Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-09-02 Regular City Council Regular Meeting City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Tuesday, September 02, 2025 at 6:00 PM Minutes ROLL CALL ATTENDANCE PRESENT Councilman Doug Taylor Councilman John Overton Councilwoman Anne Little Roberts Councilwoman Liz Strader Councilman Luke Cavener Mayor Robert E. Simison ABSENT Councilman Brian Whitlock (Returned 9:04 for Executive Session) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE COMMUNITY INVOCATION ADOPTION OF AGENDA Adopted PUBLIC FORUM – Future Meeting Topics ACTION ITEMS 1. Public Hearing (continued from August 12, 2025) for Touchmark (H-2025-0012) by The Land Group, generally located on the south side of E. Franklin Rd. and the north side of I-84, midway between S. Eagle Rd. and S. Cloverdale Rd. Withdrawn Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2025-0012 A. Request: Modified Development Agreement to update the conceptual development plan for the overall site, which consists of approximately 121.50 acres of land to consolidate the existing agreements (AZ-99-021 Touchmark (recorded in 2001, Inst. #101048096); April 2001 Addendum (Inst. # 101048097); May 2003 Addendum (Inst. #103137119); AZ-02-018 (Bair Property AZ-02-018, Inst. #102143308); MI-07-006 (Meadowlake Village North 3rd Addendum, Inst. #108022885) into one new agreement that replaces all previous agreements. B. Request: Rezone of 63.34 acres of land from the L-O to the C-C (55.17 acres) and C-G (8.17 acres) zoning districts. C. Planned Unit Development Modification (Meadowlake Village CUP-03-005) to update the concept/use plan and include 4.6 acres of additional land, a deviation to the maximum building height allowed in the C-C district from 50ft. to 64ft. for the hotel and inclusion of 2 and 3 story townhome dwellings. Motion to accept withdrawal request made by Councilman Cavener, Seconded by Councilwoman Strader. Voting Yea: Councilman Taylor, Councilman Overton, Councilwoman Little Roberts, Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Cavener ORDINANCES \[Action Item\] 2. Ordinance 25-2096: An Ordinance of the city of Meridian, Idaho amending Ordinance No. 24-2060, the appropriation ordinance for the fiscal year beginning October, 1, 2024 and ending September 30, 2025 (FY2025), by increasing total appropriations from $255,511,778 to $264,009,348, increasing total revenue from $154,669,420 to $167,958,290, and decreasing the use of fund balance from $100,842,358 to $96,051,058; and providing an effective date. Approved Motion to approve made by Councilman Cavener, Seconded by Councilwoman Strader. Voting Yea: Councilman Taylor, Councilman Overton, Councilwoman Little Roberts, Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Cavener 3. Ordinance 25-2097: An Ordinance of the City of Meridian providing for the adoption of a budget and the appropriation of $264,498,131 to defray the necessary expenses and liabilities of the City of Meridian, in accordance with the object and purposes and in the certain amounts herein specified for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2025 and ending on September 30, 2026; to levy all such appropriate taxes and levies as authorized by law upon taxable property; and to collect all authorized revenue; to provide for a waiver of the 2nd and 3rd readings pursuant to Idaho Code §50-902; and providing for an effective date and the filing of a certified copy of this ordinance with the Secretary of State. Approved Motion to approve made by Councilman Cavener, Seconded by Councilwoman Strader. Voting Yea: Councilman Taylor, Councilman Overton, Councilwoman Little Roberts, Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Cavener FUTURE MEETING TOPICS EXECUTIVE SESSION \[Action Item\] per Idaho Code 74-206(1)(b): To consider the evaluation, dismissal or disciplining of, or to hear complaints or charges brought against, a public officer, employee, staff member or individual agent, or public school student. Motion to enter executive session made by Councilman Cavener, Seconded by Councilwoman Strader. Voting Yea: Councilman Taylor, Councilman Overton, Councilwoman Little Roberts, Councilman Whitlock, Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Cavener Into session: 9:09 PM Out of session: 10:03 PM ADJOURNMENT 10:03 PM Meridian City Council September 2, 2025. A Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:02 p.m. Tuesday, September 2, 2025, by Mayor Robert Simison. Members Present: Robert Simison, Luke Cavener, Liz Strader, John Overton, Doug Taylor, Anne Little Roberts and Brian Whitlock. Other Present: Chris Johnson, Bill Nary, Bill Parsons, Sonya Allen. ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE X Liz Strader X Brian Whitlock Anne Little Roberts _X_ John Overton _X_ Doug Taylor _X_Luke Cavener X Mayor Robert E. Simison Simison: Council, we will go ahead and call the meeting to order. For the record it is September 2nd, 2025, at 6:02 p.m. We will begin this evening's regular City Council meeting with roll call attendance. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Simison: Next item up is the Pledge of Allegiance. If you would all, please, rise and join us in the pledge. (Pledge of Allegiance recited.) COMMUNITY INVOCATION Simison: Do we have Randy Hunter here for the invocation? Okay. Up next is a community invocation. If you would all join us in the community invocation or take this as a moment of silence and reflection. Thank you for being here. Hunter: Thank you, Honorable Mayor, Council Men and Women, law enforcement officer. Now you are one. You were two. Do I speak to you or -- or with my back to the people? It doesn't seem right, but someone's going to get my back. Simison: They can -- they can -- they can see you. Hunter: Yeah. Yeah. Well, I'm here just to -- to do an invocation, but -- but may I just take a minute or two first to say well done -- well done, Meridian. My wife and I moved here two months ago and we have been overwhelmed by the hospitality of this community. We moved into The Seasons at Meridian and Kayla, our leasing agent, went overboard to connect us with Meridian furniture stores, entertainment, parks and all kinds of things and, by the way, whoever is responsible for that Discovery Park ought Meridian City Council September 2,2025 Page 2 of 48 to get a raise. My grandchildren would live there if they could. Beautiful park. To going to Albertsons and meeting a man my age who was doing checkout and so I just retired from Micron, but I -- I want to meet people and be with people. You're new here, uh? Well, here, let me tell you where you should go and what you should do and so he was overwhelmingly hospitable. My job, after 40 years as a Lutheran pastor in Madison, Wisconsin, was to come here and help a group of churches in the Treasure Valley who engaged me to help them determine where should we go, there is so many people, what should we do? Where are the holes that we could help meet and so I came here for two years to help with that work. So, part of that is going to community leaders, like visited city halls around the valley, came to Meridian City Hall, my hometown now City Hall and I was welcomed so wonderfully. An elegant elderly lady sits in the lobby behind me during the week. I don't remember her name, but she also deserves a raise. So wonderful. She's probably a volunteer. But so wonderful. She listened to what I needed and in a friendly way pointed me where I needed to go. I went to the City Clerk's office where Chris and Tina took the time to meet with me and get my questions answered and direct me wherever else I needed to go. Jake Cluff from the Mayor's office took time to sit down with me unannounced. I just came asking can I get an appointment and sat down and -- and gave me information for a half hour or so. Caleb Hood in planning, same thing, brought out maps. Well, here, let me help you. Let me show you what's happening. Unbelievable hospitality. So, I want to thank you for that. You're doing a wonderful job. I'm a pastor. So, it reminds me of a time 4,000 years ago when God came to a man named Abraham and said I want you to leave your town and go to a town I'm going to show you, but don't worry I will take care of you along the way and for 2,000 years the Lord did until in that town far from the home that Abraham left a descendant of Abraham was born who would bring God's hospitality to the world, his own son, and offer a kind of friendship and hospitality that would only be possible because he offered it to us. Now, listen, I'm not Abraham, I came from Madison, Wisconsin, not Ur of the Chaldees. Meridian isn't Israel. Your Mayor isn't Jesus Christ. Surprise. No. If you were the meetings would be short, because he would just multiply money and you just do what you want. But you're hospitable and welcoming and I thank you for that. I'm going to pray because I'm a praying guy. I don't know if you are or not. I will invite you to listen, join me or not, depending on what you wish to do. Part of my daily routine is to read a section of the Bible and a devotion and, then, this little book that comes out each quarter has, oh, prayers for special things at the back of it and one of the prayers is for government, because we believe that God ordained the government and so we ought to pray for the government. So, this is the prayer in the book for this quarter for the government that I'm going to pray and, then, this quarter is over, I have a different one. So, I'm going to leave this book on the back table if anybody wants it you are welcome to it. Here is the prayer. Lord of Heaven and Earth, you have established governments for the good of your people. I pray that you bless our government leaders with wisdom, integrity and courage. Guide them to respect your laws over political expediency. Forgive them when their decisions contradict your word. Guide our courts to interpret the law honestly, fairly and in keeping with your holy will. Watch over those who protect us, so that we may continue to enjoy the freedoms we have been given. Amen. Thank you. Meridian City Council September 2,2025 Page 3 of 48 ADOPTION OF AGENDA Simison: Thank you, Mr. Hunter. And welcome. Up next is adoption of the agenda. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: We have got our Executive Session notated on the agenda. So, I would move that we adopt the agenda as presented. Strader: Second. Simison: I have a motion and second to adopt the agenda. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and the agenda is agreed to. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. PUBLIC FORUM — Future Meeting Topics Simison: Mr. Clerk, anyone signed up under Public Forum? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, not under Public Forum. ACTION ITEMS 1. Public Hearing (continued from August 12, 2025) for Touchmark (H- 2025-0012) by The Land Group, generally located on the south side of E. Franklin Rd. and the north side of 1-84, midway between S. Eagle Rd. and S. Cloverdale Rd. A. Request: Modified Development Agreement to update the conceptual development plan for the overall site, which consists of approximately 121.50 acres of land to consolidate the existing agreements (AZ-99-021 Touchmark (recorded in 2001, Inst. #101048096); April 2001 Addendum (Inst. # 101048097); May 2003 Addendum (Inst. #103137119); AZ-02-018 (Bair Property AZ-02- 018, Inst. #102143308); MI-07-006 (Meadowlake Village North 3rd Addendum, Inst. #108022885) into one new agreement that replaces all previous agreements. B. Request: Rezone of 63.34 acres of land from the L-O to the C-C (55.17 acres) and C-G (8.17 acres) zoning districts. Meridian City Council September 2,2025 Page 4 of 48 C. Planned Unit Development Modification (Meadowlake Village CUP- 03-005) to update the concept/use plan and include 4.6 acres of additional land, a deviation to the maximum building height allowed in the C-C district from 50ft. to 64ft. for the hotel and inclusion of 2 and 3 story townhome dwellings. Simison: Okay. So, with that we will move on to our Action Items this evening. First item up is a public hearing that was continued from August 12th, 2025, for Touchmark, H-2025-0012. We will continue this public hearing with staff comments. Allen: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. Give me just a moment here. Alrighty. The first applications before you tonight are a request for a development agreement modification, a modification to the existing planned unit development, and a rezone for Touchmark. This site consists of 121.5 acres of land. It's zoned L-O, limited office, and it's generally located on the south side of East Franklin Road and the north side of Interstate 84 midway between South Eagle Road and South Cloverdale Road. Go through a little history on this property. The majority of this site was annexed in 2000 with a development agreement and a conditional use permit for a conceptual planned unit development. A smaller 4.6 acre portion of property was later annexed and included in an amended development agreement and concept development plan. The original concept planned unit development was approved for continuing care retirement community, comprised of 250 to 300 units of independent and assisted living, 450 units of residential, including single family, duplex, townhomes and multi-family. A community senior health and fitness center. Medical office parks. Commercial and retail businesses. Since that time approximately 428 residential units have been built in the retirement community, along with the senior health and fitness center and many amenities, including open green space and walking trails, a community garden, coffee shop and Bistro, salon and barber shop, a library, theater, dining venues, pickleball courts and other on-site amenities. In 2003 the development agreement and planned unit development were amended to allow the development of 318 residential units and approximately 600,000 square feet of commercial office space on 138 acres of land, with reduced building setbacks in the L-O district. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation is mixed-use community. A modification to the development agreement is proposed to update the existing conceptual development plan for the overall site as shown, which consists of approximately 121.5 acres of land and consolidate the existing agreements into one new agreement that replaces all previous agreements. A rezone of 55.17 acres of land to the C-C zoning district and 8.17 acres to the C-G zoning district is proposed from the L-O district for the undeveloped portions of the site included in the master plan to accommodate the proposed uses. The reason for the rezone is that because the concept plan is proposed to be revised it must comply with current UDC provisions, which prohibit retail, hotel, self-service storage, light industry and multi-family residential uses in the L-O district. The previously developed areas of the site will remain L-O as allowed with previous planned unit development through city code in effect at that time. The proposed development plan is as shown and it consists of 121.5 acres of land within a larger mixed-use community designated area totaling approximately 164 acres and includes a mix of uses consisting of Meridian City Council September 2,2025 Page 5 of 48 commercial, office, light industry and a variety of residential housing types as shown on the bubble plan consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. A couple of areas on the concept plan -- the ones with the stripe symbol are shown with two possible uses. The medical office, townhome style, multi-family residential along the southwest boundary of the site and that is right here. If you can see my pointer. And the commercial multi- family residential around -- along the north side along Franklin Road. If the demand for office space doesn't come to fruition the applicant proposes an alternate use of townhome style multi-family, 50 to 55 units in that area here on the southwest side. Commercial use is similar to the commercial proposed to the west along Franklin Road as proposed on the other area, with the flexibility for multi-family residential units. The number of units and the density is not specified, but the applicant states the area could support 115 to 140 units using the same density as the other multi-family area. The multi-family use would be at a larger scale than the townhomes and an increase in density. Staff did not recommend approval of the optional residential uses in those two areas, because commercial uses are desired in the mixed-use community diagram in the Comprehensive Plan along arterial streets, transitioning to lesser intense uses. Additionally, the plan allows for up to 65 percent of the development area to be comprised of residential uses with the provision of transit and the applicant is proposing approximately 68 percent, not including the optional multi-family and townhome style multi-family units. Although the Commission preferred these areas develop with commercial uses, they did feel that residential should be allowed as an option for flexibility for long-term future growth. So, that's what the staff report from the Commission currently reflects. A modification to the existing development -- or excuse me -- planned unit development for Meadow Lake Village, File No. CUP-03-005, is proposed to update the conceptual development plan and includes a request for deviation to the maximum building height allowed in the C-C district from 50 feet to 64 feet for the hotel and that's measured to the highest point of the structure and inclusion of townhome dwellings as a permitted use in the C-C district. Staff is amenable to the building height increase as proposed. However, is not in support of the request for townhomes to develop in the C-C district, because townhomes where each unit is on its own property, are a prohibited use in the C-C district and, therefore, aren't allowed through the PUD. This would require a rezone to a residential or traditional neighborhood zoning district in which the use is allowed. Because the applicant is not proposing to subdivide the property the use is considered multi -- multi-family residential and is allowed in the C-C district. The new development plan includes approximately 114,000 square feet of medical office space, approximately 300 to 400 non-age restricted market rate multi-family units, both apartments and townhouses, with the possibility of 165 to 195 additional units through the alternate use as proposed that I mentioned. Twenty to 25 single family attached units. Those are labeled as villas on the plan. Three single family detached units, labeled as cottages. 75,546 square feet of self storage, i.e., light industry. 45,000 square feet of general office space. 45,000 square feet of commercial retail space and an approximate 126 room hotel. Conceptual building elevations for the proposed structure are as shown there on the edges of this plan. A pedestrian pathway plan was submitted as shown. The green lines represent ten foot wide pathways. The blue five foot proposed sidewalks. And the pink five foot wide existing sidewalks. A phasing plan is proposed as shown, which depicts four Meridian City Council September 2,2025 Page 6 of 48 phases of development and is anticipated to be completed between the years 2030 and 2040. Phase one is the villas and cottages in the next two to five years. Phase two is the apartments and townhomes in the next three to ten years. Phase three is the commercial self-storage, additional multi-family and hotel along Franklin Road in three to 15 years and phase four is the medical office, daycare, post-acute care and townhome style multi-family units in the next four to 15 years. Staff recommends a subdivision application is submitted for each phase of development and recorded in order to have a legal parcel for development purposes of these areas. The existing community has proposed to remain unchanged, except for the small golf course area and that is this area in pink right here, which at some point in the future may be redeveloped with villas and that is the duplex style units and that would be considered a multi-family residential use as well if all of the units are on one property. The open space amenities are also evolving and as the golf course is redeveloped the required amenities will be reprogrammed in other areas of the project. A minimum of ten percent or 6.15 acres of the gross area of the planned unit development, which is 61.5 acres, was required to become an open space exclusive of required street buffers and buffers between incompatible land uses. After the Commission hearing the applicant submitted an open space exhibit as shown that depicts 6.45 acres or 10.49 percent of the site of open space consisting of grassy areas of at least 5,000 square feet in area and common areas with pathways or other amenities, excluding the pond and the golf course area. So, if -- if they included the pond area, which they are not proposing to change in this green space here it would be more than that. Because the Touchmark development has not been subdivided into individual lots it is not clear to staff what areas are considered private versus common and if the area is counted as common area are actually common and the applicant may be able to speak to that more, but staff was just unsure of that. But the Touchmark development is a little different out there and, again, they can probably explain more of that, but these are not added subdivided lots, just all on one property out there. So, the Commission did recommend approval of this application and just a note with development agreements and planned unit developments the decision making body is able to place additional conditions on development applications that may not typically be required in the UDC in an effort to provide exemplary site development in accordance with the purpose statement of the PUD. I will go through a summary of the Commission public hearing. Tamara Thompson from The Land Group testified in favor of the application and Ryan Benson from Touchmark also testified in favor. Sandra Cruz commented on the application and the applicant Tamara Thompson provided a response to the staff report and I will go through that. The applicant requested Commission approval of changes to the following conditions in the staff report. Number A-1-2, request for six foot tall wrought iron fencing along the Ridenbaugh Canal to be replaced with metal picket fence or full privacy to match existing fence. Number two, the conditional use permit and planned unit development number I, request for a drive or private street to not be required from Truckee Avenue to the east to the light industry designated property as it would be difficult and likely not achievable as there is an existing gravity ditch where flows will need to be maintained and a severe grade difference of approximately 27 feet. I will just go back up and show you what that was in reference to. That was a street in this location right here to this commercial property to the east. Internal drives will be Meridian City Council September 2,2025 Page 7 of 48 provided if possible, but should not be a requirement as this may be engineeringly infeasible. Number three, Conditional Use Permit Planned Development. Number two, request for the optional residential uses to remain and not be removed as recommended by staff. The applicant requests the flexibility of up to 65 percent of the land area included in this application to be allowed as residential uses up to 524 units. Just to note the percentage noted in the Comprehensive Plan is based on the overall mixed-use community designated area and not just the site area. So, that's where staff's calculations come from and, then, another was the request for the existing -- this was a comment from a member of the public that testified. A request for the existing black locust tree along the periphery of the site to remain and not be removed due to it being a home for many raptors. The question is, too, if the Ridenbaugh Canal will be concrete lined in the proposed development area and request for consideration of the height of structures along the east boundary of the site to transition to existing residential homes in Edgeview Subdivision. Key issues of discussion by the Commission are as follows. Recognition of the need to change the concept development plan as the development evolves and needs change. General support of the proposed development plan. Fencing type along the Ridenbaugh Canal and the applicant's request for a change to staff's recommendation for a change to wrought iron fencing. Uncertainty pertaining to the differences between townhome and multi-family units use wise. Desire for acre-to-acre replacement of the area proposed to be converted from a golf course to villas elsewhere in the new development portion of the site. Request for the applicant to provide an update at the City Council hearing pertaining to the possibility of retaining the existing black locust tree on the site. Concern pertaining to the traffic impacts the proposed development will have on area roadways and intersections and supportive of staff's recommendation. The Commission made the following change to the staff recommendation. Ensure the fencing proposed along the Ridenbaugh Canal complies with City Code. The metal picket fencing proposed by the applicant is an approved fencing type. In the two areas where commercial and residential uses are proposed as development options commercial is preferred, but residential is allowed as an option for flexibility for long-term future growth. Define townhomes as multi-family residential on the concept plan. The applicant has submitted revised plans that reflects this change or update and include an exhibit for open space that does not include the golf course. And, again, the applicant did do that. And work with the irrigation district and the city for connectivity to the east boundary of the site. Outstanding issues for Council tonight. An update from the applicant regarding the provision of a vehicular connection to the east boundary of the site and the retention of the black locust tree on the site. City Council should determine if it's appropriate to remove the golf course amenity from the existing development and replace it with 20 to 25 additional dwelling units as proposed on the concept plan. Many letters -- letters of testimony included in the public record have been received from residents of Meadow Lake Village since the Commission hearing in opposition to the proposed development and replacement of the golf course area and trees with villas. Concerns include the following: Noise associated with new construction. Not enough open space in the proposed development. Concern that the new development will use the private open space areas in Meadow Lake Village to recreate. Overcrowding of the campus and its facilities and inadequate parking for lodge, dining or functions. Meridian City Council September 2,2025 Page 8 of 48 Increased traffic. Lack of security. Impact on existing services and facilities. The proposed development would extremely alter the beauty and peacefulness of the existing campus. Decrease in the quality of life. Elimination of the golf course area would destroy the character the residential area. Existing infrastructure is inadequate to support the influx of approximately 40 to 50 new residential units against the height of the three story townhome style structures in relation to the existing one story cottages. They are requesting single story homes. A petition was also submitted with approximately 266 signatures opposing the conversion of the golf course and green space to residential villas. There were also several letters requesting Council remand the project back to the Commission for review of the open space exhibit and consideration of testimony from residents of Meadow Lake Village who were not fully informed about the development at the time the application was heard by the Commission. Staff will stand for any questions. The applicant is here to present tonight. Simison: Thank you, Sonya. Council, any questions for staff? Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Just because I wasn't part of the history, I was curious what was the justification for the original PUD? Because, you know, we have had issues in the past with some PUDs and I was just curious was there any specific justification for that or did it just kind of come in that -- I just wanted to know kind of that history. Allen: I will let Bill speak to that, because he was involved in that more. Parsons: Yeah. Mayor, Members of the Council, this project, like Sonya mentioned -- Sonya, if you wouldn't mind going back to the original concept plan. Yeah. Thank you. Appreciate that. So, this obviously -- this project does predate Sonya and myself. So, again, the intent was for a retirement community with ancillary medical office, a mix of housing types and, then, commercial along Franklin. So, again, that -- that's kind of the vision here. But there -- if you look through the record it was retirement community first was always part of their first phase and that's primarily what's been constructed out there and you can see since 2003 or even 2000 -- we even go back to 2000, not much has occurred, except for some office in the -- what is that -- northwest corner of the development and, then, again, the residential care facilities and the single family homes around it. So, I think over the years I have met with the applicant developer of this project and they are trying to get this project to align with what's currently happening in the market and from staff's perspective and what we want to do is typically we don't have L-O zoning and, then, have all these uses under an office zone. So, we have been working with the applicant to ensure that we can get some of the zoning and some of the development to comply with most of the comp plan policies and platting the zoning to match the land uses that they want. To me that is a big component of this particular project is making sure that, yes, the PUD -- they are modifying the PUD. This Meridian City Council September 2,2025 Page 9 of 48 is what they can build today. This is what's on the books. This is what we would hold them to if they were to come in today. They can build this today. They have to come in and comply with the development agreements, but modifying that, bringing it in so people understand and -- understanding the process and what they are wanting to do I think it's probably a good thing for the city, because, again, it's been almost 25 years and nothing else has happened out here, except for limited development and so we -- staff has been trying to -- excuse me -- trying to be flexible with the applicant and try to keep them in alignment with the spirit of the plan, but still allow them some flexibility to have additional residential types that weren't contemplated under the previous plan and, then, open it up for light industrial, because the project to the east in Boise does have that component and that's why you see that in the northeast corner. They are trying to align with what's happening, what was approved in the city of Boise. So, anyways, hopefully I have answered your question, but if not I'm happy to elaborate on any more of those details. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Maybe just two more. It's pretty unusual to see an amenity like a golf course that was part of the original plan and, then, have the developer come back and try to remove that. Is there -- Simison: We appreciate your enthusiasm, but we will try not to have clapping or other things throughout the evening. Okay? Thank you. Strader: So, I -- I was just curious is there anything in the original materials that leads you to believe that -- that this was something that was always proposed to be a potential conversion, like when you look back historically, or is this really a new thought? Parsons: Yeah. Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Woman Strader, again, this is the concept plan and it shows the golf course and that's what's on the books today and that's what we intend to see on the site and that's why the applicant is here discussing the possibility of potential of modifying that central open space. I would mention that during the Planning and Zoning Commission one of the representatives from Touchmark said they were going to repurpose that and so I was hoping maybe they have something in their slideshow this evening showing how that can work for your consideration this evening. But for now I -- I don't know what their plans are, except for adding more dwelling units on it. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Mr. Nary. Nary: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. Council Member Strader, to give you additional context, too. Twenty-five years ago development agreements were not used Meridian City Council September 2,2025 Page 10 of 48 to the extent they are today. PUDs were the more common method the city used at the time for these large scale developments. The code was very different. UDC didn't come into play until 2005. So, that was the method that would -- now we would probably see the development agreement more. That was not the common thing. The other thing I can tell you, at least, again, contextually, because I was here, the -- the -- the golf course was a selling point. It was not something that was -- at that time at least considered to be temporary or an interim measure, it really was a selling point at the time for the Council to consider that project. But if -- I know the PUD isn't something we use much anymore and so that's a very fair question contextually, but that was the method we did for what we today would do probably a DA and probably wouldn't do it this way. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Thank you. That's extremely helpful. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Sonya or Bill, I -- I noticed an absence of a student generation letter from West Ada, as well as our own city staff analysis. Is that because the -- the multi-family is proposed to be age restricted or is there -- is there a reason why we didn't see any type of student generation? Parsons: Mayor, Council, I -- I don't have an answer for you. I'm not sure why West Ada wouldn't have provided that. We certainly transmitted to them. More likely long range we will typically do that, but as you know Heather has departed the city -- Cavener: Yeah. Parsons: -- so, I'm not sure if that one's one that just didn't get generated at transition period. Simison: Council, any additional questions for staff at this time? Would the applicant like to come forward? Good evening. Thompson: Good evening, Mr. Mayor, Members of Council. Tamara Thompson. I'm with The Land Group. Our offices are at 462 East Shore Drive in Eagle. With me tonight is Kendra Lackey and Dustin Sisk from Touchmark, Ian McLaughlin and Gary Sorenson with Pivot North and John Ringert with Kittelson and Associates. So, we have a lot of our team here if -- to answer questions if -- if I can't do that myself. Collectively our team is pleased to present the applications before you, which is the development agreement modification, rezone and PUD modification. The development site -- see if -- Meridian City Council September 2,2025 Page 11 of 48 oh, there we go. I will try not to copy what Sonya had, but just to give you high level. The development site is generally located south of Franklin Road, east of Eagle Road, east of Touchmark Way, west of the Ridenbaugh Canal and north of Interstate 84. North of Franklin Road are commercial properties. I'm sorry. Industrial properties zoned I-L and west is a medical office campus, which includes St. Luke's. The hospital is zoned L-O and, then, to the east of us, which is zoned R-1-C in the city of Boise, is Edgewood Estate Subdivision. The property has an MUC future Land use map designation and I zoomed in on this just to show within that MUC this property is approximately 87.5 percent -- percent of that land area that's included in that -- that brown polka dot color. Our -- our applications comply with the intent of the MUC designation. The current zoning is L-O, which Sonya went over with you and the reasons in that development agreement previously. Just some of the existing conditions. This is looking along Franklin Road. So, the top -- the left view is looking to the west and, then, the one on the right-hand side is -- actually they are both looking to the west, but on the top they are showing more of the south side of the road along Franklin and on the bottom side is looking more at the north side of the road. Both the existing commercial properties are more in the industrial end of the scale and, then, on the top right I just wanted you to see the difference in the grade change there. With the early phases of Touchmark they installed all of the public roads for the -- for the property. So, all -- all roads -- the street landscaping -- internal they have beautiful water features along their entryways and these are more pictures of the existing conditions of all the public roads. Utility extensions were done at -- early on pulling utilities to the property and you can see all the -- the lush landscaping. It's very high quality. The beautiful entryway into the Touchmark facility itself is with the pond? This entry look will not change. The east -- western side of that -- I'm going to call it the center park, that stays as is, as does the pond. So, Touchmark has owned the property since the late 1990s and they opened their first phase of the retirement community, which is called Touch Market Meadow Lake Village in 2003. Touchmark has been a member of the Meridian community for close to 25 years, collaborating with local businesses, nonprofits, schools and government agencies -- I'm sorry -- organizations to provide employment and volunteer opportunities, as well as provide a much needed quality service for elder -- elderly residents of the Meridian and Boise area who moved to the Touchmark at Meadow Lake Village. The properties were annexed and zoned L- O with a PUD and development agreement in 2001 the development states -- the development agreement states the use is permitted with this agreement -- with the agreement include -- and this is in quotes -- the construction and development of continuing care retirement community comprised of 250 to 300 units of independent and assisted living, 450 units of residential, including single family duplexes, multi-family and townhomes, medical office parks, commercial, retail business and a community center health and fitness center. End quote. Our new plan we feel complies with the initial plan, it just needs some updating and there is definitely some areas where things weren't defined with -- like the areas -- well, commercial uses were shown on the master plan, but the exact acreage and square footage wasn't clearly defined. The original master plan included approximately 874 retirement housing units and 20.5 acres of medical office uses. So, that was all the definition as far as the land area of those things. So, we are updating that master plan to give a little bit more clarity to the Meridian City Council September 2,2025 Page 12 of 48 different uses. The development agreement and three addendums to the development agreement have been approved by the City of Meridian. The most recent addendum was recorded in 2008. The development agreement is still valid and active and the current applications are consistent with the original master plan. The overall site area is 21.5 acres and approximately 62.8 acres or 52 percent of the original master plan land area has been constructed and is operating as Meadow Lake Village. Four hundred and twenty-eight residential units have been built in the existing retirement community. The retirement community also includes a community center -- I'm sorry -- community senior health and fitness center, open green spaces and walking trails, community garden, coffee shop and bistro, salon and barber shop, library, theater, dining venues, pickleball courts, a pond and numerous water features and other enjoyable site amenities and I do have a couple pictures of these for you just to show the amenities. Not including what I call the center pond, there is 6.5 acres, which is ten and a half percent of the -- of the land area of the existing -- what's currently been constructed and, then, that center area, the center pond -- or center park is 8.25 acres and that includes open space. The park and the -- the small golf area, including the area -- so, if we take the development area out of the golf course, but what we are leaving in that center area, our total percentage is 16.8 percent of what would be included with the -- the existing residential community. And here is a couple more pictures of some of the amenities. So, lots of -- lots of seating areas and water features. The Touchmark mixed-use development includes approximately -- so, this is our new master plan. Approximately 114,000 square feet of medical office space, approximately 500 non-age restricted market rate multi-family units and we -- these will be in the form of both apartments and townhouse style. So, whenever I say townhouse for this new master plan they will be townhouse style where they look like townhomes, but they won't be platted to sit on their own individual lot, so they are included in the city's definition of multi-family. 75,600 square feet of self-storage, which is down in that industrial -- light industrial area. 45,000 square feet of general office space and 45,000 square feet of commercial retail space. Approximately 126 room hotel and 24 villas and duplex age- restricted units. So, those last 24 to 25 units are the only ones at this point that are proposed to be part of the retirement community and phasing is planned to be in the next three to 15 years. With the concept plan we have provided concept elevations. The amenities throughout the project will -- will be pedestrian sidewalks and multi-use pathways and those will be utilized to create a network to ensure safety and efficient mobility through the site. As intended in the original master plan a multi-generational project where residents of the existing Touchmark community can maintain a sense of security, while benefiting from the adjacent diverse uses is intentional. The existing amenities that are currently constructed -- and there was some confusion with this at the Planning and Zoning and I think I said it wrong, actually -- is that the existing amenities are for the retirement community. They -- the future residents -- the new homes that will be built, they will be provided their own amenities and open space per the current UDC, so -- but what's -- what's included today is for the existing residences. Future occupants of the multi-family and townhomes, as well as users of the future commercial and retail, will benefit from generous, new connectivity and green -- green space throughout the interior of the master plan, as well as the existing pedestrian infrastructure along Franklin Road and Touchmark Way, those public rights way. Extensive pathways will be Meridian City Council September 2,2025 Page 13 of 48 accompanied by recreational areas for children and adults to enjoy daytime leisure activities, such as playgrounds, open space, dog areas and functional spaces to promote general health and wellness. The existing monument sign, landscaping, entry fountains, those are all planned to stay. Those are existing and will be -- will remain. At least one amenity per the amenity category within the Meridian City Code is proposed to be added and proposed amenities will be better defined during the CZC process. And as previously stated, public utilities are available to serve the site. With the PUD plan we have provided dimensional standards of each sub area and access to the project will be provided via existing public rights of way. No new internal private roads are -- are proposed. The internal roadways would be a private driveway system. One new access to each -- East Franklin Road is proposed to align with North Truckee Avenue to the north. An updated traffic study, as required by ACHD, was conducted by Kittelson and Associates for the updated concept plan and the result is that the new plan does not substantially change from what was previously analyzed and both ACHD and ITD reviewed that study and they have no additional comments or no additional conditions for the project. One of -- so, getting to our proposed revisions, we have reviewed the staff report and agree with staff's recommended conditions and the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation -- recommendation to approve the project and we have just a few revisions. The first is the private street from Truckee to the light industry designated property. We will definitely try to do that if it's possible. We just have a few concerns and that is the -- this is the existing site when -- on this one you can see on the -- the image to the right that they immediately go into retaining walls as they enter their property. We have a much larger area that -- and this is hard to see, but the -- the topo survey is on the right-hand side and you can see -- and I have tried to align these, but that ditch that bisects the property, we will need to work with the irrigation district on maintaining downstream users and, then, there is a 27 foot grade change from that ditch down to Franklin Road. I'm almost done if it's okay if I continue. Again we will -- the site has not been engineered at this point. Going through the engineering portion we will try to make that vehicular connectivity, but it -- it may not be feasible with the height -- the height of those retaining walls may become extreme and, then, the amount of open space -- I know this has come up as -- as the -- as a question and we did provide this exhibit and, again, the amount of open space in this is -- is ten and a half percent. If we include the open space for the center park that will remain that becomes 16.8 percent of what will remain for the existing retirement community, which is over what the development agreement has. The development agreement requires ten percent. And I think with that I will stand for questions and will have the community -- or -- give their comments and we will address those afterwards. So, I will stand for questions. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions for the applicant? Taylor: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Taylor. Meridian City Council September 2,2025 Page 14 of 48 Taylor: Ms. Thompson, a quick question on history. I'm just trying to make sure I'm understanding some of the suggested changes. So, just reading from the notated agenda a little bit that staff provided, originally 250 to 300 units of independent and assisted living and, then, it states 450 units of residential, including single family duplex townhomes. Those were -- were those age restricted -- those 450 units for residential originally? Because I'm just reading through here with the new development you are talking about three to four hundred of non-age restricted. So, I just want to understand. So, you are taking age restricted and, then, saying we are not going to propose that, we want non-age restricted. Am I following that correctly? Thompson: Mr. Mayor, Council -- Taylor: Taylor. Thompson: -- Taylor, the development agreement doesn't specify that they are age restricted and so -- and I wasn't -- staff wasn't -- I wasn't part of, you know, the original one. So, we are doing our best to interpret what the development agreement says and it does not appear -- because it -- it calls them out as all kinds of different types of residential and it didn't -- and it separated them from the retirement ones. I I'm interpreting that as they were not specific to be retirement housing. Taylor: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Taylor. Taylor: Maybe the -- maybe your client can speak to it a little bit, because I'm just wondering if it's been marketed and proposed that way, so that folks who have moved in the community that was their understanding that this would all be like that. So, I'm just kind of curious -- to me that seems like a big change from maybe what was being originally envisioned and if -- you know, I understand this was a long time ago, but just kind of curious if that's how it's been presented to the community. Thompson: Yeah. Yeah. I don't know why they would have listed those separately. Kendra Lackey is with Touchmark. I will -- I will let her answer. Lackey: Is there -- Simison: Either one. Lackey: All right. Mr. Mayor, Councilmen, thank you. My name is Kendra Lackey. I'm president of Touchmark Development and Construction. My address is 5150 Southwest Griffith Drive, Beaverton, Oregon. 97005. And, Councilman Taylor, that was before my time as well. It was about 25 years ago. I interpreted it as being two separate types of residential uses, but I have also been -- I have also shared with some of our residents today that were in -- I'm going to -- not say the older vintage, because we are all a little older, but maybe plus ten or more years ago that -- that they thought it was a retirement Meridian City Council September 2,2025 Page 15 of 48 community -- or, sorry, age restricted only. So, I can't give you a really good answer, because it's 25 years ago. I have been with Touchmark for 11 years and since that point in time it's never been our intent. I also can say 874 units of retirement is -- is twice as big as any other Touchmark in its existence. So, I would -- I would infer that I was not all intended to be Touchmark. So, that's not a really great answer, Councilman, but that's about all I can give you today. Taylor: Yeah. Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Taylor. Taylor: Yeah. I can certainly appreciate that. This is -- there is several decades of time here we are talking about. So, it's just what I'm trying to get my mind around as I'm thinking about this is is this a community designed for, you know, folks that are retirement -- retiring or getting close to retirement, if that's kind of the community that they are trying to attract here or if this is really very much of a mixed-use. So, I will -- I will grapple with that a little bit. But, Mr. Mayor, I just have another follow-up question. Simison: Councilman Taylor. Cavener: Kind of along the same line. So, there is a lot of space here, there is a lot of land and I always, you know, for years that I have lived here I have kind of wondered, you know, why in such a spot there was so much undeveloped land. Is that because you need more flexibility for different types of development here? You -- you need the medical, you need that -- because originally, if I'm understanding it correctly, it was all really residentially focused. Am I understanding it correctly? Because I'm just wondering why it hasn't been fully developed yet and if there were -- you just need the flexibility for different types of -- of development there to be able to sell it, make it usable. So, I'm just trying to understand why has it sat vacant for so long and are these changes necessary in order for you to utilize that land in the highest and best use? I hope that makes sense. Thompson: Yeah. So, Mr. Mayor, Councilman Taylor, the -- the one thing that I go back to is that in the original master plan it definitely wasn't all residential. That had 20 and a half acres designated as medical office and, then, it also -- also references commercial and retail, but those -- those square footages weren't clearly defined and as far as the -- the market for -- for what's been there, there is -- there has been a few users over the years that -- that I have known about that it didn't just -- it didn't come to fruition for different reasons. Most of it's market conditions. But if you do look at an aerial, the -- even the -- the retail -- let me get back to that. No one will show it. The retail -- so, to the west of Touchmark is still vacant as well. So, you know, there is just -- I think it's just the industrial on the north and the commercial here on the south just has been a -- and -- and with Portico there, you know, it's -- it's been -- it's been difficult. And that's one of the reasons we were asking for flexibility on that frontage, because it has been marketed for 20 years as commercial and -- and it just hasn't -- hasn't happened yet and the -- and the stuff closer to Eagle Road will probably go first. Meridian City Council September 2,2025 Page 16 of 48 Overton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: Quick question. I don't know who might be best suited to try to address this. Over the past 22, 23 years have you marketed this to people, the residents at Touchmark that -- that the golf course would be going away or that you would have non- age restricted units built on site? Simison: Yeah. Just wait until -- yeah. On the record. You know what to do. Lackey: Thank you, Councilman Overton. No, for the past several years it has not been marketed. We started this process about figuring out what we are going to do with -- with this vacant land about -- I think it was January of last year where we decided that we needed to be a little bit more proactive, so that there wasn't 60 acres of vacant land right in the middle of Meridian. We looked at what the market was asking for over the past 25 years, which is not medical office and which is not retail. So, we looked at that and in the past ten years I don't believe that we have been marketing this as it's going to be an exclusively age restricted retirement community. I know that -- that there has been -- again I heard today that later in that -- and -- and, you know, over a decade ago that I have heard from residents that they -- they had heard that, but that was never our intent or part of our marketing. When it comes to the golf course we look at that as -- you know, we have done this for a year and a half and doing rezones is quite a -- a labor intensive and time intensive experience. So, we wanted to put together a plan to show you that we could have flexibility for the next several decades going forward. So, there -- currently there is no specific plan to create villas on that golf course. If this rezone goes forward we would go through a very intensive measured study to look at the -- the -- the benefits and the negatives of doing that, looking at what -- what the -- the neighborhood as a whole needs. You know, golf courses are a very expensive endeavor to take care of. When we look at what our residents -- how many residents use it, what's -- what's the cost is, is there benefit of amenities that can go with potentially some villas that would -- would be more enjoyed by a larger sense of our community. We haven't started that process yet. We were looking at putting zoning together that would give us the flexibility. Over the course of 20 -- the -- over the course of 25 years we have developed this community and I think it is a -- I think that the City of Meridian should be very proud of it and we have done it with thought and care and we would continue to do these next 60 acres with the same thought and care and that -- getting the land use to give us that flexibility is just the very first step. Overton: Mr. Mayor, follow up? Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: So, I remember when it opened and I will tell you that I believe as we sit here in this room today that it is the gold standard when it comes to retirement communities. Meridian City Council September 2,2025 Page 17 of 48 Lackey: Thank you. We are very proud of it. I'm glad you are, too. Overton: And when it was built and the golf course was done -- and I confirmed this with the city attorney -- we changed our city ordinance at the time to allow the use of golf carts, which were restricted to only one square mile in our city at the time, to this community, so that people could drive golf carts around and for years they drove their golf carts, they dressed them up in parades and now we are talking about more buildings with more traffic on the roads and they still own golf carts -- Lackey: Sure. And they -- and they don't use them necessarily to golf, just to get around and go to the White Pine have a nonalcoholic drink, because I'm sure they wouldn't drive their golf carts -- Overton: Which leads me to the question. The golf carts -- Lackey: Yeah. Overton: -- with a lot more traffic on the roadways there, because you are putting in more additional residences, doesn't cause you any concern? Lackey: Well, I look at where the residents would be going and the arterial streets that we have are the private streets and they would probably not drive into the Touchmark neighborhood, but they would probably drive out to Franklin and Eagle to do their daily commute. We don't have any through -- we don't have any through lanes that go through Touchmark that would shortcut you to another part of the Meridian community to travel. Overton: That's all for now. Simison: Council, any additional questions for the applicant at this time? Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Clerk, do we have anyone that signed up on this item tonight? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we have a lot of people here, a few signed up to speak. First is Kitty Roberts and we are getting a presentation brought up for her now. Simison: Okay. And while we have had some people signed up -- after everyone who signed up has testified anyone else we will give an opportunity if you wish to speak. Kitty, good evening. Roberts: Good evening. Mayor Simison, Members of the City Council, it's a pleasure to be with you here tonight and for some of you we would like to thank you for sharing our morning out in the first part of August and we had a good time talking with you, as well as visiting with our first responders and hope that we keep that up, so that we can all know each other a little better. My name is Kitty Roberts and I am president of the Meadow Lake Village Resident Council. I'm serving in my second term and I live at 446 South Nistler Lane and have been a resident for more than five years. I know I don't Meridian City Council September 2,2025 Page 18 of 48 look that old. As you can see by tonight's turn out and the public comments submitted to the city clerk there is considerable interest by the residents on the impacts to the current residents, about 500, now residing at Meadow Lake Village. To give the Council a full view of it, Mr. Jim Pershing, one of our residents, has put together a slide presentation giving you a glimpse of life in our community and look at all that green space. Our resident -- our resident council held a regular bimonthly forum for our residents on July 25th. Since we were unaware that the Planning and Zoning meeting held on July 17th was actually a hearing to consider the Touchmark proposed changes to the existing planning documents and to send its recommendations to the city, we were not in attendance and that was noted by several members of the Commission, but we are here tonight and we would like for you to take our comments very seriously. Several residents have signed up to comment on the application and others have already submitted their comments, which may be in your packages. Generally speaking their comments fall into the following categories. Existing open space versus proposed open spaces. Security and safety of the existing fully developed age-restricted area that we know as Meadow Lake Village and impacts of the development on existing facilities. Residents at Meadow Lake Village chose this Touchmark property because it provides the lifestyle that we were looking for and that includes a campus atmosphere with plenty of open space, plenty of outdoor amenities to enjoy, such as the golf course, the pickleball courts, our dog park, garden areas for residents and an intricate system of walking paths and sidewalks. It also includes an indoor health and fitness center to accommodate age-restricted users. We have many -- even though sometimes not enough -- indoor activity rooms for various scheduled events and most importantly we feel secure because we are isolated and of the same age grouping and most of us -- and most importantly -- moved to Meadowlake Village anticipating that we may need progressive care in the future, which Touchmark provides in both assisted living and memory care units. We fully understand that the land owned by Touchmark outside of -- of, but adjacent to Meadow Lake Village, is prime development space. While we may be sad to lose the spaces used by the coyotes and the geese to produce and raise their young and the views we enjoy of the foothills, it is logical and prudent that Touchmark wants to continue with development of the land it owns outside of the current Meadow Lake Village. However, our major objection is that the new plan essentially removes our village green. We are all accustomed to the term village green, because that's normally the focal point in most towns. It is also the center point of many of our outdoor activities that include the golf course, but also the tree-lined walking paths, the pond where our miniature sailing club launches their crafts, which are watched by many of the -- many from the pavilion on the pond and that particular pavilion was partially funded by residents at Meadow Lake Village. The area is also used for our annual car show and is -- and where we also hold many annual patriotic events and celebrations. I would like to point out to Council that there is a flaw in the city code that has contributed to our lack of involvement in the planning process. The City Code 11-5-A to six specifies how -- how and where notices of hearing should be displayed. Touchmark did comply with the code, but sidestepped the simple courtesy of -- of formally notifying current residents of the hearing. This is because the code specifies that adjacent landowners must be notified of the hearings. Guess what, we are not adjacent, we are smack dab in the middle of it, so we don't count as far as the code goes. I'm not asking you to change Meridian City Council September 2,2025 Page 19 of 48 the code tonight by the way. One way to address the concerns that will be raised tonight is to remove the existing Meadow Lake Village from the proposed application. That way we can serve the existing open space that is hallmark -- is a hallmark entry onto our campus. It also preserves the golf course and full pond and does not wreak havoc in the middle of a well-established community with major new construction activity. We are asking -- no, pleading with Council to consider our concerns and comments and refer this application back to Planning and Zoning Commission, so that we can work with the Commission and Touchmark to address the issues that are being presented tonight. Just remember, it takes a village to save a village. That's all. Simison: Thank you. Roberts: Any questions? Simison: Council, any questions? Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Kitty -- Roberts: Yes. Cavener: -- thank you for serving on -- Roberts: Better known as Ms. Kitty. Cavener: Fair enough. Fair enough. Roberts: From Gunsmoke. Cavener: Fair enough, Ms. Kitty. Appreciate you serving your neighborhood association. That's a hard job and appreciate your comments here tonight. Roberts: Thank you. Cavener: And we have -- we have received a lot of comments from the neighbors. We have read the -- the many e-mails that -- that everyone has sent in and look forward to hearing some more testimony tonight. There is this reoccurring theme of a request to go -- send this back to the Planning and Zoning Commission and I'm -- I'm struggling with that request, if I'm being frank. Roberts: Okay. Meridian City Council September 2,2025 Page 20 of 48 Cavener: So, my question for you is have you and your neighbors tried to engage with the developer, with the applicant, about these concerns after the Planning and Zoning Commission? Because it sounds like you are wanting us to send it back to the Planning and Zoning Commission so you have an opportunity to collaborate with them and I'm just curious if you have -- if you have done that proactively since the Planning and Zoning hearing before this evening? Roberts: I have talked to Kendra and we -- and I suggested to her that we enter into a memorandum of understanding, so that we could work things out. Touchmark had a different approach and they are -- they have presented to us going forward how they would like to notify us on any changes that they are considering. Have I sat down with them specifically? No. Tonight is the first time -- or today was the first time that full planning team from Touchmark has been here since the meetings in July. Cavener: Thank you very much. I appreciate your testimony. Roberts: Any others? Simison: All right. Thank you very much. Roberts: Thank you. Johnson: Mr. Mayor, next is Ruth McKnight. Simison: And when you come forward just give your name and address and I think just saying if you live in Touchmark is adequate. McKnight: My name is Ruth McKnight -- my name is Ruth McKnight. I'm a resident of Touchmark. I live at 422 South Nistler Lane and I have been a resident since February. Thank you for the opportunity to address you. Those of us who live at Touchmark are either active adults, we need a little bit of assistance with living, or we require the special services of a memory care facility. We are different, but we are united in one thing and that is our desire to live at Touchmark at Meadowlake Village. I also have -- would like to request that the Council consider sending this proposal back for review by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Review of the application I believe is necessary, because of the unique character and relationship between the Village and Touchmark. The applicant Touchmark should not be treated as a mere -- just another real estate developer. Applicant is primarily a provider of end-of-life elder care and Meadowlake Village is its flagship community. Its application, however, seeks major changes to a community originally designed, developed and operated to serve the needs of elderly residents, offering a specific number of environmental and special features, many of which are at risk if this application is accepted as proposed. Review is necessary, because we as residents were denied adequate notice of hearing and opportunity to comment. Given such an opportunity, as you see behind me, we will show up and comment. The applicant before another meeting of this Council or the Commission misrepresented the lack of resident comment as approval. That is not the case. Meridian City Council September 2,2025 Page 21 of 48 Residents were misinformed that the hearing on the application was merely a formality, permitting certain modifications within the master plan, but not seeking significant or immediate changes. Representations were made with Touchmark's assurances of honesty and transparency that the existing environment would be retained and not be affected by adjacent development. Residents relied upon those representations and protested to Touchmark management about the lack of a timely opportunity to comment. In response Touchmark responded that you deserve clear, proactive communication about any adjacent land use, but under the city's current code individual notices are not mailed to -- accept to property owners of record, not to residents or renters, such as we have, which means that residents of Touchmark won't directly receive mail from the city about hearings or applications, even when a nearby project is relevant. Characterizing all residents of Meadow Lake Village as residents or renters is significantly inaccurate. The residency certificate, which is an essential part of the contract between residents and Touchmark, grants a life estate, which is an ownership interest in real property entitling residents and owners to notice about matters that may affect their life. Simison: Can you wrap up, please? You are only allowed three minutes. McKnight: Yes. The -- the -- not only have the residents been deprived of a significant opportunity to comment, but the Planning and Zoning Commission has been deprived of the opportunity to consider the perspective of the population most likely to be adversely affected by the proposed changes. The applicant's phase one calls for elimination of the Village's golf course and that is a significant issue for all of us present in this room. If it is true that none of these proposed plans might really happen, then, we ask why is the elimination of the golf course listed as phase one to be done within two to five years? Simison: Thank you, ma'am. I think you can get some questions to get some more information on the record, but just so we have a -- give everyone their equal amount of time we need to make sure -- hold to three minutes. McKnight: My remarks have been presented in writing to the city clerk and include these remarks and others and contain exhibits which will help illustrate the point. Thank you very much for your time. Simison: I think you're going to get questions, so don't worry. Councilman Taylor. Taylor: Mr. Mayor, thank you. Mrs. McKnight, I have a -- over here. I have a question. You brought something up that I hadn't really thought about too much, which was Touchmark, obviously, has put forward a very -- a great product, a great community. A lot of you live there. You chose to live there. But that they -- they own some of the additional land and that it's almost like it's outside of their lane to develop a different product than Touchmark. I guess so my question would be in your -- would it be your preference that they would be the developer of these lands -- of this land or would they -- you prefer that they maybe sell it to somebody else to develop and they can just stay focused on the product that they specialize in? Meridian City Council September 2,2025 Page 22 of 48 McKnight: That's a difficult question, because I do believe that Touchmark is proud of this development. It wouldn't be their flagship if they weren't happy with it. So, I believe that -- that there is a Touchmark and then there is a Touchmark. But by that I mean that we are Touchmark. We live at Touchmark at Meadow Lake Village and I believe many of us question whether the design and operation of the retirement community is entirely consistent with the overall purpose and goal of the larger Touchmark Corporation, which is the owner of the Touchmark at Meadow Lake Village. We wonder whether they are -- whether the goals and motivations are perfectly aligned. Thank you very much. Overton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: Ruth, quick question. You said -- right here. You said you moved in this year. What month? McKnight: Moved in in February. Overton: February. So, fairly recent. So, if I ask you, you probably talked to the marketing department before you moved in. McKnight: Yes. Overton: At any point did that marketing department tell you that the golf course would be going away or that they would be developing the lands around -- McKnight: They did not. Because I can see open land it was reasonable for me to understand that at some point that open land would be developed. But never was anything mentioned that there was even a gleam in anyone's eye that any of that development would touch the current use and amenities of what we know as the -- the Village. Overton: Thank you, Ruth. Simison: Thank you very much. Johnson: Mr. Mayor, next is Stanley Mitchell. Simison: Good evening. State your name and where you live and you will be recognized for three minutes. Mitchell: My name is Stanley Mitchell. My wife Carolyn and I live at 4082 East Putter Lane in Meadow Lake Village. I'm very concerned about a lot of the things that have been brought up tonight, but I wanted to specifically address that portion which has been approved to build townhouses directly behind our house. The approval that has been given would potentially allow for the construction of market based three-story Meridian City Council September 2,2025 Page 23 of 48 homes. If this were to be allowed it would destroy the peace and quiet that we now enjoy and potentially have a negative impact on the investment we have in our home. The idea that a three story structure, 40 to 50 feet behind our home, with the occupants being able to look down on our backyard, is just totally unacceptable. Can you imagine dogs barking at all hours, teenagers partying, loud music just a few feet from your back door? When we moved to Meadow Lake Village ten years ago we were told that any development adjacent to Meadow Lake would be age restricted, independent units, but not a part of Meadow Lake Village and nowhere as you have heard from that has that been mentioned. When the time comes to sell our home, nobody in their right mind looking for a tranquil environment, would pay half a million dollars or more to buy a home with a three story structure directly behind them. Not being able to sell our home would trigger a provision in our contract, which would be extremely detrimental to us. I'm here to respectfully request that this issue be sent back to planning and that Touchmark be permanently prohibited from building townhouses on the parcel directly behind Putter Lane and that any development be limited to single family, one story, age- restricted homes. Thank you. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Mitchell: Thank you. Johnson: Mr. Mayor, next is Ron Reinhart. Good evening. Reinhart: Thank you for taking my -- my questions. I'm Ron Reinhart. I live at 4098 East Putter Lane. I have been a resident at Touchmark now since 2017. A lot of the -- the issues I was going to address about age restrictions have already been addressed. I was very surprised to hear that there was still a consideration of using the villas on the golf course as an unrestricted area. I can't imagine that being an issue. I was concerned about the -- the townhouses on our northern border and how close they are to having access to Touchmark and there being no way to screen for children who are to find that as an ideal place to go. So, anyway, when I came to Touchmark I was assured that it was always going to be and it was a restricted retirement community. That clearly is not the case. Again, there was no practical way to prevent access, even from the outside of the proposed new development. What options are there for children that they are allowed to be in the area to go to any place, except the most desirable, which would be our green space. Off to the side -- I would prefer to call that green space. We keep talking about a golf course. The heart of our green space happens to be the golf course. If any of you have been out to our community you know that. That's where the trees are. That's where the pond is. The rest of it is treeless pretty much. So, I think that needs to be a -- a clear distinction. Anyway, the concerns I have are for both safety of the seniors and also the children. The average age of Touchmark is probably in the mid 70s. Many of us who still drive aren't as good as far as our eyesight, our reflexes, particularly night time driving it's an issue as you all will find out ultimately. The -- the other issue is the number of drivers that will be in the area taking advantage of the very numerous other offices and businesses which are proposed. Finally the pond would be a clear ever present risk, particularly for young children. On the other hand, many of Meridian City Council September 2,2025 Page 24 of 48 our residents have balance issues. They use canes, walkers, carts in order to motor around the campus. Definitely a vulnerable group of people. What could possibly go wrong with mixing this senior demographic with skateboards, bicycles, kids with their dogs and even teenagers who are just trying out their new driver's license. I can't imagine that combination. Anyway, we all love our children, our grandchildren and the lucky few of us our great grandchildren and despite that we feel strongly that children do have their time and place. It surely isn't in a senior community like this. Simison: Ron, if you could summarize. Reinhart: Thanks for your thoughtful consideration. That's all my comments. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Reinhart: Any questions? Okay. Simison: Thank you. Johnson: Mr. Mayor, next is Dennis Haynes. Haynes: Mayor and Council, thank you for the opportunity to talk tonight. My name is Dennis Haynes. I reside at 477 East Splendor Lane in Meridian. My wife Barbara and I have lived in Touchmark -- a Touchmark cottage for over ten years and we sincerely appreciate the remarkable facility and services that Touchmark has created at Meadow Lake Village and plan to live there as long as we can. I'm taking out some of the parts that have been already covered, so it may be a little rough. Grant me a little ease there. Several residents have sent messages to Touchmark corporate management in Oregon voicing their concerns about the development plan. It's obvious that the return messages were not well received. Some residents characterized those replies as heavy on platitudes and light on addressing resident concerns. Touchmark replies ended by asking the residents for their trust. Could it possibly be that Touchmark corporate has lost sight of the unique feature about trust. You cannot gain someone's trust by simply asking for it, it must be earned and maintained and it cannot be transferred from one person to another. At the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing that brought the development plan before you tonight, there was not a single one resident at that meeting. You might ask why that is. The residents now feel they were misled. The impression they had was that the proceedings were not important enough to warrant their attendance. They also feel that their real concerns were not adequately presented to Planning and Zoning. Therefore, the residents ask you to return the development back to the Planning and Zoning Commission where their concerns can be properly addressed. Thank you. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Thank you very much. Haynes: Thank you. Well, I wanted to say one thing. It's kind of strange, Touchmark feeds us. Okay? We are figuratively, then, biting the hand that actually feeds us. Meridian City Council September 2,2025 Page 25 of 48 Johnson: Mr. Mayor, Stephen Hulbert signed up online. Hulbert: Good evening, Council Members, Mr. Mayor. I appreciate your time and the opportunity to speak as a -- sort of quip decades ago I served on a planning commission and on -- later on a city council for about eight years and it took my wife's prodding to take a job out of state to put that behind me. I appreciate your efforts and work and I recognize what you are involved in. I live at 740 Zilphia Lane, a villa on Touchmark's property. When I came I was not sure I wanted to be in a senior facility. I looked at one in Prescott, Arizona, by Touchmark and it was not something that had the openness and the green space or all of the services that we wanted. But I came to Touchmark at Meadow Lake and the young woman who gave us a tour, the first thing she did was to take us out to the area of the gazebo and to the golf course and show us that and literally we learned the name Touchmark at Meadow Lake Village came from that central piece of property. There is a lot of green space throughout Touchmark, no question about it, but, folks, green space isn't just beside sidewalks or against buildings, this is space that we can get out and use and it's something that we value. We also value the opportunity to talk with Touchmark leadership and I mean we do it daily with the campus leadership, but I'm talking about corporate Touchmark in terms of the future of our campus that we are committed to and I'm just here asking you to give us a chance to talk with Touchmark leadership and to answer one simple question, with so much property adjacent to the existing villas that I live in, why not simply put the new set of villas right there? What need is there to cut the heart out of the campus that they have built and they are proud of and to eliminate that open space that we so enjoy? Thank you. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, next is Tom Walton. And Tom signed up online. And of the many names that are -- that's everyone that put a checkbox. Simison: Okay. Well, if there is anybody present -- if you would like to make comments, please, come forward at this -- just come -- come forward. You are going to police yourselves on who is next and if you are online and you want to make a comment, please, use the raise your hand feature and we can bring you in. Please state your name for the record. Stewart: My name is Milton Stewart. I live at 584 South Catherine Lane in Touchmark. I'm a retired lawyer ironically from Portland, Oregon, where Touchmark is located. know the company. I know it has prided itself on openness, candor and clear communications with its residents. It failed to do so here. And I speak for the 17 people who have moved in in the last two months to Touchmark. My wife and I came on two due diligence trips. We were enchanted by the land on which the golf course sits. By the way, it is a pitch and putt course. Forty-seven yard holes. This is not a grand golf course. It is a green space that every single member of the community uses and I inquired about the status of the golf course precisely because I had never been a golfer, but I thought I might play on a pitch and putt course and, in fact, Judy and I went out Meridian City Council September 2,2025 Page 26 of 48 and bought golf clubs and bags, all the accoutrement, and I was told -- and, by the way, it was in rough shape and I asked about the commitment of the corporation to the golf course and I was told it was only in rough shape because of the winter kill and they had plans to redo the greens and the -- the driving pads and the grass. As someone trying to decide whether or not to write a check for 700,000 dollars for a cottage, it would have been a relevant datum for me to know what these plans were and not a word was said and so we bought and we love it, but for these proceedings. We came here to die and I don't mean that to be a funny statement. We have lived all over the world. We have worked all over the world. We wanted to end our lives in a place of beauty and peace and we thought Touchmark was that place and, instead, we are here fighting for the rest of our lives and the quality of the rest of our lives. Thank you for listening. Simison: Thank you. Counsel, any questions? Little Roberts: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Stewart? Simison: Council Woman Little Roberts. Little Roberts: Mr. Stewart, if I may ask just how long you have lived at Touchmark? Stewart: We moved in on July 9th. So, we are in our sixth week I think, maybe heading into our seventh. Little Roberts: Thank you. Simison: Thank you. Stewart: Thank you. Simison: If there are other people coming -- if you want to speak maybe come up to the front row. That way you guys can know who -- D.McKnight: My name is Doug McKnight. I live at 4422 South Nistler Lane in Touchmark. I just want to take -- make one specific point. The contract that we signed, the residency contract, one of the things that says that's included in our monthly -- in our monthly payment is membership in the Meadow Lake Golf Club. That's right in the contract and eliminate -- elimination of that in my view is a breach of everyone's contract that they signed when they became a resident of Touchmark. Simison: Thank you. Any questions, Council? Okay. Next. Wendell: My name is Wallace Wendell. I live at 735 South Margaretha in Touchmark and as I look around this group of wonderful people and I realize the power that you people have to keep this community a beautiful place to live and you must realize what you do is going to affect the future of the next hundred years. You can't just think about Meridian City Council September 2,2025 Page 27 of 48 this golf course, this green space, you have to think about what you are doing to this beautiful area. Please consider carefully what you're doing. Thank you. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Okay. Good evening. Tolkien: Good evening. Thank you for listening to all of us tonight. My name is Jan Tolkien. My husband and I moved into Touchmark a little over two years ago and we -- I didn't want to come up -- and we saw Touchmark and fell in love with it for the open space, for the -- they always say the first impression is the best and they definitely had a good impression. What you see here are wonderful residents that are here. Besides these members we have sent out petitions. It's the first time I have seen a big rally of all of our residents. We got 200 -- over 260 signatures on that and that was from independent living only. I am so proud of our residents. We are there as a support group and they feel very strongly about our green space and the golf course. So, thank you very much. I appreciate your hearing us. Any questions? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Thank you, Jan. Real quick just one quick question. So, I didn't mean to keep frightening you. I'm sorry. Your -- your comments here today and -- and also in your e-mail really talked about the beauty of the neighbor and that being very very important to you. I'm curious did you have an opportunity at the neighborhood meeting to express your feelings about that? Tolkien: The one that we just had a week ago, yes. Cavener: Well -- so, there -- as I understand before Planning and Zoning Commission there was a neighborhood meeting that the applicant hosted and I think roughly about 50 people attended and so -- Tolkien: I was not able to attend that one. Cavener: Okay. Tolkien: Thank you. But it's -- but it was important. Munt: Mr. Mayor and Members of the City Council, my name is John Munt. My wife and I moved here in 1967 when this was, indeed, a farm community. We have lived our entire life here. Recently we moved in to Touchmark. We moved in ten months ago. We have seen a lot of changes, of course, in this community and one of the changes that occurs is we got older and -- and my wife and me to some degree, but my wife more so, experienced some mobility issues and we were encouraged by our kids to consider moving into a facility that provided security, safety, green space, amenities that, obviously, we pay for, but that are just above reproach. Touchmark is that kind of property. So, our kids encouraged us to put down a down payment, so we got on top of the list and pretty soon representatives from Touchmark were calling us to come and Meridian City Council September 2,2025 Page 28 of 48 look at an apartment, look at a house, look at a villa and we kept turning them down. This was three years ago and, finally, this last October, November, we have -- we found an apartment that we really liked. Never once in all of those discussions and all those dinner parties that we were invited to was there ever any discussion, Councilman Overton, that you asked, was there going to be a development here that was going to include multi-family housing. So, the answer is, no, it was always this is the green space. This is the Touchmark community. This is where you can be trusted to live your life in retirement and enjoy the things that this property offers. Thank you for listening to my comments. Any questions? Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Thank you. Bathgate: Mayor, Council, my name is Jim Bathgate. I have lived at Touchmark for one and a half years. I think if you look at the green space allocation that Touchmark has put forward they have talked about ten percent and 15 percent -- 15 percent going down to ten percent if they eliminated the golf course. They're counting an inaccessible area strip right along Route 84 that we can't get to as residents without leaving Touchmark property. That strip is significant in their percentage allocation and I think if you eliminate that and that it's really not usable by any Touchmark residents, you will find that it falls below ten percent if they eliminate the -- the golf course and so that would violate the -- the terms of their original plan. Thank you. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Scott: I'm a bit of a turtle. I came back from a cruise seven years ago and my brain thinks I'm still on the ocean. I have a brain dysfunction. So, luckily, I live at Touchmark and that's -- that's acceptable. They -- they -- we all are doing something there. My name is Mary Scott. I have had an association with Touchmark at Meadow Lake Village for 21 years. My father -- my husband's father built a cottage there in 2004 and we were involved as he was getting his cottage and I can tell you the plans that are currently shown that we have seen that we are currently under -- if you look closely at them you will see that the property adjacent to Touchmark is meant for single story cottages and the -- if you look at the minutes from the meeting that Touchmark presented to get annexed and have this built in, you will see the explanation by Touchmark that those were meant to be senior housing. There was commercial, medical also talked about. They even talked about some apartments that maybe some of the families of people who worked at Touchmark would be there. But they were always out away from the perimeter of Touchmark -- of Meadowlake Village. What we know is Meadowlake Village. So, the current -- we all knew that someday that would be developed and we aren't really against having that undeveloped land developed, but we are against changing the magnificent community that we live in. Touchmark has done an outstanding job of having a community -- and I personally witnessed it grow from, no, we were visiting dad before there was a lodge, before there was anything, except the golf course and the green space. Then we saw the cottages built. We saw the lodge. Assisted living. Memory care. And right behind our cottage was the last area to be developed. It was supposed to have 19 cottages. We got 39 villas. So, we had an Meridian City Council September 2,2025 Page 29 of 48 increase of people there that we didn't know we were going to have, but we love the people that are in the villas by the way. But we really are getting tighter and tighter. There is not that much room. Something I would like to address before I forget. We were kind of -- we -- I don't want to -- we were not given full information about the meetings. We -- we did have -- Touchmark would typically come -- corporate Touchmark would come the day of a neighborhood meeting, call a resident meeting to let us know there was a neighborhood meeting, but, by the way, you are not neighbors, so you can't go. Even when we raised our hand and said where is the meeting, we would like to go, you don't need to go. It's okay. We will take your concerns. And we gave them to them and we told them what our concerns were. I was watching that zoning and planning meeting on YouTube and when I heard Tamara say that our green space would be open to the new community, because what this new proposal plans to do -- pull all of us together into one big multi-generational family unit. That was never a part of the plan and if you look at the minutes from those meetings in 2000, if you look at the plan that's currently there, it's very clear. We were there. We knew. So, when you said we weren't there, we are interpreting, you are misinterpreting it. If you look and read you will see it. So, you heard tonight when we brought that to the attention of Touchmark, our executive director, who is a lovely lady, but she didn't attend that meeting and when I heard those things being said and not being said that we had asked them to present, my husband said raise your hand. I said I can't I'm on YouTube. You can't raise your hand on YouTube. I tried to get over to Zoom. I couldn't get over fast enough to raise my hand before the public hearing was done. So, the next day Touchmark called a meeting to let us know what happened at the planning and zoning meeting. We had witnessed it as long as -- there were three of us that were watching it online and this sweet lady said -- I remember she looked at the -- at what we saw today, those beautiful things that were on the property and she said, oh, look they are telling them how wonderful our -- how beautiful our -- our place is and I said -- raised my hand and I said you need to watch the video, because what they were actually telling them was just what they told you. These are some of the acute -- the amenities that are available that will be available to the outside as well. Now tonight -- and I approached Touchmark about that and they said no -- in fact, we got a memo from -- from them telling us that, no, no one can come in and use our amenities and yet in their application it clearly states that it does and, in fact, in the findings I asked them if they would retract that. Didn't get any answer. But I see in the -- in the fine -- I think their findings, I'm not sure exactly how that works. But it talks in there about number five on B. My concern is once it's in the record it's going to become an entitlement and it becomes law and, then, what we will get -- which is what we have been getting is apologies. We didn't mean to not let you know. We will do better. We will communicate better. And they try and we appreciate that. But in the record right now it says the Commission finds the central -- the central common open space area with a pond provides a dedicated open space area that's acceptable to all restaurants and everyone in this new big unit. So, if this proposal is approved as it's written there are other inconsistencies in there and I have addressed those in some of the information we have given you. I'm sorry. I get really shaky here when I'm rock'n'roll. So, we would ask -- I would ask that you take Touchmark property out and let them develop out there and leave us alone. Let us have the buffer. It's a beautiful community. It was built for that. It should continue as that to Meridian City Council September 2,2025 Page 30 of 48 be private and, if not, then, please send it back to the zoning and let them see -- take care of those inconsistencies. Please. Simison: Council, any questions? Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Scott: Yes. Cavener: Mary, weird question. I just -- I got to ask, because I think I got an e-mail. Are -- are you Ray Scott's daughter-in-law, from what I understand? Scott: I am. Cavener: Well, your father-in-law was the very first guy to take me through a tour of Meadow Lake when he was a resident and, yeah, he was just a great ambassador of that neighborhood and I was very pleased to read your husband's e-mail when he sent it. So, thank you for your time. Scott: Thank you. He is here tonight. Cavener: I figured as much. You guys were like the first ones here. Scott: For obvious reasons. It takes me a while. Sorry. Simison: Council, any additional questions? Good evening. Miranda: Wanda Miranda. Roger and I moved to Touchmark July 15th of this year. I just would like to reiterate what has been said before. We love our community. We have just been there a short time, but we were not aware of -- of any of this and so that's a great concern for us. Thank you. Walton: My name is Tom Walton and I live at 424 Splendor Lane and this is going to be a little bit chopped up I'm afraid, because I didn't think I would be able to speak tonight and so I stopped working on this, but let me give you what I have. I'm very concerned about the plan to build villas on the golf course, but I'm equally concerned with the plan to build multi-story buildings and apartments on the west side of the campus, shown on the plan as -- as planned for. The backside of these buildings will be -- completely dominate our western side. It will change the unique, relaxed, serene feeling and the beauty of our campus. Surely a fence would be built to hide the alley and the garbage cans, but we would still see the homely rear of these high buildings from our campus. Imagine the view from our campus, looking back at the modern style apartments and commercial buildings, trying to blend it into our unique traditional style campus. It's a very troubling thought and just to be sure that you understand, the -- the west side of Meridian City Council September 2,2025 Page 31 of 48 the campus is completely open and free and there is a large space there. That area would be built with high -- high rise commercial buildings and apartments and that's -- that's the view that I'm concerned about. Imagine also what you see when you approach the campus. The lodge, clock tower, campus buildings and surrounding landscaping will be hiding behind the commercial buildings and apartments. As you turn right at the stop sign and drive into the campus you will be distracted by a fence and the backside of the multi-story buildings. If you look at plan four of the map, Touchmark is showing us a picture of one of the buildings that is likely to be built. The front is very large and imposing and imagine how the rear of the building would dominate the rear as you enter and leave the campus. If the overburdened campus problems worsen and the beauty of the trees and the grassy areas are lost and if the residents become more frustrated with the overburdened facilities, Touchmark will surely find it more difficult to attract new residents, especially at the increasing -- increasingly higher fees. Please send the proposal back to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Please ask Touchmark to present you with two proposals instead of one. The needs of these proposals are very very different. Simison: Thank you. Taylor: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council -- Councilman Taylor. Taylor: Yes. Sir, I have a quick question. Walton: Yes. Taylor: Just kind of looking at the map here, that western boundary and the applicant is proposing either medical offices or townhomes and you talked about sort of a -- you know, the -- the big abrupt change. Walton: Yeah. Taylor: If there were a height restriction would you be bothered if it was medical office space or townhomes if they -- the transition from what you have to the new development was similar? I mean not exact, but similar in height? Would that -- would that alleviate your concern with some of the transition or are you kind of just opposed to the type of how -- or type of development there? Walton: Somewhat. The -- the heights bothers me, but also the backside of it is all we will be seeing from the campus. It will appear to be part of our campus and that's what we will see when we are there and it seems like we are surrounded by something that just doesn't belong there. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Meridian City Council September 2,2025 Page 32 of 48 Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Mr. Walton. Thank you. Sorry. I thought it was interesting, you know, everyone's been saying, you know, send this back to planning and zoning and that's a kind of unusual actually. We don't usually see people asking for that. I'm curious what about going to planning and zoning -- like where is that coming from? Do you feel like because residents weren't notified and they weren't part of that part of the process that that needs to happen again? And, then, if you don't mind if you could also explain -- you said you would like to see like two proposals. What are you envisioning there? Walton: The proposal for Touchmark -- they want to combine those two. We have certainly different needs and it's -- it's a different concept and plan that they are trying to put together. One for commercial, new buildings and so forth and, then, they are going to try to add into -- that reconstruction of our campus and it just doesn't seem to be proper. The thing that bothers me most, though, is that they are trying to use our green space and open space as a credit against what they want to do there on the larger commercial and homes and so that means there will be less green space in their -- in their new development areas, but it also concerns me -- I have been there for 13 years and we moved there -- they said that we are paying for part of the land. There was lot lines -- surveyed lines with our house but placed. We had -- we can -- we -- we built our home -- pretty much a custom built home. We changed inside walls, added new buildings, changed windows. The home is ours. We paid for each and every light switch and piece of carpet and the property lines are -- are very clear between us and our neighbors and yet they are calling my back -- backyard open space that's open for the public and it -- it just simply doesn't seem to make sense. So, I think the two plans are different. The green spaces are different. They need to show green space in their area and not really be taking credit for what we have. Strader: Thank you, sir. Simison: Thank you very much. Is there anybody else that would like to provide testimony on this item? Council, would you like a break before we go to the applicant closing? Okay. We are going to go and take about a ten minute, 15, ten -- ten to 15 minute break. We will try to reconvene no later than 8:15, where we will have the applicant -- ask the applicant to come up to close for the conversation, so -- (Recess) Simison: And do you want to go to questions first for staff? Okay. We are going to go to some questions for staff first before we go to applicant finishing. So, Council Woman Strader. Strader: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yeah, I just wanted to revisit -- you know, I know over time we have revised our open space standards and I was just kind of curious how does this align with our new standards? And I know some of the principles that we have at least adopted about having central usable open space, I just thought it might be nice if Meridian City Council September 2,2025 Page 33 of 48 you could refresh us about kind of where the city has moved to. This development is from 25 years ago was in a very different environment, so I -- I thought that might be helpful. Parsons: Mayor, City Council, happy to try to elaborate on that topic a little bit more. I think there were a couple topics that came up that we probably need staff clarification on. One, again, is the open space. Under the previous code whenever someone went through a PUD they had to provide a minimum of ten percent open space. However, the code at the time did not define how you did that. It just said provide it. And, then, again, as it comes through the hearing we decide whether or not that's -- that's the right amount or not and we approve the project based on what the applicant proposes with amenities and open space. This Council knows that we have made an effort -- a conscious effort to try to improve those standards. So, a few years ago we actually -- and that's something that I want to touch on with the residents as well. They were concerned about residents using their open spaces versus what's going to happen within the adjacent property, but I will -- I will touch on that topic a little bit more as soon as I finish my thought on this one. So, currently, the -- if -- if the project is not subdivided there is no open space requirements. That's kind of the residential component. But under the multi-family there are requirements. So, again, if their multi- family developments are five acres or larger they provide a minimum ten percent baseline open space. In addition to that -- and we have to know how many units are going to be part of the development and what square footage as part of that square footage, then, there is an additional open space added to the baseline of ten percent open space. So, realistically this project, with the amount of multi-family that they are proposing, will have in excess of ten percent or -- not more -- closer to 15 percent open space under the new standards. So, I don't see that impacting the residents. I'm not saying that people won't trespass and go into their property and go in there. But there will have to be quite a bit more open space and site amenities proposed for the new portion or the amended portion of the Touchmark development. But you are absolutely right, there is -- right -- as you heard in the testimony this evening you heard walking paths tonight. You didn't hear things like tot lots, clubhouses, indoor pools or whatever the amenities may be, that's something that certainly you could ask as part of your -- your request tonight. If you need continuance for more information that's certainly within your purview to do that and -- and bring this back or remand it back to P&Z if that's your desire as well and they can take that -- get that additional information and, then, come forward as well. So, hopefully, that helps with that and, then, again touching on the other component, I don't see Touchmark allowing residents -- or these new residents or whatever their new portion -- amended portion going into the assisted living facility, I see them maintaining that delineation between the two. But I will let the -- the applicant at least discuss that a little bit more. And, then, as far as the public hearing process and noticing, yeah, that is something that we had recognized had occurred. The residents think did a pretty good job of explaining the situation. We actually asked our city attorney's office for their interpretation and they provided the same information. We notified the owners of record, not leasees or whoever may be leasing the residence. So, I'm not sure how the legal estates or life estates work. I'm not an attorney. If Mr. Nary wants to elaborate more on his understanding of that portion of law, but I am not Meridian City Council September 2,2025 Page 34 of 48 an expert on that. And ultimately -- ultimately when we started getting concerns from the residents about that we realized that was the issue and that's why we stepped in and wanted to make sure we could get it corrected and so we made sure to reach out to every resident that called us and shared with them that you can still have a voice in the process, we want you to attend, you can provide comments, this is your time to voice your concerns or share your concerns with -- with the city on this application. Strader: Thank you. Little Roberts: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Little Roberts. Little Roberts: Mr. Mayor. I don't know if this is the appropriate time, but in referencing kind of what the property looks like now, I had asked Sonya and Bill if we could maybe pull up what the current -- I guess in the long run it may not help, but if we could pull up the current map, because, you know, we have heard multiple residents talk about, you know, we need two different ones, but I kind of got the impression it's more than just two and that Touchmark isn't necessarily singled out at this point. So, Sonya, if you want to kind of-- wouldn't mind kind of telling us what we are looking at and what is where. Allen: Yes. Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Little Roberts. This is the existing Touchmark area right here where my cursor is and, then, all of this to the north of that to Franklin Road and along the west side here is part of the proposed application. Little Roberts: Mr. Mayor, follow up? Simison: Council Woman Little Roberts. Strader: Sonya, so are those on two different DAs currently? Or PUDs? Whichever would fit. Allen: No. They are all under one currently. Little Roberts: Okay. Thank you. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I'm curious to get perspective from the Planning Department about remanding a project back to the Planning and Zoning Commission or maybe Mr. Nary, depending on kind of what the parameters of that conversation are. It feels like it was legal, but it wasn't right. I just want to say that. It feels like it was legal. It doesn't feel right to me. It doesn't feel right that the residents didn't know about the Planning and Zoning hearing. Is that a sufficient reason to remand something back to Planning and Zoning? Meridian City Council September 2,2025 Page 35 of 48 Nary: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, it can be. It doesn't need -- it doesn't need to be -- I mean ultimately the Planning and Zoning is a recommending body. If there was an opportunity that this Council feels a -- a different hearing, an opportunity more for hearing at P&Z, but the -- I don't know the recommendation will change. So, it really ultimately still is your decision. If you feel that more hearing is necessary, whether that be at Planning and Zoning or a continuation of this hearing to gain additional information, if that's what you are -- think would be helpful, I think either way you could do that. But in and of itself it -- it isn't necessarily -- more because they don't have any final decision making from this and some of the critical parts of this, like the DA modification, only is decided by the Council and not by the Planning and Zoning Commission. So, yeah, I mean so it -- it can be, but I'm not sure it's going to change as much as the residents might think it might. Simison: Would the applicant like to come forward to close. Thompson: Mr. Mayor, Members of Council, Tamara Thompson again. I'm going to address a few items, but because there was a large amount of items that were kind of inner Touchmark items, Kendra will -- will also join me to -- to address some of the comments. I wrote down as best I could the comments as they were -- were spoken and so I'm going to try to address them all and, please, remind us if we forget anything. Some of the original plan that I want to go back to is just what I quoted previously. I did pull that directly out of one of the development agreements and it had the construction of the continuing care retirement community comprised of 250 to 300 units of independent and assisted living, 450 units of residential, including single family duplexes, multi-family and townhouses, medical office parks, commercial and retail business and community center health and fitness center. The -- for those to be separated between the independent and assisted living and, then, residential, including all of the -- the various types of those and, then, there is in the minutes that some of the housing would be potentially in apartments for employees and their families. So, those were definitely not age restricted. There seems to be some confusion regarding the intent and I was hopefully clear that in the Planning and Zoning hearing I definitely misspoke regarding the center park, that that -- the intent there is not to bring new residents and public and children into the community, into the existing retirement community, that what's currently constructed will remain private for those residents and that any new development -- so, the future tenants we will comply with city code and that is -- as Bill -- Mr. Parsons explained, is -- is kind of a formula between how many units and it's -- it's like a point system now and we will comply with code for all of that new. So, it does -- it probably will be around 15 percent. What the existing open space is -- is -- is over 20 percent of the current site. The development agreement required ten percent. So, they installed more than -- than was initially required, because they were installing for the future development as well, but -- but they will lock that in. Those residents that are currently there will have that open space that's existing and -- and, again, that is -- with the elimination of the golf course it's still 16.8 percent. So, it doesn't drop down below ten percent. There is different definitions in code for how open space is calculated and we have calculated that accordingly. As far as the age restricted, that's only those 25 homes, whether they be cottages or villages. That is the only part Meridian City Council September 2,2025 Page 36 of 48 that's being added to the existing Touchmark and, then, everything new would be outside of the Touchmark Meadow Lake Village retirement community. As far as townhouses and the height, so at this scale it's so hard to see, but behind those cottages on the north side, the existing cottages going into the -- the townhouse style apartments, we do have an open space in there with -- with a walkway, so that is separated and, then, those in that location, that smaller strip there where it's adjacent to single family, would not be higher than two stories. It would not be three stories. And, then, we can strategically do some building placement on those where we have the ends of buildings and not just a big long area and -- and on the ends of things we can control where -- where windows are to -- to control how -- how people see down into backyards and stuff like that. Let's see. I think as far as -- as far as amenities for the future residences, those will be, again, part of -- of that point system and having tot lots and swimming pools and clubhouses, those types of things, those will -- all those details get worked out in the CZC and design review phases. But, again, I just want to reiterate that that will comply -- or exceed city code in -- in -- in what those requirements are for those open spaces and I think I have addressed what I can address and I will have -- Overton: Mr. Mayor? Thompson: -- Kendra come up, unless you have a specific question. Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: If I can address the open spaces for just a minute. When I looked at the map you put up that showed what you are deciding is now open space on this new map, I'm really struggling with that. It looks like a piece of paper my granddaughter's cut up and sprinkled across Touchmark. It doesn't look like it's -- it was ever designed to be the open spaces at Touchmark, it looks like there were just areas that are sprinkled throughout the development that some of them are -- maybe not even usable for the people there, especially the one that we heard comments on that backs up to 1-84. When you are declaring all of these are now part of the open space, you are stating here on the record that these are all completely usable open space areas for residents they can all get to. Thompson: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Overton, the open space calculations are per city code, so we have calculated those based on how city code allows us to -- to calculate those. I didn't do an audit of it, so I can't say that all of them are accessible, but I can tell you that many of these -- and they do look a little funky and there is -- how they look, but the majority of these are what I would call pocket parks and they do have amenities. So, there are things such as little water features or gazebos, pickleball courts, different items like that in these little areas or seating areas or seating, but the majority of them, other than the one along 1-84, which I'm not totally positive on, but the -- the rest of them -- my understanding is is they have little pathways to get to them and they have seating areas or they have some sort of activity on them. But we did have -- our -- our landscape architect did this plan and he did it based on what city code defines as the open space. Kendra. Meridian City Council September 2,2025 Page 37 of 48 Lackey: Mr. Mayor, City Councilors, I will just put an add to that. Touchmark has no intention of having less than the code required open space on the existing Touchmark campus, regardless of the -- I -- I don't know the actual code that is -- is said. The landscape architects are doing that. You know, Bill probably can -- has it tattooed on his arm of what open space is. I don't. Our -- our intention is not to have any less than what's code required, which is the ten percent I think will be in excess. I look at it and I'm like, oh, they didn't put the gazebo in the villas and -- I mean I think they just stopped when they hit it, but our intention is not to reduce -- to have that be not under the code required threshold, nor calculated in a way that's not approved in the City of Meridian code. Okay. A few things. I want to start with communication and, then, I will -- to bring up three or four more small points. We thought we did -- we thought we did a pretty good job of communicating to our residents. Based on seeing all these people today I don't think we got a really good grade and Kitty and I have had a few conversations and Dusty and I made a joint letter to make sure what we do that is -- is different. When we said there is not a -- there is not a lot to talk about, because the map hasn't changed, because the map hadn't changed. So, we thought that there wasn't a lot of conversation. It is not our intent to eliminate the opportunity for our residents to participate in their local government. I think it's amazing. And I'm really -- I'm actually really happy that all these people are here tonight, even though we have had a little bit late -- more late of a dinner. So, I want to make sure that you -- that you know that it was not intentional. We had -- I think in October of 2024 like we have a neighborhood meeting that -- that is part of the city requirements. At every community that we have we also have a neighborhood meeting for our residents, because they want to know things that are different -- you know, the -- the woman who was very interested and passionate about the locust tree and the raptors being protected, maybe is not that -- her neighborhood requirements or any questions are different than -- than our neighborhoods. So, we had a meeting with our residents before that and -- and the map hasn't substantially changed at -- at all. So, we didn't highlight that the -- the planning and zoning council was something that they needed to attend. We had six or seven different touch points, letting our residents know what the process was, but I can see that we can do better and go a little bit deeper, so that they really know. That has nothing to do with what you're opining on, I just want to let you know as a -- as a member of the Meridian community we see -- we see improvement that we can do there. Secondly is the ownership. Touchmark owns every residence on our property. As you can see it's all one master plan. So, there is a lot of talk today about I bought this or when I sell this or I own this. I want to be really clear, Touchmark owns every structure, every piece of land and, then, we go into residency agreements, whether it's deposit or a month to month rental with all of our residents. We have 15 communities and we are -- we are really proud of -- of our Meridian one, but we are proud of all of them. This is the only one that has 65 acres of undeveloped land around it. Every other community has neighborhood that are developed adjacent to commercial, residential, retail and we work with each community on a -- on a very specific basis of how to keep those residents safe, how to make it walkable, how to make sure that at night they feel safe and that -- that happens in a variety of different ways. It could be signage. It could be just active patrolling. It could be gates. All of those methods get developed as we develop these projects. It doesn't really happen in a zoning overlay. It Meridian City Council September 2,2025 Page 38 of 48 happens with our residents and our development. And the last thing is that we develop with intention. We -- as we said, we own these communities and we own all of the land. So, it doesn't behoove us to put a three story building overlooking someone's backyard, because that's -- that's our backyard and for decades I'm going to have to make sure the residents want to continue to live in those homes. So, we -- as you could see by what we have developed, we develop with intention and we plan to develop those adjacent uses of the existing Touchmark community with the same intention. Thank you very much. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Taylor: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Taylor. Taylor: Yeah, I do have a question for whoever feels like it's easiest to answer. From a business perspective clearly you want a community where not only the residents enjoy being there today, but in five, ten, 20 years you wanted to continue to make it so. What I heard tonight was an overwhelming adoration of this green space, the trees, the pond and, you know, the pitch and putt golf is -- it's -- you know, I'm sure not all residents use it, but some do, but what they like is they see this beautiful space; right? And your proposal, you know, gets rid of not all of it, but some of it and puts some villas there. Are you opposed to City Council saying that needs to stay as it is as sort of a compromise of keeping what's there or are you really insistent that you want to have that flexibility on that land to do something? Lackey: Thank you, Councilman Taylor. Of course I would like the flexibility, because we look at decisions like is it -- does it not want to be a pitch and putt or does it want to be a papa shot and then some bocce courts and something else and maybe there is two villas there or maybe there is 20. 1 don't know the answer to that, because we haven't done any design. So, of course, I would like the flexibility, but I understand the need for compromise. Usually we look at that on a nonjudicial level and do it as a -- as a long-term business owner and make the right decision for the residents. But I say as a City Council you do what you feel is right and we will go from there. Taylor: Mr. Mayor, quick follow up. Simison: Councilman Taylor. Taylor: Yeah. So, one of my -- when I look at this overall -- like a lot of it I think is -- makes a lot of sense with -- with some of the commercial space up along Franklin, you know, medical office a little bit closer to where the hospital is, but there is a couple things that kind of bother me a little bit that I'm concerned about. One, which I just mentioned with the green space, but the second is -- one thing I have learned in in-fill projects is transitions are really important, not just aesthetically important to sort of the continuity of the community, but also just in terms of the sense of community that you Meridian City Council September 2,2025 Page 39 of 48 have; right? You don't want to have these abrupt changes from different use types. Like, obviously, you have to transition from one to another. It seems to me that you are -- you know, the medical office or townhomes you want that flexibility on that western side. You know, you have the orange and -- or the yellow green stripes to indicate you want flexibility there to decide whatever is best. That's right adjacent to -- yeah. And you can -- you can see it there. That's right adjacent to this property. That seems like such an abrupt change. It just seems -- you know, several residents brought up. That -- that one kind of bothers me a little bit. The other ones I -- I feel like there is some decent transitions with the townhomes up near the -- the single family homes and, then, beyond that you have the multi-family. I think that would work and I think there -- there is enough distance from the existing community that that's reasonable and I think I could accept that and I -- I don't mind having that flexibility there and we will -- you know, the multi-family you will build in the -- you know, the amenities and the space there, but that one really kind of -- I struggle with that and I did ask the question to -- I can't remember which gentleman it was, you know, if they could accept a medical office as long as the height was maybe more similar to what they were looking at. I mean what's your thinking there? I mean, you know, if -- if the City Council -- if we thought you needed a different type of product there or a different type of transition or recommended some restrictions on height there just so that the transition was easier, maybe more green space between the two, I mean what would your -- obviously you are looking for flexibility there, because you don't have a clearly defined vision of what you even want. Are you open to us sort of -- maybe kind of saying what that transition would look like? And I hate to do that as a City Council tell you what it should look like. I want you to come to me with a -- to explain why you need it to be a certain way, but you are still making the case -- we just need it to be flexible. So, there is not a compelling argument from you to me what it needs to be. But, then, I'm going back to you saying, well, if you're not telling me what you have to have I'm going to tell you what I think it should be for a -- a seamless community. Lackey: Yeah. It's really -- it's a lot easier to do this when it's a three or five acre site. When you have 120 acre site it's really hard to drill down. I think what you said is consistent with how Touchmark would develop the site, because we feel adjacency is really important. Again, we have, you know, 60 acres of our pride and joy and it's our core business and we don't want to do anything that would degrade that and I would love to give you some what ifs. Like post -- really nice post-respite care between a senior living and a -- and a -- a -- and those usually are one or two stories. That sounds like a really great -- I mean I haven't talked to anyone, but just as my -- my brain is -- is thinking out loud of potential uses, that's kind of the -- what we are consistently looking at. The -- I -- I think that the townhomes were three stories maximum. Medical office, you know, there is ten stories maximum medical office in that area. We would never do that. I don't know, Tamara, if there are even height limitations for that. I think there is. Is it -- what -- what height? Yeah. So, it -- it's -- the -- the -- the medical office is 50 feet. That feels a little -- I don't think I would bring to CZC or the development review committee something with that height, that three story townhome height feels about right, which was the other use that we have suggested. And, of course, green space and buffer are -- are paramount. Thank you. Meridian City Council September 2,2025 Page 40 of 48 Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I guess we are at the point of discussion. I -- I have a lot of issues with the application. I will -- I will try to start with high level and, then, drill down just to give feedback to the applicant so they can kind of understand at least where I'm coming from as a council member. So, I start with -- this is supposed to be mixed-use community that's really important. Our commercial space is really important and what I'm seeing is a bubble plan without a lot of specifics that has the potential to turn into a total -- almost totally residential area with some token commercial. So, my concerns are that all of the later phases contain the commercial and office components, not the beginning phases, so there is a high likelihood that we are going to end up with residential and not commercial. That's a concern for me. In addition to that, I really am struggling with the thought process of just giving almost unlimited flexibility and, then, totally trusting the CZC process to provide an outcome that provides acceptable transitions to surrounding residents. I don't think that that's going to work well. I have a lot of concerns about compatibility, transition, I -- and, then, I will kind of go into the open space. Before I go there I -- I do think mixed-use nodes really need to give us employment and services, not just housing. I think having that vibrant mix is important, but the transitions are really important between those uses and what I'm not seeing here is an actionable plan that I can get behind. I -- I'm really struggling there. The open -- the approach to open space and amenities really concerns me, because the applicant has started by trying to take away an amenity that they got an approval based on and -- and a central amenity that's critical for the residents and so with that as your starting point it gives me a really hard time just kind of hearing that there will be amenities that meet our point system, but without any specifics. I'm really struggling there. The approach to open space is not consistent in my opinion with the City of Meridian's current standards. The open space is not set up in a usable and accessible way. It is not centralized. That it is an attempt to revise open space to take away a very well-functioning centralized open space that is being used by residents. I think a lot of other Council Members share that concern just based on the comments I have heard. So, I will -- I will start with that and, then, I also -- I'm -- I am bothered also by the process. You know, as I said before, I think just because something is legal doesn't mean that it's right. I understand that under our code landowners are notified, but that -- that doesn't feel right and I'm really happy that our city staff did their best to try to rectify that situation and make it right. So, I just wanted to express my gratitude for -- for our city staff trying to ensure that the residents could be part of the process. I know that the residents are asking to be remanded to the Planning and Zoning Commission. I -- I don't think that that would change the outcome for me. For me this is a denial. I -- I cannot support this project at all right now the way that it's been presented today. That's where I'm at. Overton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Overton. Meridian City Council September 2,2025 Page 41 of 48 Overton: I would like to tag along with many of the comments that Council Vice- President Strader has just said. There is a lot of places for people to live in retirement in the city of Meridian, but I don't think we have a stronger tie in a relationship with any single place in the city than we do with Touchmark. Since the very beginning I have been going there as I -- shoot, as a young police officer I was going there for their parades and their all you can eat breakfast for National Night Out. Their pie eating contests. I remember all those events and we were just there just the first week of August. It's been a special place in our community and one of the things that we always do is a -- is a -- to me is a litmus test. One of the first things I was taught on City Council is does this project make our city better and I'm not getting there, because I think that golf course, although most of the residents don't use it and it -- I know we used the term golf course loosely. It's a very short chip and putt course, but I think that's a very important amenity to folks that live there, even the folks that don't use it. I have gone there twice in the past two years to MC the car show for Alzheimer's Association and looking at how all the park area and everything is used for that event and it's been amazing and how that's such a tie in with Touchmark and how they sponsor it and I look at the loss of some of that -- most of that central area as being critical to having those type of events in the future and there is just -- there is no way I could support moving forward giving up that much of that amenity and I -- I just don't -- I'm not sold on the open space. I -- I just think -- I'm not sold on it. I mean the residents are shaking their heads when we are talking to them about how accessible those are and some of them are what they -- they interpret to be their -- their backyard spaces now and now they are being told it's -- it's part of the open space. Well, you do own all the property, so understand how you can -- you can say that, but I don't know that I would call that open space for the purposes of how -- we are discussing open space. I think you're going to continue to get additional traffic with another 20 to 25 units on that side and what I like about that now is where that is completely visible. When there is an event there or something there is nothing in that center area but open green space. There is the lake, there is the golf course, that's open park area. You start putting villas on the area where the golf course is and all of a sudden we are going to have an area that's not going to be seen and we have got residents still driving around in electric golf carts legally, because we told them to, because we made an ordinance that said they could. It's how it was marketed to them. I -- I really struggle with how this was done and how folks that we have talked to have just been here a couple of months were never told that this was something that was going to happen and they are placing a great amount of their life savings on coming here and making a commitment. You see, probably the best way for me to say it is everyone in this room -- you have a direct relationship with each other. They need you and you need them. I can't seem to get past that. You need them to stay profitable, them to be happy residents to live there and they need you to run Touchmark the way you have been running Touchmark for the past 23 years and I think this would be a grave downgrade to what I consider the gold standard in this entire valley and there is just no way I could support this going forward. Little Roberts: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Little Roberts. Meridian City Council September 2,2025 Page 42 of 48 Little Roberts: Mr. Mayor, Council, I don't think I can say it better than either one of my colleagues just have, but I have been familiar with Touchmark since practically you opened and, then, I ran the Meridian Chamber, had a great relationship with Touchmark. Everything has just been the gold standard until this and I'm absolutely stunned that your residents did not know this was coming, that this discussion that happened in front of us tonight wasn't happening as you were moving along and so there is so many parts and pieces of this that just are felt we need to fill in the blanks if -- if there is a way to move forward, but the way things are now I cannot support it. Taylor: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Taylor. Taylor: We had an application maybe a year ago that was sort of proposed these bubble concepts for how they would like to see a large property be developed and I -- at the time it was sort of a new -- I don't know if it was a new concept, but to me it was. But this was proposed, you know, miles south of town. It wasn't an in-fill project and so we gave them the green light, because there was enough detail and enough clarity about how these -- the development would -- would unfold and they also had a blank canvas to kind of -- to scratch that out. So, I was kind of intrigued by your application with that idea, but as we kind of -- going through it I -- I -- I really struggle with the lack of detail. You know, I was kind of trying to ask some questions about some specifics. I feel like eventually what you have proposed is probably getting close to what we may end up with. I don't know exactly. I think you are going to have to -- have to have that kind of mixed-use here, but I'm -- I -- I don't like the lack of clarity and detail on it, kind of -- I struggle with that. Kind of bothers me just a little bit. Yeah, I'm not sold on the -- the green -- you know, the existing green space. There is a project right by my house and there is a strip of grass that no one sits there and that's the qualified green space and it kind of makes us laugh, because nobody uses it. That's kind of what this looks like. But more than that the -- the -- the -- you know, the multi-family, the other things that you are proposing, I don't -- the lack of detail around that just makes me stop and say I don't think you are quite ready to move forward with this. I don't -- you know, I commend you on having a successful product there. A wonderful thing. Obviously, the -- the interest in the community here you have done a really good job. So, we really appreciate and value your -- your investment in Meridian and we want you to be successful. We want to help you be successful. But I don't think I'm going to be able to support this tonight either, just because I don't -- it's the lack of detail on the -- on what you want to do that kind of bothers me. I will say this: I don't think -- you know, to the residents here I don't -- I don't think it was their intention to mislead or not communicate, I mean that -- that's not in their best interest either. I do think it was maybe just an oversight. I don't think anyone was being intentional and trying to mislead. But I think it's a good lesson learned about transport -- transparency and communication is really really important here. So, I'm not going to support it, but I do want --just because I think you need to go back to the drawing board and have something a little bit more detailed in order to get my support for something like this. Meridian City Council September 2,2025 Page 43 of 48 Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: My comments are very similar to Council Member Taylor's. My biggest challenge with this is the ambiguity of the project. There is a big difference between medical office and townhomes and you guys are a sophisticated organization, you know what you are doing, you should be able to call your shots say here is what we want to develop. You know, some of the -- the commercial up along Franklin I don't have an issue with that, but to me I think it is this intersection of multi-family in this community, it's just not compatible and while I think you guys could make a really good effort to try and make this square peg fit in a round hole, I just don't think that it ultimately works. If you want to come back with an age restricted product that grows your community, man, from what I hear there is a lot of demand for that type of housing here in -- in Meridian and I think that would be a great fit. But similar to Council Member Taylor, if -- if this is something audacious that you guys are wanting to do, then, come back, bring us better details, don't leave this, you know, plan to be this vague. Certainly you have got a great group of -- of neighbors that want to be involved in this process. Man, what a -- what a tremendous asset and as I said I want to admire all of you. I mean this -- Council Member Strader was saying this during our -- our break. This is kind of a contentious hearing, but everybody's being civil, everybody's being neighborly, and I just -- I think that just speaks to the caliber of people who live here and the caliber of the organization at Touchmark. So, I think this is a case of, you know, I see where the vote's going, think -- I hope you guys take another bite of this apple with a little bit more thoughtful -- thoughtfulness and a little bit more deliberation and look forward to seeing what you guys have down the road. Simison: And, Councilman Cavener, that's why I was going to ask the questions and -- and maybe looking at the applicant, but also looking to the Council, a no vote means no product on this property for an extended period of time. A remand back the Planning and Zoning, where if they want to take another bite at the apple I think they have heard -- maybe there is a little bit more clarity they could get on some of the property, but maybe some other -- do you -- do you want to give them an opportunity to go back and try to work with the residents and bring back forward something or do you just say not now, take the time and go from there and I also get the applicant with what you have heard today and I won't be -- obviously I'm not voting tonight, in other words, but I -- don't see the changes around the golf course ever passing with this current Council and so the question is can you move a project forward that only focuses on the other parts? Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: I don't know if that was a hypothetical question or a question back to us. Meridian City Council September 2,2025 Page 44 of 48 Simison: It's kind of for -- I'm looking up two groups of people to say how -- how would they like to proceed, how would you like to proceed and does it matter. Cavener: Denials are a big deal and I know that no applicant ever wants necessarily denial. I can appreciate that. However, I think in this particular instance with the back and forth and what is this, what is it not, who is involved, who is not, it's almost like a clean slate; right? Everybody here in the audience is going to take a breath, the applicant's take a breath, they will work collaboratively and they will bring something back and, listen, I think, quite frankly, for them to -- to do something that's going to meet the standard of this Council they don't need a couple of months. They -- they -- they are going to need a year and so I'm -- I'm not supportive at this time of -- of granting a -- a continuance or remanding it back to the Planning and Zoning. Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: The applicant certainly could choose to withdraw their application if they wanted as well. And maybe while we are -- the one thing I didn't know, because this is the PUD, I didn't know how a PUD is the same or differs from our other processes on what they could or couldn't do with an application in any way, shape or form. Nary: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I have been -- if the Council's pondering a denial in this particular instance I think what -- what I'm hearing is your denial primarily at the moment is on the -- the -- the -- the modification of the development agreement. That that is the initial concerns you have is all of those changes that there would be -- have to be made in the development agreement for this project that don't fit generally what the Council sees for this area to be and what was originally proposed. So, denying the modification, then, sequentially the other projects would be just simply denied, because they no longer fit with the modification that's proposed. I don't know and I can't recall off the top of my head and I don't know if Bill would know, but normally, yes, a denial, Mr. Mayor, what you are asking, a denial of a rezone would trigger that one year waiting period normally. When it's denied because it no longer fits the underlying application I don't know if the code differentiates those two circumstances differently. So, that would be the only possible you could consider to -- to do it that way and, then, there would still be eligible potentially -- planning to decide that -- whether that was different and -- but, again, Mr. Parsons would know the code better on that particular narrow point, but -- Simison: The other thing we have mentioned is -- Nary: But Ms. Thompson may have the same outcome anyway. Thompson: Sorry, I don't know if it's okay for me to talk, but, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, my client would like to pull their application. Simison: Okay. Do we need any action? Meridian City Council September 2,2025 Page 45 of 48 Cavener: Well, Mr. Mayor, I think we have to at least got to maybe close a public hearing. Simison: Yeah. I know we do that. Nary: Then you will need to accept the withdrawal is all. Simison: Okay. So, with that do I have -- Councilman Cavener. Cavener: I move that we close the public hearing on application H-2025-0012. Strader: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Is there in discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and the public hearing is closed. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Referenced in the public hearing the applicant has requested to withdraw their application, so I would move that we accept their request to withdraw. Strader: Second. Simison: Have a motion and a second to accept the applicant's request to withdraw. Is there discussion? If not, all favors signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and the application is withdrawn. Best of luck to everyone to work together on the future of what this area will -- will eventually be. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. Simison: Okay. Then we will just take a five minute break while we clear the room, just -- yeah. We are good. Just -- there is going to be a lot of people talking and moving. (Recess) ORDINANCES [Action Item] 2. Ordinance 25-2096: An Ordinance of the city of Meridian, Idaho amending Ordinance No. 24-2060, the appropriation ordinance for the fiscal year beginning October, 1, 2024 and ending September 30, 2025 (FY2025), by increasing total appropriations from $255,511,778 Meridian City Council September 2,2025 Page 46 of 48 to $264,009,348, increasing total revenue from $154,669,420 to $167,958,290, and decreasing the use of fund balance from $100,842,358 to $96,051,058; and providing an effective date. Simison: Go ahead and come back from our recess and move on to Item 2 for our agenda, which is Ordinance No. 25-2096. Ask the Clerk to read this ordinance by title. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. It's an ordinance of the City of Meridian, Idaho, Amending Ordinance 24-2060, the appropriation ordinance for the fiscal year beginning October 1 , 2024, and ending September 30, 2025, (FY2025), by increasing total appropriations from $255,511,778 to $264,009,348, increasing total revenue from $154,669,420 to $167,958,290, and decreasing the use of fund balance from $100,842,358 to $96,051,058; and providing an effective date. Simison: Thank you. Council, you have heard this ordinance by title. Is there anybody that would like it read in its entirety? Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Went into an empty house, so I will move that we approve Ordinance 25- 2096. Strader: Second. Simison: Have a motion a second to approve Ordinance No. 25-2096. Is there discussion on the motion? If not Clerk call the roll. Roll Call: Cavener, yea; Strader, yea; Overton, yea; Little Roberts, yea; Taylor, yea; Whitlock, yea. Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and the item is agreed to. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. 3. Ordinance 25-2097: An Ordinance of the City of Meridian providing for the adoption of a budget and the appropriation of $264,498,131 to defray the necessary expenses and liabilities of the City of Meridian, in accordance with the object and purposes and in the certain amounts herein specified for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2025 and ending on September 30, 2026; to levy all such appropriate taxes and levies as authorized by law upon taxable property; and to collect all authorized revenue; to provide for a waiver of the 2nd and 3rd readings pursuant to Idaho Code §50-902; and providing for an Meridian City Council September 2,2025 Page 47 of 48 effective date and the filing of a certified copy of this ordinance with the Secretary of State. Simison: Next item up is Item 3, which is Ordinance No. 25-2097. Ask the Clerk to read this ordinance by title. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Ordinance of the City of Meridian providing for the adoption of a budget and the appropriation of $264,498,131 to defray the necessary expenses and liabilities of the City of Meridian, in accordance with the object and purposes and in the certain amounts herein specified for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2025, and ending on September 30, 2026; to levy all such appropriate taxes and levies as authorized by law upon taxable property; and to collect all authorized revenue; to provide for a waiver of the second and third readings pursuant to Idaho Code §50-902; and providing for an effective date and the filing of a certified copy of this ordinance with the Secretary of State. Simison: Thank you. Council, you have heard this ordinance read by title. Is there anybody that would like to read this entirety? Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Move we approve of Ordinance 25-2097. Strader: Second. Simison: Have a motion and a second to approve Ordinance No. 25-2097. Is there discussion? If not, clerk call the roll. Roll Call: Cavener, yea; Strader, yea; Overton, yea; Little Roberts, yea; Taylor, yea; Whitlock, yea. Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and the item is agreed to. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. FUTURE MEETING TOPICS Simison: Council, anything under future meeting topics? EXECUTIVE SESSION [Action Item] per Idaho Code 74-206(1)(b): To consider the evaluation, dismissal or disciplining of, or to hear complaints or charges brought against, a public officer, employee, staff member or individual agent, or public school student. Meridian City Council September 2,2025 Page 48 of 48 Simison: Or do I have a motion to go into Executive Session? Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Move we go into Executive Session pursuant to Idaho State Code 74- 206(1)(b). Strader: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second to go into Executive Session. Is there a discussion? If not clerk call the roll. Roll Call: Cavener, yea; Strader, yea; Overton, yea; Little Roberts, yea; Taylor, yea; Whitlock, yea. Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and we will go into Executive Session. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. EXECUTIVE SESSION: (9:09 p.m. to 10:03 p.m.) (Cavener/Strader out of Exec Session at 10:03) (Cavener/Strader adjourn at 10:03) MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:03 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) By Luke Cavener, Council President 9-16-2025 ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK 9-16-2025 E IDIAN;--- /hl R AGENDA ITEM Public Forum - Future Meeting Topics The Public are invited to sign up in advance of the meeting at www.meridiancity.org/forum to address elected officials regarding topics of general interest or concern of public matters. Comments specific to an active land use/development applications are not permitted during this time. By law, no decisions can be made on topics presented at the Public Forum. However, City Council may request the topic be added to a future meeting agenda for further discussion or action. The Mayor may also direct staff to provide followup assistance regarding the matter. 1 Or CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC FORUM SIGN - IN SHEET Date : September 02 , 2025 Please sign in below if you wish to address the Mayor and City Council and provide a brief description of your topic . Please observe the following rules of the Public Forum : • DO NOT : o Discuss active applications or proposals pending before Planning and Zoning or City Council o Complain about city staff, individuals, business or private matters • DO o When it is your turn to speak, state your name and address first o Observe a 3 - minute time limit ( you may be interrupted if your topic is deemed inappropriate for this forum ) Name ( please print ) Brief Description of Discussion Topic C� E IDIAN Planning and Zoning Department Presentation and Outline Changes to Agenda: None Item #1: Touchmark (H-2025-0012) Application(s):  Development Agreement Modification  Modification to the existing Planned Unit Development  Rezone Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 121.5 acres of land, zoned L-O, generally located on the south side of E. Franklin Rd. and the north side of I-84, midway between S. Eagle Rd. & S. Cloverdale Rd. History: The majority of this property was annexed in 2000 with a DA and a CUP for a conceptual PUD – a smaller 4.6 acre portion of property was later annexed and included in an amended DA and concept development plan. The original conceptual PUD was approved for a continuing care retirement community comprised of 250-300 units of independent and assisted living, 450 units of residential, including single-family, duplex, townhomes and multi-family, a community senior health and fitness center, medical office parks, commercial and retail businesses. Since that time, approximately 428 residential units have been built in the retirement community along with a senior health and fitness center and many amenities including open green space and walking trails, a community garden, coffee shop and bistro, salon and barbershop, a library, theatre, dining venues, pickleball courts and other on-site amenities. In 2003, the DA & PUD were amended to allow the development of 318 residential units and approximately 600,000 s.f. of commercial/office space on 138 acres of land with reduced building setbacks in the L-O district. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MU-C (mixed-use community) Summary of Request: A modification to the DA is proposed to update the existing conceptual development plan for the overall site, which consists of approximately 121.5-acres of land, and consolidate the existing agreements into one (1) new agreement that replaces all previous agreements. A rezone of 55.17 acres to the C-C district and 8.17 acres to the C-G district is proposed from the L-O district for the undeveloped portion of the site included in the master plan to accommodate the proposed uses. The reason for the rezone is that because the concept plan is proposed to be revised, it must comply with current UDC provisions, which prohibit retail, hotel, self-service storage, light industry & multi-family residential uses in the L-O district. The previously developed areas of the site will remain L-O as allowed with the previous PUD through City Code in effect at that time. The proposed development plan consists of 121.5 acres of land within a larger MU-C designated area totaling approximately 164 acres and includes a mix of uses consisting of commercial, office, light industry and a variety of residential housing types as shown on the “bubble” plan consistent with the Comp Plan. A couple areas on the concept plan (w/stripe symbol) are shown with two (2) possible uses – the medical office/townhome-style MFR along the southwest boundary of the site and the commercial/MFR along the north side of the site along Franklin Rd. If the demand for office space doesn’t come to fruition, the Applicant proposes an alternate use of townhomes-style multi-family (50-55 units) in that area. Commercial use similar to the commercial proposed to the west along Franklin is proposed on the other area with the flexibility for MFR (number of units/density is not specified but the Applicant states the area could support 115-140 units using the same density as the other multi-family area) – the multi-family use would be at a larger scale than the townhomes and an increase in density. Staff did not recommend approval of the optional residential uses because commercial uses are desired in the MU-C diagram in the Comp Plan along arterial streets transitioning to lesser intense uses. Additionally, the Plan allows for up to 65% of the development area to be comprised of residential uses with the provision of transit and the Applicant is proposing approximately 68%, not including the optional multi-family & townhome style multi-family units; although the Commission preferred these areas develop with commercial uses, they felt residential should be allowed as an option for flexibility for long-term future growth. A modification to the existing PUD (Meadowlake Village CUP-03-005) is proposed to update the conceptual development plan and includes a request for deviation to the maximum building height allowed in the C-C district from 50-feet to 64-feet for the hotel (measured to the highest point of the structure), and inclusion of townhome dwellings as a permitted use in the C-C district. Staff is amenable to the building height increase as proposed; however, is not in support of the request for townhomes to develop in the C-C district because townhomes (where each unit is on its own property) are a prohibited use in the C-C district and therefore, aren’t allowed through the PUD. This would require a rezone to a residential or traditional neighborhood zoning district in which the use is allowed. Because the Applicant isn’t proposing to subdivide the property, the use is considered MFR and is allowed in the C-C district. The new development plan includes approximately 114,000 sq. ft. of medical office space, approximately 300-400 non-age restricted market rate multi-family units (both apartments and townhouses) with a possibility of 165-195 additional units through the alternate uses proposed, 20-25 single-family attached units (aka villas), three (3) single-family detached units (aka cottages), 75,546 sq. ft. of self-storage (i.e. light industry), 45,000 sq. ft. of general office space, 45,000 sq. ft. of commercial retail space and an approximate 126- room hotel. Conceptual building elevations for the proposed structures are as shown. A pedestrian pathway plan was submitted as shown – the green lines represent 10’ wide pathways, the blue 5’ proposed sidewalks and the pink 5’ wide existing sidewalks. A phasing plan is proposed as shown, which depicts (4) phases of development, and is anticipated to be completed between 2030 and 2040. Phase 1 is the villas and cottages (2-5 years), Phase 2 is the apartments and townhomes (3-10 years), Phase 3 is the commercial, self-storage, additional multi-family and hotel along Franklin Rd. (3-15 years), and Phase 4 is medical office, daycare, post-acute care and townhomes (4-15 years). Staff recommends a subdivision application is submitted for each phase of development and recorded in order to have a legal parcel for development purposes. The existing community is proposed to remain unchanged except for the small golf course, which at some point in the future may redevelop with villas (i.e. duplex style units). The open space amenities are also evolving and as the golf course is redeveloped, the required amenities will be reprogrammed in other areas of the project. A minimum of 10% (6.15 acres) of the gross area of the PUD (61.50 acres) was required to be common open space, exclusive of required street buffers and buffers between incompatible land uses. After the Commission hearing, the applicant submitted an open space exhibit that depicts 6.45 acres (or 10.49% of the site) of open space consisting of grassy areas of at least 5,000 sq. ft. in area & common areas with pathways or other amenities, excluding the pond & golf course area. Because the Touchmark development hasn’t been subdivided into individual lots, it’s not clear to Staff what areas are considered private vs. common and if the areas counted as common area are actually common. Commission Recommendation: Approval (Note: With DA’s and PUD’s, the decision-making body is able to place additional conditions on development applications that may not typically be required in the UDC in an effort to provide exemplary site development in accord with the purpose statement of the PUD.) Summary of Commission Public Hearing: i. In favor: Tamara Thompson, The Land Group; Ryan Benson, Touchmark ii. In opposition: None iii. Commenting: Sandra Cruise iv. Written testimony: Tamara Thompson, The Land Group (Applicant’s Representative – response to the staff report) v. Key Issue(s):  The Applicant requested Commission approval of changes to the following conditions in the staff report: 1) #A.1.ii. request for 6’ tall wrought iron fencing along the Ridenbaugh Canal to be replaced with metal picket fence or full privacy to match existing fence; 2) CUP/PUD #i. request for a drive/private street to not be required from Truckee Ave to the east to the light industry designated property as it would be difficult and likely not achievable as there is an existing gravity ditch where flows will need to be maintained and a severe grade difference of approximately 27’ – internal drives will be provided if possible but should not be a requirement as this may be engineeringly infeasible; 3) CUP/PD #ii. Request for the optional residential uses to remain and not be removed as recommended by Staff – the applicant requests the flexibility of up to 65% of the land area included in this application to be allowed as residential uses (up to 524 units). Note: The percentage noted in the Comp Plan is based on the overall MU-C area and not just the site area.  Request for the existing black locust (?) tree along the periphery of the site to remain and not be removed due to it being a home for many raptors; question as to if the Ridenbaugh Canal will be concrete-lined in the proposed development area; and request for consideration of the height of structures along the east boundary of the site to transition to existing residential homes in Edgeview Subdivision. Key Issue(s) of Discussion by Commission: i. Recognition of the need to change the concept development plan as the development evolves and needs change. ii. General support of the proposed development plan. iii. Fencing type along the Ridenbaugh Canal and the Applicant’s request for a change to Staff’s recommendation for a change to wrought iron fencing. iv. Uncertainty pertaining to the differences between townhome and multi-family units. v. Desire for acre to acre replacement of the area proposed to be converted from a golf course to villas elsewhere in the new development portion of the site. vi. Request for the Applicant to provide an update at the Council hearing pertaining to the possibility of retaining the existing black locust tree on the site. vii. Concern pertaining to the traffic impacts the proposed development will have on area roadways and intersections. viii. Support of Staff’s recommendation. Commission Change(s) to Staff Recommendation: i. Ensure the fencing proposed along the Ridenbaugh Canal complies with City code – the metal picket fencing proposed by the Applicant is an approved fencing type; in the two (2) areas where commercial and residential uses are proposed as development options, commercial is preferred but residential is allowed as an option for flexibility for long-term future growth; define townhomes as multi-family residential on concept plan; include an exhibit for open space that doesn’t include the golf course; and work with the irrigation district and the City for connectivity to the east boundary. Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: i. Update from the Applicant regarding the provision of a vehicular connection to the east boundary of the site; and the retention of the black locust tree on the site. ii. City Council should determine if it’s appropriate to remove the golf course amenity from the existing development and replace it with 20-25 additional dwelling units as proposed on the concept plan. Written Testimony since Commission Hearing: Many letters of testimony, included in the public record, have been received from residents of Meadow Lake Village since the Commission hearing in opposition to the proposed development & replacement of the golf course area & trees with villas. Concerns include the following: noise associated with new construction; not enough open space in the proposed development – concern new development will use the private open space areas in Meadow Lake Village to recreate; overcrowding of the campus & its facilities and inadequate parking for lodge dining or functions; increased traffic; lack of security; impact on existing services and facilities; the proposed development would extremely alter the beauty & peacefulness of the existing campus; decrease in quality of life; elimination of the golf course area would destroy the character of the residential area; existing infrastructure is inadequate to support the influx of potentially 40-50 new residents; against the height of the 3-story townhome-style structures in relation to the existing cottages – request for single-story homes. A petition was also submitted with 266 signatures opposing the conversion of the golf course and green space to residential villas There were also several requests for Council to remand the project back to the Commission for review of the open space exhibit and consideration of testimony from residents of Meadow Lake Village who weren’t fully informed about the development at the time the application was heard by the Commission. Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2025-0012, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of September 2, 2025: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2025-0012, as presented during the hearing on September 2, 2025, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2025-0012 to the hearing date of ____________ for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) h2 City Council MeetingSeptember 2, 2025 Zoning MapAerialFLUM W IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing (continued from August 12, 2025) for Touchmark (H-2025- 0012) by The Land Group, generally located on the south side of E. Franklin Rd. and the north side of 1-84, midway between S. Eagle Rd. and S. Cloverdale Rd. Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2025-0012 A. Request: Modified Development Agreement to update the conceptual development plan for the overall site, which consists of approximately 121.50 acres of land to consolidate the existing agreements (AZ-99-021 Touchmark (recorded in 2001, Inst. #101048096); April 2001 Addendum (Inst. # 101048097); May 2003 Addendum (Inst. #103137119); AZ-02-018 (Bair Property AZ-02- 018, Inst. #102143308); MI-07-006 (Meadowlake Village North 3rd Addendum, Inst. #108022885) into one new agreement that replaces all previous agreements. B. Request: Rezone of 63.34 acres of land from the L-0 to the C-C (55.17 acres) and C-G (8.17 acres) zoning districts. C. Planned Unit Development Modification (Meadowlake Village CUP-03-005) to update the concept/use plan and include 4.6 acres of additional land, a deviation to the maximum building height allowed in the C-C district from 50ft. to 64ft. for the hotel and inclusion of 2 and 3 story townhome dwellings. PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE : September 2 , 2025 ITEM # 1 PROJECT NAME : Touchmark ( W2025 - 0012 ) wish to testify Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing ( mark X ( Please Print ) HOA ? if yes ) Q � 1 4 5 1006 NZA&O vo el rd e 04A 6 q S 2 2o � 1, f % � va ti 7vo 8 9 „ I 10 12 13Prc L 14 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE : September 2, 2025 ITEM # 1 PROJECT NAME : Touchmark ( W2025 - 0012 ) wish to testify Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing ( mark X ( Please Print ) HOA ? if yes ) 1 J6( d J-�sc � �7 3 4 t� 571�v VP, P 9 < .5 ? 7 � �� � . 10 kA4,4 12 3 /0 13 14 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT C��fEPIDIAN*,,--, DEPARTMENT REPORT HEARING 9/2/2025 Legend DATE: Continued from: 811212025 Project Location Area of Impact TO: Mayor&City Council city Limits FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 _ sallen meridiancit .or @ Y g APPLICANT: The Land Group y SUBJECT: H-2025-0012 `- r. Touchmark—MDA, PUD,RZ LOCATION: Generally located on the south side of E. `' E Franklin Rd. and the north side of I-84, midway between S. Eagle Rd. and S. Cloverdale Rd.,in the north 1/2 of Section 16,T.3N.,R.IE. (Parcels: S1116120662, S1116121055, S1116131260, S1116131400, S1116212561, S1116244261, R8509130020, S1116244270, S1116244710). I. PROJECT OVERVIEW A. Summary The Applicant has submitted the following development applications for the subject property: • Development agreement modification(MDA)to update the conceptual development plan for the overall site,which consists of approximately 121.5-acres of land, and consolidate the existing agreements [AZ-99-021 Touchmark(recorded in 2001 Inst. #101048096); April 2001 Addendum(Inst. #101048097); May 2003 Addendum(Inst. #103137119); AZ-02-018 (Bair property AZ-02-018 Inst. 102143308);MI-07-006 (Meadowlake Village North 3rd Addendum Inst.#108022885)] into one (1)new agreement that replaces all previous agreements; • Rezone(RZ) of 63.34-acres of land from the L-O to the C-C(55.17-acres)and C-G (8.17-acres)zoning districts; and • Modification to the existing Planned Unit Development(PUD) (Meadowlake Village CUP-03-005)to update the concept/use plan and include 4.6-acres of additional land, a deviation to the maximum building height allowed in the C-C district from 50-feet to 64- feet for the hotel, and inclusion of townhome dwellings as a permitted use in the C-C district. City of Meridian I Department Report 1. Project Overview B. Issues/Waivers As part of the PUD,the Applicant requests a deviation to the maximum building height allowed in the C-C district from 50-feet to 64-feet for the hotel(measured to the highest point of the structure); and allowance for townhome dwellings to develop in the C-C district. In regard to the request for townhouse dwellings to develop in the C-C district,townhouse dwellings are defined in UDC 11-1A-1 as, "A structure containing three(3)or more dwelling units attached by common walls where each dwelling unit is located on a separate property." Townhouse dwellings are a prohibited use in the C-C district and therefore, aren't allowed through the PUD per UDC 11-7-4A.2. If the property is proposed to be subdivided in the future so that each unit is on a separate property, a rezone would be required to a residential or traditional neighborhood zoning district in which the use is allowed. The proposed townhouse style units are considered multi-family residential because there are multiple units on a single property and therefore, are allowed in the C-C district. C. Recommendation Staff. Approval Commission: Approval D. Decision City Council: Pending I1. COMMUNITY METRICS Table 1:Land Use Description Details Map Ref. Existing Land Use(s) Residential(single-family detached, - Proposed Land Use(s) Commercial,multi-family residential[apartments and - townhome,single-family detached(aka cottages)and attached(aka villas)style units all on one property], commercial/light industry,hotel,medical office Existing Zoning L-O(Limited Office) VII.A.2 Proposed Zoning C-C(Community Business)(55.17 acres)&C-G(General Retail&Service Commercial)(8.17 acres) Adopted FLUM Designation MU-C(Mixed Use—Community) VII.A.3 Table 2: Process Facts Description Details Preapplication Meeting date 2/18/2025 (PREAPP-2024-0119) Neighborhood Meeting 2/26/2025 Site posting date 7/2/2025 Table 3: Community Metrics Agency/Element Description/Issue Reference Ada County Highway District • Comments Received Yes • Commission Action Required No • Access E.Franklin Rd.,an arterial street and S.Touchmark Way,a collector street.No access is proposed via Louise Dr.,a collector street • Traffic Level of Service(LOS) The SH-55/Eagle intersection and other lane groups don't meet ACHD's LOS planning thresholds per the TIS but area roadways do(no improvements are planned in the future City of Meridian I Department Report 11. Community Metrics ITD Comments Received ITD reviewed the TIS and has no comments or requirements for this development Meridian Fire No comments were received • Distance to Station Fire Station#1 —less than 2 miles away • Response Time The service accessibility report states response time is more than 9 minutes(due to traffic delays,not the proximity of the station),which isn't acceptable Meridian Police No comments were received • Response time The service accessibility report states it meets response time goals most of the time Meridian Public Works Wastewater See Agency Comments folder in the public record • Distance to Mainline Available Meridian Public Works Water • Distance to Mainline On-site School District(s) No comments were submitted Note: See section IV. City/Agency Comments&Conditions for comments received. City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics Figure 1: One-Mile Radius Existing Condition Metrics Reference Parcel:S1116120662 Uate Retrieved:2025 1 718 Parcel Count Parcel Acreage I nfill Indicator: 412 Surrounding Area _ 255 21% Not city 655 ® City Limits 974,2 ❑ Not city Household Change Household&Population Growth r Households C3 2020 Population Change:25.69a Population ■Growth (Household and Population Change since 2010 Decennial) 3,000 10,000 Use Types Residential Addresses All Addresses ■ Single-family 53% rl Multi-family ¢7% 33% ® Commercial Preliminary Plats(last S-years) Conditional Use Permit(last S-years) Pro posed Proposed Pending Pending Approved Approved W. 0 500 1000 15W 0 200 400 N ■ Single-family ® Multr-family >> For Projects with Residential Units << 2.00 500 Single-family -jr Residential c 150 Parcel Diversity a 0.77 0 Parcel Count ;n 0.50 ' «. a 0.21 is a ■Average Acres ° 0.00 0 R-2 R-4 RIB R-15 Average Single-family Density by Zoning Average 15.00 ` 12.66 Residential Net Density 10.00 c 5.00 — 4.a1 0s.s3 i 5■0i 1.29 0.00 Dwelling Units 1 Acre R-2 R-4 R-8 R-15 Notes: See VIII.Additional Notes&Details for Staff Report Maps,Tables,and Charts. City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics Figure 2: ACHD Summary Metrics ACHD Planned Improvements 1. Capital Improvements Plan (CIP)l Five Year Plan (FYP): There are no roadways, bridges or intersections in the general vicinity of the project that are in the Five Year Plan(FYP)or the District's Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Level of Service Planning Thresholds 1. Condition of Area Roadways Traffic Count is based on Vehicles per hour(VPH) Roadway Frontage Functional PM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Classification Traffic Count Level of Service Franklin Road 2,250-feet Principal Arterial 774 Better than "E° Touchmark Way (Louise Drive to 651-feet Collector 233 Better than °D" Franklin Road *Acceptable level of service for a five-lane principal arterial is"E"(1,780 VPH). x Acceptable level of service for a two-lane collector is"D"(425 VPH). *Acceptable level of service for a three-lane collector is"D"(530 VPH). Notes: See VIII.Additional Notes&Details for Staff Report Maps,Tables,and Charts. Figure 3: Service Impact Summary pact Too Ready Marginal Caution ,NA- Notes: See VIII.Additional Notes&Details for Staff Report Maps,Tables,and Charts. III. STAFF ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code(UDC) A. General Overview The subject property is designated Mixed Use—Community(MU-C) on the Future Land Use Map in the Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of this designation is to allocate areas where community-serving uses and dwellings are seamlessly integrated into the urban fabric. The intent is to integrate a variety of uses, including residential,and to avoid mainly single-use and strip commercial type buildings. Non-residential buildings in these areas tend to be larger than in Mixed Use Neighborhood(MU- N) areas,but not as large as in Mixed Use Regional(MU-R)areas. Goods and services in these areas tend to be of the variety that people will mainly travel by car to but also walk or bike to(up City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis to three or four miles). Employment opportunities for those living in and around the neighborhood are encouraged. Developments are encouraged to be designed according to the conceptual MU-C plan depicted in Figure 3E in the Plan. In reviewing development applications,the City will consider the following items in MU-C areas: (staffs analysis in italics) • Development must comply with the Functional Integration principles for development in all Mixed-Use areas.A variety of residential and non-residential uses are proposed with pedestrian connectivity throughout the development, which should reduce vehicle trips for nearby residents and/or visitors. At least three different land uses (i.e. commercial, office, residential) are proposed on the master plan in the MU-C designated area as required. Because high-density residential apartments are proposed in the multi family area on the concept plan, commensurate levels of employment or other non-residential elements supporting residents and reducing local vehicle trips should be provided in areas planned for commercial and office uses. Neighborhood activity areas are provided in the existing retirement community. Community-serving facilities such as medical offices are planned within the development and St. Luke's hospital and other medical offices and clinics are located nearby to the west, which should reduce extraordinary service and transportation network impacts. Supportive and proportional outdoor public and/or quasi public spaces and places including,but not limited to,parks,plazas, outdoor gathering areas and linear open space are expected and should be provided in accord with the MU-C guidelines as noted below. These areas may be located in spaces between residential and non-residential uses to provide both integration and transition between uses. Outdoor seating areas at restaurants are not considered supportive public spaces unless integrated into shared open space, natural amenities, and interconnected with cohesive pathway elements. These areas should be designed in accord with the Holistic Design principles included in the Comprehensive Plan (see pg. 3-18 and 3-19 for more information). Staff recommends a provision of the DA that requires future development applications to demonstrate consistency with the Functional integration principles described in the Integration of Uses and Holistic Design sub-sections of the Comprehensive Plan (pp. 3- 16 thru 3-19). • Residential uses are expected to comprise between 20% and 50%of the development area, with gross densities ranging from 6 to 15 units/acre(of the residential area). The Applicant states residential uses are proposed to comprise approximately 68%of the overall site, including the built-out area, with a density of 11.5 units/acre, which exceeds the maximum development area desired for residential uses, even with the additional 15%allowed with the provision of transit. This calculation does not include the two (2) areas where the Applicant would like the flexibility to develop residential instead of medical office and commercial uses. For this reason,Staff recommends those areas develop with commercial and medical office uses and that the residential option be removed from the concept plan. • Supportive and proportional public and/or quasi-public spaces and places should comprise a minimum of 5% of the development area are required. The Applicant states public and/or public spaces and places will comprise a minimum of 5%of the development area and will consist of pedestrian walkways, recreational areas for children and adults to enjoy daytime leisure activities such as playgrounds, open green space, dog areas and functional spaces that promote general health and wellness. Future development City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis applications shall demonstrate compliance with this requirement by providing spaces and places consistent with the Functional Integration principles in the Comprehensive Plan. • Where the development site has transit available or stops are planned, an additional 15% of the site may be dedicated to residential uses.Alternatively,this bonus may be applied where the development an identified employment area, and where last-mile transportation features are incorporated into the site including thoughtfully located and integrated ride share parking, commensurate with potential trip capture. Other innovations to reduce traffic and/or parking impacts and capture local trips may be considered. Transit is available to this site and is within one(1) mile of a future identified transit facility. Therefore, an additional 15%of the site may be dedicated to residential uses. • Sample uses appropriate in MU-C areas include: All MU-N categories, community scale grocers,clothing stores, garden centers,hardware stores,restaurants,banks, drive-thru facilities,auto service station,retail shops, and other appropriate community-serving uses. Sample zoning includes: R-15,R-40, TN-R,TN-C, C-C, and L-O. The proposed project consists of 121.5 acres of land within a larger MU-C designated area totaling approximately 164 acres and includes a mix of uses consisting of commercial,office, light industry and a variety of residential housing types as shown on the"bubble"plan below in Section VILE consistent with the Plan. A couple areas on the concept plan are shown with two (2)possible uses—the medical office/townhomes along the southwest boundary of the site and the commercial/multi-family along the north side of the site along Franklin Rd. If the demand for office space doesn't come to fruition,the Applicant proposes an alternate use of townhomes (50- 55 units)in that area. Commercial use similar to the commercial proposed to the west along Franklin is proposed on the other area with the flexibility for multi-family residential(number of units/density is not specified but the Applicant states the area could support 115-140 units using the same density as the other multi-family area)—the multi-family use would be at a larger scale than the townhomes and an increase in density. Because more intense commercial uses are desired along arterial streets in the MU-C diagram in the Comprehensive Plan transitioning to lesser intense uses and because the percentage of residential uses exceeds that desired in the Plan for MU-C designated areas, Staff recommends the concept plan is revised to only reflect commercial use on that portion of the property. The Commission did not agree with Staffs recommended change and wanted to allow flexibility for residential uses for long-term future growth. A rezone of 55.17 acres to the C-C district and 8.17 acres to the C-G district from the L-O district is proposed for the undeveloped portion of the site included in the master plan to accommodate the proposed uses. Because the concept plan is proposed to be revised, it must comply with current UDC provisions,which prohibit retail,hotel, self-service storage,light industry or multi- family residential uses in the L-O district. The previously developed areas of the site will remain L-O. A modification to the existing Planned Unit Development(Meadowlake Village CUP-03-005)is also proposed to update the concept/use plan and include 4.6-acres of additional land, a deviation to the maximum building height allowed in the C-C district from 50-feet to 64-feet for the hotel (measured to the highest point of the structure), and inclusion of townhome dwellings as a permitted use in the C-C district. In regard to the request for townhouse dwellings to develop in the C-C district,townhouse dwellings are a prohibited use in the C-C district and therefore,aren't allowed through the PUD. This would require a rezone to a residential or traditional neighborhood zoning district in which the use is allowed as set forth in UDC 11-7-4A.2,which states, "Allowed uses.Applicant may request that specific conditional or accessory use(s) allowed in the district be allowed as principal permitted use(s)."Note: Townhouse style units may develop in City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis the C-C district where individual units are not on individual lots as they are then considered a multi-family residential use. The existing community is proposed to remain unchanged except for the small golf course,which at some point in the future may redevelop with villas(i.e. duplexes). The open space amenities are also evolving and as the golf course is redeveloped,the required open space amenities will be reprogrammed in other areas of the project. Before changes can be approved to this area,the Applicant must demonstrate compliance with the terms of the previously approved PUD in regard to site amenities with removal of the golf course.Per the code in effect at that time (12-6-7E.5),at least 10% of the gross area of the PUD was required as open space,exclusive of required street buffers and buffers between incompatible land uses. The developed area consists of 61.50 acres of land,therefore, a minimum of 6.15 acres of qualified open space is required to be provided.An exhibit should be submitted showing the existing qualified open space without the golf course area.An open space exhibit was submitted as requested, included below in Section VII.J, that depicts a total of 6.45 acres (or 10.49%of the site) of common open mace consisting ofgrassy areas of at least 5,000 sq. ft. in area and common areas with pathways or other amenities, excluding the pond and golf course area. Note:Many of the residents in Touchmark are against removing the golf course and replacing it with more dwelling units (see public testimony). The new development plan includes approximately 114,000 sq. ft. of medical office space, approximately 300-400 non-age restricted market rate multi-family units(both apartments and townhouses)with a possibility of 165-195 additional units through the alternate uses proposed, 20-25 single-family attached units(aka villas),three(3) single-family detached units(aka cottages), 75,546 sq. ft. of self-storage(i.e. light industry),45,000 sq. ft. of general office space, 45,000 sq. ft. of commercial retail space and an approximate 126-room hotel. A phasing plan, included below in Section VII.H,which depicts four(4)phases of development, is anticipated to be completed between 2030 and 2040.Phase 1 is the villas and cottages(2-5 years), Phase 2 is the apartments and townhomes(3-10 years),Phase 3 is the commercial, self- storage,additional multi-family and hotel along Franklin Rd. (3-15 years), and Phase 4 is medical office, daycare,post-acute care and townhomes (4-15 years). Staff recommends a subdivision application is submitted for each phase of development and recorded in order to have a legal parcel for development purposes. Table 4: Proiect Overview Description Details History CPA-99-004/AZ-99-021/CUP-99/039(Touchmark,Ord.#01-917,DA Inst.#101048096,April 2001 Addendum(Inst.#101048097); "May 2003 Addendum"(Inst.#103137119);AZ-02-018(Bair property,Ord.#02-983, DA Inst. 102143308); CUP-03-005 (Meadowlake Village PUD);AZ-05- 022;PP-07-009(expired)/CUP-07-008(expired)/MI-07-006(Meadowlake Village North 3rd Addendum Inst.#108022885);H-2016-0058(modified CUP-99-039 to remove the alley depicted for access to 7 of the SFR homes);FP-04-025 Phasing Plan 4 phases from 4-15 years Residential Units 524 units(as stated by Applicant;however,concept plan depicts 300-400 with a possibility of an additional 165-195 through alternate plan) Open Space 486,842 sq.ft. (or 11.18 acres)(see open space exhibit for more info) Amenities Clubhouse,water feature(fountain),existing dog park,playground,multi- use pathways(3,700 ft.),bicycle storage Physical Features The Ridenbaugh Canal runs along the east boundary of the site Acreage 121.5 acres(DA boundary) Density 13.5 units/acre based on 524 units on 38.7 acres of land City of Meridian Department Report III. Staff Analysis B. History In 1999, an amendment to the Future Land Use Map(FLUM) in the Comprehensive Plan was approved from single-family residential to Mixed/Planned Use Development(CPA-99-004). This property was also included in two(2)different annexation and zoning applications,the first in 2000 (AZ-99-021 Touchmark) and the second in 2002(AZ-02-018 Bair property)with L-O (Limited Office)zoning—Development agreements(DA's)were required as a provision of annexation with both applications(Touchmark Inst. #101048096;April 2001 Addendum-Inst. #101048097; May 2003 Addendum Inst.#103137119 and Bair property Inst. #102143308). A third Addendum to the Touchmark DA was approved in 2008,which included a new conceptual development plan(MI-07-006 Meadowlake Village North Inst. #108022885)]. A conditional use permit(CUP-99-039)for a conceptual planned unit development(PUD)in the L-O zoning district was approved with annexation of the property in 2001. It included Phase 1 but required future phases to obtain separate CUP approval for each phase. The PUD was for a continuing care retirement community comprised of 250-300 units of independent and assisted living,450 units of residential including single-family, duplex,townhomes and multi-family, a community senior health and fitness center,medical office parks, commercial and retail businesses. Since that time,approximately 428 residential units have been built in the retirement community along with a senior health and fitness center and many amenities including open green space and walking trails, a community garden, coffee shop and bistro, salon and barbershop, a library,theatre, dining venues,pickleball courts and other on-site amenities. This plan didn't include the 4.6-acre Bair property located at 3975 E.Franklin Rd. that was later annexed in 2002. In 2003, a conditional use permit(CUP-03-005)was approved for revisions to the previously approved conceptual planned unit development(i.e. CUP-99-039)to include the Bair property, consisting of 318 residential units and approximately 600,000 sq. ft. of commercial/office buildings on 138 acres of land with reduced building setbacks in the L-O district. The approved conceptual development plan is included below in Section VII.E. In 2007, a preliminary plat(PP-07-009)was approved for 52 single-family residential lots,two (2)office/commercial lots and 10 common lots. A CUP(CUP-07-008)was also approved to modify the conceptual planned development for the Touchmark Living Centers/Meadowlake Village development and an amendment to the DA(MI-07-006)was approved to amend the construction requirements for Phase III of the development. C. Site Development and Use Analysis 1. Existing Structures/Site Improvements (UDC 11-1): Approximately half of the site has already been developed as part of the Touchmark at Meadow Lake Village development. There is an existing driveway from the site onto Franklin Rd. east of Touchmark Way before the proposed access in alignment with Truckee Ave. on the north side of Franklin that is required to be removed with development. 2. Proposed Use Analysis (UDC 11-2): The proposed development,which will provide of mix of residential housing types(i.e. apartments, attached and detached units, and townhome units), commercial,office and light industry uses,provides a mix of uses as desired in Mixed Use designations. Further,the mix of uses is consistent with those desired in MU-C designated areas. City of Meridian I Department Report 111. Staff Analysis 3. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): Compliance with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2B-3 for the C-C and C-G zoning districts is required, as applicable,unless otherwise approved with the PUD(see below). 4. Planned Unit Developments (UDC 11-7): A modification to the existing Planned Unit Development(Meadowlake Village CUP-03- 005)is proposed to update the concept/use plan and include 4.6-acres of additional land area. and inclusion of 2 and 3 story townhome dwellings.Note: The Applicant is not proposing to subdivide the property, therefore, townhomes are not proposed or allowed—townhome style units, which are considered multi family, are allowed through the PUD. The purpose of the PUD requirements is to provide an opportunity for exemplary site development that meets the following objectives: • Preserves natural, scenic and historic features of major importance; Staff is unaware of any natural, scenic and historic features that need to be preserved. • Allows for innovative design that creates visually pleasing and cohesive patterns of development(including,but not limited to,residential development at densities greater than eight(8)units per acre where design guidelines are in place for development and where garage doors are generally not fronting the street); and The 6.56 acres proposed to develop with 50-100 townhome style units would result in a gross density between 8 and 15 units/acre. The 9.45 acres proposed to develop with 250 to 300 multi-family apartments would result in a gross density between 26 and 32 units per acre. The 0.63 acres proposed to develop with three(3) single-family detached style units(aka cottages)would result in a gross density of 5 units per acre. The 4.78 acres proposed to develop with 20 to 25 single-family-attached style units(aka villas)would result in a gross density of 4 to 5 units per acre. Overall,the 21.42 acres proposed to develop with 323 to 428 residential units would result in a gross density of 15 to 20 units per acre.Density calc's are rounded to the nearest whole number. If the 8.16 acres planned to develop with medical offices develops instead with 50 to 55 townhome units, it would result in a gross density of 6 to 7 units per acre. There is no unit count listed if the 4.32 acre commercial property develops instead with multi-family apartments. The multi-family apartment and townhome-style residential portions of the development will exceed 8 units per acre. Rather than proposing design guidelines for the development,the Applicant states future structures will comply with the design standards in the City's Architectural Standards Manual and that garage doors will generally not front a street. • Creates functionally integrated development that allows for a more efficient and cost- effective provision of public services. The proposed pedestrian pathway plan and vehicular connectivity shown on the concept plan should assist in creating functionally integrated development as required. It is not the intent that the PUD process be used solely for the purposes of deviation from the dimensional standards in the district. Per UDC 11-7-4,the Council may approved planned unit developments,upon recommendation by the Commission, in accord with the following standards: ➢ General Use Standards: City of Meridian I Department Report 111. Staff Analysis i. Deviations from underlying district requirements—Deviations from the development standards and/or area requirements of the district may be approved through a PUD. The Applicant requests approval of a deviation to the maximum building height allowed of 50 feet in the C-C district to allow a maximum height of 64 feet for the hotel,measured to the highest point of the structure. ii. Allowed uses—Applicant may request that specific conditional or accessory use(s) allowed in the district be allowed as principal permitted use(s). The Applicant requests the following uses be allowed in C-C and/or C-G districts, as applicable,as principal permitted use(s) so long as the use is located generally on the project where shown on the concept plan and complies with the specific use standards in the UDC: • Multi-family development [includes single-family detached(aka cottages) and attached units(aka villas), and townhome style units]—compliance with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-27—Multi family development is required. • Townhouse dwellings (i.e. 3 or more attached units)—these are considered multi family as they're on one property—such dwellings on individual properties are not allowed. • Single-family detached dwellings(aka cottages)—these are considered multi- family as they're on one property—such dwellings on individual properties are not allowed. • Single-family attached dwellings(i.e. 2-attached units—aka villas)—these are considered multi family as they're on one property—such dwellings on individual properties are not allowed. • Hotel—compliance with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-23— Hotel or motel is required. • Daycare center—compliance with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4- 3-9—Daycare facility is required. • Live/work residential project—compliance with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-50—Live/work residential project is required. • Light industry(only allowed in C-G zone)—compliance with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-34—Industry, light and heavy is required. • Self-service storage facility(only allowed in C-G zone)—compliance with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-34—Storage facility, self-service is required. • Warehouse(only allowed in C-G zone)—compliance with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-42— Warehouse is required. iii. Interconnected uses—The uses within the planned unit development are interconnected through a system of roadways and/or pathways as appropriate. Private streets and service driveways may be permitted,if designed and constructed to the transportation authority standards and in accord with UDC 11-317 Private Street Requirements. A pathway plan is proposed, included below in Section VII.G,that depicts 10' wide multi-use pathways through the site, existing sidewalks and 5' wide proposed sidewalks along streets and drives for pedestrian connectivity within the site and to adjacent properties. Private drives are proposed internally within the site for vehicular access and interconnectivity. iv. Building clusters—Buildings shall be clustered to preserve scenic or environmentally sensitive areas in the natural state, or to consolidate small open spaces into larger, more usable areas for common use and enjoyment. City of Meridian Department Report 111. Staff Analysis A"bubble"plan was submitted for the concept plan,which doesn't depict building locations. Staff recommends buildings are arranged to comply with this standard as a condition of the PUD. ➢ Private Open Space: In addition to the common open space and site amenity requirements set forth in Chapter 3, a minimum of 80 square feet of private,usable open space shall be provided for each residential unit. This requirement can be satisfied through porches, patios, decks, and enclosed yards. Landscaping entryway and other accessways do not count toward this requirement.A site amenity plan is proposed, included below in Section VILI, which includes amenity information for the multi family development but not for the townhome, cottage or villa portions of the development—site amenities and open space will be required with development of those areas based on the total area(i.e. 4.02+2.54+0.63+4.78=11.97 acres) at a minimum of 15%open space and one(1)site amenity point for each 5 acres of gross land area being developed. Future residential development should comply with this standard as a condition of the PUD. ➢ Residential Use Standards: i. Multi-family—Notwithstanding the provisions of UDC 11-2,multi-family dwellings may be an allowed use when approved through a planned unit development. As noted above,the Applicant requests multi-family development be a principal permitted use in the C-C district with the PUD. ii. Housing types—A variety of housing types shall be included within a single planned development, including attached units(townhouses,duplexes),detached units(patio homes), single-family and multi-family units,regardless of the district classification of the stie,provided that the overall density limit of the district is maintained. A variety of housing types is proposed consisting of single-family detached and attached,townhomes and multi-family apartments. iii. Density bonus—A residential density bonus may be given for dedications of land for public use such as school,park,fire station or recreational facility provided to the public entity by donation or at a cost less than, or equal to,the applicant's predevelopment cost for that land. No such dedications of land are proposed. ➢ Infill Planned Developments -Properties of five(5) acres or less within the City of Meridian,that are located in areas already substantially developed(at least eighty(80) percent of the land area within three hundred(300) feet of the boundaries of the parcel). Upon recommendation of the commission,the council may approve exceptions to other sections of this chapter as an incentive for infill development as follows: • The decision-making body may allow up to a twenty-five(25)percent increase in the density permitted for the district in which the site is located. • The decision-making body may also waive one(1)or more of the amenity requirements set forth in this section depending on the size and scale of the planned development. The subject property is over 5 acres in size;thus,this is not applicable. ➢ Approval: Conditions—In approving the planned development,the Council may prescribe appropriate conditions, additional conditions,bonds, and safeguards in conformity with this title that: 1. Minimize adverse impact of the use on other property. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 2. Control the sequence and timing of the use. 3. Control the duration of the use. 4. Assure that the use and the property in which the use is located is maintained properly. 5. Designate the exact location and nature of the use and the property development. 6. Require the provision for on-site or off-site public facilities or services. 7. Require more restrictive standards than those generally required in this title. 8. Require mitigation of adverse impacts of the proposed development upon service delivery by any political subdivision, including school districts,which provides services within the city. 5. Specific Use Standards (UDC 11-4-3): Compliance with the specific use standards for the following uses is required: • Multi-family development(UDC 11-4-3-27) • Light industry(UDC 11-4-3-25) • Hotel(UDC 11-4-3-23) • Live/work residential project(UDC 11-4-3-50) • Self-service storage facility(UDC 11-4-3-34) • Daycare center(UDC 11-4-3-9) • Warehouse(UDC 11-4-3-42) D. Design Standards Analysis In accord with the Comprehensive Plan,non-residential buildings should transition to and compliment adjacent residential buildings in mass and form; and transitions between different land uses should include highly connected open space. 1. Structure and Site Design Standards (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-19): Compliance with the structure and site design standards in UDC 11-3A-19 is required for the non-residential portion of the development. 2. Qualified Open Space &Amenities (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3G): Compliance with the qualified open space and site amenity standards listed in UDC 11-4-3- 27C,D is required for the multi-family portion(s)of the development. 3. Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): ➢ Landscape buffers along streets A minimum 35' wide street buffer is required to be provided with development along E. Franklin Rd., an arterial street and entryway corridor; a 20-foot wide street buffer is required along S. Touchmark Way and E. Louise Dr.,both collector streets,landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-313-7C. ➢ Parking lot landscaping Parking lot landscaping is required to be provided with development per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8C. ➢ Landscape buffers to adjoining uses A 25' wide landscape buffer is required to be provided on C-C and C-G zoned property with development adjacent to residential uses per UDC Table 11-2B-3 with landscaping in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-9C. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ➢ Tree preservation Tree mitigation is required for all existing trees 4"caliper or greater that are removed from the site with equal replacement of the total calipers lost on site up to an amount of 100%replacement as set forth in UDC 11-3B-1OC.5. ➢ Storm integration Stormwater integration is required in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B- 11 C. ➢ Pathway landscaping Landscaping is required along all pathways with development in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C. 4. Parking (UDC 11-3C): Off-street parking is required to be provided for each dwelling unit based on the number of bedrooms per unit in accord with the standards for single-family detached, single-family attached,townhouse and multi-family dwellings in UDC Table 11-3C-6. Off-street vehicle parking is required to be provided for non-residential uses in accord with the standards in UDC 11-3C-6B.1. Bicycle parking is required per the standards in UDC 1I- 3C-6G. 5. Building Elevations (Comp Plan,Architectural Standards Manual): Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the commercial,light industry,hotel, medical offices,multi-family and townhome, single-family detached(aka cottages)and single-family detached(aka villas) style multi-family, included below in Section VII.F. The Applicant's narrative states commercial buildings are proposed to generally front Franklin Rd. and be at a scale compatible with adjacent development; the commercial/light industry will be at a scale and height sensitive to the existing residential homes to the south. Modulation and variation in materials will help define different tenant spaces. Glazing will be provided at grade to activate the street front and high-quality materials will be utilized. The building's massing and materials will be designed to comply with the UDC and Architectural Standards Manual(ASM). The townhomes are proposed to be 2-and 3-stories in height with 3-stories along Touchmark Way,while the cottages and villas will be 1-story in height. The multi-family structures will transition from the townhomes to 3-stories in height. Final design of all structures is required to comply with the design standards in the ASM. 6. Fencing (UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): Any fencing constructed within this development should comply with the standards listed in DUC 11-3A-6C and 11-3A-7, as applicable. 7. Parkways (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-17): Parkways should comply with the standards for such in UDC 11-3A-17E. The minimum width of parkways planted with Class 11 trees is 8'; class II trees are preferred parkway trees (see UDC 11-3A-17E for more information). 79,932.6 E. Transportation Analysis The proposed development is located in close proximity to the Eagle Rd. interchange and I-84, St. Luke's hospital and medical offices,and The Village at Meridian shopping center, and is consistent with Comprehensive Plan Policy#2.02.01E,Encourage the development of high quality, dense residential and mixed-use areas near in and around Downtown, near employment, City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis large shopping centers,public open spaces and parks, and along major transportation corridors, as shown on the Future Land Use Map. Public transit is available to this site and is within one(1)mile of an identified future transit facility.Area roadways meet ACHD's Level of Service (LOS)planning thresholds; there are no planned improvements for this area—Franklin Rd. is fully improved with 5-travel lanes, curb, gutter and 7' wide attached sidewalk abutting the site; Touchmark Way is fully improved with 2- travel lanes(3-lanes at the intersection with Franklin Rd. with a 9' wide parkway), curb,gutter, a 7' wide parkway and detached 5' wide sidewalk; and Louise Dr. is fully improved with 2-travel lanes, curb, gutter and 7' wide attached sidewalk.No new public streets are proposed. A new access to Franklin Rd. is proposed in alignment with N. Truckee Ave.to the north,which has been approved by ACHD. An updated Traffic Impact Study(TIS)was submitted for the updated concept development plan. Based on ACHD's review of the TIS,the following is required at the Franklin Rd/Truckee Ave. intersection: construct a curb return type private road/drive aisle onto Franklin Rd. located in alignment with Truckee Ave. on the north side of Franklin Rd. across from the site;restrict the driveway to right-in/right-out only while continuing to allow full movements to and from Truckee Ave.; and construct a dedicated eastbound right-turn lane on Franklin Rd. at the intersection with the proposed private road/drive aisle. The drive access nearest Franklin Rd. on Touchmark Way is required to be restricted to right-in/right-out only due to the existing center median;the other two (2)accesses via Touchmark at the roundabouts are allowed as proposed. Other than the accesses specifically approved with this application, direct lot access is prohibited via Franklin Rd., Touchmark Way and Louise Dr. 1. Access (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-3, UDC 11-3H-4): The concept plan depicts one(1)new driveway access via E. Franklin Rd.,which ACHD is requiring be a right-in/right-out, and driveway access via S. Touchmark Way, a collector street. Either public or private named streets should be provided within the development for addressing purposes.The Applicant should coordinate with an addressing technician and the Fire Dept. on which streets should be constructed as private streets and named if public streets aren't provided. Staff recommends a drive/private street is provided from the north/south drive in alignment with Truckee Ave. on the north side of Franklin to the Commercial/Light Industry designated property at the northeast corner of the site for a functional integration of uses as desired in mixed use designated areas.A cross-access ingress/egress easement should be granted to the abutting property to the east(Parcel #R5262140050)for egress from the site to Franklin Rd.If an easement doesn't already exist to this property from the abutting parcel to the subject property,a reciprocal agreement should be recorded if possible. 2. Multiuse Pathways (UDC 11-3A-5): A pathway plan was submitted that depicts 10' wide multi-use pathways for pedestrian and bicycle access and connectivity within the development, included below in Section VII.G. 3. Pathways (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-8): A pathway plan was submitted that depicts a 5' wide existing and proposed sidewalks for pedestrian access and connectivity within the development,included below in Section VII.G. 4. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17): A 7' wide attached sidewalk exists along Franklin Rd., an arterial street; a 5' wide detached sidewalk exists along S. Touchmark Way, a collector street; and a 5' wide attached sidewalk exists along E. Louise Dr., a collector street. Minimum 5' wide detached sidewalks are required to be constructed along collector and arterial streets per UDC I I-3A-17;however, City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis because the existing sidewalks are in good condition and there is a significant grade difference along Franklin, Staff does not recommend those sidewalks are reconstructed as detached walkways. Five-foot wide attached(or detached) sidewalks are required along local and private streets as set forth in UDC 11-3A-17 and 11-3F-4B as proposed on the concept plan. 5. Private Streets (UDC 11-3F-4): If public streets are not provided internally within the site,private streets should be provided for addressing purposes and should be constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3F-4.The developer should coordinate with an addressing technician to determine which drives should be named and constructed as private streets and submit an application for private street approval. F. Services Analysis The subject property was annexed into the City many years ago but has only partially developed and demonstrates consistency with Comprehensive Plan Policy#2.02.02,Maximize public services by prioritizing infill development of vacant and underdeveloped parcels within the City over parcels on the fringe. 1. Waterways (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-6): The Ridenbaugh Canal, a large open waterway,runs along the eastern boundary of the development. A maintenance road exists along the west side of the canal. A wrought iron fence exists between the existing residential development and the maintenance road and canal. A minimum 6-foot tall wrought iron fence should be constructed with development on the undeveloped portion adjacent to the canal for public safety. This site is not within the floodplain. 2. Pressurized Irrigation(UDC 11-3A-15): Underground pressurized irrigation water is required to be provided in each development as set forth in UDC 11-3A-15. 3. Storm Drainage (UDC 11-3A-18): An adequate storm drainage system is required in accord with the adopted standards, specifications and ordinances; design and construction shall follow Best Management Practice as adopted by the City per UDC 11-3A-18. 4. Utilities (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-21): All utilities for the proposed development are required to be installed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-21. Public utilities are available and immediately adjacent with capacity to serve the project. Water service and sanitary sewer service will be provided via extensions of main lines in Touchmark and Franklin Rd. IV. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. Meridian Planning Division Development Agreement Modification/Rezone 1. A new DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian,the property owner(s), and the developer. The subject property identified in the legal description in Section VII.0 shall no longer be subject to any previous agreements. The DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning Division within six(6)months of the date of City Council City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions approval of the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decision&Order for the subject application. The DA shall,at minimum,incorporate the following provisions: i. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the conceptual development plan and building elevations,pedestrian plan,phasing plan and amenity plan submitted with this application and the provisions contained herein. ii. A minimum 6-foot tall metal picket fence shall be constructed with development on the undeveloped portion of the site along the eastern boundary of the site adjacent to the Ridenbaugh Canal for public safety in accord with UDC 11-3A-6C. iii. Pedestrian pathways and walkways are required to be provided with development in accord with the Pedestrian Pathway Plan included in Section VII.G. iv. All future structures constructed on this site shall comply with the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual and the holistic design principles included in the Comprehensive Plan for Mixed Use designated areas(see pp. 3-18 and 3-19). Garage doors for single-family detached and townhome style units shall generally not front the street in accord with UDC 11-7-1A.2. v. Other than the accesses specifically approved with this application by the City and Ada County Highway District(ACHD), direct lot access is prohibited to Franklin Rd., Touchmark Way and Louise Dr. vi. Supportive and proportional public and/or quasi-public spaces and places shall be provided that comprise a minimum of 5%of the development area and shall be integrated within the residential and commercial/office portions of the development in accord with the Comprehensive Plan principles for Functional Integration in Mixed Use designated areas. Future development applications shall demonstrate compliance with this requirement. vii. Future development applications shall demonstrate consistency with the Functional Integration principles described in the Integration of Uses and Holistic Design sub- sections of the Comprehensive Plan(pp. 3-16 thru 3-19). viii.A subdivision application shall submitted for each phase of development and recorded prior to submittal of a Certificate of Zoning Compliance for development within that phase. Conditional Use Permit/Planned Unit Development Modification The eoneept plan shall be revised prior-to the Couneil hearing as follows! i. Depict a drive/private street from the north/south drive in alignment with Truckee Ave.on the north side of Franklin to the Commercial/Light Industry designated property at the northeast corner of the site. The Commission directed the Applicant to work with the irrigation district and the City for connectivity to the east boundary. ii. in the two (2) areas where residential(i.e.mutti family and townhomes)is depieted as an alternate development option,remove residential and only depiet eommer-eial and medieal offiee in those areas. iii. Before villas can be approved to replace the small golf course in the existing development area,the Applicant must demonstrate compliance with the terms of the previously approved PUD in regard to open space with removal of the golf course. The original PUD required a minimum of 10%of the gross land area of the PUD to be qualified open space, exclusive of required street buffers and incompatible land uses.An open space exhibit was submitted, included below in Section VII.J, that excludes the pond City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions and golf course area, and depicts a total of 6.45 acres (or 10.49%of the site) of common open space, which exceeds the minimum requirement of 6.15 acres (or 10%). 0pen space areas consist ofgLassy areas of at least 5,000 soft. and/or common areas that include pathways or other amenities. City Council should determine if the requested change should be approved—many residents of Touchmark are azainst removinz the-olf course amenity from the development. 2. A deviation to the maximum building height allowed in the C-C district is allowed for the hotel use from 50-feet to 64-feet,measured to the highest point of the structure. 3. The following uses shall be deemed principal permitted uses through the PUD so long as the use is located generally on the project where shown on the concept plan and complies with the specific use standards for such in the UDC, as applicable: • Multi-family development(includes apartments and single-family detached, single- family attached and townhome style units)—comply with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-27.Note:If the land where single-family detached/attached and/or townhome units is subdivided in the future so that units are on individual lots, a rezone is required to a zone in which the use is allowed. • Hotel—comply with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-23 • Daycare center—comply with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-9 • Live/work residential project—comply with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-50 • Light industry(in C-G zone only)—comply with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-25 • Self-service storage facility(in C-G zone only)—comply with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-34 • Warehouse(in C-G zone only)—comply with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-42 4. Either public or private named streets shall be provided within the development for addressing purposes. The developer shall coordinate with an addressing technician and the Fire Dept.to determine which streets should be named if public streets are not proposed. All private streets require a separate private street application to be submitted that demonstrates compliance with the standards listed in UDC 11-3F-4. 5. Buildings shall be clustered to preserve scenic or environmentally sensitive areas in the natural state, or to consolidate small open spaces into larger,more usable areas for common use and enjoyment as set forth in UDC 11-7-4A.4. 6. In addition to the common open space and site amenity requirements set forth in UDC 11-3, a minimum of 80 square feet of private,usable open space shall be provided for each residential unit as set forth in UDC I 1-7-413. This requirement can be satisfied through porches,patios, decks, and enclosed yards. Landscaping entryway and other accessways do not count toward this requirement. 7. Submit a recorded cross-access ingress/egress easement to the abutting property to the east (Parcel#R5262140050) for egress from the site via the existing driveway to Franklin Rd. If an easement doesn't already exist to this property from the abutting parcel, a reciprocal agreement should be recorded if possible. 8. Open space and site amenities shall be provided for the townhome,cottage and villa portions of the development in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3 and 11-3G-4 based on the total gross land area of those uses(i.e. 11.97 acres). A minimum 15%common open City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions space shall be provided along with a minimum of one(1)point of site amenity for each five (5)acres of gross land area being developed. 9. The conditional use permit for the planned unit development is valid for a maximum period of two(2)years unless otherwise approved by the City.During this time,the Applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground as set forth in UDC 11-5B-6.A time extension may be requested as set forth in UDC 11-5B-6F. Other Agency comments may be accessed in the project file in the public record. Copy and paste the following link into your browser: https:llweblink.meridiancity.ory WWebLink/Browse.aspx?id=398918&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCit Y V. FINDINGS A. Rezone(UDC 11-511-3E) Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; The Commission finds the proposed map amendment to the C-C and C-G zoning districts and conceptual development plan complies with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; The Commission finds the proposed map amendment and development plan complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed districts as the C-C district allows a larger scale and broader mix of retail, office and service uses with access to arterials or non-residential collectors; and the C-G district is the largest scale and broadest mix of retail, office, service and light industrial uses in close proximity to interstate (i.e. 1-84) and arterial intersections (i.e. Eagle/Franklin Rd.), which supports the proposed development plan. Further, the Commission finds the proposed map amendment and development plan complies with the purpose of the commercial districts in that it provides for the retail and service needs of the community in accord with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; The Commission finds the proposed map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to, school districts; and The Commission finds the proposed map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the City including but not limited to school districts. City of Meridian I Department Report V. Findings 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. The Commission finds the proposed rezone is in the best interest of the City as it will result in the development of more commercial services, office and residential opportunities in close proximity to I-84, the hospital and entryway corridors (Eagle&Franklin Rd.) into the City. B. Planned Unit Development(UDC 11-7-5) Upon recommendation from the Commission,the Council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant a planned development request,the Council shall make the following findings: l. The planned unit development demonstrates exceptional high quality in site design through the provision of cohesive, continuous,visually related and functionally linked patterns of development, street and pathway layout,and building design. The Commission finds the proposed planned unit development demonstrates high quality in site design through the provision of continuous pedestrian pathways and streets and drives for pedestrian and vehicular connectivity throughout the development. Future development and building design should demonstrate an exceptional high quality of architectural design. 2. The planned unit development preserves the significant natural, scenic and/or historic features. The Commission is unaware of any significant natural, scenic and/or historic features that need to be preserved with development. 3. The arrangement of uses and/or structures in the development does not cause damage,hazard, or nuisance to persons or property in the vicinity. The Commission is of the opinion the proposed conceptual development plan and uses proposed will not cause damage, hazard, or nuisance to persons or property in the vicinity. The proposed concept plan demonstrates a good transition in uses from lower density residential uses to higher density residential uses, office and commercial uses. 4. The internal street,bike and pedestrian circulation system is designed for the efficient and safe flow of vehicles,bicyclists and pedestrians without having a disruptive influence upon the activities and functions contained within the development,nor place an undue burden upon existing transportation and other public services in the surrounding area. The Commission finds the internal street and pedestrian circulation system, which includes a 10'wide multi-use pathway, which can be used for bikes, is designed for the efficient and safe flow of vehicles, bicyclists and pedestrians without having a disruptive influence upon the activities and functions within the development, nor place an undue burden upon existing transportation and other public services in the surrounding area. 5. Community facilities, such as a park,recreational, and dedicated open space areas are functionally related and accessible to all dwelling units via pedestrian and/or bicycle pathways. The Commission finds the central common open space area with a pond provides a dedicated open space area that's accessible to all residents via pedestrian and/or bicycle pathways. 6. The proposal complies with the density and use standards requirements in accord with chapter 2, "District Regulations", of this title. The Commission finds the proposed residential portion of the development will comply with the density and use standards requirements in UDC 11-7-4. City of Meridian I Department Report V. Findings 7. The amenities provided are appropriate in number and scale to the proposed development. The Commission finds the proposed amenity plan for the multi family development(i.e. apartment units), included in Section VII.I, in addition to the amenities required to be provided in the other multi family portions of the development(i.e. single-family detached, single-family attached and townhome style units)per the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3 and 11-3G-4 will be appropriate for the proposed development. 8. The planned unit development is in conformance with the comprehensive plan. The Commission finds the proposed planned unit development will be in conformance with the comprehensive Plan with the provisions included in Section IV above. VI. ACTION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed MDA,PUD and RZ applications with the provisions noted above in Section IV. B. Commission: The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard these items on July 17, 2025. At the public heariniz,the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject PUD and RZ requests. I. Summary of Commission public hearing_ a. In favor: Tamara Thompson, The Land Group; Ryan Benson, Touchmark b. In opposition:None c. Commenting: Sandra Cruise d. Written testimony: Tamara Thompson, The Land Group (Applicant's Representative— response to the staff report) e. Staff presenting gpplication: f. Other Staff commenting on application:None 2. Key issue(s) public testimony A. The Applicant requested Commission approval of changes to the following conditions in the staff report: 1)#A.Lii.request for 6' tall wrought iron fencing along the Ridenbaugh Canal to be replaced with metal picket fence or full privacy to match existing fence; 2) CUP/PUD#i. request for a drive/private street to not be required from Truckee Ave to the east to the light industry designated property as it would be difficult and likely not achievable as there is an existing gravity ditch where flows will need to be maintained and a severe grade difference of approximately 27' —internal drives will be provided if possible but should not be a requirement as this may be en ineeringly infeasible; 3) CUP/PD#ii. Request for the optional residential uses to remain and not be removed as recommended by Staff—the applicant requests the flexibility of up to 65%of the land area included in this application to be allowed as residential uses(Lip to 524 units).Note: The percentage noted in the Comp Plan is based on the overall MU-C area and not just the site area. b. Request for the existing black locust(?)tree alongperiphery of the site to remain and not be removed due to it being a home for many ptors; question as to if the Ridenbaugh Canal will be concrete-lined in the proposed development area; and request for consideration of the height of structures along the east boundary of the site to transition to existing residential homes in Edgeview Subdivision. 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission: a. Recognition of the need to change the concept development plan as the development evolves and needs change. b. General support of the proposed development plan. c. Fencing type along the Ridenbaugh Canal and the Applicant's request for a change to Staff s recommendation to provide wrought iron fencing_ City of Meridian I Department Report VI. Action d. The differences between townhome and multi-family units—townhomes are considered multi-family residential if more than one unit is located on a lot. e. Desire for acre-to-acre replacement of the area proposed to be converted from a golf course to villas elsewhere in the new development portion of the site. f. Request for the Applicant to provide an update at the Council hearing pertainingto o the possibility of retaining the existing black locust tree on the site. g_ Concern pertaining to the traffic impacts the proposed development will have on area roadways and intersections. h. Support of Staff s recommendation. 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. Ensure the fencing proposed along the Ridenbaugh Canal complies with City code—the metal picket fencing proposedb, t�pplicant is an approved fencing type; in the two (2) areas where commercial and residential uses are proposed as development options, commercial is preferred but residential is allowed as an option for flexibili . for long- term future growth; define townhomes as multi-family residential on concept plan; include an exhibit for open space that doesn't include the golf course; and work with the irrigation district and the City for connectivity to the east boundary. 5. Outstandingissue(s)for City Council: A. Update from the Applicant regarding the provision of a vehicular connection to the east boundary of the site; and the retention of the black locust tree on the site. b. City Council should determine if it's appropriate to remove the golf course amenity the existingdevelopment evelopment and replace it with 20-25 additional dwelling units as proposed on the concept plan. C. City Council: Pending City of Meridian I Department Report VI. Action ' � r - • . . L•'� i ,�.. ®:J' � -, �A... a ,�}:' 1 ��. ' `L,J. ill - �� _-_- 1� � w,ws 4 _ • II - - - - FRANKLIN ;. 84 ^r m. Or 1•- pOVERLA v rr f_ - PRANKL-IN 7 rl ■ MEN in �"I' ,IltL1111/Illl.un�i+��nu►r►l■ ■rri uu� ��a+a �-..Giir�1,�+�r� ■+rr++++y � • I �era �� ►�y��iiiiiiue.w�:1=7a=r::::,�L♦♦♦♦Q+R r++�� Ilnr■ ��%/1111111111►�'�r���imu■■ar.a►+�IY�►I�♦1.. ■ 84 -" �- ► ter. 1 i�■■�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII •� """- "' 'Illlilll s r���■�'���� ■Illllinlllul�■111lllllll�rlir'\������� � '�`ti,! Wool �����►� �� ��'p�.�y{] � � ��ullni ��Illl■ III �Illiiil�r���r����!. �� IIiL1Li,��• ��■ � III�I��1 IFrnrr�Ij��I� OVERLAND ■ll♦ .■II■ 1�1�1�.-� �iy ��t��■iiu�i� _Y_ Y � �fl■1_ ■,I���,�111 FRANKL-INN Now- War �rrir��� ,,,,;� rrin�l.■■■■ � Illm.lul■ � r�ri/ Gli��+uu,.■�pia++ PRoil iiirNl4i �-11ti� l�,,rf•,ur►/i�:�I■I�IJ . - • �i�r•■■■►t►i bpi�i� �-r�'�+qi i _ +����*►�+ aa�,� i%��■■aria,::� ■■■�+�+r1♦�► ��. :='-� ■=1 '���' w►+r � ��i�♦iiiiii�'::C `."r►+�i♦� aye �r qnu nrr.�■w ■m► :-a ly r. unr► .,■ .�:r■-��� V♦ip•�� � � I ii�■■I�� ►�s♦G■�Il��,�i+i�::....i. ♦♦♦♦♦ ♦If�11r r1 rn' l�llrlr■ �►%IIIIIIf1111►■r■a�!��r/1,■■ani�a�Iar�ath, 84 '� ��qP�"��„ �IIIIIIIIII:.�� RI�I■IIIIIIIIIIIIII ti r•r■rr� ,11� .■■■■■ r " ■■_� ......♦ ....... ■_III.:.: Illlilll +a♦ir• 1//m+ ■���■f'��r�� Jlrlli illlliii►■III�IIIIIIPi���■■■■rl■ ■,�111 :1��rry r ■►t■rr�� i■�■r:1n1, r Qli■�111 Illl�r/rn...+rs m 7:r OYERL-AND i■ ���•����r•��■�ti■■iuri� �Ilr■M■r :�� �■�■MEN ■! so- oil FRANKL-IN -1 10 7 rl ■ � � � ` �. � rII11�1--::++IIP1��1�•+�giiii�iiin ■■■� IM I j ■ ■■ r 4 �n�' d`�+�ri w•�%ism+s�l�hl ■■■■■■■■Ali��f1 r` ■ ■■■ar�i `�, will gill , , +.+ ♦. a�e�771.�r•_ -\+ �.*i����:i Iliir�l,�ra'� ■"�•�i�++ � arr ,•��-� � p+ � I �� q urn••■ �■■��+b♦• �__ *agar+l+�� ►♦♦i ♦f,ur�.'C ■.i '♦♦i♦ a�� ram:-r niris�' 1■ L� I ■ ■ =..rrnnrZ+rna■ :■ar +•���+ tr �i G unr► .,■Cam.':�� G:r'r� gfiff�� rli`� ,,.�-■■ °.y.w , i�'j'i♦4rrrr ae.�: -• _ .. 111�♦Ilrfff r� �.. ■rlr■ ►%IIIIIIIIIII►■n,�i�nur.■■rl��'�I11�i�tl�. ■ 84 ... 1 i�r■+IIIIIIIIIIIII■f1111 ■ it=, . ■1,y�I��it■ rn �l�II���I� ••� ......� 'IIIIIIIIIII:=I���°IIIIIIII au�IHm/y*� rrn111�11111111J■Illlllllll � r — ����/� ■■■■■�fll ■I 111111111111►■Illlllllll�r■�\�■■���� rnmi ■ �`�ry �i�t1+r►� � r�■ um,� r1 tfll■ 11 1�Ip�il u�=■raj+rr�� - ��� -i I,��1�1,�'�.■■■ 1��'—�.F'ir��i���rt���■eft it OEM 0■ .■■■ ■ ` OYERL--AND '- �' �■■fl■ UNION;.■I ������ �! 5. Map Notes Recent Area Preliminary Plats: H-2018-0126 H-2021-0075 H-2016-0112 H-2017-0104 H- 2021-0103 Recent Area Conditional Use Permits: H-2020-0123 H-2021-0012 H-2021-0033 H-2021- 0075 H-2023-0002 H-2017-0011 H-2024-0013 H-2024-0045 H-2024-0046 H-2025-0001 City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits B. Service Accessibility Report PARCEL SIIIG131260 SERVICE ACCESSIBILITY Overall Score: 27 122nd Percentile Location In City Limits REEK Extension Sewer Trunkshed mains < 500 ft.from par-cel GREEN Floodplain Either not within the 100 yr floodplain or > , :r-es GREEN Emergency Servi-ces Fire Response time > g rein, FLED Emergency Servi-ces Police Meets response time goals most of the time GREEN Pathways Not within 114 mile of current or future pathways khRED Transit ffithin 1/4 mile of future transit route YE_L0W Arterial Road Buildout Status Ultimate configuration(#of lanes in master streets GREEN plan) matches existing #of lanes) School Walking Proximity Within 112 mile walking GREEN Either-a High School or College within 2 miles G=, School Drivability Middle or Elementary School within 1 mile driuinc GREEN (existing or future) Park lhlalkability No park within walking distance by park type I FLED Report gerera Ed on 07-03-2025 hyMEFdD Msalkn City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits C. Development Agreement Legal Description&Exhibit Map LEGAL DESCRIPTION TH E LAND Page 1 OF 3 GROUP February 13, 2025 Project Nn._121001 DEVE LOPM ENT AG RE EM ENT MODIFICATION TOUCKMARK of the TREASURE VALLEY,LLC An area of land located in the North One Half of Section 16,Township 3 North,Range 1 Eask,Raise Meridian,City of Meridian,Ada County,Idaho,being more particularly described as follows! COMMENCING at the Nnrth One Quarter came rof said Section 16, (from which point the Northeast corner of said Section 16 bears South 89`21'00"East,2702.67 feet distant);thence on narth-south mid- sertian line of said Section 15,South 00'04'42" Eastr 40.00 feetr to a paint on the southern right of way line of East Franklin Road AND the POINT OF BEGINNING: Thence on said southern right of way liner South 89'21'00'East,1351..22 feet; Thence leaving said southern right of way line, South00'01'49"Wesl;,519.08 feet; Thence on the hnundary line of Edgeview Estates Nn_1 and No.2 Subdivisions,as shown in Book 63,Page 6399 AND Raak 65,Page 6702, respectively,records of Ada County, North 82'09'19' West,7.63 feet; Thence North 79'24'56'West,445.48 feet; Thence South 80`51.'07"West,116.19 feet; Thence South 25'43'56"West,195.09 feet; Thence South 22'31'19"East;, 150.00 feet; Thence South 33'09'18"Easl;, 620.00 feet; Thence South 30'42'44"Easy,493_DO feet; Thence South 00'01'44"West,451.50 feet; Thence South 14°00'20"West,426.52 feet; Thence Narth 89'15'24'West,34.37 feet, Thence South 13°54'17"West,21.40 feet,to a point on the northern right of way line Interstate 1-84; Thence on said northern right of way line, North 89'34'54'r W est,530.52 feet; Thence leaving said northern right of way line,North 00'11'26"West,23.85 feet Thence North 89'15'24'West,673.14 feet,to the CenterOne Quarter turner of said Sertiun 16; Thence Narth 89'15'16'West,625.38 feet; Thence Nnrth 85'36'11'West,25.58 feet,to the southeasterly corner of St. Luke's Regianat Medical Center property, Thence cantinuirg on said St.Luke's property,North 00 0S'113"East, 102435 feet; Thence Narth 44'45'45"West,4M.37feet, Thence Nnrth 99'17'59'West,152.37feet; Thence Narth 00'09'19' East,377.27 feet; Thence North 89°51'41"West,214.00 feet; Thence Nnrth 00'09'19' East,14D_55 feet; 482 East Shore Drive. Sulle 100,Eagle, Idaho UN16 209.934.4041 Ihrlandgroupinc.00m City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits February 13, 2025 Page 2 Thence North 5V 07' 05"Westr 70.50 feet,to a paint on the southerly right of way line of East Louise drive; Thence on said southerly right of way line and the right of ways for 5auth Touchmark Way, North 38'52' 55' East,69.44 feet to a point of curvature, Thence 95,89 feet an the arc of a curve to the right, having a radius of 96.00 feed,a central angle of 51'15'33%and whose chard bears North 64'34'37" East,83.05 feet; Thence South 89`51'41,r East, a distance of 22.84 feet to a point of curvature; Thence 150.77 feet on the arc of a curvetathe rightr having a radius of 165.00 feet,a central angle of 5"06'56"r and whose chard bears South 51'48'47"Eastr 145.82 feet to a point of non-tangent compound curvature; Thence 365.24 feet on the arc of a curve to the left,having a radius of-129.00 feet,a central angle of 63'36'24"r and whose chard bears 5auth 58'03'30"Eastr 346.77 feet; Thence South 89'51'41" East, 141.15 feet to a point of curvature; Thence 176.51 feet on the arc of a curve tathe rightr having a radius of 271.00 feet,a central angle of 37°19'09"rand whose chard bears 5auth 71'12'08"Eastr 173.41 feet; Thence South 52'32'34" East 20.37 feet to a paint of curvature; Thence 87.83 feet an the arc of a curve to the rightr having a radius of 79.00 feet a central angle of 63'42'12",and whose chord bears South 20'41'30" East,83.38 feet; Thence South 52'32'34" East, a distance of 51.1-1feet to a point of curvature; Thence 61.41 feet an the arc of a curve to the rightr having a radius of 64.00 feed,a central angle of 54'58'33",and whose chard bears South 88'96'46" Eastr 59.08 feet; Thence North 37°27'43" East,29.16 feet; Thence North 52°-12' 34"Westr 3.00 feet to a point of curvature; Thence 29,85 feet on the arc of a curve to the rightr having a radius of 5.50 feet, a central angle of 179° 59'59",and whose chord bears North 37`27'26" Eastr 19.'00 feet; Thence South 52'32'AV Easy, 1.00 feet; Thence North 37°27' 26' East,a distance of 2S.76 feet to a point of curvature; Thence 61.70 feet an the arc of a curve to the rightr having a radius of 57.50 feed,a central angle of 61'28'42",and whose chard bears North 16'1.8'59" West,58.78 feet; Thence North 52°-12' 14"Westr a distance of 50.96 feet to a paint of curvature; Thence 92.29 feet an the arc of a curve to the rightr having a radius of 68.00 feed,a central angle of 69'20'11'r,and whose chard bears North 97'12'SY West,77.36 feet; Thence North 52°-12' 34"Westr 28.37 feet to a point of curvature; Thence 214.29 feet on the arc of a curve to the left,having a radius of 329,00 feet, a central angle of 37'19'07'rr and whose chard bears North 71'12'07"West,210.52 feet; Thence North 89°51'41'Westr 141.19 feet to a point of curvature; Thence 313.93 feet on the arc of a curvetathe right,hawing a radius of 271_00 feet,a central angle of 66'2 2'21"r and whose chard bears North 56'40'31"West,n6.67 feet to a paint of non-tangent rompnund curvature; Thence 6235 feet an the arc of a curve to the rightr having a radius of 37.50 feet;,a central angle of 95'15'31'r,and whose chord bears North 24,Dg'08'r East,55.41 feet; Thence North 00°09' 15" East,a distance of 2 5.3 1 feet to a point of curvature; Thence 7.46 feet on the arc of a curve to the left,having a radius of M.16 feet, a central angle of 04'44'32"r and whose chard bears 5auth 90'04'09"West,7.46 feet to a poi nt of non-tangent cDmpound curvature; Or Site Planning•Landscape ArdAtetture.Civil EnginmMng.Surveying 462 E.Shore Drive,Suite 100.Eagle,Idaho 83616.P 208.939_AC41+wwwAfielandgmupirlt.com City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits February 13,2025 Page 3 Thence 4.20 feet on the arc of a curve to the right,having a radius of 2.50 feet, a central angle of 96'08'48", and whose chord bears North 54' 12'08" West, 3.72 feet; Thence North 03'53'11"West, 14.26 feet; Thence South 74'42'50"East, 11.78 feet; Thence North 00'09'19" East,a distance of 29.11 feet to a point of curvature; Thence 69.50 feet on the arc of a curve to the right, having a radius of 50.00 feet, a central angle of 79'38' 35",and whose chord bears North 24'58' 17" West,54.04 feet to a point of non- tangent compound curvature; Thence 118.34 feet on the arc of a curve to the right, having a radius of 261.50 feet,a central angle of 25'55'41",and whose chord bears North 27'48'57"East,117.33 feet to a point of non-tangent compound curvature; Thence 311.04 feet on the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 438.50 feet,a central angle of 40'38' 29",and whose chord bears North 20' 27 32"East,304.56 feet,- Thence North 00'08'19" East,68.71 feet; Thence North 45'23'55" East,46.14 feet,to a point on the southern right of way line of East Franklin Road; Thence on said southern right of way line,South 89'20'28" East,875.35 feet,to a point on the north-south mid-section line of said Section 16; Thence on said mid-section line, North 00'04'42"West,20.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. The above-described area of land contains 121.40 Acres,more or less. PREPARED BY: $4 y�G1ENS The Land Group, Inc. r Michael Femenia,PL5 0 a 1a E'afko f.s. City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits o� A9E8 WPPI'�PW4 � W Z� Gw:V � ~�� all AOFA aanseaal 04110 IIaeaayanol uoileail!PoW VU iof a � I ie � I • Q` � I 1 ` I I I F fw 1 III` 6g I \ �a 9 L ,a d y9 = y CL � Naaa � � a392a � � a � � a � 2 aD F� 3 � � 9 ° 9Raa9eag3 : o v � � � � m : meQeae � ee ee 0 City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits D. Rezone Legal Descriptions & Exhibit Maps LEGAL DESCRIFMON M OF -m 0=1f . LAND Pagel❑F2 = GROUP April4,2025 Project No.:123003 RE-ZONE"CC" TOUCKMARK of the TREASURE VALLEY,LLC An area of land located in the North One Half of Section 16,Township 3 North,Range 1 East Boise Meridian,City of Meridian,Ada County,Idaho,being more particularly described as follows: COMMENCING at the Northwest corner of said Section 16,thence on the north section line of said Section 16,South 89'20'28"East,1759.97 feet,to the POINT OF BEGINNING: Thence continuing on said north section line,South 89'20'28"East,946.40 feet,to the North one quarter corner of said Section 16; Thence South 89'21'00'East,629.91 feet,(from which point the Northeast corner of said Section 16 bears south 89'21'00'East 2C72.75 feet drstant); Thence leaving said north section line,South 00°38'34"West,333.28 feet, Thence south 43°44'39'East,232.38 feet,to a point on the boundary Irne of Parcel"B"as same is shown on Record of Survey No_10611,Recorded in Instrument No_2015-079903,Ada County Records, Thence continuing on said Parcel"B"boundary,South 25'43'56'West,195.C9 feet Thence South 22'31'18'East,350.00 feet; Thence North 89'51'46"West,331.54 feet, Thence South 00°08'36"West,13.49 feet, Thence South 77'29'43'West,432.91 feet, Thence South 00'04'42'East,6.42 feet, Thence South 88'27'15'West,36.75 feet,to a point of curvature; Thence leaving said Parcel"B"boundary line,296.36 fleet on the arc of a curve to the left,having a radius of 495.35 feet,a central angle of 33'C7'23',and whose chord b ea rs South 50'18'42" West 28239 feet, Thence south 37"27'26'West,32.50 feet; Thence south 52"32'34"East,138.37 feet, Thence 291.49 feet on the arc of curve to the left,having a radius of 200.00 feet,a central angle of 83'30'24",and whose chard bears South W 17'53"East,266.37 feet; Thence South 45'08'19"West,183.25 feet to a point of curvature on the boundary line of Parcel "D"as same is shown on Record of Survey No.9213,Recorded in Instrument No.112048170,Ada County Records, Thence continuing on said Parcel"D"boundary line,175.54 feet on the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 223.50 feet,a central angle of 45'00'01",and whose chord bears South 22'39' 19"West,171.06 feet, Thence South 00'08'19"West,198.89 feet to a point of curvature; Thence 135.47 feet on the arc of a curve to the left,having a radius of 203.50 feet.a central angle of W 08'27",and whose chord bears South 18'55'53"East,132.98 feet,to a point common with 4t2 El%t Sn4r4❑nv$.SUII4 100,Eagle,IdMnO 53516 2Qa.93g.4U41 Inal and groUpinC.Com City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits April 4,2025 Page 2 the Northwesterly corner of Parcel shown on Record of Survey No_10690,Recorded in Instrument No_2016-103452,Ada County Records; Thence on the west boundary line of said Parcel,South 23' 18'42"West,222.57 feet; Thence South 41'59' 14"West,86.19 feet,to a paint common with the Northeast comer of Parcel shown on Record of Survey No_10257,Recorded in Instrument No_2015-089469,Ada County Records, Thence on the north boundary line of said Parcel, North 89*50'45"West;,209.10 feet,to a paint on aforementioned westerly boundary line of said Parcel"O"; Thence on said westerly boundary line, North 00*08'19"East,749.70 feet,to the southeasterly corner of Lot 2, Block 1 of Touchmark Living Center Subdivision No_1,Recorded in Instrument No_ 104093301,Ada County Records; Thence on the boundary line of said Lot 2, North 44'45'45"West,430.37 feet,- Th e nce North 890 17'59"West, 152.37 feet; Thence North 000 08' 19" East,377.27 feet; Th a nce N o rth,890 51'41"West;,214.00 fe et; Thence North 00'08'19" East,140.55 feet, Thence North 510 07'05"West;,99.50 feet,to a point on the centerline of East Louise drive; Thence on said centerline,North 39'52'55" Easl;,69.44 feet to a point of curvature; Thence 111.83 feet on the arc of a curve to the right,having radius of 125.00 feet,a central angle of 51'15'33",and whose chord bears North 640 30'38"East, 108.14 feet; Thence South 89'51'41" East,133.66 feet,to a point of curvature in the centerline of South Touchmark Way; Thence on said centerline,240.24 feet on the arc of a curve to the right,having a radius of 300.00 feet,a central angle of45'52'54",and whose chord bears North 17'50'20' Fast 233.87 feet to a point of non-tangent compound curvature; Thence 283.73 feet on the arc of a curve to the left,having a radius of 400.00 feetr a central angle of 40'38'27",and whose chord bears North 20'27'33"East,277.92 feet; Th a nce N orth 00'08'19" East,161.84 feet,to the POINT OF BEGINNING- The above-described area of land contains 55.17 Acres, more or less- Ni.LAN PREPARED BY: The Land Group,Inc. Michael Femenia,PLS cr�,��rl2oz5 Site Planning a Landscape Architecture■Civil Engineering■Surveying 462 E.Shore Driver Su ite'Do■Eagle,Idaho 93616+P 208.939.4441+www.thelandgroupinr.com City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits d d9E8 eyEyl'uerMN �S ee vm„�ru�i a a S 311 Raper ainseaq ayl jo)Iaewyanol S auozaU ,° {I{ J J T 61 r � i f s i 47 m_ L 9 I I H t = -:9 hi �owrwx , C1 3 1 $jl ,1 p1 i — — a$ ! a,. . — II I � s o o a e a e o M N City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits LEGAL DESCRIPTION TH E LAND Page 10F2 GROUP November 11,2024 Project Nm: 123003 RE-ZONE"`CG" TO U C KM ARK of the TREASU RE VALLEY, LLC An area of land located in the Northwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of Section 16,township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, City of Mleridian,Ada County, Idahor being more particularly desc ribed a s faI I aws; COMMENCING at the North One Quarter carver of said Section 16,thence an the north section line of said Section 15, South 89'21' 00" East,629,91 feet,to the POINT OF BEGINNING: Thence continuing on said north section line, South 89'21'00" East,72138 feet,to the East One Sixteenth comer of said Section 16, (from which point the Northeast corner of said Section 16 bears South 99'21'00"East, 1351.37 feet; thence leaving said north section line,South 00°01'49"West,558.09 feet,on the easterly boundary line of Parcel"B"as same is shown on Record of Survey No_ 10611,Recorded in Instrument No.2016-079903,Ada County Records; Thence continuing on said boundary of Rerord of Survey#10611,North 82'09 19"West,7.63 feet; thence North 79'24'56"West 449.48 feet; Thence South 80'51'07"West, 116.19 feet; Thence leaving said Parcel "8,boundary, North 43'44'39"',Vest, 212.39 fEet; thence North 00'38'34" East,131.29 fEet,to the POINT OF REGINNINIG. the above-described area of land contains S.17 Acres,more or less, I'L LA PREPARED BY-. +S' The Land Group,Inc. L Michael Femenia,PLS C2 L y OE 10 4tL$ 11I111202+ 492 Law Shore Onwr, Suns 100. Eagle, Idaho 43619 H5.839.4o41i chrlandgroupinc.dam City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits Rezone rrCGrr ��. Touchmark of the Treasure Valley LLCM Situate in N 1.2 of Section 16 per. Township 3 North,Range 1 East,Boise Meridian City Of Meridian.Ada CauntY,Idaho qp� � 2024 4S 11/11 2QM+ —889.2i'00'E Eotat Fra-nklln Road 169°21^00I� 629.91' a, 889'2f'00'E 721.m. 1351.37' cv -- -- -- —,—� F'O6 ru w><— SEC 16 NE SEC COR 4 SEC 16 92 IQ REZONE AREA TG" I 1 B.17 Acres± m N42'44'39'W 232.W' QP SSO°51'07�5' 116.19' NAMPA�ME0014N� N °24 449.4 fR+1"r+ON f �157fi�G'7� f ` E➢GEVIE44 ESTATES ` } � No-1 SUE QIVISION L1 Line Table LINE BEARING LEPJSTH L1 NB2"091W -�:7 8 8 0 200' 400' t Exhibbit "B" s a Horizontal Scale:1'=20D PNed No.:1230M y Data OF Imam:Nm embl 1,2024 THE Re-zone "CG" f LAND Touchmark of the Treasure Valley, LLC r �H -GRQUP City of Il�lerdian Ail City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits ConceptualE. Existing Development i in Planned Unit 1 I IIProposed to be Modified 12 LLJ City r 1J �'.`",' ,,�y -v• 1�-,''fir �n '�j���• -�''�G r r Y . �•�. �� 1 J � -w' ram• � - •� fie., � ��Y fir' '�.��t v` � R :d � ' �l.i���'+KCy i� ?A + �Lll� �� ■ r ■ i of MeridianDepartment Re 11Exhibits F. Proposed Conceptual Development Plan& Conceptual Building Elevations to Replace Existing Plan(dated: 10/2 4 8/26/25)-REVISED F gg Ail•'• e�� -nPNix� H3 sae n.P 3€�`- 'S n... n k �@ 2Y ....a W ;7 ! log g ¢a3 �m as gd amp =n CL t? •. r. s f'- a e 0 F pt lo co ` n ...s■ P NO Ft 72 wj Cd Ln lo IIII//.r JW .■ .. i q H n ■ ¢np 1.ice. — ■ • N R ry Or, ■ s 3 a 1 �a a 9w n yp#■p a yy e$ Ada'� a Ni:S aeee�N'-•.AP��� �:S ee aN rnA7tp� $ YAK aeeF SWP �3sg � 4� ae eASWP p ��� aaeN'-•WA Nil x F oil s it ��,l h s yygh °gga gg Oalgg I g gg Ir QA g 9i P. ggg 933$ 5 s 4 q AS 9 Bl qA E qA F. City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits OF ANN 60. uj rl Ln Ju 6. co o $ x I � I M 4 . 1 FF �• C 3 .•eefc .L �. ��,a� _ +l x 4 x H 11 4 H f} - City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits G. Proposed Pedestrian Pathway Plan r r u � �l l ' - C l r.- IL 41 r . . �•- ■• i ■ ■■ "`� ■ N ,Y k_�• J W yyii a� III( i �g z rr... ■ City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits H. Proposed Phasing Pa (dated: 7/10/202 q � _ \� � �■ � \ ~. \. � e � $ 2 ---- ---- - _ / � n E / ^ Q ®^ f ® 2E on 2 w = o E @ '0 E - ]v 9 m « 0) x \ 0 -0 3 ~ ± \ IL n U o § 2 q _ o CD \ \ « 2 \ - \ 2 \ �! _ N / LU 2 § z u Q ® ,� 0- m 0� 06 on 03 � � `- - - - - - - - - � � 6 0 \ / , 2 |) « / q_ 3 = . e ± � � 2 � 22 % 2 � � - ! y . . � . City of Meridian Department Reprt V t Exhibits I. Proposed Site Amenity Plan (dated: 4/17/2025) OHdlM Haeiugan�l i HI asp-paxiw r�aewgan0l 1 1� a f ! M IN, iii d4 :� H ` . ' tF --- - -- - --- - -- - - -- -r I i _ _ _ - 0 I � City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits dllQa9�� .N®��� M ONVI lae11manpl 3Hi asp-Paxiw pomg3n01 1 Ai . � i l. l�Y! ! k i y!. o � t I � �• � I�i � � !a I€ .� .� € �yi 1 all; ll �i 1 I �Itl•d��l ii ii1 'a I € i . gl E• i 3 i$ : • � = t A N jila i lil !g t��� liii1pF1 � $ €g13i E e4ys 1 1 I t yyyq a ge ! _ !! ei fq �p�p1e� �• y # �Se��e9 2i 1s114.1111PI .y: 1 1 111+ 1 r� 011 c +j R � k V dl City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits J. Open Space Exhibit Excluding Pond and Golf Course Area dROSO NVI O3H1� ash-pax�y��aewy3noA 1 }le W Sb S4In'�p a' 5 5 S i n � o i Y 'r fA 0 � a i 9 a o � City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits VIII. ADDITIONAL NOTES & DETAILS FOR STAFF REPORT MAPS,TABLES,AND CHARTS (link to Community Metrics) A. One-Mile Radius Existing Condition Notes This data is automatically derived from enterprise application and GIS databases, and exported dynamically. Date retrieved notes generally reflect data acquired or processed within the last 30- days.Analysis is based on a one-mile radius from the centroid of the identified parcel. Parcel based data excludes certain properties and represents land as it exists now. Properties considered are only those with a total assessed value greater than 0(i.e. excludes most HOA area,transitional development, government, and quasi government facilities). The following values also constrain included property acreage to reduce outliers and non-conforming instances from distorting averages: R-2<5.0; R-4<2.0; R-8< 1.0; R-15 <0.5; R-40<0.25. Conditional Use Permits and Preliminary plat data likely include duplicate project submittals as they may be for the same project, approved at different times through multiple application types. Consider each independently or review prior application approvals. Some approved entitlements, and particularly older ones,may be constructed. Decennial population counts and household counts are based on the most recent Decennial Census. Current population and current household values are COMPASS estimates,usually for the year previous, and are based on traffic analysis zone boundaries(TAZ's). B. Mixed Use Analysis Notes This data is derived from enterprise application and GIS databases, and exported dynamically. Data considered for analysis are only those areas overlapping the overall Mixed Use boundary area. Mixed Use areas across arterial roadways are distinct, separate, and not considered as they do not meet the mixed use principles in the Comprehensive Plan(e.g.pedestrian safety, transportation efficiency, etc.). Mixed Use parcel areas may be greater or smaller than the future land use area designation boundary due parcel size,configuration,right-of-way, and other factors. Conditional Use Permits and Preliminary plat data likely include duplicate project submittals as they may be for the same project, approved at different times through multiple application types. Consider each independently or review prior application approvals. C. Service Assessment Notes This data represents existing conditions derived from our enterprise application and GIS database, exported through dynamic reporting. The system references the most recent available data from various sources, including sewer main lines, sewer trunksheds, floodplain, fire service areas and response times,police crime reporting,pathway information,existing and planned transit, roadway improvements, school and park proximity, and other resources. The tool provides context for project review,using multiple indicators consistently. Data from similar topics may vary based on different levels of review. The overall score is based on weighted criteria(not a ranked order), and the percentile score compares the parcel to others in the city(higher is better). This tool was developed as a City Council priority and outcome of the 2019 Comprehensive Plan. Scores,whether high or low, are just one data point and should not be the sole basis for decisions. D. ACHD Roadway Infographic Notes The Ada County Highway District utilizes a number of planning and analysis tools to understand existing and future roadway conditions. • Existing Level of service(LOS).LOS indicator is a common metric to consider a driver's experience with a letter ranking from A to F.Letter A represents free flow conditions, and on the other end Level F represents forced flow with stop and go City of Meridian I Department Report VIII. Additional Notes&Details for Staff Report Maps, Tables, and Charts conditions. These conditions usually represent peak hour driver experience. ACHD considers Level D, stable flow,to be acceptable. The LOS does not represent conditions for bikes or pedestrians, nor indicate whether improvements: are possible; if there are acceptable tradeoffs; or if there is a reasonable cost-benefit. • Integrated Five Year Work Plan (IFYWP).The IFYWP marker(yes/no) indicates whether the specified roadway is listed in the next 5-years. This work may vary, from concept design to construction. • Capital Improvement Plan(CIP).The CIP marker(yes/no)indicates whether the specified roadway is programmed for improvement in the next 20-years. City of Meridian I Department Report VIII. Additional Notes&Details for Staff Report Maps, Tables, and Charts C i E IDIAN.;--- Agenda Item Applicant Presentation TOUCHMARK CITY COUNCIL SEPTEM BER 2, 2025 ,Ok 'a` Y �Pf 7 r a s THE LAND pivot north `'! GROUP •� — �. - flil.:UA.W.Ui•�•� � ►a y,ice�,,,, �k. AZ19.1 0 '_'77V" y. r � & 46 p � w .. ••r ... rc _ - - {1iF1cr-��Y1 SS - —�f Vicinity map — properties highlighted in blue 1 City of Meridian � `,� Future Land Use Map � ° • * ,� - - Legend � TransN Statlon � ,, - - FmureFarJatias ��I,.�J `Y ...•: ,�y� ���Tan Mile tnlercAange Speafic - '_Q-��-_ ;� � -,■ t � �,���.�a Future Overpass tj I� - `di7��:•: ::� _: ' Future Roedwey - �:i���• ���it - - E,asurgwatanvay S z - Vlctary 0.d # %� as C� �E IDIZ IAN�- I ■ V Adopted Datambar 11,2041 F uturc Land Usrs Cit wide Ten M' S Ycdfic / i O Lea�emey ReWrael L.c waene�ry Fmp,NnrY 0 MedYegn�n.iy,xr,:dn�ea ©Mlaed u><.veyn�:,�aw C��a.ea e„vw=I.nl — - _ YlBh OerwlyR��4e[ MLed Ufe Ca,�urwNlY '.___.�WJn.s _Cammmaal AI'ued Ux avparW ��MI-Com •' _OM AIoeC Ux twMieem_eld - _YW.ubl %-:�;j MIsM Um-toter e,�mgaTHE bia"Irl LAND GROUP City of Meridian Future Land Use Map W taa� Legend ®Area of City Impan �a Special Planning Area ` Existing Watelway O P.1 s ; Fl,e W School Park I I Trensn r . Future Facility J Entryway Comdor at® Ex.sling Crossng FM A2® Fu[ure Crossing 1� ----- Future Roadway �� -i 40 Adopted June 24,2025 Jr. ti Reparod Cy Meqan PlvuJq pNs.W y Rini Oem July e],]0�5 �r �`i Future Land Uses Citywide Low Density Residential civic - Medium Density Residential Old Town Med-High Density Residential Mixed Use Neighborhood _ High Density Residential I Mixed Use Community I ® commercial Mixed Use Regional . Office Mixed Use Non-Residential industrial Mixed Use-Interchange 1 a � a SUB f jDM1 + 'VIM i ST[l E U SIB [ fr{!_4�51------------------ ' SON AND INDUSTRIAL `-- i• SEYAM SUB i ' F PARK 1 5lEYA,1'I $USH Y - WILLEYSiTB" EAST SETS i �F4ALRN- (STEIN i ES�II ES f- k ' .AHLQUISTGARDNER ' - � ENIHLL ''IEWV 9I'B N ill TATES NTYIrE ' `` [#NO 03 ' 'ti EDGEVIE STATES SITH ui F3tR I ToucHMARK -'*-, GARD]►14R-j LIVING CENTER I '---A u-quisT- --- Lr Opal {r t Tg ' TEWAY SUS NO 02 `•, ��� GVRO� VALI�Y ; ERL - 7 EM _ LDS•' � _ -- RACKIIAM SUB + -�ffl�R� -- �L4 t ���_ _ _ � i.� ..�� ,... ��. _�e`�V[s. - :-a . E=; ,`r� `, t _.��� �� �~ � _ a ' � � 1 f - ' f_ '•� fR�NK17N• �� � Y�. _. 'AR Fit AD T THE LAND -� GROUP - � 'i• tK lei' -: a a1 1 t , 10 44. 9• � r '000► 41. l .,� ,\ ALL , r THE LAND -� GROUP , �Y ppppp IL 44 r .� i..,�. ti "' � ►,�' x" * s»■: T� .. .�, THE tellLAND GROUP .tee— _ • _- - ����': .. � ;�_,F��• .:: fit:' _ ;�` -�1n 9 a �Y Cs i�'4y iF C.� ry'ry MP ' .t'� �.. � y✓ .• n :tiff,?„ `+."�:�,.y_ -1 W� . • _ � _ - - ice_ �`. low, INV, ooe r � a 4 AKA "---'� • +III COMMFACIAI • COMMERCLWM111111FAMLY ! COMMkRCUUUCM INWSZM t 5,6 AC +�3]K ee.35 PC u ' M q .-xOAK IF 4"��W3''7r1� MFnKU OFFICE w --� • _ \ VRLM •• r� f; Je \ �� MEVKAL OFFIC ltcW.OMEs 41F.AL • Mixed-Usepivot nofth ' 10,23,2024 - •83642 PNA JOBU 1 3 N � _,_ "�• B!IZ ..: ?lj, P..jR. 14 O , !p1m, ,�,, jo ci - ' Touchmark Mixed-Use pivot north, r k `� y t %U A"W. -OTYI::u "11. Ir 4F M. i FOEBW SE M 4KTm!",!d12 V,.Wo-VIPWAK BILFUR .4qw5AQGFLVF7MCi • Z?Wo v4ani 1.1w ?DE.W- U-D-.EKFE?fAm 2=uffurlm c. PC-.DCM LiMW-dpE ROI(Ld rO*R)WliL 25 A. •-W%P As. To n."'UhM.1 -Y louNGHLew IQ LAW .... ... . n.ij[�K F .--r 5v"I' wpmmww 1D p� - 0-a-W.,—A yyl' MM940 q..L MMR.-A 4"Cr a ccwmoN a"YINY m4prum oor. 'r UrE NOMMS 'NO UDE IT404JE ...... I Ppri:, s .0 At $Erav3c$ "tuG. cz r, JE7PDG tW- Er IKIXAIQV SOF v 9 TO WNUA IM 1EAkQJ it tau ; BLIFF"1DREMENT16L 0M, QF-h'5 ! 11 OWIVWG Atli cowl, SMF gh�Fl DRMU-EF a Fn Or Fmcmr. PhiLi C04WV51UP7 QDMMM c"t,9-a V11LLLCWftWr4k�AX vm AI"WWV PF1 urjc I'r JIL six Naw-M 1 rLp LUC, Z 9 TfEbGMW F05WWEMM JALPAWMd&7M3VSMTWWMI�H1HFFW LIE m rftm c". %-.TAM 2OMWI ct 1 •Wxp rr WG3 W"*RrfEiLEIK x 11 VW4%A7BdqT I I.MLAkURFIfE II -oA NaMm46F N1qtPMirw"IWL el W STVwL wmpahS7 27 TUTOCHMW COMUM UW CmDLhT N Kn OV NJ LWAL ...... ...... ANWOLK amn TO-&gbPwTwL ks MoLd"� *u cowwffl�" KALow"ww 7 UM L;JS pff)pQW CUMM(ft am 9%U WIL COW-V KM LIM W COUV 2 t)J 11 OW 0 MLIIIDDJ TqAl.RAri1 AMMIMIM-1I7�5 kumwl %"I I MW IY mm Q27 COMMN OMH swi WLLccmfty"ux IRAMMIM ,K A IAX 11..C.i IL to IdLyck W-al TIMU-04rB 11U4.i'l 1.W 1.2 ZW AAIU.R kl&�'PVUW rhRX-;&H Ilk#W nwhr. c c WT§ACMS fKw U, La UL-Al"Tim, 4UR 11 XFCE LJ71 U�E UbWJ�OPFCE WE am W* I WMILM WNwaa m wMKM"Cm"zroq iff *kbut iT t tEE16L NVA Er Syr JP ouohmim .1 HOW AN99WFR TQ-L-REFNM ?i: MLIDECINITHr E-61". ?7M.G$171 5Dr RQPQM WAIF 0 RTUKA LPE I, Lim 79U LU05CM ZJITRM;EUX4M M 7-MUMMAKIRIFFEt A TG%WJCWAk PD)U1751C MMWAREA 5TAM'bF APIPPM-J7 CMW�W PARAIX W?kLp?wKlwr uo FAWNC.�WIHT ;k w"'.e.WPFC#DSM � qPwQ m Wmfty WI'm LCC CCMh*w*M Sma Ym IMI., rim KC 0.VY Lnn Cam -1&Z59t? .A-PAE)SC, IV FMKICTIPI a' M MV@IFL45 'F"Wz T-JEJ-KL FABIW: W4L COWfk.Wrr.UIX 19AI-ociffIG141. V WAN.L..hff FRUPWD iNAV-K)n On%.W*X ftLCMlr'.FWftLKX 9ft IMInd 3-RaW11-12b 31.11101hriApEk mn% OnUILIGNMNPoff *MWER M LEE I I-r.AL Requested Revisions: Conditional Use Permit/ Planned Unit Development Modification i. A drive/private street from Truckee Ave to the light industry designated property is difficult and likely not achievable as there is an existing gravity ditch where flows will need to be maintained and a severe grade difference of approximately 27'. Internal drives will be provided if possible but should not be a requirement as this may be engineeringly infeasible. '% THE LAND GROUP - QN t 8 MINN. �- _ - Ar�� • - _ _ =� •� ice' THE LAND -� GROUP ' 1 m's m e� g e EAST£RARKLM ROAD WiFfi15.M '.IFppF'NIC']691 EA E1 nYE61111 E9fJ �n `\' _-- IMV]69N' J/ Faiw.cru�.rr •�Sd3tlM/PJ10L11E iPFMNEv#IEY LLG - �` —�-aye,\`�\ /�I"� uuwo ,.ttJ._�—_ � +� ---- — f\ � — �— f+wr��+� __� [aniwc ntv �� ^w�� .��-sury`d_ 111�• ��� r _ r v �, r- '•-'.y :,.- l � ■n/wx ////lily/�'J, r=:µ _ _—.�— gars' z � 0 r r inpnrrrtaruv -'�'�- 1°� t�--- ,r wM4 FEE Z7 t f � 1 g 1 � v _ r i reucemart•adjacent auo S4e Qualified Open Space ExhIM — r 1 r "---'� • +III COMMFACIAI • COMMERCLWM111111FAMLY ! COMMkRCUUUCM INWSZM t 5,6 AC +�3]K ee.35 PC u ' M q .-xOAK IF 4"��W3''7r1� MFnKU OFFICE w --� • _ \ VRLM •• r� f; Je \ �� MEVKAL OFFIC ltcW.OMEs 41F.AL • Mixed-Usepivot nofth ' 10,23,2024 - •83642 PNA JOBU 1 3 THANK YOU Requested Revisions: Conditional Use Permit/ Planned Unit Development Modification o ii. Our plan, as proposed, is consistent with the comprehensive plan; we respectfully request the flexibility of up to 65% of the land area to be allowed as residential uses. We are not requesting more units over 524. Just the flexibilityto address market conditions. '% TH E LAND GROUP PHASING SUMMARY PHASE 3 Schedule: 3-15yr Commercial, self storage, additional multifamily and hotel Schedule: 3-10yr ' ! ! Residential apartments& � - townhome style multi-family •{ s. �r � � T '. - fie. •. �•. �+ -,\ ' PHASE 1 \ r _ PHASE 4 Schedule: 2-5yr \ Schedule: Touchmark ! 4-15Vr villas/cottages ! Medical office, i day care, post acute care, & I townhome style j multi-family r �s9�'_ III! � ; - ------L--,•----------__,-'I Touchmark Mixed-Use pivot no(th 1 Requested Revisions: A.1.ii. request wrought iron fence reference be replaced with "metal picket fence or full privacy to match existing fence". A III 1I�� !I II 111 1l 1111 11 11 I! 11 %= THE LAND IE GROUP Mixed Use Community(MU-C} The purpose of this designation is to allocate areas where community-serving uses and dwellings are seamlessly integrated into the urban Tabric. e intent is to integrate a variety ot uses,including residential,and to avoid rmercial type r Figure 3E Mixed Use Community Concept Diagram.See also i i Appendix,Figure FA3 for Color Diagram with markup_ i'� � .�I I ' -� � �J~�J 'i 1'-Im1Yu In reviewing development applications;the City will consider the fallowing items in MU-C areas: • Development must comply with the Functional Integration principles for development in all Mixed Use areas. • Residential uses are expelled to compose between 2D%and 5l)%of the development area.,with gross densities ranging from fi fo 15 unitslacre oaf the residentiaE area}_ • Supportive and proportional public andlor quasi-public spaces and places should comprise a minimum of 5°I of the development area are required • Where the development site has transit available or stops are planned,an additional 15%of the site maybe dedicated to residential uses.Alternatively,this bonus may be appfed where the development site is wi#bin one-mile of planned transit stops ar an identified employment area,and where last-mile transportation features are incorporated into the site including thoughtfully located and integrated ride share parking,commensurate with potential trip capture.Qther innovations to reduce traffic andlor parking impacts and capture local taps may be considered. • Sample uses appropriate in MU-C areas include:Ali MU-N categories,community scale grocers,clothing stares, garden centers,hardware stores,restaurants;banks,drive-ihru foci€ities,auto service station;retail shops,and other approprate community-serving uses.Sample zoning includes:R-15,R-00,TN-R,TN-C;GC,and L-C. ` GROUP w IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Ordinance 25-2096: An Ordinance of the city of Meridian, Idaho amending Ordinance No. 24-2060, the appropriation ordinance for the fiscal year beginning October, 1, 2024 and ending September 30, 2025 (FY2025), by increasing total appropriations from $255,511,778 to $264,009,348, increasing total revenue from $154,669,420 to $167,958,290, and decreasing the use of fund balance from $100,842,358 to $96,051,058, and providing an effective date. CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 25-2096 BY THE CITY COUNCIL: CAVENER,LITTLE ROBERTS, OVERTON, STRADER, TAYLOR,WHITLOCK AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 24- 2060, THE APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING OCTOBER 1, 2024 AND ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2025 (FY2025), BY INCREASING TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS FROM $255,511,778 TO $264,009,348, INCREASING TOTAL REVENUE FROM $154,669,420 TO $167,958,290, AND DECREASING THE USE OF FUND BALANCE FROM$100,842,358 TO $96,051,058; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN,ADA COUNTY, STATE OF IDAHO: Section 1. That Ordinance No. 24-2060, the appropriation ordinance for the City of Meridian, Idaho, for the fiscal year commencing October 1, 2024 and ending September 30, 2025 be and the same is hereby amended as follows: Capital Improvement Fund - 55 FY2025 FY2025 FY2025 Drigmal Budget Amendments Final Budget Revenues Total Revenue $ Expenditures Operating Administration 5 Fire $ Pal-Ice Parks - Total Operating $ - $ - $ Capital Administration - Fire $ $ . Police $ - $ $ Parks 5 - $ Total Capital 5 - - $ AMENDMENT TO BUDGET ORDINANCE NO.24-2060—FY2025 Budget-Page 1 of 7 Carryforward -Operating Administration $ Fire $ Police $ Parks $ Carryforward-Operating S $ - Carryforward -Capital Administration Fire 907,612 , (114,095) $ 793,517 Police Parks Carryforward- Capital $ 907,612 (114,095) 793,517 Total Carryforward 907,612 $ (114,095) 793,517 Total Expenditures 907r612 " (114,095) S 793517 Transfers " - S - Total Expenditures with Transfers 907r612 " (114,095) S 793517 (Use�/Addition of Fund Balance $ (907r612) $ (793,5171 Enterprise Fund - 60 - b FY2025 FY2025 FY2025 Original Budget Amendments Final Budget Revenues Water/SewerSales 31,765,506 5 31,765,506 Other Sources 20,527,857 5 6,518,509 5 27,046,366 Total Revenue 52,293,363 " 6,518,509 $ 58,811,872 Expenditures Personnel Utility Billing 700r443 " 3,456 5 703r899 Public Works $ 5,726r445 " 26,861 $ 5,753,306 Water $ 3,328r372 27,270 5 3,355,642 Wastewater $ 5,288563 5 39,029 5 5,327,592 Total Personnel $ 15,043,823 5 96,616 S 15,140,439 Operating Utility Billing 850r436 5 850,436 Public Works 740r950 5 54,925 5 795,875 Water $ 4,092r384 5 4,092,394 Wastewater 5,362593 121,000 5 5,483,593 ToU I Operati ng S 11,046,363 " 175,925 S 11,222,298 Total Personnel and Operating S 26,090,186 " 272,541 S 26,362,727 AMENDMENT TO BUDGET ORDINANCE NO.24-2060—FY2025 Budget-Page 2 of 7 Capital Utility Billing S - 5 Public Works 5 55rMG 5 (55,Oo0) 5 Water 5 6,055r000 " - 5 6,055,000 Wastewater 5 43,370,000 " BrS47,5o9 $ 52,217,509 T,DtaI Capital 5 49,480,000 " Br792,509 $ 58,272,509 Carryforward •Operating Utility Billing 5 - Public Works 5 377r641 (249,074) 5 128567 Water 5 182rS09 (99,186) 5 83r623 Wastewater 5 936562 (596,727) 5 339r835 Total Carryfarward -Operating S 1,497ro12 " (944,987) 5 552ro25 Carryforward •Capital Utility Billing Public Works $ Water 5 16,262,095 $ (2r920,345) 5 13,341,750 Wastewater $ 46,689,034 $ (.Bro76,206) 5 38,612,828 Total Carryforward -Capital $ 62,951,129 $ (10r996,551) 5 51,954,579 Total Carryforward $ 64,448,141 $ OL941,538) S 52,506.603 Total Expenditures $ 140,018,327 $ (2r876,488) $ 137,141,839 Transfers 5 4,443,945 $ S 4,443,945 Total Expenditures with Transfers 5 144,462,272 $ (2r876,488) 5 141,585,784 (Use)/Addition of Fund Balance S (92,168,909) $ 9r394,997 5 (82,773,912) overnrnental Funds - 01 ,07,0 ,20 FY2o25 FY2025 FY2025 Original Budget Amendments Final Budget Revenues PropertYTaxes 5 50,726,863 $ - 5 50,726,863 Other Revenue 5 51,649,194 $ 6r770,360 5 58,419,555 Total Revenue 5 102,376,057 $ 6r770,360 $ 109,146,418 Expenditures Personnel Administration 8,619,464 $ 54,102 $ 8,673,566 Fire 23,805,219 $ 320,421 24,125,640 Police 30,161,193 $ 215,361 $ 30,376,554 Parks 6,239,583 $ 41,012 6,280,595 Community Development 5,169,085 $ 28,530 5,197,615 Total Personnel 73,994,544 $ 659,426 74,653,970 AMENDMENT TO BUDGET ORDINANCE NO.24-2060—FY2025 Budget-Page 3 of 7 Operating Administration 7,588,792 5 5,442,404 5 13,031,196 Fire $ 4,024,543 5 135,231 5 4,159,774 Police $ 6,398,094 5 (809,225) S 5,588,869 Parks 4,943,499 $ 768,931 S 5,712,430 Community Development 2,420,247 $ 57,985 $ 2,478,232 Total Operating 25,375,175 " 5595,326 $ 30,970,501 Total Personnel and Operating 99,369,719 , 6,254,752 S 105,624,471 Capital Administration 940,000 5 100,000 $ 1,040,000 Fire $ - 5 2,028,760 $ 2,028,760 Police $ 279,440 5 968,182 $ 1,247,622 Parks $ 2,903,o7o $ 4,682,648 $ 7,595.718 Community Development $ - $ - $ Total Capital $ 4,122510 $ 7,779,590 11,902,100 Carryforward - Personnel Administration $ - $ Fire $ - $ Police $ - $ Parks - " - $ Community Development - " - $ Tots I Carryforward-Personnel Carryforward -Operating Administration 2,044,659 (633,251) $ 1,411,408 Fire 886,700 (318,089) $ 568,611 Police 223,693 (198,213) 25,480 Parks $ 237,788 (155,387) 82,401 Community Development $ - Total Carryforward-Operating $ 3592,840 $ (1,304,940) 2,087,900 Carryforward -Capital Administration $ 1,263,439 $ (420,855) $ 842,584 Fire $ 1,955,394 $ ROW) $ 1,952,394 Police $ 314,013 $ (115,010) $ 199,003 Parks $ 4,167,924 $ (702,383) 3,465,541 Community Development $ - $ - - Tota1 Carr&rward-Capital $ 7,700,770 $ (1,241,249) 6,459,521 AMENDMENT TO BUDGET ORDINANCE NO.24-2060—FY2025 Budget-Page 4 of 7 Carryfonuard Administration $ 3,308r098 $ (1,054,106) $ 2,253,992 Fire $ 2,842,094 $ (321,089) $ 2,521,005 Police $ 537,706 $ (313,223) $ 224,483 Parks $ 4,405,712 $ (857,771) $ 3,547,941 Community Develo pmerrt S - $ Total Carroorward S 11,093,610 $ (2545,189) 8,547,421 Total Expenditures $ 114,585,839 $ 11,488,153 $ 126,073,992 Transfers S (4,443r945) $ - (4,4-43,945) Total Expenditures with Transfers S 110,141,894 $ 11r488,153 121,630,047 (Use)fAddition of Fund Balance S (7,755r837� $ (4r717,793) (12,483,630) Total Budget - All Funds FY2025 FY2025 FY2025 Original Budget Amendments Final Budget 'xev�i Li Total Rev-2~-_ir. $ 154,669,420 13r288,869 $ 167,958,290 Expenditures Total Personnel and operating 5 125,459,905 S 6,527,293 5 131,987,198 Total Capital $ 53,602,510 5 16,572,099 5 70,174,609 Total Carrftrward 76,449.363 S {Urfi01,822) $ 61,847,541 Total Expenditures 253.5_1,77S r 8,497,570 264,009,348 Transfers $ S $ Total Expenditures with Transfers 5 255,511,778 $ 8,497,570 5 264,009,348 (Use)/Addition of Fund Balance (100,842,358) $ 4r791,299 $ (96,051,058) Section 2. This Ordinance, once passed, shall be in full force and effect upon publication,in accordance with law. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this 2nd day of September, 2025. APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this 2nd day of September, 2025. AMENDMENT TO BUDGET ORDINANCE NO.24-2060—FY2025 Budget-Page 5 of 7 I CERTIFICATION OF SUMMARY . William L .M . Nary, City Attorney of the City of Meridian, Idaho, hereby certifies that the summary below is true and complete and upon its publication will provide adequate notice to the public . 6ayl 7 .J William L . M. Nary, City Attorney SUMMARY OF CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO . 25 -2096 An ordinance of the city of Meridian, Idaho amending Ordinance No . 24m2060 , the appropriation ordinance for the fiscal year beginning October, 1 , 2024 and ending September 30, 2025 (FY2025), by increasing total appropriations from $255 ,511 ,778 to $264,009,348, increasing total revenue from $ 154,669,420 to $ 167,958,290, .and decreasing the use of fund balance from $ 100, 842,358 to $96 , 051 ,058 ; and providing an effective date . A full text of this ordinance is available for inspection at City Hall, City of Meridian, 33 East Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho . AMENDMENT TO BUDGET ORDINANCE NO . 24-2060 — FY2025 Budget - Page 7 of 7 APPROVED: Robert E. Simison, Mayor 9-2-2025 ATTEST: Chris Johnson, City Clerk ' STATE OF IDAHO ) ) SS. County of Ada ) On this 2nd day of September , 2025, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared Robert E. Simison and Chris Johnson, known to me to be the Mayor and City Clerk,respectively, of the City of Meridian,Idaho, and who executed the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that the City of Meridian executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. Notary Public My Commission Expires: 3-28-2028 AMENDMENT TO BUDGET ORDINANCE NO.24-2060—FY2025 Budget-Page 6 of 7 W IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Ordinance 25-2097: An Ordinance of the City of Meridian providing for the adoption of a budget and the appropriation of$264,498,131 to defray the necessary expenses and liabilities of the City of Meridian, in accordance with the object and purposes and in the certain amounts herein specified for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2025 and ending on September 30, 2026; to levy all such appropriate taxes and levies as authorized by law upon taxable property; and to collect all authorized revenue; to provide for a waiver of the 2nd and 3rd readings pursuant to Idaho Code §50-902; and providing for an effective date and the filing of a certified copy of this ordinance with the Secretary of State. CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 25-2097 BY THE CITY COUNCIL: CAVENER,LITTLE ROBERTS, OVERTON, STRADER, TAYLOR,WHITLOCK AN ORDINANCE, PURSUANT TO IDAHO CODE §50-1002 AND §50-1003,PROVIDING FOR A TITLE AND FINDINGS, PROVIDING FOR THE ADOPTION OF A BUDGET AND THE APPROPRIATION OF $264,498,131 TO DEFRAY THE NECESSARY EXPENSES AND LIABILITIES OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OBJECT AND PURPOSES AND IN THE CERTAIN AMOUNTS HEREIN SPECIFIED FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING OCTOBER 1, 2025 AND ENDING ON SEPTEMBER 30, 2026; TO LEVY ALL SUCH APPROPRIATE TAXES AND LEVIES AS AUTHORIZED BY LAW UPON TAXABLE PROPERTY;AND TO COLLECT ALL AUTHORIZED REVENUE; TO PROVIDE FOR A WAIVER OF THE 2ND AND 3" READINGS PURSUANT TO IDAHO CODE §50-902; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND THE FILING OF A CERTIFIED COPY OF THIS ORDINANCE WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, STATE OF IDAHO: Section 1. TITLE: This Ordinance shall be entitled and cited as the"2025-2026 Fiscal Year Annual Appropriation Ordinance of the City of Meridian." Section 2. FINDINGS: The City Council finds: A. That it has duly Noticed and held a Public Hearing on the 19th day of August, 2025 for a Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2025-2026 (FY2026)City of Meridian, Idaho; and B. That the total revenue anticipated to be available to the City of Meridian during Fiscal Year 2025-2026 is correctly stated in the Adopted Budget which is herein set forth in Section 3; and C. The appropriations and sums of money as hereinafter set forth in Section 3 are deemed necessary to defray all the necessary expenses and liabilities of the City of Meridian for Fiscal Year 2025-2026. Section 3. ADOPTION OF BUDGET AND APPROPRIATION OF EXPENDITURE: The City Council does hereby adopt as and for the budget and the appropriation of expenditure for the City of Meridian for Fiscal Year commencing October 1, 2025 and ending on September 30, 2026 the following: ANNUAL APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE FY2026 -Page 1 of 7 Capital Improvement Fund - 55 FY2024 FY2025 FY2026 Actual Original Budget Original Budget Revenues Total Revenue $ 588,166 - $ Expenditure Operating Administration Fire $ 1,325,159 - $ Police $ 1,283,750 - $ Parks $ - $ Total Operating $ 2,60$,90$ $ Capital Administration $ $ Fire $ $ $ 2,00 OM Police $ $ $ Parks $ $ Total Capital $ $ 2,000,000 Carryforward -Operating Administration $ Fire $ Police $ Parks $ Carryforward-operating $ $ Carryforward -Capital Administration $ $ Fire 5 907,612 $ Police $ Parks $ Carryforward-Capital 907,612 $ Total Carryforward $ 5 907,612 $ - Total Expenditures $ 2,60$,90$ 5 907,612 2,000,000 Transfers $ - 5 - - TotaI Expend itureswithTransfers $ 2,60$.908 S 907r612 2,000,000 (LJse)/Addition of Fund Balance $ (2,020,742) $ (907,612) $ 12,000,000) ANNUAL APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE FY2026 -Page 2 of 7 Enterprise Fund - 60 - 65 FY2024 FY2025 FY2026 Actual Original Budget Original Budget Revenues ater/Sewer Sales $ 32,081,265 S 31,765,506 $ 32,543,761 Other Sources $ 27,280,307 20,527,857 $ 19,885,155 Total Revenue $ 513,361,572 $ 52,293,363 52,428,916 Expenditures Personnel Utility Billing $ 635,473 700,443 $ 719,031 Public Works $ 5,167,393 5,726,445 $ 6,296,802 Water $ 3,025,620 3,328,372 $ 3,349,170 Wastewater $ 4,649,434 $ 5,288,563 $ 5,319,114 Total Personnel $ 13,477,919 15,043,823 $ 15,674,117 Operating Utility Billing $ 955,918 $ 850,436 $ 9813,748 Public Works $ 984,249 $ 740,9S0 $ 1,246,239 Water 4,519,894 4,092,384 $ 4,036,267 Wastewater $ 5,072,374 5,362,593 $ 4,092,372 Total operating $ 11,531,435 11,046,363 $ 10,264,626 Total Personnel and operating $ 25,OD9,354 26,090,186 $ 25,1338,743 Capital Utility Billing $ - Public Works $ 469 55,000 $ Water $ 6,682,236 6,055,000 $ 4,245,0M Wastewater $ 20,696,920 $ 43,370,000 $ 21,1D9,812 Total Capital $ 27,379,626 49,480,000 $ 25,354,812 Carryforward -Operating Utility Billing $ 24,000 Public Works 377,641 $ 98,421 Water 182,809 $ 10,000 Wastewater $ 936,562 $ 1,076,650 Total Carryforward -Operating $ 1,497,012 1,209,071 Carryforward-Capital Utility Billing $ Public Works $ - Water $ 16,262,095 $ 13,931,158 Wastewater , 46,699,034 $ 60,461,495 Total Carryforward -Capital $ 62,951,129 $ 74,392,653 ANNUAL APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE FY2026 -Page 3 of 7 Total Carryforward 64,448,141 75,601,724 Total Expenditures $ 52,388,980 140.018.327 $ 126,895,279 Transfers $ 3,625,476 4,443,945 $ 3,968,384 TotaI Expend itureswithTransfers $ 56,014,456 144,462,272 $ 130,963,663 (Use)/Addition of Fund Balance $ 3,347,116 $ (92,168,909) $ (78,434,747) Governmental Funds - 01 ,07,0 ,20 FY2024 FY2025 FY2026 Actual Original Budget Original Budget Revenues Property Taxes $ 49,352,956 50,726,863 $ 53,633,8139 Other Revenue $ 53,893,299 $ 51,649,194 $ 47,634,036 Total Revenue $ 102,246,255 $ 102,376,057 $ 101,267,935 Expenditures Personnel Adminstration $ 7,611,442 $ 8,619,464 $ 8,871,014 Fire $ 20,586,109 23,805,219 $ 24,105,540 Polire $ 26,547,257 30,161,193 $ 31,099,290 Parks $ 6,066,401 6,239,583 $ 6,350,530 Community Development $ 4,164,342 $ 5,169,085 $ 4,929,925 Total Personnel $ 64,975,551 $ 73,994,544 $ 75,356,2139 Operating Administration $ 11,797,863 7,588,792 $ 5,914,557 Fire $ 3,070,399 4,024,543 $ 3,466,441 Polire $ 6,410,834 6,398,094 $ 6,146,682 Parks $ 5,649,259 4,943,499 $ 5,051,794 Community Development $ 1,765,629 2,420,247 $ 1,908,844 Total Operating $ 29,693,972 25,375,175 $ 22,098,324 Total Personnel and Operating 93,659,524 99,369,719 97,444,623 Capital Administration $ 157,050 940,000 584,875 Fire 122,890 - $ 2,615,797 Polire $ 1,862,211 279,440 $ 992,042 Parks $ 7,939,014 2,903,070 $ 20,886,654 Community Development $ - - $ - Total Capital 10,081,165 4,122,510 25,079,368 Carryforward -Personnel Administration $ - $ - $ - Fire $ $ - $ Polire $ $ - $ Pa rks $ $ - $ Community Development $ - $ Total Carryforward -Personnel $ - $ ANNUAL APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE FY2026 -Page 4 of 7 Carryforward -Operating Administration $ - 2,644,659 $ 2,899,449 Fire $ - 886,700 $ 561,216 Polire $ - 223r693 $ 8,000 Parks $ - 237,788 $ 240,584 Community Development $ - $ 50,000 Total Carryforward -Operating $ - 3,392,840 $ 3,759,249 Carryforward -Capital Administration - $ 1,263,439 $ 1,404,294 Fire - $ 1,955,394 $ 3,1346,024 Police $ - $ 314,013 $ 77,597 Parks - $ 4,167,924 $ 3,891,707 Community Development - - $ - Total Carryforward -Capital - 7,700,770 $ 13,319,612 Carryforward Administration $ - 3,308,099 $ 4,303,733 Fire $ - $ 2,842,094 $ 4,507,240 Police $ - $ 537,706 $ 85,5-97 Parks $ - $ 4,405,712 $ 4,132,291 Community Development $ - $ - $ 50,000 Total Carryforward $ - $ 11,091,610 $ 1-1,078,861 Total Expenditures $ 103,740,689 $ 114,S85,839 $ 135,602,852 Transfers $ (5,584) $ (4,443,945) $ (3,968,394) Total Expend itureswithTransfers $ 103,735,105 $ 110,141,894 $ 131,634,468 (lJse)/Addition of Fund Balance $ (1,488,850) $ (7,765,837) $ (30,366,533) Total Budget - All Funds FY2024 FY2025 FY2026 Actual OriginaI Budget Original Budget Revenues Total Revenue $ 162,195,993 $ 154,669,420 $ 153,696,951 Expenditures Total Personnel and Operating 121,277,796 125,4S9,905 $ 123,383,365 Total Capital 37,460,791 53,602,510 $ 52,434,180 Total Carryforward $ - 76,449,363 $ 88,680,585 Total Expenditures 159,739,577 255,511,779 264,498,131 Transfers 3,619,992 - - Total Expend itureswithTransfers 162,358,469 255,511,779 $ 264,498,131 (LJse)/Addition of Fund Balance $ (162,476) (100,942,359) (110,801,280) ANNUAL APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE FY2026 -Page 5 of 7 Section 4. That the general tax levy and all appropriate taxes and levies be imposed as authorized by law and all authorized revenue is collected. Section 5. That the 2nd and 3rd readings of this ordinance are waived by suspension of the Rule as allowed pursuant to Idaho Code §50-902. Section 6. The City Clerk is directed to forthwith publish this Ordinance and file a certified copy of the same with the office of the Secretary of State of Idaho as provided in Idaho Code §50- 1003 and the same shall be in full force and effect upon publication, in accordance with law. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this 2nd day of September, 2025. APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this 2nd day of September, 2025. APPROVED: Robert E Simison, Mayor 9-2-2025 ATTEST: Chris Johnson, City Clerk 9-2-2025 STATE OF IDAHO ) ) ss. County of Ada ) On this 2nd day of September, 2025, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State,personally appeared Robert E. Simison and Chris Johnson,known to me to be the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and who executed the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that the City of Meridian executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. Notary Public Commission Expiration: 3-28-2028 ANNUAL APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE FY2026 -Page 6 of 7 CERTIFICATION OF SUMMARY . William L .M. Nary, City Attorney of the City of Meridian, Idaho, hereby certifies that the summary below is true and complete and upon its publication will provide adequate notice to the public . L William L . M . Nary, City Attorney SUMMARY OF CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 25-2097 An Ordinance of the City of Meridian providing for the adoption of a budget and the appropriation of $264,498 , 131 to defray the necessary expenses and liabilities of the City of Meridian, in accordance with the object and purposes and in the certain amounts herein specified for the fiscal year beginning October 1 , 2025 and ending on September 30, 2026 . To levy all such appropriate taxes and levies as authorized by law upon taxable property; and to collect all authorized revenue; to provide for a waiver of the 2nd and Yd readings pursuant to Idaho Code § 50-902 ; and providing for an effective date and the filing of a certified copy of this ordinance with the Secretary of State . A full text of this ordinance is available for inspection at City Hall, City of Meridian, 33 East Broadway, Meridian, Idaho . ANNUAL APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE FY2026 - Page 7 of 7