc Cay.Tltc:._:Lev.or,ltr paw_-0 uI Lht rLenl orm rrrtoeble la Tara lti Kash dipuClar bmid.Allilli-L a:ter l d:y i a:t::i.aiiwl Nor' tly,.bL'h can ht lound as Lht Canlmuiuly l3ewl--ill_al. rt1-7- Pkaae CfruaLL Lard 1XVt1opaenL%eerier ear nK,reulforaLuw:iuNX7 2=11. City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions ■ C. Ada County Highway District(ACHD) OMIL V"prwdwr MM iardrr onw CunfYwar" 11 ACHD -4- ItRatrkZ NErowt Canrrftk� Date:]une 9",202S REVISED To JeNiCa"eagle.S[UOh*H ArMltea5 Staff Contact:watt Pak Planner Project Deseriptiare Farrington Heights TnpGeneradon: This dLrelopnrentrsestrmated W Werate340 vehldB[nps per dot . A vONI-16 t►iPO�r how in ilia PM Ptak Nour_bawd Orr She ln!Hitut#OFTrerdP rC2Ti t Engineers Trip Generation Manual,W"edition. Tiraffir.Impact Study NU required Do area roadways meet Th re, the rutura with plar-ni NO Connecting you to Mom- Ada 4PMq Wigh-py Dq%.rt-F4QQ N Mr"AW.WW .Q-R4-;-PMZFJ�WHA;hp.FNri}'}yG-Mw',lp� M1 V. FINDINGS A. Rezone(UDC 11-511-3E) Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Stafffinds the map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan in regard to the Medium Density Residential future land use map designation for the site. City of Meridian I Department Report V. Findings ■ 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Stafffinds that the proposed map amendment and subsequent development will contribute to the range of housing opportunities available in the City. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; Stafffinds the proposed zoning amendment will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to, school districts; and Stafffinds that the proposed amendment will not result in any adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services to this site. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. This is not applicable due to this application being a rezone. B. Preliminary Plat and Short Plat(UDC 11-613-6) 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 ■ VI. ACTION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed modification to the Development Agreement, Rezone,and Preliminary Plat with the conditions of approval listed in Section IV. B. Commission: Pending C. City Council: Pending City of Meridian I Department Report VI. Action ■ ' 1 1 . 1U - _ • �IIII�IIIIIIIIII �:,,, IN •� V T' CHERRY -_F , .:r �, ■ FAIRVIEW - - O Lu MIL - a\ !/ i I ea. Jul No �� ,n I Gila .�s *■# z..=r` mom -� FRANKLYN -IrI■■ r• �: nnnlruurlr�wr■un w..g ter.wQ?r�r�:1 •atii�rii: W7573:::r a:... . •i w■r o �rlj^7uuuumw 11 . wr. ■■■ ■ ■��i!••mr '"•'rlhnurr■■rrr■ ' :>ttlnuu�i� WZ1lw mm■nlnl►�ln urC�► nrVGrl _ mnmwni, �fu - ■ � rrnrrm!1■rrrr►1�i�� O riJJ2ra I u w !l�l1f1A Ni■i�" _ l lJ'1J RKr V= e=■w— R61 CHERRY"' FAIRVIEW U _ O I. ■ iw �. xp1 ���r• �� �y11 . 1•a'•1 4F1��•xr�,f'afnri All Mll Lul �/ :nrrllr•• .. Iwr� R wr�C:: r PINE FRANK�IN , I i ■����■■ . ■� 1 V��r�■■a ■.rq unlrrr■l■■tti- .EmiliaIt ■■r���. ■ �1 llru ■n■■■■u1 11i6►�/rluLGi�G� ■ n allnu.1!! CHERRY"`�'�`- FA`IRVIEW \Ifl -ice Ill!.■r■-. 7 Q large- ■ Hil a_r%m r iirro.tp irieu 7 ariSam I•i• N ryL�V 1� Iloilo ♦ Q .,a Intl I J ■,i PINE lilt.' liar 11■I r a ' N 0 ----- �� N Irry _ ■..■�C-i 9• �I__ ■r-o.►�r q11U = 11/ \q� _ ��-■■1�■rfO��O =M■!�:� IIII ■ ■■.r.. mar/��Il� ►•�� : --`�i . . ■ ■■ I ylex ■:il.:o rr..llr�.+umnlln'q�llJ + ■r i7 \��D+t�+�/■u�Imul� Ilullm■sn■IIIna aa:a::u. +��lun mul■u11nIGIrI.... EN II l�I■� - • �� wry■:ml� �f+�lnlln^ ■■ uO �u■w�11llnrq gl.�InunFlllnllnnm w/-fib_- T .-.'■- -1♦..�1'a+�; lilt!. tlrw ==- - �• • • •• • '/H./il= =r■C-�:__���;���■i(I�i p� y�runlls �+�nurllunuwwru �� -��f■■� p��itlalleaa �,_` IR�I,t. ■N FAIR7AllJI E W ❑ . �■ ■ �, man _ — F?�wr C�•�� G. , R■Rinlllfl�iu_ ♦ _ 1� �.■!. __ •1��.• ���� � Imo■ ■� ■- � �_ ` ■ , _ LT■ � Innnn •■■.;�■ 14I'�IiY+�`iiu =ini�1- `•,� I� •ftlil...Imo � = � �::� I�it■uurtr�IllNlnnlvl�p �[Ifllipr`i- e'�i li -. ■f1},'r'.�u••■• ��I :ii- ■r ♦�;r�`n��-IHi111 fr{ryp �- 0in �r IIII ■ /-CC:� IHi-■ ',yr q riirorr ��I .rim\.■�' p;l 11111 l!r:r 7V r Ur wltl:`-■-. + �G7C=.�yi Hip?rN„rV r �_ ..al fig r � !HiO la= � r■■illuurN�41\ �, '""'_'['�a, �/p� ,iorr• � �� IIIIO■o■� � _1.�I 11..R!IIII i�::aerll r1IlA r 111/11111 �"hny�rn71nnn4 ■- wq r7Hi■ 1!C III ■ 111Lt :\�1 ■n :•Ili - ttill... ILJ-- �:::.. � � '1; .�' '7 !AEI■�IIII PINE ■NR�7y�rnluiun r' ■.IIIII IIII■■Ilflrl i=of m m Hilo n nm . L'llllll�l��� � ; III. �. �■■� �■ �■■■. lip ��. RUNS ■ a im �-- IIII"IIIC son. r ■ ��FR:AN KL-IN� ■ NONE11■ ■■II■ IIII■� B. Subject Site Photos I� lit 1 - S 1 I i y r _ f. . •r� o-�� � R• A lV Ada - .k ' r ■ City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ C. Service Accessibility Report Overall Score: 37 83rd Percentile Criteria Description ■ ■ Location In City Limits GREEN Extension Sewer Trunkshed mains < 500 ft. fray-. pr GREEN Floodplain Either not within the 100 yrfloodplain or , % a. es GREEN Emergency Services Fire Response time < 5 min. GREEN Emergency Services Police Meets response time goals most of the time GREEN Pathways Within 1/4 mile of current pathways GREEN Transit Within 1/4 mile of current transit route GREEN Arterial Road Buildout Status Ultimate configuration (#of lanes in master streets EEN plan) matches existing ( of lanes} 6 School Walking Proximity Within 1/2 mile walking GREEN Either a High School or College within 2 miles 0:. a Schaal Drivability Middle or Elementary School within 1 mile Jr-,inr: GREEN (existing or future) Park Walkability No park within walking distance by park type RED City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ D. Landscape Plan(date: 5/11/2025) --- ---------- =2-T......... ----------- ......... . . 1(7I. I =--- LF] LIDJ F M==7 FF ----------- 'r----------7" ........... ...... L--------i2- -----------I r...........I ------------ L--------LJ ------------j L-----------IJ --I F T I --L--------LJ L,L-----------J L----------I J, r............r..1 L.L-----------j L------- -------- rr------------i r------------r"I ---------_.J L-----------J I.-i L--------------j L--------- --------------; L102 City of Meridian Department Report V11. Exhibits i ------------ 2E��5�- "5-- L150 City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits E. Preliminary Plat(date: 7/23/2025) ^dor------ OWN 610-1 V FrT d d A rF !!c LI I i, L W PP-1 AM h-) ------ t t 7 F—Wu� L------------------------—----------------q r . — u� ---------------- [--------------------------------- City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits F, Hcigl—9 bdi 7 ----------7-1-1 —___IF IC I IL I L------------------ L---------- ---------------------- y ja- L----------------- -- - Er 1p-mg- ------- -------- if Hdeh. City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits F. Building Elevations(date: 4/17/2025) - � l P s k 4 r, NOUN ■UN■ soon NONE NONE no } - f 'Pop. City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ G. Rezone Legal Description&Exhibit Map r IDAHO i'1a39 wE+tieraidst 10 83741 ilih S�J�'�E�' ane.rr!1 2caf Bea-e9x CROUP fax= 12u91 594 5YA Fanrington Haigh"$uWivii ipri Preiliminrry Plst Parcel aesCriptian l hp WkmWio N) rhbN 0 PSICe1 Cr Ler)d b4 9 r'a"ke I.2 3id Eablu60M Paioel id S a`n-0r+Rec nr 5vvey hri.4,998 as'.7ea for Nicord in 61r AdA Cur tv Rec*rd&rB ar6ma.and Brie riMr or the Pjiyhl of Ways dEasl Pine Aw ue end Adkili Lw lyrrg it a Porfa al the 1.4 of rhir Nonhpast IM d$rcim 7,TorrrrYUC 3 Nanah Flarrga 1 Easi.E�*rso Mandan,City qr MWL1pan,.4t,4 rrpn,nty Idaho and berlg rnorc ParaaLartf 0"mtcro as U13414 cQNwENcrM4 ok 1ho 5w1heaei C4rw of hte Sanl+eket 14 0IN N&Vraeae iM{Eael �4Go�rreriiNF,erlJorl7.TowrealG 7 hlorlh Rer B 2 W K Bogle Mwklieri,From HiY41+.Lh6 ubMraAl Come+of If1e Ndtl5easl 1WCareer iN Caner?of a w Sedion 7 bzmm South B9'07':F4'West 2.%7.81 feet ThQ cr■1wq the Smlhefiy Baarlwy Line 9 the Svutheasl'A d the Northeas'.-im of sad Sertrm 7 Gmth 64'071Lti4'West 674 37 feel to the Cernerine Inkimclnm paint of NYn✓klknns Avenue,the POW OF MQNbWN.G: T7-,emin cmlrrung along said UVhh ty Ha,.iMe7 Lrr* SmAt,9"70•1'V%*it.334611 #art in We vOrs prtyf wrdpr7 Lria of gird Ra{rx0 or Sumey mod r,B r rolrXrWim. Thar"MtrrM surd 34ultrerly Baurwwy Line."along the WeeterN Bcurdary Uneslf s&d Rht&d 4 Suvet,And its PraWV&bon.North 00'02'59-Ems%679 t3 reel z the Naihueel Corner of said Recard of$jrovyr. lrhrrrcr lewnry said 44gsteahy 9rsnriary LMR_w.1 A5 Pro"ajWn @nd nlp-,g ft klprlhy�i#ia+repnY Lire of a Poecaro or Slrrray urd ilr+-ofa pror March Fair 334 47 bw to the Cvwlr*or Al"Law Thrice ieii.xV said N15IMrgr Boundary Lwm.Anil H!i prolorn WA W,and aFonp Lhe C-fierkirnr ar Alkki Lane,Soteh 06'W'01'Ms1,677 d9 feel iu!h POWT OF BEGMNING: Tba aoaro Gesurihae Parcel of Land Gontalnirr5.2Y aCr".more or lass. 8 1 r � v/ City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits 69 S Farmington Heights Subdivision Preliminary Plat Description 14MOM SWIV-1 inrh=77 feel T—1-5}I W 1.xw+.I'NAW 83 ci71<-M.+W LLOW:VG q 1'.WM3M.rw—W II•:V.9 F. AI M¢71b—llr it W OOMH I:971 13 I Ntl,S, J340 City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ E IDIAN;--- Applicant Presentation 111111 Jill Jill Farrington Heights Subdivision Preliminary Plat A parcel of land lying in the SE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 7, Township 3 North, IF Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho. Parcel Numbers R2039261213, R2039261221, R2039261302 L AAA E STATE A Partners 1100, 1130 & 1180 E Pine Avenue, Meridian, ID 83642 BLOCK 1 2815 E 3300 S, Salt Lake City, UT 84109 22 DANBURY FAIR SUBDIVISION NO.7 (801) 305-4670 wvvw.edmpartners.com BOOK 72, PAGE 7407 w 23 UNPLATTED UNPLATTED SITE LOCATION 24 "PLS 7881" LA N89°21'51"E 314.47' I V 96.95' 37.37' 35.03' 35.03' 32.03' 35.30' 37.75 o • • w -I -LAd Z M F -1 F -1 F 7 F U-) 3,470 SF LOCCl -5.00' E PINE AVEM M _ o SCALE: 1" = 40' L z a rn of o - -J 11)kEE PER LOT/� C�/OR PER Ss9°57'01"E 99.00' 6 w 5 w 4 w 3 w 2 3 1 0 - - 35LF WHERE POSSSIBLE, �rTTT� 73.88 COMMON z3.0�' 2,898 SF o 2,793 SF 2,807 SF �2 579 SF 2 856 SF o 3 045 S o LOT FENCINCj l� I T TREES LA OW I BUILDER, I I Eli I E L�� DRIVE#1 2.05' z ' N ' iv ' iv ' iv ' ' �j I IA.LL BE CLASS II I 0 20 40 c�0 120 INDIVIDUAL L DEVELOPER: n o 0 0 0 0 o OWNERS/BUILDERS VICINITY MAP O o g w � N 33 � / 9 M 2,646 SF N89° 5701"W 77.34' C I 1 7'00 - 1 547 S C4 29.38' 35.03' 32.03' 35.30' 26.75' �+ u+ > �, C5 N89°5T59"W 158.49' 0 1 I M E PER LOT AN /OR PER 2,685 SF �9 � cb N89°57'59"W 174.49' HARDIMAN ST 35LF WHERE POSSSIB I LN89° 57'01"W 91.05' C� �� �6 -LOT TREES BY OWNER UILDE��j /`� ° 7 NOTES: 0 11 Q, N89 5759 W 158.49 C. O / �--- •, 0 32 I 1. This drawing is considered preliminary unless M 2,923 SF I Lti 75.22' 83.26' 0�6 / 1 / \ affixed with a municipal approval or 0.30' - - - I / - - - - - accompanied by a separate approval document. N89° 5T 01"W 80.00' 6 o 5 I / I F- I 2. All sanitary sewer improvements shall conform 3,506 SF °� �,55�SF ^ - - I / - - - - - - - - \ with the standards and specifications of the O o 12 0 41.00' N I I City of Meridian. ROW -589°57'59'E 188.49'- n •a M 2,800 SF M 94.23' 94.26' �J J L J I 3. All culinary water improvements shall conform F - - - - - - with the standards and specifications of the N89° 57'01"W 80.00' o 7 BLOCK o F 4 F1 o n n City of Meridian. rn 3,393 SF 3,393 SF M 35LF WHERE POSSSIBLE(1)TREE PER LOT , PER p p g y 4. All improvements in the public right of wa 31 LOT TREES BY OWNER/BUILDER! shall conform with the standards and C0 13 oo -S89I 57'59"E 18 I.52'- n SHALL BE CLASS II f h A County Highway 2 8OO SF "' ^' M LOT FENCING BYI I I specifications 0 t o da C ty g Wdy M , M o 0 0 94.26' M 94.26' M U U District ACHD and the Idaho Standards For 00 00 00 o 0 INDIVIDUAL LOT ( ) N89° 5701"W 80.00' b 8 � b 3 b Z OWNERS/BUILDE S I �� 1-� Public Works Construction ACHD Supplement BLOCK 1 w Q Y a - - 1� (ISPWC ACHD). �, M 3,393 SF M 3,393 SF M N FV N o o F _ _ 5. All private improvements shall conform to Idaho O o 14 0 0 oC) CDo 589°57'59"E 188.52'- m a ° F-1 Standards For Public Works Construction 2,800 SF M Z94.2e 94.26' LZ o u - - - - - - u I (ISPWC) standards and specifications. N89° 57'0r"W 80.00' F1 0 m 4 6. Contractor to field locate and verify the 9 0 2 o w 30 I I �--� horizontal and vertical location of all utilities 3,582 SF co 3,582 SF M - - 1�1 prior to beginning work. o 15 oF 1)T EE PER LOT Al PER LOT FENCING Y 2,800 SF -S89°57'59',E 188.52'- - J 5LF HERE POSSSIBLE, INDIVIDUAL LO ^' ' Q ' OT TREES BY OWNER/BUILDER, OWNERS/BUILDERS O80. b6 94.26' 94.26' U SHALL BE CLASS II N89° 57'01"W 80.00 � � � � 0 7.73' 1 0 0 1 I I I __ - 0 16 � Ln � 3,505 SF °� L 3,562 SF "' ; �_ J M 2,858 SF �� 75.2T 80.44' Cti5 S89°57'59"E 156.53' �0 � N89° 5T 01"W 86.56' � �� 10 Z 17 \� ��'i \� S89°5T59"E 174.53' HARDIMAN ST o Q I sr - � o M Ln 3,270 SF '6 °oo �--- ,�; \ y L^ Z I TREE BUFFER TO SCEEN Y m a o -N89° 5T 01"W 109.45' C1J 589° 5T 59"E 37.33' 589° 5T 59"E 43.20' C79 I LOTS FROM SELLER'S p v= °- Z C18 19 C24 PROPERTY m Cf o " CD o 18S00W 31.46 SF 1� 6.00' 4.00 (ti 1.00' 75.20' 4'OPE VISION FENCE FE c , r---- -- 7 r O 69.22'' 0.99 28.00' o ,� °O N89°57'59"W 182.4 S89�F 59"E cc a O5 N89° 5T 01"W 127.13' ' I I / 10.06' � COMMON DRIVE#2 - - - - • 4'OPEN VISION FENCE TOO NARROW FOR TREES ) O rn rn 4'OPEN VISION FENCE F 0 0 3 26 w 22 o s 20 0 3,666 S o 10,368 SF 3' I 38,205 SF CN o N o � 27 LOT FENCING BY • CDINDIVIDUAL LOT Z N OWNERS/BUILDERS (1)TREE PER LOT Al PER 3 3 ) ) 35LF WHERE POSSSIBLE, EXISTING o o ) ) LOT TREES BY OWNER/BUILDER, HOME o o 1)TREE PER LOT Al PER SHALL BE CLASS II 0 0 5LF WHERE POSSSIBLE, V'o OT TREES BY OWNER/BUILDER, I I I ON HALL BE CLASS II • I I lt�� 67.52'- -1 12.48' 15.52' 79.20' I I I I 0o q -589°5T59"E 174.72' PROVIDE 24'DRIVEWAY ACCESS 1 ADJUST PLANTS AS NEEDED(PER BUILDER) I I h� / I • LOT FENCING BY Ir INDIVIDUAL LOT OWNERS/BUILDERS LU rn O N 1-1 ao / 21 3 23 N / o N 13,984 SF o 11,654 SF N CN o 3 EXISTING EXISTING o U o HOME N HOME ROCK MULCH IN STRIP o o I Farrington I r7 L -1 L 35LF WHERE POSSSIBLE,(1)TREE PER LOT PER OLOT TREES BY OWNER/BUILDER, Heights 97.84' 117.09' 94.73' / I SHALL BE CLASS II N89° 07'04"E 309.66' 12.75' / Preliminary Plat Plat Layout & Cover Notes Ln Q "PLS 14221" 0 7,699 SF 14.22' S89°5 '59"E 4.98' I I SCREEN IRR STRUCTURES I I V N - ° 589°07'04"W 302.66' N29°35'25"E 14.26' 40%VEG TATIVE COVERAGE PROJECT: PP-1 �/ ' ERIC PLANTINGS DRAWN BY: CLS W 5'FAIN CLE.�&ANCE��EXIST4NG TREE;TYPJ L- 6'CLOSED VISION FENCE ACHD PERM ANENTSLOPE E PINE AVE (MINOR ARTERIAL) i I REVIEWED BY: ERB 3 REVISIONS: � EASEMENT INST. NO. 2017-063135 �S89°0T04"W 2647.61' NO. DATE REMARKS-' ' ), • } A } tea; � )" I Ss'k • J•�s ))) • • • ))) • - t- • - ) - -- C v 'o C. i k DATE: Q May 22, 2025 U Y SHEET NUMBER: P P illillillillin 1 Q A d� - ��St.+,'%..;j',:iyJJ A-�f s•'u„':fr - ---ti- F ti3 � =+Y jam Rim 'sir tit 4 � _ �• ��~L' - s .. Tfemh Am .. r Na i ' AmpAL PF 0 — ANN �yr NNW ` - ... _ ... � try t S - � �.'�•� ►• '+, ,f t{';S t' ice. ' ., r�r r ��asr+7�'�I+���r +. .. r' '. .,!• .• +� +;^r•�r�.z. `:r1, ],}f - P.J�• ;1••f r'• 1 iT��`i J��•1 `' 1.� �,r�, � •. /, '' ' T;�+�� !f3 f i'/' � •���':i+z�F��r y�TT r• - 1 � [r`1' b .��'' r• • fit ,� MI • r1'�.�r���y J r1.�, f � +yi t. •, �;'f f • , �`j'+;ti I. �rl;{t � M .,� � .l �r;.4fr. i �, J' � 'r. 1 5 }" �� �•~ j f ti'�, !t��l.�' a t�'�'' s��' . � r'. e� Yrt' _ -�, C E IDIAN�-- Public Presentation(s) 10 : 15 101 X O dacountyassessor. org Q [T] • • • • Search. . . (� ho - , y i Y Q Y C Q 2 1500 ■ ■ ■ 0 30 60ft W IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Adoption of Proposed Bylaws for the Planning and Zoning Commission 71 C� fIEN DL4,,A H �. MEMO TO PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Request to Include Topic on the Agenda From: Kurt Starman, Deputy City Attorney Meeting Date: August 7, 2025 Presenter: Kurt Starman, Deputy City Attorney Estimated Time: 1S minutes Topic: Approval of Proposed Bylaws Recommended Action: Approve the attached bylaws pertaining to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Background: The City Council recently updated Title 2 of the Meridian City Code ("MCC"),which pertains to City commissions and committees. Under MCC section 2-2-1, every statutory commission, including the Planning and Zoning Commission, must"adopt bylaws for the proper conduct of business." To that end, the Legal Department has developed a template to standardize and streamline the bylaws for all City commissions and committees. The template has been modified slightly to reflect the Planning and Zoning Commission's needs and current practices. Once the Commission approves the bylaws, they will be forwarded to the City Council for ratification. Attachment: Proposed Bylaws 1 72 BYLAWS of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Effective [Insert Date] ARTICLE I: PURPOSE These Bylaws are adopted to facilitate the duties of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission(hereinafter"Commission") and to provide a framework for the organization, actions, and agenda of the Commission. ARTICLE II: OFFICERS SECTION 1:DUTIES OF CHAIR. The Commission Chair shall preside over all full Commission meetings and shall sign all documents requiring an official signature on behalf of the Commission. The decisions, statements, and/or actions of the Chair shall obligate, commit, and/or represent the Commission only insofar as the Commission has specifically authorized. SECTION 2: DUTIES OF VICE-CHAIR. The Commission Vice-Chair shall perform the duties of the Chair in the absence of the Chair and shall perform such other duties as may be delegated by the Commission Chair. SECTION 3: NOMINATIONS.At the annual election of officers, the sitting vice chair shall be automatically nominated for the office of chair. SECTION 4:VACANCY.A special election may be held at any time to fill a vacancy of office. The Chair may add a special election to an agenda as needed, or upon the timely request of any commissioner. An officer who fails to fulfill the duties of office may be removed from the office by a majority vote of the Commission at a special election. ARTICLE III:MEETINGS SECTION 1: NOTICE OF MEETINGS. Unless otherwise prescribed by statute, the designated City staff member(s) assigned to the Commission by City leadership ("City staff') shall provide commissioners written notice of meetings,which notice shall state the date, hour, and location thereof, and shall further state the purpose of the meeting, business to be transacted, and/or agenda. City staff shall provide notice to the Commission not less than forty-eight (48) hours, nor more than thirty(30) days, prior to the meeting. SECTION 2: QUORUM. A majority of currently appointed commissioners shall constitute a quorum. SECTION 3: CONDUCT OF MEETINGS. The Commission shall operate generally under the precepts of Robert's Rules of Order. The order of business for meetings of the Commission shall generally be as follows: 1) call to order; 2) roll call; 3) adoption of agenda; 4) approval of consent agenda; 5) items moved from the consent agenda; 6) action items; 7) reports, presentations, and future meeting topics; 8) adjournment. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the order of business may be modified by the Commission Chair as needed. BYLAWS OF THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 73 PAGE 1 OF 2 SECTION 4:AGENDA. The agenda for all meetings of the Commission shall be prepared by City staff in consultation with the Commission Chair as needed. Agenda items may be proposed by the Commission Chair or any commissioner and shall be placed on the agenda at the discretion of the Commission Chair,provided that agenda items are proposed seven(7) days in advance of a regular meeting, or forty-eight(48)hours in advance of a special meeting. SECTION 5: SPECIAL APPEARANCES AND REQUESTS. Scheduling of special appearances before the Commission or requests to the Commission shall be at the discretion of the Chair. The Chair may set rules to maximize efficiency and productivity of meetings, including setting a reasonable time limit for presentations and/or comments to the Commission. SECTION 6: MINUTES. Minutes and/or records of the business conducted at all meetings of the Commission or any subcommittee thereof shall be prepared by City staff and shall be open for public inspection. City staff shall forward the minutes of each meeting to the Commission not less than forty-eight(48)hours, nor more than thirty (30) days,prior to the meeting at which such minutes are subject to approval by the Commission. SECTION 7: SUBCOMMITTEES. The Commission Chair, with the Commission's approval, may establish such subcommittees as necessary or helpful to assist or advise the Commission in the performance of its functions and/or furtherance of its mission. Meetings of subcommittees shall comply with any and all applicable public meetings laws. Each subcommittee shall consist of at least two (2) commissioners. Unless a subcommittee chair is appointed by the Commission Chair, each subcommittee shall elect a chair to preside at subcommittee meetings and present the findings and/or recommendations of the subcommittee to the Commission. The Commission Chair shall appoint commissioners or City public officials to serve as members of subcommittees. The Commission Chair or Subcommittee Chair may invite non-commissioners to assist with the work of the subcommittee. SECTION 8:VOTING. Each commissioner shall be entitled to one (1)vote on any matter before the Commission. Except as otherwise designated herein or by law, decisions shall be made on the vote of the majority of the members present at any meeting at which a quorum is present. The Commission Chair shall be a voting member. Voting shall be audible; written, anonymous, and proxy voting shall not be permitted. ARTICLE IV: AMENDMENT OF BYLAWS As provided in Meridian City Code, the Commission may recommend to the Mayor and City Council that these bylaws be altered, amended, added to, or repealed. ARTICLE V:ADOPTION AND EFFECTIVE DATE The Commission adopted the foregoing bylaws at its regular meeting on [Insert Date]. These bylaws shall be effective upon their ratification by resolution of the City Council of the City of Meridian. BYLAWS OF THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 74 PAGE 2 OF 2